Wortfish wrote:From my experience here, I would have to agree.
Ah, so appeal to personal anecdote is yet another fallacy you're unfamiliar with.
Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86
Wortfish wrote:From my experience here, I would have to agree.
laklak wrote:Unsupported assertion can be dismissed without explanation. This pisses off theists, because no matter how you slice it, you eventually get an unsupported assertion or two. I have never had a serious discussion with a theist that didn't eventually boil down to "you have to have faith". No, I don't. "Faith", when unsupported by evidence, is self-delusion, and I don't truck with self-delusion. I also have fairly high standards for evidence. "I feel it" or "I've seen prayer work" or (my personal favorite) "science doesn't know everything" just ain't gonna cut it. I don't actually care what anyone else thinks or believes, unless it has an impact on my life. Believe whatever you want - god, demons, devils, whatever, but when you want to pass laws based on your unsupported mythology or otherwise force it down my throat I tend to resist. If that's being closed minded then I'm happy to cop to it. If others don't like it they're free to go fuck themselves.
Wortfish wrote:From my experience here, I would have to agree.
Blackadder wrote:Wortfish wrote:From my experience here, I would have to agree.
It only seems that way to you because atheists won't play the Evidence Free Bullshit Trading Game.
It depends on whether your definition of "tolerance" is "preparedness to overlook whopping great lies extracted from the other guy's anus so long as he returns the favour". If it is, then any reasonable demand for evidence will seem like intolerance. This a problem you own, not the atheist. Thanks.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest