andyburke

I’m not sure who you’re arguing with. I was trying to make sure people aren’t handing out respect and trust willy nilly.

I guess I need to clarify that you give courtesy until and unless someone gives you an obvious reason not to. I thought that would be assumed and understood, guess that’s on me.

Courtesy should always be given. Respect and trust are earned.

this is how the fediverse starts to take over and I am here for it

Did you skip the second sentence of my comment?

Am I religious if I say there isn’t a marble at the table? Or a walnut? I don’t see one, I have no reason to believe one is there, based on how the world works elsewhere there isn’t anything there.

But you’re telling me I need to faith to avoid these beliefs in small generally round objects. I say it is you who is using faith to assume the existence of one particular type of thing there and you’re claiming I am the person operating without any evidence.

It’s ridiculous.

What you wrote doesn’t even pass the mildest smell test: there is ample evidence that forming babies hear and react to stimuli from outside the womb, for just one example.

But even if there were no evidence of a world outside the womb, I wouldn’t expect a baby to think one existed. Nor would I threaten that baby with damnation were they not to believe me without evidence.

Atheism isn’t faith-based. If you show me reproducible evidence for the existence of a god, I’ll change my tune no problem.

You are not clear on what faith is if you believe atheism to be faith-based. Atheism wouldn’t even exist if religion did not. Because religion and unfounded beliefs are so common, there is an actual name for not believing in a god. There aren’t a lot of specific terms for a lack of belief in other things without evidence.

Here, let me rephrase what’s written above:

Because an invisible pink sky elephant cannot be disproved or proved with any non-supernatural intervention, you must grapple with the imaginary to address the issue.

…

That’s not how the world works. We don’t spend any time grappling with things for which there is no evidence.

So far, these things are clearly statistics with extra steps. Like you, I need to see some serious evidence before I would begin to believe this in the slightest.

Two modern commentators, author Albert Jack[17] and Messianic Rabbi Richard Pustelniak,[18] claim that the original meaning of the expression was that the ties between people who have made a blood covenant (or have shed blood together in battle) were stronger than ties formed by “the water of the womb”, thus “The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb”. Neither of the authors cite any sources to support their claim.

I have heard this story of the meaning being the opposite, but it comes from people with no history background who cite no sources.

So maybe the contrarians in these comments can cite some actual reasons why they’re claiming this is all wrong instead of glib rejoinders.