"Ask My First Timbs" Q&A thread

[eVoL]

no, no, no..
implicit, psychological/irrational Atheists? lol
how many Implicit/Psychological/Irrational/rational-Buddhists/Christians/Islamics do you see in this world? right when you decided to add 'Rational' to your religious status you exposed the idiocy and contradiction in your philosophies
all you newjack divouts..

and if you say "i don't believe in god" YES! it does make a difference..
words exist, therefore, due to the identity theory God must exist when you say it/simultaneously acknowledge 'him'
You don't believe in 'him' yet youre using the practical existence of words to say God? can you not see the contradiction?
AND EVEN IF, you don't say it out-loud, youre probably thinking it, doubting it, analyzing the term God
AND, how can you not believe in 'him' when you tried oh-so-desperately to "prove" 'he' doesn't exist

and don't come at me thinking i'm a die-hard Christian with an attitude
i just think you Atheists are the scum of the religious ladder



p.s. it's easier for me to personify God as a "he" or "him"

[eVoL]

you will never understand Legato; it's not that complex
it's like when you say "Sup Evol" or even mention "Evol" after his death
he existed at one point and 'you're' making that believeable by speech/thought
-
or when you think about "Evol" after his death, he existed

[denaturat]

no, no, no..
implicit, psychological/irrational Atheists? lol
how many Implicit/Psychological/Irrational/rational-Buddhists/Christians/Islamics do you see in this world? right when you decided to add 'Rational' to your religious status you exposed the idiocy and contradiction in your philosophies
all you newjack divouts..

and if you say "i don't believe in god" YES! it does make a difference..
words exist, therefore, due to the identity theory God must exist when you say it/simultaneously acknowledge 'him'
You don't believe in 'him' yet youre using the practical existence of words to say God? can you not see the contradiction?
AND EVEN IF, you don't say it out-loud, youre probably thinking it, doubting it, analyzing the term God
AND, how can you not believe in 'him' when you tried oh-so-desperately to "prove" 'he' doesn't exist

and don't come at me thinking i'm a die-hard Christian with an attitude
i just think you Atheists are the scum of the religious ladder



p.s. it's easier for me to personify God as a "he" or "him"

words are not just signs for things that exists, but they are also signs for ideas, intangible things, and some of these ideas are pure fiction. they have been produced by imagination rather than reason. and your identity theory sounds like what descartes would have argued. But he erred in that respect. His whole philosophy is based on a fundamental error: 'I think therefore I am' is a tautology. 'I think of god therfore he exists' is a tautotogy, too. no doubt, such faulty logic was a result of a religious bias.

by your reasoning, I can say that anything I can think of and articulate in language, exists...

sorry to butt in Timbs....

[eVoL]

i dislike you because you have interrupted us, but i also like you bceauase youre familiar with descartes

and a tautology? no. this idea is not "needless repetition"
but indeed words derive from imaginative uses rather than reason (IE Color), so it has been already credited that the utilization of speech/language is ultimately false, and one point i would like to emphasize is how Atheists STILL use false words - that do exist - to subsequently say "i dont believe in god"

[eVoL]

i disagree, and have tried to express it
if some can't understand it, nah mean..

[eVoL]

i could be implying that..
and yes they do exist, but not in a physical form

they exist in an imaginative realm created by speech and thought

[My First Timbs]

just to reiterate evol

not that it matters because it really doesnt, but the etheist never states that they dont believe in god..as stated earlier what is normally said is "i dont believe in the concept of a god"

your argument that words imply existence (or fundamentally acknowledge existence) is simply not valid in reality.

that position is purely not practical and ultimately has no basis in the reality of debate and discussion.. it is purely syntactical.

BUT..lets assume for a moment that we all agree with what u are saying and that somehow the rational atheistic viewpoint is flawed because they unknowing somehow acknowledge a deity by not believing in an alleged deity.... lets assume that we all agree on that (which we dont).... what purpose dose that have other than stating that semantically and syntactically all atheist arguments are inherantly flawed?

does that mean that "atheism" is invalid simply because the arguments put forth by "atheists" are flawed? not at all! all that simply means is that athiestic jargon is flawed, but not the stance/position itself!

(and all of that is just for arguments sake if we all agreed that by stating "i dont believe in god" is a flawed foundation)...

[My First Timbs]

its impossible to have an implicit christian, muslim etc

[eVoL]

wrong. this discussion has been touched on by many that i know
(philosophy minors/majors at local debates), and its not "invalid in reality" as simply put because nothing is really valid in "reality" anyways (a whole other topic..)

i've asked atheists why they're atheists and they reply "I don't believe in god"
hence, my argument; if you don't say that or think it (which I believe you sometimes do) that's fine and maybe this argument will barely scratch your tunnel-visioned surface

[eVoL]

its impossible to have an implicit christian, muslim etc

wrong again. one example is the Agnostic-Christian
like i said before, "Rational/Irrational" terms infront of the word Atheist are insurance practices used to reinforce the correction of errors

[My First Timbs]

i never answer "i dont believe in god", nor does any RA that i know.

peace be unto u too

[My First Timbs]

wrong again. one example is the Agnostic-Christian
like i said before, "Rational/Irrational" terms infront of the word Atheist are insurance practices used to reinforce the correction of errors

what are u talking about?


do u realize what im referring to when i say "implicit" ?

[eVoL]

of course i do


do you understand the relationship between an Agnostic and the word "implicit"?

[My First Timbs]

of course i do

do u now see how its impossible to be an implicit xtian

[eVoL]

nothing's impossible first of all. and the word implicit is practiced in Christian services daily
pastor's interpret the "bible" through its' "implied" meaning