cyrexx: @Mr Anony,

no need to use such language on me.

just highlight the errors in my post if there is any.

should i take it that you prefer to attack the person of the post when you cannot successfully prove wrong the logic in the post

when has wearing clothes been comparable to rejection or acceptance of a religion. what are the eternal punishment for wearing different colour of clothes. explain further if you think your logical reasoning is sound in this case

i refuse to take offence at your personal attack but can you please attack my posts and not my person.

tobechi74: Cyrex, i got it.


I hav been wandering.

May be every religion serve one God. But in diffrent ways.due to diffrent messangers with diffrent intepretation.
MAY BE

ALLAH = GOD

MacDaddy01:


I actually like you too. You make good points when arguing. However, I think your analogy doesnt fit with the issue. The atheists is saying that the theist doesnt believe in other gods for the same reason the atheist doesnt believe in the theist's god. A nudist man doesnt wear clothes because he dislikes conformity. A man wearing black doesnt wear green out of choice.

A better analogy is; a Teetotaler (one who doesnt drink) telling an alcholic that the alcoholic doesnt take other recreational drugs for the same teason the teetotaler doesnt drink alcohol.

MacDaddy01: Ad hominem much?

Mr_Anony:
If you really can't see the folly of your argument, then I really can't help you.

cyrexx:

LOL.

i'm just expressing my beliefs based on REASON and LOGIC, which may look foolish to you.
exactly the way your SUPERSTITIOUS beliefs look foolish to me.

this is a public forum, we dont have to agree on every issue. thats a fact.
so dont think you are unable to help me if you cannot convince me to believe your unfounded superstitions

Mr_Anony:
So your argument on this thread is an example of your "reason and logic". You don fall my hand. SMH

musKeeto: Really confusing thread... God, teetotalers, Israel, Europe, Morocco..

Mr_Anony:
Actually, last time I checked, religion was a choice and people have been known to change religions and turn atheist and turn religious again. Also cloth-wearers have been known to change clothes and go [i]n[/i]ude. I believe my analogy parallels cyrexx's

Mr_Anony:
Still the same thing, The argument is still lacking any logical sense. It creates false binaries. Especially hen the Teetotaler says we are all Teetotalers, I am Teetotaler to alcohol s you are teetotaler to drugs. This rubbishes the meaning of the word "teetotaler".
Please this is so basic, I really can't believe I am having to explain it.

MacDaddy01:
[size=14pt]The atheist disbelieves in Christian God for the same reason that a Christian doesn't believe in Pagan Gods or Pagans dont believe in the Christian God.[/size]

InesQor:

This is like saying:

We're all homeless; a tramp only has one less house than you do.

Does this make sense to you?

MacDaddy01:

A nudist is a non-conformist. All clothed people wear clothes because they conform to the idea that one should not be naked as it is not civil. Te green shirt man and the red shirt man wear clothes for the same basic reason. However, the nudist doesnt share their reason. This is not like atheism and christianity and Paganism. The atheist disbelieves in God for the same reason that a christian doesn believe in Pagan gods or pagans dont believe in the christian god.

MacDaddy01:
You made my argument for me. It doesnt rubbish the logic. If someone told you that he is a teetatoler to ganja/weed, you would understand the meaning. If a christian says that he is atheistic towards Zeus, you would understand the logic. So shut up, you have been pawned

Mr_Anony:

Anyway,@cyrexx, mazaje and macdaddy. It is interesting how you guys all bond together to defend an obviously silly statement. The unity in your atheist faith religion cult brotherhood is adorable.

mazaje:

What is silly in the statement?. . .Do you not disbelieve in the existence of other gods?. . .

Mr_Anony:
No I believe in one God.

1.Define an atheist.

2. Define a theist.

Mr_Anony:
Anyway,@cyrexx, mazaje and macdaddy. It is interesting how you guys all bond together to defend an obviously silly statement. The unity in your atheist brotherhood is adorable.

