Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As stated as one of the 'first responders' (pun intended) I moved from Atheist to theist. Just life.
My only real thought is, I don't care if one doesn't believe. I didn't for 30 years... and I still can't really define... I say JC just because HIS message, not people's interpretation is nothing but compassion and love. Even if he is an allegory, that's a good thing.
Sometimes, the sky daddy and all that jazz, it gets tedious. I understand why people do it however. Everyone is at a different stage of development, metaphysics aside. And, often, we got serious shizzle going on in life.
Me, I'm about the biggest s.a. around. But, as I've embraced a simple message of love, compassion, and forgiveness (notice, not scripture) I've mellowed quite a bit... even during a time that's not relevant to the thread but most would struggle with.
I still don't care if one believes in God... and I hope Bigfoot, abductions, not so much the Great Pumpkin as Charlie Brown was a chump, are real. But that's for comedy.
So my ask is, and this is A or T, whoever reads, drop the shenanigans and have a conversation, or, moderators, create a 'METAPHYSICAL FIGHT CLUB FORUM' for those that just want to insult and have a measuring contest.
I should have said , and intended it to read, some theists . So I will go back and amend it but recognize your point .
As stated as one of the 'first responders' (pun intended) I moved from Atheist to theist. Just life.
My only real thought is, I don't care if one doesn't believe. I didn't for 30 years... and I still can't really define... I say JC just because HIS message, not people's interpretation is nothing but compassion and love. Even if he is an allegory, that's a good thing.
Sometimes, the sky daddy and all that jazz, it gets tedious. I understand why people do it however. Everyone is at a different stage of development, metaphysics aside. And, often, we got serious shizzle going on in life.
Me, I'm about the biggest s.a. around. But, as I've embraced a simple message of love, compassion, and forgiveness (notice, not scripture) I've mellowed quite a bit... even during a time that's not relevant to the thread but most would struggle with.
I still don't care if one believes in God... and I hope Bigfoot, abductions, not so much the Great Pumpkin as Charlie Brown was a chump, are real. But that's for comedy.
So my ask is, and this is A or T, whoever reads, drop the shenanigans and have a conversation, or, moderators, create a 'METAPHYSICAL FIGHT CLUB FORUM' for those that just want to insult and have a measuring contest.
Fine post.
I enjoy, and have benefited from, hearing about disparate and non-beliefs. I'd most likely be characterized as an "Other" believer, probably much less than a single percentage point among the various isms -- in that I believe there's something that ties us, and everything else, together. But I hesitate to assign that something a label. Until not very long ago I was okay with the term "Creator" but not so much anymore. The label ascribes intent and I'm not so sure there was any when it comes to creation.
A God-thing/collective consciousness/Cosmic Muffin may well have happened accidentally as well. And may well be expanding/growing/maturing as we and the rest of the universe is/are*.
Or not.
*I remain ever-grateful for editors who can decide these things.
When starting this thread I truly expected the majority of posts to be something along the lines of " yeah , I can grasp and appreciate some not believing, even if I do myself ".
Some theists can understand not believing in Santa Claus .
They can understand not believing in the Easter Bunny .
They can grasp not believing in the Tooth Fairy, The Great Pumpkin, UFO abductions, and Bigfoot .
But they claim they can't grasp not believing in God .
I think that theists can't understand how there can be any hope, purpose, reason or morality without God. They believe that these concepts presuppose the existence of a creator God.
That the existence of God is metaphysically self-evident, so to speak.
I think you are conflating knowledge with belief.... and knowledge/belief positions with knowledge/belief specifically in the chart.
I think you tend to employ considerable imagination in fabricating things which you obviously do not know just to congratulate yourself. That picture was an example of an atheist describing a spectrum of positions on the question of God's existence, and that is all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
Our knowledge is a subset of our beliefs....
those that are not only justified, but demonstrably true(solipsism arguments aside).
You got that first part right. Where we disagree is regarding what sets knowledge apart in the spectrum of belief. I reject the traditional nonsense about justified and true as nothing but hot air by those who want to appoint themselves judge of what is true and justified. Nobody believes things they think are false or unjustified. The only objective measure I see is whether people live their lives accordingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
Our knowledge positions are also not the same as what we actually know.
I reject this as empty of meaning. If it is not about an internal state then it is a waste of sound and letters on a delusion that someone can be the arbiter of what is true in all cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
If I tell you I know pink unicorns are real....that knowledge position (or claim) doesn't mean I have actual knowledge of real pink unicorns.
Well yes, some people tell lies just for the purpose of rhetoric.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
We operate in accordance with our beliefs (or lack thereof) all the time, and atheism is a belief (or lack thereof).
You got it right the first time. Atheism is a belief. It is not a lack of a belief. This is just special pleading to justify hypocritically demanding others justify their beliefs while refusing justify ones own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
Babies lack belief in theism...if for no other reason than they are incapable of understanding them. But atheism is the not-theism (or not A) belief.
Babies lack belief in atheism...if for no other reason than they are incapable of understanding it. But theism is the not-atheism belief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
The argument of babies being atheist is not to increase or count more people as atheists....it is to highlight that it requires societal indoctrination to become theists....typically.
Yes. It is agenda driven rhetoric.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
Clearly the human mind is capable of all sorts of imaginative thoughts such as dragons, aliens, and spaghetti monsters. So to say that the notion of god (s) for a human baby without societal indoctrination is impossible is....imprecise. But to say it is not an overwhelming consideration for the propagation of it, defies what we've observed throughout history, where birthplace is the single most predictive characteristic for what religion you might adhere to (though that is changing....albeit slowly).
Babies do not have beliefs or positions on questions of any kind. But it is irrational to think that religion only comes from indoctrination. Religions have beginnings (new ones all the time) therefore this is obviously false. The fact that the majority have an IQ below 100 and thus are inclined to believe what they are told without question proves nothing whatsoever.
Which brings us back to where this started, the CORRECT placement of the burden of of proof. The burden of proof lies with ANYONE who expects someone else to agree with their position. This is implicit in the very meaning of the word "proof."
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
If you want to make the same argument for evolution.....that it is based largely on birthplace and societal indoctrination....then go ahead. And you can make a convincing argument. But unlike the question of god (s), it doesn't have to end there because the question of justified belief in evolution can be strongly evidenced, without appealing to various god of the gaps (or other) logical fallacies. And you seem to understand that (even if your contrarian impulse strikes you to disagree over semantics).
It has nothing to do with semantics but with the logical absurdities which this empty rhetoric leads to.
1. Including infants in the number of atheists make this group the most uneducated group on the earth.
2. We can use the same tactic to swell the numbers on any side of any question.
These facts demonstrate how empty and absurd this tactic is.
Last edited by mitchellmckain; 07-19-2016 at 09:14 PM..
I don't see John arguing what people are....but I do see you resorting to ad hominem again while projecting your own intolerance onto those you perceive as unworthy of tolerance.
Incorrect.
From Wikipedia
Quote:
Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing an attack at your opponent.
This is a tactic of misdirection. The fallacy is that putting someone down or calling them names has any relevance to the issue.
I did no such thing. My post was entire to the point. He on the other hand did employ such a tactic himself when he ignored the points made and then started calling names based on the way things were said rather than what was said.
Quote:
Just like these theists who insist you believe in god and are just rebelling, you want ignore what people say about their own beliefs and cram them into to slots of your ideology. Well unlike you I agree with them about what they say concerning what they are. You are just another intolerant ideologue like the fundies pushing your rhetoric and simplistic view of the world on everyone, defining things into and out of existence as you please.
The first point is the similarity between these two things
1. Theists ignoring how atheists identify their positions in order to stuff them into slots in their ideology.
2. Amaznjohn ignoring how people identify their positions in order to stuff them into slots in his ideology.
Many people deny they are either theists or atheists, but since this doesn't agree with the dogma Amaznjohn is pushing then he will not listen to this. I would also compare this with the way creationists ignore the evidence of evolution.
The second point is that I stand with those who deny they are theists or atheists and against those who will not listen.
The third point is that in this habit of simplifying reality to fit their own ideology Amaznjohn is just like the fundy religious.
The fourth point is the the use of definitions to push their viewpoint which amounts to playing word games. Reminds me of the ontological argument for the existence of God.
No distractions employed. Never is the claim anything like he is booby so we shouldn't listen to what he says. That is the essence of the ad-hominem argument as when he employed this himself.
In your case calling this ad-hominem means simply that what I said shows him up in a bad light. To that I quite agree and frankly it is about time that someone return the favor for what many atheists do all the time.
When starting this thread I truly expected the majority of posts to be something along the lines of " yeah , I can grasp and appreciate some not believing, even if I do myself ".
Some theists can understand not believing in Santa Claus .
They can understand not believing in the Easter Bunny .
They can grasp not believing in the Tooth Fairy, The Great Pumpkin, UFO abductions, and Bigfoot .
But they claim they can't grasp not believing in God .
One thing Theists (and most all other "believers") comprehend very well about the concept of disbelief in God...is that it is sure to cause those that "disbelieve" to be reduced to conflations of GOD with a myriad (that they will be absolutely constrained to proffer the looooooong list) of imaginary entities, whose invention is fully known.
That these entities are typically for the amusement of children is indicative of the level of maturity and intellect of the argument that uses them.
Same with that "Sky-Daddy", "Zombie Jesus", "Buy Bull", type stuff. There is a common name for the kind of person that would ever use terms like that for what they know so many feel is "sacred" to them.
I find it very easy to identify those kind of people, because I am one myself...but just not about that.
One thing Theists (and most all other "believers") comprehend very well about the concept of disbelief in God...is that it is sure to cause those that "disbelieve" to be reduced to conflations of GOD with a myriad (that they will be absolutely constrained to proffer the looooooong list) of imaginary entities, whose invention is fully known.
That these entities are typically for the amusement of children is indicative of the level of maturity and intellect of the argument that uses them.
Same with that "Sky-Daddy", "Zombie Jesus", "Buy Bull", type stuff. There is a common name for the kind of person that would ever use terms like that for what they know so many feel is "sacred" to them.
I find it very easy to identify those kind of people, because I am one myself...but just not about that.
But I am not one of those people.
I frankly acknowledge that belief in God, belief in UFOs, belief in the healing power of crystals, belief in fairies, belief in ghosts, belief in psychic powers etc... etc... are all in the same category. Sure some people think these are merely invented imaginary entities but other people do not. But these are all things people believe in without objective demonstrable evidence no matter what personal experiences they may have had. Thus they all deserve EQUAL respect. I quite agree with atheists who argue that it is hypocritical to mock and denigrate any of these things while expecting respect for your own indemonstrable beliefs.
If there is one thing you say can I was brought up to honor by my two liberal psychology major parents is that you respect the beliefs of others whether they are Australian aborigines, Wiccans, American Indians, or UFO believers. However weird and absurd their beliefs may seem to you they are real to them.
This doesn't mean I have to believe in any of these things any more than the atheist has to believe in God. These are all things upon which completely rational people can disagree. This is what it means to have no proof. Your personal experience is entirely sufficient for your own belief but NOT for a reasonable expectation that others should believe your claims.
However Spaghetti Monsters are NOT the same. These are not something anybody actually believes in. This is an invention for the purpose of rhetoric alone. Nor is the tooth fairy comparable to the belief in God because nobody has life changing experiences with a tooth fairy.
Last edited by mitchellmckain; 07-20-2016 at 01:10 AM..
I frankly acknowledge that belief in God, belief in UFOs, believe in the healing power of crystals, belief in fairies, belief in ghosts, belief in psychic powers etc... etc... are all in the same category. Sure some people think these are merely invented imaginary entities but other people do not. But these are all things people believe in without objective demonstrable evidence no matter what personal experiences they may have had. Thus they all deserve EQUAL respect. I quite agree with atheists who argue that it is hypocritical to mock and denigrate any of these things while expecting respect for their own belief.
If there is one thing you say I was brought up to believe and honor by my two liberal psychology major parents is that you respect the beliefs of others whether they are Australian aborigines, Wiccans, American Indians, or UFO believers. However weird and absurd their beliefs may seem to you they are real to them.
This doesn't mean I have to believe in any of these things any more than the atheist has to believe in God. These are all things upon which completely rational people can disagree. This is what it means to have no proof. Your personal experience is entirely sufficient for your own belief but NOT for a reasonable expectation that others should believe your claims.
However Spaghetti Monsters are NOT the same. These are not something anybody actually believes in. This is an invention for the purpose of rhetoric alone. Nor is the tooth fairy comparable to the belief in God because nobody has life changing experiences with a tooth fairy.
I don’t believe you are one of those people mitch.
Matter of fact...I have been digging your offerings to the board...really good stuff.
I was referring to those "disbelievers" that trot out all that stuff just to bash, mock, and insult others that have a differing perception from theirs.
I don’t believe you are one of those people mitch.
Matter of fact...I have been digging your offerings to the board...really good stuff.
I was referring to those "disbelievers" that trot out all that stuff just to bash, mock, and insult others that have a differing perception from theirs.
Sure. This is just something I have been wanting to say for awhile because these comparisons have been hovering in the background.
I was referring to those "disbelievers" that trot out all that stuff just to bash, mock, and insult others that have a differing perception from theirs.
Most atheists mock religion only to the extent they feel is necessary to get religion's influence out of politics mainly. When people are discriminated against, their rights are denied and long-established science is challenged in public schools because of the religious convictions of certain groups, atheists and others feel they have to point out the absurdity of the beliefs upon which those convictions are based. Unfortunately, there really isn't any polite way to go about doing that.
If religion had the same level of political influence in the U.S. as astrology does, then hardly anyone would bother to mock religion. Atheists are not concerned with people's private beliefs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
