Vermont; a rather pleasant place really. Although the job market is certainly suffering; I've been without work for some time now. >_< How troublesome.Boris Goodenough said:
In regards to your government comment, how will that impact upon yourself?
Is youtube (and/or the internet) basically atheist land?
- Thread starter Azaraxzealot
- Start date
Recommended Videos
In regards to your government comment, how will that impact upon yourself?
Let me open with this:Kashrlyyk said:
I'm an Agnostic-Atheist, and I dp believe, fundamentally, Religion cannot answer the questions of the Universe. I have deep respect for it, though- it provides a moral and philosophical framework for life, and has improved the life of millions in the present day.
I am not happy about "for-profit" churches, however, using the idea that many of them are tax exempt as an argument against religion is disgusting and stupid. That's not an issue with Religion, but with individual churches. I am not happy that the state pays for people to provide religious services. I do not like the fact that many Churches have influence on legislature.
But let me ask you, how do any of those boil down into arguments against religion? You're just spewing a load of blind, vitriolic, and angry crap. And that comic is just crude and illogical- I can't even begin to express my disgust at you and it; you're essentially committing the intellectual equivalent of a monkey throwing shit at a wall. You have no logic, and no reason- this is what the OP was referring to. People, like yourself, blindingly attacking religious institutions like a child.
The thing is, even if those "issues" you listed were reformed, you'd still attack and insult religion. You'd never "live and let live". You'd just insult.
the internet is free information, once your on you can learn about anything, if you know were to look. This has also created anonymous, who can speak their mind without fear of reprisal. For Atheists this dose the same, as well as religions groups.
The thing is, Religions organization have had their own safe zone for over 2000 years, were the non-believers must face ridicule no-mater were they went, and with possibility of death. So in the end the internet is not Atheist land, it's the free flow of information, and religion can't control the internet, not without pissing off anonymous.
The thing is, Religions organization have had their own safe zone for over 2000 years, were the non-believers must face ridicule no-mater were they went, and with possibility of death. So in the end the internet is not Atheist land, it's the free flow of information, and religion can't control the internet, not without pissing off anonymous.
You missed my point. I just listed privileges that religious institutions have even today all over the world, not just america no, germany, britain and so on(!!!), which is a reason why "live and let live" is not enough when it comes to religions. It is not an argument against religion, it is against "live and let live" in the case of religion.CosmicCommander said:
I don't care what you believe, but the moment you make claims that what you believe is true or is better that something else, you have to back that up with evidence and reasons why that is the case! And if you don't I am going to argue with you. I won't shut up.CosmicCommander said:
And that was why you referenced a comic that pretty much said every person who ever believed in any sort of Religion is a disgusting, sub-human, cretin?Kashrlyyk said:
I'm sorry, but that's pretty much a load of confusing garbage. I never made any claim other than the probability that, even if your list of demands (most of which are just the same thing, just in different terms) are met, you'd still rip on religion and religious people.Kashrlyyk said:
And seeing as you linked us to that charming comic, I think my beliefs on this matter are reinforced.
That is why you're such a joke.
How about we turn that lens back on itself? You claim that there is no God. None. Doesn't matter what faith's God we're talking about. Can you prove that?Kashrlyyk said:
No. You can't prove that there is no God whatsoever. Why? You would have to have seen ALL the evidence in the universe, every last shred, and would have to have been able to explain it all without God. Funny thing is, you won't ever be able to do so.
Let me ask another question: do you believe science is the only way we can learn what is true, or are there other ways we can learn about truth?
You can't prove the non existence of anything, because nobody has seen all the evidence in the universe. That's why the the burden of proof is on the one claiming something exists, not the people claiming it doesn't. That's all I can really think to say right now.TheMysteriousCoffee said:
Actually, you can prove things do or do not exist in fields such as mathematics without observing every shred of evidence by way of a proof. In fact, that's the only way to approach things involving the metaphysical.Anthropics said:
You're also assuming that I'm attepmting to prove God exists by showing you can't ever be certain God doesn't exist. What I'm really after is simply showing that you can't show God doesn't exist through scientific evidence. Science is insufficient for the claim "God does not exist." To show God does or does not exist requires a philosophical argument. And the burden lies with whoever is trying to assert their claim, not just one side. If a theist asserts God exists, then yes, the burden falls on the theist. But, by the same token, if an atheist asserts God does not exist, then the burden falls on the atheist. To be fair, I have not read many proofs on either side yet, but the arguments on either side are interesting to say the least.
Here is one that I have had a chance to read and understand supporting the existence of God. Please note that it is NOT constructive to simply say something is "stupid" or "wrong" - if you feel there is a flaw, then point it out in the argument itself.
http://carm.org/transcendental-argument
No, it says: "They are stupid." Nothing more and nothing less. It is a huge jump from "stupid" to "disgusting, sub-human, cretin".CosmicCommander said:
From that link:TheMysteriousCoffee said:
Point C it also true for god, which leads to the question: Who created the creator? A reductio ad infinitum.
Point 4 is where he goes wrong as far as I see it. Take a look at the bold part and replace "human minds" with "absolute transcendent mind" and "people" with "god". Notice the contradiction with the very first paragraph I quoted?
To be more precise: Imagine there is absolutely nothing that can think in a universe. No god, no humans and no animals and so on. What would be the effect of that on the mentioned logical absolutes? Even without a single mind in the universe, human or absolute transcendent, a rock would still be a rock and it being a rock would still be either true or false. In fact the logical absolutes are so absolute they don't need any mind at all.
The book "Atheism - The case against god" by George H. Smith probably explains it much better.
A quote from the book:
To say you think a person is wrong is one thing; to say they "have nothing but contempt" them, or to say that they are an "idiot"- or they "disgust me" is completely inexcusable. In my eyes, any credibility of your argument was immediately removed upon referencing that piece; just because it makes a load of ad hominem attacks on Religious People, or Religion in itself doesn't add anything.Kashrlyyk said:
The internet, as a place of fewer social boundaries and much less physical repercussion, is a haven for those whose views aren't accepted in society. This means you'll get a disproportionate amount of really intelligent people and really crazy people.
Atheists, as one study showed, are the least trusted minority in America. They're (and by they I include myself) are going to be pretty well represented on the internet, even the really idiotic ones.
Atheists, as one study showed, are the least trusted minority in America. They're (and by they I include myself) are going to be pretty well represented on the internet, even the really idiotic ones.
I don't have to proof anything. The fact that there currently is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD is enough. Because remember "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is indistinguishable from absence." So as long as there is no evidence there is no reason to assume it's existence. It is the people that say there is a god, that need to provide the evidence for their claim.
Besides when you use the word "god", what are you talking about? The judeo-christian Yahweh? Allah? Humbzumba, the demon slayer? Thor? That guy that doesn't answer prayers?
What characteristics does that "god" have?
The book "Atheism - The case against god" by George H. Smith has a pretty exhaustive discussion on that (at least 30 pages - A whole chapter on whether "reason and faith are different ways of acquiring knowledge".) If I remember correctly he makes it very clear why faith is not a way to acquire knowledge. Which doesn't leave much else as a way to acquire knowledge but reason.
"If an atheist asserts God does not exist, then the burden falls on the atheist."
Ah, but that's the catch, isn't it? That belief in something that is unfalsifiable, knowing that no matter the evidence piled against it, they're safe in their beliefs. See, the religious-minded always try to make both sides of the argument equal, when they're far from. Everytime science brings up a new discovery, the deists clamor to find holes in the theories, try to tear it down in whichever way they can. "See! Science is a sham!" But as for their own beliefs? Well, "You just gotta have faith!"
As for burden falling upon the athiest, it's impossible to prove the non-existance of unicorns, bigfoot, 'Nessie', ghosts, miracles, and a multitude of other supernatural phenomena, but nobody's trying to form legislature giving belief in them equal time in classrooms. Unfortunately, exactly that is being done with Christian beliefs throughout America. Personally, I believe if both sides of the argument could show a little more tolerance and a little less proselytizing, things would be a lot smoother on our little ball of dirt.
