EPTAnyone know any good religious forums? - Page 3
| Blogs > BackHo |
|
Cpt Obvious
Germany3073 Posts
| ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
Nytefish
United Kingdom4282 Posts
On April 25 2009 08:04 Cpt Obvious wrote: I like how the discussion about religion discussions is deteriorating into the same flame-fest as religion discussions, albeit ever-so-slowly. So if we start a discussion about whether or not the discussion about religion discussions is really deteriorating into a flame-fest we should start flaming each other at about page 6? | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
On April 24 2009 18:05 Bosu wrote: How can you not stand a person that takes a stance weather it be atheist or religious. If you think people are going to hell for not having faith in jesus you damn well ought to preach to as many people as you can to save their soul. If you think that religion is a crock of shit you probably should try and let people know that they should stop wasting their lives. It's a pretty big deal either way. I don't care if someone wants to have a discussion/debate about it, but BOTH SIDES have to keep a relatively open mind...and the big misconception that leads to outright falsity is that atheism and agnosticism require an "open mind" to ascribe to, as opposed to some form of spirituality or religion. This is a blatant lie. They can entail just as much stubbornness and ignorance as any religious group. I've had plenty of perfectly fine and interesting discussions on religion. But on internet forums, you tend to only get the terrible ones where one side feels like they MUST win and that the other person is obviously less of a person for believing what they do. This is the part that I don't understand. You can't have a decent and intelligible discussion when you're making personal attacks and taking things personally from the other party. That's only going to lead to friction and a complete breakdown of the discussion. On April 24 2009 18:13 IdrA wrote: no. having opinions is bad. you must live your life with the goal of never upsetting another person, ever. lol...coming from you, that has almost no impact. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On April 25 2009 07:33 BottleAbuser wrote: slboN, it doesn't matter what errors could have been introduced into the Bible over its development. It is indeed the word of God, straight: He would not have allowed His word to be garbled. That is sarcasm, right? | ||
JWD
United States12607 Posts
 | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On April 25 2009 08:44 PH wrote: I don't care if someone wants to have a discussion/debate about it, but BOTH SIDES have to keep a relatively open mind...and the big misconception that leads to outright falsity is that atheism and agnosticism require an "open mind" to ascribe to, as opposed to some form of spirituality or religion. This is a blatant lie. They can entail just as much stubbornness and ignorance as any religious group. I've had plenty of perfectly fine and interesting discussions on religion. But on internet forums, you tend to only get the terrible ones where one side feels like they MUST win and that the other person is obviously less of a person for believing what they do. This is the part that I don't understand. You can't have a decent and intelligible discussion when you're making personal attacks and taking things personally from the other party. That's only going to lead to friction and a complete breakdown of the discussion. i dont think anyone thinks atheism requires open mindedness, actually its religion thats asking you to accept things. atheism/agnosticism requires only rationality, which does indeed make it objectively superior when it comes to a logical discussion on the topic. http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=sarcasm&search=search | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On April 25 2009 09:48 travis wrote: I don't think being atheist means anything to someone with a truly open mind. They'd just be accepting that they really don't have a fucking clue. And so if they desire to call that atheist, then whatever. atheists hold that there is no god, its agnostics who say that they dont know and theres no way of actually knowing either way. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On April 25 2009 10:08 IdrA wrote: atheists hold that there is no god, its agnostics who say that they dont know and theres no way of actually knowing either way. personally I always believed atheism just meant "lack of belief in a god". not "belief in a lack of god". the latter seems overbearingly presumptuous | ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
On April 25 2009 10:15 travis wrote: personally I always believed atheism just meant "lack of belief in a god". not "belief in a lack of god". the latter seems overbearingly presumptuous About as presumptuous as belief in any one god over all the other possible gods imo. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On April 25 2009 10:18 Lemonwalrus wrote: About as presumptuous as belief in any one god over all the other possible gods imo. well not if the person believes they've actually been given specific evidence to support it which I don't see how that could happen for atheism | ||
|
Bosu
United States3247 Posts
| ||
|
BottleAbuser
Korea (South)1888 Posts
| ||
|
Kurosaki
United States158 Posts
Read up on those who spent their life learning and discussing what exist and what doesn't through reasoning and sense perceptions. You'll find how complex people will go through to prove their point. If you want arguments from atheists, look up David Hume and John Locke. first post =D | ||
|
BackHo
New Zealand400 Posts
| ||
|
BottleAbuser
Korea (South)1888 Posts
Also, I like disagreeing, so I'll put out there that I think Hume is an idiot. See his "Naturalistic Fallacy" argument. Paraphrased: "Ethical terms are not based in the natural realm. Naturalists attempt to base ethical terms in the natural realm. Therefore, naturalists are wrong. Since the argument that ethical terms are based in the natural realm is false, ethical terms are not based in the natural realm." (Or to be clearer: "A is false. B if and only if A. Therefore, B is false. Therefore, A is false.") | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On April 25 2009 10:33 Bosu wrote: Yes, even if that person has given "evidence" to support it it is just as presumptuous to think that their god and personal beliefs are true and atheism is wrong. maybe so. I guess it would depend on the evidence | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On April 25 2009 11:25 BackHo wrote: Thanks for your suggestions - another good atheist author I have found a lot of respect for is Lloyd Geering, he wrote a book called Christianity Without God - well worth reading if your local public library has a copy. Christianity without God? I think Thomas Jefferson beat him to the punch on that one. | ||
|
Cpt Obvious
Germany3073 Posts
On April 25 2009 10:19 travis wrote: well not if the person believes they've actually been given specific evidence to support it which I don't see how that could happen for atheism If half the world can be stupid, I sure as hell have a right to be as obnoxious about my beliefs as anyone else. It's not like me being reasonable would change anything about the 3 billion idiots actually believing in the fairy-tales. Besides, after everything I have learned in my physics studies, I'd say I've collected more evidence against the existence of a God than anyone can give me to prove the opposite. But like someone else already quoted, if you could reason with religious people, there'd be no religious people. So I'm just gonna be as retarded as them and say: I KNOW there is no God. But go ahead, drown your incompetence and fear in faith if that works for you. | ||
| ||
