Atheism & Theism...A Common Denominator

One mans dogma is another mans innovation, you seem very close minded in exploring anything outside your bubble. Are you afraid or something?

You're asking if I'm afraid to share your mental disorders? Of course not, it's only when you start believing your delusions are reality.

Wait a minute... :eek:
 
You're asking if I'm afraid to share your mental disorders? Of course not, it's only when you start believing your delusions are reality.

Wait a minute... :eek:

Hehe. Funnee. Isn't there empirical evidence of perceptual differences between people based on belief?

You're assuming its irrational, but I think there is an explanation for everything.
 
Maybe he is. After all, (Q) met the God he believed in since he rejects the one Lori believes in. After all, just because we assume there is an objective reality common to all does not necessarily make it anything more than a useful assumption/

People can gain plenty of experience by watching mistakes other people make without having to make the mistakes themselves.
 
(Q):

I don't think that is actually true. You spend all your time on sciforums arguing with those you assure us you do not wish to share space with. The evidence refutes your claim. You'd be lost without theists. :D

People can gain plenty of experience by watching mistakes other people make without having to make the mistakes themselves.

How would you decide what is a mistake?
 
(Q):

I don't think that is actually true. You spend all your time on sciforums arguing with those you assure us you do not wish to share space with. The evidence refutes your claim. You'd be lost without theists. :D

How would you decide what is a mistake?

Well, if I see a person get burned at the stake, I would think getting into that sitution would be a mistake.

So I have a learning experience without having to make that mistake myself.
 
Last edited:
Well, if is see a person get burned at the stake, I would think getting into that sitution would be a mistake.

So I have a learning experience without having to make that mistake myself.

So you would avoid situations that threaten your life. Like being a healer in a society where educated women are considered abnormal

yeah, either way you look at it, you're pretty much screwed. ;)

Yeah, painfully so. ;)
 
So you would avoid situations that threaten your life. Like being a healer in a society where educated women are considered abnormal

Survival instincts are there for a reason. If a doctor goes into the jungle to help those without a doctor and ends up dead then nobody wins.
 
People can gain plenty of experience by watching mistakes other people make without having to make the mistakes themselves.

Theists have been making the same mistakes for centuries, they never learn.
 
There there, you seem upset. Try not to be such a POS all the time and people will be nice to you.
 
i'm not debating. i'm just discussing.

maybe that's the problem!

i have no desire to debate about my experiences. i find it kind of offensive when people think that my life and experiences and perceptions of them are even up for debate. i find that arrogant.

Well it's an important distinction. I have religious and Christian friends, and I respect their experiences. However, none of them can point to anything that would convince a disinterested party that God exists. I think an important part of public discourse is examining the evidence on both sides, not just feelings. That's why science is so powerful, it does not depend on the authority of an individual.
 
That's why science is so powerful, it does not depend on the authority of an individual.

Every institution has an ole boys club. Just follow the money. Its a mistake to think scientific institutions are somehow different.
 
Well it's an important distinction. I have religious and Christian friends, and I respect their experiences. However, none of them can point to anything that would convince a disinterested party that God exists. I think an important part of public discourse is examining the evidence on both sides, not just feelings. That's why science is so powerful, it does not depend on the authority of an individual.

well, the evidence is for the individual as well. it's not meant to be shared i don't think. not in the way of "here, look at this thing. this is my evidence."

i suppose more than one person can experience something together that may be evidence for them both at the same time, but...that's not to say it would mean the same thing to both of them. most of the substantiation comes in a meaning that is personal. one that an individual can not deny.

i personally consider testimony as a form of evidence. that's because i don't assume that people are lying, BUT i would never profess to know god or even say i believed in god's existence based upon testimony of others. i'd just say i didn't know for sure one way or the other, and that i couldn't know until god proved it to me personally.

that's why i think i've had the experiences i've had, because i demanded it of god himself. it's just the only thing that made sense to me. i figured that he could handle the request if in fact he was god. otherwise i wasn't impressed.
 
Evidence that is only valid for one person isn't evidence. Evidence is by definition something that is accessible to anyone wether they chose to believe or not.
 
i suppose more than one person can experience something together that may be evidence for them both at the same time, but...that's not to say it would mean the same thing to both of them. most of the substantiation comes in a meaning that is personal

This is hardly rocket science. Every experience unless put into an artificial model and "standardised" is unique to the individual.

Imagine you me and (Q) walking down a street and running into Brad Pitt

Lori: My panties just hit the ground!
Me: Damn, thats one skinny pale kid. Eww
(Q): Why are you lying, I don't feel anything! [I'm assuming Q doesn't find Pitt arousing or skanky]
 
Back
Top