Do you believe in God? [modified]

Michael Schubert · modified on Sunday, September 21, 2008 12:16 PM

No way. The Teh misspells every second word. The concept of punctuation is alien to the Teh.

Ilion

Colin Angus Mackay wrote:

WTF? You agree that there are no Gods... Then you go on to say that they exist.

True, he's immediately and obviously self-contradictory. But on the other hand, you foolishly imagine that one logically can simultaneously deny that there exists an actual God and assert that there exist such things as reason, logic, knowledge, truth (that's iffy, on that one you may well demure, as your kind so frequently do), thoughts, purposes, "free will" (also iffy, as your kind deny-when-convenient) and so on. edit: I'm sorry! I thought I was responding to someone else. :doh: What I wrote may apply to you, or it may not: I don't remember whether you're one of these silly play-atheists. Please, if it doesn't apply to you, then forgive me for saying it in the first place. If it does apply to you, then please forgive me for mistakenly saying it (the mistake being twofold).

Ilion

Oakman wrote:

In the Hebrew language "Elohim" means the Gods. (Eloha is the singular.) It is used a number of times in Genesis, and is deliberately mistranslated in English as if the singular is used. (i.e. Gen 3: 17; Gen 5: 29; Gen 7: 16.) So those who take the bible literally. . .

You're so ignorant ... and such a liar (when you're not displaying *mere* ignorance). That 'elohim' is grammatically plural in form (masculine plural, to be more precise) no more means that the word is plural in meaning than does the fact that 'betulim' is grammatically masculine plural in form mean that the word is plural ... or "masculine" ... in meaning. 'betulah' is feminine singular; it means "a virgin;" its plural would be 'betulot' 'betulim' is masculine plural; it means "virginity" 'elohim' likewise is masculine plural -- it does not actually mean "God" or even "gods" (no more than the English word 'god' is actually the name of The Living God); its meaning is closer to the English "majesty" or "majestic-ness" and "exaltation" and "lofty" or "loftiness" than to the English word "god" ... which is why it was also used to denote judges/magistrates. And ghosts. So, to call someone 'elohim' is to call him "Lofty/Exalted/Majestic One;" it is not necessarily to call him "God." To call a plurality of persons 'elohim' is to call them "Lofty/Exalted/Majestic Ones;" it is not necessarily to call them "gods." Context matters!

modified on Sunday, September 21, 2008 7:43 PM

Ilion

Nishant Sivakumar wrote:

I guess the O.P. is asking if there are any polytheists here.

And now, for the debunking of Oakman's ignorant[^] (or dishonest) response to you.

Ilion

Harvey Saayman wrote:

IMO science is the religion of atheists, people to blind to see whats right in front of their faces! We didnt just happen, there has to be a creator behind it all ...

You're on the right track, certainly: though, it's no longer *actual* science we're talking talking about when we speak of 'atheists' (I generally put the word in quotes because most self-proclamed atheists are just poseurs at it) and their worshipful attitude toward the goddess "Science." You're also very much on the right track in speaking of "people too blind to see whats right in front of their faces! We didnt just happen, there has to be a creator behind it all." If atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, then certain truths logically and inescapably follow. Among them are (non-exhaustively, and in no particular order, except for the last): 1) We cannot know truth from non-truth 2) We cannot reason 3) We cannot know *anything* 4) We are not "conscious" (i.e. consciousness in an "illusion" -- though, even the atheists honest enough to admit that this follows from atheism never quite get around to explaining *who* is having the illusion) 5) We do not and cannot chose our actions (i.e. we exhibit 'behaviors,' we do not 'act') ... n) There are no such things as 'minds' ... which is to say, the 'atheist' logically must assert that he himself does not exist! These, and other equally absurd things, logically and inescapably follow from denying that there is a Creator-God. One can even find prominent 'atheists' admitting to these things ... and moments later behaving as though these things-which-cannot-be are! Pure and simple: atheism is mental disorder, willfully entered into.

Ilion

Oakman wrote:

Pan and Apollo were both pretty good and Terpsichore was perfect.

But the One God, the Only God, the Living God, is "Lord of the Dance[^]."

Ilion

MidwestLimey wrote:

Ravel H. Joyce: How, for example, would you prove that Caligula was a Roman emperor? MidwestLimey: A very nice analogy.

Mr Joyce stole the question ... from Christian apologetics ... and he apparently doesn't *really* understand the point(s) of it. Either that, or he's intellectually dishonest, for his favorite method of "argumentation" is to assert the scientism/positivism and empiricism such a question shows to be absurd.

Shepman

Ilíon wrote:

But the One God, the Only God, the Living God, is "Lord of the Dance

Michael Flatley is good, but he's not that good.

Shepman

Ilíon wrote:

certain truths logically and inescapably follow

Then why don't you logically prove them? (Inescapably would be redundant if you could do this, it is a waste of bandwidth since you cannot.) Using big words when small ones will do is the sign not of an education, but of a poser.

Ilion

John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:

This is a stupid fucking question.

So, it's right up your alley? The fellow has silly opinions, certainly. But then, so do you. The fellow gives no indication of being open to assessing the silliness of his opinions. But then, neither do you.

John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:

Religion has been beat to death here.

Asserts who? On what authority? Why should anyone imagine you're speaking the truth, much less that you have any idea what you're talking about? Let's try to be honest here (doubtless a real stretch for you), what you really mean is: "John Simmons, asshat programmer, doesn't want to think about God ... and doesn't want anyone else to do so, either."

John Simmons / asshat programmer wrote:

If you can't find something more interesting to post, don't post at all.

Would that not be some very good advice for you to take?

Ilion

Shepman wrote:

Then why don't you logically prove them?

It's been done and done and done. Willfully ignorant people like you refuse to see-and-admit. And I don't take marching orders from willfully ignorant fools.

Ilion

You're really not into paying attention, are you?

Shepman

Ilíon wrote:

You're really not into paying attention, are you?

to you? :laugh:

Ilion

Harvey Saayman wrote:

Science says that ... My religion says God created the heaven and the earth. Neither can be proven ...

Actually, you've been misinformed ... no doubt by "scientists." We *can* prove that we are created. We can do this by assuming that we are *not* created ... and then watching how quickly all the inescapable absurdities start piling up. Since the absurdities logically, inescapably, follow from the initial assumption, we *know* that the initial assumption is false. Therefore, we *know* that it is not true that we are not created, but rather that it is true that we are created. edit: By the way, one absurdity inescapably following from the initial assumption is sufficient to refute it. This particular assumption just happens to to churn out absurdities.

modified on Sunday, September 21, 2008 10:01 PM

Oakman

Interesting that you got one voted then. You think "Teh" showed up just to zap you?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Ilion

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

You're confusing 'theory' with 'hypothesis', 'conjecture', or 'wild drunken guess'.

And you're a fool. And intellectually dishonest. But who's counting? And, you're confusing 'theory' with 'truth.' Also, you're conflating 'wild-ass-absurdity-that-Ravel-H-Joyce-needs-to-believe-to-be-true' with 'theory,' which you then conflate with 'truth.'

Ilion

Shepman wrote:

Ilíon: You're really not into paying attention, are you? Shepman: to you? :laugh:

And yet you keep "reading" and "responding" to my posts (the scare-quotes are necessary). So, it also appears that you're *also* not into thinking-two-steps-ahead. Poor, poor thing.

Al Beback

Ilíon wrote:

atheism is mental disorder, willfully entered into.

A man comes to you and tells you that in order to live an orgasmic afterlife, you need to follow the guidelines spelled out in a cryptic ancient book. You refuse. Does the Lord award you brownie points for that?

Q: What's the difference between a hockey mom reformer and a business-as-usual pork-barrel spending politician?
A: Lipstick

Al Beback

Mike Gaskey wrote:

yes, and why shouldn't I?

Because you're too old to have imaginary friends.

Q: What's the difference between a hockey mom reformer and a business-as-usual pork-barrel spending politician?
A: Lipstick

Tim Craig

Harvey Saayman wrote:

I've only been exposed to "the real world" for the last two years... and i was shocked to find out how many atheists there are around me, it actually makes me sick...

Gee, such a sheltered existence. Crawl back under your rock. :doh:

If you don't have the data, you're just another asshole with an opinion.