Astrophysicist, meteorologist, fursuiter, charity auctioneer, escape room veteran. LGBT+, he/him. An Aussie maned wolf finding his way through the world.
94 followers 104 following 850 posts
view profile on Bluesky
At least your son had direct evidence that you existed before throwing himself into your arms. There's a huge gap between trust backed by experience, and the Christian idea of faith. Any idea, right or wrong, can be believed via faith. Evidence is all that matters for these sorts of questions.
- strongly with secular humanism, critical thinking, support for science, etc. But correlation isn't causation.
You... just disproved your own point. Atheism is a single position on a singular issue. It is not a worldview or a belief system, but it can be built as an element into a wide variety of them. The fact that atheism is often arrived at through sceptical inquiry means that it correlates -
But I can only spot one!
Atheism does not, in and of itself, proscribe a moral system. It has no tenets, no commandments. However, if you are genuinely interested in being a moral person in the absence of a god, secular humanism is a pretty logical position to arrive at. It just isn't a necessity of atheism.
One can hope.
YARD (Yell At Racist Dogs) and YAP (Yell At Paedophiles), all at the same time - tomorrow, nationwide! Check this thread for counter events across the country.
The stars and nature are evidence of natural processes. Nothing about them points to a god. And you can't point to people escaping disasters and recovering from diseases without ignoring all the people who were killed or injured or stayed sick. What you claim as miraculous is just statistics.
So that's another thing you're wrong about. I used to be an astronomer. If I had a vision where god told me the coordinates of an undiscovered object in space, and I went and looked there and found that exact object, I would consider that very strong evidence for that god.
And faith has no utility. It doesn’t lead you to truth.
You're so close. But your own graphic proves you wrong. A theist believes there is a god. An atheist is the logical negation of a theist. An atheist does not believe there is a god. But, please, note, the atheist does not have to believe that there is no god. Those are not the same thing.
So what's happening to the others is okay because *some* are getting sent to their home countries? Treating some people ethically is not an excuse for all the people being treated unethically. A mass murderer doesn’t get a pass because he pushed one guy out of the way of a speeding bus.
Yes, because I am one. I don't believe in a god. What part of that haven't I been clear about?
So a Spider Man anthology is evidence of the existence of Spider Man?
And yet the circle of life continues. Decay doesn’t just lead to more decay, it leads to new life, again and again. Locally entropy rises and falls, but it doesn't rise forever because of the energy from the Sun. Scientists know all this. Entropy doesn't pose the problem you think it does.
I might. But you would have to show me that what you are attributing to god, was actually caused by god. If I pray to god to find my car keys, and I find them, that doesn’t mean god had anything to do with it. Nor if I pray for someone sick, and they get better.
"Only the connection between Christianity and science counts as evidence, because Christianity is true." More assertions. More special pleading. More circular logic. I agree that Islam is a false religion. For the umpteenth time, show me why yours isn't.
Kinda both?
Prove it.
Because local increases are still possible, as well as decreases. The Sun provides energy which plants use to photosynthesise, and up the food chain that it goes until it gets used to sustain people. But unless a person decides to use that energy to clean their bedroom, its entropy will increase.
What clear ways? Science doesn't rule out a higher being. It simply requires you to demonstrate that one exists before it be used as an explanation for anything. "I don't know, but if you want to say that a higher being caused X, you have to show it."
I brought up nuclear science. You brought up its morality, which was the irrelevant part. Christianity and science are connected historically, but not ideologically. Islam and science have a lot of historic connections too; are you going to lay credit for science at the feet of Allah?
The Bible is the claim, not the evidence for the claim.
They're being taken off the streets by masked, unidentified agents. Being held in unknown locations so that their families or lawyers can't help them. And then getting shipped off to gulags in El Salvador from which they are likely to never be released. No appeal. No due process. Just disappeared.
A/theism relates to belief in god, or lack thereof. A/gnosticism relates to knowledge of god, or the idea of whether god's existence is knowable. Knowledge and belief are not the same thing. As such, one can be an agnostic atheist (like me). The terms can overlap.
