onewheeldave Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Not personally, but then again regarding your example only a small number would be able to concieve such an experiment in the past. My point was that it is possible that in the future God may be proved, how it is done is beyond me, I can barely believe man can send probes into space with the accuracy they do because it's far beyond my knowledge to do so. I was suggesting in my previous post that proving God, now, or at any point in the future, is impossible even in principal. For precedents I'll offer- 'proving 1 to be equal to 2': that's an example of something that will be impossible to prove, now, or at any point in the future. In that case it's cos it's a logical contradiction and so obviously can't be proved. When it comes to proving God, i'm saying it won't/can't happen, as there are no conceivable observations/experiments/occurances that would establish any contender for the position of God, as 100% defintily actually being God (as opposed to simply a very powerful being/entity). As you seem to be saying in your post- you cannot conceive of anything that could prove God, and, you mention the fact that, in the past (pre satelite technology), though some could conceive of a observation involving seeing the earths shape from above, some others wouldn't). So I'm guessing you're saying that maybe you're in a similar position- you currently can't conceive of an experiment/observation that would prove god, but, that doesn't mean it's not possible, or that others couldn't do so? However, on this issue of proving God, as far as I can tell, no-one can come up with a method that could conceivably prove the existence of God, including several billion theists who would have a very vested interest in doing so, and, quite a few sceptics/atheists/rationalists to who I've offered the challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Point taken. I do however feel that a philosophical debate to be had surround the meaning of the word, which is largely what's occurring. As it's created so much debate I would say the thread is actually quite a good question to ask. Definitely! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 You're probably correct there, though I would dispute these two suggestions: Fortunately, though, you seem to like posting masses of uninformed, poorly argued drivel so I guess there's a place for both of us on this discussion forum. No I have a point in what I am saying, you shouldn't dismiss it.. I believe I am now an athesist in denial, i challenged the word and I challenged the noun. Now since I did that, it's let me become an atheist indenial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 lack; something missing or needed A particular deficiency or absence Hmm... If that is the actual definition then you've convinced me of your point. Having said that (and I'll look for a few more definitions in a minute and then, maybe, start a poll thread entitled "What is lack") the term "lack of belief" has never felt perjorative to me - though that is the nature of such things, isn't it. Maybe, for the sake of this thread we could go all PC and adopt the word "absence", rather than "lack" since, for those who are arguing against your point, there is no difference. I'm pretty agnostically certain that this won't happen. ETA. Yup ... I looked at some more definitions and I'm convinced. Lack suggests deficiency. I, therefore retract post 154. ... apart from the "dissolving" bit - you're still wrong about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 I'm not saying that the 2 positions are the same thing though. What I'm saying is that 1. some people consider 'atheist' to mean lack of belief in God 2. some people consider it to mean a belief that God doesn't exist 2 very different positions 3. most online threads on the issue of atheism/God have a mixture of these two types of people and, at least in part, become flame wars due to the fact that either a) they don't realise they're using different defintions, or b)they do (eventually) realise, and then proceed to argue about which of the 2 definitions is correct and how stupid the other side is for sticking to their preferred definition 4. the usual method of deciding whether a definition is 'correct' i.e. checking a dictionary, is not much use because- 5. current dictionaries are a hotchpotch, some using the first definition, some the second, and others, both definitions I can tell from much experience on those threads, that discussion does not progress if it's about convincing the opposition that your preferred definition is correct and theirs is wrong. Discussion can, however, progress, if both sides accept that the other side defines 'atheism' differently, and they simply make clear, when using the term 'atheist', which one they are using. I find the problem with using the second definition is that it doesn't cover people who fall under the first one. Or, in other words, if you define an atheist as someone who believes there is no God what do you call someone who lacks belief in God? jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 No I have a point in what I am saying, you shouldn't dismiss it.. I believe I am now an athesist in denial, i challenged the word and I challenged the noun. Now since I did that, it's let me become an atheist indenial Hiya Drone. I merely offered my opinions, as did you. It looks like you now agree with my opinion. Let's not argue about 'oo killed 'oo, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Hmm... If that is the actual definition then you've convinced me of your point. Having said that (and I'll look for a few more definitions in a minute and then, maybe, start a poll thread entitled "What is lack") the term "lack of belief" has never felt perjorative to me - though that is the nature of such things, isn't it. Maybe, for the sake of this thread we could go all PC and adopt the word "absence", rather than "lack" since, for those who are arguing against your point, there is no difference. I'm pretty agnostically certain that this won't happen. This is my point. There are many definitions, these were part of the first two that came up on google. There is no reason not to substitute it with a less emotive word! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 If I had no other source of knowledge about tables, then yes I'd doubt it. I'd doubt it in an instant. Swap the word table for "fairy" or "ghost" and that's exactly my view. So you would lack a belief in that which you can see and touch just because you don't know what it’s called. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Hiya Drone. I merely offered my opinions, as did you. It looks like you now agree with my opinion. Let's not argue about 'oo killed 'oo, eh? You wrote sayin that I should show the maturity I did on my energy drink thread and take people's points on board? Your lot were adamant. That theist was just a noun, well I tried telling you lot it wasn't but you wasent taking my point on board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 This is my point. There are many definitions, these were part of the first two that came up on google. There is no reason not to substitute it with a less emotive word! Agreed. (I've now added a bit to post 174) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.