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

(Some Guy)   This is the thread where you defend what you believe in and call everyone else's believes bollocks. Now with a Venn diagram for easy navigation   (crispian-jago.blogspot.co.uk) divider line 531
    More: Cool, Venn diagram, critical thinking  
•       •       •

16605 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Mar 2013 at 3:55 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-27 09:20:55 AM

Earguy: Well, I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.

[pauses then winks and walks away]


Someone's a baseball fan. ;)
 
2013-03-27 09:23:19 AM
Dang, my pic didn't go through. There we go.
0.media.sportspickle.cvcdn.com
 
2013-03-27 09:28:33 AM

EyeballKid: So, where's Alcoholics Anonymous?


Agreed. It should be under Pseudoscience on the chart at the bottom of the page, next to Facilitated Communication
 
2013-03-27 09:55:07 AM

Ambitwistor: MBooda: Ambitwistor: MBooda: Where's Atheism, the belief that there's no God?

Hey, not trolling, just quoting Webster.

In case you're not trolling, you should be aware that there is a whole philosophical debate as to whether atheism is a "belief" or a "lack of belief", .


Philosophical, or semantic?

Agnosticism is a lack of belief.  Atheism is the belief that there is no God.
 
2013-03-27 10:16:13 AM

Acharne: omeganuepsilon: also laid up with what is likely an occult fracture in my foot

Faction infighting?


Oppression from my fat ass, what upset the applecart and caused the revolt was slipping on the ice.

/was going to say something...occult as a word can mean "hidden"
 
2013-03-27 11:12:05 AM

Wangiss: sciencism


The fark?
 
2013-03-27 11:16:33 AM
i.imm.io

In a related theme, I got through watching an excellent TED talk on being WRONG.

/picture unrelated
 
2013-03-27 11:35:28 AM

Gifted Many Few: Everytime I speak about my beliefs in a thread I get called a troll. Just because I come from a better class of people and have a higher education, people think that I am condescending. I merely want to help educate people in the error of their ways. People come on here with some kneejerk reaction to something menial and miss the point of an entire thread.


If I had a nickel for every time I've felt that way...

And I think you meant 'trivial'.  It's okay, obviously English isn't your first language.
 
2013-03-27 12:22:44 PM

MBooda: Agnosticism is a lack of belief. Atheism is the belief that there is no God.


Incorrect. Agnosticism is a rather broad philosophical topic, but in this context it refers to an epistemological position (i.e. whether knowledge of a divine being is inherently possible).  It has nothing to do with belief, and it is not a middle position between theism and atheism.  Atheism also comes in several flavors; not just the one you're espousing.  At its core, atheism refers to the absence of a belief in deities, not the active denial of their existence.

You're welcome to your opinion, but please get with the program on the terminology.

kemosabe: Earguy: Well, I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.

[pauses then winks and walks away]

Someone's a baseball fan. ;)


How is it that you've never seen Bull Durham?  Were you raised by wolves, man?!
 
2013-03-27 12:31:23 PM

HalfOffOffer: Western medicine strangely absent from this diagram.


You know what they call "alternative medicine" when it actually works?   "Medicine."
 
2013-03-27 12:36:33 PM

MBooda: Ambitwistor: MBooda: Ambitwistor: MBooda: Where's Atheism, the belief that there's no God?

Hey, not trolling, just quoting Webster.

In case you're not trolling, you should be aware that there is a whole philosophical debate as to whether atheism is a "belief" or a "lack of belief", .

Philosophical, or semantic?

Agnosticism is a lack of belief.  Atheism is the belief that there is no God.


In addition to Z-clipped's (very accurate) response, keep in mind that you are applying to us a definition that we do not believe describes us.

The vast majority of atheists do not make the positive claim that gods do not exist.

So the question is: do you want to argue semantics of the definitions of words or actually what our position is? Strawman or real?
 
2013-03-27 12:51:56 PM

willfullyobscure: As stated by St. Anselm, the argument runs thus


You're actually trotting out Anselm in a Fark thread? Really?  I mean... really?  Did you just pass Philo 101 or something?

This argument has numerous flaws, and has been taken apart by more people over the last thousand years than I could list.  It's main issues are,

1) it's a tautology, so while it may be logically valid, it's unsound, and useless as a proof
2) it attempts to prove existence (a fact) from a priori reasoning. (Try assuming its opposite is true, and get back to me when you run into a contradiction.)
3) it assumes a God that is small enough to fit within human conception, which defeats the argument's purpose in the first place.

I'm no philosopher, but I know enough to know that philosophy has come a long way since 1100 AD.  This is like trying to argue about the two body problem in General Relativity using Archimedes' method of exhaustion. You're in over your head.
 
2013-03-27 01:54:53 PM

Z-clipped: willfullyobscure: As stated by St. Anselm, the argument runs thusYou're actually trotting out Anselm in a Fark thread? Really?  I mean... really?  Did you just pass Philo 101 or something?


Not me- The Catholic Church. Here's try one of the a posteriori proofs:

"St. Thomas (Summa Theologica I:2:3; Cont. Gent., I, xiii) and after him many scholastic writers advance the five following arguments to prove the existence of God:
Motion, i.e. the passing from power to act, as it takes place in the universe implies a first unmoved Mover (primum movens immobile), who is God; else we should postulate an infinite series of movers, which is inconceivable.
For the same reason efficient causes, as we see them operating in this world, imply the existence of a First Cause that is uncaused, i.e. that possesses in itself the sufficient reason for its existence; and this is God.
The fact that contingent beings exist, i.e. beings whose non-existence is recognized as possible, implies the existence of a necessary being, who is God.
The graduated perfections of being actually existing in the universe can be understood only by comparison with an absolute standard that is also actual, i.e., an infinitely perfect Being such as God.
The wonderful order or evidence of intelligent design which the universe exhibits implies the existence of a supramundane Designer, who is no other than God Himself. "
 
2013-03-27 02:06:11 PM

Z-clipped: At its core, atheism refers to the absence of a belief in deities, not the active denial of their existence.


Then what would you call someone who actively denies the existence of deities?

Farking Canuck: keep in mind that you are applying to us a definition that we do not believe describes us.

The vast majority of atheists do not make the positive claim that gods do not exist.


Which begs the question(s): what is the definition that atheists believe describes themselves?  Do atheists concur on such a definition? If so, when was the vote? (Never was told about it myself).  And, does it really make any difference what definition atheists believe describes themselves, as opposed to what Webster or non-atheists define atheists as?

So the question is: do you want to argue semantics of the definitions of words or actually what our position is? Strawman or real?

I haven't the foggiest idea what your position is, or what the position of random atheist X is.  I suspect you don't, either.
 
2013-03-27 02:07:27 PM
Updated to add the 5th category "conspiracy" (via BoingBoing)

i.imgur.com

though acupuncture may be missing in this version.
 
2013-03-27 02:07:54 PM

willfullyobscure: else we should postulate an infinite series of movers, which is inconceivable.


I love this line. They are trying to prove the existence of god and the first thing they rule out is the inconceivable. Shouldn't it be assumed that a god would be inconceivable to man?

I realize that this assumption is necessary to proceed with their proof but the restriction makes either their proof worthless or what they are proving to be a pretty pathetic being to be granted the title of god.

/what do you expect from people working backwards from a conclusion.
 
2013-03-27 02:18:06 PM
MBooda: Which begs the question(s):

what is the definition that atheists believe describes themselves?


There is one thing (and only one thing) that is common to all atheists: the lack of a belief in deities. Therefore, IMO, this is the only truly useful definition.

Do atheists concur on such a definition? If so, when was the vote? (Never was told about it myself).

Opinions vary and there will never be a unified position. This is why I personally use the only definition that includes everyone (see previous answer).

But, as I pointed out in previous post, during an argument it is simple to ask the person you are arguing with where they stand instead of building a strawman of assumptions. The point of an argument should be to debate the ideas and not waste time fighting over terminology when the English language is far too flexible to actually nail down right and wrong definitions.

And, does it really make any difference what definition atheists believe describes themselves, as opposed to what Webster or non-atheists define atheists as?

Depends ... is your goal to discuss ideas or just make unfounded attacks?
 
2013-03-27 02:21:45 PM

MBooda: Z-clipped: At its core, atheism refers to the absence of a belief in deities, not the active denial of their existence.

Then what would you call someone who actively denies the existence of deities?

Farking Canuck: keep in mind that you are applying to us a definition that we do not believe describes us.

The vast majority of atheists do not make the positive claim that gods do not exist.

Which begs the question(s): what is the definition that atheists believe describes themselves?  Do atheists concur on such a definition?



The only characteristic that all atheists display is a lack of belief in god(s).

Someone who professes certainty that gods do not and/or cannot exist might be called an "anti-theist," but is sometimes referred to as a "gnostic atheist."   They lack belief in X and profess belief in Not-X.


The overwhelming majority of atheists are agnostic atheists (do not claim certainty and/or do not think certainty is possible).   They lack belief in X, but do not profess belief in its opposite.


And, does it really make any difference what definition atheists believe describes themselves, as opposed to what Webster or non-atheists define atheists as?

If one wishes to be either objective about the topic, or polite to others, then yes, it does.  When one side of a "debate" consistently mischaracterizes the position of the other side, the debate will almost never result in furthering of anyone's understanding.  Increasing understanding is really the whole point of debate, so it's generally advisable to refrain from misrepresenting the position of one's opponents.
 
2013-03-27 02:27:29 PM

FloydA: If one wishes to be either objective about the topic, or polite to others, then yes, it does.


So far, what I've been hearing from the atheists in this thread sounds awfully subjective.

I'm agnostic, I don't ascribe to any particular belief. Especially when it comes to wishing to be polite.
 
2013-03-27 02:34:37 PM

MBooda: I'm agnostic, I don't ascribe to any particular belief. Especially when it comes to wishing to be polite.


I don't care much about politness either ... especially when that apparently translates to giving special protections to silly beliefs because a lot of people hold them.

But I do take issue with people not arguing against their opponents' actual position. It is easy to put up a strawman and assail that ... a little more difficult when you go up against a real argument.
 
2013-03-27 02:36:35 PM

omeganuepsilon: my herniated disc:  words


thats an interesting post!

in addition to fear of death and stuff I think people may look to religion or belief in god for comfort knowing there is some kind of cosmic justice. We feel so powerless at times with all the injustice we see around us that maybe it feels good to think maybe there is punishment awaiting those who burn children alive in Sudan for example. Or at the very least, there is somewhere free of suffering for them to go after death.  Ugh, or maybe it is a way for us to be complacent towards injustice because we defer the responsibility to god. Depends, do I feel cynical today, or magnanimous.

whether or not god does or does not exist, for all intents and purposes in living every day life there is no god. There is no tangible evidence of a divinity kicking around, doing things on Earth.   Arguments of belief and non-belief are often over semantics (is atheism a religion? is lack of belief in itself a belief? etc, which I was getting at with my overly simplistic declaration. Its arguments about the meanings of words over something we can't prove.  Its quite futile in the end but makes for facinating philosophical debate!

Atheism and theism don't seem like opposites. They seem like two ideas that both claim to have the absolute truth. There isn't much room for criticism or philosophical debate when someone believes in an absolute truth. This is why vehement atheism doesn't seem that different than a religion to me.

I may be way off on that though. Damn it, I'm a construction worker not a philosopher!

/prayin there's no hellraiser type afterlife
//hopin for Vorlons.
 
2013-03-27 02:38:10 PM

MBooda: Z-clipped: At its core, atheism refers to the absence of a belief in deities, not the active denial of their existence.

Then what would you call someone who actively denies the existence of deities?


A strong atheist, or a gnostic atheist.  You could also apply the term "explicit atheist", though this has a subtly different implication.  The person you describe might also be an anti-theist, depending upon his reasons for for making your statement, or the details of his reasoning.

Most importantly, since most self-professed atheists are free-thinking and generally rational about belief in gods (or the lack of it), you could call the person you're describing "rare".  Strong atheism is easy to argue against, so many religious people attempt to subvert the discussion by equivocation: they assume that all atheists hold this position, when in fact, hardly any actually do.  Most atheists are agnostic atheists whether or not they label themselves as such.  And actually, most people who label themselves as "agnostic, not atheist" are in fact atheists as well.

Farking Canuck: what is the definition that atheists believe describes themselves?

There is one thing (and only one thing) that is common to all atheists: the lack of a belief in deities. Therefore, IMO, this is the only truly useful definition.


This is well said.

willfullyobscure: Not me- The Catholic Church.


Ohhhh... that explains the thousand year old reasoning then.  I'm not going to get into this stuff, first because it's a waste of time rehashing all of modern philosophy when we have a perfectly serviceable discussion going on, and second because I'm sure there are actual philosophy majors floating around who would be better at it than I.
 
2013-03-27 02:42:06 PM

MBooda: So far, what I've been hearing from the atheists in this thread sounds awfully subjective.


I don't think you could possibly find two independent posts that agree more closely on the matter than what I just wrote, and what FloydA wrote.  If you have any doubt about whether people versed on this topic have a framework that they agree upon, that alone should lay them to rest.

MBooda: I'm agnostic, I don't ascribe to any particular belief. Especially when it comes to wishing to be polite.


Do you hold the affirmative belief that a god exists?
 
2013-03-27 02:44:02 PM

Farking Canuck: MBooda: I'm agnostic, I don't ascribe to any particular belief. Especially when it comes to wishing to be polite.

I don't care much about politness either ... especially when that apparently translates to giving special protections to silly beliefs because a lot of people hold them.

But I do take issue with people not arguing against their opponents' actual position. It is easy to put up a strawman and assail that ... a little more difficult when you go up against a real argument.


I personally take issue with the dismissal of the importance of semantics.  What's the difference, for example, between denying the "knowledge" of a divine being and denying the "belief" in a divine being?

As for "opponents' actual positions", I still haven't found out what Z-clipped calls someone who actively denies the existence of deities.
 
2013-03-27 02:46:10 PM
Whoops, now I do.  Again, interesting semantics.
 
2013-03-27 02:50:05 PM
I like this discussion. But my big question remains unanswered. Are there atheists in FoxTrot?

gocomics.typepad.com
 
2013-03-27 02:51:30 PM

Z-clipped: Most atheists are agnostic atheists


Whoa.  We need a new Venn diagram.

Do you hold the affirmative belief that a god exists?

No, nor do I hold the belief that a god doesn't exist.  Nor do I believe it's possible to prove it either way.
 
2013-03-27 03:01:23 PM

omeganuepsilon: Acharne: omeganuepsilon: also laid up with what is likely an occult fracture in my foot

Faction infighting?

Oppression from my fat ass, what upset the applecart and caused the revolt was slipping on the ice.

/was going to say something...occult as a word can mean "hidden"


Ya I know, I'm big into puns.
 
2013-03-27 03:04:40 PM

MBooda: FloydA: If one wishes to be either objective about the topic, or polite to others, then yes, it does.

So far, what I've been hearing from the atheists in this thread sounds awfully subjective.



You've been offered the same definition by at least three people.  As Z-clipped notes, that is a pretty good indication that there is a consensus about the meaning of the word. 

I'm agnostic, I don't ascribe to any particular belief. Especially when it comes to wishing to be polite.

Nobody can stop you from being impolite, if that's what you choose to do.  It does not generally result in effective, useful, or informative discussions however.  If you want people to actually understand your points, being rude is often counter-productive.
 
2013-03-27 03:08:36 PM

HairBolus: Updated to add the 5th category "conspiracy" (via BoingBoing)

[i.imgur.com image 850x850]

though acupuncture may be missing in this version.


Denver Airport?
 
2013-03-27 03:11:19 PM

MBooda: Z-clipped: Most atheists are agnostic atheists

Whoa.  We need a new Venn diagram.

Do you hold the affirmative belief that a god exists?

No, nor do I hold the belief that a god doesn't exist.  Nor do I believe it's possible to prove it either way.


Congratulations. You're an agnostic atheist, just like me.

Agnostic describes your third statement.
Atheist describes your first statement.
(Your second statement loosely means you're an "implicit" atheist as well, in case you care.)

MBooda: Whoa. We need a new Venn diagram.


We have one.  Smidge was kind enough to provide it just upthread. I'll repost it here to save your scrolling finger:

www.smidgeindustriesltd.com
 
2013-03-27 03:23:59 PM

Sofa King Smart: HairBolus: Updated to add the 5th category "conspiracy" (via BoingBoing)

[i.imgur.com image 850x850]

though acupuncture may be missing in this version.

Denver Airport?


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Denver_Airport_conspiracy_theory
 
2013-03-27 03:31:51 PM

MBooda: Whoops, now I do.  Again, interesting semantics.


I do not think he is trying to make a semantic argument. It is just that the English language is too variable to nail down so he is listing all the possible terms.

I use anti-theists, which is on his list, but I doubt many people I put in that category use that name for themselves.
 
2013-03-27 03:32:57 PM

my herniated disc: Its quite futile in the end but makes for facinating philosophical debate!


It's not entirely futile.  It's actually a good study in psychology, like fear of the unknown(death) and cosmic justice.  It illustrates human need nicely, and can, now that it's identified, be put to good use.

Or if not put to use, at least flesh out our layman construction workers sense of how people operate.  Education for education's sake is never a bad thing.(well, unless it eats into your production time/paycheck)

my herniated disc: This is why vehement atheism doesn't seem that different than a religion to me.


In places, even in the US, a lot of vehement atheists are the way they are, over principles.  Even atheists are entitled to a belief in what's right and wrong, speakign civicly.

Seperation of Church and state is a very important philosophy if equality is important to you, and worth some heavy debate.  Even in the US it can be in danger of not being upheld, and indeed, in places like Polk County, Florida, there is a very abusive christian force in power.(Polk Under Prayer). In that case, atheists can and do fall under a sort of persecution, to include arrests, after protesting local civic assets going to church on the civic dime, etc.
http://free2think.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1458  It's not laid out well, scattered about, you've got to do a bit of reading, but it's there.
They also "blessed" a road by praying that people who do not follow god be restricted from town and or put in jail.  The local atheists made headlines for "un-blessing" it, and got painted as trolls, but when one looked at the facts, they're fighting against intolerance, prejudice, and oppression.  Of course, that bit never made the news stories.

Another example is when christian schools teach bunk science to kids, that's something to be concerned about.  Or when they get on a web forum like this and do the same, and call a banana proof of god.  Preaching ignorance is not healthy for society in any way shape or form.

I can't blame some of the more vitriolic atheists for being as they are.  It may seem like religious fervor, but it's justified more often than not, in my opinion.
 
2013-03-27 03:37:12 PM

meanmutton: DesertDemonWY: [i1057.photobucket.com image 700x537]

Hey, I one-up Jimmy and just put certain people on ignore.


I just favourite them as `irrational` and mark them with satanic red 666
 
2013-03-27 03:47:17 PM

MBooda: I still haven't found out what Z-clipped calls someone who actively denies the existence of deities.


You mean me?

I refuse to acknowledge the existence of anything being promoted by human beings with an agenda unless there is a large amount of verifiable proof to go along with the claim. There is a much larger amount of `things that could be but we cannot prove it` than there are `things that are that we can prove`. It seems as good a cut off point for saying `it is not real` as any other, being able to prove the existence. Naturally the burden of proof lies with the claimant. As such, until proven otherwise in a verifiable manner, I assert that deities do not exist.

Then again z-clipped seems to assert that I do not exist so it`s as broad as it is long. The evidence for me is only some printed words which isn`t really much proof at all...
 
2013-03-27 04:34:19 PM

dready zim: Then again z-clipped seems to assert that I do not exist


Not at all.  But you should recognize that dismissing the idea of a deity for lack of evidence is not the same as positively asserting that one does not or cannot exist.  To wit. if you consider the statement "No god exists" to be a positive claim, and you cannot provide some evidence for that position, your own initial premise requires you to dismiss it just as you dismissed its contradictory.

Please note, I'm not waffling here: I'm equally agnostic about the Tooth Fairy, the Loch Ness Monster, and honest politicians, as I am about gods.  Do I think any of them exist?  Almost certainly not.  I dismiss the idea for the same reason you do.  But if I'm reading your post right, you yourself are placing gods in the category of `things that could be but we cannot prove it` which is essentially the definition of the agnostic position.  Basically, unless you're asserting that it's somehow possible to know whether all possible gods do or do not exist, you're in the same boat as the rest of us agnostic atheists.
 
2013-03-27 04:41:02 PM

Somacandra: common sense is an oxymoron: Chiropractic for treating anything and everything by restoring the body's "innate intelligence"

wat

/That's a new one for me. Never heard of that.



From the World Chiropractic Alliance:

Instructions from your Innate Intelligence are sent to every organ and cell in your body. If the instructions are received and followed properly, your body is able to reach and maintain its optimum level of health.

However, if there is any interference with the transmission of those instructions the result is less-than-optimum health. Your body can no longer function normally. It is said to be in a state of "dis-ease...."

A spinal bone which has lost its normal placement or alignment, is said to be "subluxated." The impulses traveling along the nerve past a subluxated bone can become distorted. This is what causes interference with the instructions sent by Innate Intelligence to a part of the body.
 
2013-03-27 04:53:51 PM
The vast majority of atheists just don't give a shiat about God. It's not a part of their lives and they really don't care to proclaim whether they believe in it or not.
 
2013-03-27 05:49:42 PM

Z-clipped: willfullyobscure: Not me- The Catholic Church.Ohhhh... that explains the thousand year old reasoning then.  I'm not going to get into this stuff, first because it's a waste of time rehashing all of modern philosophy when we have a perfectly serviceable discussion going on, and second because I'm sure there are actual philosophy majors floating around who would be better at it than I.


glad to see that neither you OR Kant can refute the First Mover argument. After all, it provides a rational religious framework for evolution, empirical observation and experimental science, Bing Bang theory and relativity, so you're in good company.
 
2013-03-27 05:58:27 PM

Farking Canuck: MBooda: Whoops, now I do.  Again, interesting semantics.

I do not think he is trying to make a semantic argument. It is just that the English language is too variable to nail down so he is listing all the possible terms.

I use anti-theists, which is on his list, but I doubt many people I put in that category use that name for themselves.


i'm an antitheist AND an agnostic AND a person sick of everyone trying to define other peoples' beliefs.
 
2013-03-27 05:58:37 PM
Z-clipped:

MBooda: Whoa. We need a new Venn diagram.

We have one.  Smidge was kind enough to provide it just upthread. I'll repost it here to save your scrolling finger:

[www.smidgeindustriesltd.com image 394x589]


Man, that's not only subjective, it's downright selfish.  Theists and Atheists divide up all the Agnostics.  I feel like Poland in 1939.
 
2013-03-27 06:31:49 PM

SquiggsIN: i'm an antitheist AND an agnostic AND a person sick of everyone trying to define other peoples' beliefs.


Nobody is trying to define other people's beliefs. We are trying to reach a common language to be able to discuss the ideas.
 
2013-03-27 07:55:30 PM

Z-clipped: MBooda: Z-clipped: Most atheists are agnostic atheists

Whoa.  We need a new Venn diagram.

Do you hold the affirmative belief that a god exists?

No, nor do I hold the belief that a god doesn't exist.  Nor do I believe it's possible to prove it either way.

Congratulations. You're an agnostic atheist, just like me.

Agnostic describes your third statement.
Atheist describes your first statement.
(Your second statement loosely means you're an "implicit" atheist as well, in case you care.)

MBooda: Whoa. We need a new Venn diagram.

We have one.  Smidge was kind enough to provide it just upthread. I'll repost it here to save your scrolling finger:

[www.smidgeindustriesltd.com image 394x589]


I see it more like a Punnet square.
 
2013-03-27 07:59:35 PM

omeganuepsilon: my herniated disc:

my herniated disc: This is why vehement atheism doesn't seem that different than a religion to me.

In places, even in the US, a lot of vehement atheists are the way they are, over principles.  Even atheists are entitled to a belief in what's right and wrong, speakign civicly.

Seperation of Church and state is a very important philosophy if equality is important to you, and worth some heavy debate.  Even in the US it can be in danger of not being upheld, and indeed, in places like Polk County, Florida, there is a very abusive christian force in power.(Polk Under Prayer). In that case, atheists can and do fall under a sort of persecution, to include arrests, after protesting local civic assets going to church on the civic dime, etc.
http://free2think.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1458  It's not laid out well, scattered about, you've got to do a bit of reading, but it's there.
They also "blessed" a road by praying that people who do not follow god be restricted from town and or put in jail.  The local atheists made headlines for "un-blessing" it, and got painted as trolls, but when one looked at the facts, they're fighting against intolerance, prejudice, and oppression.  Of course, that bit never made the news stories.


Fair enough. I am not from the States and rarely run into religious fundamentalists. I hear about them but I assumed (or hoped) they were fringe elements.

Most of the religious people I know are moderate Christians, unitarians, united church etc. Many of them support gay marriage, believe in evolution and see the bible more as a metaphor for creation. There are things in the bible that even the most fundamentalist christians don't practice so its not a huge stretch to believe in the overall message but not every single detail. When one starts considering the bible as man's interpretation of what was happening 2000 years ago then it is possible, I think to believe in the overall messages, yet not take the entire bible as absolute truth.

 In this sense, science and belief in god aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, if one suggests that god was around when the first cell separated millions of years ago and perhaps was he responsible of the first spark of life.  I personally have problems with that idea but thats the kind of christianity I seem to be exposed to. It seems to be a more open-minded kind of religion that does not exclude science.  Some people find solace or help through religion and I think maybe its good for many.  That's why I get irritated when people vehemently criticise other people's beliefs. Fierce criticism seems to cement people in their beliefs more than encourage healthy debate.


However, when fundamentalists start becoming mainstream and when there is a danger to the government remaining secular I can understand why atheists would become more vocal. I would want to as well. Its quite likely I have my head in the sand when it comes to religion since I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and see some of the positive aspects of it.  I may overlook the dangers of the application of religion to politics since to me it ceases being a religious issue at that point but a political issue. Islamic fundamentalists for instance may hate western civilsation but I see that as a political being relayed through religious concepts.  On the other hand, if people in power have strong religious views on gay marriage or abortion this could translate into their politics and actually force religious change onto an otherwise secular society.

blessing a road though? thats pretty whacky. Actually, now that I think of it,  I guess I have met a few nuttier specimens over the years. the nuttiest fundamentalists remind me of the pharisees from the bible.
 
2013-03-27 08:02:23 PM

Farking Canuck: SquiggsIN: i'm an antitheist AND an agnostic AND a person sick of everyone trying to define other peoples' beliefs.

Nobody is trying to define other people's beliefs. We are trying to reach a common language to be able to discuss the ideas.


Those who define the language frame the issues. Some people want to define "agnostic" within a framework that precisely distinguishes it from other concepts such as "atheist". However it does have one sense of not really caring about something and not thinking it is worth thinking deeply about. For example I am agnostic about professional wrestling - the little I know about it is enough to keep me from learning more.

Many people are agnostic about religion is this sense including many of the mildly religious. They say they don't care about fine distinctions but you say they must.
 
2013-03-27 08:25:42 PM

willfullyobscure: Z-clipped: willfullyobscure: Not me- The Catholic Church.Ohhhh... that explains the thousand year old reasoning then.  I'm not going to get into this stuff, first because it's a waste of time rehashing all of modern philosophy when we have a perfectly serviceable discussion going on, and second because I'm sure there are actual philosophy majors floating around who would be better at it than I.

glad to see that neither you OR Kant can refute the First Mover argument. After all, it provides a rational religious framework for evolution, empirical observation and experimental science, Bing Bang theory and relativity, so you're in good company.


You've forgotten your place sir. This thread, THIS one, is for all of us to call your believes bollocks.

all you're believes are belong to us! YOU'RE BOLLOCKS ARE OURS NOW!!!!

/Catholics, supporting the Devil since they tossed out the fourth commandment.
 
2013-03-27 08:47:46 PM

my herniated disc: Fair enough. I am not from the States and rarely run into religious fundamentalists. I hear about them but I assumed (or hoped) they were fringe elements.

Most of the religious people I know are moderate Christians, unitarians, united church etc. Many of them support gay marriage, believe in evolution and see the bible more as a metaphor for creation.


You sound pretty Canadian. That describes my experience too. I don't run into many of the 'bad kind' of Christians. Where I'm from, we get 'friendly to your face' Christians who then actively vote against women's rights and gay rights. The 'in your face' Christians are very readily dismissed as utter loons.
 
2013-03-27 08:52:40 PM

Z-clipped: I just wrote a paper on this about a week ago.  Basically, the current agreement between scientists and philosophers is that time is "real" in the sense that it is a physical part of the fabric of the space (Einstein), but that our perception of time's flow is an illusion (Parmenides, FTW in 500 BC).  Our position on the fabric is not special, so the future is deterministic but the "many worlds" interpretation of QM illustrates that we have infinite possible "predetermined" futures.  Many of the most promising prospects for a TOE require time to either be quantized, or imply that time is essentially meaningless below the Planck length, which effectively quantizes both time and space for our purposes.

I don't see how this really affects the religious argument though, except for the whole "quantum immortality" idea.  Still, as silly as it is, I think quantum immortality is enormously more likely than the existence of a mystical "soul" that carries our consciousness forward.


I'm ok with most of this and I especially agree that our perception of Time's flow to be BS. Parmenides, FTW indeed. I don't like using the word 'predetermined' because then you have to answer the ? of who or what did the determining. I have issues with the TOE.. not that there might not be one but my issue is that I don't think we humans at this point in our advancement could possibly ever get it right.

The Many Worlds theory for immortality is only immortality of an objective view. There may be many 'me's' in different worlds but in the subjective world if I die I don't believe I will 'wake up' in a different me that is still living. I think conscience's can and do die every day.

Also I am not ashamed to admit I had to look up 3 things you mentioned. So if my response is simple or crazy-talk it's only because I am not educated on this subject (and i'm crazy)
 
2013-03-27 09:43:21 PM

my herniated disc: However, when fundamentalists start becoming mainstream and when there is a danger to the government remaining secular I can understand why atheists would become more vocal.


Another couple very similar examples.  Native American law in the US, and Islamic Law in the UK.  Sure, both are small movements, but they are there.  They both want to go above and beyond the local law and have special powers and rights to prosecute and punish "offenders".

Some things, as in the Native american case, are already illegal, such as rape and domestic abuse from the white man.(Which, contrary to their poroposition, happens within the community and is more or less ignored)

As you may know, Sharia Law is much the same, but more extreme and varied in what it desires to establish.(that is one that is easily found on the google so I'll bypass an example).

my herniated disc: blessing a road though? thats pretty whacky


Blessing I have no problem with, I don't mind some ordinary rituals placed in good faith("god protect us from evil" and such, no harm in that).  This was different, it was a publicly displayed wish to keep out non-christians.

I had to retype it from a screenshot, but here's the exact quote from the ministry's website:
"If the will not submit to God's way of living, the the prayer is to have them incarcerated or removed from the county. "

Not just whacky but disturbing, much like the Westboro Baptists, which some people almost fear. Did you hear that there's a movement that wants to label them as a hate group?
Gods willing!

Yeah, these movements are localized and small in the grand scope of things, but without opposition there is a danger of them growing.  Certainly not fair to the local populace as it stands, and it should be fought on that principle alone.

We can fight overseas to liberate people, but let this go on at home by conveniently not knowing all the facts.  We'll hit a boiling point sooner or later and such things will have to be addressed, the media can downplay only so much.

*shrugs*

Anyhow, ranting aside...

my herniated disc: On the other hand, if people in power have strong religious views on gay marriage or abortion this could translate into their politics and actually force religious change onto an otherwise secular society.


IF?

I'll give you lenience here because you say you're not from the states.

I tried to describe it here, and figured it was a waste of space.  I'll sum it up, if I can, and be wary, it's likely to turn into a rant and a waste of space anyhow.

Our 2 party system is failing, because it's no longer about the issues, it's about toeing the line and not letting the other guy gain ground.  Christian conservatives do pretty much rule the republicans and push against civil rights for gays/women/etc.

On the other hand, christians and liberals alike, push against things like smoking to serving Coke in too large of a cup, etc.  No matter how you phrase it, it is an attempt to control what others do that you don't like, and results in, if not a loss of freedom, discouragement or inability to enjoy your freedom...for the people who happen to enjoy whatever hobby or substance it's popular to hate on.

It'll come around soon, it'll be alcohol(again, we didn't learn the first time apparently), or just having fun in sight of other human beings.

I think that's what it boils down to, people who just cannot abide by other people having fun and enjoying life. (angrychesskid.jpg)

We were the country that was comprised of all that was good(and well on our way to being better)...how the mighty have fallen.  Just more aggravation that will accelerate that boiling point I talked about.  People will only tolerate so much restriction and required self censor-ship(a liberal movement, have to speak in a politically correct fashion, "you don't speak(or think) like i do, so you're a lesser person")

You know the saying, "some people just want to watch the world burn".
I can understand it from a non-philosophical/poetic stand point.  It's getting the the point where we(as a whole) might just not deserve it anymore.
 
Displayed 50 of 531 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report