National Ask An Athiest Day.

  
Via:  epistte  •  5 months ago  •  137 comments

National Ask An Athiest Day.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T





National Ask An Atheist Day is an opportunity for secular groups across the country to work together to defeat stereotypes about atheism and encourage courteous dialogue between believers and nonbelievers alike. The event is intended to be an opportunity for the general public—particularly people of faith—to approach non-theists and ask questions about secular life. We're encouraging all SSA affiliate groups to participate at whatever level they are able!

In 2018-19, Ask an Atheist Day falls on September 20 and April 18.



Article is Locked

smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
epistte
1  seeder  epistte    5 months ago

It seems that non-believers are misunderstood so this thread is needed to clear up the confusion. I'm sorry that it is a few weeks later but I didn't get the memo from my church to create it.

 I am well aware that this discussion has the potential to be emotional, personal and divisive so either be polite or don't take part. Only one warming will be given.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @1    5 months ago
It seems that non-believers are misunderstood so this thread is needed to clear up the confusion.

Why do you think that?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1    5 months ago

Well, for example, quite a few seem to think that atheists claim there is no god when in reality atheism is simply the lack of belief that a god exists.

Most atheists are agnostic atheists who are not convinced a god exists but are certainly willing to consider evidence to the contrary.   A slim minority of atheists are gnostic atheists who assert no god exists.   The gnostic atheist position is untenable.   The agnostic atheist position is honest and well supported by the evidence (the lack thereof).

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.1    5 months ago

So the atheists are just poor, misunderstood people?

I believe that most people know what an atheist is.

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.3  seeder  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1    5 months ago
Why do you think that?

Many people think that atheists have no morals because we do not believe in a god/s.  It is well known that atheists have a PR problem that is just now beginning to change.

In the United States, at least, the social stigma around atheism may have caused people to choose to hide their non-belief, however.  Daniel Cox at FiveThirtyEight reports that Gervais ​was also the lead author on a study published earlier this year which found that one in three people in the U.S. surveyed in the sample did not disclose their lack of belief. Using that data, the researchers suggest that number of people who identify as atheist in the U.S. might actually be as high as 20 percent to even 35 percent—a significant jump from the 3 percent to 11 percent who have self-identified as atheists on recent Pew and Gallup polls.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.2    5 months ago
So the atheists are just poor, misunderstood people?

No.   But it is clear that some like to pretend atheists are all gnostic atheists in order to have a legitimate logical stance.   That would be a strawman.

Many resort to strawman arguments and other intellectually dishonest tactics when they cannot prevail with honest, thoughtful debate.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @1.1.3    5 months ago
Many people think that atheists have no morals because we do not believe in a god/s. It is well known that atheists have a PR problem that is just now beginning to change.

Many people? Where do you come up with that from?

PR problem? Why? If you are confident in your own beliefs, what does it matter what anyone else thinks?

And if atheists are hiding their atheism because of some sense of being singled out in some way, that says something about atheists more than others.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.4    5 months ago

No one is doing that here that I see. What are you talking about?

I don't care if anyone believes in a God or not.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.6    5 months ago
No one is doing that here that I see.

You have not been paying attention to these debates.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.5    5 months ago
And if atheists are hiding their atheism because of some sense of being singled out in some way, that says something about atheists more than others.

Actually, that says more about theists.

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.9  seeder  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.5    5 months ago
Many people? Where do you come up with that from?

From Christians,

https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/blog/can-you-be-moral-without-god/

.

PR problem? Why? If you are confident in your own beliefs, what does it matter what anyone else thinks? And if atheists are hiding their atheism because of some sense of being singled out in some way, that says something about atheists more than others.

Many people didn't want to admit to be an atheist or don't like the idea of atheism because they misunderstand what atheists believe or who we are.

We only believe in one less god than Jews, Christians, and Muslims do.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @1.1.9    5 months ago
Many people didn't want to admit to be an atheist or don't like the idea of atheism because they misunderstand what atheists believe or who we are.

If they misunderstand their own beliefs, why should anyone else believe them?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.8    5 months ago
Actually, that says more about theists.

We obviously have different opinions.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.7    5 months ago
You have not been paying attention to these debates.

So atheists are feeling persecuted?

Poor things!

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.13  seeder  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.10    5 months ago
If they misunderstand their own beliefs, why should anyone else believe them?

Many people don't know what atheists believe because they  wee raised in other religions so they somehow believe that atheists are are group of immoral and anti-social people.

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.14  seeder  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.12    5 months ago
So atheists are feeling persecuted? Poor things!

You are on very shaky ground. This is your only warning.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @1.1.13    5 months ago

I know some people who think religious people are all hypocrites.

I know they are wrong and I don't sweat it.

Can atheists not do the same?

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.16  seeder  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.15    5 months ago
I know some people who think religious people are all hypocrites.

I know they are wrong and I don't sweat it.

Can atheists not do the same?

I don't believe that all religious people are hypocrites. They are many religious people whose actions I do admire. I am an atheist (secular Humanist to be exact ) because there is no empirical evidence that a god exists, nor is a god necessary to be moral and ethical person.

How would an atheist be a hypocrite?

Why would someone claim to not believe in god but still secretly believe in god when it is more socially acceptable to be a member of the Christian religion in the US?

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.17  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.1    5 months ago
willing to consider evidence to the contrary

From what I have seen around here, there is no evidence that could possibly compel some atheists to consider a contrary position.

well supported by the evidence (the lack thereof)

This is an example of what I mean. There is a lot of evidence, but many atheists dismiss the evidence as invalid or incomplete for some reason and therefore 100% useless. They won't allow that even if a single piece of evidence, on its own is not convincing proof, it may still qualify as evidence that points toward a conclusion. Thus, we often see the declaration that there is "no evidence." To make that claim, one's mind has to be welded shut.

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.18  seeder  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.17    5 months ago
This is an example of what I mean. There is a lot of evidence, but many atheists dismiss the evidence as invalid or incomplete for some reason and therefore 100% useless.

What evidence is being dismissed by atheists as invalid or incomplete? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.19  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @1.1.9    5 months ago
We only believe in one less god than Jews, Christians, and Muslims do.

You are saying that you believe there is no God. That position contradicts TiG's definition of a simple lack of belief.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.20  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @1.1.18    5 months ago
What evidence is being dismissed by atheists as invalid or incomplete? 

In @1.1.16, you limited what you would accept to "empirical evidence." You make this demand frequently but cannot define what empirical evidence of God would be. It also means you exclude any other type of evidence - something I have seen you do on multiple occasions. This means your mind is not as open as you might claim.

 
 
 
JBB
1.1.21  JBB  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.20    5 months ago

If the dead arise I will concede I was wrong to not believe in...zombies.

In over sixty years I have found no evidence of real magic. Only tricks...

Tricks are for Kids!

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.22  seeder  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.20    5 months ago
In @1.1.16, you limited what you would accept to "empirical evidence." You make this demand frequently but cannot define what empirical evidence of God would be. It also means you exclude any other type of evidence - something I have seen you do on multiple occasions. This means your mind is not as open as you might claim.

