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.
To challenge religious beliefs as true or false requires that you proceed from a knowledge that they are false.
No, I can start from knowing they could be either true or false, that one is more probable than the other, and whether the argument for that belief is good or not. For example, IWas has made to arguments for his god that actually means his definition of his god can not exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
You have no such knowledge for the basic belief in God because you have no way of knowing it is false. You prefer to believe it is false based on your view of probabilities.
Almost correct. I base my atheism on probability, not my view of probability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
That is NOT a knowledge of falsity.
It is also not Auntie Erica's Apfelstrudel recipe.
To challenge religious beliefs as true or false requires that you proceed from a knowledge that they are false. You have no such knowledge for the basic belief in God because you have no way of knowing it is false. You prefer to believe it is false based on your view of probabilities. That is NOT a knowledge of falsity.
And you could have told me you had corrected my wrong use of there / their in post 371!
No, I can start from knowing they could be either true or false, that one is more probable than the other, and whether the argument for that belief is good or not. For example, IWas has made to arguments for his god that actually means his definition of his god can not exist.
Almost correct. I base my atheism on probability, not my view of probability.
It is also not Auntie Erica's Apfelstrudel recipe.
To challenge religious beliefs as true or false requires that you proceed from a knowledge that they are false. You have no such knowledge for the basic belief in God because you have no way of knowing it is false. You prefer to believe it is false based on your view of probabilities. That is NOT a knowledge of falsity.
This is incorrect, and a surprising statement from someone who claims to be well educated.
Examining a claim certainly does NOT require that one assume it is either true or false at the onset.
Completely wrong. Consideration of whether this or that claim (religious or anything else) should start from no assumption and then follow the evidence where it leads. Mystic, this is basic logic.
You assume that taste in music is not true or false. Why do you assume the belief in God is true or false?
Quote:
What's even worse is that you foist your illogic onto atheists and accuse us of bias.Hoo, boy.
You invoke your bias when you demand that the default be "No God."
Examining a claim certainly does NOT require that one assume it is either true or false at the onset.
A most excellent point.
That is in fact what happens every single day, especially in the legal and law enforcement fields.
You have a set of facts. You don't know whether those facts are true or not, and you don't know exactly how the facts within a set of facts relate to each other, which is why you investigate, and should be investigating objectively to determine the veracity of the claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
There is no single "only way" to the Creator.
That's because there is no "Creator."
You only think there is a "Creator" because you think you're special and deserve something special when in fact you're rather ordinary and not deserving of anything special at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elyn02
I find that odd only because religious folks claim to be family oriented. That is the traditional role.
You don't have to be religious to be family oriented.
Conservatism is family oriented. There's the family, then you, then your extended family, then your community, then government.
Naturally, religious Conservatives will insert Zeus or Dyas-Pitar somewhere in that order.
I don't see that in that quote. It looks to me more like taking some responsibility for your own part in contributing to a bad situation. If someone is angry and you respond in anger then you've fed the cycle. You've reinforced the idea that they have a legitimate right to be angry. If you decide to respond to them in a way that treats them as a reasonable person with a valid grievance then that is what they are likely to become. That has the potential to make you partners in solving the problem instead of just trading insults.
Edit: not that's there's anything wrong with trading insults
seriously?
that's what you teach your kids? that's the kind of relationship you want them to have when they grow up?
that's the kind of partner you want to be with?
where you insult each other?
until that last line, the post made a good point about taking responsibility and problem solving.
which was cancelled out by the last line.
seriously?
that's what you teach your kids? that's the kind of relationship you want them to have when they grow up?
that's the kind of partner you want to be with?
where you insult each other?
until that last line, the post made a good point about taking responsibility and problem solving.
which was cancelled out by the last line.
The last line was a joke. You have a knack for spotting the one thing a person says that you can use against them. Why? I already told you the difference between you and me is I look for a point of contact were we can agree.
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.
