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.

(Guardian)   Peter Higgs thinks Richard Dawkins is full of boson   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 302
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

9412 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Dec 2012 at 2:04 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-28 09:44:47 AM

Kittypie070: Oh hai, I'll just poop these here.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 350x138]


use the litter box

paging mgshamster paging mgshamster, mgshamster to the thread: i need to finish a thought (thread closed on me) :\
 
2012-12-28 10:11:17 AM

ProfessorOhki: but since most have core tenants that are specifically untestable, I'm not sure what they'd get out of it.


hopefully they were testable at some point in time, otherwise we would be discussing the probability that the claims are false...

once those those tests were done, i'm sure they'd get the Truth out of it


ProfessorOhki: I'm not sure what you're getting at by temporal or non-physical things.


temporal: being things that might have occurred during one range of time, but perhaps not now, up to and including the phenomena that caused them

non-physical: is pretty self explanatory, any things that are NOT physical, such as math, logic, spirits, mind, etc..

ProfessorOhki: If you're going to say temporal something like, "I sneezed on July 6th, 1976," but science can't reproduce that exact sneeze because it's 2012, guess you'll just have to take it on faith


sorta, but i actually had even more extraordinary (supernatural-physical) examples in mind, which is why we have religion

and if you are going to try and figure out how science can evaluate those things, then you have a catastrophic misunderstanding of what science is

ProfessorOhki: 1.Are you trying to build up a case for saying that in the past, the existence of God was witnessed and written down, but then he went away, so we're only left with writings? Still incompatible with science.2. If we found a 5000 year old text that said that pouring mercury and squirrel blood on lead, then burying it for a month turned it into gold, we could try it and go, "nope, that's BS." 3. Don't tell me you're going to go for the, "well, what if it worked 5000 years ago, but now it doesn't" angle? 4. Even if it WERE true at the time of writing, 5. it would be invalid for the purposes of science.


speaking of catastrophes

1. sorta but, better phrased: God is still here, He is just as invisible as He was then, and chooses where, how and when to reveal Himself, however you are correct, for the time being we are only left with written accounts. that's the bad news.

2. bad analogies make for bad discussion, we are indicating the difference between Science vs. Religion, not how they are somehow dependent on each other

3. morel like the "it happened 2,000 years ago which proves it is real and that the claims made by those using such signs have access to a higher power than Nature-Physical itself" ...angle

4. which is important to note

5. and is completely irrelevant to the topic of religion, yet still has just as much bearing on reality as science

Kittypie070: wub, wub


are you a dubstep?
 
2012-12-28 10:27:45 AM

Uncle Tractor: A. That depends how reasonable the claims are. Claim that you saw a meteor fall last night? You can't reproduce it but it's known to happen, so you'll probably be believed. Claim that a talking mushroom dictated a holy book to you? Eh ...

B.In what way have I been "doing it wrong," and how does one "do it right?"


A. so then reality depends on: 1. Being perceived as reasonable by those witnessing it. 2. Being able to be scientifically reproduced.

B. pretty much everything you said, and pretty much the opposite of everything you said

Uncle Tractor: 1. See, one of the things that makes science > religion is that 2. science corrects itself. Errors will sooner or later be found. 3. Religion, OTOH, is supposed to be the eternal truth. Fixing what's wrong in a given religion will wreck it, while failing to do so will make it increasingly irrelevant and backward.


1. Science and Religion are not in a competition to see who is better, they are different tools for different purposes. A hammer is better than a screwdriver for hammering nails, but a hammer is not by definition "better" than a screwdriver (at everything).

2. If Religion does not correct itself than you will have major problems, example:

www.ewtnnewsonline.com

and EVERYone knows what a complete failure they are

3. Religion attempts to find eternal Truth (revealed), it is not always successful. Interpretation of that revealed Truth is where it gets sticky. This is a process that must be constantly updated and corrected unless we fall into that above category. Revelation on the other hand is not fixed or updated since Truth remains constant, it is us, and our perception of Truth that changes. Revelation is witnessed, accounted and documented.

This is not Science.

Science is the tool for observing Physical things.
 
2012-12-28 10:49:31 AM

Inflatable Rhetoric: There's news. Sin can create living creatures.
Citation needed.


the long version

tl;dr

From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die...

Cursed is the ground because of you;
In [f]toil you will eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 "Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
And you will eat the [g]plants of the field;
19 By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return.

Sin is not a person, it is a force. It requires Free Will to exist. If you want to find the cause of pain, suffering and death, you should look to those who engage in Sin.

but if you are specifically interested in the origin of malaria and/or mosquitoes

i would begin looking here and follow the evidence wherever it leads you

hint

to recap:

1. God created Man, Life, Free Will
2. Man created Sin
3. Sin altered God's Good-Perfect Creation into what you now see as Evil (aka malaria, mosquitoes, etc..)

Evolution didn't stop on the account of Man's corruption. It just keeps going...
 
2012-12-28 11:35:46 AM

I drunk what: 1. God created Man, Life, Free Will
2. Man created Sin
3. Sin altered God's Good-Perfect Creation into what you now see as Evil (aka malaria, mosquitoes, etc..)


Ehhh... Having grown up Catholic, I'm well aware of the dogma surrounding this. Still, by those rules there isn't anything that Man creates that God didn't create by proxy. There's also pretty much no way He can feign ignorance, either. No Plausible Deniability to be found here.

After all, if what we're taught is to be taken for Law, God is:
Omnipresent.
Omnipotent.
Omnipowerful.


Sounds like a great gig until you realize that there's pretty much not a damn thing in all of Creation you aren't responsible for. On the plus side, it's not like there's a person in all of Creation who can hold you to it either. As such, I've concluded that, if there is a God, he sure is a douchebag. Not that this shocks or appalls me. Most managers have a pretty broad douchebag streak. It's what makes them Management material.

God- by way of creating Man, Free Will, and so on- also created Sin.

It wasn't accidental, nor some unforeseen consequence.

Working as intended... by Him.

This of course leads to the whole "works in mysterious ways" malarkey. Douchebags aren't really all that mysterious though. Another popular whipping boy is "God's plan", and this one I actually find even more hilarious. When you not only know everything that can happen, but everything that will happen, what exactly can you do that isn't planned?

The act of planning a thing involves summoning the faculty to predict probable outcomes. God doesn't have to summon that faculty, it's inherent in everything He does. Nor are there any probable outcomes. Everything that can happen is already pre-ordained.

Kinda makes one wonder if Free Will is all it's really cracked up to be.
 
2012-12-28 11:43:34 AM

I drunk what: Uncle Tractor: A. That depends how reasonable the claims are. Claim that you saw a meteor fall last night? You can't reproduce it but it's known to happen, so you'll probably be believed. Claim that a talking mushroom dictated a holy book to you? Eh ...

B.In what way have I been "doing it wrong," and how does one "do it right?"

A. so then reality depends on:
1. Being perceived as reasonable by those witnessing it.


"Reasonable" as in "does not violate the laws of nature as we know them."

2. Being able to be scientifically reproduced.

Not always possible, as in the case of meteors. However, the meteors and the smoking craters can be found, which is physical evidence of the meteor falling.

B. pretty much everything you said, and pretty much the opposite of everything you said

So you've got nothing.

Uncle Tractor: 1. See, one of the things that makes science > religion is that 2. science corrects itself. Errors will sooner or later be found. 3. Religion, OTOH, is supposed to be the eternal truth. Fixing what's wrong in a given religion will wreck it, while failing to do so will make it increasingly irrelevant and backward.

1. Science and Religion are not in a competition to see who is better, they are different tools for different purposes. A hammer is better than a screwdriver for hammering nails, but a hammer is not by definition "better" than a screwdriver (at everything).


True. Science is a tool for describing reality. Religion is a tool for controlling large groups of gullible people.

Seneca got it right: "Religion is considered by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful."

2. If Religion does not correct itself than you will have major problems, example:

[www.ewtnnewsonline.com image 320x240]

and EVERYone knows what a complete failure they are


Not sure what you're trying to say here.

3. Religion attempts to find eternal Truth (revealed),

Fill in the gaps in people's knowledge with made-up shiat, you mean.

it is not always successful. Interpretation of that revealed Truth is where it gets sticky.

One would think that an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving god would be better at communicating his intentions...

This is a process that must be constantly updated and corrected unless we fall into that above category. Revelation on the other hand is not fixed or updated since Truth remains constant, it is us, and our perception of Truth that changes. Revelation is witnessed, accounted and documented.

This is not Science.

Science is the tool for observing Physical things.


Science deals with reality. Religion does not.
 
2012-12-28 11:48:32 AM

I drunk what: 1. God created Man, Life, Free Will
2. Man created Sin
3. Sin altered God's Good-Perfect Creation into what you now see as Evil (aka malaria, mosquitoes, etc..)


Uh, why would an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god create Free Will in such a way that it made Evil possible? An all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god would know how to create Free Will without also enabling man to create Sin, would be able to follow through, and would very much want to make it happen. The notion that you can't have free will without evil is false.
 
2012-12-28 11:54:35 AM
pardon the threadjack:

mgshamster: Religious belief is the belief in the reality of the mythological, supernatural, or spiritual aspects of a religion.

IDW: no, too messy, Religion is the tool we use to determine the truth about Reality concerning things that are not physical, and since most of you cannot comprehend Nature, people tend to oversimplify things into two major categories

Physical (Science) and Non-Physical [this is the gross oversimplification] (Religion)

some people try to reconcile their beliefs about non-physical things into an ambiguous "abstract" or "metaphysical" category, but they always end up failing miserably to appear intelligent in that discourse and usually end up making it worse by trying to explain it in Physical terms :3

tl;dr Religion is the methodological tool used to ponder SuperNatural-Physical things, in other words, it is the belief system that addresses non-physical things

mgshamster: Well, I pulled that straight from wiki, and the dictionaries seem to back it up. It certainly seems much less complex than your definition, so I question the use of the phrase "too messy." Regardless, let's go with yours to keep things relatively simple.

I try not to make judgments on things beyond the physical world, and I certainly try to not to base my actions and my life around them.


IDW: wiki-webster are decent for beginning a discussion, not for settling it, guess what happens when you wiki "Nature" and back it up with a dictionary...?

I also try not to make judgments on things beyond the physical world, but unfortunately you won't be able to make it through life without doing so. As for your claim that you "certainly try not to base your actions and life around them" i disagree. There many non-physical things you interact with on a daily basis that you absolutely base your actions on. Your Soul being the first thing, and the souls of those around you being the next.


mgshamster: I am aware of them.

IDW: good, then you are also probably aware of whether or not you believe them to be true?

and whether or not you believe they are true, you no longer have a lack of belief concerning the existence of such things

for example: IDW does not believe that invisible spiritual dragons exist in Sagan's garage, however that belief does not magically become Scientific, simply because it appears to be rationale, it is in fact a Religious belief (against the claim in this case)

and now you realize that you do in fact have a religious belief, sorry to burst your bubble

however you'll be happy to know that you are more intelligent than paperclips and newborn infants, who DO lack a belief on the topic of SuperNatural-Physcial things... (aka "atheists" according to KiltedBastiche who is still technically correct)

mgshamster: Let's see if I follow:

There are two categories. 1) Physical world (the world in which we can use science); 2) Non-physical world (the world in which religions claim to have knowledge of).


IDW: in a nutshell, yeah close enough (though oversimplified, this is the most common perception of Nature)

mgshamster: So any knowledge or belief of the non-physical world is - by definition - a religious belief, regardless if it is a positive, negative, or agnostic belief. Also it is regardless of the content of the non-physical; this would mean all religions, all fiction books, and everything in one's imagination would be classified as religious.

IDW: FTFY, also agnostic is not a neutral vs +/- it is uncertain, but still has +/- properties. fiction and imagination reside in the realm of MIND, and since most people don't care to discern the difference between Spirit and MIND, then we just lump all that stuff under the Non-physical (aka Religion) category. Messy and oversimplified, but yes sufficient for this discussion.

mgshamster: So therefore, as soon as one is able to determine fantasy from reality, one has a religious belief.

IDW: i'm not sure exactly what you mean here...

Reality is not dependent on fantasy or religious beliefs, but it is possible that fantasies have some basis in Reality and it is most definitely possible that a religious belief accurately describes Reality. To recap the moment one is able to discern fantasy from reality has no guarantee that it is a religious belief. Since one can have fantasies of Nature-Physical which can be verified through Science.


mgshamster: And finally, we can deduce that because I have a lack of a belief that these non-physical things are real (and in some cases, I actively believe they are not real), I have a religious belief towards them.

IDW: Believing that non-physical things are not real =/= Lacking a belief about physical-nonphysical things. Let it go lad... let it go.

but yes, ANY belief you have about Non-physical things is a religious* belief not a scientific one. you don't have to be religious (read as "zealous") about your beliefs, however your underwhelming apathy toward the subjects doesn't magically reclassify them to protect you from criticism...

sorry

/*or "Philosophical"
//too ambiguous to have meaning


mgshamster: Is this correct?

IDW: corrected
 
2012-12-28 12:04:10 PM

Uncle Tractor: So you've got nothing.


this pretty much sums up the post

Uncle Tractor: An all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god would know how to create Free Will without also enabling man to create Sin


so then P = Q ? don't tell abbey, he gets fussy about this stuff

what is hot without cold...?

Uncle Tractor: The notion that you can't have free will without evil is false.


well i suppose it is possible to create a reality in which the only choice is "good"..?

but i guess that would depend on what you define as a "Loving" creator?
 
2012-12-28 12:10:42 PM

I drunk what: well i suppose it is possible to create a reality in which the only choice is "good"..?

but i guess that would depend on what you define as a "Loving" creator?


I'm not convinced that this proposition is quantitatively different than the reality He purportedly created for us and we are currently living in.

Qualitatively however, that might be a different story.
 
2012-12-28 12:27:25 PM

SkunkWerks: by those rules there isn't anything that Man creates that God didn't create by proxy


did God create this^ post? even by proxy perhaps...

SkunkWerks: There's also pretty much no way He can feign ignorance, either.


God doesn't feign anything, however part of being omnipotent is the ability to choose what He ignores and what He doesn't. which does seem to cause a hiccup with that omniscient part, but that just goes to show you that we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about things we couldn't even possibly understand...

being aware of something =/= paying attention to it

logic is a cruel mistress, i suggest you dance with someone else

/look what she's done to poor abbey :(

SkunkWerks: No Plausible Deniability to be found here.


sounds like you're preparing for an epic court case, i hope you win

SkunkWerks: As such, I've concluded that, if there is a God, he sure is a douchebag.


any particular examples jump to mind? other than your ability to properly place the responsibility where it belongs...

SkunkWerks: Not that this shocks or appalls me. Most managers have a pretty broad douchebag streak. It's what makes them Management material.


me thinks you doth confuse mortals with the Immortal too mucheth

SkunkWerks: God- by way of creating Man, Free Will, and so on- also created Sin.


I disagree.

Is the only choice of a Free Willed Agent to sin...?

however feel free to blame Him for the ability to Freely Choose ...until your heart's content

SkunkWerks: Working as intended... by Him.


btw is there any Good in this dreadful universe of yours? just curious

/i wonder if that is important?

SkunkWerks: This of course leads to the whole "works in mysterious ways" malarkey. Douchebags aren't really all that mysterious though. Another popular whipping boy is "God's plan", and this one I actually find even more hilarious. When you not only know everything that can happen, but everything that will happen, what exactly can you do that isn't planned?


mysterious

SkunkWerks: Everything that can happen is already pre-ordained.


like this post?

i'm curious, did God also pre-ordain you to be such an idiot? honest question

SkunkWerks: Kinda makes one wonder if Free Will is all it's really cracked up to be.


darn it

good thing you don't have to worry about that stuff since you've been pre-ordained to herpty derp
 
2012-12-28 01:10:24 PM

RedVentrue: Lionel Mandrake: Silverstaff: Lionel Mandrake: Uncle Tractor: Relevant to all Dawkins threads:

[i560.photobucket.com image 475x336]

An IRL version:

[i159.photobucket.com image 720x408]

upload.wikimedia.org

What an ACTUAL militant atheist may look like.

Seriously weak.

He's right though. Chairman Mao was another.


It's arguable that they weren't atheists at all. They turned the religious impulse they found in their own societies from sky fairies to Party leaders. What was "the cult of personality" (besides a pretty good '90s hit) but an attempt to replace fictional gods with fictional humans?

In other words, if you claim "there is no god, but I'll be playing one for the masses", you're not so much an atheist as a master manipulator of human weakness.
 
2012-12-28 01:20:38 PM

I drunk what: did God create this^ post? even by proxy perhaps...


If you believe in such things, yes. So let it be written...

I drunk what: but that just goes to show you that we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about things we couldn't even possibly understand...


Again, whether you do or don't, the results are pretty much the same. And as I'd rather know than not know...

I drunk what: being aware of something =/= paying attention to it


Never said it did. But being aware and doing nothing is also a deliberate act.

I drunk what: any particular examples jump to mind?


See above.

I drunk what: I disagree.


You can if you like, for all the difference it makes. God knows all ends before they occur, where they lead, and all the steps in-between- if the dogma is to be believed. If man "created sin" (inasmuch as man can create anything in this sort of a system) God knew he was going to do it.

In fact, God knew it was a a consequence of his own actions. How is this functionally different than creating Sin directly?

I drunk what: me thinks you doth confuse mortals with the Immortal too mucheth


Remember, I'm not the one giving man sole credit for creating Sin in a paradigm whose every facet was carefully and deliberately set by the Almighty here.

I drunk what: btw is there any Good in this dreadful universe of yours? just curious


Dunno. It's not my universe, honestly. I stopped formally attending Church at age twelve, which was not too coincidentally when I started thinking about things like this.

As you're the one arguing for the existence of this universe, I'm not sure why you're asking me, really.

Talking to yourself? I don't mind, nor do I think less of you for it. Honestly I don't really find the act all that dissimilar to Prayer.

I drunk what: like this post?


Again, if you're inclined to believing such things, sure.

I drunk what: honest question


None of these have been all that honest so far, why should I start believing this endorsement now?

I drunk what: good thing you don't have to worry about that stuff since you've been pre-ordained to herpty derp


Again: not my universe there Sparky. Hell, I don't even think it was my universe before I quit the Church. I've got no issue with believers, though.

As it harm none, and all that. I won't call you "herpty-derpty" if it's what works for you in life. I might suggest you're rude for getting overly defensive when discussing it though...
 
2012-12-28 01:31:58 PM

ProfessorOhki: Magorn: Prove to me that God doesn't exist and you can then say science and religion are incompatible. If something is immune to confimation by proof then it science has no opinion on the matter since it lies outside the realm of what can be experiementally confirmed. both Science and religion are similar in that they suffer when you try to make them into something they are not. Religion is not useful guide to the physical truths of the observable universe. Science is not an appropriate tool for definitively determining if a supreme being exists outside the boundaries and rules of time and space.

You do realize that science and religion are incompatible for exactly the reasons you go on to list, right? It's the fact you can't, through experimentation, support a claim of existence or non-existence that MAKES religion incompatible with science. Your first sentence makes no sense, given that you're already obviously aware of this.

