12 Dec 11
3 edits
Originally posted by lauseyyour argument isn't logical, you stated that people over look the differences among
I didn't deny that both a Hindu and a Christian are both theists. My argument was if you were to say it is a paradox to say you don't believe in a creator is akin to saying it is a paradox to not believe in *any* specific creator.
FreakyKBH seems to think it is a fundamental paradox for an atheist to exist, I am saying it isn't. Likewise it isn't a paradox ...[text shortened]... just because they don't follow another religion which believes in another type of creator.
theists and stated that according to those differences a Hindhu within a biblical context
is not a theist at all, which is simply false, regardless of what your motivations were in
applying that criteria as some kind of qualifying component in a different argument
altogether. How does what theist express among themselves have any bearing on the
stance of an atheist?? theism and atheism are mutually exclusive, there can be no
'degrees', of atheism. Why, because only the Sith deal in absolutes! 😛
12 Dec 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoCollectively = Theists. That's where we broke down.
My dear sir, please do have a look at an earlier post of Agerg to me, in which he has accused the theists that they believe in imaginary friends,talking snakes,twinkle dust and sh**. Thereafter he has designated certain theist posters as crazy fundamentalists. Then he has issued his clarion call that we humans need to collectively grow up ! That impelled ...[text shortened]... n defence that theists are as mature, intelligent, learned people as are atheists. Wrong of me ?
12 Dec 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI would say my argument is perfectly valid, because I am talking about saying, "I do not believe in a particular type of creator", call them anti-pasterfarianist if you like, then someone comes along and says, "This is a paradox, an anti-pasterfarianist needs a flying spaghetti monster to even exist". Certainly it is correct that they need the definition of the monster for the definition "anti-pasterfarianist" to exist, but it does not create a paradox, because the monster doesn't actually have to *exist*.
your argument isn't logical, you stated that people over look the differences among
theists and stated that according to those differences a Hindhu within a biblical context
is not a theist at all, which is simply false, regardless of what your motivations were in
applying that criteria as some kind of qualifying component in a different argume ...[text shortened]... e, there can be no
'degrees', of atheism. Why, because only the Sith deal in absolutes! 😛
Freaky's argument is that anyone who doesn't believe in a creator and calls themselves an atheist is creating a paradox, implying that a creator *has* to actually exist for an atheist to exist. All that really "exists" is the definition of a creator.
12 Dec 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoMaybe, your not a 'crazy fundamentalist' and so are not part of the people that need to 'grow up'. 🙂
But I, a theist, ( and not all humans!that would be too much even for the Internet ! )was being addressed. Should not I say that I and other theists are grown up as much as atheists are ?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
12 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsI would think the atheist is more like a fish without a bicycle.
What makes you think a fish needs a bicycle? 😲
What makes you think a fish needs a bicycle? 😲
You are asking the right question. That's what the fish is thinking, but you keep telling it it needs one. And you can't even produce one for a test ride.
12 Dec 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeSo what, exactly, is your point?
As a throwaway clarifying point in my last thread I stated what I meant by atheist and what was meant
by atheist by the person in the talk I was linking so that people would know and understand what was
being talked about in the video and by myself.
This backfired by creating off topic discussion on what atheist means and who gets to define it.
...[text shortened]... ch?v=AiPR74AiGdU&feature=channel_video_title
Anyone with even a minimal understanding of English knows what the word "atheist" means.
So why the lengthy diatribe about it?
12 Dec 11
Originally posted by SuzianneWell, for one thing, the roles of bicycles and fish in the defining of 'atheist' seem to be obstructing consensus.
Anyone with even a minimal understanding of English knows what the word "atheist" means. So why the lengthy diatribe about it?
13 Dec 11
4 edits
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoYou are suggesting that theists are not " grown up " ! Let us get this straight. Theists are not children. They are as mature, intelligent, learned as the atheists are. They are not unbalanced in their outlook of how to go about living one's life. Theist Saints have been models of ethical behaviour. No section of humanity is lagging behind other sections in so far as EQ ( let alone IQ ) is concerned. To say that theists are not grown up is false.
You are suggesting that theists are not " grown up " ! Let us get this straight. Theists are not children. They are as mature, intelligent, learned as the atheists are. They are not unbalanced in their outlook of how to go about living one's life. Theist Saints have been models of ethical behaviour. No section of humanity is lagging behind other sections in so far as EQ ( let alone IQ ) is concerned. To say that theists are not grown up is false.
What you *should* have inferred was my meaning in that part is that:
I hold the large number of fundamentalist theists coupled with a wide scale adherence to religious dogma that has strangled
no rvsakhadeo, I don\'t mean \"strangled\" in a literal sense as if to say what follows actually have necks - I mean metaphorically
moral, social, and scientific advancement for about as long as there have been religions, serves to retard no rvsakhadeo, I don\'t mean here that we all possess significant learning difficulties - I mean retard in the sense that a damper retards motion
us collectively as a species.
To elaborate on this
no rvsakhadeo, I\'m not referring to the word \"this\" here
, since you will surely misunderstand me and post something along the linesno rvsakhadeo, I don\'t mean what follows has lines or that what you post will be parallel to them (if they did have lines)
of:
Agerg wants all theists to be killed and idolizes Stalin
What I'm asserting is that the mean "maturity of the human species"
no rvsakhadeo, by that I don\'t think maturity of humans is cruel or nasty - I mean in the sense of an average
is negatively impacted no rvsakhadeo, I don\'t mean \"impacting\" as in literally hitting or striking!
by those who are fundamentalists, and this effect is non-trivial.
I don't really have as much as an issue with moderate theists to be honest; but then their number here
no rvsakhadeo, I don\'t mean to say that moderate theists have a favourite number - I refer to a quantity - a small quantity
on this forum is such that should I ever combine talking snakes with theistsno rvsakhadeo, I don\'t mean actually meld theists and talking snakes in a literal sense - I mean when I make a reference to theists + a reference to talking snakes
you should assume I refer to the fundies here. For those few moderatesno rvsakhadeo, I don\'t mean moderate drinkers etc... From context a hidden \"theists\" should be implied
who are offended by this I apologise to them as and when they post their grievances. no rvsakhadeo, I don\'t mean for *any grievances* - only those which pertain to any misunderstanding of my meaning here
13 Dec 11
Originally posted by JS357Maybe your analogy is flawed because it does not make sense to me.
I would think the atheist is more like a fish without a bicycle.
[b]What makes you think a fish needs a bicycle? 😲
You are asking the right question. That's what the fish is thinking, but you keep telling it it needs one. And you can't even produce one for a test ride.[/b]
13 Dec 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobI was about to thank you for your kind words when I noted the words " May be " at the start and held back. Let me assure you that I am not a " fundie " or " fundie follower of a religion ". Agerg has mixed up being a theist with being a fanatic follower of an organised religion, which is wröng.
Maybe, your not a 'crazy fundamentalist' and so are not part of the people that need to 'grow up'. 🙂
13 Dec 11
Originally posted by AgergI have already posted my grievance here. Look forward to your apology, being a moderate theist.
[b]You are suggesting that theists are not " grown up " ! Let us get this straight. Theists are not children. They are as mature, intelligent, learned as the atheists are. They are not unbalanced in their outlook of how to go about living one's life. Theist Saints have been models of ethical behaviour. No section of humanity is lagging behind other sections in ...[text shortened]... n to any misunderstanding of my meaning here[/hidden]
13 Dec 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoHow am i supposed to know if your a 'fundamentalist' or not? Have i met you? We have not had many discussions concerning your religious beliefs and your application of them. Hence the word 'maybe'.
I was about to thank you for your kind words when I noted the words " May be " at the start and held back. Let me assure you that I am not a " fundie " or " fundie follower of a religion ". Agerg has mixed up being a theist with being a fanatic follower of an organised religion, which is wröng.
13 Dec 11
Originally posted by lauseyParadox is about as close to the skin without rendering it from the body on this one. The essence of a paradox is to employ circular reasoning or in some fashion or another, make a logical statement which leads to contradiction.
I didn't deny that both a Hindu and a Christian are both theists. My argument was if you were to say it is a paradox to say you don't believe in a creator is akin to saying it is a paradox to not believe in *any* specific creator.
FreakyKBH seems to think it is a fundamental paradox for an atheist to exist, I am saying it isn't. Likewise it isn't a paradox ...[text shortened]... just because they don't follow another religion which believes in another type of creator.
Atheism is a descriptive noun used to label a sub-group of people. An atheist doesn't call himself a person and expect people to know anything more about himself than what is known about all other within the group. He purposely chooses the noun with the express purpose of conveying his stance on a topic.
In short, he wants to be known by others for his perspective on the topic of God. Here is where the paradox comes into play. He is known by the thing he says does not exist; he must acknowledge the thing as a topic of worthiness for his recognition and then asks others to refer to him as 'the one who rejects' the thing he is acknowledging in the first place!
If he was smart--- truly smart--- he'd keep his smart mouth shut and act like he'd never given it any thought at all.