Many Atheists DO Believe in the Supernatural

[Kenny]

Aha, the old "make a joke to take the focus off of the fact that I just realized I'm wrong" trick.

Maybe now, you'll really start to think about the utter folly of your worldview.

Bruh! Think about it; to have an atheist materialistic worldview is a state of mind right? You are claiming I have no evidence that I actually have that state of mind. That would be like me claiming you have no evidence that you actually believe in God!

I keep telling myself that nobody could possibly be that obtuse. Yet time after time, you show me that you CAN be that obtuse.

I can't believe I have to explain to you that you stated as fact, that God doesn't exist, without any evidence that God doesn't exist.

No; I never said "God doesn't exist" I said "there is nothing in existence that I call God". If we assume God does exist, I am saying I do not call him God. See the difference?

Kenny, if we assume God does exist, it doesn't matter what you call Him, He would still exist.

But if I’m unaware of his existence, I would have no reason to address him in any way!

So, let me get this cleared up...

If you knew for the last 5 years, that I believe trees don't exist, and I made the statement, "There is nothing in existence that I call a tree." What would you think I meant?

It would mean you must first learn if it’s existence before addressing it by calling it a tree.
It’s not like you are going to go around calling random things you know do exist; a tree! Look at a hamburger, call it a tree… look at a car, call it a tree; look at a dog, a rock, or a monkey wrench and call it a tree! C’mon Rick; I’m supposed to be the obtuse one, remember?

[RickD]

RickD wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 10:50 am
So, let me get this cleared up...

If you knew for the last 5 years, that I believe trees don't exist, and I made the statement, "There is nothing in existence that I call a tree." What would you think I meant?

Kenny wrote:
It would mean you must first learn if it’s existence before addressing it by calling it a tree.
It’s not like you are going to go around calling random things you know do exist; a tree! Look at a hamburger, call it a tree… look at a car, call it a tree; look at a dog, a rock, or a monkey wrench and call it a tree! C’mon Rick; I’m supposed to be the obtuse one, remember?

Kenny,

If I said that there's nothing in existence that I call a tree, isn't that another way of saying that I believe trees aren't in existence, or don't exist?

RickD wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 10:50 am
Kenny, if we assume God does exist, it doesn't matter what you call Him, He would still exist.

Kenny wrote:
But if I’m unaware of his existence, I would have no reason to address him in any way!

No Kenny. You didn't say anything about addressing God. You talked about what you'd call God.

If I told you that a tree is a plant with roots, a trunk, branches, and leaves, then I showed you a picture of a tree, would you call it a tree?

[Kenny]

RickD wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 10:50 am
So, let me get this cleared up...

If you knew for the last 5 years, that I believe trees don't exist, and I made the statement, "There is nothing in existence that I call a tree." What would you think I meant?

Kenny wrote:
It would mean you must first learn if it’s existence before addressing it by calling it a tree.
It’s not like you are going to go around calling random things you know do exist; a tree! Look at a hamburger, call it a tree… look at a car, call it a tree; look at a dog, a rock, or a monkey wrench and call it a tree! C’mon Rick; I’m supposed to be the obtuse one, remember?

Kenny,

If I said that there's nothing in existence that I call a tree, isn't that another way of saying that I believe trees aren't in existence, or don't exist?

No it isn’t. All it says is, of all things that exist, none of those things I call a tree. IOW even if I know trees exist, but I call it something else other than tree, still nothing in existence I call a tree

RickD wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 10:50 am
Kenny, if we assume God does exist, it doesn't matter what you call Him, He would still exist.

Kenny wrote:
But if I’m unaware of his existence, I would have no reason to address him in any way!

No Kenny. You didn't say anything about addressing God. You talked about what you'd call God.

No I didn’t, I made it clear I don’t address God at all, thus I have no reason to call him anything.

If I told you that a tree is a plant with roots, a trunk, branches, and leaves, then I showed you a picture of a tree, would you call it a tree?

I would tell YOU it is a picture of a tree; I would address you, not the tree.

[RickD]

kenny wrote:
I would tell YOU it is a picture of a tree; I would address you, not the tree.

If I stood you in front of a tree, and pointed at the tree, and asked you, "What do you call that?"
What would you say?


Tell me where I'm wrong here:

There is something in existence that you'd call dirt.

There is something in existence that you'd call water.

There is something in existence that you'd call fruit.

There is something in existence that you'd call pollen.

There is something in existence that you'd call gasoline.

There is nothing in existence that you'd call God.

[Kenny]

kenny wrote:
I would tell YOU it is a picture of a tree; I would address you, not the tree.

If I stood you in front of a tree, and pointed at the tree, and asked you, "What do you call that?"
What would you say?


Tell me where I'm wrong here:

There is something in existence that you'd call dirt.

There is something in existence that you'd call water.

There is something in existence that you'd call fruit.

There is something in existence that you'd call pollen.

There is something in existence that you'd call gasoline.

There is nothing in existence that you'd call God.

I would address YOU by telling you it is a tree. (Of course in doing that I would believe there is such a thing as trees)

[RickD]

RickD wrote:
If I stood you in front of a tree, and pointed at the tree, and asked you, "What do you call that?"
What would you say?

Kenny wrote:
I would address YOU by telling you it is a tree.

Ok, good. So now we've established that you know that when someone says they CALL a tree, a tree, that's the same as saying that a tree IS a tree.

With that said, when you say that there's nothing in existence that you'd CALL God, that's the same as you ASSERTING that there's nothing in existence that IS God.

Which lead me to say that you asserted without evidence, that there is no God.

Evidence is the branch of the tree of materialistic atheism, on which you stand. And guess what? You just sawed off the branch you were standing on.

[Kenny]

With that said, when you say that there's nothing in existence that you'd CALL God,

I didn't say that. I said

There is nothing in existence that I call God

See the difference?

[RickD]

With that said, when you say that there's nothing in existence that you'd CALL God,

I didn't say that. I said

There is nothing in existence that I call God

See the difference?

No. It's the same thing.

1)There's nothing in existence that I call God.
2) There's nothing in existence that I'd (I would) call God.

Same thing.

Are you starting to understand the implications of your worldview yet?

[Kenny]

With that said, when you say that there's nothing in existence that you'd CALL God,

I didn't say that. I said

There is nothing in existence that I call God

See the difference?

No. It's the same thing.

1)There's nothing in existence that I call God.
2) There's nothing in existence that I'd (I would) call God.

Same thing.

Are you starting to understand the implications of your worldview yet?

1)There's nothing in existence that I call God. (is the same as)
There is nothing in existence that I currently call God (speaking of the present only)

2) There's nothing in existence that I'd (I would) call God. (is the same as)
There is nothing in existence that I would ever call God. (speaking now and forever)

See the difference now?

[RickD]

With that said, when you say that there's nothing in existence that you'd CALL God,

I didn't say that. I said

There is nothing in existence that I call God

See the difference?

No. It's the same thing.

1)There's nothing in existence that I call God.
2) There's nothing in existence that I'd (I would) call God.

Same thing.

Are you starting to understand the implications of your worldview yet?

1)There's nothing in existence that I call God. (is the same as)
There is nothing in existence that I currently call God (speaking of the present only)

2) There's nothing in existence that I'd (I would) call God. (is the same as)
There is nothing in existence that I would ever call God. (speaking now and forever)

See the difference now?

What does it matter? The difference, if any, between "I call", and "I'd call", is irrelevant.

We'll go with what you actually said:
"There's nothing in existence that I call God."


With that said, when you say that there's nothing in existence that you CALL God, that's the same as you ASSERTING that there's nothing in existence that IS God.

Which lead me to say that you asserted without evidence, that there is no God.

[Kenny]

With that said, when you say that there's nothing in existence that you'd CALL God,

I didn't say that. I said

There is nothing in existence that I call God

See the difference?

No. It's the same thing.

1)There's nothing in existence that I call God.
2) There's nothing in existence that I'd (I would) call God.

Same thing.

Are you starting to understand the implications of your worldview yet?

1)There's nothing in existence that I call God. (is the same as)
There is nothing in existence that I currently call God (speaking of the present only)

2) There's nothing in existence that I'd (I would) call God. (is the same as)
There is nothing in existence that I would ever call God. (speaking now and forever)

See the difference now?

What does it matter? The difference, if any, between "I call", and "I'd call", is irrelevant.

No, in this context it means everything. Its the difference between speaking strictly of the presence vs what I might possibly say in the future.

when you say that there's nothing in existence that you CALL God, that's the same as you ASSERTING that there's nothing in existence that IS God

No it isn’t the same. If I meant “nothing in existence that IS God” I would have said it that way.

[RickD]

RickD wrote: ↑ when you say that there's nothing in existence that you CALL God, that's the same as you ASSERTING that there's nothing in existence that IS God

kenny wrote:
No it isn’t the same. If I meant “nothing in existence that IS God” I would have said it that way.

Of course it's the same. That's why when I said that if I pointed at a tree, and asked you what do you CALL that, you replied, "I would address YOU by telling you it is a tree."

Saying that I call it a tree, is the same as saying that it is a tree. You used "it is" in place of "I call", knowing it has the same meaning.

Those are your words, Kenny. You are the one who used them interchangeably. You established your meaning in its context.

You can't weasel your way out of it. You keep saying that atheists don't assert anything about the existence of God.

Now everyone reading this can see through your BS.

I don't see how you can continue this charade. Doesn't there come a point after being continually hit with the truth, that you eventually give in, and accept it?

Everyone can see through your dishonesty. At this point, you're only lying to yourself.

[Kenny]

RickD wrote: ↑ when you say that there's nothing in existence that you CALL God, that's the same as you ASSERTING that there's nothing in existence that IS God

kenny wrote:
No it isn’t the same. If I meant “nothing in existence that IS God” I would have said it that way.

Of course it's the same. That's why when I said that if I pointed at a tree, and asked you what do you CALL that, you replied, "I would address YOU by telling you it is a tree."

I didn't say that; I said I would tell you that it is a PICTURE of a tree, and at this point I've become convinced that trees actually exist.

[RickD]

RickD wrote: ↑ when you say that there's nothing in existence that you CALL God, that's the same as you ASSERTING that there's nothing in existence that IS God

kenny wrote:
No it isn’t the same. If I meant “nothing in existence that IS God” I would have said it that way.

Of course it's the same. That's why when I said that if I pointed at a tree, and asked you what do you CALL that, you replied, "I would address YOU by telling you it is a tree."

I didn't say that; I said I would tell you that it is a PICTURE of a tree, and at this point I've become convinced that trees actually exist.

Nope. I'm talking about this post of yours.

An actual tree. Not a picture of a tree. And your response showed that you know that "I call it" and "it is", are interchangeable in this context.

As was famously said about Gregory Hines, "The jig is up."

Stop lying to yourself.

[Kenny]

RickD wrote: ↑ when you say that there's nothing in existence that you CALL God, that's the same as you ASSERTING that there's nothing in existence that IS God

kenny wrote:
No it isn’t the same. If I meant “nothing in existence that IS God” I would have said it that way.

Of course it's the same. That's why when I said that if I pointed at a tree, and asked you what do you CALL that, you replied, "I would address YOU by telling you it is a tree."

I didn't say that; I said I would tell you that it is a PICTURE of a tree, and at this point I've become convinced that trees actually exist.

Nope. I'm talking about this post of yours.

Yes! Only after becoming convinced trees exist. But before becoming convinced, there would have been nothing that I would have called a tree. This refutes nothing I've said.