Atheists aren't Smart Enough to be Theists.

[Vinnie]

I believe that statement to be factual. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?

Vinnie

[screwtape]

I believe that statement to be factual. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?

Vinnie

Vinnie, Vinnie, Vinnie....did another atheist come by and piss in your cheerios? Love you man.

[Peter Kirby]

Ex hypothesi corrolary: The dumbest theist is smarter than the smartest atheist.
Kirby's conclusion: The only way for Vinnie's statement to be true is for it to be parsed, "Some atheists aren't smart enough to be theists."
Jesus's Aphorism: "Bring ye the little children unto me, so long as they have an IQ of one hundred and twenty."

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

[Soul Invictus]

I believe that statement to be factual. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?

Vinnie

On the surface, I disagree, but I think there's some sort of semantical trick in the word choice that's confounding my interpretation. Let me digest this.

My thoughts are that theists utilize a non-falsifiable methodology for dealing with the EoG which allows them to conclude that God exists, and that atheists do utilize a falsifiable methodology for dealing with the EoG, which requires them to find that no information leading to verification of the fact that God does exist.

The thought of not being "smart enough" seems to imply a cognitive deficiency, which, if we accept this to be true, it only means that atheistsnot being smart enough equates to lacking the faith to circularly lead back to the built in conclusion that God exists. From this vantage point, "not being smart enough" would mean nothing to me, because it gives creedance to the theist faith methodology.

Long story short...I guess I agree with you. :huh:

[James T]

Atheists aren't Smart Enough to be Theists.
Smart, a kind of pain such as that caused by a wound or a burn or a sore.

Yes, I think you are right, we don't have that particular wound, burn or sore ;).

[Vinnie]

I may be building up suspense for nada but I was writing an article and thought of something and formulated a new argument off of it where I may
(Attempted to and think I have) have turned the tables. A hint:

There is no Gold in China.

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

I'm a little unsure about this one but I'll throw it out here:

http://www.after-hourz.net/articles/yesgold.html

Basically I am redoing my site and I am updating every article I will be keeping (yes every single one of them) and I am adding some more. So I redid some material I had on the silly but common complaint that atheism requires omnicience. I wrote it up and title it "There is No Gold in China" but then got inspiration and followed it up with another one titled "There is Gold in China".

I have been thinking about the coherence of theism lately and problems with the attributes of God and linguistic problems with "God" as a referring expression and with verificationism as well.

So I thought, what if I can twist the tables? Can I show that not atheism, but theism requires omniscience? Thats what I set out to do.

I think the article needs a bit more structure to it and I think I may need to break a few parts down a little. I've just redid my linguistic piece and added a bunch of stuff to it so I may have glossed over parts here that I shouldn't have and time will tell if so.

Anyways:
There is Gold in China

http://www.after-hourz.net/articles/yesgold.html

Pretend I'm a frog and dissect me :)

Vinnie

[Agnostic Theist]

Your article suggests, to me, that it is unfair to ask theists to prove God, since this is an impossible task.

Hence you cannot demand that the theist prove God or else be irrational, in my opinion.

[tobe38]

I believe that statement to be factual. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?

Vinnie

Intelligence is subjective. If by "not intelligent enough", you mean reasoning within the boundaries of logic, then I'm guilty as charged. However, by definition, the statement can't be factual because it's an opinion.

[David Vestal]

Why do you think god is so mind-bogglingly evil as to create us in a way that guarantees our eternal torture?

[nobby]

I wear a suit and tie. I'm very smart

[Paul2]

Atheists are too Smart to be Theists.

Vinnie


Fixed

[Revolutionary]

This is an absurd idea. There smart theists and dumb theists, there are smart atheists and dumb atheists. Statistically, the more educated a person is, the less religious they tend to be. Unless you want to say that more educated people tend to be dumber. :huh:

[Tuvar Ane Ingolenen]

I wear a suit and tie. I'm very smart

Maybe you think you're smart because your brain is not working right.

suit /n./ 1. Ugly and uncomfortable `business clothing' often worn by non-hackers. Invariably worn with a `tie', a strangulation device that partially cuts off the blood supply to the brain. It is thought that this explains much about the behavior of suit-wearers.
from the Jargon File (http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/s/suit.html)

[Vinnie]

Your article suggests, to me, that it is unfair to ask theists to prove God, since this is an impossible task.

Hence you cannot demand that the theist prove God or else be irrational, in my opinion.

You cannot prove the existence of a God (transcendent, singular, omni-individual) anymore than I can prove "Yarhivega" exists outside the universe. The question is largely insoluble.

Of course I reserve the right to point out problems with specific Gods and the God of advanced theism since I do not believe the term God is a meaningful one and I do not think the properties of God are consistent with one another. Therefore, that was one long reductio ad absurdom argument.

But, why is it unfair of you to require that theists demonstrate the accuracy of their views? If someone says to you, "You should change your life and follow God's son Jesus" why is it unfair for you to expect them to present good reasons why this is the case (that such beings exist and its morally proper)?

Following Hume's dictum, "A man proportions his beliefs to the evidence." Its very much fair to expect theists to proportion their beliefs to the evidence, especially if they are evangelistic.

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

Intelligence is subjective. If by "not intelligent enough", you mean reasoning within the boundaries of logic, then I'm guilty as charged. However, by definition, the statement can't be factual because it's an opinion.

It can be factual if I demonstrate my case: "theism requires omniscience". This of course assumes no atheist is omniscience ( I know, its a big leap ;) )

Actually the statement makes sense if you read through to the end of the article. Quoting myself:

Theism, simply put, requires omniscience. The next time a theist gasps and says, "How could you not believe in God?", respond with, "I'm not smart enough."

Vinnie

[Agnostic Theist]

You cannot prove the existence of a God (transcendent, singular, omni-individual) anymore than I can prove "Yarhivega" exists outside the universe. The question is largely insoluble.

Of course I reserve the right to point out problems with specific Gods and the God of advanced theism since I do not believe the term God is a meaningful one and I do not think the properties of God are consistent with one another. Therefore, that was one long reductio ad absurdom argument.

But, why is it unfair of you to require that theists demonstrate the accuracy of their views? If someone says to you, "You should change your life and follow God's son Jesus" why is it unfair for you to expect them to present good reasons why this is the case (that such beings exist and its morally proper).

Following Hume's dictum, "A man proportions his beliefs to the evidence." Its very much fair to expect theists to proportion their beliefs to the evidence.

Vinnie

1. Of course if they demand lifestyle changes, or ask you to change your own views, it is reasonable to demand a reason why (on any side of the coin.)

2. Hume was talking shit - A man proportions the evidence to his beliefs as far as I'm concerned.

[Vinnie]

1. Of course if they demand lifestyle changes, or ask you to change your own views, it is reasonable to demand a reason why (on any side of the coin.)

I'm libertarian. If you want to believe in God go ahead. Once "God" starts influencing your politics and ideology in a way which then starts having a negative impact on the society I live in, things become more complicated.


2. Hume was talking shit - A man proportions the evidence to his beliefs as far as I'm concerned.

Man is a pattern seeking story-teller prone to magical thinking. Everyone thinks magically and I do not doubt that man "proportions evidence to his beliefs". People constantly use fallacious reasoning and believe in impossible*** things (from superstitions, to esp, thinking people can speak with their dead relatives, to alternative emdicines).

Why can smart people belief stupid things and argue them? A smart person can rationally defend a belief he arived at out of less than rational reasons.

But what you have just said, it only encourages me in thinking that we need to push critical thinking, skepticism and scientific methodology as much as we can. We are of course in a debate forum. If you are here to proportion evidence to your beliefs that is your business. If we dialogue I will expect you to evidence or reason to your beliefs and expect the same in return.

A wise man proportions his beliefs to the evidence....
An unwise man proportions the evidence to his beliefs....

Vinnie

***edited to add this: impossible was the wrong word for me to use here, far too strong....

[BlessNot]

I believe that statement to be factual. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?

Vinnie

That statment is ass backwards because to become a theist you must surrender the mind to ignorance.

[Agnostic Theist]

That statment is ass backwards because to become a theist you must surrender the mind to ignorance.

And yet it takes so much thought and reason to become an atheist, if only for a day :devil3:

[tobe38]

It can be factual if I demonstrate my case: "theism requires omniscience". This of course assumes no atheist is omniscience ( I know, its a big leap ;) )

Actually the statement makes sense if you read through to the end of the article. Quoting myself:

Theism, simply put, requires omniscience. The next time a theist gasps and says, "How could you not believe in God?", respond with, "I'm not smart enough."

Vinnie

Replace the word "omniscience" with "faith". Faith doesn't require knowledge, intelligence or logic of any kind, simply the desire to believe in something whether it plausable or not. The little intelligence I have prevents me from having faith.

A fact is indesputable. No matter how well (or not) you make your case, it will still be desputed and therefore can't be a fact.

[BlessNot]

And yet it takes so much thought and reason to become an atheist, if only for a day :devil3:

Just a small dose of intellectual honesty that will last a lifetime.

Agnostic/theist? What is that? Someone who doesn't know if they believe in God or not? Does that mean you are an "indecisiveist" ?

:devil1:

[Agnostic Theist]

Sorry, kidder, 3rd strike and you're out.

[lenrek]

Please be reminded of a few EoG discussion rules which can be found here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=80455)


...The following are the types of things that may be edited out from now on

- Posts that consist of no argument whatsoever.

- Posts which consist of only sarcastic quips or one liners.
...


Thanks for your attention to this.

Lenrek
Moderator - EoG

[IRON MAN]

Funny you should bring that up.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=132794

[KnightTemplar]

Why do you post on these forums?

Why do you even use internet? They are found by science which acts secular thus which is done by idiots..

So don't use them, use the technology sent to you by GOD, whatever they are?

[Sensei Meela]

Theism, simply put, requires omniscience. The next time a theist gasps and says, "How could you not believe in God?", respond with, "I'm not smart enough."Just because you know everything doesn't mean you're smart. ;)

[FarmMama]

This is better suited for GRD

FarmMama/EoG Mod

[Fencesitter]

Everyone thinks magically


What's your evidence for this?


Fence

[Alethias]

I believe that statement to be factual. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?

Vinnie

Having read your paper on your website, I think your logic is flawed. Please note that i'm an atheist, I'm just pointing out what appears to me to be a logical inconsistency.

I'm going to sum up my understanding of your premises. Please tell me if i get them wrong.
1) God Exists outside the context of the knowable universe.
2) God is omniscient
3) No other conscious entity is omniscient
4) Knowing something that exists outside the context of the knowable universe would require omniscience.

Point 4 is unsupportable, because if something is unknowable, even an omniscient being wouldn't know it. If God is unknowable even a valid claim of omniscience would not allow knowledge of god.

so i disagree. Theists are not smarter than atheists :p

I wouldn't personally use this argument anyway, because christians i know would look at point #4 and say "YES! that's where faith come in!! You've seen the light!!", and there would be no progress in the discussion.

edit: i'm aware that my conclusions were probably the whole point of the article :thumbs:

[Demigawd]

Just because you know everything doesn't mean you're smart. ;)

Ms. Baby: You know, Chuck, you sure are smart.

Chuck: Uh-huh. I know what's in every book in every library in the world.

Ms. Baby: What's that, baby?

Chuck: Words.

[jonesg]

I believe that statement to be factual. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?

Vinnie

Do I smell Godel's Theorum ?

Ya can't be too dumb to draw near to God, but you can be too smart.

[ecco]

Many years ago I was convinced the Pope had to be an atheist. My reasoning went something like this:

In order to become the head of an organization as large as the Catholic church you had to be a lot of things – especially smart.

If you were that smart you must have come to the logical conclusion that all gods are a myth created by man.

I don’t believe this any more. I have come to realize that belief is ingrained in people (of all religions) almost from the time of birth by their parents, siblings, etc. Christian children become Christians, Jews become Jews, Muslims become Muslims because that’s what was instilled in them. Those who have overcome this early indoctrination are people who have opened their minds and searched for truth. All “smart� people do not do this.

[steamer]

Do I smell Godel's Theorum ?

Ya can't be too dumb to draw near to God, but you can be too smart.

Hmm, how does one draw near to the non-existant? Wouldn't you have to pretend it exists and somehow pretend to draw near to it? I'd certainly say that theists confuse facts with fictions more often but I wouldn't call that behaviour "smart".

[Vinnie]

Having read your paper on your website, I think your logic is flawed. Please note that i'm an atheist, I'm just pointing out what appears to me to be a logical inconsistency.

No need to state you are an atheist ;)


1) God Exists outside the context of the knowable universe.

God exists outside of what we call "material existence" or the universer (in the sense of all that there is because if we posit that our verse is one of a million in a multiverse God must have created all this ex nihilo as well).

2) God is omniscient

God is an infinite being. God is all powerful, all knowing and so on.

3) No other conscious entity is omniscient

I dunno. Is it possible to have two omniscient beings? I know that "two omnipotent" beings are not possible since there can't be two beings "with all the power".

4) Knowing something that exists outside the context of the knowable universe would require omniscience.

I think I said identifying an infinite, omniscient and omnipotent being outside of material existence would require omnisciences. How do you know this being is all powerful? How do you know this being is all-knowing? How do you even know what to look for? What constitutes an all knowing outside-material existence entity versus what doesn't?

Point 4 is unsupportable, because if something is unknowable, even an omniscient being wouldn't know it.

I thought I said knowing a being is omniscient requires omniscient, otherwise how could you know that this being does in fact "know everything". My problem is with the omnis. You can know such a being is "powerful" but not all powerful, that this being is smart, but not all knowing.

I also raised some other points about God. One other argument was that "God" is not meaningful as a referring term. The point is when we say "God" we have no idea what we are even looking for. WHen we couple this with "we have no way of searching the locations we are supposed ot be" we are at a double disadvantage:

I also wrote this:

""""""To identify a being which none greater can be thought, to know that a being I met is truly omniscient, wouldn't that require omniscience? I think so and at the very least it would require FAR more knowledge than any human can lay claim to."""""""""

I left the requiring omniscience open in the article.


Maybe if there is confusion maybe i should go through and try to formally present what I wrote as an simplified argument. Gimme some time, gotta work a double tomorrow....

Thx for the response :)

[premjan]

suggestibility (self-hypnosis) rather than intelligence, may be the key.

[Johnny Skeptic]

I believe that statement to be factual. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?

Vinnie

I disagree. There is a direct correlation between education and a lack of interest in religion. This is true especially in third world nations. 90% of the people in South America are Roman Catholics. During the last 50 years, very few Christians have won Nobel prizes in the the sciences. 40% of the members of American Men and Women in Science are Christians, but only 7% of the members of the much more prestigious National Academy of Sciences are Christians. One of the requirements to become a member of the NAS is quality original research.

Regarding the SAT, I am quite certain that students who score 700 and above in the math section and 700 and above in the verbal section tend to be less interested in religion than students with lower scores. I am also quite certain that people with advanced college degrees generally tend to be less interested in religion than people who do not have advanced college degrees.

Aside from education, Kosmin and Lachman wrote a book titled 'One Nation Under God.' Billy Graham praises the book, but I don't know why since the authors cited a lot of documented research that shows that the major factors that account for religous beliefs are family, geography, race, ethnicity, gender and age. If God exists he most certainly would not be limited by such factors.

[Alethias]

Thanks for your clarification vinnie. I get it now!

Awesome article!

Don't know why it took me so long. Guess i was just having a dense moment :Cheeky:

[sharon45]

"Atheists aren't Smart Enough to be Theists."

Not only is this a truly ignorant statement, it is a thoroughly laughable one as well.

[David B]

Your article suggests, to me, that it is unfair to ask theists to prove God, since this is an impossible task.

Hence you cannot demand that the theist prove God or else be irrational, in my opinion.

Personally, I'm more temperate with my demands of theists. But then, I take a strong interpretation of the word 'prove' in this context. And I can't prove, in that sense, that solipsism is wrong.

So what I ask of a theist is less than proof - just that that s/he to give me minimally plausible, but preferably compelling or convincing, evidence that there is a god, which does not conflict with what could be reasonably claimed to be scientifically or logically known.

David B (has yet to see such evidence, and isn't holding his breath)

[Landis]

Where's the moderation? I find this thread offensive.

Since the mods are asleep - Theists Aren't Smart Enough to Be Atheists.

[Vinnie]

Where's the moderation? I find this thread offensive.

Since the mods are asleep - Theists Aren't Smart Enough to Be Atheists.

The thread is not even offensive. The title is provocative. I am an atheist and the title is a play on statement I concluded my article with. Its actually a good thing...

Vinnie

[sharon45]

The thread is not even offensive. The title is provocative. I am an atheist and the title is a play on statement I concluded my article with. Its actually a good thing...

VinnieSo now you want to call yourself an Atheist (weak), but that still does not change the title of this thread or the defensive declaration in its favor, it is still incorrect as I mentioned earlier.

[Vinnie]

So now you want to call yourself an Atheist (weak),

No, actually its been a while and I do embrace strong atheism as well. Public profiles are not always updated regularly.

but that still does not change the title of this thread or the defensive declaration in its favor,

Yes but the prima facie interpretation is not correct! Not by a mile.

it is still incorrect as I mentioned earlier.

No its not. On one level, the title can't be "incorrect" as its a simple literary device. Some people can't appreciate creative writing. On another it is an accurate statement htough as its formed its entirely misleading because without context, the prima facie understanding of it is surely incorrect.

Not only is this a truly ignorant statement, it is a thoroughly laughable one as well.

Its called irony for fuck's sake. If people are incapable of grasping reduimentary literary concepts like "irony" then I think they should avoid internet message boards where written discourse is the norm.

It has all three levels of irony in it:

1 : a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning -- called also Socratic irony
2 a : the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning b : a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony c : an ironic expression or utterance
3 a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity b : incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play -- called also dramatic irony, tragic irony

All of em! It was brilliant. I renounce my atheism as I looked in a mirror and discovered God incarnate!

I am not aware that the use of irony and being provocative violate IIDB rules or are incorrect. I could be wrong though but this thread is very much correct and until my argument is refuted as the title of this thread is accurate in its use of irony in stating a truth.

I can't help it that you take offense as you make assumptions about the meaning of something that has no context. A text without a context is a pretext.

Vinnie

[sharon45]

No, actually its been a while and I do embrace strong atheism as well. Public profiles are not always updated regularly.I was speaking since I saw one of your more recent posts still connecting yourself with a self created belief system. You were also calling yourself an "agnostic theist" not that long ago in postings, but it might seem like well enough to you.

Yes but the prima facie interpretation is not correct! Not by a mile.If you want to implore your own opinion of words into different meaning symbols, that is your choice. As written though on its own, it still remains incorrect.

No its not. On one level, the title can't be "incorrect" as its a simple literary device.No, it is incorrect and because of your approval of the statement, that is again incorrect.
Some people can't appreciate creative writing.When discussing creative writing, one's opinion is their own. So you like what you wrote and others liked what you wrote, but I and some others did not like what you wrote. That is another reason why it can't be correct, because it is just about preference.
On another it is an accurate statement htough as its formed its entirely misleading because without context, the prima facie understanding of it is surely incorrect.No once again, you said:Atheists aren't Smart Enough to be Theists.

I believe that statement to be factual.. Well it is clearly not factual.

Its called irony for fuck's sake. If people are incapable of grasping reduimentary literary concepts like "irony" then I think they should avoid internet message boards where written discourse is the norm.That is again your opinion. I understand "irony", and misusing and abusing the placement for what you also called "provocative" reasons is once again your own opinion.

As I said, as it stands, it still remains incorrect.

All of em! It was brilliant. I renounce my atheism as I looked in a mirror and discovered God incarnate!Again your irony or your opinion of irony.

My postings in this thread and what I type right now could be my very own use of irony as well and you just didn't realize that to truly appreciate my "brilliantly played" position.

Those that live by the sword, die by the sword.

I have already surmised that the NT as well as the whole bible for that matter, can easily be a huge complex slap of irony, but billions just didn't comprehend its involving point of view.
I am not aware that the use of irony and being provocative violate IIDB rules or are incorrect.I did say that the title and approval was incorrect, but I didn't say that it violated the forum rules. It didn't offend me though it might have offended others, but as written, it wasn't a personal attack, just merely incorrect.

I could be wrong though but this thread is very much correct and until my argument is refuted as the title of this thread is accurate in its use of irony in stating a truth.Only a truth as you see it though. You had a statement, you believed the statement to be factual, though it wasn't and you haven't shown it to be, but you cry foul anyway.

I can't help it that you take offense as you make assumptions about the meaning of something that has no context. A text without a context is a pretext.As I've said, I wasn't offended. Not even personal attacks offend me here, because I know where I stand and that is what's important.

Theists merely believe in a god, if they actually knew there was a god, they wouldn't be theists.

[Vinnie]

Only a truth as you see it though. You had a statement, you believed the statement to be factual, though it wasn't and you haven't shown it to be, but you cry foul anyway.

The accuracy of my statement depends upon the arguments I put forth. You have yet to address any of what I wrote. It is accurate that "atheists are not smart enough to be theists" since theism requires omniscience. Its similar to saying, "Jenny isn't tall enough to reach the flour on the top shelf".


I was speaking since I saw one of your more recent posts still connecting yourself with a self created belief system. You were also calling yourself an "agnostic theist" not that long ago in postings, but it might seem like well enough to you.

You are mistaken. I did not mention my self-created belief system in the present tense. That was al ong time ago. I also have not referred to myself as an agnostic theist for a long while now. You are incorrect on both points.

you want to implore your own opinion of words into different meaning symbols, that is your choice. As written though on its own, it still remains incorrect.

At least I tried to demosntrate my "opinion" on the issue which is tied into the article. You just keep asserting.


When discussing creative writing, one's opinion is their own. So you like what you wrote and others liked what you wrote, but I and some others did not like what you wrote. That is another reason why it can't be correct, because it is just about preference.

As noted, in one way its a preference statement and in another it does correspond to reality as long as the article's points are correct. Advanced theism requires omniscience. Atheists can't (or shouldn't) be advanced theists (unless its fideism) because they lack omniscience. Thats what the statement says: Atheists are not smart enough to be theists.

Well it is clearly not factual.

So you keep opining with assertion after assertion.

My postings in this thread and what I type right now could be my very own use of irony as well and you just didn't realize that to truly appreciate my "brilliantly played" position.

Those that live by the sword, die by the sword.

A sign of desperation: you appeal to hypothetical "what ifs". Shoulda could woulda whatever. I demonstrated what I meant by the article. Until you demonstrate your irony you are just demonstrating ignorance and wasting everyoe's time with your babble that has no relevance to anything here.

I have already surmised that the NT as well as the whole bible for that matter, can easily be a huge complex slap of irony, but billions just didn't comprehend its involving point of view.

Drivel. There is no such thing as "NT" or "Bible". I do not treat these items holistically or with any unified canonical dimension. Holistic statements about the Bible are like making holistic statements about a public library on the basis of the contents of one work found within.

Theists merely believe in a god, if they actually knew there was a god, they wouldn't be theists.

How is that distinction relevant? I said theism, not fideism.

Vinnie

[sharon45]

The accuracy of my statement depends upon the arguments I put forth. You have yet to address any of what I wrote. It is accurate that "atheists are not smart enough to be theists" since theism requires omniscience. Its similar to saying, "Jenny isn't tall enough to reach the flour on the top shelf".

You are mistaken. I did not mention my self-created belief system in the present tense. That was al ong time ago. I also have not referred to myself as an agnostic theist for a long while now. You are incorrect on both points.

At least I tried to demosntrate my "opinion" on the issue which is tied into the article. You just keep asserting.

As noted, in one way its a preference statement and in another it does correspond to reality as long as the article's points are correct. Advanced theism requires omniscience. Atheists can't (or shouldn't) be advanced theists (unless its fideism) because they lack omniscience. Thats what the statement says: Atheists are not smart enough to be theists.

So you keep opining with assertion after assertion.
These are again all on your say-so alone.

A sign of desperation: you appeal to hypothetical "what ifs". Shoulda could woulda whatever.Not at all on these counts. It is simply an answer to your unsupported declaration.

I demonstrated what I meant by the article. Until you demonstrate your irony you are just demonstrating ignorance and wasting everyoe's time with your babble that has no relevance to anything here.Once again, you have not demonstated this, but only merely stating that you have as I have already shown by my earlier statements and examples.

Drivel. There is no such thing as "NT" or "Bible". I do not treat these items holistically or with any unified canonical dimension. Holistic statements about the Bible are like making holistic statements about a public library on the basis of the contents of one work found within.I am well aware that there is no such thing as the NT or bible, but for the sake of billions, I have to humor their supposed existence, but that still does not help this statement.

How is that distinction relevant? I said theism, not fideism.Yes of course, theism, as I had also said before as well.

[Vinnie]

Sheesh...

[sharon45]

Sheesh...Agreed.

[Vinnie]

Agreed.

You resurrected a dead thread and responded to five separate text blocks of my latest post but you ended up saying absolutely nothing. Nothing not already said. If you want the last word that bad, its all yours ;)

Vinnie

[PaperCut]

Most theists simply inherit their parents religious beliefs. There are exceptions, but few.

Most atheists start with faith, then go through a long and gradual process, read many books, listen to numerous sermons, and only then reject religion (or in many cases, simply find themselves unable to believe anymore). There are exceptions, but few.

What were you asking again?


P.

[Yahzi]

I believe that statement to be factual. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?





Oh... sorry... I thought this was the "Gratitutious insult thread," where we post insulting comments and then pretend we meant them as a basis for actual discussion.

Never mind. :rolleyes:

[kaelcarp]

I believe that statement to be factual. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?

Vinnie
Duh... well, yeah, now that you mention it, I'm pretty damn stupid and I'm an atheist, so I guess I just don't have the intelligence to be a theist. Let me go read some of Pat Robertson's writings and maybe then I can get my IQ boosted enough to join a church or something.

Thanks.

[dolmadakia]

Just because you know everything doesn't mean you're smart. ;)

someone please explain to me how in order to be a theist you must know everything...

Vinnie, are you sure you don't really mean "one must be SURE of everything?" that makes more since because many theists claim to be sure of everything. In order for me to be a theist, I would have to believe that I was sure of everything...

[dolmadakia]

Vinnie, assuming this omniscient god exists, based on your argument, would you agree that there are no true theists in the world?

[trendkill]

"Theism has so much less evidence in favor of it than atheism does that it takes a more intelligent mind to make sense of theism." That's the thesis that occurred to me when I read the thread title. :P

[Vinnie]

Vinnie, assuming this omniscient god exists, based on your argument, would you agree that there are no true theists in the world?

I would not agree.

Vinnie

[dolmadakia]

I would not agree.

Vinnie

so you think its possible for some human beings to be omniscient?

[Illusionist]

I believe that statement to be factual. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?

Vinnie

:rolling:

[Kilgore Trout]

Theists merely believe in a god, if they actually knew there was a god, they wouldn't be theists.
How is that distinction relevant? I said theism, not fideism.

The point is that theists believe there is a god. They don't always claim to have proof that there is a god.

If someone said "I believe my wife remains faithful to me" you don't tell him "you can't prove that because you aren't omniscient."

Your argument only works for people who claim they know there is a god. I do agree with you however, that you are correct when it comes to all those christians that claim jesus talks to them. They have no way of knowing that jesus® is the one talking to them.