Posted on 07/31/2008 12:54:12 PM PDT by AreaMan
No and I haven't figured out why you think I am approaching the speed of light either
You need a history lesson. I am preaching science however
Oh please, Rain Man. C'mon. You're the one who says he isn't an atheist but that he believes only what there is evidence for.
I'm not asking you if you believe in what I define as a "gxd" at all. I'm simply asking why you can't call yourself an atheist. The only logical reason (since you don't fit the definition of an agnostic) is that you are some kind of "theist."
Let me rephrase my question: what is it you believe in that disqualifies you from being classified as an "atheist?"
And please don't ask me to define "atheist." You must have some definition or you wouldn't insist you're not one.
How can you expect me to answer your question if you wont define the word? Some peopl see God as a human-looking big bearded guy in the sky. Some deist see god as a aforce that created the universe and then left it alone. Some see God as another name for the universe. What do YOU mean?
You say you are not an atheist. What do YOU mean?
I mean that I can not prove that a god or gods do noet exist.
Well said!
Thank you for answering my question!
Although that does seem to contradict your assertion that only nature exists. It seems to me you're only a "non-atheist" on a technicality--a definition of the word that essentially means there is no such thing, since no one can "prove that a god or gods do not exist." Which means that all those people who call themselves "atheists" aren't really atheists.
Didn’t read earlier where he disqualified himself as “agnostic” -
but it seems to me that declaring that you can’t prove the existance or non-existance of God is pretty much the definition of agnostic. “We don’t and can’t know.”
I believe he’s pulling the same crap that all atheists/secular humanists (and MSM journalists) pull -
“WE’RE neutral, the rest of you are religious (ideological) zealots”
It is. So if he has said he is not an agnostic, and then turned around and said he cannot prove that a god or gods do not exist, he is contradicting himself.
I can think of only three explanations:
1)He simply chooses to define his philosophy positively (vis a vis the natural world which we know exists) rather than negatively (via the rejection of a "god or gods" whose existence is accepted "on faith").
2)He's actually one of us trying to make the other side look bad.
3)He's crazy as a bessie bug.
I have only seen evidence for the natural
Very well. So you're an agnostic.
Why shouldn’t I? He is universally acclaimed, as a theologian and philosopher, to be one of the very best from any period of history, and rightly so. Acclaimed, that is, except for you and a few likeminded Agnostics and Atheists. Aquinas reduces your anti-Christian thesis to ruins, so, predictably, you are forced to resort to the lowest form of political tactics in response: denigration; revisionism; changing the subject; and a breezy familiarity to convey the impression of contempt while maintaining plausible deniability. ‘Tis the silly season of politics, so we are witness to this form of activity every day. Your behavior mirrors that of a sniggering child throwing spit wads at an adult.
You impute words I’ve not uttered or implied. I’ve made no claim. Produce the quote and cite the msg number where I have. You’ve made a reckless statement, thinking that no one would call you on it. Now that you have been called, you can’t produce, but you’re too prideful to own up to your failing. Now you’re imputing words to others in an attempt to wiggle out. No dice. Everyone is watching. Produce or recant.
I’m on the verge of declaring you a goober, and be done with you.
I’m pretty sure I said I loved Aquinas.
Another spit wad.
Please do. You are a <100 anyway.
As I said; plausible deniability.
Talk to metmom and wintertime. I am done with you too.
You would like that, no doubt. No more embarrassing requests to produce or recant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.