Typical theists versus typical atheists

[TheBeardedDude]

Typical atheist: doesn't believe in a god

That's it. Fin. That's the end of the description of a typical atheist.

I don't look to "certain scientists" for my beliefs. Nor do I only believe things directly from science. Nor do I follow rules because of who created them. Nor do I follow rules because they are "approved by privileged elite."

I think for myself and reason through ideas and look for reasons to believe them. If I can find none (or no logical or rational reasons), then I tend to disbelieve them


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

Please tell me; do you think all atheists are likely rational and independent as you are?

By the way and I don't expect you to believe what I will say, I am a theist based solely on reason because I can't have a blind faith, even if I want to
But I usually had faith first in axioms (also in science) in order to check later, by applying them, if they are valid and useful in my life or not.

Naturally, the Will/Power which is behind my existence and I perceive in my being, happens to be totally different of all gods you might hear of; the gods that are accepted by certain communities in the world. In fact, the image of this Will/Power cannot be adopted/approved by any system/organization in the world. It may be discovered by free independent individuals only (if one felt the need to do it). And each of these individuals can take advantage of all what he would be able to discover from this image to better know his being and the real world he lives in. For instance, I couldn't meet yet one of these individuals but at least one person happened to agree with me openly on all what I discovered in this respect. Otherwise I would see myself as a real weird being

Anyway, it is always not a prerequisite for a human being to know how and why he exists in order for him to live a normal life and be completely satisfied with the way his being is made.

Kerim

I can't make sense of your ramble wrt to my post.


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

[KerimF]

Please tell me; do you think all atheists are likely rational and independent as you are?

By the way and I don't expect you to believe what I will say, I am a theist based solely on reason because I can't have a blind faith, even if I want to
But I usually had faith first in axioms (also in science) in order to check later, by applying them, if they are valid and useful in my life or not.

Naturally, the Will/Power which is behind my existence and I perceive in my being, happens to be totally different of all gods you might hear of; the gods that are accepted by certain communities in the world. In fact, the image of this Will/Power cannot be adopted/approved by any system/organization in the world. It may be discovered by free independent individuals only (if one felt the need to do it). And each of these individuals can take advantage of all what he would be able to discover from this image to better know his being and the real world he lives in. For instance, I couldn't meet yet one of these individuals but at least one person happened to agree with me openly on all what I discovered in this respect. Otherwise I would see myself as a real weird being

Anyway, it is always not a prerequisite for a human being to know how and why he exists in order for him to live a normal life and be completely satisfied with the way his being is made.

Kerim

I can't make sense of your ramble wrt to my post.


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

You are right.
I told you already that you will likely need to ignore my reply.

[TheBeardedDude]

I can't make sense of your ramble wrt to my post.


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

You are right.
I told you already that you will likely need to ignore my reply.

I think that the conversations you engage in go a lot differently in your head than they do in reality


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

[GUBU]

No, that is not what it says at all. There are chapters and chapters about the purpose of the OT law. These fit right in with Jesus' "I have not come for abolish the law but to fulfill it". Your contradiction is imagined and just keeps gets propagated by people who don't understand the context and methods of systematic theology.

Just because you can't handle the cognitive dissonance of Yeshua bar Yosef saying "obey all the jewish laws" in Matthew 5 and Saul of Tarsus saying "ignore all the jewish laws" in the epistles doesn't make it that both contradictory orders are written in the bible.

But then again, the bible was written by man committees over the last 1,500 years, most of which were at loggerheads with all the other committees. No wonder, then, that you can look into the bible and find justification for almost any act you would care to commit.

[SteveII]

No, that is not what it says at all. There are chapters and chapters about the purpose of the OT law. These fit right in with Jesus' "I have not come for abolish the law but to fulfill it". Your contradiction is imagined and just keeps gets propagated by people who don't understand the context and methods of systematic theology.

Just because you can't handle the cognitive dissonance of Yeshua bar Yosef saying "obey all the jewish laws" in Matthew 5 and Saul of Tarsus saying "ignore all the jewish laws" in the epistles doesn't make it that both contradictory orders are written in the bible.

But then again, the bible was written by man committees over the last 1,500 years, most of which were at loggerheads with all the other committees. No wonder, then, that you can look into the bible and find justification for almost any act you would care to commit.

Fringe theories. No one with any credentials worth talking about think that anything you say here is true.

