POLL: What is the World's Most Evil Religion?

[axeman]

777,


Here it is in simple and concise terms. A proof!

Lets approach this mathematically using set theory.


A - is the set of all entities.


Now we define B as a subset of A - which are all the entities who posses a BELIEF in 1 or more gods.

If we subract the members of subset B from A, we get
the new subset called C.

C is therefore the set of entities which LACK a belief in god or gods.


Now lets ask some questions:

1)Which set do humans belong in who have never even heard of god or any god and havent formulated their own god belief?
ANSWER: C - since it is the set which contains entities who do NOT posses a belief in god(s)

2) Which set do humans belong in who were JUST BORN?
ANSWER: - C - since there is no reason to believe that an infant posses any belief at all.

3) Which set do humans belong in, who have heard of god, but reject it and posses no belief in god?
ANSWER: - C - since they obviously dont possess god belief.

4) Which set do PLANTS belong in?
ANSWER: C- because anything which is not even
capable of possessing a BELIEF, must be in the set of entities which dont posses a belief in god(s).

By now, I would assume people have figured out that
the proper name of set B is THEISTS, and the proper name
for set C is A-THEISTS (LACKING BELIEF IN GOD(s), direct transaltion from the roots: Without Theism))

There is the proof.

Philosophers, atheists, college professors, atheistic writers,
and even mathematical set theory FLY IN THE FACE
of your definition of atheism as a postive belief.

ATHEISM IS NOT A BELIEF. This is as clear and obvious
as I can make it.

Missed the Boat, maybe you can get through to him


peace

axeman

 

[Shrewd Dude]

Quote from LongShot:

ROFL well he has nice writing..

wow is that pic ridiculous!!!!

 

[Error 404]

Quote from Rearden Metal:



Evidently, you did not witness my childhood.

LOL......Yeah, man. Same here. I used to get stomach aches every Tuesday and Thursday in school from around 4th grade through 7th grade in anticipation of going where I had to go twice a week after school.

Peace,
RS

 

[LongShot]

Quote from axeman:

777,


Here it is in simple and concise terms. A proof!

Lets approach this mathematically using set theory.


A - is the set of all entities.


Now we define B as a subset of A - which are all the entities who posses a BELIEF in 1 or more gods.

If we subract the members of subset B from A, we get
the new subset called C.

C is therefore the set of entities which LACK a belief in god or gods.


Now lets ask some questions:

1)Which set do humans belong in who have never even heard of god or any god and havent formulated their own god belief?
ANSWER: C - since it is the set which contains entities who do NOT posses a belief in god(s)

2) Which set do humans belong in who were JUST BORN?
ANSWER: - C - since there is no reason to believe that an infant posses any belief at all.

3) Which set do humans belong in, who have heard of god, but reject it and posses no belief in god?
ANSWER: - C - since they obviously dont possess god belief.

4) Which set do PLANTS belong in?
ANSWER: C- because anything which is not even
capable of possessing a BELIEF, must be in the set of entities which dont posses a belief in god(s).

By now, I would assume people have figured out that
the proper name of set B is THEISTS, and the proper name
for set C is A-THEISTS (LACKING BELIEF IN GOD(s), direct transaltion from the roots: Without Theism))

There is the proof.

Philosophers, atheists, college professors, atheistic writers,
and even mathematical set theory FLY IN THE FACE
of your definition of atheism as a postive belief.

ATHEISM IS NOT A BELIEF. This is as clear and obvious
as I can make it.

Missed the Boat, maybe you can get through to him


peace

axeman

my adivce to all is to stop arguing with this fool. look at post above, a "proof" that plants are atheists?? LOL, oh please..who would take the time to argue such nonsense? who can take this guy seriously??

you're wasting your time! you'll never get anywhere with this nutbar "axe". can't you see he doesn't debate 'your' argument rather he 'tells' you what your position is then he debates 'that' - LOL -in effect creating the very strawmen he accuses others of constructing. also he'll out shout and talk over you never giving you the chance to respond. totally one-sided. i was his victim all too long on diet thread. now he's playing his game with you. ignore him, dont give his ego the satisfaction.

his ego is writing checks he can't cash.

ignore axie, like i do.

 

[ARogueTrader]

It is pretty funny watching him practice sophistry and equivocation in an attempt to avoid the denial of the fact that he practices a belief system, just as Theists practice a belief system.

What the magical logicians and sophists try to do is is perform a magic trick of deception, and attempt to thrill and/or confuse the audience in the process.

They define a term, then show how that definition makes them right.

The concept of Atheism is directly understood in relation to the concept of Theism. Non God directly relates to the concept of God. Again, if I say the word sieylgimeeiyyweseISM, saying asieylgimeeiyyweseism still makes no sense.

Just because I say Notsieylgimeeiyywese and make try to make and justify someone thing on that on the basis of that, my argument is useless without understanding of what the word sieylgimeeiyyweseism means.

The use of the prefix "non" or placing the letter "a" in front of a word is done to help create a new word to represent a different and usually opposite concept.

So the term "Atheist" can ONLY be understood when the term "Theist" is understood.

You cannot understand "not" something without understanding the something that is subject of the word that is using the prefix "not."

Understanding the concept of Atheism or Atheist means one has to have a concept Theism and Theist.

Someone who has no concept of Theism has no concept of Atheism. Someone who has no concept of Theism, cannot be an Atheist, as by any understanding, an Atheist is one who practices Atheism.

The point is that Theism, by definition and any reasonable understanding is the willing and conscious belief in the concept of God.

Consequently the opposite would be willing and conscious belief of NonGod.

This leaves 3, and only 3 possibilities.

One who willingly believes in the concept of God.
One who willingly believes in the concept of NonGod.
One who willingly suspends belief of the concept of God or NonGod for some particular reason.

All require willingness to accept, reject, or suspend the belief in God.

Willingness requires capacity to accept, reject, or suspend the belief in God.

The real proof of axeman's sophistry is really simple.

Reasonably speaking, if a plant can exist in a state of nonGod, we should be able to negate that concept with an opposite concept . The opposite concept is a plant which is nonGod is a plant that is non-nonGod.

If a plant can be a nontheist, then the plant must also be capable of being a non-nontheist as Aphie pointed out on another thread. A non-nontheist is a Theist. Can a plant become a Theist? Can a plant practice Theism?

One other very important point that atheists like axeman will forever refuse to address is the very notion of the concept of God.

Have you ever met an atheist or agnostic who did not have a concept of God? Have you ever heard them say sincerely when people use the word God, "I don't know what you are talking about. What is God? Please explain that concept to me."

Can you imagine any functioning human being over the age of 5 who could not understand some concept of God?

At the point the concept of God is explained and understood, then the process of willingness to accept, reject, or suspend belief of that concept for some reason begins (I contend suspension of belief is actually impossible, but that is a different argument).

It all boils down to the concept and practice of belief systems and the concepts and beliefs of what constitutes knowledge sufficient to hold any particular belief system as true for the believer. The word proof as axeman is using it is a concept which in his case is lacking the predicate proof that his criteria for proof of God or nonGod which constitutes the Atheistic and Agnostic position is the correct position to take for all human beings.

The Theists have their concept of what constitutes proof of God, and the Atheists have a different concept of what would constitute proof of God, and the Agnostics, if pure Agnostics, will tell you that they are so confused that they have no concept of what a proof of God would actually be.

Quote from LongShot:



my adivce to all is to stop arguing with this fool. look at post above, a "proof" that plants are atheists?? LOL, oh please..who would take the time to argue such nonsense? who can take this guy seriously??

you're wasting your time! you'll never get anywhere with this nutbar "axe". can't you see he doesn't debate 'your' argument rather he 'tells' you what your position is then he debates 'that' - LOL -in effect creating the very strawmen he accuses others of constructing. also he'll out shout and talk over you never giving you the chance to respond. totally one-sided. i was his victim all too long on diet thread. now he's playing his game with you. ignore him, dont give his ego the satisfaction.

his ego is writing checks he can't cash.

ignore axie, like i do.

 

[I Missed Boat]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

It is pretty funny watching him practice sophistry and equivocation in an attempt to avoid the denial of the fact that he practices a belief system, just as Theists practice a belief system.

What the magical logicians and sophists try to do is is perform a magic trick of deception, and attempt to thrill and/or confuse the audience in the process.

They define a term, then show how that definition makes them right.

The concept of Atheism is directly understood in relation to the concept of Theism. Non God directly relates to the concept of God. Again, if I say the word sieylgimeeiyyweseISM, saying asieylgimeeiyyweseism still makes no sense.

Just because I say Notsieylgimeeiyywese and make try to make and justify someone thing on that on the basis of that, my argument is useless without understanding of what the word sieylgimeeiyyweseism means.

The use of the prefix "non" or placing the letter "a" in front of a word is done to help create a new word to represent a different and usually opposite concept.

So the term "Atheist" can ONLY be understood when the term "Theist" is understood.

You cannot understand "not" something without understanding the something that is subject of the word that is using the prefix "not."

Understanding the concept of Atheism or Atheist means one has to have a concept Theism and Theist.

Someone who has no concept of Theism has no concept of Atheism. Someone who has no concept of Theism, cannot be an Atheist, as by any understanding, an Atheist is one who practices Atheism.

The point is that Theism, by definition and any reasonable understanding is the willing and conscious belief in the concept of God.

Consequently the opposite would be willing and conscious belief of NonGod.

This leaves 3, and only 3 possibilities.

One who willingly believes in the concept of God.
One who willingly believes in the concept of NonGod.
One who willingly suspends belief of the concept of God or NonGod for some particular reason.

All require willingness to accept, reject, or suspend the belief in God.

Willingness requires capacity to accept, reject, or suspend the belief in God.

The real proof of axeman's sophistry is really simple.

Reasonably speaking, if a plant can exist in a state of nonGod, we should be able to negate that concept with an opposite concept . The opposite concept is a plant which is nonGod is a plant that is non-nonGod.

If a plant can be a nontheist, then the plant must also be capable of being a non-nontheist as Aphie pointed out on another thread. A non-nontheist is a Theist. Can a plant become a Theist? Can a plant practice Theism?

One other very important point that atheists like axeman will forever refuse to address is the very notion of the concept of God.

Have you ever met an atheist or agnostic who did not have a concept of God? Have you ever heard them say sincerely when people use the word God, "I don't know what you are talking about. What is God? Please explain that concept to me."

Can you imagine any functioning human being over the age of 5 who could not understand some concept of God?

At the point the concept of God is explained and understood, then the process of willingness to accept, reject, or suspend belief of that concept for some reason begins (I contend suspension of belief is actually impossible, but that is a different argument).

It all boils down to the concept and practice of belief systems and the concepts and beliefs of what constitutes knowledge sufficient to hold any particular belief system as true for the believer. The word proof as axeman is using it is a concept which in his case is lacking the predicate proof that his criteria for proof of God or nonGod which constitutes the Atheistic and Agnostic position is the correct position to take for all human beings.

The Theists have their concept of what constitutes proof of God, and the Atheists have a different concept of what would constitute proof of God, and the Agnostics, if pure Agnostics, will tell you that they are so confused that they have no concept of what a proof of God would actually be.

amazing :eek: people in glass houses.........

 

[Bolts]

Actually the 'a' prefix means not "the opposite" but simply "without". Asocial means "without socializing". This is very different than antisocial which means "against society".

 

[axeman]

Precisely Bolts!

But obviously, 777 has to cling onto SOMETHING false to make
his case.

You easily identified the flaw in his last lame argument
and pointed it out immediately in one sentence.

The "A" in atheism directly means WITHOUT.
It is NOT a negation. He cant even see this simple fact.


777,

My proof stands and you completely avoided it.
It is perfectly consistent and you have FAILED to point
out a single flaw in it.

Instead, you run off and post more semantical nonsense
using your own definitions which I have already shown
DO NOT match the expert general consensus which is
perfectly valid in this case.


I rest my case. Everyone can decide for themselves
but Im certain I have made it extremely clear, that I am
using the correct definition of atheist, and in the end
YOU ARE A FAILED ATHEIST!

The only thing you have proven is that you utterly
fail in being able to reason properly.


peace

axeman

Quote from Bolts:

Actually the 'a' prefix means not "the opposite" but simply "without". Asocial means "without socializing". This is very different than antisocial which means "against society".

 

[ARogueTrader]

Quote from Bolts:

Actually the 'a' prefix means not "the opposite" but simply "without". Asocial means "without socializing". This is very different than antisocial which means "against society".

Following that definition, the A-Theist would have to prove they are without a concept and belief of God to be an A-Theist. We know a plant has no belief in God nor any concept of God as they lack the capacity of belief or the capacity to have a mental conception.

As Theism by comon definition requires a concept of God to be in the mind, and to be held willingly as a belief of the truth of that concept. Being without the willing belief of God or the concept of God is the proper definition of A (without) Theism (the willing state of hold the concept of God in the mind as a belief which is true).

The key difference that axeman and others are conveniently leaving out is that Theism is not an involuntary state, it is a choice. Only those who lack the capability of choice could be without the choice of belief in God.

What are you going to do now, tell me that a plant is asocial?

The social turnips hanging out together:

The asocial turnip:

The antisocial turnip:

 

[bobcathy1]

LMAO