What is the Most Fanatically Irreligious Thing You've Heard?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

How about one of my own?
"I don't consider religious people to be as capable of rationality and critical thought as their non-religious brethren. If I was going to ask someone for help to solve a problem that required a rational and/or empirical way of thinking, I would sooner - all other things being equal - ask the non-religious person than the religious one."

Skeleon:

Witty Name Here:
In all honesty I think that Anti-Theists can be worse then even some of the most crazy Theists.

That is an insane insult considering the lack (or at least extreme rarity?) of church-bombing Anti-Theists.

There have been quite a few instances of church arson by satanists here in Norway.

It's really annoying, because they insist on setting fire to old stave churches which, regardless of their religious affiliations, are important pieces of cultural heritage from the early second millenium.

Jonluw:
How about one of my own?
"I don't consider religious people to be as capable of rationality and critical thought as their non-religious brethren. If I was going to ask someone for help to solve a problem that required a rational and/or empirical way of thinking, I would sooner - all other things being equal - ask the non-religious person than the religious one."

That's not very fanatical, is it? It's merely a person who hasn't really grasped the concept of compartmentalizing.

After all, people can think very logically and rationally regarding certain things, but have their rationality suspended completely when it comes to belief in a divine being.

And yes, I am saying quite clearly that all belief in divine beings is 100% irrational, because there is no rational cause whatsoever for such belief.

Elcarsh:

Jonluw:
How about one of my own?
"I don't consider religious people to be as capable of rationality and critical thought as their non-religious brethren. If I was going to ask someone for help to solve a problem that required a rational and/or empirical way of thinking, I would sooner - all other things being equal - ask the non-religious person than the religious one."

That's not very fanatical, is it? It's merely a person who hasn't really grasped the concept of compartmentalizing.

I didn't think it was, but the person I was talking to at the time seemed to take it rather badly.

After all, people can think very logically and rationally regarding certain things, but have their rationality suspended completely when it comes to belief in a divine being.

Of course. I wasn't saying religious people can't be rational in other areas. My point was that if I'm offered help with a problem that requires rational thought by two people about whom all I know is that one is religious and the other is not, I'm going to go with the non-religious one, as I then don't have to deal with what little chance there is that they aren't compartmentalizing.
If there was a third person who believed in ouija boards and tarot cards, I would rather go with the religious person than that one.

Hello my name is Christopher Hitchens.

Jonluw:
Of course. I wasn't saying religious people can't be rational in other areas. My point was that if I'm offered help with a problem that requires rational thought by two people about whom all I know is that one is religious and the other is not, I'm going to go with the non-religious one, as I then don't have to deal with what little chance there is that they aren't compartmentalizing.
If there was a third person who believed in ouija boards and tarot cards, I would rather go with the religious person than that one.

I can't argue with that. If the choice was between someone who stuck to rationality and proven concepts, and a person who believed something completely unproven and irrational, like the existence of a god, then the latter would not be my pick.

Witty Name Here:
But since it seems this thread has begun to bring the worst out of me (and by the look of your, Boris, and Elcarsh's posts it looks like some people want to see me go mad) I can only guess that trying to be reasonable and diplomatic is something you can't seem to grasp, so I'm just going to end it here with a "screw you" to most people.

Wait, did you just try to make yourself look more diplomatic and reasonable by telling two people to screw themselves?

What the shit?

Solve Media: it happens.

Yes, Solve, it does, but why does it happen?!

The most anti religious thing is, in my opinion, the fact that there are so darn many of them, most with very big differences in what they believe. And they all claim to be the true believers.

Elcarsh:

And yes, I am saying quite clearly that all belief in divine beings is 100% irrational, because there is no rational cause whatsoever for such belief.

There clearly are some rational reasons someone might have to believe in a deity. It is absurd to think otherwise.

Agema:
There clearly are some rational reasons someone might have to believe in a deity. It is absurd to think otherwise.

Which would that be?

Confirmed sightings? Nope, not one.

Confirmed cases of diving healing? Nope, not one.

Confirmed cases of the hand of god descending from the heavens to strike down an army major claiming that the UK will always need a military? Only one.

I'm honestly having trouble finding them. Where are the reasons that do not vainly appeal to emotions, IE are irrational?

Agema:

Elcarsh:

And yes, I am saying quite clearly that all belief in divine beings is 100% irrational, because there is no rational cause whatsoever for such belief.

There clearly are some rational reasons someone might have to believe in a deity. It is absurd to think otherwise.

That's a very... 'convincing' argument. Saying there clearly are some rational reasons without actually mentioning any of them is kind of the wrong way to go about it. Simply saying that to disagree with you is absurd doesn't make up for the lack of rational reasons you've provided.

Elcarsh:

I'm honestly having trouble finding them. Where are the reasons that do not vainly appeal to emotions, IE are irrational?

I would suggest that when one looks at all the evidence surrounding whether a deity exists, it would be rational to not believe. However, that does not mean that to believe in a deity is entirely without rationality.

As a simple example, we could consider how we amass knowledge. Clearly, we believe stuff and it would be rational to believe stuff because someone we trust tells us so. A huge chunk of the arguments in this forum for instance are: "X is the case because Y says so".

That a belief through this method might be less compelling than all the evidence against does not invalidate that believing people is a reasonable thing to do.

* * *

Of course, we can also consider what rationality is and means, as the rationality of belief in a deity may vary considerably by how we define rationality.

Agema:

Elcarsh:

I'm honestly having trouble finding them. Where are the reasons that do not vainly appeal to emotions, IE are irrational?

I would suggest that when one looks at all the evidence surrounding whether a deity exists, it would be rational to not believe. However, that does not mean that to believe in a deity is entirely without rationality.

As a simple example, we could consider how we amass knowledge. Clearly, we believe stuff and it would be rational to believe stuff because someone we trust tells us so. A huge chunk of the arguments in this forum for instance are: "X is the case because Y says so".

That a belief through this method might be less compelling than all the evidence against does not invalidate that believing people is a reasonable thing to do.

* * *

Of course, we can also consider what rationality is and means, as the rationality of belief in a deity may vary considerably by how we define rationality.

This is something I wonder about a lot. Does "rational" refer to simply being internally consistent and based on the best of someone's understanding, even if the rationale may be flawed and/or lacking in key facts and they're simply unaware of it for the time being?

Or does our standard for what is "rational" involve a broader approach than the knowledge and experience of one arbitrary individual, i.e. it doesn't matter if they're unaware if their stance is incorrect.

It strikes me that calling someone "irrational" for a simple lack of awareness is like calling someone a "liar" for stating something incorrect that they genuinely thought was correct.

In my experience, substituting the word "mistaken" or "wrong" in place of "irrational" goes a long way.

Oirish_Martin:

This is something I wonder about a lot. Does "rational" refer to simply being internally consistent and based on the best of someone's understanding, even if the rationale may be flawed and/or lacking in key facts and they're simply unaware of it for the time being?

Or does our standard for what is "rational" involve a broader approach than the knowledge and experience of one arbitrary individual, i.e. it doesn't matter if they're unaware if their stance is incorrect.

It strikes me that calling someone "irrational" for a simple lack of awareness is like calling someone a "liar" for stating something incorrect that they genuinely thought was correct.

In my experience, substituting the word "mistaken" or "wrong" in place of "irrational" goes a long way.

Yes, I largely agree.

The ability to make a correct judgement is entirely dependent on information available. Each of us has different available information on any one topic. Furthermore, we may 'weigh' different sources of information by different amounts. Hence as far as I'm concerned, rationality does not equate to making a correct statment about what is true, and being irrational does not equate to making an inaccurate statement about what is true. One can be wrong for the right reasons and right for the wrong reasons.

Furthermore, humans are not rational beings, but beings capable of rationality. A fully rational human in the sense of as a computer would be - data in, pure number crunching, analysis out - does not exist. We're all carrying a load of emotional baggage.

To a certain extent, I think "irrational" has simply become a less obviously rude way of calling people who disagree "stupid": 'yah boo sucks, you are crap at thinking'.

Agema:
I would suggest that when one looks at all the evidence surrounding whether a deity exists, it would be rational to not believe. However, that does not mean that to believe in a deity is entirely without rationality.

As a simple example, we could consider how we amass knowledge. Clearly, we believe stuff and it would be rational to believe stuff because someone we trust tells us so. A huge chunk of the arguments in this forum for instance are: "X is the case because Y says so".

That a belief through this method might be less compelling than all the evidence against does not invalidate that believing people is a reasonable thing to do.

* * *

Of course, we can also consider what rationality is and means, as the rationality of belief in a deity may vary considerably by how we define rationality.

I still want to know what the rational reasons for belief in a deity are. I'm not being snide here, I genuinely want to know what it was that you were referring to when you made that statement.

I don't like fluff. Trying to muddle the issue until there is nothing concrete to debate anymore is not cool, but unfortunately that's what people tend to default to when it comes to religion. Why are people so willing to jump through hoops for their reasoning to make sense?

Oirish_Martin:
This is something I wonder about a lot. Does "rational" refer to simply being internally consistent and based on the best of someone's understanding, even if the rationale may be flawed and/or lacking in key facts and they're simply unaware of it for the time being?

Or does our standard for what is "rational" involve a broader approach than the knowledge and experience of one arbitrary individual, i.e. it doesn't matter if they're unaware if their stance is incorrect.

It strikes me that calling someone "irrational" for a simple lack of awareness is like calling someone a "liar" for stating something incorrect that they genuinely thought was correct.

In my experience, substituting the word "mistaken" or "wrong" in place of "irrational" goes a long way.

Simple; I use the word "rational" to mean "Reasoned, and unencumbered by emotional judgments". It's not synonymous with "mistaken" at all, because you can still be right, but I think irrationality is a piss poor way of arriving at reliable facts. If you want to know how the world really works, rejecting rationality fucks you over, plain and simple.

Agema:
Furthermore, humans are not rational beings, but beings capable of rationality. A fully rational human in the sense of as a computer would be - data in, pure number crunching, analysis out - does not exist. We're all carrying a load of emotional baggage.

Which is why I never stated that humans should always be 100% rational at all times. But I do argue that, when the time comes to figure out what exists and what doesn't, and how the universe works, then rationality is the way to go.

Agema:
To a certain extent, I think "irrational" has simply become a less obviously rude way of calling people who disagree "stupid": 'yah boo sucks, you are crap at thinking'.

If you want to interpret it that way, then that is unfortunate for you, since you're wrong.

Elcarsh:

I still want to know what the rational reasons for belief in a deity are. I'm not being snide here, I genuinely want to know what it was that you were referring to when you made that statement.

I think you might be working under the belief that I'm saying there is independent, objective evidence for the existence of deities - I'm not.

Elcarsh:

Agema:
To a certain extent, I think "irrational" has simply become a less obviously rude way of calling people who disagree "stupid": 'yah boo sucks, you are crap at thinking'.

If you want to interpret it that way, then that is unfortunate for you, since you're wrong.

That was not aimed at you personally. But there are people I think do use it that way.

Elcarsh:

I still want to know what the rational reasons for belief in a deity are. I'm not being snide here, I genuinely want to know what it was that you were referring to when you made that statement.

I think you might be working under the belief that I'm saying there is independent, objective evidence for the existence of deities - I'm not.

Elcarsh:

Agema:
To a certain extent, I think "irrational" has simply become a less obviously rude way of calling people who disagree "stupid": 'yah boo sucks, you are crap at thinking'.

If you want to interpret it that way, then that is unfortunate for you, since you're wrong.

That was not aimed at you personally. But there are people I think do use it that way.

Elcarsh:

Agema:
There clearly are some rational reasons someone might have to believe in a deity. It is absurd to think otherwise.

Which would that be?

Confirmed sightings? Nope, not one.

Confirmed cases of diving healing? Nope, not one.

Confirmed cases of the hand of god descending from the heavens to strike down an army major claiming that the UK will always need a military? Only one.

I'm honestly having trouble finding them. Where are the reasons that do not vainly appeal to emotions, IE are irrational?

The only truly rational one that I can come up with is conversion under duress.

"Convert or die" was a pretty common recruitment tactic back in the bad ol' days for a lot of religions. Not wanting to die is pretty rational, IMO.

These days, it seems to be more about "keep up appearances and pay lip service or our congregation will make your life a living nightmare that you can only escape by moving away". There's lots of people that attend church religiously (see what I did there?) who don't actually believe in a word of it.

Agema:

Elcarsh:

I'm honestly having trouble finding them. Where are the reasons that do not vainly appeal to emotions, IE are irrational?

I would suggest that when one looks at all the evidence surrounding whether a deity exists, it would be rational to not believe. However, that does not mean that to believe in a deity is entirely without rationality.

As a simple example, we could consider how we amass knowledge. Clearly, we believe stuff and it would be rational to believe stuff because someone we trust tells us so. A huge chunk of the arguments in this forum for instance are: "X is the case because Y says so".

That a belief through this method might be less compelling than all the evidence against does not invalidate that believing people is a reasonable thing to do.

* * *

Of course, we can also consider what rationality is and means, as the rationality of belief in a deity may vary considerably by how we define rationality.

There's a limit to how reasonable believing what people tell you is though, and there are circumstances to help make it more reasonable. For instance being able to verify what they say in certain instances. It would make it less likely they would bother to lie to you if you can prove them wrong later and makes trusting them something you can correct later. It isn't automatically reasonable to trust what others say, circumstances dictate that.

Dags90:
This thread is just Mod-bait. It's slightly less transparent than asking us to post our hottest pr0nz. This is what Sarah Palin would call a "gotcha" question. Or as Admiral Ackbar would say, "it's a trap!"

Troll my post history and see what pops up, I've been modded a few times. I know at least one of them had to do with people believing silly things.

Actually I think Sarah Palin calls any question she gets wrong a "Gotcha question" or one that has no wrong answer but her answer makes her look really stupid.

Like if I asked you "Whats your favourite cereal?" and you answered "I hate Jews.", your political career would probably be over and in that sense you were "got" but the question itself was legitimate.

Jonluw:
There have been quite a few instances of church arson by satanists here in Norway.

Hm, what kind of Satanists? And are we talking about Anti-Theists as a subgroup of Atheists now or about Anti-Theists as a group opposed to mainstream Theistic religion in general?

I wouldn't call it fanatically irreligious, but I really dislike this quote:

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil-that takes religion.

It reeks of bias. Religion is hardly the only motivator for people to do things they might otherwise not do.

Skeleon:

Jonluw:
There have been quite a few instances of church arson by satanists here in Norway.

Hm, what kind of Satanists? And are we talking about Anti-Theists as a subgroup of Atheists now or about Anti-Theists as a group opposed to mainstream Theistic religion in general?

What kind of satanists indeed.
We're mostly talking about people from the black metal culture here. Whether they're religious satanists or more along the lines of LaVeyan seems to vary, but their wish is to erase all traces of religious and judaistic influence on the country. They seem to be rather anti-semitic as well.
I think the easiest way to explain it would be to link you to an interview with Gaahl.

Edit: I guess we're really talking about anti-theists as a subgroup of satanists. This includes theistic satanists who mean people are doing it wrong and atheistic satanists who hate everything related to religion.

Edit: It appears there was nothing in particular about the church burnings in that video.
Weird. I could've sworn there was something.

Jonluw:
We're mostly talking about people from the black metal culture here. Whether they're religious satanists or more along the lines of LaVeyan seems to vary, but their wish is to erase all traces of religious and judaistic influence on the country. They seem to be rather anti-semitic as well.

You mean frustrated Christian kids who reach puberty and respond to Christian oppression in their upbringing by doing weird things such as only wearing black and pretending to worship Satan?

Blablahb:

Jonluw:
We're mostly talking about people from the black metal culture here. Whether they're religious satanists or more along the lines of LaVeyan seems to vary, but their wish is to erase all traces of religious and judaistic influence on the country. They seem to be rather anti-semitic as well.

You mean frustrated Christian kids who reach puberty and respond to Christian oppression in their upbringing by doing weird things such as only wearing black and pretending to worship Satan?

Yeah, and burning churches and killing eachother.

I don't see how satanism and anyone's reasons for picking it up are any less valid than the number of other religions and reasons out there.
Although I guess you can say they "pretend" to worship satan in the sense that what they're worshipping is the ideals they see as impersonated in satan.
i.e. The adversary. The whole goat/sheep thing. The christians willingly describe themselves as sheep, while describing the goat which has a free mind and a will of its own, as evil and the agent of satan.

And I would say they're rather more extreme than what you portray them as.
The guy from that interview for example, grew up and lives in near complete isolation. He's been convicted for a couple of cases of torture.
He seems to be taking it a few steps further than dressing in black to shock his parents.

Jonluw:

Skeleon:

Witty Name Here:
In all honesty I think that Anti-Theists can be worse then even some of the most crazy Theists.

That is an insane insult considering the lack (or at least extreme rarity?) of church-bombing Anti-Theists.

There have been quite a few instances of church arson by satanists here in Norway.

It's really annoying, because they insist on setting fire to old stave churches which, regardless of their religious affiliations, are important pieces of cultural heritage from the early second millenium.

Oooooh that is a very lovely architecture

I really do admire the aesthetics of many religions

Marik2:

Jonluw:

Skeleon:

That is an insane insult considering the lack (or at least extreme rarity?) of church-bombing Anti-Theists.

There have been quite a few instances of church arson by satanists here in Norway.

It's really annoying, because they insist on setting fire to old stave churches which, regardless of their religious affiliations, are important pieces of cultural heritage from the early second millenium.

Oooooh that is a very lovely architecture

I really do admire the aesthetics of many religions

To be fair, stave churches are more like a Norse interpretation of christian churches than they are christian architecture in themselves.
I'd rather call it the aesthetics of a culture than the aesthetic of a religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stave_church

Jonluw:

Marik2:

Jonluw:
There have been quite a few instances of church arson by satanists here in Norway.

It's really annoying, because they insist on setting fire to old stave churches which, regardless of their religious affiliations, are important pieces of cultural heritage from the early second millenium.

Oooooh that is a very lovely architecture

I really do admire the aesthetics of many religions

To be fair, stave churches are more like a Norse interpretation of christian churches than they are christian architecture in themselves.
I'd rather call it the aesthetics of a culture than the aesthetic of a religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stave_church

Ah I see, still interesting seeing different cultures take on a foreign religion

Marik2:

Jonluw:

Marik2:

Oooooh that is a very lovely architecture

I really do admire the aesthetics of many religions

To be fair, stave churches are more like a Norse interpretation of christian churches than they are christian architecture in themselves.
I'd rather call it the aesthetics of a culture than the aesthetic of a religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stave_church

Ah I see, still interesting seeing different cultures take on a foreign religion

Heh, yeah it's also interesting to hear stories about how conquerors take on foreign religion.
Like the stories about how Olav the Holy (The guy who made christianity the national religion) would force vipers down people's throats if they didn't agree to be baptized.

Hmmm...well, if fiction counts, then I think a couple of lines from Horus Rising were quite zealously non-religious. Can't remember exactly what they are though :(

Witty Name Here:

First off, I never once, at any point, claimed being called "Brainwashed" was on the same level of "degaying therapy", secondly all you have are vague assumptions on what the "story" was about. Tell me, if you had someone make a mocking story in which that someone you care deeply about or look up to was raped then made into that persons "bitch" then when a child came along he began to rape the person also. In between wanting to punch the person who told the story in the teeth, would you not be offended? I made a simple statement, that I personally believe Anti-Theists are about on the same level as zealous evangelical christians, yet I might as well have said "I murder babies and am trying to build a death camp" with some of the reactions I got. If anything you have an incredibly weak skin if you're offended by a simple statement like that.

But since it seems this thread has begun to bring the worst out of me (and by the look of your, Boris, and Elcarsh's posts it looks like some people want to see me go mad) I can only guess that trying to be reasonable and diplomatic is something you can't seem to grasp, so I'm just going to end it here with a "screw you" to most people. I'm glad my interest in your backwards old folk faith died off relatively quickly, it seems that a great deal of people on these boards support bigotry and intolerance as long as it's "sticking it to the filthy christian masses", it's such a wonderful thing to know that underneath all that pompous talk of being "enlightened and reasonable" some Atheists can just be as zealous and mad as the christians they love to insult so dearly.

Well, so long and farewell Escapist. From the R&P forums to the Off-Topic, this is my goodbye. With one special "Screw You" to Polarity, Elcarsh, and Skeleon.

And this, ladies and gents, is why some people should just stay the hell off the Escapist R&P forum.

Elcarsh:
Simple; I use the word "rational" to mean "Reasoned, and unencumbered by emotional judgments". It's not synonymous with "mistaken" at all, because you can still be right, but I think irrationality is a piss poor way of arriving at reliable facts. If you want to know how the world really works, rejecting rationality fucks you over, plain and simple.

Ok, fine, you seem to be talking whether or not a methodology is rational or irrational, I think my objection was based more on what one knows to be true and reasonable about a specific argument.

just have a look at the comments on any story that involves islam or something that involves someone who is jewish. the amount of anti religious hate calling for the extermination of both groups if frankly scary

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked