It isn't a genetic condition as for example left-handedness would be, it is (as far as I can see) a personality-related condition. Other homosexual people? Homosexuals don't really come into this as they are not the ones actually pushing gay & Lesbian rights, it's the Left that is doing that. Their aim is to make marriage nothing more than an indulgence, something that anyone can participate in. Marriage is a foundation stone of conservative values consequently a target of the Left, gays and lesbians pawns in a game of destruction. — Gregory A

Here below is an extract from Wikipedia regarding a person who could possibly help you understand how confused you are when you type things like:
"Homosexuals don't really come into this as they are not the ones actually pushing gay & Lesbian rights"
Peter is one of the best-known homosexual activists in the UK and has fought all his life for LGBT rights.
I can look up examples of such people from the right-wing of UK politics if you want me to.
Some British Conservative and Liberal MP's have marched beside Peter at Gay pride events etc.

Peter Gary Tatchell (born 25 January 1952) is a British human rights campaigner, originally from Australia, best known for his work with LGBT social movements.
Tatchell was selected as the Labour Party's parliamentary candidate for Bermondsey in 1981. He was then denounced by party leader Michael Foot for ostensibly supporting extra-parliamentary action against the Thatcher government. Labour subsequently allowed him to stand in the Bermondsey by-election in February 1983, in which the party lost the seat to the Liberals. In the 1990s he campaigned for LGBT rights through the direct action group OutRage!, which he co-founded. He has worked on various campaigns, such as Stop Murder Music against music lyrics allegedly inciting violence against LGBT people and writes and broadcasts on various human rights and social justice issues. He attempted a citizen's arrest of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe in 1999 and again in 2001.

There are many other examples of such activists from across the political spectrum and in many many countries, especially USA.

Gods are alive and laying!

I think the whole debate is less about whether or not there is a god and the mutual differentiation of the groups of "those who believe in god" and "those who don't", an ongoing elaboration of the process of schismogenesis. It is an argument about the basis of rationality.

Dunno. Whatever the genesis of the schism is, the atheist think they know it better. That theism involves fantasies of which they sure they have no counterpart in reality. To say, as Richard Dawkins, that they are 99.9% sure is the most non-scientific reply you can imagine. It can't get more unscientific. Moreover, Dawkins uses dogma in his books just the same as the religious dogma he fights so vigorously.

It can't get more unscientific. Moreover, Dawkins uses dogma in his books just the same as the religious dogma he fights so vigorously. — EugeneW

Yes, Scientism is surely the most hypocritical prejudice of all.

Clearly, not every phenomenon in the universe reduces to events that can be quantified in convenient experimental terms. People live a long time and enjoy feedback from the universe that can stretch across years, even decades. Intelligence and an open mind go hand in hand.

It isn't a genetic condition as for example left-handedness would be, it is (as far as I can see) a personality-related condition. Other homosexual people? Homosexuals don't really come into this as they are not the ones actually pushing gay & Lesbian rights, it's the Left that is doing that. Their aim is to make marriage nothing more than an indulgence, something that anyone can participate in. Marriage is a foundation stone of conservative values consequently a target of the Left, gays and lesbians pawns in a game of destruction.
— Gregory A

Here below is an extract from Wikipedia regarding a person who could possibly help you understand how confused you are when you type things like:
"Homosexuals don't really come into this as they are not the ones actually pushing gay & Lesbian rights"
Peter is one of the best-known homosexual activists in the UK and has fought all his life for LGBT rights.
I can look up examples of such people from the right-wing of UK politics if you want me to.
Some British Conservative and Liberal MP's have marched beside Peter at Gay pride events etc.

Peter Gary Tatchell (born 25 January 1952) is a British human rights campaigner, originally from Australia, best known for his work with LGBT social movements.
Tatchell was selected as the Labour Party's parliamentary candidate for Bermondsey in 1981. He was then denounced by party leader Michael Foot for ostensibly supporting extra-parliamentary action against the Thatcher government. Labour subsequently allowed him to stand in the Bermondsey by-election in February 1983, in which the party lost the seat to the Liberals. In the 1990s he campaigned for LGBT rights through the direct action group OutRage!, which he co-founded. He has worked on various campaigns, such as Stop Murder Music against music lyrics allegedly inciting violence against LGBT people and writes and broadcasts on various human rights and social justice issues. He attempted a citizen's arrest of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe in 1999 and again in 2001.

There are many other examples of such activists from across the political spectrum and in many many countries, especially USA.
38 minutes ago — universeness

What would an Aussie know. They are all limpwrists anyhow.

And regardless of Dawkins political leanings his actions still result in a benefit to the Left.

Racists are real, you can make selections. Whereas if you claim to not believe in a particular god, you are at odds with the claim you don't believe in any/all gods.

All Birds Fallacy:

All LGBTQ activists being homosexual would not make all homosexuals LGBTQ activists. The activist faction is on the left. Got it. LGBTQ activists, not all being on the left would not mean LGBTQ activism is not on the left. Got it.

What would an Aussie know. They are all limpwrists anyhow — Gregory A

These are such lowbrow words Gregory A, you shame yourself.

Racists are rea — Gregory A

Yeah, you just showed that with your comment on all Australians

All LGBTQ activists being homosexual would not make all homosexuals LGBTQ activists. The activist faction is on the left. Got it. LGBTQ activists, not all being on the left would not mean LGBTQ activism is not on the left. Got it. — Gregory A

More words from the twisted world of Gregory A. You are a bigot and a political vacuum.

.

Atheism is not exclusive to the left, it's just an easy default for them because it is amoral and imposes no accountability. — whollyrolling

Are you saying atheists are amoral?

.

In a sense, true, atheism is invalid because it commits the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy (theists can't prove God; "thus" God doesn't exist).

In a sense, true, atheism is invalid because it commits the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy (theists can't prove God; "thus" God doesn't exist). — Agent Smith

No. "I do not believe in God therefore I do not believe in God."

No. "I do not believe in God therefore I do not believe in God." — Jackson

:chin:

. Atheism is not exclusive to the left, it's just an easy default for them because it is amoral and imposes no accountability — whollyrolling

Movements associated with the left such as BLM , and the cancel culture of identity politics in general are highly moralistic. So much for lack of moral accountability. Apparently you dont need a God for a culture of blame.

[T]he question is whether theism is true or not true (and N O T "whether or not (which g/G?!) exists")? — 180 Proof

:fire:

In a sense, true, atheism is invalid because ... (theists can't prove God; "thus" God doesn't exist). — Agent Smith

In no sense is that "true". Theism consists of positive extraordinary claims and thereby a theist bears the burden of proving that such claims are true. Failing to meet that burden, however, it is reasonable to conclude that theism – the arguments in support of its claims – is not true and therefore is unwarranted, or unbelieveable – negative atheism (i.e. 'one does not believe the unproven claims about a deity are true'). NB: A positive atheist, however, bears the burden of proving that the claims (themselves, despite supporting arguments) of theism are not true.

[T]he question is whether theism is true or not true (and N O T "whether or not (which g/G?!) exists")?
— 180 Proof
:fire:
In a sense, true, atheism is invalid because ... (theists can't prove God; "thus" God doesn't exist).
— Agent Smith

In no sense is that "true". Theism consists of positive extraordinary claims and thereby a theist bears the burden of proving that such claims are true. Failing to meet that burden, however, it is reasonable to conclude that theism, its claims, are not true and therefore is unwarranted, or unbelieveable – negative atheism (i.e. 'one does not believe the unproven claims about a deity are true') — 180 Proof

Isn't that (underlined bit of your post) argumentum ad ignorantiam?

Remember to distinguish between

1. Default truth value of a proposition: Unknown true/false.

and

2. The principle of bivalence: a proposition is either true or false.

No. If one believes T is [truth-value] because one is "ignorant" of T, then that would be an argument from ignorance. However, to believe T is not true because the T-claims are not demonstrated to be true (or more likely true than not true) is an argument from an unmet burden of proof (such as e.g. a jury verdict of "not guilty" or "not proven") which is valid.

.

A god hypothesis would require atheism to be invalid. We look and that is what we see. Atheism as a non-belief in something never shown to exist is intangible in itself. Atheism is if anything a product of the Bible, a rejection of religion. — Gregory A

There are forms of atheism which believe that there is no God, however there are other forms of atheism which simply lack the belief that there is a god. The latter form of atheism cannot be invalid because in order to be invalid one must be making an argument. Saying that you don’t know if there is a God because you have seen no legitimate evidence or heard arguments which are sound, or at least strong and cogent, is not an argument. If you ask me if i believe aliens exist, then i could answer with a “yes” (to affirm their existence), or a “no” (to deny their existence which is to affirm their non-existence), or furthermore with an “I don’t know” (to nether affirm nor deny. The first option has a burden of proof and must present an argument to
justify the truth of the statement “There is a God” or be dismissed. The second option has a burden of proof and must present an argument to justify the truth of the statement “There is no God”. The third option however has no burden of proof, nor requires an argument because they are making a statement regarding their own beliefs (they are saying they hold no belief) of which only they have access to their own thoughts and ideas.

Just wanted to clarify that. Also, what do you mean by a non belief in something never shown to be intangible in-itself? Im not sure how you are defining “tangible” here, but tangible or intangible, it nevertheless must be shown.

No. If one believes T is [truth-value] because one is "ignorant" of T, then that would be an argument from ignorance. However, to believe T is not true because the T-claims are not demonstrated to be true (or more likely true than not true) is an argument from an unmet burden of proof (such as e.g. a jury verdict of "not guilty" or "not proven") which is valid. — 180 Proof

:ok:

What if I successfully refute the argument for a claim C. That means C is not true as the argument is flawed. However, I can't say that C is false, can I? If I do, that would be an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

What I'm driving at is that C is neither true nor false, it is undecidable given what we know at the moment. Substitute "God exists" for C and you'll know what I'm trying to convey.

If you can determine that "C is not true", then it is not "undecidable". And whether or not "God exists", as I've pointed out, is not the question I'm interested in (or the basis of antitheism and consequent atheism).

If you can determine that "C is not true", then it is not "undecidable". And whether or not "God exists", as I've pointed out, is not the question I'm interested in. — 180 Proof

I don't think you're correct; perhaps we're using different definitions for "undecidable". In my book, if a proposition p is undecidable it means we can't prove either that p is true or that p is false.

If C is not true, it doesn't automatically make it false i.e. C's truth value is unknown or, more importantly, unknowable aka undecidable given the extent of our knowledge at present.

The left changes its guiding principles and the movements it promotes as if it's changing underwear. BLM had as its central tenet the destruction of Western culture and its institutions before the group seemed to dissolve due to fraud and abandonment, and "cancel culture" is self-explanatory — whollyrolling

They may change their guiding principles but their underlying philosophical-moral grounding is just as stable as your theistic moral grounding. You just think they have no stable grounding because you don’t understand it. You own philosophical-theological thinking is stuck in the 18th century. Why they think what they do is invisible to you, so you rely on misreadings and misinterpretations. I respect your misreadings, though. You belong to a traditionalistic culture and I support its protection. I want to see small town America thrive as a a quaint alternative to urban metropolitan America. They are two worlds and each needs to go in it’s own separate direction. We should really drop all the crap about whose side is right or moral.


“Cancel culture“ is a derogatory of the right leveled against the left term just as ‘ flying spaghetti monster’ is a derogatory term for God. Both are self-explanatory terms for how one group glimpses the view of another from behind their own blinders.

Please feel free to explain the morality behind a movement which desires the destruction of all institutions and a state of resulting lawlessness. — whollyrolling

There’s a difference between lacking a moral grounding and having a different moral grounding than the one you prefer, and between an aim that sees itself as moral and an outcome that succeeds in achieving that moral aim.


I think you’re arguing that the outcome of anarchism will be one which is not moral, but are you really claiming that their aims are the creation of human suffering, that their motivation is to make life more painful for the average person? The fact that you could engage in an endless debate among adherents of anarchist positions about whether the ‘destruction of all institutions’ results in complete lawlessness, and if so, whether and why this is or is not a more ‘moral’ outcome for society than the alternatives demonstrates only that your view of the connection between their
moral aims and the likely outcomes differs from their own calculus.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here: "Apparently you dont need a God for a culture of blame." — whollyrolling

Morality rests on justice , which depends on emotions of blame, retribution, punishment, condemnation, free will vs determinism. You argued that atheism imposes no accountability.

And yet, as I have argued, identity politics is despised by the right because it has highly structured ways of holding people accountable (such as by ‘cancelling’ them) for what it considers to be moral infractions. Again, you disagree about whether the outcomes are moral, but their reasoning is moralistic, according to agreed upon definitions of moral reasoning, because thier aim is the betterment of society. I understand that you believe their reasoning is flawed without access to a god, that accountability for them cannot ‘really’ be moral without god because human reasoning without access to god cannot be moral.

As Social Constructionist Ken Gergen explains:

“By and large identity politics has depended on a rhetoric of blame, the illocutionary effects of which are designed to chastise the target (for being unjust, prejudiced, inhumane, selfish, oppressive, and/or violent).”

How can you show intangibles to exists? The Intangibles might roam around in the physical universe and occasionally might even decide to tangibly show themselves to us, though the universe alone seems enough proof already.

.

Atheism by definition has no indication of morality. — whollyrolling

False.

.

There are forms of atheism which believe that there is no God, however there are other forms of atheism which simply lack the belief that there is a god. The latter form of atheism cannot be invalid because in order to be invalid one must be making an argument. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

This answers this thread.

.

would "believe", how do you go about believing in nothing?

It doesn't answer anything, it opines. — whollyrolling

the form of atheism which believes there is no God is aka. "new-atheism", this are paranoid individuals who strive to preach about how there is no God in a paranoid militant baptism-style preaching, trying to convert theists into atheists.
This kind of atheism is an invalid atheism because it rest on strong belief rather than simply disbelief (or lack of belief) in God.