Fuck them kids. Dumb little idiots should've learned running before obedience to sky cake. Pretty sure it's a skill issue. Ethiopian babies woulda figured out running 100%
It's an interesting question at face value, if you unload it.
Would you give up your core beliefs (or lack thereof) that determine your worldview to save the lives of 100 children?
Assuming I'd be left with a blank slate... Probably. It was a lot of fun going on the journey that built the worldview I have now. I'd do it again with a fresh perspective.
Having it replaced by whoever crafted the "trial?" Fuck off. You guys apparently like to threaten children to guilt people into converting to your club. That's some cult shit.
They did the mental gymnastics to craft this scenario and a magic spray that defuses bombs and eliminates a person's agency for belief. How much more of a leap is it that this "atheist bomb" is only a threat to these babies' belief in Christianity?
Atheist is a label for people who do not believe in God. You don't believe in a system of atheism, you apply the label because you don't believe in God. If a person suddenly doesn't apply the term atheist to themselves it doesn't automatically make them a Christian.
You're changing the subject. While the OP is about christianity, this little subthread is about whether someone can lose their belief in atheism. Nobody in this subthread mentioned christianity until you did, and nobody in this subthread is a christian. I would appreciate some good faith engagement instead of changing the subject to those other guys over there we both hate. You hate em, I hate em, let's get over it and actually have a fruitful discussion.
You're saying you don't believe in a system of atheism. I'm taking this to mean you don't have any beliefs asserting your atheism. So if I accused you of not being an atheist, you wouldn't deny it, right? Cause you don't believe anything about you being an atheist. There are no beliefs you possess for me to challenge if I call you a theist, correct? You'd go along with it or hold a neutral view?
Atheism, by definition, is an absence of belief in deities. If you "accused" an atheist of "not being an atheist," they would think you were confused about what atheism is. They would likely not be personally offended by your ignorance.
I don't know why anyone would "go along with it" were you to incorrectly assert they held beliefs which they did not, but if they did, it would likely be in pity for or exasperation with the person impotently trying to "gotcha" their "beliefs."
So, you're playing a trick here. You're saying you don't have any beliefs, but you're also saying you think I'm wrong. That's not an absence of belief. That's a negative belief. Belief in the absence of something, not absence of beliefs. You're mixing the two up.
Here, I'll explain with a hypothetical. Imagine you're on a space ship with someone who doesn't believe in vacuums. They think there's air everywhere. They say the air in the ship is stuffy, and they want to open the window to get some fresh air in. You tell them that you're all going to die if you do that, because there's no air. It's not that you have no beliefs, it's that you specifically believe there is no air. It's a belief in absence, not an absence of belief. Your belief in there being no air informs all sorts of other beliefs, like the belief that opening the window will kill you.
Do you have a belief in the absence of theism regarding yourself, or do you have an absence of belief regarding your religious status? You can only pick one, they're mutually exclusive. You cannot have both.
Unfortunately for your ego, you have nothing relevant or novel to "explain" to me; you did not arrive at this discussion with an adequate understanding of "belief" or "atheism."
And to your further misfortune, you haven't developed the necessary reverence for growth which typically fosters the humility to recognize one's own ignorance and error.
But the most salient bad luck you've wrought here has been the pain and loss of those who have chosen to read and engage with your blithering comments made in bad faith.
While you accuse me of not following the logic of your argument, you didn't follow mine. I never said I was an atheist, you just assumed it. Actually, I'm agnostic. The reality is I don't give a shit if you think I'm an atheist or not. Calling an atheist a theist is inaccurate, so is calling me one, but it doesn't personally offend me, it's just an inaccurate statement because it assigns a belief that I don't hold.
Maybe respond in good faith if you want good faith back
You're confusing belief, knowledge, and conviction, it's a common issue with common, imprecise, language.
A sceptic would proportion their conviction of a position according to the available evidence. As there is no evidence to support any specific god, and some evidence against several gods, it is rational to be tentatively convinced there is no god. That position is atheist.
There are of course also other ways at arriving to an atheist position, not all of them reasonable.
You are however also engaging in either dishonest argumentation or esoteric sophistry horribly misreading the current discussion. It is reasonable, and polite, to assume a person knows their own mind better than any external person, and if prompted, has right of interpretation to their own beliefs, knowledge and convictions.
It's unreasonable, and unproductive, for me to assert you're secretly a Russian propagandist, and even more so when you say you aren't. I cannot know this better than you, and either I trust you to engage this conversation honestly, accurately describing your propagandist status, or I don't, and we have nothing more to gain from a discussion.
