Is it still possible to be a non believer without also being a partisan?

[Whateverist]

@Whateverist I genuinely tried to talk to you three times but you've done the same thing every time: you say you don't want to debate but then you'll contradict my point, I'll follow up and then you simply abandon that threat of thought when you can't support your claim, sometimes insulting me in the process. You make accusations about fundamentalist atheists or overreliance on science being flawed, but are unwilling and probably unable to give any examples to support these claims. It makes me not want to talk to you anymore. You live in your own world.

I’m not intending to make claims.  I’m just sharing speculation.  I certainly have never said you or anyone else should agree with me.  I’m discussing the meaning a play and you want to be able to fact check what I say.   Doesn’t interest me to play the claims and evidence game.  You should find plenty here who do.

[SYZ]

@Whateverist I genuinely tried to talk to you three times but you've done the same thing every time: you say you don't want to debate but then you'll contradict my point, I'll follow up and then you simply abandon that threat of thought when you can't support your claim, sometimes insulting me in the process. You make accusations about fundamentalist atheists or overreliance on science being flawed, but are unwilling and probably unable to give any examples to support these claims. It makes me not want to talk to you anymore. You live in your own world.

I’m not intending to make claims.  I’m just sharing speculation.  I certainly have never said you or anyone else should agree with me.  I’m discussing the meaning at play and you want to be able to fact check what I say.   Doesn’t interest me to play the claims and evidence game.  You should find plenty here who do.

I think claims and evidence—especially empirical—are a critical twain.
For the former to be accepted as a truth, the latter must support it.

This has applied to the sciences for centuries, but never, not once, to
anything in the Bible (or indeed most, if not all religious holy books).

Positing alleged facts, and then seeking their truth is hardly a "game".  
One that Trump actually played during the COVID pandemic:  Ultraviolet
lights up your arse, and Clorox bleach would kill the virus.     Thankfully,
science proved the absurdity of this.

   Religious dogma has been the cause of more innocent deaths
   than those numbered in both world wars combined.

[Dānu]

I’m not intending to make claims.  I’m just sharing speculation.  I certainly have never said you or anyone else should agree with me.  I’m discussing the meaning at play and you want to be able to fact check what I say.   Doesn’t interest me to play the claims and evidence game.  You should find plenty here who do.

I think claims and evidence—especially empirical—are a critical twain.
For the former to be accepted as a truth, the latter must support it.

This has applied to the sciences for centuries, but never, not once, to
anything in the Bible (or indeed most, if not all religious holy books).

Positing alleged facts, and then seeking their truth is hardly a "game".  
One that Trump actually played during the COVID pandemic:  Ultraviolet
lights up your arse, and Clorox bleach would kill the virus.     Thankfully,
science proved the absurdity of this.

   Religious dogma has been the cause of more innocent deaths
   than those numbered in both world wars combined.

Show ContentSpoiler:

[Dānu]

Whether we are tense or relaxed, depressed or happy, tomorrow will always come.  And it will be different than today.

Thank you Danu, I really appreciate this. It's just gone 3am. I can't even walk for twenty minutes without a lot of pain at the moment, and had to cancel going to a Buddhist meeting last night because of it, and today my parents are off to hospital for an operation, and I can't go with them as I would've wanted to because I can barely walk, or sit or whatever at the moment. So yeah, very depressed, but yeah, you're right, tomorrow is another day, so thank you for that reminder

So far I've been quite reliably meditating in the morning 5, or 6 or 7 o'clock and it really helps set me up for the day, more than I ever thought it would, and recently all thanks to what I see as a game-changer, basically the notion of "checking in" which is pro-actively checking your mind for distractions, every five or six breaths, to catch them before they cause you to forget your breath. I just think that technique is amazing, and it was worth getting that book just for that if nothing else... so get that book or not I hugely recommend that "checking in" technique, which doesn't just apply to meditation, but any type of mindfulness... any task or whatever you're concentrating on, it's just an amazing way of dealing with distractions before they break your concentration, I can't recommend it enough, and hopefully I'll be able to have a good meditation tomorrow and just essentially reset my mind, cos it really feels like it needs a reset right now, just a bit of freedom from all these horrible distractions at the moment. Thanks for your kind words  

Sam Harris has made the point that consciousness is always trying to change what it is experiencing and feeling into something else. Our decisions, the actions we take, how we engage with the environment, these are all aimed at changing the state of consciousness. That's probably a truth that complements the Buddhist approach to life of detachment and disengagement. I don't agree with the four noble truths, but there is a grain of truth to it. From a pragmatic perspective, the four noble truths and the twelvefold path make excellent orthopraxy.

[emjay]

Thank you Danu, I really appreciate this. It's just gone 3am. I can't even walk for twenty minutes without a lot of pain at the moment, and had to cancel going to a Buddhist meeting last night because of it, and today my parents are off to hospital for an operation, and I can't go with them as I would've wanted to because I can barely walk, or sit or whatever at the moment. So yeah, very depressed, but yeah, you're right, tomorrow is another day, so thank you for that reminder

So far I've been quite reliably meditating in the morning 5, or 6 or 7 o'clock and it really helps set me up for the day, more than I ever thought it would, and recently all thanks to what I see as a game-changer, basically the notion of "checking in" which is pro-actively checking your mind for distractions, every five or six breaths, to catch them before they cause you to forget your breath. I just think that technique is amazing, and it was worth getting that book just for that if nothing else... so get that book or not I hugely recommend that "checking in" technique, which doesn't just apply to meditation, but any type of mindfulness... any task or whatever you're concentrating on, it's just an amazing way of dealing with distractions before they break your concentration, I can't recommend it enough, and hopefully I'll be able to have a good meditation tomorrow and just essentially reset my mind, cos it really feels like it needs a reset right now, just a bit of freedom from all these horrible distractions at the moment. Thanks for your kind words  

Sam Harris has made the point that consciousness is always trying to change what it is experiencing and feeling into something else.  Our decisions, the actions we take, how we engage with the environment, these are all aimed at changing the state of consciousness.  That's probably a truth that complements the Buddhist approach to life of detachment and disengagement.  I don't agree with the four noble truths, but there is a grain of truth to it.  From a pragmatic perspective, the four noble truths and the twelvefold path make excellent orthopraxy.

I have to say, I've never been a huge fan of Sam Harris, I personally find him really hard to follow/too complicated, and his interest in Buddhism is also from a very different angle than mine, ie his is in Zen Buddhism, which seems to focus much more on the 'non-self' aspect of the three 'characteristics' of suffering; 'impermanence', 'unsatisfactoriness', and 'non-self'. For me personally, that 'non-self' characteristic is the hardest part to understand, and the part I pay the least attention to and I much more focus on the impermanence and unsatisfactoriness characteristics, and it feels like my quest... a lifelong quest... a lifelong obsession....to really understand them. It's basically where all my hope lies, because true acceptance of the impermanence and unsatisfactoriness of everything, offers, in its way, a sense of stability in an otherwise completely unreliable world/existence, in my opinion.

As for the four noble truths, and the twelvefold path etc, that's not really at the forefront of my mind, or seemingly my Buddhist group's either, that much. Generally speaking, the main focus of the meeting's, as well as my own thoughts, is usually just on those three characteristics, one at a time usually. And even a book on 'Abhidhamma', a very old classification system of sorts, describing early Buddhism in a very thorough classification way, talks about those three characteristics as being essentially three different routes to enlightenment that are possible, ie by that logic understanding of any one of them is enough, rather than necessarily understanding all three, and different ones appeal to different types of people. And I have to admit, that was very good to hear, because it meant I could essentially focus on the aspects that speak to me the most, and ignore, at least for the moment, the ones that don't, like the non-self characteristic, that appeals so much to people like Sam Harris but not to me.

So yeah, for me it's not really about following the whole path of Buddhism, or at least not yet, but rather trying to come to a real, and deep understanding of at least the first two of the three characteristics; impermanence and unsatisfactoriness, and ideally, maybe in the future, all three.

[Dānu]

Sam Harris has made the point that consciousness is always trying to change what it is experiencing and feeling into something else.  Our decisions, the actions we take, how we engage with the environment, these are all aimed at changing the state of consciousness.  That's probably a truth that complements the Buddhist approach to life of detachment and disengagement.  I don't agree with the four noble truths, but there is a grain of truth to it.  From a pragmatic perspective, the four noble truths and the twelvefold path make excellent orthopraxy.

I have to say, I've never been a huge fan of Sam Harris, I personally find him really hard to follow/too complicated, and his interest in Buddhism is also from a very different angle than mine, ie his is in Zen Buddhism, which seems to focus much more on the 'non-self' aspect of the three 'characteristics' of suffering; 'impermanence', 'unsatisfactoriness', and 'non-self'. For me personally, that 'non-self' characteristic is the hardest part to understand, and the part I pay the least attention to and I much more focus on the impermanence and unsatisfactoriness characteristics, and it feels like my quest... a lifelong quest... a lifelong obsession....to really understand them. It's basically where all my hope lies, because true acceptance of the impermanence and unsatisfactoriness of everything, offers, in its way, a sense of stability in an otherwise completely unreliable world/existence, in my opinion.

As for the four noble truths, and the twelvefold path etc, that's not really at the forefront of my mind, or seemingly my Buddhist group's either, that much. Generally speaking, the main focus of the meeting's, as well as my own thoughts, is usually just on those three characteristics, one at a time usually. And even a book on 'Abhidhamma', a very old classification system of sorts, describing early Buddhism in a very thorough classification way, talks about those three characteristics as being essentially three different routes to enlightenment that are possible, ie by that logic understanding of any one of them is enough, rather than necessarily understanding all three, and different ones appeal to different types of people. And I have to admit, that was very good to hear, because it meant I could essentially focus on the aspects that speak to me the most, and ignore, at least for the moment, the ones that don't, like the non-self characteristic, that appeals so much to people like Sam Harris but not to me.

So yeah, for me it's not really about following the whole path of Buddhism, or at least not yet, but rather trying to come to a real, and deep understanding of at least the first two of the three characteristics; impermanence and unsatisfactoriness, and ideally, maybe in the future, all three.

[Whateverist]

I've heard the same said of the Tao and the Christian deity.  Maybe God is a the quantum field.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

They sometimes take people who will just answer the phone or run the printer. I gave CPR classes for new employees one a month at a local charity. I was "hired muscle" for a women's emergency shelter. I taught people how to use the computers. And I mopped the floor when it was very very necessary.

Okay, thanks for the info again, but as I said I don't think I'm ready for this sort of thing.

Finding a good fit can be difficult. Good luck to you.

[Dexta]

Haha, a dog hater huh?  That settles it.  We're through Dexta!

From what I can tell just hates any that aren't goldens.

I adore dogs, I just have a bit of a problem with Alsatians due to a historic bad experience. I love 'em, Collies. And actually, thinking about it now, that Alsatian didn't bite my sister too bad, so meh. Generally I insist however, still, that Alsatians are the "hardest" dogs, and why would anybody choose that?! The military life, that's why. I'm more of a civilian.

[Whateverist]

From what I can tell just hates any that aren't goldens.

I adore dogs, I just have a bit of a problem with Alsatians due to a historic bad experience. I love 'em, Collies. And actually, thinking about it now, that Alsatian didn't bite my sister too bad, so meh. Generally I insist however, still, that Alsatians are the "hardest" dogs, and why would anybody choose that?! The military life, that's why. I'm more of a civilian.

Apart from chihuahuas, dogs like mine and border collies probably bite the most often.  They are bred to enforce their will on much larger animals in order to move them to where they need to go.  Mine has nipped twice and didn’t break skin either time.  Just a wickedly painful micro pinch. A dog that did damage wouldn’t be fit for the job.

[SYZ]

I adore dogs, I just have a bit of a problem with Alsatians due to a historic bad experience. I love 'em, Collies. And actually, thinking about it now, that Alsatian didn't bite my sister too bad, so meh. Generally I insist however, still, that Alsatians are the "hardest" dogs, and why would anybody choose that?! The military life, that's why. I'm more of a civilian.

Apart from chihuahuas, dogs like mine and border collies probably bite the most often.  They are bred to enforce their will on much larger animals in order to move them to where they need to go.  Mine has nipped twice and didn’t break skin either time.  Just a wickedly painful micro pinch. A dog that did damage wouldn’t be fit for the job.

This thread is specifically meant for debating the pros and cons
of religious beliefs, or the lack thereof.     Please don't derail.

Thanks.   

[Minimalist]

From what I can tell just hates any that aren't goldens.

I adore dogs, I just have a bit of a problem with Alsatians due to a historic bad experience. I love 'em, Collies. And actually, thinking about it now, that Alsatian didn't bite my sister too bad, so meh. Generally I insist however, still, that Alsatians are the "hardest" dogs, and why would anybody choose that?! The military life, that's why. I'm more of a civilian.

I had one trainer tell me that the hardest dogs are dachsunds.  They apparently think they are rottweilers.  The biggest problem I ever had with Goldens is that when you go to stand up they are always right under your feet.

[Dānu]

Sam Harris has made the point that consciousness is always trying to change what it is experiencing and feeling into something else.  Our decisions, the actions we take, how we engage with the environment, these are all aimed at changing the state of consciousness.  That's probably a truth that complements the Buddhist approach to life of detachment and disengagement.  I don't agree with the four noble truths, but there is a grain of truth to it.  From a pragmatic perspective, the four noble truths and the twelvefold path make excellent orthopraxy.

I have to say, I've never been a huge fan of Sam Harris, I personally find him really hard to follow/too complicated, and his interest in Buddhism is also from a very different angle than mine, ie his is in Zen Buddhism, which seems to focus much more on the 'non-self' aspect of the three 'characteristics' of suffering; 'impermanence', 'unsatisfactoriness', and 'non-self'. For me personally, that 'non-self' characteristic is the hardest part to understand, and the part I pay the least attention to and I much more focus on the impermanence and unsatisfactoriness characteristics, and it feels like my quest... a lifelong quest... a lifelong obsession....to really understand them. It's basically where all my hope lies, because true acceptance of the impermanence and unsatisfactoriness of everything, offers, in its way, a sense of stability in an otherwise completely unreliable world/existence, in my opinion.

As for the four noble truths, and the twelvefold path etc, that's not really at the forefront of my mind, or seemingly my Buddhist group's either, that much. Generally speaking, the main focus of the meeting's, as well as my own thoughts, is usually just on those three characteristics, one at a time usually. And even a book on 'Abhidhamma', a very old classification system of sorts, describing early Buddhism in a very thorough classification way, talks about those three characteristics as being essentially three different routes to enlightenment that are possible, ie by that logic understanding of any one of them is enough, rather than necessarily understanding all three, and different ones appeal to different types of people. And I have to admit, that was very good to hear, because it meant I could essentially focus on the aspects that speak to me the most, and ignore, at least for the moment, the ones that don't, like the non-self characteristic, that appeals so much to people like Sam Harris but not to me.

So yeah, for me it's not really about following the whole path of Buddhism, or at least not yet, but rather trying to come to a real, and deep understanding of at least the first two of the three characteristics; impermanence and unsatisfactoriness, and ideally, maybe in the future, all three.

Are you interested in the metaphysics, the practice, or the phenomenology?

[emjay]

I have to say, I've never been a huge fan of Sam Harris, I personally find him really hard to follow/too complicated, and his interest in Buddhism is also from a very different angle than mine, ie his is in Zen Buddhism, which seems to focus much more on the 'non-self' aspect of the three 'characteristics' of suffering; 'impermanence', 'unsatisfactoriness', and 'non-self'. For me personally, that 'non-self' characteristic is the hardest part to understand, and the part I pay the least attention to and I much more focus on the impermanence and unsatisfactoriness characteristics, and it feels like my quest... a lifelong quest... a lifelong obsession....to really understand them. It's basically where all my hope lies, because true acceptance of the impermanence and unsatisfactoriness of everything, offers, in its way, a sense of stability in an otherwise completely unreliable world/existence, in my opinion.

