by LAWHFol 449 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Whats the difference then:
Plants are atheist by necessity since they lack even the ability to have and belief in god and thus the belief itself.
Babies lack belief in god.
Also, are you suggesting that babies have the ability to believe in God but choose not to?
Wow, the logic train really did leave you at the station!
Poor wording, it is about conceiving of something you don't know.
Well, you implied there are at least two.
I didn't imply that at all. I made a distinction between two classes of items, that that can not every have the ability to have a believe in god and one that currently doesn't but will have the ability at some point.
Or are you saying that they are atheist in the same way then?
Or? Why "or"? I never made a claim nor implied anything that would require a logically exclusive "or" here.
Let me net it out for you since there seems to be confusion. Plants can't ever not lack a belief in god. Babies, at the stage of their development, do not currently posses the ability to have a belief in god and thus lack a belief in god.
Both lack belief in god.
If no one introduced the idea of God to a baby would they every have to be atheist agnostic or theist? What would they think?
A child is born into a religion and the parents pump their head full of belief until they are complex enough to begin to entertain the idea. otherwise all they know is whats real and their own imagination.
To a baby maybe the Titty is god for gods sake, so I'll say yes. But then they get smart and learn more and more, then maybe mom is god, or maybe dad, or shit a thunderstorm maybe that was something all powerful and bigger
Poor wording, it is about conceiving of something you don't know.
Evidence that your accusation against me of playing word games is false.
Just when I thought you couldn't get any cooler viv...
Poor wording, it is about conceiving of something you don't know.
If by poor wording you are talking about your post I would agree, although everything I've seen of your argument suggests that the poor wording is merely a reflection of the lack of cogency you put into it's formulation.
The fact that most atheists have put a great deal of thought and critical thinking into labelling themselves atheist does not mean that it is a necessary step, in fact as has been previously pointed out it is agnosticism that implies a thought process without knowledge.
Evidence that your accusation against me of playing word games is false.
I have accused you of it when I found it appropriate, i did not accuse you of it in that case.
If by poor wording you are talking about your post I would agree, although everything I've seen of your argument suggests that the poor wording is merely a reflection of the lack of cogency you put into it's formulation.
Then maybe you should look some more...
I have accused you of it when I found it appropriate, i did not accuse you of it in that case.
Nice try, close, but no cigar. You made a general accusation, not a specific accusation on a specific comment. I, in turn, provided specific evidence that your general accusation is not true. In other words, all the evidence thus presented supports me, not you. You're exact claim was "She is resorting to word games to avoid the issues."
Evidence shows the opposite and that your claim was general in nature, not specific as you subsequently attempt to claim.
