Specifically, the progression of humanity towards a wider acceptance and less bigotry/racism/misogyny, etc. I do feel like society as a whole is generally on the right path, but could it be swifter?

My opinion is that no words are inherently bad or harmful,only bad actors. I agree with Churchill.

Alright buddy

Perhaps you have low standards of evidence or aren't very skeptical. Personal experience on its own isn't good enough to believe something is true.

Sure, Anecdotal is a type of evidence but it is weak evidence when trying to convince someone else. I can just say "Cool story, bro" and not think twice about it.

Idk how you would have access to something outside of nature or what that could possibly even mean. If someone were to demonstrate something they considered supernatural it would have to be extant in the natural world, thus, the concept is practically useless.

This isn't atheism supporting religion, it's more of atheists not knowing how to talk to believers.

Thank you for your contribution.

What is the obsession over feeling like we NEED to distinguish human sex? (Other than knowledge of anatomy for medical purposes)

Being led by emotion is different than experiencing emotion. You can be rational in being emotional. I think it's a false dichotomy.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

I don't believe any posed gods exist but I can't know that no gods exist with maximal certainty.

Gnosticism speaks to knowledge.

I mean, no ontological argument can get you to god and especially doesn't connect you to any specific god.

Morality is subjective and situational. But not objective and not relative.

The reason it is subjective: We all experience morality through our own subjective lense, it just so happens, as a society, we have generally agreed upon the moral system of things.

The reason it is not objective: No morality exists inherently in nature without thinking agents who deem it so.

The reason it is not relative: The morality of things do not change. Slavery, for example, was justified at times in the past, but that doesn't mean it was moral for those times. It means they had the wrong understanding or simply justified it.

How it can be situational: Stealing, we decided, is morally unfair. But, to use one example, if someone is dying and there is a respirator in the store next to you, stealing it to save a life would be morally justified.

Yep, show me proof and I'll change my position. That goes for anything.

I'm agnostic atheist because the evidence for the existence of any god isn't strong enough to convince me but I don't claim to know there are no gods.

So saying you're god in this example is effectively useless. It might logically follow, based on your argument, but the term loses it's power if all it takes to be god is setting and meeting your own requirements. Besides, to give something characteristics, you want to be able to show it exists, so this whole discussion is basically pointless haha

Wow. This is really simple.

Not analogous at all.

A sleepwalker can be taken down pretty easily. My brother used to do it and I just talked to him until he woke up.

If that doesn't work, you can: Wrap them in a blanket. Splash cold water on them. Threaten to eat all of their Skittles unless they knock it off!

See? Easy.

The link didn't work for me, btw.

To address the concept of existence, I don't believe anyone can be a hard solipsist. We operate under the assumption that everything is real because that's the only thing we have access to.

To the point about loud and bright, like you said, those are simply descriptors. In the same way there is only heat or absence thereof, we had to have a way to describe that, so we used cold, even though coldness itself is not extant.

Can you expound on the borders point? I agree that there are conceptual borders, but there are also physical borders.

Gradualism could be used as a counter to creation. According to the bible god created adam and eve, not abiogenesis. So I'm not sure what hailmary you are convinced you've landed.

:grimace:

Atheism is simply the rejection of a proposition.
It isn't itself a proposition.
If someone asked you if you thought Big Bird was the most likely explanation of the beginning of the universe, your answer would (hopefully) be no. You aren't proposing anything by rejecting that claim. So I don't think your X,Y example works.

All of this talk and still no proof of any gods lol what a waste.

You're getting way ahead of yourself.

You're presupposing a god. You have to demonstrate that a god exists before anything. You set up a circular argument, because you start and end with god, so it holds no weight.

The existence of God naturally explains all these and gives a purpose to existence. — Marco Colombini

What you fail to acknowledge here is that you are asserting that a god exists as an explanation for things needing to be created by a god existing. It's circular. The presupposition "god must exist because _____" is not proof of its existence.

Either there is or there isn't. The burden of proof falls on the positive claim either way. So without proof it doesn't really matter.

You could check out Anthony Magnabosco on YouTube. He has videos in conversation using it and others talking about how to use it.

the idea of privilege only exists for the white, straight, male — Alejandro

OP started off saying this was the topic, so idk where else I'm supposed to go with it.

Was there more of a specific issue you want to bring to light so that we can all speak to the same thing? I think there was some misunderstanding.

I guess we all read OP's post differently. Maybe some clarity would help.

I originally felt that OP was talking more specifically about systemic racism, based on his word usage, but I will extend the same sentiment to people with disabilities and others who suffer in a similar sense. I think saying "qualifiers" demeans the process of getting to the real social injustices when you want to equate very different issues, and that is what I meant to communicate to Carlos.

Don't misunderstand me here. I absolutely acknowledge disabled people suffer. I just think it's dishonest to lump all of these things into the same category. Especially since you also said ugly people (which is completely subjective) and is not analogous with a system intentionally built to exclude the success of a certain type of people, ie: people of color, women and LGBTQ, not to mention the ones who intersect (black, gay trans women.)

I love how you're equating having a disability with being the target of systemic racism. Very American of you.

USA! USA!

I can just imagine these serial mass murderers getting shot up with some chemical that fucks with their already imbalanced brain chemistry. Next thing you know, we have Stan Lee predicting supervillains.

I would argue from an even broader position, personally. God cannot necessarily exist because of suffering in general. Every major religion has conflicting internal contradictions concerning the nature of its god, and one is that god is merciful, yet just. These are mutually exclusive. Therefore, god does not exist.

As far as the morality aspect of cannibalism you touched on, I agree. Nothing is inherently bad, but we are intelligent enough to know that eating each other kills the species, killing the species isn't productive for human flourishing and we prefer to flourish. Unfortunately, not everyone cares enough for the coexistence of other species to help them flourish alongside us.

Good thoughts.

I would argue that the mind is a function of the brain. The brain occupies space, but the mind isn't an independent, physical property outside of the brain. So, if anything, maybe one could say that it tentatively utilizes brain space at different intervals. I would be very interested in having someone demonstrate to me a mind which exists separate a brain.

Well, technically...it doesn't exist. It's a concept. It only exists as far as we need it to progress our existence.

It's sometimes difficult to see the problems when they don't affect you directly. I would say if you aren't denying that historically people have been the target of systemic repression in some way, you're not being harmful. But the issue falls upon those who do actually deny that it exists. As for the cis white male part, these are the people who have been "the powers that be" for a long time in American history, and it's no secret how it became that way. And that's why I believe diversifying is extremely important.

Right you are, Ken.

Yeah, reading through, I'm seeing that this person is holding a position they can't demonstrate to be true and choosing to convolute the conversation. Might be best to just use your time in a more productive manner.

I would argue that is an observation and not a rule. There isn't anyenforceable factor at play.

One big issue here is that you must presuppose a god, then work backwards, only to arrive at post-hoc inferences, based on whatever position you hold for your specific god.