You say that there is a god...

[dybmh]

It's a line of incoherent gibberish and that is why you can't explain it.

Not to a four a year old. You are showing the maturity and receptivity of a toddler. Convince me otherwise and I will reconsider. the first step is demonstrating that you have some integrity and admitting you were wrong. Otherwise I'd be attempting to pour into a full vessel.

 

[lukethethird]

Not to a four a year old. You are showing the maturity and receptivity of a toddler. Convince me otherwise and I will reconsider. the first step is demonstrating that you have some integrity and admitting you were wrong. Otherwise I'd be attempting to pour into a full vessel.

You've painted yourself into a corner and now you just sound silly making insults.

 

[dybmh]

You've painted yourself into a corner and now you just sound silly making insults.

It's true you are acting like an immature toddler. It's true you are lacking the integrity to admit you are wrong. It's true that your providing evidence that your atheism is shallow and ignorant.

If you are insulted, it's because what I'm saying is true. You have an opportunity to adjust and rise above all of these things. It begins with admitting you were wrong.

I am not going to spend any time explaining something complex to you unless I am convinced that it will not be a waste of time. If you click my profile, go to my postings. There you will find a thread titled, "Logical deduction..." Start at the beginning of the thread. Read through my posts and comment over there, if you are serious about this topic.

I just started following you so would be able to see my profile.

 

[dybmh]

God save the good ones and the exceptions

Amen.

 

[F1fan]

Of course I do. That's why I can positively ID the god reponsible for the "enlightenment" you seem to idolize.

Of course you do. Your beliefs are all about self-service and self-validating your assumptions. That’s why you have such angry interactions with critical thinkers.

 

[dybmh]

Of course you do. Your beliefs are all about self-service and self-validating your assumptions. That’s why you have such angry interactions with critical thinkers.

I'm not angry. I'm right. Your version of "enlightenment" which you lifted up as an ideal is coming from void. Nothingness. Oblivion.

None of the people I am debating in this thread, including you, are demonstrating any critical thinking. If they were, I would not be debating them. I will happliy revoke my assessment of you, or any of them, once they demonstrate actual critical thinking, which must be directed towards themself equally.

For those who do not criticise others, I have no debate with them at all.

 

[F1fan]

The people who scream the loudest, are usually the most guilty.

You really have little self-awareness.

I'm not angry. I'm right. Your version of "enlightenment" which you lifted up as an ideal is coming from void. Nothingness. Oblivion.

No you are mistaken about many things but too arrogant to acknowledge your errors. Atheism does not believe in gods, as you claim. Atheism isn’t an ideology to follow so wouldn’t be a moral platform. You make many false assertions and refuse to listen to correction.

None of the people I am debating in this thread, including you, are demonstrating any critical thinking. If they were, I would not be debating them. I will happliy revoke my assessment of you, or any of them, once they demonstrate actual critical thinking, which must be directed towards themself equally.

See what I mean about arrogance? You sound very Trumpian, you alone are correct and all your opponents are wrong. You have an inflated view of yourself and aren’t able to employ humility, but have ample hubris.

For those who do not criticise others, I have no debate with them at all.

Yet you criticize others personally, calling them stupid and other disrespectful things.

 

[dybmh]

You really have little self-awareness.

I said usually. And it's true. However, if we went with buddhist doctrine, there would never be any correction for the bigot or the hypocrit, because the enlightened buddhist doesn't care. So, I do challenge wrong when I see it. I do not obliviate.

No you are mistaken about many things but too arrogant to acknowledge your errors. Atheism does not believe in gods, as you claim. Atheism isn’t an ideology to follow so wouldn’t be a moral platform. You make many false assertions and refuse to listen to correction.

Did I say they believe? I recall saying they have gods, and they serve them. Because they don't know what a god is, they would never know. And neither would you. Not believing in it is serving it. Void is counter-intuitive. Believing in it appears to be non-belief. It is the extreme opposite of God. The rules are very different at the extremes. Which is why the cartoon versions that are considered by atheists produce so many false understandings.

I am well within the rules you defined. You said the rule is void: the logical default is false. So unless you want to change the rules, why should I accept correction from you. I already showed you evidence of gods. I declared what they are early-ish in the thread. I also decalred from the very beginning what is required to indentify them. Unless you are able to bring something, anything, to undermine the evidence you've been provided, or challenge the definitions that were given, you are guilty of the "crime" which is being leveraged against others. Lack of critical thinking.

See what I mean about arrogance? You sound very Trumpian, you alone are correct and all your opponents are wrong. You have an inflated view of yourself and aren’t able to employ humility, but have ample hubris.

Hmmmm I don't think you understand what hubris means, or how it operates. Did you know that is a greek word and a greek concept? Are you aware of the corresponding: μεγαλοψυχία?

Anyway, I am permitted to be correct. Against multiple opponents simultaneously. You're argument is the typical bandwagon fallacy. And you're ignoring the support I am getting from others.

Do you deny that critical thinking needs to be applied on oneself equally? If you think I am being hypocritical, how do you know I am not applying it to myself equally? I have fully considered what I'm saying, and I can find no fault in it. I have looked for flaws I cannot find them. People don't like it, but that doesn't make it wrong, and I don't care if they like it.

Yet you criticize others personally, calling them stupid and other disrespectful things.

When a peron is acting stupid, then calling their actions stupid is true. You seem to prefer false. I do not. Many people hide their true opinions and dress up their negative views to avoid criticism. I do not hide. I am not afraid. What you see is what you get. I tell it like it is.

Again, your version of respect is not my version of respect. i see no reason to adopt your version at this time. I can, when I choose to. But I am not subservient to your whims or your buddhist void.

 

[lukethethird]

I think it takes humility to do what @Muffled does - Use "I believe" even though others don't take it seriously... especially as he is doing his best to respect RF's staff and their rules.

He also does not take cheap shots at anyone. Speaking of which...
If you or I said this, or any Christian, you would hear how nasty we are. Notice the attempt at innocence.
When the Christian sees hypocrisy though, it's not their place to call it. He's being nasty. That's the job of atheists and their companions.

I'm a member of the Anglican church so don't pull that Christian persecution card out. Atheists and people of other religions don't believe your so called truth claims so you are going to have to grow a skin.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, that's your personal opinion, just as I shared my personal opinion by giving @F1fan a winner frubal.

Yeah, but the problem is there is no evidence of real phenomenon for anything as such and not just gods.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When are you going to learn that unsupported claims are of no value?

What is your evidence of that?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course you do. Your beliefs are all about self-service and self-validating your assumptions. That’s why you have such angry interactions with critical thinkers.

If that is actually so, then you have just stated a fact, So what? It seems that there could be a hidden assumption, that that is bad. Is that what you are going for?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is your evidence of that?

Evidence is not needed. Think about it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Evidence is not needed. Think about it.

Yeah, standard Believer answer.
Any Believer is someone who will demand evidence, when it subjectively suits them, disregard it when it subjectively suits them and claim that their subjective understanding of what the world is, is objectively correct.
And that is regardless of claiming standard religion or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, standard Believer answer.
Any Believer is someone who will demand evidence, when it subjectively suits them, disregard it when it subjectively suits them and claim that their subjective understanding of what the world is, is objectively correct.
And that is regardless of claiming standard religion or not.

No. You screwed up. You misapplied the use of evidence. This is not an evidential problem. There is another answer.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. You screwed up. You misapplied the use of evidence. This is not an evidential problem. There is another answer.

Yeah, you use one subjective version of evidence. I use another. That is the end game.

 

[Jainarayan]

It does beg the question: if you can't convince others your judgment is sound how did you convince yourself?

No it doesn't, and no I didn't. I didn't convince myself of anything. Convincing implies doubt. I never had any doubts. It's a matter of personal feeling and belief. Too much is overthought and overanalyzed.

 

[Jainarayan]

Ok.

Under the hypothetical conditions imposed by your last sentence, you would be truing to convince.

No, notice I said if. I ask the same question of Christians who argue so vehemently that their God exists... whom are you trying to convince, me or yourself? But if you asked me to convince you, or make a case why I believe in a God I would walk away. I'm not under any obligation to do so. Moreover, Hindus don't proselytize. We don't care who or what you believe in , or don't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, you use one subjective version of evidence. I use another. That is the end game.

You do not see your error. Perhaps that may explain your odd version of evidence. The basis for that is logic and reasoning. The use of consistent standards for everyone is the basis of that rule.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You do not see your error. Perhaps that may explain your odd version of evidence. The basis for that is logic and reasoning. The use of consistent standards for everyone is the basis of that rule.

Yeah, that is a social norm and without evidence
BTW I can't see as see errors. They are not external sensory experinces as per the 5 senses. Errors are results of internal cogntions and dependent on a given state of cogntion.
In the end we play is-ought and you claim that you are the standard for an ought, for which I can still act differently.
The problem is that you can't see as see evidence as you can see the computer screen in front of you.