So I recently attended a christian rock concert as part of an event that my church decided it would have its teen group go to. My mom works at the church and specifically in the teen program so I really have no choice in the matter. I also don't mind doing it to make my mom happy because I know how bad it would look if you were the leader a teen group your own son didn't go to. But enough ranting and now onto the story.
I walk into this christian rock concert that i'm not all to excited about going to in the first place + Show Spoiler +
(don't like christian rock)
and everything going good. Its a pretty big event and there are lots of stages with lots of bands and alot of people are getting really into the music. Since i'm not really enjoying the music I decide to go over to the area where they are selling the "I <3 JESUS" and "JESUS ME HOMEBOY" type merchandise. After browseing around a couple of the stands something catches my eye, and absolutely infuriates me.+ Show Spoiler +
Basically its this But on a T-shirt
I cannot tell you how mad I was at seeing this, having read Nietzsche myself, this shows an utter failure to understand what Nietzsche was talking about. Its actually extremely ironic and makes the same point that Nietzsche was actually trying to convey; That god, as a matter of cultural fact, is dead. Seeing people parading around me with t-shirts glorifying the death of a great mind is fucking appalling and embarrassing. Not only that but I also find it extremely contradictory to what Jesus himself taught, love and tolerance regardless of differences in thought, skin color, race, sexual identification, etc..
I think at this point in my life I've come to the realization that ignorance isn't a theist or atheist issue, but a human issue.
"where one cannot love, one should pass by" - Nietzsche
I guess god really might be dead.
*If religious blogs aren't allowed on TL ill more then happily edit this blog out and accept the close.
I've seen that quote as well, and indeed it merely appears to be a superficial counterpunch to those who don't understand philosophy, but are just more centrally focused on the belief that God always gets the last laugh. It surely appeals to most of the theistic community (most obviously have not read Nietzsche and think it's a clever, supportive quote for their beliefs), so it gets the job done. It also irritates irrelevant people, which ends up being fine. There's obviously no intention of it being correct on an educational level, especially if you compare it to so many other religious quotes that attempt to belittle opposing facts or opinions (like misrepresenting evolution and the big bang, the difference between a scientific theory and a colloquial theory, etc.).
You probably should have started a conversation with the guy selling shirts. Not an aggressive, argumentative one. But just a casual discussion about the quotes (if a casual discussion about religion and philosophy can actually exist... lol).
This is actually one of the reasons I stopped believing when I was about 8 years old. That's when I started noticing all the hypocrisy of religion and the absurdity of it all. To each his own, I guess, but to me it's all a fairytale that people have believed in for much, much too long.
I don't think there's much wrong with this blog, just that some people have extremely strong feelings about the subject and want to debate about it or even worse, jump into conclusions or derail the topic with things that are irrelevant to the original poster.
It's not that God is dead, just that you can never feel his presence near merchandise and ignorant, untolerant people. That's not what religion is about, and it's no wonder you felt bad about it.
I know that they sell a lot of ridiculous crap there, basically people looking to gain money out of stupid people and completely forget what religion is really about. It's really not about judging people, being untolerant or anything like that. However, there are a lot of ignorant atheists as well, and they do just as much ridiculous stuff. (Remember large banners of: "God probably doesn't exist. Go an live your life" ?)
dude, it's a hilarious joke. nothing more.. that you are so offended merely shows me that religious groups don't have a monopoly on unwarranted feelings of being offended.
He was non-believer spawn of satan, who spread blasphemy.
In all seriousness, i believe most of groups create themselves an archenemy of popular past or present figures, it's in human nature to find someone to deem inferior and be happy about it.
I would also like to say, if you believe in god, don't abandon your faith just because someone else believes differently, it is really hard to find 2 people in whole world who imagine what god is about in the exact same way. Do whatever makes you happy and let others do whatever makes them happy
I myself really love Nietzsche, after lots of philosophers he's the one i agree the most with. Also i don't worship god in any way, and believe in occam's razor, aka i am a naturalist.
On July 08 2012 20:35 Ahzz wrote: I don't think there's much wrong with this blog, just that some people have extremely strong feelings about the subject and want to debate about it or even worse, jump into conclusions or derail the topic with things that are irrelevant to the original poster.
It's not that God is dead, just that you can never feel his presence near merchandise and ignorant, untolerant people. That's not what religion is about, and it's no wonder you felt bad about it.
I know that they sell a lot of ridiculous crap there, basically people looking to gain money out of stupid people and completely forget what religion is really about. It's really not about judging people, being untolerant or anything like that. However, there are a lot of ignorant atheists as well, and they do just as much ridiculous stuff. (Remember large banners of: "God probably doesn't exist. Go an live your life" ?)
I don't think that's the same as what the OP is talking about though. I think the quote you're referencing is analogous to all those theistic bumper stickers about how we should use a belief in God in our daily lives, or center our lives around him, or continuously be thinking about him. From an atheist's perspective, it's the opposite: "He probably doesn't exist, just go lead a good and happy life", explaining how the belief in God can ultimately be irrelevant (in the sense that you can have a wonderful life with or without God).
I have yet to see an atheist bumper sticker that directly misrepresents a scientific, mathematical, or philosophical fact or opinion in order to push the atheist "agenda". (That's not to say that none exist, but if they do, I'd like to see a picture of one.) And, to be fair, I think that the majority of theistic bumper stickers don't do that either (they usually just stick to God or Prayer or Love or that Jesus Fish symbol), but there are plenty of religious fundamentalists who do lie about facts, and there are stickers of those as well (especially the topics that I referred to in my previous post).
On July 08 2012 20:40 Liquid`Drone wrote: dude, it's a hilarious joke. nothing more.. that you are so offended merely shows me that religious groups don't have a monopoly on unwarranted feelings of being offended.
Err, I'm sorry but i don't quite understand your point of view (which I can almost guarantee you is my own fault). I can see how it could easily be portrayed as a joke but the context of the event, situation and the general mindset of the people I interacted with wearing those shirts suggests against it.
I think I would have picked up on if it was meant as a joke, i'm not easily offended at all but this pushed my buttons for some reason.
On July 08 2012 20:55 krndandaman wrote: nietzsche said god is dead nietzsche died in 1900 god decides who dies and when therefore he gets the last laugh by saying nietzsche is dead .
So, it's an insider for christians who want to laugh about someone who challenged their point of view.. Funny, I laughed........ O.o
Christian X says 'God will save me' - Yesterday Rational Y says 'I just killed Christian X' - Today
LOL it's funny because X said he will be saved by god but in the end he still died LOLOL ...... o.O Some people have a retarded sense of humor.
On July 08 2012 20:55 krndandaman wrote: nietzsche said god is dead nietzsche died in 1900 god decides who dies and when therefore he gets the last laugh by saying nietzsche is dead .
So, it's an insider for christians who want to laugh about someone who challenged their point of view.. Funny, I laughed........ O.o
Christian X says 'God will save me' - Yesterday Rational Y says 'I just killed Christian X' - Today
LOL it's funny because X said he will be saved by god but in the end he still died LOLOL ...... o.O Some people have a retarded sense of humor.
wow way to be uptight and pretentious lol
I just turned it the other way around and it's just not funny at all. If there are people who laugh about 'Nietzsche is dead', then they should be laughing about my 'joke' aswell, right? Otherwise they are religious fanatics who laugh at Nietzsche, trying to downgrade a man who was a genius. Making fun of someone to discredit them is never funny.
On July 08 2012 20:40 Liquid`Drone wrote: dude, it's a hilarious joke. nothing more.. that you are so offended merely shows me that religious groups don't have a monopoly on unwarranted feelings of being offended.
Yeah but the joke doesn't make any sense when you understand what Nietzsche really meant by that.
It was 5 years ago so my knowledge on philosophy is really fuzzy now, but I think the full quote is something like
God is dead, humans killed him.
Nietsche wasn't trying to be facetious about it. He was trying to explain how humans have forgotten the true purpose of religion or something like that. That's why its so ironic, its actually hilarious that the church is selling those shirts because it makes them look like complete fools. They may as well just have shirts saying "I am retarded" and have sold those instead.
On July 08 2012 20:40 Liquid`Drone wrote: dude, it's a hilarious joke. nothing more.. that you are so offended merely shows me that religious groups don't have a monopoly on unwarranted feelings of being offended.
Yeah but the joke doesn't make any sense when you understand what Nietzsche really meant by that.
It was 5 years ago so my knowledge on philosophy is really fuzzy now, but I think the full quote is something like
God is dead, humans killed him.
Nietsche wasn't trying to be facetious about it. He was trying to explain how humans have forgotten the true purpose of religion or something like that. That's why its so ironic, its actually hilarious that the church is selling those shirts because it makes them look like complete fools. They may as well just have shirts saying "I am retarded" and have sold those instead.
I'm glad to see i'm not the only once who perceived it that way.
On July 08 2012 20:40 Liquid`Drone wrote: dude, it's a hilarious joke. nothing more.. that you are so offended merely shows me that religious groups don't have a monopoly on unwarranted feelings of being offended.
Yeah but the joke doesn't make any sense when you understand what Nietzsche really meant by that.
It was 5 years ago so my knowledge on philosophy is really fuzzy now, but I think the full quote is something like
God is dead, humans killed him.
Nietsche wasn't trying to be facetious about it. He was trying to explain how humans have forgotten the true purpose of religion or something like that. That's why its so ironic, its actually hilarious that the church is selling those shirts because it makes them look like complete fools. They may as well just have shirts saying "I am retarded" and have sold those instead.
Because atheists that makes jokes about religion understand anything about it? That quote is a Joke dude. Its a play on words taken out of context.Its funny, live with it.
On July 08 2012 20:40 Liquid`Drone wrote: dude, it's a hilarious joke. nothing more.. that you are so offended merely shows me that religious groups don't have a monopoly on unwarranted feelings of being offended.
Yeah but the joke doesn't make any sense when you understand what Nietzsche really meant by that.
It was 5 years ago so my knowledge on philosophy is really fuzzy now, but I think the full quote is something like
God is dead, humans killed him.
Nietsche wasn't trying to be facetious about it. He was trying to explain how humans have forgotten the true purpose of religion or something like that. That's why its so ironic, its actually hilarious that the church is selling those shirts because it makes them look like complete fools. They may as well just have shirts saying "I am retarded" and have sold those instead.
Because atheists that makes jokes about religion understand anything about it? That quote is a Joke dude. Its a play on words taken out of context.Its funny, live with it.
Also, what explicit misinterpretations of philosophy, science, and mathematics are used in atheist quotes? There are plenty used in religious quotes (especially when it comes to evolution, the big bang, the definition of "theory", clearly Nietsche, and plenty of others).
On July 08 2012 20:40 Liquid`Drone wrote: dude, it's a hilarious joke. nothing more.. that you are so offended merely shows me that religious groups don't have a monopoly on unwarranted feelings of being offended.
Err, I'm sorry but i don't quite understand your point of view (which I can almost guarantee you is my own fault). I can see how it could easily be portrayed as a joke but the context of the event, situation and the general mindset of the people I interacted with wearing those shirts suggests against it.
I think I would have picked up on if it was meant as a joke, i'm not easily offended at all but this pushed my buttons for some reason.
Those who understand Nietzsche might feel offended by some of his concepts, but that goes for many things he said (the idea of übermensch associated with Hitler's Mein Kampf for example). So yes, they probably want to "get back" at him for saying that God is dead, but in the end they simply don't understand what he said. Why would you be so mad? People don't understand things all the time. Do you understand the current crisis? Do you understand the ecological impact of Chinese activity around the desert of Gobi? I guess not, right?
So, in the end, it's just a joke, chillax. There are also idiotic jokes on the atheist side, comparing the christian god to Thor and/or Odin, and they don't make you pop a vein, do they?
On July 08 2012 20:40 Liquid`Drone wrote: dude, it's a hilarious joke. nothing more.. that you are so offended merely shows me that religious groups don't have a monopoly on unwarranted feelings of being offended.
Yeah but the joke doesn't make any sense when you understand what Nietzsche really meant by that.
It was 5 years ago so my knowledge on philosophy is really fuzzy now, but I think the full quote is something like
God is dead, humans killed him.
Nietsche wasn't trying to be facetious about it. He was trying to explain how humans have forgotten the true purpose of religion or something like that. That's why its so ironic, its actually hilarious that the church is selling those shirts because it makes them look like complete fools. They may as well just have shirts saying "I am retarded" and have sold those instead.
Because atheists that makes jokes about religion understand anything about it? That quote is a Joke dude. Its a play on words taken out of context.Its funny, live with it.
Also, what explicit misinterpretations of philosophy, science, and mathematics are used in atheist quotes? There are plenty used in religious quotes (especially when it comes to evolution, the big bang, the definition of "theory", clearly Nietsche, and plenty of others).
I would argue that most atheists and most believers don't understand religion from a theological point of view.
On July 08 2012 20:40 Liquid`Drone wrote: dude, it's a hilarious joke. nothing more.. that you are so offended merely shows me that religious groups don't have a monopoly on unwarranted feelings of being offended.
Err, I'm sorry but i don't quite understand your point of view (which I can almost guarantee you is my own fault). I can see how it could easily be portrayed as a joke but the context of the event, situation and the general mindset of the people I interacted with wearing those shirts suggests against it.
I think I would have picked up on if it was meant as a joke, i'm not easily offended at all but this pushed my buttons for some reason.
Those who understand Nietzsche might feel offended by some of his concepts, but that goes for many things he said (the idea of übermensch associated with Hitler's Mein Kampf for example). So yes, they probably want to "get back" at him for saying that God is dead, but in the end they simply don't understand what he said. Why would you be so mad? People don't understand things all the time. Do you understand the current crisis? Do you understand the ecological impact of Chinese activity around the desert of Gobi? I guess not, right?
So, in the end, it's just a joke, chillax. There are also idiotic jokes on the atheist side, comparing the christian god to Thor and/or Odin, and they don't make you pop a vein, do they?
I found this case to be particularly absurd, but you do have a very good point.
On July 08 2012 20:55 krndandaman wrote: nietzsche said god is dead nietzsche died in 1900 god decides who dies and when therefore he gets the last laugh by saying nietzsche is dead .
So, it's an insider for christians who want to laugh about someone who challenged their point of view.. Funny, I laughed........ O.o
Christian X says 'God will save me' - Yesterday Rational Y says 'I just killed Christian X' - Today
LOL it's funny because X said he will be saved by god but in the end he still died LOLOL ...... o.O Some people have a retarded sense of humor.
wow way to be uptight and pretentious lol
I just turned it the other way around and it's just not funny at all. If there are people who laugh about 'Nietzsche is dead', then they should be laughing about my 'joke' aswell, right? Otherwise they are religious fanatics who laugh at Nietzsche, trying to downgrade a man who was a genius. Making fun of someone to discredit them is never funny.
cause your joke is plain lame i guess drone, me, and plenty others who chuckled at the joke are all religious fanatics
So then you could explain me the funny part of the joke? At the moment my view of it is: Someone died and people laugh at him because he died.
As people concluded above: Knowing what Nietzsche meant makes this joke really hard to understand.
On July 08 2012 20:40 Liquid`Drone wrote: dude, it's a hilarious joke. nothing more.. that you are so offended merely shows me that religious groups don't have a monopoly on unwarranted feelings of being offended.
Yeah but the joke doesn't make any sense when you understand what Nietzsche really meant by that.
It was 5 years ago so my knowledge on philosophy is really fuzzy now, but I think the full quote is something like
God is dead, humans killed him.
Nietsche wasn't trying to be facetious about it. He was trying to explain how humans have forgotten the true purpose of religion or something like that. That's why its so ironic, its actually hilarious that the church is selling those shirts because it makes them look like complete fools. They may as well just have shirts saying "I am retarded" and have sold those instead.
Because atheists that makes jokes about religion understand anything about it? That quote is a Joke dude. Its a play on words taken out of context.Its funny, live with it.
Also, what explicit misinterpretations of philosophy, science, and mathematics are used in atheist quotes? There are plenty used in religious quotes (especially when it comes to evolution, the big bang, the definition of "theory", clearly Nietsche, and plenty of others).
I would argue that most atheists and most believers don't understand religion from a theological point of view.
I recommend everyone should watch Religulous. This guy was born and raised in a christian family, knows more about christianity than most christians do, yet is an atheist.
On July 08 2012 22:44 Xiron wrote: So then you could explain me the funny part of the joke? At the moment my view of it is: Someone died and people laugh at him because the died.
As people concluded above: Knowing what Nietzsche meant makes this joke really hard to understand.
People laugh at dead people all the time. Like when this old Russian dude died of a heart attack after a viagra-powered sex marathon with two ladies who had dared him to last for a full day. It's dark comedy.
But yes, it isn't pretty. It is a dirty war after all, the war of who's right and who's wrong! The final price being a delicious post-mortem neenerneener.
On July 08 2012 22:46 sluggaslamoo wrote: I recommend everyone should watch Religulous. This guy was born and raised in a christian family, knows more about christianity than most christians do, yet is an atheist.
1) One example is not a valid argument to defend a generalization.
2) Why would you assume that trivial commoners can perfectly understand the Bible, and that they can in turn not understand Nietzsche's Zarathustra? Both are equally cryptic. What leads you to believe that people who read the Bible and that people who study it during their whole lives have a similar knowledge of it?
I actually never thought of this, but it seems as a very good defense in favor of the Bible.
On July 08 2012 22:46 sluggaslamoo wrote: I recommend everyone should watch Religulous. This guy was born and raised in a christian family, knows more about christianity than most christians do, yet is an atheist.
1) One example is not a valid argument to defend a generalization.
2) Why would you assume that trivial commoners can perfectly understand the Bible, and that they can in turn not understand Nietzsche's Zarathustra? Both are equally cryptic. What leads you to believe that people who read the Bible and that people who study it during their whole lives have a similar knowledge of it?
I actually never thought of this, but it seems as a very good defense in favor of the Bible.
I did not get a cryptic impression from Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra at all, i actually thought it was very concise and deliberate. I think your mixing up Nietzsche and Kafka on that one.
On July 08 2012 20:55 krndandaman wrote: nietzsche said god is dead nietzsche died in 1900 god decides who dies and when therefore he gets the last laugh by saying nietzsche is dead .
So, it's an insider for christians who want to laugh about someone who challenged their point of view.. Funny, I laughed........ O.o
Christian X says 'God will save me' - Yesterday Rational Y says 'I just killed Christian X' - Today
LOL it's funny because X said he will be saved by god but in the end he still died LOLOL ...... o.O Some people have a retarded sense of humor.
wow way to be uptight and pretentious lol
I just turned it the other way around and it's just not funny at all. If there are people who laugh about 'Nietzsche is dead', then they should be laughing about my 'joke' aswell, right? Otherwise they are religious fanatics who laugh at Nietzsche, trying to downgrade a man who was a genius. Making fun of someone to discredit them is never funny.
cause your joke is plain lame i guess drone, me, and plenty others who chuckled at the joke are all religious fanatics
So then you could explain me the funny part of the joke? At the moment my view of it is: Someone died and people laugh at him because he died.
As people concluded above: Knowing what Nietzsche meant makes this joke really hard to understand.
i guess you are too intelligent to laugh at such a dumb joke
Or maybe I'm just too dumb to understand such an intelligent joke? Please educate me on the funny interpretations of this joke.
On July 08 2012 22:46 sluggaslamoo wrote: I recommend everyone should watch Religulous. This guy was born and raised in a christian family, knows more about christianity than most christians do, yet is an atheist.
1) One example is not a valid argument to defend a generalization.
2) Why would you assume that trivial commoners can perfectly understand the Bible, and that they can in turn not understand Nietzsche's Zarathustra? Both are equally cryptic. What leads you to believe that people who read the Bible and that people who study it during their whole lives have a similar knowledge of it?
I actually never thought of this, but it seems as a very good defense in favor of the Bible.
No I mean you should just watch it to see how most christians even ministers don't even understand their own religion
Well, I was 16 when I read up about Nietzsche, and the "God is dead" part is one of the first things you read about as it is the foundation for a lot of his writings. I'm pretty sure it was one of the most clear cut, straight to the point message that I had ever read.
At least it made a lot more sense than
"... And the talking snake said to Eve, here, eat this magical apple!".
He who liveth amongst the good- pity teacheth him to lie. Pity maketh stifling air for all free souls. For the stupidity of the good is unfathomable. To conceal myself and my riches- that did I learn down there: for every one did I still find poor in spirit. It was the lie of my pity, that I knew in every one. -That I saw and scented in every one, what was enough of spirit for him, and what was too much! Their stiff wise men: I call them wise, not stiff- thus did I learn to slur over words. The grave-diggers dig for themselves diseases. Under old rubbish rest bad vapours. One should not stir up the marsh. One should live on mountains. With blessed nostrils do I again breathe mountain-freedom. Freed at last is my nose from the smell of all human hubbub! With sharp breezes tickled, as with sparkling wine, sneezeth my soul- sneezeth, and shouteth self-congratulatingly: "Health to thee!"
Thus spake Zarathustra.
I fail to see how this is any clearer than the Bible itself. Random excerpt :
Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
He who liveth amongst the good- pity teacheth him to lie. Pity maketh stifling air for all free souls. For the stupidity of the good is unfathomable. To conceal myself and my riches- that did I learn down there: for every one did I still find poor in spirit. It was the lie of my pity, that I knew in every one. -That I saw and scented in every one, what was enough of spirit for him, and what was too much! Their stiff wise men: I call them wise, not stiff- thus did I learn to slur over words. The grave-diggers dig for themselves diseases. Under old rubbish rest bad vapours. One should not stir up the marsh. One should live on mountains. With blessed nostrils do I again breathe mountain-freedom. Freed at last is my nose from the smell of all human hubbub! With sharp breezes tickled, as with sparkling wine, sneezeth my soul- sneezeth, and shouteth self-congratulatingly: "Health to thee!"
Thus spake Zarathustra.
I fail to see how this is any clearer than the Bible itself. Random excerpt :
Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
What kind of argument is that? I can take a random excerpt out of virtually anything and post it and it wouldn't make sense. So your saying random excerpts without any context are supposed to make sense?
On July 08 2012 23:10 sluggaslamoo wrote: No I mean you should just watch it to see how most christians even ministers don't even understand their own religion
Well, I was 16 when I read up about Nietzsche, and the "God is dead" part is one of the first things you read about as it is the foundation for a lot of his writings. I'm pretty sure it was one of the most clear cut, straight to the point message that I had ever read.
At least it made a lot more sense than
"... And the talking snake said to Eve, here, eat this magical apple!".
Oh, that I agree. The Bible being a very odd piece of literature, the concept of "understanding" is always challenged.
And Nietzsche's other works are very clear, I'm only talking about Zarathustra specifically.
On July 08 2012 23:16 Kuja wrote: What kind of argument is that? I can take a random excerpt out of virtually anything and post it and it wouldn't make sense. So your saying random excerpts without any context are supposed to make sense?
You usually expect philosophy to make sense, especially when you take a couple of paragraphs. Even a single sentence should provide some sort of content. Nietzsche's Zarathustra is known as a more poetic and less rigorous approach to his concepts.
The point here is that there is a negative bias towards the Bible, leading many people to an exclusively literal analysis. However, if you did a similar exegesis of Zarathustra, then you would have a weird and boring tale about an old man witnessing random events, wouldn't you? My question being : what justifies this negative bias towards the "holy book"?
On July 08 2012 20:40 Liquid`Drone wrote: dude, it's a hilarious joke. nothing more.. that you are so offended merely shows me that religious groups don't have a monopoly on unwarranted feelings of being offended.
Yeah but the joke doesn't make any sense when you understand what Nietzsche really meant by that.
It was 5 years ago so my knowledge on philosophy is really fuzzy now, but I think the full quote is something like
God is dead, humans killed him.
Nietsche wasn't trying to be facetious about it. He was trying to explain how humans have forgotten the true purpose of religion or something like that. That's why its so ironic, its actually hilarious that the church is selling those shirts because it makes them look like complete fools. They may as well just have shirts saying "I am retarded" and have sold those instead.
Because atheists that makes jokes about religion understand anything about it? That quote is a Joke dude. Its a play on words taken out of context.Its funny, live with it.
Also, what explicit misinterpretations of philosophy, science, and mathematics are used in atheist quotes? There are plenty used in religious quotes (especially when it comes to evolution, the big bang, the definition of "theory", clearly Nietsche, and plenty of others).
I would argue that most atheists and most believers don't understand religion from a theological point of view.
I recommend everyone should watch Religulous. This guy was born and raised in a christian family, knows more about christianity than most christians do, yet is an atheist.
You know this guy doesn't believe in vaccination, right?
There is something extremely funny about you using this guy as an example. He's a first-rate self-righteous asshole. Have you ever seen his show? He leads a mini cult of personality. Even Hitchens was annoyed with him and his fans.
And everyone that's saying that Zarathustra was "clear and concise" are all completely full of shit. The greatest humour that arises in this is that Zarathustra was written in a way to mirror and parody the Bible. Nietzsche purposely wrote it to be like the Bible. Fuck, people love to say all sort of shit.
On July 08 2012 23:16 Kukaracha wrote: My question being : what justifies this negative bias towards the "holy book"?
I can't speak for others, but my negative bias towards the bible comes from the possibilty to arbitrarily choose, what parts of the bible are to be taken literal, and what parts are metaphorical.
On July 08 2012 23:22 koreasilver wrote: And everyone that's saying that Zarathustra was "clear and concise" are all completely full of shit. The greatest humour that arises in this is that Zarathustra was written in a way to mirror and parody the Bible. Nietzsche purposely wrote it to be like the Bible. Fuck, people love to say all sort of shit.
On July 08 2012 23:16 Kukaracha wrote: My question being : what justifies this negative bias towards the "holy book"?
I can't speak for others, but my negative bias towards the bible comes from the possibilty to arbitrarily choose, what parts of the bible are to be taken literal, and what parts are metaphorical.
I agree with this criticism, but it is a delicate one since a careful exegesis could unscover a logical system within the book that might give the right directions in its interpretation, thus elevating the debate above a layman's reach. This essentially is the gap between theology and our perspective.
I would say that it doesn't really justify the usual contempt held towards the Bible, but it does justify passive skepticism (which is a rare attitude among atheists).
On July 08 2012 20:40 Liquid`Drone wrote: dude, it's a hilarious joke. nothing more.. that you are so offended merely shows me that religious groups don't have a monopoly on unwarranted feelings of being offended.
Yeah but the joke doesn't make any sense when you understand what Nietzsche really meant by that.
It was 5 years ago so my knowledge on philosophy is really fuzzy now, but I think the full quote is something like
God is dead, humans killed him.
Nietsche wasn't trying to be facetious about it. He was trying to explain how humans have forgotten the true purpose of religion or something like that. That's why its so ironic, its actually hilarious that the church is selling those shirts because it makes them look like complete fools. They may as well just have shirts saying "I am retarded" and have sold those instead.
Because atheists that makes jokes about religion understand anything about it? That quote is a Joke dude. Its a play on words taken out of context.Its funny, live with it.
Also, what explicit misinterpretations of philosophy, science, and mathematics are used in atheist quotes? There are plenty used in religious quotes (especially when it comes to evolution, the big bang, the definition of "theory", clearly Nietsche, and plenty of others).
I would argue that most atheists and most believers don't understand religion from a theological point of view.
I recommend everyone should watch Religulous. This guy was born and raised in a christian family, knows more about christianity than most christians do, yet is an atheist.
You know this guy doesn't believe in vaccination, right?
There is something extremely funny about you using this guy as an example. He's a first-rate self-righteous asshole. Have you ever seen his show? He leads a mini cult of personality. Even Hitchens was annoyed with him and his fans.
And everyone that's saying that Zarathustra was "clear and concise" are all completely full of shit. The greatest humour that arises in this is that Zarathustra was written in a way to mirror and parody the Bible. Nietzsche purposely wrote it to be like the Bible. Fuck, people love to say all sort of shit.
And everyone that's saying that Zarathustra was "clear and concise" are all completely full of shit
Nietzsche was clear and concise. The point is the Zarathustra is only a small part of Nietsche's writings, the rest of what he writes is completely clear cut. In Christianity people only have the bible.
There is something extremely funny about you using this guy as an example. He's a first-rate self-righteous asshole. Have you ever seen his show? He leads a mini cult of personality. Even Hitchens was annoyed with him and his fans.
So basically you judge whether someone is right or wrong based on their personality?
the "god is dead" quote is the exact reason why many young atheists oftentimes get infatuated with nietzsche. I myself went around spouting that exact quote when I was 14 or whatever, because I was undergoing the "missonary" stage of atheism, where I wanted to prove to christians that I'm smarter than them because I have figured out something they haven't / present them logical fallacies in their belief systems. Variations of these behavioral patterns are extremely common among like, ahtiests who are beginning to realize what they actually believe in - just like the christian who just found god wants everyone else to take part of their newfound happiness.
But anyway, knowing that many young atheists frequently (mis)use that quote, I think the "Nietzsche is dead - God" reply is genuinely witty and clever.
On July 08 2012 23:10 sluggaslamoo wrote: No I mean you should just watch it to see how most christians even ministers don't even understand their own religion
Well, I was 16 when I read up about Nietzsche, and the "God is dead" part is one of the first things you read about as it is the foundation for a lot of his writings. I'm pretty sure it was one of the most clear cut, straight to the point message that I had ever read.
At least it made a lot more sense than
"... And the talking snake said to Eve, here, eat this magical apple!".
Oh, that I agree. The Bible being a very odd piece of literature, the concept of "understanding" is always challenged.
And Nietzsche's other works are very clear, I'm only talking about Zarathustra specifically.
On July 08 2012 23:16 Kuja wrote: What kind of argument is that? I can take a random excerpt out of virtually anything and post it and it wouldn't make sense. So your saying random excerpts without any context are supposed to make sense?
You usually expect philosophy to make sense, especially when you take a couple of paragraphs. Even a single sentence should provide some sort of content. Nietzsche's Zarathustra is known as a more poetic and less rigorous approach to his concepts.
The point here is that there is a negative bias towards the Bible, leading many people to an exclusively literal analysis. However, if you did a similar exegesis of Zarathustra, then you would have a weird and boring tale about an old man witnessing random events, wouldn't you? My question being : what justifies this negative bias towards the "holy book"?
I don't understand the motive for the question though. I still somewhat remember what Nietsche meant by God is dead 5 years ago, even though I've been to church quite a few times going through bible scriptures on holidays and don't remember any passages from the bible.
The joke isn't funny because it doesn't make any sense. Just like how its not funny if an Atheist started selling tea shirts saying "The world was left in the hands of 2 acid-tripping dumb naked teenagers and now they are dead, thank god".
The people that don't get the joke, needs someone to explain it for them. The people that get the joke, know what the phrase actually meant, so its not funny. The people that laugh at it, don't get the joke. The joke being that it was not what the church intended.
On July 08 2012 20:40 Liquid`Drone wrote: dude, it's a hilarious joke. nothing more.. that you are so offended merely shows me that religious groups don't have a monopoly on unwarranted feelings of being offended.
Yeah but the joke doesn't make any sense when you understand what Nietzsche really meant by that.
It was 5 years ago so my knowledge on philosophy is really fuzzy now, but I think the full quote is something like
God is dead, humans killed him.
Nietsche wasn't trying to be facetious about it. He was trying to explain how humans have forgotten the true purpose of religion or something like that. That's why its so ironic, its actually hilarious that the church is selling those shirts because it makes them look like complete fools. They may as well just have shirts saying "I am retarded" and have sold those instead.
Because atheists that makes jokes about religion understand anything about it? That quote is a Joke dude. Its a play on words taken out of context.Its funny, live with it.
Also, what explicit misinterpretations of philosophy, science, and mathematics are used in atheist quotes? There are plenty used in religious quotes (especially when it comes to evolution, the big bang, the definition of "theory", clearly Nietsche, and plenty of others).
I would argue that most atheists and most believers don't understand religion from a theological point of view.
I recommend everyone should watch Religulous. This guy was born and raised in a christian family, knows more about christianity than most christians do, yet is an atheist.
You know this guy doesn't believe in vaccination, right?
There is something extremely funny about you using this guy as an example. He's a first-rate self-righteous asshole. Have you ever seen his show? He leads a mini cult of personality. Even Hitchens was annoyed with him and his fans.
And everyone that's saying that Zarathustra was "clear and concise" are all completely full of shit. The greatest humour that arises in this is that Zarathustra was written in a way to mirror and parody the Bible. Nietzsche purposely wrote it to be like the Bible. Fuck, people love to say all sort of shit.
And everyone that's saying that Zarathustra was "clear and concise" are all completely full of shit
Nietzsche was clear and concise. The point is the Zarathustra is only a small part of Nietsche's writings, the rest of what he writes is completely clear cut. In Christianity people only have the bible.
There is something extremely funny about you using this guy as an example. He's a first-rate self-righteous asshole. Have you ever seen his show? He leads a mini cult of personality. Even Hitchens was annoyed with him and his fans.
So basically you judge whether someone is right or wrong based on their personality?
No, I can judge whether someone is full of shit or not by referring to the most important part that you censored out my quote. He doesn't believe in vaccination. That's pretty much all the reason I need. Maher says a ton of shit about literally every topic and he just pushes it through with dogged arrogance and stupid stubbornness that is supported by his ragged fan cult. He's an idiot.
I never said that Nietzsche's other writings weren't "clear". He was a polemicist and he was very good at it, and I read him regularly. But again, you misread me as I was only speaking about Zarathustra in particular. Your attempts at misconstruing me is quite pathetic.
On July 08 2012 23:50 Liquid`Drone wrote: the "god is dead" quote is the exact reason why many young atheists oftentimes get infatuated with nietzsche. I myself went around spouting that exact quote when I was 14 or whatever, because I was undergoing the "missonary" stage of atheism, where I wanted to prove to christians that I'm smarter than them because I have figured out something they haven't / present them logical fallacies in their belief systems. Variations of these behavioral patterns are extremely common among like, ahtiests who are beginning to realize what they actually believe in - just like the christian who just found god wants everyone else to take part of their newfound happiness.
But anyway, knowing that many young atheists frequently (mis)use that quote, I think the "Nietzsche is dead - God" reply is genuinely witty and clever.
On July 08 2012 20:40 Liquid`Drone wrote: dude, it's a hilarious joke. nothing more.. that you are so offended merely shows me that religious groups don't have a monopoly on unwarranted feelings of being offended.
Yeah but the joke doesn't make any sense when you understand what Nietzsche really meant by that.
It was 5 years ago so my knowledge on philosophy is really fuzzy now, but I think the full quote is something like
God is dead, humans killed him.
Nietsche wasn't trying to be facetious about it. He was trying to explain how humans have forgotten the true purpose of religion or something like that. That's why its so ironic, its actually hilarious that the church is selling those shirts because it makes them look like complete fools. They may as well just have shirts saying "I am retarded" and have sold those instead.
Because atheists that makes jokes about religion understand anything about it? That quote is a Joke dude. Its a play on words taken out of context.Its funny, live with it.
Also, what explicit misinterpretations of philosophy, science, and mathematics are used in atheist quotes? There are plenty used in religious quotes (especially when it comes to evolution, the big bang, the definition of "theory", clearly Nietsche, and plenty of others).
I would argue that most atheists and most believers don't understand religion from a theological point of view.
I recommend everyone should watch Religulous. This guy was born and raised in a christian family, knows more about christianity than most christians do, yet is an atheist.
You know this guy doesn't believe in vaccination, right?
There is something extremely funny about you using this guy as an example. He's a first-rate self-righteous asshole. Have you ever seen his show? He leads a mini cult of personality. Even Hitchens was annoyed with him and his fans.
And everyone that's saying that Zarathustra was "clear and concise" are all completely full of shit. The greatest humour that arises in this is that Zarathustra was written in a way to mirror and parody the Bible. Nietzsche purposely wrote it to be like the Bible. Fuck, people love to say all sort of shit.
Exactly my point, the fact that you can so easily come to that conclusion proves how clear and concise that point was.
On July 08 2012 20:40 Liquid`Drone wrote: dude, it's a hilarious joke. nothing more.. that you are so offended merely shows me that religious groups don't have a monopoly on unwarranted feelings of being offended.
Yeah but the joke doesn't make any sense when you understand what Nietzsche really meant by that.
It was 5 years ago so my knowledge on philosophy is really fuzzy now, but I think the full quote is something like
God is dead, humans killed him.
Nietsche wasn't trying to be facetious about it. He was trying to explain how humans have forgotten the true purpose of religion or something like that. That's why its so ironic, its actually hilarious that the church is selling those shirts because it makes them look like complete fools. They may as well just have shirts saying "I am retarded" and have sold those instead.
Because atheists that makes jokes about religion understand anything about it? That quote is a Joke dude. Its a play on words taken out of context.Its funny, live with it.
Also, what explicit misinterpretations of philosophy, science, and mathematics are used in atheist quotes? There are plenty used in religious quotes (especially when it comes to evolution, the big bang, the definition of "theory", clearly Nietsche, and plenty of others).
I would argue that most atheists and most believers don't understand religion from a theological point of view.
I recommend everyone should watch Religulous. This guy was born and raised in a christian family, knows more about christianity than most christians do, yet is an atheist.
You know this guy doesn't believe in vaccination, right?
There is something extremely funny about you using this guy as an example. He's a first-rate self-righteous asshole. Have you ever seen his show? He leads a mini cult of personality. Even Hitchens was annoyed with him and his fans.
And everyone that's saying that Zarathustra was "clear and concise" are all completely full of shit. The greatest humour that arises in this is that Zarathustra was written in a way to mirror and parody the Bible. Nietzsche purposely wrote it to be like the Bible. Fuck, people love to say all sort of shit.
Exactly my point, the fact that you can so easily come to that conclusion proves how clear and concise that point was.
TIL the Bible is clear and concise. Guess Kierkegaard was right after all.
Obviously it's pointless to even talk to you about Zarathustra in particular. If Zarathustra was so "clear and concise" as you claim, then there wouldn't be so many different interpretations of the text as a whole, and even more so for the various themes that are in it. But obviously you know more than the thousands of scholars that have worked at the text for the past century.
On July 08 2012 20:40 Liquid`Drone wrote: dude, it's a hilarious joke. nothing more.. that you are so offended merely shows me that religious groups don't have a monopoly on unwarranted feelings of being offended.
Yeah but the joke doesn't make any sense when you understand what Nietzsche really meant by that.
It was 5 years ago so my knowledge on philosophy is really fuzzy now, but I think the full quote is something like
God is dead, humans killed him.
Nietsche wasn't trying to be facetious about it. He was trying to explain how humans have forgotten the true purpose of religion or something like that. That's why its so ironic, its actually hilarious that the church is selling those shirts because it makes them look like complete fools. They may as well just have shirts saying "I am retarded" and have sold those instead.
Because atheists that makes jokes about religion understand anything about it? That quote is a Joke dude. Its a play on words taken out of context.Its funny, live with it.
Also, what explicit misinterpretations of philosophy, science, and mathematics are used in atheist quotes? There are plenty used in religious quotes (especially when it comes to evolution, the big bang, the definition of "theory", clearly Nietsche, and plenty of others).
I would argue that most atheists and most believers don't understand religion from a theological point of view.
I recommend everyone should watch Religulous. This guy was born and raised in a christian family, knows more about christianity than most christians do, yet is an atheist.
You know this guy doesn't believe in vaccination, right?
There is something extremely funny about you using this guy as an example. He's a first-rate self-righteous asshole. Have you ever seen his show? He leads a mini cult of personality. Even Hitchens was annoyed with him and his fans.
And everyone that's saying that Zarathustra was "clear and concise" are all completely full of shit. The greatest humour that arises in this is that Zarathustra was written in a way to mirror and parody the Bible. Nietzsche purposely wrote it to be like the Bible. Fuck, people love to say all sort of shit.
And everyone that's saying that Zarathustra was "clear and concise" are all completely full of shit
Nietzsche was clear and concise. The point is the Zarathustra is only a small part of Nietsche's writings, the rest of what he writes is completely clear cut. In Christianity people only have the bible.
There is something extremely funny about you using this guy as an example. He's a first-rate self-righteous asshole. Have you ever seen his show? He leads a mini cult of personality. Even Hitchens was annoyed with him and his fans.
So basically you judge whether someone is right or wrong based on their personality?
No, I can judge whether someone is full of shit or not by referring to the most important part that you censored out my quote. He doesn't believe in vaccination. That's pretty much all the reason I need.
I never said that Nietzsche's other writings weren't "clear". He was a polemicist and he was very good at it, and I read him regularly. But again, you misread me as I was only speaking about Zarathustra in particular. Your attempts at misconstruing me is quite pathetic.
Wow calm down.
Bill Maher did not believe in "flu vaccines", not vaccines in general. A lot of people who believe in vaccines, don't believe in flu vaccines. His belief came from the statement from the FDA that said that flu vaccines were ineffective in preventing someone from catching the flu.
He was concerned that the evolution of the swine flu would negate the effects of the vaccine, therefore he was concerned about the potential for the vaccine to be a money grab, there is some merit to that. He also thought that swine flu was harmless. Yes I agree that he was wrong in the end because he failed to recognise that unlike normal flu's, the swine flue was quite a deadly virus, but in the end he runs a show that is about critical thinking. I think he was trying to look at the situation deeper than what was needed.
Also he wasn't entirely wrong. In the end, some people did suffer from the vaccine, with otherwise healthy people that were unlikely to die from swine flu. I don't know a lot of people who were vaccinated against swine flu, and I personally don't know anyone that has died from it. I do think it was over-hyped as an epidemic.
Does that mean Religulous has no merit? No, not at all. He knows far more about religion than he does about medicine. Also I never said people had to agree with it, I just recommended that people watch it. Most of it involves interviews with other people. Feel free to make up your own mind, but I think that many people would be hard pressed to disagree with a lot of the statements he makes.
I'm not misconstruing you, I'm bringing your point into the context of the argument. There was no reason for the Zarathustra to be brought into the argument in the first place. Apart from the Zarathustra everything that Nietsche said was pretty much straight to the point. Unlike the Zarathustra, the Bible is the primary resource for information for Christians. Therefore saying that both is cryptic is unwarranted. To make fun of the phrase "god is dead" means that the christians did not even make an attempt to understand what Nietsche meant, however in the case of the Bible, it takes a lot more effort to understand.
The irony is in the fact that the shirt is that the joke is on them (the christians).
On July 09 2012 00:05 koreasilver wrote: Obviously it's pointless to even talk to you about Zarathustra in particular. If Zarathustra was so "clear and concise" as you claim, then there wouldn't be so many different interpretations of the text as a whole, and even more so for the various themes that are in it. But obviously you know more than the thousands of scholars that have worked at the text for the past century.
Fucking inane as all hell.
I don't know what your even talking about. What are you saying? Who are these thousands of scholars + Show Spoiler +
On July 09 2012 00:08 corumjhaelen wrote: So wait, everybody here perfectly understand everything Nietzsche ever wrote according to themselves ? Man, I'm so stupid
Nope but "God is dead" is probably the most famous quote by him, maybe even in philosophy, and probably the only passage I remember of Nietsche right now haha.
On July 08 2012 23:51 sluggaslamoo wrote: I don't understand the motive for the question though. I still somewhat remember what Nietsche meant by God is dead 5 years ago, even though I've been to church quite a few times going through bible scriptures on holidays and don't remember any passages from the bible.
I don't understand, sorry. Do you mean that because you remember Zarathustra and not the Bible, then the Bible is "invalid"? I would also like to point out that while Nietzsche wrote other works, the Bible is actually made of many works and many authors, in a similar way, allowing cross examination (which seemed to be your point).
On July 08 2012 23:51 sluggaslamoo wrote: The joke isn't funny because it doesn't make any sense. Just like how its not funny if an Atheist started selling tea shirts saying "The world was left in the hands of 2 acid-tripping dumb naked teenagers and now they are dead, thank god".
The people that don't get the joke, needs someone to explain it for them. The people that get the joke, know what the phrase actually meant, so its not funny. The people that laugh at it, don't get the joke. The joke being that it was not what the church intended.
Actually the joke is funny because they don't understand it in the first place! Take my quote for example, it's from a poem by Aragon and the first part loosely means "what is long for someone may be short for someone else". If I put it on a t-shirt, I could sell it to slutty sorority girls, and the only reason they would find it funny is because they don't understand in the first place! If you explain it, it's less funny than if you don't, because it doesn't even closely relate to phallic objects in the original context.
Humor is a subjective thing!
On July 08 2012 23:56 Kuja wrote: Exactly my point, the fact that you can so easily come to that conclusion proves how clear and concise that point was.
On July 09 2012 00:08 corumjhaelen wrote: So wait, everybody here perfectly understand everything Nietzsche ever wrote according to themselves ? Man, I'm so stupid
Nah, they're just playing tough. I guess there are only one or maybe two posters who really understand Nietzsche here. That's the internet for you.
On July 09 2012 00:08 corumjhaelen wrote: So wait, everybody here perfectly understand everything Nietzsche ever wrote according to themselves ? Man, I'm so stupid
Nah, they're just playing tough. I guess there are only one or maybe two posters who really understand Nietzsche here. That's the internet for you.
Are you implying that your one of them? Nobody ever said they perfectly understand everything Nietzsche wrote, just that he has made clear and concise points that are easy to understand.
On July 09 2012 00:08 corumjhaelen wrote: So wait, everybody here perfectly understand everything Nietzsche ever wrote according to themselves ? Man, I'm so stupid
Nah, they're just playing tough. I guess there are only one or maybe two posters who really understand Nietzsche here. That's the internet for you.
Are you implying that your one of them? Nobody ever said they perfectly understand everything Nietzsche wrote, just that he has made clear and concise points that are easy to understand.
Not at all! I've simply read him, I never studied him (well I did, but very briefly). (If I may ask, are you in high school, by any chance?)
Oh, here is a very, very short excerpt of Nietzsche's "clear and concise" work :
10.
This had Zarathustra said to his heart when the sun stood at noon-tide. Then he looked inquiringly aloft,- for he heard above him the sharp call of a bird. And behold! An eagle swept through the air in wide circles, and on it hung a serpent, not like a prey, but like a friend: for it kept itself coiled round the eagle's neck. "They are mine animals," said Zarathustra, and rejoiced in his heart. "The proudest animal under the sun, and the wisest animal under the sun,- they have come out to reconnoitre. They want to know whether Zarathustra still liveth. Verily, do I still live? More dangerous have I found it among men than among animals; in dangerous paths goeth Zarathustra. Let mine animals lead me! When Zarathustra had said this, he remembered the words of the saint in the forest. Then he sighed and spake thus to his heart: "Would that I were wiser! Would that I were wise from the very heart, like my serpent! But I am asking the impossible. Therefore do I ask my pride to go always with my wisdom! And if my wisdom should some day forsake me:- alas! it loveth to fly away!- may my pride then fly with my folly!"
On July 09 2012 00:08 corumjhaelen wrote: So wait, everybody here perfectly understand everything Nietzsche ever wrote according to themselves ? Man, I'm so stupid
Nah, they're just playing tough. I guess there are only one or maybe two posters who really understand Nietzsche here. That's the internet for you.
Are you implying that your one of them? Nobody ever said they perfectly understand everything Nietzsche wrote, just that he has made clear and concise points that are easy to understand.
Not at all! I've simply read him, I never studied him (well I did, but very briefly). (If I may ask, are you in high school, by any chance?)
On July 09 2012 00:08 corumjhaelen wrote: So wait, everybody here perfectly understand everything Nietzsche ever wrote according to themselves ? Man, I'm so stupid
Nah, they're just playing tough. I guess there are only one or maybe two posters who really understand Nietzsche here. That's the internet for you.
Are you implying that your one of them? Nobody ever said they perfectly understand everything Nietzsche wrote, just that he has made clear and concise points that are easy to understand.
This is what someone who has read "Thus Spake Zarathustra" and not "Ecce Homo" or "The Gay Science" would say. To be frank, whenever anyone starts labeling works by authors such as Nietsche as "clear and concise", that is a good indication that they are full of shit.
On July 08 2012 23:51 sluggaslamoo wrote: The joke isn't funny because it doesn't make any sense. Just like how its not funny if an Atheist started selling tea shirts saying "The world was left in the hands of 2 acid-tripping dumb naked teenagers and now they are dead, thank god".
The people that don't get the joke, needs someone to explain it for them. The people that get the joke, know what the phrase actually meant, so its not funny. The people that laugh at it, don't get the joke. The joke being that it was not what the church intended.
Actually the joke is funny because they don't understand it in the first place! Take my quote for example, it's from a poem by Aragon and the first part loosely means "what is long for someone may be short for someone else". If I put it on a t-shirt, I could sell it to slutty sorority girls, and the only reason they would find it funny is because they don't understand in the first place! If you explain it, it's less funny than if you don't, because it doesn't even closely relate to phallic objects in the original context.
I agree with you, but I don't think its funny to joke about the death of an iconic figure. I guess the problem I really see, is that rather than being a joke, its an act of revenge.
"what is long for someone may be short for someone else", nothing wrong with that. Its almost but not to this extreme, as if a white supremist joked about the death of Martin Luther King. Because in essence, that is how it really is, Christians celebrating the death of an Anti-Theist. I think it crossed the line, just a little bit.
On July 09 2012 00:08 corumjhaelen wrote: So wait, everybody here perfectly understand everything Nietzsche ever wrote according to themselves ? Man, I'm so stupid
Nah, they're just playing tough. I guess there are only one or maybe two posters who really understand Nietzsche here. That's the internet for you.
Are you implying that your one of them? Nobody ever said they perfectly understand everything Nietzsche wrote, just that he has made clear and concise points that are easy to understand.
Not at all! I've simply read him, I never studied him (well I did, but very briefly). (If I may ask, are you in high school, by any chance?)
On July 09 2012 00:08 corumjhaelen wrote: So wait, everybody here perfectly understand everything Nietzsche ever wrote according to themselves ? Man, I'm so stupid
Nah, they're just playing tough. I guess there are only one or maybe two posters who really understand Nietzsche here. That's the internet for you.
Are you implying that your one of them? Nobody ever said they perfectly understand everything Nietzsche wrote, just that he has made clear and concise points that are easy to understand.
This is what someone who has read "Thus Spake Zarathustra" and not "Ecce Homo" or "The Gay Science" would say. To be frank, whenever anyone starts labeling works by authors such as Nietsche as "clear and concise", that is a good indication that they are full of shit.
My point is there are obvious things Nietzsche wants you to take away form his work, and in that sense, his writing is concise. nice ad hominem though.
On July 09 2012 00:08 corumjhaelen wrote: So wait, everybody here perfectly understand everything Nietzsche ever wrote according to themselves ? Man, I'm so stupid
Nah, they're just playing tough. I guess there are only one or maybe two posters who really understand Nietzsche here. That's the internet for you.
Are you implying that your one of them? Nobody ever said they perfectly understand everything Nietzsche wrote, just that he has made clear and concise points that are easy to understand.
This is what someone who has read "Thus Spake Zarathustra" and not "Ecce Homo" or "The Gay Science" would say. To be frank, whenever anyone starts labeling works by authors such as Nietsche as "clear and concise", that is a good indication that they are full of shit.
I did philosophy in my final years of highschool (Socrates/Plato/Nietzsche/Kant all that good stuff), so really I probably know jack shit about philosophy. But I know enough to know that Nietzsche's passage on "God is dead" was no where near as complicated as trying to interpret the bible. Hell I even partly remember what he meant by it.
Ok, here's my partial take on the issue. I've read 3 books (but I confess my complete lack of understanding of Zarathustra...). What I personnally find ironic in that t-shirt is that while Nietzsche has some pretty bad words for christians, he is even harsher on modern atheism. That being said, it's just a joke, not a very good one imho, but you're taking this way too harshly imho. Also I think I read some page back a classic reminder of the Nazi/Nietzsche relationship. I'd like to say that the main link between Nazi's and Nietzsche is his sister, who went as far as basically faslifiying a book (The will to power) to link the two ideology... I specifically remember reading a passage (in Twilight of the idols I believe) where Nietzsche more or less shit on the German nationalists and anti-Semits of his days. Nazis oviously tried to draw what they wanted from his philosophy, but for me that's just a perversion and that doesn't detract much from him.
On July 09 2012 00:08 corumjhaelen wrote: So wait, everybody here perfectly understand everything Nietzsche ever wrote according to themselves ? Man, I'm so stupid
Nah, they're just playing tough. I guess there are only one or maybe two posters who really understand Nietzsche here. That's the internet for you.
Are you implying that your one of them? Nobody ever said they perfectly understand everything Nietzsche wrote, just that he has made clear and concise points that are easy to understand.
This is what someone who has read "Thus Spake Zarathustra" and not "Ecce Homo" or "The Gay Science" would say. To be frank, whenever anyone starts labeling works by authors such as Nietsche as "clear and concise", that is a good indication that they are full of shit.
My point is there are obvious things Nietzsche wants you to take away form his work, and in that sense, his writing is concise. nice ad hominem though.
The problem with this approach to Nietzsche is that it ignores his constant self-revision, the man famously backtracked and restated a great many important points throughout his life in a variety of ways. Like I said, you can cherry-pick works and then claim that understanding them is easy (which is a rather silly venture) or you can actually tackle the very difficult progression of Nietzsche's thought process. I mean't no offense, but reading "Thus Spake Zarathustra" and stopping there is like reading Kant's "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals" and claiming full knowledge of German Idealism.
On July 09 2012 00:08 corumjhaelen wrote: So wait, everybody here perfectly understand everything Nietzsche ever wrote according to themselves ? Man, I'm so stupid
Nah, they're just playing tough. I guess there are only one or maybe two posters who really understand Nietzsche here. That's the internet for you.
Are you implying that your one of them? Nobody ever said they perfectly understand everything Nietzsche wrote, just that he has made clear and concise points that are easy to understand.
This is what someone who has read "Thus Spake Zarathustra" and not "Ecce Homo" or "The Gay Science" would say. To be frank, whenever anyone starts labeling works by authors such as Nietsche as "clear and concise", that is a good indication that they are full of shit.
My point is there are obvious things Nietzsche wants you to take away form his work, and in that sense, his writing is concise. nice ad hominem though.
The problem with this approach to Nietzsche is that it ignores his constant self-revision, the man famously backtracked and restated a great many important points throughout his life in a variety of ways. Like I said, you can cherry-pick works and then claim that understanding them is easy (which is a rather silly venture) or you can actually tackle the very difficult progression of Nietzsche's thought process. I mean't no offense, but reading "Thus Spake Zarathustra" and stopping there is like reading Kant's "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals" and claiming full knowledge of German Idealism.
I would go as far as saying that reading Zarathustra and stopping there while not understading everything but yet claiming to have understood what is essential is like reading Kant's Groundworks, extracting a couple of concepts and calling it a closed deal.
Philosophy is a constant exploration, if something is clear, then it can not be concise, for it should call for many, many other questions. This is why writing and reading philosophy is such a slow, tedious process : you must read between the lines. For example, when Deleuze speaks of "notions" and "images", he isn't using the common definition and associates many, many other concepts with those, giving a whole new meaning to his sentence when seen with educated eyes.
Kuja, do you really believe that Nietzsche's work is so poor that it can be crystal clear to a teenager?
On July 09 2012 00:08 corumjhaelen wrote: So wait, everybody here perfectly understand everything Nietzsche ever wrote according to themselves ? Man, I'm so stupid
Nah, they're just playing tough. I guess there are only one or maybe two posters who really understand Nietzsche here. That's the internet for you.
Are you implying that your one of them? Nobody ever said they perfectly understand everything Nietzsche wrote, just that he has made clear and concise points that are easy to understand.
This is what someone who has read "Thus Spake Zarathustra" and not "Ecce Homo" or "The Gay Science" would say. To be frank, whenever anyone starts labeling works by authors such as Nietsche as "clear and concise", that is a good indication that they are full of shit.
I agree with this 100% lol Also I find most people are misunderstanding the OP as well. Although putting the shirt in question next to "Jesus is my homeboy" makes it hard to think you should take it so seriously.
On July 08 2012 20:55 krndandaman wrote: nietzsche said god is dead nietzsche died in 1900 god decides who dies and when therefore he gets the last laugh by saying nietzsche is dead .
So, it's an insider for christians who want to laugh about someone who challenged their point of view.. Funny, I laughed........ O.o
Christian X says 'God will save me' - Yesterday Rational Y says 'I just killed Christian X' - Today
LOL it's funny because X said he will be saved by god but in the end he still died LOLOL ...... o.O Some people have a retarded sense of humor.
wow way to be uptight and pretentious lol
I just turned it the other way around and it's just not funny at all. If there are people who laugh about 'Nietzsche is dead', then they should be laughing about my 'joke' aswell, right? Otherwise they are religious fanatics who laugh at Nietzsche, trying to downgrade a man who was a genius. Making fun of someone to discredit them is never funny.
It's all in the delivery. Your joke wasn't clever at all, it's way too blunt. Frame it like this and you get something a lot better.
I think both jokes are hilarious, but even if I didn't, it would just be a matter of taste. Nothing to write home about.
On July 09 2012 00:44 corumjhaelen wrote: Ok, here's my partial take on the issue. I've read 3 books (but I confess my complete lack of understanding of Zarathustra...). What I personnally find ironic in that t-shirt is that while Nietzsche has some pretty bad words for christians, he is even harsher on modern atheism. That being said, it's just a joke, not a very good one imho, but you're taking this way too harshly imho. Also I think I read some page back a classic reminder of the Nazi/Nietzsche relationship. I'd like to say that the main link between Nazi's and Nietzsche is his sister, who went as far as basically faslifiying a book (The will to power) to link the two ideology... I specifically remember reading a passage (in Twilight of the idols I believe) where Nietzsche more or less shit on the German nationalists and anti-Semits of his days. Nazis oviously tried to draw what they wanted from his philosophy, but for me that's just a perversion and that doesn't detract much from him.
The Overman and the Will to power being linked to Nazi ideology is a corruption of the original thought, the whole thing is a complete contradiction to the principles of play and resistance necessary for the Overman. With regards to the quote, yes its often misused and misunderstood, and the joke on the shirt is terrible, but maybe whoever decided to print it thought it would be hilariously ironic, as the people that would buy the shirt would be signalling to the world their lack of comprehension of the topic? More cynically, its likely just someone wanting to make some money, and putting something like that will make these types of people buy these shirts, the profit margin is huge. I enjoy reading his work, but really don't get why you would be bothered by something as trivial as writing on a T-shirt at a Christian Rock concert. Also to the people that wish to state that his work is clear and concise and that they get it, I'll use a Richard Feynman quote on quantum mechanics to illustrate my point: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."
On July 09 2012 05:30 superbarnie wrote: Wow why are atheist always so intolerant and judgemental?
Because religion is anti-rational. Religious people are like little kids who want that tasty looking cake. Now dad tries to explain to them, that this cake has too much sugar, is too expensive and not good for them. No kid will understand that. They want the cake, nothing else matters. Now the dad is strict and keeps saying no. The kids will think 'Wow why is dad always so intolerant and judgemental?', because they are not rational and don't understand.
On July 09 2012 05:30 superbarnie wrote: Wow why are atheist always so intolerant and judgemental?
Because religion is anti-rational. Religious people are like little kids who want that tasty looking cake. Now dad tries to explain to them, that this cake has too much sugar, is too expensive and not good for them. No kid will understand that. They want the cake, nothing else matters. Now the dad is strict and keeps saying no. The kids will think 'Wow why is dad always so intolerant and judgemental?', because they are not rational and don't understand.
On July 09 2012 05:30 superbarnie wrote: Wow why are atheist always so intolerant and judgemental?
Because religion is anti-rational. Religious people are like little kids who want that tasty looking cake. Now dad tries to explain to them, that this cake has too much sugar, is too expensive and not good for them. No kid will understand that. They want the cake, nothing else matters. Now the dad is strict and keeps saying no. The kids will think 'Wow why is dad always so intolerant and judgemental?', because they are not rational and don't understand.
Religion is not anti-rational. Atheists are just as irrational as religious people. We are irrational.
We all want the cake and we're all too stupid and short-minded to control our gluttony or to realize that we could eat something else. Being an idiot is part of being human, to different degrees.
I hope you're not bashing religious people believing you're any better, because I see no difference in believing in fairies or in irreprochable scientific research.
I'm a Christian involved in ministry and I find the t-shirt your referring to insulting and stupid. I hate the dumbed down version of Christianity that has largely been created from the states and crosses over into Europe that promotes this crap :|
On July 09 2012 05:30 superbarnie wrote: Wow why are atheist always so intolerant and judgemental?
Because religion is anti-rational. Religious people are like little kids who want that tasty looking cake. Now dad tries to explain to them, that this cake has too much sugar, is too expensive and not good for them. No kid will understand that. They want the cake, nothing else matters. Now the dad is strict and keeps saying no. The kids will think 'Wow why is dad always so intolerant and judgemental?', because they are not rational and don't understand.
Religion is not anti-rational. Atheists are just as irrational as religious people. We are irrational.
We all want the cake and we're all too stupid and short-minded to control our gluttony or to realize that we could eat something else. Being an idiot is part of being human, to different degrees.
I hope you're not bashing religious people believing you're any better, because I see no difference in believing in fairies or in irreprochable scientific research.
exactly. i love how pretentious some atheists are that they believe that they are a "dad" who is obligated to teach ignorant little religious "kids" about how they know what's better for them.
That isn't to say that atheism isn't entirely without merit: to me, it seems the most reasonable viewpoint out there. Just like we shouldn't make fun of all Christians just because some of them are stupid, you shouldn't berate all atheists because some of them are stupid. I notice that you specified "some," but still. I disagree with Kukaracha's view that atheists are just as irrational as religious people as a blanket statement, but blanket statements merely categorize a group as a whole and not every individual that comprosies it.
Not all atheists are members of /r/atheism, and nor do they all argue on facebook with Christians. Likewise, not all Christians are fundamentalists, and not all probably find that joke tasteful. Just my take on these things.
On July 09 2012 07:25 Code wrote: Love how people are debating if the joke on the shirt is funny/not funny. Its just a joke guys, you either laugh or you don't
On July 09 2012 05:30 superbarnie wrote: Wow why are atheist always so intolerant and judgemental?
Because religion is anti-rational. Religious people are like little kids who want that tasty looking cake. Now dad tries to explain to them, that this cake has too much sugar, is too expensive and not good for them. No kid will understand that. They want the cake, nothing else matters. Now the dad is strict and keeps saying no. The kids will think 'Wow why is dad always so intolerant and judgemental?', because they are not rational and don't understand.
are you saying the cake is a lie?
I am myself an athiest but this metaphor fails on many levels. First, the kid will just think 'dad doesn't love me' or something stomp his or her feet. Intolerant and judgemental don't begin to describe how the kid feels about dad. Second, 'expensive' and 'too sugary' are sort of based in objective observable fact when one takes for granted that the cake is real and these characteristics of it are real. God as a concept is unexplanable, unobservable. You can't say anything like god is too sugary.
I did think the metaphor was amusing, but it doesn't work at all. If you want to illustrate religious people has irrational, you are better off with the cliche easter bunny and santa claus comparisons, which are things that delight children but must eventually be grown out of because they are based purely on the child's faith in their existence. The only difference being that one day parents take it upon themselves to tell the child if he or she doesn't figure it out on their own that it's been a lie. There is no such confirming social evidence for religious people, except, in kinda sorta way, by way of meeting atheists they greatly respect and adopting their position.
I don't think it's necessary to get too passionate about these sorts of things. Religion might cause many problems, but if it were not religion controlling people, it would be religion by another name (patriotism? propaganda? celeberity appeal?). You can't escape the way massive societies work, or at least, no society on earth has yet, religious or not.
When I think about my own growth in terms of my beliefs about God, there was a long time when I more or less assumed God's existence. There were churches and popes and everything that made that world of adults and God seem real. As I grew older I learned that not all people believe in God, and because my family (tho my parents probably believe in God) do not possess much religious imagery or ever really even talk about God, it was exactly like that cliche of a child eventually not believe in Santa Clause anymore just becase the logic of this reality does not support the belief. There was that general fear like 'will god be mad if I don't believe in him?' when I was first considering where I stood, but my life experiences have had so little to do with God or religion in general, my experiences with religious people awkward enough, that there was just no reason to believe in such a thing. The word 'God' as a supernatural force governing the universe only comes to mind when I see a thread like this, at all other times it is completely non-existent in my thoughts. It's not even a question, it just doesn't come up. Who needs God? "Luck" suffices enough for when I really want something and hope for it ;p
It's curious to think if I would have been religious if it had been more present in my life, with parents such, but I feel that it wouldn't. I find it amazing that anyone competent with using the internet can believe in God, because the internet is such a disillusioning device. At least, when your use of the internet doesn't exist solely in finding people who think just like you, but you rather participate in diverse and interesting communities.
On July 09 2012 08:13 Kukaracha wrote: I hope you're not bashing religious people believing you're any better, because I see no difference in believing in fairies or in irreprochable scientific research.
Bit of an oxymoron, isn't it? Irreproachable science?
On July 09 2012 07:25 Code wrote: Love how people are debating if the joke on the shirt is funny/not funny. Its just a joke guys, you either laugh or you don't
On July 09 2012 06:58 Xiron wrote:
On July 09 2012 05:30 superbarnie wrote: Wow why are atheist always so intolerant and judgemental?
Because religion is anti-rational. Religious people are like little kids who want that tasty looking cake. Now dad tries to explain to them, that this cake has too much sugar, is too expensive and not good for them. No kid will understand that. They want the cake, nothing else matters. Now the dad is strict and keeps saying no. The kids will think 'Wow why is dad always so intolerant and judgemental?', because they are not rational and don't understand.
are you saying the cake is a lie?
I am myself an athiest but this metaphor fails on many levels. First, the kid will just think 'dad doesn't love me' or something stomp his or her feet. Intolerant and judgemental don't begin to describe how the kid feels about dad. Second, 'expensive' and 'too sugary' are sort of based in objective observable fact when one takes for granted that the cake is real and these characteristics of it are real. God as a concept is unexplanable, unobservable. You can't say anything like god is too sugary.
I did think the metaphor was amusing, but it doesn't work at all. If you want to illustrate religious people has irrational, you are better off with the cliche easter bunny and santa claus comparisons, which are things that delight children but must eventually be grown out of because they are based purely on the child's faith in their existence. The only difference being that one day parents take it upon themselves to tell the child if he or she doesn't figure it out on their own that it's been a lie. There is no such confirming social evidence for religious people, except, in kinda sorta way, by way of meeting atheists they greatly respect and adopting their position.
I don't think it's necessary to get too passionate about these sorts of things. Religion might cause many problems, but if it were not religion controlling people, it would be religion by another name (patriotism? propaganda? celeberity appeal?). You can't escape the way massive societies work, or at least, no society on earth has yet, religious or not.
When I think about my own growth in terms of my beliefs about God, there was a long time when I more or less assumed God's existence. There were churches and popes and everything that made that world of adults and God seem real. As I grew older I learned that not all people believe in God, and because my family (tho my parents probably believe in God) do not possess much religious imagery or ever really even talk about God, it was exactly like that cliche of a child eventually not believe in Santa Clause anymore just becase the logic of this reality does not support the belief. There was that general fear like 'will god be mad if I don't believe in him?' when I was first considering where I stood, but my life experiences have had so little to do with God or religion in general, my experiences with religious people awkward enough, that there was just no reason to believe in such a thing. The word 'God' as a supernatural force governing the universe only comes to mind when I see a thread like this, at all other times it is completely non-existent in my thoughts. It's not even a question, it just doesn't come up. Who needs God? "Luck" suffices enough for when I really want something and hope for it ;p
It's curious to think if I would have been religious if it had been more present in my life, with parents such, but I feel that it wouldn't. I find it amazing that anyone competent with using the internet can believe in God, because the internet is such a disillusioning device. At least, when your use of the internet doesn't exist solely in finding people who think just like you, but you rather participate in diverse and interesting communities.
This last bit is wonderful I must say. Personally, I have my extremely religious step-mother to thank for providing me with an incentive to really attempt to understand Christian theology and the nature of religion in general. Her family are devout Catholics, and they live such reverential and positive lives that I can't help but find something incredibly compelling in the way they view the world. I struggled alongside them as the pedophilia scandal became public, and to see their faith weather the storm and reinforce their zeal for life is truly inspiring. These are the sorts of people who would give you the clothes off their back, no matter race, gender or sexual orientation, and then proceed to shower you with food, stories, and welcome, only to bid you farewell as they head off to the soup kitchen to serve the poor. While I certainly disagree with many components of typical Christian thought and living, such as being pro-life, the manner in which it can effect a positive influence on the lives of others is difficult to ignore and warrants honest investigation. And my simple response to all those who wish to qualitatively insist that religion has had a net negative impact on society is one of insistence. An insistence that you look a little bit harder at how you conceive of mankind and the scope of human history, for there are many apparent systems and structures that are more integral and multivarious in operation than one might think.
On July 09 2012 07:25 Code wrote: Love how people are debating if the joke on the shirt is funny/not funny. Its just a joke guys, you either laugh or you don't
On July 09 2012 06:58 Xiron wrote:
On July 09 2012 05:30 superbarnie wrote: Wow why are atheist always so intolerant and judgemental?
Because religion is anti-rational. Religious people are like little kids who want that tasty looking cake. Now dad tries to explain to them, that this cake has too much sugar, is too expensive and not good for them. No kid will understand that. They want the cake, nothing else matters. Now the dad is strict and keeps saying no. The kids will think 'Wow why is dad always so intolerant and judgemental?', because they are not rational and don't understand.
are you saying the cake is a lie?
I am myself an athiest but this metaphor fails on many levels. First, the kid will just think 'dad doesn't love me' or something stomp his or her feet. Intolerant and judgemental don't begin to describe how the kid feels about dad. Second, 'expensive' and 'too sugary' are sort of based in objective observable fact when one takes for granted that the cake is real and these characteristics of it are real. God as a concept is unexplanable, unobservable. You can't say anything like god is too sugary.
I did think the metaphor was amusing, but it doesn't work at all. If you want to illustrate religious people has irrational, you are better off with the cliche easter bunny and santa claus comparisons, which are things that delight children but must eventually be grown out of because they are based purely on the child's faith in their existence. The only difference being that one day parents take it upon themselves to tell the child if he or she doesn't figure it out on their own that it's been a lie. There is no such confirming social evidence for religious people, except, in kinda sorta way, by way of meeting atheists they greatly respect and adopting their position.
I don't think it's necessary to get too passionate about these sorts of things. Religion might cause many problems, but if it were not religion controlling people, it would be religion by another name (patriotism? propaganda? celeberity appeal?). You can't escape the way massive societies work, or at least, no society on earth has yet, religious or not.
When I think about my own growth in terms of my beliefs about God, there was a long time when I more or less assumed God's existence. There were churches and popes and everything that made that world of adults and God seem real. As I grew older I learned that not all people believe in God, and because my family (tho my parents probably believe in God) do not possess much religious imagery or ever really even talk about God, it was exactly like that cliche of a child eventually not believe in Santa Clause anymore just becase the logic of this reality does not support the belief. There was that general fear like 'will god be mad if I don't believe in him?' when I was first considering where I stood, but my life experiences have had so little to do with God or religion in general, my experiences with religious people awkward enough, that there was just no reason to believe in such a thing. The word 'God' as a supernatural force governing the universe only comes to mind when I see a thread like this, at all other times it is completely non-existent in my thoughts. It's not even a question, it just doesn't come up. Who needs God? "Luck" suffices enough for when I really want something and hope for it ;p
It's curious to think if I would have been religious if it had been more present in my life, with parents such, but I feel that it wouldn't. I find it amazing that anyone competent with using the internet can believe in God, because the internet is such a disillusioning device. At least, when your use of the internet doesn't exist solely in finding people who think just like you, but you rather participate in diverse and interesting communities.
This last bit is wonderful I must say. Personally, I have my extremely religious step-mother to thank for providing me with an incentive to really attempt to understand Christian theology and the nature of religion in general. Her family are devout Catholics, and they live such reverential and positive lives that I can't help but find something incredibly compelling in the way they view the world. I struggled alongside them as the pedophilia scandal became public, and to see their faith weather the storm and reinforce their zeal for life is truly inspiring. These are the sorts of people who would give you the clothes off their back, no matter race, gender or sexual orientation, and then proceed to shower you with food, stories, and welcome, only to bid you farewell as they head off to the soup kitchen to serve the poor. While I certainly disagree with many components of typical Christian thought and living, such as being pro-life, the manner in which it can effect a positive influence on the lives of others is difficult to ignore and warrants honest investigation. And my simple response to all those who wish to qualitatively insist that religion has had a net negative impact on society is one of insistence. An insistence that you look a little bit harder at how you conceive of mankind and the scope of human history, for there are many apparent systems and structures that are more integral and multivarious in operation than one might think.
While I do find that religion can have a positive effect on people, I don't think that hospitality and service are inherent to religious people. If you only do something because you'll go to hell if you don't then you're not likely to be as sincere, happy, or do as good of a job as someone who does something because they enjoy it or because they just think it's the right thing. I know plenty of people who would identify as Christians do exactly what you described; however, I know a good amount of people that would identify as Christians who would not. When you help someone out, unless it's in an explicitly religious context, you do it because it's the right thing, not because it'll score you points in the afterlife. Now, if some people have a sense in morality that is entrenched in a certain religion that wouldn't have such a sense otherwise, maybe religion is good for them.
I guess my point here is that this isn't necessarily driven by religion but more by morals. There are religious people that will do what you describe and there are atheists as well, there are religious people that won't and there are atheists that won't. This seems to be rooted more in morality to me than religion.
On July 09 2012 07:25 Code wrote: Love how people are debating if the joke on the shirt is funny/not funny. Its just a joke guys, you either laugh or you don't
On July 09 2012 06:58 Xiron wrote:
On July 09 2012 05:30 superbarnie wrote: Wow why are atheist always so intolerant and judgemental?
Because religion is anti-rational. Religious people are like little kids who want that tasty looking cake. Now dad tries to explain to them, that this cake has too much sugar, is too expensive and not good for them. No kid will understand that. They want the cake, nothing else matters. Now the dad is strict and keeps saying no. The kids will think 'Wow why is dad always so intolerant and judgemental?', because they are not rational and don't understand.
are you saying the cake is a lie?
I am myself an athiest but this metaphor fails on many levels. First, the kid will just think 'dad doesn't love me' or something stomp his or her feet. Intolerant and judgemental don't begin to describe how the kid feels about dad. Second, 'expensive' and 'too sugary' are sort of based in objective observable fact when one takes for granted that the cake is real and these characteristics of it are real. God as a concept is unexplanable, unobservable. You can't say anything like god is too sugary.
I did think the metaphor was amusing, but it doesn't work at all. If you want to illustrate religious people has irrational, you are better off with the cliche easter bunny and santa claus comparisons, which are things that delight children but must eventually be grown out of because they are based purely on the child's faith in their existence. The only difference being that one day parents take it upon themselves to tell the child if he or she doesn't figure it out on their own that it's been a lie. There is no such confirming social evidence for religious people, except, in kinda sorta way, by way of meeting atheists they greatly respect and adopting their position.
I don't think it's necessary to get too passionate about these sorts of things. Religion might cause many problems, but if it were not religion controlling people, it would be religion by another name (patriotism? propaganda? celeberity appeal?). You can't escape the way massive societies work, or at least, no society on earth has yet, religious or not.
When I think about my own growth in terms of my beliefs about God, there was a long time when I more or less assumed God's existence. There were churches and popes and everything that made that world of adults and God seem real. As I grew older I learned that not all people believe in God, and because my family (tho my parents probably believe in God) do not possess much religious imagery or ever really even talk about God, it was exactly like that cliche of a child eventually not believe in Santa Clause anymore just becase the logic of this reality does not support the belief. There was that general fear like 'will god be mad if I don't believe in him?' when I was first considering where I stood, but my life experiences have had so little to do with God or religion in general, my experiences with religious people awkward enough, that there was just no reason to believe in such a thing. The word 'God' as a supernatural force governing the universe only comes to mind when I see a thread like this, at all other times it is completely non-existent in my thoughts. It's not even a question, it just doesn't come up. Who needs God? "Luck" suffices enough for when I really want something and hope for it ;p
It's curious to think if I would have been religious if it had been more present in my life, with parents such, but I feel that it wouldn't. I find it amazing that anyone competent with using the internet can believe in God, because the internet is such a disillusioning device. At least, when your use of the internet doesn't exist solely in finding people who think just like you, but you rather participate in diverse and interesting communities.
This last bit is wonderful I must say. Personally, I have my extremely religious step-mother to thank for providing me with an incentive to really attempt to understand Christian theology and the nature of religion in general. Her family are devout Catholics, and they live such reverential and positive lives that I can't help but find something incredibly compelling in the way they view the world. I struggled alongside them as the pedophilia scandal became public, and to see their faith weather the storm and reinforce their zeal for life is truly inspiring. These are the sorts of people who would give you the clothes off their back, no matter race, gender or sexual orientation, and then proceed to shower you with food, stories, and welcome, only to bid you farewell as they head off to the soup kitchen to serve the poor. While I certainly disagree with many components of typical Christian thought and living, such as being pro-life, the manner in which it can effect a positive influence on the lives of others is difficult to ignore and warrants honest investigation. And my simple response to all those who wish to qualitatively insist that religion has had a net negative impact on society is one of insistence. An insistence that you look a little bit harder at how you conceive of mankind and the scope of human history, for there are many apparent systems and structures that are more integral and multivarious in operation than one might think.
While I do find that religion can have a positive effect on people, I don't think that hospitality and service are inherent to religious people. If you only do something because you'll go to hell if you don't then you're not likely to be as sincere, happy, or do as good of a job as someone who does something because they enjoy it or because they just think it's the right thing. I know plenty of people who would identify as Christians do exactly what you described; however, I know a good amount of people that would identify as Christians who would not. When you help someone out, unless it's in an explicitly religious context, you do it because it's the right thing, not because it'll score you points in the afterlife. Now, if some people have a sense in morality that is entrenched in a certain religion that wouldn't have such a sense otherwise, maybe religion is good for them.
I guess my point here is that this isn't necessarily driven by religion but more by morals. There are religious people that will do what you describe and there are atheists as well, there are religious people that won't and there are atheists that won't. This seems to be rooted more in morality to me than religion.
I totally agree with you, so if it makes more sense, consider that I am equally fascinated with the altruism inspired by the exact opposite, that being atheism or agnosticism. I grew up in Toledo, OH, where there exists a burgeoning Anarchist collective that was more or less founded by a friend of mine from high school. Their interest in communal food provision and collective inner dialogue is awesome and just as worthy of interest, to put it simply. Many insist that atheists are by and large more enlightened then their faith-based counterparts, and I contend that such an assertion can only come from an incomplete understanding. There are worthwhile pursuits in any spiritual or intellectual circle, granted one is open to the possibility.
On July 08 2012 23:16 Kukaracha wrote: My question being : what justifies this negative bias towards the "holy book"?
I can't speak for others, but my negative bias towards the bible comes from the possibilty to arbitrarily choose, what parts of the bible are to be taken literal, and what parts are metaphorical.
There's nothing arbitrary about it though. This is a very common criticism of Christianity, Christians have spent 2000 years thinking about the Bible and discussing it. Theologians don't just flip a coin.
The shirt and the joke are funny; it provokes an amusing reaction whether you're amused because "Heh heh Gawd sure showed dat Nietzsche!" or because someone else is going "I'm getting the vapors from these people not respecting Nietzsche!" Be like most e-atheists and take pleasure in the religious not respecting atheism, it's only what atheists - on the internet especially - do to the religious. Isn't what's good for the goose good for the gander?
Nietzsche was a tool. he went insane from seeing someone beat a dead horse. can you get more ironic than that? i don't think so.
also, have you ever read the story of what he thought civilization would be like when we realized that God was dead?
the super-man was a fucking mindless brute. that's right. his ultimate man was a mindless violent brute. that right there should tell you everything you need to know about that "great mind"
also:
Its actually extremely ironic and makes the same point that Nietzsche was actually trying to convey; That god, as a matter of cultural fact, is dead.
except among impressionable young minds and even more impressionable old minds, Nietzsche is dead in a cultural sense. his philosophy was not very original and it has not survived. the shirt is accurate to a greater degree than Nietzsche's statement was.
Nietzsche was a tool. he went insane from seeing someone beat a dead horse. can you get more ironic than that? i don't think so.
also, have you ever read the story of what he thought civilization would be like when we realized that God was dead?
the super-man was a fucking mindless brute. that's right. his ultimate man was a mindless violent brute. that right there should tell you everything you need to know about that "great mind"
Its actually extremely ironic and makes the same point that Nietzsche was actually trying to convey; That god, as a matter of cultural fact, is dead.
except among impressionable young minds and even more impressionable old minds, Nietzsche is dead in a cultural sense. his philosophy was not very original and it has not survived. the shirt is accurate to a greater degree than Nietzsche's statement was.
The only tool in this conversation is you , Nietzsche was a great mind and his philosophy has survived and is a very important. You haven't even leveled any criticism against the man you've just talked bollocks about his character , literally nothing you've said criticizes anything bar the man as a person.
If you're gonna try to criticize a great mind at least bring some fucking points to the table, instead of spewing your mindless half-witted bullshit.
On July 09 2012 07:25 Code wrote: Love how people are debating if the joke on the shirt is funny/not funny. Its just a joke guys, you either laugh or you don't
On July 09 2012 05:30 superbarnie wrote: Wow why are atheist always so intolerant and judgemental?
Because religion is anti-rational. Religious people are like little kids who want that tasty looking cake. Now dad tries to explain to them, that this cake has too much sugar, is too expensive and not good for them. No kid will understand that. They want the cake, nothing else matters. Now the dad is strict and keeps saying no. The kids will think 'Wow why is dad always so intolerant and judgemental?', because they are not rational and don't understand.
are you saying the cake is a lie?
I don't care much for the preceding analogy but tis is genius LOL
Nietzsche was a tool. he went insane from seeing someone beat a dead horse. can you get more ironic than that? i don't think so.
also, have you ever read the story of what he thought civilization would be like when we realized that God was dead?
the super-man was a fucking mindless brute. that's right. his ultimate man was a mindless violent brute. that right there should tell you everything you need to know about that "great mind"
also:
Its actually extremely ironic and makes the same point that Nietzsche was actually trying to convey; That god, as a matter of cultural fact, is dead.
except among impressionable young minds and even more impressionable old minds, Nietzsche is dead in a cultural sense. his philosophy was not very original and it has not survived. the shirt is accurate to a greater degree than Nietzsche's statement was.
The only tool in this conversation is you , Nietzsche was a great mind and his philosophy has survived and is a very important. You haven't even leveled any criticism against the man you've just talked bollocks about his character , literally nothing you've said criticizes anything bar the man as a person.
If you're gonna try to criticize a great mind at least bring some fucking points to the table, instead of spewing your mindless half-witted bullshit.
his philosophy was not original in any sense of the word. not only did many German philosophers before him say basically the same things, but long before the German's ever wrote their philosophy, the idea of God as a cultural idea being dead existed. furthermore, his works are mindless drivel for the most part. Thus Spake Zarathustra especially was god-awful (pun intended). take this quote for example:
"But man does not live by bread alone, but also by the flesh of good lambs..."
now i am taking this out of context to some degree... but are you kidding me? and further, the rest of the quote, and conversation from which it comes from is little more than self-aggrandizing rambling.
can you tell me which society has ever embraced Nietzsche's philosophies? the Nazi's did to some degree. any others? where in modern popular society do we see Nietzsche? it was a fringe and it will always be a fringe. even the Nazi's couldn't find much practical use for his writings, and instead twisted them to mean something more than pure nihilism leading to even worse nihilism. where is this death of God? where is the catastrophe? what group has ever committed themselves to the creation of the Übermensch? in what way has Nietzsche survived even past his own century? it is not correct to claim that Nietzsche is dead in a cultural sense. He never lived. in a cultural sense he was aborted in the womb, never even born.
Nietzsche also hated democracy, considering it to be the height of the "slave-morality". the "collective degeneration of man". his hatred and disgust for the weak, and love for the strong, not only of the will, not even primarily of the will, but of the physical, were disgusting in their own right.
his critique of Christianity was historically incorrect, and furthermore betrayed a complete lack of understanding of both the political and religious realities of the time of the early Christians.
if Nietzsche was a lover of humanity (he was not) than why did he wish for an end to compassion, mercy, martyrdom, piety, selflessness and morality as we know it? while he showed some disdain for the "master-morality" of "what is good for me is good"; he showed a complete disdain and hatred for the "slave-morality" of "what is good is good, and what is evil is evil." he saw the humanizing morals of christianity, the self-denial and the upraising of the weak and poor as inherently flawed and horrible ideas. yes, Nietzsche claimed to love man, yet his love was not even close to the kind of love (that Judeo-Christian love) that we today think of.
"The most senile thing ever thought about man is contained in the celebrated saying 'the ego is always hateful'; the most childish is the even more celebrated 'love thy neighbor as thyself'."
are those the words of a lover of humanity?
i have no desire to argue about it much more. anyone who has read even a little Nietzsche should know that his theories were based more on ignorance than on knowledge. his predictions have never come true, his highest man was nothing desirable, his highest aspirations were base and full of self-hatred. he was an elitist in the truest sense of the word, a sexist (as so many philosophers (unmarried all of them) have been). he was a hater of the weak and poor, a lover of the dictator and of the selfish. his philosophy was largely stolen from earlier sources, and his original ideas were the most asinine and self-defeating. his life was bitter, and it is clear throughout his writings that this bitterness caused his philosophy, again miming the vast majority of philosophers before him. as of yet, his greatest effects upon society have been caused by men that misunderstood and misattributed his words and feelings.
A great many people over exaggerate and over extrapolate based upon a poor or incomplete understanding of Nietzsche, but misanthropy and intelligence need not be mutually exclusive.
Nietzsche was a tool. he went insane from seeing someone beat a dead horse. can you get more ironic than that? i don't think so.
also, have you ever read the story of what he thought civilization would be like when we realized that God was dead?
the super-man was a fucking mindless brute. that's right. his ultimate man was a mindless violent brute. that right there should tell you everything you need to know about that "great mind"
Its actually extremely ironic and makes the same point that Nietzsche was actually trying to convey; That god, as a matter of cultural fact, is dead.
except among impressionable young minds and even more impressionable old minds, Nietzsche is dead in a cultural sense. his philosophy was not very original and it has not survived. the shirt is accurate to a greater degree than Nietzsche's statement was.
If you think Nietzsche is irrelevant then you're a clueless idiot.
There isn't really much else to say. I don't particularly like Nietzsche and I certainly am a "moralist" as he said with disdain, but his influence is everywhere. His influence has permeated pretty much every corner of modern European philosophy and even a great deal of theology.
Saying that Nietzsche is dead in a cultural sense is easily the most nonsensical thing that has been said in this entire goddamned thread.
edit: goddamn are you an author of an awful amount of really stupid posts
In the end, all religion is BS. I used to be moderate and stuff, but really, if you believe in this crap, I can't take you serious.
The whole atheism/theism discussion is moot, there is no argument I know of for the existence of god other than "it's in the bible - and the bible is true because god wants it so", or "because I just know it". No atheist can say with 100% certainty that god doesn't exist, but then again, that holds true for anything and that doesn't automatically mean everything exists. The fact that there exist hundreds of religions, all claiming to be the single true one, should ring a bell.
There is a reason people stick to scientific method: It works. Religion does not work. It may give you "comfort", but you can't deduce how to construct a computer to play starcraft on off it. In fact, you can't reliably deduce anything worthwhile from it.
The T-shirt just shows it: If you believe most of this shit, you probably don't understand much at all.
Up to this day I haven't met a single christian who could even remotely convince me that any of this stuff was true. I believe that it "helps" them and "gives them comfort", but that does not make it true.
On July 09 2012 13:36 MaGariShun wrote: In the end, all religion is BS. I used to be moderate and stuff, but really, if you believe in this crap, I can't take you serious.
The whole atheism/theism discussion is moot, there is no argument I know of for the existence of god other than "it's in the bible - and the bible is true because god wants it so", or "because I just know it". No atheist can say with 100% certainty that god doesn't exist, but then again, that holds true for anything and that doesn't automatically mean everything exists. The fact that there exist hundreds of religions, all claiming to be the single true one, should ring a bell.
There is a reason people stick to scientific method: It works. Religion does not work. It may give you "comfort", but you can't deduce how to construct a computer to play starcraft on off it. In fact, you can't reliably deduce anything worthwhile from it.
The T-shirt just shows it: If you believe most of this shit, you probably don't understand much at all.
Up to this day I haven't met a single christian who could even remotely convince me that any of this stuff was true. I believe that it "helps" them and "gives them comfort", but that does not make it true.
Every single thing you've said is meaningless and sounds reminiscent of a high school science club speech by the newly declared atheist student president. Meet some more people, read some more books, and learn to open your mind. The world owes you nothing but a chance for dialogue, and you'd do well to listen as well as talk (and read the thread maybe?).
On July 09 2012 13:36 MaGariShun wrote: In the end, all religion is BS. I used to be moderate and stuff, but really, if you believe in this crap, I can't take you serious.
The whole atheism/theism discussion is moot, there is no argument I know of for the existence of god other than "it's in the bible - and the bible is true because god wants it so", or "because I just know it". No atheist can say with 100% certainty that god doesn't exist, but then again, that holds true for anything and that doesn't automatically mean everything exists. The fact that there exist hundreds of religions, all claiming to be the single true one, should ring a bell.
There is a reason people stick to scientific method: It works. Religion does not work. It may give you "comfort", but you can't deduce how to construct a computer to play starcraft on off it. In fact, you can't reliably deduce anything worthwhile from it.
The T-shirt just shows it: If you believe most of this shit, you probably don't understand much at all.
Up to this day I haven't met a single christian who could even remotely convince me that any of this stuff was true. I believe that it "helps" them and "gives them comfort", but that does not make it true.
Every single thing you've said is meaningless and sounds reminiscent of a high school science club speech by the newly declared atheist student president. Meet some more people, read some more books, and learn to open your mind. The world owes you nothing but a chance for dialogue, and you'd do well to listen as well as talk (and read the thread maybe?).
As I said, I used to think a bit more moderate (like you apparently) about this matter, but as time got on, I just realized more and more how stupid it all was. Of course my post was pretty superficial, because I don't really care to go in depth about this.
People can believe what they want, I don't care, but please don't base educational and political decisions on it when you have no evidence that it is actually true
On July 09 2012 13:36 MaGariShun wrote: In the end, all religion is BS. I used to be moderate and stuff, but really, if you believe in this crap, I can't take you serious.
The whole atheism/theism discussion is moot, there is no argument I know of for the existence of god other than "it's in the bible - and the bible is true because god wants it so", or "because I just know it". No atheist can say with 100% certainty that god doesn't exist, but then again, that holds true for anything and that doesn't automatically mean everything exists. The fact that there exist hundreds of religions, all claiming to be the single true one, should ring a bell.
There is a reason people stick to scientific method: It works. Religion does not work. It may give you "comfort", but you can't deduce how to construct a computer to play starcraft on off it. In fact, you can't reliably deduce anything worthwhile from it.
The T-shirt just shows it: If you believe most of this shit, you probably don't understand much at all.
Up to this day I haven't met a single christian who could even remotely convince me that any of this stuff was true. I believe that it "helps" them and "gives them comfort", but that does not make it true.
Every single thing you've said is meaningless and sounds reminiscent of a high school science club speech by the newly declared atheist student president. Meet some more people, read some more books, and learn to open your mind. The world owes you nothing but a chance for dialogue, and you'd do well to listen as well as talk (and read the thread maybe?).
As I said, I used to think a bit more moderate (like you apparently) about this matter, but as time got on, I just realized more and more how stupid it all was. Of course my post was pretty superficial, because I don't really care to go in depth about this.
People can believe what they want, I don't care, but please don't base educational and political decisions on it when you have no evidence that it is actually true
Do you understand quantum mechanics? Do you understand genetic studies? Do you understand Jung and Adler's seperation with Freud? Do you understand the evolution of art in the past century? Do you understand the keypoint differences between keynesians and the Austrian school? Do you understand the concept of "misery" in Pascal's work? Do you know the political story of your country? Do you know the story of your country? Can you name most of the influent persons of your country? Do you know their past? Can you see their motives? Do you know your country's economical situation? Are you aware of your country's foreign affairs?
... no? Then you're a regular person, like everyone, and you vote, make decisions and go through life without having a single clue of what's going on. Have you ever heard of the confirmation bias? Hindsight bias? Normalcy bias? The Dunning-Kruger effect? The third-person effect? They are fundamental shortcuts that the mind will always take, and that make us essentially irrational beings.
I would say that the "last" step in this field is to realize that christians and atheists are just the same. You can also say that it is stupid, but western countries have tied their lives with christianity, and it is as such a great part of our history and morality.
On July 09 2012 13:36 MaGariShun wrote: In the end, all religion is BS. I used to be moderate and stuff, but really, if you believe in this crap, I can't take you serious.
The whole atheism/theism discussion is moot, there is no argument I know of for the existence of god other than "it's in the bible - and the bible is true because god wants it so", or "because I just know it". No atheist can say with 100% certainty that god doesn't exist, but then again, that holds true for anything and that doesn't automatically mean everything exists. The fact that there exist hundreds of religions, all claiming to be the single true one, should ring a bell.
There is a reason people stick to scientific method: It works. Religion does not work. It may give you "comfort", but you can't deduce how to construct a computer to play starcraft on off it. In fact, you can't reliably deduce anything worthwhile from it.
The T-shirt just shows it: If you believe most of this shit, you probably don't understand much at all.
Up to this day I haven't met a single christian who could even remotely convince me that any of this stuff was true. I believe that it "helps" them and "gives them comfort", but that does not make it true.
Every single thing you've said is meaningless and sounds reminiscent of a high school science club speech by the newly declared atheist student president. Meet some more people, read some more books, and learn to open your mind. The world owes you nothing but a chance for dialogue, and you'd do well to listen as well as talk (and read the thread maybe?).
As I said, I used to think a bit more moderate (like you apparently) about this matter, but as time got on, I just realized more and more how stupid it all was. Of course my post was pretty superficial, because I don't really care to go in depth about this.
People can believe what they want, I don't care, but please don't base educational and political decisions on it when you have no evidence that it is actually true
Do you understand quantum mechanics? Do you understand genetic studies? Do you understand Jung and Adler's seperation with Freud? Do you understand the evolution of art in the past century? Do you understand the keypoint differences between keynesians and the Austrian school? Do you understand the concept of "misery" in Pascal's work? Do you know the political story of your country? Do you know the story of your country? Can you name most of the influent persons of your country? Do you know their past? Can you see their motives? Do you know your country's economical situation? Are you aware of your country's foreign affairs?
... no? Then you're a regular person, like everyone, and you vote, make decisions and go through life without having a single clue of what's going on. Have you ever heard of the confirmation bias? Hindsight bias? Normalcy bias? The Dunning-Kruger effect? The third-person effect? They are fundamental shortcuts that the mind will always take, and that make us essentially irrational beings.
I would say that the "last" step in this field is to realize that christians and atheists are just the same. You can also say that it is stupid, but western countries have tied their lives with christianity, and it is as such a great part of our history and morality.
I don't get your point... seriously, I don't get it. Are you trying to say that me "believing" those things without actually having researched and fully understood them is the same as believing in christianity?
And please don't give me the "morality comes from christianity" crap. Maybe certain specific moral values do (e.g. monogamy), but then again, if christianity didn't exist, we would not have these values and thus wouldn't see the lack of them as "bad". Basic moral principles like "don't kill", don't steal" etc. exist in other non-christian cultures too, because they are essential for a functioning society.
On July 09 2012 21:09 Kukaracha wrote: I would say that the "last" step in this field is to realize that christians and atheists are just the same.
No, because atheist won't come around and say ' I'm against gay marriage because something, that is not visible, nor in any kind of way provable, forbids it. '
Atheists won't necessarily be for gay marriage, but atleast you eliminate a point of discussion that is completely without substance and won't get anywhere.
On July 09 2012 13:36 MaGariShun wrote: In the end, all religion is BS. I used to be moderate and stuff, but really, if you believe in this crap, I can't take you serious.
The whole atheism/theism discussion is moot, there is no argument I know of for the existence of god other than "it's in the bible - and the bible is true because god wants it so", or "because I just know it". No atheist can say with 100% certainty that god doesn't exist, but then again, that holds true for anything and that doesn't automatically mean everything exists. The fact that there exist hundreds of religions, all claiming to be the single true one, should ring a bell.
There is a reason people stick to scientific method: It works. Religion does not work. It may give you "comfort", but you can't deduce how to construct a computer to play starcraft on off it. In fact, you can't reliably deduce anything worthwhile from it.
The T-shirt just shows it: If you believe most of this shit, you probably don't understand much at all.
Up to this day I haven't met a single christian who could even remotely convince me that any of this stuff was true. I believe that it "helps" them and "gives them comfort", but that does not make it true.
Every single thing you've said is meaningless and sounds reminiscent of a high school science club speech by the newly declared atheist student president. Meet some more people, read some more books, and learn to open your mind. The world owes you nothing but a chance for dialogue, and you'd do well to listen as well as talk (and read the thread maybe?).
As I said, I used to think a bit more moderate (like you apparently) about this matter, but as time got on, I just realized more and more how stupid it all was. Of course my post was pretty superficial, because I don't really care to go in depth about this.
People can believe what they want, I don't care, but please don't base educational and political decisions on it when you have no evidence that it is actually true
Do you understand quantum mechanics? Do you understand genetic studies? Do you understand Jung and Adler's seperation with Freud? Do you understand the evolution of art in the past century? Do you understand the keypoint differences between keynesians and the Austrian school? Do you understand the concept of "misery" in Pascal's work? Do you know the political story of your country? Do you know the story of your country? Can you name most of the influent persons of your country? Do you know their past? Can you see their motives? Do you know your country's economical situation? Are you aware of your country's foreign affairs?
... no? Then you're a regular person, like everyone, and you vote, make decisions and go through life without having a single clue of what's going on. Have you ever heard of the confirmation bias? Hindsight bias? Normalcy bias? The Dunning-Kruger effect? The third-person effect? They are fundamental shortcuts that the mind will always take, and that make us essentially irrational beings.
I would say that the "last" step in this field is to realize that christians and atheists are just the same. You can also say that it is stupid, but western countries have tied their lives with christianity, and it is as such a great part of our history and morality.
I don't get your point... seriously, I don't get it. Are you trying to say that me "believing" those things without actually having researched and fully understood them is the same as believing in christianity?
And please don't give me the "morality comes from christianity" crap. Maybe certain specific moral values do (e.g. monogamy), but then again, if christianity didn't exist, we would not have these values and thus wouldn't see the lack of them as "bad". Basic moral principles like "don't kill", don't steal" etc. exist in other non-christian cultures too, because they are essential for a functioning society.
They aren't just essential for a functioning society. They are essential for the functioning of our species.
On July 09 2012 13:36 MaGariShun wrote: In the end, all religion is BS. I used to be moderate and stuff, but really, if you believe in this crap, I can't take you serious.
The whole atheism/theism discussion is moot, there is no argument I know of for the existence of god other than "it's in the bible - and the bible is true because god wants it so", or "because I just know it". No atheist can say with 100% certainty that god doesn't exist, but then again, that holds true for anything and that doesn't automatically mean everything exists. The fact that there exist hundreds of religions, all claiming to be the single true one, should ring a bell.
There is a reason people stick to scientific method: It works. Religion does not work. It may give you "comfort", but you can't deduce how to construct a computer to play starcraft on off it. In fact, you can't reliably deduce anything worthwhile from it.
The T-shirt just shows it: If you believe most of this shit, you probably don't understand much at all.
Up to this day I haven't met a single christian who could even remotely convince me that any of this stuff was true. I believe that it "helps" them and "gives them comfort", but that does not make it true.
Every single thing you've said is meaningless and sounds reminiscent of a high school science club speech by the newly declared atheist student president. Meet some more people, read some more books, and learn to open your mind. The world owes you nothing but a chance for dialogue, and you'd do well to listen as well as talk (and read the thread maybe?).
As I said, I used to think a bit more moderate (like you apparently) about this matter, but as time got on, I just realized more and more how stupid it all was. Of course my post was pretty superficial, because I don't really care to go in depth about this.
People can believe what they want, I don't care, but please don't base educational and political decisions on it when you have no evidence that it is actually true
Do you understand quantum mechanics? Do you understand genetic studies? Do you understand Jung and Adler's seperation with Freud? Do you understand the evolution of art in the past century? Do you understand the keypoint differences between keynesians and the Austrian school? Do you understand the concept of "misery" in Pascal's work? Do you know the political story of your country? Do you know the story of your country? Can you name most of the influent persons of your country? Do you know their past? Can you see their motives? Do you know your country's economical situation? Are you aware of your country's foreign affairs?
... no? Then you're a regular person, like everyone, and you vote, make decisions and go through life without having a single clue of what's going on. Have you ever heard of the confirmation bias? Hindsight bias? Normalcy bias? The Dunning-Kruger effect? The third-person effect? They are fundamental shortcuts that the mind will always take, and that make us essentially irrational beings.
I would say that the "last" step in this field is to realize that christians and atheists are just the same. You can also say that it is stupid, but western countries have tied their lives with christianity, and it is as such a great part of our history and morality.
I don't get your point... seriously, I don't get it. Are you trying to say that me "believing" those things without actually having researched and fully understood them is the same as believing in christianity?
And please don't give me the "morality comes from christianity" crap. Maybe certain specific moral values do (e.g. monogamy), but then again, if christianity didn't exist, we would not have these values and thus wouldn't see the lack of them as "bad". Basic moral principles like "don't kill", don't steal" etc. exist in other non-christian cultures too, because they are essential for a functioning society.
They aren't just essential for a functioning society. They are essential for the functioning of our species.
It was obvious that somebody would give the wrongest of all possible replies. Our species does not depend on morals. Animals have no morals and they are doing fine. Morals are what divides us from animals, but we would no doubt survive without morals. Thus morals are not essential.
On July 09 2012 13:36 MaGariShun wrote: In the end, all religion is BS. I used to be moderate and stuff, but really, if you believe in this crap, I can't take you serious.
The whole atheism/theism discussion is moot, there is no argument I know of for the existence of god other than "it's in the bible - and the bible is true because god wants it so", or "because I just know it". No atheist can say with 100% certainty that god doesn't exist, but then again, that holds true for anything and that doesn't automatically mean everything exists. The fact that there exist hundreds of religions, all claiming to be the single true one, should ring a bell.
There is a reason people stick to scientific method: It works. Religion does not work. It may give you "comfort", but you can't deduce how to construct a computer to play starcraft on off it. In fact, you can't reliably deduce anything worthwhile from it.
The T-shirt just shows it: If you believe most of this shit, you probably don't understand much at all.
Up to this day I haven't met a single christian who could even remotely convince me that any of this stuff was true. I believe that it "helps" them and "gives them comfort", but that does not make it true.
Every single thing you've said is meaningless and sounds reminiscent of a high school science club speech by the newly declared atheist student president. Meet some more people, read some more books, and learn to open your mind. The world owes you nothing but a chance for dialogue, and you'd do well to listen as well as talk (and read the thread maybe?).
As I said, I used to think a bit more moderate (like you apparently) about this matter, but as time got on, I just realized more and more how stupid it all was. Of course my post was pretty superficial, because I don't really care to go in depth about this.
People can believe what they want, I don't care, but please don't base educational and political decisions on it when you have no evidence that it is actually true
Do you understand quantum mechanics? Do you understand genetic studies? Do you understand Jung and Adler's seperation with Freud? Do you understand the evolution of art in the past century? Do you understand the keypoint differences between keynesians and the Austrian school? Do you understand the concept of "misery" in Pascal's work? Do you know the political story of your country? Do you know the story of your country? Can you name most of the influent persons of your country? Do you know their past? Can you see their motives? Do you know your country's economical situation? Are you aware of your country's foreign affairs?
... no? Then you're a regular person, like everyone, and you vote, make decisions and go through life without having a single clue of what's going on. Have you ever heard of the confirmation bias? Hindsight bias? Normalcy bias? The Dunning-Kruger effect? The third-person effect? They are fundamental shortcuts that the mind will always take, and that make us essentially irrational beings.
I would say that the "last" step in this field is to realize that christians and atheists are just the same. You can also say that it is stupid, but western countries have tied their lives with christianity, and it is as such a great part of our history and morality.
I don't get your point... seriously, I don't get it. Are you trying to say that me "believing" those things without actually having researched and fully understood them is the same as believing in christianity?
And please don't give me the "morality comes from christianity" crap. Maybe certain specific moral values do (e.g. monogamy), but then again, if christianity didn't exist, we would not have these values and thus wouldn't see the lack of them as "bad". Basic moral principles like "don't kill", don't steal" etc. exist in other non-christian cultures too, because they are essential for a functioning society.
They aren't just essential for a functioning society. They are essential for the functioning of our species.
It was obvious that somebody would give the wrongest of all possible replies. Our species does not depend on morals. Animals have no morals and they are doing fine. Morals are what divides us from animals, but we would no doubt survive without morals. Thus morals are not essential.
I think he means that if we would all kill each other, we would be extinct pretty soon as a species.
on a sidenote: How would you know if animals don't have morals? I think most of our morals are basically instinct (are innate) and animals surely have that (not forgetting the fact that we are animals anyways). Just because all "animal morals" don't correspond with your own, doesn't mean they don't have any. Not that I know if they do
No, morals themselves are not essential, but the instincts (or whatever you wanna call those "innate morals") which they are based upon may very well be.
Also, you could argue that the survival of our species at this stage could depend on a functioning society.
On July 09 2012 13:36 MaGariShun wrote: In the end, all religion is BS. I used to be moderate and stuff, but really, if you believe in this crap, I can't take you serious.
The whole atheism/theism discussion is moot, there is no argument I know of for the existence of god other than "it's in the bible - and the bible is true because god wants it so", or "because I just know it". No atheist can say with 100% certainty that god doesn't exist, but then again, that holds true for anything and that doesn't automatically mean everything exists. The fact that there exist hundreds of religions, all claiming to be the single true one, should ring a bell.
There is a reason people stick to scientific method: It works. Religion does not work. It may give you "comfort", but you can't deduce how to construct a computer to play starcraft on off it. In fact, you can't reliably deduce anything worthwhile from it.
The T-shirt just shows it: If you believe most of this shit, you probably don't understand much at all.
Up to this day I haven't met a single christian who could even remotely convince me that any of this stuff was true. I believe that it "helps" them and "gives them comfort", but that does not make it true.
Every single thing you've said is meaningless and sounds reminiscent of a high school science club speech by the newly declared atheist student president. Meet some more people, read some more books, and learn to open your mind. The world owes you nothing but a chance for dialogue, and you'd do well to listen as well as talk (and read the thread maybe?).
As I said, I used to think a bit more moderate (like you apparently) about this matter, but as time got on, I just realized more and more how stupid it all was. Of course my post was pretty superficial, because I don't really care to go in depth about this.
People can believe what they want, I don't care, but please don't base educational and political decisions on it when you have no evidence that it is actually true
Do you understand quantum mechanics? Do you understand genetic studies? Do you understand Jung and Adler's seperation with Freud? Do you understand the evolution of art in the past century? Do you understand the keypoint differences between keynesians and the Austrian school? Do you understand the concept of "misery" in Pascal's work? Do you know the political story of your country? Do you know the story of your country? Can you name most of the influent persons of your country? Do you know their past? Can you see their motives? Do you know your country's economical situation? Are you aware of your country's foreign affairs?
... no? Then you're a regular person, like everyone, and you vote, make decisions and go through life without having a single clue of what's going on. Have you ever heard of the confirmation bias? Hindsight bias? Normalcy bias? The Dunning-Kruger effect? The third-person effect? They are fundamental shortcuts that the mind will always take, and that make us essentially irrational beings.
I would say that the "last" step in this field is to realize that christians and atheists are just the same. You can also say that it is stupid, but western countries have tied their lives with christianity, and it is as such a great part of our history and morality.
I don't get your point... seriously, I don't get it. Are you trying to say that me "believing" those things without actually having researched and fully understood them is the same as believing in christianity?
And please don't give me the "morality comes from christianity" crap. Maybe certain specific moral values do (e.g. monogamy), but then again, if christianity didn't exist, we would not have these values and thus wouldn't see the lack of them as "bad". Basic moral principles like "don't kill", don't steal" etc. exist in other non-christian cultures too, because they are essential for a functioning society.
They aren't just essential for a functioning society. They are essential for the functioning of our species.
It was obvious that somebody would give the wrongest of all possible replies. Our species does not depend on morals. Animals have no morals and they are doing fine. Morals are what divides us from animals, but we would no doubt survive without morals. Thus morals are not essential.
We don't kill eachother off because it hurts our chances of reproduction in various ways.
On July 09 2012 13:36 MaGariShun wrote: In the end, all religion is BS. I used to be moderate and stuff, but really, if you believe in this crap, I can't take you serious.
The whole atheism/theism discussion is moot, there is no argument I know of for the existence of god other than "it's in the bible - and the bible is true because god wants it so", or "because I just know it". No atheist can say with 100% certainty that god doesn't exist, but then again, that holds true for anything and that doesn't automatically mean everything exists. The fact that there exist hundreds of religions, all claiming to be the single true one, should ring a bell.
There is a reason people stick to scientific method: It works. Religion does not work. It may give you "comfort", but you can't deduce how to construct a computer to play starcraft on off it. In fact, you can't reliably deduce anything worthwhile from it.
The T-shirt just shows it: If you believe most of this shit, you probably don't understand much at all.
Up to this day I haven't met a single christian who could even remotely convince me that any of this stuff was true. I believe that it "helps" them and "gives them comfort", but that does not make it true.
Every single thing you've said is meaningless and sounds reminiscent of a high school science club speech by the newly declared atheist student president. Meet some more people, read some more books, and learn to open your mind. The world owes you nothing but a chance for dialogue, and you'd do well to listen as well as talk (and read the thread maybe?).
As I said, I used to think a bit more moderate (like you apparently) about this matter, but as time got on, I just realized more and more how stupid it all was. Of course my post was pretty superficial, because I don't really care to go in depth about this.
People can believe what they want, I don't care, but please don't base educational and political decisions on it when you have no evidence that it is actually true
Do you understand quantum mechanics? Do you understand genetic studies? Do you understand Jung and Adler's seperation with Freud? Do you understand the evolution of art in the past century? Do you understand the keypoint differences between keynesians and the Austrian school? Do you understand the concept of "misery" in Pascal's work? Do you know the political story of your country? Do you know the story of your country? Can you name most of the influent persons of your country? Do you know their past? Can you see their motives? Do you know your country's economical situation? Are you aware of your country's foreign affairs?
... no? Then you're a regular person, like everyone, and you vote, make decisions and go through life without having a single clue of what's going on. Have you ever heard of the confirmation bias? Hindsight bias? Normalcy bias? The Dunning-Kruger effect? The third-person effect? They are fundamental shortcuts that the mind will always take, and that make us essentially irrational beings.
I would say that the "last" step in this field is to realize that christians and atheists are just the same. You can also say that it is stupid, but western countries have tied their lives with christianity, and it is as such a great part of our history and morality.
I don't get your point... seriously, I don't get it. Are you trying to say that me "believing" those things without actually having researched and fully understood them is the same as believing in christianity?
And please don't give me the "morality comes from christianity" crap. Maybe certain specific moral values do (e.g. monogamy), but then again, if christianity didn't exist, we would not have these values and thus wouldn't see the lack of them as "bad". Basic moral principles like "don't kill", don't steal" etc. exist in other non-christian cultures too, because they are essential for a functioning society.
They aren't just essential for a functioning society. They are essential for the functioning of our species.
It was obvious that somebody would give the wrongest of all possible replies. Our species does not depend on morals. Animals have no morals and they are doing fine. Morals are what divides us from animals, but we would no doubt survive without morals. Thus morals are not essential.
We don't kill eachother off because it hurts our chances of reproduction in various ways.
On July 09 2012 13:36 MaGariShun wrote: In the end, all religion is BS. I used to be moderate and stuff, but really, if you believe in this crap, I can't take you serious.
The whole atheism/theism discussion is moot, there is no argument I know of for the existence of god other than "it's in the bible - and the bible is true because god wants it so", or "because I just know it". No atheist can say with 100% certainty that god doesn't exist, but then again, that holds true for anything and that doesn't automatically mean everything exists. The fact that there exist hundreds of religions, all claiming to be the single true one, should ring a bell.
There is a reason people stick to scientific method: It works. Religion does not work. It may give you "comfort", but you can't deduce how to construct a computer to play starcraft on off it. In fact, you can't reliably deduce anything worthwhile from it.
The T-shirt just shows it: If you believe most of this shit, you probably don't understand much at all.
Up to this day I haven't met a single christian who could even remotely convince me that any of this stuff was true. I believe that it "helps" them and "gives them comfort", but that does not make it true.
Every single thing you've said is meaningless and sounds reminiscent of a high school science club speech by the newly declared atheist student president. Meet some more people, read some more books, and learn to open your mind. The world owes you nothing but a chance for dialogue, and you'd do well to listen as well as talk (and read the thread maybe?).
As I said, I used to think a bit more moderate (like you apparently) about this matter, but as time got on, I just realized more and more how stupid it all was. Of course my post was pretty superficial, because I don't really care to go in depth about this.
People can believe what they want, I don't care, but please don't base educational and political decisions on it when you have no evidence that it is actually true
Do you understand quantum mechanics? Do you understand genetic studies? Do you understand Jung and Adler's seperation with Freud? Do you understand the evolution of art in the past century? Do you understand the keypoint differences between keynesians and the Austrian school? Do you understand the concept of "misery" in Pascal's work? Do you know the political story of your country? Do you know the story of your country? Can you name most of the influent persons of your country? Do you know their past? Can you see their motives? Do you know your country's economical situation? Are you aware of your country's foreign affairs?
... no? Then you're a regular person, like everyone, and you vote, make decisions and go through life without having a single clue of what's going on. Have you ever heard of the confirmation bias? Hindsight bias? Normalcy bias? The Dunning-Kruger effect? The third-person effect? They are fundamental shortcuts that the mind will always take, and that make us essentially irrational beings.
I would say that the "last" step in this field is to realize that christians and atheists are just the same. You can also say that it is stupid, but western countries have tied their lives with christianity, and it is as such a great part of our history and morality.
I don't get your point... seriously, I don't get it. Are you trying to say that me "believing" those things without actually having researched and fully understood them is the same as believing in christianity?
And please don't give me the "morality comes from christianity" crap. Maybe certain specific moral values do (e.g. monogamy), but then again, if christianity didn't exist, we would not have these values and thus wouldn't see the lack of them as "bad". Basic moral principles like "don't kill", don't steal" etc. exist in other non-christian cultures too, because they are essential for a functioning society.
They aren't just essential for a functioning society. They are essential for the functioning of our species.
It was obvious that somebody would give the wrongest of all possible replies. Our species does not depend on morals. Animals have no morals and they are doing fine. Morals are what divides us from animals, but we would no doubt survive without morals. Thus morals are not essential.
We don't kill eachother off because it hurts our chances of reproduction in various ways.
I highly doubt that's the only reason.
God sends us to hell for it after we die. That's a much better reason, ain't it?
On July 09 2012 21:41 MaGariShun wrote: I don't get your point... seriously, I don't get it. Are you trying to say that me "believing" those things without actually having researched and fully understood them is the same as believing in christianity?
Exactly. You're just believing things that you've been thaught without questioning them. Do you believe in gay marriage? Then why don't you believe in sister and brother marriage? In father and daughter relationships? In ephebophilia? Everything can be argued, morality is not logically built but is based on absolute "wrongs" (that do in turn constitute taboos, true), being a result of both necessity and contigency.
Maybe you feel "illuminated" after finding out that thunders are not signs that God is angry, but being the smart kid on the short bus does not give you the right the look at others with contempt. What would you say to christian scientists and scholars? Do you truly believe that you are essentially better than them in the intellectual field?
On July 09 2012 21:41 MaGariShun wrote: And please don't give me the "morality comes from christianity" crap. Maybe certain specific moral values do (e.g. monogamy), but then again, if christianity didn't exist, we would not have these values and thus wouldn't see the lack of them as "bad". Basic moral principles like "don't kill", don't steal" etc. exist in other non-christian cultures too, because they are essential for a functioning society.
Of course, that wasn't my point at all. My point is that this is our heritage. To understand it, is to understand ourselves.
On July 09 2012 23:00 Xiron wrote: No, because atheist won't come around and say ' I'm against gay marriage because something, that is not visible, nor in any kind of way provable, forbids it. '
Atheists won't necessarily be for gay marriage, but atleast you eliminate a point of discussion that is completely without substance and won't get anywhere.
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?
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.
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.
No one here is arguing in favor of religious justifications of socially conservative policies, in fact I can guarantee you Kukaracha is just as critical of the anti-gay marriage camp as you are. The problem here is that you are creating your own personal conception of the typical Christian and then judging said conception without any acknowledgement of the incredible variance in belief among Christians or any religious group for that matter. It might seem natural and logical to assert a certain sort of understanding before such an assertion is truly reasonable, a dynamic made ever worse by the "unlimited" yet ultimately temporal access to information via the internet. For every ignorant, bible-thumping evangelical Christian your mind conjures up there are devout Catholics who care little for the politicization of their beliefs and extremely religious lesbian Episcopal ministers. Avoid the temptation to think in absolution or totality whenever possible, only then can one truly be open to the world around them.
On July 09 2012 13:36 MaGariShun wrote: In the end, all religion is BS. I used to be moderate and stuff, but really, if you believe in this crap, I can't take you serious.
The whole atheism/theism discussion is moot, there is no argument I know of for the existence of god other than "it's in the bible - and the bible is true because god wants it so", or "because I just know it". No atheist can say with 100% certainty that god doesn't exist, but then again, that holds true for anything and that doesn't automatically mean everything exists. The fact that there exist hundreds of religions, all claiming to be the single true one, should ring a bell.
There is a reason people stick to scientific method: It works. Religion does not work. It may give you "comfort", but you can't deduce how to construct a computer to play starcraft on off it. In fact, you can't reliably deduce anything worthwhile from it.
The T-shirt just shows it: If you believe most of this shit, you probably don't understand much at all.
Up to this day I haven't met a single christian who could even remotely convince me that any of this stuff was true. I believe that it "helps" them and "gives them comfort", but that does not make it true.
Every single thing you've said is meaningless and sounds reminiscent of a high school science club speech by the newly declared atheist student president. Meet some more people, read some more books, and learn to open your mind. The world owes you nothing but a chance for dialogue, and you'd do well to listen as well as talk (and read the thread maybe?).
As I said, I used to think a bit more moderate (like you apparently) about this matter, but as time got on, I just realized more and more how stupid it all was. Of course my post was pretty superficial, because I don't really care to go in depth about this.
People can believe what they want, I don't care, but please don't base educational and political decisions on it when you have no evidence that it is actually true
Do you understand quantum mechanics? Do you understand genetic studies? Do you understand Jung and Adler's seperation with Freud? Do you understand the evolution of art in the past century? Do you understand the keypoint differences between keynesians and the Austrian school? Do you understand the concept of "misery" in Pascal's work? Do you know the political story of your country? Do you know the story of your country? Can you name most of the influent persons of your country? Do you know their past? Can you see their motives? Do you know your country's economical situation? Are you aware of your country's foreign affairs?
... no? Then you're a regular person, like everyone, and you vote, make decisions and go through life without having a single clue of what's going on. Have you ever heard of the confirmation bias? Hindsight bias? Normalcy bias? The Dunning-Kruger effect? The third-person effect? They are fundamental shortcuts that the mind will always take, and that make us essentially irrational beings.
I would say that the "last" step in this field is to realize that christians and atheists are just the same. You can also say that it is stupid, but western countries have tied their lives with christianity, and it is as such a great part of our history and morality.
I don't get your point... seriously, I don't get it. Are you trying to say that me "believing" those things without actually having researched and fully understood them is the same as believing in christianity?
And please don't give me the "morality comes from christianity" crap. Maybe certain specific moral values do (e.g. monogamy), but then again, if christianity didn't exist, we would not have these values and thus wouldn't see the lack of them as "bad". Basic moral principles like "don't kill", don't steal" etc. exist in other non-christian cultures too, because they are essential for a functioning society.
They aren't just essential for a functioning society. They are essential for the functioning of our species.
It was obvious that somebody would give the wrongest of all possible replies. Our species does not depend on morals. Animals have no morals and they are doing fine. Morals are what divides us from animals, but we would no doubt survive without morals. Thus morals are not essential.
We don't kill eachother off because it hurts our chances of reproduction in various ways.
I highly doubt that's the only reason.
God sends us to hell for it after we die. That's a much better reason, ain't it?
Nope. People love oversimplifying that which they don't understand. Accepting things as complex is overrated.
I think it's far more offensive that he's arguing all human beings are irrational to be honest. Saying things like "morality is not logically built" ... I don't agree with that statement, and I don't believe he can prove it, but many of his assertions rely upon it. It is one of those mistakes people who are bad at constructing arguments consistently commit. They will say things like "let's be honest" or "such and such is nature" or some other bold and broad claim that they can't support other than what might be popular belief. It is one of those reasons it is good not to argue on the internet, because there is no end to these kinds of statements and no way to reprimand the users that make them.
I'm not analysing the quality of Xiron's posts here because I haven't really read them, but just in Kukaracha's I see too much of this. It might sound cool to say "human beings are irrational" and to level the playing field, but basically fuck you lol. There are many human beings very capable of understanding the limitations of their knowledge. Do they sometimes have to make decisions on not ideal knowledge? Sure. Does that mean they don't know the knowledge is not ideal? If they do, how is that irrational? I'm sure not every cave man thought thunder had to be from the Gods, or was satisfied with such a stupid conclusion. I'm sure some were able to say "I don't know" when asked meaningless questions. And then others would make everyone dance to please the rain god lol. Or worse, sacrifice a goat or person because some god must be upset and causing a severe drought. I'm sure plenty of people in societies like that thought it was ridiculous, but people with knives are scary and people telling stories around the fire are harmless and entertaining.
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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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?
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.
That'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 06:39 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 06:39 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!'
On July 10 2012 06:15 farvacola wrote: 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.
When you think an analogy is bad, point out its flaws instead of putting a general label like "childish" on it.
On July 10 2012 06:15 farvacola wrote: 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.
On July 10 2012 06:15 farvacola wrote: 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.
When you think an analogy is bad, point out its flaws instead of putting a general label like "childish" on it.
I'd like to add that analogies help in discussions where it is not safe to say that both parties have the same knowledge on the matter, thus making it easier for both parties to understand what the others are actually trying to say.
On July 10 2012 07:20 ninazerg wrote: How dare he blaspheme the name of Nietzsche on a t-shirt. What's next, huh? People making fun of Che Rivera on t-shirts!?
I never heard of this guy before, yet I can only imagine the outrage that happened if they made shirts of Che Guevara de la Serna.....
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2kVm2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bqaP9.png)
