Atheism

I corrected Wilco's post. I also edited both of your posts for spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Yes, I am bored:

Originally posted by mr.smiley
[QUOTE=14447625]Originally posted by Digi
[B]So, atheism in the mainstream media? Ok. I'd argue that there's still no consensus of behavior to create any idea of a standardized atheist/atheism, but this is a start at least.

Though I'm a bit flummoxed at why you wouldn't want to identify with that first one. It's remarkably inoffensive, given its intent.

This is some massive cart before the horse. Want to know the difference? There isn't organized atheist-movement-driven violence. When there is, then you'll have a point. Until then, the idea that trying to gain some notoriety in a community is somehow religious intolerance...doesn't really hold up. They're not part of the problem of intolerance because they have a monument. They'll be part of the problem when they're actually intolerant or when their views marginalize or adversely affect others. Until then, this is a false claim.

Taoist monks have monuments too. We can cherry-pick examples to say anything here. But you're not proving anything. You're suggesting an outcome based on a vague hypothesis and selectively biased examples.[

I think you totally missed what I was saying here. I was going more on an individual vs. the system here but I would say there are those who are intolerant. And I’m not quite sure what Taoist monks have to do with this.

Originally posted by Digi
Neil's great; no qualms with his response. But, everyone forgets his audience. He does one thing: promote science and reason. And he's got millions of people hanging on his words. And he reaches across the religious aisle with that influence with tons of people. That's an incredible responsibility. And you know what would f*** the whole thing up? Saying he's atheist. He literally can't say that word or he'd get dragged down to a place where he wouldn't have the same influence...he'd be vilified like Dawkins by many, ignored by others as possessing an agenda, and the whole scientific enterprise he's advocating would suffer a severe blow.

Any atheist "doesn't know for sure" so we're all technically agnostics. But I guarantee you NDT doesn't believe in a god or gods. He could easily identify as atheist.

Frankly, it's fine if you agree with him, but his response was so carefully constructed to be politically correct, that the most impressive thing about the whole video is his PR acumen, not anything having to do with his beliefs. [

To some, perhaps; but it's all in how you say it. I think Dawkins loves the villain role.

Originally posted by Digi
What exactly are we currently seeing, as you say? Again, I haven't seen anything to suggest there's a central tenet of behavior that we can point to. All we have is a vague assertion that atheists are somehow becoming more anti-religious.

Second, you ask why they'd have such a big push, and why we see some being anti-religious. Fair question...

Look at the LGBT movement. Look at the massive good it's done. They're not even close to equal yet, but the past five years have seen exponential growth in acceptance and legislative equality.

Now add that to this: More people in the country mistrust atheists than any other demographic, religious or otherwise. This is proven and the data has been repeated ad nauseam. Is it any wonder why there's a push, or why there's some anti-religious sentiment? I think the real question should be why there isn't a bigger push or more outcry. Compared to what they could be doing (or should be doing, according to many), the "movement" is practically turning the other cheek, to borrow a religious phrase. [

A common mistake, and you flirt with it here, is to point to other ways evil can occur, and use that to poo-poo the argument that the world would be better without religion.

Whether or not, say, skin color can create intolerance (and it can), that fact has NO bearing on the central question: better with religion or not. Of course there would still be evil. Maybe Dawkins doesn't acknowledge this enough, but he's not stupid. You talking about a "new age of science and peace" is just arguing against a straw man. Make an actual case against the idea; then we'll talk. [/B][/QUOTE]
Then what may I ask is evil if it even exist? [/B][/QUOTE]

Originally posted by dadudemon
😍 love2

Pump the brakes, son. Statements like that lump together Christopher Hitchens and the Pope. Calling everyone agnostic on a technicality is an affront to both the English language and the breadth of human belief.

Obviously you saw my whole point. And it wasn't this.

😉

Originally posted by Digi
Pump the brakes, son. Statements like that lump together Christopher Hitchens and the Pope. Calling everyone agnostic on a technicality is an affront to both the English language and the breadth of human belief.