Now, I'll agree that you can't apply science to religion as it's almost always, by definition, untestable. However, that means kindly get your mysticism out of everything that CAN have evidence gathered in support or against. I'll admit that we can't set up an experiment to see if God's real or not. Now, if they would just kindly admit that evoking God doesn't let them ignore centuries of research in hundreds of disciplines, that'd be great. The thing that the faithful just don't seem to be able to respect is the breadth of science's ability is always growing while religions is always, "whatever is left." If the future mimic's history, the final point of contention between the two will be humanity understanding nearly everything about our universe, with religion left going, "well, there's still a guy on the outside who did it."

You know what pisses atheists off more than anything? When someone gets out of a 5 hour surgery, after a full complement of doctors, techs, nurses worked their asses off, utilizing techniques honed by trial and erro ...


Note I also said that "religion is not good for explaining observable physical reality either"

Now to your second point. Let me tell you a real-life story that happened to me and my family and filter it through the eyes of my religious parents who regard it as a "miracle" despite the fact that one is an engineer for NASA and the other an RN of 50+ years experience:

My sister had recently graduated from college and was taking a review course for her nursing boards when she suddenly became extremely and violently ill.  being an almost nurse herself, she recognozised that something was seriously wrong and got herself to the ER.  There her condition quickly deteriorated to the point that she was irrational, and highly combatitive with the hospital staff and displaying signs of hysterical strength  before lapsing into a coma.   The attending physicans assumed it had to be a bad reaction to some sort of street drug because, frankly they couldn't figure out any other diagnosis.  So they initally ignored my parents protestations that they knew my sis had never so much as smoked a joint in her whole life, figuring they were just typically clueless and naive parents.

As her condition worsened the night-time attending intern took over.  After a long conversation with my mom on the phone, he decided to re-visit her diagnosis.  It just so happened that he had recently completed his pediatrics rotation at Pitsburgh's Children's Hospital, which at the time was the worldwide leader in research into a very rare disease called Reye's Syndrome which can affect early adolescents who take aspirin to treat flu-like symptoms, and causes your brain to swell and internal organs to go wonky.  because of his exposure to that research, he recognized that my sis' symptoms closely matched that of kids with Reye's even though she was, by all medical literature of the day, about 12 years too old to get the disease.  Still, he ordered a liver function test that would defintively diagnose the condition.  because he did so, so was tranferred to Children's Hospital in the nick of time and treated by the only team of doctors who had a serious shot at saving her life at that point.  (She was in a coma for nearly two weeks and kept medically immobilized by curare and had a stent put in her skull to relieve the build-up of intercranial pressure).  She did however surivive, completely intact and not even suffering the brain damage doctors had warned was incredibly likely.(and because she was in a review class for her boards, she was still technically on dad's insurance , which cheerfully paid for everything)

In my parent's eyes, her survival was "a miracle"  not in the sense that God reached down from a cloud and did some woo-woo magic to make her all better, but that he saw to it that all the right people were in the right places with the right training and life experiences to make the choices that lead to her surviving rather than dying of a missed diagnosis.  Are they right?  Well again, this is a matter of Faith and immune to proof so to them, they are right, if you chose not to think so, that's also perfectly fine
 
2012-12-28 01:32:28 PM

I drunk what: Uncle Tractor: So you've got nothing.

this pretty much sums up the post


Yes, it does. What that really what you intended to say?

Uncle Tractor: An all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god would know how to create Free Will without also enabling man to create Sin

so then P = Q ? don't tell abbey, he gets fussy about this stuff


Huh?

what is hot without cold...?

If evil is necessary for good to exist, then those who do evil are following god's will every bit as much as those who do good -- in which case God is just amusing himself with a really gory soap opera.

Uncle Tractor: The notion that you can't have free will without evil is false.

well i suppose it is possible to create a reality in which the only choice is "good"..?


Is being good really a choice with you? Do you actually ponder the pros and cons of anti-social behavior? I don't. I don't have that choice, because I have this thing called "morals." Free will has nothing to do with it. My morals are wired into my brain.

Frankly, the notion that so many of you theists think being "good" or "evil" is a matter of choice is more than a little unsettling. On the other hand, it explains why theists are so easily led to do evil.

but i guess that would depend on what you define as a "Loving" creator?

"All-loving" = loves everyone equally. Such a god would not let anyone go to hell -- or experience any of the crap this world has to offer. See, this chaotic world makes more sense without the existence of a god than with one.
 
2012-12-28 01:38:45 PM

Valiente: It's arguable that they weren't atheists at all. They turned the religious impulse they found in their own societies from sky fairies to Party leaders. What was "the cult of personality" (besides a pretty good '90s hit) but an attempt to replace fictional gods with fictional humans?

In other words, if you claim "there is no god, but I'll be playing one for the masses", you're not so much an atheist as a master manipulator of human weakness.


That doesn't make the dictator in question any less of an atheist, but it does make him / her a sociopathic sack of shiat.

Many of those dictators were bona fide atheists, but they were cynical, manipulative, asshole atheists who set themselves up as infallible leaders of religion-like ideologies. Personality cults, as you say. I think many of them were true believers of their ideologies, though.

Best Korea is an extreme example of this. That's definitely a religion. "Juche," or whatever it's called.
 
2012-12-28 01:46:17 PM

Uncle Tractor: Personality cults, as you say.


Kinda like Dawkins, albeit on a smaller scale.

Honestly I haven't noted that either the Faithful or the Faithless ever cornered the market on Narcissism.
 
2012-12-28 01:55:29 PM

SkunkWerks: I might suggest you're rude for getting overly defensive when discussing it though...


sorry the Devil made me do it

it was... pre-ordained

///if you believe in that sort of thing

SkunkWerks: And as I'd rather know than not know


know what?

SkunkWerks: But being aware and doing nothing is also a deliberate act.


who said He was doing nothing?

patience, lad patience

SkunkWerks: How is this functionally different than creating Sin directly?


i guess that is up to you to decide, isn't it? does it help you feel better to pass the blame? numbs the sting a bit, eh?

presuming that numbing pain is a good thing...

SkunkWerks: I'm not the one giving man sole credit for creating Sin


i'm just giving credit where it is due, i'm sorry that this bothers you

however as i've already clearly stated, God did create Free Will, darn it, so i guess we do get to blame Him for that, fair is fair

SkunkWerks: See above


the seeing bad stuff happen but not immediately stopping it part?

SkunkWerks: Talking to yourself? I don't mind, nor do I think less of you for it. Honestly I don't really find the act all that dissimilar to Prayer.


now you're getting it
24.media.tumblr.com

just be sure you listen

SkunkWerks: As you're the one arguing for the existence of this universe


well i can only see with my eyes (all 3 of em), what does your universe look like?

