RE: A Question From Atheists
June 23, 2017 at 9:53 am
(This post was last modified: June 23, 2017 at 9:54 am by Mister Agenda.)
"
Not believing in any woo is a pretty good definition of atheist, so you're an atheist thanks to the magic of using language ambiguity to define things into existence.
"The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument."
The gods towards which he or she is an atheist, eh?
nosferatu323 Wrote:ignoramus Wrote:Holy shit! Now you're just being sneaky! lolNot really, I was being honest. The god that I believe in is not magical, transcendental, etc. and I find not believing in any woo, as you put it, a good trait. My personal faith requires seeing the world and my self in a different way which differs from many people. But it does not require me to believe in things that are beyond, transcendental, magical, etc. Just like how a scientist might start seeing himself and the world as bags of particles and atoms which might be different to how people usually see themselves and their world.
Not believing in any woo is a pretty good definition of atheist, so you're an atheist thanks to the magic of using language ambiguity to define things into existence.
"The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument."
Jesster Wrote:I may have missed this because I'm not going to bother reading through every page here, but please describe the god that you do believe in. I don't care about the god(s) that you don't believe in.
The gods towards which he or she is an atheist, eh?
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
