Not every pronouncement requires statistical evidence. There are different ways of ascertaining truth, such as through logic, empirical knowledge, thought experiments, and so on and so forth.
True. When did I say “every pronouncement requires statistical evidence”? I forgot.
The fact that you then go on to say that “even if what I ] posit is true, that does not negate the efficacy of working and praying” clearly indicates that you are the one with the bias - an intellectual crime which you initially accused me of.
The word “clearly” here means you are grabbing at straws and don’t really have a reasonable response, other than to use a watered-down version of an ad hominem attack.
Anyway, to incorporate a little reason into our scuffle… When I said “Even if what you posit…”, that was pending any evidence you might have had to substantiate your claim to which I responded. I am still waiting on that.
So, it is not bias because I am patiently waiting on an objective case. Bias is being unfair or prejudice in a conclusion. That phrase was nothing of the sort.
This comes as no surprise however, as Friedrich Nietzsche once remarked that “faith [is] not wanting to know what is true”. It’s unfortunate how quickly some people neglect rationality.
Oh, Nietzche. He was a clever man. Respectable to say the least. Most atheists only take quips like this from Dawkins or Nietzche or whoever because of their credulity. Yet, they will not take the time to see how the people they attack actually define and practice that faith. That is a straw man fallacy and the fallacy I like to call “I don’t care what their position is; my version of their position is better and easier to argue” (which is a straw man, but still).
Anyway, I have found out what is true. You won’t pay much attention to that though because you are unfair in discussions. You have proved that much, if anything.
As Flyingg said, an unbeliever who solely works will pass his exams whilst a believer who solely prays will fail his exams. The humour lies in the fact that the unbeliever only has to do one thing to achieve the objective at hand, whilst the believer - if he/she is sane - has to do two things: Work and pray. And not only does the believer have to do two things, - the believer also has to place greater importance on work than prayer if he/she wants to really achieve. And yet again, the believer may ultimately come to the conclusion that the 2 hours+ spent in prayer could be used more productively if spent solely on work. And so a believer might just end up in the same position the unbeliever was all along.
You see, I respect flyingg. He is willing to actually read my posts and respond adequately. But all you know is that atheistic derision because atheists are far more superior in intellectual potency than Christians. Hardly the case here. Atheists class most Christians in the irrational and unreasonable side, but as a good friend (atheist) of mine put it: “Stupidity comes in all religions and non-religions, atheists are most definitely included.”
I am not your regular Christian you deal with in arguments. Trust me. Some are naïve, some unreasonable, some just don’t know how to use reason like you and I do. Be objective. That is all I ask.
The humor here lies where the atheist should succeed the most: rationality. Nietzche succeeded. Why are you having so much trouble just being objective?
That’s all I want. An objective and fair discussion. Is that too much to ask?
Anyway, to respond to this last section, are we still talking about tests? Things ultimately inconsequential in the greater world? Or do we want to talk about things that ultimately matter?
Sorry about the unorganization of this post. It is pretty scattered. You can piece it together, hopefully.
just present any reason you think its a “proof”, any.
I always feel like a moron, like God is thinking “What the heck is this guy talking about?”)