(September 8, 2015 at 3:28 am)Theory Wrote: I have always supported the Death Penalty when the accused has been convicted of a capital offense, and I will always support it as long as they are definitely, 100% guilty.  Such as committing murders on video and there is no denying what they did, etc.

If there is any chance they are not guilty, then the death penalty should be off limits.  Only used in rare circumstances, but its definitely necessary.  My opinion.

I happen to agree with you. I have zero issues with the execution of truly horrible people. I have met them, and I assure you that no description you could read or I could give you will ever match the horror of actually meeting them, of looking into their eyes. I've even had to face the ethical/moral challenge of whether or not to provide my legal assistance (as a "jailhouse lawyer") to a guy who was, no question in my mind whatsoever, guilty as hell of murdering an elderly gentleman in a truly horrible way... yet who was convicted and given a Life sentence (after the high court threw out the Death Penalty because of other procedural faults by the inept prosecutors) using utterly illegal means of attaining the conviction. Which was worse, I had to ask myself, letting this murderer back out on the street or letting the system get away with violating Due Process? In the end, I compromised: I refused to take his case personally, but I told him the main thing they did to convict him illegally, and left him to figure it out. Even if he comes and kills me or my loved ones, I figure that is no worse harm than the degree to which we have allowed our "unalienable" rights to be degraded.

The issue is the degree of certainty. There's what we can talk about logically, here in the forum, and what actually happens in a courtroom... and "never the twain shall meet", as the saying goes. For instance, you cite video evidence. Try watching this video and counting how many times the team in white passes the ball:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4

cephus Wrote:Belief is not the same as one's whole worldview/mindset. What you seem to be describing is more akin to skepticism and/or empiricism, which are world views where people tend to say "I don't believe it, show me the data." Atheism is merely a position of non-belief that is held by people with varying world views and ways of arriving at their beliefs. Not all atheists are skeptics or empiricists, so not all of them have a tendency to insist on data and evidence.

You're right, I shouldn't use the terms interchangeably. However, I doubt you'd find ten people of the irreligious persuasion, outside of internet forums, who'd have a problem with using "atheist mindset" as a synonym for "skeptical outlook" (or any combination of similar terms) in general conversation.

When you find me an atheist who starts with, "let's look at what the Holy Book has to say about this!", which is sort of the contention of the OP when asking what atheists tend to think, and why we're different from the religionists on this question (at least, to a measurable degree) then we can talk about the proper use of the term "atheist outlook" in regard to particular opinions that have nought to do with whether or not we consult the Universal Moral Guide From Gawd™.

What I actually was wondering when I started this thread was as an Atheist you believe there is no afterlife, when you're dead you're dead...right? Okay wouldn't that make life more precious, more valuable knowing you only go down this road once.

My problem with the death penalty is a lot less about whether or not I believe people deserve to die for doing despicable things, and a lot more about my not believing there is anyone (especially not in government) who is qualified to decide who deserves to live and who deserves to die.

(September 8, 2015 at 8:22 am)strawdawg Wrote: What I actually was wondering when I started this thread was as an Atheist you believe there is no afterlife, when you're dead you're dead...right? Okay wouldn't that make life more precious, more valuable knowing you only go down this road once.

As an atheist, I do not believe in any gods. Period, the end. As a person, I do not believe in any afterlife. Not all atheists believe in the same things. A person can believe in an afterlife and still be an atheist.

(September 8, 2015 at 8:22 am)strawdawg Wrote: What I actually was wondering when I started this thread was as an Atheist you believe there is no afterlife, when you're dead you're dead...right? Okay wouldn't that make life more precious, more valuable knowing you only go down this road once.

Well, you got your answer to that. That there is no consensus between atheists. And that's what most of us try to hammer into the heads of theists right from the beginning. The only common denominator is the absence of belief.

(September 8, 2015 at 8:49 am)abaris Wrote:

(September 8, 2015 at 8:22 am)strawdawg Wrote: What I actually was wondering when I started this thread was as an Atheist you believe there is no afterlife, when you're dead you're dead...right? Okay wouldn't that make life more precious, more valuable knowing you only go down this road once.

Well, you got your answer to that. That there is no consensus between atheists. And that's what most of us try to hammer into the heads of theists right from the beginning. The only common denominator is the absence of belief.

And also "into the heads of" people who've been atheist activists for 20 years, and yet didn't get The Memo™ that atheism is defined simply as lack of belief in god(s), since there's no other way to employ that terminology or to describe general views of people who have rejected popular god-beliefs as plausible explanations of reality. Apparently.

Because it's really really really important that people understand that humans are individuals and won't all agree, and atheists are humans.

Because that's not in any way related to the No True Scotsman game the Christians like to play when we point out their general views on various subjects.