- 1,502
- 12
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2003
I'm still waiting on "Its that dude" to answer my question from the 5th page...Saying stuff but getting your other atheist friends to address my post. You guys are hilarious with the internet facts.
So I was Reading The Book Of Luke... Vol. Jesus Christ Is Amazing.
- 3,340
- 12
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2005
God created the universe in 6 days
created earth before stars
created light called it "day"..how do you calculate day without the sun?
one light to govern during day, one to to govern during night. moon's light is reflection from sun btw...
not even getting into evolution yet....
that's just a little bit from Genesis 1.
I invite anyone to go scrutinize the Atheist handbook
What is this connection you have with God?
Why do you believe in God, or why do you believe that there is a God?
- 3,340
- 12
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2005
God created the universe in 6 days
created earth before stars
created light called it "day"..how do you calculate day without the sun?
one light to govern during day, one to to govern during night. moon's light is reflection from sun btw...
not even getting into evolution yet....
that's just a little bit from Genesis 1.
I invite anyone to go scrutinize the Atheist handbook
What is this connection you have with God?
Why do you believe in God, or why do you believe that there is a God?
- 3,340
- 12
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2005
first shots fired were by op... check the 7th post in the thread...Originally Posted by Beast4ya
1. OP creates a religious thread aimed at the purpose of sharing some good quotes and somewhat of a message to those that share his religion
2. Atheists come in and troll, but this trolling kind of steps out of bounds (talking down another mans religion)
3. Christians or the believers in God come in defending OP and Christianity or w/e
4. big fight ensues containing masses of information taking up easily a whole page on MS word, and videos from Atheists disproving Christanity
this whole situation is stupid, 9+ pages of nonsense
I see why there cant be anymore religious threads on NT, so OP remember that, but you atheists need to keep that bashing to a minimum
*If you guys made an "Pro Atheist thread" I can guarantee that no one of religion on NT will come in and bash you, or your thread, at most they will try to convince you into their religion but thats highly unlikely on a message board*
religion or a person's religious beliefs does NOT have to be respected. it's nothing like race, sexual orientation, gender, etc... YOU WERE NOT BORN WITH IT.
Brainwashed at an early age? DEAL WITH IT.
What can religious people bash Atheists with?
that we use science, reason, and logic as the basis of our beliefs, while religious people's are based on fear, outdated tradition + morals + education, and ignorance?
- 3,340
- 12
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2005
first shots fired were by op... check the 7th post in the thread...Originally Posted by Beast4ya
1. OP creates a religious thread aimed at the purpose of sharing some good quotes and somewhat of a message to those that share his religion
2. Atheists come in and troll, but this trolling kind of steps out of bounds (talking down another mans religion)
3. Christians or the believers in God come in defending OP and Christianity or w/e
4. big fight ensues containing masses of information taking up easily a whole page on MS word, and videos from Atheists disproving Christanity
this whole situation is stupid, 9+ pages of nonsense
I see why there cant be anymore religious threads on NT, so OP remember that, but you atheists need to keep that bashing to a minimum
*If you guys made an "Pro Atheist thread" I can guarantee that no one of religion on NT will come in and bash you, or your thread, at most they will try to convince you into their religion but thats highly unlikely on a message board*
religion or a person's religious beliefs does NOT have to be respected. it's nothing like race, sexual orientation, gender, etc... YOU WERE NOT BORN WITH IT.
Brainwashed at an early age? DEAL WITH IT.
What can religious people bash Atheists with?
that we use science, reason, and logic as the basis of our beliefs, while religious people's are based on fear, outdated tradition + morals + education, and ignorance?
- 3,938
- 11
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
Originally Posted by Its That Dude
first shots fired were by op... check the 7th post in the thread...Originally Posted by Beast4ya
1. OP creates a religious thread aimed at the purpose of sharing some good quotes and somewhat of a message to those that share his religion
2. Atheists come in and troll, but this trolling kind of steps out of bounds (talking down another mans religion)
3. Christians or the believers in God come in defending OP and Christianity or w/e
4. big fight ensues containing masses of information taking up easily a whole page on MS word, and videos from Atheists disproving Christanity
this whole situation is stupid, 9+ pages of nonsense
I see why there cant be anymore religious threads on NT, so OP remember that, but you atheists need to keep that bashing to a minimum
*If you guys made an "Pro Atheist thread" I can guarantee that no one of religion on NT will come in and bash you, or your thread, at most they will try to convince you into their religion but thats highly unlikely on a message board*
religion or a person's religious beliefs does NOT have to be respected. it's nothing like race, sexual orientation, gender, etc... YOU WERE NOT BORN WITH IT.
Brainwashed at an early age? DEAL WITH IT.
What can religious people bash Atheists with?
that we use science, reason, and logic as the basis of our beliefs, while religious people's are based on fear, outdated tradition + morals + education, and ignorance?
Whats ironic of it all the same reasoning and logic behind modern day religion, is the premise of evil unfounded beliefs such as racism, capitalism, classism etc. Whats more ironic that all these beliefs were introduced and accepted by people by using religion. Just about every form of discrimination etc used religion as its basis to convert and convey its message.
- 3,938
- 11
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
Originally Posted by Its That Dude
first shots fired were by op... check the 7th post in the thread...Originally Posted by Beast4ya
1. OP creates a religious thread aimed at the purpose of sharing some good quotes and somewhat of a message to those that share his religion
2. Atheists come in and troll, but this trolling kind of steps out of bounds (talking down another mans religion)
3. Christians or the believers in God come in defending OP and Christianity or w/e
4. big fight ensues containing masses of information taking up easily a whole page on MS word, and videos from Atheists disproving Christanity
this whole situation is stupid, 9+ pages of nonsense
I see why there cant be anymore religious threads on NT, so OP remember that, but you atheists need to keep that bashing to a minimum
*If you guys made an "Pro Atheist thread" I can guarantee that no one of religion on NT will come in and bash you, or your thread, at most they will try to convince you into their religion but thats highly unlikely on a message board*
religion or a person's religious beliefs does NOT have to be respected. it's nothing like race, sexual orientation, gender, etc... YOU WERE NOT BORN WITH IT.
Brainwashed at an early age? DEAL WITH IT.
What can religious people bash Atheists with?
that we use science, reason, and logic as the basis of our beliefs, while religious people's are based on fear, outdated tradition + morals + education, and ignorance?
Whats ironic of it all the same reasoning and logic behind modern day religion, is the premise of evil unfounded beliefs such as racism, capitalism, classism etc. Whats more ironic that all these beliefs were introduced and accepted by people by using religion. Just about every form of discrimination etc used religion as its basis to convert and convey its message.
- 3,130
- 10
- Joined
- May 21, 2005
Someone enlighten me...The Bible has the Old Testament, but the gospels convey that the New Testament should be followed and that is what Christianity is based on?
Just to add a point, Satan and the idea of heaven and hell are not in the Old Testament. Christianity took the afterlife concept of heaven and hell from other mythologies and the concept of the devil from Zoroastrianism.
Just to add a point, Satan and the idea of heaven and hell are not in the Old Testament. Christianity took the afterlife concept of heaven and hell from other mythologies and the concept of the devil from Zoroastrianism.
- 3,130
- 10
- Joined
- May 21, 2005
Someone enlighten me...The Bible has the Old Testament, but the gospels convey that the New Testament should be followed and that is what Christianity is based on?
Just to add a point, Satan and the idea of heaven and hell are not in the Old Testament. Christianity took the afterlife concept of heaven and hell from other mythologies and the concept of the devil from Zoroastrianism.
Just to add a point, Satan and the idea of heaven and hell are not in the Old Testament. Christianity took the afterlife concept of heaven and hell from other mythologies and the concept of the devil from Zoroastrianism.
highman
Banned
- 874
- 10
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2010
Satan in the the old testament… he’s the one the deals with job..
but i will give you hell…
hell is a translation of three different places… sheol, hades, and tartatrus all become the same place because of translation issues...
highman
Banned
- 874
- 10
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2010
Satan in the the old testament… he’s the one the deals with job..
but i will give you hell…
hell is a translation of three different places… sheol, hades, and tartatrus all become the same place because of translation issues...
- 7,361
- 28,937
- Joined
- Dec 8, 1999
If you want my opinion, I think you guys are successful as trolls, but horribly counterproductive as activists.
I'm not, myself, a religious person. It never really appealed to me and, while I was introduced to it through family, it was never forced on me. So, my rejection of religion wasn't some flamboyant act of adolescent rebellion. Perhaps that's why I've never felt a strong desire to rub it in people's faces.
Frankly, I'd be embarrassed to be associated with the paradoxically zealous atheists who seem to get off on harassing those who accept different beliefs. I find that sort of missionary attitude to be bitterly ironic and, frankly, hypocritical. How you guys are treating those with religious beliefs is strikingly similar to the ridicule that European colonialists subjected to the indigenous African and American populations they so ruthlessly oppressed and so forcibly attempted to "convert."
If your goal is a productive dialog, respect is a prerequisite. If your goal is indeed "conversion," then let me ask you this: how many times in life have you willingly embraced the position of someone who's attempted to humiliate you - and in a public setting, no less? If your goal is trolling, then why should I allow it?
If there were a post about spider woman and the Navajo creation story and a bunch of fundamentalist Christians decided to pile on in attempt to mock it, how would that be any different from what you've attempted here and in countless similar threads?
Tell me, because I'm genuinely interested, why you think your actions differ from those of a Kobe Bryant fan who comes into every single Miami Heat, Lebron James, or NBA thread regardless of subject to hail Kobe as the GOAT and talk trash about how Lebron's a sidekick and his offensive game consists of little more than shoulder bashing and traveling?
"Hey guys, did you see the new Lebron IX?" "Lebron's a joke. Only simpleminded fools like Lebron. The one true path is the trail of the Mamba."
"Wow, did you see Blake Griffin's dunk over Mozgov?" "I bet Heat fans are jelly. Lebron couldn't do that. Kobe could, though. He won the dunk contest - and that's a fact. How many dunk contests has Lebron won? lololol"
Did the Heat lose and the Lakers win? Oh man, that's the PERFECT opportunity to start a new topic to show those fools how stupid they are! Is there a youtube video of a particularly heinous "crab dribble?" Hurry, to NikeTalk!! The blind unbelievers must be shown the light!
If anyone else held this type of crusade about any other subject, you'd probably find it pretty obnoxious. It's like the * > Ohio crap we're all sick to death of.
Social justice activism is important to me, but I've found it far more effective to pick my spots and find a way to promote social justice in such a way that people seek to change their behavior so as to be in better alignment with their existing values and aspirations. (Cognitive dissonance.)
I don't go into every thread talking about fast food, etc. and call those who eat meat fat, lazy, and stupid - even though I could cite research indicating that vegetarians & vegans generally have less body fat, live longer, and are disproportionately more likely to have college degrees than those who eat meat. I generally only talk about that stuff here within receptive topics that others have created. I'm passionate about it, but I don't go around starting threads every other day to make the same points ad nauseam. The last social justice related thread I started, aside from the charity stuff, was a simple post regarding Dorothy Height's death. And yet, I get PMs all the time from people who are interested in researching institutional racism in education, or who want to learn more about veganism, or who want help locating the lesser known work of Dr. King, etc. It's sometimes surprising, because even if I haven't made a thread of that nature in a long time I'll still get those requests out of the blue. Sometimes a little goes a long way. I have to wonder how often people approach you guys to say, "hey, you really opened my eyes in that thread about how God is a joke. Man, was I a sucker! You have any advice for how I can become an atheist like you?" More likely, it's stuff like "haha, yeah man i'm an atheist too. Way to make those sheep look like idiots!" That's just preaching to the choir, if you'll pardon the church metaphor.
It's fine to prefer scientific explanation - not because it's "verifiable," but, on the contrary, because it is falsifiable and doesn't rely on tautology. However, there's a certain humility that ought to accompany that. Your beliefs, by definition, are provisional. You are willing to be proven wrong. As such, you have to accept that your conception of reality is inherently subjective and tentatively held.
I think it's a mistake - and a self-mocking one at that - to posit science as this sort of skeleton key capable of unlocking all knowledge without subjecting scientific traditions to the same scrutiny as religious traditions. (And, in truth, many of our contemporary scientific traditions still carry religious influence and are, in general, heavily affected by cultural influence.) Without any sort of grounding in epistemology, you're just as guilty of "drinking the kool aid" with regards to prevailing scientific thought as religious zealots are with respect to their own faith.
It's easy to sit back and say, "well, the ancient Greeks devised a mythologican canon as a means of explaining the erstwhile inexplicable. Eventually, human beings actually climbed the tallest peaks and discovered that there were no bearded White deities to be found. How is that any different from the creation stories you believe?" The problem is that history is fraught with the wreckage of abandoned theories and disproved hypotheses. What you believe today could one day become antiquated, just as Darwinian evolution succeeded Lamarckian evolution. It wouldn't hurt to pick up Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, for example, and examine science as a cultural development. A lot of folks in various science programs do so as part of their introductory coursework - and with good cause. It helps them keep things in perspective.
