When atheists go too far

AudreyHepburn

Malty_T wrote: »

I'll fully admit that Isaac Newton was a pure genius however when it comes to his personal belief that Celibacy was his greatest ever achievement I will mock it every way I see fit. Having whacky beliefs doesn't mean you are stupid, or someone who doesn't share those whacky beliefs is more intelligent than you. Audrey please stop playing the victim factor here. You're beliefs may be deemed by some to be stupid, but that is nowhere near the same thing as saying you are stupid, end of.

You know well I am not playing the victim in any way.

I simply see no reason to insult anyone for their beliefs whatever they happen to be.

Question, debate and disagree by all means.

Mickeroo

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I simply see no reason to insult anyone for their beliefs whatever they happen to be.

Saying someones beliefs are stupid is different to saying someone is stupid because they believe something, I would consider the latter an insult but not the former.

Turtwig

prinz wrote: »

+1. Agree totally, and this is the exactly where Richard Dawkins falls down and short circuits his own position.

FYP:pac:


(Agree with you btw.)

philologos

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Religions are like a sewer. What we are getting out of them is very much dependent on what we have been putting in to them.

Admittedly I believe in Christ because I think it is the truth, not because of what I can "get out of it". Truth is more important than wishful thinking as far as I see it.

ScumLord

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Of course there are things which you believe that I wouldn't agree with but I would never mock you or belittle you for it or assume that I am of higher intelligence than you owing to your beliefs.

If I did so you would be rightly insulted.

Really so if I was your employer and I believed that money corrupted people and used that as a justification to pay you less you'd be ok with that? Or that 1+1=11? I'd be well within my rights to believe that and pass it onto my children?

I don't think you can just believe what you like and expect people to go along with it. Fair enough on "each to their own" but peoples believes actually affect the real world. Believes like, animals have no souls, they where put here to serve us and we can do what we like to them. Believes like, I have the right to restrict you from doing things I don't believe in even though it doesn't affect me in any way, I just don't want you doing it.

Believe is just something made up inside your head, I'd rather make a judgement based on the facts as they're presented to me.

I believe religion should be made illegal and that any right thinking person should do what they can to wipe it from human concious, is it ok for me to believe that and try to turn the world against you?

When we say "I believe so" that translates as "I guess". It doesn't mean I'm certain I'm right and no matter what I won't change my mind regardless of the facts.

philologos

ScumLord wrote: »

Believe is just something made up inside your head, I'd rather make a judgement based on the facts as they're presented to me.

And why do you think that?

ScumLord wrote: »

I believe religion should be made illegal and that any right thinking person should do what they can to wipe it from human concious, is it ok for me to believe that and try to turn the world against you?

Then you will be consigned to the same camp of individuals as Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, Pol Pot etc due to your contempt of basic human freedoms and liberties as far as I'm concerned.

Freedom of religion, conscience and expression are the pillars of free societies. If you reject that you reject the free society which benefits us all.

Daegerty

When AH threads go on for too long.

lugha

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I simply see no reason to insult anyone for their beliefs whatever they happen to be.

It depends on what that belief is in. Those who put their, er faith in psychics, horoscopes, ghosts etc. are routinely mocked by those that do not share their views, sometimes by people who hold religious beliefs.

Religion is somewhat unique in that some of those who profess a belief demand, and sometimes get, a degree of respect for their convictions.

philologos

lugha, a lot of us couldn't give a fiddlesticks about whether or not you happen to respect us or what we believe (I do in the sense that I hope that non-believers would come to a saving faith in Christ but not in terms of personal respect on part of beliefs). Primarily all I'm really looking for in terms of the State is to ensure that freedom of conscience, belief, and expression are recognised in society. That is all the liberty that one needs really as a Christian.

ScumLord

philologos wrote: »

And why do you think that?

Because you don't need any external evidence, a person can instantly make up a believe about something and hold that believe until they're corrected.

Then you will be consigned to the same camp of individuals as Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, Pol Pot etc due to your contempt of basic human freedoms and liberties as far as I'm concerned.

Freedom of religion, conscience and expression are the pillars of free societies. If you reject that you reject the free society which benefits us all.

But do Audrey and yourself think I should be let off to freely believe these things and act on those believes without any kind of intervention by anyone to try and correct those believes?

drkpower

philologos wrote: »

Primarily all I'm really looking for in terms of the State is to ensure that freedom of conscience, belief, and expression are recognised in society. That is all the liberty that one needs really as a Christian.

Funny.

You advocate freedom of (and presumably from) religon in life.
Yet, for those who actually exercise that choice, you advocate they suffer for eternity after death.

Nice one Jakkass!:D

philologos

ScumLord wrote: »

Because you don't need any external evidence, a person can instantly make up a believe about something and hold that believe until they're corrected.

Who said that? I guess this is just assumption. Personally I spent many months thinking about Christianity before I decided to follow it. I investigated it and I found it coherent and reasonable. Therefore I adopted it.

You've not answered the question apart from to chuck in another assumption, so I'll ask it again. Why do you believe belief of necessity is made up? Or more to the point why do you believe that atheism couldn't be fictitious nonsense? Why are you so certain that you aren't misplacing your skepticism?

There is only so many times that people can hear of fairytales, FSM's and leprachauns.

ScumLord wrote: »

But do Audrey and yourself think I should be let off to freely believe these things and act on those believes without any kind of intervention by anyone to try and correct those believes?

You can think what you want, and I'll use my freedom to criticise it heartily. In fact I'll use my freedom to defend my freedom. The only intervention that is necessary is human discussion. The State shouldn't be at your beck and call to make religion illegal just because you don't like it and vice versa in terms of prohibiting blasphemy and non-belief.

lugha

philologos wrote: »

lugha, a lot of us couldn't give a fiddlesticks about whether or not you happen to respect us or what we believe (I do in the sense that I hope that non-believers would come to a saving faith in Christ but not in terms of personal respect on part of beliefs). Primarily all I'm really looking for in terms of the State is to ensure that freedom of conscience, belief, and expression are recognised in society. That is all the liberty that one needs really as a Christian.

Well unfortunately many who have religious beliefs do give a fiddlesticks and will resort to brutal violence if you offend their god.

It is fine to demand the freedom to practice your religion. Demanding respect is a step too far.

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

lugha, a lot of us couldn't give a fiddlesticks about whether or not you happen to respect us or what we believe (I do in the sense that I hope that non-believers would come to a saving faith in Christ but not in terms of personal respect on part of beliefs). Primarily all I'm really looking for in terms of the State is to ensure that freedom of conscience, belief, and expression are recognised in society. That is all the liberty that one needs really as a Christian.

I can't help but wonder if you sometimes do your utmost to misunderstand someone else's posts or try to place a negative light on by equating to something that clearly wasn't said. (Unintentionally of course.)

philologos

lugha wrote: »

Well unfortunately many who have religious beliefs do give a fiddlesticks and will resort to brutal violence if you offend their god.

It is fine to demand the freedom to practice your religion. Demanding respect is a step too far.

I'm pretty much agreed. I don't see why I should have to defend such individuals.

I would hope that you would respect me as a person, but I certainly don't demand it. It isn't illegal to be ill mannered.

Malty T: I'm broadly agreeing with lugha. So kindly take your own advice

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

I'm pretty much agreed. I don't see why I should have to defend such individuals.

I would hope that you would respect me as a person, but I certainly don't demand it. It isn't illegal to be ill mannered.

Malty T: I'm broadly agreeing with lugha. So kindly take your own advice

Yeah perhaps I wasn't clear enough. That's my point even though you both more or less agree you still started out with an almost apprehensive like tone towards to his/her post. "Fiddlesticks" made your post seem almost as if you were kinda outraged with Lugha's post. A similar thing has occurred a few times on this thread, even though you agree with someone it seems like you are doing your utmost to disagree with their posts and shade in them in a more negative light. Just saying...

Now, can you please respond to Nozzie's excellent critiques of your reasons for belief?

philologos

Malty T: It'd be better if you actually took part in it rather than being a running commentary for my posts. That's all I'm saying. It's OK, I know what I'm doing :pac:. I suspect you're misreading my posts if you think fiddlesticks of all words sounds aggressive.

As for my reasons, I'm aiming to revise them when I have a good deal more time. Be patient they will come eventually.

drkpower

Malty_T wrote: »

Now, can you please respond to Nozzie's excellent critiques of your reasons for belief?

Dont be silly; Jakkass only responds to the easy questions. He runs and hides when the tough questions come.

Edit: Yup, thought as much.

Mickeroo

philologos wrote: »

Or more to the point why do you believe that atheism couldn't be fictitious nonsense?

That makes no sense.

philologos

Mickeroo wrote: »

That makes no sense.

Again why? The logic is as important as the point isn't it? C'mon you guys are meant to be the champions of logic and reason

Mickeroo

philologos wrote: »

Again why? The logic is as important as the point isn't it? C'mon you guys are meant to be the champions of logic and reason

I don't claim to be champion of anything my good man. Whatever about the your beliefs on 2000 year old superheroes, saying Atheism is fictitious nonsense makes no sense,It's like telling someone you don't like their shoes when they don't own a pair of shoes. All that atheism requires is that you admit "I don't know", it doesn't have a doctrine or framework to be ridiculed or championed, it is not a religion or a belief system, it is the absence of one.

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

Again why? The logic is as important as the point isn't it? C'mon you guys are meant to be the champions of logic and reason

Sure. After you've explained why not collecting butterflies, or appreciating the hobby, shouldn't be considered fictitious nonsense.

NTMK

philologos wrote: »

Or more to the point why do you believe that atheism couldn't be fictitious nonsense?

As someone who has always been scientifically minded i need physical evidence even just a shred before i consider believing something.

And another point you've stayed with the debate which is more than what the usual religious poster and haven't lowered it the usual crap fest in these threads so thanks

philologos

NTMK wrote: »

As someone who has always been scientifically minded i need physical evidence even just a shred before i consider believing something.

And another point you've stayed with the debate which is more than what the usual religious poster and haven't lowered it the usual crap fest in these threads so thanks

Indeed thanks to all of you who have been relatively civil and who continually prove to me that this can be enjoyable

I don't see why one can't believe in God and be scientifically minded. Indeed there are quite a few research scientists and science lecturers who profess faith in God.

Mickeroo wrote: »

I don't claim to be champion of anything my good man. Whatever about the your beliefs on 2000 year old superheroes, saying Atheism is fictitious nonsense makes no sense,It's like telling someone you don't like their shoes when they don't own a pair of shoes. All that atheism requires is that you admit "I don't know", it doesn't have a doctrine or framework to be ridiculed or championed, it is not a religion or a belief system, it is the absence of one.

If you wanted to be particular. Agnosticism concerns knowledge (a gnosis). Atheism concerns a rejection of theism. There is some overlap between the two but it is important to note.

The superheroes point is really limited. The Bible isn't really written in the intention of being fiction. If it were I highly suspect that we would know given how widely it has been disseminated.

Asking if atheism could be fictitious nonsense is perfectly valid. If you've misplaced your skepticism, it is as irrational as you claim my faith is. As I mentioned earlier in the thread people doubt that the earth is round in the earth today. Some people doubt vaccinations and withhold them from their children. Both are cases of misplaced skepticism.

NTMK

philologos wrote: »

Indeed thanks to all of you who have been relatively civil and who continually prove to me that this can be enjoyable

I don't see why one can't believe in God and be scientifically minded. Indeed there are quite a few research scientists and science lecturers who profess faith in God.

Thats really just the logic behind my atheism/agnosticism.

Personally i dont have a problem with religion but i do have a problem with the control over society it has and the discrimination it can lead to

philologos

^^ I understand that's the claim. I just don't see how that can really be the justification when other scientifically minded people can believe in God.

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

^^ I understand that's the claim. I just don't see how that can really be the justification when other scientifically minded people can believe in God.

Argument ad populum philogos. The likelihood of a claim being true or untrue has no bearing on who does or doesn't believe it.

NTMK

philologos wrote: »

^^ I understand that's the claim. I just don't see how that can really be the justification when other scientifically minded people can believe in God.

ok scratch that so and replace it with im a believe it when i see it person

Mickeroo

philologos wrote: »

If you wanted to be particular. Agnosticism concerns knowledge (a gnosis). Atheism concerns a rejection of theism. There is some overlap between the two but it is important to note.

The superheroes point is really limited. The Bible isn't really written in the intention of being fiction. If it were I highly suspect that we would know given how widely it has been disseminated.

Asking if atheism could be fictitious nonsense is perfectly valid. If you've misplaced your skepticism, it is as irrational as you claim my faith is. As I mentioned earlier in the thread people doubt that the earth is round in the earth today. Some people doubt vaccinations and withhold them from their children. Both are cases of misplaced skepticism.

I'm well aware of what agnosticism is, I'm not agnostic. THe only way we'd know what the bible was intended for for sure is if we somehow managed to interview the people who wrote it, regardless what occurs in it is just as fantastical as anything i've ever read in a comic or novel. No other religious text reads like it was fiction yet you don't believe in any of those.

I don't discount some sort of higher being could have created the universe, it's extremely unlikely, but how the hell could I know what happened back then? This doesn't mean I give any substance to the hundreds and thousands of gods people have made up, they're generally just people with special powers from what I can see. I don't know how the universe came into being, no-one does, it's impossible to know, saying you don't know can't be fictitious.

philologos wrote: »

^^ I understand that's the claim. I just don't see how that can really be the justification when other scientifically minded people can believe in God.

Religion is a funny thing, plenty of people are rational and logical in all aspects of their life but it all goes out the window when it comes to religion, I've always found it pretty perplexing myself. People don't really apply science to religion unless they don't believe in it from what I can see. The thing is someone could unquestionably prove the non-existence of a deity of any kind tomorrow yet very few people if any would probably denounce their faith. I mean IMO thinking any of the thousands of gods created by man are real requires you to ignore a heap of evidence to the contrary in the first place.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Argument ad populum philogos. The likelihood of a claim being true or untrue has no bearing on who does or doesn't believe it.

How is that an ad-populum fallacy? Ad-populum is when one appeals to majority. What I am doing here is appealing to their minds using them as examples. How with a scientifically leaning mind can they do this? The answer seems to be of course they can.

So the difference doesn't seem to be the scientific thinking inclination that anyone may or may not have.

That's clear sense.

I'll catch up with the thread tomorrow methinks.