Is there a general distain of Christianity on the forums?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 . . . 17 NEXT
 

Wolverine18:

keinechance:

Wolverine18:

Already answered, it doesn't matter if he is. Like I said, some people can't see past a timeline.

That is correct, as I am not omnipotent and omniscient.

And it seems the God you propose is not omnipotent and omniscient either.

The "God" you propose seems indistinguishable from non-sentient natural phenomena.

I haven't actually proposed any god. I believe in the Einsteinian view of god and thus can propose nothing specific.

What I said was, it doesn't matter if he can see the future or not, it doesn't change if people have free will or not, it only changes if he will know their final decision if such a god was omniscient.

If my choice was free will and there is no god, then it doesn't stop being free will just because some creature can see what choice I will make by glancing ahead in the timeline.

And of course if multiverse theory is correct and every choice creates a separate universe, then such an omniscient being would see you would make every choice and praise you where you made a good choice and punish you for bad choices you made.

Your view of time is just very simplistic.

Since I percieve only in this one linear timeline, it is very simplistic.

And why would the God in your multiverse praise you or punish you?

Why allow such things in the first place?

Lilani:

keinechance:
I have watched it.

Not a single piece of evidence for the existence of Jesus.

A lot of heresay and storys of personal experience.

"I have no idea what human words I would use to try to articulate who or what God is"

"I can articulate what I believe my experience of God is"

To me that seems, he has no idea what he is talking about, but believes it anyway.

Again, I'm not trying to prove anything to you. I'm just trying to show you there are flavors of Christianity that extend beyond pure Bible literalism.

I know that there are different "flavors of Christianity", every person who identifies as christian is different from the next.

But no matter if you are a fundamentalist or not, the foundation of your belief has no evidence to support it, and you still believe in it.

keinechance:
But no matter if you are a fundamentalist or not, the foundation of your belief has no evidence to support it, and you still believe in it.

That is correct. Not much else I can say to that, apart from maybe, "so?" My faith is a bit more complicated than that, but yeah. I can't prove it. And if I'm not hurting you with it, is it really that big of a problem?

Lilani:

keinechance:
But no matter if you are a fundamentalist or not, the foundation of your belief has no evidence to support it, and you still believe in it.

That is correct. Not much else I can say to that, apart from maybe, "so?" My faith is a bit more complicated than that, but yeah. I can't prove it. And if I'm not hurting you with it, is it really that big of a problem?

I am concerned that you are hurting yourself with your "Belief without evidence".

It opens the way for a lot of irrational thoughts and takes you away from what is real.

Witty Name Here:

Oirish_Martin:

So can you maybe begin to understand now why some atheists have a little bit of a hair-trigger response to Christianity, because they keep get shat on by them?

This thread is not the best way to start off my day, but I feel this warrants a response.

And yes, I do, however the fact of the matter is that, to a point, I at least tried to work with them. I'd agree with them when they began talking about how disgusting groups like the WBC were and how we should work to change them. I agreed with them when they talked about how Evolution shouldn't be substituted for classes on creationism in public school. I'd debate with them from time to time, I'm sure you remember that "are atheists truly moral?" thing between us a while back, but if I felt I was wrong I'd concede and agree that they were right and I was wrong. But you know what all that earned me?

Absolutely nothing. I'd be hated entirely by the community when they wanted to hate me, nothing I said before mattered, I said something that could be misconstrued as "bigotry" and they latched onto it the first chance they got. It was at that point I realized that deep inside they don't want some Liberal Christian they can have a semi-reasonable debate with, they want a total and complete zealot, they want a mad "crusader" of christianity, just so when they argue and debate with him, they have the pleasure of being totally and completely morally superior.

Why should a debate with one or two atheistic members of the board "earn" you the respect you thought you deserved? Did the people you took offence to even participate there, or see it?

It's like assuming that because I was nice to one or two Christians here in a thread that meant all Christians should respect me and not call me on a mistake I made (especially if I make a grossly unfair generalisation about them - and no shortage of people willing to call bullshit on those on this board). You're not a hive mind, and generally we're told we shouldn't lump you all together - so.....why should the same be true for outspoken atheists?

Because let's be clear - you did make a mistake comparing the worst of theism and antitheism, and people called you on it. Accusing atheists/antitheists with the same false equivalency they face regularly in society is not the action of someone interested in debate. It's not hating you when it became convenient, it's that agreeing on other issues doesn't change the fact that you said something wrong and it doesn't make you immune to being called on it.

And if you think being a zealot crusader ISN'T what's required here, why are you suddenly talking like one?