If it is not empirical evidence that can be equally proven to a believer and an unbeliever then it is an emotional or a religious belief. Neither is positive evidence. Is your evidence falsifiable that is also required for proof?  

 Can you please post some of this evidence for a supreme supernatural deity that we are rejecting?

Part the Red Sea in an unambiguous way that couldn't be explained by tides, droughts, or earthquakes.

religious people rising from the dead with normal signs of life after being embalmed

For the earth to stop rotating, and then to begin again after 1 hour. 

A bush that bursts into flame and talks in a manner that can be electronically recorded for accurate playback by someone who is not a member of the Abrahamic religions

Someone to walk 1 mile on fresh water that is 2000 meters deep without any flotation aids.

An atheist to be struck down by a bolt of lighting on an absolutely clear day with your god talking clear and unimbiguous vocal credit for it.  A bolt out of the blue.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.23  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @1.1.22    5 months ago

Again you haven't defined what that would be.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.24  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.17    5 months ago
From what I have seen around here, there is no evidence that could possibly compel some atheists to consider a contrary position.

Sure there is.   I have offered several examples on NT.    Here is how it goes:  first we must agree on what we mean by 'god'.   I would submit god defined as 'the sentient creator of the known universe'.   Now, if we were to agree on that as 'god' here is what I would consider evidence of the creator:

The entity could announce and then deliver a second star in our solar system.   The twin stars would orbit each other in a stable manner, and the planets in our system would all adjust to the new gravitational dynamics without harm (especially with no harm to Earth).   To me if an entity can pull that off that would be evidence of an entity that could create the known universe.   (Not proof, but certainly evidence.)

Another piece of evidence that demonstrates detailed knowledge of the dynamics of the universe would be (believe it or not) to predict the exact stock prices of the securities in the DJIA at closing bell on a specific day next week.   To pull that off is far more impressive than it sounds and I would consider it evidence that this is god (as defined) since that would require an incomprehensibly deep knowledge of causal chains.

Plenty more examples.

There is a lot of evidence, but many atheists dismiss the evidence as invalid or incomplete for some reason and therefore 100% useless. 

People claim evidence yet never deliver (or deliver that which does not rise to the level of evidence).  Instead of complaining that atheists are closed-minded, deliver some actual evidence.

The typical 'evidence' is 'personal experience'.   Not really evidence because it is never presented in a manner that is verifiable.    Another typical 'evidence' is complexity (and similar factors).   This is not evidence of god, it is simply evidence that complexity exists.   The best argument that follows is simply an argument from incredulity ('I just do not believe it is possible for something as complex as the eye to just appear as a result of random processes over time').    Another argument is from ignorance ('Okay, then give me a better explanation other than god did it').

Evidence would be third party measurable and verifiable and would support the claim of god as defined.   Thus the evidence needs to lead to the idea of a creator entity being the most logical explanation and have an element of a smoking gun.    I have never come across any evidence for god (as defined) and I am far from alone in this matter.   One would think that in the thousands of years and countless billions of people looking for killer evidence for god that by now there would no longer be a need for evidence.   But here we are with religious people claiming evidence but providing nothing other than what a human mind can invent and complaining that those who are not convinced that a god exists are just stubborn and closed-minded.

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.25  seeder  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.23    5 months ago
Again you haven't defined what that would be.

I edited 1.1.20 and added many possible examples of god that I would take as empirical evidence that it exists.

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.26  bugsy  replied to  epistte @1.1.18    5 months ago
What evidence is being dismissed by atheists as invalid or incomplete? 

I don't know. Maybe using terms like "Jeebus" or " the flying spaghetti monster" does not exactly show tolerance of another's religious beliefs. More like mocking them.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.1.27  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.23    5 months ago

Beyond the 1969 Mets...…  I don't know how far back you would have to look to find a miracle..! 

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.28  seeder  epistte  replied to  bugsy @1.1.26    5 months ago
I don't know. Maybe using terms like "Jeebus" or " the flying spaghetti monster" does not exactly show tolerance of another's religious beliefs. More like mocking them.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster (R'amen) was created as a parody counterpoint to evangelicals trying to force their creationist religious beliefs into Kansas public schools.   It uses and satisfies the very same arguments that religious conservatives use to push their beliefs. If conservatives would stop doing it then we will stop noticing what they do and mock them with their own irrational arguments and unconstitutional actions.   

https://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.29  seeder  epistte  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.1.27    5 months ago
Beyond the 1969 Mets...…  I don't know how far back you would have to look to find a miracle..! 

The Browns and the Indians to both win their respective championships in the same year might be evidence of a god. I'm not a sports fan but I can't help but hear their fans crying in their beer by the middle of their seasons. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.30  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.19    5 months ago
You are saying that you believe there is no God. That position contradicts TiG's definition of a simple lack of belief.

Not believing in any god is perfectly consistent with:

TiG @1.1.1 - Most atheists are agnostic atheists who are not convinced a god exists but are certainly willing to consider evidence to the contrary.

All atheists, by definition, do not 'believe' any god exists ('believe' -as in conclude- there is no god).   Some (very few) assert as fact that no god exists (stating certainty; truth).    The difference between the agnostic atheist and the gnostic atheist is that the former is willing to reconsider whereas the latter is not.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.31  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @1.1.16    5 months ago
I don't believe that all religious people are hypocrites.

That is good, because they aren't. Just like atheists aren't immoral because they don't believe in God.

No, God isn't necessary to be a moral or ethical person.

How would an atheist be a hypocrite?

Very easily--just like for anyone else. Being a hypocrite is believing that one should act in a specific manner and then doing the opposite. I believe most people would say that a hypocrite is usually one who tries to hold others to their own moral standards.

Why would someone claim to not believe in god but still secretly believe in god when it is more socially acceptable to be a member of the Christian religion in the US?

But then again, you did post this:

Many people didn't want to admit to be an atheist or don't like the idea of atheism because they misunderstand what atheists believe or who we are.

So maybe you have some insight as to why that is?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.32  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.31    5 months ago
So maybe you have some insight as to why that is?

There is not a tremendous difference between agnostic theism and agnostic atheism except as you approach the extremes (as you move towards the gnostic positions).   The agnostic theist believes in a god but recognizes that the belief might be wrong.   The agnostic atheist is not convinced a god exists, but accepts the possibility and would consider evidence.

Some agnostic theists act as though they are going through the motions.   For example, if one really believed that the grandest possible entity is watching over them and expecting them to behave in a certain way the true believer would very likely comply.   After all, this is the most powerful 'supervisor' imaginable with some very serious consequences for disobedience.

I would not be surprised if a good number of agnostic theists were (in reality) going through the motions - behaving per their culture (which includes religious indoctrination) - but likely never stopping to even consider if they really, really believe that the god of their religion actually exists.   They might be agnostic atheists without even realizing it.

Just my take on it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.33  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @1.1.26    5 months ago
Maybe using terms like "Jeebus" or " the flying spaghetti monster" does not exactly show tolerance of another's religious beliefs. More like mocking them.

That is certainly a valid point. Kind of hard to debate someone when right off the bat, they are basically telling you that you are crazy for believing in God.

One thing I never hear is anyone saying any of those kinds of things about certain religions.

Do you think it would be allowed to criticize Native Americans for their religion?

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.34  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.24    5 months ago
here is what I would consider evidence

You presume your examples are unachievable through technology. As Arthur C. Clarke pointed out, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." You're just asking for magic tricks.

'evidence' is 'personal experience'.   Not really evidence

And we see that you have your own concepts about what qualifies as evidence. Not exactly open-minded.

Evidence would be third party measurable and verifiable

Do you believe in love?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.35  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.32    5 months ago

I recognize what you are saying, and it very well could be 100% true.

But what I was asking about was Epistte's remark that I quoted above. I realize that you didn't make the statement, but perhaps you know why she wrote it or what it means.

here is the quote again:

Many people didn't want to admit to be an atheist or don't like the idea of atheism because they misunderstand what atheists believe or who we are (Epistte post 1.1.13)

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.36  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @1.1.22    5 months ago
Part the Red Sea in an unambiguous way that couldn't be explained by tides, droughts, or earthquakes.

Magic tricks or advanced technology. See my @ 1.1.34 . At some point, to believe anything, you have to be willing to say to yourself, "the most reasonable explanation is X." The kind of proof you want is unattainable and probably beyond what you would demand for lesser things (even though it probably doesn't seem that way to you).

Also consider this: Let's say you observed any of those things and now you believe. How would you convince someone else? With your testimony? You wouldn't accept that, so why should anyone else? With video? I've seen a lot of amazing things on video that aren't real. What about the person who witnessed it and still won't believe it isn't a trick of some kind?

How many times and in how many ways do you think God should have to perform a stunt for people just so they'll believe?

Check out the story of Trenton McKinley , - also covered here and here - who suffered traumatic head and brain trauma, was in a coma, and flatlined for 15 minutes at one point. He should be dead or a vegetable. Right after his parents signed the papers to harvest his organs, he began showing signs of awareness. Now he's awake and talking normally. He has some minor issues that are healing, but like I said, he should be dead - or at least horribly brain damaged. He's not.

The family thinks it was God. A miracle. That's not an unreasonable theory. Medical science certainly isn't explaining it. But there are atheists who would say it's ridiculous and absurd to attribute it to God and that there must be a medical explanation we just haven't found yet. It's fine to have that opinion, but that is not a scientific conclusion. That is faith - belief - that it couldn't be God and must be explainable by science. That feeling exists in some even though there is no science supporting it.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.37  Tacos!  replied to  bugsy @1.1.26    5 months ago
Maybe using terms like "Jeebus" or " the flying spaghetti monster" does not exactly show tolerance of another's religious beliefs. More like mocking them.

Exactly. Some NT atheists post comments insisting that believers are fools and then claim they have an open mind.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.38  Tacos!  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.1.27    5 months ago
Beyond the 1969 Mets...…  I don't know how far back you would have to look to find a miracle..! 

Kirk Gibson 1988.

Hell! Donald Trump 2016. jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.39  seeder  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.33    5 months ago
Do you think it would be allowed to criticize Native Americans for their religion?

When have Native Americans tried to legislate their religious views as secular law?  When have their religious views been used to attack a minority and deny them equal rights?

 There are some ideas of the native culture that I support.

We Do Not Inherit the Earth from Our Ancestors; We Borrow It from Our Children

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.40  seeder  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.36    5 months ago
Magic tricks or advanced technology. See my @ 1.1.34 . At some point, to believe anything, you have to be willing to say to yourself, "the most reasonable explanation is X." The kind of proof you want is unattainable and probably beyond what you would demand for lesser things (even though it probably doesn't seem that way to you).

That is a begging the question fallacy as well as confirmation bias. 

Also consider this: Let's say you observed any of those things and now you believe. How would you convince someone else? With your testimony? You wouldn't accept that, so why should anyone else? With video? I've seen a lot of amazing things on video that aren't real. What about the person who witnessed it and still won't believe it isn't a trick of some kind?

Eyewitness testimony is one of the lowest forms of proof.

Their ignorance of the technical possibilities of CGI is not proof. Proof of god must be empirically testable by someone who is not a member of that religious sect so as to eliminate any religious bias.

Check out the story of Trenton McKinley , - also covered here and here - who suffered traumatic head and brain trauma, was in a coma, and flatlined for 15 minutes at one point. He should be dead or a vegetable. Right after his parents signed the papers to harvest his organs, he began showing signs of awareness. Now he's awake and talking normally. He has some minor issues that are healing, but like I said, he should be dead - or at least horribly brain damaged. He's not.

He was neither confirmed dead or embalmed.

Where is the positive empirical proof of a supernatural deity?

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.41  bugsy  replied to  epistte @1.1.28    5 months ago

I guarantee that if you asked most liberals and atheists what the origins of flying spaghetti monster, you would get a blank stare.

All they know is that term is used to mock those that believe in God.

I see you did not argue that "Jeebus" is also used to mock.

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.42  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.33    5 months ago
Do you think it would be allowed to criticize Native Americans for their religion?

Of course not. Even liberals draw the line with who to mock. I dare one of them to mock "Mohammad" in a public square or any Islam gathering.

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.43  seeder  epistte  replied to  bugsy @1.1.41    5 months ago
I guarantee that if you asked most liberals and atheists what the origins of flying spaghetti monster, you would get a blank stare. All they know is that term is used to mock those that believe in God.

Most Christians don't know what the FSM is. Most Americans don't know what the FSM is.  

Do you believe that conservative Christians should not be criticized for their attempts to legislate their irrational beliefs as public policy? Why is it OK when Christians say that earth was created in 7 days, despite any evidence to support it, but when someone else mocks them by using the very same irrational claim, it is now offensive?

Why should our free speech rights stop at the front doors of their church when they are trying to legislate them as public policy?  Should the Roman Catholic church's attempt to cover up pedophile priests not be criticized as hypocrisy when they condemn LGBT people and reproductive freedom for women, but they have no qualms about pedophiles? 

I see you did not argue that "Jeebus" is also used to mock.

It's satire.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.44  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @1.1.39    5 months ago
When have Native Americans tried to legislate their religious views as secular law?

As far as I know, they haven't. Which is why I never said they did. 

Look, I know you know what I meant--it was pretty plain.

Some people lump every person who believes in God together with the most extreme people of faith, hence the ridicule and talk of FSM, Jeebus, etc..

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.45  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @1.1.43    5 months ago
It's satire.

That is what he stated--it is used to mock.

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.46  seeder  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.45    5 months ago

Why should religious beliefs be immune from sarcasm and satire?  Are my religious beliefs immune from your criticism by theists, or is that something that only yours enjoy?

 
 
 
Kavika
1.1.47  Kavika   replied to  bugsy @1.1.42    5 months ago

The U.S. went well beyond mocking and criticizing native religions they prohibited/outlawed them starting in 1883 with addition law and directives being passed in 1887/1890 and beyond. It wasn't until the passage of the American Indian religious freedom act of 1978 that we gained the ability to express ourselves as we always have.

Even today that right is under fire...

 

 
 
 
charger 383
1.1.48  charger 383  replied to  epistte @1.1.46    5 months ago

we have the right to make fun of things

 
 
 
dave-2693993
1.1.49  dave-2693993  replied to  Kavika @1.1.47    5 months ago
Even today that right is under fire...  

But Kavika, they are just savages, screw them. Besides The lands to which they were driven at the expense of life contain many valuable mineral assets. Of course, they must be exploited.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.50  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @1.1.40    5 months ago
That is a begging the question fallacy as well as confirmation bias

This is your way of not engaging with the content of people's posts.

Eyewitness testimony is one of the lowest forms of proof.

If you like. It's still evidence, and again, you aren't responding to my questions.

Proof of god must be empirically testable

It's not. The reason is because we can't know how to measure God. So you have to make a personal decision about what makes the most sense, what you feel, and what you ultimately believe. You likely do this with other things in your life every day or you couldn't function.

He was neither confirmed dead or embalmed.

That doesn't change anything I said. Medically, he should be dead, or at minimum horribly brain damaged. So, what is the explanation? Faith in unknown medicine? Luck? God?

Where is the positive empirical proof of a supernatural deity?

Again, you can't define what that would be. Oh, you can list magic tricks, but you can't demonstrate that those tricks would be an effective measure of God's existence.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.51  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @1.1.46    5 months ago
Why should religious beliefs be immune from sarcasm and satire?

Why should they be the subject of sarcasm and satire?

Do non-believers feel better mocking things they don't agree with?

Are my religious beliefs immune from your criticism by theists, or is that something that only yours enjoy?

I have never criticized your religious beliefs. As far as I knew, and based on your very own posts, you didn't have any religious beliefs.

BTFW, it was in response to your post stating this:

I see you did not argue that "Jeebus" is also used to mock.
It's satire.

Your post would lead one to think that you feel satire and mocking are two separate, completely different things. They are NOT.

The poster told it like it is--"Jeebus" is mocking religion.

Now, you can pretty it all up by claiming satire--but I suggest you look the definition of satire up.

They are one in the same in this context, and you damn well know it--or should.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.52  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.51    5 months ago
Why should they be the subject of sarcasm and satire? Do non-believers feel better mocking things they don't agree with?

One might ask the same question about many beliefs.  Political ones, for example.  I believe it is a favorite pastime for some to mock the political beliefs of those with whom they disagree.  Is religion to be protected from similar derision, and if so, why?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.53  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.52    5 months ago
One might ask the same question about many beliefs. Political ones, for example. I believe it is a favorite pastime for some to mock the political beliefs of those with whom they disagree. Is religion to be protected from similar derision, and if so, why?

Yes, one might ask.

That does nothing to answer what I asked, though.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.54  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.34    5 months ago
You presume your examples are unachievable through technology. As Arthur C. Clarke pointed out, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." You're just asking for magic tricks.

Is that what I presume?   

Do you want people to honestly respond to you or do you want to play games?    A better presumption on your part would be that my examples would have a formal verification method - a designed experiment.   Given I answered your request in a post -meaning a brief answer-  it would not be possible nor should it be necessary to lay out the details of a formal scientific test.   

You have an answer.   I suspect you were hoping no answer would come.

And we see that you have your own concepts about what qualifies as evidence.

The level of evidence sufficient for an extraordinary claim is going to be substantial.   Clearly, the more extraordinary the claim the more substantial the evidence.   If you claimed that you are a father, I would take you at your word.   If, however, you claimed the ability to read someone's mind I would seek evidence in a controlled setting.   Given we are talking about evidence for probably the grandest possible claim - the existence of the sentient creator of the known universe - one would naturally expect a level of evidence greater than: 'well I had this personal experience ...'.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.55  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.53    5 months ago
That does nothing to answer what I asked, though.

It's not meant to.  It's meant to point out the different standards to which some would like to hold others.  Don't mock religion, but have a field day making fun of political beliefs.  Mean and nasty in one instance, accepted and even encouraged in the other.

Why is that?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.56  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.55    5 months ago
t's not meant to. It's meant to point out the different standards to which some would like to hold others. Don't mock religion, but have a field day making fun of political beliefs. Mean and nasty in one instance, accepted and even encouraged in the other.
Why is that?

Sorry, but politics isn't the subject here, and I have already been warned about being off topic.

If you seed an article, I will gladly comment on it. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.57  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.56    5 months ago

Epistte is welcome to tell me to stop, as this is her article, and she gets to decide what's on-topic.

I note that no reason is given for the special protection expected for religious views.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.58  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.35    5 months ago

I have no doubt there are plenty of closet atheists and even closet agnostic theists (theists who are not all that sure their beliefs are right).    In the USA (and you know this) the word 'atheist' is a pejorative term.   Imagine how far a politician would get if s/he were a known atheist.   That should give you a decent example read on matters.

Part of the problem, as epistte noted, is that quite a few people have a slogan level understanding of the word 'atheist' (similar actually to the slogan level understanding of 'socialism').   Atheist equates in the vernacular to lovely terms such as heathen, infidel, etc.   For some an atheist is a devil worshiper.   For other it is a lost soul.   Some equate it with evil itself.   Others see it as mean, nasty, godless people who want to do bad.    I could keep listing examples, but the net is that atheist is a pejorative term in the USA.    

So naturally, in social settings, knowing the visceral reactions that come from announcing one is an atheist (including, by the way, being disowned by one's family) you will not see a lot of people being honest about their views on god(s).   

From what I can tell, most people do not understand that an atheist is a person who is not convinced there is a god.    Most think that an atheist is a god-hater (which is ironically funny) or one who (with the tenacity of a religious fundamentalist) holds an unshakable (and thus irrational) view that no god exists.   

That is how I would detail epistte's point.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.59  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.57    5 months ago
Epistte is welcome to tell me to stop, as this is her article, and she gets to decide what's on-topic.

Pretty sure that won't happen to you, but for me, a different story.

I note that no reason is given for the special protection expected for religious views.

And I note I never asked for any special protection for any views.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.60  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.59    5 months ago
I never asked for any special protection for any views.

Then I'm not quite sure why you're puzzled when they don't get it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.61  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.58    5 months ago
Part of the problem, as epistte noted, is that quite a few people have a slogan level understanding of the word 'atheist' (similar actually to the slogan level understanding of 'socialism'). Atheist equates in the vernacular to lovely terms such as heathen, infidel, etc. For some an atheist is a devil worshiper. For other it is a lost soul. Some equate it with evil itself. Others see it as mean, nasty, godless people who want to do bad. I could keep listing examples, but the net is that atheist is a pejorative term in the USA.

That may well be true. It is also true that believers are often described as stupid to believe in anything that can not be definitively proven, as Bible-thumpers, as irrational, as failing to accept facts, as trying to impose their will on everyone else, etc. 

It works both ways.

So naturally, in social settings, knowing the visceral reactions that come from announcing one is an atheist (including, by the way, being disowned by one's family) you will not see a lot of people being honest about their views on god(s).

I wish everyone on both sides could admit what side they are actually on.

We are often quoted numbers about how Americans are moving away from religion in droves, so I don't think the same stigmas attach like they once did.

But what Epistte stated was:

Many people didn't want to admit to be an atheist or don't like the idea of atheism because they misunderstand what atheists believe or who we are (Epistte post 1.1.13)

Now, why would an atheist not understand what they believe?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.62  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.60    5 months ago
Then I'm not quite sure why you're puzzled when they don't get it.

I am not puzzled by it--because I don't expect it.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.63  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.58    5 months ago
In the USA (and you know this) the word 'atheist' is a pejorative term.

There have even been laws in some states preventing atheists from holding public office.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/unenforceable-ban-on-atheists-holding-public-office-still-on-the-books-in-8-states

According to the link, as recently as 2009, some thought that these unconstitutional laws should still be enforced.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.64  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.61    5 months ago
Now, why would an atheist not understand what they believe?

She was referring to people who are technical atheist but do not realize it.   For example, take a person who was indoctrinated Christian as a child but basically went through the motions.   Maybe believing to a degree as a child but as an adult the person goes about their daily life not even thinking about a god.

That person is likely an atheist - one who is not convinced there is a god.   But that person might think that an atheist is one who knows (certainty) there is no god.   Under that definition the person would not consider themself an atheist.

This is one example, but it should suffice.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.65  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.61    5 months ago
I wish everyone on both sides could admit what side they are actually on.

Side?   This is not about sides (or at least it should not be) but rather positions on one of the most significant questions one can ask:  'is there a sentient creator of the known universe'?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.66  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.63    5 months ago
According to the link, as recently as 2009, some thought that these unconstitutional laws should still be enforced.

I won't make any excuses for what lawmakers passed.

But even you say that it was in 2009 that some thought it should be enforced. 
Do you have any examples where any of those laws banning atheists from office have been enforced?

To me, it sounds like worrying over something that isn't happening.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.67  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.66    5 months ago

It illustrates why some people would rather not admit to being atheists.  It is no longer legal to discriminate against us (although some would have it so), but there is still social stigma.

IOW, it's not just the fact that the laws exist, and were enforceable in living memory, that is the problem.  The problem is the prejudice that caused those laws to be written and passed.

The prejudice still exists.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.68  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.65    5 months ago
Side? This is not about sides (or at least it should not be) but rather positions on one of the most significant questions one can ask: 'is there a sentient creator of the known universe'?

Oh, come on. You know very well when people take a position, then that is the "side" they are on.

People can believe in God, not believe in God, have no opinion whatsoever on God, or they can be unsure or unconvinced that there is a God.

As far as the actual question goes, I believe there is a God. I know, that doesn't prove there is a God, and that isn't my intention. I can no more prove there is a God as someone convinced there is no God can prove it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.69  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.67    5 months ago
The prejudice still exists.

Not arguing that. I just don't like it when all believers get lumped together and branded the same as some religious zealots.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.70  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.64    5 months ago
She was referring to people who are technical atheist but do not realize it. For example, take a person who was indoctrinated Christian as a child but basically went through the motions. Maybe believing to a degree as a child but as an adult the person goes about their daily life not even thinking about a god.
That person is likely an atheist - one who is not convinced there is a god. But that person might think that an atheist is one who knows (certainty) there is no god. Under that definition the person would not consider themself an atheist.
This is one example, but it should suffice.

Sorry, but I find it extremely odd that someone would be any kind of atheist without understanding what that means.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.71  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.69    5 months ago
I just don't like it when all believers get lumped together and branded the same as some religious zealots.

I'm not really seeing that happen here.  And refraining from making sweeping negative judgements about holders of a variety of beliefs would be a good thing, wouldn't it?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.72  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.71    5 months ago
I'm not really seeing that happen here. And refraining from making sweeping negative judgements about holders of a variety of beliefs would be a good thing, wouldn't it?

That would be a great thing--assuming it ever actually happens.

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.73  seeder  epistte  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.57    5 months ago
Epistte is welcome to tell me to stop, as this is her article, and she gets to decide what's on-topic. I note that no reason is given for the special protection expected for religious views.

I have no problems with anything that you have said or the manner in which that you said them.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.74  sandy-2021492  replied to  epistte @1.1.73    5 months ago

Thank you.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.75  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.68    5 months ago
TiG @1.1.65:  ... (or at least it should not be) ...

You quoted this.   

As far as the actual question goes, I believe there is a God. I know, that doesn't prove there is a God, and that isn't my intention. I can no more prove there is a God as someone convinced there is no God can prove it.

I suspect that if this simply were an issue of deism (which is how your comment reads) there would be far less debate and far less concern.   The deist position or, basically, the sentiment that 'there must be something more' or 'I believe that we were created by a powerful sentient entity' cannot be proven to be wrong and does not even carry a burden of proof.   It is equivalent to the atheist position of 'I am not convinced a god exists'.

But most of the religious positions are theistic.   Especially in the US.   A particular god with very specific attributes, stories, expectations, etc. is deemed to be truth.   Worse, people follow experts in the supporting holy books and, in so doing, empower these experts.   The lack of challenge to mere claims -the lack of critical thinking- is (I think) the biggest problem.

In one case we have bigotry (e.g. against homosexuals) and in other cases people send money in hopes of getting favor from god through the 'leader' who claims it will work.   But then we have religious inspired terrorism ... kill as many infidels as possible.   The blind following (faith) is often harmless (no eating meat on Fridays) but that very same blind faith can, does and historically did serve to empower holy leaders to control the masses.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.76  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.70    5 months ago
Sorry, but I find it extremely odd that someone would be any kind of atheist without understanding what that means.

How could you not understand what I wrote?    Net:  the atheist (technically so) does not think of him/herself as an atheist.   If asked, the (technically) atheist in question would say: 'I am not an atheist'.   The first sentence stated it succinctly.

TiG @1.1.70 - ...  people who are technical atheist but do not realize it. ...
 
 
 
epistte
1.1.77  seeder  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.61    5 months ago
But what Epistte stated was:

Many people didn't want to admit to be an atheist or don't like the idea of atheism because they misunderstand what atheists believe or who we are (Epistte post 1.1.13)

Now, why would an atheist not understand what they believe?

What I was referring to was people who may not believe but they have yet to come out and confirm to others in public by some means (Facebook, Twitter, email, over a meal) that they don't believe and admit to being an atheist because of the negative social connotations that many people have of atheists/non-believers because of the way that religious people have portrayed us.

 When I left the Catholic church in 1990 +/- I wasn't an atheist because I didn't think that my views fit the profile of an atheist because of the amoral connotations of atheism that are insinuated by the Christian religions. I wandered around for a few years and stopped at the pagan religions for a few years but I also didn't fit in there so I kept looking. I dabbled in Buddhism, then the Unitarian Church, the Quakers and Deism before I had conversations with a couple of Humanists during the 2002-03 antiwar rallies.

 After a few more long discussions over coffee and a few hours of internet research I found that humanism was a near perfect fit and that is where I have happily stayed.  The fact that I am a atheist  ( I don't believe that a god exists) is only a small part of my beliefs as a secular Humanist.

 Not all atheists are secular humanists, but all secular Humanists are atheists.

What TiG posted about causal believers is very correct and I know more than a few of them. They are a member of a church not out of devout religious belief but more out of family tradition, a social obligation or professional appearances that it is in their best interest to appear to be a believer or for the sense of community that a religion provides. Thee are some people who have never thought much about their religious beliefs. They were born into one religion or they married into that religion because of their spouse and they will die in the same religion. It is just what they do on Sunday morning, until something possibly happens in their life that causes them to deeply consider what they really belive.

 I appreciate your polite and well worded response in this thread more than you know. I will defend your right to support any stance as long as that argument is polite and reasonably presented. I had fears about how this thread would go and they appear to have been unfounded. Thank you everyone for your efforts in discussing a subject that has very strong emotions. 

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.78  seeder  epistte  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.74    5 months ago
Thank you.

You are quite welcome.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.79  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @1.1.77    5 months ago

Thanks for clarifying that. I didn't get all that from your original post.

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.80  seeder  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.79    5 months ago
Thanks for clarifying that. I didn't get all that from your original post.

I'm glad that I was able to clear it up.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.81  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.54    5 months ago
Is that what I presume?

Logically, yes. If you say act X is proof of God, you are simultaneously claiming it can't be done without God.

Do you want people to honestly respond to you or do you want to play games?

Is that how you "honestly respond?"

it would not be possible nor should it be necessary to lay out the details of a formal scientific test

Then I hope you don't expect believers to produce one either.

I suspect you were hoping no answer would come.

Why is this kind of acerbic hostility necessary to express yourself? I can't fathom why I might hope for any such thing.

The level of evidence sufficient for an extraordinary claim is going to be substantial.

I agree to a point. Evidence sufficient for proof - or at least satisfactory confidence - of an extraordinary claim should, in the aggregate, be substantial. However, individual examples of evidence that build to that aggregate may not, in and of themselves, seems extraordinary. Nevertheless, they are still evidence. For something so extraordinary, I wouldn't expect the body of evidence to consist of just one thing.

one would naturally expect a level of evidence greater than: 'well I had this personal experience ...'.

Sure, one personal experience might not be compelling. But several such experiences should at least allow an open mind to be more convinced than without such evidence. We see the same concept applied daily with respect to criminal accusations.

One person claiming that a politician, CEO, or similarly "respectable" person was inappropriate with them might be a crackpot looking for attention. So they may be easily disregarded. Several people making that claim launches a hashtag movement, ends a career, changes the course of an election, or gets a person convicted and sent to prison. All this happens even though none of it can be proven scientifically, there is no physical evidence, it happened a long time ago, and thousands or even millions of people have interacted with the accused and never witnessed such behavior.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.82  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.81    5 months ago
If you say act X is proof of God

TiG never said any of it would be "proof" of God.  He said it would be evidence, which is different.

So far, nobody has proven the existence of God.  Nobody has even produced very solid evidence of God.

Sure, one personal experience might not be compelling. Butseveralsuch experiences should at least allow an open mind to be more convinced than without such evidence.

Why?  If we have no reason to believe one personal experience, why should its repetition make it more credible?  Why should multiple examples of questionable evidence be taken as sufficient evidence for an extraordinary claim?

was inappropriate with them

Actually, such claims frequently don't end a career, lose an election, or land someone in jail.  But claims of inappropriate behavior are hardly as extraordinary as claims of a creator deity, are they?  So they rightly don't require as much evidence to lend them credibility claims of a creator.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.83  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.81    5 months ago
Logically, yes. If you say act X is proof of God, you are simultaneously claiming it can't be done without God.

That does not follow at all given this:

TiG @1.1.24 - here is what I would consider evidence
Tacos @1.1.34 - You presume your examples are unachievable through technology. As Arthur C. Clarke pointed out, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." You're just asking for magic tricks.

I was offering examples that I would consider evidence (not proof) of a god (as defined).   You come back claiming I am asking for magic tricks presuming that my evidence would not be formally verified.

Your latest response is a non sequitur.

However, individual examples of evidence that build to that aggregate may not, in and of themselves, seems extraordinary. 

For example ...

But several such experiences should at least allow an open mind to be more convinced than without such evidence.

People are still reporting Elvis sightings.   People are still reporting alien abductions.   People are still reporting the ability to speak with the dead.   What people report is very, very poor evidence.   When trying to support likely the grandest possible claim, human beings making claims is not even in the ballpark.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.84  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.82    5 months ago

I have grown to expect strawman responses along with deflection, feigned obtuseness, etc.   To actually see an honest discussion (sans dishonest tactics) in this subject for more than a few exchanges would be a welcome surprise.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.85  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.4    4 months ago
Many resort to strawman arguments and other intellectually dishonest tactics when they cannot prevail with honest, thoughtful debate.

I see one person guilty of that on this seed and on any seed regarding atheists or those who don't follow a 'god'  It's quite tiresome.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.86  Tacos!  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.82    4 months ago
If we have no reason to believe one personal experience, why should its repetition make it more credible?

I gave an example of how that works. Not sure why you're choosing to ignore it here since you then comment on it.

But claims of inappropriate behavior are hardly as extraordinary as claims of a creator deity, are they?

Of course not. It's an analogy. I would still consider it "extraordinary," though. It's not the kind of behavior we expect of successful, responsible, law-abiding people who are supposed to be leaders in our society.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.87  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.83    4 months ago
Your latest response is a non sequitur.

Labeling my response doesn't engage with the content. I guess we're done if it you aren't willing to do that.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.88  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.84    4 months ago
I have grown to expect strawman responses along with deflection, feigned obtuseness, etc.   To actually see an honest discussion (sans dishonest tactics) in this subject for more than a few exchanges would be a welcome surprise.

Wow! This from the person who claimed to have an open mind and also claimed to want to give honest responses. I have not gone after you personally at all, TiG, but this is now multiple comments from you attacking me personally as somehow being dishonest. You talk like a hypocrite. I take no pleasure in saying that, but I came here and talked about the issue. You just want to talk about me.

Actually, upon reflection I see that this was always the attitude you brought to this discussion. Way back in @1.1.4, you wrote this:

Many resort to strawman arguments and other intellectually dishonest tactics when they cannot prevail with honest, thoughtful debate.

Kinda makes it look like you came to this discussion looking for a fight, not a conversation. So, if you're really looking for that "welcome surprise" I suggest you start with yourself.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.89  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.54    4 months ago
'Do you want people to honestly respond to you or do you want to play games?'

That seems to be all that Tex and Tacos do on threads like this.  

Play games  

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.90  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.89    4 months ago

Members are not the topic.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.91  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.55    4 months ago
'It's not meant to.  It's meant to point out the different standards to which some would like to hold others.  Don't mock religion, but have a field day making fun of political beliefs.  Mean and nasty in one instance, accepted and even encouraged in the other. Why is that?'

That's all they got.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.92  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.89    4 months ago
That seems to be all that Tex and Tacos do on threads like this.
Play games

Now, I am not sure what the fuck you read, but do point out where I have played any games on this thread.

