As I appreciate your appreciation for logic.
Psst.. stay away from Anselm; his position is easily defeated..
What is it that you're saying is both true and not true?
Perhaps I'm misreading, but I don't even understand your premiss...
Full born atheism is anti-intellectual
- Thread starter Tnerb
- Start date
As I appreciate your appreciation for logic.
Psst.. stay away from Anselm; his position is easily defeated..
What is it that you're saying is both true and not true?
Perhaps I'm misreading, but I don't even understand your premiss...
My view.
Atheism (as I have stolen the gods knowledge), is something which is both true and not true.
Therefore, it is impossible for someone to claim that there is no God. Claiming there is no god is like claiming that there is no intellectual being of any form of God.
Dissing the other religions like christianity is fine so long as you know precisely what you are dissing.
Now.
Discuss.
Atheism (as I have stolen the gods knowledge), is something which is both true and not true.
Therefore, it is impossible for someone to claim that there is no God. Claiming there is no god is like claiming that there is no intellectual being of any form of God.
Dissing the other religions like christianity is fine so long as you know precisely what you are dissing.
Now.
Discuss.
glaucon
It is both true and not true due to the facts that an atheistic position may contiain proper religious beliefs.
The opening post if understood explains it all....
I have as much certainty that there is no god as I do that there are no unicorns. Meaning that the 0.0000000001% chance that there is an undiscovered unicorn somewhere is so unworthy of conversion to 100% certainty (which is what theists essentially do) that only a fool would do so.
Gibberish.
You can't decipher jibberish between non Gibberish if you don't comprehend the meaning.
I completely agree. I can't comprehend the meaning of most of what you've posted.
Fallacious: you're assuming there is such a thing as god's knowledge.
Secondly: yes really. The argument is fallacious, regardless of whether or not the purported conclusion is true or false.
Your not comprehending the meaning of God.
On this site, I'm pretty sure that a few grunts and some airborne feces would convey most of the important points...
Clearly.
Then the error lies with you sisyphus.
The onus is upon you to make it clear exactly what you mean when you use specific terms.
An appeal to ambiguity is not a defense.
The language is there Glaucon.
The problem is you are not taking the time to read it as you would at a proper site where I would be taken interestingly instead of insanely.
I appeal to your detesting my clear opening post.
It is clear, if the thread is read properly...
Besides, I had already stated it once, a hint, at what superluminal called Gibberish. I am not repeating myself again until I can once get a someone to say something about something good instead of something bad God Damnit.
Decoder ring, please?
Then the loss is yours I'm afraid.
For it is not clear.
At best, what I can gather you're saying is that the Atheistic position is somehow self-contradictory. You then move to conclude that god can therefore exist...
Something like that...
??