23 Jul 11
Originally posted by JS357======================================
"It doesn't bother me if you say "Prove the existence of God."
I'll just probably respond "I am not sure I can do that. I have a belief, a faith."
Good. Then you aren't going to try to persuade anyone to agree with you. I support that attitude.
Good. Then you aren't going to try to persuade anyone to agree with you. I support that attitude.
===========================================
Quite the contrary. I am going to do as Christ commanded His disciples. That is to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by rwingettWho said anything about atheists believing in anything? I believe i made myself perfectly clear...and my definitions are sound.
An atheist is not a person who believes in atheism. An atheist is a person who does not believe in theism. Atheism is to be without the particular -ism of theism.
The term atheist can not apply to someone or something that can not form an opinion. If you take atheist to mean lacking a belief, then the term is technically correct, but the term is redundant in that it has no meaning...it just means that the baby is being grouped into everything in the universe except theists.
Is the baby racist? No, because it can't make a determination and has no concept of race. Is it Socialist? No, because it has no concept of socialism.
By your rational the baby would also be Apolitical, and an Anarchist.
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundSaying that a baby is an atheist would only be redundant and lack meaning if it never grew up. The fact that all babies eventually grow up makes the question highly relevant. You just don't seem to be able to grasp the relevance of potential belief in distinguishing babies from non-human species and inanimate objects. Either that, or since you continually sidestep that particular point, you presumably have no answer for it.
Who said anything about atheists believing in anything? I believe i made myself perfectly clear...and my definitions are sound.
The term atheist can not apply to someone or something that can not form an opinion. If you take atheist to mean lacking a belief, then the term is technically correct, but the term is redundant in that it has no meaning ...[text shortened]... concept of socialism.
By your rational the baby would also be Apolitical, and an Anarchist.
It is equally relevant, and just as true, to say that babies are not racists (as per your example), because it demonstrates that racism (just like theism) is a learned behavior. It is not innate to the human condition. If raised in isolation, a child would have absolutely no concept of race or of god and consequently he would be neither a racist nor a theist. I don't believe there is a specific term for someone who is not a racist, but the term for someone who is not a theist is an atheist.
Your assertion that being apolitical makes one an anarchist is simply ludicrous.
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by rwingettJust tell 'em that their arguments imply that aardvarks and zebras must be theists. They should be able to set up a few more pews in the back of the church for them.
Saying that a baby is an atheist would only be redundant and lack meaning if it never grew up. The fact that all babies eventually grow up makes the question highly relevant. You just don't seem to be able to grasp the relevance of potential belief in distinguishing babies from non-human species and inanimate objects. Either that, or since you continually s ...[text shortened]... atheist.
Your assertion that being apolitical makes one an anarchist is simply ludicrous.
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by rwingettPotential has nothing to do with the actual state of being, you're making a lame argument...because the baby is going to grow up some day it makes it an atheist? Bollox talk, and a non - argument.
Saying that a baby is an atheist would only be redundant and lack meaning if it never grew up. The fact that all babies eventually grow up makes the question highly relevant. You just don't seem to be able to grasp the relevance of potential belief in distinguishing babies from non-human species and inanimate objects. Either that, or since you continually s ...[text shortened]... atheist.
Your assertion that being apolitical makes one an anarchist is simply ludicrous.
"Your assertion that being apolitical makes one an anarchist is simply ludicrous"
I made no assertion, i was making two seperate propositions in the same sentence, i was not connecting the two...don't be a retard.
An analogy that i heard recently that shows how stupid you are being would be as follows...
You can call a decapitated person bald, because technically it has no hair...but the term is redundant, because the person has no head. It is a ludicrous statement, and is the sort of thing only a fool would say.
The person technically lacks hair....but he/she doesn't have a head.
The person lacks theism... but he/she doesn't have the capacity to understand theism.
You cant use a term like atheism for a baby, it's an adult mental construct. you have to understand theism in order to disbelieve. Now stop being silly.
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundNo, you don't have to understand theism to be an atheist. Anyone who is not a theist, including babies, is an atheist. But for good measure I'll leave you with the following quote for your edification:
Potential has nothing to do with the actual state of being, you're making a lame argument...because the baby is going to grow up some day it makes it an atheist? Bollox talk, and a non - argument.
"Your assertion that being apolitical makes one an anarchist is simply ludicrous"
I made no assertion, i was making two seperate propositions in t ...[text shortened]... al construct. you have to understand theism in order to disbelieve. Now stop being silly.
"All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."
-Baron d'Holbach (1723-1789)
23 Jul 11
3 edits
======================================
"All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."
-Baron d'Holbach (1723-1789)
=================================
Are you an Afoojuwapus ?
I think all babies are born Afoojuwapuses. They have no idea of Foojuwapus. The default position of a man is to be an Afoojuwapus.
And if you have no idea of Foojuwapus, YOU TOO are an Afoojuwapus.
So all you Afoojuwapuses out there agree ?
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by jaywillYes, I'm an afoojuwapus. As I have no idea what foojawapus is, I have no belief in it. But as no one else does either, it hardly matters.
[b]======================================
"All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."
-Baron d'Holbach (1723-1789)
=================================
Are you an Afoojuwapus ?
I think all babies are born Afoojuwapuses. They have no idea of Foojuwapus. The default position of a man is to be an Afoojuwapus ...[text shortened]... ea of Foojuwapus YOU TOO are an Afoojuwapus.
So all you Afoojuwapuses out there agree ?[/b]
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by rwingettWho said it required belief or non-belief ?
Yes, I'm an afoojuwapus. As I have no idea what foojawapus is, I have no belief in it. But as no one else does either, it hardly matters.
Maybe "belief" or lack of "belief" is completely irrelevant to the issue.
You have no idea.
24 Jul 11
Originally posted by jaywillThere's no point in being a foojuwapus unless you believe in it. Fer cryin' out loud, you're the one who came up with the stupid thing and even YOU don't know what it is.
Who said it required belief or non-belief ?
Maybe "belief" or lack of "belief" is completely irrelevant to the issue.
You have no idea.
24 Jul 11
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundWell people don't know when life begins, but they know if babies have a real
I ws wondering what you all think about this premise?
When i first entered the debate i was sure the right answer was that bebies would be Agnostic...as they have no concept of "God" or "belief/disbelief", making don't know the obvious anwer. As my audience was largely atheist the argument centred around the definition of "atheism" - was it a dis ...[text shortened]... se and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. "
What do you guys think?
knowledge of God or not? I'd say people make things up to suit what they
want to believe in both of these cases, because they sure do not know if what
they are claiming is true or not.
Kelly
24 Jul 11
Originally posted by KellyJayDo you really think babies have a knowledge of god?
Well people don't know when life begins, but they know if babies have a real
knowledge of God or not? I'd say people make things up to suit what they
want to believe in both of these cases, because they sure do not know if what
they are claiming is true or not.
Kelly
24 Jul 11
Originally posted by rwingettI am not the one claiming knownledge about that you are! I don't know! It
Do you really think babies have a knowledge of god?
is not beyond a reasonable doubt as far as I'm concern since I don't know
when life begins. If life is more than just a chemical reaction than something
other than chemicals comes into play, and if that is the injection of a soul or
spirit at some point, where does that soul or spirit come from, and what does
it know if anything when it does?
So if you want to claim knowledge about what babies know, be my guess!
You don't have any reason to make that claim that has anything to do with
evidence or proof, just a claim of what you want to believe.
Kelly