OT: The religion thead...

[vxp036000]

The term antitheist isn't common at all in my country and I've never heard a philosopher use the term.  I would lump antitheist into the same position as atheist.

I don't know any philosophers. I don't need to either, I'm not really concerned in how they use it.

The fact remains that the literal meaning of a word with the "a-" prefix means "not", or in this case, "without". The word is derived from the latin "atheos" which is "a" (without) "theos" (God).

Plus, why do we have the term "antitheist", then? Is it redundant now that these so-called philosophers use the term "atheist" incorrectly for their own purposes? Or is it perhaps the fault of arrogant "philosophers" that the word is defined in this way in the dictionary?

[8086]

The term antitheist isn't common at all in my country and I've never heard a philosopher use the term.  I would lump antitheist into the same position as atheist.

I bet you would.

But you seem to basically be using ad populum arguments to support any point you are making. Either that or you just claim it is so because you say it is.

Interesting to see what "philosophers" come up with these days.

[vxp036000]

I'm no fan of the catholic church; they are just as hypocritical as most other organized religions.  I will say, however, that Jesus Christ was an excellent role model in many ways, regardless of one's thoughts on who he was.

Stephen Fry's amazing speech on the catholic church (IQ2) debate, 2009 Part 2 of 2

[IanB]

This is what happens when someone runs out of rational justification for their position.

Again with the pomposity. You are too young, too immature, and too full of your own self-importance to be worth debating with.

[vxp036000]

My argument is valid regardless of how you define atheism, theism, and agnosticism.  Replace them with A, B, and C for all I care.  The argument is still perfectly valid.  My point is that the position that god does not exist is indefensible unless you deny causality.  Which is why I think it is somewhat ironic that many "rational" engineers claim to be atheists.

I bet you would.

But you seem to basically be using ad populum arguments to support any point you are making. Either that or you just claim it is so because you say it is.

Interesting to see what "philosophers" come up with these days.

[rolycat]

In philosophy, we study theism, atheism, and agnosticism.  Theism is a belief that god exists.   If we accept the principle of causality, god must exist.  Atheism is the belief that there is no god.  This position is only rationally justifiable if we deny causality.  Agnosticism is the position that there may or may not be a god and is the only one of these three views that can be rationally justified without making any assumptions.

Good grief, haven't we suffered enough? You may or may not be a decent engineer, but on the evidence you have provided to date you are not a competent philosopher.

The cosmological argument you are garbling had serious flaws when it was expressed by Thomas Aquinas 800 years ago, and since the advent of modern science it has been abandoned even by Christian apologists such as Swinburne. You cannot expect to be taken seriously if you resort to stating such outdated ideas as fact, particularly when you mangle them as you have.

[G7PSK]

Before words are used it is a good idea to know what they mean. Antithesis means a a person or thing that is direct opposite of some one or something else it has no direct relationship with religion.

[vxp036000]

I still haven't seen you rationally refute my claims.

Good grief, haven't we suffered enough? You may or may not be a decent engineer, but on the evidence you have provided to date you are not a competent philosopher.

The cosmological argument you are garbling had serious flaws when it was expressed by Thomas Aquinas 800 years ago, and since the advent of modern science it has been abandoned even by Christian apologists such as Swinburne. You cannot expect to be taken seriously if you resort to stating such outdated ideas as fact, particularly when you mangle them as you have.

[8086]

Before words are used it is a good idea to know what they mean. Antithesis means a a person or thing that is direct opposite of some one or something else it has no direct relationship with religion.

Is this directed towards me?

I said antitheist, not antithesis.

[G7PSK]

Where in the Oxford English dictionary is "antitheist"

[vxp036000]

Hahaha!  I was thinking the same.

Where in the Oxford English dictionary is "antitheist"

[rolycat]

I still haven't seen you rationally refute my claims.

Good grief, haven't we suffered enough? You may or may not be a decent engineer, but on the evidence you have provided to date you are not a competent philosopher.

The cosmological argument you are garbling had serious flaws when it was expressed by Thomas Aquinas 800 years ago, and since the advent of modern science it has been abandoned even by Christian apologists such as Swinburne. You cannot expect to be taken seriously if you resort to stating such outdated ideas as fact, particularly when you mangle them as you have.

Why should I, when your claims have already been refuted by numerous real philosophers, with the formal qualifications which you value so highly?

