SkepticalOne

That realization made me realize that is god all loving? No; but he's more loving than the left.

'God sucks, but people (I dont like) suck more, therefore the Christian God exists!'

I remained unconvinced.

Talarico will probably win because of this retarded war

Let us hope.

and because Texans have apparently grown accustomed to being ruled by bloodless lizard people

Uh, Talarico is a democrat, but, yes, Republicans have been in control for the last 30 years. So partially valid.

It's hard to be energized to vote when you basically got everything you wanted already and Trump can't run for a 3rd term.

Oh no, that's awful. 🤐

Speaking of 2028, who do you think will be the Repiblican nominee for POTUS? Vance?

I mean, we are deep in the midterm season - why are we not seeing anyone stumping for candidates? We've got threads highlighting awful campaigns, and general propaganda against "leftists", but not much else.

Are folks like Paxton and Abbott (or candidates in states other than Texas) too bad to advocate for, not worth the effort, or are people uninterested in current political events?

Fwiw, Talarico is objectively better than Paxton, and Hinojosa cant do much worse than Abbott.

Being raped is, by definition, involuntary. It is quite literally having someone use your body against your will.

Being an 'incel' is involuntary only so far as it is an inability to attract a willing sexual partner. The incel's body is never being used against their will.

This is an absurd comparison. This demonstrates the true hurdles incels face are their own excuses, victim mentality, and insensitivity to real trama.

Why are atheist allowed to believe the universe came from nothing?

Is that what atheists believe?

The only atheist I am calling out is Sgt. Lynch.

Fair enough.

I agree, believing certain gods don't exist doesn't inherently make you a string atheist, however when someone makes the claim that a god does not exist, they would, of course, need to prove it.

Agreed.

To each their own, right? haha But that's the point I was making. Everybody has their own standard they want met, which is fine.

I would question if justification is necessarily subjective, but that is a whole can of worms. 😂

As an atheist, I am aware of the different versions of atheism. In my experience most people who can be classified as atheist hold an agnostic atheist view. So, when you say atheist, this is what I tend to think of. If you mean to call out gnostic atheists, it might be helpful if you made that distinction early on in a conversation.

That being said, if someone claims there are no gods, then they have a burden. If thats your point, it seems obvious and uncontroversial to me. I think it should be pointed out believing certain gods are non-existent doesnt make a person a strong atheist. I mean, believers regularly reject gods other than their own, but no one is suggesting they have a burden to prove there are no gods.

In regard to justification and sufficient evidence, I mean that they are subjective. To some, all they need is some sort of logical proof(s).

I am happy to classify logical argumentation as "evidence of gods". I just dont think it is sufficient to warrant belief. Logical proof is not existential proof. Logic can't confirm theoretical constructs exist outside the mind. So, yah, Ill probably need something much more significant than the eye.😉

It seems you're conflating belief and non-belief by blurring the lines of the hairstyle and silence analogies. Is this your actual position, or are you being a bit of a contrarian? Either way is fine, I just want to make sure we are on the same page.

As for justification being subjective, are you suggesting non-belief in or rejection of unproven claims is not warranted, or are you arguing something else?

Again, I do find it quite humorous how, in all your perceived intelligence, you can't show your evidence for there being no God.

So, you are suggesting non-belief is a belief? Isn't that like saying silence is a genre of music or bald is a hairstyle. 🤔

Besides that, wouldn't the justification for not believing in a god start with the fact that the existence of gods have not been demonstrated to exist?

Shoresy wrote:

So you don't know if there is a divine being?

Does anyone?

What I meant was that if someone like Sgt. Lynch can use a definition to get out of proving a claim then so can I. Would he allow me to do that? No, but I would just be following his example.

If he made a claim, then, by all means, point out his burden. On the other hand, if he didnt make a god claim, you dont get to define one for him and all atheists.

I'm not sure if this applies to you. I think it is important to learn what positions people hold before attempting to force a burden on them. This is fairly common tactic pushed against non-believers in general.

