On January 12 2012 17:34 YoMeR wrote:
this forum is on the polar opposite of the line of thinking the bible thumpers have. and both lines of thinking are retarded imo.
haters gon hate
No one is saying there is certainly no god
The chances of any one religion being literally right are 0.000000001% or less. Religion bashing yes, becasue organised religion is almost certainly a scam preying on frightened gullible people
The chances of there being some kind of god are much much greater (but still less than 0.0001% imo. lol)
Its a matter of how much uncertainty there is your position. In poker the better your understanding of the game and the more information you collect, the less uncertainty you have about someones hand range. you don't say "oh we can't be 100% sure what he has, so there is no point trying to narrow the range, lets jsut give up guies"
I put god on a range, and I raise my life that hes a bluff.
great job linking a guy who thinks Darwinism is wrong.
The Christian god has been dead for a long time, there is no room for misinterpretations if you look closely at what humanity has discovered even centuries ago. You seem like a smart guy, I don't see how you could possibly agree with someone who refers to Aquinas as non- confrontable by the "new" atheists (lol). The new atheists are simply dudes who try to popularize what has already been known for a while now, whereas Aquinas is some random defender of the Christian doctrine who believes in heaven, hell and every little detail his church once announced as true. Even if Dawkins did a poor job with "the god delusion" (something I highly doubt by having read other books of his) when fighting Aquinas's ridiculously detailed beliefs,the article you linked is the rant of a person who
a) bitches about how "new atheists" don't know all the details about what every known christian theologist believed, but
b) is always ready to swallow the entirety of nonsensical detail of the Christian doctrine (which Aquinas obv takes for granted)
new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...
On January 13 2012 03:02 SfydjkLm wrote:
i really hate religion bashing on the internet. The hatred the internet dwellers feel towards religion just seems to chop their IQ straight in half.
the argument i most despise is the violence that is blamed on religion. As if something like crusades was spawned by religion and not by the nature of men.
Also quoting Trotsky on religion, or anything really, is a bit like quoting pokerstars press release on how good their new rake system is. Beautiful words perhaps, but devoid of meaning.
I seriously doubt bashing organized religion on the internets can ever be done enough.
When I listen to groups of people (even family) chatting about something ultra stupid like say, advanced astrology, with a serious tone that shows they are certain that what they are talking about is legit and a great subject, I have to count to 10 just to avoid a vicious hyper-aggressive rambling burst that will have absolutely no meaningful effect.
Imagine now raising the stakes so that the ultra stupid discussion involves the meaning of life,what happens after we die, the root of ethics etc and these people show the same level of certainty about their ridiculously detailed mumbo-jumbo beliefs, in essence farting in the face of every struggling thinking man that has ever lived since the beginning of human time. Add the possibility of having an audience around the globe that feels the way you do and you have a perfect recipe for hardcore bashing the shit out of organized religion on teh webz.
new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...
Last edit: 13/01/2012 09:07
1
zulu_nation8 United States. Jan 13 2012 09:30. Posts 1929
great job linking a guy who thinks Darwinism is wrong.
The Christian god has been dead for a long time, there is no room for misinterpretations if you look closely at what humanity has discovered even centuries ago. You seem like a smart guy, I don't see how you could possibly agree with someone who refers to Aquinas as non- confrontable by the "new" atheists (lol). The new atheists are simply dudes who try to popularize what has already been known for a while now, whereas Aquinas is some random defender of the Christian doctrine who believes in heaven, hell and every little detail his church once announced as true. Even if Dawkins did a poor job with "the god delusion" (something I highly doubt by having read other books of his) when fighting Aquinas's ridiculously detailed beliefs,the article you linked is the rant of a person who
a) bitches about how "new atheists" don't know all the details about what every known christian theologist believed, but
b) is always ready to swallow the entirety of nonsensical detail of the Christian doctrine (which Aquinas obv takes for granted)
lol that guys using the example of a preacher who dismisses darwinism with a condescending attitude as the kind of reasoning dawkins employs, read it again please. This thread is pissing me off.
great job linking a guy who thinks Darwinism is wrong.
The Christian god has been dead for a long time, there is no room for misinterpretations if you look closely at what humanity has discovered even centuries ago. You seem like a smart guy, I don't see how you could possibly agree with someone who refers to Aquinas as non- confrontable by the "new" atheists (lol). The new atheists are simply dudes who try to popularize what has already been known for a while now, whereas Aquinas is some random defender of the Christian doctrine who believes in heaven, hell and every little detail his church once announced as true. Even if Dawkins did a poor job with "the god delusion" (something I highly doubt by having read other books of his) when fighting Aquinas's ridiculously detailed beliefs,the article you linked is the rant of a person who
a) bitches about how "new atheists" don't know all the details about what every known christian theologist believed, but
b) is always ready to swallow the entirety of nonsensical detail of the Christian doctrine (which Aquinas obv takes for granted)
lol that guys using the example of a preacher who dismisses darwinism with a condescending attitude as the kind of reasoning dawkins employs, read it again please. This thread is pissing me off.
You're right about this, I took the "You’ve spent years criticizing creationists and Intelligent Design theorists for not doing their homework before attacking Darwinism"
line out of context,sorry. I still can't see how Aquinas and evolution can go hand in hand though
new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...
I'm just gonna say that even though god might exist, if he is truthfully omniponent and omnisapient he would be an asshole in creating a world where smart people have it harder than retards to believe in him, and then judge them for that.
What I find mind baffling is the amount of people that blindly believe in stuff which has no REAL backup, and worse, people who identify this bull of crap and don't say anything to "be respectful", or to make money in the case of TV; particularly, every morning program here has a fucking hour of a guy talking about astrology, and everyone agreeing with him, and by everyone I mean legit TV hosts, which I'm sure know the guy is just spilling crap but they are inflating him for ratings.
Also, I've been called rude multiple times on family lunches because the mother of my brother's wife (age 55 or smth) has multiple times lectured me on how X or Y happened in my life because stars or something said it, to which I've replied that "that's prolly not truth as there is no real evidence to backup astrology". I don't mind believing that crap, but I'm really pissed when she tries to pass those false premises to my nephews, or impose them on me.
On January 12 2012 23:27 Stroggoz wrote:
well a lot of pretty intelligent people in the world have a similar opinion as silver, and their opinions are based off facts.
So religious people are generally stupid and atheists are smart cuz they has the belief in dem facts? No, the belief in something other than atheism has no link with diminished intelligence whatsoever.
It's the unimaginative self-righteousness or indignation that's really annoying - from both sides. Each can be as dogmatic as the other. And this idea that religion is the cancer of the world and the only enemy Man has got to get rid of in order to recover some kind of utopia, and that it's some kind of duty of yours to discredit it at every turn is horribly misguided, arrogant, and comes from a clear misunderstanding of human nature. An evolutionary biologist like Dawkins is intelligent, yes, but also very limited in his understanding of the psyche and he's, like everyone else, harboring prejudices. The first part of discussing these issues seriously is to first be humble and acknowledge that we are just animals making sounds with our mouths - we don't know as much as we pretend to.
Vaihinger said that mankind is a species of monkey suffering from megalomania, which strikes me as a very accurate way to put it. Since reality cannot be truly known (Kant), human beings construct systems of thought to satisfy their needs and then assume that actuality agrees with their constructions; i.e., people act "as if" the real were what they assume it to be, and possessed by a belief try to pass it on to others. Someone not eager to pass on his beliefs to others is alien to this Earth. These assumptions rule both science and religion - but at least some religions seek to establish direct contact with the real, or the Noumenon, whereas science is limited to observations of phenomena. Why couldn't there be truth in religious experiences, nay, more truth than in collecting data from observed phenomenon? I think this is something many atheists don't want to wrestle with, they just want to dismiss it and align themselves fully with science. The only thing we can say about science is that the process is useful when we see it as a progression where the ultimate goal is being less wrong, rather than as a collection of truths. And if it was sufficient and we truly could be aligning ourselves with it fully, and be "believers of science", we wouldn't need philosophy to give us our ethics, something that science cannot do, since you can never get an ought from an is. When Einstein said that "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" he was right, in my eyes, because both have their place and "these conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors." You might just want to replace 'religion' with 'philosophy'. Part of the problem is that there needs to be a discarding of the religious dogmas and being more curious about the symbolism and the metaphors found in religion, rather than just dismiss it altogether.
And I thought the OP video sucked. Couldn't finish it.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Last edit: 13/01/2012 10:12
1
Jas0n United States. Jan 13 2012 10:21. Posts 1866
On January 12 2012 15:51 El_Tanque wrote:
Saw a very interesting video on YouTube today, and it got me thinking about how much people hate religion. I feel mostly the same way this kid does in the video, and was wondering about LP's thoughts. It's about 4 minutes long, has a great story, and for how much I hate poetry, shit's good just on an artistic level, so if you have some spare time, discuss http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1IAhDGYlpqY
Can't explain it in words, but I feel he's using a lot of words, emotions and special effects to say absolutely nothing, it's all about crap and poo.
He got sick many views and will now become semi famous, good for him lol.
*Wow, he found out all thiz truth!!*
The rhymes are fancy and it's well rehearsed, with he camera and sound and all that, but the message isn't my cup of tea. And I really take pride in my tea.
On January 13 2012 03:02 SfydjkLm wrote:
i really hate religion bashing on the internet. The hatred the internet dwellers feel towards religion just seems to chop their IQ straight in half.
the argument i most despise is the violence that is blamed on religion. As if something like crusades was spawned by religion and not by the nature of men.
Also quoting Trotsky on religion, or anything really, is a bit like quoting pokerstars press release on how good their new rake system is. Beautiful words perhaps, but devoid of meaning.
I seriously doubt bashing organized religion on the internets can ever be done enough.
When I listen to groups of people (even family) chatting about something ultra stupid like say, advanced astrology, with a serious tone that shows they are certain that what they are talking about is legit and a great subject, I have to count to 10 just to avoid a vicious hyper-aggressive rambling burst that will have absolutely no meaningful effect.
Imagine now raising the stakes so that the ultra stupid discussion involves the meaning of life,what happens after we die, the root of ethics etc and these people show the same level of certainty about their ridiculously detailed mumbo-jumbo beliefs, in essence farting in the face of every struggling thinking man that has ever lived since the beginning of human time. Add the possibility of having an audience around the globe that feels the way you do and you have a perfect recipe for hardcore bashing the shit out of organized religion on teh webz.
Maybe maybe not. The problem is losing your wits about it. Everyone on the internet turns into a rambling 10 year old when the subject is brought up, giggling at every idiotic joke made at expense of religion, and punching each other in the shoulder approvingly while doing it.
And in my opinion theological discussion must occur. Whether you want it or not, religion will stay. But i think there are improvements to be made.
On January 12 2012 15:51 El_Tanque wrote:
Saw a very interesting video on YouTube today, and it got me thinking about how much people hate religion. I feel mostly the same way this kid does in the video, and was wondering about LP's thoughts. It's about 4 minutes long, has a great story, and for how much I hate poetry, shit's good just on an artistic level, so if you have some spare time, discuss http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1IAhDGYlpqY
Can't explain it in words, but I feel he's using a lot of words, emotions and special effects to say absolutely nothing, it's all about crap and poo.
He got sick many views and will now become semi famous, good for him lol.
*Wow, he found out all thiz truth!!*
The rhymes are fancy and it's well rehearsed, with he camera and sound and all that, but the message isn't my cup of tea. And I really take pride in my tea.
how do you contend with mass media seeking out the most stupid, most outrageous people as our role models but not like this?
Love your post. but "IF" there actually was any truth to any of this bullshit, that there was 1 real God in one of the religion's that's been tracked.
There would be 0,0001% chance you'd not be fucked anyway. That's if the info I found about it is true. (That there's been roughly 10.000 different religions).
