(July 12, 2011 at 2:35 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I might actually be one of the most militantly atheist posters you've dealt with. I do in fact contend that gods do not exist. You should read through the posts here if you want to know why you got the reaction that you did. Your arguments are no different than any of the theists who drop by time and time again to tell us how we're "ignorant" morally/intellectually/spiritually inferior..etc etc etc. I challenged your beliefs and you withered? Either things are too complex, too improbable, or they are not, has nothing to do with belief.
You know you keep saying that nothing can be known about god, believe there are some folks here who would disagree with you (myself included for hilariously different reasons).
The thing that really eats at me, personally, is that you had enough in you to start a thread proposing that my conclusions are ignorant, but now I'm just too mean to be dealt with?
Would you like me to play my violin for you?
Ok first let me deal with these guys ipnaf
Rhythem Wrote:Your arguments are no different than any of the theists who drop by time and time again to tell us how we're "ignorant" morally/intellectually/spiritually inferior..etc etc etc. I challenged your beliefs and you withered? Either things are too complex, too improbable, or they are not, has nothing to do with belief.
Again, what the heck? How have my beliefs withered. They've stayed exactly the same this entire thread, which was never about my beliefs to begin with I might add. I would love for you to use proof by contradiction to show how my beliefs have suddenly changed. It is more likely that you were just so thirsty for an argument that you didn't even realize what I was originally saying.
Also if there is anything you guys can honestly say you know about God, I would love to know; why keep from such precious knowledge away from others.
Rhythm Wrote:The thing that really eats at me, personally, is that you had enough in you to start a thread proposing that my conclusions are ignorant, but now I'm just too mean to be dealt with?
Would you like me to play my violin for you?
FOR THE UMTEENTH TIME, if my premise does not apply to you then you have nothing to defend. In fact, as I've said before you've already demonstrated multiple times that you agree with my premise so why the heck do you have a problem with it. I didn't say you were mean but your offense to my question makes you difficult. You are so spited already that you continually don't read my post and actually understand what I'm saying and yet keep going on accusing me of this and that.
Epimethean Wrote:You must be a fan of the Three Stooges. You poke atheism in the eye, get slapped in the face, and then come back with a "why I oughtta!".
This is getting redicously. Please grow up. My original premise only applies to strong atheist as "Faith no More" defined it. Anyone else is just not reading period. Tell me how a strong atheist not ignorant or stop responding with unnecessary statements.
Ace Otana Wrote:An atheist is simply one who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods. That's it..
I am an agnostic atheist, I'm not claiming anything, I have simply rejected the claim that a god or gods exist. That's it.
Even if atheism was a belief system (which it's not) I'd still lack belief in god. Nothing would change.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sourc...gle+Search
atheist is someone who denies the existence of God.
And once again to say you reject the claim the a God or god's exist, requires clarification. If you mean you have no beliefs about God then that is different from saying you believe he or they don't exist. The latter makes no sense.
According the link you provided,
Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption
Please explain to me how this applies to my argument. I presented neither favorable nor excluded unfavorable details at all, forget whether they were properly criticised. Furthermore, I have not cited an exemption to a general rule at. I have no idea how this applies to my argument you'd have to break it down demonstrate how what I've fits this definition.
I could demonstrate exactly why it does not but I'm growing tired of these unnecessary accusations.
Ace Otana Wrote:God is just another imaginary friend like all the rest. Why should we treat the god claim any differently? Without resulting to special pleading which is a fallacious argument.
Yes, God is an imaginary friend you know nothing about, not even if he's imaginary. Therefore it would be ignorant to assert he doesn't exist don't you think.
