That there is a striking similarity between the militant theists and the militant atheists.
What do atheists think that "to know God" means?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
That there is a striking similarity between the militant theists and the militant atheists.
It means nothing because it's a fragment, it doesn't express a complete idea. Compare "to know Poirot", it's hopelessly vague. Whereas a full sentence, such as "after so many years, Hastings had come to know Poirot well", is far less problematic. So, I suggest that you offer something which can mean something clear.
When atheists say that they "don't believe in God" or "lack belief in God" or that "God probably doesn't exist", I would very much like them to specify what they mean by these terms. But often, they refuse to.
Is this a way of stating that you have no intention of writing something meaningful?
So, you have no intention of writing anything meaningful and you write "God". Okay. If you yourself hold that "God" is a meaningless word, perhaps you can explain why you're asking people to comment on a grammatically meaningless fragment centred on a meaningless term.
Blah. I'm sick of participating in powergames instigated by atheists.
Even though the mouths of atheists are full of the word "God," they nevertheless refuse to discuss what it is that they mean by "God" and the related terms that they use (such as "know," "believe" and such).
Atheists on Epistemology of Theology: -F
You started this thread, didn't you?
I have explained to you why your opening post is unsatisfactory. You can tell participants to discuss something meaningful or you can leave things as they are. I suggest that you consider the conclusions people are likely to draw about a thread on which the author of the thread refuses to change from asking about the meaningless to asking about something meaningful.
Of course, I am supposed to believe that you (and a few select others) are to be given absolute credence and authority in deciding what is "meaningful" and what isn't, right?
You land on a snake, go back to post number 23.
IT wasnt worded as well as I intended, hence I deleted it. I meant that sometimes militant atheists are just as dogmatic, intolerant and even irrational just as creationists, evagelists, jihadists and extremists are. The normal atheist, fortunately, is much more objective.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
wynn, it's not our term to define. It's a theist's term to define.
I am a believer in the FSM. You are not. Please tell me your thoughts on FSM, being sure to define it correctly. If you refuse to define it correctly, I will blame you.
See the problem? Whose responsibility is it to define FSM? Mine or yours?
This is basic, basic logic!
actually yours is not a difficult ask in the slightest - those rejecting the FSM have a very clear model forming the basis for their rejection (namely that those claiming knowledge are doing so purely for the pursuit of parody and satire)
wynn
Define "god", then we can talk about it. Of the tens of thousands of god concepts man has manufactured you yourself reject all but one of them, so the vast majority of such claims are automatically false(and without evidence they are all equally likely to be true, IE near zero). So, frankly, someone claiming they "know god" is either a liar(if only to themselves), delusional or mentally ill. Belief without evidence is the abandonment of logic and once you believe in non-evidenced things you cannot apply logic to that illogic and expect anything but non-sense(the GIGO principle). I make no claim that there is not nor cannot be a god, though the lack of evidence certainly fails to support the claims of those who say they "know god". Once you go beyond Spinoza(a god who set off the Big Bang and then went on vacation for the last 13.7 billion years)it is your burden to provide evidence for any such claim of knowledge, not mine to guess what it is you could possibly mean.
No, but it is your resposibility to provide reason for why we should consider what you are saying has any real meaning. So far, nada.
Grumpy
Define "god", then we can talk about it. Of the tens of thousands of god concepts man has manufactured you yourself reject all but one of them, so the vast majority of such claims are automatically false(and without evidence they are all equally likely to be true, IE near zero). So, frankly, someone claiming they "know god" is either a liar(if only to themselves), delusional or mentally ill. Belief without evidence is the abandonment of logic and once you believe in non-evidenced things you cannot apply logic to that illogic and expect anything but non-sense(the GIGO principle). I make no claim that there is not nor cannot be a god, though the lack of evidence certainly fails to support the claims of those who say they "know god". Once you go beyond Spinoza(a god who set off the Big Bang and then went on vacation for the last 13.7 billion years)it is your burden to provide evidence for any such claim of knowledge, not mine to guess what it is you could possibly mean.
No, but it is your resposibility to provide reason for why we should consider what you are saying has any real meaning. So far, nada.
Grumpy
And those who use that as an excuse to dodge the question dont get, among many things, the possibility of the co-existence of humour and serious conversation.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
You miss the point. I could have chosen any concept of my own defining. I am a believer in the Kugat, which my people have worshipped for centuries. Please tell me your thoughts on knowing Kugat, being sure to define it correctly. If you refuse to define it correctly, I will criticize you. I am sure you'll recognize that it is not your responsibility to determine what Kugat is.
wynn does not seem to understand that it is not up to an atheist to decide what God means. God is a word given to them. Their response is, 'show me the evidence so I have an idea what you are talking about'.
Last edited:
so that makes sarcasm the highest form of wit for a certain class of person?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
It is an analogy, designed to shine light on the absurdity of believing in Russell's teapot or Sagan's dragon.
The humor in FSM simply aids in the memetic propagation. The teapot and dragon are not nearly as well known, bereft of humor as they are.
And we note that you're still evading the valid point of FSM by picking at style of delivery.
but then I am not the one posting ample pages in criticism of persons and ideas in support of kugat (whatever that may be) .... if it was otherwise I would certainly hope that I have aclear idea what I am rejecting ... iow you can talk of there being a type of atheism that is simply unaware of issues of godhood just like you can talk of their being a type of existence where one is unaware of issues of history or even language (usually we would call it severe ignorance or mental retardation ) but that idea is automatically forfeited the moment one attempts an academic ( or even pseudo academic) criticism of a subject