-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Richard Dawkins: Attention Governor Perry: Evolution is a fact
- Thread starter speculawyer
- Start date
- Status
soul creator
Member
F#A#Oo said:
He's god, all powerful creator of the universe. I'm sure he knows how. He could teleport right next to me after I type this reply, and that would be pretty damn convincing.
edit: saw your other replies. How convenient!
I always wondered why the "inspired words" of any of the holy books were so comically non-specific when it came to prophecy. Why doesn't God just tell people what he means instead of making hilariously interpretive verse where everyone has a different idea of what it means and it's essentially as useful as Nostradamus' crap?
God could just be like "you know in the year 2012, a country called 'United States of America' across the sea will go to war with a country called 'China' and World War III will begin. And in the 2018, the Chinese will be victorious and great tribulations will occur. Also, Human Augmentation will start up in 2026 and there will be a great debate over regulations. So sayeth the Lord."
No instead it's THE BEAST WITH THREE HEADS FACES THE KING OF THE NORTH AND FIVE MOUTHS OPEN POURING OUT THE HOLY LIGHTS OF ENDLESS DEATH
I'm just joking. I don't actually wonder why this is. I know why it is - because it's made up bullshit.
God could just be like "you know in the year 2012, a country called 'United States of America' across the sea will go to war with a country called 'China' and World War III will begin. And in the 2018, the Chinese will be victorious and great tribulations will occur. Also, Human Augmentation will start up in 2026 and there will be a great debate over regulations. So sayeth the Lord."
No instead it's THE BEAST WITH THREE HEADS FACES THE KING OF THE NORTH AND FIVE MOUTHS OPEN POURING OUT THE HOLY LIGHTS OF ENDLESS DEATH
I'm just joking. I don't actually wonder why this is. I know why it is - because it's made up bullshit.
Deadly Cyclone
Pride of Iowa State
SlipperySlope said:
SlipperySlope
Member
(09-02-2011, 12:34 AM)
Amir0x said:
Who are you lumping me in with?
My answer wasn't justification it was a fact of the situation. God isn't straight forward, would you like to argue with the contradiction abound in the bible it is. How about having to know when things are literal or metaphorical. Again I only claimed god wasn't straight forward and it be hard to argue otherwise. In no way was justifiying or claiming god supports evolution.
Before you go sippin more of that hatorade making you quick on the gun chill out.
LCGeek said:
You don't understand. It's inherently funny and that's why I'm laughing.
The question we're asking literally amounts to "why doesn't God just say what he means?" and your response is "God isn't straightforward". That's not an answer. That's just affirming what we already know, that these people's Flying Spaghetti Monster is an inconsistent, wanky bitch who can't even tell prophecy with any effectiveness. The question is why would any omnipotent/omniscient God be that goddamn retarded in dishing out relevant information which, we are led to believe, means our life if we get it wrong?
Your response is not the answer, it's a reaffirmation of what we already know about his fictional ass.
Amir0x said:
Different ways of seeing shit. You already have a certain view point so I took the question as very rhetorical or someone trolling.
As for fiction god isn't fiction god is enslavement and business first and foremost. The drivel plebs are giving are nothing more propaganda meant to entice those dumb enough to fall for it.
soul creator said:
For you it's convenient...and thats fine.
Belief in god has never hinged though on physical proof (is this also convenient?)...it deals with philosophical and logical proofs. People come to theism or even deism because they've been won over by a heart and mind/reason arguement.
I know I certainly didn't see any physical proof when I went through my eventual conversion from atheism to Islam...I don't know if the deistic view counts such as observing things in nature...I would still put that in the "logic" field. Take Antony Flew for example who found it quite hard to hold onto his atheism and eventually moved over to deism or a designer. He didn't see any physical evidence but logically he see's a designer in nature.
It's certainly interesting...to see how different people interpret the world around us...and if anything that's what I take away from these debates and discussions...
Crag Dweller
aka kindbudmaster
F#A#Oo said:For you it's convenient...and thats fine.
Belief in god has never hinged though on physical proof (is this also convenient?)...it deals with philosophical and logical proofs. People come to theism or even deism because they've been won over by a heart and mind/reason arguement.
I know I certainly didn't see any physical proof when I went through my eventual conversion from atheism to Islam...I don't know if the deistic view counts such as observing things in nature...I would still put that in the "logic" field. Take Antony Flew for example who found it quite hard to hold onto his atheism and eventually moved over to deism or a designer. He didn't see any physical evidence but logically he see's a designer in nature.
It's certainly interesting...to see how different people interpret the world around us...and if anything that's what I take away from these debates and discussions...
In your opinion, why do you think god choose to interact with people the same way that all the false gods before him choose to? i.e. relying on faith instead of physical proof of his existence? We all know why all the false gods rely on faith is because they aren't real. Why did god choose to mimic how false gods are presented to the populous?
Amir0x said:
I was trying to ignore you to avoid this earlier (hence why I never responded to your last post directed at me) as in every debate I've ever had or seen you have (personally), I've come to realise the kind of animosity and aggression the opponent can expect from you, but I just have to post now.
Amir0x, your posts are getting more and more insensitive and distasteful. I don't think I've ever seen anyone hold as much hatred or grudge for religion or religious people on these forums as to consistently putting up such an attack of constant mockery and vilification.
Then again, you have this sort of often rude tact of debating all things. Not just religion. You seriously need to just calm the fuck down. It's ok to just back down and not be so rude and insensitive at times. Honestly, it's almost like you have some seriously deep rooted issues and let it all out on these forums or something. I know you'll probably spin this back on me, saying it's ironic etc etc, but honestly, the reason I bailed out earlier is because I didn't want to fall idle to your level of debating on this, and feared I would. Learn some etiquette and constraint man, seriously. Just think twice before posting and know you might be offending hundreds, potentially thousands of people with your barrage of hatred, mockery and aggression on the subject.
For the record, my take on things not being so obvious religious scriptures wise (though some things certainly are) is that ultimately this life is a test. If teachings were black and white, and so obvious, as was the notion of God himself, then nobody would be truly tested. If God came down tomorrow and proved definitively to everyone his existence, then near enough everyone would follow him soon after and essentially there is no true personal test of faith. As is, through our own efforts, hard work and intent we are meant to research religion and gain knowledge, not just on God or religion, but all things. That is the only way you can truly appreciate the tests at hand and one's faith itself.
Anyway, that's it from me...apologies if I've caused you offence in my openness, just wanted to get it off my chest so you knew.
.
He does. If I'm not mistaken, the Bible pinpointed stuff on occasion (& it didn't work for faith building even internally) and mentioned some nations and a leader or two by name but the standard line goes something like "LOL, there's obviously a catch since prophecy is actually impossible"Amir0x said:
It's the only reason Daniel & Isaiah are questioned to begin with where he does describe the actions of the symbolic language. Besides, there's not much point in griping about a device that is used across all Scripture all the time- OT & NT. That just seems to tell me that ones who hate symbolic language don't like the Bible which makes sense considering they dislike the remain 80% of it.
It mirrors the use of symbolisms throughout literature including up to our day. It's the norm in all but bad literature and comic books. More importantly, if no one ever understood a lick of Revelation, it would not hinder them from being worshippers or not (Considering that Revelation was written on the downward slope of Christianity's early rise and Isaiah was written to an already disobedient nation).
If Christianity was all about prophecy (It is definitely not imo), then everybody would basically be doubting the prophecy or focusing on it- Just like doomsdayers and skeptics do now. Armageddon has never and will never be the focus of Christianity which is why, Biblically, ones will still be worshipping after it happens.
If it takes the date of the end of the world as we know it to make you a believer, you're possibly doing it wrong.
Crag Dweller said:
Why is that a dilemma? Why does there need to be a physical proof? It is not gods job to make himself aware to you...it is your responsibility to seek and aquire knowledge as to your existence and that of a creator.
the tl;dr is you should be thankful for your existence as you have been given the privilege to exist.
Other gods have gone out of existence or become myths etc and above all they were found later to be all man made. As to how one determines the one true path...I think it can be done the same way anyone comes to any conclusion to anything in their life...
We have a whole load of positions to take on the existence of god or no god...but ultimately its you who has to do the work and what ever conclusion you come to is a personal one to you. It is your life, your journey.
nib95 said:
Mocking a fake God is not insensitive. If you think it is, it's because you believe in a fake God. I'd no more be sensitive to that fact that you believe in fairies or unicorns - there's the exact same amount of proof (zero). If you believe in absurd shit, people are going to act like it's absurd. You better bail out now because that's just the way I am (hurr) - I won't sugarcoat shit because you're going to cry that somebody's insulting your magical fairydust queen.
So move on like you originally intended. Shelter yourself behind years of self-delusion. This is precisely what people talk about when it comes to religious debate. Religious individuals think they have a right to special protection from criticism because it's deeply held as true in their minds. So deeply that they believe shitting on religion = insulting themselves personally.
But sorry, any hypothesis for creation is going to be held up to the scrutiny and rigors of the scientific community, and if you know anything about how that works out, I'll spell it out for you: I'm playing SOFTBALL with you guys. If you think it's too rude for you then you need to back out and go play in fields where your own people will play self-congratulate as they postulate a never ending string of more absurd theories without evidence.
nib95 said:
That's a shame that you really want to go through life thinking a celestial dinosaur is watching your every move, so jealous and love-starved is he that without your endless devotion he'll write you out of the book of life. That a God whose idea of paying the wages of sin is to sacrifice himself as his son in a brutal torturous way, as if somehow getting himself killed is the ultimate sacrifice for sins we committed. Why not just, ya know, forgive us? He's God. But no...too easy. It's a test. What is God trying to prove? And why do we gotta prove shit to God?
Listen, what I'm saying is you're free to believe whatever absolutely hilarious bullshit you want to. And I'm free to call you out on your irrational garbage with all the strength of my convictions. But please don't take it personally. You're actually real. Your God isn't. It's religion I'm mocking. I only feel pity for those who can't break free of the delusion.
SolidusDave
Member
F#A#Oo said:
Does not compute. All gods (and everything related to them) are man-made. We don't have any other sources than the delusions/thoughts of some dead people with a very limited knowledge about their world. If it was possible to ask the followers of ancient religions how they feel about their beliefs being fake, they would ignore you just like you do now (well, maybe they would kill you, too).
Same thing with the religions of today, kinda ignorant to assume that only your path is the true one and everyone else is doing it wrong and will end up in hell or whatever (while they will think exactly the same about you).
I don't really intend to attack anyone's beliefs here, but for me it's always just baffling how one can apply the same logic so selectively.
In another thousand years your religion may have turned into a myth just like all the others before, but your reasoning turns from logic/what history thought us to just knowing/feeling/believing that it's the true path.
Crag Dweller
aka kindbudmaster
F#A#Oo said:
Thanks for you thoughts on the subject.
Shogmaster
Member
I have the weirdest boner right now...Amir0x said:
Do you know what I'm going to tackle it actually.
Firstly, it's not that religious people necessarily believe they should be offered some sort of special protection from criticism. It's because as decent human beings, we try not to outright aggressively attack, mock, insult (etc) the (generally harmless) opinions of billions of people. Opinions that at the heart (belief in a God/creator) cannot be proven wrong.
Because that's just it....this isn't a belief in Unicorns or what not, it's a belief in all all powerful creator, a belief that BILLIONS of people have. It is simple human etiquette and good morals to try to tackle harmless opposing opinions with at least some tact, humility and respect.
It's not because they are religious that they deserve any more respect or protection from criticism, no, it's because they are fellow man. fellow Human beings. So what if they have differing opinions? It does not give you the right to mock them, or their beliefs. That is a cowardly, insensitive, immoral and offensive thing to do.
Millions of of people disagree about millions of things. You attack users opinions of Heavy Rain (the way you did me, calling me all manner of things) the same way you attack opinions or beliefs of God. That just makes you a bad person Amir0x. You're just an aggressive, rude and insensitive person/poster by nature.
You lie, you attack, you insult, you demean. These are not qualities you should be proud of. And I promise you, you being a atheist doesn't change that.
You seem to have little to no remorse for what fellow posters may feel or believe. You hold yourself at an un-deserved level of importance. A huge superiority complex argued with great condescension.
I know you've had a huge array of personal problems in your life. But in the kindest way possible Ami....instead of pointing fingers every where else....perhaps some or many of the problems lie within yourself? Just think about it dude....You just need to learn a little bit more tact, restraint and general etiquette. I know my post may offend you, I honestly don't know how else to put it. I'm trying in the politest most reasonable way possible. But I think if you worked on these things, you'd find things would improve elsewhere too. ..just chill out a bit dude....
.
Firstly, it's not that religious people necessarily believe they should be offered some sort of special protection from criticism. It's because as decent human beings, we try not to outright aggressively attack, mock, insult (etc) the (generally harmless) opinions of billions of people. Opinions that at the heart (belief in a God/creator) cannot be proven wrong.
Because that's just it....this isn't a belief in Unicorns or what not, it's a belief in all all powerful creator, a belief that BILLIONS of people have. It is simple human etiquette and good morals to try to tackle harmless opposing opinions with at least some tact, humility and respect.
It's not because they are religious that they deserve any more respect or protection from criticism, no, it's because they are fellow man. fellow Human beings. So what if they have differing opinions? It does not give you the right to mock them, or their beliefs. That is a cowardly, insensitive, immoral and offensive thing to do.
Millions of of people disagree about millions of things. You attack users opinions of Heavy Rain (the way you did me, calling me all manner of things) the same way you attack opinions or beliefs of God. That just makes you a bad person Amir0x. You're just an aggressive, rude and insensitive person/poster by nature.
You lie, you attack, you insult, you demean. These are not qualities you should be proud of. And I promise you, you being a atheist doesn't change that.
You seem to have little to no remorse for what fellow posters may feel or believe. You hold yourself at an un-deserved level of importance. A huge superiority complex argued with great condescension.
I know you've had a huge array of personal problems in your life. But in the kindest way possible Ami....instead of pointing fingers every where else....perhaps some or many of the problems lie within yourself? Just think about it dude....You just need to learn a little bit more tact, restraint and general etiquette. I know my post may offend you, I honestly don't know how else to put it. I'm trying in the politest most reasonable way possible. But I think if you worked on these things, you'd find things would improve elsewhere too. ..just chill out a bit dude....
.
Shogmaster
Member
Insensitive? Maybe. Offensive? Probably. Cowardly and immoral? Get the fuck outta here with that BS...nib95 said:
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
I'm an atheist, but I VERY rarely ever confront people over religious beliefs. People hold them deeply and it is mean to attack their beliefs if they aren't affecting you at the time.nib95 said:
But, then again, this is a forum. These things have to be expected on some level. :lol
Not that you're wrong for defending yourself.
jay said:
The test is more for us than him. And ultimately, omniscient or not, he's still given us free will. The point is, it is our decision to have faith, to do right or wrong etc. Him having the ability to know what we may or may not do is irrelevant to the our own tests at hand.
BobsRevenge said:
I agree. I'm not singling just atheists here mind. Religious people attacking atheists for their beliefs, or anyone aggressively or insensitively attacking otherwise harmless opinions really. It's just wrong.
I respect those of you, on both sides of the fence (religious and non-religious) showing restraint and respect. That humility is infinitely more commendable than the differences in belief themselves.
I do agree as this is an open discussion forum, to a degree it is to be expected. But notice I only singled Amir0x out. I've never called anyone out on these forums in the way I have him just now. I've never even felt the need to, despite posting in countless similar threads. I've just never witnessed anyone so aggressively or insensitively argue the way Amir0x does, which is the only reason I even felt compelled to say anything.
So yes, the point at the heart of my post above was not specific to atheists and I apologise if anyone felt that way. The point at it's core is really intended for anyone who disagree's with anyone else's otherwise harmless beliefs or opinions in general.
.
nib95 said:
Like I said before, it's up to you to get personally insulted. Religion is not you, it's an institution deserving of no greater protection than the belief in fairies or unicorns. If you think it's getting "personal" or "heated" it's because you literally interpret belief in God as some sort of extension of your self, a definition of what it means to be alive. And that's too bad. But because of what religion actually is - a series of dangerous institutions critically threatening societies welfare based on the belief of things as crazy as Mr. Sandman - it specifically will get no special protection from the critical eye of rational, reasoned individuals. In the scientific community, the peer review process is often so harsh that some scientists have been criticized to the detriment of their entire career. Scathing, life-destroying critiques which are literally ten fold worse than anything I've said about something that is fake (God), and these guys are generally arguing about theories involving things which are real! Some scientists have been driven to suicide because of how harsh their theories have been received!
Why, again, should religion get special protection?
Ah, you answered:
nib95 said:
The belief in a fake God is not even remotely "generally harmless." We've established this hundreds of times in this topic alone. Repeating it like a mantra does not make it true.
And although at the moment we cannot prove the IDEA of God wrong, we can certainly prove him to be immensely improbable, so improbable as to making belief in him pointless. And to bring it a step further, we can demonstratively prove all the holy books wrong based on historical, scientific and logical evidence. So if you're not getting your idea of God from one of the holy books and you're just clinging to the vague idea of a "creator", it's even more pointless to insert yourselves into these discussions so emotionally.
nib95 said:
A billion people believing in unicorns no less makes the position false, or less deserving of scorn. And it's not harmless, as established.
nib95 said:
Because like Heavy Rain, the Bible is filled with terrible writing that only someone who turns off their brain could possibly love. True fact.
nib95 said:
Again, religion is not you. Religion deserves no special protection, it will receive no special protection. Just like any hypothesis for creation, it must undergo the rigors of scientific inquiry and if it cannot stand up to it, it must be toppled. Period. There's no sensitivity that comes into play. No other thought at all, it's a completely robot process. It needs to be done because believing it fake shit is unhealthy in modern society.
Also, I don't have a huge array of personal problems. My life is fantastic. Got a great upper middle class job, a fiancee, a great hobby I love and enjoy, and I greatly endorse getting fucked up because it's hella fun. Everybody has issues and mine are relatively minor compared to so many people I know. I would not trade my life for anyone's.
But, even if I did have huge personal problems in life, what does this mean? If I believe in bullshit, I want people to TELL ME I believe in bullshit. That's exactly how I want to be treated. And I believe deeply in "Treat others how you want to be treated." I afford you the exact same treatment I want of my own personally outrageous beliefs that don't hold up to scientific scrutiny.
Trust me, your posts don't offend me. It's the sad reflex of a man doggedly unable to let go of his indoctrination. And like I said, I've been there. I only feel pity.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
nib95: You may feel that Amir0x is being insensitive, and perhaps he is a bit boorish in the way that he makes his argument. But his basic tenet - that there is absolutely NO evidence for God or any sort of intelligent creator, thus putting belief in such a thing on the same level as belief in unicorns or fairies or mermaids or any other widely-acknowledged-as-mythical creature - is absolutely correct. The thing that you don't seem to understand, that many in all fields have trouble understanding, is that mocking a belief/idea and mocking a person is absolutely not the same thing. I'm sorry, but I absolute, 100% agree that religion is an absolutely ridiculous human construct that it is utterly irrational to believe in due to the simple lack of evidence that any such thing is or ever has been true. I think this is especially true of organized religion that seeks to regulate and conform human behavior to a single mold, as I believe that aspect clearly indicts religion as yet another tool to control the behavior of the masses and to stifle individuality. Yet, despite the fact that it IS a wholly irrational thing to believe in religion, as irrational as a belief in any unproven bit of human mythos, be it the Greek gods of the past or the leprechauns and unicorns of fantasy, I DO understand why people believe in it; it's indefensible from a scientific/empirical perspective, but given the vastness of the universe and our own insignificance weighed against cosmic-scale changes that happen everyday, there is a certain psychological rationality in trying to give our everyday lives weight and importance.
And whatever you think of Amir0x, he IS consistent in his denigration of scientifically irrational beliefs; he denudes people who believe in crazy theories about aliens and Bigfoot and advanced ancient technology as readily as those who believe in religion, for all are founded on the same basis of irrationality. The only difference between religion and those beliefs is that religion is older, but it simply has done nothing to deserve any more respect than a belief in leprechauns; both are founded on the same bedrock of myth.
And whatever you think of Amir0x, he IS consistent in his denigration of scientifically irrational beliefs; he denudes people who believe in crazy theories about aliens and Bigfoot and advanced ancient technology as readily as those who believe in religion, for all are founded on the same basis of irrationality. The only difference between religion and those beliefs is that religion is older, but it simply has done nothing to deserve any more respect than a belief in leprechauns; both are founded on the same bedrock of myth.
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
Yup. It's not personal. I just think the taking to task of irrational ideas is a necessary, important thing for rational men to do. And since ideas are not people, you can choose to be offended by association... but it's squarely on you for doing so.
Crag Dweller
aka kindbudmaster
nib95 said:
What are your views on Scientology? How does your faith in your god influence your thoughts on the people that believe in a relativity new religion?
Count Dookkake
Member
nib95 said:
That's not true. We all have hope that you will one day read what Amirox has written rather than what you imagine Amirox has written.
reggie said:
It was intentional. To show how Amir0x's mind works. I was hoping he'd respond and wanted it out there to highlight the fact that this tact of his is not subject to religion or simply what he deems as fantastical beliefs. He does this with all opinions that disagree with his own.
Case in point.
Amir0x said:
He's essentially insulted anyone who has an opposing opinion to his in loving the Bible or Heavy Rain (referring to them as someone who must have switched off their brain) and then deems it as fact.
This is not someone who's opinions I would personally take with little more than a grain of salt. To me he is no different to the rude, aggressive and overtly loud religious zealots who are always shouting down or mocking opposing beliefs/opinions.
.
state-of-the-art
Member
I keep seeing God referred to as him. Why is God a dude? Since we anthropomorphize him, does that mean we assume he has all the constituent parts of male anatomy? Like a great celestial wang and divine nuts?
Count Dookkake
Member
state-of-the-art said:
And is the divine rod cut or uncut?
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
nib95 said:
Basically what you're saying is that you don't like that Amir0x argues his beliefs forcefully and without giving quarter. I disagree with him often, especially with regard to art-related matters, but I respect that he's somebody who actually argues with conviction and challenges people to prove him wrong, rather than resorting to the namby-pamby "All views are exactly equal" BS that infests so many parts of the internet. Yes, all opinions ARE opinions, but not all opinions carry equal weight. In this case, you've said that religion should be respected because people believe it, but if people get offended that their religion is being called out as a sham, that's their fault, not the fault of the person calling it out. I have a problem with the capital-A atheist movement in that I think strident atheism is ultimately more likely to do more harm than good in terms of making the world more irreligious, but the fault lies in the method of argument, not the arguments themselves, which are solid.
Basically, you've resorted to attacking Amir0x himself - BTW, how Amir0x regularly argues is immaterial to this thread and shows that you see that you have no argumentative ground to stand on - as well as the method of the argument, rather than the argument itself.
state-of-the-art
Member
Count Dookkake said:
Are we talking about the Jewish Abrahamic God still? Because I think that would be obvious. But what is not obvious is how the great Bar Mitzvah at the dawn of time happened.
nib95 said:
YOU do these things.
You lie as much as you can to negatively portray other people you disagree with. You've been called out several times on your claims about how poor Dawkins' character is...yet you've been deliberately pretending not to see the links to the debates where he's conducted himself with dignity and respect.
You are the very person you criticize. Amirox is an extremely angry person, but you are guilty of the same things you attack him for.
TestOfTide
Banned
nib95, if the conversation you were having with Amirox were occurring in person, you may or may not have a point.
