Today's Question For Atheists
Since you believe there to be no God/gods how would you answer the question of the existence of Lords. Are there any Lords?
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
DocSavage · M
@AkioTsukino
You wouldn’t by any chance be a flat earther , are you ? The more you go on, the more incoherent you become. I believe you are doing this deliberately. You seem to think that if the rest of us were aware of the various definitions you have, it would force us to change our views to accommodate all of those other variations.
Faith in currency or in a spouse is obviously not the same as faith in religious deity. The term “Atheist” does mean Anti - theist. While the definition of “Asexual, does not refer to Anti-sex. As you stated yesterday. Much like Ken Ham’s description of light years. Correct in one context, but nonetheless irrelevant to the discussion.
Since you refuse to state your point. It would be pointless to answer any question, until you settle on which definition you actually mean.
You wouldn’t by any chance be a flat earther , are you ? The more you go on, the more incoherent you become. I believe you are doing this deliberately. You seem to think that if the rest of us were aware of the various definitions you have, it would force us to change our views to accommodate all of those other variations.
Faith in currency or in a spouse is obviously not the same as faith in religious deity. The term “Atheist” does mean Anti - theist. While the definition of “Asexual, does not refer to Anti-sex. As you stated yesterday. Much like Ken Ham’s description of light years. Correct in one context, but nonetheless irrelevant to the discussion.
Since you refuse to state your point. It would be pointless to answer any question, until you settle on which definition you actually mean.
View 39 more replies »
AkioTsukino · M
@newjaninev2 [quote]It’s astonishing how theists characterise the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as some sort of wild idea cooked up during a drunken night out and then scribbled down on a napkin using a cocktail stick and some soy sauce[/quote]
I'm not going to take that as an insult because I suppose I make the same sweeping evaluations about y'all. [laughs]
[quote]Evolution is change in the frequency and distribution of alleles. Natural Selection explains the mechanism driving that process.[/quote]
How I see science is the same as I see theology. Grasping in the dark and if pressed, elaborating on conjecture based, usually erroneously, on explanations arising from biases. We've had this conversation early on in response to the video on something about resistant something mutating. I couldn't find it on this disorganized format. I even went to my YouTube history and couldn't find it there. It was early in one of @Pikachus threads on evolution, I think, which seems to have disappeared. But I can't even remember what forum it was on. Looked at all. Couldn't find it.
It reminded me of the pepper moth saga still taught in schools as an outstanding case of evolution. The pepper moth didn't evolve, nor did the tree in an evolutionary sense. It evolved in that it changed. Pollution, not evolution. Camouflage, not evolution. But they teach it in school along with historical propaganda and abstract grammatical dictates. I've always loved to learn. Hated school.
You just look at the stuff and say it must have happened like this. The change in the frequency and distribution of alleles takes place? How? Creation. No, no, no, evolution. Does it change into something else? Is mutation beneficial? It doesn't matter if it's beneficial, it just happens. Then it was created to happen.
I just don't see the debate as even remotely interesting. That's me personally. I see @newjaninev2 and @Pikachu talking about it and they are informed, its seems to me, and passionate about it. Good on them. But we're not going to have any sort of mutual exchange, Even Pikachu who seems so polite, is just condescending. And why not? I have to try really hard not (at times unsuccessfully) to be condescending in the subject I'm familiar with and passionate about.
You do you and I'll do me.
I'm not going to take that as an insult because I suppose I make the same sweeping evaluations about y'all. [laughs]
[quote]Evolution is change in the frequency and distribution of alleles. Natural Selection explains the mechanism driving that process.[/quote]
How I see science is the same as I see theology. Grasping in the dark and if pressed, elaborating on conjecture based, usually erroneously, on explanations arising from biases. We've had this conversation early on in response to the video on something about resistant something mutating. I couldn't find it on this disorganized format. I even went to my YouTube history and couldn't find it there. It was early in one of @Pikachus threads on evolution, I think, which seems to have disappeared. But I can't even remember what forum it was on. Looked at all. Couldn't find it.
It reminded me of the pepper moth saga still taught in schools as an outstanding case of evolution. The pepper moth didn't evolve, nor did the tree in an evolutionary sense. It evolved in that it changed. Pollution, not evolution. Camouflage, not evolution. But they teach it in school along with historical propaganda and abstract grammatical dictates. I've always loved to learn. Hated school.
You just look at the stuff and say it must have happened like this. The change in the frequency and distribution of alleles takes place? How? Creation. No, no, no, evolution. Does it change into something else? Is mutation beneficial? It doesn't matter if it's beneficial, it just happens. Then it was created to happen.
I just don't see the debate as even remotely interesting. That's me personally. I see @newjaninev2 and @Pikachu talking about it and they are informed, its seems to me, and passionate about it. Good on them. But we're not going to have any sort of mutual exchange, Even Pikachu who seems so polite, is just condescending. And why not? I have to try really hard not (at times unsuccessfully) to be condescending in the subject I'm familiar with and passionate about.
You do you and I'll do me.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@AkioTsukino explanations arising from biases
Explanations arising from, and constrained by, the [b]evidence[/b]
[quote]don't see the debate[/quote]
What debate?
There’s no debate between the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and the unsupported claim that some magical entities did everything
For a debate, both sides need to bring something supportable to the table
Explanations arising from, and constrained by, the [b]evidence[/b]
[quote]don't see the debate[/quote]
What debate?
There’s no debate between the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and the unsupported claim that some magical entities did everything
For a debate, both sides need to bring something supportable to the table
Really · 80-89, M
@newjaninev2 Debate is about whose rhetoric gets the most applause. Rational discussion is fairly rare and is something quite different. At the end of it people either reach common ground or agree to differ without disrespect. If one already disrespects the other's position at the outset it's just a debate and probably unimportant.
ElwoodBlues · M
I notice you also suffer from the fallacy of the excluded middle, AKA false dilemma.
Between theism and atheism there is plenty of room for agnosticism. In fact, most of the people you label "atheist" are actually agnostics.
Moving on to your question, I can't answer it without an adequate definition of "Lords." I've been to a cricket pitch in London by that name; is that enough to say Lords exists?
![]()
Between theism and atheism there is plenty of room for agnosticism. In fact, most of the people you label "atheist" are actually agnostics.
Moving on to your question, I can't answer it without an adequate definition of "Lords." I've been to a cricket pitch in London by that name; is that enough to say Lords exists?
Carazaa · F
@ElwoodBlues fallacy of excluded middle, you make up stuff as you go along 😂
ElwoodBlues · M
[quote]you make up stuff as you go along[/quote]
WRONG!!
https://firstlawcomic.com/is-excluded-middle-a-fallacy/
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2018/08/18/fallacy-excluded-middle-statistical-philosophy-edition/
https://www.thoughtco.com/false-dilemma-fallacy-250338
http://www.seekfind.net/Logical_Fallacy_of_the_False_Excluded_Middle__No_Middle_Ground__Polarization_Fallacy.html
@Carazaa You should study logic some time. You might find it beneficial.
WRONG!!
https://firstlawcomic.com/is-excluded-middle-a-fallacy/
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2018/08/18/fallacy-excluded-middle-statistical-philosophy-edition/
https://www.thoughtco.com/false-dilemma-fallacy-250338
http://www.seekfind.net/Logical_Fallacy_of_the_False_Excluded_Middle__No_Middle_Ground__Polarization_Fallacy.html
@Carazaa You should study logic some time. You might find it beneficial.
Carazaa · F
@ElwoodBlues
God is more logical than you, because he doesn't need a brain to do miracles. Oh wait you can't do any miracles at all 😂
God is more logical than you, because he doesn't need a brain to do miracles. Oh wait you can't do any miracles at all 😂
PiecingBabyFaceTogether · 26-30
AkioTsukino · M
@newjaninev2 That's for sure.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@AkioTsukino So your sole explanation for why you’re suddenly talking about bats and birds and bibles is that you do that sometimes?
OK...
OK...
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
@newjaninev2 Because they all begin with B? Perhaps we'll get cats, catalepsy, and catechism next.
WhateverWorks · 36-40
WhateverWorks · 36-40
I personally gave you a more extensive description than the little Oxford one @AkioTsukino
AkioTsukino · M
@WhateverWorks By more extensive would you happen to mean your uninformed spin on it? What was your source?
WhateverWorks · 36-40
I sent you a link already ages ago. Also I don’t have time for people who don’t know how to have a conversation without relying on implication the other person is uninformed for not agreeing only to bolster themselves up into a sense of false superiority. Peace ✌️ @AkioTsukino
ShadowWolf · 31-35, M
AkioTsukino · M
@redredred [quote]I was responding to ShadowWolfs comment quoted below.
“ Many Atheists believe in science. Therefore logic would follow that they worship science.”[/quote]
@ShadowWolf was not making a logical statement in that case. To believe in something doesn't imply worship.
