Atheist / Theist Reconciliation Thread

[calamity]

They would just have to not believe in a god. They can still be atheists.

Agreed. Like I said in one of my posts above, I tend to lean Theistic Atheist. I certainly do not believe in any particular god, but I would not be so bold as to rule out the possibility that something unknown exists out there which might fit the definition of a god. In fact, it could be said I "believe" in the possibility.

 

[CLAX1911]

Generally speaking, if they receive a federal tax exemption (determined by the IRS), then they are also exempt from paying property taxes in all 50 States. However, nonprofit organizations are not exempt from paying all taxes. Organizations that hire employees must pay local, State, and federal payroll and other taxes on wages.

Fair enough

 

[CLAX1911]

That is certainly not true. The Catholic church receives over $500 million annually from the federal government, and they have been getting it since LBJ's "War on Poverty" during the late-1960s. Between 2012 and 2015 Catholic Charities USA received $1.6 billion taxpayer dollars from the federal government. With approximately 65% of its budget coming from State or the federal government.

Catholic Church collects $1.6 billion in U.S. contracts, grants since 2012 - Washington Times

They are by no means the only exception either. The US taxpayer also funds Muslim school lunch programs.

Federal Government Subsidizes Halal Food in Public Schools | PJ Media

The Supreme Court ruling in Board of Education v. Allen (No. 660), 392 U.S. 236 (1968) pretty much opened the doors allowing government to subsidize religion.

Okay, that I disagree with.we shouldn't be giving any taxpayer dollars to the Catholic church or any church for that matter.

 

[CLAX1911]

Of course. Why wouldn't there be? Some people find the study of ancient myths interesting.

The good thing is, they don't have belief in magical super beings like Santa or Yahweh to cloud their thinking, so we discover all sorts of things, like nobody knows who wrote the Gospels, and they were written well after the events they discuss, and were almost certainly not eye witness accounts. That there is virtually no evidence for Jesus' resurrection.

So they're apathetic, I don't understand how such person can be a theologian.

 

[CLAX1911]

Nope, so long as all religions are treated equally then none can be said to have been established over another. Many non-profit organizations are subsidized, by getting direct government grants/services and/or by being exempted from taxation - both require additional "contributions" by others paying taxes.

Tax exemptions are not subsidies. When you are allowed to keep your own money that is not the government subsidizing you.

 

[CLAX1911]

I gave the nuance. An atheist is one who does not believe in the possibility of a supernatural being.

I've heard that before but that's not the definition of atheist. That is however the definition of an apatheist.

 

[CLAX1911]

Churches receive the benefits of society, such as policing, firefighting, sewers, etc., without paying their share of taxes. They are subsidized by those who do pay taxes.

Taxes are not the government's money. It is money you're that the government takes from you. There for letting you keep it isn't the subsidy it's your money nobody can subsidize you with your own money.

 

[CLAX1911]

As i have already said, atheism is not a fixed position, it is one we must work towards.

so atheism is like the black belt in diagnostic is the yellow belt?

I'm sorry that sounds ridiculous.

We start as ignostics, we have no knowledge of god until the theist explains what one is ie . until the theist explains we do not know if his god hates gays, wants them to loved but thinks they are being naughty or is indifferent to them.

Having it explained we then move to (a)gnostic. I understand this god as its parameters have been explained to me but still not enough information for me to decide whether this god really exists or not. Agnostic, i have knowledge of this god but it sounds a bit unlikely or gnostic, i have knowledge of this god and it sounds plausible.

From there we can become theists, hallelujah god exists.
Or we become atheists, listening to this theist is a half an hour of my life i am never getting back.

Theism is something you do not have to think about. If you arrive at it as an adult it is from an epiphany and usually from a result of a personal tragedy or it is forced upon you as a child.

Atheism however can only be achieved if you stop and use your ability to rationally work something out.

Atheism is the lack of belief in God. That's not an achievement that's just a position. Agnostics lack of belief in God so therefore they're atheist by definition.

I don't get where you come up with his idea that atheism is some sort of goal to aspire to. in all the years I've talked about this you were the only one that have ever heard make that claim so therefore I'm doubtful.

 

[CLAX1911]

Are you really such a retard that you don't know that irs.gov is not MY argument but the Internal Revenue Service where the laws you pretend to know are posted?

you're calling me names because you are too lazy to make your argument. It is not my burden to go collect proof for your argument.

That is your burden and I will not do it. you can call me all the petty childish names you want for not going out of my way to prove the nonsense you say to be correct but that's not how arguments work.

If you can't handle this you need to find another hobby.

I didn't tell you to read my argument somewhere else, I told you the easiest place to fact check your own nonsense.

you have to establish fact in order for there to be a fact to check. That's called the burden of proof. You are making the claim therefore it is your burden.

I hate that I have to try and educate all of you people about how debates work. Ignorance moves from ignorance to stupidity when you are resistant to education.

and if you doubt my claim that this is how the Bates work I won't only tell you what website to go read I'll post the information here cuz I'm not lazy.

 

[JustHanging]

Taxes are not the government's money. It is money you're that the government takes from you. There for letting you keep it isn't the subsidy it's your money nobody can subsidize you with your own money.

If everyone chips in for policing, firefighting, sewers, roads, except one group, then that one group is getting subsidized, everyone else has to make up for their shortfall. It's not that complicated.

 

[ataraxia]

Starting Point: This is NOT a thread about the existence of God, or gods. I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone. In fact, I'm going to try to do my best to stay out of this one, outside of the initial question. Not making any promises, but that's the intent. I'm posting this to learn something. At most I'll ask for clarification, if required.

Rather, this is a discussion around what it would take to bridge the gap we see here, between atheists and theists. We see a lot of angry posting here, that goes well beyond the academic debate of "real or not real", from both sides. Is there a way to deal with that anger, or is this a manifestation of the overly combative climate we find ourselves in generally?

Of course I have my own thoughts, but I'm trying to leave this wide open.

Important note: It is important to acknowledge that not all atheists and theists fall into the "angry" category. Many folks are happy to live and let live, irrespective of what camp they have landed in. If you are not "angry", which we'll define for this thread as going out of your way to disrespect someone for their lack of belief or belief as a starting point, then I am not attempting to say that you are.

So...if you're "angry" at atheists, what would it take your to not be? And, if you're "angry" at theists, what would it take to not be?

I think the compromise of religion being kept out of the public sphere is a good one. People can worship however they please privately and/or in groups of their fellow believers. It should be a private affair. If there is a social policy position effecting everyone that theists want to argue, it should be argued on its own merits. Tacking on a "God says" to their latest opinions and interpretations of scripture should not be a good enough reason. You can tack that phrase on to anything, and all it does is close eyes and brains, and shut down any further conversation- all things anathema to an open democracy.

 

[CLAX1911]

If everyone chips in for policing, firefighting, sewers, roads, except one group, then that one group is getting subsidized, everyone else has to make up for their shortfall. It's not that complicated.

No they're not. Simply not taking someone else's money is not subsidizing.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Tax exemptions are not subsidies. When you are allowed to keep your own money that is not the government subsidizing you.

That is not looking at the bigger (whole?) picture. What is the difference between taxing one group less (or nothing) and taxing another group more (or everything) when both groups share the benefits of what that tax revenue provides? Since that church (or other non-profit) facility enjoys being provided with police/fire protection and roadway access (for free?) then why should only other facilities along that roadway pay taxes to fund those services?

 

[JustHanging]

so atheism is like the black belt in diagnostic is the yellow belt?

I'm sorry that sounds ridiculous.

Atheism is the lack of belief in God. That's not an achievement that's just a position. Agnostics lack of belief in God so therefore they're atheist by definition.

Don't forget, Christians believe in indoctrinating children at a very young age, and it can be very difficult to break away from such indoctrination later in life.

 

[CLAX1911]

Don't forget, Christians believe in indoctrinating children at a very young age, and it can be very difficult to break away from such indoctrination later in life.

That's true of just about any ideology you can imagine.

 

[Glitch]

Churches receive the benefits of society, such as policing, firefighting, sewers, etc., without paying their share of taxes. They are subsidized by those who do pay taxes.

The same is also true with non-profit organizations. The difference is that the overwhelming majority of non-profit organizations do not receive additional funding (beyond tax exemption) that certain religions receive from government.

There is no problem if government treats every religion the same. Either by providing equal amounts of taxpayer money to every religion, or by not spending taxpayer money on any religion. What government cannot do is establish one or two religions as the predominate religion(s) by providing more funding than they provide to any other religion.

 

[Glitch]

Tax exemptions are not subsidies. When you are allowed to keep your own money that is not the government subsidizing you.

Tax exemptions are subsidies according to the Supreme Court.

 

[Glitch]

Don't forget, Christians believe in indoctrinating children at a very young age, and it can be very difficult to break away from such indoctrination later in life.

The same thing can be said about Democrats.

 

[soylentgreen]

so atheism is like the black belt in diagnostic is the yellow belt?

I'm sorry that sounds ridiculous.

Atheism is the lack of belief in God. That's not an achievement that's just a position. Agnostics lack of belief in God so therefore they're atheist by definition.

I don't get where you come up with his idea that atheism is some sort of goal to aspire to. in all the years I've talked about this you were the only one that have ever heard make that claim so therefore I'm doubtful.

True, it is a position. But it is a position that needs to be arrived at through reason. Where as theism is either forced upon you as a child or is arrived at by an epiphany.

