Skip to main content

I was correct, he is a Humanist.

Dave Niose is an attorney, activist, and writer. He is president of the Washington-based American Humanist Association

 

 

=======================

You did see my statement at the beginning, "another OPINION"?  I don't see any reason it should matter who he is, he has an opinion. It's gotten silly. Atheism is not a choice. 

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

I was correct, he is a Humanist.

Dave Niose is an attorney, activist, and writer. He is president of the Washington-based American Humanist Association

 

 

=======================

You did see my statement at the beginning, "another OPINION"?  I don't see any reason it should matter who he is, he has an opinion. It's gotten silly. Atheism is not a choice. 


It was a choice for me personally, so perhaps it is for some and not for others?  If I wanted to follow most people around me as I did when I was a kid and I bopped along with community and my kids in the church program there was a time I could have gone that way I think.  Yes, I questioned, but there was a point I think I did look inside myself and let the idea that I didn't want to be part of it any more because I began to allow the concept that I didn't really see any logical reason to think there was a God to present itself to me.

 

I think humans are great at choosing to believe what works for us sometimes.  I see people going along with the crowd a lot, and they will even let crimes be committed and not speak up, convince themselves the crime wasn't bad so they can work at the place, and convince themselves that nothing is going on.  Deep down there is a part that knows, but after awhile the person pretty much goes on without seeing because she or he doesn't want things to have to change.  It's the same with domestic violence and other unhealthy relationships sometimes.  We can choose to sit down and think about what is going on or we can choose to really look at our lives.  Many people don't choose to do that, though.

 

Originally Posted by Quaildog:

Frog, what evidence do you ‘see’?

 

I don't believe you are an atheist frog; you can show no proof that you are.


What are you talking about evidence that I see?  Who said i was seeing evidence?  I said I see no evidence that there is a God or gods, not that I see evidence there is one or many.  I don't know everything by any means, but for myself I can only say I have never seen evidence that showed reasonable evidence that there was a God.  That doesn't mean necessarily that I have any certain other beliefs or disbeliefs, but just that I don't see any reason to assume there is God/gods.

 

It always amuses me that people in forums expect that anyone else will feel the need to prove things to them.  I mean no offense, but why should I feel any need to show people evidence of anything, and what proof exactly would you need regarding my personal beliefs?  That seems to be a strange thing to say since it doesn't affect your life either way. 

Frog, To put it perhaps on your terms; you have had interactions with certain frequencies of energy [light] that caused you to define things in your mind and felt compelled to share them as qualified proof of some state of position or concept of something that is real to you but that act alone is not evidence anyone else sees it as existing.

Originally Posted by Quaildog:

Frog, To put it perhaps on your terms; you have had interactions with certain frequencies of energy [light] that caused you to define things in your mind and felt compelled to share them as qualified proof of some state of position or concept of something that is real to you but that act alone is not evidence anyone else sees it as existing.


Actually, I didn't exactly say I have seen anything that would be proof to anyone.  I said I have seen reports of and talked to so many people who have experienced things that were not concretely physical that I see no reason to think that every single one of millions of experiences would absolutely be made up or misinterpreted.  I simply said that I have an open mind and that I have no reason to think that it is impossible to conceive of energy being more than we think it is as of now.  You are free to look up anything you want and research if you like, but I'm not listing thousands of reports here for you, and of course you are free to dismiss anything I say and assume I am full of nonsense.  I simply said I don't see any evidence that gods are responsible for anything, although I can see why many would, but I do think there is more to the universe than concrete physicality.  Just my personal view.

Originally Posted by Quaildog:

frog what age group would you find yourself if required by law to reveal some evidence toit.


This is a forum and none of us have to prove anything to anyone, remember?  There is no law that requires me to show evidence...this is just a discussion and I am not on trial, just as you are not.  And I talk to babies and children the same basic way I talk to elderly people.  What does age have to do with anything?  I don't demand that anyone show me evidence of his or her opinions, although reading explanations can be interesting sometimes.  

 

Originally Posted by Quaildog:

Ok frog as long as you are not the atheist that thinks evidence is unique only to the mind of it.


Well, if I were that would really be okay anyway since I'm not interviewing for a job with your company or something

 

But I'm not even sure what you mean...unique to the mind of what?  Your sentence refers back to "evidence that is unique only to the mind of evidence" and I don't get that.  But whatever the case, I'm learning cool things every day and happy with my path, so that is my yardstick.  

Originally Posted by Quaildog:

singular , there was someone, I think it was buffalo, who posited that there can never be more than one at any given instant.


You really do like to leave details out, don't you? You mean never more than one atheist at once or shall i just fill in the word of my choice?

He didn’t say ‘was’, buffalo said ‘can‘. He claimed all candidates for the atheist were always in some position , or in ‘superposition’ somewhere in between being and not being one. That being the case, at no given instant can the observer define properties of or the position of the candidates that confirms one being the atheist. “The” atheist, theoretically can never be and therefore his term ‘can never’.

Originally Posted by Quaildog:

singular , there was someone, I think it was buffalo, who posited that there can never be more than one at any given instant.

