Oof... Salty loser... Spamming is not cool, mkay
(media.conspiracies.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (111)
sorted by:
Thanks for self-identifying. If you don't believe any god is real, why would it be time for me to demonstrate otherwise? It's illogical, and in fact untruthful, to state your belief so boldly and then to challenge me to defeat your belief, unless you yourself already have doubts about your own belief.
If you affirm Truth exists and should be pursued, you've already demonstrated what you need, namely that truth and duty ("should") exist even though they have never been demonstrated empirically. Every atheist believes in one or more axioms that have not been demonstrated empirically, and can only make progress by admitting that. For instance, the statement that only empirically demonstrated propositions matter has never been demonstrated empirically.
There are atheists here I can work with because they do really want to pursue Truth. Rush Limbaugh said so rightly that he would not rest until everyone agreed with him, and that's a deep statement that there really is a truth and it has more power to shape both him and us than we realize. If you're willing not to rest until people agree with you, we can have a dialogue. The head mod of c/Atheist has helpfully pinned a top post prominently featuring my outline indicating a few points we can dialogue on. But here we're off-topic now.
Because you have to demonstrate HOW you know something in order for me to believe you, otherwise you're just making shit up or going alone with shit someone else made up.
What if I'm not interested in causing a person to believe who is so obviously self-sufficient in his belief? Jesus said the healthy do not need a doctor.
Interestingly I don't insist the same rule back to you, namely that you are under duty to demonstrate to me how you know something before I believe you. If I did your argument and system would collapse. To protect against this collapse, the golden rule or categorical imperative that we should not impose structures on others we are not willing to accept for ourselves is widely recognized by many atheists as a guide of life.
If you don't care what I believe or what I don't believe, then it should be no problem that I'm an atheist.
"No problem" means "it's not my problem".
You started with a reasonable question and I indicated how reasonable people can come to agreed interpretations of unclear ancient texts. You then flag-waved your atheism and your standards of belief, and I pointed out the core issue necessary to determine their consistency or inconsistency, and linked you a number of compelling, falsifiable evidences. I've said my peace each time. Should your apathy be my problem? Perhaps you've hung out with Christians who believe their righteousness in part depends on convincing you of something?
Either you pursue truth in its spirit, or you aren't as interested in truth as you profess. Since you don't even seem interested in c/Atheist, but you do seem interested in snap botlike answers, which should I conclude?
Was it buried somewhere in your 50 page comments? If you have even 1 single testable claim that would verify ANY aspect of Christianity, tell me what it is and how to test it?
Do you see any contradiction in claiming to pursue truth and then citing as a source of information a book full of appeals to the supernatural, and untestable claims?
No of course you don't. If you could spot contradictions you would notice the bible is full of them and realize it's a bad source of information.
I see my comment at https://scored.co/c/Conspiracies/p/1994owaTre/oof-salty-loser-spamming-is-not-/c/4ZDugTT19UX had its link helpfully broken by the platform when it intended to point to https://communities.win/c/Atheist/p/141reluACp/-burden-of-proof-is-on-the-one-m/c/4OUfR2Rkd1Q which starts with:
If nothing exists, nothing can be proven (Provine).
Things exist (Descartes).
Things are measurable (Democritus).
A greatest thing can be detected, defined according to its measurability (Adler).
Is it testable to you, via observation of things, that something that exists is measurably the greatest?
I don't cite the Bible as a source to you when you don't accept it; rather, I pointed out (also in that link) that when you pursue truth you naturally consider all the candidates and in this the Bible commends itself. Comparing it to other theories of everything, all of which have untestable claims and unknown laws of nature and alleged contradictions, it excels. But for you to see that you'd need to start with the basics such as whether some greatest thing exists.
Correct! A book can only be a communication about the unknown or unknowable, not the thing itself. Now we're making progress. Do you recognize that the universe contains the unknown and/or unknowable? Does this give you any pause when you criticize others for saying so? If you only criticize me for saying I know something, well, we can test the things I think I know, one proposition at a time (above).