how can atheists use the word "god"?

how can atheists use the words "easter bunny"?

 

So basically what you´re saying is.....

These people are not worth my time



I can think of several reasons that we should ¨waste¨ words on them. They are making life very unpleasant for a lot of people because an invisible man tells them to do so. (I´m probably not allowed to say ¨invisible man¨ either....sorry)

 

God God God, god god god, Capital G, small G, fucking means nothing to me, it's just a word I use. It has no power over me. If I had to block it out of my world, THAT would be like giving it some kind of God Damn power over me!

 

Any meaning desired can be contributed to the word "God".
Personally, I find God to be the essence of life, the driving force behind nature.

 

The fact still remains that if you argue about the concept of "god" then either you dont know what you are talking about when you use that word, as according to atheists, nobody has ever seen "god" and therefore the exact nature of this "god" cannot be determined, or else you are assuming this "god" has the characteristics ascribed to it by theists in which case you admit their arguments are based on some knowledge. Unless you rid yourself of the word "god" you will never rid yourself of the sneaking suspicion that you could be wrong. To use the word "god", while denying that word has a meaning, is about the same as saying that an invisible cup does not exist while still trying to drink from it. It simply doesnt make sense to argue with theists about "god" since the word has no meaning and therefore both sides are talking utter nonesense
If the word "god" has no meaning, as atheists tell theists this is the case, then what is the point of uttering sentences that have no meaning, it makes atheists as much like lunatics as theists are

 

disagree, i use the word meaninglessly all the time

it's very hard to reprogram the brain, especially the installed language modules

oh, i was raised in a fairly non-religious household, apart from historical/architectural tourism can count the times i've been inside a religious building on the fingers of one hand [2 weddings, a funeral, grandparents forcing me once as a teenager, class field trip]

still, goddammit, well, you know . . .

 

that's fair enough, but trying to construct an argument to defeat theism while using theist terminology as though that terminology had meaning invested in it, is far far different to that

also its not that difficult to reprogram the brain to do without a certain word. One method I used was to quit swearing using words from the bible and also to quit arguing with theists. I found then that I was able to become far more defeating to them. For example, some jehova's witnesses came to the door once when i was expecting to see a friend who phoned to say he was popping round for a few minutes. They launched into their routine and after they had finished I simply said, "thank you for that", and got a book from my shelf and tried to educate them on the tcp/ip protocol for routing information between networks. They looked stunned and one of them nervously laughed so i gave them a pamphlet that came with a new router I had just bought and said can Ileave you with this leaflette in return for yours. strangely enough without fail. I see the same jehovas witnesses going up our street every sunday knocking on doors but they never do visit mine anymore. Now whether that defeated their arguments or not i dont know but they certainly went away knowing they would never convert me and i for one was grateful they didnt try and insert their insipid rancid arguments into my brain anymore

 

In any grouping of words or by itself in conversation where it substitutes as an appropriate meaning.

 

and that meaning is...?
how is it possible to have a conversation unless your words have a meaning so the meaning of the term "god" is...?

 

Could just be a place holder like she thought he was a god, or like a god damn the pusher man.

 

This thread is a poorly thought out reiteration of jmt's poorly thought out "if your atheist why bother so much with god" thread, or whatever he called it.

To ignore god and his crazed followers is not enough, there are rabid believers everywhere, ready to kill, maim, demote to a lower social order, convert, or some combination of those and more, to any one who does not believe as they do. As such, atheists must defend themselves and their viewpoints.

Also, it would be inherently wrong ("immoral") of atheists to remain silent while fools claim that atheists have no sense of morals, that atheists are "confused", that atheists are potentially dangerous (to anything other than their book and imaginary friend), or many of the other things they say. It would be wrong of an atheist not to speak out against such a great lie as this "god", while god is currently causing people to die, cultures to vanish, people to fall under the control of other people claiming to be doing the work of god, etc.

It is wrong to submit to evil, and organized religion in the common sense is EVIL. To say nothing would be nearly as bad as actively helping it.

"why do atheists care about religion?" seems to be a common question. A better question would be, "why does religion care about atheists?" You obviously care, you started this thread. You and your type try to convert me, and insult me when I talk your god down to the ground.

If you wish to be deluded in private, that's just fine with me. If you wish to force your delusion on others, and to claim it as irrefutable fact, it is my business to set the record strait and expose your delusions, logical failings, lies, and whatever other tactics you and your religion may use. To NOT say anything would put me in the wrong, too.

If you mean more literally, how can I say "god damn it" or what-have-you, chronictom covered that pretty well. It's a fucking word, a concept and figure of speech that does not need to vanish because I don't have an imaginary friend. You're exposing how narrow your mind really is, when you tie the existence of a word to the existence of an all creating imaginary friend.

 

your post is poorly thought out and i will prove it

Athiests do defend themselves, you seem to equate verbal banter with physical fighting

either you havent read this thread or are replying to the wrong one

I fuckin LOL'd - what does "evil" mean? this is some word made up by christians

I am an atheist and have been for over 20 years

LOL the thread is an atheist asking other atheists why they construct arguments using the same terms the opposition use and using them as though they have meaning.
You need to rethink your whole line of attack. just because someone attacks atheism does not mean they are a theist. infact the argument that atheism does not oppose theism adequately is well established in atheist literature. it is a weakness of atheists that they are attcking on a battle field chosen by the enemy using weapons (words) created by the enemy.
That is the argument so 1) i suggest before you attack me find out what exactly it is that i think because you wont hear me making a theist argument and 2) at least do someone the service of reading and rereading all their posts before attcking them otherwise you just end up looking like u are a retard that has been bursting for a dump and shit their pants

 

:2thumbsup: +1 :2thumbsup:


I find it difficult to believe that anyone can take one of the largest molders of the world and society, and say that the inspiration behind it should be completely ignored because they somehow feel superior it.

You don´t have to believe that a concept is true in order to acknowledge the concept.

While god may or may not exist, the concept of god is real. Denying it is as childish and nonsensical as denying the existence of the Bible.

 

interpretation of that sentence:

while something may exist that is nonsensical and not proven to exist, the concept of the nonesensical thing that does not exist, exists.

PROBLEM:
the concept of jkxsjkhsdkhdouisd is real

but you have to accept the terminology of those who believe the concept is true in order to argue its not true and that is the problem:
if the concept is so meaningless and void then whatever you say against it is just as meaningless and void when you use the terminology of those who support the concept is true

for example "EVIL" is a concept which has no meaning beyond the word bad
but to a theist it implies some act that is punishable by their nonesensical being they worship

 

Does zero exist?

 

Did I win

 

not sure! I think you just became irrelevent but i will have to read your posts again

 

oh wait - i am not arguing that the word god cant serve as a expletive. many expletives have no meaning - i simply mean that you cannot construct a logical argument using discredited terms, so if you are telling theists that god does not exist then you cant also use that word as though it has meaning otherwise you are arguing as much nonesense as the theist is

 

just to be sure that you know where i am heading with this. I see theists as being of two categories. Those who have been told a lie and dogmatically believe it but harm nobody, and those who are clearly insane and want to start some kind of political unrest based on their eroneous beliefs. The former we should ignore, they harm nobody, but the latter we should use the police, the army, and perhaps place them in institutions where they can be re-educated, and looked after so they harm nobody including themselves, depending on how big their threat is.
I refuse to directly argue with theists as theres no point in arguing with people who are delusional and perhaps insane and the arguments of atheism should really be brought to the level where we treat those people as being mentally afflicted. To argue on their terms merely reinforces the idea they are right

 

Yeah sure, change the rules on me, however there is an embodied sensation for every word we speak. The practical definition is that which is invoked.