***************************************

quail, you know some of us remember that you are buffalo, the one in the

same as magpie also, I know of a half dozen more as well as chillin&grillin. 


 

Originally Posted by Quaildog:

He didn’t say ‘was’, buffalo said ‘can‘. He claimed all candidates for the atheist were always in some position , or in ‘superposition’ somewhere in between being and not being one. That being the case, at no given instant can the observer define properties of or the position of the candidates that confirms one being the atheist. “The” atheist, theoretically can never be and therefore his term ‘can never’.


Whoever posits whatever is just another posit, though.  Opinions are opinions.  You can argue gravity all you want and insist there isn't any, but I hope you reconsider that your ideas may not all be right before you leap off the top of a tall building.  Gravity, whether you want it to be there or not, will win every time.

Originally Posted by semiannualchick:

Frog, Quail is not serious, he's playing with you. He does that to all of us. Either ignore him or play along with his game.


I figured that..thanks .  I knew he was either a bit confused about most everything and a bit addled or being silly.  I was hoping he wasn't that bad off, so I assumed he was playing.  If someone isn't mean I decide depending on my mood.

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

I was correct, he is a Humanist.

Dave Niose is an attorney, activist, and writer. He is president of the Washington-based American Humanist Association

 

 

=======================

You did see my statement at the beginning, "another OPINION"?  I don't see any reason it should matter who he is, he has an opinion. It's gotten silly. Atheism is not a choice. 

It matters if the person is writing an article claiming that all believers would stop believing IF they were smarter. Not the best approach considering that there are educated believers and uneducated atheists. Atheism is a choice. You choose what to believe.  Sexuality may not be.  If a person is born a hermaphrodite, they cannot choose at birth but can choose to become one or the other later. A person can have a sex change so that can be a choice later. If genetics dictate that a person is XXY, then what are they? Male or female?

Originally Posted by Crumbpicker:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

I was correct, he is a Humanist.

Dave Niose is an attorney, activist, and writer. He is president of the Washington-based American Humanist Association

 

 

=======================

You did see my statement at the beginning, "another OPINION"?  I don't see any reason it should matter who he is, he has an opinion. It's gotten silly. Atheism is not a choice. 

 

Everything in life is a choice, you choose what you do and who you are from the moment you become aware of your surroundings..You choose to be mad, sad, happy, carefree, depressed, angry or elated...all depending on how you react to a situation. Some people face adversity with a grimace, some with a smile.  I can choose to be offended or decide it's not worth the effort. About the only thing we cannot choose is our death unless we opt for suicide and even without the burden of it being a 'sin'; suicide is a selfish act carried out by a diseased mind. Thankfully, we all have many choices, how we use them determines who we are.

Originally Posted by Kate Colombo:

XXYs are male. They have Klinefelter syndrome. That does not mean they are hermaphrodites or pseudo-hermaphrodites.

I am aware of the term, however, they are male in appearance but suffer from a combination of male and female thoughts. Many do choose to become female. It is basically a female in a male's body.

From wiki:

During puberty, the physical traits of the syndrome become more evident; because these boys do not produce as much testosterone as other boys, they have a less muscular body, less facial and body hair, and broader hips. As teens, XXY males may have larger *******, weaker bones, and a lower energy level than other boys.[4]
XXY males are also more likely than other men to have certain health problems, which typically affect females, such as autoimmune disorders, breast cancer, venous thromboembolic disease, and osteoporosis

So to say they are a typical male would not be a correct statement.

It matters if the person is writing an article claiming that all believers would stop believing IF they were smarter. Not the best approach considering that there are educated believers and uneducated atheists. Atheism is a choice. You choose what to believe.  Sexuality may not be.  If a person is born a hermaphrodite, they cannot choose at birth but can choose to become one or the other later. A person can have a sex change so that can be a choice later. If genetics dictate that a person is XXY, then what are they? Male or female?


---------------------------------------

Sorry if his opinion put your nose out of joint. He's entitled to it, and you are entitled to yours. Unless of course you're saying you shouldn't have your opinion that atheism is a choice. But if your opinion counts, why wouldn't his? Mine of course is, and will always be, it's not a choice and it's silly to argue that it is. If you're a believer, why would you choose not to believe? And seriously, I don't want to hear any of that "to follow the world" bull. That's one of the most  ridiculous arguments some of the so called christians use.

 If you're not a believer, why would you choose to start believing? To choose to believe means you have to believe in the first place, or else what would you be choosing to believe in? There's no other way around it. Again, there are plenty of people who, for whatever reason, pretends to believe. And I'm sure too that there are plenty who, for whatever their reason, pretend not to believe when they actually do.

Everything in life is a choice, you choose what you do and who you are from the moment you become aware of your surroundings..You choose to be mad, sad, happy, carefree, depressed, angry or elated...all depending on how you react to a situation. Some people face adversity with a grimace, some with a smile.  I can choose to be offended or decide it's not worth the effort. About the only thing we cannot choose is our death unless we opt for suicide and even without the burden of it being a 'sin'; suicide is a selfish act carried out by a diseased mind. Thankfully, we all have many choices, how we use them determines who we are.


=====================

You do not choose what makes you angry, or what makes you sad, who you love, or what makes you happy, or any of your list. Those are emotions and they are normal. You can choose not to act on, or speak out about, those emotions, but you can not choose not to have them.

I personally think any time we paint those broad strokes and say things like all believers should do this or all atheists are like this, we open ourselves to be challenged on accuracy.  While there may be a few things that all of one group should do or do believe, it doesn't really make sense to say that all believers would do anything if they were smarter.  Religious belief or lack of is a combination or many factors, and if we are saying what all believers would do if they were smarter, isn't that the same as Christians saying if all atheists would just open their hearts and minds they would be believers?

 

I do think there can be blind spots on all sides of the discussion.  It isn't very helpful to the discussion when someone on any "side" says the others would be smarter better, or whatever other name a person chooses, if s/he would just come think as the other side.  I don't understand why it matters so much to people what others believe or don't believe.  Giving information about my beliefs is not the same as telling people if they only would think they would think as I do.  No, maybe not, and I sure don't have the only truth in the universe by any means.  Maybe it is my truth, but if I tried to impose it on anyone else I would be stepping over boundaries of respecting their path and their space.

 

Now if any group tried to say their way is the only way (as in there shall be no religion allowed or only one religion allowed, or laws should be based on religion) I would object, but otherwise why the fight over who is right?  Living what you believe, religious ideals or what simply seems logical and reasonable to you, seems like the best way to show that your beliefs work, but I realize not everyone seems to feel that way.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

It matters if the person is writing an article claiming that all believers would stop believing IF they were smarter. Not the best approach considering that there are educated believers and uneducated atheists. Atheism is a choice. You choose what to believe.  Sexuality may not be.  If a person is born a hermaphrodite, they cannot choose at birth but can choose to become one or the other later. A person can have a sex change so that can be a choice later. If genetics dictate that a person is XXY, then what are they? Male or female?


---------------------------------------

Sorry if his opinion put your nose out of joint. He's entitled to it, and you are entitled to yours. Unless of course you're saying you shouldn't have your opinion that atheism is a choice. But if your opinion counts, why wouldn't his? Mine of course is, and will always be, it's not a choice and it's silly to argue that it is. If you're a believer, why would you choose not to believe? And seriously, I don't want to hear any of that "to follow the world" bull. That's one of the most  ridiculous arguments some of the so called christians use.

 If you're not a believer, why would you choose to start believing? To choose to believe means you have to believe in the first place, or else what would you be choosing to believe in? There's no other way around it. Again, there are plenty of people who, for whatever reason, pretends to believe. And I'm sure too that there are plenty who, for whatever their reason, pretend not to believe when they actually do.

That won't wash, as I stated there are those who did switch from believing to non believing and vice versa. A believer might decide it's all hogwash because someone died a death  that they felt was an unjust reason. Or a non believer may have what seems to be a miracle happen before them.  There are cases of both.

Unless you are saying that people are born as believers or non believers, then at some point a choice was made.

His opinion did not did 'get my nose out of joint'. Psychology Today trying to pass his opinion off as a scientific study did.

That won't wash, as I stated there are those who did switch from believing to non believing and vice versa. A believer might decide it's all hogwash because someone died a death  that they felt was an unjust reason. Or a non believer may have what seems to be a miracle happen before them.  There are cases of both.

Unless you are saying that people are born as believers or non believers, then at some point a choice was made.

His opinion did not did 'get my nose out of joint'. Psychology Today trying to pass his opinion off as a scientific study did

 

-----------------------------------

I couldn't care less what you think "doesn't wash".  IF you believe, and you think it was because you chose to believe, what do I care? I still say you had to believe in the first place or there'd be nothing to choose.  If you choose to believe in a unicorn, you have to first think there's one to believe in. So again, no choice, you already believed it existed. I didn't choose to stop believing, the belief left, and why that bothers you so much is beyond me. You don't like the guy's opinion? Go argue with him.

Or someone may research atheism or Christianity or whatever or religions and decide that none make sense or that Christianity or whatever else fits how s/he sees the world.  It doesn't matter if I think it makes sense or if the guy worshipping the third blade of grass from the left is smart, dumb, enlightened, or illogical, if he isn't hurting anyone, telling me I must worship the grass, or trying to make the country worship the grass, why shouldn't he be allowed to do it in peace without being told he is stupid or going to hell?

 

Not saying people don't have the right to tell him that, but wouldn't the energy be used more effectively to actually follow his/her beliefs by doing good or being respectful to show by example?  Of course, that is my view and I know it isn't everyone's by any means.  I personally wouldn't want to belong to a group that feels it's okay to belittle others who don't happen to go to the same church or who choose to not attend any church, but that is my personal choice.  

Originally Posted by Quaildog:

it is clear that the buffalo's atheist candidate fears god or it wouldn't be here in a forum-to-do with God.


Lol...more attributing motive and reasoning to others you don't know.  And you are being rude calling people "it".  Why are you doing that?  Do you not know how to use pronouns correctly, or are you purposefully trying to reduce a human's status to inanimate object because you disagree with him or her?  

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×