• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Theism, Agnosticism, & Atheism: Which Is Logically The Weakest?

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
It seems quite convincing to the misrepresentationalist.
To those not quite so easy 'n eager to be gulled, it is
tiresome and, of course, dishonest.

Particularly dishonest when making false claims to massagw his own ego
 
I've already explained why I limited the definition to "atheism" so as to differentiate it from "agnosticism", and this had nothing whatsoever to do with my supposed "sensibilities" or my supposed "bias".

Some atheists here do seem to suffer from a strange affliction whereby they are completely unable to differentiate between their own subjective preferences and objective facts.

Apparently it is seen as highly rational in some circles to insist that polysemic words don't actually have multiple meanings, and that anyone who has the temerity not to kowtow to their status as the self-appointed arbiters of language must be somewhat mentally deficient.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Some atheists here do seem to suffer from a strange affliction whereby they are completely unable to differentiate between their own subjective preferences and objective facts.

Apparently it is seen as highly rational in some circles to insist that polysemic words don't actually have multiple meanings, and that anyone who has the temerity not to kowtow to their status as the self-appointed arbiters of language must be somewhat mentally deficient.

Of course you cannot actually identify an example
of this mythical atheist, but that is ok; goddies are into
all manner of deep and intricste knowledge of supernatural
monsters whose very existence defies all known forms
of detection. So trashing fictional atheists is a snap.
 

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
So, for you blue fairies are more plausible than God?

Ciao

- viole
No, I think god is more plausible.
Do you think that having less people believing in something makes it more plausible? I’m confused as to how you misinterpreted my post.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
That's because a belief in God messes with your mind.

A lot of people like to think they are reasonable
and honest, but the poor fundies are in an awful
position. Impossible for them to be educated
and honest both.

Mess with mind? I guess so!
 
Of course you cannot actually identify an example
of this mythical atheist, but that is ok; goddies are into
all manner of deep and intricste knowledge of supernatural
monsters whose very existence defies all known forms
of detection. So trashing fictional atheists is a snap.

It has never been explained why you misrepresented atheism by misquoting the definition

There have also been around 1 million threads discussing the definition of atheism and in every single one of them people insist that it is 'wrong' to use a standard definition of a polysemic word simply because it goes against their personal preference.

It would be nice if they were fictional, but alas...

Also not sure why goddies and monsters have any relevance to an atheist criticising other atheists, but each to their own.
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
There have been also been around 1 million threads discussing the definition of atheism and in every single one of them people insist that it is 'wrong' to use a standard definition of a polysemic word simply because it goes against their personal preference.

It would be nice of they were fictional, but alas...

Also not sure why goddies and monsters have any relevance to an atheist criticising other atheists, but each to their own.

Kind of a lot of words to say you have no
examples.
 
Kind of a lot of words to say you have no
examples.

???

There was an example quoted in the post

Screenshot 2019-03-24 at 05.15.13.png
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't usually deal with absurd questions, and that includes this time, other than saying that if one can't understand that there's differences between atheism, agnosticism, and theism, then that's their problem, not mine.

And if you can't see the difference between unicornism, agnosticornism, and aunicornism, then whose problem is it?

Yes, I consider the existence of a deity to be essentially equivalent in evidence to that of blue fairies and invisible pink unicorns.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
The number of believers is evidence, so the amount of evidence necessarily changes with number of believers.

I'm not sure why the number of believers is evidence in and of itself. I can see it as being evidence about what people believe, but that is a far cry from evidence of the truth of the beliefs. And, in fact, people have believed a LOT of things that are known now to be wrong.
 
Top