User Tag List

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 68

Thread: Fun with the "I don't believe in God" shtick

  1. #46
    Over 750 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    917
    Thanks
    837
    Thanked 724 Times in 454 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    55715
    Quote Originally Posted by quip View Post
    Good question. I'll defer the answer to you....
    They: Allah; Christian God.
    Again, I do not assume that you are calling someone, or something, "Allah".
    If you are calling someone, or something, "Allah", then whom, or what, are you calling "Allah"?

    Again, I do not assume that you are calling someone, or something, "Christian God".
    If you are calling someone, or something, "Christian God", then whom, or what, are you calling "Christian God"?

    Quote Originally Posted by quip View Post
    Are "they" competing Gods or do both religions worship the same 'God'?
    I do not assume that you are calling someone, or something, "God", here. Whom, or what would you say you are calling "God", here?

  2. #47
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    5,815
    Thanks
    703
    Thanked 1,193 Times in 899 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    Again, I do not assume that you are calling someone, or something, "Allah".
    If you are calling someone, or something, "Allah", then whom, or what, are you calling "Allah"?

    Again, I do not assume that you are calling someone, or something, "Christian God".
    If you are calling someone, or something, "Christian God", then whom, or what, are you calling "Christian God"?



    I do not assume that you are calling someone, or something, "God", here. Whom, or what would you say you are calling "God", here?
    I do not assume you have a cogent answer....anymore.
    Good luck having fun with your thread.

  3. #48
    Over 750 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    917
    Thanks
    837
    Thanked 724 Times in 454 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    55715
    Quote Originally Posted by quip View Post
    Good question. I'll defer the answer to you....
    I ask quip what (if anything) quip is referring to by a word spoken by quip, in a context spoken by quip. Rather than answer the question, quipself, quip "defers" to me (someone who is not quip) to answer the question as to what (if anything) quip is referring by the word spoken by quip, in the context spoken by quip. Forgive me, but I'm not equipped to give an answer as to what (if anything) quip is referring to by a word spoken by quip, in a context spoken by quip, as I am no mind-reader.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 7djengo7 For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 10th, 2019),ok doser (August 8th, 2019)

  5. #49
    Over 750 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    917
    Thanks
    837
    Thanked 724 Times in 454 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    55715
    Quote Originally Posted by quip View Post
    I do not assume you have a cogent answer....anymore.
    Good luck having fun with your thread.
    Fortunately for you, you never even asked me any question(s). You see, the stuff you have been writing in this thread is meaningless. But, whatever is meaningless is not a question. Questions are meaningful. Every question is about something, or someone. In order to ask a question, you would need to be talking about something, or someone. Since, when you say the word "Allah" (for instance), you are not referring to anything by it--you are not talking about anything--then, whenever you say "Is Allah blah blah blah?", you are not asking a question--you are merely saying a meaningless string of words. There's no necessity that, just because you say something, you are saying something meaningful. There's, of course, no necessity that, just because you write some words with a question mark, you're, thereby, asking a question.

    Good luck having fun continuing to say words meaninglessly, such as "Allah", "God", and other words, and then having to say to other people, who aren't you, "What do I, quip, mean by the word 'Allah', and the word 'God'....? Can't somebody please tell me what I, quip, am calling 'Allah' whenever I, quip, call something 'Allah', and what I, quip, am calling 'God' whenever I, quip, call something 'God'...?" In other words, have fun with your dadaism.

    Remember, quip: You are the one saying the word, "Allah", as though you imagine you are calling something, or someone, "Allah". I, on the other hand, do not call anyone, or anything, "Allah".

    Feel free to drop by, anytime, when you've cooled off.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 7djengo7 For Your Post:

    ok doser (August 8th, 2019),Right Divider (August 8th, 2019)

  7. #50
    Over 3000 post club
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,676
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1,213 Times in 855 Posts

    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    285396
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    I see (and, I confess, I foresaw) the problem you've got, here.

    Your problem is that I, for one, do not call any person, place, or thing, "Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl, the God Who exists". Further, I do not believe that you are denoting any person, place, or thing by that phrase. Since I do not believe you mean anything by that phrase, I do not believe that, by what you have written in your brackets (viz., "The tautology, 'Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl , the God Who exists, exists'"), you have expressed a proposition (not even a false one), let alone a tautological one.

    You see, propositions are about things: every proposition has a subject. While I don't believe that your phrase, "Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl, the God Who exists", is any subject's name--that is, that you are referring to some subject by means of your phrase--I'm certainly not going to be able to believe that you are affirming a proposition when you say, "The tautology, 'Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl , the God Who exists, exists'".
    Do you have any idea of how formal logic works?
    Do you know what a tautology is?

    I think you are deliberately playing ridiculous semantic games as a way of wasting other people's time.
    I've wasted enough of mine.
    Have fun with your thread.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to chair For Your Post:

    Guyver (August 9th, 2019)

  9. #51
    Over 750 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    917
    Thanks
    837
    Thanked 724 Times in 454 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    55715
    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    Do you have any idea of how formal logic works?
    Yes. Unfortunately, you are manifestly a dunce concerning logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    Do you know what a tautology is?
    Yes. But you obviously do not know what a tautology is.

    You imagine you know what a tautology is? Then why don't you tell me, Professor, what you would say a tautology is? Tell me what you would say makes something a tautology. Give me an example of something you would say is a tautology, and tell me exactly why you would say it is a tautology.

    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    I think you are deliberately playing ridiculous semantic games as a way of wasting other people's time.
    Translation: "Polly wanna cracker, grumble grumble."

    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    I've wasted enough of mine.
    You've obviously wasted some time, throughout your lifetime, during which you could have, instead of whatever you were wasting your time with, tried to learn the elementary principles of logic, and to learn what a tautology is. Why did you set out to try to waste MY time, by spamming my thread, while you do not even know what a tautology is?

    But, don't worry: you didn't waste my time. You performed your idiotic role just how I had envisioned when I started this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    Have fun with your thread.
    Have fun with the memory of your failure to deal with my thread. And, have fun with your irrationality--your professing to not believe the tautology, 'YHWH, the eternally-existing, personal Creator of mankind, Who exists, exists'. Only fools can profess to not believe a tautology.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to 7djengo7 For Your Post:

    ok doser (August 9th, 2019)

  11. #52
    Over 750 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    917
    Thanks
    837
    Thanked 724 Times in 454 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    55715
    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    Major Premise: [Every tautology] is [true],
    'Every tautology is true', is, indeed, a proposition, and a true one, at that. But, in the context you wrote, it is not functioning as a premise, despite your having (mis)labeled it, "Major Premise"; what you wrote is no syllogism.

    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    Minor Premise: [The tautology, 'Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl , the God Who exists, exists'] is [a tautology],
    Since your string of words, "The tautology, 'Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl , the God Who exists, exists'", is meaningless, no proposition is expressed therein. Since no proposition is expressed therein, what you have (mis)labeled "Minor Premise", is no premise at all; what you wrote is no syllogism.

    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    Therefore,
    Conclusion: [The tautology, 'Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl , the God Who exists, exists'] is [true].
    Since your string of words, "The tautology, 'Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl , the God Who exists, exists'", is meaningless, no proposition is expressed therein. Since no proposition is expressed therein, what you have (mis)labeled "Conclusion", is no conclusion at all; what you wrote is no syllogism.

    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    Do you see the problem now?
    As you and I both know, you do see your problem now. That's why you got up, turned tail, and left in a snit, like quip did.

  12. #53
    Over 750 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    917
    Thanks
    837
    Thanked 724 Times in 454 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    55715
    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    I think you are deliberately playing ridiculous semantic games
    Let's see, now....You and quip are the ones who, when I ask you whom (if anyone), or what (if anything) you are calling "Allah" and "Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl", are forced to stonewall against my question. Y'all are trying to play some sort of shell game; you say a word, or phrase, meaninglessly, while pretending that you mean something by it, and yet, when I ask you to tell me what (if anything) you imagine is under that "shell" (that is, what (if anything) you mean by that word, or phrase), you can't do anything but snottily disregard my request. This is because you mean nothing by the word, or phrase, I've asked you about. I'm just the guy who comes along and points out that, despite all your shell shuffling, there's no meaning under your shells; you're scammers. Y'all initiated the game; I merely shed light on the fact that your game is rigged. And, what's super sad is that, though I wasn't even playing your game along with y'all, you, nevertheless, still lost at your own game.

    Birds of a feather flock together. That, chair, is why you're far from the first parrot I've heard mechanically, meaninglessly, reactively squawk out a trite phrase like "semantic games" due to your embarrassment of yourself by your warring against truth and logic. It's simply a wound-licking measure on your part.

  13. #54
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,876
    Thanks
    2,770
    Thanked 4,816 Times in 2,891 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147737
    Quote Originally Posted by The Horn View Post
    There is absolutely nothing "irrational " about being an atheist .
    Er, yes there is. It is a man, who BLATANTLY has very little experience in the universe, saying something about what he CANNOT POSSIBLY assert with any sense of logical conviction. Also, Djengo is saying that if an atheist says this to a Christian, he/she is simply denying their tautology as if 'denial' is justified when again, it cannot possibly be. Thus is the arrogance and sadly, ignorance. of ANY atheist. They seriously, CANNOT be but by ignorance/arrogance. Impossible otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Horn View Post
    I'm an agnostic, not an atheist , so I neither believe nor disbelieve in a God .
    If you are 'comfortable' in staying there, then it is a cop-out. An excuse to do and know nothing (either lazy or giving up).


    Quote Originally Posted by The Horn View Post
    But atheists are people w ho don't accept anything blindly , which is a good thing .
    Its blatant and arrogant AND ignorant, frankly. BETTER to say "I don't know yet" or something of the sort:

    "I don't know, cannot possibly know, but wonder...."

    "I don't know but don't like Whom you are describing...."

    "I, being a finite and relatively uneducated person as to the vast universe, don't really know, but He hasn't visited me yet...."

    Etc.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Horn View Post
    People have the right to believe or disbelieve in whatever they choose to .
    Who said otherwise? Djengo simply made a statement about the particulars of those rights. They can be cornered for whatever they don't keep to themselves.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Lon For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 10th, 2019)

  15. #55
    Over 3000 post club
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,676
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1,213 Times in 855 Posts

    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    285396
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    let's take a look at an interesting argument:


    Major Premise: [Every tautology] is [true],
    Minor Premise: [The tautology, 'YHWH, the God Who exists, exists'] is [a tautology],
    Therefore,
    Conclusion: [The tautology, 'YHWH, the God Who exists, exists'] is [true]
    .



    Obviously, you despise the proposition that is the conclusion of this valid, sound argument. So, which premise(s) would you like to say is/are false?
    This is your argument. It makes as little or as much sense when one replaces "YHWH" with the name of any other god.

    As far as Tautologies, you can check the Wikipedia for an explanation:
    In logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation. An example of a tautology is "(x equals y) or (x does not equal y)". A less abstract example is "The ball is green or the ball is not green". It is either one or the other - it cannot be both and there are no other possibilities.

    What is the point of this thread? It doesn't prove anything about God. It may be useful in that it builds up your ego, but only in a rather sad way, as you are not coming across as smart as you apparently think you are.

    I apologize to myself for spending 5 more minutes on this.

    I'll spend some extra time studying the tractate Tevul Yom to make up for it.

  16. #56
    Over 750 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    917
    Thanks
    837
    Thanked 724 Times in 454 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    55715
    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    This is your argument. It makes as little or as much sense when one replaces "YHWH" with the name of any other god.
    How many different things do you call "god"? And, what things are they that you call "god"? I only call YHWH, "God". Please tell me what thing(s) you think I should, along with you, be calling "god". And, tell me why you think I should be calling it/them "god".

    Do you think that the tautology, 'YHWH, the God Who exists, exists', does not make sense? Why?
    Do you think that your non-tautology, "Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl, the God Who exists, exists", makes sense? Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    As far as Tautologies, you can check the Wikipedia for an explanation:
    In logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation. An example of a tautology is "(x equals y) or (x does not equal y)". A less abstract example is "The ball is green or the ball is not green". It is either one or the other - it cannot be both and there are no other possibilities.
    You consider your non-tautology, "Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl, the God Who exists, exists", to be a tautology. And, since you apparently like, and revere what is written in your quote from wikipedia, surely you're willing to say, of your non-tautology, that it "is true in every possible interpretation"?? So, please list some things you would call "possible interpretations" of your non-tautology, "Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl, the God Who exists, exists".

    Oh, and notice how you have just said that your string of nonsense ("Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl, the God Who exists, exists") is true, in your saying that it is "true in every possible interpretation". Of course, no rationally-thinking person could ever say that "Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl, the God Who exists, exists" is true.

    Oh, and notice that the magisterial professor(s) who wrote your wikipedia quote have this phrase, "formula or assertion". What (if either) would you call your non-tautology? A "formula"? An "assertion"? Both? And, what (if anything) would you say makes something a formula? And, what (if anything) would you say makes something an assertion?

    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    What is the point of this thread?
    Here, when you say "What is the point of this thread?", all you're actually doing is venting some of your emotion, and not asking a question; you're just grumbling.

    Here's an actual question, though, for you: What is your point in saying your phrase, "Tlatlauhca-Cinteōtl, the God Who exists", despite the fact that you are not even referring to anyone, or anything, by it? Was your point merely to make some meaningless noise by it?

    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    It doesn't prove anything about God.
    Here is yet another word you say entirely meaninglessly: "prove". Again, it's purely emotive on your part. Whenever God-haters say things like, "Prove that God exists", or "You can't prove that God exists", or "You have not proved that God exists", etc., what you're saying amounts to no more than, "No matter what you do or say, I refuse to believe that God exists, and you can't force me to believe it, so there, idiot!!!!!"

    What (if anything) would you say it is to prove the proposition, P? Were you to say, "The proposition, P, has been proved", what (if anything) do you imagine you mean by it?

    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    It may be useful in that it builds up your ego, but only in a rather sad way, as you are not coming across as smart as you apparently think you are.
    Um, I probably should start thoughtlessly parroting quotes from wikipedia (like you've done) just so that I can come across at least as smart as you apparently think you are.

    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    I apologize to myself for spending 5 more minutes on this.
    Oh, good. Thanks for sharing!

    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    I'll spend some extra time studying the tractate Tevul Yom to make up for it.
    How would that be any better use of time than playing Super Mario Bros.?

  17. #57
    Over 3000 post club
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,676
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1,213 Times in 855 Posts

    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    285396
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    How many different things do you call "god"? ...
    There are idiots, and there are arrogant idiots. Such is the world.

  18. #58
    Over 750 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    917
    Thanks
    837
    Thanked 724 Times in 454 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    55715
    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    It makes as little or as much sense when one replaces "YHWH" with the name of any other god.
    Quote Originally Posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    How many different things do you call "god"? And, what things are they that you call "god"?
    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    There are idiots, and there are arrogant idiots. Such is the world.
    Were chair to respond to my question by protesting, "I don't call anything 'god'", then he, therein, would be admitting that, when he said "...with the name of any other god", he was saying the word, "god", meaninglessly, and thus, was saying the phrase, "...with the name of any other god", meaninglessly. In other words, chair would, thereby, be admitting to having done nothing more than emitting some meaningless noise, when he said "...with the name of any other god." We can understand why chair would want to not admit to having gabbled meaninglessly, like a parrot.

    Were chair, on the other hand, to respond to my question by saying, "I call many things 'god', and I will enumerate some of them for you...", he would be putting himself in the position of needing to explain why, exactly, he calls this, that, and the other thing, "god". Of course, we can also understand why chair would want to not be in that position.

    So, what does chair do? As you can see, chair finds it most palatable to his taste to choose to stonewall against these questions. Of course, instead of just holding his peace, and silently not reacting to the questions which embarrass him, we see that chair has chosen to try to vent his chagrin by (irrelevantly) telling us that there are idiots, and arrogant idiots. Perhaps he was trying to hint that he is one of such? That is, that chair's thinking in this thread has been idiotic, and that, though it's as plain as daylight that such is the case, chair is just so arrogant that he refuses to confess that his thinking has been idiotic.

  19. #59
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    5,815
    Thanks
    703
    Thanked 1,193 Times in 899 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    It is a man, who BLATANTLY has very little experience in the universe, saying something about what he CANNOT POSSIBLY assert with any sense of logical conviction.
    Then the believer in God CANNOT POSSIBLY assert, with any possible conviction, an existing God.
    But is that a bad thing? If so..why?

  20. #60
    Over 750 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    917
    Thanks
    837
    Thanked 724 Times in 454 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    55715
    Quote Originally Posted by quip View Post
    Then the believer in God CANNOT POSSIBLY assert, with any possible conviction, an existing God.
    But is that a bad thing? If so..why?
    One of your problems, here, is that the phrase, "assert without conviction", is an oxymoron, and thus, meaningless, just like the phrase, "a square that is a circle", is meaningless.

    One cannot assert what one is not convicted of.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us