Obviously you saw my whole point. And it wasn't this.

😉

But...I am the one that thinks everyone is agnostic.

I could find my post that had a lot more thought but everyone is agnostic. To not be would require you to be omniscient which would then defeat the purpose of the discussion and making you God.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But...I am the one that thinks everyone is agnostic.

I could find my post that had a lot more thought but everyone is agnostic. To not be would require you to be omniscient which would then defeat the purpose of the discussion and making you God.

And your definition of agnosticism is pointlessly vague, to the point of meaninglessness. It's also to the exclusion of other definitions. "I believe in God." K, you're agnostic. "I don't believe in God." K, you're agnostic. It's just pointless. Of course we don't know for sure. But it doesn't mean we should strip legitimate differences of opinion down to ignore them entirely, and muddy our understanding for the sake of an obvious, implied philosophical point. Do you not see the absurdity? And also the pointlessness of arguing semantics when none of it gets us closer to an accurate description of a person's full belief structure?

Again, say it if you want. I think it's one of the silliest absolutist arguments about labels I've ever heard. It has no positive impact on our understanding of individual belief.

Originally posted by Oliver North
and how many Sundays have you spent giving praise to medical science or the doctors who performed the operations?

I go to Church every Easter and Christmas and other than that, no!

Yes medical science is great and who gave the Dr. that gift? I know you wouldn't like what I'd say, but anyway..thanks for the reply.

Originally posted by Digi
This is an official-style thread to discuss atheism, its ideas and adherents, cultural influences, reasons for being, pros and cons of such a worldview, etc. etc.

What follows is my own personal reasons for being an atheist, as well as observations and tendencies I notice in both theists and atheists in regards to their disagreements. It is not intended to represent all or even some atheists, just me. It is, however, intended to provide many potential jumping off points for discussion. Feel free to take any of the points and run with it, or contribute your own.

As always, maintain respect and courtesy whenever possible. The very concept of atheism can be polarizing, so there is a greater need for conversational tact.

...

[b]Why I am an Atheist

1. Precursors in Mythology - As I came from a Christian background, my initial doubts of theism were directed at Christianity. And littered throughout both Old and New Testaments are stories that have not just peers within mythology but precursors. Noah's Ark, the Book of Job, to name a couple popular ones among dozens of others, have stories that mirror them almost exactly in detail, but that came before the Biblical books. Most Christians see these as metaphor, not literal truth, but it begets the question of their inclusion in the Bible at all when such obvious parallels can be found in "pagan" societies. The same can be said of the God of the OT, whose decrees are sometimes flatly evil, who changes his mind, isn't omniscient at all times, and generally acts like a petulant child. One wonders how many would still have a total devotion to the Bible if they knew exactly what they were worshiping.

2. The Jesus Myth - I don't doubt Jesus' existence, but parallels and similarities can be drawn between his story and literally hundreds of others. Any mythological scholarship will point toward the idea of shared stories, motifs, and themes within savior myths and hero tales. Jesus is no different. As metaphor, I feel as though Jesus' story stands very well as a motivation and guide. As literal truth, I feel it is absurd, based on nothing but an archaic book written by superstitious and scientifically uninformed mystics and priests. Most Christians have no problem accepting Old Testament stories as metaphor, not literal truth. This is simply the next step.

3. Paranormal Void - There is a telling web comic that shows a bar graph. One bar shows the number of paranormal claims. It is huge. The other bar shows the number of paranormal claims that have been confirmed via experimentation. It is at zero. A host of physical, cognitive, statistical, and psychological reasons help explain why we often believe claims of the paranormal. These can range from the religious (exorcisms, miracles) to simply the "other" (ghosts, spoon bending, reincarnation, remote viewing, near-death experiences, among many others). But the actual evidence for them is so small as to be negligible, and the vast majority of cases can be explained by common investigative techniques or cognitive errors made by those who believe them.

4. Science as Explanation - At one point, simply pointing to the complexity and beauty of the universe was sufficient to justify God's existence. Before that, natural phenomenon were enough for people to believe in higher beings. But then we discovered fossils, medicine, evolution, plate tectonics, weather patterns, planet and galaxy formation, physics, gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. etc. etc. At best, those opposed to a scientific worldview can only poke holes in scientific theories, not propose their own viable theories. At worst, they either misinterpret or deliberately subvert facts for their own purposes.

5. The Gaps - One cannot disprove a God, which is what some people seems to believe atheism represents. I cannot claim to know one way or another, only believe. In that sense, there is an article of faith involved with either side, a word that atheists are usually loathe to invoke. However, there are varying degrees of faith. I have faith that the Earth is round, for example, though I've never seen it in its entirety. But there are valid logical and empirical reasons for me to believe such an idea. The need for any God has been reduced greatly due to the vast amount of information about the universe that we can confirm via empirical study, to the point where we even have mathematically feasible explanations of how the universe came to be. It is at a point, in my opinion, where the belief in God requires absolutely blind faith. It is this unthinking emotional justification for belief that I cannot adhere to.

....

Observations (again, opinions):

1. Religious Extremes - It is easy to attack the extremes: militant atheists and evangelical literalist Christians. Their beliefs and ideas either fall apart under the merest of scrutiny, or they needlessly polarize people for the sake of some agenda. It is harder to realize that these don't represent a majority, just a vocal minority.

2. Tolerance - I don't dislike or begrudge religion or the religious. I do shy away from a touchy-feely acceptance and tolerance of all religious beliefs, because there are many that I believe are harmful either on a societal/global level or individually to those who believe them. There is, however, an immense amount of good done in the name of religion, and countless people who derive meaning and strength through religion. This is needed, because not everyone can live with a materialistic worldview amenably.

3. Need for Belief - Both psychological and evolutionary studies have been released that show a profound need for belief in human beings, and how our very nature led to the organization of religions and belief in higher beings. This is not likely to change at any point in the foreseeable future. As such, I don't see a conceptual conflict between the religious and non-religious sects of the world. A move toward a better scientific understanding of the world will always draw some away from religion, but won't override our basic tendencies toward resolving metaphysical questions with a creator being. It is only when one side tries to impose their beliefs on others, either through physical violence, peer pressure, political maneuverings, etc. that I become upset.

4. Challenges to my Beliefs - Most serious (real life) challenges I have had to my non-religiousness have been emotional appeals. I don't face a defense of theism or an attack against atheism, but rather questions like "Do you feel a void in your life? How do you find meaning?" Those sorts of things. I think it reinforces my ideas of how many people relate to religion. It's a connection people feel, not something they believe on the basis of strictly logical reasoning. Which isn't a bad thing, but isn't something I can do.

5. Morality - My ethical credo is this: "Promote the happiness and freedom of all sentient beings, in so far as it does not impede upon the happiness and freedoms of others." It needs no God nor philosophical doctrine. And while in practice there can be tricky situations for any moral code, it provides a basis from which to work and a goal to which I can aspire. I believe simpler moral codes to be better, only because there is needless pain and suffering caused by absolute codes of morality that leave no leeway for an act or situation that has no ill intent or affect, but which makes people feel guilty or punishes them for their actions. Other different moral systems can be found outside of religion, as it's not hard to see an intrinsic need for morality, God or not.

6. Organized Atheism - ...is ridiculous, and probably hurts the cause more than helps. Organizations that promote the use and understanding of science and reason, however, are among my favorite organizations of any cultural genre. I have subscriptions to both Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic Magazine, which work toward such goals, using science and reason to debunk psuedoscience, resolve conflicts within the scientific community, promote critical thinking and reasoning skills, and helping to uncover and expose those who knowingly and misleadingly profit off of the ignorance of others. They are not strictly atheist organizations, and have no stated religious belief, but I find their approach refreshing and in line with what I have discussed.

...

That's all I can think to say that has immediate relevance. Feel free to comment and/or add your own thoughts. [/B]

In my estimation there are no pros to being an

atheist.

What does an atheist have to gain by being such, or by holding such a view?

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14448304#post14448304

Originally posted by Digi
Are you actually Catholic if you only believe some of what the Catholic Church says? Keep in mind, it's not intended as a buffet religion, but the actual true church of God. Sounds to me like it's your own version of Christianity, and you only identify as Catholic for possibly familial or cultural reasons.

Conveniently discarding ugly aspects of your religion doesn't deal with them. It allows them to exist. You're tacitly endorsing the things you disagree with by taking this stance. See, some belief systems - non-denominational, agnosticism, many others - allow for variety. Catholicism is not one of those.

Don't get me wrong, pretty much 100% of the Christians I know don't fully agree with their religion. You're not alone. But that's the ridiculous part. It's the Word of God, and they pick and choose because some aspects of it are inherently, instinctively, not right. But instead of speaking out, they just ignore it for the sake of appearances. it's incredibly sad.

First, this:

Second, clearly the other guy's injury was as severe as yours, and more so. He's dead. You're not. Sounds more severe to me.

Firstly - cultural reasons??? I'm an Australian and my Mother is Church of England and my Father is Catholic. They couldn't get Married in a Church many years ago, even though they are both Christians.

Secondly - I'm not sure if you are familiar with coma's? What kills most coma patients is infections..lungs are more common. I and he had the lung infection, I survived, he didn't.

Originally posted by wilco
Firstly - cultural reasons??? I'm an Australian and my Mother is Church of England and my Father is Catholic. They couldn't get Married in a Church many years ago, even though they are both Christians.

Secondly - I'm not sure if you are familiar with coma's? What kills most coma patients is infections..lungs are more common. I and he had the lung infection, I survived, he didn't.

I know what a coma is. Let's get to the crux of it:

Why is it that you're sure God saved you and not medical science? Literally nothing in your story requires the divine. But it's what you used to justify your belief.

Second, how can you call yourself Catholic when you disagree with much of what the Catholic Church preaches? It sounds like you're a Christian, but not Catholic.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
In my estimation there are no pros to being an

atheist.

What does an atheist have to gain by being such, or by holding such a view?

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14448304#post14448304

Irrelevant link, but meh.

Anyway, the fact that you think in terms of gains is startling. Do you believe what you do only because of selfish gains?

I believe what I do because I think it is the correct worldview, or the most reasonable view of our reality. That's it. No other reason. I'm not expecting a reward or punishment, I just form my beliefs to evidence and logic.

Originally posted by Digi
I know what a coma is. Let's get to the crux of it:

Why is it that you're sure God saved you and not medical science? Literally nothing in your story requires the divine. But it's what you used to justify your belief.

Second, how can you call yourself Catholic when you disagree with much of what the Catholic Church preaches? It sounds like you're a Christian, but not Catholic.

Irrelevant link, but meh.

Anyway, the fact that you think in terms of gains is startling. Do you believe what you do only because of selfish gains?

I believe what I do because I think it is the correct worldview, or the most reasonable view of our reality. That's it. No other reason. I'm not expecting a reward or punishment, I just form my beliefs to evidence and logic.

I was responding to your first post at the outset of this thread. See below.

Originally posted by Digi
This is an official-style thread to discuss atheism, its ideas and adherents, cultural influences, reasons for being, [b]pros and cons of such a worldview, etc. etc.

[remaining post omitted].... [/B]

I don't know what the pros of an atheistic world view could possibly be. That's why I asked.

My question had nothing to do, really, with any selfishness per se.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=583162&pagenumber=1#post14448482

Originally posted by Digi
And your definition of agnosticism is pointlessly vague,

You mean "philosophically specific." 😐

Originally posted by Digi
It has no positive impact on our understanding of individual belief.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You mean "philosophically specific." 😐

It's pretty succinct in putting into perpsective how silly all of the arguments really are. No one, as a fact, can know for sure. All the arguments boil down to some level of unknown. Those other labels that you cling to so dearly are just labels of varying degrees of, "I don't really know."

Religion doesn't exist in a dictionary though, it exists in peoples' minds. And many think they really do KNOW that they're right. You might be able to convince everyone on the planet that they're technically agnostic (actually, no, that wouldn't work), but it still wouldn't account for the variance in belief that does exist.

You yourself are a Mormon. You identify as Mormon. Saying that you're Mormon gives us a rough understanding of your beliefs. It is functional, useful, mostly accurate, and not at all silly. Saying that you realize that you don't know for sure doesn't change its accuracy. It just means you're a Mormon with an aversion for absolutist statements of belief. You're an adult who understands nuance. Which is why I'm shocked you can't see the nuance that creates different religious sects, and how peoples' beliefs very explicitly aren't the same.

Further, many claims of religions are testable...they don't exist in the philosophical ether that "Is there a God?" does. Therefore, someone who believes them (i.e. Jesus existed, was crucified, performed miracles, or Joseph Smith...etc.), can test their claims based on objective criteria. Same for supernatural phenomena. Ghosts, ESP, remote viewing, etc. Religion doesn't exist in an entirely agnostic bubble. The "ultimate" question might, but the claims made by religions, and the debunking of them, create lines that demand labels other than pure ambivalence. And many theists believe that they know God exists. That's what faith is. Describe what they actually believe, not what you say they do.

You're talking to someone whose worldview is based on evidence and logic, so you'll get no pushback on the idea that a lot of the debate is silly. We should be working with what we DO know, not what we don't. But you'd do fine in academia with this. You'd fail utterly as a sociologist, which is where the actual exchange of ideas is actually happening, and where labels can be harmful is improperly applied but are necessitated by the realities of religious institutions and beliefs.

This very conversation is just intellectual masturbation. Why? Because society will continue to use labels and have differences of opinion. We accomplish nothing trying to demand otherwise. I'm only interested in discussion in so far as it has practical function...colloquial definitions instead of pedantic ones. Philosophical high ground means nothing if it ceases to have use outside itself.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I was responding to your first post at the outset of this thread.

I know.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I don't know what the pros of an atheistic world view could possibly be. That's why I asked.

And I answered with this:

Originally posted by Digi
I believe what I do because I think it is the correct worldview, or the most reasonable view of our reality. That's it. No other reason. I'm not expecting a reward or punishment, I just form my beliefs to evidence and logic.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
My question had nothing to do, really, with any selfishness per se.

Then why necessitate the need for benefits?

It's not about pros/cons. It's about belief. I look at the evidence, assess the logic, and form the most rational belief. To believe something because you think it has greater "pros" is self-delusion.

Do you disagree with any of the claims in my opening post? I know you do. I'm curious to see if you can refute any without resorting to the Bible, which isn't evidence of, well, nearly anything.

Originally posted by Digi
I know.

And I answered with this:

Then why necessitate the need for benefits?

It's not about pros/cons. It's about belief. I look at the evidence, assess the logic, and form the most rational belief. To believe something because you think it has greater "pros" is self-delusion.

Do you disagree with any of the claims in my opening post? I know you do. I'm curious to see if you can refute any without resorting to the Bible, which isn't evidence of, well, nearly anything.

I'm not necessitating anything.

Again, I was merely responding to your post about pros and cons of an atheistic world view.

I do not believe there are any pros to such a view.

However, I believe there is a grave con to such a view: eternal separation from God.

I do not believe for sake of greater pros. I believe because I choose to accept the most sane, rational, logical, alternative.

Life or death.

Blessing or cursing.

Heaven or Hell.

God or satan.

To me the most logical and rational choice between the only two alternatives is life, blessing, Heaven, and God.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14448570#post14448570

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I'm not necessitating anything.

Again, I was merely responding to your post about pros and cons of an atheistic world view.

I do not believe there are any pros to such a view.

However, I believe there is a [b]grave con to such a view: eternal separation from God.

I do not believe for sake of greater pros. I believe because I choose to accept the most sane, rational, logical, alternative.

Life or death.

Blessing or cursing.

Heaven or Hell.

God or satan.

To me the most logical and rational choice between the only two alternatives is life, blessing, Heaven, and God. [/B]

Buncha false dichotomies here. You don't have any evidence of heaven OR hell. God OR Satan. And there isn't just one possible heaven. There's the hundreds of various world religions, and the infinite number that the afterlife could actually be. Or nothing; just death. And a potentially infinite number where nothing we do on Earth affects our afterlife anyway.

So if you really want a pro, probably the best pro about atheism is that you don't waste countless hours on religion. Seriously, lots more free time. Because there's probably nothing after death, but even if there is, we can't be sure what it's like.

So I don't think you're correctly apply the term logic here. You're picking two arbitrary outcomes, one obviously better, and saying it's the correct one. Provide some evidence, then get back to me.

Originally posted by Digi
Religion doesn't exist in a dictionary though,

This is not a dictionary, this is a centuries millennia long debate of Objective Knowledge, the nature of knowledge, subjective experience, bla bla bla. It carries with it a ton of philosophical baggage. It is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Originally posted by Digi
Buncha false dichotomies here. You don't have any evidence of heaven OR hell. God OR Satan. And there isn't just one possible heaven. There's the hundreds of various world religions, and the infinite number that the afterlife could actually be. Or nothing; just death. And a potentially infinite number where nothing we do on Earth affects our afterlife anyway.

So if you really want a pro, probably the best pro about atheism is that you don't waste countless hours on religion. Seriously, lots more free time. Because there's probably nothing after death, but even if there is, we can't be sure what it's like.

So I don't think you're correctly apply the term logic here. You're picking two arbitrary outcomes, one obviously better, and saying it's the correct one. Provide some evidence, then get back to me.

I do have evidence of Heaven and Hell, but you do not accept the evidence I provide as evidence.

See, your concept of evidence is solely that which you can perceive with your senses.

But in this world where many do not believe in absolutes, even your subjective evidence is capable of being dismissed and rejected by someone who does not believe as you do.

We live in a world where everything is subject to debate, even things that are clear-cut, black and white, and obvious to most if not all.

Again, what you call evidence someone else can dispute on the grounds that that is your evidence i.e. evidence to you, your own personal evidence, but that your evidence is not evidence to him/her i.e. true for him/her, sufficient for him/her, fit his/her standard or definition of what constitutes evidence, or applicable to him/her.

Lastly, provide me evidence that there is not just one possible Heaven.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14448570#post14448570

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I do have evidence of Heaven and Hell, but you do not accept the evidence I provide as evidence.

See, your concept of evidence is solely that which [b]you can perceive with your senses.

But in this world where many do not believe in absolutes, even your subjective evidence is capable of being dismissed and rejected by someone who does not believe as you do.

We live in a world where everything is subject to debate, even things that are clear-cut, black and white, and obvious to most if not all.

Again, what you call evidence someone else can dispute on the grounds that that is your evidence i.e. evidence to you, your own personal evidence, but that your evidence is not evidence to him/her i.e. true for him/her, sufficient for him/her, fit his/her standard or definition of what constitutes evidence, or applicable to him/her.

Lastly, provide me evidence that there is not just one possible Heaven.[/B]

On the last sentence, I think you misunderstand burden of proof. Neither of us has evidence of an afterlife. If we did, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But that's the point. The possibilities are literally infinite.

On the other stuff, you're right, I don't accept the Bible as evidence. You shouldn't either. You should seek independent verification of claims made by scientifically illiterate, superstitious mystics thousands of years ago. We can't trust the source, nor verify it in any manner. And as I stated at the beginning of this thread, pretty much every supernatural claim in the modern world has fallen apart under scrutiny for one of several reasons. At best, you have something unexplained. At worst, we can explain it scientifically, but people cling to beliefs that have been disproven.

Anyway, I'm not talking about my subjective evidence, as you put it. I'm talking about empirical study, which can be understood independently and isn't as dependent on one's interpretation.

But hell, this is the best discussion we've ever had, I think. You're at least confronting me on personal terms. I appreciate it. 👆

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is not a dictionary, this is a centuries millennia long debate of Objective Knowledge, the nature of knowledge, subjective experience, bla bla bla. It carries with it a ton of philosophical baggage. It is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Yup, ok, understood. We're beating a dead horse at this point. This is definitely an agree to disagree moment, because I have absolutely no desire to continue.

Originally posted by Digi
I know what a coma is. Let's get to the crux of it:

Why is it that you're sure God saved you and not medical science? Literally nothing in your story requires the divine. But it's what you used to justify your belief.

Yes, many years ago I would have been dead as a doornail, but with my Gods (not yours) because you're an atheist, God have me 2 chances, even though I probably should not have deserved it.

Originally posted by Digi
Second, how can you call yourself Catholic when you disagree with much of what the Catholic Church preaches? It sounds like you're a Christian, but not Catholic.

I was christened and baptised as a Catholic, but in all honesty wouldn't care if I was Church of England like my Mother, or a Catholic like my Father.

Originally posted by Digi
On the last sentence, I think you misunderstand burden of proof. Neither of us has evidence of an afterlife. If we did, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But that's the point. The possibilities are literally infinite.

On the other stuff, you're right, I don't accept the Bible as evidence. You shouldn't either. You should seek independent verification of claims made by scientifically illiterate, superstitious mystics thousands of years ago. We can't trust the source, nor verify it in any manner. And as I stated at the beginning of this thread, pretty much every supernatural claim in the modern world has fallen apart under scrutiny for one of several reasons. At best, you have something unexplained. At worst, we can explain it scientifically, but people cling to beliefs that have been disproven.

Anyway, I'm not talking about my subjective evidence, as you put it. I'm talking about empirical study, which can be understood independently and isn't as dependent on one's interpretation.

But hell, this is the best discussion we've ever had, I think. You're at least confronting me on personal terms. I appreciate it. 👆

There's no such thing as burden of proof in this discussion.

We are both on par with each other, and equally responsible for backing up what we maintain.

There's no such animal as independent verification.

As I previously stated, we live in a world where everything is debatable.

It doesn't matter what you arrive at empirically, I can deny it using the same non-absolutist approach that so many anti-dogmatists employ.

Who's to say that anyone one is right about anything?

Speaking as a non-absolutist, any and all fact or truth is subjective.

Your truth means diddly squat to me if I don't accept it.

Your truth is true for you, not for me.

Just because you believe that the sun is in the sky doesn't mean that I have to.

Just because you believe that gravity exists doesn't mean that I do.

It's all in your mind.

I think life is just a video game.

I don't believe any of it is real. But again, I speak as a non-absolutist.

So don't try to impose your logic and rationale on me.

Your logic and rationale is true for you and I respect that.

Why don't you respect my non-absolutist beliefs?

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=533188&pagenumber=121#post14448612

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There's no such thing as burden of proof in this discussion.

We are both on par with each other, and equally responsible for backing up what we maintain.

There's no such animal as independent verification.

As I previously stated, we live in a world where everything is debatable.

It doesn't matter what you arrive at empirically, I can deny it using the same non-absolutist approach that so many anti-dogmatists employ.

Who's to say that anyone one is right about anything?

[b]Speaking as a non-absolutist, any and all fact or truth is subjective.

Your truth means diddly squat to me if I don't accept it.

Your truth is true for you, not for me.

Just because you believe that the sun is in the sky doesn't mean that I have to.

Just because you believe that gravity exists doesn't mean that I do.

It's all in your mind.

I think life is just a video game.

I don't believe any of it is real. But again, I speak as a non-absolutist.

So don't try to impose your logic and rationale on me.

Your logic and rationale is true for you and I respect that.

Why don't you respect my non-absolutist beliefs? [/B]

I'm a bit too drunk to respond right now, but this is awesome. Easily the most engaged you've ever been with me.