Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you don't see that "such things could exist" and "they might exist" are synonymous, I can't help you.
I'm sure you're trying to cheat here. That is nothing to do with what Raffs said, and is simply trying to wrongfoot him -and with rather a clumsy strawman..in fact not even close enough to be a strawman of his argument.
"I have no belief in the existence of gods.
I have no belief that they might exist"
Of course the same, pretty much, he is disbelieving with both comments. He is conceding that he might possibly be wrong, but on all the evidence he's seen, he doesn't believe. Nor do I.
In fact you were so Off here, I wonder whether you are even comprehending his argument or just finding something to say.
No. We were both talking about the belief that there might be a god. I believe there might be one, but I don't believe there is. Simple.
Simple to say, but confusingly worded. It would be clearer to say that you concede the possibility of a god, but you don't believe that there is (although you seem to have Faith in a god)
Quote:
It isn't because I don't believe leprechauns exist that I'm not watching out for them. It's because I do believe they don't exist. So this may be your confusion. Not believing in the existence of gods =/= believing there are no gods.
There is no confusion. The confusion is in you (by analogy) seeing no difference between not believing that Leprechauns don't exist and believing that they don't. In case you don't see it - which one would you defend as a logical proposition?
I believe we were here with the 'Ganesh' argument, and (if so) you were unable to comprehend that one, as well.
I'm sure you're trying to cheat here. That is nothing to do with what Raffs said, and is simply trying to wrongfoot him -and with rather a clumsy strawman..in fact not even close enough to be a strawman of his argument.
"I have no belief in the existence of gods.
I have no belief that they might exist"
Of course the same, pretty much, he is disbelieving with both comments. He is conceding that he might possibly be wrong, but on all the evidence he's seen, he doesn't believe. Nor do I.
In fact you were so Off here, I wonder whether you are even comprehending his argument or just finding something to say.
Eloquently started old corn. I thought I had explained well enough on more than one occasion but they don't seem to be getting it...or don't want to.
Eloquently started old corn. I thought I had explained well enough on more than one occasion but they don't seem to be getting it...or don't want to.
It's bewilderingly crafty, old sole. On the face of it, it's simply obtuseness. On the other hand it is a crafty way of trying to force a god -denial on us that would shift the burden of proof to atheism. I might suspect that this is one they picked up from apologetics sites written by craftier tricksters than they are.
No. We were both talking about the belief that there might be a god. I believe there might be one, but I don't believe there is. Simple.
I suggest you go back and follow the conversation more closely. I was talking about belief, you were not.
Quote:
Not believing in the existence of gods =/= believing there are no gods.
I do not believe in the existence of gods.
I believe that there are no gods.
Where do you see a problem? They are both beliefs.
It really is quite simple. Atheists do not believe that gods exist or even MIGHT exist. If they did then they would not be atheists because atheist do not believe in the existence of gods. An atheists would concede that, from a position of knowledge, there is no way of knowing, however, that position of lack of knowledge does not change his belief from... 'I don't believe that gods exist' to 'Gods might exist somewhere'. He retains his lack of belief in gods.
It's an obvious observation. And the personal attacks exemplify your inability to reason logically.
It was not a personal attack. It was an obvious observation. Your straw man shows YOUR inability to reason logically.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did you enjoy those crickets while I slept.
Unlikely there will be an answer any time soon.