Mr_Anony:
Strawman, Nudity as a philosophy is completely diferent from [i]n[/i]akedness as a state of being. Please stay in focus.

Mr_Anony:
Wrong a teetotaler has a specific definition. you are simply misusing the word to excuse poor logic. Perhaps instead of say I'm a vegan I may as well say I'm a teetotaler towards meat. Please expose nonsense for what it is!

mazaje:

Atheist: A person that disbelieves in the existence of god(s)
Theist: A person that believes in the existence of one or more gods.

Christians are technically atheist. Yes such an argument can be made. Christians are naturally theists as they have their own God but they are atheists towards other gods like thor, odin, zeus, allah etc.

Mr_Anony:

Good now based on your definitions, does this statement make sense?

cyrexx:
LOL,
i choose that headline purposely to make an impression.
Of course, i know that atheists are not christians and vice versa.

I am only showing you why christian's rejection of other faiths and religions is so similar and equivalent to atheist's rejection of the christian faith and religions in general.

mazaje:

Yes it does based on the fact that as a christian you believe in the existence of ONLY one god and disbelieve in the existence of all the other gods like allah, vishnu etc. . . .Do you believe that vishnu exist as god on the same level with your christian god?. . .

Mr_Anony:

Let me help you a bit more by inserting your definitions in the sentence

Christians technically do not believe in any God. Yes such an argument can be made. Christians naturally believe in the existence of a God as they have their own God but they do not believe in any God towards other gods like thor, odin, zeus, allah etc.

Parallel statement: Mazage is a vegan, he doesn't eat meat. Yes such an argument can be made. Mazage naturally eats chicken but he is a vegan i.e. doesn't eat meat to beef, fish, pork e.t.c

mazaje:

. . . .I don't really know what you are on about but lets leave it here for today. . .I am going out to have fun. . .

mazaje:

This analogy is completly senseless. . .Firstly, we are NOT all homeless, and even if we are, nobody is claiming his/her homelessness to be true while another person's homelessness to be false, but YOU as a person believe in just one god out of the many that exist while claiming that all the other gods do not exist. . .You completely disbelieve in the existence of allah and vishu for example but believe in yahweh. . .How then does that compare to we are all homeless nonsense you dropped here . . .If you have to make analogies make analogies that make sense pls. . .

Firstly, we are NOT all homeless

cyrexx: I submit to you that each and everyone of us are atheists. Yes, its true and I will show you.

. . When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible Gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

cyrexx: I just believe in ONLY ONE LESS GOD than you do.

cyrexx: We both disbelieved the same number of many other Gods, I only exceeded you by just a single one of them

cyrexx:
[size=13pt]i choose that headline purposely to make an impression.
Of course, i know that atheists are not christians and vice versa.

I am only showing you why christian's rejection of other faiths and religions is so similar and equivalent to atheist's rejection of the christian faith and religions in general.[/size]

InesQor:

Coming from mazaje, this is utterly disappointing.


You don't mean it?!! But according to this thread we are all homeless naa! Some just have one or two houses more than the others

I really refuse to believe that you cannot see the senselessness in the statement "We are all atheists" and the spurious logic used to defend it.

Have it your way, man.

Richard Dawkins:
“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”

thehomer:
Actually, the analogy is a very poor one. To make it clearer, why don't you consider the quote in full? Here it is below.

Richard Dawkins:
“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”

. . . .

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

cyrexx: I submit to you that each and everyone of us are atheists. Yes, its true and I will show you.

I just believe in ONLY ONE LESS GOD than you do. We both disbelieved the same number of many other Gods, I only exceeded you by just a single one of them. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible Gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Enigma:


Na so. Who's fooling who? Cf. the Stephen Roberts quote already quoted on the previous page of this very thread https://www.nairaland.com/982965/reasons-why-all-atheists#11345181



Anyway whether it is the Roberts one or the Dawkins one the statement is as idiotic as idiotic does. It can only make sense if made in jest ---- but the two fools (or their "uncritical" followers) do not seem to be "jesting" --- I guess they are not court jesters.