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.
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 dont understand that one myself. How does one say "we have morals so there must be a god?". that's an opinion and doesn't prove a thing.
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.
I have no obligation to agree with everything an atheist says. And here again my imagination has little to do with it, even if you need it to be, in order to rationalise your disagreement..
Quote:
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.
Why would you make such a cosmic leap from having standards of true and/or justified to somehow appointing oneself the arbiter of true and/or justified? That's your imagination at work, once again projecting.
In such a scenario you are part of the jury of such a discussion, if there is any judgment to be made. You are basically saying we need no such things and excusing yourself from the very responsibility you bear as one engaged in the conversation.....to communicate and understand the person who engages you. I might suggest we use epistemology as our barometer, knowing there are nuances we may not agree on. But you are saying that having any standard of truth is unacceptable to you because you are special and beyond reproach.
Quote:
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.
Again nobody has appointed themself the arbiter.
What I did say, and your previous quoted part rightly points out....people believe things they think are true. They also sometimes claim knowledge of things they think are true. They are also not always correct. This is why we delineate with knowledge positions and their actual knowledge itself....especially on the subject of unfalsifiable propositions where we can't demonstrably (dis)prove such things. Such as god talking to you but nobody else.
Belief and belief-position are nearly synonymous except for of course dishonesty, so it's less important to distinguish because I can't reasonably falsify what you say you believe. And even if I could, I'd then have to question the honesty of any beliefs you say. It becomes pointless quickly.
Quote:
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."
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.
You are arguing points for the discussion you want to have rather than the one people are engaged in.
Nobody is making the argument about babies being atheist to swell numbers. You are making that claim.
The argument is simply to highlight that babies are not born theist and taught to be atheist, or born sinners, or any other silly things used. And by definition, which is your misunderstanding I'm sorry to tell you, they would be considered atheist.....if we classified them.
Atheism is the not A of theism. Without theism, there would be no atheism.
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.
This is another thing I don't get with the need for omni dude. Why can't the universe just be the universe? why does it have to be some omni thing? what can't it grow and evolve without having to "be worthy" of human emotional need?
I think we know I guess, The human doesn't know/understand itself.
I have no obligation to agree with everything an atheist says. And here again my imagination has little to do with it, even if you need it to be, in order to rationalise your disagreement..
bingo again.
I don't have to agree with atheist that do not understand what the evidence is, weather or not atheist say I do.
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.
Yep, that's the right definition for your post I quoted.
If you want to accuse me of quotemining you, then feel free to post the relevant bits that makes that case. Because I saw people discussing their views on belief categories, and I'm not sure how one is to do that without actually posting it, until your ad hominem post. I'm also not sure how you feel imposed upon by someone posting their views other than you actually are the intolerance you claim to be against.
But I'm not immune to missing posts in conversations I'm not actively involved with so perhaps I glossed over it.
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.
listen, the baby thing isn't a fact, it's a marketing ploy. So I wouldn't get yourself so worked up about it.
The baby thing shows is that many religions have to introduce a lot of rules. That's true. The baby ad does not show if human would not feel the connection to their surroundings. In fact, its more valid to say they would. For many reasons.
You both have valid points, but since the baby angle is not "real" you'll never come to an agreement, its an AD for no-god sakes.
like you said, we have discussions with the average IQ-er, just below the average biologist.
listen, the baby thing isn't a fact, it's a marketing ploy. So I wouldn't get yourself so worked up about it.
The baby thing shows is that many religions have to introduce a lot of rules. That's true. The baby ad does not show if human would not feel the connection to their surroundings. In fact, its more valid to say they would. For many reasons.
You both have valid points, but since the baby angle is not "real" you'll never come to an agreement, its an AD for no-god sakes.
like you said, we have discussions with the average IQ-er, just below the average biologist.
not you MartinEden99, you get it.
Yes I do get it. And what you have is precisely the absurdity of the argument.
It is a rebuttal ad for theist rhetoric regarding us being born sinners who need to repent to get to heaven. So the question goes.....do babies go to heaven? No, because they don't repent, because they don't believe in god, because they can't believe in god. It's absurd of course, either way you spin the argument.
But it's inaccurate to shift it to an argument made by atheists, in general, as a way to increase their numbers. I've yet to find that a pervasive argument made by atheists.
Yes I do get it. And what you have is precisely the absurdity of the argument.
It is a rebuttal ad for theist rhetoric regarding us being born sinners who need to repent to get to heaven. So the question goes.....do babies go to heaven? No, because they don't repent, because they don't believe in god, because they can't believe in god. It's absurd of course, either way you spin the argument.
But it's inaccurate to shift it to an argument made by atheists, in general, as a way to increase their numbers. I've yet to find that a pervasive argument made by atheists.
I get ya. But babies born atheist is bluntly false outside of the babies not going to heaven or marketing. So now what? How does a dope like me handle it?
Babies not going to heaven is a one minute conversation with a normal theist. well, when we are talking with them, not to or at, them that is. and 55 seconds of it are me falling on the floor and getting back up.
hey 99, I just had a thought.
What is your message? I know the loud mouth's messages, and I bet you would put my message in better terms than I could. I know trout, miss, you, and a few others have before.
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.
Nah...this Forum itself proves how bogus that excuse is.
Putting up hundreds of threads, and thousands upon thousands of posts to this board insulting, bashing, and mocking God-Belief and Believers in every way and about every aspect of it, does not do a thing to "get religion's influence out of politics".
I've called out this lie many times.
Nobody is so ignorant and foolish to think posting to a forum like this is any kind of effective or efficient way to accomplish what you claim y'all are attempting to do.
You just dig bashing others that think and believe different from you...and this is a low risk way you've found to do it.
Nah...this Forum itself proves how bogus that excuse is.
Putting up hundreds of threads, and thousands upon thousands of posts to this board insulting, bashing, and mocking God-Belief and Believers in every way and about every aspect of it, does not do a thing to "get religion's influence out of politics".
I've called out this lie many times.
Nobody is so ignorant and foolish to think posting to a forum like this is any kind of effective or efficient way to accomplish what you claim y'all are attempting to do.
You just dig bashing others that think and believe different from you...and this is a low risk way you've found to do it.
Atheists posting messages on this forum is an expression of the opposition to religion that is steadily increasing in the larger society. Note again that 90% or more of the discussion is only about Christianity, and that's because that's the religion that has any kind of sway over American politics. It's simply pointing out that this emperor has no clothes. You disagree, and that's okay. We'll just have to see how it all works out in the end.
But I still say that if and when religion's influence becomes negligible in American politics, religion will simply drop off the radar screen and it will no longer be a "hot topic." Nobody cares about an ideology that has no power or influence in society.
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.
