Do you believe in God?

[Scaff]

Thank you all, I feel blessed.

Luke 6:22 How blessed are you whenever people hate you, avoid you, insult you, and slander you because of the Son of Man!

1 Peter 4:14 If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you.

I've not insulted you once, and quite frankly am not particularly happy with the insinuation you are making.

That however is of a far lower concern that you spamming the thread with verse, the persecution complex you are displaying and the ignorance in failing to even acknowledge my replies to you.

Now please address the questions and points I have raised, or should I take you silence to indicate you have none?

 

[Danoff]

Its funny what you can get away with - depending which side you're on.

...has nothing to do with what "side" I'm on. If I asked you to provide citations of evidence that the moon landing actually occurred and you linked nasa.gov and told me that the answer was somewhere in there, that would be non-responsive. That is an exaggeration of what you did, but it is still ultimately representative of your response. The link you provided punted the first 7 responses to a website entirely aimed at answering a different question with an as much text as humanly possible. If you think I find that non-responsive just because you're religious, you're absolutely 100% wrong. I would not do that to you.

Again, feel free to use that site to respond, but go ahead and dig through to find the relevant parts.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

@SuperCobraJet
I'm interested in what it's like to experience a personal revelation. If it's not too personal, I'd be pleased to hear about your experience.

Greetings Dotini, I hope you are well.

The personal revelation is, as already mentioned, the recieving(impartation) of the Holy Spirit.
It is the power by which to truly achieve and manifest a new identity or operating system.
The essence of the born again experience.
I like "operating system" as a descriptive since I think, its a more relatable explanation.
Thats the crux of it.

 

[GBO Possum]

@SuperCobraJet, yes, we are making progress. I actually understood one line of your post above. The first one.

Meet me part way, if you would, and explain what the other five lines might mean.

I did you the courtesy of answering your question about why I regarded the flood myth as nonsense.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/do-you-believe-in-god.111312/page-514#post-10065930

 

[zzz_pt]

Greetings Dotini, I hope you are well.

The personal revelation is, as already mentioned, the recieving(impartation) of the Holy Spirit.
It is the power by which to truly achieve and manifest a new identity or operating system.
The essence of the born again experience.
I like "operating system" as a descriptive since I think, its a more relatable explanation.
Thats the crux of it.

What is the difference between that (personal revelation) and what muslims claim as personal revelation.

How can we distinguish between a true and a false revelation? Because everyone claims that his particular personal revelation is the true one. That doesn't help those who are outside of the experience to recognize any truth to whatever they claim.


Example of a person highly convinced that she's in contact with her god and her prophet recieved a personal revelation form god.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

You re-defined the scientific method and used 'your' definition to propose statements that made no sense.

You keep claiming that, but give no explanation, as to how it was redefined.

You didn't describe a manner.

To the contrary, I did.
Here it is again:

Now if this can be qualified, as to reality, we will be making progress.
Being subject to, the physical realm, and point in time, Yes that is exactly what it is.
Also that, the standard, may not have identified everything that may exist, even within its parameters.
And of course corrections and additions do occur as new information, or changes, discovery, etc. come into play.
Are you agreeable with that?

As opposed to?

As opposed to the "spiritual realm".

No you assume infallibility, no one has claimed that.

How can I be assuming "infallibility", when I'm pointing out "fallibility".

It has not failed yet, 'yet' being a key point.

As far as you know, it has not failed.
To say it has not failed yet, is to imply you know of everything that is identifiable, residing in the possibility realm of existence.
Sorry, but I doubt if thats the case.

Which no one has claimed otherwise (well apart from you).

Well again, if it is fallible, which of course it is, why do you continue to insist upon it for verification.

Please suggest another method that will provide the same level of validation and work on the 'spiritual', something by the way which you (and others) have yet to even show exists.

There is only one of which I am aware, and I have already stated it.

Ah the Holy Spirit. Yep that's not unique to Christianity either.

Where else do you claim it is available?

So once again be specific as to the unique point(s) that make it stand out so obviously (to you)?

I've already stated that several times.

 

[Scaff]

You keep claiming that, but give no explanation, as to how it was redefined.

I already have, a number of times.

You blatently missused the scientific method in your 1800's ramble that made no sense to anyone, when asked to clarify what you were going on about we finally got....

If you are applying it as a basis for existence, yes it absolutely precludes it.

...no one has applied it as a basis for existence bar you. You did in your 1800's nonsense.

As such you have clearly redefined the scientific method to suit your own example, now the question I asked was did you do this out of ignorance (in which case how? given the number of links that have been provided about it to you in the past) or as a deliberate act?

That you redefined the meaning to suit your needs is clear, the question (you seem to want to avoid) is why?

To the contrary, I did.
Here it is again:

Now if this can be qualified, as to reality, we will be making progress.
Being subject to, the physical realm, and point in time, Yes that is exactly what it is.
Also that, the standard, may not have identified everything that may exist, even within its parameters.
And of course corrections and additions do occur as new information, or changes, discovery, etc. come into play.
Are you agreeable with that?

Then I think you are going to have to explain exacty what you mean by 'manner' in this context, because that doesn't answer it at all.

As opposed to the "spiritual realm".

As in the Christian spiritual realm or a wider one? Not that you have even managed yet to establish the existence of any spiritual realm either.

How can I be assuming "infallibility", when I'm pointing out "fallibility".

You presumed that we said it was infallible.

As far as you know, it has not failed.
To say it has not failed yet, is to imply you know of everything that is identifiable, residing in the possibility realm of existence.
Sorry, but I doubt if thats the case.

No it doesn't at all, that's a spurious leap and you know it is, not only that but its a continuation of your 1800's nonsense and redefinition of the scientific method.

Well again, if it is fallible, which of course it is, why do you continue to insist upon it for verification.

Because every time its been used its worked. How many times can you say that objectively for your methodology?

There is only one of which I am aware, and I have already stated it.

Not one to the same level of validation you haven't.

Where else do you claim it is available?

The/A Holy Spirit is a part of all Abrahamic faiths.

I've already stated that several times.

Nothing that has been unique and nothing that would clearly indicate that Christianity is obviously 'right' as a result.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

How is it? It is not evident. Please explain.

What is within those pages that make you accept what is written as fact?

There are numerous references through out the new testament, about the Holy Spirit.
Through faith in Jesus Christ, you can recieve it, or by like term, it can be imparted to you.
I have personally recieved it, so it is confirmed for me personally as a fact.

I already explained why I think the Noah/flood story is nonsense.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/do-you-believe-in-god.111312/page-513#post-10057647

Perhaps this may provide a hint regaurding your objections:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job 38&version=AMP

I hope you are not so delusional that you think "we exist in the miraculous" actually explains anything.

I think it may provoke more questions, than it does, explain anything.
Although, since it is obvious we do live in the miraculous, the Noah/flood story is really not that inconcievable.

You're too dismissive. It's fact, those things are possibilities.

Dismissive of what?
That the ability to doubt, like everything else, is not to be universally applied to everything, but is only of real use where applicable.
And that ability alone, is to exclusively preclude any possibility of action upon faith or belief?
Sorry, but that is obviously, a very, very, predjudiced, unbalanced approach.
And actually, defies logic, rationale, and reason.

Of course not, and I have addressed that.

Well, by all means, why not doubt to the point of dysfunction?

No there is a consequence. The consequence is that I do not believe (in the religious sense) in anything*. I'll take it a step further, because the doubting possibilities exist, no one, should believe (in a religious sense) in anything. I don't care if you've had a spiritual experience or not, you can't possibly know the nature of that experience.

Well, I beg to differ.
You most assuredly can know it.
In reality, you have no idea whether you can or can't.
Doubting possibilities, are absolutely useless, in the determination, as to reality.
They only establish the possiblity of non reality, not the preclusion of reality.
So in fact, your interpretation relys on nothing substantative, absolute or definitive, to establish non reality.

Your statements above continue to demonstrate that you are conflating the two uses of the term - perhaps intentionally.

When I come up with a better way to phrase it, I will let you know.

You misunderstood. Read it again, if you still have questions let me know.

Apparently so.
And I still question it.

It's a tautological truth. It's true by definition, and yes, I believe it (with the conviction of a religious person, but not with the same rationale).

* Except the cogito

So then if thats the case, why would you doubt the things you pointed out, if you experienced them?
Are you not using the same cogito to determine all things?

 

[Liquid]

@SuperCobraJet That does not back up your claims. You haven't quantified or explained what happened. Everything you say still comes across as "It happened because I said so."

Is this because you refuse to give details or because you can't?

 

[Famine]

@SuperCobraJet That does not back up your claims. You haven't quantified or explained what happened. Everything you say still comes across as "It happened because I said so."

Is this because you refuse to give details or because you can't?

Yes.

 

[Liquid]

@Famine Of course, I just want SCJ to admit this.

 

[Imari]

Although, since it is obvious we do live in the miraculous, the Noah/flood story is really not that inconcievable.

Do you ever think that every time you say something is "obvious", that perhaps it isn't so obvious to others?

Look back through your posts. You use "obvious" as a justification for an alarming number of things.

Stop assuming that everyone else sees the world the same way you do. Stop assuming that the things that are obvious to you are obvious to everyone.

Explain yourself in clear, simple language, and then maybe we'll all get somewhere.

 

[zzz_pt]

Thomas Aquinas used the same strategy to state his arguments... the "obvious", the "we clearly see that", etc. But he lived in 13th century... 500 years before science was born.

Today, it's not obvious. And science has already demonstrated several times that our common sense is misleading.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Do you ever think that every time you say something is "obvious", that perhaps it isn't so obvious to others?

Look back through your posts. You use "obvious" as a justification for an alarming number of things.

Stop assuming that everyone else sees the world the same way you do. Stop assuming that the things that are obvious to you are obvious to everyone.

Explain yourself in clear, simple language, and then maybe we'll all get somewhere.

How could it not be obvious, we live in the miraculous?
Particularly in light of what science has established.
The great standard that is revered by so many here.
The immeasurable vast complexity of even just a single cell.
Accompanied also by such vast immeasurable laws of control, coordination, and orchestration.
It is virtually impossible to miss.

 

[Famine]

How could it not be obvious, we live in the miraculous?
Particularly in light of what science has established.

The more we discover about the universe, the less unusual our spot in it seems to be.

The immeasurable vast complexity of even just a single cell.

It's not immeasurably complex at all. Study some cell biology perhaps?

 

[zzz_pt]

For a thing to be miraculous has to break all the scientific laws. If it's known it's ordinary, not extraordinary.

 

[SniperRed3]

Don't you think complexity of life is the product of millions of years of evolution?

 

[GBO Possum]

How could it not be obvious, we live in the miraculous?
Particularly in light of what science has established.
The great standard that is revered by so many here.
The immeasurable vast complexity of even just a single cell.
Accompanied also by such vast immeasurable laws of control, coordination, and orchestration.
It is virtually impossible to miss.

If you think that cell structure is a miracle, then what you need is some education. Yes, it's complex, but not miraculous. It can be, and has been, explained. Over just a few decades.

The idea of sea level rising five miles in a matter of days, and falling again equally quickly is not complex, but it certainly is miraculous. Equally miraculous is that it left no trace. And it has not been explained. Over thousands of years.

 

[Imari]

How could it not be obvious, we live in the miraculous?

You're still not getting it, I see.

Stop assuming things are obvious and just explain them.

The immeasurable vast complexity of even just a single cell.

Cells are not immeasurably complex. They are very complex, but we have a good understanding of how many of them work, and research is ongoing into those that we don't understand. There's no reason to believe that there's anything miraculous or incapable of human understanding going on there.

Accompanied also by such vast immeasurable laws of control, coordination, and orchestration.

Likewise, while the laws of the universe seem to be designed just for us, there is in fact many explanations as to how these things could arise without any conscious intervention. You can start by reading about the anthropic principle, which rules out any universe in which life could not exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

It is virtually impossible to miss.

Only if you're not familiar with some of the non-miraculous explanations for the phenomenon you're describing as miraculous. So far, there's very little about the universe that requires miracles to explain it. Even the things we don't understand, we have reasonable ideas on how they could be working without having to invoke magic.

Take gravity. Totally observable, totally a thing, totally measurable in terms of the magnitude of it's effects and so on. Nobody actually knows the mechanism behind it, last time I checked. It just is.

That doesn't mean it's miraculous. There are a bunch of theories about how it could be working in such ways that we are unable to detect at our current level of technology. We'll find out if we're correct when we get to those levels, and if they all fail people will think of something else.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I already have, a number of times.

You blatently missused the scientific method in your 1800's ramble that made no sense to anyone, when asked to clarify what you were going on about we finally got....

...no one has applied it as a basis for existence bar you. You did in your 1800's nonsense.

As such you have clearly redefined the scientific method to suit your own example, now the question I asked was did you do this out of ignorance (in which case how? given the number of links that have been provided about it to you in the past) or as a deliberate act?

That you redefined the meaning to suit your needs is clear, the question (you seem to want to avoid) is why?

My example is not missuse, neither, does it redefine anything.
The standard was the same then, as it is now.
The fact is, you could take the same snapshot now, come back in 200yrs and get pretty much the same result.
So nothing was redefined.

Then I think you are going to have to explain exacty what you mean by 'manner' in this context, because that doesn't answer it at all.

I answered it.
Apparently, you just do not want to agree with it.

As in the Christian spiritual realm or a wider one? Not that you have even managed yet to establish the existence of any spiritual realm either.

I would say, as defined by the Bible.
Which would be Judaeo-Christian.

You presumed that we said it was infallible.

No, I did not.
But, I did want to point it out, just in case, you thought it was.
If you are relying on it for proof of existence, then its a relevant factor, regaurdless.
And the implication, is obvious.

No it doesn't at all, that's a spurious leap and you know it is, not only that but its a continuation of your 1800's nonsense and redefinition of the scientific method.

No, its a fact, not a leap.
You just admitted, the standard is not infallible.
However, in the same vein, I will have to admit, even though it is subject to limits and fallibility, it is certainly not unreliable, most of the time.

Because every time its been used its worked. How many times can you say that objectively for your methodology?

The only difference is my methodology, is for the time being, testimonially established only.
So, it has to be determined on that basis only.
Which of course, is inconclusive from the scientific perspective.
However, that does not preclude its existence as undeterminable, or unknowable on an individual basis.

Not one to the same level of validation you haven't.

In relation to your required standard for validation, yes that is correct.

The/A Holy Spirit is a part of all Abrahamic faiths.

Specifically, which faiths are you referring too?

Nothing that has been unique and nothing that would clearly indicate that Christianity is obviously 'right' as a result.

Big surprise, I disagree.

 

[RalliArt/////]

The link you provided punted the first 7 responses to a website entirely aimed at answering a different question with an as much text as humanly possible. If you think I find that non-responsive just because you're religious, you're absolutely 100% wrong. I would not do that to you.

You keep repeating the same answer after I've posted alternative links (with less words), which you wont address.
The response you gave to that post was basically calling it "pathetic" & when I asked again you said...
"There's nothing serious in that post."

I'm sure others wont mind if I respond like that...

Now please address the questions and points I have raised, or should I take you silence to indicate you have none?

"There's nothing serious in that post."

 

[Scaff]

My example is not missuse, neither, does it redefine anything.
The standard was the same then, as it is now.
The fact is, you could take the same snapshot now, come back in 200yrs and get pretty much the same result.
So nothing was redefined.

You had to re-define the scientific method to make those claims.

That you can't see to understand that smack of either deliberate ignorance or an utter failure to comprehend even the basics of the method.

No one has ever claimed that the method is the basis of existence (because its not), yet that is exactly what you used it for in your 1800 example.

I answered it.
Apparently, you just do not want to agree with it.

No you strung a series of word together, that alone doesn't answer the question.

I would say, as defined by the Bible.
Which would be Judaeo-Christian.

And why that one and not all the other claims for the supernatural?

No, I did not.
But, I did want to point it out, just in case, you thought it was.
If you are relying on it for proof of existence, then its a relevant factor, regaurdless.
And the implication, is obvious.

Yes you did and given that at nno point have I claimed it was I don't really need it pointing out to me.

No, its a fact, not a leap.
You just admitted, the standard is not infallible.
However, in the same vein, I will have to admit, even though it is subject to limits and fallibility, it is certainly not unreliable, most of the time.

If its a fact then you will not mind providing a sourced and peer reviewed example of this.

Please keep in mind that you don't get to redefine any terms while your doing so.

The only difference is my methodology, is for the time being, testimonially established only.
So, it has to be determined on that basis only.
Which of course, is inconclusive from the scientific perspective.
However, that does not preclude its existence as undeterminable, or unknowable on an individual basis.

Which means its not objective.

As for the rest, that kind of undermines you claim for gods existence being a fact.

In relation to your required standard for validation, yes that is correct.

I don't own the scientific method, so I'm not quite sure why you need that emphasis.

However the standard in question is the one that you quite clearly don't understand or are deliberately misrepresenting.

it would be nice if you cleared that one up, so how about you explain exactly what you think the scientific method is and how it works?

Specifically, which faiths are you referring too?

Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Bahai.

Big surprise, I disagree.

And yet you are still unable to say what it is and demonstrate its uniqueness (and why that uniqueness would make it stand out so obviously).

I'm sure others wont mind if I respond like that...



"There's nothing serious in that post."

I've not given the same response and using a member of staff to try and prove a point against another member is not a smart idea at all.

Did you seriously expect him to go and address all 300+ ones that you linked to? I suspect that you instead though it would be a quick and easy way to shut the issue down, well that will not fly here, so how about you explain to us how you explain some of the contradictions. Ensure that you are ready to actually debate the point you used (in case a quick cut and paste was the route you wish to take - if your going to use someone else's words then I hope you can explain them as well).

Particularly given that I didn't simply (and lazily) link to a wall of text on other sites, but rather asked you a small number of specific questions. questions that you clearly can't or won't answer.

 

[Danoff]

You keep repeating the same answer after I've posted alternative links (with less words), which you wont address.
The response you gave to that post was basically calling it "pathetic" & when I asked again you said...
"There's nothing serious in that post."

Two major arguments put forth in those links - that the bible was mistranslated, and that when god said "let there be light" that doesn't mean it happened in the order it was written - which is another attempt to take the text that's in the bible and try to twist it into agreeing with what we know today. The second argument is more pathetic than the first, since the second argument basically argues that genesis is not a progressive account of the creation of the universe, even though everything about it indicates that it is so. It goes big to small, vast to detailed, and follows a logical progression. The only thing wrong with it is that it looks like it was written by someone who didn't know anything about the solar system (it was), and so the logical progressive account of the creation of the universe doesn't actually make sense.

Retranslating the bible is something that's going to have a certain amount of wriggle room and nobody will be able to determine the legitimacy of. Makes for a perfect blanker cover-all.

I'm sure others wont mind if I respond like that...

If I posted stuff that thin, I'd expect it.

 

[GBO Possum]

You keep repeating the same answer after I've posted alternative links (with less words), which you wont address.
The response you gave to that post was basically calling it "pathetic" & when I asked again you said...
"There's nothing serious in that post."

I'm sure others wont mind if I respond like that...



"There's nothing serious in that post."

Talking about issues not addressed, did you miss my post earlier which said:-

If the excuse for inaccuracies and contradictions is that English versions of the bible are translations, and that's where the errors came from, then, OK - Any version of the Bible which has gone through either transcription or translation can not be trusted. Since there were no printing presses back then, we have to use the original documents, or photographic copies of them.

And here is the problem. The originals no longer exist, and the only technology available for copying was transcription.

For some reason, I have this expectation that God would be aware of this, and aware that there are multiple versions of Biblical books around which are contradictory. My next expectation is that on something as important as this, that God would fix it. After all, his people go around killing in the name of the Holy Word, so they better be reading what God actually meant.

Is it too much to expect that the entity which created a universe (or maybe many), should be able to find a way of communicating simultaneously, consistently and unambiguously to the various peoples of this planet? And to the peoples of other planets in this universe?
​

I have added emphasis. Do you still want to state that the Bible contains inaccuracies due to translation errors? If so, how is it possible to identify which are the correctly translated words, and which are not? Once again, I point out that the original documents do not exist.

 

[LeMansAid]

@SuperCobraJet
I'm interested in what it's like to experience a personal revelation. If it's not too personal, I'd be pleased to hear about your experience.

Greetings Dotini, I hope you are well.

The personal revelation is, as already mentioned, the recieving(impartation) of the Holy Spirit.
It is the power by which to truly achieve and manifest a new identity or operating system.
The essence of the born again experience.
I like "operating system" as a descriptive since I think, its a more relatable explanation.
Thats the crux of it.

