Where do atheists get their values?

[anynameyouwish]

It must require morals to be faithful to a Constitution.

yes


morals.....


like trump.....

 

[SweetSue92]

there is no such thing as atheism because there is no god
you cannot not believe in something that is not there/not true

Thats ridiculous. I can not believe in Unicorns and theyre not there and not true.

This is not difficult for me. Unicorns do not exist. This is apart from whether I "believe" in them. They do not exist. They are fictional.

Used to be true atheists said "God does not exist, there is no God". Now all they do is measure their own internal universe--what THEY "lack" or "do not lack". Sad.

The point sailed over your head there, friend. & I'm not sure why your rhetoric is necessary and just tossing labels around in all your posts like leftist this atheist that - it's intellectually lazy. Try and stick to the topic, leave the neener bullshit aside, and perhaps you and a counter-part might come away understand one another.

I actually made a very strong point which you do not want to address, so you insult me. I understand. Believe me.

 

[G.T.]

there is no such thing as atheism because there is no god
you cannot not believe in something that is not there/not true

Thats ridiculous. I can not believe in Unicorns and theyre not there and not true.

This is not difficult for me. Unicorns do not exist. This is apart from whether I "believe" in them. They do not exist. They are fictional.

Used to be true atheists said "God does not exist, there is no God". Now all they do is measure their own internal universe--what THEY "lack" or "do not lack". Sad.

The point sailed over your head there, friend. & I'm not sure why your rhetoric is necessary and just tossing labels around in all your posts like leftist this atheist that - it's intellectually lazy. Try and stick to the topic, leave the neener bullshit aside, and perhaps you and a counter-part might come away understand one another.

I actually made a very strong point which you do not want to address, so you insult me. I understand. Believe me.

No, you lambasted judgment on folks for not "declaring" that God doesn't exist because they're not too egocentric to admit that they cannot prove such a thing. The point of the Unicorn analogy went right over your head - it's that God and Unicorns are BOTH un-falsifiable, and if you cannot falsify something it's ultimately irrational to believe in it if one's being pragmatic.

 

[koshergrl]

As a non-Christian, I find it amusing how many of those of religious persuasion are stumped by the fact that non-Christians can be and are good and decent people. I can only conclude that these confused people are so lost that they would have no moral backbone if it weren’t provided to them from an ancient book. Because there are people as morally challenged as this, I am happy they found a god.

I haven't ever met an atheist is a good and decent person.

 

[SweetSue92]

there is no such thing as atheism because there is no god
you cannot not believe in something that is not there/not true

Thats ridiculous. I can not believe in Unicorns and theyre not there and not true.

This is not difficult for me. Unicorns do not exist. This is apart from whether I "believe" in them. They do not exist. They are fictional.

Used to be true atheists said "God does not exist, there is no God". Now all they do is measure their own internal universe--what THEY "lack" or "do not lack". Sad.

The point sailed over your head there, friend. & I'm not sure why your rhetoric is necessary and just tossing labels around in all your posts like leftist this atheist that - it's intellectually lazy. Try and stick to the topic, leave the neener bullshit aside, and perhaps you and a counter-part might come away understand one another.

I actually made a very strong point which you do not want to address, so you insult me. I understand. Believe me.

No, you lambasted judgment on folks for not "declaring" that God doesn't exist because they're not too egocentric to admit that they cannot prove such a thing. The point of the Unicorn analogy went right over your head - it's that God and Unicorns are BOTH un-falsifiable, and if you cannot falsify something it's ultimately irrational to believe in it if one's being pragmatic.

That's agnosticism then. Just say you're agnostic, which is what this used to be called. I can't know, I'm agnostic.

 

[G.T.]

Thats ridiculous. I can not believe in Unicorns and theyre not there and not true.

This is not difficult for me. Unicorns do not exist. This is apart from whether I "believe" in them. They do not exist. They are fictional.

Used to be true atheists said "God does not exist, there is no God". Now all they do is measure their own internal universe--what THEY "lack" or "do not lack". Sad.

The point sailed over your head there, friend. & I'm not sure why your rhetoric is necessary and just tossing labels around in all your posts like leftist this atheist that - it's intellectually lazy. Try and stick to the topic, leave the neener bullshit aside, and perhaps you and a counter-part might come away understand one another.

I actually made a very strong point which you do not want to address, so you insult me. I understand. Believe me.

No, you lambasted judgment on folks for not "declaring" that God doesn't exist because they're not too egocentric to admit that they cannot prove such a thing. The point of the Unicorn analogy went right over your head - it's that God and Unicorns are BOTH un-falsifiable, and if you cannot falsify something it's ultimately irrational to believe in it if one's being pragmatic.

That's agnosticism then. Just say you're agnostic, which is what this used to be called. I can't know, I'm agnostic.

Agnosticism is a sub-category of atheism. There are two kinds of atheism, folks who make the *positive claim that God does not exist, and those who lack belief in a God.

* = A positive claim requires justification to be rationally held. No atheist has ever proven "not God," and so it's an irrationally held belief.

A·the·ism
Dictionary result for atheism
/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

disbelief = positive claim
lack of belief = makes no claim

 

[SweetSue92]

As a non-Christian, I find it amusing how many of those of religious persuasion are stumped by the fact that non-Christians can be and are good and decent people. I can only conclude that these confused people are so lost that they would have no moral backbone if it weren’t provided to them from an ancient book. Because there are people as morally challenged as this, I am happy they found a god.

I haven't ever met an atheist is a good and decent person.

I have. But if you dig a little, they have either had very unfortunate experiences with religion, parent issues, or they get very spooked by death. But good and decent people in the mix, yes. Definitely so.

 

[SweetSue92]

This is not difficult for me. Unicorns do not exist. This is apart from whether I "believe" in them. They do not exist. They are fictional.

Used to be true atheists said "God does not exist, there is no God". Now all they do is measure their own internal universe--what THEY "lack" or "do not lack". Sad.

The point sailed over your head there, friend. & I'm not sure why your rhetoric is necessary and just tossing labels around in all your posts like leftist this atheist that - it's intellectually lazy. Try and stick to the topic, leave the neener bullshit aside, and perhaps you and a counter-part might come away understand one another.

I actually made a very strong point which you do not want to address, so you insult me. I understand. Believe me.

No, you lambasted judgment on folks for not "declaring" that God doesn't exist because they're not too egocentric to admit that they cannot prove such a thing. The point of the Unicorn analogy went right over your head - it's that God and Unicorns are BOTH un-falsifiable, and if you cannot falsify something it's ultimately irrational to believe in it if one's being pragmatic.

That's agnosticism then. Just say you're agnostic, which is what this used to be called. I can't know, I'm agnostic.

Agnosticism is a sub-category of atheism. There are two kinds of atheism, folks who make the *positive claim that God does not exist, and those who lack belief in a God.

* = A positive claim requires justification to be rationally held. No atheist has ever proven "not God," and so it's an irrationally held belief.

"lacking a belief in God" is not different from agnosticism in any appreciable way.

 

[G.T.]

The point sailed over your head there, friend. & I'm not sure why your rhetoric is necessary and just tossing labels around in all your posts like leftist this atheist that - it's intellectually lazy. Try and stick to the topic, leave the neener bullshit aside, and perhaps you and a counter-part might come away understand one another.

I actually made a very strong point which you do not want to address, so you insult me. I understand. Believe me.

No, you lambasted judgment on folks for not "declaring" that God doesn't exist because they're not too egocentric to admit that they cannot prove such a thing. The point of the Unicorn analogy went right over your head - it's that God and Unicorns are BOTH un-falsifiable, and if you cannot falsify something it's ultimately irrational to believe in it if one's being pragmatic.

That's agnosticism then. Just say you're agnostic, which is what this used to be called. I can't know, I'm agnostic.

Agnosticism is a sub-category of atheism. There are two kinds of atheism, folks who make the *positive claim that God does not exist, and those who lack belief in a God.

* = A positive claim requires justification to be rationally held. No atheist has ever proven "not God," and so it's an irrationally held belief.

"lacking a belief in God" is not different from agnosticism in any appreciable way.

It's not the same agnosticism comes with extra qualifiers and so it's distinct:

noun

1. 1.
   a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

 

[G.T.]

I used to identify as Agnostic, but the deeper I got into the study of philosophy and formal philosophical debate, I realized I was the form of atheism: "lacks belief."

Agnosticism, used more formally, means that you don't believe the knowledge one way or the other will ever be possible. I don't fall into thinking this way.

 

[SweetSue92]

I actually made a very strong point which you do not want to address, so you insult me. I understand. Believe me.

No, you lambasted judgment on folks for not "declaring" that God doesn't exist because they're not too egocentric to admit that they cannot prove such a thing. The point of the Unicorn analogy went right over your head - it's that God and Unicorns are BOTH un-falsifiable, and if you cannot falsify something it's ultimately irrational to believe in it if one's being pragmatic.

That's agnosticism then. Just say you're agnostic, which is what this used to be called. I can't know, I'm agnostic.

Agnosticism is a sub-category of atheism. There are two kinds of atheism, folks who make the *positive claim that God does not exist, and those who lack belief in a God.

* = A positive claim requires justification to be rationally held. No atheist has ever proven "not God," and so it's an irrationally held belief.

"lacking a belief in God" is not different from agnosticism in any appreciable way.

It's not the same agnosticism comes with extra qualifiers and so it's distinct:

noun

1. 1.
   a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

That's parsing and semantics and is absolute crap. That's what happens when atheism goes entirely weak--from "there is no God" to the internal temperature taking of "oh well I LACK A BELIEF" in God, which used to be agnosticism.

It makes modern atheism look even more foolish

 

[SweetSue92]

I used to identify as Agnostic, but the deeper I got into the study of philosophy and formal philosophical debate, I realized I was the form of atheism: "lacks belief."

Agnosticism, used more formally, means that you don't believe the knowledge one way or the other will ever be possible. I don't fall into thinking this way.

That's Internet Philosophical Games.

 

[dblack]

"lacking a belief in God" is not different from agnosticism in any appreciable way.

They're actually quite different. People use the terms improperly, so maybe it's fair to say that most people don't recognize a difference between the two. But agnosticism is a position on whether the existences of gods is can be proven. An agnostic believes we can never know for sure whether gods exist. Someone can be an agnostic atheist (lacking belief, but it admitting it can't be proven one way or another) or an agnostic believer (I believe, but I can't prove it). Likewise, they can be a gnostic atheist (I don't believe, and if gods did exist you could prove it) or a gnostic theist (I believe and the existence of gods can be proven).

 

[G.T.]

I used to identify as Agnostic, but the deeper I got into the study of philosophy and formal philosophical debate, I realized I was the form of atheism: "lacks belief."

Agnosticism, used more formally, means that you don't believe the knowledge one way or the other will ever be possible. I don't fall into thinking this way.

That's Internet Philosophical Games.

Actually, it's being more accurate. I've never seen the utility in being so averse to parsing things more accurately, it saves folks time and confusion. I don't know why someone would ever seek to grind an ax with being more accurate, can that be explained? I mean, saving for the meta-bravado approach of "ohhh its just cuz atheists this or that!! ha!!"

I'm talking about rationally. Can the utility behind being LESS accurate be explained?

 

[SweetSue92]

I used to identify as Agnostic, but the deeper I got into the study of philosophy and formal philosophical debate, I realized I was the form of atheism: "lacks belief."

Agnosticism, used more formally, means that you don't believe the knowledge one way or the other will ever be possible. I don't fall into thinking this way.

That's Internet Philosophical Games.

Actually, it's being more accurate. I've never seen the utility in being so averse to parsing things more accurately, it saves folks time and confusion. I don't know why someone would ever seek to grind an ax with being more accurate, can that be explained? I mean, saving for the meta-bravado approach of "ohhh its just cuz atheists this or that!! ha!!"

I'm talking about rationally. Can the utility behind being LESS accurate be explained?

Yes, absolutely. If I tell you I have Pilocytic Astrocytoma what does that mean to you? Not much probably. Now how about I tell you I have brain cancer? So of course there is good utility in using LESS accurate terms. I really don't care what exactly being atheist means to you, just as when you tell me you have brain cancer, I don't need to know that you have Pilocytic Astrocytoma. The general meaning was fine.

But this is so 21st century. We just cannot give enough detail about how we think, feel, perceive the world, etc etc etc. We can't have enough of the navel-gazing.

 

[G.T.]

