Antitheists and hypocrisy (SORRY FOR MAKING A RELIGION THREAD)
- Thread starter headshotcatcher
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I try not to talk about religion (or my lack there of) when I can, and I try not to "convert" people. I will explain why I believe so when asked but won't do much otherwise. Normally I will say like two sentences and recommend people read Richard Dawkin's God Delusion to better understand where I stand. It's too hard to talk about it (or even try to convert if that is what I wanted to) because many religious people (many, not all) will take my view as a personal attack on their faith.
Also, this:
Also, this:
bladeofdarkness said:
Ironically, I was going to make a thread with this as one of the points. The hypocrisy of Anti-Theism is apparent when you notice that the majority of the followers of it are as evangelical as the Fundamentalists of other religious beliefs.
I have nothing against most atheists or agnostics, because they're actually willing to talk about matters of faith without getting up in your face about it. Anti-Theists though... those tick me off, especially since they constantly misidentify themselves as atheists, giving the good, rational atheists out there a bad rep.
Another thing to be said about Anti-Theism is how many points mainly revolve around either long-dead conflicts, obsolete policies in faiths that have long since been replaced, or generalizing the many based on the actions of a few (the "ALL PRIESTS ARE PEDOS" bullcrap.)
I have nothing against most atheists or agnostics, because they're actually willing to talk about matters of faith without getting up in your face about it. Anti-Theists though... those tick me off, especially since they constantly misidentify themselves as atheists, giving the good, rational atheists out there a bad rep.
Another thing to be said about Anti-Theism is how many points mainly revolve around either long-dead conflicts, obsolete policies in faiths that have long since been replaced, or generalizing the many based on the actions of a few (the "ALL PRIESTS ARE PEDOS" bullcrap.)
Not trying to win a debate with you. If I was even remotely trying you would get well thought out responses (like the ones I posted to Skeleon). I'm just more than happy to continue to call you a tool. Don't want to be insulted? Don't start it next time...cobra_ky said:
Sorry about the above interjection. Someone else is trying to do your job for you and doing very poorly.Skeleon said:
I notice this whole thread is tanking fast, with our debate being the most well thought out set of posts here. Are we even remotely on topic anymore? If not, good. This thread needs the bar raised. I will say
1) You are confabulating the underlying physical 'hardware' with the phenomenon of qualia. I'm not sure I can hold that against you given your stance.
2) I think we should keep this going, as it's been a hell of a good debate, and someone needs to keep some healthy discussion in here.
Ok, I'm abandoning our previous debate structure because it's getting unwieldy.
I know what you're talking about when you refer to fMRI, or at least I have a good concept. My Dad was a brilliant MD and I learned as much from him as I could. I suspect what you're getting at with this is the following: We can see the physical underpinnings of qualia by closely examining brain function. The two are not the same. However it would interesting to note that the process you describe works both ways. If I see red, you can see the "red" neurons light up in my head. If I imagine "red" you'd see the same thing. Essentially qualia and brain function affect each other.
The whole point behind discussing the EM spectrum beyond "visible light" and other species qualia of the EM spectrum is this: We can't (currently) quantify our qualia. If we look beyond just our own experience as humans the problem becomes significantly more challenging.
So here's what we're left with: We know that qualia arise from physical processes. We can not quantify qualia.
Your contention is that we will eventually be able to, based on a belief that all processes can (eventually) be quantified.
My contention is that we will never be able to quantify qualia because of the nature of qualia. I believe (eventually) someone will discover a proof as to why qualia can't be quantified and furthermore that proof will not rely on the supernatural or proof of a mind/body dualism. We will simply understand qualia well enough to say "of course they can't be quantified, that's how qualia work."
We can throw examples at each other all day but neither of us can truly prove our positions. So where do we go from here?
A few side notes:
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of reality. It is not inherently a supernatural branch. To say you don't believe in metaphysics is like saying you don't believe reality has a nature. I think you're mixing metaphysics (philosophy) with metaphysics (layman's term for things outside of physics). If atheists, materialists and physicalists are right, then metaphysics simply is the same as physicalism.
"The Colour from Outer Space" is a short story by H.P. Lovecraft. In it an extraterrestrial object crashes into a farm. The object's color is one no human has ever seen before. It drives everyone who comes into contact with it insane, and just looking at it hurts in a deep mental and spiritual way.
Data to a computer is all 1's and 0's. We are capable of apprehending more than that. Computers are limited to a binary logic, humans can work with uncertainty and use a more complicated data set. Instead of simply on/off, we can handle on/off/both/neither. Given this, while the input may be in the form of 1's and 0's (which I suspect is not the case with all senses) the qualia formed from the input need not be.
So here's the question: How do we explore the nature of qualia qua qualia? (And this is where I hate philosophy speak. It leads to stupid sounding statements like qualia qua qualia) To translate: qua, the thing in itself, apart from the processes that give rise to it. How do we explore the nature of qualia without relying on neuroscience, so as to know that we are dealing with qualia and not the physical precursor processes?