Oirish_Martin:
But the worst Christians ARE those who commit acts of terrorism. Bombing abortion clinics etc.

The problem with saying "the worst" means that no-one knows that you only meant loudmouth fundies as people are generally aware of worse behaviour by Christians than that - and instead of acknowledging that you massively f'ed up the communication if that's NOT what you meant, you went on a massive drama queen rant.

I. DID. THOUGH.

I don't know why "clarification" is such a hard concept for people to understand. I mentioned twice that what I was saying was being misconstrued and that I never meant the things they were trying to claim I meant.

Like in this post.

*snip*

And that was ignored in favor of just calling me a bigot.

Let's quote the first one in full:

Witty Name Here:

Well it appears I set off a landmine on that one.

I wasn't referring to Extremism (in the sense of murder and suicide bombings), but "Crazy" in the sense of the Westboro Baptist Church, a bunch of Jackasses who go around screeching their beliefs and telling everyone they're going to hell.

I never said "All anti theists are suicide bombing nutjobs" and in all honesty I think you're overreacting... A lot.

Plus, while there is a lack of Anti Theists bombing churches compared to Zealots bombing temples or something along those lines, that doesn't make Anti-Theists any less threatening then religious extremists. I've had those people call me brainwashed, I had one of them even say that "Killing religious people would be a mercy" so before you go off on some tangent defending them, just know that they're just as willing to screech and threaten death to anyone with even the vaguest form of religious beliefs.

You made the exact same incorrect claim in your clarification. And the point is still unchanged, you're unlikely to come across organised antitheistic opposition the kind of which we're seeing coming from Christians. Antitheists should not make violent remarks of that kind - no side should - but the fact remains that you're a lot more likely to face suppression from theists than antitheists.

Oirish_Martin:
And you're doing....what, exactly?

Clarifying my reasons for my growing hatred of them.

And not just freaking out because someone said something mean, like you accused your opponents of?

Oirish_Martin:
Not because of their position. People hated what you said because of, funnily enough, what you said, not because you're Christian so everything automatically fails.

Regardless of whether they hated what I said because of my christianity or what I said, the fact is simply this. I tried to clarify my point, that failed because I (idiotically enough) continued to think that Anti-Theists have the capacity to threaten someone with death just as much a religious zealot.

So....you think it was idiotic. So you agree that it was wrong. So....you accept that people's complaints in that thread were actually valid?

Oirish_Martin:
No. Because it's false equivalency. Which is the same shit that a lot of atheists have to put with all the time. Merely making strident criticisms is enough to get you labelled militant.

I make this point a lot, but it bears repeating - in the UK (a place I previously thought was somewhat sane towards nonbelief) an atheist won a case that established a precedent where council prayers would have to be held off the clock, i.e. not on official council time. This spawned a week of daft headlines about MILITANT ATHEIST SECULARISM, most of which missed the point. We had a peer of the realm accuse us of being totalitarian, she then went sucking up to the pope who had previously explicitly equated us to the Nazis (and he would know, wouldn't he?!).

You know what else happened in the UK that week? A Christian couple were in the courts appealing their conviction for discrimination against a gay couple that they turned away from their hotel (and talk about rights all you want, it came out in court that they'd had no problem letting unmarried heterosexual couples stay there, so they're hardly being consistent), and also that week saw the end of the trial of Abu Qatada, a Muslim hate preacher.

But no, an atheist using the court to establish reform via precedent (i.e. properly)? Clearly this is the real problem here!

Once more. Putting words in my mouth. I can agree that christian prayers should be kept off official time for a government related job, and I think both of the examples you mentioned deserve to go to jail. Yet why should I feel pity for the "poor atheists"? You know how many people claim to be made into Atheists/Anti-Theists when the majority of Christians they met, including priests, turned out to be self-righteous nutters or, essentially, hate preachers? Well you can say the opposite for me. With exception of about two or three that I met online, virtually every single Atheist I've spoken to has shown some stubborn unreasonableness or made pompous claims "superiority" to me, so forgive me if I find it a bit "difficult" to be moved to even slight pity for them.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm not saying that you're a Christian so you must be against the atheists in the UK.

My point is that you got a bad reaction because you posed a false equivalency between the behaviour of contemporary antitheists and contemporary theists. Making false equivalencies is something that is done regularly in order to diminish the public opinion of atheists. Not to say that the stakes are as high, but it's like casually using the n-word to a group of black people - use of it doesn't mean you're automatically a systematic racist or as bad as the KKK, but it DOES belie a massive lack of sensitivity to the issues of the group you're talking about (it can also belie a lack of understanding of the privilege the utterer holds).

