How to tell a real freethinker

[jstrodel]

Of course atheists accept that science is not "absolute truth" when you ask them about it, but there position quickly changes as soon as there is an argument to win. Atheists are dishonest, so they will not accept this or notice when they are doing this, they will just change back and forth over and over again and at all costs avoid consistency when they talk about the reliability and absolute value of scientific theories. They are incapable of being honest.

[CleanShavenJesus]

Of course atheists accept that science is not "absolute truth" when you ask them about it, but there position quickly changes as soon as there is an argument to win. Atheists are dishonest, so they will not accept this or notice when they are doing this, they will just change back and forth over and over again and at all costs avoid consistency when they talk about the reliability and absolute value of scientific theories. They are incapable of being honest.

Well, you've made some progress. You're not making up percentages anymore.

[Darkstar]

Atheists are dishonest, so they will not accept this or notice when they are doing this, they will just change back and forth over and over again and at all costs avoid consistency when they talk about the reliability and absolute value of scientific theories. They are incapable of being honest.

Bolding (not?) mine.


God exists. /paradox

---

Well, you've made some progress. You're not making up percentages anymore.

Actually I think 100% was implicit, considering the above bolded.

[jstrodel]

Darkstar when I write about my experiences of God, I am not stretching myself to make some sort of argument, I am expressing clearly what has happened to me in a simple format of reporting on what happened.

This is totally different from the way that atheists talk about science, which are models of reality which is inherently different and does not absolutely track science. Atheists never acknowledge this about science, they talk about it like it is a law.


Why are you an anti-theist? How do you know God exists well enough to know you should oppose God, even if it means it will prevent others from knowing God if God may exist?

---

Atheists are incapable of being honest because they are so used to treating probabilistic science as absolute truth that it is wired into their brains, they think in these terms, they demand answers conform to models that cannot give absolutes, they have wired themselves in such a way as to make themselves dependent not on science but on the quasi-religious belief of naturalism.

They will never accept this, but there whole worldview will grab a hold of science and demand absolute adherence to their interpretation of science, called naturalism, which they demand be accepted as science.

The atheist, indeed is incapable of being honest. His entire worldview is based on a misunderstanding, thinking that the philosophy of naturalism is the same as scientific evidence and is subject to the same standards of verification. Obviously. it is not.

[Darkstar]

Darkstar when I write about my experiences of God, I am not stretching myself to make some sort of argument, I am expressing clearly what has happened to me in a simple format of reporting on what happened.

This is totally different from the way that atheists talk about science, which are models of reality which is inherently different and does not absolutely track science. Atheists never acknowledge this about science, they talk about it like it is a law.

So are you telling me that you are infallible? That your experiences could not possibly have been hallucinations? Science is the reason that we are even able to discuss this on a forum. Miracles, on the other hand, have a very poor track record. None have ever been proven and a number have been decisively disproven. Science isn't always right, but religion almost never is.

Why are you an anti-theist? How do you know God exists well enough to know you should oppose God,

What? I'm an atheist. I'm not "anti-god", I'm anti-theism.

even if it means it will prevent others from knowing God if God may exist?

FSM may also exist. People can look for god if they want, but if they find him, they should be able to verify it if they expect me to believe them. It isn't as though everyone who seeks god (as a believer, even) finds any evidence for him. The James Randi Foundation's one million dollar prize for proof of the supernatural remains unclaimed...

---

Atheists are incapable of being honest because they are so used to treating probabilistic science as absolute truth that it is wired into their brains, they think in these terms, they demand answers conform to models that cannot give absolutes, they have wired themselves in such a way as to make themselves dependent not on science but on the quasi-religious belief of naturalism.

FSM. He's merely unlikely. You can't prove he doesn't exist. So why not believe in him? Because he's extremely unlikely. Are you an is anything other than revelation of any value to you? Would a 99% chance naturalistic and a 1% chance god scenario still lead you to conclude go because of the 1%?

They will never accept this, but there whole worldview will grab a hold of science and demand absolute adherence to their interpretation of science, called naturalism, which they demand be accepted as science.

The atheist, indeed is incapable of being honest. His entire worldview is based on a misunderstanding, thinking that the philosophy of naturalism is the same as scientific evidence and is subject to the same standards of verification. Obviously. it is not.

The theist, indeed is incapable of being honest. His entire worldview is based on a misunderstanding, thinking that the "philosophy" of theology is the same as scientific evidence.

[jstrodel]

Theology is much more certain than science. Science changes every 50 or 100 years, for the most part. Theology has offered authoritative solutions for 2000 years. Theology is not the same as philosophy. Philosophy is a tool to help understand language better, which helps people understand revelation. Theology is concerned with revelation. It is certain because it has been revealed by God, and the wisdom of theology has created the most prosperous, powerful, creative and free societies that exist.

[Baalzebutt]

Theology is much more certain than science. Science changes every 50 or 100 years, for the most part. Theology has offered authoritative solutions for 2000 years. Theology is not the same as philosophy. Philosophy is a tool to help understand language better, which helps people understand revelation. Theology is concerned with revelation. It is certain because it has been revealed by God, and the wisdom of theology has created the most prosperous, powerful, creative and free societies that exist.

Yeah, like Afghanistan and Iran. The very definition of prosperous, powerful, free and creative.

Let me take a moment to thank THEOLOGY for the car I drive, the medicine I take and the computer I am typing on. Fuck that science shit. It doesn't really get us anywhere anyway.

[Ryantology]

Theology is much more certain than science. Science changes every 50 or 100 years, for the most part. Theology has offered authoritative solutions for 2000 years. Theology is not the same as philosophy. Philosophy is a tool to help understand language better, which helps people understand revelation. Theology is concerned with revelation. It is certain because it has been revealed by God, and the wisdom of theology has created the most prosperous, powerful, creative and free societies that exist.

Theology is fan fiction. Nothing more. It is completely and utterly worthless in every possible sense except for whatever entertainment value can be derived from it.

Theology is more certain than science, but that doesn't mean it is correct. Science never changes, understandings derived from science change as our observational and experimental capabilities expand. Science is a tool to learn the truth. Theology is what fools proclaim to be truth, without any sort of rigor or question.

[Darkstar]

Theology is much more certain than science. Science changes every 50 or 100 years, for the most part. Theology has offered authoritative solutions for 2000 years.

I think this is a point against theology rather than for it. Theology is just too stubborn to admit when it is wrong. I mean, when has theology ever been right about anything?

Oh, my bad. I actually misunderstood you. You said certain. Theology is much more certain. And very authoritative. But still incorrect.

Theology is not the same as philosophy. Philosophy is a tool to help understand language better, which helps people understand revelation. Theology is concerned with revelation. It is certain because it has been revealed by God, and the wisdom of theology has created the most prosperous, powerful, creative and free societies that exist.

You have no evidence that revelation is real, so you turn to theology for validation...whilst saying that proof that theology is itself valid is the validity of revelation.

[Undeceived]

Theology is an attempt to put the objective truths of this world into words. There can be human error. But if we modified doctrines for every new culture, trend and movement, there would be nothing left worth talking about. We'd have one giant ocean of opinions. It's actually remarkable how long Christianity has been preserved, how the Bible hasn't changed, and how every message in scripture is still relevant today. Like a pupil and a teacher, theology's quest is to learn what God has to say and change ourselves in response. If the pupil spent all his time critiquing his teacher, what would he know by the end of the class? A theologian admits he doesn't have all the answers, an atheist believes he does.