🎓 Doc Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@qoto.org

@GreenFire

Assuming we are talking about a multifaceted discussion then id agree with that

@Ponygirl

I agree with this given the current situation where a person can just go get the procedure in some other state.

Though if it were a total ban, and even illegal to go out of your area to get one, then even the wealthy wouldnt be able to get an abortion. But thats not the case, so what we have right now what you are saying is certainly true, and a bit issue IMO.

@bonifartius @louis

@Ponygirl

> I believe the goal posts are moving here.

There are no goal posts here, that would presume an adversarial attempt to prove you wrong or me right, I dont engage in those conversations. This is an exploration of the topic and I expect the "goal posts" on both sides to move in the sense that as we each learn from the conversation that we adjust our position to match what we learn.

> Your original assertion was that atheism is faith-based and therefore a religion.

Happy to explain what happened, there, and you are right.

It will be more clear if we look at the two definitions for atheism:

1. a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

2. a lack of belief in the existence of a god or any gods

Originally I was using definition 1, which I am not refering to as non-agnostic atheism. I realized you were trying to assert exclusively #2, which I called agnostic atheism. Since I didnt care much to debate definitions and the substance of the discussion is more important I deferred debating which of those definitions were valid at all.

So while I understand that may incorrectly look like moving the goal posts it was in fact simply an attempt to use better clarifying language and avoid any debate on definitions themself.

> You can apply different shades of agnosticism to atheism all you want, it still is not faith-based

You are certainly welcome to make that case, but so far you have not made a counter point to that assertion. Please feel free to make that case if you wish.

> Also, have you ever heard of the concept that one can not prove a negative?

I most certainly have, it is one of the most widespread fallacies/myths you will hear people state. I am a professional research scientist so "proving things" is kinda my whole thing (scientific journals are pretty

Rather than get into all the technicals of why its a myth I will give you a very simple example that proves it by contradiction:

present you with a box, I claim "there is no full size american quarter in this box", this is clearly a negative. You can easily prove the negative to be true by opening the box, looking, and seeing there is no quarter in the box. Negatives absolutely can be proven, and they are proven all the time.

> I can not prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun. In fact, no one can.

Your language is misleading here. We can not prove a teapot is orbiting the sun **right now**. The reason for that is because the space is too vast and our equipment not sensative enough to detect it, not because it is an unprovable concept. It is perfectly reasonable to think that once technology reaches a sufficient point it would be trivial to scan the solar system and in fact prove that a teapot is not orbiting the sun. This in no way suggests negatives cant be proven, again, we prove negatives all the time in science.

@ryan

@Ponygirl

> I assure you, I'm not undecided about the existence of Thor et al.

If you are in no way undecided, presumably that you have determined therefore that Thor (and any god) does not exist, there is nothing wrong with that stance. It just happens to be a faith based position requiring the same amount of faith as any religion. That said, I'd agree you are, in fact, an atheist then.

> It is not my job to refute an assertion;

No one asked you to refute it.

> it's the job of the claimant to provide evidence,

Absolutely, that is not in question. The question is, when evidence is lacking to prove the lack of existence, or existence, of a thing (in this case god) do you take a faith based position and assume that means god does not exist, or do you take an evidence based approach and claim you do not have enough information to determine if god exists or not. Not being able to prove a thing exists is not proof it doesnt exist, thats the whole point.

> There is no credible evidence of deities;

Correct, that is my whole point, just as there is no credible evidence of the lack of deties. The whole point here is there is no evidence for either state.

> therefore, I live my life with No God/ess beliefs.

Also not what is in question. Both an agnostic atheist and a non-agnostic atheist will have this stance. The question is if you are an agnostic atheist (an evidence based approach that does not claim gods dont exist, nor do they claim they do, you simply dont have enough information to decide) or a non-agnostic atheist (a faith based position where despite a lack of evidence showing the non-existence of deities you take the faith based position that there are no deities).

> The literal definition of atheist.

As I said before the definition of the actual word is not the important part to me. There are two definitions of atheist, one that includes agnostics and one that doesnt. There is little doubt your one of these two types of atheist based on your answers, the question is simply if your an agnostic atheist (evidence based) or a non-agnostic atheist (faith based).

@ryan

@louis

Well technically metal is a type of rock so.....

@Gina Good to hear about the rants... I got worried there for a second, I can only take so much positivity! :)

@stux No need to single out fox. You can literally pick almost any major American news organization and this is true.

The vibe in the USA right now.

@Raccoon

It makes me happy to hear you say that on many levels... While Israel is an absolute disgrace and deserves to be shamed for what their doing, to equate that with Jews in general is deplorable and uncalled for!

@EubieDrew

To be honest I kinda like that... Shame doesnt work to change behavior it just masks it. Id rather assholes be assholes and nice people be nice people and we see people at face value. At least then it gives us the ability to have an open and honest conversation about how people act rather than just burying it out of shame.

@carnage4life @BlackAzizAnansi @Teri_Kanefield

@black6 @e3aefda887252a72cee3578d33b2dcd90e9fe53b8bed6347ef5e26f74211adbb

No but the fact that qualified immunity is codified into law **does** mean the right doesnt exist.

The definition of a right (that is being used here) is: legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

Ergo since the law does not give me the same right as cops to defend my life means the cop have a right (to qualified immunity) that I do not, and thus we do not have the same rights.

@tonyfromls As a fellow SCUBA diver I approve (full tek).

@Max_Imum

I totally expect violence from the left. But probably not prior to inauguration, they arent that calculating. It will likely build up over months or years of Trump being vile before it finally spills over into riots again.

@eriner

@e3aefda887252a72cee3578d33b2dcd90e9fe53b8bed6347ef5e26f74211adbb

Unfortunately you dont. A cop has qualified immunity which means if they shoot someone doing something illegal they can get away with a lot more than a private citizen might should they make a mistake. For example if I saw a cop choking someone to death and i pulled out my gun and shot him in the head, and the other cops then pulled out their guns and shot me dead, those other cops would likely get away with it on qualified immunity since they are reacting within the moment. Which means the consequence for me to shoot a cop is to be murdered on the scene with little or no consequence to those murdering me, a cop however could get away with the same act and should he be shot dead the person killing him would likely get in trouble.

Unpopular opinion: You should have the same right to shoot a cop as you do an ordinary citizen should they illegally threaten your life.

@Ponygirl @ryan

No I understand. You can dismiss the assertion that Thor is real by being undecided on the issue, which is the only nonfaith based conclusion. The lack of evidence is the whole point. You have exactly as much evidence of thors existence as you do his nonexistance. So if you assert he exists or not then that is faith, if you assert you don't have enough evidence to decide either way then that is science.

Since you claimed you have no reason to believe god doesn't exist, or exist, then you are undecided and thus by definition agnostic.