I know, and he is comparing it with someone that ate ocra but didn't know it was ocra. "We already know God" should equate to "He already knows what ocra tastes like" in his analogy.
It's not flawed. You see, some theists will claim that "we all already know God" and they claim that some of us deny that, or don't remember it - which could technically be so. In this case, it's like having eaten a food whose name you do not know. So you can't say anything but "this food tastes bad" or "this food tastes good", you can't call it by its name. Those theists refuse to give us the credit that we (or at least some people) in fact do not know how to recognize whether we "know" God or not. We might have indeed "tasted" God, but as long as we don't know what God is, we won't be able to qualify that which we "tasted" as "God" - so we can't say anything more about it.
I see, but then you don't know it. Perhaps you once knew it, but apparently not anymore :shrug: Or.. these theists claim that atheists are lying. That they do know God but deny that they know it. This would be a particularly stupid claim though.
I'm too innocent.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It's been my experience that most atheists, in addition to not believing in God, also believe there is no God. In any case, I was trying to find out what atheists here believe. (note superluminal: Q was not a term for 'an atheist', it is Q's name) Q seems to think the statement "Q believes there is no God" is neither true nor false. I now know that "Superluminal believes there is no God." is false. And I appreciate that you could indeed make a decision on the issue. Any other atheists out there who can let me know where they stand on such a statement with their name at the beginning?
Why didn't he? Q could have said the statement Q believes there is no God is false. But he did not. I think, perhaps, you should be a bit more agnostic about what he will do.
Ocra exists, and we could easily justify a statement about Ocra, if I had or did not have experience with Ocra. Theists claims for the existence of gods are something completely different and cannot be compared with things that do exist. Hence, the statement as to the existence of gods is null, as I have no inclination to believe or disbelieve in gods, but instead, to accept or not accept the claims of theists, regardless of what they claim as indemonstrable.
Maybe. Just a little aside here... I've been posting here with Q for some years now. I thought he might agree that not having a belief at all (he calls it null) would be something he might agree with. I could certainly be wrong.
You and Q responded in different ways. He said the statement Q believes there is no God is neither true nor false, it is null. You said such a statement made about you was false. Enmos answered clearly the same way you did. The statement would be false in relation to her. He may very well agree with what you have said above, but you each handled the question related to, essentially, do you believe there is no God, differently. I am sure you do know his beliefs, and lacks of, better than I do.
Then you're an agnostic, right? That is to say "I don't believe in a god, but I won't say that a god doesn't exist", right? See, this is the beginning, middle, and end of my point. (Well, maybe not the middlePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) The word "Atheism", as defined by every major/scholarly dictionary, means: The Belief that God does not exist. Please, please, look it up for yourself. You'll see. And maybe, just maybe learn to use the word properly. (Please don't bring up ancient greek again, 'cuz I ain't speekin' bout no dam greek! I'm speekin 'bout A'murican.) See, I don't care if one believes in a god or not, it's a personal choice. Fuck Pascal.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! BTW, I will repeat; all, (most) of the fanciful things suggested were suggested by the so call atheists.
Well if I must pick something else than 'atheist' I'll pick 'agnostic atheist'.. But I think I'm somewhat in between and leaning towards atheist more.
See it's much like it is with Santa Claus.. I don't believe in Santa Claus, you can than say that I must believe that Santa doesn't exist.. but is there proof of that ? One cannot proof a negative. But by far the most logical stance is that Santa Claus does not exist. It is thus not considered belief when one states that he or she does not belief in Santa Claus.
My Websters New Collegiate Dictionary (Copyright 1975 by G.&C. Merriam Co.) has the following: atheism: 1a: a disbelief in the existence of a deity 1b: the doctrine that there is no deity atheist: one who denies the existence of god - shared meaning element: one who does not take an orthodox religious position. ant theist Now, please, oh please tell me which one is "right"? Will you force one or the other on me? Or will you accept it when I (we) say that the preferred definitions that self-proclaimed atheists use are: 1a: a disbelief in the existence of a deity and one who does not take an orthodox religious position. ant theist Now, I dare you to argue further this idiotic point of atheism being a "belief". It's not subject to interpretation given the meanings that atheists themselves subscribe to. Go ahead. Argue with me.
