RE: Science can prove a god must exist
September 30, 2011 at 5:44 am
(This post was last modified: September 30, 2011 at 5:48 am by Zaki Aminu.)
(September 30, 2011 at 4:50 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Define : wickedness
By YOUR definition please
Being "ungodly" aka sans a god is not a crime. That is the core of a-theism is it not??
So are you accepting the dictionary definition of "Atheism" or not? Yes or no.
(September 30, 2011 at 5:18 am)I_Blaspheme Wrote:(September 30, 2011 at 4:04 am)Zaki Aminu Wrote:(September 30, 2011 at 3:32 am)fr0d0 Wrote:(September 30, 2011 at 3:21 am)Zaki Aminu Wrote: The point is "God" and "god" are defined in the dictionary as two very different things. That's just a fact! We should all at least show some respect for the language otherwise how can we communicate with each other?To an atheist that's like asking them to poke thier own eyes out. Ain't gonna happen.
Atheism is a dictionary bending religion. Wow.
It certainly seems to be. All its tenets seem to be based on distortions of the language. Even the definition of "Atheism" itself is distorted by them. Here's how the dictionary defines it:
Definition of ATHEISM
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Atheists reject this definition outright and have their own counterfeit definition. That is linguistic anarchy and terrorism!
Bullshit. The first definition in 2) is what I use, and what I think most of us here use.
Right. And this is a disbelief not based on conclusive evidence that no deity exists, is it not? That's exactly my point. That's for helping me make that clear.