Gay Rights

I want to answer your question but I'm just really unsure on whether or not I believe in a God. I probably lean more on the atheist side? I just find it really hard to believe in God.

Also, why does this question matter so much to you? Can't I have a civil discussion without having to tell you every detail about what I believe?

Whatever.

I'm not really implying that the person is leaving religion. I'm referring to people who aren't convinced by you. To them, they see you as basically shouting in their face telling them they are living a lie.

I actually wanted to say that I don't want to be crapping on peoples' beliefs. Didn't mean it explicitly about you.

Go ahead and challenge them. Like I said, there's a time and place for everything.

Great then.

I would have assumed that since it's a higher ranked school full of very smart people, then a lot of the arguments against Christianity would have been more valid.

And I'm not disagreeing with you on this. In fact, you're right. People use their religion to justify heinous acts.

Fine. There you go. This is all you had to say.




You know, in the end, I think the only problem I have here with your statements is how you seek to try to change people so much. I've been agreeing with much or your point of views, but I just haven't been agreeing with how you presented them. My main concern is good religious people who just want to live their lives and follow their beliefs. I guess you can call me a sympathizer, because I just don't see the point in starting arguments with them.

 

You're really missing out by ignoring me.

 

@Skaros123 - I want to answer your question but I'm just really unsure on whether or not I believe in a God. I probably lean more on the atheist side? I just find it really hard to believe in God.

Okay. You either believe, or you do not believe. You are a Theist, or an Atheist. Those are the only two options. If you have the capacity for belief (which you do) then there is no middle ground. This is part of the foundations of logic, 'The Logical Absolutes'.

The Logical Absolutes:
Identity: A = A (A thing is whatever it is)
Non-Contradiciton: A != !A (A thing isn't what it isn't)
Excluded Middle: Everything is A or !A



Also, why does this question matter so much to you?

Because it's rare that I get the run-around like this. It's much easier for me to tackle your positions when I know where you're coming from. I'm baffled as to why this is a problem, to describe where you believe.

Can't I have a civil discussion...

This has been, no? Please point to where this discussion hasn't been civil, or where I've threatened not to be.

...without having to tell you every detail about what I believe?

*every detail*? Skaros, stop. Asking 'whether you believe in a god' is a fundamental question, and is relevant to our discussion. It is not anywhere close to asking for 'every detail' of what you believe. Please stop using hyperbole to exaggerate my position, to make it seem more unreasonable. You've done this every post for the past few posts. Please don't.

Whatever.

What sort of response is this? I want to know what you think of what I've said.

If you presented a series of arguments that I agreed with, or couldn't refute, I'd concede the point. Or maybe, even the discussion. I wouldn't passive-aggressively brush you off because I don't have a 'comeback'.

Do you agree with my criticisms of your example, or not? If so, do you concede that your example was poor? If not, why not? If so, do you agree that we should challenge religious beliefs? If STILL not, why not?

I'm not really implying that the person is leaving religion. I'm referring to people who aren't convinced by you. To them, they see you as basically shouting in their face telling them they are living a lie.

No matter how calm, polite and reasonable I try to be, there will almost certainly be a minority of people that see me as hostile and aggressive. I can come to terms with that, though I am always trying to get better. And this seems to be what's happening here. I have been nothing but polite, yet firm in my opposition to your ideas. Yet I feel like I'm being painted as an intolerant unreasonable bigot. And, when I ask you to provide examples, I don't get any. I need reasons and evidence, to change my mind. Citing a minority of easily butthurt religious folk is not (and should not) deter me from engaging with people.

If you think my tone could be better, give me constructive criticism. From the way I see it, those that can't take criticism of their beliefs without turning hostile is more of 'their problem' than mine. Though I do what I can to keep it civil.

Do you seriously want to live in a world where your beliefs and others are shielded from criticism, because it hurts? Stubbornly stagnating in your beliefs because criticism makes you uncomfortable? I'm sorry, but that's not how a free society works. How else would we improve the world, and change minds? What about the free-exchange of ideas? What about diplomacy? Conversation is all we have.

I actually wanted to say that I don't want to be crapping on peoples' beliefs. Didn't mean it explicitly about you.

So if you don't think I'm crapping on people's beliefs, and you don't think I do crap on people's beliefs, what did that have to do with our discussion? Nevermind. Let's move on.

Go ahead and challenge them. Like I said, there's a time and place for everything.

I'm trying to, right this minute. With disappointing results.

I would have assumed that since it's a higher ranked school full of very smart people, then a lot of the arguments against Christianity would have been more valid.

I've already addressed why your example was poor.

Just because they were an a high-ranked school, doesn't make their criticism automatically valid or likely valid. You only need to look as far as the battle for free speech in current universities to see that. Just because smart people want 'safe spaces', doesn't make it a good or likely good idea, on the basis of their intelligence.

And I'm not disagreeing with you on this. In fact, you're right. People use their religion to justify heinous acts.

No, it's more than that. It's not just that they use it, to justify their heinous acts. Religion is responsible for them. Heinous acts are motivated by certain religions. Influenced. As if to say, that if they wern't religious, they would not have committed the attacks in the first place. I'd love a single example of the counter for Atheism. One case where their violence was contingent on Atheism.

You know, in the end, I think the only problem I have here with your statements is how you seek to try to change people so much.

I've already explained that I'm interested in converging on good ideas. If that involves me changing my mind, that's great! But I need reasons to do so. I need to press people on why they think I'm wrong, so that I can change my mind for good reasons.

I mean... how else should I be going about this conversation? I have addressed every single point that you've made. Spent a long time correcting grammar and spelling mistakes. Refrained from personal attacks or snidey jabs. Constantly pushed for answers, asking questions. Done so in a civil, cordial manner, even when my views are being somewhat distorted. I don't know what else I can do.

No doubt that my posts are far from perfect, but I don't see you critising other posters for the way the converse with others. In fact, this is the first time I've ever seen you criticise someone for the style in which they write. Why me? Am I really the worst/stand-out offender? Regardless, I need some examples. I keep asking you for some, and it gets glossed over every time.

1) JP, you act in *THIS* way, and I think it's wrong.

2) It's wrong, because X, Y, Z.

3) Here are some examples of you acting in *THIS* way.

^THAT^ is how you constructively criticise. I've seen 1), but barely any of 2) and none of 3).

I've been agreeing with much or your point of views, but I just haven't been agreeing with how you presented them.

So, you essentially want to tone-police? I wouldn't have a huge problem with that, but where have I presented my arguments sub-optimally? Why arn't you addressing what I've said, rather than the way I'm saying it? I keep pushing you to provide examples of where you think I'm making mistakes, but I'm not getting much to work with here. Give me something.

My main concern is good religious people who just want to live their lives and follow their beliefs. I guess you can call me a sympathizer, because I just don't see the point in starting arguments with them.

I've already addressed why I care so much, and why I think you should too.

"Not only that, but these religious beliefs do not live in a vacuum...Your belief in a god impacts your decision making all the time, even on a subconscious level. It affects the way we vote, the way we treat and look at others, and how we spend our free-time... It's not just 'I believe in a god, it makes me happy, let bygones be bygones.' If it was like that? IF people kept their religion to themselves? We would never be having this discussion."

Would you think the same about peaceful racists, Nazis or radical Muslims? Would you just want them to "live their lives and follow *their* beliefs". Some beliefs are not inconsequential to other people. (Christianity isn't on the same scale as those 3, but this should do the trick to hopefully allow you to see where I'm coming from.)

We make decisions in accordance with our beliefs. Our beliefs influence our actions. Our actions have consequences.

^THAT^ is all you need to accept, to see why superstitious unscientific beliefs can be dangerous to yourself and those around you.

Do you know why I'm so strident? Because religion *doesn't* let other people live their lives. It interferes with public affairs on a daily basis. Education, politics, even how you treat your fellow man. Until it doesn't, then I feel like I have a moral obligation to oppose it. I'm genuinely sorry and disappointed that you don't seem to care about the role that Christianity plays in daily suffering. I do.

I'd like to invoke Hitchens here, as my sentiments echo his to a tee. When asked, "If there is no god, why do you spend your life and career trying to refute that? Why not leave it alone and stay at home?" he said:

"...So when I say as the subtitle of my book -- that I think that religion poisons *everything* -- I'm not just doing what publishers like and coming up with a provocative subtitle. I mean to say, it infects us, in our most basic integrity. It says, we can't be moral without big brother, without a totalitarian permission. It means that we can't be good to one another, it means we must be afraid. We must also be forced love someone who we fear. The essence of sadomasochism. The essence of abjection. The essence the master-slave relationship. That knows death is coming and can't wait to bring it on. I say this is evil, and though I do some nights stay at home. I enjoy more the nights when I go out and fight against this ultimate wickedness and ultimate stupidity. Thank you."

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 20, 2015, Original Post Date: Dec 20, 2015 ---

You can be a non-religious Theist. Deists and Pantheists are two such examples.

Atheists often have many beliefs regarding religion.

Not to mention are Atheistic Buddhists. Not every religion requires the belief in a deity.

Clearly, I'm not missing out on much.

Ahhh heck, I'll address the straw-man while I've 'un-ignored' posts on this page. (regarding Craig Hicks).

If you got your information from reliable news sources (and not blogs, as you're infamous for citing) then you'll know that his actions were over a car-parking dispute.

Regardless, Atheism had nothing to do with the shooting. This is illustrated with the following example.

Mike is a neighbour to Becky and John. They vote Republican, while he doesn't. One could say, that they are 'Republicanists' and that he is an 'Arepublicanist'. His lack of 'voting for a Republican' isn't a religion or an ideology. It's just a simple stance to a single question -- Do you vote for the Republican party?

Mike hates 'Republicanists'. He even posts about it incessantly on Facebook. One day, he decides to go next door and shoot Becky and John, because the Republican party annoys him so much. Is... "Arepublicanism" responsible? Is there anything about "Arepublicanism" that orders/commands for the killing of Republicanists? No. This is clearly a case of mental health and anger management. There is no causal link from "Arepublicanism" to his murderous actions, because it's just a simple 'No' to a single question. "Arepublicanism" has no beliefs rules or tenets, it's just a label for those that don't vote Republican.

Replace "Republicanist" for "Theist" and "Arepublicanist" for Atheist, and you've got your answer.

You sound like a crazy soccer mom. What next? Are you going to show cases of where people that play video games, kill those that don't, then link the two in some way? You have to show causality. Atheism does not promote violence or murder. At all. Christianity, does. Which is why Skaros and I are having this conversation to begin with. Again, just because Hitler was a Catholic, doesn't mean that Catholicism was responsible. S'all about dat causality.

 

Holy jeebus this is a long post.

Why do I have to either believe or not believe in a God? Can I just be unsure? Just call me an agnostic atheist. It will be so much easier for you.

I think this discussion just keeps circling back to the same points. Religion is responsible for a lot of bad things throughout history. You are right about that.

My question to you is how do you seek to change this? How do you seek to make a difference about such a pressing issue? Is your plan to just debate with people one by one hoping some of them are convinced? Do you plan on gaining influence and spreading your message so that a larger audience can see it and understand your own point of view? The way I see religion, it's a tricky issue that is very hard to fix.

There are Christians who are about as staunch in their beliefs as you are to yours. They believe you've been brainwashed into rejecting an almighty god the same way you believe they've been living a lie their whole time. Colliding such forces and expecting a reasonable response just seems like a crap sandwich to me. Is there any point in trying to convince people otherwise? If so, do we expect it to be more beneficial or damaging?

Typically, people would try making the "what if you're wrong" argument, but I think we're passed that point. I think you know how to defend your beliefs and show inconsistencies in religion and religious practices. You don't have to be on the defensive.

I think they're disappointing because I'm not challenging your beliefs on religion.

Okay yea, you're definitely right about that. +1

I just don't think that was a good parallel. Religion is a way of life. Anti-depressants are just what some people use to get through life. I understand the point you're trying to make, but I think it's basically just comparing apples to oranges.

Actually, it just seems like you're just really quick to jump into a debate with people who don't share the same beliefs as you. I agree with you on several points... but to religious people, it would feel like you're attacking them. I know you have good intentions. I know you want a civil discussion. But from a third party point of view... I just see more hostility. I'm not trying to "tone-police" you. I just think you're trying a little too hard to get your points across.

But you know what? I think I've just been misinterpreting what you're trying to do. I can probably concede if you just answer a few of those previous questions.

 

I think I see where the confusion here is coming from. The debatheist is correct in saying that you either believe or your don't. However, there are two levels of not believing, which are: not believing (uncertainty), and disbelieving (as in an actual belief that, in this case God, doesn't exist).

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 20, 2015, Original Post Date: Dec 20, 2015 ---

If anything, modern Christianity (as in, the version that matters, cuz, you know, it's now) promotes peaceful actions and love.

One could argue that it was, because a big driving force behind his actions was his belief that he was some sort of messiah, and that it was his god-given duty. It's the sort of causality that doesn't come directly from the religion, but instead comes holding religious beliefs.

For instance, the killings in Russia (When the government considered religion dangerous), were done in the pursuit of an atheistic society, and therefore were done in the name of propagating atheism. This is also the reason that religions call their followers to violence.

Now, of course, as we look at our world today, we don't see all that many people doing anything in the name of the furtherance of atheism. What we see is certain religions (mostly Islam) among other things, causing deaths and tragedy all over. Which is not O.K. So the problem we must consider, then, is religion. That doesn't mean that people aren't able, and haven't, committed acts of violence in the name of atheism.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 20, 2015 ---

True.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 20, 2015 ---

. In addition, the League of Militant Atheists sometimes took a violent approach to those who would not accept the League's message. For example, "bishops, priests, and lay believers" were "arrested, shot, and sent to labour camps."[25]
From wikipedia.

