Do you believe in God?

[TenEightyOne]

My friend is Italian, currently living in Italy, fluent in Latin AND has a degree in it?

Then I'd say you should quickly email her/him for corrections. You're arguing about a language you're not familiar with. The people you're arguing with it about are very familiar with it. I speak 4 European languages with varying degrees of fluency (and two sub-British languages in addition) and have a good knowledge of Latin through that learning.

I wouldn't take you on in an argument about Arabic constructs because I wouldn't know what I was talking about.

Subjective my dear.

Generalisations aren't subjective, they're generalisations. The ones that you're making are erroneous.

Your argument seems to have turned to why one is unable to criticise your view because one simply doesn't know what one's talking about... in a field where you clearly don't know what you're talking about (other than in the assumed knowledge of a friend in Italy). Do you have a friend in Latin America? That could be fun

 

[Famine]

Dude, while Latin may be uncommon in Bahrain you need to trust me when I say it's not uncommon for English people to have good knowledge of that language. It was de rigeur (joke intended) in my Middle School.

And I went to a grammar school, no less.

My nickname, courtesy of Mr. Coates the classics teacher, was "Caelum".

 

[TenEightyOne]

My nickname, courtesy of Mr. Coates the classics teacher, was "Caelum".

That really doesn't surprise me. @BHRxRacer will have to ask his Italian friend why, of course.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Then I'd say you should quickly email her/him for corrections. You're arguing about a language you're not familiar with. The people you're arguing with it about are very familiar with it. I speak 4 European languages with varying degrees of fluency (and two sub-British languages in addition) and have a good knowledge of Latin through that learning.

I wouldn't take you on in an argument about Arabic constructs because I wouldn't know what I was talking about.



Generalisations aren't subjective, they're generalisations. The ones that you're making are erroneous.

Your argument seems to have turned to why one is unable to criticise your view because one simply doesn't know what one's talking about... in a field where you clearly don't know what you're talking about (other than in the assumed knowledge of a friend in Italy). Do you have a friend in Latin America? That could be fun

Did you miss this:

I'll get back to this when I get word.

??


And no, my discussion is mainly with @Scaff I'm interested to know why he thinks people have rights and where they came from.

 

[TenEightyOne]

And no, my discussion is mainly with @Scaff I'm interested to know why he thinks people have rights and where they came from.

Everbody, please stop replying to this from now on, @Scaff is the only participant

 

[BHRxRacer]

Everbody, please stop replying to this from now on, @Scaff is the only participant

Well if you'd like to answer the question yourself, go ahead. Or anybody else really. Many people that are pro "rights" often give religion **** because it's made up. Well, so are "rights"...

 

[TenEightyOne]

Well if you'd like to answer the question yourself, go ahead. Or anybody else really. Many people that are pro "rights" often give religion **** because it's made up. Well, so are "rights"...

I can't believe your cleverly-worded spell didn't summon my nemesis, @Danoff, but there you go

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Everbody, please stop replying to this from now on, @Scaff is the only participant

Oh lordy!

Pun most certainly intended

 

[BHRxRacer]

I can't believe your cleverly-worded spell didn't summon my nemesis, @Danoff, but there you go

Oh lordy!

Pun most certainly intended

I don't spend much time here so I don't know what's going on. Care to enlighten me? What should I expect from @Danoff and why?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I don't spend much time here so I don't know what's going on. Care to enlighten me? What should I expect from @Danoff and why?

What you can always expect an up hill struggle while trying to find your bearings, I'm surprised you'd even ask.

 

[TenEightyOne]

@BHRxRacer I find that @Danoff's views on rights are very clear and strong. I'm still making my own mind up about my views on his views (and thereby trying to cement my own) but he's very knowledgeable on that subject. Which isn't an easy one.

EDIT: Danoff shouldn't be in the least flattered by that, because so far I disagree. I think.

EDIT EDIT: After @Scaff's later contribution I see I should have directed you to the thread he posted for you. You'll love it in there, wear asbestos though.

 

[Scaff]

Latter part is a generalization

I know.

So saying religion has no rights is like saying religious people have no rights. LIKE saying, I know what you mean now though.

Its nothing like that at all, the very point I made was the total and utter opposite of that.

People have a right to believe in whatever they like, which I quite clearly said. As such trying to claim that I am saying that religious people have no rights is both nonsense and utterly inaccurate.

BTW what do you mean by people have rights? Where did they come from exactly?

That's a totally different thread to this one.

In fact its this one:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/human-rights.77925/

 

[BHRxRacer]

I know.



Its nothing like that at all, the very point I made was the total and utter opposite of that.

People have a right to believe in whatever they like, which I quite clearly said. As such trying to claim that I am saying that religious people have no rights is both nonsense and utterly inaccurate.



That's a totally different thread to this one.

In fact its this one:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/human-rights.77925/

Thanks for that. 55 posts are a big ask for the night. I'll read as many as I can this week and see if there's anything trollable.



I hope you don't take that statement seriously.

What you can always expect an up hill struggle while trying to find your bearings, I'm surprised you'd even ask.

You love it and you know it.


edit-

TBC I guess. I'll tag you guys when I get a response regarding the atheism etymology

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

You love it and you know it.

If I was a masochist sure...but I'm not.

 

[Scaff]

I hope you don't take that statement seriously.

I saw no reason to take it any other way?

It certainly came across in that manner.

TBC I guess. I'll tag you guys when I get a response regarding the atheism etymology

What exactly was wrong with the link I provided on the etymology of atheism?

 

[BHRxRacer]

I saw no reason to take it any other way?

It certainly came across in that manner.



What exactly was wrong with the link I provided on the etymology of atheism?

Well everybody seems to think I'm trolling so, figured you may think I was seriously hinting that I post here to troll people.


What's wrong is that it's lacking, and it contradicts what my friend explained years ago. That friend is more qualified than all of you, so I'd rather wait.

 

[Danoff]

Well if you'd like to answer the question yourself, go ahead. Or anybody else really. Many people that are pro "rights" often give religion **** because it's made up. Well, so are "rights"...

Rights are based on logic, religion is based on fantasy. The basis of rights is covered in several threads on this website, most notably the Human Rights thread.

 

[Famine]

What's wrong is that it's lacking, and it contradicts what my friend explained years ago. That friend is more qualified than all of you, so I'd rather wait.

Maybe in Latin - but since the word is Greek in origin, not relevantly so. I've got two degrees in subjects not related to Greek (well, except we use Greek words occasionally)...

 

[Scaff]

Well everybody seems to think I'm trolling so, figured you may think I was seriously hinting that I post here to troll people.

At what point did I make that claim? I didn't.

I simply stated how your post came across.

You seem to be taking this way too personally and I would strongly suggest that you actually take on board the feedback people give you about how your posts can come across rather that getting needlessness defensive and make accusations that don't stand scrutiny.

What's wrong is that it's lacking, and it contradicts what my friend explained years ago. That friend is more qualified than all of you, so I'd rather wait.

I do hope that given these bold claims you will provide full details and citations to back up your friends qualifications.

Given that every source available (that is not linked to some form of religious extreme) all agree and not a single one states that any form of its origin state or implies it being a religion your going to have to provide some very convincing and well cited evidence.

 

[TenEightyOne]

What's wrong is that it's lacking, and it contradicts what my friend explained years ago. That friend is more qualified than all of you, so I'd rather wait.

To be absolutely clear on this point as I understand it (and I'm becoming a little confused so please forgive me if I've got the wrong end of your schtick); you say that ATHEISM differs from NON-THEISM somehow, is it correct to say that's your view?

 

[Spurgy 777]

To be absolutely clear on this point as I understand it (and I'm becoming a little confused so please forgive me if I've got the wrong end of your schtick); you say that ATHEISM differs from NON-THEISM somehow, is it correct to say that's your view?

I thought he was saying atheism is non-theism which is why we're having this argument in the first place, that and he's saying it's a religion, but to be honest, I'm confused too

 

[mistersafeway]

To be absolutely clear on this point as I understand it (and I'm becoming a little confused so please forgive me if I've got the wrong end of your schtick); you say that ATHEISM differs from NON-THEISM somehow, is it correct to say that's your view?

I thought Famine's explanation was correct, myself.

So often your bolthole that one - pretending other people know less than you but not really providing any evidence for it but your word and then letting it fade away, hoping everyone forgets...

Incidentally I have a qualification in Latin.

Theism = Belief in god/s
Nontheism = Belief in no god/s
Atheism = No belief in god/s

Which, to me, says atheism means one doesn't believe, and nontheism means one actively believes there are no deities (I think I read that somewhere recently, was it this thread or early in the Creation Vs. Evolution thread?). Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick there, but the different wording definitely says he believes () there is a distinction between the two.

The word of Famine is fallible, though, but I'd bet decent money he was certain before posting that.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I thought Famine's explanation was correct, myself.

Which, to me, says atheism means one doesn't believe, and nontheism means one actively believes there are no deities (I think I read that somewhere recently, was it this thread or early in the Creation Vs. Evolution thread?). Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick there, but the different wording definitely says he believes () there is a distinction between the two.

The resultant meanings are the same though; I wasn't disagreeing with @Famine. Nontheism and atheism mean the same thing, you do not believe in a god therefore there is no god in which you believe.

A definition posted by @Scaff; Atheist (Online Etymology Dictionary)

EDIT: They mean the same thing in actuality; there is a sum of 0 belief in god or a god. There is no function for belief in any god.

 

[Jet Badger]

The resultant meanings are the same though; I wasn't disagreeing with @Famine. Nontheism and atheism mean the same thing, you do not believe in a god therefore there is no god in which you believe.

But believing that there is no god is not the same as not believing either way at all.

 

[mistersafeway]

The resultant meanings are the same though; I wasn't disagreeing with @Famine. Nontheism and atheism mean the same thing, you do not believe in a god therefore there is no god in which you believe.

Believing there are no gods would not be the same as not believing there are gods. The former still requires faith in something unproveable.

 

[Sir Tuddle]

The resultant meanings are the same though; I wasn't disagreeing with @Famine. Nontheism and atheism mean the same thing, you do not believe in a god therefore there is no god in which you believe.

A definition posted by @Scaff; Atheist (Online Etymology Dictionary)

EDIT: They mean the same thing in actuality; there is a sum of 0 belief in god or a god. There is no function for belief in any god.

Believing there is no god is like believing there's a throne but no one in it.
Not believing there's a god is like not believing in the throne either.

Not the best of explanations but I hope it makes sense :d

 

[Famine]

The irony is that nontheists are often theists too.

Ask a Muslim if Allah exists. Now ask a Muslim if Jehovah, God, Vishnu or Odin exist. They believe the former exists (theism) and they believe the others do not (nontheism). It's deity relativity!

Atheists don't believe any of them exist - while true nontheists believe that none of them exist.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The irony is that nontheists are often theists too.

Ask a Muslim if Allah exists. Now ask a Muslim if Jehovah, God, Vishnu or Odin exist. They believe the former exists (theism) and they believe the others do not (nontheism). It's deity relativity!

Atheists don't believe any of them exist - while true nontheists believe that none of them exist.

That works for me, and corrects me perfectly

 

[BHRxRacer]

Rights are based on logic, religion is based on fantasy. The basis of rights is covered in several threads on this website, most notably the Human Rights thread.

So your problem is how they're made up rather than just the fact that they're made up, right?

Maybe in Latin - but since the word is Greek in origin, not relevantly so. I've got two degrees in subjects not related to Greek (well, except we use Greek words occasionally)...

He also speaks Greek fluently.

At what point did I make that claim? I didn't.

I simply stated how your post came across.

You seem to be taking this way too personally and I would strongly suggest that you actually take on board the feedback people give you about how your posts can come across rather that getting needlessness defensive and make accusations that don't stand scrutiny.



I do hope that given these bold claims you will provide full details and citations to back up your friends qualifications.

Given that every source available (that is not linked to some form of religious extreme) all agree and not a single one states that any form of its origin state or implies it being a religion your going to have to provide some very convincing and well cited evidence.

I know you didn't make this claim but given how many times I've made sarcastic comments only to find guys like @LMSCorvetteGT2 take them literally, I thought I'd make a disclaimer every time.

Back up his qualifications how? I don't think he'll scan his certificates. I'll show him this discussion, ask for feedback/sources and copy paste.

To be absolutely clear on this point as I understand it (and I'm becoming a little confused so please forgive me if I've got the wrong end of your schtick); you say that ATHEISM differs from NON-THEISM somehow, is it correct to say that's your view?

It doesn't. I believe the letter "a" is "non" in English, so technically atheism = non-theism.

@Famine 's definitions would be accurate if he'd replace "belief" with "religion". That's what my friends said, and why I believed what he said years ago, because it's exactly the same in Arabic. The word "religion" in Arabic means one's collective belief, that includes the belief of no gods.

 

[Famine]

He also speaks Greek fluently.

Convenient. Modern or classical?

It doesn't. I believe the letter "a" is "non" in English, so technically atheism = non-theism.

Luckily, belief is irrelevant. The "A" prefix, from classical Greek, specifically means "Absence of". Look. It. Up.

@Famine 's definitions would be accurate if he'd replace "belief" with "religion".

"Religion in god/s" doesn't make any sense.

"Theos", from classical Greek, specifically means "Deity". "Atheos" thus specifically means "Absence of deity".

"-isma", from classical Greek, specifically means "doctrine". "Theisma" thus specifically means "deity doctrine" (or "belief in god/s") and "Atheisma" specifically means "Absence of deity doctrine" - or absence of belief in god/s.

That's what my friends said, and why I believed what he said years ago, because it's exactly the same in Arabic. The word "religion" in Arabic means one's collective belief, that includes the belief of no gods.

Belief in no gods is a completely different concept from no belief in gods. That's why nontheism and atheism are different words for different things.