HungryJoe talks about those Damn Kids in his virtual yard.

Cremlian

We are on the internet Joe, and this forum is a more or less free place to talk. Personally I enjoy talking politics and religion (and relationships) more then any other topic. So what's the big deal if opinionated people discuss ideas that may or may not be their own in a forum. Most of us behave a little different online then we do offline. Online I have way more force in my opinions because it's a place where I can sound out ideas and get criticism back. Offline, I tend to just sit back and listen to the other person's belief's and ask questions because I am genuinely interested in how they think and why they believe things. (also there is a fear of being punched :-P)

If you don't want to talk about religion, don't read the thread.

HungryJoe

What? I didn't mean to evoke that sort of response. I'm sorry if you think that I was trying to chill discussion. I honestly wasn't trying to do that. All I was saying is that a little more tolerance would be appreciated. Is that so wrong?

EDIT: Furthermore, I'M not the one who closes down religion threads. Scrym does that.

TheWhaleShark

All I was saying is that a little more tolerance would be appreciated.

That sounds like some un-American libtard reasoning right there. We don't need no "tolerance." Everyone else needs to pray to Jesus and capitalism. 'MURCA! FUCK YEAH!

Matt

I thought we were all on this forum because we enjoyed listening to opinionated people argue with each other.

HungryJoe

I thought we were all on this forum because we enjoyed listening to opinionated people argue with each other.

That's fine with most ever discussion, but when one particular type of discussion just devolves into bullying and bullying and more bullying of a specific group of people, it just gets boring. Doesn't it?

GreatTeacherMacRoss

I thought we were all on this forum because we enjoyed listening to opinionated people argue with each other.

Pfft. We're here to prove we're right. On the internet. Where things matter most.

Amp

One thing that I find interesting is that it is Christianity that is disputed not other religions. Is that because of its more accessible or that Christianity is viewed as the worst? I would note that other religions have some fairly odd stuff to them.

I would agree in part with Joe on some of the points. Nothing is worse that having someone telling you what you should and shouldn't believe irregardless of belief. Like wise I don't care that my doctor spouts bollocks over being a 'druid' and all that crap. So long as he is a good doctor why would that matter?

Amp

Pfft. We're here to prove we're right. On the internet. Where things matter most.

I'm more right that you are though. I mean I know your right, but I'm more, you know...cus I am.

Cremlian

One thing that I find interesting is that it is Christianity that is disputed not other religions. Is that because of its more accessible or that Christianity is viewed as the worst? I would note that other religions have some fairly odd stuff to them.

I would agree in part with Joe on some of the points. Nothing is worse that having someone telling you what you should and shouldn't believe irregardless of belief. Like wise I don't care that my doctor spouts bollocks over being a 'druid' and all that crap. So long as he is a good doctor why would that matter?

It's because Christianity is the majority religion. I'd be more then happy to discuss Islam, Judaism, Hindu etc. We just don't have many of them on the forum to argue with.

Rym

One thing that I find interesting is that it is Christianity that is disputed not other religions.

Religion is only disputed when it comes up. Christians bring it up more often than others on average in the US. I don't have any particular disdain for it over other religions. It's far less harmful than, say, Scientology.

Like wise I don't care that my doctor spouts bollocks over being a 'druid' and all that crap. So long as he is a good doctor why would that matter?

It doesn't from the perspective of doctoring. But if he brings it up in conversation, and it's clearly an unfounded statement asserting an extraordinary claim, it should be challenged. Such is the nature of all intelligent discussion: to challenge unreasonable or extraordinary claims.

zehaeva

One thing that I find interesting is that it is Christianity that is disputed not other religions. Is that because of its more accessible or that Christianity is viewed as the worst? I would note that other religions have some fairly odd stuff to them.

When those other religions start to affect public policy here is when you'll see atheists and agnostics rise up against them.

I would agree in part with Joe on some of the points. Nothing is worse that having someone telling you what you should and shouldn't believe irregardless of belief. Like wise I don't care that my doctor spouts bollocks over being a 'druid' and all that crap. So long as he is a good doctor why would that matter?

When that doctor says "Okay, so I need to you go out into the woods and rub your arm on a birch tree three times, that should clear that rash right up!" is where it would matter. It is the same as a woman in Arizona basing her public policy on the "fact" that the earth is 5000 years old. We can prove, with great certainty, that she is wrong. And her insistence that the earth isn't as old as it is distorts how she approaches resource management. This could (very hypothetical) lead to resources, like water and oil and such, being squandered and wasted away.

KapitänTim

Id say that christianity if followed as Jesus actually teaches is fucking awesome.

