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.
Both your something else and MysticPhD God is Reality are plausible.
What is not plausible is that someone like both of you can misread and misinterprete my comments so often and so badly for reasons other than deliberate dishonesty and pursuing a personal agenda.
You interpret that every comet I make must be about what YOU want to disgust that you ignore my telling you I'm speaking about a totally different topic.
I think my type if atheism means speaking honestly about our opinions and being able to question others about theirs. I see how you can not follow that type, it's the honestly that troubles you.
nipped for space.
Maybe I get confused with all atheist theology getting kicked about. Like with your post here, you bring way to much nonsense. I am just a regular old atheist that doesn't answer to atheism.
I just don't answer to religion or atheism. When you argue mystic beliefs for lack of evidence, I can only say "Why would somebody say that when most of what he is saying is in science textbooks."
There is no double standard. An atheist is a person that does not believe in God, or gods. You appear to be the only person that thinks that definition isn't adequate, and you're not an atheist, yet here you are arguing about it in the Atheism and Agnosticism forum, where atheists and agnostics tend to hang out. It makes no sense to me that you would come in here and argue with them about who they are, but, hey, anybody can post wherever they want.
You did not explain anything except assert there is not a double standard when there obviously is. You demand acceptance of the 1st definition of atheism in Websters but demand we NOT use the 1st definition of God in Websters which exposes the question-begging in the definition of atheism. Explain how that is not a double standard treatment of the definitions. You defend atheism's free rein to demand the default and ask for evidence of God's EXISTENCE (implying God does NOT exist) but NOT theist explanations of why there is no scientific support for their question-begging demand.
Maybe I get confused with all atheist theology getting kicked about. Like with your post here, you bring way to much nonsense. I am just a regular old atheist that doesn't answer to atheism.
I just don't answer to religion or atheism. When you argue mystic beliefs for lack of evidence, I can only say "Why would somebody say that when most of what he is saying is in science textbooks."
Yes you are correct you are confused. Where in a science book does it say atheism does not exist. Where in a science book does it say that insufficient evidence means lack of evidence? Where in a science book does it state that when I'm telling you that I am talking about a different topic it says I'm lying.
Of course you would rather make false accusations than answer straightforward questions. Questions are easy to see they end with a question mark?
Stop hiding behind science. It's not science but honesty I'm addressing. And you have failed repeatedly to respond honestly to my posts. Please do everyone a favour and respond to what I am actually writing or don't respond at all.
Yes you are correct you are confused. Where in a science book does it say atheism does not exist. Where in a science book does it say that insufficient evidence means lack of evidence? Where in a science book does it state that when I'm telling you that I am talking about a different topic it says I'm lying.
Of course you would rather make false accusations than answer straightforward questions. Questions are easy to see they end with a question mark?
Stop hiding behind science. It's not science but honesty I'm addressing. And you have failed repeatedly to respond honestly to my posts. Please do everyone a favour and respond to what I am actually writing or don't respond at all.
yeah, we have a disconnect.
If its about honesty then lets just face it down.
Mystic claim, based on strength of evidence, is a solid plausible. Scientifically speaking, its more reliable to say "plausible but I wouldn't call it god." than it is yo say "you are all wrong and have no evidence" or "I say I see no insuffient evidence".
The evidence mystic is using:
QFT: What is the universe really made of? Quantum Field Theory visualized
DM id you want learn what it means. But this stance that you see no insuffient evidence is just like a fundy theist telling me they see all the evidence they need. To me its, yeah so what.
Not seeing sufficient (scientific) evidence or anything we can (seriously, folks) call 'God' is 'equated'.... or more like a crazy leap of bias..to likening it to being a theist fundy.
Not seeing sufficient (scientific) evidence or anything we can (seriously, folks) call 'God' is 'equated'.... or more like a crazy leap of bias..to likening it to being a theist fundy.
I think we can see where the problem really is.
Thats true. But Mystic claim doesn't fit that.
Basically mystic is kind of right when says you guys that don't really know what you talking about (in terms of this evidence) so you claim "there is no evidence for me to believe different" is exactly like a fundy theist that claims "there is no evidence for me to believe different."
It really comes down to personality traits. What type of person ignores all evidence to maintain a belief. How would they express atheist and theism. would they sound the sound outside of "god" and "no god".
Not seeing sufficient (scientific) evidence or anything we can (seriously, folks) call 'God' is 'equated'.... or more like a crazy leap of bias..to likening it to being a theist fundy.
I think we can see where the problem really is.
If they had the scientific evidence, they would post it in the science section instead of the excuses they post here. It is the jargonauts that do not really know what they are talking about.
Mystic claim, based on strength of evidence, is a solid plausible. Scientifically speaking, its more reliable to say "plausible but I wouldn't call it god." than it is yo say "you are all wrong and have no evidence" or "I say I see no insuffient evidence".
The evidence mystic is using:
QFT: What is the universe really made of? Quantum Field Theory visualized
DM id you want learn what it means. But this stance that you see no insuffient evidence is just like a fundy theist telling me they see all the evidence they need. To me its, yeah so what.
You are so fixated on MysticPhD God that yuu totally fail to understand that I have been talking about something else this entire time.
There is no way you could of failed to understand that as I have repeated that I am not speaking about his idea this entire time.
Arach Angle you are being deliberately dishonest. I am not going to be forced into discussing the topic you wish to no matter how often you misinterprete my posts. After repeating numerous times that I was not speaking about MysticPhD God and did not wish to you appear to have an obsession to make my posts about it. I suspect in a way so you can claim you are open minded. No your mind is very fixed on misrepresentation and dishonesty. You are a fraud.
You can talk about mystic and the universe all you want but do so with someone willing to do so.
I've given you so many opportunities to understand that I simply do not wish to discuss this subject and that I have not been no matter how many times your response has been about that subject.
You will now be put on ignore as I'm tired of being harassed by you trying to force me to discuss it.
You are so fixated on MysticPhD God that yuu totally fail to understand that I have been talking about something else this entire time.
There is no way you could of failed to understand that as I have repeated that I am not speaking about his idea this entire time.
Arach Angle you are being deliberately dishonest. I am not going to be forced into discussing the topic you wish to no matter how often you misinterprete my posts. After repeating numerous times that I was not speaking about MysticPhD God and did not wish to you appear to have an obsession to make my posts about it. I suspect in a way so you can claim you are open minded. No your mind is very fixed on misrepresentation and dishonesty. You are a fraud.
You can talk about mystic and the universe all you want but do so with someone willing to do so.
I've given you so many opportunities to understand that I simply do not wish to discuss this subject and that I have not been no matter how many times your response has been about that subject.
You will now be put on ignore as I'm tired of being harassed by you trying to force me to discuss it.
Yes, I clearly see you avoid an actual claim and give me atheist theology about lack of belief. I am just not that kind of atheist. I look at what people say and evaluate what they say based in the information we have.
I just don't answer to atheism like you do, I am sorry.
No, you don't get it. I am using his belief as an example because although I don't agree with everything he says, he uses real science and clearly says where he is not using science. Yes, I know you don't want to discuss it because, using mystic's claims, I have shown that you finding insufficient evidence is more about personal belief and lack of understanding more than facts. You are more of a faith based atheist than I am.
That's all I have shown. Its not a big deal really. Just don't be coming off like it is anything more than faith-like. Most atheist avoid blind faith in "lack of belief" and do not follow the definition literally.
Basically mystic is kind of right when says you guys that don't really know what you talking about (in terms of this evidence) so you claim "there is no evidence for me to believe different" is exactly like a fundy theist that claims "there is no evidence for me to believe different."
It really comes down to personality traits. What type of person ignores all evidence to maintain a belief. How would they express atheist and theism. would they sound the sound outside of "god" and "no god".
I was talking about your non -sequitur leaps, not Mystic's. And Mystic is kinda wrong in that he fiddles science, faddles logic and forces strawmans (I believe that is correct grammatically ) on atheism so as to discredit it. Not to mention a number of other failings. . And you fail when you try to back up him and this theist beliefs, Mr Atheist (again).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
Yes, I clearly see you avoid an actual claim and give me atheist theology about lack of belief. I am just not that kind of atheist. I look at what people say and evaluate what they say based in the information we have.
I just don't answer to atheism like you do, I am sorry.
No, you don't get it. I am using his belief as an example because although I don't agree with everything he says, he uses real science and clearly says where he is not using science. Yes, I know you don't want to discuss it because, using mystic's claims, I have shown that you finding insufficient evidence is more about personal belief and lack of understanding more than facts. You are more of a faith based atheist than I am.
That's all I have shown. Its not a big deal really. Just don't be coming off like it is anything more than faith-like. Most atheist avoid blind faith in "lack of belief" and do not follow the definition literally.
That's grubby. But I doubt that your bias allows you to see how grubby it is. The canard about 'atheist theology about lack of belief' is just - grubby, never mind your cribbing Mystic's back to front logic to force a canard on us. Specifically claiming that atheism is denial of a god, but they are lying to pretend that we only say we are not convinced by the God -claim.
Don't you see what a dirty trick it is and how clumsily you do it and what a chump it makes you look (especially as you don't believe in a God yourself but only some kind of 'living universe')? Or has your atheist - hate blinded you to everything but anything you can use to bash and denigrate us?
I shouldn't even be having to do this on a thread about misconceptions of God.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-18-2021 at 06:59 AM..
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.
^who ignores evidence?
) on atheism so as to discredit it. Not to mention a number of other failings. . And you fail when you try to back up him and this theist beliefs, Mr Atheist 