As for the four noble truths, and the twelvefold path etc, that's not really at the forefront of my mind, or seemingly my Buddhist group's either, that much. Generally speaking, the main focus of the meeting's, as well as my own thoughts, is usually just on those three characteristics, one at a time usually. And even a book on 'Abhidhamma', a very old classification system of sorts, describing early Buddhism in a very thorough classification way, talks about those three characteristics as being essentially three different routes to enlightenment that are possible, ie by that logic understanding of any one of them is enough, rather than necessarily understanding all three, and different ones appeal to different types of people. And I have to admit, that was very good to hear, because it meant I could essentially focus on the aspects that speak to me the most, and ignore, at least for the moment, the ones that don't, like the non-self characteristic, that appeals so much to people like Sam Harris but not to me.

So yeah, for me it's not really about following the whole path of Buddhism, or at least not yet, but rather trying to come to a real, and deep understanding of at least the first two of the three characteristics; impermanence and unsatisfactoriness, and ideally, maybe in the future, all three.

Are you interested in the metaphysics, the practice, or the phenomenology?

I think I need a dictionary first lol

I'm not sure what you mean... can you give me examples?

[brewerb]

Apart from chihuahuas, dogs like mine and border collies probably bite the most often.  They are bred to enforce their will on much larger animals in order to move them to where they need to go.  Mine has nipped twice and didn’t break skin either time.  Just a wickedly painful micro pinch. A dog that did damage wouldn’t be fit for the job.

This thread is specifically meant for debating the pros and cons
of religious beliefs, or the lack thereof.     Please don't derail.

Thanks.   

There was this one time, a circus dog band camp, ...................

[Dānu]

Are you interested in the metaphysics, the practice, or the phenomenology?

I think I need a dictionary first lol

I'm not sure what you mean... can you give me examples?

If you're interested in the metaphysics, you're interested in how the Buddhist description of underlying reality and psychology correspond to reality.

If you're interested in the practice, you're interested in the utility and rewards that come from the rituals and behaviors.

If you're interested in the phenomenology, you're interested in how you experience the things that your brand of Buddhism describes.

So, for example, the metaphysics would concern itself with whether no-self is true and what the evidence and support for it being true is.

If you are interested in the practice, you might like that it reduces your stress and calms your emotions.

If you're interested in the phenomernology, you might be interested in understanding how dependent origination shows itself from the perspective of your experience of consciousness.

[emjay]

I think I need a dictionary first lol

I'm not sure what you mean... can you give me examples?

If you're interested in the metaphysics, you're interested in how the Buddhist description of underlying reality and psychology correspond to reality.

If you're interested in the practice, you're interested in the utility and rewards that come from the rituals and behaviors.

If you're interested in the phenomenology, you're interested in how you experience the things that your brand of Buddhism describes.

So, for example, the metaphysics would concern itself with whether no-self is true and what the evidence and support for it being true is.

If you are interested in the practice, you might like that it reduces your stress and calms your emotions.

If you're interested in the phenomernology, you might be interested in understanding how dependent origination shows itself from the perspective of your experience of consciousness.

It's really hard to narrow down what exactly it boils down to for me. Practice-wise I like the meditation and mindfulness practices because they have massive psychological benefits for me, in real time. But beyond that it's hard to explain, basically because I have a very overly-literal kind of mind that is also very reductionistic, so it's mainly for me about finding definitions that kind of sit right with me, with no exceptions. Finding the right wording to describe say the three characteristics I talked about, such that it feels airtight to me from a literal and reductionistic point of view, with no exceptions which would only cause me stress.

Same kind of thing with the "Loving-kindness" meditation where the goal is to essentially spread good will first to yourself, then to a best friend, then a neutral person, then a 'difficult' person, ie potentially an enemy, and then to the whole world. With that the problem I have from this overly literal and reductionistic point of view, is the need to find the perfect wording for the goodwill I would wish... ie what single statement of goodwill would I be just as happy to say to my best friend as my worst enemy? Trump for instance, as much as I may despise him for his politics and whatever, is still nonetheless someone who Loving-kindness meditation would be used to develop compassion towards, because ultimately everyone suffers, friend and enemy alike, and no-one should suffer. So, in my case it's about trying to find the perfect wording, but in other people's minds that are less literal they probably use more imagination or whatever in their meditation to achieve the same goal.

I don't know if the above is metaphysics or phenomenology, but this basically what it boils down to for me... a constant quest to find the right wording and definitions that sit right with me.

[Whateverist]

Apart from chihuahuas, dogs like mine and border collies probably bite the most often.  They are bred to enforce their will on much larger animals in order to move them to where they need to go.  Mine has nipped twice and didn’t break skin either time.  Just a wickedly painful micro pinch. A dog that did damage wouldn’t be fit for the job.

This thread is specifically meant for debating the pros and cons
of religious beliefs, or the lack thereof.     Please don't derail.

Thanks.   

That may be what you want from it but definitely is not why I started it.  If you want debate, find a playmate and have fun.  But I won’t be playing that game with you.

[Whateverist]

I adore dogs, I just have a bit of a problem with Alsatians due to a historic bad experience. I love 'em, Collies. And actually, thinking about it now, that Alsatian didn't bite my sister too bad, so meh. Generally I insist however, still, that Alsatians are the "hardest" dogs, and why would anybody choose that?! The military life, that's why. I'm more of a civilian.

I had one trainer tell me that the hardest dogs are dachsunds.  They apparently think they are rottweilers.  The biggest problem I ever had with Goldens is that when you go to stand up they are always right under your feet.

Little wonder.  Imagine being sent down into a dark hole to face a badger.

[Whateverist]

Apart from chihuahuas, dogs like mine and border collies probably bite the most often.  They are bred to enforce their will on much larger animals in order to move them to where they need to go.  Mine has nipped twice and didn’t break skin either time.  Just a wickedly painful micro pinch. A dog that did damage wouldn’t be fit for the job.

This thread is specifically meant for debating the pros and cons
of religious beliefs, or the lack thereof.     Please don't derail.

Thanks.   

The only derail going on his your harping on debate on a forums for discussion.  Why don’t you start your own threads and maybe others will participate.

[Rhythmcs]

A "discussion" where wildly false claims and suppositions are made without any examination of facts and certainly no pushback is not a discussion or a debate. It's old man yelling at clouds territory. May as well be talking to your dog at that point.

Are these ideas you have, or are you as a person at this time in your life, too fragile or too set in your way of thinking to suffer the indignity of disagreement or correction? Not a dig - there are things I'm set in, ideas too precious to me to really consider alternatives...but it's a change from how I remember you on these things. Personally, I doubt that my moral objection to theistic belief will ever yield...so I'm set there. Likewise, if I have to start locking my door when I leave my house...if I can't leave my car keys in the console when I'm in the store, my entire worldview will collapse - so I'm going to keep doing it even if I get robbed, lol. Are you at something like that place with respect to the idea of whether theistic beliefs contain fact-alike claims?

That latter bit, if I'm understanding correctly, is what you're talking about when you talk about theistic beliefs, and..again if I have this right(/) what you're wondering about when you ask if it's possible to be a non partisan non believer? In that sense...as hard as I think it is to be human and also non partisan....yeah, probably. That a person doesn't believe in the existence of gods, or that they are certain that the existential claims made in creator god stories are false... doesn't necessitate that they also reject the sorts of world building thought experiments and ideologies that one might derive from a metaphoric understanding of gods as a phenomena in human behavior. All evidence points to this being a later and additional use to those narratives....but even as a dyed in the wool atheist and antitheist as well...I can see the value in some bits of the attendant ideologies and think that this way of approaching the subject is probably healthier and less likely to return misery to the user. Seems like another conversation that theists need to hear more than atheists, ofc.

Granted..it's going to be a hard sell for me no matter what, as theistic ideologies are defined as such -by- their reliance on those existential claims. The difference between a thing being right to do because it is good..and right to do because a good god exists..... is subtle to a believer...but consequential. They're basically getting a thing right by accident..and there's always the risk that upon discovering that accident they then get the thing wrong for cause.

-which would be bad.

[1Sam15]

Maybe God is a the quantum field.

Did your god ever get over regretting it made you?

Or are you still just a piece of crap to it. 


This is in the front of the bible if you want to look it up.


Genesis 6:6
New International Version
6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.

[Rhythmcs]

The quantum field is the quantum field. The theistic gods atheists don't believe in are personal and intervening. If the defeater to existential objections is to posit that said gods are something other than gods, something that does exist and does do things, even if it doesn't do the things gods are said to do or in the manner that gods are said to do them..it's not much of a defeater to the existential objection...

That sounds more like content agreement with semantic negotiation.

"Gods don't exist." - "Oh yeah? What if god was really this no2 pencil right here" "Then gods don't exist, tell me more about your no2 pencilism."

A more pedestrian summary.....is that the contention is just wrong. You can bet your bottom dollar that iron age and earlier writers were not trying to explain the quantum field when they talked about gods.

[Whateverist]

A "discussion" where wildly false claims and suppositions are made without any examination of facts and certainly no pushback is not a discussion or a debate.  It's old man yelling at clouds territory.  May as well be talking to your dog at that point.

Are these ideas you have, or are you as a person at this time in your life, too fragile or too set in your way of thinking to suffer the indignity of disagreement or correction?  Not a dig - there are things I'm set in, ideas too precious to me to really consider alternatives...but it's a change from how I remember you on these things.  Personally, I doubt that my moral objection to theistic belief will ever yield...so I'm set there.  Likewise, if I have to start locking my door when I leave my house...if I can't leave my car keys in the console when I'm in the store, my entire worldview will collapse - so I'm going to keep doing it even if I get robbed, lol.  Are you at something like that place with respect to the idea of whether theistic beliefs contain fact-alike claims?

That latter bit, if I'm understanding correctly, is what you're talking about when you talk about theistic beliefs, and..again if I have this right(/) what you're wondering about when you ask if it's possible to be a non partisan non believer?  In that sense...as hard as I think it is to be human and also non partisan....yeah, probably.  That a person doesn't believe in the existence of gods, or that they are certain that the existential claims made in creator god stories are false... doesn't necessitate that they also reject the sorts of world building thought experiments and ideologies that one might derive from a metaphoric understanding of gods as a phenomena in human behavior.  All evidence points to this being a later and additional use to those narratives....but even as a dyed in the wool atheist and antitheist as well...I can see the value in some bits of the attendant ideologies and think that this way of approaching the subject is probably healthier and less likely to return misery to the user.  Seems like another conversation that theists need to hear more than atheists, ofc.

Granted..it's going to be a hard sell for me no matter what, as theistic ideologies are defined as such -by- their reliance on those existential claims.  The difference between a thing being right to do because it is good..and right to do because a good god exists..... is subtle to a believer...but consequential.  They're basically getting a thing right by accident..and there's always the risk that upon discovering that accident they then get the thing wrong for cause.  

-which would be bad.

Get bent.  I don't have anything to say to you that you could even begin to understand so I'll save my breath.  

But I'd like you to stop hitting on me like this.  You're not my type.

[Whateverist]

Maybe God is a the quantum field.

Did your god ever get over regretting it made you?

Or are you still just a piece of crap to it. 


This is in the front of the bible if you want to look it up.


Genesis 6:6
New International Version
6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.

Buzz off retard.  I am not interested in the Bible.  Neither am I interested exchanging atheist memes and jargon with troglodytes.  There seems to be an infestation here.