Reason's Greetings

[Adam]

The explosion of the internet and advertising mediums have allowed for the increased spread of ideas. People seem to think that others will want to see their ideas. They can't handle when others don't accept their ideas. Drives some nuts.

 

It would be a much better world if people kept their philosophies to themselves unless asked and just lended a helping hand to others when needed. That world used to somewhat exist, but has eroded over the generations.

[Rob's House]

I think that's a stretch. Not entirely inaccurate, since some organizations/beliefs that fall under the umbrella of "liberalism" are (PETA springs most immediately to mind). But I also think that such are considered "liberal" only because "wacko" isn't a politcal belief, and they have to vote in some direction.

The group I think this most applies to is the global warming crowd. It has all the elements. Man comes from some pristine time of innocence, man sins leading to his eventual condemnation, yet with faith (and carbon taxes) there is redemption, but only if he believes (although in this religion it is a collective he rather than the individual). They reject all opposing evidence out of hand as heresy and condemn non-believers as "deniers" so as to associate them with holocaust deniers.

Edited December 22, 2010 by Rob's House

[Gene Frenkle]

Ah...the real crux of the argument. The problem with religion isn't religion per se, its that it lends itself too much to that mentality. Conversely, that mentality is hardly exclusive to religion. Sadly, the irony's lost on Gene.

Politics, religion, sports...pick your team of choice. The mentality is very apparent to me as a deeply-ingrained part of human nature.

 

The difference with regard to religion is, was and always will be that it is based on nothing but what some dudes made up and the masses buy into on faith alone.

 

The group I think this most applies to is the global warming crowd. It has all the elements. Man comes from some pristine time of innocence, man sins leading to his eventual condemnation, yet with faith (and carbon taxes) there is redemption, but only if he believes (although in this religion it is a collective he rather than the individual). They reject all opposing evidence out of hand as heresy and condemn non-believers as "deniers" so as to associate them with holocaust deniers.

You could say that about zealots on both sides of that particular debate, which is why I think it is better to wait and let the science bear out. God has virtually no chance of the same definitive outcome.

Edited December 22, 2010 by Gene Frenkle

[RkFast]

Politics, religion, sports...pick your team of choice. The mentality is very apparent to me as a deeply-ingrained part of human nature.

 

The difference with regard to religion is, was and always will be that it is based on nothing but what some dudes made up and the masses buy into on faith alone.

 

 

You could say that about zealots on both sides of that particular debate, which is why I think it is better to wait and let the science bear out. God has virtually no chance of the same definitive outcome.

 

Well, if its a deeply ingrained part of human nature, why do you condemn one group for showing it?

 

You could say that about zealots on both sides of that particular debate, which is why I think it is better to wait and let the science bear out. God has virtually no chance of the same definitive outcome.

 

See, this is why youre annoying. Im devoutly faithful, but I can at least set at least some part of my conscience to the side to say "what if there is no God?" Even though Im faithful, I at least question. You seem incapable of that. For you, its absolute. To you there is no God, PERIOD and the faithful are ALL crazy whackos and you refuse to even question or challenge your reasoning on the issue. Youre a Holy Warrior. A Jihadist. But in reverse. For someone who claims to be enlightened to have this though process is kind of weird. To have it yet condemn others who also have it is hypocritical.

Edited December 22, 2010 by RkFast

[Gene Frenkle]

Well, if its a deeply ingrained part of human nature, why do you condemn one group for showing it?

Because it's the result of an evolutionary mechanism that is no longer critical to human survival. It's time to show some backbone and capacity for critical thought before some whack job blows up something really big and important for no good reason, IMO.

[Gene Frenkle]

See, this is why youre annoying. Im devoutly faithful, but I can at least set at least some part of my conscience to the side to say "what if there is no God?" Even though Im faithful, I at least question. You seem incapable of that. For you, its absolute. To you there is no God, PERIOD and you refuse to even question or challenge your resoning on the issue. Youre a Holy Warrior. A Jihadist. But in reverse. For someone who claims to be enlightened to have this though process is kind of weird.

After 12 years of indoctrination and much struggle, I've obviously reached my conclusions. It wasn't easy, but instead rather scary, and all started with the type of questioning that you're referring to. I think that you don't just change somebody's mind about deeply held beliefs. It's a process which starts with a seed of doubt. The seed sometimes grows and leads to disbelief, which is where I ended up. Sometimes I think it's just too much for people to leave behind. In the end, to me, the truth is more important than anything else such as feeling you are special or that you and your loved ones will be reunited in the afterlife. Once I got past the scary part, I was able to find meaning, purpose and morality in my life with no need for supernatural beings upstairs watching my every move. My sometimes militant approach to this subject is intended to plant seeds of doubt using reason and logic. I feel like I owe a few people a great deal for doing the same for me and I intend to pass it on.

 

Question everything. What are you basing your belief on?

[RkFast]

After 12 years of indoctrination and much struggle, I've obviously reached my conclusions. It wasn't easy, but instead rather scary, and all started with the type of questioning that you're referring to. I think that you don't just change somebody's mind about deeply held beliefs. It's a process which starts with a seed of doubt. The seed sometimes grows and leads to disbelief, which is where I ended up. Sometimes I think it's just too much for people to leave behind. In the end, to me, the truth is more important than anything else such as feeling you are special or that you and your loved ones will be reunited in the afterlife. Once I got past the scary part, I was able to find meaning, purpose and morality in my life with no need for supernatural beings upstairs watching my every move. My sometimes militant approach to this subject is intended to plant seeds of doubt using reason and logic. I feel like I owe a few people a great deal for doing the same for me and I intend to pass it on.

 

Question everything. What are you basing your belief on?

 

I appreciate you taking the time to descibe how you got to where you are, but youre too much of an absolutist for my taste. Its OK though.

