genuine belief or disbelief is never a matter of free will. it is always compelled by evidence. you certainly have free will to brainwash yourself that the sun revolves around the earth, but you do not have the free will choice to genuinely believe it.
and based on your semantics there are no atheists posting in this thread so you're just boring everyone repeating this.
Curious what scripture in the bible talks about the sun revolving around the earth. You have it on hand?
Not according to your and PapaG's opinion of what an atheist is. If we're not atheists to you, why do you keep calling us that? Also when I commented in this thread, I wasn't specifically commented on this article or study. I have been saying for years that more intelligent people are less likely to be religious. That's common sense to me, it's painfully obvious.
Well it's generalized with Catholics as some sort of doctrine for all Christians. Obviously a smart man would know that. Maybe the study is backwards?
You are absolutely right, but crowtbot thinks otherwise. It's a reply to him and his definition of declared atheists.
that was just a random example of something nobody (sane) has a choice in the matter of genuine belief about. point was genuine belief or disbelief is not a choice. if belief were a choice it would be by definition self-brainwashing.
point had nothing to do with the bible. presumably you have reasons (evidence) to believe the bible is true external to the book itself. you aren't just choosing to believe it is true.
Sadly, proof by analogy isn't a strong case. Especially when they don't get that it's an analogy or the point of it.
Or not. Obviously that was a dig directed towards theist (preferably Christians). But your strawman and hyperbole is expected.
Hu? You already conceded I am not an atheist by the uselessly strict definition you are using - in which you include that Atheists by definition must make the positive claim that untestable hypothesis such as Deism and Pantheism are necessarily false. Presumably even Maris isn't strictly an Atheist by your/PapaG's definition. It's possible Atheists don't exist by your definition.
What an argument. I was replying to you saying there wasn't any. And since you believe they are atheists, then it applies. Don't get nitpickey with me agnostic
I understood what he meant right away. A couple people in this thread clearly didn't. That's all there was to it.
