Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Christians called "intolerant" by some stupid atheist who is going to burn in hell when he gets there   (theherald.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

14382 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Mar 2009 at 2:20 AM (7 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



678 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2009-03-25 07:10:20 PM  

GilRuiz1: Reason cannot be used towards good or evil ends?


It can be used so if you start off with an "evil premise," as it were, but the question remains... how do you formulate that premise and have it agreed upon by whole peoples?

Also bear in mind that specific premises are themselves based on foundational reasoning, so unless you can spread the corruption all the way to "evil core values" (which means turning concepts like "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" completely on its head for everyone), it would be very hard to pass the corruption upwards.

By contrast, faith empowers the faithful to interrupt anything at ANY level by fiat; so long as that particular faith is empowered, and is given an unassailable position in society.

As "methodology," there is a dramatic difference.


zootsuit: That would be an interesting conversation to have. Unfortunately, this is Fark, so the closest we're likely to get are some racial/homophobic slurs and quotes taken grossly out of context.


Not THAT hard... I mean, unless you expect everyone to be on even keel, which is never something to expect on the internet. ;-) Just talk to whoever's interested (and sane), and don't get distracted by the trolling and whargarbl.
 
2009-03-25 07:12:20 PM  
maddogdelta: "True. I was trying to point out that sometimes evil can result from very reasoned, and supportable logic. That doesn't make the person making the "best of a bad situation" necessarily evil, however care should be exercised in situations like this to minimize/mitigate as much of the evil as possible."

The act of mitigating evil cannot itself be evil.

maddogdelta: "For example, slavery might be a necessary evil in the situation I described, but that slavery doesn't have to be necessarily cruel. Nor does it excuse deliberate "slave raiding parties" to increase the number of slaves. The closest I can come to a concept of "ethical slavery" are the reforms Octavian introduced to the Roman empire. That just means I'm much more ignorant of history than I'd like to be."

I do not believe there has ever been a scenario in which slavery was a truly necessary thing. I believe many nations were built on the backs of slaves, but was it necessary for those nations to be built at all? When has someone ever been forced into a position where they must institute slavery lest millions die, or something similar?

At any rate, the relevant point is that it's a question better resolved by ethical reasoning than uncritical obedience of religious strictures.
 
2009-03-25 07:13:08 PM  

GilRuiz1: That makes sense. However, I can't figure out a foolproof way to make sure that "evil" is infallibly filtered out.


There never will be, as an awful lot of us are fools. ;-) Doesn't mean we aren't much better off using one particular methodology over another.
 
2009-03-25 07:19:58 PM  
KiltedBastich: This is too funny. You ARE a complete militant prick on the Internet trying to impose your particular philosophy on others. Really, you want to get on our cases about this, we can't stop you. But for the love of reason, would you take stock for even one fleeting second how much you resemble that which you claim to be protesting? You make yourself into a laughingstock by these oblivious statements.

I laughed when he wrote that. But whatever. I used to say that I'm not interested in converting anyone and that I just enjoy shooting the breeze, but the more I think about the religions who are constantly pushing their ideologies in my face, knocking on my door asking me about god and trying to convert me (note even eharac's post about 'spreading God's word to others'), why shouldn't I do the same? Why should I feel ashamed to suggest to people that MY way is the best way, when religions can do so and, if questioned, hide behind 'religious tolerance'? I'm sick of it.

It seems to me that the real reason religions are complaining about atheism? They're scared. They're scared people are going to leave religion in large numbers (as they already are). Maybe they know religion is a hypocritical sham, maybe they think people are being hoodwinked, I don't know, but whatever it is, I think they're scared. Scientists are showing us that we don't need God and fairy tales to explain the universe, and people are proving themselves capable of comporting themselves in a moral manner even without religion and the fear of eternal damnation. Religion is becoming obsolete. If you want your religion to survive, figure out a way to change with the times. Or get ready for extinction. I'll be the first to celebrate religion's death.

So yes, kerpal and the rest of you religious-apologists. I AM anti-religion (NOT anti-theism). And I don't care what you think. You know nothing of me and what I've studied, but I know a lot about the history of religion. And I want nothing to do with it. Nor am I ashamed to argue reason, the scientific method and atheism. Don't like it? Too f*cking bad. *I* don't want to be asked if I've found God, but if I object to THAT, I'm 'waging a war on religion.' If there's a hell, I know which of us will be burning in it. Hypocrites.

The Icelander: TexasRedbud: But from a purely theoretical position, IF God told you do something, it would be moral correct to do it.

This sounds quite a bit like "If the President does it, then it's not illegal."


Or, 'I was just following orders...'

According to the statistics, the non-religious are the third largest and fastest growing sectarian group in the US.

As far as I can tell, we're succeeding in our efforts to secularize the nation.


farm4.static.flickr.com

trappedspirit: I supposed if we just went around snapping each others necks and feasting on our entrails you'd have more respect for our treatment of the huh er whut?

Yes, that is EXACTLY the implication of what I was saying. I hope you were trying to be a smart ass, because I'd hate to think anyone could be that stupid.
 
2009-03-25 07:29:39 PM  

Zamboro: Hooya: "This was a great thread until McStinkie left."

Was I too hard on him?


Please. I had work to do, not an argument to maintain with a guy who'd never say any of this stuff in real, face-to-face communication.

Isn't the internet great?
 
2009-03-25 07:35:33 PM  
Oh, jekxrb! I had meant to get your attention in one of these threads and share something with you, although it's completely off-topic.

I know you have a number of cats, and I know someone who handles their...*ahem*...hygenic needs with one of these things. I had seen lots of self-cleaning litterboxes before that used a moving metal rake to sift out clumps, but they needed special litter/bags and they would invariably clog. What impressed me about this one is that it's designed to sift the litter out of clumps by rotating the entire chamber. The clumps are dumped into the storage portion, and when the chamber finishes rotating, the preserved litter just kinda pours back into place at the bottom of the chamber where it should be.

Maybe it's just the nerd boner that have for robotics in general, but I've gotta get one of these. I figured as a lover of both cats and science, you'd wanna know about it.

/Back to your regularly scheduled programming!
 
2009-03-25 07:37:25 PM  
Deuce McStinkle: "Please. I had work to do, not an argument to maintain with a guy who'd never say any of this stuff in real, face-to-face communication.

Isn't the internet great?"


I'd be glad to sit down with you over coffee and discuss theology. I've picked up on your implied threat, but I choose not to return your hostility. I'd rather have a constructive exchange of ideas. =]
 
2009-03-25 07:44:44 PM  
ninjakirby: Really? What about Jehovas Witnesses, are they doing his work? Liberals? Democrats? Episcopalians? Muslims? Matsés? How about the Matis? Are you doing Satans work?

How do you know?


I don't know about you, but my finger still hurts from when I signed the employment contract.
 
2009-03-25 07:47:24 PM  

Zamboro: I do not believe there has ever been a scenario in which slavery was a truly necessary thing.


The Atans?
 
2009-03-25 07:54:02 PM  

ninjakirby: Facetious_Speciest: aggravatedmonkey

Epicurus wasn't an atheist.

Actually, he was.


Although Epicurus believed in materialism and atoms and all that, it is not entirely accurate to say that he was an atheist. If you take a look at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Epicurus, you'll see that he had a number of ideas about the gods, and it wasn't that they were non-existent.
 
2009-03-25 08:01:08 PM  
Cthellis: "The Atans?"

I meant a non-fictional scenario.
 
2009-03-25 08:12:31 PM  

ninjakirby: colon_pow: Satan. the great deceiver. Militant athiests are doing his work.

Really? What about Jehovas Witnesses, are they doing his work? Liberals? Democrats? Episcopalians? Muslims? Matsés? How about the Matis? Are you doing Satans work?

How do you know?


I would say that not everyone doing Satan's work would be aware of it. Like the Jehovah's witnesses. Or muslims. Liberals and democrats? They probably don't realize what they are doing, or why they do it, they just know they want to get rid of anything to do with Christianity.

funny that
 
2009-03-25 08:15:46 PM  

GilRuiz1: Although Epicurus believed in materialism and atoms and all that, it is not entirely accurate to say that he was an atheist. If you take a look at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Epicurus, you'll see that he had a number of ideas about the gods, and it wasn't that they were non-existent.


Well I stand minutely corrected.

The text I have regarding Epicurus only deals with how many of his time 'rejoice' that he has done away with the need to appeal to the Gods by means of explanations via natural science, and that he denies all claims of supernatural interference as being legitimate.

I took this to mean a rejection of all supernatural existence, but it appears I was wrong.
 
2009-03-25 08:24:42 PM  

KiltedBastich: Interesting read, that. But I do not think it applies here. Dialetheia clearly intended to be applied in limited circumstances to specific statements. Furthermore, the self-contradictory statements mentioned as examples are paradoxes of semantic understanding or organization, not paradoxes of underlying objective reality.


Actually that isn't the case, and it does apply. It isn't only an application of "statements" limited to specific circumstances. It applies to contradictions in mathematics. Examples include Gödel's incompleteness theorems, Berry's paradox, analogous arguments to the formulation of systems showing incompleteness, and according to Jaki, Priest, Hawking, Penrose, et al, they show that even the most comprehensive mathematical models of physics will be incomplete and cannot be formulated on a finite system of principles, and therefore nothing is "certain". So you lack objectivity with your statement.

...which leads to infinite halting under ZFC which abb3w refers to as "hyper-computational exceptions", when in reality he cannot admit that one of the possible implications of Church-Turing is that the universe is NOT a Turing Machine. But I digress, there's no need to cue abb3w to rambling about his proof by inference, contradictions, or digital physics because we all know he is unable to accept criticisms that his "proof" is full of holes....

But as I noted, you lack objectivity. Your bias shows that plainly. Really, it does.
 
2009-03-25 08:27:59 PM  
ninjakirby but it appears I was wrong.

a phrase you will never see from the theists otherside.
 
2009-03-25 08:32:59 PM  

Zamboro: It's the thought that counts, as it were.


Or utter absence thereof, as may be.
Still seemed worth mentioning, if only to provide perspective.

Zamboro: Back when electricity had only just been harnessed and put to good use, there was a great deal of similar quackery going on:


Cf. magnetism and radioactivity.

In defense of the early electric kooks, Galvani's and Volta's results were pretty freaking weird by the framework of the time.

Zamboro: Not so long as there are people out there who believe that there are circumstances in which it's okay to exterminate whole populations. I'm lookin' at you, buddy.


(wave)

To be fair to the theists, I'm willing to state that, yes, I'm willing to consider doing that deliberately as a solution in some esoteric situations. On the other hand, I don't limit "populations" to those which are (or are not) human.

gmpilot: Well, to be fair, group selection has pretty much been disproved, at least at the most naive forms.


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2009-03-25 08:33:27 PM  
I know its probably been said sixty times over but I feel ranty:

Athiests don't force you to have abortions or gay sex or wear condoms or even eat shellfish.

We aren't telling you how to live. The only thing you aren't allowed to do is tell us how to live. We got on fine before religion came along, and well get on fine after its gone.

If other people not beleiving in God weakens the rush for you by not being afraid to say that they don't beleive in God, then face it, your faith was too weak to begin with. You can have all the God you want. You can't have us. Deal with it in a mature manner if you can.
 
2009-03-25 08:38:00 PM  
Zamboro: I know you have a number of cats, and I know someone who handles their...*ahem*...hygenic needs with one of these things

Uh

While I'm a TFette, and a little on the larger size, I haven't got a harem of cats yet... :(

I just have one... Calliope. I understand the confusion, perhaps from her baby pic? She darkened a lot as she grew up.

/that DOES look like an interesting variation on the automated litter pans.... Maybe one day when I have money. And a job. When I'm not a grad student anymore. One day...
 
2009-03-25 08:50:14 PM  
It's always amusing when someone tells you to grow up, then calls you a 'farktard'.
 
2009-03-25 08:59:01 PM  
Wow. This is still going on from last night? I guess some people can't resist arguing over this topic for the 1,000,000th time. Maybe one day I'll jump in.
 
2009-03-25 08:59:46 PM  

authenticryan: You're right. We sure wouldn't want the people telling us how to live and think to feel repressed.


yea, you know because it's a belief. or non-belief. or something like that. after all, when does a non-belief become a belief? when you

- have organizations?
- legal representation, secular rights, and meetings?
- have a logo so others can tell you share the same 'non-beliefs'?
- have representatives and PR?

or
- have actually formed governments that oppressed others or committed mass murder of millions opposing views.....

or all of the above? Oh yea, you've arrived baby.

/but
 
2009-03-25 09:00:05 PM  

Zamboro: I meant a non-fictional scenario.


Where's the fun in that?

ninjakirby: I took this to mean a rejection of all supernatural existence, but it appears I was wrong.


It's likely he was dancing the philosophical dance around all angles of the subject, as they were wont to do. ;-)

It's not like they had anything better to do. (Other than the pederasty, of course.)

authenticryan: Athiests don't force you to have abortions or gay sex or wear condoms or even eat shellfish.

Hitchens might. But he crazy!
 
2009-03-25 09:00:37 PM  

TheWarmonger: Wow. This is still going on from last night? I guess some people can't resist arguing over this topic for the 1,000,000th time. Maybe one day I'll jump in.


amazing and disappointing at the same time isn't it.
 
2009-03-25 09:05:45 PM  

kerpal32: No. They just flat out murder you, put you in slave labor camps or oppress you.


Any atheists here advocate authoritarianism? Anyone?

No?

How about inherent superiority? Anyone? Beuller? Beuller?

No?

Anyone here making claims that only they can be correct and all others are wrong?

Well, colon_pow has implied it, but besides that, nope.

Hmm, it appears that Kerpal is advocating a strawman position that doesn't accurately reflect 'atheist' but is in fact attempting to conflate cults of personality that are non-theistic and anti-theistic, with atheism.

colon_pow: I would say that not everyone doing Satan's work would be aware of it. Like the Jehovah's witnesses. Or muslims. Liberals and democrats? They probably don't realize what they are doing, or why they do it, they just know they want to get rid of anything to do with Christianity.

funny that


So how do you know you're not doing Satans work?
 
2009-03-25 09:06:29 PM  

kerpal32: amazing and disappointing at the same time isn't it.


Yet.. you're still posting.
 
2009-03-25 09:07:55 PM  

kerpal32: In fact, we have some that we accept, and we even have a word for it. Dialetheia (pops).


As long as you are willing to assert Refutation of Noncontradiction as an explicit premise, make inference you care therefrom... I'll just note you've asserted Refutation of Noncontradiction as an explicit premise.

Zamboro: I've studied a greay many religions in depth and I regard them as culturally valuable, as a form of collaborative memetic art, but which has detrmimental effects when sincerely believed in.


Elegantly phrased.

GilRuiz1: /yes, cabals do talk like that


Wait, when did you subscribe to the mailing list???

queenb4biatch: Nnonononono..remember, all of us non-beleivers are working sor Satan, because he pays well...so it is not our efforts, but the Dark One's efforts...


Dammit, he's as late with my checks as the Elders of Zion are with Larry's....

GilRuiz1: However, I can't figure out a foolproof way to make sure that "evil" is infallibly filtered out.


This thing all things devours:
Birds, beasts, trees, flowers;
Gnaws iron, bites steel;
Slays king, ruins town,
And beats high mountain down.


kerpal32: in reality he cannot admit that one of the possible implications of Church-Turing is that the universe is NOT a Turing Machine


"Can be shown"? Sorta, it can. I've resolved that; MDLI is evidently extensible, so "ordinal hypercomputation" suffices as a lesser assumption than SCTUT.

I've also pointed out you've neglected black hole evaporation in your Malament-Hogarth analysis, but I doubt the onlookers care.
 
2009-03-25 09:11:44 PM  

TheWarmonger: Wow. This is still going on from last night

year?

FTFY....

ninjakirby: Any atheists here advocate authoritarianism? Anyone?


Care to define "authority" first?

ninjakirby: How about inherent superiority?


Gödel's work seems to preclude that.
 
2009-03-25 09:17:31 PM  

kerpal32: authenticryan: Athiests don't force you to have abortions or gay sex or wear condoms or even eat shellfish.

No. They just flat out murder you, put you in slave labor camps or oppress you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism#Militant_atheism (pops)


Ooooooh, my two favorites!

First, One component of a large group commits violence in the name of a belief and thus negates that belief completely...

I'll just hang that up right there.


Second, Atheism=socialism=militant communism.

There are libertarian atheists, there are capitalist atheists, there are anarchist athiests. And even when you get to socialism there's a tiny difference between democratic socialism, which collects taxes for such things as postal routes and military spending (imagine the American military as a voluntarily invested-in, completely private business just for fun), and militant communism which commands that every single penny belongs to the state.

For your information, I am a demo-socialist. That means I beleive that the base essentials of life should be "assisted" by the state, such as health care and, yes, the military, but that the happiness of material gain is available to those who work harder and strive for it. If I'm down on my luck I can have a can of soup and basic housing, but unless I work hard, I'll never have a big house or sports car. Simple enough?

The worst thing about religious people is that they conflate communism and atheism so much that they are fully willing to shoot down social programs which would fall into direct line with biblical teachings. Jesus supposedly loved children and vehemently dispised mixing religion and commerce. (overturned moneylenders in the temples anyone?) Yet, religious conservatives fought the S-chip initiative for child care because it was...socialist, and would threaten a thriving medical insurance industry.

Honestly, most religious people prove through their actions that the beleive in God even less than I do.
 
2009-03-25 09:18:11 PM  
jekxrb: "/that DOES look like an interesting variation on the automated litter pans.... Maybe one day when I have money. And a job. When I'm not a grad student anymore. One day..."

I'm mainly just a robot nut. Do you know what I did just now? I picked up a remote, pressed "max", and my roomba began beeping like a car in reverse as it pulled away from its docking station. I got in the shower, and by the time I got out, not only was my carpet spotless, but the roomba was charging happily at its docking station. I didn't put it there. I didn't have to do anything but press a button and then forget about it. It cleaned while I showered, then set about recharging its own goddamn self.

I may seem overly impressed by this sort of thing, but it's because I pay obsessively close attention to news of technological progress. I've noticed many tend to take one look at a new technology, see that it isn't ready for primetime, and dismiss it as a terrible idea. Then in the following years, the technology matures, becomes reliable and polished, then reemerges onto the market and finds explosive success. To those who initially dismissed it, it seems to come out of the blue. But I was right there, following every developmental milestone with glee, so I'm better able to appreciate how incredibly difficult it was to produce something as seemingly simple as a robotic vacuum that docks and charges itself.

I'm that guy who goes to the ASIMO show in Disney's tomorrowland, then when Asimo runs across the stage I flip out, yelling "It's farking running, everyone! A bipedal, dynamically stabilized robot is running right before our farking eyes, altering its path in realtime, and you're just sitting there yawning like it's professional golf or some shiat! Get up and clap right farking now or I swear I will end you!"
 
2009-03-25 09:25:01 PM  
Deuce McStinkle: "Threat? You must be insecure."

Enough with the chest thumping. Let us reason together.

Deuce McStinkle: "My point is that you'd never be so rude in real life, old chum."

Where, exactly, was I rude? I criticized your beliefs a great deal, but that's because they invite criticism. I said nothing untrue about Christian theology, nor did I ever insult you.

You might look at your own behavior in this thread and compare it to mine, asking yourself which of us has been more civil. It's certainly true that you've insulted me a great deal, but offered little of substance in response to my arguments.
 
2009-03-25 09:25:08 PM  

cthellis:

authenticryan: Athiests don't force you to have abortions or gay sex or wear condoms or even eat shellfish.
Hitchens might. But he crazy!


No. He'd just deface a facist sign and scuffle with the Beirut goons that turn up. And then make them have said sex.

The Balls on that man, they are sizable.
 
2009-03-25 09:41:29 PM  

abb3w: This thing all things devours:
Birds, beasts, trees, flowers;
Gnaws iron, bites steel;
Slays king, ruins town,
And beats high mountain down.


...is an illusion. Lunchthing-all-things-devours doubly so.


Zamboro: "It's farking running, everyone! A bipedal, dynamically stabilized robot is running right before our farking eyes, altering its path in realtime, and you're just sitting there yawning like it's professional golf or some shiat! Get up and clap right farking now or I swear I will end you!"


First against the wall when the robot revolution comes, wot?


authenticryan: No. He'd just deface a facist sign and scuffle with the Beirut goons that turn up. And then make them have said sex.

The Balls on that man, they are sizable.


Yes. But they're big, CRAZY balls! ;-)
 
2009-03-25 09:42:41 PM  
authenticryan: "The Balls on that man, they are sizable."

Just like Dawkins, Harris, Dennet and the rest, Hitchens is the sort of formidable intellectual that theists would be crowing about if only he were on their side.

The fact that they affectionately crowd around unqualified dimwits like Dinesh D'Souza on the apologist side, then turn around and heap scorn on the renown scientists on the polemicist side is just staggering. Imagine if the situation were reversed, and their side was made up of some of the brightest minds of our time, and we had only fakers and charlatans on ours. They would lose no opportunity to point it out, crowing to the high heavens about the quality of intellect attracted to their way of thinking.

But, conditions such as they are, they seem to have a raging case of sour grapes. The same men that they would gleefully cling to (were they theists) somehow become arrogant, evil snobs because they're arguing for the opposition.
 
2009-03-25 09:48:29 PM  
The Balls on that man, they are sizable.

Yes. But they're big, CRAZY balls! ;-)


Every night, we can all watch those balls set, listening to Missa Solemnis and enjoying a mellow scotch...
 
2009-03-25 09:55:01 PM  

Zamboro: authenticryan: "The Balls on that man, they are sizable."

Just like Dawkins, Harris, Dennet and the rest, Hitchens is the sort of formidable intellectual that theists would be crowing about if only he were on their side.

The fact that they affectionately crowd around unqualified dimwits like Dinesh D'Souza on the apologist side, then turn around and heap scorn on the renown scientists on the polemicist side is just staggering. Imagine if the situation were reversed, and their side was made up of some of the brightest minds of our time, and we had only fakers and charlatans on ours. They would lose no opportunity to point it out, crowing to the high heavens about the quality of intellect attracted to their way of thinking.

But, conditions such as they are, they seem to have a raging case of sour grapes. The same men that they would gleefully cling to (were they theists) somehow become arrogant, evil snobs because they're arguing for the opposition.


I loved that one debate they had where D'Souza spent the first couple rounds spouting about the "Gift of God" and the blessed knowledge it was for Christians (mentioning no other religions of course) to be blessed with that information. Then two rounds later he's talking about the arrogance of rationalist atheists who presume to "know" the world through science while Christians didn't ever presume to "know" anything about the world. God was enough.
The clock ran out before Hitchens could get his response in, but the droll look on his face begged to know if D'Souza was really going to hang the fruit so low.
 
2009-03-25 09:56:08 PM  

kerpal32: authenticryan: You're right. We sure wouldn't want the people telling us how to live and think to feel repressed.

yea, you know because it's a belief. or non-belief. or something like that. after all, when does a non-belief become a belief? when you

- have organizations?
- legal representation, secular rights, and meetings?
- have a logo so others can tell you share the same 'non-beliefs'?
- have representatives and PR?

or
- have actually formed governments that oppressed others or committed mass murder of millions opposing views.....

or all of the above? Oh yea, you've arrived baby.

/but


Mere unbelief in a personal god is no belief at all.

You know who said this im sure.
 
2009-03-25 10:03:41 PM  

guyinjeep16: Mere unbelief in a personal god is no belief at all.

You know who said this im sure.


Is it an unbelief when you act intolerantly of others and behave as if you demand that everyone conform to your unbelief?

~I said that.
 
2009-03-25 10:08:26 PM  

Zamboro: Deuce


Well, what you demonstrated, more than anything else, is that your mind is already made up. There's no need to debate with you. You're clearly a scientific materialist who thinks that one can measure anything.

Rude? Yes, because you insult my beliefs with little to no reason to do so.

I didn't insult your belief system because you have no belief system.
 
2009-03-25 10:10:31 PM  

kerpal32: authenticryan: There are libertarian atheists, there are capitalist atheists, there are anarchist athiests.

And there varying religions, literal/fundamentalist Christians, and other types as well.

I know you hate it when the same semantic bullshiat is played back at you, so maybe you should just stop the atheist semantic bullshiat games.

ninjakirby: Hmm, it appears that Kerpal is advocating a strawman position that doesn't accurately reflect 'atheist' but is in fact attempting to conflate cults of personality that are non-theistic and anti-theistic, with atheism.

No. I was illustrating someone else's strawman here....
authenticryan: Athiests don't force you to have abortions or gay sex or wear condoms or even eat shellfish.

Of course YOU intentionally ignore their strawman. But you can't admit that out loud. Oh fark no. Bueller? Bueller? yawn.... just get over your farking bias.

Again, answer me this. If an atheist is also a communist and implements a doctrine upon which atheism is an integral part, what's the distinction between them using communism to expand atheism (through state atheism, militant atheism, anti-theism or similar means) or still acting because their atheists? Anyone, ever.... whether as a group or an individual or a despot backed by other (who are also atheists).

/I'll have the fish.

FootInMouthDisease: Um, if you are going to try and cram this idea down our throats, we have all rights to ask you where the fark you are getting this belief in the first place.

Doubt because of lack of evidence is a default position.

and you're right correlation =/= causation, so show me how that is not the case here.


The only one cramming any "ideas" down any throats here is you and your pals. Like you do in all these threads.

Again, you keep applying a materialistic expectation to a metaphysical philosophy. Doubt is valid. But doubt doesn't negate "faith" any more than your other efforts. You're back to stamping your feet demanding evidence again.

"Faith which does not doubt is dead faith."
~Miguel de Unamuno

As for my views.... do you think I speak for everyone with religious or spiritual beliefs? Or do you think your generalizations about "sky wizards" invalidates their beliefs.

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
~Albert Einstein

Do you think after 2000 years of people debating this you've reached some sort of epiphany which will invalidate all non-atheistic philosophies? We've already covered that science does not disprove theism. Which pretty much leaves the observation of you and your pals just ridiculing and shouting down everyone with any religious beliefs like you do in all these threads.


Wow. WIN. End of thread.

/absolutely no sarcasm
//I'm dead serious
 
2009-03-25 10:13:11 PM  

kerpal32: Do you think after 2000 years of people debating this you've reached some sort of epiphany which will invalidate all non-atheistic philosophies? We've already covered that science does not disprove theism. Which pretty much leaves the observation of you and your pals just ridiculing and shouting down everyone with any religious beliefs like you do in all these threads.


Religious beliefs are almost universally irrational in nature. They require acceptance of supernatural claims predicated on impossible knowledge of the truth of theism. They are propagated by social institutions seeking power and authority over the lives of their faithful. Those organizations have in the past promoted the commission of atrocities for no better justification than completely spurious claims to know that God wants it to be so.

So tell me, why exactly should we treat religion with respect, again? Religion and theism are not at all the same thing. Just because the former is predicated on the latter does not mean we must defer to religious beliefs. In fact, in my opinion the fact that they try to use metaphysical theism as a justification for action makes me more suspicious of religion, not less. What are the hidden motives they are not acknowledging that they are trying to cloak in the trappings of supernaturalism?

Look, metaphysical theism, specific supernatural claims, and the social institutions of religion are all different things. You can`t defend all of them by asserting that theism cannot be challenged. You can only so defend theism. Religion remains fair game.
 
2009-03-25 10:16:07 PM  
kerpal32: "Is it an unbelief when you act intolerantly of others and behave as if you demand that everyone conform to your unbelief?"

So because you are 'intolerant' of racists and misogynists and attempt to persuade them to come around to a less backwards way of thinking, you're biased and bigoted?

There's nothing wrong with being intolerant of religion. It's not an inborn trait like race or gender or sexuality, it's something one decides to believe or is raised in and then decides to keep believing. It's entirely reasonable to hold people accountable for making poor decisions.

They have the right to believe whatever they like. However, they do not have the right to go through life without ever having their beliefs criticized, challenged, or even ridiculed if the beliefs are stupid enough that they invite it.
 
2009-03-25 10:16:18 PM  

kerpal32: authenticryan: There are libertarian atheists, there are capitalist atheists, there are anarchist athiests.

And there varying religions, literal/fundamentalist Christians, and other types as well.

I know you hate it when the same semantic bullshiat is played back at you, so maybe you should just stop the atheist semantic bullshiat games.


Its not semantics. There are atheists with varying political views. That's absolutely true. And yes, I know there are various religions, and don't dispute that. In fact, I'm grateful you brought that up.

I would like somebody to tell me one fact-based reason that clearly elevates one of the current monotheisms above one of the classical, pre-Constantine religions. For instance, why should I be praying in a church rather than snorting geo-thermal gasses that gave people visions at the oracle of Delphi, or burning hecatombs to almighty Zeus. Honestly, the religious variety thing is a dud weapon to pull considering that without proof of any kind, each and every religious group thinks they have all the answers and the others are just deluded and sad.

And no comment on the Jesus/S-Chip childcare thing? Not one peep?
 
2009-03-25 10:17:19 PM  

KiltedBastich: Religious beliefs are almost universally irrational in nature.


Do we need to cover Aquinas and other philosopher's views, including Kierkegaard, Popper and those in between on why you look silly constantly arguing the metaphysical from a materialistic "rational" framework?
 
2009-03-25 10:19:49 PM  

authenticryan: Its not semantics. There are atheists with varying political views. That's absolutely true. And yes, I know there are various religions, and don't dispute that. In fact, I'm grateful you brought that up.


yea, and? does it negate any acts by atheists with strong political views?

or does it accept that there are varying degrees of "Christians" with differing interpretations of religion, spirituality or faith?

The initial strawman was yours. And it's a weak ass semantic game more closed minded atheists love to play to generalize anti-Christian sentiments and appeals to emotion.

/just stop it
 
2009-03-25 10:26:11 PM  

Deuce McStinkle: Zamboro: Deuce

Well, what you demonstrated, more than anything else, is that your mind is already made up. There's no need to debate with you. You're clearly a scientific materialist who thinks that one can measure anything.

Rude? Yes, because you insult my beliefs with little to no reason to do so.

I didn't insult your belief system because you have no belief system.


And the standard religious intolerance of other perspectives is here underlined. Need I remind you of an earlier post, o forgetful fool?

Zamboro: twoowlz: "What does Zamboro believe in anyways?"

I believe that those who say religion is the sole cause of war are taking an indefensibly simplistic view of history. However those who claim religion has only ever been used insincerely, as a pretense for war, are taking an equally simplistic view motivated mainly by their desire to shift blame away from their preferred religion. No one factor is the sole cause of any given war; rather wars typically result from a mixture of many factors, though never in equal proportion. A war might be mainly 'about' religion, with conquest and greed as secondary motivations. A war might also be mainly 'about' ethnocentrism and nationalism, with traditionalism used as a pretense, and so on.

. I believe religiosity to be symptomatic of suffering. It offers relief and refuge from the barbarism of life in third world nations (where religiosity is intense and dominant) and the unique stresses of financial/social inequity, poor health/education and the inability to improve ones conditions which many still face in America, despite her wealth and military might. There exists an inverse correlation between the standard of living indicies in any given nation and its degree of religiosity, and rather than making the claim that religion directly causes lower standard of living indicies, I would instead argue that the population turns to religion when their quality of life is poor and they have no means of improving their situation. There are some situations (see: the Middle East) in which a self-perpetuating cycle occurs; charismatic figures play upon the suffering of poorly educated refugees and laborers, shifting the blame for their suffering away from their theocratic government and onto some foreign enemy who is either irreligious or thought to be of the 'wrong' religion. In these cases terrorism results, conditions worsen, and religiosity increases. If conditions improve, citizens are on average well educated, in good health and have all of their basic needs met (i.e; high standard of living indicies) then we see religiosity decrease and eventually fade into irrelevance, as is the case in Scandinavia, Britain, Japan, France and so on. Despite our wealth, America still suffers from poor public education (science suffers the most, owing largely to religious opposition to science education wherever it conflicts with scripture), a great degree of class stratification where there should instead be a smooth gradient, teenage pregnancies due to religious/cultural suppression of sex education, social inequality for gays, poor health care (exacerbated by religious opposition to certain necessary medical technologies) and so on and so forth. As is the case in the middle east our religiosity is not due only to these shortcomings, but they are themselves caused in part by the very religiosity that they inspire.

I believe that the economic views of hard socialists and libertarians are too extreme. Neither total nationalization nor a completely free market is best for America; presently many services and institutions are socialized (libraries, utilities, infrastructure) while many others are privately operated. This is how it ought to be, although there's room for debate as to which services should be privatized which are presently nationalized and vice versa.

I believe that the United States would do well to invest in a predominantly nuclear solution to the energy crisis patterned after the French model, though perhaps with a greater supplement of renewables. More than 80% of France's energy is produced by new generation nuclear plants. Fast neutron, pebble bed, breeder and pressurized water reactors offer increased efficiency and greater safety when compared to the legacy reactors currently in use, and the waste they produce is actually *less* radioactive than the coal ash from existing coal fired power plants. Such a transition would be initially costly, but would pay for itself many times over by curing us of our addiction to foreign oil and positioning America as an energy super power when formerly oil rich nations begin to run dry.

. I believe that a government initiative ought to be undertaken to construct large scale autonomous agricultural/mining/manufacturing/etc facilities, powered mainly by the aforementioned nuclear infrastructure. Failing that, on-site renewables such as solar and wind could sustain 24/7 production by storing energy in high permittivity ultracapacitors (or whatever other advanced methods of storing electricity become available) which would fill up during periods of peak sunlight/wind and then continue recharging the robots and their support machinery when neither wind nor sunlight are available.

I believe that the United States ought to implement (nationwide) an economic system patterned after Alaska's Citizen's Permanent Fund, in which some portion of profits made by companies exploiting the natural resources of a state would be paid out to citizens of that state in the form of a monthly stipend. This would serve as a stopgap solution pending the implementation of automated labor facilities.

I believe that because we are no longer on the gold standard, some other commodity must become the basis of our currencies worth in order to safeguard against economic collapse. Currency could potentially represent some proportional share of the products of automated labor, as well as the profit from their export (assuming a period of perhaps a decade in which most other developed nations are without some comparable automated labor program) Under such a system, every citizen would be guaranteed a small monthly income which would grow as more automated labor facilities are built. Eventually a tipping point would be reached where monthly stipends would become generous enough to live on, regardless of whether one worked or not. At this point we would be free to pursue whatever hobbies we're passionate about, as the basis of our economy would have shifted from human labor to automated labor, and currency would exist mainly as a means of regulating consumption such that it does not outstrip the productive capacity of automated labor.

I believe that a good solution to both the economic and environmental crisis would be to convert some portion of unused retail space in malls to apartments, so that we might have the option of living in consolidated indoor habitats which are more efficient to heat and cool, and which can be made energy independent by integrating solar energy collectors and wind props into the structure itself. Airports could be similarly adapted while continuing to serve as air transit hubs. A minimum guaranteed daily patronage would ensure a healthy economy, and the internal climate could be kept livable regardless of how unlivable it might eventually become outside.

I believe that our government ought to subsidize the widespread implementation of Personal Rapid Transit, as it is more economical and more ecologically sound than existing forms of mass transit, and it fits in nicely with the concept of consolidated residential/commercial centers that I outlined earlier.

I believe that in the interim between the abandonment of internal combustion technology and the completion of PRT infrastructure, there ought to be a government regulated (but not subsidized) transition to electric vehicles, with the responsibility for realizing this transition placed largely on auto manufacturers. I don't believe automakers will cooperate voluntarily as they're still too entangled with the oil industry. The current industry commitment to producing pure electric vehicles may well be an empty gesture that they intend to fail, and we can ill afford another EV-1 debacle.

I believe that hydrogen fuel cell technology in its present form is impractical for personal transportation, and by the time it becomes practical we should already have implemented widespread PRT. Fuel cell technology will find roles wherever EESU technology would be insufficient, such as shipping by truck, air travel and so on. Fuel can be sustainably produced by way of large scale electrolysis plants, powered by integrated renewables.


These are a few of the things that one atheist believes in. Thank you for asking.


Yep, that`s no belief system, not at all. How could we ever have been fooled?

All thread long, you have been supercilious and elitist, refusing to defend your position because the poor benighted heathens can`t possibly understand the rarified heights of your understanding.

What you have never acknowledged is that this is a bullshiat means of ducking the question. Zamboro and ninjakirby and many others here have directly studied the Bible. Others of us have studied the phenomenon of religion from anthropological, psychological, sociological and philosophical perspectives. It is YOU who has yet to demonstrate that you are able to keep up with US.

Let me be perfectly clear. Your beliefs are not sacrosanct. All of us here believe in the critical method. You want us to accept something as valid? Show us. Provide the valid grounds on which you advance your argument. If you can`t, then we can and will dismiss both you and your viewpoint as irrelevant. That`s how a debate works.

Zamboro has been very polite, and you have been continuously condescending and antagonistic. So here`s the thing, I`m not actually as principled about such things as he is. I am perfectly happy to respond to you on the level you insist on operating at.

Put up or shut up. You want to make out like you have all the answers? Put them out there, and expect us to do the best we can to tear them to shreds, because that is how the critical method works. Only ideas that can withstand critique get accepted. And before you ask, yes, of course, you get to do exactly the same to our beliefs. In fact, we want you to. That`s how we learn new things.

Your childish ad hominems and tantrums about us insulting your beliefs? That gets you contempt and derision. Suck it up, whiner, and put your money where your mouth is.
 
2009-03-25 10:27:35 PM  

kerpal32: guyinjeep16: Mere unbelief in a personal god is no belief at all.

You know who said this im sure.

Is it an unbelief when you act intolerantly of others and behave as if you demand that everyone conform to your unbelief?

~I said that.


Never said that people should conform to anything.
Stop whinning.
 
2009-03-25 10:30:19 PM  

kerpal32: KiltedBastich: Religious beliefs are almost universally irrational in nature.

Do we need to cover Aquinas and other philosopher's views, including Kierkegaard, Popper and those in between on why you look silly constantly arguing the metaphysical from a materialistic "rational" framework?


Do we need to cover how people who have irrational religious beliefs can nonetheless operate rationally in other contexts, or how people can build logical constructs from irrational premises?
Do we need to revisit, again, how metaphysical premises can either be complete abstractions untestable by science OR can have implications for the real universe that can be analyzed using material means, but always one or the other and never both?
 
2009-03-25 10:35:58 PM  

Deuce McStinkle: Zamboro: Deuce

Well, what you demonstrated, more than anything else, is that your mind is already made up. There's no need to debate with you. You're clearly a scientific materialist who thinks that one can measure anything.

Rude? Yes, because you insult my beliefs with little to no reason to do so.

I didn't insult your belief system because you have no belief system.


If your beliefs can be insulted, you might want to find out why you have such a low opinion of said beliefs. Otherwise you are just saying hey stop being mean to me, I cant defend myself!
 
2009-03-25 10:38:14 PM  

Zamboro: The fact that they affectionately crowd around unqualified dimwits like Dinesh D'Souza on the apologist side,


On the contrary, his dimwittery is pretty well qualified by everything he says.


KiltedBastich: We are all intrinsically, utterly and irrevocably biased in our thinking at all times and under all conditions.


I'm not. Also, I would be absolutely perfect if I weren't so damn humble.

KiltedBastich: Frankly, I'm surprised you can fit that ego of yours through the door to your home.


You can have those widened. Also, it really depends on the size of said door to begin with, don't it?

KiltedBastich: Atheism is merely an occasionally useful concept coopted by communism.


It's certainly used to support the state in those countries pursuing radical nationalism. And if there's nothing else that CERTAINLY describes all atheists here on Fark and especially those evil "New Atheists," it's radical nationalism!

KiltedBastich: For example, I am an agnostic theist who is anti-religion and pro-science.


That's OK, we like you anyway. Nobody's perfect.


authenticryan: Every night, we can all watch those balls set,


Kthx, no... o_O

I do find myself occasionally pondering how often Dawkins gets to do it with a Time Lord, though.
 
2009-03-25 10:42:32 PM  

cthellis: KiltedBastich: Atheism is merely an occasionally useful concept coopted by communism.

It's certainly used to support the state in those countries pursuing radical nationalism. And if there's nothing else that CERTAINLY describes all atheists here on Fark and especially those evil "New Atheists," it's radical nationalism!


Weird, isn`t it? It`s almost as if they perceive religion to be a competitor or something.

cthellis: KiltedBastich: For example, I am an agnostic theist who is anti-religion and pro-science.

That's OK, we like you anyway. Nobody's perfect.


I guess I`m too humble? ;p
 
Displayed 50 of 678 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report