Quote from: PseudoephedrineDude, your arguments were embarrassingly dumb on that 10 myths thread. Whatever the merits of the arguments in favour of religious belief, very few people on that thread appeared capable of presenting them clearly and persuasively, and you were not one of them.

My arguments?  I bowed out of that thread because  Akrasia started blasting all about with the PoE arguement which is only relevant to a very tiny conception of God, and was quite rude for a while with his drunken rants.

But while I was expounding at one point my own philosophies, or at least the relevant portions of them I was hardly attempting to convert everyone to the worship of Doug, the cannabalistic uber-pikachu.  You can see then that I wasn't attempting to persuade anyone of the merits of an religious beliefs at all. If you approached them from that perspective, of course they were horribly flawed and unclear.

If you mean someone elses arguements, then by all means, elaborate.

Hey Spike: are we in need of rap lyrics flood?  It will sweep away the posts in this endless circle-jerk in a cleansing rush of circa-2000 hip hop.

But give the word and the posting will begin.

Quote from: fonkaygarryHey Spike: are we in need of rap lyrics flood?  It will sweep away the posts in this endless circle-jerk in a cleansing rush of circa-2000 hip hop.

But give the word and the posting will begin.

Commence with the Rappitude!!! :cool:

Quote from: John MorrowUh, apparently you haven't studied history very closely.  Take a look at the largest mass murders of civilians during the 20th Century.  Now, tell me which of those countries were officially atheist and which were motivated by a belief in God.



Really?  When was the last time you had a sword put to your throat?  

In the 20th century people may have been more likely to be killed for political rather than religious reasons by a small margin, but for the 1900 years preceeding that religion was the number one motivator for homicide.

Also remember thar most of the trouble in the mideast is religious based, or at least attributed to religion.

And the catholic church still fights against birth control, causing countless infants to be born only to starve, and opposes condoms, causing aids to continue to scythe thru africa. If you took all the deaths caused by babies being born in famine areas due to the vatican's opposition of birth control and all the aids victims created by the vatican's opposition to condoms you'd probably have a pile of bodies higher than the highest steeple in the vatican.

Quote from: SpikeMy arguments?  I bowed out of that thread because  Akrasia started blasting all about with the PoE arguement which is only relevant to a very tiny conception of God, and was quite rude for a while with his drunken rants.

But while I was expounding at one point my own philosophies, or at least the relevant portions of them I was hardly attempting to convert everyone to the worship of Doug, the cannabalistic uber-pikachu.  You can see then that I wasn't attempting to persuade anyone of the merits of an religious beliefs at all. If you approached them from that perspective, of course they were horribly flawed and unclear.

If you mean someone elses arguements, then by all means, elaborate.

No, I meant you. You weren't the only one doing it, but you were certainly involved, and certainly spouting nonsense. Your "criticism" of Akrasia's point was pretty dumb. Your summary of it up there shows how you pretty clearly didn't read, or else didn't pay attention to, the part where he explained it was one of a set of problems and arguments that atheists used, and didn't exhaust all possible atheist arguments.

I also didn't accuse you of proselytising, so I don't care whether you think you were or weren't proselytising. To clarify my position though, you weren't proselytising, you were making a bad argument in defense of religion, one of such poor quality it wouldn't stand up in first year theology or philosophy classes. Though I didn't see him participating in the thread, you'd do well in future to take a page from J Arcane (and joeman over on rpg.net), both of whom have quite sophisticated conceptions of God and the eloquence and rigour to defend those conceptions in ways that don't bring shame to themselves.

Quote from: John MorrowUh, apparently you haven't studied history very closely.  Take a look at the largest mass murders of civilians during the 20th Century.  Now, tell me which of those countries were officially atheist and which were motivated by a belief in God.

Sooooo tired of this one.
Lets take Stalin as case in point. Seminary educated, and apparently took his lessons very well indeed, he converted 'communism' (the USSR really wan't communist) into a faith and installed himself at the head of a personality cult. The purges etc were nothing to do with any atheistic beliefs he may or may not have held - because atheism HAS no motivational dogma - but instead to do with his own paranoia and desire to eliminate groups that could threaten his position.

Compare that to religions, which DO contain dogma - depending on the religion - to convert others, to destroy unbelievers, to treat them as inhuman and so forth.

Quote from: Dominus NoxIn the 20th century people may have been more likely to be killed for political rather than religious reasons by a small margin, but for the 1900 years preceeding that religion was the number one motivator for homicide.

Also remember thar most of the trouble in the mideast is religious based, or at least attributed to religion.

And the catholic church still fights against birth control, causing countless infants to be born only to starve, and opposes condoms, causing aids to continue to scythe thru africa. If you took all the deaths caused by babies being born in famine areas due to the vatican's opposition of birth control and all the aids victims created by the vatican's opposition to condoms you'd probably have a pile of bodies higher than the highest steeple in the vatican.

The problem is not whether atheism or the various religious traditions of the world done more good or bad than one another. The questions are which position is true, and what does the truth of this position mean we should do? If it turns out that Sunni Islam (or at least so-and-so's understanding of it) is in fact a true description of the world, down to its conception of the moral structure of human life, then we should all become Sunni Muslims. And so on with Catholicism, Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. Actions that might have previously seemed abhorrent to us would need to be re-evaluated in light of this rearticulation of the world's moral properties.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe problem is not whether atheism or the various religious traditions of the world done more good or bad than one another. The questions are which position is true, and what does the truth of this position mean we should do? If it turns out that Sunni Islam (or at least so-and-so's understanding of it) is in fact a true description of the world, down to its conception of the moral structure of human life, then we should all become Sunni Muslims. And so on with Catholicism, Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. Actions that might have previously seemed abhorrent to us would need to be re-evaluated in light of this rearticulation of the world's moral properties.

So, if a certain viewpoint turns out to be a true description of the world we should all embrace it? Shit, I hope no one ever proves that uncle 'dolph was right all along. I have a friend who's jewish.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineNo, I meant you. You weren't the only one doing it, but you were certainly involved, and certainly spouting nonsense. Your "criticism" of Akrasia's point was pretty dumb. Your summary of it up there shows how you pretty clearly didn't read, or else didn't pay attention to, the part where he explained it was one of a set of problems and arguments that atheists used, and didn't exhaust all possible atheist arguments.

I also didn't accuse you of proselytising, so I don't care whether you think you were or weren't proselytising. To clarify my position though, you weren't proselytising, you were making a bad argument in defense of religion, one of such poor quality it wouldn't stand up in first year theology or philosophy classes. Though I didn't see him participating in the thread, you'd do well in future to take a page from J Arcane (and joeman over on rpg.net), both of whom have quite sophisticated conceptions of God and the eloquence and rigour to defend those conceptions in ways that don't bring shame to themselves.

I understood Akrasia's point. In fact, my entire arguement with him, prior to bowing out was on that very point. It wasn't relevant to dismiss 'this idea of God' when talking about the possibility of God, especially when many faiths don't require God to be benevolent at all.  The fact that he admitted it was so, then kept going on about it was part of why I left.

To clarify my position: I wasn't defending religion, I was attacking weak arguements uplifting atheism.  I don't care if you have religion or not, I don't care if you are a devout atheist or not.  I do care when people praise crappy shite simply because they agree with the message.   Obviously, I need to work on my communication skills...

Look: When asked about the 'origins' of God, religious types spout 'The Alpha and the Omega' bullshit. It's hollow.

When asked about why they don't have to believe atehists spout "because we are rational".  It's hollow. *

I call bullshit regardless of which side of the debate spouts it. It's just here that the atheists pop up more often in discussions I actually read.


* Look, I'm tired, okay. I'd totally give you a much better example if I had more time, energy or desire to look up actual quotes from threads here... then I'd have to find a different example from the religious crowd that more perfectly paralleled the example I gave for the atheist crowd. Lets just assume you got the gist of it, or are being deliberately obtuse and call it a night, shall we?

Quote from: Dominus NoxIn the 20th century people may have been more likely to be killed for political rather than religious reasons by a small margin, but for the 1900 years preceeding that religion was the number one motivator for homicide.

I know what you meant, but where does one draw the line between religion and politics?  Much of the nastiness in human history that's been committed in the name of religion can really be boiled down to competing politics.  Organised religion is politics, with spirituality at the core of the doctrine instead of economics.  And sometimes even that is a hard distinction to make.

!i!

QuoteThat's a pretty shitty thing to say, and one with no real basis in reality. In my own experiences it's never been an issue, and I'd never be as crass to suggest that was unique to my nation.

Sorry. I did not intend to say it´s a problem for every US-citizen. But it´s definitely a non-subject here.

It´s one of those US specific discussions, whether you like it, or not.
Protestant sects, gun control, "racism", militant atheism, high school traumata etc. are all things in the general US discourse that are unfamiliar for outsiders. Our media do features on that stuff, to make us understand.

You´d never have such a discussion like this in a German forum.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI know what you meant, but where does one draw the line between religion and politics?  Much of the nastiness in human history that's been committed in the name of religion can really be boiled down to competing politics.  Organised religion is politics, with spirituality at the core of the doctrine instead of economics.  And sometimes even that is a hard distinction to make.

!i!

My history teacher once said to us what I thought was a very wise thing, and I think everyone would do well to understand:  War, all war, is about resources.  The rest is just excuses and justifications, whether beforehand or afterwards.

Religion has often been used as an excuse.  It has very, very, very rarely been the true cause or reason.

Quote from: SpikeCommence with the Rappitude!!! :cool:

SPIKE HAS SPOKEN I MUST OBEY

[/COLOR]

Now isn't this a damn sight better than philosophy majors sucking each other off?

Quote from: Dominus NoxSo, if a certain viewpoint turns out to be a true description of the world we should all embrace it? Shit, I hope no one ever proves that uncle 'dolph was right all along. I have a friend who's jewish.

I doubt you do have a friend, let alone a jewish one, you fucking troll.

But yes, if there is some proposition about the world that is true and that entails some moral consequence, we should act in accord with it, and reconcile our current moral understanding to it. We are fortunate that Nazism is not a good candidate for generating truths about the world that entail moral consequences.

If I found out what was objectively right, I can't honestly say I'd go along with it unconditionally. I might actually take advantage of others' sudden awareness of the truth for personal gain.