Do They Really Believe That?

[RevBogovac]

On 2/7/2020 at 8:13 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Dan wants to argue.  If we respond, it only feeds the beast.  It's time to disengage.      

 

 

True,, but it's damn hard (for me)...

 

Especially on the three reoccurring themes:

 

1. Science doesn't "proof" anything... although it has been shown - many times - that science at least proves something, although not everything. But still more than some "faith".

 

2. Atheist don't care... which is quite insulting and he has been corrected many times.

 

3. Only religion provides meaning, which has actually been disproven by science and the scientific sources for meaning have been well documented and proven. But hey, see 1.

 

[RevBogovac]

3 hours ago, Pete said:

Children have "transient objects" like teddies and dolls. It helps them cope with the seperation from their parent figures when learning to sleep alone. 

Adults have " mental defence mechanisms " that help them cope with threats to their own ego. 

I have often wondered if these two psychological activities come together in religion when faced with a vaste unfathomable universe and the temporary existence of ourselves and family and friends.  Religion brings forward a means of alleviating fears by employing a God to help make sense of that experience and existence. 

Well that was a view I came to whilst studying psychology for my counselling diploma.

 

"Inspect every piece of pseudoscience and you will find a security blanket, a thumb to suck, a skirt to hold. What have we to offer in exchange? Uncertainty! Insecurity!" 

Isaac Asimov in the tenth-anniversary issue of The Skeptical Inquirer.

 

[Pete]

It's hard but it only leads to a elongated debate that goes no where. The bible gets justified no matter what it says. I have switched to ulc intertribal to continue the debate. Please feel free to join us. They have mods there and science can be discussed from an agnostic/atheist/scientific perspective. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

True,, but it's damn hard (for me)...

 

Especially on the three reoccurring themes:

 

1. Science doesn't "proof" anything... although it has been shown - many times - that science at least proves something, although not everything. But still more than some "faith".

 

2. Atheist don't care... which is quite insulting and he has been corrected many times.

 

3. Only religion provides meaning, which has actually been disproven by science and the scientific sources for meaning have been well documented and proven. But hey, see 1.

 

 

 

I understand your point.  You think that you can reason with anybody.  Alas.  You are mistaken.  You can not reason with Dan.  Dan is not capable of reason.  Given a choice between Scripture -- and facts which can be demonstrated to be true -- Dan will go with Scripture.

 

In addition, Dan is not capable of nuance.  When any fact does not support his beliefs -- it's wrong or irrelevant.  

 

In addition, there is Dan's mission.  He is not here for conversation.  He is here to correct us.  To take us from our error, to the truth of his Faith.  Conversation is not possible with Dan, because he speaks for God.

 

When Dan says that we believe in nothing, there is no point in arguing.  That is what he believes that we believe -- and there is no arguing with Dan's beliefs.

 

In like manner, when Dan makes his silly statements about science -- it is a reflection of Dan's beliefs about science.  Again, there is no persuading Dan that his beliefs are mistaken.

 

As to Scripture, Dan has already stated that not only has Scripture never been proven false -- any of it -- but that it can't be proven false.  Any of it.  Again, Dan's belief structure.

 

Argue with Dan, about anything, if you must.  Truly, it will do no good.  His responses are predictable.  You will recognize them.  He will go on about how easy it is to get us upset.  That we hate God.  That we hate Scripture.  That we hate religion.  Of course, Dan's favorite comments -- how closed minded we are.  Or -- we have no hope.  

 

Arguing with Dan is futile.  Truly useless.  I can't do it any more.  I'm done.

 

          

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 10, 2020 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

I understand your point.  You think that you can reason with anybody.  Alas.  You are mistaken.  You can not reason with Dan.  Dan is not capable of reason.  Given a choice between Scripture -- and facts which can be demonstrated to be true -- Dan will go with Scripture.

 

In addition, Dan is not capable of nuance.  When any fact does not support his beliefs -- it's wrong or irrelevant.  

 

In addition, there is Dan's mission.  He is not here for conversation.  He is here to correct us.  To take us from our error, to the truth of his Faith.  Conversation is not possible with Dan, because he speaks for God.

 

When Dan says that we believe in nothing, there is no point in arguing.  That is what he believes that we believe -- and there is no arguing with Dan's beliefs.

 

In like manner, when Dan makes his silly statements about science -- it is a reflection of Dan's beliefs about science.  Again, there is no persuading Dan that his beliefs are mistaken.

 

As to Scripture, Dan has already stated that not only has Scripture never been proven false -- any of it -- but that it can't be proven false.  Any of it.  Again, Dan's belief structure.

 

Argue with Dan, about anything, if you must.  Truly, it will do no good.  His responses are predictable.  You will recognize them.  He will go on about how easy it is to get us upset.  That we hate God.  That we hate Scripture.  That we hate religion.  Of course, Dan's favorite comments -- how closed minded we are.  Or -- we have no hope.  

 

Arguing with Dan is futile.  Truly useless.  I can't do it any more.  I'm done.

 

          

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then there is the accusations that agnostics and atheists believe in nothing.  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Then there is the accusations that agnostics and atheists believe in nothing.  

 

 

Yes.  No matter how silly, it is what Dan believes.  No power known to me, can change any belief held by Dan.  It is not a simple matter of being stubborn.  Dan believes it.  It's part of why I don't want to argue with Dan any more.  Since Dan is not correctable, on something so basic, as what we believe -- then further discussion is truly pointless.

 

 

 

 

 

[Pete]

I know he is ambivalent to any other opinion.  It's his or nothing.  That is the point I made earlier.  There is no definition of free thinker that can describe Dan as he shackled to his dogma and his bronze age book. I just get the feeling that he just wants to silence all but him. I don't want to play. 

Have you been to the tribal today?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Pete said:

I know he is ambivalent to any other opinion.  It's his or nothing.  That is the point I made earlier.  There is no definition of free thinker that can describe Dan as he shackled to his dogma and his bronze age book. I just get the feeling that he just wants to silence all but him. I don't want to play. 

Have you been to the tribal today?

 

2 hours ago, Pete said:

---

 

 

Do you remember, when Dan called himself a Free Thinker?  That was hilarious.  It's an old way of saying Atheist.  It's not used much these days -- but that's how it was used.  As in, free from religion.  

   

 

Yes.  I left comments.

 

   

 

[Pete]

I am adding as I go on tribal. Is it my imagination or has Dan left this part of the forum. If so I may repost here. For me I have always understood a free thinker as someone open to possibilities and science and respects proof. Religion is only open to one possibility without proof. 

Edited February 11, 2020 by Pete

[Dan56]

3 hours ago, Pete said:

 Is it my imagination or has Dan left this part of the forum. If so I may repost here.

 

Yes, I left and won't post in this section again... I honestly didn't notice the "no religion" category attached to this section, or I wouldn't have posted in the first place. I generally don't check or browse the forum sections, I just respond to Notifications or recent Activity. So I accidentally chimed into the Topic "Do They Really Believe That?" without observing the "no religion" specification. I'll be more careful to observe those type of clarifications in the future. Sorry to have rained on your parade

 

It does seem a bit strange that a 'no religion' disclaimer is attached to a thread about believing religion though? But I reckon it was meant to be exclusively intended and restricted for those who enjoy trashing religion? 

[Pete]

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

That was interesting.   

[Pete]

I thought so. I put it up on tribal too. It explains a lot and confirms the big bang theory and poo poos the idea that all came from nothing. I enjoyed it.

Edited February 11, 2020 by Pete

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

I thought so. I put it up on tribal too. It explains a lot and confirms the big bang theory and poo poos the idea that all came from nothing. I enjoyed it.

 

 

Except that nothing is something -- and has mass.        

 

 

[Pete]

Yes, the universe is full of surprises. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Yes, the universe is full of surprises. 

 

 

Yes.  Nothing is unstable.     

 

 

[Pete]

Nothing is really nothing and as you say it has mass and can be measured. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

9 hours ago, Pete said:

Nothing is really nothing and as you say it has mass and can be measured. 

 

 

It's even stranger, to consider that space itself is expanding.  That the Universe is expanding.  That the speed of the expansion is speeding up.  That the more distant galaxies are in effect, moving away from us at faster than light speeds -- because of expanding space.

 

It would have been impressive, if any of this had been in Genesis.   😜     

 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2020 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Pete]

Genesis is egocentric and myopic. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Genesis is egocentric and myopic. 

 

 

Genesis is a projection of the culture -- and the individuals -- who created it.  Along with influences from older cultures and surrounding cultures.  A product of it's time and various converging cultures -- with political agenda.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2020 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl