Why aren't atheists agnostic?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm with you on this, I support you

I've never walked a mile in your shoes. Your points are very valid.

Thank you to both of you.

Can I explain my position without quoting chapter and verse? Not in this case, because my position is based on my belief of exact quotes from the Bible. I don't let anything or anyone do my thinking for me (a random claim from you indeed). Do you let evolutionists do your thinking for you?

Of course not. But my point is, since as a non-Christian I don't accept the authority of the Bible, "Because the Bible says so" is simply not good enough to convince me of anything other than what the Bible says.

There's a woman in Israel who legally married a dolphin.
Sopho: Is that a good idea, do you think? Is it okay with you?

Last edited by Ragtime on 27 May 2007, 6:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The other side of the coin:
Since, as a Bible-believing Christian, I dismiss the low-grade hypothesis of creator-less macro-evolution, "Because evolutionists say so" is simply not good enough to convince me of anything other than what the evolutionists say.

And, congratulations: You missed the point yet again. (See the last paragraph of gekitsu's last comment.) You've just now stated that you believe the Bible says what it says. For the last time, THAT'S ... MY ... POINT. Now do you understand? (Don't get a headache on this one.)

No, because a dolphin cannot consent. Don't compare me wanting to marry a human with someone wanting to marry a dolphin.

Yeh...a dolphin can't consent yet...we don't know its language.

BUT if somebody can legally marry a dolphin, what the hell would be wrong with same-sex marriages?

LOL
I actually found that "idioticlly" funny
sorry

One question: Can anybody actually speak seagull here?

I can't, but that doesn't mean their calls don't mean something. Heck, for all I know, they could have some pretty interesting moral debates.

That's cool, I don't have anything to add or subtract to that as you are expressing your viewpoint.



I'll get to the rest of your point but I'll answer the questions you asked first. What has proven that space aliens aren't tricking me everyday? Do I even need it to be proven that they aren't, or does it even matter if they are? No. We can get into the remote probabilities of me even seeing a lifeform that exists on another planet if they even exist at all let alone having my life influenced by one, but I think that is beside the point. Space aliens are just one example of a possible source of a being more advanced than humans; I guess I could have said a giant ameoba from the center of the earth witha brain the size of a 1984 cadillac, or some creature from unexplored depths of the ocean we haven't explored, or Zeus, or creature of unknown origin (and I meant for some of those things to be humurous). They are all the same to me. My point realy isn't based on that, I was simply giving one possible example of what a God could realy be other than a God that I thought people could relate to. I could have brought up the fact that certain types of brain injury have been shown to cause religous experinces in people as another example but I didn't feel like having to dig up the links to go into that in depth.

Your second question gets to I think the heart of the matter. Why isn't everything a mirage? Well even if I felt qualified to prove scientificaly that it isn't, I wouldn't have the resources to do so here. This question also gets down to the matter of whether what we percieve even happens as we percieve it. This is an issue that I did not make up, much greater minds than mine have been debating this for a long time. A while back I seem to recall that brain experts were debating whether or not conciousness was real, or an illusion.

I agree that the only way to know after death is if, and only if there is an afterlife. If there isn't then no, I won't know, but I make no assumptions.




Well again I never stated that my senses were untrustworthy, only in an event that was beyond my capabilities of understanding, and that does not automaticaly mean if it applies anywhere then it applies everywhere. Were the aztecs correct in relying on their senses when the spanish flares that lit up the sky in the night were believed to be omens from the gods, given that they had never seen gupowder in action before? Yet they could still rely on their senses in every other regard could they not? They could plow the field and eat and live normaly right? If you are making that ascertion on your own then all I can say is that you have no where near enough information about me to even come close to that conclusion.

Who says that certainty and sanity have to be interelated? You state as a fact that the implications of the wierd al song and my view as you understand it would make most people freak out? Which people? Have you talked to them? It doesn't freak me out. So to answer your question, what comprises sanity anyway. What is your definition of it? Certainty in unexplainable events that may never even happen have no relation to sanity at all, so then what does? Tell me that, then maybe I can answer your question.

As far I am concerned it is unwavering certainty that is infinitely ignorant.

[edited for some spelling errors]

Last edited by Arbie on 27 May 2007, 7:19 pm, edited 3 times in total.

This is what ignorance comes once again from religion.
The thought of homosexuality being inmoral, is the same as having sex with animals.
Perversion is perversion

I'm not comparing you to that, I'm just trying to find out how unconventional marriage can get before it doesn't make sense anymore. First of all, a dolphin arguably can consent, as they can choose mates. But suppose it couldn't. Vegetables have no rights. So if a woman wanted to legally marry a turnip, what would you think about that?

This is getting ridiculous now. Gay marriage will not lead to peopl marrying other species or inanimate objects.
A turnip cannot sign a contract. Neither can a dolphin. And technically no, a dolphin cannot consent because it cannot speak English/French/German etc. Therefore we have no way of knowing for a fact that it is consenting. If a turnip or a dolphin could sign a contract then I wouldn't care. Because, unlike f*****g Christian as*hole conservatives, I don't think another person's relationship has ANYTHING to do with me.

Except I would never use an appeal to authority as the basis of my viewpoint.



Don't be disingenuous. The original context of your remark was commenting on whether or not animals have souls. Saint Thomas Aquinas was able to answer the question without quoting chapter and verse.



Depends. Has the turnip also said that it wants to get married?