Theist tries to tell atheists what they believe

RoccoR said:
RE: Belief Structure
SUBTOPIC: Causation
⁜→ et al,

In effect, this is a very valid position.



(COMMENT)

This "could be out there and I may well not know it" → is called The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR). The PSR supports the idea that: (paraphrased) everything must have a reason or a cause. It implies that the "reason may be elusive." But being elusive or unknown is not the same as being wrong.

1729600947342.png

Most Respectfully,
R
......
1730904579445.png
Click to expand...
Just a crutch for faith. GOD knows you folks need it. That still small voice, "Isn't this utter bullshit, really" needs drowning out lest ye must needs be thinking hard, and the dread follows.
 
exchemist said:
This seems quite wrong to me. Agnosticism simply means not knowing.

Not knowing something is not at all the same as "hedging". Hedging is making a provision, or placing a bet, to cover both outcomes, as indeed you indicate with your roulette example. But someone who does not know something is not placing any bets or making any provisions. They just don't know.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
To use the betting analogy, a theist bets on red. An atheist doesn't, but they need not bet on black.
An agnostic doesn't know what the result will be, and might think the result unknowable. And this may lead them (as in my case) to not betting.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
BUT sitting at the feet of the being that let you die and singing hosannas to it, what's not to love?
Click to expand...
Yeah that's not appealing to me.

Yhwh if he does exist and really did command the ancient Hebrews to the things they did? Then he is a disgusting monster and I want nothing to do with him.
 
James R said:
Noted.

Clearly, no devout theist would tell a blatant lie about this kind of thing. Jesus wouldn't tell a lie and Jesus wouldn't approve of one of his followers being a liar liar pants on fire.
So that sorts that out, then. Trek must be entirely legit and not at all a sock puppet of Jan Ardena.
Glad we cleared that up!
Click to expand...
There's something about Old Peter in this...

Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.

Pinball asks... "Are you Jan Ardena?"
Trek said:
No.
Click to expand...

DaveC42 asks.... "Are you Jan Ardena?"
Trek said:
NO!!!
Click to expand...

Trek said:
Are you actually accusing me of being Jan Ardena?
Click to expand...

You can tell there was no "Ten Commandments" poster in Trek's classroom.
 
Last edited:
gmilam said:
That would mean that consciousness cannot be created either. You must remember stuff from hundreds, even thousands of years ago!
Click to expand...
Yes it makes no sense, every sentient being that ever live has an ethereal mind floating around out there in the cosmos?
Toddlers who died from hunger in Ethiopia from hunger in the 1980s, infants who died and still die in child birth all over the world? What would they make of the that existence?
Or Homo sapiens from 100,000 years ago? It would be like an eternal bad acid trip.
A nonsense idea.
 
Maybe there's a consciousness pool... sort of like RAM in a computer. When we're born the system allocates consciousness to our subroutines. Then when we die it gets deallocated back to the consciousness pool. I don't know what happens to our local variables... :leaf:
 
If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their ass so much.

BTW, I lived through the Age of Aquarius, so I've heard all this before. I knew flower children who worked for Trump last election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top