Virgil wrote:
In article <9931d618b67a2ab6ea65a4059154389a@news.teranews.com>,
Libertarius <Libetarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <IPuac.142719$1p.1843462@attbi_s54>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
... pretends anybody ... is arguing the theist position.
Only those like Snipper and Libertarius who make thist type arguments
for the existence of gods.
Example:
---
http://tinylink.com/?LNRPgHsHtI
From: Sniper (sniper@septicsucks.com)
Subject: Re: Stupid Skeptic Tricks
Newsgroups: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism.satire
Date: 2004-03-08 21:06:07 PST
"X exists" is a claim. "X does not exist" is a claim.
"X might exist", unless it is known that it does not,
is a fair statement, _unless_ demonstrated otherwise.
---
Clear, logical and true.
Until X is proven not to exist, X cannot be known not to exist, and as
long as X cannot be known not to exist, one must allow that X might
exist.
I personally think that there is little chance that any god can exist,
but as a loyal agnostic, I must reject any statement that it is
impossible without it has been proved impossible.
===>pan·the·ism
: a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe
And "the forces and laws of the universe" do exist! -- L.
The universe just is.
===>I agree.
So, what?
The things you call the forces and laws are human
interpretations
===>It is what we OBSERVE.
of how we think things work, and may be totally wrong.
===>The THEORIES may be wrong, but what we call the
"forces and laws" are simply the BEHAVIOR of the Universe.
As you said in another post, there are many definitions of god,
===>Correct.
but if that is your notion of god, go with it.
===>It is the PANTHEIST definition, not mine.
My point is that the Pantheists have a referent for the word
"GOD" that actually DOES EXIST. -- L.
.
