I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also? (page 18)

cofty

Cofty's silly assertion that "absence" pressuposes "existence"

You are in a minority of one.

This has turned into a futile exercise in semantics. Bye

EdenOne

Cofty

You are pretending that whether or not god exists is an open question. It isn't. Every god who has ever been invented so far does not exist.

Well, here's the kind of claim that only a hard atheist would make. If you were truly a skeptical, you would leave the question open, albeit you might lean towards the non-existance of deities. But at least come out and show your true face. You're a hard atheist, agressive, a dogmatic bully, evangelizer and proselitizer. You're not interested in an open-ended discussion, you're interested in winning debates so you can gloat in front of your mirror. People like you give a bad name to skepticism and give cold feet to theists who are tempted to give a fair chance at evidence to speak on behalf of reality concerning the existence of a deity or deities. You embody everything that's wrong with hard atheism. Theists don't need "tough love" from rationalism, they don't need the emotional repulse that the likes of you cause on those who are giving timid steps from the dark claws of organized religion into a lighter side of life. Honestly, you are very tiring whenever you enter any discussion that involves theism, because you hijack each and every such thread and make it a pulpit for your brand of skepticism. It's OK, we get it already. You have a big opinion. Let others have theirs. I truly like what you have to say in other threads about other subjects, you bring important things for discussion. But in this particular subject, you're just becoming plain annoying. The only discussion that one can have with you is that where you win. Is that the best you can do? Really?

Phizzy

Ad Hominem anyone ?

EdenOne

Sometimes enough is enough, Phizzy.

Eden

Jonathan Drake

I used this example to counter Cofty's silly assertion that "absence" pressuposes "existence"

Ok but here's the problem. Every other definition of absent DOES presuppose existence except this one.

So either you're using the one that means non existent, and are agreeing with people like me; or, you're using one that presupposes existence and cofty is right.

Either scenario, you lose.

Phizzy

Once someone uses Ad Hominem they have already lost the argument.

cofty

Eden1 - If you want to be Outlaw's lap dog and court popularity then feel free, but keep the personal attacks for PMs.

The easiest way to get a load of likes on any forum is to pretend that nobody really knows anything and everybodies beliefs are just as valid.

They aren't.

Evidence is all that matters. Stop ranting about why you don't like me - I don't care, popularity is very low on my list of priorities - and bring some facts to the table.

nicolaou

Cofty I get your frustration. Been there;

Believers, define your God if you are able to.

prologos

cofty limits himself to "every god that has ever been invented" he will prove any of those to be not only absent, but also non existent. US Patents on inventions soon will be reaching the 8 000 000 mark ,-- but, what if god just IS,-- and was never humanly invented?

cofty

Thanks for the link Nicolaou.

I think this point needs to be made every time somebody makes a sweeping statement about "god".

There is no such thing as "god". There are a myriad of contradictory entities.

We should refuse to discuss "god" until the theist has the honesty to define exactly what they mean.

I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?

Share this