Can Atheism Stand On Its Own Two Feet?

[Kenny]

Oops!

That's the most logical thing you've said so far!

My favorite is this gem:

My morals are objective because I say they are

And I'm making a 4-sided triangle and no one can stop me.

Ha! ha! Even I've gotta admit; not what was hilarious!!!

Ken

[Kenny]

Because the human who considers it an objective moral will not change his mind on the issue no matter what happens. Now if you are defining OM as a moral that everybody will agree on, something that is as obvious as looking at a tree, then I will say OM does not exist. Morals do not work that way.

But that is exactly what I see as the beauty of OM, not everyone has to agree on it...it stands true regardless of how much support or opposition it has.

Neo-x
Say humans are wiped out and few billion years down the road another species of intelligent creatures with conscience like humans rise up and they produce their morals, then it will sill be subjective. Its subjective to time, place and a lot of different other factors.

Ken
Not only that, it can be subjective to the guy standing next to you.

Precisely, and that is why OM is consistent where as SM is not.

Its an inherent idea of fairness that rules the difference between subjective and objective morality, anywhere, anyplace. For instance, lets say I don't belong to earth and I came from a far distant planet (the concept is I am not aware of morality on earth) and in conversation I tell you that I can say that its alright to torture disabled people for fun.

Now, how would you analyze the SM/OM situation here? According to you, am I right/wrong?

Ken
Torture is something I would never approve of; so to me it is an objective situation. The person next to me may consider it subjective, but that doesn’t change the fact that to me it is objective.

And it also doesn't change the fact that the person standing next to you can also claim that hurting others is objective to him. So what makes you special that you be allowed your objective definition and other can't?

It boils down to what you think is right, and you call it objectivity because to you its objective. But objectivity is not that. Objectivity is that Right and wrong are not matters of opinion or taste. Its not a matter of on which side the majority is. If all the world started lying, lying would still be wrong. In other words objectivity throws out your preference. That is how something becomes objective when its unchanged by all human influence.

Now you don't approve of torture as on objective rule, why? I can understand if you had said that you don't approve of torture based on your opinion, which is subjective. But you didn't say that, you said to you its objective...but that is meaningless. What does it have to do with you. Either torture is wrong or right. It is not right or wrong based on who is claiming it to be.

As K also wrote. You agree that murder and torture is wrong but you do it on your personal preference. And that is not equal to objectivity, period. This same preference in another human being is different, so why should he not consider his preference objective.

And if you both hold opposite objectives on a given situation than you are wrong because that a violation of the law of non-contradiction.

I say torture is right...I have my reasons.
You say torture is wrong...You have your reasons.

We both claim our reasons are objective. But two opposite things can't be true at the same time while also negating each other. That is unreal. And that is why both of us have subjectivity at the core of our reasons. For it to be truly objective it needs to stand on it own, our preference would not matter.

Here is how I see our exchange going

Ken
My morals are objective because I say they are

Neo
But you are just a man. In order for it to be objective it must be grounded in something bigger than man. Hitler was a man; your words carry no more weight than his! I have my morals grounded in God.

Ken
But God doesn’t exist thus I am bigger than God! You are too you just don’t realize it.

You say no, I say yes, and we can go that way forever because God is not going to prove me wrong.
That is why I said before; the unenforced rule might as well not even exist! Human society enforces moral rules; Hitler, Mao, Amin and a host of others proved God does not.
I guess what it boils down to, if you are unable to prove your idea of God even exists; how are you supposed to prove that he has rules that exist?

Ken

Ken, that is a red herring. I never said OM is grounded in God. I have not appealed to it. I am not morally superior to you. The question is which is consistent. OM is consistent, SM is not. I said anything man made is purely, subjective. And I challenge you to prove otherwise. Even If I concede there is no God (which I don't), your point still stands to be proven, how is your opinion objective?

As I said before, I do not believe what you guys call OM exists.

Ken

[RickD]

Ken,

You are changing the definition of OM to fit your argument.

I got my definition out of the dictionary

Kenny,
Please prove God doesn't exist. Can you?

Assuming you are refering to the God discribed in the BIble, I am unable to prove your God does not exist.....but then I am unable to prove Santa Clause doesn't exist either! The fact that I am unable to prove a negetive, in no way authenticates it's existence.

Ken

But Ken, you said:

But God doesn’t exist thus I am bigger than God! You are too you just don’t realize it.

Why would you say God doesn't exist, if you also say you can't prove God doesn't exist?
You do realize that's not logical, right?

[neo-x]

Because the human who considers it an objective moral will not change his mind on the issue no matter what happens. Now if you are defining OM as a moral that everybody will agree on, something that is as obvious as looking at a tree, then I will say OM does not exist. Morals do not work that way.

But that is exactly what I see as the beauty of OM, not everyone has to agree on it...it stands true regardless of how much support or opposition it has.

Neo-x
Say humans are wiped out and few billion years down the road another species of intelligent creatures with conscience like humans rise up and they produce their morals, then it will sill be subjective. Its subjective to time, place and a lot of different other factors.

Ken
Not only that, it can be subjective to the guy standing next to you.

Precisely, and that is why OM is consistent where as SM is not.

Its an inherent idea of fairness that rules the difference between subjective and objective morality, anywhere, anyplace. For instance, lets say I don't belong to earth and I came from a far distant planet (the concept is I am not aware of morality on earth) and in conversation I tell you that I can say that its alright to torture disabled people for fun.

Now, how would you analyze the SM/OM situation here? According to you, am I right/wrong?

Ken
Torture is something I would never approve of; so to me it is an objective situation. The person next to me may consider it subjective, but that doesn’t change the fact that to me it is objective.

And it also doesn't change the fact that the person standing next to you can also claim that hurting others is objective to him. So what makes you special that you be allowed your objective definition and other can't?

It boils down to what you think is right, and you call it objectivity because to you its objective. But objectivity is not that. Objectivity is that Right and wrong are not matters of opinion or taste. Its not a matter of on which side the majority is. If all the world started lying, lying would still be wrong. In other words objectivity throws out your preference. That is how something becomes objective when its unchanged by all human influence.

Now you don't approve of torture as on objective rule, why? I can understand if you had said that you don't approve of torture based on your opinion, which is subjective. But you didn't say that, you said to you its objective...but that is meaningless. What does it have to do with you. Either torture is wrong or right. It is not right or wrong based on who is claiming it to be.

As K also wrote. You agree that murder and torture is wrong but you do it on your personal preference. And that is not equal to objectivity, period. This same preference in another human being is different, so why should he not consider his preference objective.

And if you both hold opposite objectives on a given situation than you are wrong because that a violation of the law of non-contradiction.

I say torture is right...I have my reasons.
You say torture is wrong...You have your reasons.

We both claim our reasons are objective. But two opposite things can't be true at the same time while also negating each other. That is unreal. And that is why both of us have subjectivity at the core of our reasons. For it to be truly objective it needs to stand on it own, our preference would not matter.

Here is how I see our exchange going

Ken
My morals are objective because I say they are

Neo
But you are just a man. In order for it to be objective it must be grounded in something bigger than man. Hitler was a man; your words carry no more weight than his! I have my morals grounded in God.

Ken
But God doesn’t exist thus I am bigger than God! You are too you just don’t realize it.

You say no, I say yes, and we can go that way forever because God is not going to prove me wrong.
That is why I said before; the unenforced rule might as well not even exist! Human society enforces moral rules; Hitler, Mao, Amin and a host of others proved God does not.
I guess what it boils down to, if you are unable to prove your idea of God even exists; how are you supposed to prove that he has rules that exist?

