Non Religious Population on The Decline

[frigidweirdo]

Yeap, stupid people love to breed. It is the one thing that they can actually out compete the intelligent ones at. Most of the breeding world is fairly low on the IQ scale. Low IQ individuals tend to be the most religious. Ahhhh...the puzzle of life.

It does not require any intellect to deny everything that is presented.

I have yet to meet an atheist here who has impressed me with his intellect.

Doesn't take any intellect to believe whatever someone tells you either.

I have yet to meet a religious person here who has impressed me with THEIR intellect (not being sexist and assuming everyone here is a man).

Then it is a good thing that I have confirmed my beliefs through observation, reason and experience.

The problem is there's lots of information you don't know.

It's like people who say "it's cold here, therefore there's no global warming".

Such as?

How would you know what information I know and what information I don't know?

Well, I can tell from the way you write posts that you aren't really into lengthy posts.

A little research here, looking at past posts, I typed in "a" in the search along with your name and see what comes up.

First post, 2 lines, no sources.
Second post, 1 line, no sources.
Third post, image, no lines, no sources
Fourth post, 8 lines, no sources
Fifth post, 1 1/2 lines, no sources
Sixth post, 1 line, no sources
Seventh post, 7 lines, no sources
Eight post, 1 line, no sources

I could keep going on, most of the time you write a line or two, sometimes you write a little more. You don't bother to prove your point, you don't bother to go out of your way to make a decent case.

I've come across people like you quite often.

What you "know" is more about what you want to know, rather than what actually exists.

You said it yourself, your views are based on "observation, reason and experience."

Not on research, not on study, but on what you see around you.

If it's cold outside, your observation is that the Earth isn't cold, your experience is that it's cold. Reason suggests therefore that there isn't any global warming.

This isn't me saying you reject global warming, by the way, this is just an example of how some people process information.

You can't possibly understand a lot of issues just by experience and observation.


You're telling me that you've never met an atheist who has impressed you. Well, firstly this might say more about you than the atheist. It might say you'd never be impressed with an atheist because you believe in God, therefore when an atheist says something, you automatically reject it.

Secondly, on this forum, there are atheists, but certainly not ALL atheists in the world. So, your knowledge of atheists might be limited to a very, very small subsection of atheists. In which case your observations are exceedingly limited.


But let's try this.

If the universe was created by God, because things can't just appear out of no where, so they need a creator, then God couldn't have appeared out of no where either, God has to have been created.

Who created God?

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

My question is do you believe you have made an honest, objective assessment? Are your opinions fair? Have you looked at both sides?

Yes, I have examined Islam historically, politically and socially. I find that the principles of it and my value set are not congruent. Christianity, as I am culturally Christian, does match up well.

The reason I say this is that I am pretty sure you have not done that with Christianity, so I would naturally be suspicious if you had done this for Islam.

Well, let me state this. I have never lived in a truly Christian nation guided by and directed around Christian principles. The Christianity which we live around today is a mere husk (Christian holidays/churches etc) of what it was >100 years ago. I have however lived in a 99% Muslim nation (Turkey) which made a valiant attempt to become secular (Ataturk). Yet despite secularism still remains a very Muslim nation.
Other groups have suffered greatly despite Turkey's claim as a secular nation. Christians for example were at one time 150 years ago, a substantial minority, now they are all but gone save for a few select communities. Research it.
To the Muslim there will always be Dar Al Hard (House of War) Dar Al Islami (House of Peace). Secularism and Islam do not mix. Non Muslims and Muslims do not mix. This is the history of things. This is the reality of today.

Fun Fact: In the town that I lived there was a great big Mosque...built atop an Armenian Christian graveyard. Muslims do not play nice.

My understanding is that there was a time - albeit a long ago - when Muslims did tolerate and even embrace others from other cultures and beliefs.

As for my belief that your views are biased against almost all religions that believe in a higher power for man hasn't changed. I hope you don't mind.

Yes, there have been respites where Muslims have coexisted with other religions peacefully. However, many of these were under Muslim rulers who permitted 'people of the book' (Chr/Jew) to live. Also, what many do not talk about are things like jizya and dhimmi status. Or, represented such a small percentage of the population <2% in any given region or nation that it would have been counterproductive to raise a 'stink'.
However, whenever pops begin to break 10% there are almost always problems.

I cannot mind any opinion that's not mine. You are always respectful and raise decent questions.

My understanding of the "turn" was that it was due to nepotism whereby their leaders were selected from bloodlines rather than merit. Are we really that far away from that when we keep electing people on name rather than merit? Where we elect leaders who tell us what we want to hear rather than telling us what we need to hear? History repeats for a reason. It is a long wavelength event that the majority of people cannot readily see or don't want to see.

Well Mo selected his cousin Ali to be his successor. When Mo died, Abu took power instead of Ali...thus the schism between Shia (sptd Ali) and Sunni(Abu).
Whatever...not my cup of tea...they can keep that shit.

 

[ding]

It does not require any intellect to deny everything that is presented.

I have yet to meet an atheist here who has impressed me with his intellect.

Doesn't take any intellect to believe whatever someone tells you either.

I have yet to meet a religious person here who has impressed me with THEIR intellect (not being sexist and assuming everyone here is a man).

Then it is a good thing that I have confirmed my beliefs through observation, reason and experience.

The problem is there's lots of information you don't know.

It's like people who say "it's cold here, therefore there's no global warming".

Such as?

How would you know what information I know and what information I don't know?

Well, I can tell from the way you write posts that you aren't really into lengthy posts.

A little research here, looking at past posts, I typed in "a" in the search along with your name and see what comes up.

First post, 2 lines, no sources.
Second post, 1 line, no sources.
Third post, image, no lines, no sources
Fourth post, 8 lines, no sources
Fifth post, 1 1/2 lines, no sources
Sixth post, 1 line, no sources
Seventh post, 7 lines, no sources
Eight post, 1 line, no sources

I could keep going on, most of the time you write a line or two, sometimes you write a little more. You don't bother to prove your point, you don't bother to go out of your way to make a decent case.

I've come across people like you quite often.

What you "know" is more about what you want to know, rather than what actually exists.

You said it yourself, your views are based on "observation, reason and experience."

Not on research, not on study, but on what you see around you.

If it's cold outside, your observation is that the Earth isn't cold, your experience is that it's cold. Reason suggests therefore that there isn't any global warming.

This isn't me saying you reject global warming, by the way, this is just an example of how some people process information.

You can't possibly understand a lot of issues just by experience and observation.


You're telling me that you've never met an atheist who has impressed you. Well, firstly this might say more about you than the atheist. It might say you'd never be impressed with an atheist because you believe in God, therefore when an atheist says something, you automatically reject it.

Secondly, on this forum, there are atheists, but certainly not ALL atheists in the world. So, your knowledge of atheists might be limited to a very, very small subsection of atheists. In which case your observations are exceedingly limited.


But let's try this.

If the universe was created by God, because things can't just appear out of no where, so they need a creator, then God couldn't have appeared out of no where either, God has to have been created.

Who created God?

You said, "Doesn't take any intellect to believe whatever someone tells you either."

To which I replied, "Then it is a good thing that I have confirmed my beliefs through observation, reason and experience."

To which you replied, "The problem is there's lots of information you don't know."

To which I replied, "How would you know what information I know and what information I don't know?"

You then wrote a long response to rationalize that you do know what information I know and you do know what information I don't know. Right?

You don't. No one does but me. As soon as you admit that, we can go on. Fair enough?

 

[ding]

My question is do you believe you have made an honest, objective assessment? Are your opinions fair? Have you looked at both sides?

Yes, I have examined Islam historically, politically and socially. I find that the principles of it and my value set are not congruent. Christianity, as I am culturally Christian, does match up well.

The reason I say this is that I am pretty sure you have not done that with Christianity, so I would naturally be suspicious if you had done this for Islam.

Well, let me state this. I have never lived in a truly Christian nation guided by and directed around Christian principles. The Christianity which we live around today is a mere husk (Christian holidays/churches etc) of what it was >100 years ago. I have however lived in a 99% Muslim nation (Turkey) which made a valiant attempt to become secular (Ataturk). Yet despite secularism still remains a very Muslim nation.
Other groups have suffered greatly despite Turkey's claim as a secular nation. Christians for example were at one time 150 years ago, a substantial minority, now they are all but gone save for a few select communities. Research it.
To the Muslim there will always be Dar Al Hard (House of War) Dar Al Islami (House of Peace). Secularism and Islam do not mix. Non Muslims and Muslims do not mix. This is the history of things. This is the reality of today.

Fun Fact: In the town that I lived there was a great big Mosque...built atop an Armenian Christian graveyard. Muslims do not play nice.

My understanding is that there was a time - albeit a long ago - when Muslims did tolerate and even embrace others from other cultures and beliefs.

As for my belief that your views are biased against almost all religions that believe in a higher power for man hasn't changed. I hope you don't mind.

Yes, there have been respites where Muslims have coexisted with other religions peacefully. However, many of these were under Muslim rulers who permitted 'people of the book' (Chr/Jew) to live. Also, what many do not talk about are things like jizya and dhimmi status. Or, represented such a small percentage of the population <2% in any given region or nation that it would have been counterproductive to raise a 'stink'.
However, whenever pops begin to break 10% there are almost always problems.

I cannot mind any opinion that's not mine. You are always respectful and raise decent questions.

My understanding of the "turn" was that it was due to nepotism whereby their leaders were selected from bloodlines rather than merit. Are we really that far away from that when we keep electing people on name rather than merit? Where we elect leaders who tell us what we want to hear rather than telling us what we need to hear? History repeats for a reason. It is a long wavelength event that the majority of people cannot readily see or don't want to see.

Well Mo selected his cousin Ali to be his successor. When Mo died, Abu took power instead of Ali...thus the schism between Shia (sptd Ali) and Sunni(Abu).
Whatever...not my cup of tea...they can keep that shit.

Have you ever heard of the saeculum cycle?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Doesn't take any intellect to believe whatever someone tells you either.

I have yet to meet a religious person here who has impressed me with THEIR intellect (not being sexist and assuming everyone here is a man).

Then it is a good thing that I have confirmed my beliefs through observation, reason and experience.

The problem is there's lots of information you don't know.

It's like people who say "it's cold here, therefore there's no global warming".

Such as?

How would you know what information I know and what information I don't know?

Well, I can tell from the way you write posts that you aren't really into lengthy posts.

A little research here, looking at past posts, I typed in "a" in the search along with your name and see what comes up.

First post, 2 lines, no sources.
Second post, 1 line, no sources.
Third post, image, no lines, no sources
Fourth post, 8 lines, no sources
Fifth post, 1 1/2 lines, no sources
Sixth post, 1 line, no sources
Seventh post, 7 lines, no sources
Eight post, 1 line, no sources

I could keep going on, most of the time you write a line or two, sometimes you write a little more. You don't bother to prove your point, you don't bother to go out of your way to make a decent case.

I've come across people like you quite often.

What you "know" is more about what you want to know, rather than what actually exists.

You said it yourself, your views are based on "observation, reason and experience."

Not on research, not on study, but on what you see around you.

If it's cold outside, your observation is that the Earth isn't cold, your experience is that it's cold. Reason suggests therefore that there isn't any global warming.

This isn't me saying you reject global warming, by the way, this is just an example of how some people process information.

You can't possibly understand a lot of issues just by experience and observation.


You're telling me that you've never met an atheist who has impressed you. Well, firstly this might say more about you than the atheist. It might say you'd never be impressed with an atheist because you believe in God, therefore when an atheist says something, you automatically reject it.

Secondly, on this forum, there are atheists, but certainly not ALL atheists in the world. So, your knowledge of atheists might be limited to a very, very small subsection of atheists. In which case your observations are exceedingly limited.


But let's try this.

If the universe was created by God, because things can't just appear out of no where, so they need a creator, then God couldn't have appeared out of no where either, God has to have been created.

Who created God?

You said, "Doesn't take any intellect to believe whatever someone tells you either."

To which I replied, "Then it is a good thing that I have confirmed my beliefs through observation, reason and experience."

To which you replied, "The problem is there's lots of information you don't know."

To which I replied, "How would you know what information I know and what information I don't know?"

You then wrote a long response to rationalize that you do know what information I know and you do know what information I don't know. Right?

You don't. No one does but me. As soon as you admit that, we can go on. Fair enough?

I didn't ever claim to know what information you do know, or you don't know.

However you're making a statement and from what I can tell of the statement, it's a nothing statement.

It's like saying "all the gay people I know like to parade around naked in the streets" when you don't know any gay people. It doesn't mean anything.

How impressed you are by those atheists you've met is meaningless to me.

 

[ding]

Then it is a good thing that I have confirmed my beliefs through observation, reason and experience.

The problem is there's lots of information you don't know.

It's like people who say "it's cold here, therefore there's no global warming".

Such as?

How would you know what information I know and what information I don't know?

Well, I can tell from the way you write posts that you aren't really into lengthy posts.

A little research here, looking at past posts, I typed in "a" in the search along with your name and see what comes up.

First post, 2 lines, no sources.
Second post, 1 line, no sources.
Third post, image, no lines, no sources
Fourth post, 8 lines, no sources
Fifth post, 1 1/2 lines, no sources
Sixth post, 1 line, no sources
Seventh post, 7 lines, no sources
Eight post, 1 line, no sources

I could keep going on, most of the time you write a line or two, sometimes you write a little more. You don't bother to prove your point, you don't bother to go out of your way to make a decent case.

I've come across people like you quite often.

What you "know" is more about what you want to know, rather than what actually exists.

You said it yourself, your views are based on "observation, reason and experience."

Not on research, not on study, but on what you see around you.

If it's cold outside, your observation is that the Earth isn't cold, your experience is that it's cold. Reason suggests therefore that there isn't any global warming.

This isn't me saying you reject global warming, by the way, this is just an example of how some people process information.

You can't possibly understand a lot of issues just by experience and observation.


You're telling me that you've never met an atheist who has impressed you. Well, firstly this might say more about you than the atheist. It might say you'd never be impressed with an atheist because you believe in God, therefore when an atheist says something, you automatically reject it.

Secondly, on this forum, there are atheists, but certainly not ALL atheists in the world. So, your knowledge of atheists might be limited to a very, very small subsection of atheists. In which case your observations are exceedingly limited.


But let's try this.

If the universe was created by God, because things can't just appear out of no where, so they need a creator, then God couldn't have appeared out of no where either, God has to have been created.

Who created God?

You said, "Doesn't take any intellect to believe whatever someone tells you either."

To which I replied, "Then it is a good thing that I have confirmed my beliefs through observation, reason and experience."

To which you replied, "The problem is there's lots of information you don't know."

To which I replied, "How would you know what information I know and what information I don't know?"

You then wrote a long response to rationalize that you do know what information I know and you do know what information I don't know. Right?

You don't. No one does but me. As soon as you admit that, we can go on. Fair enough?

I didn't ever claim to know what information you do know, or you don't know.

However you're making a statement and from what I can tell of the statement, it's a nothing statement.

It's like saying "all the gay people I know like to parade around naked in the streets" when you don't know any gay people. It doesn't mean anything.

How impressed you are by those atheists you've met is meaningless to me.

In post #119 you wrote:

The problem is there's lots of information you don't know.

You don't know what I know and what I don't know, right?

So how can you know there is "lots of information I don't know?"

 

[ding]

Now let me address this statement.

You're telling me that you've never met an atheist who has impressed you. Well, firstly this might say more about you than the atheist. It might say you'd never be impressed with an atheist because you believe in God, therefore when an atheist says something, you automatically reject it.

Secondly, on this forum, there are atheists, but certainly not ALL atheists in the world. So, your knowledge of atheists might be limited to a very, very small subsection of atheists. In which case your observations are exceedingly limited.

What I wrote was this, "I have yet to meet an atheist here who has impressed me with his intellect."

So can you explain to me how you made the leap from what I wrote to I have never met an atheist who has impressed me?

 

[ding]

So now let me address this comment of yours.

I've come across people like you quite often. What you "know" is more about what you want to know, rather than what actually exists. You said it yourself, your views are based on "observation, reason and experience." Not on research, not on study, but on what you see around you. If it's cold outside, your observation is that the Earth isn't cold, your experience is that it's cold. Reason suggests therefore that there isn't any global warming. This isn't me saying you reject global warming, by the way, this is just an example of how some people process information. You can't possibly understand a lot of issues just by experience and observation.

You come across people like me quite often? What I know is more about what I want to know, rather than what actually exists? You don't know what I know and what I don't know. You don't know if I have been subjective or objective and you certainly don't know what kind of person I am.

Yes, my beliefs are based upon observation, reason and experience. Just like everyone else on this planet. Are you suggesting that you don't rely upon observation, reason and experience? Is there something wrong with relying upon observation, reason and experience?

Just because I didn't mention research and study doesn't mean the information I rely upon wasn't researched and studied. I'm fairly certain that when it comes to science what I know has been thoroughly researched and studied. In fact, when it comes to understanding the evolution of space and time which is the only evidence we have to evaluate the existence of a creator, it has been thoroughly researched, studied and evaluated.

As for your analogy that because it is cold outside that there can be no global warming, that is a red herring and has no bearing on what I rely upon for my beliefs. The reality is that the planet has been warming for the last 22,000 years as we are in an interglacial cycle and given that our present temperature is still well below the peak temperatures of the previous interglacial cycles we can expect it to warm further.

And lastly, I can't possibly understand a lot of issues just by experience and observation? You do understand this is the basis for science, right? So, yes, Yes, I can understand a lot of issues through experience and observation and reason.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The problem is there's lots of information you don't know.

It's like people who say "it's cold here, therefore there's no global warming".

Such as?

How would you know what information I know and what information I don't know?

Well, I can tell from the way you write posts that you aren't really into lengthy posts.

A little research here, looking at past posts, I typed in "a" in the search along with your name and see what comes up.

First post, 2 lines, no sources.
Second post, 1 line, no sources.
Third post, image, no lines, no sources
Fourth post, 8 lines, no sources
Fifth post, 1 1/2 lines, no sources
Sixth post, 1 line, no sources
Seventh post, 7 lines, no sources
Eight post, 1 line, no sources

I could keep going on, most of the time you write a line or two, sometimes you write a little more. You don't bother to prove your point, you don't bother to go out of your way to make a decent case.

I've come across people like you quite often.

What you "know" is more about what you want to know, rather than what actually exists.

You said it yourself, your views are based on "observation, reason and experience."

Not on research, not on study, but on what you see around you.

If it's cold outside, your observation is that the Earth isn't cold, your experience is that it's cold. Reason suggests therefore that there isn't any global warming.

This isn't me saying you reject global warming, by the way, this is just an example of how some people process information.

You can't possibly understand a lot of issues just by experience and observation.


You're telling me that you've never met an atheist who has impressed you. Well, firstly this might say more about you than the atheist. It might say you'd never be impressed with an atheist because you believe in God, therefore when an atheist says something, you automatically reject it.

Secondly, on this forum, there are atheists, but certainly not ALL atheists in the world. So, your knowledge of atheists might be limited to a very, very small subsection of atheists. In which case your observations are exceedingly limited.


But let's try this.

If the universe was created by God, because things can't just appear out of no where, so they need a creator, then God couldn't have appeared out of no where either, God has to have been created.

Who created God?

You said, "Doesn't take any intellect to believe whatever someone tells you either."

To which I replied, "Then it is a good thing that I have confirmed my beliefs through observation, reason and experience."

To which you replied, "The problem is there's lots of information you don't know."

To which I replied, "How would you know what information I know and what information I don't know?"

You then wrote a long response to rationalize that you do know what information I know and you do know what information I don't know. Right?

You don't. No one does but me. As soon as you admit that, we can go on. Fair enough?

I didn't ever claim to know what information you do know, or you don't know.

However you're making a statement and from what I can tell of the statement, it's a nothing statement.

It's like saying "all the gay people I know like to parade around naked in the streets" when you don't know any gay people. It doesn't mean anything.

How impressed you are by those atheists you've met is meaningless to me.

In post #119 you wrote:

The problem is there's lots of information you don't know.

You don't know what I know and what I don't know, right?

So how can you know there is "lots of information I don't know?"

Let's put it this way.

How many languages are there in the world? | Linguistic Society of America

"As of 2009, at least a portion of the bible had been translated into 2,508 different languages,"

"whose detailed classified list as of 2009 included 6,909 distinct languages."

So, there are 6,909 (or more) languages in the world, at least 2,508 of them have had Bible translations.

If you meet a person who can speak five languages people are like "wow, you must be really intelligent" That's not even 1% of the world's languages.

Ignorance is a given with humans. For you, for me, for everyone. No one knows even 1% of the world's languages, not a single person.

I know there is stuff you don't know. I don't necessarily know what that stuff is, but I know it's there. The same is said for me too. Ignorance is a given.

The problem is we use ignorance as a negative word, when really it should be a neutral word because we're all ignorant of many things.

Now, I was responding to your assertion that your view has been gained from "observation, reason and experience".

If this is where your information comes from, then I can assume there is a lot of information you don't know.

Take WW2 as an example. A guy fighting on the Italian front knows what it's like to fight in the Italian front. He knows his own person feelings, he knows the dangers etc.

Then take a historian, someone who wasn't born in 1945, who didn't fight on the Italian front or any other front, but has studied WW2 in depth.

Who knows more about WW2? The Historian who's studied it, or the guy who fought on the Italian front who has information that comes from "observation, reason and experience"?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Now let me address this statement.

You're telling me that you've never met an atheist who has impressed you. Well, firstly this might say more about you than the atheist. It might say you'd never be impressed with an atheist because you believe in God, therefore when an atheist says something, you automatically reject it.

Secondly, on this forum, there are atheists, but certainly not ALL atheists in the world. So, your knowledge of atheists might be limited to a very, very small subsection of atheists. In which case your observations are exceedingly limited.

What I wrote was this, "I have yet to meet an atheist here who has impressed me with his intellect."

So can you explain to me how you made the leap from what I wrote to I have never met an atheist who has impressed me?

Let's put it in context of what you said.

You said "It does not require any intellect to deny everything that is presented. "

No, it doesn't.

Then you said:

"I have yet to meet an atheist here who has impressed me with his intellect."

So, you've made a general statement about life, debating, talking politics. Then you make a slightly more specific argument by inserting the word "here".

The first sentence being so general, you can only make the assumption that you've never met an atheist who has impressed you with their intellect.

Otherwise you would have had to have added more information.

I mean, who comes on here and says "I've never met an atheist on here who's impressed me with their intellect" when they would also add "but I've met plenty down at the bar who have"?

The way you've written what you wrote IMPLIES that you've never met one here or anyone else, therefore you general statement above is correct. Otherwise why would you make that statement?

 

[frigidweirdo]

So now let me address this comment of yours.

I've come across people like you quite often. What you "know" is more about what you want to know, rather than what actually exists. You said it yourself, your views are based on "observation, reason and experience." Not on research, not on study, but on what you see around you. If it's cold outside, your observation is that the Earth isn't cold, your experience is that it's cold. Reason suggests therefore that there isn't any global warming. This isn't me saying you reject global warming, by the way, this is just an example of how some people process information. You can't possibly understand a lot of issues just by experience and observation.

You come across people like me quite often? What I know is more about what I want to know, rather than what actually exists? You don't know what I know and what I don't know. You don't know if I have been subjective or objective and you certainly don't know what kind of person I am.

Yes, my beliefs are based upon observation, reason and experience. Just like everyone else on this planet. Are you suggesting that you don't rely upon observation, reason and experience? Is there something wrong with relying upon observation, reason and experience?

Just because I didn't mention research and study doesn't mean the information I rely upon wasn't researched and studied. I'm fairly certain that when it comes to science what I know has been thoroughly researched and studied. In fact, when it comes to understanding the evolution of space and time which is the only evidence we have to evaluate the existence of a creator, it has been thoroughly researched, studied and evaluated.

As for your analogy that because it is cold outside that there can be no global warming, that is a red herring and has no bearing on what I rely upon for my beliefs. The reality is that the planet has been warming for the last 22,000 years as we are in an interglacial cycle and given that our present temperature is still well below the peak temperatures of the previous interglacial cycles we can expect it to warm further.

And lastly, I can't possibly understand a lot of issues just by experience and observation? You do understand this is the basis for science, right? So, yes, Yes, I can understand a lot of issues through experience and observation and reason.

If we go back to your argument, which was that you haven't met an atheist that has impressed you, what do we get?

Does this mean atheists aren't intelligent? No, it doesn't.

You've used your observations and evidence you've seen to make a case, but as far as I can tell the statement you made wasn't made with much effort at all.

This is what I've seen here, and therefore all atheists aren't very intelligent.

I'm no atheist. I could point to atheists being the same as religious people, they're believers. Too many people on forums like this BELIEVE what they want to believe.

"I believe there's a God." "Can you prove it?" "Fuck off you moron"

Is more or less the normal way a conversation happens on here.

With Atheists it's "I don't believe there's a God." "Can you prove it?" and it doesn't usually end in insults, but it also doesn't end up in a logical argument either.

I can go out and make my case for my argument.

You didn't do that. You merely said "this is what I see" without really backing your stuff up.

You could have provided more information.

HOWEVER..... I understand that a lot of people on this forum don't really like reading too much. You give them enough information and they merely say "no", so you feel like you've wasted your time.

In talking to you these past few posts I've learned a lot about you, but still, other things I'm not sure about and I still have assumptions that I can't disspell.


Here's the question then.

Do you think you can understand about atheists just by reading what they write in this forum?

 

[ding]

Such as?

How would you know what information I know and what information I don't know?

Well, I can tell from the way you write posts that you aren't really into lengthy posts.

A little research here, looking at past posts, I typed in "a" in the search along with your name and see what comes up.

First post, 2 lines, no sources.
Second post, 1 line, no sources.
Third post, image, no lines, no sources
Fourth post, 8 lines, no sources
Fifth post, 1 1/2 lines, no sources
Sixth post, 1 line, no sources
Seventh post, 7 lines, no sources
Eight post, 1 line, no sources

I could keep going on, most of the time you write a line or two, sometimes you write a little more. You don't bother to prove your point, you don't bother to go out of your way to make a decent case.

I've come across people like you quite often.

What you "know" is more about what you want to know, rather than what actually exists.

You said it yourself, your views are based on "observation, reason and experience."

Not on research, not on study, but on what you see around you.

If it's cold outside, your observation is that the Earth isn't cold, your experience is that it's cold. Reason suggests therefore that there isn't any global warming.

This isn't me saying you reject global warming, by the way, this is just an example of how some people process information.

You can't possibly understand a lot of issues just by experience and observation.


You're telling me that you've never met an atheist who has impressed you. Well, firstly this might say more about you than the atheist. It might say you'd never be impressed with an atheist because you believe in God, therefore when an atheist says something, you automatically reject it.

Secondly, on this forum, there are atheists, but certainly not ALL atheists in the world. So, your knowledge of atheists might be limited to a very, very small subsection of atheists. In which case your observations are exceedingly limited.


But let's try this.

If the universe was created by God, because things can't just appear out of no where, so they need a creator, then God couldn't have appeared out of no where either, God has to have been created.

Who created God?

You said, "Doesn't take any intellect to believe whatever someone tells you either."

To which I replied, "Then it is a good thing that I have confirmed my beliefs through observation, reason and experience."

To which you replied, "The problem is there's lots of information you don't know."

To which I replied, "How would you know what information I know and what information I don't know?"

You then wrote a long response to rationalize that you do know what information I know and you do know what information I don't know. Right?

You don't. No one does but me. As soon as you admit that, we can go on. Fair enough?

I didn't ever claim to know what information you do know, or you don't know.

However you're making a statement and from what I can tell of the statement, it's a nothing statement.

It's like saying "all the gay people I know like to parade around naked in the streets" when you don't know any gay people. It doesn't mean anything.

How impressed you are by those atheists you've met is meaningless to me.

In post #119 you wrote:

The problem is there's lots of information you don't know.

You don't know what I know and what I don't know, right?

So how can you know there is "lots of information I don't know?"

Let's put it this way.

How many languages are there in the world? | Linguistic Society of America

"As of 2009, at least a portion of the bible had been translated into 2,508 different languages,"

"whose detailed classified list as of 2009 included 6,909 distinct languages."

So, there are 6,909 (or more) languages in the world, at least 2,508 of them have had Bible translations.

If you meet a person who can speak five languages people are like "wow, you must be really intelligent" That's not even 1% of the world's languages.

Ignorance is a given with humans. For you, for me, for everyone. No one knows even 1% of the world's languages, not a single person.

I know there is stuff you don't know. I don't necessarily know what that stuff is, but I know it's there. The same is said for me too. Ignorance is a given.

The problem is we use ignorance as a negative word, when really it should be a neutral word because we're all ignorant of many things.

Now, I was responding to your assertion that your view has been gained from "observation, reason and experience".

If this is where your information comes from, then I can assume there is a lot of information you don't know.

Take WW2 as an example. A guy fighting on the Italian front knows what it's like to fight in the Italian front. He knows his own person feelings, he knows the dangers etc.

Then take a historian, someone who wasn't born in 1945, who didn't fight on the Italian front or any other front, but has studied WW2 in depth.

Who knows more about WW2? The Historian who's studied it, or the guy who fought on the Italian front who has information that comes from "observation, reason and experience"?

That was well said. To argue one can not form a belief without complete knowledge of everything goes against logic and the basis of science. Now you may argue that one cannot form a valid belief without complete knowledge but the logical conclusion to that would be that we would have to go through life not believing anything at all because we will never have complete knowledge of anything. So we are left with are the beliefs reasonable, right? And to this question, I answer yes, I believe they are. Why? Because reason forms the basis of the belief; observations serve as the confirmation of the belief; and experience serves not only as a proxy for things we cannot directly measure but also as a confirmation of the belief as well.

 

[ding]

Now let me address this statement.

You're telling me that you've never met an atheist who has impressed you. Well, firstly this might say more about you than the atheist. It might say you'd never be impressed with an atheist because you believe in God, therefore when an atheist says something, you automatically reject it.

Secondly, on this forum, there are atheists, but certainly not ALL atheists in the world. So, your knowledge of atheists might be limited to a very, very small subsection of atheists. In which case your observations are exceedingly limited.

What I wrote was this, "I have yet to meet an atheist here who has impressed me with his intellect."

So can you explain to me how you made the leap from what I wrote to I have never met an atheist who has impressed me?

Let's put it in context of what you said.

You said "It does not require any intellect to deny everything that is presented. "

No, it doesn't.

Then you said:

"I have yet to meet an atheist here who has impressed me with his intellect."

So, you've made a general statement about life, debating, talking politics. Then you make a slightly more specific argument by inserting the word "here".

The first sentence being so general, you can only make the assumption that you've never met an atheist who has impressed you with their intellect.

Otherwise you would have had to have added more information.

I mean, who comes on here and says "I've never met an atheist on here who's impressed me with their intellect" when they would also add "but I've met plenty down at the bar who have"?

The way you've written what you wrote IMPLIES that you've never met one here or anyone else, therefore you general statement above is correct. Otherwise why would you make that statement?

Are you trying to rationalize your error? I meant exactly what I said. I have not met an atheist HERE who has impressed me. You put words in my mouth I did not speak and then proceeded to attack me for the words you put there. We call this a strawman argument of your own making. And now you are rationalizing that you did nothing wrong. Thus proving that when man does wrong, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not do wrong. You have let the cat out of the bag that you follow a moral law that you did not make and can't seem to get rid of.

 

[ding]

So now let me address this comment of yours.

I've come across people like you quite often. What you "know" is more about what you want to know, rather than what actually exists. You said it yourself, your views are based on "observation, reason and experience." Not on research, not on study, but on what you see around you. If it's cold outside, your observation is that the Earth isn't cold, your experience is that it's cold. Reason suggests therefore that there isn't any global warming. This isn't me saying you reject global warming, by the way, this is just an example of how some people process information. You can't possibly understand a lot of issues just by experience and observation.

You come across people like me quite often? What I know is more about what I want to know, rather than what actually exists? You don't know what I know and what I don't know. You don't know if I have been subjective or objective and you certainly don't know what kind of person I am.

Yes, my beliefs are based upon observation, reason and experience. Just like everyone else on this planet. Are you suggesting that you don't rely upon observation, reason and experience? Is there something wrong with relying upon observation, reason and experience?

Just because I didn't mention research and study doesn't mean the information I rely upon wasn't researched and studied. I'm fairly certain that when it comes to science what I know has been thoroughly researched and studied. In fact, when it comes to understanding the evolution of space and time which is the only evidence we have to evaluate the existence of a creator, it has been thoroughly researched, studied and evaluated.

As for your analogy that because it is cold outside that there can be no global warming, that is a red herring and has no bearing on what I rely upon for my beliefs. The reality is that the planet has been warming for the last 22,000 years as we are in an interglacial cycle and given that our present temperature is still well below the peak temperatures of the previous interglacial cycles we can expect it to warm further.

And lastly, I can't possibly understand a lot of issues just by experience and observation? You do understand this is the basis for science, right? So, yes, Yes, I can understand a lot of issues through experience and observation and reason.

If we go back to your argument, which was that you haven't met an atheist that has impressed you, what do we get?

Does this mean atheists aren't intelligent? No, it doesn't.

You've used your observations and evidence you've seen to make a case, but as far as I can tell the statement you made wasn't made with much effort at all.

This is what I've seen here, and therefore all atheists aren't very intelligent.

I'm no atheist. I could point to atheists being the same as religious people, they're believers. Too many people on forums like this BELIEVE what they want to believe.

"I believe there's a God." "Can you prove it?" "Fuck off you moron"

Is more or less the normal way a conversation happens on here.

With Atheists it's "I don't believe there's a God." "Can you prove it?" and it doesn't usually end in insults, but it also doesn't end up in a logical argument either.

I can go out and make my case for my argument.

You didn't do that. You merely said "this is what I see" without really backing your stuff up.

You could have provided more information.

HOWEVER..... I understand that a lot of people on this forum don't really like reading too much. You give them enough information and they merely say "no", so you feel like you've wasted your time.

In talking to you these past few posts I've learned a lot about you, but still, other things I'm not sure about and I still have assumptions that I can't disspell.


Here's the question then.

Do you think you can understand about atheists just by reading what they write in this forum?

You are still putting words in my mouth. Make that argument without doing that and we can continue. It would be illogical to have a discussion that starts with a known error.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, I can tell from the way you write posts that you aren't really into lengthy posts.

A little research here, looking at past posts, I typed in "a" in the search along with your name and see what comes up.

First post, 2 lines, no sources.
Second post, 1 line, no sources.
Third post, image, no lines, no sources
Fourth post, 8 lines, no sources
Fifth post, 1 1/2 lines, no sources
Sixth post, 1 line, no sources
Seventh post, 7 lines, no sources
Eight post, 1 line, no sources

I could keep going on, most of the time you write a line or two, sometimes you write a little more. You don't bother to prove your point, you don't bother to go out of your way to make a decent case.

I've come across people like you quite often.

What you "know" is more about what you want to know, rather than what actually exists.

You said it yourself, your views are based on "observation, reason and experience."

Not on research, not on study, but on what you see around you.

If it's cold outside, your observation is that the Earth isn't cold, your experience is that it's cold. Reason suggests therefore that there isn't any global warming.

This isn't me saying you reject global warming, by the way, this is just an example of how some people process information.

You can't possibly understand a lot of issues just by experience and observation.


You're telling me that you've never met an atheist who has impressed you. Well, firstly this might say more about you than the atheist. It might say you'd never be impressed with an atheist because you believe in God, therefore when an atheist says something, you automatically reject it.

Secondly, on this forum, there are atheists, but certainly not ALL atheists in the world. So, your knowledge of atheists might be limited to a very, very small subsection of atheists. In which case your observations are exceedingly limited.


But let's try this.

If the universe was created by God, because things can't just appear out of no where, so they need a creator, then God couldn't have appeared out of no where either, God has to have been created.

Who created God?

You said, "Doesn't take any intellect to believe whatever someone tells you either."

To which I replied, "Then it is a good thing that I have confirmed my beliefs through observation, reason and experience."

To which you replied, "The problem is there's lots of information you don't know."

To which I replied, "How would you know what information I know and what information I don't know?"

You then wrote a long response to rationalize that you do know what information I know and you do know what information I don't know. Right?

You don't. No one does but me. As soon as you admit that, we can go on. Fair enough?

I didn't ever claim to know what information you do know, or you don't know.

However you're making a statement and from what I can tell of the statement, it's a nothing statement.

It's like saying "all the gay people I know like to parade around naked in the streets" when you don't know any gay people. It doesn't mean anything.

How impressed you are by those atheists you've met is meaningless to me.

In post #119 you wrote:

The problem is there's lots of information you don't know.

You don't know what I know and what I don't know, right?

So how can you know there is "lots of information I don't know?"

Let's put it this way.

How many languages are there in the world? | Linguistic Society of America

"As of 2009, at least a portion of the bible had been translated into 2,508 different languages,"

"whose detailed classified list as of 2009 included 6,909 distinct languages."

So, there are 6,909 (or more) languages in the world, at least 2,508 of them have had Bible translations.

If you meet a person who can speak five languages people are like "wow, you must be really intelligent" That's not even 1% of the world's languages.

Ignorance is a given with humans. For you, for me, for everyone. No one knows even 1% of the world's languages, not a single person.

I know there is stuff you don't know. I don't necessarily know what that stuff is, but I know it's there. The same is said for me too. Ignorance is a given.

The problem is we use ignorance as a negative word, when really it should be a neutral word because we're all ignorant of many things.

Now, I was responding to your assertion that your view has been gained from "observation, reason and experience".

If this is where your information comes from, then I can assume there is a lot of information you don't know.

Take WW2 as an example. A guy fighting on the Italian front knows what it's like to fight in the Italian front. He knows his own person feelings, he knows the dangers etc.

Then take a historian, someone who wasn't born in 1945, who didn't fight on the Italian front or any other front, but has studied WW2 in depth.

Who knows more about WW2? The Historian who's studied it, or the guy who fought on the Italian front who has information that comes from "observation, reason and experience"?

That was well said. To argue one can not form a belief without complete knowledge of everything goes against logic and the basis of science. Now you may argue that one cannot form a valid belief without complete knowledge but the logical conclusion to that would be that we would have to go through life not believing anything at all because we will never have complete knowledge of anything. So we are left with are the beliefs reasonable, right? And to this question, I answer yes, I believe they are. Why? Because reason forms the basis of the belief; observations serve as the confirmation of the belief; and experience serves not only as a proxy for things we cannot directly measure but also as a confirmation of the belief as well.

Of course we cannot be experts in everything either.

Reason forms the basis of belief, sort of.

The problem is in the US 69% of people are Christians, maybe another 7% are other religions, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs etc.
The kids of these people are brought up to believe, rather than to think. They often want to believe, for not believing would force them to admit their parents are fallible, that their parents could be wrong. Also there have been studies done which show that people will follow the masses. The masses can't be wrong, can they?

From religion people take their belief into things like sport. People will follow their team blindly. From there you get politics. People who will choose to believe what they want about a politician, regardless of the evidence they could find.

"Fake news" was a godsend to those people. For now they can simply say "no, it's fake news", they don't even need to pretend to think any more.

When you wrote what you wrote, my first thought is that you were merely doing this. I see that you are actually a rarity on this forum, someone willing to use their brain.

Observations are then used to back up their "reason". They'll see what they want to see, ignore what is inconvenient.

I remember when one of the attacks in either Paris or Brussels happened. "Why aren't the Muslims condemning these attacks?" they shouted out on forums like this.

It took me two minutes to find hundreds of Muslims who condemned such attacks.

But where are the people who are condemning the attacks on Muslim countries? Yes, they're there too, but they're not the same people demanding Muslims condemn attacks from Muslims.

As for experience, many of the people who are as I have explained are the people who haven't left their comfort zone. They've not been to Europe or Africa or Asia, yet they'll know EVERYTHING about what's going on there because they read about it in some biased opinion piece on the matter.

So, forgive me for jumping to conclusions sometimes that people on this forum are wrong.

If I want to make an argument on this forum I back it up with hard evidence. The first reason is because I might be wrong. How many times do I think something SHOULD be like something, and then do a search and find out it's not like that, or it's not so simple? Maybe half the time I come across a new subject.

I'm willing to find out the truth with my own research, I present the sources of my research so others can be critical of it, because I might have made mistakes.

Without a solid overview of things, the reason, observations and experience are often meaningless.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Now let me address this statement.

You're telling me that you've never met an atheist who has impressed you. Well, firstly this might say more about you than the atheist. It might say you'd never be impressed with an atheist because you believe in God, therefore when an atheist says something, you automatically reject it.

Secondly, on this forum, there are atheists, but certainly not ALL atheists in the world. So, your knowledge of atheists might be limited to a very, very small subsection of atheists. In which case your observations are exceedingly limited.

What I wrote was this, "I have yet to meet an atheist here who has impressed me with his intellect."

So can you explain to me how you made the leap from what I wrote to I have never met an atheist who has impressed me?

Let's put it in context of what you said.

You said "It does not require any intellect to deny everything that is presented. "

No, it doesn't.

Then you said:

"I have yet to meet an atheist here who has impressed me with his intellect."

So, you've made a general statement about life, debating, talking politics. Then you make a slightly more specific argument by inserting the word "here".

The first sentence being so general, you can only make the assumption that you've never met an atheist who has impressed you with their intellect.

Otherwise you would have had to have added more information.

I mean, who comes on here and says "I've never met an atheist on here who's impressed me with their intellect" when they would also add "but I've met plenty down at the bar who have"?

The way you've written what you wrote IMPLIES that you've never met one here or anyone else, therefore you general statement above is correct. Otherwise why would you make that statement?

Are you trying to rationalize your error? I meant exactly what I said. I have not met an atheist HERE who has impressed me. You put words in my mouth I did not speak and then proceeded to attack me for the words you put there. We call this a strawman argument of your own making. And now you are rationalizing that you did nothing wrong. Thus proving that when man does wrong, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not do wrong. You have let the cat out of the bag that you follow a moral law that you did not make and can't seem to get rid of.

I don't see an error here. Communication is fraught with misunderstandings. You say something that you mean, but it comes across differently to other people.

I'm telling you what you wrote sounds like. You can try and defend yourself, you can explain you meant something else, that's fine. But I've re-read what you wrote and I still think it means what I thought it meant in the first place.

As for your psychological evaluation on me, well.... you're wrong.

 

[ding]

You said, "Doesn't take any intellect to believe whatever someone tells you either."

To which I replied, "Then it is a good thing that I have confirmed my beliefs through observation, reason and experience."

To which you replied, "The problem is there's lots of information you don't know."

To which I replied, "How would you know what information I know and what information I don't know?"

You then wrote a long response to rationalize that you do know what information I know and you do know what information I don't know. Right?

You don't. No one does but me. As soon as you admit that, we can go on. Fair enough?

I didn't ever claim to know what information you do know, or you don't know.

However you're making a statement and from what I can tell of the statement, it's a nothing statement.

It's like saying "all the gay people I know like to parade around naked in the streets" when you don't know any gay people. It doesn't mean anything.

How impressed you are by those atheists you've met is meaningless to me.

In post #119 you wrote:

The problem is there's lots of information you don't know.

You don't know what I know and what I don't know, right?

So how can you know there is "lots of information I don't know?"

Let's put it this way.

How many languages are there in the world? | Linguistic Society of America

"As of 2009, at least a portion of the bible had been translated into 2,508 different languages,"

"whose detailed classified list as of 2009 included 6,909 distinct languages."

So, there are 6,909 (or more) languages in the world, at least 2,508 of them have had Bible translations.

If you meet a person who can speak five languages people are like "wow, you must be really intelligent" That's not even 1% of the world's languages.

Ignorance is a given with humans. For you, for me, for everyone. No one knows even 1% of the world's languages, not a single person.

I know there is stuff you don't know. I don't necessarily know what that stuff is, but I know it's there. The same is said for me too. Ignorance is a given.

The problem is we use ignorance as a negative word, when really it should be a neutral word because we're all ignorant of many things.

Now, I was responding to your assertion that your view has been gained from "observation, reason and experience".

If this is where your information comes from, then I can assume there is a lot of information you don't know.

Take WW2 as an example. A guy fighting on the Italian front knows what it's like to fight in the Italian front. He knows his own person feelings, he knows the dangers etc.

Then take a historian, someone who wasn't born in 1945, who didn't fight on the Italian front or any other front, but has studied WW2 in depth.

Who knows more about WW2? The Historian who's studied it, or the guy who fought on the Italian front who has information that comes from "observation, reason and experience"?

That was well said. To argue one can not form a belief without complete knowledge of everything goes against logic and the basis of science. Now you may argue that one cannot form a valid belief without complete knowledge but the logical conclusion to that would be that we would have to go through life not believing anything at all because we will never have complete knowledge of anything. So we are left with are the beliefs reasonable, right? And to this question, I answer yes, I believe they are. Why? Because reason forms the basis of the belief; observations serve as the confirmation of the belief; and experience serves not only as a proxy for things we cannot directly measure but also as a confirmation of the belief as well.

Of course we cannot be experts in everything either.

Reason forms the basis of belief, sort of.

The problem is in the US 69% of people are Christians, maybe another 7% are other religions, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs etc.
The kids of these people are brought up to believe, rather than to think. They often want to believe, for not believing would force them to admit their parents are fallible, that their parents could be wrong. Also there have been studies done which show that people will follow the masses. The masses can't be wrong, can they?

From religion people take their belief into things like sport. People will follow their team blindly. From there you get politics. People who will choose to believe what they want about a politician, regardless of the evidence they could find.

"Fake news" was a godsend to those people. For now they can simply say "no, it's fake news", they don't even need to pretend to think any more.

When you wrote what you wrote, my first thought is that you were merely doing this. I see that you are actually a rarity on this forum, someone willing to use their brain.

Observations are then used to back up their "reason". They'll see what they want to see, ignore what is inconvenient.

I remember when one of the attacks in either Paris or Brussels happened. "Why aren't the Muslims condemning these attacks?" they shouted out on forums like this.

It took me two minutes to find hundreds of Muslims who condemned such attacks.

But where are the people who are condemning the attacks on Muslim countries? Yes, they're there too, but they're not the same people demanding Muslims condemn attacks from Muslims.

As for experience, many of the people who are as I have explained are the people who haven't left their comfort zone. They've not been to Europe or Africa or Asia, yet they'll know EVERYTHING about what's going on there because they read about it in some biased opinion piece on the matter.

So, forgive me for jumping to conclusions sometimes that people on this forum are wrong.

If I want to make an argument on this forum I back it up with hard evidence. The first reason is because I might be wrong. How many times do I think something SHOULD be like something, and then do a search and find out it's not like that, or it's not so simple? Maybe half the time I come across a new subject.

I'm willing to find out the truth with my own research, I present the sources of my research so others can be critical of it, because I might have made mistakes.

Without a solid overview of things, the reason, observations and experience are often meaningless.

You should go and comment on every post I made in the Bull Ring on this topic. I have provided tons of evidence there. The debate is unfinished. The next part was going to be on the evidence of the moral law. You are more than welcome to take his place.

 

[ding]

Now let me address this statement.

You're telling me that you've never met an atheist who has impressed you. Well, firstly this might say more about you than the atheist. It might say you'd never be impressed with an atheist because you believe in God, therefore when an atheist says something, you automatically reject it.

Secondly, on this forum, there are atheists, but certainly not ALL atheists in the world. So, your knowledge of atheists might be limited to a very, very small subsection of atheists. In which case your observations are exceedingly limited.

What I wrote was this, "I have yet to meet an atheist here who has impressed me with his intellect."

So can you explain to me how you made the leap from what I wrote to I have never met an atheist who has impressed me?

Let's put it in context of what you said.

You said "It does not require any intellect to deny everything that is presented. "

No, it doesn't.

Then you said:

"I have yet to meet an atheist here who has impressed me with his intellect."

So, you've made a general statement about life, debating, talking politics. Then you make a slightly more specific argument by inserting the word "here".

The first sentence being so general, you can only make the assumption that you've never met an atheist who has impressed you with their intellect.

Otherwise you would have had to have added more information.

I mean, who comes on here and says "I've never met an atheist on here who's impressed me with their intellect" when they would also add "but I've met plenty down at the bar who have"?

The way you've written what you wrote IMPLIES that you've never met one here or anyone else, therefore you general statement above is correct. Otherwise why would you make that statement?

Are you trying to rationalize your error? I meant exactly what I said. I have not met an atheist HERE who has impressed me. You put words in my mouth I did not speak and then proceeded to attack me for the words you put there. We call this a strawman argument of your own making. And now you are rationalizing that you did nothing wrong. Thus proving that when man does wrong, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not do wrong. You have let the cat out of the bag that you follow a moral law that you did not make and can't seem to get rid of.

I don't see an error here. Communication is fraught with misunderstandings. You say something that you mean, but it comes across differently to other people.

I'm telling you what you wrote sounds like. You can try and defend yourself, you can explain you meant something else, that's fine. But I've re-read what you wrote and I still think it means what I thought it meant in the first place.

As for your psychological evaluation on me, well.... you're wrong.

I wrote exactly what meant. It would have been illogical to say there is no atheist who is not impressive.

I did not make a psychological evaluation of you. You believe in fairness (i.e. The Law of Right and Wrong). You did not make this law and you cannot get rid of it. You are no different than anyone else.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So now let me address this comment of yours.

I've come across people like you quite often. What you "know" is more about what you want to know, rather than what actually exists. You said it yourself, your views are based on "observation, reason and experience." Not on research, not on study, but on what you see around you. If it's cold outside, your observation is that the Earth isn't cold, your experience is that it's cold. Reason suggests therefore that there isn't any global warming. This isn't me saying you reject global warming, by the way, this is just an example of how some people process information. You can't possibly understand a lot of issues just by experience and observation.

You come across people like me quite often? What I know is more about what I want to know, rather than what actually exists? You don't know what I know and what I don't know. You don't know if I have been subjective or objective and you certainly don't know what kind of person I am.

Yes, my beliefs are based upon observation, reason and experience. Just like everyone else on this planet. Are you suggesting that you don't rely upon observation, reason and experience? Is there something wrong with relying upon observation, reason and experience?

Just because I didn't mention research and study doesn't mean the information I rely upon wasn't researched and studied. I'm fairly certain that when it comes to science what I know has been thoroughly researched and studied. In fact, when it comes to understanding the evolution of space and time which is the only evidence we have to evaluate the existence of a creator, it has been thoroughly researched, studied and evaluated.

As for your analogy that because it is cold outside that there can be no global warming, that is a red herring and has no bearing on what I rely upon for my beliefs. The reality is that the planet has been warming for the last 22,000 years as we are in an interglacial cycle and given that our present temperature is still well below the peak temperatures of the previous interglacial cycles we can expect it to warm further.

And lastly, I can't possibly understand a lot of issues just by experience and observation? You do understand this is the basis for science, right? So, yes, Yes, I can understand a lot of issues through experience and observation and reason.

If we go back to your argument, which was that you haven't met an atheist that has impressed you, what do we get?

Does this mean atheists aren't intelligent? No, it doesn't.

You've used your observations and evidence you've seen to make a case, but as far as I can tell the statement you made wasn't made with much effort at all.

This is what I've seen here, and therefore all atheists aren't very intelligent.

I'm no atheist. I could point to atheists being the same as religious people, they're believers. Too many people on forums like this BELIEVE what they want to believe.

"I believe there's a God." "Can you prove it?" "Fuck off you moron"

Is more or less the normal way a conversation happens on here.

With Atheists it's "I don't believe there's a God." "Can you prove it?" and it doesn't usually end in insults, but it also doesn't end up in a logical argument either.

I can go out and make my case for my argument.

You didn't do that. You merely said "this is what I see" without really backing your stuff up.

You could have provided more information.

HOWEVER..... I understand that a lot of people on this forum don't really like reading too much. You give them enough information and they merely say "no", so you feel like you've wasted your time.

In talking to you these past few posts I've learned a lot about you, but still, other things I'm not sure about and I still have assumptions that I can't disspell.


Here's the question then.

Do you think you can understand about atheists just by reading what they write in this forum?

You are still putting words in my mouth. Make that argument without doing that and we can continue. It would be illogical to have a discussion that starts with a known error.

No, again, I'm reading what you wrote, I understand this isn't necessarily what you wanted to write, but you did write it.

Concerning what you did actually write, are atheists intelligent? Not necessarily. I've discussed that point.

Maybe a little more explanation on what you do actually want to say would be in order.

It does not require any intellect to deny everything that is presented.

I have yet to meet an atheist here who has impressed me with his intellect.

It doesn't take intellect to deny, or to accept. So what's the point?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Now let me address this statement.

You're telling me that you've never met an atheist who has impressed you. Well, firstly this might say more about you than the atheist. It might say you'd never be impressed with an atheist because you believe in God, therefore when an atheist says something, you automatically reject it.

Secondly, on this forum, there are atheists, but certainly not ALL atheists in the world. So, your knowledge of atheists might be limited to a very, very small subsection of atheists. In which case your observations are exceedingly limited.

What I wrote was this, "I have yet to meet an atheist here who has impressed me with his intellect."

So can you explain to me how you made the leap from what I wrote to I have never met an atheist who has impressed me?

Let's put it in context of what you said.

You said "It does not require any intellect to deny everything that is presented. "

No, it doesn't.

Then you said:

"I have yet to meet an atheist here who has impressed me with his intellect."

So, you've made a general statement about life, debating, talking politics. Then you make a slightly more specific argument by inserting the word "here".

The first sentence being so general, you can only make the assumption that you've never met an atheist who has impressed you with their intellect.

Otherwise you would have had to have added more information.

I mean, who comes on here and says "I've never met an atheist on here who's impressed me with their intellect" when they would also add "but I've met plenty down at the bar who have"?

The way you've written what you wrote IMPLIES that you've never met one here or anyone else, therefore you general statement above is correct. Otherwise why would you make that statement?

Are you trying to rationalize your error? I meant exactly what I said. I have not met an atheist HERE who has impressed me. You put words in my mouth I did not speak and then proceeded to attack me for the words you put there. We call this a strawman argument of your own making. And now you are rationalizing that you did nothing wrong. Thus proving that when man does wrong, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not do wrong. You have let the cat out of the bag that you follow a moral law that you did not make and can't seem to get rid of.

I don't see an error here. Communication is fraught with misunderstandings. You say something that you mean, but it comes across differently to other people.

I'm telling you what you wrote sounds like. You can try and defend yourself, you can explain you meant something else, that's fine. But I've re-read what you wrote and I still think it means what I thought it meant in the first place.

As for your psychological evaluation on me, well.... you're wrong.

I wrote exactly what meant. It would have been illogical to say there is no atheist who is not impressive.

I did not make a psychological evaluation of you. You believe in fairness (i.e. The Law of Right and Wrong). You did not make this law and you cannot get rid of it. You are no different than anyone else.

Well if you meant exactly what you said, then I have to say that the insides of your brain must be whirling around like crazy. And no, it's not an insult, it's that I don't get it. It doesn't make sense to me.

Also I'm not so sure I believe in anything. Believing isn't really my thing.

I understand concepts of right and wrong, I can argue concepts of right and wrong, I might differ in what I think is right and wrong from what you think it might be.

I also understand that it's a human concept that people have taken aboard, but also that in life it doesn't seem to mean much.

Yes, it can be a basis for a better life for more people. But then again it might lead to a worse life for more people.

I don't believe it, I look and see and then understand. What do I know, not what do I believe.