Why is it ok for people to believe in some fake things and not others?

[Eko]

There is as much proof of god as there is as President Obama is a Kenyan socialist. Both make people feel better, why is one ok and the other not?

[Glamrock]

1. One has developed into an institution(s) passed on generation to generation

The other is ridiculed by all but the true believers.....

[Eko]

2. Wouldnt that be

argumentum ad populum?

[Glamrock]

3. I don't know.

You are speaking to brain cloggium by bong resium.

[Eko]

4. Ha Ha!

G13 buddy.

[Glamrock]

5. I worked at a farm.

I grew that strain! And AK47. And White Widow. But my favorite? Lemon Skunk! Made the greatest tasting hash....can't believe I had to give it up for a job. Cmon legalization! I'd consider voting for Trump if he was for... Ppphhht! Who am I kidding?

[Eko]

6. Gotta do what ya gotta do,

we all do. I sling a SG what do you sling?

[Glamrock]

7. I'm a front man baby!

Muh voice is my instrument! And my ability to work a crowd while you're switching fiddles....we are talking bout guitars, yeah?

[Eko]

8. Course,

Vocals are harder, no frets lol.

[Glamrock]

9. The singing wasn't as hard

As figuring out what to say to keep the crowd interested during the next key change while singing!

[Eko]

10. Seen your posts,

figured you were in the scene. Im more of a hippy jam band dude, but I love all music. Keep on rocking Glamrock!

[Glamrock]

11. We're not that far off.

There's some serious crossover between blues rock (mine) and jam bands ( yours). I'm betting we're both big Allman fans....

[Eko]

13. Best band ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My guitar teacher played with them.

[Glamrock]

14. Really!

We should prolly step out of the religious group....

[Eko]

16. Gotta go to sleep,

nice talking!

[Glamrock]

18. I'll pm you tomorrow.

I gotta get the rest of the story!

[braddy]

15. Some things are obviously fake and some things are obviously true, or seen as likely true if you

like, awareness of God is the most universal and common human truth since the beginning of the existence of man.

[Eko]

17. And taht would be

argumentum ad populum.

[braddy]

20. Since the beginning of time, since the beginning of the human species.

[Voltaire2]

22. There is no evidence for that assertion.

[braddy]

23. Yes there is, when did humans miss God, what era is that?

[Voltaire2]

24. The earliest evidence for any religious behavior

involving gods of any sort is about 30-40,000 years ago, and even that is sketchy. Organized religion shows up with agricultural society and cities, at most 10-15,000 years ago.

Current primitive societies are generally animist and do not have a concept of “god” or “gods”. They instead see the whole world as composed of objects with spiritual essences- about as god-like as platonic forms.

[braddy]

29. You are wrong by 100s of thousands of years.

[Voltaire2]

31. Nope.

The 300,000 year figure is for one site that *might* be evidence of ritual burial, but that is in dispute. It is not evidence of god beliefs.

[braddy]

34. Your personal beliefs are your own.

[Voltaire2]

36. Ok so back to the evidence for human god beliefs...

please cite your evidence.

[braddy]

38. 100s of thousands of years, the more we learn, the farther it goes back, but you think humans aren't

aware of God, and your beliefs are your own, enjoy.

[Voltaire2]

41. I'm just asking you to provide a link to the

evidence that humans believed in gods for hundreds of thousands of years.

[Major Nikon]

32. So you are asking for proof to disprove an assertion you never proved?

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[braddy]

33. No, I didn't, so your post makes no sense.

[Major Nikon]

35. ...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218289984#post23

[Scruffy1]

21. We don't go to meetings to reinforce our belief in gravity.

I wrote a hymn to gravity once. It was pretty well received in the dives I played in.

[ret5hd]

57. I don't think people go to meetings to reinforce their belief in a god either...

I think they go to meeting to reinforce their belief that THEIR god believes EXACTLY the same things they do, that THEIR god hates the EXACT same people they do, etc.

[Glamrock]

19. Thanks braddy!

Too lazy to like look it up.

[NeoGreen]

25. Incorrect (IMHO), I would argue that...

...love of one's children is more universal, more innate, more common and has been part of human consciousness since before we were human.

The very concept of "god" is a weak, and ultimately artificial (i.e. a mere artifact), late comer to the scene.

[braddy]

28. Yet universal and he has always been there, as Archaeology shows.

[NeoGreen]

37. But only as far back as Archaeology shows...

...which, in of itself, is a supposition and interpretation of artifacts which provide no intrinsic narrative of any purported/supposed "religious" purpose.

A clear narrative of human culture derived from archaeology only goes back so far, relative to the ~3.3 million year existence of humans (i.e. homo sapiens) and the archaeology of artifacts with even a trace of narrative doesn't extend the known cultural timeline by much. Stone tools tell us nothing about the "religious" culture of per-historic humans.

[Voltaire2]

42. Homo sapiens are only 300,000 years old.

Homo erectus goes back 2 m.y.

[NeoGreen]

47. Oops..

...my error, but my fundamental point is still valid, that an assumption of "religiosity" onto early humans is mere wishful projection without clear evidence.

[Voltaire2]

62. Yes.

[Cartoonist]

27. I take exception

Common human truth

I don't think you know what truth means. Religion doesn't meet the requirements.

[braddy]

30. Yet the human species sees and has always seen what you don't.

[Major Nikon]

44. You just contradicted yourself

The exception you just cited breaks your rule, which had no foundation in fact to begin with.

[braddy]

45. LOL, speaking in general about the species rather than an individual, yeah that is a real deal

breaker.

[Major Nikon]

46. Lots of individuals with no reason not to suspect anything but recent history

So yes, quite the deal breaker.

[Mariana]

39. Humans seem to be "aware" of all sorts of gods

that are supposed to have all kinds of different traits and attributes. "Awareness" of the existence of this or that god seems to depend on early childhood indoctrination. People will tend to be "aware" of whatever god or gods they were taught to be "aware" of.

How can you say it's a universal and common human truth when so many entirely different gods have been proposed?

[braddy]

40. Your post recognizes what humans recognize, God, they aren't always clear on him, but they know

he exists, that is universal among all races and peoples.

[Mariana]

61. Are you clear?

You seem to be pretty sure that all these other people who disagree with you about the nature of this/these god(s) got it wrong somehow. Did I understand you correctly?

People who believe there's such a thing as a god generally do so because they were told there's such a thing as a god, when they were very young, by adults they trust. The fact that relatively few children escape this doesn't mean the things they've been told are true in any way. Can you demonstrate that children tend to conjure up their own god(s) in the absence of any such indoctrination?