The old atheism is a lack of belief definition, still implies a hidden premise of that there is a god and atheist simply lack any belief in it. It is a definition derived by theist, not atheists. In atheism there is no reason to even assume a god let alone lack a belief of one. Atheism is really asking the question of why are we even considering a god in the first place. It has as much credibility as assuming dr who traveled back in time and started the big bang.

Agnostics do not lack a belief they are just not convinced by the idea but not ready yet to dismiss it.

I am not arguing that atheism is something to aspire to, merely that it is something reached by reasoning.

Atheism is still relatively new. In the not so long ago past atheist were ostracised, condemned and even jailed for their views. We are still, as this thread shows, having to deal with a definition of the word that was created by theists who simply think that atheist have chosen to disbelieve in the the existence of an existing god.

 

[Glitch]

Atheism is still relatively new. In the not so long ago past atheist were ostracised, condemned and even jailed for their views. We are still, as this thread shows, having to deal with a definition of the word that was created by theists who simply think that atheist have chosen to disbelieve in the the existence of an existing god.

The last person to be jailed for expressing their religious belief, or lack thereof, in the US was Abner Kneeland. He was charged, tried, and convicted of blasphemy in 1838, serving 60 days in prison.

Kneeland, Abner (1774-1844) | Harvard Square Library

The US was undergoing a religious revival of sorts from around 1810 until sometime in the 1840s. Religious ferver throughout the US increased significantly during this time period. Which is also when the Mormon religion began.

 

[CLAX1911]

Tax exemptions are subsidies according to the Supreme Court.

How is not taking money that isn't theirs subsidizing?

 

[calamity]

How is not taking money that isn't theirs subsidizing?

Are they taking that money from everyone else? :roll:

That's how. :doh

 

[calamity]

We can get along just fine. It is called being tolerant of other people's beliefs, or the lack of them. I don't demean or ridicule their beliefs, and they don't insult my lack of belief. As long as we don't try to impose our beliefs, or lack thereof, on each other we can get along just fine.

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

There are laws against fraud, which religions somehow dodge. So, I wouldn't exactly say you are comparing apples to apples here.

 

[CLAX1911]

True, it is a position. But it is a position that needs to be arrived at through reason. Where as theism is either forced upon you as a child or is arrived at by an epiphany.

No that's belief, or theism, unless you're suggesting atheism is a religion to wit I would disagree.

The old atheism is a lack of belief definition, still implies a hidden premise of that there is a god and atheist simply lack any belief in it.

it doesn't imply that. and I'm sorry to break it to you that's common parlance whenever when someone says atheist they mean someone who lacks belief in a god.

It is a definition derived by theist, not atheists.

again false it is the definition based on common usage.

In atheism there is no reason to even assume a god let alone lack a belief of one.

you seem to put a lot of subtext in this that simply isn't there.

lack of belief for this discussion I think we need the absence of.

Atheism is really asking the question of why are we even considering a god in the first place. It has as much credibility as assuming dr who traveled back in time and started the big bang.

no that's philosophy. Atheism is absence of belief or without belief. or that's at least what it means when everyone else says it.

Agnostics do not lack a belief they are just not convinced by the idea but not ready yet to dismiss it.

so agnostics believe in God?

keep in mind I am not convinced that your definition of atheism is apt.

I am not arguing that atheism is something to aspire to, merely that it is something reached by reasoning.

yeah I've heard you say this. I understand you want that to be what the word atheist memes but that's simply not what it means. And again I'm going by Common parlance.

You can make the case for your esoteric meaning but you've got to try harder.

I'm sorry word meanings aren't defined by some authoritative council of word meanings. They are defined by Common usage.

And the common usage of the word atheist is lack of belief.

If you want to petition the dictionaries to include your meaning then be my guest I wish you luck. But as of now you are misusing the word.

 

[DarthPedant]

you're calling me names because you are too lazy to make your argument. It is not my burden to go collect proof for your argument.

That is your burden and I will not do it. you can call me all the petty childish names you want for not going out of my way to prove the nonsense you say to be correct but that's not how arguments work.

If you can't handle this you need to find another hobby.
you have to establish fact in order for there to be a fact to check. That's called the burden of proof. You are making the claim therefore it is your burden.

I hate that I have to try and educate all of you people about how debates work. Ignorance moves from ignorance to stupidity when you are resistant to education.

and if you doubt my claim that this is how the Bates work I won't only tell you what website to go read I'll post the information here cuz I'm not lazy.

Except you don’t post information. You make naked assertions and then claim everyone else has the burden of proof for their replies. And then you pretend actually looking up the laws you pretend to know is some onerous thing to do.

But I am the one resistant to education? Please.

This isn’t a formal debate, there are no judges or scores. Either take some responsibility for your own education or I will think of you are just a poser. I am sure your ego can bear my disappointment.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk