Self centred Christianity

Snaklord
“
That's why I am asking you to reiterate it in the context it was asked, namely nanotechnology.
”
As this was the only thing even relevant to my post, I will respond - although it should be noted that the previous answer to this was fully sufficient.
Click to expand...
strange that you can't reiterate in straight simple language
Only place I've seen nanobots or such things is on sci-fi programmes. I saw some nanobots on the Outer Limits and of course on Star Trek Voyager. I don't believe such things actually exist in our world right now - but might do in the future when we're on spaceships.

The above statement obviously, if nanobots exist, would be ignorance to the truth of the matter but there is no onus on me to go about proving that they don't... by... umm.. whatever method it is that you might assert that I would go around doing so.
Click to expand...
If this is your position on nanotechnology, its clear you are coming from the position of ignorance from fields other than theism
:rolleyes:
“
"Faith is superior to reason" is, to an atheist, like chocolate cake is to a fat kid.
”
Bizarrely daft statement, but feel free to support it whenever you feel able.
Click to expand...
You don't think atheists just love to eat (in the sense of challenge, ridicule, etc) such statements whenever they arise?
 
strange that you can't reiterate in straight simple language
Click to expand...

Sorry if English is not your first language. There's little I can do about that - although, if I recall correctly, I did offer to draw pictures. That offer still stands.

If this is your position on nanotechnology
Click to expand...

The issue was not about my position on nanotechnology. Kindly try and stay focused on the point.

You don't think atheists just love to eat...
Click to expand...

Bizarre. Once again: ".. feel free to support [your claim] whenever you feel able".

Should you forget what that was, which seems to be a regular occurrence, here's a reminder: "Faith is superior to reason" is, to an atheist, like chocolate cake is to a fat kid"
 
Snakelord“
strange that you can't reiterate in straight simple language
”
Sorry if English is not your first language. There's little I can do about that - although, if I recall correctly, I did offer to draw pictures. That offer still stands.
Click to expand...
Another opportunity to display your understanding of the word "reiterate" goes begging ....
“
If this is your position on nanotechnology
”
The issue was not about my position on nanotechnology. Kindly try and stay focused on the point.
Click to expand...
For a person who apparently detests thread bifurcation, you sure have an aptitude for it.

To reiterate -


We were talking specifically about nanotechnology.

You made the assertion that a person who does not believe it has no onus on them to know it.

I asked whether you recognize this is from the position of ignorance.

The question doesn't require pictures. Only a yes or no.

... so whenever you're ready ....
“
You don't think atheists just love to eat...
”
Bizarre. Once again: ".. feel free to support [your claim] whenever you feel able".

Should you forget what that was, which seems to be a regular occurrence, here's a reminder: "Faith is superior to reason" is, to an atheist, like chocolate cake is to a fat kid"
Click to expand...
Your snipped edit tends to indicate you didn't read it in full so I will post it again for your benefit.

You don't think atheists just love to eat (in the sense of challenge, ridicule, etc) such statements whenever they arise?
 
Another opportunity to display your understanding of the word "reiterate" goes begging ....
Click to expand...

Strange, considering I must have reiterated for you to make the statement that my reiteration wasn't in "straight simple language". I thought it was in straight simple language - but in English, which isn't straight or simple for some people.

We were talking specifically about nanotechnology.

You made the assertion that a person who does not believe it has no onus on them to know it.

I asked whether you recognize this is from the position of ignorance.

The question doesn't require pictures. Only a yes or no.

... so whenever you're ready ....
Click to expand...

Forgive me but this is truly bizarre. I answered the question posed and instead of saying you had a problem with what I said or that I hadn't answered it in a manner you desired, you said: "if this is your position on nanotechnology...." which, forgive if I am somehow wrong, seems to me to be a perfect indication that you did in fact understand and recognise exactly what I was saying. If you didn't, you would have given me the statement you're now giving me.

Now, to support my case let's look at the statement further. You said:

"If this is your position on nanotechnology, its clear you are coming from the position of ignorance.."

Well well, seems you didn't have any problem when I made the statement, why has it surfaced the minute I pointed out that my personal stance on nanotechnology isn't the issue?

Hmmm...

To answer your question again: Yes. If something exists and someone doesn't know it exists, (and believes it does or doesn't), one would be ignorant to the truth of the matter. Duh.


You don't think atheists just love to eat (in the sense of challenge, ridicule, etc) such statements whenever they arise?
Click to expand...

Bizarre. I quoted it in full and my statement is still the same:

Once again: ".. feel free to support [your claim] whenever you feel able".
 
Let's keep it simple.

We were talking specifically about nanotechnology.

You made the assertion that a person who does not believe it has no onus on them to know it.

I asked whether you recognize this is from the position of ignorance.

The question doesn't require pictures. Only a yes or no.
 
To quote my last post:

"To answer your question again: Yes."

Would you like me to answer it some more times? Were the three times that I did answer it somehow insufficient? Should I try it in a different language? If one does not know something exists, one is in a position of ignorance to its existence, (if it does in fact exist). Why are you even asking?

P.S No, we weren't talking specifically about nanotechnology. My post, (that you responded to), was concerned with onus and who it resides on. It had nothing whatsoever to do with nanites.

P.P.S Once again: ".. feel free to support [your claim] whenever you feel able".
 
SnakeLord said:
To quote my last post:

"To answer your question again: Yes."
Click to expand...
sorry

I didn't bother reading your post in full due to the high content of waffle.

