That made no sense what so ever. A box is not a living thing with the ability to think. "I think, therefore I am." well, this box neither thinks nor "is". Is meaning having any stance on the argument. You clearly did not understand the nature of the argument you are trying to debunk (pitifully)
@JAB63096 Ah, but see, that's the whole point (that you missed). People left and right are telling me that the only qualification to be an atheist is to not have a belief in any god. Which includes rocks, and boxes, among other things. So, if you think this makes no sense, then you actually GOT the point of this video. Congratulations!
@JamesMorlan Usually things like a pulse and the ability to formulate thought (something babies have and boxes lack) are implied in definitions describing human traits. Let's say the only qualifications for a theoretic job are that you wear the pants they provide. Yet, if you were to put a chihuahua in their pants, that would never due. Another example would be not including not to rape a toaster at meetings in the rules for an organization; it's just expected.
@JAB63096 "Usually things like a pulse and the ability to formulate thought (something babies have and boxes lack) are implied in definitions describing human traits." Exactly! Which is why the term atheist (or theist) cannot apply to things like, oh, say, I dunno....boxes! Maybe it's just me, but it sure seems like if something cannot be a theist, it most assuredly cannot be an A-theist. It has to be something else entirely. Like, say, a box! Hey! There it is again!
@JamesMorlan That's because your talking about boxes. I'm talking about people. If you were to take ANY given baby, raise him through adulthood with full knowledge in every subject, except religion, then tell him there was an invisible, intangible, omniscient, omnipresent being who didn't want you to shave, masturbate, wear polyester, be gay, or disobey a single word spoken by a priest, yet you should own slaves, murder witches, have multiple wives, murder non-believers continued...
@JamesMorlan and he sent his only son which was him to sacrifice himself to God (which was him) and now you have to ritualistically eat his body and drink his blood and obey all of the things he said only in the form of a 2000 year old, never updated book or you go to a fiery place after you die, or if you do obey all of the thousands of rules and in some cases apologize to a priest for the ones you didn't follow you go to a place which is eternally happy, yet never described in any detail. cont
@JAB63096 I just wish I knew what the hell you are trying to say. Honestly, I have not been able to decipher anything intelligible from your posts here. And why would I want to look in the Bible to find anything? It's a very poorly written ancient fairy tale full of contradictions, false claims, and things that simply make no sense. Sure, it has little bits of wisdom here and there, but you can pretty much find that kind of stuff in the self-help section of any bookstore.
@MythicalManMoth "It doesn't believe in santa" is a non-attributable characteristic. It CAN'T believe in Santa. It's like saying my computer doesn't drink water. Does that help?
@MythicalManMoth I don't know what alien logic you're using, but to say fish don't use cell phones is non-sequitur - does not apply - which is why it is as meaningless as saying that Christians don't believe in God. You're trying to apply a formula to things it doesn't apply to. That's why you're not getting a clear picture here.
@JamesMorlan Saying fish don't use cell phones is the same as saying Christians believe in god.
Why? Because christians can't (not believe) in god.
It does apply that fish can't use phones... Imagine if an alien came to earth and said we want to give new phones to everyone who uses a cell phone. The aliens start to give phones to the fish and I say "wait, fish don't use cell phones!". There is no problem there...There's no reason why I should have to say fish CAN'T use phones.
@sykeo123 Yep. It's just me against the world, which seems to be peppered with crass, narrow-minded, hateful mental retards who have absolutely nothing substantive to say while reflecting their own insecurities and shortcomings.
Why not follow this video up with a video about the "Homeless Box" to illustrate the silliness of your own pedantic approach?
You would have a point in a reality where people didn't actually understand the definition of atheist that you're crusading against, but in this reality, you just come across as silly. If some clown ever wanted to discuss the religious beliefs of boxes, then it's no question that they are atheists, but the topic is as profoundly moronic as discussing their homelessness.
@Gnomefro Funny...it still looks like just a box to me. As for discussing the religious beliefs of boxes, that would be a rather retarded discussion, seeing as boxes CAN'T HAVE religious beliefs. There's no variable in the equation to be a one or a zero - it simply does not apply. A box, however, CAN have a home (or at least be in one). Your analogy is incongruous.
That made no sense what so ever. A box is not a living thing with the ability to think. "I think, therefore I am." well, this box neither thinks nor "is". Is meaning having any stance on the argument. You clearly did not understand the nature of the argument you are trying to debunk (pitifully)
JAB63096 3 months ago
@JAB63096 Ah, but see, that's the whole point (that you missed). People left and right are telling me that the only qualification to be an atheist is to not have a belief in any god. Which includes rocks, and boxes, among other things. So, if you think this makes no sense, then you actually GOT the point of this video. Congratulations!
JamesMorlan 3 months ago
@JamesMorlan Usually things like a pulse and the ability to formulate thought (something babies have and boxes lack) are implied in definitions describing human traits. Let's say the only qualifications for a theoretic job are that you wear the pants they provide. Yet, if you were to put a chihuahua in their pants, that would never due. Another example would be not including not to rape a toaster at meetings in the rules for an organization; it's just expected.
JAB63096 3 months ago
@JAB63096 "Usually things like a pulse and the ability to formulate thought (something babies have and boxes lack) are implied in definitions describing human traits." Exactly! Which is why the term atheist (or theist) cannot apply to things like, oh, say, I dunno....boxes! Maybe it's just me, but it sure seems like if something cannot be a theist, it most assuredly cannot be an A-theist. It has to be something else entirely. Like, say, a box! Hey! There it is again!
JamesMorlan 3 months ago
@JamesMorlan That's because your talking about boxes. I'm talking about people. If you were to take ANY given baby, raise him through adulthood with full knowledge in every subject, except religion, then tell him there was an invisible, intangible, omniscient, omnipresent being who didn't want you to shave, masturbate, wear polyester, be gay, or disobey a single word spoken by a priest, yet you should own slaves, murder witches, have multiple wives, murder non-believers continued...
JAB63096 3 months ago
@JamesMorlan and he sent his only son which was him to sacrifice himself to God (which was him) and now you have to ritualistically eat his body and drink his blood and obey all of the things he said only in the form of a 2000 year old, never updated book or you go to a fiery place after you die, or if you do obey all of the thousands of rules and in some cases apologize to a priest for the ones you didn't follow you go to a place which is eternally happy, yet never described in any detail. cont
JAB63096 3 months ago
@JamesMorlan Feel free to ask me about any of the quotes and where they can be found in the Bible.
JAB63096 3 months ago
@JAB63096 I just wish I knew what the hell you are trying to say. Honestly, I have not been able to decipher anything intelligible from your posts here. And why would I want to look in the Bible to find anything? It's a very poorly written ancient fairy tale full of contradictions, false claims, and things that simply make no sense. Sure, it has little bits of wisdom here and there, but you can pretty much find that kind of stuff in the self-help section of any bookstore.
JamesMorlan 3 months ago
Ehh I don't get it.
Many attributes could be given to the box...
it's small
it's big
it's non-sentient
it doesn't believe in santa
MythicalManMoth 6 months ago
@MythicalManMoth "It doesn't believe in santa" is a non-attributable characteristic. It CAN'T believe in Santa. It's like saying my computer doesn't drink water. Does that help?
JamesMorlan 6 months ago
@JamesMorlan That doesn't really help...
I don't see anything wrong with saying your computer doesn't drink water, it's factual.
It CAN'T and it DOESN'T drink water.
It can't and it doesn't believe in god.
MythicalManMoth 6 months ago
@MythicalManMoth It's also nonsense. Fish don't use cell phones.
JamesMorlan 6 months ago
@JamesMorlan Fish don't use cell phones! That is factual, and I see no issues with stating a fact. Even if it's obvious.
MythicalManMoth 6 months ago
@MythicalManMoth I don't know what alien logic you're using, but to say fish don't use cell phones is non-sequitur - does not apply - which is why it is as meaningless as saying that Christians don't believe in God. You're trying to apply a formula to things it doesn't apply to. That's why you're not getting a clear picture here.
JamesMorlan 6 months ago
@JamesMorlan Saying fish don't use cell phones is the same as saying Christians believe in god.
Why? Because christians can't (not believe) in god.
It does apply that fish can't use phones... Imagine if an alien came to earth and said we want to give new phones to everyone who uses a cell phone. The aliens start to give phones to the fish and I say "wait, fish don't use cell phones!". There is no problem there...There's no reason why I should have to say fish CAN'T use phones.
MythicalManMoth 6 months ago
@JamesMorlan
You're asserting that there are no cases where it's meaningful to say that "X doesn't Y" when it's known by the speaker that X cannot Y.
However when we substitute a negative Y we see why your assertion is mistaken:
X = Christian
Y = Not believe in God
The phrase becomes "Christians don't not believe in god"
(don't not cancels out)
"Christians believe in god"
You must maintain the above sentence is nonsense to maintain your position.
MythicalManMoth 6 months ago
you still talkin you uneducated reject?
sykeo123 6 months ago
@sykeo123 Yep. It's just me against the world, which seems to be peppered with crass, narrow-minded, hateful mental retards who have absolutely nothing substantive to say while reflecting their own insecurities and shortcomings.
JamesMorlan 6 months ago
Why not follow this video up with a video about the "Homeless Box" to illustrate the silliness of your own pedantic approach?
You would have a point in a reality where people didn't actually understand the definition of atheist that you're crusading against, but in this reality, you just come across as silly. If some clown ever wanted to discuss the religious beliefs of boxes, then it's no question that they are atheists, but the topic is as profoundly moronic as discussing their homelessness.
Gnomefro 6 months ago
@Gnomefro Funny...it still looks like just a box to me. As for discussing the religious beliefs of boxes, that would be a rather retarded discussion, seeing as boxes CAN'T HAVE religious beliefs. There's no variable in the equation to be a one or a zero - it simply does not apply. A box, however, CAN have a home (or at least be in one). Your analogy is incongruous.
JamesMorlan 6 months ago
@JamesMorlan
lol @ your sophistry
obvious troll is obvious
jerryteps 6 months ago
@jerryteps You're obviously really, really late to this party. I think everybody's already gone home already.
JamesMorlan 6 months ago
hahaha
NoobZandwich 6 months ago