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.

(Calgary Herald)   "Born-again atheists are as irritating as born-again religious persons"   ( calgaryherald.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, born-again  
•       •       •

9359 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 May 2012 at 10:01 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



659 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


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

 
2012-05-10 11:50:36 AM  

ununcle: Gothnet: ununcle:
Religion aside, if women are aborting babys because they wanted a boy or a girl instead of what's in there belly I think it is sick. I think we are as a culture on a fast track to oblivion if our own humanity has been so deluded to call that birth control. I'm a man, and I'll never hold a child in my body, so I guess i just don't understand. Maybe I'm being judgmental. I just don't understand.

Meh, I think that's pretty sick to.

I only know one woman in my life that's had an abortion, others may have done but not talked about it, it's not really something that comes up in conversation. It was at her then-boyfriend's insistence. It was traumatic and haunted her for years (still does most likely, I don't see so much of her any more). I absolutely support a woman's right to an abortion, I find shock videos and targeting doctors repellant behaviour and protests against clinics to be counterproductive and wrong. However I hope that as a society we can help make it as rare as possible by encouraging responsible use of birth control, and by supporting women that don't feel they have a choice.

I've been married twice. Both of my wives had abortions. Neither were from me (thank god), both had them when they were in there teens. Both cried about it consistently. I tried to console saying they were to young to realize, but it was farkin heavy. . I can't imagine what their situation was, but it was serious farkin baggage. That's my experience with it and I saw it in there eye's and it wasn't so "fire and forget".


Is it possible that your wives are more upset due to their upbringing which didn't support abortion? Or perhaps they are ashamed of being pregnant so young?

I had an abortion too, at age 23 and although it was a tough time, I'm farking happy as hell I had one. I know quite a few girls who have had abortions and they had the same experience. Hell, even the religious ones who had abortions because the fetus had genetic problems are okay with their choice. I don't know anyone who regrets their decision.

It is not like young women don't understand the ramifications of pregnancy versus abortion.
 
2012-05-10 12:41:54 PM  
And one last point: Atheists need not be "born again" because atheism doesn't require the unquestioning naivete of a newborn child, but rather, the hard, cold glare of adulthood. Whereas religious indoctrination requires faith counter to common sense, atheism requires nothing more than awakening, awareness, and the ability to reason for yourself.
 
2012-05-10 12:55:03 PM  
"Born-again atheists are as irritating as born-again religious persons"

No, I have never been woken up on a Saturday morning by a born-again (sic) atheist knocking on my door.
 
2012-05-10 01:07:07 PM  

Pitabred: Where in the Bible does Jesus or God direct you to punish perceived sinners, or physically prevent them from sinning? Seems like that's between us and your imaginary friend, not between you and me.


Right off the top of my head:

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"- Exodus 22:18
 
2012-05-10 01:11:10 PM  

Baryogenesis: One guy who I've never heard of said so therefore it MUST be true that all scientists think exactly the same way. You just can't or won't accept that secular =/= atheistic.


That's like feeding some future bevets-esque quote mine.

Anyhow Bevets,

"Faith" in science, and "Faith" in god are two seperate concepts. You're equivocating, add to that the actual quote you use to make a point, is wrong. Maybe to that guy it's an article of faith because he is just as ignorant of biology as you are, or he was being flippant/poetic.

Science is tangibly proven reliable on a daily basis. Religion never is.

It's a matter of deserved confidence. Science, it works biatches.
 
2012-05-10 01:13:01 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Pitabred: Where in the Bible does Jesus or God direct you to punish perceived sinners, or physically prevent them from sinning? Seems like that's between us and your imaginary friend, not between you and me.

Right off the top of my head:

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"- Exodus 22:18


And all the stuff about killing people for various infractions.
 
2012-05-10 01:27:04 PM  
Atheists can't prove a negative. Theists can't prove their unlikely positive.

"I don't know, either way," seems a humbly reasonable humane response to the God/No God question.

By the way, the Earth is the center of the known universe where the edges all seem to be a time boundary. What Galileo proved was that the Earth is not the center of the solar system.

What is important about science is that it evolves, and is an exercise in refinement. Improvements in instrumentation lead to better predictions, sharper results, better understanding.

Religious orthodoxy attempts to remain static, providing outdated answers for modern challenges. Genesis says, "Be fruitful and multiply." That was great advice when there were maybe 50 million people on Earth. And, not eating pork in a desert without refrigeration was a good idea, too.

But, times have changed. We have refrigeration; we have 7 billion people on earth and having 27 children is no longer good advice.

Anyway, I wish that religion was, indeed, "the opiate of the masses." All of these believers would chill out, and I include the zealot atheists.
 
2012-05-10 01:29:54 PM  

AdamK: Aarontology: Born again atheists are douchebags on the internet

Born again religious people codify their bigotry and hatreds into state law.

BOTH SIDES ARE BAD

ignore both sides is what i do

/people interested in politics are like dogs


In that dogs are generally smarter than you?
 
