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 word "religious" is used in various ways. To me, a person who believes in a higher power is religious, since they feel they are part of something greater.
Well if you want to redefine words to mean what _you_ want them to mean just so you can massage the figures and pretend the people who said they do not believe in a god somehow do - then that is your business.
The rest of us out here are pretty happy with what the words mean already without accepting your agenda and bias fueled reworking of them thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
My point was just that about half of scientists believe in some kind of supernatural power, so they are not atheists.
Again with your distortions. You have added the word "supernatural" here yourself. Again with the agenda to distort what the figures actually say into what you want them to say.
Perhaps some good faith and honesty would be a better approach for you in this conversation than the one you have thus far employed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
My goal is always to find the common ground, and to avoid extreme absolutist thinking. That is why I disagree with atheists.
And my goal is always to find the evidences claims, and ignore the claims that come without any evidence. That is why I disagree with theists. They have none.
There is no evidence that Darwin's theory explains the origin of species. But there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that it explains cosmic origins. How did you ever come up with that idea?
I said 'just for species'. But evolution (in the wider sense) became applied to cosmic origins too. Rather than all being Made, it was planets from a stellar disk, stars within gas clouds and galaxies from the Big -bang.
And there is evidence that Darwin's theory explains the origin of species. You just don't accept it. Even James Shapiro seems to accept it - he just differs on the method by which evolution - driving genetic change happens.
Since you accept evolution (as you told us) I don't even understand why the method is such an issue for you. It's isn't even relevant to the forum and certainly has no relevance to either god -belief or a lack of one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabfest
Is there any claims you haven't debunked?
Plenty were debunked before I came along. I suppose several were involved in the debunk of argument from morality, but I don't think I ever saw such a thorough debunk of the Gospels as I did. Nobody else seems to use the redaction criticism method. But I saw that Matt Dillahunty fielded the Nativity debunk using Gamaliel's speech in Acts (1), so unless he is a regular browser here, he must have thought that up himself.
(1) I'm quite pleased with that as it really does for the "2nd census" apologetic which was parrotted by the Bible -believers as a rewrite of the Bible to get over the date discrepancy.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-04-2018 at 04:31 AM..
Super-physical realities do not exist to you, because you don't experience them, because your mind doesn't work that way.
Why can't you just say that atheism is your personal truth? Why try to make it something universally true, just because it's your personal experience?
People experience the super-physical all the time. Just not you, and maybe not most atheists. There is no reason at all to try to impose your personal belief on anyone else. And no reason at all to express contempt for everyone whose experiences are different from yours.
Atheism is logical. 'super physical' experiences prove nothing other than that people have experiences. It is too vague, too unexplained, too open to misinterpretation and too subjective to count for anything. It is logical for atheism to disregard those experiences as evidence of anything because they are not. Please do not weary us with OOB and NDE -claims and "What other explanation can there be than a soul and God?" much less anything else covered by this vague 'super-physical' term, like unexplained coincidences or some problem suddenly vanishing and how to explain that other than God?
The "Your personal Truth" is yours and an increasingly evident god -belief that you have been extraordinarily cagey about. Atheists not seeing any good evidence for such beliefs (like half the scientists in a 90% believing country like America ought to tell you something) is the way it looks. Call it what you like, it isn't faith -based wagging about of irrelevant evidence like half the scientists not able to shake all the theism they were taught or some ongoing debate about the mechanics of genetic Darwinism (to coin a term).
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
....
How is Transponder imposing his personal belief on anybody else? How is any atheist?
...
You surely know the answer to that. True Believers are terrified about the rise of atheism and see it as a personal threat to themselves and the Dear Faith that they cling to like a bad habit they can't shake.
I always rather like it when they start getting accusatory and condemnatory. Shows they are running out of argument.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-04-2018 at 04:33 AM..
You have no rational counter arguments, so your best hope is to get it locked.
No, that is your game. You keep bringing up your misrepresentations of the science in the wrong section so that the threads get locked with your assertions.
Because you know that once you go to the science section, your denial of all the evidence you claim does not exist will probably get you a ban.
Wanting evidence before believing in something is "extreme absolutist thinking". It makes more sense to just believe in things with no evidence, because someone said so?
It is just another ad hominem and question begging from good4nuthin.
Super-physical realities do not exist to you, because you don't experience them, because your mind doesn't work that way.
Why can't you just say that atheism is your personal truth? Why try to make it something universally true, just because it's your personal experience?
People experience the super-physical all the time. Just not you, and maybe not most atheists. There is no reason at all to try to impose your personal belief on anyone else. And no reason at all to express contempt for everyone whose experiences are different from yours.
How many times do we need to explain how the often contradictory personal experiences are prone to cognitive bias, and are therefore useless as evidence for a god, but brilliant evidence for how our brains makes tricks? Considering your alleged PHd, we should not need to have done this the first time.
I said 'just for species'. But evolution (in the wider sense) became applied to cosmic origins too. Rather than all being Made, it was planets from a stellar disk, stars within gas clouds and galaxies from the Big -bang.
And there is evidence that Darwin's theory explains the origin of species. You just don't accept it. Even James Shapiro seems to accept it - he just differs on the method by which evolution - driving genetic change happens.
Since you accept evolution (as you told us) I don't even understand why the method is such an issue for you. It's isn't even relevant to the forum and certainly has no relevance to either god -belief or a lack of one.
Plenty were debunked before I came along. I suppose several were involved in the debunk of argument from morality, but I don't think I ever saw such a thorough debunk of the Gospels as I did. Nobody else seems to use the redaction criticism method. But I saw that Matt Dillahunty fielded the Nativity debunk using Gamaliel's speech in Acts (1), so unless he is a regular browser here, he must have thought that up himself.
(1) I'm quite pleased with that as it really does for the "2nd census" apologetic which was parrotted by the Bible -believers as a rewrite of the Bible to get over the date discrepancy.
It must get quite irritating when people want to continue to discuss topics you've already debunked. I've seen you post a couple of times "We've already debunked this or that topic".
Super-physical realities do not exist to you, because you don't experience them, because your mind doesn't work that way.
Why can't you just say that atheism is your personal truth? Why try to make it something universally true, just because it's your personal experience?
People experience the super-physical all the time. Just not you, and maybe not most atheists. There is no reason at all to try to impose your personal belief on anyone else. And no reason at all to express contempt for everyone whose experiences are different from yours.
Because some people do not accept evolution and some people maybe teaching their children against SS and /or evolution.
Everyone must be on one accord or else they are a danger.
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.
