[1 second conversion] Convert theist to atheist, in 1 second

[brewer]

This is a test.

Edit: Partial success. I feel better now.

[Longhorn]

I came here for the shiny in the title, but SOLD!

(I still don't understand anything you say OP sorry)

[Aristocatt]

Sounds like you are conflating knowledge and belief now.

Solid troll. Keep it up. Let's go for a .33 second conversion now.

[robvalue]

He's been conflating them since he got here. It's all he ever does.

Oh, except for declaring victory. Even over all these fictional people he's converting to things.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

@robvalue

You mean deconvert, of course.

And according to your definitions which only you use, they were already an atheist, so no change happened.

I pointed both of these errors out in your last thread. You're clinging to this nonsense pretty desperately. You've somehow convinced yourself it's really clever or profound. Time to let go and move on with your life. Theism is stupid, but this is even more stupid.
The only thing you'd be converting anyone to is your interpretation of the definition of "belief".

You haven't presented even one person who you've managed this with yet. Hardly anyone is objecting to the claim that certainty isn't possible. That's all you're really saying, and we agree with it, so I don't know why this isn't enough for you.

I accept the definition just for the purposes of a conversation with you. But then what do you actually have to say? Everyone's an atheist? Sure. Under your definition, everyone is an atheist. They don't have certainty, even if they think they do. Do you have anything else to say?

(1)

Which part of the following is 'my' definition (or rather which contains non empirically observed data)?

STATE PREMISE: Mankind observes events probabilistically, (empirical uncertainty principle. Also, recall that you “theists” see yourselves as NON-OMNISCIENT).

ASK: You claim to believe or know the existence of God to be TRUE/ABSOLUTE, BUT, how do you know truth/absoluteness is possible?

Note that:

(1) the uncertainty principle is empirically observed, and 
(2) "theists" view themselves as non-omniscient.

The non-omniscience is in accordance with the uncertainty principle.



(2)

He's been conflating them since he got here. It's all he ever does.

Oh, except for declaring victory. Even over all these fictional people he's converting to things.

Believe is a synonym for know.

Anyway, I expressed that be it belief or knowledge, humanity DOES NOT do anything absolutely, including the holding of beliefs. 

So, a "theist" that thinks they 'absolutely' believe in something, is in error, as we physically can't do anything absolutely. (EMPIRICAL uncertainty principle)












@FatAndFaithless

So, if there are no absolutes truths, isn't that an absolute truth?

(You are really making sure you get the most of that thesaurus investment, eh?)

I didn't say there weren't any absolutes.
The original post clearly says that we measure things probabilistically. 
In other words, it is unknown whether absolutes are possible. (Note that I did not say that it was unknowable)










@GodsChild

You do know the word appears is in itself an uncertainty, right.

Yes, that is clear, for we observe things probabilistically (ie absent certainty). 
So, we can't hold anything absolutely, including belief. (ie we are not omniscient of any event measured)

[Godscreated]

@GodsChild

You do know the word appears is in itself an uncertainty, right.

Yes, that is clear, for we observe things probabilistically (ie absent certainty). 
So, we can't hold anything absolutely, including belief. (ie we are not omniscient of any event measured)

We do not have to be omniscient to know for certainty that things are real. This forum is real, so am I and maybe you are.

GC

[Aegon]

What makes you believe it's not possible.

GC

(1)

Simply, as we observe things probabilistically, we can't measure any event absolutely (ie we are not omniscient of any event)

As the inventor of nonbeliefism, I detach myself from the erroneous concept of belief (belief: to accept as true....).

Isn't that nihilism?

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

@GodsChild

We do not have to be omniscient to know for certainty that things are real. This forum is real, so am I and maybe you are.

GC

Please see the uncertainty principle, an empirically observed phenomena. (ie The same science that built your computer, shows the uncertainy principke)

So, we can't hold any absolute positions, and so you don't hold any absolute belief in anything. 


Furthermore, how do you know truth/absoluteness is possible? (Since you claim the existence of God is true)






@Aegon

(1)

It is probable that life's meaning arises amidst thermodynamics: http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/mit-physici...ng-of-life



(2)
SEPARATELY, life perhaps exists, such that matter shall manifest as some disparate time-space complex optimal fabric, on the order of algorithmic analysis: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meanin...-Bennett-9

[Thumpalumpacus]

The uncertainty principle regards the states of matter and energy of particles. It doesn't regulate philosophical positions.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

The uncertainty principle regards the states of matter and energy of particles. It doesn't regulate philosophical positions.

It (uncertainty principle) regards that humans can't hold absolute positions... 

You comment does not alter my above statement of science...