Religion
Related: About this forumThis message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (guillaumeb) on Mon Mar 20, 2017, 09:03 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Heddi
(18,312 posts)They are ramming their religious agendas that allow teacher-and-student led prayer in public schools, increase that "religious freedom" bullshit bills that allow for discrimination against LGBT students and allies, they have a friend in Betsy DeVos taking much needed $$ out of public schools and putting it right in the pocket of religious schools that can not only discriminate against LGBT students and allies, but against anyone, basically, because they're private schools.
They're gonna have a great year with Donald Trump prepared to nominate an anti-LGBT and anti-abortion SC justice. Things are already looking up for them regarding the bullshit, bigoted bathroom bills as well as continued discrimination from private companies against LGBT'ers (most of whom are trying to get married or have surgeries). Religious pharmacists are already allowed to avoid dispensing life-saving and life-altering medications (like birth control and plan B) if it offends their "deeply held beliefs)
Catholic hospitals are buying up secular hospitals left and right, leaving women and trans folks without viable options for abortion, birth control, sterilzation, and transition surgery, and leaving terminally ill patients without the right to doctor-assisted death with dignity.
I've even seen it posited here in this VERY FORUM in a now-deleted thread that it should be okay for religious people and businesses (excuse me, private businesses and citizens) to make their own choices on who to serve and why.
Great news for everyone, right Guillame?
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Guillaume
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)The sage puts himself last
and finds himself in the foremost place.
or
The wise embrace the one
and set an example to all.
Not putting on a display,
they are distinguished.
Not boasting,
they receive recognition.
I find some truth in all scriptures, but one must put all of them in context. By reading many about these ideas, one may be able to find Universal Truths, in my opinion.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Very difficult. But to grow as a person we must do so. At the same time, we must recognize that, as believers, we are fundamentally no better than anyone else who does not share our beliefs.
So tolerance must also be practiced. Tolerance for all beliefs, whether that belief admits of a deity or if that belief embraces the idea that there are no deities.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Multiple atheists have told you that atheism isn't a belief system. We don't "embrace the idea that there are no deities," we just simply don't believe in them. We haven't seen enough evidence.
So, ready to show some humility? Will you apologize and promise not to continue mischaracterizing atheism?
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)As to the argument over your beliefs being beliefs or not, we must continue to disagree on that.
So I will not apologize for correctly characterizing atheism as the non-provable belief that there are no deities.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)At least everyone knows what the real H-word for you is.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)You wouldn't tell other minority groups how to define themselves, would you?
edhopper
(37,370 posts)that for which there is no evidence.
Light doesn't travel through the either, there are no N-Rays and the man wasn't created 6000 years ago out of mud.
I don't accept the existence of bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, faeries and gnomes, alien visitors, esp or astrology.
Is it just a non-provable belief that they don't exist?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Meanwhile the source you linked is all 'Something something be humble, blah blah, lies, etc.'
It's like a mathematical formula is behind religion after all.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)and your post demonstrates your talent.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Much easier that way, to ignore material posts with citations or quotes, and just go for the commentary posts.
Life is easier that way, I guess.
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)The ones who promise "all" the physical miracles, wonders you "ask" for, for example (John 14.13).
Just have your priest ask for a giant physical miracle, now. And then? Observe that your deity does not seem to exist; the things promised do not appear.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)An interesting attempt I must admit, but hardly proof of anything.
edhopper
(37,370 posts)Trump votes hate scientist and other authority figures and think their knowledge is on par with the experts?
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)WTF?
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)And thus I frame atheism as an unprovable belief.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Thanks for expressing your opinion.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Well, we can share.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Please proceed with your precious last word.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Atheism is the rejection of an unprovable belief. You have it backwards.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Mine differs.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)This isn't a matter of belief. Nor is it a discussion. You are intentionally mischaracterizing a group, please stop.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Apparently it doesn't matter. He knows our non-belief better than we do.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)And to say that, I will define my terms.
Belief:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/belief-system
Further:
2. Definition: Belief Generally, belief is the mental attitude that some proposition is true with or without there being empirical evidence to prove with certainty that this is the case. For every given proposition, every person either has or lacks the mental attitude that it is true — there is no middle ground between the presence of absence of a belief. This idea is accepted as being true based on observation, opinion, faith (trust) or reason (logic). Beliefs are frequently passed along from generation to generation and may be part of a person’s religious, social and/or cultural background. Beliefs are not used to explain things scientifically.
https://www.slideshare.net/ddertili/belief-vs-proof-evi
So my argument is that anything that is not provable constitutes a belief. Belief is not confined to theism.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)You are wrong here. You have been told by the group you are offending that you are wrong. Your cherry-picked definitions don't work.
You don't get to define atheism.
On the other hand you have firmly cemented that your god cannot be proved, and can thus be discarded without evidence, which is what atheism is, rejection of an unprovable belief.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)So, we have:
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism
We could, I suppose, engage in "dueling definitions", but my point is clear.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Let's check a dictionary with some prestige and hasn't been selected to support your point:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
2
archaic : godlessness especially in conduct :
No where is it listed as a belief.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)If a statement cannot be proven, one must be willing to believe in that statement in spite of it being unprovable.
So anyone who explicitly states that they do not believe in the existence of a deity/deities is also implicitly saying that they believe that there is/are no deities.
And you also chose a definition to fit your position. The "dueling definition" phase.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)A definition:
An atheist believes that there is/are no deity/deities.
The same definition, expressed as a negative:
An atheist does not believe in the existence of a deity/deities.
No matter how atheism is defined, the same result occurs. And no matter how it is defined, it is an unprovable position.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)And I'm glad you showed your work, but you made an error at the end. Rejecting a belief is not a belief in it's self. Theism is the claim, atheists (literally: without belief) is the response to that unfounded claim.
And a final reminder, since you seem to miss it, this is not a discussion.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"An atheist believes that there is/are no deity/deities."
This is a positive claim that carries burden of proof. Atheist in this case is making a positive claim or statement that X does not exist, period.
"An atheist does not believe in the existence of a deity/deities."
This is a passive rejection. Atheist in this case has declined to accept some external parties claim that X exists. It carries no burden of proof and is not equivalent to or interchangeable with your first example.
Telling someone they are wrong carries burden of proof.
Telling someone you don't believe them, insufficient evidence, TO CONVINCE YOU, does not carry burden of proof.
1: You're wrong.
2: I don't believe you.
Different mechanisms, different burdens, different meaning/purpose.
This is what Russell's Teapot is all about. One could probably safely say 'there is no teapot in orbit around jupiter', but if you based your worldview and metaphysical existence upon it, and we discussed it fairly, I would be bound to say 'I don't believe there is a teapot in orbit around jupiter' based on your claim, and leave it at that. It would be beyond my power to hike on out there and prove it, so I'm not going to make a positive claim that you are wrong. I am going to dismiss your claim as insufficiently sourced to evidence.
different mechanisms.
By the way, the dictionary does NOT define language. The only country I'm aware of with a legal body defining the language, is France. (Last I checked they were only up to the P's) Dictionaries record usage. If X% of the population mis-uses 'atheist' (religious people, willfully or ignorantly), it will get recorded in that misuse, and might well be the most common usage. Doesn't make it right.
The latter position is unprovable, but it requires no proof and the burden of proof is still upon the claimant; the one insisting some sort of metaphysical god exists.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)So naturally he's right.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I cannot prove that a 737 engine is going to survive any particular revolution of the bearings, at all. But I can get, through testing, inspection, post-mortem, certification, and other processes, we can know that any given set of bearings will survive on average X number of duty cycles, and with that info we can build a credible case for any given aircraft and its thousands of moving parts that it will get me from my departure to my destination, without experiencing anything like a huge fireball, or unscheduled high-g landing nose first in the dirt, etc. And we can do this across all those thousands of parts outside the engine to a degree that with given maintenance schedules, operating policies, crew training, manufacturing certifications, etc, a reasonable belief the entire process and flight will not experience catastrophic failure.
Getting on that plane knowing all that, gives me a confident 'belief' that I will get to my destination still breathing and happy.
That small-b belief is not anything like your Belief in a supernatural thing without evidence of any sort whatsoever. Don't pretend they are meaningfully equivalent in any way that constitutes any kind of categorization or similarity.
That body of design, engineering, testing, and certification is not anything like 'someone said', which is what Relgion uses 'Belief' for; selectively revealed 'truth' claims.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)DO you consider belief and knowledge to be synonymous?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Expanding the question from belief/faith to knowledge is not helpful to your position. Believers claim to know all sorts of things (specifications) about the various gods they represent.
Belief and Knowledge are not necessarily overlapping magesteria. Which is why when someone is asked 'do you believe in god' and they reply 'i'm an agnostic', they haven't answered the question. One can believe in a god with certainty of knowledge, or no certainty of knowledge whatsoever. One could be an atheist and reject the concept of god(s) with certainty of knowledge, or no certainty whatsoever.
Atheist/theist and Gnostic/agnostic do not necessarily overlap because they are not the same thing at all.
I could get in that plane with no knowledge whatsoever about how it was built and operated, and believe it'll get me where I'm going. But unless gods are revealing truth to select individuals, you'll get no closer to my example of belief predicated on testable facts, and therefore, big-B Belief as in religious faith, is not anything like small-b belief in X result from Y action in Z space with XX mechanism that can be tested and repeated and have a quantifiable failure rate even if specific failures cannot be predicted perfectly.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)edhopper
(37,370 posts)where the flock has almost no say in it's operation.
The servant of the people thing is about as disingenuous as Trump being a public servant.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)It could be simple human weakness, or it could be hypocrisy.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I pray for strength to be humble and to be understanding. I should strive to be a better Christian.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)lunasun
(21,646 posts)I lived in an area where some group used to ring a bell or knock . We would open the door a little and ask what they want. They would always say stuff like I have good news for you or We wanted to tell you the good news
The link made me think about that place and some of our neighbors' replies to the approach
Even carried The Good News Bible which I guess is as good as sell as any
Good News!
Sounds good so...
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)we were also visited by people promoting their beliefs.
One time, my mother started to shut the door on a woman who asked her "do you not have time for Jesus?", to which my mother replied "I always have time for Jesus, but I have no time for you". And she shut the door.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Someone call the Cognitive Dissonance police, we've got a crime in progress.
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)No March 14, 2017. Trying other keywords....
God hasn't appeared visibly yet, either.
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)When faith asserts it is true, but needs no proofs of that, that is fantastically arrogant.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)If it were provable, faith would not be required.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You could prove the existence of the Abrahamic god 8 ways till sunday, have him pop up and introduce himself to me, etc, and that's all fine..
I would still have zero faith in it. I would have a great deal of fear of it, given its own proclaimed track history of killing people for trivial issues like 'you're on the wrong piece of land and I promised it to someone else'. I would have a considerable amount of fear based on its proclaimed desire to torture me for all eternity for not investing faith or allegiance in it.
But no, I wouldn't have any faith in it at all. That god can exist all day long, but it doesn't make it a morally acceptable thing to invest my faith in. It's a vicious, petulant, cruel, and selfish thing. I have no use for it, and I will not invest faith in it, should it be proven real.
If it were proven real, I would immediately set about trying to find ways to destroy it in self defense. Does that sound like 'faith' to you?
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)What do you think I am saying?
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Some believers can be arrogant, but one does not necessitate the other.
blue sky at night
(3,313 posts)washed my hands of my church and those who could and did vote for the end of our country...done with the religion too...loving my time on sundays that I can spend serving; myself! (For the first time in almost 40 years)