Logically speaking you do, I already proved it,
Religion/Spirituality Athiest re-write the 10 commandments
- Thread starter Rawtid
- Start date
Logically speaking you do, I already proved it,
-logist is a suffix, stupid. Not its own word. You add it on to something else. You probably meant logicist.
Dangling a red herring are we?
And I meant logist, because I didn't want to specify the science, but back to my point. Now, please clearly explain to me the logical difference between not believing something is not true, but not willing to claim that your belief is correct, and believing something is true, and claiming that your believe is correct, I'll be waiting 
You didn't mention a science.
"No, a hobby is an action. Action /= inaction. Bald is an absence of hair. No hair /= hair color. I thought you atheist were supposed to be pretty good logists"
Logically speaking you do, I already proved it,, feel free to carry on with your illogical sentiments, it's your right as a flawed human being
I don't get it.
If I don't believe in X, does me not knowing if X exists or no make me a believer? No. It still means I don't believe in X anyway.
In layman's terms, you not wanting to claim X doesn't exist implies that deep down inside you feel there is a possibility it does, otherwise you would outright claim it doesn't exist. "This not knowing" crap is language games, that's why I had to break it down to the ultimate mediator for you, which is math. In math there is no riding the fence, no confusion. if you don't want to claim something is true, you are implicitly stating you feel it may be true, whether you realize it and/or agree with it, that's what it is. And that's exactly why an agnostic atheist isn't a true atheist, hopefully the math has made it clear for you men of the agnostic atheist cloth
Relevance: blackzeus wants to tell everybody what certain words mean. blackzeus displays trouble using words. blackzeus gets it pointed out to him. blackzeus calls this irrelevance and points to 'ad hominem attacks', blackzeus has trouble backing up his misuse of words.
Wanna leave that one alone? Fine. Let's go back to your other nonsense:
I'd tell you this sentence makes no sense but you might claim red herrings and irrelevance again. Try wording your sentence again for us simple types.
1) I clearly stated why I used the word logist. Again, the use of the word, a pure invention of mine, specifically because most atheists are quite knowledgeable in several fields, thus "logist", meaning they are not fixed to one specific segment of science, which in any case, has very little relevance to the facts/claims I made that:
A) Atheism is an explicit denial of existence of any God, and the claim that no God exists. Atheist =/ agnostic atheist, and an agnostic atheist isn't really an atheist in the first place.
B) Atheism is in fact a religion comparable to any other, atheists have faith in their beliefs the same as any other religious group
You guys are using words to mask the obvious, forcing me to use hard logic to prove what I've been saying all along:
Agnostic atheist = Christian believer
^^^This is a logical equivalence. Meaning in layman's terms, if you doubt what you believe, then logically you believe the opposite is true. If you are not sure of what you believe, you can deny it all you want, it means you have belief in the opposite. If you are not willing to claim God doesn't exist, somewhere deep down inside, you feel he does, that's the logical reality, no matter how much you want to deny it. A little doubt = doubt in math, .0e1 =/ 0, that's the fallacy being an agnostic atheist, you "agnostic atheists" aka believers in God (
) are trying to say that A little doubt = no doubt, which is not true, therein lies the confusion. You can paint it however you want, but that's your reality, if you want to argue, feel free to refer to post #318, and prove my logic wrong, unless of course, you are atheist by faith
etherthose are nice smilies1) I clearly stated why I used the word logist. Again, the use of the word, a pure invention of mine, specifically because most atheists are quite knowledgeable in several fields, thus "logist", meaning they are not fixed to one specific segment of science, which in any case, has very little relevance to the facts/claims I made that:
A) Atheism is an explicit denial of existence of any God, and the claim that no God exists. Atheist =/ agnostic atheist, and an agnostic atheist isn't really an atheist in the first place.
B) Atheism is in fact a religion comparable to any other, atheists have faith in their beliefs the same as any other religious group
You guys are using words to mask the obvious, forcing me to use hard logic to prove what I've been saying all along:
Agnostic atheist = Christian believer
^^^This is a logical equivalence. Meaning in layman's terms, if you doubt what you believe, then logically you believe the opposite is true. If you are not sure of what you believe, you can deny it all you want, it means you have belief in the opposite. If you are not willing to claim God doesn't exist, somewhere deep down inside, you feel he does, that's the logical reality, no matter how much you want to deny it. A little doubt = doubt in math, .0e1 =/ 0, that's the fallacy being an agnostic atheist, you "agnostic atheists" aka believers in God (, in which case you have proven my point already and there isn't much need to continue arguing.
I succinctly and logically answered all your statements with the previous post. FYI, rejecting a claim = making a claim. And you yourself said you were an agnostic atheist, which I proved is logically equivalent to being a Christian believer via ternary logic, can't wait for your testimony on Sunday breh
lmao, this is why people laugh at apologists -- your position is so weak, you have to fall back to these nonsensical arguments
Yeah, but to some posters, if you aren't absolutely positive a god doesn't exist, it means you DO believe god exists, and he sent a son born a virgin who healed the sick and walk on water.
Yes, but I can't have a belief in a god I haven't been made aware of. Disbelief doesn't have to be active. I might be unaware of that particular 'god', but I still don't believe it.
Or ... I may outright reject the definition one is giving for their god. For example, if the sun is the god, I may believe that exists, but disagree that it should be given that label.
In layman's terms, you not wanting to claim X doesn't exist implies that deep down inside you feel there is a possibility it does, otherwise you would outright claim it doesn't exist. "This not knowing" crap is language games, that's why I had to break it down to the ultimate mediator for you, which is math. In math there is no riding the fence, no confusion. if you don't want to claim something is true, you are implicitly stating you feel it may be true, whether you realize it and/or agree with it, that's what it is. And that's exactly why an agnostic atheist isn't a true atheist, hopefully the math has made it clear for you men of the agnostic atheist cloth
No, it's not a language game, because belief and knowledge are two different things. Knowledge is a subset of belief. If you know something to be true, you also believe it to be true, but not necessarily the other way around. But I think my belief is true, and said such earlier in this thread. Your little game fails.
Not only that, but if it were true, that would put most atheists in the position of holding multiple, contradicting beliefs. Not only would I believe in the Christian god, but I'd believe in the Muslim god, Hindu gods, Mormon gods, Ancient Greek gods, etc. It also put Christians/theists, who have any degree of doubt, actually secret atheists. How foolish is that?
Again, you desperately need people who disagree with you to be as stupidly positive to make you feel better at night. So you can say "see, they're just as dogmatic and irrational as I am. they have a religion too." smh. Just stop it breh, you look like an ass.
Last edited:
A) How am I an apologist?
What am I apologizing for? 
B) What little game breh? Nonsensical arguments?
I used ternary logic, that's MATH breh! 
Are you really trying to insinuate the ternary truth table I used is not of the scientific method? 
And I'm the one who's irrational? I don't desperately need anything breh, I don't care. You were just talking sh*t about Santa or something, not realizing you're no different than somebody who believes in Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny, you can't prove what you believe in any more than they can, yet you try to assume you're on some superior intellectual basis, when you are trying to argue against a ternary truth table 
.C) I don't need to feel better at night, I get busy in threads like these because it piques my intellect, I haven't used a truth table since the freshman year in my C++ coding class. That's all. Now you and the other atheist priests are trying to discredit me with ad hominem attacks, not one of you can disprove the fact that having a belief and claiming it is true is logically equivalent to not having a belief and not wanting to claim it is true. Don't argue with me breh, argue with the God of Math that most of your fellow atheist brehs worship
Y'all gon' make me have to Goedel nikkaz D) If we're going to continue with the ad hominem attacks, I have nothing more to say. You guys are atheists, you're supposed to be smart, all you have to do is disprove the logical equivalence, and that's it, very simple. Unlike you, I didn't attack anybody personally, I simply made my statements, all of which were accurate IMHO, so all you have to do is disprove the logic in post #318. Y'all sounding a little bit hurt right now that I'm beating you with your own stick, the stick being science that is. Let's see if the God of Math answers your prayers
Last edited:
1) I clearly stated why I used the word logist. Again, the use of the word, a pure invention of mine, specifically because most atheists are quite knowledgeable in several fields, thus "logist", meaning they are not fixed to one specific segment of science, which in any case, has very little relevance to the facts/claims I made that:
A) Atheism is an explicit denial of existence of any God, and the claim that no God exists. Atheist =/ agnostic atheist, and an agnostic atheist isn't really an atheist in the first place.
B) Atheism is in fact a religion comparable to any other, atheists have faith in their beliefs the same as any other religious group
You guys are using words to mask the obvious, forcing me to use hard logic to prove what I've been saying all along:
Agnostic atheist = Christian believer
^^^This is a logical equivalence. Meaning in layman's terms, if you doubt what you believe, then logically you believe the opposite is true. If you are not sure of what you believe, you can deny it all you want, it means you have belief in the opposite. If you are not willing to claim God doesn't exist, somewhere deep down inside, you feel he does, that's the logical reality, no matter how much you want to deny it. A little doubt = doubt in math, .0e1 =/ 0, that's the fallacy being an agnostic atheist, you "agnostic atheists" aka believers in God (, in which case you have proven my point already and there isn't much need to continue arguing.
All utter garbage.