Atheism is just as irrational as Theism.

[Cinjin]

The 4 of the 5 nouns all say "supreme being", the other says "deity", which is the same thing. How are they so wildly different, snookums?

Because HE says so. I told you he'd make a great christian.

[Jaysyn]

Anyway, if we were to assume that it's a "supernatural god". How would you define it? How can you conceptualize it if it is outside of reality?

Nope, having proved you to be a silly bugger, I'm done. Enjoy your little verbal circle jerk.

That's pathetic, how can you live with being so intellectually dishonest? God forbid someone challenges your worldview... LOL

Yeah, well the Timecube fruitcake didn't change my worldview either & you are just a small step above him. Better luck next time.

[Heather]

Since the word "god" means so many things to so many people (some think "god" is the universe, some think "god" is an alien lifeform, some think "god" is supernatural)

Therefore, describing your belief system with a word that has so many meaning is just logically incoherent.

So, your argument is that if any word/concept/item/person has more than one meaning in a dictionary, then there is no way to disprove it exists or to prove it does exist? I just don't get this opinion.

So, the "white house" has two definitions in the dictionary. Therefore, there is no way to prove the white house exists or does not exist, right?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white%20house

[ElDinero]

Or what about the word 'trunk'? It can mean the body of a tree, the nose of an elephant, a male swimsuit, a large suitcase or the back of a car.

ME CONFUSED? IS THERE TRUNKS?

[Heather]

Therefore trunks do not exist so your belief in them is illogical.

[Captain Scarlet]

The non cognitivism or meaninglessness of god talk is an argument FOR atheism, it doesn't demonstrate the irrationality of atheism. Atheism is a rejection of theism, not lack of belief in a god. Non cognitivist arguments proceed something like:

An existant has primary, secondary and relational attributes
Secondary and relational attributes necessarily depend on primary ones
The god concept has identified secondary attributes (eg omni qualities)
The god concept has no positively identified primary attribute
Talk of the god concepts secondary attributes is meaningless
Theism is thus rejected as meaningless

The theist will seek to defend that the concept of their god does have identified primary attributes. But how do they know? Why do they have the right to posit such features on an unknowable sovereign force/being? At what point do these said attributes just amount to bare assertions and/or stolen concepts from the natural world? Why do some people of the same faith hold different views?

[fr0d0]

The theist will defend the rationalism of their concept, as it is rationally realised. The atheist cannot defend any concept because his concept isn't rationalised: it's formed from a lack of understanding of something.

[LastPoet]

I read this threat twice in order to understand it and I failed, so here is:



Besides, in soviet russia god worships you!

[thesummerqueen]

bahahahahaha

FYI, people, lastpoet's been lying to us. He says he's from Portugal, but when you hear his accent on hang out you'd swear he was Russian.

[Jaysyn]

The theist will defend the rationalism of their concept, as it is rationally realised. The atheist cannot defend any concept because his concept isn't rationalised: it's formed from a lack of understanding of something.

Now prove that assertion.