Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Scientists: We finally found proof of the Big Bang and its aftermath. CNN: Scientists prove existence of god   (religion.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 350
    More: Dumbass, god created  
•       •       •

9981 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Mar 2014 at 1:12 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



350 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-21 05:39:54 PM  

RoxtarRyan: jeffjo52: hat did exist before the universe? when you have an answer... i will stop thinking that a "god" MIGHT exist.

Then it is equally possible that the universe sprang from a remnants of a half-uneaten taco left on a dashboard of an '87 Chevy. As long as we're imagining things, all things must be considered.


I didn't say it didn't you halfwit fark... scummy little coonts like you ARE the problem. A theory is a theory... until either proven or disproved. STOP being one of those atheist coonts who act like a stuck up know it all. You don't know shiat about the beginning... and know even less about "TIME".
 
2014-03-21 05:41:17 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: grumpfuff: The funny part is, up until a funny years ago, atheist meant "actively disbelieves in god(s)." Then suddenly it changed to "lacks a belief in god(s)."

Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (1828):
atheist: One who disbelieves the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.
atheism: The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.
disbelieve: Not to believe; to hold not to be true or not to exist; to refuse to credit.

Chambers's twentieth century dictionary of the English language (1903):
atheism: disbelief in the existence of God.
atheist: one who disbelieves in the existence of God.
disbelieve: to refuse belief or credit to

The concise Oxford dictionary of current English (1919):
atheism: Disbelief in the existence of a God; godlessness.
disbelieve: Refuse credence to (person or statement &c.) ; be a sceptic ; have no faith in.


I see little in there to indicate atheism/atheist previously meant solely an active disbelief.


perhaps you lads would be more productive arguing about whether or not paperclips are atheists?  maybe you could have a pedantic battle to see who is more technically correct?

i like bacon
 
2014-03-21 05:44:25 PM  
just out of curiosity, are there any gnostic theists here? or gnostic atheists?
 
2014-03-21 05:52:13 PM  
Google exists.
Google is God.
Therefore, God exists.

Google came into existence in 1998, 16 years ago.
The universe came into existence approximately 13.8 billion years ago.
16 years ago is more recent than 13.8 billion years ago.
Causation follows a chronological order from cause to effect.
Google could not have created the universe.
Google did not create the universe.
As established, Google is God.
Therefore, God did not create the universe.
 
2014-03-21 05:55:16 PM  

jeffjo52:
What did exist before the universe? when you have an answer... i will stop thinking that a "god" MIGHT exist.


As part of the time-space continuum, time doesn't exist seperately from the universe , so there is no "before" except perhaps in another universe.
 
2014-03-21 05:57:43 PM  

jeffjo52: and know even less about "TIME".


I know it's a cube, which is more than you.
 
2014-03-21 06:08:23 PM  

I drunk what: just out of curiosity, are there any gnostic theists here? or gnostic atheists?


The Gnostics were Christian sects that believed they had speciel knowledge, that Jesus had kept from most of his disciples. That graph you posted is not really a solid source of definitions - Blue Gargoyle is not an authority on theological terms, just some Farker who put at image together for a thread years ago, presumably because he was tired of typing his opinion over and over again. He could have chosen a much simpler solution to his problem, but here we are.

If you mean people who claim that they can prove conclusively that Jehova or other gods exist or don't, they are extremely few, mostly satirical, and are rarely taken seriously by anyone round these parts since they inevitably fail to deliver.
 
2014-03-21 06:16:58 PM  

jeffjo52: A theory is a theory... until either proven or disproved.


Not when the word is used as a scientific term. Scientific theories are not "proven" or "disproven", they are supported or contradicted by evidence. When contradicted, they tend to either be discarded or adjusted to fit with new knowledge.

You don't know shiat about the beginning... and know even less about "TIME".

I know it's one of my favourite ELO albums, and least favorite international magazines. Bowie's version is pretty good.
 
2014-03-21 06:17:12 PM  

Dansker: I drunk what: just out of curiosity, are there any gnostic theists here? or gnostic atheists?

The Gnostics were Christian sects that believed they had speciel knowledge, that Jesus had kept from most of his disciples. That graph you posted is not really a solid source of definitions - Blue Gargoyle is not an authority on theological terms, just some Farker who put at image together for a thread years ago, presumably because he was tired of typing his opinion over and over again. He could have chosen a much simpler solution to his problem, but here we are.

If you mean people who claim that they can prove conclusively that Jehova or other gods exist or don't, they are extremely few, mostly satirical, and are rarely taken seriously by anyone round these parts since they inevitably fail to deliver.


i'd be happy to share IDW's definition if that would help?  blue gargoyle should be sufficient to proceed

on the other hand i have grown tired of listening to the endless wastes of time between the mehtheists and the apatheists and whether or not paperclips are atheists
 
2014-03-21 06:19:32 PM  

I drunk what: Dansker: I drunk what: just out of curiosity, are there any gnostic theists here? or gnostic atheists?

The Gnostics were Christian sects that believed they had speciel knowledge, that Jesus had kept from most of his disciples. That graph you posted is not really a solid source of definitions - Blue Gargoyle is not an authority on theological terms, just some Farker who put at image together for a thread years ago, presumably because he was tired of typing his opinion over and over again. He could have chosen a much simpler solution to his problem, but here we are.

If you mean people who claim that they can prove conclusively that Jehova or other gods exist or don't, they are extremely few, mostly satirical, and are rarely taken seriously by anyone round these parts since they inevitably fail to deliver.

i'd be happy to share IDW's definition if that would help?  blue gargoyle should be sufficient to proceed

on the other hand i have grown tired of listening to the endless wastes of time between the mehtheists and the apatheists and whether or not paperclips are atheists


I have a sinking feeling that we've had almost exactly this conversation before, so I say we both just get the hell out of here and find something better to do with what remains of our lives.
 
2014-03-21 06:23:23 PM  
1)  The piece is clearly marked as opinion

2)  Anyone who believes the Bible gives a literal account of creation is a moron

3)  Anyone who believes science establishes objective "facts" doesn't understand what science is or how the scientific process works  (theory>observation>new theory>repeat ad infinitum)

4)  Since even the most robust scientific cosmology stops at the big bang, it ultimately explains nothing

5)  A rabbit just ran by my office window - sometimes there are deer
 
2014-03-21 06:28:57 PM  

Dansker: I drunk what: Dansker: I drunk what: just out of curiosity, are there any gnostic theists here? or gnostic atheists?

The Gnostics were Christian sects that believed they had speciel knowledge, that Jesus had kept from most of his disciples. That graph you posted is not really a solid source of definitions - Blue Gargoyle is not an authority on theological terms, just some Farker who put at image together for a thread years ago, presumably because he was tired of typing his opinion over and over again. He could have chosen a much simpler solution to his problem, but here we are.

If you mean people who claim that they can prove conclusively that Jehova or other gods exist or don't, they are extremely few, mostly satirical, and are rarely taken seriously by anyone round these parts since they inevitably fail to deliver.

i'd be happy to share IDW's definition if that would help?  blue gargoyle should be sufficient to proceed

on the other hand i have grown tired of listening to the endless wastes of time between the mehtheists and the apatheists and whether or not paperclips are atheists

I have a sinking feeling that we've had almost exactly this conversation before, so I say we both just get the hell out of here and find something better to do with what remains of our lives.


did it result in one of us confessing our appreciation of pork bellies?

if you have a better way to phrase the categories and can effectively communicate with a broad-common audience, we'd be happy to hear it

in the mean time i default to blue gargoyle to avoid the silly definition wars
 
2014-03-21 06:29:06 PM  

jeffjo52: Even Dawkins and Hitchens have said that a creator is just a good of theory as any other to explain what caused the big bang. The only thing I don't like about any religion is the intolerance from the extremists... but I have also met quite a few atheist extremists


A "Creationist" is, by definition, someone who believes the creation myth of God making the universe in six days.  Scientifically we know this to be absolute nonsense.  If you choose to believe that God started the universe with the Big Bang, you're in good company.  The Catholic Church (finally!) supports this view.  As no one can possibly postulate what existed before the primordial singularity blew out creating space-time and the laws of physics that rule our reality, I suppose saying the root is God is as good as anything.

If you want equal time on Cosmos to demonstrate that God created the Earth in 6 days, go back to eating paint chips.
 
