Science and atheism inconsistent?

[shunyadragon]

I'll just repeat...
You don't like my responses and refer to them as "vindictive sarcasm" and state that they do not "contribute to the dialogue". However, you are entirely comfortable with saying that atheists need to satisfy some spiritual needs. You are entirely comfortable with making sweeping demeaning and factually incorrect statements like "atheists are often rejected and shunned by their prior peers".

Your post is, at best, hypocritical.

I thought I would back up to this post to point out I never referred to 'ALL' need to satisfy some spiritual needs. In my previous post I referred to those who join predominantly atheist spiritual belief systems like Zen Buddhists, and yes most who make this choice choose it to seek fellowship with those that are like minded.

Yes, as cited atheists are widely shunned and worse by their previous peers either Christian or Muslim as cited in the reference. Others have cited references why this is the case explaining the hostility toward atheists.

I have also described the fact that Jews are more tolerant of atheist and agnostic choices among Jews. This is due to the strong tribal cultura bonds in Judaism, and an intellectual pragmatism in Liberal Judaism.

 

[shunyadragon]

Only to idiots who think that choosing the proper terms to articulate an idea is trying to sound "big and sciency". And who think anything that they can't understand MUST be the fault of the ignorance of the person delivering the information because it couldn't possibly be any fault of their own.

This view:

@Truly Enlightened said: ↑
When you use a lot of big "sciency sounding" words without fully understanding their meanings, you risk sounding incoherent and unintelligible.

Could very well be a dodge to avoid dialogue when the vocabulary get's a little heavy like high school level.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, most atheists acknowledge that agnostic atheism is a justifiable position - the only justifiable position for the rational skeptic - but that asserting that one knows that no gods can or do exist, gnostic atheism, is not justifiable. It’s a claim that can’t be supported by any test, measurement, observation, argument, or algorithm. There simply is no way to rule out the possibility of the deist god, for example.

But I would add that that is not a problem as there is also no need to do so, nor any benefit for the atheist if one could rule out gods. Nothing at all would change if we went from our present unknowing about gods to certain knowledge that none exist.

I think you mean egotistical skeptic, rather than rational skeptic. Gnostic atheism is so unjustifiable, it's not even a thing. It's a brute strawman.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Only to idiots who think that choosing the proper terms to articulate an idea is trying to sound "big and sciency". And who think anything that they can't understand MUST be the fault of the ignorance of the person delivering the information because it couldn't possibly be any fault of their own.

My concern was not the choice of the words you used, but the context and meaning in which the words were used. Maybe you should first define the words/terms such as, Physicality, Conceptual Cognition, Incoherent Reasoning, Dimensionality, Thingness, and Subject of the Subjectivism. Otherwise, the reader might have a different understanding of these terms, or in the context they are being used. This is why I try and provide as many examples as I can to avoid any confusion. Without any clear contextual understanding of the words/terms you posited, the reader might be left confused and unsure about what you are trying to say. It is important that you clearly articulate your thoughts, so that the reader clearly understands exactly what you are trying to say. I should not have to wade through a river of abstract man-made word salad, just to give credence to your fallacious logic. Your responsibility is not to complicate my understanding of the substance of your posts. Unless you are speaking in a foreign language, my level of understanding, should not be a problem. But implying that it is, is shear arrogance and egotistic. There are those here that purposely use vague and ambiguous terms, so when challenged they can deny them and claim they meant something else.

Clearly you are continuing to make equivocation and reification errors. You start with the premises that

physicality, love, honesty, etc., are human concepts
without human concepts there is no reality, us, or "physical stuff"
humans cannot exists without conceptual cognition(herring)
conceptual cognitions are real
God is a human conceptual cognition
therefore God is real

There are many of these ontological arguments being used. But all of them fail, since real existence can never be the product conceptual existence. There is no clear link between anything created conceptually, and the physical reality. Also, just because you can think of God as existing, you can also think of God as not existing. Just thinking that a God might not exist, is all that is needed to show why the ontological argument fails. It is always illegitimate to think that from a definition, idea, or statement of meanings, that you can make any claims about reality, especially by using reason alone. Claims about the physical reality must include objective evidence, facts, and observations.

Since there are no true empaths, and we can't see ourselves from outside of ourselves, we are all trapped within our own subjective perspective of reality. But reality itself is objective. The moon objectively exists in reality, and does not depend on anyone's subjective perspective. It is the objective reality that stimulates our senses, and connects us to our physical(not conceptual) environment.

I can only hope that you now know why perception is not the same as conception. It is also my belief, that it is always the fault of the author, if his readers can't understand him.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Know? An odd claim of arrogance. I believe, not 'know' as you believe God(s) do not exist but do not know that as a fact..

Simply no. Please take responsibility for your own aggressive hostile style of posting and do not pass the buck!

My question was how do YOU know, and not whether I was being arrogant in asking. Please stop misrepresenting the meaning of my words. At some point it will be even clear enough for you to acknowledge responsibility for your own actions and comments. "Pass the buck", pure projection. I have no idea why you keep accusing other of being hostile and aggressive, while you continue to insult, demean, and misrepresent, anyone who questions the substance of your knowledge claims. What was the purpose for presenting such a one-sided post on studies and surveys about atheists as people? Why were no positive surveys(which debunked some of the claims) presented? How do you know that Atheists are produced by Atheist communities? Of course you will deny this, even if I present the exact quote. You don't want to debate, you only want to proselytize.

 

[PureX]

Since there are no true empaths, and we can't see ourselves from outside of ourselves, we are all trapped within our own subjective perspective of reality. But reality itself is objective.

How can we possibly know this when we are all trapped within our own subjective perspective? How can YOU possibly know this when YOU are trapped withing your own subjective experience and conception of 'reality'? How, when there is no "you" beyond your idea of yourself, and our idea "you" (all of which vary significantly)?

The moon objectively exists in reality, and does not depend on anyone's subjective perspective. It is the objective reality that stimulates our senses, and connects us to our physical(not conceptual) environment.

"The moon" is a term referring to a collective human experience (and a collective human conceptualization of that experience). Existence is a term referring to a singular, whole, phenomenon: all phenomena, known and unknown. It includes our experiential conceptual cognition of it even when our experiential conceptual cognition of it is inaccurate (which it always is because our experience of existence is limited and so are our conceptual abilities), and it also include that which extends beyond our physical, cognitive, grasp. This being the case, what we think existence is, is just as real (extant) as the mystery of it that extends beyond us. It ALL exists, and its ALL "real", and all we humans will ever know of it will remain 'subjectively' known. This objective truth that you imagine you can access, and that somehow delegitimizes the subjective truth that other people have chosen to adhere to, is bogus. Because you do not have access to it. None of us does.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

How can we possibly know this when we are all trapped within our own subjective perspective? How can YOU possibly know this when YOU are trapped withing your own subjective experience and conception of 'reality'? How, when there is no "you" beyond your idea of yourself, and our idea "you" (all of which vary significantly)?
"The moon" is a term referring to a collective human experience (and a collective human conceptualization of that experience). Existence is a term referring to a singular, whole, phenomenon: all phenomena, known and unknown. It includes our experiential conceptual cognition of it even when our experiential conceptual cognition of it is inaccurate (which it always is because our experience of existence is limited and so are our conceptual abilities), and it also include that which extends beyond our physical, cognitive, grasp. This being the case, what we think existence is, is just as real (extant) as the mystery of it that extends beyond us. It ALL exists, and its ALL "real", and all we humans will ever know of it will remain 'subjectively' known. This objective truth that you imagine you can access, and that somehow delegitimizes the subjective truth that other people have chosen to adhere to, is bogus. Because you do not have access to it. None of us does.

Can you read my mind, or anyone else's? Can you see yourself from outside of yourself? Are you part of someone else's nervous system? When someone hits himself with a hammer, or becomes sick, do you also feel the same pain or have the same sickness? Do you think that our sensory organs are part of a human collective, or just unique to the individual?

I'm afraid we all have the cognitive ability to reason and interpret physical evidence. Since there is no evidence to suggest extrasensory perceptions, then our perceptions of reality can only be represented from a subjective perspective. Therefore, our conceptual awareness and experience are also trapped in this subjective perspective. In short, we are all a universe onto ourselves.

The moon exists because of how it was formed(collision, protoplanetary disc, accretion disc, or lunar bombardments) over 4 Billion years ago.. It is defined as a celestial body that orbits around a planet. It will exist regardless of whether we have some "experiential conceptual cognition of it" or not. This means if a group of us were sitting around looking at the moon, our collective experiences and perceptual(not conceptual since we are using our senses) cognition, has zero effect on the existence of the moon we are looking at. How does a blind person from birth, have a experiential conceptual cognition of the moon? What exactly is it that extends beyond our physical, cognitive, grasp?

Maybe you are right, and my level of comprehension is not up to the task. So maybe someone else can explain what this obfuscated gibberish means? I'm certainly not afraid to ask for help.

"The moon" is a term referring to a collective human experience (and a collective human conceptualization of that experience). Existence is a term referring to a singular, whole, phenomenon: all phenomena, known and unknown. It includes our experiential conceptual cognition of it even when our experiential conceptual cognition of it is inaccurate (which it always is because our experience of existence is limited and so are our conceptual abilities), and it also include that which extends beyond our physical, cognitive, grasp. This being the case, what we think existence is, is just as real (extant) as the mystery of it that extends beyond us. It ALL exists, and its ALL "real", and all we humans will ever know of it will remain 'subjectively' known. This objective truth that you imagine you can access, and that somehow delegitimizes the subjective truth that other people have chosen to adhere to, is bogus. Because you do not have access to it. None of us does".

 

[shunyadragon]

My question was how do YOU know, and not whether I was being arrogant in asking. Please stop misrepresenting the meaning of my words. At some point it will be even clear enough for you to acknowledge responsibility for your own actions and comments. "Pass the buck", pure projection. I have no idea why you keep accusing other of being hostile and aggressive, while you continue to insult, demean, and misrepresent, anyone who questions the substance of your knowledge claims. What was the purpose for presenting such a one-sided post on studies and surveys about atheists as people? Why were no positive surveys(which debunked some of the claims) presented? How do you know that Atheists are produced by Atheist communities? Of course you will deny this, even if I present the exact quote. You don't want to debate, you only want to proselytize.

I did not even bring up the Baha'i Faith in this thread, you did. Your words are your words take responsibility for them.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I did not even bring up the Baha'i Faith in this thread, you did. Your words are your words take responsibility for them.

Firstly, I take full responsibility for the meaning and context of any words that I use. How can I not? What are these words you are implying, but not actually saying, that I should be responsible for? Or, is this just another dishonest ploy to avoid answering my questions? I'm not interested in going back and finding out if you mentioned the Baha'i faith on this thread or not, since it is irrelevant to the topic. However you might look again at posts #527, #541, #543, so that we can all see just how well you take responsibility for your own words. This is just another dishonest method of disarming people by creating the perception of doubt or guilt. An immature distraction to avoid exposing an argument based totally on ignorance. What you can't seem to understand, is that all faith-based beliefs will eventually fail, no matter how many layers of half truths and logical fallacies you insulate them with. Eventually facts will win over fiction.

Now again how do you know, or why do you believe, that your particular God created Abiogenesis and the Theory of Evolution? And not one of over 4000 other Gods?

 

[shunyadragon]

Firstly, I take full responsibility for the meaning and context of any words that I use. How can I not?

Easy simple denial

What are these words you are implying, but not actually saying, that I should be responsible for?

Simply read your own ranting biligerant posts,

Or, is this just another dishonest ploy to avoid answering my questions?

No, you need to take responsibility for your own posts.

I'm not interested in going back and finding out if you mentioned the Baha'i faith on this thread or not, since it is irrelevant to the topic.

No problem, you brought it up. I responded.

When you asked a straight forward question I answered.

However you might look again at posts #527, #541, #543, so that we can all see just how well you take responsibility for your own words. This is just another dishonest method of disarming people by creating the perception of doubt or guilt. An immature distraction to avoid exposing an argument based totally on ignorance. What you can't seem to understand, is that all faith-based beliefs will eventually fail, no matter how many layers of half truths and logical fallacies you insulate them with. Eventually facts will win over fiction.

Your ranting continues unabated.

Now again how do you know, or why do you believe, that your particular God created Abiogenesis and the Theory of Evolution? And not one of over 4000 other Gods?

Why do I believe? I believe mainly based on the spiritual nature of the Baha'i Faith, and what I consider the universal spiritual nature of humanity, which in our previous dialogue you only accept strict materialism as a reason to believe. There is of course is no objective verifiable evidence for the existence nor the non-existence of God

Very front loaded question, which I believe I answered. I believe in only One 'Source,' and God is the Creator of all of existence through natural methods. yes, humans through the millennia humans mold Gods in their own images.

The topic of the thread is whether atheism is consistent or not. I have simply responded yes, science is consistent with science. The rest is NOT the topic of the thread.

 

[PureX]

Can you read my mind, or anyone else's? Can you see yourself from outside of yourself? Are you part of someone else's nervous system? When someone hits himself with a hammer, or becomes sick, do you also feel the same pain or have the same sickness? Do you think that our sensory organs are part of a human collective, or just unique to the individual?

I'm afraid we all have the cognitive ability to reason and interpret physical evidence. Since there is no evidence to suggest extrasensory perceptions, then our perceptions of reality can only be represented from a subjective perspective. Therefore, our conceptual awareness and experience are also trapped in this subjective perspective. In short, we are all a universe onto ourselves.

Exactly. We have no access to this "objective reality/truth" that you imagine to exist because we all experience and cognate reality subjectively. Even the term "reality" refers to our subjective conception of existence, including that which we imagine and presume to exist beyond our cognition. Call it "God", call it "objective reality", call it "the whole truth", conceptualize and label it however you want. It's all equally conceptual, equally subjective, and equally unavailable to us apart from our subjective conceptions.

The moon exists because of how it was formed(collision, protoplanetary disc, accretion disc, or lunar bombardments) over 4 Billion years ago.. It is defined as a celestial body that orbits around a planet. It will exist regardless of whether we have some "experiential conceptual cognition of it" or not. This means if a group of us were sitting around looking at the moon, our collective experiences and perceptual(not conceptual since we are using our senses) cognition, has zero effect on the existence of the moon we are looking at. How does a blind person from birth, have a experiential conceptual cognition of the moon? What exactly is it that extends beyond our physical, cognitive, grasp?

There is no "moon", anywhere, until we recognize it (re-cognate it as conceptualized phenomena). Existence is just energy expressing itself. Some of that energy is being expressed as matter, some as motion, some as space-time, some as light, some as heat, and so on. But it's all just energy (whatever that is) expressing itself according to the rules of it's existence (whatever they are). Humans experience some of this expressed energy, and try to make sense of it. This is what we call "perception"; making sense (conceptualizing) our experience of this mysterious energy as it's expressing itself. And WE are part of the energy expressing itself. In fact, our attempt at 'making sense' of that expressed energy is itself an expression of that energy. We are existence trying to make sense of itself. How about that!

There is no "moon". There is only expressed energy, everywhere, until we humans experience various bits of it and agree to conceptualize that experience as a moon. Same as we do every thing, and every one, and all else. It's ALL our conceptualized experience of energy expressing itself. And we have no idea what energy is, why it expresses itself as it does, or what it means, if it means anything, apart from our conceptualizations. It is the greatest and most profound mystery of our existence. Most people choose to conceptualize and relate to this profound mystery as a 'divine being' because that's what makes the most sense to them. It's easier for them to grasp and interact with it that way. Others conceptualize it as an elaborate mindless mechanism that mankind could eventually understand and maybe even control, because that's what makes sense to them. That's how they find stability in the face of such a profound mystery. But either way, and whatever other way we may choose, it's still just us doing what we do: trying to make sense of the great mystery.

Maybe you are right, and my level of comprehension is not up to the task.

None of ours is. We humans just don't have the scope for it. So the mystery remains. And we choose our various ways of dealing with it. And in doing that, we define ourselves as individuals from within our collective.

Rather interesting, that.

 

[Willamena]

Exactly. We have no access to this "objective reality/truth" that you imagine to exist because we all experience and cognate reality subjectively.

Is that true?

 

[ecco]

but that asserting that one knows that no gods can or do exist ... is not justifiable.

In your opinion.

In my opinion, all gods are the creations of man's imaginings. The very concept of a supernatural creator is nothing more than man's desire to try to address the unknown.

You probably don't believe that Spiderman may somehow possibly be real, yet you continue to hold onto that thread of possibility for a god.

 

[joelr]

There is no "moon". There is only expressed energy, everywhere, until we humans experience various bits of it and agree to conceptualize that experience as a moon. Same as we do every thing, and every one, and all else. It's ALL our conceptualized experience of energy expressing itself. And we have no idea what energy is, why it expresses itself as it does, or what it means, if it means anything, apart from our conceptualizations. It is the greatest and most profound mystery of our existence. Most people choose to conceptualize and relate to this profound mystery as a 'divine being' because that's what makes the most sense to them. It's easier for them to grasp and interact with it that way. Others conceptualize it as an elaborate mindless mechanism that mankind could eventually understand and maybe even control, because that's what makes sense to them. That's how they find stability in the face of such a profound mystery. But either way, and whatever other way we may choose, it's still just us doing what we do: trying to make sense of the great mystery.
None of ours is. We humans just don't have the scope for it. So the mystery remains. And we choose our various ways of dealing with it. And in doing that, we define ourselves as individuals from within our collective.

Rather interesting, that.

Modern physics is now suggesting that energy is not fundamental but a clue to deeper and more fundamental properties.
This is partially because the conservation of energy is generally invalid in regards to general relativity due to the time evolution of space.
There is a good explanation in this short episode of Spacetime:

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Easy simple denial



Simply read your own ranting biligerant posts,



No, you need to take responsibility for your own posts.




No problem, you brought it up. I responded.

When you asked a straight forward question I answered.



Your ranting continues unabated.


Why do I believe? I believe mainly based on the spiritual nature of the Baha'i Faith, and what I consider the universal spiritual nature of humanity, which in our previous dialogue you only accept strict materialism as a reason to believe. There is of course is no objective verifiable evidence for the existence nor the non-existence of God

Very front loaded question, which I believe I answered. I believe in only One 'Source,' and God is the Creator of all of existence through natural methods. yes, humans through the millennia humans mold Gods in their own images.

The topic of the thread is whether atheism is consistent or not. I have simply responded yes, science is consistent with science. The rest is NOT the topic of the thread.

When have I denied anything that I have actually stated? No answer. What have I denied that I have stated? No answer. When have I ever demonstrated that I am not responsible for my own words? No answer. When have I indicated that a post was not my own post? No answer, and impossible to deny(unless mental). Other than post #537, which was in response to your stoking the flames of intolerance, elitism, bigotry, and hatred towards Atheists, what specific passages were just belligerent rants? Still no answer. You claimed that you didn't bring up Baha'i in this thread, but you clearly did on at least three occasions. Did you admit you were wrong, or made a mistake? Of course not. I don't care what you believe in, but I do care about all levels of hypocrisy and dishonesty. I do care about this insidious encroachment by self-proclaimed pseudo-sophists and cult devotees, who try and pollute the vulnerable and rational minds of our youth with their superstitions and myths. Especially, by a belief system that is dominated by artifice. All this only adds to the "dumbing down" of my America. It is blatantly hypocritical to ask others to take responsibility for their thoughts, words, posts, and behavior without evidence, when every action you make is always justified or blamed on the beliefs and writings of your faith. Your belief alone seem to absolved you from being responsible for your own actions. For example, was stating that you did not mention your faith on this thread a lie? I can envision nothing more frightening than a nation of followers, that also think this way.

When I ask a question, you are not allowed to change the question, and then answer the question you created. I asked you WHY you believed that only your god created Abiogenesis and the ToE, and not one/all of the other 4000 other Gods? I was not asking you what you base your belief on, or what your faith base its beliefs on. This is a test of logic, not a test of faith. Is it possible for you to think independent of your beliefs? Hopefully, I will receive more than just snarky remarks. Maybe even the appearance of honesty.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Exactly. We have no access to this "objective reality/truth" that you imagine to exist because we all experience and cognate reality subjectively. Even the term "reality" refers to our subjective conception of existence, including that which we imagine and presume to exist beyond our cognition. Call it "God", call it "objective reality", call it "the whole truth", conceptualize and label it however you want. It's all equally conceptual, equally subjective, and equally unavailable to us apart from our subjective conceptions.
There is no "moon", anywhere, until we recognize it (re-cognate it as conceptualized phenomena). Existence is just energy expressing itself. Some of that energy is being expressed as matter, some as motion, some as space-time, some as light, some as heat, and so on. But it's all just energy (whatever that is) expressing itself according to the rules of it's existence (whatever they are). Humans experience some of this expressed energy, and try to make sense of it. This is what we call "perception"; making sense (conceptualizing) our experience of this mysterious energy as it's expressing itself. And WE are part of the energy expressing itself. In fact, our attempt at 'making sense' of that expressed energy is itself an expression of that energy. We are existence trying to make sense of itself. How about that!

There is no "moon". There is only expressed energy, everywhere, until we humans experience various bits of it and agree to conceptualize that experience as a moon. Same as we do every thing, and every one, and all else. It's ALL our conceptualized experience of energy expressing itself. And we have no idea what energy is, why it expresses itself as it does, or what it means, if it means anything, apart from our conceptualizations. It is the greatest and most profound mystery of our existence. Most people choose to conceptualize and relate to this profound mystery as a 'divine being' because that's what makes the most sense to them. It's easier for them to grasp and interact with it that way. Others conceptualize it as an elaborate mindless mechanism that mankind could eventually understand and maybe even control, because that's what makes sense to them. That's how they find stability in the face of such a profound mystery. But either way, and whatever other way we may choose, it's still just us doing what we do: trying to make sense of the great mystery.
None of ours is. We humans just don't have the scope for it. So the mystery remains. And we choose our various ways of dealing with it. And in doing that, we define ourselves as individuals from within our collective.

Rather interesting, that.

Seems you have abandoned your question, "How can we possibly know this when we are all trapped within our own subjective perspective?", with, "Exactly, we have no access to this "objective reality/truth" that you imagine to exist because we all experience and cognate reality subjectively.". You must be tired of changing the goal posts again(denial and agreement). If you simply want to just label anything that you don't understand, why not just call it an argument from ignorance? Or, under the "I don't know " label? We do know that something must exists outside of ourselves, otherwise how could our senses have evolved, and perceptually connect us with our environment? Our senses tell us that an objective reality exist, in the same way that a baseball hitting your face, tells you that force and momentum exist. We have no reason to doubt/distrust our senses. From our subjective perspective, what exists outside of this perspective is totally irrelevant to our subjective reality.

Again you keep conflating conceptual with perceptual. They are not the same. The apple physically exists only if it is perceived to exist. It does not physically exist because you conceive it in your mind. Or, experience it with your mind. The objective reality exists because there is perceptual evidence to support its existence. There is no perceptual evidence to support the existence of God. So, give it up. You can't make the logical leap that whatever exists in the mind, if you really think hard about it long enough, it will somehow exist in the physical reality. This is called an illusion(distortion of sensory input), based on a delusion(fixed belief). Lets move on.

Existence, in this context, is "the fact or state of living or having objective reality.". It doesn't matter whether or not the apple can be seen, touched, or tasted, it has no effect on whether the apple itself still exists. Even if no one is perceiving the apple, it will still exist. If no one is perceiving, cognising, experiencing, or conceptualizing the moon, it will also still exist. I suppose that when you close your eyes, people will no longer exist anymore? Then when you open them, people will conceptually re-exist? Utter nonsense. Energy is a property of matter. Matter CAN be created and destroyed, but the energy used to create or destroy matter, will always be conserved. Matter is anything that carries mass. Energy is the ability to do work, by displacing something by applying a force to it. Nothing more, nothing less. We certainly use energy to maintain our existence. Since energy does not exist unless it is being used, it does not simply "express itself".

Clearly your logic is worst than your understanding of science. But it's one thing to not understand concepts, but it is another thing to choose not to understand concepts. Anyway, anyone who thinks that, "There is no "moon". There is only expressed energy, everywhere, until we humans experience various bits of it and agree to conceptualize that experience as a moon", is truly beyond my level of understanding reality. Clearly our realities are different. Thank you for your time.

 

[shunyadragon]

When have I denied anything that I have actually stated? No answer. What have I denied that I have stated? No answer. When have I ever demonstrated that I am not responsible for my own words? No answer. When have I indicated that a post was not my own post? No answer, and impossible to deny(unless mental). Other than post #537, which was in response to your stoking the flames of intolerance, elitism, bigotry, and hatred towards Atheists, what specific passages were just belligerent rants? Still no answer. You claimed that you didn't bring up Baha'i in this thread, but you clearly did on at least three occasions. Did you admit you were wrong, or made a mistake? Of course not. I don't care what you believe in, but I do care about all levels of hypocrisy and dishonesty. I do care about this insidious encroachment by self-proclaimed pseudo-sophists and cult devotees, who try and pollute the vulnerable and rational minds of our youth with their superstitions and myths. Especially, by a belief system that is dominated by artifice. All this only adds to the "dumbing down" of my America. It is blatantly hypocritical to ask others to take responsibility for their thoughts, words, posts, and behavior without evidence, when every action you make is always justified or blamed on the beliefs and writings of your faith. Your belief alone seem to absolved you from being responsible for your own actions. For example, was stating that you did not mention your faith on this thread a lie? I can envision nothing more frightening than a nation of followers, that also think this way.

When I ask a question, you are not allowed to change the question, and then answer the question you created. I asked you WHY you believed that only your god created Abiogenesis and the ToE, and not one/all of the other 4000 other Gods? I was not asking you what you base your belief on, or what your faith base its beliefs on. This is a test of logic, not a test of faith. Is it possible for you to think independent of your beliefs? Hopefully, I will receive more than just snarky remarks. Maybe even the appearance of honesty.

Excellent self-reflection of your problems communicating with those who believe differently.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

This view:

@Truly Enlightened said: ↑
When you use a lot of big "sciency sounding" words without fully understanding their meanings, you risk sounding incoherent and unintelligible.

Could very well be a dodge to avoid dialogue when the vocabulary get's a little heavy like high school level.

So do you recommend that people should use "big sciency sounding" words, without understanding what the meaning or the context of the words are? Do you think there is no risk that a person might sound incoherent and unintelligible? Or, did you selectively form your level of comprehension insult only from the first part of my comment? Never mind, contextomy and quote mining are your favorite tools for distortion and misrepresentation.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Excellent self-reflection of your problems communicating with those who believe differently.

Still avoiding and deflecting? Actually I don't blame you. If I lacked any factual basis for any comment out of my mouth, I would also keep snarking and insulting to save face. And just hope that nobody will notice. Maybe you can start answering the questions when you're finished?

 

[shunyadragon]

Still avoiding and deflecting? Actually I don't blame you. If I lacked any factual basis for any comment out of my mouth, I would also keep snarking and insulting to save face. And just hope that nobody will notice. Maybe you can start answering the questions when you're finished?

Still avoiding and deflecting? Actually I don't blame you. If I lacked any factual basis for any comment out of my mouth, I would also keep snarking and insulting to save face. And just hope that nobody will notice. Maybe you can start answering the questions when you're finished?