If everyone's going to continue playing religious top trumps then I play the scientology card, it has 2 intelligence and being that this is the religion deck the lower the intelligence the better. Pfft top that card nerds.
Nous Sommes Tous Charlie
#62
Posted 11 January 2015 - 06:05 PM
If everyone's going to continue playing religious top trumps then I play the scientology card, it has 2 intelligence and being that this is the religion deck the lower the intelligence the better. Pfft top that card nerds.
The founder of my sect of Christianity is the religious equivalent of Galileo. Beat that.
#63
Posted 11 January 2015 - 06:28 PM
Don't take anything I'm about to day personally, I still love y'alls.
Many people like what? All I said was that I disagree w/ religion in the sense that I do not believe in god, which is by definition true. I also said that I disagree with a lot of what religion has to say from a moral point of view, and I can see how you might take issue with that. But I do take issue with a lot of what every holy book I've ever delved into has taught? Yeah, I do.I knew many like you in college and in the nerd circles I frequent.
That's not to say that I hate all theists, or even that all theists agree with everything their holy book has to say. Some of my best friends as theists, and none of them are homophobic.
Which leads me to the question: do you take issue because of what I've said, or because I don't believe in god? The later is not cool, man.
A lot of atheists against Christianity seem to equate all that the Catholic Church did, does, and continues to do as stuff all Christians agree with and stand by. Far from it.
We Protestants probably hate the Catholic Church more than you atheists do. They perverted Jesus's teachings for greedy ends. Purgatory was only seemingly invented to make money on the blatant cash grab that was the Pardon system. Read "The Pardoner's Tale" from The Canterbury Tales for more information about that. (The first place I remember hearing about them, which is why I remember it so well.)
I think a lot of people would play the no true Scotsman card here. However, I actually have a lot of issues with that argument, so I won't.
Actually, I never said anything about the Catholic church specifically. Again, I disagree, by definition as an atheist, with all religion on the basis of whether it is true or not. I've actually got a lot of respect for Lutherans, despite the obvious disagreement.
Oh, and most of my post actually dealt with religion in general, including Islam ans Judaism, which sort of invalidates the "you all think were all just Catholics" argument.
I never said that everyone was a biblical literalist. Actually, I feel like I said the opposite.Oh, the Bible literalist canard. Only someone who doesn't know anything about Christianity would push that line. I really hate that argument. It just displays blatant ignorance of Christianity. Most people who push that argument only take examples from the Old Testament, ignoring that the New Testament is the only one Christians believe actually happened. We see most of the Old Testament, which is essentially the Torah of Judaism, as morality plays that may not have actually happened because we can't find written record to prove they may have.
But, some theists are literalists. Lots of my relatives are. I take issue with people who use their book to justify homophobic, sexist, misogynyistic BS. If that's not you, great. I appreciate that, but it won't stop me from criticizing people who are that way. Sort of like how I won't stop you from criticizing stalin despite the fact that he was atheist.
I concede, lots of historical evidence shows that there was a guy named Jesus who existed in real life. That doesn't make him the son of god, though.Jesus did exist. Historians can't say he didn't actually exist.
In essence, Jesus cherry-picked the Old Testament for us. He basically said, "Hey, you can totally eat any food you want." and other such teachings.
I feel like I'm just repeating myself at this point, but I don't find all religion morally objectionable. Lots of people (ie. biblical literalists) do use the old testament to justify biases and bigotry. Is that you? No? The I take no issue.
#Facepalm.
The "atheist asks for proof when he knows none truly exists for what he's really asking" fallacy.
I'm a Christian. Historians say he existed historically. That's all I need to affirm my faith.
Faith does not require proof, at least not the proof you seek. Humans do not have the capacity to understand an omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient being. We lack the ability as humans to comprehend all of that.
That's the "something being unprovable = that thing being true" fallacy
Also the: "something is a fallacy because I say so" fallacy. Asking for proof of something is, like, the farthest thing away from a logical fallacy.
Also also: if you believe god is incomprehensible, and therefore unprovable, doesn't that actually make you an agnostic?
Also also also: the #facepalm thing doesn't add to the argument. Be civil, please. We're not trying to persecute you.
Yeah, because I believe it. You're asking me to provide proof for something I believe. You believe in no God. I'm not asking for your proof, am I?
If you can't justify your belief, isn't that doublethink?
Isn't there some value in re-evaluating your belief? Isn't it closed minded to say that you're completely made up and unwilling to look at new data?
Also: atheism is built in the idea that there is no proof that god exists. Not that there is proof that he doesn't exist.
Have a nice day!
#64
Posted 11 January 2015 - 10:16 PM
Oh, hey, a theological debate, I'm down for that.
Don't take anything I'm about to day personally, I still love y'alls.
Many people like what? All I said was that I disagree w/ religion in the sense that I do not believe in god, which is by definition true. I also said that I disagree with a lot of what religion has to say from a moral point of view, and I can see how you might take issue with that. But I do take issue with a lot of what every holy book I've ever delved into has taught? Yeah, I do.
That's not to say that I hate all theists, or even that all theists agree with everything their holy book has to say. Some of my best friends as theists, and none of them are homophobic.
Which leads me to the question: do you take issue because of what I've said, or because I don't believe in god? The later is not cool, man.
I think a lot of people would play the no true Scotsman card here. However, I actually have a lot of issues with that argument, so I won't.
Actually, I never said anything about the Catholic church specifically. Again, I disagree, by definition as an atheist, with all religion on the basis of whether it is true or not. I've actually got a lot of respect for Lutherans, despite the obvious disagreement.
Oh, and most of my post actually dealt with religion in general, including Islam ans Judaism, which sort of invalidates the "you all think were all just Catholics" argument.
I never said that everyone was a biblical literalist. Actually, I feel like I said the opposite.
But, some theists are literalists. Lots of my relatives are. I take issue with people who use their book to justify homophobic, sexist, misogynyistic BS. If that's not you, great. I appreciate that, but it won't stop me from criticizing people who are that way. Sort of like how I won't stop you from criticizing stalin despite the fact that he was atheist.
I concede, lots of historical evidence shows that there was a guy named Jesus who existed in real life. That doesn't make him the son of god, though.
I feel like I'm just repeating myself at this point, but I don't find all religion morally objectionable. Lots of people (ie. biblical literalists) do use the old testament to justify biases and bigotry. Is that you? No? The I take no issue.
That's the "something being unprovable = that thing being true" fallacy
Also the: "something is a fallacy because I say so" fallacy. Asking for proof of something is, like, the farthest thing away from a logical fallacy.
Also also: if you believe god is incomprehensible, and therefore unprovable, doesn't that actually make you an agnostic?
Also also also: the #facepalm thing doesn't add to the argument. Be civil, please. We're not trying to persecute you.
If you can't justify your belief, isn't that doublethink?
Isn't there some value in re-evaluating your belief? Isn't it closed minded to say that you're completely made up and unwilling to look at new data?
Also: atheism is built in the idea that there is no proof that god exists. Not that there is proof that he doesn't exist.
Have a nice day!
*Cracks neck.* Well, let's do this.
Militant atheists. A lot of college-aged people and twentysomethings absorb arguments against all religion and Christianity specifically. I know how to counter these arguments because they're usually flimsier than a wet napkin.
Yes, you do not believe in God. I believe in the Christian concept of God and Jesus Christ. Now that that is settled, let's move on. Shall we?
What you said. But let's continue on.
Catholics have a lot to answer for. Lutherans hate them with a bloody passion. For good reason.
I see no point in defending Islam or Judaism as I don't know enough about them really or follow them. (Most of my Religion courses were in prehistoric or Asian religions, with only one in Theodicy. Cross-posted classes are a marvelous thing.) As a Christian, I do see the point in defending my side. Because atheists really do have the run of most places because few really challenge them. That's what I mean by "militant atheists."