As for the OP: English Philosopher Colin McGinn draws an interesting division between Atheists and what he terms 'Antitheists', which are much more vocal in their opposition to organized religion.
Ah, but that's the catch, isn't it? That belief in something that is unfalsifiable, knowing that no matter the evidence piled against it, they're safe in their beliefs. See, the religious-minded always try to make both sides of the argument equal, when they're far from. Everytime science brings up a new discovery, the deists clamor to find holes in the theories, try to tear it down in whichever way they can. "See! Science is a sham!" But as for their own beliefs? Well, "You just gotta have faith!"
As for burden falling upon the athiest, it's impossible to prove the non-existance of unicorns, bigfoot, 'Nessie', ghosts, miracles, and a multitude of other supernatural phenomena, but nobody's trying to form legislature giving belief in them equal time in classrooms. Unfortunately, exactly that is being done with Christian beliefs throughout America. Personally, I believe if both sides of the argument could show a little more tolerance and a little less proselytizing, things would be a lot smoother on our little ball of dirt.
As for the OP: English Philosopher Colin McGinn draws an interesting division between Atheists and what he terms 'Antitheists', which are much more vocal in their opposition to organized religion.
There is. its called God Tube.Stasisesque said:
I used to have to watch clips from it at my 7th day Adventist High School. clips of tree's and rivers and stuff to bible verses.... yeah. time well spent.
My guess for all the athiest hate on religion (on the internet anyway) is that LOTS of christian speakers and crap of the like, speak as if being christian (or any religion pretty much) instantly makes you better than everyone else and it gives the assholes a very cocky attitude. Look at scientologist for great examples of that.
When the religious people start spouting this crap were only jesus, alah, spacemonkey, spaghetti monster, or whichever god they follow, is the only or best way to live a good life, the people who have lived without it "poisoning" their minds feel they must speak up and inform them that there are other acceptable ways to live. It's just a shame far too many people in general have low tolerance for ideas that counter their own beliefs, on all sides, and people get angry and say plenty of stupid shit.
When the religious people start spouting this crap were only jesus, alah, spacemonkey, spaghetti monster, or whichever god they follow, is the only or best way to live a good life, the people who have lived without it "poisoning" their minds feel they must speak up and inform them that there are other acceptable ways to live. It's just a shame far too many people in general have low tolerance for ideas that counter their own beliefs, on all sides, and people get angry and say plenty of stupid shit.
To be fair, that video's like a fountain of unfortunate implications.
So being a non-Christian means you can't make a difference in the world?
Ever heard the phrase "history is written by the winner"? Well Christianity "won," and it's pretty likely that the later Romans edited most of their history. They were into that sort of thing, you see. Not to say there's NO proof Christ existed, it's at least believable. But that he was the messiah/son of god/ressurected is much less likely. Yes, DNA is complicated but we shouldn't claim that we have enough comprehension of the universe to be able to say that the only alternative is a god that was worshipped in one small part of one small continent one small planet in one small galaxy.
I believe there's a lot more to it than that.
So being a non-Christian means you can't make a difference in the world?
y1fella said:
I believe there's a lot more to it than that.
Religion that is based in moral teachings alone is fine by me, but the second some idiot tells me they know the unknowable (afterlife) I leave them to the internet trolls, they are our only defence from the religious nuts taking the internet hostage
OK, I read it all....y1fella said:
It's all bullshit, regardless of whether there was a man named jesus, whether he stood up for the poor... it doesn't matter, because there are still fuck all facts that he was more than a human, everything is hearsay and that is as far from scientific fact as possible.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love LOVE it if there was a being which would hold humans accountable for their moral choices upon death and grant us entry into heaven, but there isn't, it's an age old misquote from man.
If we were to all act with morals in mind for every decision, we could turn our world into heaven, but instead we are fighting each other over fake gods and people like you have the audacity to say to those of us clocked into the problem that you have facts? I shit on your facts SIR!