RE: I can feel your anger
July 9, 2012 at 3:07 am
(This post was last modified: July 9, 2012 at 3:14 am by Selliedjoup.)
Out of you and Nora I'd have to go for you.
Why is this the common assertion of the atheist? Yes we all know you have no belief in a god, this is not the same as the belief set you appply to reach the "I have no belief" conclusion. Two seperate and distinct things.
Thor, the Loch Ness monster et al do not account for anything, as there is nothing (worthwhile) that could be attibuted due to their eixstence. Given we exist (I'm assuming we agree on this), yet existence has not been explained, and there is no evidence to prove the catalyst for existence, how can you discount things without proof of what did actually occur?
You seem only focused on my self-righteousoness rather than what I'm saying. You may claim to not know, but to take the intellectual high ground without a proven set of facts to prove your persepective, your conclusion can only be based on your worldview/set of beliefs, nothing more. If you consider that you're without 'belief' most non-atheists will call bullshit.
How do you claim to not know and then quote "Those afraid of the universe as it really is..."? I hope you can see where you're contradicting yourself.
(July 8, 2012 at 7:40 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote:(July 8, 2012 at 4:43 am)CliveStaples Wrote: This might seem glib, but why should I believe that disbelief is the proper response to a lack of evidence? Do you have evidence for that belief?
I have no belief.
Why is this the common assertion of the atheist? Yes we all know you have no belief in a god, this is not the same as the belief set you appply to reach the "I have no belief" conclusion. Two seperate and distinct things.
(July 8, 2012 at 7:52 am)Napoleon Wrote:(July 8, 2012 at 4:43 am)CliveStaples Wrote: This might seem glib, but why should I believe that disbelief is the proper response to a lack of evidence? Do you have evidence for that belief?
There is lack of evidence for bigfoot, thor, the loch ness monster, leprechauns, unicorns etc but I guarantee you don't feel the need to believe in them do you.
Not believing in something due to lack of evidence is the only rational position to take.
*edit* and yes, it isn't a belief as Norfolk said, it's a lack of belief.
Thor, the Loch Ness monster et al do not account for anything, as there is nothing (worthwhile) that could be attibuted due to their eixstence. Given we exist (I'm assuming we agree on this), yet existence has not been explained, and there is no evidence to prove the catalyst for existence, how can you discount things without proof of what did actually occur?
(July 8, 2012 at 8:02 am)Faith No More Wrote:Selliedjoup Wrote:Yes but I'm only self-righteous in claiming I don't know and neither do you. If you can prove that you know, I will be quit my self-righteous tone.
Except I don't know, and I have never claimed to. But I have a feeling you're not concerned about that. You seem to only be interested in maintaining your self-righteousness.
You seem only focused on my self-righteousoness rather than what I'm saying. You may claim to not know, but to take the intellectual high ground without a proven set of facts to prove your persepective, your conclusion can only be based on your worldview/set of beliefs, nothing more. If you consider that you're without 'belief' most non-atheists will call bullshit.
How do you claim to not know and then quote "Those afraid of the universe as it really is..."? I hope you can see where you're contradicting yourself.
