rayliehm.bsky.social
Astrophysicist, meteorologist, fursuiter, charity auctioneer, escape room veteran. LGBT+, he/him. An Aussie maned wolf finding his way through the world.
340 posts
69 followers
94 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
It's about both. Historically speaking, it makes perfect sense that the Bible should endorse slavery. But it also disqualifies the Bible as a source of morality, since the source of that moral code is supposed to be an absolute, unchanging deity who should have done a better job if it existed.
comment in response to
post
So the god of the Bible was so impotent that they couldn't prescribe a moral code that conflicted with the societal trends of the time?
comment in response to
post
Not unless you're given permission.
comment in response to
post
Amen.
comment in response to
post
Quite true. Although it would be hard to find a framework that allowed for an afterlife in the absence of a god. As much as I would love something like "The Good Place" to be the way it all ends up.
comment in response to
post
This maybe worked better as a direct reply to you
bsky.app/profile/rayl...
comment in response to
post
As an atheist, I disagree. Facists, including Nazis, are not necessarily religiously motivated. They adhere to whatever system gets them into power, until they no longer need it. They will tell whatever narrative they think serves their purpose, until it needs to be discarded.
comment in response to
post
To anything specifically?
comment in response to
post
The fruit crew?
comment in response to
post
His quicksand pits, then? ;)
comment in response to
post
He's certainly looking at you.
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
Can you provide any evidence as to the existence of this "creator"?
comment in response to
post
The last time I think I spotted "fake atheist" guy it was under the name "preachertom". But I suspect he's abandoned that account as it's been flagged as spam, so people don't get notified when he posts. He can't any attention that way.
comment in response to
post
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..."
Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11.
comment in response to
post
Cambridge defines it as follows.
And there is a difference between a lack of belief, and a positive disbelief. An atheist can have both, but only the former stance is required.
comment in response to
post
"Creation ex nihilo" is literally a tenet of Christianity.
And to be an atheist requires belief in precisely zero of those things.
All it requires is the lack of belief in a god.
Would you care to demonstrate one?
comment in response to
post
That's fair. I've had to push back against quite a bit of that myself, typically without success.
comment in response to
post
I'm not sure why you're stuck on this "scientific findings" point. I thought this exchange was just about definitions.
comment in response to
post
Yes and no. Most dictionaries are descriptive, rather than prescriptive. They change to reflect the usages of words, rather than try to enforce them.
For what it's worth, many dictionaries have adapted to the definition of atheism myself and many others use, i.e., the lack of belief in a god.
comment in response to
post
Good call.
comment in response to
post
Does the phrase "circular argument" mean anything to you?
comment in response to
post
This isn't about me, or whether I agree with you. It's about intellectual honesty, and the degree to which you apparently lack it.
If you're scared to have your ideas challenged, you should just say so.
comment in response to
post
If you're looking for a spammer, you need go no further than a mirror.
Seriously. It would take a book to go through everything this account has got wrong. And with comments off, you can keep spouting misinformation safe in the knowledge that no one can rebut you.
comment in response to
post
Except right here you said otherwise. I'm still not convinced you understand the difference.
And as stated, I disagree with your definitions. Atheism goes to belief. Agnosticism goes to knowledge. The two are not mutually exclusive.
comment in response to
post
My point right here though was to show you that there is a difference between not believing in a god, and believing that no god exists. You asserted they were the same position. But it's the same difference between innocent and not guilty.
comment in response to
post
And here's where we disagree, because I am an agnostic atheist who finds him not guilty of existing. I use that label deliberately and precisely. Our disagreemt essentially boils down to a difference in definitions. I can and will defend mine, and I share them with a significant portion of atheists.
comment in response to
post
And do you see how this answer directly contradicts your previous answer about about Kraeg's name?
"I don't believe X" is not the same statement as "I believe not X".
"Not guilty" =/= "Innocent".
comment in response to
post
Okay. God is on trial for the crime of existing.
I, as an atheist, find God not guilty of existing. I may even have a positive belief in his innocence.
But to be an atheist, I only have to find God not guilty. I have no belief that he his guilty of existing.
comment in response to
post
They really are not the same. Answer me this: is finding someone "not guilty" of a crime the same as finding them "innocent"?
comment in response to
post
I literally just got done explaining that they weren't the same thing. Belief and knowledge are different concepts. You can believe something without complete certainty, while knowledge typically demands near complete certainty.
By my framing, you could be an agnostic theist.
comment in response to
post
Because they describe different things, atheism and agnosticism can overlap.
I call myself an agnostic atheist. I do not believe in a god, and disbelieve in some specific gods, but I recognise that I can't know for certain there isn't a god out there somewhere.
comment in response to
post
It does not. I hadn't defined agnosticism.
Atheism goes to the question of belief. Agnosticism goes to the question of knowledge. To believe something and to know something are different (albeit similar) things.
comment in response to
post
Would you care to elaborate?
comment in response to
post
Dude, turn off ChatGPT.
comment in response to
post
If you want to draw the lines differently, you can, and myself and others will fall into differently labelled boxes accordingly. All that matters when you talk about this stuff is understanding what the other person means by their labels.
comment in response to
post
Not necessarily. It all depends on definitions. Here's how I figure it.
Theism = belief in god(s).
Atheism = negation of the above.
And negation does not mean "disbelief". It means "no belief". To lack belief in gods makes you an atheist.
You can also choose to disbelieve, but you don't have to.
comment in response to
post
Why not just provide the proof right here? Why is atheism a delusion?
comment in response to
post
Since I got a notification about this, I'd have to guess they responded to something I wrote and then blocked me.
comment in response to
post
We agree that people taking action are the only thing that makes justice happen. But even that isn't a guarantee. Justice is not guaranteed.
comment in response to
post
I've been thinking of justice in terms of entropy lately. Without deliberate input of energy, entropy and disorder increase. Likewise, without deliberate effort, injustice increases. Someone like Trump commits a new crime every hour, and it takes years to hold each one to account.
comment in response to
post
I was responding to a specific claim. "The moral universe bends towards justice". The universe has no such obligation, and you even agree.
Statements like that irk me because they're an out. "Everything will turn out fine in the end, so I can just sit on the sidelines".
comment in response to
post
Those aren't equivalent statements. There is nothing intrinsic to the universe that guarantees eventual justice. It is only through the concerted effort of countless people that any sort of justice becomes possible.
comment in response to
post
You don't have to have attitude about it. It would have been as simple to just define faith.
For me, faith is having belief in something without good or sufficient evidence.
To lack a belief in a god does not require faith, because no good evidence has been presented.
comment in response to
post
I think you have far too broad a definition of "faith".