Particularly dishonest when making false claims to massagw his own ego
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Theism, Agnosticism, & Atheism: Which Is Logically The Weakest?
- Thread starter metis
- Start date
Particularly dishonest when making false claims to massagw his own ego
And me, the actions of an up front person dont you think?
Audie
Veteran Member
Uh what?
Augustus
…
Some atheists here do seem to suffer from a strange affliction whereby they are completely unable to differentiate between their own subjective preferences and objective facts.
Apparently it is seen as highly rational in some circles to insist that polysemic words don't actually have multiple meanings, and that anyone who has the temerity not to kowtow to their status as the self-appointed arbiters of language must be somewhat mentally deficient.
lukethethird
unknown member
That's because a belief in God messes with your mind.No, that 's not it. It is a sense of knowing God exists whether I like it or not.
I don't always like it.
Audie
Veteran Member
Of course you cannot actually identify an example
of this mythical atheist, but that is ok; goddies are into
all manner of deep and intricste knowledge of supernatural
monsters whose very existence defies all known forms
of detection. So trashing fictional atheists is a snap.
No, I think god is more plausible.
Do you think that having less people believing in something makes it more plausible? I’m confused as to how you misinterpreted my post.
Audie
Veteran Member
A lot of people like to think they are reasonable
and honest, but the poor fundies are in an awful
position. Impossible for them to be educated
and honest both.
Mess with mind? I guess so!
Augustus
…
There have also been around 1 million threads discussing the definition of atheism and in every single one of them people insist that it is 'wrong' to use a standard definition of a polysemic word simply because it goes against their personal preference.
It would be nice if they were fictional, but alas...
Also not sure why goddies and monsters have any relevance to an atheist criticising other atheists, but each to their own.
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
Augustus
…
Why? if the amount of evidence is the same, why should the number of believers matter?
And if you can't see the difference between unicornism, agnosticornism, and aunicornism, then whose problem is it?
Yes, I consider the existence of a deity to be essentially equivalent in evidence to that of blue fairies and invisible pink unicorns.
The number of believers is evidence, so the amount of evidence necessarily changes with number of believers.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I also look at evidence rationally. I could not be persuaded to do otherwise.
So what it boils down to is what you consider rational vs. what I consider rational.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, if I do not always like it that is because I have to set my own needs and desires aside for service to God.
Thats the way they do it, obfuscation is name of the game
I'm not sure why the number of believers is evidence in and of itself. I can see it as being evidence about what people believe, but that is a far cry from evidence of the truth of the beliefs. And, in fact, people have believed a LOT of things that are known now to be wrong.
lukethethird
unknown member
That's what I mean, it messes with you.