Keep It Real wrote:...the idea that believing in no god is a lot more powerful/weapon than merely not believing in god.

You can object to the existence of particular gods and particular works they have wrought on empirical grounds, but you cannot object on the same grounds that some god exists somewhere, no matter how unbelievable the existence of one such is to you. In fact, you cannot disprove the existence of the flying teapot, the spaghetti monster or a unicorn either. No matter how many locations you point to, demonstrating convincingly as you go that none of them exist there, you'll never manage to point to all of them.

Besides, the Christian god - among others - has been defined in such manner that disproof on empirical grounds is impossible.

Fine, KIR, that’s what you think. Why do you need to extrapolate that outwards? Having a powerful weapon is of course important if you feel like you need a powerful weapon. I don’t feel that need, my main goal is not to win anything in this case of casually describing my atheism on the internet. Therefore having a powerful weapon isn’t of interest to me.

I mean powerful/weapon in the struggle to extirpate most religion from society I knew I shouldn't have named that track Teraform..

They are impervious to weaponry, KIR. Religion is the strongest Kool-Aid around.

Teraform. That's an awful lot of forms: 1012 to be exact. What's the collective noun for a group of forms? A geometry, congregation or bureaucracy?

Keep It Real wrote:I mean powerful/weapon in the struggle to extirpate most religion from society I knew I shouldn't have named that track Teraform..

I know, but I’m not bothered about that.

newolder wrote:Teraform. That's an awful lot of forms: 1012 to be exact. What's the collective noun for a group of forms? A geometry, congregation or bureaucracy?

A Kafka, I think.

A Plato.

A formation

Kafka/Bureaucracy; Plato/Geometry; Formation/Congregation.

That's an even poll so far. Anyone else...

Hermit wrote:Besides, the Christian god - among others - has been defined in such manner that disproof on empirical grounds is impossible.

That's a re-definition. Gods were in people's vocabularies long before some clever theologian came up with the brilliant idea of re-defining gods to be immune to empirical disproof. In the good old days, thunder and lightning were the empirical proof of the existence of deities. You can easily see why theologians realized they had to be a lot cleverer than that. Now we have theologians of the calibre of Wortfish insisting that irreducible complexity is the empirical proof of God's existence, a far cry from theologians who make god immune to empirical disproof.

Lacking a belief in such deities as that of Wortfish seems a little, er, weak. It's all fine, though. Me, I wouldn't let theologians drive my definition of what is entailed by deities, but theology is what has turned out to drive your definition of atheism, and maybe it's good to have a big tent that includes all the atheists. Very ecumenical, but in particular, very economical, as well.

Hermit wrote:A formation

Fuck that. Affirmation is what we really need.

newolder wrote:Kafka/Bureaucracy; Plato/Geometry; Formation/Congregation.

That's an even poll so far. Anyone else...

A school (of forms). It's actually meant to refer to terraforming a planet, but I guess I spelt it wrong. I'll post the track tomoz if anyone is interested to hear it. It's DnB (surprise surprise).

Drill and bass? Can't w8!

DRUM and bass

What's wrong with Drill 'n' Bass, tho'?

I have no idea what it sounds like TBH...heard of it...go on then :presses play:

hmmmmmmmmmmm reminds me of breakcore IIRC... more enjoyable though IMO...not very groovy though....nor much atmosphere...nor melody...more like just information...defo kinda liked it...if I were Borg I'd be tearing down the dance hehe

Cito di Pense wrote:

Hermit wrote:Besides, the Christian god - among others - has been defined in such manner that disproof on empirical grounds is impossible.

That's a re-definition. Gods were in people's vocabularies long before some clever theologian came up with the brilliant idea of re-defining gods to be immune to empirical disproof. In the good old days, thunder and lightning were the empirical proof of the existence of deities. You can easily see why theologians realized they had to be a lot cleverer than that. Now we have theologians of the calibre of Wortfish insisting that irreducible complexity is the empirical proof of God's existence, a far cry from theologians who make god immune to empirical disproof.

Yes.

Antitheists are just people who oppose theism. I'm pretty antitheistic and would love to see theism done away with but I have no interest in enforcing such a thing.