Topic: Why I am an Atheist
started by: ic0n0
Posted by ic0n0 on Jul. 20 2002,16:01
The 1st thing that needs to be done is define what an atheist is.What atheism is
"I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." (Isaac Asimov)
Atheism is the opposite of theism (duh!
. Theism is the belief that there is a supernatural entity (from now on known as God). For reasons of simplicity, I will use "God" to refer to the supreme deity of the Jewish, the Christians and the Muslims, the three major monotheistic religions that share a cultural background. I don't believe in the many gods of the Hinduist religion, or any other religion that I know so far; and I haven't created any other god in my mind. Atheism, then, is the opposite of theism. But this doesn't mean the atheist rejects God, like many religious authorities (people and documents) say; the average atheist doesn't affirm "God doesn't exist" but "I don't believe in any god". This is an important distinction. Atheism (in its most common, "weak" form) is not a belief in the non-existence of God, but disbelief.
Therefore, I don't reject God. I cannot reject someone that I don't even believe to exist. I have no faith in the theist statement "God exists", but neither do I have faith in the statement "God doesn't exist". It doesn't take a leap of faith to disbelieve; you have to do nothing in order to be an atheist, and indeed you don't have to justify your atheism, because it's the default view. If nobody taught you about God, you will never believe in Him. The hypothetical existence of God is not evident at first sight, and any claim for His existence must be justified using nothing else than what is evident and accepted (therefore not allowing revelation, authority or tradition).
So atheism is the lack of belief in god, not an active disbelief.
2nd thing to do is list the reasons why I personally am an atheist.
1. I feel the Bible/Koran/Torah are less then accurate.
2. I do not think a universe built on rules would allow something like a free willed omnipotent being that could change rules as it saw fit, then god would then not be governed by rules.
3. Humans seem to me to be too illogical most of the time to have been created by a perfect god (god has to perfect otherwise it's not god)
4. Humans have a need to be part of something greater, they need reason to exist and continue living for the most part. Like it is commonly said if there was no god it would be necessary to create him.
5. This is very simple: who or what created god?
Posted by Bozeman on Jul. 20 2002,16:35
I share many of ic0n0's views, but I call myself Agnostic. To each their own.
Posted by Uberkommando on Jul. 20 2002,18:33
| Quote (Bozeman @ 20 July 2002,10:35) |
| I call myself Agnostic. |
We call that a 'lazy atheist' where I'm from... But I fit into that category.
You'd be suprised how little relevent theoligical discussion occured between my friends and I -- an atheist, an agnostic, a Baptist, a Jehova's Witness, a Mormon, and a Greek Orthodox. Not to mention the occassional Jew. Religion was sort of taboo -- everyone was treading on someone else's feet.
Posted by ShakerMaker on Jul. 21 2002,10:39
Instead of typing all that, do what I do and say 'Cause I can't be fucked going to church.'
Posted by Bozeman on Jul. 21 2002,13:53
| Quote (Uberkommando @ 20 July 2002,13:33) |
| We call that a 'lazy atheist' where I'm from... |
I prefer "realist" or "secular humanist."
Posted by Rhydant on Jul. 21 2002,17:54
i just dont believe in what i cant see.
Posted by ic0n0 on Jul. 21 2002,18:04
| Quote (ShakerMaker @ 20 July 2002,20:39) |
| Instead of typing all that, do what I do and say 'Cause I can't be fucked going to church.' |
Do you want an answer to that? (Catholic priest joke) And yes you can, what if your going to the wrong church or worshiping the wrong god, then I would say you’re fucked. At least I can plead ignorance, and say well I refused to pick because I didn't know. You on the other hand cannot plead ignorance. If when I die it turns out there is a classic Christian god and he is judging me, he/she/It will see that I made a logical decision, I do not want to be with the hate and bigotry that most religions seem to be ripe with. Instead I have decided to live by the basic rule of do unto others, as I would like to be done unto me, which is a Judeo-Christian value I value. If god condemns me to hell I still Took the right path for me, because I wouldn’t worship a god that would condemn people who are “good” in a classic sense just because they are not a specific religion. If god exists it gave us logic for a reason, I would think he/she/it would want us to use it.
Posted by The_Stomper on Jul. 21 2002,20:09
Well said.Why am I agnostic? Simply ... I don't know what's out there. I don't know if there is or isn't a God/gods/godesses/etc ... so I'm not going to spend my time fighting/killing/convincing others that my beliefs are correct when I wouldn't even be sure of them myself.
If at some point I become convinced that there is someone/something out there, then perhaps I could change to Religion X ... but I'm perfectly content staying out of all the religious fights and jihads abounding the world.
Posted by Anztac on Jul. 21 2002,21:55
| Quote (ShakerMaker @ 21 July 2002,05:39) |
| Instead of typing all that, do what I do and say 'Cause I can't be fucked going to church.' |
That's pretty ironic considering your handel
Posted by ShakerMaker on Jul. 22 2002,12:17
| Quote (Anztac @ 21 July 2002,13:55) | ||
That's pretty ironic considering your handel |
Haha
Posted by ShakerMaker on Jul. 22 2002,12:20
| Quote (Rhydant @ 21 July 2002,09:54) |
| i just dont believe in what i cant see. |
Same here. Until one of them rocks up to my joint with a slab under each arm and says 'let's get tanked and watch the footy' then I will believe.
Posted by a2n3d7y on Jul. 22 2002,12:41
| Quote |
| I share many of ic0n0's views, but I call myself Agnostic. To each their own. |
Ditto...
But while reading the main thread I couldn't get over the fact that you kept calling "god" "HIM".........
Probably a simple mistake....
A question to all the "theists" out there. Why would you insist on giving "GOD" a gender? I don't get it.
Posted by forumwhore on Jul. 22 2002,12:46
women engender, but the men are the tenders.Mothers are one thing very special.
Fathers are... something very special.
when you get ahold of a real one.
Posted by ^Oni^ on Jul. 22 2002,13:48
I was ordained as a minister several years ago. Now, I am an atheist. Go figure.If I had to choose a religion at gunpoint I would be a buddhist. Buddhists are one of the few religions that can say they never started a war in the name of their beliefs.
Most people wouldn't know god if he fell from the sky, landed on their face and started to wiggle.
Posted by ShakerMaker on Jul. 22 2002,14:02
| Quote (^Oni^ @ 22 July 2002,05:48) |
| Most people wouldn't know god if he fell from the sky, landed on their face and started to wiggle. |
If God* was a she, I would.
(*If there is a god that is.
)
Posted by forumwhore on Jul. 22 2002,14:08
I think I get it now.Mothers do the real hard work of physically growing a human.
Fathers pay the rest of the attention for about 22 years.
Women like to say yes, and men have to say no.
women do the biological stuff, men do the psychological.
*cough
once in a while.
Posted by Wiley on Jul. 22 2002,14:57
| Quote (^Oni^ @ 22 July 2002,05:48) |
| Buddhists are one of the few religions that can say they never started a war in the name of their beliefs. |
But Buddhist extreamists have blown up subways in Japan. There are wacked people in every religion who do not express the opinions held by the majority of their faith.
Ic0n0, do you believe in religion? There are many religions that are not dependant on an all powerful "God". Just currious.
Posted by jim on Jul. 22 2002,14:57
I don't really believe in God. However, I believe that just about anything is possible... even God.But I don't believe that if there is a God, Heaven, and Hell, that I would be condemed to Hell, just for not believing in God.
And if he WOULD send me to Hell... Then fuck him! That's not somebody I want to worship anyway.
Posted by beuges on Jul. 22 2002,15:49
Quote (ic0n0 @ 20 July 2002,10 ) |
| I don't believe in the many gods of the Hinduist religion, |
Hi hi
Just a minor correction there... Hindu's don't believe in many gods, as many people assume - we believe in a single god. The many gods that most people assume we believe in are just different manifestations of the same god, performing different functions - Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva - Creator, Preserver, Destroyer - but ultimately the same dude just doing three different things.
That said, tho i'm born a Hindu, i'm about as agnostic as you can get <!--emo&
Posted by Necromancer on Jul. 22 2002,16:32
...exactly: shiva ifrit ramuh odin leviathon and knights of the round don't forget the choco+mogi think the arguement of not being able to see a god is silly seeing as you're relying on flawed sensory perceptions. I mean you cant see a guy standing behind a wall but he might be there. i'm not saying i beleive in god as this kind of discussion really fucks me up (the whole self aware + knowing you're going to die fucks with my head) but the arguement of not beleiveing in something you cant see for yourself is about as stupid as people beleiveing that they'll go to heaven if they strap c4 to themselves and go blow up some jews.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Jul. 22 2002,17:15
| Quote (forumwhore @ 22 July 2002,06:08) |
| I think I get it now. Mothers do the real hard work of physically growing a human. Fathers pay the rest of the attention for about 22 years. Women like to say yes, and men have to say no. Women do the biological stuff, men do the psychological. |
What's this have to do w/ God having a gender? The only differences between a man and a woman are the reproductive organs and why does God need to reproduce? What does God even need gender for if he's omni(etc.).
Posted by ic0n0 on Jul. 22 2002,18:36
I think religion is something humans developed to derive order in a universe that seems to be chaotic and doesn’t really like us as a species. So yes I believe in “Religion” but I do not believe it is anything more then a desire for order, a way to come to terms with the pain of reality. Life is suffering after all. I do not practice any religion because I have come to accept that I will die, and I will never know everything and that I can die tomorrow for no good reason. I do not need someone else to tell me i am a bad person for not going to church and i do not need a 2800 year old man to tell me what the meaning of life is.
Posted by Wiley on Jul. 22 2002,19:12
| Quote (TheTaxMan @ 22 July 2002,09:15) |
| why does God need to reproduce? |
Some people say he had a kid, but he never was married to the mother. You can read all about it in my new book "Jesus Was a Bastard Child".
I think God used some kinda super-roofies to get into Mary's panties ...I mean, she was a virgin and was with that Joseph guy so I figure God had to be up to something kinda shady when he knocked her up. JMO
BTW ...I'll send a postcard from hell and let you know what it is like. I bet it will be like Vegas ...very hot and with lots of strippers.
Posted by Bozeman on Jul. 22 2002,19:13
| Quote (a2n3d7y @ 22 July 2002,07:41) | ||
Ditto... But while reading the main thread I couldn't get over the fact that you kept calling "god" "HIM"......... Probably a simple mistake.... A question to all the "theists" out there. Why would you insist on giving "GOD" a gender? I don't get it. |
I DID?
*looks confused*
Posted by Jynx on Jul. 22 2002,19:16
| Quote (Rhydant @ 21 July 2002,09:54) |
| i just dont believe in what i cant see. |
I can't resist this sentence:
So, do you mean to tell me that you believe in neither X-rays, gamma rays, or even, for that matter, a large number of gaseous elements?
Just asking.
Posted by Bozeman on Jul. 22 2002,20:46
You can do experiments to see if those exist. You can't do an experiment to see if God exists.If you could, we would have had this whole religion thing figured out a long time ago.
Posted by demonk on Jul. 22 2002,20:54
That's why I call myself agnostic. I can't prove there isn't a god, and no one has been able to prove to me that there is. Too many of their arguments are circlar:"You want prove god exists? Are you here, alive, talking to me? There's your proof."
That's basicly the mentality most people have used to try and convince me. I'm a skeptic at heart, so you have to give solid proof to convince me. Same goes for there not being a god. After all, I am here
Posted by Rhydant on Jul. 22 2002,20:59
| Quote (Jynx @ 22 July 2002,03:16) |
| So, do you mean to tell me that you believe in neither X-rays, gamma rays, or even, for that matter, a large number of gaseous elements? |
stop being such a smartass.
Posted by Necromancer on Jul. 22 2002,22:22
but you're reasoning that god doesnt exist because he doesnt slap you in the face and go hi i'm god. you're assuming that the only way to prove if something exists is via just the rules of our universe and "God" by definition if he does exist exists outside our physical laws.the worlds obviously flat because i've never seen it otherwise.
agnostics make sense they accept that there may be things beyond our understanding. atheists are just as ignorant as someone who beleives in religion (comparison made under the assumption that for arguments sake there isnt a god) atheists are assuming that what we know NOW is the truth. you're assuming science can answer everything. shoot back 2000 years and people are assuming that religion can answer everything. you're just a modern day closed minded person
Posted by a2n3d7y on Jul. 22 2002,23:01
Sorry but......again:Why does GOD keep beeing refered to as a "HIM" or "HE"?
Thats like.......so un-creative Bro's.
Posted by ic0n0 on Jul. 22 2002,23:23
| Quote (Necromancer @ 22 July 2002,08:22) |
| atheists are just as ignorant as someone who beleives in religion |
Ummm no..... There are two kinds of Atheists, Plain Atheists who claim to not know the truth, and Radical atheists who claim to know that there is no god. A Normal atheist does not claim that there is no god, but no reason to believe in one. That needs to be established. I do not believe in god, that doesn't however mean that god doesn't exist, it means I have no reason to believe; it's not the same thing! Do you see that? I do not claim to know the truth nor do normal atheists; we just lack belief because of lack of evidence. Once again a radical atheist KNOWS there is no god, claims to know truth. An agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves, I do not believe therefore I am an atheist, I am not saying there is no GOD, I am saying I have no reason to BELIVE IN ONE. TWO KINDS OF ATHEISTS!
Posted by a2n3d7y on Jul. 22 2002,23:45
| Quote |
| TWO KINDS OF ATHEISTS! |
Whaaaaaaa?
C'mon, has to be done:
a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
atheist \A"the*ist\, n. [Gr. ? without god; 'a priv. + ? god: cf. F. ath['e]iste.] 1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
2. A godless person. [Obs.]
Syn: Infidel; unbeliever.
Posted by Bozeman on Jul. 23 2002,01:16
Hence why I am agnostic.
Posted by Necromancer on Jul. 23 2002,01:35
i guess i'm agluestick too.kind of been a gradual change from my christian upbringing but seein as how i never really felt the true christian way of living was right i guess it was only natural.
Posted by ic0n0 on Jul. 23 2002,01:43
| Quote (a2n3d7y @ 22 July 2002,09:45) |
| a·the·ist (th-st) n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. |
Disbelieves or Denies. Both are atheists but one lacks belief and one denies existence, not the same things are they? That is the Difference between the two types of atheists. The Definition clearly shows that one can be an atheist if they if they have one or the other Characteristics, but the Characteristics are not the same.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jul. 23 2002,02:06
ag·nos·tic n. 1a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
while all the atheists go around patting themselves on the back for not being brainwashed, we agnostic types believe that it is impossible to answer the question. It's kind of like saying "What is the value of x?" without providing any equation for it.
we're considered lame-ass fence sitters by atheists... too wuss to admit that THERE IS NO GOD...
religious folk generally accept us, because all we're really saying is that religion requires faith - which they already know.
personally, I see plenty of evidence that creative forces exist, that they are fundamental components of our universe, and that their behavior is non-deterministic... a "God" of sorts, but nothing like the Judeo-Christian concept.
I don't see much evidence to support the hard determinism that atheists so readily embrace, but I do see a lot of evidence that seems to disprove it, starting with the behavior of quantum particles. It's possible that their behavior could be deterministic but I don't think so.
Going on the evidence, I'd say the Hindus and the Buddhists have the most accurate depiction of the nature of things.
Posted by Necromancer on Jul. 23 2002,02:15
apart from the whole reincarnation thing i.e coming back as somethign else.... erm no. YOU as in say Darth liverous coming back as anothe rbeing thats not going to happen.YOU as in a couple of you atoms being rebuilt into a leaf in a few thousand years and becoming part of another lifeform thats more realistic.
Posted by ^Oni^ on Jul. 23 2002,03:10
| Quote (Wiley @ 22 July 2002,06:57) |
| But Buddhist extreamists have blown up subways in Japan. There are wacked people in every religion who do not express the opinions held by the majority of their faith. |
Nay lad, Shinto extremists... very very different. There was a big stink about that during the Meiji Reformation in the 1800s.
I totally agree with the second part though.
Posted by Mico on Jul. 23 2002,12:24
I am a broad Agnostic because I think. I without anything concrete, conditions of the world and religions that function much like mafias. I believe that there is an evolved being, but it has yet to be defined.
Posted by Jynx on Jul. 23 2002,22:34
Wow, I can feel all of the agnostic open-minded love.m00.
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 23 2002,23:00
| Quote (Bozeman @ 22 July 2002,15:46) |
| You can do experiments to see if those exist. You can't do an experiment to see if God exists. If you could, we would have had this whole religion thing figured out a long time ago. |
someone who hadn't performed the experiment himself might proclaim that x-rays don't exist until you show him. in fact no one knew about x-rays at all until roentgen.
in the same way you would conclude it is illogical to assume something about science MUST be true or must NOT be true, it is just as illogical to assume god must or must not exist. the former can only be proved through profound spiritual realization.
Posted by a2n3d7y on Jul. 24 2002,00:25
HEY THIS IS WHAT I THINK!!!! me me me me me IM SO IMPORTANT SO YOU WILL LISTEN (ya right)Well, I think GOD is just a bearded man floating around space with magical powers.
ROTFLMAO
Posted by TheTaxMan on Jul. 24 2002,00:29
I concede that GAWKI (God as we know it 
) doesn't exist for multiple reasons (in no particular order):1) Nothing I have experienced in my life or have seen in my friends lives denotes the existance of a 'higher power.'
2) On our planet alone probably thousands of religions have evolved, many of them not even monotheistic. In the entire universe of probably millions of civilizations there have likely been billions of religions some probably very obscure compared to christianity. Although there is no way to say for certain, the numbers on this planet alone make it odd to assume one 'God.'
3) Inconsitency. The Christian God has so many flaws even as a theory, imho. Gender, moral values expounded by the religion and it's people, etc. The omnibenevolent diety has removed himself from all responsibility by giving people the right to choose? That isn't omnibenevlent. That is seeing the errors in your 'project' and not doing anyhting about it (to change it). Why all the cruelty in the world? If he is omnicient, why didn't God create a more loving race that still had the right to choose. The side project that humanity seems like is really just that, a side project by some diety. I don't like that.
4) Heaven and Hell. The spirit world. Repenting sins to go to heaven, etc. This seems very unresonable to me.
5) Order in the universe. If I drop a glass in a vacuum and it shatters and I drop that glass the exact same way, it breaks the same. You could right a computer program to simulate this (although people seem to be having trouble doing so). The brain works on electrochemical reactions. You could write a computer program to simulate this (AI). It seems possible that you could write a program that examined the chemical reactions in the brain and predict what a person was going to do. This seems very resonable to me. The idea of a 'soul' does not sound resonable at all. A mysterious force that is our guiding light.
6) There are others, but I don't want to type them out.
As usual, imho.
Posted by Necromancer on Jul. 24 2002,01:06
there are too many variables to prove god doesn't exist. everyone has bias, hidden agendas and misunderstanding.also "God" as he/it/she/thing is may reveal itself to people in different ways.
i came to a nice analogy the other day about the universe and life being a book. You can read simple symbols printed on its pages and a whole world emerges with a history and a future and yet you can at the same time take yourself out of the story and just see the symbols for what they are mere symbols (how many of you have been reading a book and all of a sudden cant read any more because though you can read the words you mind cant form a picture of the story) though you have to read from the beginning to the end for to do so in reverse would suddenly make no sense. It has a finite distinct begining and an end before and after these two events there is no book yet you can finish it and it still remains it does not dissapear out of existance even though the story has finished. And possibly just possibly this book is one among others in a library of books, in a world that has no relation to how the universe in the book works so therefore from the point of view of the book it is incomprehensible and as it can have no reaction with the outside of its pages it cannot prove it exists.
I like the idea i came up with of how even though it is a story that ends the book and all its component parts remains for someone to read again.
I think thats probably the most insightful post i shall ever write so don't expect any more of that kind of crap from me unless i decide to smoke some solvents again.
Posted by DougTheFatBaby on Jul. 24 2002,01:54
Here's something for religious-types to think about:morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told.
religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right.
Examples - Robin Hood, Road To Perdition, Payback, Leon The Professional. Basically any story where the protagonist is an outlaw, they're all going to hell no matter what they did.
That's why I've decided to go by laws of morality - they're pretty much built in (with the help of parents), and you don't have to spend an hour of life a week at a building that smells like national geographic magazines.
(covers face from tomatoes being thrown by people who hate newbie posters)
Posted by CNCJake on Jul. 24 2002,07:45
I was an agnostic for quite some time. One day I reached down my pants, grabbed my balls and proclaimed that I was now an atheist.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jul. 24 2002,10:19
| Quote (TheTaxMan @ 23 July 2002,16:29) |
| 5) Order in the universe. If I drop a glass in a vacuum and it shatters and I drop that glass the exact same way, it breaks the same. You could right a computer program to simulate this (although people seem to be having trouble doing so). |
actually, this probably isn't true. the evidence for hard determinism is looking pretty shabby these days. it's more likely that the way a glass breaks is a random, non-repeatable event.
| Quote |
| The brain works on electrochemical reactions. You could write a computer program to simulate this (AI). It seems possible that you could write a program that examined the chemical reactions in the brain and predict what a person was going to do. |
impossible. although the design of neurons makes them largely deterministic, the network itself constantly monitors and reacts to its environment, making it non-deterministic for all intents and purposes. in addition, a single random failure in a neuron can be rapidly amplified and propagated and alter the entire neural state... ever had a muscle twitch? did you notice how your attention snapped from what you were doing to that stupid muscle? that's a good example of what I mean
| Quote |
| The idea of a 'soul' does not sound resonable at all. |
The big problem with denying some sort of "soul" is that it goes directly against some of the strongest evidence we have - we all feel ourselves sitting here perceiving things. If you ask me, it takes a lot more faith to believe that we don't have some sort of "spirit" or "soul" than it does to believe we do have one. It seems much more logical to me to say "hmm, we have an awful lot of direct evidence, so the burden of proof lies on soul-deniers to disprove their existence... and they haven't yet... so for the time being, we will continue to assume the existence of some sort of soul/spirit and think of clever ways to study their properties."
I have my suspicions that randomness and "spirit" or "free will" may be one and the same, but that's just me... heh... can you imagine that electrons do whatever they damn well please? And events with high probabilities are things that electrons generally like to do? lol
Posted by demonk on Jul. 24 2002,17:09
Once you start merging Chaos Theory and Quantom Mechanics together, you can see that things that seem to be "influinced" by a higher power is just a shit load of variables coming together. To truely dig into the guts of how the universe works is to see that we are only scratching the surface on understanding how it works. That doesn't mean we can just say "Oh well, we don't understand it so it much be god at work". The opposite is true. We know that we can figure it out, it just takes time and lots of math. By the time the Pentium 20 is out, we will probably be able to run simulations on incredibly complex systems, down to the subatomic level. By this point I think we will be able to show that "free will" of atoms and such is just the laws of the universe being expressed. I"m rabbling now, so I'll stop here.
Posted by hannibal on Jul. 24 2002,19:30
| Quote (Bozeman @ 22 July 2002,12:46) |
| You can do experiments to see if those exist. You can't do an experiment to see if God exists. If you could, we would have had this whole religion thing figured out a long time ago. |
How can you be so sure you cannot do an experiment to see if God exist? Just because you cannot see it doesnt mean it is not there. 2000 years ago if you told someone the Earth was round they wouldnt believe you because with the technology they had at disposal they could not prove it.
I do not think there is a God as christians would have you believe or any other religion for that matter. I would probably call myself an agnostic because i do not believe I am advanced enough to prove if there is or is not a God.
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 24 2002,21:16
demonk, correct me if i'm wrong, but is your stance that god does not exist because math can explain and predict events?
Posted by demonk on Jul. 24 2002,21:22
What I am saying is that in some areas where we are looking and saying "There is no reason for this electron to do this, therefore there must be some 'higher power' making it do this, therefore god must exist" can either now or will eventually be able to be explained in terms of fundamental laws of the universe. And electron doesn't go that direction "because it wants to or is ordered to by god", but because of some reproducable, measured, and explained reason. That's all.
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 24 2002,22:47
I don't know anyone anywhere who has used that type of argument except for steven hawking and carl popper in context of positivism. if you are accusing the bible or normal religious types of using that argument and then bashing them for it, you are way off. if you are just making some point in another context then please remind me what that was because i lost track.
Posted by Dysorderia on Jul. 24 2002,22:56
| Quote (CatKnight @ 24 July 2002,17:47) |
| I don't know anyone anywhere who has used that type of argument |
CK, nearly everyone uses that argument.
It's called Parsimony.
look it up.