Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,195,335 members, 7,957,895 topics. Date: Tuesday, 24 September 2024 at 11:44 PM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Flaws Definition Of God Exposes In Atheism (9548 Views)
5 Atheists Who Lost Faith In Atheism / Loophole In Atheism / The 'logic' In Atheism. (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: Flaws Definition Of God Exposes In Atheism by Weah96: 12:28pm On Nov 12, 2014 |
FOLYKAZE: I'm done with you. Play crazy on your own time. |
Re: Flaws Definition Of God Exposes In Atheism by wiegraf: 12:47pm On Nov 12, 2014 |
sinequanon: have you been playing around with your medication? |
Re: Flaws Definition Of God Exposes In Atheism by FOLYKAZE(m): 2:00pm On Nov 12, 2014 |
Weah96: Lol. . . . .all your contributions on this thread exposes your gullibility . Atheism is the disbelieve in the existence of God. Beyism is a religion centred around the popular singer Beyonce as the goddess. Beyonce is a deity and been worshipped in a temple by her believers. Do you disbelieve in the existence of deity (beyonce)? |
Re: Flaws Definition Of God Exposes In Atheism by sinequanon: 2:35pm On Nov 12, 2014 |
FOLYKAZE: Or it could be used to mean a belief in the non-existence of God. Some "atheists" shift from one definition to the other according to the particular point they are making. |
Re: Flaws Definition Of God Exposes In Atheism by FOLYKAZE(m): 2:47pm On Nov 12, 2014 |
sinequanon: You right there. Flying spag comes in here. Just like fela would say, confusion break bone |
Re: Flaws Definition Of God Exposes In Atheism by sinequanon: 3:08pm On Nov 12, 2014 |
FOLYKAZE: Sure. But even though I am not religious or a follower of "God", I can see that invoking a flying spaghetti monster would be frivolous compared with invoking the idea of a god. In terms of burden of proof, the Pastafarian would have to demonstrate the physical attributes relating to the choice of pasta, etc. in order to make his case. The notion of "God" on the other hand is a lot more open and targeted at questions of universal origin and creation. |
Re: Flaws Definition Of God Exposes In Atheism by finofaya: 4:40pm On Nov 12, 2014 |
FOLYKAZE: I'm not sure of what you mean. Atheists disbelieve in the existence of God. The thread is about definition of God. . . . . . .and would help I and others to know what definition of God atheism covers. Lol. No. What you want is to show that since atheists cannot disbelieve in every definition of God (including the gallery in a theatre), their position is weak. You're like that person who answers "daily" when asked "what's your sex?". I don tire for you. Which definition of God does your spiritual atheism cover anyway? Is Nature not excellent? Nature is excellent. Marvelous even. Can human and animal not be supreme? Relatively, yes. You keep on bringing up this supernatural stuff. Supernatural means a phenomena which is natural but cannot be explain with known law of nature. You forgot to add being. It's supernatural being, not just supernatural. Human activities can be supernatural. Nature can be supernatural. Which mean divinity is of the gods and the gods are everything including the water you drinks. They are Gods. . . . Now, do you disbelieve in the existence of God defined as water? Where is the definition? If you literally mean God is water, then no. Water is a colourless, odourless, tasteless liquid made up of hydrogen and oxygen. Let me put knife into the neck of your definition. Am I going to have to define every single word when we speak? There is nothing like supernatural, everything in nature is super enough. Okay. You might not accept it. But this is what the dictionary have to say Why do you think something is said to be beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature? Merely because science currently can't explain it? Look, supernatural refers to things that are permanently unexplainable by science, not being subject to the laws of nature at all. |
Re: Flaws Definition Of God Exposes In Atheism by FOLYKAZE(m): 5:41pm On Nov 12, 2014 |
finofaya: Read about hateist here http://soulliberty.com/atheism-vs-hatetheism-how-respond-each/ finofaya: Do you disbelieve in the existence of Goddess (beyonce). The great beyism deity, daughter of Mother Earth; Gaia. finofaya: You have not answered me. Do you disbelieve in the existence of Goddess beyonce? finofaya: Nature is therefore divine. Do you disbelieve it exist? finofaya: That make them Gods too. Do you disbelieve in there existence? finofaya: Go get a dictionary for that finofaya: I believe water exist. Olokun, Yemoja, Osun, Oba, Yemowo and many other Goddess are known of water which I acknowledge their existence. finofaya: water is the product of nature, nature is divine. And divinity is the attribute of the Gods. Therefore, water is God. finofaya: Oga, the definition of God you have there has been splitted and Einstein fits in. Can you pls answer my question now. . . . .do you disbelieve in the existence of God (Einstein)? finofaya: You are wrong sire! Some decades ago, rain was seen has a supernatural manifestation. This was when science had no explanation of how it happens. But now there is empirical explanation so it becomes norm. Centuries ago, Rainbow was seen as a supernatural manifestation. But today, science has brought explanation of how it make it to the sky. It is no more supernatural but natural today. Samething goes for thunder strike, earthquake and many natural events. Supernatural is not permanent. The post shift when there is explanation to natural science. |
Re: Flaws Definition Of God Exposes In Atheism by PastorAIO: 10:46pm On Nov 12, 2014 |