Ken

Ken, that is a red herring. I never said OM is grounded in God. I have not appealed to it. I am not morally superior to you. The question is which is consistent. OM is consistent, SM is not. I said anything man made is purely, subjective. And I challenge you to prove otherwise. Even If I concede there is no God (which I don't), your point still stands to be proven, how is your opinion objective?

As I said before, I do not believe what you guys call OM exists.

Ken

Even if that is, its irrelevant on this point.
how can your opinion be objective? That is what I have been asking you.

[Kenny]

Ken,

You are changing the definition of OM to fit your argument.

I got my definition out of the dictionary

Kenny,
Please prove God doesn't exist. Can you?

Assuming you are refering to the God discribed in the BIble, I am unable to prove your God does not exist.....but then I am unable to prove Santa Clause doesn't exist either! The fact that I am unable to prove a negetive, in no way authenticates it's existence.

Ken

But Ken, you said:

But God doesn’t exist thus I am bigger than God! You are too you just don’t realize it.

Why would you say God doesn't exist, if you also say you can't prove God doesn't exist?
You do realize that's not logical, right?

Would it be illogical to say Santa Clause does not exist? Of course not! Same thing with God. Proof is not need to know something does not exist, proof is needed to say it does.

[Kenny]

Even if that is, its irrelevant on this point.
how can your opinion be objective? That is what I have been asking you.

Objective means to not change. If my opinion on an issue is unchanging, I believe that is objective. But if Objective morals are not man made, then I do not believe objective morals exist.

Ken

[RickD]

Ken,

You are changing the definition of OM to fit your argument.

I got my definition out of the dictionary

Kenny,
Please prove God doesn't exist. Can you?

Assuming you are refering to the God discribed in the BIble, I am unable to prove your God does not exist.....but then I am unable to prove Santa Clause doesn't exist either! The fact that I am unable to prove a negetive, in no way authenticates it's existence.

Ken

But Ken, you said:

But God doesn’t exist thus I am bigger than God! You are too you just don’t realize it.

Why would you say God doesn't exist, if you also say you can't prove God doesn't exist?
You do realize that's not logical, right?

Would it be illogical to say Santa Clause does not exist? Of course not! Same thing with God. Proof is not need to know something does not exist, proof is needed to say it does.

Kenny,

That's not how it works. If you assert something, which you did when you said, "But God doesn’t exist...", you can either back up your assertion with proof, or admit you don't know if God exists, instead of asserting He doesn't exist. You've already changed definitions to suit your illogical arguments. Now you are asserting something without offering any proof. Are you incapable of having a rational conversation?

Let's see...

You offer illogical arguments, you change definitions of terms, you assert things without proof.

Why should anyone take you seriously?

**************Edit*****************

And while you're at it Kenny,

In which dictionary did you find "objective morality"? Type in "objective morality" in any online dictionary, and tell me what you find.

[Byblos]

Would it be illogical to say Santa Clause does not exist? Of course not! Same thing with God. Proof is not need to know something does not exist, proof is needed to say it does.

If you're looking for an empirical (scientific) proof then you know well there isn't one. And that's not because of a deficiency in the subject but an inherent limitation in science itself (since it is not in the business of proving anything). The most science can do is offer evidence and plausible (or not) theories on our reality. Even then, contemporary cosmology has considerably narrowed the gap in favor of the plausibility of a transcendent cause for our universe.

A metaphysical proof, on the other hand, for the existence of God is what you ought to be looking for and a proof most certainly does exist. That contemporary (read new-age) so-called philosophers have lost touch with it by no means lessens its veracity.

[Kurieuo]

Ken,

You seem to be confusing the ontology of morality with its epistemology.

The discussion re: morality by other Christians with yourself is not concerned with justifying how we know what morality is (epistemology), but rather that morality does exist in reality (ontology).

Believing morality to be ontologically grounded in God makes no claim over whether such is in fact the case. But rather, provides an ontological basis for its reality.

If that is not true, then the best we have is what we define it to be -- which is a matter of taste really.

However, I'd wager lots that your life would be quite inconsistent if you truly believed right and wrong had no real grounding. I don't believe you believe this. For I've run into very many moral Atheists with strong convictions. Despite whatever they say about morality only being subjective and relative -- they truly say things, act and behave as though morality is true. Wrong and right conduct, fairness, justice, etc seem deeply grounded in our very nature.

These friends of mine have believed that some things really are wrong regardless of what I or anyone else thinks. For example, that it is wrong to persecute and kill someone for being Atheist as happens in some very Islamic regions, that Christians committed moral atrocities during the crusades, that priests really are moral monsters when they molest children, etc, etc.

And yet... they have no ontological grounding for this. No objective grounding outside or themselves, social constructs, humanity. And yet, even if everyone believed it was alright to kill children for fun, it would still be the case it would be wrong. And I'd find favour for this from many Atheists, even if they don't get they have no non-subjective or absolute grounding for such beliefs.

It is simply an inconsistency that I guess they either live with or just ignore.

When you say morality exists, what do you mean? That it exists as I said like Math; in the human mind? Do you mean it has a physical existence? A spiritual existence? Or what? What do you mean when you say morality exists?

Ken

When I say morality exists, I am saying that there is a standard of good that exist.

It is not physical, but rather immaterial like numbers, colours and the like.

So the issue on ALL sides, is if we believe "good" and/or "bad" really does exists, as we all appear to intuitively believe, then how can it exist?

For the Theist, particularly the Christian theologian, Goodness and Righteousness are considered to be attributes of God along with Existence (Aseity) and many others. So when I say that morality exists, I am simply saying that a standard of good really does exist above and beyond all that is created. And this my friend is what makes it objective -- ontologically so, not epistemically.

So to be clear, I believe morality is essentially found in God's very nature. Atheism on the other hand cannot account for an objective morality. There is really only one solution I see to embrace "good" and/or "bad" as real--Theism.

However, it could be there is no "objective" morality which is the tact that many of your associates would take. That is, there is no real good and/or bad. In other words there is no real moral difference between Hitler or Mother Teresa or Gandhi or even Jesus Christ, beyond what we find personally good or bad. It like chocolate icecream vs strawberry icecream which you find better.

Now if I was to accept that I'd have some serious inconsistencies in my life. Because I along with 99.9% of others all act and behave as though "good" and "bad" really does exist. Why is this so, if it really isn't real? The way my thoughts are constantly saturated with concepts of fairness, equality, justice/injustices and repulsion at horrible stories broadcast on the news, thoughts that we ought to be good stewards of the world and look after other life here, the behaviour I exhibit in my life when I get angry and despair over evil acts, or when I feel feel guilt or proud of my behaviour.

My whole being strongly embraces the reality of "good" and "right", so to then deny it on an intellectual level seems counter-intuitive and hypocritical at best.

Therefore, I embrace what seems obvious to me and consistent with my life -- that morality is real or at least based upon the reality of some standard of what is right. And there aren't too many options open to that unless you turn to Theism.

Hope that helps at least provide you with some understanding of where I'm coming from in my beliefs here.

[Kenny]

Kenny,

That's not how it works. If you assert something, which you did when you said, "But God doesn’t exist...", you can either back up your assertion with proof, or admit you don't know if God exists, instead of asserting He doesn't exist. You've already changed definitions to suit your illogical arguments. Now you are asserting something without offering any proof. Are you incapable of having a rational conversation?

Let's see...

You offer illogical arguments, you change definitions of terms, you assert things without proof.

Why should anyone take you seriously?

