Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:SweetMonkeyLove wrote:Why do you feel the need to antagonise me? If you think I am so wrong why do you resort to slander rather than discussion.
You are reading me wrong. I was simply warning Danny about atheists and their motives. By «slander» I think you meant «insult». It is not my intention to insult you; indeed, I think there must be something
well with you if you are here instead of on an atheist website. This is all to your credit.
SweetMonkeyLove wrote: This comment is both offensive and uneccesary 'From what I can see here and on atheist websites, most of them have trouble spelling correctly... so, I doubt - I seriously doubt - their possession of absolute knowledge. Hence, they are windbags.'
My comment had to do with absolute knowledge. To take it out of context is dishonest at worst. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were blinded by emotion. Here is my comment again, in context:
Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote: For an atheist to say «There is no God» is to affirm an absolute negative. To know this as Truth requires that the atheist possess absolute knowledge. From what I can see here and on atheist websites, most of them have trouble spelling correctly... so, I doubt - I seriously doubt - their possession of absolute knowledge. Hence, they are windbags.
SweetMonkeyLove wrote: Why don't you so the same and either join the discussion or stop with the name calling. I deserve the same respect you insist on.
Sorry, it is nothing personal: I was only warning Danny about atheists. I noticed that you started using the uppercase G for God. Good...it is foolish - especially for an intelligent atheist - to keep writing «god» when «God» is more appropriate.
Carry on with your discussion. Like God, I'll be watching!
FL
PS for Touchingcloth: God provides Absolute knowledge in his word...doh!
most of them have trouble spelling correctly... so, I doubt - I seriously doubt - their possession of absolute knowledge. Hence, they are windbags.[/quote]
This is slander and as you said is probably based on emotion. I can forgive that. I am sure I did not take 'most of them have trouble spelling correctly' and 'Hence they are windbags' out of context. I am sure I understood you correctly the first time. I hardly feel that being called an illiterate windbag (to paraphrase) is taking your post out of context.
As far as your claim that I claim there is no God read back a bit and you will find I say that 'the present model of the universe works with or without a God'. But that I am not convinced. Or something to that effect. I do not make claim that God's existence is impossible, only that I do not believe there is a God. I do not claim absolute knowledge, on the contrary from where I am sitting it would seem that you do.
Philosophic burden of proof - wiki
When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on those making any kind of claim. This is not a mathematical or logical proof, but rather a conventionally acceptable amount of evidence that will warrant the claim. This burden of proof is often asymmetrical, and typically falls more heavily on the party that makes an ontologically positive claim, or a claim that greatly departs from conventional knowledge. wiki - burden of proof
"Burden of proof" in philosophic or scientific contexts means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, and especially a positive claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to provide warrant for the claim. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven (see argument from ignorance). wiki - burden of proof
It is possible to debate without name calling.
