HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » The burden of proof is on...

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 11:23 AM

The 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.

336 replies, 26958 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 336 replies Author Time Post
Reply The burden of proof is on believers (Original post)
Lordquinton Jul 2014 OP
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #1
Goblinmonger Jul 2014 #6
Brettongarcia Jul 2014 #176
AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #74
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #76
AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #77
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #78
AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #79
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #80
AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #82
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #83
cbayer Jul 2014 #166
Brettongarcia Jul 2014 #170
AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #183
cbayer Jul 2014 #199
cbayer Jul 2014 #187
Post removed Jul 2014 #193
cbayer Jul 2014 #198
Brettongarcia Jul 2014 #203
cbayer Jul 2014 #206
Brettongarcia Jul 2014 #211
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #216
pinto Jul 2014 #208
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #205
cbayer Jul 2014 #213
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #214
cbayer Jul 2014 #218
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #220
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #226
rug Jul 2014 #84
AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #85
rug Jul 2014 #86
cbayer Jul 2014 #167
AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #184
cbayer Jul 2014 #192
AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #200
cbayer Jul 2014 #207
Lordquinton Jul 2014 #89
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #90
Lordquinton Jul 2014 #97
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #99
Lordquinton Jul 2014 #100
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #101
Lordquinton Jul 2014 #103
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #104
cbayer Jul 2014 #2
Phlem Jul 2014 #5
cbayer Jul 2014 #24
Phlem Jul 2014 #73
cbayer Jul 2014 #159
trotsky Jul 2014 #180
rug Jul 2014 #195
Fix The Stupid Jul 2014 #223
rug Jul 2014 #227
Fix The Stupid Jul 2014 #229
rug Jul 2014 #249
edhopper Jul 2014 #8
Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #10
cbayer Jul 2014 #23
edhopper Jul 2014 #25
cbayer Jul 2014 #26
edhopper Jul 2014 #53
Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #117
cbayer Jul 2014 #164
Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #165
cbayer Jul 2014 #168
Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #169
trotsky Jul 2014 #29
Lordquinton Jul 2014 #91
cbayer Jul 2014 #162
stone space Aug 2014 #308
cbayer Aug 2014 #323
Lordquinton Aug 2014 #325
cbayer Aug 2014 #326
Lordquinton Aug 2014 #312
cbayer Aug 2014 #324
stone space Aug 2014 #307
Fred Sanders Jul 2014 #3
cbayer Jul 2014 #27
AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #75
cbayer Jul 2014 #160
Brettongarcia Jul 2014 #163
AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #182
cbayer Jul 2014 #190
AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #201
cbayer Jul 2014 #212
AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #219
Brettongarcia Jul 2014 #191
Lordquinton Jul 2014 #92
upaloopa Jul 2014 #4
jeff47 Jul 2014 #11
upaloopa Jul 2014 #13
jeff47 Jul 2014 #16
edhopper Jul 2014 #14
jeff47 Jul 2014 #15
edhopper Jul 2014 #18
cbayer Jul 2014 #28
jeff47 Jul 2014 #31
cbayer Jul 2014 #37
jeff47 Jul 2014 #39
cbayer Jul 2014 #42
jeff47 Jul 2014 #43
cbayer Jul 2014 #45
jeff47 Jul 2014 #51
cbayer Jul 2014 #158
Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #237
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #244
Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #250
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #251
Warren Stupidity Aug 2014 #259
hrmjustin Aug 2014 #263
Warren Stupidity Aug 2014 #264
hrmjustin Aug 2014 #265
Warren Stupidity Aug 2014 #266
hrmjustin Aug 2014 #267
Warren Stupidity Aug 2014 #269
hrmjustin Aug 2014 #270
Warren Stupidity Aug 2014 #275
hrmjustin Aug 2014 #276
Warren Stupidity Aug 2014 #277
hrmjustin Aug 2014 #278
Warren Stupidity Aug 2014 #280
Lordquinton Aug 2014 #295
hrmjustin Aug 2014 #296
Lordquinton Aug 2014 #297
hrmjustin Aug 2014 #299
rug Aug 2014 #279
trotsky Jul 2014 #48
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #49
edhopper Jul 2014 #54
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #55
edhopper Jul 2014 #56
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #58
edhopper Jul 2014 #60
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #61
Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #238
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #239
Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #241
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #242
edhopper Jul 2014 #12
edhopper Jul 2014 #17
gcomeau Jul 2014 #34
Lordquinton Jul 2014 #93
okasha Jul 2014 #7
mr blur Jul 2014 #19
cbayer Jul 2014 #30
Lordquinton Jul 2014 #87
okasha Jul 2014 #95
Lordquinton Jul 2014 #98
cbayer Jul 2014 #161
Lordquinton Jul 2014 #179
cbayer Jul 2014 #189
Lordquinton Aug 2014 #298
cbayer Aug 2014 #322
okasha Jul 2014 #59
edhopper Jul 2014 #62
okasha Jul 2014 #66
edhopper Jul 2014 #67
Lordquinton Aug 2014 #300
