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.
Run from what exactly ? A poster who has admitted he is basically trolling? LMAO!
I require a measure of honesty from those I interact with . When they admit to me that is lacking in their posts I see no point in continuing on with them . There is one other here I no longer worry about for the same reason. He admitted he simply trolls for reactions from others .
So now you are the second one who would simply be a waste of time due to the dishonest intentions .
you are very literal. You run from any idea that is outside of your comprehension. You use may tactics in avoidance. You limit input based on your understanding. It's a young brain thing.
so you are partly right. You partly understand.
here is the the answer to the op ...
Some theist understand "lack of belief". In fact, probably As many understand that as atheist understand that claiming "no nothing" counters observation too.
That's about all you can handle for now. Just keep repeating it until one day you say to yourself ...
"Hey, I just had this great idea."
Probably because I'm not willing to be taken too far off what I'm pointing out to you. I'll stick with the context of my message rather than some other context within which your reply may be aiming. And again, the point was to see the pattern of behavior wallflash uses in the face of disagreement. You don't have to agree; that's rather the point. However, there are those who have seen his behavior, been the target of it, and who recognize it for what it is, the playground bully behavior. As such his comments are not worth giving any credence. However, if you agree with him, then surely climb into the echo chamber with him. No harm.
Ah, the ole "I don't care about your context because if I did it would undermine my point" cop out.
The point is, I don't see what you claim to see. What I see, is a poster calling people out when they do something worthy of being called out on. Like I am calling you out, right here, right now.
You are ignoring what I posted, and even admit that you don't care about the context of MY post, because it doesn't fit your agenda, all the while saying I don't understand the context of YOUR post. Well, aren't you the model poster? You just ignore everything you don't think fits your agenda.
Let me ask you. Who is the bigger bully...
1) The person who says, "You are pompous and arrogant" to a pompous and arrogant person.
Or
2) The person who comes on here everyday to tell people they are sinners and worthy of hell?
Do you get angry at #1 and #2? Do you post to both and tell them about their "bullying"?
there are also some hostile belligerent older posters too, well into their 30's, 40's, 50's, and 60's.
CD has its share of them
yeah, I am working on that ...
belligerent isn't really an age thing. Thought processes posted are an indication of brain state. Also, some older people brains have not grown past adolescent processing. Drugs, alcohol, abuse, and other things stunt growth.
I really only keep posting because of lurkers. The number Rational atheist is on the rise. I love it when I am talking to another person and they say "I am not one of those kind either ...". Thats when real solutions start geting talked about.
you are very literal. You run from any idea that is outside of your comprehension. You use may tactics in avoidance. You limit input based on your understanding. It's a young brain thing.
so you are partly right. You partly understand.
here is the the answer to the op ...
Some theist understand "lack of belief". In fact, probably As many understand that as atheist understand that claiming "no nothing" counters observation too.
That's about all you can handle for now. Just keep repeating it until one day you say to yourself ...
"Hey, I just had this great idea."
Are you sure you aren't related to Gldn? You guys are almost identical! Only you claim to be an atheist (where he claims to be a pantheist). You claim to know about science (while he thinks he is some master demographer), while not knowing about it at all it seems. You both troll for responses. You both spout nonsense and then claim, "Hah!! I won!"
Seriously, are you guys related? Or the same person, by chance?
Are you sure you aren't related to Gldn? You guys are almost identical! Only you claim to be an atheist (where he claims to be a pantheist). You claim to know about science (while he thinks he is some master demographer), while not knowing about it at all it seems. You both troll for responses. You both spout nonsense and then claim, "Hah!! I won!"
Seriously, are you guys related? Or the same person, by chance?
ok, so you try and insult me. seriously. How about getting back to the question.
How reasonable is the claim:
some theist understand "lack of belief" and some atheist don't understand "lack of belief". Maybe a better way to say it would be some people don't understand why they express beliefs as they do.
Thank you for your answers . I too thought the questions straightforward and simple, and was surprised that so many became butt hurt over them . As you show, they are simple ones capable of being honestly answered without all the wailing that has gone on.
Thanks
Actually they were good questions.
I think many are trying to start an argument, convert (either way), or just bored and/or lonely.
If people want the debate, should be in the great debates.
So after 18 pages of wrangling it seems the answer is..no, theists do not seem to be able to wrap their cranial stodge around atheist disbelief in the god -claim and will do anything to avoid their brain Glomming..is that the right word? I think it's the right word...Glomming our disbelief, because it might make too much sense.
Not that it would convince them to disbelieve, of course, but it would entail accepting that there was a valid reason for disbelief. And, as we know, Faith is a VERY important component of the theist mindset. Evidence is only secondary: to validate the Faith after the fact (1).
The Faith has to be unassailable because as soon as Faith...let me put this the right way...as soon as Faith is required to stand upon valid (empirical and rational) grounds, it loses its' only protection against crumbling under scrutiny. And as I have argued, the personal feelings of self righteousness of the Faithful is in danger of, or is seen (perhaps without realizing it) as in danger of, collapse.
This is why I consider that religious Faith regards,on an individual believer and religious organizational level, Doubt as the only unforgivable sin. And understanding why atheists disbelieve the God -claim is the first step into Doubt, question, attempts to prove and collapse of, the faith.
No wonder they treat us as they do.
(1) which is why it is ok to fiddle, misquote, misrepresent and lie to make the evidence fit, and even crap evidence is still "Evidence" because its' only purpose is NOT to find out the facts, but to support the Faith.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-21-2016 at 08:28 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.
