Same here.

Nah.

He's just being a big baby because his assertion ran up against thinking people.

@Toonman A HUGE Troll and acting like a spoiled little Baby too boot.
Must be a dearth of Squirrels in his territory because they let this one get away yet again imo.
LOL, wait, watch and listen as @skadoruns to the town literary Genius ( the ONLY one who is LITERATE btw) so he can find out what the word 'DEARTH' means.

I would only qualify that by saying a person's beliefs are bound to come up within existential or systematic debates. Zen plays a strong part in my determinations and it's hard to give a determination without explaining why. Things like the value of past/future, or (say) of continuing to hope for peace or accept war, are going to be voiced. There is a difference, however, in explaining one's position and postulizing before an audience. That should be ruled offensive and stopped. Also, once a belief's influence is known it is necessary to keep naming the belief. Simply pointing to Yin/Yang becomes understood to mean dualities. That is a valid reminder, imo, but going into the history of Taoism is a different conversation (which should be more agreeably sought between participants). I use Zen merely as an example but it could be any other form of personal guidance. Creating "after work get togethers" heavy in singular influence becomes forced indoctrination so should not be allowed by laws. The line is gray but most lines are.

In a sense no one owns a truth, but the truth stands on it's own regardless of opinion. Some people may see or understand a truth better than another.

@RhondaShotwell, there are things that are facts and those we can't argue with. However, each one has their own reality, their beliefs and things to deal with that makes things not that linear. Also, we humans are a lot more irrational than we think we are. To differentiate all of these above is the challenge, imo.

The way it appears to me is atheists rely on theists to frame their perception of God, and then reject the God so framed, without further consideration. It never seems to occur to them to do their own framing. Looks like the theists are in the driver’s seat of God conceptualization. Atheists are not choosing their own beliefs so much as rejecting other people’s beliefs.

@skado you are talking agnostic, not atheist.
Atheist dismiss 100% the concept of deity, so of course theists are in the drivers seat of god conceptualization. Atheists no longer bother trying to frame as the concept of "god" has been thoroughly and utterly rejected.
As Buddha supposedly said, "just is".

@puff
The god they reject is the god theists concocted. Atheists did not invent the god they reject. If you reject a god you must have some concept of that god’s nature in order to find it unacceptable. And it is that same description of god’s nature (the one theists supplied) which atheists assume to be the one they are rejecting.

@skado it's a concept the idea of deity. One I reject as thoroughly as being able to fly through solid rock. Took me almost 50 years, but I finally made the call and wish I had done it years earlier as I no longer ponder "what ifs" regarding deity. A total waste of time and intellectual endeavour imho.
Forget the how and concentrate on the why is my suggestion if contemplating life.

@skado What is it, 5000 odd gods people believe in? You state "Atheists did not invent the god they reject", this is true. But neither did theists invent the god they believe in. They were taught about them, in the case of Hindu's hundreds of them.
For me, once I accepted and understood that ALL gods are taught concepts then BANG!!!
Hello atheism. It was instant and I recall the exact moment.

@skado
"The way it appears to me is atheists rely on theists to frame their perception of God, and then reject the God so framed, without further consideration."

Yes because there's no need to reject the concept of a predisposition for a non-physical, non-specific non-entity that humans "needed" (used, but possibly unnecessarily had other advantageous traits evolved instead) in the past to flourish, as said concept isn't intrusive in their lives. It's the theistic perception of God that needs to be fought and rejected to protect principles they hold dear.

You have yet to present evidence, even after being repeatedly asked, for your claim that religion is crucial for the continued survival of humans, and failing that, there is no need for non-theists to "further consider" and "frame their own perception of God".

@puff
What do you think constitutes a god? What is the nature of the god you don’t believe in?

@skado So ....If I don't like a "movie" , I have to produce my own "movie"? So much for Roger Ebert....

If I don't like the NFL, I can't simply watch a "movie" on Sunday, but I have to create a competing sports league? If so, you seem to be saying that the competing sports league must be....a football league?

@twill
Atheism isn’t defined as not liking a particular god. It’s defined as a lack of belief that any such thing as a god exists.

To follow the movie analogy, let’s say you have an acquaintance who tells you about a phenomenon that he calls a movie. And for sake of this illustration, let’s say you had never seen or heard of such a phenomenon, so you ask him “What’s a movie?”

He says “Last night I put on a movie and Bruce Willis appeared in my living room. Fast cars were racing through the room. There were massive explosions and gunfire. It went on for nearly two hours. I was terrified and feared for my life. But I miraculously survived unharmed, and before it was over, Willis had won the heart of this gorgeous babe and they were doing it right there in my living room.”

You ask about the condition of his house after the explosions, and he swears the house returned to its original unharmed condition after the event, as if by magic.

You say you find such a claim to be unbelievable. You decide movies can’t exist. Forever after you identify as a confirmed Amovieist, and never give it another thought.

You have allowed the Movieist to tell you what movies are, and have made an identity for yourself based on the Movieist’s description of what movies are.

Do you have any obligation to make your own movie?
No. None whatsoever.

But the objective fact remains that you have made the erroneous conclusion that movies don’t exist, based on information you received from a believer in movies, rather than from your own investigation.

But why on earth would anyone waste time investigating such a preposterous claim?

Without ever having experienced a movie for themselves, they probably wouldn’t bother.

Before movies were invented, many generations of humans lived and died quite adequately without benefit of experiencing a single movie. So what difference could it possibly make in my life? Right?

So how about you?

Are you ready to swear off movie watching for the rest of your life? You know you could live just fine without them.

@skado VERY GOOD !

I'm watching ALL of the Seinfeld episodes now on Netflix.
Of course I can live without movies. All my body needs is water, air , food and at times, shelter.
I simply not only want for more, my brain & spirit desires more

@twill
That’s it!
Beautifully stated.

@skado Thank you Skado

@skado I consider deity suggest intelligent design for nature. Human designed gods crave worship and thus submission. They seem to be judgmental.
But the absolute biggest one is our designed gods don't seem to give a rats about all other life on this planet and are totally human centric. That does not reflect reality.
I accept evolution rather than believe in it. I understand we think we know more than we do about it though.
If there is spiritual stuff going on, things science is yet to detect and understand which I lean towards, the there is no deity directing things, judging things or interested in awarding rewards/ punishment.

@skado But exactly the same as gods, who makes movies and for what purpose?
Humans make movies for humans, discounting the need to satisfy any other life forms. Just one species, for one species.
Yes people worship movies, and think they are magic. But they are all designed by humans in the end.
Movies are made for human entertainment only, the same as gods, by other humans

@skado

It doesn't exist. Therefore it has no nature.

@Toonman
What doesn’t exist?

@skado

God, stupid.

You asked "What constiutes the nature of a God?"

@Toonman
What does the word God mean to you? The statement, “X doesn’t exist” has no meaning if the qualities that constitute “X” cannot be described.

@skado

I did, in fact, already tell you. The nature of God is that one doesn't exist. No existence=no nature.

What does the word "God" mean to me? The word means nothing to me precisely because God doesn't exist.

You're a fucking nincompoop.

It’s not a sin to notice that each person has their own unique level of awareness of, and unique degree of accuracy of understanding of science.

True, and some people are just clearly wrong about their science.

@skado so is it a sin not to notice it? I don't have a problem with the science per se, but I prefer a greater distinction between the human genetic adaptation and the kinds of adaptations produced by imaginations. I do not believe they are the same thing tho they both are human ingredients.

@hankster
The science that I’m aware of (limited) doesn’t regard them as precisely the same thing. But it also doesn’t speak of adaptations produced by imaginations (even though I don’t think that would be a wrong way to visualize it). It typically speaks of the continuum between genetic and cultural evolution using the term gene-culture coevolution. Culture being information passed from generation to generation through teaching rather than through genes. But then when that goes on long enough it can eventually work its way back into our genetic and/or epigenetic systems. Meanwhile, genetically encoded traits can influence which cultural behaviors are selected, so there’s immeasurable crosstalk back and forth between the two systems.

@skado I'm gonna let this marinate.

"Smoking the meth," you reckon, more like sniffing his own armpits and crotch imo.

@Triphid

Children. Everyone was one once

I think people of all descriptions have a need to align their worldview with objective reality. And I don’t know any better way to do that than to become more familiar with well-established science.

@puff Yes BUT imo this dip-shit has NOT evolved from the earliest of zygote stages intellectually speaking.
But, then again it is FROM the the State of Alabamanuts so what else could be expected imo.

@skado Ever thought of PRACTISING EXACTLY what you are TRYING to PREACH.
I.e. " align views with objective Reality, " otr better yet " Align themselves with ACTUAL REALITY."

@skado I do not think that the problem is only the lack of scientific knowledge. Way too many do not pay attention to anything that is going on in the world. And we have an appallingly high percentage of people graduating from high school with out the ability to read or write.

@skado

Let us know when you do.

@puff Sadly though, some who shall remain anonymous for now have never grown beyond the stage of childhood imo.

@skado How many decades, IF you don't mind me asking, has it been since you found your genius in a pack of Hootch and Funny Weed?

Shame upon you, far TOO many words of MORE than one syllable for @skado to comprehend imo.