“ Many Atheists believe in science. Therefore logic would follow that they worship science.”[/quote]
@ShadowWolf was not making a logical statement in that case. To believe in something doesn't imply worship.
redredred · M
@AkioTsukino Again, that was my point.
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
@ShadowWolf They can coexist, but scientists don't have faith in science. We conditionally believe that our theories are a useful description of reality, until experiment shows otherwise. Then we revise the theory. Each time this happens we can use the theory to predict phenomena that we have not yet encountered and go looking for them.
We don't need faith, we have the predictive power of theory combined with the corrective power of experiment.
We don't need faith, we have the predictive power of theory combined with the corrective power of experiment.
BlueVeins · 22-25
I mean, there at least [i]were[/i] Lords in feudalism, but idk if there still are.
AkioTsukino · M
Really · 80-89, M
'Science' doesn't 'do' anything.
People, and groups of people calling themselves scientists, do things. They refer to some of those things (or the way they do them) as 'science'; so now they call themselves scientists, and whatever they do or say they can refer to as 'science'. Some even go so far as to treat the word 'science' as if it were a person or a set of rules to live by: "science say this", "science means that" "science dictates .. something else".
Semantic nonsense.
This is not to deny that there are some methods we can call scientific (setting aside for the moment the many different ways people try to limit and define that). But ordinary folks use such processes and ways of thinking in their everyday lives without referring to them as science, or to themselves as scientists.
Sadly there's much that I believe to be high flown nonsense spoken by self-styled scientists.
People, and groups of people calling themselves scientists, do things. They refer to some of those things (or the way they do them) as 'science'; so now they call themselves scientists, and whatever they do or say they can refer to as 'science'. Some even go so far as to treat the word 'science' as if it were a person or a set of rules to live by: "science say this", "science means that" "science dictates .. something else".
Semantic nonsense.
This is not to deny that there are some methods we can call scientific (setting aside for the moment the many different ways people try to limit and define that). But ordinary folks use such processes and ways of thinking in their everyday lives without referring to them as science, or to themselves as scientists.
Sadly there's much that I believe to be high flown nonsense spoken by self-styled scientists.
Really · 80-89, M
@AkioTsukino I wasn't directing my 'science' comments at you; just addressing the forum in general, and in particular the folks who respond to nearly everything as if it was about science or scientists. I see that as a kind of special pleading; using those words to imply some sort of superior wisdom.
AkioTsukino · M
@Really It could have been even if it wasn't. I was just saying I sometimes do that. Probably have in the last threads I've posted in.
Really · 80-89, M
@AkioTsukino I think we all do that in our various ways. Thanks for the mea culpa.✌️
SatyrService · M
linguistically interesting,
that the Feudal LORD, was a secular authority, approved by the church, with the power of life or death over his human porperty.
anyone up on Aramaic? Old Hebrew? [b]what was the word THEY used[/b] that was translated as Lord in English
[c=002673] the etymology of the word LORD can be traced back to the Old English word hlāford which originated from hlāfweard meaning "loaf-ward" or "bread-keeper", reflecting the Germanic tribal custom of a chieftain providing food for his followers[/c]
that the Feudal LORD, was a secular authority, approved by the church, with the power of life or death over his human porperty.
anyone up on Aramaic? Old Hebrew? [b]what was the word THEY used[/b] that was translated as Lord in English
[c=002673] the etymology of the word LORD can be traced back to the Old English word hlāford which originated from hlāfweard meaning "loaf-ward" or "bread-keeper", reflecting the Germanic tribal custom of a chieftain providing food for his followers[/c]
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
@AkioTsukino This is very illogical, the god of the bible and gods generally have supernatural powers, lords as in rulers who are human don't. I also don't see how people can "believe in lords," lords are part of a certain type of Govt system whether we believe in them or not, they're still there whether by force or voting.
AkioTsukino · M
@SatanBurger [quote]This is very illogical, the god of the bible and gods generally have supernatural powers, lords as in rulers who are human don't. I also don't see how people can "believe in lords," lords are part of a certain type of Govt system whether we believe in them or not, they're still there whether by force or voting.[/quote]
It is an illogical excursion based upon an uninformed bias. The gods of the Bible are both supernatural and natural. Gods in the Bible include spirit beings. Jehovah, angels (and other ranks of spirit beings) including Satan and Michael. It also includes piles of rock, gold, silver, wood and idols made of those things.
The Bible also calls Moses and the judges of Israel gods.
Words and their meanings are very important. Satan means adversary. Devil means slanderer. Soul means breather. Spirit means unseen active force producing results like wind, breath, mental inclination, spirit beings holy spirit (Jehovah God's active force). Cosmos means adornment. Sin means miss the mark. Lord means having authority, most often granted by another and god means mighty/venerated.
When the Bible uses the Hebrew word satan without the definite article it can apply to anyone, supernatural or mortal, who is an adversary to something else. Anything else. Adversarial in general. When it says Satan (Hebrew Ha Satan) it applies exclusively to Satan the Devil. Keep in mind Lucifer isn't Satan's name, it is a word meaning light bearer, daystar, morning star in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. It was applied only once in the Bible and not to Satan but to Nebuchadnezzar, and the Babylonian dynasty.
When I say god, you think God. When the Bible says god it means anything or anyone mighty or venerated. When the Bible says God (definite article Ha El; The God) it applies exclusively to Jehovah. Now at Exodus 4:16; 7:1 Jehovah God says to Moses that he would be God to Aaron and Pharaoh. Hebrew elohim. So, the term God is subjective. To worshipers of Zeus he was God. And a god. But in classic Latin, which they spoke, they didn't use the word god (dii) in that way because all gods had names. In Islam Allah is, literally al lah, the God.
You can't say all other gods are false, from a Biblical perspective, because the Judges, Moses, were all true. You can't say that pagan gods are false because it's subjective. Deification is in the eye of the beholder. If Jehovah God existed by himself, as indeed he did before creation, he wouldn't be a god or God because there was no one there to see him as God. To make him their God.
Most of all you can't say that no gods literally exist, because some do and some don't. Some require faith and some do not. Some are supernatural and some are not. Some have supernatural powers and some do not.
You can't say that all gods are acting as if they were gods because they aren't necessarily doing that. Jesus, Moses, the Judges, Satan, didn't or don't. Moloch, Baal, Dagon, Ashtoreth, Tammuz certainly wasn't.
The only thing that all gods, literal, figurative, mythological, historical, supernatural, mortal, inanimate, current, past or present, in any language, culture, time or place have in common, is might perceived by another and attributed to that person, place or thing.
It is an illogical excursion based upon an uninformed bias. The gods of the Bible are both supernatural and natural. Gods in the Bible include spirit beings. Jehovah, angels (and other ranks of spirit beings) including Satan and Michael. It also includes piles of rock, gold, silver, wood and idols made of those things.
The Bible also calls Moses and the judges of Israel gods.
Words and their meanings are very important. Satan means adversary. Devil means slanderer. Soul means breather. Spirit means unseen active force producing results like wind, breath, mental inclination, spirit beings holy spirit (Jehovah God's active force). Cosmos means adornment. Sin means miss the mark. Lord means having authority, most often granted by another and god means mighty/venerated.
When the Bible uses the Hebrew word satan without the definite article it can apply to anyone, supernatural or mortal, who is an adversary to something else. Anything else. Adversarial in general. When it says Satan (Hebrew Ha Satan) it applies exclusively to Satan the Devil. Keep in mind Lucifer isn't Satan's name, it is a word meaning light bearer, daystar, morning star in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. It was applied only once in the Bible and not to Satan but to Nebuchadnezzar, and the Babylonian dynasty.
When I say god, you think God. When the Bible says god it means anything or anyone mighty or venerated. When the Bible says God (definite article Ha El; The God) it applies exclusively to Jehovah. Now at Exodus 4:16; 7:1 Jehovah God says to Moses that he would be God to Aaron and Pharaoh. Hebrew elohim. So, the term God is subjective. To worshipers of Zeus he was God. And a god. But in classic Latin, which they spoke, they didn't use the word god (dii) in that way because all gods had names. In Islam Allah is, literally al lah, the God.
You can't say all other gods are false, from a Biblical perspective, because the Judges, Moses, were all true. You can't say that pagan gods are false because it's subjective. Deification is in the eye of the beholder. If Jehovah God existed by himself, as indeed he did before creation, he wouldn't be a god or God because there was no one there to see him as God. To make him their God.
Most of all you can't say that no gods literally exist, because some do and some don't. Some require faith and some do not. Some are supernatural and some are not. Some have supernatural powers and some do not.
You can't say that all gods are acting as if they were gods because they aren't necessarily doing that. Jesus, Moses, the Judges, Satan, didn't or don't. Moloch, Baal, Dagon, Ashtoreth, Tammuz certainly wasn't.
The only thing that all gods, literal, figurative, mythological, historical, supernatural, mortal, inanimate, current, past or present, in any language, culture, time or place have in common, is might perceived by another and attributed to that person, place or thing.
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
@AkioTsukino Sounds like you're reaching.
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
Entwistle · 56-60, M
@AkioTsukino I said Lords not gods. Think about what's been written before you reply.
AkioTsukino · M
@Entwistle Just answer the question. Do they exist?
Lord means authority, god means might. Gods are lords. Lord Jehovah. Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord.
Lord means authority, god means might. Gods are lords. Lord Jehovah. Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord.
Entwistle · 56-60, M
@AkioTsukino Lords definitely do exist. Jehovah,Jesus,Krishna and any other god you care to mention do not exist..in my opinion. No eveidence for them exists at all.
AkioTsukino · M
@EvilEmma And with those hairstyles who would wonder! They look like early Spinal Tap.
LeopoldBloom · M
@EvilEmma What about her?
[image deleted]
[image deleted]
You act like a bot. Your picture is a bot. You are a bot. So shut up. You don't want debate you want to be right.
AkioTsukino · M
@Really I would suggest something casual, like poached salmon marinated in a white wine sauce
Really · 80-89, M
@AkioTsukino Oh, you're a cunning linguist! But if you want to eat me I'd prefer to be uncoated - and please shave.
ArminArlert · 22-25, M
Yeah, that's still kinda bullshit. You have to be born in nobility to become a Lord/Lady. That or marry someone with the title. But who decides who CAN be Lords or Ladys?
It's all a bit strange to me.
But it is difficult to beleiving in a being that we cannot see in my opinion.
It's all a bit strange to me.
But it is difficult to beleiving in a being that we cannot see in my opinion.
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
What is a Lord? And are there any Ladies?
AkioTsukino · M
@ninalanyon [quote]But regardless of this rather Anglo-centric mild disagreement of ours, I doubt that @SemmelweisReflex had anything of the kind in mind.[/quote]
The question intended to establish whether or not opposition to the practical use of lord was similar to that of the word god.
The question intended to establish whether or not opposition to the practical use of lord was similar to that of the word god.
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
@AkioTsukino Only in English and only in stock phrases. And it differs from place to place and time to time. The first thing that comes to mind for most people in the UK if someone were to say the word lord would probably be to do with aristocracy, nothing to do with religion.
LeopoldBloom · M
Define “Lord.”
AkioTsukino · M
@LeopoldBloom [quote]OK, then in that case, I would say that "lords" do exist since there are people who have authority over other people. That's just an outmoded word to use for that relationship.[/quote]
Right. No one is trying to trick you here. Just because the words god and lord can apply in various ways doesn't change anything.
[quote]If you're going to say that "Jehovah" has "authority" over unbelievers, you'll need to prove that. [/quote]
No one can prove that except for Jehovah. It is no one's place to do that.
Right. No one is trying to trick you here. Just because the words god and lord can apply in various ways doesn't change anything.
[quote]If you're going to say that "Jehovah" has "authority" over unbelievers, you'll need to prove that. [/quote]
No one can prove that except for Jehovah. It is no one's place to do that.
LeopoldBloom · M
@AkioTsukino I haven't seen any proof for Jehovah's existence, let alone his "lordship." If you have any, please produce it.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
Lords? You mean people with the title of "Lord"? Or something else?
TheOneyouwerewarnedabout · 41-45, MVIP
Flying Spaghetti Monster is make belief..
but satans cool.. 🤷♂️
but satans cool.. 🤷♂️
walabby · 61-69, M
Yep. There's a house full of Lords in the Parliament, in London!
basilfawlty89 · 31-35, M
My question for atheists? If God doesn't exist, explain Lemmy Kilmister.
My question for religious people? If God exists, why did Lemmy die?
My question for religious people? If God exists, why did Lemmy die?
basilfawlty89 · 31-35, M
@AkioTsukino oh I heard about that guy, we're not even sure he really existed.
AkioTsukino · M
@basilfawlty89 [quote]oh I heard about that guy, we're not even sure he really existed.[/quote]
Even if he didn't the people that made him up said he died. That isn't at all uncommon for gods.
Even if he didn't the people that made him up said he died. That isn't at all uncommon for gods.
ViciDraco · 36-40, M
Lords as in nobles? The UK has the House of Lords, so if Lords attend that it is kind of hard to argue that they don't exist.