You don't like middle ground, do you? You've got to have some extremist box in which to place those evil atheists.
The Confused Athiest
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
You don't like middle ground, do you? You've got to have some extremist box in which to place those evil atheists.
You mean if I read an article that said gravity is an illusion would I look for something to hold on to? Nope, not really.
Like I said, I reach conclusions after careful consideration, so I'm not likely to discard everything I have thought about simply because you came up with something. I'd be extremely skeptical and require a lot of convincing; I'd take apart every little bit you presented me with.
The fact that we don't know the reason right now doesn't mean that there isn't one.
Well I'm glad you agree.:shrug:
You don't like middle ground, do you? You've got to have some extremist box in which to place those evil atheists.
Well if one of us has to be evil, I nominate you. :shrug:
Why would one of us have to be evil? :shrug:
Why did you make the crack about solipsism? :shrug:
What did you mean to imply? :shrug:
So you wouldn't believe something unless it had as much evidential support as gravity?
Pete,
In the end, if you haven't already gotten it, you'll just end up getting an answer like "My mind doesn't think like that" or end up defining word after word after word after word after word until definitions loop in upon one another and then you'll get this "My mind doesn't think like that".
We've all be over this a million + 1 times.
The *some gibberish* is a summary of the Cosmological argument using Aristotle , St. Thomas Aquinas, Fredrick Copleston, Davide Hume, and Immanuel Kant. While their arguments may be full of crap, I'd say they gave it a good think-about. Hey Kent that sure is *some gibberish* you're spouting there - why just lookie at that there sun, reason enough me, huck huck huck
Michael
Hi SAM
Have you decided if the possibility exists that there is no God?
Have you decided if the possibly exist that the Qur'an is not perfect?
It's only been what - a year or three?
Oh, yeah, I forgot, you believe there is a God and you believe that the Qur'an is perfect and ergo you can't even begin to answer these questions because "My mind doesn't think like that"
oke:
In the end, if you haven't already gotten it, you'll just end up getting an answer like "My mind doesn't think like that" or end up defining word after word after word after word after word until definitions loop in upon one another and then you'll get this "My mind doesn't think like that".
We've all be over this a million + 1 times.
The *some gibberish* is a summary of the Cosmological argument using Aristotle , St. Thomas Aquinas, Fredrick Copleston, Davide Hume, and Immanuel Kant. While their arguments may be full of crap, I'd say they gave it a good think-about. Hey Kent that sure is *some gibberish* you're spouting there - why just lookie at that there sun, reason enough me, huck huck huck
Michael
Hi SAM
Have you decided if the possibility exists that there is no God?
Have you decided if the possibly exist that the Qur'an is not perfect?
It's only been what - a year or three?
Oh, yeah, I forgot, you believe there is a God and you believe that the Qur'an is perfect and ergo you can't even begin to answer these questions because "My mind doesn't think like that"
oke:
It was an example to show that having an open mind should be limited by the extent to where your brains fall out.
That there is a lot of room between objective reality and solipsism neither of which are logical.
Last edited:
Cliché!
Well, you apparently presented that example as typical of the things you believe.
Is it typical because:
Well, you apparently presented that example as typical of the things you believe.
Is it typical because:
- You wouldn't believe something unless it had as much evidential support as gravity? (Your last post implies that this isn't it.)
- You would reject unread any article that runs counter to something you believe?
- Is it not a typical example at all? (If so, then what purpose did it have?)
- Or is there something I haven't considered?
I gave an example you could relate to. If I believe something, I have reasons for believing as I do. So simply reading an article of beliefs that refutes my beliefs (you recognise that beliefs constitute absence of evidence?) is not sufficient for me to change my mind about it.
Aha! There is something about belief that you understand differently!
No. I do not agree that belief necessarily implies absence of evidence.
Have you ever heard the phrase "reason to believe"?
Edit - You have! You used it right in your post!
So now you have "reasons" that you wouldn't consider "evidence"?
Actually, scratch that. Reasons and evidence are indeed different things.
But, I maintain that "belief" doesn't necessarily mean "absence of evidence", and it certainly doesn't mean absence of good reason... which makes it moot to some extent whether "evidence" is involved or not.
Unless there is good reason to expect evidence, of course.
But, I maintain that "belief" doesn't necessarily mean "absence of evidence", and it certainly doesn't mean absence of good reason... which makes it moot to some extent whether "evidence" is involved or not.
Unless there is good reason to expect evidence, of course.
You were making a point?
Belief does imply absence of evidence in some contexts (see the 2nd definition here)... but not in this one.
Anyway, it doesn't matter, does it.
I'm being led to believe that your point is that you want "atheist" to mean "Believes without reason that there is no God."
Is that a fair summary?
pardon
you glommed on to god thru logic and reason rather than faith?
that piques my interest
if god does exist, i want to know about it
salvation rather than damnation
do share the methodology
thanks
of course
i understand how to propagandize
not so
your mistake is the notion of absolutism necessarily present in the other pov's. in fact one need not have a pov at all, just a valid argument against the dogma in question. perhaps you think fairness and impartiality is unattainable? judgments always tainted by bias?
the above is useless as a general statement. it begs for specifics
but nevermind.
as you said
offtopic
Because, contrary to the farce that is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, there's just as much anecdotal evidence for Zeus as there is for the Abrahamic deity.
It makes perfect logical sense, once you discard the assumption of design. Reasonably, a professional scientist ought to be able to see the circularity of assuming reason must lie behind assumed design features.SAM said:
Or, if that was too obvious to be significant, notice that humans supply the cause and effect aspect. It's a way of comprehending that saves on the processing power - a good strategy for a brain of limited size and complexity dealing with a universe of somewhat greater scale.
And the reason, if any.
As more than one physicist has noted, God does not do calculus - He integrates empirically.
perhaps for one who has glossed over the issue of normative descriptions ...
What makes an argument valid? Valid according to whose standards of validity?
Ideally - no.
Practically - fairness and umpartiality are difficult to practice.
please elaborate.
Also, how do normative descriptions of God provide more contemporary evidence for Her existence over that of the normative descriptions of Zeus? (or the normative descriptions of Xenu for that matter).