It looks like after a whole bunch of nonsense we are still at the begiining.
You are basically trying to ask an impossible question as to all the requirements you are asking for. The question is not impossible, just all of the limitations you have put into it.
You are basically asking for proof of belief, while at the same time stating that belief does not exist. Or that belief is not proof of anything.
The definition of an atheist, christian, muslim, etc is " a person who believes.....( fill in the blank)". Then you want to question if a belief is even possible. Then you go on to say that YOU do BELIEVE in people, just not people who believe something. Do you not see the irony here? You will not accept the fact that people can believe something, while at the same time professing to BELIEVE something youself. You have already admitted to the ability of yourself to believe in something, so why won't you accept that someone else can believe in something different than you?
I am not clear what it is you are really trying to acomplish, other than to try and ruffle a few feathers.
If your postion is that no one truly believes anything, and by the same token there are no christians, muslims, jehovah;s witness', buhdists, atheists, agnostics, etc, then I guess I have nothing else to say. You have denied that belief itself exists. I am not sure how you could reconcile that with your christian perspective, but that is your own business.
And for all your word games- did christins exist before the word "christian". You know, i don't bleieve that jesus ever said one word in english. So did christians exist before the english language? OR, IS THE WORD AND DEFINITION FOR SOMETHING INDEPENDENT OF THE THING ITSELF?
If I see a fire, and a spanish speaking person comes along and says " fuego!". Has the fire somehow changed? Has its existance or properties changed even a little? Or is it simply a manner of language trying to define what and communicate something.
The language we use also evolves and usage and definitions are always changing. Why do they keep publishing new dictionaries?This does not have any bearing on the reality of the world, just how we communicate it to each other. Every group and sub group of people have their own language and manner of speaking, even within the same language structure. Talk to a preson from England, and america. We both speak english, but there are some very different word uses and spellings. Now talk to a california surfer, and a guy from the deep south. You may wonder if they are speaking the same language. None of the language differences have made any impact on the nature of the universe, just how we try to quantify and commicate to one another. If you want to start a language discussion or a topic on definitions do that, but make it a separate discussion. Get over it already.
If two scientists from different countries get together to work on an experiment, do you think that they spend a great deal of time disagreeing on the different wording about the things they both already know to be true? Or do they get to understand that they both agree on the same concepts , even though they use a different language to express them?
You quoted me , quoting you! You accused me of changing defintions NOT the other way around. I accused you of moving goalposts and semantics. Man, you really do your best at trying to use distraction and muddying the waters!
And using my simple definition again is " a person who does not profess a belief in a deity". Which part of this do you take issue with?
I am a person who does not believe there is a god of any nature by any name. How can I make this any clearer to you?
You say you believe in people. Okay I am a person. So far so good. Now I ALSO profess no belief in a deity. So Now do you not believe that I am professing my belief ( or non bleief). Or do you think I am lying about what I believe?
Also if it is your stance that you can't believe in something without proof, how can you be a christian?
Once again, YOU DO NOT DISPROVE ANYTHING WITH A LACK OF EVIDENCE. YOU CAN ONLY PROVE SOMETHING WITH EVIDENCE.
It is not scientific to say " no proof exists, therefore I can say for certain this does not exist".
But, isn't that because you changed your definition of "atheist," from the first one you gave? while you were accusing me of changing definitions?
#1 I have not changed my definition even a little bit at any time. In case you missed it the SIMPLE definition is a person who does profess a belief in a deity. Go ahead and play with the wording however you choose. You know what an atheist is, and you knwo they exist.
Your ENTIRE position boils down to " I am rubber , you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you. Na na na na na" And you wonder why people intelligent people aren't giving you any respect.
I accused you of moving goalposts, not changing definitions. For someone who is as hung up on wording as much as you are, you sure take quite a bit of liberty with others' words.
Like I have said previously, I COULD BE WRONG. Just as you could be wrong. At NO point did I say I am an atheist and I KNOW there is no god. I said I do not believe that there is one. Just as there MAY be a SAnta Clause. I have at no time said for certain that god or santa clause does or does not exist. I believe there is about as much evidence to support either. I choose not to believe that either exist, not to know for sure. If more evidence surfaces , I will be very willing to consider it. Based on current evidence, I feel very comfortable believing in thier non exixtence.
I am a skeptic. I actually believe that the existance of god is actually "unknowable". You CANNOT prove he exists, I CANNOT prove he does not. In this way, neither position is superior. As I said before. THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE. Something may very well exist and we not have any proof of it. The lack of evidence does not prove that something does not exist. On this much I think we agree.
I know this game and this argument well. You have not come up with anything new at all. You actually have presented the argument worse than ANYONE else I have heard use it.
This argument basically comes from insecurity. Some people want to have their blind faith and still feel that they can defend their blind belief in the real world against people who apply rational logic to things. They get very tired of feeling foolish without anything but a story in a book, and try to respond and say " you think you're better than me, well you believe in stuff too, so there!" You are basically saying " I know my beliefs are silly and not based on anything but a belief, but YOU BELIEVE stuff too, so you are just as silly as me!"
The difference that you will refuse to see is that science is based on real world REPEATABLE observations. Most miracles and supernatural occurances do not fit into this.
You can then argue that all of science is just based on observations that could be flawed. Maybe we just think we are here and we really aren't. Maybe this is all just a dream, etc, etc. The point is we "know" science as much as we "know" anything. I can give you proof, I could put a tangible thing in your hand, then you can still deny it. You CAN choose to ignore any proof offered on any basis you want, but it ALSO does not change its existence. According to all that we "know", if you jump off a tall building you will fall and most likely die. Do you accept this, or would you like more proof? Would you like to test it, or will you , based on all that you have observed on this earth, be comfortable to accept this as a truth and not contest it, and ask for more proof.
A delusional person may see a hallucination. You do not see it. You can walk up to it, and put your hand through it. Show them in every way that what they are seeing is imaginary. They will not believe you. They will not accept anything you say or do as any kind of proof. So who is right?
You can sit here and watch as I put a hand through your delusions, and you can continue to ignore any evidence. What is the point?
What you are doing is silly. It would be like me saying " I don't believe in big foot, show me proof" And then You say " Well, I know bigfoot, he is at my house right now, I will take you to him!" And then I respond by saying what is a "house" anyway. I do not accept your definition of what " house" means, so therfore bigfoot does not exist. You are sidestepping and using distraction and semantics.
All you are doing is trying to wiggle out and not get pinned down. This is nothing more than a wrestling match for you. You are down and close to getting pinned, but you just keep wiggling. You can't improve your position, but you will just sit there and keep wiggling anyway. You know you can't win, but you enjoy just trying to make the other guy work.
I think your real goal is just to incite people, and frustrate them enough so they get tired of beating their head against a wall, and then you try to claim that as some sort of victory.
I exist as much as you care to believe I do. I can gaurantee you that I will pass the same test for existance as many other things that you DO acknowledge actually exist.
Being an atheist does not always mean a confirmed denial of a god's existance. It can simply mean that there is not yet enough proof to make a commitment to the existence of a god. I also do not believe in pink unicorns, leprachauns, loch ness monster, big foot, etc. This is not proof that they do NOT exist, yet I am very comfortable professing not to believe in them. IN SCIENCE YOU DO NOT "UNPROVE" SOMETHING BASED ON LACK OF EVIDENCE. YOU ONLY PROVE SOMETHING WITH EVIDENCE OF ITS EXISTENCE. You are NOT applying the same rules , or burden of proof that science requires. Tell me of the last scientific study to disprove unicorns. There is not enough evidence to support their existence, NOT any evidence AGAINST their existance. Nice attempt, but no prize to you. Yours is the logic of a 4 year old. It does not have ANY bearing on science in any way.
Everyone is an atheist to some degree. If you are a christian, than you ARE an atheist when it comes to Allah, buhda, and Jehovah. You do not believe in Zuess, do you? Then, when talking about zuess, you would be an atheist. So IF YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU DO IN FACT EXIST, THEN ATHEISM EXISTS, AND SO DO ATHEISTS.
Richard Dawkins often says, " we are all atheists, we just go ONE god further". Meaning that whichever god you happen to choose, you are choosing to the exclusion of all the other available gods you could choose. In this way you are an ATHEIST to all but the one you have chosen not to have disbelief in. In this respect you are NOT in a separate class from me at all. You can look at another religion and see that it does not have any real basis, and think it is all a bit silly, and come to the conclusion it does NOT have merit. You can do this to MANY different belief sets. You just stop at one, where I keep going past where you have stopped. So we are on different pages in the same book.
I also find that your post also proves your acknowledgement of atheists. It is obviously directed specifically to atheists. You are looking for a response from us. I do not believe in unicorns, yet I do not feel at all inclined to start a post asking them to prove their existance to me. But if you know of any, I WOULD like to see a pic if you have one, and I will take the effort and opportunity to examine all available evidence to see if it backs up or contridicts my currently held position on them.
