Richard dawkings and Faith/Atheism

[Mike375]

But OED says "theos" means "god."

Or do they mean God?

God is never taken in the plural.

"an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God" What does that mean. Did they mean to say "an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in gods"

It would seem to me that OED and Wikipedia are the same ecedpt OED is confused between god and God.

 

[Rabbie]

But OED says "theos" means "god."

Or do they mean God?

God is never taken in the plural.

"an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God" What does that mean. Did they mean to say "an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in gods"

It would seem to me that OED and Wikipedia are the same ecedpt OED is confused between god and God.

I think there is a little clue in that the EOD say god not God. If the OED wanted to say God I am sure it would have used a capital.

It also give a definition for car in the singular but we all know there are many cars.

For you to say the OED is confused just shows again your stupidity and arrogance.

 

[Mike375]

I think there is a little clue in that the EOD say god not God.

but in their "sign off" definition

"an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God"

Does that mean God, god or gods

Actually, I believe it is God and because OED (and Wikipedia) is done within the context of the God of Abraham religions.

Also OED, like all dictionaries is only providing general definitions. For example, a cardiologist would not look to QED for information on myocardial infarcts.

 

[Alc]

but in their "sign off" definition

"an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God"

Does that mean God, god or gods

Actually, I believe it is God and because OED (and Wikipedia) is done within the context of the God of Abraham religions.

Also OED, like all dictionaries is only providing general definitions. For example, a cardiologist would not look to QED for information on myocardial infarcts.

If you believe it's only a general definition, why are you ascribing a specific meaning to it? Either it's general (i.e. any and all gods) or it's specifically related to one of them (i.e. God).
If you're going to feign stupidity to get a rise out of people, at least be consistent.

 

[Rabbie]

If you believe it's only a general definition, why are you ascribing a specific meaning to it? Either it's general (i.e. any and all gods) or it's specifically related to one of them (i.e. God).

Bcause he is stupid

If you're going to feign stupidity to get a rise out of people, at least be consistent.

Who said he is feigning? I thought that was the case at first but there is mounting evidence n his recent posts that he doesn't need to feign

 

[Alc]

Bcause he is stupid

But he was intelligently designed, wasn't he?
Why would god/God/gOd/goD create someone who was stupid and send him out to argue on his/His/hIs/hiS behalf?

 

[Rabbie]

But he was intelligently designed, wasn't he?
Why would god/God/gOd/goD create someone who was stupid and send him out to argue on his/His/hIs/hiS behalf?

Congratulations. You have just produced the most elegant refutal of the Intelligent Design argument

 

[Alc]

Congratulations. You have just produced the most elegant refutal of the Intelligent Design argument

I has me moments.

 

[Brianwarnock]

LOL those last 2 posts have made this turgid thread worthwhile, but Rabbie please remember Mike is a shoot it if it moves rednecked aussie, methinks he is trying to do a Rich/Col without the ability.

Brian

 

[Alc]

please remember Mike is a shoot it if it moves rednecked aussie

With Mike, I get the impression it's more a case of standing over it with your foot on it's neck and shooting it as it decomposes.

I've fallen for at least a couple of his wind-ups, but I'm learning not to react (mostly) when I can see that's all it is.

 

[Rabbie]

LOL those last 2 posts have made this turgid thread worthwhile, but Rabbie please remember Mike is a shoot it if it moves rednecked aussie, methinks he is trying to do a Rich/Col without the ability.

Brian

You are so right. But it is hard to see when he is being obtuse as a wind-up and when his natural intelligence(or lack of it) shines through.

 

[Mike375]

If you believe it's only a general definition, why are you ascribing a specific meaning to it? Either it's general (i.e. any and all gods) or it's specifically related to one of them (i.e. God).

It was Rabbie's accepted source and backed by Rich

Now if Rabbie and Rich think OED definitions should not be used for discussions I am happy to go along with that

 

[Alc]

It was Rabbie's accepted source and backed by Rich

Now if Rabbie and Rich think OED definitions should not be used for discussions I am happy to go along with that

Yes, they came up with the source (and a fine source it is, too ).

You attributed general/specific status to different parts of it.