Atheists are not superior...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-07-2015, 08:02 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
(11-07-2015 07:37 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  That is not what I say. I'm talking about the many people on this forum and other places that just polarize, rant and insult as soon as I mention the word faith or belief. That's the problem.

Wrong again. Generally we only retort when the concepts of "faith" and "belief" are used incorrectly. Your critical thinking skills are non-existent. St. Paul said faith was a virtue, and a gift from God. You have no clue what you're talking about.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
11-07-2015, 08:04 PM
RE: Atheists aren't superior.
Well, this is confusing. Might someone collect these 3 responses and merge them into the other thread? Shy


By the way... tl;dr. Drinking Beverage

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2015, 08:05 PM
RE: Atheists aren't superior.
(11-07-2015 08:04 PM)kim Wrote:  Well, this is confusing. Might someone collect these 3 responses and merge them into the other thread? Shy

It'll still be confusing. Confused

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Anjele's post
11-07-2015, 08:47 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
(11-07-2015 07:32 PM)natachan Wrote:  I'm going to make a bet at the start of this. I'm going to bet that this person doesn't define what god is and presents no real evidence of his claims. I'm going to bet he makes empty assertions and pseudo-philosophical nonsense. But hell, I'm open to being wrong, so let's slog through this. I only glimpsed it on my phone, but thought I'd pull out my laptop to make notes on this as I went through.

CUT

And to make it worse most of them will ADMIT that it's not rational. And again, there's nothing wrong with that, you aren't obligated to be rational. But when you argue for the viability of an argument you have to set a metric by which to judge the validity of those claims. And theism just does not meet the standards that are set.

Thanks for the post.

I think you misunderstand my intentions and are also pulling words apart - but here's some comments.

1. I said most atheists - not all. It's common to be scientific you will agree I'm sure.
2. You ignore my distinction between logic and nature and then bla bla bla.
3. Color - you misinterpret my attempt to explain that nature is more complex than we would like it to be. We simplify it because as you say, it is convenient.
4. Your 'clear barrier' is an example of convenient over simplification on a scale - the search for a clean logical idea in a very complex system.
5. You assume that I am proving or defending the existence of God - I am not.
6. You are getting the point of this. There can't be a clear indication of x-rays in the distant past, but as logic dictates that the wave might have other frequencies there are a number of scientific theories proposed - test ended in the x-ray. The point was that a certain amount of belief in the unknown was necessary.
7. You jump to conclusions about the word supernatural like everybody else. I apply it to the state of being neither dead nor alive. Zombies are supernatural in my book. In specific it applies to the doubting logic of the observer - as noted earlier the cat has some natural state, but the observer has no idea, and the supernatural is an option - maybe the cat is both dead and alive - it is only a logical option, not a realistic one.
8 - no god here wrong assumption.
9 - I am wrong here. Somebody pointed out that the unknown cannot be likened to the supernatural. I agree I push it a bit too far. But I am really trying to say that words and definitions apply to a broader range of ideas than we would like them to, exactly because we like to conveniently package meaning into well known soundbites. Not contained in nature yet - is what I mean by out of nature. Not really supernatural as such in terms of the common ghostie woo idea.
10 - I understand that you are coming from the idea that I am a theist who believes in the supernatural - I am not. I am trying to find places where there are similar behaviors.
11. We agree - nice to hear it. As far as logic is concerned I think the bible pretty much destroys all credibility for organized religion. I think we tend to jump at the soundbite version of what we think religion and belief are in the theist. I have acquaintances who consider themselves theist and think of god as nothing like the ideas in the bible, or even as a form of human like intelligence. More a global pattern of logic reoccurring in all of nature (something like that) - Einstein like god.

I don't know about that - it would all have to be specific, but it doesn't concern me because they don't make wild claims about it..Neither do I. I am defending then just because when they say that they think of a god - it doesn't mean that I have to expect them to be stupid or ignorant and jump at the usual arguments for ignorance.

This happens all the time on here because people are ranting to disprove any claim of god and they grab the nearest weapon and WHAM - you are served.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2015, 08:56 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
(11-07-2015 08:05 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(11-07-2015 08:04 PM)kim Wrote:  Well, this is confusing. Might someone collect these 3 responses and merge them into the other thread? Shy

It'll still be confusing. Confused

I had closed the other thread, then someone else merged right after.

Sorry for the confusion.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2015, 08:59 PM (This post was last modified: 11-07-2015 09:03 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Atheists are not superior...
(11-07-2015 08:47 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  1. I said most atheists - not all. It's common to be scientific you will agree

A non-sequitur, and it's meaningless. You have no way of knowing what "most atheists" do or think. You made that up.

(11-07-2015 08:47 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  2. You ignore my distinction between logic and nature and then bla bla bla.

All you do is bla bla bla.

(11-07-2015 08:47 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  3. Color - you misinterpret my attempt to explain that nature is more complex than we would like it to be.

No. You used a false analogy.

(11-07-2015 08:47 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  5. You assume that I am proving or defending the existence of God - I am not.
6. You are getting the point of this. There can't be a clear indication of x-rays in the distant past, but as logic dictates that the wave might have other frequencies there are a number of scientific theories proposed - test ended in the x-ray. The point was that a certain amount of belief in the unknown was necessary.

... its a totally meaningless pile of meaningless mumbo-jumbo word salad.


(11-07-2015 08:47 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  You jump to conclusions about the word supernatural like everybody else. I apply it to the state of being neither dead nor alive. Zombies are supernatural in my book.

You apply it incorrectly as you don't know its real definition. A state of quantum superposition, with the wave function in an uncollapsed state is in no way "supernatural" You don't really know any physics, do you ? No physicist EVER uses the word "supernatural". EVER.

(11-07-2015 08:47 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  In specific it applies to the doubting logic of the observer - as noted earlier the cat has some natural state, but the observer has no idea, and the supernatural is an option - maybe the cat is both dead and alive - it is only a logical option, not a realistic one.

Totally false. The state of the cat has nothing to do with the doubts of the observer. You are spouting ignorant false shit.

(11-07-2015 08:47 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  I understand that you are coming from the idea that I am a theist who believes in the supernatural - I am not. I am trying to find places where there are similar behaviors.

No. you are just ignorant, rude, and presumptuous.

(11-07-2015 08:47 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  here because people are ranting to disprove any claim of god and they grab the nearest weapon and WHAM - you are served.

Nope. Totally wrong. Nothing you have said makes any sense. At all.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
11-07-2015, 09:00 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
(11-07-2015 08:56 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(11-07-2015 08:05 PM)Anjele Wrote:  It'll still be confusing. Confused

I had closed the other thread, then someone else merged right after.

Sorry for the confusion.

No worries, we'll blame the pain meds.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2015, 09:07 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
(11-07-2015 04:30 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  Lets take WIKI - and stick to those definitions.

'A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.'

As an Atheist I have a collection of beliefs in a cultural system, My world view relates to humanity and the order of existence. So I am religious too.

'Faith is variously defined as belief, confidence or trust in a person, object, religion, idea or view.'

As an scientist, I have to have confidence in my theory or my idea. Faith is not a dirty word.

This I regard, as well as spirituality, as the valid elements of theism. We should respect them.

We should not respect dogma, tradition, or assumption.

Why should I believe you to be an atheist when from your first post you have looked like a theist posing as an atheist?

You are a much a scientist as Behe.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
11-07-2015, 09:10 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
I'm not reading through six pages of this. I read the first two. As my Aussie friend used to say, can't be arsed.

I'll give theists a hard time only if they come here and claim to know the truth or ignore peer-reviewed evidence or writings. If they say something like the story of Adam & Eve is literal, they deserve to be mocked. I'll give theists a hard time in person if they want their religion to be my law when it serves no purpose otherwise.

I can't get on board with the 7 colors idea. Maybe it's the artist in me, but the ROY G BIV is, well, bullshit. Yes, you can categorize 7 basic color names, but to say that's all we have is limiting in itself. I've done artwork by hand and on computer, and no matter if I use RGB, HSL, CMYK, Pantone, acrylic, Dr. Ph. Martin, or something else, I feel bad for people who can only name the 7 basic colors.

I'm not sure if you were trying to say this, but the 7-color idea has no basis in any argument regarding theism vs atheism. I can't quite put that into any coherent use at all in this sort of debate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Clockwork's post
11-07-2015, 09:12 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
(11-07-2015 09:10 PM)Clockwork Wrote:  I'm not reading through six pages of this. I read the first two. As my Aussie friend used to say, can't be arsed.

I'll give theists a hard time only if they come here and claim to know the truth or ignore peer-reviewed evidence or writings. If they say something like the story of Adam & Eve is literal, they deserve to be mocked. I'll give theists a hard time in person if they want their religion to be my law when it serves no purpose otherwise.

I can't get on board with the 7 colors idea. Maybe it's the artist in me, but the ROY G BIV is, well, bullshit. Yes, you can categorize 7 basic color names, but to say that's all we have is limiting in itself. I've done artwork by hand and on computer, and no matter if I use RGB, HSL, CMYK, Pantone, acrylic, Dr. Ph. Martin, or something else, I feel bad for people who can only name the 7 basic colors.

I'm not sure if you were trying to say this, but the 7-color idea has no basis in any argument regarding theism vs atheism. I can't quite put that into any coherent use at all in this sort of debate.

Maybe he is trying to say God is Bob Ross?

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: