|
|
|
Heroic Knight
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 9:52 PM
Posts: 190,
Visits: 1,514
|
|
Tart (6/20/2006)
So where does he say "all believers are cunts" then? link please...
Please keep up, Binidj used the phrase;
Binidj (6/20/2006)
Simply posting a link which suggests, in so many words, that "All believers are cunts"
Looking at the site you have linked to, the site author uses the phrase "religion causes significant social dysfunction", and staes that levels of belief closely correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, abortion, slavery, and mysogney. He goes on to claim those with faith are not just delusional and socialy retarded, but idiotic and in need of help and healing to cure them of this dysfunction. Whilst not using the actual words "all beleivers are cunts", its clear that he has (in so many words" suggested as much. All this is on the site you have linked to... admittedly not on the page you linked to but it is on that site. Like I said, you clearly didn't read it very well.
Tart (6/20/2006)
The "Net" analogy is very nice, but flawed. For a start, no self-respecting scientist would claim that a simple netting would reveal all life in the ocean.
All a scientist could claim is that what is in the net is known, all that is not in the net is simply belief and therefore according to the site that you linked to merely a delusion.
Tart (6/20/2006)
Secondly, it's not a case of trawling the depths and then saying "that's all there is" when it comes to relgion/god.
There are already exacting claims made on God's existence and function, which are borne out to be totally contridictory to the facts as we have them.
Just as there has been (and will continue to be) such claims made by science.
Tart (6/20/2006)
IF there is a "god" then it certainly doesn't fit any of the paradigms given for it so far.
Just as there is light, and gravity, yet these do not fit with any scientific paradigm given for them so far....
____________________________________________________________
Idiots can be so much fun, thats why every village wants one....
|
|
|
|
|
I do talk a good fight
Group: System Moderators
Last Login: Today @ 2:15 PM
Posts: 1,860,
Visits: 5,736
|
|
Yeah, as Richie said, it's all a bit same-old, same-old, innit? I doubt there's anyone posting to Pagga who's not made the same logical leap themselves. We're not from the Bible Belt, y'know?
I also note that the site author doesn't feel it necessary to link to any of the studies suggesting that religious people are happier, healthier, and longer-lived than irreligious people. It couldn't be that he's picking and choosing "evidence" to suit his own agenda, could it? What, on the internet?!?
http://www.hyboriantales.com
PD: Ghostdance ("The most irritating curse I've ever encountered" -- NPC played by H.)
Riftworld: Rossar Kuug ("Clearly mad, because he thinks he's a Com-Trow Skirmisher" - Aela)
Hyborian Tales: Crew, cook, dogsbody, general labourer, toilet cleaner ("Dangerously overoptimistic ref" -- Tom Nowell)
Otherwise usually crew ("Quite spry & fit, & willing to wear a big costume & run around a lot" -- various event organisers)
"My other oversized foam weapon is THE LORD" -- Questionable Content
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 5:02 PM
Posts: 151,
Visits: 1,160
|
|
So the crucial question is, am I allowed to believe in Santa or not?
(chris)
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 9:52 PM
Posts: 190,
Visits: 1,514
|
|
Ravensbourne (6/20/2006)
So the crucial question is, am I allowed to believe in Santa or not?
Why not, I do 
____________________________________________________________
Idiots can be so much fun, thats why every village wants one....
|
|
|
|
|
Devil's Advocate
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:35 PM
Posts: 1,142,
Visits: 1,400
|
|
Ravensbourne (6/20/2006)
So the crucial question is, am I allowed to believe in Santa or not?
Only if you are a good boy...
If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing.
|
|
|
|
|
Overlord
Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 5:21 PM
Posts: 1,588,
Visits: 4,230
|
|
| Tart, There is some mileage in this being a reasoned debate, so thank you for the link. I'll make this plain. I'm posting the following as advice and as part of the debate here. If I choose to post in direct moderation on this thread it will be clearly signified. You are beginning to look like a hobby horse, I wouldn't want consistent propaganda from any form of religious belief in this forum, atheism is in the same basket as the rest, because its still a set of values that cannot be conclusively proved(unless someone returns from the dead to show me video footage), and no that isn't me asking for you to try to conclusively prove this to me. I have given guidance on religious debate on this forum, you've chosen to ignore them, fair enough, it is your right. You've also proved in some instances that there is a place for religious discussion here, where it doesn't attack other people's choices of belief, and I laud you for that. The Uses and Gratifications argument (ie you can choose not to read it etc...) isn't really good enough in this as I've already said, we want no "Crimelords" in these forums - and I define that as places where individual users post consistently on one theme driving other users out. To return to the article, I'd agree, its an opinion that effectively distills down certain sets of belief into basic parameters. But I think most free thinking people who've made a choice about their faith recognise that they've made a choice. They're happy with that choice often no matter what frame of reference someone else elects to place on it, because when they made the choice, the frame of reference was right for them. The leap of rationale in this document is here, after the sanat analogy: What would you think of me? You would think that I am delusional, and rightly so. My question is, why would I think you delusional for believing in Santa Claus?
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 12:42 PM
Posts: 1,178,
Visits: 1,030
|
|
| All that article does is demonstrate that these are beliefs. Guess thats why they are called 'beliefs' then... The problem is not that people wish to believe such things it's that they seek to claim that their belief is more logical and 'right'. Tis hardly a new argument and more akin to the actual arguments for agnosticism (in Huxleys original sense). I see no evidence in the article which supports atheist belief.
|
|
|
|
|
Devil's Advocate
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:35 PM
Posts: 1,142,
Visits: 1,400
|
|
Allen:
As i said at the start of this thread, due to the other conversations about this subject I thought it relelvent. I would've posted this in the original thread, but sadly that was locked before I could. I'm not planning on posting new thread about this every two days or anything (well, not unless they are REALLY interesting). As for "hobby horse" this is certainly a subject that appeals to me, so when i found the original two links, i posted them. I'm sure "Tarts an atheist" is levelled at me as much as "Ian Sturrock sure doesnt support gun control" is levelled at him.
I think there is alot of mileage in debating these subjects, though it sometimes hard to do so when some people think that "If he's so nice, why doesn't God heal all cripples?" is an attack on their faith, rather than (as i see it) a perfectly valid question when the stated facts don't fit what is really going on in the world.
People seem to take offense at being called "illogical" or "irrational" if they are believers, despite the fact that if you are debating meta-physics, by definition you can't apply logic or rationality to it. If you could apply logic to it, it wouldn't be a "Meta" reality.
If you want to discuss any of this with me directly, please feel free to email.
So... where were we again?
If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing.
|
|
|
|
 Posted Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:29 PM |
| | | |