My lame excuse is that I've been discussing this almost daily for 20 years, and conversations like this almost never make it past this point, and riding the same old merry-go-round over and over and over again does try my admittedly limited patience. Which is entirely my problem. I'll try to keep that in mind — Jake

agree with all - and my interest in this debate is more about the is belief in anything an active act - than in any kind of theist - non theist debate. There is nothing I have to add to that issue - read, think, make your own mind up - is where that has been for as long as I can remember.

My only other concern on this issue is that each side respect as reasonable the other sides position.

But I completely agree that both science and reason - have been elevated to a religion based on faith by many - and many of those are completely blind to this.

- I am not sure that is it Jake - I think it is tactic. And I think that was Russels objective. And the purpose is, there is a do loop in the argument if it is not there. IMO he did like the fact that by the application of reason alone the Atheist position was and is no more valid than the theist position. He was looking for a superior atheist position - and his solution was to relieve the atheist from any responsibility of supporting their position and solely basing their position that there is no god until the theist can support their argument to their satisfaction. It is an attempt to move the "there is no god" belief to the status quo - the given - until proved otherwise.

the millions how follow - just repeat

agree - have a good day

You said “not believing in the existence of god is an active act”. Is it only the lack of belief in god that is an active act or does it work that way for all lack of belief? — DingoJones

Yes - it is an act of thought to - be presented with a concept as a truth, understand the concept as presented, and then reject that concept as false. If you wish to express that belief that you hold that the concept is false to someone else - you should be willing to support that.

I have basically said the same thing now a few times - not sure how to say it differently.

yes - we will have to just disagree on this.

To answer your question directly - which I thought I had. I do believe " not believing in the existence of God is an active act. It is not that you are un-aware of the concept of God as in your baby example. I have all along made the assumptions you are aware of the concept of God, have heard the basis for these truth claims, and actively reject them, presumably for some reason. I think people in such a position, who feel a need to articulate this active disbelief to others, should be willing to defend this claim.

Btw, presidents don't get indicted. As I read it, if the President murders someone, he must first be removed from office, then arrested, indicted, tried. — tim wood

it is not a set rule - but agree it would be near impassible to indict a sitting president.

Your view makes sense, providing Trump did not deal with the Russians. If he did, then your view is a mistake. I think the "world" has taken his measure, and impeachment will restore some of the lost trust and respect. — tim wood

- equally valid. All things in the fullness of time I guess. Hope we don't have to wait too long for the fullness of time to be done with Donald Trump

my point is, it is an equal truth claim to believe something, anything, is or is not. And one should have a reasonable basis for such a belief. And further, one should be willing to share those reasons with others. Because it is through these exchanges of differing ideas that there is a hope it is a path to truth.

Neither the DOJ or any state or local entity is going to charge a sitting President with any crime - maybe and I say maybe with the exception of some violent crime.

The house is not going to impeach the President as long as it seems very unlikely the Senate would confirm the finding. Which we are a very far way from.

IMO - these are both good things for the country - If somehow Trump was impeached - it would just make him a martyr to his base. The country needs to defeat Trump in the next election - and show him and the world we have not completely lost our minds as a country.

One can hope anyway.

Google “Russels Teapot”. That will put you on the right track. — DingoJones

To the continued point, I have no hesitation at all in saying " There is no china teapot orbiting around the sun". With my limited understanding of the the make up of china tea pots, and the nature of the physical environments around the sun. I see no way that a china tea pot could be put in such an orbit, or survive in those conditions. For these reasons, I challenge the proposition that a small china tea pot is in an elliptical orbit around the sun, and assert my reasonable belief that "there is no china teapot orbiting around the sun"

I am however open to arguments for the existence of a china teapot being there, and if convincing, would be happy to admit my prior truth claim was in error.

Agree completely - furthermore the entire reason for this semantic difference is purely tactical. Which is fine, if your objective is to win an argument - useless if your objective is some exchange of reasonable ideas in an honest search for a truth.

“There is no god” and “i lack belief in god” are not the same thing. — DingoJones

From an internal perspective - how one identifies oneself based on what one believes to be true and what one does based on that truth belief - i see nothing but a semantic difference in the two statements.

Would one believe or act differently from one to the other ? I don't see how. Yet again, I am unconvinced that " i lack belief in god " is anything much more than a passive tense declaration of the more assertive " there is no God" - with the very beneficial purpose of some belief that it relieves the "non-believer" of any requirement to provide a reasoned argument why he chooses not to believe, something many other chose to believe.

thanks and I agree the person making the assertion has the burden of proof. However I believe the statement " there is no God" is also a positive assertion, that also has a burden of proof. It seems the only case where this position seems problematic is when we speak of God. No one has any issue with it when making an assertion like there is no Santa Clause or Unicorns. They are happy to provide a reasoned argument that we have been looking for a long time and we have not seen either Santa Clause or unicorns, therefor I believe it is a reasonable belief that they do not exist. Where it is still impossible to state as a matter of absolute fact that neither Santa Clause or Unicorns do not exist.

To be clear - while i believe the agnostic position to be weak - I have no argument against the position of I know the theist arguments, and I am unconvinced. That is different than a positive belief that my belief that God exists in false, with a passive response that your counter position requires no support.

this definition from "American Atheist"

"Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods"

Can someone explain to be the difference between " a lack of belief in gods" and "an affirmative belief there is no god" - which they differentiate.

Theist - I propose there is a God
Atheist - I do not believe you
Theist - Then you believe there is no God
Atheist - I didn't say that - i said I don't believe there is a God
Theist - so you are saying you are not sure there is no God
Atheist - I didn't say that either
Theist - I am confused - Do you believe there is a God
Atheist - No
Theist - do you believer there is no God
Atheist - No
Theist - Are you undecided, un convinced of either of those answers
Atheist - No
Theist - I am confused

Haven't taken the time to do the research - but my perception is that there is at least an equal number of religious topics started by the atheists as well as theists. Speaking for myself - i try not to respond too many of them. However when theist beliefs are dismissed or degraded as a reasonable belief - i will generally challenge those - simple to make the point.

In my opinion - the problem in not the topic, but the often lack of a reasoned philosophic discussion on the topic - from both sides.

The argument from evil does not prove anything. It is a good argument and it is reasonable to believe it is compelling. There are also very good arguments against it. And it is equally reasonable to find it is not compelling.

I'm often stuck in conversation trying to convince my Christian friends that they shouldn't be so concerned about me going to hell forever since it's inconceivable how a loving God would punish someone for an unlimited amount of time for reasonable skepticism about his existence. — TheHedoMinimalist

That is a very theist position for an atheist to state. It would seem to me there is only one Atheist argument you could make to your friends, that there is no god - so don't worry. Looks like somewhere down deep you are hedging your bets here - Kind of like - there is no god, but if there is, He will be benevolent. Does not seem a very consistent position to me.

Also believe there is a regression here. The “what we are” is a result of a series of actions of ourselves and others, which in turn are the result of actions of others, and so on.

So the argument really is not if an individual act is determined, but if the entire series of acts is determined, which than leads to logical question what or who determined the first act in this series

Actions have consequences, some of those consequences may impact the actions of others.

Music: Ave Maria 60 years of hearing it at important parts of my and other lives - Always
makes me feel something good and hopeful
Art: The Scream - humanity turned inside out
Literature: Hemingway - Islands in the Stream - how hard it is to love well, even if you want to
Philosophy: Camus - honest atheism
Leadership: Maj Richard Winters - if even 25% of how he is depicted in band of brothers is accurate

Thanks, maybe I am just too sensitive.

but I was, an still am interested in this generalization, that many, present company excluded, atheists feel some need to disparage the theist view. Let's call it the Flying Spaghetti Monster syndrome.

It is an interesting phenomenon, when so many otherwise thoughtful and intelligent people would be so willing to degrade a perfectly reasonable worldview held by literally billions of other people. I have a theory. It goes something like this.

People manufacture or develop a view of who they are, how they define themselves
Some define themselves as intellectuals, learned, sophisticated people.

Somewhere a little while back, many of these folks were told, and they chose to believe it, that intellectuals don't believe in God, only those other kind of people do.

And for many, I think that is the order in which their path to atheism went. First, I chose to be an intellectual, intellectuals are atheists, I am an atheist.

Now for folks like this, there is no point to being an intellectual if you can't use it to make yourself feel better about yourself. And the best way to do that, is to show your superiority over those less gifted, say, the believers.

Conveniently, there appears at this same time, an equally thoughtless group of vocal, political, fundermental Christians. Some with beliefs so deeply in conflict with fact and reason, they become a easy target for the intellectuals in need of a superiority fix.

And between these two entrenched camps, lopping bombs at each other is a no mans land where most of us live.

My hope is for an armistice in this trench warfare of believers and non-believers. Where we are all free to intelligently present our beliefs, and if the are reasonable, have them respected as such by the other side.

Occasionally, I like to stand up in this no man's land and try to wave a white flag. Normally this results in machine gun fire from both sides.

and for any who are interested -

https://ignatiansolidarity.net/campaignforhospitality/asylum-pledge/?utm_source=igsol.net&utm_medium=urlshortener&utm_campaign=social-media-share

Thanks - I think there are many examples around the world of multi-cultural, non authoritarian countries that have no unusual issues with social order. So I would respectfully disagree with that point.

Second question of meaning "What makes a person a desirable citizen is an education for citizenship." We are not born with good reasoning, but only the potential for developing good reasoning. Without education for good moral judgment, we are not well prepared for civilization. When our potential for good reasoning is not developed we tend to be ruled by our emotions. People ruled by their emotions may or may not be the kind of people we want to be around, and even if they are very nice people, they are poorly fit for self-government. Self-government requires highly developed thinking skills. — Athena

While in some nirvana - we would all live in nations of well educated rational beings - can't make my self get to a point where there is some kind of intelligence or rationality test for citizenship. After the last 2 years however I am 100% behind such a test for president.

On the last point - just fyi, currently it is legal for people to enter the US and seek asylum. The current process allows for these people to enter, and if they have the means or ability to live in the states while they await processing they can do so, on a promise that they return for their hearing. My only point was this works fine, and we should not have a need to detain these people while they await the decision on their applications.

Our liberty depends very much on a shared culture, — Athena

Not sure about this. Actually not really sure what you mean by this.

What makes a person a desirable citizen is an education for citizenship. — Athena

Same here - not exactly sure the point you are making.

However, humanitarian needs must be met by civilizations capable of doing so. The US has a legal process for this, and those who want to enter the country and whose lives are threatened in the country of origin, should be cared for in refugee camps until the process is completed. — Athena

Not sure there is a need for "camps" for those individuals with the means or relationships to not need them.

An admitted generalization. Or maybe just overly sensitive. But why do so many atheists/agnostics feel some need to disrespect the theist position? Truly interested in the motivation for this, if you can share.

Sister Hilda and her Experimental Theology Apparatus — Bitter Crank

What is the purpose of this ??

yes, predictably I would say a lie is a lie. This is the almost inevitable objective of the killer or nazi at the door thought experiment, to find a morally acceptable reason to lie, and to expand it into other morally acceptable reasons to lie and so on. This incredible ability we humans have to be able to rationalize and justify the things we do is a danger.

So while at one time or another I would have to plead guilty to all those kind of "white" lies. It is important to me to understand that it is still wrong. And in most cases, most of the time, it was really about me. It was easier, or more expedite or the path of least resistance.

But as above, on occasion we face the dilemma of a choice of evils. This being human stuff is hard sometimes.

In this case, a lie is exactly the moral thing to do. — DingoJones

Well then - where exactly is the line between moral and immoral lying ? Is it always depended on the purpose? Is there some universally accepted list of acceptable reasons to lie for ??

Often we don't get to chose between good and bad, We only get to chose between bad and worse. The worse does not make the bad good, it is still bad. Just the lesser of evils.

How about instead of lying, I answer the door with a gun in my hand and shoot the would be murder in the heart and kill him. Is that moral ?

Does the degree of the immoral act I am willing to do, with the intent of saving my friend matter ?? What if i don't think I am a very good liar, or I don't think there is a very good chance the would be murderer will just walk away ?

Telling a lie is never a moral act, and I and Aquinas and others would agree with Kant. To me the issue is not a choice between a moral and an immoral act. It is, as above, only a choice between how immoral an act am I willing to do and does the end actually justify the means.

My pragmatic Catholic answer, would be save the innocent from the evil with all that is needed to do that, understand that the act is sinful, head to confession.

And I would recommend adapting this to whatever world view you happen to subscribe to.

That is the belief of SOME in the Church. — Jake

Yea, I think we just have a definition problem.

When I say "The Church" above I mean the organization of the the Church, the magisterium, the teaching authority.

That does not mean everyone who identifies them self as Catholic. The sub set of what that group believes is almost unlimited.

Based on what exactly? — Jake

Again, not making a value judgment here, just giving you the theology from the perspective of the church

It is the belief of the Church, that when a Pope acts authoritatively as Pope John Paul did above, he is protected from error by God , in the form of the Holy Spirit. There is direct line, between this concept and this apostolic succession that is the Authority of the Church itself.

The entire authority for The Church is based on Jesus establishing His Church on earth with Peter as its head, and with the direct line of Apostolic succession thereafter. And through some very good men and some very bad men that have been Pope, the church would argue that when acting authoritatively on matters of faith and morals none have shown human error.

Yet again many will call all that hogwash, and it may well be, but that is the belief.

Good discussion. I'm glad we're not yelling at each other, and credit you for much of that. — Jake

Back at ya

blames John Paul II for closing the door on married priests, — Bitter Crank

Would argue the semantics some - like many, many, many issues that The Church follows. If there is no reason to solicit a Papal decree on the matter, it is not done. It is only when there is an issue that where there is conflict within The Chuch that a Pope can be asked, or feels called, to act or issue an authoritative statement on the issue. This is what Pope John Paul II did with an Apostolic Letter called
ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS


Here is the Apostolic Letter on the issue

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html

here is the sound the door makes when it closes:

"Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

Let me see how square I can make this circle. Now I hope you don't think I am compromising a discussion of words vs actions - by typing a bunch of words. I mean i could be out doing something productive for the poor instead of these engagements, right.

Some theology.

A significant difference between Catholicism and protestant sects is Catholics do not believe in the concept of Sole Fide saved by faith alone. Catholics believe it is both faith and actions.

As to the who is the better Catholic, ( as if there is some Catholic rating system)

if your "words" are just that words they are unimportant. It your words are an expression of your beliefs, and your beliefs are ordered, that is a little better. If your words are also an action, meaning they have a purpose that is ordered, such as helping others understand the faith better - that is better still. And tying it into your point of "Des Caritas Est" Cathloics would believe it is an act of love to share the faith with others. Feeding the soul more important than feeding the body ( all that by bread alone stuff)

If your wife actions, assuming of course that your wife's actions in this context are loving acts of kindness for others, than it becomes somewhat a question of motive and intent. To make this clearer

let's say a rich celebrity hands a homeless person a $20 bill as they gets out of their car. This is an act of kindness. But if say there are reporters around, and either they do not want to appear cheap or if he is doing it for the cameras, than the same act becomes more about the celebrities love of himself than an act of love for others. On the other hand, let's say that homeless person who just got the $20 bill, and that is all he has, shares it with a friend, who's act is greater. The rich giving $20 for selfish motives or the homeless giving $10 selflessly?

So to completely square the circle - it depends on the intent and use of your words and the intent and motivations of your wife's actions. However all things being, as I think you intend the case to be, in just my opinion, for all that is worth, your wife's actions would be superior to your words.

We are what we do.

Discussing the Philosophy of religion, is not discussing religion it is discussing philosophy. And there is nothing at all wrong with that. Not much different than discussing any other topic.

Understanding, learning about the precepts of a particular religion is Theology, and is not the practice of religion, and requires no faith, just understanding. Still a worthwhile endeavor - but no difference than the study of anything else.

Believing, by faith, in the precepts of a particular religion, and according ones life as such is the practice of religion. And in these cases ones actions should be consistent with ones words, and maybe more importantly, acknowledge when they don't and try to do better.

Not sure if I have squared all the corners off your circle yet - let me know what I missed.

I don't mean this in any bad way, and with all due respect - it really makes no sense to engage on this topic with someone who believes it is a matter of fact that there is no afterlife. We will have to just agree to disagree sir.

you know as a matter of fact that there is no afterlife??? Can you somehow support that please - because that may just be the biggest scientific discovery in the history of man.

I would propose that it is neither position can be stated as a fact. I would further propose that reasoned arguments can be made both for and against both positions. So there is no overriding philosophic reason to prefer one or the other. One is free to chose either and not be in conflict with fact or reason.

there is no philosophic difference between this

You die. Your consciousness ceases. Your body decays. That's it. No good reason to believe anything else, as much as we might like to fantasize about other stuff, as much as we might like something else to be the case. — Terrapin Station

and this

if you lived your life according to ( fill in your blank ) you will find everlasting life

Guessing, hoping, imagining what is after death is a waste of time. Spend some time in refection, read some, find a world view, a reason, a meaning, a basis on how to live your life, that you, in your most honest with yourself spot, believes is true. In that process, the what happens when I die questions is answered, at least for you.

There is more than one ageing hippy on the boards. — unenlightened

ha - agree

Oh, dear... Rank, bless you for holding down the paleo end of the Christian continuum. It's dirty work but somebody has to do it. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, us dino's are waiting for our own personal meteor. Actually, to my amazement - Latin mass is gaining a relatively large following among the Catholic Millennial crowd - not 100% sure the reason -

I attended a Tridentine Mass once. Far, far, far too long. I'm a Missa Brevis man. It seems to me that some bishop told Mozart to keep it short -- 45 minutes. Wise bishop. — Bitter Crank

Trinentine mass, has 2 forms one is read and relatively short - one is song and is a little longer.

Would have thought "Terrapin Station" would have posted the Ripple link -