@Double_R
and the default position being that we believe what people tell us regarding their own mental state unless we have reason not to
Good luck proving that.
To disregard them is to disregard logic itself
No.
and the default position being that we believe what people tell us regarding their own mental state unless we have reason not to
Good luck proving that.
To disregard them is to disregard logic itself
No.
Isn't children with cancer mean that God is playing dice with the Universe?
Your concept of what is extraordinary is subjective, as is your subjective concept of what is mundane.
It is also subjective to say that it is wrong to steal, that doesn’t stop us from putting thieves in jail.
We will always bring different life experiences to the table, that doesn’t mean we don’t live in the same planet and share 98% of basic beliefs about human nature and the world we live in.
If someone says “I went to the grocery store yesterday”, we don’t need to debate whether that is an extraordinary claim, of course it isn’t.
If someone says “I went to the grocery store and ran into Taylor swift in the frozen section”, we would all agree that’s a fairly extraordinary claim and would expect some form of evidence before accepting it as true.
If someone says “I bought a Time Machine and travelled back to see the dinosaurs”, no one in their right mind would believe that without extraordinary evidence.
The fact that there are some grey areas in between doesn’t change the fact that we all utilize this principle in our daily lives. The only hurdle objectivity poses is just how much of our basic understanding of the world will align, the rest is what conversation and evidence is for.
Sounds like whataboutism to ignore what i said.
Argue with data, not reason.
It’s not whataboutism, it’s what we’re actually talking about.
The OP argued that the mere existence of atheism needs to be proven, I demonstrated why it doesn’t or to the extent it does, it has already been. You came back with the objection that my solution was subjective, which is apparently supposed to be problematic.
But it’s not, you seem to have missed the point that we’re talking about a logical principal and how we apply that principle to the real world. The fact that everyone’s subjective experiences are unique to themselves is irrelevant because our experiences on basic levels overlap significantly. And even if they didn’t, all that would do is make it more difficult for us to understand where each other are coming from, doesn’t change that we’re still applying that principle to figure out what we believe to be true.
Your other part, talking about atheism being statistically less than theism is also irrelevant to the conversation. We’re not talking about how prevalent atheism is, we’re talking about whether it exists and how we could know.
—> and the default position being that we believe what people tell us regarding their own mental state unless we have reason not to
Good luck proving that.
It’s logic 101 genius. There are only two possibilities; we accept what people tell us unless given a reason not to, or we accept what people tell us only when it is proven.
The first puts us in line with reality far more often than not, the latter leads to a state of complete absurdity where you would hold basically no understanding of the world because if you can’t accept basic assertions people make, even about their own mental state, then essentially nothing could be proven unless you witness it yourself. Your entire model of the world falls apart because the overwhelming majority of what we understand about the world apart from our direct experiences comes from what other people tell us.
There are a lot of people. Different people believe different things about God. Seems reasonable to infer that some of them aren't going to believe in God, or believe that there is no god (whatever you mean by atheism) even if there's no way for an individual to prove that he's telling the truth about his personal beliefs.
Christians are not able to prove that they are believers or people of faith.
The Bible is clear that there are no Christians.
The Bible says that anyone with even a small bit of faith or belief could do all that Jesus did and more.
Have you noted that by that standard, there are no real Christians with faith?
If we describe God as our highest ideal, then believer or not, we all have a God.
We all hold something higher than ourselves.
The first puts us in line with reality far more often than not
Sounds like unproved claim.
, the latter leads to a state of complete absurdity where you would hold basically no understanding of the world because if you can’t accept basic assertions people make, even about their own mental state, then essentially nothing could be proven unless you witness it yourself
Another unproved claim. A priori reasoning requires no witnessing anything.
Your entire model of the world falls apart because the overwhelming majority of what we understand about the world apart from our direct experiences comes from what other people tell us
Great, another unproved claim. Really, you guys dont even bother proving your claims. Your entire logic is using one unprovable claim to defend another unprovable claim. I guess they dont teach deductive reasoning in schools, but I say they should, given how bad people are at it.
Seems reasonable to infer that some of them aren't going to believe in God
If by reasonable, you mean "this feels good", sure.
Christians are not able to prove that they are believers or people of faith.
I simply lack belief that I lack belief in God.
There are only two possibilities; we accept what people tell us unless given a reason not to, or we accept what people tell us only when it is proven
Also, these are not even two separate possibilities. A reason not to accept a claim can be that claim wasnt proved. But since you accept just about any claim, you can accept a claim that I observed God, and thus God exists. Well, this was easy.
Im not seeing any data to refute what i said. Keep digging your hole.
Show numbers that there are more athiests than thiests, then ill agree with the christopher hitchens quote, which frankly was dumb on his part, that you quoted about belief in God.
The fact is, you cant. And neither could hitchens.
Its more an extraordinary claim to disbelieve in a God than it is to believe it. And imperical data shows that.
Therefore your view has no merit.
Just cause you cant see them doesnt mean they dont exist. you dont have to look very far to see there are thousands of christians dying who are non violent, who do miracles, who help those in need, who try to obey the bible.
Give proof there are no christians, and ill give proof you dont care.
Great, another unproved claim.
Prove that 2+2=4. I’ll wait.
Show numbers that there are more athiests than thiests
Why would I need to show you numbers to substantiate a claim I never made?
Are you even reading my posts, or just rehearsing your prejudices? If you wanted to chat with Christopher Hitchens I’m sorry to disappoint you, you tagged the wrong person.
Its more an extraordinary claim to disbelieve in a God than it is to believe it.
There are plenty of people who believe in a God as well as plenty who don’t. Neither of these are extraordinary.
Fine, dont prove your claims.
Wow, you can’t even prove that 2+2=4. Sad.
Hmm alright, so you cant prove your claims, but you want me to just "believe them without proof". How very religious of you.
melcharaz
Hey. The Bible says there are no Christians, not I.
I am going by it's standards and not mine.
A good religion would grow by decent arguments and not by inquisitions and jihads.
Yes, the Bible talks about Christians, although the word itself appears only three times in the New Testament, in Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28, and 1 Peter 4:16.The Bible describes Christians as those who believe in and follow Jesus Christ, confess him as Lord, and have been "born again" through faith.
Have you read the parts of the bible where Jesus says to not call him Lord?
Do you recall, why he said that? If you do, why would you go against his wish to be called Lord?
Further, just so I know which Jesus archetype you are talking about, show where your Jesus was anointed to Christ position.
The Jesus I read does not claim to be Christ. He comes more from the Chrestian religion Christianity plagiarized hell out of.
That is a joke. There is no such thing as a real hell. It would make God look like a loser.
The assertion that Jesus did not want to be called "Lord" is inaccurate
. The New Testament records many instances where Jesus was called "Lord" and did not reject the title. Instead, Jesus criticized those who called him "Lord" but did not obey his teachings, emphasizing that the title must be accompanied by faithful action.
I simply lack belief that I lack belief in God.
Here's a test to see if somebody is an atheist or an agnostic. Imagine you were on a plane that you knew was going to crash, or some other circumstance where you knew you were going to die very soon. Would you say your prayers? Would you try to make peace with god, if not out of belief in god but out of some hope you had that he was there. If you would do such a thing, then you are not fully confident that there is no god because the only reason you would do such a thing would be if you thought there some possibility that he was there, and that there was an afterlife and what have you.
If you don’t believe in God you should not board planes. Planes cannot guarantee you an afterlife.
Bad, unsolicited advice.
You know that I'm an instrument rated private pilot and an atheist, right?
Your occupation says retired. Dream on.
"Some possibility" is worth bugger all.