14
   

I do not believe gods exist…but I do not believe there are no gods.

 
 
Thomas
 
  5  
Tue 29 May, 2012 05:07 pm
@igm,
igm wrote:
True or false: Newborn babies are Atheists by default?

Now there's an easy question. The answer is TRUE because newborn babies do not believe in god. Spcifically, newborns are weak rather than strong atheists: They lack belief in the existence of gods, but also lack belief in the non-existence of gods. Which only goes to prove that Frank is very much like a newborn. The only grown-up nuance Frank adds to a newborn's weak atheism is denial about his weak atheism.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Tue 29 May, 2012 05:11 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
American Heritage Dictionary: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.


Do babies believe?

Quote:
Merriam-Webster: one who believes that there is no deity

(no babies there!)


Once again do babies believe there is a deity?

Quote:
Cambridge Online Dictionary: someone who believes that God or gods do not exist

(no babies there!)
Again do babies believe?

Quote:
Webster’s New World Dictionary: An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of any kind of God or higher power.

(no babies there!)


Again do babies believe in the existence of any kind of God or higher power?

Are you seeing a trend here, Frank?????? Idea Idea Idea Question Question Question Idea Idea Idea
failures art
 
  1  
Tue 29 May, 2012 05:32 pm
Countdown until handwaving...

The truth is, that the best diplomats always give their opponents a way to exit and save face. Frank never had that, and thus his stubbornness is easily explainable.

A
R
T
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 29 May, 2012 05:40 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
Now there's an easy question. The answer is TRUE because newborn babies do not believe in god. Spcifically, newborns are weak rather than strong atheists: They lack belief in the existence of gods, but also lack belief in the non-existence of gods. Which only goes to prove that Frank is very much like a newborn. The only grown-up nuance Frank adds to a newborn's weak atheism is denial about his weak atheism.


You too, Thomas?

I am not an atheist...and I will never be. But, you guys do want to increase your numbers...and I am enjoying watching you try.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 29 May, 2012 05:42 pm
@reasoning logic,
igm...none of the definitions show that a newborn baby has to be considered an atheist. That is a fiction born of the mistaken notion that atheist came to English by adding prefixing an "a" to "theist" making it someone who does not have a belief in god.

Sorry, igm, but newborn babies are not atheists...and atheist is not the default position except in the minds of atheists.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 29 May, 2012 05:44 pm
@failures art,
Quote:
Countdown until handwaving...

The truth is, that the best diplomats always give their opponents a way to exit and save face. Frank never had that, and thus his stubbornness is easily explainable.


Yeah, this forum is simply filled with people giving opponents a way to exit and save face.

I am not an atheist.

I do not believe gods exist and I do not believe gods do not exist. I have no beliefs in that area. And there is no contradiction involved.
failures art
 
  1  
Tue 29 May, 2012 05:45 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
You too, Thomas?


Et tu, Brute?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Cesar-sa_mort.jpg/800px-Cesar-sa_mort.jpg

A
R
Thomas replied: "id est quod id est"
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 29 May, 2012 05:45 pm
Wow...this is fun. And the thread is back in operation full force.

Thanks all for continuing to participate with such fervor.
failures art
 
  1  
Tue 29 May, 2012 05:51 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Countdown until handwaving...

The truth is, that the best diplomats always give their opponents a way to exit and save face. Frank never had that, and thus his stubbornness is easily explainable.


Yeah, this forum is simply filled with people giving opponents a way to exit and save face.

No it is not. I didn't praise people for being good diplomats. I said that good diplomats give opponents a means to save face. Bad diplomats here at A2K have opted instead to muse upon your denial and stubborn rhetoric.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I am not an atheist.

Denial.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not believe gods exist and I do not believe gods do not exist.

Overly elaborate word salad on the topic of your denial.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I have no beliefs in that area.

Like being "agnostic about everything, always?" LOL

Frank Apisa wrote:

And there is no contradiction involved.

Franklish is an interesting language. What does "contradiction" mean in Franklish? You'd be surprised what it means in English.

A
R
T
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Tue 29 May, 2012 05:51 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Webster’s New World Dictionary: An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of any kind of God or higher power.


Frank why did you choose this definition if you are not going to back it up?

Are you claiming that a baby is not also a person? At exactly what age does a baby become a person?
failures art
 
  1  
Tue 29 May, 2012 05:56 pm
@reasoning logic,
Frank has yet to address the deficiency in the definitions he's promoted. I pointed this out to him previously when he chose definitions that were written to monotheism ("a god" or "God"). Good luck in getting him to address that though. I've been waiting for several pages now. Hell, Joe just wants to know what a "god" is. The best reply to that he's got was from Finn (albeit still deficient for deists or pandeists due to his the determinatism he used in his phrasing).

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Tue 29 May, 2012 06:00 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Wow...this is fun. And the thread is back in operation full force.

Always happy to help out a fellow atheist! Smile
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 29 May, 2012 06:06 pm
@failures art,
Quote:
Denial.


I think you are one of the people in denial, Art.

I AM NOT an atheist.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 29 May, 2012 06:09 pm
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
Frank why did you choose this definition if you are not going to back it up?


Think about it for a while, RL.

Why would I choose a definition like: An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of any kind of God or higher power.

Does that wording remind you of anything that has been bandied about in this thread?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 29 May, 2012 06:10 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
Always happy to help out a fellow atheist!


I'm sure you are, Thomas. And I thank you for extending that courtesy to a non-atheist like me.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Tue 29 May, 2012 06:10 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Denial.


I think you are one of the people in denial, Art.

Paint drying...

Frank Apisa wrote:

I AM NOT an atheist.


You certainly have made it clear you don't want to be one. You've gone as far as to add superficial layers like a "state of mind" to the term. You obviously have baggage with this term. Enough so, that you've constructed a whole elaborate denial screenplay.

A
R
Theatrics
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 29 May, 2012 06:15 pm
This is amazing...and amusing.

Atheists trying to get others to submit to being atheists.

A gas!

The only reason you good folk think that "not having a belief in a god is sufficient to make one an atheist"...is because of an etymological mistake. Some atheists wanted the definition to be constructed by prefixing an "a" to "theist"...but that is not what happened.

Don't you get it?

Hey, c'mon. It is alright. I know you want me...but you cannot have me. I just am not an atheist.

But it is a delight realizing atheists would spend so much time trying to make me into one...in fact, trying to make it unavoidable by definition.

Wow!
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 29 May, 2012 06:17 pm
ALL THIS...

...because I noted that I do not believe gods exist and also do not believe there are no gods. I simply do not have beliefs in either direction. I said that...and clarified what really did not need to be clarified...and yet here we still are...arguing that I am an atheist.

Amazing!
failures art
 
  1  
Tue 29 May, 2012 06:26 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

This is amazing...and amusing.

Atheists trying to get others to submit to being atheists.

It's actually a thread about an atheist telling other atheists that he's not an atheist because atheists only wear top hats.

Frank Apisa wrote:

A gas!

A solid. Sublimation.

Frank Apisa wrote:

The only reason you good folk think that "not having a belief in a god is sufficient to make one an atheist"...is because of an etymological mistake.

Strawman. You're arguing against a position that nobody here is taking. The argument from etymology is only happening in your head, not on my keyboard.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Some atheists wanted the definition to be constructed by prefixing an "a" to "theist"...but that is not what happened.

Wanted? What are you talking about? Atheists didn't even coin the term, nor seek it out. It found them.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Don't you get it?

Hey, c'mon. It is alright. I know you want me...but you cannot have me. I just am not an atheist.

So you believe in at least one god? Because that's the only way to affirmatively not be an atheist. You seem quite adamant against accepting what you are.

Frank Apisa wrote:

But it is a delight realizing atheists would spend so much time trying to make me into one...

Paint drying...

Frank Apisa wrote:

in fact, trying to make it unavoidable by definition.

Wow!

It's perfectly "avoidable." Simply believe in at least on god. Pretty simple.

A
R
T
failures art
 
  1  
Tue 29 May, 2012 06:38 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

ALL THIS...

...because you're in denial.

Frank Apisa wrote:

...because I noted that I do not believe gods exist and also do not believe there are no gods.

...which of course gets a response because it's poorly worded. Joefromchicago said it best when he locked onto what you were trying to say about having no formulation of an affirmative belief, but somehow that was insufficient for you because that lacked the unnecessary statement on the non belief in something not existing.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I simply do not have beliefs in either direction.

Every time you say something like this, you demonstrate the flaw in your structure of your position. Atheism isn't a belief at all. There is no "direction."

Frank Apisa wrote:

I said that...and clarified what really did not need to be clarified...and yet here we still are...arguing that I am an atheist.

There's two things happening here. The first is certainly a discussion on what you most certainly needed to clarify (cause it is terribly stated), and the second is a discussion on your own baggage which seems very sensitive.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Amazing!

It is. And you forget, that theists have chimed in on the thread too, and your reasoning didn't really work there either.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/08/2023 at 08:40:49