Although this post is crap, since it doesn't matter. Should all focus on how to enlighten the people who still feel a sense of certainty that it's true, or find a system to abolish it.
(To bad Hitchen died, he was the man to do it lol)
On January 12 2012 23:27 Stroggoz wrote:
well a lot of pretty intelligent people in the world have a similar opinion as silver, and their opinions are based off facts.
So religious people are generally stupid and atheists are smart cuz they has the belief in dem facts? No, the belief in something other than atheism has no link with diminished intelligence whatsoever.
It's the unimaginative self-righteousness or indignation that's really annoying - from both sides. Each can be as dogmatic as the other. And this idea that religion is the cancer of the world and the only enemy Man has got to get rid of in order to recover some kind of utopia, and that it's some kind of duty of yours to discredit it at every turn is horribly misguided, arrogant, and comes from a clear misunderstanding of human nature. An evolutionary biologist like Dawkins is intelligent, yes, but also very limited in his understanding of the psyche and he's, like everyone else, harboring prejudices. The first part of discussing these issues seriously is to first be humble and acknowledge that we are just animals making sounds with our mouths - we don't know as much as we pretend to.
Vaihinger said that mankind is a species of monkey suffering from megalomania, which strikes me as a very accurate way to put it. Since reality cannot be truly known (Kant), human beings construct systems of thought to satisfy their needs and then assume that actuality agrees with their constructions; i.e., people act "as if" the real were what they assume it to be, and possessed by a belief try to pass it on to others. Someone not eager to pass on his beliefs to others is alien to this Earth. These assumptions rule both science and religion - but at least some religions seek to establish direct contact with the real, or the Noumenon, whereas science is limited to observations of phenomena. Why couldn't there be truth in religious experiences, nay, more truth than in collecting data from observed phenomenon? I think this is something many atheists don't want to wrestle with, they just want to dismiss it and align themselves fully with science. The only thing we can say about science is that the process is useful when we see it as a progression where the ultimate goal is being less wrong, rather than as a collection of truths. And if it was sufficient and we truly could be aligning ourselves with it fully, and be "believers of science", we wouldn't need philosophy to give us our ethics, something that science cannot do, since you can never get an ought from an is. When Einstein said that "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" he was right, in my eyes, because both have their place and "these conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors." You might just want to replace 'religion' with 'philosophy'. Part of the problem is that there needs to be a discarding of the religious dogmas and being more curious about the symbolism and the metaphors found in religion, rather than just dismiss it altogether.
And I thought the OP video sucked. Couldn't finish it.
I agree with you a lot, just a couple pointers
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. ... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition."
-Albert Einstein
That quote you used of Einstein is either not true or needs context, I think I remember the letter in which it was used, not completely sure but will look into it when I have the time. That said Einstein did hate being called an atheist, that is because that word is poor to define most "atheists" believes, the problem here is definitions, I can tell you with almost 100% certainty that there is no Christian or Muslim God, but my believes are that it's plausible that something/someone started this universe, still doesn't help our cause because then who started the starters? it's pointless and theres just no answer so for now we just stay with "agnostic atheist" which means we don't/can't know right now, kinda like this:
in G. S. Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great, Einstein explained:
I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things.[6]
Anyway the problem here is with organized religion, not with beliefs about what's real and the meaning of life and such, as we know nothing of it, I could tell you nothing of it.
And also you might want to check out Sam Harris on how science can give us ethics and morals, he also has a book on it called The Moral Landscape, not saying I 100% agree with him but can't hurt to hear his arguments, he's one of my favorite lecturers because he keeps things as simple as possible and doesn't really try to confuse the audience so that they just have to agree with him like so many other lecturers do.
bitte bitte bitte bitte bitte bitte
1
zulu_nation8 United States. Jan 13 2012 14:35. Posts 1929
why would you want to get your ethics and morals from science lol
Contact Users: 608 Active, 0 Logged in - Time: 08:13
,
,
,
,
,
,
