|  phildoe | Aug 20, 2004 1:21pm | I just want to say I hate how people who belive in god and athiests always try and convert each other when niether of them have any logical arguements. Firstly for the people who belive in god have no reason to belive in god its just stupid and they say have faith but why have faith in that when you could have faith in that ther is no god it just doesnt make sence. And then ther is the Athiests I hate them just as much sure ther is no reason to belive in god but is ther a reason you dont belive in him can you logicaly prove he doesnt exist ther is no evidence. And what realy pisses me off is that both of these groups feel supirior to the other when they both have the same flaws i do not clasify them in seprite groups i clasify them as people who asume things for no reason.
PS sorry for my bad spelling |
|
|
Sponsor | |
|
|  arbitrary | Aug 20, 2004 5:36pm | Wait a second... so then you're superior because there is no conclusive evidence either way? Is that what you're saying? Sorry, but the bad spelling/grammar is hard to get past.
I never try to "convert" anyone; I just have a problem with people who don't question anything. That and people who make generalizations. |
|
|
 |  41264 | Aug 20, 2004 6:02pm | | There is no way to prove one way or the other, but if you know in your heart that it's true, then that's what you believe. The only time I don't question is when the fundies and extremists come knocking on my door. Most other times I am all too happy to listen to the "other side arguments", but I still believe what I want to believe. |
|
|
| | phildoe | Aug 21, 2004 12:05am | | what do you mean you have a problem with people who dont question anything i have questioned everything that is how i have came to this conclusion i ust to be an athiest and then i relized i was being as stupid as the ppl i was arguing with and i have showed you why. And you not being able to get past the bad spelling and grammer just shows your being shallow and closed minded. And also knowing something in your heart doesnt mean anything inless you have a reason to belive what your heart tells you. |
|
|
| | 71110 | Aug 21, 2004 3:33am | How is being an atheist as "stupid" as being a theist? If I told you there was a magical pink elephant living in your wardrobe that dissapeared every time you opened the door, do you think it would be reasonable to call you stupid if you didn't believe me? I refuse to entertain an idea unless there's either logic or evidence to support it, anybody who doesn't is living in cloud cuckoo land IMNSHO.
Also LOL @ calling arbitrary closed minded for not being able to decrypt your childish ramblings. OPEN YOUR MIND TO THE POTENTIAL OF RANDOM WORD AND SENTENCE STRUCTURE!
P.S. Agnostics are pussies. |
|
|
Staff |  joewalp | Aug 21, 2004 6:39am | re: pet peeve
A peeve of mine is where a person either criticizes or promotes atheism while arguing based on a mistaken perspective that atheism is either equivalent to philosophical naturalism or confined to strong atheism. Wikipedia is your friend.
Another peeve is where a proponent of a secular belief system demonstrates by obnoxious behavior that s/he chose not to embrace empathy-based or empirically derived morals when rejecting the prescribed morals of dominant religious organizations.
Another peeve is where a proponent of philosophical naturalism fails to realize that minimalizing assumptions implies existentialism rather than philosophical naturalism. |
|
|
| | phildoe | Aug 21, 2004 7:21am | To meiso
If I told you it was possible for particals to apear and disapear in open space for no apparent reason, do you think it would be reasonable to call you stupid if you didn't believe me? Well according to quantum physics you would be wrong this is just another example that just because something seems stupid to belive it is just as stupid to belive its not true for no reason. And ther is logic to supost what im saying ther is none to suport that athiem is better then thiesm the questions why belive in something and why not belive in something are equaly valid. |
|
|
| | 71110 | Aug 21, 2004 7:59am | Yes, I do think it would be reasonable for you to call me "stupid" not to believe you about something there was hard scientific evidence to support. Did you really think I'd say no? Quantum physics doesn't make the existance of magical pink elephants any more likely though.
I reiterate, your insistence that not believing in something even though there's no evidence for it is "stupid" makes no logical sense to me. There is no logic to support what you're saying because what you're saying is the very antithesis of logic, there are no conclusions to be drawn. Logic is dead in a world where anything is possible. |
|
|
Staff | | joewalp | Aug 21, 2004 8:59am | ===== an excerpt from "Atheism" in Wikipedia [1] ===
- Weak atheism, or negative atheism, is the standpoint that there is no reason to believe that any particular god exists. A weak atheist sees no reality in any god he's been told about, and doesn't expect to ever find a god he can believe is real. This is not equivalent to agnosticism; an agnostic believes he does not or can not have enough information to say for certain whether any gods exist.
- Strong atheism, or positive atheism, goes further to make the assertion that there are no such things as gods. This may include the opinion that the existence of a god is logically impossible; strong atheists base this on logical a priori arguments intending to demonstrate that omnipotent, omniscient, and/or transcendent conceptions of "God" are self-contradictory or internally inconsistent.
========
meiso:
Note that conclusions can be drawn from both the weak atheist position and the agnostic position. Each implies that no particular theist religious organization holds a monopoly on moral authority.
[1]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism] |
|
|
|
Atheist/Agnostic → Discussion