Quote# 94351

So if the "Greeks" hadn't labeled belief as "theism", then the "anti-God" group wouldn't have a label? They would be called "anti-God", "against God", "Doubters of truth"?

So "theism" is a term "accepted by believers in God? How come those so called "believers" cut me off? I resemble no connection with man made words such as "theism" and "atheism" accussed of the Greek. Who accepts such garbage and demands others accept it?

astein, Christian Forums 58 Comments [5/17/2013 3:23:43 AM]
Fundie Index: 39

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 3 | bottom

Broton of Loch Ness

And why care? Is your life so meaningless that you have to take issue with mere words?

5/17/2013 3:27:45 AM


If the Greeks didn't label us, we would make our own label (unbeliever, realist, epistemologist), or maybe the Romans would have a label for us (sine deo, exterminatore Dei).

Who accepts such garbage and demands others accept it?

Anyone who uses a dictionary?

5/17/2013 3:58:16 AM

rubber chicken

It's called 'language'.

You only have to accept it if you wish to be understood by others, as you, clearly, don't.

5/17/2013 4:07:51 AM


Stop using the garbage word "Christ" too, then, stupid!

5/17/2013 4:14:30 AM


I don't know why you are bothered by this. If theos would mean something bad, I'd actually get it, but it simply means "god". Same thing thing with atheism (no(t)-god-[abstract notion or condition]). And these descriptions are as neutral as it could possibly be.

5/17/2013 4:25:10 AM


Duh! What are these things called words?

5/17/2013 4:38:11 AM

Tim of Whipping

The "Greeks"? What are you implying? What is your problem with words? Under what circumstances were you cut off? In a speech? In traffic? Don't you think all words are man-made? What does 'accussed' mean?

I don't understand the point of this post, other than it is an unintelligible rant brought about by someone explaining the origins of words like theism and atheism. I'm not sure this is 'fundie' so much as incomprehensible, childish rage over nothing.

...though I can see how the two are easily confused.

5/17/2013 4:40:23 AM


Anti/against God is misotheism. Atheism is about there being no God to be against.

5/17/2013 4:46:48 AM


#@+ Broton,

No he's right,

Just write down all the things you don't believe in!

Obviously ridiculous.

Atheists are very specific in what they are rejecting. It's resistance. Acting in the contra positive. Their lives aren't in a neutral space.

5/17/2013 4:48:07 AM

Mister Spak

"Who accepts such garbage and demands others accept it? "

You do.


5/17/2013 5:23:28 AM


You're forgetting the typical assumption in past times that everybody is a Christian/theist, therefor making it needed to have a term to describe those who don't, while those who do are called by their sect's names. The same reason why we need a term for asexuality.

5/17/2013 5:24:41 AM


Just write down all the things you don't believe in!

I guess such a list would be very long, but still just marginally longer than yours would be, if you know what I mean. I just disbelieve in one more god than you, so to say.

5/17/2013 5:34:36 AM

Doubting Thomas

Personally I don't want to be labeled by what I don't believe in. I define myself as a humanist and a rational thinker, not as someone who doesn't believe in God, Bigfoot, or aliens from the planet Zlaxxar.

5/17/2013 5:35:59 AM


@ Broton

Actually, he has every reason to care.

The more words there are, the more nuance language is capable of. The more nuance language is capable of, the more people can use it to express thought. The more people can express thought, the more the bullshit sensor works. The more the bullshit sensor works, the farther away the utopia he and his fundie friends want, the Ingsoc regime as applied to America and with crosses stuck everywhere, gets.

Thus, the solution is doubleplusgood newspeak uncausing thoughtcrime.

5/17/2013 5:51:54 AM


Funny you should mention that UHM; my recurrent theme is 'asexual' marriage cannot exist.

It's all about protecting a woman.

How quaint is that.

It's all about protecting a human from what they can't even see. Where hyperdimensional wild things are.

5/17/2013 5:52:17 AM


@ the resident troll: What pathetic thinking, to reduce marriage, and all the things that entails, partnership, companionship, friendship, love, support ... to mere sex.

What a dreary world that would be, were it true. Myself, I'm too damn old for sex. Should I get divorced?

5/17/2013 6:14:45 AM



my recurrent theme is 'asexual' marriage cannot exist.

I think we got to the core of the problem here. What you mean is that you think such a marriage should not exist.

But reality does not bend to your will and does in fact disagree with you. That you are arguing against it does not change it one bit.

(Also, according to your “logic” Mary was not married to Joseph…)

5/17/2013 6:22:32 AM


They would just be called non-believers, or people who don't believe in gods.

"How come those so called "believers" cut me off?" They didn't. It's because you're ignorant and haven't done enough research to realise THE BIBLE IS IN GREEK, and says things like this:
"Houtos gar egapesen ho THEOS ton kosmon, hoste ton Huion ton monogene edoken, hina pas ho pisteuon eis Auton me apoletai all? eche zoen aionion". ("For God (THEOS) so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting".)
So you're calling the Bible gargbage?

5/17/2013 6:27:01 AM

Hasan Prishtina

Language, how does it work?

I resemble no connection with man made words

Why are you writing in English, then?


The prefix 'a-,' from Ancient Greek, represents a lack of something, not resistance to it, so atheism indicates absence of belief in god rather than resistance to belief. In the same way, an apolitical charity indicates it does not engage in politics, not that it resists politics.

As I've said before, I hope that some day you will reach a more mature approach to marriage.

5/17/2013 7:07:36 AM


Don't want to push the time travel barrow but the Apostle Paul said, neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, slave or free.
Temporal and Eternal, can both wait. If God wasn't Himself cryptic, I'd hazard a premature guess. Chuck Missler, an undoubtedly clever man is apt to quote, ''It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter''

in modern techno babble what if the world is a holographic cryptogram?

It's all in Jesus, the future is vested in one and only one agency. [ Kuno, sit on your hands for five minutes and think, what if nearly everything you've ever been taught was wrong?]

5/17/2013 7:09:34 AM


Hasan, but I posit both eternal and a null set only exist as abstraction of mind.
If an atheist is truly an atheist, he couldn't possibly know it.

5/17/2013 7:12:37 AM


[ Kuno, sit on your hands for five minutes and think, what if nearly everything you've ever been taught was wrong?]

Many of the things I have been taught in my life have been wrong. I was brought up as a Christian and had religious lessons both in school and by a pastor.

And if someone would prove to me that something I have been taught is wrong, I would change my mind. I have done it before, e.g. I am no longer a Christian.

Now, do you care to actually address what I wrote?

5/17/2013 7:24:22 AM



Are you sure you aren't here to justify decisions you've already arrived at.

Not good jurisprudence.

Better if you write my responses for me and just ask me to sign them. More intellectually satisfying for you.

Knowing what Christianity is all about, and being confident abiogenesis is sound scientific theory it behooves me to allow you greater scope to deliver your monologues.

5/17/2013 7:48:58 AM

Hasan Prishtina


Convention and abstraction are two of the principles on which language works. Abandon them and you cease to be intelligible. And there is little point trying to communicate with someone who is not intelligible.

''It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter''

Then why insist on plain but outlandish exegeses?

5/17/2013 8:05:26 AM


Are you sure you aren't here to justify decisions you've already arrived at.

I don’t need to justify anything. And as I said, if someone can prove to me that an opinion I have is wrong, I will change my mind. So far you have just not brought any proof forward. Want to start?

Not good jurisprudence.

I am not a lawyer nor are we in court. Why should I care about jurisprudence?

and being confident abiogenesis is sound scientific theory

Why do you feel the need to lie about what I said? Is that Christian?

Here is what I actually wrote:

[Quoted from PG-13] It remains entirely hypothetical. Which is why I keep telling people to simply reverse engineer it. Just perform the control variable reproducible experiment that turns your hypothesis into a working theory. your non living things into living things. [/Quote]

[My answer]Yes, it is only a hypothesis at the moment. And guess what? Right now scientist all over the world are working on “reverse-engineering” the process (or at least a possible process) and they have already made some interesting progresses. So where is your problem?[/answer]

So, please show me where I called abiogenesis a theory? I even doubt that anyone here (other than you) called it a theory. We are all aware that it is at the moment “only” a hypothesis.

to deliver your monologues.

I have (repeatedly) asked you questions. All you have to do to turn my alleged “monologues” into a dialogue is to answer them. How about it?

- Why do you think that Pasteur’s findings that “spontaneous generation” of complex organisms is not possible and the spread of micro-organism can be stopped by enough heat does disprove the modern hypothesises of abiogenesis?
- Do you agree that there are married couples on this planet that do not have sex? If yes, how do you justify your statement that asexual marriages cannot exist?

So, dialogue opened. Care to answer?

5/17/2013 8:20:50 AM

1 2 3 | top: comments page