Oh goodness. This does not appear in my mention.

AgentOfAllah:


Your whole argument is predicated on an informal fallacy known as shifting the goalpost, and I'll show you how.

To begin, let's take a random subset of letters from the English alphabet. For the sake of this discourse, I'm using the first letters of my moniker, yours and Davien's. A, F and D. Now, we may string these letters into any abstract arrangement to form a word, with the only criterion being that the new word is pronounceable.

I choose DAF. I wish now, to make a claim about DAF's material attribute, and my claim is that DAF exists.

I need to halt this fallacy here.

I wasnt the one that create the word 'god' and attach it to an existing influencial person. The word 'god' from time has it meaning as an adored, admired and influencial person. This is there in your dictionary.

AgentOfAllah:

Naturally, you must be befuddled by now. "Has AgentOfAllah gone mad?", you may begin to ask. But of course not, silly. All rats are DAF, thus DAF exists.
What have I done? I have merely created a synonym for rats; a superfluous, pointless word. No doubt, easy to pronounce, but an ugly sounding coinage whose only practical application is to demonstrate the pointlessness of your argument to you. Yet, for all its pointlessness, DAF now exists as an abstract placeholder for a material entity (rats).

You are only trying to hide in your word creation fantasy.

God is not synonym of a man but it is defined as a person.

AgentOfAllah:

How then does this relate to your argument? Your Yoruba spiritualist friends, by defining the abstract arrangement of three letters (god) in such a way that it can only be seen as a synonym for mankind/human makes it a superfluous coinage that serves no additional purpose but to add more redundancy to a concept that already has an uncountable number of representations in the vast sea of existing words.

Are you serious at all?

What is Orisha in english?

Are human not Orisha?

AgentOfAllah:

Of course, if you define 'god' so that it becomes just another synonym for man, nobody can reject the existence of god according to such a definition.

In many culture and conception of God, Man is a divine being.

This is matter of concept and no synonyms.

AgentOfAllah:

I wrote everything above to make the following point, so let's string things up into a nice coherent conclusion:

Atheism, is not a rejection of a specific abstract arrangement of letters or any of its attendant definitions, wishful or real, rather, it is the rejection of a specific concept or idea, which is the existence of a supernatural being, often abstractised using the colloquial placeholder; god.

Many religion in the world today do not believe in supernatural beings but hold a believe in a deity/god. Maybe they just do away with supernatural. E.g buddhism. Is this your definition applicable to devas, spinoza concept of god and pantheist concept of god?

AgentOfAllah:

If it makes you feel any better, I took the liberty to search if the same word exists in other languages and as it turns out, in Norwegian, good = god. Now, it will take an extremely persuasive argument to convince even the most pertinacious atheist that dogs can't be god!! I hope you feel god now?

Atheism and god here is a english word. I think our discussion should be limit to english.

This discussion is not about creating a word and bringing a meaning into it from foreign language. It is about atheism and meaning of god.

The dictionary agrees man is god. An influencial, admired and adored person is a god. It is just like saying a person that drives a car is a driver. Calling this synonyms is illogical. We have there a direct meaning of what god is.

Many culture (Yoruba and egypt) and religion ( christianity) have record of where man is been recognised as a god. There are list of person recognised as deities in ancient egypt and modern day Yoruba tradition. In christianity, judges and mere men were called god not because the word was created to fit them but because they fit into the concept of god which sees man as god.

So tell me sir, when you defined god as a supernatural being,

Deva is a buddhist god but not a supernatural being. Do atheist believes in deva?

Admired personalities are defined as God. In imperial cults and many cultures, they are been worship as god. Do atheists believe in these gods?

Have read in many books that titan are gods but also mean powerful person, if you dont believe in titan as mythical gods, do you believe titan is a powerful person and exist?

finofaya:


There is an invisible pink unicorn, and it created us. Prove that there is no invisible pink unicorn without attacking my assertion that there is such a being.

IPU is your own mental creation.


God does exist.

