Slaimon Khan Shah
SLAIMON KHAN SHAH = SHAOLIN MONK/S OF ISLAAM
PEACE.
I hope I go PLAT with this one!!!!!
- Thread starter The Jewnited States
- Start date
PEACE.
Slaimon Khan Shah
SLAIMON KHAN SHAH = SHAOLIN MONK/S OF ISLAAM
PEACE.
valid point my g. Looking at the photo i feel as if the applicability of the image to many situations extents from right-on to off-kilter. administer greatly unto situations that involve the easily attentiveness, ie. the quantitative. administer wrongly (imo) to things such as intangible, ideological, and dark aspects of reality.
@ theist accusing someone of entertaining delusions and wishful thinking.This pic doesn't directly allude to religious belief, but it does refer to the kind of thinking that allows it to persist.
The second rabbit thinks the answer is already solved. It sees a particular pattern, in this case puzzle pieces beside a puzzle box, and concludes that their most likely related. The first rabbit makes no such assumption. He sees the box and the pieces, but wants to put them together before making any type of conclusion.
Theists, in a way, are like that second bunny. They perceive an order in the universe, which a lot of us would agree exists, and conclude that those patterns must be the result of some conscious entity -- that the perception of those patterns could not have happened by any other way. Atheists don't make this assumption. They acknowledge that point, but reserve judgement on the origins of the universe.
And more pieces of the puzzle come together, they change their opinions accordingly. The other group, however, clings to their previously held beliefs, despite any contradicting evidence.
Blackout
just your usual nerdy brotha
I can accuse because i dont entertain delusions or wishful thinking. It is delusional in itself for you think all theists entertain delusion or wishful thinking.
This pic doesn't directly allude to religious belief, but it does refer to the kind of thinking that allows it to persist.
The second rabbit thinks the answer is already solved. It sees a particular pattern, in this case puzzle pieces beside a puzzle box, and concludes that their most likely related. The first rabbit makes no such assumption. He sees the box and the pieces, but wants to put them together before making any type of conclusion.
Theists, in a way, are like that second bunny. They perceive an order in the universe, which a lot of us would agree exists, and conclude that those patterns must be the result of some conscious entity -- that the perception of those patterns could not have happened by any other way. Atheists don't make this assumption. They acknowledge that point, but reserve judgement on the origins of the universe.
And more pieces of the puzzle come together, they change their opinions accordingly. The other group, however, clings to their previously held beliefs, despite any contradicting evidence.
Not all theists are religious so if your talking about religion then address it as such and do not generalize theism as a whole.
Now as for you pinning theists as the second bunny and not thinking atheists can be the second bunny is reaching greatly:
1. There are no results or even pieces coming together to lead to a result. The pieces to the puzzle of gods existence do not exist. There are no pieces that can go together to show a picture of a higher power not existing.
2. Atheists don't reserve judgement on the origins of the universe fully when they assume that a higher power had no hand at all in the universes origin.
3. As more pieces of the puzzle come together there are also theists whom change their opinions accordingly as more pieces of the puzzle comes together. Because remember that:
Contradicting evidence against a few claims does not point to all of theism being wrong. Generalizations are bad. Mkay?
I do wonder if your knowledge on theism is lacking based on your statements on the matter.
Well I can agree that there is no evidence to prove the existence of a god. Whether or not it's unknowable I cannot say. That's beside the point though. The point is it's illogical to believe in something in which no puzzle pieces exist.
The evidence doesn't suggest a higher power had a hand in it, so atheists are perfectly justified in just accepting the science. What reason does one have to make that leap besides delusion or wishful thinking?
Sure there have been theists that changed their minds on the matter, but they are no longer a part of the group of which I'm referring.
It doesn't matter what kind of theist you are -- supernatural entities have never been justified. They might ultimately be right, sure, but there is NO reason to think that they are.
*edit* Well, I suppose there are reasons ... see the end of my response to #2. There just aren't any good reasons.
And for the record, there are some atheists who are strong atheists. I would say their position is as unjustified as yours.
Blackout
just your usual nerdy brotha
It is also illogical to believe that something which has no puzzles to exist does not exist.
The only logical stance is agnostic so unless your one you have no reason to pull the logic card.
Theists can still believe in evolution. Theists are justified in just accepting the science as well. Therefore those along those lines to not entertain delusion or wishful thinking.
Well if they are not then your not referencing all of theism which you need to be more specific about.
What is defined as a higher power can be just as natural as us creating technology. It could be as simply as us not understanding this beings process.
I see you @Fervid
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't understand what you mean here. Explain.
I am agnostic. I just happen to be atheist as well.
Yeah, but that's exactly the point of the OP. Before modern science, theists thought God made every organism in their current form. Now that we know that's not the case theists move the goalpost, and say "okay, organisms change, but that's because god (or w/e) made organisms so they change." You've already made up your mind on ultimately what the answer is, so your opinion is already biased towards that. It's only reasonable to accept something as true when the puzzle pieces directly point to it.
Obviously I'm not referring to people who are no longer theists, I thought that went without saying. I am, however, referring to those that are still theists, yes.
Okay so you believe in a higher power that is.... what? The laws of nature? Why call those god or why refer to yourself as a theist when we already have a label for them (the laws)? Not to mention, when you say 'higher power' or 'god', that has certain baggage associated with it. Why take that on when (it seems) you don't share any of the conventional meanings when you use the theist label?
Blackout
just your usual nerdy brotha
Logic is based on reason. If there are no actual reasons then there is no logic. There are no reasons for someone to believe that there is no higher power. Therefore it isn't logical.
I am agnostic too. I just happen to be theist as well. The thing is that the fact that we both posses beliefs prevents us from being the logical choice and pull the logic card.
The only people that can do such are people who are only agnostic and aren't theist or atheist.
I haven't made my answer on what the answer is. I and many other theists follow science and as a follower of science we dont make up our mind on what the answer is we just want to discover it along with any other follower of science. All of us are not the same which I've been telling you for ages.
Stop generalizing theism.
You say its only reasonable to accept something as true when the puzzle directs toward it yet the puzzle isn't directing toward a higher power not existing.
No longer theist?
Theists can still believe in evolution and still be theist.
When I say a higher power it covers a broad spectrum as what can be considered a higher power.
If we we are a simulation in a computer then person who made the computer and program would be the higher power. If there was a intelligent life form out there more advanced than us who controls and interacts with the current universe and affected earth and us and even led to our creation or alteration they could be considered a higher power.
Don't expect me to dictate when as a follower of science I cant do that and am more obligated to discover.
porque
Boricua Guerrero
These two statements are wrong. You only need one reason not to believe a claim -- the non-existence of supporting evidence for said claim. One is completely justified in not believing Bigfoot, UFOs, or a celestial teapot that orbits Mars. Why? Is it because it's been 100% proven that these things don't exist? NO. It's because the evidence to justify belief in these things hasn't met a level where doubting their existence is unreasonable. This is just basic, and once you understand it, you'll understand why theism and atheism aren't on the same level of rational.
The same way it's not illogical to say "I don't think leprechauns exist" is why it's reasonable to say "I don't think gods exist". Which leads to this...
You say its only reasonable to accept something as true when the puzzle directs toward it yet the puzzle isn't directing toward a higher power not existing.
Again, this is the dumbest fukking position. There is no "directing towards not existing". There's no puzzle directing towards Bigfoot not existing. There's either evidence, or there's not. Something's either rational to believe in, or it's not.
I haven't made my answer on what the answer is. I and many other theists follow science and as a follower of science we dont make up our mind on what the answer is we just want to discover it along with any other follower of science. All of us are not the same which I've been telling you for ages.
Stop generalizing theism.
I'm not generalizing anything. Theists believe in gods. I never said theists couldn't accept evolution. I'll fully respond to this part after this ....
So you seem to believe in the possibility of these potential "gods". What reason do you have to think any of these possibilities are even likely to be true?
Blackout
just your usual nerdy brotha
The thing that you don't see nor understand is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So simple yet you fail to understand and follow that truth.
You also fail to see that leprechauns and unicorns go as against science way more than the simple belief that a higher power may exist ever could which is why its silly that your comparing the two like they are on the same level of consideration.
There is no reason to say that I don't think a higher power exists because you still have no evidence at the end of the day leading you to that conclusion.
The conclusion is it being inconclusive. To go past that immediately puts you in the theist or atheist role which is belief territory.
Science is meant to discover not dictate. Something you also fail to grasp.
Big foot is inconclusive. It is rational to believe that his existence is inconclusive. Same as a higher power being inconclusive.
That's the rational stance.
Now don't expect me to defend big foot when that's not my belief. My belief is that a higher power exists.
I'm not the one claiming that I have reason to back up my belief. Unlike you I'm aware that I don't have reasons and its just a guess.
Your delusional to where you think your guess is logical in any way.
Believing in things because it's existence is inconclusive leaves you open to believing a whole plethora of things. For no other subject are you, or any rational person, willing to accept that "X exists" is a true statement simply because an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. There are millions of ideas you reject outright using this same type of reasoning ... the cognitive dissonance must be debilitating.
SwagmundFreud
Superstar
Believing in things because it's existence is inconclusive leaves you open to believing a whole plethora of things. For no other subject are you, or any rational person, willing to accept that "X exists" is a true statement simply because an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. There are millions of ideas you reject outright using this same type of reasoning ... the cognitive dissonance must be debilitating.
billions, trillions, quadrillions
how could you conclusively say light bulbs aren't the making of the devil when god intended for light last only half a day?
what concrete evidence do you have to prove that plastic shopping bags AREN'T part of a global conspiracy to suffocate children :shytright:
where's the proof that shows shoes, sandals, and other footwear don't lead one's soul to hell? god told moses to take them off when he's on holy ground? you really think they're wearing them shyts in heaven? :brb: if you can't prove it, you lost