Amp

It's because Christianity is the majority religion. I'd be more then happy to discuss Islam, Judaism, Hindu etc. We just don't have many of them on the forum to argue with.

Ah I was wondering. I have interacted with people in Uni who are more than happy to disprove Christianity but when you question their own they become rather angry.

Such is the nature of all intelligent discussion: to challenge unreasonable or extraordinary claims.

So leading on. I agree that it is right to challenge these things. What then is the right time? I might disagree with my doctors belief but what makes me right to challenge them? I will state for the record that I am not religious, I disagree strongly with organized religion and fall into the camp of keep that shit to your self with everything else. If two people who both understand their topics, are both educated and rational. Would it not then boil down to either; 'I'm right because I'm right' or 'Well we both believe in different things and are happy with such, can't see where were going here'.

Rym

Would it not then boil down to either; 'I'm right because I'm right' or 'Well we both believe in different things and are happy with such, can't see where were going here'.

The person with the unfounded extraordinary claim is wrong. If they persist, they are unreasonable.

HungryJoe

Would it not then boil down to either; 'I'm right because I'm right' or 'Well we both believe in different things and are happy with such, can't see where were going here'.

I'm more of the tolerant type. As long as you don't try to do some sort of proactive action such as policymaking using your beliefs instead of science, I don't care who you pray to. Scrym is obviously, "I'M RIGHT, GODDAMMIT!!!!! STOP PRAYING TO YOUR FAKEY GODS RIGHT NAOW BECAUSE I DON"T LIKE IT!!!!!!111111!!!!!! ARRGGHHH!!!!!!"

zehaeva

As long as you don't try to do some sort of proactive action such as policymaking using your beliefs instead of science

But how do you stop that when half of the US doesn't believe Evolution is true? When State after State is actively trying to alter the school curriculum to fit their "reality"?

Amp

What do we then judge to be extraordinary? I'm so pedantic as so suggest that the hand of an almighty being streatched forth and pulled me from the fire. But what about such things as 'luck'. Would that not be a subjective things? For one person it is totally wrong for the idea of an all powerful being to exist, for another the idea of life with out a creator who watches over them is terrifying. Each would see the other as unreasonable, would they not.

The person with the unfounded extraordinary claim is wrong. If they persist, they are unreasonable.

So if I argue with a rabbi that god is not real and refuse to accpet what he is saying am I not being unreasonable?

Rym

For one person it is totally wrong for the idea of an all powerful being to exist, for another the idea of life with out a creator who watches over them is terrifying.

There is no evidence of such a creator, so ca gnostic claim that one exists is unreasonable. It is also extraordinary. In the case of most any specific creator claim, there is also evidence against its existence in the form of a secular origin of the belief itself.

So if I argue with a rabbi that god is not real and refuse to accpet what he is saying am I not being unreasonable?

No god is the null, the default. Saying there is a god is a claim, both unfounded and extraordinary. It is unreasonable to persist in this belief over the simpler null explanation.

The lack-of-god belief isn't extraordinary and requires no leaps from a default position. It's reasonable to hold and defend.

Cremlian

I'm more of the tolerant type. As long as you don't try to do some sort of proactive action such as policymaking using your beliefs instead of science, I don't care who you pray to. Scrym is obviously, "I'M RIGHT, GODDAMMIT!!!!! STOP PRAYING TO YOUR FAKEY GODS RIGHT NAOW BECAUSE I DON"T LIKE IT!!!!!!111111!!!!!! ARRGGHHH!!!!!!"

Eh, it's not like Scrym goes up to everyone and says "Y AR A ATHEIST R?" and if you answer no they no longer talk to you. It's more like if you bring up a point in a policy argument (mainly in social stuff) like saying "gays are evil" and you back it up with a religious claim, your going to get rolled over.

HungryJoe

For one person it is totally wrong for the idea of an all powerful being to exist, for another the idea of life with out a creator who watches over them is terrifying.

There is no evidence of such a creator, so ca gnostic claim that one exists is unreasonable. It is also extraordinary. In the case of most any specific creator claim, there is also evidence against its existence in the form of a secular origin of the belief itself.

So if I argue with a rabbi that god is not real and refuse to accpet what he is saying am I not being unreasonable?

No god is the null, the default. Saying there is a god is a claim, both unfounded and extraordinary. It is unreasonable to persist in this belief over the simpler null explanation.

The lack-of-god belief isn't extraordinary and requires no leaps from a default position. It's reasonable to hold and defend.

One of the things I wanted to know from the other thread is why it bothers you so much. So, some people have unreasonable beliefs they can't defend because and their beliefs are unfounded and extraordinary. So what?

Now, as I've tried to make clear, if they start trying to do something like pass environmental or medical policy decisions based on faith and not science, I'm with you in a fight against them. BUT - the mere possession of the belief itself that seems to get you all worked up just rates a big yawn from me.

Going back to the Scott example, we all see Scott making unfounded claims, espousing unreasonable beliefs, and making extraordinary statements. Why does he get a pass, but the poor schmoe that just happens to be a scientist and a Catholic at the same time gets all this bullying and rage?

Amp

The point I was trying to make is that a religion has its own evidence for such things. For someone that believes in God would not the Bible or Koran be evidence for this? The 'mirical miracle' of life? Fate? Chance? Luck? To someone that believes in these in a deity would these things not constitute evidence? How many times have you had a lucky escape? I'm not arguing for religion. What I would argue against it absolutes. That and you never know, I mean how stupid would we feel if there was a god;^

Amp

What if then, religion was something that people kept to themselves? No one asked, no one told. The only thing it would effect is the morals of people. Is that ok?

HungryJoe

I'm more of the tolerant type. As long as you don't try to do some sort of proactive action such as policymaking using your beliefs instead of science, I don't care who you pray to. Scrym is obviously, "I'M RIGHT, GODDAMMIT!!!!! STOP PRAYING TO YOUR FAKEY GODS RIGHT NAOW BECAUSE I DON"T LIKE IT!!!!!!111111!!!!!! ARRGGHHH!!!!!!"

Eh, it's not like Scrym goes up to everyone and says "Y AR A ATHEIST R?" and if you answer no they no longer talk to you.

. . . could have fooled me. From the way things have been on this board since forever, I thought that was exactly what they do.

Cremlian

. . . could have fooled me. From the way things have been on this board since forever, I thought that was exactly what they do.

They still talk to Axel don't they?

zehaeva

The point I was trying to make is that a religion has its own evidence for such things

The guys who developed cold fusion had their own evidence, is that just as valid as Gravity?

Amp

The guys who developed cold fusion had their own evidence, is that just as valid as Gravity?

I'm having a dyslexic moment here could rephrase that for me? I was making that point for religions they have evidence for their faith in the documents that they have and in actions that they see around them.

DevilUknow

There is no evidence of such a creator, so ca gnostic claim that one exists is unreasonable. It is also extraordinary. In the case of most any specific creator claim, there is also evidence against its existence in the form of a secular origin of the belief itself.

I'm a life long atheist (i didn't even know anyone, friends, relatives or otherwise, who said they believed in god until I was well into high school).
My wife is a christian (though not a super christian, a christian none the less).

As you can imagine the topic of the existence of god has come up a couple of times and it has never ended well. I still don't personally have any emotional connection to religion but I'm guessing it has to do with the fact that hard intellectual reasoning always leads you to the same place; that the world is a cold place ruled only by causal forces, that the human soul is a fiction and the human mind is an illusion created by the electro-chemical tomfoolery of our brains and that nothing means anything. These are depressing things and, having brains that actively seek patterns and meaning, leads us to want meaning in our life that faith can deliver. Faith is the collection of facts that you choose, kind of like friends are the family you choose.

In the end, I've decided that religion really is like a penis; it's great to have but its rude to pull it out and cram it down people's throats. I also now try to extend that metaphor and add that it is rude to point and jeer at someone else's penis and tell them that its silly and is the cause of all pain, suffering and stupidity in the world (ladies, you know what I'm talking about).

zehaeva

And my point is that the guys who developed cold fusion have a ton of their own evidence. So too did Newton have a ton of evidence for Gravity.

We can repeatedly demonstrate that Newton was right. We can take his evidence and reproduce it.

Is the evidence produced by the teams that "developed" cold fusion just as valid as that of Gravity?

TheWhaleShark

The 'mirical' of life? Fate? Chance? Luck?

Those things do not constitute "evidence" in any meaningful way.

I listened to an interview with a guy who espoused young-Earth creationism. He said that the Grand Canyon was evidence of God's work, because "it could have been carved by a massive flood of water, like the one from the flood story."

His "evidence" consisted of an unsupported conjecture. That is not evidence in any capacity. It is an argument, but arguments are not evidence. Evidence is used to support arguments.

Likewise, the "mircale" of life is an observable phenomenon. It is the subject of debate, not evidence to support a conclusion. Otherwise, you're using circular reasoning.

Amp

The theory would exist, practical application is another matter. So are we then moving then into the age old, 'if there is a god then make him stop all the world suffering' malarkey.

Jason

mircaleI am going to keep checking this thread until someone spells that word correctly.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?