I used to identify as Agnostic, but the deeper I got into the study of philosophy and formal philosophical debate, I realized I was the form of atheism: "lacks belief."

Agnosticism, used more formally, means that you don't believe the knowledge one way or the other will ever be possible. I don't fall into thinking this way.

That's Internet Philosophical Games.

Actually, it's being more accurate. I've never seen the utility in being so averse to parsing things more accurately, it saves folks time and confusion. I don't know why someone would ever seek to grind an ax with being more accurate, can that be explained? I mean, saving for the meta-bravado approach of "ohhh its just cuz atheists this or that!! ha!!"

I'm talking about rationally. Can the utility behind being LESS accurate be explained?

Yes, absolutely. If I tell you I have Pilocytic Astrocytoma what does that mean to you? Not much probably. Now how about I tell you I have brain cancer? So of course there is good utility in using LESS accurate terms. I really don't care what exactly being atheist means to you, just as when you tell me you have brain cancer, I don't need to know that you have Pilocytic Astrocytoma. The general meaning was fine.

But this is so 21st century. We just cannot give enough detail about how we think, feel, perceive the world, etc etc etc. We can't have enough of the navel-gazing.

That was a bad analogy. The 1st case is that more information on the subject makes the terms mean different things.

Your example, was two terms that mean the same thing.

That's not the utility in being less accurate with our words that I was inquiring about.

 

[ding]

They still refuse to this day to apologize for their role in slavery, the KKK, segregation, Jim Crow laws and racism.

"
They still refuse to this day to apologize for their role in slavery, the KKK, segregation, Jim Crow laws and racism."


CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN Democrats.

You demand that DEMOCRATS apologize for their role in slavery.

How about demanding that CONSERVATIVES and CHRISTIANS also apologize?

Absolutely. I apologize for the Democratic Party’s willful and reprehensible practice of slavery, racism, segregation and bigotry.

 

[anynameyouwish]

They still refuse to this day to apologize for their role in slavery, the KKK, segregation, Jim Crow laws and racism.

"
They still refuse to this day to apologize for their role in slavery, the KKK, segregation, Jim Crow laws and racism."


CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN Democrats.

You demand that DEMOCRATS apologize for their role in slavery.

How about demanding that CONSERVATIVES and CHRISTIANS also apologize?

Absolutely. I apologize for the Democratic Party’s willful and reprehensible practice of slavery, racism, segregation and bigotry.

and I apologize for the southern conservative christians who owned slaves and defended slavery.

 

[Mindful]

there is no such thing as atheism because there is no god
you cannot not believe in something that is not there/not true

Thats ridiculous. I can not believe in Unicorns and theyre not there and not true.

This is not difficult for me. Unicorns do not exist. This is apart from whether I "believe" in them. They do not exist. They are fictional.

Used to be true atheists said "God does not exist, there is no God". Now all they do is measure their own internal universe--what THEY "lack" or "do not lack". Sad.

The point sailed over your head there, friend. & I'm not sure why your rhetoric is necessary and just tossing labels around in all your posts like leftist this atheist that - it's intellectually lazy. Try and stick to the topic, leave the neener bullshit aside, and perhaps you and a counter-part might come away understand one another.

I actually made a very strong point which you do not want to address, so you insult me. I understand. Believe me.

Don't worry. He does it to me all the time. Like a broken record.

 

[G.T.]

there is no such thing as atheism because there is no god
you cannot not believe in something that is not there/not true

Thats ridiculous. I can not believe in Unicorns and theyre not there and not true.

This is not difficult for me. Unicorns do not exist. This is apart from whether I "believe" in them. They do not exist. They are fictional.

Used to be true atheists said "God does not exist, there is no God". Now all they do is measure their own internal universe--what THEY "lack" or "do not lack". Sad.

The point sailed over your head there, friend. & I'm not sure why your rhetoric is necessary and just tossing labels around in all your posts like leftist this atheist that - it's intellectually lazy. Try and stick to the topic, leave the neener bullshit aside, and perhaps you and a counter-part might come away understand one another.

I actually made a very strong point which you do not want to address, so you insult me. I understand. Believe me.

Don't worry. He does it to me all the time. Like a broken record.

You're just wrong a lot, there's no need for you to even be involved in any discussion that requires thought. Just leave me alone sometime soon.