RE: Hey Gnostic Atheist - prove your point
September 4, 2014 at 12:41 am
(This post was last modified: September 4, 2014 at 12:45 am by answer-is-42.)
(August 25, 2014 at 7:17 am)Blackout Wrote:Somethings are factually impossible others have a probability. Practically speaking we disregard or consider things with exceeding low probabilities as impossible, though technically this is not true. My major arguement is not with the atheist part of the equation, but the gnostic part. Again, a claim of knowledge requires proof and if a claim is true and valid then continued exploration is null. Eg - based on limited knowledge we felt the sun went around the earth, based on more full knowledge we know the earth orbits the sun because it has actually been validated - difference in claims and proof.. Also to say that I don't have evidence to refute an arguement in not tanamount to an acceptance of the arguement. I only accept arguements that I can in some way validate or correlate, everything else is practically (though not absolutelty - difference) untrue or unsubstantiated. The major arguement I have with gnostics is the belief that a lack of proof of existance is a proof of lack of existance so to speak and it's not. You may be wrong 1 million times, but it only takes 1 correct answer to refute the word never.(August 25, 2014 at 6:56 am)Cato Wrote: No fucking god. Why? Because there is absolutely no reason to think there is one. I'm not buying the 'theoretically possible' bit either. Using your Earth chasing dragon as a guide, you equivocate 'theoretically possible' with anything that can be imagined. This is a bit silly. I can imagine a five dick baboon riding backward on a unicorn through an enchanted forest playing Mozart on cricket legs; are you going to suspend judgement on this as well?Apparently our friend would reply 'I don't know if there is a five dick baboon riding backward on a unicorn trough an enchanted forest playing Mozart on cricket legs'... Sounds stupid
Also, why apologize for being pedantic when it was clearly your intention? Comes off as disingenuous.
If someone claims to be gnostic then there should be validation to support that claim and it is not unreasonable to ask for it.