Author Topic: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!  (Read 5062 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Willie

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 622
  • Darwins +68/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #116 on: December 28, 2013, 05:31:05 AM »
...
1 : archaic : UNGODLINESS , WICKEDNESS
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b:the doctrine that there is no deity
...
(bold mine)

From merriam-webster.com:

Quote
dis·be·lief
noun \?dis-b?-?le-f\

: a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real
Full Definition of DISBELIEF
the act of disbelieving :  mental rejection of something as untrue
(bold mine)

Also from same source:

Quote
dis·be·lieve
verb \-?le-v\

: to not believe (someone or something)
Full Definition of DISBELIEVE
transitive verb
:  to hold not worthy of belief :  not believe
intransitive verb
:  to withhold or reject belief
(bold mine)

From this it is clear that to simply not believe is within the accepted use of the word "atheism", even if it isn't the primary definition given by Webster's. And, as Antidote pointed out, it is, in fact, the primary definition from at least one source (Google). And in case you had in mind to dismiss that source as being insufficiently authoritative, Google's definition matches Oxford's online dictionary verbatim.

More importantly, this is the meaining that very nearly all self-described atheists adhere to. So until you concede this point, there is no possibility for you to have a rational discussion about atheists or atheism. You are indeed battling a straw man. There is no one here who fits your definition, and you'll be hard pressed to find anyone anywhere who does.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2013, 05:34:16 AM by Willie »

Offline Anfauglir

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6191
  • Darwins +407/-4
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #117 on: December 28, 2013, 06:31:16 AM »
Harbinger, can you explain the interaction between dictionaries and the evolution of language?  Which one defines the other?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #118 on: December 29, 2013, 03:18:14 PM »
To be an Atheist one must say "there is no God." It's an extreme position. This implies there is knowledge acquired that you simply don't have. You state this based on the fact, as some have said, "I've never seen Him." You are depending on things unseen to form your opinion. that's the very definition of faith. Atheism is illogical.
That's a whole lot of weird shit to agree could possibly be true, Harbinger.  Do you admit all that and argue the possibilities in your daily life?
I have 7 kids. my wife has no time to cheat. Why you add this to the list is unknown but disgusting!


You've never seen your wife's lover, Harbinger, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist....by your logic.  You must surely at least entertain the possibility that he exists?

Don't depend on things unseen to prove your opinion.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and all that.

Or are you saying that your observations of the world CAN lead you to conclude for DEFINITE that something does not exist?

That you would even use my wife in such a way... the very idea is disrespectful, distasteful, and  disgusting. However, I will respond. My wife is a good Christian woman. Furthermore, she doesn't have the time or energy to have a lover, Due to having 7 kids. What man would even want to get all mixed up in that anyway? She is very committed to our family and aside from grocery shopping she is most always with family. The odds that she has a lover would be astronomical. For the sake of argument though the odds can't be reduced to zero. Therefore, yes it is possible.
Now kindly leave my wife out of this. Thank You.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2013, 03:23:32 PM by harbinger77 »
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Darwins +18/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #119 on: December 29, 2013, 04:09:36 PM »
To be an Atheist one must say "there is no God." It's an extreme position. This implies there is knowledge acquired that you simply don't have. You state this based on the fact, as some have said, "I've never seen Him." You are depending on things unseen to form your opinion. that's the very definition of faith. Atheism is illogical.
That's a whole lot of weird shit to agree could possibly be true, Harbinger.  Do you admit all that and argue the possibilities in your daily life?
I have 7 kids. my wife has no time to cheat. Why you add this to the list is unknown but disgusting!


You've never seen your wife's lover, Harbinger, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist....by your logic.  You must surely at least entertain the possibility that he exists?

Don't depend on things unseen to prove your opinion.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and all that.

Or are you saying that your observations of the world CAN lead you to conclude for DEFINITE that something does not exist?

That you would even use my wife in such a way... the very idea is disrespectful, distasteful, and  disgusting. However, I will respond. My wife is a good Christian woman. Furthermore, she doesn't have the time or energy to have a lover, Due to having 7 kids. What man would even want to get all mixed up in that anyway? She is very committed to our family and aside from grocery shopping she is most always with family. The odds that she has a lover would be astronomical. For the sake of argument though the odds can't be reduced to zero. Therefore, yes it is possible.
Now kindly leave my wife out of this. Thank You.

You're the one who brought your wife into it.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #120 on: December 29, 2013, 04:38:08 PM »
My position is Atheism is illogical.
I assume all who argue stand in direct opposition and are defending
 Atheism Is logical.
 By this argumet:

I believe there IS a God
There IS a God.
I know there IS a God
These are all perfectly logical statements??
Part of my argument is that these are also illogical. I did notice no one wants to address this. If one is logical based on "belief". The other must be logical as well, by the same argument.

I think it's important to say "believe" (not know) is rooted in emotion. Therefore it is also illogical.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-divided-mind/201207/logic-and-emotion

The believe is implied...
"I don't believe there is a God"
"there is no god." (oppinion states an unsaid believe unless you really mean know)
"I know there is no God" (this is the most extreme and the most illogical position)

Lets look at doctrine:

doc·trine /?däktrin/ Noun:
1. A belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group
2. A stated principle of government policy, mainly in foreign or military affairs
http://www.google.com/m?q=define+doctrine&client=ms-opera-mini-android&channel=new

Would you teach:
1: There is no god. (an absolute)
2:There may not be a god. (opinion)
I'm positive the "fact" would be presented. Maybe in the form of evolution perhaps?

Note: this is a comment on teaching not evolution other than it says there is no God and my children learn it.

A straw man , also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally , [1][2] is a common type of argument and is an
informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. [3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having denied a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet
inequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to deny it, without ever having actually denied the
original position.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I defined Atheism.. I worked from the definition. I provided the link to the definition. In order to be a strawman I would have had to misrepresent the definition. I did not.
If I mentally reject something (God) as untrue Then I believe God is a lie. Therefore There is no God is a belief that pure logic would say you can't know the answer to. Atheism is illogical. Unless you have evidence and can then reduce the odds of God to zero. You are agnostic at best.
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline Anfauglir

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6191
  • Darwins +407/-4
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #121 on: December 29, 2013, 04:38:48 PM »
You've never seen your wife's lover, Harbinger, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist....by your logic.  You must surely at least entertain the possibility that he exists?

Or are you saying that your observations of the world CAN lead you to conclude for DEFINITE that something does not exist?

That you would even use my wife in such a way... the very idea is disrespectful, distasteful, and  disgusting. However, I will respond. ...... The odds that she has a lover would be astronomical. For the sake of argument though the odds can't be reduced to zero. Therefore, yes it is possible.


Oh my.  You'd actually prefer to state your wife could be having an affair than admit you could be wrong in an internet discussion?  And you have the nerve to call ME disrespectful, distasteful, and disgusting? 

I think we're done here - I've now seen how far you will go in order not to have to admit you could be wrong.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #122 on: December 29, 2013, 04:39:33 PM »
To be an Atheist one must say "there is no God." It's an extreme position. This implies there is knowledge acquired that you simply don't have. You state this based on the fact, as some have said, "I've never seen Him." You are depending on things unseen to form your opinion. that's the very definition of faith. Atheism is illogical.
That's a whole lot of weird shit to agree could possibly be true, Harbinger.  Do you admit all that and argue the possibilities in your daily life?
I have 7 kids. my wife has no time to cheat. Why you add this to the list is unknown but disgusting!


You've never seen your wife's lover, Harbinger, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist....by your logic.  You must surely at least entertain the possibility that he exists?

Don't depend on things unseen to prove your opinion.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and all that.

Or are you saying that your observations of the world CAN lead you to conclude for DEFINITE that something does not exist?

That you would even use my wife in such a way... the very idea is disrespectful, distasteful, and  disgusting. However, I will respond. My wife is a good Christian woman. Furthermore, she doesn't have the time or energy to have a lover, Due to having 7 kids. What man would even want to get all mixed up in that anyway? She is very committed to our family and aside from grocery shopping she is most always with family. The odds that she has a lover would be astronomical. For the sake of argument though the odds can't be reduced to zero. Therefore, yes it is possible.
Now kindly leave my wife out of this. Thank You.

You're the one who brought your wife into it.

no this quote is selective.
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline Anfauglir

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6191
  • Darwins +407/-4
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #123 on: December 29, 2013, 04:41:30 PM »

You're the one who brought your wife into it.

He didn't actually - I included it as one of a large range of options, which for some reason harbinger chose as the one to take forward.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #124 on: December 29, 2013, 04:43:26 PM »
To be an Atheist one must say "there is no God." It's an extreme position. This implies there is knowledge acquired that you simply don't have. You state this based on the fact, as some have said, "I've never seen Him." You are depending on things unseen to form your opinion. that's the very definition of faith. Atheism is illogical.

Harbinger therefore believes there could be ghosts, aliens abducting people, Bigfoot, a leprechaun under his bed, that his wife cheats on him, that the CIA are beaming thoughts into his head, that elves steal his pocket change, that Obama is a cyborg lizard from Rigel IV.

That's a whole lot of weird shit to agree could possibly be true, Harbinger.  Do you admit all that and argue the possibilities in your daily life?

This is the full quote that introduced my wife.
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #125 on: December 29, 2013, 04:47:17 PM »

You're the one who brought your wife into it.

He didn't actually - I included it as one of a large range of options, which for some reason harbinger chose as the one to take forward.

thank you...
I did address all of what you mentioned though not just the wife. I'm very surprised I didn't get hammered on believing in demonic activity or other things I brought forward though.
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2442
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #126 on: December 29, 2013, 04:47:56 PM »

I defined Atheism.. I worked from the definition. I provided the link to the definition. In order to be a strawman I would have had to misrepresent the definition. I did not.
If I mentally reject something (God) as untrue Then I believe God is a lie. Therefore There is no God is a belief that pure logic would say you can't know the answer to. Atheism is illogical. Unless you have evidence and can then reduce the odds of God to zero. You are agnostic at best.

Well its disrespectful at the very least to define something aside from sking the atheists about their belief. In fact you have made your own definition and runn with it and thus your own definition to the extent that you ignore what atheists actualy believe is a strawman.

Most people here take the view that there is insufficient evidence (basically none) to justify belief in a god and thus they do not believe in one. There is no need to muddle this up with doctrine and beliefs it is simple and plain you, Harbinger, can understand it. You have been given the chance to enlighten us with the evidence for a god and all you can say is that it is emotional - hardly good evidence for anything.

Please stop this mi-representation of atheists and get back on course to show us the evidence for your god.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Willie

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 622
  • Darwins +68/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #127 on: December 29, 2013, 04:53:07 PM »
It should be noted that Anfauglir listed the wife cheating among a list of unlikely or even absurd things that Harbinger must logically accept as possible because he does not have universal knowledge. Outside of Harbinger's imagination, there was no negative or ugly implication in that. It seems as if Harbinger was actually looking for some excuse to play the victim, even going so far as to misrepresent another's intent in order to do it.

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #128 on: December 29, 2013, 04:56:15 PM »
You've never seen your wife's lover, Harbinger, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist....by your logic.  You must surely at least entertain the possibility that he exists?

Or are you saying that your observations of the world CAN lead you to conclude for DEFINITE that something does not exist?

That you would even use my wife in such a way... the very idea is disrespectful, distasteful, and  disgusting. However, I will respond. ...... The odds that she has a lover would be astronomical. For the sake of argument though the odds can't be reduced to zero. Therefore, yes it is possible.


Oh my.  You'd actually prefer to state your wife could be having an affair than admit you could be wrong in an internet discussion?  And you have the nerve to call ME disrespectful, distasteful, and disgusting? 

I think we're done here - I've now seen how far you will go in order not to have to admit you could be wrong.

