...wow. Having never heard the term spoken, I sort of thought it was pronounced hyper-bowl, like a better version of the superbowl.For Valor wrote: Hyperbole
[hahy-pur-buh-lee]
I now feel pretty stupid.
Moderator: Moderators
...wow. Having never heard the term spoken, I sort of thought it was pronounced hyper-bowl, like a better version of the superbowl.For Valor wrote: Hyperbole
[hahy-pur-buh-lee]
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
There's a good ole boy network going on, though. Where the evidential requirements to even investigate a white man for murdering a black man are far higher than the opposite.Zinegata wrote:I don't see it that way. I see it more as people refusing to believe guilt unless they see it.
And that's the point. If you "don't think about" religion or racism or whatever then you are far more willing to vote for a fuckhead candidate like Christine O'Donnel who loudly proclaims her Christianity at the drop of a hat over an atheist who's actual political views align with your own just because the atheist is part of the wrong club.Zinegata wrote:So really, should you blame people who signed up for something but which extremists twisted into something terrible, or should you instead blame the extremists themselves for manipulating people?
I really think it's the latter. Again, most people don't really think about religion or politics all that much. It's not important to them. So when somebody comes along and tried to manipulate this apathy into a camouflage for committing atrocities, that makes them a bad person.
If you want to assign some of the blame and moral culpability to ordinary folks because their apathetic and ignorant, that's fine. I would agree. I certainly don't think all Germans are guilt-free. They could have done more to press for accountability and such.And that's the point. If you "don't think about" religion or racism or whatever then you are far more willing to vote for a fuckhead candidate like Christine O'Donnel who loudly proclaims her Christianity at the drop of a hat over an atheist who's actual political views align with your own just because the atheist is part of the wrong club.
People should really stop making a big deal about discussing the most important event of the 20th Century.P.S. Fuck you for Godwinning the thread.
Kaelik is saying that you're stupid for being an agnostic, because "Atheists have proved God does not exist".For Valor wrote:jesus... what are we even talking about at this point?
Haha, fuck you. I have high certainty that Leprechauns and Unicorns don't exist because they have actual fucking definitions. A leprechaun can't have a pot o' gold at the end of a rainbow because rainbows are a product of refraction through water droplets and don't physically have ends. There's not enough unexplored forest left to support a breeding population of horse-sized mammals we don't know about. And it's highly unlikely that tiny magical humanoids just decided to stop interacting with people after spending centuries making deals with them and stealing their babies.Kaelik wrote:Sashi, do Leprechauns exist?
How about Garbaralalala-aasdfasdflkandsls?
Are you agnostic about Leprechauns? No, you know that Leprechauns don't exist. Just like you know Unicorns don't exist. Just like I know that God doesn't exist.
Pretending that whatever your definition of "god" is that you've managed to "disprove" is the only definition for god that can happen is both arrogant and unscientific. It's not about giving equal relevance to the existence or non-existence of god, it's about atheism claiming to prove a negative, which is impossible.Kaelik wrote:Pretending that the existence and the lack of existence of something are both equal is not the only scientifically sound option, it's not even scientifically sound at all. It's completely ass backwards. It's not Scientifically sound to be agnostic about our brains having a portal to a far away place that we just can't detect inside them storing far more brain matter over there.
No, you're an arrogant fuckhead who has made the illogical leap that sufficient evidence to disprove the modern world religions is sufficient evidence to disprove all possibilities of god. Making the leap from "it is not possible for the god of any world religion to exist" to "no god exists" is an impossible logical leap. It's exactly as impossible a logical leap as any attempt to prove any other negative. There is plenty of evidence that there is no Christ or Allah, but there is no evidence that there is no god.Kaelik wrote:It's fucking retarded, and it's anti scientific to give a view with no evidence whatsoever (a universe with a "god" whatever you mean by that) the same weight as a universe explained by naturalistic processes.
One has evidence, the other has no evidence. Giving them equal weight is not the only scientifically sound position, it's literally the exact opposite of scientific soundness.
And there's also a high probability that there's something in the Bible that's false. But we (society in general. And in person. I have no idea what YOU will say ON THE INTERNET) generally don't say "I know the bible is wrong."Sashi wrote:Haha, fuck you. I have high certainty that Leprechauns and Unicorns don't exist because they have actual fucking definitions. A leprechaun can't have a pot o' gold at the end of a rainbow because rainbows are a product of refraction through water droplets and don't physically have ends. There's not enough unexplored forest left to support a breeding population of horse-sized mammals we don't know about. And it's highly unlikely that tiny magical humanoids just decided to stop interacting with people after spending centuries making deals with them and stealing their babies.Kaelik wrote:Sashi, do Leprechauns exist?
How about Garbaralalala-aasdfasdflkandsls?
Are you agnostic about Leprechauns? No, you know that Leprechauns don't exist. Just like you know Unicorns don't exist. Just like I know that God doesn't exist.
Mask wrote:And for the love of all that is good and unholy, just get a fucking hippogrif mount and pretend its a flying worg.
I think we're agreed on this. The Catholics who merely go to church and tithe are obviously less responsible for boy rape than the priests who did it, or the bishops who shuffled them around to try and hide it instead of reporting them to the cops. But the fact that they're still going to church and tithing means they're actively pretending that part of their money isn't going to pay the salaries of people responsible for boy rape. And the reason they do this is because it's easier for them to pretend than to examine their beliefs and at the very least stop tithing.Zinegata wrote:If you want to assign some of the blame and moral culpability to ordinary folks because their apathetic and ignorant, that's fine. I would agree. I certainly don't think all Germans are guilt-free. They could have done more to press for accountability and such.
My main concern though is that we should still assign the primary blame to the people manipulating the ordinary folk. Hang Hitler and the Nazis, but don't line up every German up a wall and shoot them. Because if these bad people didn't exist to manipulate the public, the bad things wouldn't have happened in the first place.
Pretty much. Note that religious apologists are doing exactly that on this thread. Jehova's Witnesses make up less than 2% of all self identified Christians and even their wikipedia entry says that their beliefs are "outside mainstream Christianity". The vast majority of Christians do not believe that JWs count as Christians, since they do not actually believe most of the things they do, refuse to acknowledge Christian religious holidays, do not worship Christ, and have their own holy book that is "based on" the bible that mainstream Christianity uses.Moderates of all religions close ranks around and protect the extremists until they do a suicide bombing or rape a kid or something, at which point they're suddenly No True Scotsman.
I accept that "I know the bible is wrong" is using "know" in the conversational sense of "there are enough contradictions in the bible that I don't care it's correct about who's Pharaoh in 430 BC". It's also conversational usage when I say "I know my car has enough gas" when what I really mean is "The last time I looked at the gas gauge it had enough gas, and a gas leak or gas thief is highly unlikely.".For Valor wrote:That guy's article, which was full of a lot of ranting, boiled down to saying, "The word 'know', in all non-touchy subjects, is used with the assumption that you can be proven wrong. Why should religion be treated any differently? I can 'know' that God doesn't exist, and I don't need lots of evidence and 100% conviction to do so."
Most Christians "believe" in contradictory dogma simply by not thinking about it. It takes some kind of dedication to apologetics to learn the doublethink it takes to support contradictory dogma. Your specific beliefs don't actually matter. All that matters is that you support the Religion club enough that saying "I wouldn't vote for an athiest, no matter their political position" is a valid viewpoint and you're part of the problem.Zinegata wrote:And yet Frank still somehow manages to generalize that contradictory dogma is what ordinary religious folk believe in, when it's been shown on this very thread that 40% of Christians in America don't even agree on the most basic dogma on the divinity of Christ.
But it's not unscientific. Science relies upon the null hypothesis unless it gets falsified or called into question. The Earth moves, there is no Firmament, the Earth is roughly spherical and there is no height you can look down from where you can see all of it at once. The Judeo-Christian hypothesis has been falsified. The scientific thing to do is to then embrace the null hypothesis, not to hypothesize tinier and tinier gods in tinier and tinier gaps that have yet to be falsified.Sashi wrote: But the problem I have is that people who define themselves as "atheist" do exactly the same thing when you point out their belief is unscientific as people who define themselves as "Christian" do when you attack their beliefs. The same way Catholics will claim that the cracker is metaphorically turned into the body of Christ while actually believing it becomes Jesus' body, that blog post is saying that "I know god doesn't exist" is the conversational meaning of "know", where "know" means "am extremely sure of" when you can also say "I am agnostic and see no evidence there could ever be a god" (which is my position). It's just fuckhead atheists attacking you for not being a part of their illogical atheist club.
Actually, I tend to believe that they simply don't care rather than not thinking about it. But really, I don't think we disagree.Sashi wrote:Most Christians "believe" in contradictory dogma simply by not thinking about it. It takes some kind of dedication to apologetics to learn the doublethink it takes to support contradictory dogma. Your specific beliefs don't actually matter. All that matters is that you support the Religion club enough that saying "I wouldn't vote for an athiest, no matter their political position" is a valid viewpoint and you're part of the problem.
Frank's mistaking "scientific" with "rational". Really, it's getting tiresome how fake-atheists appeal to science even though they don't understand it beyond a grade school level.FrankTrollman wrote:But it's not unscientific. Science relies upon the null hypothesis unless it gets falsified or called into question.
Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.
Ant wrote:You do not seem to do anything.Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?