Log in

View Full Version : religion and respect


Pages : [1] 2 3

Perna de Pau
June 12th, 2008, 09:29 AM
I really can't respect religious people. Being "religious" is truly my biggest turnoff, in a friend, girlfriend, or whatever.

I certainly do not respect religious beliefs but I try to respect people holding them (the same way I try to respect disabled people).

There is a difference there and believing in stupid things is not, imho, a reason for us to disrespect them.

I would be interested however in hearing other opinions.

This not being a discussion for the thread on funny pictures, here is a new one.

Dr Goofy Mofo
June 12th, 2008, 11:46 AM
I think Religious Beliefs have there goods and bads and I respect them. They will give people hope and some times make them be a better person because of fear... not the best way but oh well.

Lilith
June 12th, 2008, 12:54 PM
I think it's as arrogant to laugh about religious people than religious people laughing about non-religious!

We don't have the right to judge beliefs, is it which food you like, which music you hear or what spiritual opinion you have.
my hubby's family is catholic (not extremely, though), but they are the nicest and funniest people and really know how to have a good time :) I love them!

I just don't like brainwashing: keeping children away from other opinions and/or pushing religion onto people with raising fear of eternal damnation and stuff...

I understand that some react extremely anti-religious when they see certain behavior in those people, but that's more a protest or a kind of rebellion to show them there's nothing to fear.

Everybody can have his or her own opinion of the unexplained or can think of something spiritual or universal. That's totally okay, as long as they don't put pressure on it or make other's believe it, too.

And that's why I personally dislike religion as an institution: religion, no matter which, always creates groups who outlines others and that's what I dislike, imho.

Mushuukyou
June 12th, 2008, 03:31 PM
I think it's as arrogant to laugh about religious people than religious people laughing about non-religious!

We don't have the right to judge beliefs, is it which food you like, which music you hear or what spiritual opinion you have.

Going to have to completely disagree with you here.
If a belief is fallacious, it's our responsibility to expose it as such.
Beliefs have nothing to do with what food you like, music, etc.
It's a claim on reality which is not true.
So totally different.

We need to completely laugh it off the fact of the Earth; and get people to open their eyes.

I just don't like brainwashing: keeping children away from other opinions and/or pushing religion onto people with raising fear of eternal damnation and stuff..

And that's what bashing religion can do for us. Possibly reverse the damage that's been done. You say one thing, and then you say another. Either you want to take away brainwashing, or you don't. Take your pick.

I understand that some react extremely anti-religious when they see certain behavior in those people, but that's more a protest or a kind of rebellion to show them there's nothing to fear.

Everybody can have his or her own opinion of the unexplained or can think of something spiritual or universal. That's totally okay, as long as they don't put pressure on it or make other's believe it, too.

But they DO put pressure on other people, and they DO try to make others believe it. That's WHY we have to combat it. Take a look around you.

That's why making fun of such fallacious beliefs is OUR NECESSARY JOB!

Lilith
June 12th, 2008, 03:44 PM
And that's what bashing religion can do for us. Possibly reverse the damage that's been done. You say one thing, and then you say another. Either you want to take away brainwashing, or you don't. Take your pick.


I was trying to make a difference between religion as an institution (which is totally worthless) and some spiritual beliefs about higher powers or forces we can't really deny for sure. (I personally don't belief any of this, but that's not the point).

We can def. say that all those religious myths (be it the Bible or else) are not literally and surely didn't happen that way.
But there are many religious people who agree here and just take those as metaphor, but still believe that there is a higher force who guides us.

This is rubbish, in my personal opinion, but we still can't forbid them to belief it!
Those people usually don't claim to have the only true religion and accept other beliefs, but still need the guidance and the hope they get from theirs.
Why not let them?

It would be a better world, if we could get rid of religion, but that's not possible. Some people need it and would probably make up their own anyway. So it makes more sense to work on tolerance than to bash.

Mushuukyou
June 12th, 2008, 03:54 PM
This is rubbish, in my personal opinion, but we still can't forbid them to belief it!

Sure we can. We can tell them that it's bullshit and they shouldn't believe in it.
That's called being HEALTHY. It's healthy to respect reality and acknowledge it.
It's NOT healthy to run from it and pretend you're somewhere else.
Yes, we can tell them it's bs, and laugh at them - it's our duty.
I practice it every chance I get.

Those people usually don't claim to have the only true religion and accept other beliefs, but still need the guidance and the hope they get from theirs.
Why not let them?

Because they're wrong. Also, belief in things which aren't true are harmful to mankind, as we can see from many examples - not to mention the most recent, 9/11.

It would be a better world, if we could get rid of religion, but that's not possible.

Bullshit it's not possible.
We can do it to such a degree to where those who are left believing are laughed at by the majority.

Some people need it

Nobody needs imaginary friends.

GeoffBoulton
June 12th, 2008, 03:59 PM
Pat Condell - Why does faith deserve respect? (http://youtube.com/watch?v=q0Kiu1EZDEQ&feature=related) ;)

Perna de Pau
June 12th, 2008, 04:04 PM
We don't have the right to judge beliefs

Well, we have not only the right but the obligation to expose the ridicule of religious beliefs as Mushinronjya points out.

We cannot forbid others to believe or impose our views on them (that would make us as bad as they are) but we can, and must, educate them so they realise how absurd those beliefs are.

We must also acknowledge the fact that it will be difficult for many and impossible for many others to free themselves from a whole life of brainwashing. This will take quite some time but I agree with Mushinronjya that it is possible.

bouchie
June 12th, 2008, 04:39 PM
Any belief can be used to justify fear and hatred for something, religious or not.

We should respect all beliefs (unless proven wrong). We should not even tolerate beliefs when they lead to fear and hatred, regardless of its origins.

Perna de Pau
June 12th, 2008, 04:47 PM
Pat Condell - Why does faith deserve respect? (http://youtube.com/watch?v=q0Kiu1EZDEQ&feature=related) ;)

This is well worth listening to.

Dawkins develops the same argument in the God Delusion (if I remember rightly).

Mushuukyou
June 12th, 2008, 04:47 PM
Any belief can be used to justify fear and hatred for something, religious or not.

We should respect all beliefs (unless proven wrong). We should not even tolerate beliefs when they lead to fear and hatred, regardless of its origins.

We should respect knowledge, not beliefs.

sudikics
June 12th, 2008, 04:58 PM
The only good thing religion has ever done: build pretty buildings.

Faith itself deserves no respect.

Like in creationism, there are the innocent and the guilty.

The innocent, those who accept it because they know no better, should be treated with respect.

The guilty, those who manipulate the system to gain power/money/blood, should be exiled from humanity.

No, strike that last bit. They should be gathered at some form of conference, and then some "accident" should cause them all to perish.

Or, alternatively, some people should get together and stage something, like bring the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" to the Vatican during a Mass. Then publicly humiliate the guilty.

bouchie
June 12th, 2008, 05:02 PM
We should respect knowledge, not beliefs. A debate is still going on about the distinctions between the two.

But I see your point.

Mushuukyou
June 12th, 2008, 05:12 PM
The only good thing religion has ever done: build pretty buildings.

I contend to you sir, that we built those buildings.. because we envisioned something "purty".

A debate is still going on about the distinctions between the two.

But I see your point.

Well, I define knowledge as verified belief.

Lilith
June 12th, 2008, 05:13 PM
We should try to win them over by logic, not bash.
Bashing leads to polarizing and polarized opinions seldom stick to logic...

I agree that education is the best and most powerful weapon we have! We should try to use it.

Tsun
June 12th, 2008, 05:17 PM
I certainly do not respect religious beliefs but I try to respect people holding them (the same way I try to respect disabled people).

There is a difference there and believing in stupid things is not, imho, a reason for us to disrespect them.

I would be interested however in hearing other opinions.

This not being a discussion for the thread on funny pictures, here is a new one.
"Respect other people's beliefs". Lets see, first off, their belief has to has some kind of tangible proof/reason/logic/etc behind it for me to give it my respect. If someone came up to me and told me a Gatorade bottle created the world, and then started killing other people who thought a Powerade created everything, I would most certainly not respect that belief. I'm sorry, but you simply believing something does not automatically make it warrant respect. Thats not not how respect works, whatsoever. Respect is earned, not just given when someone comes up with a random idea with no backing behind it.

I don't "disrespect" religious people, per se. I just internally think less of them because of these ludicrous ideas they hold, just like you would with any other crazy person. But the bigger turnoff for me is the underlying reasons for their beliefs. I see believing in religion as a telltale sign of a type of person I don't really want to strike up a meaningful relationship with. I like people who think for themselves, come up with their own ideas, follow their own path. Religious people do none of these things. Its not just the religious aspect, its what being "religious" says about how the person as whole lives their life, that makes me not want to associate with them.

Tsar Phalanxia
June 12th, 2008, 05:18 PM
What about people who have been inspired by their faith to do Good things?

Lilith
June 12th, 2008, 05:20 PM
What about people who have been inspired by their faith to do Good things?

Well, that's a sad excuse, to do only good thing to go to heaven (even though the outcome might be good).

It's as bad as saying, an atheist can do good deeds and never goes to heaven while a Christian who did bad things can regret on the death bed and still go in!
This forgiving on the death bed of the evil-doers probably weighs out the good-doers!

bouchie
June 12th, 2008, 05:21 PM
Well, I define knowledge as verified belief. That leads to further questions beyond the scope of this thread. I agree with the definition; others don't. They would consider your definition a belief. However, they should respect your belief - that you consider to be knowledge.

We should try to win them over by logic, not bash.
Bashing leads to polarizing and polarized opinions seldom stick to logic...

I agree that education is the best and most powerful weapon we have! We should try to use it. Agreed on the education, but who are the teachers? Always gotta be careful with that.

Also, logic tends not to work on the delusional and the insane. In extreme cases, 'bashing' refers to the physical and not the verbal.

Lilith
June 12th, 2008, 05:24 PM
Agreed on the education, but who are the teachers? Always gotta be careful with that.


true, I was thinking of scientists...

But to come to this belief and knowledge thing again: There are many scientists whose opinions are so hardened that they don't even look at possibilities that they might be wrong and even tend to fake some researches, knowingly or not.

So if you haven't seen it with your own eyes, you only can believe what people claimed to have proven... :(

bouchie
June 12th, 2008, 05:27 PM
Well, that's a sad excuse, to do only good thing to go to heaven (even though the outcome might be good). The Kantian dilemma: does anyone do anything without any traces of self-interest? Is it possible to adhere completely to duty?

My personal thoughts: Buwahaha! Yeah right! :icon_lol:

It's as bad as saying, an atheist can do good deeds and never goes to heaven while a Christian who did bad things can regret on the death bed and still go in!
This forgiving on the death bed of the evil-doers probably weighs out the good-doers! I'm suddenly reminded of an episode of Robot Chicken where an atheist is killed and finds himself in Heaven. He met his sexually abusive uncle ("Seems like we were doing the same thing the priests were doing."), a crazy, murderous clown that repented on his death bed and Hitler ("Hey, I'm just as surprised as you are.").

I think that episode (more like scene) captures your point very well.

Mushuukyou
June 12th, 2008, 05:32 PM
We should try to win them over by logic, not bash.
Bashing leads to polarizing and polarized opinions seldom stick to logic...

I agree that education is the best and most powerful weapon we have! We should try to use it.

You can't reason with the unreasonable.
Another course of action is to bash and attempt embarrassment.

What about people who have been inspired by their faith to do Good things?

Maybe they are good people doing good things anyways, and just pretending to give credit to their imaginary friends and other irrational beliefs?

That leads to further questions beyond the scope of this thread. I agree with the definition; others don't. They would consider your definition a belief. However, they should respect your belief - that you consider to be knowledge.

I don't have beliefs.

Agreed on the education, but who are the teachers? Always gotta be careful with that.

Those that know better.

Also, logic tends not to work on the delusional and the insane. In extreme cases, 'bashing' refers to the physical and not the verbal.

This is why we need to mock them as much as possible.

Lilith
June 12th, 2008, 05:33 PM
The Kantian dilemma: does anyone do anything without any traces of self-interest? Is it possible to adhere completely to duty?



that's true. But I think it's still better to help people just to make the world you live in a better place.
I don't believe in a god, but I like to help people, do charity and care for the environment and their inhabitants a lot. Why? Mmmh, to live more healthy? To make people like me? To leave a good place for my kids??
I'm not really sure to be honest. Maybe it's self-interest, but I would do it to make things better, not because someone stands upon me with a raised index!

But some people probably aren't as responsible and need a big daddy to care ;)

Tsar Phalanxia
June 12th, 2008, 05:34 PM
Well, that's a sad excuse, to do only good thing to go to heaven (even though the outcome might be good).

It's as bad as saying, an atheist can do good deeds and never goes to heaven while a Christian who did bad things can regret on the death bed and still go in!
This forgiving on the death bed of the evil-doers probably weighs out the good-doers!

I have nothing against faith before the discovery of Natural Selection. People say that Religions are responsible for violence, crusades etc, but I think that that's just human nature, and manipulative people used religions to back up their crimes.

Lilith
June 12th, 2008, 05:37 PM
I have nothing against faith before the discovery of Natural Selection. People say that Religions are responsible for violence, crusades etc, but I think that that's just human nature, and manipulative people used religions to back up their crimes.

I still think the wars would be less without religion. Cause if there wasn't a promise of a good life (or 72 virgins!) after death, you wouldn't get so many followers as a leader, who fight for you till death.
There would have been wars and cruel and greedy rulers for sure, but not as much...

Tsar Phalanxia
June 12th, 2008, 05:40 PM
I think the followers would have followed him anyway. Humans are particularly susceptible top Xenophobia. It's just that often they were manipulated through religion, and thus Religion got the blame. You have to remember that Jesus or many other prophets never advocated violence.

Lilith
June 12th, 2008, 05:46 PM
I think the followers would have followed him anyway. Humans are particularly susceptible top Xenophobia. It's just that often they were manipulated through religion, and thus Religion got the blame. You have to remember that Jesus or many other prophets never advocated violence.

Might be that I'm too naive, maybe humans would have invented WMDs much faster, when there wasn't enough human fighters...

And everything (even things which were meant to be 'good', like the belief of democracy!!) can lead to war and hatred between people, when misused this way.

Yep, I've even seen racism in horses, so you might be right. But it would be worth a try ;)

Dr Goofy Mofo
June 12th, 2008, 06:21 PM
AHHH this thread is pissing me off! You know the wisest men such as Einstein and Mark Twain were agnostic... Fun fact. The 2 biggest groups that annoy me are Hardcore atheist and hardcore Christians. They are so judgemental about others it is stupid. On backed by faith and one backed by faith of science. I think people who have no religion and could care less ar far better. Let them believe what they want and I respect thier choice to do so.

tagnostic
June 12th, 2008, 06:52 PM
your actions
should define
your beliefs

when you
feel it necessary
to explain
your actions
in relation
to your beliefs

your beliefs
are defining
your actions

jmho

Sister Faith
June 12th, 2008, 06:59 PM
I feel that if I, as an atheist, want my position of non-belief respected and tolerated, I must extend respect and tolerance to believers.

But most believers of any religion are not prepared to reciprocate that tolerance, so they get none from me. One must be prepared to give what one is looking to get.

Perna de Pau
June 12th, 2008, 10:07 PM
It seems that most of us agree that religious beliefs are not worth of any respect although some of the persons who hold those beliefs might (at least until they loose such respect by their actions or their standpoints)

It is however not always the case. I have met many a believer who is sincere and respectful of other viewpoints, even if they are convinced that they are right and the others are wrong.

As was pointed out it is sometimes difficult to argue with them as they do not use the same "logic" as we do. And bashing does not work.

Some weeks ago I had a long dicussion with a christian who claimed that I needed as much faith not to believe that there was a god than him in believing the contrary. I am not sure I convinced him :icon_confused:

rzm61
June 12th, 2008, 10:09 PM
Some weeks ago I had a long dicussion with a christian who claimed that I needed as much faith not to believe that there was a god than him in believing the contrary. I am not sure I convinced him :icon_confused:

Yeah, someone like that you just wont be able to get through to. :icon_lol:

Perna de Pau
June 12th, 2008, 10:15 PM
Yeah, someone like that you just wont be able to get through to. :icon_lol:

and he was an otherwise intelligent university professor...

Mushuukyou
June 13th, 2008, 03:05 AM
AHHH this thread is pissing me off! You know the wisest men such as Einstein and Mark Twain were agnostic... Fun fact.

An even more fun fact is that they were both atheists.

The 2 biggest groups that annoy me are Hardcore atheist and hardcore Christians.

Hardcore xians, yes.
Hardcore atheists that bring reason and logic, and mock fallacious beliefs? Only a good thing.
A very outspoken militant atheist like me is HELLA fun to hang out with.

They are so judgemental about others it is stupid.

Fallacious beliefs need to be squashed.

On backed by faith and one backed by faith of science.

Geez, wonder who will win? :icon_lol:

I think people who have no religion and could care less ar far better.

Yea, because fence sitting is such a good tactic when theists are invading our country's laws and public schools with their bullshit.

You should re-think your views.

Let them believe what they want and I respect thier choice to do so.

I'll respect someone's right to be an idiot, but that doesn't mean I won't laugh at their idiotic beliefs.
We need to laugh at them.
It's our duty as good citizens of the world to expose falsehoods and promote the truth.

rzm61
June 13th, 2008, 04:05 AM
and he was an otherwise intelligent university professor...

Oh wow, really?
Now doesn't that suck.

Wallsy
June 13th, 2008, 06:10 AM
We don't have the right to judge beliefs, is it which food you like, which music you hear or what spiritual opinion you have.

Beliefs and opinions are not the same thing. I like lasagne. It,s not that lasagne is objectively great, it's just my opinion. I believe in cheese, and cheese does seem to objectively exist. We all see (and taset) evidence of it. We can be relatively sure of our belief. We see no evidence of god, yet some still believe - that's a belief that can and should be challenged.


some spiritual beliefs about higher powers or forces we can't really deny for sure.

We can't say for sure that the moon isn't made of cheese, because it might just be cheese that looks in all ways very similar to rocks, but it's not a hypothesis that's worth exploring, because there's no evidence for it. Same with all beliefs in the supernatural.


We should respect all beliefs (unless proven wrong).

You can never prove that there is no god. You would have to go everywhere and examine everything in every possible way and find no evidence of god, and even then, how would you know you truly looked everywhere and used every possible method?


What about people who have been inspired by their faith to do Good things?

What about them? If a crazy person believes purple aliens are telling him to donate money to charity, there's still no reason to encourage his delusion, because it's still wrong and if he manages to cenvince others then we have a whole lot of people who are abandoning reason and doing things that make no sense. Even if they achieve some good, they'll do more harm by denouncing those with rational beliefs and making it harder to make any scientific progress. It's unlikely that such a belief would spread far enough for its followers ta have any real power, but some equally insane beliefs have…


Wallsy.

Perna de Pau
June 13th, 2008, 08:41 AM
I believe in cheese, and cheese does seem to objectively exist. We all see (and taset) evidence of it. We can be relatively sure of our belief. We see no evidence of god, yet some still believe - that's a belief that can and should be challenged.



Referring to the existence of cheese I do not think the word "believe" is the right one. We do not "believe" that 2+2=4 or that snow is white; we know for sure that that is the case.

One "believes" in something that is not certain.

Dr Goofy Mofo
June 13th, 2008, 04:33 PM
An even more fun fact is that they were both atheists.

no they were not Einstein stated that his god makes laws and theat when we die we all go to the same place. Mark Twain stated "The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also. I would not interfere with any one's religion, either to strengthen it or to weaken it. I am not able to believe one's religion can affect his hereafter one way or the other, no matter what that religion may be. But it may easily be a great comfort to him in this life--hence it is a valuable possession to him. " So sir you are wrong!



Hardcore xians, yes.
Hardcore atheists that bring reason and logic, and mock fallacious beliefs? Only a good thing.
A very outspoken militant atheist like me is HELLA fun to hang out with.


They are not fun they are just as big of dicks if not bigger because they are smarter then the xians. they are nothing but asshole just like the xians.


Fallacious beliefs need to be squashed.


Why? Why do they need to be squashed?


Geez, wonder who will win? :icon_lol:


Neither because they are both stubborn jackasses



Yea, because fence sitting is such a good tactic when theists are invading our country's laws and public schools with their bullshit.

You should re-think your views.


:icon_rolleyes: Fence sitting is better then attacking people for no reason other then there believes. I mean who the fuck cares how you got here or what will happen after you die the fact is you are here make the best of it!

I am not the one being an ass to a shit ton of people because I think I am right so I am fine with my views.


I'll respect someone's right to be an idiot, but that doesn't mean I won't laugh at their idiotic beliefs.
We need to laugh at them.
It's our duty as good citizens of the world to expose falsehoods and promote the truth.

No we don't need to laugh at them and be complete asses. Atheist who do shit like that is the reason we are so fucking hated. Our duty as good citizens would be to accept them for who they are and move on with out caring that they have different beliefs then us. We can not disprove their believes we can only prove ours so what makes you so sure that atheist are right?

bouchie
June 13th, 2008, 06:17 PM
You can't reason with the unreasonable.
Another course of action is to bash and attempt embarrassment. They might do the same thing...and possibly win, especially if you don't understand. In every fight, there's a chance that you could lose, big time. Pick your battles carefully.

I don't have beliefs.

Your definition for knowlege was:
Well, I define knowledge as verified belief.
Therefore, according to you, you have no knowledge - you know nothing.

Well done.

Those that know better. So, not you then.

This is why we need to mock them as much as possible. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." -Ghandi. Funny a religious man can make sense of some simple things.

You can never prove that there is no god. You would have to go everywhere and examine everything in every possible way and find no evidence of god, and even then, how would you know you truly looked everywhere and used every possible method? That's what I was getting at. Thanks Wallsy.


To Dr. Goofy Mofo: Well said bud.

Dr Goofy Mofo
June 13th, 2008, 06:35 PM
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." -Ghandi. Funny a religious man can make sense of some simple things.

...


To Dr. Goofy Mofo: Well said bud.

Thanks Bouchie and Ghandi was awesome he is number three on my list of favorite famous people. I mean check my sig that guy was the shit.

bouchie
June 13th, 2008, 06:37 PM
Thanks Bouchie and Ghandi was awesome he is number three on my list of favorite famous people. I mean check my sig that guy was the shit.

"What do you think of Western Civilization?" -reporter
"I think it would be a good idea." -Ghandi

thermo
June 13th, 2008, 11:28 PM
As has been pointed out, the 'religious' don't tend to take even logical and quite damning points well in a discussion or debate. Trying to reason with the unreasonable is quite literally the case.

Personally, my belief in a 'higher power' can be at least somewhat explained scientifically. Unfortunately, all religions cannot claim such a thing. While my views of religion is based on a certain amount of faith, I am not adherent to the possibility that I have no chance of being wrong, and one(1) book can tell me the meaning of life, the universe and everything (Gratuitous reference).

I think something should be clarified. A belief in a G/god or higher power, doesn't make one religious. It's the religious that are the problem. My brother and I are constantly at odds, though we both basically believe in the same potentially imaginary being. What we disagree on, is actually the nature of that being, not the fact that there is one. But, due to that, in his eyes, I'm a heretic. In my eyes, he's simply not open to the possibility that he is wrong.
Two opposing viewpoints. I'm going to hell, because I don't have the same beliefs as him, but in my view, he just could be wrong, and has given me nothing to convince me that those lovely parables he spouts are any more than BS. In my view, he's not going to hell for being wrong, he is just wrong.

Keep in mind, I believe in some kind of G(g)od, higher power, creator of the universe. I simply choose to believe that I can explain G(g)od more rationally, with somewhat of a scientific basis, than him. He happens to dislike that, because it attempts to "define the indefinable".

Then again... I respect those that don't believe at the same time. They've been given no reason to. While my belief system is based in somewhat in obscure (to most) science, I have no proof to offer you that I'm right, therefore, I may be wrong.

Religion is the main cause of the war and general conflict on this planet. Not the only cause, but certainly, and undeniably the largest 'offender'. Muslims and Christians both agree that there is a God, and yet look at history.

My two cents.

Dr Goofy Mofo
June 13th, 2008, 11:48 PM
As has been pointed out, the 'religious' don't tend to take even logical and quite damning points well in a discussion or debate. Trying to reason with the unreasonable is quite literally the case.

Personally, my belief in a 'higher power' can be at least somewhat explained scientifically. Unfortunately, all religions cannot claim such a thing. While my views of religion is based on a certain amount of faith, I am not adherent to the possibility that I have no chance of being wrong, and one(1) book can tell me the meaning of life, the universe and everything (Gratuitous reference).

I think something should be clarified. A belief in a G/god or higher power, doesn't make one religious. It's the religious that are the problem. My brother and I are constantly at odds, though we both basically believe in the same potentially imaginary being. What we disagree on, is actually the nature of that being, not the fact that there is one. But, due to that, in his eyes, I'm a heretic. In my eyes, he's simply not open to the possibility that he is wrong.
Two opposing viewpoints. I'm going to hell, because I don't have the same beliefs as him, but in my view, he just could be wrong, and has given me nothing to convince me that those lovely parables he spouts are any more than BS. In my view, he's not going to hell for being wrong, he is just wrong.

Keep in mind, I believe in some kind of G(g)od, higher power, creator of the universe. I simply choose to believe that I can explain G(g)od more rationally, with somewhat of a scientific basis, than him. He happens to dislike that, because it attempts to "define the indefinable".

Then again... I respect those that don't believe at the same time. They've been given no reason to. While my belief system is based in somewhat in obscure (to most) science, I have no proof to offer you that I'm right, therefore, I may be wrong.

Religion is the main cause of the war and general conflict on this planet. Not the only cause, but certainly, and undeniably the largest 'offender'. Muslims and Christians both agree that there is a God, and yet look at history.

My two cents.
Well said

Mushuukyou
June 14th, 2008, 04:21 PM
no they were not Einstein stated that his god makes laws and theat when we die we all go to the same place. Mark Twain stated "The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also. I would not interfere with any one's religion, either to strengthen it or to weaken it. I am not able to believe one's religion can affect his hereafter one way or the other, no matter what that religion may be. But it may easily be a great comfort to him in this life--hence it is a valuable possession to him. " So sir you are wrong!

Sorry bro, Einstein clearly stated he was an atheist.
And I can post quite a few quotes that shows Twain was as well.
Let me tell you, even if someone is an agnostic, they must still be either theist or atheist, one or the other. So it appears that what's in err here is your understanding of definitions, which makes you wrong, and not I.

:icon_rolleyes: Fence sitting is better then attacking people for no reason other then there believes. I mean who the fuck cares how you got here or what will happen after you die the fact is you are here make the best of it!

So allowing theists to run over our country, infect our government, brainwash our children... all the while not fighting and not educating people.. is the way to go? :icon_eek: Yea, you're an idiot.

Our duty as good citizens would be to accept them for who they

People with fallacious beliefs?
Um, no.

We can not disprove their believes we can only prove ours so what makes you so sure that atheist are right?

You don't get simple logic.
"Truth" is consistent between all people, not just what one wants to "believe".

They might do the same thing...and possibly win, especially if you don't understand. In every fight, there's a chance that you could lose, big time. Pick your battles carefully.

As long as you're governed by reason and logic, and the other party isn't, then you have a guaranteed win.


Your definition for knowlege was:

Therefore, according to you, you have no knowledge - you know nothing.

That made no sense.
Congrats, idiot.

bouchie
June 14th, 2008, 05:26 PM
You don't get simple logic. This is funny, especially later on.

"Truth" is consistent between all people, not just what one wants to "believe". Define 'truth' first before finding consistency. Then we'll listen. But, as was made clear in other threads, the definition of truth is quite evasive.

As long as you're governed by reason and logic, and the other party isn't, then you have a guaranteed win. No, you don't. Not if you lose logic incorrectly.

That made no sense. Well then, I'll explain it to you.

You said you don't have any beliefs and you defined knowledge as verified beliefs. Now, I took 'verified beliefs' to be a subset of 'beliefs'. Likewise, 'knowledge' is a subset of beliefs. So, if the set of 'beliefs' is empty, then the subset 'verified beliefs' must be empty as well. And since 'knowledge' is equivalent to 'verified belief' and the latter subset is empty, then the subset of knowledge must also be empty.

Therefore, if you have no beliefs, you have no knowledge. According to your definitions of course. QED.

This clarifies a point I made earlier - you can lose the arguments if you use logic incorrectly.

Dr Goofy Mofo
June 14th, 2008, 08:06 PM
Sorry bro, Einstein clearly stated he was an atheist.
And I can post quite a few quotes that shows Twain was as well.
Let me tell you, even if someone is an agnostic, they must still be either theist or atheist, one or the other. So it appears that what's in err here is your understanding of definitions, which makes you wrong, and not I.

And I can submit quotes saying they are not religious but they both stated there was a god. If someone is agnostic they are a theist that is the definition. They just do not rule out the possibility they could be wrong. Show me those Quotes! I am pretty sure that it is atheist twisting there words just like the xians do!




So allowing theists to run over our country, infect our government, brainwash our children... all the while not fighting and not educating people.. is the way to go? :icon_eek: Yea, you're an idiot.

Haveing anyone with strong convictions is a bad Idea. I for one would never want a atheist like you running shit because you would be no fucking better. You think you are right and your just a close minded idiot who wants to convert people just like them! Yea, you're a jackass.


People with fallacious beliefs?
Um, no.

Who cares if what they believe is false? Let them believe it, This is a free world and we can think what ever the fuck we want.


You don't get simple logic.
"Truth" is consistent between all people, not just what one wants to "believe".


I spend my entire life around logic, I am an Engineer it is what I do. Your statement here has nothing to do with what I said either. You can not disprove their believes.

You are one of those Atheist that give the rest a bad name by being a complete jackass and a condescending bastard which in the end your IQ is not much higher then a business major.

GeoffBoulton
June 14th, 2008, 08:16 PM
If someone is agnostic they are a theist that is the definition.

As I keep pointing out belief is an absolute. You either believe or you don't, you can't half believe. Not knowing is not believing. If someone is agnostic they are an ATHEIST, that is the definition.

In any case, it really doesn't matter whether Einstein was atheistic, agnostic or a raving Christian fundamentalist. Even if he was a fundamentalist, all it would prove was how even the most intelligent and logical people can be duped into believing the most unintelligent and illogical things.

Dr Goofy Mofo
June 14th, 2008, 08:22 PM
An atheist says their is no God and an Agnostic does not rule out that there is a possibility. This way I think Some agnostics are theist and some are atheist so it might depend on the person and not so much the definition.

Mushuukyou
June 14th, 2008, 10:23 PM
Define 'truth' first before finding consistency. Then we'll listen. But, as was made clear in other threads, the definition of truth is quite evasive.

Quite easy, actually.
Truth is the degree to which a statement corresponds with reality.

No, you don't. Not if you lose logic incorrectly.

I'm sorry, I thought I kind of implied using it correctly, of which I do in this area of my knowledge.

You said you don't have any beliefs and you defined knowledge as verified beliefs.

By "beliefs" I meant those which are not substantiated. Rather easy. You're only arguing with yourself here.

And I can submit quotes saying they are not religious but they both stated there was a god.

Einstein only used the word god in a metaphoric sense.
We have plenty of quotes from him, and even a letter from him STATING he's an atheist, if you're not satisfied.
Mark Twain, plenty of quotes to show he's an atheist.

There have been mis-quotes by them, and false quotes.. you just have to learn to read and do a little homework.
Don't think you're right UNTIL you do your homework. (of which then you would agree with me)

If someone is agnostic they are a theist that is the definition.

I think someone already corrected you on this.
The world agnostic means to assert that something is unknown or unknowable. It has to do with knowledge.
Theism/atheism have to do with belief.
Everyone is either theist or atheist, one or the other.
If one is agnostic, that only pertains to knowledge, and not to belief.
Therefore, an agnostic must still be theist or atheist... as it is in no way a "middle ground" between theism/atheism.

They just do not rule out the possibility they could be wrong.

Atheism doesn't assert that one "rules out a possibility". I don't rule it out. I'll accept the knowledge of a deity if one shows to exist (remember, I said knowledge, not belief). However, until then, I'll say it doesn't exist, just as I say the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. Completely logical. The most sane position is atheism.

Show me those Quotes! I am pretty sure that it is atheist twisting there words just like the xians do!

That's what Google is for.
Use it.

Haveing anyone with strong convictions is a bad Idea.

It's bad to stand for the truth? Sounds like a shit position to me.

I for one would never want a atheist like you running shit because you would be no fucking better.

Oh trust me, I would be an excellent dictator.

You think you are right and your just a close minded idiot who wants to convert people just like them! Yea, you're a jackass.

I know I'm right, because I'm governed by logic and reason.
Without fairytales, less people would be dying in this world.
Closed-minded? I go by reality. How is that closed-minded?
Oh wait, you don't know, because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Who cares if what they believe is false? Let them believe it, This is a free world and we can think what ever the fuck we want.

So then you support 9/11? The inquisition? Crusades?
Yea, nothing fucked up with having imaginary friends, right?
:\

I spend my entire life around logic, I am an Engineer it is what I do. Your statement here has nothing to do with what I said either. You can not disprove their believes.

Nobody can disprove a negative, that's right.
That's why they have the burden of proof.

You are one of those Atheist that give the rest a bad name by being a complete jackass and a condescending bastard which in the end your IQ is not much higher then a business major.

Yet I can figure out fantasy from reality.
I must be doing something right.

An atheist says their is no God and an Agnostic does not rule out that there is a possibility. This way I think Some agnostics are theist and some are atheist so it might depend on the person and not so much the definition.

No, an atheist is someone without belief in a god.
An atheist doesn't say there is no god.
A PERSON who's an atheist can say there is no god, but it's not entailed within the definition of atheism.
Get it now?
Now please stop butchering the word, thanks.

Tsar Phalanxia
June 14th, 2008, 10:37 PM
Uhh.. Religion is a front for the evils in humanity. You can't blame Religion for Human Nature.

Dr Goofy Mofo
June 14th, 2008, 11:38 PM
Einstein only used the word god in a metaphoric sense.
We have plenty of quotes from him, and even a letter from him STATING he's an atheist, if you're not satisfied.
Mark Twain, plenty of quotes to show he's an atheist.

There have been mis-quotes by them, and false quotes.. you just have to learn to read and do a little homework.
Don't think you're right UNTIL you do your homework. (of which then you would agree with me)

I have read the quotes and I think everyone can twist them to there own use... they never state weather they do or do not believe.



I think someone already corrected you on this.
The world agnostic means to assert that something is unknown or unknowable. It has to do with knowledge.
Theism/atheism have to do with belief.
Everyone is either theist or atheist, one or the other.
If one is agnostic, that only pertains to knowledge, and not to belief.
Therefore, an agnostic must still be theist or atheist... as it is in no way a "middle ground" between theism/atheism.

There are mulitiple definitions for the same word but oh well I will bow out on this one.



Atheism doesn't assert that one "rules out a possibility". I don't rule it out. I'll accept the knowledge of a deity if one shows to exist (remember, I said knowledge, not belief). However, until then, I'll say it doesn't exist, just as I say the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. Completely logical. The most sane position is atheism.

Atheist denies the existence of god so they do rule out the possibility else your and agnostic.


That's what Google is for.
Use it.


Been there done that... It did not help your case.


It's bad to stand for the truth? Sounds like a shit position to me.

Go ahead and stand for the truth but don't be a dick about it!


Oh trust me, I would be an excellent dictator.

Dictator sounds about right! You might be ruled by Logic and reason but you lack compassion and empathy.



I know I'm right, because I'm governed by logic and reason.
Without fairytales, less people would be dying in this world.
Closed-minded? I go by reality. How is that closed-minded?
Oh wait, you don't know, because you have no idea what you're talking about.

You think you are right you can not know... There is no way to know anything... Once you think you know something you have lost it. Never Stop Questioning! People die because humans are horrible creatures Fairy tales have nothing to do with it! You are Close minded to the fact you could be wrong and you only go by what you think is right at rule out all others.



So then you support 9/11? The inquisition? Crusades?
Yea, nothing fucked up with having imaginary friends, right?
:\

Again that is Human Nature nothing more! People can not accept different Ideas so shit happens.


Nobody can disprove a negative, that's right.
That's why they have the burden of proof.

You can disprove a negative but you can not disprove imagination is what you mean. Just because you can't see or hear something does not make it not there.



No, an atheist is someone without belief in a god.
An atheist doesn't say there is no god.
A PERSON who's an atheist can say there is no god, but it's not entailed within the definition of atheism.
Get it now?
Now please stop butchering the word, thanks.


The definition is denies the existence of god or the belief in god. To me that states there is no god.

Mushuukyou
June 14th, 2008, 11:58 PM
I have read the quotes and I think everyone can twist them to there own use... they never state weather they do or do not believe.

Sorry bro, you can try to twist them, but they are pretty clear.

There are mulitiple definitions for the same word but oh well I will bow out on this one.

Yes, those are called "usages", and those can and are wrong.
We go by the literal definition, that's what I think you realize, and why you are "bowing out".

Atheist denies the existence of god so they do rule out the possibility else your and agnostic.

Let me tell you the literal definition, so you can stop with this nonsense.
The prefix a- means without.
Therefore, atheism merely means "without belief in a god".
Do you get it now?
Again, agnostic must still be theist or atheist.

Been there done that... It did not help your case.

Yes, it does. Search son, search.
You're the one talking about never stop questioning.. so find some answers.

Go ahead and stand for the truth but don't be a dick about it!

That is your interpretation.

You think you are right you can not know... There is no way to know anything... Once you think you know something you have lost it. Never Stop Questioning! People die because humans are horrible creatures Fairy tales have nothing to do with it! You are Close minded to the fact you could be wrong and you only go by what you think is right at rule out all others.

Believing that your god wants you to do something horrible is a delusion that does help people do horrible things. Think about it, bro. Get a clue.

You can disprove a negative but you can not disprove imagination is what you mean.

No, actually I mean you cannot disprove a negative.
Quite simple.
I didn't stutter.

Just because you can't see or hear something does not make it not there.

Nor does it warrant anyone to investigate it.

The definition is denies the existence of god or the belief in god. To me that states there is no god.

No, that is an incorrect usage of the word.
Please stick with the literal definition, given above.

kthanks.

Dr Goofy Mofo
June 15th, 2008, 12:06 AM
Google gave me that definition but oh well. I am tired of argueing. You can not stop human nature and blamming on religion does not help.

In the end all I am saying is have strong convections or being Hardcore something is a bad Idea rather it be Atheist, xian, or belief that you are a kitten... It is just a bad Idea!

Mushuukyou
June 15th, 2008, 12:27 AM
Google gave me that definition but oh well.

Yea, it's called only looking for what supports what you want to be true.
People who really do want the truth don't do that.

I am tired of argueing. You can not stop human nature and blamming on religion does not help.

Since theism is responsible for much death and misery, you bet we can blame it.

In the end all I am saying is have strong convections or being Hardcore something is a bad Idea rather it be Atheist, xian, or belief that you are a kitten... It is just a bad Idea!

Saying it's a bad idea doesn't necessarily mean it is.
Unless you can give reason as to why exposing the truth is somehow "bad", I don't think you have much of an argument against atheists.

Dr Goofy Mofo
June 15th, 2008, 12:36 AM
I am not trying to argue againest athiest in fact for all I know they are probally correct! I just have a problem with jackasses who think they are right and downgrade other people to stroke there ego! I could care less if there is or is not a God!

You sound like hitler you don't like some so kill 'em all right?

Mushuukyou
June 15th, 2008, 01:16 AM
I am not trying to argue againest athiest in fact for all I know they are probally correct! I just have a problem with jackasses who think they are right and downgrade other people to stroke there ego!

It's spelled "atheist". Logic says that atheism is the most sane position. The correct position to have.

When logic is on your side, you are considered right.
This is the way it is.
There is nothing wrong with knowing you're right.
You really seem to be saying: "Don't ever think you're right". That's just stupid.
And there is nothing wrong with telling people that are wrong THAT they are wrong.
So seems like the only problem you seem to have is that you think the reason why people do this is because they strictly want to only "stroke their ego".
Well, since there are very GOOD reasons to tell people that are wrong that they are, in fact, wrong.. then it doesn't matter whether people want to "stroke their ego" or not. What matters is if they are right or wrong when doing so. If someone is wrong, and they attempt to discredit/argue someone, then yes, that should be shunned, like you are trying to do here to anyone with a forward position. But to do all of what you're against, when you have logic and reason on your side, well.. there is just nothing wrong with that. It's actually a positive thing to do.

I could care less if there is or is not a God!

Sounds like you're an atheist.

You sound like hitler you don't like some so kill 'em all right?

Hitler was Catholic, and had some serious mental issues.
I never said to kill anyone, you stupid mother fucker.

Dr Goofy Mofo
June 15th, 2008, 01:24 AM
Yes I said don't every think your right. Because you can always be proved wrong later. I might be an atheist but I could care less. I know you never said you were going to kill them but you have a mentality that you want to convert everyone to your thinking and that you alone are correct.

bouchie
June 15th, 2008, 01:26 AM
Quite easy, actually.
Truth is the degree to which a statement corresponds with reality.Define reality. And define the correspondence mechanism. Also, there are degrees of truth? But if it corresponds to something, shouldn't the probability be 0 or 1?

On top of that, some would argue that your definition is tautological.

By "beliefs" I meant those which are not substantiated. Yes, I realize that. I also realize that you qualified a certain subset of beliefs as 'verified beliefs'. And that is equivalent to knowledge. So, now, what I understand is that knowledge are beliefs that are substantiated. However, you still said you don't have any beliefs, which still means (through logical progression) that you have no knowledge. I have yet to be corrected.

You're only arguing with yourself here. No, I'm arguing with you - a situation that you're evading.

Therefore, an agnostic must still be theist or atheist... as it is in no way a "middle ground" between theism/atheism. What about the agnostic theist? Believes in a god, yet realizes there is no way to establish a proof for the existence of a god.

The most sane position is atheism. "There is no sanity - only varying degrees of insanity." -Unknown

That's what Google is for.
Use it. In defense of Dr. Goofy - why didn't you? If you know it's out there and know where it is, show us. Why distract him with searching for something that he's not sure is out there?

From experience, people who say 'you can find the proof if you look for it' - don't have it themselves.

Oh trust me, I would be an excellent dictator. Like Mao and Stalin?

I know I'm right, because I'm governed by logic and reason. Non-sequitor: just because you're governed by logic and reason doesn't necessarily mean you're right.

Closed-minded? I go by reality. How is that closed-minded? Whose reality? Yours? Atheists can be just as dogmatic as fundamentalists, like Hitchens and Harris.

No, an atheist is someone without belief in a god.
An atheist doesn't say there is no god.
A PERSON who's an atheist can say there is no god, but it's not entailed within the definition of atheism. Yes it is. a -without theos -god. It's in the friggin' word!

However, in your defense, there are different categories of atheism. We might not be talking about the same one then.

Uhh.. Religion is a front for the evils in humanity. You can't blame Religion for Human Nature. Could you blame human nature for religion?

And I can't come up with an answer for that last one. I'll have to look into it.

Mushuukyou
June 15th, 2008, 02:03 AM
Yes I said don't every think your right. Because you can always be proved wrong later. I might be an atheist but I could care less. I know you never said you were going to kill them but you have a mentality that you want to convert everyone to your thinking and that you alone are correct.

Sorry, but not much of what you say really made sense.
I want everyone to stop positing imaginary friends, yes.

Define reality.

That which is perceived, or indirectly ascertained via the proper use of reason.

What about the agnostic theist? Believes in a god, yet realizes there is no way to establish a proof for the existence of a god.

What about them? They do exist. Sure. That doesn't go against anything I've said.

Like Mao and Stalin?

That was a ridiculously stupid thing to say.

Non-sequitor: just because you're governed by logic and reason doesn't necessarily mean you're right.

Sorry, no non-sequitor. Nice attempt at sounding like you know what you're talking about.
So tell me, how could I be wrong?
Love to hear this one.

Whose reality? Yours?

There is only one reality.
You mean interpretations of reality perhaps? :icon_eek:

Atheists can be just as dogmatic as fundamentalists, like Hitchens and Harris.

Um, dogmatic and fundies?
Not possible as atheists.
Please look up your words, and maybe in another forum in the future you won't look like a complete idiot when you post again.

Yes it is. a -without theos -god. It's in the friggin' word!

It's theism. A+theism.
Without/no belief in a god.
This isn't the Latin language, this is English. *rolls eyes*

There are no "categories" of atheism.
If you're without belief in a god, you're an atheist.
Some people have attempted to create categories, but they don't pertain to the literal definition. They have only created them in an attempt to feed something to those people that have a hard time grasping the basics of what atheism is.

Could you blame human nature for religion?

I could blame people's ignorance and want for control, sure, for the CREATION and continued use.
So all we need to do now is get rid of theism and we'll be much better off... once we cure the disease, society will get better.

tagnostic
June 15th, 2008, 05:36 AM
wow,
a fundatheist
and rabid
too

Wallsy
June 15th, 2008, 09:00 AM
Referring to the existence of cheese I do not think the word "believe" is the right one. We do not "believe" that 2+2=4 or that snow is white; we know for sure that that is the case.

We know for sure that 2+2=4, because we defined it so. Mathematics is a set of axioms, and since we invented them we know exactly what they are.

But though we have a great deal of evidence that cheese exists and that snow is white, we can't be entirely certain.


One "believes" in something that is not certain.

Exactly.


An atheist says their is no God and an Agnostic does not rule out that there is a possibility.

Atheist does not mean "person who believes that there is no god." Look at the word: Theist means "person who believes in one or more gods". An atheist, therefore, is one who does not believe in gods. That is not the same as believing in the absensce of gods.

As an atheist, I don't believe in gods, but if you show me one, I will believe in it, because an atheist believes whatever the evidence suggests.


Wallsy.

DutchPastaGuy
June 15th, 2008, 12:18 PM
Atheist does not mean "person who believes that there is no god." Look at the word: Theist means "person who believes in one or more gods". An atheist, therefore, is one who does not believe in gods. That is not the same as believing in the absensce of gods.

As an atheist, I don't believe in gods, but if you show me one, I will believe in it, because an atheist believes whatever the evidence suggests.


As someone who is in the strong atheist part of the spectrum, I'd agree with this. I see 0 that suggests there being any god(s). But if they decided to stop playing hide and seek and I'd think they were real, then I'd accept that.

And I'd have a lengthy list of critical questions for him/her/it/them as to why they made such an awful mess of things. If any of them were real, it probably would be the FSM. This place shows signs of Unintelligent Design more than of anything else.

Btw Wallsy, you're making it somewhat difficult for people to agree with you:


"Wallsy, you're brilliant." - Steve420.
"You're great, Wallsy." - scikidus
"YOU MAKE THE MOST SENSE OF ANYONE I HAVE EVER SEEN ON THIS FORUM" - googleisanoobtheFORTH
"I WAS WRONG. Completely and utterly wrong." - scikidus
"Alright, I guess you're right in that case. You win." - scikidus
"I completely agree with Wallsy." - scikidus
"Wallsy is 100% correct 100% of the time." -Tsun


Oh my FSM! That sure is one hugely ego-masturbating signature you've got there! Makes me feel I need to take a shower for having agreed with you.

greets,
Peter

Dr Goofy Mofo
June 15th, 2008, 04:29 PM
Btw Wallsy, you're making it somewhat difficult for people to agree with you:



Oh my FSM! That sure is one hugely ego-masturbating signature you've got there! Makes me feel I need to take a shower for having agreed with you.

greets,
Peter

You might have to!

I think bouchie a page back defined the word the best, I now know I was in the wrong on my use of it, but I was not really trying to argue the use of the word, only "logic and reason" verse "compassion and empathy", which stays on topic. If you only use logic and reason you will not respect some one who has religion, but on the other hand if you add compassion and empathy you can respect them, for who they are and understand that it does not matter if they Believe or not.

rzm61
June 15th, 2008, 05:20 PM
Oh my FSM! That sure is one hugely ego-masturbating signature you've got there! Makes me feel I need to take a shower for having agreed with you.

greets,
Peter

Ah ha ha ha. :icon_lol:
Hilarious.

Perna de Pau
June 16th, 2008, 09:45 AM
I agreed with everything Mushinronjya posted until he mentioned Latin referring to the definition of the word atheism: it is Greek, man! :(

I certainly do not follow Dr Goofy in his fatalistic approach "shit happens/who cares".

We should care. As someone already said religion is indeed responsible for most of the evil around us and it is our obligation to help putting an end to this situation.

It will be difficult and it will take time. As I think I already said (and some of you agreed) this can only be done through education.

I am therefore comforted to see the consistent, strong negative correlation between the level of education and that of religious beliefs (Dutch Pasta Guy can provide useful data on this).

Educate people and they will evolve out of religion. :icon_cool:

Tsun
June 16th, 2008, 09:46 AM
Educate people and they will evolve out of religion.
Thats going in my sig.

DutchPastaGuy
June 16th, 2008, 01:02 PM
I am therefore comforted to see the consistent, strong negative correlation between the level of education and that of religious beliefs (Dutch Pasta Guy can provide useful data on this).


At your service:

http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

And to add one more data point not in the top graph of that page: of all science Nobel laureates, only one had a god belief, out of hundreds of them. So the pattern, while not 100% sharp, is still very clear: the more accomplished the scientist, the less likely he/she is to have a god(s) belief. Same with general intelligence. An article for Mensa magazine UK once summarized over 40 studies into the correlation between religiosity and intelligence. All but 4 or so showed a negative correlation. The article didn't mention if the remaining four showed a positive correlation or were statistically insignificant.

So in a nut shell: religion is generally not for the smart of this world.

greets,
Peter

Tsar Phalanxia
June 16th, 2008, 01:19 PM
Oh my FSM! That sure is one hugely ego-masturbating signature you've got there! Makes me feel I need to take a shower for having agreed with you.

greets,
Peter

What about my sig? >_>

tagnostic
June 16th, 2008, 01:21 PM
dang it
Tsar's up
wants to play thread tag
and I need a nap before work.
blast it.....

Tsar Phalanxia
June 16th, 2008, 01:24 PM
I just want to have all the threads read before I go on Civ4. Sometimes it can be exhausting =P

tagnostic
June 16th, 2008, 01:26 PM
I just want to have all the threads read before I go on Civ4. Sometimes it can be exhausting =P

roflshcuafl

a the demands
of being
a gamer
training for
the "Oh"lympics
:icon_razz:
jk

Tsar Phalanxia
June 16th, 2008, 01:30 PM
Yahh.. too...many...POSTS!

Wallsy
June 16th, 2008, 02:18 PM
Btw Wallsy, you're making it somewhat difficult for people to agree with you:


Oh my FSM! That sure is one hugely ego-masturbating signature you've got there! Makes me feel I need to take a shower for having agreed with you.

I never read signatures. In fact, I have it set to not show them. You could try doing the same. Or you could just ignore mine. It's there to amuse me. If it annoys you, it's doing its job. :-)


Wallsy.

sudikics
June 16th, 2008, 02:38 PM
I can't believe others are complaining, when I make up four of the seven misquotes in the sig. >_>

DutchPastaGuy
June 16th, 2008, 02:45 PM
What about my sig? >_>

I rather like it.:D You may have a rebellion on your hand though from a few of those Internet Exploder users who use M$ Search, rather than yield to your authority (sounds a bit like Cartman in South Prak, 'respect my authority'). I'd say crush the rebels.

bouchie
June 16th, 2008, 04:28 PM
That which is perceived, or indirectly ascertained via the proper use of reason. I could continue questioning - for example, what is perception? But, that would belong to another thread. Suffice it to say, many people much smarter than either of us have tried to answer these questions - and there's always a flaw in the answer.

What about them? They do exist. Sure. That doesn't go against anything I've said. I understand the agnostic theist to be a middle ground for theism and atheism. I understand a theist to have, not only belief, but knowledge as well. Whether they are right or not is irrelevant to the point at hand. The atheist has neither knowledge of a the existence of a deity, nor the belief. The agnostic atheist would be redundant. The agnostic theist possesses belief but no knowledge.

Hence why I think it is a middle ground.

That was a ridiculously stupid thing to say. How so? The only 'friendly' dictator I can think of is Jean Chretien, former PM of Canada. And we use the 'dictator' term lightly. Every other dictator, to protect their position, puts down all opposition, usually with brutal means - i.e. genocide. See Mugabe for a contemporary example of a dictator.

Sorry, no non-sequitor. Nice attempt at sounding like you know what you're talking about.
So tell me, how could I be wrong?
Love to hear this one. You said you were right because you are governed by logic and reason. First of all, in a blatant ad hominen attack on you, I have yet to see evidence of that. You threaten and insult and have yet to provide any real arguments. Perna and the DutchPastaGuy have - to them I will listen. In your case, I have yet to see any real evidence that you're governed by logic and reason.

Secondly, let me use Kant as an example for comparison. Kant was governed by logic and reason. He proved logically that the cosmological and ontological arguments for God were faulty. He used logic to prove the existence of God on moral grounds. Formally (as in logical fallacies or formal fallacies), he was correct. Informally, he was ultimately begging the question. This error happened because he started his argument on the assumption that God exists. So, although governed by logic and reason, Kant was still wrong.

Sartre and Heidegger, both atheists, were also wrong, even though they came to logical conclusions. They thought angst was a defining feature of existence. However, this is a projection of the feelings of living in a oppressive society (especially in their times) onto the nature of existence.

So, these 3 philosophers used logic correctly, but are still wrong because their starting premises were wrong.

Hence why I said non-sequitor - just because you're governed by logic and reason, you can still be wrong.

You know, this is the second time you say I'm wrong in this thread. At the same time, you have yet to tell me why I'm wrong, whereas I have explained why I'm right.

So now, it's your turn.

There is only one reality.
You mean interpretations of reality perhaps? :icon_eek: I'll agree that there is one reality. But whose intepretation of it is right?

Um, dogmatic and fundies?
Not possible as atheists.
Please look up your words, and maybe in another forum in the future you won't look like a complete idiot when you post again. It is very possible. I have looked up my words. You haven't. Otherwise you would know that 'dogmatic' and 'dogma' can be used in a secular sense (political dogma).

And if you knew what fundamentalism meant, you would know that applying the term to Islam is technically incorrect, as it was orginally the name of a movement in American Protestantism in the early 20th century. So, if we're already applying to different religion other than the original, why not make it secular as well. Besides, I understand fundamentalism to mean sticking to the fundamentals, whatever those fundamentals may be. If they're atheist fundamental principles, then it is possible to say 'secular/atheist fundamentalist'.

It's theism. A+theism.
Without/no belief in a god.
This isn't the Latin language, this is English. *rolls eyes* See Perna (thanks dude!)

There are no "categories" of atheism. I disagree with that. See above (fundamentalist).

If you're without belief in a god, you're an atheist.
Some people have attempted to create categories, but they don't pertain to the literal definition. You don't know what the definition is! So, how can you say that?

Btw, if you argue for the 'modern' form, look it up in French before you do so in English.

I could blame people's ignorance and want for control, sure, for the CREATION and continued use.
So all we need to do now is get rid of theism and we'll be much better off... once we cure the disease, society will get better. I agree that the disease should be cured. However, you're fighting the symptons, not the virus.

What came first - the religious explanation or fear of the unknown?

tagnostic
June 16th, 2008, 04:34 PM
What came first - the religious explanation or fear of the unknown?

good one,

fear is the virus
knowledge is the cure

bouchie
June 16th, 2008, 04:38 PM
good one,

fear is the virus
knowledge is the cure Agreed. However, I will also say that power is a sympton of fear and far more devastating than the religious response. In fact, I've always viewed religion as more of a band-aid for some deep-cutting questions until the knowledable surgeon comes around to patch things up. In other words, religion can be beneficial.

It's when the power hungry come in and rip the band-aid off, letting the blood flow that religion is a problem. But like I've said before, any ideology can be used as a weapon and it can be far more devastating than any bomb we can build.

That just gave me a far greater appreciation for "The pen is mightier than the sword."

tagnostic
June 16th, 2008, 04:41 PM
That just gave me a far greater appreciation for "The pen is mightier than the sword."

the grin is mightier than the hoard

:icon_razz:

Perna de Pau
June 16th, 2008, 04:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Said by Mushinronjya
There are no "categories" of atheism.

I disagree with that. See above (fundamentalist).



I am not sure I follow you on this one bouchie.

How many "categories" are there for not believing in Santa Claus?

You may believe in lots of different gods and you may believe in lots of different ways but I think that Mushinronjya was saying that there is only one way not to believe and I tend to agree. :adore:

bouchie
June 16th, 2008, 05:28 PM
I am not sure I follow you on this one bouchie.

How many "categories" are there for not believing in Santa Claus?

You may believe in lots of different gods and you may believe in lots of different ways but I think that Mushinronjya was saying that there is only one way not to believe and I tend to agree. :adore: All right, I'll give you that. I was thinking more in terms of promotion - the atheist who let's everyone else be versus the atheist who has to convince everyone and will not let up until everyone agrees with them.

Make sense?

sudikics
June 16th, 2008, 05:31 PM
All right, I'll give you that. I was thinking more in terms of promotion - the atheist who let's everyone else be versus the atheist who has to convince everyone and will not let up until everyone agrees with them.

Make sense?
I follow, bouchie: you're distingushing between atheists and anti-theists.

Also, there are categories: lack of a belief in a diety, and belief in a lack of a diety.

The latter in turn has two parts: passive and active. Passive is letting things lie; active is anti-theism.

Lilith
June 16th, 2008, 06:02 PM
I follow, bouchie: you're distingushing between atheists and anti-theists.

Also, there are categories: lack of a belief in a diety, and belief in a lack of a diety.

The latter in turn has two parts: passive and active. Passive is letting things lie; active is anti-theism.

I think that's a way of one's character. Some people are bothered by opposing opinions, others just don't care what other people think...
I guess it's the same with everything (politics, eating habits etc.), not just religion.

Tsar Phalanxia
June 16th, 2008, 07:05 PM
I rather like it.:D You may have a rebellion on your hand though from a few of those Internet Exploder users who use M$ Search, rather than yield to your authority (sounds a bit like Cartman in South Prak, 'respect my authority'). I'd say crush the rebels.

Duh. What do you think my legions of Strelet-Lurkers are doing right now?

Dr Goofy Mofo
June 16th, 2008, 09:43 PM
Religious belief is not the cause for everything wrong with the world. Civil war was because they thought blacks should be slaves. People go in to cliques and gangs and fight just because they are different. Religion has nothing to do with it people will always fight and kill because people hate when someone has a different belief. Yes religion has helped spawn the blood shed but it still would have happened because the whole I think I am better then you and you are wrong so die factor.

Tsar Phalanxia
June 16th, 2008, 09:52 PM
The Civil War was inevitable. It tested the strength of the Federal Government in the face of the rebellion from the States. The fact that the Staes had been brought together out of neither fear nor conquest made the the Civil War very likely.

Mushuukyou
June 16th, 2008, 11:16 PM
I could continue questioning - for example, what is perception? But, that would belong to another thread. Suffice it to say, many people much smarter than either of us have tried to answer these questions - and there's always a flaw in the answer.

So basically what you're saying is that there was no reason for you to point that out. Thanks.

I understand the agnostic theist to be a middle ground for theism and atheism.

There is no middle ground. You're either theist or atheist, one or the other. Unless, of course, you want to try and apply your own usage to "atheism", which would be futile.

How so? The only 'friendly' dictator I can think of is Jean Chretien, former PM of Canada.

And my assertion was that I'd be a great dictator.

You said you were right because you are governed by logic and reason. First of all, in a blatant ad hominen attack on you, I have yet to see evidence of that. You threaten and insult and have yet to provide any real arguments. Perna and the DutchPastaGuy have - to them I will listen. In your case, I have yet to see any real evidence that you're governed by logic and reason.

What argument have I not given that I should have? I have only responded and given responsive arguments. Are you complaining because I haven't dazzled you with something "new" that I'm supposed to come up with? I'm the skeptic on this issue, the last time I checked.

So, these 3 philosophers used logic correctly, but are still wrong because their starting premises were wrong.[\quote]

I make sure my starting premise is not wrong.
Logic assists me with that.

[QUOTE=bouchie;74046]I'll agree that there is one reality. But whose intepretation of it is right?

Those which are supported by objective evidence, reasoning, etc.

It is very possible. I have looked up my words. You haven't. Otherwise you would know that 'dogmatic' and 'dogma' can be used in a secular sense (political dogma).

Listen you little shit, stop playing with your usages. I go by the literal meaning, the most obvious and intended meaning. If you want to use another usage of a word, state it in your reply. Don't just use a word and expect everyone to define it the way you meant to (or decided you meant to, after you were caught using it in a shitty sense).

If they're atheist fundamental principles, then it is possible to say 'secular/atheist fundamentalist'.

Yea, the big keyword: "if".
But there aren't, so you're wrong.

See Perna (thanks dude!)

You tried to make atheism into a claim, when it's not.. trying to run to the Latin language, and failed. Now you give a bullshit response above and fail again.

I disagree with that. See above (fundamentalist).

You can disagree all you'd like, but the evidence (literal definition, dissection of the word) prove otherwise.

You don't know what the definition is! So, how can you say that?

I don't recall this being a humorous post.

I agree that the disease should be cured. However, you're fighting the symptons, not the virus.

When we educate people, we are fighting the virus.

What came first - the religious explanation or fear of the unknown?

I think someone else answered this well.

Lilith
June 16th, 2008, 11:32 PM
Religious belief is not the cause for everything wrong with the world. Civil war was because they thought blacks should be slaves. People go in to cliques and gangs and fight just because they are different. Religion has nothing to do with it people will always fight and kill because people hate when someone has a different belief. Yes religion has helped spawn the blood shed but it still would have happened because the whole I think I am better then you and you are wrong so die factor.

Actually the Civil war wasn't because people thought slavery is a bad idea, they were just pissed that the Southern States had cheaper workers and were a threat to Northern economy.
Lincoln wasn' a saint, he proudly killed many Native Americans and believed everyone not born in the States should be thrown out.
But the outcome justifies the intentions, I guess :)

Otherwise you are absolutely right, people tend to kill each other out of multiple reasons! Hey, even chimpanzees make war against each other's tribes and they certainly worship no god!

Lilith
June 16th, 2008, 11:37 PM
There is no middle ground. You're either theist or atheist, one or the other. Unless, of course, you want to try and apply your own usage to "atheism", which would be futile.



I agree here. Agnosticism doesn't really make sense. If it comes to faith, there is no proof anyway, so we either all are agnostics or we have to make up our minds.
Either you believe there is a god or you don't believe there is a god. You can never know for sure (it's just extremely unlikely!)
But if theists exist, then there are only atheists or people who don' care to think about it, but no agnostics.

bouchie
June 17th, 2008, 04:07 AM
So basically what you're saying is that there was no reason for you to point that out. Thanks. There's a reason for everything. ;)

And my assertion was that I'd be a great dictator. Sorry, I hadn't realized that you would understand a joke. Too Canadian I guess. Jean Chretien was a prime minister and was about as much as a dictator as...I can't even think of an example to show how he was not a dictator. The term The Friendly Dictatorship was the title of a book about the Liberal Party of Canada.

Again, sorry for being too Canadian, eh?

What argument have I not given that I should have? I have only responded and given responsive arguments. I haven't seen any arguments. I'm still waiting for a counter to the 'you have no knowledge' point and for the non-sequitor point. So far, all you said was that I'm an idiot and that I make no sense. Unless I missed something, (and a lot has been written here), you haven't said anything to counter.

I make sure my starting premise is not wrong.
Logic assists me with that.Then you have yet to find your starting premises. ;)


Listen you little shit, stop playing with your usages. Temper, temper now.
I go by the literal meaning, the most obvious and intended meaning. If you want to use another usage of a word, state it in your reply. Very well then. I may not have done a good enough job before.

So, here's where I got my definitions for dogmatic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dogmatic), dogma (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dogma) and fundamentalist. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundamentalist) Note the second definition of dogmatic and the third definition for dogma. I don't think they differ too greatly from what I was using before.

Yea, the big keyword: "if".
But there aren't, so you're wrong. Again...how am I wrong? In this case , 'fundamental' meant basic, btw.

You tried to make atheism into a claim, when it's not.. trying to run to the Latin language, and failed. Now you give a bullshit response above and fail again. I'm not sure what you mean by making 'atheism a claim'. Please explain. Also, I ran to ancient Greek, not the Latin language, as Perna pointed out. That's why I was thanking him - for mentioning the correct language.

You can disagree all you'd like, but the evidence (literal definition, dissection of the word) prove otherwise. I've provided the definitions now. See forr yourself and draw your own conclusions.

I don't recall this being a humorous post. I have a strange sense fo humor.

When we educate people, we are fighting the virus. Indeed we are.

I think someone else answered this well. Yes, tag has a way with words. ;)

Dr Goofy Mofo
June 17th, 2008, 06:02 AM
Some thoughts have been rushing through my head. Ok so the problem is extreme religious people that is why 9/11 happened and the crusades but what about your every day religious person who accepts others for having different beliefs? The deserve respect.

Sometimes faith can help people because it makes them feel loved, needed, and important. Much like a placebo can do to cure someone. Again the problem is the ones who take morphine instead of the placebo and get over zealous. '

Lets take another look at trying to spread the "truth" the Christians try to spread there beliefs to others by appealing to there weaknesses and faith. What does the atheist do when trying to convert? He laughs in there face and calls them and idiot... no wonder we are the 2nd most hated religion. Instead of using a good way to teach it we act like we are better then everyone else so people hate us for it.

So all in all I think religion does deserve respect but the people sometimes don't. Same goes with anything... respect depends on the person wielding the sword.

Perna de Pau
June 17th, 2008, 07:41 AM
All right, I'll give you that. I was thinking more in terms of promotion - the atheist who let's everyone else be versus the atheist who has to convince everyone and will not let up until everyone agrees with them.

Make sense?

It makes sense. It refers not to how someone does not believe but to what someone does once he/she does not believe.

to Dr Goofy Mofo:

Without moderate religion there would not be extreme religion. Religion teaches that its values are more important than life, that it is worth dying for them. It praises martyrdom. If your life is so worthless what about the life of an "infidel"? It is even less and therefore there is no problem in killing them. Religion has in itself the seeds of extremism and therefore should not be respected (for many other reasons as well).

I agree that sometimes faith can be seen to help people. You compare it to a placebo, I would compare it to crutches. Many persons who are perfectly fit insist in walking with crutches and we should convince them that they do not need them. I respect persons, not their "crutches".

Atheists should not use the same methods of religions (shoving their opinions down everyone else's throats) but point out, as respectfully as they can, the flaws of religious thinking.

So my conclusion is still opposite yours: religion does not deserve any respect but the people sometimes do.

Tsar Phalanxia
June 17th, 2008, 08:45 AM
I agree here. Agnosticism doesn't really make sense. If it comes to faith, there is no proof anyway, so we either all are agnostics or we have to make up our minds.
Either you believe there is a god or you don't believe there is a god. You can never know for sure (it's just extremely unlikely!)
But if theists exist, then there are only atheists or people who don' care to think about it, but no agnostics.
Hehe, what I said. Here's a quote of Lincoln to back that up.

I am not, and never have been, in favour of equality of white and black races. I am not, and never have been in favour of letting Negroes have government posts or marry white people.

That's nasty.

Wallsy
June 17th, 2008, 09:24 AM
I can't believe others are complaining, when I make up four of the seven misquotes in the sig. >_>

Misquotes? It's hardly misquoting to copy down your words exactly.


There is no middle ground. You're either theist or atheist, one or the other.

This is correct. "I'm an agnostic" means "I'm a theist, but I can't justify that, even to myself."


Wallsy.

Perna de Pau
June 17th, 2008, 09:42 AM
Misquotes? It's hardly misquoting to copy down your words exactly.


Everybody knows that most misquotes are exactly that: the exact words of someone but taken out of context.

It is exactly what Wallsy did with his signature as anyone can verify by looking up the original posts by Scikidus.

To pretend the contrary is utterly dishonest: shame on you Wallsy

DutchPastaGuy
June 17th, 2008, 09:45 AM
Without moderate religion there would not be extreme religion. Religion teaches that its values are more important than life, that it is worth dying for them. It praises martyrdom. If your life is so worthless what about the life of an "infidel"? It is even less and therefore there is no problem in killing them. Religion has in itself the seeds of extremism and therefore should not be respected (for many other reasons as well).

Let me add another bit in favour of outspoken atheism. Religion doesn't have to be violent or otherwise extreme to cause havoc. My objection with people doing things based on faith, possibly even a greater objection than the violence it can cause, is that it is so anti-rationality and anti-knowledge. Our increasing understanding of the world shows christianity and other religions to be fairy tales? Well, then that knowledge is evil! Out with it! Instead, you must have faith. Simply don't question. Come inside that 'happy bubble' of faith with us, switch off your brain, that's so much easier anyway, and be happy. Huh? What do you mean our happy bubble is detached from reality? Why must you be so difficult?! Just have faith!

The lines above may be a bit of a caricature, but even pretty moderate faith must have some element of that to persist. It probably won't surprise you when I say I see creationists mucking up the education system as no less dangerous in the long term than violent muslim extremists. In the worst case scenario, violent religion could wreak such havoc that it sets back our development by some time. Without shedding a single drop of blood, you could achieve the same by doing away with all knowledge that is inconvenient to religion. Some believers would like to see and end to all or sizeable parts of

- biology
- medicine
- physics
- (petro-)chemistry
- astronomy
- space exploration
- geology
- geneology
- archeology
- climatology
- plate tektonics
- volcanology
- literature and ancient art
- history
- more areas, if I thought about it longer

Why are they so insulted by the idea that we are cousins of monkeys? Cheetahs are faster than us, horses are stronger than us. The only thing we've got going for us, is our superior thinking. Take away that, and we wouldn't just be distantly related to apes, we would be apes. And it doesn't take any extremism. That can be achieved by moderate, civilized, sometimes even educated, mild-mannered (probably even well-meaning) believers.

So sorry, but no mercy for moderate religion from me.

greets,
Peter

Tsar Phalanxia
June 17th, 2008, 02:53 PM
Everybody knows that most misquotes are exactly that: the exact words of someone but taken out of context.

It is exactly what Wallsy did with his signature as anyone can verify by looking up the original posts by Scikidus.

To pretend the contrary is utterly dishonest: shame on you Wallsy

Heigh ho! Heigh ho! It's off to work we go!
We're gonna quote-mine in the tiniest cracks, we're gonna quote-mine till we break our backs!
Heigh ho! Heigh ho! It's off to work we go!

Mushuukyou
June 17th, 2008, 03:37 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by making 'atheism a claim'. Please explain. Also, I ran to ancient Greek, not the Latin language, as Perna pointed out. That's why I was thanking him - for mentioning the correct language.

I've provided the definitions now. See forr yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Yes, I meant Greek, my bad.
In any case, we are in the English language, not the Greek.
The word "theism" means belief in a god, and the prefix a- is applied to that.
Therefore, we have "without belief in a god".
That's the literal definition of the word, and the most accepted.
Clear things up for you?
If it doesn't, and you still think it should mean something else, it's a personal problem on your end.

So all in all I think religion does deserve respect but the people sometimes don't. Same goes with anything... respect depends on the person wielding the sword.

Theism is responsible for much death and destruction.
People deserve respect if they earn it, but fallacious beliefs deserve to be mocked to no end.

This is correct. "I'm an agnostic" means "I'm a theist, but I can't justify that, even to myself."

Wellll.. you can be an agnostic-atheist or agnostic-theist.

Tsar Phalanxia
June 17th, 2008, 03:39 PM
You can't blame religion for stuff that happens before Darwin. There was no alternative to believeing in one kind of religion; and you'd probably be put to death. After Darwin, it gets more hazy. But don't go bashing religion for stuff before Darwin EXCEPT the Crusades and the Flowery Wars, which were unique.

bouchie
June 17th, 2008, 05:05 PM
In any case, we are in the English language, not the Greek. But it's always good to know where words come from because the original meaning may have been lost. Like the word 'gay'. Used to be synonmous with happy. Now it means homosexual or anything related to homosexuality.

However, I agree with your point.

The word "theism" means belief in a god, and the prefix a- is applied to that. Actually (and you'll appreciate this) the word 'atheism' came before 'theism' and 'deist'. Not the best source, but click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Etymology)for more info. Useless trivia for everyone. :D

Therefore, we have "without belief in a god".
That's the literal definition of the word, and the most accepted. Okay fine, I have no problem with that. I think the problem I had with the definition was actually not so much the definition as the character of the atheist. Both Perna and sciky helped clear that up for me.


Theism is responsible for much death and destruction.
People deserve respect if they earn it, but fallacious beliefs deserve to be mocked to no end. The dogmatic versions of marxism and facisim are responsible for much death and destruction as well. And they did it in shorter amounts of time. Ideologies are the most powerful weapon a leader can wield. If it's not because 'God wills it' it's 'for the good of the motherland' or 'for the people'. Try mocking these systems while within the system. And don't turn around - otherwise you'll see the gun pointed at your head.

...

Unfortunately, most religious doctrines are written to help maintain a party's power. However, I do not blame scripture - I blame the writers and the intepretators. I blame the scribes and the priests for the mollification and indoctrination of the people. I blame them for the wars and grave injustices in the world. In essence, I blame people for killing and hating people.

And I blame the priest just as equally as the bureaucrats and government officials in a communist nation or a Gustapo and KGB agent. Out of fear that the system will fall and those in power lose power, they will kill to protect their interests.

I don't attack religion - I attack the darker side of human nature. People will always hate and they will use whatever they can to justify that hate.

Mushuukyou
June 17th, 2008, 06:13 PM
But it's always good to know where words come from because the original meaning may have been lost. Like the word 'gay'. Used to be synonmous with happy. Now it means homosexual or anything related to homosexuality.

Yes, learning the root words is very good!
However, just don't try to make a word mean something in English as you think it meant in another language, that's all. :icon_confused:
Many can even say that atheos just means "godless" anyhow, *shrug*.

There's this piece of shit buttloving asscrack that has a website out there that SWEARS that atheism is an assertion, and he CONTINUES to refer to the Greek word, using it as his sole foundation for his assertion... and to conquer the English translation he tries to dissect the word as follows:

"a" + "theo" + "ism"
I want to beat the living shit out of him for being retarded.
But hey, I'm a man of peace.

Actually (and you'll appreciate this) the word 'atheism' came before 'theism' and 'deist'. Not the best source, but click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Etymology)for more info. Useless trivia for everyone. :D

Thank you, I will check it out.

Okay fine, I have no problem with that. I think the problem I had with the definition was actually not so much the definition as the character of the atheist. Both Perna and sciky helped clear that up for me.

Ok then I won't comment.
The character is person-specific.

However, I do not blame scripture - I blame the writers and the intepretators. I blame the scribes and the priests for the mollification and indoctrination of the people. I blame them for the wars and grave injustices in the world. In essence, I blame people for killing and hating people.

So we can blame ignorance for the continued use today, since it makes no sense to blame the past, since we can't get to those people and stop them now.

I don't attack religion - I attack the darker side of human nature. People will always hate and they will use whatever they can to justify that hate.

But it will be much less hate and death once we use logic and reason instead of imaginary friends.

Dr Goofy Mofo
June 18th, 2008, 03:49 AM
to Dr Goofy Mofo:

Without moderate religion there would not be extreme religion. Religion teaches that its values are more important than life, that it is worth dying for them. It praises martyrdom. If your life is so worthless what about the life of an "infidel"? It is even less and therefore there is no problem in killing them. Religion has in itself the seeds of extremism and therefore should not be respected (for many other reasons as well).

I agree that sometimes faith can be seen to help people. You compare it to a placebo, I would compare it to crutches. Many persons who are perfectly fit insist in walking with crutches and we should convince them that they do not need them. I respect persons, not their "crutches".

Atheists should not use the same methods of religions (shoving their opinions down everyone else's throats) but point out, as respectfully as they can, the flaws of religious thinking.

So my conclusion is still opposite yours: religion does not deserve any respect but the people sometimes do.

Ok I can leave with this. This makes good points and ends the debate with out having to go to name calling and trying to convince me of something new. This is how things should be answered.

Thanks for your response I understand and respect your views. Have a wonderful day!


Theism is responsible for much death and destruction.
People deserve respect if they earn it, but fallacious beliefs deserve to be mocked to no end.

Why? For what purpose? It will not change there beliefs to mock them only get them angry at you and dislike you. You have to add in understanding of human nature to your logic and reason if you ever wish to get others to understand what you are trying to tell them... else you will wind up with them angry at you and no more the wiser.


I don't attack religion - I attack the darker side of human nature. People will always hate and they will use whatever they can to justify that hate.

I love this quote


But hey, I'm a man of peace.

Really?


But it will be much less hate and death once we use logic and reason instead of imaginary friends.

I would add in empathy and understanding because Logic and reason alone will not suffice!

Mushuukyou
June 18th, 2008, 05:05 AM
People that posit imaginary friends should always be made fun of.
We need to show that it will not be tolerated.
Yes, they can believe in anything they want, but they will be made fun of in the process.
We have to show that it's unacceptable.
If we don't do this, we give them the idea that somehow it's good or ok to do what they're doing.

Dr Goofy Mofo
June 18th, 2008, 05:10 AM
So your choice to convert them is negative reinforcement? You do know positive reinforcement last longer and you make more friends that way?

I think making fun of them is the wrong course of action. Maybe we should make a pamphlet and show what good atheist do as well. Show them why there logic is flawed and show them that just because we do not believe in god that we are still decent intelligent people that they would want to hang out with. Show them that they can love them selfs with out needing gods love, that they can embrace death with a new light. Show them why they do not need religion in a kind, calm understanding light.

I think this would be far better then the average atheist remark of "You really believe there is a God... HAHAHAHA Your an idiot!!!"

GeoffBoulton
June 18th, 2008, 08:36 AM
Edward Current on Respecting Beliefs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0Alhhe-JA8&NR=1)

DutchPastaGuy
June 18th, 2008, 12:40 PM
Edward Current on Respecting Beliefs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0Alhhe-JA8&NR=1)

Maybe the guy should have a chat with some fanatic whose faith tells him to do slightly less kind things to others. Would anyone care to join me in gathering up money to buy him a plane ticket (one way would most likely suffice) to let him visit some part of Saudi Arabia or Southern Afghanistan?

Wallsy
June 18th, 2008, 01:26 PM
Wellll.. you can be an agnostic-atheist or agnostic-theist.

No, you can't. There is only one type of agnostic, and that is a theist who thinks they probably should be an atheist. If you don't believe in any gods, you are an atheist. That doesn't preclude you from accepting evidence to the contrary.


Wallsy.

Wallsy
June 18th, 2008, 01:28 PM
Everybody knows that most misquotes are exactly that: the exact words of someone but taken out of context.

Actually, a misquote is saying that someone said something they didn't. Taking a quote out of context, though no less dishonest, is not misquoting.


Wallsy.

tagnostic
June 18th, 2008, 01:40 PM
No, you can't. There is only one type of agnostic, and that is a theist who thinks they probably should be an atheist. If you don't believe in any gods, you are an atheist. That doesn't preclude you from accepting evidence to the contrary.


Wallsy.

i have to disagree here
an agnostic can admit that they will never know, this is not theism.
in order too know factually that there is a "Dei" one would have to be able to comprehend one, which i personally don't see happening. It doesn't make me a wannabe theist, nor does it make me an atheist, it means i know my limitations and realize there are some things it's pointless to speculate on.

jmho

(blame it on the scotch)

Lilith
June 18th, 2008, 02:01 PM
Maybe the guy should have a chat with some fanatic whose faith tells him to do slightly less kind things to others. Would anyone care to join me in gathering up money to buy him a plane ticket (one way would most likely suffice) to let him visit some part of Saudi Arabia or Southern Afghanistan?

I thought this video was sarcasm... wasn't it?
"I know it's true because I read about it in an antique book!" doesn't sound like a real one ;)

DutchPastaGuy
June 18th, 2008, 02:23 PM
I thought this video was sarcasm... wasn't it?
"I know it's true because I read about it in an antique book!" doesn't sound like a real one ;)

Yes it was. And neither was my idea of giving him money for a plane ticket a serious one.;)

Would you have donated if you thought I was serious? They say some people and their money are soon parted.

Dr Goofy Mofo
June 18th, 2008, 02:34 PM
Edward Current on Respecting Beliefs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0Alhhe-JA8&NR=1)

That is good satire!

i have to disagree here
an agnostic can admit that they will never know, this is not theism.
in order too know factually that there is a "Dei" one would have to be able to comprehend one, which i personally don't see happening. It doesn't make me a wannabe theist, nor does it make me an atheist, it means i know my limitations and realize there are some things it's pointless to speculate on.

jmho

(blame it on the scotch)

Nice post Tag!

Mushuukyou
June 18th, 2008, 02:36 PM
So your choice to convert them is negative reinforcement? You do know positive reinforcement last longer and you make more friends that way?

I convert or "de-convert" in many different ways.
I'm cool like that.

I think making fun of them is the wrong course of action.

You are entitled to your opinion, but there is evidence to the contrary.

No, you can't. There is only one type of agnostic, and that is a theist who thinks they probably should be an atheist. If you don't believe in any gods, you are an atheist. That doesn't preclude you from accepting evidence to the contrary.

Agnosticism only has to deal with belief. You can still either believe or not in a god by using "faith" or what not. You are giving in to some peoples' usages to the word; don't do it.

Dr Goofy Mofo
June 18th, 2008, 02:47 PM
You are entitled to your opinion, but there is evidence to the contrary.

What evidence?

Mushuukyou
June 18th, 2008, 04:33 PM
What evidence?

Well, nothing I can offer you directly, just my explanation of my experiences where others didn't listen to reason, so making them feel foolish so they'll look into it has worked. Especially when I made Jesus jokes, they help a lot. I've helped to "de-convert" even a couple of black women; and let me tell you, those are hard to crack! Of course they deserve all the credit, I'm only an instrument to get someone to start thinking.

I think the sex had something to do with getting them to listen as well.

tagnostic
June 18th, 2008, 04:36 PM
Well, nothing I can offer you directly, just my explanation of my experiences where others didn't listen to reason, so making them feel foolish so they'll look into it has worked. Especially when I made Jesus jokes, they help a lot. I've helped to "de-convert" even a couple of black women; and let me tell you, those are hard to crack! Of course they deserve all the credit, I'm only an instrument to get someone to start thinking.

I think the sex had something to do with getting them to listen as well.

any credibility you had
just fell into the F.I.H
vortex
ycgn

bouchie
June 18th, 2008, 05:25 PM
Well, nothing I can offer you directly, just my explanation of my experiences where others didn't listen to reason, so making them feel foolish so they'll look into it has worked. Especially when I made Jesus jokes, they help a lot. I've helped to "de-convert" even a couple of black women; and let me tell you, those are hard to crack! Of course they deserve all the credit, I'm only an instrument to get someone to start thinking. So, you shame people into 'de-conversion'? And you say you're governed by logic and reason? Doesn't logic (and tact) dictate that you just walk away?

Also, you de-converted them, but I wonder how long it will be before they convert back...

Meanwhile, if they see the logic of atheism and enjoy critical thinking...well then, I say we have a new 'de-convert'.

But shaming them either causes a brief lapse in faith, but then it will come back in force. Or it does nothing to their faith. In either case, they just end up hating you.

Congrats, you're making new enemies everyday!

Dr Goofy Mofo
June 18th, 2008, 07:13 PM
So, you shame people into 'de-conversion'? And you say you're governed by logic and reason? Doesn't logic (and tact) dictate that you just walk away?

Also, you de-converted them, but I wonder how long it will be before they convert back...

Meanwhile, if they see the logic of atheism and enjoy critical thinking...well then, I say we have a new 'de-convert'.

But shaming them either causes a brief lapse in faith, but then it will come back in force. Or it does nothing to their faith. In either case, they just end up hating you.

Congrats, you're making new enemies everyday!

Could not have said it better myself!.

Mushuukyou
June 18th, 2008, 07:22 PM
any credibility you had
just fell into the F.I.H
vortex
ycgn

I fail to see how that pertains.

So, you shame people into 'de-conversion'? And you say you're governed by logic and reason? Doesn't logic (and tact) dictate that you just walk away?

It takes usually a mixture of both.

Also, you de-converted them, but I wonder how long it will be before they convert back...

Well, how many people do you come across that de-convert and go back?
That's kind of a stupid thing to ask.

Meanwhile, if they see the logic of atheism and enjoy critical thinking...well then, I say we have a new 'de-convert'.

That's the goal!

But shaming them either causes a brief lapse in faith, but then it will come back in force. Or it does nothing to their faith. In either case, they just end up hating you.

Really? All the people I've helped are still quite good friends with me, and are still atheists. Go figure?

Congrats, you're making new enemies everyday!

Congrats, you sounded like an idiot. :)

Dr Goofy Mofo
June 18th, 2008, 07:24 PM
Congrats, you sounded like an idiot. :)

Congrats at failing at Debate 101 by reverting to childish names

tagnostic
June 18th, 2008, 08:20 PM
I fail to see how that pertains.


because you actually
felt that 'race', 'color'
had anything to do
with intellectual
ability/objectivity

thats a
humanity fail

ycgn

Mushuukyou
June 18th, 2008, 09:30 PM
Congrats at failing at Debate 101 by reverting to childish names

Congrats at sounding like an idiot by drawing an irrational judgment by referring to something completely irrelevant.

because you actually
felt that 'race', 'color'
had anything to do
with intellectual
ability/objectivity

thats a
humanity fail

ycgn

Congrats at not seeing the point of that I made, which basically said that black people are generally more religious than others... which is reality, and what I meant to convey. You decided to read more into it.

tagnostic
June 18th, 2008, 09:35 PM
Congrats at not seeing the point of that I made, which basically said that black people are generally more religious than others... which is reality, and what I meant to convey. You decided to read more into it.

none of what you said was 'a point'
it was ego masturbation
by a socially retarded
dweeb

ps. your in Dallas, wanna take a stroll with me through the wards?
pick one, i've hung out in 3d, 5th, 6th and 8th

Mushuukyou
June 18th, 2008, 09:38 PM
none of what you said was 'a point'
it was ego masturbation
by a socially retarded
egotist

still here?
pity

Cry me a river.
Learn to make full sentences and eventually a paragraph, you idiot.

tagnostic
June 18th, 2008, 09:42 PM
Cry me a river.
Learn to make full sentences and eventually a paragraph, you idiot.

hold your breath, i'll be right with you

ps
i edited that post while you were lurking

Mushuukyou
June 18th, 2008, 09:45 PM
hold your breath, i'll be right with you

ps
i edited that post while you were lurking

I have no idea what these "wards" are, as I've only been here a couple of years.
You'll have to edjumacate me.

tagnostic
June 18th, 2008, 09:48 PM
those would be the parts of town
you don't go to
ask a cop
if he will take you to the wards

Mushuukyou
June 18th, 2008, 09:52 PM
those would be the parts of town
you don't go to
ask a cop
if he will take you to the wards

Well, being 6', 215lbs and martial arts my whole life, I can pretty much walk or go anywhere I'd like. Nobody ever messes with me, both because of my size and I possess the "best to leave this person alone" aura. But maybe someone else will be impressed with your history.

tagnostic
June 18th, 2008, 09:54 PM
Well, being 6', 215lbs and martial arts my whole life, I can pretty much walk or go anywhere I'd like. Nobody ever messes with me, both because of my size and I possess the "best to leave this person alone" aura. But maybe someone else will be impressed with your history.

hehehe
i'm 5'7" 135lbs and 47yrs old
don't be scared
i won't hurt you

Mushuukyou
June 18th, 2008, 10:05 PM
hehehe
i'm 5'7" 135lbs and 47yrs old
don't be scared
i won't hurt you

Wow, hey dad.

Dr Goofy Mofo
June 18th, 2008, 10:32 PM
Congrats at sounding like an idiot by drawing an irrational judgment by referring to something completely irrelevant.

Not irrelevant at all you can not come up with any thing better so you call some one an idiot reflecting poorly on you and not us. I think most people here understand where I was coming from so you fail.


Oh 6' 215lbs and martial arts... big woop... who cares?

Mushuukyou
June 18th, 2008, 10:56 PM
Not irrelevant at all you can not come up with any thing better so you call some one an idiot reflecting poorly on you and not us. I think most people here understand where I was coming from so you fail.

Just because you get your panties in a wad when I react to someone else's sarcastic comment to me with an insult (justifiable), doesn't mean that I had no content in any of my posts. That's just plain ridiculous, and you should be ashamed of yourself for sounding like a completely irrational bib-wearing, drooling retard. And no, you can only speak for yourself. Oh wait, I'm having a vision... most people think you're a bib-wearing drooler.

Dr Goofy Mofo
June 19th, 2008, 02:57 AM
You have content but adding shit like that makes you sound like like a child. I am done with trying to argue with a intelligent 4 year old.

bouchie
June 19th, 2008, 03:26 AM
It takes usually a mixture of both. If you did it right, the shame they would feel would be their own. You don't need to make it worse by adding to it. Let them have some dignity.

Well, how many people do you come across that de-convert and go back?
That's kind of a stupid thing to ask. It happens bud. And no, it's not stupid to ask, it's a valid question.

That's the goal! Without adding any shame, ya twit.

Really? All the people I've helped are still quite good friends with me, and are still atheists. Go figure? So...not a lot of friends then. Do they have self-esteem issues? Or do they realize that they can benefit from your size, in terms of protection?

Congrats, you sounded like an idiot. :) You seem to hear a lot of idiots. Is it us...or is it an echo?

Btw, in martial arts, size don't matter. A little bit of speed, some improved technique...and great mind-fucking guarantee victory.

Fuck with their heads before you fuck up their bodies.

Let me guess...mixed martial arts? Or just competitve in general?

Tsar Phalanxia
June 19th, 2008, 09:10 AM
I am done with trying to argue with a intelligent 4 year old.

Touhcé =/

Mushuukyou
June 19th, 2008, 01:30 PM
If you did it right, the shame they would feel would be their own. You don't need to make it worse by adding to it. Let them have some dignity.

Again, don't assume you know what works for everyone.

So...not a lot of friends then.

That made no sense.

Do they have self-esteem issues? Or do they realize that they can benefit from your size, in terms of protection?

That made even less sense, if that's possible.

You seem to hear a lot of idiots. Is it us...or is it an echo?

Oh it's just a few of you.

Btw, in martial arts, size don't matter. A little bit of speed, some improved technique...and great mind-fucking guarantee victory.

Geez, are you my teacher?

Let me guess...mixed martial arts? Or just competitve in general?

judo, tae kwon do, kung fu, and lately kickboxing.
Yummie stuff.

rzm61
June 19th, 2008, 01:34 PM
That made no sense.

------

That made even less sense, if that's possible.


How the hell did bouchies statements not make sense to you? You can't be that thick.

guccistarr
June 19th, 2008, 02:03 PM
How the hell did bouchies statements not make sense to you? You can't be that thick.

You are, my friend, not only a hugely misguided bully and cretin, who thinks and types wantonly and without a smidge of respect or inkling of care or thought for any other person on this thing other than your google-damn precious little pea self.

You are, for lack of better words, an imbecile.

[seri]

{laughing}

Lilith
June 19th, 2008, 02:14 PM
How the hell did bouchies statements not make sense to you? You can't be that thick.

I have to agree, I fail to see the logic here, either. I think bouchie's argument makes total sense:
There aren't much people who convert purely out of embarrassment and stay truly that way. So, logically, Mushinronjya can't have much friends (maybe fake ones, who fear to tell him their true opinions! If you scare people, you can never be sure, if they lie to you or not!).
He even said that people keep away from him, so how can he make friends then? It doesn't look like he made many virtual ones, either :D

Oh, I wanted to keep my mouth shut... I just couldn't :\

tagnostic
June 19th, 2008, 02:16 PM
Wow, hey dad.

could be,
what was your mom's name?

rzm61
June 19th, 2008, 02:16 PM
You are, my friend, not only a hugely misguided bully and cretin, who thinks and types wantonly and without a smidge of respect or inkling of care or thought for any other person on this thing other than your google-damn precious little pea self.

You are, for lack of better words, an imbecile.

[seri]

{laughing}

Are you done yet?
You're boring me.

Lilith
June 19th, 2008, 02:17 PM
could be,
what was your mom's name?

:icon_lol:
Touché!

Mushuukyou
June 19th, 2008, 03:45 PM
I have to agree, I fail to see the logic here, either. I think bouchie's argument makes total sense:
There aren't much people who convert purely out of embarrassment and stay truly that way.

Again, you, like others, don't adequately assess the situation. You use the word "purely", which assumes that all one does is try to make fun of their imaginary friends. I toss in every tactic around, and it works great.

So, logically, Mushinronjya can't have much friends (maybe fake ones, who fear to tell him their true opinions! If you scare people, you can never be sure, if they lie to you or not!).

Again, this makes no sense. What does attempting to de-convert someone have to do with not having other friends? :icon_eek: You really need to think before you respond.

He even said that people keep away from him, so how can he make friends then? It doesn't look like he made many virtual ones, either :D

Now you're changing the context of how I said that.
If you were trying to be funny, you failed.
If you weren't, you're an idiot.

Oh, I wanted to keep my mouth shut... I just couldn't :\

I think it would have been better for you if you did.

bouchie
June 19th, 2008, 03:58 PM
Again, don't assume you know what works for everyone. Okay fair enough. I still smell something rotten though and it ain't in Denmark.



That made no sense.



That made even less sense, if that's possible. Then you're not thinking about it...or possibly don't want to admit it.

Oh it's just a few of you. :icon_rolleyes: Moving on...

Geez, are you my teacher? I've been in martial arts for 10 years now and have a flair for teaching. So...it's possible.

judo, tae kwon do, kung fu, and lately kickboxing.
Yummie stuff. aiki jujitsu, haidong gumdo, muay thai and lately capoeira. I've taken seminars for other styles as well and have taught self-defense classes.

There's my MA resume :D

sudikics
June 19th, 2008, 04:02 PM
I am done with trying to argue with a intelligent 4 year old.
Just because you get your panties in a wad when I react to someone else's sarcastic comment to me with an insult (justifiable), doesn't mean that I had no content in any of my posts. That's just plain ridiculous, and you should be ashamed of yourself for sounding like a completely irrational bib-wearing, drooling retard. And no, you can only speak for yourself. Oh wait, I'm having a vision... most people think you're a bib-wearing drooler.
Wow, hey dad.
Cry me a river.
Learn to make full sentences and eventually a paragraph, you idiot.
none of what you said was 'a point'
it was ego masturbation
by a socially retarded
dweeb

Congrats at sounding like an idiot
Congrats, you sounded like an idiot.
Congrats at failing at Debate 101 by reverting to childish names
I find it blatently ironic that this shitfest is going on in a thread on respect.

rzm61
June 19th, 2008, 04:12 PM
I find it blatently ironic that this shitfest is going on in a thread on respect.

Ha ha.
You're absolutely right.

Perna de Pau
June 19th, 2008, 04:39 PM
I find it blatently ironic that this shitfest is going on in a thread on respect.

This thread took-off nicely and some good points were made by many. It would be a pity to spoil it. :(

Please refrain from insulting each other. As already pointed out this is also about respect. :icon_rolleyes:

bouchie
June 19th, 2008, 05:07 PM
I find it blatently ironic that this shitfest is going on in a thread on respect. Nicely done. And point taken.

Mushuukyou
June 19th, 2008, 05:11 PM
I find it blatently ironic that this shitfest is going on in a thread on respect.

uh DoNn'T uNDerrrStaNnD?

Lilith
June 19th, 2008, 05:20 PM
Again, you, like others, don't adequately assess the situation. You use the word "purely", which assumes that all one does is try to make fun of their imaginary friends. I toss in every tactic around, and it works great.
Sweetheart, English is not my primary language, so as long as you write better in any foreign language than I do in English, please don't try to interpret my choice of vocabulary!
It might be that I didn't understand correctly what you meant, but if so, please make yourself clear instead calling people idiots (like before).
As far as I understood your posts (again, could have been a misundertsanding) you claimed, that people who believe something which seems impossible for you, should be making fun of.
If someone believes that black cats bring bad luck or fairies don't exist, then I might smile inside, but why should I point my finger and laugh about them in public? As long as he/she doesn't try to convert me or others with his/her superstition, I'm fine with it.
But don't get me wrong, I hate people who try to force their believes on others or their kids! That's wrong and doesn't deserve respect!
But to convert people you have to be more clever than just making fun about them.
That's what I meant.



Again, this makes no sense. What does attempting to de-convert someone have to do with not having other friends? :icon_eek: You really need to think before you respond.
You said yourself, that all your friends you de-converted never returned. So read your own posts, before calling others stupid :D

And please stop with all this "This makes no sense" towards every post! You make yourself sound pathetic. Try to explain or ask, that would make more sense ;)


Now you're changing the context of how I said that.
If you were trying to be funny, you failed.
If you weren't, you're an idiot.
That's what I meant with not being very good in making friends ;P
If you don't understand other's posts, who's the idiot?


I think it would have been better for you if you did.
Maybe, but now you ruined it :(

rzm61
June 19th, 2008, 05:53 PM
uh DoNn'T uNDerrrStaNnD?

ThIs DoEs NoT sUrPrIsE mE.

bouchie
June 19th, 2008, 06:28 PM
Returning to the original point of the thread.

I think the main reason why religious people try to convert others is because they have a lack of self-respect. Loving and respecting the self are ideas that religious people (especially in the Christian faith) frown upon. They tend to confuse it with self-indulgence and other sins. What I find most interesting in Chrisitianity, however, is that one of the important tenants is to love your neighbor as much as you love yourself. So, if they have no self-respect, how can they respect others? How can they even love others of they have no real love for themselves?

It's almost as if God is the one that loans them the respect and love. So, if that's the case, when you claim God is dead or their God is not the real god, their line of credit suddenly dries up. And when you're broke, you do stupid shit to get some credit back. That's when the fear, anger and violence start kicking in.

Perhaps, then, it's not a change of belief that we should be focused on, but a change of heart. If they can love and respect themselves, they can share that with others. And the best way to convince them of that is to live it.

It's not easy...but I'm convinced that nothing worth doing is easy. At the same time, everything worth doing is do-able.

rzm61
June 19th, 2008, 06:54 PM
I think the main reason why religious people try to convert others is because they have a lack of self-respect.

Actually, from what I remember...the reason why they try to convert people is because they believe that is what they are supposed to do on this earth. Spread the "word of god" and convert as many people as they can.

bouchie
June 19th, 2008, 06:59 PM
Actually, from what I remember...the reason why they try to convert people is because they believe that is what they are supposed to do on this earth. Spread the "word of god" and convert as many people as they can. Probably inspired by the reasons I mentioned above. Or a power mechanism. If everybody belives in the same thing, it's much easier to get things done.

rzm61
June 19th, 2008, 07:01 PM
Probably inspired by the reasons I mentioned above. Or a power mechanism. If everybody belives in the same thing, it's much easier to get things done.

Yeah, terribly sorry. I didn't read your whole post. I just wanted to comment on that portion of it. But yeah, you're right. If everyone believed in the same thing or thought alike more shit would get done because everyone would be on a consensus.

bouchie
June 19th, 2008, 07:04 PM
Yeah, terribly sorry. I didn't read your whole post. I just wanted to comment on that portion of it. But yeah, you're right. If everyone believed in the same thing or thought alike more shit would get done because everyone would be on a consensus. And that would make things very, very dull. Though I may find the pace of change too fast these days, no change would be far worse.

rzm61
June 19th, 2008, 07:05 PM
no change would be far worse.

You're right. Cause then how would you be able to pay with exact change, so you don't have to break that ten dollar bill in your wallet?

:icon_lol:

bouchie
June 19th, 2008, 07:19 PM
You're right. Cause then how would you be able to pay with exact change, so you don't have to break that ten dollar bill in your wallet?

:icon_lol:

Oy...:icon_rolleyes:

The italians have an expression for this situation:

cinquantacinque.

55

Five fingers across the face, front and back.

slap! slap!

Mushuukyou
June 19th, 2008, 07:25 PM
Sweetheart, English is not my primary language, so as long as you write better in any foreign language than I do in English, please don't try to interpret my choice of vocabulary!

Trying to use the "not my primary language" when you refer to an incorrect usage to a word, when your writing in general is nearly as good as many Americans, is a hard pill to swallow. I'm sorry. I'm going to have to deny you on this one.

It might be that I didn't understand correctly what you meant, but if so, please make yourself clear instead calling people idiots (like before).

I call it as I see it.

As far as I understood your posts (again, could have been a misundertsanding) you claimed, that people who believe something which seems impossible for you, should be making fun of.

If it's not logical, not rational.. if there is no evidence in support, and someone is running around, claiming a truth off this bullshit, you're damn right I'm gonna call them out, as we all should. Some people will say it some ways, others will do it another way. My way isn't less effective, because it depends on the person.

If someone believes that black cats bring bad luck or fairies don't exist, then I might smile inside, but why should I point my finger and laugh about them in public? As long as he/she doesn't try to convert me or others with his/her superstition, I'm fine with it.

What if they are trying to get into your schools, and get your kids to believe in that bullshit?
What if they have opening prayers about such things, before meetings?
What if you can't be a citizen unless you profess belief in such?
What if believing in such means that it will fuck with scientific research and progress?
What if believing in such, interpreted any way you want, causes people to die and be hurt all over the world?
So, you wouldn't think the world would be better off without these beliefs, since they can be molested depending on how they are interpreted?
Oh, but if you have a sure-fire way of ending the "harmful translations", I would love to hear it.. if not, then isn't the only feasible way to handle this is to educate such a bs belief out of society? How can we simple fence-sit and allow even moderates to continue un-challenged?

But don't get me wrong, I hate people who try to force their believes on others or their kids! That's wrong and doesn't deserve respect!
But to convert people you have to be more clever than just making fun about them.
That's what I meant.

Well, I look at the broader picture. Always have.

You said yourself, that all your friends you de-converted never returned. So read your own posts, before calling others stupid :D

Right, never returned to the belief.
How the fuck someone got "not many friends" from that, doesn't make any sense.

And please stop with all this "This makes no sense" towards every post! You make yourself sound pathetic. Try to explain or ask, that would make more sense ;)

Listen Einstein, if it doesn't make sense, I will state it.
Just like above I said it doesn't make sense, because it doesn't.
How the fuck one got "no friends" from what I said above MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE! Not because I can't comprehend the words said, but there is no good relationship between what the person concluded and what I said.

That's what I meant with not being very good in making friends ;P
If you don't understand other's posts, who's the idiot?

The idiot is the one making the stupid comments (not myself).

bouchie
June 19th, 2008, 07:44 PM
Trying to use the "not my primary language" when you refer to an incorrect usage to a word, when your writing in general is nearly as good as many Americans, is a hard pill to swallow. I'm sorry. I'm going to have to deny you on this one. Wow, now you just showed that you're a self-centered asshole. If it's not a primary language, even if the writing is good, there are always words that the persona may not comprehend, either because they've never come across it before or they do not understand the cultural context of it/double-meanings of it.

And next-time, say English-speaking, not American. You're not the only people out there.

I call it as I see it. You called it wrong.

What if they are trying to get into your schools, and get your kids to believe in that bullshit?
What if they have opening prayers about such things, before meetings?
What if you can't be a citizen unless you profess belief in such?
What if believing in such means that it will fuck with scientific research and progress?
What if believing in such, interpreted any way you want, causes people to die and be hurt all over the world?
So, you wouldn't think the world would be better off without these beliefs, since they can be molested depending on how they are interpreted?
Oh, but if you have a sure-fire way of ending the "harmful translations", I would love to hear it.. if not, then isn't the only feasible way to handle this is to educate such a bs belief out of society? How can we simple fence-sit and allow even moderates to continue un-challenged? I agree with your principles. They are admirable. I disagree with your methods and general attitudes. They are coming close to despicable.

Well, I look at the broader picture. Always have. Focused on the color of a person; not accepting someone else may be using a second language - so far, the picture you're painting is pretty small.

Right, never returned to the belief.
How the fuck someone got "not many friends" from that, doesn't make any sense. The way you've been treating us leads us to that conclusion. So far, no evidence to the contrary has been provided. You've acted more like a bully than an educated atheist.

Listen Einstein, if it doesn't make sense, I will state it.
Just like above I said it doesn't make sense, because it doesn't.
How the fuck one got "no friends" from what I said above MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE! Not because I can't comprehend the words said, but there is no good relationship between what the person concluded and what I said. Oh, the relationship is pretty sound - you're just not willing to look for it.

The idiot is the one making the stupid comments (not myself). You sure about that?

rzm61
June 19th, 2008, 07:46 PM
Oy...:icon_rolleyes:

The italians have an expression for this situation:

cinquantacinque.

55

Five fingers across the face, front and back.

slap! slap!


:icon_mad:

:icon_cry:

You're so cruel sometimes. ;)

Mushuukyou
June 19th, 2008, 08:31 PM
Wow, now you just showed that you're a self-centered asshole. If it's not a primary language, even if the writing is good, there are always words that the persona may not comprehend, either because they've never come across it before or they do not understand the cultural context of it/double-meanings of it.

Then he should be prepared to be corrected.
No big deal on that.

I agree with your principles. They are admirable. I disagree with your methods and general attitudes. They are coming close to despicable.

Cry me a river.

Focused on the color of a person; not accepting someone else may be using a second language - so far, the picture you're painting is pretty small.

Your analogy blows me hard.

The way you've been treating us leads us to that conclusion. So far, no evidence to the contrary has been provided. You've acted more like a bully than an educated atheist.

Now you're changing the reasoning for the judgment again.
Which is it, something I've said specifically, or how I've said anything, now?

And maybe I'm BOTH a bully AND an educated atheist - ever consider that?!

I might lack a little.. fluffiness.. my bad there.
I don't expect you to like me. This isn't Carebear land. I don't need a carebear family.

Oh, the relationship is pretty sound - you're just not willing to look for it.

Nope, doesn't exist.

You sure about that?

Damn sure, son.

Tsar Phalanxia
June 19th, 2008, 09:21 PM
Right, I'm joining the shit fest, purely because you deserve it so much.
Trying to use the "not my primary language" when you refer to an incorrect usage to a word, when your writing in general is nearly as good as many Americans, is a hard pill to swallow. I'm sorry. I'm going to have to deny you on this one.


I speak German pretty decently. Do I know the exact meaning, and all the hidden synonyms of all the words in the whole language? No, I don't and I'm sure there's words in English you don't know the definition of.
Btw, not everyone on the internet is a Yankee :icon_rolleyes:


I call it as I see it.


Admitting that you are an asshole makes you no less of an asshole; you do realise that, right?

As far as I understood your posts (again, could have been a misundertsanding) you claimed, that people who believe something which seems impossible for you, should be making fun of.



If it's not logical, not rational.. if there is no evidence in support, and someone is running around, claiming a truth off this bullshit, you're damn right I'm gonna call them out, as we all should. Some people will say it some ways, others will do it another way. My way isn't less effective, because it depends on the person.



The thing is, your approach is EXACTLY the same approach that people have used to justify prejudice, conquest and genocide, all the way from the Crusades, through the Spanish Conquest of the Americas, up to Nazi Germany. They all said "I'm right, and I've got proof, here's my Bible/Koran/Mein Kampf" You just have a copy of the God Delusion instead.



What if they are trying to get into your schools, and get your kids to believe in that bullshit?
What if they have opening prayers about such things, before meetings?
What if you can't be a citizen unless you profess belief in such?
What if believing in such means that it will fuck with scientific research and progress?
What if believing in such, interpreted any way you want, causes people to die and be hurt all over the world?
So, you wouldn't think the world would be better off without these beliefs, since they can be molested depending on how they are interpreted?
Oh, but if you have a sure-fire way of ending the "harmful translations", I would love to hear it.. if not, then isn't the only feasible way to handle this is to educate such a bs belief out of society? How can we simple fence-sit and allow even moderates to continue un-challenged?

I agree with the first three. The fourth one is ambigious and the last one is a misquote. The moral codes of religion have inspired people to do selfless things to themselves at personal cost to the greater benefit of hundreds, thousands, even millions of people.I've said it once, I'll say it again:
"RELIGION IS A FRONT, NOT THE FRONT"
People use religion to justify their actions, no the other way round.


But don't get me wrong, I hate people who try to force their believes on others or their kids! That's wrong and doesn't deserve respect!
But to convert people you have to be more clever than just making fun about them.
That's what I meant.


Well, I look at the broader picture. Always have.


What the hell is that supposed to mean? You say something nonsensical, we say try to understand it and reply and then you say "That makes no sense!" and avoid the need to make an actual point. That's hardly a way to win a shitfest, let alone a debate.

You said yourself, that all your friends you de-converted never returned. So read your own posts, before calling others stupid


Right, never returned to the belief.
How the fuck someone got "not many friends" from that, doesn't make any sense.

Again, point proven. You completely avoided what Lillith was talking about.

Listen Einstein, if it doesn't make sense, I will state it.
Just like above I said it doesn't make sense, because it doesn't.
How the fuck one got "no friends" from what I said above MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE! Not because I can't comprehend the words said, but there is no good relationship between what the person concluded and what I said.

I.E.
"I realise that you are making points that I can't counter, so I'm just going to use my tactic to make sure you never address what I'm talking about, and I win the argument by default."

That's what I meant with not being very good in making friends ;P
If you don't understand other's posts, who's the idiot?

The idiot is the one making the stupid comments (not myself).

Really? Because some of the stuff you've said does look quite stupid when you analyse it.

Wow, now you just showed that you're a self-centered asshole. If it's not a primary language, even if the writing is good, there are always words that the persona may not comprehend, either because they've never come across it before or they do not understand the cultural context of it/double-meanings of it.

Then he should be prepared to be corrected.
No big deal on that.


She was though. That's the point!

I agree with your principles. They are admirable. I disagree with your methods and general attitudes. They are coming close to despicable.

Cry me a river.

That is typical. Are you going to ask why the person feels like that? Are you going to wonder what principles they are talking about? Are you going to question your methods?
No, you simply resort to a pathetic sarcastic comment. Well done, I'm sure you've won many a debate using extreme sarcasm.

Focused on the color of a person; not accepting someone else may be using a second language - so far, the picture you're painting is pretty small.



He will just be corrected, that's all.
I'm sure Lillith was perfectly willing to be corrected. You, on the other hand are not able to take the slightest criticism.

The way you've been treating us leads us to that conclusion. So far, no evidence to the contrary has been provided. You've acted more like a bully than an educated atheist.


Now you're changing the reasoning for the judgment again.
Which is it, something I've said, or how I've said now?

Hmm...YES.


People that posit imaginary friends should always be made fun of.
I'm sure you would have gone up to Gandhi/MLK/JFK and laughed in their faces. You would have insulted them until tears streamed down their faces. Yeah, that sounds like you.

I might lack a little.. fluffiness.. my bad there.
I don't expect you to like me. This isn't Carebear land. I don't need a carebear family.

There is a distinct difference between "Fluffiness" and "Respect". But I'm sure you already know that, due to your total understanding of the English Language :icon_rolleyes:

The idiot is the one making the stupid comments (not myself).


You sure about that?

Damn sure, son.
Would you say it is the same level of conviction that Osama bin Laden has?

rzm61
June 19th, 2008, 09:24 PM
You know, Mushinronjya reminds me a bit of Tiggum and jlar. :icon_lol:

I like where this thread was, has been and is going. :D

Tsar Phalanxia
June 19th, 2008, 09:29 PM
We're on a one way trip to Shitfest, USA!

sudikics
June 19th, 2008, 09:31 PM
ATTENTION ALL MEMBERS OF THE SHITFEST (THAT INCLUDES YOU, Mushinronjya):

Please watch this video (http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103800) and its sequel (http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103801) before continuing your shitfest.

Thank you.

Tsar Phalanxia
June 19th, 2008, 09:33 PM
http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/notavailable/index.php?country_code=GB
D:

sudikics
June 19th, 2008, 09:36 PM
Uh, what? Is it registering your IP address? That's weird....

Sister Faith
June 19th, 2008, 09:37 PM
ATTENTION ALL MEMBERS OF THE SHITFEST (THAT INCLUDES YOU, Mushinronjya):

Please watch this video (http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103800) and its sequel (http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103801) before continuing your shitfest.

Thank you.


:icon_question: Sorry Sci. What are we supposed to watch? I get 'we apologize blah, blah...' and then they redirect me to the comedy site for Canada.

tagnostic
June 19th, 2008, 09:38 PM
worked fine for me
:icon_confused:

rzm61
June 19th, 2008, 09:38 PM
It's South Park.

About Evolution, and possibly the Atheist furture?
I know I've seen this one, and I think that's what goes down.

Tsar Phalanxia
June 19th, 2008, 09:39 PM
:icon_question: Sorry Sci. What are we supposed to watch? I get 'we apologize blah, blah...' and then they redirect me to the comedy site for Canada.

Touché. I don't even get redirected =-{D

rzm61
June 19th, 2008, 09:40 PM
Heh, I love how "mrs" Garrison shit's in it's hand and flings it at the athiest.

Mushuukyou
June 19th, 2008, 09:43 PM
I speak German pretty decently. Do I know the exact meaning, and all the hidden synonyms of all the words in the whole language? No,

Ok, well, if you don't know them, and you use them incorrectly, thinking you know the meaning of them, and someone who you're debating with sees a problem with how you're using them, then you will most likely be corrected. This is not a fault of the person who corrected you. It's your fault for not knowing the meaning. It's not the person's responsibility you're holding a discussion with to know what you do or do not know about the vocabulary you're using.

In any case, it's pretty obvious to me that the man understood the word "purely". He used it, in that instance, to exaggerate. Many people do this, to make their argument sound "better". Then, when I called him out on it, oh.. well what do you know, let's just say English isn't my first language so I can attempt to recover. Yea whatever, buddy.

Admitting that you are an asshole makes you no less of an asshole; you do realise that, right?

I'm sorry, are we in carebear land? No? Well then so what?

The thing is, your approach is EXACTLY the same approach that people have used to justify prejudice, conquest and genocide, all the way from the Crusades, through the Spanish Conquest of the Americas, up to Nazi Germany. They all said "I'm right, and I've got proof, here's my Bible/Koran/Mein Kampf" You just have a copy of the God Delusion instead.

I don't support harming others physically.
Just making them look foolish if reason doesn't work.
So please, you know what to do with your false analogies.

People use religion to justify their actions, no the other way round.

It's also used as a motivator to do great evil.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

He said he doesn't have a problem with people as long as they don't push it on him. He then says he doesn't like it when kids are attempted to be converted. Well, my position is such that there is a lot more harm to be done if we don't do anything (non-violent) than just fence-sitting like he suggests.

Again, point proven. You completely avoided what Lillith was talking about.

Nope, I addressed the issue.
What the hell is wrong with you?
Can you not read? :icon_eek:

I.E.
"I realise that you are making points that I can't counter, so I'm just going to use my tactic to make sure you never address what I'm talking about, and I win the argument by default."

I don't think you really have any idea what you're talking about. I injected no obfuscation at all.

That is typical. Are you going to ask why the person feels like that? Are you going to wonder what principles they are talking about? Are you going to question your methods?
No, you simply resort to a pathetic sarcastic comment. Well done, I'm sure you've won many a debate using extreme sarcasm.

If someone doesn't like how I come across, I really don't care.
Perceptions of how someone handles themselves cannot be adequately derived from reading online chat, which is why this type of gibberish is not important.

I'm sure Lillith was perfectly willing to be corrected. You, on the other hand are not able to take the slightest criticism.

You're assuming the person needed correction.
I do not.

I'm sure you would have gone up to Gandhi/MLK/JFK and laughed in their faces. You would have insulted them until tears streamed down their faces. Yeah, that sounds like you.

You don't know me.
So how can you say it "sounds like me"?
You're not very wise at all.

There is a distinct difference between "Fluffiness" and "Respect". But I'm sure you already know that, due to your total understanding of the English Language :icon_rolleyes:

Respect is earned.

Would you say it is the same level of conviction that Osama bin Laden has?

I'm not Mr Wish-Washy where I can't assert a conclusion.
Show me where I've said something inaccurate, and I'll correct myself.
So far, all I see are character attacks... :icon_rolleyes:

Mushuukyou
June 19th, 2008, 09:45 PM
It's South Park.

About Evolution, and possibly the Athiest furture?
I know I've seen this one, and I think that's what goes down.

atheist or athiest future? I don't care much for athiesm.

Tsar Phalanxia
June 19th, 2008, 09:46 PM
It's half past 10 over here, I've got an exam tomorrow, so I'm not going to point out all the flaws in your post tonight. Tomorrow afternoon, however, I'm totally free >=]

sudikics
June 19th, 2008, 09:46 PM
Meh, you non-Yanks can't see it. Oh well.

Fine, then read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_God_Go) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_God_Go_XII). I'm sure you get Wikipedia is your primitive societies. :D

rzm61
June 19th, 2008, 09:47 PM
atheist or athiest future? I don't care much for athiesm.

Read my post again.
And even if you don't care about atheism it's still a funny episode.

Mushuukyou
June 19th, 2008, 09:48 PM
Read my post again.
And even if you don't care about atheism it's still a funny episode.

I do care about atheism.
I just don't care for athiesm.

rzm61
June 19th, 2008, 09:51 PM
I do care about atheism.
I just don't care for athiesm.

"Oh Science help us."

:icon_rolleyes:
I don't care if you just don't care for atheism. It's still a funny episode.

Mushuukyou
June 19th, 2008, 09:51 PM
It's half past 10 over here, I've got an exam tomorrow, so I'm not going to point out all the flaws in your post tonight. Tomorrow afternoon, however, I'm totally free >=]

Yea, I will show your flaws after too.

"Oh Science help us."

:icon_rolleyes:
I don't care if you just don't care for atheism. It's still a funny episode.

I'm just raggin on you because you spelled atheist wrong in the first post.
Usually theists do that.
Sorry for being anal.

Loki
June 19th, 2008, 10:37 PM
Yea, I will show your flaws after too.



I'm just raggin on you because you spelled atheist wrong in the first post.
Usually theists do that.
Sorry for being anal.

Hey there Mushy - sorry I never said hiya when you joined. I've been reading some of your posts - I'm game for a discussion :D


Name your subject :P

Perna de Pau
June 19th, 2008, 10:44 PM
Hey there Mushy - sorry I never said hiya when you joined. I've been reading some of your posts - I'm game for a discussion :D


Name your subject :P

Welcome Loki, let's try to bring this back on its rails.

So far it appears that all participants agree on the fundamentals even if there is disagreement on "attitudes" :icon_rolleyes:

Loki
June 19th, 2008, 10:52 PM
Welcome Loki, let's try to bring this back on its rails.

So far it appears that all participants agree on the fundamentals even if there is disagreement on "attitudes" :icon_rolleyes:


I think (and thank) you should be a bit more explicit :D

(i.e. what are we discussing now? - Sorry - I'm splitting my attention in to far too many ....

Lilith
June 19th, 2008, 10:55 PM
It is amazing how some people get so agitated over a discussion at an internet forum even though they actually agree in the main part.
It seems, for Mushy it's more about who's more insulting and who has the last word.
No sensible discussions possible anymore, especially not if someone just won't accept reasonable arguments from the other side.
Just posting 'That makes no sense' (you forgot to add 'for me', btw) doesn't count as an argument. And just thinking that you are clever doesn't necessarily make you that way... sorry about that.
I rest my case. :)

P.S. the south park links worked for me, but I'm still in the US (leaving tomorrow, so save your breath, Mushy, I won't be able to read it for a while ;) ).

Lilith
June 19th, 2008, 10:56 PM
(i.e. what are we discussing now? - Sorry - I'm splitting my attention in to far too many ....

Basically who has the last word :D

Loki
June 19th, 2008, 11:11 PM
Basically who has the last word :D

Introducing Lilith :D

Don't hate her for this but she's a friend of mine:icon_eek:

I've known her for a little while now - she has a rather direct attitude ...

Mushuukyou
June 19th, 2008, 11:44 PM
It is amazing how some people get so agitated over a discussion at an internet forum even though they actually agree in the main part.
It seems, for Mushy it's more about who's more insulting and who has the last word.

I'm only insulting to those that request me to be, however implicit that request may be.

Just posting 'That makes no sense' (you forgot to add 'for me', btw) doesn't count as an argument.

It's pretty obvious to me why someone isn't making any sense in a post. When I say it, I expect any and all to obviously figure out why. For those that said they didn't get why, I have spelled it out for them (like that one instance where someone said that I have few friends, and referring to a post about friends in another context). I simply said: "that makes no sense", since one could not extrapolate the conclusion from the information given in any slightly reasonable fashion. So from there, future people have attempted to suggest that it's not from what I said specifically, but because I haven't made too many people in this forum feel fluffy. Well whatever the case, I back up what I say when challenged, even if I neglect to do so at first due to me thinking I'm speaking with those that are paying attention.

P.S. the south park links worked for me, but I'm still in the US (leaving tomorrow, so save your breath, Mushy, I won't be able to read it for a while ;) ).

Hey bro, I'm here.
Er, correction hey girl, I'm here.

Dr Goofy Mofo
June 20th, 2008, 03:21 AM
Now you're changing the context of how I said that.
If you were trying to be funny, you failed.
If you weren't, you're an idiot.

Again with the name calling... Why?

I find it blatently ironic that this shitfest is going on in a thread on respect.

I am sorry Daddy but he started it!

This thread took-off nicely and some good points were made by many. It would be a pity to spoil it. :(

Please refrain from insulting each other. As already pointed out this is also about respect. :icon_rolleyes:

I agree and I am sorry that I have contributed to the shit fest

uh DoNn'T uNDerrrStaNnD?

You rarely do


If you don't understand other's posts, who's the idiot?

Good post and good point

Trying to use the "not my primary language" when you refer to an incorrect usage to a word, when your writing in general is nearly as good as many Americans, is a hard pill to swallow. I'm sorry. I'm going to have to deny you on this one.

Wow another I am American so suck my nads and learn my language... Brilliant

I call it as I see it.

Like a booed ref?

Well, I look at the broader picture. Always have.

Let me guess this picture is in sports illustrated?

Listen Einstein, if it doesn't make sense, I will state it.
Just like above I said it doesn't make sense, because it doesn't.
How the fuck one got "no friends" from what I said above MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE! Not because I can't comprehend the words said, but there is no good relationship between what the person concluded and what I said.

There was but you fail to see it!

The idiot is the one making the stupid comments (not myself).

So you can make stupid comments and not be a idiot... how does that work?


And maybe I'm BOTH a bully AND an educated atheist - ever consider that?!

Well in order to consider that you would have to be educated

Right, I'm joining the shit fest, purely because you deserve it so much.



The moral codes of religion have inspired people to do selfless things to themselves at personal cost to the greater benefit of hundreds, thousands, even millions of people.I've said it once, I'll say it again:
"RELIGION IS A FRONT, NOT THE FRONT"
People use religion to justify their actions, no the other way round.




That is typical. Are you going to ask why the person feels like that? Are you going to wonder what principles they are talking about? Are you going to question your methods?
No, you simply resort to a pathetic sarcastic comment. Well done, I'm sure you've won many a debate using extreme sarcasm.


I'm sure you would have gone up to Gandhi/MLK/JFK and laughed in their faces. You would have insulted them until tears streamed down their faces. Yeah, that sounds like you.


There is a distinct difference between "Fluffiness" and "Respect". But I'm sure you already know that, due to your total understanding of the English Language :icon_rolleyes:





Would you say it is the same level of conviction that Osama bin Laden has?

Good post Tsar! and glad to see you join in... I guess *shrug*

You know, Mushinronjya reminds me a bit of Tiggum and jlar. :icon_lol:

I like where this thread was, has been and is going. :D

Hmmm and I was smack dab in the middle of jlar's too... I might be coming a shit slinger.. oh noes. Oh and yes he does.

Hey there Mushy - sorry I never said hiya when you joined. I've been reading some of your posts - I'm game for a discussion :D


Name your subject :P

Oh shit it's Loki RUN!!!!!


Well whatever the case, I back up what I say when challenged, even if I neglect to do so at first due to me thinking I'm speaking with those that are paying attention.

I have yet to see you back up anything and people here do pay attention... Jlar use to use the same tactic that people did not read his post... this my friend is a cop out.

rzm61
June 20th, 2008, 03:24 AM
I'm just raggin on you because you spelled atheist wrong in the first post.
Usually theists do that.
Sorry for being anal.

Yeah I figured so.
No need to be sorry.

GeoffBoulton
June 20th, 2008, 05:46 AM
Trying to use the "not my primary language" when you refer to an incorrect usage to a word, when your writing in general is nearly as good as many Americans, is a hard pill to swallow. I'm sorry. I'm going to have to deny you on this one.

My 'Intermediate' students generally write better English, and know far more about the rules of grammar, than the average American. That doesn't mean they have the same range of vocabulary nor that they have the same understanding of all the subtle nuances of the language.

If you are speaking with non-native English speakers it is your responsibility to ensure they have correctly and fully understood what has been said and that you have correctly interpreted what they are trying to say.

bouchie
June 20th, 2008, 02:28 PM
Your analogy blows me hard. Glad you got some pleasure out of it.


And maybe I'm BOTH a bully AND an educated atheist - ever consider that?! Yeah, I did. And now that you confirmed it, you're worse than I thought.

I might lack a little.. fluffiness.. my bad there.
I don't expect you to like me. This isn't Carebear land. I don't need a carebear family. There's a difference between being strong and firm versus being a bully. I know this isn't carebear land, but it isn't the presidency either.

sciky: I tried to stop the shitfest. rzm picked up on my post. we discussed it. It got plowed over. Cheers.

Mushuukyou
June 20th, 2008, 02:48 PM
Again with the name calling... Why?

Sarcasm is a form of insulting. If it wasn't used, I wouldn't insult. Simple.

I agree and I am sorry that I have contributed to the shit fest

Highly unlikely. You're just trying to gain kudos within the community by spewing this sorry line.

You rarely do

Another stupid thing to say.

Wow another I am American so suck my nads and learn my language... Brilliant

Comment out of context.
You're an idiot.
If someone is talking to me in English, and they use a word incorrect, I correct them. The argument is not that I corrected them, it's that I don't think they really needed correction. It was just an excuse to play off the intentional yet irrational application of a word they used.

My 'Intermediate' students generally write better English, and know far more about the rules of grammar, than the average American. That doesn't mean they have the same range of vocabulary nor that they have the same understanding of all the subtle nuances of the language.

That's fine, they will just be corrected.
However, I wouldn't believe him necessarily when he said he didn't mean to use the word "purely", based on ignorance. I think it's obvious he did.

If you are speaking with non-native English speakers it is your responsibility to ensure they have correctly and fully understood what has been said and that you have correctly interpreted what they are trying to say.

Sorry, we're online. Not my responsibility. I can't see anyone.
And if he spoke as well as he is, even if he is foreign, I would still correct him... and would still believe he meant to say what he said, in the context of how he used it.

sudikics
June 20th, 2008, 03:15 PM
HEY GUYS!

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/internet_argument.png

Dr Goofy Mofo
June 20th, 2008, 03:17 PM
Sarcasm is a form of insulting. If it wasn't used, I wouldn't insult. Simple.



Highly unlikely. You're just trying to gain kudos within the community by spewing this sorry line.


Comment out of context.
You're an idiot.
If someone is talking to me in English, and they use a word incorrect, I correct them. The argument is not that I corrected them, it's that I don't think they really needed correction. It was just an excuse to play off the intentional yet irrational application of a word they used.

Calling someone and idiot is not sarcasm it is just showing ones insecurities.

I have all the kudos I need and could care less what the community thinks.

I know it was out of context but it had to much truth in to pass up. Again you call me names... You never learn... I can no longer try to deal with such a child I am done with this!

Mushuukyou
June 20th, 2008, 03:27 PM
Calling someone and idiot is not sarcasm it is just showing ones insecurities.

The same can be said about the sarcasm.
If you think you can scold someone about an insult, and not sarcasm, then you're seriously confused.

By the way, I never said insulting was a form of sarcasm, per say. I said sarcasm was a form of insulting.

I know it was out of context but it had to much truth in to pass up. Again you call me names... You never learn... I can no longer try to deal with such a child I am done with this!

Some of you use sarcasm, you never learn.
I can no longer deal with such a child that uses sarcasm and can't take an insult in response to his childish sarcasm.

"He called me names!! All I did was be very sarcastic! That's acceptable, and name calling isn't!! I'm so hurt! Mommmiiieeeeeee!"

Dr Goofy Mofo
June 20th, 2008, 03:35 PM
Some of you use sarcasm, you never learn.
I can no longer deal with such a child that uses sarcasm and can't take an insult in response to his childish sarcasm.

Doh.

Calling someone and Idiot is not sarcasm it is just being mean and nothing more. :icon_rolleyes: It takes no intelligence to call someone idiot... as I said before I am done!

rzm61
June 20th, 2008, 03:37 PM
and could care less what the community thinks.


But that does mean you care about what the community thinks. ;)

Mushuukyou
June 20th, 2008, 03:41 PM
Calling someone and Idiot is not sarcasm it is just being mean and nothing more. :icon_rolleyes: It takes no intelligence to call someone idiot... as I said before I am done!

What does it matter what you feel "takes more intelligence" or not?
Is it acceptable to attack someone, as long as you do it in a "somewhat witty way"? But doesn't it spur just as much emotion, if not more, than a simple insult? What kind of morality are you spewing forth when you assert: "It's ok for me to piss you off with sarcasm, as long as I don't use an insult". What kind of bullshit is that? You need to get your head examined. You don't think sarcasm is "being mean"? So it's ok if the attack is "mean", as long as it's "something more" as well? What the fuck planet are you from? My gosh boy.

bouchie
June 20th, 2008, 03:45 PM
sciky: Love the comic bud. But I think, instead of going over mountains, it will go over people's heads. :\

Dr Goofy Mofo
June 20th, 2008, 03:57 PM
What does it matter what you feel "takes more intelligence" or not?
Is it acceptable to attack someone, as long as you do it in a "somewhat witty way"? But doesn't it spur just as much emotion, if not more, than a simple insult? What kind of morality are you spewing forth when you assert: "It's ok for me to piss you off with sarcasm, as long as I don't use an insult". What kind of bullshit is that? You need to get your head examined. You don't think sarcasm is "being mean"? So it's ok if the attack is "mean", as long as it's "something more" as well? What the fuck planet are you from? My gosh boy.

Sarcasm attack is being intelligent and mean which is accepting in a debate but name calling... well that is all it is nothing more. I love how a community College grad is trying to school a 4 year grad, a Senior in Engineering, a child prodigy... and I do not know what Lilith does! The 2 guys who have posted on this that have even higher educations, are not being attacked and they agreed with you... hmmm I wonder why? Maybe it is because they were not calling people names, and did not attack anyone... They made a clear and concise point and showing their views and understanding others. That is what is suppose to happen but your to stuck in I am right and fuck everyone else to see this.

I am done!

bouchie
June 20th, 2008, 04:10 PM
I think this article (http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutreligion/p/RespectReligion.htm) goes back to Perna's original point, plus raises some interesting new ones.

These two passages are of particular interest:

1)
Respect and tolerance are not synonyms; tolerance is a very minimalist attitude whereas respect involves something more active and positive. You can think very negatively about something you tolerate, but there is something contradictory about thinking very negatively about the exact same thing you are also respecting. Thus, at the very least, respect requires that one have have positive thoughts, impressions, or emotions when it comes to the religion in question. This isn’t always reasonable.

2)
Just because a belief is immoral or stupid doesn’t mean that there is no right to believe it. Belief may be unwise or irrational, but a right to belief must cover such beliefs if it’s to have any meaning at all. Therefore, a person’s right to believe things and to hold their religious beliefs must be respected. Having a right to a belief, however, is not the same as having a right to not hear criticism of that belief. The right to criticize has the same basis as the right to believe.

Mushuukyou
June 20th, 2008, 04:28 PM
Sarcasm attack is being intelligent and mean which is accepting in a debate but name calling... well that is all it is nothing more. I love how a community College grad is trying to school a 4 year grad, a Senior in Engineering, a child prodigy... and I do not know what Lilith does! The 2 guys who have posted on this that have even higher educations, are not being attacked and they agreed with you... hmmm I wonder why? Maybe it is because they were not calling people names, and did not attack anyone... They made a clear and concise point and showing their views and understanding others. That is what is suppose to happen but your to stuck in I am right and fuck everyone else to see this.

I am done!

Yea, you said you were done a few times already.
Sorry, no, it is not acceptable to be sarcastic and think that it will avoid insults. If you try to piss someone off, it doesn't matter how you go about doing that.

By the way, don't assume that you know my education level. It has little to no bearing, at least in the context you used, which was very limited.

Yes, if those people did not attack anyone with insults or sarcasm, then that would explain why they were treated as they were. Perhaps you should take lessons from that.

Mushuukyou
June 20th, 2008, 04:39 PM
I think this article (http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutreligion/p/RespectReligion.htm) goes back to Perna's original point, plus raises some interesting new ones.

These two passages are of particular interest:

1)


2)

You respect people's right to believe, insofar as you won't beat the crap out of them. But criticism of fallacious beliefs is necessary in order to fight ignorance in the world. It's a step in the process of education.

Perna de Pau
June 20th, 2008, 06:11 PM
I think this article (http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutreligion/p/RespectReligion.htm) goes back to Perna's original point, plus raises some interesting new ones.

These two passages are of particular interest:

1)


2)

Nice article which does go back to my original point.

The first passage says that you need a certain empathy to respect something and therefore you cannot be asked to respect something you consider to be foolish (such as religion). Entirely agree.

The second acknowledges the right to believe, which includes the right to believe in stupid things but not the right not to hear criticisms about one's beliefs. Again, entirely agree.

I would add that believing that you should have 10 wives or that a virgin should be sacrificed on the full moon does not give you the right to do anything unlawful. It seems pretty obvious but some do pretend that the "law of god" is mightier than the law of men.

Wallsy
June 21st, 2008, 01:51 PM
i have to disagree here
an agnostic can admit that they will never know, this is not theism.
in order too know factually that there is a "Dei" one would have to be able to comprehend one, which i personally don't see happening. It doesn't make me a wannabe theist, nor does it make me an atheist, it means i know my limitations and realize there are some things it's pointless to speculate on.

As usual, you make very little sense. Learn to speak English please. But I think you're saying that an agnostic is someone who believes that there is no god but that such can never be proven. That's actually an atheist.


IAgnosticism only has to deal with belief. You can still either believe or not in a god by using "faith" or what not. You are giving in to some peoples' usages to the word; don't do it.

You're making about as much sense as tagnostic here. A theist is someone who believes in one or more gods. An atheist is someone who doesn't. There's no room between those definitions to fit a third category. Either you do believe or you don't. Therfore agnostics must have enough belief to not be atheists, so they're theists, they just don't like to be called that.


Wallsy.

tagnostic
June 21st, 2008, 02:34 PM
As usual, you make very little sense. Learn to speak English please. But I think you're saying that an agnostic is someone who believes that there is no god but that such can never be proven. That's actually an atheist.

Wallsy.

hehehe
hey, wallsy,
wondered when you would show up.
I was getting worried about you...

Booty
June 21st, 2008, 03:19 PM
As usual, you make very little sense. Learn to speak English please. But I think you're saying that an agnostic is someone who believes that there is no god but that such can never be proven. That's actually an atheist.




You're making about as much sense as tagnostic here. A theist is someone who believes in one or more gods. An atheist is someone who doesn't. There's no room between those definitions to fit a third category. Either you do believe or you don't. Therfore agnostics must have enough belief to not be atheists, so they're theists, they just don't like to be called that.


Wallsy.


No - an atheist is someone who says categorically "there is no god"
an agnostic says "I think there is not enough proof one way or another to decide, so therefore until further evidence comes to light I will sit on this rather fine fence, thank you very much" - a theist says "there is a god" and then goes on to tell you why you will burn in hell for eternity ;) :D

White, black and grey - seems perfectly reasonable to me - we are complex organisms (well, we like to think we are!)- there is enough space for infinite definitions of everything.

GeoffBoulton
June 21st, 2008, 08:18 PM
No - an atheist is someone who says categorically "there is no god"
an agnostic says "I think there is not enough proof one way or another to decide, so therefore until further evidence comes to light I will sit on this rather fine fence, thank you very much" - a theist says "there is a god" and then goes on to tell you why you will burn in hell for eternity ;) :D

White, black and grey - seems perfectly reasonable to me - we are complex organisms (well, we like to think we are!)- there is enough space for infinite definitions of everything.

Here we go again!

A theist is someone who believes in a God.
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a God.

Not believing in God includes all positions EXCEPT 'I believe in a God'.

All positions except 'I believe in a God' includes:

I deny the existence of any Gods
I don't deny the possibility but I don't believe in any Gods.
I don't have enough information to decide whether I believe in any Gods or not.The only difference between these is the reason WHY they don't believe, personal choice, lack of evidence or lack of information.

In any case, atheism and agnosticism are not even measures of the same thing. Theism/atheism is about belief and gnostic/agnostic is about knowledge. Comparing them makes as much sense as comparing chalk and cheese.

Booty
June 22nd, 2008, 08:25 AM
Here we go again!

A theist is someone who believes in a God.
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a God.

Not believing in God includes all positions EXCEPT 'I believe in a God'.

All positions except 'I believe in a God' includes:

I deny the existence of any Gods
I don't deny the possibility but I don't believe in any Gods.
I don't have enough information to decide whether I believe in any Gods or not.The only difference between these is the reason WHY they don't believe, personal choice, lack of evidence or lack of information.

In any case, atheism and agnosticism are not even measures of the same thing. Theism/atheism is about belief and gnostic/agnostic is about knowledge. Comparing them makes as much sense as comparing chalk and cheese.


I really don't quite see where you are getting your definitions from!
What is wrong with having an...
I believe in a god
I am not sure whether I believe in god or not (and most religious people will admit to having periods of doubt, but does that make them atheists at that moment?)
I don't believe in god
Agnostic is merely a word we have assigned to the middle ground position - language is a tool for describing things - and as such it can be used in slightly different ways to perhaps the original designers ideal - eg as a student I often used a shoe as a hammer - not what it was designed for, but it worked just fine for the job - saying that agnostic is a word for knowledge and therefore can't be used alongside a word for belief is like saying that gay is a word for happy and can't be used to describe sexual preferences!
Relax a little! Stop being so pedantic!
And on the chalk and cheese front - I said to my kids the other week "Grr - you two are like chalk and cheese!" - immediately they both pipe up "I want to be cheese!" LOL! I gave up and said one was Gorgonzola and the other was Brie!

GeoffBoulton
June 22nd, 2008, 11:46 AM
I really don't quite see where you are getting your definitions from!
What is wrong with having an...
I believe in a god
I am not sure whether I believe in god or not (and most religious people will admit to having periods of doubt, but does that make them atheists at that moment?)
I don't believe in god
Agnostic is merely a word we have assigned to the middle ground position - language is a tool for describing things - and as such it can be used in slightly different ways to perhaps the original designers ideal - eg as a student I often used a shoe as a hammer - not what it was designed for, but it worked just fine for the job - saying that agnostic is a word for knowledge and therefore can't be used alongside a word for belief is like saying that gay is a word for happy and can't be used to describe sexual preferences!
Relax a little! Stop being so pedantic!
And on the chalk and cheese front - I said to my kids the other week "Grr - you two are like chalk and cheese!" - immediately they both pipe up "I want to be cheese!" LOL! I gave up and said one was Gorgonzola and the other was Brie!

Somebody says, 'I believe in a god but I don't really know if one exists'.

Somebody else says, 'I don't believe in a god but I don't really know if one exists'

One is a theistic agnostic the other is an atheistic agnostic. So how does being an agnostic mean 'taking the middle ground between theism and atheism'? Knowledge and belief are two different concepts, they can't be compared.

Every person on the planet is an agnostic but that doesn't affect whether they are theists of atheists.

Booty
June 22nd, 2008, 12:00 PM
Somebody says, 'I believe in a god but I don't really know if one exists'.

Somebody else says, 'I don't believe in a god but I don't really know if one exists'

One is a theistic agnostic the other is an atheistic agnostic. So how does being an agnostic mean 'taking the middle ground between theism and atheism'? Knowledge and belief are two different concepts, they can't be compared.

Every person on the planet is an agnostic but that doesn't affect whether they are theists of atheists.

I think where you and I differ is that you are being very pedantic about the use of language and not taking into account what people are actually meaning when they use a word.
You are saying that people cannot be ambiguous (and even not really care that much!) about whether there is a god or not - you are using your own opinions to say what people can and can't believe, and what they can and can't use a word to mean for them - just like the people who say "you can't use gay to mean homosexual, it means happy" - well tough - people DO use it for that - language is an evolving thing - it is not possible to say "this word means such and such and will always mean that because I said so" - language means what people want it to mean - and people want agnostic to mean "undecided about god"

tagnostic
June 22nd, 2008, 12:03 PM
what about,
'because there is no proof, and it's unproveable'
'so far, it doesn't apply to me'
'i really don't care'
oh, and
if you did postulate and could prove it's existance
it sucks at its job?

my version of agnostic
(works for me)
label it as you will
;)

GeoffBoulton
June 22nd, 2008, 12:44 PM
I think where you and I differ is that you are being very pedantic about the use of language and not taking into account what people are actually meaning when they use a word.
You are saying that people cannot be ambiguous (and even not really care that much!) about whether there is a god or not - you are using your own opinions to say what people can and can't believe, and what they can and can't use a word to mean for them - just like the people who say "you can't use gay to mean homosexual, it means happy" - well tough - people DO use it for that - language is an evolving thing - it is not possible to say "this word means such and such and will always mean that because I said so" - language means what people want it to mean - and people want agnostic to mean "undecided about god"

It has nothing to do with being pedantic. It is all about the way that Christians have been steadily, and successfully, trying to alter the meaning of the term athiest in order to try and 'prove' that atheism is a belief system in order to isolate a specific group of people.

I am not saying people can't be ambiguous or not really care. If people want to say 'I don't know, I'm not sure, etc. or wish to distance themselves from the, theist, implication of the negativity of atheism then they only have to say so. But that doesn't change the fact that if they don't believe, they ARE atheists whether they like it or not.

This has nothing to do with my personal opinion about what people can or can't believe it is simply using the correct meanings of words so that people can explain exactly what they do or don't believe. Using the term agnostic to mean something it doesn't on the other hand quite clearly is exactly the sort of personal interpretation that you accuse me of.

As I pointed out, it is perfectly acceptable to have an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. In fact, since there is no proof one way or the other, we are all agnostics whether we are theists or atheists. The term agnostic has no bearing on whether you believe or not.

A simple question: My mother will quite happily admit that she doesn't know for sure whether God exists or not, which makes her an agnostic. Does she believe in God, does she not believe in God or is she somewhere in between? If you cannot answer this question directly from the information I have given you, i.e. without simply guessing, then your definition of agnostic is wrong.

You are not agnostic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkEJtQJ5tz4)

-۞-
June 22nd, 2008, 01:31 PM
For me there is a material difference between a positive disbelief in God and the belief in total uncertainty about the existence of a God.

The closed world principle - that we treat things as not existing until we find evidence that they exist or may exist - should apply and we should consider agnostics as very similar to atheists. They don't believe in God.

However some agnostics believe there is conflicting and uncertain evidence and so can not be said to not believe in God but are in a genuine state of uncertainty.

I think the problem is that there is far more complexity in what people believe and trying to force everyone in to 3 categories - theist, agnostic and atheist - is always doomed to failure no matter how you divide things particularly if you decide that one of those groups is actually a subset of one of the others.

I think the resulting polarisation stiffles communication and damages the debate.

I've seen religious leaders use Geoff's argument to mean that the only options are total belief in God and pure atheism in order scare 'believers' out of exploring their beliefs by engaging in periods of uncertainty.

It's a classic straw man fallacy to accept someone is a member of a group and they paint them as holding the weakest and most ridiculous beliefs of anyone in that group.
Atheists do it as much as theists.
Not all Christians are Fundamentalist Baptist Ministers. Indeed I understand there are some Christians with IQs in the low treble figures.

sudikics
June 22nd, 2008, 01:45 PM
Here, look at this:

http://religiouscartoons.net/albums/userpics/grid.png

Wallsy
June 22nd, 2008, 02:08 PM
What is wrong with having an...
I believe in a god
I am not sure whether I believe in god or not (and most religious people will admit to having periods of doubt, but does that make them atheists at that moment?)
I don't believe in god

Because there is no such midlle ground. Either you believe in a god (or gods) or you don't. It's impossible to not know whether you believe. Do you think a god exists? If you answer "yes", you're a theist. If you answer "no", you're an atheist. If you answer "I don't know", you're an atheist, because in this case what "I don't know" really means is "No, but I accept that I may be wrong".


saying that agnostic is a word for knowledge and therefore can't be used alongside a word for belief is like saying that gay is a word for happy and can't be used to describe sexual preferences!

But that's not what anyone was saying. What we're saying is that there is no middle ground between belief and lack of belief.


I think where you and I differ is that you are being very pedantic about the use of language and not taking into account what people are actually meaning when they use a word.

Nope. We know what people mean when they say they're agnostic. They mean they're atheists.


You are saying that people cannot be ambiguous (and even not really care that much!) about whether there is a god or not

You don't have to care. It's not about how much thought you've put into it. I don't care whether a god exists or not, but I don't believe one does.


and people want agnostic to mean "undecided about god"

But the simple fact of the matter is there is no room between belief and lack of belief to squeeze in a third category. You can say agnostic, but you'll still mean atheist, because that's what atheist means.

For me there is a material difference between a positive disbelief in God and the belief in total uncertainty about the existence of a God.

Certainly. But both are covered by the term "atheist". It also covers those who are reasonably certain that there is no god but are open to evidence to the contrary.


we should consider agnostics as very similar to atheists. They don't believe in God.

Anyone who doesn't believe in any gods is, by definiton, an atheist.


I've seen religious leaders use Geoff's argument to mean that the only options are total belief in God and pure atheism in order scare 'believers' out of exploring their beliefs by engaging in periods of uncertainty.

That doesn't change the fact that you either believe a thing or you don't. You can't both believe and not believe at the same time, nor can you do neither, because there's not even a way to say that, let alone do it.


It's a classic straw man fallacy to accept someone is a member of a group and they paint them as holding the weakest and most ridiculous beliefs of anyone in that group.

Yes, but again, it doesn't change the fact that you're either a theist or an atheist and there's no other option.


Wallsy.

Booty
June 22nd, 2008, 05:16 PM
Because there is no such midlle ground. Either you believe in a god (or gods) or you don't. It's impossible to not know whether you believe. Do you think a god exists? If you answer "yes", you're a theist. If you answer "no", you're an atheist. If you answer "I don't know", you're an atheist, because in this case what "I don't know" really means is "No, but I accept that I may be wrong".




But that's not what anyone was saying. What we're saying is that there is no middle ground between belief and lack of belief.




Nope. We know what people mean when they say they're agnostic. They mean they're atheists.




You don't have to care. It's not about how much thought you've put into it. I don't care whether a god exists or not, but I don't believe one does.




But the simple fact of the matter is there is no room between belief and lack of belief to squeeze in a third category. You can say agnostic, but you'll still mean atheist, because that's what atheist means.



Certainly. But both are covered by the term "atheist". It also covers those who are reasonably certain that there is no god but are open to evidence to the contrary.




Anyone who doesn't believe in any gods is, by definiton, an atheist.




That doesn't change the fact that you either believe a thing or you don't. You can't both believe and not believe at the same time, nor can you do neither, because there's not even a way to say that, let alone do it.




Yes, but again, it doesn't change the fact that you're either a theist or an atheist and there's no other option.


Wallsy.



Codswallop - of course it is possible not to know if you believe or not - churches are full of people suffering periods of doubt - would you call them atheists? I think not.
Just like with ghosts - if you ask a lot of people they will say they don't know whether they believe in ghosts or not - samey samey.
Just because you don't think people can be undecided doesn't mean they aren't!

Mushuukyou
June 22nd, 2008, 06:07 PM
You're making about as much sense as tagnostic here.

Your failure to comprehend doesn't mean I didn't make sense.

A theist is someone who believes in one or more gods. An atheist is someone who doesn't. There's no room between those definitions to fit a third category. Either you do believe or you don't. Therfore agnostics must have enough belief to not be atheists, so they're theists, they just don't like to be called that.

Theism and atheism have to deal with belief or not.
Agnosticism has to deal with knowledge.
If you're agnostic, you must still be either theist or atheist.

Agnosticism is a position where one believes/asserts that something is unknown/unknowable.
You can think something is such, and still believing, using "faith".
You can think something is such, and therefore, according to logic, be an atheist.

Therefore, agnosticism is NOT any type of middle ground. It's an additional assertion which really doesn't have to be a truth claim.

So there it is.

GeoffBoulton
June 22nd, 2008, 08:10 PM
Codswallop - of course it is possible not to know if you believe or not - churches are full of people suffering periods of doubt - would you call them atheists? I think not.
Just like with ghosts - if you ask a lot of people they will say they don't know whether they believe in ghosts or not - samey samey.
Just because you don't think people can be undecided doesn't mean they aren't!

If you don't know if you believe then you, by definition, don't believe and you are an atheist, even if temporarily.

You didn't answer my question: My mother will quite happily admit she is an agnostic and doesn't know whether God exists. But does she believe he exists, does she believe he doesn't exist or does she believe something else?

If the meaning of agnostic is as you describe it, and relates to your belief, then you should have no problem answering the question. If you can't answer it then quite obviously agnosticism doesn't tell you anything about a person's belief and your assertion that it does is wrong.

Booty
June 22nd, 2008, 08:25 PM
If you don't know if you believe then you, by definition, don't believe and you are an atheist, even if temporarily.

You didn't answer my question: My mother will quite happily admit she is an agnostic and doesn't know whether God exists. But does she believe he exists, does she believe he doesn't exist or does she believe something else?

If the meaning of agnostic is as you describe it, and relates to your belief, then you should have no problem answering the question. If you can't answer it then quite obviously agnosticism doesn't tell you anything about a person's belief and your assertion that it does is wrong.

I am not agnostic - I am a very firm atheist.
However, I do know a lot of people who describe themselves as agnostic because they do not know if there is a god or not.
What your mother's opinions on the matter are is immaterial.
I think what this thread is telling me is that there is an "intellectual" (and I use the term loosely!) interpretation of the term and a "common" interpretation - and your saying that people cannot hold a certain belief because you say so is simply snobbery.

GeoffBoulton
June 22nd, 2008, 08:57 PM
I am not agnostic - I am a very firm atheist.
However, I do know a lot of people who describe themselves as agnostic because they do not know if there is a god or not.
What your mother's opinions on the matter are is immaterial.
I think what this thread is telling me is that there is an "intellectual" (and I use the term loosely!) interpretation of the term and a "common" interpretation - and your saying that people cannot hold a certain belief because you say so is simply snobbery.

I didn't say you were agnostic. You refers to people in general.

'I don't know and am therefore an agnostic' is perfectly correct, as we have been saying, what's your point?

It is nothing to do with 'intellectual' or not and everything to do with using the terms correctly. You can't use agnosticism to describe belief. If you could you would be able to answer the question about my mother.

Her beliefs are not irrelevent to this topic, your inability to deduce them from her 'agnosticism' shows the failure of your definition of agnosticism as having anything to do with belief.

Nobody has said people can't hold a certain belief merely that if they are going to tell us what they believe then they do so in a way that is understood by all. That means using the 'generally accepted' definition and not using 'personal' interpretations of a particular individual.

Oxford English Dictionary
atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.

deny

To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce. agnostic A. sb. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.

Perna de Pau
June 22nd, 2008, 10:36 PM
"Given the available evidence I believe that there is a god", I am therefore a theist.

"The available evidence is not enough for me to believe that there is a god", I am therefore an atheist.

"The available evidence leaves me puzzled: I don't know whether to believe whether a god exists or not", am I an agnostic?

While agreeing that there should be no middle ground between believing and not believing I can conceive that some people may go through periods of not knowing whether they believe or not. These would be, if I understood Booty correctly, agnostic phases.

In the long run however one should be able to decide between the first and the second.

Does this make any sense?

PS: interesting video Geoff, pity that they could not spell "atheist" properly :icon_lol:

GeoffBoulton
June 22nd, 2008, 11:38 PM
"Given the available evidence I believe that there is a god", I am therefore a theist.

"The available evidence is not enough for me to believe that there is a god", I am therefore an atheist.

"The available evidence leaves me puzzled: I don't know whether to believe whether a god exists or not", am I an agnostic?

While agreeing that there should be no middle ground between believing and not believing I can conceive that some people may go through periods of not knowing whether they believe or not. These would be, if I understood Booty correctly, agnostic phases.

In the long run however one should be able to decide between the first and the second.

Does this make any sense?

PS: interesting video Geoff, pity that they could not spell "atheist" properly :icon_lol:

Correct. Not knowing is agnostic. Not believing is atheism.

The problem was with Booty trying to ascribe a 'belief' value to agnosticism and implying that being an agnostic makes you some sort of a 'half-believer' in the middle ground between 'theists' and 'atheists'.

I know plenty of atheists, myself included, who get fed up with people telling them they're agnostics, because they don't know, and implying that that somehow means they aren't therefore really an atheist in the 'true' sense but are really a 'closet' believer who just doesn't know it yet.

It's twisting words to make implications about what I believe, ironically the very thing I was being accused of by pointing out the correct definitions.

They misspelt atheist? Oh no! Maybe there's another word that looks like atheist but isn't atheist that we've overlooked. ;)

Booty
June 23rd, 2008, 12:00 PM
Correct. Not knowing is agnostic. Not believing is atheism.

The problem was with Booty trying to ascribe a 'belief' value to agnosticism and implying that being an agnostic makes you some sort of a 'half-believer' in the middle ground between 'theists' and 'atheists'.

I know plenty of atheists, myself included, who get fed up with people telling them they're agnostics, because they don't know, and implying that that somehow means they aren't therefore really an atheist in the 'true' sense but are really a 'closet' believer who just doesn't know it yet.

It's twisting words to make implications about what I believe, ironically the very thing I was being accused of by pointing out the correct definitions.

They misspelt atheist? Oh no! Maybe there's another word that looks like atheist but isn't atheist that we've overlooked. ;)

But equally there are probably a lot of agnostics who get fed up with religious people telling them they are atheists, or telling them they are believers when they really are not sure!
You are saying it is not possible to not be sure - but it is! Ask around! :icon_eek:
I think your definition is *not* the most commonly used one - hence why you are fed up of people telling you you must therefore be a closet believer!
FWIW I think I would say that your Mother is neither an atheist or a believer but is unsure about whether there is a god or not - some days she thinks maybe there is, some days she thinks maybe there isn't - but I don't know your mother and haven't spoken to her - deducing how she feels about something so complex from a 2 line sentence is similar to the adoption service who asked me for a reference for my sister recently asking me to describe her personality in 3 lines! :icon_rolleyes:

Wallsy
June 23rd, 2008, 01:07 PM
Codswallop - of course it is possible not to know if you believe or not

No, it really isn't. It's possible to believe that you don't have enough evidence to reach a reliable conclusion, but you can always reach a conclusion, even if it's based on very little. Either you do believe in a god or you don't. If you believe that there's not enough evidence to conclude that there is a god, you don't believe. Belief requires a basis and if you don't believe that basis exists then you don't believe. Ut's really very simple.


churches are full of people suffering periods of doubt - would you call them atheists?

Yes, obviously. Wanting to believe is not the same as believing.


Just like with ghosts - if you ask a lot of people they will say they don't know whether they believe in ghosts or not

But that's still not an accurate statement. What they're really saying is "I don't know if sufficient evidence for the existence of ghosts exists, therefore I do not believe in them, but I'm receptive to new information."


Your failure to comprehend doesn't mean I didn't make sense.

Actually, that's exactly what it means. You didn't make sense (to me). Making sense is entirely a matter of perspective and no matter how much sense you made to yourself, I didn't understand it, therefore it made no sense to me.

When someone doesn't understand you, don't take it as an insult, just try explaining what you mean. It's much more helpful to everyone.[/QUOTE]


and your saying that people cannot hold a certain belief because you say so is simply snobbery.

It's not because we say so, it's because it's impossible. Take the followeng two questions: "Do you believe in a god?" "Do you not believe in a god?" - if you answer "No." to both of them, you've just contradicted yourself, yet you're saying that that's what agnosticism means. People who hold two contradictory beliefs are insane. Are you saying that agnostics are insane?


"The available evidence leaves me puzzled: I don't know whether to believe whether a god exists or not", am I an agnostic?

No. You just haven't stated your conclusion yet. Does the evidence convince you? If so, you're a theist. Does the evidnece fail to convince you? If so (and it seems from your statement that that is the case) then you are an atheist.


While agreeing that there should be no middle ground between believing and not believing I can conceive that some people may go through periods of not knowing whether they believe or not.

Since it's impossible to both not believe and not not believe, you must be on one side or the other. The fact that you're open to the possibility of being wrong doesn't change that.


But equally there are probably a lot of agnostics who get fed up with religious people telling them they are atheists, or telling them they are believers when they really are not sure!

Well, they should stop make absurd and impossible claims then.


You are saying it is not possible to not be sure - but it is! Ask around!

Asking people won't change reality. Two contradictory statements can't both be true.


Wallsy.

Booty
June 23rd, 2008, 04:29 PM
Asking people won't change reality. Two contradictory statements can't both be true.


Wallsy.


Goodness me you do go on!
As you can see looking around the place, whether it is impossible or not people are quite capable of believing in it - whether you want them to or not!
Illogical is pretty much a definition of the human race.

Fallen Hero
June 23rd, 2008, 05:16 PM
Agnostics are more like computers... they look at all the evidence and say: Inclonclusive, irrelavent, unrelated, illogical, thesis not supportable; Cannot prove the claim. And it can work in both directions because we really DON'T have any concept of anything supernatural and it's actual nature. Without this kind of insight any claim really is speculation.

That is how I see agnosticism.

I don't really know what camp I follow; I'm of the opinion that the existence, or lack thereof, of a diety is irrelavent to my everyday life and life on the long term. I do not know if there will be an after-life (because nothing supports there being one) so the best assumption is that there is none and to just live like one normally would. The only time that religion becomes relevant in my life is when someone else's beliefs are being shoved down my throat, and I don't care where they come from, I've been gone after by hard-line atheists and by hard-line theists about not believing what they believe, anmd my response is the same everytime: "Fuck you, I don't care. Leave me alone."

Fallen Hero
June 23rd, 2008, 05:19 PM
Seperate post for other content...

A blanket warning:

Cut the shit talking. If you have an issue with someone go call them a bitch in the IFU, not here. IFU is there for THAT reason. If you want to argue and debate go ahead; but keep it nice and friendly so the mods/admins can also be nice and friendly.

Lilith
June 23rd, 2008, 09:03 PM
Still running this thread? :icon_lol:

Here, look at this:

http://religiouscartoons.net/albums/userpics/grid.png

I personally love this one!
I always had the same problems, that there can only be an atheist or a theist, nothing in between. But actually, there is just believing, not knowing, so there can neither be an atheist, nor a theist, just agnostics who claim to know...
This graphic though makes sense to me.

GeoffBoulton
June 24th, 2008, 12:20 AM
I think I would say that your Mother is neither an atheist or a believer but is unsure about whether there is a god or not

You claimed belief could be deduced from agnosticism. I have fully explained her view on her agnosticism but you have been unable to deduce her belief from it simply because agnosticism has nothing to do with belief. She is an atheist but is quite happy to admit that we can never know for sure until we are dead. That makes her an agnostic atheist.

As for constantly being told I'm an agnostic, etc., I live in Poland where 96% of the population are Catholic. Hence the reason I am constantly on the receiving end of the theist 'interpretation'.

Toxic and atoxic. Something is either toxic or it isn't. Not knowing if something is toxic or not doesn't say anything about whether the stuff is actually poisonous or not.

Theist and atheist. Someone either believes or they don't. Not knowing if they believe tells you nothing about whether they actually believe or not. As several people have pointed out, you can be a theist agnostic or an atheist agnostic.

Just because someone who 'doesn't believe' doesn't like being included in the atheist group doesn't make any difference to the meaning of the word.

Mushuukyou
June 24th, 2008, 03:44 AM
Actually, that's exactly what it means. You didn't make sense (to me). Making sense is entirely a matter of perspective and no matter how much sense you made to yourself, I didn't understand it, therefore it made no sense to me.

I understood what he said, but in the context of me saying "that made no sense", I meant that what he said didn't relate to what he was referring to. Perhaps I could have used better wording, but you catch my drift.

Wallsy
June 24th, 2008, 01:26 PM
Goodness me you do go on!
As you can see looking around the place, whether it is impossible or not people are quite capable of believing in it - whether you want them to or not!
Illogical is pretty much a definition of the human race.

People are capable of believing in the impossible, as you clearly demonstrate. They are not, however, capable of believing in something and not believing in it simultaneously. It's like saying that a room is both pitch dark and brightly lit at the same time. It can't be. Either there's light or there's not. You can't have both.


Agnostics are more like computers... they look at all the evidence and say: Inclonclusive, irrelavent, unrelated, illogical, thesis not supportable; Cannot prove the claim. And it can work in both directions because we really DON'T have any concept of anything supernatural and it's actual nature. Without this kind of insight any claim really is speculation.

That is how I see agnosticism.

That's atheism. If you conclude that a claim is not supported then you don't believe it, and if you don't believe in a god then you are an atheist. It's that simple.


I understood what he said, but in the context of me saying "that made no sense", I meant that what he said didn't relate to what he was referring to. Perhaps I could have used better wording, but you catch my drift.

No, not at all. I have no idea what you're talking about.


Wallsy.

Mushuukyou
June 24th, 2008, 06:48 PM
No, not at all. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Ok well, it was concerning your post to me. Perhaps you didn't follow along from the beginning, which related to your post.

Booty
June 26th, 2008, 02:23 PM
You claimed belief could be deduced from agnosticism. I have fully explained her view on her agnosticism but you have been unable to deduce her belief from it simply because agnosticism has nothing to do with belief. She is an atheist but is quite happy to admit that we can never know for sure until we are dead. That makes her an agnostic atheist.

As for constantly being told I'm an agnostic, etc., I live in Poland where 96% of the population are Catholic. Hence the reason I am constantly on the receiving end of the theist 'interpretation'.

Toxic and atoxic. Something is either toxic or it isn't. Not knowing if something is toxic or not doesn't say anything about whether the stuff is actually poisonous or not.

Theist and atheist. Someone either believes or they don't. Not knowing if they believe tells you nothing about whether they actually believe or not. As several people have pointed out, you can be a theist agnostic or an atheist agnostic.

Just because someone who 'doesn't believe' doesn't like being included in the atheist group doesn't make any difference to the meaning of the word.

I claimed that the general publics opinion on what an agnostic is is different from the dictionary definition. Still do.
And how you define yourself is entirely up to the individual - as a nurse one of our most important phrases is "pain is what the patient says it is" - we cannot feel their pain - we can guess at it from experience, but their experience of it can be totally different - so we rely on what they say to give them painkillers - sometimes they lie, but sometimes they just aren't aware of another way to be - they might think it is the worst pain ever because their experience has not been of much pain - others might be so used to pain that it is quite mild - but it is not up to us to inflict our description on them - any more than it is up to you to tell people what they can and can't believe - as the White Queen says to Alice "Sometimes I believe as many as seven impossible things before breakfast"

-۞-
June 26th, 2008, 06:43 PM
"pain is what the patient says it is"

My pain is you not giving me a blowjob. Have you got anything for that nurse? :D

Lilith
June 26th, 2008, 07:06 PM
Funny where to a thread about religion and respect leads sometimes...
:icon_cool:

Tsar Phalanxia
June 26th, 2008, 07:11 PM
Blowjobs and spanking? Btw, that reminds me, I need to book a new spanking :icon_cool:

Lilith
June 26th, 2008, 07:13 PM
Blowjobs and spanking? Btw, that reminds me, I need to book a new spanking :icon_cool:

Not with those markings on your face! I would feel ridiculous ;P

Tsar Phalanxia
June 26th, 2008, 07:18 PM
Cmon! Think of it like beating a walrus to death!

Lilith
June 26th, 2008, 07:25 PM
Cmon! Think of it like beating a walrus to death!

And which part of this wouldn't look ridiculous? ;)

But for you, I guess I will make an exception...

Tsar Phalanxia
June 26th, 2008, 07:26 PM
Good. I am your most regular customer after all, save the Pope (Woops!)

Lilith
June 26th, 2008, 07:29 PM
Good. I am your most regular customer after all, save the Pope (Woops!)

Hey, you know I have professional discretion! But I have to admit, if he wouldn't pay that much...:icon_twisted:

GeoffBoulton
June 26th, 2008, 07:40 PM
save the Pope (Woops!)

Talking about saving the Pope. I thought God knows everything about you, when you will be born, when and how you will die and that everything that happens is all part of his big plan so there's not really much you can do about things.

Why then, if the Pope believes all this, does he drive around in a bullet-proof car? ;)

Tsar Phalanxia
June 26th, 2008, 07:41 PM
If God had meant for the Pope to get shot, he wouldn't have given us bulletproof glass. :icon_rolleyes:

Lilith
June 26th, 2008, 07:45 PM
Let's just say it was Satan who gave us the bullet proof glass and go on from here... :icon_twisted:

Tsar Phalanxia
June 26th, 2008, 07:47 PM
Satan is protecting the Pope? Ehh, that makes sense -.-

Dr Goofy Mofo
June 26th, 2008, 07:55 PM
Speaking of the pope my handle use to be 'Zee Pope' Way back in the day. It was on this game called Wyvern and I killed priest!

Tsar Phalanxia
June 26th, 2008, 07:57 PM
http://images.comicbookresources.com/bmb/20060118/Battle_Pope_05.jpg
When he's not leading mass, he's kicking ass!

Dr Goofy Mofo
June 26th, 2008, 08:05 PM
I have read that comic! It is Sacrelisious!