God

Quincunx said:
Except the earth is formed from the accretionary disk around the sun.
Click to expand...
Your implication of omniscience is rejected. You do not know how the earth was formed or when. It quite possibly could have formed far away, prior to the formation of our solar system, and been hurling through space until it fell into the sun's gravity and found an orbit that it liked.

Once again: Your claim of omniscience is rejected summarily.

Quincunx said:
Again, you seem to think more of yourself than is warranted.
Click to expand...
Projection on your part. I'm not the one claiming to be a god.
 
IBDaMann said:
Nope. These are atheists, such as myself.
Click to expand...

we've had this argument before.......you lost it then too...atheists like to pretend that agnostics are atheists because they are lonely...that whole weak and strong atheist bullshit is silly.....we don't need new definitions.......the old ones work just fine.......agnostics are waiting for proof......atheists claim they do not accept things without proof but state there are no gods, even though it is an unprovable statement.......obvious proof that atheists are fundamentally irrational......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
we've had this argument before.......you lost it then too...atheists like to pretend that agnostics are atheists because they are lonely...that whole weak and strong atheist bullshit is silly.....we don't need new definitions.......the old ones work just fine.......
Click to expand...
Let me ask you, why do you need to totally misstate my position just to insult me? Could you at least let me know that much? I have simply been trying to help you understand that you are actively asserting false statements about me and other atheists, apparently because you seem to be a bigot over that particular label. Is that all you're looking to do? Hurl insults? Just wondering.

None of what you wrote about my position ... is my position.
 
Quincunx said:
So sorry to hear you don't know any science. Funny for someone so impressed with themselves as you are that you are so uneducated.
Click to expand...
You are still not omniscient. Your king is tipped.

giphy.gif
 
Quincunx said:
Given that you are so up your own ass it is heady praise indeed.
Click to expand...
You project far more than average and you fear those who know more than you do.

It looks as though you're going to have to find some other topic on which to pretend to be JPP's resident expert because now science, math, logic, philosophy and economics are all off the table. Maybe you can try the decaf latte niche.
 
BidenPresident said:
I will not tolerate your personal attacks. If you persist I will start banning you from all my threads.
Click to expand...

If YOU "fail to see" what "universality" has to do with the discussion of proving a negative...it is absolutely necessary to call your attention to the fact that it is a failing on your part...not a failing of the discussion of logic.

If you see that as a "personal attack"...ban me. I will attempt to continue to live my life as if that tragedy has not fallen upon me.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Brave New World was groundbreaking in 1932. Like Orwell, it painted a dark possible future like a warning sign.

It seems his world view was rather dark too.
Click to expand...

Two different Huxley's. Thomas was the philosopher...Aldous was the writer.
 
Quincunx said:
Sorry you think so highly of yourself.
Click to expand...

Apparently Mann wrote, "The "A" in "Atheism" means "lack of" ... hence "athesim" means "lack of theism." You don't have any wiggle room on this."

The "a" does mean "lack of"...but it does NOT mean lack of "theism." Atheism came into the English language almost 100 years before the word "theism." Theism derives from atheism...not the other way around.

Atheism comes into English from the Greek via the French...and means a lack of "theos" which means a god. What is lacking is a God...NOT A BELIEF IN A GOD.

I have Mann on IGNORE...so I did not see the comment until you quoted it.
 
Frank Apisa said:
I have Mann on IGNORE...so I did not see the comment until you quoted it.
Click to expand...
Awesome. You are back to your virtue-signalling. How is that working for you?

Your whole argument rests on theism meaning deism, which it does not. Apparently you can't get anything straight. I'm waiting for you to eventually assert that atheism is theism.

Isn't that right? By your definition, an atheist could still have theism, just no gods, and be a theist, right?

Say it, Frank ... say it.
 
IBDaMann said:
Let me ask you, why do you need to totally misstate my position just to insult me? Could you at least let me know that much? I have simply been trying to help you understand that you are actively asserting false statements about me and other atheists, apparently because you seem to be a bigot over that particular label. Is that all you're looking to do? Hurl insults? Just wondering.

None of what you wrote about my position ... is my position.
Click to expand...

so you no longer pretend that agnostics are atheists?......
 
Quincunx said:
I honestly wish I knew what your problem was. It must be a very interesting case.
Click to expand...

I went and looked up his definition......it isn't what you claimed........it is this....

Huxley coined the word “agnostic” to describe his position on knowledge and religious belief – that one cannot, and should not claim to, know things for which one there is no evidence. Many people say we simply do not have the knowledge to answer some deep questions with any certainty. They call themselves “agnostics”.
Click to expand...

its the same thing I said....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top