|
On July 10 2012 03:15 Xiron wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 01:35 Kukaracha wrote:
Atheists will use all kinds of moronic arguments, because this is how the brain is structured. Our survival has always depended on our capacity to make quick judgements and decisions, no matter how many generalizations, fallacious reasonings and erratic systems we use.
See above, "Then why don't you believe in sister and brother marriage? In father and daughter relationships? In ephebophilia?". If we legalize gay marriage, it's not because it's an absolutely good thing, it's because our traditions evolved. Gay marriage is good but incest is still wrong; why?
Every argument an atheist will bring up can be argued against. Yet you can't argue against something that does not exist for 99% of people. What if there were 100mio people in America claiming 'The spaghetti monster told us to forbid standard marriage, but we can't show you any proof besides a book drunken men wrote 2000 years ago'? Does that give them the right to deny someone marriage? No, but you can't possibly argue with them! Now if an atheist comes up and says 'It deminishes the amount of kids annually born by 10%!' Then you can find something that disproofs this and you can continue the discussion. On a sidenote: Did I ever say incest is wrong? It happens all the time between animals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest#Inbreeding
That's why incest is wrong. It doesn't do anything except make stuff worse.
|
Religion has served its purpose. It always has been a pretty straight forward construction to avoid the problem of being a meaningless species on a random planet in a random solar system in a random galaxy in an almost endless space.
Going back to the dawn of mankind, you see that religion basically had to be invented, because it gave the people answers, which they weren't able to get on another way.
Over the last 5000 years many religions have thrived in our culture, some of them died out, some others were able to survive somehow . It is highly disputable, if we're still in a position where being religious actually fulfills any purpose beyond being the "easy way out". The belief in a higher power is nothing wrong, but it all becomes absurdly twisted, when you add properties to that power. I'll just quote good ol' William Shatner and Henry Rollins here:
BILL: I can't get behind the Gods, who are more vengeful, angry, and dangerous if you don't believe in them!
ROLLINS: Why can't all these Gods just get along? I mean, they're omnipotent and omnipresent, what's the problem?
BILL: What's the problem?
This is hitting the spot pretty precisely. Why should an omnipotent being actually give a fuck about anything?
Humans tend to answer questions like this one with constructions like "faith" and "love", which are too limited to actually describe the whole mess. Hell, we're still at the very beginning of our journey.
I've never been religious, even as a child I soon began to doubt the stuff my elementary school teacher tried to sell me. (I still remember that I didn't want to pray, because it seemed nonsensical to my 8 year old self to talk to someone, who was a) invisible and b) supposed to hear everything people say.)
I'm not a militant atheist either, but I'm hoping that someday humanity will get over religion and start to actually adress the real problems on this world (hereby I assume that reality exists) by trying to finally find a way to get along together without having to fight senseless wars over whether god's name is god or allah or lee young-ho. If everything doesn't make any sense, it's fine for me. All that we can do, is pushing our own limits a little bit further as time goes by. It would be great, if we managed to do so without blowing up our planet.
God isn't dead, he's undead. And worshipping zombies doesn't sound like a nice thing to do.
|
On July 10 2012 03:15 Xiron wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 01:35 Kukaracha wrote:
Atheists will use all kinds of moronic arguments, because this is how the brain is structured. Our survival has always depended on our capacity to make quick judgements and decisions, no matter how many generalizations, fallacious reasonings and erratic systems we use.
See above, "Then why don't you believe in sister and brother marriage? In father and daughter relationships? In ephebophilia?". If we legalize gay marriage, it's not because it's an absolutely good thing, it's because our traditions evolved. Gay marriage is good but incest is still wrong; why?
Every argument an atheist will bring up can be argued against. Yet you can't argue against something that does not exist for 99% of people. What if there were 100mio people in America claiming 'The spaghetti monster told us to forbid standard marriage, but we can't show you any proof besides a book drunken men wrote 2000 years ago'? Does that give them the right to deny someone marriage? No, but you can't possibly argue with them! Now if an atheist comes up and says 'It deminishes the amount of kids annually born by 10%!' Then you can find something that disproofs this and you can continue the discussion. On a sidenote: Did I ever say incest is wrong? It happens all the time between animals.
Most humans believe in God ; I don't see where that 99% come from.
You don't understand my point, neither. Here in particular, I'm not defending believers, I'm attacking non-believers, because I feel many pat themelves in the back as if they were more intellectually advanced than their religious counterparts.
