God

[HiloJulie]

I find it ironic that you make a post, then edit it and then re-edit it, sometimes several times, but then find it necessary to pick out one simple typo of the word "an" which I originally typed as "and" in error and I then edited it to correct the typo a few minutes after I made the post, of which you immediately used in another attempt to provoke and hurl yet again, another veiled insult, while at the same time complaining that everyone else insults you.

[TomK]

Oh, cry me a river. You are so whiny.

[HiloJulie]

Oh, cry me a river. You are so whiny.

Hurls yet another insult.

[TomK]

Ironyak and I had quite an interesting discussion, despite MyManao's interruptions, until the bit about proving something. Now you come along and post gibberish, and when questioned about it, you won't explain what it means.

Sorry, you can make all the claims you want, but I don't think you can make a cohesive argument about anything you have posted in this thread. You posted a bunch of nonsense:

"However, going a bit further, what I find even more egregious are the ones who claim or otherwise use whatever faith one may have in any such God, or Religion, in order to make, substantiate or in any way justify those harmful opinions, especially when calling for attacking, eliminating or implying threats of violence against people who are different in the ways mentioned as being "God's will."

which makes no sense. So I'm asking what you mean by the above. Bear in mind, I have not once asked for violence against anyone, nor have I seen anyone here, at least in this thread, asking for violence.

[HiloJulie]

But over the recent years we've seen the rise of opinions and beliefs that actively cause harm, from health and medical misinformation to calls for attacking, or even eliminating, those people with a different religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, political affiliation and so forth. Having friends and family in those groups quickly makes clear the real threat of violence they encounter on a regular and increasing basis from such opinions. 

In as much as I have for the most part, stayed out of this whole "God" debate, I could not agree more with Ironyak's above comment.

However, going a bit further, what I find even more egregious are the ones who claim or otherwise use whatever faith one may have in any such God, or Religion, in order to make, substantiate or in any way justify those harmful opinions, especially when calling for attacking, eliminating or implying threats of violence against people who are different in the ways mentioned as being "God's will."

 
Tom,

Above this is my original post. The italicized part is the part of Ironyak's post I quoted. I have highlighted in bold the key points to aid you in following along. (See above)

Then I typed my first sentence. I highlighted in bold as well as underlined the part where I say I am in complete agreement with Ironyak's "above" comment. (See above)

Now, take the italicized quote from Ironyak, and then my first sentence, paying very close attention to the part I made bold as well as underlined, and apply that to my 2nd sentence, of which I have also made parts bold to highlight key points. (See above)

But, then your first response is to thank me, then insult me, then agree with me, but then argue that what I said makes no sense.

So, either you severely lack reading and comprehension skills, or, as is my assertion, all you want to do is to provoke and cause an argument. 

Further, on a post you made, you complain about people hurling insults at YOU. And then, YOU, turn right around and hurl insult after insult to me and when called on it, hurl another insult back at me.

As for your debate with Ironyak, as well as MyManao, in all honesty as I see it, they had you backpedaling and "motor boating" (but, but, but...) and also proving very well, not only your lack of reading and comprehension skills, but they too also proved that all you want to do is to provoke and cause an argument. And then hurl insults.

[ironyak]

Durian Fiend - Soft and Hard atheism. I don't see much difference in the two, other than the former sounds unmanly. 
While the two camps have other names like Weak vs Strong, and Negative vs Positive, I've tended to stick with Soft vs Hard when talking to bold atheists, as it does seem the atheist's Soft claim of "I think there are no gods" vs the Hard claim of "There are no gods" appears to lack a certain, ahem, vigor.

DF - Obviously no one can prove no god or gods exist.
You would think so right? And yet there are all sorts of Atheists going around trying to do exactly that. As MyManao kinda pointed out, there are fanatics on all sides of the claims about the existence of gods.

MyManao - how do you reconcile your new found beliefs in the Bible which posits that the Earth is only 6,000 years old with the courses you teach in geology where the Earth is billions of years old?' And he replied, with a straight face no less, 'God made old rocks.’

Ah, the good old Omphalos hypothesis or Last Thursdayism. I always like to think of this as God booting up a Universe Simulator in their mind, hitting Enter, and with a Big Bang things are off and running, with an expanding universe forming galaxies and stars with planets possessing geological processes, weather systems, and decaying nucleotides, all sorts of life emerging, evolving, dying off and being fossilized, asteroids impacting and glaciers retreating, until just before the start of human civilization, God cuts and pastes all this from their mind into reality fully formed and things just continue on seamlessly from there to here.

The real noodle-scratcher is if there is any way to figure out that this isn't exactly what happened?

TomK - I can't make any sense of this
I'm not sure why you choose to go ten rounds with Julie over her perfectly cromulent sentences, accomplishing nothing more than demonstrating your personal confusion and belligerence. There is nothing semantically or grammatically wrong with her post IMO, it just requires keeping the original context of my statement in mind when running through her multiple clauses, a sentence structure common to legal paperwork and some fiction. (Want a real challenge in maintaining and shifting contexts? Try Faulkner's 1288 word sentence or David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest where just one of hundreds of footnotes goes on for 30 pages.)

While we could stop to consider if the fact that the confusion you're experiencing TomK is only in your mind, and not on the page, makes it any less real, it's probably best that we at least finish current business by you answering the question at the heart of being an atheist - do gods exist?

[Durian Fiend]

But over the recent years we've seen the rise of opinions and beliefs that actively cause harm, from health and medical misinformation to calls for attacking, or even eliminating, those people with a different religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, political affiliation and so forth. Having friends and family in those groups quickly makes clear the real threat of violence they encounter on a regular and increasing basis from such opinions. 

In as much as I have for the most part, stayed out of this whole "God" debate, I could not agree more with Ironyak's above comment.

However, going a bit further, what I find even more egregious are the ones who claim or otherwise use whatever faith one may have in any such God, or Religion, in order to make, substantiate or in any way justify those harmful opinions, especially when calling for attacking, eliminating or implying threats of violence against people who are different in the ways mentioned as being "God's will."

I don't see the difference between your post and ironyak's, Julie, except for the phrase "god's will".  Wouldn't that be implied without invoking those words?

"Recent years?"  It's not a new trend.  Rather, a very old one.   The good news, perhaps, is that Americans in general have become less religious in the past few decades.

[ironyak]

Just as a quick clarification before heading out, my concerns about opinions and beliefs that cause harm are not limited to religious beliefs, but do agree with Julie that it's extra grim to see an interpretation of God's Will being used to "divinely justify" such harmful actions.

There's plenty of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, nationalism and other types of bigotry in Puna and elsewhere that don't rely on religious belief but are still harming and killing people.

While the negative impact of these beliefs is a common and long-standing problem for communities, we had seen decreases of related violence in the US and Hawai'i in the past two decades, but there has been a more recent rise fueled by online extremism.

Whether it's your god or your AI telling you to hate and harm other people, everyone benefits when we think for ourselves and choose to recognize each other's common humanity instead, and maybe even practice some Aloha.

[HiloJulie]

I don't see the difference between your post and ironyak's, Julie, except for the phrase "god's will".  Wouldn't that be implied without invoking those words?

"Recent years?"  It's not a new trend.  Rather, a very old one.   The good news, perhaps, is that Americans in general have become less religious in the past few decades.

There is, actually, quite a bit of difference and is generally not implied, however, for some it is a direct reason.

Being a bigot generally involves holding stubborn, unreasonable, and intolerant views towards groups different from oneself and while standard bigotry is often rooted in personal emotion, ego, or prejudice, there are also some who think using "God" or religion as the justification, which has also been often termed "scriptural bigotry" attempts to sanctify these prejudices, framing intolerance as a divine mandate. 

Which was my additional point to Ironyak's point all along.

Also, to be clear, the usage of the term "recent years" was Ironyak's comment, and in as much as I agree with it, it was not from me.

[Durian Fiend]

Maybe so. I see religions as inherently discriminating, and that’s always been a problem with them.