Same Sex Marriage Legal in all US States

[Dazey]

They are never that strict though in practice. Usually atheism equates anti-religion.

I cant be arsed to get involved in these debates these days as they genuinely go nowhere but my atheism is pretty much just a lack of belief in the improvable. From as long ago as I can remember Ive just never found any of the arguments or explanations to be plausible and belief isnt something you can just decide to have; its something that you either have or you dont based on the evidence to my mind.

My objections to religion in general are typically based on one element and one element only and thats where people reject actual facts because they contradict religious teachings. Things like calling for teaching of creationism in science classes and rejection of evolution because the bible (or their interpretation of it) says it isnt so. If you dont fit into that fairly narrow criteria then good luck to you as far as Im concerned.

[SoulMonster]

Decorum - as I said. If you want to dismantle about theology and the history of religion there are certainly avenues but there is a sense of ''Macdonalds atheists''.

Religion shouldn't be criticized because of decorum. That makes sense.

Perhaps the idea is that religion should be critised but with an eye on a certain decorum? i.e. instead of shouting people down and being arrogant and insulting and pointlessly rude (which just results in getting a combative response) and criticizing something cooly, calmly and rationally, so you actually get listened to instead of just winding people up. If you do not respond to these things with a sense of decorum are you not basically just being what you criticised in people of religion, i.e. being backward, uncivilised, pig-headed and sort of contrary to the fundamental principles of what ideas like atheism...which is reason. You can't really have reason without decorum. I mean you don't reason with someone by beating them over the head or shouting them down.

ANY discussion and argument should adhere to whatever contextual decorum is expected from the arena inwhich they are presented, if one wants those arguments to be as effective as possible. This has nothing to do with whether you discuss the absence of evidence for godly existence, theories of abiogenesis, or theories of state development. It is the same for all kinds of argumentation and discussions. It is a matter of not risking the merit of your argument to be missed due to people not being able to get passed the bad form in which they are presented.

Edited July 2, 2015 by SoulMonster

[Len Cnut]

They are never that strict though in practice. Usually atheism equates anti-religion.

I cant be arsed to get involved in these debates these days as they genuinely go nowhere but my atheism is pretty much just a lack of belief in the improvable. From as long ago as I can remember Ive just never found any of the arguments or explanations to be plausible and belief isnt something you can just decide to have; its something that you either have or you dont based on the evidence to my mind.

My objections to religion in general are typically based on one element and one element only and thats where people reject actual facts because they contradict religious teachings. Things like calling for teaching of creationism in science classes and rejection of evolution because the bible (or their interpretation of it) says it isnt so. If you dont fit into that fairly narrow criteria then good luck to you as far as Im concerned.

You sounded so grown up there

Y'know what bothers me about atheism? I thought it was my ticket out, I thought it was the group of people that didn't give a fuck about religions but i find that in being an atheist you find yourself talking about it even fuckin' more.

I think I'm gonna be a couldn't give a fuck-ist, in the most thick-headed of working class traditions, bollocks, i don't care, thats it, thats my fuckin' line from now on. You just can't escape it though, you're always a fucking something. 'i don't give a shit, the world a shithole and you're all cunts' 'ah, i see you're a nihilist', 'no, fuck off', 'is that nod to confrontational situationism?'

*starts to cry*

Whatever Sid Vicious was, I'm one of them! (a twat )

Decorum - as I said. If you want to dismantle about theology and the history of religion there are certainly avenues but there is a sense of ''Macdonalds atheists''.

Religion shouldn't be criticized because of decorum. That makes sense.

Perhaps the idea is that religion should be critised but with an eye on a certain decorum? i.e. instead of shouting people down and being arrogant and insulting and pointlessly rude (which just results in getting a combative response) and criticizing something cooly, calmly and rationally, so you actually get listened to instead of just winding people up. If you do not respond to these things with a sense of decorum are you not basically just being what you criticised in people of religion, i.e. being backward, uncivilised, pig-headed and sort of contrary to the fundamental principles of what ideas like atheism...which is reason. You can't really have reason without decorum. I mean you don't reason with someone by beating them over the head or shouting them down.

ANY discussion and argument should adhere to whatever contextual decorum is expected from the arena inwhich they are presented, if one wants those arguments to be as effective as possible. This has nothing to do with whether you discuss the absence of evidence for godly existence, theories of abiogenesis, or theories of state development. It is the same for all kinds of argumentation and discussions. It is a matter of not risking the merit of your argument to be missed due to people not being able to get passed the bad form in which they are presented.

Come again?

Edited July 2, 2015 by Len B'stard

[SoulMonster]

As a digression: I used to know this guy (Erik Naggum) who was a celebrity in the old usenet and one of the most famous t r o l l s we ever had. ust look him up. He was HIGHLY opinionated and LOVED arguing about almost anything. That's more or less all he did - besodes being a celebrated programmer. He used to deliberately break any rules of manners in his discussions just to have fun and ridicule people who were so outraged by the form that they couldn't focus on the content of his post. It was ad hominem and ad hominem. Very childish of him, but it was astonishin how few people wpuld be able to raise above the lack of decorum in those they talk with, and rather than focus on the actual content, took the easy way out by criticising the form. It wa slike form was more important than content. Or that it was at least easier to criticise a lack of manners than to criticise whatever argument was presented.

[DieselDaisy]

Since atheists claim to be using 'reason' and 'fact' to criticise religion, yet all their arguments pertain to Christian or Islam,

I hate Christian, he's such an asshole.

Anyway, I think you are again extrapolating from very little experience, or have just been very unlucky with the atheists you have met in your life. Or perhaps it is you who misunderstand and interpret anti-christian arguments as meant to be anti-theism arguments?

Alright, simply use this forum as an example. This is typical,

- ''Holy Bible is full of lies'' (yes, but what about the Nihon Shoki or Book of Changes?)

- ''Virgin birth is nonsense'' (many Protestant denominations deny the immaculate conception).

- priests buming children (but we don't have priests!)

- religion cause wars and famine (clearly not a student of far eastern history then)

It is the same vacuous statements. This is the calibre of arguments you get on here. You are not exactly dealing with intense theological discussions.

The problem is, most atheists do not understand or have much interest in religion so their arguments come across as misinformed and flippant.

[Len Cnut]

As a digression: I used to know this guy (Erik Naggum) who was a celebrity in the old usenet and one of the most famous t r o l l s we ever had. ust look him up. He was HIGHLY opinionated and LOVED arguing about almost anything. That's more or less all he did - besodes being a celebrated programmer. He used to deliberately break any rules of manners in his discussions just to have fun and ridicule people who were so outraged by the form that they couldn't focus on the content of his post. It was ad hominem and ad hominem. Very childish of him, but it was astonishin how few people wpuld be able to raise above the lack of decorum in those they talk with, and rather than focus on the actual content, took the easy way out by criticising the form. It wa slike form was more important than content. Or that it was at least easier to criticise a lack of manners than to criticise whatever argument was presented.

OR...perhaps people don't like being talked to like cunts?

[Len Cnut]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1135898063103678&id=100000504850302&refsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com%2Fbecky.wegnerrommel%2Fvideos%2F1135898063103678%2F&_rdr

Some old bag having a menopause fit over gay marriage

Edited July 2, 2015 by Len B'stard

[SoulMonster]

Since atheists claim to be using 'reason' and 'fact' to criticise religion, yet all their arguments pertain to Christian or Islam,

I hate Christian, he's such an asshole.

Anyway, I think you are again extrapolating from very little experience, or have just been very unlucky with the atheists you have met in your life. Or perhaps it is you who misunderstand and interpret anti-christian arguments as meant to be anti-theism arguments?

Alright, simply use this forum as an example. This is typical,

- ''Holy Bible is full of lies'' (yes, but what about the Nihon Shoki or Book of Changes?)

- ''Virgin birth is nonsense'' (many Protestant denominations deny the immaculate conception).

- priests buming children (but we don't have priests!)

- religion cause wars and famine (clearly not a student of far eastern history then)

It is the same vacuous statements. This is the calibre of arguments you get on here. You are not exactly dealing with intense theological discussions.

The problem is, most atheists do not understand or have much interest in religion so their arguments come across as misinformed and flippant.

But this is a mix of anti-christian arguments and anti-theism arguments. You can't just lump them all together and say that all of these are atheists arguing for atheism.

[netcat]

normal people of faith differ from religious fanatics as much as normal atheists differ from militant atheists

A believer or an atheist with a half brain understands that their vision of the world is insufficient and limited and not equal to the vision of the world of any another person, no matter believer or not. They know they both are so far from the truth that their differences don't really matter.

On the other hand, fanatics, religious or anti-religious, think that they know exactly how the world works (or doesn't work) and try to force their bullshit on everyone.

However, anti-religious fanatics usually don't murder anyone in a process, i'll give you that

[Dazey]

normal people of faith differ from religious fanatics as much as normal atheists differ from militant atheists

That's not really true though is it? I mean religious fanatics tend to get all stabby and headchoppingoffy whereas your average "militant" atheist is more inclined to simply be mean to people on the Internet. Not really a fair comparison is it?

Edit: Just read your last paragraph.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Dazey

[netcat]

yeah i was talking more about types of people on the internet

Edited July 2, 2015 by netcat

[SoulMonster]

A believer or an atheist with a half brain understands that their vision of the world is insufficient and limited and not equal to the vision of the world of any another person, no matter believer or not. They know they both are so far from the truth that their differences don't really matter.

We are talking about whether gods exist or not. The truth is either: 'yes, they do', or 'no, they don't'. There are no other possibilities. Hence, I don't understand how both positions could be "far from the truth". Either the atheists are right, or the theists are.

[Lithium]

Perhaps the idea is that religion should be critised but with an eye on a certain decorum? i.e. instead of shouting people down and being arrogant and insulting and pointlessly rude (which just results in getting a combative response) instead you critique something cooly, calmly and rationally, so you actually get listened to instead of just winding people up. If you do not respond to these things with a sense of decorum are you not basically just being what you criticised in people of religion, i.e. being backward, uncivilised, pig-headed and sort of contrary to the fundamental principles of what ideas like atheism...which is reason. You can't really have reason without decorum. I mean you don't reason with someone by beating them over the head or shouting them down.

Absolutely, you should debate in a civilized manner if you want to be taken seriously. But isn't the "shouting people down" fairly common in political and other types of debates as well? It's certainly not exclusive to atheists on the internet.

[magisme]

normal people of faith differ from religious fanatics as much as normal atheists differ from militant atheists

A believer or an atheist with a half brain understands that their vision of the world is insufficient and limited and not equal to the vision of the world of any another person, no matter believer or not. They know they both are so far from the truth that their differences don't really matter.

On the other hand, fanatics, religious or anti-religious, think that they know exactly how the world works (or doesn't work) and try to force their bullshit on everyone.

However, anti-religious fanatics usually don't murder anyone in a process, i'll give you that

[Len Cnut]

Perhaps the idea is that religion should be critised but with an eye on a certain decorum? i.e. instead of shouting people down and being arrogant and insulting and pointlessly rude (which just results in getting a combative response) instead you critique something cooly, calmly and rationally, so you actually get listened to instead of just winding people up. If you do not respond to these things with a sense of decorum are you not basically just being what you criticised in people of religion, i.e. being backward, uncivilised, pig-headed and sort of contrary to the fundamental principles of what ideas like atheism...which is reason. You can't really have reason without decorum. I mean you don't reason with someone by beating them over the head or shouting them down.

Absolutely, you should debate in a civilized manner if you want to be taken seriously. But isn't the "shouting people down" fairly common in political and other types of debates as well? It's certainly not exclusive to atheists on the internet.

Yeah but most houses of politics are like feeding time down the vulture house.

[netcat]

A believer or an atheist with a half brain understands that their vision of the world is insufficient and limited and not equal to the vision of the world of any another person, no matter believer or not. They know they both are so far from the truth that their differences don't really matter.

We are talking about whether gods exist or not. The truth is either: 'yes, they do', or 'no, they don't'. There are no other possibilities. Hence, I don't understand how both positions could be "far from the truth". Either the atheists are right, or the theists are.

how about "i don't know"?

it's partially the problem DD mentioned, people refer to "reason" and "logic", like human brain is a flawless perfect device, knowledge is absolute and science can explain everything. and same "facts" can't get different interpretations. just to mention a few aspects, surely it's more complicated than that

and yes i know you don't understand it. it was discussed many times before

[DieselDaisy]

Romanticism through its rejection of the value system of The Enlightenment is proof that pure reason is insufficient for our needs - unless you are Spock or Data.

[SoulMonster]

A believer or an atheist with a half brain understands that their vision of the world is insufficient and limited and not equal to the vision of the world of any another person, no matter believer or not. They know they both are so far from the truth that their differences don't really matter.

We are talking about whether gods exist or not. The truth is either: 'yes, they do', or 'no, they don't'. There are no other possibilities. Hence, I don't understand how both positions could be "far from the truth". Either the atheists are right, or the theists are.

how about "i don't know"?

it's partially the problem DD mentioned, people refer to "reason" and "logic", like human brain is a flawless perfect device, knowledge is absolute and science can explain everything. and same "facts" can't get different interpretations. just to mention a few aspects, surely it's more complicated than that

and yes i know you don't understand it. it was discussed many times before

Saying, "I don't know" is perfectly fine. But still, it either has to be that gods exist or they don't. So someone here is bound to be right, atheists and theists can't both be both wrong or both be right. Whether the method they use to approach their points of view -- religious insight or science and probability theory -- is flawless or not, is irrelevant, they still use what they've got and arrive at some conclusion and in that conclusion they are either right or wrong; one of them, right, the other, wrong.

All that being said, I still don't think you need any sophisticated series of argumentation that relies on interpretable data and imprecise methods, to come to the conclusion that gods don't exist. It should be sufficient to acknowledge that in all our examinations of the world which surrounds us, in all our prying into the mechanisms of the world we live in, in all our collected observarions and measurements, we have no evidence whatsoever for the existence of anything supernatural, and hence, the probability that gods exist, too, is negligable. I don't think this way of reasoning relies on sketchy facts or obscure logics, it is not really subject to interpretation, nor is it a huge effort on the human brain and prone to mistakes and errors. It is Occham's razor, basically: the scenario that relies on the least improbable assumptions is probably the right one.

Edited July 2, 2015 by SoulMonster

[Dazey]

how about "i don't know"?

Well that puts the burden of proof on those making the claims.

[SoulMonster]

Romanticism through its rejection of the value system of The Enlightenment is proof that pure reason is insufficient for our needs - unless you are Spock or Data.

Has anyone argued that reason is all we need?

But when it comes to understanding the world that surrounds us, when it comes to this particular task which occupies so much of the human time, then reason, as systematized and used in the scientific method, has proven again and again to be the best we got.

[shades]

of course there is a God, defies all logic that there is not.

If you don't believe on faith alone

[Lithium]

of course there is a God, defies all logic that there is not.

If you don't believe on faith alone

Care to elaborate?

[magisme]

of course there is a God, defies all logic that there is not.

If you don't believe on faith alone

I don't agree with your logic statement necessarily, but let's grant it anyway, for discussion's sake.

If logic dictates that there is a God, what then leads to saying that God is of this kind vs. that kind, that he(?) commands in this way or that, or even that he commands at all? And how could you be sure it's a singular God? How can you be sure that God is a being that corresponds to what we understand as a being?

I ask because you don't just believe in God, you believe in a Christian God. Is that all faith for you, or do you feel like logic plays a part there too?

[Amir]

[shades]

I believe on faith alone, I've seen too much to not believe

but if you want to try and place some sort of logic other than there is a God, that there is some supreme power, or being to explain how "this" all happened, some beginning you're only fooling yourself.

An Atheist, the type of atheist that just refuses to believe in any supreme power can babble backwards from here explaining away question after question with scientifcally based big bang, molecule evolution of matter, life, the planets, whatever,

but he always runs into a dead end and can not explain the "beginning"... the very beginning.

And that's where logic, if you have a brain in your head tells you that there has to be some supreme power out there that represents this beginning.

Man, or religions describing it as a God, for the sake of definition can be debated and even quite rationally, mainly due to the fact that there are so many different "god's" if you will.

But you, nor I can explain the beginning, and I choose to put that "faith" that that beginning has given me life, all of this that goes with life, and imho will hold me accountable someday if I don't believe.

And that's where my "religion" comes in, Christianity, which I have no more right to tell you is THE right way than anyone else has the right to tell you theirs is,

But, and for the sake of definition alone, there has to be a "God". meaning some supreme force behind the beginning.