[qazplm135]

26. Name me the human on the planet

That doesn't believe in something that isn't objectively true.

As long as you aren't hurting anyone and are happy who fucking cares?

[Pope George Ringo II]

43. "As long as you aren't hurting anyone"

Well, that pretty much rules out religion as we know it.

[qazplm135]

66. so every single person

who happens to be Christian or Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim, is hurting someone else simply by believing in it?

That's some powerful stuff there.

[Mariana]

69. That's not what PGRII said, and you know it.

"Religion" is a thing. It is not a person, and therefore can not be a Christian or Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim.

[qazplm135]

70. all sorts of things are "things"

This thread is about believing in fake "things."

That it's not ok to believe in "fake" "things."

My response was that everyone believes in all sorts of "fake" "things" and so long as a person doesn't harm anyone else, who cares if they believe in "fake" "things?"

His response was to say that rules out all religions.

Now either:

a. His response was completely nonresponsive to mine. (possible I suppose).
b. Or he was responding to my comment about it being ok to believe in fake things so long as you don't harm anyone and disagreeing with that in the case of religious people.

I went with option b since my default is to assume that a response to me intends to be responsive to the point I made. It's made more likely since he literally quoted that part of my post talking about people, not things.

[Eko]

154. Waht kind of fake things do I believe in?

[qazplm135]

159. I have no idea

But to think you out of all humans have a completely objectively correct view of reality is hubris at best.

[Eko]

163. Not believing in something fake

And thinking I have a completely objectively correct view of reality are two very different things.

[qazplm135]

164. no, they aren't

they are literally the same thing.

You seem to think that "believing in something fake" means the person who does so KNOWS they are believing in something fake but does so anyways, and that's rarely the case.

It means someone thinks they understand something about reality, but they are wrong. They believe God exists, but he doesn't. They think they drive great when they've had a few beers, but they don't. They think they are charming, but they aren't.

[Eko]

167. I'm a literalist

When it comes to thinking. If Something can’t be proven with a reasonable degree I say I don’t know. As for using charming as an example that would be an opinion, and opinions are only that.

[qazplm135]

173. no

you're a contrarian.

[Eko]

171. They are not even close to the same thing.

I can tell you the tooth fairy is false, that doesn't mean I hold all the secrets to existence now does it?

[qazplm135]

172. that's not even wrong enough to be wrong

Yes, I'm sure there are all sorts of things you do know.

Things that are real, things that are fake. The fact that you know some fake things and some real things, does not mean that you also don't hold beliefs that are objectively wrong/fake, but you believe to be true.

So, IOW, get off your fucking high horse. You aren't intrinsically smarter or better or wiser than someone else just because you've sussed out that there isn't a God. There's other stuff you haven't gotten/figured out that they have, or that I have, and vice versa.

[Eko]

174. I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand

That I don’t believe something is true unless there is reasonable proof that it is true. I also don’t understand why you have decided to personally attack me as I have not done so to you.

[Eko]

175. You keep saying that of course I believe in things not true

but you have yet to even question that with any kind of effort whatsoever. All you have done has say that I do and you didn't even try to show it. Lazy argument. Might as well have said "Yes you are". Nice.

[qazplm135]

176. You win eko

Out of all the flawed humans you are the one that has mastered logic and reason. Congrats.

[Eko]

177. Why do you keep resorting to the strawman argument?

I never said I wasn't flawed and I never said that I have mastered logic and reason.

[qazplm135]

179. but your objective reality

is 100 percent accurate right? Every single thing you believe in is objectively true yes?

[Eko]

180. Nothing is 100% accurate.

So that would be a no for the first question. There is a difference between believing in something because it has been proven to a reasonable degree and being 100% accurate. Once again you strawman me with the 100% claim. For the second question besides things like opinions such as "best band ever" yes, every thing I believe in is objectively true.

[qazplm135]

181. delusional

but it's your delusion so have at it. Anyone who thinks they don't have blind spots is a person with huge blind spots.

There is not enough time in a human lifetime for you to have everything you believe "proven to a reasonable degree."
Unless you literally do nothing but examining detailed evidence for every fact you hold true, and even that relies on your ability to recognize when something is "proven to a reasonable degree" without bias or blind spot or error.

You are as one-sided as the folks you rail against.

[Eko]

182. Then I dont say its true if I dont know.

Its that simple.

[qazplm135]

183. it's simple alright

but it certainly explains your posts.

[Eko]

184. In what way?

Or are you just resorting to ad hominem now?.

[qazplm135]

185. I don't think you understand

what ad hominem actually is. Saying your thought process or statement is "simple" may be an insult to you, but it most definitely is not "ad hominem."

[Eko]

186. Sure.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

When you attributed all my posts to being simple you engaged in an ad hominem attack. " it's simple alright but it certainly explains your posts."

[qazplm135]

187. I didn't attack your character

or any other attribute.

I attacked the substance of your post(s) as simple.

Pretty, ya know, simple.

Heck, you may be a complicated person, I have no idea, don't know you, not commenting on your person or motive or character.

I'm commenting on your extremely simple-minded presentation and argument.

so yeah, you don't know what ad hominem means or you think attacking your argument equates to attack you personally.

[Eko]

188. My simple-minded presentation and argument?

I answered this question you posed "Name me the human on the planet That doesn't believe in something that isn't objectively true. " with naming me. You then answered with "highly doubt it lol " Talk about simple minded presentation and argument. One last thing, what part of my argument exactly did you attack or did you just comment that yes it was simple and explains my posts? Cause I can think of a dozen arguments you could have used to make your point and you didn't try one single one, instead you used "doubt it" strawman and yes then ad hominem.

[Act_of_Reparation]

71. I guess it would depend on what one considers harmful, wouldn't it?

Is lending credibility or giving tacit approval to people who do harmful things in itself harmful? Some might think so.

[qazplm135]

72. so as an American you are harmful then yes?

It's not remotely progressive or liberal or logical to say because I believe in something, that if someone else believes in that same thing and does something harmful, somehow I am responsible for it.

That's far right conservative anti-Muslim BS.

[Act_of_Reparation]

73. Some would say yes.

That the government derives power from my tacit consent, and because of that I am to some degree responsible for what the government does. That I have a moral obligation to actively resist empowering the immoral or amoral actions it undertakes in my name.

What should that entail? It also depends on who you ask. A terrorist would tell you I deserve punishment. A realist would say altruism is a myth, that we should not expect people to behave in self-destructive ways for the possible benefit of distant others. A utilitarian would tell you to judge people by their aggregate effect. And so on.

It's interesting you attribute collective responsibility to the far-right, considering how often it is expressed here on DU. Whether it's regarding Wal-Mart or the 2016 Election, this concept is hardly the sole purview of the right.

[Pope George Ringo II]

77. And imagine if the more patriotic you were, the more likely you were to blow up a Canadian cafe.

Never mind the pogroms, jihads, crusades, and other terminology associated with mass religious violence, it's worth remembering that when somebody flies a plane into a building, they're a religious "extremist." Blow up an abortion clinic? That makes you a religious "fundamentalist." It's tacitly admitted that the more attention you pay to your religion, the more dangerous you are to yourself and those around you. Whatever drawbacks patriotism may share with religion, having 184 flag stickers on your car really doesn't correlate
very well with single-handedly invading Honduras.

Ignoring for a moment the fact that the entire question is just whataboutism. Even if the premise were true, it's like suggesting that heart disease is fine because cancer kills people too.

[Act_of_Reparation]

80. It's emblematic of the schizophrenic thinking of the moderates.

The religious center has two contradictory means by which they dismiss the devout. They're "literalists" or "fundamentalists" (i.e., they take the religion too seriously) --OR-- they're "fake Christians" (i.e., they're not really religious at all). These tactics are utterly transparent in that they are obvious knee-jerk attempts to dismiss fanaticism out of hand, presumably because they don't want to have a conversation about the role their religion plays in creating said fanatics.

[qazplm135]

81. I didn't ask what some would say

I'm asking you. Because if the mere belonging to a group and not actively fighting against it is enough to equate to causing harm, then name me the human on the planet save for a few isolated cultures that remain that the same thing can't be said.

that's the problem with the idea of extreme collective responsibility, it ends up being applicable to everyone and thus ceases to be a logically or morally useful paradigm.

That's why individual responsibility is cleaner and more logical. You are responsible for what you do or fail to do, that's it.

[Act_of_Reparation]

94. My opinion is immaterial.

What I believe or don't believe has no bearing on the relative strenghts or weaknesses of your premises.

I don't need to accept the idea of collective responsibility to see, for example, that your "logical" rejection of it hinges on a tu quoque fallacy. Or that your initial attempt to "rightify" it was little more than an excerise in poisoning the well.

[qazplm135]

95. LMAO

all you've GIVEN is an opinion.

You've done no rigid logical analysis in favor of collective responsibility. So your attempt to then use logical fallacy to say I'm attacking you for being a hypocrite, as if that's a non sequitur is hilarious.

And yes, if you ARE going to make a logical argument for your OPINION, then yes, you damn well need to accept and logically defend the concept of collective responsibility.

So let me know when you get to that and I will pay attention to what you have to say, until then, not so much.

[Act_of_Reparation]

99. Yeah, that's fascinating.

Unintelligible. But fascinating.

[qazplm135]

106. I'm not surprised it's over your head

but glad that, like a shiny bauble, it's pretty for you to look at.

[Act_of_Reparation]

118. Yes, I am most certainly an imbecile.

It is truly amazing I manage to tie my own shoes. Verily, every morning before breaking fast I thank my dear and fluffy lord for populating this eternally transmigratory rock with people so sufficiently intelligent as to offset my own lack of particular knowledge, talent, and expertise, and still leave us with yet enough spare mental potency for a space program or two. Some of these Herculean specimens can even construct a basic sentences without need of a calculator. Such prowess! Nay, magic! How mind-pummelingly jealous am I!

[qazplm135]

120. ah I see

mocking my intelligence is ok, but yours gores your ox.

got it lol

[Act_of_Reparation]

147. No, you manifestly don't.

No worries. It's nothing a non-sequitur and a nervous lol won't solve. Give it another shot.

[Pope George Ringo II]

74. Savita Halappanavar.

If you have an explanation for her death which does not involve large numbers of people simply being religious, I'd love to hear it

[Pope George Ringo II]

75. Raif Badawi

If you've got an explanation for his flogging that doesn't involve large numbers of people simply being religious, I'd love to hear it.

[Pope George Ringo II]

76. John Thomas Scopes

If you've got an explanation for his $1000 fine which doesn't involve large numbers of people simply being religious, I'd love to hear it.

[NeoGreen]

78. Correction, $100 not $1000...

...not a criticism of your point, by any means, just a correction for the record:

[Pope George Ringo II]

79. I sit corrected. Thank you for the catch.

[qazplm135]

82. how is this responsive?

so every single religious person ever owes Scopes some portion of 100 bucks??

[Pope George Ringo II]

84. Who else do you think is responsible?

I stayed away from the low-hanging fruit of atheists murdered in the street or clinics blown up by "fundamentalists." I didn't bring up gays thrown off buildings or airplanes flown into taller buildings by "extremists."

I didn't refer to something difficult to quantify like how much human misery has been caused by a mindset which looks at bubonic plague, shrugs, says, "Derp, gawddidit," and watches the body count skyrocket. And it's no coincidence that bubonic plague wasn't really beaten back until after the Enlightenment broke us free from those shackles.

I cited three specific examples--the list is hardly exhaustive--of individuals harmed purely to appease large numbers of "mainstream" religious people. Your errant assertion that religion doesn't harm anybody has been falsified. That's pretty responsive, whether you like it or not. It's not really my fault if it's the latter.

So, again, who else is responsible for things like the death of Savita Halappanavar, if not ordinary religious people just being religious? Is it a philatelist conspiracy?

[qazplm135]

92. individuals are responsible for their acts

they are not responsible for someone else's acts just because they happen to believe or follow or like the same things.

I mean are you fucking kidding me?

[Pope George Ringo II]

93. Don't mind me. By all means continue.

Go right ahead and develop the argument that religion is a colossal waste of time and money with zero moral value whatsoever. I can hardly wait for the part where you try to turn it into a pro-religion argument.

And, hey, in the meantime it's not like there have been formal studies on how religion harms entire groups of people. Oh, wait. That's exactly what it's like:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4706071/

[qazplm135]

96. oh well if you have a "formal study" that ends all debate then

Let's get some things clear:

1. I'm not religious. In and of itself, religion has no more moral value than any other human endeavor. It's a tool, like all other human inventions, a tool which can be used for good or bad, for selfish or altruistic ends, can help or harm. Just like any ethos can when driven to extremes or used for selfish purposes.

2. Your study only shows 1. That when a religion ostracizes a group for simply being who they are then that's going to damage that group. Of course, there are plenty of sects of religion who are wholly supportive of the LGBTQ community, and somehow, I don't think that study would have included them as also being destructive to that community.

3. From your own study: "Generally, religiosity (i.e., level of religious dedication, belief, and religious activity) is considered a protective factor against negative mental health outcomes. A recent systematic review by Wong, Rew, and Slaikeu (2006) found that religiosity and religious affiliation among the general population are associated with positive mental health outcomes for young adults and adolescents."

4. From your own study: "Therefore the current study aimed to investigate the relationships between religious and sexual identity conflict, internalized homophobia, and suicidality amongst LGBT young adults (18–24 year olds) in an effort to better inform research and clinical practice with LGBT young adults."

Religious CONFLICT. So this study doesn't say "all religions cause harm" this study says in a certain group of people (LGBTQ) involved with a certain other group of people (religious folks who are anti-gay) then there's harm there. Well...duh. Asshole religious people are assholes.

Wanna try again? Or you feel good with where you are at in this?

[Major Nikon]

97. Your argument could just as easily apply to the GOP

Or naziism. Pointing to the very small minority of religious sects who are tolerant of LGBT doesn't help your argument much. Religion is a tool, but one that lends itself very well to marginalization of disadvantaged groups. So while there may be a small amount of good that it does, the bad far overwhelms the good. At that point it's appropriate to start condemning the tool.

[Pope George Ringo II]

100. And even if National Socialism did hurt somebody

It's okay because of Oskar Schindler. If there's one thing I've learned here, it's that a single person doing nice things--even if he's working against the group as a whole--is enough to redeem the entire group.

[qazplm135]

104. no you didn't learn jack squat

national socialism is a buzzword for a set of policies and actions.

They could have called it Hitler's Own if they wanted to.

They could have called it A Fluffy Bunny. The name is meaningless.

What matters are the actions that flow from it.

So Schindler did not make the acts of NAZI's ok, but he certainly made HIS acts better.

I mean really your argument is weak sauce and I'm starting to feel annoyed that I'm engaging. do better.

[Major Nikon]

114. It's OK even if you only occassionally say, but don't do nice things

In private Frank sometimes comforts homosexuals, so that somehow negates all the rest of the RCC's intolerant policies and practices. Kinda reminds me of all the other Catholic apologists who claim it's all OK now since Frank occassionally says nice things in the face of overwhelming public pressure and lost revenue.

[qazplm135]

103. My argument applies just fine to those

anyone who aided Nazism WHETHER a NAZI or not, is culpable.

See, easy.

Small minority? Large chunks of religions are either openly supportive of or increasingly tolerant of homosexuality.
Hell the Pope has pretty much said it's not something he cares about.

[Major Nikon]

112. Are you seriously suggesting there's nothing inherently wrong with naziism?

Because that's kinda what it sounds like. The allegation that the RCC is LGBT tolerant is equally perplexing.

In fact it's actually quite hilarious how you are trying to suggest Catholicism is part of some imagined majority that's tolerant of homosexuality. The Pope hasn't "pretty much" condemned homosexual acts, he's done so outright and the official Catholic policy on homosexuality hasn't changed one iota in his tenure. The RCC still considers homosexual acts "evil" and actively lobbies against LGBT tolerant laws all over the globe. If you are gay you can't become a priest (or were born with a vagina but that's another type of intolerance). If you are gay you can't marry in the Catholic church. Local dioceses are free to deny any service on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. So yeah, they are "increasingly tolerant" in that they don't advocate for burning gay people in the public square anymore. Maybe in another few centuries they'll let gay people get a cracker once a week.

[Pope George Ringo II]

98. Why try again? I feel great about where I am.

After all, I'm not the one who made frankly delusional claims about how religion doesn't harm anyone. The reality has always been that it is responsible for both good and evil, and I think the evidence supports the conclusion that evil predominates.

Saying it's never caused anybody harm--as you did--is pure fantasy and flatly contradicted by reality. But feel free to keep digging.

[qazplm135]

105. religion hasn't done squat good or bad

religion isn't a person. It doesn't do anything.

PEOPLE are responsible for good and evil.

PEOPLE.

[Pope George Ringo II]

107. If you're that determined to keep digging, I'll leave you to it.

There's nothing terribly functional about what you're trying, but there's nothing terribly functional about trying to stop you either.

[qazplm135]

111. lol

Here show me on the doll where religion touched you.

[Major Nikon]

113. Guns don't kill people

[qazplm135]

115. lol

guns do one thing, and one thing only.

They don't do anything else. There is no nuance to it. They are a tool to kill, that's it.

So that's a pretty lame response to something as complicated as religion.

Try harder.

[Major Nikon]

116. The assertion about guns is wrong

But even if it weren't (and it is), it does provide a bit of insight regarding how desperate you are to find subtle differences so you can pretend you aren't trying to make the exact same intellectually bankrupt argument. Using clichéd replies like "lame response" and "try harder" is just icing on the cake, BTW. Amazing how much you reveal about yourself without even trying.

[qazplm135]

121. praytell enlighten me

what else do guns do besides kill or seriously wound something?
What non-injurious utility do they have?

So far you haven't been worth more of a response than cliches. If you become so, I'll respond in kind.

Til' then...

[Major Nikon]

122. Better you enlighten yourself of why "guns don't kill people" is bullshit

I’ll give you a hint, it has absolutely nothing to do with the utility of guns. When you figure that one out, you’ll be well on your way to understanding where you went wrong.

Since you have no interest in what anyone else has to say, I’d just as soon you do your own research, or continue to repeat the same fallacy. As someone else said, I really don’t care which.

[qazplm135]

137. I didn't say "guns don't kill people"

I said comparing something that has one and only one function which is inherently bad except in very narrow circumstances and even then still results in death or harm with something that has a wide range of functions good, bad and indifferent is the most ridiculously stupid attempt at an argument I've seen on the internet in awhile...and it's the internet, so that's saying something.

[Major Nikon]

139. Says the one who props up the RCC as a poster child for LGBT tolerance

Your credibility for calling anyone’s argument stupid sailed some time ago.

Please do continue. Soon there won’t be a dry eye in the house.

[qazplm135]

140. WTF are you even talking about?

I said no such thing. Your hatred of religion is pretty blinding. As usual, the anti-religious nutjobs are as bad as the religious nutjobs.
I'm done, I've got a dying pet to focus on.

[Major Nikon]

141. Not surprised you'd resort to name calling

It’s not as if any of the rest of it is much better.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=290331

[qazplm135]

143. yes I said

the Pope said he didn't care:

"Cruz reportedly told El Pais, a Spanish newspaper, that the two had a conversation about his homosexuality and said he was told, “Juan Carlos, I don’t care about you being gay. God made you that way and loves you as you are and I don’t mind. The pope loves you as you are, you have to be happy with who you are.”

Francis uttered his "Who am I to judge?" comment during his first airborne press conference in 2013, signaling a new era of acceptance and welcome for gays in the church. Francis followed up by meeting with gay and transgender faithful.

Fr. James Martin, the author of “Building a Bridge,” told The Times that Francis’ reported comments are a “big deal” because it is likely the first time the pope made a comment “about gay people being born that way.”

To translate that to what you said is idiocy...this is a waste of mental energy dealing with this level of blind hatred that needs to be spent waiting for my pet to cross over so feel free to continue wildly rewriting what I said...you seem to do better at strawman building.

[Major Nikon]

144. I'm sure you made another good rant

But once you go down the road of name calling I stopped paying attention to how much lower your level of discourse is going to go.

[moriah]

148. Honey, I have to agree with them on this part...

... that people who reject all forms of faith/spirituality for others are making the same mistake as those who want to force their faith on others.

For example, can you really say the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) have been a force for harm?

The Friends' historic commitment to caring for civilian victims on all sides of a war/conflict, including their Service Committees feeding programs in post-WWI Germany, allowed them to continue to aid people in danger of persecution under Hitler's regime not being helped by other organizations (the need was so great that's where they decided to focus, primarily non-religious Jews or people who had Jewish ancestry enough to be in danger but not "Jewish" as defined matrilineally) up until they conquered all of France. Had US and British Friends sponsor total strangers in order to get past immigration issues.

Now, the AFSC is in hot water with Israel for advocating individual peaceful economic protest against companies aiding the Israel/Palestine conflict. But they've stood by what their faith tells them is right -- not aiding war or occupations, and equal treatment for all people because, in their view, every human being ever born has the same innate connection to God.

I get that religion is often misused, and the Friends were certainly not considered mainstream when they originated and aren't representative of Christianity as a whole now, particularly very different in almost every ideology from evangelical fundamentalists.. And meetings for worship are nothing like "church" church. But the original question was essentially "If it doesn't hurt anyone else and gets the person through the night, what's the problem?"

People who want to force faith on others are hurting people because usually they aren't just happy with faith in something (deism essentially, that God exists but is irrelevant to living a good/moral life), but faith in their specific brand and finding it very relevant to obey their brand of morality.

But people who want to say absolutely no faith is "okay", regardless of whether that faith or that person's way of practicing it is kept in the private sphere and not forced unwillingly on others/causing harm (beyond the harm perceived in "adovating belief in anything that can't be scientifically proven as a good thing" at least) to children/vulnerable people by adherence to its tenets...

They're forgetting what made humanity create all the different gods in mythology, myth itself -- that there are still unknown things, and still things we have no control over, and some people take comfort in an explanation for "why shit happens".

For others, they take comfort in the idea that there ISN'T a reason for bad shit happening.

I'm not going to deny that basic comfort to either group.

[Major Nikon]

149. How exactly does one reject faith for someone else?

Not even sure how that works, let alone the obvious strawman that anyone in this thread did any such thing to begin with.

But let’s pretend for a moment one could reject faith for someone else. You stil don’t have a case it’s just as bad. There is exactly zero doctrine and dogma that goes with atheism. There’s no venerated and infallible book that goes with atheism that tells anyone to do anything or discriminate against anyone else. There’s no people associated with atheism who hand direction allegedly from a higher power from which there’s no arbitration. There’s no conveniently unverifiable promise of reward or punishment that goes with atheism.

For example, can you really say the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) have been a force for harm?

Yes. Some of their congregations are quite intolerant. Not that it really matters. Nobody here is claiming all religious people do unethical acts on behalf of their religion, so the assumption otherwise is not exactly any sort of meaningful basis for an argument.

[moriah]

155. Fringes compared to the main branch.

But aside from cherypicking 25-year old quotes from the branch that deviated from standard practice in response to the Great Awakening/evangelism (noted by programmed worship vs unprogrammed mostly silent meetings -- IMHO they're hardly the same denomination)...

Some people, whether you want to call them weak or whatever, need to believe in something beyond themselves. Even if they acknowledge full well that it's a belief that can't be proven, that its purpose is utilitarian, that it surrounds the mysteries of things we likely will never fully understand until we experience them (death, etc) and especially in that context is more for the comfort of the people still here than those who have departed.... they still need to believe there's SOME method to the madness called life, or there's no point in continuing to play the game.

Others have the exact opposite reaction. If something exists that is powerful enough to prevent tragedies or if we're supposed to believe there's some purpose served by people starving or getting struck with horrible diseases, they'd quit the game because the DM had to be a sick and twisted fuck, so there's no point.

The thread title is essentially "why is it okay to believe in a god of your understanding when there's no proof". Aka, questioning why it's okay for people to have faith in anything.

And yes, governments have attempted to enforce atheism just as they have attempted to enforce varying brands of theism. It's backfiring majorly right now in Russia because faith thrives on governmental persecution, and the whiniest/most rigid/most inclined to think suffering on earth is cool thrive the most on any perception of it. The pseudo-intellectual mocking of people who have any faith at all, however, accomplishes the same thing, particularly amongst those who are ultra into the "persecution brings you closer to God" gig.

But for me personally, having decided at one point the philosophy I was going to believe because it was the only one I could believe and still play the game (essentially that we choose our birth parents and are given a "sneak peek" of a few of the challenges we'll face beforehand, and choose that life for some spiritual lesson we want to learn this life), suggesting that isn't OK to believe when I know full well it's probably bullshit but it's what has kept me playing the game IS harmful. Or at least somewhat insulting.

[Major Nikon]

156. Cherry picking? You realize your best example is .03% of Christians in the US, right?

And no, intolerance isn't on the fringe within Quakers, it's quite mainstream. It's not that hard to find Quaker groups which have clear and current statements condemning homosexuality. So what we are really talking about is your cherry picking a very tiny segment of Christians in order to find any example of tolerance, and even then it just doesn't pass the smell test. So do you really want to have a conversation about "cherry picking"? Because if that's really such a bad idea, maybe we can finally talk about the other 99.07% you are conveniently forgetting about. But somehow I suspect you really don't want to go there.

Maybe you got something different out of the thread title. What I got out of it was asking the question why is it OK to call out nonsense when it comes to non-religious subjects, but not OK when it comes to religion? So I don't agree with your assessment of the OP.

And yes, governments have attempted to enforce atheism just as they have attempted to enforce varying brands of theism. It's backfiring majorly right now in Russia because faith thrives on governmental persecution, and the whiniest/most rigid/most inclined to think suffering on earth is cool thrive the most on any perception of it. The pseudo-intellectual mocking of people who have any faith at all, however, accomplishes the same thing, particularly amongst those who are ultra into the "persecution brings you closer to God" gig.

This part is kind of interesting in that you condemn Quaker policy statements that go back "25 years" (even though they are still current policy), yet somehow Stalinist Russia is still relevant. The best part is it isn't historically accurate. Even Stalin's constitution guaranteed religious freedom. Does that mean he didn't persecute certain religious groups he felt were a threat to his power? No, but neither does it mean he was "enforcing atheism". You may want to pick your cherries better. Not to mention you completely ignored the point that nothing about atheism so much as suggests intolerance unlike many organized religions which demand it. So even if your historical revisionism were remotely accurate, the very best you'd have is a false equivalency.

[moriah]

158. What I am trying to explain is....

... there are forces that drive faith, if not religion, that denying is counterproductive. Some people really do need to believe in something in order to cope, even if they know in reality it's as likely as unicorns that their faith will be validated after they die. For others, the idea of an omnipotent entity existing yet choosing to do nothing about human suffering is what's unacceptable.

You might not feel the resurgence of the influence of the Orthodox Church currently in Russia, which combined with governmental inaction is driving the mostly heterosexual HIV epidemic there, is due to its suppression under Communist rule. In remembering Stalin you forget Khrushchev's policies that lasted until the late 80s. I see it very differently. Religious movements were not allowed during suppression to progress even as much as the RCC has -- and now Putin is touting his country as a "conservative Christian stronghold" and people believe it. Hell, the RCC officially approved condoms for disease prevention in 2010, even if the statement referred to "male prostitutes" and not women wanting to prevent contracting the disease from unfaithful partners. A denomination stuck because of state persecution doesn't make progress, instead it digs in.

Rejecting all religion/faith, as well as subscribing to one, is a right everyone should have. However, no one has the right to make that decision for others, including their minor children when their religious practices endanger them.

[Act_of_Reparation]

160. That is categorically absurd.

What we're seeing in Russia is not an example of what religion becomes when it is suppressed, but what religion becomes when it is empowered.

[Major Nikon]

161. Faith and religion are two different things

One is personal, the other is collective. I understand those two things are easily conflated, but nevertheless they are different and should not be confused for the purpose of this discussion.

I could care less if someone wants to believe in purple people eaters or anything else. I don't think anyone in this group does either. However, if people are allowed to freely promote their religion, then so must others be allowed to freely criticize it. Perhaps you don't think this is reasonable, but if so we will certainly disagree here.

I do care how organized religion affects my life and those around me. The negative effects of this just aren't that hard to see, including within the very best cherry picked example you could come up with. Perhaps you or anyone you care about hasn't been exposed to those negative effects, but if not my experience diverges significantly. So while it's great to talk about how some "need" religion, the other side of that coin is others would just as soon not have that interference with their own liberties, which believe it or not is often quite significant.

Rejecting all religion/faith, as well as subscribing to one, is a right everyone should have. However, no one has the right to make that decision for others, including their minor children when their religious practices endanger them.

You don't get to kill your kid because your imaginary friends think it's a good idea.

[Eko]

50. Me.

[qazplm135]

65. highly doubt it

lol

[struggle4progress]

48. Words are imprecise. So we think and speak only approximately.

Whatever our thoughts are, and however we express them, they cannot accurately reflect the world in which we find ourselves

And we probably cannot even have a completely consistent view of things, because there are many of them, and they are quite varied, while our time is limited and we are often distracted by practicalities

Our ideas are fuzzy shadows, refractions, imperfect reflections of a world we strain to imagine through them: it is easy to see this fault in others but hard to see it in ourselves, easier to mock this defect in others but harder to devise useful improvements

[Eko]

49. What?

This, is an apple.

Easy enough.

[k8conant]

55. μήλο pomme Apfel яблоко omena alma 蘋果 խնձոր

Which is it?

[Eko]

68. Since the question was asked in english

it would be the english word.

[struggle4progress]

67. yeah yeah

[MineralMan]

83. No. It is a photographic representation of an apple.

The picture of an apple does not taste, feel, or smell as a real apple does. The image may evoke the memory of an apple, but it is not an apple in any way.

"Cela n'est pas une pomme."

[Eko]

85. Or

Is it a digital representation of a photographic representation of an Apple?

[MineralMan]

86. Well, yes. One further step removed from an apple, innit?

[Eko]

87. Sure

But when someone shows a picture of an Apple and ask you what this is everyone would say an Apple.

[MineralMan]

88. Yes, we often mistake representations of a thing as the thing itself.

It's even worse when all we have to represent a thing is words. When we mistake words as the thing they describe, we're so far off the mark that there's no way to understand the thing itself, or even that thing's reality.

[Eko]

89. No idea what point you are trying to make.

[MineralMan]

90. The farther away from the actual object, assuming that object exists,

a representation is, the less likely it is a good representation. Since this is the Religion forum, I'm talking about deities. We have words as representations of deities, since they are not material beings. Those words fail to represent what they purport to represent, even more than a pixellated image of an apple does not accurately represent the actual apple.

[Eko]

91. Ok.

Some words represent real things, like an Apple. Other words define abstract things that are not real just because they have a name or word to describe them. That does not make all words or names of things inaccurate representations. When I say Apple that conveys multiple points of information to people, as you said taste, texture, shape, color, among many other things, things that are not abstract.

[MineralMan]

178. Using the photo of that particular apple, I will say that it

faithfully represents the appearance of one specific cultivar of apples, in a two-dimensional way. On my block, there are a dozen apple trees in people's front yards. Each produces apples. None of those apples looks like the apple in that photograph. Further, each of the apple types growing on my block has a unique flavor. Some are delicious. Others are almost inedible.

Apples are not uniform, in appearance, flavor, size, color, aroma or several other factors. Using a photograph as a two-dimensional representation of an apple is a false representation, since anyone with access to apples can produce multiple apples that look almost completely unlike the singular apple in that photo.

Saying the word "apple" conveys even less of the essence of what it takes to be an apple. Unless a particular apple is available for inspection, it is a very difficult thing to represent. Even such a simple concept is fuzzy unless one can examine, taste, and otherwise experience that apple.

Imagine how much more difficult it is to represent a deity, which does not actually exist in the physical world. Impossible, I suggest. In fact, I suggest there is no deity at all, but only a fuzzy human concept of such an unexamined entity.

[Jarqui]

51. People believe what they want to believe

I'm not saying that's "ok" for all. It's ok for them in their own minds.

[Eko]

52. What if what they believe is

harmful to themselves and to society in general?

[Jarqui]

53. It's a real problem

I'd say your words apply to a bunch of the dead heads supporting Trump

Not a lot different than the teenager who believes they're indestructible and won't OD or won't hurt folks when they're driving drunk.

[Eko]

54. No teenager really believes they are indestructible and wont OD, they just think they will beat the

odds and for the most part do. Ever seen a teenager wear a helmet when skateboarding? That is absolutely different from believing in a higher power of which there are no odds whatsoever.

[Jarqui]

56. True, they don't think it will happen to them

But some of that is cocky
'i'm too smart for that to happen to me'
"i'm not dumb enough to OD - I know more than most about drugs - just call me Dr. Dave, M.D. (master of drugs)"
[the line above has real quotes from a friend who got stoned and inhaled his vomit)

I have a number of dead acquaintances who would debate you except they died young.

The Trumpsters really believe what they claim. Listen to them. You & I know it's wrong, racist, ignorant, etc. But you can't rationalize with an irrational ignoramus. If they succeed to continue to hold power, the country will wind up stuck in a ditch while the rest of the world passes by.

[Eko]

58. Swallowed you mean.

I have lots of dead friends, but we are not having the same discussion at all. Its not just the Trumpsters who believe what they claim. Lots on our side believe fake things and run their lives by it, lots in the middle do the same thing. The US is awash in fake things that people believe in and it is breaking us. If we are going to fix this it has to start with us, but it wont, because we wont face it. There are too many on our side that believe in fake things and we need them. As I said it will break us. People dont believe in Doctors, Science and rational thinking anymore. Its all what makes us feel better and we who dont think that way should be nice to them. Coddle them in their irrational beliefs. The answer should be that its not ok, that if we dont have an objective reality that we can all agree on we are on the wrong path. That a belief does not hold the same reality that truths proven do. But we have finding bigfoot on the history channel, anti-vaccers, 911 was Bush's plan, untold more. Humanity is moving towards the conspiracy and gossip over the experts and we only take a half stand on it. I guarantee you Americans know more about the towers conspiracy than meiosis and we dont care. At all.

[Jarqui]

59. For clarity, I do not think it is "ok"

I do not think it is as simple as you express it.

Things happen for a reason.

Some or bunches of what you point out has merit. But there is another side to it you do not address.

For example:
The education system has failed to teach Americans on how to cut through some of this better than they do.

Moms are not staying home as much any more. Both parents are working and some as many of three jobs to get by. They do not have time to dig into these issues like they used to.

We used to have a trustworthy newsman like Walter Cronkite who reliably cut through a lot of this for us. Now, we've split up into smaller tribes of folks and only listen to what we want to hear.

The control of about 95% of the media has shrunk to a few rich entities who shape a bunch of this bogus thinking.

So there are other reasons why this is happening that spread the blame around.

Having said that, like you say, the consequences if this continues are grave. It's already delivered a Trump presidency that we hope to survive. It's not on a good trajectory

[Eko]

60. Those are excuses.

More people know about football and baseball stats that the constitution. They actually teach the constitution in school, they don't teach about football and baseball stats in school. People aren't stupid, they just learn what they want.

[Jarqui]

63. I do not think a small group of people controlling 95% of the media

is an excuse. That's one of the reasons. You cannot easily blame that on the rest of the country because those people basically conspired and used their wealth the rest of the country does not have to buy the politicians and that kind of control.

The erosion of integrity and reliability of the news is a consequence of that. A lonely nation can't turn its eyes to Walter Cronkite for the truth. A significant % of them tune into FOX News who lies to them like their president.

The controlled media promote Lebron James or Tom Brady or whatever sports superstar you wish to name and folks aspire to be like them and learn their stats. These stars are evidence of the elusive American dream that is dangled like incentive propaganda but so rarely pays off now.

The average person is not responsible for the decline in income that has them working multiple jobs to get by leaving them little time to remain as engaged and acquainted with the issues as they used to be.

Is it the fault of the destitute children of minorities in ghettos or homeless or living in a car that they cannot get a decent education and have little chance at a college education? They can read the stats on the back of old newspapers in the garbage bin they sleep in.

I think things happen for a reason and a number of significant reasons for why Americans have dumbed down over time is because of factors out of their control.

[marylandblue]

64. The beliefs are not the problem, the harmful actions are the problem

People don't always act.on their beliefs, and sometimes that's a good thing.

[Throck]

101. I think it has to do with the frailty of our egos.

[gtar100]

102. When an athiest tells me their definition of "God"

I know why they don't believe. I wouldn't believe in such an absurdity either.

[zipplewrath]

109. In their own image

Most folks are as guilty of "creating" a god in which they don't believe, as people are in creating one in which they can believe.

[Major Nikon]

117. So there's a version of god that isn't absurd?

Pray tell.

[gtar100]

124. There is to me but apparently there isn't to you.

I'm not here to convince you or provide you an opportunity to poke holes in something I find very personal. So if you really want to know you'll have to take the time to get to know me. That's just where I'm at with it. Other people may indulge your loaded inquiry.

[Major Nikon]

126. I have no issue if you don't want to explain your assertion

Just seems odd you’d be so dismissive and expect something else in return.

[gtar100]

131. Not trying to be dismissive. No expectations.

With good reason people are sick to death of the God talk from organized religions that are trying to suck them into a belief system. But God's existence or non-existence is not even the most interesting of questions because it's a "belief" showdown and too often just causes discord.

My original post is an observation that when athiests describe "God", it's often a concept that is absurd on face value (this is not meant to be dismissive...you all are awesome, seriously!). I see that in other topics and I'm guilty of it too. Especially about republicans, but they make it easy. The challenge, for me at least, is to try to understand another person's perspective /from/ their perspective without my own biases. The question I would have is, are they sincere in their beliefs. If so, then there is something organic in their life that must have lead them to that belief and who the hell am I to try and convince them of something outside their experience. Those kind of conversations are meant for personal relationships in my opinion and not really welcomed coming from someone they don't even know.

[Major Nikon]

132. Descriptions of god don't come from atheists

They come from believers. Those descriptions have a huge variance.

I’ve seen quite a few different ones, but have yet to see one that wasn’t absurd on face value or any other. There’s just different degrees. Scientologist descriptions of Xenu are pretty out there while certain Native American descriptions of a non-interventionalist force of nature seem less so, but still just not that reasonable even when you understand what they mean.

I certainly haven’t seen every description out there. Maybe some exist that would be within the realm of reason. If you have something unique, then more power to you. My perspective is I’m not so convinced of my own position the think all believers are necessarily wrong. I just reject the arguments I’ve seen so far.

[gtar100]

134. That's cool. I don't think you can be easily duped with that approach.

I think that has to take a certain level of self confidence and self awareness to take that approach. Not easily developed, I'm sure. I can only imagine the struggle some people must go through being raised in a family tradition of fundamentalism and a culture that supports it. I don't know you personally so that may not apply in your case but I think it takes some level of integrity in order to stand up against that and reach a healthy skepticism about what everyone else seems to take for granted. Though the Internet is certainly helping to break down a lot of stereotypes about people and cultures outside our immediate experience.

[marylandblue]

127. So what is your version?

[gtar100]

133. That's a good conversation over a few drinks or tokes.

Let's become friends first before tackling that one! Or maybe it'll come out over time here...or not. I would really like to hear what you have to say too. But from my background, I've learned there are many definitions of gods, some of which are worth consideration if you're into that sort of thing. For example, the Hindu cosmology is really rich in myth and allegory and rich in instruction on personal practices for personal and cultural development. There's also Buddhism and Taoism that don't make a lot of noise about a supreme being. Also, Paganism, gnosticism, Sufism, shamanism (in many forms) and many other -isms. I can contrast my beliefs with any number of models of reality that are outside my experience and I find that fascinating and challenging. One observation that I think is generally true is that "beliefs" are far more core to our being than our typical use of the word often implies. Our own subjective experience teaches us and shapes our real beliefs. Beliefs about who we are, how to be in the world, and what things mean to us. Our minds can direct us into experiences from which we can learn and develop new beliefs (like overcoming fears) but we can't just *decide* to believe something. Only an experience of our entire being can move or change real beliefs. I find that work fascinating but not often of interest to others. Maybe I'm just slow.

[marylandblue]

151. We are not so far apart.

I'm agnostic. One reason I am is that I don't think belief is really the basis of religion, it's an afterthought to justify certain feelings or experiences called "spiritual." We feel these things and don't know how to describe them, so we say, "Oh that must be God," and then look for reasons to believe in that god. But the basis is feeling or experience.

[Voltaire2]

123. Ok. You go ahead and define god.

Please proceed.

[gtar100]

125. More spider webs Voltaire?

No thank you.

[Voltaire2]

138. Ah so atheists shouldn't define god, but

nor will you. Why is that?

[gtar100]

145. Oh heck no! You are as free as the birds to define what you will.

I would love to hear it. I usually find the question of defining god a set up for a smackdown when done in a public forum. It's a fun question, no doubt, but that is all I mean by not directly answering the question. It's simply that my views and beliefs out in public are just another opinion worth less than the lint in my pocket. But they mean something to me. But I'll put this out here as a possibility:

God is the infinite and eternal being of reality. Not a separate being but the being that is all. It is all and our existence is within. That we experience ourselves as separate entities and how we got this way is the subject of many myths from many cultures. Is that actionable intelligence? Not directly, other than being a canvas on which to create our lives. That's why qualities are so much more interesting and, if we're able, we can put our will into using them to create our own lives, both personally and as a people.

If you don't use the word "God", what do you call the ultimate source of reality, not just the physical universe but the source of all intelligence, concepts and ideas. Random chance? Coincidence? A stroke of luck? The singularity? The darkness of ignorance out which we arose through experience as we accumulated knowledge, stored in DNA and matter? Names do not define the thing itself but they can color our perception of something if it's labeled with a word we've had experience with. Whatever the truth is, it doesn't require our belief to actually be...it is the truth. I'm sure it can withstand our kicking the tires a bit.

Geez, you got me going! I'll stop before I start to ramble. But I'd be genuinely interested in your thoughts...not just on what I said but what your ideas are about reality, its origin, nature and qualities. Doesn't have to be on this thread. Over time is better, I think. If you read all this, my apologies for too many words!

[Voltaire2]

157. Oh you are a pantheist.

If you just want to claim that god and reality are the same then there is no god there.

Eh, but you don’t stop there. You’ve got it “sourcing ideas” - now your god has agency and it seems it is not just all of reality but an actor within the world.

[gtar100]

166. Okay then.

Spider has spun its web

[Eko]

129. Im an atheist.

What I would say the definition of god is a supernatural being.

[gtar100]

136. I would say it's the source of all intelligence.

As in, what has brought reality into being.

[Eko]

142. Well now,

Intelligence is highly over rated. What do you think atheists say it is?

[gtar100]

146. Yep, sometimes it is! :)

Athiests? Do you mean all those cats who are outside on Sundays while everyone else is going to church? I'm sure each one has a very interesting tale to tell.

[Eko]

150. This is entirely why there are more of us every year.

You make a statement,
"When an athiest tells me their definition of "God" I know why they don't believe. I wouldn't believe in such an absurdity either."
Then when given a simple answer "What I would say the definition of god is a supernatural being" you evade answering entirely to the point that it becomes an absurdity. More and more people can see through the deflection and inability to have a conversation even remotely intelligent to the point that they have no choice but to see what the real absurdity is.

[zipplewrath]

108. Depends if it is provably false

It is provably false that Obama is a Kenya socialist. It is not provable that there is no god.

[marylandblue]

128. Depends also what you mean by proof

Sone people take unprovability as a kind of attribute so that no proof may be presented, because God is defined as unprovable.

[Eko]

130. How is it provably false?

Of course its absurd, but once again how is it provably false?

[zipplewrath]

165. Documentation

passports
Birth Certificates
Newspaper birth announcements
etcetera

[Eko]

168. Lots of people

Hold dual citizenship.

[zipplewrath]

169. Kinda hard to hide that

If you're born here, the hoops one has to jump through to get passports in other countries is hard to hide.

[Eko]

170. Just because something is kinda hard

it does not disprove that thing. Try again.

[Major Nikon]

135. I'm not sure how that helps believers of either one

Both require favoring hearsay over reason.

[TlalocW]

110. I don't care what one believes

Well, I do a little because I think life is better when you face reality, but as long as you're not using your unprovable beliefs to dictate to the rest of us how we should live then I can't complain too much.

But I do in fact complain a lot because people are doing that.

TlalocW

[Doodley]

152. If we are talking about the Christian Right, they are willing to believe what suits their prejudices

Climate change - fake, because they are xenophobic and willing to believe it is part of a conspiracy against America.

Obama - born in Africa and has questionable qualifications, because it matches their prejudice that no black man could possibly be president without cheating.

Healthcare, welfare, immigration, crime, national defense - their views are all based on prejudice - the poor, and blacks in particular are viewed as inferior. America is superior to all the other inferior nations and should show its might.

God - belief fits a prejudice based on self-righteousness and superiority. They believe they are superior to what they see as the heathens, the baby killers, the sinful gays.

[Eko]

153. So, fake on their side bad.

Otherwise good. Its not like we don't have anti-vaxers, anti-gmo and anti science on our side.

[Major Nikon]

162. That which can be destroyed by the truth should be. --P. C. Hodgell