Oh atheists, teach me there is no God and I will be free.

That's because mathematically you know precisely the definition of "a prime number". The "God (s)" of theism lack precise definition. That's why logical proof or its absence is irrelevant, and "faith" is promoted as an essential qualification.

If you say so it must be so.

You've never been wrong...correct?

Oh, so you have have a precise definition of "God" sufficient for empirical testing ? Lets hear it !

I never said I did.

But when I say I do not know if gods exist or not...I mean any gods.

I do not know if gods exist.

You may think that a vacuous statement...and that is your right.

When referring to "God" precise definition is all we don't want to do...or shouldn't.

We have "experiences" n that's all...

Well Frank, let's look at this mathematically.

If your first statement is correct (and has always been correct), then your second statement is correct as well.

What I am essentially saying is: There are people who assert that gods exist...and there are people who assert that no gods exist.

I am not certain what they mean when they use the word "god"...but...

...I do not know if the gods they are asserting exist or not.

I'm not sure what Fresco's point is...other than to further this religion/belief system of his.

This is not going to turn out to be a "Who's on first?"...is it?

Or...I am not sure what you are talking about.

I think some negative statements can be proven without using math. If there is some reason you deem that to be incorrect...I'll listen to what you have to say.

"There is no living, visible elephant living in the center drawer of my desk"...seems to be a negative statement.

I can prove that by opening the drawer.

Yes, we have "experiences" which are reported in social contexts (even in our own heads). The words involved in that reporting serve to make those experiences "meaningful" to ourselves and others. But words are socially acquired...those reared in a theistic culture will acquire a different vocabulary to those who are not. Their very concept of "self"...its obligations and destiny... will be defined in terms of their cultural experiences.

Gipsies in Southern Spain have a concept of duende associated with the art form of flamenco. It is practically impossible for outsiders to know what this is about unless they steep themselves in the culture for some time. In my opinion, what theists mean by "God" is entirely analagous. Does "duende" exist ?....only if Southern Spanish Gipsies, and flamenco exist. Does "god" exist....only if theistic cultures "exist".

Please do... open the drawer.

You guys must follow each other around.

If you read my reply to Fil and take the trouble to investigate duende you might understand that the point I have always made, (that you always resist), is that what we mean by "existence" is de facto always embedded in a human context. It has no meaning outside of its contextual usage, i.e in an ontological absolutist metaphysical sense, because we can never transcend context unless we adopt a quasi-religious God's Eye position.

Whatever IS...IS, Fresco.

And humans and their "contexts" may not have anything to do with it.

You once again cannot make the differentiation between what IS (the REALITY)...and human's abilities to comprehend and describe it.

It is a terrible failing on your part...and you should be ashamed of yourself for not mastering it.

I should be ashamed of myself.... for being tempted to waste so much time on someone who is prematurely brain dead.

I am not brain dead, Fresco...far from it. And you should be able to see that.

But you have decided to wallow in the gutter with those kinds of insults.

The temptation to do so is great here in A2K. Resist it. Do not get into that kind of argument.

What happened to the guy I replied to?
Did he delete his post after I responded?

Nah...he's off in another thread...with an even longer post.

He is touting his blog and probably will not be around for long.

Oops...wrong guy. I was thinking of someone else.

I do not know where this guy is.

This time I replied to him directly.

I didn't read his blog, of course. I lack the erudition . . . .

Found him, I think.

In hell