If you can not, (and we both already know you can't), kindly keep my name out of your posts.

Thanks.

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.93  seeder  epistte  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.89    4 months ago

Tessy', please stay on topic.

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.94  seeder  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.92    4 months ago
Now, I am not sure what the fuck you read, but do point out where I have played any games on this thread.

If you can not, (and we both already know you can't), kindly keep my name out of your posts.

Thanks.

You had been good up til now. Please try to keep it civil. If you can't do that then please do not respond.

If you feel that you need to reply with expletives, then take a break and rethink your response. Return to the thread when you are less emotional.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.95  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @1.1.94    4 months ago

Okay, sorry for the single use of one cuss word.

That does not make me emotional, though.

And I do feel justified in this case in using it, but I will certainly respect your wishes on your article.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.96  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.50    4 months ago
The reason is because we can't know how to measure God. So you have to make a personal decision about what makes the most sense, what you feel, and what you ultimately believe. You likely do this with other things in your life every day or you couldn't function.

That's the best explanation I've ever heard for someone's personal faith. I think it's great that you have found something to believe in.

I believe I will just shut up and go have another beer

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.97  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.83    4 months ago

I think we can all agree that someone's "reports" are not the evidence I require and vice versa.

Just because someone else believes that ghosts exist doesn't mean that I have to.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.98  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.88    4 months ago

Another tactic:  looking for ways to claim victim by redirecting my general comments about religious discussions all directly to you.    

I gave you plenty to comment on in terms of content but note how you instead run to meta.   This is something else that I generally find in these discussions.   If a good response is not available, play a game.  Finally, if you do now want me to call out tactics then do not use them.   Don't do things like substitute 'proof' when I wrote 'evidence' and then argue a strawman which pretends my example tests would (stupidly) not include formal verification so that you can criticize them as being fooled by an advanced technology magic trick.   

By the way, if a sufficiently advanced alien was able to accomplish what I suggested:

TiG @1.1.24 - The entity [the god candidate] could announce and then deliver a second star in our solar system.   The twin stars would orbit each other in a stable manner, and the planets in our system would all adjust to the new gravitational dynamics without harm (especially with no harm to Earth).   To me if an entity can pull that off that would be evidence of an entity that could create the known universe.   (Not proof, but certainly evidence.)

Then that alien will have demonstrated the ability to literally create a new star, change orbital dynamics of our entire solar system all while keeping Earth safe from harm.   This is not proof of god (as defined) but I for one would chalk it up as evidence.  (I would be quite impressed by the entity; as would anyone else.)  You criticize this as not being good 'evidence' yet you just argued that personal testimony from people who have had 'special experiences' is evidence of god (something well within human capabilities).   Personal 'experiences' is good evidence yet a demonstration of cosmological power that is vastly beyond even imagined human capabilities is not??

That shows you are not trying to have a discussion but rather argue anything I offer.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.99  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.87    4 months ago
Labeling my response doesn't engage with the content.

Another example of playing games.   I explained why I used the label 'non sequitur', I did not simply apply a label.   The label was a summary after the explanation.

My full response was this (including specific quotes):

TiG @ 1.1.83 - That does not follow at all given this:
TiG @ 1.1.24  - here is what I would consider evidence
Tacos @ 1.1.34  - You presume your examples are unachievable through technology. As Arthur C. Clarke pointed out, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." You're just asking for magic tricks.

I was offering examples that I would consider evidence (not proof) of a god (as defined).   You come back claiming I am asking for magic tricks presuming that my evidence would not be formally verified.

Your latest response is a non sequitur.
 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.100  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.98    4 months ago
Another tactic:

Sigh. OK TiG. Whatever makes you happy.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  epistte @1    5 months ago

It doesn't bother me. As a "recovering Christian" who finally made to break to reality, I know both sides of the issue. In my personal life I don't go around spreading my non belief onto others who probably could not care less.

So, I have to wonder what is the big deal about being an atheist and going around loudly and proudly yapping about it to people who don't care. It just reeks of repressed anger being expressed at a devout and abusive disciplinarian of a parent, or that creepy Sunday School teacher, or the pastor fucking that hot choir director. The whole thing just seems juvenile and immature.

 
 
 
epistte
1.2.1  seeder  epistte  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    5 months ago
It doesn't bother me. As a "recovering Christian" who finally made to break to reality, I know both sides of the issue. In my personal life I don't go around spreading my non belief onto others who probably could not care less. So, I have to wonder what is the big deal about being an atheist and going around loudly and proudly yapping about it to people who don't care. It just reeks of repressed anger being expressed at a devout and abusive disciplinarian of a parent, or that creepy Sunday School teacher, or the pastor fucking that hot choir director. The whole thing just seems juvenile and immature.

Outside of this forum I do not mention my views, not even on Facebook. 

 
 
 
epistte
1.2.2  seeder  epistte  replied to  epistte @1.2.1    5 months ago

I liked this cartoon on Facebook last night. What religion am I mocking with a Far Side cartoon? 

https://images.app.goo.gl/2jpNkwcV9q6buB2L6

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    4 months ago
'Many resort to strawman arguments and other intellectually dishonest tactics when they cannot prevail with honest, thoughtful debate.'

'I see one person guilty of that on this seed and on any seed regarding atheists or those who don't follow a 'god'  It's quite tiresome.'  

Make that two people

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.2.4  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.3    4 months ago

As usual, you contribute nothing of value

 
 
 
epistte
1.2.5  seeder  epistte  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2.4    4 months ago
As usual, you contribute nothing of value

This is your only warning. Don't make it personal. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.6  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @1.2.5    4 months ago
Don't make it personal. 

But it's perfectly ok for Tessy to just accuse other members of being dishonest?

 
 
 
epistte
1.2.7  seeder  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.6    4 months ago
But it's perfectly ok for Tessy to just accuse other members of being dishonest?

Please see reply 1.1.93.

 
 
 
epistte
2  seeder  epistte    5 months ago

I am locking this thread for the night because it it needs a firm hand to moderate it. I'll give any godless moderator the authority to unlock it if they are going to closely babysit the discussion.

 Thank you to everyone who replied for your input and for being polite.

 
 
 
epistte
3  seeder  epistte    5 months ago

It is now unlocked. Let the polite squabbling commence, but please remember to call and tell your mother that you love her.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  epistte @3    5 months ago

Don't scare me like that!  You had me totally convinced that I'd confused the date for Mother's Day.

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.1  seeder  epistte  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1    5 months ago

I thought that it was Mother's day.  Oops.

My mom's birthday is tomorrow and Mothers day is usually the day before or after...........

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  epistte @3.1.1    5 months ago

I can see how that would throw you off schedule.  My mom's birthday is in May, too.  And my son's is the day before hers.  They usually fall the weekend before Memorial Day, but that's a bit earlier than usual this year, too.

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.3  seeder  epistte  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.2    5 months ago

My sisters did get my mom what we talked about in PM yesterday. She said that Fed-Ex dropped it off about 9:00 am.

: double facepalm: 

My birthday, my old sisters birthday and my daughters birthday are all within 2 weeks of Xmas. My son-in-law was born on Xmas so his birthday is almost always ignored because of the holiday.  I hated when people did that on my birthday.   

 
 
 
IceMan
3.1.4  IceMan  replied to  epistte @3.1.1    5 months ago

Your mom's birthday is tomorrow the 6th of May? Mother's day is always celebrated on the 2nd Sunday in May so it would be impossible for Mother's day to fall on the day before or after her birthday. Maybe you meet to say your mom's birthday is a week from tomorrow on the 13th.

By the way Fed-Ex doesn't make delivers on Sundays how could they have made a delivery to your mom at 9:00 am today?

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.5  seeder  epistte  replied to  IceMan @3.1.4    5 months ago
Your mom's birthday is tomorrow the 6th of May? Mother's day is always celebrated on the 2nd Sunday in May so it would be impossible for Mother's day to fall on the day before or after her birthday. Maybe you meet to say your mom's birthday is a week from tomorrow on the 13th.

She was born 5-6-29

By the way Fed-Ex doesn't make delivers on Sundays how could they have made a delivery to your mom at 9:00 am today?

That is what she said.  I assumed that it was USPS because I know that UPS doesn't deliver on Sunday.  

 
 
 
IceMan
3.1.6  IceMan  replied to  epistte @3.1.5    5 months ago
She was born 5-6-29

So I'm right, it's impossible for her birthday to fall on the day before or after Mother's day.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.7  sandy-2021492  replied to  epistte @3.1.3    5 months ago

December is a busy birthday month for us, too.  My dad's is the 28th, my brother's is the 26th, his wife's is the 19th, and their son's is the 18th.

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.8  seeder  epistte  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.7    5 months ago

My daughter's is the 14th, my sister's is the 19th, and mine is the 21st. I have an uncle whose birthday is the 24th and then my sons-in-law is the next day.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  epistte @3    5 months ago

Surprisingly perhaps, you will get no squabbling from me on this one. I spent 20 years of my life in uniform and spilled my blood in two wars so people could have the right to worship or not the way they chose. I refuse to push any beliefs I may or may not have on others and expect the same in return. Sadly, people on both sides of the issue seem to have some problems with that. With that said, a sincere Happy Mother's Day to all the ladies. Mother's Day unfortunately has a somewhat melancholy meaning for me. My only son's birthday is on the 8th of May. Sadly he passed away two years ago on the 24th of April 2017. I lost his mother 4 months before him.  But life goes on.

 
 
 
epistte
3.2.1  seeder  epistte  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.2    5 months ago
My only son's birthday is on the 8th of May. Sadly he passed away two years ago on the 24th of April 2017. I lost his mother 4 months before him.  But life goes on.

I'm so sorry for your loss.

 
 
 
lib50
3.2.2  lib50  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.2    5 months ago

I am so sorry about your son, and his mother.  But there is nothing like losing your child.  Lost my daughter over 12 years ago, it stays with you even as you move through life. Guess we just learn to live with the new reality.  Still miss the old one though.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.2.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.2    4 months ago

I'm so sorry, Ed. Please accept my condolences

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.2.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  lib50 @3.2.2    4 months ago

I'm very sorry for your loss, also

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.5  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.2    4 months ago

So sorry for your loss Ed. 

 
 
 
nightwalker
4  nightwalker    5 months ago

LOL

I just circle the important dates on my calendar from my old calendar at the beginning of the year and made a habit of checking the dates circled at the beginning of each month. Easiest with a old fashion hang-on-the-wall calendar.

Atheists don't believe in god, period. If they did think there was a possibility of a divine being, they'd be agnostics who leave it open about god's existence but think it's unlikely. It's easy to get the two confused, because both tend to think that religions were created by people primarily to control other people.

Most atheists and agnostics don't care about religious freedoms or religions except when people want to make policies and laws based on it.

LOL

about the rudeness with "the flying spaghetti monster" and such, when some people start saying no religion equals no morals and that no matter how good a person you are, no matter how much good you've done, you're going to hell because you're not of the true faith (whichever faith they say that is.)

 It's not like you're passing out the word of god, it's more like threatening people with a imaginary firearm shooting die-cast biblical facts. No matter how much you believe it's real, to the non-believers you're just a confused person standing in a strange and awkward position moving your finger and yelling "bang! bang!"

After being told they have no morals and they're going to hell of course non-believers are going to needle that person back. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  nightwalker @4    4 months ago

Yes. We. Are.

Call me a heathen and I'm going to do my very best to show you what a heathen looks like

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5  sandy-2021492    5 months ago

Because some of my friends were inspired by her writings, I've been casually following the commentary around the death of Rachel Held Evans.  For those not familiar, she was an Episcopalian who advocated for more inclusivity within the church, especially in regards to LGBTQ people.  She was pro-life and believed in greater equality for women within the church.  She died yesterday at the age of 37, survived by her husband and two children.

And some evangelicals pounced.  They're dancing on her grave as I type, simply because she disagreed with them regarding their shared religion, and had the temerity to say so.  And some of my friends who have defended her on some of these groups' Facebook pages have been similarly condemned to damnation (very presumptuous, IMO).  One woman who engaged was told by a "good Christian man" to go make her husband a sandwich.

Nonbelievers see these occurrences, and we are not impressed.

When we're portrayed as immoral or amoral, simply because we do not believe, we see the ugliness exhibited by some believers, and we take note.  And yes, we know that not all believers think we're immoral or amoral, and no, we don't think that such ugliness is exhibited by all believers.  But, as with the radicals of any faith, a few may reflect badly upon the whole.  We see the grave-dancing, the self-righteousness, and the misogyny proudly expressed, and take note.

 
 
 
Freefaller
5.1  Freefaller  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5    4 months ago

Gotta love the anonymity of the internet where people don't have to worry about being slapped upside the head for being complete dicks.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Freefaller @5.1    4 months ago

Seems to be a way of life for some folks on this site especially  

 
 
 
epistte
5.1.2  seeder  epistte  replied to  Freefaller @5.1    4 months ago
Gotta love the anonymity of the internet where people don't have to worry about being slapped upside the head for being complete dicks.

That is actually an understood psychological principle.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-13/trolls-understand-what-hurts-people-but-they-simply-dont-care/8701424

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/201609/no-comment-3-rules-dealing-internet-trolls

https://images.app.goo.gl/5bXnxAYSjjUyRqvR9

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5    4 months ago

Do you remember when Stephen Hawking died?

There was quite a lot of grave dancing all the internetz and in particular right here on NT

 
 
 
MUVA
5.2.1  MUVA  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.2    4 months ago

 Could you name the persons that made those comments.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @5.2.1    4 months ago

That would be a violation.  

The poster that posts the most fake news was shitting all over his memory

 
 
 
MUVA
6  MUVA    4 months ago

As a none believer I really don't care what someone believes either way.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

gooseisgone
Tacos!
KDMichigan
Ed-NavDoc
Sunshine
lady in black
pat wilson
livefreeordie
Sparty On
Snuffy

Old Hermit
Ronin2
Dulay


46 visitors