|
Post by Markw on Dec 6, 2013 19:10:52 GMT -5
I don't want to know about what can realistically be done. I want to know, if you were in charge, what would you do to religious people? You want them to get mental evaluations. For what purpose? What do you want to happen? They should receive psychiatric treatment. If a perfectly ordinary and pleasant human being having slightly different beliefs to you about why/how they're on the earth, upsets you this much, then I think maybe you need psychiatric treatment. You seem to think that being an atheist makes you more intelligent than religious people, but it doesn't, in fact all you've done in this thread is shown that you're an intolerant idiot (or a troll). I don't believe in God, probably as strongly as you don't, but who gives a crapwhat anyone else believes as long as they're not hurting anyone? And how can you condemn religion for causing discrimination when you're quite clearly discriminating against religious people? For the record many of the geniuses you listed earlier on were agnostics, while a number of hugely significant religious men like Isaac Newton have been conveniently ignored. Are we saying that you're more intelligent than Isaac Newton was, because you don't believe a fairy tale?
|
|
|
Post by Lord Ragnarok on Dec 6, 2013 19:25:21 GMT -5
They should receive psychiatric treatment. Forced vaccinations bad. Forced psychiatric treatment (including medication and institutionalization) good. Okay, now I would like to hear your suggestion of what to do with grown adults that believe in fairy tales and the like.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Ragnarok on Dec 6, 2013 19:29:01 GMT -5
They should receive psychiatric treatment. If a perfectly ordinary and pleasant human being having slightly different beliefs to you about why/how they're on the earth, upsets you this much, then I think maybe you need psychiatric treatment. You seem to think that being an atheist makes you more intelligent than religious people, but it doesn't, in fact all you've done in this thread is shown that you're an intolerant idiot (or a troll). I don't believe in God, probably as strongly as you don't, but who gives a crap what anyone else believes as long as they're not hurting anyone? And how can you condemn religion for causing discrimination when you're quite clearly discriminating against religious people? For the record many of the geniuses you listed earlier on were agnostics, while a number of hugely significant religious men like Isaac Newton have been conveniently ignored. Are we saying that you're more intelligent than Isaac Newton was, because you don't believe a fairy tale? So if I went around preaching the word of Spider-Man and Batman and claim that they really exist you're gonna tell me that's socially acceptable and that I'm a normal person?
|
|
|
Post by Markw on Dec 6, 2013 19:29:52 GMT -5
If a perfectly ordinary and pleasant human being having slightly different beliefs to you about why/how they're on the earth, upsets you this much, then I think maybe you need psychiatric treatment. You seem to think that being an atheist makes you more intelligent than religious people, but it doesn't, in fact all you've done in this thread is shown that you're an intolerant idiot (or a troll). I don't believe in God, probably as strongly as you don't, but who gives a crap what anyone else believes as long as they're not hurting anyone? And how can you condemn religion for causing discrimination when you're quite clearly discriminating against religious people? For the record many of the geniuses you listed earlier on were agnostics, while a number of hugely significant religious men like Isaac Newton have been conveniently ignored. Are we saying that you're more intelligent than Isaac Newton was, because you don't believe a fairy tale? So if I went around preaching the word of Spider-Man and Batman and claim that they really exist you're gonna tell me that's socially acceptable and that I'm a normal person? Well you've done a brilliant job of side stepping everything in my post there. Edit: But I will answer the question once you've confirmed that you're more intelligent than Sir Isaac Newton was.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Dec 6, 2013 19:33:59 GMT -5
Forced vaccinations bad. Forced psychiatric treatment (including medication and institutionalization) good. Okay, now I would like to hear your suggestion of what to do with grown adults that believe in fairy tales and the like. Do nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Dec 6, 2013 19:34:07 GMT -5
So if I went around preaching the word of Spider-Man and Batman and claim that they really exist you're gonna tell me that's socially acceptable and that I'm a normal person? Well you've done a brilliant job of side stepping everything in my post there. Seems like his MO. I don't think he reads the replies. I think he has the tired "spiderman" and "burning bush" lines copied and ready to paste regardless of what the response is.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Dec 6, 2013 19:35:00 GMT -5
Okay, now I would like to hear your suggestion of what to do with grown adults that believe in fairy tales and the like. Do nothing. I seriously LOL'd at that line here at the office. Good thing it's just me.
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Dec 6, 2013 19:51:24 GMT -5
I say this as an atheist. Persecuting people based on having a religion is no different from Christian persecuting Muslims, or Muslims persecuting Buddhists for not believing the same thing for them. I also like how you intentionally use harsh and negative terms for religions or religious characters to get a rise out of people and insult them. It makes you appear petty, unintelligent, and bitter. You can have an intelligent debate about religion without throwing around words like "sky daddy" and "fairy tale." Using language like that will immediately put someone on the defensive and make any discussion hostile and ruin the chance of a civilized discussion. But I suspect you know that. If you believe in your ideals, then there should be no need to intentionally demean and incite anger with people who don't agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Ragnarok on Dec 6, 2013 20:28:54 GMT -5
Forced vaccinations bad. Forced psychiatric treatment (including medication and institutionalization) good. Interesting. Seems like a Nazi Germany thing. Should we also prep ovens? Comparing psychiatric treatment to burning people alive? -_- See this is the problem I have, not with atheism, but with you. You think everyone who have some kind of belief different than you is a psycho and should get psychiatric help. Nobody here is forcing you to be religious, yet you continue to preach atheism and when we don't agree with you, you call us crazy and idiotic. Freaking wow... You are seriously clueless. So if I went around preaching the word of Spider-Man and Batman and claim that they really exist you're gonna tell me that's socially acceptable and that I'm a normal person? Well you've done a brilliant job of side stepping everything in my post there. Edit: But I will answer the question once you've confirmed that you're more intelligent than Sir Isaac Newton was. Yes, I am more intelligent than Isaac Newton. Now answer my question. Well you've done a brilliant job of side stepping everything in my post there. Seems like his MO. I don't think he reads the replies. I think he has the tired "spiderman" and "burning bush" lines copied and ready to paste regardless of what the response is. My MO? I've replied to every single response. You have completely ignored the last few replies I gave you. I SHOULD copy and paste the "Spider-Man" and "Burning Bush" lines since I've yet to get a clear response for them.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Ragnarok on Dec 6, 2013 20:32:43 GMT -5
I say this as an atheist. Persecuting people based on having a religion is no different from Christian persecuting Muslims, or Muslims persecuting Buddhists for not believing the same thing for them. I also like how you intentionally use harsh and negative terms for religions or religious characters to get a rise out of people and insult them. It makes you appear petty, unintelligent, and bitter. You can have an intelligent debate about religion without throwing around words like "sky daddy" and "fairy tale." Using language like that will immediately put someone on the defensive and make any discussion hostile and ruin the chance of a civilized discussion. But I suspect you know that. If you believe in your ideals, then there should be no need to intentionally demean and incite anger with people who don't agree with you. What better names can you think of for these things? I don't believe anything in the Bible to be true and it's stories are so outlandish that I don't know what else to call them but fairy tales. That is what they are essentially, mythological fairy tales. You got a better name for them?
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Dec 6, 2013 20:32:54 GMT -5
Your "biblical contradictions" are laughable. Any believer with half a brain could poke a zillion holes in them. You have to know this. Or has your hatred blinded you so badly? Sent from my Nexus 10 using proboards Okay, why don't you take a whack at trying to disprove them? And I love how you just single out one of my valid arguments. I'm really curious as to what you have to say about the rest. "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him." - Proverbs 26:4 Apparently they had trolls in King Solomon's time too. You're clearly not interested in any answers. If you were, a quick search could find them. You are full of hate for 90-95% of the world's population. Honestly, I pity you more than anything. It's sad.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Dec 6, 2013 20:47:17 GMT -5
I say this as an atheist. Persecuting people based on having a religion is no different from Christian persecuting Muslims, or Muslims persecuting Buddhists for not believing the same thing for them. I also like how you intentionally use harsh and negative terms for religions or religious characters to get a rise out of people and insult them. It makes you appear petty, unintelligent, and bitter. You can have an intelligent debate about religion without throwing around words like "sky daddy" and "fairy tale." Using language like that will immediately put someone on the defensive and make any discussion hostile and ruin the chance of a civilized discussion. But I suspect you know that. If you believe in your ideals, then there should be no need to intentionally demean and incite anger with people who don't agree with you. What better names can you think of for these things? I don't believe anything in the Bible to be true and it's stories are so outlandish that I don't know what else to call them but fairy tales. That is what they are essentially, mythological fairy tales. You got a better name for them? I'm a Christian. I don't believe many of the stories about Muhammad. I don't believe the angel Gabriel appeared to him and told him things that were contrary to the Christianity I practice. I don't believe the miracles some attribute to him. I don't go around telling the Muslims that I work with that they believe in fairy tales and that my "sky daddy" can beat up their "sky daddy". Why? Because I'm not an bunghole. The world is big enough for them to believe what they want and me to believe what I want.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Dec 6, 2013 21:27:49 GMT -5
Interesting. Seems like a Nazi Germany thing. Should we also prep ovens? Comparing psychiatric treatment to burning people alive? -_- See this is the problem I have, not with atheism, but with you. You think everyone who have some kind of belief different than you is a psycho and should get psychiatric help. Nobody here is forcing you to be religious, yet you continue to preach atheism and when we don't agree with you, you call us crazy and idiotic. Freaking wow... You are seriously clueless. Well you've done a brilliant job of side stepping everything in my post there. Edit: But I will answer the question once you've confirmed that you're more intelligent than Sir Isaac Newton was. Yes, I am more intelligent than Isaac Newton. Now answer my question. Seems like his MO. I don't think he reads the replies. I think he has the tired "spiderman" and "burning bush" lines copied and ready to paste regardless of what the response is. My MO? I've replied to every single response. You have completely ignored the last few replies I gave you. I SHOULD copy and paste the "Spider-Man" and "Burning Bush" lines since I've yet to get a clear response for them. I have to admit, your replies are, at the very least, entertaining. Do you speak like this without a computer? If you were in a classroom, or on a discussion panel, even the dinner table, would you broach this issue the same way with a similar group of people? What if you were at a table with a muslim, a christian, a catholic, a protestant and a jewish person? Would you talk like you type? Would you tell them they needed psychiatric help?
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Dec 7, 2013 0:05:27 GMT -5
I say this as an atheist. Persecuting people based on having a religion is no different from Christian persecuting Muslims, or Muslims persecuting Buddhists for not believing the same thing for them. I also like how you intentionally use harsh and negative terms for religions or religious characters to get a rise out of people and insult them. It makes you appear petty, unintelligent, and bitter. You can have an intelligent debate about religion without throwing around words like "sky daddy" and "fairy tale." Using language like that will immediately put someone on the defensive and make any discussion hostile and ruin the chance of a civilized discussion. But I suspect you know that. If you believe in your ideals, then there should be no need to intentionally demean and incite anger with people who don't agree with you. What better names can you think of for these things? I don't believe anything in the Bible to be true and it's stories are so outlandish that I don't know what else to call them but fairy tales. That is what they are essentially, mythological fairy tales. You got a better name for them? You could just say, I don't believe in God instead of saying "Sky Daddy" and you could say I don't believe the Bible is true, or I don't believe in Christianity instead of just saying fairly tales. You use those words because you know they are inflammatory and will get a reaction from people and hopefully offend them. You don't deliberately try to offend people you are trying to have a civil debate with. Which is the core of the problem. You aren't interested in civil debate or discussion and it shows by your terminology and inability to even consider why someone does believe because you have deemed all religion stupid and all who take part in it as lesser individuals.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Dec 7, 2013 2:58:31 GMT -5
Your "biblical contradictions" are laughable. Any believer with half a brain could poke a zillion holes in them. You have to know this. Or has your hatred blinded you so badly? Sent from my Nexus 10 using proboards If you would stop throwing the hate card out & defend your position like a man, we could somewhere. Thanks for leaving me out of the fun guys. Moving on! There is no evidence to support that the bible is to be taken metaphorically or in any context outside of literal interpretation, so yes. The majority of the bible is laughable indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Dec 7, 2013 3:05:39 GMT -5
Okay, why don't you take a whack at trying to disprove them? And I love how you just single out one of my valid arguments. I'm really curious as to what you have to say about the rest. "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him." - Proverbs 26:4 Apparently they had trolls in King Solomon's time too. You're clearly not interested in any answers. If you were, a quick search could find them. You are full of hate for 90-95% of the world's population. Honestly, I pity you more than anything. It's sad. Considering that the only(& God do I mean only) justifiable reason to practice a peaceful religion is to cope with the fear of death, He's actually among the few people who are brave enough to stare our fate square in the eye, & not only cope with it, but thrive on it as initiative to learn all there is to learn, he is mentally stronger than the majority of the population.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Dec 7, 2013 3:13:24 GMT -5
They should receive psychiatric treatment. If a perfectly ordinary and pleasant human being having slightly different beliefs to you about why/how they're on the earth, upsets you this much, then I think maybe you need psychiatric treatment. You seem to think that being an atheist makes you more intelligent than religious people, but it doesn't, in fact all you've done in this thread is shown that you're an intolerant idiot (or a troll). I don't believe in God, probably as strongly as you don't, but who gives a crap what anyone else believes as long as they're not hurting anyone? And how can you condemn religion for causing discrimination when you're quite clearly discriminating against religious people? For the record many of the geniuses you listed earlier on were agnostics, while a number of hugely significant religious men like Isaac Newton have been conveniently ignored. Are we saying that you're more intelligent than Isaac Newton was, because you don't believe a fairy tale? The only reason Netwon was religious is because there was far more evidence for the argument. If someone of identical cognitive faculties were alive today, they would be as vocal an atheist as Htichens. It was reasonable to conceive that God(s) existed during his age. You're also failing to distinguish genius from knowledge. Any of us have more knowledge about our world than Newton did about his. It's simply knowledge of different subjects. It doesn't mean that his brain wasn't more apt to processing this information. If he were among our contemporaries, he'd easily be among the scientific elite, or the very finest of whatever field he chose. While he, nor you or anyone involved in this thread is more cognitively apt than Newton, we all have a higher, overall quantity of knowledge on multiple subjects. The very field of cancer research proves that.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Dec 7, 2013 3:27:16 GMT -5
Well then, I guess it's okay if I go around and preach the word of Batman and Spider-Man and claim that they truly do exist and are the true saviors of this world. You do realize if I were to do this, people would think there was something wrong with me and that I need help. Don't deny it, because you know it's true. So if I would get scrutinized for claiming that Batman and Spider-Man really exist and are here to save the world, why then is it okay for people to go around and claim that talking snakes, burning bushes, cockatrices, leviathans, resurrections, men walking on water, giants, angels and demons really exist? Why are they exempt? It just isn't normal for grown adults to believe in such nonsense. Did you not see the quote I posted by Bertrand Russel? A better statement could not have been made on this issue. It's truly insane that you think it's acceptable for grown adults to believe in childish fairy tales. As already pointed out, it's very normal to believe such things. Given that, historically, every society we've ever encountered/discovered has had a religion of some sort and given that over 90-95% of people on Earth right now believe in some sort of deity, then it's very, very normal for adults to believe in such things. The fact that something is widely practiced is in no way an adequate to judge the practicality, or ethical implications of it. Racism has existed over a duration equal to religion. This in no way changes that racial discrimination is ethically adequate. For the record, his "insults" should be taken for they are used as by the most educated philosopher. A means of exposing the immense lack of reasoning & coherence in their view points. What good is a belief system that functions (literally) as the top section of an hour-glass, with science & philosophy being the bottom half. It literally loses it's sands of validity, when the opposing section of the hour-glass gains evidential weight? The less ignorant we become, the more religion loses it's value. In the words of Bertrand Russell, it's (the)God(s)'s own fault for not providing evidence that we ever bothered to questioned God in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Dec 7, 2013 3:36:17 GMT -5
I fight for free speech for having these dialogues. I actually thank you for responding because I believe the unexamined life is not worth living. That is actually such an immaculate question that I'm no longer embarrassed by your prior posts. Informational speech is judged(as it relates to it's value) by it's validity. Even logical fallacies are of immense value for study purposes. Artistic speech is obviously an area of human thought that is dictated by one's perception of their universe. This creates an immense kerfuffle since most artists are generally suffering from mental illness in some way(According to Freud) & their best work is a purge of their anguish. A response or reaction to discomfort or pleasure & so on. We are often defined as "Art Making Animals". It's among the few definitions of ourselves that masters across virtually all forms of human endeavor actually agree upon. But if we must describe ideal conditions, then it is most aptly judged by how well it meets the criteria of conveying thoughtful, & sincere ideas, otherwise it is simply decoration. It should also please the artist themselves above all else, since they hold the true meaning of the work in their souls. There is the exception that the artist was in a state of distorted logic during the creation process, in which case it is up to someone with great understanding of the artist as a person, the style of the medium in which it was created, or both to decipher the reason for it's creation & the meaning it actually conveys. Are there police going around to make sure no one is violating your speech rules? Do we lock up those violators? Do we allow people the ability to freely talk about what they want in their own homes? Way to catch a red herring. Let me grill it for you. I never claimed contempt for the privacy of one's living space. My greatest protest to the existence of deities is the insinuation the anyone can be prosecuted for "Thought crime". Did I imply any form of police state course of action be taken? no! And don't forget it. I gave you a logical assessment of your excellent question. People are allowed to believe whatever they want, but they shouldn't expect to be given any form of power if they allow those beliefs to affect their decision making in an I altruistic manner.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Dec 7, 2013 3:56:52 GMT -5
He said they should take an evaluation, not lock them in concentrations camps. You should at least half to present a valid reason to believe it. Do you believe there is any valid reason to be religious? What happens if whoever is given the authority to oversee the evaluations decides they all need to be locked up? How do we do that? I never suggested we imprison someone for their beliefs. I'm not roman. I do propose that people should be educated to the evidence for things & decide for themselves what they believe. Do I believe there is any valid reason in being religious? Aside from Pascal's wager?... Well, not really. Religion is a manifestation of our need for purpose, consolation, answers, & the general "Needs of the human condition". The human is a creature with a void that is almost, but not impossible to fill. I recognize that religion has contributed to the progression of civilization, but in no way does this justify the bloodshed, bigotry, rape, corruption, & oppression that religious institutions have caused. This is because I wish to contribute to ridding the world of all injustice & tyranny no matter the perpetrator. That's the definition of the highest levels of empathy & altruism. Performing beneficial services as best you can for as many as you can. That is why these discussions are so important. The unexamined life is not worth living. The only way to fill the void is understand that it isn't so much a void, as much as as it is a mind devoid of a sense of power over one's self. The greatest religious quote ever was the 4th Buddha's soliloquy in regards to his journey of enlightenment not being a matter of gaining anything, but rather losing all of his self-poisoning thoughts. I apologize for being curt & rude from before. Skepticism is justified, but being rude is predominantly inappropriate . I admit to being a poor sport in some of my rebuttals.
|
|