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:
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.
"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?
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).