I almost didn't comment but from experience that's just as bad. i discussed this with my wife. We had a good laugh.
What you see here is logic with no emotion to cloud it. I'm sorry I didn't fight you on the logic side of things.
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #129 on: December 29, 2013, 05:00:23 PM »
It should be noted that Anfauglir listed the wife cheating among a list of unlikely or even absurd things that Harbinger must logically accept as possible because he does not have universal knowledge. Outside of Harbinger's imagination, there was no negative or ugly implication in that. It seems as if Harbinger was actually looking for some excuse to play the victim, even going so far as to misrepresent another's intent in order to do it.

I disagree. I just think some things should be off limits. including it was out of bounds. regardless of intent. it didn't further the point at all. That's my opinion though. I spoke my mind and it's done. Can we move on to the logical argument now?
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline Willie

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 622
  • Darwins +68/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #130 on: December 29, 2013, 05:04:07 PM »
It should be noted that Anfauglir listed the wife cheating among a list of unlikely or even absurd things that Harbinger must logically accept as possible because he does not have universal knowledge. Outside of Harbinger's imagination, there was no negative or ugly implication in that. It seems as if Harbinger was actually looking for some excuse to play the victim, even going so far as to misrepresent another's intent in order to do it.

I disagree. I just think some things should be off limits. including it was out of bounds. regardless of intent. it didn't further the point at all. That's my opinion though. I spoke my mind and it's done. Can we move on to the logical argument now?

The only offense committed is yours. But sure, let's move on, despite your refusal to handle it honorably.


Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #131 on: December 29, 2013, 05:12:10 PM »

I defined Atheism.. I worked from the definition. I provided the link to the definition. In order to be a strawman I would have had to misrepresent the definition. I did not.
If I mentally reject something (God) as untrue Then I believe God is a lie. Therefore There is no God is a belief that pure logic would say you can't know the answer to. Atheism is illogical. Unless you have evidence and can then reduce the odds of God to zero. You are agnostic at best.

Well its disrespectful at the very least to define something aside from sking the atheists about their belief. In fact you have made your own definition and runn with it and thus your own definition to the extent that you ignore what atheists actualy believe is a strawman.

Most people here take the view that there is insufficient evidence (basically none) to justify belief in a god and thus they do not believe in one. There is no need to muddle this up with doctrine and beliefs it is simple and plain you, Harbinger, can understand it. You have been given the chance to enlighten us with the evidence for a god and all you can say is that it is emotional - hardly good evidence for anything.

Please stop this mi-representation of atheists and get back on course to show us the evidence for your god.

I disagree believing there is no god is something you said by giving yourself a label that can be defined. I didn't make up my own definition either. I defined the word and provided a link to the definition I used.
I'm a Theist. I'm a Christian. By these examples the unsaid can fill books As to what these labels imply I believe. If you disagree redefine yourself. If you can't be defined as atheist what are you? There are only 2 other options.

If most people hold out for evidence then by definition they are not atheist. As that implies they also belive that maybe possibly there could be evidence someday.

Also I believe 4 people wanted me to redirect to this topic. It wasn't my idea.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2013, 05:23:58 PM by harbinger77 »
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline Willie

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 622
  • Darwins +68/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #132 on: December 29, 2013, 05:15:36 PM »

I defined Atheism.. I worked from the definition. I provided the link to the definition. In order to be a strawman I would have had to misrepresent the definition. I did not.
If I mentally reject something (God) as untrue Then I believe God is a lie. Therefore There is no God is a belief that pure logic would say you can't know the answer to. Atheism is illogical. Unless you have evidence and can then reduce the odds of God to zero. You are agnostic at best.

Well its disrespectful at the very least to define something aside from sking the atheists about their belief. In fact you have made your own definition and runn with it and thus your own definition to the extent that you ignore what atheists actualy believe is a strawman.

Most people here take the view that there is insufficient evidence (basically none) to justify belief in a god and thus they do not believe in one. There is no need to muddle this up with doctrine and beliefs it is simple and plain you, Harbinger, can understand it. You have been given the chance to enlighten us with the evidence for a god and all you can say is that it is emotional - hardly good evidence for anything.

Please stop this mi-representation of atheists and get back on course to show us the evidence for your god.

I disagree believing there is no god is something you said by giving yourself a label that can be defined. I didn't make up my own definition either. I defined the word and provided a link to the definition I used.
I'm a Theist. I'm a Christian. By these examples the unsaid can fill books As to what these labels imply I believe. If you disagree redefine yourself. If you can't be defined as atheist what are you? There are only 2 other options.

Also I believe 4 people wanted me to redirect to this topic. It wasn't my idea.

There is really no reason to continue debating with you. You are continuing to attack a straw-man, and at this point, you are just flat out lying in order to defend that position.

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #133 on: December 29, 2013, 05:27:23 PM »

I defined Atheism.. I worked from the definition. I provided the link to the definition. In order to be a strawman I would have had to misrepresent the definition. I did not.
If I mentally reject something (God) as untrue Then I believe God is a lie. Therefore There is no God is a belief that pure logic would say you can't know the answer to. Atheism is illogical. Unless you have evidence and can then reduce the odds of God to zero. You are agnostic at best.

Well its disrespectful at the very least to define something aside from sking the atheists about their belief. In fact you have made your own definition and runn with it and thus your own definition to the extent that you ignore what atheists actualy believe is a strawman.

Most people here take the view that there is insufficient evidence (basically none) to justify belief in a god and thus they do not believe in one. There is no need to muddle this up with doctrine and beliefs it is simple and plain you, Harbinger, can understand it. You have been given the chance to enlighten us with the evidence for a god and all you can say is that it is emotional - hardly good evidence for anything.

Please stop this mi-representation of atheists and get back on course to show us the evidence for your god.

I disagree believing there is no god is something you said by giving yourself a label that can be defined. I didn't make up my own definition either. I defined the word and provided a link to the definition I used.
I'm a Theist. I'm a Christian. By these examples the unsaid can fill books As to what these labels imply I believe. If you disagree redefine yourself. If you can't be defined as atheist what are you? There are only 2 other options.

Also I believe 4 people wanted me to redirect to this topic. It wasn't my idea.

There is really no reason to continue debating with you. You are continuing to attack a straw-man, and at this point, you are just flat out lying in order to defend that position.

I didn't misrepresent anything. i even defined strawman to show this. Could you point out my lie please. remove your emotion.
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline Willie

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 622
  • Darwins +68/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #134 on: December 29, 2013, 05:35:37 PM »

I defined Atheism.. I worked from the definition. I provided the link to the definition. In order to be a strawman I would have had to misrepresent the definition. I did not.
If I mentally reject something (God) as untrue Then I believe God is a lie. Therefore There is no God is a belief that pure logic would say you can't know the answer to. Atheism is illogical. Unless you have evidence and can then reduce the odds of God to zero. You are agnostic at best.

Well its disrespectful at the very least to define something aside from sking the atheists about their belief. In fact you have made your own definition and runn with it and thus your own definition to the extent that you ignore what atheists actualy believe is a strawman.

Most people here take the view that there is insufficient evidence (basically none) to justify belief in a god and thus they do not believe in one. There is no need to muddle this up with doctrine and beliefs it is simple and plain you, Harbinger, can understand it. You have been given the chance to enlighten us with the evidence for a god and all you can say is that it is emotional - hardly good evidence for anything.

Please stop this mi-representation of atheists and get back on course to show us the evidence for your god.

I disagree believing there is no god is something you said by giving yourself a label that can be defined. I didn't make up my own definition either. I defined the word and provided a link to the definition I used.
I'm a Theist. I'm a Christian. By these examples the unsaid can fill books As to what these labels imply I believe. If you disagree redefine yourself. If you can't be defined as atheist what are you? There are only 2 other options.

Also I believe 4 people wanted me to redirect to this topic. It wasn't my idea.

There is really no reason to continue debating with you. You are continuing to attack a straw-man, and at this point, you are just flat out lying in order to defend that position.

I didn't misrepresent anything. i even defined strawman to show this. Could you point out my lie please. remove your emotion.

