Since some worthless creatures don't understand the point of analogies
(namely, that they're supposed to have a point, and not just distract
from the point) let's have an analogy-free discussion of whether
theists are responsible for the consequences of what they perpetuate.
In order for theists to not be responsible for the consequences of
theism, one of the following would have to be true:
(1) There are no such thing as theists.
(2) There is no such thing as theism.
(3) There are no such thing as consequences.
(4) There is no such thing as responsibility.
(5) There is such a thing as consequences, but nobody or nothing has
responsibility for said consequences.
(6) Theism and its consequences have nothing to do with theists, and
would be precisely the same without them.
> Since some worthless creatures don't understand the point of analogies
> (namely, that they're supposed to have a point, and not just distract
> from the point) let's have an analogy-free discussion of whether
> theists are responsible for the consequences of what they perpetuate.
> In order for theists to not be responsible for the consequences of
> theism, one of the following would have to be true:
> (1) There are no such thing as theists.
> (2) There is no such thing as theism.
> (3) There are no such thing as consequences.
> (4) There is no such thing as responsibility.
> (5) There is such a thing as consequences, but nobody or nothing has
> responsibility for said consequences.
> (6) Theism and its consequences have nothing to do with theists, and
> would be precisely the same without them.
> Since some worthless creatures don't understand the point of analogies > (namely, that they're supposed to have a point, and not just distract > from the point) let's have an analogy-free discussion of whether > theists are responsible for the consequences of what they perpetuate.
> In order for theists to not be responsible for the consequences of > theism, one of the following would have to be true:
> (1) There are no such thing as theists. > (2) There is no such thing as theism. > (3) There are no such thing as consequences. > (4) There is no such thing as responsibility. > (5) There is such a thing as consequences, but nobody or nothing has > responsibility for said consequences. > (6) Theism and its consequences have nothing to do with theists, and > would be precisely the same without them.
> This gushing stream of brain diarrhea doesn't disguise one simple
> fact: that there are theist beliefs with absolutely no negative
> consequences.
> On Aug 19, 4:23 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > Since some worthless creatures don't understand the point of analogies
> > (namely, that they're supposed to have a point, and not just distract
> > from the point) let's have an analogy-free discussion of whether
> > theists are responsible for the consequences of what they perpetuate.
> > In order for theists to not be responsible for the consequences of
> > theism, one of the following would have to be true:
> > (1) There are no such thing as theists.
> > (2) There is no such thing as theism.
> > (3) There are no such thing as consequences.
> > (4) There is no such thing as responsibility.
> > (5) There is such a thing as consequences, but nobody or nothing has
> > responsibility for said consequences.
> > (6) Theism and its consequences have nothing to do with theists, and
> > would be precisely the same without them.
If you are blond, you perpetuate the existence blondness.
If blondness did not exist, there would be no blond serial killers.
Therefore, if you are blond, then merely by existing, you perpetuate
serial killing.
On Aug 19, 5:32 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> (7) Perpetuating theism is not perpetuating theism.
> On Aug 19, 3:16 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > This gushing stream of brain diarrhea doesn't disguise one simple
> > fact: that there are theist beliefs with absolutely no negative
> > consequences.
> > On Aug 19, 4:23 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > Since some worthless creatures don't understand the point of analogies
> > > (namely, that they're supposed to have a point, and not just distract
> > > from the point) let's have an analogy-free discussion of whether
> > > theists are responsible for the consequences of what they perpetuate.
> > > In order for theists to not be responsible for the consequences of
> > > theism, one of the following would have to be true:
> > > (1) There are no such thing as theists.
> > > (2) There is no such thing as theism.
> > > (3) There are no such thing as consequences.
> > > (4) There is no such thing as responsibility.
> > > (5) There is such a thing as consequences, but nobody or nothing has
> > > responsibility for said consequences.
> > > (6) Theism and its consequences have nothing to do with theists, and
> > > would be precisely the same without them.
> > > Can we think of any more?- Hide quoted text -
> > > > Since some worthless creatures don't understand the point of analogies
> > > > (namely, that they're supposed to have a point, and not just distract
> > > > from the point) let's have an analogy-free discussion of whether
> > > > theists are responsible for the consequences of what they perpetuate.
On Aug 19, 3:54 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If you are blond, you perpetuate the existence blondness.
> If blondness did not exist, there would be no blond serial killers.
> Therefore, if you are blond, then merely by existing, you perpetuate
> serial killing.
> On Aug 19, 5:32 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > (7) Perpetuating theism is not perpetuating theism.
> > On Aug 19, 3:16 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > This gushing stream of brain diarrhea doesn't disguise one simple
> > > fact: that there are theist beliefs with absolutely no negative
> > > consequences.
> > > On Aug 19, 4:23 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > > Since some worthless creatures don't understand the point of analogies
> > > > (namely, that they're supposed to have a point, and not just distract
> > > > from the point) let's have an analogy-free discussion of whether
> > > > theists are responsible for the consequences of what they perpetuate.
> > > > In order for theists to not be responsible for the consequences of
> > > > theism, one of the following would have to be true:
> > > > (1) There are no such thing as theists.
> > > > (2) There is no such thing as theism.
> > > > (3) There are no such thing as consequences.
> > > > (4) There is no such thing as responsibility.
> > > > (5) There is such a thing as consequences, but nobody or nothing has
> > > > responsibility for said consequences.
> > > > (6) Theism and its consequences have nothing to do with theists, and
> > > > would be precisely the same without them.
> > > > Can we think of any more?- Hide quoted text -
To requote, in line with Stalin's, Mao's and Pol Pot's millions of
atheist inflicted dead, but in view of atheist's persistent attempts
to blame somebody else,
1. There is no such thing as atheists
2. There is no such as atheism
3. There are no such thing as consequences.
4. There is no such thing as responsibility.
5. There is such a thing as consequences, but nobody or nothing has
responsibility for said consequences.
6. Theism and its consequences have nothing to do with theists, and
> would be precisely the same without them.
On Aug 20, 6:23 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Since some worthless creatures don't understand the point of analogies
> (namely, that they're supposed to have a point, and not just distract
> from the point) let's have an analogy-free discussion of whether
> theists are responsible for the consequences of what they perpetuate.
> In order for theists to not be responsible for the consequences of
> theism, one of the following would have to be true:
> (1) There are no such thing as theists.
> (2) There is no such thing as theism.
> (3) There are no such thing as consequences.
> (4) There is no such thing as responsibility.
> (5) There is such a thing as consequences, but nobody or nothing has
> responsibility for said consequences.
> (6) Theism and its consequences have nothing to do with theists, and
> would be precisely the same without them.
> To requote, in line with Stalin's, Mao's and Pol Pot's millions of
> atheist inflicted dead, but in view of atheist's persistent attempts
> to blame somebody else,
> 1. There is no such thing as atheists
> 2. There is no such as atheism
> 3. There are no such thing as consequences.
> 4. There is no such thing as responsibility.
> 5. There is such a thing as consequences, but nobody or nothing has
> responsibility for said consequences.
> 6. Theism and its consequences have nothing to do with theists, and
> > would be precisely the same without them.
> On Aug 20, 6:23 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > Since some worthless creatures don't understand the point of analogies
> > (namely, that they're supposed to have a point, and not just distract
> > from the point) let's have an analogy-free discussion of whether
> > theists are responsible for the consequences of what they perpetuate.
> > In order for theists to not be responsible for the consequences of
> > theism, one of the following would have to be true:
> > (1) There are no such thing as theists.
> > (2) There is no such thing as theism.
> > (3) There are no such thing as consequences.
> > (4) There is no such thing as responsibility.
> > (5) There is such a thing as consequences, but nobody or nothing has
> > responsibility for said consequences.
> > (6) Theism and its consequences have nothing to do with theists, and
> > would be precisely the same without them.
Atheism is simply the lack of theism (or deism). I'm not using any
analogies on this thread, but you can't name any other entity in the
world outside of religion that is judged not by its consequences but
by the fact that there are some consequences it is not responsible
for. There are plenty of other things that are widely understood to be
bad things that have more bad things happen in their absence than
theism. So your argument is simply logically and frankly
psychologically unsound.
On Aug 19, 4:06 pm, Bob Crowley <bobcrow...@acenet.net.au> wrote:
> To requote, in line with Stalin's, Mao's and Pol Pot's millions of
> atheist inflicted dead, but in view of atheist's persistent attempts
> to blame somebody else,
> 1. There is no such thing as atheists
> 2. There is no such as atheism
> 3. There are no such thing as consequences.
> 4. There is no such thing as responsibility.
> 5. There is such a thing as consequences, but nobody or nothing has
> responsibility for said consequences.
> 6. Theism and its consequences have nothing to do with theists, and
> > would be precisely the same without them.
> On Aug 20, 6:23 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > Since some worthless creatures don't understand the point of analogies
> > (namely, that they're supposed to have a point, and not just distract
> > from the point) let's have an analogy-free discussion of whether
> > theists are responsible for the consequences of what they perpetuate.
> > In order for theists to not be responsible for the consequences of
> > theism, one of the following would have to be true:
> > (1) There are no such thing as theists.
> > (2) There is no such thing as theism.
> > (3) There are no such thing as consequences.
> > (4) There is no such thing as responsibility.
> > (5) There is such a thing as consequences, but nobody or nothing has
> > responsibility for said consequences.
> > (6) Theism and its consequences have nothing to do with theists, and
> > would be precisely the same without them.
You hate it when people use analogies to show how your weak inductive
arguments can be used to prove any nonsense, as well as your own anti-
theist nonsense.
On Aug 19, 5:59 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
