1. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    15 Nov '05 17:23
    Originally posted by Starrman
    Okay, here goes:

    I look at weak-agnosticism as a fork in the road. It is not, in my view a position that can be retained, but a process which one should move from, towards either a theistic belief of some sort, or an atheistic one. So, in as much as it is perhaps tenable within itself, when applied to life or any other event over time, it is weakened. ...[text shortened]... ssiblity of god is holding a belief in his existence, thus the weak-agnostic becomes the theist.
    Starrman: If he maintains the possibility as true, I suggest he must accept that he has a belief in god, but has yet to define what that belief is or is yet to verify the belief against some notion of proof. You may disagree with this assumption, and essentially it is what my arguement is based on.

    I disagree with the assumption and find it irrational. If you ask me whether I believe that the Atlantis of Plato exists, I'll tell you I don't know as the evidence of whether it ever existed is inconclusive. Certain parts of the description of Atlantis I do not believe but whether it existed in some form I await further archeological evidence. Similarly, I believe that almost certainly the Old Testament God doesn't exist as it looks like a reflection of the barbaric people who created it (as most ancient gods do) but whether a Creator God exists in some form is an entirely different matter. You are simply mistaken in your assertion that the belief that something may exist = a belief that something does exist but that evidence is not yet there to prove its existence. Your whole argument is based on the atheist's false premise that theist are under some remarkable standard of proof to "prove" that a certain thing exists, a standard of proof that you would not apply in other cases such as Atlantis. As I don't accept that either side of the question is more or less likely a priori, I evaluate the evidence with an open mind. That evidence is inconclusive in my estimation, so I say so. That seems perfectly rational to me.
  2. Standard memberTrains44
    Full speed locomotiv
    Account suspended
    Joined
    03 Oct '04
    Moves
    12831
    15 Nov '05 17:56
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    God doesn't hate Satan.

    But I know you are on his side because you are defending satan.

    He did create satan, but he didn't create him to sin, it was satans own chose to sin.

    Hijacker
    If you dont believe satan exists,..I'l introduce you to my ex wife, then you will surely know.
  3. The sky
    Joined
    05 Apr '05
    Moves
    10385
    16 Nov '05 22:00
    Bump for Starrman. I would really like to hear your reply to no1marauder and me.
  4. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    17 Nov '05 09:11
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    You are not that bright, because if you think I am annoying you would stay out of my posts.

    But the more you hate me the more you hate God becasue he created me.
    That's like saying " You must hate dogs because you hate stepping in dog doodie"
  5. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    17 Nov '05 09:33
    Originally posted by Nordlys
    Bump for Starrman. I would really like to hear your reply to no1marauder and me.
    Yes certainly, I haven't had the time yet. Gimme a couple of days.
  6. The sky
    Joined
    05 Apr '05
    Moves
    10385
    04 Dec '05 20:05
    Originally posted by Starrman
    Yes certainly, I haven't had the time yet. Gimme a couple of days.
    Bump
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree