Atheists and their jargon of insults

[McBell]

They insult what they don’t know imo

That is not an atheist specific trait.
That is something people do, regardless of belief system (or lack of).

 

[Jimmy]

You can be a Christian and still not know. If we define "Christian" as anyone who has accepted Jesus as their Lord and savior (ie. no knowledge requirement) than it follows that "knowing" is not a prerequisite for being Christian, right?

It's "Him who has ears. Let him hear." Not, "He who believes a set of doctrines, let him hear." An atheist can understand (and even admire) Christianity, and yet not be convinced that the resurrection of Christ really happened.

Not a prerequisite? Sure. You can not know and continue to not know. Hopefully someday that person will know.

 

[McBell]

You can memorize the Bible and still not know

You can study the Bible for all your life and still not come to the same conclusions as others.

Why is it you think there are so many denominations of Christianity?

 

[Jimmy]

That is not an atheist specific trait.
That is something people do, regardless of belief system (or lack of).

Sure, them too

 

[Jimmy]

You can study the Bible for all your life and still not come to the same conclusions as others.

Why is it you think there are so many denominations of Christianity?

Eh They all believe Jesus rose from the grave. The rest is just filler

 

[McBell]

Eh They all believe Jesus rose from the grave. The rest is just filler

But important enough "filler" to warrant leaving and starting their own version.
So perhaps your dismissal of the "filler" is not as trivial as you claim?

 

[Jimmy]

But important enough "filler" to warrant leaving and starting their own version.
So perhaps your dismissal of the "filler" is not as trivial as you claim?

Eh it’s all a business anyway

 

[F1fan]

You can memorize the Bible and still not know

Right. They're called Christians.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And herein is why I'm not understood. I say that we are the odd man out and every other species is conscious and perceives reality differently and nobody can imagine it or understand. The concept of a universal metaphysical language that is based on logic is alien to us because we believe we are logical. We believe we see reality even though each of us see something different. Dependent on perspective and experience every single rabbit sees the exact same thing. Homo omnisciencis is very very different. How can we see something if we must first believe it and it is beyond our imagination. We live in a world where reality itself is beyond the imagination of the only species that deems itself "intelligent" and thereby omniscient!!!!!

It's a truly remarkable state of affairs. The one sleep walking species thinks it's the only species capable of wakefulness.

Even the simplest concepts like that we build models of reality and experience our beliefs despite being experimentally established seem to be beyond most peoples' reckoning. Simple concepts like all of reality affects all of reality on a real time basis which is always shown by experiment are ignored. Simple concepts like every experiment necessarily applies to all things at all times are ignored. No matter how many truisms, tautologies, and simple facts I cite I am met with a chorus of those who share erroneous assumptions telling me my facts don't fit their assumptions.

In the real world no two identical objects can exist. Even if you have two things you can't tell apart yet, like photons, they can not be identical because time prevents them from occupying the same space. People refuse to see reality because what they believe is comfortable and they'd rather be comfortable than correct. They'd rather lose money and do the wrong thing in a crowd then make money or do the right thing alone.

We are funny creatures (not that I'm laughing).

I think you are understood. Well understood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You keep making baseless and false assertions like this. Why is there never any hint of rational justification or evidence?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Right. They're called Christians.

Hey!

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Hey!

Don't worry, little rabbit, because you're the exception rather than the rule.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You want me to perform an experiment showing there is no experimental justification for gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest!

Lots of experiments have demonstrated change in species over time driven by natural selection. Fixating on an outdated and flawed description of natural selection while refusing to use the proper terminology just seems like meaningless rebellion for some personal reason.

Here are couple of papers describing experiments that demonstrate natural selection and evolution. These are just a couple of the millions of such papers that you claim don't exist. I've posted these many times before and you have simply ignored them and repeated your claims that there is no evidence or experiment for evolution.

I suspect you will again or make some obscure claim that you rejection is based in different categories without further explanation of what that means.

I'm confident from this history that people don't misunderstand you. The misunderstood is not so consistently predictable.

https://hoekstra.oeb.harvard.edu/files/hoekstra/files/barrett2019sci.pdf

https://www.nature.com/articles/ismej201769.pdf

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Don't worry, little rabbit, because you're the exception rather than the rule.

Why thank you. I hope it is taken in the jest that it was offered and not seen as offense taken.

I get much worse on here from my own side.

 

[ratiocinator]

I do not know how you could be more illogical.

If science is based on experiment then only experiment can justify the contention.

No experiment shows I am wrong.

Where is the justification that science is the only way to justify a contention? If you just add that in as an additional premiss to this car crash of illogicality, then it just becomes one big begging the question fallacy.

 

[PureX]

I am curious what your definition of belief is. To me a belief is just something that you are convinced is true (whether it is actually true or not).

It is therefor a "presumed conviction", not an actual one. Not something we can actually know to be so. It's a deliberate pretense of knowing in the face of our not knowing that then causes us to ignore and deny our not knowing.

You seem to be saying that a belief is something we think is true but are not convinced it is true.

It's a "conviction" based not on actual knowledge, but on the denial of our lack of it. We are just blindly presuming to know what we don't actually know to be so. Thus, we "believe" it to be so. We don't actually know it.

I don't think it is possible to believe something that you are not convinced is true.

What we can convince ourselves to be true is not the same thing as knowing it to be true. Belief is not knowledge. It's a presumption of knowledge that we don't actually have. It's dishonest in that way, and therefor often misleading to ourselves and others.

I also contend that it is completely unnecessary. We are quite capable of accepting information provisionally. Knowing that we don't actually know it to be correct. There is no reason for us to "believe in" it's correctness for us to accept it and act on it as being correct, provisionally.

 

[PureX]

Due to science, history and such certain Gods can be ruled out. Humans invented the title of God. I'm not sure I know what you mean by God.

'God' refers to the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. How we humans choose to imagine and characterize that mystery is our own invention. And our own business. Debunking someone else's imagined God-characterization is mostly just a mean-spirited waste of time, as it reveals nothing at all about the mystery we call 'God'.

Then everyone should be happy.

There's usefulness in questioning the spread of faith based ideas.

As long as it remains personal, and private that is true. Anything public has the right to be questioned.

You don't own the public forum. So you don't get to tell other people what they must keep private. If they want to share their faith choices, they can. You are not expected to choose them just because they have. And you are not in charge of judging and correcting theirs. Even though you apparently think you are.

It'll never be solved on a public Internet forum. This goes both ways though. There are knowable things.

Debates put forth claims and counter claims. I prefer discussion about it.

A lot of people come on here only to puff themselves up by putting other people's thoughts and faith choices down. So they see every comment and discussion as an invitation to "debate", i.e., an invitation to attack with the intent to disparage and humiliate. They don't bother to ask if the other poster is just sharing or is proselytizing because all they're here for is the attack.

Wishful thinking and belief are two different things.

So then reason and logic are valid approaches to understanding our world. Belief is holding something to be possible and it could be likely in the minds of a believer. Belief is a starting point not a finished product.

Belief is an unnecessary pretense. Faith is a necessary course of action for we non-omniscient humans. So we should stop confusing the two. But sadly both religions and atheists want to confuse and conflate them to serve their own agendas. So the phony debate never ends, or resolves, or teaches either of them anything.

I think that's an awful, and harmful way to live.

 

[Jimmy]

Right. They're called Christians.

I agree

 

[ratiocinator]

And herein is why I'm not understood. I say that we are the odd man out and every other species is conscious and perceives reality differently and nobody can imagine it or understand. The concept of a universal metaphysical language that is based on logic is alien to us because we believe we are logical. We believe we see reality even though each of us see something different. Dependent on perspective and experience every single rabbit sees the exact same thing. Homo omnisciencis is very very different. How can we see something if we must first believe it and it is beyond our imagination. We live in a world where reality itself is beyond the imagination of the only species that deems itself "intelligent" and thereby omniscient!!!!!

It's a truly remarkable state of affairs. The one sleep walking species thinks it's the only species capable of wakefulness.

Even the simplest concepts like that we build models of reality and experience our beliefs despite being experimentally established seem to be beyond most peoples' reckoning. Simple concepts like all of reality affects all of reality on a real time basis which is always shown by experiment are ignored. Simple concepts like every experiment necessarily applies to all things at all times are ignored. No matter how many truisms, tautologies, and simple facts I cite I am met with a chorus of those who share erroneous assumptions telling me my facts don't fit their assumptions.

In the real world no two identical objects can exist. Even if you have two things you can't tell apart yet, like photons, they can not be identical because time prevents them from occupying the same space. People refuse to see reality because what they believe is comfortable and they'd rather be comfortable than correct. They'd rather lose money and do the wrong thing in a crowd then make money or do the right thing alone.

We are funny creatures (not that I'm laughing).

For some reason the phrase "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." (Wolfgang Pauli) springs unbidden to mind....

 

[cladking]

I think you are understood. Well understood.

Then why is almost every response irrelevant to the argument?

If experiment shows we see what we believe then this applies at all times in all cases. Evidence can not be the basis of theory.