2012-05-10 01:31:35 PM  

porkloin: Atheists can't prove a negative. Theists can't prove their unlikely positive.

"I don't know, either way," seems a humbly reasonable humane response to the God/No God question.


"I don't know" is a fine response to the question "does a god exist?" but it isn't an answer to the question "do you believe a god exists?" I don't know. But I don't believe.
 
2012-05-10 01:36:00 PM  

Epicedion: "I don't know" is a fine response to the question "does a god exist?" but it isn't an answer to the question "do you believe a god exists?"


It's the agnostics' answer to that question, which literally means "we'll be farked if we know" in Greek.
 
2012-05-10 01:46:32 PM  

pecosdave: Truth is atheist have committed genocide in the name of their religion. The Chinese are using a "breed them out" and thin them out by building a train in and out approach in Tibet to accomplish the same thing. No - it's not just a communist thing, if it's the state religion it's still being done in the name of a religion just like when the Vatican did the same thing with the crusades.

The people the last frame of the comic refers to are really agnostics who just don't give a crap. Atheist (at least Neo-Atheist) give too big of a crap to be non-religious.


Plus there was a guy named Pol Pot in Cambodia, who had a habit of killing anyone who was not an atheist (among other things).
 
2012-05-10 01:57:55 PM  

litespeed74: Wouldn't a born again atheist be a monkey?


Ape, you twit.
 
2012-05-10 02:05:29 PM  

kg2095: Osomatic: Ambivalence: A-freaking-men.

Atheists may not THINK they're proslytizing, but some of them take the "smug superiority" thing way so far it's hard to tell. Sure they're not telling anyone they're going to hell for not believing, they're just telling people they're clinically insane and/or retarded for believing God exists.

How is that better? Both sides need to STFU and check their egos.

You know, if we were discussing politics, and I thought you had a really stupid opinion, I'd try to prove you wrong. Even if we were arguing about even something inane, like Mac vs. PC, I would try to make a case for my point of view. I might even call you nuts or stupid. (Not really, but if I did, it's unlikely anyone would freak out about it.)

So why is religion different? Why is religion protected from any questioning? Why is it not okay to challenge a person's beliefs about god? Okay, so you don't have to be a jerk about it, but look at the reaction to various books questioning the existence of god. "Militant atheists! Shrill, attacksome!" And you will surely never read a news article that so much as questions a person's right to hold horrible, bigoted opinions, as long as they present themselves as holding these beliefs for religious reasons.

Why isn't it okay to question a person's religious beliefs? Or at least point out the rather overwhelming lack of evidence? Or the sheer illogic of an eternal, omniscient supreme being? Is people's faith that tenuous, that they're terrified of anyone poking at it a bit in case it crumbles?

I agree with you except for the bolded part.

I'm not saying that an eternal, omniscient supreme being exists. I don't know if it does or not. But I also don't think it's any more mind boggling than a universe that popped into existence from nothing, and for no reason. I've heard people explain this puzzle as being the result of the laws of physics. That's fine and it makes sense. But then we're still right back where we star ...


A fair point and you're right, nobody truly knows. Science is still trying to figure it out, but we may never truly know. That said, for me it's easier to imagine that everything just is, without also having to believe that before that, there was an all-powerful person who created it all. (So who created the creator?)
 
2012-05-10 02:08:11 PM  

ununcle: Osomatic: Well, I would say the answer to "where" is: In the United States. If you disagree, let me ask you this: Can you imagine a non-Christian (either another religion, or an agnostic or atheist) being elected President? Dude, Christianity permeates this culture. I know some people like to talk about Christians being persecuted, but that's just built into Christianity. They *have* to feel persecuted. In the US, they are far, far, far from it. (Yes, even though sometimes a school administrator goes overboard and tells a kid with a Jesus shirt to take it off. That's not actually persecution.)

Christians are elected president because the US is a predominantly Christian nation. It was founded on Christian principals and the majority of citizens are Christians. The problems in this country isn't that "Christians" are Persecuted. The problem is that the "majority" is Persecuted for the benifit of minority interest.


Examples?
 
2012-05-10 02:29:34 PM  

porkloin: Atheists can't prove a negative. Theists can't prove their unlikely positive.


Atheists do not claim that gods do not exists. We make no claims at all. We are not a group. There is nothing for us to prove.

We reject the religious' claim that gods exist because they provide no evidence ... as is the only logical course of action in these situations. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ... their claim that "magic is real" definitely falls in the category of extraordinary yet they offer no evidence.
 
2012-05-10 02:57:32 PM  
Anyone else read that as a Sean Penn quote?
 
2012-05-10 03:01:15 PM  
Damn those atheists for getting upset when the religious try to shiat on the Constitution!
 
2012-05-10 03:36:52 PM  

TsukasaK: Kar98: Atheism is a religion the same way "OFF" is a cable channel.

Hint: "Religious" has dual meanings, one being actual belief and service of some form of higher power, and the other meaning doing something scrupulously and regularly. As in "I watch Stargate religiously"


Hint: words have meaning. Substituting "religious" for "religion" to attempt to make a stupid point doesn't make your point not stupid, just dishonest.
 
2012-05-10 03:41:46 PM  
Farking Canuck:
"Atheists do not claim that gods do not exists. We make no claims at all. We are not a group. There is nothing for us to prove.
Atheists do not claim that gods do not exists. We make no claims at all. We are not a group. There is nothing for us to prove."


dictionary: Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God

Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Goes on to discuss close synonyms, stating: An Atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity. An Agnostic is a person who believes it is impossible to know anything about God or the creation of the universe.

Maybe you have your own dictionary, but I think that Atheists are making a theological claim, and that, that claim being unprovable, is akin to the claims of religious folks.
 
2012-05-10 03:49:54 PM  

porkloin: dictionary: Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God


There's more than one dictionary definition. The one you've chosen is the least inclusive.

Your definition of "agnostic" is crap. It's loaded with baggage ("God" and "the creation of the universe") that has the appearance of presupposing the existence of these things.
 
2012-05-10 03:56:17 PM  

Diogenes The Cynic: Knowledge, how does it work?

I just finished reading through the entire thread, and I'll post responses to a bunch of posts in no particular order. Just so you know, this is coming from the perspective of an Orthodox Jew with a background in philosophy.

1. Karl Marx had a negative view of religion, and all Communist nations to date have persecuted the religious in the name of Marxism.

2. Science has little place in a debate about G-d. Philosophy yes, but science, no.

You see, scientists are the drooling retarded step-brothers of the philosophers, and they would still be trying to turn lead into gold if they didn't have the scientific method invented for them. By philosophers, mind you.

Their have their strengths, but being to tell us how to think about something isn't one of them. For instance, we have reams of data about how the brain works, but its philosophers that answer the mind-body problem.

Science has proven undoubtedly that the world is more than 6000 years old. Many atheists think that therefore science is right, and religion is wrong. Thats not an argument. Maybe they want to say that it disproves the Bible narrative, but in reality, were not beholden to that number.

3. "But the G-d of the Torah is so mean!"

Well, I find it funny how Atheists disapprove of the G-d they don't believe in.

4. "Wharlbelgarrrrbel Sky fairy, wizard, old man, imaginary friend, etc etc"

It started with Bertrand Russel. He was the first modern philosopher to not just be an atheist, but a militant one at that. He was probably the influence behind the jerks we have today.

The problem with the people who make this type of argument is that they're idiots. They're not like idiots, they don't resemble idiots, they are idiots in the fullest sense of the word. They can't have adult conversations/arguments for fear something might jostle their tiny little minds, so they hit the ad hominem button to prevent any discourse.

Then they act like nothing happened. "What did I offend y ...


Do you know anything at all about Diogenes or are you purposefully trying to make a mockery of his good name?
 
2012-05-10 04:03:31 PM  
I'm gonna piss on you as the real Diogenes did when someone insulted him as he was so concerned about not offending others because of their beliefs. And when I'm done I'll go masturbate in public before falling asleep in my broken wine vat in the town square where I'll wait for Alexander the Great to show up so I can tell him where to stick it too.
 
2012-05-10 04:26:17 PM  

porkloin: dictionary: Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God


"Dictionary definitions are written with a lot of things in mind, but rigorously circumscribing the exact meanings and connotations of terms is not usually one of them."
- Jesse Sheidlower, the editor at large of the Oxford English Dictionary

You choose that definition because it helps your argument. Mr Sheildlower addresses that above in his quote. The fact is that you can search dictionary definitions until you find one you like ... it is intellectually dishonest to present it as definitive argument. Why don't you actually listen to what atheists are actually saying? Is it because you don't want to hear the truth??

A small subset of atheists are willing to make the claim that gods do not exists ... I personally call them anti-theists. If you are using them as a definition of atheist then you are missing most atheists. Do you not want to use a definition that captures all atheists?

The only definition of the word atheists that actually includes all of us is: "People who lack a belief in gods".

Nothing else includes all of us!

But if you want to continue to use a definition that misses most atheists because you think you are helping your argument go ahead. We can see right through it.
 
2012-05-10 04:35:44 PM  

doglover: Ow My Balls: I eschewed my religious upbringing at about the age of 26 (after 8 slowly evolving years of questioning the faith assumed upon me) and was assertive at first for a good reason because I was pissed about being lied to, since birth and with no choice in the matter, and I had based all of my important decisions in life upon invisible men hovering about and influencing me on a minute-by-minute basis. It took a good 8 or 10 more years to settle down and be tolerant after that.

Had I not been brainwashed from birth in the first place, it would've been a different story. I'm a laid back, positive person by nature...

/Mind Virus

There's two possibilities here.

Either you were too slow to start sieving the facts from the fiction early on like most people are wont to do. It's not exactly a big mental leap from Santa is my parents to this god is the priest.

Or you were too slow to grasp the nuggets of wisdom hidden in the religion you feel was foisted upon you and resent your own failure to find sound advice in parable form useful.

Either way you now lash out blindly at people who had your best interests in mind and resent them for your own inability to to puzzle out something of value that's been helpful enough that a large group of people have kept it alive and well to this very day.

Mind virus, indeed.


Oversimplify much?

The doubting occurred probably around age 8 and slowwwwly progressed, but I didn't totally abandon the religion until after I made some important life decisions that were predicated upon the assumption that invisible men with superpowers love and watch over me. Thus, it might be easy to see why some newly converted Atheists lash out at first and for awhile.

I don't currently lash out at others as you allude (haven't for probably 10 years now), nor do I fit in your cozy little scenario. The way you framed it makes you come off as an asshole. How proud you must be.
 
2012-05-10 04:58:37 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Prayer:

[i12.photobucket.com image 640x219]


Prayer: doing absolutely nothing of value while fooling yourself into thinking that you are actually doing good.
 
2012-05-10 05:02:55 PM  

Kar98: Diogenes The Cynic: 5. Learn to read a book. Something that challenges your worldview instead of reinforcing it. I read a bunch of philosophy, Dawkins, and some critical Bible criticism, and still am a religious Jew.

I've read the bible in several languages, and why is it I should shape my life after what a bunch of stupid farking bronze age goat shaggers wrote, not without contradicting themselves on just about every page?


Did you ignore the rest of what I said? I said read the summa theologica, the guide for the perplexed, or something like that. The Bible isn't written as a book that could be understood without its oral component.

Where does it contradict itself?
 
2012-05-10 05:05:23 PM  

Egoy3k: Diogenes The Cynic: Philosophers>Scientists

My point was that in the same post that you challenged us to behave properly and 'learn to make an argument' you used the term "drooling retarded step-brothers". You are a hypocrite.


I challenged the Atheists to learn to make arguments. Atheists and scientists are not synonymous.
 
2012-05-10 05:08:34 PM  

CapnBlues: Diogenes The Cynic: Egoy3k: Diogenes The Cynic: You see, scientists are the drooling retarded step-brothers of the philosophers, and they would still be trying to turn lead into gold if they didn't have the scientific method invented for them. By philosophers, mind you.
...
Grow up, and learn to make arguments and stop pretending you don't know why you upset the religious.

Wat?

Philosophers>Scientists

I am totally serious. The scientific method was codified by philosophers.

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

The laws of logic also help govern scientific thought. One of my philosophy professors once said "we accept science because it tends to work."

Others might put it at some high level of knowledge, but its all deductive, not inductive.

oh my. really? wow.

alchemist = scientist? hahahahaha

*pointing and laughing*

As Tyler Durden once said, sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a turkey. Just because some scientists study the elements (chemistry) and alchemists were also trying to study the elements, that does not mean that alchemists are scientists. One might as easily call alchemists jewelers, because they were both interested in gold. And this dichotomy you draw between philosophy and science? it's bullpoo. The two fields only became separate quite recently. Ben Franklin, for example -- he was as much a philosopher as a scientist and politician and all the rest. I don't know if you're just trolling here, but I thought you might want to know that you're wrong.


I don't understand how you could get that from what I wrote. Alchemy isn't science, and the only reason that is so is because philosophers invented the scientific method to make science work.

That doesn't prevent people from making up sciences before they're told they're stupid, and go away. Take phrenology, for example.
 
2012-05-10 05:15:32 PM  

porkloin: Farking Canuck:
"Atheists do not claim that gods do not exists. We make no claims at all. We are not a group. There is nothing for us to prove.
Atheists do not claim that gods do not exists. We make no claims at all. We are not a group. There is nothing for us to prove."


dictionary: Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God

Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Goes on to discuss close synonyms, stating: An Atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity. An Agnostic is a person who believes it is impossible to know anything about God or the creation of the universe.

Maybe you have your own dictionary, but I think that Atheists are making a theological claim, and that, that claim being unprovable, is akin to the claims of religious folks.


I hate it when people try to lump atheism in with theism.. they're fundamentally opposed and the burden of proof lies only on those who believe in something, not those who don't. you have to make believers of us, beyond just 'knowing' what is 'true'. It's easier for me to believe abstract principles in science, because they are usually founded on very sound and logical arguments based on facts and physical laws, supported by independent researchers across the globe. If the existence of god was based on anything solid like that, and not just fantastical claims over the centuries, then I wouldn't be so resistant to the idea.

let's face it, religion around the world spawned in ancient times when science was lacking and explanations of natural phenomena was scarce. it was an attempt to explain the mysterious and understand the world that surrounded us, but here we are, with hundreds of years of scientific reasoning and curiosity to dispel the need for religion and anchor our observable world in rational understanding. If not for the theological infrastructure in our society where religion has grown roots into almost every aspect of our lives, it would be much easier for people to shed their convictions or at least start questioning them. But we are at a turning point, where more and more people are not blindly accepting the religions they grew up with, and are allowing their offspring the freedom of choice, which of course includes the possibility of non-belief.

in regards to the headline, I don't doubt there are some obnoxious atheists out there desperate to argue their points just as annoyingly as any bible-thumper... but in the end, it's the religious ones that are pushing for attention, acceptance, and fellow converts, which I find infinitely more irritating than any passive billboard.
 
2012-05-10 05:15:44 PM  

Diogenes The Cynic: Kar98: Diogenes The Cynic: 5. Learn to read a book. Something that challenges your worldview instead of reinforcing it. I read a bunch of philosophy, Dawkins, and some critical Bible criticism, and still am a religious Jew.

I've read the bible in several languages, and why is it I should shape my life after what a bunch of stupid farking bronze age goat shaggers wrote, not without contradicting themselves on just about every page?

Did you ignore the rest of what I said? I said read the summa theologica, the guide for the perplexed, or something like that. The Bible isn't written as a book that could be understood without its oral component.

Where does it contradict itself?


Everywhere:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradiction s .html
 
2012-05-10 05:19:07 PM  

Epicedion: Diogenes The Cynic: 1. Karl Marx had a negative view of religion, and all Communist nations to date have persecuted the religious in the name of Marxism.

Most nations have persecuted some group in the name of something-or-other.

Diogenes The Cynic: 2. Science has little place in a debate about G-d. Philosophy yes, but science, no.

You see, scientists are the drooling retarded step-brothers of the philosophers, and they would still be trying to turn lead into gold if they didn't have the scientific method invented for them. By philosophers, mind you.

Their have their strengths, but being to tell us how to think about something isn't one of them. For instance, we have reams of data about how the brain works, but its philosophers that answer the mind-body problem.

Science has proven undoubtedly that the world is more than 6000 years old. Many atheists think that therefore science is right, and religion is wrong. Thats not an argument. Maybe they want to say that it disproves the Bible narrative, but in reality, were not beholden to that number.

"Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds." -- Richard Feynman

I would add that philosophy is the act of thinking that the things you're thinking are more important than the things you think other people are thinking.

Diogenes The Cynic: 3. "But the G-d of the Torah is so mean!"

Well, I find it funny how Atheists disapprove of the G-d they don't believe in.

You'd probably have a problem if a large portion of the population had a close personal relationship with Emperor Palpatine and wanted to spread his love into the daily lives of all the citizenry.

Diogenes The Cynic: 4. "Wharlbelgarrrrbel Sky fairy, wizard, old man, imaginary friend, etc etc"

It started with Bertrand Russel. He was the first modern philosopher to not just be an atheist, but a militant one at that. He was probably the influence behind the jerks we have today.

The problem with the people who make this type o ...


1. My point still stands. I don't know what yours was.
2. Philosophy makes things make sense.
3. I don't care what other peolpe do, generally. No one is out to get you either.
4. Nope
5. Without philosophy, we wouldn't have a good reason to have a government the way we do, a court system the way we do, a society that disapproves of slavery, torture, and other nasty things because we wouldn't coherently think of why things are optimal one way and not another.
6.That might be true of Islam or Christianity, but mine started when G-d took the Jewish nation out of Egypt.

A lot of people say they dislike all religion because of what was done in the crusades, but that shouldn't negatively reflect on Buddhism.
7. Kid, start reading.
 
2012-05-10 05:28:13 PM  
\

Diogenes The Cynic: CapnBlues: Diogenes The Cynic: Egoy3k: Diogenes The Cynic: You see, scientists are the drooling retarded step-brothers of the philosophers, and they would still be trying to turn lead into gold if they didn't have the scientific method invented for them. By philosophers, mind you.
...
Grow up, and learn to make arguments and stop pretending you don't know why you upset the religious.

Wat?

Philosophers>Scientists

I am totally serious. The scientific method was codified by philosophers.

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

The laws of logic also help govern scientific thought. One of my philosophy professors once said "we accept science because it tends to work."

Others might put it at some high level of knowledge, but its all deductive, not inductive.

oh my. really? wow.

alchemist = scientist? hahahahaha

*pointing and laughing*

As Tyler Durden once said, sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a turkey. Just because some scientists study the elements (chemistry) and alchemists were also trying to study the elements, that does not mean that alchemists are scientists. One might as easily call alchemists jewelers, because they were both interested in gold. And this dichotomy you draw between philosophy and science? it's bullpoo. The two fields only became separate quite recently. Ben Franklin, for example -- he was as much a philosopher as a scientist and politician and all the rest. I don't know if you're just trolling here, but I thought you might want to know that you're wrong.

I don't understand how you could get that from what I wrote. Alchemy isn't science, and the only reason that is so is because philosophers invented the scientific method to make science work.

That doesn't prevent people from making up sciences before they're told they're stupid, and go away. Take phrenology, for example.


Through your extensive studies you must surely have learned that science is not a topic but rather a method. No one makes up a science -- science is a way of knowing about the world. It relies on logic and empiricism, has a self-correcting mechanism relying upon the reporting of results to a greater community, and a fundamental tenet that its method is usable only on falsifiable claims.
 
2012-05-10 05:28:18 PM  

Baryogenesis: Diogenes The Cynic: Philosophers>Scientists

I am totally serious. The scientific method was codified by philosophers.

Said the guy typing on a computer connected to the internet. It's great that they came up with logic and the basis for the scientific method, but they didn't DO anything with it. Philosophy provides the initial 1% to get us going and science fills in the other 99%.

Diogenes The Cynic: You see, scientists are the drooling retarded step-brothers of the philosophers, and they would still be trying to turn lead into gold if they didn't have the scientific method invented for them. By philosophers, mind you.

Meanwhile in the 21st century, philosophers are still debating the same issues over and over and have come no closer to an answer than they were 1000 years ago, but science has provided us with computers, medicine, cars, space flight, microwaves, phones that fit in your pocket that play music and find boobs on the internet.

Diogenes The Cynic: Their have their strengths, but being to tell us how to think about something isn't one of them. For instance, we have reams of data about how the brain works, but its philosophers that answer the mind-body problem.

Bwhahahahha, you can't be serious. Philosophers haven't answered anything about the mind-body problem. They're still split into the same 2 main camps (monist and dualist) they were when Descartes formulated the damn problem. They haven't answered anything either way. They're just guessing based on a handful of thought experiments. Science, on the other hand, has given us great insight into the working of the brain and how it relates to memory, personality and consciousness. There's a ton more to figure out, but at least there's been PROGRESS.

Diogenes The Cynic: Science has proven undoubtedly that the world is more than 6000 years old. Many atheists think that therefore science is right, and religion is wrong.

Science is right therefore young Earth creationism is wrong.

Diogenes T ...


I'm not knocking science. You just have to realize that without its active ingredient, it wouldn't work.
But on your second point I will concede, philosophy has been a history of failure.

If you want proof, you can compare the number of people who have read The Wealth of Nations, and compare it to the number of people who have read Das Kapital. Its kinda sad.
Young Earth creationism is wrong. Objectively so.

G-d is not a fictional character.
Plus, you glossed over the point I was making. People have a conception of the G-d they don't believe in. Thats weird. They want a G-d thats loving, and kind, but still reject him.
 
2012-05-10 05:29:00 PM  

Epicedion: Baryogenesis: Bwhahahahha, you can't be serious. Philosophers haven't answered anything about the mind-body problem. They're still split into the same 2 main camps (monist and dualist) they were when Descartes formulated the damn problem. They haven't answered anything either way. They're just guessing based on a handful of thought experiments. Science, on the other hand, has given us great insight into the working of the brain and how it relates to memory, personality and consciousness. There's a ton more to figure out, but at least there's been PROGRESS.

I think the most important thing to note here is that the great philosophers were also great at other stuff. Philosophy has always been a sideline to some other study.


It doesn't pay well.
 
2012-05-10 05:30:05 PM  

Diogenes The Cynic: G-d is not a fictional character.


About that...

i.imgur.com
 
2012-05-10 05:35:58 PM  

porkloin: Farking Canuck:
"Atheists do not claim that gods do not exists. We make no claims at all. We are not a group. There is nothing for us to prove.
Atheists do not claim that gods do not exists. We make no claims at all. We are not a group. There is nothing for us to prove."


dictionary: Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God

Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Goes on to discuss close synonyms, stating: An Atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity. An Agnostic is a person who believes it is impossible to know anything about God or the creation of the universe.

Maybe you have your own dictionary, but I think that Atheists are making a theological claim, and that, that claim being unprovable, is akin to the claims of religious folks.


I am an atheist, and you are totally full of shiat. Not believing in a claim that is made constantly, without evidence, is not a "doctrine", or even a statement of "belief", but a lack of belief in a positive claim. I have never seen one single shred of evidence, or had one good reason, to believe in any god I have ever heard of, and I never bothered to make one up for myself. Therefore I don't believe in any gods. Period. No doctrine, no religion of atheism, not even a claim of anything. If you want to talk about the "possibility" that there is some kind of life-force or vague intelligence behind the universe, we can speculate and have fun doing it, but idle speculation is all it will be.

At current, I could also be referred to as "agnostic", because I don't believe that humans could currently detect a god or universal intelligence IF there was one. But since I lack belief, I'm still an atheist.

Also, I have plenty of good reasons, tons of personal experience and evidence, that points me to the conclusion that all gods so far proposed by humans, are made up by humans. I have good reason to be very skeptical of all god claims, since I've heard so many and they all share some of the same logical problems and transparently human conceits. This says nothing about a "lifeforce" or "unknown universal intelligence", but it says a lot about the kinds of personal gods most believers choose to believe in. In this way, you could call me a "strong atheist", since I personally do make the positive claim that there is no "jehovah" or "krishna". It is a statement based on the available evidence, appying only to the personal gods I've heard of, as they were presented to me. Show me evidence, or come up with a more convincing god, I may have to change my mind. Or maybe, just maybe....they're hiding from me...but again, I see no reason why I should treat that as the default assumption, any more than I would for bigfoot.