However, this is the internet, where you are never forced to listen to anyone. You don't like what someone says, put them on ignore. You can't complain about someone elses insensitivity just because you have too much pride to let someone else have to last word.
And for people who study science, a lack of any measurable, testable, repeatable evidence of something existing is strong evidence it does not exist until there is actual evidence for the former. It's what many of the less math-centric sciences require as a principle.
However, this is the internet, where you are never forced to listen to anyone. You don't like what someone says, put them on ignore. You can't complain about someone elses insensitivity just because you have too much pride to let someone else have to last word.
And for people who study science, a lack of any measurable, testable, repeatable evidence of something existing is strong evidence it does not exist until there is actual evidence for the former. It's what many of the less math-centric sciences require as a principle.
jaxword said:
I'm not angry! I have a huge smile on my face. I mean, I know I can be crude and shit, but I love these discussions. Especially THESE discussions. It really is fascinating to me the way people arbitrarily decide something is ok to ridicule, and something else is not ok to ridicule. That's basically what people like nib95 do... they decide that X is ok because Y amount of people believe in it (and they do too, of course, can't leave that out), but if you made fun of A which is equally insane, they'd not say a thing about it.
Just because there aren't a billion people worshipping Thor anymore doesn't mean the idea of Thor isn't just as plausible as the idea of God. And pointing this out is not insensitive. It's a fact. And facts have no sensitivity.
I appreciate the level of respect you have shown others in this argument. It's a level that I honestly do not see in my daily life living in the southern United States. However, his comments, from a purely objective standpoint, are not so hard to believe.nib95 said:
I understand why you would take his statements so personally, I really do, but it is not a personal attack on you. From the viewpoint of someone who views religion as myth and nothing more, someone literally believing in it is just as absurd as someone believing that 2 + 2 = 5. It's completely false and the idea that someone could believe it is just absurd.
There's a good reason why debates like these never get anywhere and often leave people drained and angry. One side believes with all their heart that something is so real and so important, and the other side considers it silly non-sense. Then to top it all off the subject is such that it cannot be proven, so there will never be any end to it.
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
Firstly, there is no way you can actually say that religion is a sham. Maybe elements of loose man written stories or whatever, or accounts from ordinary people, some not even meant to be taken as literal, but there is no proof that God exists let alone that he doesn't. You can have a believe in scientific theories that override what religion teaches, but I doubt you have the knowledge to comprehend or prove those theories. As we all know, such theories change all the time. Theories on Black Matter were proven wrong just recently after new discoveries.
And yes, I am disagreeing with overtly aggressive, rude or insensitive arguing. If someone has a harmless opinion or belief, then what respectable person would consistently bash those beliefs? Mocking them, insulting them and indirectly insulting me for having them.
Ami argued earlier that there is no good in religion, that it is all poison. And that it is not harmless which somehow gave some entitlement to bash the hell out of my belief in it (I am not a Christian mind so half the stuff he said doesn't even relate, there is a reason I chose Islam over Christianity). To me that kind of thinking in itself is poisonous. I am religious, and as far as I can tell, religion has never compelled me to do harm on to anyone. In-fact, if I had properly followed my religion, I'd have even more reason to do less harm, more charity (I already do a fair bit), be more respectful to my parents, family, friends, fellow man etc.
And my gripe was with Amir0x's method of delivering his opinions or dealing with opposing one's in this thread, not his beliefs (Atheism) themselves, which is why I debated as much. Essentially I found his method of debating this subject (like most) abhorrent and called him out for it.
Amir0x said:
If you did it that tactfully I'd not have said a word. Instead, for pages and pages it's, all religion is poison, it's always harmful, no good comes of it, God is a retard, an idiot, it's a bullshit laughable mockery and farce that should be mocked, people who love the Bible have their brains switched off etc etc. Heck, I even showed you evidence to prove Religious people were more charitable than non religious people (after you claimed that notion was also just a myth) and you just shunned that down too.
As the examples above show, sometimes the stuff you say is rude, offensive, often false, insulting, insensitive and worse.
.
- Status