Sayonara

I want a bandvagan.

lol Aye, there's the rub.

Because trolling is: And nothing she has said fits that bill.

Maybe he was offended by the rude conotations of the license plate FAFF3R 1

Whut?

The tags for subscript and superscript are sub and sup respectively. Quote this post to see them

It would be nice if you could explain specifically what's wrong with that.

Get yourself a radar gun and a hide of some sort, and stake out that stretch of road he operates on.

lol :-D Faffing criminals.

I read the first one. My interpretation I suppose is similar to Skye's. The universe is vast. Everything about it comes down to numbers too big or tiny for us to truly conceive of their meaning. By comparison, the tiny fact that we evolved is hardly so surprising to me that I have to make up reasons why things turned out that way. Cumulative arguments aren't the best way to win me over though - I like to dance around singing "house of cards, la la la". I'll have a read of the other ones when I get home from work

I thought of a better way of putting it: Nobody is disputing that there is a range of atheist viewpoints. What I am saying is that one can't just lump two particular viewpoints into separate polar extremes and claim that all members of each group will have exactly the same additional beliefs as each other, and the two groups will have opposing views. Things are never that simple. Especially when we don't define the factors, such as "what is this god thing we're discussing?". Take me for instance. In general terms I would fall into your hardline atheist group because I absolutely and categorically believe that there is no such thing as the 'flowing white beard' omniscient Judeao-Christian god. However in absolute terms I immediately break the mould you cast for that group because I am willing to listen to others' beliefs in god, I am able to understand why many people believe in god, I do not try to convert anybody to anything (and I am not so insecure in my own beliefs as to try. Do not mistake encouragement of a healthy debate for recruitment efforts ), if I had any new evidence for god I certainly would present it, I would never present pseudoscience as evidence of anything, and I will listen to evidence for god. So by your definition I ought to fall into the first group. But I am not simply failing to believe in "god", I am actively believing he does not exist after a great deal of consideration of all the evidence. Some degree of crossover between the two "types" of atheist is therefore directly implied. They can't be wedged apart and exist as separate entities because few people base their entire life, 'self rules' and philosophy around a single belief - not even the extremely religious. You should also consider that while I actively believe there is no Judaeo-Christian god, I accept that a similar entity may exist. I disagree with the concept of "god" as a philosophy, not as an entity. I am sufficiently intelligent to realise that the universe has certainly existed for long enough for an entity fitting the general description of "god" to have evolved. There are additional possibilities, some of them dealing with perception of reality, others with the pre-dawn universe. However I will wait to see evidence before I just assume that whatever I believe is correct. Ultimately this makes me an agnostic (there is more to my set of beliefs as you may have gathered, but I am short on time), and if that little lot doesn't adequately illustrate that things aren't ever as simple as lumping people into categories based on one's own assumptions, I don't know what will [edit] I sure can rant like a loony.

Well, most of this has already been answered. But anyhoo: By saying "someone with belief N will invariably and strictly also hold random beliefs X, Y, and Z". This may be a general trend you have observed, but presenting it as concrete and immutable fact is clearly unfounded nonsense. It sounds to me like you are simply trying to separate yourself - as a 'literal' atheist - from the hardline, extremist "you vill renounce God"-type atheists because you find their approach distasteful. Fair enough, be unimpressed with them - but like MrL said, whatever else they say or do they're still atheists. This goes back to my "Unless you can specify a non-semantic, functional reason why this is not so, not believing in god is the same as believing there is no god" comment. We know there are different degrees to which atheists will profess their beliefs, but this doesn't mean that failing to believe in something is functionally any different to believing it does not exist. Let me put it another way. You might believe that there is a god, and I may belive that it's impossible for there to be no god. That doesn't make us different kinds of believers because the end result is the same. How someone chooses to pursue or rationalise their belief does not change the nature or validity of the belief. Again, going back to the difference between semantics and functionality. They're both atheists. For whatever reason, neither believes there is a god. That does not preclude them from reviewing new evidence, or modifying or changing their beliefs. To suggest otherwise is naive - humans are very, very fickle. I brought the term into the conversation because you were describing them but had not realised it ;-) I probably sound like I'm ranting, come to think of it. But I'm just trying to highlight that there are people who would call you things like 'extremist' and 'hard-liner' because of the inflexible definitions you provided. Tarring groups of people with the same brush rarely ends well.

I'll defend you! I'll defend you! I have it all worked out already. Tell me what you think: "Jon is special, your honour, and as such he should be considered above the mortal law." Landslide victory ah0y! [The way you describe it though, it does sound a bit vindictive ]

Ummmm... good luck trying to "copyright" your process. Let us know how that turns out. I have a hankering for some yoghurt now.

...with an FAQ thread stickied in it?

Google tastes like yoghurt.

I think a sticky explaining this concept would be useful to a lot of people

The point MrL was trying to make is that the fact that there are two outcomes does not mean that the probability for each outcome is 50/50, regardless of whether or not we know the factors involved. If the probability of the outcome being A is the same as the probability of the outcome being B, and A & B are the only possible outcomes, then the overall odds are 50/50. But by your own admission you basically said there is no way to calculate the possibilities, so you can't calculate the odds. That isn't license to just "guess" at 50/50. Nothing ever works out that way

I'm not confused. If you think that you can just pigeon-hole people and condemn them to a singular, linear philosophy - based on your interpretation of a single one of their beliefs - then you may want to reconsider your own position quite carefully. Example: "believing that there is no god: try to convert theists into athiests" Aggressive conversion is the act of extremists, not your average person. If I were to believe that no god existed, I would be unlikely to attempt to force you to believe the same thing because it would not matter to me what you believed about god. However I can see the distinction you are trying to draw between two very general schools of thought. But these are not two types of atheist you are describing -- you are basically describing open-minded agnostics and hard-line atheists.

Unless you can specify a non-semantic, functional reason why this is not so, not believing in god is the same as believing there is no god.

She (or he, or maybe heshe) is not really trolling.

lol

I don't see them as spoilers since I don't care what happens

Pffft! Someone changed the thread title again YT... how do you fund your insane and bizarre home experiments?