Do theists not comprehend the concept of disbelief in God? (evolution, science)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The title of your thread is disparaging and if you really read what I wrote, I used *Your* words from *Your* original post I just changed the word to atheist.........
So you just proved you do not understand your own question.....
So why not answer the topic of the response and come back when you are capable of answering your own question in the OP......
They don't get that. or worse, they choose to ignore it.
I have tried to explain that to wall. He has an agenda, he is not just trying to find out, "how the universe works." "Agenda" here not necessarily meaning a bad one. I have said a gazillion times that all I did/do was/is change the word from "theist" to "atheist" and see if it fits. If it does, more times than not it does, what I was saying about "them", also, applies to me.
I take that one step further and ask "what does that observation mean?". Then I came up with a hypothesis "The way a belief is expressed is based on personality type.". That is completely backwards from how most people treat it. And it shows that mentals on one side are fighting mentals on the other side. That has nothing to do with "smarts".
Clowns to the left ...
Jokers to the right ...
here we are, stuck in the ...
So, what you are saying, is that if it is true for you, then it is true?
not that I am speaking for him. But no. What he is saying is not about "true" and "false". He is saying that we are defined, at any moment, by our thoughts and feeling at that moment. Then, being aware of that notion, we can be mindful of how we respond to an external event or make our next choice.
If you never expose your vulnerabilities, you will never know who would try to take advantage of them.
The problem Mystic is that you insist on using a term that 99.5% of the population you are discussing the issues with understand to mean a supernatural being . The fact that you can find a definition for you that doesn't have this connotation does not change the fact that most everyone else understands and uses the term to mean supernatural , both the atheists and the theists .
Why you insist on doing this and then get upset when misunderstood is beyond me .
If you never expose your vulnerabilities, you will never know who would try to take advantage of them.
If you own up to them, you are on the first step to getting help with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
So, what you are saying, is that if it is true for you, then it is true?
Yes.But only in the sphere of Theist and cult -think. That is everything from UFo's to Religion, by way of Atlantis and Gods from outer space - and not infrequently borrowing from them, at need.
They don't get that. or worse, they choose to ignore it.
I have tried to explain that to wall. He has an agenda, he is not just trying to find out, "how the universe works." "Agenda" here not necessarily meaning a bad one. I have said a gazillion times that all I did/do was/is change the word from "theist" to "atheist" and see if it fits. If it does, more times than not it does, what I was saying about "them", also, applies to me.
I take that one step further and ask "what does that observation mean?". Then I came up with a hypothesis "The way a belief is expressed is based on personality type.". That is completely backwards from how most people treat it. And it shows that mentals on one side are fighting mentals on the other side. That has nothing to do with "smarts".
Clowns to the left ...
Jokers to the right ...
here we are, stuck in the ...
There is no agenda , just a straightforward question . Either a poster has the courage to take it as asked and answer, or they do not and they make mealy mouth posts in response rather than simply answering the question .
To illustrate , let me answer the flipped question . Yes, I can understand theists finding a reason to be theist . That doesn't mean I agree with their evidence, but I can understand how people can come to that belief .
It's not a trick question , just one that requires a little honesty from those asked , which seems to be in short supply with a couple of posters .
The question to ask yourself is why you have them. Why does it bother you when someone says "supernatural"? Are you defensive, maybe even prideful? I embrace the titled of mentally diseased apostate. They are just words. Maybe you should try some Zen or something and learn to detach from outcomes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
i love this post!
So do I. The thing is that, in an odd way, Rationality imparts a sort og Zen -like detachment from the need to be right. Being wrong and adjusting is good because you have moved that bit nearer what's true. Sure, the aims of Zen and the scientific method seem poles apart, but maybe the method (if not the aim) of Detachment is similar.
There is no agenda , just a straightforward question . Either a poster has the courage to take it as asked and answer, or they do not and they make mealy mouth posts in response rather than simply answering the question .
To illustrate , let me answer the flipped question . Yes, I can understand theists finding a reason to be theist . That doesn't mean I agree with their evidence, but I can understand how people can come to that belief .
It's not a trick question , just one that requires a little honesty from those asked , which seems to be in short supply with a couple of posters .
I think you do have an agenda. And I think "honest" means agree with you, to you. You want answers that validate your stance. I want answers that cross check my stance. That's a fundamentally different approach. Others here are the same way. They treat "cross checking" as " divisive". That's is an indication of why we get such convoluted logic as the "only reasonable" choice.
sometimes it looks like we are talking past each other, when, in fact, we are blowing through the line of logic.
Let me ask you this.
when is a person that doesn't know all the implications allowed to force a belief on somebody? Or even to put their "belief" on equal terms?
Yes.But only in the sphere of Theist and cult -think. That is everything from UFo's to Religion, by way of Atlantis and Gods from outer space - and not infrequently borrowing from them, at need.
that is a small sphere.
But I get the trick. Limit the conditions to help one's, one dog town view to be a more valid world view. Put "them" in one buble and 'us" in another bubble, then check the story lines.
But I get the trick. Limit the conditions to help one's, one dog town view to be a more valid world view. Put "them" in one buble and 'us" in another bubble, then check the story lines.
I'm not so sure. I suspect this is the more general way of thinking than the reasonable one. It looks a more limited 'buble' because it gets applied to one subject - Atlantis, UFo's, Homeopathy or Religion - instead of just being Right on whatever subject comes up.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-20-2016 at 07:51 AM..
I think you do have an agenda. And I think "honest" means agree with you, to you. You want answers that validate your stance. I want answers that cross check my stance. That's a fundamentally different approach. Others here are the same way. They treat "cross checking" as " divisive". That's is an indication of why we get such convoluted logic as the "only reasonable" choice.
sometimes it looks like we are talking past each other, when, in fact, we are blowing through the line of logic.
Whether you think I have an agenda or not is completely irrelevant to me . I asked a straightforward question. If you choose to avoid the question by inventing agendas on my part, so be it . Avoid the question and move on . Doesn't matter to me . Posters here notice the ones that are "slippery" and constantly find reasons to avoid a honest straightforward discussion .
My reason or agenda for being here is simply that I love a good discussion, and I like seeing if my beliefs have holes others can find . That's why I never avoid questions from others except for a good reason, like them repeatedly asking questions as a response to my questions and never having the courage to answer mine .
Quote:
Let me ask you this.
when is a person that doesn't know all the implications allowed to force a belief on somebody? Or even to put their "belief" on equal terms?
Force , never. And I have answered this type of question to you before with the same answer, so I don't know what you hope to accomplish by asking it again . I'm not sure what your point is with the second part . You will have to clarify .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
