Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
*Sigh*
inBOIL said that one might consider that the infinite set consisting of all possibilities for God is smaller than the infinite set consisting of all possibilities for no God, to which I said there'd be no way of knowing this unless you simply assumed it to be true.
|
Note that I was so badly quoted that I had to edit the post so that I can properly quote it. The emphasis is mine...
You said more than this. I know because I quoted you...
Quote:
|
I understand what the argument just fine. But, you see, I'm not concerned with proving whether or not a particular God exists, as that doesn't terribly concern me at this point (Especially since trying to argue which God exists with someone who doesn't believe in one to begin with is futile), but rather that, if one assumes God could be anything, then there's no way he, or she, could be an atheist. And, you know, I might be wrong here, but I don't know too many atheists who claim God, assuming he exists, to be only a few, finite possibilities.
|
I still don't think you understand the argument because you're still arguing against a conclusion that the argument doesn't make.
If you read your original post, you're concerned that the argument doesn't make sense. I'm pointing out that you don't think it makes sense because the conclusion that you're refuting is not the conclusion of the argument. For your edification, the conclusion of the argument is that the burden of proof is on the theist to show that God exists. In and of itself, the argument is not a refutation of the existence of God...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GeneralMao
Atheists are just as ignorant as religious fanatics. In fact, Atheism, deny it all you want, is a religion. It is a set of beliefs held to be true that cannot be dis/proven.
|
It takes a lot more than a "set of beliefs" to constitute a religion...
To think that any belief (or lack, thereof) is a religion is to make the word pointless...