Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?

There are rules Mike, and you will follow them

Ok, the wording on #5 may not have worded exactly as it should be. "Changing the rules" covers it but exactly how they are changed could use clarification.  I'll come up with an amended  #5.  The other 4 (and Slarti's postulate) are rock solid.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Rule #1: There are no rules. I'm following that one to the letter.

Typical Athiest dogma. Its no wonder this world is such a mess.


Edited by Trademark - August 24 2010 at 12:33

^^^^ Except that #4 is completely bogus, since what you describe as original claims on my part are already responses to positive claims made by Theists. And there are differences between claims ... and sometimes people simply state opinions. I don't expect anyone to provide evidence for opinions. 

Edited by Mr ProgFreak - August 24 2010 at 12:33

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^^ I like the "Dawkma", as first mentioned here by Trademark, if I remember correctly.

Ah, that doesn't work so well for me, though early Dawkma is more palatable, even if it did give rise to that awful word "meme".

Come on, Dean. You know that "virus" is a loaded term. I know the technical definition is not inherently negative, but that's the connotation we have for it. If you did a random sample of 100 people and asks for their reactions upon hearing the word out of context, I doubt you'd find a single one who views it positively.

Dean wrote: thellama73 wrote: Come on, Dean. You know that "virus" is a loaded term. I know the technical definition is not inherently negative, but that's the connotation we have for it. If you did a random sample of 100 people and asks for their reactions upon hearing the word out of context, I doubt you'd find a single one who views it positively. Then that's an example of the "bad science" that I battle against. People form opinions of scientific concepts based upon limited sceintific undestanding/education/knowledge/whatever and by listening to prejudiced and ill-informed self-appointed psuedo-experts. The virus gets bad press, let's correct that.

So you want to eliminate the entire concept of linguistic connotation? Good luck with that.

thellama73 wrote: So you want to eliminate the entire concept of linguistic connotation? Good luck with that.

Everyone needs a hobby.

thellama73 wrote: That is a very well reasoned post. Personally, I like the connotative aspect of language as I think it creates a richer, more poetic way of expressing oneself. But it certainly can lead to misunderstandings across cultures.

Yes it does lead to misunderstandings daily across cultures, yet if you are arguing for atheism so acutely down to every last word, paraphrase, definition etc. You better be 100% lierate in the English language cos this is an english forum with many auditors scrutinizing every verbal typo. Fortunately the lawyers present don't take spelling and grammatical errors so seriously....Phew It still beggars belief that atheists can be so passionate in their beliefs about unbelief.

^It is if you follow the Dawkma.    I admit I was pretty proud of that one.  Whoops! that's a sin.

Mike have you read any of David Stove's books?  I'm thinking of "Darwinian Fairytales" in particular.  There you'll find a pretty militant agnostic who feels even stronger about "Dawk the Dick" (apologies to Peter Gabriel) than I do.  Challenge your Dawkma with that one.  Someone here must have at lewast skimmed it.  Dean?

The science on both sides exceeds my knowledge base so I go with Stove because there are no videos of him on youtube hawking his books.  I think most of them were actually published after he died.


Edited by Trademark - August 24 2010 at 15:32