What views do you understand but don't agree with?

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Vegosiux:

Bentusi16:

Are you really going to argue with me in any manner or way that atheism is not the rejection of belief in the existence of deities? Are you going to tell me something different? I invite you too because any other belief is not atheism. Atheism is the conscious rejection of the idea of theism. Anti-deist are close but not the same.

"I don't think X exists" and "X doesn't exist" are two different things. You might say I'm just arguing semantics, but I'm not. One is a claim on one's own thought process while the other is a claim on the existance of something.

Except that's not atheism, that's agnostic atheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

What I'm talking about and have been this whole time is anti-theism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism

Which is what a majority of the atheist I've talked to actually are, versus agnostic atheist.

Bentusi16:

Vegosiux:

Bentusi16:

Are you really going to argue with me in any manner or way that atheism is not the rejection of belief in the existence of deities? Are you going to tell me something different? I invite you too because any other belief is not atheism. Atheism is the conscious rejection of the idea of theism. Anti-deist are close but not the same.

"I don't think X exists" and "X doesn't exist" are two different things. You might say I'm just arguing semantics, but I'm not. One is a claim on one's own thought process while the other is a claim on the existance of something.

Except that's not atheism, that's agnostic atheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

What I'm talking about and have been this whole time is anti-theism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism

Which is what a majority of the atheist I've talked to actually are, versus agnostic atheist.

I would call myself an agnostic atheist in general - but not to certain specific gods. Which is where I want to clarify one thing; when you say the majority of atheists you talk to are antitheists - do you mean they say "no gods exist" or are they saying "god x doesn't exist". There is a difference between the two and the only reason I ask is that, in my experience, most atheists are agnostic atheists.

Bentusi16:
Except that's not atheism, that's agnostic atheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

What I'm talking about and have been this whole time is anti-theism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism

Which is what a majority of the atheist I've talked to actually are, versus agnostic atheist.

Atheism.

I am not talking about any subsets, or any cliques, or sects, of atheism. I am talking about the rejection of the idea that there may be god-like beings that exist.

Then why say "Atheism" when you actually are talking about the subset of Antitheists and also say you aren't talking about a subset. Especially since you yourself note a different subset, Agnostic Atheism, in contrast.

In fact, I'd contradict you further: In my experience, most Atheists are actually Agnostic Atheists, at least if you actually ask them whether they are certain that no gods exist (which is more or less how you phrased it to make the point about arrogance).

Lastly, even a lot of Antitheists are Agnostic Atheists because they won't claim to know with certainty, but are opposed to religion or gods or the following or worship thereof.

I can understand almost any political, philisophical, economic, or religious ideology based on a simple fact.

Each of us has had a different life, with many people, experiences, and events shaping who we are, and making each of us predisposed towards different world views, even the polar opposite ones to my own. I am not exempted from this fact and I have tried very hard to break down my own mental biases. Not sure it works, maybe this is part of some double think, to convince myself that I am superior by thinking I am just the same. Or triple think if I know that fact or...

Ok, I am just making my head hurt. >_<

Well.. People who do 'not' want Europe to have a federal state. I can sure understand them, plenty of valid points. I just think that it is for the best.

Deontologists.
Maybe I should explain. The people that think there are absolute moral Rights and Wrongs, and that no matter the consequences, these can never be in the slightest violated.
I understand them, and I really wish the world could be that simple, but it really, really isn't.
I even accept several Kantian Categorical Imperatives (Pretty much rules for what one "must" do or not do), I do so because accepting them leads to better consequences.
And yes, I would violate every single one of them if (by some hypothetical scenario, which isn't likely to happen as it seems that these rules almost always DO bring about the best consequences when viewed from a macro-perspective) they would not.
Yes, on a purely hypothetical level, there's nothing wrong with murder, rape, genocide or slavery, and I would gladly indulge in all of the above, should the consequences warrant it.

Religion.
I don't understand why anybody would spend their live following a piece of paper and get angry when called out on how much bullshit is in it.

Nikolaz72:
Well.. People who do 'not' want Europe to have a federal state. I can sure understand them, plenty of valid points. I just think that it is for the best.

Why is it for the best to have your nation under the control of some foreign bureaucrats that don't give a shit about your country?

Hardcore_gamer:

Nikolaz72:
Well.. People who do 'not' want Europe to have a federal state. I can sure understand them, plenty of valid points. I just think that it is for the best.

Why is it for the best to have your nation under the control of some foreign bureaucrats that don't give a shit about your country?

gee i dunno...let's ask the founding States of the US ?...

there will eventually be a federal Europe...and not just a federal Europe...the emergence of large economic trading blocs with a shared topmost level "federal" style governance are pretty much a planetary inevitability in the long term.

Hardcore_gamer:

Nikolaz72:
Well.. People who do 'not' want Europe to have a federal state. I can sure understand them, plenty of valid points. I just think that it is for the best.

Why is it for the best to have your nation under the control of some foreign bureaucrats that don't give a shit about your country?

Why is it for the best to have your town under control of some bureaucrats coming from other towns and don't give a shit about yours? (yay for ad absurdio argument :P)

But really though, it is the same. People just "fear" an EU federal rule because they ain't used to it. But there is no reason to think it would be any different from having a national government, just on a larger scale. Look at the US , individual states could easily be seen as individual countries. Heck many states are larger than Belgium (eg). Now off course the best would be not to give the european state too much power to ensure national governments have the tools to fix issues unique to their country. But i'm convinced a stronger EU is the way to go. Most EU countries are a joke on a global scale (and it ain't going to become any better with the rise of Emerging countries), if we want to preserve some global significance the EU is the only solution.

Bentusi16:

Vegosiux:

Bentusi16:

Are you really going to argue with me in any manner or way that atheism is not the rejection of belief in the existence of deities? Are you going to tell me something different? I invite you too because any other belief is not atheism. Atheism is the conscious rejection of the idea of theism. Anti-deist are close but not the same.

"I don't think X exists" and "X doesn't exist" are two different things. You might say I'm just arguing semantics, but I'm not. One is a claim on one's own thought process while the other is a claim on the existance of something.

Except that's not atheism, that's agnostic atheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

What I'm talking about and have been this whole time is anti-theism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism

Which is what a majority of the atheist I've talked to actually are, versus agnostic atheist.

Erm....antitheism is active opposition to theism. It says nothing about the precise form of your atheism. Some are strong atheists (that assert that no gods exist) but it's not a requirement.

I'm a weak-atheistic antitheist, for example.

Fraser Greenfield:

It's pretty simple. The Germans were unfairly punished over WWI for doing the morally just thing of protecting their allies...

Well, that might be the fiction they told themselves to fuel their grievances.

It's not what actually happened. In reality, they encouraged their allies to unjustly declare war on a small country knowing full well the repercussions would be a continent-wide war. They merely made the mistake of expecting they'd win it.

american beliving they are the chosen to protect the world (well actually its protecting the interest of their elite), and then not understanding when people hate them

I understand why people want to censor hate speech: some powerful people in America, like Paul Ryan, espouse Ayn Rand and her philosophy of "objectivism"; blaring racist music on mainstream radio stations, or displaying stereotypes on major TV networks like BET, is effective in cementing prejudice in the public dialogue.

But I don't agree with censorship one bit. My view on speech is, it becomes harmful when one person(s) speech overwhelms and effectively silences another. Our government has consistently granted the major television networks (NBC, FOX, ABC) with far more broadcasting power than they deserve. MSNBC can bitch all they want about FOX and it's antisemitic, misogynistic, racist diatribes, and it will never do jack shit, because they never will admit the reason FOX news has the impact it does, is because they both work together in manipulating US law into broadening their powers and privileges. In other words, for NBC to truly take FOX to task, would mean challenging themselves, and they won't have it; they're just gonna' continue their faux-morality parade, because that's what they're all about, and people eat that shit up.

Censoring insignificant average-Joes on the internet is the wrong way to go about empowering the powerless; empowering the powerless is all we need to do.

Hardcore_gamer:

Nikolaz72:
Well.. People who do 'not' want Europe to have a federal state. I can sure understand them, plenty of valid points. I just think that it is for the best.

Why is it for the best to have your nation under the control of some foreign bureaucrats that don't give a shit about your country?

Hehe. First im gonna say you didnt even really have an arguement, there are so many hilarious ways of countering it so im just gonna point you to those that did, not really gonna bother myself as I would be beating a dead horse.

Global Influence would increase.
Overall Prosperity would increase.
Military Efficiency would increase.
Equality would decrease for some countries, highen for others. (Denmark would see less, Spain would see more)
And with Equality, Education and Healthcare.

Then we have Corruption... Well, like Equality it would most likely average out, maybe rise a bit from us becomming bigger, tends to increase slightly just from places gaining in size. It would fall drastically for countries like Italy, Portugal. Rise slightly for most others (We have very little corruption as of now, so we can take it)

And last, and this is the biggest one. The less we are divided, the less chance of another war. I don't want another war fought in Europe. We've had enough of them as it is. And uniting all of Europe is a great solution to at least keep the war from being in between us.

Note: screw that. Biggest one is free amazon delivery to 'all' Europe during Christmas. Not just stupid UK.

i understand and disagree with jut about anything.

Zerstiren:
I understand why people want to censor hate speech: some powerful people in America, like Paul Ryan, espouse Ayn Rand and her philosophy of "objectivism"; blaring racist music on mainstream radio stations, or displaying stereotypes on major TV networks like BET, is effective in cementing prejudice in the public dialogue.

But I don't agree with censorship one bit.

Well, I disagree with that view, and this particular link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3257748.stm) explains why.

Don't you think that hate speech should be censored/suppressed in some cases, in order to prevent events such as the ones described in the link?

Bentusi16:
Atheism.

You look around at the universe and in your pitiable and vastly small knowledge you declare that no godlike entities can exist. That because man, with it's inability to quantify all things, has yet to find evidence supporting, the the opposite absolutely must be true. My knowledge is just as small and pitiable, but I don't look around and declare I know the absolute truth to a matter such as faith. I say 'well, I suppose we'll have to wait until we understand more about the universe'.

I refuse to belief in any deity of any sort until there is (f)actual evidence that proves the existence of such a deity. I don't convict someone of a crime if I haven't got evidence that proves him/her guilty. I don't present a scientific theory as a fact if I haven't got evidence that confirms my theory. And I do not have to disprove the existence of a deity if there's no evidence to prove it's existence in the first place.

AlotFirst:

Zerstiren:
I understand why people want to censor hate speech: some powerful people in America, like Paul Ryan, espouse Ayn Rand and her philosophy of "objectivism"; blaring racist music on mainstream radio stations, or displaying stereotypes on major TV networks like BET, is effective in cementing prejudice in the public dialogue.

But I don't agree with censorship one bit.

Well, I disagree with that view, and this particular link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3257748.stm) explains why.

Don't you think that hate speech should be censored/suppressed in some cases, in order to prevent events such as the ones described in the link?

The government imposed a nationalist radio station, which droned out any other political thought. Governments always fund politically-charged media for special interests, like how the U.S. military funds both the Halo and Call of Duty franchises, to get the little kiddies into Pakistan and North Korea. It is despicable.

If a fool says some foul things near you, or on a web forum you frequent, and you just ignore him/her, that's the end of the story. However, if said person were sponsored by a powerful agency, and they perpetuated his/her voice so loudly and strongly, to the point that there was no way for you to avoid it, that would be a real problem.

Zerstiren:

AlotFirst:

Zerstiren:
I understand why people want to censor hate speech: some powerful people in America, like Paul Ryan, espouse Ayn Rand and her philosophy of "objectivism"; blaring racist music on mainstream radio stations, or displaying stereotypes on major TV networks like BET, is effective in cementing prejudice in the public dialogue.

But I don't agree with censorship one bit.

Well, I disagree with that view, and this particular link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3257748.stm) explains why.

Don't you think that hate speech should be censored/suppressed in some cases, in order to prevent events such as the ones described in the link?

The government imposed a nationalist radio station, which droned out any other political thought. Governments always fund politically-charged media for special interests, like how the U.S. military funds both the Halo and Call of Duty franchises.

If a fool says some foul things near you, or on a web forum you frequent, and you just ignore him/her, that's the end of the story. However, if said person is sponsored by a powerful agency, and they perpetuate his/her voice so loudly and strongly, to the point that there is no way for you to avoid it, that's the real problem.

Very well, how about a different example. Let's say, Adolf Hitler. He acquired a large, violent group of followers by spouting hate speech. How well do you think national-socialism would have fared without the speeches of its charismatic leader reaching out to the poorer members of society? The same persons that spread hate speech are the ones who would install a far more obtrusive form of censorship if they were to become leading figures in a country.

Pretty much anything relating to organized religion, particularly Western religions.

I can understand where many people are coming from - religion creates a sense of community, cements a moral viewpoint and promises such wonders as an afterlife - but I can't agree in the least with adherence to a horribly divisive dogma set forth by mortal men (I cant understand how anyone could actually believe the Bible is anything more than the writing of humans - especially since we KNOW there have been repeated human efforts to alter its content drastically) a VERY long time ago with the specific intent of controlling others through fear.

I understand the concept of faith, and how it ties into the context of most organized religions, but I can't agree with the ideological adherence to accepting something without evidence to support it.

Generally speaking, I can understand the 'value' that religion serves in the lives of many people, but I don't agree with, among many concepts espoused by organized religions, the concept of accepting something without evidence to support it.

All my other issues tend to stem forth from this issue: the idea that members of any specific religion whole-heartedly believe something they cannot prove - cannot even support with any real degree of evidence - and fully expect others to share their belief or, at the very least, respect their desire to maintain said belief.

AlotFirst:
Very well, how about a different example. Let's say, Adolf Hitler. He acquired a large, violent group of followers by spouting hate speech. How well do you think national-socialism would have fared without the speeches of its charismatic leader reaching out to the poorer members of society? The same persons that spread hate speech are the ones who would install a far more obtrusive form of censorship if they were to become leading figures in a country.

The actions of Hitler point more towards a need for responsible individual response than to a need for censorship.

The party didn't just gain power because of their leader's charismatic speeches - they gained power because they appealed to a large group of people who felt they had been wronged, while providing clear scapegoats for blame and an avenue by which to take action.
That is to say, censoring Hitler wouldn't have made a great deal of difference - his followers still would have withheld resentment/anger over their circumstances, and it would have found an avenue for release at some point regardless, possibly in an even more pronounced, negative manner than it did under Hitler's guidance.

The same person that spreads hate speech may well be willing to instate a more obtrusive form of censorship upon reaching power, but that's largely irrelevant as it remains the responsibility of the people to react in a responsible, civil manner when presented with even the most ardent hate speech.
Censorship only removes the individual saying hateful things, it does not remove the hateful feelings themselves, and the hateful feelings are what drive a violent response.

sonofliber:
american beliving they are the chosen to protect the world (well actually its protecting the interest of their elite), and then not understanding when people hate them

I think that should actually be directed at the entire Western world and not limited to America. Europe is far from immune from this, just look at these forums.

There are very few political theories that I don't understand very fully. I'm a political science student and politics has been my primary interest since I was six.

The theory that I find the most ridiculous based on my knowledge of it is Libertarianism and I used to read a lot of Libertarian literature.

Hardcore_gamer:

Fraser Greenfield:
One of the biggest misunderstandings of National Socialism is that it was a "racist" ideology. It wasn't, it was purely based around concepts of cultural superiority; the issues of "racial superiority" came after they came to power and invoked by a select few.

This is simply not true. Hitler and nazism was racist to the core right from the get go. Mein Kampf has a whole section that is literally called "Nation and Race".

http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch11.html

I'm afraid you've failed to distinguish between gobbledegook and national socialism. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf to give the masses pride in the German idea and a common scapegoat;but he did not invent the concept of 'National Socialism'; the ideology predates his entrance to the party by several years.

Fraser Greenfield:

I'm afraid you've failed to distinguish between gobbledegook and national socialism. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf to give the masses pride in the German idea and a common scapegoat;but he did not invent the concept of 'National Socialism'; the ideology predates his entrance to the party by several years.

I'm pretty sure the concept of Aryan racial superiority existed in the pre-Hitler German Workers' Party as well. It might not have been such an explicit and major ideological pillar, but at minimum it was well intertwined with early national socialism.

Agema:

Fraser Greenfield:

I'm afraid you've failed to distinguish between gobbledegook and national socialism. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf to give the masses pride in the German idea and a common scapegoat;but he did not invent the concept of 'National Socialism'; the ideology predates his entrance to the party by several years.

I'm pretty sure the concept of Aryan racial superiority existed in the pre-Hitler German Workers' Party as well. It might not have been such an explicit and major ideological pillar, but at minimum it was well intertwined with early national socialism.

Perhaps; but the Germans term "Ayran" was not by any means exclusive to white Europeans; the term was use for people as far east as those occupying the Indian subcontinent. Probably because the idea of "Ayran" superiority was a common belief originating in France sometime in the mid 19th century and was already entwined into much of Germanic political culture with the formation of the second Reich; it wouldn't of been called 'The German lands' (Deutschland) if it were otherwise.

Scapegoating of the Jews, as I have previously said; was to give communism a 'face' to which the people could direct their anger. The great Irony being that since Judaism is a religion and not a racial group; many 'jews' were in fact "Aryan" as well....But if you tell a big enough lie; people tend to believe it.

AlotFirst:

Very well, how about a different example. Let's say, Adolf Hitler. He acquired a large, violent group of followers by spouting hate speech. How well do you think national-socialism would have fared without the speeches of its charismatic leader reaching out to the poorer members of society? The same persons that spread hate speech are the ones who would install a far more obtrusive form of censorship if they were to become leading figures in a country.

I apologize for not getting back to you earlier.

I don't know enough about 20th century German history to comment on what happened, so you could be right: that one person was in the right place at the right time to get what he wanted. But as someone else had mentioned, Germans had the Treaty of Versailles* forced on them, so they had reason to be furious; again, this could be a case of one man taking advantage of populace outrage; but then again, anything was possible.

*FUN FACT: Germany made its final payment on the Treaty of Versailles in October 2010.

No excuses, Germany: PAY WHAT YOU OWE!

Bentusi16:
Atheism.

You look around at the universe and in your pitiable and vastly small knowledge you declare that no godlike entities can exist. That because man, with it's inability to quantify all things, has yet to find evidence supporting, the the opposite absolutely must be true. My knowledge is just as small and pitiable, but I don't look around and declare I know the absolute truth to a matter such as faith. I say 'well, I suppose we'll have to wait until we understand more about the universe'.

Agnostic non-deist I can understand quite well, but atheism just seems to me to be as much the height of arrogance as any religion proclaiming itself to be the one true faith. Both exist purely within the realm of belief, and both are absolute ends.

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms-it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."

Judging by your definition of it, it's very clear you don't understand atheism.

Atheism is not the REJECTION of god, it's the lack of belief. I don't believe in a god because I don't see any evidence that supports its existence. Any time someone throws something at me that they think proves it, it's either a "personal experience" that comes down to a gut feeling decision they made, or something they think proves it but really doesn't and has a very reasonable explanation.

It's the same concept as the teapot in space. Sure, it's possible that somewhere in the solar system there's a teapot orbiting the sun around Mercury, but that doesn't mean I automatically have to believe there is one. I could say "Well I'm unsure there is a teapot floating around Mercury but I don't want to make any committed decisions", or I could say "I don't think there's a teapot floating around Mercury". If someone does find the teapot, I'll say "Oh, I guess it was there. Who'da thunk it?", but until I see evidence I shall remain an atheist.

I understand the idea of religion and why people choose to believe it at times, but I don't agree with leaving your life to beings that we don't understand, let alone someone/something that could be real or not.

Bentusi16:

Which is what a majority of the atheist I've talked to actually are, versus agnostic atheist.

Please stop saying that. You keep saying these things and a HOARD of people who are agnostic atheists call you out on it and NOT A SINGLE STRONG ATHEIST has EVER come out to say anything on this website EVER. Where are you finding these people?! Even agnostic atheists agree strong atheism is a little silly. No matter WHO you talk to strong atheists are a tiny minority. So please dont just use the word "Atheist" to mean "Someone who knows god doesnt exist". Thats not what it means in the dictionary anyway. And youre using it to refer to a small minority when it covers a much larger group. Gorramit just stop this madness before the flames of angry people destroy us all. DESTROY US ALL.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked