nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 92:
Line 92: + +
→'Weak Atheism': You are putting words in my mouth.
::::::::::And, to address this specifically, yes, it does. The only way you can definitively say that a 'weak atheist' cannot possibly be an atheist due to the evidence is if the evidence is so overwhelming in favour of there being a God that no-one could possibly fail to be persuaded by it. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:24, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::And, to address this specifically, yes, it does. The only way you can definitively say that a 'weak atheist' cannot possibly be an atheist due to the evidence is if the evidence is so overwhelming in favour of there being a God that no-one could possibly fail to be persuaded by it. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:24, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::I didn't say that an atheist cannot be an atheist because of the evidence. I said that it didn't destroy my argument, but that was not my argument. My argument was that science done on the basis of there being no god was putting ideology ahead of the evidence. Why can't, for example, atheists do their science on the basis that there ''might be'' (not "is") a God? Presumably, because they are ''atheists''! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
(Unindent) So, to summarise what appears to be your entire argument, what you are basically saying is that you are free to propose anything you like, and, if people cannot definitively prove you wrong, that is a solid scientific theory. OK, I'll do this myself. The universe was created by an invisible pink unicorn which cannot be seen or detected by any known method. Prove me wrong. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:22, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
(Unindent) So, to summarise what appears to be your entire argument, what you are basically saying is that you are free to propose anything you like, and, if people cannot definitively prove you wrong, that is a solid scientific theory. OK, I'll do this myself. The universe was created by an invisible pink unicorn which cannot be seen or detected by any known method. Prove me wrong. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:22, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
: No that is not my argument at all. Reread the part of [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]] about "proving God". It doesn't directly explain where you are wrong, but should give you some idea. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 22 April 2008 (EDT)