God (truth, real self) has no religion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-04-2016, 10:18 AM
RE: God (truth, real self) has no religion
(10-04-2016 10:10 AM)Matheism Wrote:  Which one do you believe?

A. Whether it is impossible that god exists
B. Whether it is possible that god exists

I'm starting to wonder whether or not English is your first language.

Regardless, this cannot be answered regardless without a coherent definition of "god", which you have not supplied. Beyond that, the answer to this question is irrelevant to the matter of what atheism is. Your "definition" - and I say that with the strongest possible air quotes - remains wrong.

Don't try to play stupid games, Matheism. The posters here have seen far better ones than yours.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2016, 10:19 AM
RE: God (truth, real self) has no religion
(10-04-2016 10:10 AM)Matheism Wrote:  Which one do you believe?

A. Whether it is impossible that god exists
B. Whether it is possible that god exists

I do not believe either statement. I have no proof that nothing that could be reasonably clled

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2016, 10:20 AM
RE: God (truth, real self) has no religion
(10-04-2016 10:14 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  I choose ( C ) That there has never been any sufficient evidence to show for any deity to exist.

That's what I said, you have no existence... no argument.
you believe in the "possibility"...

And the "possibility" on its own is "meaningless".
It must have the "subject matter", ie. "God".

For example. . . "The House"

"The" is meaningless. . .it must have the subject matter, ie. "House"


For this reason, no one can have a rational argument with you. .
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2016, 10:21 AM
RE: God (truth, real self) has no religion
(10-04-2016 10:10 AM)Matheism Wrote:  Which one do you believe?

A. Whether it is impossible that god exists
B. Whether it is possible that god exists

I do not believe either statement. I do not have sufficient evidence to support either claim. Neither do you.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2016, 10:21 AM
RE: God (truth, real self) has no religion
(10-04-2016 10:18 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I'm starting to wonder whether or not English is your first language.

They've already said/posted/stated that English is not their first language.

I've been coaching/coaxing longer and better sentences out of them.. slowly...

Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2016, 10:21 AM
RE: God (truth, real self) has no religion
(10-04-2016 10:20 AM)Matheism Wrote:  
(10-04-2016 10:14 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  I choose ( C ) That there has never been any sufficient evidence to show for any deity to exist.

That's what I said, you have no existence... no argument.

Yes, you did say that.

Unfortunately, saying something doesn't make it true. Or even coherent.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2016, 10:22 AM
RE: God (truth, real self) has no religion
(10-04-2016 10:21 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  They've already said/posted/stated that English is not their first language.

Noted.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2016, 10:22 AM
RE: God (truth, real self) has no religion
"Fear has its use but cowardice has none." - Gandhi
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2016, 10:24 AM
RE: God (truth, real self) has no religion
(10-04-2016 10:21 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Unfortunately, saying something doesn't make it true. Or even coherent.

In logic, "possibility" is not a declarative statement.. it is not an argument.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2016, 10:27 AM (This post was last modified: 10-04-2016 10:33 AM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: God (truth, real self) has no religion
(10-04-2016 10:20 AM)Matheism Wrote:  
(10-04-2016 10:14 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  I choose ( C ) That there has never been any sufficient evidence to show for any deity to exist.

That's what I said, you have no existence... no argument.
you believe in the "possibility"...

No... you're now asserting/sliding into 'Solipsism'.

Perhaps you need to look up that word?

(10-04-2016 10:20 AM)Matheism Wrote:  And the "possibility" on its own is "meaningless".
It must have the "subject matter", ie. "God".

For example. . . "The House"

"The" is meaningless. . .it must have the subject matter, ie. "House"

Do you see how those two statements differ?

Even in their basic construction, you can see the differences.

The first one goes along the lines of;

"If 'X' is 'Y'. It must have the subject 'D', i.e 'Pumkin'."

The second one is built along the lines of;

"For example 'The X'

"The 'The' is meaning less.... is must have the subject matter 'X'."

Technically?

The 'The', as you put it, is not meaningless. it is performing a function within the parameters of the language that you are using. Yes

Hope that helps with your learning and developing sills with the English language.

Thumbsup

The difference between the two sentences is that the first is not coherent because it confuses its definitions and doesn't internally refer to anything within itself.

The second is coherent because it maintains its internal references to 'X'.





(10-04-2016 10:20 AM)Matheism Wrote:  For this reason, no one can have a rational argument with you. .

We are, however, having a meaningful and educational discussion. Big Grin

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: