What Do People Know About What They Pretend to Discuss?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Tiassa, Nov 15, 2017.

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

    Your evangelism.

    And, sure, I just did that cartoon thing, essentially pointing to all of you, but these seventeen-plus years later, do you know why, compared to rational discourse, these people keep you around? Don't get me wrong: You're generally beyond communication, Jan. The most accessible description of the problem would probably be that you seem more interested in the feeling of being some kind of evangelist trying to tell people what is what than actually saying anything useful.

    To the other, though, I will acknowledge that one of my criticisms does end up with a peculiar implication: I'd have to look up precisely what it was, but there was an occasion around the time this thread opened that some particular idea was on the table and seemed to evade your grasp, but it turned up some time later in your argument about another discussion, and while I can't substantially connect the two occasions, any connection would likely suggest you went and looked up a word and then, knowing the basic definition, screwed up how it's used, what would stand out by any connection is the idea that you have a pulse insofar as somewhere in there you would have gone and looked something up. Compared to the flatliners, sure, that would be, well, something.

    Another way of looking at it is to consider that someone might think they're smarter and better than you, but there comes a point at which we might wonder, to borrow a line, is our children leraning; and if that person is acquiring any useful knowledge along the way, then why not show it? The answer resolves as a matter of priorities: Sometimes it comes down to one being, quite simply, either unable or unwilling to do something. As a matter of priorities, if one has been learning necessary components along the way, but never put them toward actually resolving a question or issue, such that years later the discourse is essentially a simplification—i.e., labor reduction—of prior iterations of what reeks of liturgical ritual, the e'er decreasing pathways to resolution comparatively augment the potential that resolution of a question or issue is not the purpose of argument or argumentative behavior.

    Essentially, what it comes down to is that some people appear to panic about your posts because that is their priority; they aren't here for any sort of genuine rational discourse, but just to fight, and, quite clearly, they focus on you as they do because they prefer to throw down with people they think they can take in a fight.

    Such as I reminded above, we know about the religious on these counts; it doesn't excuse atheists from having a clue or even basic pretense of relationship with informational reliability (#162↑). Or, reiterated, I get that religious whatnots exist: morons, zealots, bigots. We know about the religious people. What is anybody else's excuse? (#163↑)

    Consider the part from our neighbor (#156↑) about, "the matter of honesty, which the overt theists here - those who present themselves as theistically motivated and based, self-identified - lack". Okay, sure. In fact, he and I could have our own fascinating side discussion about why people within that framework would appeal not to honest beliefs, but, rather, sincerely held beliefs, though it gets complicated, quickly, because there are diverse applications of caveat emptor afoot, and again, the overlap would apply to our society's bloc that behaves like the people he describes, which in turn is not insignificant, as another reminded (#167↑) in justifying his own behavior. Nonetheless, the question of the matter of honesty reeks of poor justification inasmuch as the only differences it makes to me whether the problem is dishonesty, to the one, or delusion or other dysfunction or disability, to the other, have to do with response vectors, and assessing culpability; if "they are liars to their core", then the question of culpability is settled for the assessor. We might consider in that framework that, sure, we know about those, but what is anyone else's excuse? To some degree, the excuse is, because theists.

    And they need you to be more dangerous than you really are. If I say, mostly harmless, and, don't panic, there are at least a couple of people here who ought to know what that means. But they need you to be more akin to the Devil itself, and so you are just that much more important to them. Which is its own two-word joke, but, y'know, whatever.

    Meanwhile, it's worth noting some irony:

    A very similar discussion is part of what led up to this thread originally. Your version is weirdly self-defeating, too. Previously, the question was approximately what one believed in or not. Presently, as you have it, sure, whatever ... and?

    As to the point in trying to convince people, your evangelism really does seem more about self-gratification than anything else. More directly, you have a point insofar as your particular methods are concerned. Beyond that, remember, this is Sciforums. "The word 'God'" is not "simply just a word" to these atheists; it is an idol, and for whatever reason they cannot stop, well, in their own way, venerating it.

    You, like they, are participating in a strange game in which convincing anyone of anything seems more a violation of custom than anything else.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    I get your gist.

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    I note in passing that, as usual, Jan Ardena has skipped over large parts of what I wrote to him, ignoring inconvenient questions.

    Moving on...


    You told me that my "problem" is that I "can't let go". That is, the whole theism thing would go much more smoothly for me if I just gave in an started believing in God, like you did. All this mucking around with the need to justify a belief just gets in the way, in your expert opinion.

    I can't speak to what you "always" do. I am certainly implying that you choose not to look at the basis of your God belief too closely because it makes you uncomfortable. So you rationalise. It becomes okay to believe just because you want to.

    I doubt I always choose realism. Like I said, it's something I aim for, rather than a mark I always hit.

    One doesn't have to be an idiot to be wrong.
    I can't comment on all theists. I restrict myself here to commenting on your theism.
    You say you "just know" stuff about God, like that God exists for sure. You call this "natural" knowledge or "innate" knowledge. Philosophers would call it a priori knowledge. To claim that you have this kind of knowledge about God is living in la la land, regardless of whether God turns out to exist or not. The reality that you refuse to embrace is the one that says your beliefs - and mine - don't determine reality.

    This is my reality, and you are certainly not situated in it.

    That's a lie. See above.

    The evolution of the idea is clearly set out when you stop snipping the text into tiny fragments and read what you've quoted from my post in context.

    I assumed you would take the point without requiring it to be made explicit. But I'm very happy to bring it above the radar: you choose what makes you happy over what is real. There. Feel better now?

    I have no idea what this bit is about.

    Again with the lies, Jan?

    Rub out the two sections that say "there was no God" and it would be a fair enough summary.

    No, because there isn't one (apart from the lie you inserted twice for your convenience).

    Only all the stuff about "he is positive does not exist" is a lie you just made up, for your convenience.

    Once you remove the lie from the story, there's nothing nonsensical or irrational in there.

    Maybe you should stop telling lies, Jan.

    At least they learned not to tell lies, unlike some sub-culture theists.

    Unlike you, when I quote you I quote what you actually wrote. I do not insert lies. Oh, and there's another one from you.

    Well done, Jan. You're surpassing yourself in this post. Setting a new standard. Pat yourself on the back. You must be so proud of yourself.
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2019
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Your replies are very long James, and unfortunately I generally don't have the time to reply to everyone of your responses. So I have to choose what I reply to. None of your questions are inconvenient by the way.

    davewhite04 likes this.
  8. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Do people know at all if they learn?
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2019
  9. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    This context is false.
    I mean you just can't let go, period. Not that you should believe in God.

    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.

    Here is another reason why I miss out chunks of your long posts. You misrepresent virtually everything I say.
    It becomes tedious, and I lose interest, because it seems to be a tactic, as opposed to an honest mistake.

    You don't need me to respond to you, because you create my responses, then act as though they are my responses.
    Very tedious.

    As you are an atheist, I can see how it could come across like that to you.
    But as usual, you are wrong.

    There is a difference between aiming for something, and having the tendency to land on that something.
    At least try be consistent.

    Another nonsense statement. No one possesses theism, unless it's the kind of theism you had. But that's not theism. I've already explained what that is, on numerous occasions.

    Again, this is complete nonsense. Either you haven't understood what I wrote, or once again, you use this as a tactic for whatever reason. Do you see why I limit the amount of words in my responses to you?

    Okay, let's take a look...

    ME; Why would it worry me that theism is wrong or false. I didn’t manufacture it. Just as I didn’t set out to wiggle my ears.Your problem seems to be, you can’t let go. You have to be in control of everything.

    I think it's the old choice between realism and comfort. Given the choice between being comfortably deluded and confronting an often uncomforting reality, I tend to land on the side of choosing what is real over what makes me happy. You might call that needing to be in control. Alternatively, you might say that it's recognising that control is an illusion that can easily turn into a delusion.
    You accuse me of lying, and instruct me to see above...

    ME; Keep in mind in mind what he is responding to. He has been told that he needs to be in control. That's all.

    You told me that my "problem" is that I "can't let go". That is, the whole theism thing would go much more smoothly for me if I just gave in an started believing in God, like you did. All this mucking around with the need to justify a belief just gets in the way, in your expert opinion.
    Now please explain how your second response is relevant to my first post?

    My first response speaks to your character, not your atheism. We cannot choose what we believe, belief is something that builds over time, and experience. You are mixing acceptance, and belief. They are not the same thing.
    So once again, you have completely wasted an opportunity for discussion by trying to score points.

    The problem is, unfortunately for you, I have read the text carefully.

    Because you know me, and more importantly, you know what is real, and what is to be real for others?
    James, all you seem to have is a whole bunch of information, that has nothing to do with reality, as it is lived, experienced, and observed by all living entities. Which you then try and pass off as real knowledge. Pathetic!
    Not to mention arrogant.

    It is about you trying to control what makes you happy, and what you believe.

    My bad. It was off the top of my head.

    But surely, if there was a God, you would still be a theist. Right?

    It wasn't a lie, it was a mistake. But it really makes no difference.

    You have said, that just like me, you were once a theist.
    Meaning, you once believed in God.

    Now, you are no longer a theist. Meaning you no longer believe in God.

    If you believed in God, at one time, and now you don't believe in God. That could be for one of two reasons.
    You don't want to accept God, or, your belief was in vain. Meaning that God either didn't exist, or there was no God for you to believe in.

    You have stated that your reason for not believing in God, is due to a lack of evidence for God.

    Now if you were a theist at one point, then like you have said in the past, you were just like me, and all theist.
    So that means either, all theists, being just like you, still believe in something, that for you there is no evidence of (regarding existence).

    You accuse me of being deluded. That is, I prefer ''happiness'' over ''reality''. IOW, I am oblivious to reality, especially when it comes to my (what can only be) false belief.

    With all that in mind. You now claim to be asking for evidence of God.
    So why ask for evidence, when you were once, like all theists, a theist. A person who believed in God?

    Sorry mate, but you were a theist. Meaning you believed in God. Okay?
    Now you are no a theist, as you no longer believe in God.
    Is that not a positive move.

    Theists always doubts about things to do with God. It doesn't mean they stop believing in God. That's not how it works mate. But if you was a theist, you would know that.

    So my questions to you are...

    Why did you stop, believing in God?
    And why do you question theism, or belief in God?

    That's all you have?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  10. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Do you really think it's clever pointing out ways of people to present a tidy post? Why is this a problem? It isn't false.
  11. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

  12. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    That's interesting!

    Thanks !

    When in Rome, and all that.

    I didn't see that one coming.

    If and when your memory returns, please share it.

    Can you simplify that.
    I don't have that grasp of words and phrases that seem to come naturally to you.
    But I get the feeling it is quite interesting.

    Until they get spanked.
    Then they keep coming back for more.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I don't discuss religion.
    I don't know if you've noticed.

    I do not have a clue about what you're saying.
    Me. I prefer to talk in common terms, because I'm quite sure everybody comprehends what I'm saying.
    As I have no time to get a Phd in what you're trying to say, you need to bring it down to a level that I can access it without the need of a dictionary, or thesaurus.

    Are you saying I'm being kept around, so they can practice their shit?

    Come on man, get your shit together.
    Just say what your going to say in good old simple plain English.
    Is that too much to ask?

    Okay. This is good. I get this.

    Firstly, I don't evangelise. If you think I do, then please give me an example.

    I assume you know that I don't preach the Christian, religious, gospel. So the other alternative is some kind of advocation of some kind of religion, or cause.
    I think you're wrong on both counts.
    I respond. That is what I do.

    They're certainly serious when it comes to God.

    I'm not so sure about that.
    I don't think it is possible to convince anyone of anything, not in the true sense.
    I think that to truly believe in something, it has to be your own mind that convinces you.
    That is the understated power of belief.
    Belief drives everything.

  13. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    BEEP you're in the wrong forum! i'm starting to think all of us are!
  14. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Ummm good question

    If they learn, it should follow they should " know at all"

    But that could mean when asked about what they they have learnt just parrot return what they were told

    Better if they understand and what follows from understanding

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  15. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Yes, but I don't agree with you. Get over it.

    Then let's both of us indulge in that.

    The same could be said for you James (...atheist and all).

    It did.
    I didn't give one thought as to how the chicken got into that KFC bargain bucket.
    My reasoning was... hmmmm!

    Maybe you misunderstand.
    We do have two arms.
    But maybe you haven't explained the main point properly.

    James, while I accept and believe that God Is, or exists, I'm not claiming it.
    The onus of proof is on the one who makes the claim. I'm not making any claim.
    But I do respond to claims, even claims that we both know cannot be proven.
    I operate on the assumption that for you, there is no God. I don't care whether you can prove it or not.
    I suggest you do the same. It's a lot more fun. Why stress yourself out?

    If that's what you get from our years of discussion, then there is no point in discussing this topic any further.

    Give it a break James.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I will accept even sarcastic gratitude, James.
    It's better than nothing.

    Only from your perspective James.

    Do you think you and I could have a conversation without all this stuff.
    Just chill, and talk mutually about stuff.
    Or are you always going to try and prove me wrong.
    I know I could.

    No I don't James.
    I respond to atheist negativity, and atheists wildly attack theists.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Just another day on Sciforums.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    If God exists, then God exist for all living entities, not just theists.
    Atheists deny God, IMO. So God does not exist for them, in the same way a girl's first cheating boyfriend does not exist, now that she is married to her dream guy, with a beautiful house, and a bag of children.

    You believed in God, which means you had some knowledge of God.
    How did you obtain it?

    Why? Because your position would be justified?
    But seriously, how can God be purely subjective. If that were the case, then the term ''God doesn't exist'' would be correct.
    But how could know that, or feel that his position is justified?

    Would that be exclusive to me, or to every theist?

    Same as above.

    Same as above.

    Last edited: Jan 25, 2019
  16. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    I think atheist interchange religion, and theism.
    Understandably so. But I don't think they are mutually exclusive.

  17. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    In relation to what is being discussed.
    I don't independently lead with ''God exists'', or God Is.
    I accept that not everyone believes, or accepts that.

    A slight exaggeration methinks.

    It doesn't work like that with everything.
    You make lots of claims. You have done in this thread alone.
    It would be pointless to ask you to prove every single claim you make.
    Sometimes it is better to go with the assumption, as you would learn more about the claim.
    This is a discussion, not a debate, or a court of law. Enjoy the discussion.

    Then pluck out such a claim, in this thread. Should be easy enough.

    I have, on quite a few occasions over the years, but it falls on deaf ears.
    You only want to come out on top, you don't want to learn anything about God. Not as yet, anyways.

    The position of theism is belief in God. God Just Is.
    It seems to be a natural assumption, that can be understood by those who accept God.
    That's what I mean by foundational.
    We are not spiritually separated from God, James.
    But we can separate our minds from God, by engaging in activities that serve our senses.
    A theist only thinks about God's existence, in the company of those who question it. Otherwise there is no need.
    It's not a bad thing. In fact it can be a good thing, because it causes us to seek out more information about God.

    Now you're going to insist that I said you have ''a character flaw''. Aren't you?
    But just for the record, that is your insertion, not my analysis, words, or thought.

    You tell me if God exists.
    You claim that you were a theist, just like I am.

    You tell me.

    If you're on an atheist power trip, it would affect the honesty of the debate.
    Power trips just aren't good in any situation.

    You were a theist, so you say.
    Does God exist, or not?

    Blowing your own trumpet?
    Not cool.

    Does God exist James?


    Did God exist, when you were a theist?

    This one is pretty close, focusing on the sub-culture.

    I assume this is rhetorical. Yes?

    It's quite possible that you make up reasons that appear to be appropriate, in the way you make up things you think I've said, then work it back into the discussion as a point I made.
    IOW, this is surface stuff. You really are angry, and it's not at me. Like Tiassa said, or I think he said, you need to take your frustration out on someone, and you choose me. Probably because you think I'm an easy target. What do you think?

  18. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    If everything had happened before in our eternal past it would seem learning is an illusion or it must change. I think the devil could learn because its a new thing, i.e. didn't exist for all eternity, then it will die off as part of hell.
  19. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    If everything had happened before in our eternal past

    If if if (my bold on your statement) what evidence do you have that it might have? or is the if speculation?

    Sorry Huey Dewey and Louie cannot understand the rest of the post

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Nope. No fascination there - the dishonesty at issue is otherwise, and there is very little interest on my part in anything connected with sincerity among posters such as Jan.
    If the only difference it makes to you is that trivial, the discussion is not for you.
    "Culpability" ?
    "Anyone else" is not inveterately posting dishonestly and in bad faith, pulling the rhetorical stunts and word games, misrepresenting for the purpose of personal attack. They don't need an excuse.
  21. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    The wish to be, and the fact I personally have faith. How could there not be space and time?
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2019
  22. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Hard to understand your post, but I will try, so will apologise in advance if I am incorrect

    The wish to be fits with If everything had happened and the fact I personally have faith

    Soooo you have a wish that everything has happened and this ?true? because you personally have faith

    As I read that back still does not make sense

    Even less when adding in How could there not be space and time?

    Going for coffee and chocolate marshmallow and feed my house lizard

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

    But Iceaura, your assessments are unreliable.

    What's sad about that is you're so wrapped up in whatever personal foci you apparently don't comprehend what you're seeing. Sure, this isn't quite like the time you tried to blame me for writing your own post, but, still, this bigotry you show is ridiculous.
    davewhite04 likes this.

Share This Page