Edit: Ended up feeling self-conscious and stupid about my post, so I removed it.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Whatever you guys called me, atheist or agnostic, is actually raw Islam. Islam does not require you to believe(100%) in god, it only asks you to take a leap of faith that one supreme being exists, and to live by its teachings, practices and worldviews. Matter of fact, it acknowledges that humans are skeptics by nature. The word Islam literally means surrender. As in, stop the fight inside your head about whether or not god exists and just live assuming he/she/it does.


Some of you here (atheists, agnostics, agnostic-atheists, whatever you label yourselves) are what's referred to as "Muslims at heart".

There you go, let the denial kick in.

Don't you guys ever get tired of debating? Just wondering.

Gets tiring when it's with some less than bright members, or ones with massive egoes. Gets annoying when one has the power to shut you up with less than respectable ways.

Given that you have (unsurprisingly) managed to self destruct and earn a week off I'm going to address one core part of you reply with the following question.

The only thing unsurprising here is that you've yet again broke your own rules (and the forum's) as you've done before. I asked you how I can go forward with a mod doing that, and you conveniently ignored that question.

Why are you quote mining?

I'm not. Why do you ignore context in my post and nitpick certain words?

Lets take a look at the full source shall we (rather than your edited version):



Now I would be very interested to know why you removed 1.2? A quite clear religious definition of belief, the English language has (as I and others have repeatedly explained) both religious and non-religious meanings for belief based upon the context. The source makes that clear (that it is a clarified definition of the first part does not change that at all).

You deliberately removed it, which would seem to be at odds with this part of the AUP:

• You will not knowingly post any material that is false, misleading, or inaccurate.

It would seem from my viewpoint that you removed it because it didn't support you claims, and you did so in a deliberate and misleading manner.

Honestly, I am unsure whether you're incompetent or looking for an excuse to ban me. For someone that kept preaching context, you seem to take none into account when arguing with me.

1. Definition of the word

1.1 Common (not necessarily original or accurate) definition #1
1.2 Common (not necessarily original or accurate) definition #2​

I've made it clear in at least FIVE posts that what I am trying to argue is 1.0, not 1.1 or 1.2. I'm arguing that the common definitions, 1.1 and 1.2, are not necessarily accurate and do not represent what the original word means. I didn't quote mine, I acknowledged 1.1 and 1.2 several times.

You insisted on ignoring that, and repeatedly hammered me with the common definitions instead. Hence, I quoted only thE definition so maybe you could see it clearly.

Your only argument could've been that Spoken English changes all the time and words used today do not mean what they used to mean. In that case, I would understand because nobody speaks Arabic in the world anymore. Nobody has spoken Quran's Arabic in hundreds of years. Heck, few people understand it. The modern traditional Arabic you hear delivered by news anchors or speeches is only spoken in those situations. This may surprise you, but the majority of Arabs don't even know how to speak traditional Arabic properly. You may ask any university professor in the middle east to confirm this. WITH THAT SAID, none of us here make belief that the common Arabic is correct Arabic. Something that you are trying to do with English and something I think is completely wrong because it turns debates into infinite loops. The first thing in a legal contract is definitions of words to be used in the contract. I said SEVERAL TIMES that we need to establish definitions first before we argue any sensitive topic such as this one.

​

Anyway you replied to NONE of my points, none of my questions and failed to produce a translation that argues your point against mine. I'll take that as a defeat and move on. Especially since the second half of the wiki article, which I haven't quoted, is even MORE DIRECT in confirming everything I said. I left that as a test to see what you'll do if/when you get it translated. Doesn't matter now I guess.

 

[Famine]

Whatever you guys called me, atheist or agnostic, is actually raw Islam. Islam does not require you to believe(100%) in god, it only asks you to take a leap of faith that one supreme being exists, and to live by its teachings, practices and worldviews. Matter of fact, it acknowledges that humans are skeptics by nature. The word Islam literally means surrender. As in, stop the fight inside your head about whether or not god exists and just live assuming he/she/it does.

There is no fight inside my head about whether or not god - or any other deity - exists. I do not believe that they do.

Saying that this means I have faith that one exists means you not only don't understand the word "atheist", but a whole boatload of other words too.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Have you been eagerly anticipating a reply for two weeks? That was quick.

There is no fight inside my head about whether or not god - or any other deity - exists.

Good for you. Your inner fight is settled then.

I do not believe that they do.

Does that mean that you are 100% certain they do not exist?

Saying that this means I have faith that one exists

I didn't say that at all.

means you not only don't understand the word "atheist", but a whole boatload of other words too.

Unnecessary to respond to this then.

 

[Scaff]

Whatever you guys called me, atheist or agnostic, is actually raw Islam. Islam does not require you to believe(100%) in god, it only asks you to take a leap of faith that one supreme being exists, and to live by its teachings, practices and worldviews. Matter of fact, it acknowledges that humans are skeptics by nature. The word Islam literally means surrender. As in, stop the fight inside your head about whether or not god exists and just live assuming he/she/it does.

So a leap of faith doesn't require belief?

Some of you here (atheists, agnostics, agnostic-atheists, whatever you label yourselves) are what's referred to as "Muslims at heart".

There you go, let the denial kick in.

No I'm not.

Gets tiring when it's with some less than bright members, or ones with massive egoes. Gets annoying when one has the power to shut you up with less than respectable ways.

You will want to check what the AUP says about attacks on other members before you carry on down this route.

The only thing unsurprising here is that you've yet again broke your own rules (and the forum's) as you've done before. I asked you how I can go forward with a mod doing that, and you conveniently ignored that question.

Nice try, but I didn't give you the temp ban.

Honestly, I am unsure whether you're incompetent or looking for an excuse to ban me. For someone that kept preaching context, you seem to take none into account when arguing with me.

Again with the insults and false accusations.

1. Definition of the word

1.1 Common (not necessarily original or accurate) definition #1
1.2 Common (not necessarily original or accurate) definition #2​

I've made it clear in at least FIVE posts that what I am trying to argue is 1.0, not 1.1 or 1.2. I'm arguing that the common definitions, 1.1 and 1.2, are not necessarily accurate and do not represent what the original word means. I didn't quote mine, I acknowledged 1.1 and 1.2 several times.

You insisted on ignoring that, and repeatedly hammered me with the common definitions instead. Hence, I quoted only thE definition so maybe you could see it clearly.

Your only argument could've been that Spoken English changes all the time and words used today do not mean what they used to mean. In that case, I would understand because nobody speaks Arabic in the world anymore. Nobody has spoken Quran's Arabic in hundreds of years. Heck, few people understand it. The modern traditional Arabic you hear delivered by news anchors or speeches is only spoken in those situations. This may surprise you, but the majority of Arabs don't even know how to speak traditional Arabic properly. You may ask any university professor in the middle east to confirm this. WITH THAT SAID, none of us here make belief that the common Arabic is correct Arabic. Something that you are trying to do with English and something I think is completely wrong because it turns debates into infinite loops. The first thing in a legal contract is definitions of words to be used in the contract. I said SEVERAL TIMES that we need to establish definitions first before we argue any sensitive topic such as this one.

​

Anyway you replied to NONE of my points, none of my questions and failed to produce a translation that argues your point against mine. I'll take that as a defeat and move on. Especially since the second half of the wiki article, which I haven't quoted, is even MORE DIRECT in confirming everything I said. I left that as a test to see what you'll do if/when you get it translated. Doesn't matter now I guess.

Not only have I replied to your points but I have included all of the points for discussion.

You do not get to make the decision as to which of the definitions is or is not accurate (Common definition are not stated as not being accurate - if that was the case you would have a point - but its not).

You deliberately missed out a part of the definition, which is blatant quote mining.

Given your post I would have to say that the time off has not been used wisely.

 

[Famine]

Have you been eagerly anticipating a reply for two weeks? That was quick

Nope. I was browsing the forum and this thread popped to the top of most recent posts.

I'm not sure why that's relevant.

Good for you. Your inner fight is settled then

It never occurred.

Does that mean that you are 100% certain they do not exist?

That would, in the absence of evidence, be a belief. It is not that case that I believe that no gods exist. I simply don't believe that they do. We've been over this.

I didn't say that at all

So what was all that tripe about atheists being "raw Islam" then?