Comments on: There’s Probably No [Insert Your Own Example Here]

By: keddaw

keddaw — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:56:33 +0000

The more you hear about what governments and big business get up to the more you realise that, on the balance of probabilities, there is a conspiracy.

Maybe not on 9/11, but there is a conspiracy out there to have corporate and government interests trump the rights of an individual.

By: Derek

Derek — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 18:57:08 +0000

Thanks Magetoo and Muggle, I hadn’t planned on leaving. Though think I’ll put a little more thought into my posts.

And no worries Richard, I didn’t really find the comment offensive or anything like that…just surprising. It’s all good, but still, thanks for your clarifying response/apology…I do appreciate it. =)

Lastly, and perhaps most of all, thank you Reginald for introducing me to Velostat. I, for one, feel much safer.

Cheers and Excelsior!

By: Richard P

Richard P — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 01:21:49 +0000

Derek:

I apologize for my comment. It was done as a quick response to the accusation made by many of the religious. I did not mean it to be offensive to you. I realize I could have left the knot part out and it would have said the same thing.

I will admit to not looking at who had made the comment. Please, don’t feel it was directed at you personally.

I don’t believe that weak atheism is a product of unsure disbelief in a god. From my experience weak atheism is more a doubt in ourselves, than doubt in a non-existence of god.
I consider myself a strong atheist but I still leave room for a Super being existing. This doubt is only natural if we are to question everything. Albeit very little room.

By: muggle

muggle — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 19:51:45 +0000

Derek, I’ve enjoyed having you here and as one of those stubborn Atheists who refuse to modify there is no God with probably, please stay. I like your posts.

Now, I suggest we all stop worrying about semantics and enjoy our lives.

By: magetoo

magetoo — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 13:05:52 +0000

Derek: Don’t let a single negative comment from the humor impaired change what you do. Plenty of others got the joke, I’m sure, and didn’t see the need to rush to post comments…

By: MH

MH — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 12:09:41 +0000

Reginald Selkirk, that website is a riot. Plus their claims are accurate, people wearing velostat hats are not kidnapped by aliens!

By: Reginald Selkirk

Reginald Selkirk — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 03:15:49 +0000

Ron in Houston: In case you haven’t noticed my avatar is the foil hat I wear... That is so retro. Foil is out, Velostat is in.

By: Derek

Derek — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 02:39:17 +0000

I understand it Cafeeine. It just caught me a little off guard. I don’t have any sort of history on this site as being antagonistic or self-righteous, that I’m aware of. Perhaps it was an error to assume that I would be able to joke around as I do with my friends who are atheists. I’ll try to be a little more careful in the future.

And I have understood the difference between A and B for quite sometime. Though in my experience many atheists wouldn’t touch that “probably”… which is why I found the sign amusing. Again, my apologies.

Cheers and Excelsior!

By: Laurent

Laurent — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 02:28:23 +0000

Arguing with 9/11 conspiracy theorists probably has to be the most frustrating thing in the world.

By: Cafeeine

Cafeeine — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 02:18:51 +0000

“Geez, I just found the sign funny coming from an atheist organization. I wasn’t really trying to make a religious sort of attack, victory dance, or some other equally ridiculous action.”

Although perhaps unintentional, you come at the heels of others who have used similar comments and tone as attacks and silly responses in earnest.

One of the points that I see theists often misattribute to atheists is a dogmatic denial of the existence of gods. It is the difference between these two statements:

A: “All of the evidence I have seen points to no gods existing”
B: “No evidence could ever point to gods existing”

I can be confident saying ‘god does not exist’ and ‘god probably does not exist’ interchangeably based on (A) without ever adhering to (B),