Bible literalists are crazy and mostly old and uneducated. I am none of those things. They're a people atheists bring up to use a broad brush against all theists, especially Christians. It is a bad argument because it doesn't help anybody. It's like a gay guy bringing up the Westboro Baptist Church to call a Christian they're talking to anti-gay without any evidence to prove it. I don't have to answer for the actions of people who share the same religion as me, especially if they're not shooting people. Because I know they're crazy and refuse to associate myself with them. The Creationist Museum guy makes all Christians look bad.
Sure, but it doesn't make it not true either. He's the Son of God to me. And that's all that matters here, isn't it?
Good. Let's move on.
No, it's faith. Faith doesn't follow the standards of scientific logic. Because it's faith. Faith is wholly separate. All scientists aren't atheists, just the media whore ones like NDT.
#Facepalm is something I use when I'm disappointed in someone. I do it in normal conversation too, but I actually do the motion. It's because most people don't know what it means.
I can easily justify my belief. The chances of me personally existing are near zero. I know that. I just don't believe it was completely by chance. Is that so hard for you to comprehend?
No, atheism is built on the conceit that you believe God doesn't exist over God existing. It's still a belief. There's no real proof either way. Unless you somehow get a time machine that follows the laws of physics and space-time to work and go back to the time of the Crucifixion.
#65
Posted 11 January 2015 - 11:47 PM
*Cracks neck.* Well, let's do this.
Militant atheists. A lot of college-aged people and twentysomethings absorb arguments against all religion and Christianity specifically. I know how to counter these arguments because they're usually flimsier than a wet napkin.
Yes, you do not believe in God. I believe in the Christian concept of God and Jesus Christ. Now that that is settled, let's move on. Shall we?
What you said. But let's continue on.
Catholics have a lot to answer for. Lutherans hate them with a bloody passion. For good reason.
I see no point in defending Islam or Judaism as I don't know enough about them really or follow them. (Most of my Religion courses were in prehistoric or Asian religions, with only one in Theodict. Cross-posted classes are a marvelous thing.) As a Christian, I do see the point in defending my side. Because atheists really do have the run of most places because few really challenge them. That's what I mean by "militant atheists."
Bible literalists are crazy and mostly old and uneducated. I am none of those things. They're a people atheists bring up to use a broad brush against all theists, especially Christians. It is a bad argument because it doesn't help anybody. It's like a gay guy bringing up the Westboro Baptist Church to call a Christian they're talking to anti-gay without any evidence to prove it. I don't have to answer for the actions of people who share the same religion as me, especially if they're not shooting people. Because I know they're crazy and refuse to associate myself with them. The Creationist Museum guy makes all Christians look bad.
Sure, but it doesn't make it not true either. He's the Son of God to me. And that's all that matters here, isn't it?
Good. Let's move on.
No, it's faith. Faith doesn't follow the standards of scientific logic. Because it's faith. Faith is wholly separate. All scientists aren't atheists, just the media whore ones like NDT.
#Facepalm is something I use when I'm disappointed in someone. I do it in normal conversation too, but I actually do the motion. It's because most people don't know what it means.
I can easily justify my belief. The chances of me personally existing are near zero. I know that. I just don't believe it was completely by chance. Is that so hard for you to comprehend?
No, atheism is built on the conceit that you believe God doesn't exist over God existing. It's still a belief. There's no real proof either way. Unless you somehow get a time machine that follows the laws of physics and space-time to work and go back to the time of the Crucifixion.
Wait one sec, for some reason I lost everything I wrote. Gimme a minute
#66
Posted 11 January 2015 - 11:58 PM
Wait one sec, for some reason I lost everything I wrote. Gimme a minute
*Finger pyramid of evil contemplation.* I'm waiting.
#67
Posted 12 January 2015 - 12:49 AM
Ah, okay, so the ones who push Dawkins quotes without properly understanding what the argument is? Yeah, that's annoying.*Cracks neck.* Well, let's do this.
Militant atheists. A lot of college aged people and twentysomethings absorb arguments against all religion and Christianity specifically. I know how to counter these arguments because they're usually flimsier than a wet napkin.
But, it's possible to make a bad argument for any topic. I'm not hating o theists, I'm hating on people don't recognise my rights as an atheist.
Okay, lets get down to business.Yes, you do not believe in God. I believe in the Christian concept of God and Jesus Christ. Now that that is settled, let's move on. Shall we?
Coolio, this is going pretty well for both parties so far.What you said. But let's continue on.
And that's fair enough.I see no point in defending Islam or Judaism as I don't know enough about them really or follow them. (Most of my Religion courses were in prehistoric or Asian religions, with only one in Theodict. Cross-posted classes are a marvelous thing.)
Wait a sec. "Atheists do have the run of most places" is BS. I live in a coutry that is generally intolerant of us (and it's not even America)As a Christian, I do see the point in defending my side. Because atheists really do have the run of most places because few really challenge them. That's what I mean by "militant atheists."
Try walking down the street wearing a shirt w/ some kind of atheist symbolism. Totally different than walking down the street with a cross. People give you nasty looks, occasionally make nasty comments and generally make you feel like an inferior human being.
Try running for office while openly being atheist. You will loose no matter what.
Try coming out to family and friends. Not fun when some of them never call you again. Or tell you that they're praying for you, and immediately drop contact (true story)
Try going down to the US and not be threatened with hellfire by some billboard.
Being an atheist isn't seen as okay in the west, and that needs to change.
Good thing I specifically criticised biblical literalists and not you. Agree with everything you wrote on the subject. I seriously never suggested that all Christians were like that.Bible literalists are crazy and mostly old and uneducated. I am none of those things. They're a people atheists bring up to use a broad brush against all theists, especially Christians. It is a bad argument because it doesn't help anybody. It's like a gay guy bringing up the Westboro Baptist Church to call a Christian they're talking to anti-gay without any evidence to prove it. I don't have to answer for the actions of people who share the same religion as me, especially if they're not shooting people. Because I know they're crazy and refuse to associate myself with them. The Creationist Museum guy makes all Christians look bad.
Except that we disagree on that topic, and it is the very thing that we are arguing about. That's pretty dismissive.Sure, but it doesn't make it not true either. He's the Son of God to me. And that's all that matters here, isn't it?
#68
Posted 12 January 2015 - 12:49 AM
Happy to oblige.Good. Let's move on.
Isn't that irrational, though? People believing in my giant spaghetti monster might have faith, but wanting something to be real is different than it being real.No, it's faith. Faith doesn't follow the standards of scientific logic. Because it's faith. Faith is wholly separate.
True. But religion is inherently dogmatic. Dogma is the very definition of bad science. If a scientist should happen upon a piece of data that doesn't jive with their religion, then trying to fit it into a dogma fucks up the entire idea of science.All scientists aren't atheists, just the media whore ones like NDT.
I'll admit that not all scientists have that much of an issue with this. Computer science, for instance.
I'll also admit that Lutheranism probably makes this less of an issue that, say, biblical literalism. But, even Lutheranism is dogmatic. You're still trying to shoehorn beliefs into places.
If such an issue appears, and you are a responsible scientist, but don't reject that part of your religion, then you're believing in two incompatible ideas. This is what doublethink is. If you reject the science, that is what bad science is.
I do that in casual conversation too. But in a debate it comes off as arrogant. Not a big deal, though. Moving on.# Facepalm is something I use when I'm disappointed in someone. I do it in normal conversation too, but I actually do the motion. It's because most people don't know what it means.
I can comprehend it. I just can't accept it something without any sort of evidence.I can easily justify my belief. The chances of me personally existing are near zero. I know that. I just don't believe it was completely by chance. Is that so hard for you to comprehend?
Evolution is the best alternative to randomness. Evolution incrementally builds up complexity over millions of years rather than the classic "tornado in a junkyard" argument.
Also, doesn't theism have the same issue? Aren't the chances of an omnipotent deity happening by chance similarly unlikely? Isn't the whole thing a skyhook that abstracts from the fact that your ideology has the same flaw?
Not true. Atheism is the belief that there is no proof of a god. If there was an omnipotent deity, then surely that would be by chance, and would bear no resemblance to the Christian god.No, atheism is built on the conceit that you believe God doesn't exist over God existing. It's still a belief. There's no real proof either way. Unless you somehow get a time machine that follows the laws of physics and space-time to work and go back to the time of the Crucifixion.
Unless you're a Gnostic atheist, which is hypocritical and illogical. Gnosticc atheists are the biblical literalists of the atheist world.
#69
Posted 12 January 2015 - 02:11 AM
You seem to have put a lot of thought in all of that. I think that if it makes people happy they can believe in whatever god they like, as long as they don't try to push it on everyone else.
Live and let live.
Et j'aime la nuit écouter les étoiles. C'est comme cinq cent millions de grelots. - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
#70
Posted 12 January 2015 - 02:19 AM
Ah, okay, so the ones who push Dawkins quotes without properly understanding what the argument is? Yeah, that's annoying.
But, it's possible to make a bad argument for any topic. I'm not hating o theists, I'm hating on people don't recognise my rights as an atheist.
Okay, lets get down to business.
Wait a sec. "Atheists do have the run of most places" is BS. I live in a coutry that is generally intolerant of us (and it's not even America)
Try walking down the street wearing a shirt w/ some kind of atheist symbolism. Totally different than walking down the street with a cross. People give you nasty looks, occasionally make nasty comments and generally make you feel like an inferior human being.
Try running for office while openly being atheist. You will loose no matter what.
Try coming out to family and friends. Not fun when some of them never call you again. Or tell you that they're praying for you, and immediately drop contact (true story)
Try going down to the US and not be threatened with hellfire by some billboard.
Being an atheist isn't seen as okay in the west, and that needs to change.
Except that we disagree on that topic, and it is the very thing that we are arguing about. That's pretty dismissive.
Yes, the Dawkins quotes and others. Very annoying.
America isn't intolerant of atheism. The arguments that atheists use are accepted as fact in most industries that affect the culture here. Politics are downstream from culture. (Atheists share a similar place feminists currently enjoy and people like Al Sharpton. No one really challenges them. If they did, Al Sharpton would be in jail for massive tax evasion. Dude owes over $4.5 million in back taxes. Capone went to jail for about $150,000.)
You really need to come to America. You make it seem like being an atheist is verboten here. It's very common now, especially on college campuses. And Hollywood. And the media. And journalism in general. If all of America was the Snopes-Monkey trial, you might have a point there.
Religion is not that dogmatic anymore. It hasn't been for a long time. Yes, Islam is highly dogmatic. But it has problems with modernity. Christianity and Judaism long ago reconciled and modernized. Only the most observant Jews refuse bacon nowadays. Because bacon is awesome. And delicious. And even Catholics masturbate and use birth control. Sometimes both at the same time.
Plenty of the most well known scientists in history who made some of the greatest achievements ever were observant Christians, Jews, etc. NDT, on the other hand, is just a prick who is the walking, talking definition of the "expert's fallacy," as in feigning knowledge of a topic one doesn't really know anything about (although Bill "Bachelor's Degree in Engineering" Nye is probably the best example of this.)
I don't shoehorn beliefs everywhere. I try to keep my religion separate in the places it shouldn't belong. Or did you think me some Bible thumper on a street corner?
Yes, and evolutionary biology is a stagnant field because few scientists who talk about evolution are actually qualified to talk about evolutionary biology. Michael Behe is, but other scientists laughed at him for questioning Darwin by actually examining Darwin's many claims which didn't turn out to be true based on new science and new evidence to the contrary. I don't agree with Michael Behe on everything or really understand most of his arguments, but he generally makes a good point about the whole thing and scientific advancement. People forget that evolutionary biology didn't start and end with Darwin.
I'm a Christian, you're an atheist. We are not going to change each other's minds on the subject of our religion or lack thereof.
Faith isn't irrational. It's belief. Something you take part in by believing there's no God, since you don't have evidence either way.
Yes, but my point is faith isn't irrational just because there's no proof of God.
This is why I don't think seeing God's Not Dead is a good idea if you're not a Christian. It was an Indie movie that ended up being really popular. Shocker. A movie that is a love letter to the Christian faith is popular in a majority Christian nation. Think Hollywood would have figured that out by now. But no.
Also, point against your atheism isn't like everywhere: Most of the people on this forum with an opinion on the matter are probably agnostic or atheist. I'm one of the few religious people on here willing to make the case for religion. Atheism is all the rage with the under 30 crowd.
#71
Posted 12 January 2015 - 05:42 AM
America isn't intolerant of atheism.
Ha haha hahaha. A survey was conducted in America that showed that atheists were the most hated and distrusted minority there. That's over and above homosexuals and even Muslims! Before you ask, I cannot link you the source as Im not typing this from a laptop but you should be able to find it yourself infact I think it was part of an old thread here somewhere.
Atheism is all the rage with the under 30 crowd.
Much like Christianity is all the rage with children 12 and under and the elderly.
#72
Posted 12 January 2015 - 03:35 PM
Ha haha hahaha. A survey was conducted in America that showed that atheists were the most hated and distrusted minority there. That's over and above homosexuals and even Muslims! Before you ask, I cannot link you the source as Im not typing this from a laptop but you should be able to find it yourself infact I think it was part of an old thread here somewhere.
Much like Christianity is all the rage with children 12 and under and the elderly.
Yes, and a study found sodium was bad for you which everybody accepted for decades before it got debunked a few years ago.
A survey is about as unscientific as it gets in the study realm. As a Marketing person by schooling, surveys are inherently unreliable without a massive representative sample with a high response rate.
Old people hate atheists. Young people don't. We'll probably have an atheist president before we have an Italian one. (Yeah, we've never had an Italian president.)
#73
Posted 12 January 2015 - 04:48 PM
Dude...too much sodium is terrible for you. It reacts caustically with the water on your skin and has a habit of blowing up in water.
Ask for my discord/Insta/Tumblr if you want.
#74
Posted 12 January 2015 - 04:55 PM
Dude...too much sodium is terrible for you. It reacts caustically with the water on your skin and has a habit of blowing up in water.
Oh, you know it. I totally built a superhero around exploding water. MythBusters is awesome, ain't it?
#75
Posted 12 January 2015 - 04:59 PM
Yes, and a study found sodium was bad for you which everybody accepted for decades before it got debunked a few years ago.
A survey is about as unscientific as it gets in the study realm. As a Marketing person by schooling, surveys are inherently unreliable without a massive representative sample with a high response rate.
Old people hate atheists. Young people don't. We'll probably have an atheist president before we have an Italian one. (Yeah, we've never had an Italian president.)
Please don't insult my intelligence, I know the difference between scientific studies and social surveys although you seem to think the two are interchangeable. Asking people who they distrust the most out of a group of minorities isn't scientific research, it's a survey to find people's responses. It's not quantitative data that you can stretch the truth of like say for example the MMR-autism scare. It provides black and white evidence on people's thoughts on the matter. It would only be innaccurate if a tiny sample was taken of which this wasn't. Now seeing as you felt it necerssary to share your minor in religious studies I'll just add that I'm doing A levels on Chemistry, Biology, Physics and Philosophy. I do have an idea on what I'm talking about. But either way, atheists are deffinately given a hard time in the western world like for example in America. You can't argue with our experience of that. Being told by a Christian that we don't experience predjudice is like a man telling a women that mysoginy doesn't exist anymore.
#76
Posted 12 January 2015 - 05:05 PM
Yes, and a study found sodium was bad for you which everybody accepted for decades before it got debunked a few years ago.
A survey is about as unscientific as it gets in the study realm. As a Marketing person by schooling, surveys are inherently unreliable without a massive representative sample with a high response rate.
Old people hate atheists. Young people don't. We'll probably have an atheist president before we have an Italian one. (Yeah, we've never had an Italian president.)
“Shimatta! Bare… nan no koto kashira?”
#77
Posted 12 January 2015 - 05:36 PM
Yep, this is why I can't trust you guys with religion and politics.
Gonna go ahead and close this puppy up.