When I said I know I was using the dictionary definition of "know"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Know?s=t

As you can see to “know” simply means to be convinced beyond all shadow of doubt. It does not mean you are correct, and it certainly does not mean you can provide proof. Example; If you ask me I will tell me I “know” my birth name, the date I was born, and who my birth parents are. I even have a birth certificate as proof to confirm what I “know”. Now if some new found evidence surfaced that proved that I was adopted by the people I have always known as my birth parents, and that I was born on a different day than I was told, I had a different name at birth and the birth certificate I currently have is a fake; all a part of the conspiracy to keep me in the dark with all of this, I will admit to my previous mistake and incorporate this new found information in to what I will then know. But until such information comes to pass, I will continue to say I know my name, age, and who my parents are. I will not say I believe I know my name, age, and who my parents are even though there is the slightest possibility that I could be wrong.

When I say I know your concept of God doesn’t exist, I mean I am convinced beyond all shadow of doubt that he does not exist even though I will admit there is the slightest possibility that I could be wrong.

Does that make sense to you?


**************Edit*****************

And while you're at it Kenny,

In which dictionary did you find "objective morality"? Type in "objective morality" in any online dictionary, and tell me what you find.

I actually looked up the word “objective” which according to dictionary.com means “Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based upon facts.” And applied that to morality. It appears the term Objective morality is something of a religious term.
So let me rephrase my opinion on the issue. I recognize the term "objective" and I realize morality can be attached to it, but the term Objective morality as started by Christians; is not something that I believe exists.

I hope that clears things up a bit.

[Kenny]

Would it be illogical to say Santa Clause does not exist? Of course not! Same thing with God. Proof is not need to know something does not exist, proof is needed to say it does.

If you're looking for an empirical (scientific) proof then you know well there isn't one. And that's not because of a deficiency in the subject but an inherent limitation in science itself (since it is not in the business of proving anything). The most science can do is offer evidence and plausible (or not) theories on our reality. Even then, contemporary cosmology has considerably narrowed the gap in favor of the plausibility of a transcendent cause for our universe.

A metaphysical proof, on the other hand, for the existence of God is what you ought to be looking for and a proof most certainly does exist. That contemporary (read new-age) so-called philosophers have lost touch with it by no means lessens its veracity.

How is it possible to provide metaphysical proof of the existence of God?

Ken

[Kenny]

Ken,

You seem to be confusing the ontology of morality with its epistemology.

The discussion re: morality by other Christians with yourself is not concerned with justifying how we know what morality is (epistemology), but rather that morality does exist in reality (ontology).

Believing morality to be ontologically grounded in God makes no claim over whether such is in fact the case. But rather, provides an ontological basis for its reality.

If that is not true, then the best we have is what we define it to be -- which is a matter of taste really.

However, I'd wager lots that your life would be quite inconsistent if you truly believed right and wrong had no real grounding. I don't believe you believe this. For I've run into very many moral Atheists with strong convictions. Despite whatever they say about morality only being subjective and relative -- they truly say things, act and behave as though morality is true. Wrong and right conduct, fairness, justice, etc seem deeply grounded in our very nature.

These friends of mine have believed that some things really are wrong regardless of what I or anyone else thinks. For example, that it is wrong to persecute and kill someone for being Atheist as happens in some very Islamic regions, that Christians committed moral atrocities during the crusades, that priests really are moral monsters when they molest children, etc, etc.

And yet... they have no ontological grounding for this. No objective grounding outside or themselves, social constructs, humanity. And yet, even if everyone believed it was alright to kill children for fun, it would still be the case it would be wrong. And I'd find favour for this from many Atheists, even if they don't get they have no non-subjective or absolute grounding for such beliefs.

It is simply an inconsistency that I guess they either live with or just ignore.

When you say morality exists, what do you mean? That it exists as I said like Math; in the human mind? Do you mean it has a physical existence? A spiritual existence? Or what? What do you mean when you say morality exists?

Ken

When I say morality exists, I am saying that there is a standard of good that exist.

It is not physical, but rather immaterial like numbers, colours and the like.

So the issue on ALL sides, is if we believe "good" and/or "bad" really does exists, as we all appear to intuitively believe, then how can it exist?

For the Theist, particularly the Christian theologian, Goodness and Righteousness are considered to be attributes of God along with Existence (Aseity) and many others. So when I say that morality exists, I am simply saying that a standard of good really does exist above and beyond all that is created. And this my friend is what makes it objective -- ontologically so, not epistemically.

So to be clear, I believe morality is essentially found in God's very nature. Atheism on the other hand cannot account for an objective morality. There is really only one solution I see to embrace "good" and/or "bad" as real--Theism.

However, it could be there is no "objective" morality which is the tact that many of your associates would take. That is, there is no real good and/or bad. In other words there is no real moral difference between Hitler or Mother Teresa or Gandhi or even Jesus Christ, beyond what we find personally good or bad. It like chocolate icecream vs strawberry icecream which you find better.

Now if I was to accept that I'd have some serious inconsistencies in my life. Because I along with 99.9% of others all act and behave as though "good" and "bad" really does exist. Why is this so, if it really isn't real? The way my thoughts are constantly saturated with concepts of fairness, equality, justice/injustices and repulsion at horrible stories broadcast on the news, thoughts that we ought to be good stewards of the world and look after other life here, the behaviour I exhibit in my life when I get angry and despair over evil acts, or when I feel feel guilt or proud of my behaviour.

My whole being strongly embraces the reality of "good" and "right", so to then deny it on an intellectual level seems counter-intuitive and hypocritical at best.

Therefore, I embrace what seems obvious to me and consistent with my life -- that morality is real or at least based upon the reality of some standard of what is right. And there aren't too many options open to that unless you turn to Theism.

Hope that helps at least provide you with some understanding of where I'm coming from in my beliefs here.

Kurieuo
When I say morality exists, I am saying that there is a standard of good that exist.
It is not physical, but rather immaterial like numbers, colours and the like.

Ken
Yeah kinda like math!

Kurieuo
So the issue on ALL sides, is if we believe "good" and/or "bad" really does exists, as we all appear to intuitively believe, then how can it exist?

For the Theist, particularly the Christian theologian, Goodness and Righteousness are considered to be attributes of God along with Existence (Aseity) and many others. So when I say that morality exists, I am simply saying that a standard of good really does exist above and beyond all that is created. And this my friend is what makes it objective -- ontologically so, not epistemically.

Ken
As an Skeptic, when I say morality exist, I am simply saying the standard exists, but it’s origins are human.

Kurieuo
So to be clear, I believe morality is essentially found in God's very nature. Atheism on the other hand cannot account for an objective morality.

Ken
It appears objective morality is another Christian term
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objective_morality
I would agree there are plenty of Christian terms Atheists cannot account for.

Kureuo
There is really only one solution I see to embrace "good" and/or "bad" as real--Theism.

Ken
Or recognize objective morality does not exist.

Kureuo
However, it could be there is no "objective" morality which is the tact that many of your associates would take. That is, there is no real good and/or bad. In other words there is no real moral difference between Hitler or Mother Teresa or Gandhi or even Jesus Christ, beyond what we find personally good or bad. It like chocolate icecream vs strawberry icecream which you find better.

Ken
I disagree! Just because morality may not be objective, doesn’t mean there is no difference between good behaviour vs bad behaviour.

Kuriuo
Now if I was to accept that I'd have some serious inconsistencies in my life. Because I along with 99.9% of others all act and behave as though "good" and "bad" really does exist.

Ken
I agree! But your claim that objective morality is necessary in order for there to be a difference between good and bad behavior is false.

Kuriuo
Therefore, I embrace what seems obvious to me and consistent with my life -- that morality is real or at least based upon the reality of some standard of what is right. And there aren't too many options open to that unless you turn to Theism.

Ken
You were doing good until you brought up theism.

Kuriuo
Hope that helps at least provide you with some understanding of where I'm coming from in my beliefs here.

