I Know That God Does Not Exist

Whatever. It was evolution - the survival of the fittest. You do believe in evolution, don't you? Maybe you ignore evolution when it comes into conflict with your religion - ie, cultural Marxism - more specifically, its infantile utopian fantasies about racial equality.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

I don't subscribe to anything Marxist, cultural or economic, but maybe you can explain what an "infantile utopian fantasy about racial equality" means. Flesh that out a little and we can discuss what I do or do not ascribe to.

It's got nothing to do with religion. It about hordes of sub-saharan (ie,black) Africans fleeing the consequences of their homelands being "liberated" from colonialism - ie, corruption, choas, violence, poverty, hopelessness. In other words, sub-saharan Africa has returned to its natural state - and hundreds of thousands of its native inhabitants hate it so much they are willing to risk their lives trying to get to Europe to live with their former colonial masters.

Mel Gibson is anti-semetic, whereas I'm part-Jewish.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Nothing to do with religion but does have something to do with race? You mentioned only sub-saharan Africans (Africa is a very large continent filled with many different races and ethnicities). And if its got nothing to do with religion then why are you mentioning it on this thread?

You sound like you subscribe to infantile utopian fantasies about racial equality - which qualifies you as a cultural Marxist (even if you don't know what that term means).Restrictions on freedom of speech prevent me from elaborating on what I mean by "infantile utopian fantasy about racial equality".

I know exactly what cultural marxism is, which is how I know I don't subscribe to it. But now I'm very curious what restriction you think is burdening you without the ability to speak freely. You may be challenged on shitty ideas but no one will prevent you from saying them. So have at it... if you're so convinced of the rightness of your beliefs then have the confidence to openly defend them.

You obviously know nothing about science or the TOE.

So you do not believe in racial equality? Whites are superior?

That means nothing.Stephen Miller is Jewish and yet he stridently promotes a white-supremecist agenda in his mis-shaping of immigrant policy in this administration.An anti-Semitic Jew? They exist and have existed. So what the fuck are you?

I'm guessing that with Dredge being from Australia, he is referring to the Racial Discrimination Act over there (and a number of other laws which prescribe racially hateful speech).Hate speech laws in Australia - Wikipedia

This is the same old stuff. It is right off topic. For starters it isn't about the Christian God.Stile claims that he knows god does not exist. He hasn't been specific about which God. The god that Stile describes is simply any intelligence that is responsible for life. He is claiming that he knows that such an intelligence does not exist. If he is correct then the only other option is that we are the result of non-intelligent fortuitous, random processes, and it follows logically then that he knows that is correct. Therefore to prove his basic premise he has to prove that to be true. He hasn't been able to show how he knows that to be true so he has completely failed to make his point.All that he, and you, for that matter has been able to show is that an intelligent cause hasn't been proven to exist.

I don't know, I've never studied such a thing.
What do the experts say? Wherever the experts (religious leaders/believers) say He should be.
Every time they claim a place - we look and He's not there.
Or they claim a place that no one can look at:
1. That's irrational - therefore, can be ignored.
2. Sometimes we make advancements and gain knowledge and are then able to search that place - and still fine He's not there. Just like Santa Claus. Again - just like Santa Claus. No - just like Santa Claus, I can say I know that Santa Claus doesn't exist and I can say I know that God doesn't exist. The very first post still fully supports my position.
You seem to be keen on forgetting about it, though. Stop ignoring it, and respond to it:

quote:

---

How do we "know" things?
We first start with the assumption that it is possible for us to know anything about the existance we find ourselves in.
We then take what data we can find and analyze it.

​

How do we "know" negative statements about the existance of things?
Example: "I know that Sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu."
This is a clear example. Obviously the way we know this is to look at McDonald's menu to see if Sharkfin soup is available. If it is is not there, this statement is correct. If it is there, the statement is false.

​

Example: "I know that Santa Claus does not exist."
This is more like the "I know that God does not exist" claim. But, again, the idea is the same as the previous example. We look for where the thing is supposed to be (North Pole? Chimneys during Christmas Eve night?) and see if the thing is there or not. In the case of a 'being', we are also able to check to see if certain things are done that this being is supposed to do (do presents appear underneath Christmas trees or in stockings hung on the fireplace mantle?)

​

But how do we *"know"* for sure-sure's and absolute truth's sake?
We don't.
But this is not a problem with "knowing" anything. We can't really ever *"know"* anything, even positive things.
I drove to work today, it would be extremely rational and reasonable for me to say "I know my car is in the parking lot." Of course I don't
*"know"* that as it could have been stolen. But saying so is still rational and reasonable. It is rational and reasonable because it is based upon the data I have found and analyzed. In obtaining new data (say, walking outside and noticing my car is missing), it is rational and reasonable to update my position.

​

Therefore, I know that God does not exist.
I, and many other people, have looked for where God is proposed to exist for almost the entirety of human history. It is possible that "God's existance" is the most looked for thing ever. But no data has ever been obtained that indicates God's existance. We have also analyzed some of the things God has been proposed to have done (world-wide flood, bringing happiness/peace). And, again, the data results are no different than if God does not exist at all.
Therefore, after obtaining the data and analyzing it, my position is that I know that God does not exist.

---

All the complaints you're making are perfectly dealt with by what's discussed in the opening post.You simply revolve around, again and again, repeating "Hey! We don't know everything at all times!" This is already dealt with, according to the same rational way we say we "know" anything at all.I'll bold that part and quote it again for you.
Please, respond to it and don't just dance around the point again:

quote:

---

But how do we *"know"* for sure-sure's and absolute truth's sake?
We don't.
But this is not a problem with "knowing" anything. We can't really ever *"know"* anything, even positive things.
I drove to work today, it would be extremely rational and reasonable for me to say "I know my car is in the parking lot." Of course I don't
*"know"* that as it could have been stolen. But saying so is still rational and reasonable. It is rational and reasonable because it is based upon the data I have found and analyzed. In obtaining new data (say, walking outside and noticing my car is missing), it is rational and reasonable to update my position

---

Do you think this statement is not rational?
Do you think there are some things we actually do know "for sure-sure's and absolute truth's sake?" - If so, how?
Do you think this statement is not reasonably applicable for some other reason?
Do you take issue with my definition of how we "know" things?
Do you have any reasonable or rational argument against the described position?Please... respond to the argument...
Please stop making basic claims that the argument already deals with.
Please... let's move past post number 1 in this thread and attempt to make some progress.Claiming that "we don't know everything" and therefore "God might exist somewhere we cannot detect" is irrational.
How do we know God *might* be there if we can't detect anything there?
-Obviously, we can't even know God *might* be where we can't detect things. Therefore - to say that this is a reason to defend God's existence is irrational.If 'irrational' defenses are valid to stop arguments - then no argument would ever be persuasive.
You could always just say - well - the Chewbacca defense says you're wrong. Therefore - what you say doesn't matter! And we can all drink tea at the crazy party.I'd rather stick with reasonable, rational arguments.
And the unavoidable conclusion is that I Know That God Doesn't Exist.

You stated that you don’t accept that there are only the options of there being an intelligent first cause for life or a non-intelligent first cause. Now you say that you don’t know what the other options are. I’m still saying that if you know one of the options to be false then you have to know that the other option is true. It is simple and you keep dodging around that point. Well I, and I imagine most theists fall into the latter category. We have 5 senses which is all we have to perceive our physical world yet, we know that we know that we don’t perceive the vast majority of what exists. There was a headline in Scientific American a few years ago that read: “Hidden Worlds of Dark Matter - An entire universe may be interwoven silently with our own”. Essentially though you are claiming because humans have been unable to pin point a location for any deity then you can “know” that no intelligent cause for life exists, and so we are back again to having to know that there are only non-intelligent causes for life. This is simply a case of mocking the beliefs and myself and millions of others to try and make a point, and really isn’t worth responding to. However, Santa Claus is claimed to be a human, physical being, occupying a specific place on our planet. I and other theists, with a possible few exceptions, make no such claim for a deity. That is a pathetic response. See my answer above. OK Let’s use those points. Using the points that you start off with you have summarized how you come to your conclusion in the last paragraph so I’ll use that.
I, and many other people have looked for the answer of why we exist for almost the entirety of human history. As our knowledge has evolved we have considered the idea that we exist simply as the result of mindless chemical processes, that have resulted in mindless particles combining to form conscious, intelligent and even moral life forms, with no intelligent root cause. With all the research that has been done, we haven’t been able to determine why anything that we perceive exists or why the processes exist that have brought about life, or how intelligence evolved from mindlessness. Therefore, I can clearly know that we are not the result of blind mindless processes.
As I have said and you haven’t been able to refute the obvious point that we can have resulted from either blind, random mindless processes ,or from intelligence which we can call God or whatever else we like. I have shown by your method that we can’t be the result of blind, random mindless processes. Therefore then, I can know that God exists.

quote:

---

A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.
Note: "engage in conduct" includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or transmit statements or other material.

---

Wow, that's pretty fascist... Dredge's beliefs have thus far sounded awful to me, but laws like this I believe actually insulate, reinforce and magnify animosities, not curb them. It also does a disservice to him and everyone else not having the ability to freely discuss why he holds animosities. It just locks them in like a pressure cooker until they're released explosively