It almost seems like atheists don't want to believe in God. Do you just simply not want to believe in God because you don't want to give up your own free will?
ADMIN EDIT: Mercedes has left ThinkAtheist.com on her own accord. This discussion will remain, however do not expect a response from the author.
If there's something you think needs to be said, then not everybody has to agree on it. Who is in the class of people who have to agree, anyway? That's an administrative nightmare.
arch, you're right; we really have no way of knowing. But you and I make lots of decisions without knowing; we make them on probabilities.
The probabilities here are as Holo said.
Go back and look at Mercedes' early posts. Her dogma is plain to see, except for those who refuse to see. It continues through all of her posts.
Yes, her defense is weak. That's the purpose of dogma: to trick a believer into thinking a weak defense is strong. It tricked a few people here as well.
@Tom Sarbeck, RE: "arch, you're right; we really have no way of knowing." - well, I certainly can't argue with you, because with two or three pages of comments, all without the aid of "Reply" buttons, I'm not sure what you're saying I'm right about, so I don't know if i was right or not!!
Could you refresh my memory a little more, as to which comment of mine you're referring to? I usually try to include a reminder, such as the, "RE:" above, but I'm not clear on which comment you mean.
Posts have been coming in so fast that replies show up many screens later. When I want to backtrack I put my left thumb at the down arrow and scroll up until my thumb conceals the down arrow on an earlier post. It usually works, but going back several screens takes time..
I was referring to your saying we don't know Mercedes' motives and she and others might benefit from the replies I think she suckered us into composing and sending.
She was playing the "Why don't you...? Yes, but...." game that ends only when well-meaning responders tire of hearing "Yes, but [that won't work because....]" and realize they have lost the game.
The psychologist Eric Berne described win-lose games in his 1970s book Games People Play.
He pre-dated Wikipedia by many years but his book achieved fame and some of the games he warned against might have entered the culture.
Yeah, his book did enter the culture. Google "eric berne games people play" and you can get a free PDF or Kindle version of his book.
I recall Bernes's Games well, I was particularly fond of his, "Now I've Got You, You Sonuvabitch!"
Yes, Tom, she may have been playing us, or she might have been sincere - I tend to extend the benefit of the doubt. Worst case scenario, is we got to dust off all of our old arguments, and as I mentioned, there may have been silent lurkers who got some questions answered. Besides, I wasn't doing anything anyway --
Interestingly, by your tone, I can't infer that you hold a great deal more respect for those, "Old, white people in Kansas and Mississippi" than I do.
As do I, but from a somewhat different perspective. And I'm sensing there may be just a glimmer of hope for you too --
That's what I thought about myself, until I realized that people were pointing out that I left a "transitional" fossil, that proved for all time that evolution is a valid course of study.
You have no way of knowing what your assorted electrons may one day become --
I have looked in vain for any place in the bible where it says it is true. Did you really find such a claim?
it's no ordinary book. It's many books written over centuries all pointing to Krishna as Lord.
I think that would be youtube. Home to propagande of every type you can imagine. And some you would rather not.
Holy, please don't insert your enthusiasms into the minds of five-year-olds.
In years of volunteerism at San Francisco Sex Information (www.sfsi.org), I personally answered hundreds of five year olds who asked ONLY "How do people make babies?"
We regularly asked if they had any other questions and they regularly replied "No."
Six- and seven-year-old kids didn't call, suggesting validity in Freud's latency period.
Eight-year-old callers, sometimes in teams passing the (land line) phone to each other, asked questions we mere mortals were unable to imagine.