Ken
Since we are discussing Objective morality; let me ask you a question, so I can see exactly how you apply it.
Do you believe Genocide and rape is objectively immoral? If so, how do you justify the atrocities of Moses against the Midinites? Or do you?

[neo-x]

Even if that is, its irrelevant on this point.
how can your opinion be objective? That is what I have been asking you.

Objective means to not change. If my opinion on an issue is unchanging, I believe that is objective. But if Objective morals are not man made, then I do not believe objective morals exist.

Ken

Ken, objective means, "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

How does that translate to, I believe its objective, therefore it is?

[Kurieuo]

It appears objective morality is another Christian term
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objective_morality
I would agree there are plenty of Christian terms Atheists cannot account for.

Then you'd be wrong, along with your misunderstanding of your irrational wiki source. Objective morality is no more religious or irreligious than subjective morality.

No offense intended, but I really hate wasting my time with someone unacquainted with even "objective" morality.

Take some time out Ken. Do some research by Googling Atheist and objective morality. Maybe start with SecularWeb: http://infidels.org/library/modern/tane ... artin.html (I can't believe I'm recommending this source). But, seriously, you've got a steep learning curve because there's lots of twists and turns you're doing which just show you're not acquainted with the issues. That's fine, but do yourself and your side a favour, and do some research on the topic being discussed here.

Kureuo
However, it could be there is no "objective" morality which is the tact that many of your associates would take. That is, there is no real good and/or bad. In other words there is no real moral difference between Hitler or Mother Teresa or Gandhi or even Jesus Christ, beyond what we find personally good or bad. It like chocolate icecream vs strawberry icecream which you find better.

Ken
I disagree! Just because morality may not be objective, doesn’t mean there is no difference between good behaviour vs bad behaviour.

And what is good except that you prefer chocolate and Dr. Mengele preferred strawberry.

Kurieuo
Now if I was to accept that I'd have some serious inconsistencies in my life. Because I along with 99.9% of others all act and behave as though "good" and "bad" really does exist.

Ken
I agree! But your claim that objective morality is necessary in order for there to be a difference between good and bad behavior is false.

"Good" and "bad" has no meaning.

Kurieuo
Therefore, I embrace what seems obvious to me and consistent with my life -- that morality is real or at least based upon the reality of some standard of what is right. And there aren't too many options open to that unless you turn to Theism.

Ken
You were doing good until you brought up theism.

I'll take that as a compliment since it seems to me you're knee jerking here and tying yourself into all sorts of knots. But, some credit is due considering how many different discussions you have going here.

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:
When I said I know I was using the dictionary definition of "know"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Know?s=t

As you can see to “know” simply means to be convinced beyond all shadow of doubt. It does not mean you are correct, and it certainly does not mean you can provide proof. Example; If you ask me I will tell me I “know” my birth name, the date I was born, and who my birth parents are. I even have a birth certificate as proof to confirm what I “know”. Now if some new found evidence surfaced that proved that I was adopted by the people I have always known as my birth parents, and that I was born on a different day than I was told, I had a different name at birth and the birth certificate I currently have is a fake; all a part of the conspiracy to keep me in the dark with all of this, I will admit to my previous mistake and incorporate this new found information in to what I will then know. But until such information comes to pass, I will continue to say I know my name, age, and who my parents are. I will not say I believe I know my name, age, and who my parents are even though there is the slightest possibility that I could be wrong.

When I say I know your concept of God doesn’t exist, I mean I am convinced beyond all shadow of doubt that he does not exist even though I will admit there is the slightest possibility that I could be wrong.

Kenny,
None of that is even relevant to the assertion you made. This is what you asserted:

But God doesn't exist...

You didn't say, "I believe God doesn't exist...", or even, "I know God doesn't exist...".

Kenny,

I think you need to be able to communicate better by actually comprehending what others are saying. I'm done for now, with this thread. You just aren't grasping simple logic, and basic communication.

Since Kurieuo has responded, and it's his thread, maybe you can just try to concentrate on a conversation with him.