^^^that ^^^
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.
^^^that ^^^
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.
LMAO, VI
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.
Not present, couldn't be found ... He/she/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.
Defender of truth, thank you for the reference. You've been very helpful. I believe that the traits of agnostic atheist tick most boxes for me. I still don't think that the etymology of the term "atheist" describes properly the lack of belief in a God, as it suits more the rejection of God. I would much prefer the use of "skeptic", "skepticism", hence agnostic skepticism. But I can concede the current use of the term "atheist" will have to do for now.
Plus, for the sake of closing this thread and ending the bickering, it's a good closing.
**** turns around, whispering: "And yet, he is absent..." *****
grins and whistles on his way out towards the sunset.
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.
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:
assigning spirit power to a real thing no more makes that thing a god than does painting orange and black stripes on a poodle make it a tiger.
I agree with you. I was playing the devil's advocate here. But fact is, millions of people assign spirit power to objects, animals, other people. To them, that deity is real.
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.
(back from a terribly dry beijing duck. blahhrgh)
Cofty: I attack bad ideas, unlike you I don't attack people. If I am going to criticise somebody's character I do it by PM as you well know.
Is that so? Let's see if it holds truth. The first ad hominem came from you.
You lied about Aten.
Then
You are impervious to reason,logic and sensible use of language.
Your dishonesty is becoming intolerable
All the above came from you before I had my burst of rage against you. This makes you, objectively, the liar here. You attack ideas, but also the people who hold them. You deserve no compassion. And, by the way, you also lied when you PM'd me to inform me that I just had been inducted to your ignore list. Apparently that was another lie ... or did you simply change your mind? What's good for the goose....
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.
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.
Fear not, Viviane. I'm sitting at a chinese restaurant getting ready for some beijing duck, and will get back on track when I finish dinner.
Eden *chomping*
By the way, who is "we"?
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,
Even in writing, people can show restraint even when they disagree. I can tolerate a cold tone, but I cannot let misrepresentation and distortion of what I write to be used to attack me. Like I said, I normally apreciate Cofty's participation on threads that don't deal with theism / atheism. He's a sharp thinker and usually his interventions are well thought out. But on this particular area, he feels entitled to make all sorts of derrogatory remarks about the people who hold ideas he doesn't agree with. Not about the ideas, but ridiculing the people who have them. That's unacceptable, and at some point it will trigger a violent response. More, he freely twists and cherry picks quotes from my posts to pass the impression that I said something I didn't say and then attack me for it. It's a relentless and sneaky resort to strawman fallacy that gets quickly tiring.
I apologize for some excessive language towards Cofty. Is he able to do the same or does he have nothing to apologize for?
Eden