SkunkWerks: None of these have been all that honest so far, why should I start believing this endorsement now?


actually everything i say is true, however i know that some people need extra reassurance at times, and i wanted you to pause a moment and think before you responded

alas it appears i failed

SkunkWerks: I won't call you "herpty-derpty" if it's what works for you in life.


but what if "what works for me" is herpty derp? have you no heart?

you'd just watch and do ... nothing?

perhaps you should worry more about that beam in your eye before you fret over that projected-imaginary splinter in His...
 
2012-12-28 02:12:33 PM

I drunk what: know what?


Why. Is there anything else to know, really?

I drunk what: who said He was doing nothing?


You did.

I drunk what: being aware of something =/= paying attention to it


Or is
not paying attention to it now= doing something about it?

I drunk what: i guess that is up to you to decide, isn't it?


No, it really isn't. He decided to create man, ergo he decided to create sin. And since he knew it was all going down that way before he did it, he did it on purpose, presumably.

Logic is a harsh mistress indeed.

I drunk what: does it help you feel better to pass the blame? numbs the sting a bit, eh?


Again, you're speaking as if I have a stake in the reality you're arguing for. Still not sure why.

I drunk what: God did create Free Will


And yet He knows everything we will do before we do it. So should I thank him for that non-gift?

I'm not so sure I should. Doesn't sound like he spent much on it.

I drunk what: the seeing bad stuff happen but not immediately stopping it part?


Now you're getting it.

I drunk what: just be sure you listen


I do. I have. Those discussions eventually resigned me to leaving the fold.

I drunk what: what does your universe look like?


Open, unfettered by mystical, super-powered beings. And that Free Will thingy seems to have a lot more effect on it. Overall I've been a good deal happier in the latter 20-some-odd years of my life. But I admit it's not for everyone.

Clearly it's not for everyone. And this is- in a way- part of what makes my universe quite nifty.

I drunk what: i wanted you to pause a moment and think before you responded

alas it appears i failed


If I wasn't pausing and thinking we wouldn't be conversing. At all. Don't go to all that trouble on my account, really.

I drunk what: perhaps you should worry more about that beam in your eye before you fret over that projected-imaginary splinter in His...


You're again speaking as if I have a stake in the reality you're arguing for. And I'm still mystified as to why.

His eye, the splinter in it, and so on are all quite imaginary from my perspective. As such any motes I may have in my own is all I worry about as it stands.

Appreciate the advice, but I'm already way ahead of you.

I drunk what: you'd just watch and do ... nothing?


Yep. But I might stop and chat along the way. Because whatever you care to call it, it interests me.
 
2012-12-28 02:19:23 PM

SkunkWerks: Uncle Tractor: Personality cults, as you say.

Kinda like Dawkins, albeit on a smaller scale.


Personality cult? Really?
 
2012-12-28 02:23:37 PM

Uncle Tractor: SkunkWerks: Uncle Tractor: Personality cults, as you say.

Kinda like Dawkins, albeit on a smaller scale.

Personality cult? Really?


Yes. Really.
 
2012-12-28 02:36:40 PM
I do not believe in God.

I also do not believe in Santa Claus.

Is not believing in Santa Claus also a religion?
 
2012-12-28 02:39:35 PM

SkunkWerks: Uncle Tractor: SkunkWerks: Uncle Tractor: Personality cults, as you say.

Kinda like Dawkins, albeit on a smaller scale.

Personality cult? Really?

Yes. Really.


And your evidence for this is ...?
 
2012-12-28 02:42:32 PM

coffeecrisp: I do not believe in God.

I also do not believe in Santa Claus.

Is not believing in Santa Claus also a religion?


I have a belief system regarding the sun appearing to rise tomorrow morning. I am agnostic about Earth annihilating astroids hitting us in the middle of the night. It's been a rewarding religion all and all.
 
2012-12-28 02:47:27 PM

Uncle Tractor: And your evidence for this is ...?


He's a pundit. It's true, he's also a biologist, but that isn't why we know his name. Pundits make a living selling... well, themselves.

He's quite good at it judging by all the Dawkins adherents I've ever met.
 
2012-12-28 02:49:53 PM

SkunkWerks: Uncle Tractor: And your evidence for this is ...?

He's a pundit. It's true, he's also a biologist, but that isn't why we know his name. Pundits make a living selling... well, themselves.

He's quite good at it judging by all the Dawkins adherents I've ever met.


That's not a personality cult. That's just some guy voicing his opinions in public. Agreeing with him doesn't make one an "adherent."
 
2012-12-28 02:55:48 PM

Uncle Tractor: Agreeing with him doesn't make one an "adherent."


No, idolizing him does. And that's what his Adherents tend to do in my experience...

Uncle Tractor: That's not a personality cult. That's just some guy voicing his opinions in public.


...up to and including rendering the man unimpeachable for the same crimes he accuses others of.

To my mind he's no different than a lot of other pundits, Limbaugh, O'Reilly... The man's in love with the sound of his own voice, and quite good at getting others to share that love.
 
2012-12-28 03:31:48 PM

SkunkWerks: Uncle Tractor: Agreeing with him doesn't make one an "adherent."
No, idolizing him does. And that's what his Adherents tend to do in my experience...


For instance ...?

Uncle Tractor: That's not a personality cult. That's just some guy voicing his opinions in public.

...up to and including rendering the man unimpeachable for the same crimes he accuses others of.


For instance ...?

To my mind he's no different than a lot of other pundits, Limbaugh, O'Reilly... The man's in love with the sound of his own voice, and quite good at getting others to share that love.

What I'm seeing is a bunch of theists all butthurt because this guy not only had the temerity to write a book about why he thinks religion is a delusion, but has become a celebrity because of said book. Because the butthurt theists can't attack the actual contents of the book, they go for the author (by accusing him of being a militant douchebag etc) and for the people who agree with some of his ideas by calling the whole thing a "personality cult" or "religion" or what have you.

It's sad, really.
 
2012-12-28 03:53:42 PM
I see IDW is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

IDW is, essentially, the ultimate troll (with the only difference being that he's not a deliberate one). He's not interested in discussion -- he just wants to dick you around.

His MO is to seize control of the discussion and keep it, and the most basic way to do this is to withhold information from others and never acquiesce to any questions, comments or requests. By claiming some hidden truth that is beyond everyone's insight but keeping it undefined, he places himself in a role as Teacher or Guru or whatever fantasy Authority he imagines himself as. He doesn't mind arguing in his own backyard, but he'd much prefer to constantly hop from backyard to backyard, forcing you to chase him through separate, discordant arguments and fallacies of distraction. If you corner him, he'll usually chop your post up into little pieces and then reply to each piece individually with one these responses:

1) a question attacking your line of questioning, turning it back on you
2) a loaded and nonsensical analogy which may include a dodge, misdirection, or introduction of additional and usually irrelevant subject matter or
3) a sarcastic snipe at the subject and/or you (sometimes with image attached)

And then the chase begins again. There's no knowledge or wisdom to gain here (from either you or him) and he has no insights to impart. His questions have no purpose. He just wants to control you and force you to jump through his hoops that he will constantly move around on you so that you fail and he can claim superiority. You are wasting your time.

