|
|
The Showcase
-
RE: Awkward title
in Least popular (most parasitic, opportunistic, or overpaid) profession?
-
RE: Awkward title
in Least popular (most parasitic, opportunistic, or overpaid) profession?
-
RE: Awkward title
in Least popular (most parasitic, opportunistic, or overpaid) profession?
-
RE: Awkward title
in Least popular (most parasitic, opportunistic, or overpaid) profession?
-
RE: Awkward title
in Least popular (most parasitic, opportunistic, or overpaid) profession?
-
RE: Awkward title
in Least popular (most parasitic, opportunistic, or overpaid) profession?
-
RE: Awkward title
in Least popular (most parasitic, opportunistic, or overpaid) profession?
-
RE: Awkward title
in Least popular (most parasitic, opportunistic, or overpaid) profession?
-
RE: good idea / Overhead console
in Build a Jeep Wrangler Overhead Console for Equipment
-
RE: Awkward title
in Least popular (most parasitic, opportunistic, or overpaid) profession?
|
a
comment
by 
RE: The Pots should stop calling the Kettles black... by Anonymous :: NR0 :: Show
Scottyboy,
This is going to be fun. For me though, not you.
I always get a laugh when you folks fall back on the “you’re just as bad as we are” argument.
“You folks”. Really? All the common language of a bigot. I guess balanced understanding isn’t the sign of free thinkers these days. You’re just as fanatical as any fundamentalists in their thinking.
As I pointed out before, you do not possess an open mind, you have one that lacks the necessary skepticism to avoid making wildly wrong conclusions.
Oooo. More bigoted statements. Next thing you know I won’t be human enough for you either. Care to prove that I don’t have an open mind? Care to make assumptions about my previous beliefs and my current one? You already made the false assumption that I was a Christian, so I wouldn’t be surprised if you did it again.
And I’ll point out again that this is a false argument unless you’re willing to actually outline the specifics of how your “faith” is otherwise.
Well, first, I think you need to be educated on what an argument is. I made a statement, not an argument. Unless you can put that statement in some sort of syllogistic form then I suggests you stop calling it one.
Simply declaring your faith to be something other than the unquestioned belief we’re denigrating doesn’t actually make it so. The fact is that all religious faith is “unquestioned belief”, because what you believe is untestable, and those tests are what it means to “question” a belief.
It’s true that a mere declaration of something does not make it so, however it appears you don’t follow your own advice in much of your responses. Further, it seems that you think that the only way to question a belief is to put it under some sort of scientific scrutiny. If that’s the case, then I’d like to see if you can put abstract concepts such as “existence” or “minds” under such scrutiny without invoking a metaphysical explanation (which is absent of science). Better yet, I’d like to see you put the truth claim “those tests are what it means to “question” a belief” under such tests.
Switching from one untestable superstition to another is not “questioning”, it’s mere credulity.
Last time I checked, questioning ones beliefs does not require that they do so under any specified method. If there is such a universal method that everyone should follow, you should all let us know seeing as you appear to be the only person in the world to know such a thing.
Better yet, why don’t you come and attempt to instruct our grad courses. I’d like to see you try.
I assume you wish to include me in this, but I say you’re wrong. Simply saying “my claims are reasonable” does not make them reasonable. Saying “I had a mystical experience” doesn’t mean you did have one.
Simply saying “you’re wrong” doesn’t make me wrong.
You have yet to make a “reasonable” argument in favor of your faith.
Simply saying you have yet to make a reasonable argument in favor of your faith_ doesn’t mean that’s the case.
And further, I didn’t know I was supposed to make a reasonable argument for my faith in context of this discussion. I was merely critiquing your views, not trying to persuade of mine.
You’re right.
If I’m right, then don’t argue about it like a stubborn child.
But it’s not just any old “different point of view”,
Ooooo…you’re special
the different point of view from which I start is rationality, and I’m afraid that does make my point-of-view more rational.
Simply because you can say that you start with rationality doesn’t make it so.
Starting to see the trend in your own special pleading/hypocrisy yet?
In fact, I am often skeptical of the things I believe.
Doesn’t seem like it. You can’t even adhere to the same rules to impose on others when debating them.
The problem is that you wildly misjudge the rational foundations of your beliefs. What you believe is no more credible than the Santa stories.
Simply because you say that they are no more credible than Santa stories doesn’t make it so.
The fact that you believe it doesn’t actually lend it any credibility. The fact that very many people believe it, or something similar, does mean it’s worth considering, but I have considered it, and found it to be wanting.
Simply because you say it’s wanting doesn’t make it so.
You gotta be fucking kidding me. Where’s the atheist book that infallibly tells us to murder millions?
There isn’t one. Where is the general Theists book that infallibly tells us to murder millions? In fact where is any specified Theistic belief that tells us to do this other than how you want to read the text and ignore thousands of years of exegetical understanding?
Compare that to the Christian Bible—the “infallible” word of a god—that repeatedly instructs such, and often for the sole crime of not believing.
Really? I’m not even a Christian and I know that’s not true. You made the claim, however, so please…if you could, back that statement up with the proper evidence. Meaning, I want the actual verses, their contextual background (historical and theological), who they are referring to, who they are directed to, and whether or not they are direct commands. If you can do this, then I’ll concede your point.
A blatantly false dichotomy. You suggest that, had they been religious, their god-belief would have prevented their crimes.
I suggested no such thing. You shouldn’t strawman my arguments in substitute for your lack of reading comprehension.
Just like they prevented bin Laden’s, Torquemada, and Hitler (the Trekkie in me wants to add, “and Klepnor of Rigel Six”).
Well, Hitler was a neo-pagan so it’s difficult to call him a theist. But it seems you want to fit all we Muslims into one basket by assuming we’re the same as bin Laden. I thought you weren’t trying to do that…hmmm? Guess the truth comes out.
Sorry, but I think it pretty obvious that history shows that Christianity is just as bloody and intolerant as Islam. That they aren’t today is the direct result of encroaching secularism and the restraints that secular government places on that sort of behavior.
Uh huh. Care to actually prove what you’re saying instead of consistently talking out of your ass? I’m still waiting for this overwhelming statistical evidence. And be wary where you research because I’ve already done research on this topic myself. I await you to bring something up other than “that’s just common sense” or “I’m an atheist, therefore I’m right” statements.
They seemed to have answered that one adequately on their own, but your response to it was pretty lame. You say, “I didn’t mean to make your sick view more sick than it really is. I guess I’ll have to simply admit that it speaks for itself.” I don’t think it counts as a “sick view” to think that those who suffer from a mental illness should get treatment. You see it as “sick” because you disagree with the assessment that it’s an illness. Of course, the guy who thinks he’s Napoleon says the same thing, so that’s not really much of an argument.
The fact that you seem to agree with the claim that the majority of the world has a mental illness simply proves your bigotry and hatred for the rest of the human race, simply because they disagree with you.
Stalin would certainly be proud.
The line between mental illness and religion is a very fine one. I’d say that this woman is well into the mental illness range, and does a pretty fine job of dismissing your claim that we’re arguing against a “strawman” while she’s at it.
Uh huh. Care to show evidence again or is this going to be more of the same talking out of the ass?
Nonsense. “Atheism” means the absence of belief in gods. I am an atheist, which means nothing more than that I don’t believe in gods. I am also many other things. Fellow O-nerd wyldeling calls himself an agnostic. He is also an atheist—he doesn’t believe in gods. In calling himself an agnostic, he adds a further claim that discerning the truth of whether any gods exist is an unanswerable question, but that doesn’t make him any less an atheist. I am not agnostic (at least with respect to this question). I think the question is fairly easily decidable following a line of argument that’s structurally similar to the arguments against the luminiferous æther of 19th century physics. The hypothesis (that some particular flavor of god exists) suggests lots of experiments that should reveal its presence. When carried out, they reveal no such thing. It has remained so consistently immune to testing for so long that we can conclude that the hypothesized god doesn’t exist. More specifically, that its power is so minuscule that its existence is irrelevant.
Uh huh. So it’s nice that you completely evaded my objection to this already. So I guess then we should start defining everything by what it isn’t because it’s convenient for our position. Like I said, you be the Pinto and I’ll be the Aston Martin.
That line of reason has nothing, really, to do with atheism. Strictly speaking, it’s positivism.
Call “stupid” whatever you like. At least call it something other than what it isn’t.
But you’re not attacking positivists, you’re attacking atheists. So declaring atheism to be something other than the absence of god-belief is, strictly speaking, a strawman argument.
Yes, I’m attacking “atheists” because that’s how they wish to be defined while at the same time hiding their actual beliefs behind the label of “non-belief”, for the sake of appearing more rational than others.
It’s a nice trick of sophistry, but it doesn’t measure up in a real intellectual discussion. Nice try.
You could, but you’d look foolish. A “lack of belief in atheism” is ridiculous—atheists manifestly exist. I don’t disbelieve in Mormonism—I think it’s false, but I believe it exists.
Yes, because you atheists are the only people who don’t look foolish when you define yourself by what you aren’t. Right. Somehow I missed where you actually justified this stupidity.
A “lack of belief in metaphysical naturalism” would be a better start at what you’re really trying to say. In fact, you are a theist and a supernaturalist—as are most theists. Nothing incompatible with that.
Yes, but I also lack a belief in metaphysical naturalism (which would include some atheists as well). I also happen to lack the belief that atheistic skepticism is rationally justified. I also happen to lack the belief that atheism is the “default position”.
So how bout them apples? Now that I’ve defined myself purely in the negative, the burden of proof is on you.
If you can’t see how stupid your reasoning is by now then all I can say is that you need to lose the pride and actually come up with some arguments.
The difference is that theism and metaphysical naturalism are generally incompatible, while atheism is not incompatible with either naturalism or supernaturalism (or positivism or any of a pretty wide range of -isms). I know atheists who believe in UFO abductions. I know atheists who hold a wide range of pseudo-religious beliefs, usually under the rubric of “new age”. I even know an atheist who’s a Catholic priest. He takes the entire Bible to be nothing more than cultural mythology, to be interpreted by tradition and scholarship. He doesn’t actually believe the “god” they talk about to actually exist as a real-world entity, but rather as a symbol that Catholics agree to use to represent a sort of transcendent metaphysical ideal. I consider them all atheists.
That’s nice. I consider you a theist too because you probably lack the belief in metaphysical naturalism or you believe in supernaturalism.
Hence, by your own reasoning (since defining yourself in the negative is somehow “rational”), you are a theist. Welcome to the club!
Arguing against religion can be difficult because the term “god” is wildly ambiguous. It means different things to different people, and many theists disingenuously switch the definition they’re using at the drop of a hat.
Simply because you say many theists do so disingenuously doesn’t make it so.
The term “atheism” isn’t ambiguous—it means one specific thing, but as it’s a purely negative definition, it naturally means that there’s an incredibly wide range of possible belief systems behind it, and I certainly would expect theists to find that just as frustrating.
No, it IS ambiguous because it just about defines anyone and anything, from babies, to rocks, to my pet cat. By your definition of “atheism” I don’t know when you’re either talking about a dead body, my mothers oatmeal, or an ignorant pompous fool such as yourself.
Further, it is frustrating because those of us who don’t fall for that stupid trap notice just how ridiculous the definition really is and how it is used just to cover up your own ignorance. Instead of having to argue for your position, you claim that you merely “lack a belief” and then make others try to prove you wrong, making yourself right by default.
It’s pathetic.
Doesn’t change the fact that it’s true, and your arguments ought to reflect it. If you’re arguing against just me, then some of your preconceptions might be right. If you’re arguing against atheism in general, as you often appear to be doing, you’re just showing your ignorance.
True? Really? Care to prove that?
As I keep saying, from what evidence? Your answers thus far indicate that it’s from a personal mystical experience, but that’s not actually evidence. So, you can view it as a conclusion, but it’s a faulty one.
Non-sequitor. How does me simply saying that “theism is a conclusion” warrant your conclusion that I’ve had some personal mystical experience? It doesn’t. And last time I checked, I thought you weren’t into supernaturalism, yet it appears you’re trying to read my mind.
How silly of you.
In practice, it goes the other way around. You accept the existence of gods as axiomatic, and you conclude that the peculiarities of Mormonism are your favorite brand of Kool Aid.
I don’t remember being a Mormon or a Christian for that matter, but whatever. I actually may accept the existence of God as axiomatic, however, but unless you can show that axiomatic beliefs are somehow irrational, then I have no reason to be convinced that you’re somehow better than me.
No, they cannot. They can strive for rationality and sometimes fail, whereby the can reach false conclusions, but if they are actually rational, then they’re correct. You cannot even (correctly) say what it means to be correct in a conclusion without including that the argument be rational.
You’re assuming that to be rational includes to having to know that something is true absolutely or correct absolutely. I may not know, for instance, all the matter in the universe, but I do not conclude from that there is no matter in the universe. In fact, I accept on the basis of other information and a pretty decent hunch that the universe is made up of matter. Being that you seem so intent on using science as a foundation for your skepticism, I suggests you read up more on the philosophy of science itself to understand that science does not prove anything 100% so you being correct about any particular theory is not guaranteed. But you are still rational for holding the belief, nonetheless.
Really? If you were here defending your belief in Santa Claus, would it show my position to be “weak” if, in addition to providing counter-arguments to every one of your arguments, I also pointed out that you’re nuts? You’re nuts.
The fact is that you have yet to provide any counter arguments. All you’ve said to me thus far is “Nu uh” and “I’m better than you”.
Because I think it’s a fair charge to claim that it’s specifically their religious beliefs that led them to do what they do, while I don’t think it’s accurate to say that their religious beliefs are what led Stalin, et al., to their crimes.
So theism automatically leads a person to kill someone, but atheism does not? I would agree that certain people’s interpretations of religious doctrines etc. lead them to kill people, but what you and just about every other in-your-face atheist is trying to do is blame theism in general. You aren’t sitting here asking me for evidence for any particular interpretation of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc., but for God. And as far as I’ve been able to tell, that is the primary and reoccurring theme in just about every popular atheist’s latest book.
It’s hard to discern for sure whether Stalin was actually an atheist. His diaries seem to suggest he was a believer who was “angry at god”, as so many theists claim is true for all atheists.
No, he was an atheist. He followed Lenin who was an elitists marxists to the core. Marxism carried with it a very fervent anti-theism when theism appeared to be a “threat” to the state. Theism was also regarded as a way to control the ignorant masses before it was exterminated. Stalin wanted state atheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#The_Soviet_Union
You’d do well to read once in awhile.
Sure. Sometimes those who are trying to be rational come to bad conclusions. How much worse for those who abandon reason altogether? Who invent fictions and then act as if they were true in the real world?
Apparently you do seeing as you happen to believe that the majority of the world who doesn’t think like you have “abandoned reason”.
You still haven’t shown there’s a baby in there. Throwing out just the bathwater is perfectly reasonable, and I’d say that’s exactly what secularism has done.
The only reason secularism came to be to begin with was for the protection of the religious believers against one particular faith ruling all people. It was not created to stamp out religion. This is your interpretation and a recent one held by ignorant anti-theists just like yourself.
Society used to be run by religion—the Dark Ages.
Yeah, and you’re forgetting the Golden Age of Islam, which helped to bring out the Christians from their Dark Ages and prepare for the Enlightenment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Islam
Scientists used to almost universally believe in gods: Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Kepler, Mendel, all great scientists, and all very devout.
Yes, which proves that science and religion are not incompatible and the “struggle” is only a myth.
As modern science developed, though, those beliefs became harder to maintain.
On the contrary, as materialists philosophies developed during the age of the Enlightenment and the modern era, those beliefs became harder to maintain. Science has nothing to say about the metaphysical. The fact that atheists try to make it say something about the metaphysical doesn’t make it so either.
No one had a problem with science and religion intermingling in the same spheres of intellectualism till atheists started using it as a tool to support their own metaphysical assumptions.
Scientists today are far less religious than the rest of society, and the more prominent the scientist, the less religious.
Which is strange seeing as the greatest rate of scientific progress is happening in one of the most religious countries today:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_Iran#International_Rankings
Further, I don’t see the reason for even stating that. It doesn’t really prove anything other than the fact that scientists have poor philosophical leanings.
Today’s secularism is the baby, washed clean of the stain of superstition.
Oh, I see. You’re one of those atheists who believes in myths.
Sorry, but until atheism and religion are on a level playing field, your side has the lock on bigotry.
Funny coming from you.
Another of my favorite Christian hypocrisies. Intolerant bigotry with a friendly closing. “We hate you and you’re going to burn in hell… yours in Christ”. Your book says your guy “came not to bring peace, but the sword”, so I’ll have to take your closing with a grain of salt.
It’s not my book. That’s a Christians book, which, as a Muslim, I apparently can interpret better than you can.
Oh, and take a crack at my book if you’d like to be embarrassed by how ignorant you really are. I’d really like to see you try.