When I say God, I mean an influecial persons. Fela is one. . . .he is my god. He does exist.

wiegraf:


It was the word 'pertinacious' that gave you away. No true agent of allah has had me reach for a dictionary

Edit*Oh wow. Just noticed I can't even type a.llah, ie all lower case. Let's see. jesus. allah. lol. So I can do that for jesus but not allah. muslims and their ediocy... special rules for only special them, it beggars belief....




Indeed, one could warrant that humanistic atheists in Norway believe man's godness.

It was a god-level pun (<-better than these silly attempts), I was just emphasizing that even if he did decipher it, the point's lost on him.

BTW, in northern 9ja at some time or the other DAFS referred to the females of our species that were stacked like DAF trucks. Why do you believe rats have big butts?






But true masters of the arts would be disappointed. They would like to believe that their (perceived) dim wittedness is a hell of a lot more subtle. That takes true skill and intelligence to pull off

Haha... You got me chuckling a little beyond my threshold of dignity. Your sense of humour has more than made up for time wasted on some knotty-pated slob.

frank317:


Lol... U sure say u go school? Or is religion making u plain silly?

can you imagine this. I was actually discussing with reasonable people who knows that what you referred to was a typographical error.

FOLYKAZE:


IPU is your own mental creation.


God does exist.

When I say God, I mean an influecial persons. Fela is one. . . .he is my god. He does exist.

You're so dogged.

It's a rather trivial point you're insisting on. "God" has several meanings, you know this. In a sentence, you usually only refer to one of its meanings or the other when you use the word. You rarely refer to all the meanings at once in a sentence.

If you ask for clarification and a person tells you which meaning of a word they are referring to, any further misunderstanding about the meaning of the word is your own problem.

For example, if I say "there are spirits in the kitchen" and after query from you I indicate that I'm referring to liquor, it is not my problem that you go on to claim that I'm also referring to a demon. Go and compute what is being said on your own.

Another example. Fela (PBUH), an influential person who used to exist, is a god to you. I agree. Note how I'm not going on to ask you if Fela is the gallery in your theatre, or insisting that he must also be the gallery in a theatre to you.

Why do you call yourself a spiritual atheist when you think that it's nonsensical to deny the existence of "god"?

finofaya:


[size=16pt]You're so dogged.

It's a rather trivial point you're insisting on.

If you ask for clarification and a person tells you which meaning of a word they are referring to, any further misunderstanding about the meaning of the word is your own problem.[/size]

He's a confirmed troll, or did you think I was joking? HAHAHA. Either that or he's a re)tard. I've been through this silly semantics business with him a while ago, only for him to resurface here and behave like a pinhead. I don tire for this person.

finofaya:


You're so dogged.

It's a rather trivial point you're insisting on. "God" has several meanings, you know this. In a sentence, you usually only refer to one of its meanings or the other when you use the word. You rarely refer to all the meanings at once in a sentence.

If you ask for clarification and a person tells you which meaning of a word they are referring to, any further misunderstanding about the meaning of the word is your own problem.

For example, if I say "there are spirits in the kitchen" and after query from you I indicate that I'm referring to liquor, it is not my problem that you go on to claim that I'm also referring to a demon. Go and compute what is being said on your own.

Another example. Fela (PBUH), an influential person who used to exist, is a god to you. I agree. Note how I'm not going on to ask you if Fela is the gallery in your theatre, or insisting that he must also be the gallery in a theatre to you.

Why do you call yourself a spiritual atheist when you think that it's nonsensical to deny the existence of "god"?

I'll bet my left eye that he's just gonna repeat exactly the same sh#t, just like he's been doing in his previous posts.

wiegraf:

I was just emphasizing that even if he did decipher it, the point's lost on him.

FOLYKAZE:

Atheism and god here is a english word. I think our discussion should be limit to english.

It completely went over your head that that was simply an example he used to make his point?

Never mind...

AgentOfAllah:

Haha... You got me chuckling a little beyond my threshold of dignity. Your sense of humour has more than made up for time wasted on some knotty-pated slob.

Ah, but you must excuse the DAF one. [s]That's what happens when you post during a pseudo-drug binge (whatever that is)[/s]

Lesson here I suppose is; betting on folly taking place is the safest bet there is

But y'all should take heart. At least he's stopped calling himself an atheist. That's remarkable progress

FOLYKAZE:
Atheism and god here is a english word. I think our discussion should be limit to english.

