Can you give me an observable evidence that Evolution is true?

[Robert.Evans]

STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT!
What is wrong with you, Robert? Are you a mental defective -- or just a troll?
How many times do we have to explain to you what atheism is? How many times do we have to explain the difference between atheism, per se, and strong atheism?
Stop making up your own definitions! Stop arguing from a definition no-one but you is using.

haha... I think that is funny because one of the three stooges is telling me.

There is more than one definition. Clearly you don't like mine.

 

[Robert.Evans]

First atheism and evolution were synonymous.

Now knowing and believing are synonymous. Why even bother having two different words I wonder.

Well it does beg the question why there are three words which mean the same thing, non belief

 

[McBell]

Well it does beg the question why there are three words which mean the same thing, non belief

Humpty Dumpty Sat on a wall...

 

[Valjean]

haha... I think that is funny because one of the three stooges is telling me.

There is more than one definition. Clearly you don't like mine.

Yours is a fine definition -- of strong atheism. The problem is you keep applying it inappropriately, again and again, after it's been pointed out, again and again, that that's not what we're talking about.
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Robert.Evans]

No, atheists aren't saying there is no god,

haha... really. So they are really saying there IS then?!?

they are saying they have no belief in a god or gods. They personally don't believe deities exist. Taking the stance

There, you said it. Taking the ''stance'' would imply believing something wouldn't it. I don't see how you all argue that there is no God and theists are wrong, and then say you don't know.... very funny. You don't seem to know your own minds.

that there cannot be any such thing, that there definitively is no such thing as a deity is a different thing than just being atheist.

But we already KNOW that you don't know.... don't we. So what is the point of claiming anything else like agnosticism to tell us something we already know? Do you do that in all things in life?

One might say that that is more of an anti-theist or "strong atheistic" stance, but merely being atheistic is just lacking a belief in a deity, not claiming any knowledge about the existence either way, but personally not believing it is likely. It is a "likelihood" thing.

Ignostics and Agnostics can claim a lack of belief also... so?

Also, a theist is one who believes more than they don't believe. Again, a "likelihood" thing. Everyone has doubts. Yes, there is this thing called "doubt". We all have it. It is what makes us human. In fact, to not have doubt, to think and declare ourselves "right", especially about such a complex and wholly unknowable matter makes one quite...what could we say?...obtuse? narcissistic? deluded? This is a subject beyond the realm of testable human knowledge. It is conjecture, it is experience, it is philosophy.

No, it is the grace of God. Your starting position is all wrong. YOU use philosophy, not me

To not have doubt, to not admit "I could be wrong" is to have fundamental psychological issues.

Perhaps we should look at some other posters... haha

I put forth that anyone claiming to be at either far range of this scale is subject to these issues. Whether they are claiming to "know" that a deity in any form does not/cannot exist or if they are claiming that one of any form in fact, without any doubt, does exist, they have issues. In all honesty, I believe everyone, rational people that is, have to admit to a little "agnosticism" on the subject because the truth of the matter is...we don't "know", we can't "know", no one "knows" and those who claim to "know" rather than "believe"...are full of it.

You know if God gives you the grace to know. You seem to start from a position of non believe in the first place. Which begs the question how could you come up with the right answer?

 

[McBell]

There is more than one definition. Clearly you don't like mine.

Actually, it is the fact that you refuse to accept that other people use one of the definitions you have dismissed and then you reply based upon the definition you are trying to force down everyone else's throat.

So it is rather interesting that you acknowledge there are numerous definitions, yet refuse to accept that others may use them in discussion.

 

[McBell]

Well it does beg the question why there are three words which mean the same thing, non belief

Only through your Humpty Dumpty approach...

 

[Robert.Evans]

Iganostacism is talking about the fact they can't define god. They don't know what "god" is. Which is to some extent true for me. However you are wrong on most parts of this post.

There are not simply "three" places. There are an infinnite number of places to be along several different scales. The two primary scales would be the scale of "knowledge" or how adament you are about the claim and the second is about your "belief" of the claim.

I do not know if there is a god. I have not yet seen evidence that there is a god. I have not seen evidence that would say "there is no god". But doubt is the default position. So I have defaulted to disbelief. I do not have a belief that there are no gods as I do still hold it is possible. That is why I am an agnostic. However I am still an atheist because I do not believe in god.

The car analogy was to show you that Agnostacism and Atheism are not conflicting terms but descriptive terms that describe two different dimentions about an opinion. Belief and claims of knowledge. They are often interconnected (as they should be) but are not conflicting.

But in the interest of the argument and human language, we need to take the argument along a little, do we not? If that is the case, atheist know something, that is why they believe there is no God. Otherwise you are agnostic, you don't know. This is not difficult... haha.. People like to take both positions I think... it is a way of saving face.

 

[McBell]

haha... really. So they are really saying there IS then?!?

Until such time as you can lose your black and white outlook...

 

[Robert.Evans]

Yours is a fine definition -- of strong atheism. The problem is you keep applying it inappropriately, again and again, after it's been pointed out, again and again, that that's not what we're talking about.
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To repeat, there are different ways of defining words. Yours is just not productive, and somewhat of a screen I think

 

[Robert.Evans]

Actually, it is the fact that you refuse to accept that other people use one of the definitions you have dismissed and then you reply based upon the definition you are trying to force down everyone else's throat.

So it is rather interesting that you acknowledge there are numerous definitions, yet refuse to accept that others may use them in discussion.

So you admit that you are ignoring mine then... haha

 

[McBell]

To repeat, there are different ways of defining words. Yours is just not productive, and somewhat of a screen I think

Not productive?
Why?
Cause it does not fit in your cozy little box?

 

[McBell]

So you admit that you are ignoring mine then... haha

Where the hell did you pull that from?

Here is yet another problem with your dishonesty.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I think you all have problem with this because it is a safety net lest anything go wrong. It is intellectual cowardice (to use Dawkins words). Either you believe that there is or you believe that there isn't. Which is it? What is this rocket science... haha

 

[Robert.Evans]

Actually, it is the fact that you refuse to accept that other people use one of the definitions you have dismissed and then you reply based upon the definition you are trying to force down everyone else's throat.

So it is rather interesting that you acknowledge there are numerous definitions, yet refuse to accept that others may use them in discussion.

bar mine apparently. That is where I drew it from, not Hell

 

[McBell]

I think you all have problem with this because it is a safety net lest anything go wrong. It is intellectual cowardice (to use Dawkins words). Either you believe that there is or you believe that there isn't. Which is it? What is this rocket science... haha

transference?

 

[Draka]

haha... really. So they are really saying there IS then?!?

There, you said it. Taking the ''stance'' would imply believing something wouldn't it. I don't see how you all argue that there is no God and theists are wrong, and then say you don't know.... very funny. You don't seem to know your own minds.

But we already KNOW that you don't know.... don't we. So what is the point of claiming anything else like agnosticism to tell us something we already know? Do you do that in all things in life?

Ignostics and Agnostics can claim a lack of belief also... so?

No, it is the grace of God. Your starting position is all wrong. YOU use philosophy, not me

Perhaps we should look at some other posters... haha


You know if God gives you the grace to know. You seem to start from a position of non believe in the first place. Which begs the question how could you come up with the right answer?

Wow. Why do you think that they must be saying anything other than they don't have a belief in deities? They are not saying there is, they are not saying there isn't, they are saying they don't believe there is. I said that actually taking an opposing stance is a different thing, but you don't want to seem to hear that.

You "believing" in the "grace of god" is your belief, it is not fact, it has nothing to do with whether someone else does or does not believe. It has nothing to do with me or what you perceive my "starting position" to be, whatever you perceive that to be.

I truly don't think you have any idea about me or what it is I do or don't believe and are basing your response to me on speculation.

 

[McBell]

bar mine apparently. That is where I drew it from, not Hell

seems to me it is nothing more than a diversion tactic pulled from your backside.

 

[Robert.Evans]

1. Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Both of which require someone to believe what they are saying

 

[McBell]

Both of which require someone to believe what they are saying

and?
We already know that that is the definition you want to shove down everyone's throat.

Bolding the part you prefer then ignoring the rest does not help your position