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.
Because that is what we are ALL doing but I am presenting plausible hypotheses suggested by what we DO know. Arq, Harry, et al. are making factual claims despite our actual ignorance about the major issues.
Because that is what we are ALL doing but I am presenting plausible hypotheses suggested by what we DO know. Arq, Harry, et al. are making factual claims despite our actual ignorance about the major issues.
Mystic, you don't know either. You pretty much said so, here. "our actual ignorance "
So we say 'nobody knows, so it is no evidence'. You treat it as 'evidence'. Votes on who is being illogical.
Because that is what we are ALL doing but I am presenting plausible hypotheses suggested by what we DO know. Arq, Harry, et al. are making factual claims despite our actual ignorance about the major issues.
I would correct to say that your preaching are what YOU think plausible.
Mystic, you don't know either. You pretty much said so, here. "our actual ignorance "
So we say 'nobody knows, so it is no evidence'. You treat it as 'evidence'. Votes on who is being illogical.
The relevant word is "plausible" based on what we DO KNOW. You and your fellow atheists present no such plausible explanations and prefer to simply accept the state of ignorance and deny there is anything to know. Such denial and defeatism bespeak of lazy intellects. It is clear why you avoid and denigrate the entire field of philosophy.
I would correct to say that your preaching are what YOU think plausible.
speaking of mean spirited people.
Yes, he does say what is plausible. And you offer nothing but how you encourage non science evaluation of what he said and you offer nothing but "so you say" as counter evidence.
When your position lacks a mechanism and doesn't make a prediction it is less valid than one that do. How you "feel about it" based on the scar is meaningless.
The relevant word is "plausible" based on what we DO KNOW. You and your fellow atheists present no such plausible explanations and prefer to simply accept the state of ignorance and deny there is anything to know. Such denial and defeatism bespeak of lazy intellects. It is clear why you avoid and denigrate the entire field of philosophy.
The key word is "hate". They hate religion so much that they feel obscuring a proper evaluation out side of anti-god for militant atheism' social change is pointless to their cause.
This comment and a few others you have posted may illustrate the difference or another difference between Christians (most religious folks) and atheists. You speak in terms of finding "your truth" and mostly what seems the goal of achieving a certain emotional or comfort outcome. You make a point of noting our freedoms along these lines. You also take quite a bit of liberty to describe atheism as either a nothing-burger or the solution to all the world's ills for others. I am an atheist and I don't believe atheism to be either.
Back to the difference, for you and other religious folks there is more behind what you believe and why that atheists don't incorporate into their reason, logic and conclusions about what to believe and what not to believe. Again I can't speak for all atheists, but there really is no goal behind my thinking other than to get the facts correct and to understand reality for what it really is, nothing more nothing less, no matter how it makes me feel. Indeed, although I take comfort in much that atheism offers in this regard, there is much about reality as I understand it that doesn't sit so well with me too. Again no matter. Reality is what it is regardless.
Also true it is not revolutionary that people in a free-society (and even not-so-free-societies) can choose to believe this or that, but what became revolutionary thinking not too long ago is the pursuit of truth even when it conflicts with religious teaching, even when it conflicts with what makes us feel good, safe or immortal. Thinking that is strictly committed to the clear distinction between what we can all agree is true "beyond a reasonable doubt" and/or what is otherwise doubtful (and all degrees of truth or fiction in between).
Do you not see the problem with you telling me I'm religious? That's call pre-judging, just because I don't God slam. You start out with the wrong premise and then precede to state what you'd like to address to certain populations.
you are not about finding the best truth. You are about shunning and minimizing anything that theist could use to slow down your personal social change.
Do you not see the problem with you telling me I'm religious? That's call pre-judging, just because I don't God slam. You start out with the wrong premise and then precede to state what you'd like to address to certain populations.
remember grab, we slam based on what we feel is best for society. We don't slam based on how the person is behaving. Theist slam atheist, thats ok to theist. Atheist slam theist, atheist think that just good for the cause.
Neither really care.
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.
