RoderickSpode

You need a new comedy writer.  :

Maybe in science fiction, but really all robots are built for function first. There might be some in beta test, but by a wide, wide, wide margin, robots do not look like humans, even the ones who "interact" with humans (as if the manufacturing automation doesn't interact with humans?). They have to humanize some of these to reduce the natural apprehension, like putting googlie eyes on one. There's a couple of robots built by Honda that are humanesque, but they literally serve zero function other than proof of concept right now. 

Can you give me some examples of the kinds of robots you're talking about, and where we can see them in use?  Also, does god like robots?

The average believer sticks pretty closely to what they were taught by their parents/religious leaders (and not necessarily the Bible ) - appealing to the fringe believer isn't going to make your point.

Please cite the bible verse that support any of this. I'm sorry bud, but this is not the Christian view. It makes religion completely irrelevant in the proposition, and violates at least one commandment. It's a nice thought but very, very few Christians will agree that Christianity is not a condition to go to Christian heaven. 

Google any automaker plant, in fact almost any manufacturing plant. Maybe 1% of robots produced have some sort of human shape. The majority only look like what they need to look like to perform the functions for which they are designed. IBM's Watson, the most advanced AI to date...looks literally nothing like a human. One could posit that this is by design, because the moment we start 'identifying' with robots as peers, you end up with a lot of ethical questions. Watch Be Right Back, an episode of Black Mirror. It raises these ethical questions.  I'm really intrigued by the discussion of AI achieving independent intelligence, and the implications it would have for religion and for how we treat such robots, though, I've tried to start hat discussion many times!

RoderickSpode,

YOUR UNGODLY QUOTE: "You mean he most likely didn't wake you up at 3AM?"

What part of me wanting Jesus to exist didn't you understand?

Furthermore, to show respect to Jesus, then the least of which you should capitalize his pronoun "He."  Understood? Then you wonder why I call you "pseudo-christians."  :(

RoderickSpode,

But, as I have stated before, more than likely Jesus DOES NOT EXIST, but in turn, I need Him to exist like many pseudo-christians like you do, even in a mythical form like many believe in a flat earth, where the covid-19 virus is a hoax, and so on and so forth!  As just one example of me wanting Jesus to exist no matter what, is the biblical axiom that His inspired words state that there are no women in heaven, where putting up with these Sisters of Eve while on earth, WAS ENOUGH!  Praise Jesus' enlightenment!

You understand atheists to be pro-atheism or anti-religion (the same thing in your eyes), but I think that is overly simplistic. An atheist who is anti-religion is an anti-theist. Not all atheists are anti-religion (or "Pro-atheism"). Furthermore, someone can be a believer *and* be anti-religion. The way that you have represented atheists is without crucial nuance.

Make no mistake, I'm not suggesting an absolute rule, but a reference directed at a seeming normative believer. This norm can be demonstrated by the numerous denominations as well as the numerous understandings of the Christian God from one believer to the next.

Jesus came through once again in prayer that I initiated yesterday, when He woke me up at 3am to tell me that the biblically ignorant Tradesecret was going to use the old tired out ruse of mischaracterization of Him to RUN AWAY once again from His true MO within the scriptures!  Way to go Jesus in you being omniscient again, praise!

Science doesnt support racism. The scientific view is that there is one race - the human race. 

Can science be twisted? Sure, but that's not an issue with the conclusions or the methodology - that's a quirk of human nature from which no ideology (including religion) is immune.

So your issue isn't with science, it's with people, who incorrectly use science to support their personal racism, and there's no such thing as "more" evolved in any species including humans. I think we can agree, racist people are assholes, and that science does not in any way support the view that any one race is superior to any other. So...what's science doing in your topic, I don't get it. I don't see any problem with labeling someone who says racist things ("Black people are scientifically proven inferior to white people" for example) as a racist, and I'm not sure what you're getting at. "They" didn't render that guy a racist. HE rendered himself a racist, by, surprise, BEING A RACIST. 

Ok, so why then would the creator instill this apparent personal desire for equal treatment WITHOUT instilling the need to treat others equally in all people to go along with it? Why wouldn't a creator, if he wanted people to be treated equally, minimze the number of different dividing lines we can draw around groups of people? What makes you think the creator instilled it? My guess: incredulity. 

Humans are far from the only social animal that displays the desire to be treated fairly, or who understand the concept of fairness, or the concept of hierarchy or the concept of discrimination. It's a function of in-group versus out-group and control of resources from an evolutionary perspective. Lions don't like hyenas because hyenas want the food a lion hunted. We've conquered a lot of the resource manipulation problems but the drive to discriminate against a group that isn't US remains there, and we invent reasons to indulge it. Race, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, all of these are simply ways for us to maintain that drive to view our pack versus some other pack.  

What percentage of the US population in, say, 1800, were non-Christians? How many hindu reps in congress were there? Was ther a sizable Jewish population in colonial Georgia? My point is the country changes and that document has to change with it. The founding fathers also called black people 3/5 of a person. Those denominations were CHRISTIAN denominations. When you place a ten commandments monument on the grounds of a federal courthouse that has to try a Christian against a Muslim in front of Christian judge, yes, you  are creating an environment of some preference (not to mention the ten commandments have absolutely nothing to do with any sensible law in about six of the ten...once you get past don't steal, don't kill, everyhting else is mind control).

People is people....And religion or not, is a variable data construct.

And people believe what they are taught to believe...it's what is known as conditioning.

So for as long as children are conditioned to believe variable nonsense, then nothing will change.

Trying to enforce change only results in resentment, which inevitably results in a non-utopic reaction.

You've either got to re-educate the whole world with a single ethos all at the same time or not bother....If you could do the former, then it wouldn't really matter what the ethos was and given the growing human dependence on technology then maybe this will eventually be a technological possibility, or perhaps even, technology will do it for us without our say so.

By your understanding of atheism, there can be no option other than totalitarianism and communism.

If I'm not forced to operate under such an ignorant understanding,  a US based society with a majority atheist (it wouldn't be an "atheist America"), I see religious pandering in politics going down and issues where religion was a primary basis for rejection or endorsement finding a new equilibrium.

This statement might be meant to reflect the disconnect between the typical conceptualization of the Christian god and the god found in the pages of the Bible. No doubt, you'll want to argue there is no disconnect. However, I'll point out god-concepts are most-often formed by upbringing and reinforcing passages long before an objective reading of the text can occur. (Ie. Indoctrination)

In short, the conceptualization is given priority and textual dissonance is wrongly dismissed as tone-deafness in the reader or critic. This is ironic since the text (not the personal conception) is alleged to be the literal word of god.

Well, there are certainly a plethora of arguments and variations of the GOD principle.

Though I was referring directly to the biblical god and it's various derivations, nonetheless the necessity for non-causation applies to all models, as nothing,  and more so something from nothing is seemingly inconceivable.... I was therefore simply extrapolating from the basic premise of non-causation, the unnecessity of a tangible, myth based god. Because if one thing can exist without cause then everything can exist without cause.

That is not to say that  material development and the evolution of things thereof should not be referred to as a GOD principle. It is the  mythological god hypotheses that accompany human development that I take issue with..... Gods created in our own image....Naive solutions to an inconceivable beginning.

Nonetheless, If something does not require creation then there is no need for a creator anyway. Thereby, an infinite God negates itself.

Actually never mind my first post, here's where the problem is. Science doesn't deem any species "higher evolved." Do you mean better adapted to environments? That's not superior inherently, it's just better suited to wherever we find these races (presuming you're referring to black / white / asian). For example, certain genetic researchers have posited that as hominids migrated out of Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago, those who settled in certain areas began to adapt accordingly and resulted in the racial features we see today. For example, the peoples that moved to higher elevation or more extreme lattitudes, where sunlight is more intense or present throughout the year,  found themselves more exposed to UV rays, and the better reproductive opportunities ended up going to those with slimmer, more shielded eyes, and skin tones more suited to the level of radiation they were exposed to. It's pretty interesting research. 

RIght, and understanding the evolutionary or genetic basis for what we call 'race' today means understanding different =/= inherently superior. It's simply about where your ancestors settled after leaving Africa, if they ever did. 

What's the message then? How's it different than what I described? Is it that you can actually live forever and beat death? If it is, why has no one done it?

Instant coffee? how? Isn't the bible supposed to be instant salvation for all who hear and accept its message? The problem is that every believer, you included, all think you're the one who's right and the others are wrong, but you can't explain why, otherwise you'd convince someone else, or be convinced by them. There isn't a scientist in any educational arena claiming they know for sure all of science or even all of their own branch. There are tons of Christians doing that, even if you aren't one. 

For the record, is the entire bible historical / literal? You seem to say no, but again you don't explain how you distinguish. 

That his words and outlook and the stories about him were powerful enough to survive long after he was actually dead.

And you're also not one of those Christians who can lay out exactly how to distinguish the allegorical (talking donkeys) from the factual, as I recall. :-)

So is the bible historically accurate and literal cover to cover? If the answer's no, then please tell me how to tell one from the other

What it does most effectively is completely undermines the historical literalism of the bible. Many Christians will tell you it's not that important, that the bible is full of these allegorical tales, but they don't ever explain how these "easily identifiable allegories" are somehow distinguishable from the central supernatural myth of Christianity. Jesus' resurrection, which makes far more sense as an allegory than it does as a true occurrence, a man rising from the dead and all. It's every bit as likely as a 40 day global flood and a boat built by a 500 year old man holding two of every animal on earth and leaving zero evidence behind. 

