I wan to go by what IS. Are you saying I'm wrong on the difference between definition of and reason for?
This isn't merely asking for directions.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Or you could go with that the atheist tells you.
When you ask someone for directions do you automatically disbelieve them?
Oh, I see.
I've always accepted what you say as honest.
I thought we at least had common ground in assuming we were both being genuine with each other.
I'm sorry you feel that way about me. I shan't bother you again.
I'm just as assertive about my position when discussing anything online, be it Christianity, New Agers, wiccans, Scientologist, ufologists, etc.
Why ask, when they can create a strawman.
And your common sense is accurate in judging others, why exactly?Beats the heck out of a strawnothiongfornoreasonatall. And BTW, it that all some of you know to say? It really does get old, and I mean that in all sincerity.
Once again, sometimes we must go with common sense/what seems more logical, especially when no one was there to see the beginning.
Seems to me even scientists do that.
There you go again. You're calling me a liar.That doesn't answer to what I asked. It pretended I was talking about assertiveness, when I was clearly not. One might even say the answer was not truthful.
And your common sense is accurate in judging others, why exactly?
There is no point in my trying to discuss things with you if you don't think answers are truthful, is there?
No, it seems that I meant to type "who believe that there are", and missed the "there". Typos do happen.
I might have phrased it a little vaguely in my post - sorry, it was late and I am in a lot of pain right now - but I did address this in my post. The argument was not between sufficient reasons against God existing and sufficient reasons for God lacking.
As I said: "...sufficient reasons to reject the existence of God, topping sufficient reasons to believe in God."
Meaning: there are both sufficient reasons for and against God, and the person, for whatever reasons, prefers the against side. Such a person would not think there are no sufficient reasons for God, and still be an atheist.
If you consider the concept of "holding a (positive) belief" as a component of the term in question, and consider that "holding a belief" is limited to entities that are capable of holding beliefs - conscious living beings - then there are only two potential options: one either has such a belief, or one does not. Atheists are those people who do not have such a belief. Babies, if they don't have such a belief, fall into this group.
You wanted to know what it was that all atheists have in common. That is it. Why do you still refuse?
I am not insisting that infants are capable of holding beliefs, though I personally would still argue that they do. But that is an irrelevant point.If we limit ourselves to entities that are capable of holding beliefs, then infants would not be atheists.
To many, it might. To many others, it doesn't. Definitions are seldom universally shared.Once infants are excluded I have little quarrel. One persisting problem is this: there are many agnostics who do not identify as atheists, despite lacking belief in God. This is because the word "atheist" signifies something stronger than non-belief, as I noted earlier.
Not true.
The offence is not taken because you fail to live up to Christ's example.
Think about it. If that were the case atheists would be offended by every single person on the planet.
The offence come from the way you mischaracterise people you have not met and know nothing about: how is it possible that this surprises you?
The hilarious thing is you don't get what that movie is all about.
It's not ridiculing Christianity per se, in fact they purposefully put that scene with Jesus giving the sermon on the mount in there to show they weren't directly attacking Christianity, and showed Jesus in a respectful way.
The movie lampoons superstitious thinking, believing things without evidence or on poor evidence, and the idea of faith. It also ridicules the "sheep" mentality many religions encourage and a reluctance to think for yourself along with people dividing themselves over petty squabbles over basically nothing.
Perhaps if you understood the point of the movie, you may have learned something from it.
My understanding is that it is accepting Jesus' Sacrifice rather than good works that is important.
Oh! I think I get it. In response to my view that you do not understand atheism and do not care to learn you are simply pointing out that my view is correct and wanted to add in an appeal to popularity fallacy?
I've read the bible cover to cover, and I'm an atheist. In fact, pretty well any study I've seen consistently show that Atheists, followed up by Mormons have the highest levels of biblical knowledge.
I have also been to church in the past, I was even active in the youth group when I was a teenager for a bit. I actually enjoyed it quite a bit, and I have nothing against the people there. I just think their beliefs are false.
A great deal of those bibles are bought up by churches, seminaries and organizations like the gideons who then give them away for free.
Likewise, I have a bible and I'm an atheist.
I hope you don't really think that book sales equal truth. A lot of people can be convinced of false ideas for poor reasons.
If you want further proof, there's probably a couple billion copies of the Qur'an floating around too.
I really don't know what to say to that.
There have been a number of posts exchanged with you now - by me and others - where you were repeatedly told: no, what you say about us is false. This argument that you make is wrong. Here is a correction. And you still keep going on: "I don't believe you."
You are called out to this constant behaviour and you go "Huh, what did I do? I don't get it? What are you talking about."
Then you take the classic christian approach of "Well, I am not perfect, I am just a sinner"... without giving any hint that you acknowledge your failures and will try to correct them... and on top of all that giant demonstration of lack of self-awareness, you have the gall to tell us how much better at self-awareness you Christians are.
Classic. Comedy. Gold.
Yes you are.
Someone who could not parse that sentence would not display the intelligence you so obviously do.
Look, I know you and I don't see eye to eye but your posting style indicates to me that you are NOT stupid.
Don't play dumb. It's beneath you.
Are you a Calvanist? If I recall, there are only 144,000 names in said book, is that right?"The kindest acts of the wicked are cruel." Everyone who's name is not in the book of life is facing the lake of fire which is the place of the wicked.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?