Printable View
Apparently, you missed the point of what I said, which was essentially that vague generalizations about who did what in no way impeach belief in God or lack of belief in God. But then you make more vague generalizations that are, frankly, irrelevant. You keep using the word "ideological," which is not, by the way, synonymous with theism. Are you advocating a society without ideology? What would this society look like?Quote:
Originally Posted by osho
Looks like you edited it just now. It used to be largely devoted to someone else. So don't get upset about me missing your revisions. Teeth-pulling exercise? All I recall is a teeth-kicking one, and if you're ready for another, I'll oblige you.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
The kind of society I crave is not the one that fights for an ideology, or for their gods, for their religions, for their races, for their ethnic identity or customs. Maybe this type of society is only in our heads, thoughts now, but this is a scientific society.Quote:
Originally Posted by stuntpickle
...Teeth kicking?Quote:
Originally Posted by stuntpickle
Four hours ago one of my quote boxes had someone else's name on it because of an editing mistake (I copied and pasted the top quote box to make the fourth), but the other three had your name in the block header, not to mention all four were quoting you, and I fixed the wrong one. Sorry for the mix up.
Do I have to ask for your response again? If so, do I have to say something lame like "oblige me?"
Try not to get too rude and evasive this time though, just for the sake of fairness. My infraction points limit can't take it if I get stupid and respond with anger (I'm not trying to be cheeky, I'm totally serious).
A friend of mine once told me, never argue about religion and politics with people you like (granted you know they have very different opinions than you). Of course, I really like some of you on here (others I don't know), and it seems silly that we are all arguing about something, when we know that no one is going to change their mind. The point of discussion, however, is not to change other people's minds, but to expand their horizons, so to speak, and arrive at a greater (collective) understanding (or this is what I think). The problem here is that this has turned into some huge debate, which has become personal to some degree, and has involved attacks on personal character... that makes me quite sad. Particularly from those that started this discussion in defense of having an opinion, and then turned around and attacked other people's opinion. Voltaire would be turning in his grave right about now...
As for defending someone from being ganged up on-- I don't see why you would do that on this forum, and in this specific thread. Obviously, whoever posts in the 'Why I don't believe in god' thread, and then talks about why there is a God and why any other possibility is not acceptable or possible, is asking to become part of a debate. This is an anonymous forum-- one can step out of heated discussion at any point.
It is unfortunate, however, that no one really wants to have a dialogue about these things... instead most just want to disprove each other's points and find logical fallacies in each other's arguments or beliefs.
I'll end with a mention of Voltaire again, and quote him: ''What is tolerance? It is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly — that is the first law of nature.''
What a horrible statement. So you don't believe in the noble lie? So if the Nazis knocked on your door and asked if you were hiding Jews and you were, you would tell the truth? And telling the lie would be thoughtless and vulgar, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
I actually stated that I was NOT trying to present an argument, but rather demonstrating the stakes of the dilemma. So now that you've called Christians "dip****s" in a forum about religious texts that explicitly requires respecting the belief of others, what reaction do you expect from me?Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Young people on average are less acquainted with mortality, which is a statement I think reasonable persons would agree with. That this or that person had health problems when young doesn't really contradict it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Please demonstrate some causal relationship with Bienvenu or some obvious counterpart and suicides among homosexuals. "Abomination" as used in the Pentateuch is a term firmly in the context of Hebraic ethics. Eating shrimp is an abomination. Am I now responsible for suicides among the eaters of shrimp? The word "because" is an explicit statement of causality. If I called you a poopy-face and you were so upset that you killed yourself, can I be said to have caused your suicide? I don't think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Perhaps you lack empathy. You know, regardless of whether you believe in Jesus as a divine figure and son of God, he does represent the Western ideal of goodness. And never is he more powerful in his goodness than when he suggests we should love our enemies, when he asks for God to forgive his murderers. Many observant thinkers have commented on the recent debate that the New Atheists and the fundamentalist Christians are similar groups in both attitude and method. To say you will "never feel sorry" for this or that variety of person is to demonstrate, I think, a fairly horrible psychology. Kurt Vonnegut, who was a humanist, attempted to find the humanity of even Hitler in Timequake by having Hitler say, just before he killed himself, "I never asked to be born." I think both Christians and humanists should endeavor to empathize with everyone, including awful persons like Saddam Hussein, whose head was nearly ripped off in a botched execution, and Osama bin Laden, who was shot in his underwear--despite both of those persons being murderous psychopaths. To proudly proclaim you relish the hardships of anyone is, I think, to be a self-righteous monster.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
This is what is called a moral equivalency claim. That some other group might have done something bad doesn't provide warrant for you to do the same. Moreover, any Christian ganging up on someone and suggesting that they be "killed" does so in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus Christ--you know, the guy who said to turn the other cheek and let him who is without sin cast the first stone. Of course, the institutions of Christianity have not always behaved well. The medieval Catholic Church looked a lot like a royal demesne with an abundance of riches and a sizable army, but the interesting thing is how that contradicted the teachings of Christianity. It is no accident that one the biggest stories of European history is when the peasantry finally got their hands on the Bible and split from the church. Regardless of what you feel Christians have done in the past, you are not justified in repeating their mistakes. Moreover, Christianity has worked historically as a readymade package of criticisms for hypocrisy and worldly power so that the Civil Rights movement in America was derived from a Christian ethos, even though there is slavery in the Bible. I repeat Martin Luther King's words to you now: an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. And that, sir, is the essence of Christianity AND humanism.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Science cannot evolve its own moral judgments. So there are any number of possible societies that could be described as "scientific" and be horrific. Nazi doctors could be described as behaving in accordance with a scientific society because "science" is a morally neutral term. Do you like the idea of a scientific society that evolves practical applications of human embryos? How about a scientific society that manufactures persons in various genetic strata? A "scientific society" could be good or bad, but to ensure its goodness we need much more than science.Quote:
Originally Posted by osho
Don't worry, I have the feeling that we're both of the thick-skinned variety, and I literally can't get personal. Besides, even snarky back-and-forths between people with widely differing opinions still have merit.Quote:
Originally Posted by PoeticPassions
Well, would you look at that - it's good old Goodwin's Law! I was wondering when it would rear it's ugly head!Quote:
Originally Posted by stuntpickle
I didn't. I said that the strangers who butted their fat faces into my dying boyfriend's hospital room were dipsh*ts, and they were. They were selfish, self-righteous, nosy, insensitive dipsh*ts who just-so-happened to be Christian (well, he got one confused old Hindu woman, but that's beside the point). I didn't say "all Christians are dipsh*ts," I said "some dipsh*ts are Christian." I was also making the point that religion didn't cause Dave to feel relief in his time of near-death, it caused him to feel anger and bitterness, so your argument that we should preserve everyone's little faith bubble, no matter the cost, is flawed. Religion doesn't necessarily mean comfort in death, and the cost of keeping your mouth shut to ease the minds of those who facing hardship is too high (the cost being to allow fundamentalists say whatever they want unchallenged - EVERY idea must be challenged, and if it can't hold up, then there's something wrong with it and it needs to be looked at).Quote:
Originally Posted by stuntpickle
But not the non-believers on this thread, they're aquainted with death, suffering and disease, myself included. Most people are. Death and suffering is a part of everyone's life. Our opinions don't become less valid because of our age. Maybe most young people are, on average, less familiar with death and suffering - but the atheists that I've met don't seem to be among them. In fact, the more injustice and suffering people witness in this world, the more likely they are to lose faith in God. Suffering/death is one of the main examples given for why people don't believe in a benevolent universal force. Read the stupid OP (calling it "stupid," by the way, isn't supposed to be awkwardly and randomly angry like it appears - it's a reference to someone else's hilarious post mix-up).Quote:
Originally Posted by stuntpickle
Okie dokie.Quote:
Originally Posted by stuntpickle
1. Bien is a fundamentalist Christian. He believes that the world is eight thousand years old, he doesn't believe in evolution, he believes that the bible is literally true and he's called homosexuals "abominations."
2. Fundamentalist Christians cause homosexuals to become depressed because they feel sub-human. That's an unfortunate side effect of being called an "abomination," having people tell you that God (the supposed all-loving creator of the universe) hates YOU and being forced to live your life by different laws than "normal" people, and all of these things are amplified if you're just a kid.
3. Depressed people have been known to commit suicide, and homosexuals (especially teens) have a high suicide rate which indicates that they're depressed. Now why would they be depressed, again?
Yes, I'm sure that's what they mean. Fundamentalists call homosexuals "abominations," but they intend for it to be taken in Pentatuech terms, so it's totally fine. I don't know what people get so upset about. I'm sure they mean the phrase "God hates fags" in Pentatuech terms as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by stuntpickle
Only for people who push ideas that cause suffering, ignorance and death. For example, fundamentalists sometimes blow up abortion clinics. Because they believe in souls, the law should be changed to suit them, and if it isn't they'll spew their hateful rhetoric all over the TV and some of them will take violent action. Nevermind that if abortion were criminalized many women would kill themselves in an effort to get the foetus out. Never mind that the people who work in abortion clinics also have souls. I also lack empathy for people who are against equal rights for women, homosexuals or minorities. Trying to force the government to deny legal HUMAN rights to a HUMAN just because you don't like how they were born or who they have sex with? I'll admit, I'm not very tolerant of that. Pushing for schools to change their textbooks in an effort to eliminate any knowledge of evolution and to push the story of YOUR religion (not any of the other origin myths, nope - it's YOUR religion that's the important one), all because you know that your version of reality doesn't hold up unless you employ censorship? Sorry, no empathy for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by stuntpickle
Sure, as a symbol and a story I'll admit to that, but that's a bit off topic. I don't think there's anything "good" about fundamentalist beliefs. One needs to simply leaf through any history textbook to see what happens when people take their beliefs and their holy books too seriously, too literally.Quote:
Originally Posted by stuntpickle
I never feel sorry for them for being ganged up on (and in an internet debate, in a thread called "why I don't believe in God" for Christ's sake - he knew what he was getting himself into). Of course I would feel bad for Bien if he was on fire or something, but that's not the context in which I was speaking. Fundamentalist beliefs about homosexuality, women, education, people who don't share their particular brand of whatever religion they belong to (and you should hear what Bien has to say about Catholics - apparently, they're not Christian at all) or different races SHOULD have their beliefs challenged. I can't not challenge those beliefs, and I'm glad that other people feel the same way.Quote:
Originally Posted by stuntpickle
I know, it was a weak argument and I regretted it a few hours later. However, I did meet this Muslim once in real life who said that if he had one wish in life it would be that he be allowed to "hang the gays" though, so there are still murderous fundamentalists in existance and I can verify that because I met one.Quote:
Originally Posted by stuntpickle
I know. I didn't say that the teachings of Christianity were bad, I said that some Christians were bad and that no one should feel guilty about disagreeing with them publicly. Fundamentalists seem to do things which are the exact opposite of what they're advised to do in their own holy book, like kill and discriminate. They pick the most hateful little blurbs of the bible and use them as an excuse to hate. I don't feel bad that many people are intolerant of vocal fundamentalism. In fact, I see hope in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by stuntpickle
I don't think we need the bible to teach us what's good and what's bad. To take your example, I think that America's founding fathers would have been able to figure out that murder is wrong and freedom of speech is good even without it being in the bible. Rationally, these things are obvious. We know these things because we have common sense. When people ignore their common sense and instead favour an old book to tell them what to think and feel, they end up with beliefs such as "people who don't think like me are tortured for eternity" and "the world is eight thousand years old, dinosaurs existed at the same time as humans, and NO ONE can tell me differently."Quote:
Originally Posted by stuntpickle
For future reference, I'm a "ma'am."Quote:
Originally Posted by stuntpickle
The Nazi soldiers question is a classic thought experiment that anyone every studying deontological ethics encounters. There's a humorous notion called reductio ad hitlerum, which is a variety of fallacy in which because Hitler did it, it is bad. So because Hitler brushed his teeth, brushing one's teeth is bad. Godwin's law is a joke and refers to this as it relates to a particular arrangement of statements that I have not made. Thought experiments concerning Nazis are a staple of any philosophy education simply because everyone is familiar with them. There is no mistake of logic made when referring to Nazis; I am not making a claim of equivalence with Nazi's, nor am I constructing a fallacious argument. I am testing the truth of your assertion that lies are thoughtless and vulgar. You see, when someone seems to make a claim of absolute truth, you test it by seeing if it is true in all cases; thus the Nazi thought experiment. Funny enough, you proclaim, thus far, a strictly deontological view, which is something you have in common with the severest varieties religious persons.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
So if you are using Godwin's Law, which is, by the way, simply a joke as a justification for not answering the question, then you're the one actually making a ridiculous argument.
So if you don't like it purely on the basis of its use of Nazi's and you think citing some wikipedia page about a joke is sufficient reason to not answer, I'll rephrase it for you.
Someone is hiding at your house because a a gangster wants to kill him. The gangster's hit men show up and ask you if you're hiding him, which you are. Would lying be, as you claim, thoughtless and vulgar.
Please try to answer the question this time. Any response lacking that answer will reflect poorly on you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
You said no such thing. You said "dip**** Christians."
Oh okay, if we must disabuse persons of their little "faith bubbles" and every idea must be challenged then perhaps you should start logically justifying a naturalistic morality, an evidentiary basis for truth, a materialistic worldview that begins by assuming a reality of physical structures or any of the other absurd ideas of most New Atheists. You don't get it. Materialism lost, buddy. You may not believe in God, but a theistic worldview is a workable philosophical position and scientism isn't. The problem is that a person linking to wikipedia pages about jokes in the hopes that it will allow him to avoid problematic issues, probably can't navigate the treacherous turns of his own worldview.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
What am I basing it on? Obvious truth. For person A of age B, it is true that A of age B+10 is likelier be more acquainted with mortality. Give me a break.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
You know that your argument stinks when there's no conclusion. Sorry, man, but that's a bad one. I give you props for trying though. At least, you have some manner of intellectual courage, which speaks in your favor. But the argument is still pretty bad. The argument would have to end with something along the lines of "therefore, people like Bienvenu cause homosexuals to commit suicide" to even have an argument. You have to bridge some fairly impossible territory by establishing multiple causal relationships between Bienvenu, depression and suicide. Moreover, you have to prove a causal mechanism rather than simply a correlation; otherwise, you commit a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. You were sunk even before you got started. We can easily determine that the assertion is false by simply understanding what suicide is. To commit suicide is to unambiguously and purposefully cause one's own death. To cause someone else's suicide is to relieve them of their own causal agency and, thus, prevent them from engaging in suicide. You have problems of definition before you even get started. But again, nice try.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Okay, then we have firmly established that you lack empathy, a quality you share with psychopaths. Okay okay, you only lack empathy for people who disagree with you. Seriously, man, don't say this any more in public. It's bad publicity for your cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
The conversation, at this point, is over. To engage in a rational discussion there must be a basis for agreement from which to start talking. On this issue, we have none. Empathy is not simply something someone experiences when another person's head is chopped off. Empathy is not reserved for persons of a particular political party. The rest of your post is simply more instances of moral equivalency and self-congratulation, but it wouldn't matter if it were a rational statement worthy of publication; the conversation is broken at this point.
Oh, and I'm sorry for thinking you were a man for the majority of this post.
I guess we all do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
At least you correctly equate this to a "belief" which is what it is. The "dogmatism" is the teaching. What makes it "dogmatic" in a negative sense is a refusal to question that teaching. Of course, no one has time to question everything.
However, if you want to get into an argument with someone about evolution or the age of humanity you need to find a justification for your belief. This is not so much to convince the other person as to re-examine the intellectual ground you stand on. To repeatedly tell the other person to accept the dogmatism you have learned is not a scientific attitude which makes me think there aren't too many scientists in this debate. A person with a scientific attitude and love of the subject would welcome BienvenuJDC's questions and respond with evidence, not with dogmatism.
I haven't performed any calculation to validate that the earth is round, but evidence of its roundness are communication satellites circling the earth that keep my mobile phone's date accurate. I understand an old form of evidence is to watch a ship seem to sink as it disappears into the horizon. If the earth were flat it would not sink, just get smaller.
The universe however is flat, but that can be validated by checking the NASA site.
Evidence is not difficult to communicate and should lead to further questions about the subject and the evidence provided, but not the personalities involved in the argument.
That's because they were dip****s, and they were Christians. They were dip**** Christians.Quote:
Originally Posted by stuntpickle
I'll respond to the rest tomorrow, it's 6am mountain time.
I apologized to you for my behavior in this thread, Bien. I thought maybe I'd receive some reciprocation. I guess it was too much to expect.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
And, Juniper, a word of advise: Don't even bother to indulge stuntpickle. He's one of the most intellectual trolls I've encountered, but he's still just a troll.
Ha! KEE-DOC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
An apology with a jab...you're good at this aren't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
What would you be apologizing for? What reciprocation are you expecting to see? I'm really confused about what you're getting at.
For those who have made it personal, I didn't really expect much less. But if we are just discussing our beliefs, and the reasons why we believe such, then there is no reason for apologies. I respect everyone's right to believe what they wish. I never thought of myself as a Christian Fundamentalist. I'm just a Christian. Yes, it is true that I think that homosexuality is wrong, maybe even an abomination, but I would NEVER call a homosexual, an abomination. It's easy to judge a person's motives, but it's not wise. For the record, I also think that some of my own actions are wrong as well, but I press on to be a better person.
I'm done responding to the petty arguing in this thread, but I have found some entertainment in watching you all go at it. I just thought that I would present some of the evidences that have been ignored to see what would happen. Well, it was rejected, just like I thought. Each of us (including me) is unwilling to budge from their position. That could either be considered stubborn, or steadfast. It could be a good thing or a bad thing. I guess we all think of ourselves as being steadfast in our beliefs, while others are just stubborn. I guess it's all perspective.
You're not confused about what I'm getting at. Don't play the fool, please. It's beneath you.