Why are most people who answer my questions atheists ?

[LuisDantas]

In the post#135 I mentioned some examples of FAITH BASED IN EVIDENCES that any atheist should be able to understand
... if he wants to.

Showing that the word faith has more than one meaning. Sure. That is quite true.

As so many others, it is a word whose meaning depends significantly on the context and use.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In the post#135 I mentioned some examples of FAITH BASED IN EVIDENCES that any atheist should be able to understand
... if he wants to.

Do you understand them?

Is passive aggressive response good witness?

Is claiming Christians are atheist good witness and an expression of faith in God or in the edicts of some sect that has their own biased interpretations?

 

[Eli G]

I said what I had to say here.

I'm not interested in your Byzantine discussions.

Have a good weekend.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In the post#135 I mentioned some examples of FAITH BASED IN EVIDENCES that any atheist should be able to understand
... if he wants to.

All that is mentioned in that post is what JWs declare. That's not evidence of faith. That is evidence that JWs consider themselves the only Christians.

A claim without evidence and one I do not agree with. But a true example of faith without evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I said what I had to say here.

I'm not interested in your Byzantine discussions.

Have a good weekend.

Who are you talking too? It's hard to tell given that your faith doesn't appear to give you the courage to talk directly to people.

 

[Orbit]

RF is being slow so I only read the first 4 pages of this thread, and someone may have already said this, but: Just because you are an atheist, it doesn't mean you have no intellectual interest in different religions. So with that in mind, why *wouldn't* there be atheists on a site called Religious Forums?

 

[Valjean]

Actually, the real issue is "belief". Eventually a lot of people come to realize that believing in things that have no basis in their own experience is a waste of time and energy. And that applies to a lot of the religiosity that people are raised with. So they eventually reject it as pointless and ineffectual.

But some of them eventually will come to realize that belief or unbelief are not the only options. That there is also the option of faith. And faith is based on hope, not blind pretense (as belief is), so it can have a very real and positive effect in someone's life when acted upon. And so they may choose to pick up their old religion, again. But this time it's on a whole new basis: the basis of faith, not blind belief.

I agree with most of the atheist's complaints about religion as blind belief. But that's always where they stop, because that's what serves their bias against religion. I am not biased against religion as a whole because I understand that as a faith choice, it can be and is very positive and valuable for a great many people. I am only biased against religion as 'belief dogma'. Because I think that's mostly ineffectual, and dishonest.

I'm not interested in utility. I don't dispute the fact that fantasy, folklore, faith, or make-believe can have social or psychological benefit. I'm arguing strict, unvarnished ontologic reality.

Arguing for utility is fine -- as long as it's presented as such, but when claims of absolute truth are made, that invites challenge, especially when laws or social policy is based on these unsupported "truths."

 

[Valjean]

Einstein's theories of relativity had no proof when he first proposed it. So it was "imaginary, fantasy" in your mind based on what you wrote.

They were heavily evidenced theorems, not just fantasy or guesswork, and they remained so until later, confirmatory testing raised them to theory status.

 

[Valjean]

This is the Biblical definition of FAITH:

Heb. 11:1 Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration [or: convincing evidence] of realities that are not seen.

About FAITH, the Biblical Encyclopedia of JWs Insight on the Scriptures partially says:

So, although many atheists are unaware of this reality, faith is not credulity.

King James: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

It's poetic gobbledygook. Try substituting it for "faith" in any serious, or even casual discussion. It won't fly.

 

[Altfish]

A growing number of theists don't attend religious services.

Next.

Not really, most theists do, so my possible reason stands.

 

[Valjean]

Again: true faith is based on facts, convictions, trusting, evidence...

What an atheist thinks about this is just a figment of his own imagination.

How does faith differ from knowledge, then?
"Faith" is generally used to mean belief unsupported or poorly supported by facts or objective evidence.

 

[Heyo]

I am a Christian.

You're rational enough that I'd grant you honorable agnostic status.

 

[sun rise]

heavily evidenced theorems, not just fantasy or guesswork, and they remained so until later, confirmatory testing raised them to theory status.

The "evidence" was that Newton's laws clearly did not explain all observations and Einstein's did.

There's a necessary but not sufficient condition to prove there's a deity. The necessary condition is that there's something beyond the physical universe. Here there's a "heavily evidenced" theorem that reincarnation is factual. The best evidence are the young children with birthmarks who say that they were injured in a prior life and provide details they have no way of knowing. Investigators look at the evidence and find it accurate. https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual...ploads/sites/360/2016/12/STE39stevenson-1.pdf for example

 

[Audie]

It could be that they rejoined on their own terms. I tried to do that, but realized that I couldn't even believe in a minimal way. It's just not where I am anymore.

Either way, its regressing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You're rational enough that I'd grant you honorable agnostic status.

I'm always the outlier. I've gotten used to it. But thank you for the vote of confidence that I am rational.

Keep in mind that I think I'm a rabbit.

 

[danieldemol]

The "evidence" was that Newton's laws clearly did not explain all observations and Einstein's did.

There's a necessary but not sufficient condition to prove there's a deity. The necessary condition is that there's something beyond the physical universe. Here there's a "heavily evidenced" theorem that reincarnation is factual. The best evidence are the young children with birthmarks who say that they were injured in a prior life and provide details they have no way of knowing. Investigators look at the evidence and find it accurate. https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual...ploads/sites/360/2016/12/STE39stevenson-1.pdf for example

To anyone who thinks Dr Stevenson's pseudoscience is "heavily evidenced" I refer them to Ian Stevenson - Wikipedia

For example, '
'Psychologist and neurologist Terence Hines has written:

"The major problem with Stevenson’s work is that the methods he used to investigate alleged cases of reincarnation are inadequate to rule out simple, imaginative storytelling on the part of the children claiming to be reincarnations of dead individuals. In the seemingly most impressive cases Stevenson (1975, 1977) has reported, the children claiming to be reincarnated knew friends and relatives of the dead individual. The children’s knowledge of facts about these individuals is, then, somewhat less than conclusive evidence for reincarnation."[38]'

ETA Not to mention that reincarnation is not evidence for a God in my view since the mechanism for reincarnation even if hypothetically true (which it appears not to be to me) could be entirely natural without requirement of a God

 

[Audie]

The "evidence" was that Newton's laws clearly did not explain all observations and Einstein's did.

There's a necessary but not sufficient condition to prove there's a deity. The necessary condition is that there's something beyond the physical universe. Here there's a "heavily evidenced" theorem that reincarnation is factual. The best evidence are the young children with birthmarks who say that they were injured in a prior life and provide details they have no way of knowing. Investigators look at the evidence and find it accurate. https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual...ploads/sites/360/2016/12/STE39stevenson-1.pdf for example

Thats only evidence that some people will believe
the most ridiculous things.

 

[McBell]

As I've stated before, that's false victimhood.

Until you see posts like this one:

Why are most people who answer my questions atheists ?​

It's very simple. Atheists think they already know everything. They worship science as the source of all truth, instead of God. So they believe that if science has not already resolved any question they encounter, it is just about to, ... or they just deem the question irrelevant.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Apparently atheist forums are boring so they come here to hone their heckling skills.

Do you realize and understand why that is doing exactly what the OP is asking about?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The "evidence" was that Newton's laws clearly did not explain all observations and Einstein's did.

There's a necessary but not sufficient condition to prove there's a deity. The necessary condition is that there's something beyond the physical universe.

That's called god of the gaps. And with each passing age there's fewer gaps for a bearded man to hide in with his kingdom. It's why we no longer believe Heaven and Hell are literally up above in the sky or Cosmos, nor deep below on the depths of the Earth. It's why we went from demons and sorcery to penicillin and lithium.
Einstein amd Newton discovered working models that happen to be as fundamentally incompatible with eachother as America's Bill of Rights and Jehovah's 10 Commandments. That doesn't mean it's a god behind it, it just means we don't know. And I wouldn't want to place my money on betting with god because those gaps keep getting filled in. If anything it's possibly a reason to dismiss the idea everything must stem from one singular point and cause. That's something this idea of a monotheist god wants because that's how it works for him amd how we have viewed things in the West since it became more uniformly Christian.
But if there's multiple universes, an idea that's gaining more traction and more if a following, then it seems doubtful everything stems from an original cause (which itself is a philosophical impossibility because it must be asked what caused the original cause).
Amd those kids, couldn't it be they saw something on TV and having no other explanation or understanding or knowledge of their birthmark, took to something they could understand as a reason for its existence?
And course many of those kids get debunked, it just takes someone who knows a lot about the culture the kid is claiming to have lived during. Like how it took an Egyptologist to debunk one little girl who failed to accurately recount how Egyptians during her alleged past life looked at and used horses. It's like needing a magician, a James Randi, to debunk another magician who was passing his illusions off as real and fooling many, including scientists who justs didn't have the background in magic and illusion to catch the con.