The next question is whether knowledge places the person in ignorance under any onus. Once again, for the purposes of simplifying the discussion, we will try and stick to the topic of nanotechnology.
 
I didn't bother reading your post in full due to the high content of waffle.
Click to expand...

1. That suggests an attitude that somewhat puts me off continuing discussion with you. While I give you points for your apparent honesty, it suggests a bias before I even type a sentence - hence no point typing the sentence.

2. Kindly argue the argument, not the poster.

The next question is whether knowledge places the person in ignorance under any onus.
Click to expand...

Let me ask for clarification. Are you asking me whether the person ignorant to the truth of a subject has onus upon gaining knowledge of the subject? Or are you saying that because someone has a claim to knowledge of the subject the person ignorant of it has the onus to disprove the person that has knowledge of the subject?

Sorry, if you could just clarify exactly what it is you're asking me.
 
SnakeLord said:
1. That suggests an attitude that somewhat puts me off continuing discussion with you. While I give you points for your apparent honesty, it suggests a bias before I even type a sentence - hence no point typing the sentence.
Click to expand...
Over indulgence in waffle also throws a spanner in the works of continued discussion.

If it makes you feel better, that was the first post of yours in this thread I didn't read in full. I just had a gut full of it.

2. Kindly argue the argument, not the poster.
Click to expand...
It wasn't an argument.
It was an admission of the reason why I didn't read your post in full.



Let me ask for clarification. Are you asking me whether the person ignorant to the truth of a subject has onus upon gaining knowledge of the subject? Or are you saying that because someone has a claim to knowledge of the subject the person ignorant of it has the onus to disprove the person that has knowledge of the subject?

Sorry, if you could just clarify exactly what it is you're asking me.[/QUOTE
Perhaps more of the former, in the sense that knowledge empowers a greater handle on a situation.
For instance, a person is in a foreign country and is ignorant that they are driving on the wrong side of the road. Are they under any onus to gain that knowledge?
Click to expand...
 
Perhaps more of the former, in the sense that knowledge empowers a greater handle on a situation.
Click to expand...

That surely goes without saying. If I have knowledge of leprechauns, (I know, you'll get all defensive), then it would be true to state that I have a better handle on the situation with regards to leprechauns. As a non-believer, there's still no onus on you.

For instance, a person is in a foreign country and is ignorant that they are driving on the wrong side of the road. Are they under any onus to gain that knowledge?
Click to expand...

To stay in context: No, there is no onus on the individual to prove that people don't drive on the left hand side. Even if he sees 30,000 cars all drive on the opposite side, it could just be 30,000 law breakers. In this case the onus is on the person with the law book and the fine book. Here's your $50 fine and this is the law.
 
Snakelord
Perhaps more of the former, in the sense that knowledge empowers a greater handle on a situation.
”
That surely goes without saying. If I have knowledge of leprechauns, (I know, you'll get all defensive), then it would be true to state that I have a better handle on the situation with regards to leprechauns. As a non-believer, there's still no onus on you.
Click to expand...
maybe it would be better to say "non-comprehender" - unless you have a specific learning outcome regarding leprechauns in mind. (For instance if I didn't comprehend what a leprechaun was, part of the festivities of St patricks day might be alien to me)
“
For instance, a person is in a foreign country and is ignorant that they are driving on the wrong side of the road. Are they under any onus to gain that knowledge?
”
To stay in context: No, there is no onus on the individual to prove that people don't drive on the left hand side. Even if he sees 30,000 cars all drive on the opposite side, it could just be 30,000 law breakers. In this case the onus is on the person with the law book and the fine book. Here's your $50 fine and this is the law.
Click to expand...
perhaps if the recipient was suffering from some sort of autism or something ...

At the very least, the fact that a fine is issued, and that a repeat offender would face incremental incriminations tends to indicate the very clear laying of onus on the person in ignorance.
 
Last edited:
“ Originally Posted by Enmos
No, that's the entire point.
And as for your post before that, there is nothing to be proven in atheism. ”


“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
except perhaps the validity of its metaphysical claim ”


StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
Atheism makes no claims.
Click to expand...



lightgigantic said:
Your 3000 + posts tends to indicate otherwise .....
Click to expand...


No. They don't.
 
I would count atheism as a belief.
Not to be confused with a faith, but it does require a certain amount of belief to deny something exists just because you can not see it.
It's a double negative statement if you think about it.
Do two negatives equal a positive in this case?
Because you can't see God, you assume that proves He can't possibly exist.
 
Last edited:
TheVisitor said:
I would count atheism as a belief.
Click to expand...


You're fooling yourself.


TheVisitor said:
Not to be confused with a faith, but it does require a certain amount of belief to deny something exists just because you can not see it.
It's a double negative statement if you think about it.
Do two negatives equal a positive in this case?
Because you can't see God, you assume that proves He can't possibly exist.
Click to expand...


A gross, grotesque, gratuitous (malicious?) misstatement of atheism.
 
“ Originally Posted by Enmos
No, that's the entire point.
And as for your post before that, there is nothing to be proven in atheism. ”


“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
except perhaps the validity of its metaphysical claim ”



“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
Atheism makes no claims. ”




“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Your 3000 + posts tends to indicate otherwise ..... ”


StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
No. They don't.
Click to expand...


lightgigantic said:
Do you know what a metaphysical claim is?
Click to expand...


Do you know what proving a claim is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top