Why atheists are not as rational as some like to think

[MonkeyFire]

You list your religion as Faithful Jesus believer. Are you not skeptical of the claims of Islam?

I only believe, dis-belief is nihl. Are you not skeptical to Faith itself? I believe in faith to be honest... in my religion "not-skeptical" is a anti-Christ, or a double negative. Hate is the first beast who gives his power to No-Love in revelation.

 

[Yerda]

Learning is a passive process, not an active methodology. It is the application of our reasoning(intuitive, inductive, and deductive), which is the method used in validating new discoveries. Why would a God need to be discovered? Is He hiding? Or, are you really saying that we need to find enough selective evidence to satisfy, and reinforce our confirmation biases? A book created things?

If you happen to hold the opinion that the creation reveals the nature of the creator then you might want to spend some time understanding the world, i.e. get educated on the natural sciences. As has been the case for some believers. That isn't so hard to grasp is it? It makes sense to me anyway.

So, read the links, don't read the links. You might learn something. Your shout.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

If you happen to hold the opinion that the creation reveals the nature of the creator then you might want to spend some time understanding the world, i.e. get educated on the natural sciences. As has been the case for some believers. That isn't so hard to grasp is it? It makes sense to me anyway.

So, read the links, don't read the links. You might learn something. Your shout.

I think if I did hold that opinion(presupposition), the last thing I would want to do is spend time uncovering the true nature of reality. Are you suggesting that by understanding the underlying scientific nature of all natural phenomena, that I will only uncover the nature of the Creator? That is quite a leap of faith. My knowledge and understanding of the natural sciences is more than just cursory. Anything that lies outside of our cause and effect Universe, I am totally ignorant of. Other than referring and deflecting me to Google U., maybe you can provide the cure for that ignorance, Mate.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Skepticism is the dual opposite of faith. It's no more scientifically relevant than the later, if at all useful unlike the the positive force.

Skepticism is simply having doubts about the truth of something. These doubts are based on the lack of objective evidence, and the use of fallacious logic. Providing just ONE piece of objective evidence, and skepticism will disappear. But faith depend entirely on the lack of evidence. Less evidence, more faith. More evidence, less faith. There is certainly a lot of non-evidence out there to justify faith. Including this positive force you are referring to. I won't bother asking for the properties of this force, because I'm sure faith will definitely be necessary.

 

[ecco]

Skepticism is the dual opposite of faith. It's no more scientifically relevant than the later, if at all useful unlike the the positive force.

You list your religion as Faithful Jesus believer. Are you not skeptical of the claims of Islam?

I only believe, dis-belief is nihl. Are you not skeptical to Faith itself? I believe in faith to be honest... in my religion "not-skeptical" is a anti-Christ, or a double negative. Hate is the first beast who gives his power to No-Love in revelation.

First you stated that "Skepticism is the dual opposite of faith". When I asked if you were not "skeptical of the claims of Islam", your reply evaded my question with a barely intelligible response.

Why is that?

Is it because if you admit that you are skeptical of the claims of Islam, you would be in conflict with your assertion that "Skepticism is the dual opposite of faith"?

 

[MonkeyFire]

Skepticism is simply having doubts about the truth of something. These doubts are based on the lack of objective evidence, and the use of fallacious logic. Providing just ONE piece of objective evidence, and skepticism will disappear. But faith depend entirely on the lack of evidence. Less evidence, more faith. More evidence, less faith. There is certainly a lot of non-evidence out there to justify faith. Including this positive force you are referring to. I won't bother asking for the properties of this force, because I'm sure faith will definitely be necessary.

First you stated that "Skepticism is the dual opposite of faith". When I asked if you were not "skeptical of the claims of Islam", your reply evaded my question with a barely intelligible response.

Why is that?

Is it because if you admit that you are skeptical of the claims of Islam, you would be in conflict with your assertion that "Skepticism is the dual opposite of faith"?

I told you, I only believe.

 

[Yerda]

I think if I did hold that opinion(presupposition), the last thing I would want to do is spend time uncovering the true nature of reality.

This is your prerogative. For others this is not the case.

Are you suggesting that by understanding the underlying scientific nature of all natural phenomena, that I will only uncover the nature of the Creator?

No. I don't believe in a creator.

My knowledge and understanding of the natural sciences is more than just cursory.

Well, this is never a bad thing.

Anything that lies outside of our cause and effect Universe, I am totally ignorant of. Other than referring and deflecting me to Google U., maybe you can provide the cure for that ignorance, Mate.

You think I was deflecting? I thought I was being helpful.

Listen, I just wanted to show you that not all religious impulses are towards ignorance; some people really have an expansive understanding of God and nature that impels them towards learning.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

This is your prerogative. For others this is not the case.

No. I don't believe in a creator.

Well, this is never a bad thing.

You think I was deflecting? I thought I was being helpful.

Listen, I just wanted to show you that not all religious impulses are towards ignorance; some people really have an expansive understanding of God and nature that impels them towards learning.

Sorry, I meant "directing" not "deflecting". When you stated, "If you happen to hold the opinion that the creation reveals the nature of the creator then you might want to spend some time understanding the world, i.e. get educated on the natural sciences", I thought you were referring to yourself. Since you don't believe in a Creator, then what is the relevance in understanding the relationship between God and Nature? What knowledge can we hope to gained from the understanding of any imaginary relationship? Justification of any unfalsifiable claim, is by definition an argument from ignorance. So please demonstrate which religions, or their impulses, will lead to any scientific enlightenment? Not to simple demonstrate that we all have a capacity to learn.