Why do atheists care. [rhet]

Originally posted by josephw
Seven plus billion people on the planet, and countless billions before. That's how many religious views exist. There is bound to be countless billions of misconceptions and misrepresentation about the truth of what any particular individual may have or express.

It seems that just about everyone everywhere has something negative to say about any number of ...[text shortened]... is True about how to live this life, can only be leveled against the true believer in The Truth.

I agree. 😏

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Sometimes it is wrong. Glasgow University Huntarian museum had a depiction of the alleged transmutation of a fish into an amphibian, into a reptile, into a bird, into a mammal etc etc which is apparently not now how evolutionists think that live evolved and diversified. As for the fossil record it can be used to find a rational basis for creation. ...[text shortened]... evolutionists and creationists can use exactly the same data and interpret it in different ways.

I agree. 😏

Originally posted by josephw
Agreed. "Countless billions" is a bit hyperbolic.

"Countless billions" is just fine because none of us know how many people have ever lived. 😏

Originally posted by twhitehead
At no point does the OP claim it is proved, nor have I made such a claim. It is however true and we both know it.

I was just agreeing with your previous post.

Originally posted by googlefudge

If a Christian makes a post criticising Islam for example, and generalises saying: "Moslems frequently harping on about being persecuted...", there are numourous atheists here who would and have, challenge the generalisation. And rightly so

I disagree, and furthermore, I would not be one of them.

[quote]I already told you that I agre ...[text shortened]... e than capable of providing evidence for should you
have really failed to observe it yourself.

If I said "atheists frequently refuse to accept when they are wrong"

That is a generalisation.

When you said:

"Christians frequently harp on about being persecuted"

That is also a generalisation. Accusing me of "harping on" doesn't make it less of a generalisation.

Originally posted by divegeester
If I said "atheists frequently refuse to accept when they are wrong"

That is a generalisation.

When you said:

"Christians frequently harp on about being persecuted"

That is also a generalisation. Accusing me of "harping on" doesn't make it less of a generalisation.

Go look at a dictionary.

'Generalisation' means going from a specific example and extrapolating to a wider set.

If I observe many Christians claiming to be persecuted and then say "many Christians claim to be
persecuted" then I have not a made a generalisation, I have made an observation.

Originally posted by googlefudge
If I observe many Christians claiming to be persecuted and then say "many Christians claim to be persecuted" then I have not a made a generalisation, I have made an observation.

But that isn't what you said is it.

Originally posted by divegeester
But that isn't what you said is it.

I said, and I quote "Christians in particular also frequently harp on about how they are being persecuted."

Which is/was an observation.

Not a generalisation.

You could disagree with it, but calling it a generalisation is factually wrong.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I said, and I quote "Christians in particular also frequently harp on about how they are being persecuted."

Which is/was an observation.

Not a generalisation.

You could disagree with it, but calling it a generalisation is factually wrong.

You said "Christians", no qualifying sub-set, just Christians. As I pointed out to you above if I said "atheists frequently refuse to admit when they are wrong" I would be generalising. As you have acknowledged, if my claim is prefixed with "many" or perhaps even "of the atheists I have observed", then I would not be generalising. You were generalising. At least your OP was. I accept your later explaination that you weren't intentionally doing so.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I was not generalising [b]from this one example.

I was using this one example to highlight the kind of problems that exist when people
hold faith based beliefs and particularly when they then try to impose those beliefs on
others.

I did not say that all theists, or even all Christians act this way.
Although however, all irrational beliefs ...[text shortened]... re involved is so important.

It's that which drives the 'atheist movement' and 'why we care'.[/b]

It appears to me that atheists have no problem with attempting to impose their whacky beliefs on others. 😏

Originally posted by divegeester
You said "Christians", no qualifying sub-set, just Christians. As I pointed out to you above if I said "atheists frequently refuse to admit when they are wrong" I would be generalising. As you have acknowledged, if my claim is prefixed with "many" or perhaps even "of the atheists I have observed", then I would not be generalising. You were generalising. At least your OP was. I accept your later explaination that you weren't intentionally doing so.

WRONG.

This is the ambiguity that twhitehead was pointing out.

I could potentially be referring to ALL Christians, or I could be talking about SOME Christians.

My sentence is valid either way.

Contextually it's obvious I meant some, my clarifications confirm it.

EITHER WAY, it's only a generalisation if I am taking a limited example and extrapolating it to a wider set.

If I observed that ALL Christians claimed to be persecuted and said so, then that STILL wouldn't be a generalisation.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It appears to me that atheists have no problem with attempting to impose their whacky beliefs on others. 😏

Yes, but you are a moron, so nobody really cares how things appear to you.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It appears to me that atheists have no problem with attempting to impose their whacky beliefs on others. 😏

Ha, that's quite a good one. Made me laugh anyway.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I said, and I quote "Christians in particular also frequently harp on about how they are being persecuted."

Which is/was an observation.

Not a generalisation.

You could disagree with it, but calling it a generalisation is factually wrong.

It is a fact of recorded history that many Christians have been persecuted for their faith. I can't say I have ever been persecuted in the manner that the historical Christians have been persecuted. But I have been attacked for my Christian beliefs, especially for my belief in creation by God as recorded in the Holy Bible. 😏

Originally posted by googlefudge
WRONG.

This is the ambiguity that twhitehead was pointing out.

I could potentially be referring to ALL Christians, or I could be talking about SOME Christians.

My sentence is valid either way.

Contextually it's obvious I meant some, my clarifications confirm it.

EITHER WAY, it's only a generalisation if I am taking a limited example and ex ...[text shortened]... L Christians claimed to be persecuted and said so, then that STILL wouldn't be a generalisation.

There is no ambiguity - you said "Christians", not some, not many, not a few, not lots of, not those I know, not most, not plenty. And just because twhithead supports you in this still doesn't make you right. Neither does CAPITALISING your words make you right nor more coherent. I don't know why you seem to be are getting tense about this, it's not like I'm disagreeing with the point of your OP and my original call out on it was quite polite.