It was bad enough that black children in the south had to say “justice for alll”.
Santa Claus, leprechauns, unicorns, et al, are stories dispelled by the people who pass them on in the first place (parents, friends, etc.). Nessie is still a bit of a question mark, I think.
The nature of God that most people refer to (in Christianity anyway) means that you don’t truly know anything about Him/Her/It in this life, only in the afterlife, if there is one. In other words, despite what you believe now, you don’t actually KNOW anything, and won’t until you die. You could be wrong.
Atheism is a positive claim about the non-existence of gods. Or a negative claim about the existence of gods. It is faith based in logic and science, but it is still faith.
“Stay the blazes home” - Stephen McNeil, Premier of Nova Scotia
Make a falsifiable claim about the god you are referring to, then we can discuss which side is relying on faith.
If you want to posit that any claim, somehow by definition, is also a statement of faith, I think you’ll find yourself out of agreement with most people.
Proof denies faith. In other words, the two are mutually exclusive. If the facts are on your side, you don’t need faith and vice versa.
If you want to make an extraordinary claim, it is up to you to provide the extraordinary proof. This isn’t my burden. It’s not my claim.
If I tell you that I do not believe that the entire world, and everything in it, is colored an identical shade of pink, this is not a statement of “faith”.
Not always, not for everyone, not for all such entities and not everywhere. For example, In Iceland there is a very serious belief in trolls. Is your presumed non-belief in trolls a religion?
So your non-belief in nessie is a religion or a faith is it?
and yet I hear tell of a book that does indeed allow people to know about the nature of this alleged “being”, reporting what they do, what they think and what they want. There are supposed prophets who have proclaimed on exactly that. Are those that think so wrong? No skin off my nose of course but I suspect that’ll come as a shock to them and you would appear to have a much bigger potential disagreement with them.
Correct, which is why I do not claim to know that gods don’t exist. The evidence for that proposition is dismal to non-existant so I continue my life without that belief.
You are wrong, and it gets tiresome pointing this out to people.
It is massively arrogant of you to presume to know, better than I myself, what I actually mean by the description I use.
My “atheism”, such as it is, is merely an absence of belief. Not a positive or negative claim at all and no “faith” required. I don’t say that theists are “wrong” just that I don’t accept they are “right”. It is a subtle but massively important distinction.
In some places voting for an atheist isn’t even an option. Per the North Carolina constitution:
(emphasis mine)
I have no idea how that is allowed under the 1st Amendment. Or maybe it isn’t and can’t be enforced. Nonetheless, there it is…
Yeah, I’m surprised that hasn’t faced Constitutional challenge in court yet.
One almost begins to wonder if that’s the point. Suddenly the discussion isn’t about the evidence (or the lack of it) for a particular god claim, but rather an unending rehash of what exactly an atheist is.
Catholic group Knights of Columbus takes credit for getting “under God” added. They made a big push for the change.
Perhaps, and good luck actually getting a defintion of a god that actually amounts to a claim in the first place.
You’ll note in the post that I was replying to it was said
Which is pretty much a non-definition.
It is like being told to disprove the existence of a Bleeblenit.
The preacher said, “Nothing is greater than God!” So I asked, “Why, then, do you promote belief in the lesser thing?"
Dammit! that’s another entity I now have to have no belief in. You’ve saddled me with another religion you swine. I’ve only got so much apathy to go round you know!
Bleeblenit (also known as “Blee ie it” in some sources) only exists if you don’t believe in Him. She is a contrarian god and desires anonymity above all else, but ambiguity first and foremost. Their kingdom is a truly glorious realm known as the Duchy of Heavenly Heresy.
ETA: This post has not been edited. It is the unadultered, slightly modified word of the one true Gods.
no she’s not!
You mean, no He’s not.
I, for one, welcome Bleeblenit, our most recent deity.
I wonder what sort of sacrifices will be required? Will there be cake?
Yes, but the cake must be given up as sacrifice, both provided and received by Her Majesty, the Queen of the Duchy of Heretical Heaven.
ETA: And before anyone comes in and accuses me of making this all up… why would I lie? What would I have to gain? Certainly not cake…
For me:
-
True
-
Not really, but I live in a bubble of weirdos. I may know nearly as many Tarot readers as actual Christians. I work in the school system and don’t bring it up there as many students will come from Christian homes. But I can’t imagine it ever coming up. “No you can’t combine these terms because they’re not like terms. Also, there’s no God.”
-
Nope, Dad was Jewish, Mom Lutheran, but both nominally. My Dad finally admitted he was an Atheist about 10 years ago. My Mom still identifies as Lutheran but she never prays or goes to church or reads the Bible, and she doesn’t believe in the resurrection or an afterlife.
-
No, not really. I certainly can’t imagine violence. How would it happen? But again I live in a bubble.
-
I guess. Not quite sure what this means. I do believe in freedom of religion, including the freedom not to have one. For specific cases, it depends on the case.
-
I usually vote even though my vote is pointless. The Greens sometimes out poll Republicans here. and I have no real congressional representation. But the Mayoral primary is important, and there’s usually a ballot initiative or two that motivates me to go to the polls. While I’m there, why not cast a vote for president?
Not just that, all possible definitions of Bleeblenit. You can disprove the purple one, but how about the shocking pink one?