I swear to god that i'm a non believer

[stvdv]

And my claim is well supported so I do not understand why you objected to the obivous.

One of your claims in your reply to one of my posts was:

The problem with faith is that it is not a pathway to the truth

If you had added "in my humble opinion", I would never have thought to even reply to it. But you did not. You stated it as a fact for all humanity.

Can be easily refuted. First you need to define "Truth" and "Pathway", then you must have experienced "Truth" to be able to talk with authority about it. And the kicker is "you must know all the people on earth personally to be able to claim that none found the Truth by Faith"

Just scientific common sense. I refrain from stating Facts pertaining to all humans who ever lived on earth (past, present and future). Unless you claim to be Omniscient, Omnipresent I believe that you can never know this and therefore it is not scientific to "state this as a fact".

Hence the smart advice on RF, as written in Rule 8, never state opinions as Fact, always say "In my humble opinion". You can never go wrong doing that. Claiming spiritual stuff, which is personal/subjective as Facts is just not smart. I am curious though why people (theist and atheist) are so hung up on wanting to impose their personal Truth as Fact onto others. And why they are so keen on telling others that they are wrong to believe as they chose to believe. As long as they keep it to themselves and not impose it on me, I am fine with whatever they believe, and I have no interest to change their mind.

That goes either way:
a): Atheist claiming "Faith is not a pathway to the Truth" .. just too big a claim for a simple human to make (you must be Omniscient at least)
t): Theist claiming "My religion is the only pathway to the Truth". I will tell him the same as I tell you ... just too big a claim to make for a simpleton

I never make such unscientific claims. Maybe sometimes I will do as a joke, but then I am smart enough to add "IMHO".

 

[Subduction Zone]

One of your claims in your reply to one of my posts was:


If you had added "in my humble opinion", I would never have thought to even reply to it. But you did not. You stated it as a fact for all humanity.

Can be easily refuted. First you need to define "Truth" and "Pathway", then you must have experienced "Truth" to be able to talk with authority about it. And the kicker is "you must know all the people on earth personally to be able to claim that none found the Truth by Faith"

Just scientific common sense. I refrain from stating Facts pertaining to all humans who ever lived on earth (past, present and future). Unless you claim to be Omniscient, Omnipresent I believe that you can never know this and therefore it is not scientific to "state this as a fact".

Hence the smart advice on RF, as written in Rule 8, never state opinions as Fact, always say "In my humble opinion". You can never go wrong doing that. Claiming spiritual stuff, which is personal/subjective as Facts is just not smart. I am curious though why people (theist and atheist) are so hung up on wanting to impose their personal Truth as Fact onto others. And why they are so keen on telling others that they are wrong to believe as they chose to believe. As long as they keep it to themselves and not impose it on me, I am fine with whatever they believe, and I have no interest to change their mind.

That goes either way:
a): Atheist claiming "Faith is not a pathway to the Truth" .. just too big a claim for a simple human to make (you must be Omniscient at least)
t): Theist claiming "My religion is the only pathway to the Truth". I will tell him the same as I tell you ... just too big a claim to make for a simpleton

I never make such unscientific claims. Maybe sometimes I will do as a joke, but then I am smart enough to add "IMHO".

No need for IMHO. If one observed gravity all the time there is no need for an IMHO when predicting that a rock will fall when dropped. You are presently attempting to shift the burden of proof at best.

 

[stvdv]

No need for IMHO. If one observed gravity all the time there is no need for an IMHO when predicting that a rock will fall when dropped. You are presently attempting to shift the burden of proof at best.

You started stating a non-sense Fact. And tell me to proof it (you attempt to shift burden of proof). Funny. I see people pulling this trick on RF all the time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You started stating a non-sense Fact. And tell me to proof it (you attempt to shift burden of proof). Funny. I see people pulling this trick on RF all the time.

Now you are merely repeating your error after it was explained to you twice.

 

[stvdv]

Now you are merely repeating your error after it was explained to you twice.

Funny I was thinking this about you already many times.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Funny I was thinking this about you already many times.

Then you would be wrong again. We could start over and go step by step since this seems to be too difficult for you.

 

[stvdv]

Then you would be wrong again. We could start over and go step by step since this seems to be too difficult for you.

Aha: you can't win, and you start one level lower "belittle the other". I thought you were better than that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aha: you can't win, and you start one level lower "belittle the other". I thought you were better than that.

No, you started the belittlement. I merely continued it. You made an error. I explained your error to you. You ignored or did not understand the explanation and repeated your error. I explained your error again and added that what you were doing was trying to shift the burden of proof.

You did not like that and upper your insult level.

meanwhile my offer was genuine and correct. This does appear to be too difficult for you. That is why I offered to break it down.

 

[stvdv]

No, you started the belittlement. I merely continued it. You made an error. I explained your error to you. You ignored or did not understand the explanation and repeated your error. I explained your error again and added that what you were doing was trying to shift the burden of proof.

You did not like that and upper your insult level.

meanwhile my offer was genuine and correct. This does appear to be too difficult for you. That is why I offered to break it down.

You started to belittle me. I just showed you that you did it. And again you twist it around.

I offered you "let's agree to disagree on this one". We have a different view. My offer was genuine and correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You started to belittle me. I just showed you that you did it. And again you twist it around.

I offered you "let's agree to disagree on this one". We have a different view. My offer was genuine and correct.

What offer did you make? And no, you simply did not see it when you did the same thing.

 

[stvdv]

What offer did you make? And no, you simply did not see it when you did the same thing.

The problem with faith is that it is not a pathway to the truth

This is where it all started; you replied to a reply I made to "bob the unbeliever"

To your reply I only said "you can't impose your point of view as a Fact onto others as regards to their Faith". Faith is a personal experience, not for you to belittle their faith (telling them it's not a path to the truth). If they belittle you then you have the right to tell them they are wrong to do that.

You went on and ignored my point. So I told you "Let's agree to disagree on this one". Because I saw clearly that we had a different POV here. So no use to continue. But you could or would not accept my offer.

Why do you have a problem with that? What is wrong in what I write here? Religion, Spirituality, Faith, Atheism are all personal subjective views of the people. Useless for me to debate on it. If you agree, fine. If you disagree, fine also. Each is free to believe as he likes or not likes.

Anyway it would be a big surprise if an atheist and a non-atheist agree on Faith I think.

I never claim that my way is the only way. I take it one step further even and tell atheists that "I believe that any path can lead to Truth; atheist, humanism, religion, spirituality etc.". So I do not belittle anyone on their Faith or lack of Faith or whatever. And I expect the same respect when communicating with them. If I feel no mutual respect, I just withdraw from the interaction by saying "I agree to disagree".

Belittling the feeling/faith of others I see as the major problem in the world.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Ha ha, I could but will not..

Translation: You got nothing-- nothing at all that was discovered/invented by faith alone.

One may have to consider that the source of mind is not ones own self..

Citation Needed: Claim made without proof or evidence of any kind.

Notebook: An ancient Book Of Magical Doings (such as the silly bible) is not evidence.

One may say it was them that discovered something, but in reality they have only brought it from the unknown to the known.

Regards Tony

Of course! All discoveries, by definition, are showing things formerly unknown, to be known.

Such as the observed Evolution of Life: It was a discovery--- an observation.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Understanding and and choosing to be, are two different things. It is very, very easy to understand and to be an Atheist. I can say that, I was one as is my Father..

Doubtful. But, hey-- anyone can slip into a constant state of delusion, if mentally conditioned enough.

Personally now I see it as a cop out, the easy path.

Regards Tony

Which is why I doubt you ever were an actual atheist, per say: it's much harder to be an atheist, in the Land Of True Believers™, than it is to just go along with the crowd (theist).

 

[David T]

Ok, so you are making statements of opinion as though they were statements of fact. Which is why you cannot offer evidence for your claims that i am illogically irrelevant, fantasy driven and wrong.

Thought so.

What you believe, dont believe or are agnostic is irrelevant to nature itself. Since you clearly have no understanding of yhe topic god you have no understanding of the topic nature other than what you have read or been told. The intellect has a huge blindspot... Itself. A Kind of an evolutionary stupid check.

I am all about nature so i have to laugh at tge absurdity of theists "i belueve, i dint believe i am agnostic." all three do not have any relevancy at all to nature only to each other in a shared dialog about nature. I dont travel with a book all the time thats absurd and is bad religion and bad science. Please point out a theist that doesnt say in some book somewhere i am simply parroting what the book says, or what the collectuve agrees upon"
i dont care because its nonsense.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

The problem is that theists belittle atheists. Belittling is religious arrogance which blinds the person and it's incurable; obvious when knowing the definition of arrogance. As a reaction atheists try to prove theists are wrong; which is understandable, but therefore a bit useless, when understanding "arrogance".

I discovered it's best to never debate arrogant people. Just totally ignore them (No contact). If nobody listens to evangelists, evangelism dies out immediately. Give them one finger (listen 1 sec to them) and they take your whole hand (keep evangelizing). But it's tricky, because religion still rules the world (too much). So naturally action needs to be taken. But use smart actions.

BUT your claim "You cannot name a single thing that Faith has invented or discovered" is exactly the same as what theists do. Now you impose on theists what they should feel/believe/know. Atheist better stick to what they are best at (don't follow bad examples of theists). And theists better do the same.

And for your information "I could name quite a few things that I invented and discovered by Faith alone".

A nice long, off-topical rant, with a strong attempt to belittle me, personally. Nice one.

As for what I put in bold? No. If you could do that? YOU WOULD HAVE, just to "put me in my place even more"....

To date? No theist can point to anything that was discovered/invented by faith alone.

I've made this challenge multiple times before-- nobody ever bothers a cognizant reply. It's always <nudge-nudge-wink-wink> "I could but then I'd have to kill you" or some other absurdity.

 

[ChristineM]

What you believe, dont believe or are agnostic is irrelevant to nature itself. Since you clearly have no understanding of yhe topic god you have no understanding of the topic nature other than what you have read or been told. The intellect has a huge blindspot... Itself. A Kind of an evolutionary stupid check.

I am all about nature so i have to laugh at tge absurdity of theists "i belueve, i dint believe i am agnostic." all three do not have any relevancy at all to nature only to each other in a shared dialog about nature. I dont travel with a book all the time thats absurd and is bad religion and bad science. Please point out a theist that doesnt say in some book somewhere i am simply parroting what the book says, or what the collectuve agrees upon"
i dont care because its nonsense.
View attachment 26231

What are you rabbiting about? Totally irrelevant to the thread and somewhat insulting.

I see that you still cannot offer evidence for your claims that i am illogically irrelevant, fantasy driven and wrong but instead obfuscate and protest too much in an attempt to hide ignorance.

And what has a picture of your left foot got to do with it?

 

[stvdv]

A nice long, off-topical rant, with a strong attempt to belittle me, personally. Nice one

No, I did not belittle you. I just say "I know what is good for me, you don't"
And you know what is good for you, and I don't. Best not think for others IMO.

But if you step on my toes then I will tell you not to do so. Just common sense.
To call this "belittling" is a different definition of belittling than I use.

That's all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is where it all started; you replied to a reply I made to "bob the unbeliever"

To your reply I only said "you can't impose your point of view as a Fact onto others as regards to their Faith". Faith is a personal experience, not for you to belittle their faith (telling them it's not a path to the truth). If they belittle you then you have the right to tell them they are wrong to do that.

And this is where you made your first mistake. Explaining the drawbacks of faith is not belittling it. The fact is that it is not a pathway to the truth. I did justify that claim. You did nothing to refute it.

You went on and ignored my point. So I told you "Let's agree to disagree on this one". Because I saw clearly that we had a different POV here. So no use to continue. But you could or would not accept my offer.

You had no point, you had an error. And you began your own personal attacks way back when you stated "BUT not scientific statements at all. "

That was foolish at best on your part. One can take a scientific approach to faith and find that it fails.

Why do you have a problem with that? What is wrong in what I write here? Religion, Spirituality, Faith, Atheism are all personal subjective views of the people. Useless for me to debate on it. If you agree, fine. If you disagree, fine also. Each is free to believe as he likes or not likes.

Anyway it would be a big surprise if an atheist and a non-atheist agree on Faith I think.

I never claim that my way is the only way. I take it one step further even and tell atheists that "I believe that any path can lead to Truth; atheist, humanism, religion, spirituality etc.". So I do not belittle anyone on their Faith or lack of Faith or whatever. And I expect the same respect when communicating with them. If I feel no mutual respect, I just withdraw from the interaction by saying "I agree to disagree".

Belittling the feeling/faith of others I see as the major problem in the world.

We are not going to agree on faith because I stated some general truths about it. By faith one can believe in any religious belief. At best only one is right, though all could be wrong. That tells us faith is not a pathway to truth since if if was there would be agreement between people, not the endless strife we see between religions. If faith was a pathway to truth that could be demonstrated to everyone. Instead at best we have theists say "I know" when in reality they only believe.

So once again stating an obvious and demonstrable fact is not "belittling". If you wanted to debate that you should have supported your beliefs, but you don't seem to be able to. Which only supports my claims. If your claims were justifiable you could show how faith is a pathway to truth. And that is why I was able to correctly claim you were trying to shift the burden of proof.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

No, I did not belittle you. I just say "I know what is good for me, you don't"
And you know what is good for you, and I don't. Best not think for others IMO.

But if you step on my toes then I will tell you not to do so. Just common sense.
To call this "belittling" is a different definition of belittling than I use.

That's all.

that's TWO chances you had to prove your claim that you could list lots of things discovered/invented by faith alone.

TWO.

Instead, you continue to put me down....hmmmm.

 

[David T]

What are you rabbiting about? Totally irrelevant to the thread and somewhat insulting.

I see that you still cannot offer evidence for your claims that i am illogically irrelevant, fantasy driven and wrong but instead obfuscate and protest too much in an attempt to hide ignorance.

And what has a picture of your left foot got to do with it?

And you keep requiring horrid primativism as proof. Thats secular theism, or reductionism Which, when fundemental is horrid primative reductIonism. ITS STUPID LOOK AT CREATIONISM AS PROOF. sorry you are a normal cargo cult scientist.