Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem.

I think you need to go back and re-read gosh, first you ask for clarification, then you complain that the clarification is worded different than the original? the intent is clearly in the first post, and the 6th, and the 18th, and ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

the only conclusion that I can reach is that this is the conclusion you want to reach, and are forcing the issue to get there, regardless of the evidence.{edited to finish sentence}This message has been edited by RAZD, 04*06*2005 07:00 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

wrong againwhat you are ascerting is that it is rational to believeyou are not ascerting that it is rational to knowthe point here is distinguishing between belief and knowledge.now tell me that you absolutely unequivocatively undeniably know that there is a red car on the M1 at the instant that you posted your message.just for starters.

Except the fundamental atheist thinks it is knowledge No, not at all, it is about separating out the (your word) "fanatic" atheists from the rest of the atheists. the ones who take it to extremes no, you keep coming to these conclusions as if I was claiming "fundamental atheism" applied to all atheists, when I have specifically drawn a line between the {normal, common, dictionary definition atheist} and the {subgroup} that thinks they know whether there is a red car on M1 or not. "All {A} is {B}" does not mean that "All {B} is {A}" But that is just exactly the crux of the matter about not having proof that {A} exists nor that {A} does not exist. You can say what you believe is likely, but you cannot say that you know whether {A} exists or not. I notice you did not answer about the car.I have no problem with atheists that do not believe in god, but I do take exception to anyone claiming that they know it is the truth and not just belief, just as I take exception to anyone claiming that they know that some religious creed or other is the truth.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

and some, like cinderella's sistersthink the shoe fits.

still making that conclusion. and yet when you gave a topic that you have expressed an opinion on the absolute existence thereof you have said: very likely {true\false} ... does not mean literally {true\false}this gets back to and deciding that (2) is literally true in spite of the logical vacuum this requires.lets go back to "The belief that the tenets of atheism are literally true, and that the belief is based on logic and rational thinking after reviewing the applicable evidence." you claim you "do NOT claim to know that God does not exist" ... so how do you get to saying it is literally true if you don't claim that the tenent "god does not exist" is word for word true?you can believe it is "very likely true" but that is not the same as stating that it is true.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

and what evidence refutes the position that god created the universe and then left on an extended sabatical?perhaps you care to take a crack at the list I gave contracycle, and answer (1) (2) or (3) to the following: at least one of them is a (1) ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

first, welcome back. primo-egg. it seems that a lot of people want to be fundamental atheists and yet they still carry a caveat about stating that "god does not exist" is a literal fact ...I know of no fundamental theist that brooks a smidgeon of doubt on the topic of {his\her} belief.there are lots of times where even 99% confidence ends up wrong, so 95% is allowing a pretty good margin for error (btw, how do make that calc? )if there are an infinite number of solutions to a problem, but only one is correct ... is it wrong because of the percentage? and as long as we recognize what is belief and what is knowledge then one doesn't interfere with the other.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

so you concur that the concept of dark matter and dark energy should be discounted. excellent.the fundamental theist says that you have no evidence that god does not exist.the question comes back to: You label what you know based on empirical evidence as knowledge, and you label what you believe based on subjective {feelings\opinions} as belief, and you proceed to rationally discuss what you know about the world in science and discuss what you believe in philosophy.Note that I am not claiming that theism is any more rational than atheism, just that agnosticism is the more logical view. only if they are trying to convince you of their belief. take the issue of dark energy and dark matter for instance ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

.... gentlemen and ladies, the prosecution rests. contracycle is an admitted fundamentalist atheist.they are not "my definitions" but the dictionary ones, and when you go to converse with other people, you will find that if you use the same definitions for words that they do, understanding will ensue. of course you are not obliged to being understood either. the language of logic applies to you as it does to everyone regardless of faith and belief. the language of people applies to you as it does to everyone regardless of faith and belief. language is what makes conversation possible, and the persistent use of different definitions for the same words means that communication does not occur."belief" is not "the language of theism" but the distinction between what is known and what is felt to be true without evidence likewise the basis of the term "fundamentalism" is not created by theists: and we see this very fundamental basis in the definition of notice in particular the "or point of view" -- again these are not my words or theist words.this too, is not a term that comes from theism but from popular description of the rigid principles and the intolerance of other views -- rarely words people choose to describe themselves eh?the plain fact is that some (not all) atheists exhibit a rigid adherence to the tenet that there is no god and an intolerance of other views, that they in fact exhibit all the basic behavior forms usually attributed to fundamentalist theists. ROFLOL! you were the one left with no position and unable to post any explanation for your position or a single refutation of the evidence for sexual selection. your claim that it "contained no data" is just exactly the rejection of the {concept} contradicting the {world view} I was talking about, in spite of the fact that all the evidence pointed towards sexual selection and away from your running sweating model. this is off topic here, and I will be happy to take it up again elsewhere: my only point in bringing it up was to show your position for what it was -- belief, unfounded on evidence ... or logic. you should be embarassed to make this claim knowing that it has no relation to the truth that anyone can see by reading the posts.just as you continue to misrepresent my positions again here this is just another blatant misrepresentation by one who will not address the point made.I also notice you did not address the issue of chosing (1) (2) or (3) for the things listed.But then I didn't think you would. that would be too much like addressing the points raised rather than your misrepresentations of them.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

of course it is. what hitchy said (Message 48) that enables me to reach this conclusion was: pretty straight forward, imho: applying the same principle to any {A}. notice too that I said "discounted" not discredited. it needs to be questioned, and vigorously, like any unverified scientific concept. No, we don't have evidence. We have an observation that does not match the predicted behavior of large scale astronomic systems. Based on that observation the concept of dark matter was proposed as one way for that behavior to be explained. You cannot use the observation of an anomaly as evidence for a concept that explains the observation -- you need something else, and as yet that is totally lacking. Instead of evidence for the existence of dark matter though, what has occured is that this concept is itself insufficient to explain the behavior of large astronomical systems, and so now we have dark energy. And the really amazing thing is that between these two concepts they supposedly account for some 96% of the universe, without a single piece of independant evidence to back it up.one could say that it is the hand of god making the universe behave that way and have just as much evidence for it, and just as much logic for believing it to be true.I'm guessing that you put a (1) after both dark matter and dark energy ... that would be two on the list answered. Both wrong, not a good start.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

more to the point, why does he think deception is "a more suitable altrenate (sic) origin"isn't that begging the question?

welcome to the thread ook. I was wondering if any agnostics were about ...I fear that contracylces view of agnosticism is due to his {world view} and not open to reason, based on experience. it's as if he was standing with his fingers in his ears, eyes closed while singing loudly "there is no god, there is no god" (and secretly wishing he had ruby shoes to click together)one has to wonder what is so bad with saying "I don't know" eh?(So what exactly is your position?)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

lol! would that be related to item (J) on the list (Message 28)of {A} examples for contracycle?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

thanks, mike, but (just to quibble)
you can believe you know, but you cannot know that you know, know what I mean?and one of the definitions of faith is "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence"call it faith (just a hunch on my part eh?).

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}