Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

So, I'd say Oakdale's statement itself is deficient. It lacks the definitional clarity necessary to determine if one could agree or disagree with it.

Oh well too far away to help him.

Well you come from a religious background full of mysteries and stuff

I have some questions about Oakdale's statement:

Precisely what is deficient? Are definitions deficient? Are proofs deficient? Deficient in what sense? For what purposes? And what would be the better alternative that would not be deficient?

So, I'd say Oakdale's statement itself is deficient. It lacks the definitional clarity necessary to determine if one could agree or disagree with it.

"A unicorn is a horse with a single horn situated slightly above and between its eyes" pretty much defines the creature most of us "recognize"… In what way does that make that creature real, extant and yummy?

ersi, saying such-and-such doesn't make it so. Why do you find this controversial? Might it be because you prefer word-games to science or logic?

There is a certain (particular) sense in which God is a required concept for the existence of anything…

But that "God" has no necessary connection to any contemporary religion. Sect and di-sect…, my friend!

You don't divide by zero!

The Eleventh Commandment... 

The (definitional, logical, metaphysical) sense in which God is a required concept for the existence of anything should satisfy the seeker's intellectual curiosity. You don't ask for more. You just don't. It's the same as you don't divide by zero. You just don't, either in math, in logic, or in whatever you call reality. You don't divide by zero! You will have to be happy with the logical necessity of this, and that's it! Sorry, but more than this cannot be given.

Of course, some people simply can't do that and some of those who 'simply can't do that', are here on DnD thumping their bibles and trying to sound intellectual about their childish superstitions and hopes for eternal life...uh huh, uh huh, uh huh, dat's what dey wants awright.       

On another point however, the term 'atheist' is somewhat misleading.  It says that a person does not believe in something, namely God, but in a backhanded way that presupposes that God could be real--and that is completely irrational.  I am not anti-God any more than I am anti-unicorns.  Unicorns don't exist, so how can I possibly take a stand on their existence?  Ditto with God.  We are all atheist of the Roman Gods, so do we need to declare that by labeling ourselves?  I don't believe in voodoo, do I need to take a stand as an avoodooist?  How about anastrologist, gets pretty absurd after a while, huh? 

Gods have come and gone since time immemorium and the gods of today will go by the same way as the gods of Mount Olympus simply because people will grow up.

Of course, some people simply can't do that and some of those who 'simply can't do that', are here on DnD thumping their bibles and trying to sound intellectual about their childish superstitions and hopes for eternal life

An interesting analogy that satisfies my curiosity, but probably not in the way you would expect or hope for.  One can't say "you don't divide by zero" simply because division by zero is always undefined and as such, it is nonsense--and so is God (you certainly should agree with this, imho).

On another point however, the term 'atheist' is somewhat misleading.  It says that a person does not believe in something, namely God, but in a backhanded way that presupposes that God could be real--and that is completely irrational.  I am not anti-God any more than I am anti-unicorns.  Unicorns don't exist, so how can I possibly take a stand on their existence?  Ditto with God.  We are all atheist of the Roman Gods, so do we need to declare that by labeling ourselves?  I don't believe in voodoo, do I need to take a stand as an avoodooist?  How about anastrologist, gets pretty absurd after a while, huh? 

What has god done for you lately anyway?  Has he answered any prayers, stopped war, disease, famine, pestilence, terrorism or done any other good for you or mankind?  Delivered you from evil or gave you solace in time of despair and depression you say?

Perhaps, but wouldn't it be more efficacious for people to dig down deep inside themselves and learn to suck it up of their own power? 

In the past we had "bible thumpers" in forums, but they haven't been around here lately.

And what has atheism done for you lately? It evidently has not taken your mind off God, as you barely ever write about anything else.

Hmm. In the "If you build it, they will come." mentality we could start an 'Intelligent Design' thread.

If nothing else to know when to stop generating stable adverse changes.

We are not simply avoodooists or whatever for no reason. We can be that only when we have encountered it and rejected it. We are not avoodooists on the outset without having encountered voodoo.

Similarly, God is a logical necessity for specific reasons. Without addressing those reasons, you are not really rejecting God.

There are specific reasons to reject voodoo, specific reasons to reject unicorns, Roman gods and whatever you reject. Without those reasons, there's no rejection; there's just ignorance.

And what has atheism done for you lately? It evidently has not taken your mind off God, as you barely ever write about anything else.

Indeed, and for theists there's an explanation why people have such power, how to harness it and what to do with it.

Quote from: Belfrager on 2015-03-10, 13:26:56

If nothing else to know when to stop generating stable adverse changes.

Given this isn't a thing that has happened, your point is already on the verge of collapse.

Randomize processes can't create order, you need both conscience and intention.

There was a logical necessity for gods at one point in our history, when we didn't know shit from Shinola.

It's not worthy to live in a world that has no more mysteries, just industries.