(Q);
Non of that is correct.
Jan
Non of that is correct.
Jan
Do atheists indocrinate their children into their belief system?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
I could not possibly disagree more. Anyone who claims to be 100% certain of anything is a fool.
Trust is belief with reason to believe. I trust that my car will start, because it's in good working order. No faith in Nissan is required.
Faith is belief with no reason to believe. If you jump off a cliff, certain that you'll be the first person to start spontaneously flying, that's faith. Good luck with that.
Then, you have not made yourself clear. Clarify your position.
True.
But I am very ambitious and competitive.
I think it is almost always possible to do better than one currently does.
Like I said - I suspect that you have more peace of mind and certainty than I do. What causes me to suspect so is that some of the things you say, if I were to say them, I predict I would need a lot more peace of mind and certainty than I currently have.
Ok Jan. With all due respect, you seem to have been dodging an essential concept here.
Simply explain to us how theism in any form is based on objective fact. Based on some measurable, quantifiable phenomena. Based on anything other than teachings from (generally) ancient texts and/or word-of-mouth propagation.
In other words, explain why theism is not based on acceptance of hearsay (the testimony of others without substantive corroborating evidence).
Really, it's an honest question.
Simply explain to us how theism in any form is based on objective fact. Based on some measurable, quantifiable phenomena. Based on anything other than teachings from (generally) ancient texts and/or word-of-mouth propagation.
In other words, explain why theism is not based on acceptance of hearsay (the testimony of others without substantive corroborating evidence).
Really, it's an honest question.
Interesting. I now understand what you are. Me, 20 years ago. Fascinating, actually.
Don't be so sure of that.
And even if I "am you, 20 years ago", this does not necessarily mean that I will develop the same way you did.
:roflmao:
ahem! If you are going to attempt honesty, I suggest you start responding to points I put to you earlier.
I'm not sure how you are percieving things here.
Explain "free thought and valid skepticism", and how it doesn't apply in a theist household?
And what grounds do you accuse theism as pure acceptance of complete hearsay?
Jan.
Prick.
I was hoping you were kidding with this.
On the grounds that you have zero objective evidence that the foundational element of theism (a god entity) exists. Only the testimony of others.
So now, on what grounds do you consider theism as anything other than acceptance of hearsay? Or will you dodge this simple question as well? Or dance around it with another meaningless paragraph long post that completely fails to address the question?
Of course not.
But you seem to be a theist wannabe who just can't muster the courage to make the leap. You want to believe. Well, it's easy. Stop overthinking what the basis of "belief" is and just accept it. Your problem is that you want to believe and you want it to be logical and make sense. Not gonna happen.
superluminal
twat.
If I were to ask you the same question replacing the word theist with atheist, then the answer would be;
On the grounds that you have zero objective evidence that the foundational element of atheism (a god entity) doesn't exists. Only the testimony of others.
Personal experience, in some cases common sense, understanding some of what you class as hearsay in relation to present condition. Beauty, poetry, philosophy, science, art, love, compassion, empathy, intelligence, experience, understanding......
Now, are you going to answer my questions?
Explain "free thought and valid skepticism", and how it doesn't apply in a theist household?
And what grounds do you accuse theism as pure acceptance of complete hearsay?
Jan.
twat.
If I were to ask you the same question replacing the word theist with atheist, then the answer would be;
On the grounds that you have zero objective evidence that the foundational element of atheism (a god entity) doesn't exists. Only the testimony of others.
Personal experience, in some cases common sense, understanding some of what you class as hearsay in relation to present condition. Beauty, poetry, philosophy, science, art, love, compassion, empathy, intelligence, experience, understanding......
Now, are you going to answer my questions?
Explain "free thought and valid skepticism", and how it doesn't apply in a theist household?
And what grounds do you accuse theism as pure acceptance of complete hearsay?
Jan.
Declare omniscience this instant, or I will hold you to be a liar.
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
You are assuming she has no experience herself.
This makes absolutely NO sense. You are making a positive claim. I am making no claim. Lest you forget that the strawman argument "atheists claim there is no god" is a complete lie fabricated by frustrated theists.
And this to you is objective evidence that points clearly to a god in a wholly unambiguous way?
Ok.
I have no idea since I have no expsrience with theist households. Why don't you tell me how it applies?
Umm... I answered this pretty succinctly.
"On the grounds that you have zero objective evidence that the foundational element of theism (a god entity) exists. Only the testimony of others."
You can declaer me to be whatever you wish. You however, are clearly in a state of confusion and internal conflict by your very own words.
Last edited:
1) She's a he.
2) What the fuck does personal experience have to do with claims that an objectively real god exists? This is one of the dullest statements that theists keep throwing up as some kind of counter argument.
Personal testimony is factually USELESS as evidence or proof of a claimed objective phenomenon. How can you guys not understand this?
superluminal,
It makes complete sense. My claim is that I believe in God, your claim is you don't believe in God.
Do you believe in God?
No?
End of story.
Let's look at your original question,
It appears you have jumped the gun, as your response has nothing to do with my response to your original enquiry.
This is a normal tactic with militant/fanatical atheists, which is why I believe you are being dishonest.
Jan.
It makes complete sense. My claim is that I believe in God, your claim is you don't believe in God.
Do you believe in God?
No?
End of story.
Let's look at your original question,
Jan said:
It appears you have jumped the gun, as your response has nothing to do with my response to your original enquiry.
This is a normal tactic with militant/fanatical atheists, which is why I believe you are being dishonest.
Jan.
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
You used the word hearsay. That he was basing his belief on hearsay. If this person has experiences that indicate to him there is a God, you are incorrect. For you to base your belief in God on his testimony, that would be basing it on hearsay. This is very obvious and I am amazed you couldn't get it.
It is useless for you. It is not useless for the person who experiences something. Throughout history people have, at times, believed in things that could not be verified. They had experiences that others said were hallucinations or were misinterpreted. Nevertheless some of these turned out to be later verified.
Whether or not you think people should believe based on their personal experiences it does not fit with your assumption that all such belief is based on hearsay. Which was your assumption.
And before you get into a tizzy: I am not saying that personal experiences are evidence for you, a non-experiencer, or constitute proof in some way. I am saying that it can be a reason why some believers believe.
as far as 'How can you guys not understand this?" How can you not understand the distinction between how experience can be a foundation for one's own belief while not being proof for others.
Atheists blur, over and over, the two into one. Basing a belief on experience and assuming that this constitutes proof for others are two different things. I think you might be surprised how many theists get this.