In order to impose your views onto others, you need to grab control over the government in one way or another, and get them to do it for you. — alcontali

And if religious people control the government, wouldnt they be the ones imposing? Wouldnt they be imposing on the atheists? Wouldnt they be imposing on other religions with different practices?
Also, your tone is very angry. You interested in discussing or ranting?

There is some interesting research that some primates are entering the stone age as far as using tools. Sorry, I cannot recall the source but it mentioned primates using spears to get fish out of the water. Ill see if I can find a link if you are interested.

You do not understand the burden of proof.
If someone makes a claim, they are the ones that have to defend that claim. If someone is not convinced by the claim, they are not themselves making a claim.
Also, you are not engaging what I am saying. This is a dishonest way of trying to discuss something.
You do not have answers to all points being levelled at you, instead you are just cherry picking the parts you think you can counter-point and ignoring the rest. I mean, you didnt even quote an entire sentence to respond to in that last post.

There is no need to assert the non-existence of god, any more than I need to assert the non-existence of a magic turtle upon which the earth is built. The assertion is the claim that god or the magic turtle exists.
You do not understand atheism, nor the burden of proof. Further, you have a position of believing in something you cannot define which is nonsense. Its just nonsense that your religiosity has inoculated you against.
As long as you are focused on delivering your message, you will make no progress in discussion nor your view.

Depends on whats meant by “god”.
Care to define that term?

Agnostics are atheists, the two terms are not mutually exclusive. (A common misconception)

I was just getting ahead of the inevitable movement of goal posts

But once again, existential questions can rear their ugly heads hence: If one says that they don't know something, what are they really saying/what's behind that thought process?

I suppose one could say that one is Stoic or indifferent to the question. Or maybe even some element of the so-called sense of wonderment is there. I think that's of higher consciousness...kind of like Kant's form of a priori logic, or in other words innate or intrinsic human intuition. — 3017amen

I think you are overcomplicating it. It just means I do not know if that statement is true. Again though, it depends on what you mean by “god”.
How do you define that term?

No need to worry about me getting angry at your questions/comments.
As to your statement, it depends on what you mean by “god”. Generally my answer would be “I do not know”, but that might change depending on how you define “god”.

We agree! It does seem logical that mysteries exist. Unfortunately, many Atheists I've come to know don't hold your/that world view. — 3017amen

Many atheists might indeed hold the view mysteries do not exist, but not because of their atheism. As the person pointed out, atheism doesnt have anything to do belief in mystery, it has to do with lacking belief in god. (Or gods).
There is a different word for lacking belief in mystery, also pointed out to you.

Thats not what those statements are about, though I understand why you might think that.
That comment was not intended as insult, or to express discontentment about religion. They are observations, and I wish there were other, less “offensive” words to use but those seem like the most accurate words to use.
As to what you should do with them...you understand that what you quoted wasn't at all directed at you right? Understand? I was talking to someone else, so I really didnt have expectation of what you should do with those words. Why would I? As they were directed at somebody else, not you, I don’t have anything I would “like” you to do with them.

Whats an example of an atheist trying to impose their views?

No, im not saying that either. No idea where you are getting that from. This is why when you said “I get that” I think you were mistaken. You don’t seem to get my point at all, but true to the point I was actually making you have responded vacantly.

No im not suggesting that at all...so do you “get that” after all?

We are in the minority because the institutions from a bygone era of ignorant superstitions still exist and exert influence and control.
What you should be noticing is how vastly more common atheism is in our modern time, and spreading ever faster. There is also a huge shift in just how committed people are to any particular religion, a transitional state on the road to atheism.

Thats why “brainwashing” seems like such an accurate word when describing how people come to religion. Trained from childhood to accept utterly vacant claims, to call the illogical logical, and to be taught meaningless terms are actually the most meaningful. (IE faith).
Its unfortunate that an accurate term like delusional, or irrational is dismissed out of hand by the religious when just accepting the potential accuracy would be enough for them to shake off the brainwashing.

Any view of whats true based on probability always seems pretty dodgy to me. Probability is not aw effective as the scientific method, or even just simple reasoning.
This is an example of vacant religious claims, to think that atheism is in trouble in our modern times is the product of a religious “bubble” where reality just isnt getting through.

Really? Engenders nothing to no one? Did you miss the parts of this thread where people were sad to see him go? Some even said they liked the guy. Imagine for a second not everyone shares your delicate sensibilities and next thing you know you’ll be swimming in the deep end with the other adults

Indeed, good analogy.

Ok, I understand.

You are not aware of all potential wars when you join up, at any time you could be sent to a war thats unjustified. You might suddenly find yourself in a war that you dont agree with. Thats what you are signing on for.
Your concerns about ethical war, or soldiers disobeying immoral command decisions are covered by the rules of engagement etc (militaries have rules for that sort of thing.)
So the ethical question you are asking yourself is “can I agree to follow orders, even if I dont agree with them?”.
If you cant do that with a clear conscience, then military is not for you.

I am completely focusing on the soldier or citizen considering becoming a soldier. What I say is simply the logical outcome of concluding a war in unjust. — boethius

No you are not. You are making specific references to society and democracy, and I dont think you are really factoring in the social contract a soldier signs up for. Thats what im talking about.

A lot of that wasnt focusing on the soldier. The soldier doesnt get to pick and choose, it cannot work that way. They do not get the luxury of moral reflections (except of course, those that are included in each militaries code of conduct). They need to obey orders and military rules or people will die. Perhaps very many people. A military just cant function if all the individuals stop for some moral philosophy while serving. Thats part of what makes choosing to serve worthy and noble, that they are making a big sacrifice for their individuality while serving. They are saying “ok, you point, I shoot”, knowing that they are entrusting the justification and morality to someone else.
We appear to have a pretty deep disagreement here, to me it seems we are operating from different axioms about morality and war.

I disagree. I think that the reality is you don’t get to pick and choose the wars you think are just or not when you are in the military. It doesnt and cannot work that way, and that has to be something you accept if you join the military.
The unjust wars aspect IS part of a violent institution. The reality is that humans are in charge of military application. Mistakes, poor judgement and bad actors are all part of it. Thats why I find unjust wars to be particularly egregious moral violations on the part of politicians etc that decide on these wars. Taking advantage of this reality (described above) for profit or ideology or whatever that results in an unjust war is truly disgusting, immoral behaviour...but not on the part of those who serve as our warriors. Its on those who send them to war.

Ive actually had experience with Pattern Chaser in other forums, where he does the exact same thing. He claims to be picked on and abused, and plays the victim card for his alleged disabilities when no one responds with a warm blanket and trauma counselling. He never used to have disabilities either.
S was spot on in what he said about Pattern Chaser, he is not an honest actor in discourse.

Well, it might be a childish rule, but enforcing the rule isnt childish itself. I dont agree with the rule either, but a rule it is. The “adult” thing to do is advocate for a rule change, rather than specific rules exemptions.

My impression was that he was unable to resist the pull of argument, that he wanted to be banned so he couldnt talk himself into coming back into bang his head against the wall. I think it had become toxic for him, and being banned takes away the opportunity for him to make a poor decision. Im basing that not just on his public posts but private conversation we had as well.
Childish or not childish, you arent allowed to just say “fuck you”. If you do, you court being banned, depending on the rules not being enforced in order to continue on the forum

If they express a desire to be banned though? How is that childish? There are rules with consequences and S not only broke the rule but essentially dared the mod to ban him. He was only going to get worse, cuz he just didn't care anymore, didnt really want to participate anymore.

I think its a bit simplistic to use a single metric to determine the morality of joining the army. Excessive force and harm are part of what the military is, and what it has to be. The question isnt whether or not that its morally acceptable, but rather if those things are worth the trade-off. You already noticed yourself the consequences of not having a military at all. Disaster.
So the consideration you are making is really a practical one. Is it practical for YOU to join the military. Not everybody is built for it, some people serve humanity in other ways and some people serve as warriors. We need both types (all kinds of types) of people, and making the military consideration one of morality rather than practicality seems a bit naive to the realities we have to live with.

I agree with you, S was at least interesting but what can you do? He wanted to be banned, so I don’t see much of a choice for the mods but to accommodate him.

Its both, and I was specifying the instances of when the culture IS being created. This seems like one of those things.

Agreed, sounds like stoner talk to me. Thats that thing that people do when they like something and so create a bunch of culture and ritual and bullshit about it.

I dont understand why its suddenly important to you how other people use words.
I was correct in surmising that the conversation has moved on, and Im unwilling to sort through the baggage in order to get you back in point, so Ill let it go.

Oh, NOW you want to make an appeal to what everyone else thinks. Lol
You didnt answer my question, but instead pivoted to something else. I thought you didnt like that kinda thing? Simple, one thing at a time, right?
Ill try tweaking the question to get a more specific answer.

Someone can be correct or incorrect according to a particular standard, but not correct or incorrect about adopting that standard, right?
(The example standard I was using was the unit of measurement “inch”)

Edited: I was being redundant.
Someone can be correct or incorrect according to a standard, but not in the adoption of that standard. Right?

Funny, I feel like Ive been way more offensive than you and no ones said anything. Must be frequency based. Lol

This is my last post on it:

Im not talking about whether the standard itself is correct, Im talking about whats correct according to the standard.
The “inch” is not under a rock somewhere, its something we make up and agree to reference when measuring things. Right?

If you dont feel like looking back, I suggest you just summate a your take so far and we can just pick it up.

That was a reference to your very last line. Pushing my luck with my use of inflammatory language. — S

Do you get warnings? Ive went off a few times and no ones said anything, just curious.

I would, but I'm pushing my luck as it is. — S

Not sure what you mean. Pushing your luck with what?

Well this was why I was trying to explain my “objective standard” to you. I think it might have been useful to that end. I think it is what S is operating under, even if he doesnt call it that. You didnt respond to my last point on that so I assumed you werent interested. So, im trying something else now.