Charlie

I would also like to say that religion is belief and atheism is nonbelief. As the atheist that I am, I have no belief in god(s). There is nothing to believe! This does not mean that I "believe" in "not believing". I have no belief at all, with respect to god(s). How could I "believe" in something that I have no belief in?

Another way to look at it: If testable proof came about and actually proved a god exists, then I would accept it! But guess what, this still means that I still have NO belief, because we would all now know there is in fact a god and this requires NO belief.

Believers must "believe" in their god because there is no proof. This is why religious people, people of faith, are called believers - they believe. Using the same ex. above, if there was verifiable proof of a god, then even "believers" would no longer have to believe!
(May have gotten a little off subject here trying to make my point. Also would like to add that I mean no disrespect to believers. I like to think most people are good regardless of whether they believe or not!)
Sincerely,
Charlie

Soul Invictus

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Goliath
[B] I'm getting so damnedably sick and tired of repeating myself, that I've almost forgotten what the original discussion was about!
Well, as I recall, it was you who consistently and errantly stating a stance I never assumed in the first place, so imagine how asinine I feel it is to continually have to defend something I mistyped (not a stance I took!)




And I showed that your first reply was absolutely incorrect when I stated that I am an atheist, and that I do not believe in the nonexistence of any god of any kind!
Again the strong-weak debate which I said I conceded...why are you still appealing to old arguments?


It doesn't fall outside the scope of anything. It's merely incorrect.
Again, as I conceded.



No, they are terms that I use when someone else goes off on a seemingly irrelevant tangent and then repeatedly refuses to explain the relevance of the tangent to the discussion at hand!
Wow. I remember arguing this first on your semantics you found necessary to analyze. It seems everything I claimed about you, you've purported to me!


In that case, yes, it's an acceptance of your concession.

Since you've conceded, I am somewhat confused as to why you've bothered to keep the thread going...C'est la Vie...*shrug*

It continues to go on because you insist on posting about an old misinterpreted typo, which I cannot allow you to go uncorrected or addressed. (which to date, has not been addressed on your end)

Look, somewhere back there I was making a point (which you didn't address) however you chose to discuss a critical difference (which was not made) between a belief and opinion...totally disrupting the claim I was making, and derailing me from my fact v opinion discussion (which if you've never discussed fact,value,policy claims then you might want to read up on them as discussion claims fall into one of these three arenas, and I was merely attempting to educate you with this. Never mind now. You've still made no convincing distinction between belief and opinion, so I don't know what the purpose of the rebut was for.You continue to claim that I said it was impossible to prove gods exist, which has been addressed how many times??? Why bring it up over and over and over??? Is this your only resort? To misinterpret me yet again?

Obviously you need to have the last reply...why I don't know. I refuse to entertain your circular reasoning and evasive replies...If you insist you've answered my questions, why am I asking them again? How about this even...Take all my questions as rhetorical, so you don't feel obligated to reply. Like I said at the beginning, if the problem with my stance was pointed out, I could easily concede that. Know why? My ego isn't easily bruised by criticism. Apparently yours is, thus the amateurish large font as well as lack of civility when it comes to calling names...Not once have I seen such a easily unsettled poster in any of these forums, with such a propensity for hostility within dialogue. What is it about the criticisms I make that is so difficult for you to give a response to or address?

I'm sure you'll give some sort of nasty retort or another errant post regarding the interpretation of my words, however it is interesting that you are the only one whose still talking about something that never was a substantive part of discussion (except that I had to repeatedly correct you on that several times..same with attempting to explain the definitions of claims, which is argumentation 101)

On that note, I'll read your reply tomorrow, however concerning this thread, you've contributed nothing additional for me to warrant reading this anymore, so no matter what you say, I won't be replying to you. I usually will go the distance, especially if I'm being misrepresented, however it isn't important to me anymore...for this thread anyway. I'm sure I've missed other more valuable recent threads do to this this one.
Goliath, you never lied when you said you weren't easy to get along with. So no matter what inflammatory or grossly incorrect post you may make, I'm not entertaining this roundabout anymore...I'm wondering if this is your usual debate style. We shall see in future topics.

...pending your reply

:banghead:

Kuu

I once read a saying on this board that summed this up well for me -

'If atheism is a religion than not collecting stamps is a hobby'


I have never seen a single piece of evidence that has pointed to the existence of any god, therefore I can say mine is a non-belief. If God (in any form( came down and sat down next to me and was able to give me proof that he was God I would believe in hin though I doubt I would worship him.

I am not agnostic as I think that a God could prove a bit better than he has if he really existed. I have never had a good answer from a deist as to why God/s have to be so elusive if he/she exists. It is like having a principal at a school that no-one, not teachers or parents or children ever see, but the teachers say he exists because they talk to him on the phone. The children start to think he doesn't exist - all he would have to do is walk out of his office to prove that he exist but he doesn't do this but he doesn't.

Charlie

Kuu,
Very well said! I'm with you all the way! I would also add (as I said in my last post on this thread) that even if god did come down and sit next to you and offer testable proof of his/hers/its existance, then you still would NOT have to believe because we would all now know that god actaully does exist and no belief would be required!

Charlie

Goliath

Soul Invictus,

That stance being....?

Why do you continue to act as though you haven't conceded?

If this is the case, then this is only because you seem to be projecting your problems onto me.

*raises eyebrow* Which typo?

I've addressed every single relevant point of yours that I could find in this thread.

I didn't really focus on this....I instead repeatedly asked you to a) prove your claim that you kept making over and over about the impossibility of proving that a god exists, and b) to explain how your ranting about "fact vs. opinion" is relevant to the discussion at hand. The problem is that the discussion turned away from the title of the thread and to topics a) and b).

What?! I've asked you again and again to explain how said discussion is relevant to the topic, and you've adamantly refused! How can asking the question "How is this relevant to the issue at hand?" possibly be a derailment?

No, I don't need to have the last reply. However, I'll go pretty far to defend against the slander that you've tried to slap me with in this thread.

Huh?! You have not pointed out even one place where I have used circular reasoning in this thread, and I doubt that you can. As for my replies being evasive.... In almost every reply, I have asked you to a) prove your claim that you kept making over and over about the impossibility of proving that a god exists, and b) to explain how your ranting about "fact vs. opinion" is relevant to the discussion at hand. How can that possibly be evasive? I've practically written in stone my requests...how could they not be any more clear?

That's a good question. I wish I knew the answer.

Not really. However, I'll admit to being hurt a bit by the slanderous and projecting replies that you've put forth in this thread.

I've already apologized for the large font. It was a mistake. I was looking for a new way to add emphasis to my words in writing, and I didn't want to use all caps. How many times do you want me to apologize for it? How many? 5? 10? 50? 10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10 ^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^1 0^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^ 10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10 ^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^1 0^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^ 10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10 ^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^1 0^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^ 10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10 ^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^1 0^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^ 10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10 ^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^1 0^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^ 10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10 ^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^8,675,309? *sigh*

That I have also apologized for. Again, how many times will suffice?

I wasn't unsettled while writing those replies. Hell, I wasn't even angry. I do admit to having been a little bit frustrated, however.

What criticisms? Nearly all that you did in this thread consisted of making a claim that you refused to back up, and refusing to explain the relevance of your "fact vs. opinion" tangent.

This is where you're dead wrong. If you look on the other pages of this thread, you'll see other people who are just as perplexed as I am about how your "fact vs. opinion" diatribe is relevant to the discussion at hand. Hell, there are some people in this thread who have wondered what it is you're arguing...and I have little choice but to wonder alongside them.

Sincerely,

Goliath



PS I doubt this is worth a damn thing to you, but I apologize for any frustration and anger that I've caused you in this thread. If you want to start over, feel free to PM me.

Oh, and for future reference, your posts would be much easier to read and reply to if you used the UBB "Quote" function.

Bumble Bee Tuna

Goliath, you really are being horribly ignorant here.

Have you paid attention to SI at all while you rebutted him? He is talking about the typo where he said "nor is god proveable" or something along those lines, which you called him on and he admitted was wrong and was a typo. You have proceeded to harp on him for said typo through to whole topic and he has repeatedly told you it was a typo and he took it back.

The only reason SI is going on is because you continue to pretend that he has not conceded that it was a typo, and you continue to pretend that he actually meant that statement.

This has been painfully obvious to me for a long time. Why have you not figured it out yet?

You are in the wrong in this latest twist of the debate. Apologize, realize you and SI are now in agreement, and get on with your life. Show some maturity here.

I think I'll pull a Goliath favorite tactic here:

SI has conceded that he was wrong about atheism being a belief, because he did not understand the difference between strong and weal atheism.

SI has also conceded (a LONG time ago, I might add) that he did not mean to say that God was unproveable, and it was a typo. He retracted the statement.

Does that make it clear? You are really digging yourself into a hole here. I say this to attempt to save you some face. Apologize, be done with it. Let's be adults here. I truly hope you understand what I'm saying instead of trying to write a snappy comeback to everything, as is your habit.

-B

Goliath

Bumble Bee Tuna,

No, I did not realize that Soul Invictus made a typo when he claimed that it is impossible to prove that a god exists.

I have also apologized several times for using the large font. It was a mistake. How many times should I apologize to you for using it, BBT? What will it take for you to grow up and forgive my mistake of using large fonts?

If either you or Soul Invictus can point out exactly where the typo was made and what the phrase should've been, I will gladly apologize for overlooking it.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Bumble Bee Tuna

hey now, my use of large font was in no way a criticism. I never had a problem with your large font. Playful fun, relax.

Meanwhile, I think you're a capable individual and you can find it for yourself (or maybe SI will). I was just assuming you'd trust me since I have been on your side here and rationally he must have said it if I, your partner in debate, say he said it.

-B