this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
582 points (100.0% liked)

politics

24733 readers
2701 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was meeting last week with representatives from a teachers union in his home state when things quickly devolved.

Before long, Fetterman began repeating himself, shouting and questioning why “everybody is mad at me,” “why does everyone hate me, what did I ever do” and slamming his hands on a desk, according to one person who was briefed on what occurred.

As the meeting deteriorated, a staff member moved to end it and ushered the visitors into the hallway, where she broke down crying. The staffer was comforted by the teachers who were themselves rattled by Fetterman’s behavior, according to a second person who was briefed separately on the meeting.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It doesn't require faith to NOT believe in something. It requires faith to accept religion which cannot be proven.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (4 children)

It does require faith when you’re disbelieving something that has as much proof of its existence as of its non existence. There is no conclusive proof against the existence of a supreme being, in fact like I said in another comment there is physical evidence of one if you observe the universe, which is that all of existence collective is god.

If you zoom into a human being there are millions of microorganisms and bacteria that inhabit us, and at that level of zoom they all look like they inhabit their own little planets, zoom in more and you start to see the very molecules that make us up. But you zoom out and see a person, zoom out and see a planet, then a galaxy, then clusters and so on. Who’s to say that if you looked at the universe from outside of it, it would not be the very body of another living organism?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

There are those who scoff at the school boy, calling him frivolous and shallow. Yet it was the school boy who said, ‘Faith is believing what you know ain't so.’

-Mark Twain, Pudd’nhead Wilson

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I like this thought experiment and think about this a lot. However this does nothing to remotely indicate the existence of the Abrahamic god. People tell you with certainty that god exists and he's three persons and jesus rose from the dead yada yada. That's a complete fantasy derived from literally nothing.

No proof but still believe? Faith.

Not believing in something that has zero evidence requires no faith. I don't need faith to tell you Cthulu isn't real

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Well atheism is not just denying the abrahamic god but the idea of any supreme being at all.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Atheism is not the idea of denying any gods, but rather not believing claims that they exist. This requires not faith, but by definition, the lack of it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I have a pet flying dragon that breathes fire and devours people I don't like. Do you believe me?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This isn’t as smart of an argument as you think it is.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

And your reply wasn't one at all.

I wasn't arguing. I was giving you an analogy. What's the difference between not believing in a god and not believing in a pet dragon? Does one require faith and not the other? Why or why not? That's an argument.

If my argument is so easy and stupid, rip it apart. Condescension gets you nothing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

It’s a very bad faith (heh) argument to compare god to a mythological creature. I’m not arguing that the abrahamic god is real or that Zeus et al are real. I’m saying that as the thing that encompasses everything that exists, the universe, could be a god of sorts. Or the God if you want.

The argument is that atheists believe so much that god does not exist and become so hostile to the notion of religion itself that it behaves as a religion and becomes like a religion itself.

Perhaps the fault in communication here is that atheist mostly define gods as intelligent and willful entitities when there is nothing that suggests that other than the deities that we invented in our own image. But to say, conclusively that god does not exist, meaning that we know that the universe is without a doubt not a transcendental entity is just faith that god does not exist because you have no proof of that nor any way to prove it without looking at it from outside of it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Oh yeah? What's the difference between gods and other mythological creatures and why does it matter?

Atheists don't believe that gods don't exist. Atheists don't claim that gods don't exist. They don't believe claims that they do. And the difference between those two statements is far bigger than the difference between gods and dragons. You keep popping up the same old straw man so you can knock it down.

But it isn't even an argument if your opponent denied your premise and keeps correcting you about your total misunderstanding about themselves, but you refuse to correct your mistake.