Support NeoGAF

[Dice]

I just looked up 'faith' in the dictionary and it's defined as "With religion, a belief that makes you warm and fuzzy inside". Now you're starting to make sense.

It's not about a warm fuzzy feeling, it's about rightness. It's often sharp and cuts to the reality of who I am far more than I'd like. Sometimes it is a happy feeling, other times it's really hard--how I feel has nothing to do with it really, it's just how things ring true.

 

[Zaptruder]

It's not about a warm fuzzy feeling, it's about rightness. It's often sharp and cuts to the reality of who I am far more than I'd like. Sometimes it is a happy feeling, other times it's really hard--how I feel has nothing to do with it really, it's just how things ring true.

Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

In otherwords... a belief that does not have a foundation to it. Do you know what other kinds of things you can believe in when there's no need for a logical foundation?

Ever heard of a self fufilling delusion? Those don't need a foundation to their logic and are perfectly circular and logical within themselves.

 

[Charles]

Don't you guys ever get bored?

 

[Jeffahn]

Religion is great.

Do you feel the urge to molest kids? Do it for your religion!

Blowing-up innocent people on public transport more your thing? Religion has your excuse ready!

Need to lie and cheat to defend your faith? The end justifies the means!

You want to steal to fund your vices and/or lavish lifestyle? That's OK 'coz all will be forgiven in the end!

Want to make God/Jesus/Mary/Moses/Allah/Yebawahana/Kutaragi sound peaceful/loving/compassionate/vengeful/violent? The Bible has a verse you can quote to support your position!

Make it up as you go along -that is afterall what the authors of every 'holy' book did!

...

 

[B-B-Bomba!]

Zap: Mind dumps are all you're gonna get from me on such a weighty subject, considering I'm keeping up with this in an internet cafe, and it's costing me bad. But your hostility has been taken on board. Y'all are just annoyed because I did a good job of trying to kill the entire issue off. Y'all seem to be really enjoying the cut and thrust of heated misinterpretation, whereas it simply tires me.

Macam: Glad to have amused. Naturally, who the hell would I be to sit and come out with an opener like that? Everyone else is giving out their own personal Messiah schtick; I'm giving myself the privilege.

Drinky: Regurgitating dogma? I made it all up! Out of what I wholeheartedly believe ...



The point I was trying to lead you thirsty horses towards, is firstly that every one of us has a relationship with existence of one sort or another - a fact we all recognise, as here we are having a dick-waving contest over whose understanding of it is most complete - and thirdly that there really does exist a unitary, perfect, absolute truth, in whose muddy nether reaches we gaily paddle and splash. There was a second point, but it's special and I'm saving it. This truth, or rather our hunger to inhabit its beauty beyond measure, guides the actions of us all, no matter who we are or on what basis we manage our own existence.

I am not a fence sitter by any means: I am attacking you all, from the ivory tower in which I sit, caressing my rather striking endowment of philosophical wang. I want the prideful atheists to kneel before the certainty of absolute moral compunction, however it is interpreted. I also want the blind believers to renounce the obsolete elements of their faiths (although, like old churches, I recognise and respect their anachronistic beauty, and would preserve them for the sake of history). I want to bring you fucks together, so we can agree on the basics and lose crap like this thread, which is a miniscule appendix on a savage and unnecessary beast.

 

[APF]

Well, I appreciate the personal attack against me, and I also appreciate your ability to jump to one side or the other.

Not every point of difference is a personal attack, even though this is the internet.

As for the "one side or the other" comment...

I've said it before, but you folks have to get over your pathetic binary thinking. I know you're all internet tough guys with a persona you're trying to cultivate, but when every thread descends into an opportunity to blindly, ruthlessly bash, and troll with equal ferocity both the most insignificant of things and the most closely-held parts of what have been unanswerable questions for the entirety of human intellectual existence, you just have to roll your eyes. So I have mixed feelings. So fucking what? Apparently it's ok to be ambivalent about whether something for which there is no proof actually exists, but it's not ok to be ambivalent about whether people with different philosophies should be able--within the fair confines of established government and the law--to make policy decisions informed by their beliefs? Give me a break. Not everyone is into making every discussion topic into a netroots political pointmaking factory. Some people have real opinions that don't solidly fall into one arbitrary "side" or the other.

 

[whytemyke]

Not every point of difference is a personal attack, even though this is the internet.

As for the "one side or the other" comment...

I've said it before, but you folks have to get over your pathetic binary thinking. I know you're all internet tough guys with a persona you're trying to cultivate, but when every thread descends into an opportunity to blindly, ruthlessly bash, and troll with equal ferocity both the most insignificant of things and the most closely-held parts of what have been unanswerable questions for the entirety of human intellectual existence, you just have to roll your eyes. So I have mixed feelings. So fucking what? Apparently it's ok to be ambivalent about whether something for which there is no proof actually exists, but it's not ok to be ambivalent about whether people with different philosophies should be able--within the fair confines of established government and the law--to make policy decisions informed by their beliefs? Give me a break. Not everyone is into making every discussion topic into a netroots political pointmaking factory. Some people have real opinions that don't solidly fall into one arbitrary "side" or the other.

Was this even directed at me? Cuz it sure seems like you're trying to lump me in here with a whole bunch of other people for no good reason at all. If anyone in this argument has been, uh, "ruthlessly bashing" the others beliefs, it's been you doing it to me, saying that what I do is a cop out.

 

[APF]

Was this even directed at me? Cuz it sure seems like you're trying to lump me in here with a whole bunch of other people for no good reason at all. If anyone in this argument has been, uh, "ruthlessly bashing" the others beliefs, it's been you doing it to me, saying that what I do is a cop out.

Did you miss the part where I said, "Not every point of difference is a personal attack" ...? Because I swore that was a direct point I was making to you specifically, after which I broadened the scope of what I was saying in general, to decry the kind of binary-thinking-blindspot you display above, and which you demonstrated when you said I was "jumping" from one "side" to the next. Whatever.

 

[whytemyke]

Did you miss the part where I said, "Not every point of difference is a personal attack" ...? Because I swore that was a direct point I was making to you specifically, after which I broadened the scope of what I was saying in general, to decry the kind of binary-thinking-blindspot you display above, and which you demonstrated when you said I was "jumping" from one "side" to the next. Whatever.

:lol hahaha how can you say I'm the one talking about the 'binary thinking', black and white bullshit when I'm the one telling people not to jump at one side or the other?

Being an Agnostic, IMO, is a cop-out.

and I'm the one thinking in black and white, hm?

 

[APF]

:lol hahaha how can you say I'm the one talking about the 'binary thinking', black and white bullshit when I'm the one telling people not to jump at one side or the other?


and I'm the one thinking in black and white, hm?

I'm sorry, you have no idea what I'm getting at. You think this is some sort of thing where you have to challenge me, whereas I thought I just had to explain myself better. Mhh.

 

[whytemyke]

I'm sorry, you have no idea what I'm getting at. You think this is some sort of thing where you have to challenge me, whereas I thought I just had to explain myself better. Mhh.

Ugh. Ok. I was trying to be nice here and simply reason with you but you seem damned set on playing the Shakespearean tragic figure here and making me the "bad guy", so I'll assist you.
1) If you were really just trying to explain yourself at all in this thread, you wouldn't have come out and slammed agnostics, saying they should take one side or the other.

2) If you really knew what you were talking about, and were set in your belief, you wouldn't have then switched and said that you have no problem with people being ambivalent.

Here's the crux of why you're a fuckwit, or are at least wearing a fuckwit's uniform:

Being an Agnostic, IMO, is a cop-out.

So I have mixed feelings. So fucking what?

Now, try to stop it with this passive agressive elitist bullshit that you're trying to pull here. Nobody was insulting you until you attacked them first, least of all me. Nobody is trying to knock your right to believe anything you want. If you wanna recite prayers in Farsii to the Easter Bunny, more power to you. But don't slam other peoples beliefs when you have no idea what it is that you believe in the first place, as you've displayed so far in this thread.

Now, what's going to get me to stop riding your ass?
1) You shut up and quit arguing in this thread, which I highly doubt will happen.
2) You admit that you probably shouldn't have taken such a hard opinion against agnostics when you yourself admittedly don't know what the fuck you think.
3) Explain this in some way without a) changing topics in mid rant, b) insulting anyone else, passively or otherwise, and c) contradicting things you've already stated in this thread.

Can you do that? Or is that just another example of binary thinking that you're trying to avoid?

 

[Stuggernaut]

My friend at work is always trying to convince me to "believe"

His arguements leave a lot to be desired....for example:

He says by having faith, and believeing, he is ensuring a place in the afterlife of some sort. Where as I am not. BUT...his arguement is "If i'm right, I am happy forever, and you lose...but if you're right, we both just die.". His arguement basically says to me "Believe so you have your bases covered" lol

2nd one...

We talk about evolution, creation, etc....He argues (and this always makes me laugh). "Look how comlex the human eye is...you think that can happen by accident?"

LOL

 

[APF]

Ugh. Ok. I was trying to be nice here and simply reason with you but you seem damned set on playing the Shakespearean tragic figure here and making me the "bad guy", so I'll assist you.

Whatever. I'm honestly bored by being the curmudgeon who assumes the role of dominating dissenting opinion in OT threads though.

1) If you were really just trying to explain yourself at all in this thread, you wouldn't have come out and slammed agnostics, saying they should take one side or the other.

No. I was trying to explain what I was saying to you, in my replies to you, and how I then broadened what I was saying, after replying specifically to you as a person, rather than as someone who was demonstrating a tactic--casting people into "sides"--that I disagreed with. Your point that I'm guilty of this too, because I think proclaimed Agnostics are not being honest with themselves (and that that constitutes a "slam" worthy of your getting all indignant and shit), falls short--because as I said, you can skeptical about a claim still be open to new evidence, all while not being an asshole about your disbelief.

The reality is, our positions are so infinitesimally dissimilar from each other that when you felt you needed to parse me into one binary, obnoxious and intransigent "side" over the other, while flippantly noting my "jumping" from side to side as though that meant something, it magnified the lunacy of using that sort of logic in the first place.

Which is why I said it was silly.

2) If you really knew what you were talking about, and were set in your belief, you wouldn't have then switched and said that you have no problem with people being ambivalent.

You're cherry picking here, and not debating the entirety of what I'm saying.

Here's the crux of why you're a fuckwit, or are at least wearing a fuckwit's uniform:

This is a good opening.

Now, try to stop it with this passive agressive

I've been pretty aggressive aggressive. I have moderate positions, but strong opinions. You can deal.

[...] elitist bullshit that you're trying to pull here. Nobody was insulting you until you attacked them first, least of all me.

I didn't feel I was attacking; if I wanted to attack you personally, I would have. I said I thought a certain position was a cop-out, and then explained my thinking. You attacked me personally in response, then tried to address a straw man.

Nobody is trying to knock your right to believe anything you want. If you wanna recite prayers in Farsii to the Easter Bunny, more power to you. But don't slam other peoples beliefs when you have no idea what it is that you believe in the first place, as you've displayed so far in this thread.

Please.

Now, what's going to get me to stop riding your ass?
1) You shut up and quit arguing in this thread, which I highly doubt will happen.

I don't need to "argue" with you really. You're not giving me anything to think about, you're not challenging anything important I'm saying... I'm not getting what you seem to be getting out of this. I stopped in my previous post, when I said you seemed to feel the need to challenge me, when I thought I just didn't explain what I was saying and why. Then you feel the need to "call me out." Fine, whatever, but you're not dispelling my belief that this is all part of the internet tough-guy charade you want to play.

 

[whytemyke]

If this was part of an internet tough-guy charade, I wouldn't have started off my entire thing in this thread by asking people, nearly pleading with people, to try to understand everyone else's opinion. Don't you think?

 

[terrene]

Lame. The entire quoted bit begs the question, so IMO it's pointless as a read--it's just reasserting an opinion. I read it and ask, so what? This question has literally been asked since man could intellectually reflect upon his environment. Falling back on one of the oldest bits in the book--"why do bad things happen to good people"--as a justification for your belief system (or disbelief, in this case) is fairly mindless at this point and certainly doesn't offer an interesting perspective--just as offering the watchmaker proof as justification for your disbelief in evolution/etc is mindless and insipid. It's the religious/philosophical equivalent to regurgitating talking-points.

The "child rape" example is just an antidote to the Christian belief that, as Bette Midler once sang, "God is watching us from a distance," or that God "has a plan." If you honestly think it's irrelevant, you have a lot to be surprised about. People do believe that they receive good fortune in their waking life on earth by exhibiting piety, that there are guardian angels on their side, and that by prayer they can change the course of events here on earth. There are some very shameful statistics on these beliefs for those who feel like Googling.

I appreciated the article because it's stating many obvious things that need saying. God is *not* watching us, we are *not* protected. I don't agree with their conclusion that because life is unfair, God must not exist (this merely proves that human happiness was not included in the design of creation). But I applaud any effort to de-idiocize the populace.

You should watch the Hallmark channel and get a good sense of what kind of world we live in. You'll see Bush's presidency in a whole new light.

 

[Late Stage Marxist]

Atheist is Deacon's cyber-doppelganger. Deacon and Atheist hold equally fervent, though diametrically opposed beliefs about religion, and both feel compelled to share those beliefs at every possible opportunity. Should an unsuspecting forum member make even a passing comment about faith or spirituality of any flavor, Atheist will descend like one of the Furies, mercilessly hectoring all of the ignorant and delusional believers about the sordid history of the church and the pernicious effects of religion on society. After a few of Atheist’s anti-religious jeremiads most other Warriors will avoid the subject altogether, though Evil Clown may egg him on a little, and Philosopher may amuse himself by pointing out flaws in his reasoning. If a forum has the misfortune of having both Deacon and Atheist as members, the bickering often continues until Nanny or Admin pulls the plug. Bliss Ninny can also sometimes squelch the conversation by saying, “Well, everyone has a right to their [sic] opinion.”

