Raw Dawgin' it;1198659 wrote:Honestly - everything you write is bullshit. Since you think definitions of words are opinions, you can change anything to make your argument. You don't have discussions, i'd definite discussion but it's irrelevant since it probably means something completely different to you.

sleeper;1198656 wrote:Nice dodge. At some point in time, a group of people decided that a new definition of joint needed to be added to the dictionary.

I am doing the same thing, suggesting that the definition be changed to accurately reflect the word's true logical definition.

sleeper;1198662 wrote:It's called faith bro. It's the ultimate trump card and is valid.

sleeper;1198639 wrote:Highly correlated evidence supercedes opinion. Words change, I'm arguing the definition needs to change to appropriately fit the correct definition of the word.

Raw Dawgin' it;1198665 wrote:Define faith...wait...i think your opinions are bullshit so save your breath.

sleeper;1198671 wrote:Faith: a convenient way to circumvent logic in order to justify an erroneous belief

sleeper;1198644 wrote:In a discussion regarding religion, logic is not needed. The believer side is forced to stand on faith as its justification because there is no evidence of its existence or facts that correlate at all with the belief. Because of this, I can make up anything I want and have it be just as valid as a believers opinion.

jmog;1198668 wrote:I would contend that the dictionary is most definitely highly correlated evidence since it has been peer reviewed and updated and so on for 100s of years.

Sleeper saying that the dictionary is wrong is like jmog saying that gravity doesn't exist. Neither one of us are qualified nor correct in the statements. You are not an expert in the definitions of metaphysical world views, and I am not an expert in gravitons.

jmog;1198677 wrote:By your own statement here, the lack of evidence of a deity, in your mind, proves there is no deity correct?
In a logical sense, the same statement can be made that the lack of evidence disproving a deity exists proves that a deity exists.

Both are locial fallacies.

sleeper;1198679 wrote:I agree that the definitions in the dictionary are the aggregate opinion of those using the word. I don't know why an opinion about a word's definition is invalid because it conflicts with the consensus opinion. Would you feel this way about something such as the consensus opinion 100's of years ago that the Earth was flat and anyone who thought it was round was an idiot?

I think not, but find the hypocrisy very apparent.

sleeper;1198680 wrote:No, it does not prove there is no god. You CANNOT disprove there is no god, much like you cannot disprove the existence of a invisible unicorn. I have never tried to disprove god, I merely state that there is a lack of evidence in the existence of a god so one cannot be moved from the default position of a lack of belief in gods.

Raw Dawgin' it;1198684 wrote:It conflicts with YOUR opinion - it's the only reason you're saying the dictionary is fiction. Fiction means not based on fact, but feel free to twist words into meaning what you want them to for the purpose of your "argument"

sleeper;1198679 wrote:I agree that the definitions in the dictionary are the aggregate opinion of those using the word. I don't know why an opinion about a word's definition is invalid because it conflicts with the consensus opinion. Would you feel this way about something such as the consensus opinion 100's of years ago that the Earth was flat and anyone who thought it was round was an idiot?

I think not, but find the hypocrisy very apparent.

jmog;1198685 wrote:So you are not an atheist, you are an agnostic. Good to know.

jmog;1198691 wrote:The problem is, the way you want to rewrite the definition of atheism, there is already a world perfectly defined for it. It is agnosticism, which is what we have told you over and over again.

You can't admit even 1 time that you made a mistake. You said you want to change the definition of atheism, and when you gave your definition, it is exactly what agnosticism means.

sleeper;1198692 wrote:I am most certainly an atheist by the definition that is most accurate: I lack the belief in gods.

I suppose I am also an agnostic in that the existence of gods cannot be proven, ever, for any reason.

Raw Dawgin' it;1198695 wrote:this would be wrong...but i like how you switch definitions to make your case. Honestly - you should be a lawyer and i guess no laws apply to you since you can just claim "My view is correct and the mass majority just hasn't figured it out yet"

Someday many of you unbeliever will rethink your opinion

In His time, not ours.

sleeper;1198702 wrote:Isn't that what believers do?




Also, I'd love to hear how one would prove their specific god exists.

Raw Dawgin' it;1198708 wrote:Words are not facts so you cannot prove one does not exist. You're fucking awful sometimes.

isadore;1198715 wrote:Gosh a ruddie
The present uptick in unbeliever is nothing new. Support for religion in America has been cyclical. In all probabiity this time of rising doubt will be followed another Great Awakening and then a falling away and then ..............

sleeper;1198714 wrote:I have a very high standard for what I consider a fact. If this bothers you, then I cannot help you.

Raw Dawgin' it;1198719 wrote:You get tired chasing your tail all the time?

sleeper;1198721 wrote:No, but I do get tired of winning debates without much effort needed.