Very good attitude. I fully respect your point of view. I disagree with many when it comes to religion, and the universe, etc. But, when you REALLY get down to it, NOBODY knows for sure.
I have a lot of ideas and notions. Some of my ideas are even based on observable fact, but I cannot be absolutely certain. To be certain is a myth in itself.
The reason why science is always changing while religion is stagnant is because science states " we don't know, but we are working on it". As soon as new evidence comes along that disputes prior held notions, one of them has to go. Science is always questioning itself and evolving. The things that were accepted as science a hundred years ago are laughable today ( so is what is thought of as religion, except that is still the same!). We have added to, or completely replaced the older held notions and we now have the best notions with more evidence. We always have the best theories that we can based on the current knowledge.
Religions, on the other hand say WE DO KNOW THE ANSWER FOR SURE. Christians, for example say that we know everything we need to know for sure based on a book written from knowledge 2000 years ago ( the bible itself, as we know it today, was mostly organized, edited (YES EDITED), and published in around 1611). You are not ALLOWED to challenge claims made by religion. If you do, you are a heretic and an outcast. Religion discourages independent thought.
So I believe that science is constantly growing and seeking new knowledge, while religions are just rehashing the same myths from thousands of yeras ago.
Why are some ancient beliefs "myths" while others are considered " the truth" and something to live your life by. One is no more valid than the other, yet we make this distinction. I learned " greek mythology" in school by a teacher who also believed that the bible is the word of god. Am I the only one who thinks this is ironic?
Wow, can you be more blatent about talking down to someone? I am older than you, so I guess that I could say whatever I want to you, and you would just have to accept it. You won't be able to even respond to my post for 5 years. I find this very interesting from someone so young. Lets see if you can "catch up " to me in the time you have untill you are my age.
Does someone's age make their argument or postitopn more or less valid. I do not think so. You need to address the position being offered, NOT the person offering it. Maybe you should be a politician, because attacking the person instead of the position is very popular in that feild. If a point is valid, it will stand on its own two feet. If I diasgree with you, it will be based on your postion, and its own validity. I will not make it a personal attack on you as a person.
By the way, I am 33 years old. This is the year I will outlive Jesus. So I guess that will qualify me to speak on religion.
A lot of people will NEVER get a handle on some things no matter how many years they spend on this planet.
I don't know you, maybe you are a great guy, and we would get a long fine. I do know that your posts make you come across as a know it all, pseudo intellectual, who likes to talk down to others.
You like the windsors? I have not played them yet. They look nice, and the price is right. I just got a peavey vyper tube 120. I am really digging it. Have you played the new peavey 3120? I never cared much for marshalls either.
Also got to say I agree with you on the Jacksons! I got a 1991 USA fusion custom. Really cool guitar. The neck is just perfect. Quartesawn maple, and I love the ebony board. It is similar to the dinky but it is a short scale guitar. It also has a built in wah in it ( weird, huh?). It came that way.
I really like the PRS guitars, though I have not owned one yet. If I find a good one at a good price, that will change!
I could not even begin to try to say what the BEST solo would be, but I could make a very long list of great ones.
You brought up Randy Rhoads. One of my all time favorites. I was just thinking about some of his solos. Every one is fantastic, but I want to mention one that is probably overlooked a lot- "Goodbye to Romance". It is amazing. I love the tone and the feel. It is mostly a laid back feel, but he is dead on. I love to jam over this chord progression and steal some of those licks. The solo is not as flashy as a lot of the others, but is really compliments the song and is just a great statemenet. Give it another listen.
Sombody knows who Triumph is? I love them. Rik Emmett is an incredible guitar player. I actually heard that they are getting back together.
I love all the hair metal bands. Spinal tap is great. They just came out with a new album on itunes.
By the way, I just bought an amp that goes to 13!!! (no kidding). SO THAT WOULD BE "2" LOUDER THAN SPINAL TAPS MARSHALL! I could not help thinking about spinal tap when I bought it. I was thinking it was a bit silly for it to go to 13.
There was a part 2 spinal tap movie, anyone seen it? I never got the chance to.
I really like some of his older stuff. I haven't heard too much recent music from him.
Have you heard his stuff from "The Color of Money" soundtrack? It is very good. Look up "Two brothers and a stranger" to see what I mean. This is mid 80's. Worth a listen for sure.
poolpro Forum Posts (13)
RE: tatoos
I have 4, you can see one in my profile pics.I want to get a tattoo of me... only taller!