To adress your argument: the person is convinced they take an atheist position. You accusing them of unknowingly being a theist is thus absurd and/or dishonest.
It is reasonable, and polite, to assume a person knows their own mind better than any external person, and if prompted, has right of interpretation to their own beliefs, knowledge and convictions.
No, I disagree. I agree with you that we have the right to interpret our own intentions freely, because intentions cannot reliably be externally sensed. But let me give an example as to our beliefs and biases.
Suppose I'm a scientist conducting trials on a new drug. I gather a group of volunteer test subjects, and begin trials to compare the drug to a placebo. However, after they take the drug (and placebo), some of the test subjects come to me and say "You don't have to test me, doc. I'm immune to placebos. I can feel this working, so I know I'm in the experimental group and I know the drug works great."
If I were to apply your idea that you can't mistrust someone else's biases and beliefs about themself, then I would have to take their word and my science would be garbage.
To adress your argument: the person is convinced they take an atheist position
Yes, my question proved that very neatly, didn't it? They didn't think they had any belief in being an atheist, and that the final line of the original meme was therefore nonsense. But I used a very elegant question to prove that they do have belief in being an atheist.
You seem fundamentally confused about this topic, unwilling to listen, and unequipped to further your understanding of neither crux, domain nor dialogue. We will not get further in this discussion.
Sure. Not sure what would replace it and not sure why they think their particular religion would fill that void, but yeah, obviously, because I'm not a piece of shit.
Would the Christian do it to save all those babies? I think they're asking the question because the answer is "no."
That is correct. Back when I was in a catholic school we were taught that you should never give up your faith and be converted for any reason. Standing strong in your faith and suffering for it makes you a martyr and you automatically go to heaven.
I wasn't smart enough at the time to ask how it would work if you sacrificed others tho
I've noticed the growing perception over the last decade or so that atheism some weird belief system or religion of its own. I've heard them say "the religion of science" more than once which is just a complete misunderstanding of what science is.
Some people just genuinely can't conceive of someone not believing in a creator, it has to be understood through the lens of faith for them.
It's trying to drag it down to their level to legitimize belief.
Take for example a panel with a priest, a rabbi, and a mullah. They can debate faith and mysticism all day and night because they are playing by the same rules.
Introduce an atheist or scientist who says "I don't know, and more importantly, neither do you". It shatters their LARP experience.
By turning science and atheism into just another mystic belief system it makes theirs seem just another valid option between equals.
Don't let people make this false equivalence, faith and mysticism starts with "This is what I believe, and reality has to conform", where science starts with "Reality exists, and what I believe will change and be shaped by our understanding of it."
See, this is exactly the false equivalence I was speaking of. Theism is the one making the ridiculous claim, and by stating both are non-falsifiable and not testable, implying both are equally likely.
There is not a shred of proof for a deity, so any claims made in the name of any god can be dismissed as the ravings of lunatics.
On both the macroscopic and microscopic scales, science has pushed the boundaries of knowledge many orders of magnitude beyond that which was available to the people who made up these gods. At no point has a single claim been found to be true, and many have been found to be false.
You're a Santa-denier, because even though you know that story was made up for children and is full of things that aren't possible in our universe, it is apparently only a believe that Santa doesn't exist.
I don't deny Santa exists because that's also non-falsifiable. That's the point. You can't know either way. I guess you're trying to call belief in gods childish?
Funny that you would mention Santa. I don't go around telling children who believe in Santa they're wrong. If they're similar, why would you do that? Why would you care so much?
I think they’re pointing out the precision-of-language thing: a-theism is the belief that god does not exist. A-gnosticism is the belief that you are unsure whether any number of gods exist. The least amount of opinion you can have about deities is to be a disinterested agnostic (I think?): “I don’t care if god exists enough to wonder about it.”
(Since you can point to the deceitful-god theory to say that the entire universe formed in this instant with this state, and your memories are just a result of god’s machinations a moment ago, both atheism and agnosticism are non-disprovable. The deceitful-god theory may run counter to the common Christian doctrine of Theodicy and may therefore not be subscribed to by many.)
and they all fall to a quick sniff test: does it make any sense for gods to play games to lure people to faith, and fake others out? not if we're to believe their adherents and their texts. those adherents love to brag about their deities' omniscience and omnibenevolence.
nah man, it doesn't compute - a lack of belief is not a belief into itself.
