paarsurrey
Veteran Member
What is one's source of knowledge for one's skepticism, humanism and freethought, please?My worldview is skepticism, humanism, and freethought.
Regards
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is one's source of knowledge for one's skepticism, humanism and freethought, please?My worldview is skepticism, humanism, and freethought.
You see these things as faulty because your own understanding has been distorted. That is, you literally cannot see God because you believe he is not there, you believe in the delusion of the physical world. But the physical world is a shadow of the Real World.
What is one's source of knowledge for one's skepticism, humanism and freethought, please?
Regards
Quite simply, it doesn’t actually exist. I have seen the so-called evidence and found them flawed.Curious - how do you account for the higher IQ of atheists ?
You avoided that.
BTW, the Ancient Greek philosophers gained much of their insight, or at least groovy ideas, from a psychedelic ergot which they called Kykeon.
Thanks for supporting atheist trippers like myself !
Oh yeah...and the Essenes, source of the Jesus Myth, used amanita muscaria mushrooms as a sacrament.
You don't see at lest 3 different ways that this "association" is faulty?Do some research on high IQ people. Not many religionists in MENSA.
The reason why atheists are more intelligent than religious people, according to researchers
The Real Reason Atheists Have Higher IQs
Why Are Atheists Generally Smarter Than Religious People?
High IQ turns academics into atheists
Tell me.You don't see at lest 3 different ways that this "association" is faulty?
Information/reason = intelligenceTell me.
Information/reason = intelligence
Intelligence = wisdom
Intelligence/wisdom = truth
I'm happy to discuss it with you quietly if you'd find that helpful. I can tell you clearly why I'm not a believer and explain and if required defend my worldview, and listen carefully to your replies too. Just say the word.I have never seen Atheism people giving any positive argument in favor of their worldview, it is perhaps for this that they resort to deride and or ridicule the truthful Religion. Right, please?
Regards
Information is intelligence in the military sense, not in the IQ sense.Information/reason = intelligence
Intelligence = wisdom
Intelligence/wisdom = truth
Why do you care?What is one's source of knowledge for one's skepticism, humanism and freethought, please?
Regards
Which type of faulty debate tactics you had used, when debate with some atheists about your religious claims?
Choice of answers:
(1) Making bold empty claim.
(2) Making strawman argument.
(3) Reply with irrelevant stuff or moving goal posts.
(4) Change the definition of words to engage in sophistry.
(5) Say something like "go read my religion's book to find the evidence of my claims" - poor cop out. Don't bother to back up my claim with detailed evidence, instead provide vague statement like "the evidence is in my religion's book, go find it yourself".
(Yeah sure, the universe is created by The Flying Spaghetti Monster, the evidence is in the book "The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster", go find it yourself. Oh, you don't want to read it? Resort to bold empty threat: You'll regret someday in the future! You read it and didn't find the evidence? Read it again, with sincere attitude; or, only my true interpretation can correctly decipher the true meanings of that book; or, you have no faith at all; or, i'll pray for you. Seriously...)
(6) Making bold empty threat - atheists will go to hell if they don't obey the God i believe in.
(7) Making bold empty threat - atheists will regret if they don't obey the God i believe in.
(8) I think the debate tactics listed above are not faulty. I think it's perfectly rational and logical for me to use the debate tactics listed above.
(9) I had used some of the faulty debate tactics listed above. I recognize it's a mistake to do so.
(10) I haven't use any of the faulty debate tactics listed above, ever.
Extra choice of answers:
(11) Ignore the debate opponent's point, and repeat my previous religious claims ad nauseam.
(12) Put the debate opponent in my ignore list and repeat my previous religious claims ad nauseam.
(13) Ignore the debate opponent's point and run away. Someday in the future make the same religious claims again, when confront, run away again. Repeat...
(14) Reply with incomprehensible sentences or word salad.
(15) Don't reply to the debate opponent's post, instead rate their post as funny/optimistic.
(I might not be participate in this discussion, so please feel free to discuss/debate with other people here.)
Information is intelligence in the military sense, not in the IQ sense.
Information is not wisdom. Wisdom is about what to do with information, and what to do when there are problems with either obtaining information, or the quality of what's obtained.
Wisdom isn't truth any more than sportsmanship or amiability or any other abstraction is truth. In my view a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality.
(16) Making fun of the atheists inability to write in cogent english.
Why use plural instead of the first person singular, please?Our intelligence.
Weren't we under discussion on the topic of the thread, please?Why do you care?
Which type of faulty debate tactics you had used, when debate with some atheists about your religious claims?
Choice of answers:
(1) Making bold empty claim.
(2) Making strawman argument.
(3) Reply with irrelevant stuff or moving goal posts.
(4) Change the definition of words to engage in sophistry.
(5) Say something like "go read my religion's book to find the evidence of my claims" - poor cop out. Don't bother to back up my claim with detailed evidence, instead provide vague statement like "the evidence is in my religion's book, go find it yourself".
(Yeah sure, the universe is created by The Flying Spaghetti Monster, the evidence is in the book "The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster", go find it yourself. Oh, you don't want to read it? Resort to bold empty threat: You'll regret someday in the future! You read it and didn't find the evidence? Read it again, with sincere attitude; or, only my true interpretation can correctly decipher the true meanings of that book; or, you have no faith at all; or, i'll pray for you. Seriously...)
(6) Making bold empty threat - atheists will go to hell if they don't obey the God i believe in.
(7) Making bold empty threat - atheists will regret if they don't obey the God i believe in.
(8) I think the debate tactics listed above are not faulty. I think it's perfectly rational and logical for me to use the debate tactics listed above.
(9) I had used some of the faulty debate tactics listed above. I recognize it's a mistake to do so.
(10) I haven't use any of the faulty debate tactics listed above, ever.
Extra choice of answers:
(11) Ignore the debate opponent's point, and repeat my previous religious claims ad nauseam.
(12) Put the debate opponent in my ignore list and repeat my previous religious claims ad nauseam.
(13) Ignore the debate opponent's point and run away. Someday in the future make the same religious claims again, when confront, run away again. Repeat...
(14) Reply with incomprehensible sentences or word salad.
(15) Don't reply to the debate opponent's post, instead rate their post as funny/optimistic.
(I might not be participate in this discussion, so please feel free to discuss/debate with other people here.)
Why use plural instead of the first person singular, please?
Regards
Right, because this thread is only supposed to be about the false presumptions and flawed logic of theists. We're supposed to be ignoring the false assumptions and flawed logic of atheists, I guess.Uh huh.
But that gets us nowhere in this discussion.