Much of what we accept as true is not universally so. It's true relative to our experience, to our observation. The process of integerizing infinity is, ironically, imprecise. Logic is a human construction. Something as simple and seemingly concrete as causation rests on the conception of time as linear. 1 + 1 = 2 is a theoretical abstraction. In the real world, quantifying something as a discrete unit is a subjective act. Our scientific traditions, thus, are specific and relative.
Honestly, I think you guys are just exploiting those who practice different faiths to try and prove to YOURSELVES that atheism is the "one truth." Again, if you really valued the scientific method you'd realize how futile and arrogant that really is.
I'm not suggesting that religion should be taught in schools, mind you, but I also don't think there's any constructive value to gratuitously mocking people for their religious beliefs. It's incredibly petty.
And maybe that's a better outlet for it.
If you enjoy having these discussions, great. Baiting people into them, however, is problematic.
If you enjoy mixed martial arts and you want to find a sparring partner, you find someone else who is interested in the same thing - you don't find some guy who looks like a good target and push his kids around until he feels he has no choice but to fight you. That's pathetic, and it seems to be a pretty apt metaphor for how you set about "recruiting" participants for these circuses. You seize on something that people hold dear and tweak it until they feel compelled to defend their beliefs for your own selfish amusement.
You guys are just acting like bullies now and I find that very sad.
I'm not, myself, a religious person. It never really appealed to me and, while I was introduced to it through family, it was never forced on me. So, my rejection of religion wasn't some flamboyant act of adolescent rebellion. Perhaps that's why I've never felt a strong desire to rub it in people's faces.
Frankly, I'd be embarrassed to be associated with the paradoxically zealous atheists who seem to get off on harassing those who accept different beliefs. I find that sort of missionary attitude to be bitterly ironic and, frankly, hypocritical. How you guys are treating those with religious beliefs is strikingly similar to the ridicule that European colonialists subjected to the indigenous African and American populations they so ruthlessly oppressed and so forcibly attempted to "convert."
If your goal is a productive dialog, respect is a prerequisite. If your goal is indeed "conversion," then let me ask you this: how many times in life have you willingly embraced the position of someone who's attempted to humiliate you - and in a public setting, no less? If your goal is trolling, then why should I allow it?
If there were a post about spider woman and the Navajo creation story and a bunch of fundamentalist Christians decided to pile on in attempt to mock it, how would that be any different from what you've attempted here and in countless similar threads?
Tell me, because I'm genuinely interested, why you think your actions differ from those of a Kobe Bryant fan who comes into every single Miami Heat, Lebron James, or NBA thread regardless of subject to hail Kobe as the GOAT and talk trash about how Lebron's a sidekick and his offensive game consists of little more than shoulder bashing and traveling?
"Hey guys, did you see the new Lebron IX?" "Lebron's a joke. Only simpleminded fools like Lebron. The one true path is the trail of the Mamba."
"Wow, did you see Blake Griffin's dunk over Mozgov?" "I bet Heat fans are jelly. Lebron couldn't do that. Kobe could, though. He won the dunk contest - and that's a fact. How many dunk contests has Lebron won? lololol"
Did the Heat lose and the Lakers win? Oh man, that's the PERFECT opportunity to start a new topic to show those fools how stupid they are! Is there a youtube video of a particularly heinous "crab dribble?" Hurry, to NikeTalk!! The blind unbelievers must be shown the light!
If anyone else held this type of crusade about any other subject, you'd probably find it pretty obnoxious. It's like the * > Ohio crap we're all sick to death of.
Social justice activism is important to me, but I've found it far more effective to pick my spots and find a way to promote social justice in such a way that people seek to change their behavior so as to be in better alignment with their existing values and aspirations. (Cognitive dissonance.)
I don't go into every thread talking about fast food, etc. and call those who eat meat fat, lazy, and stupid - even though I could cite research indicating that vegetarians & vegans generally have less body fat, live longer, and are disproportionately more likely to have college degrees than those who eat meat. I generally only talk about that stuff here within receptive topics that others have created. I'm passionate about it, but I don't go around starting threads every other day to make the same points ad nauseam. The last social justice related thread I started, aside from the charity stuff, was a simple post regarding Dorothy Height's death. And yet, I get PMs all the time from people who are interested in researching institutional racism in education, or who want to learn more about veganism, or who want help locating the lesser known work of Dr. King, etc. It's sometimes surprising, because even if I haven't made a thread of that nature in a long time I'll still get those requests out of the blue. Sometimes a little goes a long way. I have to wonder how often people approach you guys to say, "hey, you really opened my eyes in that thread about how God is a joke. Man, was I a sucker! You have any advice for how I can become an atheist like you?" More likely, it's stuff like "haha, yeah man i'm an atheist too. Way to make those sheep look like idiots!" That's just preaching to the choir, if you'll pardon the church metaphor.
It's fine to prefer scientific explanation - not because it's "verifiable," but, on the contrary, because it is falsifiable and doesn't rely on tautology. However, there's a certain humility that ought to accompany that. Your beliefs, by definition, are provisional. You are willing to be proven wrong. As such, you have to accept that your conception of reality is inherently subjective and tentatively held.
I think it's a mistake - and a self-mocking one at that - to posit science as this sort of skeleton key capable of unlocking all knowledge without subjecting scientific traditions to the same scrutiny as religious traditions. (And, in truth, many of our contemporary scientific traditions still carry religious influence and are, in general, heavily affected by cultural influence.) Without any sort of grounding in epistemology, you're just as guilty of "drinking the kool aid" with regards to prevailing scientific thought as religious zealots are with respect to their own faith.
It's easy to sit back and say, "well, the ancient Greeks devised a mythologican canon as a means of explaining the erstwhile inexplicable. Eventually, human beings actually climbed the tallest peaks and discovered that there were no bearded White deities to be found. How is that any different from the creation stories you believe?" The problem is that history is fraught with the wreckage of abandoned theories and disproved hypotheses. What you believe today could one day become antiquated, just as Darwinian evolution succeeded Lamarckian evolution. It wouldn't hurt to pick up Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, for example, and examine science as a cultural development. A lot of folks in various science programs do so as part of their introductory coursework - and with good cause. It helps them keep things in perspective.
Much of what we accept as true is not universally so. It's true relative to our experience, to our observation. The process of integerizing infinity is, ironically, imprecise. Logic is a human construction. Something as simple and seemingly concrete as causation rests on the conception of time as linear. 1 + 1 = 2 is a theoretical abstraction. In the real world, quantifying something as a discrete unit is a subjective act. Our scientific traditions, thus, are specific and relative.
Honestly, I think you guys are just exploiting those who practice different faiths to try and prove to YOURSELVES that atheism is the "one truth." Again, if you really valued the scientific method you'd realize how futile and arrogant that really is.
I'm not suggesting that religion should be taught in schools, mind you, but I also don't think there's any constructive value to gratuitously mocking people for their religious beliefs. It's incredibly petty.
And maybe that's a better outlet for it.
If you enjoy having these discussions, great. Baiting people into them, however, is problematic.
If you enjoy mixed martial arts and you want to find a sparring partner, you find someone else who is interested in the same thing - you don't find some guy who looks like a good target and push his kids around until he feels he has no choice but to fight you. That's pathetic, and it seems to be a pretty apt metaphor for how you set about "recruiting" participants for these circuses. You seize on something that people hold dear and tweak it until they feel compelled to defend their beliefs for your own selfish amusement.
You guys are just acting like bullies now and I find that very sad.
- 7,361
- 28,937
- Joined
- Dec 8, 1999
If you want my opinion, I think you guys are successful as trolls, but horribly counterproductive as activists.
I'm not, myself, a religious person. It never really appealed to me and, while I was introduced to it through family, it was never forced on me. So, my rejection of religion wasn't some flamboyant act of adolescent rebellion. Perhaps that's why I've never felt a strong desire to rub it in people's faces.
Frankly, I'd be embarrassed to be associated with the paradoxically zealous atheists who seem to get off on harassing those who accept different beliefs. I find that sort of missionary attitude to be bitterly ironic and, frankly, hypocritical. How you guys are treating those with religious beliefs is strikingly similar to the ridicule that European colonialists subjected to the indigenous African and American populations they so ruthlessly oppressed and so forcibly attempted to "convert."
If your goal is a productive dialog, respect is a prerequisite. If your goal is indeed "conversion," then let me ask you this: how many times in life have you willingly embraced the position of someone who's attempted to humiliate you - and in a public setting, no less? If your goal is trolling, then why should I allow it?
If there were a post about spider woman and the Navajo creation story and a bunch of fundamentalist Christians decided to pile on in attempt to mock it, how would that be any different from what you've attempted here and in countless similar threads?
Tell me, because I'm genuinely interested, why you think your actions differ from those of a Kobe Bryant fan who comes into every single Miami Heat, Lebron James, or NBA thread regardless of subject to hail Kobe as the GOAT and talk trash about how Lebron's a sidekick and his offensive game consists of little more than shoulder bashing and traveling?
"Hey guys, did you see the new Lebron IX?" "Lebron's a joke. Only simpleminded fools like Lebron. The one true path is the trail of the Mamba."
"Wow, did you see Blake Griffin's dunk over Mozgov?" "I bet Heat fans are jelly. Lebron couldn't do that. Kobe could, though. He won the dunk contest - and that's a fact. How many dunk contests has Lebron won? lololol"
Did the Heat lose and the Lakers win? Oh man, that's the PERFECT opportunity to start a new topic to show those fools how stupid they are! Is there a youtube video of a particularly heinous "crab dribble?" Hurry, to NikeTalk!! The blind unbelievers must be shown the light!
If anyone else held this type of crusade about any other subject, you'd probably find it pretty obnoxious. It's like the * > Ohio crap we're all sick to death of.
Social justice activism is important to me, but I've found it far more effective to pick my spots and find a way to promote social justice in such a way that people seek to change their behavior so as to be in better alignment with their existing values and aspirations. (Cognitive dissonance.)
I don't go into every thread talking about fast food, etc. and call those who eat meat fat, lazy, and stupid - even though I could cite research indicating that vegetarians & vegans generally have less body fat, live longer, and are disproportionately more likely to have college degrees than those who eat meat. I generally only talk about that stuff here within receptive topics that others have created. I'm passionate about it, but I don't go around starting threads every other day to make the same points ad nauseam. The last social justice related thread I started, aside from the charity stuff, was a simple post regarding Dorothy Height's death. And yet, I get PMs all the time from people who are interested in researching institutional racism in education, or who want to learn more about veganism, or who want help locating the lesser known work of Dr. King, etc. It's sometimes surprising, because even if I haven't made a thread of that nature in a long time I'll still get those requests out of the blue. Sometimes a little goes a long way. I have to wonder how often people approach you guys to say, "hey, you really opened my eyes in that thread about how God is a joke. Man, was I a sucker! You have any advice for how I can become an atheist like you?" More likely, it's stuff like "haha, yeah man i'm an atheist too. Way to make those sheep look like idiots!" That's just preaching to the choir, if you'll pardon the church metaphor.
It's fine to prefer scientific explanation - not because it's "verifiable," but, on the contrary, because it is falsifiable and doesn't rely on tautology. However, there's a certain humility that ought to accompany that. Your beliefs, by definition, are provisional. You are willing to be proven wrong. As such, you have to accept that your conception of reality is inherently subjective and tentatively held.
I think it's a mistake - and a self-mocking one at that - to posit science as this sort of skeleton key capable of unlocking all knowledge without subjecting scientific traditions to the same scrutiny as religious traditions. (And, in truth, many of our contemporary scientific traditions still carry religious influence and are, in general, heavily affected by cultural influence.) Without any sort of grounding in epistemology, you're just as guilty of "drinking the kool aid" with regards to prevailing scientific thought as religious zealots are with respect to their own faith.
It's easy to sit back and say, "well, the ancient Greeks devised a mythologican canon as a means of explaining the erstwhile inexplicable. Eventually, human beings actually climbed the tallest peaks and discovered that there were no bearded White deities to be found. How is that any different from the creation stories you believe?" The problem is that history is fraught with the wreckage of abandoned theories and disproved hypotheses. What you believe today could one day become antiquated, just as Darwinian evolution succeeded Lamarckian evolution. It wouldn't hurt to pick up Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, for example, and examine science as a cultural development. A lot of folks in various science programs do so as part of their introductory coursework - and with good cause. It helps them keep things in perspective.
Much of what we accept as true is not universally so. It's true relative to our experience, to our observation. The process of integerizing infinity is, ironically, imprecise. Logic is a human construction. Something as simple and seemingly concrete as causation rests on the conception of time as linear. 1 + 1 = 2 is a theoretical abstraction. In the real world, quantifying something as a discrete unit is a subjective act. Our scientific traditions, thus, are specific and relative.
Honestly, I think you guys are just exploiting those who practice different faiths to try and prove to YOURSELVES that atheism is the "one truth." Again, if you really valued the scientific method you'd realize how futile and arrogant that really is.
I'm not suggesting that religion should be taught in schools, mind you, but I also don't think there's any constructive value to gratuitously mocking people for their religious beliefs. It's incredibly petty.
And maybe that's a better outlet for it.
If you enjoy having these discussions, great. Baiting people into them, however, is problematic.
If you enjoy mixed martial arts and you want to find a sparring partner, you find someone else who is interested in the same thing - you don't find some guy who looks like a good target and push his kids around until he feels he has no choice but to fight you. That's pathetic, and it seems to be a pretty apt metaphor for how you set about "recruiting" participants for these circuses. You seize on something that people hold dear and tweak it until they feel compelled to defend their beliefs for your own selfish amusement.
You guys are just acting like bullies now and I find that very sad.
I'm not, myself, a religious person. It never really appealed to me and, while I was introduced to it through family, it was never forced on me. So, my rejection of religion wasn't some flamboyant act of adolescent rebellion. Perhaps that's why I've never felt a strong desire to rub it in people's faces.
Frankly, I'd be embarrassed to be associated with the paradoxically zealous atheists who seem to get off on harassing those who accept different beliefs. I find that sort of missionary attitude to be bitterly ironic and, frankly, hypocritical. How you guys are treating those with religious beliefs is strikingly similar to the ridicule that European colonialists subjected to the indigenous African and American populations they so ruthlessly oppressed and so forcibly attempted to "convert."
If your goal is a productive dialog, respect is a prerequisite. If your goal is indeed "conversion," then let me ask you this: how many times in life have you willingly embraced the position of someone who's attempted to humiliate you - and in a public setting, no less? If your goal is trolling, then why should I allow it?
If there were a post about spider woman and the Navajo creation story and a bunch of fundamentalist Christians decided to pile on in attempt to mock it, how would that be any different from what you've attempted here and in countless similar threads?
Tell me, because I'm genuinely interested, why you think your actions differ from those of a Kobe Bryant fan who comes into every single Miami Heat, Lebron James, or NBA thread regardless of subject to hail Kobe as the GOAT and talk trash about how Lebron's a sidekick and his offensive game consists of little more than shoulder bashing and traveling?
"Hey guys, did you see the new Lebron IX?" "Lebron's a joke. Only simpleminded fools like Lebron. The one true path is the trail of the Mamba."
"Wow, did you see Blake Griffin's dunk over Mozgov?" "I bet Heat fans are jelly. Lebron couldn't do that. Kobe could, though. He won the dunk contest - and that's a fact. How many dunk contests has Lebron won? lololol"
Did the Heat lose and the Lakers win? Oh man, that's the PERFECT opportunity to start a new topic to show those fools how stupid they are! Is there a youtube video of a particularly heinous "crab dribble?" Hurry, to NikeTalk!! The blind unbelievers must be shown the light!
If anyone else held this type of crusade about any other subject, you'd probably find it pretty obnoxious. It's like the * > Ohio crap we're all sick to death of.
Social justice activism is important to me, but I've found it far more effective to pick my spots and find a way to promote social justice in such a way that people seek to change their behavior so as to be in better alignment with their existing values and aspirations. (Cognitive dissonance.)
I don't go into every thread talking about fast food, etc. and call those who eat meat fat, lazy, and stupid - even though I could cite research indicating that vegetarians & vegans generally have less body fat, live longer, and are disproportionately more likely to have college degrees than those who eat meat. I generally only talk about that stuff here within receptive topics that others have created. I'm passionate about it, but I don't go around starting threads every other day to make the same points ad nauseam. The last social justice related thread I started, aside from the charity stuff, was a simple post regarding Dorothy Height's death. And yet, I get PMs all the time from people who are interested in researching institutional racism in education, or who want to learn more about veganism, or who want help locating the lesser known work of Dr. King, etc. It's sometimes surprising, because even if I haven't made a thread of that nature in a long time I'll still get those requests out of the blue. Sometimes a little goes a long way. I have to wonder how often people approach you guys to say, "hey, you really opened my eyes in that thread about how God is a joke. Man, was I a sucker! You have any advice for how I can become an atheist like you?" More likely, it's stuff like "haha, yeah man i'm an atheist too. Way to make those sheep look like idiots!" That's just preaching to the choir, if you'll pardon the church metaphor.
It's fine to prefer scientific explanation - not because it's "verifiable," but, on the contrary, because it is falsifiable and doesn't rely on tautology. However, there's a certain humility that ought to accompany that. Your beliefs, by definition, are provisional. You are willing to be proven wrong. As such, you have to accept that your conception of reality is inherently subjective and tentatively held.
I think it's a mistake - and a self-mocking one at that - to posit science as this sort of skeleton key capable of unlocking all knowledge without subjecting scientific traditions to the same scrutiny as religious traditions. (And, in truth, many of our contemporary scientific traditions still carry religious influence and are, in general, heavily affected by cultural influence.) Without any sort of grounding in epistemology, you're just as guilty of "drinking the kool aid" with regards to prevailing scientific thought as religious zealots are with respect to their own faith.
It's easy to sit back and say, "well, the ancient Greeks devised a mythologican canon as a means of explaining the erstwhile inexplicable. Eventually, human beings actually climbed the tallest peaks and discovered that there were no bearded White deities to be found. How is that any different from the creation stories you believe?" The problem is that history is fraught with the wreckage of abandoned theories and disproved hypotheses. What you believe today could one day become antiquated, just as Darwinian evolution succeeded Lamarckian evolution. It wouldn't hurt to pick up Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, for example, and examine science as a cultural development. A lot of folks in various science programs do so as part of their introductory coursework - and with good cause. It helps them keep things in perspective.
Much of what we accept as true is not universally so. It's true relative to our experience, to our observation. The process of integerizing infinity is, ironically, imprecise. Logic is a human construction. Something as simple and seemingly concrete as causation rests on the conception of time as linear. 1 + 1 = 2 is a theoretical abstraction. In the real world, quantifying something as a discrete unit is a subjective act. Our scientific traditions, thus, are specific and relative.
Honestly, I think you guys are just exploiting those who practice different faiths to try and prove to YOURSELVES that atheism is the "one truth." Again, if you really valued the scientific method you'd realize how futile and arrogant that really is.
I'm not suggesting that religion should be taught in schools, mind you, but I also don't think there's any constructive value to gratuitously mocking people for their religious beliefs. It's incredibly petty.
And maybe that's a better outlet for it.
If you enjoy having these discussions, great. Baiting people into them, however, is problematic.
If you enjoy mixed martial arts and you want to find a sparring partner, you find someone else who is interested in the same thing - you don't find some guy who looks like a good target and push his kids around until he feels he has no choice but to fight you. That's pathetic, and it seems to be a pretty apt metaphor for how you set about "recruiting" participants for these circuses. You seize on something that people hold dear and tweak it until they feel compelled to defend their beliefs for your own selfish amusement.
You guys are just acting like bullies now and I find that very sad.
budweiser
Banned
- 2,123
- 10
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2010
The irony is appalling.
budweiser
Banned
- 2,123
- 10
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2010
The irony is appalling.
antonlavey
Banned
- 28,210
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
Originally Posted by Budweiser
The irony is appalling.
antonlavey
Banned
- 28,210
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
Originally Posted by Budweiser
The irony is appalling.
|A-Man|
formerly atgd7154xbbxmz
- 17,340
- 2,011
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2011
The cycle's sickOriginally Posted by AntonLaVey
Originally Posted by Budweiser
The irony is appalling.
I laughed for at least 5 minutes at this. Shame on me for missing any of that in S&T.
|A-Man|
formerly atgd7154xbbxmz
- 17,340
- 2,011
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2011
The cycle's sickOriginally Posted by AntonLaVey
Originally Posted by Budweiser
The irony is appalling.
I laughed for at least 5 minutes at this. Shame on me for missing any of that in S&T.
- 3,938
- 11
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
Originally Posted by AntonLaVey
Originally Posted by Budweiser
The irony is appalling.
I thought i was the only one who caught that. Esp considering to topic and the subject being discussed. It is.... im just gonna leave it at that. Their were a few other ironic etc... statements in his post as well esp in the comparison to other topics portion of his post. But all in all he usually is one of the few that make good relevant insighful post. But that one .... imma stop while im ahead...
- 3,938
- 11
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
Originally Posted by AntonLaVey
Originally Posted by Budweiser
The irony is appalling.
I thought i was the only one who caught that. Esp considering to topic and the subject being discussed. It is.... im just gonna leave it at that. Their were a few other ironic etc... statements in his post as well esp in the comparison to other topics portion of his post. But all in all he usually is one of the few that make good relevant insighful post. But that one .... imma stop while im ahead...
- 2,217
- 321
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
You about 2,000 years late but yeah he is amazing
- 2,217
- 321
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
You about 2,000 years late but yeah he is amazing
antonlavey
Banned
- 28,210
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
girl in your avy, who dat?
antonlavey
Banned
- 28,210
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
girl in your avy, who dat?
