you must realize how childish you sound when your only arguments are all going through my post and trying to disprove my opinions by saying that i cannot prove anything. i'm not trying to offer life changing advice here, just stating my opinions. and i'm not one to offend people, i just stated that for future reference so anyone labelling me as something, i'm not on anybodies side. i see the positives and negatives in all and perhaps i should not have stated the negative there, but it was to prove a point about myself and my separation from these labelled groups.
You offered up a version of Pascal's wager to bolster your argument, so I showed the faulty logic behind this. If not for your edification, at least for other viewers to consider. If you truly aren't one to offend, you should choose your words more carefully:
You on atheists - "
your type is so anal about seeing evidence, you disregard all information that credible people have to offer."
Our Type, and
Anal aren't supposed to offend? Any reasonable person insists on evidence, and the more important the issue, the stronger the evidence should be. Also, anyone 'credible' offers evidence for their views. This is a major part of credibility. Also, you didn't address my points about you requiring such evidence when your life or the life of loved ones hang in the balance, and why you don't require such evidence when it comes to your spiritual beliefs.
You on theists - "
theists will believe just about anything others tell them with regards to things they don't understand. i like to think of myself completely separate from both, but you can consider me somewhere in the middle if you choose." Still not trying to offend? There are some very intelligent theists on this subforum that don't believe 'just about anything others tell them with regards to things they don't understand'. So you're implying that atheists are overly meticulous in their quest for evidence, and theists will swallow anything fed to them when unsure, but we can consider you somewhere in the middle of these two unattractive choices? Confused much?
the point is you offer no more credible evidence than anyone else does. your only evidence is a lack of evidence and wether you realize this or not, you are working backwards.
I will point to any evidence you desire via links, as I did with Rational Wiki link I provided in my first post. The way I work is to view all the evidence available to me, (attempt to) apply critical thought, logic and skepticism to all claims, and the bits that pass the sniff test get further review and consideration. It seems that you work in the opposite way: you find an idea that you have an affinity for, then try to locate information that supports that idea. Imo, that is working backward.
here's my question: what have you accomplished by not believing in anything other then what you see in front of you.
A beautifully rich and rewarding life...
the way i see things, everyone is trying to build bridges in hopes of reaching the other side and you come down and burn them rather then observe the reason for the bridge being built. quite frankly you're an asshole becasue i'm here to learn and all you're doing is trying to offend me to make yourself seem more intelligent.
You don't seem as if you're here to learn, as I don't see you questioning much or exhibiting the attitude of humility it takes to learn effectively. Instead I see you coming in with predetermined ideas that you wish to promote. If you're truly here to learn you would heed my advice instead of casting ad hominem attacks.
in fact like i said earlier your lack of belief doesn't matter to me whatsoever. your mind is made up and i'm not going to continue to research bullshit "theories" like the one i kindly read from you. basically all i got out of that is that you can't disprove something that you cannot see. they're so obvious they fall to the category of common sense.
My mind is set unless and until any new, credible evidence comes my way. I've changed my views in major ways multiple times over the last year when such evidence was presented. Please look into the concepts I mentioned, they can only help you, especially the Burden of Proof: it's not up to others to disprove your statements (we cannot disprove elves, dragons or smurfs), the onus of proof is on the one making the assertions. What is obvious to you may not be to others.
the only credible thing you state is that i haven't the slightest clue as to what my opposition is because he has didn't exactly express his beliefs to me. much like you he was more focused on disproving what i had to say, rather then stating his own opinion.
I don't think you asked him what his beliefs were, Z has no problem articulating them. Seems to me the only thing you've actually demonstrated here is that being a 'lightworker' is not an effective path to knowledge or enlightenment...