And y'know, not to preach, but it now seems like indeed you are behaving towards antitheists the way you claim they act towards theists (a way you evidently think is hurtful and unfair). Isn't that somewhat hypocritical?

keinechance:
I am concerned that you are hurting yourself with your "Belief without evidence".

It opens the way for a lot of irrational thoughts and takes you away from what is real.

I hate to sound conceited, but I'm afraid you still know very little about me, my beliefs, why, and how I hold them. Is your concern rooted in your understanding of my personal faith, or in a general stereotype you have rooted in your head of what religion and faith entail? If the first, I would like to know a few more specifics based on what I do with my faith and why those things hurt me. If the second, I would kindly ask you to learn a bit more about me before becoming too concerned, and think hard about whether you are doing this for my benefit or for yours.

Lilani:

keinechance:
I am concerned that you are hurting yourself with your "Belief without evidence".

It opens the way for a lot of irrational thoughts and takes you away from what is real.

I hate to sound conceited, but I'm afraid you still know very little about me, my beliefs, why, and how I hold them. Is your concern rooted in your understanding of my personal faith, or in a general stereotype you have rooted in your head of what religion and faith entail? If the first, I would like to know a few more specifics based on what I do with my faith and why those things hurt me. If the second, I would kindly ask you to learn a bit more about me before becoming too concerned, and think hard about whether you are doing this for my benefit or for yours.

Then let me ask you this:

Are you a faithful person?

And if yes, what does being faithfull mean for you?

keinechance:

YOU make a positiv claim, i.e. God exists.

I made no such claim to you.

keinechance:
YOU have to provide evidence for the existence of your God.

Again, I never told you that the divine exist.

keinechance:

Unless you can provide such evidence, there is no reason to give your baseless claim of a God any credibility.

So then you don't have an alternative idea?

keinechance:

I am concerned that you are hurting yourself with your "Belief without evidence".

It opens the way for a lot of irrational thoughts and takes you away from what is real.

You realize that, that is a slipper slope fallacy, right? Try again.

Lilani:

keinechance:
Then please do me a favor.

Take a bible and highlight all the things that are "historical" in yellow, highlight all the things that are "fables" in blue, and all things where you are not sure in red.

Otherwise I won't know what to address specifically.

If you go by the etymology of the word "Christian," from the words Christ and the Greek ianos which means to follow, Christians are just Christ followers. So really, going by that, the only text that really matters is the teachings of Jesus. And many Bibles already have that highlighted in red. So if you want a pretty good representation of what I personally take from the Bible, just track down one of those red letter Bibles and you'll be good.

I disagree that the only part that really matters are the red bits. Just seems like there's a huge and very important middle ground between "follow the entire Bible completely literally" and "just read what Jesus said", where the rest of the Bible is treated the way other religions that don't have revealed texts (i.e. text dictated by a deity) treat their lore. They're the stories entire peoples told each other about their god and themselves, there's a wealth of contextual information in there about their culture and how that culture informs what your religion thinks and does-- since your Jesus is a product of that culture, understanding what's in there is, I'd think, fairly important clues to understand Jesus. Admittedly, having revealed text means you need those clues less than polytheists do (who *only* have the few campfire stories that actually got written down and whatever archaeologists have managed to figure out from the things they've dug up), but I'd still think them important to what you do.

keinechance:

I have watched it.

Not a single piece of evidence for the existence of Jesus.

A lot of heresay and storys of personal experience.

"I have no idea what human words I would use to try to articulate who or what God is"

"I can articulate what I believe my experience of God is"

To me that seems, he has no idea what he is talking about, but believes it anyway.

To me it says something different. Look, that's what spirituality *is*, personal experiences. Spirituality is a thing you do, it's inherently experiential. That's always going to be the problem, people will have enough evidence to sway them but because that evidence is in the form of experiences, it'll never be enough evidence to sway someone else (who has completely different perceptual filters and completely different experiences). I'd say almost exactly the same thing about my own experiences, that I have no idea who or what the Gods ultimately are and don't believe it *can* be known at this time, but I know what my own experiences have been. That's what my wing of religions calls "UPG", unverified personal gnosis; all of your personal spiritual experiences, theories, and beliefs. "Shared" gnosis is what happens in religion, where you have multiple people who agree on a common worldview finding out that their UPG on deity X is strikingly similar.

The trouble is when people expect their UPG or shared gnosis to matter to people outside themselves or outside of the group. Spong knows what he's talking about to the degree that it can be known, but it's really not relevant to either one of us except as an anthropological curiosity. That it's irrational to you is equally irrelevant to Spong-- he knows his own mind and experiences better than you do. And there, but for the persistent and annoying idea that one (two, counting Islam) religion is universal and we're all supposed to have the same experiences, it would (and should) lie.

keinechance:

Lilani:

keinechance:
But no matter if you are a fundamentalist or not, the foundation of your belief has no evidence to support it, and you still believe in it.

That is correct. Not much else I can say to that, apart from maybe, "so?" My faith is a bit more complicated than that, but yeah. I can't prove it. And if I'm not hurting you with it, is it really that big of a problem?

I am concerned that you are hurting yourself with your "Belief without evidence".

It opens the way for a lot of irrational thoughts and takes you away from what is real.

Question: why is that your business? Why did you appoint yourself her keeper, and will you be reviewing the other relationships she has in her life to see if, by your standards, they are helpful or harmful to her?

What is it you're trying to get out of that conversation, are you actively trying to change her, or are you needling her to entertain yourself?

Nah, I don't think it's that bad, just the people who use religion as their reason of having bat-shit crazy ideas that are obviously outdated. That's where the "disdain"(?) come's from I think.

Polarity27:

keinechance:

Lilani:

That is correct. Not much else I can say to that, apart from maybe, "so?" My faith is a bit more complicated than that, but yeah. I can't prove it. And if I'm not hurting you with it, is it really that big of a problem?

I am concerned that you are hurting yourself with your "Belief without evidence".

It opens the way for a lot of irrational thoughts and takes you away from what is real.

Question: why is that your business? Why did you appoint yourself her keeper, and will you be reviewing the other relationships she has in her life to see if, by your standards, they are helpful or harmful to her?

What is it you're trying to get out of that conversation, are you actively trying to change her, or are you needling her to entertain yourself?

He shouldn't take a particular interest in her in a personal, individual level, but there is something to be said about the gates that position opens and the avenues that suddenly present themselves. For example: to believe in god, in itself an irrational act, is the same for everyone.

Now, you, as a believer, may belong to a perfectly adequate and civic religious culture that identifies its good moral values as derived from some kind of supernatural source. If you meet a fellow atheist, or fellow believer of a different faith not unlike your own, and nevertheless you'd find out that all of your particular morals are compatible with each other. Good, right? Well, duh.

Now, on the other side of the coin, you could find believers, just as you, but that belong to a different culture with different values which, in their mind, are better than yours and, also in their minds, theirs are also derived from a deity--except that theirs is the real one and yours isn't--they're sure of it. And, from there they could go on towards pursuing and then justifying whatever amoral acts you could think of so long as they had the blessing of their faith.

Now, throw in an atheist; he may be a abrasive, he may be disrespectful, and he may be a rather manipulating hypocrite; and yet, he's a dick b/c of who he is and he cannot hide it. There is no in-built irrationality based justification in his belief system that grants him, in his mind, any kind of moral superiority over you as a person, or over anything else. If he does hurt you, look down on you, or demean you, he has no social or cultural institutions to appeal to for justification, or even anything to look forward to as a kind of payment if one day did decide to hurt you--It's all on him.

An atheist will never be bale to justify his action in the name of some supernatural entity that grants him/her dominion over anyone, or anything.

Renegade-pizza:
I remember a topic a while back about why people vote Republican and pretty much all the responses mentioned Christianity and said bigotry involved.
Now be perfectly honest, is there just a hatred/bigotry towards this religion?

Yes, I am a christian, but I'm open minded, believe in evolution, gay-marriage etc. and I despise fanatics who know horseshit about the religion.

EDIT: I don't mean just the fanatics, I got a vibe of a hatred towards the religion itself.

how would you defend your open-mindedness?

Helmholtz Watson:
So then you don't have an alternative idea?

Do you have ANY idea at all?

Helmholtz Watson:

keinechance:

I am concerned that you are hurting yourself with your "Belief without evidence".

It opens the way for a lot of irrational thoughts and takes you away from what is real.

You realize that, that is a slipper slope fallacy, right? Try again.

If my fear, that the acceptance of one thing without good reason will make it easier to accept more things without good reason is a fallacy, then I apologise and retract the statement.

keinechance:

Helmholtz Watson:
So then you don't have an alternative idea?

Do you have ANY idea at all?

I don't have anything concrete, but that's beside the point. What are your alternative ideas?

keinechance:

Helmholtz Watson:

keinechance:

I am concerned that you are hurting yourself with your "Belief without evidence".

It opens the way for a lot of irrational thoughts and takes you away from what is real.

You realize that, that is a slipper slope fallacy, right? Try again.

If my fear, that the acceptance of one thing without good reason will make it easier to accept more things without good reason is a fallacy, then I apologise and retract the statement.

It is a fallacy, and good that you retracted it.

Polarity27:

To me it says something different. Look, that's what spirituality *is*, personal experiences. Spirituality is a thing you do, it's inherently experiential. That's always going to be the problem, people will have enough evidence to sway them but because that evidence is in the form of experiences, it'll never be enough evidence to sway someone else (who has completely different perceptual filters and completely different experiences). I'd say almost exactly the same thing about my own experiences, that I have no idea who or what the Gods ultimately are and don't believe it *can* be known at this time, but I know what my own experiences have been. That's what my wing of religions calls "UPG", unverified personal gnosis; all of your personal spiritual experiences, theories, and beliefs. "Shared" gnosis is what happens in religion, where you have multiple people who agree on a common worldview finding out that their UPG on deity X is strikingly similar.

For me, spirituality means something that has to do with what people call "The Spirit" another thing for whose existence there is no evidence.

I have personal experiences all the time, for example I experience gravity all the time.

But I try to check my personal experiences all the time to see if it matches up with what is real.

Polarity27:

The trouble is when people expect their UPG or shared gnosis to matter to people outside themselves or outside of the group. Spong knows what he's talking about to the degree that it can be known, but it's really not relevant to either one of us except as an anthropological curiosity. That it's irrational to you is equally irrelevant to Spong-- he knows his own mind and experiences better than you do. And there, but for the persistent and annoying idea that one (two, counting Islam) religion is universal and we're all supposed to have the same experiences, it would (and should) lie.

I agree that I don't know what is inside his mind.

But I can check his statements of what is inside his mind against reality.

Helmholtz Watson:
So then you don't have an alternative idea?
[...]
I don't have anything concrete, but that's beside the point. What are your alternative ideas?

So even after our discussion, you still insist on using the "god of the gaps"-fallacy as if it were a valid approach? Really?
Guess that was a waste of time then...

Polarity27:

keinechance:

Lilani:

That is correct. Not much else I can say to that, apart from maybe, "so?" My faith is a bit more complicated than that, but yeah. I can't prove it. And if I'm not hurting you with it, is it really that big of a problem?

I am concerned that you are hurting yourself with your "Belief without evidence".

It opens the way for a lot of irrational thoughts and takes you away from what is real.

Question: why is that your business? Why did you appoint yourself her keeper, and will you be reviewing the other relationships she has in her life to see if, by your standards, they are helpful or harmful to her?

What is it you're trying to get out of that conversation, are you actively trying to change her, or are you needling her to entertain yourself?

Lilani asked me to specify why I consider it a problem.

Helmholtz Watson:
So then you don't have an alternative idea?

An alternative to what?

Skeleon:

Helmholtz Watson:
So then you don't have an alternative idea?
[...]
I don't have anything concrete, but that's beside the point. What are your alternative ideas?

So even after our discussion, you still insist on using the "god of the gaps"-fallacy as if it were a valid approach? Really?
Guess that was a waste of time then...

As I've said before, if people have ideas, I'll look at them. However I have no time for people who condemn and denounce everybody elses ideas but can't come up with any of their own.

keinechance:

Helmholtz Watson:
So then you don't have an alternative idea?

An alternative to what?

The idea of Theism or Deism.

Helmholtz Watson:

keinechance:

Helmholtz Watson:
So then you don't have an alternative idea?

An alternative to what?

The idea of Theism or Deism.

What does that have to do with the formation of the universe?

Helmholtz Watson:
As I've said before, if people have ideas, I'll look at them. However I have no time for people who condemn and denounce everybody elses ideas but can't come up with any of their own.

And as I've said before, ideas must be backed up and stand on their own merit to be accepted and if you think the lack of a naturalistic explanation that convinces you gives any credibility to "God did it" solely based on that, then you have atrocious standards of evidence. But I guess I'll leave it at that since there seems to be no point in actually trying to convince you anyway.

keinechance:

Polarity27:

To me it says something different. Look, that's what spirituality *is*, personal experiences. Spirituality is a thing you do, it's inherently experiential. That's always going to be the problem, people will have enough evidence to sway them but because that evidence is in the form of experiences, it'll never be enough evidence to sway someone else (who has completely different perceptual filters and completely different experiences). I'd say almost exactly the same thing about my own experiences, that I have no idea who or what the Gods ultimately are and don't believe it *can* be known at this time, but I know what my own experiences have been. That's what my wing of religions calls "UPG", unverified personal gnosis; all of your personal spiritual experiences, theories, and beliefs. "Shared" gnosis is what happens in religion, where you have multiple people who agree on a common worldview finding out that their UPG on deity X is strikingly similar.

For me, spirituality means something that has to do with what people call "The Spirit" another thing for whose existence there is no evidence.

That's really not what it means to other people, and I don't know what you mean by "The Spirit".

keinechance:

Polarity27:

keinechance:

I am concerned that you are hurting yourself with your "Belief without evidence".

It opens the way for a lot of irrational thoughts and takes you away from what is real.

Question: why is that your business? Why did you appoint yourself her keeper, and will you be reviewing the other relationships she has in her life to see if, by your standards, they are helpful or harmful to her?

What is it you're trying to get out of that conversation, are you actively trying to change her, or are you needling her to entertain yourself?

Lilani asked me to specify why I consider it a problem.

That statement of "concern" hits me as classic concern-trolling, and the way you're interrogating her is obnoxious. She has no responsibility to explain herself for your, or anyone else's, satisfaction. IME there's really no pleasing people who do what you're doing, unless she were to recant her Christianity and immediately pledge herself to atheism and say "gosh, I'm sorry, o great and mighty stranger on the interwebs, you were right all along and I was a fool to not see it!" Dude, stop. There's a point where worry over the sociological effects of religions makes sense, and there's a point where it turns into a dick-measuring superiority contest, and I think you've crossed over.

unabomberman:

Polarity27:

keinechance:

I am concerned that you are hurting yourself with your "Belief without evidence".

It opens the way for a lot of irrational thoughts and takes you away from what is real.

Question: why is that your business? Why did you appoint yourself her keeper, and will you be reviewing the other relationships she has in her life to see if, by your standards, they are helpful or harmful to her?

What is it you're trying to get out of that conversation, are you actively trying to change her, or are you needling her to entertain yourself?

He shouldn't take a particular interest in her in a personal, individual level

Good, I'm glad we agree.

Now, on the other side of the coin, you could find believers, just as you, but that belong to a different culture with different values which, in their mind, are better than yours and, also in their minds, theirs are also derived from a deity--except that theirs is the real one and yours isn't--they're sure of it. And, from there they could go on towards pursuing and then justifying whatever amoral acts you could think of so long as they had the blessing of their faith.

Okay, in other words, they have some serious process issues. So?

Now, throw in an atheist; he may be a abrasive, he may be disrespectful, and he may be a rather manipulating hypocrite; and yet, he's a dick b/c of who he is and he cannot hide it. There is no in-built irrationality based justification in his belief system that grants him, in his mind, any kind of moral superiority over you as a person, or over anything else. If he does hurt you, look down on you, or demean you, he has no social or cultural institutions to appeal to for justification, or even anything to look forward to as a kind of payment if one day did decide to hurt you--It's all on him.

An atheist will never be bale to justify his action in the name of some supernatural entity that grants him/her dominion over anyone, or anything.

Wut. P sure "bale" should be something else, but I'm not sure what. "Bade", maybe? I don't know where you're going with this whole paragraph, since Mr. Atheist could come up with a ton of justifying factors for his dickery that *aren't* religious and that would probably work a whole lot better (did you know self-diagnosed Asperger's Syndrome makes you be an asshole on the internet? Neither did I, but plenty of people try to use that one). And if I tried to use "supernatural entities" to justify being an internet bitch, I'd be laughed out of the room and put up on dot_pagan_snark (that community has gotten its mock on for quite a few instances of people trying to pull that one, it never works and it's *always* funny). I mean, you seem to be under the belief that this is something people of most religions do, and that it actually *works*. Don't get me wrong, Evangelicals seem to adore a good redemption story (if they buy it in Newt Gingrich, they'd kinda have to), but I don't see that playing too well in most non-Christian religions.

Polarity27:

That's really not what it means to other people, and I don't know what you mean by "The Spirit".

Then what does it mean?

If you are simply talking about "personal experiences" why do you use a term like "spirituality" for the same thing.

Polarity27:

That statement of "concern" hits me as classic concern-trolling, and the way you're interrogating her is obnoxious. She has no responsibility to explain herself for your, or anyone else's, satisfaction. IME there's really no pleasing people who do what you're doing, unless she were to recant her Christianity and immediately pledge herself to atheism and say "gosh, I'm sorry, o great and mighty stranger on the interwebs, you were right all along and I was a fool to not see it!" Dude, stop. There's a point where worry over the sociological effects of religions makes sense, and there's a point where it turns into a dick-measuring superiority contest, and I think you've crossed over.

