Options

inter-religious marriage

123457

Posts

  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Angry_Hippie?

    geckahn on
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    How can you tell me to calm down when half of this thread has been the result of jeep's accusations towards me? I've illustrated my wish for this thread to no longer center on the subject of me several times now, and I've tried to move it along with the actual intended subject. But guess what? Some people will just have none of it.

    So yeah, I'm pissed the fuck off. This thread is not about me. Stop trying to make it about me.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    jeepguy wrote: »
    Jeeps, that would be such an awesome post if the veracity of my statements, such as "the earth is not 6,000 years old," was what has been called into question. Unfortunately, it's not, and you're just making yourself look like an ignorant fucking simp again.

    So, for the last time, take your little personal grudge against me out of this thread. This thread has absolutely nothing to do with me, but despite my requests, you insist on bringing it back to that subject. So just fucking stop. Stop being a douche. Just stop it.

    My comment is meant to apply to the religious beliefs of anyone who feels unshakably correct in their views and feels need to share them with others. You take it personally because you want to.

    SCIENCE IS NOT A RELIGIOUS BELIEF. STOP BEING A FUCKING MORON.

    Okay, let me rephrase it to "religious belief or lack thereof".

    But the sentiment is the same.

    Regina Fong on
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    What the fuck? I told you pages and pages ago that my contention with them sending their kids to the creation museum had fuck all to do with religion. I'd been to church with them before, and I didn't say anything. Let's try not to ignore it this time, yeah?

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    foursquaremanfoursquareman Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I don't care how stupid my grandmother-in-law is, I'm not going to tell her she is wrong about something to her face. Just doesn't feel right.

    foursquareman on
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    Again, not at all what I did. The grandmother was a bystander, the comments I made were directed at the parents of the kids that were being intellectually crippled.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Here is the lesson I take from this thread:

    If you don't suck as a person and your in-laws are religious and this is ever an issue at all then don't post about it on the forums in a thread about experiences of inter-religious marriage because people act like huge jerks if you do.

    What the f-

    Apothe0sis on
  • Options
    MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    jeepguy wrote: »
    Okay, let me rephrase it to "religious belief or lack thereof".

    But the sentiment is the same.

    So if I understand you correctly, in this:
    jeepguy wrote: »
    My comment is meant to apply to the religious beliefs or lack of belief of anyone who feels unshakably correct in their views and feels need to share them with others.

    you are saying that it is not appropriate to share religious beliefs of lack of beliefs with others.

    Is it appropriate to share political beliefs or lack of beliefs with others? Is it appropriate to share societal beliefs or lack of beliefs with others? Is it appropriate to share scientific beliefs or lack of beliefs with others?

    Why are religious beliefs or lack of beliefs off-limits, but other spheres of thought okay? Or are you saying that it's inappropriate to share any belief or lack of belief in anything with anyone if they disagree?

    Enlighten me, please.

    MikeMan on
  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    jeepguy wrote: »
    Okay, let me rephrase it to "religious belief or lack thereof".

    But the sentiment is the same.

    So if I understand you correctly, in this:
    jeepguy wrote: »
    My comment is meant to apply to the religious beliefs or lack of belief of anyone who feels unshakably correct in their views and feels need to share them with others.

    you are saying that it is not appropriate to share religious beliefs of lack of beliefs with others.

    Is it appropriate to share political beliefs or lack of beliefs with others? Is it appropriate to share societal beliefs or lack of beliefs with others? Is it appropriate to share scientific beliefs or lack of beliefs with others?

    Why are religious beliefs or lack of beliefs off-limits, but other spheres of thought okay? Or are you saying that it's inappropriate to share any belief or lack of belief in anything with anyone if they disagree?

    Enlighten me, please.


    There's such a thing as discussion, then there's proselytizing.

    Now before all the screaming starts again, please take note that proselytizing isn't a religious-specific term, and it is certainly not a theistic-specific term. It can apply to attempts to persuade others to ones political party (for example).

    While many people feel a strong urge to proselytize their beliefs to other people, there's a whole hell of a lot of people who slam doors in the face of people doing the proselytizing (literally). To say that many people find being proselytized to obnoxious is more than a fair statement.

    There are some circumstances where the location or event or what have you makes proselytizing reasonable and expected. There are other times where the audience gives indication that they are open to being proselytized to. Outside of these times it's simply rude to do it. Obviously, many people who feel this urge to proselytize feel their cause is so compelling that it trumps any expectation of etiquette or civility.

    They are wrong, and they are still rude, and they are likely boorish assholes who offend others and don't notice or don't care that they are doing it.

    What's most interesting is that these types of people are the least effective proselytizers, but don't seem to know it.

    -edit-

    Just an additional thought: If you don't know how to have a discussion with friends and relatives without attempting to replace their views with your own, then you are eventually going to find yourself closed off and shut out of many of those relationships which you (presumably) cherish.

    Regina Fong on
  • Options
    AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I suppose if I were to explain in a polite, calm voice using lots of nice happy sugar-coat words why I don't think it's sensible to have faith in God, or why it's a bad idea to teach your kids to believe in literalist interpretations of the Bible over well-established findings of modern science, to you that would still be proselytizing? I'm a boorish asshole for trying to engage you in a civilized discussion, because I have challenged your religion and you find that uncomfortable?

    Azio on
  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Azio wrote: »
    I suppose if I were to explain in a polite, calm voice using lots of nice happy sugar-coat words why I don't think it's sensible to have faith in God, or to teach your kids to distrust modern science in favour of literalist interpretations of the Bible, to you that would still be proselytizing?

    Is your intent to enlighten them as to your views, or is it to replace their views with your own? I am (personally) very often interested in hearing the diverse views of my friends and associates, yet I quickly tire of any discussion where I feel like I am being pressured to adopt their way of thinking.

    -edit-

    Also: The condescension in your choice of words leads me to believe that it may not be possible for you to share your views with others in a way which will not come across as offensive, and I am further lead to believe that you possibly don't actually care if this is the case. Just an observation.

    Regina Fong on
  • Options
    AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    It's just the way I write. I can be diplomatic when the situation calls for it.

    Generally I avoid broaching topics such as this in person because people can be very undiplomatic about it.

    Azio on
  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Azio wrote: »
    It's just the way I write. I can be diplomatic when the situation calls for it.

    Well then answer my first question; Are you trying to convert people, or are you just sharing your own viewpoint (which you obviously feel is the more correct one)?

    One is proselytizing, the other isn't. One is potentially very off-putting (even downright rude) while the other likely is not. Your intent matters, as does your consideration for the other person's views. If you look down on someone's religious views, how likely is it that you aren't at least subconsciously looking down on that person, period? And if you look down on someone, why would you ever think that they wouldn't pick up on this and be even more turned off by whatever it is you're telling them?

    Criticism is generally poorly received when it isn't given with genuine concern and earnest interest in improvement. It's hard to display those qualities when in your mind you are thinking that the person is a fool or an idiot.

    Regina Fong on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    You can't "convert people to science" any more than you can "convert people to algebra" or "convert people to German" or "convert people to English Literature".

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    You can't "convert people to science" any more than you can "convert people to algebra" or "convert people to German" or "convert people to English Literature".

    Don't make the mistake of equating atheism with science. And understand that when you are dealing with someone's religious views which run contrary to scientific fact, disabusing them of those notions is no less a task than persuading them to adopt a different set of religious beliefs, so yeah, it's "conversion" in every sense.

    This is why it's so hard to disabuse a fundamentalist of even a single erroneous view (and don't think I've never tried, contrary to popular belief I am not a deeply religious person).

    Regina Fong on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    jeepguy wrote: »
    You can't "convert people to science" any more than you can "convert people to algebra" or "convert people to German" or "convert people to English Literature".

    Don't make the mistake of equating atheism with science.

    Bah, atheism has no more value than christianity. And neither one stops you from acknowledging the mechanisms by which people drive two tonne hunks of steel and glass around.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    jeepguy wrote: »
    You can't "convert people to science" any more than you can "convert people to algebra" or "convert people to German" or "convert people to English Literature".

    Don't make the mistake of equating atheism with science.

    Bah, atheism has no more value than christianity. And neither one stops you from acknowledging the mechanisms by which people drive two tonne hunks of steel and glass around.

    I edited my post to make it... well lets just say it actually says things now.

    Regina Fong on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    jeepguy wrote: »
    jeepguy wrote: »
    You can't "convert people to science" any more than you can "convert people to algebra" or "convert people to German" or "convert people to English Literature".

    Don't make the mistake of equating atheism with science.

    Bah, atheism has no more value than christianity. And neither one stops you from acknowledging the mechanisms by which people drive two tonne hunks of steel and glass around.

    I edited my post to make it... well lets just say it actually says things now.

    If you (and by "you" I mean "whoever the fuck") are going to stare me in the face and insist in seriousness that 2 + 2 = 6 I'm simply going to make an excuse to go away and never associate with anything you raised.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    jeepguy wrote: »
    jeepguy wrote: »
    You can't "convert people to science" any more than you can "convert people to algebra" or "convert people to German" or "convert people to English Literature".

    Don't make the mistake of equating atheism with science.

    Bah, atheism has no more value than christianity. And neither one stops you from acknowledging the mechanisms by which people drive two tonne hunks of steel and glass around.

    I edited my post to make it... well lets just say it actually says things now.

    If you (and by "you" I mean "whoever the fuck") are going to stare me in the face and insist in seriousness that 2 + 2 = 6 I'm simply going to make an excuse to go away and never associate with anything you raised.

    In all fairness, I've never known someone to do this. What I tend to encounter is the attitude that the scientific fact in question is something open to philosophical debate with neither my nor the other persons views amounting to anything more than opinions with equal weight based on perspective.

    If you're thinking that's infuriating, you're right. If you're thinking that berating the person will change their mind, well, I've learned the hard way that that's just a real fast way to alienate someone (which is fine with you maybe, but not necessarily what everyone wants to have happen).

    Anyway, bedtime.

    Regina Fong on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    jeepguy wrote: »
    jeepguy wrote: »
    jeepguy wrote: »
    You can't "convert people to science" any more than you can "convert people to algebra" or "convert people to German" or "convert people to English Literature".

    Don't make the mistake of equating atheism with science.

    Bah, atheism has no more value than christianity. And neither one stops you from acknowledging the mechanisms by which people drive two tonne hunks of steel and glass around.

    I edited my post to make it... well lets just say it actually says things now.

    If you (and by "you" I mean "whoever the fuck") are going to stare me in the face and insist in seriousness that 2 + 2 = 6 I'm simply going to make an excuse to go away and never associate with anything you raised.

    In all fairness, I've never known someone to do this. What I tend to encounter is the attitude that the scientific fact in question is something open to philosophical debate with neither my nor the other persons views amounting to anything more than opinions with equal weight based on perspective.

    If you're thinking that's infuriating, you're right. If you're thinking that berating the person will change their mind, well, I've learned the hard way that that's just a real fast way to alienate someone (which is fine with you maybe, but not necessarily what everyone wants to have happen).

    Anyway, bedtime.

    And I've learned the hard way that the best thing for me is to pretend they were never there and in most cases stay the fuck away from their spawn.

    Edit: Mind you I'm talking about the "people rode dinosaurs you heathen!" types, I don't care if people just believe in magic.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    jeepguy wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    I suppose if I were to explain in a polite, calm voice using lots of nice happy sugar-coat words why I don't think it's sensible to have faith in God, or to teach your kids to distrust modern science in favour of literalist interpretations of the Bible, to you that would still be proselytizing?

    Is your intent to enlighten them as to your views, or is it to replace their views with your own? I am (personally) very often interested in hearing the diverse views of my friends and associates, yet I quickly tire of any discussion where I feel like I am being pressured to adopt their way of thinking.

    Are we all to talk about things as if we don't think they are true?

    MikeMan on
  • Options
    MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    jeepguy wrote: »
    You can't "convert people to science" any more than you can "convert people to algebra" or "convert people to German" or "convert people to English Literature".

    Don't make the mistake of equating atheism with science.

    Atheism is the default position. A belief in God is the tenuous ground upon which people often stand.

    Atheism is simply a lack of belief, and there is no need to even justify a lack of belief. It just is.

    Belief in something needs to be justified.

    MikeMan on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I do no oppose other people intermarrying. First, and foremost, let me make that clear. Any limitations I place on myself are personal rules, and NOT rules that I judge others by.



    That said, while I have actually only ever dated non-Jewish women, I cannot see myself marrying a non-Jew. The issue isn't so much my own religion as it is that of my future children. The beliefs that I ascribe to require the child's mother to be Jewish in order for the child to be Jewish, and I refuse to be the link in my family's chain that breaks.

    That said, I have no issue with marrying a convert, and even possibly marrying some one who converted for the purpose of marriage (even though I oppose that particular concept, my children being born Jewish is more important to me.)



    I don't plan on forcing my religion on my children, mind you. I just want them to be born in to it so that they can choose whether or not to follow it, since Judaism, unlock certain other religions, does not encourage conversion of non-members.

    Evander on
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    jeepguy wrote: »
    You can't "convert people to science" any more than you can "convert people to algebra" or "convert people to German" or "convert people to English Literature".

    Don't make the mistake of equating atheism with science.

    Atheism is the default position. A belief in God is the tenuous ground upon which people often stand.

    Atheism is simply a lack of belief, and there is no need to even justify a lack of belief. It just is.

    Belief in something needs to be justified.

    Uh. Atheism is the belief that there is no God. You can say its the lack of belief only if you think "belief" can apply only to religion.

    Agnosticism would be the default position, because if you never even think about it I suppose thats what your position would be, wouldnt it?

    geckahn on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    jeepguy wrote: »
    You can't "convert people to science" any more than you can "convert people to algebra" or "convert people to German" or "convert people to English Literature".

    Don't make the mistake of equating atheism with science.

    Atheism is the default position. A belief in God is the tenuous ground upon which people often stand.

    Atheism is simply a lack of belief, and there is no need to even justify a lack of belief. It just is.

    Belief in something needs to be justified.

    Active denial is not the same as a lack of belief.

    Active denial IS a form of belief.

    Evander on
  • Options
    MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    jeepguy wrote: »
    There's such a thing as discussion, then there's proselytizing.

    A discussion is... what? Talking about things but making sure never to challenge others?
    Now before all the screaming starts again, please take note that proselytizing isn't a religious-specific term, and it is certainly not a theistic-specific term. It can apply to attempts to persuade others to ones political party (for example).
    If you're involved in a political discussion, and you say something like "I'm voting for Obama" and your friend says "Well I'm voting for McCain" and you say why you will not be voting for McCain, you are, in stating your beliefs, "impressing" them on your friend. Your distinction is completely inane and not conducive to furthering this discussion.
    While many people feel a strong urge to proselytize their beliefs to other people, there's a whole hell of a lot of people who slam doors in the face of people doing the proselytizing (literally). To say that many people find being proselytized to obnoxious is more than a fair statement.
    Overt proselytizing, door to door, is obnoxious but completely unrelated to what we are talking about.
    There are some circumstances where the location or event or what have you makes proselytizing reasonable and expected. There are other times where the audience gives indication that they are open to being proselytized to. Outside of these times it's simply rude to do it. Obviously, many people who feel this urge to proselytize feel their cause is so compelling that it trumps any expectation of etiquette or civility.
    You keep using that word and I think it is a misuse.
    They are wrong, and they are still rude, and they are likely boorish assholes who offend others and don't notice or don't care that they are doing it.

    What's most interesting is that these types of people are the least effective proselytizers, but don't seem to know it.
    The behavior of assholes is unrelated to this discussion.
    Just an additional thought: If you don't know how to have a discussion with friends and relatives without attempting to replace their views with your own, then you are eventually going to find yourself closed off and shut out of many of those relationships which you (presumably) cherish.
    Thanks for the tip, O Wise One.

    Now, if you're done preaching, I'd like to address something.

    The nature of religious discussions is that they are based on nothing, empirically speaking. So there is nothing to distinguish one religious belief from another in terms of persuasiveness.

    That's a problem when you're talking even about "friendly" family discussions of religion. For merely discussing religious differences is seen as an attack on the religion in question.

    I do not think any topic should be off-limits to discourse. Within reason, in an appropriate time and place, I will discuss whatever comes up in conversation, and I will do it in order to further discourse and understanding, on both sides. Religion falls under that umbrella. If you don't believe enough in your religion to be able to defend it, perhaps you shouldn't be entertaining those thoughts.

    If someone walked up to me and professed a belief in leprechauns, it is not "proselytizing" to question that belief, if it is an appropriate setting (i.e. It's not your boss, or your recently widowed friend, or at a wake, etc.).

    And since there is nothing distinguishing leprechauns from Christianity other than age and arbitrary societal consensus, guess what? It's similarly not proselytizing to question any religious belief. It's merely a function of the debate and discourse (olol) that should be more present in society.

    The fact that there's this wishy-washy "everyone's beliefs are sacred" PC bullshit culture is frankly irrelevant to what should be the case.

    And don't dare make the mistake of assuming I'm anything other than polite and charming to a fault in real life. You don't know my life, my friends, and my acquaintances. Nor do I know yours. So just as I will refrain from extrapolating from your behavior on an online forum devoted to specifically arguing the beliefs in question to your real world persona, I would appreciate the same courtesy.

    MikeMan on
  • Options
    MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    geckahn wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    jeepguy wrote: »
    You can't "convert people to science" any more than you can "convert people to algebra" or "convert people to German" or "convert people to English Literature".

    Don't make the mistake of equating atheism with science.

    Atheism is the default position. A belief in God is the tenuous ground upon which people often stand.

    Atheism is simply a lack of belief, and there is no need to even justify a lack of belief. It just is.

    Belief in something needs to be justified.

    Uh. Atheism is the belief that there is no God. You can say its the lack of belief only if you think "belief" can apply only to religion.

    Agnosticism would be the default position, because if you never even think about it I suppose thats what your position would be, wouldnt it?

    Uh, no.

    In the absence of a reason to believe in something, you have present a lack of belief.

    Do you believe in a fucking giant space squid floating around in outer space right now? No, you fucking don't. That's because you're not an idiot. You similarly don't say "Well, I dunno! It could be there, somewhere beyond Neptune!" You are a-squidist, and that is the logical default position. There is no reason to assume there is a squid, there is no evidence for said squid. It's not there.

    MikeMan on
  • Options
    MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Evander wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    jeepguy wrote: »
    You can't "convert people to science" any more than you can "convert people to algebra" or "convert people to German" or "convert people to English Literature".

    Don't make the mistake of equating atheism with science.

    Atheism is the default position. A belief in God is the tenuous ground upon which people often stand.

    Atheism is simply a lack of belief, and there is no need to even justify a lack of belief. It just is.

    Belief in something needs to be justified.

    Active denial is not the same as a lack of belief.

    Active denial IS a form of belief.

    Holy sweet leaping Batman, why do people still say this?

    A "God" is an arbitrary idea that requires some sort of evidence to be taken seriously. I am sorry you do not see that, but that is an unfortunate consequence of our God-saturated society.

    We have a word for it, people talk about it a lot, and therefore it insidiously seeps into your heads that it's something that needs to be argued against just as much as for. Well, it doesn't. It just needs to be argued for in order to be taken seriously.

    MikeMan on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    The fact that there's this wishy-washy "everyone's beliefs are sacred" PC bullshit culture is frankly irrelevant to what should be the case.

    So what is wrong with pointing out that professing atheism is just as much a stsatement of belief?

    Agnosticism is the scientific position. Atheism requires a leap of faith that there is nothing that you can't already see.

    Evander on
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Look at this:

    800px-AtheismImplicitExplicit3.svg.png


    I'm willing to concede your point if you guys are all implicit atheists. Which I know you are not. You are either explicit or strong, which are both certainly beliefs.

    geckahn on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    So since there's no such thing as agnostic and I'm sure as fuck not an atheist I'm just going to call myself an idontgiveashitist.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I absolutely cannot believe that on the 7,000th thread on this shit you still can't understand it properly, both of you.

    "Strong" and "Weak" atheism are stupid, arbitrary distinctions that beg the question before it's even stated.

    MikeMan on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    jeepguy wrote: »
    You can't "convert people to science" any more than you can "convert people to algebra" or "convert people to German" or "convert people to English Literature".

    Don't make the mistake of equating atheism with science.

    Atheism is the default position. A belief in God is the tenuous ground upon which people often stand.

    Atheism is simply a lack of belief, and there is no need to even justify a lack of belief. It just is.

    Belief in something needs to be justified.

    Active denial is not the same as a lack of belief.

    Active denial IS a form of belief.

    Holy sweet leaping Batman, why do people still say this?

    A "God" is an arbitrary idea that requires some sort of evidence to be taken seriously. I am sorry you do not see that, but that is an unfortunate consequence of our God-saturated society.

    We have a word for it, people talk about it a lot, and therefore it insidiously seeps into your heads that it's something that needs to be argued against just as much as for. Well, it doesn't. It just needs to be argued for in order to be taken seriously.

    As an agnostic, maybe I'm just a teensy bit offended that some "believer" is trying to pretend to be scientific.

    Absence of proof is not proof of absence.



    There have been plenty of things throughout the history of science which were not evident to one generation, but became evident to later generations. Do you truely believe that right now, in the year 2008, a bunch of hairless apes on some backwater planet in the milkyway galaxy possess all universal/multiversal/omniversal knowledge, with full evidence on all things that have ever existed?



    The idea of the superiority of man is a religious one, but apparently you've been borrowing it too.

    Evander on
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Holy sweet leaping Batman, why do people still say this?

    A "God" is an arbitrary idea that requires some sort of evidence to be taken seriously. I am sorry you do not see that, but that is an unfortunate consequence of our God-saturated society.

    We have a word for it, people talk about it a lot, and therefore it insidiously seeps into your heads that it's something that needs to be argued against just as much as for. Well, it doesn't. It just needs to be argued for in order to be taken seriously.

    We know the limits of our universe. We have a pretty good theory about how it started. But what we have absolutely no idea about is what exists either outside or before our universe.

    Saying: Theres definitely no thing/god/big machine/whatever that contributed to the creation of our universe does not strike me as a position to be held without belief.

    geckahn on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    I absolutely cannot believe that on the 7,000th thread on this shit you still can't understand it properly, both of you.

    "Strong" and "Weak" atheism are stupid, arbitrary distinctions that beg the question before it's even stated.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    FunkyWaltDoggFunkyWaltDogg Columbia, SCRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    geckahn wrote: »
    Look at this:

    800px-AtheismImplicitExplicit3.svg.png


    I'm willing to concede your point if you guys are all implicit atheists. Which I know you are not. You are either explicit or strong, which are both certainly beliefs.

    I like this picture, it illustrates the point nicely while also looking like a butt with a birthmark.

    FunkyWaltDogg on
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    I absolutely cannot believe that on the 7,000th thread on this shit you still can't understand it properly, both of you.

    "Strong" and "Weak" atheism are stupid, arbitrary distinctions that beg the question before it's even stated.

    But implicit and explicit are important distinctions.

    geckahn on
  • Options
    MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Evander wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    The fact that there's this wishy-washy "everyone's beliefs are sacred" PC bullshit culture is frankly irrelevant to what should be the case.

    So what is wrong with pointing out that professing atheism is just as much a stsatement of belief?

    Agnosticism is the scientific position. Atheism requires a leap of faith that there is nothing that you can't already see.

    Fucking shitcock penis pump fuck-me-in-the-ass janissary, for the eleventy billionth time, while technically I am an agnostic, I am an agnostic with response to any claim in the absence of evidence. But since mouth-breathers like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, I refrain from saying I am agnostic because that implies there is a 50/50 chance that there is a God. The actual odds are literally on par with the odds that my cock has an extra-dimensional component that cannot be detected or seen but ejaculates Richard Simmons gym shorts every picosecond.

    Fuck.

    MikeMan on
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Implicit atheism and explicit atheism are subcategories of atheism coined by George H. Smith (1979, p.13-18). Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" (i.e., those who have not thought about the existence of deities, let alone decide in favour of it, and are de facto atheists). Explicit atheism is defined as "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it" (those who have thought about the existence of deities and have purposely decided against it), which, according to Smith, is sometimes characterized as antitheism.[1]

    geckahn on
  • Options
    MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Evander wrote: »
    As an agnostic, maybe I'm just a teensy bit offended that some "believer" is trying to pretend to be scientific.

    Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

    It's a pretty good fucking indicator.

    Hey, Evander! Are you agnostic with respect to Mother Theresa's space ship?


    There have been plenty of things throughout the history of science which were not evident to one generation, but became evident to later generations. Do you truely believe that right now, in the year 2008, a bunch of hairless apes on some backwater planet in the milkyway galaxy possess all universal/multiversal/omniversal knowledge, with full evidence on all things that have ever existed?
    You are not seriously arguing this. The idea of a God is specifically constructed so as never to offer evidence for its existence. It is "above" evidence. It is not scientific or logical to entertain such a belief.


    The idea of the superiority of man is a religious one, but apparently you've been borrowing it too.

    Stop blabbing.

    MikeMan on
Sign In or Register to comment.