It's a great thread.
Get over it.
Jan.
Get over it.
Jan.
Are you saying that to take something someone has said out of context and then present it to give weight to ones world view is dishonest Jan?You know that's completely dishonest.
Not to mention a little desparate.
Because God is your source.
So you keep telling yourself.
Why do you?
Where did does the idea of obtaining knowledge come from, according to your worldview? What is the point of obtaining knowledge from such a worldview. Your worldview, IMHO accounts only for natural instinct, not logic, reason, or the pursuit of knowledge. You have to assume God, the resovoir of all knowledge, whether you believe so, or not.
You don't need to be God to stop animal cruelty, you just need to advance your intelligence.
Human beings aren't robots.
We come with sufficient knowledge to accept God, and to understand that we are more than our gross senses. It is man's own unsatiated desires, that turn into lust, that lies at the base of cruelty.
You would be more correct if our base instinct was to be cruel. But then it would simply be.just w
From a real atheist standpoint, there is no reason at all, to view cruelty as wrong, or heinous.
We have the ability to to act with compassion, empathy, and humility, because these attributes are part of God's nature, and God is our source.
Because the reality of its uneventful outcome awaits us all, if we don't shape up.
You'll have to explain that some more, I'm afraid.The same way you know anything that is natural to the human being.
Mere repetition does not advance your argument.For his invisible attributes (God) , namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Please give some examples, preferably ones relatable to the innate knowledge of God that you claim we all have.I don't think so. We are born with knowledge. There have been studies on this. It is called "Innatism".
How does being alive give one innate knowledge?By being alive.
There's no need for God to have made me in order for me to ask questions, as far as I can see. If you think only God could have made me, you'll need to explain why.Your ability to communicate these questions, for one.
Like what? You didn't answer my question.There are classic arguments for God.
Are you planning on sharing any of these mysterious classical arguments with your readers?I'm okay with them, as they haven't been rebutted IMHO.
The point is that you have not put forward a single "classical argument" for God yet, or anything else that is persuasive.What's the point James?
I see. This is how theists argue, is it? By refusing to make any actually points, instead offering up only repeated unevidenced assertions?You are arguing atheistically, and me theistically.
When I google it, I find the following three arguments, mainly:Google it.
I see. It was just another empty assertion from you. I expected as much. I keep catching you out, don't I?Find it for yourself. I haven't really got the time at the moment.
Perhaps you should ask directly: would you consider X evidence of God? Would you consider Y evidence of God? That should help clear things up for you, if you find previous responses insufficient.Negative.
I'm supposed to present your arguments for you? What an interesting notion. Here's an idea: make an effort, Jan.Present them.
What did I get wrong? Are you saying that you now hold that you believe in God due to evidence?This is how I know you're a bs'er James.
I'm not going to get into it with you.
Yes, Jan. The subject matter of theism and its refutation is God. Merely discussing a thing does not mean that it exists, other than as a concept or idea.Theists believe in God, atheists don't. Common denominator, God.
iceaura is right on the subject of the thread. The thread title is a lie you told at the start. It was exposed early on, and yet you persist.I'm not required to change the subject of my own thread.
You keep asserting that other people have knowledge. First, it was knowledge of God; now it's knowledge of evidence for God. You do this in spite of explicit denials from the people who you claim have this knowledge. Moreover, you refuse to present any of the supposed evidence you say everybody knows about.If you want to go in depth about the evidence for God (which you already know anyway), then start a thread.
Your words are belied by your actions.Personally I feel no need to argue with people who continuously reject and deny God, to support their amnesia.
I'm glad you find atheist psychology interesting. Eventually, you'll most likely work out why atheist psychology is like that.I find atheist psychology far more interesting, and relevant, and illuminating. That should be the topic of religious discussion. Instead of keeping it in the background.
That's not how it works, Jan, and by now you know it very well. Your ignorant act isn't fooling anybody.What Is nonsense is asking for evidence of something you believe does not exist.
How does anybody know this? How do you know, Jan?The reality is, you know God Is...
Your position is absurd, Jan. Can't you see that?..., but you reject and deny God to point actually believing it.
It's a great thread.
Get over it.
Jan.
Not your contributions.It's a great thread.
There should be a double like button☺So, let me channel my inner Jan...
They get sick of the utter crap on their religious forums and presumably find pleasure in crab walking however the positive is we get to observe the behaviour of this near extinct species first hand.The question is why overt Abrahamic theists post like that on science forums.
They are hardly an extinct species. There are plenty to be found.They get sick of the utter crap on their religious forums and presumably find pleasure in crab walking however the positive is we get to observe the behaviour of this near extinct species first hand.
Mostly I find that biblical literalists, evolution deniers and the like are not so much afraid of science as ignorant of it. It doesn't help that there are a lot of people who know better but who are quite willing to exploit that ignorance to gain followers for their own brand of religion.We should nevertheless make them welcome and hope that while here they may become less frightened by science ...
As things stand, he is stuck in a rut. As far as I can tell, he has actually given up on trying to argue his side. Mostly we just get mantras from him these days.I believe we can save Jan it will be a slow process but surely he must respond in time.
It is quite eye-opening. Not to concede any ground at all, no matter how often the weaknesses of your argument are exposed, takes quite some determination and a rather single-minded focus on the core beliefs, no doubt. Best not to even consider any ideas that might call the core beliefs into question.And as I have said we could thank Jan for showing us how theists conduct themselves and for being smart enough to cause a response..
Sure at the moment but their hold is less than it was and it will become less as the net helps educate the masses.They are hardly an extinct species. There are plenty to be found.
Minimal actual thought about the views of his opponents is required with that mindset.
I find it understandable.Not to concede any ground at all, no matter how often the weaknesses of your argument are exposed, takes quite some determination and a rather single-minded focus on the core beliefs, no doubt. Best not to even consider any ideas that might call the core beliefs into question.
Except, of course, stuff like the OP of this 100 page thread.There's nothing Jan can point to that's concrete evidence for his God. He actually goes to some lengths to avoid talking about evidence - most likely because he knows it is a battle he can't win.
I'm not really that interested in trying to "convert" Jan - or anybody else, for that matter. I don't believe that atheism is something you should be pushed into. For some people, I imagine it's kind of like having the rug pulled out from under them, violently.Yes but a continual drip will errode a mountain...I am that drip☺
Jan is coming around if not I will go over everything for him I dont care how many times I need to..I may need to make longer posts but I will do that for Jan☺ ... in fact I will make provision in my will to have a ghost writter post each day ... they can say what they want so long as they work in "superstition from the bronze age when folk did not know where the Sun went at night"...it will sink in sooner or later....and "its all made up".
Jan can be saved.
Jan wants to be saved.
Jan will be saved.
He is concerned to avoid overt battles over the substance of his beliefs. His posting, lately, seems more like evangelism to publicise his own beliefs, without offering any real argument. His repeated telling people what they know and think always brings a bit of smile to my face. If I were to say I liked apples, he'd tell me that really I don't at all, but I'm just in denial, and that I've been in denial so long that I've come in some sense to believe my own bullshit about the apples. Because, after all, Jan knows us all better than we know ourselves.Except, of course, stuff like the OP of this 100 page thread.
His posting seems to me unconcerned with "battles" in the sense of argument or discussion.
Please tell me he's not using that horse-crap to justify him being a troll, and a dishonest poster? Even if he was genuinely studying it, and doing so by kicking those hornets nest to see the reaction, it's clear that he's only ever been interested in those reactions that support the strawman atheist caricature that he's already built.Jan tells us he is studying the psychology of atheists.
Each to their own, I guess.From my side, I find Jan's own psychology moderately interesting.
The reasonable ones are those you can actually have a meaningful discussion with. The reasonable ones are those not looking to score points every time. The reasonable ones are those who actually listen to what the other says rather than insisting they conform to the strawman they would prefer to argue against.I know quite a few theists who are very able at defending their beliefs. They don't come across as having the need to pretend to know stuff that nobody knows. In that sense, they are more reasonable than Jan. As far as proof of God goes, they understand and concede the limits of that in a way that, apparently, Jan cannot.
Clickbait to increase traffic.He is concerned to avoid overt battles over the substance of his beliefs. His posting, lately, seems more like evangelism to publicise his own beliefs, without offering any real argument.
I've moved past that to finding if utterly disrespectful.His repeated telling people what they know and think always brings a bit of smile to my face.
Trolls do what trolls do.If I were to say I liked apples, he'd tell me that really I don't at all, but I'm just in denial, and that I've been in denial so long that I've come in some sense to believe my own bullshit about the apples. Because, after all, Jan knows us all better than we know ourselves.
I'm not really that interested in trying to "convert" Jan - or anybody else, for that matter.