So I should just ignore her question to me?

We where talking about rational and irrational opinions, and I am arguing that a rational opinion backed by evidence is "superior" to an irrational opinion not backed by evidence.

If you think otherwise, please give your arguments.

Polarity27:

unabomberman:

Polarity27:

Question: why is that your business? Why did you appoint yourself her keeper, and will you be reviewing the other relationships she has in her life to see if, by your standards, they are helpful or harmful to her?

What is it you're trying to get out of that conversation, are you actively trying to change her, or are you needling her to entertain yourself?

He shouldn't take a particular interest in her in a personal, individual level

Good, I'm glad we agree.

Now, on the other side of the coin, you could find believers, just as you, but that belong to a different culture with different values which, in their mind, are better than yours and, also in their minds, theirs are also derived from a deity--except that theirs is the real one and yours isn't--they're sure of it. And, from there they could go on towards pursuing and then justifying whatever amoral acts you could think of so long as they had the blessing of their faith.

Okay, in other words, they have some serious process issues. So?

Now, throw in an atheist; he may be a abrasive, he may be disrespectful, and he may be a rather manipulating hypocrite; and yet, he's a dick b/c of who he is and he cannot hide it. There is no in-built irrationality based justification in his belief system that grants him, in his mind, any kind of moral superiority over you as a person, or over anything else. If he does hurt you, look down on you, or demean you, he has no social or cultural institutions to appeal to for justification, or even anything to look forward to as a kind of payment if one day did decide to hurt you--It's all on him.

An atheist will never be bale to justify his action in the name of some supernatural entity that grants him/her dominion over anyone, or anything.

Wut. P sure "bale" should be something else, but I'm not sure what. "Bade", maybe? I don't know where you're going with this whole paragraph, since Mr. Atheist could come up with a ton of justifying factors for his dickery that *aren't* religious and that would probably work a whole lot better (did you know self-diagnosed Asperger's Syndrome makes you be an asshole on the internet? Neither did I, but plenty of people try to use that one). And if I tried to use "supernatural entities" to justify being an internet bitch, I'd be laughed out of the room and put up on dot_pagan_snark (that community has gotten its mock on for quite a few instances of people trying to pull that one, it never works and it's *always* funny). I mean, you seem to be under the belief that this is something people of most religions do, and that it actually *works*. Don't get me wrong, Evangelicals seem to adore a good redemption story (if they buy it in Newt Gingrich, they'd kinda have to), but I don't see that playing too well in most non-Christian religions.

Ho-hum. I made a typo-my bad. though I get it now, and that doesn't quite stop you from twisting my argument--thus, I'm out. Cheers, buddy.

:)

unabomberman:

Polarity27:

unabomberman:

[quote]Now, throw in an atheist; he may be a abrasive, he may be disrespectful, and he may be a rather manipulating hypocrite; and yet, he's a dick b/c of who he is and he cannot hide it. There is no in-built irrationality based justification in his belief system that grants him, in his mind, any kind of moral superiority over you as a person, or over anything else. If he does hurt you, look down on you, or demean you, he has no social or cultural institutions to appeal to for justification, or even anything to look forward to as a kind of payment if one day did decide to hurt you--It's all on him.

An atheist will never be bale to justify his action in the name of some supernatural entity that grants him/her dominion over anyone, or anything.

Wut. P sure "bale" should be something else, but I'm not sure what. "Bade", maybe? I don't know where you're going with this whole paragraph, since Mr. Atheist could come up with a ton of justifying factors for his dickery that *aren't* religious and that would probably work a whole lot better (did you know self-diagnosed Asperger's Syndrome makes you be an asshole on the internet? Neither did I, but plenty of people try to use that one). And if I tried to use "supernatural entities" to justify being an internet bitch, I'd be laughed out of the room and put up on dot_pagan_snark (that community has gotten its mock on for quite a few instances of people trying to pull that one, it never works and it's *always* funny). I mean, you seem to be under the belief that this is something people of most religions do, and that it actually *works*. Don't get me wrong, Evangelicals seem to adore a good redemption story (if they buy it in Newt Gingrich, they'd kinda have to), but I don't see that playing too well in most non-Christian religions.

Ho-hum. I made a typo-my bad. though I get it now, and that doesn't quite stop you from twisting my argument--thus, I'm out. Cheers, buddy.

:)

I... huh? That was a genuine question, that wasn't a mock. It didn't quite make sense with "bade", so I wasn't sure that's what you meant. Actually, I continue to not know what you were trying to say with that whole argument-- what *was* your argument? Serious question, I don't know. I responded to what I thought you were saying. I'm sorry if I got it wrong.

Gorrila_thinktank:

crazyarms33:
If I may respond to both Ses209 and keinechance: I once read "My most recent faith struggle is not one of intellect. I don't really do that anymore. Sooner or later you just figure out there are some guys who don't believe in God and they can prove He doesn't exist, and there are some other guys who do believe in God and they can prove He does exist, and the argument stopped being about God a long time ago and now it's about who is smarter, and honestly I don't care."

Food for thought here guys :)

Oh snap!!

"They hang there, the stars, like notes on a page of music, free-form verse, silent mysteries swirling in the blue like jazz."

^_^

I do love that book. I was trying to find his quote about cookies. It goes something along the lines of "...I thought she had cookies." It always makes me laugh.

keinechance:

Wolverine18:

keinechance:

That is correct, as I am not omnipotent and omniscient.

And it seems the God you propose is not omnipotent and omniscient either.

The "God" you propose seems indistinguishable from non-sentient natural phenomena.

I haven't actually proposed any god. I believe in the Einsteinian view of god and thus can propose nothing specific.

What I said was, it doesn't matter if he can see the future or not, it doesn't change if people have free will or not, it only changes if he will know their final decision if such a god was omniscient.

If my choice was free will and there is no god, then it doesn't stop being free will just because some creature can see what choice I will make by glancing ahead in the timeline.

And of course if multiverse theory is correct and every choice creates a separate universe, then such an omniscient being would see you would make every choice and praise you where you made a good choice and punish you for bad choices you made.

Your view of time is just very simplistic.

Since I percieve only in this one linear timeline, it is very simplistic.

And why would the God in your multiverse praise you or punish you?

Why allow such things in the first place?

"My multiverse"?

You have some selective reading going on. The multiverse one theory of time used by numerous theoretical physicists. I'm not promoting ANY god/universe image, as I've already stated, I'm Einsteinian in my approach to religion.

And even believing in one timeline, your view is still overly simplistic. I won't explain again why because you could read the post you quoted above, or the one before that.

Am I the only one who thinks keinechance should chill out for a minute? I mean good to see you're still kicking around mate, but you're not going to convert (or to use your made up word: "de-convert" ) anyone here. I see that while I've gone to bed after our argument, you clearly have not. At all. For the last four days.

You can tell too, you're arguments are getting sloppier. Take a pill, get some sleep, and come back to get yourself humiliated with renewed strength, okay?

Katatori-kun:

Spartan1362:
It seems to me that the agnostics in this thread seem to be doing a bit of this:
image

That meme really needs to go into the memory hole. Not only are comics and image macros terrible counter-arguments (effectively they amount to little more than an admission of "I don't like what you're doing but I can't be bothered to make a rational argument for why you should stop so here's a picture I'm going to use to make fun of you"), but there is no reason to believe Randall Munroe knows a damn thing about what is going on in agnosticism. I'm sure he's a good authority on programming, robotics, and some associated sciency-stuff (His poster about radiation levels is pretty great), but I see no reason to assume this random internet celebrity nerd knows a damn thing about agnosticism. The fact that this comic you love so much can't even to make a reasonable argument against it and can only really manage to be annoyed because some people think atheism isn't the perfect belief shows that maybe y'all aught to stop plugging up the ole' interwebs with repeatedly posting his little stick-figure funnies and start thinking for yourselves.

Congratulations on missing the point entirely.

My point was, that many of the agnositics posting on this thread are acting in a pompus manner, implying that their view is better than anyone elses.

Also, the comic DOES NOT EXPICITLY MENTION AGNOSTICISM.
That was my implication.
Used in part, for comedic effect.

If you have a problem with it, don't find it amusing, or whatever else, you can just ignore it. Seriously.

Spartan1362:
Congratulations on missing the point entirely.

Don't confuse my rejecting your point as missing it. I understand exactly what you're saying. I just think it's bollocks.

Also, the comic DOES NOT EXPICITLY MENTION AGNOSTICISM.

So? That's how it's frequently used on this forum. It's the meme I'm objecting to, the comic itself is just so much irrelevant fluff- like most webcomics.

If you have a problem with it, don't find it amusing, or whatever else, you can just ignore it. Seriously.

I don't think so. This is a discussion board, not an "I state my opinion and no one is allowed to criticize it" board. I object to the meme of plastering up that comic in leiu of actually having a discussion because it adds nothing and attempts to silence parties that are disliked by the poster.

And ironically, in condemning people for supposedly sounding superior, comes across itself as smug and condescending.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 . . . 17 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked