Continue at my leisure? Really? I have your permission?



Dude, you are priceless! Between you and Dr. Logic, tonight was like going back and forth between Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Take it easy, boys.

well, if you want to play both parts, by all means, go ahead, but i think the play will turn out as sour as your arguments.

That you do. I hope that many non-to-be-future generations of mentally deficient Americans are expelled from your seminal vessel.

in any internet arguement where facts are limited, some people choose to see the party claiming wrongdoing was done are at fault, looking for attention or a hand out, or are morally wrong.
I usually take the stance that until further information is evident that the taking on a large institution or group is more difficult for the accuser, often more trouble than its worth, and that its against human nature to do so unless your in a situation of danger or real injustice.
im not saying that either of us is right all the time, just that for every internet argument over a whistle-blower, rape, mugging, employer/employee dispute, etc, theres a percentage who come out swinging against the victim. you are a classic in that.

a lot is being made about the 'facts' of this case. the 'facts' that i am aware of are as follows:
1) Hall says he is being harassed by the military--not by a few specific people, but by his entire chain of command as well as his fellow soldiers--for being an atheist.

2) Hall says a major in his chain of command (i'm still guessing it was his XO, XOs are assholes by necessity) threatened to bring him up on charges for, in effect, being an atheist.

3) Hall says he feared he wouldn't get support from the major's superiors. the wording there implies fairly strongly that he, in fact, did not actually make any attempt to bring the problem up to his chain of command.

we must have been reading different threads, then. because i've read the entire thread, and all i've seen is people quoting speculative, anecdotal evidence that they read in a news article and touting it as fact.

no, there is no hard proof that Hall is a shitbird. but there is also no hard proof that Hall was legitimately and systematically harassed. personally, i don't fully believe Hall--that is to say, i think he experienced some or all of the things that he experienced, but i think that stringing them together into a vast anti-atheist old boys' network is a flight of fancy on his part. i'm not going to ask anyone to buy that theory, since it's completely based on having known quite a few soldiers who have tried to pull things like what Hall is pulling.

regardless of my opinion, however, the facts that i have been able to find do not strongly support any particular scenario--including the one that Hall presents in his lawsuit.

by way of providing hard facts, it's called a seminal vessicle, and it doesn't actually provide any genetic material--just the gunk that carries the sperm upstream.

Was that not clear enough, boys? Seemed pretty clear to me. No blaming of an alleged victim before the facts, just an attempt to discern the truth by asking a question: WAS there actually a victim in this case?

Personally, I've always viewed atheism as a faith. If you can't prove God exists, then you can't prove that he doesn't exist either. In fact, since you can't prove a negative some might argue that being an atheist in fact requires more faith than believing in God. I think the most logical belief system is agnosticism. With that being said, I do believe in God. In the end, faith isn't about logic. Just a thought.

Are you really so dedicated to trollery that when no one responds to you, you quote someone else and say "see??? Isn't that clear?!!"

It's funny when the guy who accuses others of idiotic fighting, and encourages them to "go outside" is the one who is most dedicated to continuing an argument. And by "funny" i mean "sad."

lookie here, mr. ItsHotInHereSoTakeOffAllYouClothes, i only had a bone to pick with the method of your upper cognitive functions (reasoning). i find it to be lacking. i tried to fix that. it didn't seem to work. oh well.

and while i find myself doubting your objectivity on Spc. Hall's case, you're not really the main problem causers in this thread. they just didn't care to stick around after a brief bout of mutual mental masturbation.

Some might argue that. Some would be entirely wrong.

I'm not going to claim to speak for every atheist out there, but I think if someone were to try to claim that it is utterly, provably impossible for any divine being whatsoever to exist that they would be going a bit overboard. I admit to the potential existence of a divine being. I don't think there is one, because I have no reason to think there is one. To me, that's atheism in a nutshell. I feel that it's much like deciding, e.g., that there were no WMDs in Iraq because the evidence presented was distorted, misrepresented, or just plain fictional, and further investigation on site didn't turn anything up. Could there still have been WMDs that we didn't find and somehow got smuggled out, yadayadayada? Sure. But you gotta be really invested in that neocon agenda to have any reason to seriously believe that.

Agnosticism, again, to me, is more about giving equal credence to unequal positions, in this case "God exists" and "God does not exist".

I finally finished this thread and all I can say is "for the love of GOD!"

I wish I had waited another week to get back on a good sleeping schedule.

I do, however, feel compelled by the ghost of Zarth to recommend Critical Thinking Mini-Lessions. We could could all learn something new from them, however, ItsSoDamnHot please read ASAP. Your comments read like you were high on cocaine (i.e. train-of-thought be damned). That is all.

I think our difference is nominal. Given your description, I would consider you agnostic not atheist. To me an atheist believes undeniably in the absence of God (i.e. knows that God doesn't exist). The way I see it, any doubt relegates you to the category of agnostic.

I'm not saying you're not an atheist. You have every right to call yourself whatever you want, but my above comment was based on my view that Theism and Atheism are based on absolute beliefs (i.e. knowing). If you do not define the two in absolute terms, then you are absolutely correct. Like I said, I believe in God, but operationally I'd consider myself agnostic, because I don't believe it absolutely or have absolute faith that there is one, I just believe it. I'd consider myself a Theist if I knew God existed rather than simply believed that he exists.

Anyway, like I said, I think the difference between our two opinions are a matter of who you'd consider Theist, Agnostic, and Atheist.

i don't believe in the possibility of the existence of a "divine" being or beings. to me, that's what Atheism is.

what i believe in is the possibility of the existence of things in the universe (or, theoretically, this universe, if you like) which we lack the mental, biological, sociological, and(/or) technological level of understanding with which to properly explain their existence, but have the possibility of explaining given sufficient advancement, through science.

I don't think there are more than a tiny handful of atheists by that (EmotedCreations') definition. But I don't think it's fair to say that 99.99% certainty (which is more or less where I stand) is functionally uncertain. It's as close to certainty as makes no difference, and as certain as I am comfortable being about anything, because I don't believe it's physically possible for any human being to know anything with absolute certainty...at least, not based on evidence, logic, or other rational processes.

Ah, good ol' CE escape plan A -- "I have failed to make a logical argument; therefor I will attempt to escape the debate via a distraction by calling you an Internet nerd".