The Morman hypothetical

[moevillini]

skip

to my Lou!

OR putting it another way

skip

to the loo!

 

[Hopper]

OR putting it another way



to the loo!

Ya tryin to mock my boy, Rafer Alston, dat it, eh, Mo?

 

[One Brow]

Well, I'm sorry, it isn't clear to me what you mean here. Do you believe (notice that I didn't ask "can you prove") that there is no God (whatever that is)?

I find "God" to be a poorly defined term. No one has described "God" in a way that I believe in. Some definitions for God are inherently contradictory, or contrary to history, or etc., so I could say "God" under those definitions does not exist.

I don't believe in the supernatural, at all. But I am unwilling to say it does not exist. I'm comfortable staying there, sans good evidence either way.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I find "God" to be a poorly defined term. No one has described "God" in a way that I believe in. Some definitions for God are inherently contradictory, or contrary to history, or etc., so I could say "God" under those definitions does not exist.

I don't believe in the supernatural, at all. But I am unwilling to say it does not exist. I'm comfortable staying there, sans good evidence either way.

Using the term "God" is kind of insulting to all those polytheistic religions out there, isn't it? Hell, maybe insulting to all non-Christian religions, eh?

 

[Hopper]

I don't believe in the supernatural, at all. But I am unwilling to say it does not exist. I'm comfortable staying there, sans good evidence either way.

OK, Eric, once again, that's fine. By common and traditional definition you are an agnostic, and, by that same measure, you are NOT an atheist.

 

[One Brow]

If you want to call "agnosticism" "weak atheism," I have no particular problem with that, so long as it's clear what you mean.

Agnosticism is the delclaration that you can see evidence in both directions, or that such evidence is inherently not obtainable. Agnosticism is not a lack of belief, it is a statement of witholding a final decision based on beliefs. Neither describes me. Neither is weak atheism. Calling such a positon a "talking point" does not discredit it any more than it credits it. An accurate talking point is still accurate.

 

[One Brow]

OK, Eric, once again, that's fine. By common and traditional definition you are an agnostic, and, by that same measure, you are NOT an atheist.

"An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine."

Where have I claimed anything like that?

 

[Hopper]

What IS "weak atheism" in your idiosyncratic lingo, Eric, and just how does it differ from:

1. "strong atheism," and

2. "Agnosticism?"

You already know I have virtually no patience for endless semantic casuistry. Just tell me the SUBSTANTIVE difference, as you see it, if you can.

 

[GVC]

You already know I have virtually no patience for endless semantic cauistry.

hilarious.

 

[Hopper]

hilarious.

Best git back in dem woods, ya hoser commie-boy, ya, fo I hauls off and blastz ya wit this here sawwed-off, eh?

 

[Hopper]

“The mere words ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice-drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex maniac, Quaker, 'Nature cure' quack, pacifist and feminist in England.” George Orwell, 1937

Not that theys anythin wrong wit sex maniacs or nudists, but, still....

 

[richgates]

He doesn't believe in god, get over it.