To Those That Attack Me For My Beliefs

[LogGrad98]

I never accused you of quoting me.

But that's your response?

Ok but you pretty aggressively addressed me directly so I wasn't sure where that came from as I didn't address anything to you.

 

[Stoked]

I'm not asking you to prove anything to me.

My Atheism isn't about you. It's not about you at all. You have absolutely nothing to do with it in any way.

My Atheism is NOT an attack on your belief.

My Atheism is about me not having faith in God. Not personally having any reason to believe that God exists.

My Atheism is NOT militant.

My Atheism is not an assertion that belief ion God by others is wrong.

Lol, I never said it was about me. I never said it was militant. I never said it was an attack on me.

Not sure where that came from since it doesn’t touch on anything I said.

 

[Gameface]

Ok but you pretty aggressively addressed me directly so I wasn't sure where that came from as I didn't address anything to you.

I was addressing your post. I was addressing your post directly. That's why I quoted it.

 

[Gameface]

Lol, I never said it was about me. I never said it was militant. I never said it was an attack on me.

Not sure where that came from since it doesn’t touch on anything I said.

You said you didn't feel a burden to prove anything to me.

That was my response to that statement.

 

[LogGrad98]

Atheism is the specific claim "I don't believe". You can add more to it in various ways, but at it's heart, that's all atheism is. It's compatible with "I know" and "I don't know".

This prompted me to Google it. It appears you fall in the "agnostic atheist" quadrant. I fall in the "agnostic theist" quadrant. Interesting read. The top 2 quadrants are what I would call the "militant" atheist or theists, although even in those quadrants it is obviously a spectrum. So I guess the extreme of those quadrants are the militants.

https://www.learnreligions.com/atheist-vs-agnostic-whats-the-difference-248040

 

[LogGrad98]

I was addressing your post. I was addressing your post directly. That's why I quoted it.

Ok, I misunderstood. When you use language like "you realize that..." It comes across more as addressing the individual than the post.

 

[Stoked]

You said you didn't feel a burden to prove anything to me.

That was my response to that statement.

Only because you’re the one saying “prove it”. Otherwise it would have been a general statement. I never asked you to prove anything. Because you don’t have to. That was my whole point lol.

There’s no burden of proof for anyone in this.

 

[Gameface]

Only because you’re the one saying “prove it”. Otherwise it would have been a general statement. I never asked you to prove anything. Because you don’t have to. That was my whole point lol.

There’s no burden of proof for anyone in this.

Ahh, okay.

For me to believe there is a burden of proof because I come from a place of not believing and having never believed. That burden is not placed on you or anyone else. That is my own personal criteria before I would consider changing my own belief.

I don't need anyone to prove anything to me in order for me to respect their right to believe as they do.

I think what I'm trying to argue against is this notion that I'm an agnostic because I don't claim to be able to prove that God doesn't exist. I think that's where you're seeing my frustration. I don't consider myself an agnostic and I don't really like other people defining me as an agnostic (not saying you've done that) because for me, coming from a position of never believing in God, I don't think of myself as an agnostic. Despite the fact that I also don't consider my position one where I certify under oath that I know that no such thing that falls under the very broad definition of a "God" exists in any form, or in any time, or in any multiverse.

 

[fishonjazz]

You said you didn't feel a burden to prove anything to me.

That was my response to that statement.

I think he said that cause in earlier posts you brought up the burden of proof being on those who believe or something.

I think he is saying there is no burden of proof for anyone

That's how I saw it anyway

Nevermind, you guys figured it out

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Gameface]

Ok, I misunderstood. When you use language like "you realize that..." It comes across more as addressing the individual than the post.

As per my last response to Stoked, I think I got a little frustrated around the definition of Atheist vs Agnostic.

I honestly get a little offended when other people define me as an Agnostic (even in a general way not specifically addressed to me) when I don't feel like I am an Agnostic.

Having never been religious, I don't personally feel uncertain at all about God's existence. Having no reason to believe that God exists I don't believe that God exists. If evidence to the contrary were presented I would reconsider my position. I call that Atheism. If you call it something else, well, I find that annoying, honestly, but I'll do me and be happy with you doing you.

So if my frustrated attempts to clarify my position came off as aggressive that was not my intent. I know from growing up with my sister that when I would really get energized about a topic and really get into the arguments, it made her uncomfortable and she felt like I was being aggressive. But emotionally I'm not saying these things in anger or with any kind of violent motives. I'm just a little over excited.

I used to get into religious discussions a lot when I was a teen. I loved it, then. I generally avoid it now. Like I generally really try to avoid it. But this has kind of got my juices flowing and then I got frustrated feeling like the point I was making wasn't being understood and wasn't being acknowledged. I got a little over-excited.

 

[fishonjazz]

Just want to say that I won't be offended at all if anyone wants to label me an atheist, agnostic, Muslim, Christian, Mormon or anything else.

IDGAF. It's all kinda just nonsense to me anyways

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Gameface]

I think he said that cause in earlier posts you brought up the burden of proof being on those who believe or something.

I think he is saying there is no burden of proof for anyone

That's how I saw it anyway

Nevermind, you guys figured it out

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

The concept that when someone makes a positive claim that the burden of proof is on them is pretty universal.

I've explained that, as it pertains to me on this issue too much already.

No one is obligated to prove anything to me.

I am not obligated to prove anything to anyone else.

That is true so long as no one wants to tell me what I believe, or so long as I don't try to tell anyone else what they believe.

 

[LogGrad98]

Just want to say that I won't be offended at all if anyone wants to label me an atheist, agnostic, Muslim, Christian, Mormon or anything else.

IDGAF. It's all kinda just nonsense to me anyways

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

Ya freakin' Mormon!

 

[LogGrad98]

I stand by the old adage, if I want to know your opinion I'll tell it to you.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Guys/gals I know that God lives and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is true through sacred experiences I have had. If you chose to investigate that is up to you. We are taught to honor free agency (never force anything on anyone). To try to force our belief on others is wrong.
I apologize for trying to share with all, as it has upset many of you. Please accept my heartfelt apology if I have made you upset or uncomfortable. I really mean that.
If you desire to learn what I have experienced and how I know please contact me individually. Thanks again for understanding I meant no harm. Being a former football and basketball coach at one time in my life, I tend to get competitive at times. We all have weaknesses, that is one of mine.

And I know that you don't actually KNOW. I believe that you BELIEVE.

Mormon epistemology (objective "truth' can be discovered via subjective feelings) is flawed on its face. It's ok to claim that such feelings (I know you want to claim their 'whisperings of the Spirit' or whatever, but they're feelings, sorry) can reveal subjective truths that are meaningful to how one understands the world and chooses to orient/conduct his/her life, but they are not evidence of anything in any objective sense.

An inherent, implied assumption in LDS epistemological claims is that similar spiritual witnesses claimed by persons in other faith traditions lack the validity of those claimed by the LDS faithful. I'm waiting for evidence that this is the case.

BTW, please don't try the cop out saying something like, "well, the Spirit can testify to other things, and part of what these other churches teach is true, etc.' Mormon epistemology is very specific in the context of LDS doctrinal truth claims; there's only one true church, and if one asks God with with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ (Moroni 10: 3-5) he'll reveal the truth of it. The same God would not be, simultaneously, telling believers in other faith traditions the same thing about their beliefs, unless God is some kind of epistemological trickster. (But this IS the same psychopathic murderer who, in a hissy fit, committed genocide in the OT by drowning all of humanity, so being an epistemological trickster is tame by comparison.)

 

[Stoked]

And I know that you don't actually KNOW. I believe that you BELIEVE.

Mormon epistemology (objective "truth' can be discovered via subjective feelings) is flawed on its face. It's ok to claim that such feelings (I know you want to claim their 'whisperings of the Spirit' or whatever, but they're feelings, sorry) can reveal subjective truths that are meaningful to how one understands the world and chooses to orient/conduct his/her life, but they are not evidence of anything in any objective sense.

An inherent, implied assumption in LDS epistemological claims is that similar spiritual witnesses claimed by persons in other faith traditions lack the validity of those claimed by the LDS faithful. I'm waiting for evidence that this is the case.

BTW, please don't try the cop out saying something like, "well, the Spirit can testify to other things, and part of what these other churches teach is true, etc.' Mormon epistemology is very specific in the context of LDS doctrinal truth claims; there's only one true church, and if one asks God with with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ (Moroni 10: 3-5) he'll reveal the truth of it. The same God would not be, simultaneously, telling believers in other faith traditions the same thing about their beliefs, unless God is some kind of epistemological trickster. (But this IS the same psychopathic murderer who, in a hissy fit, committed genocide in the OT by drowning all of humanity, so being an epistemological trickster is tame by comparison.)

This is hardly unique to LDS culture lol. Baptist’s says Mormons are full of it. Catholics think Protestants are false. Muslims and Jews. Jews and Christians...

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

This is hardly unique to LDS culture lol. Baptist’s says Mormons are full of it. Catholics think Protestants are false. Muslims and Jews. Jews and Christians...

Indeed, that's part of my point. Mormons tend to have a blind spot that their epistemological foundations are not uniquely theirs. Otherwise, they are faced with the uncomfortable task of reconciling God revealing different truths to different people. This is largely dealt with through the implicit understanding that spiritual witnesses in other faith traditions have a different character than Mormon spiritual witnesses and, thus, lack the same validity. The faithful will deny that this is what they're doing, but it's precisely what they're doing.

It's such a self-evident critique of Mormon epistemology, but one that is routinely overlooked, dismissed, downplayed, or conveniently explained away by the faithful.

 

[Stoked]

Indeed, that's part of my point. Mormons tend to have a blind spot that their epistemological foundations are not uniquely theirs. Otherwise, they are faced with the uncomfortable task of reconciling God revealing different truths to different people. This is largely dealt with through the implicit understanding that spiritual witnesses in other faith traditions have a different character than Mormon spiritual witnesses and, thus, lack the same validity. The faithful will deny that this is what they're doing, but it's precisely what they're doing.

It's such a self-evident critique of Mormon epistemology, but one that is routinely overlooked, dismissed, downplayed, or conveniently explained away by the faithful.

Lol, what do you want them to say? “We don’t know?” Lol

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Lol, what do you want them to say? “We don’t know?” Lol

I frankly don't care what they say, that's not the point. I'll merely note that it's refreshing to hear the occasional LDS faithful concede that he/she doesn't really know but believes. That's at least being honest and doesn't require self-delusion.

 

[Hotdog]

The concept that when someone makes a positive claim that the burden of proof is on them is pretty universal.

I've explained that, as it pertains to me on this issue too much already.

No one is obligated to prove anything to me.

I am not obligated to prove anything to anyone else.

That is true so long as no one wants to tell me what I believe, or so long as I don't try to tell anyone else what they believe.

Funny how you have that standard when it come to religion but you expect Trump to prove he didnt do anything when it comes to Russia.