Nope, not getting it at all.
Which is why you continually fail in understanding what people are flat-out telling you. Your definitions are wrong. Let me say that again. Your definitions are wrong. They bear no relationship to the definitions of the words that the majority of us use. You cannot come up with an understanding of what people are saying, if you are using definitions that have no resemblance to the definitions they are using.
Yes, Quite.
But the definitions work for me. If I didn’t have them, I might have dismissed atheists as an irrational fringe group.
Again, it may seem like a fine distinction, but what you’re describing isn’t a group whose purpose is to go to a specific building and “be atheist” for an hour the same way a Christian goes to mass to worship God. This is a group whose purpose is to effect change in the community they’re living in, and that it’s an atheist group is irrelevant to the fact that it’s not a church, because “working to change the community” is not what makes a church.
That is not to say that various churches aren’t doing plenty in the communities they’re in; that would be absurd to even suggest. But the *ritual *part, the “gathering each week to reflect, pray, and praise God together” part is what makes it a church, and is the reason the church exists. Otherwise, what you have is a charity group, indistinguishable from the atheist group mentioned above.
Your definition of atheists as people who believe God exists and has abandoned mankind?
No, to atheists he does not exist. How can someone who does not exist have abandoned mankind, or for that matter, have done anything at all?
Well, with that belief it is clear why you continue to proselytize on this message board. On the other hand, as with so many of your pronouncement, it is silly and lacking in factual content.
There are many people, certainly, who hold world views that they espouse as being better than others. There are also a great many world views that simply express the attitudes and beliefs that one holds for oneself, without any opinion that it is a better world view for others.
Once again, you express beliefs from ignorance that demonstrate neither that you actually understand people or the words they use nor that you even appear to try to gain such understanding.
Actually, they way that such definitions “work” for you appears to put you into an irrational fringe group–one that does not believe that language has meaning or that other people can hold beliefs just because one is, oneself, incapable of understanding such beliefs.
Of course language has meaning. But they are quite different than statutes and other types of laws.
Language and definitions have a lot more flexibility. In general, I try to use the definitions most people use. But when it helps me to understand a situation better, I either create a new word or modify the definitions of existing words.
I’ve lived in the SF-Bay Area for most of my life and enjoy social contact with a lot of different people. However, for some reason I don’t run into a lot of atheists.
And this system is working great. The only downside is that you don’t understand what other people are saying and they don’t know what you’re talking about.
I’m sure you’re being a bit sarcastic. A lot of times I’m sure that you have a pretty good idea of what I’m saying, you just don’t want to respond to it.
I have little trouble communicating with my peers or my clients.
I’ve responded at length to a lot of things you’ve said. The problem is that your posts usually contain elementary mistakes that have to be explained to you repeatedly and in great detail.
We are not tlking about “laws” of words. We are talking about communication. Without a common understanding of the words employed, there is no communication. “You parents–if your children ask for a loaf of bread, do you give them a stone instead? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?”
You appear to be more interested in feeling good about the meanings that you assign to words than you are in actually communicating. If you misunderstand a word that your correspondent uses, you fail to understand the idea conveyed to you. If you use a word inappropriately, your correspondent(s) have no hope of grasping your idea.
You seem much more interested in playing games with words that you do not understand than you do in investing the energy to actually find out what they mean. That is a waste of your time, since you are only imagining what you hear and can learn nothing from it, only internalize your own errors. That is a waste of our time, since what you are saying turns out to be gibberish. Flexibility in language does not include every person inventing their own idiolectic meanings for words.
There’s glory for you.
pchaos, I notice you’re relatively new here. FWIW, tomndebb is a devout Christian. If even he says you’re off-base, you might want to take his comments to heart.
You have two problems with your observations. First, I get the feeling you think I want atheists to use the word “church” to describe their little social gatherings at the same building every Sunday. (I’m using Sunday here because I have been to an atheist meeting that convenes every Sunday morning.) Not so, I don’t care what word atheists use to describe their organizations.
Second, you seem to want to define a word for a segment of atheists that some of them are already using to describe their group assemblies. Much like the example I gave of the word “marriage”, your objection is totally meaningless, because the group will use whatever word they want to label their formal meetings. I simply go on record that I don’t care what word they use.
We’ve gone over the definition of atheist many times, it is the lack of belief in God or other deities. But every time I start discussing something atheists are uncomfortable with they want to go back to the definition. It is really the practice of atheism that is relevant, going back to the definition of atheism just means that you would rather not discuss how atheism is practiced.
Jesus with out a cross makes more sense if your God is a loving ,all knowing,Being. Surely such a being could do a better job than a human, but it seems it gets a kick out of seeing suffering, which if he were all knowing he would know ahead of time,and also be aware of a monster that he created and allowed it to devour the children it is said he loces so much.
Ah, there’s the rub.
Atheism is “practiced” in exactly the same way as “not playing hockey” or “not watching television” is practiced. It is very difficult (and pointless) to discuss how a person does not do something.
However, atheists do get tired of explaining this to folks who want them to join their hockey teams, or who keep wanting to talk about their favourite shows. The subject only comes up when those who do believe in God or gods insist that the atheists also do, but are just being sneaky about it. Or when the atheists see government money being spent to promote the local hockey league or TV show.
According to John 10 he didn’t seem to think of himself anymore God than his fellow Jews, when was called blaspheming for calling God his father, he reminded them of the psalmist calling their fathers gods!
It isn’t. Period.