Pretending to know

[Zzyzx]

Many people here in debate, in churches, and elsewhere CLAIM to know about invisible, undetectable, supernatural 'gods'. They often gather together on Sunday (or Saturday or Wednesday or in between) to tell each other stories about 'gods'.

God believers evidently learn what they 'know' by reading ancient religion-promoting literature written by people of uncertain identity claiming to know about 'gods'. The 'enlightened' may also claim to have psychological 'experiences' with 'gods or spirits' (perhaps 'holy'). Based on that 'evidence' they pontificate about their favorite 'god or gods'.

Would any person of sound mind claim to know about aliens after reading stories about such things, listening to lectures by proponents, and dreaming or emoting about encountering 'aliens'?

Would any person of sound mind claim to know about gods after reading stories about such things, listening to lectures by proponents, and dreaming or emoting about encountering 'gods'?

[Difflugia]

I've a long history of dealing with scientific atheism.

OK. I'd like you to think about a similar, "you guys do it, too" situation, but one that I'm sure you have a much different perspective on.

There are a lot of Christians that claim that their beliefs are Bible-based. There is a very broad continuum of how much those Christians know about the Bible, ranging from "a lot" to "nearly nothing."

If I as an atheist started engaging with Christians, but had only a superficial understanding of the Bible myself, how would I tell the difference? An otherwise well-meaning Christian that is impatient with my own lack of knowledge could be really difficult to discern from one that compensates for ignorance with aggression. Toss into the mix the usual personality differences and varying levels of honesty coupled with those Christians trying to sort out their own mistaken knowledge in a toxic mix of truth and falsehood.

If I were trying to build a knowledge of the Bible and its relationship to Christianity, it would be very easy to begin generalizing that all Christians are dishonest, biblically illiterate jerks and find plenty of confirmation for that view. It doesn't seem that way to you because you understand the topic well enough to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[DavidLeon]

I've a long history of dealing with scientific atheism.

OK. I'd like you to think about a similar, "you guys do it, too" situation, but one that I'm sure you have a much different perspective on.

There are a lot of Christians that claim that their beliefs are Bible-based. There is a very broad continuum of how much those Christians know about the Bible, ranging from "a lot" to "nearly nothing."

If I as an atheist started engaging with Christians, but had only a superficial understanding of the Bible myself, how would I tell the difference? An otherwise well-meaning Christian that is impatient with my own lack of knowledge could be really difficult to discern from one that compensates for ignorance with aggression. Toss into the mix the usual personality differences and varying levels of honesty coupled with those Christians trying to sort out their own mistaken knowledge in a toxic mix of truth and falsehood.

If I were trying to build a knowledge of the Bible and its relationship to Christianity, it would be very easy to begin generalizing that all Christians are dishonest, biblically illiterate jerks and find plenty of confirmation for that view. It doesn't seem that way to you because you understand the topic well enough to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I think I know what your saying. Broad sweeping generalizations are bad. I'm not sure I agree. I've been to many atheist and theist forums. I know what to expect. Atheists (when I say atheists I always mean militant unless otherwise stated) are, for the most part, smug smart alecks. (I don't like not using 'profanity') Not all of them, but most. Theists are phony close minded and don't want confrontation on their forums. Not all of them, but most. Atheist are more knowledgeable on the Bible than Christians. Not all of them, but most. So while I agree that making broad sweeping generalizations are not wise from the beginning, they are for the most part accurate. That's why they exist. What I do is give everyone the benefit of the doubt but then I interact with them as they do me. Atheists hate this because they have emotional problems with theist in general. Those who are oppressed by them and those who have wasted part of their lives with them. There are always exceptions.

As far as the knowledge thing goes I don't place much value on knowledge. Knowledge is something you can attain easily, in something as simple as a Google search. When I'm confronted with an anomaly that I need to research I research it and make up my mind as best as I can. If I'm wrong that's no big deal. And if the Bible is wrong that's no big deal. Real boats rock. Anyone who thinks the Bible is infallible needs to do some research. Faith, in the case of spirituality, with Jehovah, for example, is far more important than knowledge. Not in science, mind you. In spirituality.

So if I come across some smart aleck atheist who's more or less taunting me due to some problem they perceive with the Bible (valid or invalid) and obviously has a great deal of contempt for me because what I believe - my reaction seems mean spirited but I see it as humorous. Like, who the () do you think you are? You're not nearly as smart as you think you are.

I think it's important for me to have a dialogue with people who believe or think, if you wish, different than me. To hear their valid criticism of what I believe and that's why I like reading your and bluegreenearth's responses. But these science know it alls who have no real criticism of any merit that I would want to spend time with them discussing - not necessarily based upon knowledge, but also experience and 'common sense' and even on an emotional level I can appreciate and can play nice with.

That isn't some moral call on my part. It's me relating to the smart alecks 'cause I can be a smart aleck too. They enjoy it, I enjoy it. But I never take it personally. It may come off like I do, but when our jabs are spent and it's another conversation, maybe unrelated, the slate is wiped clean unless that sort of a civil exchange just isn't possible and then they are a waste of time and I ignore them. Manually. In that I don't bend over backwards to read their posts and I rarely respond unless they say something interesting.

[otseng]

Sorry if you missed the boat, Clown.

Moderator Comment

Please address others by their username and do not insult others.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[brunumb]

Faith, in the case of spirituality, with Jehovah, for example, is far more important than knowledge. Not in science, mind you. In spirituality.

Most definitely not. Faith is not a virtue. Religious faith is the epitome of gullibility.

[DavidLeon]

Faith, in the case of spirituality, with Jehovah, for example, is far more important than knowledge. Not in science, mind you. In spirituality.

Most definitely not. Faith is not a virtue. Religious faith is the epitome of gullibility.

Maybe for you and many others but not for me and many others.

[Clownboat]

Faith, in the case of spirituality, with Jehovah, for example, is far more important than knowledge. Not in science, mind you. In spirituality.

Most definitely not. Faith is not a virtue. Religious faith is the epitome of gullibility.

I agree that faith is not a virtue.

Faith is a requirement in order to believe in false things it would seem.
Big Foot, Nessie, fairies or what have you can all be believed in via faith. Someone could believe they are Jesus reborn via faith.

A faith belief could actually be true of course, perhaps fairies are real for example, but I have a hard time calling it a virtue when it is a requirement for believing in false things.

I also have a hard time believing that an all powerful and wise god would put in place a mechanism for arriving at false beliefs as a cornerstone for what it wants its children to believe.
Via faith, I can believe in faith though. Anyone see an issue with that?

[Icey]

Many people here in debate, in churches, and elsewhere CLAIM to know about invisible, undetectable, supernatural 'gods'. They often gather together on Sunday (or Saturday or Wednesday or in between) to tell each other stories about 'gods'.

God believers evidently learn what they 'know' by reading ancient religion-promoting literature written by people of uncertain identity claiming to know about 'gods'. The 'enlightened' may also claim to have psychological 'experiences' with 'gods or spirits' (perhaps 'holy'). Based on that 'evidence' they pontificate about their favorite 'god or gods'.

Would any person of sound mind claim to know about aliens after reading stories about such things, listening to lectures by proponents, and dreaming or emoting about encountering 'aliens'?

Would any person of sound mind claim to know about gods after reading stories about such things, listening to lectures by proponents, and dreaming or emoting about encountering 'gods'?

You can know more about aliens than you can any deity IMO. Aliens are A LOT more likely to exist as well. Again IMO. I've seen more proof of bigfoot and dogman than the Christian god.
But then again, I've never been one to believe 'just 'cause'.

That said, how can one expect to learn about a god or aliens unless they research it? Once that happens, it's all a matter of believing what you want to believe, accepting what you want as evidence, shunning what you want as non-evidence, etc.

But pretending?
That's Christians do: pretend (well, that and lie saying they 'know' instead of believe and let's not forget changing definitions of words to suit their belief ie know vs believe). But we can't expect Christians to be just, moral and right. They are human, after all.

[1213]

... I've seen more proof of bigfoot and dogman than the Christian god.
...

Please show the evidence, I would like to see it.

[Icey]

... I've seen more proof of bigfoot and dogman than the Christian god.
...

Please show the evidence, I would like to see it.

A footprint with dermal ridges is more proof than God existing.
A blurry photo..that's proof than God has every provided.
Yes yes, you 'have to have faith' or 'how can you not see God in this creation?' and the like - I've heard all that craziness and it's null to me.
But I have YET to see a photo of God (blurry or otherwise) or a footprint of God.

[woodtick]

Replying to Icey in post #59]
Here's a foot print.