hrmjustin Aug 2014 #301
Lordquinton Aug 2014 #313
hrmjustin Aug 2014 #330
okasha Aug 2014 #304
Lordquinton Aug 2014 #314
okasha Aug 2014 #331
hrmjustin Aug 2014 #332
mr blur Jul 2014 #69
okasha Jul 2014 #70
mr blur Jul 2014 #230
okasha Jul 2014 #232
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #233
okasha Jul 2014 #235
mr blur Aug 2014 #290
okasha Aug 2014 #305
Warren Stupidity Aug 2014 #258
okasha Aug 2014 #310
JNelson6563 Jul 2014 #40
Lordquinton Jul 2014 #88
okasha Jul 2014 #96
Lordquinton Jul 2014 #102
okasha Jul 2014 #255
skepticscott Aug 2014 #283
okasha Aug 2014 #309
edhopper Jul 2014 #9
pinto Jul 2014 #44
Lordquinton Jul 2014 #94
BabbaTam Jul 2014 #20
edhopper Jul 2014 #21
rug Jul 2014 #22
cbayer Jul 2014 #32
rug Jul 2014 #36
cbayer Jul 2014 #41
jeff47 Jul 2014 #33
rug Jul 2014 #35
truebluegreen Jul 2014 #63
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #38
Brettongarcia Jul 2014 #173
rug Jul 2014 #188
Brettongarcia Jul 2014 #209
rug Jul 2014 #228
okasha Jul 2014 #236
rug Jul 2014 #247
okasha Jul 2014 #253
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply !
rug Jul 2014 #254
okasha Jul 2014 #256
Maedhros Jul 2014 #46
cbayer Jul 2014 #47
Maedhros Jul 2014 #50
pinto Jul 2014 #52
edhopper Jul 2014 #57
okasha Jul 2014 #64
edhopper Jul 2014 #65
okasha Jul 2014 #68
edhopper Jul 2014 #71
okasha Jul 2014 #72
edhopper Jul 2014 #81
skepticscott Aug 2014 #285
skepticscott Aug 2014 #284
Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #178
Maedhros Jul 2014 #197
Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #177
Maedhros Jul 2014 #194
beam me up scottie Jul 2014 #105
rug Jul 2014 #106
beam me up scottie Jul 2014 #107
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #108
beam me up scottie Jul 2014 #110
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #111
beam me up scottie Jul 2014 #113
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #114
beam me up scottie Jul 2014 #116
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #119
beam me up scottie Jul 2014 #122
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #123
beam me up scottie Jul 2014 #125
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #127
beam me up scottie Jul 2014 #130
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #133
beam me up scottie Jul 2014 #144
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #146
beam me up scottie Jul 2014 #148
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #149
beam me up scottie Jul 2014 #151
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #153
rug Jul 2014 #128
beam me up scottie Jul 2014 #132
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #134
beam me up scottie Jul 2014 #138
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #139
beam me up scottie Jul 2014 #141
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #142
rug Jul 2014 #136
rug Jul 2014 #109
beam me up scottie Jul 2014 #112
rug Jul 2014 #115
beam me up scottie Jul 2014 #118
rug Jul 2014 #120
beam me up scottie Jul 2014 #124
rug Jul 2014 #126
beam me up scottie Jul 2014 #129
rug Jul 2014 #131
beam me up scottie Jul 2014 #135
rug Jul 2014 #137
beam me up scottie Jul 2014 #140
rug Jul 2014 #143
beam me up scottie Jul 2014 #145
rug Jul 2014 #147
beam me up scottie Jul 2014 #150
rug Jul 2014 #152
beam me up scottie Jul 2014 #155
rug Jul 2014 #156
okasha Jul 2014 #243
trotsky Jul 2014 #181
rug Jul 2014 #196
Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #121
Phlem Jul 2014 #154
Lordquinton Jul 2014 #171
Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #172
Lordquinton Jul 2014 #174
Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #186
Lordquinton Aug 2014 #272
Htom Sirveaux Aug 2014 #273
Lordquinton Aug 2014 #294
Htom Sirveaux Aug 2014 #311
Lordquinton Aug 2014 #316
Htom Sirveaux Aug 2014 #318
Lordquinton Aug 2014 #319
Htom Sirveaux Aug 2014 #321
Lordquinton Aug 2014 #328
Htom Sirveaux Aug 2014 #333
cbayer Jul 2014 #202
phil89 Jul 2014 #210
cbayer Jul 2014 #217
phil89 Aug 2014 #271
Warren Stupidity Aug 2014 #281
Warren Stupidity Aug 2014 #282
Lordquinton Aug 2014 #287
cbayer Aug 2014 #291
Lordquinton Aug 2014 #292
cbayer Aug 2014 #320
MADem Jul 2014 #157
Lordquinton Jul 2014 #175
MADem Jul 2014 #231
Lordquinton Aug 2014 #317
MADem Aug 2014 #336
phil89 Aug 2014 #302
Iggo Jul 2014 #185
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2014 #204
Brettongarcia Jul 2014 #221
Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #215
AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #222
Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #224
AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #225
Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #234
AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #240
Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #245
AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #246
Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #248
AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #252
Starboard Tack Aug 2014 #257
AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #260
Starboard Tack Aug 2014 #261
AtheistCrusader Aug 2014 #262
Starboard Tack Aug 2014 #268
Lordquinton Aug 2014 #274
Starboard Tack Aug 2014 #286
Lordquinton Aug 2014 #288
Starboard Tack Aug 2014 #289
Lordquinton Aug 2014 #293
Starboard Tack Aug 2014 #327
okasha Aug 2014 #334
phil89 Aug 2014 #303
Starboard Tack Aug 2014 #329
stone space Aug 2014 #306
Lordquinton Aug 2014 #315
stone space Aug 2014 #335

Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 11:26 AM

1. I have no burden here. I am not trying to convince you to believe.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #1)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 11:50 AM

6. I think the point is

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #6)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 04:37 AM

176. Thanks for your input. This was an excellent OP and discussion.Till it got involved in personalities

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #1)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 06:22 PM

74. Then we need people like you to keep in mind who we are talking about if we happen to

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #74)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 06:47 PM

76. People like me?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #76)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 06:50 PM

77. Yes, because we are talking about people who are not you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #77)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 06:51 PM

78. What are people like me supposed to mean?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #78)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 06:53 PM

79. A political minority of progressives who are also religious.

Progressive because of, or in spite of, their faith, whichever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #79)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 06:55 PM

80. And the op was not addressing people like me?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #80)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 06:59 PM

82. Are you engaged in tone policing or any of the deflection activities I mentioned?

If not, then no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #82)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 07:02 PM

83. Then who did the op mean? Only rw believers?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #82)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 01:19 AM

166. Is "tone policing" the current meme?

It seems to be making the rounds.

What happened to "scare quotes"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #166)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 02:25 AM

170. Back story: as I recall, it was ms. cbayer herself that began objecting to atheists' "tone"

That objection furthermore, seemed to have some influence with juries, etc.?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brettongarcia (Reply #170)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 08:37 AM

183. Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #183)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 11:34 AM

199. And I will also ask you to back that up.

And if you link to an article I posted about African Americans and their religious/spiritual diversity, all hope is lost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brettongarcia (Reply #170)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 11:16 AM

187. I don't believe that is accurate, so please don't repeat it without evidence.

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #187)


Response to Post removed (Reply #193)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 11:32 AM

198. Wait, you are again accusing me of supporting genocide

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #198)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 11:39 AM

203. By supporting some things uncritically, you end up inadvertantly endorsing the bad things in them

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brettongarcia (Reply #203)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 11:43 AM

206. So you are somehow making a link between African Americans and genocide in Africa.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #206)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 12:02 PM

211. Correction: African Religions. Which have been guilty of bad things it seems.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brettongarcia (Reply #211)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 12:09 PM

216. I think you were over the top and should eithdraw your accusations.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brettongarcia (Reply #203)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 11:46 AM

208. That's a real stretch, Brettongarcia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #198)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 11:43 AM

205. Wow, just wow! Somethings continue to surprise me here.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #205)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 12:07 PM

213. I'm rarely surprised anymore, but this one really takes the cake.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #213)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 12:08 PM

214. He should wirhdraw it. His allegations are disgustiing and over the top.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #214)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 12:11 PM

218. It makes not a bit of difference to me whether he withdraws it or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #218)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 12:15 PM

220. I have come to expect it from him.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #220)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 12:48 PM

226. I see a jury agreed and I hope someone posts the results.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #74)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 07:04 PM

84. Then you should be more accurate and precise when you "slag believers".

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #84)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 07:08 PM

85. Yet, whenever we point out the god those Tea-RW types are worshipping isn't real its #NotAllReligion

and herp derp, we're off to the races...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #85)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 07:14 PM

86. I get your point but - dareisay - it's an overstatement.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #85)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 01:21 AM

167. Who is we? I really like to know who I am dealing with when I respond to an

individual. If they are representing some larger group, I think it's my right to know that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #167)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 08:39 AM

184. Was I talking to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #184)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 11:22 AM

192. Does it matter? You are talking on an open board and anyone can respond to anything.

If you wish to have a private discussion, you should probably try PM or e-mail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #192)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 11:35 AM

200. I was responding directly to Rug's post.

You are free to jump in, but I don't know why you would imagine my post should have been tailored to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #200)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 11:45 AM

207. I never thought it was tailored to me, I just wanted to know who you were speaking for.

So who are you speaking for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #1)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 07:45 PM

89. thank you for your input

If you felt that it wasn't addressed to you, why did you respond?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #89)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 07:47 PM

90. I never said it wasn't. And I am allowed to respond.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #90)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 08:56 PM

97. I never said you weren't

Just trying to figure out what you mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #97)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 08:59 PM

99. I mean I have no burdens to prove anything about my faith here.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #99)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 09:13 PM

100. ok, but what about other believers who try to push their views?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #100)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 09:15 PM

101. If they are trying to convert yes there is a burden.

 

If they are trying to use the legal system or the goverment to enact change yes there is a burden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #101)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 09:17 PM

103. ok, so you agree with the post

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #103)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 09:19 PM

104. I think I misjudged what you were saying.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 11:34 AM

2. Who is trying to prove anything?

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Phlem (Reply #5)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 01:37 PM

24. Ok, let's make our point against Jody Hice then

and not aim this particularly dull weapon at fellow democrats and progressives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #24)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 06:07 PM

73. Really?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phlem (Reply #73)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 12:51 AM

159. Agree, this is not a christian nation.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #159)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 07:58 AM

180. The real problem is why religion is powerful enough to be used as a weapon, cbayer.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #180)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 11:28 AM

195. No, the real problem is why capitalist classes concentrate the power in the first place.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #195)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 12:35 PM

223. How does the "power" use religions to divide and maintain power? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fix The Stupid (Reply #223)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 12:58 PM

227. Currently, it is used in the U.S. to attempt to control women.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #227)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 01:26 PM

229. I agree somewhat.



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...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fix The Stupid (Reply #229)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 06:34 PM

249. Sure.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #2)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 12:00 PM

8. Didn't you just post in a thread

that claimed agnostics shift the burden of proof on atheists.
So this is being said, n'est-ce pas?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #8)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 12:06 PM

10. That was in a different thread so it doesn't count.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #8)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 01:35 PM

23. I posted in that thread but did not endorse that idea.

Was i not clear?

Anyway, I think the author was submitting a hypothesis, not a claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #23)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 01:44 PM

25. No you weren't

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #25)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 01:46 PM

26. Did not see that as obvious.

That's not unusual for me though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #26)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 03:53 PM

53. Okay

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #23)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:09 PM

117. You are correct, I was not endorsing one model over the other.

I guess the title confused people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Htom Sirveaux (Reply #117)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 01:14 AM

164. Well, it either confused people or they saw only what they wanted to see.

One has to be very careful. It's not just the christians that have created a sect of victims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #164)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 01:17 AM

165. I'll be extra careful next time.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Htom Sirveaux (Reply #165)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 01:24 AM

168. I think it's great that you write original 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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #168)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 01:36 AM

169. I wasn't criticizing at all, sorry for creating that impression.

I post articles as well, as you know, and the next several things I post will probably be articles, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #2)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 01:54 PM

29. The reason why this is such an important concept, cbayer, as many people keep trying to point out...

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #2)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 07:49 PM

91. thank you for your input

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #91)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 01:12 AM

162. Yes, there are those here who believe in god.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #162)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 08:03 PM

308. I think that you put your finger here on exactly who needs incurrs the burden of proof.

 

Last edited Sat Aug 2, 2014, 09:37 PM - Edit history (1)

Yes, there are those here who believe in god.

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.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #308)

Sat Aug 2, 2014, 01:56 AM

323. The burden of proof argument is just a deflection.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #323)

Sat Aug 2, 2014, 02:51 AM

325. You are correct

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)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #325)

Sat Aug 2, 2014, 02:58 AM

326. There is no there there? Are you sure?

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #162)

Sat Aug 2, 2014, 12:20 AM

312. The comment is about not knowing why this thread is posted here

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)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #312)

Sat Aug 2, 2014, 02:09 AM

324. I honestly did not recognize that his was in response to that particular thread.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #91)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 07:41 PM

307. I claim the opposite.

 

Many claim there is a god. There are even posters here claim as much.


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.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 11:45 AM

3. Well said. Every claim of fact needs evidence. No religious exemption. Where is the meat?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #3)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 01:48 PM

27. Agree, that is if the claim of fact is made.

OTOH, if someone just claims a belief based on faith, that's not a claim of fact and requires no proof.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #27)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 06:23 PM

75. Error,

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #75)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 12:52 AM

160. Error,

That's not what I said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #160)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 01:13 AM

163. "Certain persons...made shipwreck of...faith" (1 Tim 1.19); "test everything" (1 Thess. 5.21).

Last edited Sun Aug 3, 2014, 02:48 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).






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #160)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 08:37 AM

182. I realize that.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #182)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 11:20 AM

190. I agree that it is meaningless to anyone who doesn't share that belief.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #190)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 11:36 AM

201. I do. Criteria about how believers make it an issue has been offered in this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #201)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 12:05 PM

212. Can you point me to those criteria.

That's not what I am seeing here, but I might be missing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to cbayer (Reply #160)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 11:21 AM

191. Most who make "faith" claims turn, and claim holy certainty.Then the Bible sees problems with Faith

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).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #3)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 07:50 PM

92. thanks.

Needed to set the record straight. Too much mud bing stirred up about this issue round these parts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 11:47 AM

4. I think if you were strong in your belief or understanding

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #4)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 12:08 PM

11. The mistake is you're labeling atheism a belief.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #11)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 12:20 PM

13. Well change the word to what?

Non belief? My idea still stands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #13)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 12:25 PM

16. Because there would now be proof.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #11)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 12:23 PM

14. My only problem with your analogy

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #14)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 12:24 PM

15. Hence the quotes around "believe". (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #15)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 12:26 PM

18. Okay

it's a tricky word with lots of uses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #11)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 01:50 PM

28. But did anyone claim to be an ablackmatterist?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #28)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 01:55 PM

31. Yes. Everyone did.

Everyone was "ablackmatterist" until evidence was found.

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.

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".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #31)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 02:07 PM

37. They may have been that, but no one claimed it and made a cause out of it.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #37)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 02:11 PM

39. Which now leads us to divide-and-conquer

Atheism is a purely neutral position for some, but for others it is an activist position and often includes anti-theism.

Sure, when you want to divide and conquer, it's very important to separate people into different groups.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #39)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 02:21 PM

42. I do not want to divide and conquer.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #42)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 02:37 PM

43. Unite under your way of thinking.

Which is just a happier version of "conquer". In both cases, you wish to eliminate those that oppose you.

I want people to stop throwing all believers into a bucket that they consider swill that must be eliminated.

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.

The anti's need to back off and become more discriminating about who it is they are against.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #43)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 02:43 PM

45. I dont' wish to eliminate those that oppose me, I want to eliminate those

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #45)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 03:13 PM

51. Adding additional clauses doesn't change the meaning.

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.

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.

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.

Atheists do not need to accept anything, but they need to realize who is one their team and will help them.

We do. Your inaction makes it abundantly clear.

I am glad you know about Moral Mondays. If you look a little further you will see Moral Mondays everywhere.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #51)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 12:43 AM

158. I'm not a believer. So look and see where your assumptions led you.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #158)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 04:36 PM

237. Ah it is such a triumph every time you play that card!

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #237)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 04:59 PM

244. Are you saying she believes in God here?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #244)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 06:47 PM

250. I said exactly what I meant.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #250)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 06:49 PM

251. She would disagree with you.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #251)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 07:34 AM

259. She would not be honest in doing so.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #259)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 09:17 AM

263. Calling her a liar?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #263)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 09:25 AM

264. What is your point Justin? Alert trolling?

 

Just alert on my posts and be done with it. I said exactly what I meant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #264)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 09:33 AM

265. I think this is an ugly and dispicable tactic on your part. Alert yourself.

 

I prefer to call you out on it,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #265)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 09:38 AM

266. What? Noting that cbayer springs her clever trap on a regular basis?

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #266)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 09:42 AM

267. Funny how this tactic is employed by some here.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #267)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 10:57 AM

269. That would be cbayer's spouse, the alleged atheist who hates all the other atheists here.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #269)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 11:25 AM

270. I don't think your in a postion to judge others.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #270)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 01:30 PM

275. of course I am.

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #275)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 01:35 PM

276. I think this point your tactics speak for themselves and it does not reflect well on you.

 

This tactic has been used against atheists here who don't buy into the take no prisoners attitude of some in this room.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #276)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 01:53 PM

277. I thought you weren't judging others.

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #277)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 01:54 PM

278. Warren this conversation is at an end. keep going if you like but I am done.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #278)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 02:21 PM

280. Not it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #276)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 05:23 PM

295. have any proof to back that statement up?

that's not directed to anyone banned from the A&A group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #295)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 05:29 PM

296. Read what I wrote.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #296)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 05:54 PM

297. So you don't

just a unsubstantiated claim?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #297)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 05:59 PM

299. I don't have a star so I can nit do advanced search.

 

But yes this has happened here many times. If you don't believe me that is your issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #275)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 02:02 PM

279. No, you're being judgmental.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #42)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 02:57 PM

48. FFS, cbayer!!!

I want people to stop throwing all believers into a bucket that they consider swill that must be eliminated.

WHO HAS SAID THIS??? Why do you insist on using such a ridiculous straw man to attack others?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #48)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 03:00 PM

49. Some people here have made clear they want religion to disappear.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #49)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 03:57 PM

54. There is a big difference between wanting religion

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #54)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 03:58 PM

55. I don't think she meant a purge physically.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #55)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 04:16 PM

56. So what do you think people mean when you say:

"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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #56)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 04:23 PM

58. I don't think you guys want us in a bucket.

 

I think it was just an expression not meant literally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #58)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 04:26 PM

60. It still connotes

that atheist wish to eliminate believers rather than wanting religion to vanish someday. It is a grievous charge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #60)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 04:28 PM

61. Ok. I doubt it was meant that way.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #49)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 04:37 PM

238. Over here! Me!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #238)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 04:38 PM

239. Yes Warren.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #239)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 04:40 PM

241. You have my permission to call me out by name when referring to people

 

who want religions to just fade away until they are as insignificant as the gods these religions worship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #241)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 04:40 PM

242. Thank you.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #4)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 12:09 PM

12. Because of Hobby lobby's beliefs

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #4)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 12:26 PM

17. Don't you ever want to take stock in your beliefs

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #4)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 02:01 PM

34. Another way of saying that...

 

...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)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #4)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 07:54 PM

93. thank you for your input

I believe that too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 11:53 AM

7. I hate to break this to you,

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #7)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 12:43 PM

19. And yet - you demand that we respect what you believe.

 

That makes as much sense as we've come to expect.

Have a confusing day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Reply #19)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 01:54 PM

30. What is it you think okasha believes?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #30)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 07:42 PM

87. did you read Okasha's post Cbayer?

"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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #87)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 08:01 PM

95. Is there some particular reason why anyone but you

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #95)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 08:58 PM

98. thanks for caring so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #87)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 01:06 AM

161. Of course I read it.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #161)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 07:20 AM

179. I judged you by your own actions

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #179)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 11:18 AM

189. Bout of rank hypocrisy?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #189)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 05:58 PM

298. It's when you attack the way someone says something

rather than what they are saying. It is indeed the latest meme of the privileged groups to silence the minority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #298)

Sat Aug 2, 2014, 01:52 AM

322. Sometimes the way someone says something should be challenged,

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Reply #19)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 04:23 PM

59. Actually, I demand that you stay out of what I believe

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #59)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 04:28 PM

62. could you link that post about your beliefs

thanx.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #62)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 04:44 PM

66. My allegedly smart phone can't handle links.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #66)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 04:45 PM

67. I'll look

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #66)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 06:01 PM

300. Interfaith "Religious privilege" thread?

Let me guess, you also weighed in on the Men's group "Male Privilege" thread as well?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #300)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 06:22 PM

301. No if you look in interfaith there is a thread istarted called religious privilege.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #301)

Sat Aug 2, 2014, 12:25 AM

313. You're serious?

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)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #313)

Sat Aug 2, 2014, 09:52 AM

330. Because you say so? Because you can't control the debate?

 

We are capable of having a discussion in our room.We discuss things in the room without the snark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #300)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 07:21 PM

304. Wrong again.

And no, I don't post in the Men's Group. Let's see if you can figure out why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #304)

Sat Aug 2, 2014, 12:30 AM

314. Here's a hint:You can't have a discussion about religious privilege in INTERFAITH

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #314)

Sat Aug 2, 2014, 11:36 AM

331. Interfaith excludes no one but trolls and disruptors.

Read the SoP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #314)

Sat Aug 2, 2014, 11:58 AM

332. Yo do know atheists posts in interfaith, right?

 

As long as the sop is followed we welcome all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #59)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 05:46 PM

69. Demand away (it suits you), It would be my pleasure.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Reply #69)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 05:52 PM

70. But I don't flaunt my beliefs in public.

Or you'd know what they are.

I think it's past your bedtime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #70)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 01:32 PM

230. I know you and your partner love to read jury decisions, so here's yours. No need for thanks.

 

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)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Reply #230)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 03:10 PM

232. Not my alert.

Guess again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #232)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 03:14 PM

233. Not mine either. i wonder who your partner is.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #233)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 04:16 PM

235. Me, too.

Maybe we'll know more when mr. blur tries again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #235)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 04:39 PM

290. Think "comedy double act". You three should know -

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Reply #290)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 07:27 PM

305. If there's three of us,

Last edited Fri Aug 1, 2014, 08:02 PM - Edit history (1)

that's a trio. Pleased to be of service, don't you know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #70)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 06:25 AM

258. Ah there it is again: "I think it's past your bedtime".

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #258)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 08:38 PM

310. Well, well. Looky here.

It's Barney Fife of the Tone Police!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #7)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 02:15 PM

40. Wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #7)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 07:44 PM

88. but you do care Okasha, this post shows you care so much

Thank you for proving my point about zero substance, only personal attacks and tone policing.

Thank you for your input.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #88)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 08:05 PM

96. Uhmmm, no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #96)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 09:15 PM

102. this thread has over 100 replies, obviously your belief holds no merit

Your posts down thread show you agree with my post, so why the lashout? What do you have a problem with?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #102)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 09:01 PM

255. If my "belief has no merit"

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #255)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 02:29 PM

283. When has "rug"

 

Shown the ability to put things any other way?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #283)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 08:10 PM

309. Multum in parvo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 12:06 PM

9. I think the minute believers

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #9)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 02:43 PM

44. I think the more pertinent issue is separation of the church and state.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #9)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 07:57 PM

94. this is one of the important reasons I'm posting about this

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 12:45 PM

20. the proof

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BabbaTam (Reply #20)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 12:49 PM

21. And what do you say about people like

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 01:14 PM

22. Burden of proof is a legal and a philosophical term.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #22)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 01:56 PM

32. The tone police will be visiting you shortly because you put up and didn't shut up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #32)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 02:07 PM

36. They'd better have a warrant.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #36)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 02:16 PM

41. And a straight jacket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #22)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 01:57 PM

33. I'll start letting people know "Blues" does not exist. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #33)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 02:06 PM

35. Charlie Parker is God.

 



But that's jazz.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #35)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 04:32 PM

63. No, no, no--Eric Clapton is God. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #22)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 02:10 PM

38. How dare you use logic like that you irrational and deluded believer!

 




Good post rug.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #22)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 03:49 AM

173. There's a series of books online that says the Bible values science & evidence, over faith. Citing:

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/)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brettongarcia (Reply #173)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 11:17 AM

188. This "Dr. Woodbridge Goodman, Ph.D." (sic) ?

 

THE BIBLE SUPPORTS SCIENCE, OVER FAITH: The Heaven-Shattering Second View, Second Coming, of God //We See the Promised Second Coming of God the "Day" We Re-Read the Bible; and See Christ Supporting Science Over Preachers, Faith, Churches, Spirit. 10 Volumes


Where on earth do you find these sources? Dr. Goodman Ph.D. has no other internet presence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #188)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 11:52 AM

209. Yes, Dr. Woodbridge Goodman PhD. His books also appear in the Library of Congress.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brettongarcia (Reply #209)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 01:00 PM

228. Frankly, with his "Heaven-Shattering Second View", he sounds like a crackpot.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #228)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 04:30 PM

236. Looks like BG

has some vanity press tomes out there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #236)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 06:27 PM

247. I was too polite to say.

 

That's my character flaw.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #247)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 08:11 PM

253. The sheer incoherence is a giveaway.

BG's idiolect is distinctive. (And for the alert-happy, there's no "t" in that word.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #253)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 08:20 PM

254. !

 

Thanks for the new word. Both of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #254)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 09:10 PM

256. My pleasure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 02:44 PM

46. Faith is belief without the need for proof.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #46)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 02:52 PM

47. This is a great response.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #47)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 03:08 PM

50. Religion serves as a code of ethics and moral guidance for individuals.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #50)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 03:13 PM

52. I deplore how the Separation clause of the US Constitution has been distorted. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinto (Reply #52)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 04:17 PM

57. I think Hobby Lobby

broke it. The rights of the believers, even if their beliefs are provably wrong, trump the rights of others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #57)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 04:32 PM

64. It was Citizens United that broke it

and desperately needs to be overturned. The Hobby Lobby case is the fruit of that poison tree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #64)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 04:38 PM

65. Citizens United was awful

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #65)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 05:00 PM

68. CU bestowed "personhood" on corporations,

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #68)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 05:53 PM

71. No question

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #71)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 05:58 PM

72. I agree.

Just pointing out that the HL decision would not have been possible without CU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #72)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 06:57 PM

81. Long term

CU probably is more destructive as well. But both are terrible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #68)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 02:35 PM

285. Sorry, not even close

 

Why do so many people rant about that decision who don't even understand it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #65)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 02:34 PM

284. Sorry, but it wasn't

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #50)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 06:50 AM

178. Their moral code is frequently immoral.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #178)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 11:31 AM

197. “A farmer went out to sow his seed.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #46)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 06:47 AM

177. Your conditiion is manifestly not met. So it is fair to demand proof.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #177)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 11:28 AM

194. Demanding proof to what end?

 

What is the point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 09:29 PM

105. 14 of the current R/T ops about atheists/atheism were posted by non-atheists

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #105)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 09:38 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #106)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 09:45 PM

107. And look who immediately leaps up to take the bait.

Our number one fan.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #107)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 09:46 PM

108. He has a point though.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #108)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 09:54 PM

110. If you think that you've missed the point.

imho, your posts show you do care what we think, I'll let their ops speak for themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #110)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 09:59 PM

111. yes I do care what atheists think. I think I have made that clear.

 

The point is atheists start threads on what religious people think all the time here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #111)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:04 PM

113. Others don't.

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.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #113)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:05 PM

114. yes there are atheists who have tried to define me here.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #114)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:07 PM

116. They tried to redefine your christianity?

When and where?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #116)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:11 PM

119. One member here tried to tell me I was not really a Christian because I don't believe the rule book

 

100 percent. I was so upset I put the poster on ignore for 2 months. This was an atheist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #119)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:22 PM

122. So one atheist tried to do it to you one time.

Compare that to how many times we have to fight for our right to define ourselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #122)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:24 PM

123. Not just once. people here have tried to define me many times.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #123)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:31 PM

125. Did they say you weren't really a christian?

Did they say that all christians believe _____ and if you disagree you are either stupid or a liar?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #125)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:32 PM

127. No he was trying to say Christianity is following the rile book and my faith is a theist faith.

 

The point is he wad trying to define me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #127)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:40 PM

130. One time.

Once.

Compared to how many times we have to fight in this forum and DU in general.

Not even close.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #130)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:43 PM

133. I said it happened with others as well. I am not recounting every story because it woukd take too

 

long.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #133)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:58 PM

144. Are your beliefs repeatedly questioned in this forum?

Because my lack of them is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #144)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 11:03 PM

146. Yes they are. I accept that as a part of this forum.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #146)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 11:08 PM

148. I'm not talking about why you believe but what you believe.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #148)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 11:11 PM

149. Thanks my friend.

 

Yeah I am questioned on why and what I believe. Most is done in good faith though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #149)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 11:19 PM

151. Questioning belief is good, telling you what you believe not so much.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #151)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 11:23 PM

153. Yes it is always good to question our views and to have them challenged.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #125)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:34 PM

128. Let me see, is Gomer considered stupid or a liar?

 



Because that's what your charming friends have called him. To be fair, I haven't heard them call him obsessive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #128)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:42 PM

132. I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

Calling someone 'Gomer' isn't questioning or redefining their christianity.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #132)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:44 PM

134. no but it is insulting.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #134)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:51 PM

138. Yes it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #138)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:52 PM

139. Thats ok I made peace with the poster.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #139)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:56 PM

141. I'm glad.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #141)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:57 PM

142. Thank you. I appreciate your kind words.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #132)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:48 PM

136. But it's pretty damned close to calling someone stupid.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #107)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 09:50 PM

109. Ah, I see you have no answer.

 

But you do have a smiley.

BTW, your analogy only works if you consider an entomologist to be a fan of his subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #109)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 09:59 PM

112. 10 of the current ops are yours.

You wish you could quit us but you can't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #112)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:06 PM

115. At least. And you still haven't answered the question.

 

What percentage of posts about religion have been posted by atheists?

You appear to have time on your hands to get the answer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #115)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:09 PM

118. Actually I have to feed the dogs and horses right now.

That should give you enough time to post two or three more threads about us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #118)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:15 PM

120. Do you object? Do you have a monopoly on the topic?

 

BTW, find the time to answer the question after you feed your horses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #120)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:27 PM

124. Name one atheist who posts threads at the same rate as you.

The most prolific are Warren Stupidity who currently has 5 and SecularMotion with 4.

You have 10.

It is obsessive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #124)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:31 PM

126. That's not the question.

 

Although I can see your point there about obsession.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #126)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:37 PM

129. Which individual atheist posts about religion as obsessively as you do about atheism?

It's not even close rug.

We're flattered though, really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #129)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:41 PM

131. You really shouldn't say "individual atheist" and "we" in the same post. It makes one wonder.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #131)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:47 PM

135. Name the atheist who has as many threads about religion as you do about atheism.

One.

"And you really, really don't sound flattered. I detect much more uneasiness."

You overestimate your effect on me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #135)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:50 PM

137. State the percentage of religion posts by atheists.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #137)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:53 PM

140. You can't name an atheist who posts as obsessively as you do.

I rest my case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #140)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:58 PM

143. You'd better check the jurors' faces before you rest on that.

 

And again. No answer from you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #143)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 11:03 PM

145. No jury needed, the numbers speak for themselves.

As does the content you post daily in this forum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #145)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 11:04 PM

147. What numbers? You haven't provided any.

 

What's the percentage of religion posts in here by atheists?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #147)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 11:13 PM

150. You have 10 ops about atheism/atheists on the first page.

Far more than the individual atheists who post in this group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #150)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 11:20 PM

152. Why are you striving so hard to not answer the question?

 

To recap:

You enter the thread by stating this:

105. 14 of the current R/T ops about atheists/atheism were posted by non-atheists

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #152)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 11:46 PM

155. A post by a non-atheist claimed that they don't give a damn what we believe

I don't give damn what you believe or don't. I seriously doubt that any believer who frequents this group does.


My post questioned the truth of that claim.

You are missing the point on purpose.

One could say obsessively.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #155)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 11:57 PM

156. Regardless of why you posted, you still did not answer the question.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #155)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 04:55 PM

243. That "you" is addressed to Lordquinton,

not to a class of people. And so far, the observation appears to be accurate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #105)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 08:12 AM

181. Religion affects all our lives.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #181)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 11:31 AM

196. Sorry to hear you're puzzled.

 

Keep reading, you'll get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Wed Jul 30, 2014, 10:20 PM

121. Depends on who is doing the arguing, doesn't it?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Htom Sirveaux (Reply #121)


Response to Htom Sirveaux (Reply #121)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 03:14 AM

171. thank you for your reply

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #171)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 03:28 AM

172. In your opinion, is writing or publishing books attacking theism or defending atheism

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Htom Sirveaux (Reply #172)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 03:55 AM

174. here's the atheists "burden" answered for you.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #174)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 10:50 AM

186. Asking what counts as evidence is not a strawman.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Htom Sirveaux (Reply #186)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 12:35 PM

272. Let's go back further than, say, last tuesday

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)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #272)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 12:45 PM

273. What does "the floaty way the term is used now" mean?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Htom Sirveaux (Reply #273)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 05:16 PM

294. Given that you just avoided a direct question

I'll assume you have no evidence.

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #294)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 10:29 PM

311. No, thank you!

If a dialogue is not going to be productive, it's best to learn that quickly.

Have a good one!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Htom Sirveaux (Reply #311)

Sat Aug 2, 2014, 12:48 AM

316. You're correct, but I try anyways

Now, are you going to answer your own question? Or just deflect, play dumb, and post straw men?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #316)

Sat Aug 2, 2014, 01:04 AM

318. I'm not shy about discussing reasons to believe that God exists.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Htom Sirveaux (Reply #318)

Sat Aug 2, 2014, 01:16 AM

319. You don't understand your own question?

"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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #319)

Sat Aug 2, 2014, 01:52 AM

321. I see, so your contention is that "caused by God" doesn't have a real meaning.

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:

Science and religion generally pursue knowledge of the universe using different methodologies. Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness. Despite these differences, most scientific and technical innovations prior to the Scientific revolution were achieved by societies organized by religious traditions. Much of the scientific method was pioneered first by Islamic scholars, and later by Christians. Hinduism has historically embraced reason and empiricism, holding that science brings legitimate, but incomplete knowledge of the world. Confucian thought has held different views of science over time. Most Buddhists today view science as complementary to their beliefs.

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".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Htom Sirveaux (Reply #321)

Sat Aug 2, 2014, 03:03 AM

328. You have several logic holes

"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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #328)

Sat Aug 2, 2014, 12:14 PM

333. First, I didn't presuppose a creator, I made an argument for a creator.

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:

After his death he gained considerable fame, particularly among 19th- and early 20th-century commentators who regarded him as a martyr for science,[5] though scholars emphasize that Bruno's astronomical views were at most a minor component of the theological and philosophical beliefs that led to his trial.[6][7][8]

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #174)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 11:38 AM

202. There is no evidence that there is intelligent life anywhere in the universe.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #202)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 11:57 AM

210. Intelligent life on other planets

 

Is not at odds with the laws of physics or reality. No magic required. Not so with god claims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phil89 (Reply #210)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 12:09 PM

217. And a god is at odds with the laws of physics or reality?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #217)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 11:25 AM

271. You don't think gods are supposed to be supernatural

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #217)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 02:24 PM

281. Well there you go, just reduce the definition of "god" to something that doesn't

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #202)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 02:26 PM

282. You just committed the same blunder again.

 


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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #202)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 03:54 PM

287. There is intelligent life in the universe

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #287)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 04:47 PM

291. You don't know if there is intelligent life in the universe other than on this planet

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….

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #291)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 05:11 PM

292. Ok, step by step logic here

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #292)

Sat Aug 2, 2014, 01:48 AM

320. The discussion is about intelligent life in the universe other than on this planet.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 12:16 AM

157. No, it is not. Those believers do not care what the non-believers think of them.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #157)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 04:01 AM

175. thank you for your input

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #175)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 02:53 PM

231. Neither side cares--that's my point. They both think the other is WRONG.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #231)

Sat Aug 2, 2014, 01:02 AM

317. No, you are mis-characterizing the situation

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #317)

Sun Aug 3, 2014, 01:53 AM

336. No, I'm not. Just because you insist that people "have to prove it" doesn't mean that they

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #157)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 06:34 PM

302. Except we live in a society subject to laws based on unsubstantiated claims

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 10:10 AM

185. Of course it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 11:42 AM

204. I don't think you understand the concept of 'belief'.

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.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #204)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 12:20 PM

221. See Post 73: technically, "faith" claims assert no certainty, and no proof. But in actuality?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Original post)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 12:09 PM

215. Maybe, if there were a burden of proof, which there isn't.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #215)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 12:22 PM

222. They do, if it's a basis for legislative advocacy/lobbying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #222)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 12:36 PM

224. I don't see how that obliges anyone to prove anything regarding their personal beliefs.

Please explain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #224)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 12:42 PM

225. If the Roman Catholic Church had its way, I would not have been allowed to create 9

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #225)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 03:15 PM

234. What does that have to do with personal beliefs?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #234)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 04:39 PM

240. Their followers lobby, donate, and vote for laws to constrict my activities according to their faith

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #240)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 06:01 PM

245. That is your right.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #245)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 06:14 PM

246. "It's a personal decision."

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #246)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 06:31 PM

248. If that's what they are doing. I don't see anyone here doing that. Do you?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #248)

Thu Jul 31, 2014, 07:58 PM

252. I don't see anyone here doing it. But I do see people here deflecting and defending when I point it

out.

Asking them to prove the source for their moral lobbying highlights they have no authority whatever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #252)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 01:59 AM

257. What "moral lobbying"? What "authority"?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #257)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 07:36 AM

260. I have fucking explained this to you too many times to count.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #260)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 08:03 AM

261. Their "source" is faith.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #261)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 08:25 AM

262. We finally passed I-1000 over their objections.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #262)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 10:06 AM

268. Glad you won.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #215)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 12:49 PM

274. thank you for your input

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #274)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 03:29 PM

286. I'm sorry, but I tried reading that 3 times and ended with a headache.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #286)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 03:57 PM

288. I'd suggest glasses, or grammar school to learn what punctuation is (because there was plenty there)

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #288)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 04:20 PM

289. Sorry. I'm wearing glasses and the punctuation isn't helping.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #289)

Fri Aug 1, 2014, 05:15 PM

293. So I'm assuming you have absolutely no counter to anything I've said

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #293)

Sat Aug 2, 2014, 02:58 AM

327. OK. Good morning!

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #288)

Sat Aug 2, 2014, 04:43 PM