Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

Quote:

You really are a nasty person when someone does not want to accept your blind guesses as fact, CM.

yes i am nasty to dumbfucks like you and fil who insult me. i am sorry you believe heisenberg's theories and the entirety of physics is 'blind guesses'.

Quote:

You have to work on that if you ever want to be considered an adult.

you flatter yourself, thinking i would want you to consider me an adult, or anything for that matter. as for the idea of adults acting 'childish', it is a nonsensical idea coming from the limited perspective of adulthood/expanded logic/reasoning/intelligence = good, and childish/immaturity/fun/stupidity = bad. very primitive reasoning you got going on buddy.

No, your reasoning is not fine.. It's horrible.

Izzy said: @RF- Overweening ego. It's the same thing that motivates people to set up cults. Paul certainly liked laying down the law and telling people what to do.

JimmyJ said: All religions were made to control the weak minded

No, I consider it horrible because it conflicts with logic.

In your world, up could be down, the universe could be centered around the Earth, black could be white, gravity could be acting upwards instead of downwards, and so on.

There's no way to ever advance if our entire society adopted your methodology of thinking.

In no way has anything I said conflicted with logic.

Funny! I think the best way to advance our society is to come closer to the kind of thinking I am advocating.

Quote:

In no way has anything I said conflicted with logic.

Refusing to take a stance on anything (including the existence of Santa, unicorns, etc) because you know you "can't prove a negative" is conflicting with logic.

Quote:

Funny! I think the best way to advance our society is to come closer to the kind of thinking I am advocating.

Nonsense. Nobody would ever conclude anything. We'd still think the Earth is flat because you can't prove it's "impossible".

No we would get along just fine. And I never said you cannot prove it is impossible.

Are you actually telling me that you think science cannot prove that the Earth is not flat?

You seem to have some problems, Jimmy.

Read up in which you basically stated that if you can't prove with a certainty that something doesn't exist/does not happen, you should not assert it.
Now it seems you're morphing your views since you've seen the flaw in this line of reasoning. Good for you.

Quote:

No we would get along just fine. And I never said you cannot prove it is impossible.

Are you actually telling me that you think science cannot prove that the Earth is not flat?

You seem to have some problems, Jimmy.

Science can prove a lot of things.
But according to you, there's a distinct possibility that the devil might just change the shape of the Earth to fool humans into thinking it's round. It's a possibility and we can't prove that it doesn't happen, right?

Once again, you have not quoted me. That is the coward's way of debating...you make things up and debate that which you invent.

I have no reason to change my views...since my reasoning has been right on target with you the entire while.

I said no such thing...and I inferred no such thing.

Try to do some reasoning on your own, Jimmy, before calling other reasoning into question.

Go back to what I first said and deal with that. You have now distorted that first remark to where you can make fun of it. And I don't blame you, because your interpretation of what I said IS funny...hilarious, in fact.

JimmyJ wrote:

Quote:

Once again, you have not quoted me. That is the coward's way of debating...you make things up and debate that which you invent.

I have no reason to change my views...since my reasoning has been right on target with you the entire while.

Sorry, I didn't realize claiming that unicorns might exist and nobody can disprove them was "right on target". My mistake.

No problem. I'm happy you realize how far off target you were.

Quote:

Quote:

I said no such thing...and I inferred no such thing.

Try to do some reasoning on your own, Jimmy, before calling other reasoning into question.

Go back to what I first said and deal with that. You have now distorted that first remark to where you can make fun of it. And I don't blame you, because your interpretation of what I said IS funny...hilarious, in fact.

According to you if you can't empirically prove a negative, you must accept that it could possibly exist. Therefore, I can basically make anything up and because you won't be able to disprove it beyond any doubt it will be a distinct possibility (see my example of the devil changing the Earth's shape, I'd like to see you attempt to disprove that).

Go back an provide the quote that I said whatever you are saying I said.

Stop being such a coward.

Actually deal with what I have written...rather than making stuff up.

Quote:

The problem with your reasoning is highlighted in this example. You can NEVER prove to me beyond a level of doubt that the devil isn't changing the shape of the Earth. That doesn't mean we should all accept it as a possibility.

Whatever.

If you want to assert that the devil is changing the shape of the Earth...do it. There are people in mental hospitals who assert much stranger than that.

In the meantime...go find whatever I said that you find so objectionable...link to it...and we will discuss it.

I enjoy discussing with you, Jimmy...(except for that excitability that seems to rule you!)

No problem. I'm happy you realize how far off target you were.

Go back an provide the quote that I said whatever you are saying I said.

Stop being such a coward.

Actually deal with what I have written...rather than making stuff up.

Whatever.

If you want to assert that the devil is changing the shape of the Earth...do it. There are people in mental hospitals who assert much stranger than that.

In the meantime...go find whatever I said that you find so objectionable...link to it...and we will discuss it.

I enjoy discussing with you, Jimmy...(except for that excitability that seems to rule you!)

So are you saying that you did not claim that proving a negative was required?
Do not lie, please. That defeats the purpose here. Don't try to change your viewpoint either. Stick to your guns or admit you're wrong.