Poirot,

I refute completely that I use any kind of linguistic subterfuge in my writings but as you have admitted you do, the case rests.

And you have done it again with the worldview of atheists. Let me tell you what atheists think in common. Here it is and here it is alone with nothing else about the world. Are you ready? ‘There is probably no god’. That’s it…period.

To babble on about atheism being a woldview is nonsense.

The opposite, that there is a god is also not a world view, but following the alleged divinely inspired words of the alleged god or believing one knows what the alleged gods wants, is a worldview.

You are wasting my post numbers and I’d rather you stuck to your advice of going away if you are not going to discuss topics in which I am involved in a sensible, adult and comprehensive manner.

If brownie points are your life’s ambition at any cost, then maybe think why.

Atheism is of tremendous interest to the public as it shows a changing demographic in a world ruled by religion. This is historically very significant. In fact, it is of such interest that it was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald today that Dick Gross’ Opinion Piece on the 2012 Global Atheist Convention had more comments than any other topic. Nearly 2,000. http://www.smh.com.au/national/most-commented-stories-of-2012-20121219-2bm0y.html

There is a problem with religion in all societies and you are not a part of the solution, if fact, you are aiding and abetting the problem by you sneaky underhanded methods of communicating on this forum. It really is objectionable.

David

yep....

Okay, David, I give up.

I tend to veer away from discussion with personalities prone overreaction and volatitlity, but I thought I'd have one more go at communicating with you.

For a start, I did not accuse you of "linguistic subterfuge".

You're not interested in discussion. You're interested in having it all your way and taking offense.

"...sneaky underhand methods of communicating..."

(That says it all. I'm communicating with you in exactly the same way I do all the time on this forum - everyone else seems to think it's okay)

I showed your "stalker" accusation to a few friends who, after they stopped bouncing across the floor laughing, commented that I seemed to have hit a nerve.


You're the one who's objectionable - even when I come back and apologise for my second post and maintain a measured stance, you react in a bellicose manner.

Good luck to you mate - you'll need it with your attitude.

Dear Lexi,

We arrive at the truth by basing reasoned arguments on logical absolutes. That is the only reliable pathway to truth, given what we currently know. We’re not always going to reach absolute certainty, but absolute certainty is useless anyway.

<<What's true for some is not the case for others>>

The truth is not subjective. We can believe what we want, but we don’t get to pick and choose for ourselves what is true; truth in this sense is merely belief. We can determine how closely our beliefs align with the truth using the method I mentioned above.

<<The point that I was trying to make was - "Live and let live.">>

Of course! But there are some who are riding roughshod over our rights, security and wellbeing, and all with the passive support of the billions of their fellow travelers.

Where do we draw the line?

<<I think it would be a better world if we removed the walls that separate us. Wouldn't it be great if we turned our focus more on what unites us than on what divides us?>>

I agree, and I think if we all cared about the truth of our beliefs, we’d kill both birds with one stone here.

With religion being perhaps the biggest wall, I think helping others to see reason is one of the best ways of going about the former. If some get upset and feel attacked, then that’s unfortunate, but divisiveness is too engrained in the doctrines, and entrenched in the attitudes, of most of today’s major religions to sit back and wait for ALL theists to find some way of practicing their faith in a civilised way.

We need to be realistic and while we may not change the minds of everyone, we can at least spread enough reasoned thought around to make it too embarrassing for those with absurd beliefs to want to legislate or control others with them.

While we need to respect the rights of others to believe what they want, we shouldn’t have to do this at the expense of our own wellbeing.

Shockadelic,

Running out of arguments does not give you the right to start throwing around offensive accusations. It's telling that you are unable to point to any examples.

Or is it simply that you lack the sophistication and English skills to understand basic concepts and definitions?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the moment and assume it's the latter…

Atheism has no doctrine and nor is it a mode of thought. It is (in the broader sense) simply a label applied to those who don't hold a belief in any god(s). The only thing atheists have in common is the lack of any god belief. Atheism says nothing about whether or not one is a Rationalist or a Sceptic (in the philosophical sense) and nor does it say anything about one's ability to think rationally or sceptically.

You with me still here?

Rationalism and Scepticism are philosophical schools of thought. While all Rationalists and Sceptics are atheists, not all atheists are Rationalists or Sceptics. Some are into all sorts of New Age mumbo jumbo.

So as I said earlier, the three are not mutually exclusive, but neither are they one and the same, and I never implied that they were.

Capice?

I was going to provide you with a ton of links as references, but in doing so, I could have been accused of the Gish Gallop and hey, you can Google this stuff yourself.

<<Obviously, there is no “known number” of possible outcomes when it comes to God.>>

We may not be able to produce precise figures, but that doesn’t mean we can’t come to a reasonable presumption by basing reasoned arguments on both logical absolutes and what we currently DO know (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547#151490).

<<Unless you do as I did, and accept two outcomes. Exist or not exist. 50%>>

Like I said to SoG, that would simply mean that we don’t know. The probability does not default to 50/50. What we CAN default to, however, is a position of disbelieve until those making the positive claim have fulfilled their burden of proof.

AFoAI>>A consensus of historian has concluded that the Jesus of the New Testament existed. Most of those have a religious bent and there are many arguments for and against this proposition. But let’s accept it on face value for the exercise.<<

Sport, it is a transparently simplistic tactic to recognize that in the consensus of scholars Jesus existed, then put in a caveat that it is not universally held and it is a majority of Christian’s scholars that acknowledge it, regally proclaiming “but we will accept it on face value for this exercise”. I honestly expected that you would be better at rebuttal given you’ve made it your life’s work. But you are not tiger.

You bear bait with the obvious childlike jibe of “CHRISMYTH” and when negatively responded to you cry stalker, to two separate posters. You are not good at this atheist caper are you digger?

Have you ever heard of Flavius Josephus, he was a roman historian born in Roman Judea in the same century Jesus lived? A local lad who made mention of Jesus and the infant Christianity in “Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews”, written around 93–94 AD, it includes two references to Jesus in Books 18 and 20 and a reference to John the Baptist in Book 18. Modern scholarship has universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James".

Josephus was not recording from a distant time and place; he was there, as were the first readers of his diary. AFoAI, why play ducks and drakes with acknowledged history. Why don’t you just say that Jesus existed, but he was mortal, human, and not the son of god? It is that type of fixated interpretation of information coupled with your phobia regarding stalking that degrades your perceptions to others.

AFoAL, let’s move away from this banter, given you are a leading atheist give me ten reasons as to why there is no creator and I will seriously contemplate what you say.

Marry Christmas to all my friends.