Oh dear, oh dear oh dear. I will not explain.Casual Shinji said:
But now you see we have found ourselves in a full loop. Now you are writing a comment on a thread discussing how Atheists hypocritically boycott Religious people for converting people even though they are themselves in a way converting people and now you have made a comment saying that Religeous converting is more justified than Aeitheiest converting and then an Aeithiest is going to argue the other side and then we are all lost.Lazier Than Thou said:
Anyhow I tend to avoid Religious people rather than try to shake my own definition of sense into them. And that is just it, it is all by our own definition. My own definition of sense could be that my mouse mat is a god in the form of plastic, and that he will one day revert into his original form to strike justice into all. And there will be those who tell me I am wrong, because they have free speech, and I will tell them they are wrong, because I have free speech. In actuality I am an atheist and don?t believe anybody enforces justice in the world. But I feel that it is only fair that others believe in anything they like, however stupid it may seem to me. That is all there is to say.
They're completely different, and not even in the same vein of things.WayOutThere said:
Atheism is rejection of belief in Gods, deities, higher powers, whatever you want to call them.
Agnosticism isn't a religion, it's a philosophy, dictating that the individual harbors no particular belief, and deems all equally likely.
As for the cliche "Religion is the cause of war" talk, you people need to realize that there's nothing to blame for violence but human nature. Morality, religion, greed, whatever the "cause" of a war, is just a championed reason to attempt to justify it.
Banish these things, and we'll still find reasons to massacre each other.
Banish these things, and we'll still find reasons to massacre each other.
Start? No. Fire a few salvos in a battle that's part of a history-long war and start really bloody skirmish? Oh hell yes. I almost asked what you were talking about, then I remembered the other thread you started.pimppeter2 said:
Most of this crap boils down to this: Both sides are spewing the same tired highly refutable arguments and no one is making ground because no one wants to bother to listen, they all simply want to be heard. You'll notice (if you've read this thread) that I abandoned the original topic and am working on a debate with the possibility of new learning in the middle of all this. Any thoughts on qualia?
That was a lot to read.
I think the whole 'religious people trying to ram things down our throat' argument is tired and overused anyway. It's sort of relevant, but there are way worse religious things to complain about. For instance, the church in Ireland having control over so many of the schools meaning that children get baptised purely so they are allowed in. That's pretty bad.
Anyway, atheism is not the same as religion. As one million people have said, so my saying it obviously won't help.
I'm very tempted to counter the 'atheists think they're right and everyone else are idiots' with 'well... so?' but feel it wouldn't be productive. So instead i'll say that logically speaking, atheists definitely have a much firmer ground to stand on. And the amount of atrocities resulting from atheism is a lot less than the amount resulting from religion (that I can think of anyway).
I don't try to convert religious people. One: It's a lost cause, Two: It's not really helpful. Trying to convert religious people is not the way to go. Giving their religion absolutely no relevance outside of their own personal belief is the way to go. I.e. Religion shouldn't impact government decisions or any kind of state funding. Or... Anything.
I think the whole 'religious people trying to ram things down our throat' argument is tired and overused anyway. It's sort of relevant, but there are way worse religious things to complain about. For instance, the church in Ireland having control over so many of the schools meaning that children get baptised purely so they are allowed in. That's pretty bad.
Anyway, atheism is not the same as religion. As one million people have said, so my saying it obviously won't help.
I'm very tempted to counter the 'atheists think they're right and everyone else are idiots' with 'well... so?' but feel it wouldn't be productive. So instead i'll say that logically speaking, atheists definitely have a much firmer ground to stand on. And the amount of atrocities resulting from atheism is a lot less than the amount resulting from religion (that I can think of anyway).
I don't try to convert religious people. One: It's a lost cause, Two: It's not really helpful. Trying to convert religious people is not the way to go. Giving their religion absolutely no relevance outside of their own personal belief is the way to go. I.e. Religion shouldn't impact government decisions or any kind of state funding. Or... Anything.
Who said it was a religion?KingOfTwilight said:
I've never heard that before. I don't think it is how "agnosticism" is usually definded.KingOfTwilight said:
------
I pointed out a good link in a earlier post.
No one that I saw, I just felt a need to point that out. Why dissect that part if it doesn't affect anything?WayOutThere said:
And your link is a bit shallow, seeing as how he's going by a Christianity based view. Regardless, you seemingly didn't read it, as this is clearly in it.
Here is the OED's definition of 'agnostic':
agnostic A. sb. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.
Being Atheist is not believing in a higher power.
Being Agnostic is admitting you have no clue on the matter.
This is why humans can't get along. I started the other thread to show Atheists that Christians do not force their religion on their children. They just tend to become Christians like their parents.Captain Blackout said:
It still became who could disprove whom.
tsk tsk.
How? Have you read that other thread about religious parents and forcing religion?KingOfTwilight said:
You'd be suprised how many people didn't even consider that it goes both ways
atheist and anti-theists are so different, it's not even funny.
Atheists simply do not believe in a divine or demonic presence.
Anti-theists believe that, but also actively campaign against religion.
People who follow FTS do not care about religion (or anything controversial and annoying) Join today!
Also every atheist is different, every Christian/Catholic is different, seriously stop generalizing or else I will beat the person closest to me with a stick. Maybe a cane. Kids these days... no respect.
Atheists simply do not believe in a divine or demonic presence.
Anti-theists believe that, but also actively campaign against religion.
People who follow FTS do not care about religion (or anything controversial and annoying) Join today!
Also every atheist is different, every Christian/Catholic is different, seriously stop generalizing or else I will beat the person closest to me with a stick. Maybe a cane. Kids these days... no respect.