Yeah, it's not like we don't expect them to follow the laws created by faceless governments under the guise they will be locked up or punished by a judge anything. It's not like we don't teach them that the toy in that other person's yard isn't theirs to play with because it belongs to someone they likely have never seen. Its not like we don't put kids in organized classes and feed them information under threat of bad grades, flunking, and being a loser all their life who doesn't make any money and will be socially lower then everyone else if they don't learn the stuff.
did you really just compare God to a bunch of man-made constructs in order to prove his existence?
And we all know that once someone knows about God and religion, they can never reject it ever.
is that supposed to be sarcastic, or just an indication that you've completely lost the plot?
calling my point weak doesn't make it wrong.
Teaching a kid about religion is no different then teaching them in schools about science, math, reading, or anything else in life.
Well, firstly language does not require belief, either you learn it and it's useful for you, or you don't and it's not. Math, also, doesn't require belief. It's a completely man-made logical construct. If you don't believe "1+1=2" then you're ignorant. if you believe "1+1 2", then you're confused. As for science, you can deny evolution and the age of the universe. go ahead...
It may be true that teaching them is similar. However, coercing them to believe it under threat of eternal damnation takes a special kind of psychopath.
there's only no practical difference if you don't think such things are important. however, if you like to distinguish between a worldview that involves and requires belief in the supernatural, and one that doesn't, then such a thing is important. and since that's exactly what this conversation it about, i would have thought it to be quite important.
I am an atheist, but I am one not because I believe there is no God. I am an atheist because I don't believe in God (agnostic atheist). I don't believe in God exactly the same way that I don't believe in the teapot, or the FSM, or any number of other made up supernatural nonsense. this is entirely sufficient. There's no negative assertion. There's no burden of proof.
As for the scientific method. There's no faith required at all. All it states is that, to a certain degree of accuracy, the experiments performed produce results that match a particular mathematical model. You could say that that requires belief in the correct reporting of the results and the correctness of the mathematical model, but both of these are easily verified - you can check the math and reproduce the experiment. At that point all you need is faith in your senses...
ok, if you want to say that teaching a baby to walk is as coercive as forcing them to obey an invisible authority figure and associated morality under the threat of eternal damnation and torture, then so be it. at the time of coercion there is no belief. and this point roundly contradicts your original argument.
you're forgetting, of course, that people are born atheists, and the coercion most often takes the form of indoctrination of (atheist) children. the child doesn't need to be a 'complete idiot' to be coerced into believing in all that crap, especially if it's forced down their poor throats from an early age. however, if you continue to be coerced given all the evidence to the contrary, then yes, you are a complete idiot, as you say.
absolute nonsense. i could easily convince someone in a completely fabricated consequence and then use that consequence to force them to behave some way. they would be convinced of my lie and believe that i have the power to save them. that does not make that thing true and does not require the thing to be true, but the act itself is still coercive.
really? vim knows which symbols are in scope when I hit '.' or '->' at any location, especially if those symbols are defined in a different scope, in a different file that isn't open, that has syntax errors in it? i'm a regular vim user, but i have never seen functionality like this.
I specifically made a distinction between a threat from the immoral (god) and a threat from the mortal (other human beings). If you don't believe in the religion, then logically, any coercive threats from their god are irrelevent to you!
how about when you make those coercive threats to young children?
But if you believe there is a God that can make those claims, then you're not an atheist, and this whole conversation doesn't apply to you.
the problem is that this argument isn't used against atheists (who are, or should be, immune to this nonsense). the problem is that it's used mostly against children, the poor, uneducated, sick, desperate, etc... people who are uncertain about their future for whatever reason, who are looking for guidance. how disgusting is it then they they are fed this lie of hatred to force them to believe some false salvation? how's that for a definition of evil?
Not required. If i was stupid enough to think that such a think might be real, then i could quite easily be forced into believing it through fear. Even Blaise Pascal, one of the otherwise smartest people ever was foolish enough to fall for this one. It's a coercive and cynical political system that feeds on the uncertainty of the weak. When we are rid of it we can finally progress as a species.
yeah, even many of those that don't explicitly have a 'hell' have the idea that if you don't fulfill the mortal requirements you are denied some of the privileges in the afterlife.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it's not like we don't expect them to follow the laws created by faceless governments under the guise they will be locked up or punished by a judge anything. It's not like we don't teach them that the toy in that other person's yard isn't theirs to play with because it belongs to someone they likely have never seen. Its not like we don't put kids in organized classes and feed them information under threat of bad grades, flunking, and being a loser all their life who doesn't make any money and will be socially lower then everyone else if they don't learn the stuff.
did you really just compare God to a bunch of man-made constructs in order to prove his existence?
And we all know that once someone knows about God and religion, they can never reject it ever.
is that supposed to be sarcastic, or just an indication that you've completely lost the plot?
calling my point weak doesn't make it wrong.
Teaching a kid about religion is no different then teaching them in schools about science, math, reading, or anything else in life.
Well, firstly language does not require belief, either you learn it and it's useful for you, or you don't and it's not. Math, also, doesn't require belief. It's a completely man-made logical construct. If you don't believe "1+1=2" then you're ignorant. if you believe "1+1 2", then you're confused. As for science, you can deny evolution and the age of the universe. go ahead...
It may be true that teaching them is similar. However, coercing them to believe it under threat of eternal damnation takes a special kind of psychopath.
there's only no practical difference if you don't think such things are important. however, if you like to distinguish between a worldview that involves and requires belief in the supernatural, and one that doesn't, then such a thing is important. and since that's exactly what this conversation it about, i would have thought it to be quite important.
The lack of belief in something is the exact same thing as "I believe X doesn't exist", so it is a belief.
you are confused.
see here.
I'll take a harder-to-configure product over an easy solution any day of the week if it respects my freedom.
i'm going to print that out and hang it on the wall!
and i'm going to show it to my kids!!
then i'm going to slap them round the head if they ever come up with something so pathetic.
AND it has been like that since Windows 2000. ...and every fucking time a new Windows Server arrives everything is changed.
wait, is it the same as it was in 2000, or not?
Tools that require no training to use imply that no training is necessary to do the job those tools are for.
Unfortunately that means people configuring things who have no business configuring those things.
can you show the logical progression from your first sentence to the second sentence?
i'd love to use that particular trick to convince some people of some bullshit i just made up, but i can't quite make out how you did it.
I am an atheist, but I am one not because I believe there is no God. I am an atheist because I don't believe in God (agnostic atheist). I don't believe in God exactly the same way that I don't believe in the teapot, or the FSM, or any number of other made up supernatural nonsense. this is entirely sufficient. There's no negative assertion. There's no burden of proof.
As for the scientific method. There's no faith required at all. All it states is that, to a certain degree of accuracy, the experiments performed produce results that match a particular mathematical model. You could say that that requires belief in the correct reporting of the results and the correctness of the mathematical model, but both of these are easily verified - you can check the math and reproduce the experiment. At that point all you need is faith in your senses...
you're confused.
this should clear things up a little.
You are confusing
"I believe god does not exist"
with
"I do not believe god exists"
my D830 just died :( i'm not replacing it, though. i'm holding out for a 15" WUXGA.
i'd be happy with just WUXGA at 15", like they had back in '05.
ok, if you want to say that teaching a baby to walk is as coercive as forcing them to obey an invisible authority figure and associated morality under the threat of eternal damnation and torture, then so be it. at the time of coercion there is no belief. and this point roundly contradicts your original argument.
you're forgetting, of course, that people are born atheists, and the coercion most often takes the form of indoctrination of (atheist) children. the child doesn't need to be a 'complete idiot' to be coerced into believing in all that crap, especially if it's forced down their poor throats from an early age.
however, if you continue to be coerced given all the evidence to the contrary, then yes, you are a complete idiot, as you say.
absolute nonsense. i could easily convince someone in a completely fabricated consequence and then use that consequence to force them to behave some way. they would be convinced of my lie and believe that i have the power to save them. that does not make that thing true and does not require the thing to be true, but the act itself is still coercive.
Atheism most certainly is a belief
most certainly not.
I am thinking of a random predicate (one of the infinite set of predicates)? do you believe it to be true?
atheism is a lack of belief.
Code completion? Check
really? vim knows which symbols are in scope when I hit '.' or '->' at any location, especially if those symbols are defined in a different scope, in a different file that isn't open, that has syntax errors in it?
i'm a regular vim user, but i have never seen functionality like this.
Vinny doesn't need to exist for the threat to be coercive.
I specifically made a distinction between a threat from the immoral (god) and a threat from the mortal (other human beings). If you don't believe in the religion, then logically, any coercive threats from their god are irrelevent to you!
how about when you make those coercive threats to young children?
they should be safe, right?
sick motherfuckers.
But if you believe there is a God that can make those claims, then you're not an atheist, and this whole conversation doesn't apply to you.
the problem is that this argument isn't used against atheists (who are, or should be, immune to this nonsense). the problem is that it's used mostly against children, the poor, uneducated, sick, desperate, etc... people who are uncertain about their future for whatever reason, who are looking for guidance. how disgusting is it then they they are fed this lie of hatred to force them to believe some false salvation? how's that for a definition of evil?
Not required. If i was stupid enough to think that such a think might be real, then i could quite easily be forced into believing it through fear. Even Blaise Pascal, one of the otherwise smartest people ever was foolish enough to fall for this one. It's a coercive and cynical political system that feeds on the uncertainty of the weak. When we are rid of it we can finally progress as a species.
So... what should we call them when they are unthinking, ignorant, brainwashed, and delusional?
"religious"?
Eventually you'll hit a contradiction or hole in their misunderstanding
there's a word for that: ignorance
Mathew 19:21-24
It's not an insult. It's a statement of fact.
yeah, even many of those that don't explicitly have a 'hell' have the idea that if you don't fulfill the mortal requirements you are denied some of the privileges in the afterlife.