Board 8 > I gotta say, hardcore atheists are just as bad as hardcore christians

(+) Yeah! (+)

That sign is treading close to being actionable, though it is not.

But frankly, people need to learn to deal with messages that are offensive or annoying to them. That is the price you must pay to live in a free society.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Unfortunately, many of us Christians aren't actually very good at being Christians.

--
Proud member of the Global Defence Force.
http://gifninja.com/animatedgifs/120003/phoenixtrio.gif

...and after a brief search of ******faqs I can confirm that my only posts relating to "thank God" are me talking about sonic colors and glenn beck

so you are probably thinking of someone else

Blind Azathoth posted...
Unless you're lumping agnostics in with atheists, I don't see the reasoning behind claiming either side of the debate is more open-minded than the other.

I'd imagine most agnostics are atheists, and vice versa. The terms are not mutually exclusive; they are answers to different questions, concerning one's worship or lack thereof of a deity (theism/atheism) and the certainty of one's knowledge (gnosticism/agnosticism). Most people who call themselves agnostic do not follow the tenets of any religion or worship a deity; they are atheists in that they lack religion but reject the label for whatever reason (usually because they've come to see it as pejorative or a mark of intolerance). And most people who call themselves atheists would admit that, however highly they doubt it, they don't know for certain there are no deities.

There are, of course, plenty of agnostic theists too -- people who say "I believe in God but I don't know for sure He exists" or "I believe there's some kind of divine force but I don't know what exactly" -- but, for various reasons, many religious people feel certain in their knowledge of God's existence. Alas, I don't have exact numbers handy.


Also, hay guys being a feminist is not the same thing as being a sexist.

Holy s***, this was a good post. It pre-empted almost everything I wanted to say. Listen to this guy.

From: metroid composite | #086
Oh, sure: I have things I'd like to see changed in today's society, but I'm pretty sure atheists also have things that bug them about today's society.

Like...you're probably not a big fan of mandatory prayer in schools...or "In God we trust" on the money...or American presidents always mentioning God in every speech they give whereas this is never done by Canadian or British Prime Ministers....

I am an atheist and I give no ****s that "In God we Trust" is on money, nor that "One nation, under God" is in the Pledge of Allegiance. Why should I care?

Also the mandatory prayer is very simple. First of all if it is truly mandatory, the school is probably a Christian (change this to w/e religion you please, really) based school, and thus I wouldn't be there anyway. Otherwise if its not a school that is based around a specific religion, then I will simply sit there quietly til the prayer is over, and go on about my day. If someone complains that I was disrespectful for not praying, I'll simply tell them that my respect comes from not opening my mouth and disturbing those who wish to participate.

--
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/character/black-dragonflight/Arbearday/advanced
Current YGO Build: Trollkeepers

Religion or lack thereof should be a more personal thing imo. Not shared with everyone because from person to person their thoughts on life and such will have differences. From even the smallest to largest, but no 2 people can have the exact same set of thoughts, unless youre just mindlessly committing yourself to a set of rules to follow ie organized religion. And even then you probably think/believe something that is ever so slightly different than what your chosen group says.

Not saying you shouldn't be like "hey this what I believe" and that it needs to be a private thing (though I do think that's ok), but its dumb to have groups for "people who believe Thing A" because of all the little differences amongst people who believe Thing A will create that many different schools of thought.

The number of different religions in the world? 6.8 billion.

So just believe what you want, don't force it on others , and be happy.

--
SuperNiceDog is a SuperGuruGuy!
I made a stupid bet with Alec. It cost me my testicles & sig. Take all my money and I could own the Mets.

how can you retcon the word of God

--
Connecticut Huskies

Also, atheism tends to seem antagonistic because they fly the banner of "reason," as if nobody who has ever been religious hasn't been a reasonable person. It also doesn't help that they try to paint religion as a natural enemy of reason and science, even when they don't have to be mutually exclusive.

I don't know how you can claim that religion doesn't take science as is as an enemy though. Or rather, I don't see how you can acknowledge that the discoveries of science (and this is very important here, NOT SCIENCE ITSELF) contradicts Abrahamic religions at the very least and I don't see how anyone can hold religious beliefs, know about what science has discovered and still maintain they are consistently being "reasonable" in that domain. They can be reasonable in OTHER domains of their life, such as relationships, finance and health, but to claim they are reasonable about their religious beliefs would be... impossible.

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Leebo86 posted...
how can you retcon the word of God

Easy. Translation has been a big factor in this. Religious texts are heavily nuanced, and translators have been known to rephrase passages in their translations so that the original meaning has been completely changed.

--
"Don't freeze up girl, you're looking quite a sight." - Adam Ant.
"Baby, can you dig your man? He's a righteous man." - Larry Underwood

From: RevolverSaro | #109
Leebo86 posted...
how can you retcon the word of God

Easy. Translation has been a big factor in this. Religious texts are heavily nuanced, and translators have been known to rephrase passages in their translations so that the original meaning has been completely changed.

Um, that doesn't even come close to satisfying the differences in the old and new testaments.

Never mind the fact that it's silly, since God should just be giving us the translations if he gave us the original.

--
Connecticut Huskies

I don't know how you can claim that religion doesn't take science as is as an enemy though. Or rather, I don't see how you can acknowledge that the discoveries of science (and this is very important here, NOT SCIENCE ITSELF) contradicts Abrahamic religions at the very least and I don't see how anyone can hold religious beliefs, know about what science has discovered and still maintain they are consistently being "reasonable" in that domain. They can be reasonable in OTHER domains of their life, such as relationships, finance and health, but to claim they are reasonable about their religious beliefs would be... impossible.

Because people don't think their religion and scientific discoveries contradict, obviously.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

On translations: it's also not viable as we have the original language versions and there are loads of scholars at universities the world over constantly studying them. And we've got loads of different translations too. A translator could not pull the wool over people's eyes today.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Jeez I could have seen this coming.
Guys it's Christmas! Can't we all just get along today, for once? :(

--
XIII_rocks, the cream of XIII fanboyism.
The guru champ isn't such a SuperNiceDog, he made me change my sig!

I gotta say, hardcore atheists are just as bad as hardcore christians

Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to both.

--
"The courtroom is the garden of holy judgment. Those with lechery in their hearts should leave this sanctuary at once!" ~Franziska von Karma

Because people don't think their religion and scientific discoveries contradict, obviously.

But that's not reasonable. I'm not asserting what thought process goes through their heads, I'm asserting what's not reasonable.

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

But that's not reasonable. I'm not asserting what thought process goes through their heads, I'm asserting what's not reasonable.

You're saying that answering a question of fact a certain way is unreasonable?

Generally, when we talk about reasonableness, we can take beliefs on facts as given and evaluate the reasoning.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

red sox 777 posted...
On translations: it's also not viable as we have the original language versions and there are loads of scholars at universities the world over constantly studying them. And we've got loads of different translations too. A translator could not pull the wool over people's eyes today.

Not today, but 400-500 years ago definitely. Most people who study religious texts agree that the translations that are popularly used are pretty bad and that the language used completely corrupts the original meaning. However, they've become so popular that nobody wants to change.

Religions are built by tradition. And these **** translations have entered that tradition

--
"Don't freeze up girl, you're looking quite a sight." - Adam Ant.
"Baby, can you dig your man? He's a righteous man." - Larry Underwood

Tis the season

From: ToukaOone | Posted: 12/24/2011 11:44:28 PM | #115
But that's not reasonable.

Why not?

--
I would post a gif of krahenprophet,
but I don't have one.

The irony of all this to me is that everyone's trying to like, hold onto their religion's original form as much as possible by means of trying to keep the text exactly the same as much as possible, yet every religion is constantly evolving and changing without people even really knowing it.

At this point, as far as peoples' beliefs are really concerned, I don't think there is such a thing as a "right" or "wrong" translation, people are going to believe what they want to believe. It's a good thing, because I can't imagine what we'd be like if we didn't cherry pick the hell out of the Old Testament.

From: Paratroopa1 | #120
It's a good thing, because I can't imagine what we'd be like if we didn't cherry pick the hell out of the Old Testament.

Probably something like Iran.

--
Not even that super nice octopus could predict the Rivalry Rumble like SuperNiceDog did.

ToukaOone posted...
I don't know how you can claim that religion doesn't take science as is as an enemy though. Or rather, I don't see how you can acknowledge that the discoveries of science (and this is very important here, NOT SCIENCE ITSELF) contradicts Abrahamic religions at the very least and I don't see how anyone can hold religious beliefs, know about what science has discovered and still maintain they are consistently being "reasonable" in that domain. They can be reasonable in OTHER domains of their life, such as relationships, finance and health, but to claim they are reasonable about their religious beliefs would be... impossible.

Well...at least with modern Christians, it's just a question of how much of the Bible they consider to be a metaphor rather than a statement of fact. For instance, the parts of the Bible that claim the world is flat are considered allegorical by damn near everybody today. The parts of the Bible that claim Pi = 3 are considered allegorical by basically everyone. The parts of the Bible that claim God made the world in 6 days are considered allegorical by...well...a majority of Christians anyhow.

Honestly, I've known people in science (holding PhD) who were deeply religious, and found ways to avoid a worldview conflict. I knew a girl who went into astronomy because Biology offended her, and is currently living in Israel; I think she has her PhD now. I've known Biologists who claimed that almost everyone who goes into embryonic science ends up believing in God, because the things that embryos do are just so damn mind-blowing that it's very hard not to believe in a guiding greater power. It seems to happen routinely enough that it's quite doable to be both deeply religious and hold a PhD in science without feeling that your scientific expertise conflicts with your religious beliefs.

--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision

It is a little irritating that people cherry pick. Is this the unerring word of God or isn't it.

--
Connecticut Huskies

The translations these days are all pretty close, and the difference is mostly stylistic. Good translations usually footnote debatable phrases anyway.

The position of most Christians on many of the OT laws (such as dietary restrictions) is that they were only ever meant to apply to the nation of Israel way back then.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Honestly, a lot of people read the Bible more literally than they would any other book or article. Stuff that they would immediately understand for what is actually meant in other venues, using only common sense and basic reading comprehension, people miss in the Bible, because they get fixated on the literal meaning of the individual words.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

From: red sox 777 | #124
The position of most Christians on many of the OT laws (such as dietary restrictions) is that they were only ever meant to apply to the nation of Israel way back then.

But why would that be the case? Why is eating meat a sin for people 4000 years ago but not today?

--
Not even that super nice octopus could predict the Rivalry Rumble like SuperNiceDog did.

But why would that be the case? Why is eating meat a sin for people 4000 years ago but not today?

For health reasons, and possibly to keep Israel separate from the world. The health reasons are not applicable today because our more advanced science allows us to consume those foods safely. Christianity is a universal message, so there is also no need for Christians to be kept as a nation apart in that way.

Of course, these reasons are speculative. I do not know for sure why God did that.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Pondos posted...
But why would that be the case? Why is eating meat a sin for people 4000 years ago but not today?

Because it was retconned? I thought we already covered this...

--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision

Leebo86 posted...
It is a little irritating that people cherry pick. Is this the unerring word of God or isn't it.

I think cherry picking is fine. Most people don't actually treat the Bible as the unerring word of God, and that's cool with me. I only take issue with the people who do treat the entire thing as infallible but don't follow every word of it.

Jesus and the NT specifically say that absolutely nothing was retconned. That it would be easier for Heaven and Earth to vanish than for a single word of the OT to be retconned.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

red sox 777 posted...
Jesus and the NT specifically say that absolutely nothing was retconned. That it would be easier for Heaven and Earth to vanish than for a single word of the OT to be retconned.

I like this because it brings to mind the idea of Jesus as some kind of comic book nerd.

You're saying that answering a question of fact a certain way is unreasonable?

Yes! There are laws of reasoning that you have to obey and if you violate them you are being unreasonable.

Why not?

Because you cannot independently arrive at the conclusion that god exists using any of our evidence gathering tools right now. If you had an agent who could reason using evidence perfectly, it would not be able to derive the existence of any deity. You can only arrive at religion if you made an error in reasoning: A fundamental attribution error if you were a caveman, not changing your mind when new evidence comes in if you were alive during the enlightenment or simply weighing irrelevant evidence such as what you were told when you were young or what simply feels good if you're in a cult.

