you guys do realize that this thread is like 3 years old right?!! let it die
a big head? i don't see that as something bad. it's much worse small...
it looks like you made an error by assuming atheists have to prove that "god" does not exist. this is not necessary. just as it is not necessary...
indeed
when writing down logical propositions, it is possible to write down things that are false. but something being false does not take away the...
oh right. my mistake
it's more like: standpoint A vs. not standpoint A
with seeing i meant experiencing ( i wasn't beeing that silly ). anyone can make up many things. i think it's only interesting if it has been...
the problem with your arguments/evidence is that it itself is also in question. looks to me like you suggest some kind of self interpreting...
so are you then saying it does not agree with you?
doing what wrong?
to me this looks like a preconceived notion
which notions and agendas?
so if theism = not a religion and atheism = not theism atheism = not (not a religion) atheism = a religion ? :p
how odd
i think that the possibilities you listed are an unfair assumption. because it's not compulsary to have a belief and after that you have not...
i would describe both as hysteria
i was talking about religion and not necessarily about you in particular. i never said that comforting and the truth are the same thing.
it looks like you are assuming that not believing something means believing something else
massive amounts of people were taking part in those historic events. it wasn' the leaders by themselves. it's the same principle as religion.
Separate names with a comma.
