The Crack that Lets the Light In

@Mame,

Funny you mention a discussion of vaccinations. I live in South Florida and sort of an progressive oasis due to mishmash of snowbirds from other conservative points of view. Due to practices of non-mask-wearing and non-vaccinations a few people got COVID and some got it pretty bad. We did all of our appropriate protocol and avoided any get-together whatsoever until a feels ago. We still avoid any of the indoor clustering in the clubhouse.

However, the point is we do not discuss the vaccination issue even with people we know well that we weren’t sure of their leanings. We even avoided discussion with non-medical people as it only led to more possible disinformation.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Jesus said to love your neighbour and praised the Samaritans, people of other faiths.

If Christians did that, they wouldn't be a problem, unfortunately there's way too many like your aunt and the last poster.

No wonder poor old Bobsal has such a hard time.

0 Replies

@Ragman,

Some people react quite strongly when your beliefs are different. A friend of mine and her sister had a falling out because my friend refused to get vaccinated. I don't know if they're talking yet.

2 Replies

@Mame,

My cousins in Dallas no longer communicate with me because I don't support Trump. Smile

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Superman is a fictional construct. I think Clark Kent is as well! Another "blind guess"!

Not at all. And like most atheists...you continue to avoid the question.

Okay...you are allowed to kid yourself. But any assertion that there are no gods...is no better than the assertion that there is one. Both are blind guesses.

Theists handle that truth by calling their blind guesses "beliefs" and demanding that everyone should respect "beliefs."

Atheists hide behind Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

It's like not liking you because you have a different favourite colour. It's inexplicable to me that such things would ruin a relationship.

2 Replies

@Mame,

They were already miffed that I told them a few years earlier that I was one of those people you read about in the news protesting Vietnam.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Just narrow-mindedness. Thankfully, I don't know anyone like that. Nobody has a right to criticize someone else's opinion. Question, perhaps, but criticize? No.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Not at all. And like most atheists...you continue to avoid the question.

I'm not avoiding the question, I just don't want to be subjected to your disdain. I haven't made any claims about the existence of gods, but I have suggested that Betty Crocker is a fictional character; so are Mr. Clean and Gilgamesh. If the non-existence of Clark Kent or the Easter rabbit amount to something more substantial than a blind guess why is the non-existence of god or gods treated differently?

1 Reply

@Mame,

Mame wrote:

It's like not liking you because you have a different favourite colour. It's inexplicable to me that such things would ruin a relationship.

That might have been the case 60 or so years ago, but politics takes up a lot more mental bandwidth for many people nowadays. It's passed into the realm of culture and identity and I believe, not coincidentally, is itself just another big business

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
Not at all. And like most atheists...you continue to avoid the question.

I'm not avoiding the question, I just don't want to be subjected to your disdain.

I am not interested in disdain. I am interested in discussion. I have never shown any contempt or disdain to you, Hightor, quite the opposite.

Quote:

I haven't made any claims about the existence of gods, but I have suggested that Betty Crocker is a fictional character; so are Mr. Clean and Gilgamesh. If the non-existence of Clark Kent or the Easter rabbit amount to something more substantial than a blind guess why is the non-existence of god or gods treated differently?

There are many fictional characters about which I have MORE THAN ENOUGH UNAMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE upon which to base a meaningful guess as to whether they exist or not.

I DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH UNAMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE upon which to base a meaningful guess as to whether or not there are any gods. Fact is, the mystery of existence is so great that I try not to get too involved in exploring the many possibilities of explanation. I could blindly guess that there is at least one GOD...or I could blindly guess that there are no gods.

Here, let me do it: I am going to toss the coin my wife and I use to decide which team to choose during NFL season when we cannot decide. We call the coin, Mr. Coin. If Mr. Coin comes up heads, I will blindly guess that at least one GOD exists...and if it comes up tails, I will blindly guess that there are no gods. The toss is real.

It came up Heads...so I blindly guess that at least one GOD exists.

Of what use is that, Hightor?

Now, I do not begrudge anyone from making such a blind guess...in either direction. But when someone comes on the scene and asserts CERTAINTY EITHER WAY...I challenge.

What can you possibly see as wrong...or irrational...or illogical...or uncourteous about that?

This is a discussion forum. Challenging things like that are almost a certainty in such a setting.

So I ask again: Do you assert that there are no gods? Or do you assert that your guess is that there are no gods? This discussion is about that. So?

2 Replies

@thack45,

Not where I live, thank heavens, or rather, who I associate with. Some people do care, and some do vote, and some people do discuss politics, but not to the point where it becomes heated. It's certainly not something I want to have an argument about.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Do you assert that there are no gods?

We've had this discussion before. I explained that if I am to be labeled an "atheist" it is because I have no use for the concept of a personal supreme being, as a creator, or as the foundation of morality. I wouldn't assert that there are no gods, for at least two reasons. For one, in most circumstances, it's just not polite. Another reason is that the god concept fails the principle of falsification. It makes a claim about the material world without providing evidence other than the existence of that material world. Plus there are always those "arguments" which suggest that god purposely hides the evidence of its existence or that evolution is part of its "plan". It's a very convoluted concept, and all too human.

If we ignore god's supposed activity in the material world and look at human psychology things change a bit. In the mind of a believer a god can be present and real. I wouldn't deny that, but I don't think it backs up any claims of universal omnipotence. It's a way of ordering one's personal universe; I just don't find the god method believable or necessary.

Quote:

Or do you assert that your guess is that there are no gods?

I'm more inclined to think of it as an informed but unprovable hypothesis.

1 Reply

@Mame,

Unfortunately some don’t get the issue … that it’s a matter of life and death…possibly MY life or death. Their rights (to be stupid) should extend only so far, but not when my life is put at risk.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH UNAMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE upon which to base a meaningful guess as to whether or not there are any gods.

Therein lies the rub. For some people, proteins, eyeballs and blades of grass are enough unambiguous evidence for the existence of god(s). There's a lot of talking past each other when it can't even be established what constitutes unambiguous evidence.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
Do you assert that there are no gods?

We've had this discussion before. I explained that if I am to be labeled an "atheist" it is because I have no use for the concept of a personal supreme being, as a creator, or as the foundation of morality. I wouldn't assert that there are no gods, for at least two reasons. For one, in most circumstances, it's just not polite. Another reason is that the god concept fails the principle of falsification. It makes a claim about the material world without providing evidence other than the existence of that material world. Plus there are always those "arguments" which suggest that god purposely hides the evidence of its existence or that evolution is part of its "plan". It's a very convoluted concept, and all too human.

If we ignore god's supposed activity in the material world and look at human psychology things change a bit. In the mind of a believer a god can be present and real. I wouldn't deny that, but I don't think it backs up any claims of universal omnipotence. It's a way of ordering one's personal universe; I just don't find the god method believable or necessary.

Thank you. As I have explained, I also do not find the notion of the existence of a god "believable or necessary" and the addition of "universal omnipotence" seems gratuitous, perhaps even silly. If there is an entity responsible for the creation of what we humans call "the physical universe"...any comments about what it is able to do is almost useless.

Not sure what you meant by, "...(IF) I am to be labeled an 'atheist.'"

You are the only one who can truly and correctly label yourself an "atheist"...and I am not sure why you would want to do that.

Quote:

Quote:
Or do you assert that your guess is that there are no gods?

I'm more inclined to think of it as an informed but unprovable hypothesis.

Thank you. I would call to your attention to the fact that many theists consider their "belief" that there is a GOD to be that same thing...an informed but unprovable hypothesis.

To me, neither is particularly worthy of being described as "informed", but both are certainly in the "hypothetical" category.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH UNAMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE upon which to base a meaningful guess as to whether or not there are any gods.

Therein lies the rub. For some people, proteins, eyeballs and blades of grass are enough unambiguous evidence for the existence of god(s). There's a lot of talking past each other when it can't even be established what constitutes unambiguous evidence.

There certainly is a lot of talking past each other.

As for "unambiguous evidence"...well, scientists are currently working to establish "unambiguous evidence" about life (as we humans describe it) exists elsewhere in our solar system. I suspect we will know when any evidence collected will go from being ambiguous to being unambiguous.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Not sure what you meant by, "...(IF) I am to be labeled an 'atheist.'"

People often use "atheist" to mean someone who categorically denies the existence of god whereas others use it in its literal sense, as someone who lives "without god". I don't label myself with regard to my stand on religious belief but if someone else described it as "atheist" I'd want to make clear to them that it is in the second sense.

Quote:

I would call to your attention to the fact that many theists consider their "belief" that there is a GOD to be that same thing...an informed but unprovable hypothesis.

That's what I call a misinformed unprovable hypothesis as it is based solely on scripture and subjective experience.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
Not sure what you meant by, "...(IF) I am to be labeled an 'atheist.'"

People often use "atheist" to mean someone who categorically denies the existence of god whereas others use it in its literal sense, as someone who lives "without god". I don't label myself with regard to my stand on religious belief but if someone else described it as "atheist" I'd want to make clear to them that it is in the second sense.

Okay. I am not sure of what it means to live one's life "without god." But if that works for you, fine. IF, however, there is at least one god, you are not living your life without a god no matter what. You are simply living your life without the knowledge of the god and without any deference toward any gods that might exist.

I certainly live without any knowledge of any gods and without and deference towards any gods...but I do not assign the descriptor "atheist" to myself...nor is there any reason why I should. It seems to me that anyone who does use that descriptor for self (or as part of a descriptor for self) only does so because the person "believes" that there are no gods or "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. I truly do not fall into that category. I cannot see any logical or reasonable way to assign probability in either direction.

In any case, I am not big on labels or descriptors, because they do an inadequate job of describing the elements of a position. I am, for instance, to the left of Bernie Sanders on many social positions, but I never label myself as a "liberal." I have pretty much stopped using the descriptor "agnostic." I prefer to describe my position.

Quote:

Quote:
I would call to your attention to the fact that many theists consider their "belief" that there is a GOD to be that same thing...an informed but unprovable hypothesis.

That's what I call a misinformed unprovable hypothesis as it is based solely on scripture and subjective experience.

I am sure you do...just as I call BOTH "misinformed, gratuitous, and self-serving."

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

...just as I call BOTH "misinformed, gratuitous, and self-serving."

So, in a discussion about the origins of life and the universe, cosmological science is misinformation? Are anthropological studies of religious belief misinformation?

1 Reply

The Crack that Lets the Light In

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know