Religion
Related: About this forumThe burden of proof is on believers
There's been a lot of focus, and reframing the debate to focus on what atheists have to do, and what they believe, and what they have to prove. I just wanted to remind everyone where the burden lies, where it has always lain and where it always will. There has never been any proof put forward that has withstood a minimal amount of scrutiny.
Atheism is a rejection of the claim there is a divine being, not a declaration that there is none. All the favorite atheist boogymen have publicly stated that if there were one shred of evidence they would believe, but guess what?
So please, before we keep on with this trend of reframing debates, and resorting to personal attacks and tone policing, accept the burden of proof and either put up or shut up.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)that many in this group want to say that atheists believe things and that our "beliefs" are no different than a theist's beliefs. When, actually, the atheist is just the null hypothesis to the statement that there is a god. Most of us don't actively disbelieve that there is a god but just don't have the belief that there is one. Given proof, we would belief. But there is no proof. So we revert back to the null hypothesis.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)And personal backbiting.
By the way. Could it be that there is someone out there, actively encouraging serious discussions to descend into semantic quibbles, and especially private egotistical arguments and contests?
Does it work to the advantage of some particular party? One that does not have a convincing intellectual case to present?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)slag believers who DO gather together in numbers, pool together millions, and lobby on social issues from a wildly regressive viewpoint.
Equivocation, deflection, 'oh look, onesie-twosie example doctor groups of unknown religious faith also oppose physician assisted suicide' 'oh look, here's a donor that didn't make the top 6 that isn't catholic', etc, that kind of behavior is going to set it up for an argument in which we are going to cut right to the heart of the imaginary nature of the source of, in this example, catholic doctrine.
Not when the pride and core of the opposition is a lock-step identifiable religious org, and the donor disclosures clearly show it.
If people can stop playing games, then hey, doesn't need to be a fight.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Progressive because of, or in spite of, their faith, whichever.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If not, then no.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It seems to be making the rounds.
What happened to "scare quotes"?
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)That objection furthermore, seemed to have some influence with juries, etc.?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)And if you link to an article I posted about African Americans and their religious/spiritual diversity, all hope is lost.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Thanks.
Response to cbayer (Reply #187)
Post removed
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and you are backing it up with a link to an article I posted about African-Americans and their diverse spirituality and religion.
You are so out of line and I have had it with your outlandish accusations. You make the rest of the gang look like a little tribe of Mary Poppins.
Anyway, this has absolutely nothing to do with your accusations that I attacked atheists about their tone.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)It is a specific example of the danger of someone (not necessarily you) giving a general or blanket endorsement of "religion," say. But that would mean glossing over - or even inadvertently endorsing - the bad things in it too.
In this case, appearing to support African Religion, sponsoring a link to it, leads to some unsettling ramifications.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Really? And you are saying that by posting an article about AA's and their religion, I am giving a blanket endorsement of genocide.
I'm done with you bg. I'm not going to put you on ignore, because I am going to start alerting on you when you accuse me of things like supporting genocide. But I'm not going to respond to you at all.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)My language I think has been circumspect; there are no over-the-top or gratuitous insults or language. I am simply noting the logical implications of your often uncritical endorsement of many things. Which ends up (inadvertently?) endorsing the good ... and the bad.
As a person who has worked all my life for Civil Rights, of course I intend no insult to minority Americans. Though I would urge them not to uncritically accept African religions, to be sure.
It is possible to have reservations about African religions. The same as it is possible to have reservations about Christianity too. Reservations which are regularly allowed in the DU Religion section. There have been many, many references here to Christians killing thousands, in the Crusades, for example. While recent African genocides were a matter for recent press, in Rwanda for example.
Can we on DU talk about things that are documented in history, and the news? Or not?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
pinto
(106,886 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)I've been accused of many things, and they are often "backed up" by twisted and bogus logic.
But this one is just completely out there.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Correcting sloppy broadbrushing is far from tone policing.
This is a discussion board which values facts that are accurate. Don't be surprised at the reaction when they're not.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)and herp derp, we're off to the races...
rug
(82,333 posts)There is so much about religion, republicans, frauds, capitalists, corporations, et cetera, that is wrong that half the time all that needs to be done is to recite a factual list. Overreaching always leads to failure in politics. I find the same to be true in rhetoric.
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about tone, it's content.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)individual. If they are representing some larger group, I think it's my right to know that.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)If you wish to have a private discussion, you should probably try PM or e-mail.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You are free to jump in, but I don't know why you would imagine my post should have been tailored to you.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)So who are you speaking for?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)If you felt that it wasn't addressed to you, why did you respond?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Just trying to figure out what you mean.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)If they are trying to use the legal system or the goverment to enact change yes there is a burden.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Thank you.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)I guess there is a burden of proof on someone who says they know for a fact that there is a god, but I don't see a lot of that going on, especially not here.
If they say they believe there is a god, base belief on faith and have no hard evidence, there is no burden of proof. They haven't made a factual claim.
The burden lies on those who insist they know the truth, be they believers or non-believers. A straight up atheist doesn't make that claim, thought there are non-believers that do.
What do you see here that made you post this? Who is it you are telling to put up or shut up?
Phlem
(6,323 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)and not aim this particularly dull weapon at fellow democrats and progressives.
Sorry this is not a "Christian" nation and I would say any political affiliation using religion as part of their platform are wielding very sharp weapons against everyone else who doesn't believe.
I've been around the religious people all of my life, K?
My Roman Catholic mother still says insane shit all the time with religion as the basis.
Why do you think atheists are getting so much play lately?
Also we should let "ALL" the Democrats and Progressives ( I don't know why you make the separation) not to point weapons at each other. Sadly that has not been what I have experienced here in DU since I joined and to date.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)In fact, it's getting less christian all the time. I am in total agreement about how the religious right is wielding a sharp weapon, which is why I said we should go after the real problem.
I'm glad to see other belief systems and non-believers get more recognition. The pendulum has clearly swung too far.
So let's work together as democrats/liberals/progressives and take it back.
BTW, division and rancor is what this party and this site are all about. But in the tend, we share the same platform for the most part.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You can't be outraged at the right wing for using religion to further their political agenda if you think it's just peachy when the left does.
That's a double standard.
rug
(82,333 posts)The power that allows it to use any source, from books, music, television, movies, schools, universities and religions to divide and to maintain power. Ideology is as much a political weapon as a drone.
You have it backwards again.
Fix The Stupid
(947 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)The economic reasons for that are patent.
In the Middle East, first ask what the economic issues are behind Gaza and you'll see how easily the religious fires are stoked to win partisans to either side of the issue.
In Myanmar, Buddhism, of all things, is being used to pursue a nationalist agenda against the Muslim minority there, just as Islam is used in other countries to solidify those states' power.
The list is really quite long.
Fix The Stupid
(947 posts)Just wondering what the economic reasons are in the US for religion to control women? Can you list a few off the top of your head?
As for Gaza, I think we are close to agreement on that one...I don't want to go all tin-foil nuttery on you, so that is all I will say on that...
rug
(82,333 posts)It maintains pay disparity.
It maintains divisions within the working class.
It ties people to their employers; the daily threat of being fired at will is far greater terrorism than shoe bombers.
It's really just another way of asking who benefits from sexism. Then ask the same of nationalism, racism and the other ideological isms.
Religion certainly plays a role but I rarely find it to be at the top of the causes of inequality and exploitation.
edhopper
(33,547 posts)that claimed agnostics shift the burden of proof on atheists.
So this is being said, n'est-ce pas?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Was i not clear?
Anyway, I think the author was submitting a hypothesis, not a claim.
edhopper
(33,547 posts)just seemed weird you would ask why this thread was posted when it as obviously in reaction to an active one you are part of.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)That's not unusual for me though.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)I guess the title confused people?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)One has to be very careful. It's not just the christians that have created a sect of victims.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)And I do want there to be a next time. Turns out I like writing out an entire post of my own rather than just posting an article with a few comments.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I have neither the aptitude nor the interest in that.
I hope you weren't criticizing my posting of articles. I enjoy doing that. Do you see it as a problem?
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)I post articles as well, as you know, and the next several things I post will probably be articles, too.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)is because of things like the Hobby Lobby decision. Or the anti-abortion movement. Or any number of religious-based political positions.
The person who argues for their position based solely on what they think their god wants should be dismissed until they have proven A) their god exists, and B) wants the thing they are arguing for.
Does anyone disagree with this?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Many claim there is a god. There are even posters here claim as much. I don't believe you have no clue what this is addressing because you posted in a thread that was trying to put the onus on atheists. If you disagreed with that thread then why are you making a fuss in this one which you agree with?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Is there anyone here that insists that you believe? Who here needs to prove anything to you?
Ruh oh, double negative. Glad you believe I have a clue.
I'm not anti-atheist. That's a caricature that is paraded around because it fits an agenda.
I am, however, anti-anti-theist. It's important that that differentiation be made, otherwise you might misinterpret my criticism of certain individuals or individual positions incorrectly.
I am also anti-bully.
I guess the thread you are talking about is the one about agnostics putting the burden of proof on atheists. Interesting topic, but if you read my posts you will see that I didn't agree with it. If you take my mere participation there was some kind of sign of my anti-atheism, then you are just looking for what you want to see.
You seem like an intelligent person who feels passionately about some things. It's possible to do that without seeing this as a team sport.
Hint- I am not your enemy.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Last edited Sat Aug 2, 2014, 10:37 PM - Edit history (1)
Is there anyone here that insists that you believe? Who here needs to prove anything to you?
It is precisely that insistence that incurs the burden of proof.
I've seen arguments on the internet regarding the so-called "burden of proof" over an over again.
My general feeling is that the "burden of proof" is not something that can be imposed on anybody.
Rather, it is something that one imposes on himself or herself, by actively taking on that burden.
Discussions of the "burden of proof" on the internet generally amuse me somewhat, since as a mathematician I am used to people embracing the "burden of proof" in order to convince others of their beliefs.
Instead, on the internet, I see the "burden of proof" being tossed around like a hot potato that nobody wants to be stuck with.
Nobody wants to be left holding that hot potato when the timer goes off.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)In essence it says "I don't have to prove anything about my assertions. They are true until you provide proof that they are not. You, on the other hand, have 100% responsibility for proof, even if you say it is a belief based on faith".
It's one of a dozen or so frequently used arguments that have become rather dogmatic and no longer make much sense.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)just in the exact opposite. Shifting the burden is a common tactic of believers who are confronted with the fact that there is no there there. As I have said a couple times, the atheist side has provided evidence that there is no god, time after time, through out the centuries the priesthood has been pushed back on grounds that they claimed were proof of their god's work. Earthquakes, rainbows, harvests, all proven to not be divinely inspired.
Deflection is all these claims that believers have no burden when called to answer it.
btw, faith isn't belief without the requirement of evidence, it's believe without evidence. Subtle, yet notable difference there.
( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith dictionary definition for ya, I know you like to pull them out when it goes in your favor)
cbayer
(146,218 posts)If sure, what do you base that on.
What evidence has been provided that there is no god? There has indeed been evidence that certain concepts of god or attributes of a god were incorrect, but that doesn't prove anything about existence.
The only time someone has a burden of proof if is they are making a definitive claim, as you seem to be doing here. If one says they believe and that their belief is based on faith, there is nothing to prove.
You have been told this over and over in this thread, but somehow it's just not getting through.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make with the dictionary link. I agree with it and don't think I have used it in any other way.
BTW, everyone like to pull out dictionary references when it goes in their favor. Is this another fault you are pinning on me?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)When you clearly participated in a thread that tried to shift the burden away from the ones making a claim. I also wonder, if you pretty much agree with the statement in this thread, why you are so mean spirited posting here? Why do you declare everything posted here by those not "on your team" must be about people or issues here on DU? There are plenty of reasons to post stuff about religion, and it's negative impact, and how it should be criticized for the harm it brings without it directly relating to someone here.
I know it is a common trait for the religious to assume anything said about religion in general is directed at them personally, thus creating a privileged bubble where they are immune to any comments that might point out the flaws in their system.
You would do well to take your own advice and stop dividing this forum along your lines, and equivocating people who publicly disagree with religion with people who actually cause the death and suffering in the name of saving them. (not talking about any African related thread here either)
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The reason for that is because I read that thread differently than you did. Once it was pointed out to me, I did see the connection. That was days ago.
Mean spirited? You post an OP that ends with "Put up or shut up" and then call me mean spirited. Hilarious.
I'm not on a team. The only division I make in this group is between the anti-theists, a small and vocal group, and everyone else. I have a lot of great discussions with people who are highly critical of religion, but not with those who take the position that it should be eliminated or those that can't recognize any good about it or those that are hostile towards others just because they hold religious beliefs. Are you one of those people?
I guess I am a fatheist, like Chris Stedman. Or a religionist, like a man can be a feminist. You and others can call me anything you like. It makes no difference to me. I support religious people an institutions that are doing good things and believe that in doing that, the religious right gets further marginalized. BTW, if you paid attention you would see that I frequently post articles that expose the negatives about religion and articles that support good things done by people/groups who identify as non-believers.
stone space
(6,498 posts)I'm an atheist.
I claim that there is no God.
Now, I don't claim that I have a proof for my beliefs (or even a very good definition, but that's another matter), and I don't really seek to convince others of my beliefs in the non-existence of a God or Gods, so I don't think that I incur any so-called "burden of proof" simply for stating my beliefs.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)OTOH, if someone just claims a belief based on faith, that's not a claim of fact and requires no proof.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Sure, we can take it on faith they believe but there is no reason to take on faith that the thing they believe in is actually real.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)That's not what I said.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Last edited Sun Aug 3, 2014, 03:48 AM - Edit history (5)
As it turns out, the Bible itself finally began to say that even "Faith" itself has problems in it. So rather than relying on faith, finally the Bible told us to ask for material evidence, "proof" from believers and religious leaders, that they follow a real God:
"When Pharaoh says to you, 'prove yourself by working a miracle,' then you shall" (Ex. 7.8).
My reading of the Bible is this: the Bible criticized our holiest men like St. Peter, over and over (Mat. 16.23, etc.). Ultimately it told us that our holy men are unreliable. So that? We should not be following our religious leaders, or their idea of God, with such strong "faith." Instead, we should "test" them with science. To see if they are really from a powerful god or not; by asking them to prove it. Ask them to prove they are from God, by working giant physical miracles. (See 1 Kings 18.20-40; Dan. 1.4-15 KJE; 1 Thess. 5.21; 1 John 4.1 ff; Mal. 3.10; Deut. 18.20 ff; etc.).
To find out if your priest or minister are really from God, you should "ask" him (John 14.13 ff), to work a giant physical miracle. Before your eyes, "now."
And if your own minister can't work a giant timely physical miracle for you on request? If he can't work huge physical miracles, on demand? Then far from continuing to following him, instead you are supposed to simply deduce that he is a false, bad priest or minister. Rather than continuing to follow him and his idea of God, with total "faith," instead you are supposed to say something like this, to even your highest religious leaders, your bishops and popes and gurus and saints and apostles and Christs:
"Behold, you are nothing, and your work is nothing; an abomination is he who chooses you" (Isa. 41.24).
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)But I thought it deserved more than a 'so what' in response, because a belief without fact is meaningless to any other carbon unit that doesn't share that belief.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)So much so, that I think you should just leave the believer alone unless they are trying to impose it on you.
How about we try that?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)That's not what I am seeing here, but I might be missing it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Even the Bible finally gave up on "faith." And it told us to tell holy men to provide firm physical evidence for their claims. Or else? Call them false holy men. And an "abomination" (Isa. 41.21-24).
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Needed to set the record straight. Too much mud bing stirred up about this issue round these parts.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)it wouldn't matter what the other side believed and there would be no need for you to expect the other side to prove anything to you.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Take it out of the religious context:
People didn't "believe" in dark matter. Then astronomers provided evidence it exists. That caused most scientists to "believe" in dark matter.
Same thing with atheism. There is currently no evidence that a supernatural being exists. There's only stories passed down through the eons. Evidence that supernatural beings exist would change that situation, just like astronomers changed the situation with dark matter.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Non belief? My idea still stands.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)When people are asking for proof before they change their mind, and you provide proof, you should expect that to change their mind.
"Strength of belief" has nothing to do with it.
edhopper
(33,547 posts)is astronomers never believe or disbelieve in dark matter. At first it is a hypothesis that is plausible but without evidence to support it. Then there is evidence and they accept the likelihood that it exist. Eventually it becomes confirmed and need a great deal of counter evidence to not accept it. Belief doesn't enter into it.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)it's a tricky word with lots of uses.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)There is the difference. When you make a claim that you do not believe in something, adopt it as part of your identity, involve yourself in debate about it and adopt avatars or user names that proclaim it, it is most certainly in a different sphere.
You may not be one of those people, but they are here.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Everyone was "ablackmatterist" until evidence was found.
Only to those wishing to fight it.
Often those opposing atheism will make such a claim so that they have an easier battle. One doesn't have to worry about evidence or logic when one claims "it's a belief too".
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You are right about those opposing atheism but have a blind spot when it comes to atheists opposing theism.
Atheism is a purely neutral position for some, but for others it is an activist position and often includes anti-theism.
The problem is with nomenclature. Many of these anti-theists try to hide behind the thin facade of the passive definition, but they are anything but passive.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Sure, when you want to divide and conquer, it's very important to separate people into different groups.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I want to divide and unite.
I want people to stop throwing all believers into a bucket that they consider swill that must be eliminated.
I want people to stop saying that atheism or theism is the superior position and realize that if we are on the same side, we are on the same side, whether we are believers or not.
The anti's need to back off and become more discriminating about who it is they are against.
They are the ones that are the fundamentalist dividers, whether they be believers or not.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Which is just a happier version of "conquer". In both cases, you wish to eliminate those that oppose you.
Atheists can not change the Christian right. The only people who can are liberal believers.
And those liberal believers keep failing to organize against the conservatives. Then complain when someone suggests they need to organize against the conservatives. Then complain when someone points out they spend a lot more time complaining about being lumped in with the conservatives than working against the conservatives.
Your actions, or lack thereof, speak louder than your words. If conservative believers are so offensive, it's long past time for you to stand up in public and do something about it. Continued quiet statements of "we aren't all like that" doesn't change a damn thing.
Yes, atheists need to quietly accept Christian dominionism instead of asking why liberal believers aren't providing a counter.
So, where's the liberal believer version of the American Family Association? Or the dozens of other conservative believer organizations? North Carolina liberal believers have been doing a lot of work with Moral Mondays. Where's the other 49 states?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)that oppose those that think differently than they do.
This sad and lame meme about it being up to liberal believers to conquer the religious right has run it's course long ago. It will need a coalition of people from the left to do that - believers and not.
My actions or lack thereof? You know nothing of me. What about your actions and lack thereof?
Atheists do not need to accept anything, but they need to realize who is one their team and will help them.
There are lots of religious groups that are our version of the AFA. The fact that you don't know that speaks to the problem.
I am glad you know about Moral Mondays. If you look a little further you will see Moral Mondays everywhere.
They need your support, not your dismissal. It's really up to you.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You want people to act the way you would prefer instead of the way they would prefer. Adding additional clauses to the sentence doesn't change the result.
Atheists are somewhere around 10% of the population. You are claiming the remaining 90% are unable to act until that 10% does what you want.
Despite the fact that conservative believers utterly dominate our political discourse with about 30% of the population.
We do. Your inaction makes it abundantly clear.
The fact that I have to desperately dig for examples, while the religious right dominates the government and media demonstrates the utter failure of liberal believers.
If you are tired of being lumped with conservative believers, then get to work and fix it. Make a "religious left" whose effects can be found without going to the 4th page of Google results.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And that is exactly my point.
The only we versus them here is the liberal/progressive community against the religious right. That includes believers and non-believers. If you don't want to be on that bus or you expect someone else to take care of it for you, so be it. You making it a we versus them between believers and non-believers is a critical part of the problem.
But don't complain when the problem continues.
By the way, check this out:
http://notalllikethat.org
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)You are a "believer" Cbayer, you are an agnostic theist. Please at least be honest about this instead of whacking the unsuspecting upside the head.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Just alert on my posts and be done with it. I said exactly what I meant.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I prefer to call you out on it,
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)That trap springing, Justin, is what is despicable. Cbayer is an agnostic theist. Quite honestly I don't believe the "agnostic" part, given her many postings here in defense of theism. When she plays her "but I am not a believer" card, she is being less than honest and she does this to every new person who comes up against her.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)When an atheist does not follow the lead or questions the tactics of the lead atheists in this room their honesty about being an atheist has been questioned.
I have seen this for a year happen here or there and no I don't keep these threads so I can't provide it.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)It is funny how they both seem to be playing a similar game and both are being less than forthright about who they are and what the actually believe in, isn't it?
Observe the actual behavior of people and you can learn a lot about them.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)So are you. We all "judge others" a lot. Every time cbayer pulls her "whoopsie I'm not a believer wherever did you get that idea" stunt I'm going to "judge others".
So you will stop judging me on this, right?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)This tactic has been used against atheists here who don't buy into the take no prisoners attitude of some in this room.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I'm pretty sure that within whatever it is you just said, you've issued some sort of judgment on me, perhaps even a fatwa.
Should I be concerned?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)that's not directed to anyone banned from the A&A group.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)just a unsubstantiated claim?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)But yes this has happened here many times. If you don't believe me that is your issue.
rug
(82,333 posts)There can't possibly be an atheist who has a different view of atheism that you. The only possible conclusion is they are not true atheists, but agnostic atheists.
Totally transparent.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)WHO HAS SAID THIS??? Why do you insist on using such a ridiculous straw man to attack others?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)edhopper
(33,547 posts)to fade away as man progresses (an atheistic outlook) and wanting to eliminate all believers in some purge.
We don't consider you the same as your religion, and feel you would be fine without it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)edhopper
(33,547 posts)"Some people here have made clear they want religion to disappear."
Do you agree they mean:
"I want people to stop throwing all believers into a bucket that they consider swill that must be eliminated."
Or as I say, they merely would like to see religion fade.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I think it was just an expression not meant literally.
edhopper
(33,547 posts)that atheist wish to eliminate believers rather than wanting religion to vanish someday. It is a grievous charge.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)who want religions to just fade away until they are as insignificant as the gods these religions worship.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)edhopper
(33,547 posts)women can now be denied birth control coverage. So yeah, it's important.
But SCOTUS agreed with you, they said there was no burden of proof that their beliefs had any validity.
As long as they believe, screw the women, right?
edhopper
(33,547 posts)see if there is a error in your thinking. Don't you think listening to counter arguments to what you believe useful.
Do you just believe what you believe and no amount of evidence will sway you?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...is "if you were strong in your belief you wouldn't let pesky things like facts or criticism or evidence get in the way of insisting you're right no matter what anyone else says".
That kind of thinking has been known to cause, umm, problems. (See: The Average Fox News Viewer)
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I believe that too.
okasha
(11,573 posts)but I don't give damn what you believe or don't. I seriously doubt that any believer who frequents this group does.
Have a nice day.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)That makes as much sense as we've come to expect.
Have a confusing day.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I don't think you have the slightest idea. That's because you have never asked her or paid attention to anything she has said about it.
Your anti-religious blinders have merely led you to the conclusion that she is not like you. She is an other and therefore deserving of derisive ridicule and overt dismissal.
Have a very dogmatic day.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)"I don't give damn what you believe or don't. I seriously doubt that any believer who frequents this group does. "
She believes that apparently. I will bookmark that post, and yours for the next time some believer asks, with no sense of irnoy, for proof of an anti-atheist bias here. Were you truly impartial as you claim there would be no way you'd defend her statement.
Zero credibility left Cbayer. Don't buy your claim of ignorance upthread either.
Also, thanks for proving my point about zero substance, only personal attacks and tone policing.
okasha
(11,573 posts)should give a damn what you do or don't believe? And why does it constitute "anti-atheist bias" to be indifferent to what you believe? That's entirely your personal business, not mine. Surely someone suffering from "anti-atheist bias" would attempt to convert you?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)I was responding to mr blur's statement that she demands that others respect what she believes. IMO, he has no idea what she believes.
I don't see a statement of belief in her post. Just an opinion. And I don't think it's anti-atheist bias, just a sign of her feelings towards you, feelings which I tend to share. You could be any kind of believer or not, it wouldn't make any difference. It is your hostility that elicits this response. So bookmark away. As with so many other things, this will be taken completely out of context to offer up as some kind of proof of something ridiculous.
Zero credibility with you? Why in the world would you think that would mean anything to me? You have judged me long ago and there are plenty who will reinforce your judgement.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)This bout of rank hypocrisy further reinforces that feeling.
Tell me, in what context would her comment be acceptable on this board? If the roles were reversed would you still defend the person who told her no one cared?
And thanks for proving my point about tone policing again.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You again accuse me of saying her comment was acceptable. I made no comment on her comment.
What I did was respond to another member who said something about her beliefs. I challenged him.
What is the definition of tone policing please? I know it's the latest meme, but I would like to understand what it is if I am going to be repeatedly accused of it by multiple members.
I wonder what those members have in common.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)rather than what they are saying. It is indeed the latest meme of the privileged groups to silence the minority.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)no matter what they are saying. In fact, when you accuse me to "tone policing" you are doing exactly that, aren't you?
So let's stop with the foolishness. You don't like what I say or the way I say it? Don't deal with me.
I'd put money on your point of privilege being higher than my own, so that meme can go as well.
okasha
(11,573 posts)unless you're invited.
As cbayer pointed out, you haven't the slightest idea what I believe, even though I've posted about it.
Please proceed with your bilious day.
edhopper
(33,547 posts)thanx.
okasha
(11,573 posts)You can find some of my posts on the subject in the Interfaith "Religious privilege" thread. I've posted here in Religion, too, but finding those posts would require a search.
edhopper
(33,547 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Let me guess, you also weighed in on the Men's group "Male Privilege" thread as well?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)No hint of irony? You don't realize that interFAITH is not a place that discussion can take place? (though it is a place a discussion about the topic can be about)
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)We are capable of having a discussion in our room.We discuss things in the room without the snark.
okasha
(11,573 posts)And no, I don't post in the Men's Group. Let's see if you can figure out why.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)just like you can't have a discussion about male privilege in the men's group. The groups exclude those who are underprivileged and by there nature, any discussion is tainted before it starts.
There was a thread about it in this group:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218142514
where the usual crew made that person regret posting one of the best posts on the topic that has been brought up here.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Read the SoP.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)As long as the sop is followed we welcome all.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)You choose to flaunt your beliefs in public then you must accept the public's reactions to them.
BTW, I have no idea what your beliefs are, or She Who Must Be Obeyed had to say about anything. I imagine it's hardly worth removing her from Ignore to find out.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Or you'd know what they are.
I think it's past your bedtime.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)On Wed Jul 30, 2014, 11:28 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Demand away (it suits you), It would be my pleasure.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=144056
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
"She Who Must Be Obeyed" is a personal attack. This member has been booted from DU multiple times because of his personal attacks on others, but seems to have no capacity to avoid personally attacking others.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jul 30, 2014, 11:42 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: "She Who Must Be Obeyed" is a DU Member and comes from Rumpole of the Bailey, a series of British genre novels. Do look things up before making an ass of yourself.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I feel like I just read the latest episode of a soap opera with no background of the characters or synopsis of the plot. With that lack of information, I'm letting the post stand. Discuss away. TxT
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The poster to whom this is a reply is just as rude. This must be an inside argument, because I don't get the reference. But this seems like trying to win by getting a hide. Play nice.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
......................
(actually it is late here but we grown-ups get to stay up later. You'll find out all about it, some day)
okasha
(11,573 posts)Guess again.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts) okasha
(11,573 posts)Maybe we'll know more when mr. blur tries again.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)you each take your turn at being the other half.
You know, if you weren't all so ridiculously amusing I wouldn't waste my time acknowledging you.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Last edited Fri Aug 1, 2014, 09:02 PM - Edit history (1)
that's a trio. Pleased to be of service, don't you know.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)You come in here to argue with people who you claim to not give a damn what they believe in over issues of belief. Do you not see the rather odd nature of that claim?
And really, civil discourse does not include telling people to take a nap. How about you stop being that rude?
okasha
(11,573 posts)It's Barney Fife of the Tone Police!
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Thank you for proving my point about zero substance, only personal attacks and tone policing.
Thank you for your input.
okasha
(11,573 posts) Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Your posts down thread show you agree with my post, so why the lashout? What do you have a problem with?
okasha
(11,573 posts)but "agrees with your post," then you have a problem, don't you?
My posts downthread have to do with the constitutionality of the Hobby Lobby decision, For why I find your OP both pretentious and inane, see post 22. Rug puts it rather succinctly.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Shown the ability to put things any other way?
okasha
(11,573 posts)edhopper
(33,547 posts)try to enact anything because of their beliefs, the burden of proof becomes important.
Justice Alito, saying the truth of the belief is unimportant in the Hobby Lobby case is absurd.
pinto
(106,886 posts)Whether one believes or not or simply doesn't care is not an issue for me. The separation clause of the Constitution is a big one for me.
The big one in this framework. It's gotten distorted, spun and misused, imo.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Bringing the framework of this whole debate back to reality, so we can push back against the religious right wing on the grounds that their belief does not belong in the public sphere.
BabbaTam
(88 posts)The proof is in the pudding! The magic is not in the messenger. The magic is in living the message, some call it the golden rule.
edhopper
(33,547 posts)Hobby lobby owners, Fred Phelps, Ken Ham and even the Taliban, who say they are living the message?
Why is the message you hear superior to theirs?
rug
(82,333 posts)Evidence is also a legal term and a scientific term.
Faith, belief and gods are none of those.
You are trying to describe music by using color.
It's an utterly stupid and futile exercise.
Report me to the tone police.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
rug
(82,333 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)But that's jazz.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
Good post rug.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)The Bible warned hundreds of times that there have always been bad and as it says "false" things, even in our holiest men and angels. Even in core Christian apostles like St. Peter (Mat. 16.23). Therefore? The Bible finally told us not to have so much "faith"; but to "test everything," valuing material evidence: "fruits," "works," "signs," "deeds," and "proofs."
Or as the Bible says: "Certain people ... made shipwreck... of faith"; "test everything." So rather than following believers? We ask them to work miracles, to prove they are from God: "When Pharoah says, 'prove yourself by working a miracle,' then you shall."
Finally the Bible tells us explicitly to honor scientific evidence, "science," over faith. In say Dan. 1.4-15 KJE; 1 Kings 18.20.40.
And if an alleged spokesman from God, a believer, a defender of the faith, cannot produce real physical, material wonders, miracles, here on this physical earth, and in a timely way, as material evidence that his god is real? Then far from continuing to believe and follow and "have faith," the Bible actually told us to simply conclude that the believer, and his god, are false. And we are supposed to say this to such people:
"Set forth your case, says the LORD; bring your proofs, says the King of Jacob.... Tell us what is to happen.... Behold, you are nothing, and your work is nought; an abomination is he who chooses you" (Isa. 41.21-24).
"Both prophet and priest are ungodly" (Jer. 23.9).
"Behold, I am against the prophets, says the LORD" (Jer. 23.31).
"Hear, you deaf, and look, you blind, that you may see! Who is blind but my servant" (Isa. 43.18).
Many people think the Bible commands us to follow religious leaders with total "faith." But there's an amazing series of books that make the case that the Bible actually stressed reason, evidence, over faith. The case is that: 1) the Bible itself says hundreds of times that there are many bad and "false" things in religion; even in core Christian apostles like St. Peter, the Bible says (Mat. 16.23). 2) Therefore, rather than having "faith" in them, amazingly the Bible began to note problems even with Faith.
And then, since there are so many problems with holy men, and faith in them? Finally 3) the Bible itself began telling us to follow material evidence and even science, instead (Dan. 1.4-15 KJE; 1 Kings 18.20-40; Mal. 3.10; etc.).
(Free online book drafts on the Science of God, by Dr. Woodbridge Goodman, Ph.D. http://woodbridgegoodman.wordpress.com/)
rug
(82,333 posts)Where on earth do you find these sources? Dr. Goodman Ph.D. has no other internet presence.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Very interesting books. And relevant to our present discussion. The name is probably best seen as a nom de plume.
Woodbridge's book drafts document hundreds of Bible quotes. Biblical passages that tell us that amazingly, the Bible does NOT want us to base our lives, even our religion, on "faith." IT does not want us for example, to follow religious leaders, or their ideas about God, with blind faith. Instead it wants us to demand real evidence, material proofs from them, that they are from god.
Basically, his books make three main points. First 1) the Bible is full of warnings about bad and "false" and "deceit"ful things in all of religion; even Christianity (Mat. 16.23). 2) Therefore the Bible finally turns its back on telling us to follow religious leaders, with "faith." Instead 3) it tells us to "test everything." And to demand that holy men present material wonders, to prove they are from God: real material (not spiritual) "fruits," "wonders," "works," "signs," deeds, and "proofs." In a way that can be documented by real "science" (Dan. 1.4-15 KJE).
These at-present largely-unknown manuscripts are a revolution in theology, in my opinion.
And they are directly relevant to our present topic.
rug
(82,333 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)has some vanity press tomes out there.
rug
(82,333 posts)That's my character flaw.
okasha
(11,573 posts)BG's idiolect is distinctive. (And for the alert-happy, there's no "t" in that word.)
Thanks for the new word. Both of them.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)As an atheist, I neither expect nor demand proof from the faithful that their God exists as long as their belief is not used as justification for establishing rules for how I must live.
When the faithful use God as an excuse to infringe on reproductive freedom, prohibit people from getting married or justify stealing another people's land, it is necessary to call them on the carpet. In these cases, God is a scapegoat for their own bigotry and such nonsense needs to be questioned.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The burden of proof only become relative when the belief is held up as the truth and used to justify actions that impact on others.
Otherwise, no proof is necessary.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I feel no need to tear down the belief systems of the faithful, just as I feel no need to adopt their belief systems as my own.
Once it crosses the line into governance of others' behavior, problems arise. I think this is the motivating sentiment behind much of the animosity of atheists toward the faithful. Atheists chafe at the excesses of a certain sector of evangelical Christianity and project that sector's shortcomings onto all believers.
pinto
(106,886 posts)edhopper
(33,547 posts)broke it. The rights of the believers, even if their beliefs are provably wrong, trump the rights of others.
okasha
(11,573 posts)and desperately needs to be overturned. The Hobby Lobby case is the fruit of that poison tree.
edhopper
(33,547 posts)but it was about corporate personhood. HL was about certain corporations having religious rights. There was no church/state issue in CU, there was in HL and the answer SCOTUS gave was religious beliefs have priority over other rights and even the truth.
okasha
(11,573 posts)which is the foundation of corporate claims to religious rights. Corporations are legal constructs. They cannot be baptized, bar mitzvahed, ordained or celebrate Kinalda. Since a corporation cannot participate in a religious observance, most people would agree that it can't have religious rights. Unless, of course, it's a "person." SCOTUS bit the big one on this.
edhopper
(33,547 posts)but CU had nothing to do with religion. HL was specifically about religion. HL should not have been voted that way even if it was a person and not a company suing. Their precedent is that religious beliefs, even provably wrong have the upper hand over other rights. It was ALL about religion.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Just pointing out that the HL decision would not have been possible without CU.
edhopper
(33,547 posts)CU probably is more destructive as well. But both are terrible.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Why do so many people rant about that decision who don't even understand it?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)It doesn't even matter whether corporations are judged to have some of the same rights as individuals, since the First Amendment makes no such distinctions with regards to free speech protections.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)And as it is faith based it is not subject to question, it is ordained. Again - once it crosses - it crossed that line 1700 years ago in the Christian world. It was partially beaten back starting in the 1700s, and in this country it is currently in resurgence.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up.
Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root.
Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants.
Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.
Whoever has ears, let them hear.”
(Matthew 13: 4-9)
Different people do different things with the message.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)What is the point?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And those are just the ones with 'atheis' in the title.
Seems a bit obsessive for people who don't care what we believe or don't.
rug
(82,333 posts)I'm being polite. I wouldn't be so inane to suggest they're obsessive.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Our number one fan.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)imho, your posts show you do care what we think, I'll let their ops speak for themselves.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)The point is atheists start threads on what religious people think all the time here.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Have I ever told you what you believe? Have any of the other atheists tried to redefine you?
We have to put up with people who do just that to atheists on a daily basis.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)When and where?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)100 percent. I was so upset I put the poster on ignore for 2 months. This was an atheist.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Compare that to how many times we have to fight for our right to define ourselves.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Did they say that all christians believe _____ and if you disagree you are either stupid or a liar?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)The point is he wad trying to define me.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Once.
Compared to how many times we have to fight in this forum and DU in general.
Not even close.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)long.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Because my lack of them is.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I am repeatedly questioned and yes it can be a bit much at times but it is a part of the scene.
I generally don't get involved in tge defining atheism or agnostics threads because I am not an expert and I think reading the responses is a better idea.
I put my foot in my mouth sometimes. 
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)If you say you're a christian the only thing I know about you is that you believe that Jesus is the son of god.
Am I correct?
You're okay in my book, foot in mouth and all. 
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Yeah I am questioned on why and what I believe. Most is done in good faith though.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)It is a touchy subject for many of us because we've been fighting the same battle in this forum for years.
Obviously not in vain though, because you heard us.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)
Because that's what your charming friends have called him. To be fair, I haven't heard them call him obsessive.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Calling someone 'Gomer' isn't questioning or redefining their christianity.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You seem to want to get along with atheists and I appreciate it.
If I saw someone trying to tell you what you believe I would defend you.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)But you do have a smiley.
BTW, your analogy only works if you consider an entomologist to be a fan of his subject.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You wish you could quit us but you can't.
rug
(82,333 posts)What percentage of posts about religion have been posted by atheists?
You appear to have time on your hands to get the answer
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That should give you enough time to post two or three more threads about us.
rug
(82,333 posts)BTW, find the time to answer the question after you feed your horses.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The most prolific are Warren Stupidity who currently has 5 and SecularMotion with 4.
You have 10.
It is obsessive.
rug
(82,333 posts)Although I can see your point there about obsession.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)It's not even close rug.
We're flattered though, really.
rug
(82,333 posts)So, I see you fed your horses. Got an answer to the question yet, bmus? Your dancing around it is hardly interesting enough to be a diversion.
And you really, really don't sound flattered. I detect much more uneasiness.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)One.
"And you really, really don't sound flattered. I detect much more uneasiness."
You overestimate your effect on me.
rug
(82,333 posts)Do you find that too difficult to answer?
I dunno if I overestimated. Maybe you're simply obsessed. You know, counting up posts and all.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I rest my case.
rug
(82,333 posts)And again. No answer from you.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)As does the content you post daily in this forum.
rug
(82,333 posts)What's the percentage of religion posts in here by atheists?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Far more than the individual atheists who post in this group.
rug
(82,333 posts)To recap:
You enter the thread by stating this:
And those are just the ones with 'atheis' in the title.
Seems a bit obsessive for people who don't care what we believe or don't.
To which, I asked you this:
106. Is that percentage higher or lower than those posted about religion by atheists?
I'm being polite. I wouldn't be so inane to suggest they're obsessive.
Here we are, nearly fifty posts later and you haven't answered a straightforward question.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)My post questioned the truth of that claim.
You are missing the point on purpose.
One could say obsessively.
rug
(82,333 posts)Not that I blame you. Your reasons are obvious.
Just as well. I have to bathe the baboons now.
That should give you some time to count some more threads. One could say obsessively, but that would be stupid.
okasha
(11,573 posts)not to a class of people. And so far, the observation appears to be accurate.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Atheism hardly affects anyone's.
Seems obvious why atheists would post about and want to discuss religion.
Why theists would be even more engaged to post about atheism is a mystery.
rug
(82,333 posts)Keep reading, you'll get it.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)If the conversation starts with "you shouldn't believe that God exists", then the burden is on the non-believer to provide defeaters to the claim 'God exists'. But if the conversation starts with "You should believe God exists", then the burden is indeed on the believer to justify that statement. And if both sides are bringing it, then both sides bear the burden.
Response to Htom Sirveaux (Reply #121)
Phlem This message was self-deleted by its author.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)You are wrong, however. The burden lies squarely on the person putting forward the positive claim. Only one side is bringing it in the theist/atheist conversation, and that side has never purlt forward anything to diprove, just attempts to turn it around and reframe themselves away from their burden.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)a waste of time, possibly a failure to understand that atheists don't have to say a single thing, due to not having the burden of proof ever? Also, who decides what counts as proof, and what in your opinion does count as proof?
Or how about this...suppose these are the two claims:
Joe Atheist: people should be atheists
Bob Theist: people should not be atheists.
Who has the burden of proof now?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)There is no evidence that a god or gods exist, therefore the hypothesis can be safely discarded.
That is all that is needed. As for the books and your other straw men, when religion stops trying to ruin our world you might have a point, until then it needs to be pushed back against.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)The statement "there is no evidence that a god or gods exist" can't really be understood properly without defining what qualifies as evidence and what does not.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)It used to be that everything from good/bad harvests, rainbows, earthquakes, a child's smile, etc. were considered God's work, not inthe floaty way that term is used now, but literally god was making the earth tremble. Now we know about plate tectonics (that was hugely controversial when it came out) light refraction, everything that can go wrong out in a field, that babies have gas, etc. So over the course of centuries, scientists and skeptics and such have been bringing forth evidence that god does not exist, everything that used to be under the domain of the priests is no longer there.
Believers have fallen to the god of the gaps, taking refuge in the few things that science hasn't gotten to yet, claiming the fact that science hasn't figured out everything, means we know nothing, therefore god.
So your whole argument trying to shift the burden, along with all the contrived scenarios you try and come up with are strawmen.
Finish this thought:
"Joe Atheist: people should be atheists" because there is no supporting evidence for any divine beings
"Bob Theist: people should not be atheists." because ________________(fill in the blank with your proof for god)
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)I'm happy to respond to what you are saying, but first I need to understand your meaning clearly, so that our dialogue doesn't fall into wasteful misunderstandings.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I'll assume you have no evidence.
Thank you.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)If a dialogue is not going to be productive, it's best to learn that quickly.
Have a good one!
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Now, are you going to answer your own question? Or just deflect, play dumb, and post straw men?
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)I've done so in the following threads (at least):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218142870#post3
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218139593#post31
But I can't answer statements I don't understand, and I'm not sure why that's controversial. If you insist that I answer before understanding, then this dialogue is not going to get off the ground.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)"Joe Atheist: people should be atheists" because there is no supporting evidence for any divine beings
"Bob Theist: people should not be atheists." because ________________(fill in the blank with your proof for god)
If it's the word "Floaty" you're pretending to be stuck on, it's like "floating" as in "Not fixed to any point" as in "Can be changed to mean something else when the goal has been reached" the logical fallacy to describe it would be "Moving the goalposts" is that enough of an explanation for you? I'll remember to use simple, non creative terms in the future so the discussion won't get bogged down by straw.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)And the best reason to think that there is no evidence for God is that science has successfully discovered underlying regularities to physical events. And yet, that's a false dichotomy because it assumes that the underlying regularities have nothing to do with God. The scientists working at the dawn of the scientific revolution didn't think so. To them, such discoveries revealed the workings of the creator, and there have been scientists who have also felt this way up until the present day. And that makes sense: if the natural laws were not rooted in God's continuing will, what's to stop them from changing? Why doesn't the universe randomly fall out of existence next Thursday? Here's how wikipedia explains the relationship between religion and science:
Events in Europe such as the Galileo affair, associated with the Scientific revolution and the Age of Enlightenment, led scholars such as John William Draper to postulate a conflict thesis, holding that religion and science conflict methodologically, factually and politically. This thesis is advanced by contemporary scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Steven Weinberg and Carl Sagan, and proposed by many creationists. While the conflict thesis remains popular for the public, it has lost favor among most contemporary historians of science.[1][2][3][4]
Many theologians, philosophers and scientists in history have found no conflict between their faith and science. Biologist Stephen Jay Gould, other scientists, and some contemporary theologians hold that religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria, addressing fundamentally separate forms of knowledge and aspects of life. Scientists Francisco Ayala, Kenneth R. Miller and Francis Collins see no necessary conflict between religion and science. Some theologians or historians of science, including John Lennox, Thomas Berry, Brian Swimme and Ken Wilber propose an interconnection between them.
Public acceptance of scientific facts may be influenced by religion; many in the United States reject the idea of evolution by natural selection, especially regarding human beings. Nevertheless, the American National Academy of Sciences has written that "the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith," a view officially endorsed by many religious denominations globally.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science
So setting up science as an alternative to religion and necessarily in conflict with the existence of God doesn't hold water. Do you have any other justification for the claim that I should be an atheist? Because as it stands now, I'm inclined to reject that claim for the above reasons.
-
What reason is there to believe that God exists? Start with the idea that if at any point there was absolute non-existence, nothing would exist today. That's because non-existence is non-causal (if you doubt that, ask if Santa could still be responsible for bringing toys despite not existing). So because the universe exists today, at least one thing must have always existed.
Now, the universe either had a beginning or it did not. If it did not, that means that a universe of unlimited time and space has always existed. But space/time are relative. They only exist as relationships between at least two things. That means that for an unlimited universe of space/time, at least two things must have always existed. If we could find an explanation that only required one thing to always exist, that explanation would be favored by Occam's Razor.
Alternatively, if the universe has not always existed, then it has a cause (remember, non-existence is non-causal, so the universe could not bring itself from non-existence to existence). That cause would then be the one always existing thing. Because it is prior to space/time, it is bound by neither. That makes it non-material (because it takes up no space), and eternal. Because it caused the universe, it contained in itself the potential for everything that was, is and ever shall be.
We also have good reason to think that it is an agent, that is, that it can make choices. Why? Well, if this always existing thing automatically caused the universe, then the universe would be unlimited again, continually being caused by the one existent thing. But we've already said that an unlimited universe requires at least two things to exist, and that's still more complex than if the universe had not always existed. Plus, it's not incoherent to suggest that the one always existent thing did not have to create. But this leads to a problem: nothing else existed to make the one always existent thing create. Therefore, the cause of creation must been internal, like a choice.
So we've got an agent creator, who we can clearly suggest is intelligent, owing to containing all the possibilities of the universe, and also being the source of the intricate mathematical structure of said universe. This creator is prior to all other existence, eternal, and immaterial. And that being we call "God".
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)"We also have good reason to think that it is an agent" we do? what do we know that suggests this? You are making several leaps that come from presupposing a creator exists.
In the words of a great scientist who declined to label himself an atheist to avoid the certain demonizing (along with many great scientists throughout history who would rather publish than be burned at the stake)
In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from? And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed? [Carl Sagan, Cosmos, page 257]
I too, gave the argument that if it happened once, it surely can, and probably will/did happen again. When we talking about the universe either always existing, or if it came into existence, you go to a concept that is grounded, nor proposed anywhere in the natural order of things. As you and I propose there is probably another universe out there. Or this universe is in a constant state of flux, expanding and contracting (like Hawking has proposed) Big bang, to a big crunch, over an incalculable timescale in which we don't even register as existing.
Back to this agent creator, if, as you suggest, the universe had a creator, then the creator must have had an agent creator for it's self, for the exact same reasons you gave for the universe requiring a creator, and we go on and on to infinity of creators. Back to Carl, why not save a step and say the universe has always been here?
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)Second, do you have any evidence that scientists who believed that God and science could be reconciled only did so because they wished to avoid "burning at the stake?" Certainly you can point to the burning of Giordano Bruno, but the problem you have there is two-fold. First, establishing which views he was actually burned for, and second, finding evidence of particular scientists supporting the reconciliation of science and religion in public while denouncing it in private. Here's wikipedia on Bruno:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
Third, I already addressed the issue of the "eternal universe," in my discussion of what an unlimited universe of space/time would require (at least two always existing things) and how Occam's Razor logically favors a simpler explanation (a universe whose existence only requires one always existing thing). Also, to put forward an eternal universe, you'd need evidence. The Big Bang is at least some evidence for the universe having a beginning.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Therefore the hypothesis can be safely discarded?
I certainly hope not, because that would be really foolish.
Now, I personally believe that there is intelligent life somewhere else in this universe. I am not going to say it with certainty, because I have nothing to factually back it up. But I still believe it. Whether you believe it or not makes no difference to me, but if you make the definitive statement that it does not exist, then I think the burden of proof is on you.
phil89
(1,043 posts)Is not at odds with the laws of physics or reality. No magic required. Not so with god claims.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)What laws would those be?
Sorry, but if you can make room in your mind for the possibility of intelligent life, then it isn't much of a stretch to make room for a god or gods. It's just a matter of what that intelligent life might be.
Anyway, my point is that it makes no sense to dismiss a hypothesis simply because there is not any evidence at this time. If we did that, science would come to a screeching halt.
phil89
(1,043 posts)If you define a god as something bound by physics and reality I agree. If you're talking about a god parting oceans, causing floods, turning people to salt, etc. yes, that's at odds with reality, rationality and common sense. I mean do you think the idea of Santa clause is at odds with realty?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)have any of the qualities normally associated with the word "god' and voila the existence of gods don't violate any physical laws. Of course these things, whatever they are, aren't actually gods, but in a game of word shuffling they could be gods.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)There is no evidence that there is intelligent life anywhere in the universe.
No no no no. That is not the correct format of that canard. Here:
There is no evidence that there is intelligent life anywhere else in the universe.
That is the bullshit talking point. Yours has an enormous hole in it.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)All sarcasm aside, it happened once, here, on this pale blue dot. Therefore, by extrapolation, it could happen again.
God(s), nothing there, All evidence for one (or many) has been disproved over and over again.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and you don't know if there is a god or gods or not.
If you claim to know either of those things, then you need to provide evidence.
If you are making the infinity argument, then you can't rule out god.
Provide evidence of the disproval that you claim. If it has happened over and over again, as you claim, it should be pretty easy for you to provide.
What? You can't?
Oops….
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)1) this planet has intelligent life
2) this planet exists within the universe
3) therefore there is intelligent life in the universe
It is reasonable to assume that it can, and will happen again. This is the same idea held by your heroes Carl Sagan, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, etc.
Anything I said there wrong? Please comment on fats only, leave the personal attacks and tone policing out of it. If you have no response to the facts, then I have to assume you agree, but don't want to say it so resort to deflection.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I do think there is intelligent life elsewhere, but I don't know for sure. I think we should keep looking though.
Please stop with the accusations of personal attacks and tone policing (whatever the hell that is). If you feel that I am personally attacking you, take it to a jury, but you have no right to just make vacant charges in an attempt to make me look bad.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The believers think the non-believers are wrong, and the non-believers think the believers are wrong.
One side accepts the claim, the other rejects it. The only "happy medium" is to acknowledge that some issues will never be resolved.
Here's a thought--why not "live and let live?" Then there will be no need to "reframe debates" (that aren't going to change any minds, anyway--it's like fight club for keyboarders), personal attacks can be avoided, and no one needs to "put up or shut up."
You can't force people to give a shit what others think. If they think an argument is wrong and stupid, all these demands that people prove their position will fall on deaf ears.
I rather think there wouldn't be any of this "put up or shut up" nonsense if this discussion were transformed to the mountains of Afghanistan, surrounded by the Taliban in a shirty mood wanting to know what sort of infidel they were dealing with, so there's just no need for the tough guy attitude either. It doesn't work, anyway. People who are believers think that non-believers are missing a part, misguided, confused, lacking in understanding/education, or whatever--and they won't be convinced otherwise. Nonbelievers think believers are stupid, unscientific, wearing blinders, etc., etc. There's no coming to terms--it's Hatfields and McCoys.
Let It Go.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)But it needs to be said and reinforced because decisions are being made based on unsubstantiated claims. Decisions that affect us all, and the ball is just starting to roll.
As for the petty fued aspect, regardless of what believers think, the burden is on them. And it's more like russia and he Ukraine, very one sided and they claim they are doing it for our good and we should stop being mean to them.
MADem
(135,425 posts)No one will be convinced. Each group goes away from any kind of food fight on this topic thinking the other group is misguided and misinformed--and some even get more personal, and insist that their opposites in this debate are stupid and worse.
The "burden," as you say, is on "the other guys." Prove it is true vs. Prove it is false -- and what you end up with is a great big impasse.
Demanding and insisting that the others have a burden doesn't make it so. They will say the very same thing about your team's POV.
It's a standoff that will never be resolved because no one on either side has any way of actually proving anything.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)What I said is how it is. The people making the claim have to prove it. Those denying the claim have proved the side making the claim wrong in just about every circumstance in history, form rainbows, to the impossibility of the flood, to evolution, to plate tectonics the atheist side has constantly won out, while the theist side has nothing left but the god of the gaps.
So one side has constantly proved the other side wrong throughout history, yet is still called to task on it. Religious privilege in action.
MADem
(135,425 posts)actually do. They can invite you to talk to the hand, or they can tell you that YOU need to "prove it."
They don't have to do a doggone thing.
And no one-on either side-has "proven" anything.
And that's about the size of it.
phil89
(1,043 posts)and religion. All things being equal I don't think most people would care, although there is an argument to be made against the irrationality of it all. However, Christians have a lot of power and make rules for the rest of us based on wildly irrational, unsubstantiated, archaic nonsense.
Iggo
(47,546 posts)
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Or 'faith'.
The whole concept of 'proof' denies 'faith'. If you have proof, you can't have faith. I don't 'believe' in gravity - I experience it directly. I KNOW it exists, so I can't just 'believe' in it.
Proof is the death of faith.
(And, btw, not that it should matter, but I'm an atheist.)
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)1) Some Christians will initially state their beliefs as mere "beliefs," based not on firm knowledge, but only "faith." But soon enough, most of them start speaking very positively and dogmatically about their beliefs, as being "certain" and "holy."
Sooner or later, most believers end up speaking of their beliefs as if they were NOT mere faith claims. But were based on real evidence and truths.
2) Then too, as it turns out in post 73, and the writings of Woodbridge Goodman, there are scholarly works that tell us that the Bible itself says that believers are required to furnish real physical, material proofs.
Therefore finally, there are several reasons to insist that Christians cannot hide behind the alleged immunity of "faith"; they really must finally furnish real physical, material evidence for their claims.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Nobody needs to prove anything to anyone else regarding their spiritual beliefs, period.
Atheism is not a rejection of anything, it is a lack of belief in a deity, period.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Please explain.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)fertilized ovums for an IVF cycle, implant two and discard the rest. There is significant lobbying effort from same-said group (Along with other reproductive choices) outright ban it.
I don't think it's unfair to expect they demonstrate that their so-called god exists before I let them step all over my rights in the legislature.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The Roman Catholic Church is not an individual. It is an institution that wields political power and influences, to a degree, how our society functions. Challenge it as much as you like, but don't confuse it with what rug or Justin or any other person of faith believes on a personal level. They don't have to prove anything to justify their faith. And nobody has the right to claim they should.
They are no more responsible for the sins of organized religion than you are for the bombing of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Furthermore, it is ludicrous to ask someone to prove a personal concept, which varies from individual to individual.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)so, yeah, it has something to do with it.
"They are no more responsible for the sins of organized religion than you are for the bombing of Iraq and Afghanistan."
Terrible analogy. I do hold myself, as a member of the electorate and a taxpayer, responsible for the bombing of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Fight 'em if you don't agree with them. I don't think rug and Justin have followers who do all those things.
As I said, feel free to fight the RCC or any other institution that you feel hampers your life, but don't ask individuals to prove the existence of a deity they might believe in. It's childish, stupid and ignorant to expect anyone to be able to either prove or disprove an abstract concept. Quit blaming personal beliefs for the actions and policies of institutions. Blame the members if you want, blame their actions, but not their spiritual beliefs. I support a woman's right to choose, but I cannot change and have no right to change the mind of someone who believes that abortion is a sin. It's a personal decision. That said, government should be influenced by the electorate and SCOTUS. That's how your system works.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Not when they take it to the ballot box, lobby, campaign, etc.
A personal decision involves their own body. Not other, unwilling, non-adherents to their religion.
"It's childish, stupid and ignorant to expect anyone to be able to either prove or disprove an abstract concept."
No, it's childish and stupid to force your religious morality on non-adherents to your faith. It is not in any way a bad thing to expect XYZ faith member looking to enact religious doctrine as law, to prove there is some sort of credible source for their bs.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Credible is a subjective thing. You expect others to believe what you believe and if they don't you want them to prove to you that what they believe is a fact. Well, guess what, beliefs are not facts, they can't be proven. That's why we call them beliefs. They can't be disproven either. So, deal with it.
If someone says you should or must believe something, he can't force you to believe it. If his beliefs are in some way affecting your life negatively, then confront him on that. Like, take your beliefs someplace else, but quit interfering in my life, but asking him to prove his God exists is stupid.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)out.
Asking them to prove the source for their moral lobbying highlights they have no authority whatever.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)What are people here lobbying for that you have a problem with? Because Justin might share a spiritual belief with Pat Robertson, in that there is such a thing as God? Do you think that makes them political allies? They are no more allies than if they shared the same favorite color, or supported the same baseball team.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Moral lobbying, like Catholics lying and spending millions trying to defeat I-1000 in my state, after people like my father were denied the option, and had to die slow, miserable, undignified, prolonged deaths months and months past the point he was ready to rest.
I'm tired of explaining over and over how they can keep their moral doctrine to themselves. They don't like physician assisted suicide? FINE. Don't have one.
But don't spend millions lobbying (top six group donors, catholic, most of the top recognizable individual donors, catholic, etc. And I have provided the data before, so don't you dare ask without googling it yourself if you want to see it this time.) to restrict MY family's medical options.
They can't prove anyone even has a soul to risk to some hypothetical damnation for committing the 'sin' (I reject that characterization) of suicide.
They want to restrict MY medical options, they can buck up and prove the source of their moral bullshit.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)There are lots of things I love about America and lots of things I dislike. When I lived there, I didn't blame my personal problems on anyone else's spiritual beliefs, no matter how silly or even abhorrent I found them.
Do you live in a state that is controlled by the Vatican? I thought you lived in a state that legalized pot. If they can do that, then they should be able to sort out your medical issues. If I wanted to opt out of this carnival we call life, I wouldn't be asking the Pope's permission.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)But that doesn't absolve them of everything they did, all the lies they spewed, all the money they spent trying to block it.
Their 'source' is a thing they claim exists. Not the faith they have IN that thing they claim exists. That faith doesn't promulgate moral rules. They claim the god they have FAITH IN promulgates those rules. Is the source for, and bedrock of. You're confusing their allegiance for the law-giver they claim exists.
Prove it or keep their faith and their politics, which impact *me* as non-overlapping magisterium.
Do you have a family? Do you want your family to receive death benefits? Do you want your deathbed treated as a crime scene? It's a crime to commit suicide on your own you know.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Their faith should not affect public policy. I don't know about this particular fight, or lies that may have been told.
God exists for them, but that does not give them the right to impose their God's rules on others.
God doesn't get to vote. They can claim whatever they like, but they only get one vote each.
I try not to think about death too much. I'm too busy enjoying life. I hope I don't get too much time to contemplate it. Death benefits? Never thought there was much benefit in dying. Do I expect money for dying or any of my family dying? No. When I die, they'll get whatever I haven't managed to spend and be grateful that I won't leave them any debts. I hope my deathbed isn't a crime scene, though the missus has been talking a lot about oleander lately. If I decide to top myself, the last thing I'm gonna worry about is getting busted for it. I'm more likely to hop on a train to Switzerland, if I'm in Italy. If I'm in Mexico, I'll probably just jump over the side of the boat.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)There is always a burden when a claim is made. For some reason religious beliefs get a free pass and are allowed to control gross amounts of power in this world, while they get a free pass, and defense, from people like you who claim that they don't need to prove this being they are doing whatever act they are doing in the name of even exists in the first place. Further more they demand overwhelming proof that non divine facts even exist! things which they feel counter proof for god they casually dismiss even though there is mountains of evidence for it, while not a single shred of evidence for (and mountains of evidence against) their deitys and they feel the burden isn't on them to prove anything.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Feel free to have it translated into English, or any European language and I'll give it another shot. Punctuation might possibly help a little.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)But just for you, here it is, slower:
There is always a burden when a claim is made.
For some reason religious beliefs get a free pass and are allowed to control gross amounts of power in this world, while they get a free pass, and defense, from people like you who claim that they don't need to prove this being they are doing whatever act they are doing in the name of even exists in the first place.
Further more they demand overwhelming proof that non divine facts even exist!
Things which they feel counter proof for god they casually dismiss even though there is mountains of evidence for it, while not a single shred of evidence for (and mountains of evidence against) their deitys and they feel the burden isn't on them to prove anything.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)First three sentences appear to be some kind of English, then it just slides into gobbledygook. I'll give it another shot tomorrow. It might be me, but I doubt it. My brain does somersaults when I see things like "there is mountains of evidence...". Sorry. Do you have any other language that we might try? Just to get the gist of what you might be saying.
If not, don't worry. I'm sure we can catch up some other time.
Must to bed now. 
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Grammar policing is the last argument of a defeated party. You said nothing to the actual argument, so I assume you are conceding defeat. If you have something to say to the facts then please do, this deflecting and playing dumb on your part is embarrassing to read.
Either respond to the argument, or prove my original post correct in that the only response to the burden of proof is personal attacks and tone policing. You have only posted personal attacks, so you have only proven me correct.
Thank you.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I agree that there is a burden of proof when a claim is made. Otherwise, there is no burden of proof. If the claim is "I believe in God" then the claim is that I believe, not that God exists. If the claim is "God exists" then there is a burden of proof.
If the claim is "God does not exist" then there is a burden of proof.
Everything else is in your imagination. There is no burden of proof for belief. It is a personal thing which requires no proving to anyone.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Last edited Sun Aug 3, 2014, 12:05 AM - Edit history (1)
You are now claiming there are "mountains of evidence" against....deitys (sic), which is a positive claim. Kindly back it up.
Here is a hint: proof that phenomena previously attributed to deities are in fact natural occurrences does not disprove the existence of deities. They only disprove that individual phenomena require deities as a cause.
phil89
(1,043 posts)nt
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Claiming something is deeming it to be true. And , as such, requires proof on either side of the debate.
Believing something requires nothing but belief, or faith, or one's imagination. That's why we call it "belief".
stone space
(6,498 posts)That could be a religious person, or it could be an atheist.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)In terms of belief, no, it couldn't be an atheist, because they aren't trying to put forward an idea. In this matter it always falls to the person claiming there is a god(s)
stone space
(6,498 posts)In terms of belief, no, it couldn't be an atheist, because they aren't trying to put forward an idea.
As an atheist, I don't believe in the existence of a God or Gods.
Simply stating my atheist beliefs in this matter does not incur any so-called "burden of proof". (Why am I feeling like I'm in a court room here?)
But if I attempt to convince you that my atheist beliefs are true, then it could reasonably be said that I have voluntarily taken on the "burden of proof".
