Originally posted by Agerg [b]Googlefudge is hoping that theists will soon be no longer a majority. What he means by that he has not elaborated Well given the surplus of crazy fundamentalists like RJHinds, Rajk999, etc... [hidden](and those who divorce themselves of fundamentalism yet hold equally f***ed up view of what is going to happen within the next 50 years - for example a ca ...[text shortened]... rum presently who actually buy into the "nonsense" you say we foist upon them.[/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 so far as EQ ( let alone IQ ) is concerned. To say that theists are not grown up is false.
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo 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.
No, i don't think he's suggesting that at all. Again your ability to read a post and construe something which it doesn't mean is curious. The tell tale words in that post which you seem to have missed are 'crazy fundamentalists'.
Originally posted by Proper Knob No, i don't think he's suggesting that at all. Again your ability to read a post and construe something which it doesn't mean is curious. The tell tale words in that post which you seem to have missed are 'crazy fundamentalists'.
you can't deny that whenever someone speaks of the "benefits" of atheism and how stupid theism is, in 87.5% of cases they use crazy fundamentalists as an argument to their case. (and in case you are wondering, yes, god gave me that 87.5😵
joking aside, you never hear about the liberal theists who is a university professor, is current with the latest scientific discoveries, doesn't think that members of other faiths will enjoy eternal torment for not choosing right and doesn't smack you with "have you find jesus" question everytime you make eye contact.
in these debates you only hear about the crazy jehova's witness who wouldn't let the doctors give his daughter a blood transfusion (and she died because of it). or about dasa.
Originally posted by Proper Knob No, i don't think he's suggesting that at all. Again your ability to read a post and construe something which it doesn't mean is curious. The tell tale words in that post which you seem to have missed are 'crazy fundamentalists'.
Agerg is expressing a hope that " we humans will collectively grow up ". That includes all theists--crazy fundamentalists, non-crazy, non-fundamentalists et al. It includes even atheists(although this is besides the point ) !! In any case, Agerg is implying that theists-- all of them--need to grow up. Your tendency to find faults where nöne exist needs correction.
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo Agerg is expressing a hope that " we humans will collectively grow up ". That includes all theists--crazy fundamentalists, non-crazy, non-fundamentalists et al. It includes even atheists(although this is besides the point ) !! In any case, Agerg is implying that theists-- all of them--need to grow up. Your tendency to find faults where nöne exist needs correction.
He explicitly mentioned 'crazy fundamentalists' and talked about how humans need to 'collectively grow up' yet you're talking only about theists. You even acknowledge that his statement includes atheists yet you want to sweep that under the carpet by saying 'this is besides the point'.
What needs correction is your ability to take a statement and misconstrue it.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH My, but you do go on.
Bottom line, your twist of the language does nothing more than throw more light on your problem: an atheist needs the thing he refutes to exist in order to exist himself. He can only define himself in terms of the thing he insists doesn't.
In short, the atheist is a classical paradox; an arborist cutting the limb between himself and the tree.
This "paradox" is a perfectly valid argument. Atheists exist because anyone who aren't "theists" exist. One problem which people often keep overlooking is that there are many different types of theists (i.e. many definitions of the higher power/intelligent designer they believe in). You seem to be stating that it isn't possible to not be a theist. Does that mean that someone who doesn't call them self an atheist, but rather says, "I am not a theist" is also creating the same paradox?
An atheist will simply state that he/she doesn't believe in any higher power/intelligent designer.
Just because someone sets up a definition and say that they don't believe in that, doesn't necessarily mean that this thing has to actually exist for them not to believe in it. By your argument, a Hindu is creating a paradox by stating that he/she doesn't believe in a God as defined in the Christian bible.
Originally posted by lausey This "paradox" is a perfectly valid argument. Atheists exist because anyone who aren't "theists" exist. One problem which people often keep overlooking is that there are many different types of theists (i.e. many definitions of the higher power/intelligent designer they believe in). You seem to be stating that it isn't possible to not be a theist. Does that m ...[text shortened]... by stating that he/she doesn't believe in a God as defined in the Christian bible.
no its not, if the Hindu and the Christian both profess belief in a creator they are theists, regardless of the type of deity they espouse.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie no its not, if the Hindu and the Christian both profess belief in a creator they are theists, regardless of the type of deity they espouse.
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 for any religion to exist, just because they don't follow another religion which believes in another type of creator.
Originally posted by Proper Knob He explicitly mentioned 'crazy fundamentalists' and talked about how humans need to 'collectively grow up' yet you're talking only about theists. You even acknowledge that his statement includes atheists yet you want to sweep that under the carpet by saying 'this is besides the point'.
What needs correction is your ability to take a statement and misconstrue it.
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 me to say in defence that theists are as mature, intelligent, learned people as are atheists. Wrong of me ?
Atheism, Definitions? discussion?
12 Dec '11 08:44
Back to Top