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?
If you haven't figured out the answer, it's that it's not a problem to us.
There are sometimes disagreements on nonessentials, there are sometimes disagreements on essentials that get resolved over time, and there are sometimes disagreements on essentials that don't get resolved, in which case over time it becomes realized that one party was not pursuing truth. Sometimes it takes a very long time, but in every long serious disagreement there is either a historical resolution and agreement, an ongoing dialogue, or a disappearance of one of the parties from the debate, usually due to other demonstrable evidence of not pursuing truth in the same spirit.
This principle is also useful for atheists seeking interpretations of physical evidence, so I share it.
If by "fairy tale" you mean an interpretation lacking a full explanation or understanding, all good scientists admit that their theory of everything is a fairy tale by that definition. But what other definition could there be to distinguish between us two?
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).
Christianity makes many propositions. Mortimer Adler indicated a good proposition to start with is that "one thing in existence is measurably the greatest". This is shared by both Christianity and many other positive systems, but is rejected by nihilistic systems. If you agree with that proposition, then we can exclude the nihilistic class and proceed to narrowing the positive class, by investigate what this "greatest thing" consists of. It seems that every test and corollary has demonstrated that things are measurable and thus one thing is the greatest.
If instead you want to jump ahead, it would be more proper for you to express a proposition that disconfirms Christianity. You may have tried this direct route already, but I've answered in place and we may need to continue to engage that. I admit the Bible is my source, but if you want to investigate the truth claims it needs to be done without the informal logical fallacy (well-poisoning) of declaring it stupid without testing the evidence. You may, for instance, object to "miracle" as being "supernatural", but Christians believe all events follow laws and so they realize (C. S. Lewis, Miracles) that we only call it "magic" until we understand the laws at work. If you were previously exposed to Christians who officiously refused to investigate topics labeled "miracle", that's not the only kind of Christian there is. (Per your first question, they and I would be happy to dialogue toward agreement in one spirit.)
I claim to know enough answer to put it into words and to indicate the part of the answer I don't know. Every origin theory does the same. I was reading an eminently reasonable black-hole paper where it's properly indicated that we can't know anything about black holes by direct observation; but what we do know is that black hole theory is the simplest explanation and anything else would require greater complexity and have less probative power. All scientific progress depends on finding, not the perfect theory of everything, but the theory with greatest explanatory power. If my theory happens to encapsulate everything under the name "God", and a different one does so under the name "many worlds hypothesis" or "strong anthropic principle", there is no prima facie reason to prefer one over the other.
By objecting, you imply you're claiming to know definitively it wasn't this "God". Your evidence for that implication is not forthcoming. But I'm very thankful to you that you keep trying.