Honestly, I've known people in science (holding PhD) who were deeply religious, and found ways to avoid a worldview conflict. I knew a girl who went into astronomy because Biology offended her, and is currently living in Israel; I think she has her PhD now. I've known Biologists who claimed that almost everyone who goes into embryonic science ends up believing in God, because the things that embryos do are just so damn mind-blowing that it's very hard not to believe in a guiding greater power. It seems to happen routinely enough that it's quite doable to be both deeply religious and hold a PhD in science without feeling that your scientific expertise conflicts with your religious beliefs.

Merely because such people exist does not mean that their method of compartmentalization is reasonable. You'd have to show me what they're doing in order to achieve that state before I can change my mind.

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Yes! There are laws of reasoning that you have to obey and if you violate them you are being unreasonable.

But no laws of reasoning were violated here. Rather, there was a disagreement on the underlying facts.

Because you cannot independently arrive at the conclusion that god exists using any of our evidence gathering tools right now. If you had an agent who could reason using evidence perfectly, it would not be able to derive the existence of any deity. You can only arrive at religion if you made an error in reasoning: A fundamental attribution error if you were a caveman, not changing your mind when new evidence comes in if you were alive during the enlightenment or simply weighing irrelevant evidence such as what you were told when you were young or what simply feels good if you're in a cult.

Prove it. You started with "you cannot" so I seriously doubt you can prove that. It tends to be exceedingly difficult to prove even seemingly obvious statements of the form "you cannot" or "there are none." You can't even prove that there are no vanilla and strawberry ice cream cones orbiting Alpha Centauri.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

btw metroid how is development on UnKarted going?

--
_foolmo_
mobile computer

Pondos posted...
Why is eating meat a sin for people 4000 years ago but not today?

Also, minor nitpick, but Judaism is actually only about 3000 years old, at least as far as we can tell from the archaeological evidence.

--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision

ToukaOone posted...
You're saying that answering a question of fact a certain way is unreasonable?

Yes! There are laws of reasoning that you have to obey and if you violate them you are being unreasonable.

Why not?

Because you cannot independently arrive at the conclusion that god exists using any of our evidence gathering tools right now. If you had an agent who could reason using evidence perfectly, it would not be able to derive the existence of any deity. You can only arrive at religion if you made an error in reasoning: A fundamental attribution error if you were a caveman, not changing your mind when new evidence comes in if you were alive during the enlightenment or simply weighing irrelevant evidence such as what you were told when you were young or what simply feels good if you're in a cult.

Honestly, I've known people in science (holding PhD) who were deeply religious, and found ways to avoid a worldview conflict. I knew a girl who went into astronomy because Biology offended her, and is currently living in Israel; I think she has her PhD now. I've known Biologists who claimed that almost everyone who goes into embryonic science ends up believing in God, because the things that embryos do are just so damn mind-blowing that it's very hard not to believe in a guiding greater power. It seems to happen routinely enough that it's quite doable to be both deeply religious and hold a PhD in science without feeling that your scientific expertise conflicts with your religious beliefs.

Merely because such people exist does not mean that their method of compartmentalization is reasonable. You'd have to show me what they're doing in order to achieve that state before I can change my mind.

what the hell dude chill out

But no laws of reasoning were violated here. Rather, there was a disagreement on the underlying facts.

I wasn't clear here: I am not talking about deductive logic where you have premises from which you can derive conclusions. I am talking laws of reasoning which allow you to decide which premises to take in the first place A religious point of view necessarily violates proper premises dictated by proper reasoning.

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

foolm0ron posted...
btw metroid how is development on UnKarted going?

Haha, I haven't actually started the new job yet. By the time they got my visa in order, all of them had left on vacation anyway, so there was no point in me starting. I'll start work in January; not sure what project I'll be on....

--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision

Which "laws" of reasoning are those and why should I believe in them?

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

great

****ing great


we have a god damn relgion topic on ****ing CHRISTMAS


joyrock, I hope you're god damn happy with yourself and what you've done, because it's god damn awful.

--
Hail Santa Claus

Hey! Hey guys!

Merry Christmas!

--
Proud member of the Global Defence Force.
http://gifninja.com/animatedgifs/120003/phoenixtrio.gif

what the hell dude chill out

I'm perfectly calm! I just have very specific ideas on what constitutes reasonable and I don't see why anyone should be disturbed that I think some people somewhere out there in the world are being unreasonable.

I'm not even charging that they're unreasonable in general, or that they're unsuccessful at life. I'm just saying that they're unreasonable in a specific area of their life.

Which "laws" of reasoning are those and why should I believe in them?

From probability theory of course! And you haven't specified what standards a belief has to meet before you "believe in them"

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

From: GuessMyUserName | #140
great

****ing great


we have a god damn relgion topic on ****ing CHRISTMAS


joyrock, I hope you're god damn happy with yourself and what you've done, because it's god damn awful.

Who cares? Christmas isn't some magical reset button that erases people's usual thoughts, and it's not like this topic has even been all that hostile. By religion topics on GameFAQs standards it's probably the most civil I've seen in months.

--
We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

oh we can always start playing reference class tennis in Which We Try And Associate as Many Bad Labels to Cause We Don't Like

i'll start: atheists starved millions of innocent chinese to death

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Yeah this is a fine topic GMUN take your pent up Heather-based resentment to another topic

--
_foolmo_
mobile computer

From probability theory of course! And you haven't specified what standards a belief has to meet before you "believe in them"

In that case, it's still a question of fact, on which reasonable people can disagree.

As for what standards need to be met before I believe in them, now that's an interesting question. My first instinct is to say that I don't know what the standards are, and it does not matter, because I have no control over whether I believe something or not. But this is probably not true.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

I honestly just don't understand users like Icon in this topic. Yes, Atheism has no unified set of beliefs that every atheist follows or anything, but it's undeniable that many atheists, especially on this board, are very hostile towards people that are open about religious beliefs. Many atheists will outright ridicule anybody for believing some kind of religious doctrine and will outright say that such people are stupid or insane.



This is honestly just as bad as any religious person being so judgemental of other religions and atheists.


I say all this being an atheist myself. It's awesome if you believe there is no god. It doesn't give you the right to say that anybody that believes in a god or higher power is a ****ing idiot. Which sadly is the case with many, many atheists.

--
The batman villians all seem to be one big joke that batman refuses to laugh at - SantaRPG

In that case, it's still a question of fact, on which reasonable people can disagree.

We have different definitions of reasonable though. Your definition is smart people who are also respectable, which is a question of signaling and thus social status. My definition of reasonable has to do with who has the most accurate beliefs, given the amount of information present.

Although I doubt either of our definitions would involve someone claiming large swaths of mathematics are invalid. Do we agree that probability theory is valid, and that the point of disagreement is on whether or not it can be applied to "real world problems" ...?

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

CoolCly posted...
I honestly just don't understand users like Icon in this topic. Yes, Atheism has no unified set of beliefs that every atheist follows or anything, but it's undeniable that many atheists, especially on this board, are very hostile towards people that are open about religious beliefs. Many atheists will outright ridicule anybody for believing some kind of religious doctrine and will outright say that such people are stupid or insane.



This is honestly just as bad as any religious person being so judgemental of other religions and atheists.


I say all this being an atheist myself. It's awesome if you believe there is no god. It doesn't give you the right to say that anybody that believes in a god or higher power is a ****ing idiot. Which sadly is the case with many, many atheists.

Amen...

As long as one's beliefs do not infringe on others, who cares? The issue comes about when religious doctrine creeps into law and the government making such....then people get a bit uppity. >_>;;

But calling someone an idiot for something they were likely indoctrinated in? Kinda pot calling kettle black...

--
There is no shame in not knowing; the shame lies in not finding out

We have different definitions of reasonable though. Your definition is smart people who are also respectable, which is a question of signaling and thus social status. My definition of reasonable has to do with who has the most accurate beliefs, given the amount of information present.

Although I doubt either of our definitions would involve someone claiming large swaths of mathematics are invalid. Do we agree that probability theory is valid, and that the point of disagreement is on whether or not it can be applied to "real world problems" ...?

Nah, we have the same definition of reasonable (what you said is yours). The disagreement is not even on whether probability theory can be applied, but only on how it should be applied. Example: 2 witnesses give contradictory testimony. It's reasonable for the jury to believe one, or to believe the other. This is what I mean by a question of fact on which reasonable people can disagree.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.