I have some questions for the posters here.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I'm not going to call you an atheist going forward because it is impolite to use terminology for someone that they reject. However, I do feel a need to point out that the definition of atheist is not: 'someone who calls themselves an atheist'.

So, just because I call myself ‘The Leech King Of Patagonia’ doesn’t make it so?

I have to say, that’s a little disappointing.

Boru

[no one]

And there it is, the beyond description miracle of sentient life. Que: Angels singing!

Oh lordy, lordy, lordy, I've been blinded by your light.

[arewethereyet]

It has been my experience that:

Theists don't particularly like it when you show them the fault in their "logic."

Atheists seem to loathe it when you show them the fault in theirs. 

I'm hoping we can all discuss this reasonably.

If you want to deem that to be an opinion...fine with me.

---

You're doing it again. Stop repeating the same things in post after post. If you want people to refer back to a prior post, add the post number.

[Frank Apisa]

I do not "believe" any gods exist...just as I do not "believe" there are no gods.

AND I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.

Compare the following statements:
- I believe that god exists.
- I believe that god does not exist.
- I do not believe that god exists.
Do you see the difference?

Yes, I do. What does that have to do with what you quoted me saying?

I know of many atheists who are certain they KNOW that no gods exist...or KNOW that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.

I think they are all full of soup.

I have never seen any theist who thinks that way...or atheist who thinks that way...come up with any logic or science that rationalizes those guesses.

Theists don't particularly like it when you show them the fault in their "logic."

Atheists seem to loathe it when you show them the fault in theirs.

 
Ladies and gentlemen, Frank and his amazing strawmen dancing to the tune of unfounded smug superiority.

I'm hoping we can all discuss this reasonably...

If you wanted reasonable discussion then coming onto a forum, telling people what they think and insulting them for it was a poor way to go.

Well, seems I am not going to have a reasonable discussion with you.

I'll try to get over my disappointment.

[arewethereyet]

Compare the following statements:
- I believe that god exists.
- I believe that god does not exist.
- I do not believe that god exists.
Do you see the difference?

Yes, I do. What does that have to do with what you quoted me saying?

 
Ladies and gentlemen, Frank and his amazing strawmen dancing to the tune of unfounded smug superiority.


If you wanted reasonable discussion then coming onto a forum, telling people what they think and insulting them for it was a poor way to go.

Well, seems I am not going to have a reasonable discussion with you.

I'll try to get over my disappointment.

Snark becomes you.

Define reasonable...we haven't seen it from you yet.

[Frank Apisa]

**When I use the word "god" I mean [/font][/color]"The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF THERE IS SUCH AN ENTITY."

What do you mean by entity responsible for creation of the universe ?

When I use the expression "entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF THERE IS SUCH AN ENTITY"...

...what I mean is:  The entity or entities responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe' if in fact there are such entities...and if in fact, this thing we humans call 'the universe' was actually created.

I do not know if this thing we humans call "the universe" is everything that is...or if there is lots more that we do not know about and, perhaps, about which we cannot even conceive.

Do you have a reason to propose one, and if not why not simply withhold belief or guessing until you have a good reason ?

guesses are never truly random, and if they are what purpose do they serve ?

We are having a discussion here. I am merely explaining what I mean about one of the words I used.

---

I'm not going to call you an atheist going forward because it is impolite to use terminology for someone that they reject. However, I do feel a need to point out that the definition of atheist is not: 'someone who calls themselves an atheist'.

Thank you.

The "definition" and etymology of "atheist" is all over the place...which is why I dislike using it and the other descriptors. Better, in my opinion, to set out one's take independently of any attempts at a descriptor.

---

The "reasonable" thing to do is to say, "I do not know if there is any sentient life there...and it is my opinion that none of my other fellow humans does either."

If I do not know sentient life is there, how can I believe it? The answer is: I don't.

Okay. And if you do not know if sentient life is there...one should also not "believe" there is no life there.

Better, in my opinion, to simply say, "I do not know if there is any sentient life there."

If you disagree...fine with me.

[Silver]

If you disagree...fine with me.

I disagree.

It's not as though we constantly decree I don't know to every imaginable concept on the erroneous chance that it might exist. At a certain point, it is quite logical to state with conviction that something does not exist.

[Frank Apisa]

It has been my experience that:

Theists don't particularly like it when you show them the fault in their "logic."

Atheists seem to loathe it when you show them the fault in theirs. 

I'm hoping we can all discuss this reasonably.

If you want to deem that to be an opinion...fine with me.

---

You're doing it again.  Stop repeating the same things in post after post.  If you want people to refer back to a prior post, add the post number.

I was asked a question...and I answered it. I answered it reasonably and courteously.

If you are just looking for reasons to ban me...just do it. Don't beat around the bush and pretend that I am doing something wrong.

I would like to be a decent participant in this forum. Obviously I am not going to toe the atheistic philosophical line. If that means that I have to go...okay with me. But do it with some class...rather than trying to back door the move.

---

If you disagree...fine with me.

I disagree.

It's not as though we constantly decree I don't know to every imaginable concept on the erroneous chance that it might exist. At a certain point, it is quite logical to state with conviction that something does not exist.

Okay, you disagree. Duly noted.

[arewethereyet]

You're doing it again.  Stop repeating the same things in post after post.  If you want people to refer back to a prior post, add the post number.

I was asked a question...and I answered it. I answered it reasonably and courteously.

If you are just looking for reasons to ban me...just do it. Don't beat around the bush and pretend that I am doing something wrong.

I would like to be a decent participant in this forum. Obviously I am not going to toe the atheistic philosophical line. If that means that I have to go...okay with me. But do it with some class...rather than trying to back door the move.

---

You do you. I will respond according to the rules.

And there is no such thing as an "atheistic philosophical line."

Teach me class...and how to be reasonable...you are such a pompous ass that it would be great fun to learn from such a master of both.

[LadyForCamus]

@Frank Apisa So basically, you’ve wasted countless hours here on this forum to tell us that you’re a complete wish-wash on the subject of gods, and to strawman everyone here by insinuating that atheism is the assertion that there are no gods, which is false. Is there anything else, or…? What’s your position on the subject of consuming human meat?