Atheist kills mother whilst reciting Dawkins

[Flipmo]

I feel like closing this as we've gone over this issue plenty of times. Within the next few days if nothing is posted on the crime itself, I shall ban this to the pits of Tartaros.

 

[tHuG $TyLe]

Nah keep it open. Nothing beats beating a dead horse. Unless your beating it off that is.

 

[vg4030]

I tried, Oh lord/darwin how I tried

 

[ARon]

Flipmo stop closing shit, yeah its the same shit over and over but it is still shit. And shit is something SH has very little of these days

 

[Duke]

James Lee, Atheist Terrorist (Discovery Channel Hostage-Taker)

One guy vs. thousands.

Not a strong case.

 

[Chronic]

I feel like closing this as we've gone over this issue plenty of times. Within the next few days if nothing is posted on the crime itself, I shall ban this to the pits of Tartaros.

If it turns into senseless arguing and name-calling DO IT. Otherwise NEIN! If we start closing off-topic threads we may as well close the board.

 

[cS bIsHoP]

And until they come up with something, the most extreme form of disbelief is warranted.

I disagree, I'll argue time and time again that our existence is a miracle of unfathomable odds, and it could be considered evidence. It gets to a point where it is a matter of personal taste. Personally I'm not sure if the miracle is eternal or ephemeral, hence I am agnostic. But the most extreme form of disbelief seems irrational.

The thing for me is that science at least tries to explain it. We might never get the ultimate answer, but we're at least not sitting in a semi-circle making things up.

I have no intrinsic problem with someone thinking a God or Gods made us, in whichever way. It becomes a problem when religion interferes with well-established science (evolution vs. creationism for example). If someone still thinks, anno 2010-almost-2011, that God made man in 7 days about 5000 years ago, I'm not calling that a rationalistic faith but the opposite.

I agree with you completely, science is the closest approximation to the truth that we have. But the callousness is counterproductive. I don't know how any one can claim they want a better world without religion and be such nasty little cunts about their opinion (not you specifically).

 

[Flipmo]

Chronic, I would have never considered you to be a disloyal partisan... I have my eye on you.















... I just want more conversation on the news story itself, cause I know how this is gonna turn out.

PS: I love you.

 

[Elmira]

There is a coup d'etat in the works. Flipper, I'm on to you.

 

[Flipmo]

I could always use a Femme Fatale, Elmira... just sayin' (You'd have to change your name to Nikita though, you know... out of principle).

:embarresd:

 

[Casey]

You can't prove he does or he does not.

You also cannot prove that the following do not exist:

Dragons
Unicorns
Flying monkeys
the Omaticaya people of Pandora
The Flying Spaghetti Monster
A neon pink spotted three headed magical lion called Dave The Magic Lion.
a 50 foot spider with 100 legs that lives under the sea and only eats Kraft Macaroni and Cheese, which is hand-delivered in waterproof boxes by Dave The Magic Lion on a weekly basis.

So, do you also believe in those? What would you think if I told you that Dave the Magic Lion was the real jesus, muhammad, buddha and moses because he was a shapeshifter?

Listen up. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE CLAIMANT.

 

[Elmira]

God is such a celebrity.

 

[ARon]

What Smacky is saying is simple, why argue it

 

[Chronic]

I disagree, I'll argue time and time again that our existence is a miracle of unfathomable odds, and it could be considered evidence.

I don't necessarily disagree or agree with your other points, just wanted to give my opinion on this. It's kind of like having a dice with 2,000,000 sides. If you throw it and correctly guess the number that it will land on it will seem nearly impossible. When you're on the living end of such odds it seems much more miraculous than it really is. And given the size of our universe the odds may not be that unfathomable.

 

[Cooper]

On topic threads are soooo 2005. Don't close this one.

 

[Jokerman]

I disagree, I'll argue time and time again that our existence is a miracle of unfathomable odds, and it could be considered evidence.

Even if you theorize that all this couldn't have just come from nothing, that doesn't mean it came from God. All it says is that maybe it didn't come from nothing. Fine. You can theorize it came from another universe or that this nothing as we know it is really something on a quantum level. Fine. That still shouldn't point at anything like anyone's conception of a god. It shouldn't bring any comfort, promise of an afterlife, or meaning to you if you believe in a process you don't understand. There's no reason to theorize that it needs your prayers or elaborate ceremonies or anything from you. All you can say is that this must have come from somewhere or out of something, I don't know what. No need for beliefs or names or attributes or stories with moral endings. Hence, extreme atheism is still warranted.

 

[Duke]

But is "extreme atheism" defined by the thought patterns or by the urge to tell religious people they're wrong?

 

[dilla]

No, he doesn't have to prove it to a non-believer, but he then shouldn't expect us to respect his belief. Respect him but not his belief.

If a Hindu can not eat beef (or meat, in some cases) or a Muslim can not eat pork I would not shove BBQ ribs and a Big Mac down both their throats because I do not agree with their "belief" that pigs are dirty or that cows are sacred. Nor would I ridicule him for believing in those things. But if he were to tell me to stop eating meat in general or eating cows or pigs and calls me a savage for eating meat, I'd be pretty pissed. If he told me my belief that "there is no God" was going to get me into hell, again, I'd be pissed.

Explain to me how you can respect a person while not respecting his beliefs. Please don't tell me "respect" is analogous to "agreeing with." I see it as a more like "understanding and being tolerant of."

You also cannot prove that the following do not exist:

Dragons
Unicorns
Flying monkeys
the Omaticaya people of Pandora
The Flying Spaghetti Monster
A neon pink spotted three headed magical lion called Dave The Magic Lion.
a 50 foot spider with 100 legs that lives under the sea and only eats Kraft Macaroni and Cheese, which is hand-delivered in waterproof boxes by Dave The Magic Lion on a weekly basis.

So, do you also believe in those? What would you think if I told you that Dave the Magic Lion was the real jesus, muhammad, buddha and moses because he was a shapeshifter?

Listen up. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE CLAIMANT.

I can see how this applies to someone that preaches about God out in the public. But what about the person that practices in the privacy of his home with his family? He doesn't give a shit that you're atheist and that some members on this board dunno wtf to think about religion. He sits there and prays, meditates, reads holy books, and feels that it improves his life. You have no dirt on him. To say he's religious, and therefore "stupid" or "uneducated" or whatever adjectives you throw around to describe Believers is a result of your intolerance. He has nothing to prove to you unless he decides to debate with you.

Even if you theorize that all this couldn't have just come from nothing, that doesn't mean it came from God. All it says is that maybe it didn't come from nothing. Fine. You can theorize it came from another universe or that this nothing as we know it is really something on a quantum level. Fine. That still shouldn't point at anything like anyone's conception of a god. It shouldn't bring any comfort, promise of an afterlife, or meaning to you if you believe in a process you don't understand. There's no reason to theorize that it needs your prayers or elaborate ceremonies or anything from you. All you can say is that this must have come from somewhere or out of something, I don't know what. No need for beliefs or names or attributes or stories with moral endings. In other words, extreme atheism is warranted.

Have you ever thought that "God" is merely a name people have given to something that they don't truly understand? Ok, that seems a bit obvious, but do you think that after all the science and religion bullshit has surpassed, we still haven't gotten it right? About what started this all?

I spent a lot of time in my physics class wondering how all this shit came into harmony. "Shit" like the laws of physics on Earth and in the Universe, and beyond. There is stuff in physics so far beyond the average person's grasp, it's stupid. What if everything came from one particle? Or one theory? You know how many theories there are in physics and astronomy. What if everything we have is a misnomer? To say "science" would be so broad, how could atheists possibly say they were right? And what if religious people merely personified a theory or particle they knew nothing about? Either way, it's ignorant, but neither side is right in this scenario. Which means all this bickering is over something that, right now, can only seem to be answered once we die.

 

[dilla]

But is "extreme atheism" defined by the thought patterns or by the urge to tell religious people they're wrong?

I haven't heard of atheists killing Christians, but that's probably because atheists are a minority in society today. This would be like the Westboro Baptist Church going on a mass genocide of people they don't agree with, which is everyone outside their 150-member church. It won't work. So in that sense, there is nothing analogous to religious fanatics killing people for atheists.

What I personally find analogous is intolerance. As has been exemplified by this thread. It has shown me that atheists are just as intolerant as Al-Qaeda and any other extremists.

 

[Duke]

I haven't heard of atheists killing Christians, but that's probably because atheists are a minority in society today. This would be like the Westboro Baptist Church going on a mass genocide of people they don't agree with, which is everyone outside their 150-member church. It won't work. So in that sense, there is nothing analogous to religious fanatics killing people for atheists.

I didnt say anything about killing, that wasnt the question at all. Is, for you at least, an extreme atheist someone who absolutely discards any notion of a God and thinks religion is stupid, or is an extreme atheist someone that actively finds and tells religious people they're wrong?

What I personally find analogous is intolerance. As has been exemplified by this thread. It has shown me that atheists are just as intolerant as Al-Qaeda and any other extremists.

Apart from the whole murder and terrorism thing...yeah, sure.