Freedom From Atheism

I suspect Koko fashions himself as a gnostic theist, even though he won't admit it.

 

They might, though a person should not claim to know something they merely believe.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

Hey Kokomojo, do you believe in the separation of church and state?

 

Do agnostics disbelieve gods do not exist? YES. They do not believe gods do not exist, making them agnostics a sub set of theists.

Game, set, match.

more stoopid word games

- - - Updated - - -

no I dont use atheist [il]logic to define myself.

- - - Updated - - -

is there a germane point in there somewhere that I missed?

- - - Updated - - -

oh so all knowledge is without belief, good call!

 

Well, I was wondering what religion is a country that is not allowed to have a state sponsored religion?

 

That is an ignorant response.

You don't need knowledge for belief or lack of belief. That's where a position of faith comes from; belief with a lack of knowledge.

Belief can't be completely eliminated from the equation, but typically, gaining knowledge replaces belief.

 

What a total and complete crock of crap, period.

 

And one other thing I forgot to mention. It's always easy to make broad sweeping generalized accusations that really have no basis in fact than it is to do any research or provide any actual facts that support making those accusations. But again in this case, there really aren't any. Just the nonsensical ramblings of one who obviously wants to play the victim card.

 

as you just proved in your post. thank you for that.

- - - Updated - - -

well who can argue that with the boat load of zero evidence, oh wait your whining is good enough. I guess you must be right

 

Lack of knowledge? Seems we have another one who simply stands on his soap box spewing a mountain of ungrounded assumptions, many of which have already been proven false.

Gaining knowledge NEVER replaces belief, that is absurdly ignorant thing to say.

Knowledge as you put it is merely evidence that supports a given belief, not a replacement for it.

 

If that were true it would be like looking in a mirror for you, wouldn't it?

You can't think of a single instance where knowledge replaces belief? How terrible for you.

So, if you believed in Santa as a child, then discovered the knowledge that he is a fiction, and you've retained that belief as an adult; this is not the slightest bit confusing to you? Barring that you never made the discovery that he was a fiction and still retain belief in him...

Maybe Santa is a sore subject for you.

How about a more real world scenario? You believe someone is a good person. You find out they did something heinous and unforgivable. You have irrefutable proof of their crimes. You've gained knowledge of their being a bad person. You're not still retaining the belief that they're good, and you're not replacing it with another belief. Your statement that knowledge never replaces belief is false.

Someday you'll figure out, at least in some small way, probably surpassing the minor level I possess, how knowledge works. Keep at it.

 

not allowed? what kind of nonsense is that?

 

Not one and you cant come up with one either, well except I am sure you can imagine that you can.

Huh? Its never been proven to me that santa is a fiction. Prove it.

I was going to add to that but since you said: "You're not still retaining the belief that they're good, and you're not replacing it with another belief." and totally contradicted yourself never mind. Thanks for proving my point.

 

got carried away and didnt get back to this.

what is so hilarious about your claim is that you believe they are good and pretend its a belief that came magically out of thin air then swap beliefs and believe they are bad when the circumstances change and pretend the new belief is not a belief. Another typical half witted atheist argument.

 

Quite so. One cannot prove a negative in an absolute sense. One can rule a claim out as improbable and unsubstantiated, however. God (variously defined) and Santa both fall under that category.

 

at least your rendition is reasonable and legitimate, this other poster claiming its a belief until you believe something different then its no longer a belief is an over the top claim of ludicrous.

Now for the other part of your post, no you cannot rule it out, you can only rule it improbable based upon xyz blah blah if you intend to claim its truth.

 

So America CAN have a state sponsored religion?

 

I gave you two.

So, things exist until proven otherwise?

Nope. Doesn't work that way.

If you believe in Santa, you'll have to prove he exists, just like any other people you claim exist. Things and people that exist leave clues of their existence. Until there's some sort of proof of their existence, there's no reason to believe they exist.

I bet you get the 'burden of proof' thing all the time; why don't you let it sink in?

I didn't contradict myself. In the example, you believed a person was good, until you gained the knowledge they were not. You're not maintaining the belief they're good, and what you've replaced it with isn't mere belief, but knowledge that they're bad.

 

I do not recall you showing me any such thing. I do recall posting the definition of belief countless times in this and other threads. Care to cite it for me? Cite the exact definition you are using from which dictionary, since I remember that we agreed on the definition a long time ago before we got started on this, or has that changed?

What are you talking about? If the courts make a determination what a word means thats what it is, where do you get the authority to over rule them without citing error as a justification for doing so?

No its not belief means accept as true. You never gave any definition that contradicted the definitions that I gave.

 

No not me, you believe that.

It is totally irrational to believe someone is good without knowledge. I lack belief in those crazy theories.

 

of course they can, what stopping them?

 

Willful ignorance on your part isn't my fault or concern.

I'll fill it out some more so you should have less of a problem with it.

I want even include either of us in it.

Person A meets Person B and judging by first impressions Person A believes Person B is a good person.
It is later discovered that Person B is a serial rapist, with conclusive evidence and a jury of their peers sentencing them to prison.
Person A no longer believes Person B is a good person. Person A now knows Person B is a bad person. Person A doesn't just believe Person B is bad, they know Person B is bad.
Belief has been replaced by knowledge.

 

And beliefs aren't always rational.

And you can make a mistake with a first impression, or with somebody that you think you've known for a long time.

And calling it a 'crazy theory' doesn't make it one.

And it's clear you're just going to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

 

Never mind not recognizing the concept of separation of church and state, you don't recognize even the wording of the first amendment?

You're an absolute clown.

You're not worth the time.

I'm out.

 

and I suppose that all of that irrational rhetoric is supposed to mean that atheists have more knowledge than theists, is that it.

I dont think so since i have not seen t aht to be the case in any thread on any board yet. Want to be the first?.