"Should be LIMITED to English"

If you wish to limit any discussion to English, you should probably limit your usage to its linguistic rules first, and stop behaving like an ignorant slob. A good starting point would be the Wikipedia page on POLYSEMY! I hope the 'Orisha' in you saves you from your supernatural nincompoopery.

Oh, and while you're at that, maybe also read on the FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION

AgentOfAllah:


"Should be LIMITED to English"

If you wish to limit any discussion to English, you should probably limit your usage to its linguistic rules first, and stop behaving like an ignorant slob. A good starting point would be the Wikipedia page on POLYSEMY! I hope the 'Orisha' in you saves you from your supernatural nincompoopery.

Oh, and while you're at that, maybe also read on the FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION

Orisha in english is god.

Yoruba spiritualist is a naturalistic pantheist. And an existence of god is very much present in the system.

You are very dodgy and have problem with comprehension.

In english definition of god, is an influencial man not a god?

Do you as an athiest disbelieve in the existence of god defined as influencial person?

finofaya:


You're so dogged.

Seem so but not actually.

finofaya:

It's a rather trivial point you're insisting on. "God" has several meanings, you know this. In a sentence, you usually only refer to one of its meanings or the other when you use the word. You rarely refer to all the meanings at once in a sentence.

You getting me wrong bro.

You agree with me that god has different meaning but like other atheists, you want to hold unto a meaning while others are dismissed.

I understand that atheists like I am do not believe in any supernatural being living in the sky. But we do understand that man is also a deity. Different culture in the world acknowledge this. Many religion concept acknowledge this. And note, this men are not just considered as god but they are worshipped as god. So will an atheist disbelieve in this god (define as influencial person)? This is the question ya all fail to answer.

finofaya:

If you ask for clarification and a person tells you which meaning of a word they are referring to, any further misunderstanding about the meaning of the word is your own problem.

Ya. Agentofallah defined god as a supernatural being. I asked, does he believe in deva, there is a no supernatural attributes to this buddhism deity. Yet, it is mythical. I ask you too, if god is supernatural being, do you believe in deva?

finofaya:

For example, if I say "there are spirits in the kitchen" and after query from you I indicate that I'm referring to liquor, it is not my problem that you go on to claim that I'm also referring to a demon. Go and compute what is being said on your own.

You have actually not define what god is.

What is god?

What concept do you disbelieve in?

Do you believe in other concepts?

finofaya:

Another example. Fela (PBUH), an influential person who used to exist, is a god to you. I agree. Note how I'm not going on to ask you if Fela is the gallery in your theatre, or insisting that he must also be the gallery in a theatre to you.

I will provide you with basic answer. Fela is an influencial person. . . .and not gallery in a theatre.

You guys have refused to provide answer to my questions.

As an atheist, do you disbelieve in the existence of god (defined as influencial person)?

finofaya:

Why do you call yourself a spiritual atheist when you think that it's nonsensical to deny the existence of "god"?

Spiritual Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of "God", defined as an entity external to the universe that created and rules the universe; but the presence of belief in the existence of "God", defined as the personification of the universe itself and everything therein.

I dont have problem with god until when you define what you mean by god. I respect every individual view of things and choose to disbelieve in any of those definition that cannot be proven.

There is a shrine dedicated for Fela, he is been idolized. Rituals are perform in this shrine. Prayers are been said. And from him comes an ideology and philosophy. Will an atheist disbelieve in existence of fela (a deity)? This is the question you guys should provide answer to.

Imperial cult is very common in ancient days and still exist in some tradition. Persons are been worship as a deity. Will an atheist disbelieve in the existence of these deities (personalities)?

Nuclearboy here defined god as anything/anyone that has dominion and been worship. We all know about celebrity worship and worshipping of country and money. Does this mean atheists are practical religious person?

Plaetton is an atheist that believe energy is the eternal conscious creator. He believes in veneration of sun and the planets (I dont know if he practice this). He leans to spiritualism like Sam Harris but throwns out the idea of religion dogmatism. Meanwhile Sam and Plaetton are atheists.

My "spirituality" means feeling a connectedness with something outside of oneself, or feeling an appreciation and/or sense of awe for something outside of oneself. Note that traditional atheism does not make any attempt to define exactly what is meant by the term "God" or "Deity"; while spiritual atheism is very specific about it, making it a specialized and discretionary type of atheism. This reflects the different underlying philosophies — atheism actively rejects belief in all possible definitions of the term "God"; while spiritual atheism actively rejects belief in only one very specific definition of the term "God" which is super-personal being.

So the burden is on you guys to tell us which god or concept of god you disbelieve in.

Do you disbelieve in definition of god as influencial person?

Do you disbelieve god in pantheist concept?

Do you disbelieve god in spinoza concept?

These are the question begging for answer.

FOLYKAZE:


Orisha in english is god.

Yoruba spiritualist is a naturalistic pantheist. And an existence of god is very much present in the system.

You are very dodgy and have problem with comprehension.

In english definition of god, is an influencial man not a god?

Do you as an athiest disbelieve in the existence of god defined as influencial person?

You have gotten me to the point where I can't but be condescending towards you, because your stu.pidity is just as unrelenting as it is worrisome.

DEFINITIONS DEFINITION DEFINITIONS!!!

Polysemy: the ambiguity of an individual word or phrase that can be used (in different contexts) to express two or more different meanings. (Sync. Lexical ambiguity). (Princeton dictionary)

Equivocation Fallacy: The misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

Albeit in common parlance it is used in a variety of contexts, when discussed as a fallacy, equivocation only occurs when the arguer makes a word or phrase employed in two (or more) different senses in an argument appear to have the same meaning throughout. (Wikipedia excerpt)
--------------------------------------------------------------

For the umpteenth time, I don't care about the word 'god' or any other word for that matter, I care about ideas for which words are placeholders. No atheist (that I know of) denies the existence of influential persons, I couldn't care less if you or the dictionary calls them Sango, amadioha, Zeus, orisha, god or zebrudaya, that's your problem. Defining influential persons as god merely makes 'god' synonymous with 'influential persons'. This is not invalid, but it is superfluous. Yet, this definition of god is utterly independent of the more conventional meaning, which is a 'supernatural being'.

If you want to be extremely pedantic, you may argue that the word 'atheist' is derived from the Greek root words 'ἀ-' (prefix for without) 'θεός' (Theos), which translates to 'without god' (godless) in English. Hence, in the broadest sense of the word 'god' in English, atheist is a misnomer. Consequently, an atheist cannot exist literally (this is, I think, where your dissonance lies). But before you fall deeper into that trap, take note that in Greek, the idea of referring to influential persons as 'theos' does NOT at all exist. Theos is strictly used to define a supreme being with supernatural attributes. So when a Greek person uses that word, they know exactly what it describes, which is a person without belief in a supernatural being. The word was brought into the English language, carrying the same meaning and it continues to do so, even with the ambiguity associated with the English word 'god'. As a result, you cannot say atheists don't exist, or that the word is a misnomer, for that matter.

AgentOfAllah

Why waste your time teaching him English? Or Norwegian? Or Greek? Just don't bother with the troll. His reply will be the same, this time I bet my right eye...

AgentOfAllah:
For the umpteenth time, I don't care about the word 'god' or any other word for that matter, I care about ideas for which words are placeholders. No atheist (that I know of) denies the existence of influential persons, I couldn't care less if you or the dictionary calls them Sango, amadioha, Zeus, orisha, god or zebrudaya, that's your problem. Defining influential persons as god merely makes 'god' synonymous with 'influential persons'. This is not invalid, but it is superfluous. Yet, this definition of god is utterly independent of the more conventional meaning, which is a 'supernatural being'.

A fantastic sentence construction filled with loads of illogical fallacy. I have been trying all along to drill into your intelligence but found out that you are just a bitter, confused, unintelligent and empty soul.

Starting with, it is a common ideology and conceptual view of many cultures, tradition and religion of ancient time and present age recognising MAN as god. The kings, ruler and emperors across the world are been considered as deity in many cultures today. We have records of sacred kings, divine leaders and apotheosis (like fela) which recognise man as a divinity and deity in it idea. Choice to romance with monetheistic conceptions especially that of abrahamic concept among hundreds of concept expose insincerity and foolishness of atheists like you.

Apotheosis, Animism, pantheism, spinozism Euhemerism Panpsychism are common concept of god which hold the idea that natural entities are divine, sacred and considered as deity.

One would think you are wise but your foolery creep out when you claim to disbelieve in only one idea of god, supernatural being. What happens to other ideas that have no supernatural attributes? Are they not god?

You could have make sense if you create a word for disbelieve in supernatural. Your romanticing of an idea reveal your atheistic stance is lie and deceit. . .you dont have problem with god but supernaturals.

Atheism (a+theos) has a deal with GENERAL conception and idea of god, not just supernatural gods.


On that supernatural god, I know of a historical sacred kings of england with supernatural attribute. The supernatural power of royal touch. Are these apotheosis king of england not existing?

And to clear your ignorance, considering a MAN as deity is not synonyms but apotheosis. Meanwhile, deified kings are been worship, rituals made for them and many other religious ceremonies. Do you disbelieve in the existence of roman god Quirinus who historical live and exist as Romulus?

Answer my questions or you continue enjoying your foolery.

AgentOfAllah:
If you want to be extremely pedantic, you may argue that the word 'atheist' is derived from the Greek root words 'ἀ-' (prefix for without) 'θεός' (Theos), which translates to 'without god' (godless) in English. Hence, in the broadest sense of the word 'god' in English, atheist is a misnomer. Consequently, an atheist cannot exist literally (this is, I think, where your dissonance lies). But before you fall deeper into that trap, take note that in Greek, the idea of referring to influential persons as 'theos' does NOT at all exist. Theos is strictly used to define a supreme being with supernatural attributes. So when a Greek person uses that word, they know exactly what it describes, which is a person without belief in a supernatural being. The word was brought into the English language, carrying the same meaning and it continues to do so, even with the ambiguity associated with the English word 'god'. As a result, you cannot say atheists don't exist, or that the word is a misnomer, for that matter.

Another incoherent and hiding the head ostrich tactics.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_(word)

http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B8%CE%B5%CF%8C%CF%82

Where did you get your crap from in the link above?

Did you not see king and ruler meaning attached to the wikidictionary?

Even on wikipedia;

Germanic etymology
The Proto-Germanic meaning of*ǥuđánand its etymology is uncertain. It is generally agreed that it derives from a Proto- Indo-Europeanneuter passive perfect participle*ǵʰu-tó-m. This form within (late) Proto-Indo-European itself was possibly ambiguous, and thought to derive from a root*ǵʰeu̯-"to pour, libate" (Sanskrithuta, see hotṛ), or from a root*ǵʰau̯-(*ǵʰeu̯h2-) "to call, to invoke" (Sanskrithūta). Sanskrithutá= "having been sacrificed", from the verb roothu= "sacrifice", but a slight shift in translation gives the meaning "one to whom sacrifices are made."

where is supernatural attribute here?

Does Ra, the sun, has supernatural attributes when it been worshipped? Does this stop Ra from been a god? Does this to you as an atheist mean Ra doesnt exist or you dont believe in the existence of Ra. . . .the sun?

Atheists are indeed bunch of clowns.

Is Gaia not existing?

Answer those questions man.

DProDG:


I'll bet my left eye that he's just gonna repeat exactly the same sh#t, just like he's been doing in his previous posts.

Looks like you won your bet. Lol.

DProDG:
AgentOfAllah

Why waste your time teaching him English? Or Norwegian? Or Greek? Just don't bother with the troll. His reply will be the same, this time I bet my right eye...

Another loser that choose to run away when greeted with fatual and logical point.

I know ya all. You trend on ignorance. How could you call yourself an atheist when you dont know basic concept of God?

Do you want me to take someone that takes Sacred kings as a synonyms of god, Someone that doesnt know what apotheosis is and running around with sentence construction and insults or you that doesnt know what simple religion serious?

You can as well run into exile like you do before

FOLYKAZE:




Do you as an athiest disbelieve in the existence of god defined as influencial person?

Really? Don't you have any shame left in your ori apesin, sir?

Weah96:


Really? Don't you have any shame left in your ori apesin, sir?

Ori Apesin one who is worthy of worship by many. Lot of people gather to venerate and revile.


What does this have to do with definition of god?

If you dont have anything meaning to add to this thread, you can as well join praise singers.

FOLYKAZE:


Ori Apesin one who is worthy of worship by many. Lot of people gather to venerate and revile.


What does this have to do with definition of god?

If you dont have anything meaning to add to this thread, you can as well join praise singers.

LOL. See who's been providing meaningful contribution. Folly, you are truly one hell of a case.

FOLYKAZE:


Another loser that choose to run away when greeted with fatual and logical point.

I know ya all. You trend on ignorance. How could you call yourself an atheist when you dont know basic concept of God?

Do you want me to take someone that takes Sacred kings as a synonyms of god, Someone that doesnt know what apotheosis is and running around with sentence construction and insults or you that doesnt know what simple religion serious?

You can as well run into exile like you do before

Lmao, the kid's getting pissed off. At least he replied differently this time. I'll give him credit for that.

DProDG:


Lmao, the kid's getting pissed off. At least he replied differently this time. I'll give him credit for that.

Disbeliever in the existence of god but do note understand what god is within and outside conventional religion are. . . . .?

Weah96:


LOL. See who's been providing meaningful contribution. Folly, you are truly one hell of a case.

This is all you can resort to?

I am a god.

I exist.

You hateist can go fvck yourself.

FOLYKAZE:


Disbeliever in the existence of god but do note understand what god is within and outside conventional religion are. . . . .?

I speak not your type of English sir

FOLYKAZE:

Seem so but not actually.
You getting me wrong bro.
You agree with me that god has different meaning but like other atheists, you want to hold unto a meaning while others are dismissed.
I understand that atheists like I am do not believe in any supernatural being living in the sky. But we do understand that man is also a deity. Different culture in the world acknowledge this. Many religion concept acknowledge this. And note, this men are not just considered as god but they are worshipped as god. So will an atheist disbelieve in this god (define as influencial person)? This is the question ya all fail to answer.
Ya. Agentofallah defined god as a supernatural being. I asked, does he believe in deva, there is a no supernatural attributes to this buddhism deity. Yet, it is mythical. I ask you too, if god is supernatural being, do you believe in deva?
You have actually not define what god is.
What is god?
What concept do you disbelieve in?
Do you believe in other concepts?
I will provide you with basic answer. Fela is an influencial person. . . .and not gallery in a theatre.
You guys have refused to provide answer to my questions.
As an atheist, do you disbelieve in the existence of god (defined as influencial person)?
Spiritual Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of "God", defined as an entity external to the universe that created and rules the universe; but the presence of belief in the existence of "God", defined as the personification of the universe itself and everything therein.
I dont have problem with god until when you define what you mean by god. I respect every individual view of things and choose to disbelieve in any of those definition that cannot be proven.
There is a shrine dedicated for Fela, he is been idolized. Rituals are perform in this shrine. Prayers are been said. And from him comes an ideology and philosophy. Will an atheist disbelieve in existence of fela (a deity)? This is the question you guys should provide answer to.
Imperial cult is very common in ancient days and still exist in some tradition. Persons are been worship as a deity. Will an atheist disbelieve in the existence of these deities (personalities)?
Nuclearboy here defined god as anything/anyone that has dominion and been worship. We all know about celebrity worship and worshipping of country and money. Does this mean atheists are practical religious person?
Plaetton is an atheist that believe energy is the eternal conscious creator. He believes in veneration of sun and the planets (I dont know if he practice this). He leans to spiritualism like Sam Harris but throwns out the idea of religion dogmatism. Meanwhile Sam and Plaetton are atheists.
My "spirituality" means feeling a connectedness with something outside of oneself, or feeling an appreciation and/or sense of awe for something outside of oneself. Note that traditional atheism does not make any attempt to define exactly what is meant by the term "God" or "Deity"; while spiritual atheism is very specific about it, making it a specialized and discretionary type of atheism. This reflects the different underlying philosophies — atheism actively rejects belief in all possible definitions of the term "God"; while spiritual atheism actively rejects belief in only one very specific definition of the term "God" which is super-personal being.
So the burden is on you guys to tell us which god or concept of god you disbelieve in.
Do you disbelieve in definition of god as influencial person?
Do you disbelieve god in pantheist concept?
Do you disbelieve god in spinoza concept?
These are the question begging for answer.

It's like you're itching to make one look like a bully....

When I think it can't get worse, I read the next sentence and a new nadir is reached

It took me from facepalm, to despair, to cringing, to giggling. By the end, when you had reached Harris and the blatant copy/paste paragraph you borderline plagiarized, I was close to tears.

It's a stunning piece of work good ser. 10/10. I concede you might be a god. A god level troll, that is, provided this is all deliberate on your part.

Oh, and here I was thinking you stopped calling yourself an atheist. Now I'm the one giving you too much credit.

An atheist that prays...

Next you'll be claiming to be a vegetarian that eats meat too

I'll just quote the whole thing for posterity's sake. It's truly brilliant. Long may it continue?

Weah96:


He's a confirmed troll, or did you think I was joking? HAHAHA. Either that or he's a re)tard. I've been through this silly semantics business with him a while ago, only for him to resurface here and behave like a pinhead. I don tire for this person.

I knew you weren't joking. He's been at this English lesson for months now. It's just so difficult to ignore his mind numbingly dense argument.

wiegraf:
[s]

It's like you're itching to make one look like a bully....

When I think it can't get worse, I read the next sentence and a new nadir is reached

It took me from facepalm, to despair, to cringing, to giggling. By the end, when you had reached Harris and the blatant copy/paste paragraph you borderline plagiarized, I was close to tears.

It's a stunning piece of work good ser. 10/10. I concede you might be a god. A god level troll, that is, provided this is all deliberate on your part.

Oh, and here I was thinking you stopped calling yourself an atheist. Now I'm the one giving you too much credit.

An atheist that prays...

Next you'll be claiming to be a vegetarian that eats meat too

I'll just quote the whole thing for posterity's sake. It's truly brilliant. Long may it continue?[/s]

Get for yourslef a bucket and fill it up with your tears.

I asked a simple question begging for answer and not childish tantrum of yours.

Well I shouldnt expect anything serious from some that cannot define nourishment.

Common call your brothers to define what god is. They could help you save a face.

What is god?

FOLYKAZE:


This is all you can resort to?

I am a god.

I exist.

You hateist can go fvck yourself.

I don't acknowledge your divinity, Folly. But if you prefer to use the word God to refer to yourself, instead of using more precise nouns and adjectives, then God it is.

I'm still an atheist though, notwithstanding your arbitrary choice of nomenclature. Got it, God?

Weah96:


I don't acknowledge your divinity, Folly. But if you prefer to use the word God to refer to yourself, instead of using more precise nouns and adjectives, then God it is.

I'm still an atheist though, notwithstanding your arbitrary choice of nomenclature. Got it, God?

But you acknowledge I exist and I am a god.

Do you disbelieve in my existence?


That aside, there is common saying To err is human, to forgive is divine". Do you know what divinity is here? Does it sound like a mystical attribution? Divine basically means relating to, coming from, or like God or a god.

I forgive people. I am divine

FOLYKAZE:


But you acknowledge I exist and I am a god.

Do you disbelieve in my existence?

You ARE God. A lot of people seem to be influenced by your foolishness. But I'm still an atheist.

FOLYKAZE:

You getting me wrong bro.

You agree with me that god has different meaning but like other atheists, you want to hold unto a meaning while others are dismissed.

If "god" has many meanings, most of which are unrelated to atheism, we can only engage in meaningful discussion by dismissing the unrelated meanings.

I understand that atheists like I am do not believe in any supernatural being living in the sky. But we do understand that man is also a deity. Different culture in the world acknowledge this. Many religion concept acknowledge this. And note, this men are not just considered as god but they are worshipped as god. So will an atheist disbelieve in this god (define as influencial person)? This is the question ya all fail to answer.

I'm not here to quarrel with the dictionary. Do I believe that an influential person may be called a "god"? Yes.

Ya. Agentofallah defined god as a supernatural being. I asked, does he believe in deva, there is a no supernatural attributes to this buddhism deity. Yet, it is mythical. I ask you too, if god is supernatural being, do you believe in deva?

The wiki definition of deva includes supernatural attributes. Which definition are you using?

You have actually not define what god is.

What is god?

A "god" whose existence I would dispute may either be supernatural or natural, must have a mind/capacity to act with purpose, and must be responsible for all of existence or directly/indirectly this universe or human existence. These are the basic attributes. Anything else is not a "god" for the purposes of my atheism.

Spiritual Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of "God", defined as an entity external to the universe that created and rules the universe; but the presence of belief in the existence of "God", defined as the personification of the universe itself and everything therein.

So you're happy to adopt one definition of "god" when it comes to your own version of atheism. Lol. Please extend the courtesy to the rest of us.

There is a shrine dedicated for Fela, he is been idolized. Rituals are perform in this shrine. Prayers are been said. And from him comes an ideology and philosophy. Will an atheist disbelieve in existence of fela (a deity)? This is the question you guys should provide answer to.

You cannot pray to Fela, a dead man, under the honest belief that he can hear and answer your prayer, and claim that Fela is merely an influential person called "god".

Plaetton is an atheist that believe energy is the eternal conscious creator. He believes in veneration of sun and the planets (I dont know if he practice this). He leans to spiritualism like Sam Harris but throwns out the idea of religion dogmatism. Meanwhile Sam and Plaetton are atheists.

If you're not sure about who can be described as an atheist because you see people who you say believe in a "god" (conscious creator type, not Fela) describe themselves as atheists, you should take the issue up with them. At least you have an idea what kind of "god" atheism is about, otherwise you would not have been able to make this distinction.

atheism actively rejects belief in all possible definitions of the term "God"; while spiritual atheism actively rejects belief in only one very specific definition of the term "God" which is super-personal being.

So the burden is on you guys to tell us which god or concept of god you disbelieve in.

Do you disbelieve in definition of god as influencial person?

Do you disbelieve god in pantheist concept?

Do you disbelieve god in spinoza concept?

These are the question begging for answer.

@bolded, you've defined atheism then. Can we safely provide a different definition while remaining atheists?

Dude, as far as this topic is concerned, I've concluded that you're trolling. I dey go watch europa league.

Weah96:


You ARE God. A lot of people seem to be influenced by your foolishness. But I'm still an atheist.

That aside, there is common saying To err is human, to forgive, divine". Do you know what divinity is here? Does it sound like a mystical attribution? Divine basically means relating to, coming from, or like God or a god.

I forgive people. I am divine.



I am a god.

You acknowledge I am a god and also believe I exist and you are an atheist?

Confusion breake bone hey wepa!

FOLYKAZE:

Get for yourslef a bucket and fill it up with your tears.
I asked a simple question begging for answer and not childish tantrum of yours.
Well I shouldnt expect anything serious from some that cannot define nourishment.
Common call your brothers to define what god is. They could help you save a face.
What is god?

Ah, folly, in your universe I suppose that counts as a 'rant'. And I have face to save there as well!

Before anyone else answers you for the gzilliontthrirollionthseesaee time, allow me to ask Your Denseness a simple question.

You state;

you:

Atheists are indeed bunch of clowns.

You also (ra.pe the term and) refer to yourself as an atheist, correct? Going as far as to describe your 'spiritual atheism' as

you:

Spiritual Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of "God", defined as an entity external to the universe that created and rules the universe; but the presence of belief in the existence of "God", defined as the personification of the universe itself and everything therein.

Goot. So now, a simple question good ser; as you're an atheist, does that mean you're a clown as well?

A simple answer would suffice.

Thank you kind ser