I'm 100% sure.
its like Richard Dawkins said...never say never but on his scale of 1-7 positive theist to total atheist, i rate myself a 6. as does Dawkins rate himself.
"Based on what evidence?"
-His last several replies.
That's what any statistician would call a sampling error. Logic fail.
OK, maybe you can take out the garbage, but here on this thread, what I have noticed from you trolling me, is that you have no substance, only insults.
I can not say you are correct or incorrect as I nave not seen any posts of detail.
SansDeity - Now is your chance if you have a small minute to put together a summary of your view in relation to MCT's position.
MCT - I can only assume you have more information available to you than me on this matter.
He has no position, other than my position makes him want to insult me.
Ahh yes! Take out the garbage! Now there is a comment that just oozes substance. Has it ever occurred to you that you are a caricature of yourself MCT?
Anywho, I'm just making accurate observations. I do not have as much free time as you to set up residence here and spend inordinate amounts of time each day debating abstract topics. Even if I did I'm not sure I would do it on an atheist site as I'd be much better served doing so on, say, scienceblogs where I would be conversing with actual scientists rather than a kid who took a class in epistemology. But I can understand your fear of debating such topics on places like those and your preference for doing it here.
I have plenty of substance on this thread. Your observations are anything but accurate. It is not a scientific issue. It is a philosophical one. I do not debate scientific findings, only their relevance to the nature of existence.
Pretty much everything I've read from MCT comes with an explanation, describing how he got to his position.
What more is needed from anybody?
"Useless" came from someone following me and doing nothing but throwing emotional based insults my way. Sorry you had to see that first. Did you really only read the last page and think that the last 142 have nothing to do with certainty? When it turned to politics we, well some of us, took it to here. I like debating all sort of issues, except if there is a god or not, with theists, so this place is often 'perfect' for me, since I don't have to bother with that kind of nonsense (well, to be honest, I still deal with mysticism of other sorts here).
We have a pretty serious difference of opinion, however. I do not think that human empathy demands that we help the less fortunate. I would like to and make a career out of helping less fortunate people, but do not think we should require it from others, by force. I think this leads to the very large mess we have for a government now.
I think the TRULY unfortunate deserve help, but the obligation to do so should not be forced upon someone.
You may have me mistaken for a vegan or vegetarian. I'm not. Animals are great. I love them. And I too, feel bad sometimes, when I eat their muscles. I have been trying to work out where I lie in the don't eat animals thing. I deplore, and often speak out against, hunting and fishing for entertainment, though. I do minimize the meat I eat, both because I love, and have a level of respect for, animals and because animal fat is not the most healthy source of nutrition. But I don't think that animals have or should have the rights that rational humans have, lest we should hold them accountable for their actions. I think local governments, which should have more powers, other than protection, than the federal government could enact wildlife preserves and restrictions on humans being ignoramuses and wasting good animal life.