The new Athiest Humanities downfall?

[We Never Know]

Yes. That has been covered by numerous posters in great detail and length.

The article was written by a theist, not an atheist.

Tony has yet to acknowledge this and offer any apology.

So you are saying "no" atheists think that way
Can you support that?

 

[F1fan]

. . . They're rude, condescending, and think they're much smarter than they appear to be. And of course if they don't see that in the mirror they won't run across it elsewhere.



John

Who are you referring to? And give examples.

 

[F1fan]

Well, one must suppose if dinosaurs had developed any intelligence and sense of introspection, they might have had that belief themselves -- and been totally correct!

At least the dinosaurs had a legitimate End Times that Christians can only be green with envy about.

 

[Revoltingest]

That’s the magic fairy dust of Atheism, life creating itself.

That claim belies misunderstanding of abiogenesis.
"Creating itself) is an absurdity that misses the idea
of a stochastic process with life as an emergent
property under certain circumstances.

 

[We Never Know]

That’s the magic fairy dust of Atheism, life creating itself.

Doesn't your belief also claim life came from dust(figurative speaking) but was created?

 

[F1fan]

I do not see that faith is based in ignorance. I see faith is based in sound and logical reasoning, which should be used in all aspects of life.

Regards Tony

Except logic requires true premises and facts. Religion and faith isn't based on facts, or reason, or logic. I'm sure you what to "see" that you do, which is exactly what faith is all about: telling yourself what you want to be true even if it isn't.

 

[F1fan]

So you are saying "no" atheists think that way
Can you support that?

First, I never said "there is no atheist that would agree with this".
Second, it was written by a theist.
Third, no atheist on the forum has agreed with any of it.
Forth, many atheists thus far have opposed and protested what it says.
Fifth, none of it resembles anything atheists have written or believe.

 

[We Never Know]

First, I never said "there is no atheist that would agree with this".
Second, it was written by a theist.
Third, no atheist on the forum has agreed with any of it.
Forth, many atheists thus far have opposed and protested what it says.
Fifth, none of it resembles anything atheists have written or believe.

I don't care who wrote what.

Do you agree some atheists could or do think that way or do you think none think that way?

 

[Audie]

Lol. Its simply stating we don't know everything. Some thing's exist even if unseen and unknown.
If you can refute that, please do.

What, and share the Nobel?

I guess not!

 

[Audie]

The meaning is that if something is strongly
felt to be true, then that is enuf. It doesn't
require experimentation & verification.
It cannot be falsified.
Tis a very different way of seeing things, eh.

Doesnt work in business.

 

[F1fan]

Who is it that determines the standard is high or low?

The standard I quoted may be the level that all can aspire to and would not the higher standard support itself, stand on its own merits?

Regards Tony

We had long discussions about standards with other members. The simple default about standards is courts of law. There has to be compelling evidence that some proposition is true and reasonable to believe. Anyone with language ability can think. Thinking is not reasoning. Reasoning is skilled thinking, which means the thinking follows a process and avoids bias. It's not cut and dry. OJ was certainly guilty of two murders but the jury acquitted him. They had procedural reasons, but his guilt was pretty damn well established with facts.

So in logic, philosophy, law, debate, etc. standards of reason and evidence have been well established. Theists have a bad track record for arguing their beliefs. There is a reason for that.

 

[We Never Know]

Doesnt work in business.

But sometimes works with "gut feeling".

 

[Revoltingest]

Doesnt work in business.

But it does in religion.

 

[F1fan]

All Dawkins and co have done is write some books offering a point of view, and maybe attend a few lectures?

Pitchforks...

And he did so as an educated, English gentleman.

Hitchens was more aggressive, but in such an entertaining way, with wit, and even humility.

 

[F1fan]

Seems self evident to me, but God is so obvious he can be elusive.

That's tricky language. So, no evidence?

 

[F1fan]

I don't care who wrote what.

Do you agree some atheists could or do think that way or do you think none think that way?

If an atheist gets ahold of some bad meth, they might agree with the list. Or the Bible.

 

[Regiomontanus]

That's tricky language. So, no evidence?

Umm, your existence? LOL

 

[We Never Know]

If an atheist gets ahold of some bad meth, they might agree with the list. Or the Bible.

Dang!!! Talk about projection to avoid an honest answer.

 

[F1fan]

Umm, your existence? LOL

My existence proves my parents had sex.

Or do you think I'm the second coming, and that I know it?

 

[F1fan]

Dang!!! Talk about projection to avoid an honest answer.

I can't answer your question. I can only make a guess without evidence or data. And what is the point of that? None. So I made a joke instead.