What have you learned.....

[Carcano]

I have come to the conclusion that some people, for biological reasons, lack the ability to come to certain epiphanies. such as the fact that Xenu is make-beleive. Much like sight, this is based on biological processes.

I knew you wouldnt be able to post on this thread without mentioning Xenu!

 

[Orleander]

I have learned that religion has nothing to do with tolerance. It is nothing more than a platform for believers to stand on to judge and belittle others.
And the atheists have a huge superiority complex with an even larger chip on their shoulders.

 

[Enmos]

I have learned that religion has nothing to do with tolerance. It is nothing more than a platform for believers to stand on to judge and belittle others.
And the atheists have a huge superiority complex with an even larger chip on their shoulders.

You are doing yourself a disservice by generalizing atheists like that.

 

[Simon Anders]

I have come to the conclusion that some people, for biological reasons, lack the ability to come to certain epiphanies. such as the fact that Xenu is make-beleive. Much like sight, this is based on biological processes.

Interesting huh? A person who can not understand Santa is madeup....

'Epiphanies' was an odd word choice to make your point.

Did you come to this conclusion while participating in discussions here?

 

[Simon Anders]

The worse possible answer to that enquiry is anything that is religious based. Why? Because you set yourself up to fail.

fail what?

 

[Leo Volont]

Well, most things we learn are adaptive -- the common arguments with the common replies... we learn how to express what we already believe like experts... we learn where the tire ruts are and follow them.

But to suggest something of the ironic in order to add zest to this thread, I have found that the Atheists lean heavily upon their own Doctrines which are never to be examined. I've even seen it admitted to a few times, where the use the term PRIMA FACIE, ordinarily referring to the rules of legal evidence, in this case in reference to evidence too plain and obvious to be subject to review. Well, it seems that Science has defined a set of its own Prima Facie, that it takes as Granted. Some of it makes sense -- the Newtonian Laws of Physics and Conservation of Energy, but their Prima Facie Case is endlessly extended through infinitely multiplied correlaries so that it is fairly stated among them that NO RELIGIOUS ASSERTION CAN EVER BE TRUE. So it is that all observation and anecdotal observation is instantly dismissed from sheer Prima Facie Assumptions.

There was the case of Prahlad Jnani in India, where the Sterling Hospital, with Trained Western Style Doctors did a formal study of Prahlad Jnani not having eaten a thing for 65 years. They locked him up for 10 or 11 days and quantified everything and reported their observed findings. Upon Western Peer Review IT WAS ALL DISMISSED PRIMA FACIE -- IF IT CAN'T BE TRUE, WHY EVEN LOOK AT IT.

Atheists had always blamed the Religious for being bound to ossified Doctrines. Well, they need to look in the mirror on this one. They need to see how much they simply dismiss out of hand as conflicting with their Accepted Doctrines -- mostly that Nothing Religious Can Ever Be True.

 

[Leo Volont]

Well, most things we learn are adaptive -- the common arguments with the common replies... we learn how to express what we already believe like experts... we learn where the tire ruts are and follow them.

But to suggest something of the ironic in order to add zest to this thread, I have found that the Atheists lean heavily upon their own Doctrines which are never to be examined. I've even seen it admitted to a few times, where the use the term PRIMA FACIE, ordinarily referring to the rules of legal evidence, in this case in reference to evidence too plain and obvious to be subject to review. Well, it seems that Science has defined a set of its own Prima Facie, that it takes as Granted. Some of it makes sense -- the Newtonian Laws of Physics and Conservation of Energy, but their Prima Facie Case is endlessly extended through infinitely multiplied correlaries so that it is fairly stated among them that NO RELIGIOUS ASSERTION CAN EVER BE TRUE. So it is that all observation and anecdotal observation is instantly dismissed from sheer Prima Facie Assumptions.

There was the case of Prahlad Jnani in India, where the Sterling Hospital, with Trained Western Style Doctors did a formal study of Prahlad Jnani not having eaten a thing for 65 years. They locked him up for 10 or 11 days and quantified everything and reported their observed findings. Upon Western Peer Review IT WAS ALL DISMISSED PRIMA FACIE -- IF IT CAN'T BE TRUE, WHY EVEN LOOK AT IT.

Atheists had always blamed the Religious for being bound to ossified Doctrines. Well, they need to look in the mirror on this one. They need to see how much they simply dismiss out of hand as conflicting with their Accepted Doctrines -- mostly that Nothing Religious Can Ever Be True.

 

[SkinWalker]

I have found that the Atheists lean heavily upon their own Doctrines which are never to be examined.

Which "doctrines" are atheists supposed to "lean upon?" I wasn't aware of them.