I see your only skill is personal attack. You bring nothing to the discussion but your own ego and your only style is to engage in fallacy. {shrug}
No, certainly not my only skill - my best one, sure! It just seems like the only one since I always seem to get the opportunity to use it when you and I discuss, well, pretty much anything. It all comes back to the point I'm going to mention now, and also in answering your next one - ENGLISH. I use it, you don't. You use a similar facsimile of the language I use, but sufficently different that we have differing uses. While you remain incapable of assimilating that one, simple concept, I'll stick to ad hominem. I'm actually thinking of changing the "Train Wreck" under my name to "ad hominem". Be far more accurate, don't you think?
When you're ever able to point out an actual fallacy, I'll bother answering the other point. My ego's irrelevant - when I'm wrong, (I was, in 1994) I'll freely admit it. When I'm right, I cease caring.
As James Randi regularly points out, a dictionary is to define usage. It's not some law that rules the universe. It's not absolute. It's not the reason to decide what atheism means.
Oh, hell, now Oxford has no choice at all, I can see the headlines now: "American Magician Declares New Meaning of "Atheist"."
A dictionary is no by means absolute, language evolves, just like life and absolutely unlike your arguments. I've already said that one day, the meaning might be changed to what others now think it means. At that stage, I will become aware of that and will change my thinking accordingly. Don't expect it any time soon.
More importantly I note that you are at odds with Dennett, Dawkins and Randi who argue that atheism is not a faith.
Sorry, thinktoomuch, I know you hate the dog - as do others - but that's brilliant! On one hand, he argues that atheism isn't a cult and has no leaders, yet here, for the second time in two paragraphs, name-dropping to say I should think like those people because they're the top atheists! I am dead-set LMFAO!
RandFan, that is truly priceless! I guess you can figure why I'd give a flying turkey what those guys think. Rowan Williams, the Pope and the Queen all believe with 100% surety that god exists. They're even more famous than the three you've quoted, in fact, I can cast-iron guarantee that ANY list of human achievers will have far more christians on it than atheists, so nice try - maybe you should take heed of the majority view. No, in fact, completely feeble effort! (But VERY funny)
But hey, it's your ego and Ed knows that you will never let go since you know you are right. A semantical argument that appeals to your ego is paramount. BFD. A tempest in a teapot.
Quite right, amazing how we are at the identical position in two completely different threads! This is more fun than a turkey-shoot! I hope Huntster is sittin' sideline with the Colt .45 at the ready. Semantical argument be damned! I'll argue semantics anytime. YOU are the "skeptic" honey, not me, I know where I stand. Use your own sceptical beliefs to question why you're so adamantly purusing something when you know damned well that you're wrong. All you need to do is swallow that big lump in the throat, ignore my enormous ego and try making statements in keeping with your avowed position - scepticism. Arguing for the sake of arguing an incorrect position is just feeble. (I'm sure I said that to you just mintutes ago!)
Not BLIND FAITH.
Faith based on logic, reason and experience. I hold my faith in these things provisionally. They are not absolute. This has nothing whatsoever to do with religious faith that is blind and based on emotion and nothing else.
Doesn't matter what your faith is based upon - and curiously, mine is based upon exactly the same canons as yours, yet we are so far apart - faith is faith is faith. Again, your inability to accept such a simple concept is stopping you seeing the wood for the trees, so to speak. I feel quite sorry for you.
In parting, I do assure you, I'll miss our tete-a-tetes; you talk about facts and evidence and logic, yet you make the absurd claim that "religious faith is blind and based upon emotion and nothing else." And you used to be in the church? That statement is so appallingly ignorant I really should let Huntster point it out - as I trust he will - but if you think for a second that it's true, then you are even sadder than I thought.
) can put constraints on God's behaviour, such that specific claims can be tested, and egregious errors provisionally rejected.
(kidding)
