Atheists... why do you believe that God doesn't exist?

[pocaracas]

I think fr0d0's not a hobbit.
He's a jedi and he's playing mind tricks on us so that we can't read the parts of his posts where he exhaustively explains his logic.
He then proceeds to giggle his motherfucking ass off.

---

@2:58

---

[Rampant.A.I.]

It's because he huffs enough glue between posts to think saying he's done something means he's done something. Soon he'll be claiming he shared a mason jar of grape juice with a unicorn on the moon, and having already showed us the video footage he doesn't have to prove it.

[Coffee Jesus]

He's a jedi and he's playing mind tricks on us

That which cannot be faulted, knowledge, we call it. If be faulted a premise cannot, that premise you can build on, you can, so long as not faulted it is.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Only falsifiable things which have not yet been falsified qualify as knowledge. Unfalsifiable claims of "mystical knowledge" that can't be tested are beliefs, not knowledge.

[Chad32]

I'm beginning to think Frodo, like God's Child, just has a thought process that prevents us from getting anywhere. With God's Child, it was his opinion of what justice is that made me realize it. With Frodo it's his opinion of what knowledge is. There's just a wall thta neither of us can get around.

[Coffee Jesus]

Only falsifiable things which have not yet been falsified qualify as knowledge. Unfalsifiable claims of "mystical knowledge" that can't be tested are beliefs, not knowledge.

You can have conditional knowledge.

[Rampant.A.I.]

I'm not sure how anyone would arrive at the applicability of conditional knowledge without testing.

[Coffee Jesus]

I'm not sure how anyone would arrive at the applicability of conditional knowledge without testing.

I didn't know the term "conditional knowledge" already had a meaning. I meant that you can know what must be the case if A even if you don't know that A. I guess that isn't really knowledge though.

[fr0d0]

Usually in discussions such as this, statements like your first one above is something that would be supported by the person making it. Why would you claim you can demonstrate it, then claim a few posts later that you didn't post anything that needed supporting?

What do I want you to defend? Your claim that you can support your beliefs in a nonobjective manner.

Well that's weird because I actually answered the question in that original statement.

[Coffee Jesus]

Usually in discussions such as this, statements like your first one above is something that would be supported by the person making it. Why would you claim you can demonstrate it, then claim a few posts later that you didn't post anything that needed supporting?

What do I want you to defend? Your claim that you can support your beliefs in a nonobjective manner.

Well that's weird because I actually answered the question in that original statement.

Fr0d0, I don't see why you even bother elaborating. It has to be obvious by now that we're all intentionally ignoring your arguments because we don't want to accept your position. You might as well be talking to Bart Simspon's butt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoK9sMqQLi4