Poll: Atheist or Agnostic?

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
I don't see why people care what other people think. Believe what you want to believe and don't worry about what others think.

Insecurity and fear create in people a need to control other individuals -- what they do and what they think. Freedom in others is not tolerable to the insecure person -- others must be controlled lest the illegitimacies of the insecure person be exposed -- to the insecure person himself. Religion deals with the unknowable unknowns, which are the source of human fears. Therefore, freedom of religious belief in others is intolerable to the neurotically insecure.
Those who bathe themselves in these fears rely on the beliefs of others to validate themselves. Whichever way they believe (be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or atheist), then everyone else must believe the same or else their own beliefs are eroded in spasms of self-doubt. Their illogical faiths MUST be so self-evident that no one would dare believe otherwise, and their lack of logic will lead them to the most outrageous falsehoods, strawmen, statements of ignorance, and lies -- which they themselves swallow with questioning -- as was evidenced by 99% of the posts in this thread.

The fact is that atheism is a faith. The atheist believes in the non-existence of God. Logically, neither the existence nor the non-existence of God can be proven. Therefore, belief in the non-existence of God is a belief in something that can never be proven, and as such fits the definition of a faith.

Now, as was already evidenced in this thread, the strawman of being unable to disprove the existence of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy will be brought up. Pathetic lack of logic. Who puts the gifts under the Christmas tree or the coins under the pillow? The answer proves the non-existence of said imaginary figures, and if you don't know, go run back to your mommy.
edit: and to Jack, if that pot o' gold ain't at the end of a rainbow, then the existence of the leprechauns is logically disproven as well. Now work on a REAL argument for once, and not these pathetic strawmen to justify your ignorance and insecurity.

that was a great post man.

 

[dhslammer]

Originally posted by: Vic
Insecurity and fear create in people a need to control other individuals -- what they do and what they think. Freedom in others is not tolerable to the insecure person -- others must be controlled lest the illegitimacies of the insecure person be exposed -- to the insecure person himself. Religion deals with the unknowable unknowns, which are the source of human fears. Therefore, freedom of religious belief in others is intolerable to the neurotically insecure.
Those who bathe themselves in these fears rely on the beliefs of others to validate themselves. Whichever way they believe (be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or atheist), then everyone else must believe the same or else their own beliefs are eroded in spasms of self-doubt. Their illogical faiths MUST be so self-evident that no one would dare believe otherwise, and their lack of logic will lead them to the most outrageous falsehoods, strawmen, statements of ignorance, and lies -- which they themselves swallow with questioning -- as was evidenced by 99% of the posts in this thread.

The fact is that atheism is a faith. The atheist believes in the non-existence of God. Logically, neither the existence nor the non-existence of God can be proven. Therefore, belief in the non-existence of God is a belief in something that can never be proven, and as such fits the definition of a faith.

Now, as was already evidenced in this thread, the strawman of being unable to disprove the existence of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy will be brought up. Pathetic lack of logic. Who puts the gifts under the Christmas tree or the coins under the pillow? The answer proves the non-existence of said imaginary figures, and if you don't know, go run back to your mommy.
edit: and to Jack, if that pot o' gold ain't at the end of a rainbow, then the existence of the leprechauns is logically disproven as well. Now work on a REAL argument for once, and not these pathetic strawmen to justify your ignorance and insecurity.

Eloquently put.

Did you mean "which they themselves swallow with questioning" or "which they themselves swallow without questioning" ?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dhslammer
Did you mean "which they themselves swallow with questioning" or "which they themselves swallow without questioning" ?

Without. Sorry about the typo. Don't always have time to proofread every word.

Thanks for pointing that out, I editted the post with the correction.

 

[MagicConch]

Agnosticism does not equate logic. In order to take the position that all arguments re: God are illogical, one must know all the arguments which is improbable. If any one of these arguments is valid, than position agnosticism is not valid. It's a rather large faith-based assumption that all of them are invalid IMO. Also even any argument that atheism or God is unprovable requires an inherit defintion of God. Since agnostics claim there is no knowledge of God, they really can't argue their position at all b/c it would necessitate providing a defintion of God and thus creating and/or assuming 'knowledge' about God on the issue.

It is actually being very generous of everyone else to allow agnostics to argue their position as the 1 logical path.

 

[HombrePequeno]

I'm both. Agnostics don't believe it is possible to know whether there is a god or not. That being said, I don't really believe in a god. There's always the possibility that I'm wrong.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

The fact is that atheism is a faith.

The fact is that you don't know what it means to be an atheist.

The atheist believes in the non-existence of God.

Don't try to tell me what I believe, because in this instance you're certainly wrong. The fact is that I am an atheist that doesn't believe there is a god, but likewise has no faith that there isn't a god. How could I? I don't even know what it is that I'm supposed to be believing doesn't exist.

Logically, neither the existence nor the non-existence of God can be proven.

That's trivially true. Nothing about the objective universe can be proven logically, so, logically, neither could the existence or non-existence of God.

Therefore, belief in the non-existence of God is a belief in something that can never be proven, and as such fits the definition of a faith.

Good thing I don't believe that then, huh?

Now, as was already evidenced in this thread, the strawman of being unable to disprove the existence of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy will be brought up. Pathetic lack of logic.

What was really lacking was the intellectual capital to fully explain and likewise to fully comprehend the pertinent attack of those arguments. They actually precisely refute certain common claims and objections from theists.

Who puts the gifts under the Christmas tree or the coins under the pillow?

My friend's cat, Bagheera. He's the Creator of the universe, you know. He creates and re-creates it every Thursday, as a matter of fact. He also see's to it that gifts appear at Christmas and that coins replace teeth placed under pillows.

The answer proves the non-existence of said imaginary figures, and if you don't know, go run back to your mommy.

Who are you to whine about strawmen when you'll respond with such a ridculously obvious one yourself?

edit: and to Jack, if that pot o' gold ain't at the end of a rainbow, then the existence of the leprechauns is logically disproven as well.

Not really. You'd commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent:

1.) If Leprechauns, then Pot o'Gold @ Rainbow's end.
2.) No Po o'Gold.
3.) Therefore, no Leprechauns.

That's a textbook fallacy.

Now work on a REAL argument for once, and not these pathetic strawmen to justify your ignorance and insecurity.

Physician, heal thyself!

-Garth

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Vic

The fact is that atheism is a faith.

The fact is that you don't know what it means to be an atheist.

The atheist believes in the non-existence of God.

Don't try to tell me what I believe, because in this instance you're certainly wrong. The fact is that I am an atheist that doesn't believe there is a god, but likewise has no faith that there isn't a god. How could I? I don't even know what it is that I'm supposed to be believing doesn't exist.

Logically, neither the existence nor the non-existence of God can be proven.

That's trivially true. Nothing about the objective universe can be proven logically, so, logically, neither could the existence or non-existence of God.

Therefore, belief in the non-existence of God is a belief in something that can never be proven, and as such fits the definition of a faith.

Good thing I don't believe that then, huh?

Now, as was already evidenced in this thread, the strawman of being unable to disprove the existence of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy will be brought up. Pathetic lack of logic.

What was really lacking was the intellectual capital to fully explain and likewise to fully comprehend the pertinent attack of those arguments. They actually precisely refute certain common claims and objections from theists.

Who puts the gifts under the Christmas tree or the coins under the pillow?

My friend's cat, Bagheera. He's the Creator of the universe, you know. He creates and re-creates it every Thursday, as a matter of fact. He also see's to it that gifts appear at Christmas and that coins replace teeth placed under pillows.

The answer proves the non-existence of said imaginary figures, and if you don't know, go run back to your mommy.

Who are you to whine about strawmen when you'll respond with such a ridculously obvious one yourself?

edit: and to Jack, if that pot o' gold ain't at the end of a rainbow, then the existence of the leprechauns is logically disproven as well.

Not really. You'd commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent:

1.) If Leprechauns, then Pot o'Gold @ Rainbow's end.
2.) No Po o'Gold.
3.) Therefore, no Leprechauns.

That's a textbook fallacy.

Now work on a REAL argument for once, and not these pathetic strawmen to justify your ignorance and insecurity.

Physician, heal thyself!

-Garth

You make saying nothing look good, don't you? Won't work with me, just FYI.

Between your strawmen, misdirection, BS rhetoric, and null statements, you made only one point of fact. That is, that the only way that atheism cannot be a faith is if the very concept of the possibility of deities is removed completely from the human mind. In other words, to be ignorant. You admitted that, and I must commend you with how well you have done at it.

 

[hardwareuser]

You guys have written out so much that I didn't read through the entire thread. But, you guys are arguing about what's faith and what's not? Faith just means a strong belief in something, so pretty much anything can be faith. Kinda pointless arguing about it, isn't it?

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Vic
edit: and to Jack, if that pot o' gold ain't at the end of a rainbow, then the existence of the leprechauns is logically disproven as well. Now work on a REAL argument for once, and not these pathetic strawmen to justify your ignorance and insecurity.

Vic, I've told you this before, I know you like to pass yourself off as an intellectual, but you lack one important trait, intelligence. Now let me tear apart your horribly thought out response.

If the pot o' gold ain't at the end of the rainbow, I'll just say, "it's at the end of ANOTHER rainbow. One that you haven't looked behind yet." And so the Leprechaun lives on.

Now I'm going to show you a pattern here to save us some time, as apparently you have ALOT of. I create a fictious character (Leprechaun/God/Jesus, whatever) that requires absolutely no proof. You try to disprove it using facts, I counter it with more fiction, and it goes on and on, back and forth. Do you know what the result will be in the end? YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO DISPROVE ME. Why? Because I created the character, I created the world, but more importantly I control the rules. Same with religion. The only choice you can make is whether you want to live in the factual world or the fictional world. If you are happy in fantasy land Vic, have at it. I won't talk you out of it. You seem content living there.

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
An agnostic is just an atheist without the courage of his convictions.

or an irishman that likes hedging his/her bets

 

[BurnItDwn]

Originally posted by: hardwareuser
You guys have written out so much that I didn't read through the entire thread. But, you guys are arguing about what's faith and what's not? Faith just means a strong belief in something, so pretty much anything can be faith. Kinda pointless arguing about it, isn't it?

Yes. It is for the most part pointless arguing about it, however, it gives a lot of people a chance to work on their "pointless arguing skills" so that they can then argue better in a different pointless argument. A few posts in a few threads like this one, and people have enough "pointless arguing skill pounts" to apply them to the P&N forums!

 

[Deeko]

I am agnostic.

There is no way for me to know if there is a god or not. Yes, most everything can be proved through science. That doesn't mean there couldn't be someone behind that science.

I subscribe to the don't know, don't really care theory.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic
You make saying nothing look good, don't you?

I said quite a bit. If you had a problem understanding it, then you're free to ask questions.

Won't work with me, just FYI.

None is more imbecilic than he that will not think.

Between your strawmen,

Which were... ?

...misdirection..

Which was... ?

BS rhetoric

Which was... ?

and null statements

Which were... ?

Y'know... you had plenty of opportunity to show me exactly where I did what you've accused of me, but instead of actually indicating precisely where each of these alleged transgressions took place, you've simply cast these vague and general aspersions on my refutations of your peurile claims as though you've made a signfiicant point. It is curious that instead of engaging my points directly -- which one would think would be easy if my argumentation was as horribly fallacious as you've characterized it -- you utterly avoided doing so, seeming to shy away from them while muttering these vagueries under your breath. It seems to me that it's more likely that I didn't do what you've alledged, but you feel a little stung after having your fallacies and errors of fact exposed, and simply wanted to retaliate.

If you think my claims are indeed as errant your choice of adjectives would indicate, why don't you man-up and actually support your claims with some substantitve argumentation?

you made only one point of fact.

That you think this speaks more to your disability to interpret facts than my abililty to state them.

That is, that the only way that atheism cannot be a faith is if the very concept of the possibility of deities is removed completely from the human mind.

Gibberish. Atheism isn't what you seem to think that it is, and I should know -- I am one.

In other words, to be ignorant. You admitted that, and I must commend you with how well you have done at it.

Well, it is the truth: of gods, I am ignorant, so naturally I neither have reason to believe that they exist nor that they do not exist. The point is that since I am not a theist, I am an atheist. There isn't an "in between" theism and atheism. There are simply different types of atheists, just like there are different types of theists. Some of each are agnostic. Some of each are gnostic. Gnosticism/Agnosticism is an entirely orthogonal dichotomy to theism/atheism, despite the common misconceptions held by laymen like yourself.

I'll grant you that there are a healthy number of atheists that believe vigorously that there is no god, and I will grant you that their beliefs have absolutely zero evidence in reality, but *THAT* type of atheist is not the only type of atheist. When you realize that, you'll realize that you're dancing around the fire of YOUR OWN strawman, while reality flies deftly over your head.

-Garth

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Vic, I've told you this before, I know you like to pass yourself off as an intellectual, but you lack one important trait, intelligence. Now let me tear apart your horribly thought out response.

If the pot o' gold ain't at the end of the rainbow, I'll just say, "it's at the end of ANOTHER rainbow. One that you haven't looked behind yet." And so the Leprechaun lives on.

Now I'm going to show you a pattern here to save us some time, as apparently you have ALOT of. I create a fictious character (Leprechaun/God/Jesus, whatever) that requires absolutely no proof. You try to disprove it using facts, I counter it with more fiction, and it goes on and on, back and forth. Do you know what the result will be in the end? YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO DISPROVE ME. Why? Because I created the character, I created the world, but more importantly I control the rules. Same with religion. The only choice you can make is whether you want to live in the factual world or the fictional world. If you are happy in fantasy land Vic, have at it. I won't talk you out of it. You seem content living there.

Jack, the only thing you got is hate, without the slightest shred of knowledge or intelligence.

I do live in the factual world btw, which means I don't have the twisted desire that you have to force everyone else into your fantasy world. You have your beliefs, they have yours. Who is right, who is wrong? NO ONE KNOWS. Nor ever will. But so long as you would condemn and persecute others for their own beliefs (which I imagine will be forever with your hate), I will be there to oppose you, even when their beliefs are not my own. Why? Because people like you are the sh!t of the world.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Garth
despite the common misconceptions held by laymen like yourself.

-Garth

"Laymen like" myself? What are you, a fsckin' priest of atheism? :roll: STFU blowhard. You seriously haven't the slightest clue of what you're talking about, despite your appearances.

BTW, nested quotes are the clearest sign of an idiot on ATOT, noob. It proves you can't argue my post in its entirety, so you have to tear each part out of context. I don't care about your mutterings, I don't care about your ramblings. All you're doing is posting one long ad hominem towards me thinly veiled in bullsh!t because you have no argument. I am thinking, thank you very much.

I did "man-up" :roll: I made my argument. You couldn't refute it except to admit that you could make it go away if you pretended the concept of deities didn't exist. Weaker than circus lemonade, but I gave it to you, and you got all upset and had to set to rambling garbage against me. You clearly don't know what you are except that you sure are damn proud of it, now aren't ya?

Look, believe what you will. I seriously do not care and never will. Your faith is not business. But don't think you can shove it down my throat when it's nothing but bullsh!t. Just as bad (if not worse) than a Fundamentalist.

 

[shamgar03]

I didnt finish reading the thread because it is late, however, I have 2 points. First, for the people who say they don't care whether there is a god or not: It seems to me that this should really be an important issue. You have about 80 or 90 years to work out who He is before you die, which should be enough time to consider the issue. and if there is a god, then it seems like it should be a priority since most "holy books" give the impression that god wants you to the very least to acknowledge him. Second thing is, people love having these discussions, myself included, which makes me think that we all are curious on some level about whether there really is a god. Quite of a few philosophers and theologians have written on the topic so I would recommend to the people who will acknowledge their curiosity that they read some of what people have written, because there is some good stuff out there and it saves the trouble of trying to start from scratch. I am a big fan of C.S. Lewis myself. He is a christian, however in "mere Christianity" the first couple chapters are all about whether it is logical to believe in a god, same for "miracles" which deals with whether it is rational to believe that supernatural events are possible. I just like his stuff, because he is extremely logical, and takes nothing for granted.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

"Laymen like" myself?

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck...

What are you, a fsckin' priest of atheism? :roll: STFU blowhard. You seriously haven't the slightest clue of what you're talking about, despite your appearances.

The content of my posts suggests quite the opposite. If your claim were in fact true, it should be easily demonstrable, and you've had ample opportunity to demonstrate them. Instead, all you've offered is vitriolic blather and wild aspersions.

BTW, nested quotes are the clearest sign of an idiot on ATOT, noob.

Whatever.

It proves you can't argue my post in its entirety, so you have to tear each part out of context.

That doesn't make any sense. Point-by-point discussions are obviously more comprehensive and thorough because each point is given the most scrutiny. Context can still be preserved, although it rarely is significant. I invite you to show me one place where context would significantly affect any of the contested points in this discussion.

I don't care about your mutterings, I don't care about your ramblings.

If that were true, then why would you reply again to me?

All you're doing is posting one long ad hominem towards me thinly veiled in bullsh!t ....

Who are you to whine about the speck in my eye while you ignore the plank in your own?

...because you have no argument.

Now, that's just patently false. We both have arguments. Yours are just bad ones, and mine stand uncontested by you -- apart from your unspecific rantings, of course.

I am thinking, thank you very much.

Then let's see it! Show me how my claims are false! You claim to be 'thinking' ever so hard about it... show me!

I did "man-up" :roll: I made my argument. You couldn't refute it except to admit that you could make it go away if you pretended the concept of deities didn't exist.

That's not what I said, so either you didn't understand my argument, or you're deliberately erecting a strawman. I said that I do not have a concept of god, and I don't. I have ideas about the god-concepts that other people claim to have, but that's a difference that has somehow managed to totally elude you. I'm not pretending that any concept of deities doesn't exist, in contrast to your claim. I'm just saying that *I* don't have one.

Weaker than circus lemonade, but I gave it to you, and you got all upset and had to set to rambling garbage against me. You clearly don't know what you are except that you sure are damn proud of it, now aren't ya?

I know precisely what I am. I am an atheist, and nothing I said would've led you to believe that I am anything other than an atheist. That has been clear since the beginning, and I'm literally astonished that you would suggest that has been ambiguous. It seems my suspicions about your fact-perception handicap were well-founded.

Look, believe what you will. I seriously do not care and never will. Your faith is not business.But don't think you can shove it down my throat when it's nothing but bullsh!t. Just as bad (if not worse) than a Fundamentalist.

Hey, I'm not shoving anything down anybody's throat. My arguments are there for anyone to review and make their own decisions. You appear to think my arguments are unsound, but you will not say why with any detail. Until you give me reason to believe otherwise, then, I must conclude that you either do not know that they are unsound, despite your claims, or that you know that they are sound but refuse to admit it. Either way, as long as your ranting continues, those are the only two possible realities that best account for your behavior, and both are pretty unsavory.

-Garth

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: shamgar03
I am a big fan of C.S. Lewis myself. He is a christian, however in "mere Christianity" the first couple chapters are all about whether it is logical to believe in a god, same for "miracles" which deals with whether it is rational to believe that supernatural events are possible. I just like his stuff, because he is extremely logical, and takes nothing for granted.

That's not really true. C.S. Lewis is the progenitor of the infamous "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?" argument, and I think it was in "Mere Christianity" where that argument appeared. Among the reasons why the argument is flawed is precisely that it takes for granted the truth of the Gospels.

-Garth

 

[Vic]

Right... which was why I made a point that was commended by people on both sides and you jumped in to condemn me with your BS, obfuscation, and ad hominem. :roll:

Face it, you are that insecure I was referring to you, hence your protests and lies. I never said you weren't an atheist. You must have imagined that. I honestly do not care what labels you choose to put on yourself. Just like I don't care that you have ignored the fact that I have already refuted your "claims." Get a clue, pal. You're annoying, a pseudo-intellect, and not in any way worthy of debate. It seems quite clear that you are exactly the individual I was describing in my first post in this thread. Theist or atheist, your faith blinds your reason.

 

[piddlefoot]

There is only 1 truth, and that is that Science will tell us.Science is after all in any area of research, just the seach for the truth, the facts and nothing more. Whether for bombs or tv s or search for life outside our planet science is the only thing that has a hope of telling us the FACTS, and so far science tells us that god didnt create us 5000 odd years ago, rather that we were created from an extreemly large explosion billions of years ago and that we have evolved from single cells into multi celled organisms , it has shown us that life is still changing , evolving, as we speak, science tells us this , it doesnt tell us the first human was a male, but a female, dna and gene research in America, the land of god, has proven that beyond any question, ironic, you can only turn one way if you want the truth, science, what amazes me is that people in there homes can thank science for almost everything they use and see around them right down to the potting mix in the pot plant, yet are blinded by faith, truely blows me away, over time however science will win this argument , easily, for if it doesnt we probably will never make it in the next deadly frontier, space.

 

[hardwareuser]

Piddlefoot, as much as I'd like to believe what you say, I don't think it will happen. I don't think you can determine how smart a person is just by knowing their religion. It's really more of an emotional issue. I know a guy who's smart and clearly cut out to be a leading physicist, but he's a Christian.

Another thing is that I think you can be an atheist even if you can't say for certain that there's no god. I would say that there's the possibility of a god snice we can't prove/disprove it, but I'm certain enough that I readily say "f... god" all the time. There's a chance that earth will get obliterated by a huge meteor within the next day too, but we sure believe it's not gonna happen, right?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic
Right... which was why I made a point that was commended by people on both sides and you jumped in to condemn me with your BS, obfuscation, and ad hominem. :roll:

I didn't contest the first points you made in your original post. I contested only your claims about atheism and what atheists do and do not believe. My how quickly we forget, hmm? Maybe you could try reading for comprehension one time. It's okay if you have to move your lips while you do it -- no one's watching -- the important part is to pick up the little details that you tend to miss like this one here.

Face it, you are that insecure I was referring to you, hence your protests and lies.

Laughable. Again, you point fingers while ignoring your own fingers pointing back at yourself.

I never said you weren't an atheist.

And I never said you said that. I said you suggested it was ambiguous, which you did when you said "You clearly don't know what you are except that you sure are damn proud of it, now aren't ya?" Please try to pay attention. I know it's difficult for you, but do try harder.

You must have imagined that.

HA! The irony is delicious.

I honestly do not care what labels you choose to put on yourself. Just like I don't care that you have ignored the fact that I have already refuted your "claims."

Where in the world did that happen? Care to tell me which post number you think contains anything that resembles a refutation? Please do so we can scrutinize it further. I suspect that you're very much mistaken.

Get a clue, pal. You're annoying, a pseudo-intellect, and not in any way worthy of debate. It seems quite clear that you are exactly the individual I was describing in my first post in this thread. Theist or atheist, your faith blinds your reason.

Again, you fail utterly to make an argument, and instead continue with your apparent affinity for rant. You do realize this is yet another data point consistent only with the two alternate hypotheses I described in the last paragraph of my previous post to you, don't you?

-Garth

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Vic, I've told you this before, I know you like to pass yourself off as an intellectual, but you lack one important trait, intelligence. Now let me tear apart your horribly thought out response.

If the pot o' gold ain't at the end of the rainbow, I'll just say, "it's at the end of ANOTHER rainbow. One that you haven't looked behind yet." And so the Leprechaun lives on.

Now I'm going to show you a pattern here to save us some time, as apparently you have ALOT of. I create a fictious character (Leprechaun/God/Jesus, whatever) that requires absolutely no proof. You try to disprove it using facts, I counter it with more fiction, and it goes on and on, back and forth. Do you know what the result will be in the end? YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO DISPROVE ME. Why? Because I created the character, I created the world, but more importantly I control the rules. Same with religion. The only choice you can make is whether you want to live in the factual world or the fictional world. If you are happy in fantasy land Vic, have at it. I won't talk you out of it. You seem content living there.

Jack, the only thing you got is hate, without the slightest shred of knowledge or intelligence.

I do live in the factual world btw, which means I don't have the twisted desire that you have to force everyone else into your fantasy world. You have your beliefs, they have yours. Who is right, who is wrong? NO ONE KNOWS. Nor ever will. But so long as you would condemn and persecute others for their own beliefs (which I imagine will be forever with your hate), I will be there to oppose you, even when their beliefs are not my own. Why? Because people like you are the sh!t of the world.

You're right, no one knows if Leprechauns exist. Good point. :roll:

But so long as you would condemn and persecute others for their own beliefs (which I imagine will be forever with your hate), I will be there to oppose you, even when their beliefs are not my own.

You oppose me like a squirrel that stands infront of a steam roller. I'll run you over every time.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Garth

I honestly do not care what labels you choose to put on yourself. Just like I don't care that you have ignored the fact that I have already refuted your "claims."

Where in the world did that happen? Care to tell me which post number you think contains anything that resembles a refutation? Please do so we can scrutinize it further. I suspect that you're very much mistaken.

Garth, Vic always says he refuted this or he refuted that, when in fact he never did. I remember having the same reaction when he made claims like this about my arguments waaaay back when, when we got into it. This is a pattern of his, and it will frustrate you to no end. Well, you may have more patience with him that I do. But after he spammed me via PM, I never took him seriously again. Hopefully he doesn't resort to that type of behavior with you.

 

[shamgar03]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: shamgar03
I am a big fan of C.S. Lewis myself. He is a christian, however in "mere Christianity" the first couple chapters are all about whether it is logical to believe in a god, same for "miracles" which deals with whether it is rational to believe that supernatural events are possible. I just like his stuff, because he is extremely logical, and takes nothing for granted.

That's not really true. C.S. Lewis is the progenitor of the infamous "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?" argument, and I think it was in "Mere Christianity" where that argument appeared. Among the reasons why the argument is flawed is precisely that it takes for granted the truth of the Gospels.

-Garth

He takes that for granted AFTER he has already gone through his logical arguments for why it is reasonable to believe in a god at all. No offense, but you should probobly read the book before you write it off.