Hello everyone!!

[CoxRox]

That's fine by me. I was just referring to that you seemed to want to agree to disagree. When you said "we can always agree to disagree". You can. But I thought you wanted to and I was just giving my opinion on that. But at the same time saying that by all means if you want to then fine. But I just wanted to give my opinion that I like conversations to continue if there's more disagreements As long as it hasn't gotten nasty.
I was just saying that I don't like the whole "agree to disagree" thing unless its guests nasty. And if it gets nasty people often refuse to then anyway!
[/quote]

I get ya I think some things we discuss may end up with us saying this. Although this is not the best outcome, after all one is right and one is wrong or both are right or wrong, but if we can't move on then sometimes that has to happen. For example, you and Leo etc would not see an inference of design because of the 'patterns' stuff being discussed on other threads. You believe we have evolved the tendancy to see patterns etc and this has good reasons as well as 'incorrect' ones. At this moment in time, with my limited knowledge, I still see 'design' due to the complexity, initial origins of life, the moral code. You can explain these things via evolution and you may well be right, but I think 'God' is still a possibility, however small. Maybe I should say, we'll agree to disagree 'for now'.......and there is no need for anyone getting nasty......

Sorry, I'm no good at trying to edit just portions....

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes indeed. I guess perhaps I just like to keep moving on and on myself until someone else has had enough of the conversation
It takes a LOT for me to get bored of a conversation. In fact I can't remember it happening(?) Either someone else has had enough OR I have to leave for some reason. Like I have to go out so I have to leave. Or have to eat dinner. Or whatever.

[lilphil1989]

I often wonder why people turn to atheism if God can't be proven or disproven. It makes me think why would people turn their back on a God if they are not 100% sure?

I postulate that there is a lump of highland toffee smothered in chocolate (yum!) and sculpted into the shape of a giraffe orbiting the moon.

I also postulate that this piece of toffee is so small, and has such a low luminosity that it is impossible to observe using any (ground or space) telescope.
Also, the toffee giraffe can solve rubik's cube in under 5 seconds, speak Hebrew and hits a mean tennis serve.
Also, I have no evidence that it exists.

Since it is in principle impossible to observe, we cannot scan the the sky for it and say it's existence is disproven when we don't see it.

Having read my postulate, will you accept that the toffee giraffe exists?
Or do you think that the burden of proof for my extraordinary claims lies with me?

[Edwardo Piet]

Great post Phil.
What about the intangible, inaudible, invisible yet simultaneously rose-coloured, spearmint flavoured Goblin? I've thought of and posted this one before - its an invention of mine lol. But its still valid regardless if i made it up! I posulate it! I postulate it! Can't be disproven! Must exist!
Or....I'm claiming it so the burden of proof is on me.....
I postulate an insanely strong claim.. - I need an insane amount of evidence.
Evf