Oh let me try!
If I say “I had pancakes on the Moon with Elvis this morning” you cant disprove this, so is it true?
1 Like
No you can disprove this by (going to the moon and checking).
You cant go somewhere that within its definition describes a place you have never been.
There is no way to prove someone did (or did not) have pancakes on the Moon with Elvis.
But I’ll make it easier, forget the Moon and Elvis. Prove I had (or didn’t have, your choice) pancakes for breakfast. Since we aren’t at the same location, I will accept you can preform any test you want, and can make up the any result you want.
Now how exactly would you prove it? Remember: finding a pancake in my stomach isn’t proof I actually ate it (maybe it got there by some other way). Video of me eating pancakes isn’t proof either, might be a phony video. Good luck.
As an agnostic I can’t prove the pancake. However, even in scientific method, for which I will assume you believe in, the term ‘theory’ is used as it cant be know for curtain. Scientists use what is known to construct a theory. Approaching the video of you eating the pancakes, for data and trying to calculate how true it is.
However I argue the question of god, can not be theorised as you cannot even obtain data to suggest either, or. As all arguments in favour of god can equally be reversed against god, let me give an example. If the question was prove god isn’t in the video of you eating pancakes. Then Person A might argue the pancake is god and Person B could argue the pancake is not god. A could argue god is invisible B can argue god is not invisible we cant see him because he is not present.
@Nyarlathotep, @Sheldon, @Whitefire13,
So my question is this, how can you know/believe there isn’t a god, as any argument against god has a matching argument for god?
If you truly believe there is no real answer to the question, as I do, how can you feel one side has any more supporting data without having bias?
If a Theist finds god (which I am not btw, when I reference god I am only trying to understand what theists perceive as god and correlate it to something more useful) how does an Atheist find no god?
Fuck - first … go back and find ONE statement where I claimed there isn’t a god.
Go - have fun!
2 Likes
Straw-man; I didn’t claim that, and I didn’t notice anyone else on your list claiming that. Worse, this re-occurring problem has been pointed out to you several times, by several people.
Making up fantasy statements, assigning them to the forum regulars, then pointing out how ridiculous your fantasy statements are; is not debate. It is becoming more and more difficult to not come to the conclusion that you are trolling. I strongly recommend getting some new material.
You recently implied you could:
True we cannot disprove your unfalsifiable and unevidenced claim, but we can disbelieve your claim, and make the now proven futile gesture of asking you to fucking evidence yet another of the bare assertions you keep reeling off.
Sigh…EVIDENCE PLEASE…
It does however need evidence before I’m obliged to believe it, sadly grasping that simple concept requires a three digit IQ, and you seem to lack the minimals…
In your fucking time machine, genius?
Oh do fuck off, no one believes that anymore. 
Groan, I bet people in China heard me roll my eyes that time. Ffs google scientific theory you utter tool.
The rest of your post is making me want to throw my broadband modem into the street
1 Like
So you’re saying i can’t go to Australia? Or Tuscany? Because I’ve never been there?
Christ almighty, I take it back, you’re not a troll, you’re dumber than a bucket of hair.
I suppose I should apologise, but I DON’T FUCKING WANT TO. Just like you don’t want to learn anything at all.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha … Atheism wonders if there is even a cat in the box. The fact that we have been told there is a cat in the box is not evidence enough. We have no evidence of a cat in the box. At the same time, we have no means of denying that there is a cat in the box. Just because we have not seen it, does not mean the dang thing is not there. If we assert, “There is no cat in the box.” we would be engaging in a Black Sway Fallacy. (I have never seen a black swans so black swans do not exist.)
On the other hand. Most available evidence suggests that there is no cat in the box. We have more that 2000 years of debunked descriptions of various cats that might be in the box. We have a trend of apologetics all based on fallacious logic that try to convince people falsely and therefore dishonestly that there is a cat in the box. (That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.) We have hundreds of thousands of fake cats in fake boxes that we have opened only to find nothing inside. The current claims appear to be nothing more than Special Pleading. (Yea we admit, all those other boxes were fake. We even admit that all other boxes that have not been opened in the world today, are fake. But OUR BOX with OUR CAT is REAL! (Not an ounce more evidence than any other Cat Box claim but you expect us to believe you? No thanks.)
Atheism can see that you have a box. We call that the Church with all its dogma, rules, assertions, etc… We admit that people go into the box and even admit to seeing the cat, experiencing the cat, talking to the cat, feeding the can, or even being fed by the cat; however, we see no evidence of this outside of “personal experience claims.” People also see bigfoots, aliens, Loch Ness Monsters, ghosts, chakras, auras, and a plethora of other supernatural nonsense that can not be substantiated.
Atheists see the same fucking box you see and they don’t make a bunch of unsupported claims about it. You can not sufficiently describe anything inside the box. You can not determine if it is alive or dead as you have no actual means of doing so. However; based on everything we know about Boxes and Cats from all our past experience, I am willing to bet , when you open that box it is going to be just as empty as every other box we have ever opened.
