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

Quote from ARogueTrader:



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:

turnip.gif


The asocial turnip:

turnip.gif


The antisocial turnip:

turnip.gif
More...

LMAO!!! EXCELLENT Rogue! :p

A very clever way to depict axie's foolishness.. :D :D


TOUCHE!!!!!

ps Axie will take this personally being the turnip head that he is.. :D
 
Plants are DEFINITELY asocial. You seem to be hung up on this idea that these are "silly" concepts, but they are technically correct. They cannot however, be antisocial or social.
 
Your silly argument falls apart in the very first sentence.

Following that definition, the A-Theist would have to prove they are without a concept and belief of God to be an A-Theist.

Here you assert that conceptualization is a REQUIREMENT
for NOT possessing a belief.

That is obviously false.

For example:

Did you POSSES the belief in 6 headed purple unicorns with apple pies for feet who live on venus called SNORKATS before I just mentioned them?

NO YOU DIDNT. Until you posses this belief you are a A-SNORKAT.
You NEVER conceptualizes such a belief, and yet BY DEFAULT
you have never BELIEVED in such a beast either.

Conceptualizing something is NOT requirement in LACKING
a belief in it.



"The key difference that axeman and others are conveniently leaving out is that Theism is not an involuntary state,"

Again false...showing your complete ignorance here.
I think that theism is a positively *chosen* BELIEF.

Thats the whole point! BELIEFs *must* be CHOSEN.

If you have NOT chosen to believe in something, wether not
you have ever conceptualized it, then you DONT posses that
belief, and are therefore an A-(insert belief here).

Debunked again.

A man who has never conceptualized god, has obviously
never CHOSEN to BELIEVE in god and is therefore an ATHEIST.

A man who HAS conceptualized god, and STILL chooses NOT
to believe in god, is also an ATHEIST.

Both of them do NOT POSSES a belief in god, and are therefore
ATHEISTS.


Your arguments get weaker and sillier by the minute.

Let me point out that fact again that you have NOT
rebutted by proof. You have failed to defend your position.
So obvious.

I see that mr micro penis is posting again.
We all know why :D
His ego was so destroyed at my hands earlier that he
now has lowered himself to my personal ET stalker
because of his "little problem". LMAO :D



peace

axeman




Quote from ARogueTrader:



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:

turnip.gif


The asocial turnip:

turnip.gif


The antisocial turnip:

turnip.gif
More...
 
Quote from Bolts:

Plants are DEFINITELY asocial. You seem to be hung up on this idea that these are "silly" concepts, but they are technically correct. They cannot however, be antisocial or social.
More...

You don't seem to understand the need for context and concept as it relates to communication through the English language.

That is why so many sophists and equivocators play word games, rather than communicate clearly.

Common sense is sorely lacking among these proponents of "technical" arguments.

It is often very easy to take something out of context (ever hear of that concept, out of context?) to try to make a point and relate it back to an argument. In order to have effective communication, agreed upon definitions are necessary.

Yet, people who often use this practice to support their agenda. This practice is known as sophistry, and the tool is equivocation.

sophistry

\Soph"ist*ry\, n. [OE. sophistrie, OF. sophisterie.] 1. The art or process of reasoning; logic. [Obs.]

2. The practice of a sophist; fallacious reasoning; reasoning sound in appearance only.

The juggle of sophistry consists, for the most part, in using a word in one sense in the premise, and in another sense in the conclusion. --Coleridge.

and

equivocation

\E*quiv`o*ca"tion\, n. The use of expressions susceptible of a double signification, with a purpose to mislead.

There being no room for equivocations, there is no need of distinctions. --Locke.

Syn: Prevarication; ambiguity; shuffling; evasion; guibbling. See Equivocal, a., and Prevaricate, v. i.
 
Quote from axeman:

Your silly argument falls apart in the very first sentence.

Here you assert that conceptualization is a REQUIREMENT
for NOT possessing a belief.

That is obviously false.

For example:

Did you POSSES the belief in 6 headed purple unicorns with apple pies for feet who live on venus called SNORKATS before I just mentioned them?

NO YOU DIDNT. Until you posses this belief you are a A-SNORKAT.
You NEVER conceptualizes such a belief, and yet BY DEFAULT
you have never BELIEVED in such a beast either.

Conceptualizing something is NOT requirement in LACKING
a belief in it.
More...

Yes, however your argument is basically using the limitations of semantics as its main point. Although I never had a belief in SNORKATS, I also did not have a belief that they did NOT exist. A lack of belief of something due to no knowledge of that something is a passive belief or disbelief. Atheism is an active disbelief. Atheism is a "belief in the lack of existence of a God or Gods." However, the key word here is "belief."

Belief is defined as "the mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in something."

Since plants are incapable of a mental act, they are incapable of belief or disbelief. Since they are incapable of this, they cannot possibly be atheist or theist since they do not possess the prerequisite necessary for belief at all.

Comparing the atheism with plants with my now apparent disbelief of SNORKATS is a logical fallacy on your behalf. There is no correlation since plants have no capacity for mental processing whereas I do.

Also, I never had a disbelief in SNORKATS or a belief in them before you mentioned them. They simply did not exist, and thus any belief or disbelief in them would be in an indeterminate state until you "invented" them. Binary logic has indeterminate states -- in fact, that is the entire basis of the microscopic quantum world.
 
Below we have a depiction of the first Atheist smelling another Atheist.

The question is, if he eats the plant, is that an act of cannibalism, one Atheist eating another Atheist?

greek.jpg


Quote from aphexcoil:



Yes, however your argument is basically using the limitations of semantics as its main point. Although I never had a belief in SNORKATS, I also did not have a belief that they did NOT exist. A lack of belief of something due to no knowledge of that something is a passive belief or disbelief. Atheism is an active disbelief. Atheism is a "belief in the lack of existence of a God or Gods." However, the key word here is "belief."

Belief is defined as "the mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in something."

Since plants are incapable of a mental act, they are incapable of belief or disbelief. Since they are incapable of this, they cannot possibly be atheist or theist since they do not possess the prerequisite necessary for belief at all.

Comparing the atheism with plants with my now apparent disbelief of SNORKATS is a logical fallacy on your behalf. There is no correlation since plants have no capacity for mental processing whereas I do.

Also, I never had a disbelief in SNORKATS or a belief in them before you mentioned them. They simply did not exist, and thus any belief or disbelief in them would be in an indeterminate state until you "invented" them. Binary logic has indeterminate states -- in fact, that is the entire basis of the microscopic quantum world.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top