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.
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
good. It means I am correct. You are not in the position to dictate what atheism really means. No more than a fundy theist is to tell us what to believe in.
you ignore because you know if we go point for point, like happened before, your statement of belief is rendered to just another statement of belief trying to push itself off as more than it is.
I should have known better than to even comment. On previous exchanges, you ignored everything and claimed you were Right. You always have. If you claim my silence is handing you a win, you are fooling nobody but yourself.
Ok so maybe I made an inaccurate statement about the Dalai Lama being atheist. Both Trans and Mystic seem to agree with you. That's 3 to 1 and they both spent years studying it while my knowledge fits on a note card. Plus, the irony of debating if the Dalai Lama is an atheist is not lost on me. We will assume the Dalai Lama is not an atheist and therefore does not fit into the 92/8 on the side of 8.
So we're back up to asking you to provide a source for your claim. I assume your not going to and it's not important anyway. I will also concede the point atheists are in the minority.
Now, to where this all started when Freak said to you that this is some appeal to popularity argument and you denied that it was. So if it's not then what are you trying to say with 92/8?
My point is about the credibility and reliability of statements made in posts on this thread. It is not rational or credible to state religion is a "mistake, error, false conclusion." It is not rational or credible to claim all religion is a cult, or that His Holiness the Dalai Lama is an atheist. It is not credible or logical to suggest atheism believes in and accepts reincarnation. And the fact is atheism is declining to an ever smaller and tinier % of population worldwide.
The 92/8 figures are from Pew Research data from 2012 and 2016.
The point is as I said back in post #42 those types of claims show not only a lack of credibility and reliability, but a lack of knowledge how religion actually functions in a person's life. They are not rational discourse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
it is ample reason to dismiss his post and views as lacking credibility.
...
i don't find that to be rational discourse, nor credible. it also shows a lack of comprehension about how religion functions in a person's life.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 04-29-2018 at 09:13 AM..
My point is about the credibility and reliability of statements made in posts on this thread. It is not rational or credible to state religion is a "mistake, error, false conclusion." It is not rational or credible to claim all religion is a cult, or that His Holiness the Dalai Lama is an atheist. It is not credible or logical to suggest atheism believes in reincarnation. And the fact is atheism is declining to an ever smaller and tinier % of population worldwide.
The 92/8 figures are from Pew Research data from 2012 and 2016.
The point is as I said back in post #42 those types of claims show not only a lack of credibility and reliability but a lack of knowledge how religion actually functions in a person's life.
By using the terms "credible" and "reliable" it makes it seem like you are talking about the poster and not the argument. All of those statements seem reasonable to me(then again I'm a emotional reasoner and not terribly rational as evidenced by my love of Feng Shui) and I already knew about the agency detection because that's one of the arguments that helped me see I was projecting. If you are going after his credibility or mine I'll throw down right now I have none. No one should listen to my opinion because it will probably be different next week anyway. I don't know what education that other guy has so he can speak for himself.
I disagree that atheism is declining but again, that's yet another appeal to popularity.
Post 42#
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
it is ample reason to dismiss his post and views as lacking credibility.
he appears to be saying something along the lines of even though 92% of the world population either identifies with a religion, or worships as an individual in private, that "religion is a mistake" because people think a water pipe in the grass is a snake.
i don't find that to be rational discourse, nor credible. it also shows a lack of comprehension about how religion functions in a person's life.
Was in response to this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
this doesn't address the claim that many things we describe in the night are not what they think we are. The word "most" is semantic and does not address the fact that it happens a lot. Semantics doesn't address that it happens often enough that its a serous consideration.
Look at the lens of the eye as an example. It a squishy convex lens (Bi I think?). Get a glass lens and move a laser beam at many angles around the lens. Watch all the crazy images that appear on the edges. Then try the pointing, and moving it around, from the side. Watch the crazies patters. The same thing happens in our eyes.
The word "most" isn't a reason to dismiss, or accept, the events.
We don't need to discuss the Dalai Lama statement because I have already conceded not only that to you but also that my brain isn't rational. I will attempt to provide you with a "credible source" for the statement about us evolving to believe.
By using the terms "credible" and "reliable" it makes it seem like you are talking about the poster and not the argument.
I disagree that atheism is declining but again, that's yet another appeal to popularity.
It is about whether what is posted by a source is credible and reliable. Whether the discussion online is rational discourse. Whether the views posted reflect thinking deeply into things.
I will not talk through links to articles, that is no different than quoting Scripture and I don't do that either. I am interested in hearing from a person their own thoughts and views in their own words.
It is about whether what is posted by a source is credible and reliable. Whether the discussion online is rational discourse. Whether the views posted reflect thinking deeply into things.
I will not talk through links to articles, that is no different than quoting Scripture and I don't do that either. I am interested in hearing from a person their own thoughts and views in their own words.
Too bad. I found the shortest one I could and the most complimentary to your viewpoint. I think you really would have enjoyed that link.
So in the link posted a neuroendocrinologist from Stanford University notes,
"There's a solid catalog of literature that shows the health benefits of religiosity. It's nature's antidepressant for what is often a brutal and awful world, and offers a protective quality that atheists forfeit—which explains why incidences of depression are much higher in atheists"
So religious people are healthier and atheists have a much higher rate of depression.
So if atheism is the pack of cigarettes, and the warning above is printed on it then there are still people who pick up atheism and smoke it anyway.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 04-29-2018 at 10:08 AM..
04-29-2018, 09:52 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
My point is about the credibility and reliability of statements made in posts on this thread. It is not rational or credible to state religion is a "mistake, error, false conclusion." It is not rational or credible to claim all religion is a cult, or that His Holiness the Dalai Lama is an atheist. It is not credible or logical to suggest atheism believes in and accepts reincarnation. And the fact is atheism is declining to an ever smaller and tinier % of population worldwide.
The 92/8 figures are from Pew Research data from 2012 and 2016.
The point is as I said back in post #42 those types of claims show not only a lack of credibility and reliability, but a lack of knowledge how religion actually functions in a person's life. They are not rational discourse.
BS! Your response was to Transponder and you made that post on the data earlier than post #42. You did this in a thread about materialism being dead. Your response was trying to show that Atheism thus materialism was dead because the vast majority of people on earth don't believe in materialism. No one was even talking or making claims about religion prior to that post. You were trying to suggest that these vast numbers of people believing in religion showed/proved/demonstrated/etc. that atheism/materialism was not credible
That is what is not credible here.
Quote:
Originally Posted byTRANSPONDER Way to go, dismissing arguments you don't want to hear, preferring your wishful thinking about atheism collapsing.
Your response where you even highlighted the point.
Quote:
Atheism is an aberration. Because over 92% of the world population either associates with a religion (=84%) or worships in private on their own (=8%).
ab·er·ra·tion
noun
a departure from what is normal, usual
anomaly, deviation, abnormality, irregularity, digression, oddity, peculiarity, curiosity, quirk, mistake, divergence
I disagree that atheism is declining but again, that's yet another appeal to popularity.
Pew data shows atheism is declining.
Addressing the reliability of view put forth.
"According to the Pew Research Centre, the religiously unaffiliated - referring to atheists, agnostics and other people who do not identify with a religion - are declining as a share of the population."
Are you going to quote scripture (= hide behind link to an article) or are you able to convey your own thoughts and views in your own words?
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.
