Pic related is why atheists exist.
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Pic related is why atheists exist.
Talk religion
Talk religion
Pic related is why atheists exist.
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
|
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Most believers have had 0 supernatural experience or perception.
Of course the difference is that it's possible to prove to a blind person that sight exists or to a deaf person that hearing exists. You can give a blind person objects that have the same temperature and smell but different shapes or colors, have them pick a random item and show it to a nonblind person and have the nonblind person say which one they're showing without touching it. You won't show me the equivalent protocol to prove an atheist God exists. Because he doesn't.
Oh and nobody ever says the following.
>You can actually see and hear, you just pretend you can't because you're angry with light and sound.
>You have to believe in light and sound first, and then you'll see and hear.
>Nothing at all makes sense without light and sound.
>You can't see or hear because you're not trying hard enough.
>My book's definition of light and sound contradicts that from other books? Well... Mine's the true one because.... It just is okay?
This is why atheists exist: Christians have never come up with any argument beyond moronic false equivalences.
Blind people have a strong tendency to believe in light because, even if they are incapable of directly observing it, sighted people have immediate and consistent access to knowledge they don't.
People with "spiritual senses" are unable to provide such immediate and consistent knowledge, and when they do it is either unreliable or useless. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that such spiritual senses do not exist, or if they do exist, they are not worth acknowledging.
But people in general have a strong tendency towards religiosity, even without exposure to one another or a religious upbringing.
So?
The argument was that vision is a more real or trustworthy perception because even those that lack it still tend to believe in that which it perceives. But most people also believe in some manner of god, gods, spirits, etc. despite not necessarily professing any kind of direct perception of these things. So they either place faith in those who do claim to experience spiritual perceptions similar to the faith the blind place in the sighted or they do experience spiritual perceptions themselves but are either unwilling or unable to articulate them. Given that everyone in this thread that has professed to have experienced spiritual perceptions has been treated as though they are mentally ill, my guess is that they're unwilling.
You misunderstood what I said.
If you put two sighted people in a room and asked them to describe what they see, you will tend to get pretty similar answers. Their sight is testable, reliable, and provides useful information.
If you gather two religious people and ask them to describe the nature of the afterlife, the soul, or any number of other spiritual questions, you will tend to get vastly different answers that don't really have any practical use.
Even in a society where everyone was blind, eventually we could come to believe in light.
Everyone in the world is born completely radio blind, no one believed in radio waves until 200 years ago. But without them it's hard to explain where the music that's playing in my car is coming from, so most people believe in radio waves even though they have no organs with which to perceive them. There is no spiritual equivalent to the radio.
>Everyone uses their "higher powers" to come to completely different and mutually contradictory gods and they deny the results of everyone else even though they use the exact same method.
In other words your "higher powers" are a crock of shit. Religiosity inversely correlates with IQ by the way.
Bellcurve meme is real, only the midwits don't believe in God. morons and geniuses alike "just know"
Not according to the over 100 studies done on this matter for over 100 years
Let me guess, you're the genius
If the bellcurve meme was real, then there wouldn't be a negative correlation between religiosity and iq. The presence of the negative correlation implies that the number of morons that believe in god far outweigh the number of geniuses.
Which God?
Thats funny because you would never believe in the religion you do if you weren’t told about it.
This is a point where atheists and theists can agree: atheists heavily resemble uneducated children in a state of nature.
>Worlds are shut off to you when you don't buy into mass psychosis and act like you're a schizo
I would've never guessed.
Your point being? Being unencumbered tends to give someone such a level of freedom it only looks like immaturity.
I’m agnostic but the point is you’re not actually sensing anything, because your senses pick up things regardless of whether someone tells you they exist first.
>you’re not actually sensing anything
This is just an assumption. A theist sees God communicating to him every day, regardless of how explicit the revelation is. If you think my dreams aren't a perfectly valid form of God subtly showing things to me, then I'd like to know why you think you know God so well. You have merely interpreted the evidence a different way, but we've both seen it.
>my dreams are not actually dreams but real
FRICK
The senses are falsifiable and can be scientifically verified. Your dreams are unfalsifiable, therefore they are not a valid basis for the existence of god.
>The senses are falsifiable and can be scientifically verified
More baseless assumptions. I already addressed this moronation in the post above. "Faith" has become a dirty word among you losers so you're compelled to pretend you have none. There is *no evidence* for this theory that the material world is the only reality and that the burden of proof lays on all other theories.
Woah woah buddy you were the one who told us that you sense god
I believe I do, there's nothing in that post gainsaying that. Unlike atheists I don't need to conceal my beliefs so I'm obviously not using your cowardly line of reasoning, I'm just shining a light on what it is.
No one here said atheists don’t use leaps of faith, just that the leap you make that your dreams are you communicating with an Iron Age war and thunder god of middle eastern folklore is too much of a leap
>is too much of a leap of faith
By what percentage? Three or thirty percent too much?
Not an easily quantifiable thing if even possible to quantify. I knew you were going to do this too.
Look anon, one of the ongoing lessons you learn over decades of life is to learn how determine true from false.
People are wrong, people lie, people have delusions. It’s a very nuanced and subtle thing we do and a skill some of us really work on.
My coworker claims he was a successful DJ, no one believes him.
If he had proof of this and showed us we would believe him. This is a skill we learn. What is the percentage of faith leap difference between that and him saying he worked at Home Depot? Would that not be an insane question? Especially if it was him saying that when he was challenged on that claim?
Yes, he should prove he was DJ or make a convincing case
>Not an easily quantifiable thing if even possible to quantify
You've just claimed your own argument could be impossible to prove. So why should I care about the rest of the word salad you just regurgitated?
I said the difference in size of leap of faith isn’t an easily quantifiable thing.
So here’s the thing anon, you’re the coworker who claims he was a successful Dj in this analogy, and if your response to being challenged is anything except making your best case that you were a skilled pro DJ, everyone is totally justified in not believing you.
It’s a post explaining with a basic everyday example of someone making a claim that is too big of a leap of faith to accept without proof and comparing it to something that would be believable.
It's a post where he openly admitted he has no logical argument but he trusts his intuition. When you get an atheist to that point, you know he's badly defeated. But here
he doesn't seem to even seem to be arguing it's too big of a leap of faith, he seems to imply that *any* leap of faith is bad, even though I thought we moved past that
I am arguing with actual morons. If you can't tell me how much faith is bad, then I have no reply to a non-argument.
Your zoomer brain is too fried to read a few sentences and comprehend them.
Believing him that he worked at Home Depot without proof would be an acceptable leap of faith, believing that he was a successful DJ is not.
The difference there in size of leap isn’t easily quantifiable or maybe quantifiable at all, but that doesn’t mean you have to believe he was a DJ because you can’t nail down a percentage in leap of faith size.
Already told you I’m agnostic by the way. Let’s see how many more times I have to repeat that one before you take it in.
>an acceptable leap of faith
The word you're looking for here is "more likely" not acceptable.
It’s in the context of him asking for a percentage difference in the size of a leap of faith.
No shit. It's still an intuitive argument, and I don't care about your intuition, only mine. The hypothetical guy could be a DJ for all I know, I may not think it's likely, but I can't just prove him wrong without further information. You're a mental moron.
Yes you’re right anon, intuition is a component of determining true from false. And if you intuit that someone is wrong, they can prove you wrong and themselves right by presenting a logical, fact based proof of your claim.
Their claim*
So when someone tells you something, you automatically believe it until you can do a mathematical percentage calculation in leap of faith size before you have the option of not believing them?
It’s minimal anon. The only axiom I start with is that people are capable of thought.
>god is real because *unfalsifiable claim*
>god is real bros!
>I can see God and communicate with him!
>YES I CAN FEEEEL IT!
>IT’S GOD OMG HE’S TALKING TO ME
How would you differentiate between god talking to you and schizofrenia?
>it literally came to me in a dream
JUST
This is literally the argument for materialism: I saw it so my senses and human reason are infallible because reasons. If I just choose to apply the same logic there is no possible rebuttal against it.
moron you can’t tell dreams apart from real life even after you wake up
Explaining spirituality through the lens of senses, is the equivalent of explaining mathematics by counting with your fingers.
In fact, it's captious, senses are illusory by definition: I can see a box but not what it's inside, I can see a shadow only to find out that it's the opposite of what it's supossed to be, I can see a familiar face in the distance only to realize that it's a stranger, "Feeling" the metaphyiscal is even worse, since it's not even compounded by other senses or minds, just abstracted through words and shared because the wordly description "feel" similar but might as well the famous spagetti monster.
You can claim belief or faith for X or Y reason, and then justify it through other means, but not claim the existence of something just because you sensed it, since you are skipping several steps of verification, starting with the one about "higher" not only that pic sets up a false comparison but it too claims that such a sense would be higher.
Is sight superior to tact? Smell to taste? Cognition to instinct? Abstract to physical? Over what is superior? That pic already has the conclusions beforehand and then it just embelish them so those that already believe can feel better about themselves but also does a disservice to them by disorienting them towards what they are actually doing, which is believing.
That’s right. And for only $49.99 I can read your future as well, anon.
If you had minimal spiritual perception you wouldn't be Christian
Except believers don't base their beliefs on extrasensory perception, they base it on a book they read.