For an example, in this three year old thread he concocted a logic game similar to the Wason Selection Task with rules that he could change at any time for any reason, foisted it upon the thread, toyed with the posters for a whole day while refusing to give the answer, and then eventually revealed that everyone was wrong.

It's part of his technique to constantly assume Authoritarian control. He gets off on giving people challenges and quests with no point other than so he can withhold the non-existent answers from them (like his "True Definition of Nature" theory -- he poses this riddle to everyone but there's no answer. He just enjoys watching people struggle). It's the old schoolyard power trip: "I know something you don't and I won't tell you what it is".

That he's been doing this schtick for so long is an indication that he will never stop and there's nothing new to be garnered from him, like he's stuck in a perpetual feedback loop, recycling the same arguments in every religion thread (he's probably already posted the Wason test that he so infamously failed at solving many years ago. It's his way of dealing with the embarrassment by mocking it).

Despite the fact that he frequently loses these discussions, he'll continue posting them as if they're unsolvable, ignoring repeated and consistent replies defeating them. He has never been the type to swallow his pride and admit when he's wrong so you'll never get anywhere with him (and he'll always mock you if you try). It is very likely that he has NPD and people replying to him on Fark is how he strokes his ego so he can never stop no matter how many humiliating threads send him down in flames.

In short: He is a complete and total waste of your god damn time. Reply at your peril; I suggest ignore.
 
2012-12-28 04:01:13 PM

vactech: I have a belief system regarding the sun appearing to rise tomorrow morning


Heliocentrism is a religion.
 
2012-12-28 04:37:16 PM

RedVentrue:
I think the important lesson here is to be wary of fundamentalism, and rigid thinking, regardless of your philisophical position or religious persuasion.


Reasonability and nuance are tools of the devil, infidel!
 
2012-12-28 04:46:05 PM

Uncle Tractor: I drunk what: 1. God created Man, Life, Free Will
2. Man created Sin
3. Sin altered God's Good-Perfect Creation into what you now see as Evil (aka malaria, mosquitoes, etc..)

Uh, why would an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god create Free Will in such a way that it made Evil possible? An all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god would know how to create Free Will without also enabling man to create Sin, would be able to follow through, and would very much want to make it happen. The notion that you can't have free will without evil is false.


May I point out here, being the reasonably learned Biblical scholar many atheists are, that the serpent never lied in the Genesis tale (one of two, in fact), but Yahweh's warning that if Adam and Eve ate of the apple of the knowledge of good and evil, they would cop it?

They did not cop it. Yahweh told a whopper, and the snake was just doing a gig. Not to mention that the snake somehow manifested under Yahweh's celestial snout, putting his superpowers of all-knowing in some doubt. Face it, even Sauron, who was merely demi-divine, spotted the hobbits on Mount Doom. It was just a few moments too late for him and Mordor's legions, etc. God couldn't keep his biatches in line in a two-biatch garden.

I could go on about this crap all day. Internal consistency in holy texts is not necessary, nor is it often found, and yet inerrancy is the cornerstone of much religious authority and child buggery.
 
2012-12-28 04:47:46 PM

Valiente:
It's arguable that they weren't atheists at all.



Uncle Tractor: Silverstaff: What an ACTUAL militant atheist may look like.

No, that's what a militant *communist* looks like.

Apparently, you're just another ignorant theist who can't tell the difference between communism (an ideology) and atheism (the absence of belief in gods). This invalidates the rest of your post.



Ishkur: Silverstaff: What an ACTUAL militant atheist may look like.

Stalin wasn't an atheist. Neither was Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, etc.. not once did they rant in any of their speeches that their enemies must be eliminated for the sake of secular humanism and rational inquiry.


So the theist rebuttal is "No True Scotsman"?

Joseph Stalin was clearly an atheist:

1. He openly and publicly renounced faith in God during the Russian Revolution.

2. He mandated that schools in the USSR teach that there is no God and mandated that this be the official doctrine of the USSR.

3. He ordered the closing of all seminaries and churches in the USSR and had Clergy who would not publicly renounce their faith shipped off to gulags in Siberia.

4. He sponsored the League of Militant Atheists as a wing of the Communist Party, with the intent of eradicating the very concept of religious faith.

5. He at one point personally ordered the complete banning of every religion practiced in the USSR.

6. He mandated a general program of anti-religion propaganda in the USSR. Even if he didn't personally speak out against it, by his orders his country DID speak out against it.

7. He mandated outright destruction of many holy sites, places of worship, and physical structures of religious significance specifically to weaken the influence of religion on society.

Trying to pretend he wasn't an atheist is pure No True Scotsman fallacy. "Even though he didn't believe in God and made enforced atheism a state policy, he wasn't a real atheist because. . ."

Yeah, he was a communist. Communism is an atheist ideology. Atheism is a key tenet of Marxist-Leninist and Maoist & Juche thinking. The whole reason for "Under God" being added to the the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" replacing "E Pluribus Unum" as the national motto in the 1950's was explicitly to reject the atheism that the USSR championed. One big reason that atheism has a stigma of being evil and unpatriotic is its association with communism.

I find it funny you all try to claim that Stalin (and Mao, Pol Pot ect.) aren't atheists because they encourage veneration of a non-divine philosophy or entity in lieu of a God. . .but when you are accused of doing that with science (or aspects of science such as evolution) or of certain scientists like Darwin (those little "Darwin Fish" instead of Jesus fish don't help there, you're replacing a religious symbol with a close equivalent naming a scientist and think that people WON'T assume you're worshiping Charles Darwin?), you try to laugh about how theists don't understand atheists.

I'm not trying to say that all atheists are like Stalin, just like the overwhelming majority of Christians aren't the WBC or abortion-clinic shooters, and the overwhelming majority of Muslims aren't jihadis. However, claiming that there is no such thing as a militant atheist or that a militant atheist is just a harmless grumpy intellectual is provably wrong.

If you are claiming to be champions of reason and logic, understand this: almost any philosophy or ideology (including atheism) can be taken to a violent or militant position, used as an excuse for violence, or be an integral part of a general agenda of violence and malevolence. Atheism has blood on its hands (Soviet Purges, the Holodomor, the Great Leap Forward, the Killing Fields) just like Christianity (the Crusades, abortion clinic murders), Islam (9/11, U.S.S. Cole, Khobar Towers et al.), Judaism (Yitzach Rabin, the Ibrihami Mosque, Zeev Sternhell et al.), Scientology (Lisa McPhereson, et al.), ect.
 
2012-12-28 04:53:42 PM
In my parent's eyes, her survival was "a miracle" not in the sense that God reached down from a cloud and did some woo-woo magic to make her all better, but that he saw to it that all the right people were in the right places with the right training and life experiences to make the choices that lead to her surviving rather than dying of a missed diagnosis. Are they right? Well again, this is a matter of Faith and immune to proof so to them, they are right, if you chose not to think so, that's also perfectly fine.

I would be interested in finding out how Sis got Reyes' in the first place. Is the contention that she had never had a single aspirin until her 20s?

Also, what your parents called a miracle, I call "dumb luck and sharp eyesight" on the part of the attending. It's the basis for much of the medical advances since the Middle Ages and also the basis of the TV show House, M.D.. It's not a miracle that the right diagnosis exists, but it's lucky your sister's swollen brain triggered a "huh" in that doctor.
 
2012-12-28 05:14:21 PM

I drunk what: and if you are going to try and figure out how science can evaluate those things, then you have a catastrophic misunderstanding of what science is


Nah. Science can't evaluate religion or faith, all it does is occasionally overlap with certain specific claims (usually having to do with observable the physical world) like the universe being made in 6 days, 6-10k year old Earth, etc. If religion could just be peeled back from the parts of the universe we do understand, I'd have no qualms with it. But as it stands, it's prone to digging it's heels in and obstructing the growth of human knowledge which is something none of us should be willing to accept. Where there's an overlap, science wins. Where there's no overlap, there's no issue.

Magorn: In my parent's eyes, her survival was "a miracle" not in the sense that God reached down from a cloud and did some woo-woo magic to make her all better, but that he saw to it that all the right people were in the right places with the right training and life experiences to make the choices that lead to her surviving rather than dying of a missed diagnosis. Are they right? Well again, this is a matter of Faith and immune to proof so to them, they are right, if you chose not to think so, that's also perfectly fine


Who knows? I just hope they thanked the doctor who put in the effort to become a worldwide expert in a super rare disease as well.

Though, I will point out that going any further down the "right place, right time" idea always leads to paradoxes regarding free will. Well, that and the whole, "why doesn't God ever take crap for aligning all the factors that cause illness in the first place," part.
 
2012-12-28 05:40:55 PM

SkunkWerks: Why. Is there anything else to know, really?


What? Where? When? How?

Who?

Why what? Why free will? why life? why Good/Evil? why? why? why?

so many questions

SkunkWerks: You did.


nope

SkunkWerks: Or is
not paying attention to it now= doing something about it?


since when does paying attention to something require interacting with it? in physically detectable ways to appease SkunkWerks...(and his skeptical scientific curiosity)?

SkunkWerks: No, it really isn't. He decided to create man, ergo he decided to create sin.


oy vey, here we grow again. yes yes and he also decided to use the fark handle SkunkWerks to post pouty gibberish on Fark about how he is just a victim a mere pawn, nay PUPPET is this cruel game called life *dramatic pause* and how *gasp* that wretched IDW who is also the same puppeteer talking to himself through puppets keeps rambling on and on about what an idiot he-it-i-he-it-you-it-me-he is...

*raises hand to forehead* and what? does he get for all his trouble?? *stares blankly off into the distance*

the solemn reminder that no matter how much i stamp my feet and pout about the injustice this faux reality throws at me, in the end i am fully responsible for all of my actions...

[Scene]

~Fin

SkunkWerks: Logic is a harsh mistress indeed.


indeed, especially when you think you are leading

/she hates that

SkunkWerks: Again, you're speaking as if I have a stake in the reality you're arguing for. Still not sure why.


the neat thing about the reality that i'm arguing for, is that it doesn't need me to argue for it, even when i close my eyes, it's still there watching me

even if i were to quit believing in it, it believes in me

maybe if i were to wish it away? that would make a difference?? or if not perhaps i can at least sculpt it to something more pleasing to my taste... .... i hear the powers of a delusional mind can work wonders
 
2012-12-28 05:57:51 PM

Silverstaff: Yeah, he was a communist. Communism is an atheist ideology. Atheism is a key tenet of Marxist-Leninist and Maoist & Juche thinking. The whole reason for "Under God" being added to the the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" replacing "E Pluribus Unum" as the national motto in the 1950's was explicitly to reject the atheism that the USSR championed. One big reason that atheism has a stigma of being evil and unpatriotic is its association with communism.


Communism is a social and economic ideology. Atheism is just a small facet of this ideology. When you call communism an "atheist ideology," you might as well call communism an "a-philatelist" ideology or a "pants-wearing" ideology. It doesn't make any sense.

I find it funny you all try to claim that Stalin (and Mao, Pol Pot ect.) aren't atheists because they encourage veneration of a non-divine philosophy or entity in lieu of a God. . .but when you are accused of doing that with science (or aspects of science such as evolution) or of certain scientists like Darwin (those little "Darwin Fish" instead of Jesus fish don't help there, you're replacing a religious symbol with a close equivalent naming a scientist and think that people WON'T assume you're worshiping Charles Darwin?), you try to laugh about how theists don't understand atheists.

Taking the darwin fish to be anything more than the joke it is shows that you do not, in fact, understand atheism.

Atheism is the absence of belief in gods. That is all. Just that one thing. It is no an ideology. It is not a religion. There are no tenants, no moral codes, no rules of conduct. Just the absence of belief in gods. Atheism can be included in an ideology. It can even be the basis of an ideology, but that ideology wouldn't be atheism, because atheism is just the absence of belief in gods.
 
2012-12-28 06:01:53 PM

SkunkWerks: So should I thank him for that non-gift?


you're perfectly welcome to create your own Free Will and bestow it upon yourself, your also able to surrender the freedom given to you at any time you deem fit

isn't that interesting?

however to answer your inquiry, given the history of persons who has their freedom taken away from them and then later offered to them, most of them responded with a spirit of gratitude

so i'd vote yes

SkunkWerks: Now you're getting it.


so then He should negate our free will? after He spent so much time giving it to us?

is this that "logic" stuff you were referring to earlier?

SkunkWerks: I do. I have. Those discussions eventually resigned me to leaving the fold.


Good on you. what? were you expecting me to say something critical here?? ok... what took you so long?

also, just curious, what do you have planned next?

SkunkWerks: Open, unfettered by mystical, super-powered beings. And that Free Will thingy seems to have a lot more effect on it. Overall I've been a good deal happier in the latter 20-some-odd years of my life. But I admit it's not for everyone.

Clearly it's not for everyone. And this is- in a way- part of what makes my universe quite nifty.


and how does this differ from IDW's universe? btw aren't we breathing the same air, etc...? is yours colored differently or something??? i'm at a loss

SkunkWerks: If I wasn't pausing and thinking we wouldn't be conversing. At all. Don't go to all that trouble on my account, really.


sometimes people get a little emotional or touchy in these lil chats, i'm just trying to keep things on a pleasant and civil level while not boring the pants off of both parties, don't mind the guy behind the curtain

SkunkWerks: You're again speaking as if I have a stake in the reality you're arguing for. And I'm still mystified as to why.


and yet i'm equally mystified as to why you think you don't have a stake in the reality that totally doesn't care who is arguing for or against it

i like to just call it plain old "Reality" for short

now if you are concerned that we are not experiencing the same reality, i'd be happy to investigate where ours differ..?

can you give me a hint of what exactly you think 'it' is?

SkunkWerks: Appreciate the advice, but I'm already way ahead of you.


well then slow down, some of us have trouble keeping up

SkunkWerks: Yep.


coldblooded, and yet:

But I might stop and chat along the way. Because whatever you care to call it, it interests me.

yeah, i don't think you quite grasp the concept of "doing nothing" here, but i'm glad to see that you generally seem open minded and willing to discuss

ready when you are
 
2012-12-28 06:04:53 PM

letrole: Atheism is a Religion.

The amusing part is where an almost endless supply of Schoolboy Atheists will launch into ever-decreasing circles of denial, and exercises of semantics worthy of any medieval theologian.


Conversely, religion is atheism. So you're admitting you're an atheist.

Am I doing it right? ;)
 
2012-12-28 06:11:33 PM
SkunkWerks:
...
Kinda makes one wonder if Free Will is all it's really cracked up to be.
...


I certainly don't remember ever choosing free will, so there's that.
 
2012-12-28 06:16:29 PM

Ishkur: I see IDW is in the thread


i predict that somewhere in this thread, Ishkur will post a prepared statement about IDW

and cause many to feel a great amount of pity and sadness for him

Savian: Jesus dude. He must have done a number on you. And apparently it's still working.


thou has said it.

i broke his mentor-hero and his whole jolly idiot brigade, and i imagine it's only a matter of time before he snaps under the pressure

assuming there is anything left in there to snap

i tried to help them but sometimes people just cannot will not be helped, and instead of just watching them drag down as many people with them as possible, i chose to accelerate their self-destruction

full speed ahead

/darn that free will
 
2012-12-28 06:22:57 PM

scalpod: I certainly don't remember ever choosing free will, so there's that.


t.qkme.me
/Ow, my brain
 
2012-12-28 06:30:48 PM

coffeecrisp: Is not believing in Santa Claus also a religion?


is Santa Claus a physical or spiritual being?
 
2012-12-28 06:36:12 PM

scalpod: I certainly don't remember ever choosing free will, so there's that.


given the choice would you choose it?

/gives ProfessorOhki an aspirin
//don't think about it

yeah yeah, and we all know given the choice to take this test would we take it? no. but you don't hear us complaining about it, much

//well except for every post in this thread..

time to get over it, move on

just don't panic
 
2012-12-28 06:38:41 PM

I drunk what: coffeecrisp: Is not believing in Santa Claus also a religion?

is Santa Claus a physical or spiritual being?


Commercial
 
2012-12-28 06:39:16 PM

I drunk what: is IN this cruel game called life


don't type angry IDW
 
2012-12-28 06:40:16 PM

I drunk what: scalpod: I certainly don't remember ever choosing free will, so there's that.

given the choice would you choose it?

/gives ProfessorOhki an aspirin
//don't think about it

yeah yeah, and we all know given the choice to take this test would we take it? no. but you don't hear us complaining about it, much

//well except for every post in this thread..

time to get over it, move on

just don't panic


I'm glad you agree there's no choice involved.
 
2012-12-28 06:44:44 PM

Uncle Tractor: Communism is a social and economic ideology. Atheism is just a small facet of this ideology. When you call communism an "atheist ideology," you might as well call communism an "a-philatelist" ideology or a "pants-wearing" ideology. It doesn't make any sense.


Here's a communist propaganda poster from 1911:

cdn.prosebeforehos.com

Note that it lists four main enemies of the working class:

The nobility and aristocracy: "We rule you"
The religious: "We fool you"
The military: "We shoot at you"
The bourgeois (middle class): "We eat for you"

Communist propaganda has always placed religion right alongside the bourgeois as enemies of the people. Atheism is an integral that belief system, has been since day one.

Religious hatred is part of the Afghanistan conflict, but ethnic strife is as much (or more) a part of it. Conflicts, massacres and movements and wars have multiple causes and factors. Religion is a factor in some. Atheism is a factor in some wars and atrocities.

Only when it was clear they could not totally eradicate it did the USSR stop officially trying to completely annihilate religion, and that wasn't until the mid 1960's (after 40+ years of trying), and even then they still were officially atheist and officially denounced religion, they just gave up on total destruction of faith. The PRC didn't stop trying to completely destroy religion within China until the late 1970's (one of the slogans of the Cultural Revolution translated to: "beating down the Jesus following"), and even now they only tolerate it because they can't destroy it.

Also, I know the Darwin fish is a joke, but a lot of people don't, but I'm saying that when Atheists intentionally duplicate symbols that are religious in nature, then wonder why people call atheism a religion, they should know they are setting themselves up for that to begin with.
I'm not trying to say that all atheists are communists, but again, there have been militant atheists in the world, and they have done some horrible things in the name of wiping out religion and advancing the lack of belief in God. It is intellectually dishonest to try to depict that there is no such thing as a militant atheist, while showing militant Christians and militant muslims.
 
2012-12-28 06:56:03 PM

SkunkWerks: He's quite good at it judging by all the Dawkins adherents I've ever met.


while i can certainly understand why he gives the faux scientist hatetheist crowd such a hard on
mattstone.blogs.com

it's his particular brand of "there is no God, because I'm an asshole" philosophy that i find fascinating, and i'm surprised he hasn't won over more converts..

oh wait i just remembered where i'm posting... say why has the IB been so quiet in this thread?

your thoughts, Ishkur?

any thoughts? thinking... accidental synapses firing?? nada?
 
2012-12-28 06:57:15 PM

scalpod: I'm glad you agree there's no choice involved.


before or after?

and a simple 'yes' or 'no' would suffice
 
Displayed 50 of 302 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report