Does God (Christian) exist (Try No.2)

[WestRedMaple]

By all means, share any example you like of already having knowledge before you acquire it.

First quote me saying you can have knowledge before you acquire it.

Of course, we both know you cannot do it

Which is precisely why it's both a straw man and a loaded question.

No

There is your response when I stated the point earlier. You proceeded to repeat yourself later.

Challenging to give one example of what you claim is true is not a straw man. And calling it a loaded question is just absurdly nonsensical considering the fact that it isn't a question.

So anyway, why don't you take a minute and articulate what you disagree with me about?

That was a question

[Arkolon]

OK?

But I do not believe that there is no God, either.

Still atheism.

Theism: believing in a god/s
Atheism: believing that one should not be believing in a god/s

I don't believe in either.

[Galloism]

Buddhists = atheists.

Not all of them. A good bit of them do believe in deities.

Buddhism itself, however, nontheistic.

[Neutraligon]

Atheism again covers anything that is not theism. So if you are not a theist, you are an atheist.

Buddhists = atheists.

Yes they are. The only requirement to be an atheist is that it not be a theist, which means atheism covers things that are not even capable of forming ideas (rocks are atheist).

[Shaggai]

My point is that all things are probabilities. If something has a sufficiently high probability, then it makes sense to act as if it is true. If it has a sufficiently low probability, then it makes sense to act as if it's false.

This is assuming that even the laws of physics and science as a whole is just one big fat probability, close to social constructs, and is not objectively true (which is wrong). 1 + 1 will always be 2. There is no probability that it will be any other number. Reading into Laplace's demon may be of use here, too.

Science in general is a bad example. It's never an absolute certainty, because experimental error is a thing. Newtonian physics works as an extremely close approximation at everyday velocities, but when you get fast enough relativity kicks in. As for math: How do you know that your brain even works? For all you know, the bits that detect if something is logically true are broken. How sure are you that you're sane?

Anyway, my point is that just because you cannot know something for certain doesn't mean you have to embrace total solipsism. Probability exists, and is basically a measure of confidence. As such, anything with a sufficiently low probability can basically be ignored. And, to bring the debate back on topic, a 0.00001% chance of God's existence means that disbelief in God is the obvious position.

[WestRedMaple]

But you still 'quote' me, though it is not, in fact, a quote. If you aren't quoting someone, then don't indicate that you're quoting them.

I didn't indicate that. If I said that I did quote you, then show me where.

I already did when I quoted your post.

[Neutraligon]

Still atheism.

Theism: believing in a god/s
Atheism: believing that one should not be believing in a god/s

I don't believe in either.

No
Theism: believing in gods
Atheism: not theism.

[WestRedMaple]

Still atheism.

Theism: believing in a god/s
Atheism: believing that one should not be believing in a god/s

I don't believe in either.

That is an inaccurate depiction of atheism.

Me not actively believing in any gods has nothing to do with believing that anyone should not believe in a god or gods

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

Do cynical remarks like these make up the majority of your 50,000-some posts on this forum?

I don't know, maybe.

Why don't you go count for me?

Why don't you clean up your act?

[Mavorpen]

There is your response when I stated the point earlier.

No it isn't. That's the word "no" without any context or indication that I even said that. So again, quote me.

Challenging to give one example of what you claim is true is not a straw man.

It is when I didn't make the claim.

And calling it a loaded question is just absurdly nonsensical considering the fact that it isn't a question.

You don't know what the word "nonsensical" means, do you?

So anyway, why don't you take a minute and articulate what you disagree with me about?

Go actually read my posts.

[Carbon based lifeforms]

Oh no, and just when the thread was starting to get somewhat fun.

Do cynical remarks like these make up the majority of your 50,000-some posts on this forum?

At least his posts don't consist of big statements without anything to back them up.

[Geilinor]

Still atheism.

Theism: believing in a god/s
Atheism: believing that one should not be believing in a god/s

I don't believe in either.

Most atheists don't care if one believes in a god or not so long as nobody is forced to do so.

[Mavorpen]

Not all of them. A good bit of them do believe in deities.

Buddhism itself, however, nontheistic.

No, it isn't. It doesn't require you believe in any deity. You can if you want to. Unless you want to argue Christians who are also Buddhists are atheists.

[WestRedMaple]

Not all of them. A good bit of them do believe in deities.

Buddhism itself, however, nontheistic.

Which is quite different than saying Buddhists are atheists

[Occupied Deutschland]

OK?

But I do not believe that there is no God, either.

Atheism again covers anything that is not theism. So if you are not a theist, you are an atheist.

*According to a handful of atheists who are disagreed with by both theists and other atheists. See implicit atheism and explicit atheism.
Most notably of course Richard Dawkins contending that this is an incorrect assertion.

Of course, we can also encounter some humor in your self-rightous anger over others 'catagorizing atheists' earlier in this thread when we have here a massive categorization which many of your proclaimed 'atheists' would actively disagree with.

In short, your definition isn't a broadly accepted one, nor is it useful even to apply really. Not to mention the humorous hypocrisy of assigning your definition to those who don't share it.

Of course, this thread isn't about the semantic mess that is religious debate and categorization, so...How about that God folks?

[Arkolon]

Theism: believing in a god/s
Atheism: believing that one should not be believing in a god/s

I don't believe in either.

No
Theism; believing in gods
Atheism: not theism.

But, again, I don't believe in either. You're going around in circles. I believe that Gods, their existence, or a lack thereof, are unknowable.

[Mavorpen]

I don't know, maybe.

Why don't you go count for me?

Why don't you clean up your act?

As soon as you start making good arguments.

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

Do cynical remarks like these make up the majority of your 50,000-some posts on this forum?

At least his posts don't consist of big statements without anything to back them up.

Go check out my factbooks.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Not all of them. A good bit of them do believe in deities.

Buddhism itself, however, nontheistic.

Welllll... Buddhism is not a cohesive unit. It has three branches: Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana. Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism includes the belief in deities, and quite a few of them.

http://www.iloveulove.com/spirituality/ ... eities.htm

[WestRedMaple]

There is your response when I stated the point earlier.

No it isn't. That's the word "no" without any context or indication that I even said that. So again, quote me.

Challenging to give one example of what you claim is true is not a straw man.

It is when I didn't make the claim.

And calling it a loaded question is just absurdly nonsensical considering the fact that it isn't a question.

You don't know what the word "nonsensical" means, do you?

So anyway, why don't you take a minute and articulate what you disagree with me about?

Go actually read my posts.

The context was given right there in the post the first time I quoted it and responded to you. Go back and read the posts.

I have read the posts, but you turn around and contradict yourself.

If you have any even remote interest in actually discussing, then state your disagreement with my position, not just repeating that you disagree.

[Arkolon]

Theism: believing in a god/s
Atheism: believing that one should not be believing in a god/s

I don't believe in either.

Most atheists don't care if one believes in a god or not so long as nobody is forced to do so.

Sorry, "one" as in "one's self" or "oneself".

[WestRedMaple]

No
Theism; believing in gods
Atheism: not theism.

But, again, I don't believe in either. You're going around in circles. I believe that Gods, their existence, or a lack thereof, are unknowable.

By definition, you are atheist. You admit it the second you state that you don't believe in god. That's all it takes to be atheist.

[Mavorpen]

The context was given right there in the post the first time I quoted it and responded to you.

What post are you talking about? Could you please make sense?

Go back and read the posts.

Again, what posts?

I have read the posts, but you turn around and contradict yourself.

Evidently you didn't read them then.

If you have any even remote interest in actually discussing, then state your disagreement with my position, not just repeating that you disagree.

Right after you give me something to discuss. So far you haven't given me anything other than ask me stupid questions that have nothing to do with my claims.

[Galloism]

Buddhism itself, however, nontheistic.

No, it isn't. It doesn't require you believe in any deity. You can if you want to. Unless you want to argue Christians who are also Buddhists are atheists.

I would argue Christianity and Buddhism are totally incompatible as faiths, but not based on the a/theist deal.

That's another discussion for another thread, though.

[Neutraligon]

Atheism again covers anything that is not theism. So if you are not a theist, you are an atheist.

*According to a handful of atheists who are disagreed with by both theists and other atheists. See implicit atheism and explicit atheism.
Most notably of course Richard Dawkins contending that this is an incorrect assertion.

Of course, we can also encounter some humor in your self-rightous anger over others 'catagorizing atheists' earlier in this thread when we have here a massive categorization which many of your proclaimed 'atheists' would actively disagree with.

In short, your definition isn't a broadly accepted one, nor is it useful even to apply really. Not to mention the humorous hypocrisy of assigning your definition to those who don't share it.

Of course, this thread isn't about the semantic mess that is religious debate and categorization, so...How about that God folks?

Notice that implicit and explicit atheism is still atheism. The terms implicit and explicit are descriptors of the the type of atheism they are. And actually, in the atheist community it is the broadly accepted definition. Your mistake in how atheism is defined, especially given that the word literally means not a theist (what do you think the prefix a means) is very funny. Also, who said I am angry? I find it funny that you are try to attack me on that point, but I find absolutely no anger in myself over the topic.