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.
Viviane, you find one on page 14 of this thread. Apparently Cofty missed it too, because he is still asking for it. I should have bolded it...
In any case, it was merely an example of what a deity could ideally be for me. It's pointless to deconstruct it because it was merely a prop for the sake of argument. Don't sweat it...
Eden
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.
*shakes head*
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 started a thread about atheism
Strawman. The thread was about absentheism, whose precepts I explained as not conforming neither with atheism, nor theism, nor agnosticism.
You have revealed that your intention was to bait me.
Wrong again. Don't make this about you, you don't merit that much effort from me. But you walked right into it, as you usually do. The intention was not to bait anyone, it was to discuss a concept that I was proposing in a very light way. However, I suspected that you, as is your habit, would jump in and bite it, and sure enough, you did. I wish you didn't, but you always do. Other atheists in this forum don't do what you do. You may be an honest debater, but there are many honest bullies in this world. You're not alone.
Eden
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
You and Outlaw are two of a kind. Your one and only concern is popularity at any price.
I can't speak for Outlaw, but if I wanted to be popular I would have remained an active JW. Instead, because I stood for my ideas and my freedom of thought and freedom of expression, and because I refused to be bullyed into submission by religious bigots, I lost all my friends and I'm shunned by them. That's not exactly being popular. Any kind of bully deserves to be taken on a fool's errand.
This forum may not be a pulpit for religious apologists, but it's not a pulpit for their atheist counterparts either. If you think your mission in life is to hunt down everyone that holds a different worldview than yours, maybe this is the wrong place for you. No former JW takes lightly being bullyied by anyone, religious or anti-theist. I don't engage in meaningful discussions with people who think they're always right because - well, it's not a discussion, it's a conversion monologue. I'm done with those days.
And FYI, I can spot the difference between "considerate thoughts" and a discourse designed to intimidate with shock and awe. And respond accordingly. And just because you feel frustrated with the outcome of this thread, you might consider that very useful thoughts and ideas were exchanged here - many of them came from you. For the benefit of those who participated, and of those who read silently. Information and knowledge is power.
Eden
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.
And now that we came to this 19th page, let me share something with you.
I have started the absentheist thread without any really serious purpose but a word play. Often people can talk about deep subjects in a light way. No need to turn everything into a boring, endless academic debate. However, I suspected that one or two people would jump into this thread, hijacking and trolling it and making it a pulpit for their puffed up self-importance. There's one member of this forum who knows this has been my idea from the onset. Nothing terribly serious, but a pretext to talk about some deep ideas in a relaxed way. But when the usual suspects jump into the thread as if my absentheist proposition was the next big item in metaphisics, I thought "what the heck let's give them a run for the money" and engaged.
It's better to stop now before it gets too ugly.
Just to be clear, I stand as a skeptic but leave the question of existence of deities open. I simply admit that I don't know enough to claim something as huge as "god exists" or "god doesn't exist". Yes, evidence for the existence of God is, to be kind, very slim. And if God truly exists, his lack of consistency and his absence merit my apatheism. That was my intent when I made up the term "absentheism". To speak about where I stand these days towards the notion of God and exchange ideas about it. I don't give a flying f**k if some people here think I'm wrong, or very wrong. This is where I am now. Who knows tomorrow? But, sure enough, some people never fail to impress me, taking the bait...
End of my comments on this thread.
Eden
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.
Sometimes enough is enough, Phizzy.
Eden
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
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?
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.
Jonathan Drake,
Nope. What Webster's says is that "non existant" is but one among several possible synonyms for "absent". I used this example to counter Cofty's silly assertion that "absence" pressuposes "existence". Of course it doesn't. What is unavoidable about "absence" is that means "not present", "faillure to be present".
Eden
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.
Galaxie, of course that's an extreme scenario, but it's the most honest scenario. But note what I said - based on the notion that God is absent, each one is entirely free to do as they wish with their lives, from chosing to live for a deity that hasn't been able to come forth and prove its existence, to not giving a damn if God exists or not, to live a live entirely free from any fear from a supernatural being. nothing unlike people do already, really, don't you agree?
Eden
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.
Jonathan Drake:
What we are all pretty much saying here is that God is absent from the universe.
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that God is absent, (not present), in the observable universe that we know so far. It may be entirely absent from the whole universe, and in that case it can be said that he's non-existent. But only when we have scanned the whole universe without finding trace or evidence of it. Until then, we can only note his absence. Then it's up for grabs what do do with that information.
Eden
