greyl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-23-06 06:27 AM
Response to Reply #54 |
| 69. Some negatives can be proven, indeed. |
|
Edited on Sat Sep-23-06 06:28 AM by greyl
That none of than can be proven, is a hamstringing myth.
|
| -Margaret Atwood: "Atheism is a religion" |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 01:38 PM |
#0 |
 -
I'm getting under the desk and not coming out until this is over |
TallahasseeGrannie |
Sep-22-06 01:40 PM |
#1 |
 -
that might be a good idea. Too bad I'm not that smart. |
Freedom_from_Chains |
Sep-22-06 01:50 PM |
#5 |
| -
Good on ya, Grannie |
Warpy |
Sep-22-06 01:53 PM |
#8 |
| -
LOL. Room in there for another? nt |
JerseygirlCT |
Sep-22-06 08:17 PM |
#59 |
 -
You know, I might just peek out |
TallahasseeGrannie |
Sep-23-06 07:27 AM |
#81 |
| -
Shazaam! ANOTHER new church? |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-23-06 07:47 AM |
#82 |
| -
See now, we'd get along nicely on all counts! nt |
JerseygirlCT |
Sep-23-06 07:57 AM |
#83 |
| -
move over girl |
dwickham |
Sep-24-06 06:08 PM |
#107 |
| -
Is there room under there for me, |
Dorian Gray |
Sep-25-06 02:38 PM |
#132 |
| -
Yeah, and I'm a confirmed atheist |
TechBear_Seattle |
Sep-22-06 01:40 PM |
#2 |
| -
Militant agnostic: |
SCantiGOP |
Sep-22-06 02:31 PM |
#26 |
| -
I like that. :) nt |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 03:15 PM |
#46 |
| -
oooooh |
TallahasseeGrannie |
Sep-23-06 10:46 AM |
#88 |
| -
It depends on the definitions one uses.... |
eallen |
Sep-22-06 01:40 PM |
#3 |
| -
Right. Is atheism an "absolute stand"? |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 02:01 PM |
#12 |
| -
I have to agree with Margaret on this one |
Freedom_from_Chains |
Sep-22-06 01:49 PM |
#4 |
| -
But do you have |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-22-06 01:53 PM |
#7 |
| -
Exactly, so I would ignore the question |
Freedom_from_Chains |
Sep-22-06 01:59 PM |
#10 |
| -
But ignoring it doesn't address the question. |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-22-06 02:37 PM |
#31 |
| -
Perhaps it's the non answer answer. |
Javaman |
Sep-22-06 03:13 PM |
#44 |
| -
Sorry, that could be tested, too. nt |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 02:33 PM |
#28 |
| -
OK, test it. |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-22-06 02:36 PM |
#30 |
| -
It would be just like testing auras. |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 02:48 PM |
#37 |
| -
Apparently I am the only one chosen |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-22-06 03:02 PM |
#40 |
| -
No problem. |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 03:14 PM |
#45 |
| -
It doesn't need a VIN |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-22-06 03:28 PM |
#48 |
| -
What do you mean by "Porsche" then? |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 03:40 PM |
#52 |
| -
I'm not moving the goal posts |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-22-06 09:02 PM |
#60 |
| -
You'll have to play along or forfeit your case. |
greyl |
Sep-23-06 06:18 AM |
#67 |
| -
Fine, but this is the ultimate Porsche |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-24-06 11:16 AM |
#103 |
| -
Is it that way with all liquids? |
greyl |
Sep-25-06 10:45 AM |
#122 |
| -
It runs |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-25-06 11:15 AM |
#126 |
| -
So, you're saying it's an internal combustion engine |
greyl |
Sep-25-06 11:35 AM |
#128 |
| -
My magic Porsche also transcends combustion |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-25-06 01:51 PM |
#130 |
| -
Not quite analogous |
Donald Ian Rankin |
Sep-23-06 06:07 PM |
#96 |
| -
I see no real difference between your examples |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-24-06 11:14 AM |
#102 |
| -
The definitions of "demon" and "porsche". |
Donald Ian Rankin |
Sep-25-06 08:55 AM |
#117 |
| -
First of all I said "magical Porsche" |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-25-06 11:14 AM |
#125 |
| -
My Atheism is based on reason. |
Odin2005 |
Sep-22-06 02:22 PM |
#18 |
| -
Yes, but can your reason positively prove that there is no God? |
Freedom_from_Chains |
Sep-22-06 02:25 PM |
#21 |
| -
I'm sure it is. However, |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 02:26 PM |
#22 |
| -
Let me name some other religions: |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-22-06 01:51 PM |
#6 |
| -
Those statements can all be proven, thus they aren't religions. |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 01:57 PM |
#9 |
| -
So how does one go about proving a negative? n/t |
Freedom_from_Chains |
Sep-22-06 02:00 PM |
#11 |
| -
It totally depends on the negative, but it can be done. |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 02:04 PM |
#14 |
| -
I have always understood logic to assert that "that which is not, |
Freedom_from_Chains |
Sep-22-06 02:17 PM |
#15 |
| -
I think that's a bit of a myth. |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 02:23 PM |
#19 |
| -
Myth? Seems pretty straight ahead to me. n/t |
Freedom_from_Chains |
Sep-22-06 02:39 PM |
#34 |
| -
However, many atheists do NOT assert that the premise is false. |
Zhade |
Sep-23-06 04:02 PM |
#93 |
| -
There is no elephant in my office. Come look, and you'll see. |
eallen |
Sep-22-06 02:24 PM |
#20 |
| -
Right. "I'm Not a Giraffe, and I Can Prove It" R. Steiner. |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 02:29 PM |
#24 |
| -
Yes, but you can only prove it because Giraffe's exist. |
Freedom_from_Chains |
Sep-22-06 02:38 PM |
#32 |
| -
Yes, but I could choose anything which does, in fact, exist. |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 02:51 PM |
#38 |
| -
Well that begs the question. |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-22-06 03:03 PM |
#41 |
| -
Naw, that's a different argument. |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 03:26 PM |
#47 |
| -
There is a big difference between |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-22-06 03:30 PM |
#49 |
| -
Yes, there is. |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 03:34 PM |
#51 |
| -
You need to make some some leaps to get away from Atwood |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-22-06 09:05 PM |
#61 |
| -
I think it can be proven that unicorns don't exist, |
greyl |
Sep-23-06 06:26 AM |
#68 |
| -
LOL, and therein is the crux of the argument. n/t |
Freedom_from_Chains |
Sep-22-06 03:32 PM |
#50 |
| -
There are no mammals with six legs. There are no... |
eallen |
Sep-22-06 05:21 PM |
#54 |
| -
And there is no end in sight to this debate. I knew I shouldn't have |
Freedom_from_Chains |
Sep-22-06 06:38 PM |
#57 |
| -
Sure there is. |
greyl |
Sep-23-06 06:28 AM |
#70 |
| -
Some negatives can be proven, indeed. |
greyl |
Sep-23-06 06:27 AM |
#69 |
| -
Ooh, I'd be careful with that first claim. |
trotsky |
Sep-23-06 09:28 AM |
#85 |
| -
Some more examples |
moggie |
Sep-25-06 03:12 AM |
#114 |
| -
Nice explanation of the situation. |
greyl |
Sep-25-06 10:22 AM |
#121 |
| -
causin trouble again |
Jim4Wes |
Sep-22-06 02:04 PM |
#13 |
| -
I've always enjoyed jumping into a big pile of neatly raked leaves. ;) nt |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 02:18 PM |
#16 |
| -
How can they be proven? |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-22-06 02:38 PM |
#33 |
| -
We'd need to define the concepts in the statements. |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 02:55 PM |
#39 |
| -
But what Atwood is ignorant of, apparently, is that not all atheists... |
Zhade |
Sep-23-06 03:58 PM |
#92 |
| -
"There's no word for someone who doesn't believe in astrology." |
SheWhoMustBeObeyed |
Sep-25-06 01:33 PM |
#129 |
| -
Well, the reason some Christians do it is that they apparently have a need |
Heaven and Earth |
Sep-23-06 12:49 PM |
#89 |
| -
The atheists I know personally |
SheilaT |
Sep-22-06 02:20 PM |
#17 |
| -
You think that atheists depend on other for their beliefs? |
muriel_volestrangler |
Sep-23-06 06:33 AM |
#73 |
| -
Rubbish. Christians try to project their world view onto everything... |
Union Thug |
Sep-22-06 02:27 PM |
#23 |
| -
That may be true, but Atwood is no Christian. nt |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 02:30 PM |
#25 |
| -
Let me clarify... Atwood is citing the most common xtian argument |
Union Thug |
Sep-22-06 02:34 PM |
#29 |
| -
Then you'd be agnostic, right? nt |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 02:40 PM |
#36 |
| -
No, he'd be an agnostic atheist. nt |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-22-06 06:23 PM |
#56 |
| -
Isn't the term "weak atheist"? |
Donald Ian Rankin |
Sep-23-06 06:12 PM |
#97 |
| -
Both terms are correct. |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-23-06 07:52 PM |
#98 |
| -
You can't be an atheist with regards to a set God, can you? |
Donald Ian Rankin |
Sep-24-06 02:39 AM |
#99 |
| -
Again, there are different types of atheism. |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-24-06 02:51 AM |
#100 |
| -
Well, I'll answer. Don't mind do you Bmus? |
Random_Australian |
Sep-24-06 07:12 AM |
#101 |
| -
Of course not! |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-24-06 11:09 PM |
#110 |
| -
Check your pm for the only God I don't have a solution for, in a little |
Random_Australian |
Sep-24-06 11:35 PM |
#113 |
| -
I think that being an atheist with respect to specific gods |
Donald Ian Rankin |
Sep-25-06 08:49 AM |
#115 |
| -
Assumptions? Puh! Watch this! |
Random_Australian |
Sep-25-06 09:10 AM |
#120 |
| -
Always entertaining, RA |
moggie |
Sep-25-06 04:53 PM |
#134 |
| -
*takes bow* I do my best. However, I shant be able to drink wine |
Random_Australian |
Sep-25-06 06:48 PM |
#136 |
| -
Then perhaps you should look up the argument from divine hiddeness |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-25-06 02:24 PM |
#131 |
| -
Dude, I hate to break this to you |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-24-06 11:19 AM |
#104 |
| -
And this: |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-24-06 11:17 PM |
#111 |
| -
To a mathematician, a frog can be whatever you choose to define it as. |
Donald Ian Rankin |
Sep-25-06 08:52 AM |
#116 |
| -
Moot point. |
Random_Australian |
Sep-25-06 09:00 AM |
#119 |
| -
I was just trying to be funny. |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-25-06 11:18 AM |
#127 |
| -
Bad whackjob fundamentalist atheist preacher! |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-25-06 11:09 PM |
#138 |
| -
Here is the problem: Belief vs. Reason |
smirkymonkey |
Sep-24-06 12:33 PM |
#106 |
| -
Not agnostic. Atheist. |
Union Thug |
Sep-22-06 09:39 PM |
#62 |
| -
It's a matter of definition. |
IMModerate |
Sep-23-06 01:00 AM |
#63 |
| -
What's the difference? nt |
greyl |
Sep-23-06 06:40 AM |
#75 |
| -
Analysis: |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-23-06 07:11 AM |
#77 |
| -
greyl, I would have expected more from you. |
trotsky |
Sep-22-06 02:32 PM |
#27 |
| -
:) I'm still trying to work the issue out for myself. |
greyl |
Sep-22-06 02:39 PM |
#35 |
| -
And I assert one doesn't have to have full knowledge... |
trotsky |
Sep-23-06 09:35 AM |
#86 |
| -
One doesn't need to waver between them, as they are distinctly... |
Zhade |
Sep-23-06 04:12 PM |
#94 |
| -
This should be good... |
Javaman |
Sep-22-06 03:12 PM |
#42 |
| -
Uh oh |
omega minimo |
Sep-22-06 03:12 PM |
#43 |
| -
I don't see anything wrong |
bloom |
Sep-22-06 05:05 PM |
#53 |
| -
BMUS: "Margaret Atwood is a moron." |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-22-06 06:20 PM |
#55 |
| -
You extremist Atwood-bashing atheist whackjob. |
neebob |
Sep-23-06 01:38 AM |
#64 |
| -
It says here I am required to gush. |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-23-06 05:39 AM |
#65 |
| -
Yes, please, |
neebob |
Sep-23-06 02:21 PM |
#90 |
| -
It doesn't depend on the definition of atheism? |
greyl |
Sep-23-06 06:31 AM |
#71 |
| -
She says atheism is a religion, do you agree with that? |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-23-06 07:08 AM |
#76 |
| -
Depends on the definition of atheism. |
greyl |
Sep-23-06 07:16 AM |
#78 |
| -
I'm saying she's an idiot who didn't bother to research the subject |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-23-06 07:21 AM |
#80 |
| -
"strong atheism is dogmatic" is closer to the truth of the matter. |
Zhade |
Sep-23-06 04:23 PM |
#95 |
| -
I agree, having been one on occasion. :) nt |
greyl |
Sep-25-06 10:48 AM |
#123 |
| -
No, That Is Idiotic |
Southpawkicker |
Sep-24-06 08:18 PM |
#108 |
| -
.... |
Random_Australian |
Sep-24-06 10:39 PM |
#109 |
| -
Thanks, SPK! |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-24-06 11:19 PM |
#112 |
| -
Teachability |
Southpawkicker |
Sep-25-06 09:47 PM |
#137 |
| -
She doesn't understand atheism and agnostic definitions. |
ozone_man |
Sep-22-06 07:13 PM |
#58 |
| -
What do we call someone who positively asserts there is no God? nt |
greyl |
Sep-23-06 06:32 AM |
#72 |
| -
A strong atheist. |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-23-06 07:18 AM |
#79 |
| -
It comes down to the precise definitions you use |
muriel_volestrangler |
Sep-23-06 06:17 AM |
#66 |
| -
I agree. Dawkins is agreeing with Atwood on a point: |
greyl |
Sep-23-06 06:38 AM |
#74 |
| -
I wish it was! |
Finder |
Sep-23-06 08:40 AM |
#84 |
| -
Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby |
Caution |
Sep-23-06 09:54 AM |
#87 |
| -
And Margaret Atwood is an idiot |
Goblinmonger |
Sep-24-06 11:22 AM |
#105 |
| -
Absolutely false, for reasons already explained. |
Zhade |
Sep-23-06 03:17 PM |
#91 |
| -
This is the same Margaret Atwood... |
moggie |
Sep-25-06 08:59 AM |
#118 |
| -
She said that??? |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-25-06 11:22 PM |
#140 |
| -
"What Was She Thinking?" - atheism.about.com |
greyl |
Sep-25-06 10:58 AM |
#124 |
| -
Yes, I was quite dissapointed in her stance. |
catbert836 |
Sep-25-06 03:46 PM |
#133 |
| -
"Arrogance of Agnosticism" |
beam me up scottie |
Sep-25-06 11:17 PM |
#139 |
| -
Atwood seems to have missed something... |
and-justice-for-all |
Sep-25-06 05:47 PM |
#135 |
| -
I know we bounce around our terms here all the time on R/T |
TallahasseeGrannie |
Sep-26-06 08:06 AM |
#141 |
| -
Does radical = fundamentalist? |
varkam |
Sep-28-06 10:41 PM |
#143 |
| -
yeah, and BALDNESS is a HAIR COLOR... |
NAO |
Sep-28-06 10:29 PM |
#142 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread