free12thinker

You're reading impaired. I do not have 'absolute' knowledge. I have stated this time and time again. Next question please.

WJ

Hain!

Well, my first reaction is, why/how do negative statements exist? In other words, why invoke the statement at all?

For example, what is your point by virtue of invoking it (what are you suggesting)? And if you have a point (or no point at all), how do you know it is absolute?

To debate no-thing is nonsensical.

Default position = stalemate? That's the best it can do, it seems. And if that is true, what have you proved by invoking it to start? If you proved nothing, which I understand you do not carry the burden to do so, why should this forum about God continue to exist?

Did I get off the pulpit enough for you?

Walrus

philechat

So we cannot discuss how evil or unbelievable a novel or anime character is? Come on...

Just go to any anime discussion board and you will see people fighting over for their favorite character.

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]</p>

free12thinker

I can't help but chime in everytime you ask why we have forums about God, or why we debate something, even when our view is not absolute.

I can't help but answer this question by stating that we debate, and question and wonder, because we are thinkers. Thinkers think. Thinkers look at things and determine the level of highest probability. Nothing is absolute! Atheism is not abolute! God is not absolute! But, the highest level of probability (read: not absolute), points towards evolution and the lack of god existing, or ever having existed in the first place.

This level of probability comes from a complete lack of evidence. And before you chime in with "we have no evidence that he doesn't exist", I will say, "we have no evidence that mole men aren't living invisibly under our beds". But once again, the level of probability is the only thing we can go by. That's what thinkers go by. They use things like:
action and reaction
likelihood (based on previous evidence) and unlikelihood (based on a previous evidence or a lack thereof).
How can we get you to understand this. There is no absolute. Nothing is absolute. But there are levels of probability, and judging by the lack of evidence, direct contradictions, and the high evidence of evolution, God does not exist to an atheist.

If you beat me in basketball 400 out of 400 times, I cannot beat you, that's how it goes. You don't sit back and say, I probably couldn't beat you, even though, technically I seemingly could. Use the same format for god and atheism.

WJ

P, not if it [something] doesn't exist. Otherwise, why discuss 'it'?



Walrus

WJ

Free!

Then, within the context of our discussion, all you are doing is making a case for agnosticism.

Look at this way (the simplist way);

Person 1: Yes
Person 2: No

Why does one say yes/no?

Walrus

philechat

Wait...you mean anime characters "exist"?

No. Not even the most fanatic anime fan will say that.

Oh well, I heard stories about people chasing after the actor playing villians in soap operas, threatening to kill them. I guess the boundary between reality and delusion was vaguer than people think.

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]</p>

free12thinker

Ummm No.
An Agnostic is someone who disclaims both ("strong") atheism and theism, and who believes that the question of whether a higher power existed was unsolved and insoluble. Another way of putting it is that an agnostic is someone who believes that we do not and cannot know for sure whether God exists.

Atheists believe that God does not exist. And although this belief cannot be absolute (nothing is my braindead friend), atheists don't question their lack of belief. Their atheism is solid (based on logic and reason) until proven otherwise. Like everything else in this world. No one uses blind faith to do anything, or believe in anything except God.

So...what other manner will you attempt to spin this.

THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AGNOSTICS AND ATHEISTS IS THAT AGNOSTICS LEAN NEITHER WAY AND ATHEISTS DO. ATHEISTS LEAN BASED ON REASONING, LOGIC AND THINGS THEY CAN VERIFY. YOU RELY ON THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN TOLD TO YOU, BUT NEVER VERIFIED. THIS IS CALLED BLIND TRUST OR FAITH.




[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: free12thinker ]</p>

snatchbalance

WJ,

Your position seems to be something like:

I can only state disbielf in something if there is some possibility that the "something" may exist.

Or;

If I say that I don't believe in "X", there needs to be a "X" for me to not believe in.

Or;

If there was no such thing as "X", I would have nothing to react against in the first place; hence, there must at least be some possibility that "X" does exist.

Or;

Because no confirmatory evidence for the existance of god has been produced, atheists, as a whole, have somehow "given up", that they lost something by default?

Do any of the above statements capture your argument?

SB

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

WJ

Yikes!

"And although this belief cannot be absolute (nothing is my braindead friend), atheists don't question their lack of belief. Their atheism is solid (based on logic and reason) until proven otherwise."

Then your belief is not absolute. And so I agree, you should question your own belief!

We agree!

Care to backpedal on this one too?

Otherwise oh great master, how can logic save the day? How does an atheist's logic prove that which he thinks is absolute? Are you confused?

2+2=4, right?

I await your backpedaling! Or maybe we should call it 'toilet training'.

One thing seems to be certain, atheism is a belief system. Did I misread that?

Walrus