A Serious Question For Theists

[fr0d0]

The extent of your personal delusion is surprising.

That's not actually an answer. Is this going to be a faith thing again, is that why you're so evasive?

Your insistence on a flimsy minority opinion to base your objection to theism is not something I'm being or would ever need to be evasive about. It's cold hard reality.

[Bad Wolf]

Your insistence on a flimsy minority opinion to base your objection to theism is not something I'm being or would ever need to be evasive about. It's cold hard reality.

You really are an idiot aren't you, or a troll, I've often wondered. I can't speak for everyone but I know that I don't 'base my atheism' on a 'flimsy minority opinion'. I could be the only atheist in the world and I would still believe as I do. For the simple reason that there is no evidence for your god or any god.

And BTW, you are being evasive right now. Esqualix asked what other kind of evidence you would need to believe something (besides empirical) and you haven't answered. Surprise surprise!
Say you see a termite mound. All the evidence points to it being a termite mound. It is similar in size and shape to other known termite mounds, you crack it open and indeed you find termites inside. Now, what more do you need for you to believe it is a termite mound? Isn't the evidence enough? Or do you need 'a good feeling' about it too? Do you need to 'sense' it is a termite mound in order for you to believe it?

[Ravenshire]

If you don't believe on God .. and judgment day.. then why do you believe that you can't live forever.. and must die ?!

Because biology just works that way.

Read a book on it. If you're really interested in understanding, that will help far better than some opinions on the internet.

[Esquilax]

Your insistence on a flimsy minority opinion to base your objection to theism is not something I'm being or would ever need to be evasive about. It's cold hard reality.

Again, appealing to the unpopularity of an idea says nothing about the truth of that idea. Not to mention, it's a total non-sequitur given what we were actually talking about. What's the matter, can't think of some other type of reason to believe in a thing that isn't faith?

[Ravenshire]

Your insistence on a flimsy minority opinion

Being in the minority doesn't make it flimsy nor does it make it wrong.

Got something better than an appeal to numbers?

According to that logic, Justin Beiber is one of the greatest singers OF ALL TIME. Just look at how many people like his music!

---

You really are an idiot aren't you, or a troll, I've often wondered.

I'd argue both. Apparently he's subdued his trolling tendencies here, unlike another site I know him from.

[fr0d0]

Being in the minority doesn't make it flimsy nor does it make it wrong.

Got something better than an appeal to numbers?

I absolutely agree. There is usually a reason that an idea is obscure, and in this case simple reasoning shows scientism to be illogical. Yet in the atheist community it's hailed as the main reason that atheists dismiss theism (esq stated this above).

No I don't mind people holding minority opinions at all. I would champion such people. In atheism tho, unlike in the real world, this idea is not a minority one.

Loop back to my original point.... I find that interesting.

[Esquilax]

I absolutely agree. There is usually a reason that an idea is obscure, and in this case simple reasoning shows scientism to be illogical. Yet in the atheist community it's hailed as the main reason that atheists dismiss theism (esq stated this above).

"Scientism." That word is stupid, and if you use it, you're stupid.

Now that we have that out of the way, what "simple reasoning" shows that expecting evidence before you believe in something is illogical? Matter of fact, what other thing would lead you to believe in something, period? You assert a lot of things, Hobbit, but when it comes time to even explain what they actually are in any detail, you're so evasive I'm forced to conclude you don't actually have a position beyond "atheists are wrong."

Now, for the third or fourth time, will you answer the damn question?

[Bad Wolf]

I absolutely agree. There is usually a reason that an idea is obscure, and in this case simple reasoning shows scientism to be illogical. Yet in the atheist community it's hailed as the main reason that atheists dismiss theism (esq stated this above).

What is scientism?

No I don't mind people holding minority opinions at all. I would champion such people. In atheism tho, unlike in the real world, this idea is not a minority one.

What idea? To accept something as true only when there is sufficient evidence? And in your eyes, this is bad because it is not a minority opinion?

---

[fr0d0]

http://bit.ly/GUCcle

I like how you guys are so open minded in your discussions. A credit to your fellow atheists.

I remember my own critical thinking classes at university... the professor would start a new topic on something that we were unfamiliar with. We'd call him stupid, idiotic, try to humiliate him as much as we could and laugh together at the absurdity of his ideas. That's the way we learnt new ideas fast.

True story.

[Esquilax]

http://bit.ly/GUCcle

I like how you guys are so open minded in your discussions. A credit to your fellow atheists.

Frodo, fuck off: I've spent the entire time I've interacted with you in this thread asking you questions to get you to expand on your position, and you've spent all this time refusing to engage. You don't then get to rewrite history and pretend that we haven't been taking an interest.

Now, you still haven't answered the question, and on top of that you've added a label of "scientism" to a discussion about evidence, not the scientific method. So not only are you still being evasive, now you're just hurling non-sequiturs around, possibly in the hopes that we just stop asking.

And yet you have the balls to accuse us of being close minded? You won't even go into your own position in any depth so as to avoid hearing counter arguments!