Be he a Baptist, Scientologist or Zoroastrian, in the heat of battle Deacon will call down Divine retribution on all net sinners, and will never miss an opportunity to blather endlessly about his religion. Deacon is fervent and earnest, but seldom contributes anything of interest or substance to the discussion. Occasionally Tireless Rebutter or Philosopher will rouse themselves engage Deacon in battle, but they soon lose interest because of his utter predictability.

Thought these were fitting

More here:

Flame Warriors by Mike Reed

 

[APF]

The "child rape" example is just an antidote to the Christian belief that, as Bette Midler once sang, "God is watching us from a distance," or that God "has a plan." If you honestly think it's irrelevant, you have a lot to be surprised about. People do believe that they receive good fortune in their waking life on earth by exhibiting piety, that there are guardian angels on their side, and that by prayer they can change the course of events here on earth. There are some very shameful statistics on these beliefs for those who feel like Googling.

I appreciated the article because it's stating many obvious things that need saying. God is *not* watching us, we are *not* protected. I don't agree with their conclusion that because life is unfair, God must not exist (this merely proves that human happiness was not included in the design of creation). But I applaud any effort to de-idiocize the populace.

You should watch the Hallmark channel and get a good sense of what kind of world we live in. You'll see Bush's presidency in a whole new light.

OMG, there are religious people in America?! GTFO! Holy shit, my entire paradigm has been shifted!

This was from what, five days ago? Why did you bump this post, just to make a stupid comment that had nothing to do with what I was saying? Are you really that desperate to demonstrate your "deep analysis" of a straw man construction of my words?

 

[terrene]

OMG, there are religious people in America?! GTFO! Holy shit, my entire paradigm has been shifted!

This was from what, five days ago? Why did you bump this post, just to make a stupid comment that had nothing to do with what I was saying? Are you really that desperate to demonstrate your "deep analysis" of a straw man construction of my words?

To accuse one of desperation is rather presumptuous, no? Of course you've said on this thread that the failure to presume is a cop-out, so maybe that's par for the course.

Your loudmouthed posting was really missing the thrust of the original article; I don't care if you find it a straw man or not. Maybe someone who proports to be as intelligent as "above the fray" as you ought to be able to recognize the difference between a post that says "I think what they were trying to say was this, and here's why," and a "desperate attempt to demonstrate [a] "deep analysis"" of your words.

 

[whytemyke]

don't even argue with him, terrene. Trust me, it's not worth it. You'll either say something he'll call stupid or he'll dismiss you as an internet tough guy.

 

[APF]

To accuse one of desperation is rather presumptuous, no?

Oh? The presumption arrives because you bumped this post from ~five days ago to attack a straw man.

Of course you've said on this thread that the failure to presume is a cop-out, so maybe that's par for the course.

? When did I say that? Like whytemyke you appear to just not get what I was trying to say--not that I really want to reenter a debate from almost a week ago--and are defensively attacking a more easily debated straw man. (sorry to use the term again, I know it's annoying)

Your loudmouthed posting was really missing the thrust of the original article;

I gave my opinion that it was question-begging and uninteresting, because it didn't provide an interesting perspective that hasn't been pounded into the dirt by potentially-thousands-of-years of philosophical debate. I took the equivalent of Philo 101 in freshman year of HS. I'm familiar with that argument. I took far more interesting coursework in college, and have read philosophers with real, compelling arguments. I wasn't interested in this article, because even from a "popular" or common standpoint it didn't say anything new, or useful, or take complicated ideas and make them accessible, or most importantly it didn't take its opponent's views seriously (that's my recollection from when I originally read the thing, anyway).

I don't care if you find it a straw man or not.

Why try to argue with me if you're not arguing with what I'm trying to say?

Maybe someone who proports to be as intelligent as "above the fray" as you ought to be able to recognize the difference between a post that says "I think what they were trying to say was this, and here's why," and a "desperate attempt to demonstrate [a] "deep analysis"" of your words.

My point was, your comment didn't address what I was saying; so why tag your comments on to my post? And from four days ago? Why bump this topic to make that reply to me?

don't even argue with him, terrene. Trust me, it's not worth it. You'll either say something he'll call stupid or he'll dismiss you as an internet tough guy.

I think when you "call me out" in order to call me a "fuckwit" and issue silly ultimatums, it's pretty self-evident. Debate with me if you really have a point and an interesting perspective--not because you feel this is some greater political struggle and you feel it's necessary to get some sniping points in.

 

[whytemyke]

see what I mean, terrene?

 

[terrene]

see what I mean, terrene?

I do. Thanks. Back to work for me, then.