1 Like
Sorry if I am upsetting people. I’m not an idiot or a troll I am only repeating myself because I feel that you are missing my point. I really am just trying to understand these distinctions. I want to understand what someone who both knows god existence cant be known, but also believes god existence cant be known.
I understand the point that atheism is the lack of belief in god (and not the dismissal of god). I understand that atheism is the decision to believe in 0 gods, not the decision to say there are 0 gods.
I too, believe in 0 gods . My view however is that all the ‘faith gods’ (Zeus, Jehovah, Ganesh, etc) seem to be different personifications of the unknown. Think of what people use god for, luck, chance, hope, all things that live in the idea that there is a conscious to the unknown. Whether its things that where unknown at the time of their creation or are unknown to us now (but, may come to know). I see ‘God’ as the gaps between knowledge.
So if God is what people call the unknown. I’d personally define the concept of all unknown things as God. I would even assign a certain sense of divinity to what we do not know/what we can not know. Equally the thought of what I don’t yet know, both scares and excites me in a way that is similar to how theists describe their relation/feeling towards god, but I don’t believe this is a sentient or ‘knowing’ god, only seeing god as a Title.
I’m not trying to prove anyone wrong, I’m just trying to understand where my beliefs sit. Agnostic, Atheist, etc.
Great! So can we assume that if you contradict this in a future post, that you are trolling?
1 Like
Oh I don’t think we need assume that…
Or just Bronze Age man’s way of describing the weather. Myth and imagination. Story telling for power, control, comfort, protection…
Unknown means not known. You are speaking of things man tried to give an explanation for. Again separate things.
Why? That’s dumb. How many things are “unknown”? No one “knows”… how many things are observed and can’t be explained adequately with demonstrable evidence. Lots. People lie. People experience things and have mental illnesses which they explain through their ideas or perception of what is happening. These things are known.
Really? Good luck with your religion. Worship the unknown. Fuck the old bronze Agers even had a temple erected for an “unknown god”… you giving words and ideas the name “god or divinity” in no way makes it god or divine. Makes you unbalanced and out of touch with reality.
You’re a fucking theist. Just making up your own supernatural deity in some weird new-age woo woo confused shit way.
2 Likes
I was certainly born lacking that belief. Wouldn’t that mean I was born an atheist? How about you @bloopynoopy? Were you born lacking a belief in god, or were you somehow special and born already having a belief in god?
Indeed, but no one is upset as far as I can see, and of course only a troll or an idiot would think upsetting people was the only reason to infer from your posts you are an idiot, and or a troll.
I don’t care how you feel, and there are plenty of others here whose opinion I’d give credence to, long before an idiotic troll.
Cor blimey governor, but you’re dumber than a professor of dumbness, teaching a post graduate course in dumbness, at Oxford University. Try again…
So you have in fact been lying / trolling all along then. Quelle surprise.
Nope, a new level of obstinate dumbness is all you’ve achieved. Atheism, as the dictionary proves, is defined as the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities.
Too? No one else here has claimed to hold any such belief, my dim-witted, illiterate trolling friend.
I don’t doubt it, and substantial gaps they must be in your case, almost continuous I suspect.
Just when the idiocy bar couldn’t be lowered, you lower your game. I’m disinclined to give you any further clues as to why.
That’s a whole lot of fear / excitement.
Oh, so you can prove this then? Christ it’s like kicking a blind puppy.
Just as well, since you don’t appear to understand even simple word definitions, and that bodes badly for such pretensions.
Well it might help if finally grasped that atheism is not a belief, it is the lack of a belief. Just like amoral, asexual and asymmetry describe the lack or absence of those conditions.
If your spiel contradicts the dictionary, then that should concern any sane literate rational person.
Have you managed to Google:
Scientifi theory
Logical fallacy
Argumentum ad ignorantiam
Argumentum ad populum
Or argument from assertion fallacy yet?
Do take your time…
1 Like
Okay, I get your point, if a question only has two answers. They become mutually exclusive. So if one is false then the other is true. And I’d agree that if the only possible values, to the question ‘does god exist’, are:
- Yes, God exists
- No, God doesn’t exist
I get that you are saying that B) is the default so you are B) until evidence of A) comes along.
But id say there are three answers.
See my argument though suggests there are three answers to the question. As the nature of the answer depends on knowledge and belief. If first we ask can we answer the question. We get:
A) Yes, we can know god exists
B) No, we can’t know god exists
But if we make these both the same question you get three answers:
A) Yes, we can know god exists:
1) Yes, God exists
2) No, God doesn’t exist
B) No, we can’t know god exists
3) I can’t know, that god exists/ I don’t know the answer
Now the question is no longer binary, lack of proof in god/ or proof in god is only valid if you believe the we can know the answer to the question. Personal I would say that the default answer now is (3.) I don’t know and that I would first need evidence the question can be answered before I choose an answer.
This is why earlier I asked for evidence of ‘no god’, as it suggests you have found a way to answer the question.