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

[Robert.Evans]

Wow. Why do you think that they must be saying anything other than they don't have a belief in deities?

When they start arguing about it as if they know... that's when.

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.

Which is the same thing as saying they know, just not absolute, that is why the beleive in the first place... or are you saying all atheist are mad and don't know there own mind. I think they do. They have a believe, and that believe is that there is no God. They are wrong

You "believing" in the "grace of god" is your belief, it is not fact,

It is fact, you perhaps just don't know it as you have not experienced it. That is not a valid stance when two thirds of the world believe

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.

And you me know doubt

 

[Draka]

So what about that definition do you not understand Robert? It says right there that the "Narrow" (small, confined, limited) sense is the position that there are no deities, BUT that "most inclusively" (meaning the largely accepted) it means the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Now, isn't that what I have been saying? And how is that not possible alongside being agnostic? How is it not possible to lack a belief and still go "but I could be wrong because I don't/can't know"?

 

[Robert.Evans]

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

When it comes to shove (and rude) I think you hold that crown

 

[Robert.Evans]

So what about that definition do you not understand Robert? It says right there that the "Narrow" (small, confined, limited) sense is the position that there are no deities, BUT that "most inclusively" (meaning the largely accepted) it means the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Now, isn't that what I have been saying? And how is that not possible alongside being agnostic? How is it not possible to lack a belief and still go "but I could be wrong because I don't/can't know"?

Obviously they don't know, as I have already pointed out. Do they need to claim a title to tell us what we already know? No they do not. So it is a get out clause, in case they are wrong

 

[McBell]

When it comes to shove (and rude) I think you hold that crown

another sad diversion tactic?

 

[McBell]

Obviously they don't know, as I have already pointed out. Do they need to claim a title to tell us what we already know? No they do not. So it is a get out clause, in case they are wrong

Or it could just be the gods honest truth.

I do understand your assuming that everyone is as dishonest as you, but just so you know, not every one is.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Or it could just be the gods honest truth.

I do understand your assuming that everyone is as dishonest as you, but just so you know, not every one is.

You should not call people dishonest to cover your own ignorance

 

[Draka]

When they start arguing about it as if they know... that's when.

Which is the same thing as saying they know, just not absolute, that is why the beleive in the first place... or are you saying all atheist are mad and don't know there own mind. I think they do. They have a believe, and that believe is that there is no God. They are wrong

It is fact, you perhaps just don't know it as you have not experienced it. That is not a valid stance when two thirds of the world believe

And you me know doubt

You know what is incredibly ironically funny? You are stereotyping all atheists by the way a few of them act and speak, the ones that are actually more along the lines of "strong atheists" or "anti-theists" and wanting to pigeonhole them all under the definition you feel those people appear to be. What is so funny about this is...you act the very same way as them...only on the opposite end of the spectrum. You act and speak as if you KNOW. You declare, you claim, you make definitive statements that you feel should apply to all people just because you believe they are so when...in fact...you don't know, you can't know, you just...believe. you won't accept that though. You feel you are just as right, just as correct and substantiated in your stance as those you rail so vehemently against. It is this butting of heads that the rest of us watch, the rest of us get defined by, the rest of us either have to laugh at or suffer the fallout from getting stereotyped by. This insane merry-go-round that neither side will get the hell off of.

 

[McBell]

You should not call people dishonest to cover your own ignorance

I am not the one brandishing my dishonesty and ignorance...
In case there is any doubt, that would be you.

Though I am most interested in how you are going to twist this post around into yet another diversion tactic.

 

[Riverwolf]

To repeat, there are different ways of defining words.

And there's a term for it: polysemy. ^_^

Yours is just not productive,

Why not?

and somewhat of a screen I think

As is yours.

And all definitions of words, mono-or-polysemic.

 

[Draka]

Ah, this thread reminds me of something...

 

[Robert.Evans]

You know what is incredibly ironically funny? You are stereotyping all atheists by the way a few of them act and speak, the ones that are actually more along the lines of "strong atheists" or "anti-theists" and wanting to pigeonhole them all under the definition you feel those people appear to be. What is so funny about this is...you act the very same way as them...only on the opposite end of the spectrum. You act and speak as if you KNOW. You declare, you claim, you make definitive statements that you feel should apply to all people just because you believe they are so when...in fact...you don't know, you can't know, you just...believe. you won't accept that though. You feel you are just as right, just as correct and substantiated in your stance as those you rail so vehemently against. It is this butting of heads that the rest of us watch, the rest of us get defined by, the rest of us either have to laugh at or suffer the fallout from getting stereotyped by. This insane merry-go-round that neither side will get the hell off of.

That would only make sense if there were no God. If there was, and there is, it is not just belief. I know because it is God given. That is the proof and there is enough outward evidence for me to see it is right, not that I need it.
It is true that there are different scales of one or the other, but my analogy is about the world not a group of believers.

 

[Draka]

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes I can be agnostic and atheist. I am. I do not believe in gods therefore I am an Atheist. I don't claim to know for a fact that there are or are not gods therefore I am agnostic.

I too am an agnostic atheist.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That would only make sense if there were no God. If there was, and there is, it is not just belief. I know because it is God given. That is the proof and there is enough outward evidence for me to see it is right, not that I need it.

It's sadly hilarious that this makes some kind of sense inside your head.

 

[Sapiens]

When they start arguing about it as if they know... that's when.

It is not possible to "know" in absolute terms, but it is possible to weigh the evidence and estimate the probabilities. The lack on any real evidence reduces the probability to near zero.

Which is the same thing as saying they know, just not absolute, that is why the beleive in the first place... or are you saying all atheist are mad and don't know there own mind. I think they do. They have a believe, and that believe is that there is no God. They are wrong

Hm ... them's purdy strong words there pardner ... got any reality based evidence?

It is fact, you perhaps just don't know it as you have not experienced it. That is not a valid stance when two thirds of the world believe

And you me know doubt

Truth is not best determined by vote, that is not valid stance.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I too am an agnostic atheist.

haha... no your not, your an atheist. How can you believe something yet not believe it ?? Do you not know your own mind. We already know that you don't know, so why claim agnostic?

 

[Robert.Evans]

It's sadly hilarious that this makes some kind of sense inside your head.

haha... whatever you say

 

[Robert.Evans]

It is not possible to "know" in absolute terms, but it is possible to weigh the evidence and estimate the probabilities. The lack on any real evidence reduces the probability to near zero.
Hm ... them's purdy strong words there pardner ... got any reality based evidence?

Truth is not best determined by vote, that is not valid stance.

So you haven't got the spirit of God, and you want physical evidence of something none physical, is that it? haha.

 

[Valjean]

Merriam-Webster:
ob·tuse
adjective \äb-ˈtüs, əb-, -ˈtyüs\
: stupid or unintelligent : not able to think clearly or to understand what is obvious or simple