Atheism and the USA, followup

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Arlo
`
If God doesn't exist, may a meteor fall on me in the next 3 milliseconds.
`
`
I'll give it another minute.
`
`
Nope ... guess it's a tie.


Now ... back to a logical discussion.

umm, if god doesn't exist who is going to make the meteor fall on you.

I think you've kind of proven my point for me, thanks.

[lukster]

If there is a God I don't think he'll obey orders, childish or otherwise, but I think you know that Vulcan.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by lukster
If there is a God I don't think he'll obey orders, childish or otherwise, but I think you know that Vulcan.

It wasn't an order... it was a request

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Vulcan
umm, if god doesn't exist who is going to make the meteor fall on you.

I think you've kind of proven my point for me, thanks.

Not really. You're still confused about proof versus lack thereof. Asking to be divinely zapped or crushed and not getting your wish (or getting it, for that matter) isn't empirical proof, as you've alluded your "knowledge without a doubt" origins of your Atheism to be based on.  It's ok if your personal belief is Atheism. Really. It's allowed.

[Booz]

Originally posted by lazs2
not the point....the holes in the easter bunny myth do not mean that bunnies do not exist.

 It does mean bunnies intelligent enough to hide easter eggs, and bring kids candy doesn't exist though.

Originally posted by lazs2
To believe that matter allways was is pretty far fetched too... where did it come from?  something created...  to believe that their allways way matter is just as much a stretch.... a leap of faith as to say that said eternal matter was a being.

 
 e=mc^2

  Matter was energy. Did energy always exist? Dunno, but I can show demonstrable evidence on a daily basis that energy does exist.
 
  I don't need to make up eternal gods, with the new quandry of explaining why they are exempt of cause, without even having demonstrable evidence of their existance to start with.

Quite less a stretch in my book.

 "Eternal matter was a being" is undecipherable to me.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Booz

 
 e=mc^2

  Matter was energy. Did energy always exist? Dunno, but I can show demonstrable evidence on a daily basis that energy does exist.
 
  I don't need to make up eternal gods.

Don't have to. Nor are you required to.

Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.

- Albert Einstein

[Booz]

Originally posted by Arlo
Don't have to. Nor are you required to.

 Ah good, you dont see it as an equal strecth either then.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Arlo
Not really. You're still confused about proof versus lack thereof. Asking to be divinely zapped or crushed and not getting your wish (or getting it, for that matter) isn't empirical proof, as you've alluded your "knowledge without a doubt" origins of your Atheism to be based on.  It's ok if your personal belief is Atheism. Really. It's allowed.

There is reasonable proof that your 'god' is a mere mythological being. And that doesn't require faith.  That proof is:
 - previous cases of gods that weren't
 - inconsistancies in biblical stories now disproven by science
 - fundamental physics issues surrounding the existance of a god (aka "do you believe in magic?")

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Booz
Ah good, you dont see it as an equal strecth either then.

Assumptive ... and missing my point. But that's ok.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Vulcan
There is reasonable proof that your 'god' is a mere mythological being. And that doesn't require faith.  That proof is:
 - previous cases of gods that weren't
 - inconsistancies in biblical stories now disproven by science
 - fundamental physics issues surrounding the existance of a god (aka "do you believe in magic?")

That's not proof that there's no God. If you're gonna claim your adoption of Atheism is based on proven fact, you better learn what a proven fact is. You "proving" there is no God through inconsistancy in what others use as the basis for their belief is not proof of yours. It's your rationalization for your belief.

I know you don't get it. That's ok too.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Arlo
If you're gonna claim your adoption of Atheism is based on proven fact, you better learn what a proven fact is.

Wow, I adopted atheism? You mean I was born christian.

Who doesn't get it arlo?

[Nash]

Originally posted by lazs2
nash and chair.... lets say that chair and, to some extent... subaru...  are correct about the defenition of athiest...  that it is simply someone who lacks belief in god....

How then would you define agnostic? - lazs

Not my problem.

Words are as elastic and manipulatable as Silly Putty. A flesh colored egg shaped mass of goo can suddenly transform itself into the Sunday Crossword if flattened and pressed right.

Just because someone examines the definition of "atheist," defying everyone else's expectations, does not mean that he has to then fill the vaccum created when it comes to the definition of "agnostic."

Atheist. A lack of a theism. Simple, no?

Sure, there's going to be some unease caused to people that need to catogorize, label, file and box... because it's gonna mess up their whole entire filing system.

But it's not going to be mine nor Chair's problem, trust me.

[Yeager]

manipulatable
====
reminds me of something the great decider throw together

[Nash]

Yeah? Maybe...

... except that "manipulatable" is one of those, you know, actual words.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Vulcan
Who doesn't get it arlo?

You. Now you're apparently gonna try to convince me you were born atheist and it wasn't a choice.