And I just provided you a clear example showing that your definitions are outdated. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. It can include, but does not require, the belief in the lack of a god. Those two things are not the same.
I guess then you wouldn't consider any Christian apologist as a "responsible thinker" then? Plenty of them spend a lot of time trying to make the case for god.
The Moiety were pretty freaky. And yeah, the Wharks are pretty intimidating. Have you played through the VR remake?
I also refer to myself as an agnostic atheist, but it's still atheism. All atheists lack belief in a god. Only some assert the lack of a god. And more importantly, the burden of proof for claiming that there is a god lies with the theist making the claim.
Your account handle is a lie.
"You can't prove a negative" is itself a negative statement, and therefore by its own logic can't be proved. And atheism, at its most basic level, is just a lack of belief in god. Not a positive claim that no gods exist. Someone else claims a god exists, and we ask for evidence.
Atheism is not a set of beliefs or values. Atheism is like a brick. It can be used in the construction of larger world-views and ideologies, but it isn't one itself. All atheism is, is a rejection of the claim "there is a god". We ask those who claim as much to back that claim up.
Atheism isn't an ideology. But I'd argue that, as an atheist, I have hope in plenty of things. And I have a lot less false hope, too.
Atheism has existed as long as the idea of a god has, if not longer. It is not a philosophy. It simply requires people who claim that there is a god to show their evidence.
Why did it scare you?
Got it. You're a fundamentally un-serious person not worth spending more time on. Have a nice day.
I was simply trying to show you how Jesus would sound if he spoke like you. Doesn't fit his character very well.
I can yield on that point, although I can also point out that one can gnash for multiple reasons. Regardless, if god is going to place people in a situation where they can do nought but sin, how is that their fault? They have no recourse. It's like cutting off a man's legs and asking him to walk.
Can you provide evidence for the existence of a god?
I'm against the death penalty for similar reasons. Similarly, justice should be restorative, not merely punitive. You're making ad-hoc rationalisations on behalf of a broken, immoral system.
What are you talking about? I'm holding them to the same standard. Those who administer justice are responsible for that justice. They chose the punitive method, they set the standard of care, and for that they are held responsible. No finite crime can justify an infinite punishment.
"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened. I wish to see you cry more." - Jesus.
I'm not wounded. I'm frustrated that you can't/won't back up your position. I have genuinely expressed my confusion at you saying non-sensical things. If that comes across as dickish, so be it, but you're the one claiming to follow Christ's example, not me. "Turn the other cheek" and all that.
How very Christlike of a response. Don't expect to persuade anyone of your beliefs if you persist in doing such a terrible job defending them.
You are dodging and reframing the aspects of this ideology that you find uncomfortable to defend. And all of this is granting that god and hell actually exist, for which I have seen no good evidence.
God still made those individual people, knowing their ultimate fate. "Weeping and gnashing of teeth" means people writhing in agony, not "cursing/blaming God". And how can people be blamed for not finding god when he takes such lengths to remain hidden?
So... you're refusing to provide justification for a god?
What are you even on about?
You'll have to do better if you want to stop dodging the question and provide a good reason to believe in your god.
Meanwhile, you can't reliably use faith to justify the existence of an extraordinary entity like a god. Based on faith, every religion could consider themselves justified. Someone could believe in fairies, or magic, or Santa Claus based on faith. Faith is not a pathway to truth.
1. I walked out the door without an umbrella today because I couldn't find it. I always carry one as a precaution. 2. I did check the weather app, along with a quick by-eye evaluation of the outside conditions. I was satisfied it wasn't going to rain based on evidence, not faith.
2) And you're assuming that they do keep sinning in Hell. A person could never commit another sin in the afterlife and still be trapped there for all eternity. Their actions there are irrelevant. You're trying to ad-hoc rationalise a broken, immoral system.
1a) And let's not forget this is a god with supposedly perfect foreknowledge. He creates people, knowing that they will sin and fall short, knowing that they will spend an eternity in hell. He knows in advance who will be saved and who won't be. How can he not be responsible for that?
1) The government designed the system, so yes, they have some responsibility for what happens to the people in it. The government sends people to prison. God sends people to Hell. And the government/God are responsible for the conditions they face there.
I'm not sure you're capable of making sense. How is anyone supposed to believe something exists, if that existence can't be demonstrated?
Anger comes before Bargaining in the 5 stages of Grief. Not a great deflection if you can't get the details right. Can you meet the burden of proof for demonstrating the existence of your chosen god?
God set up the system of Heaven and Hell, and so is ultimately responsible for everyone who ends up in either spot. And "do the crime, do the time" ignores the fact the Hell is an infinite punishment for a finite set of crimes, and is therefore a monstrous injustice perpetrated by God.
Atheism is simply a rejection of god claims which have not met their burden of proof. If you can meet yours, we will no longer be atheists.
Ah, those wonderful religiously-derived values: Slavery. Genocide. Genital mutilation. Blood sacrifice! Treating women as property. Should I go on?
In fairness, while her contribution was undoubtedly vital, that image is the result of a years-long international collaboration of 100's of scientists. The author sections of the discovery papers are quite lengthy. arxiv.org/abs/1906.11238
What you're describing sounds like confirmation bias. You go out seeking god with all your heart, and surprise surprise, you find god. I'm more interested in finding the truth, whatever it happens to be. Obviously something convinced you of god being real. What was that thing?
RT if you also wish ill upon JK Rowling.
Why should I give anything? You haven't shown that this god even exists yet.
I had a colleague at work yesterday try to convince me "she doesn't hate trans people, she just cares about women's rights." Lord did I have to bite my tongue on that one.
What you are is 18. Barely out of school. And wildly overconfident. Is that condescending? Yes. But turnabout is fair play.
I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall with you. They are not. Logically. Equivalent. When you evaluate a claim, you can 1. be convinced it is true, 2. fail to be convinced it is true, or 3. be convinced it is false. Guilty = 1. Not guilty = 2 & 3. Innocent = 3. Not. Equivalent.
It means that they didn't find you guilty, either because they think you're innocent, or they can't prove your guilt. The only reason we're discussing legal jargon is because of the analogy to atheism. It is the evaluation of the jury that is the important part of that analogy.
I've been following and studying atheist and secular philosophy on and off for almost two decades now. Consider for a moment that I might know something about this.
And "gnostic" has multiple meanings. It relates to knowledge of the divine. A gnostic atheist claims such knowledge is possible, and that they know there is no god. An agnostic atheist holds that such knowledge is possible. By virtue of the "a", they are antonyms in this context.
Only guilt is. The actual innocence of a person is not in question, because of that presumption. "Not guilty" is not equivalent to "innocent". Not logically. Maybe some lawyers would treat them the same, but I've found plenty of legal opinions online claiming otherwise.
You're wrong grammatically. Not all atheists are agnostic atheists, therefore the terms are not equivalent. You're wrong legally. Yes, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and those found not guilty maintain that presumption. But the question of innocence is not ruled on by the court.
And I think you're literally just wrong. The only thing I lost was the time spent wasted on this conversation.
At this point, I'm done. Agree to disagree. We're going round in circles and I haven't the patience to keep correcting your misunderstandings.
Eh. Guy blocked me. Which is fine, he's free to be wrong if he wants to be. For an English Lit major, he's not that good at communicating. Or reasoning.
I do know what "like" means and it has multiple meanings. You meant it in the context of a comparison, but given your use of a comma-separated list, I interpreted it as a discourse particle. Both usages are common. As I said. Be more precise.
Christ is central to Christianity, hence the contradiction. Spirituality is not central to the question addressed by atheism. Next.
If you don't want people to misunderstand you, then learn to express yourself precisely. Your writing style is a mess.
As I've argued, it is you that doesn't understand atheism. To be an atheist, all you have to do is not believe in god. Many other beliefs *correlate strongly* with atheism (scepticism, secular humanism, scientific naturalism), but they are not required to be an atheist.
I am an atheist. I don't believe in spiritual things. And I search the site for atheist-themed discussions from time to time because I enjoy the conversation.
Easy. An atheist is someone who is *sceptical* about the claim that a god exists. They want to see evidence and justification before accepting that claim as true. Next?
I fully admit that justifying these things without a god is difficult. But I have met atheists, on this platform, who also believe in ghosts and an afterlife. They hold the position which you seem to think is impossible, yet they hold it anyway.
I saw you provide a definition for "metaphysical atheism", but that is only one specific type of atheism. "Spirituality" doesn’t just mean angels and demons. It could include the soul, ghosts, totem animals, an afterlife, etc.
Being loud and wrong isn't something to be proud of. The other guy is right. Atheism only directly addresses the question of a god. It says nothing directly about spirituality in general. If you want a broader term for the rejection of things like that, try "skepticism".
You know you're never getting out, right?
You can't just ignore the OT. It's all the same god.
Your argument essentially boils down to "god is good because he says he's good". It's circular and therefore logically flawed. I don't have to trust him. I don't find him morally perfect. And I also find him most likely non-existent. We haven't even established that part yet.
No it isn't. Plenty of demonstrably human philosophers have come to similar conclusions.
Correct, he's not like us. 1. He's a moral monster. 2. As best I can determine, he doesn't exist. "It's all his stuff" - so might makes right? If I had a kid, would I be allowed to beat them or kill them, just because I'd created them? They're "my stuff" after all.
Standard, tired apologetic excuses. The "greater good"/"mysterious ways" argument is unfalsifiable. It's an excuse which could be used to cover any atrocity. I can only judge a genocide as a genocide, i.e as wholly immoral. You want to say an omnipotent god couldn't find a better solution?
In theory he could communicate with us all directly, one on one. He's certainly capable of it, according to Christianity. If Paul can have a Damascus Road experience, why can't everyone? Morgan Freeman's god character in Bruce Almighty did a better job of communicating, honestly.
There's also no reliable evidence to suggest he exists, and plenty to suggest he doesn’t. The problem of "divine hiddenness" for example. Here's an omnipotent, onniscient god whose primary goal is to communicate with his creations. And yet he's one of the worst communicators in history.
Yes. Certainly the god of the Old Testament is a moral monster. He commits genocide in favour of his chosen people. He endorses and provides the rules for slavery. And if you think that Hell is something the Bible supports, he's willing to punish people infinitely for a finite crime.
While I can't say that no atheist "wants there to be no god", I'd caution you against unjustly assigning people beliefs they don't hold, based on you own belief system. As for the Chrstian god specifically though? I'm pretty sure (if not 100% certain) he doesn't exist, nor would I want him to.
Agnostic atheists are just a subcategory of atheists. It's like you've half remembered this stuff from having overheard someone else talking about it in the next booth of a diner or something.
No. Some atheists will make the positive claim that there is no god, which would require its own burden of proof. That moves towards "gnostic" or "hard" atheism. But atheism doesn't require that. All atheism requires is a lack of belief in god. So no. Not all atheists are agnostic.
The usage I'm using is not uncommon among atheists. Given that knowledge and belief are not the same thing, the labels can overlap.
There's a difference between being gnostic and being a Gnostic. As an adjective, "gnostic" just relates to the state of having knowledge. Gnostic = with knowledge. Agnostic = without knowledge.
None of that changes what "not guilty" means. Seriously, go ask a lawyer.
I'm an agnostic atheist. If that doesn’t make sense to you, try reading this: www.atheists.org/activism/res... I also believe that the balance of evidence would suggest that there isn't a god, even if I can't be certain about it. And that many specific gods can be shown to be false.
I'm re-reading your explanation again, and you can't even get "agnostic atheist" right. An agnostic atheist does not *necessarily* believe in the lack of a god. The only required position is a lack of *belief* in a god. You also treat "agnostic atheist" and "atheist" like they're different things.