@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:
Quote:Knowing and knowledge are not the same thing. I addressed this already.
Are you playing scrabble or posting reason ?
Definitions of knowing on the Web: knowledgeable; alert and fully informed; "a knowing collector of rare books"; "surprisingly knowledgeable about what was going on"
There are things I don't know that there exists knowledge about. I can NEVER say that we do not have enough information on the Empire State Building to make a claim about it's height. My not knowing, and their not being knowledge are two different things.
Ionus wrote:
Quote:I think rather you recognize the weakness in religious beliefs and are desperate to put atheists in the same weak state.
Actually I find theists quite strong it is atheists I find weak, esp when it comes to acceptance of the inevitability of death.
Odd response. Of the two parties you list, only one thinks that we live forever in some capacity. It seems you have this perfectly backwards. Atheists seem to have a greater acceptance of death and finality.
Ionus wrote:
Quote:Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief in unbelief.
The number of atheists who have such a firm belief in science I would say it is a very strong faith where God does not exist and science is the light.
A belief in the scientific method is not faith. Faith is the dulling of the aesthetic experience on all levels. Faith is rejecting what we experience, and to accept what we cannot. Perhaps even substituting other things in place of experience. Again, religion blushes.
Ionus wrote:
Quote:If the Empire State building claim is made, I can ask the person to support their claim.
You can chose to accept it exists or it does not. If you chose it does not, then you have a belief it doesn't exist.
Semantic error. You lack belief. You do not believe it doesn't exist. You seem stuck in logical errors involving negatives.
Ionus wrote:
Quote:As I said before, you're desperately trying to make atheism into a religion. Atheism is based on skepticism.
Have you read the posts by atheists here ? And you try to convince me it is a wishy washy maybe ? They have very strong beliefs.
I'd say, more accurately, people have very strong standards of skepticism.
Ionus wrote:
Quote:Sure. We also have a switch for unicorns. We have a switch for Duckbill Platapi as well. The switch is off for gods and unicorns, but it is on for the duckbill.
I see the human mind is not your strong point. We have an ability to really enjoy something mystical. For some it is unicorns, for some it is body piercings, for some it is train sets, and for some it is science. If religion is in the mystical part of you, then there are behavioural criteria just like owning a train set. Atheists can not have God in their mystical side. They make a decision that God does not exist. They then need something mystical. Perhaps something simple and physical, like a trainset. Perhaps UFO's and aliens having sex with humans. Perhaps communicating with the dead. But everyone who does not believe in God makes the decision God does not exist. They have faith in that decision. They are atheists and have a firm religious conviction.
It does not take faith to maintain what one does not believe in. You seem very adamant about making this assertion. What faith does it take on your part to continue to be unconvinced in the existence of unicorns?
Ionus wrote:
Quote:Quote:Agnostics cant have faith in God but they cant prove God doesnt exist either.
Nobody has a burden to disprove god.
Nobody said they did. You read it wrong. I was referring to the process in their minds.
There's no extra process running in the background of our brains that active denies gods. If there was, the same would be true for unicorns, fairies, etc. Being that there is an infinite number of things we are unconvinced of, it would require an infinite amount of cognitive power just to deny these things. Simply put, the brain's processes does not operate this way.
A
R
T