 

Enjoy the Holid....er.....your time off

[Gene Frenkle]

I appreciate you taking the time to descibe how you got to where you are, but youre too much of an absolutist for my taste. Its OK though.

 

Enjoy the Holid....er.....your time off

Merry Christmas!

 

(real or not, Jesus was a good dude)

[Rob's House]

See, this is why youre annoying. Im devoutly faithful, but I can at least set at least some part of my conscience to the side to say "what if there is no God?" Even though Im faithful, I at least question. You seem incapable of that. For you, its absolute. To you there is no God, PERIOD and the faithful are ALL crazy whackos and you refuse to even question or challenge your reasoning on the issue. Youre a Holy Warrior. A Jihadist. But in reverse. For someone who claims to be enlightened to have this though process is kind of weird. To have it yet condemn others who also have it is hypocritical.

This is one of many reasons I think Stephen Colbert is a complete douche. He claims that an agnostic is an atheist who is too big of a kitty to cop to it. I take the opposite view, that an atheist is an agnostic who's too arrogant and/or insecure to admit he might not know something.

[whateverdude]

What makes more sense:

 

1) I think therefore I am.

OR

2) A creator thought therefore I am

[Gene Frenkle]

This is one of many reasons I think Stephen Colbert is a complete douche. He claims that an agnostic is an atheist who is too big of a kitty to cop to it. I take the opposite view, that an atheist is an agnostic who's too arrogant and/or insecure to admit he might not know something.

 

Why don’t I believe in God? No, no no, why do YOU believe in God? Surely the burden of proof is on the believer. You started all this. If I came up to you and said, “Why don’t you believe I can fly?” You’d say, “Why would I?” I’d reply, “Because it’s a matter of faith.” If I then said, “Prove I can’t fly. Prove I can’t fly see, see, you can’t prove it can you?” You’d probably either walk away, call security or throw me out of the window and shout, ‘’F—ing fly then you lunatic.”

 

Why don't you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? (It's ok if you do. )

[Rob's House]

Why dont I believe in God? No, no no, why do YOU believe in God? Surely the burden of proof is on the believer. You started all this. If I came up to you and said, Why dont you believe I can fly? Youd say, Why would I? Id reply, Because its a matter of faith. If I then said, Prove I cant fly. Prove I cant fly see, see, you cant prove it can you? Youd probably either walk away, call security or throw me out of the window and shout, Fing fly then you lunatic.

 

Why don't you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? (It's ok if you do. )

Who said I believe in anything? For all you know I'm a nihilist.

 

The jist of my post was that atheism isn't the lack of a belief in God, that's agnosticism. Atheism is a positive statement that there is no God, which therefore would put a burden of proof on you as much as the religious people.

Edited December 22, 2010 by Rob's House

[whateverdude]

Why don’t I believe in God? No, no no, why do YOU believe in God? Surely the burden of proof is on the believer. You started all this. If I came up to you and said, “Why don’t you believe I can fly?” You’d say, “Why would I?” I’d reply, “Because it’s a matter of faith.” If I then said, “Prove I can’t fly. Prove I can’t fly see, see, you can’t prove it can you?” You’d probably either walk away, call security or throw me out of the window and shout, ‘’F—ing fly then you lunatic.”

 

Why don't you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? (It's ok if you do. )

What is a more fanciful belief system?

1) That one day poof! It happened the universe was created by chance from nothing

2) Or something intelligent and powerful created our reality.

[....lybob]

What is a more fanciful belief system?

1) That one day poof! It happened the universe was created by chance from nothing

2) Or something intelligent and powerful created our reality.

and what created the intelligent and powerful something

[whateverdude]

and what created the intelligent and powerful something

That's linear thinking, Time did not exist before it was created so that an invalid question. The powerful intelligence existed outside of space and time and I have no perspective on what that could be because I exist inside of space and time.

Edited December 22, 2010 by whateverdude

[LeviF]

This is one of many reasons I think Stephen Colbert is a complete douche. He claims that an agnostic is an atheist who is too big of a kitty to cop to it. I take the opposite view, that an atheist is an agnostic who's too arrogant and/or insecure to admit he might not know something.

Agnostic atheists, anyone?

[Gene Frenkle]

Who said I believe in anything? For all you know I'm a nihilist.

 

The jist of my post was that atheism isn't the lack of a belief in God, that's agnosticism. Atheism is a positive statement that there is no God, which therefore would put a burden of proof on you as much as the religious people.

I never claimed you believe in anything, I'm simply presenting an argument. I'm agnostic and would never make such an absolute statement as "there is no god". One can't prove such a negative.

 

Which is why:

Why don’t I believe in God? No, no no, why do YOU believe in God? Surely the burden of proof is on the believer. You started all this. If I came up to you and said, “Why don’t you believe I can fly?” You’d say, “Why would I?” I’d reply, “Because it’s a matter of faith.” If I then said, “Prove I can’t fly. Prove I can’t fly see, see, you can’t prove it can you?” You’d probably either walk away, call security or throw me out of the window and shout, ‘’F—ing fly then you lunatic.”

is such a perfect characterization of the debate. Where did the notion of god even come from? It was made up out of whole cloth. That is why the burden of proof is on those who believe. Admittedly it's a no-win proposition for believers which is why in the end, invariably, they always fall back on faith and mysticism and other such ethereal nonsense.

[....lybob]

That's linear thinking, Time did not exist before it was created so that an invalid question. The powerful intelligence existed outside of space and time and I have no perspective on what that could be because I exist inside of space and time.

so is thinking that something must have created the universe

[whateverdude]

so is thinking that something must have created the universe

The Universe as we know it is space and time and our thinking is within space and time.

[Adam]

so is thinking that something must have created the universe

Ralph Wilson?