Theists, define your deity(ies) once and for all!

146 posts / 0 new
Last post
Talyyn's picture
Theists, define your deity(ies) once and for all!

Usually in debate here, when we aheists ask a theist for a definition for their god(s), they give us vague, non sensical verbiage like it is "Love" blah, blah, blah...

So i ask our theist friends here to enlighten us.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Cognostic's picture
They can't do it without

They can't do it without erroneous, inane assertions, and fallacious comparisons. They REALLY can not do it.

catholicray's picture
Well I would define my God

Well I would define my God once and for all but the definition wouldn't fit in the space of one post. So due to the constraints of time and space I may have to wait until the singularity to give it to you.

Talyyn's picture
@catholicray,

@catholicray,

I konw you will call it to me... But you are a coward, if you can't define a god succintly, and resort to say it is by definiton unknowable to us lowly humans, what is the point of your faith.

For exemple, the christian god is generally defined as this:

-eternal
-omniscient
-omnipotent
-omnibenovelent
-trinitarian : father, son , holy siprit.

This may not be your definition, but it the creed that has been professed for two thousand years.

Edit

catholicray's picture
I consent to the Catholic

@Talyyn

I consent to the Catholic creed if that helps.

Talyyn's picture
If you consent to this creed,

If you consent to this creed, you must believe in the defined God I provided you with, because if you don't, you are not a a catholic.

See, it wasn't so difficult. Hence, do you consent to use this definition in later discussions in this forum?

Edited for typos.

catholicray's picture
@Talyyn I consent.

@Talyyn

I consent.

Talyyn's picture
@catholicray

@catholicray

Wonderful! Honesty is fine, isn't it?

Talyyn's picture
@catholicray

@catholicray

Now the god of the old testament is the one of the new?

Cognostic's picture
@Talyyn MORE FLIGHT BEHAVIOR

@Talyyn MORE FLIGHT BEHAVIOR FROM OUT FRIEND Catholicray, who just simply can not bring himself to define the God he believe in. I guess we have to give him a break. If I believe in magical flying sky beings, I would be embarrassed to talk about it too.

Talyyn's picture
One word: coward.

One word: coward.

And this is the same sort of people that say christianism is true because people died for it.

Cognostic's picture
Talyyn: I was thinking of

Talyyn: I was thinking of the same word but opted not to use it. Perhaps it is just what everyone is thinking about those theists who can not honestly and openly answer a simple question and opt to run away instead.

Talyyn's picture
@Cognostic:

@Cognostic:

Usually, other posters here usually are more sharp than me, but I think I have used all my patience now.

Edit

David Killens's picture
As Einstein once stated .....

As Einstein once stated .....

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

Talyyn's picture
I definitely did not

I definitely did not understand quantum mechanics in college... Well, to be true I did understand a little bit, but a year later lol...

Sheldon's picture
So a post in a thread asking

So a post in a thread asking for clarification, that offers not one single word to clarify your position. T'was ever thus, wasting the time and energy to post, whilst complaining about the constraints on your time and energy to post. We've seen this evasive nonsense so many times it isn't funny anymore, it does however result in an inescapable inference for any remotely objective reader.

You're holding an empty bag, and what's more you know it, so your evasion is both deliberate and dishonest.

Cognostic's picture
@Talyyn, Re: Catholicray

@Talyyn, Re: Catholicray "TOLD YOU SO!"

Talyyn's picture
@Cognostic

@Cognostic

You are so right!!!!!!! We're screwed here it seems lol.

Sheldon's picture
Somewhere on this site is a

Somewhere on this site is a thread I started asking theists for their best evidence. It has been on here for years, and not one theists could demonstrate a single piece of objective evidence. The first few pages were rammed with specious fallacious arguments like the ontological argument and the Kalam cosmological argument, the assumption of design argument (my corrected wording), the subjective unevidenced assumption of objective religious morality argument (again my corrected wording), and these were offered from the first as the best evidence theists on here have. Then followed risible claims for miracles, the faked Turin shroud, the falsified testimonies that beatified that sadistic Albanian nun who tortured people in her care, while the funds collected for their care disappeared forever into the coffers of the world's largest crime organisation the Roman Catholic Church, and on and on the thread went, and not one cogent piece of evidence ever offered.

I wish you luck here as this must a simpler task for them, but I am dubious, as theists need to keep their beliefs in fictional deities as vague as possible in order to evade direct examination and observation of their claims.

Talyyn's picture
@ Sheldon,

@ Sheldon,

I hope that history doesn't repeat itself then...

Cognostic's picture
@Seldon and Talyyn --- Hint

@Seldon and Talyyn --- Hint! Luck will not help.
The day a frigging theist explains his God in a coherent, consistent and empirically valid way, is the day I begin believing there might actually be one out there. I probably will not worship it but, I will probably lighten up on the theists.

Poor Catholicray is taking a spanking in this thread.

Talyyn's picture
@Cog, Neither me..

@Cog,

Neither me..

Sheldon's picture
"Poor Catholicray is taking a

"Poor Catholicray is taking a spanking in this thread."

If someone is going to parade about naked, while claiming to have a fine suit of clothes on, then they have basically pulled their own pants down, and spanked themselves. All we're doing is pointing that out, but oh how theists love to shoot the messenger.

The thread is basically asking a UFO nut, to explain the physics behind the UFO, it simply won't work as the delusion relies on ambiguity, and intellectual dishonesty in evading such direct observation.

Cognostic's picture
@Sheldon: Oh SNAP! Poor

@Sheldon: Oh SNAP! Poor UFO nuts. Just sitting there, not paying attention, doing nothing to no one, and WHAM! Like a blind punch to the temple, Sheldon takes them out!!!

Well, we will not have to worry about any more of them DAMN UFO nuts on this site. Sheldon has certainly scared them all away. Ahemmmmm...*throat clearing* ---- " NEXT! "

Sheldon's picture
I am always bemused at people

I am always bemused at people who go into complex explanations of what a UFO is/was, as if they seem to have not noticed what the U in the acronym stands for. The vast majority of it is pure argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, as of course is most religious apologetics.

Like deities UFO's remain fascinating, and are endowed with some mysterious validity by those who want them to be real, precisely because they can't be properly explained.

There is a very good reason catholic mumbo jumbo has always been espoused in Latin, vapid nonsense is more easily exposed as such when we can properly and fully understand it. Mystery goes hand in hand with the vapid nonsense of religious superstition, whereas reason, logic and science are anathema to superstition.

>Science explains mysteries, religion creates and venerates them.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
2 Cog

2 Cog

' poor old catholicray' probably deserves it. After all he fails to respond to any posts where his position is contradicted with facts.

Cognostic's picture
@Old man shouts ... Looks

@Old man shouts ... Looks like people have just had enough of inane mindless and meaningless posts.

Sheldon's picture
Cognostic "Looks like people

Cognostic "Looks like people have just had enough of inane mindless and meaningless posts."

I was hoping I'd managed to hide my frustration, ah well.

Fallen's picture
Some would say "That which is

Some would say "That which is inferior cannot define that which is superior without corrupting the definition by its own limitations. Rendering the definition meaningless."

Sheldon's picture
"That which is inferior

"That which is inferior cannot define that which is superior without corrupting the definition by its own limitations. Rendering the definition meaningless."

I'd settle for a corrupt definition over none at all, or rank dishonest evasion. I am struggling to object to this concept, but of course it renders belief impossible for me. If it can neither be accurately defined, nor objectively evidenced, then how does it differ from things that are entirely non-existent?

Where is that quote from, is it Socrates? Plato? Or a more contemporary philosopher perhaps?

Sapporo's picture
I agree completely with this

I agree completely with this thread: theists should define observable properties that are unique to their god.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.