The_Unknown_Banana

It's just as ignorant as the original statement imo. Kinda amusing really

Only difference is that this one is only true if in there is no God, whereas the original one is only true if there is a God.

Buddrow_Wilson

Actually I was referring to the original statement.

diana

Love it!

Of course, as far as communicating what's wrong with the original "argument" goes, it doesn't do so hot. But it is amusing.

d

CX

I think this goes to the most prevalent mistake in Xian thinking, namely that the idea of something is equivalent to the thing. My father once said he could not explain the change in his life except by appealing to his faith in god and the transformative power of that faith. I basically said that the reality, power and transformative nature of a particular belief in no way demonstrates the existence of the object of that belief. If that were true than anyone who's life was transformed by what they believe would necessarily believe in something that was objectively real even if it directly contradicted someone else's belief which was equally real, powerful and transformative to that person. On that basis then we couldn't really accept the notion of an objective reality rendering any future discussion pointless.

The_Unknown_Banana

ah, hence the "No Chesterton"... *Slaps Self* :P

paul30

I don't believe in gnomes, elves, fairies, or unicorns.

Does that prove they exist?

I also don't believe in phlogiston or the ether.

Did I just make them true?

This is fun!



Now if I could only make things UN-exist by believing in them.

I'm closing my eyes--I BELIEVE in George W. Bush.

Is he still around?

Damn!