2014-03-21 06:31:02 PM  

trippdogg: 2)  Anyone who believes the Bible gives a literal account of creation is a moron


what evidence led you to believe it was being figurative? what was literally occurring btw?
 
2014-03-21 06:32:23 PM  

AngryDragon: A "Creationist" is, by definition, someone who believes the creation myth of God making the universe in six days.


Nope.  The "myth" part was a nice bonus though.
 
2014-03-21 06:36:24 PM  

I drunk what: AngryDragon: A "Creationist" is, by definition, someone who believes the creation myth of God making the universe in six days.

Nope.  The "myth" part was a nice bonus though.


Please clarify.  Because my Religious History class in high school, taught by a Benedictine nun in a Catholic School, used that specific terminology
 
2014-03-21 06:41:36 PM  

Egoy3k: grumpfuff: Egoy3k: grumpfuff: Egoy3k: hen you are an atheist.

Theist: someone who believes in one or many gods
Atheist: the opposite of theist

Any other meaning that has been tacked on to the word comes from assholes (from both sides of the 'debate') with an agenda.

The funny part is, up until a funny years ago, atheist meant "actively disbelieves in god(s)." Then suddenly it changed to "lacks a belief in god(s)."

No you only thought it did.  Atheist means the opposite of theist.  It always has. Just as atypical means the opposite of typical, and apolitical means the opposite of political.

Every single course I've taken, and book I've read, in philosophy, philosophy of religion, and comparative religion would like a word with you.

Last time I checked 'See Spot Run' doesn't discuss religion.


So you just go straight to ad hominems? Nice.

Anyway, my Philosophy degree is from Rutgers. Comparing one of the top philosophy programs in the world to See Spot Run is kind of silly.
 
2014-03-21 06:44:28 PM  

Fubini: HotWingConspiracy: So you don't see the folly in looking for proof of god? Also, come off of your cross. Also, it was generally christians burning people at the stake for imagined slights against their god.

Is this person looking for "proof of God"? No, she's not- she's fitting new scientific fact into her religious worldivew. She's actually arguing the exact negation of your statement: She's demonstrating how this new scientific evidence does not imply the absence of God.

If P is "inflationary universe" and Q is "God exists", you're saying that she's arguing that P implies Q. She's actually arguing ~(P implies ~Q). Or, more simply, P and Q- she believes both that God exists and that there's an inflationary universe.

There's a whole host of people here who condemn Christians when they reject science, and they reject Christians when they reconcile with science. The reality is that they just hate religion, or that they hate Christians, and they're just going to be dickwads about it whenever the topic comes up.


ABSOLUTE THIS! With a Baileys on the rocks for dessert.
 
2014-03-21 06:46:32 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: grumpfuff: The funny part is, up until a funny years ago, atheist meant "actively disbelieves in god(s)." Then suddenly it changed to "lacks a belief in god(s)."

Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (1828):
atheist: One who disbelieves the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.
atheism: The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.
disbelieve: Not to believe; to hold not to be true or not to exist; to refuse to credit.

Chambers's twentieth century dictionary of the English language (1903):
atheism: disbelief in the existence of God.
atheist: one who disbelieves in the existence of God.
disbelieve: to refuse belief or credit to

The concise Oxford dictionary of current English (1919):
atheism: Disbelief in the existence of a God; godlessness.
disbelieve: Refuse credence to (person or statement &c.) ; be a sceptic ; have no faith in.


I see little in there to indicate atheism/atheist previously meant solely an active disbelief.


Disbelief is not the same as not having a belief.
 
2014-03-21 06:51:26 PM  

I drunk what: Dansker:
I have a sinking feeling that we've had almost exactly this conversation before, so I say we both just get the hell out of here and find something better to do with what remains of our lives.

did it result in one of us confessing our appreciation of pork bellies?


I certainly can't prove that it didn't. Seems likely.

if you have a better way to phrase the categories and can effectively communicate with a broad-common audience, we'd be happy to hear it

So, you didn't mean the kind of people I said? Either way and regardless of fine tuning of the definition of "gnostic", my answer stands: People who claim certain knowledge beyond strong conviction on the question of divine existence are very rare (or very quiet), and generally not taken seriously.
But it kinda depends on which god we're talking about, if any one specifically.

You must have asked the question before. Has anyone ever said "Yes, I'm one of those!"?
 
2014-03-21 06:58:47 PM  
In my screenplay some guy is close to proving God exists and various groups (Including the church) try to stop him.
 
2014-03-21 07:01:06 PM  

I drunk what:
in the mean time i default to blue gargoyle to avoid the silly definition wars


Silly wars/sparkling repartee & witty banter. Tomahto/tomato.
 
2014-03-21 07:22:48 PM  

Dansker: I drunk what: just out of curiosity, are there any gnostic theists here? or gnostic atheists?

The Gnostics were Christian sects that believed they had speciel knowledge, that Jesus had kept from most of his disciples. That graph you posted is not really a solid source of definitions - Blue Gargoyle is not an authority on theological terms, just some Farker who put at image together for a thread years ago, presumably because he was tired of typing his opinion over and over again. He could have chosen a much simpler solution to his problem, but here we are.

If you mean people who claim that they can prove conclusively that Jehova or other gods exist or don't, they are extremely few, mostly satirical, and arre rarely taken seriously by anyone round these parts since they inevitably fail to deliver

. I am an anthropology major who minored in religious studies (yes, I had a life before tentacle porn). Blue Gargoyle's chart is correct. Gnostic and agnostic are modifiers. Theist means believes in a god(s). Atheist means does not believe in a god(s). Gnostic comes from the word gnosis which means knowledge. A gnostic is one she believes we can know god(s) exist. Evangelical Christians are an example of a gnostic faith. They believe you can know, through personal revelation, that their god exists. When people capitalize the word they're usually referring to one of the early Christian gnostic sects, usually the Greek Gnostics. Agnostic simply means "without knowledge". This means people who believe it is simply not possible for a person to know if a god(s) exist. They refute the personal revelation of Evangelical gnostics because they believe you can never be sure if your personal revelation is real or simply psychosis. Gnostic beliefs are more common among theists than atheists but there are gnostic atheists who believe science and reason provided ample evidence to prove god doesn't exist. They wear trilbies which they call fedoras and are very euphoric. The vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists because they believe by definition god(s) sit outside the scope of science. We can't test for god so just remove it from the equation. Now I know to the layperson that agnostic has come to mean sanctimonious prick who judges everyone else as inferior but words have meaning. They can say gnostic means tractor and agnostic means kitty cat and it won't make them right.
 
2014-03-21 07:22:57 PM  

grumpfuff: ArcadianRefugee: grumpfuff: The funny part is, up until a funny years ago, atheist meant "actively disbelieves in god(s)." Then suddenly it changed to "lacks a belief in god(s)."

Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (1828):
atheist: One who disbelieves the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.
atheism: The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.
disbelieve: Not to believe; to hold not to be true or not to exist; to refuse to credit.

Chambers's twentieth century dictionary of the English language (1903):
atheism: disbelief in the existence of God.
atheist: one who disbelieves in the existence of God.
disbelieve: to refuse belief or credit to

The concise Oxford dictionary of current English (1919):
atheism: Disbelief in the existence of a God; godlessness1.
disbelieve: Refuse credence to (person or statement &c.) ; be a sceptic2 ; have no faith in.


I see little in there to indicate atheism/atheist previously meant solely an active disbelief.

Disbelief is not the same as not having a belief.


Very good. Now, let me say it again for the cheap seats:

I see little in there to indicate atheism/atheist previously meant solely an active disbelief. It didn't. Thus, the OP's statement that "suddenly it changed" is incorrect.

/and thanks for highlighting "have no faith" (I repeated above for your convenience). "Have no", to you, is an active thing? Sounds pretty passive to me. Sounds like a simple "lack".
//also see "godlessness"
1 go'dless, a. Without a god ; not recognizing God
2 sceptic n. ... agnostic, (pop.) atheist; person of sceptical habit of mind, or unconvinced of truth of particular fact or theory
 
2014-03-21 07:32:57 PM  

jayessell: In my screenplay some guy is close to proving God exists and various groups (Including the church) try to stop him.


There was a neat short story I read about this sect that believed they could communicate with god and thus prove his existence and thus bring about world peace because we would all at last be able to worship the one true god. They ended up succeeding only to discover that god was so far advanced beyond us that he had no idea we even existed and that when he became aware of our existence we were so far beneath him that he didn't care and went back to ignoring us.
 
2014-03-21 07:34:31 PM  

Ghastly: jayessell: In my screenplay some guy is close to proving God exists and various groups (Including the church) try to stop him.

There was a neat short story I read about this sect that believed they could communicate with god and thus prove his existence and thus bring about world peace because we would all at last be able to worship the one true god. They ended up succeeding only to discover that god was so far advanced beyond us that he had no idea we even existed and that when he became aware of our existence we were so far beneath him that he didn't care and went back to ignoring us.


Daddy would never do that.
 
2014-03-21 07:40:59 PM  
I would argue that most people who question the Universe being created by God or chance are agnotics, NOT athiests.  I consider myself an agnostic, and I would be more than willing to believe in God and that he/she/it created the Universe if there were some proof of their existence.  But there is no proof (outside of faith) that God exists.  Science (up to now) has shown the reasons why the Universe exists and why laws of nature exist.

The sticking point is the starting point.  While people argue that God has always existed (and therefore created the Universe), why is it so hard to make a shift in thinking and believe that the Universe has always existed, without a 'watchmaker' or God?
 
2014-03-21 07:42:42 PM  

noitsnot: Ghastly: jayessell: In my screenplay some guy is close to proving God exists and various groups (Including the church) try to stop him.

There was a neat short story I read about this sect that believed they could communicate with god and thus prove his existence and thus bring about world peace because we would all at last be able to worship the one true god. They ended up succeeding only to discover that god was so far advanced beyond us that he had no idea we even existed and that when he became aware of our existence we were so far beneath him that he didn't care and went back to ignoring us.

Daddy would never do that.


No, he'll just get drunk then whip our ass with a hotwheel track.
 
2014-03-21 07:46:54 PM  

Ghastly: Blue Gargoyle's chart is correct.


That depends how you define "asserting knowledge" and "god(s)"

Evangelical Christians are an example of a gnostic faith.>/em>
They believe you can know, through personal revelation, that their god exists.


Yes, but not "know" in the sense of being able to prove, which is one reason Blue Gargoyle's definitions are too loose to hold up.
If IDW wants to see the hands of people who would say that they are personally entirely convinced one way or the other, he'll get a different count than if he asks for those who think they can prove it.
So I'm suggesting that to get a clear answer, it would be wiser to spend a few more words to say exactly what he means, than insist on using labels, whose meaning drifts over time and depending on context, and which, even in that illustration, are ambiguously defined.

Now I seriously have to get off this philosophical moebius strip before I really lose my mind. I may be insomniac, but I'm not THAT desperate for entertainment.
 
2014-03-21 07:52:12 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: I would argue that most people who question the Universe being created by God or chance are agnotics, NOT athiests.  I consider myself an agnostic, and I would be more than willing to believe in God and that he/she/it created the Universe if there were some proof of their existence.  But there is no proof (outside of faith) that God exists.  Science (up to now) has shown the reasons why the Universe exists and why laws of nature exist.

The sticking point is the starting point.  While people argue that God has always existed (and therefore created the Universe), why is it so hard to make a shift in thinking and believe that the Universe has always existed, without a 'watchmaker' or God?


Once again, agnostic is an adjective that modifies the noun atheist. You can have no belief in a god and still believe it is not possible to know with certainty that a god exists..thatthatthatthaththt meanmeanmeanmeameamem doesn'tdoesntdoesndoesndoesdoedod itititii butbutbutbubub ,theisttheisttheisttheistheitheithetheththt ororooototo atheistatheistatheistatheisatheiatheatheathata totot superiorsuperiorsuperiorsuperiosuperisuperisupersupersupesupesupsus somethingsomethingsomethingsomethinsomethisomethsomethsometsomesomsos meansmeansmeanmeanmeameamem itititii likelikelikeliklilil "agnosticagnostivagnostiagnostiagnostagnosagnoagnagnagaga" wordwordwordworwowow thethetheththt useuseusu totot likelikelikeliklilil peoplepeoplepeoplepeoplpeoppeopeopep thatthatthatthaththt knowknowknowknoknknk Iii
 
2014-03-21 07:56:19 PM  
Just to clarify, the Firefox browser on my android tablet sometimes farks up my posts. I was not speaking in tongues or attempting to summon C'thulhu.
 
2014-03-21 07:57:09 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: grumpfuff: ArcadianRefugee: grumpfuff: The funny part is, up until a funny years ago, atheist meant "actively disbelieves in god(s)." Then suddenly it changed to "lacks a belief in god(s)."

Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (1828):
atheist: One who disbelieves the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.
atheism: The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.
disbelieve: Not to believe; to hold not to be true or not to exist; to refuse to credit.

Chambers's twentieth century dictionary of the English language (1903):
atheism: disbelief in the existence of God.
atheist: one who disbelieves in the existence of God.
disbelieve: to refuse belief or credit to

The concise Oxford dictionary of current English (1919):
atheism: Disbelief in the existence of a God; godlessness1.
disbelieve: Refuse credence to (person or statement &c.) ; be a sceptic2 ; have no faith in.


I see little in there to indicate atheism/atheist previously meant solely an active disbelief.

Disbelief is not the same as not having a belief.

Very good. Now, let me say it again for the cheap seats:

I see little in there to indicate atheism/atheist previously meant solely an active disbelief. It didn't. Thus, the OP's statement that "suddenly it changed" is incorrect.

/and thanks for highlighting "have no faith" (I repeated above for your convenience). "Have no", to you, is an active thing? Sounds pretty passive to me. Sounds like a simple "lack".
//also see "godlessness"
1 go'dless, a. Without a god ; not recognizing God
2 sceptic n. ... agnostic, (pop.) atheist; person of sceptical habit of mind, or unconvinced of truth of particular fact or theory


Substitute "opinion" for "belief." Is not having an opinion about something the same as having a negative opinion of something?
 
2014-03-21 07:59:15 PM  

Ghastly: Just to clarify, the Firefox browser on my android tablet sometimes farks up my posts. I was not speaking in tongues or attempting to summon C'thulhu.


You stuck your tablet in your pants and posted.

Admit it.
 
2014-03-21 08:06:38 PM  

Ghastly: Just to clarify, the Firefox browser on my android tablet sometimes farks up my posts. I was not speaking in tongues or attempting to summon C'thulhu.


Yet you are willing to label me an atheist when  I am nothing of the type.  You would rather argue that an agnostic is an atheist, it's just a matter of 'labeling'.  While I will agree with you that there are 'agnostic atheists', this does not also mean that all agnostics are atheists and that all atheists are agnostics.

If proof came to light that scientifically proved the existence of a deity, I would be MORE than willing to believe that one exists.  Until such time, I can neither prove or disprove that one exists and will continue to believe that while it may be possible for a deity to exist, science has still not shown the proof of such existence.
 
2014-03-21 08:06:49 PM  

noitsnot: Ghastly: Just to clarify, the Firefox browser on my android tablet sometimes farks up my posts. I was not speaking in tongues or attempting to summon C'thulhu.

You stuck your tablet in your pants and posted.

Admit it.


I like to type with my trouser stylus.
 
2014-03-21 08:09:37 PM  

grumpfuff: ArcadianRefugee: grumpfuff: ArcadianRefugee: grumpfuff: The funny part is, up until a funny years ago, atheist meant "actively disbelieves in god(s)." Then suddenly it changed to "lacks a belief in god(s)."

Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (1828):
atheist: One who disbelieves the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.
atheism: The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.
disbelieve: Not to believe; to hold not to be true or not to exist; to refuse to credit.

Chambers's twentieth century dictionary of the English language (1903):
atheism: disbelief in the existence of God.
atheist: one who disbelieves in the existence of God.
disbelieve: to refuse belief or credit to

The concise Oxford dictionary of current English (1919):
atheism: Disbelief in the existence of a God; godlessness1.
disbelieve: Refuse credence to (person or statement &c.) ; be a sceptic2 ; have no faith in.


I see little in there to indicate atheism/atheist previously meant solely an active disbelief.

Disbelief is not the same as not having a belief.

Very good. Now, let me say it again for the cheap seats:

I see little in there to indicate atheism/atheist previously meant solely an active disbelief. It didn't. Thus, the OP's statement that "suddenly it changed" is incorrect.

/and thanks for highlighting "have no faith" (I repeated above for your convenience). "Have no", to you, is an active thing? Sounds pretty passive to me. Sounds like a simple "lack".
//also see "godlessness"
1 go'dless, a. Without a god ; not recognizing God
2 sceptic n. ... agnostic, (pop.) atheist; person of sceptical habit of mind, or unconvinced of truth of particular fact or theory

Substitute "opinion" for "belief." Is not having an opinion about something the same as having a negative opinion of something?


Also, something on activity and passivity. Having a belief or disbelief in something is the very definition of activity. You have analyzed evidence and come to a conclusion. The belief or disbelief does not just pop into your head. Sure, once you have arrived at that belief or disbelief, it does become passive(unless you reanalyze evidence), but arriving at that stance is the very definition of active.
 
2014-03-21 08:14:34 PM  
"Opinion" piece by A. J. "Wack-o" Wickman.
 
2014-03-21 08:19:21 PM  
Sorry, Ghastly, I honestly can't find any sources that describe Christianity in general as a "gnostic faith". It doesn't seem to be a common usage.
 
2014-03-21 08:28:57 PM  
A final desperate thought: In the Bible, "to know" someone usually means having sex with them. So does that make gnostic theist god farkers?
 
2014-03-21 08:41:54 PM  

Dansker: Sorry, Ghastly, I honestly can't find any sources that describe Christianity in general as a "gnostic faith". It doesn't seem to be a common usage.


Pentecostals are a gnostic sect. They believe you can know for a fact that god exists because when you are born again the spirit of god enters you and reveals itself to you. They also believe that god will reveal himself to you through prayer and meditation. They KNOW god exists and they only reason other people aren't Pentecostals is because they have not known god yet and once they do, of course they will convert. I grew up Pentecostal and they are very much a gnostic faith. Other evangelical faiths are similar. They KNOW for a fact that god exists because they have experienced personal revelation of gods existence in their lives. To them it is just as much a fact as the sky being blue and water being wet.
 
2014-03-21 08:56:27 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Ghastly: Just to clarify, the Firefox browser on my android tablet sometimes farks up my posts. I was not speaking in tongues or attempting to summon C'thulhu.

Yet you are willing to label me an atheist when  I am nothing of the type.  You would rather argue that an agnostic is an atheist, it's just a matter of 'labeling'.  While I will agree with you that there are 'agnostic atheists', this does not also mean that all agnostics are atheists and that all atheists are agnostics.

If proof came to light that scientifically proved the existence of a deity, I would be MORE than willing to believe that one exists.  Until such time, I can neither prove or disprove that one exists and will continue to believe that while it may be possible for a deity to exist, science has still not shown the proof of such existence.


I'm not labelling you anything. I don't know if you believe in a god(s) or not.

If you believe in a god you are a theist.
If you are without believe in a god then you are an atheist.

It's really not complicated.

If you believe it is possible to know a god does or does not exist you are a gnostic.
If you believe it in not possible to know a god does or does not exist you are agnostic.

I do not believe in a god. I do not believe it is possible to know if a god does or does not exist. Thus I am an atheist and because I don't believe it is possible to know if a god does or does not exist I am an agnostic atheist.

Now I'm completely open to the possibility of a god existing. If evidence that proved the existence of god was somehow produced then I would no longer be an agnostic atheist, I would be a gnostic theist. Such evidence has not been produced so I don't believe in a god. I believe it may be possible a god exists, but I don't believe in one.

It's really that simple. I understand the need to feel unique. I understand the need to feel special. And I understand the need to feel superior. These are are very basic human desires. However, it is not necessary to make up over complex definitions for already well defined words in order to satisfy those desires.

Now if we had time I could go through the list, name each god and ask you "do you believe this god exists", but there are tens of thousands of them and by the time we got to Zeus people would be pretty sick of it. Being open to the possibility of whether or not a god exists is not the same as believing that god exists.

I do not believe in leprechauns. I can't say with 100% certainty that leprechauns do not exist. If evidence proved the existence of leprechauns I would believe in leprechauns. I am open to review the possibilities that leprechauns exist.

I still don't believe leprechauns exist.

It's the same way with god.
 
2014-03-21 09:06:02 PM  

grumpfuff: So you just go straight to ad hominems? Nice.

Anyway, my Philosophy degree is from Rutgers. Comparing one of the top philosophy programs in the world to See Spot Run is kind of silly.


Maybe you should write one of your English professors from Rutgers and ask him or her to explain the use of 'a' as a prefix in the English language then.
 
2014-03-21 09:40:43 PM  

What_do_you_want_now: [oyster.ignimgs.com image 610x343]

"Your god is too small"


Damn I had a hard time getting past Seth McFarlane's horrible Italian accent. He might just as well added "Mama Mia! I-a need a some mora Spaghetti!"

/Also, Teach the Controversy
 www.timecube.com
 
2014-03-21 10:10:05 PM  

Egoy3k: grumpfuff: So you just go straight to ad hominems? Nice.

Anyway, my Philosophy degree is from Rutgers. Comparing one of the top philosophy programs in the world to See Spot Run is kind of silly.

Maybe you should write one of your English professors from Rutgers and ask him or her to explain the use of 'a' as a prefix in the English language then.


It means without.

Theism is derived from the Greek word theos which means "god", it and it's Latin equivalent deus are derived the the Sanskrit dyaus which means "the sky". Dyaus Pater was the "King of All Gods" in the ancient Aryan religion (real Aryans, not Hitler's bullshiat Aryans). From Dyaus Pater we got Zeus in Greek mythology and Zu Pater in Roman mythology (Jupiter). A lot of western religion traces its roots to ancient Aryan religion.

Anyways I digress, atheist simply means "without god".

Gnostic is from the Greek work gnosis meaning "knowledge". Agnostic simply means "without knowledge".
 
2014-03-21 10:14:09 PM  
grumpfuff:

The funny part is, up until a funny years ago, atheist meant "actively disbelieves in god(s)." Then suddenly it changed to "lacks a belief in god(s)."

What the hell? How do you actively not believe? How do you actively not anything?

Right now I am actively not ramming my cock down your throat and farking some sense into your head.
 
2014-03-21 11:04:15 PM  
The sad sad truth is that both are equally wrong.

There has to be something OUTSIDE in order for the waves to persist within.
 
2014-03-21 11:55:33 PM  

I drunk what: trippdogg: 2)  Anyone who believes the Bible gives a literal account of creation is a moron

what evidence led you to believe it was being figurative? what was literally occurring btw?


I don't believe the people who wrote the Judeo-Christian creation myth were being figurative - I believe they were either trying to scam someone... or their kid was afraid of the dark and they were trying to get them to sleep - in other words, the same reasons people continue to propagate religion today.

Currently, the model for the foundation of the known physical universe most consistent with observable data is what is commonly known as the Big Bang Theory.

Next.
 
2014-03-22 12:12:23 AM  

trippdogg: I drunk what: trippdogg: 2)  Anyone who believes the Bible gives a literal account of creation is a moron

what evidence led you to believe it was being figurative? what was literally occurring btw?

I don't believe the people who wrote the Judeo-Christian creation myth were being figurative - I believe they were either trying to scam someone... or their kid was afraid of the dark and they were trying to get them to sleep - in other words, the same reasons people continue to propagate religion today.


I would say originally, a lot of the mythology stories were either attempts to answer questions about the nature of the universe that they had no ability to comprehend or simply superhero comics from a time before we learned how to print comics.

So it's equal parts the dad from Calvin and Hobbes answering one of Calvin's questions about why something is the way it is and Stan Lee writing a story about why his god can beat up your god.
 
2014-03-22 12:17:39 AM  
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov
 
2014-03-22 09:35:16 AM  

AngryDragon: Please clarify.


A. Creationism is the belief that the universe (and possibly living organisms) originate from specific acts of divine creation.

B. Young-Earth creationism fosters the belief that God created the Earth within the last ten thousand years, literally as described in the Genesis creation narrative, within the approximate time-frame of biblical genealogies (detailed for example in the Ussher chronology).

Even if all B are A, not all A are B.

/logic 101
 
Displayed 50 of 350 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report