“Sinister” is a masculine adjective, “sinistra” is the feminine form.
Crap, hit “Post” too soon.
“Sinistrum” is the neuter form.
@#&#@&!! hamsters…
It’s perfectly specific. Everything that satisfies those conditions is God; everything that does not isn’t. The sucky part is, it’s not convenient for testing. Nothing I can do about that. You gotta choose sometimes - you can have a definition that’s accurate or you can have a definition that’s convenient. An accurate definition of God is not falsifiable, which makes it by nature an un-scientific concept. Bummer.
Thing is a noun distinct from a person or place. Happiness is a thing; it is not material. The four known forces in the universe are things; they are not material.
Not material, then, may be things, and may or may not be scientifically testable, as the two examples above illustrate.
I’m not trying to be a troll - I’m trying to be an honest skeptic. I can’t honestly dismiss God with science. I’m not claiming I’ve proven God (I would say that goes without saying, but this thread seems to be a black and white ‘you’re with us or agin us’ thread - can’t leave anything unsaid).
To all those who replied to my ‘sinister/douche’ post - I was responding to a post that said you can get a word’s definition from its etymology. False.
I’m also not trying to tell anyone what they believe. That’s getting the cause/effect backward. I’m not saying, “because you’re a horse, you have a mane, even though you don’t.” I’m saying, “because you don’t have a mane, you’re not a horse.” I haven’t tried to effect any change in anybody’s beliefs.
You’ve provided no falsifiable definition whatsoever, but why would you think you could? No one else in history has ever been able to do it so why would you be the first?
Yeah, they can be buggers sometimes… 
Um, that’s not specific AT ALL. You have negatively defined God by telling me what God isn’t. Please tell me what God is.
I’ll take an accurate definition as soon as you provide one.
A ‘thing’ is an entity, either in someone’s mind or in physical space. Happiness is likewise, it takes up space and is material in that it is something in the mind, which itself is physical. God, however is outside the physical and does not take up space, right?
I disagree with your terms, as both those things are physical in that they reside in material substance (the mind). You can have neither happiness nor the concept of ‘things’ without a mind. Additionally if you are saying that God is similar, that God is a concept thought up by people that doesn’t really exist, then I agree with you.
I fail to see how that helps your argument though.
I didn’t think you were.
Fair enough, but I’m not dismissing God with science. In order to dismiss God with science I’d have to know what God is.
Well, you haven’t. You also haven’t shown an additional option from theism/atheism.
So what was your point?
If the popular usage of the word Christian mean atheist (as it did at one time) would you say that all Christians were atheists??
You are trying to apply your definition (based off the popular usage as opposed to the correct/original usage) to other people.
Damn… it’s been more than a decade since I took Latin, but, isn’t dextra the word for right hand, and sinistra the word for left?
Could be mistaken…
True that.
I like what George Smith wrote (p.39-40) in his ‘Atheism the Case against God’ book:
Latin adjectives adopt the genders of the nouns that they modify. Therefore it would be sinister -stra -strum depending on whether it was modifying a masculine, feminine or neuter noun respectively.
Dexter -tra -trum does mean right handed and like sinister declines according to the gender of the noun that it modifies.
Another person who put the problem better then I could is Francois Tremblay:
Sol, I knew you’d be in here eventually to attack me. Here’s my problem: why does it so offend you that I think religious people believe in something stupid? Why should you be so offended that I look upon you with pity or disgust? (depending on whether you try to impose your religion on me or not.) It’s a natural conclusion given my beliefs. In fact, you should be doing the same to me. Instead, you scream and kick and imply that I’m a bigot. If that’s the case, you’re a bigot too. Do you not feel pity for someone that refuses to believe in your god? If you don’t, why wouldn’t you? According to your religion, I’m going to hell (according to anyone’s religion I’m going to hell :)) and isn’t that something to be pitied (“she can’t help that she wasn’t taught The Truth”) or disgusted with (“she blasphemeously rejects The Word”)? Don’t come in here and tell me that feeling the way I feel is wrong. From where I’m sitting, there’s a huge majority of people that believe in a total fantasy. Yeah, that’s right, and I’ll say it again. I fully believe that your religion is a fantasy. I consider that to be truth. Deal with it. I can call Christianity a fantasy if I want to and the only insult to you is that I’m therefore implying that you believe in a fantasy. Don’t you feel the same way about me? That I believe in the “fantasy” that there is no god?
The difference is that our government is forcing religion on me in several subtle ways. Lack of religion in government is not denying you the right to believe in or worship your god. Putting religion in government denies me of MY freedom of religion - which is that all religions are wrong.
I fully believe that all religions are based on outright lies or fantasies. I believe it is wrong to force any religion on people. I believe religion should be separated from government and from public education. You have absolutely no right to be angry with me for this.
First, you are unclear on evolution as fact and theory. Evolution, in fact the whole of science does not depend on direct observation of events, but also in painstaking detective work.
Well said, and something that I’ve said here many times, science and religion ought not to conflict because they properly belong to different spheres.
Which is why your religion strikes me as such a fraud. If one is a Christian, one is obliged to be a vessel of the Holy Spirit, to return good for evil, to be kind, temperate, and compassionate. Now maybe IRL you are a veritable saint, but on this board you come across as shrill and defensive. It’s impossible to have any kind of discussion with you on religion because you are so quick to lash out at perceived offense.
I’m not telling how to act beyond a simple injunction to let your actions match your words. Consistency, that’s the key. You claim to be a disciple of Christ, but you act as assholish as any unregenerate heathen. I’d cite a relevant Scripture passage, but you get upset when I introduce the Bible.
Christians, obviously. I have no idea why you need to drag in regional affiliation. (Hint: Read where I live, then reflect on the many posts in which I’ve mentioned my Confederate ancestry and my pride in being Southern. It’s that kind of inattention that makes you look like a jackass.)
I can tell exactly what kind of belief system you have from your behavior in these forums. It’s all talk, no action. For all your talk about your faith, I’ve yet to see one post from you that does not reek of arrogance or self-aggrandizement. Example:
Yeah, the light of Christ just shines through. "Fuck everyone . . " Would that be from Romans or Ephesians?
See, I’m not telling you not to be a Christian; i’m just saying to act like one if you’re going to claim to be one. Polycarp and I have tangled over the existence of gods, but he tries to be compassionate and decent in a discussion. I don’tr agree abotu the validity of his faith, but no way do I question his sincerity or authenticity. You, OTOH, are just so much clanging brass and tinkling cympals because your faith is just words. The second you get crossed in a thread, the claws come out and you spring. I do the same, but then I don’t claim to be a blood-redeemed child of God.
I don’t need to “feel better about my own beliefs,” mostly because I don’t have any besides a skepticism toward authority.
See the example cited above for claims of superiority.
Ah yes, the old “not perfect, just forgiven” ploy in which a putative Christian can act like a flaming asshole and then totally skip out on accountability for his actions.
You do know that’s exactly what you claim when you say, “I’m a Christian.” It’s more than just a belief system; being a Christian is allowing God to transform a fallen creature into His child. Salvation is totally accomplished by Christ’s atonement and resurrection, but its activation in one’s life requires the consent of the individual to allow God’s grace to clean him from sin. “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me,”–Phillippians 4:13.
And I believe I can speak to this because I used to be a Christian. I taught Sunday school for years at my church, I evangelized, and I worked on mission for A Christian Ministry in the National Parks as a lay minister. I don’t know what your interpretation of faith might be, but I jolly well know what the Bible teaches, and it doesn’t teach cheap grace.
Have you read any Dietrich Bonhoeffer? I strongly recommend his book, “The Cost of Discipleship,” which has a useful message on the imperative duty of the Christian to die to self. " Christianity without discipleship is always Christianity without Christ. It remains an abstract idea, a myth which has a place for the Fatherhood of God, but omits Christ as the living Son. There is trust in God, but no following of Christ. "
Again, I’m not telling not to be a Christian (although I certainly believe that atheism is the way to go). I’m telling you that if you claim to be a Christian**, then you should act like a Christian**. You might have faith, but your words don’t reflect it. “Faith without works is as dead as a body without breath”-James. If you say you love God, but you act no different from me or anyone else, then what kind of witness are you? Folks like you, angry, arrogant theists who are nastier than any unsaved person, helped me deconvert by showing me what a sham their professions of love and faith were really were.
do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God." Romans 12:2
I will speak on any topic I please–how about you stop being so egotistical to think that general comments on religion are not aimed at you specifically. If I have soenthing to say to you, I’ll address you.
So the problem is that everyone considers ‘infinite’ a negative definition - is that it? If not, please tell me what about the definition I provided is negative.
Francois Tremblay is wrong here - “Gods have infinite powers, but the word “infinite” is negatively defined, and therefore ontologically meaningless.” If infinite is a negative definition, then anything defined as infinite is a meaningless concept. Which is bullshit. The set of whole numbers is infinite.
Tremblay also says, “It makes no sense to apply attributes like “unicity” or “loving”, or even “personal being”, to a being when we do not know the substance of that being.”
Yet entire classes in non-Euclidean geometry stress the fact that you can study relationships without defining the underlying objects. Points and lines have relationships, although we never say what a point or a line is. ‘Two points define a line’ is not a meaningless concept.
It doesn’t matter what substance God may or may not be, if it satisfies the qualities that it is all-knowing, all-powerful, and everlasting.
It’s wrong to group it with a statement like “the soul is red.”
Why is it that any discussion of religion and lack thereof sooner or later devolves into semantics?
“You’re not REALLY an atheist, if you don’t believe that God doesn’t exist- you’re an agnostic!”
As if it matters. As if equating atheism to a belief system somehow validates theism. As if I fucking well care.
*I don’t care what you call me.**. I don’t believe in god(s). I consider myself an atheist, as in “having a lack of belief in any supernaturaly entity”. I don’t actively believe that god(s) don’t exist- the question is invalid in my eyes.
Can we please just move on from the fucking “but this is what the word REALLY means” shit?
It goes beyond that, if something is infinite that doesn’t tell us anything about what it actually is.
Right, but the individual numbers aren’t infinite, they correspond to concepts about how much of something there is.
Both points and lines specific things that can have material; in and of themselves they don’t have any sort of meaning. You have to attach meaning by inserting them in reality, to something. When you think of a line, you typically think of two points connected by a black line-because that’s what a line is.
What do you think of when someone says God?
If you do think of something, is that what God is?
And there in lies the rub; what substance could possibly hold those characteristics?? How is it possible that something could? Why just assume that something can?
Everything in this universe that we have discovered has not had those qualities nor could it possess those qualities. Additionally those qualities are logically contradictory, as has been pointed out.
So how can those qualities exist and be attached to something?
Not really.
Interesting approach that Czarcasm made about disbelieving one more diety/myth than most religious folk. Ever considered that most religious folk did the opposite by choosing to believe one diety and may have considered (or not considered) the rest, “cool” notwithstanding? When I say that other people’s independent beliefs do not affect mine, then no “straight” answer will be good enough for you, Finn. That’s ok, I can deal with being labeled “ignorant” with my “inferior” beliefs/views with my “cool” God. That’s the chance I take in this world.
And likewise, I’m still waiting for you response to this post. While I do not claim a superior view/belief system when I believe in God, there are quite a few athiests here who are definitely insisting that their views are superior to the rest. The Bolsheviks certainly tried to aggressively impose their athiest views on the populace of Russia (including the classrooms - which is relative to this thread for a change) and yet could not bring order without succumbing to violence and oppression…and still couldn’t stamp out religion. Man has evolved to the point where our brains can foster beliefs/faith/non-faith, rational or not. Is this evolutionary step for the benefit of survival and propagation? Who knows at this point in time? As the first known species to do so, the jury is still in session…we need to keep evolving to find out. Just my WAG.
Sport is the opiate of the masses.
Point of clarification: whoever turns out to be right with respect to whether or not there’s a god and what religion (if any) this deity wants us to follow DOES have the superior view. That is not up for debate. He who is right has the superior view.
Until we find out who actually has the superior view/belief system (which very well could be never), we as a society must decide how to deal with the differences in beliefs. Now with this issue we can actually debate about who has the “superior” view and why. I happen to believe that no one should be forced to live under a government that promotes a certain religion. I believe that my view is superior because it treats everyone fairly. But that is of course a point for debate. You may have a system that you believe is superior to that. These are two different questions.
I don’t get why that matters. A condition of existence of a thing is that some quality it possesses is infinite.
So? That’s not meaningless.
Consider the set of infinite sets. The set itself is infinite. It contains infinite things. That’s not a meaningless construct.
Not in non-Euclidean geometry. They can be anything, so long as two of one specifies a unique one of the other. You don’t even talk about what the things are, because it doesn’t matter. You don’t insert them in reality to something.
Whether or not the thing possess an infinite amount doesn’t matter-the point is that ‘infinite’ isn’t a description of something, it doesn’t tell you anything about the actual thing in question. It says that something is infinite, without limits; it doesn’t tell us about the actual object.
what is without limits?
So in that sense, it’s a meaningless definition.
In order to exist, something has to exist as something, right?
Infinite sets of what? What exactly are you saying is infinite?
The difference is, in non-euclidean geometry you are describing the attributes of something; a line goes on forever, you are subscribing a negative definition onto something that is already defined.
Whereas God is not similarly defined, you are just saying that God can go on forever (or is without limits), you aren’t giving me the vital part in saying ‘what’ can go on forever (and is without limits).
Additionally the attempted definitions you’ve given are paradoxical; take omnipotence for example: Can an omnipotent thing both exist and not exist at the same time?
No, because such a thing breaks the law of identity. Therefore omnipotence isn’t actually something that exists or could exist.
So if you are saying that God is omnipotent then you are in fact saying that the definition of God is that God is something that can’t exist.
I think what I’ve said might be confusing…please tell me if this is so.
Here’s why I care (and I’ve seen this over and over.) Say we say we’re an atheist, and Mr. Theist says “Aha, you believe there is no god.” If we agree on this definition, he next says “prove it” which is clearly impossible, and improperly puts the burden of proof on us. That’s why they’re so hung up on the incorrect definition - because otherwise they have to demonstrate their god’s existence.
Why is agnosticism acceptable? Because it implies - in the popular view, not its real meaning - that the problem is just too hard for my poor little brain, and I won’t say anyone might be wrong.
BTW, I hung out on alt.atheism for years, and easily over 90% of atheists are soft atheists. I don’t have a cite, since I don’t know if the current a.a list has soft or hard on it. I’ve been in debates against hard atheists, btw.