Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Here's my response to any further posts in this thread. It should adequately cover any arguments: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/113081-rf-thread-one-act-play.html
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I don't know - I think it might be because I'm a Cancer.
Oh, well that explains it. I'm a Scorpio.
I don't think that charges of arrogance are helpful in these debates. I wish that you would engage in debate rather than character attacks. I have no intention of getting into an exchange of insults with you.There it is again. I wish you could see how arrogant it is to tell people that they're not using words the way they say they are because they're deluded. Maybe if you could get off of your pedestal and come down to the real world, we could have a more productive debate.
I just knew there was a rational explanation.
I just knew there was a rational explanation.
Some freakish coincidence, I'm sure.
Because the only thing required to be an atheist is to not hold the belief that god(s) exist.
Not holding a belief isn't holding a belief.
Are you even trying to make sense any more?
Theists believe that something they define as god exists.
Once again, refute why this is wrong - in English please.
You've also failed to demonstrate why it is a belief. Any time now.
It makes me a non-theist, an atheist, and agnostic, according to various applicable definitions.
I don't think that charges of arrogance are helpful in these debates. I wish that you would engage in debate rather than character attacks. I have no intention of getting into an exchange of insults with you.
As someone with a degree in linguistics, you should have learned that people do not always report their own usage accurately. I am surprised that you are so adamant about usage here. After all, it is an empirical question.
It's very simple. If I say "I believe...", then I'm talking about a belief. If I say "I don't believe...", then I'm talking about a lack of belief; in other words "not a belief".
You're the one who keeps saying "This is how we use it...". I'm countering that statement. And I'm pretty sure when I say "atheist" it means what I say it means.
Exactly, so when I ask one whether or not they believe in the existence of "God", any answer would be a belief.
I only laugh at your lack of sense.
Such statements as, I believe, and I don't believe obviously have some type of interconnection, otherwise belief wouldn't be used to reference one's own opinion.
In such topics, I believe a "God" exists, is as much an opinion and belief as, I don't believe a "God" exists.
You seem to be the only one stuck on this point yet, we have all moved on.
An answer of "no" would not be a belief - hence, atheism is not a belief.
You still haven't demonstrated how not holding a belief is actually holding a belief. You keep saying that it is, but you haven't provided a single cogent argument explaining why or how.
Try again.
And this is why your presence here is uneeded.
An answer of "no" would not be a belief - hence, atheism is not a belief.
You still haven't demonstrated how not holding a belief is actually holding a belief. You keep saying that it is, but you haven't provided a single cogent argument explaining why or how.
Try again.
"Do you believe in God?" There is one of two answers, either yes, or no. Both being a position of ignorance, which supplements belief.
I can only guess that what he's trying to say is that you believe that you don't believe in God, and so that's a belief. Of course, by that logic, the fact that I believe a horse is not a belief means it's a belief because I believe it. So, obviously that makes perfect sense...unless you're not on drugs.
If you say "I don't believe in the existence of god", I fail to see how this couldn't be a belief.
Editted.State what the belief would be.