We'd all be believers.  

As it is, believers confuse evidence for delusion.  

No surprise there.

(October 8, 2018 at 6:59 am)Kit Wrote: We'd all be believers.  

As it is, believers confuse evidence for delusion.  

No surprise there.

What is it, that you think is not understood?

(October 8, 2018 at 7:00 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: What is it, that you think is not understood?

It's not that which is understood so much as that which is supposed to be accepted despite the fact that it is unrealistic.

(October 8, 2018 at 7:03 am)Kit Wrote:

(October 8, 2018 at 7:00 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: What is it, that you think is not understood?

It's not that which is understood so much as that which is supposed to be accepted despite the fact that it is unrealistic.

Would it be fair to say then, that it is not so much about evidence, but an a priori belief, and/or personal incredulity?

(October 8, 2018 at 6:59 am)Kit Wrote: We'd all be believers.  

As it is, believers confuse evidence for delusion.  

No surprise there.

A group of four Jehovah's Witnesses knocked at my door a couple of months ago. When I asked them what evidence they had for God's existence, one of them made a sweeping gesture toward the woods in back of my house, saying, "There's your evidence right there!"

"No," I replied, "that's only evidence that I own several acres of wooded property. Evolution is a perfectly adequate explanation of how all those trees and woodland creatures got there."

"What is your religion?" their leader asked.

"I have no religion or god," I replied. "I'm an atheist."

They all shrugged their shoulders and left. Intellectual cowards!

(October 8, 2018 at 7:08 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Would it be fair to say then, that it is not so much about evidence, but an a priori belief, and/or personal incredulity?

That which is personal should be kept as such rather than blurted as universal.

After all, how does personal become universal except through an agenda?

(October 8, 2018 at 7:11 am)Kit Wrote:

(October 8, 2018 at 7:08 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Would it be fair to say then, that it is not so much about evidence, but an a priori belief, and/or personal incredulity?

That which is personal should be kept as such rather than blurted as universal.

After all, how does personal become universal except through an agenda?

I have no idea what you are talking about now. It seems we have already changed once from the original statement. Is this connected somehow, or did we change again?

(October 8, 2018 at 7:13 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(October 8, 2018 at 7:11 am)Kit Wrote: That which is personal should be kept as such rather than blurted as universal.

After all, how does personal become universal except through an agenda?

I have no idea what you are talking about now.  It seems we have already changed once from the original statement.  Is this connected somehow, or did we change again?

That's always the problem I encounter.  You don't understand me.

I'm perfectly understandable.  If you cannot accept that, it's all on you and your inability to accept reality.  

Grow the fuck up.

(October 8, 2018 at 7:15 am)Kit Wrote:

(October 8, 2018 at 7:13 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I have no idea what you are talking about now.  It seems we have already changed once from the original statement.  Is this connected somehow, or did we change again?

That's always the problem I encounter.  You don't understand me.

I'm perfectly understandable.  If you cannot accept that, it's all on you and your inability to accept reality.  

Grow the fuck up.

I don’t think that you are fully articulating your thoughts here. But as I understand It seems that you got yourself backed into a corner with your statements, and this is just a way to get out of them.

(October 8, 2018 at 7:18 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I don’t think that you are fully articulating your thoughts here. But I understand It seems that you got yourself backed into a corner with your statements, and this is just a way to get out of them.

Convenient for you.

Unfortunately, I see past it.

No surprise.