Moderator: Community Team
PLAYER57832 wrote:I hope we all become liberal drones.
protectedbygold wrote:I talked with a buddy of mine the other day and he was telling me that in order for someone to truly be an atheist they would have to have unlimited knowledge so they could absolutely rule out the possibility of God's existence. The best we can do is obtain the status of agnostic. So I wonder if atheists even exist! It's funny when you think about it. I've never run across a rude person who claims to be an atheist but that's probably because I usually hang out in General Discussion.
got tonkaed wrote:I guess i would disagree with that assertion. For my purposes, atheism is simply believing that there is no god or gods, or any real higher power or many other different ways of putting it. While you can qualify what would constitute proper criterion for belief is a subjective game, i suppose i took my cue from Douglas Adams, who once said something to the effect that he understood that agnosticism was probably the logically more appropriate stance, but that agnosticism was often believed to be akin to not really thinking about the issue or caring one way or the other. He, much like myself, believe we had and have thought about the issue and came to our set of opinions on the issue, which is why he (and i) prefer atheism when its discussed. Perhaps not as logical as some of the other like minded thinkers, but i never claimed to be as logical as some of them.
got tonkaed wrote:protectedbygold wrote:I talked with a buddy of mine the other day and he was telling me that in order for someone to truly be an atheist they would have to have unlimited knowledge so they could absolutely rule out the possibility of God's existence. The best we can do is obtain the status of agnostic. So I wonder if atheists even exist! It's funny when you think about it. I've never run across a rude person who claims to be an atheist but that's probably because I usually hang out in General Discussion.
I guess i would disagree with that assertion. For my purposes, atheism is simply believing that there is no god or gods, or any real higher power or many other different ways of putting it. While you can qualify what would constitute proper criterion for belief is a subjective game, i suppose i took my cue from Douglas Adams, who once said something to the effect that he understood that agnosticism was probably the logically more appropriate stance, but that agnosticism was often believed to be akin to not really thinking about the issue or caring one way or the other. He, much like myself, believe we had and have thought about the issue and came to our set of opinions on the issue, which is why he (and i) prefer atheism when its discussed. Perhaps not as logical as some of the other like minded thinkers, but i never claimed to be as logical as some of them.
InkL0sed wrote:Logic doesn't matter -- Douglas Adams is instant win.
So, that's a yes to your question, protected -- yes, he does.
protectedbygold wrote:got tonkaed wrote:I guess i would disagree with that assertion. For my purposes, atheism is simply believing that there is no god or gods, or any real higher power or many other different ways of putting it. While you can qualify what would constitute proper criterion for belief is a subjective game, i suppose i took my cue from Douglas Adams, who once said something to the effect that he understood that agnosticism was probably the logically more appropriate stance, but that agnosticism was often believed to be akin to not really thinking about the issue or caring one way or the other. He, much like myself, believe we had and have thought about the issue and came to our set of opinions on the issue, which is why he (and i) prefer atheism when its discussed. Perhaps not as logical as some of the other like minded thinkers, but i never claimed to be as logical as some of them.
Does Douglas Adams have unlimited knowledge?
protectedbygold wrote:InkL0sed wrote:Logic doesn't matter -- Douglas Adams is instant win.
So, that's a yes to your question, protected -- yes, he does.
Haha, ok then
Guess I'll go with the arrogance option
InkL0sed wrote:protectedbygold wrote:InkL0sed wrote:Logic doesn't matter -- Douglas Adams is instant win.
So, that's a yes to your question, protected -- yes, he does.
Haha, ok then
Guess I'll go with the arrogance option
I went with the first four options -- because most people are some combination of all of them.
I guess I mostly see the best in people...
Frigidus wrote:Most people are leaps and bounds away from brilliant. This naturally doesn't apply to me, and as I'm an athiest I figure brilliant is one of many terms you could apply.
sheepofdumb wrote:I'm not scum, just a threat to the town. There's a difference, thank you very much.
ga7 wrote: I'll keep my vote where it should be but just in case Vote Strike Wolf AND f*ck FLAMINGOS f*ck THEM HARD
protectedbygold wrote:got tonkaed wrote:I guess i would disagree with that assertion. For my purposes, atheism is simply believing that there is no god or gods, or any real higher power or many other different ways of putting it. While you can qualify what would constitute proper criterion for belief is a subjective game, i suppose i took my cue from Douglas Adams, who once said something to the effect that he understood that agnosticism was probably the logically more appropriate stance, but that agnosticism was often believed to be akin to not really thinking about the issue or caring one way or the other. He, much like myself, believe we had and have thought about the issue and came to our set of opinions on the issue, which is why he (and i) prefer atheism when its discussed. Perhaps not as logical as some of the other like minded thinkers, but i never claimed to be as logical as some of them.
Does Douglas Adams have unlimited knowledge?
CrazyAnglican wrote:I've only met two in my wanderings outside of Cyberspace (at least two who spoke about it).
Hmmm. They were both arrogant, charming, witty, prone to depression, brilliant (in different ways), artistic (in different ways), prone to bumming money and not repaying, stubborn, comical, bellicose (okay not bellicose, but I like the word; so I threw it in there), unconventional (but oddly enough one liked conventions), slackers, cliquish (my your still reading have you nothing better to do?).............
In short they were basically like me. Where were we going?
got tonkaed wrote:CrazyAnglican wrote:I've only met two in my wanderings outside of Cyberspace (at least two who spoke about it).
Hmmm. They were both arrogant, charming, witty, prone to depression, brilliant (in different ways), artistic (in different ways), prone to bumming money and not repaying, stubborn, comical, bellicose (okay not bellicose, but I like the word; so I threw it in there), unconventional (but oddly enough one liked conventions), slackers, cliquish (my your still reading have you nothing better to do?).............
In short they were basically like me. Where were we going?
to find your marbles?
i too enjoy the word bellicose.
got tonkaed wrote:I guess i just reject the assertion that you need to have unlimited knowledge to believe in anything in particular.
luns101 wrote:You should be able to convert a soul from 500 yards away armed only with a Gideon New Testament that you found at a Holiday Inn!!!!
muy_thaiguy wrote:Sir! Permission to do 50 push-ups with the Ark of the Covenant on my back?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users