Anyway, feel free to get back to the thread. I have no intention of derailing it.

The burden of proof is on you lol.

I'm not sure what you are referring to.

I didn't claim atheism to be the opposite of theism.

I see. In that case, you have my apologies.

If atheism is a lack of belief, I can just as easily define theism as having belief, which would technically be true.

I wasnt aware there is a way to define theism absent belief. Maybe you meant something different?

Hmm, seems I struck a nerve. It was never meant to be upsetting. 😉

For atheism and theism to be opposites, you'd really need to define atheism in a way that most atheists wouldnt recognize it.

If you want to say strong atheism/gnostic atheism and gnostic theism were opposites, I would be sympathetic to that view.

Since you keep begging for evidence I will assume you mean theism to mean "God exists" (God of Abraham for my specific case), therefore atheism, being the opposite, would be "God does not exist".

Atheism (lack of belief) is not the opposite of theism. Specific flavors of theism make claims and each one is like particular frequency of sound. Christianity might be C#, Islam could be B♭, Judaism perhaps middle C. Atheism makes no claim and does not contribute to the cacophony.

Atheists are like the guy who lives on a cul de sac trying to sleep while all the neighbors are having loud, dissonant parties. 😉

Meh. I think I'd reject anything with so much copy paste.

So magic only makes people happy when people believe in it. It's why atheists are depressed and suicidal.

You have very strong opinions on atheists. As an atheist, I am fascinated to hear the lore.

A life without intrinsic meaning can still have objective meaning. A life without a built in purpose can still find meaning according to an external standard.

Atheism is just world without magic

This much I agree with.

Id say nihilism is basically life has no meaning, at least no objective meaning.

I'd say that is incorrect. Nihilism says life has no intrinsic meaning, not that life is necessarily without meaning.

I am more in-line with your previous opinion, especially given the rise of Christian Nationalism. Separation of Chruch and state best represents everyone rather just a lot of people.

I said i dont think we should have in god we trust on money separation church and state. My cousin said what's it hurting. He was right, I changed my view.

This is unclear. Do you think 'in god we trust' should be on our money and separation of church and state is a bad idea?

I used to think Ayn Rand's Objectivism provided a meaningful ethical and political view. Now I lean toward Laissez-faire Capitlism being the root cause of so many of our society's issues.

How useful might this be when Frat houses are typically off-campus?

You can't ban bodies from in person colleges; you can ban beer.

I'd say that is debatable at best. Things like prohibition lead me to believe banning alcohol isnt the best pathway. All it does is push it underground causing more problems than we started with.

RemyBrown wrote:

Sperm is a noun; fucking is a verb.

Umm, okay, drinking is a verb. So much for that alcohol ban! 🤣

Debby wrote:

Sex isa noun if you are dreaming about it. It is a verb if you are getting it.

RemyBrown wrote:

Since when do people have sex in any area other than a private bedroom? Sex is a verb; alcohol is a noun. You can enforce bans on nouns; enforcing a ban on verbs is harder.

"Sex" is a noun.

"I was drunk" is not an ethical justification for rape, but it's a catalyst for rape.

Ban alcohol's existence at all colleges and problem solved.

That seems extreme and difficult to enforce. I think this is akin to banning sex on college campuses - its unlikely to succeed.

I'm happy to acknowledge you're expertise in cynicism. Skepticism? ... no so much.

The bottom line is that a woman agreed to X with specific individuals and not X happened with other individuals. There are legal nuances that will have to be sorted out to determine who did what and how culpable everyone is. What is clear to me is that the woman is a victim.

Now you can try to argue she's not a victim because she said 'I love you' or 'she is trying to protect her reputation' or whatever else. The problem is that she is very much following a known pathway for processing trauma. You're inability to understand this doesn't make her a liar.

So does malice.

Malice isnt legally required for sexual assault/rape to have occurred.