Something new in Washington

[racrguy]

It baffles me that you think that anything that you have posted contradicts what I have. Just go back over the posts. It took you a while to post that. Why? Probably because you didn't want to look like an idiot.

Yet you still don't see the difference... And no, it took me a while because I had to dumb it down enough for you to understand.

[jdgregory84]

Yet you still don't see the difference... And no, it took me a while because I had to dumb it down enough for you to understand.

This is the best part. You had to "dumb it down" for me. Sooooooooooooooo....what is the differnence between being an Atheist and having an open mind?

[jdgregory84]

I bring up the open mind thing because that's typically what Athiests say.

[racrguy]

What does having an open mind have to do with someone being an atheist? Now you're going to try to change the topic? Have you been drinking again.... You're doing that woman thing.

[jdgregory84]

What does having an open mind have to do with someone being an atheist?

Bingo.

[Maddhattter]

"Again I ask. You do realize there's a difference in believing there's no god, and not believing in a god, right?"

There is literally no difference. If there is, please enlighten me.

Perhaps if we shift perspective, that would help demonstrate the difference.

Let's say that there are people who like soda, Sodaists, and people who don't like soda, Asodaists.

The first group, Sodaists, actively have a liking for soda.

The second group, Asodaists, actively lack a like for a soda. This does not inherently mean that they are stating that all soda is bad, just that there is no evidence that there is soda that they like.

When the parallels are drawn, I would think that it's pretty easy to understand.

Theists actively believe in a god/gods/the supernatural. Much like the Sodaists above.

Atheists lack a belief in a god/gods/the supernatural. Like the Asodaists in the previous example.

To contrast your implication that lacking a belief in something is the same as believing it opposite to be true, most atheists will state that a god/gods/the supernatural is possible, but they will not assert that it does exists without evidence. This leaves one with only the default position, to not believe.

Example:
If you told me that you invented a new form of clean renewable fuel that is more efficient than petrol, I would not believe you. This does not mean that I think you statement is false. Just that I think that it's untrue.

This stuff is Logic 101. You are, inadvertently I hope, creating a false dichotomy between believing something is true and believing something is false.

Personally, I don't think religion whether for or against it should have any place in government.

Agreed. However, the government staying neutral on the topic of religion and not supporting any religion, as the founding father's notes indicate was the intent, is not the same as supporting the assertion that there is no god.

Atheism is a religion and it's figure-heads are just as ridiculous as the more conventional religions.

Atheism is not a religion.

re·li·gion
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\
Definition of RELIGION
1: a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Per http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion.

Atheism doesn't fall under either a or b of definition 1 as there is no faith or a god/gods/the supernatural.

Doesn't fall under definition 2 as the only thing that people require to be an atheist is a lack of belief in a god/gods. Any other belief is permissible. Hell, look at the Raeliens, or Buddhists, or some Hindus. They are religious and atheists.

The third definition, being archaic, is not within the purview of this conversation, as that definition is not being used anymore.

It also doesn't fall under the fourth definition as, again, there is no faith.

So, as I gave an example of above, while it is possible for people to be both an atheist and have religion, atheism falls into none of the applicable definitions of religion.

[Gargamel]

So, as I gave an example of above, while it is possible for people to be both an atheist and have religion, atheism falls into none of the applicable definitions of religion.

Not saying that you are incorrect in your statements, it's just funny that many atheists would disagree that it is possible for people to be both an atheist and have religion.......

[The King]

Where racrguy shall goeth, ever shall Maddhatter followeth.....

Hence, the birth of racrhatter, or Maddguy if you prefer, is hereby pronounced!

[Maddhattter]

Not saying that you are incorrect in your statements, it's just funny that many atheists would disagree that it is possible for people to be both an atheist and have religion.......

Agreed.

Many people, on both sides of the debate, fail to understand when concepts are not mutually exclusive, but merely seem incompatible.

I will always contend, that there are plenty of atheists with silly, and even dangerous beliefs and ideas.

[talisman]

I don't see any point in driving halfway across the country to let a bunch of people I don't know or care about know that I don't believe there is a god.

[Butch]

I don't see any point in driving halfway across the country to let a bunch of people I don't know or care about know that I don't believe there is a god.

Comfort in numbers?

[talisman]

Never needed peer approval or validation of my opinions about the universe.

[jluv]

this does not mean that i think your statement is false. Just that i think that it's untrue.

lmao!!!

Care to identify the difference between "false" and "untrue"?

[Maddhattter]

I don't see any point in driving halfway across the country to let a bunch of people I don't know or care about know that I don't believe there is a god.

I think you're slightly misrepresenting or misunderstanding the stated point of the rally.

"The intent is to unify, energize and embolden secular people nationwide, while dispelling the negative opinions held by so much of American society … and having a damn good time doing it!"

This event, based on the quote above, pulled from the article, is basically an attempt to create a community and to let people know that, even in the bible belt, that they are not alone.

While I agree with you on not needing validation, it doesn't seem to be about that. Much like any other rally/gathering, for any other topic, it's an excuse to attract people of like mind and build connections and relationships with people that share similar ideas.

I wouldn't expect you to go to a car show so that people can validate your opinions about cars... Same reasoning applies here.

It also states that it is intended to be an entertainment event as well, given the list of entertainers that are scheduled to appear.

[Maddhattter]

lmao!!!

Care to identify the difference between "false" and "untrue"?

Gladly.

The two words are attributes, similar but different.

While all things that are false are untrue, all things that are untrue are not necessarily false. Untrue is just an adjective describing something that is lacking the accurate descriptor of "true".

A statement like, "This sentence is a lie.", is untrue. It is not true, as it cannot be, it is not false either as, again, it cannot be. It is a paradox. A paradox is not true, or untrue.

An argument from ignorance such as, "I've never seen a light in the sky behave that way, it must be an alien!" is untrue. It certainly may be an alien, but there is not a way to ascertain the truth of the statement, making it unknown.

Now, I will agree, that all statements that are false are untrue. If someone said, "All modern science supports the zoroastrian creation myth." That statement is untrue, but it is also false.

So, as you can see, there is a distinct difference between stating that something is false versus stating something is untrue. That which is false is always untrue, that which is untrue is not necessarily false.