Replace the word god with universe and say that statement again.
I can also imagine a universe where the universe doesn't exist. So no one exists.
Topic: Atheism does not exist - page 5. (Read 11665 times)
I can also imagine a universe where the universe doesn't exist. So no one exists.
I can pretty damn well imagine an entire universe where no gods exist at all, so Atheism does exist.
I'm pretty sure this should be in line with dank's view of the universe:
I can imagine a universe where atheism exists, so atheism exists.
Edit: For dessert I can also imagine a universe where imagination doesn't exist.
Replace the word god with universe and say that statement again.
I can pretty damn well imagine an entire universe where no gods exist at all, so Atheism does exist.
I addressed this in the first post. "you may perceive atheism to exist, though the basis of atheism itself does not exist."
The point of this thread was to show how atheism is a fallacious belief system because it is based off negatives, or false beliefs. I cannot help if you chose to believe in negative constraints to your reality.
The point of this thread was to show how atheism is a fallacious belief system because it is based off negatives, or false beliefs. I cannot help if you chose to believe in negative constraints to your reality.
I'm pretty sure atheism is not a belief in a negative god.
I addressed this in the first post. "you may perceive atheism to exist, though the basis of atheism itself does not exist."
The point of this thread was to show how atheism is a fallacious belief system because it is based off negatives, or false beliefs. I cannot help if you chose to believe in negative constraints to your reality.
The point of this thread was to show how atheism is a fallacious belief system because it is based off negatives, or false beliefs. I cannot help if you chose to believe in negative constraints to your reality.
you can't prove atheism doesn't exist.
True. After all, if anyone can imagine Atheism, then it must exist according to dank's own "logic" (which I think we can all safely assume is a far stretched use of that word in this context).
So in a sense, his irrational statements even directly contradict his own thread title by now o.0
User : dank
Achievement unlocked : no-brainer
persistently demonstrate complete lack of logic, reason, common sense or any sign of intelligence
you can't prove atheism doesn't exist.
Yet your post consisted of little more than your narrow perception attacking something you don't understand.
So I have still contributed more meaningful content in this thread.
So I have still contributed more meaningful content in this thread.
Guess you were talking to me. Erm, I provided quite a serious dissection of your ramblings a few pages ago. Since then I've learned that you respond to meaningful inquiry and clarification by tossing out yet more meaningless drivel. So now I feel very unmotivated to reason with a person who has shown himself to be thoroughly unreasonable. You feel me on that?
Exactly. If you can imagine dank's posts here on the forum, then they already exist. Frankly, dank doesn't ever even need to post here any more.
+1
Exactly. If you can imagine dank's posts here on the forum, then they already exist. Frankly, dank doesn't ever even need to post here any more.
But if it didn't exist, would it really not exist?! Don't think ego, think soul!
Dank, get off the internet and go start your cult please.
Dank, don't listen to him. If your threads didn't exist, what else would I do when I'm bored?
Dank, get off the internet and go start your cult please.
Idiolect crafted to mislead? I really see no difference from truth or Truth, for truth is truth.
If you noticed a few posts ago, I don't feel the need to capitalize god. I feel that it's somewhat egotistical as it's simply a concept for unity.
and "truth"/"Truth"?
Language is primarily about communication. If you use an ideolect that seems crafted to mislead, don't be surprised when people misunderstand you.
If you noticed a few posts ago, I don't feel the need to capitalize god. I feel that it's somewhat egotistical as it's simply a concept for unity.
Only in your perception. Others would conclude it was the ramblings of god, truth.
Converse my words, not what you don't know.
Converse my words, not what you don't know.
Your comma use is confusing me again. Do you mean "the ramblings of god-truth", or "the ramblings of god and the ramblings of truth"? Because neither of them make much sense to me.
I seem to make sense of your phrasing okay.
I'm using them interchangeably. God and truth are one. God is positivity, ego is negativity. Every wave has a crest and a trough. Everything is some form of wave, energy.
If "truth" is an anthropomorphic personification of truth, shouldn't it be "Truth"? i.e. "the ramblings of God and the ramblings of Truth".
Only in your perception. Others would conclude it was the ramblings of god, truth.
Converse my words, not what you don't know.
Converse my words, not what you don't know.
Your comma use is confusing me again. Do you mean "the ramblings of god-truth", or "the ramblings of god and the ramblings of truth"? Because neither of them make much sense to me.
I seem to make sense of your phrasing okay.
I'm using them interchangeably. God and truth are one. God is positivity, ego is negativity. Every wave has a crest and a trough. Everything is some form of wave, energy.
Only in your perception. Others would conclude it was the ramblings of god, truth.
Converse my words, not what you don't know.
Converse my words, not what you don't know.
Your comma use is confusing me again. Do you mean "the ramblings of god-truth", or "the ramblings of god and the ramblings of truth"? Because neither of them make much sense to me.
Jump to: