Are theists and atheists epistemic peers?

Dywyddyr,

Wrong. Learn to read.

In answer to your question: Pardon?
Go back one post and re-read what I said.

And don't bother me unless you're making a point,
or I will put you on ignore.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oops, no.

Yes, you made a claim (essentially the one that I originally queried). But failed to support it.

Oh dear.
My point is that you make fallacious claims. And that you lie. But I suppose putting me on ignore is easier than being honest.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Signal,

Why not just say ''people'', as that is what they are?

No.

You tell me, it's your enquirey.


jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Signal,

You mean they actually said ''I am a theist''?
You didn't think that a strange claim to make?

Are they really?

A theist is a person who believes in God.
It is a word that desribes.
If I say to you ''I am not a theist'' does that make me an atheist?

Who goes around claiming to be theists, without being asked?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Does it matter?

Then you underestimate children.

Oh well!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

jan.

 

No reply Jan?
Can't support your claim after all?

 

???

jan.

 

Dishonesty again?

 

If you can't explain what you actually mean, then go away,
and don't bother me.

jan.

 

Let's try again in simple steps:

YOU have claimed that atheists know about god and that atheism is simply a refusal to believe in him
Please support this ridiculous claim.

 

You're an atheist.
You know about God.
You don't believe in Him.

jan.

 

Oh well done!
Changing the goal posts.
Let's try again:

Not "know about god" but "know god"

"Know god" not ""know about".

Your dishonesty is showing. Again.

And as for knowing about god - I know what others have claimed about him. Which is not necessarily the same thing.

 

Dywyddyr,

Your query said:
''YOU have claimed that atheists know about god and that atheism is simply a refusal to believe in him
Please support this ridiculous claim.''

That would be okay if you admitted you didn't mean that, but
then you go on to blame me for your error:


Your dishonesty is showing. Again.

You're being beligerent.
I'm not interested.
Bye.

jan.

 

I don't think theists ever said they were infallible. Quite the opposite they would say they are very fallible and are aspiring towards what they believe is infallible, and for them in this life it is an unattainable mystery which they try to puzzle out.

The same as atheists who mostly don't claim to have all the answers, continually search for knowledge. Something bigger and older then themselves and that knowledge is also fallible it changes every decade or so as our understanding of physics marches on.

The theists answer may come when they die. An atheists may come when we discover weather the higgs boson really exists. I find that their shared knowledge and search complement each other ever more closely as the exploration continues. Until then both will do well to live in the mystery.

 

Highly funny.
Really.
You pick on my miswording and still refuse to support your claim.

Now that IS dishonest.
Especially since you pretended you didn't know which claim I meant (post #166) after an acknowledgement that you knew EXACTLY what I was talking about (post #161).

 

Who or What is the observer?

Who in us is observing, deciding, experiencing self? When that observer leaves our bio machine we are left with only a corpse.

possible takes:
Theist: My spirit
Atheist: The Ghost in the machine
Other ? :

What about Memory when we loose our memory do we loose our self? If we loose our self but we are not yet a corpse what are we?.
Are we a Schrodinger's Cat? An advanced stage Alzheimer patent? What is the state of the Observer then? Is the older more cognitive observer locked away in prison or has it devolved to this latest state like a trashed hard drive?

 

Jan, you don't seem to be getting anywhere. I wonder if you could relate to this summary of such happenings in my thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2820725&postcount=215

 

Do we need to separate you two?
can you get past the 'you said/I said' and get on with your points

 

We have a winner

 

Actually it's not even close.
But never mind.

 

Have we actually established that such an "ideal theist" exists?

The way you've set this up, establishing the existence of said "ideal theist" implies that he's either insane, or God exists. I.e., it's essentially a rephrasing of the basic question of whether God exists.

For my part, I see no particular lack of explanation for the observed range of non-insane theistic belief in the "psychological" category. Although, "psychological" maybe isn't the best term for it.