Of course they exist, but that doesn't mean that there aren't a ton of people who refuse to change their mind about something when presented with evidence to the contrary. It's not like people don't display confirmation bias and look for things to support their beliefs and downplay things that don't.

We are all given seeds of remembering who we are: falling in love, moments of awe and wonder, witnessing greatness, unexpected kindness, synchronicities, testimonies, brushes with death, art, etc.

What happens with the seeds varies, as Jesus explained in the parable. These seeds of remembering will be the only form of evidence provided to you.

How do you differentiate superstitions with religious enlightenment ?
What or how makes u believe one is more real than the other?

Btw the difference between me being atheist and you is that I reject just one more gods then u do ….

I suppose you reject . Zeus , Ra and all other gods, correct ?
So you reject like 2999 religions and gods while I reject 3000 .
Maybe we are not so different shrug .

I believe Rex Heuermann is the Long Island Serial Killer. You are free to reject that based on an argument along the lines of "the difference between me and you is that I just reject one more suspect than you do" but it wouldn't be much of an argument.

Nice diversion .
Evading all the context within .

And you are still invited to answer the first question .

How do you differentiate superstitions with religious enlightenment ?

If you're asking me my epistemological framework then I'm a phenomenal conservatist(some refer to this as the Principle of Credulity as well) so beliefs are justified by their seeming to be true and not having a defeater against said belief. I'm open to other conceptions like proper functionalism or something but I'm not too wrapped up in it and don't think other formulations change the result. So to answer you question directly. I believe it's true because it seems true and I haven't been presented with a defeater for it.

What or how makes u believe one is more real than the other?

Same methodology as above

So for you a superstition person would be has right as you in your respective beliefs ?

You presumably consider yourself a reasonable person. You believe that we should trust in reason to determine beliefs. I agree. What happens when we are presented with someone who also believes in reason like we do but disagrees with us on the truth of some set of beliefs that you and I happen to agree on? We don't throw out reason because of this disagreement. That would be absurd. Pluralism/belief disagreement should only be taken seriously if the contents of the objections are good in and of themselves.

Have you considered the possibility that there are several paths leading to the Divine and that they vary depending on the subject?

well thats convenient .
its all the same and only one.
a bit like the 1 electron universe i suppose...

But no i dont consider many paths to the divine because they called it apostate.

thats the problem, truth trough reasoning isnt an opinion.
that is why we use reason and not beliefs in science.

No one said scientific evidence, I said reasonable evidence. And yes, asking any religious person for reasonable evidence for their beliefs always fails.


Again returning to the whataboutism. The only question is whether you have reasonable evidence to support your beliefs. Stop deflecting and think about why you believe, and how you justify that belief.

If you are going to accept any belief that doesn’t have an obvious defeater then you are going to accept a lot of false assertions, but clearly that’s what you want.

That’s not what he said:

The invitation must seem true, which is a sub-rational feeling. Everyone operates this way. The difference is in what happens when you reach a failure point.

It’s like being in a maze. You pick a direction that seems true. Eventually, you reach a dead end. This failure point is a reality check. To submit to the reality check, turn around, and retrace your steps is called repentance in Christian language.

The alternative is to deny the reality check, deny you were ever in a maze, and attempt to opt out of the truth seeking journey by pretending you can escape the subjective, first person POV. And redefining truth to mean empiricism.

Can you think of a belief you have that:
A. Seems true
B. Doesn't have a defeater
C. Is false

For thousands of years it “seemed true” that the sun orbited the earth.

“Seems true” is garbage epistemology, it actual means “I believe what I prefer to believe”. You either have reasonable evidence to believe or you don’t.

This is useless in the truth seeking maze. You make zero progress with it. Only people who have already opted out say this.

People who have opted out of the maze have already lost.

People were justified in believing that the sun orbited the earth until they were presented with a defeater for it.

Seems to is not "garbage" epistemology and even those who reject PC wouldn't describe it that way as their own formulations will also heavily rely on seemings. There's no way out. Which epistemic framework do you ascribe to that not "garbage" like mine

People had evidence the sun orbited the earth, their direct observations. Only when organized observations of other astronomical objects were made did it become obvious that the sun wasn't orbiting the earth but the opposite was true.


It absolutely is garbage, other philosophical mental masturbators who have their own garbage epistemologies of course aren't going to call yours garbage, but that's just an appeal to (dis)authority fallacy.

The truth is like apologists, you bend definitions and philosophy to avoid the real defeater, the lack of reasonable evidence for your beliefs. Thats why you adopt a philosophy that says its okay to have no evidence as long as what you desperately want to believe "seems to be true".

That unsubstantiated promise of eternal life seems to be warping your ability to make rational arguments or recognize irrational ones, much as it does for most theists.

The most well known proponent of PC, Michael Huemer, is agnostic. There's no correlation between epistemic framework and theism. It would be trivial to list dozens of atheist philosophers who hold to PC. You seem to not understand what we're even talking about here.

Now you're avoiding my question though. Which competing framework do you hold to?

You just keep doubling down on appeal to authority, don’t you?

My framework is to only believe things with justified reason, not accept anything that hasn’t been disproven, esp. unfalsifiable claims.

You're still not understanding. The very thing we are discussing is what counts as justification so responding with "I believe that justification comes from justified beliefs" isn't an answer to that question. You criticized PC. What's a better framework?

I just gave you one.

"If you're getting 1-∞, fold the second nuts."

The truth and meaning we need is hidden in the irrational and unintelligible. Consult the deepest level of your conscience for confirmation.