zapatos

Cool.

a·the·ist /ˈāTHēəst/ Learn to pronounce noun a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[1][2][7][8] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[9][10] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[10][11][12] The etymological root for the word atheism originated before the 5th century BCE from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism I fail to see the distinction. You both either don't know or don't care what it means to be what you claim to be.

Yes, I picked up on that from your previous comment. Just like the Catholic who thinks it is okay to take birth control. People tend to redefine words so that they encompass their own beliefs.

No. Is karma a god?

Yes, but the something is a god, not something like karma. They may be unscientific but you don't have to be scientific, or rational, to be an atheist.

Whenever a theist around here questions what atheists believe, of if they believe gods don't exist, the usual response of the membership is to say something along the lines of "atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of gods, no more, no less". So while you, Phi and others may have your own personal beliefs (sort of like most theists do), I am of the opinion that strictly speaking there is no contradiction in an atheist believing in or practicing religion, as long as they don't believe in the existence of a god or gods.

I think the answer is yes. Kind of like being against sugar, but still eating candy as long as the candy is made with aspartame.

I'm no expert, but as far as I know there is no God in Buddhism.

Jesus Fucking Christ. Feel better now that you've purged years worth of frustration from your system?

It was another way of saying "the United States". No need to make a negative interpretation when someone uses creative writing.

Possibly. Boxing for example has 17 weight classes with two categories (amateur or professional) and additionally split by gender. That's a total of possibly 68 breakdowns in an attempt to keep things fair.

Nice. +1

I accept that change is difficult for many people. I just wish they wouldn't throw up their hands in defeat without even trying. For example?

If you are going to resort to hyperbole please start reading the thread from the beginning. This is a serious discussion and we are treating it as such.

It is. Not all conservatives think the same way on all issues. Of course. I cannot tell what motivates an individual, but history tells us that more conservatives than progressives will take exception to the pre-announcement.

To further clarify the point I didn't make very well earlier... By definition, conservatives tend to conserve and be somewhat averse to change, especially social change. Thus, I think the objections being raised by some about Biden's pre-selection announcement have something to do with the simple fact that we are progressing. Since conservatives tend to be somewhat averse to change they will often do a lot more analysis and questioning about all the trappings surrounding a change that is happening. When gay marriage was such a hotbed of debate, conservatives tended to question whether there could simply be a kind of 'separate but equal' arrangement, or whether or not gay marriage would 'destroy the sanctity of marriage', or why gay people couldn't take it slowly to let straight people get used to the idea over time. Progressives on the other hand were more inclined to simply say 'just let it be legal already!' And now that we've had gay marriage for a while, those concerns conservatives had no longer seem so significant to many. A more recent example is Hollywood's move to be more racially and culturally aware when choosing actors for a role. For example, not too distant arguments that you should pick the 'most qualified' candidate for the role regardless of skin color/culture were ignored, and very few people complained, when Steve Spielberg announced ahead of time that he would choose an Hispanic for the role of Maria in West Side Story. And just to show how important a qualification skin color was to Spielberg for the role, he chose Rachel Zegler, who had exactly two previous credits to her name, one of them being a podcast. Thus, I think that recent concerns raised regarding Biden's pre-announcement are part of the nature of the conservative mind, are part of the process we must go through as changes occur, and will not seem to be very important in the not too distant future. Similarly, I suspect that in the future conservatives will not be as concerned as they are today about trans-gender athletes, pronouns, politically correct language, and incandescent light bulbs.

My apologies for a very murky post. I was not trying to say the pre-announcement had nothing to do with race. I was saying the objections were not because the candidate was a person of color. The objections were because the President said the candidate would be a person of color. No one here objected to the fact that ultimately a black person was selected to sit on the Supreme Court. I'll be back. My 3 month old grandson is demanding immediate attention...

I meant everyone here. The pre-announcement.

The thing that I have the most trouble with is that everyone who objected to the announcement also claims the objection has nothing to do with race. And yet of the hundreds (thousands?) of announcements Biden has made, on issues or initiatives large and small, the only announcement that seems worthy of criticizing for the words he used, is the one that has to do with race. Now I recognize that the concern raised is more nuanced than that, but it follows a pattern whereby anytime a minority takes a step closer to equality, their progress often undergoes an extreme amount of scrutiny. Look at gay marriage, LGBTQ rights, women voting or moving into fields previously occupied by men, interracial marriage, or absolutely any step forward made by blacks in the US. I suspect we could devote an entire thread to what motivate people on debates surrounding civil liberties.

Which is better than my one math joke... What's the square root of 69? Eight something.

Clearly that is not the equivalence beecee was making.

One of the reasons the Right often seems worse than the Left is that the Right has so many obnoxious politicians that the Left does not match. Lots of TV time for them which amplifies their worst traits. Politicians on the Left may excuse bad behavior, but they don't typically encourage it.

Riots at the WTO conference in 1999 in Seattle, "Occupy" Wall Street, antifa, the Weather Underground, some of the violence at BLM rallies, violent confrontations against far-right rallies...

This made me laugh as I've seen it frequently. People who on the science threads present coherent, logical and reasonable arguments that I cannot help but admire for their quality, will resort to hyperbole and emotion on the humanity forums. It seems so out of character when I see it that I have to follow subsequent comments before recognizing they were serious.

There is only one way you could know that to be true, which would confirm a suspicion I've had of you.