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.
you need to verify that people say it (god) "loves"? or that people think its (god) "infinite"?
You continually post confirmation that something is going on with you. I don't know if your paid or you are that far out of touch with the reality of the situation. probably a bit of both.
I have got no idea what you are talking about here, so it hardly seems to be an accurate assessment of what I do or do not claim that people say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
I know that the existence of the external world (and other metaphysical concerns we haven't even talked about) are not validated data but things we believe without evidence. That's unless you count personal experience as evidence which, for obvious reasons, anti-theists are usually not willing to do.
I also know that I never said that the external world you observe is not real because someone posed that theory. Indeed, as I've made explicit numerous times, I've always been referring to your belief that the external world is real, not the alternative belief that it isn't.
So again, what do you know? That was the question you were asked, and I was only the second person to see that you evaded it.
I don't propose to deal with such a broad and rather silly question either. What I know (or don't) is immaterial; it's what has been scientifically validated. And the metaphysical speculations have not, so far as i know, been validated. If they have been, please give some examples.
His disciples didn't recognize him. He had a different "body" or was a spirit.
You have missed my point. If resurrection involves moving to a new body (as Paul says), then the old body would remain in the tomb. Which means the empty tomb is evidence for anything other than the resurrection (unless you want to argue Jesus was the exception).
I have got no idea what you are talking about here, so it hardly seems to be an accurate assessment of what I do or do not claim that people say.
I don't propose to deal with such a broad and rather silly question either. What I know (or don't) is immaterial; it's what has been scientifically validated. And the metaphysical speculations have not, so far as i know, been validated. If they have been, please give some examples.
lmoa, yeah, you don't know.
the base claim is to describe the universe using the best understanding we have. By using that/those understanding(s) we have a better chance of having self correcting beliefs.
Your base claim is to describe the universe in terms so that religious can't use it and make atheism harder to sell. You told that to me. I wish i saved all of posts you tried on me.
Your position is so much less valid, as a base claim, I can't think of many reasons reason why you hold onto it. I list the possible reason(s). Just like you could list the possible reason a person would hold onto the literal death and rising of Jesus when its such a clearly less valid claim.
If I list 5 reason I am very confident, if you were honest, that, at least, one would be correct. I would start at your childhood and political affiliations. They would probably shed the best light.
If you're not willing to explain your post when I sincerely ask for an explanation, then I guess that ends the discussion.
This is not the first time I've had difficulty understanding what you are saying, and I have seen others answer that they don't know what you're saying either, both on this forum and in private messages to me.
You need to realize your posts are confusing.
I do have some affection for you, because it seems you're trying.
Again, sincerely, no disrespect intended. It's just that many people here don't understand your posts.
yes, it does clarac. I mean no disrepect either, I mean that. Trans has a saying. "if youre not with us ... let us pass." ... I will hold the door for you.
You can't parse Arach's posts. Which are there, in the here and now, in front of your face, via your keyboard. You have time to study them. You can ask him for clarification, as you have done.
And yet, we are asked by Christians such as yourself to believe 3rd, 4th, and umpteenth-hand accounts of what Jesus "said" as recorded by anonymous men -- decades and centuries after his purported suicide/death-by-cop/resurrection -- who never heard him speak.
the base claim is to describe the universe using the best understanding we have. By using that/those understanding(s) we have a better chance of having self correcting beliefs.
Your base claim is to describe the universe in terms so that religious can't use it and make atheism harder to sell. You told that to me. I wish i saved all of posts you tried on me.
Your position is so much less valid, as a base claim, I can't think of many reasons reason why you hold onto it. I list the possible reason(s). Just like you could list the possible reason a person would hold onto the literal death and rising of Jesus when its such a clearly less valid claim.
If I list 5 reason I am very confident, if you were honest, that, at least, one would be correct. I would start at your childhood and political affiliations. They would probably shed the best light.
.
The only point in that mess of nonsense is the final bii of Projection - your political views as the clue to this antipathy toward atheism and a determined move towards some kind of god that you can talk yourself into.
Simply because you hate Socialism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC
If you're not willing to explain your post when I sincerely ask for an explanation, then I guess that ends the discussion.
This is not the first time I've had difficulty understanding what you are saying, and I have seen others answer that they don't know what you're saying either, both on this forum and in private messages to me.
You need to realize your posts are confusing.
I do have some affection for you, because it seems you're trying.
Again, sincerely, no disrespect intended. It's just that many people here don't understand your posts.
Arach, did you really just tell Clarac to bugger off?
That is total rubbish. Faith is the reason that someone believes something is true, the reason being the evidence of the thing believed being true.
Faith is described in the scriptures as "...the substance of thing(s) hoped for, the evidence of thing(s) not seen."
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
You cannot "have faith" in something for which there is evidence that is unequivocally true.
Since a jury can not find a person guilty unless they determine it is unequivocally true that the defendant committed the offense, so just because someone considers the evidence is unequivocally true does mean they don't have faith in their decision as member of the jury.
Last edited by mensaguy; 03-10-2019 at 05:24 AM..
Reason: Hopefully, I put the missing quote tag in the right place.
That is total rubbish. Faith is the reason that someone believes something is true, the reason being the evidence of the thing believed being true.
Faith is described in the scriptures as "...the substance of thing(s) hoped for, the evidence of thing(s) not seen."
Since a jury can not find a person guilty unless they determine it is unequivocally true that the defendant committed the offense, so just because someone considers the evidence is unequivocally true does mean they don't have faith in their decision as member of the jury.
But Buu is actually making a very good point and one that refutes the Theist apologetic that non -believers have as much faith and believers. Buu says just what atheists say - you cannot have 'Faith' of the religious kind, in what is adequately supported by evidence. We believe something with good reasons. That is not Faith. Faith is what one believes without valid evidence, and very often, in spite of it.
Last edited by mensaguy; 03-10-2019 at 05:25 AM..
Reason: Added missing quote tag inside the quoted post.
It doesn't matter. You use faith the way you need to maintain a less valid statement of belief about religion/god defining a less valid world view and theist use their faith to maintain the illusion of reality.
Not much different.
The rest of us understand that we have levels of faith so there is no need to define it literally. Blind faith is nonsense and observation based faith is more rational.
Yes. That's a good point. It isn't a 'believe or not' situation - and yet - it is.
There is a sliding scale of supportive evidence. Pretty much proven - like the Heliocentric system. Pretty high expectation of it being right - like Abiogenesis.
Something on the wire - like Goddunnit or Nature dunnit. Neither make much sense, so we are left without any real conclusion.
Then you get belief without evidence (Theistic evolution, for instance. It works fine without a god), and belief in spite of - like believing the Bible true when it demonstrably isn't. And there you also get degrees of how much one denies. The cherry -pickers reject what they can't believe. The Literalists believe a lot more of the Bible and have to deny, ignore and reject the evidence against. The degree of 'Blindness' in the faith varies.
So the sliding scale of evidence (and the denial of evidence) is important, and often ignored in favour of a Black and White 'Believe or Not' mindset.
And yet there is obviously a cut -off point where one either believes the various religious claims or not. Sure i get that the various claims can leave one Not Sure, and thus 'Agnosticism' (not being sure. Though I think in fact that 'agnosticism' is simply a way of unbelieving while still avoiding the hate name 'atheist. As well as, of course, having been taught to believe that atheism is a gnostic -denial stance, which it isn't.
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.
Arach, did you really just tell Clarac to bugger off?