But if I ever see any real evidence of god, I'll be the first to take it seriously, which is much more than I can say for any religious person. They have all the same evidence (or lack thereof) that I do, yet still feel the need to ride the winds of fantasy and call it universal truth and make sweeping claims, many of which are downright silly and even impossible as far as we know. By believing with no evidence, they are admitting up front that reality can never change their minds.

So if you are honest, you will note that:

An atheist, even a "strong atheist" making a judgement based on the available evidence, is not making anything even close to the kind of truth claims that believers make from the start. Saying "there is no Jehova as far as i can tell", while possibly unprovable(depending on how much "proof" you need to not believe in something that has no evidence), is based on observing how myths and religion work in humanity, and noting the lack of real evidence for jehova, and the unlikely and unevidenced nature of all the things attributed to jehova. That is still miles away from even the most basic claims made by damn near all believers, ie, that there is a jehova, that he created and cares for us, that we must worship and obey him, that the bible is his flawless word, that there is life after death, that we have souls, etc. etc ad nauseum.

You would also note that "not believing without evidence" is a much more flexible and less dogmatic attitude than "believing with no evidence or even against evidence".

I realize it takes a little effort to see the difference, but when you say things like "believers make unprovable claims" (which they do, constantly, as a mattter of course), and "atheists make unprovable claims, therefore they are equal", you are totally ignoring the types of claims, what those claims refer to, how much is being claimed, what the evidence is for such claims, and how flexible the person's thinking is, and how open they are to new evidence. Such claims could only be even close to equal for the atheist who says "it's 100% proven that there is no god, gods are all impossible, I know how the universe works entirely and need never look at any other evidence ever again no matter what."

I have never met this atheist, and neither have you. But many, many believers make that level of claim by default. Complete surety, claims of impossible or non-existent knowledge, and no need to ever review the evidence or adjust their views. Hopefully you can now see why a total lack of faith is not the same as faith, and why you were mistakenly comparing apples to no apples.


So please...if you are an honest person, please stop it with your tired, ignorant claims that atheists are just as irrational or dogmatic as believers. It's a lie, and a stupid lie, and it makes you look like a big fat horse's ass.
 
2012-05-10 05:46:24 PM  

Kar98: Diogenes The Cynic: Kar98: Diogenes The Cynic: 5. Learn to read a book. Something that challenges your worldview instead of reinforcing it. I read a bunch of philosophy, Dawkins, and some critical Bible criticism, and still am a religious Jew.

I've read the bible in several languages, and why is it I should shape my life after what a bunch of stupid farking bronze age goat shaggers wrote, not without contradicting themselves on just about every page?

Did you ignore the rest of what I said? I said read the summa theologica, the guide for the perplexed, or something like that. The Bible isn't written as a book that could be understood without its oral component.

Where does it contradict itself?

Everywhere:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradiction s .html



Read most of it.
Remember how earlier in the thread I said one religion doesn't answer for the mistakes of another?
When I say Bible, I only mean the OT because I reject NT. I don't have to answer for the mistakes that are in there.

As to problems. Most of those things were not contradictions.

Dude, you gotta stop letting other people think for you. Read a bit, see the world.
Think for yourself.
 
2012-05-10 05:50:13 PM  

Diogenes The Cynic: Dude, you gotta stop letting other people think for you. Read a bit, see the world.
Think for yourself.



"Think for yourself, and believe in the fairy tales of goat-shagging bronze age assholes?" Is that what you mean?
 
2012-05-10 06:02:36 PM  

doglover: Either way you now lash out blindly at people who had your best interests in mind


Uh.. no. Random people, especially those who start off by insulting intelligence, don't have your best interests in mind. That is something you can usually only say about your life partner and family (sometimes not even them), and no one else.
 
2012-05-10 06:05:05 PM  

Diogenes The Cynic: When I say Bible, I only mean the OT because I reject NT. I don't have to answer for the mistakes that are in there.


Wait, what? You're the first person I've ever spoken to who rejects the New Testament. Usually it's the other way around...

Care to elaborate why?
 
2012-05-10 06:10:25 PM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: Diogenes, that post was bad and you should feel bad.


I feel great.
 
2012-05-10 06:14:54 PM  
Diogenes The Cynic:

G-d is not a fictional character.
That is an extraordinary claim without any evidence to support it. Logic demands that unsupported claims be rejected until evidence is presented.

Plus, you glossed over the point I was making. People have a conception of the G-d they don't believe in. Thats weird. They want a G-d thats loving, and kind, but still reject him.
We do not "want a god that is loving" ... those are your words. We are constantly told that there is a loving god that loves us even though he plans on eternally torturing us. Forgive us if we use your words to describe your god ... man everything offends you guys.

But while we are on the topic ... how can any being that has created (and sends people to) this place called 'hell' be considered loving?? Think about it: Eternal torment, no parole, no rehabilitation, no learning of lessons, no end. This place was created by the most sadistic mind in existence ... it is the epitome of torture porn. Who would ever worship a sick fark like that???
 
2012-05-10 06:19:53 PM  

CapnBlues: \Diogenes The Cynic: CapnBlues: Diogenes The Cynic: Egoy3k: Diogenes The Cynic: You see, scientists are the drooling retarded step-brothers of the philosophers, and they would still be trying to turn lead into gold if they didn't have the scientific method invented for them. By philosophers, mind you.
...
Grow up, and learn to make arguments and stop pretending you don't know why you upset the religious.

Wat?

Philosophers>Scientists

I am totally serious. The scientific method was codified by philosophers.

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

The laws of logic also help govern scientific thought. One of my philosophy professors once said "we accept science because it tends to work."

Others might put it at some high level of knowledge, but its all deductive, not inductive.

oh my. really? wow.

alchemist = scientist? hahahahaha

*pointing and laughing*

As Tyler Durden once said, sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a turkey. Just because some scientists study the elements (chemistry) and alchemists were also trying to study the elements, that does not mean that alchemists are scientists. One might as easily call alchemists jewelers, because they were both interested in gold. And this dichotomy you draw between philosophy and science? it's bullpoo. The two fields only became separate quite recently. Ben Franklin, for example -- he was as much a philosopher as a scientist and politician and all the rest. I don't know if you're just trolling here, but I thought you might want to know that you're wrong.

I don't understand how you could get that from what I wrote. Alchemy isn't science, and the only reason that is so is because philosophers invented the scientific method to make science work.

That doesn't prevent people from making up sciences before they're told they're stupid, and go away. Take phrenology, for example.

Through your extensive studies you must surely have learned that science is not a topic but rather ...


Yup yup, I'm aware. Still doesn't prevent people in the community from thinking pretty stupid things.

I mentioned phrenology, but there are other examples. I once tried to look up how many Native Americans were in the Americas at the time of Metacoms war, but the more research I did, the less I could figure out. I finally asked an Anthropologist in my synagogue, and he said that its basically guesswork.
 
2012-05-10 06:23:34 PM  

Farking Canuck: Logic demands that unsupported claims be rejected until evidence is presented.


Formal logic demands that, or more accurately, empiricism. Empiricism is not the only way to see the world.
 
2012-05-10 06:37:24 PM  

TsukasaK: Diogenes The Cynic: When I say Bible, I only mean the OT because I reject NT. I don't have to answer for the mistakes that are in there.

Wait, what? You're the first person I've ever spoken to who rejects the New Testament. Usually it's the other way around...

Care to elaborate why?


Maybe he's Jewish?
 
2012-05-10 06:38:29 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Bevets: Osomatic:

If every person of faith just kept it to themselves, I sincerely doubt you'd find almost any atheists bothering to say anything about it.

Unfortunately atheists insists on pushing their scientific theory on everyone else through public education.

That's kind of how all of science works. I take the first 3 steps, someone else does 7, next guy does 1, etc/ This can go on for generations. Unless you believe that electricity was discovered around the same time the computer you're using to post your tripe on the internet was created.....it's a process.

Why do you hate progression? That is what your argument boils down to. "Stop learning what I don't want you to."

You're no better than religion and governing bodies of ages past where reading was admonished or even illegal.

Is intellectual honesty that much of a threat to you? Technology? Is your faith that weak? Your religion that frail?

You're a sad sad individual when you're looking at a scientific theory and calling it "pushing a Belief" because it's some form of threat to your Belief.

Do society a favor and garrote yourself with piano wire until death. Your societal value of being the worst example possible is not worth putting up with you being the worst example possible.


You're not helping.

/going to regret posting anything in this thread
 
2012-05-10 06:41:27 PM  

TsukasaK: Farking Canuck: Logic demands that unsupported claims be rejected until evidence is presented.

Formal logic demands that, or more accurately, empiricism. Empiricism is not the only way to see the world.


Fine ... formal logic and common sense. I have no interest in the convoluted philosophical arguments that occasionally pop up around this subject.

For me the rules are simple: You claim something exists and want me to accept your claim then present evidence. No evidence? Come back when you have some. Discussion over.
 
2012-05-10 06:49:16 PM  

TsukasaK: Diogenes The Cynic: When I say Bible, I only mean the OT because I reject NT. I don't have to answer for the mistakes that are in there.

Wait, what? You're the first person I've ever spoken to who rejects the New Testament. Usually it's the other way around...

Care to elaborate why?


Because Jew?
 
2012-05-10 06:53:00 PM  

Epicedion: "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds." -- Richard Feynman



Keep in mind Richard Feynman also said: "I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."
 
2012-05-10 07:00:16 PM  
"fark 'em if they can't take a joke"
-J.R. "Bob" Dobbs

Greatest "religious" quote of all time, and it sums up this thread (and indeed these arguments in general) as far as I am concerned.
 
Displayed 50 of 659 comments


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


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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