Well I think nearly every group has been guilty of thinking, "Wouldn't everything be better if everyone thought and behaved like us?" But there's a difference between that, and taking the step to "Let's make everyone think and behave like us."

Obviously I can't speak for other atheists here, but from my experience with you I'm pretty confident you don't want to take that step, so I would never intentionally compare you to religious extremists who do want to take it. But at the same time, I guess I don't understand why you think atheist activists do want to take it.

Why do you think the change atheist activists strive for is going to come at the expense of your human rights, like the right to freedom of belief? All activism strives for change; will all activism "eventually become totalitarian characteristics"? How is atheistic activism unique from other activism in the danger it presents to democracy, in your eyes?

I do agree with the bolded text, btw, and I duly note that the OP is not aimed at all atheists.

And yeah I've been gone a long time...

My parents act in a way consistent with loving, of course I was sure. Moreover, other people could also tell my parents love me by witnessing how they treated me. I don't get your question. 

You're convinced your wife feels something because YOU feel it? I'm not doubting your wife loves you. I'm just curious as to why you're convinced she does, and saying "well I feel that she does so it must be true" is all you've offered for both Jesus and your wife.  How did you know that Jesus loved you, what did you find so convincing?

And once again I stress, that a GOD principle relative to a universal purpose is a valid proposition....Just not the naive mythological stuff of the bible...Nailing people to crosses and all that baloney.

Exactly my point.

Anyone can be convinced of anything....  Education, conditioning, brainwashing.... call it what you will.....Still doesn't prove anything though.

People are convinced that strapping a bomb to their chest and blowing themselves up is a good idea.....Because they were "convinced" does that therefore make suicide bombing a righteous act?

"Convinced" really is a shallow basis for a religious belief.

 With all the statues and images being destroyed I haven't heard about any Darwin images being cancelled.His books and other writings are about as racist as anything I've read.

Any nation that attempts to prohibit freedom of belief and individual liberties will adopt totalitarian characteristics. Why does it matter if the regime is atheistic or religious, communist or capitalist? And why would a western atheist want a nation without democratic values?

Personally I think you just got sick of Christianity being equated to Islamic terrorism or some such and finally snapped and just started ranting about communists. Like you heard one too many "9/11's" and "Spanish Inquisitions" and were like "Oh yeah well COMMUNISTS! Communist ATHEISTS! Comm -- communatheists!"

Is that what happened, Rod? I feel like that's what happened, Rod.

No, bc i can think of other reasons. That's the trick of spirituality... the dualistic realization that both natural and supernatural explanations can both be valid. Humans just stick to natural explanations bc they are easier... and to the "logical minded" more probable. But, that doesn't mean the latter is not the answer. 

Humans are humans. It doesn't matter what you put next to their name in identity.

A religion is more dangerous than atheism in my opinion bc most atheist don't subscribe to a belief.

An atheist might think we can all be in a simulation. Or, an atheist can believe we are spirits. But it's all speculation and a point of good conversation. Religion is different however bc there isn't much room for discussion. I can't say i don't believe in god, but... i believe a simulation is probable. I'm already hated by said christian at a certain level for not accepting the minimum god theory. All atheism means is a disbelief in god. It doesn't mean said person can't be open minded, or even waiting for evidence for a god. Said atheist is open... religious people aren't open to alternatives. That's the danger. Bc if you live in the past, you are not evolving. And to me, that's dangerous bc humans in the past were sub-human to the standards of today... why look up to them?

I broadly agree with this. BROADLY. It does demonstrate that religion adds nothing to the proposition: a good person will do as little evil as possible, and a bad person will find excuses to do whatever they want. Thankfully the world is much more full of good people than bad people. This is a much cleaner discussion than your still ill conceived communist charge: a communist is simply someone who thinks that a collective pool of resources doled out according to each individual's needs is a good idea. It has nothing to do with religion at all, so we can leave it by the wayside. You can become someone who thinks that it's a good idea, and still go to church. Whether or not communism is effective and practical (it is demonstrably not) is an entirely different subject. 

Churches don't DO anything at all. The people in them do. Are you saying if there weren't a church nearby, you wouldn't have any humanitarian imperatives? I can do a lot more with property tax dollars for those people than I can with a basement where AA meets. That can be done in a thousand places. 

How many arguments have we had with your Dover school board thing? Where creation is taught as real? What about prayer in school? These aren't imagined. They happened and continue to happen. Don't be obtuse. How many cases of public schools putting on Nativity Plays at Christmas are there in the last ten years? Plenty. It doesn't look to you like they're trying to teachit as fact, but what they RISK doing, whatever their intent, is putting Chistiianity in a place of preference, not considering the rest of the tax payers. I don't care if a Catholic school has that event, good for them, but they don't get any tax payer dollars. A public school is engendering discrimination using public money this way. 

Sorry, left this unanswered. The answer is because there's nothing about the economic concept of communism that mandates murdering those that don't agree. That has nothing to do with one farm growing wheat, the other growing corn, and pooling the two resources for communal use. People who live on communes do not, by rule, go out and murder those who live in other communities. Totalitarians co-opt any reason at all to consolidate power and impose their will. It shouldn't be this hard to understand. Communists =/= atheists =/= totalitarians.  

No, it isn't, that's YOUR definition. You're adding something that is in no way necessary, again. The definition of UFO is right in the abbreviation: it's merely an unidentified flying object. You add the "not apparently made by humans" without earning it. I know it's tempting to think that, but there isn't any reason to. A UFO can be a drone, it can be a meteor, it can be a reflection or optical illusion. It can be a lot of things, including alien spacecraft, but by adding the "not apparently made by humans," you are adding your own theory and inviting confirmation bias. Next step is a conspiracy theory: because it was hidden it MUST be aliens, when really it could be classified aircraft they don't want to reveal to the public or enemy versions of the same. 

How is this a "likely possibility"? What other dimension?

Not even close. They might, but they don't have to. 

I want religion out of my government. All the way out. I am not asking you to practice in secret in your basement. I'm asking you to pay property taxes on your building like everyone else has to. I'm asking you not to try to educate your mythology as fact to my kids.

It's again, very simple, I know it doesn't match with your pre-conceived and apparently worsening persecution complex. No one is out to get you. 

Tell you what. I'll concede this point if you can find me a SINGLE STORY of a US government courthouse trying to put a Buddha statue on their front steps, and atheists or "militant atheists" "anti theist activists mobs" or "unhinged communist throng raping their way through the streets because they don't have Jesus" standing by and doing nothing about it. Please find ONE. Just one. Because you know as well as I do that more than one courthouse has gotten in lawsuits, and almost always lost, for trying to put Christian iconography on public tax payer owned land. And no, Satanists demanding to put up a statue of the goat headed Satan up next to the same Ten Commandments monument, is not the same, simply because Satanists only want to demonstrate the discrimination inherent in the extant monument. 

Don't confuse 'evidence' with 'theoretical reasons to believe.' And before you bother, the probablility of life on another planet is incalculably higher than the probability of another dimension inhabited by an all powerful undefinable entity. Why? Because we know that (a) planets exist, (b) elements are common throughout the cosmos, (c) the cosmos is unimaginably large, and most importantly (d) life demonstrably exists on one of these planets. 

There is no similar demonstration for any extra dimensional entity. 

That we know of yet? No.

When an ant bumps against a glass, the only evidence that demonstrates is there's an ant and a glass. The complexity of the ant's location and the position of the glass doesn't necessarily inform a creator or higher power. It's a conclusion without a substantiated premise.

With your hypothetical, you have Given A (there is a glass barrier somewhere in space) and Conclusion C (there is/isn't some sort of higher power). 

The problem is (demonstrated by Athias) you have the Grand Canyon in between those two. Unless and until you build Bridge B to connect A and C, the logic will not follow (hence, a non-sequitur).

By the way, my contention that inspired this thread remains unaddressed: please demonstrate or explain the inherent connection between COMMUNISM and ATHEISM. Atheism is merely a position on the propositions of gods. It has nothing to do with systems of economics. You continue to associate the two in an attempt, as far as I can tell, to imbue revulsion with atheism by blaming it for the atrocities committed by totalitarians, but as usual, you're doing no legwork to connect the two. All I'm asking is why do you think they're associated. As it stands it's yet another straw man argument. Not a single atheist I know has any interest in communism or a utopian society or any restrictions on an individual's rights to be religious. 

I have never heard any atheist advocating for some society that somehow suppresses people's religions. It's merely a strict separation of church and state, which includes religious iconography on publicly owned lands and mandated prayer at public offices and schools. Beyond that, every atheist I know obviously doesn't care about what you do in your own mind or with your friends. For me the separation should include removal of any special tax considerations, but that's not "you're not allowed to be a Christian and you must live under my rules." This is a well worn straw man argument by Christians with their inexplicable persecution complex.