LMAO!!! EXCELLENT Rogue! A very clever way to depict axie's foolishness.. TOUCHE!!!!! ps Axie will take this personally being the turnip head that he is..
Plants are DEFINITELY asocial. You seem to be hung up on this idea that these are "silly" concepts, but they are technically correct. They cannot however, be antisocial or social.
Your silly argument falls apart in the very first sentence. Following that definition, the A-Theist would have to prove they are without a concept and belief of God to be an A-Theist. Here you assert that conceptualization is a REQUIREMENT for NOT possessing a belief. That is obviously false. For example: Did you POSSES the belief in 6 headed purple unicorns with apple pies for feet who live on venus called SNORKATS before I just mentioned them? NO YOU DIDNT. Until you posses this belief you are a A-SNORKAT. You NEVER conceptualizes such a belief, and yet BY DEFAULT you have never BELIEVED in such a beast either. Conceptualizing something is NOT requirement in LACKING a belief in it. "The key difference that axeman and others are conveniently leaving out is that Theism is not an involuntary state," Again false...showing your complete ignorance here. I think that theism is a positively *chosen* BELIEF. Thats the whole point! BELIEFs *must* be CHOSEN. If you have NOT chosen to believe in something, wether not you have ever conceptualized it, then you DONT posses that belief, and are therefore an A-(insert belief here). Debunked again. A man who has never conceptualized god, has obviously never CHOSEN to BELIEVE in god and is therefore an ATHEIST. A man who HAS conceptualized god, and STILL chooses NOT to believe in god, is also an ATHEIST. Both of them do NOT POSSES a belief in god, and are therefore ATHEISTS. Your arguments get weaker and sillier by the minute. Let me point out that fact again that you have NOT rebutted by proof. You have failed to defend your position. So obvious. I see that mr micro penis is posting again. We all know why His ego was so destroyed at my hands earlier that he now has lowered himself to my personal ET stalker because of his "little problem". LMAO peace axeman
You don't seem to understand the need for context and concept as it relates to communication through the English language. That is why so many sophists and equivocators play word games, rather than communicate clearly. Common sense is sorely lacking among these proponents of "technical" arguments. It is often very easy to take something out of context (ever hear of that concept, out of context?) to try to make a point and relate it back to an argument. In order to have effective communication, agreed upon definitions are necessary. Yet, people who often use this practice to support their agenda. This practice is known as sophistry, and the tool is equivocation. sophistry \Soph"ist*ry\, n. [OE. sophistrie, OF. sophisterie.] 1. The art or process of reasoning; logic. [Obs.] 2. The practice of a sophist; fallacious reasoning; reasoning sound in appearance only. The juggle of sophistry consists, for the most part, in using a word in one sense in the premise, and in another sense in the conclusion. --Coleridge. and equivocation \E*quiv`o*ca"tion\, n. The use of expressions susceptible of a double signification, with a purpose to mislead. There being no room for equivocations, there is no need of distinctions. --Locke. Syn: Prevarication; ambiguity; shuffling; evasion; guibbling. See Equivocal, a., and Prevaricate, v. i.
Yes, however your argument is basically using the limitations of semantics as its main point. Although I never had a belief in SNORKATS, I also did not have a belief that they did NOT exist. A lack of belief of something due to no knowledge of that something is a passive belief or disbelief. Atheism is an active disbelief. Atheism is a "belief in the lack of existence of a God or Gods." However, the key word here is "belief." Belief is defined as "the mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in something." Since plants are incapable of a mental act, they are incapable of belief or disbelief. Since they are incapable of this, they cannot possibly be atheist or theist since they do not possess the prerequisite necessary for belief at all. Comparing the atheism with plants with my now apparent disbelief of SNORKATS is a logical fallacy on your behalf. There is no correlation since plants have no capacity for mental processing whereas I do. Also, I never had a disbelief in SNORKATS or a belief in them before you mentioned them. They simply did not exist, and thus any belief or disbelief in them would be in an indeterminate state until you "invented" them. Binary logic has indeterminate states -- in fact, that is the entire basis of the microscopic quantum world.
Below we have a depiction of the first Atheist smelling another Atheist. The question is, if he eats the plant, is that an act of cannibalism, one Atheist eating another Atheist?