- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
06 Oct 06
Originally posted by AgergNow seriously, do you believe in absolute proof?
Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]So whenever the Atheist's position is challenged, he can sit down like the mental couch potato that he is and say the burden of proof is on the theist. How convenient.
my response: hey...dj2becker, do you remember earlier how you stated that the burden was on me to prove the FSM for actually making t ...[text shortened]... u go...contradiction and tricky question you evaded all rolled up into one little post for ya
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
06 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanYou an atheist because there is no absolute proof of God, yet you are claiming that the theist should prove the existence of God to you?
No, that's called a belief in god.
How exactly will the theist persuade someone who cannot be 100% sure about anything?
06 Oct 06
4 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckereh?...your question was: thats my contradiction?, my answer was hmm...no!, thus stating that what you quoted me for was *not* your contradiction...exactly where was the evasion???
So you see, you also evade tricky questions... 😀
with regards to your absolute proof/knowledge/truth bollox, go re-read the discussion we had earlier, for I took you on and then threw that s*** right back in your face and you then told me you give up!!! (I cannot be arsed writing 20 posts to reach the same result again)
06 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerI'm 100% sure that there are many things he is 100% sure of, for example: there is no positive integer between 8 and 9, and thus your assumption that he cannot be 100% sure about *anything* is just plain wrong!!!
You an atheist because there is no absolute proof of God, yet you are claiming that the theist should prove the existence of God to you?
How exactly will the theist persuade someone who cannot be 100% sure about anything?
(he's probably 100% sure that you are an idiot too!)
06 Oct 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerI guess that's up to you to work out.
You an atheist because there is no absolute proof of God, yet you are claiming that the theist should prove the existence of God to you?
How exactly will the theist persuade someone who cannot be 100% sure about anything?
06 Oct 06
I think therefore i am. I believe i exist because to doubt it, is to think, and you can't think without existing. Therefore i exist. Am i a brain in a vat, plugged into a computer in the year 2500? Possibly. The thing is, i am prepared to assume that i am actually here sitting at this desk because it would be very inconvenient to assume otherwise. In other words, there are certain assumtions i am prepared to make for the purposes of survival. However, religious faith does not fall into this category because..well..it is not necessary for my survival.
Why are you prepared to assume that god exists, or doesn't exist?
What evidence is there either way? Why are you so keen to make assumtions about the existance of god when those assumptions could so easily be wrong? Nobody knows what the truth is. Why do people say they know?
Never mind about definitions of god given by St Augustine and the like, thats mostly just linguistics. My point is that you just don't know and you never will, any of you, or me. So let that be an end to all this silliness.ðŸ˜
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
06 Oct 06
Originally posted by AgergI said: I must be a little slow buddy, would you mind spelling it out to me?
eh?...your question was: thats my contradiction?, my answer was hmm...no!, thus stating that what you quoted me for was *not* your contradiction...exactly where was the evasion???
with regards to your absolute proof/knowledge/truth bollox, go re-read the discussion we had earlier, for I took you on and then threw that s*** right back in your f ...[text shortened]... then told me you give up!!! (I cannot be arsed writing 20 posts to reach the same result again)
You said: Of course you are slow...thats one reason why we call you an idiot!!!
I am still waiting for you to point out the contradictions I made left right and center as you claim.
You were the one who was arguing in circles, and that's why I said have fun.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
06 Oct 06
Originally posted by AgergAccording to him he cannot be 100% sure about anything.
I'm 100% sure that there are many things he is 100% sure of, for example: there is no positive integer between 8 and 9, and thus your assumption that he cannot be 100% sure about *anything* is just plain wrong!!!
(he's probably 100% sure that you are an idiot too!)
Not even the answer of 1+1.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
06 Oct 06
Originally posted by StarrmanI have already worked it out. I am wasting my time with you. You want absolute proof of God's existence, but you beleive that no absolute truth exists in the first place.
I guess that's up to you to work out.
If I have to support my claim that God exists, why don't you have to support your claim that no absolute proof exists?
06 Oct 06
Originally posted by AgergAgerg,
Of course you are slow...thats one reason why we call you an idiot!!! 🙄 😀
Let's assume that the poster is an idiot. (I don't think he is. But let's grant you that assumption for a moment).
Is truth only available to people who come up to a certain level of intelligence?
I feel that the realness or the unrealness of God is very important. I think that God's existence or non-existence is an important truth to be known in our human lives.
Do you feel that only the brightest and keenest minds are able to come to the truth?
Do you feel that the slow minded, those perhaps born with a lower IQ, those mentally retarded, those whose mental skills are fading with old age, those perhaps damaged by an accident, etc are all these kinds of people left out of the possibility of gaining knowledge of the truth?
I have a belief that if there is God, God is not partial only to the brightest minds. A loving parent will learn to love all his or her children. I know a Yale graduate whose son was born with mental problems. He didn't love him less because of this.
If there is a loving heavenly Father, do you think that such a God would be exclusive and partial towards the very intelligent who can navigate through intricate philosophical debates?
I don't mean to discourage intelligent debate on the existence of God. What concerns me is the assumption that "idiots" of course believe in God. I wonder about an attitude that those less intelligent cannot know the vital truths about human life.
07 Oct 06
Originally posted by jaywillOther truths are only cognizable with increasing intelligence. So why not truths about God? What is it about this truth that makes intelligence irrelevant to grasping it? And if we deny intelligence is relevant to understanding God, aren't we opening the door to all manner of ridiculous superstitious beliefs, unchecked for plausibility?
Agerg,
Let's assume that the poster is an idiot. (I don't think he is. But let's grant you that assumption for a moment).
Is truth only available to people who come up to a certain level of intelligence?
I feel that the realness or the unrealness of God is very important. I think that God's existence or non-existence is an importa ...[text shortened]... t an attitude that those less intelligent cannot know the vital truths about human life.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
07 Oct 06
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeOther truths are only cognizable with increasing intelligence.
Other truths are only cognizable with increasing intelligence. So why not truths about God? What is it about this truth that makes intelligence irrelevant to grasping it? And if we deny intelligence is relevant to understanding God, aren't we opening the door to all manner of ridiculous superstitious beliefs, unchecked for plausibility?
Which truths would those be?