3 ms·

> Humans aren't rational beings that form conclusions by logically composing facts into a singular point. But you’re proceeding to form a logical, rational arg

> Humans aren't rational beings that form conclusions by logically composing facts into a singular point. But you’re proceeding to form a logical, rational argument in saying this. How are we to ever understand what you’re intending?

deltaonefour 5y ago
I am simply saying that humans by nature are irrational. You have to deliberately discipline yourself to be dispassionate in constructing logical arguments. Atheism is illogical and unscientific. It is a collection of people deliberately and unconsciously picking and choosing specific evidence to validate a pre-existing belief that they already staked so much of their identity on. A person born into atheism isn't just going to change sides as soon as he's presented with evidence that Christianity is real. Rather he will twist and bend the existing evidence in a way so as to support is current world view. When you do place together all the facts, logically speaking, what follows is that the bible is real.
- yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
  Atheism isn’t a belief. Atheism is non-belief.
  - deltaonefour 5y ago
    This is pedantic. You could say you believe in not believing in certain things. Does it even matter? You know what I mean, no need to get pedantic here.
    - yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
      I don’t really wish to continue arguing with you, because as I wrote earlier, your heels are dug in and there’s nothing I can say or do to convince you. I do think it’s useful to highlight here though that the difference between belief and non-belief is not pedantry, and it’s not inconsequential. The entire scientific method is about challenging ideas to discover the truth. When a scientist makes a claim to another scientist, the default position is “I don’t believe it. Please show substantial evidence to support your claim.” This is different from faith-based scientism, which is more similar to any other faith-based ism in that the method is to protect ideas from challenge in order to preserve the “truth”.
      - deltaonefour 5y ago
        I'm sorry but you're the one that is biased and have your heels dug. I don't wish to to communicate with you either. However you're the one that decided to respond to me. I'm up to talk but if you say something as rude as, "I don’t really wish to continue arguing with you" then I have no interest in anything you have to say. I kindly ask you to stop if you do not want to continue arguing with me, you're the one that responded to me in the first place. >I do think it’s useful to highlight here though that the difference between belief and non-belief is not pedantry, and it’s not inconsequential. If you don't wish to continue arguing with me why the heck are you still highlighting things? The difference is pedantic. It's like talking about the difference between adding a negative number and subtracting a positive number. You believe something exists. You disbelieve something doesn't exist. You believe something doesn't exist. You disbelieve something doesn't exist. These are linguistic phenomenons and you are just adding negative qualifiers to words thinking that it has a profound affect on meaning. It is 100% pedantic. Additionally my religion is not a belief. It is a logical conclusion built from the composition of facts. >The entire scientific method is about challenging ideas to discover the truth. When a scientist makes a claim to another scientist, the default position is “I don’t believe it. Please show substantial evidence to support your claim.” The scientific method cannot ever discover the truth. Proof is the domain of math and logic. In science and therefore the real world, nothing can be proven. To quote Einstein: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Science is not about proving things to be true. The entire endeavor of science is an attempt to prove something false. Repeated failures to prove something false only indicates that something "might" be true. This coupled with the fact that all observations tools in science have limited accuracy and limited precision makes it such that even the act of disproof is done through the lens of probability. Or in other words, nothing can really be disproven either. This is a bit philosophical and a bit too pedantic but the point is to illustrate that I understand the scientific method to a degree greater than even most atheists. >This is different from faith-based scientism, which is more similar to any other faith-based ism in that the method is to protect ideas from challenge in order to preserve the “truth”. Let me reiterate my point. My stance is not faith-based. It is self-evident logic. Every religious person you talk to parrots the buzz word of "faith" but really what they are saying to you is that their "belief" to them is as logical and rational as science is to you.
  - ARandomerDude 5y ago
    That isn't true at all. Atheism is a positive belief that the statement "there is no God" is true. For example, I don't lack a belief that an elephant is in my living room, I have a positive belief that there is no such elephant.
    - rjbwork 5y ago
      This leads to absurdity. There are infinite non-existances, but finite existences (modulo the infinite of the universe, but the observable universe/the ~13.7 billion lightyear bubble around the Earth or so is finite). To assert that you have a positive belief that things that do not exist do not exists is to assert that you have infinite positive beliefs in the non-existant. To encode these infinite positive beliefs in reality would require infinite storage space, even in something as powerful as the human brain. I instead assert that you have positive beliefs in things that exist and, only upon it being necessary, do you assert the factuality of non-existences in an ad hoc as needed basis as the result of the conjugation of your positive beliefs of existence.

deltaonefour 5y ago

I am simply saying that humans by nature are irrational. You have to deliberately discipline yourself to be dispassionate in constructing logical arguments. Atheism is illogical and unscientific. It is a collection of people deliberately and unconsciously picking and choosing specific evidence to validate a pre-existing belief that they already staked so much of their identity on. A person born into atheism isn't just going to change sides as soon as he's presented with evidence that Christianity is real. Rather he will twist and bend the existing evidence in a way so as to support is current world view. When you do place together all the facts, logically speaking, what follows is that the bible is real.

yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
Atheism isn’t a belief. Atheism is non-belief.
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  This is pedantic. You could say you believe in not believing in certain things. Does it even matter? You know what I mean, no need to get pedantic here.
  - yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
    I don’t really wish to continue arguing with you, because as I wrote earlier, your heels are dug in and there’s nothing I can say or do to convince you. I do think it’s useful to highlight here though that the difference between belief and non-belief is not pedantry, and it’s not inconsequential. The entire scientific method is about challenging ideas to discover the truth. When a scientist makes a claim to another scientist, the default position is “I don’t believe it. Please show substantial evidence to support your claim.” This is different from faith-based scientism, which is more similar to any other faith-based ism in that the method is to protect ideas from challenge in order to preserve the “truth”.
    - deltaonefour 5y ago
      I'm sorry but you're the one that is biased and have your heels dug. I don't wish to to communicate with you either. However you're the one that decided to respond to me. I'm up to talk but if you say something as rude as, "I don’t really wish to continue arguing with you" then I have no interest in anything you have to say. I kindly ask you to stop if you do not want to continue arguing with me, you're the one that responded to me in the first place. >I do think it’s useful to highlight here though that the difference between belief and non-belief is not pedantry, and it’s not inconsequential. If you don't wish to continue arguing with me why the heck are you still highlighting things? The difference is pedantic. It's like talking about the difference between adding a negative number and subtracting a positive number. You believe something exists. You disbelieve something doesn't exist. You believe something doesn't exist. You disbelieve something doesn't exist. These are linguistic phenomenons and you are just adding negative qualifiers to words thinking that it has a profound affect on meaning. It is 100% pedantic. Additionally my religion is not a belief. It is a logical conclusion built from the composition of facts. >The entire scientific method is about challenging ideas to discover the truth. When a scientist makes a claim to another scientist, the default position is “I don’t believe it. Please show substantial evidence to support your claim.” The scientific method cannot ever discover the truth. Proof is the domain of math and logic. In science and therefore the real world, nothing can be proven. To quote Einstein: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Science is not about proving things to be true. The entire endeavor of science is an attempt to prove something false. Repeated failures to prove something false only indicates that something "might" be true. This coupled with the fact that all observations tools in science have limited accuracy and limited precision makes it such that even the act of disproof is done through the lens of probability. Or in other words, nothing can really be disproven either. This is a bit philosophical and a bit too pedantic but the point is to illustrate that I understand the scientific method to a degree greater than even most atheists. >This is different from faith-based scientism, which is more similar to any other faith-based ism in that the method is to protect ideas from challenge in order to preserve the “truth”. Let me reiterate my point. My stance is not faith-based. It is self-evident logic. Every religious person you talk to parrots the buzz word of "faith" but really what they are saying to you is that their "belief" to them is as logical and rational as science is to you.
- ARandomerDude 5y ago
  That isn't true at all. Atheism is a positive belief that the statement "there is no God" is true. For example, I don't lack a belief that an elephant is in my living room, I have a positive belief that there is no such elephant.
  - rjbwork 5y ago
    This leads to absurdity. There are infinite non-existances, but finite existences (modulo the infinite of the universe, but the observable universe/the ~13.7 billion lightyear bubble around the Earth or so is finite). To assert that you have a positive belief that things that do not exist do not exists is to assert that you have infinite positive beliefs in the non-existant. To encode these infinite positive beliefs in reality would require infinite storage space, even in something as powerful as the human brain. I instead assert that you have positive beliefs in things that exist and, only upon it being necessary, do you assert the factuality of non-existences in an ad hoc as needed basis as the result of the conjugation of your positive beliefs of existence.