who thinks blasphemy is an actual hate crime against him. This is the dangerous mindset of a religious extremist - someone who cannot tolerate criticism of what he has decided for himself is true. Ironically, it perfectly illustrates one of the biggest problems with religious belief.

most often I think they are simply due to conflation of the concept of a deity and belief with one's actual identity. That can lead to considering dismissal of such a deity to be an attack on oneself. If one can't distinguish between oneself and belief in a deity, then that's an unfortunate disconnect from reality.

I suppose it's not uncommon to identify with a deity, but such a mistaken identification can lead to odd situations, I think. It can also lead to illogical thinking, since it is illogical and obviously false to consider oneself to be identified with a deity, since deities are imagined to have supernatural attributes, whereas humans clearly do not.

So, for an individual to consider it to be intolerant of that individual to question the validity of some deity is rather strange. That implies that the person who disbelieves in that deity is somehow deficient, rather than simply thinking differently. Such an inflation of one's own perception of identity can lead to all sorts of strange results.

Of course, it's very difficult to know how another person truly thinks, based only on words on a display. People have been known to dissemble on discussion forums and attempt to appear to be someone other than they really are. So, several large crystals of salt are required when attempting to assess anonymous internet users.

Still, it's amusing to consider.

They take criticism of their beliefs as a direct personal attack, and demand that it be silenced. (Or else they'll wage a holy war against those who blaspheme, as we've seen.)

How do we deal with such extremists?

With a combination of humor and exasperation, seasoned with a bit of argument? That's generally what I do.

...(as I know you know full well, but some may not):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

I'm sure some would, if they could get away with it.

But I understand. It is much easier to debate a straw person.

Basically you are arguing free will in a very specific context. As always, I'd rather have to argue against the concept free will than to defend it.

as something real. Of course, definitions of "free will" vary considerably from person to person. That's a subject I'm not really in the mood to discuss today, though.

I will say this, however. At one point in my life, as a youth, I did believe in the real existence of a deity. I learned later, in adulthood, that my belief was based on incorrect information, and willingly abandoned it. Who we are, in toto, changes during our lifetimes.

You could change your mind again. Which would bring about the question of whether you were freely making these decisions, or were they a function of the structure of your brain and the changes it under goes as one ages, and the effect of aging on body chemistry.

Here's how I look at that: What we know (or think we know) is what we have learned or have been exposed to and accepted. At about age 16, I began to choose my own sources of information, based on my particular interests at any given time. I no longer accepted the choices of others regarding what I fed my brain.

I soon recognized that reading the ideas of others was also fraught with the danger of accepting those ideas as my own, so I took in information from a very broad range of sources, and on a very broad range of subjects. I considered each exploration as a logical challenge, retaining what made sense, and rejecting the rest.

From that time forward, I have been an autodidact. While I've taken courses at various schools and have a BA degree (English,) I never let my directed studies interfere with my own more random, but, self-directed, acquisition of knowledge. That was almost sixty years ago. I remember pretty much all of what I have learned. So, I doubt very much that I will revert back to any earlier stage. In fact, I continue to learn new things, moving on to different subject areas on a regular basis. Am I likely to become a theist? That seems to me to be an impossible thing. I finished that stage of exploration decades ago.

To what end was all of that? To no end at all. The process continues, and will until it does not. That's the life I have chosen. It is my own. Is it unique? Well, pretty much, since I consider each person to be unique. Is what I have learned correct? As far as my reason has been able to assess it, yes, it is. I have discarded more than I have retained, when it failed to convince.

Of what use is it? Well, when my wife, working on a word puzzle, asks me for a 9-letter word for a flightless bird, I can immediately tell her that the word is "cassowary." That is the only flightless bird with nine letters in its name. When she asks me how I know that, I can tell her the title of a book I read at 10 years of age that taught me that word. I have learned, though, that she doesn't particularly want to hear about its size, weight, the bright colors on its neck, nor its habitat or eating habits. It pleases me, somehow, to know those things.

How will it all end? I have no idea, except that I will cease to exist at some point. Life's a one-way trip. I might as well enjoy it.

You wrote:

I'm not going to answer your questions, because you never answer anyone else's questions, except insultingly and with additional questions. Except for this answer: Evidence is the answer to both of your questions. Evidence. Where there is evidence there is truth. Where there is no evidence, there is no truth.

Beyond that, why should I interact with you? Of what value will that be to me? Why should I subject myself to insults and non-answers?

what truth can there be?

The truth, if there is any, is that neither theism nor atheism rely on evidence or truth, they rely on a person accepting a position.

Agnosticism requires no faith, since I can know that I don't know something.

But faith requires no evidence.

And a rejection of the premise underlying belief has no evidentiary basis.

Therefor, it is unprovable.

If there is no proof of a position, if there is no way to prove a position, what is the position based upon?

The atheist doesn't assert anything in place of your claim, they simply don't accept it.

After all this time, I still don't know if you truly can't comprehend the nuance here, or if you do and continue to cling to your falsehoods in order to be dishonest and hurtful.

I'm inclined to believe it's the latter, though, based on your overall behavior.

If you cannot accept that, I understand.

But any atheist who states that there is no evidence for the existence of a god is asserting an unprovable position.

Sorry.

"any atheist who states that there is no evidence for the existence of a god is asserting an unprovable position."

But that's not what the atheist is stating. S/he is simply saying you haven't supported your claim of a creator.

an unprovable position."

And that is what I said.

I now realize you are doing this willfully in order to disrespect and insult, and there is no point in continuing.

Please have your precious last word. Include an insult if it makes you feel better.

Which is precisely the #1 problem with religion.

Westboro Baptist needs no evidence to support their belief that gay people are evil and going to hell. They are just as correct and justified in their faith as you are.

That's a fucking problem, gil. Your theology supports bigots and tolerant people equally.

There is no evidence that there's a god who wants to see women, LGBT people, and religious minorities deprived of their rights. However, many Christians have faith that there is and he does, so they work day and night to enact laws to enforce their belief. And that's just dandy, I guess, because faith doesn't require evidence.

You've been told this dozens of times yet you still insist on using the term incorrectly so you can pretend either of those "positions" are no more or less valid. Even if atheism required a "position" and it doesn't, the best you'd still have is comparing an incredible "position" to one that isn't. If you were actually the slightest bit interested in the "truth", that would be a good place to start.

And your attack has no basis, or relevance.

Atheism takes the position that there are no gods.

In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

Note the 2 words, "the position".

As to your pro tip, apply it to what you wrote.

That doesn't mean that narrow exception makes the rule for all Christians.

"In an even narrower sense" should be telling you something. You are either intentionally ignoring it, or fucking up completely what the wiki article is trying to tell you. It's not hard to guess which.

Learn how to think, Gullible.

It is obvious, but awareness is essential to change.

But thanks for the gaslighting.

I'm bookmarking this and will use it to remind you the next time you pull your strawman nonsense about how a literal interpretation of the bible doesn't apply to all Christians. The best part about dealing with a self-righteous hypocrite is using their own doublethink against them.

You should try a different tactic as you have worn this one right the fuck out and all that's left is banality.

That's a whole meta level of fallacy.

then declares that it doesn't have to prove it.

So why is atheism any different? You made up a position you don't have to defend, so gonna reject your position with the same level of evidence.

It is a position, or a belief, or an approach. It is not simply a negation.

Not only that, unlike positive atheism it represents a far more sizeable portion of Christianity.

Does that make all Christians biblical literists? Kinda funny how you keep telling us all it doesn't as if anyone ever said otherwise, yet you insist on the narrowest "position" for all atheists.

Learn how to think, Gullible.

I don't need any evidence to refute it.

They are related words, but have different meanings.

is equally as stupid as claiming biblical literalism is the only acceptable position.

Yet Gullible wants to play both sides of the fence. Speaks volumes about his credibility.

regardless of exactly what they believe and how they behave, then they should reciprocate by accepting our labels as atheists, regardless of how we individually define atheism.

I mean, I accept Monsieur B's Christian label, despite his refusal to even describe his beliefs. He must accept my definition of my label as an atheist, which is non-belief, not belief of any sort. I doubt he will reciprocate, however, and will continue to call my atheism some sort of belief.

Feh!

Otherwise they look like hypocrites.

Even as he cited the response that included the word position.

I do not speak for anyone but myself.

The position is that some people believe things with no proof whatsoever, others don't believe things when there is no proof.

environment appears to be a dominant factor. It was not a choice what cultural/religious family and community you were born into.

An individual might become aware enough to transcend their environment, but most people don’t and their religion is not in any way a choice.

Of course I also am unconvinced that free will exists in any meaningful way, but that is a separate issue.

If so, does that mean that none of us is really responsible for our actions?

Most people are fully programmed, few can transcend their programming.

A criminal justice system that starts from the assumption that individuals choose to commit crimes is a sad farce that amplifies the harm to society caused by the individuals it punishes.

By programming, are you referring to the basic process of socialization?

If so, what alternative is there?

It would require changing every aspect of society.

And if it were done, what assures that humans would behave any differently?

I think an essential problem for many people who are raised within an religious tradition is that they accept such notions as God, sin, salvation, damnation, and others that are connected to religion without question. Largely because religions invariably tell their adherents that they may not ever question their tenets and teachings.

I'm a lot like you in that I was raised within a religion (Roman Catholicism) and I remember questioning it seriously from a very young age. By the time I was 14 I was having regular Sunday fights with my mother about going to mass. A year or so later she gave up trying to make me go.

For what it's worth, long before she died, Mom herself had stopped going to mass, and I think simply no longer believed in any traditional Christian teachings. Not long before she died she did tell me that she was convinced there was nothing after this life, that it just ended. I was a bit surprised she hadn't hung onto some belief in an afterlife.

But back to my initial point, that too many people cannot remove themselves from their childhood teachings, cannot step outside and ask any questions. Personally, I'm amazed that any women remain in the LDS church, as an example. Or that any woman who has had any exposure whatsoever to secular thinking could possibly remain an Orthodox Jew. Or as a Muslim cover her hair with a scarf. And so on.

For a lot of people there is comfort and safety in clinging to their beliefs. Which personally, I find strange.

Fearing death is a survival instinct as is hope for a different outcome. It didn't take long before some began manipulating other people with the conveniently unverifiable promise of immortality. Profit and power comes to those who are successful at it.

Clearly humans are very aware of death, of the end of this life. That awareness, coupled with a profound fear of that ending is clearly at the root of religious belief.

For me, such beliefs are benign, until they are used to browbeat or punish others who believe differently.

That also explains why Trump and other demagogues are so successful.

Generally speaking, belief is always benign. When you attach dogma and doctrine to a belief and organize it into a religion, corruption is inevitable.

"It's far easier to appeal to emotion than reason."

Which is exactly why demagogues gain power, or the current nonsense about white men being pushed aside has so many white men up in arms.

So, I'm never surprised when people don't question religion or other beliefs. For some people, apparently, questioning things is a natural state. I'm one of those. It's difficult for me to accept anything that lacks evidence of being correct. I will gladly examine evidence that is presented and compare it with other evidence. For the existence of deities, however, there is no evidence, nor any possibility of there being evidence.

For many who are religious, the lack of that evidence is taken as a point of pride. They respond to requests for evidence with the word "faith." There's even a Bible verse about "faith being the evidence of things unseen..."

It became clear to me very early that faith is nothing but the ability to believe nonsense. Things that are real have evidence of being real. So, it became impossible for me to believe that anything supernatural, including deities, exists. So, I don't believe. It's quite simple.

Death is simply completion of a process. Human life begins with the joining of cells from two individuals. The cycle begins with the multiplication of those cells into the organism that is a human being. Once that human being reaches maturity, the process begins to deteriorate and the production of new cells exists only for replacement purposes. Eventually, that repair process fails or gets out of whack and produces mistakes, as in cancers. There is a limit to the process, leading to the death of that particular organism. The method for the continuation of life is the passing of genetic coding on by creating a new organism in cooperation with another human being.

It's very simple. For some human beings, life continues to the point that the organism breaks down but does not die. I have known many old people who not only do not fear death, but welcome it, since they are no longer able to function properly. I have reached the age of 73 years. My parents are still alive at 94 years of age. Neither is religious in any way, and they have reached that final stage of life. They are not pleased with their current inability to function, and are far from being fearful about death. We talk about this frequently.

I am reading a book on authoritarian personalities. It seems to explain a lot.

But what about people who are raised and effectively totally contained within a society where there is one, and only one religion allowed? How can a choice be freely made if one believes that there are no choices?

Fortunately, it's not like that in Europe or the Americas, but I would imagine there are parts of Africa and Asia where it is the case that no alternatives are ever presented.

I will say this, though: In all such societies, there are people who do not actively participate in the dominant religion. I assume that many of those have abandoned belief in that religion. If they are silent about that, it is probably a self-defense mechanism.

We have no way to read people's minds, so the mind is always free to think as the person chooses, regardless of the culture or society.