Atheist

[Vortropolis]

I don't know why you are still responding, nobody is going to start saying babies are born atheist just because some atheists on a forum told them they are.

AND at this point we confirm either stupidity or trollhood. I hope its the latter in which case well done I genuinly figured you were that concerningly bad at understanding simple concepts!
If not I understand the embarrasment... now lets move on

Oh so I'm stupid?

[Uiiop]

So you havn't even bothered to check.
You hold a view, dozens of atheists have told you it's the wrong one and explained precisely why, told you where you can find out more, and yet you are apparently refusing.
At this point, i'm comfortable writing you off as a lost cause because of intellectual dishonesty and an unwillingness to better yourself or learn new things.

Thats a bit more accurate.

Athiests replying does NOT make the opinion less valid by itself

[Vortropolis]

Thats a bit more accurate.

Athiests replying does NOT make the opinion less valid by itself

Ya, it does because most of you are acting biased.

[Samuraikoku]

Thats a bit more accurate.

It's regardless of the people telling you so being atheists or theists.

I'd ask you to bother answering my questions.

I ask you again.

Do you believe?

If so, when did you start believing?

Do you not believe?

If so, have you never believed, or have you believed something previously?

[Xathranaar]

So you havn't even bothered to check.
You hold a view, dozens of atheists have told you it's the wrong one and explained precisely why, told you where you can find out more, and yet you are apparently refusing.
At this point, i'm comfortable writing you off as a lost cause because of intellectual dishonesty and an unwillingness to better yourself or learn new things.

Thats a bit more accurate.

If I can find you a theist who agrees with us, will you concede the point?

[Uiiop]

Athiests replying does NOT make the opinion less valid by itself

Ya, it does because most of you are biased.

please prove that our bias is wrong on this matter please.

[The USOT]

If someone proposes omniscience, omnipotence, etc, those are instantly disprovable.

Out of interest how come?

[Ostroeuropa]

Irrespective of our bias or lack thereof, if you are told something that cites something else as evidence, the correct thing to do is to go and find that evidence and evaluate it. Not to refuse to do so and regard the evidence as tainted by the person who presented it. If you are unable to find a definition by a reputable authority that contradicts ours then you should concede.

[Dyakovo]

They have no knowledge = Agnostic.

They have no belief = Atheist.

Agnostic would make more sense than atheist.

Agnostic does not answer the question "do you believe in a deity or deities?", atheist does.

[Ostroeuropa]

If someone proposes omniscience, omnipotence, etc, those are instantly disprovable.

Out of interest how come?

Can an omniscient being know How to forget something. Can they know they havn't already done so.
Can an omniscient being know what he doesn't know. etc. When dealing with infinites it's incredibly easy to make them self-contradictory.

For power it's the "Sandwich too tasty for himself" thing (boulder too heavy to lift.)


Omniscience is slightly trickier, since you often need to be very careful in how you phrase a question/argument against it.
"Can an omniscient being know what it is like to not know something?" <-Yes, they can know what its LIKE, etc.

[Dyakovo]

Why?
They do not believe. = Atheist.
Agnostic is opposed to GNOSTIC.

A Gnostic Theist thinks they can prove god's existence.
A Gnostic Atheist thinks they can prove god's non-existence.
An Agnostic Atheist doesn't think they can prove it, but doesn't believe.
An Agnostic Theist doesn't think they can prove it, but does believe.

Babies DO NOT think they can disprove it, since they don't even know what "it" is.

I still disagree.

And thus you are still wrong.

[Tsuntion]

So you havn't even bothered to check.
You hold a view, dozens of atheists have told you it's the wrong one and explained precisely why, told you where you can find out more, and yet you are apparently refusing.
At this point, i'm comfortable writing you off as a lost cause because of intellectual dishonesty and an unwillingness to better yourself or learn new things.

Thats a bit more accurate.

I'm a theist. Just so you know, I agree completely with the posts arguing against the ridiculous things you said. Therefore, although I am not dozens of people, it is not purely atheists.

Edit: Hopefully, that satisfies Xathranaar's post.

[Conscentia]

Athiests replying does NOT make the opinion less valid by itself

Ya, it does because most of you are acting biased.

You seem far more biased than anyone who's responded to you, sir.

[Samuraikoku]

I'm a theist. Just so you know, I agree completely with the posts arguing against the ridiculous things you said. Therefore, although I am not dozens of people, it is not purely atheists.

You're a lying biased atheist. *nods*

[Great Nepal]

Thats a bit more accurate.

Allright, spot flaw in person V's argument in my totally hypothetical and fictional conversation:-
Person A: "As we can see, world is clearly round because we can not fall off it"
Person V: "Yea, thats your opinion!"
Person B: "No, we have got evidence of people going from Asia to America without falling off"
Person V: "Yea, those evidence are made by round earthers!"
Person C: "Since if we had flat earth, water would flow out into the space and we could not have day/ night as well as seasons; earth must be round."
Person V: "You are all round earthers therefore your points are invalid but I can not provide any rebuttal to your claim."

[Xathranaar]

If someone proposes omniscience, omnipotence, etc, those are instantly disprovable.

Out of interest how come?

Well whether or not omnipotence is not internally contradictory (bake a potato so hot that even he cannot eat it, etc.), omnipotence and omniscience certainly are.

Because omniscience includes knowledge of your future actions. For you to be all-powerful you ought to be able to do whatever you like, but for you to be all knowing you must follow a set course of actions laid out by your all-knowingness, or else you never really knew what you were going to do in the first place, which would make you not all-knowing.

[Ostroeuropa]

Thats a bit more accurate.

I'm a theist. Just so you know, I agree completely with the posts arguing against the ridiculous things you said. Therefore, although I am not dozens of people, it is not purely atheists.

Thankyou, but I suspect Sam is correct on what his response will be.
Incidentally, if more theists policed their own i wouldn't have a problem with them

[Dyakovo]

You don't need knowledge.
Belief is independent of knowledge.
This has been explained many times.

I thought atheism wasn't a belief?

It isn't.
What it is is a statement of belief.
Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge and thus is a separate matter entirely.

[Ostroeuropa]

Out of interest how come?

Well whether or not omnipotence is not internally contradictory (bake a potato so hot that even he cannot eat it, etc.), omnipotence and omniscience certainly are.

Because omniscience includes knowledge of your future actions. For you to be all-powerful you ought to be able to do whatever you like, but for you to be all knowing you must follow a set course of actions laid out by your all-knowingness, or else you never really knew what you were going to do in the first place, which would make you not all-knowing.

Yeh, the more god like traits they add, the easier and easier it gets to disprove.
The less godlike a god is, the harder it is to disprove. I find it funny.

[Dyakovo]

It is a lack of belief. And since those babies do not have belief, they are atheists.

How hard is it for you to understand?

I, honestly think this whole babies are atheist thing is more of an opinion than a fact.

I doubt that.

[Vortropolis]

I, honestly think this whole babies are atheist thing is more of an opinion than a fact.

I doubt that.

You'r a bit too late to the debate.

[Samuraikoku]

I doubt that.

You'r a bit too late to the debate.

He does it on purpose, so he has your full attention. *nods*

[The USOT]

AND at this point we confirm either stupidity or trollhood. I hope its the latter in which case well done I genuinly figured you were that concerningly bad at understanding simple concepts!
If not I understand the embarrasment... now lets move on

Oh so I'm stupid?

Whilst I beleive so that is besides the point. I will confess to have mading an over the top display which this is going over to express this, but ultimately it is not neccesary.

What I can say however is the following.
Providing you are not a troll, you do express the following.
You are not interested in evidence.
When proven wrong, you are inclined to call oppinion over objective matters
You are inclined to beleive oppinions are equally valid on a factual base.

None of this is helpful for forum debates and does not look kindly on you. Thus I reccomend that you are humble and willing to admit that you are wrong, as I will admit I went over the top in my initial rebuttle.

[Xathranaar]

Thats a bit more accurate.

I'm a theist. Just so you know, I agree completely with the posts arguing against the ridiculous things you said. Therefore, although I am not dozens of people, it is not purely atheists.

Edit: Hopefully, that satisfies Xathranaar's post.

Thank you.

When the great god Athe destroys the world in science, I will pray to Carl Sagan to intercede on behalf of your immortal unmeasurable-but-emperically-determined-personality-spector.

[Conscentia]

-snip-

Do you concede?
If not, why do you not concede?
Why do you still think that babies are not atheists?