Let's use a more fitting image than the biased spaghetti monster :
Two children are playing. An adult comes up to them with a jar inside which there is a small thing moving. He hides it from them, before they can see what it is. They naturally ask : "what is it?" And he tells them it's a very small fish... that has legs.
There are two choices : to believe him or not. That choice is intuitive, because while it may seems unlikely in your own representation of the world, there is such a thing as a fish that has legs (sort of). Is it rational to be completely sure that there is no such fish? It is not. The rational and logical stance here is : "I don't know". And yet most claim they do.
Atheists have this annoying habit of believing they're behaving rationally simply because they don't believe in god. Well guess what : a definitive stance on an uncertain matter is irrational to begin with.
|
On July 10 2012 04:30 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 03:15 Xiron wrote:On July 10 2012 01:35 Kukaracha wrote:
Atheists will use all kinds of moronic arguments, because this is how the brain is structured. Our survival has always depended on our capacity to make quick judgements and decisions, no matter how many generalizations, fallacious reasonings and erratic systems we use.
See above, "Then why don't you believe in sister and brother marriage? In father and daughter relationships? In ephebophilia?". If we legalize gay marriage, it's not because it's an absolutely good thing, it's because our traditions evolved. Gay marriage is good but incest is still wrong; why?
Every argument an atheist will bring up can be argued against. Yet you can't argue against something that does not exist for 99% of people. What if there were 100mio people in America claiming 'The spaghetti monster told us to forbid standard marriage, but we can't show you any proof besides a book drunken men wrote 2000 years ago'? Does that give them the right to deny someone marriage? No, but you can't possibly argue with them! Now if an atheist comes up and says 'It deminishes the amount of kids annually born by 10%!' Then you can find something that disproofs this and you can continue the discussion. On a sidenote: Did I ever say incest is wrong? It happens all the time between animals. Most humans believe in God ; I don't see where that 99% come from. You don't understand my point, neither. Here in particular, I'm not defending believers, I'm attacking non-believers, because I feel many pat themelves in the back as if they were more intellectually advanced than their religious counterparts. Let's use a more fitting image than the biased spaghetti monster : Two children are playing. An adult comes up to them with a jar inside which there is a small thing moving. He hides it from them, before they can see what it is. They naturally ask : "what is it?" And he tells them it's a very small fish... that has legs. There are two choices : to believe him or not. That choice is intuitive, because while it may seems unlikely in your own representation of the world, there is such a thing as a fish that has legs (sort of). Is it rational to be completely sure that there is no such fish? It is not. The rational and logical stance here is : "I don't know". And yet most claim they do. Atheists have this annoying habit of believing they're behaving rationally simply because they don't believe in god. Well guess what : a definitive stance on an uncertain matter is irrational to begin with.
You seem to not have grasped what atheism is about. Atheists are generally agnostics, not strict atheists, but if I say I'm agnostic, that kinda sounds like i really think there might be a god, so everyone uses the word "atheist".
There is always the possibility of a god existing, no sane atheist denies that, but the possibility of it being there is abysmal. There might be unicorns dressed in SM outfits flying around the moon, that's equally as likely as there being an omnipotent being who created the world and cares about on which day you work and who you have sexual intercourse with (and punishes you and forgives you and whatnot). Then that omnipotent being made some primitive bronze age desert tribes write down it's message, so that they can pass it on, so everyone can get salvation from being punished by himself, but it encoded it into stories, so that everyone can interpret their own shit into it.
You see how silly it sounds? This is no "oversimplification", this is literally what you believe in if you are a christian. The whole theology is complete nonsense. Just because you spend 2000 years thinking about and refining something you simply made up, it doesn't cease to be made up. It assumes the existence of god and a very specific nature of him to begin with.
OF COURSE you can't disprove the existence of god when you postulate that humans are to limited to understand him to begin with and he exists outside of time and space and whatnot.
I hereby postulate that there is a being called supergod. It's even greater than god, so not even god can understand it. Supergod is what keeps you and god alive, he watches you AND god the whole time, but he made it so that you (or god) can never detect him. Supergod only revealed this truth to me and guided my hands in writing this, so this MUST be true.
Good luck disproving that. You can't. Does that make it true? I mean, it's written right there and supergod guided my hand making sure it is the full truth.
|
I'm an atheist, but I don't see the problem. It's just a joke, and it's kind of funny at that. You can't take the philosopher standpoint and think of it as some form of philosophical argument when that's not where it's coming from at all.
|
On July 10 2012 05:44 MaGariShun wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 04:30 Kukaracha wrote:On July 10 2012 03:15 Xiron wrote:On July 10 2012 01:35 Kukaracha wrote:
Atheists will use all kinds of moronic arguments, because this is how the brain is structured. Our survival has always depended on our capacity to make quick judgements and decisions, no matter how many generalizations, fallacious reasonings and erratic systems we use.
See above, "Then why don't you believe in sister and brother marriage? In father and daughter relationships? In ephebophilia?". If we legalize gay marriage, it's not because it's an absolutely good thing, it's because our traditions evolved. Gay marriage is good but incest is still wrong; why?
Every argument an atheist will bring up can be argued against. Yet you can't argue against something that does not exist for 99% of people. What if there were 100mio people in America claiming 'The spaghetti monster told us to forbid standard marriage, but we can't show you any proof besides a book drunken men wrote 2000 years ago'? Does that give them the right to deny someone marriage? No, but you can't possibly argue with them! Now if an atheist comes up and says 'It deminishes the amount of kids annually born by 10%!' Then you can find something that disproofs this and you can continue the discussion. On a sidenote: Did I ever say incest is wrong? It happens all the time between animals. Most humans believe in God ; I don't see where that 99% come from. You don't understand my point, neither. Here in particular, I'm not defending believers, I'm attacking non-believers, because I feel many pat themelves in the back as if they were more intellectually advanced than their religious counterparts. Let's use a more fitting image than the biased spaghetti monster : Two children are playing. An adult comes up to them with a jar inside which there is a small thing moving. He hides it from them, before they can see what it is. They naturally ask : "what is it?" And he tells them it's a very small fish... that has legs. There are two choices : to believe him or not. That choice is intuitive, because while it may seems unlikely in your own representation of the world, there is such a thing as a fish that has legs (sort of). Is it rational to be completely sure that there is no such fish? It is not. The rational and logical stance here is : "I don't know". And yet most claim they do. Atheists have this annoying habit of believing they're behaving rationally simply because they don't believe in god. Well guess what : a definitive stance on an uncertain matter is irrational to begin with. You seem to not have grasped what atheism is about. There is always the possibility of a god existing, no sane atheist denies that, but the possibility of it being there is abysmal. There might be unicorns dressed in SM outfits flying around the moon, that's equally as likely as there being an omnipotent being who created the world and cares about on which day you work and who you have sexual intercourse with (and punishes you and forgives you and whatnot). Then that omnipotent being made some primitive bronze age desert tribes write down it's message, so that they can pass it on, so everyone can get salvation from being punished by himself, but it encoded it into stories, so that everyone can interpret their own shit into it. You see how silly it sounds? This is no "oversimplification", this is literally what you believe in if you are a christian.
You have no idea what you are talking about. And it shows.
|
On July 10 2012 05:54 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 05:44 MaGariShun wrote:On July 10 2012 04:30 Kukaracha wrote:On July 10 2012 03:15 Xiron wrote:On July 10 2012 01:35 Kukaracha wrote:
Atheists will use all kinds of moronic arguments, because this is how the brain is structured. Our survival has always depended on our capacity to make quick judgements and decisions, no matter how many generalizations, fallacious reasonings and erratic systems we use.
See above, "Then why don't you believe in sister and brother marriage? In father and daughter relationships? In ephebophilia?". If we legalize gay marriage, it's not because it's an absolutely good thing, it's because our traditions evolved. Gay marriage is good but incest is still wrong; why?
Every argument an atheist will bring up can be argued against. Yet you can't argue against something that does not exist for 99% of people. What if there were 100mio people in America claiming 'The spaghetti monster told us to forbid standard marriage, but we can't show you any proof besides a book drunken men wrote 2000 years ago'? Does that give them the right to deny someone marriage? No, but you can't possibly argue with them! Now if an atheist comes up and says 'It deminishes the amount of kids annually born by 10%!' Then you can find something that disproofs this and you can continue the discussion. On a sidenote: Did I ever say incest is wrong? It happens all the time between animals. Most humans believe in God ; I don't see where that 99% come from. You don't understand my point, neither. Here in particular, I'm not defending believers, I'm attacking non-believers, because I feel many pat themelves in the back as if they were more intellectually advanced than their religious counterparts. Let's use a more fitting image than the biased spaghetti monster : Two children are playing. An adult comes up to them with a jar inside which there is a small thing moving. He hides it from them, before they can see what it is. They naturally ask : "what is it?" And he tells them it's a very small fish... that has legs. There are two choices : to believe him or not. That choice is intuitive, because while it may seems unlikely in your own representation of the world, there is such a thing as a fish that has legs (sort of). Is it rational to be completely sure that there is no such fish? It is not. The rational and logical stance here is : "I don't know". And yet most claim they do. Atheists have this annoying habit of believing they're behaving rationally simply because they don't believe in god. Well guess what : a definitive stance on an uncertain matter is irrational to begin with. You seem to not have grasped what atheism is about. There is always the possibility of a god existing, no sane atheist denies that, but the possibility of it being there is abysmal. There might be unicorns dressed in SM outfits flying around the moon, that's equally as likely as there being an omnipotent being who created the world and cares about on which day you work and who you have sexual intercourse with (and punishes you and forgives you and whatnot). Then that omnipotent being made some primitive bronze age desert tribes write down it's message, so that they can pass it on, so everyone can get salvation from being punished by himself, but it encoded it into stories, so that everyone can interpret their own shit into it. You see how silly it sounds? This is no "oversimplification", this is literally what you believe in if you are a christian. You have no idea what you are talking about. And it shows.
Let's just tell him he's stupid, but not why he is stupid because apparantly you feel you are so superior it isn't even worth your time. This happens so often in discussions on the internet it's quite silly.
Atheists have this annoying habit of believing they're behaving rationally simply because they don't believe in god. Well guess what : a definitive stance on an uncertain matter is irrational to begin with.
I would call myself an Atheist. However, I obviously leave room for a god/creator hypothesis. Altough I know Atheism is the stance that you are certain there is no god. The thing is, I don't know what to call myself. Agnostic? But that implies I am not sure. Nevertheless, I am quite sure that there is no god, the same way I am quite sure there is no invisible spaghetti monster. If there would be scientific proof that there is an invisible spaghetti monster I would have faith in that being true. The same way I have faith the Higgs Boson is true. I believe the big difference between most Atheists and most Theists is that if there is scientific proof there is a god, most Atheists would accept that to be true. If there is conclusive scientific proof there is no god, Theists would reject that and still believe that there is one.
|
On July 10 2012 05:54 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 05:44 MaGariShun wrote:On July 10 2012 04:30 Kukaracha wrote:On July 10 2012 03:15 Xiron wrote:On July 10 2012 01:35 Kukaracha wrote:
Atheists will use all kinds of moronic arguments, because this is how the brain is structured. Our survival has always depended on our capacity to make quick judgements and decisions, no matter how many generalizations, fallacious reasonings and erratic systems we use.
See above, "Then why don't you believe in sister and brother marriage? In father and daughter relationships? In ephebophilia?". If we legalize gay marriage, it's not because it's an absolutely good thing, it's because our traditions evolved. Gay marriage is good but incest is still wrong; why?
Every argument an atheist will bring up can be argued against. Yet you can't argue against something that does not exist for 99% of people. What if there were 100mio people in America claiming 'The spaghetti monster told us to forbid standard marriage, but we can't show you any proof besides a book drunken men wrote 2000 years ago'? Does that give them the right to deny someone marriage? No, but you can't possibly argue with them! Now if an atheist comes up and says 'It deminishes the amount of kids annually born by 10%!' Then you can find something that disproofs this and you can continue the discussion. On a sidenote: Did I ever say incest is wrong? It happens all the time between animals. Most humans believe in God ; I don't see where that 99% come from. You don't understand my point, neither. Here in particular, I'm not defending believers, I'm attacking non-believers, because I feel many pat themelves in the back as if they were more intellectually advanced than their religious counterparts. Let's use a more fitting image than the biased spaghetti monster : Two children are playing. An adult comes up to them with a jar inside which there is a small thing moving. He hides it from them, before they can see what it is. They naturally ask : "what is it?" And he tells them it's a very small fish... that has legs. There are two choices : to believe him or not. That choice is intuitive, because while it may seems unlikely in your own representation of the world, there is such a thing as a fish that has legs (sort of). Is it rational to be completely sure that there is no such fish? It is not. The rational and logical stance here is : "I don't know". And yet most claim they do. Atheists have this annoying habit of believing they're behaving rationally simply because they don't believe in god. Well guess what : a definitive stance on an uncertain matter is irrational to begin with. You seem to not have grasped what atheism is about. There is always the possibility of a god existing, no sane atheist denies that, but the possibility of it being there is abysmal. There might be unicorns dressed in SM outfits flying around the moon, that's equally as likely as there being an omnipotent being who created the world and cares about on which day you work and who you have sexual intercourse with (and punishes you and forgives you and whatnot). Then that omnipotent being made some primitive bronze age desert tribes write down it's message, so that they can pass it on, so everyone can get salvation from being punished by himself, but it encoded it into stories, so that everyone can interpret their own shit into it. You see how silly it sounds? This is no "oversimplification", this is literally what you believe in if you are a christian. You have no idea what you are talking about. And it shows.
that's not a very well founded argument
|
You acting so offended is the same as religious extremist groups.
it's important that we relax
|
On July 10 2012 06:02 ella_guru wrote:
You acting so offended is the same as religious extremist groups.
it's important that we relax
Im just being overly dramatic
these religion discussions are like crack, I'm tellin' ya
EDIT: oh, if you are referring to the OP, nvm
|
On July 10 2012 05:57 Recognizable wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 05:54 farvacola wrote:On July 10 2012 05:44 MaGariShun wrote:On July 10 2012 04:30 Kukaracha wrote:On July 10 2012 03:15 Xiron wrote:On July 10 2012 01:35 Kukaracha wrote:
Atheists will use all kinds of moronic arguments, because this is how the brain is structured. Our survival has always depended on our capacity to make quick judgements and decisions, no matter how many generalizations, fallacious reasonings and erratic systems we use.
See above, "Then why don't you believe in sister and brother marriage? In father and daughter relationships? In ephebophilia?". If we legalize gay marriage, it's not because it's an absolutely good thing, it's because our traditions evolved. Gay marriage is good but incest is still wrong; why?
Every argument an atheist will bring up can be argued against. Yet you can't argue against something that does not exist for 99% of people. What if there were 100mio people in America claiming 'The spaghetti monster told us to forbid standard marriage, but we can't show you any proof besides a book drunken men wrote 2000 years ago'? Does that give them the right to deny someone marriage? No, but you can't possibly argue with them! Now if an atheist comes up and says 'It deminishes the amount of kids annually born by 10%!' Then you can find something that disproofs this and you can continue the discussion. On a sidenote: Did I ever say incest is wrong? It happens all the time between animals. Most humans believe in God ; I don't see where that 99% come from. You don't understand my point, neither. Here in particular, I'm not defending believers, I'm attacking non-believers, because I feel many pat themelves in the back as if they were more intellectually advanced than their religious counterparts. Let's use a more fitting image than the biased spaghetti monster : Two children are playing. An adult comes up to them with a jar inside which there is a small thing moving. He hides it from them, before they can see what it is. They naturally ask : "what is it?" And he tells them it's a very small fish... that has legs. There are two choices : to believe him or not. That choice is intuitive, because while it may seems unlikely in your own representation of the world, there is such a thing as a fish that has legs (sort of). Is it rational to be completely sure that there is no such fish? It is not. The rational and logical stance here is : "I don't know". And yet most claim they do. Atheists have this annoying habit of believing they're behaving rationally simply because they don't believe in god. Well guess what : a definitive stance on an uncertain matter is irrational to begin with. You seem to not have grasped what atheism is about. There is always the possibility of a god existing, no sane atheist denies that, but the possibility of it being there is abysmal. There might be unicorns dressed in SM outfits flying around the moon, that's equally as likely as there being an omnipotent being who created the world and cares about on which day you work and who you have sexual intercourse with (and punishes you and forgives you and whatnot). Then that omnipotent being made some primitive bronze age desert tribes write down it's message, so that they can pass it on, so everyone can get salvation from being punished by himself, but it encoded it into stories, so that everyone can interpret their own shit into it. You see how silly it sounds? This is no "oversimplification", this is literally what you believe in if you are a christian. You have no idea what you are talking about. And it shows. Let's just tell him he's stupid, but not why he is stupid because apparantly you feel you are so superior it isn't even worth your time. This happens so often in discussions on the internet it's quite silly.
Not reading the entire thread also happens so often on the internet that it's quite silly, and if your reading comprehension is up to snuff you'll see that his ignorance has been previously addressed. My blunt and simple dismissal is predicated on the posters obvious lack of reading comprehension, seeing as how I and others have repeatedly explained that anyone in the business of telling others what they believe is an idiot. The poster continuously relegates the breadth of Christian thought to hackneyed and childish analogies that don't even come close to reflecting anything more than his own inability to conceive of difference in perspective. After all, an opposing opinion is always easier to defeat when you distort it to fit your argument. The fact of the matter is that there are many Christians who do not take the bible for literal truth, do not wish to politicize their beliefs, and struggle daily with the push and pull of an inner-debate that is constantly looking for answers. If you do not believe me, look up Unitarianism, liberal Episcopalianism, or people like Donald Knuth. I'm sure the father of computer programming applies a similar brand of faith as the one offered forth by MaGariShun.
