I know god doesn't exist?

[stvdv]

I have only been in trouble once since I joined. It was because I said " God only exists in your head" speaking to a specific person. It was labeled as proselytizing. I should have said " I believe God only exists in people's heads....I think. The difference being I was making a definite statement of fact from my personal opinion, directected at a specific member with the first, and my opinion only in the second version.

At least I believe I have gotten this right.

. I like your message.
I got a few warnings recently. Usually I like to collect things, but warnings are not one of them. So, I try to figure out how to avoid them in future.

Disclaimer: All I wrote below is only my personal opinion (I am not into proselytizing anyway), and I don't talk about Corona virus

Thank you for reminding me to put a Disclaimer above all my posts, just in case I fall in these RF-traps which are usually rewarded with a warning

You could have said "God only exists in my head", that might be a safe way to go, to make it a personal message. Although some might get jealous that you say God only exists in "my" head, and hit the report button anyway. Hence I decided/plan to put a simple disclaimer above all my future posts (the IMHO was not enough to protect me from getting warnings lately).

From certain Hindu POV though, this is not even close to correct. Because some Advaita Masters teach that only God exists, not just in your head, but inside and outside people's heads, everywhere. I am not making a claim here AND I don't try to proselytize either, nor do I proselytize. Because I believe that all are capable to figure things out themselves, they don't need me. So, even if they beg for it, I won't tell them.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I hope I get your query, but maybe not. If I get it right it's not at all about belief, but only about how we phrase it.

I think it's in the linguistics, and how folks understand linguistics. The pronoun 'I' really is indicative of an opinion, but because we're not trained to see it that way, some folks see it as condescending, or preaching, rather than just an opinion. This forum has had many posts about whether or not every single statement should be prefaced with 'in my opinion' and there are many views on it. Personally, I used to find it far more annoying that I did before, but I've had to work on that. Mentally, I visualise 'in my opinion' before nearly every post. It's helped me not get so annoyed.

Good point. I think it is linguistics. I think I got used to saying: in my belief, I believe, you (not all of you), "some" atheists, rather than just atheists (hoping one doesn't take offense of generalizations), etc on RF. That's a good idea to visualize it as your opinion in your head. It can backfire when someone thinks its a statement of fact (which I don't see you make much if any statements of facts regardless) and ask for support.

Anyway

 

[Unveiled Artist]

. I like your message.
I got a few warnings recently. Usually I like to collect things, but warnings are not one of them. So, I try to figure out how to avoid them in future.

Disclaimer: All I wrote below is only my personal opinion (I am not into proselytizing anyway), and I don't talk about Corona virus

Thank you for reminding me to put a Disclaimer above all my posts, just in case I fall in these RF-traps which are usually rewarded with a warning

You could have said "God only exists in my head", that might be a safe way to go, to make it a personal message. Although some might get jealous that you say God only exists in "my" head, and hit the report button anyway. Hence I decided/plan to put a simple disclaimer above all my future posts (the IMHO was not enough to protect me from getting warnings lately).

From certain Hindu POV though, this is not even close to correct. Because some Advaita Masters teach that only God exists, not just in your head, but inside and outside people's heads, everywhere. I am not making a claim here AND I don't try to proselytize either, nor do I proselytize. Because I believe that all are capable to figure things out themselves, they don't need me. So, even if they beg for it, I won't tell them.

Disclaimers (especially those bolded red) are very irritating, actually. Before I post, I look straight at the section, read the questions at the end, the beginning of what the author tries to say, and if the "back of the cover" interests me, I'd read the post.

Disclaimers distract me-in my personal opinion.

 

[stvdv]

Disclaimers (especially those bolded red) are very irritating, actually.

Yes, I know you have problem with colors and strange lettertypes, esp. if very little. So, I keep that in mind when writing on RF

So, my disclaimer was okay for you I guess. Not in bolded red. And in small lettertype; because they are not meant for others to read (only IF they want to report my post, they better read my Disclaimer first). They are just like "small print" to safeguard me from more warnings.

Disclaimers distract me-in my personal opinion.

I always skip Disclaimers, hence they don't bother me (I'm talking about RF of course; I might read other disclaimers; e.g. when taking meds)

So, below line you can skip

Disclaimer: All I wrote above is only my personal opinion (I am not into proselytizing anyway), and I don't talk about Corona virus

 

[syo]

Are we allowed to say ' I ' know god doesn't exist?

I+know=one part autonomous

God+exists=second part autonomous

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes, I know you have problem with colors and strange lettertypes, esp. if very little. So, I keep that in mind when writing on RF

So, my disclaimer was okay for you I guess. Not in bolded red. And in small lettertype; because they are not meant for others to read (only IF they want to report my post, they better read my Disclaimer first). They are just like "small print" to safeguard me from more warnings.


I always skip Disclaimers, hence they don't bother me (I'm talking about RF of course; I might read other disclaimers; e.g. when taking meds)

So, below line you can skip

Disclaimer: All I wrote above is only my personal opinion (I am not into proselytizing anyway), and I don't talk about Corona virus

Haha. I appreciate it. I do have trouble with small fonts but I wouldn't ask everyone to change their style 'cause-a me. Most disclaimers, though, tend to be for those who reply to a thread that with off ball comments or reply just to reply.

 

[MJ Bailey]

God does exist. I have had my life taken more than once. Actually The Best Individual i have ever met. What have you to question?

 

[viole]

Are we allowed to say ' I ' know god doesn't exist?
Is that the same as claiming that he does not as fact rather than opinion?

If I know god doesn't exists why would I (and anyone who knows god exists or doesn't exist) say it as an opinion if the word 'I' dictates what they say is a fact is only applicable to the person who said it?

Take as ye will. Knowledge versus opinion versus belief versus whatever the case may be.

Well, I am a gnostic atheist. Nobody told me I am not allowed to claim knowledge that no god exists.

ciao

- viole

 

[Unveiled Artist]

God does exist. I have had my life taken more than once. Actually The Best Individual i have ever met. What have you to question?

It's usually a contextual. I'd say god doesn't exist. Though I'd I exclude "I" it may sound like a fact-statement. Likewise vis versa. I guess it's only wrong if people take offense by it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Would you have the same quibble with someone saying, for instance, "I know my car is red?"

If it was red, of course not.

Why? Do you think I would?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If it was red, of course not.

Why? Do you think I would?

No, I didn't think you would... which was my point.

How would someone know they had a red car?

Maybe it was never red. Maybe their memory of its colour is wrong.

Maybe it used to be red but is now blue. Maybe vandals repainted it while it was unattended.

Maybe they don't have a car at all. Maybe thieves stole it and stripped it for parts.

Maybe the car was stolen property that the current owner bought unwittingly. Maybe it can't rightly be called their car.

My point is that all sorts of knowledge claims get a free pass when they're some sort of doubt, but when people make similar claims about the non-existence of God, that's when all sorts of people pop out of the woodwork to say "oh - but you can't know that!"

IMO, the claim that I know the colour of my car and the claim that I know that God doesn't exist are similar in their level of certainty and support.

The issues that might make the claim "God doesn't exist" fall short of being strictly knowledge are similar to the issues that make the claim "my car is red" fall short of being strictly knowledge, IMO.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well, I am a gnostic atheist. Nobody told me I am not allowed to claim knowledge that no god exists.

ciao

- viole

Have you said "I know god does not exist" or does exist before?

 

[viole]

Have you said "I know god does not exist" or does exist before?

Since I consider God as either being eternally existing, or never existing, I know that the latter is true.

ciao

- viole

 

[blü 2]

Are we allowed to say ' I ' know god doesn't exist?

We can (and do) say anything we please, even if it lands us in jail, starts a bar brawl, puts us on the wrong end of a defamation suit, or has us texting apologies next morning.

Is that the same as claiming that he does not as fact rather than opinion?

I would understand "I know god doesn't exist" as an assertion of a fact ie put forward as an accurate statement about objective reality.

If I know god doesn't exists why would I (and anyone who knows god exists or doesn't exist) say it as an opinion if the word 'I' dictates what they say is a fact is only applicable to the person who said it?

Because they disagree with your assertion ie dispute that it's an accurate statement about reality?

The statement "God does not have objective existence" ─ uttered as the negation of the assertion "God has objective existence" ─ has, for me at least, the problem that I have no idea what real entity the word "God" is intended to denote, and so far no one has been able (or willing) to tell me.

So the question whether this keyboard I'm typing on is God or not goes unanswered.

 

[Willamena]

Are we allowed to say ' I ' know god doesn't exist?

Yes, you're allowed to use that pronoun.

Is that the same as claiming that he does not as fact rather than opinion?

To an objective observer, the distinction between fact and opinion is in whether it agrees with one's own beliefs and evidence.

If I know god doesn't exists why would I (and anyone who knows god exists or doesn't exist) say it as an opinion if the word 'I' dictates what they say is a fact is only applicable to the person who said it?

We say it as an opinion, because there are objective observers for whom the statement doesn't jive with their own beliefs and evidence. Hopefully, our evidence can sway their minds.

Take as ye will. Knowledge versus opinion versus belief versus whatever the case may be.

A justified and true belief.

 

[Clara Tea]

The Burden of Proof

A fundamental axiom of logic states that one "usually" cannot prove a negative. For example, one could not prove that Santa Claus "doesn't" exist. The word "doesn't" is a negative. Some negative claims can be proven.

It could be argued that Santa exists where we have not yet looked. Or, Santa exists at a time when we didn't see him (after all, he can deliver all presents on Christmas eve around the whole world--so time travel is possible for him).

Atheists cannot assert that God doesn't exist. Rather, they refuse to believe unless they see proof. If they believed without proof, they would have to believe in the tooth fairy, and cartoon characters like Fred Flintstone.

The tobacco industry claimed that cigarettes don't cause cancer, and they challenged the courts to show which of the many cigarettes caused cancer, and which cell started the cancer. The proof was by statistics.

 

[Clara Tea]

The Burden of Proof

A fundamental axiom of logic states that one "usually" cannot prove a negative. For example, one could not prove that Santa Claus "doesn't" exist. The word "doesn't" is a negative. Some negative claims can be proven.

It could be argued that Santa exists where we have not yet looked. Or, Santa exists at a time when we didn't see him (after all, he can deliver all presents on Christmas eve around the whole world--so time travel is possible for him).

Atheists cannot assert that God doesn't exist. Rather, they refuse to believe unless they see proof. If they believed without proof, they would have to believe in the tooth fairy, and cartoon characters like Fred Flintstone.

The tobacco industry claimed that cigarettes don't cause cancer, and they challenged the courts to show which of the many cigarettes caused cancer, and which cell started the cancer. The proof was by statistics.

 

[Clara Tea]

The Burden of Proof

A fundamental axiom of logic states that one "usually" cannot prove a negative. For example, one could not prove that Santa Claus "doesn't" exist. The word "doesn't" is a negative. Some negative claims can be proven.

It could be argued that Santa exists where we have not yet looked. Or, Santa exists at a time when we didn't see him (after all, he can deliver all presents on Christmas eve around the whole world--so time travel is possible for him).

Atheists cannot assert that God doesn't exist. Rather, they refuse to believe unless they see proof. If they believed without proof, they would have to believe in the tooth fairy, and cartoon characters like Fred Flintstone.

The tobacco industry claimed that cigarettes don't cause cancer, and they challenged the courts to show which of the many cigarettes caused cancer, and which cell started the cancer. The proof was by statistics.

 

[Clara Tea]

The Burden of Proof

A fundamental axiom of logic states that one "usually" cannot prove a negative. For example, one could not prove that Santa Claus "doesn't" exist. The word "doesn't" is a negative. Some negative claims can be proven.

It could be argued that Santa exists where we have not yet looked. Or, Santa exists at a time when we didn't see him (after all, he can deliver all presents on Christmas eve around the whole world--so time travel is possible for him).

Atheists cannot assert that God doesn't exist. Rather, they refuse to believe unless they see proof. If they believed without proof, they would have to believe in the tooth fairy, and cartoon characters like Fred Flintstone.

The tobacco industry claimed that cigarettes don't cause cancer, and they challenged the courts to show which of the many cigarettes caused cancer, and which cell started the cancer. The proof was by statistics.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Are we allowed to say ' I ' know god doesn't exist?
Is that the same as claiming that he does not as fact rather than opinion?

If I know god doesn't exists why would I (and anyone who knows god exists or doesn't exist) say it as an opinion if the word 'I' dictates what they say is a fact is only applicable to the person who said it?

Take as ye will. Knowledge versus opinion versus belief versus whatever the case may be.

The word "god" is loaded. I think that there are cases where we can say that a specific concept of "god doesn't exist. So for instance, if someone says that "god" in their religion did something, and we can prove for a fact that that action did not happen, then we can say that their concept of "god" doesn't exist. Alternatively, if I say that my appetite is my "god", then that concept of "god" definitely exists. But overall, "god" is too broad a term which can be applied to different concepts to say that "god" doesn't exist. There must be a context in which to critique it in order to do so.