See bolding above. The lie is in your continued insistence that your preferred definition is the only valid one. It has already been established that it is not. There was a point where this could have been written off as misconception or ignorance, but we're well past that now. All that remains is dishonesty.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6108
  • Darwins +685/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #135 on: December 29, 2013, 05:45:04 PM »
Harbinger

There are still people today who insist that the earth is flat. Am I wrong in being an a-flattist? Am I supposed to instead be, at the most, agnostic about the concept, even though evidence for a round earth proliferates? Am I not allowed to judge for myself about controversial ideas and decide where I stand without having my position on the issue be defined by the opposing forces?

I see zero evidence for a god or gods. I see no evidence that believers benefit in any way other than sometimes mentally, and I attribute that to vivid imaginations, not gods. Christians don't, on average, live longer, better, healthier or happier lives. I have neither seen nor heard of any concrete benefit that didn't sound psychological (and which is, I've no doubt, real. The psychological part, not the religious part that artificially causes it.)

The bible does not match reality enough to even be considered useful, let alone authoritative. It makes claim after claim that can be shown to be false. It gets history wrong, biology wrong, travel stories wrong, geography wrong and weather reports wrong. It is educational in the sense that it teaches its people what not to learn, which is anything that doesn't support the story.

And it creates followers who seem to think that all non-followers are on the cusp, in need of just a nudge to become instant believers.

If the only "evidence" for a god I can find is people insisting that he is real, why should I be forced to redefine my own view just to make a christian feel better? I have seen absolutely no concrete evidence that there is a god but you feel comfortable telling me that I can't be sure, so I can't be an atheist.

Do you want me telling you that you can't be a true believer because I know there is no god so you're not allowed?

I don't think so.

Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #136 on: December 29, 2013, 10:45:03 PM »

I defined Atheism.. I worked from the definition. I provided the link to the definition. In order to be a strawman I would have had to misrepresent the definition. I did not.
If I mentally reject something (God) as untrue Then I believe God is a lie. Therefore There is no God is a belief that pure logic would say you can't know the answer to. Atheism is illogical. Unless you have evidence and can then reduce the odds of God to zero. You are agnostic at best.

Well its disrespectful at the very least to define something aside from sking the atheists about their belief. In fact you have made your own definition and runn with it and thus your own definition to the extent that you ignore what atheists actualy believe is a strawman.

Most people here take the view that there is insufficient evidence (basically none) to justify belief in a god and thus they do not believe in one. There is no need to muddle this up with doctrine and beliefs it is simple and plain you, Harbinger, can understand it. You have been given the chance to enlighten us with the evidence for a god and all you can say is that it is emotional - hardly good evidence for anything.

Please stop this mi-representation of atheists and get back on course to show us the evidence for your god.

I disagree believing there is no god is something you said by giving yourself a label that can be defined. I didn't make up my own definition either. I defined the word and provided a link to the definition I used.
I'm a Theist. I'm a Christian. By these examples the unsaid can fill books As to what these labels imply I believe. If you disagree redefine yourself. If you can't be defined as atheist what are you? There are only 2 other options.

Also I believe 4 people wanted me to redirect to this topic. It wasn't my idea.

There is really no reason to continue debating with you. You are continuing to attack a straw-man, and at this point, you are just flat out lying in order to defend that position.

I didn't misrepresent anything. i even defined strawman to show this. Could you point out my lie please. remove your emotion.

See bolding above. The lie is in your continued insistence that your preferred definition is the only valid one. It has already been established that it is not. There was a point where this could have been written off as misconception or ignorance, but we're well past that now. All that remains is dishonesty.

My "preferred definition" That would suggest you can find one that contradicts the one I used?
Maybe you missed it but the only thing that was defined after I defined atheist was "believe." it was an attempt to make "atheist" A flexible term. rather than an extreme position. The only one that is flexible is agnostic.
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #137 on: December 29, 2013, 11:18:19 PM »
Harbinger

There are still people today who insist that the earth is flat. Am I wrong in being an a-flattist? Am I supposed to instead be, at the most, agnostic about the concept, even though evidence for a round earth proliferates? Am I not allowed to judge for myself about controversial ideas and decide where I stand without having my position on the issue be defined by the opposing forces?

I see zero evidence for a god or gods. I see no evidence that believers benefit in any way other than sometimes mentally, and I attribute that to vivid imaginations, not gods. Christians don't, on average, live longer, better, healthier or happier lives. I have neither seen nor heard of any concrete benefit that didn't sound psychological (and which is, I've no doubt, real. The psychological part, not the religious part that artificially causes it.)

The bible does not match reality enough to even be considered useful, let alone authoritative. It makes claim after claim that can be shown to be false. It gets history wrong, biology wrong, travel stories wrong, geography wrong and weather reports wrong. It is educational in the sense that it teaches its people what not to learn, which is anything that doesn't support the story.

And it creates followers who seem to think that all non-followers are on the cusp, in need of just a nudge to become instant believers.

If the only "evidence" for a god I can find is people insisting that he is real, why should I be forced to redefine my own view just to make a christian feel better? I have seen absolutely no concrete evidence that there is a god but you feel comfortable telling me that I can't be sure, so I can't be an atheist.

Do you want me telling you that you can't be a true believer because I know there is no god so you're not allowed?

I don't think so.

come on..  really... I don't even think there are people who believe the earth is flat. I guess it's possible though. I would say since we have pictures of earth from space among other things we can logically reduce the odds to 0 therefore you are a moron if you think it's flat.
I'm pretty sure the definition I used was neutral not an "opposing force"
 
I'm not saying that you cant be true in your disbelief not even you are not allowed. believe what you want.

I simply said Atheism is illogical. I also took the position that Theism is also illogical. That side gets no play though. To say there are degrees of unbelief within Atheism is wrong. Only the term agnostic allows for degree of belief or unbelief.
These arguments have 0 to do with emotion or my own system of belief. I'm focused on the definition of terms. I'm not suggesting that because I believe a certain way you can't believe whatever you want.
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6108
  • Darwins +685/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #138 on: December 29, 2013, 11:30:50 PM »
come on..  really... I don't even think there are people who believe the earth is flat. I guess it's possible though. I would say since we have pictures of earth from space among other things we can logically reduce the odds to 0 therefore you are a moron if you think it's flat.
I'm pretty sure the definition I used was neutral not an "opposing force"
 
I'm not saying that you cant be true in your disbelief not even you are not allowed. believe what you want.

I simply said Atheism is illogical. I also took the position that Theism is also illogical. That side gets no play though. To say there are degrees of unbelief within Atheism is wrong. Only the term agnostic allows for degree of belief or unbelief.
These arguments have 0 to do with emotion or my own system of belief. I'm focused on the definition of terms. I'm not suggesting that because I believe a certain way you can't believe whatever you want.

Irrelevant except I used it as an example: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

I'm told that they are serious.

Okay, I consider the matter cleared up. I was reading your words to mean that our claim of atheism wasn't possible because we couldn't prove that there is no god, and that you were insisting we all change into agnostics (some of us here are agnostics, by the way. Not me though).

I'm fine with you having misconceptions, as long as you don't insist that we have to share them.

You of course think I have misconceptions, but I'm sure that you don't want me to insist that my interpretation of your religion is more accurate than your own. I'll settle for a stalemate in this department.

I think that religion is illogical. You feel the same about us. Our differences are why we disagree. As long as you'll let me be an atheist, I'll let you be a theist, and the conversations can continue.

Carry on.

Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #139 on: December 30, 2013, 01:33:21 AM »
come on..  really... I don't even think there are people who believe the earth is flat. I guess it's possible though. I would say since we have pictures of earth from space among other things we can logically reduce the odds to 0 therefore you are a moron if you think it's flat.
I'm pretty sure the definition I used was neutral not an "opposing force"
 
I'm not saying that you cant be true in your disbelief not even you are not allowed. believe what you want.

I simply said Atheism is illogical. I also took the position that Theism is also illogical. That side gets no play though. To say there are degrees of unbelief within Atheism is wrong. Only the term agnostic allows for degree of belief or unbelief.
These arguments have 0 to do with emotion or my own system of belief. I'm focused on the definition of terms. I'm not suggesting that because I believe a certain way you can't believe whatever you want.

Irrelevant except I used it as an example: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

I'm told that they are serious.

Okay, I consider the matter cleared up. I was reading your words to mean that our claim of atheism wasn't possible because we couldn't prove that there is no god, and that you were insisting we all change into agnostics (some of us here are agnostics, by the way. Not me though).

I'm fine with you having misconceptions, as long as you don't insist that we have to share them.

You of course think I have misconceptions, but I'm sure that you don't want me to insist that my interpretation of your religion is more accurate than your own. I'll settle for a stalemate in this department.

I think that religion is illogical. You feel the same about us. Our differences are why we disagree. As long as you'll let me be an atheist, I'll let you be a theist, and the conversations can continue.

Carry on.

I too think religion is illogical. Not in the same way I say theism is illogical. These are different topics. To me but I assume they are one and the same to at least some if not most of you.
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6108
  • Darwins +685/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #140 on: December 30, 2013, 02:13:03 AM »
I too think religion is illogical. Not in the same way I say theism is illogical. These are different topics. To me but I assume they are one and the same to at least some if not most of you.

I can only say that presumably religion, or theism or whatever any given believer wants to label their beliefs, makes sense to the various believers, and hence is in some sense also logical for them. But logic may be the wrong word, since faith is most often called upon to explain beliefs, and by definition, faith does not include logic.

I may have used the wrong word. To me, religion makes no sense. And perhaps that is what I should have said instead of saying it was not logical. And clearly that is my atheist point of view. So I could be wrong. At this moment, however, I don't think I am.
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6191
  • Darwins +407/-4
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #141 on: December 30, 2013, 03:16:15 AM »
Oh my.  You'd actually prefer to state your wife could be having an affair than admit you could be wrong in an internet discussion?  And you have the nerve to call ME disrespectful, distasteful, and disgusting? 

I think we're done here - I've now seen how far you will go in order not to have to admit you could be wrong.

I almost didn't comment but from experience that's just as bad. i discussed this with my wife. We had a good laugh.
What you see here is logic with no emotion to cloud it. I'm sorry I didn't fight you on the logic side of things.

I'm so sorry to hear your wife thought it was funny that you would rather admit she could be cheating then consider that you might be wrong in an internet argument with strangers.

Like I say, I'm done.  I see the kind of person you are now.  I won't be reading any more of your posts. 
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Willie

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 622
  • Darwins +68/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #142 on: December 30, 2013, 08:16:24 AM »
To say there are degrees of unbelief within Atheism is wrong. Only the term agnostic allows for degree of belief or unbelief.

We've already established otherwise, so I won't bother repeating it. It is increasingly evident that you are a dishonorable debate opponent, and therefore that there is no possibility of having an honest debate with you. I'm done with you.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2013, 08:34:04 AM by Willie »

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #143 on: December 31, 2013, 02:58:22 AM »
I too think religion is illogical. Not in the same way I say theism is illogical. These are different topics. To me but I assume they are one and the same to at least some if not most of you.

I can only say that presumably religion, or theism or whatever any given believer wants to label their beliefs, makes sense to the various believers, and hence is in some sense also logical for them. But logic may be the wrong word, since faith is most often called upon to explain beliefs, and by definition, faith does not include logic.

I may have used the wrong word. To me, religion makes no sense. And perhaps that is what I should have said instead of saying it was not logical. And clearly that is my atheist point of view. So I could be wrong. At this moment, however, I don't think I am.

I agree with it makes no sense too. This is the difference though. When you say religion you have a broad term. Catholic, Baptist, Hindu, Muslim you fill it in. When I say religion I mean ritual. All those crazy things people do to make themselves right with God. for example. Muslims pray 5 Times per day. They say a specific prayer I think every time. I may be wrong and it depends on time of day. either way it's daily ritual. Been a while since I studied Islam. It's nonsense there is nothing we do that can make us right with God. That's why it's called Grace. Humans sure want to try though don't they.

Eph2:8-9
 8God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift
from God.
9 Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it.
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2442
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #144 on: December 31, 2013, 04:56:34 AM »
Harbinger,

Are you re-defining words? This is what Dictionary.com says about religion -

Quote
religion
Use Religion in a sentence
re·li·gion
[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

The rituals are only a part of a religion.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)