Page 106 of 182 FirstFirst ... 65696104105106107108116156 ... LastLast
Results 1,051 to 1,060 of 1815

Thread: Atheism & Freethought vs Faith & Unreason

  1. #1051
    Searching for the ghost of Tom Joad, dead or alive
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Whenever they's corrupt authority abusing his power against the weaks, look for me and I'll be there
    Posts
    4,449

    Default

    Try Google, you answer that and you'll answer your initial question.

  2. #1052
    ^_^ Hollydolly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    The hearth of the sun
    Posts
    708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silvir View Post
    For now ^^ considering how little we know about the universe and things at large who knows what will be discovered in the future.
    To prove Heisenberg wrong, you prove that randomness doesnt exist even on a quantum level and that proves that there is no free will and that Newtonian determinism was correct all along.

  3. #1053
    Jesus isn't real The Throne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    1,616

    Default


  4. #1054
    Keybord Warrior Dori's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Ive bin way to busy the last few months to take an hour or two off to reply to this stuff or anything here in general.

    And people who believe differently are also about as sure as they can get. In the end, all Dawkins can do is make God very unlikely, if you take a number of facts into account. And even then, all he can actually does is make a God that actively interferes in mortal affairs highly unlikely.
    And that is precisely what he has to do : "The only reason for his leeway is for the plausible deniability of certainty".
    So when he says : God does with the highest achievable likelihood not exist , he is implying that he does not exist. Not that he may not exist but that there is absolutely no rational reason whatsoever for you to believe in his existence. When you talk about "a number of facts" im afraid your full of shit , there is no evidencial distinction between God's and since your so sure i challange you to show any evidence for any kind of deistic being.
    Its not our problem that "people who believe differently" are seemingly unable to comprehend the fact that there is no evidence and that it doesnt make it anymore right. This isnt even an argument - What your trying to say here is that because people have a conviction there is no point to a rational conclusion.

    "No, these people made a different choice, because in the end Dawkins isn't sure as well, hes only almost sure."

    This is what you originally posted in an attempt to undermine the significance of the clearly argued conclusion with a rhetoric that he couldnt be "completely sure" which is absurd. When i replied to this , pointing out how his personal conviction is irrelevant and that his argument stands firm you reply that because there are other people whom believe differently of equal or greater conviction that somehow rationalises the undermining of his argument.
    This is nothing but chimpansie logic , if your even going to try and defend your rable i suggest you quote out specifics and clarify all of your contexts and interpritation.

    Actually, if 99.99999% of the population thinks having sex with kids is okay, statistically its likely youre raised with exactly the same believes.
    Before i burst out in laughter let me clarify : Are you actually trying to defend your absurd rhetoric and population appeal : "And would you call billions of people stupid for just seeing things differently then he does?" with moral relativism?
    Really... let me explain to you how stupid this was.
    You employ a logical fallacy in an appeal to population size in a rhetoric defense from being called stupid by Dawkins , yet you still havent quoted the actual accusation , instead you created a long-winding assumption claiming that because Dawkins is criticising religion and the belief in something that has no evidence for existence , he is somehow asserting moral and intellectual superiority and because of that he is now on the same level as a fundimentalist and because of that his arguments should be dismissed.
    So lets just clear this out : Where did he claim intellectual and moral superority , what were his arguments? And what is your refutation?
    When your done explaining that maybe you could elaborate a bit on how moral relativity makes child molestation just and when thats all cleared up why don't you rephrase all of this into something "sensible"?

    But okay, from this part it is clear you follow the same thought pattern as any rabid fundamentalist. A firm and unshakable conviction in your own right, supported by delusions of rationality and superiority over any and all that dont follow the exact same conviction as yourself, and you leave no room for the idea that you might be wrong. This how any reasonable and moderate man, of any conviction can turn into the next terrorist.
    So my level of conviction and your inability to argue is now a clear tell of my extreme fundimentalism and examplatory of a progression into terrorism. Before you spew your utter shit assumptions and accusations without a shred of evidence consider the position your in. Furthermore , i don‘t follow any doctorines or religious zeals , there is nothing „fundametanlist“ about not believing or accepting an argument of this level.
    Ohh and im gonna request you provide an actual argument for this also - Interprid the context and quote what you believe to be evidence of this alleged complex and delusion.

    My parents, and a lot of similar moderate believers, hardly follow the church on most of its matters, so tools of an ideology? I suppose its true they label themselves Christian because they believe in the Christian idea of an afterlife
    Labeling yourself as a servant or follower of organized irrationality although you cherry picked majority of what you believe already so that you may preserve a delusion of afterlife is indeed what id call a tool. Would you like to propouse the usage of another word? I really couldn't care less , suit yourself.

    But frees them from their responsibility? Responsibility of what exactly? To be good human beings? Wow, that is quite the accusation you make there, and you dont even know my parents.
    What a hippocrit , really - you accuse me of accusations a minute after your paragraph long baseless assumption regarding my oppressive terrorist nature. Its almost amusing ,- believing in afterlife free's you from a number of things , including the belief in death. Which is fundimentally absurd as its one of the few things we all share. Seeing how a multitude of acts of violence would never even have happened if people were unable to convince themselfs or others of this delusion im not really sure where to start. So yes , its one of the most competent mematic tools to ever have existed and that is exactly why discussion that accurately depicits the nature of organized irrationality and its potential abuses on a large scale is probably more relevant to the solution than your casual dismissal of the issue.
    When you talk about "good" humans i assume you are referring to altruism. But then like i mentioned before i have a hard time understanding how the self-less care for another could be applied to anyone under religious conviction because none of what he does is in the inherent interest of the other while his conviction stands. This is quite simple but also rather fundimental , - because although some religions promote altruism all of said altruism is done in the context of fullfilling your predetermined purpouse. This is completely different from anyone whom primitively but unknowingly acts in his own interest but for the sake of another.

    Im saying that regardless of religion, people would have still found another excuse to start a war.
    So im just gonna copy what i posted : "Furthermore i don't see the point of your argument... Are you trying to deny the violence , deaths and injustice religion has promoted , sheltered and caused? Or are you saying that because humans have the tenancy to do these things regardless of religion we should ignore its impact on society and individuals?."

    Communists have traditionally been atheists, and while it is true that they didnt kill all those millions of people in the name of atheism, it also shows that being an atheist does not necessarily make a human anymore peaceful and loving.
    Now im not quite sure what millions of people you are reffering to although im not doubting any toll of violence you might be referrencing , im not even sure you can employ that idiom with atheism - but i do beg to differ with your conclusion. Having no fanatic belief in a deity , an attribute of every atheist does exempt you from committing violence in its name. If you disagree with this , what you will be saying is that violence can not be attributed to an idealogy and that a man whom commits idealogically inspired violence would have done so regardless of wether he believes or not because he is inherently evil.

    Random number? Actually, not a random number, as there are about 1 billion Christians, and also about 1 billion Muslims, and then you still need to count Buddhists, Hindus and other smaller religions. So yes, billions.
    Yes , how wonderful of these religions to offer their oppressed subjects such peace of mind. How kind of them to not completely dominate every aspect of our social interaction , governing and mind. Surely thats reason enough to completely ignore this historical aspect you seem so knowledgable about , expecially regarding the monuments they left behind. Such artistic beuty ,-
    I really hope you appriciate the sarcasm.

    Furthermore , how on earth do you define this "peace of mind" and are you sure it can be attributed to all of those people on the basis of religious inspiration?

    You only see two sides. You and everyone who doesnt agree with you. You are always right, and everyone who doesnt agree with you is always wrong. That doesnt mean your side doesnt have some sort of merit, you guys get plenty of things right. But because you no longer can see any form of nuances in these kind of debates, it shows you can only deal in black and white, right and wrong, the guys who hold the absolute truth and the guys that dont.
    Well its believe or disbelief... Do you propouse an alternative?

    No its not, its paraphrasing what you and your friends have been proclaiming all this time.
    Feeling a bit insecure are we? Regardless , whats the point of this paraphrasing if not to discredit on meaningless basis?
    Last edited by Dori; 04-20-2012 at 03:32 AM.

  5. #1055
    Keybord Warrior Dori's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    240

    Default

    No public wants a war unless its leaders tell them they want one. And yes, US leaders dont care about Israel being Jewish or not, Israel is a strategic ally in an area the US considers to be vital to its interests.
    Yes , and the public sees Israel as a strategic ally , it all makes sense now. Or wait , was it the leaders? Im getting confused :S

    it was population control of subhuman races.
    Wow , what a exceedingly smart plan that was for the Germans eyhh , and the public must‘ve loved that too..
    It had nothing todo with the loss of WW1 and the following Jeudo Communist propoganda , the Protocols of the Elders of Zion conspiracy that piled upon the already present and lingering religiously inspired anti-semitism in Europe.
    No , simply complete conviction in population control.

    As for the LRA, they are lead by one guy who is clearly delusional. His delusions happen to manifest themselves in a religious form.
    Yes , a common delusion that seems to spread quite easily... You could almost call it „infectious“. ( lol ,what a reference )

    But you are right, any kind of belief that is taken to fanaticism can lead to terrible things. Thats not just religion, but nationalism or racism as well. Actually anything that convinces people they are better then others because of something can lead to this. Any kind of extreme belief can lead to that, and is dangerous and wrong. But the moderate forms of these believes dont have to be bad. If Atheists would focus purely on the fanatics at the religious side, I wouldnt have had this discussion with you. But Atheists have started to focus on religion in general and has in the process become a fanatical idea itself. At least, for a number of people.
    It has nothing to-do with believing you are „better“ than someone. Its extremely farfetched to attribute grand-scale violence , murders , rape‘s or generally un-ethical things to egotism or better yet , random occurances of a delusions in religious subjects who‘s belief all share nearly the same attributes , characteristics an detail. Nobody kills someone on the grounds of self-attributed superiority although it may play a part in the idealogical reinforcement and justification – Furthermore , nobody kills himself for the advancement or in an act of his own superiority complex. Don‘t be absurd ,- what your doing here is a lame attempt to create some kind of comformity in your argument to discredit me and my stance by what you persieve to be its nature. Something you have tried to do , consistently throughout your whole posts.
    Active and wayward atheists deal with the problems and contradictions of religion and their subjects when they present their arguements , in other words the criticism of religious faith itself, not merely how one practices it , any attempt at making that personal , like your doing , only display‘s your attachment to what you believe to be „your side“. This is wholly hipporcritical considering your past accusations and i question your motive as you yourself dont claim to religious.
    But then I dont care if your parent‘s are kind-hearted and loving , good for them ,- But im afraid that has nothing todo with their religion or the effects their religion has promoted , sheltered and caused. When you assume Dawkins arguments are personal attacks on the lives of your parents id like to ask you for the second time to present clear evidence.

    70 years is also a record when it comes to peace in Europe. Finally, Nationalism were most definitely the leading causes of going to war for the past several centuries, at least when it comes to war between European super powers.
    Nationalism and Religion have gone literally hand in hand for centuries... Religious nationalism is what defined a country , unified people under a national idenity and ethnicity for hundreds of years. Countless books have bin written on this issue , this isnt even debated anymore. You being an expert on Dutch culture must have known this though , so i must be misunderstanding your position but then im suprised you didn‘t give me historical lesson on their cultural and religious seggregation. You must not have read my refutation – ether that or you just convieniently brushed it off your shoulder and continued this meaningless rable of yours.
    Consider the position your trying to argue here. Are you really going to make me waste my time in explaining to you how religion is and has bin a defining factor in a nation ,society and culture or will simply brush off the overwhelming evidence with a reference to Communism? Im expecting that btw... And thats because ive done this debate a hundred times before.

    Regardless of what other things this person regards as correct, the sole thing you look at when you define someone as rational and intelligent is his belief or disbelief in a higher power. Again, that is black and white thinking.
    I am simply baffled by the fact that you think i would fall for such a petty strawman , dont be so effing absurd. Never have i suggested that being believing in a high power condems you to a label of retardation. This is about rational and intellegient stands towards a specific topic , we are talking about wether or not God exists and wether religion has bin a motivator for unethical acts, not wether or not people are mentally handicapped and because of that they have said beliefs ( Something you have tried to argue ) -. A number of theists are admittely intelligent beyond meazure , this was never up for debate. The fact that you persieve the discussion and the accurate labeling of this belief to be some kind of personal attack on you or others is simply childish.

    He does, and so do you. See previous quote.
    No , you quote the accusation and polarisation in the book , clarify what you believe to be the context and perhaps if your interpritation is not on the scale of borderline retardedness we can discuss it in a meaningful manner so that you may stop being so butthurt over his and my criticism of religion.

    I know how it has been 'debunked' Ive read the God Delusion several times.
    Wonderful , this should make your job of quoting a peace of cake.

    But the existence of a God itself? Something that works behind the scenes, invisible from our eyes? Something that is of so many magnitudes higher then us that it is in every respect alien? And because God is unknowable, as is a life after death and such, any kind of human logic or evidence based on this plane of existence is fine, but it does not even come close to reducing the probability of a God.
    Damn , to think that after all this rabble you‘d resort to this.
    Implying that it is impossible to formulate a rational stand towards the claim of god existence and the probably of his being based on the fact that there is absolutely no evidence because he is not empirically justifiable or testifiable is an outright rejection of logic. All you have done is to create an entity who's capabilities cannot be observed , understood , tested or proved thus rending the argument mute by its very definition. What your saying is he could exists because he cannot be proven to exist , a contradiction and a rejection of empirical evidence and logic. - Its that simple really.
    I don‘t need to „reduce“ the probably of God in anyway , before the utterly empty suggestion was presented , there was none to begin with. Employing a epistemological rhetoric in an attempt at some kind of mistification is simply offending.

    Say something as evolution, it indeed makes little sense to be agnostic about evolution.
    Who said you can‘t be agnostic towards religion? Did you even read my post?

    The Netherlands is one of the most secularized societies in the world. And funny enough, the PVV rose on an anti Muslim platform, not a general anti immigration platform. They are against immigration in general yes, but they hardly talk about Eastern Europeans. And growing recession? Nah, they rose even before the economy crashed and the crisis started.
    No it didnt , surely they recieved a slight bump after two politicans got murdered early 06 but the real rise didnt happen until recession hit them hard and Wilders was being discussed on every ****ing news channel for about 6 months. Funny how you say they hardly talked about East Europe , are you following suit to their ideals? I mean sure , i have no issue with asian Turkey.
    Regardless , this is absurd and im just gonna re-quote what i asked before and i wanna emphasize the last question because its something i wanna get in the clear.
    „So because PVV gained popularity in the last 5 years amid growing recession , exponential increase in migration rate from East Europe and religiously inspired violence and murders - on the basis of tougher immigration standards and a pre-dominant Christian culture , atheist intolerance is at its peak? „
    Furthermore i just wanna point out that there has bin no increase in complaints filed by Moroccan or Turkish immigrants since 2002 , regardless of the increasing numbers of them in the Netherlands.
    So.. got any more accusations of intolerence you wanna attribute to Dutch atheists?

    Point is, religious or not, people can still be rallied to dislike or even hate other people and other cultures.
    You don‘t say.

    Your point? Religion is evil because they have an opinion about certain ethical dilemmas?
    You call Marrige equality , Womens right‘s , Stem Cell research and Euthinasia ethical dilemmas? Interesting – so gay adoption is also an ethical dilemma? What a well thought out position you have there. Elaborate on this further will ya?

    Anyways, now we are coming to the core. The absence of proof is not proof for absence. It is according to you and other atheists something pointless, devoid of meaning. Why? Because of this ridiculous emphasis on the clearly visible. It is animal logic: if I look away from the predator, I cant see the predator, thus the predator cant see me. You are human, flawed in so many ways, your vision narrow and limited, yet you only accept that things can exist within your field of vision. Everything outside your field of vision is inherently meaningless. Those that entertain the notion that there is perhaps something out of our direct field of vision, and that perhaps some of those things do have meaning are seen as illogical and stupid.

    Certainly, those who ignore everything that is inside their direct field of vision and focus completely on the things they dont see, that is a bad idea. But why cant someone do both? Isnt that how we progress as a species? Isnt that how some of the greatest scientific discoveries were made? So, why limit yourself in such a way?
    So ill just requote the later of part of what you replied to , since i already replied to this.
    „Yes something that is not proven does not equate something of absolutely no value. And that is where the casual propositions parts with God as there is absolutely nothing that would even suggest that there is a God , so although your inability to provide any evidence for his being does not equate his absolute inexistance , its is a clear indication of what little if any value the argument has and as such its nothing more than meaningless and gruesome bullshit and nonsense.“
    I mean , why should you believe in it?


    There was no argument, there was a question, and you did not really answer it.
    What is it i didnt answer? Here‘s what you asked : „So, Atheism, whats the big deal, why cant you accept that there are religious persons who believe in God AND in Science?“
    Here is the answer : „I accept the fact in the same manner as i accept the existence of racism or any other absurd ideology.“
    The later is rather void of meaning , what are you asking? What other method is there to determine this or anything else?

    I had assumed that you would understand that if someone believes moderately, he also tend to ignore a lot of the content.
    You mean to say he simply cherry-picks convieniently? Whats your argument? Whats the difference other than differing levels of secularism , brainwashing or w/e term you‘d like me to employ so that you won‘t get offended.

    Following that logic, then so is deism or theism.
    Yes? Your point? Theism is not a religion , nor is deism – how on earth could a description be a religion or a cult? Do you have any idea what your talking about?

    And then religious people are also not responsible for the actions or beliefs of some of the other believers.
    Oh really? You don‘t say.

    Some people are not interested in your truth, explanation and opinion.
    Your point?

  6. #1056
    ^_^ Hollydolly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    The hearth of the sun
    Posts
    708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dori View Post
    Ive bin way to busy the last few months to take an hour or two off to reply to this stuff or anything here in general.
    This is probably to long to post in one post so Ill double post as well.



    And that is precisely what he has to do : "The only reason for his leeway is for the plausible deniability of certainty".
    So when he says : God does with the highest achievable likelihood not exist , he is implying that he does not exist.
    Ahh, so he implies he doesnt exist but he isnt sure enough and cant be sure enough to state it as an absolute. Because that would make him look really stupid if he turns out to be wrong. This way he can never be wrong. So its just covering his own ass.

    Not that he may not exist but that there is absolutely no rational reason whatsoever for you to believe in his existence.
    The fact that mr Dawkins has to cover his own ass, and therefor not certain of his own position is a rational enough reason for me to say that I do believe in God.

    When you talk about "a number of facts" im afraid your full of shit , there is no evidencial distinction between God's and since your so sure i challange you to show any evidence for any kind of deistic being.
    Its not our problem that "people who believe differently" are seemingly unable to comprehend the fact that there is no evidence and that it doesnt make it anymore right. This isnt even an argument - What your trying to say here is that because people have a conviction there is no point to a rational conclusion.
    Eh, I should have phrased that one better. Instead of facts, it should have been 'assumptions'.


    This is what you originally posted in an attempt to undermine the significance of the clearly argued conclusion with a rhetoric that he couldnt be "completely sure" which is absurd. When i replied to this , pointing out how his personal conviction is irrelevant and that his argument stands firm you reply that because there are other people whom believe differently of equal or greater conviction that somehow rationalises the undermining of his argument.
    This is nothing but chimpansie logic , if your even going to try and defend your rable i suggest you quote out specifics and clarify all of your contexts and interpritation.
    Alright now youre confusing me. His argument is that there is no rational reason to believe in God, because God is so unlikely. His personal conviction is that God does not exist. You say we should skip the personal conviction which means that we are only left with the argument of 'almost certainty' and then when I point out that for a number of people 'almost certainty' is not enough to stop believing you say its wrong. Ah ok, its wrong because I believe that these people are fully rational when they believe in God, even though Dawkins argument asserts they arent.

    Well, again, near certainty is not enough for some to give up a believe. But for a lot of people believing might serve another purpose. A personal one, but one that rationalizes their choice. If believing in God makes them happier, feel better and more confident about themselves and the situation they are in, isnt it then only logical and rational that they keep believing? After all, it enhances their own well being. It would be illogical to make yourself feel miserable simply because some guy is almost sure that God isnt real and that he cant think of any logical reason to believe in God?


    Before i burst out in laughter let me clarify : Are you actually trying to defend your absurd rhetoric and population appeal : "And would you call billions of people stupid for just seeing things differently then he does?" with moral relativism?
    You need not have bothered as it wasnt meant as an argument for anything. It was merely stating that if everyone believes sex with children is okay, statistically speaking you would think so as well, while you stated that no matter what everyone else believes you would always think its wrong. That struck me as both arrogant and irrational, unlikely and unfounded. For someone who goes on and on about rationality, you should have known better. Or you accept that youre just human and being Atheist does not enhance your rationality over that of the moderate religious person.

    So lets just clear this out : Where did he claim intellectual and moral superority , what were his arguments? And what is your refutation?
    Oh? I was under the assumption you read his book. Ah well, calling religious people ignorant sounds like a pretty blunt way of claiming intellectual superiority over religious people. Technically he does say that in the book, but he does give plenty of examples of things he heard certain religious people say and makes it clear he finds these people utterly retarded for doing so. As for moral superiority, in his book Dawkin states that even moderate religious believes will inevitably create fundamentalist ideas. You even repeated this argument in an earlier post when Im not mistaken. Anyways, from this argument it leads that even moderate religious people are to some extend responsible for extremism which he finds immoral. Then he goes on about parents raising their children in the same religion as theirs, which he also finds immoral.

    Ironically he also talks about the dangers of absolute thinking, and he certainly does have a point there. But at the same time, Dawkins himself has become an absolutist. He polarizes the whole debate, cuts it in half and creates a sort of us vs them mindset. People are either smart and nice when they dont believe, or they are idiots and morally reprehensible if they believe in God.

    I take issue with this black and white mindset. Yes I think that religious extremists are dangerous madman. Yes I know certain churches do some very questionable things to children. But I know the church in general, and religion in general can play a positive role in peoples lives. And I know that believing in God does not mean you automatically reject science, it is possible to do both. Yeah I believe in God, no I know he didnt make the world in 6 days, the big bang did and it took a little more time then 6 days. And no, God didnt made us like this several thousand years ago, it was evolution that gave form to the life on this planet. So why the attacks, why the attempts to stamp out religion as a whole? You think its bad that people try to force their believes on other people (I agree, that is bad) but then why do you attempt to force your lack of believes on other people as well.

    When your done explaining that maybe you could elaborate a bit on how moral relativity makes child molestation just and when thats all cleared up why don't you rephrase all of this into something "sensible"?
    What dont tell me you actually believe that your morals are universal. There are plenty of cultures that disagree with your morals. Aztecs and such thought it was cool to sacrifice people. Some people think its cool to have more then one wife. Some people think its okay to marry your brother or cousin. Others think its okay to marry an 11 year old. First, if you cant put yourself in their perspective, it means you have an absolutist view on morality (your morals are superior to all others, everyone should follow your morals). Second, do you really think that if you had been born into ancient Aztec society, you still would have had the same moral convictions as you have now? Your environment determines your morals, not you.


    So my level of conviction and your inability to argue is now a clear tell of my extreme fundimentalism and examplatory of a progression into terrorism. Before you spew your utter shit assumptions and accusations without a shred of evidence consider the position your in. Furthermore , i don‘t follow any doctorines or religious zeals , there is nothing „fundametanlist“ about not believing or accepting an argument of this level.
    Ohh and im gonna request you provide an actual argument for this also - Interprid the context and quote what you believe to be evidence of this alleged complex and delusion.
    HAH! Conviction he calls it. Dont you think a Suicide bomber just has an extreme conviction as well? Im pretty sure they do.

    As for the evidence, well, look at your own posts. Extremely hostile against people who disagree with you, riddled with personal attacks against those peoples intelligence and debating skills. Your mindset is polarized, black and white. Atheist good, everyone else stupid idiots. You reject any claim or idea that isnt yours as false, baseless, etc, which shows that you are either unwilling or incapable of going beyond your own point of view. You are an absolutist thinker, who hides behind 'evidence' 'logic' and 'rationality' and uses it as a shield to ward of any conflicting views. And you use Atheism as a way to uplift yourself above everyone else, as a way to make yourself feel superior over everyone else.


    Labeling yourself as a servant or follower of organized irrationality although you cherry picked majority of what you believe already so that you may preserve a delusion of afterlife is indeed what id call a tool. Would you like to propouse the usage of another word? I really couldn't care less , suit yourself.
    Eh, whats the point. Your intend is to insult, not to seek some kind of deeper understanding of other peoples view or to broaden your own.

    What a hippocrit , really - you accuse me of accusations a minute after your paragraph long baseless assumption regarding my oppressive terrorist nature. Its almost amusing ,- believing in afterlife free's you from a number of things , including the belief in death. Which is fundimentally absurd as its one of the few things we all share. Seeing how a multitude of acts of violence would never even have happened if people were unable to convince themselfs or others of this delusion im not really sure where to start. So yes , its one of the most competent mematic tools to ever have existed and that is exactly why discussion that accurately depicits the nature of organized irrationality and its potential abuses on a large scale is probably more relevant to the solution than your casual dismissal of the issue.
    When you talk about "good" humans i assume you are referring to altruism. But then like i mentioned before i have a hard time understanding how the self-less care for another could be applied to anyone under religious conviction because none of what he does is in the inherent interest of the other while his conviction stands. This is quite simple but also rather fundimental , - because although some religions promote altruism all of said altruism is done in the context of fullfilling your predetermined purpouse. This is completely different from anyone whom primitively but unknowingly acts in his own interest but for the sake of another.
    You have clearly demonstrated that you have an absolute mindset, and Dawkins did make an excellent case demonstrating why that is dangerous.

    Actually, it does not free me from the belief in death itself. I still die, but death just isnt the end. As for your accusation that without religion the world would have been a more peaceful place, I think Ive already shown that only a small group of conflicts was based on religion only. The belief that without religion, less wars would have occurred is baseless speculation. You know, that thing you hate so much.

    As for the Altruism part, you do make quite the accusation there. You claim to actually know the exact reasons of every religious person who does good things. And even better, they all do it for the same reasons! Another fine example of absolutist thinking. Well, I think asking for evidence that confirms your claim here is pointless as only Pseudoscientists like Freud dared to make similar claims about human behavior and the reasons behind it.


    So im just gonna copy what i posted : "Furthermore i don't see the point of your argument... Are you trying to deny the violence , deaths and injustice religion has promoted , sheltered and caused? Or are you saying that because humans have the tenancy to do these things regardless of religion we should ignore its impact on society and individuals?."
    See it as nationalism. Nationalism serves a positive purpose, yet in the past its more virulent and extreme forms have caused the deaths of millions, and if left unchecked, Nationalism can evolve into an extreme form again and start another war. The solution however, is not to get rid of nationalism entirely, but to simply be on guard and keep the more extreme forms in check.

    Yes extreme forms of religion can lead to wars and injustice and such, but it also serves a positive purpose in many peoples lives. So, be on guard for the extremist branches of religion, while leave the moderate forms alone.


    Now im not quite sure what millions of people you are reffering to although im not doubting any toll of violence you might be referrencing , im not even sure you can employ that idiom with atheism - but i do beg to differ with your conclusion. Having no fanatic belief in a deity , an attribute of every atheist does exempt you from committing violence in its name. If you disagree with this , what you will be saying is that violence can not be attributed to an idealogy and that a man whom commits idealogically inspired violence would have done so regardless of wether he believes or not because he is inherently evil.
    Oh dont tell me youve never heard of the Russian gulags, the Cultural Revolution or the Khmer Rouge and how they butchered millions in their communist revolution. And dont tell me you never heard about the secret police arresting and abducting people and torturing them in the basement of the security station. The one thing communist revolutions all have in common is that they lead to the butchering of a lot of innocent people.
    Youre right though, these people are never killed in the name of Atheism. Im just saying that being an Atheist doesnt make you a good person, just as being a religious person doesnt make you a good person.



    Yes , how wonderful of these religions to offer their oppressed subjects such peace of mind. How kind of them to not completely dominate every aspect of our social interaction , governing and mind. Surely thats reason enough to completely ignore this historical aspect you seem so knowledgable about , expecially regarding the monuments they left behind. Such artistic beuty ,-
    I really hope you appriciate the sarcasm.

    Furthermore , how on earth do you define this "peace of mind" and are you sure it can be attributed to all of those people on the basis of religious inspiration?
    Religion is no worse then anything else humans ever went to war for. Do you propose we dissolve the idea of the government and the nation as well because in the past horrible atrocities have been committed on the order of or in the name of those? And science, who gave us ever more powerful and destructive weapons? What a double standard, you complain religion is so bad, but you ignore all the other ones that are just as bad or worse even.



    Well its believe or disbelief... Do you propouse an alternative?
    You missed the point.

  7. #1057
    ^_^ Hollydolly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    The hearth of the sun
    Posts
    708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dori View Post
    Wow , what a exceedingly smart plan that was for the Germans eyhh , and the public must‘ve loved that too..
    It had nothing todo with the loss of WW1 and the following Jeudo Communist propoganda , the Protocols of the Elders of Zion conspiracy that piled upon the already present and lingering religiously inspired anti-semitism in Europe.
    No , simply complete conviction in population control.
    Public didnt know or convinced themselves that nothing was going on. You know, human nature. As for the propaganda and conspiracy stuff, it may have given Hitler some nice 'arguments' to go after them, but his main reason was still that Jews were sub humans. As were Polish people, Slavic people, etc. Only good for slave labor or immediate destruction. The whole idea was based on biological racism, not religious racism. They targeted Jews because Jews have always been portrayed as a separate race, not like Christians who become Christians by believing into something. Of course the idea is nonsense, but thats racism for you.


    It has nothing to-do with believing you are „better“ than someone. Its extremely farfetched to attribute grand-scale violence , murders , rape‘s or generally un-ethical things to egotism or better yet , random occurances of a delusions in religious subjects who‘s belief all share nearly the same attributes , characteristics an detail. Nobody kills someone on the grounds of self-attributed superiority although it may play a part in the idealogical reinforcement and justification – Furthermore , nobody kills himself for the advancement or in an act of his own superiority complex. Don‘t be absurd ,- what your doing here is a lame attempt to create some kind of comformity in your argument to discredit me and my stance by what you persieve to be its nature. Something you have tried to do , consistently throughout your whole posts.
    You need to dehumanize the people youre killing if you want to avoid the whole guilt trip. You can do that by creating an us vs them mentality and then subsequently present your side as the superior side and the other side as little more then vermin that needs to be exterminated. Religion can do this, but so can nationalism or anything where people have a strong attachment to and use to create an identity for themselves (sportclubs for example).

    Active and wayward atheists deal with the problems and contradictions of religion and their subjects when they present their arguements , in other words the criticism of religious faith itself, not merely how one practices it , any attempt at making that personal , like your doing , only display‘s your attachment to what you believe to be „your side“. This is wholly hipporcritical considering your past accusations and i question your motive as you yourself dont claim to religious.
    But then I dont care if your parent‘s are kind-hearted and loving , good for them ,- But im afraid that has nothing todo with their religion or the effects their religion has promoted , sheltered and caused. When you assume Dawkins arguments are personal attacks on the lives of your parents id like to ask you for the second time to present clear evidence.
    And by attacking religion itself, you are attacking both the small group of dangerous fundamentalists and the large group of moderate people who would never even dream of killing anyone. And in the process, you also create the us vs them mentality, and you already show strong signs of that you feel superior over people who believe in God, judging by the way you talk about them. You are playing with a loaded gun.

    And why do I feel personally attacked? Why do my parents feel personally attacked? Well you just said, you attack faith itself, something they have, something that is part of their identity, all because you think fundamentalists are dangerous and crazy. Its insulting because you compare me and my parents with suicide bombers and religious extremists and because you attack part of our identity. You should have an issue with peoples behavior, not what god they believe in.


    Nationalism and Religion have gone literally hand in hand for centuries... Religious nationalism is what defined a country , unified people under a national idenity and ethnicity for hundreds of years. Countless books have bin written on this issue , this isnt even debated anymore. You being an expert on Dutch culture must have known this though , so i must be misunderstanding your position but then im suprised you didn‘t give me historical lesson on their cultural and religious seggregation. You must not have read my refutation – ether that or you just convieniently brushed it off your shoulder and continued this meaningless rable of yours.
    Consider the position your trying to argue here. Are you really going to make me waste my time in explaining to you how religion is and has bin a defining factor in a nation ,society and culture or will simply brush off the overwhelming evidence with a reference to Communism? Im expecting that btw... And thats because ive done this debate a hundred times before.
    You do know that nationalism is only about 2 centuries old right since nations (dont confuse with states) are only two centuries old (at least in Europe)? It started with the industrial revolution. And yes, whole books have been written about that as well. Religion was for some time a sort of substitute for nationalism though. People identified themselves with a specific religion, not so much with a specific piece of real estate, which is what nationalism does. So what it shows is that religion is a valid reason for people to kill each other, and that disputes over whose piece of real estate is better is a valid reason to kill. I think both shows humans only need very little reason to start bashing each others head in, as long as their 'convictions' are strong enough.

    Still, in order to be historically accurate, religious wars never really happened that often in Europe. Maybe some of the first crusades were purely religious in motivation, and religion played a role in worsening the atrocities during the 30 year war in what is now known as Germany. But other then that, it was mostly states vs states, politicians starting wars to enhance their states power. And after the Peace of Westphalia, every war fought in Europe or between European powers resolved around the Balance of Power. Religion no longer played much of a role.

    I am simply baffled by the fact that you think i would fall for such a petty strawman , dont be so effing absurd. Never have i suggested that being believing in a high power condems you to a label of retardation. This is about rational and intellegient stands towards a specific topic , we are talking about wether or not God exists and wether religion has bin a motivator for unethical acts, not wether or not people are mentally handicapped and because of that they have said beliefs ( Something you have tried to argue ) -. A number of theists are admittely intelligent beyond meazure , this was never up for debate. The fact that you persieve the discussion and the accurate labeling of this belief to be some kind of personal attack on you or others is simply childish.
    Then I suggest you take better care of what words you use, because 'organized irrationality' and such may lead to certain assumptions.


    No , you quote the accusation and polarisation in the book , clarify what you believe to be the context and perhaps if your interpritation is not on the scale of borderline retardedness we can discuss it in a meaningful manner so that you may stop being so butthurt over his and my criticism of religion.
    I think Ive explained over a dozen times now how the whole thing is getting polarized. But okay, specific example in the book. When Dawkins starts about the NOMA part and rejects it, making the whole discussion an all or nothing discussion. Seems pretty polarizing to me when youre claim is that God has no place at all anywhere. Or when he says its meaningless to be agnostic about the whole thing. That looked a lot like 'pick a side', either you believe or you dont believe, neutrality is not an option.

    Who said you can‘t be agnostic towards religion? Did you even read my post?
    Dawkins. I thought you read the book.



    No it didnt , surely they recieved a slight bump after two politicans got murdered early 06 but the real rise didnt happen until recession hit them hard and Wilders was being discussed on every ****ing news channel for about 6 months. Funny how you say they hardly talked about East Europe , are you following suit to their ideals? I mean sure , i have no issue with asian Turkey.
    Regardless , this is absurd and im just gonna re-quote what i asked before and i wanna emphasize the last question because its something i wanna get in the clear.
    „So because PVV gained popularity in the last 5 years amid growing recession , exponential increase in migration rate from East Europe and religiously inspired violence and murders - on the basis of tougher immigration standards and a pre-dominant Christian culture , atheist intolerance is at its peak? „
    Furthermore i just wanna point out that there has bin no increase in complaints filed by Moroccan or Turkish immigrants since 2002 , regardless of the increasing numbers of them in the Netherlands.
    So.. got any more accusations of intolerence you wanna attribute to Dutch atheists?
    Two politicians got murdered in 2006? What? First of all, only one of them was a politician, the other was an extremely rude (calling all Muslims goat****ers in public everytime you get the chance is bound to offend someone) media personality and they didnt both get killed in the same year or in 2006.

    Ah well, anyways, its missing the point. Im saying that Atheists supposedly are all so open and tolerant towards other cultures, gays, etc. Yet while the Netherlands has never been so secularized before, it has also become an increasingly intolerant nation. The PVV is only the prime example of our growing intolerance towards everything that is perceived to be alien to Dutch culture. In other words, the idea that having a nation filled with Atheists will automatically mean that such a nation is a nice and tolerant place to live in, is nonsense. It just goes to show again that religion does not play such a major role when it comes to intolerance. People will be ****s, with or without God.

    You call Marrige equality , Womens right‘s , Stem Cell research and Euthinasia ethical dilemmas? Interesting – so gay adoption is also an ethical dilemma? What a well thought out position you have there. Elaborate on this further will ya?
    Marriage is pretty much a religious institution, so yes no wonder the church has an opinion about it. Womens rights, well the Church has a certain idea on what the ideal society looks like, just like Atheists and economic liberals do. One thinks the traditional role division is best, while others might say its best if everybody works their ass off in order to increase national productivity. Stem Cell research, as well as cloning and such, meh, the Church is afraid of what it could lead to, and how it might affect humanity as a whole. As for euthanasia, the Church believes life is sacred so you shouldnt waste it by taking the easy way out when it gets a little painful. And everyone can have an opinion on these, only when the church takes an stance on these things, they are suddenly evil?

  8. #1058
    Insane Kingdom Hearts Fan Jeremy_Hunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Either Destiny Island, the Archangel, or the Ikaruga
    Posts
    602

    Default

    I'm curious to why Faith is paired with Unreason, while Atheism is paired with Free Thought in the Thread title.

    I'm a Christian, and I believe because I do. I look around, I think how can any of this have been done by any random chance, or an explosion. I've heard Optomitrist (the guys who work with eyes) say that it is impossible that the eye was made by chance; it is so complex, way more comlex then most of our body. Even Darwin said it was ridiculous to belive the eye was made by chance. That is why i believe what I do; because there is no way a random chance could have made all that is around is.

    My question, is why must faith be with unreason? is it not reasonable to believe that an all-powereful god created everything in Seven Days? Why must we be thought as unreasonable? There is nothing in the Christian Faith that limits free thought; the reason that everything happens in the world is due to one of the greatest gifts we have: Free Will. So yeah.

    Why must Faith be accompanied by Unreason?


    And before we get on with the "How can it be done is days" stuff, in the Bible it says "a thousands years is like a day with the Lord, and a day with the Lord in a thousand years." For all we know, they could have been thousands upon thousands of years that God made everything.

  9. #1059
    Searching for the ghost of Tom Joad, dead or alive
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Whenever they's corrupt authority abusing his power against the weaks, look for me and I'll be there
    Posts
    4,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy_Hunter View Post
    I'm curious to why Faith is paired with Unreason, while Atheism is paired with Free Thought in the Thread title.
    Faith within the context of religion is not based upon reason, but sheer outright delusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy_Hunter View Post
    I'm a Christian, and I believe because I do. I look around, I think how can any of this have been done by any random chance, or an explosion. I've heard Optomitrist (the guys who work with eyes) say that it is impossible that the eye was made by chance; it is so complex, way more comlex then most of our body. Even Darwin said it was ridiculous to belive the eye was made by chance. That is why i believe what I do; because there is no way a random chance could have made all that is around is.
    Same old creationist's bullshit, nowhere did Darwin or Evolutionary Biology assert random chances.
    If anything, evolution is pretty much predictable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy_Hunter View Post
    My question, is why must faith be with unreason? is it not reasonable to believe that an all-powereful god created everything in Seven Days? Why must we be thought as unreasonable? There is nothing in the Christian Faith that limits free thought; the reason that everything happens in the world is due to one of the greatest gifts we have: Free Will. So yeah.

    Why must Faith be accompanied by Unreason?
    Faith within the context of religion is believe without evidence, therefore unreasonable, or more correctly - delusional.
    This delusion mostly stems out from ignorance of science as clearly shown in your post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy_Hunter View Post
    And before we get on with the "How can it be done is days" stuff, in the Bible it says "a thousands years is like a day with the Lord, and a day with the Lord in a thousand years." For all we know, they could have been thousands upon thousands of years that God made everything.
    It could also be that there is no God and you're just lying to yourself.

  10. #1060
    Eternal Observer Silvir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In eternety
    Posts
    470

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hollydolly View Post
    To prove Heisenberg wrong, you prove that randomness doesnt exist even on a quantum level and that proves that there is no free will and that Newtonian determinism was correct all along.
    And if that is how it is so be it but we are not there yet.


    Kaze i have looked around a bit and well it seems like most stuff only speaks of how one can't really predict where a Photon will land due to the Heisenberg uncertainty that our observing it will change its own movement. :/
    i think i need help here o-o

Page 106 of 182 FirstFirst ... 65696104105106107108116156 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •