Apostates versus converts

Obtenebrator said:
If that was my form of atheism I'd agree. But I'm not that type of atheist. You wouldn't understand. You don't even understand the faith you supposedly hold, how could you understand the lack of that faith?

/cope
Click to expand...
there aren't two types.......atheists like to pretend that agnostics are atheists......I think because they get lonely.........
 
domer76 said:
The irony is that his Yahweh, the god emerging in the OT as his god, was nothing more than a minor storm god among a pantheon of gods.

In Genesis, “let US make man in OUR image”. There’s his Yahweh speaking to the other gods.

In Genesis, after A&E ate from the Tree of Knowledge, the gods were afraid “they would be like US”.

You can call him Zeus or you can call him Yahweh. A rose by a different name,
Click to expand...
I don't know why you continue to argue religion when its obvious you know nothing about it except what some idiot atheist posted on the internet.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
that atheists are irrational?.....
Click to expand...
The opposite, as was clearly stated earlier. And, as pointed out, they didn’t all necessarily become atheists, although I suspect most did, they merely realized the garbage they were being fed were lies.

They sought the truth and found it. Unlike the joiners, who did joined on emotion.

Perfectly evident to most. Not you, however.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I don't know why you continue to argue religion when its obvious you know nothing about it except what some idiot atheist posted on the internet.....
Click to expand...
Funny how the presenter never told the audience what his background was. He merely cited the studies.

So, I don’t know. And either do you. But that has never stopped you from shooting off your ignorant mouth.
 
Obtenebrator said:
In the sciences when we test for the effect of a certain treatment we approach it by first assuming that the treatment we are testing has NO EFFECT. This is called the "Null Hypothesis". Then we test AGAINST the null to see if we can find evidence that it does have an effect.

If insufficient data come to the fore we simply FAIL TO REJECT THE NULL HYPOTHESIS. It's always an estimation, there's the possibility that we did insufficient testing or that we didn't find the data that may be there in support of rejecting the null, but at the end of the day we fail to reject the claim that there is no effect.

This is how I approach atheism. As a scientist.
Click to expand...

Yeah, You approach atheism as a scientist...the way religious people approach their religion as scientists!

You are no more able to see the inconsistencies of your "beliefs" (blind guesses) than are the religious.

Obtenebrator said:
It doesn't make a positive claim "There is no God" as that could always be flawed (perhaps I simply didn't find him in my limited time on the earth, or perhaps he was hiding, etc.)

But I can fail to find sufficient evidence for the positive claim and fail to reject the null hypothesis of "No God"

I feel this is the best I can do.
Click to expand...
I agree. It almost certainly is the best you can do. And it fall far short of what is needed for a logical, coherent position.

You base your use of the descriptor "atheist" on a belief...just as the religious base their various descriptors on other beliefs.

Get over yourself. Have your beliefs, because you are not yet able to live without them. But supposing you are somehow superior to the religious among us is laughable.
 
domer76 said:
Funny how the presenter never told the audience what his background was. He merely cited the studies.

So, I don’t know. And either do you. But that has never stopped you from shooting off your ignorant mouth.
Click to expand...
is it my fault you found someone as stupid as you to watch?......,
 
domer76 said:
I listened to an interesting podcast this morning. Studies that looked at the differences between people who left their religion versus people who joined one.

People who left their religions did it after long and careful study. It was an arduous and difficult journey for most, to abandon everything they had been taught. And suffer the potential ostracism that followed. Ironically, it was the very religion that encouraged them to “seek the truth” that brought them to leave that faith. It was an intellectual decision rather than an emotional one. One didn’t choose to become an atheist. They merely discovered they were one.

The reverse was the case for those joining a religion. It was typically to fill some sort of an emotional or social need at some point in their lives. They had a crisis and the church people or their peers were comforting to them. There was no study of the faith or really knowledge of its teachings. Merely an emotional choice.

Makes perfect sense. Intellect versus emotion. Knowledge versus faith.
Click to expand...
I wonder what the scientific or statistical survey basis for these claims are?

I stopped regularly attending church as soon as I was old enough to make my own decisions because I liked to sleep in on Sunday, and weekly Church attendance was a hassle. Not because I did any studying and research on religion, or became an enlightened atheist. I suspect there were millions of teenagers and young adults just like me.

On the other hand, my brother inexplicably began attending Methodist service in his 40s, and my mother started regularly attending Quaker meeting in her 60s, and they were both highly educated.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Yeah, You approach atheism as a scientist...the way religious people approach their religion as scientists!

You are no more able to see the inconsistencies of your "beliefs" (blind guesses) than are the religious.


I agree. It almost certainly is the best you can do. And it fall far short of what is needed for a logical, coherent position.

You base your use of the descriptor "atheist" on a belief...just as the religious base their various descriptors on other beliefs.

Get over yourself. Have your beliefs, because you are not yet able to live without them. But supposing you are somehow superior to the religious among us is laughable.
Click to expand...

Why do you dislike the scientific approach? Is it too subtle for you? Do you not understand it?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
there aren't two types.
Click to expand...

Except there are. They have been explained ad nauseam on this forum.

PostmodernProphet said:
......atheists like to pretend that agnostics are atheists.
Click to expand...

Agnostics are their own thing.

PostmodernProphet said:
.....I think because they get lonely.........
Click to expand...

Why does the lack of faith terrify you so? You are clearly upset that someone somewhere could think differently from you and it seems to threaten your immortal soul somehow. Why is that?
 
Obtenebrator said:
Why do you dislike the scientific approach? Is it too subtle for you? Do you not understand it?
Click to expand...
As I said, your "scientific" approach to atheism is identical to the "scientific" approach of religious people to gods.

If you do not understand that, stop blocking it. It becomes clear when you open your mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top