[Astonished]

Just because you can't handle the cognitive dissonance of Yeshua bar Yosef saying "obey all the jewish laws" in Matthew 5 and Saul of Tarsus saying "ignore all the jewish laws" in the epistles doesn't make it that both contradictory orders are written in the bible.

But then again, the bible was written by man committees over the last 1,500 years, most of which were at loggerheads with all the other committees. No wonder, then, that you can look into the bible and find justification for almost any act you would care to commit.

Fringe theories. No one with any credentials worth talking about think that anything you say here is true.

Oh, fuck off with that! No one with any credentials in this field is qualified to do dick.

[KerimF]

You are right.
I told you already that you will likely need to ignore my reply.

I think that the conversations you engage in go a lot differently in your head than they do in reality


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

Again I have no reason not to agree with you.

It happens that even the notion of 'Reality' is also a relative matter (relative to the observer).
For example, is the reality of light and its colours perceived equally by a normal person and a born-blind one?
Should the reality of an important event be known/perceived equally by all men; those who were behind it, those who were in it and those who heard of it?

Actually there are 'Relative' Realities and not one Absolute Reality. But this doesn't prevent that, among the 'relative realities', some matters/points are perceived equally by almost all people in the world.

Anyway, it is not bad or wrong if you consider your reality as being the absolute one that all humans should perceive and live; as theists, on their side, are also supposed to believe.

Cheers,
Kerim

[KerimF]

Why do all theists think atheist = science?

Correlation error? Many scientists are atheist, so they assume all atheists are scientists or into science? Many atheists point to scientific evidence that refutes theistic claims, so theists assume atheists only follow science?


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

You both have an interesting remark.

When I personally talk to a theist, he usually quotes certain verses written on his religious references/books. This lets an atheist think that all theists knew their Creator based on faith, not reason; the logical reasoning applied in scientific researches.

On the other hand, when I talk to an atheist, he usually quotes (as evidence) certain statements said/approved by his trusted sources which may be related to philosophy and/or science. This gives the impression that an atheist knew life and the world also based on faith mostly in whatever is called scientific.

In reality, it doesn't matter if someone becomes theist or atheist. What matters is: Does a person trust fully his personal logical reasoning (which he also uses in his scientific studies and work) more than of any other sources or not? If he (theist or atheist) does, he can't, even if he wants to, build his personal set of knowledge based on faith. But this doesn't imply that the personal set of knowledge of a rational atheist and of a rational theist have to be similar (even their basics). But I expect that most people in the world, theists and atheists, don't agree on my previous statement because, in general, men tend to believe that all human beings have to be made of the same nature (same structure).

[JackRussell]

Correlation error? Many scientists are atheist, so they assume all atheists are scientists or into science? Many atheists point to scientific evidence that refutes theistic claims, so theists assume atheists only follow science?


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

You both have an interesting remark.

When I personally talk to a theist, he usually quotes certain verses written on his religious references/books. This lets an atheist think that all theists knew their Creator based on faith, not reason; the logical reasoning applied in scientific researches.

On the other hand, when I talk to an atheist, he usually quotes (as evidence) certain statements said/approved by his trusted sources which may be related to philosophy and/or science. This gives the impression that an atheist knew life and the world also based on faith mostly in whatever is called scientific.

In reality, it doesn't matter if someone becomes theist or atheist. What matters is: Does a person trust fully his personal logical reasoning (which he also uses in his scientific studies and work) more than of any other sources or not? If he (theist or atheist) does, he can't, even if he wants to, build his personal set of knowledge based on faith. But this doesn't imply that the personal set of knowledge of a rational atheist and of a rational theist have to be similar (even their basics). But I expect that most people in the world, theists and atheists, don't agree on my previous statement because, in general, men tend to believe that all human beings have to be made of the same nature (same structure).

But what use is faith in either a theistic or atheistic worldview, can't you believe anything by faith. The reason atheists probably talk about science more is because it has a method that demonstrably works.

[ignoramus]

Kerim, agree, there are many "subjective" versions of reality. Just ask a theist to describe their God, I guarantee you they'll add their personal flavour to it and you'll get 6 billion different versions of God, lol!

The Reality we like to talk about is the one described by science, not a cult.
It's the one that flies us to the moon, not into buildings. That one will remain true whether any theist chooses to believe in it or not. That's as objective as you can get as far as describing the reality around us. We enjoy living in that one, as sad as it may seem.