(June 26, 2021 at 8:20 am)brewer Wrote:(June 26, 2021 at 7:52 am)Frank Apisa Wrote: Claim "fowl?" You did mean "foul"...right?
Anyway...the reason I came here was to ask a few questions.
I have disagreed with some of the comments. Are visitors here expected to accept everything fed to them without disagreement? Are people not allowed to question responses?
Do you know how to make any sense at all?
Yes foul, I have proof reading issues.
I make sense of it by looking at your approach, you used what most of us consider a less than acceptable one. Disagree and telling people they are wrong are two different animals.
Telling us/I that we/me had to accept the philosophical hypothetical 'a god could exist and you can't deny' (refine that all you want) as a valid position didn't set well from the very beginning. AFAIC arguing what if's is a waste of time, telling me that I have to accept them as valid, well, you've seen my response to that. .
If concrete evidence for a god can't be provided I'm not required to consider the hypothetical. God has been nothing but man's hypothetical concept from the beginning. Why should I consider yet another hypothetical version of it?
1) They are two different things...and the thing I have been doing is to disagree. On those occasions when someone said something wrong, I might say they were wrong. (Witness the word "fowl.")
2) Gods either exist or they don't. For you to say that it is impossible for gods to exist bears a burden of proof. The fact is that the existence of gods IS a possibility...is some that some atheists** simply cannot accept.
3) If you do not want to accept that the possibility of gods exists...fine with me. There are people on the other side of the issue who do not want to accept the possibility that no gods exist. That is also fine with me. Ya gotta deal with bull-headed people on the Internet.
**Whenever I use the word "atheists" in this forum, it is shorthand for "people who choose to use "atheist" as a self-descriptor or part of a self-descriptor.
