Yet anytime somebody claims X is true, it is because they "think" it is.
Isn't being an Atheist a religion?
- Thread starter iHaveNoIdea
- Start date
The you should make this clear for yourself.
As it reads, that's not what you're claiming. You are claiming that you are expressing a definitive answer, ie, that is the way it is.
Unless it is true. Then they KNOW it is true.
No that is why I am expressing definitive answers. For everything you "think" is definitively true, you express them as definitive.
Anytime somebody "knows" something is true, it's because they "think/believe" it is true. There are 2 necessities for knowledge about something. One of them is to believe it is true.
Which directly contradicts what you just admitted to.
I'll make it simple: either you're saying you think X or you're saying X is.
The two are not necessarily the same thing. Make up your mind.
Right. Hence:
If I think X is difinitively true, then I may say (claim) X is difinitively true. If I don't think X is true, then I cannot say "X is definitively true". However, I can say "I think X is true".
But it is still true regardless if anyone believes it or not. And really we basically have two states of reality: True and False. Anything else just hasnt happened yet and then you get into probabilities.
Feel free to make sense anytime.
It was a simple disjunction:
either you're saying you think something is the case, or you're saying it is the case.
Pick one.
Almost. I'm saying:
If I state that it is the case, then it's because I'm in a state of belief about the case.
If I state that I believe it is the case, then it's likely I'm in a state of inconclusion.
As such:
If I see somebody saying that Earth is flat, I will say "Wrong MFer!" I'm not going to say "I think Earth is not flat."
Yet again you can't answer a simple question..... sigh
Nonetheless, I do get your point here:
The problem being that, as I pointed out in the first place, neither of these cases are synonymous with what you first said: that you are definitively saying that 'this is the way things are'.
Thus, despite being able to answer directly, you are at least consistent in contradicting yourself...
Nonetheless, I do get your point here:
The problem being that, as I pointed out in the first place, neither of these cases are synonymous with what you first said: that you are definitively saying that 'this is the way things are'.
Thus, despite being able to answer directly, you are at least consistent in contradicting yourself...
Yes those rules are definitively the way things are. There is nothing I or anybody can do about it.
Many questions that I don't seem to give straight answers to include one or more presumptions in them that need to be weeded out before they can be answered properly. I am expected to give yes/no answers to questions full of presumptions.
Wrong.
The two possible situations were laid out by you.
You were asked to choose between the two.
You apparently cannot.
You contradict yourself. It's becoming second nature for you.
Wholly incorrect.
As you have proven.
Sad.
And there you have it. A living example of what a total religion atheism is.
You mean other than say that you are wrong?
You have, as you would put it, misconception about the nature of knowledge.
The only problem is that you are too blind to see it or understand it.
Instead you only offer your own testimony as support for your position, and thus circularise your argument.
And this really isn't the thread for such a discussion.
And there you have it. A living example of what an unsubstantiated claim supported by nothing but confidence is.
Of course I have support for my position. Just because you calim it is incorrect doesn't mean it's incorrect.
Where is this support for your position, other than your own posts on this website? You have so far not produced anything to support your position other than your own "rules of knowledge". So please post the support - or even just provide a link to it, please?
And just because you claim it is correct does not make it so.
Bear that in mind in your travels.
And just because you claim it is correct does not make it so.
Bear that in mind in your travels.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove anything by posting a link to site X other than site X stated something. If I claimed that Obama made a statement, the I can post a link of a video or audio of him making the statement. However, it is irrelevant to claim something is true by posting a link to a site that concurs.
If you have something to prove, YOU prove it. If there is a point in which it is necessary to source, then you link it. Like if I claimed that somebody else said something, I would porceed by posting a link to them saying it. Claiming that an assertion is false unless I use an outside source to support it is fallacy. Furthermore, claiming it would be complete fallacy for me to claim that an assertion is true just because some outside source supports it. Outside sources have no relevance unless you're quoting a person or some media.
You have said that you have support for your claim: please post a link to that support.