Um, YOU were the one who spoke about "the atheist position". The only obfuscation here is from you, and projecting your own faults onto others is really your only option, considering that you've tied yourself up in knots with your own logic. It isn't as if you have the ability to extricate yourself. After all, you cannot even remember what you wrote. Your forgetfulness reminds me of that of Charles Barkley, who once complained about being misquoted in his own autobiography. You, oh slow one, and Sir Charles are quite the entertainers!
The poster is wrong. Not all atheists believe "no God until proven." Some atheists would accept this, yes, but some would take away the "until proven" part and simply leave it "no God PERIOD", as in "Don't even bother taking the time or energy to consider the possibility, because there is nothing to find." This second stance is epistemologically disingenuous, since it is essentially impossible to prove.
âA closed mind is like a closed book; just a block of woodâ From great questions, also comes great faith. One who is afraid to ask questions will never learn what God has for him. God knows that faith that cannot be tested, cannot be trusted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FS5GYvg6uU&feature=related
Those who are afraid to answer questions by making up ridiculous argument will never learn anything period. May I venture a suggestion, unless of course you are afraid to answer questions You become aware that you lost it, only after the wallet first had proved its own existence. An ordinary everyday inanimate object had proved its own existence to yourself and anyone else who came across it. Then you lost it, and the reason you look for it is a substantial one. It is because the ordinary object which was your wallet had proved existence, therefor could prove its own existence again to you and anyone else in exactly the same ways. Not even God does that. God does not reach reasons for existence in the way an ordinary everday object like your wallet does. So "finding God" could not even match the standard of proof your wallet did and can do again when you do find it. Now there is no such proof that this particular wallet ever existed. However any ordinary everyday inanimate object can prove its existence. This one cannot prove it doesn't exist but could easily prove it does. But without provenance, there is not even a reasonable chance the wallet ever existed. Therewithin lays the 'can't prove a negative' fallacy which you truly seem unable to cope with). You really might consider going away as TDog suggests. Especially with all awful cruddy false analogies you keep trying to conjure. As if they said anything at all about the word God other than showing how It is unable to prove It's existence the way any item can, and how It's not as good a guide in any way a road map is. Not to mention your inordinate lack of logical reasoning
Not to be picky but I don't see what you mean by "the poster is wrong". Whom you refer to as the poster - DerekD - is is saying " To theists atheists say ,'no God until proven' ". He has clearly stated a viewpoint from what theists say, not what atheists say, as you go on to suggest. To be reasonable then, don't agnostics have to suspend judgment indefinitely on every and any extraordinary claim of existence, no matter how bizarre. "We cannot know" on things like for instance, fire breathing dragons, elfins, unicorns, flying pigs and of course God? Why doesn't the atheists' stance appear more of a correct moral position when they say "(IN GENERAL)" - 'no reason to assume existence where no reason is present'.
I'm calling your bullshit out. Since you were probably hoping I wouldn't bother to take the time and effort to go back and quote you. But here goes: YOU SAID: What's underlined is a blanket statement about atheism that is patently bullshit except in the case of the most ardent strong atheist. That's why I said: Then you go all limp-wristed with this bullshit: You have the audacity to ask for a apology after clearly misstating the atheist position in order to make your position seem as if it takes a high ground? Only strong agnostics believe that it's impossible to know. Look it up. Weak agnostics, which is the position of agnostics in general, do not. And only the very strongest atheist believe that there cannot possibly be a god. What's more you make an assertion which you don't bother to prove that; " the only way one could know for sure that there is no God is to have complete knowledge of the universe." This is no better than a theist which says, you can't understand the bible unless you have faith. It's circular, self-serving reasoning which uses as fact, an assertion. Allow me to break your position down a little further. 1. You assert that that knowledge of gods is impossible. Problem with this assertion even before attempting to justify it is that you are effectively stating that you KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT GOD(s). You just refuted yourself. 2. You fail to define what a god is yet assert that you cannot ever know if gods exist. Once you attempt to define a god such that you can go ahead and assert that you cannot ever know if this God exists, you define a god that is very much unlike the gods the theists believe in. That sets up a straw man fallacy. As that would misrepresent the god that theists have always asserted and believed in. A knowable interactive god. Talk about faulty logic. How then is it more moral to take on an indefensible, illogical position? Doesn't morality imply a standard? So I ask you to drop the pretense and facade and try backing up your assertions. You're not fooling anyone playing the "gasp, I'm offended, I demand an apology. You must be a troll. I'm going to threaten you with ignore if you don't stop it you brute." Put up or STFU.
Speaking of books, have you ever actually read a book on evolution and natural selection? For that matter, have you even read the Bible from cover to cover? And if so, then how do you reconcile the gaping inconsistencies between the gospels themselves and the inconsistencies between the gospels and the Old Testament? If the Bible is the word of God, then how could it possibly be so inconsistent? May I call you Woody?
Since I also can't scientifically disprove reincarnation, I also cannot prove that in your past life you were not a shepherd who was deeply and romantically involved with his herd of sheep. By your own reasoning, since there is no specific scientific evidence to categorically disprove such a claim, then it must be so. Tell me, volente, do you still feel a stir when you put on a wool sweater?
Was the bible written by God ? It was written by men. Just as your science religion that you place FAITH in. Where you there when we landed on the moon ? But you place faith in other's accounts that we did. As much as you hate to admit it, the seed is already inside of you laying dormant. Once that close mind finally opens up, you will find the truth and that truth will set you free.