I'm glad we're cool. Peer pressure made me say these things. I don't believe one word.

(July 6, 2015 at 10:07 am)Cato Wrote:

(July 6, 2015 at 9:59 am)pool Wrote: I think you completely missed my point when i said theists do not exist according to logic.
People who think they are theists exists.Theists cannot exist.

The misunderstanding is not mine. One last time pool, a theist is someone who believes in god. The fact that god exists or doesn't exist is immaterial to the definition of a  theist. Not only have I clarified this before, but I gave you a perfect example of a theist that exists. If you continue to assert that theists don't exist you will only further demonstrate your inability to reason.

A true theist would be someone that believes in something which is nothing.
But the notion of believing in something which is nothing itself is senseless.
Therefore true theists cannot exist.Only people who think they are theists can exist.

@excitingpenguin, Why would you think i'd be mad at you in the first place?
I don't work like that.

Suppose i like a person for some of the set of qualities they posses.
Suppose the person i like finds me stupid and some other socially agreed negative qualities.
I don't understand how this set of negative qualities can change the set of the qualities i like in a person.
So according to logic,

If i like a person.
And if that person doesn't like me.
I should still like that person unless an event occurs which would point out the reasons for which i liked the person in the first place as non-existent.
Then i'd not like that person.

(July 6, 2015 at 9:49 am)excitedpenguin Wrote: I think we should rather try to find common language with these people than just talk what must sound like impossible gibberish to them. I was doing exactly that when he agreed with me and now that's ruined - but of course it's worth it, if anyone at all will consider taking my advice and follow my example in the future.

You intimating that he had a sound argument but just suffered from a lack of sympathy is misplaced. He has been given a very simple definition of theist and example, yet continues with the unsupported assertion that there are no theists. He understands the language well enough as he has no problem using it to obfuscate, he just won't admit his error since it destroys his argument.

Do you know pool? Treating him as a damsel in distress given the inanity of his argument seems misplaced.

@pool, that's an epistemological distinction right there. You say you can't believe in something unless it's real. Gods are not real therefore one cannot believe in gods. I agree. People only think they believe in gods. Fine. But then the word evolves as well. Now a theist is a person who thinks he believes in God. And an atheist is a person who doesn't think he believes in God. Ergo, not thinking you believe in something that is not real is logical, and thinking you believe in something that is imaginary is illogical and a flaw in your thinking.
Please let me know if there's any other questions.

Cato, no, I don't know pool. I know and can see where his faulty logic reveals itself, thank you very much. But if I'm wrong about him being too stupid to even recognize reason, then how come I am successfully bullshiting him even now?

I think he's off his rocker. Probably a nice guy in RL, but I don't see any reason to concede ground to faulty arguments or erroneous reasoning.

(July 6, 2015 at 10:16 am)Cato Wrote:

(July 6, 2015 at 9:49 am)excitedpenguin Wrote: I think we should rather try to find common language with these people than just talk what must sound like impossible gibberish to them. I was doing exactly that when he agreed with me and now that's ruined - but of course it's worth it, if anyone at all will consider taking my advice and follow my example in the future.

You intimating that he had a sound argument but just suffered from a lack of sympathy is misplaced. He has been given a very simple definition of theist and example, yet continues with the unsupported assertion that there are no theists. He understands the language well enough as he has no problem using it to obfuscate, he just won't admit his error since it destroys his argument.

Do you know pool? Treating him as a damsel in distress given the inanity of his argument seems misplaced.

Hoooooollllly shit!
That's what you think?!
That's exactly what i'm thinking too!
(i'm not kidding.)

@Pandaemonium, I'm a very bad person in RL.(i'm not joking)
But then again your and my definition of bad might vary..
Basically if i had to choose between saving my mom and other 5 random people - i'd save the other 5 random people.There,that should make me a bad person according to many of you.

(July 6, 2015 at 10:17 am)excitedpenguin Wrote: @pool, that's an epistemological distinction right there. You say you can't believe in something unless it's real. Gods are not real therefore one cannot believe in gods. I agree. People only think they believe in gods. Fine. But then the word evolves as well. Now a theist is a person who thinks he believes in God. And an atheist is a person who doesn't think he believes in God. Ergo, not thinking you believe in something that is not real is logical, and thinking you believe in something that is imaginary is illogical and a flaw in your thinking.
Please let me know if there's any other questions.

How is thinking you believe something, different from believing something?

Mr. Wizard, it's not. I'm trying to speak stupid.

Look, guys, you had 30 pages with him and got nowhere apparently. I managed to get him all excited with just 2 replies. Who do you think really knows what he's doing here? Wink, wink.

As I said, you're overestimating him. He's probably 13 years old or smth. He'll read a couple more books and he'll be just fine.

(July 6, 2015 at 10:22 am)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(July 6, 2015 at 10:17 am)excitedpenguin Wrote: @pool, that's an epistemological distinction right there. You say you can't believe in something unless it's real. Gods are not real therefore one cannot believe in gods. I agree. People only think they believe in gods. Fine. But then the word evolves as well. Now a theist is a person who thinks he believes in God. And an atheist is a person who doesn't think he believes in God. Ergo, not thinking you believe in something that is not real is logical, and thinking you believe in something that is imaginary is illogical and a flaw in your thinking.
Please let me know if there's any other questions.

How is thinking you believe something, different from believing something?

Its VERY different.
Because of the possible variation of the real definition of the said something and the definition someone has in mind of the said something.
Only,here,there is not definition. #Yolo

(July 6, 2015 at 10:18 am)pool Wrote: Basically if i had to choose between saving my mom and other 5 random people - i'd save the other 5 random people.There,that should make me a bad person according to many of you.

Whacks his own mother in strict adherence to utilitarian ethics in a trolley experiment, but would have us believe he has language issues in order to feign ignorance of the definition and existence of theists to proclaim on an atheist forum that atheists in turn don't exist. Fucking troll.