Okay...let's see...where was I...

Thomas wrote:

Sorry for getting ad hominem with you Frank, but I do rather like Blatham's label "the only evangelical agnostic I've ever met."

I do not consider being considered an evangelical agnostic to be an ad hominem (at least not in the prejorative sense of that expression). I consider it to be a compliment. My fellow agnostics have sat on the sidelines of this issue for too goddam long. They deserve the considerable scorn both atheists and theists hurl at them.

You say you like betting.

Well you can bet the ranch that I AM AN EVANGELICAL AGNOSTIC. (I am assuming you mean militant, crusading zeal.)

And if anyone wants to consider that to be an oxymoron....I am more than prepared to show you the errors of your ways.

0 Replies

So tell me, how did you get born again as an agnostic? Did you have a vision of Thomas Jefferson as you were dozing off in a Catholic Church?

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

Quote:

Even this is bullshyt, Tal....as I am sure you already realize.

There is absolutely nothing to prevent a GOD from existing and from "creating man" in a way completely compatible with the fossil records currently available.

Hmmm...I'm inclined to agree.

Thomas: I could be mistaken, but the tone of your posts are getting progressively more hostile. Are you a) not willing to continue this conversation further, or b) construing some insult from my posts? If so, I'm perfectly willing to let the matter drop, though I'd like to continue, and I can assure you that no insult was ever meant in my posts.

back to
Frank wrote:

Quote:

Just about the only arguments for the non-existence of gods I have heard from any atheist so far are variations on the theme: I do not see any gods; and there is no evidence that there are any gods.

I completely agree. In a simplistic form, it's somewhat like me trying to guess Thomas' hair color without ever having seen him. I could conclude that since red is a rare color for hair, that means that Thomas doesn't have red hair, but that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

Similarly, we could say "since we haven't seen proof, God's existence is unlikely, so we can say it doesn't exist", but we would also be wrong there. I look forward to hearing from all of you.

0 Replies

oy

0 Replies

Taliesin181 wrote:

Thomas: I could be mistaken, but the tone of your posts are getting progressively more hostile. Are you a) not willing to continue this conversation further, or b) construing some insult from my posts? If so, I'm perfectly willing to let the matter drop, though I'd like to continue, and I can assure you that no insult was ever meant in my posts.

Thanks for asking, but no, I am neither perceiving any insults from you, nor feeling any hostility towards you, nor unwilling to keep discussing this with you. I just honestly, truly think "god" is a meaningless concept. Sorry about any hostility you have been perceiving from me.

0 Replies

Dys,

You're.........well dyslexic aren't you? So your opinion doesn't count.

Although, so am I and I agree with you.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Quote:

Thanks for asking, but no, I am neither perceiving any insults from you, nor feeling any hostility towards you, nor unwilling to keep discussing this with you. I just honestly, truly think "god" is a meaningless concept. Sorry about any hostility you have been perceiving from me.

Glad to hear it, but that doesn't explain your last post to me, though.

Quote:

I can tell you that by your ideosyncratic definition of "god", the fossil record, the evolution of antibiotics-resistant bacteria, the evolution of black moths from grey moths in the London Underground, and thousands of similar observation establish a very high probability that "god" does exist. But I doubt that conceding that means very much. All it means is that defining "god" to mean "natural selection" is ideosyncratic and arbitrary.

Surely you can admit that this is a rather facetious post. BUT, I can admit to some error in my "definition", so I can let it go. You've said that you find "God's" existence so highly improbable so as to be meaningless. Why don't you tell me what definition you're working off of, and explain your evidence? That'll work much better, I think. Thanks.

0 Replies

Quote:

...Thomas and Lola both want to assert that because we cannot know almost anything to a certainty...that means their guesses about the true nature of REALITY has to be something other than a guess.

It would only be a guess if there were no criteria to base it on....and since there is a lot of that then I can't call it a guess. We could agree, I think that's it's an educated guess .......one so educated that I'll just go ahead and live my life based upon it.

How's that for a compromise?

0 Replies

Lola: Okay, but what criteria are you using? Both you and Thomas reference evidence disproving (or, more accurately, dis-probable-izing Laughing

) "God's" existence. If you've got it, I'd love to hear it.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

So tell me, how did you get born again as an agnostic? Did you have a vision of Thomas Jefferson as you were dozing off in a Catholic Church?

0 Replies

Taliesin181 wrote:

You've said that you find "God's" existence so highly improbable so as to be meaningless. Why don't you tell me what definition you're working off of, and explain your evidence? That'll work much better, I think. Thanks.

Sorry, I can't. That was my point #1: I don't see "the concept of god" as having meaningful definition that a reasonable number of people can agree on.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Quote:
...Thomas and Lola both want to assert that because we cannot know almost anything to a certainty...that means their guesses about the true nature of REALITY has to be something other than a guess.

It would only be a guess if there were no criteria to base it on....and since there is a lot of that then I can't call it a guess. We could agree, I think that's it's an educated guess .......one so educated that I'll just go ahead and live my life based upon it.

How's that for a compromise?

No deal. It is not an "educated guess"...and in fact, may very well be an unintelligent guess.

If at some point you want to enumerate the "lots of criteria" you are using to assert "there are no gods"....I would be delighted to discuss it with you.

Why not try that?

0 Replies

Thomas: I don't really care if I agree with your defintion; my main purpose is to understand your argument, which you've never really described. If you still do not wish to explain your defintion, then at least elaborate on your evidence. Thank you.

0 Replies

Now there are two people asking Lola and Thomas for all the great mass of evidence they have that there are no gods involved in REALITY.

Where's the meat?

0 Replies

big ole thunder storm rollin in Frank......what a sight from my balcony!

0 Replies

What a sight of baloney...

I think people have been pretty friendly in this discussion, I say as a fellow traveler.

People seem to go with Frank's idea of what an atheist is, although several a2k atheists don't.

I do so hate to put up my definition yet again, but since it seems to get only nods from other atheists and then is quickly forgotten, I'll type it once more. An atheist is one who is void of theistic belief.

That does not mean the atheist believes any other construct the arguers devise.

An atheist has no necessity to prove anything at all to others re this void.

0 Replies

You are right, ossobuco. I have stated my version on a number of threads and don't see the need of rehashing, since the people of faith, the deists and agnostics, will never concede anything. What's the point regurgitating arguments infinitum and getting nowhere?

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

What a sight of baloney...

I think people have been pretty friendly in this discussion, I say as a fellow traveler.

People seem to go with Frank's idea of what an atheist is, although several a2k atheists don't.

I do so hate to put up my definition yet again, but since it seems to get only nods from other atheists and then is quickly forgotten, I'll type it once more. An atheist is one who is void of theistic belief.

That does not mean the atheist believes any other construct the arguers devise.

An atheist has no necessity to prove anything at all to others re this void.

Brava Osso . . . this is precisely what beggars Frank's simple minded and disingenuous equation of theists and atheists.

0 Replies

well, I must admit that I think little about God and whether he exists or not because I really don't care if he does or not. I believe he does not exist and therefore I'm an atheist according to Osso's definition. Thank you very much, Osso. Very good.

I don't site scientific evidence because it would be a lot of work and I'm too busy makin hay while the sun is shinning......and I think I'll just keep doing that thank you.

0 Replies

The point for me is that other people define me as atheist . . . the entire concept is meaningless for me. I go from one year to then next never giving the issue any thought, except here, and when i'm with a very conservative friend of mine who is hugely anti-religion . . .

0 Replies

Okay...let's see...where was I...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know