"Hello, Mr. Pot, have you met Mr. Kettle?" Or as Coppola might possibly put it: "Smell that? You smell that?" "What?" "Hypocrisy, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that.... I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning."
Number of different flavours. One thing in common is that they do not hold to the belief that God exists. But there is no need to also hold to the belief that God does not exist. Atheists can believe in whatever they want. For whatever reason they want. They just don't hold to a belief in the existence of God.
isn't the hole idea of believe around something to do with God (so if you still believe in what ever you do in it is still a believe that is still related to God )[my opinion]
Belief is acceptance without evidence. It doesn't necessarily have to do with god. A belief in invisible pink unicorns has nothing to do with god.
but a believe doesn't materialistic exist so if a pink unicorn is a believe than you can believe it. your choice
Which has nothing to do with god, which was the point in your post I was responding too. Besides, prove that invisible pink unicorns don't exist.
Yes you did. You said there is no scientific recourse for atheism, leaving it in the realm of weak or political arguments. Those were your words. No idea what your definition of "hard evidence" is, but I'm guessing it involves holding up a picture of where God isn't. In any case, the evidence is all there to be seen. Trace any deity back to its origin, and you will find myth and superstition. Will the irony never end? :shrug:
actually my words were relying on the authority of science for a basis for atheism is an argument that ranges from the weak to the political. The suggestion was that the actual basis, much like the basis for any other world view, is something else entirely. It involves you supplying evidence (as opposed to supplying opinions) that all (your choice of word, not mine ... just for the record) claims of god are fabricated. Otherwise its plainly obvious you are just talking about your favoured metaphysical stance IOW you have no evidence, only opinions .... which, again, wouldn't be so much of a problem if you didn't pretend otherwise ...... It gets back to the issue of atheists choosing to shroud their views in a type of argument that defaults to weak/political arguments Not while you are unsuccessfully trying to put words in my mouth. :shrug:
You said nothing of the authority of science. What is it, then? So this is the part where I have to provide you with evidence of every god being fabricated, obviously. Thankfully, science isn't relegated to internet forums. Look for it yourself or don't; it's not my responsibility to do your homework for you. Interesting that you'd immediately jump to that conclusion. I guess your preferred metaphysical position is immune to evidence. Is that what metaphysics is to you? A pacifier that you can suck on when you're scared of the big nasty world? Again, the scientific basis for atheism is not one of absence of evidence. Neurotically stating it over and over doesn't make it true. What is the point of this exercise if you're not going to own your words, lg? :shrug:
Merely intelligence enough to have spotted the hypocrisy. But otherwise a great counter argument. I must remember that one. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Do you even deny the hypocrisy. Or will you just sweep it under the carpet while continuing to accuse others?
And that's where the whole "the burden of proof is on the claimant" is discarded, and reworded into "The burden for proving atheist claims is on the theist."
At the moment I am denying that you have brought anything to the discussion. No doubt you might also try and suavely play this back at me with a retort like "well you also brought nothing to the discussion except hypocrisy", but the fact remains that you simply leveling accusations totally bereft of any attempt at context or explanation (IOW you are acting like a troll) :shrug:
maybe I should have punctuated that better actually my words were "relying on the authority of science for a basis for atheism is an argument that ranges from the weak to the political." values of course. IOW its values that shape world views, not vice versa I'm just bringing to your attention what you have to do take your argument outside the field of the metaphysical. IOW its not my homework. It's yours. :shrug: Noted that you are still pretending your metaphysical position is any different. :shrug: again, you are imagining what other people are saying for the sake of driving home spurious arguments How can they be mine when they only appear in your posts? :shrug:
