|
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
posted November 05, 2009 01:21 AM |
|
|
Well Elodin people resort to insults cuz well... they've used up all their arguments and you just refuse to listen, or maybe you lack the ability, I do not know. Their arguments are not defeated by yours, they are just ignored. Meanwhile you just repeat the same old "cuz the bible says so and you're atheists and have no saying in this matter" thingy.
And once people finally get enough of it and goes ape**** at you, you're like "hahaha, insults, I have WON!"
Feels more like provocation to me.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 01:36 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 01:38, 05 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
Well Elodin people resort to insults cuz well... they've used up all their arguments and you just refuse to listen, or maybe you lack the ability, I do not know. Their arguments are not defeated by yours, they are just ignored. Meanwhile you just repeat the same old "cuz the bible says so and you're atheists and have no saying in this matter" thingy.
And once people finally get enough of it and goes ape**** at you, you're like "hahaha, insults, I have WON!"
Feels more like provocation to me.
Actually I've quoted the Bible to define who a Christian is. Atheists don't get to define Christianity, that is defined by the New Testament.
Some atheists continue to reject the authority of the Bible to define who a Christian is and insist they have the right to define Christianity instead.
Continuing to insist that it is the Bible that defines Christianity instead of atheists defining Christianity is not provocation.
"The other side" has been throwing around insults ever since they revived the thread on Oct 22.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 01:37 AM |
|
|
Elodin, if you insist on that argument, then you also accept that 98% of all "Christians" throughout history were not Christians, especially those during the crusades.
Not that I have a problem with it, it's just that you don't use the same reasoning on socialism/communism, that's what bothers me.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 01:41 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 01:43, 05 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
Elodin, if you insist on that argument, then you also accept that 98% of all "Christians" throughout history were not Christians, especially those during the crusades.
Not that I have a problem with it, it's just that you don't use the same reasoning on socialism/communism, that's what bothers me.
98% of all poeple claiming to be Christians have not been murderers so I disagree with your statemnent.
How do you claim I am being inconsitent with my comments about atheism/socialism/communism? How was Stalin not a true atheist for example.
I've already said atheists can be moral people and that most atheists do value human life even though the implications of atheism itself is that human have no more value than animals and at least one atheist said as much.
____________
Revelation
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 01:48 AM |
|
|
Quote:
98% of all poeple claiming to be Christians have not been murderers so I disagree with your statemnent.
But they probably hated, or done something else that didn't make them Christians.
Quote:
How do you claim I am being inconsitent with my comments about atheism/socialism/communism? How was Stalin not a true atheist for example.
Because it has no relevance. A "true" atheist simply doesn't believe in God. It doesn't imply anything else. Of course, there are people like mvass, who are materialists, which doesn't mean just disbelief in God, it means they think that we are all made just of bunch of chemical reactions.
This still doesn't imply anything like you said.
Furthermore, atheism has nothing to do whatsoever with socialism. I am a socialist and religious/spiritual (mostly Christian although I'm open to any (dis)beliefs) so I don't see where you were getting.
Quote:
I've already said atheists can be moral people and that most atheists do value human life even though the implications of atheism itself is that human have no more value than animals and at least one atheist said as much.
That's materialism. And yeah, humans have no more value than animals unless they earn it. Some do, some don't.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 05:04 PM |
|
|
So easy to say who is more worth lol. But if there was a fire and two beings trapped,a dog and a man, if you were to save just one, would you save the dog? lol.
Xerox said he'd prefer to save puppies rather than kids, but he's a troll and nobody gives a snow about what he says. So I'm asking you Death.
That's what annoys me in such moral judgment. People say this or that is good/worthy and when time comes, they just act completely different, opposite to their claims in fact.
That's why it's better to shut up and don't play a judge saying what's more worth and why.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 05:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So easy to say who is more worth lol. But if there was a fire and two beings trapped,a dog and a man, if you were to save just one, would you save the dog? lol.
If I know the man is an ***hole, yeah I'd choose the dog.
On the other hand, if I have no prior knowledge, I'll choose the human because it has a chance of being a more worthy person (unless it's much harder/dangerous to save him/her and I don't want to risk it).
Oh and if I knew a kid was going to become Hitler, I wouldn't treat him like a normal kid at all. (of course not kill him LOL, but try to 'change' him, but that only applies to kids, impossible once he's grown up).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 05:48 PM |
|
|
Even if he's evil, there's always a chance for him to change in his life.
I think saying who can live and who can die is playing God. We just never know the truth.
And thus we shouldn't judge.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 05:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Even if he's evil, there's always a chance for him to change in his life.
I think saying who can live and who can die is playing God. We just never know the truth.
And thus we shouldn't judge.
Me not saving him =/= me killing him. Why should I help him?
If you don't want to decide the fate of ANYONE, then don't save either.
Remember the train examples, where you have to decide who dies among others? That's more like being involved in it (since without your action, he wouldn't die).
Thing is I don't believe in guilt without action: sure you may not be good person, but that doesn't make you guilty or evil. (just neutral)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 05:57 PM |
|
|
Actually, lack of action in some cases is in fact a crime, like lack of help to a victim of road accident. At least according to law. If you let him burn, how is this any different from letting him die of wounds ? There is none.
So, the question remains, would you let him burn knowing he is evil? Not Hitler, maybe just an average Joe who beats his wife and is generally evil (but to some extent - a snow, but not a murderer or whatever.)
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 06:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Actually, lack of action in some cases is in fact a crime, like lack of help to a victim of road accident. At least according to law. If you let him burn, how is this any different from letting him die of wounds ? There is none.
If you caused the accident, then yeah. If not, it's not your business, although it would be nice to help him/her.
Quote:
So, the question remains, would you let him burn knowing he is evil? Not Hitler, maybe just an average Joe who beats his wife and is generally evil (but to some extent - a snow, but not a murderer or whatever.)
If there was a better choice, yeah. If the risk was too high, yeah as well. His worth isn't "0" obviously, so I have to weight that on my other choices (leave him, save someone else, etc).
of course "worth" I mean based on my criteria obviously.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 06:47 PM |
|
|
Where is the point when such a person is worth less than a dog or any other animal to you, then?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 05, 2009 06:50 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 18:50, 05 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
Where is the point when such a person is worth less than a dog or any other animal to you, then?
Assuming I know that person and how he is like, if he is a murderer with no remorse, or an ***hole who feels good about being an ***hole, I would choose the dog. The worst kind of ***holeness in my book is those which feel good about being that way and have no intention to even consider otherwise.
EDIT: in fact, even if there was no dog, I doubt I would save that person at all.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 06, 2009 04:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But they probably hated, or done something else that didn't make them Christians.
No, I don't believe that 98% of all people who claim to be Christian either have murdered or hate or anything else that would prove they were not Christians.
Quote:
A "true" atheist simply doesn't believe in God. It doesn't imply anything else. Of course, there are people like mvass, who are materialists, which doesn't mean just disbelief in God, it means they think that we are all made just of bunch of chemical reactions.
How exactly can a person be an atheist and not be a materialist? Atheists believe everything is a cosmic accident.
Someone mentioned Buddhism before, but Buddhism is not atheistic. Buddha never commented on whether or not God exists. Buddah claim to be enlightened and to teach the path of enlightenment.
I think all Buddhists bow to statutes of Buddah and have bowl/incense offerings. while praying to Buddha.
Mahayana Buddhism art portrays pictures of beings it calls gods. Buddhism concerns itself with the nature of existence, not the existence of divine beings.
http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/beliefs/atheism.htm
Of couse some Buddhists may consider themselves to be atheists. It is hard to see how karma and reincarnation can be considered an athiestic belief however.
I don't really know of any atheists who believe in life after death and in human beings being able to become "enlightened" and "ascended masters."
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 06, 2009 04:47 AM |
|
|
Quote:
How exactly can a person be an atheist and not be a materialist?
Atheism means disbelief in a god. No more, no less. So a guy who doesn't believe in a god but believes in, say, nature spirits, is an atheist. A guy who believes in reincarnation but not in a god is also an atheist.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 06, 2009 06:25 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 06:37, 06 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
How exactly can a person be an atheist and not be a materialist? Atheists believe everything is a cosmic accident.
Elodin, let's be serious here. I hope you'll drop your preconceived notions for just one second and listen with an open mind. Sometimes I feel that you already have your retort ready before you've even finished reading what someone else has written.
Many Buddhists are atheists. I know I've said this a dozen times before, but I hope this time maybe you'll pause and think about that. Buddhists also don't believe everything is a "cosmic accident", whatever that is supposed to mean. Far be it for me to tell you what Buddhists actually believe - even if you could lump them all together - but I'm pretty sure they have a very large spiritual component to their beliefs, but not one that includes a deity in many cases. For that matter, I don't believe that everything was a "cosmic accident", either. Indeed, I believe life is inevitable and not an accident at all. I just also happen to believe that the inevitability did not arise through the actions of some immortal being. Perhaps you can see, therefore, how it is offensive to me when I get told what I am required to believe in, especially when you make no genuine effort to understand.
I certainly hold no illusions that I or anyone else here is going to convince you that atheism is "the true way". And I don't think that's anyone's goal in any case. You've got your beliefs and you're entitled to them, just as all of us are. That said, however, if you have no interest in understanding - truly understanding - the beliefs of other people who are here, then why are you here? You keep saying what atheists must and must not believe in, and you're not listening to what atheists are telling you about what they actually do believe, and that it's quite a bit different from what you're telling them that they are required to believe. *You* may certainly believe that, since morals extend from God, then without God there can be no morals, that everything is a cosmic accident, or whatever (I'm not putting words in your mouth there - I'm just saying that clearly God is the source of many things according to your beliefs.) And thus, without God, an atheist would lack a source for these various important things that you believe originated from God. But your conclusions about atheism are just projections from your own belief system - you are projecting the consequences of NOT believing in what you believe and calling that atheism.
But that's a fallacious deduction, because atheists might believe these things have other geneses; they're not starting with your premise that morals/whatever extend from God and so their belief system cannot and should not be defined using your own belief system as a starting point. You're subjecting yourself to a false-choice fallacy, and it's killing your ability to understand the beliefs of other people. I don't mean that you have to or should agree with other people's beliefs, but if you're going to disagree with their beliefs, you ought to at least be disagreeing with what they actually believe in, and not with what you assume they believe in. What's the point in that?
Well, I don't know if I'm reaching you or not. You're an extremely defensive guy and if you'd just let your combativeness ebb for a minute or two you might find that people would be more open to try to have a productive conversation with you. It's no big secret that a lot of us treat you with contempt, but it's not because of what you believe in: it's because of the way you present what you believe in. I hope you just understand that people find it offensive when you tell them what they're required to believe in based on your own misconceptions - and belligerently repeat it over and over again. You might learn a thing or two about other belief systems in the process, and about logic and effective debate in general. And while that certainly probably won't change your own beliefs, it might actually strengthen them.
Quote:
Someone mentioned Buddhism before, but Buddhism is not atheistic. Buddha never commented on whether or not God exists. Buddah claim to be enlightened and to teach the path of enlightenment.
You're wrong because - like atheists - you lump all Buddhists together as if they all believe the same thing. There are as many flavors of Buddhism as there are Christians. I didn't say ALL Buddhists were atheists. I said SOME Buddhists were atheists. You're taking labels and categorizations too literally. Furthermore, what is the point of linking to websites to try to prove to atheists what atheists believe in? If I'm an atheist and I believe in something, then that's what an atheist believes in. In the article you link to on Buddhism, it states several times that many scholars and Buddhists consider Buddhism to be atheistic, so what's the problem?
Really, and I don't mean this in an offensive way, it's almost as if you want to believe that atheists are required to believe certain things about the universe, about morality, and etc., because it makes you feel more secure about your own beliefs. You clearly think all atheists are nihilistic, and you clearly WANT to think that, because no amount of arguments to the contrary by a whole lot of non-nihilistic atheists can seem to convince you otherwise. You just keep shaking your head and saying "No, you're wrong, atheists have to believe in nothing. They value nothing. They're required to, because they don't believe in God." But it's not true. SOME atheists are nihilists. But most, frankly, are not. Well, you might not think you want to believe that all atheists are nihilists, but I just can't think of any other reason you wouldn't listen to atheists when they tell you that you are wrong about what atheists are required to believe. You certainly get upset when atheists tell you what Christians are required to believe in (although, I think it's equally unfair for you to unilaterally say what all Christians must believe in) - so why don't you afford atheists the same courtesy that you demand?
Quote:
Of couse some Buddhists may consider themselves to be atheists. It is hard to see how karma and reincarnation can be considered an athiestic belief however.
Just because you cannot see it does not mean it cannot be believed in.
Well, that's my attempt to have a level-headed conversation with you. Here's hoping it doesn't fail utterly.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 06, 2009 07:25 AM |
|
|
|
I second Corribus' post - I'm pretty sure I agree with everything he wrote.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 06, 2009 09:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, that's my attempt to have a level-headed conversation with you. Here's hoping it doesn't fail utterly.
Ah well, you insulted me quite a few times and call that a level headed discussion.
Quote:
Many Buddhists are atheists
Yeah, I said some Buddhists are atheists. Many are not. Buddhism is not an atheistic religion taken as a whole. It could at best be called non-theistic because it does not deal with the issue of God's existence at all. At least some of the "denominations" of Buddhism don't. And Buddha himself never said there is a God or that God does not exist.
Quote:
For that matter, I don't believe that everything was a "cosmic accident", either. Indeed, I believe life is inevitable and not an accident at all. I just also happen to believe that the inevitability did not arise through the actions of some immortal being.
Oh, are you now defining yourself as an atheist or agnostic?
Atheists don't believe in God. Athiests believe that everything occured without a design, right? There was no intelligence guiding the universe coming into being and somehow "creation" came into being from absolute nothing without a cause (unless you contend that there is an infinite regression of causes.)
That is what I mean by cosmic accident. There was no guiding intelligence determining anything that would happen. Random elements came together or developed randomly and reacted randomly. Accidentally. Without purpose.
See, I have seen a number of notable atheists debate theists. Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris. They all say everything is an accident and without purpose.
What percentage of atheists do you think believe in life after death, reincarnation, karma, or any sort of spirits? I've never seen athesits in any debate say he believes in any of those. I've always seen atheists deny anything but what is material.
So are you are materialist or do you believe in spirits, life after death, ect? Do you believe in karma? What is karma based on? You said an atheist could believe in karma. I've always thought that was a religious idea, so I'm interested in an atheist's explaination of karma and reincarnation.
Quote:
You* may certainly believe that, since morals extend from God, then without God there can be no morals, that everything is a cosmic accident, or whatever (I'm not putting words in your mouth there - I'm just saying that clearly God is the source of many things according to your beliefs.)
Explain to me where absolute morals come from if God does not exist. I have asked that question and received no answer that was not relative morals.
Quote:
It's no big secret that a lot of us treat you with contempt, but it's not because of what you believe in: it's because of the way you present what you believe in.
I think certain people like to present their arguments "strongly" but don't want others to do the same. I generally don't bring up atheist tyrants for instance until someone brings up Christians supposedly don't this or that. Then when I point out what atheists have done the insults typically start flying.
Quote:
I hope you just understand that people find it offensive when you tell them what they're required to believe in based on your own misconceptions - and belligerently repeat it over and over again.
I'm not beligerant. I'm not the one who has been insulting others. When I restate something it is when someone restates his argument.
Quote:
You're wrong because - like atheists - you lump all Buddhists together as if they all believe the same thing.
No I'm not and I didn't lump all Buddhists toghether. Some Buddhists believe in god and some don't. Almost all pray to Buddha and go through rituals of burning incense to him. I said some Buddhists might consider themselves to be atheists.
My point in the link about Buddhism is that certain "denominatinos" of Buddhism do believe in gods and that Buddha himself did not say one way or the other.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 06, 2009 10:57 AM |
|
|
|
Actually many atheists believe in afterlife, Elodin.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted November 06, 2009 11:02 AM |
|
|
why should a book which has more use as a coster be able to decide what a christian is? Wouldn't it be more reasonable and more fair if that choice was give to, oh, i don't know, the rest of the world? just because you don't follow to the letter the text of the christian god doesn't make you any less of a christian. I don't go around talking to paintings and weilding a wand, but I consider myself a harry potter fan. to simply dismiss someone who believes that they are a christian just becuase they've done X or Y agains Z is both harsh and naive. let me give you an example.
Gary is a fanatical christian. goes to church every sunday, goes around with a crucifix, doesn't take the lords name in vain. However, Gary was also a soldier who killed many iraqi civilians, and goes to church to get away from his career in the army, and sees the church community as the only thing keeping him from suicide.
Would you dismiss gary as not a christian because of the fact that he has murdered (lets not beat about the bush, war is murder, no matter which way you look at it), which will lead to his suicide?
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