wiegraf: Hi there. I think we are confusing Naturalism with Atheism. This is a common error. The fact is that most Atheism is based on Naturalism. But not all Atheism. For instance, most Buddhism is atheistic but it is full of belief in 'supernatural' beings. Most Atheists derive their atheism from Naturalism. They are first Naturalist and subsequently they cannot believe in any supernatural beings, of which God is one. The whole issue of Naturalism versus Supernaturalism is a very messy one that I've thrashed out on NL in the past. The main jist of my contentions is 1) Most naturalists don't even know what they are talking about when they make the distinction between Natural and supernatural. It is one of the most ill-defined philosophical terms. 2)This allows for all sort of wishy-washiness. Ultimately whatever phenomenon you present can be dismissed as being natural because natural has just come to mean Everything. It makes a mockery of language itself, and often the only way to properly demonstrate this is to flick it and tell then that Supernatural just means 'Everything that exists'. I've got a feeling that you'd like a proper dialogue on this issue, but due to limitations of time and the fact that I've also thrashed the subject out here on NL numerous times before, I hope you don't mind if I just refer you to threads in which this matter has been discussed before. If you think there is anything that is left out or left unconsidered in the threads then we can take it on from there. https://www.nairaland.com/279631/why-not-atheist/6 My main problem is that of classifications and categorisations. Before we use a word like Natural, we must know what we mean by it and what we are talking about, otherwise we succumb to absurdity at the very first hurdle. https://www.nairaland.com/280962/what-supernatural#3990511 This is a very excellent line of enquiry. What is the Supernatural? intimately bound to this is obviously the question what is the natural. Without a clear definition of what natural is how can we say what is super-natural, super meaning 'over' or above. To know what is above the natural it is necessary to first know what the natural is. |
Re: Flaws Definition Of God Exposes In Atheism by wiegraf: 3:14am On Nov 13, 2014 |
PastorAIO: Just a quick note, I'll address more clearly eventually, but yes, I am indeed saying that if you ain't a naturalist, you aren't an atheist. There's no difference between mumbo jumbo a and mumbo jumbo x except for terminology Strictly speaking you are correct in that some 'spiritual' people, like some buddhists, would refer to themselves as atheist. Strictly speaking again, in normal parlance, you are correct; they are atheist. But I, personally, think that's extremely shortsighted. You believe in juju you aren't an atheist, simples. They are the same concept(s) as god just using different nomenclature. As for definitions as to what supernatural would be, and if their definition allows for them to show that they exist that's another long story I too do not particularly have the time to address properly. But yes, I believe they can be demonstrated if they do indeed exist, and would not fall under the definition of natural just because they have been observed/verified in some manner or the other. Perhaps I will be back to elaborate. Also, skimming through your posts, yes, causality may be a huge factor here, with 'god playing dice' etc all involved. But I can save that for another time. It is never straight forward, especially when you consider factors like how time works, eg simultaneous events in all frames is impossible, aforementioned quantum weirdness etc. But like I said, another long story. Kudos. 1 Like |
Re: Flaws Definition Of God Exposes In Atheism by PastorAIO: 8:58am On Nov 13, 2014 |
@ Wiegraf You believe in juju you aren't an atheist, simples. They are the same concept(s) as god just using different nomenclature. Just as shaky as our NON-definitions of Natural is our NON-definition of a god as we can see on this thread. If we can't be agreed on what is a god then how do we even start a discussion on atheism.
Strictly speaking I believe the only way to have a conversation on this topic is to speak strictly within the confines of terms as defined. Anything else and we'll soon find that we are deceiving ourselves tossing words and phrases about that probably sound good but when analysed will be found to mean nothing.
An essay that helped my thoughts on the Naturalism debate a lot was written by Keith Augustine. Please let me know what you think of it: http://infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/thesis.html The Meaning of 'Nature' or 'Natural' Danto's definition of a natural cause, while capturing very general features of natural causation and natural causal explanation, does not shed much light on what is meant by the term 'natural' itself. One obvious candidate for what is meant by the term 'natural' is physical. The earliest forms of naturalism, in fact, were versions of materialism or physicalism which maintained that everything that exists is physical. As I have construed naturalism, simple (reductive) physicalism maintains that everything that exists within nature is physical and solely influenced by physical causes. However, the prominent twentieth century debate over materialism in the philosophy of mind has revealed several difficulties with reductive physicalism as a solution to the mind-body problem. One of the most persistent difficulties for reductive physicalism has been the apparent inability of physicalistic explanations to capture qualitative features of conscious experience. It has been persuasively argued that qualia--the experiential feels of 'what it is like' to be in a conscious mental state--cannot be captured by any physicalistic explanations in principle because physicalistic explanations inherently refer to objective or public features of phenomena, whereas the experiential features of consciousness are inherently subjective or private (Teller 1992, pp. 190-191). While such arguments for the irreducibility of consciousness are not the last word on the subject, they have not been decisively refuted either--at least not in the view of several prominent philosophers. Although such difficulties may be resolved in the future, their current resistance to a clear resolution that gains widespread acceptance gives us good reason to resist simply identifying the natural with the physical.
And we mustn't forget to bring Teleology into it when we get to the appropriate place. |
Re: Flaws Definition Of God Exposes In Atheism by wiegraf: 1:33am On Nov 14, 2014 |
^^^^ No vex no vex no vex temporarily buuuuussssssssyyyyyyy Will get back to it definitely |
The Pope Will Die Within A Year: Vatican's Assassination Fears Revealed / What's The Last Commandment Jesus Gave To His Disciples Before Leaving? / Inspiring Women Of Faith Ebooks Collection
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 77 |