However, if you are truly unaware of the last several hundred years of philosophical progress, the argument from causation fails for several reasons:

• It requires a first cause, which is not necessarily true - the universe may always have existed
• It presupposes that the only first cause is god, when it could be an impersonal force, such as the Big Bang
• It invokes a potentially nonexistent god to explain a universe which manifestly does exist

[8086]

Hahaha!  I was thinking the same.

Where in the Oxford English dictionary is "antitheist"

Hahaha! It's in Webster's dictionary.

[vxp036000]

Finally, a rational argument.  Your claims are absolutely correct and I agree with them.  However, you'll notice that I earlier defined "god" as the goodness we observe in this world.  Denying this definition of god is difficult.

Why should I, when your claims have already been refuted by numerous real philosophers, with the formal qualifications which you value so highly?

However, if you are truly unaware of the last several hundred years of philosophical progress, the argument from causation fails for several reasons:

• It requires a first cause, which is not necessarily true - the universe may always have existed
• It presupposes that the only first cause is god, when it could be an impersonal force, such as the Big Bang
• It invokes a potentially nonexistent god to explain a universe which manifestly does exist

[vxp036000]

While we're at it, would you also like to post Webster's definition for atheist?  Oh, that's right, it agrees with my definition.

Hahaha!  I was thinking the same.

Where in the Oxford English dictionary is "antitheist"

Hahaha! It's in Webster's dictionary.

[rolycat]

Finally, a rational argument.  Your claims are absolutely correct and I agree with them.  However, you'll notice that I earlier defined "god" as the goodness we observe in this world.  Denying this definition of god is difficult.

Why should I, when your claims have already been refuted by numerous real philosophers, with the formal qualifications which you value so highly?

However, if you are truly unaware of the last several hundred years of philosophical progress, the argument from causation fails for several reasons:

• It requires a first cause, which is not necessarily true - the universe may always have existed
• It presupposes that the only first cause is god, when it could be an impersonal force, such as the Big Bang
• It invokes a potentially nonexistent god to explain a universe which manifestly does exist

That's funny - you didn't agree with them a few minutes ago.

I did indeed notice your earlier attempt to come up with a spurious redefinition of god, but that bit of misdirection has already been disposed of by others.

You would garner a great deal more respect on this forum if you were willing to admit that you are not always right.

[8086]

While we're at it, would you also like to post Webster's definition for atheist?  Oh, that's right, it agrees with my definition.

Hahaha!  I was thinking the same.

Where in the Oxford English dictionary is "antitheist"

Hahaha! It's in Webster's dictionary.

I've explained why the dictionary definition of atheist isn't right. You seemed to have an issue with whether antitheist was even a word, which it is.

[vxp036000]

When you refuse the use the dictionary and philosophically accepted definition of the term, don't expect anyone else to understand what you're trying to say.

I've explained why the dictionary definition of atheist isn't right. You seemed to have an issue with whether antitheist was even a word, which it is.

[vxp036000]

It's not much different than the philospically accepted definition of god; only a slightly more precise definition.  So, yes, if I choose to define god as such, it is rather straight-foward to demonstrate that god exists.

I did indeed notice your earlier attempt to come up with a spurious redefinition of god, but that bit of misdirection has already been disposed of by others.

You would garner a great deal more respect on this forum if you were willing to admit that you are not always right.

[8086]

When you refuse the use the dictionary and philosophically accepted definition of the term, don't expect anyone else to understand what you're trying to say.

I've explained why the dictionary definition of atheist isn't right. You seemed to have an issue with whether antitheist was even a word, which it is.

If you don't understand my logical explanation of why the term "atheist" means "without god" then you have no business claiming to be some sort of philosopher.

[vxp036000]

I never claimed to be a philosopher; you're putting words in my mouth.

If you don't understand my logical explanation of why the term "atheist" means "without god" then you have no business claiming to be some sort of philosopher.

[8086]

I never claimed to be a philosopher; you're putting words in my mouth.

If you don't understand my logical explanation of why the term "atheist" means "without god" then you have no business claiming to be some sort of philosopher.

"In philosophy, we..."

[vxp036000]

Yep, and I never claimed to be a philosopher.  Your point?

[8086]

Yep, and I never claimed to be a philosopher.  Your point?

You claim to posess related knowledge and speak as though you are an authority on the subject.

So your use of "we"..? How do you justify that?

[EEVblog]

Finally, a rational argument.  Your claims are absolutely correct and I agree with them.  However, you'll notice that I earlier defined "god" as the goodness we observe in this world.  Denying this definition of god is difficult.

This is NOT what everyone is talking about here and you know it.
Please take this definition elsewhere and start a new thread if you want to discuss it, it does not belong in this thread.

Dave.