Actually, after I posted, I realized my summary of your position was pretty much dead wrong. It should be that you think that frogs being divine is wrong, because, even though it follows from the first premise and of itself, such a position is logically incomprehensible. My counterargument is that being logically incomprehensible to us finite beings doesn’t prove anything, and in the meantime the first and the second still lead to your paradoxical conclusion. :rolleyes:
Hence my point stands. Anton Le Vey must be an atheist and therefore all atheists must be Anton Le Vey, because Satan wants them to and the Anton Le Vey speaks ‘his’ truth. Right?*
*I know that I am substituting should with must and atheist with Anton Le Vey, but that’s the only way to deal logically with this in the narrow confines that Lib’s crazy atheist framework defines. On the other hand If what Kabbes is saying is the true view of all atheists, then there is free will even with Satan being omnipotent. You see that’s what I never understand, is Anton Le Vey being literal or is it just mumbo jumbo about something that is a contradiction to begin with?
I’m glad to see you’re beginning to come around and agree with me, Sparc. Sigh… I do wish though that someone could put a dent in my argument somewhere because I don’t want to go to my grave being the only one who knows I’m right. Yes, what you imply is true. Atheists can’t have it both ways.
Lib, can you give me a Reader’s Digest condensed version of Ayn Rand? I could really use it as amunition the next time some objectivists try to hassle me on a street corner.
From my POV #1 is true, and I have little interest in #2, #3, #4. Nor is #1 is profound from my POV.
Being well-trained in multiple chioce tests, I note the ommission of quantifiers. E.g., does #2 mean “According to all Atheists…” or “According to some Atheists…”?
Libertarian, I am uncertain of your point. If your point is that some atheists make too big a deal of their opposition to God and to religion, then I agree with you.
In all fairness we don’t know if Atheists can’t have it both ways as you put it. As for a dent in your argument the premise is just not arguable. It’s an issue of lack of faith and the logical arguments that follow are by definition based on this lack of faith. Satan’s word whatever they might have to do with atheism, are open to interpretation. Granted that every other atheist will have his/her specific view of the truth of God’s non-existence as will every Satanist. Don’t agree with me when it is obvious that you don’t even understand what I am saying.
On the other hand what you’re saying is basically:
(I’m not so good with modal logic and I don’t even know what syllogism means, so forgive me if I keep it informal and incomprehensible)
Frogness: the state of being in which water and land are a habitat (amphibious).
Mustness: the state of being in which is, is completely unavoidable that it is.
If a frog being musts something it is fulfilled and therefore what must be is.
According to the Anton Le Vey, God is a frog
According to the Anton Le Vey, God mustness dictates everybody to have frogness
Combining 3, 4, and 5, gives that everybody lives on land and in the water and are hence amphibious (according to Anton Le Vey).
According to the atheist message board standards of frogness (and other parts of the Internet), not everybody is amphibious.
Since trusting Anton Le Vey and the Internet for factual information leads us to contradictory statements 6 and 7, the atheist message boards are not a valid source for factual information.
Journeyman is afraid to debate. Sparc has pretty well come around to my point of view, but he wishes to save face so he disguises his endorsement of my argument as a disagreement with it. Fenris owns a steel factory and has boinked Dagny Taggart. Hawthorne has admitted his voter apathy and therefore his civic sloth. Robb seems to me to be saying that Atheism and Satanism are synonyms. And Critical has admitted that I have already pre-slain the argument he would have made.
Is that it?
Wait. Ender wants a nutshell version of Objectivism. Okay, what you do is stand on one foot and smirk unctuously while reciting: “Metaphysics: objective reality; Epistemology: reason; Ethic: self-interest; Politics: capitalism.” I think it ought to be clear to everyone that Ender supports my view. Everybody knows that Ayn Rand, even if she didn’t worship the Devil, certainly looked like him. […drifting away daydreaming of porno flick with Ayn Rand and Janet Reno…]
Where was I?
Oh, yes. December isn’t certain of my point. He he. Okay, I admit I wasn’t clear on my numbers (1) and (2), but because I also was not clear with (3) and (4) everything should just pretty well even out. So, if I’m understanding him correctly, his POV is that Satanism and Atheism aren’t synonyms but rather that one is a branch of the other. But I’m not sure which is which. Is anyone else?
Thank you! After just giving a cursory glance to the thread, I immediately made plans to start farming acorns. 'Cause, hey, it seemed like the world had gone nuttier since the last time I stepped outside.
Yeah, but shouldn’t I take that to be tacit agreement with my point? I don’t mind admitting when I’ve made an error. Vaguely, I remember once when I might have made one. But it’s really hard to know exactly what you are arguing when you jump all over the place the way you do. Nothing you said uses any of my own premises and is therefore invalid. Not nothing. But everything. Everything you said. Not anything that I said. You can’t just make a whole new argument out of nothing. I’ve already made an argument. You’re supposed to examine it and agree with it, unless you find a mistake. But I’ve looked, and there aren’t any. If you don’t believe it, just ask me.
That’s not right. What does that have to do with either Satanism or Atheism?
Funniest stuff I’ve read in days. Thank you one and all.
Let me repoint some of you to this and then to this.
Unless of course I’m TOTALLY off base. Thats very possible. If it isnt what I think it is, then its still funny to me. Just like the other one is. Now let me add:
I believe 4 is false and my I can prove it by showing you all th…
/me is suddenly drug off by athiests in catholic priest attire to be killed
dead0man
Yes, but she was rather long-winded. And she had this unhealthy fascination for choo-choos. Comparably speaking, how 'bout Dominique Francon? Sure, she wasn’t shagging an atlas, but we know from the text that she gave the fountain excellent head, and–as is most important–she put out.
No. My point is nonsensical. And you’re not making any sense either. This is where your whole assertion that only position 4 in the OP can be refuted falls apart. I refute all of them based on the fact that I have proven to you over and over again that God is a Frog, which is obviously wrong. Therefore you have to be wrong in saying that all Atheists are Satanists. And even if you did say that you didn’t make that point I know you meant to.
