street epistemology

[drfuzzy]

Are you simply saying my claim that most atheists don't understand Christianity is a lie?

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I have no qualms calling you a liar in this regard.

It is true that most atheists do understand Christianity, have read the bible, because most of us were former theists.

Most atheists, at least in the USA, are former Christians.  Many different denominations, of course, so if you get really, really, desperate, you'll go for the "no true Scotsman" response and say that ______ was never actually a Christian to begin with.  Many, like myself, have large portions of the Bible memorized, and have taken various Biblical studies courses.  Naturally, you'll respond that they just were too _______ (fill in an insult you haven't used yet, if you can think of one) to understand.  It took me 50 years to break away from my Pentecostal upbringing. So yes, you came in here with the assertion that we're stupid and we don't understand Christianity, which is of course a lie.  It's also probably the worst opening possible, if you actually were hoping to change someone's mind and heart.  Clearly, your entire purpose for being on this forum is to insult people.

[Simon Moon]

False by way of faith?  Spare me the horror of such ill logic.

False by way of fact.

Yes, you continue to make that assertion, yet, you have been asked many times to open a thread and present your evidence. Aren't you obligated under Peter 3:15 to do that? Or am I misunderstanding Christianity?

If you have done that already and I missed it, please point me to it. 

Other than that, all I can see is you making one unsupported assertion after another.

[Delicate]

There is evidence in rock crushers that your arguments are false.

Is this one of your beliefs without evidence?

[Delicate]

Let's settle some issues:

It's not enough to simply tell me, or assert something. You have to be able to support it. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, right? So why should I accept your claim with no evidence?

You shouldn't. You also shouldn't ignore when we do provide evidence, a tendency I've noticed in you. We eventually quit listing specifics when dealing with you, as we know you'll just gloss it over to say something like the above.

We can also settle the matter of specifics: Are you simply saying my claim that most atheists don't understand Christianity is a lie? Or is there more?

Yes, I am saying it is a lie. But I am also saying why that is so. There are so many thousands of version of Christian theology that it's impossible to completely agree on points of doctrine, even if you and I were both devout Christians. Yet when an atheist gets something "wrong" (which is correct under Denomination X, but not Denomination Y), you say we simply don't understand the religion. You claim you have all this experience with stupid atheists, but I think you are lying because I have twenty years of almost exclusively dealing with atheist groups, and I have found that a great many of us have a very deep level of understanding (see my own education, listed above), while the vast majority have a well-above-average understanding. This isn't just me saying this, though... it's backed up by actual research. One example:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2...-religious

Likewise, you're welcome to pick a topic of your choosing from the list you've provided (origin of man, original sin, etc) so we can discuss it. In fact, I can even broaden the topic to discuss the scientific method and rational skepticism you brought up, and how the scientific method is more compatible with theism than atheism, and rational skepticism, so far as it is rationally justifiable, fails to render religious belief irrational.

So... like, every other thread ever created on this forum? I'm going on vacation for a couple of weeks, in an hour or so, but I'll be glad to hold any or all of the above discussions, when I return.

So far as our differing views on what atheists are like, you're welcome to disagree with my findings, as I am with yours. Keep in mind this is not to say all atheists are idiots. I'm more comfortable saying a significant majority are, at least as reflected on the internet. And I don't mean this as a slur. I mean it as an objective assessment of their rational competence.

I'd venture to say that most PEOPLE on the internet are idiots. Why you think this applies to atheists exclusively, I can only speculate (prejudice? bigotry? confirmation bias?), but I can say that even given the nature of internet conversations, I have not found atheists to be less intelligent. What I can't figure out is why you hold so much hatred in your heart.

As for adragonism, I reject the adragonism label completely, just as I reject the dragonism label. I really am just an agnostic on the existence on dragons. I see no need to bring dragonism or adragonism into the picture so far as my views. Can you say that mere agnosticism about the existence of dragons, without invoking adragonism, is incorrect? On what basis?

Okay. You refuse to say that dragons are imaginary. Got it. See? That's the difference. When you tell me something about your beliefs, I listen and change my ideas to fit the new information. As to the basis for thinking dragons aren't real, I have already listed them. Why do you have such a difficult time with reading comprehension, such that you will ask me to provide evidence of something in the very next post after I have done so. Short version: the versions that fit the mythological description of "a dragon" are too big to fly under their own power via the laws of physics/aerodynamics, fire-breathing creatures are impossible (perhaps a Bombardier beetle type of caustic chemical spray, but not fire), and there are no hexapedal reptiles. It defies everything I understand about how physics and biology operate... but it is also clearly identifiable as a good story, so it's an easy conclusion that they're not real.

As for my final request, for us to eliminate hatred tout court, I find it strange how eliminating "theistic hatred" has your support, but you call eliminating hatred period to be censorship. Can you explain this inconsistency in your views?

No, I find telling my fellow board members what they can and can't say to be censorship. I don't support prejudice and biased thinking in general, and strive to eliminate it as much as possible, but I consider actively censoring or otherwise controlling people to be a worse act than tolerating the presence of a few people who like to express their prejudices. As I said, I'm happy to point out such thinking errors, doing to them as I do to you, but I try to be tolerant of all persons who are not seeking to harm others actively. That's derived from my Secular Humanist beliefs. Atheism is a lack of beliefs, period; Secular Humanism makes several positive assertions based on our understanding of the common nature of humanity and philosophies which stem from that ideal. The two terms are often confused, because SH are atheists, in general, but they're not the same thing (it's the Bill Gates is a Wealthy Person but a Wealthy Person is not necessarily Bill Gates bit).

In any case, as I've said elsewhere, I'm about to pack up the truck and head to Louisiana for my Christmas/New Years's vacation to see my extended family, inlaws, and parents. I'll be gone until January 3rd. I'll try to check in via my smartphone and laptop, but frankly I'll likely be too busy to want to chat on here until then.

Merry Christmas to you, and Happy Holidays to everyone else.

Oh yes, and to be fair, rock crushers do prove everything you've claimed is false. Sorry but the Argument from Rock Crushers is a tough one for theists to beat.

Time and again atheists embarrass themselves in conversations, with their appeals to slogans, which, when scrutinized, leave them empty-handed or shortchanged.

Your evidence justifying atheist ignorance about theology fails because atheists even fail to correctly represent views that are widespread across most denominations.

Likewise with atheists being idiots. You agree with me the majority of atheists ARE in fact idiots, but say it generalizes to all populations online.

But there's no evidence suggesting ornithologists are predominantly idiots online. There isn't even evidence of that sort for Hindus. Or lacrosse players. Or metaphysicians. Or pottery enthusiasts. Or Christians.

But atheists. Oh is there evidence for the idiocy of atheists here...ask me to substantiate this with evidence on this very forum!

You refuse to say that dragons are imaginary.

Correct. Because I don't have enough evidence to conclusively justify that claim as true across the history of biological life.

And by the way, I don't take it that all alleged dragons can fly. Historical depictions of dragons are quite diverse. Your reasoning here fails because it applies only to dragons that are said to fly. Or breathe fire. Or have six legs. What about watersnake-type dragons? Or dragons that don't breathe fire? Or the ones that don't have six legs? Or dragons with none of these features that yet fall under the category of dragon.

The fact is, no evidence rules them out. So the fact is, while the evidence suggests they are implausible, it doesn't suggest they don't exist.

Facts make someone a theist. Fiction makes you make you an agnostic atheist.

[Delicate]

False by way of fact.

Yes, you continue to make that assertion, yet, you have been asked many times to open a thread and present your evidence. Aren't you obligated under Peter 3:15 to do that? Or am I misunderstanding Christianity?

If you have done that already and I missed it, please point me to it. 

Other than that, all I can see is you making one unsupported assertion after another.

The burden of proof is on the atheist who claims to have assessed the evidence and have good reasons to reject putative evidence, to provide their reasons.

Otherwise they are charlatans.

[Edwardo Piet]

I wonder if the Street Epistemology videos are staged and fake, you know.

[Nay_Sayer]

Yes, you continue to make that assertion, yet, you have been asked many times to open a thread and present your evidence. Aren't  you obligated under Peter 3:15 to do that? Or am I misunderstanding Christianity?

If you have done that already and I missed it, please point me to it. 

Other than that, all I can see is you making one unsupported assertion after another.

The burden of proof is on the atheist who claims to have assessed the evidence and have good reasons to reject putative evidence, to provide their reasons.

Otherwise they are charlatans.

BZZZ You do receive the consolation prize of Rice-a-Roni The San Francisco treat

[Delicate]

The burden of proof is on the atheist who claims to have assessed the evidence and have good reasons to reject putative evidence, to provide their reasons.

Otherwise they are charlatans.

BZZZ You do receive the consolation prize of Rice-a-Roni The San Francisco treat

That response captures so beautifully the persona of a schizophrenic behind the keyboard. It has no relation to the post it responds to, indicates no comprehension of the point. 

Thanks, that was amusing.

[Edwardo Piet]

Thanks for using "schizophrenic" as an insult...not.

...you absolute fucking cretin!

[Simon Moon]

Yes, you continue to make that assertion, yet, you have been asked many times to open a thread and present your evidence. Aren't  you obligated under Peter 3:15 to do that? Or am I misunderstanding Christianity?

If you have done that already and I missed it, please point me to it. 

Other than that, all I can see is you making one unsupported assertion after another.

The burden of proof is on the atheist who claims to have assessed the evidence and have good reasons to reject putative evidence, to provide their reasons.

Otherwise they are charlatans.

Completely laughable.

You are the one making an existential claim. the Burden is all yours.

We both, I assume, accept the existence of the universe exists. You are the one that is adding an entity to explain the existence of said universe.

Again, you have he burden of proof.

What putative evidence are you referring to? Please present it and convince me.