When do you get a soul??

cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Moebius said:
You keep, focusing on the part where I stated the 'rationalists' when I said 'Rationalist' and 'athiests'



Atheist contend there is no God.
Click to expand...
Tiny correction: atheists don't believe there is a god; it's a much softer stance. To believe that there is no god adds positivism to the mix. I got hung up on that one previously as well, and prefer the term "antitheist" for the positivists. Imo they have moved into contrarian dogma upon embracing the positivist bit. cn

<edit> Tyler said it simpler.
 
Zaehet Strife

Zaehet Strife

Well-Known Member
There is a huge difference in not believing in god, and knowing there isn't a god. The latter would be put into the same group as the theists, claiming certainty in the absence of it, which is insanity combined with delusion.
 
Moebius

Moebius

Well-Known Member
Moebius said:
I also qualified the statement by not saying ALL atheists and rationalist, I didnt even say MOST, I said MANY
Click to expand...
tyler.durden said:
This is only a very small subset of atheists that claim there is definitively no god, which requires some faith. Atheists simply do not believe in a god...
Click to expand...

Im actually thinking of King Athesist Richard Dawkins and his ilk.... tbh, I specifically had him in mind. but this is a little of what wiki says about it

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[SUP][[/SUP]

The term atheism originated from the Greek &#7940;&#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; (atheos), meaning "without god(s)"
 
Moebius

Moebius

Well-Known Member
When you hear Dawkins speak he contends the belief in a god is utterly absurd and claims there is NO GOD
 
Moebius

Moebius

Well-Known Member
Zaehet Strife said:
There is a huge difference in not believing in god, and knowing there isn't a god. The latter would be put into the same group as the theists, claiming certainty in the absence of it, which is insanity combined with delusion.
Click to expand...
yes but I said that a few posts ago. and is the thrust of my argument.
 
Moebius

Moebius

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
The point was ... Dawkins isn't here. I don't think you can have a surrogate argument with him using any of us. cn
Click to expand...
Well if you scour 'my' posts I construct my arguments without naming anyone. I don't know you well enough to presume you thoughts.
I mention Dawkins now because I feel its relevent, hope that OK.

in an article in 2009 .. Stated ' Why there certainly is NO god' ... I merely mention him because he's probably the most well known atheist.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl_b_32164.html
 
tyler.durden

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
Moebius said:
When you hear Dawkins speak he contends the belief in a god is utterly absurd and claims there is NO GOD
Click to expand...
He does not say this. He rates himself a 6 on a 1-7 scale where 1 is absolute belief in a god, and 7 being absolutely sure there is no god. He does go on to say that he is also a 6 on fairies, gremlins, and gnomes. He knows he can't disprove the existence of any of these...
 
tyler.durden

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
Moebius said:
Well if you scour 'my' posts I construct my arguments without naming anyone. I don't know you well enough to presume you thoughts.
I mention Dawkins now because I feel its relevent, hope that OK.

in an article in 2009 .. Stated ' Why there certainly is NO god' ... I merely mention him because he's probably the most well known atheist.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl_b_32164.html
Click to expand...
You misrepresented the title of the article that you posted, didn't think anyone would click on your link?

[h=1]Why There Almost Certainly Is No God[/h]
 
Moebius

Moebius

Well-Known Member
tyler.durden said:
You misrepresented the title of the article that you posted, didn't think anyone would click on your link?

Why There Almost Certainly Is No God
Click to expand...
Youre a complete douche .... I put the link there so peeps would click it.

This thread is has got real heavy under the shear weight of pedants and trolls. I'm not arguing because I like arguments. I'm trying to understand what people believe and in turn explore my own thoughts.

If ALL you want to just argue for its own sake go and take that shit elsewhere.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Moebius said:
Youre a complete douche .... I put the link there so peeps would click it.

This thread is has got real heavy under the shear weight of pedants and trolls. I'm not arguing because I like arguments. I'm trying to understand what people believe and in turn explore my own thoughts.

If ALL you want to just argue for its own sake go and take that shit elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Pointing out a random grammatical or spelling mistake is pedantry.
Pointing out an incorrectness is not pedantry, but simple rational hygiene. My opinion.

I was unable to find the positive statement which you accused Dawkins of making in the article you linked. Is saying so pedantry? If you continue to believe so, we disagree. cn
 
Moebius

Moebius

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Pointing out a random grammatical or spelling mistake is pedantry.
Pointing out an incorrectness is not pedantry, but simple rational hygiene. My opinion.

I was unable to find the positive statement which you accused Dawkins of making in the article you linked. Is saying so pedantry? If you continue to believe so, we disagree. cn
Click to expand...
I was referring to accusing me of intentionally posting a link and misrepresenting it because I didnt think it would be clicked.

IMO ... The constant nickpicking equates to trolling.
 
tyler.durden

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
Moebius said:
Youre a complete douche .... I put the link there so peeps would click it.

This thread is has got real heavy under the shear weight of pedants and trolls. I'm not arguing because I like arguments. I'm trying to understand what people believe and in turn explore my own thoughts.

If ALL you want to just argue for its own sake go and take that shit elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I'm only pointing out errors, which is what I expect from others when I post here. You may want to admit when you make an error, or people may think that you're intentionally deceptive. Of all the words you could have left out of the article's title, you just happened to leave out the all important, 'Almost', which if left in proved my point, not yours. If you really want to explore your own thoughts, you may want to drop the pretense and be more honest...
 
Moebius

Moebius

Well-Known Member
If I error, correct me by all means. Accusing me of intentionally misrepresenting a position is'nt helping move the debate on..

Anyways, Ive nothing to add atm. Time to water hempy's.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Moebius said:
I was referring to accusing me of intentionally posting a link and misrepresenting it because I didnt think it would be clicked.

IMO ... The constant nickpicking equates to trolling.
Click to expand...
I disagree, that's not a minor point...

It relies on the premise that Dawkins claims absolute certainty no God exists, when he doesn't.

I don't think that's nitpicking, but it doesn't really matter. The point is, most rational people, skeptics, don't claim any kind of 'absolute certainty' because they know it's an irrational stance to take.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top