Or is it? Dun dun DUN!!!

Yes, because killing republicans (lol) is in furtherance of 'arepublicanism'. But this isn't quite like the theism/atheism dichotomy. We see, in general, a certain... hostility in atheists towards religious people. I've noticed that many atheists (esp. on the internet, cuz internet) regard religious people, and their beliefs particularly, as inferior and stupid (not without reason). This is generally what spurs them to do whatever it is they do, be it debate, argue, yell at, or attack. One could liken it to Nationalism, where you believe your own country (position on religion) is superior to all others (other people's position on religion). Nationalism breeds the same sort of hostility, though it is admittedly a lot more intense.

Duh. It has no doctrines. but, like I've said before, it caused him to kill in it's furtherance. For instance, If I am a member of... idk. we'll call it the Bros that Chill at the Beach, and the Bros that Chill at the Beach don't believe in skateboarding, that is, they think skateboards are a negative impact on society (the belief of the people, not the actual organization), and this belief causes me to go throw a skateboarder off a cliff, which breaks his neck, then I have been caused by my lack of belief in skateboards to kill a skateboarder due to the hostility felt by my peers who hold the same position.

Now, we don't see this hostility in all atheists. I'd argue that you and I are relatively calm about it. But if you go on youtube and look at people like The Armoured Skeptic, Logicked, Creationist Cat (lol, his entire channel is devoted to mocking Christianity), The Drunken Peasants, and so many more, you see the disdain they have for religious people, and the more religious the person, the more disdain they have.

We now have a set of beliefs that a majority, if not all, atheists share. Not a cause of a doctrine of atheism, but of the lack of belief vs religious believers. As with the debate about whether Islam is a religion of peace, and as with the position you hold with Christianity (this seems to me to be your position, but if it isn't, feel free to correct me), that it does, actually, promote violence, what matters most is the actions of the followers. Even if a religion was as hateful and violent as conceivably possible, if the followers don't commit acts of violence, then it isn't a religion of violence. And as we see with Muslims, no matter how the 'good' ones twist and argue, they cannot deny that followers of Islam commit more acts of terrorism in the quest to further their religion than the followers of any other religion.
"As an ideology in the 20th century, only Communism, with its murder and mass killings, is responsible for more deaths and violence than is Islam." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence#Islam

To summarize (Tlr), killings in the name of the furtherance of atheism are akin to religious killings. A majority of atheists regard religious beliefs as inferior, detrimental, and overall bad. It's the actions of the followers that matter most, not the doctrines.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 20, 2015 ---

 

@Skaros123 - Why do I have to either believe or not believe in a God?

Because you have the capacity for belief. Do you accept the 3rd Logical Absolute? That something is either 'A' or it is 'Not A'. Everything in the world can be split into this simple dichotomy.

This isn't a choice between, "You either believe in a god" or "You believe in no gods". That is not a true dichotomy, as they are not direct logical negations of one another. Either "You believe in a god" or "You do not believe in a god" are logical negations. If you can believe, you have to fall into one of the two.

Can I just be unsure?

You're unsure about what you believe? Bear in mind, we're not talking about what you know. If you're unsure about whether a god exists, then (typically) you do not believe one exists. Again, this is not the same as saying that you believe one does not exist. Those are 2 different claims. (Much like not-guilty and innocent)

Just call me an agnostic atheist. It will be so much easier for you.

So you lack belief in a god, but you don't claim to know that 'no gods exist'? That sounds fine.

I think this discussion just keeps circling back to the same points. Religion is responsible for a lot of bad things throughout history. You are right about that.

You keep bringing up harm done by Atheists as if the two are comparable, when they arn't. I've given multiple examples, explained myself as much as possible (as you eluded to), yet I still see opposition to this 'point'. You still seem to think that Christianity is no more to blame for the harm done in the world by Christians, than Atheism is by Atheists. I want to know where you disagree with my arguments above, if you still disagree with me. What bits didn't you "get"? Or thought were flawed? What about my Hitler --> Catholicism example?

My question to you is how do you seek to change this? How do you seek to make a difference about such a pressing issue?

Civil discourse. Force as a last resort in almost every case.

Is your plan to just debate with people one by one hoping some of them are convinced?

How else do you think I should convince people? If you have another better method for me to propagate good ideas, then I'm all ears. But so far as I see it, engaging in peaceful discussions where we challenge one anothers beliefs is the best thing we have to destroy false and harmful ideas.

Do you plan on gaining influence and spreading your message so that a larger audience can see it and understand your own point of view?

I have aspirations of doing that on YouTube one day, sure. Though that seems pretty unlikely.

The way I see religion, it's a tricky issue that is very hard to fix.

Eh, the methods arn't hard, though the process will be. It's hard to shake brain-washing, for sure.

There are Christians who are about as staunch in their beliefs as you are to yours. They believe you've been brainwashed into rejecting an almighty god the same way you believe they've been living a lie their whole time.

Cool beans. Then let's talk about that. I'd invite the Christian to explain why they think this. To give reasons. To, by definition, be reasonable with me. (Even a simple question like, "What do you actually think 'brain-washing' is, and could you give me some examples of 'Atheistic' brainwashing?" should give us a good idea of how reasonable they are.)

Colliding such forces and expecting a reasonable response just seems like a crap sandwich to me.

Tell that to the millions of Christians that have been reasoned out of their beliefs. Heck, even non-religious issues can be heated at times. Yet minds change over time.

You know of the extremist-Christian 'Westboro Baptist Church', right? Fred Phelps? That old bigoted curmudgeon that passed away fairly recently? The indoctrination in this group is incredible. From birth, they are fed some horrendous ideas. Forced to picket funerals. I'm sure you know the basics.

Yet, the grand-daughter of Fred (Megan) was able to reason herself out of this 'cult'. And mostly because an Atheist decided to challenge what she believed via Twitter.



Wonderful discussion. Insightful af. Worth a listen. If Megan can be reasoned with, I don't see why a majority of other Christians can't be, too.

Is there any point in trying to convince people otherwise? If so, do we expect it to be more beneficial or damaging?

Yes. Clearly, if you just look at the sheers numbers of deconverts in recent times. Beneficial, so long as go about it in the right way. We have to do all we can to keep discussions productive. Refraining from personal attacks, straw-manning the people we're talking to, remaining fair and objective, having a desire to find the truth rather than just propagating what we believe as fact, always being open to the evidence, seeing 'being wrong' as an opportunity to better ourselves instead of a chance to humiliate the ignorant. There are many things we can do to make these conversations beneficial.

Typically, people would try making the "what if you're wrong" argument, but I think we're passed that point.

That would be a version of Pascal's Wager. Something that's been debunked for decades.



I think you know how to defend your beliefs and show inconsistencies in religion and religious practices. You don't have to be on the defensive.

Bar the "[Deconverts] don't have to feel their whole life was a lie and that there is nothing left to live for.", where else did I get defensive?

I think they're disappointing because I'm not challenging your beliefs on religion.

By all means, go ahead. The floor is yours. What do you want to know?

I just don't think that was a good parallel. Religion is a way of life. Anti-depressants are just what some people use to get through life. I understand the point you're trying to make, but I think it's basically just comparing apples to oranges.

Sounds a tincy bit like the 'Special pleading' fallacy. You've just said that my analogy doesn't apply because the situations are different. Of course they are, but I still need to know *why* the analogy doesn't apply.

Instead of using secular, true alternatives to deal with suffering, that have little to no negative side effects...

You choose to defend non-secular, untrue methods to deal with suffering, that do have negative side effects.

All under the guise of, "Well, but they do *some* good.". Why should we prefer the second one?

I mean, so does China's punishing, inhumane labor policies. But I don't defend their practices just because it's contributed heavily to them currently being the greatest world power.

Actually, it just seems like you're just really quick to jump into a debate with people who don't share the same beliefs as you.

Isn't that redundant? I can't debate with people that I already agree with, right? I'm not playing devil's advocate either, and I only try to get involved in consequential issues.

I agree with you on several points... but to religious people, it would feel like you're attacking them. I know you have good intentions. I know you want a civil discussion. But from a third party point of view... I just see more hostility. I'm not trying to "tone-police" you. I just think you're trying a little too hard to get your points across.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but you are by definition unjustified to make that claim until you give justification. Until I have examples? Until you can prove to me where I'll be seen as "attacking them" and 'being hostile', then... what else can I do? What does "trying too hard" even mean, anyway? Why is trying hard a bad thing?

This is how I feel like the conversation is going:

You - "Hey, JP mate. I know you might not think so, but to a lot of other people here? You sound incredibly childish. Now... I don't think that, no no no. But I think other people will, and I think you need to tone it back a little."

Me - "Okay. Well, to change undesired behaviour, I need to know which bits I need to change. Can you point me to some examples?"

You - "Look, I know you mean well, and I know you don't think that you're out of line. But from a third party PoV, you just seem like a petulant kid. Please, just have a think about it."

Me - "Skaros. I need proof! I need evidence. I have no idea what you're referring to. If you can't give me examples, how do I know which bits to change? How do I even know that your criticism is valid, if you want even point to the things that you're criticising?"

That's how I feel this conversation is going (swap childish for impolite).

If the Dalai Lama came into this thread, and people saw his criticism of their beliefs as 'attacking them', then that is *their* problem. I will do my utmost to explain that I'm addressing ideas and not people, but I don't think I should be held responsible for the flaws in others. In this case, those that are easily butthurt, and can't take criticism.

 

Isn't this just an over-complicated version of "No, you can't be unsure. You're only certain of A or B." Which by itself is just untrue... one can be unsure.

Well, then I'm unsure of whether one exists. Agnostic is just the best way for me to describe my beliefs... Call it whatever you want.

Close... I consider the possibility of God existing but don't allow that chance to interfere with my life. I base my daily actions based on my own understanding of logic and morals and not out of fear of some deity. The only reason I don't call myself an atheist is because I'm not 100% sure that there is no god. The fact that I consider the possibility of a god existing means I'm agnostic.

It just seems to be that human nature also has some blame in horrible acts by people, religious or not. I just think one can't completely blame religion for terrible acts because religion isn't the only factor.

Okay then.

Well great then. Debate away!

To be quite honest, there's many atheist YouTubers that I listen to daily. You might not make it big, but you can at least get your message across concisely and open to the public. I'd say go for it.

Well, if you're up for that kind of deep conversation, then sure why not.

Interesting. I knew one of the children left the church, but I didn't know he/she became an atheist.

Then perhaps I just underestimated you. I see several people being jerks to Christians just because they believe. I can see you're nothing like them.

It's a rather vague comparison. The reason I'm reluctant to accept it is because a vague comparison like that can be used in many ways. It may just be a personal preference, but I like a more direct parallel.

Okay, I probably can't find any good examples of what I'm referring to. I based my assumption more on observations rather than concrete evidence. That said, I guess I concede at this point? We've pretty much exhausted this discussion and I think you've gotten your points across. In fact, I'll say I learned a thing or two. I can't say I'll be more critical of anyone, but you have talked about only accepting things that can withstand being challenged-- something that I've always believed in. That's the part where I guess I can't argue with.

 

Isn't this just an over-complicated version of "No, you can't be unsure. You're only certain of A or B." Which by itself is just untrue... one can be unsure.

"A or B" is a false dichotomy, unless B is a direct logical negation of A. Most times, it's not.

We're not talking about certainty or knowledge, we're just talking about belief.

A quick example. I have a jar of gumballs on my desk. (assume that there *are* gumballs in the jar, and this is not a trick question.)

You would agree that the number of gumballs is either odd, or even, correct? It HAS to be one of those two options.

If I asked you, "Skaros. Do you believe that the number of gumballs in the jar is Odd?" then (assuming you're being sensible), you'd refuse to accept this claim. You do not believe it, because you know nothing about it. You have absolutely no evidence that the number of gumballs is Odd, therefore, you do not accept the claim.

"Ahah!" I might exclaim. "So you believe the number of gumballs is Even?". Again, you refuse to accept this claim. For the same reasons as before. You have no evidence, so you have no reason to believe that it's Even.

"But... you either believe that it's Odd or Even, surely?". 'Nopes', you should reply. 'Because that is not a true dichotomy regarding belief. I either believe that the number of gumballs is Odd, or I do not believe that the number of gumballs is Odd. So, I accept the latter, because I have no evidence that the number of gumballs is Odd. The same goes for even. Just because I don't believe that it's Odd, doesn't mean that I believe it's Even. I can be unconvinced of both.'

Likewise, for a god. Either a god exists, or it does not exist. Those are the only two options. But regarding belief, then you either believe, or you do not believe. I'm not convinced that there is a god, and I'm not convinced that there are no gods. So when I'm asked, "Do you believe in a god?" then the answer is no. The same goes for, "Do you believe there are no gods?".

However, Atheism is not the belief in no gods, while Theism is the believe in some. There's a lot of understandable confusion about these labels. Simply, Atheism is the rejection of Theism. Not the assertion of the contrary.

This might be a little tough to explain thoroughly over text. It's not an easy topic to get through. I urge you to take a look at the video I posted earlier regarding 'The Logical Absolutes'. Start at about 1:44. It's good stuff.

Well, then I'm unsure of whether one exists. Agnostic is just the best way for me to describe my beliefs... Call it whatever you want.

"Agnostic" is an adjective. It simply means, to not know, or 'not claiming to know'. There are agnostic-Theists and agnostic-Atheists, which is why I might seem so 'picky'.

Close... I consider the possibility of God existing but don't allow that chance to interfere with my life.

That sounds like exactly what I believe. #confused #I'vejustreadonwards #excitedforclarity

I base my daily actions based on my own understanding of logic and morals and not out of fear of some deity. The only reason I don't call myself an atheist is because I'm not 100% sure that there is no god.

Atheists are not people that say they're 100% sure there is no god. I really wish we could have a real-time conversation about this, to clear much of this up. I feel like we'd get through much more, much quicker (and with less confusion).

An Atheist is simply someone that does not believe. Non-belief does not mean 'Belief in the contrary'. Let's "get real" for a second.

In a court room, you vote Guilty or Not-Guilty, right? A true, beautiful, sexy dichotomy. Even though the defendant is either Guilty or Innocent. Why do we do this?

Similar to our gumball analogy, "Believing that an individual is guilty" and "Believing that an individual is innocent" are not the only 2 belief positions. That would be a false dichotomy. You either believe that the individual is guilty, or you do not believe the individual is guilty (which covers those that are unsure!).

To vote "Not-Guilty", we don't have to be convinced that they're innocent. If you're unsure, you vote Not-Guilty, because our criminal justice system works on a principle of only convicting those we are incredibly sure are guilty. (as to avoid false convictions)

If you think the defendant is innocent, or you're unsure, you vote not-guilty.

So, if you believe no gods exists (gnostic-Atheism), or you don't know whether any gods exist (agnostic-Atheism), you're still an Atheist. Rejecting a belief in a god does not mean that you believe that no gods exist.

The fact that I consider the possibility of a god existing means I'm agnostic.

There is an extremely interesting discussion regarding "possibility", here. But, I think that's probably for another day.

It just seems to be that human nature also has some blame in horrible acts by people, religious or not. I just think one can't completely blame religion for terrible acts because religion isn't the only factor.

I completely agree. I know that it might not be the most exciting thing in the world, but have a quick re-read of my positions again, where possible. I'm almost certain that you've not been intentionally misrepresenting me, when you've done so. All I want to do is hold religions (and any ideology) accountable for the harm they cause. That's it. I don't want to hold Catholicism accountable for the crimes of Hitler, even though he was a Catholic. Only for the suffering that they directly cause.

To be quite honest, there's many atheist YouTubers that I listen to daily. You might not make it big, but you can at least get your message across concisely and open to the public. I'd say go for it.

Hence, "unlikely". I'd need to know what I could offer that is different to everyone else. Fill a hole (gigitty) in the market, so to speak.

Interesting. I knew one of the children left the church, but I didn't know he/she became an atheist.

She's very much like you, in that regard. She claims she's "teetering" on the edge, but she's all but left the homophobic and bigoted beliefs behind her. Truly inspirational.

Then perhaps I just underestimated you. I see several people being jerks to Christians just because they believe. I can see you're nothing like them.

At the risk of shooting myself in the foot, I do still think that some of their beliefs are incredibly silly. Though that's the key-word, 'beliefs'. Not people. Would I ever tell them that I think their beliefs are silly, unless they directly asked? No, of course not. Gotta keep conversations productive where possible. Insults don't do that.

It's a rather vague comparison. The reason I'm reluctant to accept it is because a vague comparison like that can be used in many ways. It may just be a personal preference, but I like a more direct parallel.

I still need to know why the analogy doesn't apply though. Imagine how many people could wriggle out of arguments by claiming any analogy is just a "vague comparison". I don't accuse you of wriggling, at all. Just that, the above statement alone is not enough to refute my analogy, even if it is utter garbage (which it might well be!).

How about this:

"Instead of using secular, true alternatives to deal with suffering, that have little to no negative side effects...

You choose to defend non-secular, untrue methods to deal with suffering, that do have negative side effects.

All under the guise of, "Well, but they do *some* good.". Why should we prefer the second one?

I mean, so does China's punishing, inhumane labor policies. But I don't defend their practices just because it's contributed heavily to them currently being the greatest world power."

Does that not do anything for you? If not, why not?

Okay, I probably can't find any good examples of what I'm referring to. I based my assumption more on observations rather than concrete evidence.

Observations of others, I'm guessing? I mean, if you observe me 'getting out of line' in the future, please don't hesitate to let me know. I desire constructive criticism.

We've pretty much exhausted this discussion

I still feel like the crux of the problem hasn't been fully addressed, but it's by far the most civil and productive conversation I've had on here. Willing to call an end to it, if only to allow you to do something better with your time.

but you have talked about only accepting things that can withstand being challenged-- something that I've always believed in. That's the part where I guess I can't argue with.

And hey, if you change your mind, argue with me. I hope that this conversation has assuaged any niggling beliefs of an angry/annoying/arrogant internet Atheist jumping down your throat, trying to rip you a new one or trying to ridicule your beliefs. All I want is a peaceful discussion where we can converge on ideas. I don't care whose mouth they come from. It's only a waste of my time if no-one learns anything.

Whether I get another reply or not, thank you for yours. And a special thanks to the way you format your posts. Makes it much, much easier (and more enjoyable) to engage when it's presented well. Thank you.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 21, 2015, Original Post Date: Dec 21, 2015 ---

@Skaros123

 

Actually, he should reply yes, because we know that the only two options are odd or even. Therefore, the number of gumballs is either odd or even. Which means, in the case of a theistic claim, it is either true or false, and we know it's one of them.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 21, 2015, Original Post Date: Dec 21, 2015 ---

Actually, it can be both. Or either. That is, anyone who asserts that gods do not exist is an atheist, but so is someone who simply rejects the idea of gods without asserting that they don't exist.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 21, 2015 ---

...

 

No, he shouldn't, because you don't have to believe either claim. "I believe it is Odd" and "I believe it is Even" are not direct logical negations. One can believe neither. Do you not accept the logical absolutes?

Even though someone is Guilty or Innocent, we don't 'vote' this way in court for the exacts reasons I've explained. You can lack belief in both. Which is exactly why we vote "Guilty or Not-Guilty". (a true dichotomy)

I explained that in the very same post that you're critiquing.

[Insert claim of hypocrisy]

Let's expand the quote slightly.

"Gotta keep conversations productive where possible. Insults don't do that."

As my signature describes, I don't believe you are here to have productive conversations. You are a self-professed contrarian.

Sure, my mild insult was not cool, and it won't foster a productive conversation with you. But I don't desire to have one until your attitude changes.

 

Ah, never mind. I misinterpreted your analogy.

Then why are you conversing at all? I mean, isn't your whole thing: "If someone doesn't learn something, it was a waste of my time!"?

 

Nice goals.

Do consider it though.

Okay, I like this example better.

And thank you. Glad I have a better understanding of what you believe and what your goals are.

 

I love you so much. <3

 

Oh boy... here I am again on a controversial thread.
Homosexuality is something seen often in the animal kingdom. That fact alone is enough for me to fully support those who are LGBTQ+ and never show hate. While it does seem weird in certain perspectives for two humans to behave this way, it also seems weird that lions sometimes eat their young. The world is a strange place in general. It's all about perspective and culture. This concludes my opinion on the subject. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own.

 

when the gay rights thread is longer than forum game threads

 

This thread is so rediculous

 

Just like your spelling.
Boom roasted.

 

Warning-to everyone who disagrees
I am very liberal and I go to a church where gays are allowed. I think you can love who ever you want boy or girl. I believe that people can do what they want as long as it doesn't harm someone. You can't control what you feel.
Btw I am not gay I just believe in equal rights for all.

 

I believe that this is a very important topic nowadays, especially since it is now legal in the United States for a homosexual couple to marry. Overall I do not have anything against homosexual couples, my cousin is a lesbian so I have learned to be accepting. The one thing I do have an issue with though is the act that goes with this in the bedroom. I believe, on a moral and religious standpoint, that homosexual sex is wrong because in my eyes, sex is for procreation, not recreation.

 

So anyone that has sex while infertile is just as immoral as gays, right? Why did your god allow humans to be born infertile, while still 'creating' them with sexual desires? Sounds a bit douchey, no?

"I am God! I will create all of you with sexual desires so that you can procreate!

Oh, apart from... 1% of you that I want to be born asexual. Screw you guys.

But the rest of you shall be free to procreate! Oh and... another 5% of you I will create with homosexual desires. Not just humans, but all species all across the animal kingdom. It humours me.

But the other 94% are free to procreate! But... watch out for those nasty sexually transmitted diseases and infections. Yeah, I created them too. So, just be careful.

So, procreate! (with caution). One more thing though. I'm going to create some of you with the desire to have heterosexual sex, but you'll never be able to procreate! How funny is that? Infertility is going to be a 'thing' when I'm the ruler of the universe.

Ah, and just for laughs? When you silly little humans get too old to make babies, I'm still going to leave all of the desires to have sex, in each and every one of you! You're not allowed to act on those desires though. It offends me if you don't have sex for procreation. Just bottle it up and you'll be fine.

Mmk have funnnn!"

He sounds sadistic and illogical.

I hate to put this picture into your mind, but your parents are probably incredibly immoral too, by your standards. Women don't just turn into asexual hermits once they hit menopause. The sex scene is only continuing to grow for men and women over the age of 50.

Anal? Oral? Immoral too right?

Are you allowed to have fun while you're trying to make a baby? Or is this not allowed either?

TLR -- The moral compass that you have regarding sex would cause you to see almost everyone on the planet as immoral. In some form or another.