Question for Atheists!

[Mr. Pedantic]

Too soon to tell.

Maybe his name was in jest and he's actually obtuse and ditsy.

Aww, shucks



The username comes from about 7 or 8 years ago from a few friends of mine, and they maintain that it was very appropriate. I figure I'm a little less pedantic than I used to be I'm just interested in having the best evidence and logical thinking that I can.

 

[quatona]

So a person can be both an atheist and an agnostic?

Sure, and on top he can be both and a vegetarian and a plumber.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

All weak atheists are agnostics, becauase they lack belief but belief in something is necessaery for knowledge. One can be an agnostic theist too as was Huxley IIRC..."belief in an unknown God" I think he said he had.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

All weak atheists are agnostics, becauase they lack belief but belief in something is necessaery for knowledge.

If someone doesn't believe in either the existence or non-existence of deities, that would make them a weak atheist. If that person also believed that the existence or non-existence of deities could be deduced in principle, that would make them an gnostic.

Thus, weak atheist gnostic

 

[AV1611VET]

The username comes from about 7 or 8 years ago from a few friends of mine, and they maintain that it was very appropriate.

Here, in the Arab phone room, it's a poutable offense.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sure, and on top he can be both and a vegetarian and a plumber.

And there's just nothing like a weak plumber, is there?

 

[Cabal]

And there's just nothing like a weak plumber, is there?

I presume the weak vegetarians are the ones who eat fish.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I presume the weak vegetarians are the ones who eat fish.

That would be a pescatarian.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'm a vegetarian, except I eat fish, poultry, pork, and red meat.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[AV1611VET]

I presume the weak vegetarians are the ones who eat fish.

If so, then I'm a weak vegetarian -- I love fish; as does our Saviour.

Ever notice what activity is mentioned every single time Jesus made an appearance after His resurrection & taking Paradise to Heaven?

 

[Cabal]

If so, then I'm a weak vegetarian -- I love fish; as does our Saviour.

I'm a very weak vegetarian. I love the smell of cooking meat, as God apparently used to

Ever notice what activity is mentioned every single time Jesus made an appearance after His resurrection & taking Paradise to Heaven?

Yeah, I used to like those passages when I was little, they made me hungry

 

[quatona]

And there's just nothing like a weak plumber, is there?

And your point being?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

If so, then I'm a weak vegetarian -- I love fish; as does our Saviour.

Ever notice what activity is mentioned every single time Jesus made an appearance after His resurrection & taking Paradise to Heaven?

Curling?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

And there's just nothing like a weak plumber, is there?

You know, there's a logical fallacy that involves using an analogy as evidence for an argument when the analogy is deviant from the situation being discussed in the salient points. And there's also a logical fallacy that involves taking an analogy that someone else has put forward for an argument, and carrying it beyond what was intended by the original arguer, or beyond the point at which the analogy is a fair representation of the original situation. With this comment, you just carried the plumber analogy across that line. Besides which, your point is completely irrelevant.

 

[hollyda]

Do you accept the christian notion that you are a sinner?

There is no reason why I should.

If so, do you wish to be released from the slavery of sin?

Does this mean, in Christian standards, to be released is to die? Because, you know, that's the only way I know of (as a Christian) to sin no more.

I believe that you will be confronted with your creator before you die

Good for you.

and i pray to God that you will chose a life with Him instead of a life in sin!

How different do you imagine your life is from that of a nonbeliever? Do you live without "sin"? If so, how'd you manage that? From what I was taught as a Christian, the only sinless person was Jesus, and he's been dead for a while.

You are allowed to believe in the gospel!! Remember that!

I believe it exists. I don't believe what it says.

 

[AV1611VET]

You know, there's a logical fallacy that involves using an analogy as evidence for an argument when the analogy is deviant from the situation being discussed in the salient points. And there's also a logical fallacy that involves taking an analogy that someone else has put forward for an argument, and carrying it beyond what was intended by the original arguer, or beyond the point at which the analogy is a fair representation of the original situation. With this comment, you just carried the plumber analogy across that line. Besides which, your point is completely irrelevant.

Well then, just put me down for 2nd generation analogy fade -- how's that?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Well then, just put me down for 2nd generation analogy fade -- how's that?

How about I put you down as irrational?

 

[AV1611VET]

How about I put you down as irrational?

Non-rational would be better, I think ... but you do what you want.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Do you accept the christian notion that you are a sinner? If so, do you wish to be released from the slavery of sin?

I believe that you will be confronted with your creator before you die and i pray to God that you will chose a life with Him instead of a life in sin! One day you will have the revelation that you are a sinner, and actually know that God is true... That day, chose Jesus! you are allowed to chose Jesus!! You are allowed to believe in the gospel!! Remember that!

This isn't science. Can a mod move this thread somewhere else?

 

[Cabal]

You know, there's a logical fallacy that involves using an analogy as evidence for an argument when the analogy is deviant from the situation being discussed in the salient points. And there's also a logical fallacy that involves taking an analogy that someone else has put forward for an argument, and carrying it beyond what was intended by the original arguer, or beyond the point at which the analogy is a fair representation of the original situation. With this comment, you just carried the plumber analogy across that line. Besides which, your point is completely irrelevant.

To be fair, creationists and analogies don't mix well - if they did, they wouldn't be creationists.