Yeah
Fucking
Right
|
On July 10 2012 04:30 Kukaracha wrote:
Most humans believe in God ; I don't see where that 99% come from.
You don't understand my point, neither. Here in particular, I'm not defending believers, I'm attacking non-believers, because I feel many pat themelves in the back as if they were more intellectually advanced than their religious counterparts.
Let's use a more fitting image than the biased spaghetti monster :
Two children are playing. An adult comes up to them with a jar inside which there is a small thing moving. He hides it from them, before they can see what it is. They naturally ask : "what is it?" And he tells them it's a very small fish... that has legs.
There are two choices : to believe him or not. That choice is intuitive, because while it may seems unlikely in your own representation of the world, there is such a thing as a fish that has legs (sort of). Is it rational to be completely sure that there is no such fish? It is not. The rational and logical stance here is : "I don't know". And yet most claim they do.
Atheists have this annoying habit of believing they're behaving rationally simply because they don't believe in god. Well guess what : a definitive stance on an uncertain matter is irrational to begin with.
Wow, your example plays into my hands like I never would have imagined. The theist kid will say: 'Yes, I do believe there is a fish with legs in the glass, because you told me so.' The atheist on the other hand will say: 'It's very unlikely that there is a fish with legs in the jar, because evolution and my objections of my environment make it 99% unlikely. So, as long as you don't prove me, that there is a fish with legs in this glas (of which there is no hint at all), I don't believe so.'
And that is the difference between theists and atheists. Theist eat what they get fed without questioning it at all, because it seems like a good idea to think it's a fish with legs (obviously not). Atheists think about their environment and come to the conclusion that a fish with legs is made up bullshit with no proof at all.
Of course you can't be 100% certain in anything. But rational means reasonable. And it's 99,9999% reasonable that it's not a fish with legs. Applying your last sentence on everything, no choice could ever be made ever because nothing is ever certain.
Oh and leading that back to the topic, I think it's justified to feel that one's acting reasonable as an atheist, as the aforementioned example showcases very well.
|
On July 10 2012 06:15 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 05:57 Recognizable wrote:On July 10 2012 05:54 farvacola wrote:On July 10 2012 05:44 MaGariShun wrote:On July 10 2012 04:30 Kukaracha wrote:On July 10 2012 03:15 Xiron wrote:On July 10 2012 01:35 Kukaracha wrote:
Atheists will use all kinds of moronic arguments, because this is how the brain is structured. Our survival has always depended on our capacity to make quick judgements and decisions, no matter how many generalizations, fallacious reasonings and erratic systems we use.
See above, "Then why don't you believe in sister and brother marriage? In father and daughter relationships? In ephebophilia?". If we legalize gay marriage, it's not because it's an absolutely good thing, it's because our traditions evolved. Gay marriage is good but incest is still wrong; why?
Every argument an atheist will bring up can be argued against. Yet you can't argue against something that does not exist for 99% of people. What if there were 100mio people in America claiming 'The spaghetti monster told us to forbid standard marriage, but we can't show you any proof besides a book drunken men wrote 2000 years ago'? Does that give them the right to deny someone marriage? No, but you can't possibly argue with them! Now if an atheist comes up and says 'It deminishes the amount of kids annually born by 10%!' Then you can find something that disproofs this and you can continue the discussion. On a sidenote: Did I ever say incest is wrong? It happens all the time between animals. Most humans believe in God ; I don't see where that 99% come from. You don't understand my point, neither. Here in particular, I'm not defending believers, I'm attacking non-believers, because I feel many pat themelves in the back as if they were more intellectually advanced than their religious counterparts. Let's use a more fitting image than the biased spaghetti monster : Two children are playing. An adult comes up to them with a jar inside which there is a small thing moving. He hides it from them, before they can see what it is. They naturally ask : "what is it?" And he tells them it's a very small fish... that has legs. There are two choices : to believe him or not. That choice is intuitive, because while it may seems unlikely in your own representation of the world, there is such a thing as a fish that has legs (sort of). Is it rational to be completely sure that there is no such fish? It is not. The rational and logical stance here is : "I don't know". And yet most claim they do. Atheists have this annoying habit of believing they're behaving rationally simply because they don't believe in god. Well guess what : a definitive stance on an uncertain matter is irrational to begin with. You seem to not have grasped what atheism is about. There is always the possibility of a god existing, no sane atheist denies that, but the possibility of it being there is abysmal. There might be unicorns dressed in SM outfits flying around the moon, that's equally as likely as there being an omnipotent being who created the world and cares about on which day you work and who you have sexual intercourse with (and punishes you and forgives you and whatnot). Then that omnipotent being made some primitive bronze age desert tribes write down it's message, so that they can pass it on, so everyone can get salvation from being punished by himself, but it encoded it into stories, so that everyone can interpret their own shit into it. You see how silly it sounds? This is no "oversimplification", this is literally what you believe in if you are a christian. You have no idea what you are talking about. And it shows. Let's just tell him he's stupid, but not why he is stupid because apparantly you feel you are so superior it isn't even worth your time. This happens so often in discussions on the internet it's quite silly. Not reading the entire thread also happens so often on the internet that it's quite silly, and if your reading comprehension is up to snuff you'll see that his ignorance has been previously addressed. My blunt and simple dismissal is predicated on the posters obvious lack of reading comprehension, seeing as how I and others have repeatedly explained that anyone in the business of telling others what they believe is an idiot. The poster continuously relegates the breadth of Christian thought to hackneyed and childish analogies that don't even come close to reflecting anything more than his own inability to conceive of difference in perspective. After all, an opposing opinion is always easier to defeat when you distort it to fit your argument. The fact of the matter is that there are many Christians who do not take the bible for literal truth, do not wish to politicize their beliefs, and struggle daily with the push and pull of an inner-debate that is constantly looking for answers. If you do not believe me, look up Unitarianism, liberal Episcopalianism, or people like Donald Knuth. I'm sure the father of computer programming applies a similar brand of faith as the one offered forth by MaGariShun. Yeah Fucking Right
I agree, most people here are generalizing religious people. Like the poster above me.
And that is the difference between theists and atheists. Theist eat what they get fed without questioning it at all, because it seems like a good idea to think it's a fish with legs (obviously not). Atheists think about their environment and come to the conclusion that a fish with legs is made up bullshit with no proof at all.
The Theist kid would most likely say the same thing as the Atheist concerning the matter. Religious people can be just as rational about matters as these. It's just when you touch on the subject of religion it changes. My dad has an employee who is quite religious, he visits church every sunday. Which is getting more rare in the Netherlands each year. Does this mean he isn't a good chemical engineer anymore? No ofcourse not. My dad saw it as a positive thing actually. He was amazed by all the strength he could get out of his religion and I think that's great. Sometimes I wish I could have that aswell. Alas, I have chosen the path of no religion. Atleast I had this choice, some kids don't.
|
On July 10 2012 05:44 MaGariShun wrote:
You seem to not have grasped what atheism is about. Atheists are generally agnostics, not strict atheists, but if I say I'm agnostic, that kinda sounds like i really think there might be a god, so everyone uses the word "atheist".
There is always the possibility of a god existing, no sane atheist denies that, but the possibility of it being there is abysmal. There might be unicorns dressed in SM outfits flying around the moon, that's equally as likely as there being an omnipotent being who created the world and cares about on which day you work and who you have sexual intercourse with (and punishes you and forgives you and whatnot). Then that omnipotent being made some primitive bronze age desert tribes write down it's message, so that they can pass it on, so everyone can get salvation from being punished by himself, but it encoded it into stories, so that everyone can interpret their own shit into it.
Wait I'm confused... So people that call themselves atheists are actually agnostics? but don't call themselves agnostic because people might think they are actually agnostics?
|
No, but when you tell people you are agnostic they are like. Well that means you are 50/50? Fuck that, i'm not 50/50. I'm just not completely sure.
|
On July 10 2012 03:54 Amaterasu1234 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 03:15 Xiron wrote:On July 10 2012 01:35 Kukaracha wrote:
Atheists will use all kinds of moronic arguments, because this is how the brain is structured. Our survival has always depended on our capacity to make quick judgements and decisions, no matter how many generalizations, fallacious reasonings and erratic systems we use.
See above, "Then why don't you believe in sister and brother marriage? In father and daughter relationships? In ephebophilia?". If we legalize gay marriage, it's not because it's an absolutely good thing, it's because our traditions evolved. Gay marriage is good but incest is still wrong; why?
Every argument an atheist will bring up can be argued against. Yet you can't argue against something that does not exist for 99% of people. What if there were 100mio people in America claiming 'The spaghetti monster told us to forbid standard marriage, but we can't show you any proof besides a book drunken men wrote 2000 years ago'? Does that give them the right to deny someone marriage? No, but you can't possibly argue with them! Now if an atheist comes up and says 'It deminishes the amount of kids annually born by 10%!' Then you can find something that disproofs this and you can continue the discussion. On a sidenote: Did I ever say incest is wrong? It happens all the time between animals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest#InbreedingThat's why incest is wrong. It doesn't do anything except make stuff worse.
Here could be a list of thousands of sources of why religion is wrong. It doesn't do anything except make stuff worse.
Incest is not wrong under various circumstances, as nature shows. Nature defines what's right and what's wrong. Everything else you percieve differently is your understanding of moral. Of course incest does not fit in our society, yet it has got the same foundation as forbiding gay marriage: People interfere with somebody else's lives, without any permission to do so.
|
On July 10 2012 06:39 Recognizable wrote:
The Theist kid would most likely say the same thing as the Atheist concerning the matter. Religious people can be just as rational about matters as these. It's just when you touch on the subject of religion it changes. My dad has an employee who is quite religious, he visits church every sunday. Which is getting more rare in the Netherlands each year. Does this mean he isn't a good chemical engineer anymore? No ofcourse not. My dad saw it as a positive thing actually. He was amazed by all the strength he could get out of his religion and I think that's great. Sometimes I wish I could have that aswell. Alas, I have chosen the path of no religion. Atleast I had this choice, some kids don't.
It does have nothing to do with science here. It's solely based upon religions.
Sorry but I had to laugh at your text. Strength out of religion? How is that possible?
|
On July 10 2012 06:42 Recognizable wrote:
No, but when you tell people you are agnostic they are like. Well that means you are 50/50? Fuck that, i'm not 50/50. I'm just not completely sure.
^^this. It gives the impression you are 50/50, when in fact you just don't want to exclude anything
|
On July 10 2012 06:46 Xiron wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 06:39 Recognizable wrote:
The Theist kid would most likely say the same thing as the Atheist concerning the matter. Religious people can be just as rational about matters as these. It's just when you touch on the subject of religion it changes. My dad has an employee who is quite religious, he visits church every sunday. Which is getting more rare in the Netherlands each year. Does this mean he isn't a good chemical engineer anymore? No ofcourse not. My dad saw it as a positive thing actually. He was amazed by all the strength he could get out of his religion and I think that's great. Sometimes I wish I could have that aswell. Alas, I have chosen the path of no religion. Atleast I had this choice, some kids don't. It does have nothing to do with science here. It's solely based upon religions. Sorry but I had to laugh at your text. Strength out of religion? How is that possible?
If you are going through a rough time, let's say somebody died. Research shows that being religious seems to help you.
|
On July 10 2012 06:52 Recognizable wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 06:46 Xiron wrote:On July 10 2012 06:39 Recognizable wrote:
The Theist kid would most likely say the same thing as the Atheist concerning the matter. Religious people can be just as rational about matters as these. It's just when you touch on the subject of religion it changes. My dad has an employee who is quite religious, he visits church every sunday. Which is getting more rare in the Netherlands each year. Does this mean he isn't a good chemical engineer anymore? No ofcourse not. My dad saw it as a positive thing actually. He was amazed by all the strength he could get out of his religion and I think that's great. Sometimes I wish I could have that aswell. Alas, I have chosen the path of no religion. Atleast I had this choice, some kids don't. It does have nothing to do with science here. It's solely based upon religions. Sorry but I had to laugh at your text. Strength out of religion? How is that possible? If you are going through a rough time, let's say somebody died. Research shows that being religious seems to help you.
Research shows that social interactions with psychologists or friends help way more than any religion could ever do. Anyways, swap 'Fish with legs' with 'Turned water into wine and made 1000 breads out of 1.' Suddenly the theist kid says ' Yeah that's totally happened!' The atheist kid still would be like: 'That seems very unlikely and has no substance at all, therefor it is not reasonable to think it's possible.' -> proceeds to disagree with the idea of turning water into wine while arguing with people who come up: 'Hey it's so possible to turn water into wine because my dad told me so!'
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
