The difficulty of talking to Atheist

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Your own words tell me more about your mental faculties. Remember that.

Your continued, abysmally inept attempts at baiting tactics are noted. Also completely unsurprising, as you have nothing else in your arsenal.

If you did that, you'd only be forming an opinion.

Forming an opinion about the users here, their beliefs, their expressions of their beliefs, etc.

Also known as judging.

Haven't forgotten. Just never believed it. Still don't.

Don't care. I have these type of exchanges with believers for the benefit of people reading along. Not for me, and absolutely not for you.

I'm not legislating anything.

Good for you. You're still making claims that require substantiation.

Speaking of which, do you have anything else actually pertinent to the topic of purported 'spiritual truth', or are there further derails coming?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well......in a way.

Some of the arguments I hear about needing "objective evidence" and quite a bit of philosophical blah blah that some people seem to demand before they'll even consider a position seem to wreak of either desperate denial, or whatever they might want to call it. At the same time, they'll make decisions about important things throughout their lives based on nothing more than emotions or other impulses not governed by much thought. I've been trying to point this out lately, but my argument gets brushed aside and the topic gets derailed. Oh well, at least I tried.

I am pretty sure this describes all of humanity. You believe in deities and an afterlife without what I would consider evidence, but I bet we both would require some serious evidence to be convinced Bigfoot actually exists.

 

[PsychoSarah]

God is good.

According to god. And even that testimony is in question.

 

[Aldebaran]

I am pretty sure this describes all of humanity. You believe in deities and an afterlife without what I would consider evidence, but I bet we both would require some serious evidence to be convinced Bigfoot actually exists.

I think the fact that Bigfoot is brought up so much that there's a case right there that could be made for the idea of his existence. Since there are so many people who claimed to have seen it, along with some video evidence, doesn't it at least warrant discussion (although not here, of course)?

Same thing for God. Way more people have had experiences related to God.

 

[Aldebaran]

Your continued, abysmally inept attempts at baiting tactics are noted. Also completely unsurprising, as you have nothing else in your arsenal.



Forming an opinion about the users here, their beliefs, their expressions of their beliefs, etc.

Also known as judging.



Don't care. I have these type of exchanges with believers for the benefit of people reading along. Not for me, and absolutely not for you.



Good for you. You're still making claims that require substantiation.

It must feel good to get all that off your big hairy chest! What else does Mongo want?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

It must feel good to get all that off your big hairy chest! What else does Mongo want?

Thanks for continuing to make an example of yourself, and proving my point.

We've had two takers completely abandon the discussion so far. Anyone else care to take a crack at providing an epistemological model for 'spiritual' truth?

 

[Colter]

According to god. And even that testimony is in question.

You must be referring to the Bible?

 

[Aldebaran]

Thanks for continuing to make an example of yourself, and proving my point.

We've had two takers completely abandon the discussion so far. Anyone else care to take a crack at providing an epistemological model for 'spiritual' truth?

Maybe they didn't like the way you communicate with people. After all, this thread is titled, "The difficulty of talking to atheists". But I'm a sucker for difficult people. So, to address your question....The evidentialist might insist that while pragmatic arguments show that holding certain beliefs, including religious beliefs, is beneficial and therefore prudent, nevertheless that does not show that holding such beliefs is epistemically permissible, that one has not violated some epistemic duty in believing without evidence. I think a belief in God doesn't violate any idea of what is needed for spiritual truth to be considered actual truth.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Maybe they didn't like the way you communicate with people.

Who's 'they'? You're one of the people who abandoned the argument, as well as numerous other arguments throughout this thread.

The evidentialist might insist that while pragmatic arguments show that holding certain beliefs, including religious beliefs, is beneficial and therefore prudent, nevertheless that does not show that holding such beliefs is epistemically permissible, that one has not violated some epistemic duty in believing without evidence. I think a belief in God doesn't violate any idea of what is needed for spiritual truth to be considered actual truth.

I guess I was wrong when I accused you of using infantile baiting tactics as your last recourse. Apparently, you also have plagiarism at your disposal -
Religious Epistemology - bethinking.org

So again...

Anyone else care to take a crack at providing an epistemological model for 'spiritual' truth?

 

[Aldebaran]

Who's 'they'? You're one of the people who abandoned the argument, as well as numerous other arguments throughout this thread.

It's a little hard to have abandoned it if I'm still here discussing it.

I guess I was wrong when I accused you of using infantile baiting tactics as your last recourse.

No problem. Even the best of us get it wrong sometimes.
So, you liked my argument then? Me here is awaiting with baited breath for your reply to my most intellectual argument supplied to you straight from my fingertips, courtesy of my brain....

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

It's a little hard to have abandoned it if I'm still here discussing it.

You're not discussing it. Your only pertinent post on the subject in the past few pages was plagiarized from William Lane Craig.

So, you liked my argument then?

It's not your argument.

Me here is awaiting with baited breath for your reply to my most intellectual argument supplied to you straight from my fingertips, courtesy of my brain....

And now you appear to be trolling.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think the fact that Bigfoot is brought up so much that there's a case right there that could be made for the idea of his existence. Since there are so many people who claimed to have seen it, along with some video evidence, doesn't it at least warrant discussion (although not here, of course)?

Same thing for God. Way more people have had experiences related to God.

Not the same god as the one you worship. And I "experience" the sun orbiting the earth every day, I can see it "move".

 

[PsychoSarah]

You must be referring to the Bible?

What else would I be referring to?

 

[Aldebaran]

Not the same god as the one you worship. And I "experience" the sun orbiting the earth every day, I can see it "move".

Yes, the same God as I worship. There's no reason for you to assume otherwise since you don't claim to even know the God I worship.

 

[Aldebaran]

You're not discussing it. Your only pertinent post on the subject in the past few pages was plagiarized from William Lane Craig.

If you want it straight from me (since you don't want to hear it from one of those intellectuals who can answer your question to your satisfaction) so that you can argue about it until the end of time, I think it's safe to say that what you're looking for isn't something that can be discussed or argued about (as you seem so desperate to do). So, these beliefs are warranted for us, not by way of inference or argument, but in a properly basic way.

 

[Deidre32]

I think the fact that Bigfoot is brought up so much that there's a case right there that could be made for the idea of his existence. Since there are so many people who claimed to have seen it, along with some video evidence, doesn't it at least warrant discussion (although not here, of course)?

Same thing for God. Way more people have had experiences related to God.

Don't you believe that people can make stuff up, though? For money? Publicity? For a number of reasons. Big Foot doesn't exist. When we start accepting anything as truth, without any evidence...ANY to support it, then we might start redefining what truth actually is. Truth can't be all things.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

If you want it straight from me (since you don't want to hear it from one of those intellectuals who can answer your question to your satisfaction)

For the benefit of those reading along, I'd like to make something abundantly clear - you stole someone else's work and pretended it was yours. This is plagiarism, which is a form of lying. You were caught in the act, and are now trying to skirt over the fact rather than admitting to it and apologizing.

Again, thanks for continuing to make an example of yourself.

I think it's safe to say that what you're looking for isn't something that can be discussed or argued about

If you believe that, then there is no reason for you to have attempted to from the outset.

So once again...

Anyone else care to take a crack at providing an epistemological model for 'spiritual' truth?

 

[Aldebaran]

Don't you believe that people can make stuff up, though? For money? Publicity? For a number of reasons. Big Foot doesn't exist. When we start accepting anything as truth, without any evidence...ANY to support it, then we might start redefining what truth actually is. Truth can't be all things.

Of course they can make stuff up. But when you hear about the same things from different people in different places, don't you start to wonder whether there may actually be some credibility to the claims? There are quite a few claims: Bigfoot, UFOs, ghosts, etc. that have been reported by a great many people. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that all the people who reported all of these things made them up for some personal reason. The sheer volume of sightings, along with the fact that many of the reporters don't really have anything to gain by lying, if a source of credibility.

 

[Aldebaran]

For the benefit of those reading along, I'd like to make something abundantly clear - you stole someone else's work and pretended it was yours. This is plagiarism, which is a form of lying. You were caught in the act, and are now trying to skirt over the fact rather than admitting to it and apologizing.

Again, thanks for continuing to make an example of yourself.

This from a guy who plagiarized his very screen name from a group of guys who formed a band in their basement:

Eight Foot Manchild practice - YouTube


Anyone else care to take a crack at providing an epistemological model for 'spiritual' truth?[/quote]

There's a good reason other people aren't responding to you. Can you figure out what it is?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Maybe they didn't like the way you communicate with people. After all, this thread is titled, "The difficulty of talking to atheists". But I'm a sucker for difficult people. So, to address your question....The evidentialist might insist that while pragmatic arguments show that holding certain beliefs, including religious beliefs, is beneficial and therefore prudent, nevertheless that does not show that holding such beliefs is epistemically permissible, that one has not violated some epistemic duty in believing without evidence. I think a belief in God doesn't violate any idea of what is needed for spiritual truth to be considered actual truth.

"Spiritual truth" appears to be whatever one wishes it to be. To you, it is Jesus, along with a host of other doctrines relating to his divinity. To someone of a different religion it is something else. Why don't you see this as problematic? Different doctrines all make the same claim to "spiritual truth," yet none is able to demonstrate its "spiritual truth" in any meaningful way.