As we left it last, so far we still don't have clue what absentheism is actually saying (or not) and I suspect we never will.
Albert Hitchcock style. :P
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
As we left it last, so far we still don't have clue what absentheism is actually saying (or not) and I suspect we never will.
Albert Hitchcock style. :P
charity tribunal rejects jehovahs witnesses charities' latest appeal attempt.
governance | kirsty weakley | 9 apr 2015 a jehovahs witnesses charity has been refused permission to appeal a charity tribunal ruling that had denied it extra time to appeal against the opening of a statutory inquiry.
the watchtower bible and tract society and appealed the charity tribunals decision not to extend the period of time that they had to file an appeal into a statutory inquiry that had been opened by the charity commission.
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
I welcome your participation, but when the subject is theism / atheism, you manage to make your intervention extremely unpleasant, bordering the insult, and you hijack the thread to suit your proselitizing agenda.
I feel the need to point out this is kind of instigatory. These kind of comments are what initiated Coftys more.. assertive replies.
I feel compelled to defend cofty here just because I can't disagree with this statement more or I would. I've been on your side of things Eden and while I did get frustrated with some of Coftys points, like when discussing the Quran for instance, it was never how you describe here. It was an honest debate and discourse and Coftys posts are just to the point and factual. It may come across cold, and thus aggressive but it's just straightforward. Even when on your side I actually appreciated this about each post. You have to remember, or rather I suggest remembering, that how something comes across (especially when lacking tone of voice such as text) is completely up to you - not cofty.
I even look back and appreciate some of Vivs posts to a point (lol). And I agree with everything she's said here.
i have thought about how ttatt came full circle for me.
how the connecting the dots was simple and just made sense,.
how silos of information are literally at our fingertips today.. why is it that the ones we love cannot get ttatt?.
As was pretty much said above, I firmly believe many don't WANT to see ttat. If they don't want it they won't get it.
You have to realize that these people have many reasons to want the lie. My mother has lost loved ones very dear to her, and she believes she'll see them again. In her mind if you take the so called "truth" away that hope goes with it. The question, "what if I'll never see them again?" for her would be extremely distressing, perhaps even damaging.
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Lol Viv. That's like this ENTIRE thread. Just about. Fo real.
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Cofty was no where being a bully. In a debate or a discussion you have to agree upon definitions and subjects. Wanting to define the God being discussed isn't bullying. If you can prove a God exists but is absent, everyone is going to want to see it.
Before you can assert this proof or make any suggestions or postulations you have to establish what God you're talking about. Then we can talk about the evidence. This was a civil discussion through and through until you were defensive. .
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
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.
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that God is absent
Right. And per your own definition from websters absent means not present or NONEXISTENT.
Thats called checkmate.
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
You're clinging to the notion that "absence" implies "existence".
The very defintion you chose, which is from the same source as the one I posted, states that something that is absent is non-existent.
What we are all pretty much saying here is that God is absent from the universe. Hence, God does not exist. I stopped posting because, especially after your chosen definition, I see you as agreeing with me. There is no God.
from so many posts and conversations on here, you'd think over 1/2 the posters here possess doctorates in theology, physics, biology, etc.
i'm curious aside from the books and research people have done here, what degrees they have.
to start, i just got an aa and going straight through full time to an mba.
After recent events and enlightening I'm going to be going to college soon.
planning on majoring in computer sciences