Thread: A proof for the non-existence of God

Originally Posted by Kael Seoras

Care to explain how lack of belief is different from not having a belief?

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Lack of belief is different.

Well, there you have it.

Originally Posted by Kael Seoras

Care to explain how lack of belief is different from not having a belief?

Did you not just read what i was saying the difference was? and i already know what he means because i used "lack", but i am not talking about what they are talking about. To not believe is different then not knowing period. How is that so unsimple to understand?

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Did you not just read what i was saying the difference was? and i already know what he means because i used "lack", but i am not talking about what they are talking about. To not believe is different then not knowing period. How is that so unsimple to understand?

So "lack" implies not knowing...I always thought "to lack" simply meant "to not have"...how'd you develop this "not knowing" meaning for "lack of belief"?

Originally Posted by Kael Seoras

So "lack" implies not knowing...

I'm talking about animals can't be atheists because they can't know, atheists today don't believe because they don't want to know, it's not a "lack" per se, it's a choice to "not believe" Not knowing and knowing but not believing are not the same.

^ Prove that animals cannot know.

And it is a non-argument as it stands. The definintion of Atheist is the lack of belief in theology. Animals do not believe in theology; thus are atheists.

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Did you not just read what i was saying the difference was? and i already know what he means because i used "lack", but i am not talking about what they are talking about. To not believe is different then not knowing period. How is that so unsimple to understand?

Uh, no.

It has nothing to do with knowledge or informed opinions.

Just a logical conclusion.

To "Not believe" is to "Lack Belief". Simple as.

"Atheist" just means "not theist". An animal doesn't know if there is a god (as far as we know anyway), so is not theist...so is atheist.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Uh, no.

It has nothing to do with knowledge or informed opinions.

Just a logical conclusion.

To "Not believe" is to "Lack Belief". Simple as.

Obviously you guys are not getting what i am saying. I know "lack" means to not know, everyone knows what lack means, listen to what i am saying. Not knowing compared to knowing but not believing is NOT the same.

No...

"Lack" means without.

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Obviously you guys are not getting what i am saying. I know "lack" means to not know, everyone knows what lack means, listen to what i am saying. Not knowing compared to knowing but not believing is NOT the same.

er...to lack knowledge would be to not know

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

No...

"Lack" means without.

Also without a "lack" of knowledge and say something you lack shows ignorance.

But we aren't lacking Knowledge.

We're lacking belief...

Originally Posted by Kael Seoras

er...to lack knowledge would be to not know

W/e i made a mistake there.

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Not knowing compared to knowing but not believing is NOT the same.

Someone who knows something and doesn't believe it is in quite some denial.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

But we aren't lacking Knowledge.

We're lacking belief...

Lacking belief because of choice, not because you cannot know period. That's what the difference is. Knowing+choice=not wanting to believe, or your version of "lack", not knowing period=different because you can't know....can't know+ not believing via choice=different.

Um...

That's a non-object.

If you are not a theist then you are an Atheist.

Period.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Um...

That's a non-object.

If you are not a theist then you are an Atheist.

Period.

Atheist=choice, Period.

No.

Atheist = Not a Theist

You fail.

End of discussion.

GET OUT.

Originally Posted by Kael Seoras

Someone who knows something and doesn't believe it is in quite some denial.

So Atheists are in denial? they know, but don't believe.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

No.

Atheist = Not a Theist

You fail.

End of discussion.

GET OUT.

Atheists=choice, Period.

Just like religion=choice, Period.

No!!! Atheist is the default position for everything that isn't a theist.

So Atheists are in denial? they know, but don't believe.

She meant know to be true...

Technically, all of Theism is not knowing. As that is it's foundation:

Don't know->Make up explanation->Not know whether explanation is true

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

So Atheists are in denial? they know, but don't believe.

...they don't know...

I was trying to say, there's probably not a whole lot of cases where the person knows and yet does not believe...

Atheists=choice like everything else.

So when did you choose what your skin color was, and where you were born, and who your parents were, and who your siblings were, and what time period you would be born into?

If that is the premise of your whole argument then I mean... Just leave. You're wasting space and time.

Originally Posted by Kael Seoras

...they don't know...

I was trying to say, there's probably not a whole lot of cases where the person knows and yet does not believe...

Only animals don't know, or humans if it's beyond their understanding or they don't think about it. They know=maybe not true but knows what it is thus "knowing" part.