|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Oct 30, 2018 18:48:47 GMT
I'm gonna ask you once again, how does your clumsy metaphor work on former believers that do "understand" the concept of God by your criteria? Again that's like saying someone that became colorblind somehow doesn't undestand the concept of "green" even though they used to be able to see it. Try to answer this time without strawmans, red herrings, goal posts moves, etc or just admit it was a stupid comparisson. You are assuming facts not in evidence or even claimed by me. What makes you think a Christian-turned-atheist ever understood anything about God in the first place? You can't read anyone's mind. You don't know what anybody understands or doesn't understand. I do. That's why I'm not passing judgment on anyone for being ignorant, and neither does God. "You are assuming facts not in evidence or even claimed by me."
Not sure what that even means, I'm just gonna label it gibberish
"What makes you think a Christian"
I never said "Christian", another strawman.
"What makes you think a Christian-turned-atheist ever understood anything about God in the first place?"
No True Scottsman, just as I predicted.
"You can't read anyone's mind."
Neither can you, but you basically proported to do that with your No True Scottsman
"I do"
You can read people's minds now?
"That's why I'm not passing judgment on anyone for being ignorant"
Your "it's like explaining advanced calculus to preschoolers" comparisson says otherwise.
Two fallacies and two contradictions, any other bad arguments you wanna throw my way?
|
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Oct 30, 2018 19:01:23 GMT
Yes, that is unfortunate. Atheists and the religious alike have been misinterpreting the Bible for centuries. Ah, so when I asked you which god doesn't hold it against atheists for not believing in him, your answer is "The God of the Bible". And that's because everybody (or nearly) except you misinterprets the Bible when they say that God does indeed hold it against atheists. Why don't you expand on that? It would be much more interesting than your OP.
Please quote me where I said those words 'The God of the Bible'. Not everyone takes the Bible literally or misinterprets Christ's words--only atheists and their religious counterparts do. |
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Oct 30, 2018 19:03:57 GMT
was it jesus who said: 'sell everything you have and give it to the whores'?
because republican christians have got that wired.
|
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Oct 30, 2018 19:04:11 GMT
You are assuming facts not in evidence or even claimed by me. What makes you think a Christian-turned-atheist ever understood anything about God in the first place? You can't read anyone's mind. You don't know what anybody understands or doesn't understand. I do. That's why I'm not passing judgment on anyone for being ignorant, and neither does God. "You are assuming facts not in evidence or even claimed by me."
Not sure what that even means, I'm just gonna label it gibberish
"What makes you think a Christian"
I never said "Christian", another strawman.
"What makes you think a Christian-turned-atheist ever understood anything about God in the first place?"
No True Scottsman, just as I predicted.
"You can't read anyone's mind."
Neither can you, but you basically proported to do that with your No True Scottsman
"That's why I'm not passing judgment on anyone for being ignorant"
Your "it's like explaining advanced calculus to preschoolers" comparisson says otherwise.
Two fallacies and two contradictions, any other bad arguments you wanna throw my way?
That 'gibberish' explains exactly what you're doing--putting 'gibberish' in my mouth and words that I never said. I never claimed to be able to read anyone's mind. I claimed that judging by what they say, they are misinterpreting the Bible and Christ's words. If anyone is claiming to read minds it's you. You think you know what a Christian-turned-atheist thinks. IMO, those people turn atheist because precisely because they have misinterpreted and believed erroneously. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 30, 2018 19:04:33 GMT
explaining colors to a blind person. It's like trying to explain advanced calculus to a preschooler. Whether the blind person or preschooler would understand the explanation is one thing. But even if they couldn't understand, we could actually show an explanation in both cases. It's not that difficult to do. So what's the explanation in this case? Maybe atheists won't understand it, but let's see an explanation they won't understand. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Oct 30, 2018 19:10:20 GMT
"You are assuming facts not in evidence or even claimed by me."
Not sure what that even means, I'm just gonna label it gibberish
"What makes you think a Christian"
I never said "Christian", another strawman.
"What makes you think a Christian-turned-atheist ever understood anything about God in the first place?"
No True Scottsman, just as I predicted.
"You can't read anyone's mind."
Neither can you, but you basically proported to do that with your No True Scottsman
"That's why I'm not passing judgment on anyone for being ignorant"
Your "it's like explaining advanced calculus to preschoolers" comparisson says otherwise.
Two fallacies and two contradictions, any other bad arguments you wanna throw my way?
That 'gibberish' explains exactly what you're doing--putting 'gibberish' in my mouth and words that I never said. I never claimed to be able to read anyone's mind. I claimed that judging by what they say, they are misinterpreting the Bible and Christ's words. If anyone is claiming to read minds it's you. You think you know what a Christian-turned-atheist thinks. IMO, those people turn atheist because precisely because they have misinterpreted and believed erroneously. "I never claimed to be able to read anyone's mind."
You posted: "You don't know what anybody understands or doesn't understand. I do." That's basically a claim to mindreading.
"I claimed that judging by what they say, they are misinterpreting the Bible and Christ's words."
That's just intellecutal laziness. I could proport people who don't believe in the divinity of Zeus are misunderstanding Greek mythology.
"IMO, those people turn atheist because precisely because they have misinterpreted and believed erroneously."
And another No True Scottsman
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 30, 2018 19:15:57 GMT
When I was 10 or 11 years old, I checked out a book on serial music composition from the local library. I knew some music theory, as I'd been taking private music lessons on both drums and piano, and I was also in band in school. Still, it was a pretty advanced graduate-level text--it might have been someone's dissertation, and I wasn't even at all intellectually familiar with the idea of serialism at that point. So it was way above my head. Still, I could tell that there was something there to understand, and I was determined to glean something about it--I was fascinated that something I knew a bit about and was interested in would have areas that were so advanced and esoteric to me.
So even though as an atheist maybe I couldn't understand an explanation of God, you should be able to present the explanation of God where I can tell that there's something there to understand, even if it's way above my head.
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Oct 30, 2018 19:23:35 GMT
explaining colors to a blind person. It's like trying to explain advanced calculus to a preschooler. Explaining Apollo to a Christian is like explaining colors to a blind person. It's like trying to explain advanced calculus to a preschooler. Uh, where were we? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2018 19:27:07 GMT
explaining colors to a blind person. It's like trying to explain advanced calculus to a preschooler. "Things theists say to try and live with the fact that their beliefs cannot be rationally justified." |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Oct 30, 2018 20:04:13 GMT
Ah, so when I asked you which god doesn't hold it against atheists for not believing in him, your answer is "The God of the Bible". And that's because everybody (or nearly) except you misinterprets the Bible when they say that God does indeed hold it against atheists. Why don't you expand on that? It would be much more interesting than your OP.
Please quote me where I said those words 'The God of the Bible'. Not everyone takes the Bible literally or misinterprets Christ's words--only atheists and their religious counterparts do. "The God of the Bible" is obviously the god you mean, so it makes no difference whether or not you used that exact phrase. Unless you're willing to explain how those (the vast majority) who interpret the Bible to conclude that God holds against atheists are wrong, then you're no longer worth any more attention.
|
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Oct 30, 2018 21:35:47 GMT
Please quote me where I said those words 'The God of the Bible'. Not everyone takes the Bible literally or misinterprets Christ's words--only atheists and their religious counterparts do. "The God of the Bible" is obviously the god you mean, so it makes no difference whether or not you used that exact phrase. Unless you're willing to explain how those (the vast majority) who interpret the Bible to conclude that God holds against atheists are wrong, then you're no longer worth any more attention.
I don't have to. That would negate the very point of my OP which is to do what you request would be an exercise in futility. I'm not referring to people who interpret the Bible. I was referring only to God. |
|
|
|
Post by shadrack on Oct 30, 2018 23:25:05 GMT
Explaining God to an atheist is like explaining Santa Claus to an adult.
The lack of belief has nothing to do with a lack of understanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 30, 2018 23:27:23 GMT
"The God of the Bible" is obviously the god you mean, so it makes no difference whether or not you used that exact phrase. Unless you're willing to explain how those (the vast majority) who interpret the Bible to conclude that God holds against atheists are wrong, then you're no longer worth any more attention.
I don't have to. That would negate the very point of my OP which is to do what you request would be an exercise in futility.I'm not referring to people who interpret the Bible. I was referring only to God. It would give you practice putting it into words for the people who are capable of understanding it. And it would demonstrate that you're actually able to put it into words, contra skepticism otherwise, even if we're not able to understand it. |
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Oct 30, 2018 23:46:17 GMT
heretical thinking or puritanical blood drinking
gasping at the foot of a cross
with your
gaping mouth
stretched wide open
or
gingerly groping
that
model from a european region
no one
even knew about.
one must never pout
at
a sitting president
unless you too are a xenophobic
resident
believing all things
patriarchal
take precedence
over
those bills already paid
by so many
preyed upon residents
that martyrs look like
marigolds
adorning the crowns
of their
never ending pestilence.
sjw 10/30/18 inspired at this very moment in time as the righteous rise.
from the 'bewitched series' of poems
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Oct 31, 2018 12:05:53 GMT
Wow! Your god sounds awesome! Which one is he? Certainly not one I've ever run across on this board. Nature is my "god." AFAIK, if one is is uninhibited by having to falsify/prove their conjecture, one can explain anything through nature...or at least make up that some unknown aspect/element/feature in nature makes thus and so possible. And nature doesn't care if one believes in it or not. Although, I have to tell you, if you reject certain aspects of nature, there are consequences. Fortunately most babies learn most of those consequences by the time they're 2 yrs old. |
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Oct 31, 2018 15:14:32 GMT
Wow! Your god sounds awesome! Which one is he? Certainly not one I've ever run across on this board. Nature is my "god." AFAIK, if one is is uninhibited by having to falsify/prove their conjecture, one can explain anything through nature...or at least make up that some unknown aspect/element/feature in nature makes thus and so possible. And nature doesn't care if one believes in it or not. Although, I have to tell you, if you reject certain aspects of nature, there are consequences. Fortunately most babies learn most of those consequences by the time they're 2 yrs old. You must have flunked Math. What you say is geometrically impossible. You assign "Nature" an agenda, and put it in the set of cognitive forces that have an agenda, and in the same paragraph you state that Nature doesn't care. I could be reading you wrong on the second point. Perhaps you only mean Nature doesn't care about someone believing. However, you make your first point quite clear. You have to, because Nature has laws of Nature and Physics, and thus does have an agenda if "Nature" is in charge. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 31, 2018 15:24:06 GMT
Nature is my "god." AFAIK, if one is is uninhibited by having to falsify/prove their conjecture, one can explain anything through nature...or at least make up that some unknown aspect/element/feature in nature makes thus and so possible. And nature doesn't care if one believes in it or not. Although, I have to tell you, if you reject certain aspects of nature, there are consequences. Fortunately most babies learn most of those consequences by the time they're 2 yrs old. You must have flunked Math. What you say is geometrically impossible. You assign "Nature" an agenda, and put it in the set of cognitive forces that have an agenda, and in the same paragraph you state that Nature doesn't care. I could be reading you wrong on the second point. Perhaps you only mean Nature doesn't care about someone believing. However, you make your first point quite clear. You have to, because Nature has laws of Nature and Physics, and thus does have an agenda if "Nature" is in charge. Your comment reads as if your reading comprehension of his comment was close to zero. |
|
senan90
Junior Member
@senan90
Posts: 1,452
Likes: 546
|
Post by senan90 on Oct 31, 2018 15:32:33 GMT
Nature is my "god." AFAIK, if one is is uninhibited by having to falsify/prove their conjecture, one can explain anything through nature...or at least make up that some unknown aspect/element/feature in nature makes thus and so possible. And nature doesn't care if one believes in it or not. Although, I have to tell you, if you reject certain aspects of nature, there are consequences. Fortunately most babies learn most of those consequences by the time they're 2 yrs old. You must have flunked Math. What you say is geometrically impossible. You assign "Nature" an agenda, and put it in the set of cognitive forces that have an agenda, and in the same paragraph you state that Nature doesn't care. I could be reading you wrong on the second point. Perhaps you only mean Nature doesn't care about someone believing. However, you make your first point quite clear. You have to, because Nature has laws of Nature and Physics, and thus does have an agenda if "Nature" is in charge. And you're the asshole dickhead who must have flunked remedial English; nothing in his post remotely implied that assertion. Unsurprising, of course, you're the sycophantic shit-for-brains who has liking the resident board troll's demented ravings. Both of you are two cheeks of the same ass. |
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Oct 31, 2018 17:06:19 GMT
I can prove that with algebra
Given ... A = 1 and B = 1 therefore ... A = B Multiply both sides by B and you get ... A*B = B^2 Now subtract A^2 from both sides of the equation and you get ... A*B - A^2 = B^2 - A^2 Now factor both sides of the equation and you get ... A * (B - A) = (B - A) * (B + A) Now divide both sides of the equation by (B - A) and you get ... A = (B + A) Using the given, you get ... 1 = (1 + 1) ergo: 1 = 2
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Oct 31, 2018 17:12:50 GMT
I can prove that with algebra
Given ... A = 1 and B = 1 therefore ... A = B Multiply both sides by B and you get ... A*B = B^2 Now subtract A^2 from both sides of the equation and you get ... A*B - A^2 = B^2 - A^2 Now factor both sides of the equation and you get ... A * (B - A) = (B - A) * (B + A) Now divide both sides of the equation by (B - A) and you get ... A = (B + A) Using the given, you get ... 1 = (1 + 1) ergo: 1 = 2
Ain't division by 0 fun?  |
|
