Absolutely Nothing: Atheists on What They Know About What They Pretend to Discuss

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tiassa

Let us not launch the boat ...
Valued Senior Member

Click for a secret prayer.

This is a question for atheists at Sciforums: What do you actually know about the "gods" and religions you criticize and complain about?

I mean, the thing about all the atheistic criticism of religion and religious people I see around here is absolutely and disgracefully ignorant. It's almost as if "atheism" has become, at Sciforums, a supremacist identity movement worshiping self-love and intellectual sloth.

And it turns out that when you try to discuss things with these atheists, all they can do is bait and wait, as if they were some manner of divine predator hunting those they consider weak. Ask them what they know, they wait for someone to answer their petty challenge, because it's not about history or philosophy or scholarship; in the end, it reads like petty supremacism as a cult among ignorant people.

So, come on, instead of just failing to understand people they think themselves smarter than, perhaps the atheists at Sciforums might remember the idea of demanding proof of God. I'm asking something far simpler, that one be capable of showing a clue what they're on about, and aren't just another flapping, ignorant bigot.

No, really: Asking meaningless questions and waiting for some stupid, English language learning religious person to inadequately answer an idiot-stupid question the querient is not even capable of comprehending so that one can feel smarter for telling that person off is, well, worse than merely meaningless behavior.

So, yeah, I'm curious: Atheists at Sciforums have, traditionally, believed themselves smarter than religious people. And while the survey data might say this or that about college degrees and income, I'm curious what you actually know, because for years it's seemed like pretty much nothing. Is it ignorance, sloth, maybe some arcane sense of strategy? Because it really is striking how little knowledge is actually shown in these critiques; they're more like parlor games and wordplay.
 
Mod Hat — Splinter note


The first phase of the thread ran from its opening through #110↗, when it stalled in January, 2018.

The second phase began a year later, in January, 2019↗, as an extension of a policy dispute between moderators, and ran briefly, covering another hundred thirty-five posts before stalling out in a side dispute.

The third phase opened yet another year later, in February, 2020↗, and quickly became the bulk of the thread. Over the course of six and a half weeks, participants piled up 1,436 posts in an off-topic digression of particular focus before the thread was closed↗ according to dubious pretense.

This bloc of posts, splintered out, is that third phase.

[3 June 2020]
 
Last edited:
I've said on more than one occasion that there is no point in trying to convince someone to believe in God, they can only come to that position for themselves, as belief in general, is something that is included in your life's experience.
I agree with that statement.
But in no way does that mean you "know" anything about god. Your position is a belief, not knowledge.
Is it not a theist tenet that God is "unknowable"?
Thus by your claim of "knowing god" is prima facie false.

The implications of that are clear.
 
I agree with that statement.
But in no way does that mean you "know" anything about god. Your position is a belief, not knowledge.
Yep. And in another thread he said that while he believes things (like the Earth is round) he can't really know them. God is an even better example, since there is ample evidence for a spheroid Earth.
 
That is, if I wanted to convince somebody that water boils at 100 degrees Celcius, for example, and they were resistant to the idea, then I don't think there would be no value in trying to convince them about the truth.
The reality is, water boils.
It doesn’t matter in terms of usage, if it is 100 degrees Celsius, or not. In that sense it’s like trying to convince some that ice is cold, or water is wet.
Theist don’t need to be convinced of God, because theists always believe in God.
Atheists do not believe in God, so they are the ones that have to be convinced. But not through discussions, debates, or other theists.
Belief and dis-belief, on their own, are even.
 
I agree with that statement.
But in no way does that mean you "know" anything about god. Your position is a belief, not knowledge.
You don’t have to know about God to believe in Him. We have a spiritual connection with God.
Either you accept God, or not.
Any knowledge we may ensue, comes after that.
 
You don’t have to know about God to believe in Him. We have a spiritual connection with God.
Either you accept God, or not.
Any knowledge we may ensue, comes after that.

Yes, that makes perfect sense, so much so that anything can replace the word God and still make perfect sense.

You don’t have to know about fairies living at the bottom of your garden pond to believe in them. We have a spiritual connection with fairies.
Either you accept fairies living at the bottom of your garden pond, or not.
Any knowledge we may ensue, comes after that.

See, perfect sense.
 
Either you accept fairies living at the bottom of your garden pond, or not. Any knowledge we may ensue, comes after that.
See, perfect sense.
And if you don't bother to gain any knowledge, the fairies will forever live at the bottom of your garden pond. Makes perfect sense...:confused:
 
Well sure, didn't you know that? Everyone has that connection. Maybe you're denying that connection with fairies because you don't want to believe in them. Perhaps, you're an afairyist?
He knows the connection is there; he has to spend a lot of energy denying it. You can accept that connection - or not.
 
As Jan moves down the very lengthy list of gods, he puts an X on all the ones he doesn't believe in, like the rest of us, but leaving a check-mark on only one and then calls himself a theist and says that we're all in denial of believing in God.
 
As Jan moves down the very lengthy list of gods, he puts an X on all the ones he doesn't believe in, like the rest of us, but leaving a check-mark on only one and then calls himself a theist and says that we're all in denial of believing in God.
The Bhagavad Gita and the New Testament are not compatible God wise, and otherwise yet somehow Jan uses both to create her God. Magic.
 
As Jan moves down the very lengthy list of gods, he puts an X on all the ones he doesn't believe in, like the rest of us, but leaving a check-mark on only one and then calls himself a theist and says that we're all in denial of believing in God.
Yep. The list of gods he rejects is identical to the gods that atheists reject.*

(* - margin of error +/- 1%)
 
As Jan moves down the very lengthy list of gods, he puts an X on all the ones he doesn't believe in, like the rest of us, but leaving a check-mark on only one and then calls himself a theist and says that we're all in denial of believing in God.
What list is this?
Or is it an invisible one?
 
The Bhagavad Gita and the New Testament are not compatible God wise, and otherwise yet somehow Jan uses both to create her God. Magic.
Firstly, I’m a he.:rolleyes:
Are you trying to say I argue like a woman?:D

How on earth are they not compatible?
Please explain yourself.


Jan Ardena:

I talked about you in post #256

Your beliefs are confusing to me.

I have one belief.
I believe in God.
I accept any religion that focuses on love of God

Does that make things clearer.:O
 
Well sure, didn't you know that? Everyone has that connection. Maybe you're denying that connection with fairies because you don't want to believe in them. Perhaps, you're an afairyist?
Perhaps!
Perhaps you had too much darwin stew for breakfast.
 
Perhaps!
Perhaps you had too much darwin stew for breakfast.

Well, if we didn't have Darwin stew, we wouldn't have microbiology and the viruses God gave us would be ravaging the Earth. Maybe that's why you hate evolution, it helps us fight the diseases God plagues us with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top