Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Theists are more humble than atheists....

popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 10:03:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At least among the particular subset of theists and atheists who think the longest and hardest about the issue. I find this interesting because it cuts against the narrative I hear so often amongst certain atheist circles that theists are (epistemically) arrogant - in that they claim to know more or believe more than they have an (epistemic) right to or are dogmatic in their absolute certainty, blah, blah, blah - and atheism is actually a more (epsitemically) modest position (in that they claim "I don't know" to certain questions).

The other parts are interesting but here's the relevant part:

"Theists and agnostics are less inclined than atheists to think they are in a better epistemic position in cases of religious disagreement

As we have seen, philosophers think they are sometimes involved in disagreements on religious matters with epistemic peers. But in many cases, they think there is an asymmetry. When such an asymmetry occurred, who is in the better epistemic position? The options were: (1) in the majority of cases I am in a better epistemic position (2) in the majority of cases, they are in a better epistemic position (3) in about half of cases, it"s they, in the other half it"s me.

Unsurprisingly, most philosophers (71.1%) thought that they were mostly in a better epistemic position, followed by 26.5% of respondents who thought they were in the better position half of the time, and 2.4% who thought that the other was usually in the better position.

I tested whether religious belief might make a difference in how epistemically modest our respondents were. One could argue that theists, because they adhere to religious beliefs that have their own epistemological criteria of acceptance, would be less epistemologically modest (i.e., more likely to choose option 1). On the other hand, theists might be involved in different religious debates than atheists, for instance, about whether Hell exists, or about which concept of the Trinity is correct, fine-grained discussions where they might feel less confident they are right than the more coarse-grained discussions on whether theism or naturalism is true.

Overall, theists, atheists, agnostics and those who have other beliefs differed in how often they thought they were in an epistemically better position in religious discussions, X2(6, N = 457) = 33.4, p = .000001. After Bonferroni correction, the following responses remained significantly different: theists responded less frequently that they were in an epistemically better position than atheists (p = .0018), a similar pattern was observed for agnostics (p = .0004). Theists were also more likely to respond they were correct in half of cases (p = .0035) compared to atheists, as were agnostics (p=.0028). There were no significant pairwise differences between those who self-identified as holding another view and any of the other positions.

Atheists responded more frequently than expected that they were correct in the majority of cases (p < .00001) and less frequently that they were correct in half of cases (p < .00001) than theists and agnostics."

http://prosblogion.ektopos.com...

Interestingly, this confirms what I've always thought when I these sort of claims (about theists being more espistemically arrogant). I've always thought that this isn't even close to being true amongst the theists I know and often times they are the ones who spend the most time thinking about and critiquing and doubting and being skeptical about their religious beliefs. So when I've heard claims about theists just blindly and unquestioningly following religious dogma it's always been a head scratcher to me because it's so far removed from a good characterization of how these religious people think about their own beliefs.

What Bill Valliciella said here seems to me to be correct in a lot of instances:

""Some of Us Just Go One God Further"

I've seen this quotation attributed to Richard Dawkins. From what I have read of him, it seems like something he would say. The idea, I take it, is that all gods are on a par, and so, given that everyone is an atheist with respect to some gods, one may as well make a clean sweep and be an atheist with respect to all gods. You don't believe in Zeus or in a celestial teapot. Then why do you believe in the God of Isaac, Abraham, and Jacob?

What Dawkins and the gang seem to be assuming is that the following questions are either senseless or not to be taken seriously: 'Is the Judeo-Christian god the true God?' 'Is any particular god the true God' 'Is any particular conception of deity adequate to the divine reality?' The idea, then, is that all candidates for deity are in the same logical boat. Nothing could be divine. Since all theistic religions are false, there is no live question as to which such religion is true. It is not as if there is a divine reality and that some religions are more adequate to it than others. One could not say, for example, that Judaism is somewhat adequate to the divine reality, Christianity more adequate, and Buddhism not at all adequate. There just is no divine reality. There is nothing of a spiritual nature beyond the human horizon. There is no Mind beyond finite mind. Man is the measure.

That is the atheist's deepest conviction. It seems so obvious to him that he cannot begin to genuinely doubt it, nor can he understand how anyone could genuinely believe the opposite. But why assume that there is nothing beyond the human horizon? The issue dividing theists and atheists can perhaps be put in terms of Jamesian 'live options':

EITHER: Some form of theism (hitherto undeveloped perhaps or only partially developed) is not only logically and epistemically possible, but also an 'existential' possibility, a live option;

OR: No form of theism is an existential possibility, a live option.

Theist-atheist dialog is made difficult by a certain asymmetry: whereas a sophisticated living faith involves a certain amount of purifying doubt, together with a groping beyond images and pat conceptualizations toward a transcendent reality, one misses any corresponding doubt or tentativeness on the part of sophisticated atheists. Dawkins and Co. seem so cocksure of their position. For them, theism is not a live option or existential possibility. This is obvious from their mocking comparisons of God to a celestial teapot, flying spaghetti monster, and the like.

For sophisticated theists, however, atheism is a live option.
The existence of this asymmetry makes one wonder whether any productive dialog with atheists is possible. "

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com...

Although, I will say that there are sophisticated atheists like William Rowe who don't fit this characterization. William Rowe is a "friendly atheist"**

**http://www.iep.utm.edu...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 10:03:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
And, yes, I did make the thread title intentionally provocative. (^_^)
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 10:15:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 10:03:15 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At least among the particular subset of theists and atheists who think the longest and hardest about the issue. I find this interesting because it cuts against the narrative I hear so often amongst certain atheist circles that theists are (epistemically) arrogant - in that they claim to know more or believe more than they have an (epistemic) right to or are dogmatic in their absolute certainty, blah, blah, blah - and atheism is actually a more (epsitemically) modest position (in that they claim "I don't know" to certain questions).

The other parts are interesting but here's the relevant part:

"Theists and agnostics are less inclined than atheists to think they are in a better epistemic position in cases of religious disagreement

As we have seen, philosophers think they are sometimes involved in disagreements on religious matters with epistemic peers. But in many cases, they think there is an asymmetry. When such an asymmetry occurred, who is in the better epistemic position? The options were: (1) in the majority of cases I am in a better epistemic position (2) in the majority of cases, they are in a better epistemic position (3) in about half of cases, it"s they, in the other half it"s me.

Unsurprisingly, most philosophers (71.1%) thought that they were mostly in a better epistemic position, followed by 26.5% of respondents who thought they were in the better position half of the time, and 2.4% who thought that the other was usually in the better position.

I tested whether religious belief might make a difference in how epistemically modest our respondents were. One could argue that theists, because they adhere to religious beliefs that have their own epistemological criteria of acceptance, would be less epistemologically modest (i.e., more likely to choose option 1). On the other hand, theists might be involved in different religious debates than atheists, for instance, about whether Hell exists, or about which concept of the Trinity is correct, fine-grained discussions where they might feel less confident they are right than the more coarse-grained discussions on whether theism or naturalism is true.

Overall, theists, atheists, agnostics and those who have other beliefs differed in how often they thought they were in an epistemically better position in religious discussions, X2(6, N = 457) = 33.4, p = .000001. After Bonferroni correction, the following responses remained significantly different: theists responded less frequently that they were in an epistemically better position than atheists (p = .0018), a similar pattern was observed for agnostics (p = .0004). Theists were also more likely to respond they were correct in half of cases (p = .0035) compared to atheists, as were agnostics (p=.0028). There were no significant pairwise differences between those who self-identified as holding another view and any of the other positions.

Atheists responded more frequently than expected that they were correct in the majority of cases (p < .00001) and less frequently that they were correct in half of cases (p < .00001) than theists and agnostics."

http://prosblogion.ektopos.com...

Interestingly, this confirms what I've always thought when I these sort of claims (about theists being more espistemically arrogant). I've always thought that this isn't even close to being true amongst the theists I know and often times they are the ones who spend the most time thinking about and critiquing and doubting and being skeptical about their religious beliefs. So when I've heard claims about theists just blindly and unquestioningly following religious dogma it's always been a head scratcher to me because it's so far removed from a good characterization of how these religious people think about their own beliefs.

What Bill Valliciella said here seems to me to be correct in a lot of instances:

""Some of Us Just Go One God Further"

I've seen this quotation attributed to Richard Dawkins. From what I have read of him, it seems like something he would say. The idea, I take it, is that all gods are on a par, and so, given that everyone is an atheist with respect to some gods, one may as well make a clean sweep and be an atheist with respect to all gods. You don't believe in Zeus or in a celestial teapot. Then why do you believe in the God of Isaac, Abraham, and Jacob?

What Dawkins and the gang seem to be assuming is that the following questions are either senseless or not to be taken seriously: 'Is the Judeo-Christian god the true God?' 'Is any particular god the true God' 'Is any particular conception of deity adequate to the divine reality?' The idea, then, is that all candidates for deity are in the same logical boat. Nothing could be divine. Since all theistic religions are false, there is no live question as to which such religion is true. It is not as if there is a divine reality and that some religions are more adequate to it than others. One could not say, for example, that Judaism is somewhat adequate to the divine reality, Christianity more adequate, and Buddhism not at all adequate. There just is no divine reality. There is nothing of a spiritual nature beyond the human horizon. There is no Mind beyond finite mind. Man is the measure.

That is the atheist's deepest conviction. It seems so obvious to him that he cannot begin to genuinely doubt it, nor can he understand how anyone could genuinely believe the opposite. But why assume that there is nothing beyond the human horizon? The issue dividing theists and atheists can perhaps be put in terms of Jamesian 'live options':

EITHER: Some form of theism (hitherto undeveloped perhaps or only partially developed) is not only logically and epistemically possible, but also an 'existential' possibility, a live option;

OR: No form of theism is an existential possibility, a live option.

Theist-atheist dialog is made difficult by a certain asymmetry: whereas a sophisticated living faith involves a certain amount of purifying doubt, together with a groping beyond images and pat conceptualizations toward a transcendent reality, one misses any corresponding doubt or tentativeness on the part of sophisticated atheists. Dawkins and Co. seem so cocksure of their position. For them, theism is not a live option or existential possibility. This is obvious from their mocking comparisons of God to a celestial teapot, flying spaghetti monster, and the like.

For sophisticated theists, however, atheism is a live option.
The existence of this asymmetry makes one wonder whether any productive dialog with atheists is possible. "

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com...

Although, I will say that there are sophisticated atheists like William Rowe who don't fit this characterization. William Rowe is a "friendly atheist"**

**http://www.iep.utm.edu...

Neither Christians nor Atheists know Me, your Creator. You all argue against each other without having My knowledge to understand any of the prophecies I had My prophets write. That's why you post stupid arguments like this one.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 10:19:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 10:03:55 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
And, yes, I did make the thread title intentionally provocative. (^_^)

All I've "learnt" from the thread is that both theists and atheists need to stfu and listen to Saint Brad Holkesvig. I notice he was in his "I speak for God" mode.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 10:21:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 10:19:57 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/12/2014 10:03:55 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
And, yes, I did make the thread title intentionally provocative. (^_^)

All I've "learnt" from the thread is that both theists and atheists need to stfu and listen to Saint Brad Holkesvig. I notice he was in his "I speak for God" mode.

The body that's writing this post is the only source to hear the spoken words directly from the mind of God. God's people are not to be trusted for their spoken words because they do not have the knowledge of God to know who we are in Him.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 10:29:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 10:21:50 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/12/2014 10:19:57 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/12/2014 10:03:55 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
And, yes, I did make the thread title intentionally provocative. (^_^)

All I've "learnt" from the thread is that both theists and atheists need to stfu and listen to Saint Brad Holkesvig. I notice he was in his "I speak for God" mode.

The body that's writing this post is the only source to hear the spoken words directly from the mind of God.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Cardinal symptom of schizophrenia.

"And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed." (Mark 16: 20)

versus

"And Saint Brad went forth, and preached everywhere, thinking the Lord was talking to him, and confirming absolutely nothing with any signs."

***************

"Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name" (John 20: 20-21)

"No signs did Saint Brad in the presence of anyone, so there are no signs to write in any book."

***************

It ain't hard to spot a fake, Brad. Particularly a mentally ill one.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 11:47:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 10:15:10 AM, bornofgod wrote:

Neither Christians nor Atheists know Me, your Creator. You all argue against each other without having My knowledge to understand any of the prophecies I had My prophets write. That's why you post stupid arguments like this one.

Okay.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 11:51:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 10:29:05 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/12/2014 10:21:50 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/12/2014 10:19:57 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/12/2014 10:03:55 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
And, yes, I did make the thread title intentionally provocative. (^_^)

All I've "learnt" from the thread is that both theists and atheists need to stfu and listen to Saint Brad Holkesvig. I notice he was in his "I speak for God" mode.

The body that's writing this post is the only source to hear the spoken words directly from the mind of God.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Cardinal symptom of schizophrenia.

"And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed." (Mark 16: 20)

versus

"And Saint Brad went forth, and preached everywhere, thinking the Lord was talking to him, and confirming absolutely nothing with any signs."

***************

"Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name" (John 20: 20-21)

"No signs did Saint Brad in the presence of anyone, so there are no signs to write in any book."

***************

It ain't hard to spot a fake, Brad. Particularly a mentally ill one.

The religious Jews ( Pharisees ) thought all the saints of God were fakes. That's why they had the Roman government kill them all.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 12:08:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 11:51:31 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/12/2014 10:29:05 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/12/2014 10:21:50 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/12/2014 10:19:57 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/12/2014 10:03:55 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
And, yes, I did make the thread title intentionally provocative. (^_^)

All I've "learnt" from the thread is that both theists and atheists need to stfu and listen to Saint Brad Holkesvig. I notice he was in his "I speak for God" mode.

The body that's writing this post is the only source to hear the spoken words directly from the mind of God.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Cardinal symptom of schizophrenia.

"And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed." (Mark 16: 20)

versus

"And Saint Brad went forth, and preached everywhere, thinking the Lord was talking to him, and confirming absolutely nothing with any signs."

***************

"Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name" (John 20: 20-21)

"No signs did Saint Brad in the presence of anyone, so there are no signs to write in any book."

***************

It ain't hard to spot a fake, Brad. Particularly a mentally ill one.

The religious Jews ( Pharisees ) thought all the saints of God were fakes. That's why they had the Roman government kill them all.

.... and that's another of your lies. Nicodemus was a Pharisee. He said to Jesus, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him." Looks to me like Nicodemus knew that Jesus was a teacher sent from God.

Sooo .... you are caught lying again.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Bennett91
Posts: 4,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 12:14:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 10:21:50 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/12/2014 10:19:57 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/12/2014 10:03:55 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
And, yes, I did make the thread title intentionally provocative. (^_^)

All I've "learnt" from the thread is that both theists and atheists need to stfu and listen to Saint Brad Holkesvig. I notice he was in his "I speak for God" mode.

The body that's writing this post is the only source to hear the spoken words directly from the mind of God. God's people are not to be trusted for their spoken words because they do not have the knowledge of God to know who we are in Him.

Hey BoG, why do you use DDO as your platform to preach? Why not an actual church or a street corner? Is there something, or someone, on DDO that needs to hear your message?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 12:14:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If I understand your post correctly, you are basically just saying that atheists are more epistemically arrogant then theists, which seems to contradict the common wisdom that atheists assert.

I would say yes and no. Theists and atheists have this arrogance in completely different areas, so it depends on what area you are talking about. Theists are generally more arrogant in their conclusions about reality. Atheists are generally more arrogant in their conclusions about how to reach valid conclusions.

As an atheist I will be the first to admit that I am what most would consider arrogant in this area, although I simply think of it as confidence. That confidence comes from way more hours of my life then I care to admit studying the subject of reaching conclusions, which is far beyond that of the average person. In my observations most theists don't seem to dedicate their focus to this particular area and on the rare occasions when they do, most of the time it seems to be with the intent of affirming the beliefs they already hold. This all seems to come together to explain why theists come to conclusions I don't find valid and therefore disagree with, which in other words just gives me more reason to think I am right.
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 12:27:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At the risk of oversimplifying it, perhaps one can state the situation like this:

Theists are more humble in their arrogant worldview (the universe exists just for us) whereas atheists are more arrogant (I know better than you) in their humble worldview.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 12:56:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Nah.

Also, the survey was of Philosophers Right?
So it doesn't speak to Everyday religious people's, or Atheists, views of their beliefs.

I think the majority of American Atheists were former theists who realized that they had no good reason to believe in God...
Whereas the majority of theists grew up with theism and never really questioned it, and are not really open to questioning it.

Also, from a well-considered perspective, I think it's kind of sensible that people would be more conservative about their Positive claims about things than about saying what's the WRONG way about coming to claims.
So if you ask someone about whether they're fairly certain that they're on better epistemic ground than Anyone else who's belief they think is uncalled for... Of course they should say Yes... That's not really evidence of Arrogance.. That's evidence that they Really do think that there's no good reason to believe in God.
ElCorazonAma
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 12:57:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 10:03:55 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
And, yes, I did make the thread title intentionally provocative. (^_^)

Well, I think you should reconsider doing that because it is pretty bias and discriminating to others.
The verb is real but the adjective is only a hypothetical ideal. ~ Freedo
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 1:49:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 12:57:29 PM, ElCorazonAma wrote:
At 12/12/2014 10:03:55 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
And, yes, I did make the thread title intentionally provocative. (^_^)

Well, I think you should reconsider doing that because it is pretty bias and discriminating to others.

No it isn't.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
ElCorazonAma
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 1:54:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 1:49:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/12/2014 12:57:29 PM, ElCorazonAma wrote:
At 12/12/2014 10:03:55 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
And, yes, I did make the thread title intentionally provocative. (^_^)

Well, I think you should reconsider doing that because it is pretty bias and discriminating to others.

No it isn't.
In any situation, no one is better or more humble than another. People are either humble or they are not. But to categorize is to stereotype, so, yes, it is bias and discriminative.
The verb is real but the adjective is only a hypothetical ideal. ~ Freedo
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 4:20:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
On the other hand, theists might be involved in different religious debates than atheists, for instance, about whether Hell exists, or about which concept of the Trinity is correct, fine-grained discussions where they might feel less confident they are right than the more coarse-grained discussions on whether theism or naturalism is true.

Enough said above from this. It is impossible to correlate the difference between the theist group and atheist group if the nature of the evaluation between beliefs being measured is not equivalent.

It is a completely different outcome of expressed dogma or certainty should you ask a Christian whether Jesus is the Son of God versus a question about the nature of the Trinity.

Atheists tend to have binary discussions of whether God exists or not rather than discussions of fine
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 11:19:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 10:15:10 AM, bornofgod wrote:

Neither Christians nor Atheists know Me, your Creator. You all argue against each other without having My knowledge...

Yeah, you're just misunderstood. I get that. We're here for you anytime you want to be understood, but you have to deep six the 'Creator' disguise, first.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 2:47:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 12:57:29 PM, ElCorazonAma wrote:
At 12/12/2014 10:03:55 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
And, yes, I did make the thread title intentionally provocative. (^_^)

Well, I think you should reconsider doing that because it is pretty bias and discriminating to others.

There is a different between being discriminatory and bigoted, and being analytical.

For example, there is a difference between saying 'Boys generally, are physically stronger than girls' than 'Girls suck at sports and they shouldn't play'. The OP was more in the former category.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 6:59:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 12:14:02 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/12/2014 10:21:50 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/12/2014 10:19:57 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/12/2014 10:03:55 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
And, yes, I did make the thread title intentionally provocative. (^_^)

All I've "learnt" from the thread is that both theists and atheists need to stfu and listen to Saint Brad Holkesvig. I notice he was in his "I speak for God" mode.

The body that's writing this post is the only source to hear the spoken words directly from the mind of God. God's people are not to be trusted for their spoken words because they do not have the knowledge of God to know who we are in Him.

Hey BoG, why do you use DDO as your platform to preach? Why not an actual church or a street corner? Is there something, or someone, on DDO that needs to hear your message?

We saints of God obey God's commands at all times. I'm in this forum because of His commands, possibly because He has some chosen believers in here. Even if they don't respond to my posts, they are listening to His voice as they read them.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 7:53:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Imagine you lived in a world where nearly everyone has read or heard of "Goldie Locks and the Three Bears", and nearly everyone believed that it represented reality, and tried to apply it to each and every day of their lives. One presidential candidate was too soft, another was too hard, but according to their story book, there must be one who "just right". But for some reason, you were able to see it as pure and childish fiction. And when you tried to discuss it seriously, you received arguments so inane and ridiculous that you were seriously stunned that otherwise sane people could formulate them.

How are you to remain humble? It's really little different from trying to tell the 10-year old that Santa doesn't exist, and receiving a continual series of angry and violent formulations and challenges along with the continued insistence that Santa is real, despite the complete vacancy of evidence!

Could you remain humble to the child?

And while we're on the subject; imagine someone who is so completely self-absorbed, that they can look out across hundreds of miles to the horizon, past that to the sky, look past the moon some 240,000 miles away, to the nearest stars some 4-light years distant, and realize that they've not yet peered across more than a molecule of the complete meter stick, and yet, they continue to insist and believe that it was all created for them, and that they will continue to exist, even after all of it has stretched to a limit and vanished from its current form.

And then that person tells YOU, that YOU are being arrogant for not believing what they believe. Nothing has ever exceeded the purely self-absorbed, closed-minded arrogance and lack of humility inherent in religion.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 11:18:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 7:53:00 PM, Beastt wrote:

Imagine you lived in a world where nearly everyone has read or heard of "Goldie Locks and the Three Bears", and nearly everyone believed that it represented reality, and tried to apply it to each and every day of their lives. One presidential candidate was too soft, another was too hard, but according to their story book, there must be one who "just right". But for some reason, you were able to see it as pure and childish fiction. And when you tried to discuss it seriously, you received arguments so inane and ridiculous that you were seriously stunned that otherwise sane people could formulate them.

How are you to remain humble? It's really little different from trying to tell the 10-year old that Santa doesn't exist, and receiving a continual series of angry and violent formulations and challenges along with the continued insistence that Santa is real, despite the complete vacancy of evidence!

Could you remain humble to the child?

And while we're on the subject; imagine someone who is so completely self-absorbed, that they can look out across hundreds of miles to the horizon, past that to the sky, look past the moon some 240,000 miles away, to the nearest stars some 4-light years distant, and realize that they've not yet peered across more than a molecule of the complete meter stick, and yet, they continue to insist and believe that it was all created for them, and that they will continue to exist, even after all of it has stretched to a limit and vanished from its current form.

And then that person tells YOU, that YOU are being arrogant for not believing what they believe. Nothing has ever exceeded the purely self-absorbed, closed-minded arrogance and lack of humility inherent in religion.

Not even science?