DeletedUser
Aren't you guys all going to feel silly when the day comes that you meet up with a blue fairy riding a magical unicorn? 
hmy:
hmy:
DeletedUser
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Idolator!
DeletedUser
Bevoir, it is understandable your efforts to save-face, nor is it my intent to bask in the glory of a debate win, but this has not been about winning or losing, merely about correcting misnomers and directing the discussion to the probable vs the improbable. For all intensive purposes, 100% atheism does not exist. For all intensive purposes, 100% theism does not exist. For all intensive purposes, blue fairies riding unicorns does not exist. The inference of absolutism in the term, "non-existent" is a practical interpretation, not a literal one. The laws of probability does not disallow the possibility of something having existed, existing, or will exist, it merely points at the astronomical improbability that, for all practical purposes, leaves us to conclude non-existence in a reference on par with absolute.
Bevoir, that leaves us to discuss that which does exist. No fairies, no unicorns, no 100% athiests, nor 100% theists, just common sense and a reasoned perspective on the issues before us. I wish for all of us here to have reasoned, logical, productive dialog on topics, not mentally masturbate in the company of a bunch of other guys. But if that will not occur, because of a dogmatic resistance to closure on an unrealistic tangent, then we have nothing else to discuss.
Bevoir, that leaves us to discuss that which does exist. No fairies, no unicorns, no 100% athiests, nor 100% theists, just common sense and a reasoned perspective on the issues before us. I wish for all of us here to have reasoned, logical, productive dialog on topics, not mentally masturbate in the company of a bunch of other guys. But if that will not occur, because of a dogmatic resistance to closure on an unrealistic tangent, then we have nothing else to discuss.
DeletedUser
Isn't that a bit of a paradox? How can you say absolutely that there are no 100% absolutes? I'm not saying you're wrong, but there is that remote possibility that somewhere, or at some time, a 100% atheist exists, has existed or will exist.
I figured I'd get negative rep for that, thanks for not letting me down!
I figured I'd get negative rep for that, thanks for not letting me down!
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
I wondered the same, AG.
Hell - if you want closure on a tangent then stop banging on about it, eh? I'm more than happy to agree to disagree.
If you want to move away from your mental masturbation then do so.
Hell - if you want closure on a tangent then stop banging on about it, eh? I'm more than happy to agree to disagree.
If you want to move away from your mental masturbation then do so.
DeletedUser
Bevoir, stop trying to be an opportunist. Artemis, please bother to read what I wrote.
Alright, since words alone don't seem to be doing the trick of making my point, how about words and pictures?
As you can see, the grossly improbable likelihood of a "strong atheist" makes debate on it to be an unreasonable one, a waste of time. It is so incredibly unlikely of a scenario that discussing it is opportunistic redress of the original debate.
Alright, since words alone don't seem to be doing the trick of making my point, how about words and pictures?
As you can see, the grossly improbable likelihood of a "strong atheist" makes debate on it to be an unreasonable one, a waste of time. It is so incredibly unlikely of a scenario that discussing it is opportunistic redress of the original debate.
DeletedUser
You've left room on there for "whacked out" people, but how do you know that some of us aren't nuts? Granted, that isn't likely to include you, but I just usually dislike absolutes. I don't believe always or never is true in many cases, but there is an exception to every rule - including this one. Just another paradox for you.
DeletedUser
And that's the point Artemis. It falls outside the realm of reasoned debate for being demonstratively, grossly, improbable. 100% atheism is an absolute; non-existent. The closest is represented above, and yet remains distasteful as a debate topic for their virtual non-existence, their inapplicability to the original poster's stated argument and in how it fails to weigh in on the subject matter precisely because of it's virtual non-existence. If we wish to discuss a particular psych ward patient, let's give him a name, not a label.
DeletedUser
I see you didn't read his entire post before making this comment. He actually answers your post before you made it through this quote "The laws of probability does not disallow the possibility of something having existed, existing, or will exist, it merely points at the astronomical improbability that, for all practical purposes, leaves us to conclude non-existence in a reference on par with absolute."
As far as the original post, haha. Personally I find all Christians to be blasphemous to whom I worship. Horus, son Isis and Osiris, resurrected on the 3rd day after his death and descent into Hell. Do not follow your false Prophet into the depths of despair and ruin, trust in Ra-Harakhte.
DeletedUser
Can you define what a 100% atheist is? Can you state the difference between a 61% percent atheist and a 69% atheist?
As atheism is not a believe and as no dogma is bound to it, there is no strong atheism or weak atheism.
Atheism only describes that a person is convinced of the non-existance of god/gods. Unlike Chistians being stong or weak believers depending on whether they accept the total amount of Chrisitan dogma or only parts of it, you're either an atheist or you are not. There is noting inbetween the existance of god (position of theists) and its non-existance (position of atheists). (There still is the concept of agnostizm, like "I have no idea" or "I don't care", but that is totally irrelevant to this discussion.)
The reason why you think god(s) doesn't/don't exist doesn't matter, when it comes to you whether or not being an atheist.
Bytheway, science is not a superior being (god), which are supposed by humans to exist, to create world(s) and to micromanage it. Science is the power of us humans to understand the world we are living in by using logic, reasoning and evidence proving and to use the laws of nature in favour of us. We don't become "gods of fire", when we burn some sticks and make a fire and understand the whole process, don't we?
And some questian to all Christian reading this post: Have you any prove that Jesus is the son of "god"? If we assume that "god" does exist, why is it necessarily benevolent, as the Christian believe in? How can it be that your sins are all forgiven only because you become a Christian? If a serial killer is converted into a strong believing Christian, why does he become guiltless regarding his past sins?
If you (theists) think you can't discuss whether god exist or not, because there is no prove for either of the two position, than let's discuss whether christianity makes sense or not.
As atheism is not a believe and as no dogma is bound to it, there is no strong atheism or weak atheism.
Atheism only describes that a person is convinced of the non-existance of god/gods. Unlike Chistians being stong or weak believers depending on whether they accept the total amount of Chrisitan dogma or only parts of it, you're either an atheist or you are not. There is noting inbetween the existance of god (position of theists) and its non-existance (position of atheists). (There still is the concept of agnostizm, like "I have no idea" or "I don't care", but that is totally irrelevant to this discussion.)
The reason why you think god(s) doesn't/don't exist doesn't matter, when it comes to you whether or not being an atheist.
Bytheway, science is not a superior being (god), which are supposed by humans to exist, to create world(s) and to micromanage it. Science is the power of us humans to understand the world we are living in by using logic, reasoning and evidence proving and to use the laws of nature in favour of us. We don't become "gods of fire", when we burn some sticks and make a fire and understand the whole process, don't we?
And some questian to all Christian reading this post: Have you any prove that Jesus is the son of "god"? If we assume that "god" does exist, why is it necessarily benevolent, as the Christian believe in? How can it be that your sins are all forgiven only because you become a Christian? If a serial killer is converted into a strong believing Christian, why does he become guiltless regarding his past sins?
If you (theists) think you can't discuss whether god exist or not, because there is no prove for either of the two position, than let's discuss whether christianity makes sense or not.
Last edited by a moderator: