Look closely Lekkat, can’t you see that most of these folks care not a rats damn about about your admirable social attitudes that help stabalize our culture and helps the spread of our imbued goodness to a world that needs to go our way?
They had much rather…
Correct your spelling. Correct your definitions. Stand over your desk with ruler raised daring you to question their judgement and the dusty dry knowledge that is found in their books.
Some say that they are atheists. Some say they are Atheists with a capital “T”. They are both wrong. There are no atheists, there are only lonely misguided people who need to understand the nature of human existence.
But be warned. They will argue with a stump. And they are good at it.
Teaching a pig to sing is admirable pursuit but it annoys the pig.
I didn’t decide hat God doesn’t exist. That WOULD be a decision, but it isn’t what characterizes an atheist.
People who don’t drive race cars professionally have different behaviors than those who do. So? We weren’t talking about behaviors, we were talking about whether lacking a belief is a particular type of belief. It is not.
?
The problem is that they are NOT confirmed via inference. This is not a case of “everything is true, or nothing is” as you would have it. It is a case us using inductive inference coupled with deduction to explore the world around us. And when we do it in a systematic, evidential manner, evolution is what is confirmed, while theories like YEC are disconfirmed. Inductive “Inference” doesn’t mean “make stuff up,” it means that we logically induce some facts from other facts.
Millum, as I said, I’m still waiting you to do contribute something of substance to this discussion. This is just the latest in your posts which contains nothing but backhanded insults.
You hint at having all the answers to this and that, having it much more under control than all the poor misguided atheists you (wrongly, since many here are Christians) assume we are, but until you are willing to actually advance a position other than “you’re all stupid and misguided!” your posts remain a waste of keystrokes.
I do not challenge your right to post here (rather than your irrelevant “free speech” issue). I simply note that you are a hypocrite for, on the one hand, claiming that persons should only address their own ignoirance while, on the other hand, trying to “correct” the positions stated on this board.
Your opinions have not been shown to be as valid as “any.” The only way that one can claim that all opinions are equally valid are to also claim that a two year old who wants to ride his trike on the freeway has as valid an opinion as to where he can ride as the operator of an 18-wheeler loaded with steel. (I certainly hope you raised your children exercising a better understanding of “valid” opinions.) Your opinions have been repeatedly “supported” by errors of fact, errors of logic, and a certain persistent dishonesty: that lowers the level of “validity” that they have in an open forum of discussion.
I do, however, agree that your ego is getting in the way of whatever process you use instead of ratiocination.
Thanks to Tom for using the word ‘ratiocination’ in the posting above. I’ve never encountered it before (and I’m not as young as I used to be either!). Tom’s correct use of the word moved me to look it up on www.dictionary.com (something I suggest lekatt do, but he should look up the following words instead: ignorance, reality, and obtuse) where I discovered what the word means.
Not only did that alleviate some ignorance in my life, it proved lekatt’s “theory of ignorance eradication” false.
Are you saying now that God exists, but you don’t believe in Him?
You are really confusing to follow, what does characterize an atheist?
How could anyone decide to be an atheist without making a decision to be an atheist?
Help me out here.
**
Exactly how does one lack a belief, without making a decision.
When did this lack happen to you, and what do you think caused it? If you didn’t choose to be an atheist, what sort of force made it happen that you now are an atheist?
**
Back up in the thread you said all things needed to be confirmed by inference, and now you say different, using a bunch of generalizations. You say “we logically induce some facts from other facts”, and that was exactly what I was doing also. How come it don’t count when I do it, but is ok when you do it?
The dictionary says induce means to lead on to some action, condition, belief, etc.; prevail on; persuade. It doesn’t say what to what.
You are contradicting yourself all over the place, I will stick with my original posts as correct. This post of yours changes nothing. You can’t prove what happened millions of years ago. No one can.
Millum, I think you have correct. Unfortunately these people have not been exposed to the teachings of integrity, truth and so forth. Maybe in the future this sort of instruction will find its way back into the school systems. But until that happens, home schooling has proved to more than compensate for the lack.
Having opinions, discussing those opinions, believing in those opinions does not constitute forcing those opinions on others.
This board is for debating differences of opinions, which I do.
As for validity, my opinions are as valid as yours, if you don’t agree with them that’s ok, I don’t agree with yours either, and I do it without calling you names.
Your example doesn’t seem to me to cover a board like this.
One has the right in this country to suggest alternate beliefs to others. The others may choose to follow them or not. We don’t have the right to judge others by our standards or our beliefs, and call them ignorant. I know you don’t understand that concept because it wasn’t taught in school.
As you know, you and I are wide poles apart on what we believe to be true. That said, I can agree with much of what you’ve stated here concerning posting on the board. I know from experience, you’ll get nowhere with these guys (no disrespect intended). They are always right and their “proofs” of their rightness are always right. According to them. No one else’s opinion or belief is valid because, after all, they have proof that it isn’t valid and their’s is valid. Any websites or links that someone posts to support their view is wrong and invalid if it opposes their view. And the links they post are always infallibly true, of course.
That’s why I don’t post a lot her anymore.
All I can say, is this appears to be a very hostile place for anyone disagreeing with the majority. Disagreements can be made without name calling and smart aleckness in my opinion. But not here, it seems. Anyway, have a nice day.
P.S. In my opinion, many of those here are just as arrogant and full of ego as they accuse others of being. How dare anyone challenge them and give a different opinion!
His4Ever: What you’re ignoring (and so’s lekatt, of course) is that those of us here who offer proof of our assertions to you do so with links to non-agenda driven sites. You offer up only sites that have no redeeming quality other than they agree with the prejudices that’ve been preached at you.
I believe Apos is saying that he, like a large number of other athiests (myself included), do not believe a god (Or gods) does or does not exist. I don’t know if there is a god, so I don’t believe in god. This is a good deal different than believing there is no god. Not coincidentally, this is the way skeptics look at most claims. For having such a big interest in spiritual matters, and constantly decrying athiests’ and skeptics’ “beliefs,” you seem to be incredibly ignorant about them.
I am aware of what rights one has in this country. After that statement, however, your thesis begins to break down. Ignorance is not a matter of belief; it is a matter of knowledge (or its lack). It may not be appropriate for me to judge or condemn you as a person because your beliefs differ from mine (particularly in the way that you continue to judge and condemn other posters’ beliefs based on your own inability to recognize what those beliefs are). However, it is quite acceptable to judge the quality of statements based on their adherence to accuracy and logic. From that perspective, I am quite capable of judging your statements to express ignorance, because you have posted errors of fact and logic.
However, you have actually missed the express point I made. I am not challenging your posts as a matter of ignorance; I do not claim you have no right to post, here. I have noted that you expressly claimed that
Despite this assertion on your part (an assertion with which I disagree on several levels) you choose to violate your own dictum by continuing to interrupt threads with errors while claiming to fight ignorance.
Certainly, you have the right to exchange views on this MB. However, since you claim that you can only fight your own ignorance, you are being a hypocrite in your posting.
Reqarding what I may have been taught in schools, you have leaped to the utterly unwarranted assumption that I was taught something differently than you were, in school, despite the fact that I am not much younger than you are. (More ignorance on your part.)
The fact of the matter is that I have made no judgement of your beliefs (your implied lie to the contrary), nor have I called you any names beyond pointing out your hypocrisy. I have, however, pointed out the differences between holding a belief and espousing an opinion as well as the differences between arguing honestly and dishonestly. Belief may be based purely on personal experience, Opinion (which always implies judgment) should be based on knowledge. You, however, lacking knowledge, insist that your opinions have the same validity as belief. This, of course, is not true, but you have not displayed the ability to understand that distinction.
Your “proof positive” of naval service? Any idea of how long it will be before you post it? Do you have to obtain documents, or have them scanned, or is there some other problem?
I agree with everything you say. It is hard to understand the deep intolerance shown by the posters, with little or no evidence. I have seen many spiritual people try to post here, but to no avail. However, they are their own worst enemies. I am through here with what I came to learn, so don’t know if I will stay a while or not.
One has only to read through that thread on Praagh that went 35-36 pages. The skeptics offered no proof anywhere, just a lot of opinions, and assumptions. If fact, they admitted what they were claiming couldn’t be proved. While I offered contolled scientific studies, scientific documentation and expert opinions and thousands of examples.
Webster’s dictionary defines atheist as “a person who believes that there is no God.” Seems like I understood that the same way most people do. If you are not sure about God then you are agnostic according to Webster.
Yes, I think I knew what I was talking about. But, of course, I wouldn’t know if you and other atheists changed the meaning of words without telling anyone.
Opinions are usually not based on knowledge, it is the lack of knowledge that makes them opinions. Who are you to say what my level of knowledge is, or me yours. I will stick with the rule of correcting one’s own ignorance before trying to correct others. I think what is lacking most is emotional knowledge. How to respect and understand through learning, rather than attacking.
Opinions are usually not based on knowledge, it is the lack of knowledge that makes them opinions. Who are you to say what my level of knowledge is, or me yours. I will stick with the rule of correcting one’s own ignorance before trying to correct others. I think what is lacking most is emotional knowledge. How to respect and understand through learning, rather than attacking.
So - do you need more time? Do you want to let us know when you might have that proof positive of your claimed naval career? Here, again, is your chance to correct ignorance.
Of course, if you prefer to spew out more vacuous platitudes, I won’t be surprised.