Posted: Sep 30, 2010 4:26 am
by IIzO
Ichthus77 wrote:
Do you think atheists must thinkn like Dawkins or something ?
-- IIzo

See the title of the thread.

Sure but you used the equivocation "the atheist" and would rather discuss the person more than the argument.

It is not a contradiction to be rooting for something one doesn't know for sure is even true. Happens all the time.

And this is supposed to answer what ?Knowing that a method can give result is a problem or something?

I get accused of claiming to know something by folks who sound pretty sure they know I'm wrong. Ironic.

Because your actively say that this somehow proves god's existence when you justify and quote mine.Whereas the reste of us just list the alternatives and say that nothing is known and your conclusions simply fallacious presuppositions.

I guess you have trouble with people not doing belief without jusfitication.

I like how you said "doing" belief. I think all beliefs ought to be justified, but that none are "absolutely" justified--all require faith. This is relevant:

So basically you think that Belief=faith right of the bat ,and guess what ,No skeptics claims absolute knowledge as in "absoulute justification" , the belief we hold using evidences are relatives to those ,and we keep the open mind to change those beliefs when they are falsified .
Btw, i've noticed on the article you linked that NOWHERE you give a definition of "faith".And for that reason the definition is left to the reader .And as far i am concerned the definition is this : "belief Without or Against justification and evidences".
From this simple definition that is agreed amongst many here ,your whole article is simply self contradictory.
So either you give the definition of "faith" you use in this article , either you admit the logical contradictions that the definitions implies.