I can't stop it from notifying me when I have new posts in my thread, so the ignore feature isn't working; I'm still being trolled, and it'd be nice if something could be done about it.
That was a serious post. I actually took you off ignore last night while you were lecturing me and I managed to not react to it while it seemed like it would make shit more dramatic. Probably not going to put you back. Also not trying to create any drama, however making critical observations tends to be just what I do. So it's fine with me if you want to ignore it.
I understand what you mean, but at the same time, I can't help but think you're digging for as many excuses as you can to help justify your own position. I think at the end of the day, anyone who holds an atheistic worldview has no problem admitting that they don't know whether or not there's a god. The problem is, is that they don't see why 'god' should be the default answer for anything that can't be explained. Not to sound pedantic, but what do you mean in the bold? I thought science was based in reality; anything proven by science should be true whether or not we believe it. I've always seen religion as mans first, but failed, attempt at sociology and philosophy. At most, Abrahamic religions have a few good ideas on how we should treat each other, but who's to say we can't find better ways to establish a moral framework in modern times? --- The apatheist in me has to ask, what does it matter whether or not a God exists? What does it have to do with us? Is there a god that even recognizes our planet? If so, does it want anything to do with us? In recent times, humans have show to be a lot more impressive and effcient than the God of Abraham. We just landed on Mars for Christ's-sake (no pun), and I recently saw a passage in the bible about how much God doesn't like when his own people build towers that can touch his heavens (Genesis 11:5-8).
Serious posts could do without assumptions about my lifestyle or what exactly I'm doing with my time. It's not like I'm sitting here all day smoking weed and wasting my time on GC, I'm barely on here anymore and am drafting paperwork for a business I'm starting while I'm on here today. I know how to manage my time effectively and I can't help that I need some leisurely distraction from time to time. I'm sorry you can't see the other compassionate things I do with my life, but don't think I'm some hypocrite who doesn't walk the same that they talk because I'm not like that at all. As far as making broad generalizations about atheists and theists, I'm not interested. You say a majority of the atheists/theists you meet act a certain way, but I live in a totally different area and most atheists/theists around here aren't like that. They're the ones this thread is directed at; the illogical ones, not the logical ones. What position am I trying to justify? There is no digging, this IS my position. Both atheists and theists deviate too far from logic and it needs to stop. Neither side is agreeable because both disregard someone else for the sake of their own point of view. God shouldn't be some default excuse not to understand things and atheists shouldn't use god as an excuse not to understand some of greatest philosophy developed. Just because you believe god created everything doesn't mean he didn't also create logic and want us to understand it and just because you don't believe in god doesn't mean you can't grasp what religion teaches. Beliefs was an unneeded word. I could've just as easily written it: I use logic in theism just as I use logic in science. "but who's to say we can't find better ways to establish a moral framework in modern times?" THIS IS WHAT I WANT!!! You shouldn't consider them failed just because you disagree with the concept of god. There are still some profound jewels of knowledge professed by religion that atheists can still learn from just as atheists can still learn how to share with their friends from a talking bear on television. --- It doesn't matter. The only time it should matter is on a personal level and that's only because no one can stop you from believing/not believing in something.
The unsubscribe from the thread. Just because someone is disagreeing with you doesn't mean they are trolling.
I understand that, he wasn't just disagreeing with me before and I'm not unsubbing considering I started and am interested in the topic of this thread, but thanks for the help.
Personally, i dont believe in god. I cant choose what i believe; i just dont, but being a logical person, i know and accept the fact that i might be wrong. I do not believe, however, that judaism, islam, or christianity have any validity because the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immutable being is incoherent. But if such a god existed, i doubt the idea of said god would make any sense to a mere mortal.
I cut this but I read it, I'm just not interested in the clutter. Sorry for assuming you do more than most. That must really have stung. I did not call you a hypocrite. I just had the audacity to point out that you weren't acting very modest. We both could do more and I think no person should talk about how compassionate they are when they could actually be practicing compassion in the place of their self-promotion. Am I entitled to an opinion on this? The concept isn't the problem. The dogma is. The philosophy is basically fine. But being forced to do things out of reverence to a deity (or leader) inevitably leads to conflicts of behavior. Why not just tell us about them instead of telling us they exist? I have been asking to learn them for quite some time and have concluded that no such lessons actually exist. The only lesson I learned from religion that I might not have learned without was that I do not need religion to be moral or even to believe in god, and that it tends to hold people back.
That is calling me a hypocrite. I dedicate my life to being humble and compassionate, so saying that I lack modesty is calling me a hypocrite and just because everyone is entitled to their opinion by right doesn't mean it isn't rude or doesn't cause problems when you constantly broadcast it. I know you think that my calling out your fallacies doesn't seem modest, but you have to understand that I don't do it to be condescending, I do it for the sake of truth and correctness. You are entitled to opinion, but not lies and if I'm correct about something, I'm not going to just let it go because I'm humble. That's not what being humble is, being humble is realizing that you yourself make mistakes to and being open to correcting those mistakes, which is why I constantly ask people to point out any fallacies I make so I can correct them. I understand that I have natural cognitive biases and can miss fallacies when I make them on accident, but whenever I ask for whoever's accusing me of making them to point them out they never do, yet it's not pointing them out and failing to recognize fallacious arguments that stops them from being corrected, so I refuse to just look the other way. I agree that it's the dogma that's the problem. I'm not referring to any specific agreeable teachings by religion otherwise I would bring them up. Also, it's not something anyone's going to sit you down and teach you. This isn't elementary school anymore where you're spoon fed all of the information in the world and get a personal aid if you're a little slow. This is the real word where if you want to understand something it's up to you to seek out that knowledge and evaluate things on your own. That's supposed to be the point of compulsory education; to teach you how to think and learn, but instead we allow the system to teach us what to think and what to learn. Yes, it's true that you can learn the lessons taught by religion via trial and error, but that's not really the point. Just for an example, though, the bible teaches that we should not judge others harshly because only objective knowledge can properly judge. It teaches not to be a hypocrite and judge others for problems you share. It teaches not to quarrel with those with differing beliefs or levels of faith and that you should instead allow others to be fully convinced in their own mind. It teaches to instead strive for mutual edification rather than triumph. It teaches that people will eventually reject truth and understanding for the sake of myths (Roman Catholicism? lol). If you try to understand what they're replacing with the word god or all-knowing, like objective knowledge, then you begin to realize that the authors were a lot smarter than a lot of atheists give them credit for, it's just that organized religion has tossed such teachings to the wind for the sake of dogma and myths. That's what I think needs to stop. People need to stop being held back by their beliefs regardless of which side of the fence they're on. I mean, I don't agree with everything purported by religion, but I don't believe it should be blindly discarded and only try to serve as a gate so people can open their minds. Religion should have a full force and effect clause or something so we can drop the bullshit and reword the good stuff so that it's agreeable. lol
We agree on dogma. Good. If you insist that there is a lesson that religion can teach exclusively, I want to know what it is. You say we should not judge each other - this is not an exclusive lesson and it's a lesson a lot of religious people fail to learn. In fact, you describe nothing that can't be learned without religion except for an "objective" knowledge that I doubt you will logically prove. It seems like we agree on some things, but you want people to entertain the things we agree aren't good things but I don't see the reasoning for that desire.
why do people think atheist are such dicks......i dont believe in god but i recognize theres a possibility..but i do believe the bible and all others like them are pretty ridiculous.
There is no lesson that religion can teach exclusively and I didn't mean "'objective' knowledge", I meant objectivity and reality which is proved by nature. I think the difference between you and I is that you're closed to other schools of thought whereas I'm open to navigating any piece of knowledge or thought just for the sake of understanding it. I simply like to understand other people while you seem more interested in rejecting other ways of thinking. I don't see the value in finding something wrong with an idea and then rejecting the entire concept it's a part of, rather I find value in understanding the flaws and mending them/only rejecting that idea for the sake of knowledge and an open mind. I simply disagree with aspects while you want to rid the world of such thought. That's just a personality conflict. lol
but i dont say im fight your wrong normally id like to have a REAL conversation but religious people seem to just plug their ears and yell lalallala when u try to really talk to them.
I feel like that's just something most people do. A lot of people can't deal with their beliefs being challenged regardless of the belief, especially when they only believe in something because someone else wants them to. I mean, look at all of the democrats and republicans who just plug their ears and go lalalalalal when you try to point out their fallacious bullshit. lol
I consider that a drastic underestimation. And I consider that a complete misinterpretation of my philosophy. Moreover, it is dismissive of my philosophy. The flaws in an idea should be challenged. We can't improve our understanding if we won't do that. You are mistaking the challenge for a condemnation. When I thought you were talking about religion having some special teaching power that was exclusive, I asked you to explain how that is. Did I do more than that? I don't think there is any special teaching power in religion that isn't available without it. If I am wrong, I am interested to know how I am wrong. I don't consider this impulse destructive to religion, but I acknowledge it might be destructive to people who won't ask the question but I judge the potential gain more than any potential loss.
Maybe we don't actually disagree all that much then. You've been the only one to assert the concept that religion might have any "special teaching power" (you say you disagree and I also disagree, so I don't even get where that concept is coming from or why you're asserting it rather than dismissing it if you disagree lol) it's only what is taught that I seek to open people's minds to, not how it's taught as its obviously flawed and quite fallacious. Also, in what way is that an underestimation?
Is that what you believe? Take a course on probability/statistics and see if you all your beliefs last. Then take a few more courses and see how many are left. We've got some pretty complicated math for some pretty complicated coincidences now. lol Coincidences are awesome, but probably not any type of sign that god exists considering they're as ordinary as any other random/chanced occurrence. I mean, if you get three 7's on a slot machine, is that an act of god or can you grasp the probability behind it? (I'll give you a hint; the casino owners have a lot more control over the probability than god does. )