Why do some DP theists always choose willful ignorance?

[PeacefulWarrior]

The Bible is like a mirror. Some see hate and evil, others see peace and love. What you see is a reflection of your own soul.

Religious mythology is religious mythology. Nothing more or less. DERP.

 

[tosca1]

OK, so you clearly see and accept that there are differences among theists. Why not do the same for atheists?

@Dragonfly


Context, my friend. Context.
It has to do with the definition.

The difference among theists is not their belief in the existence of God. They are still well within the definition of "theist."
Atheists on the other hand - some of them - are trying to STRETCH THE DEFINITION OF ATHEIST (which is supposed to be the opposite of theist) - that they want to encroach on AGNOSTICISM!

They try to play with words......................... "lack of belief." They're trying to dress up a hippo to look like a gazelle!
















I can understand where they're coming from - that some have that tiny niggling doubt that God/gods could possibly exists.
The problem is that they still want to be identified as atheists even though they are entertaining the possible existence of God/gods.
They are wrong. They're agnostics (no matter how tiny a percentage they claim it to be)!


That's the reason why many theists ignore the plea of the OP author.

 

[tosca1]

I get it some atheists aren't comfy with the closed box they're in?
The Agnostic's open box looks more inviting?

 

[tosca1]

A deflection that’s completely off-topic. Not even remotely shocking, yet a perfect example of willful ignorance.

Well, it's been repeatedly explained in this forum too, what the true definition of atheist is - as shown with that video to boot -and, it is being wilfully ignored by you!

 

[Centrist]

I try to keep an open mind to all possibilities.

After all, at one point, Isaac Newton thought he had the answer for gravity -> Albert Einstein showed him after that he does not have the full picture and some of his theories only work in limited cases. Today even Einstein's theories are being challenged.

I try not to fall in the both extremes:

a) Superficial thinking on one side
or
b) Arrogance on the other side.

 

[tosca1]

We KNOW what your words mean, what we want to know is why we need to listen to some arrogant assed atheist preach their bullshit. You dont have the faintest idea of what Christianity is about and you never will and you think you can tell us what we should believe.

Go bitch to someone who cares.

Lol - clearly he's confused about his own position!
Otherwise, why would he be ranting like this?

Meh - I think he's more frustrated about his own stance.
It's not easy being an atheist in a debate.
They can't attack faith, because it comes back to them!

 

[ttwtt78640]

@Dragonfly


Context, my friend. Context.
It has to do with the definition.

The difference among theists is not their belief in the existence of God. They are still well within the definition of "theist."
Atheists on the other hand - some of them - are trying to STRETCH THE DEFINITION OF ATHEIST (which is supposed to be the opposite of theist) - that they want to encroach on AGNOSTICISM!

They try to play with words......................... "lack of belief." They're trying to dress up a hippo to look like a gazelle!
















I can understand where they're coming from - that some have that tiny niggling doubt that God/gods could possibly exists.
The problem is that they still want to be identified as atheists even though they are entertaining the possible existence of God/gods.
They are wrong. They're agnostics (no matter how tiny a percentage they claim it to be)!


That's the reason why many theists ignore the plea of the OP author.

OK, but that seems to be hair splitting. I understand the concept of God/gods the same way as I understand the concept of unicorns, leprechauns and mermaids.

 

[devildavid]

You dont have the foggiest clue about any of that stuff fella, no offense intended.

Now that is laughable! Gosh, if I'm so clueless, perhaps you could enlighten me, no offense intended.

 

[devildavid]

Lol - clearly he's confused about his own position!
Otherwise, why would he be ranting like this?

Meh - I think he's more frustrated about his own stance.
It's not easy being an atheist in a debate.
They can't attack faith, because it comes back to them!

No, it doesn't. There is no such thing as atheist faith, not in the sense of religious fsith.

 

[devildavid]

I get it some atheists aren't comfy with the closed box they're in?
The Agnostic's open box looks more inviting?

Atheism is the open box, as it is open to reality, not fantasy.

 

[tosca1]

OK, but that seems to be hair splitting. I understand the concept of God/gods the same way as I understand the concept of unicorns, leprechauns and mermaids.

Then, you've got some serious work to do on your understanding.

Comparing the concept of God - I'm of course speaking about the Abrahamic God - with that of unicorns and mermaids, is a faulty way of thinking.
They're not comparable at all.

I assume you mean flying unicorns (not the real animals with single horns), and mermaids are admittedly from fictional stories.
FICTION - that's what their authors meant for them to be! Same with the novel, Harry Potter!


Lol - just to hammer the point - have you ever seen reputable people debating the existence of mermaids and unicorns? Or, even Zeus and Venus for that matter? Or, Harry Potter?
Have you heard of reputable scientists trying to figure them out? Or, just discussing about them?

 

[devildavid]

Then, you've got some serious work to do on your understanding.

Comparing the concept of God - I'm of course speaking about the Abrahamic God - with that of unicorns and mermaids, is a faulty way of thinking.
They're not comparable at all.

I assume you mean flying unicorns (not the real animals with single horns), and mermaids are admittedly from fictional stories.
FICTION - that's what their authors meant for them to be! Same with the novel, Harry Potter!


Lol - just to hammer the point - have you ever seen reputable people debating the existence of mermaids and unicorns? Or, even Zeus and Venus for that matter? Or, Harry Potter?
Have you heard of reputable scientists trying to figure them out? Or, just discussing about them?

So any religious stories must be true as long as the authors never admitted that they were fiction, according to your logic. You better hope you chose the right non fictional religious stories to take as true.

By the way, there is no evidence of fiction writers admitting they are writing fiction. So you must remain open to the possibility that they are true stories.

 

[RAMOSS]

I try to keep an open mind to all possibilities.

After all, at one point, Isaac Newton thought he had the answer for gravity -> Albert Einstein showed him after that he does not have the full picture and some of his theories only work in limited cases. Today even Einstein's theories are being challenged.

I try not to fall in the both extremes:

a) Superficial thinking on one side
or
b) Arrogance on the other side.

What Newton had is entirely accurate within non-relativistic speeds and within the parameters of lower levels of gravity.

 

[Centrist]

What Newton had is entirely accurate within non-relativistic speeds and within the parameters of lower levels of gravity.

I did not say he was incorrect.

Good post.

 

[it's just me]

Religious mythology is religious mythology. Nothing more or less. DERP.

View attachment 67382400

You can't miss the point by much more than that.

 

[it's just me]

Atheism is the open box, as it is open to reality, not fantasy.

An open box with nothing in it.

 

[devildavid]

An open box with nothing in it.

Better nothing than a bunch of made up nonsense.

 

[tosca1]

So any religious stories must be true as long as the authors never admitted that they were fiction, according to your logic.

Nope.
I'm responding to his particular statement regarding, unicorns and mermaids which are from FICTIONAL materials.

You should read what I'm responding to. That's how you'll get CONTEXT.
Then, you can respond logically.


That's your problem it seems.
You simply just latch on whatever particular statement you want with total disregard for context - hence you end up posting irrelevant matters (to say the least).

 

[devildavid]

Nope.
I'm responding to his particular statement regarding, unicorns and mermaids which are from FICTIONAL materials.

You should read what I'm responding to. That's how you'll get CONTEXT.
Then, you can respond logically.


That's your problem it seems.
You simply just latch on whatever particular statement you want with total disregard for context - hence you end up posting irrelevant matters (to say the least).

No, you made a general claim about fiction and you are dead wrong, as usual. We don't have statements form all fiction writers that their writings are fiction. We don't need a statement from the various bible authors saying their writing was fiction to be able to categorize it as such. Your context claim is more nonsense form you.

 

[Questerr]

I will if you will...

What is the true meaning of Christian?
Christian
1 : a person who believes in Jesus Christ and follows his teachings.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Christian

Notice nowhere in that definition does it say anything like “perfectly follows”. So when you claim people can’t be Christians if they are perfectly following Jesus’s teachings, you are going against your own definition.

 

[it's just me]

Atheism is the open box, as it is open to reality, not fantasy.

An open box with nothing in it

Better nothing than a bunch of made up nonsense.

This is typical of the vacuous comments we get from you. It means nothing but it gives you something to say - made up nonsense.

 

[Questerr]

I get it some atheists aren't comfy with the closed box they're in?
The Agnostic's open box looks more inviting?

They aren’t mutually exclusive categories. I’m an Agnostic Atheist.

 

[Daisy]

Notice nowhere in that definition does it say anything like “perfectly follows”. So when you claim people can’t be Christians if they are perfectly following Jesus’s teachings, you are going against your own definition.

That makes no sense...I've never said "perfectly"...no man is perfect, but Jesus Christ...so stop lying...

 

[Questerr]

That makes no sense...I've never said "perfectly"...no man is perfect, but Jesus Christ...so stop lying...

So how much is someone allowed to not follow or to violate Jesus’s teachings before they no longer count as Christian?

Where is this limit found in the Bible?

 

[Daisy]

So how much is someone allowed to not follow or to violate Jesus’s teachings before they no longer count as Christian?

Where is this limit found in the Bible?

Let's see if you can figure it out...

"So, then, each of us will render an account for himself to God." Romans 14:12