I have noticed that the majority of people in here who claim to be atheists are not really atheists.
They just are mad at God for whatever reasons.
36-40, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Thank you for so many replies. I have come to the conclusion that the proclaimed atheists do not even exhibit 1% of the characteristics of an Atheists. They are very hollow and shallow in their lives and they are constantly looking for a God in their lives. Maybe one day, you all will find what you people are looking for. Perserverence and positive attitude is the key here. I am sure you also would have learnt alot about the theists and their characteristics. A few of the guys are not even clear in their basics of mathematics. They are not clear about the set and the subset theories.
I know you all want to talk much about God like 100,000 comments or so but Like Plato emphasised on studying Mathematics, I would also recommend you all to learn Mathematics before you try to understand God in a much better way because you want to theorize God in a theorem. Maybe with mathematics, you will get basic reasoning. The basic reasoning skills like One Ma'am was telling me that [b]C14 doesn't disintegrate into C12[/b], Thank you again for clarifying which I read in High school but if you would increase your reasoning abilities then you would be able to grasp that what matters is it disintegrates and yet Another Ma'am was telling me about[b] the difference between radiometry and carbon dating[/b] and telling me that it was not accurate. If it is not accurate then what is the possibility that the genome dating, napping is accurate. Scientists are not even scientific enough to find a nice vaccine for COVID - 19 after these 3 years of studies and people are still suffering from COVID in different parts of the world even now and they are talking about genome dating. That sounds paradoxical to me. Then, another Sir was eager and [b]troubled so much with this post that he wanted my words in my mouth [/b]so he wanted to comfort himself in listening from me that people are fake inside a religion too. I told him so and it is true to some extent because when people are pretending to be Atheist and people are not Atheist then I am sure, people are devoted to some religion, even their own version of religion and that makes them count in not being true to a religion. Subset theory would clarify that those 40% people whom I said are not Christians really are confused whether they are Atheist or they are following Christianity. But anyways, I didn't want to upset him. And he is a Happy man now. Even if I can make 1 person happy, it makes my day.
I am already overwhelmed by your immense replies on this post. So, I can see how bad you all want a God. Some of you are even searching the religions of the World in search of God. But the comfort is always back home. We don't have a bed in the office (in most cases). Bed is back home.
I know you all want to talk much about God like 100,000 comments or so but Like Plato emphasised on studying Mathematics, I would also recommend you all to learn Mathematics before you try to understand God in a much better way because you want to theorize God in a theorem. Maybe with mathematics, you will get basic reasoning. The basic reasoning skills like One Ma'am was telling me that [b]C14 doesn't disintegrate into C12[/b], Thank you again for clarifying which I read in High school but if you would increase your reasoning abilities then you would be able to grasp that what matters is it disintegrates and yet Another Ma'am was telling me about[b] the difference between radiometry and carbon dating[/b] and telling me that it was not accurate. If it is not accurate then what is the possibility that the genome dating, napping is accurate. Scientists are not even scientific enough to find a nice vaccine for COVID - 19 after these 3 years of studies and people are still suffering from COVID in different parts of the world even now and they are talking about genome dating. That sounds paradoxical to me. Then, another Sir was eager and [b]troubled so much with this post that he wanted my words in my mouth [/b]so he wanted to comfort himself in listening from me that people are fake inside a religion too. I told him so and it is true to some extent because when people are pretending to be Atheist and people are not Atheist then I am sure, people are devoted to some religion, even their own version of religion and that makes them count in not being true to a religion. Subset theory would clarify that those 40% people whom I said are not Christians really are confused whether they are Atheist or they are following Christianity. But anyways, I didn't want to upset him. And he is a Happy man now. Even if I can make 1 person happy, it makes my day.
I am already overwhelmed by your immense replies on this post. So, I can see how bad you all want a God. Some of you are even searching the religions of the World in search of God. But the comfort is always back home. We don't have a bed in the office (in most cases). Bed is back home.
1-25 of 99
ElRengo · 70-79, M
@TheOrionbeltseeker
My lasting post on your refferences to math and set theory (on probabilities in other posts).
They invite to say what Dave Wolpert (one of the greates mathematicians alive and also a great guy) said to William Dembski (in person and in a later article) about his poor conceptual understandig of the NFL set of theorems.
"WILLIAM DEMBSKI'S TREATMENT OF THE NO FREE LUNCH THEOREMS IS WRITTEN IN JELLO"
And was deserved.
My lasting post on your refferences to math and set theory (on probabilities in other posts).
They invite to say what Dave Wolpert (one of the greates mathematicians alive and also a great guy) said to William Dembski (in person and in a later article) about his poor conceptual understandig of the NFL set of theorems.
"WILLIAM DEMBSKI'S TREATMENT OF THE NO FREE LUNCH THEOREMS IS WRITTEN IN JELLO"
And was deserved.
ElRengo · 70-79, M
@TheOrionbeltseeker
Not MY theorems (Wolpert and Macready ones).
And I already said what was needed.
You may read the original article from Dave Wolpert, is easily available.
He also said what was needed,
Best wishes.
Not MY theorems (Wolpert and Macready ones).
And I already said what was needed.
You may read the original article from Dave Wolpert, is easily available.
He also said what was needed,
Best wishes.
TheOrionbeltseeker · 36-40, M
@ElRengo Again, with all those smileys, I feel like we both are puppies and you want to play with me. That is cool. I would enjoy to play with you but it's not the right time.
We can talk when I am not occupied.
We can talk when I am not occupied.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@TheOrionbeltseeker What a load of pretentious pap!
TheOrionbeltseeker · 36-40, M
@newjaninev2 Nothing as compared to your Google info overload on SW posts.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@TheOrionbeltseeker [b]Where have I said that gods do not exist?[/b] ...[u]Unanswered[/u]
[quote]every compelling reason to say that he does[/quote]
[b]Perhaps you’d like to detail your compelling reasons[/b] ..[u]Unanswered[/u]
[quote]What you believe. Blind faith without evidence[/quote]
1. there's no proof that gods exist
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist
3. in any event, there’s no compelling necessity to even postulate gods, and, in any event, the postulation explains nothing (not even itself)... it merely tries to explain everything away.
4. therefore, I have no gods (I’m an agnostic atheist)
[b]Where in there can you identify a belief?[/b] ..[u]Unanswered[/u]
Why are you wasting everyone’s time?
[quote]every compelling reason to say that he does[/quote]
[b]Perhaps you’d like to detail your compelling reasons[/b] ..[u]Unanswered[/u]
[quote]What you believe. Blind faith without evidence[/quote]
1. there's no proof that gods exist
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist
3. in any event, there’s no compelling necessity to even postulate gods, and, in any event, the postulation explains nothing (not even itself)... it merely tries to explain everything away.
4. therefore, I have no gods (I’m an agnostic atheist)
[b]Where in there can you identify a belief?[/b] ..[u]Unanswered[/u]
Why are you wasting everyone’s time?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@TheOrionbeltseeker Can you give me an example of that?
TheOrionbeltseeker · 36-40, M
@newjaninev2 Are you talking to me? Where have I said that you don't think that God exists?
I concluded that you know partially that God exists. You just need more proof. But you are looking for physical proof about the Metaphysics.
I concluded that you know partially that God exists. You just need more proof. But you are looking for physical proof about the Metaphysics.
TheOrionbeltseeker · 36-40, M
@newjaninev2 Example of what? Are you talking to me or El Renjo?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@TheOrionbeltseeker You concluded that on the basis of what?
Take me through your reasoning that led to you making those claims about me.
Take me through your reasoning that led to you making those claims about me.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
TheOrionbeltseeker · 36-40, M
@newjaninev2 Again? Okay. I am reiterating an example because I can't think of the other.
Let's say You believe that North Korea is a country which can never be a nuclear capable country. Now, if you believe it 100 percent then, while watching TV, you would switch the channel to some other news or songs or sports. You will just not check the channel which is talking about the nuclear programmes of North Korea.
If you have belief that North Korea MAY become a nuclear country someday then you will always check the TV CHANNEL which is reporting it while flipping channels for maybe a few minutes but you will check it for sure.
Considering the inflow of the comments, I am genuinely of the opinion that You may think somewhere in your head that God may exist.
Re Read this post. And also,
Read the definition.
[b]The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods, and agnostic refers to someone who doesn't know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable.[/b]
So, you tell me in which category do you fall. Are you an Atheist? Clearly, A big No. That's what this post is all about.
Let's say You believe that North Korea is a country which can never be a nuclear capable country. Now, if you believe it 100 percent then, while watching TV, you would switch the channel to some other news or songs or sports. You will just not check the channel which is talking about the nuclear programmes of North Korea.
If you have belief that North Korea MAY become a nuclear country someday then you will always check the TV CHANNEL which is reporting it while flipping channels for maybe a few minutes but you will check it for sure.
Considering the inflow of the comments, I am genuinely of the opinion that You may think somewhere in your head that God may exist.
Re Read this post. And also,
Read the definition.
[b]The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods, and agnostic refers to someone who doesn't know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable.[/b]
So, you tell me in which category do you fall. Are you an Atheist? Clearly, A big No. That's what this post is all about.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@TheOrionbeltseeker Incorrect.
Let's split the world up into theists and atheists.
A theist is anyone who has some sort of god or gods
An atheist is someone who has no god or gods
Now, this division is further divided into two more groups the gnostic and the agnostic
Gnostic means: having specific knowledge about something.
Agnostic, obviously, means: not having specific knowledge about something
(Yes, I know that 'agnostic' is commonly used as an adjectival noun, but it's actually an adjective. It seems to me that using it as an adjectival noun leads to confusion)
So now we have four groups:
1. Gnostic theist: this is usually someone who subscribes to a particular religion. This person has a god or gods, and claims to have specific knowledge about their god or gods.
2. Agnostic theist: this is someone who has a god or gods, but does not claim specific knowledge about that god. Such people often describe themselves as ‘spiritual‘.
3. Gnostic atheist: this is someone who has no god or gods, and who claims to know as a certainty that there are no gods.
4. Agnostic atheist: this is someone who has no god or gods, does not claim to know as a certainty that there are no gods, but also sees no need for them.
OK, let‘s look at each of these in more detail
Gnostic theists have the problem that they carry a burden of proof. This is because they claim to have knowledge about their gods, and therefore it‘s up to them to prove their claims. Of course, they can‘t (otherwise everyone would be theists), and they end up saying that ‘you have to have faith’ which means ‘I have no proof for my claims’ (faith is pretending to know something that you do not know)
Gnostic atheists have the same problem. They claim to know for certain that there are no gods, and therefore it‘s up to them to prove their claims. They too carry a burden of proof that they cannot meet (otherwise everyone would be atheists).
Agnostic theists aren't making a claim, and have no burden of proof. They are saying that they have gods, but that they don't know anything about those gods (other than that they are, presumably, god-like).
Agnostic atheists have the easiest position. They aren't making a claim, and have no burden of proof. They are saying that they have no gods. There‘s nothing to know and nothing to discuss.
Let's split the world up into theists and atheists.
A theist is anyone who has some sort of god or gods
An atheist is someone who has no god or gods
Now, this division is further divided into two more groups the gnostic and the agnostic
Gnostic means: having specific knowledge about something.
Agnostic, obviously, means: not having specific knowledge about something
(Yes, I know that 'agnostic' is commonly used as an adjectival noun, but it's actually an adjective. It seems to me that using it as an adjectival noun leads to confusion)
So now we have four groups:
1. Gnostic theist: this is usually someone who subscribes to a particular religion. This person has a god or gods, and claims to have specific knowledge about their god or gods.
2. Agnostic theist: this is someone who has a god or gods, but does not claim specific knowledge about that god. Such people often describe themselves as ‘spiritual‘.
3. Gnostic atheist: this is someone who has no god or gods, and who claims to know as a certainty that there are no gods.
4. Agnostic atheist: this is someone who has no god or gods, does not claim to know as a certainty that there are no gods, but also sees no need for them.
OK, let‘s look at each of these in more detail
Gnostic theists have the problem that they carry a burden of proof. This is because they claim to have knowledge about their gods, and therefore it‘s up to them to prove their claims. Of course, they can‘t (otherwise everyone would be theists), and they end up saying that ‘you have to have faith’ which means ‘I have no proof for my claims’ (faith is pretending to know something that you do not know)
Gnostic atheists have the same problem. They claim to know for certain that there are no gods, and therefore it‘s up to them to prove their claims. They too carry a burden of proof that they cannot meet (otherwise everyone would be atheists).
Agnostic theists aren't making a claim, and have no burden of proof. They are saying that they have gods, but that they don't know anything about those gods (other than that they are, presumably, god-like).
Agnostic atheists have the easiest position. They aren't making a claim, and have no burden of proof. They are saying that they have no gods. There‘s nothing to know and nothing to discuss.
TheOrionbeltseeker · 36-40, M
@newjaninev2 I am not going to find. I remember you proposed me about doing that to which I refused.
TheOrionbeltseeker · 36-40, M
@newjaninev2 Again you are putting energy into a wrong direction. You are distracting the post. The post was between Atheist and Agnostics.
I know you are intelligent but you lack the right direction to put it in.
I know you are intelligent but you lack the right direction to put it in.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@TheOrionbeltseeker [quote]Google info overload on SW posts[/quote]
[b]give me examples of that[/b]
No?
So, just a fiction, huh? Duplicity.
[b]give me examples of that[/b]
No?
So, just a fiction, huh? Duplicity.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@TheOrionbeltseeker [quote]You may think somewhere in your head that God may exist[/quote]
You now claim to be a mind-reader?
You now claim to be a mind-reader?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@TheOrionbeltseeker I just posted a comment showing that ‘agnostic’ and ‘atheist’ is a false dichotomy.
I am an agnostic atheist, and I have just explained why.
I am an agnostic atheist, and I have just explained why.
TheOrionbeltseeker · 36-40, M
@newjaninev2 Let’s try again...
[quote]1. there's no proof that gods exist
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist
3. in any event, there’s no compelling necessity to even postulate gods, and, in any event, the postulation explains nothing (not even itself)... it merely tries to explain everything away.
4. therefore, I have no gods (I’m an agnostic atheist)
look and learn[/quote]
This post is not even about the point you are making. Re read the post and try finding your name on my post.
[quote]1. there's no proof that gods exist
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist
3. in any event, there’s no compelling necessity to even postulate gods, and, in any event, the postulation explains nothing (not even itself)... it merely tries to explain everything away.
4. therefore, I have no gods (I’m an agnostic atheist)
look and learn[/quote]
This post is not even about the point you are making. Re read the post and try finding your name on my post.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@TheOrionbeltseeker I explains to you that I am an agnostic atheist.
I need not be either agnostic [i]or[/i] atheist.
I need not be either agnostic [i]or[/i] atheist.
TheOrionbeltseeker · 36-40, M
@newjaninev2 Agnostics are closed in their view. You can call them Right wing if you want to.
Atheists are open to the view as they are still searching for their views and trying validation. You can consider them left wing.
Maybe you are at the centre if you say so. But that doesn't make you both of them at the same time.
Atheists are open to the view as they are still searching for their views and trying validation. You can consider them left wing.
Maybe you are at the centre if you say so. But that doesn't make you both of them at the same time.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@TheOrionbeltseeker [quote]Google info overload on SW posts[/quote]
[b]give me examples of that[/b]
Let me be very, very, clear about this.
Everything I post here his my own work (I waive copyright), a quote with attribution given, or a reference to someone else’s published work with citations supplied.
Yesterday I gave you some basic schooling in evolution. I offered it free (I waive any fee), and you completely failed to respond in any meaningful way.
You ar not seeking knowledge. You are seeing confirmation of your predetermined conclusions.
[b]give me examples of that[/b]
Let me be very, very, clear about this.
Everything I post here his my own work (I waive copyright), a quote with attribution given, or a reference to someone else’s published work with citations supplied.
Yesterday I gave you some basic schooling in evolution. I offered it free (I waive any fee), and you completely failed to respond in any meaningful way.
You ar not seeking knowledge. You are seeing confirmation of your predetermined conclusions.
1-25 of 99