20% of americans are athiests

[Kadayi]

Therefore I am unable to address your question in the current form.

Then we've reached an impasse. In all of what you've said I'm not seeing the degree of consistency that your purport that would refute my position. The laws of the bible and the laws of sovereign states are entirely distinct things.

Damn you and your TF2 beta! D: (Heh, I'm kidding, just upset that I don't have TF2, otherwise I'd probably be on there rather than arguing on forums).

26 quid through Steam and they accept pay pal or Visa Electron. Beg borrow or steal the money it's worth it, and you might get to shoot me on line, which will probably be far more satisfying

 

[Lh'owon]

Top Secret, you are a very confused person.

My computer crashed when I was half way through replying, so I'll keep it briefish - I think it's better that way.

What evidence? There is NO evidence. PLEASE, take a science course or five. Scientific method people.

Yes, there is no evidence. None whatsoever. Not a smidgeon.

That's why atheists reject the existence of God. No evidence, see. We do this without ever claiming certainty. In fact, we freely admit that its possible God exists; we just give that 'possibility' the same credence as any other imaginary entity.

While you can't technically be an atheist - if you define atheism as knowing there is no God, which you seem to - the atheism we subscribe to does not admit certainty.

Given that, what's your complaint?

Again: We can deny the existence of unicorns without calling ourselves unicorn agnostics. Same with God. By your twisted logic (dependent on misunderstood semantics) you cannot logically deny the existence of unicorns. It's about being practical!

Not true. You can prove that unicorns do not exist by simply searching the entire globe. It's highly impractical, but POSSIBLE. You cannot search for God.

You'll notice in the bit you quoted I didn't mention unicorns, but you have a point that they aren't the best example - if you just define 'em as horsies with horns on their heads that is. Of course that makes disbelief in unicorns no less rational. See the bit about being practical without admitting certainty above.

But, for your sake, I'll replace 'unicorn' with 'fairy'. Oh dear... your hypothetical searching doesn't hold up too well now, does it? You see, fairies are magical. That means you can search all you want, and they can twinkle away, become invisible, fly up among the clouds in showers of glitter... whatever.

And no, even with the ability to see every single point in the universe at once, you still couldn't prove fairies' non-existence. They might be fluttering into the magical creature dimension whenever we look. So, you can't search for fairies, and therefore can't disprove fairies.

Oops, all us misguided atheist 'fools' have to call ourselves fairy agnostics now.

I can completely render your comment moot with a statement. Prove to me God doesn't exist. You cannot. Just because something has no evidence does not mean it is false. You are committing a logical fallacy here. All atheists are guessing, just as every priest is GUESSING.

Alright. Let's take this slowly, because it's clearly very hard to understand. Yes, I cannot prove that God does not exist. I have never, and will never, say that I can.

For the millionth time:

1. Atheism does not admit certainty.
Therefore, Atheists admit that there could be a God.
2. Atheism rejects the existence of God based on the zero evidence in support of God's existence.
3. Zero evidence does not mean that God doesn't exist.
Therefore, back to 1. That's why atheists do not admit certainty.

How can you possibly call that a logical fallacy?

So atheists are guessing are we? Just as we 'guess' that there are no fairies, huh. Realising there is no evidence and no other reason to believe in God makes atheism a guess? Y'know, that's not even worth arguing. It's just being silly.

None of my statements have been hypocritical.

You said: "go study some logical fallacies for arguing before you come up with such stupid statements". Your statements have been both logically dubious and stupid. That's being hypocritical.

I'm afraid he didn't. Please, people. Go to a university, take a few philosophy lessons, and take a few science classes. Learn WHAT logical fallacy is, and learn WHAT the scientific method is. Otherwise, you are both talking out of your asses here. I do not mean to sound like a high and mighty jackass, but seriously.

Don't patronise me.

I go to university. I take philosophy. I know what a logical fallacy is, while you do not. I know how to apply the scientific method to philosophical questions, while you do not.

Drop the condescension. You're in no position to sustain it.

 

[Kula Meenur]

Kirvoman = win

I fully endorse this man and/or event

 

[Ennui]

I also go to university and have a philosophy course to go to later today and I'm not touching this discussion with a ten foot pole.

 

[Warbie]

*lots of sense*

Ding ding, we have a winner

 

[Krynn72]

Are the ads on this site context sensitive, or is this mere coincidence?

 

[Baal]

Are the ads on this site context sensitive, or is this mere coincidence?

If it's an ad by google (it is), it's contextual.

Shame on you for using tan, by the way. My avatar hates you :|