If it's proven there's no god

Originally posted by RJHinds
If you can imagine that you don't exist or I can imagine that I don't exist, then it should be easy to imagine God not existing. However, I don't believe we can really imagine ourselves not existing anymore than we can imagine God not existing.

However, my belief may be just a product of my world view. What do you think? 😏

I can imagine you not existing.





😀

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Did I mention "over sensitive"... Oh yes I did... I wonder why I might have done that...

DeepThought IS an atheist, in that he doesn't have a belief that a god
exists.

However, I have never accused him of not having enough courage to call
himself an atheist.
I have, and will, never accuse anyone of such a thing.

If he doesn't want to call himself an atheist, that's more than fine.

What I object to is his trying to redefine atheism so that it doesn't include
him, simply because he doesn't like the label.

Why do I bring this up?

Because it's yet another example of you misrepresenting my position.

You attack a straw man version of me and my arguments.

And you act arrogant, snooty, and morally superior while doing so.

I would submit there are diverse ways of being a non-believer in God(s), and
we don't have to conform to the zealous dogmatic position of Googlefudge.

I submit that you clearly have no clue whatsoever what my position is.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I would submit that Googlefudge would *not* use that expression to
refer to anyone whose intelligence he believed to be at least equal to his own.

Wrong.

And I just demonstrated that, by using the term against you.

Your problem is not lack of intellect, it's accurately applying it.

Also, YOU are the one bringing up, and obsessing over intellect.
Not me.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Googlefudge seems to have admitted having made personal attacks against
me long before 'this exchange'.

Um, no. I have indeed "made personal attacks" before this... But what I meant is that
"fizzy little mind" was not my first attack in this thread.

As I recall, Googlefudge made various false assertions about me,

You recall wrongly.

and it's hard to believe that Googlefudge could not have known, particularly
after I or other writers had pointed out evidence to refute them, that his assertions
about me were false.

Your level of belief is irrelevant to the truth of the matter however.

I do not know that "my assertions about you" are false.

Googlefudge attempts to limit the context. ('This exchange' are not my words.)

You accuse me of being dishonest, I assumed this is relevant to the conversation at hand.

Of course if you didn't mean this exchange that makes your posts even less relevant than they
were already.

So, in my view, Googlefudge's abusive and dishonest conduct toward me in earlier threads
established a pattern for his expected conduct in the future.

Really. Fantastic. And your response is to whine about it?

If your opinion of me is so low... why not simply ignore me, why engage at all?

I might suggest considering WHY I respond to you in such a manner [as you seem to believe]
when I don't seem to do the same to everyone else. Perhaps there is something YOU do that
causes the difference?

But then that might require admitting that you are not holier than thou...

And that you can never do.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

i dont object to you questioning his intelligence.....i question you complaining about him insulting you and then respond by insulting him...its straight out of the playground.

if you think this is hypocrisy then i suggest you find time to revisit a dictionary.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

No. If you didn't want to misrepresent me you wouldn't have brought up a
spurious example of me 'looking bad' in the first place.

Putting "If I recall correctly" is simply being weaselly.
Like saying "In my humble opinion" before offering an opinion that is anything
but humble.

Also, you DID misrepresent my position.

The fact that you prefaced it by saying you were not sure doesn't change that fact.

Your post stated ...
"... Googlefudge, if I recall correctly (sorry, if I mixed him up with another atheist) "

Which I read as meaning the thing you were not sure about was whether I was
the atheist in question, not whether the events happened as advertised.

Now I could have been wrong in that interpretation, but it doesn't change the
substance as far as my reply is concerned.

I AM the atheist who had the argument/s with DeepThought [among other arguments
we have had] and so your description DID apply to me.
It was however inaccurate, a misrepresentation of me, the argument, and my position.

It was therefore perfectly correct to use this as an example of you doing just that.



If you think doing so was dishonest... You need to spend more time with a dictionary.


Interestingly, I can still hold civil discussions with DeepThought, despite occasionally
disagreeing quite strongly with him. I can hold discussions with Suzianne. You on the
other hand... If there is a prize for throwing hissy fits... You would win, no contest.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

wow, this is simple stuff that school teachers deal with every day.

dont complain about 'a' if you reacted by doing the same as 'a'......and then to top it off by using the perennial naughty schoolchild stock phrase of but 'a' did it first.

regardless of provocation or not......two wrongs do not make a right. do not resort to insults just because you feel you have been insulted....unless you are happy to accept that form of communication, if you are happy to accept that form of communication...do not complain if somebody insults you, even if they do it first.


my 6 year old child understands this, i have no idea why you need it spelling out.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

No his point, blindingly obvious at this stage, is that if B complained vigorously
that it's wrong to hit people, and THEN hit back, while trying to claim the moral
high ground...

That B would then be a hypocrite.

Basically, you can complain about being insulted, or you can give as good as you get...
But you can't do both, and not be a hypocrite.


He didn't defend my insulting you or your posts.

He highlighted you hypocrisy in both complaining about being insulted and insulting me
back in the same breath.

EDIT: Heh, and stellspalfie's post was both better written and more insulting than mine.
I'll stop interpreting him, he's better at it.