It doesn't matter who believes in God (I'm almost reluctant to even capitalize "his" name) and who doesn't. I'd say within a couple hundred years religion itself will be on the brink of extinction. People can only ignore science for so long.
Even in the past generation alone atheism rates have skyrocketed. And I couldn't be happier.
Posted by Mattsanity. on May-07-2011 20:15:
a christian made this track
Posted by Spam on May-08-2011 20:54:
Don't seek the lord when your time's up!
Posted by Moongoose on May-08-2011 22:10:
I love this.
I: Theoretically, if there is a god, and he created you, provdes for you keeps you allive blah blah blah, doesnt that give him the right to tell you what do do?
Christopher mother fuckin Hitchens: No.
Cue confusion in the interviewerspart.
Posted by Spam on May-08-2011 23:53:
quote:
Originally posted by Moongoose
I love this.
I: Theoretically, if there is a god, and he created you, provdes for you keeps you allive blah blah blah, doesnt that give him the right to tell you what do do?
Christopher mother fuckin Hitchens: No.
The skinny chick on Atheist Experience directed viewers to watch this interview lol.
"But Mr Hitchens, what IF there WAS a God?"
"Still no, dammit, I owe him nothing"
"But Mr Hitchens, we're talking hypothetically here, what if there WAS a God?"
"No!"
Posted by Capitalizt on May-09-2011 00:39:
Posted by WittyHandle on May-09-2011 01:08:
Posted by Moongoose on May-09-2011 10:36:
quote:
Originally posted by Spam
The skinny chick on Atheist Experience directed viewers to watch this interview lol.
"But Mr Hitchens, what IF there WAS a God?"
"Still no, dammit, I owe him nothing"
"But Mr Hitchens, we're talking hypothetically here, what if there WAS a God?"
"No!"
Haha, yes ive seen that clip now, and my sentiments are exactly the same as hers The dude thinks that Hitchens keeps saying no because he doesnt get the concept of "in theory" Posted by Happymess on May-09-2011 15:44:
quote:
Originally posted by Moongoose
Todd: "Well, I'm not sure that God is Kim Jong.."
Hitch: "Kim Jong has a different opinion."
Posted by Jake Sevendy on May-12-2011 03:13:
quote:
Originally posted by Znack
I admit, probability is an ambiguous word in this context, but if that is where the misunderstanding lies, everything else is then resolved?
ok, the first of all we need to define probability. everything ambiguous can be re-defined if enough detail is put into the language.
the most probable expectation, is that the easiest definition will suffice. this is highly probable, because most people don't care a great detail about the likeliness of them being wrong.
Most people consider themselves correct, because they are 'probably' never wrong.
Something that is probable to happen, means it will most likely not happen. We often see this in history. The probability that a great man, like Jesus, or like the Guy you mentioned that no one "took seriously"
is going to come along and be able to change the world is
Very likely. Millions of people have existed for quite some time...A lot of people have come and gone in 2000 years...
but that change never happens. Because if these guys ever get to the top, they get the chop. Caeser, J.F.Kennedy, Jesus** , (Hitler?)
** just because he existed, doesnt probably make him the son of god.
Something that is probable in your head, isn't probable in the real world.
Probability is like taking a sheet of paper and eliminating the world
and theres the problem. no one knows the conditions of what is probable...unless you can predict the future.
one way of doing this is analyzing structure of behavior.
quote:
Originally posted by Znack
And now you are calculating in low statistical odds again. Suddenly, you pull everything else back, and says 51% probability is enough to believe.
Again again again: no. Fact that something is a bit more likely than the opposite is not a reason to believe something, Belief is to believe it's true, not that it's likely.
belief is the belief that something is probably going to happen.
this comes from the confidence that the analysis of a situation has gone correctly, and with almost only 5% error margin, this can be constitutionalized into a mfk-ing percentage.
probability happens when something is more probable to happen then not. believing something is probable only requires 51%, the break even point.
Posted by Jake Sevendy on May-12-2011 03:20:
quote:
Originally posted by Znack
It's right there, you're wrong. A belief is an idea which is assumed to be true, not one which is assumed to be likely. It is not rational to believe in something because it is likely. It is rational to consider it likely.
a belief is something that isn't true that is believed to be true, more than likely, its usually not proven.
you have to believe for it to be true, it doesn't stand alone, you need to defend a belief.
ideas and facts stand alone - yes ideas can be improved, but you don't have to believe and idea, in order for it to be true.
and idea can be true in its nature, and true in its information. this is something that not even a statement can do.
thats why ideas are labelled as the most dangerous things, and idealists usually become martyrs.
you can also have a belief that something that is true, is false.
and lastly you can believe that something that isn't true or false, is either true or false.
there are such things that escape judgement, and become impartial.
something along the lines of ideas, but much high degree of EVERYTHING. something aspiring non-perfectible perfectionsm.
ps. if language ever gives someone problems, add a second noun right after the first noun to make a more detailed point, avoids confusion.
example: the fucking **** mother******s....you get the point.
Posted by woscar on May-18-2011 22:11:
Can't say I'm surprised though.
Posted by Moongoose on May-19-2011 08:52:
And on the same page as that article one finds this gem
Posted by gmilf on May-20-2011 05:35:
Posted by Znack on Oct-06-2011 06:30:
quote:
Originally posted by EddieZilker
The real irony is that those whose faith is in logic seem to also be adherent to logic only when it suits their purpose. At all other times, viewing one's opponent through a lens of contempt and interrogating their opinion as though they arose from a child seems, to them, a reasonable approach.
I don't quite understand this. Are you saying it's illogical having contempt of something?
Posted by EddieZilker on Oct-06-2011 19:45:
quote:
Originally posted by Znack
I don't quite understand this. Are you saying it's illogical having contempt of something?
No. I'm saying that most of the atheists I've read, who seem assured in the logical underpinnings of their assumptions, are not as familiar as they need to be, with logic, to successfully argue their cause. When the requisite command of logic eludes them - as evidenced by numerous internet postings authored by atheists - they resort to speaking to religious people with a contemptuous condescension reminiscent of how an adult might speak to an errant child - or worse; a litany of poorly executed constructive ad hominems which undermines whatever essential validity might otherwise have existed in their arguments to begin with. I'm not saying religious people are any better but, if you are assured in the logical correctness of your position, it would serve you well to adhere, quite strictly, to the rules of logic when posting your argument.
To do otherwise makes you look like a foolish, fanatical lunatic who believes in something which is completely imaginary as it appears to have been entirely reasoned through nothing less than intertwined logical fallacies that create what is essentially a sloppily organized narrative mythology onto itself. If you cannot argue your position without resorting to logical fallacy (up to and including ad hominem) and can't be satisfied with mindlessly regurgitating Sagan or Dawkins quotes, demonstrating very little understanding of what they actually meant by what is quoted in reply to some argument made by a religious person, then the only thing you're really doing is adding more complete and utter bullshit to a discussion so prevalent with it that it serves little purpose other than to further corrode your already imperiled reasoning.
Posted by Znack on Oct-06-2011 20:18:
I don't disagree with you there, if somebody did that. It's just not my experience it general, that it is the atheists who have to resort to ad-hominem to defend their position, although I of course am not so naive to think there aren't any foolish atheists.
Now i am only lacking examples of where it happened. Is it this thread you referring to?
Posted by EddieZilker on Oct-06-2011 20:42:
quote:
Originally posted by Znack
I don't disagree with you there, if somebody did that. It's just not my experience it general, that it is the atheists who have to resort to ad-hominem to defend their position, although I of course am not so naive to think there aren't any foolish atheists.
Now i am only lacking examples of where it happened. Is it this thread you referring to?
It's not simply in this thread. My girlfriend has a fairly large contingent of atheists on her facebook, as well. Again, it's not just atheists who argue like that but, when atheists imply their monopoly on logic by insisting that belief in God is the result of illogical thinking, to engage in further illogical discourse is indicative of hypocrisy.
Subsequent to the post you quoted, I got into a discussion of it with Hal and, in the link below, I point out where you've engaged in similar behavior. There are examples of it, all throughout this thread. In many ways, religious people make the same mistakes, too and perhaps, having a discussion relegated to that rhetorical plane, is anathematic to having a discussion about religion/atheism, at all.
What is funny is that some atheists think that you can't prove a negative. the thing is you can.
��p is how you do it.
yes, logic is used as a proxy, it is used as a smoke screen to make contempt seem justifiable. I often see a contemptive attitude in political or religious discourse when someone is saying a person isn't logical. It seems pretty dogmatic.
This post isn't directed towards atheists, just people who try to add color to the word "logic" because it's hella annoying when you do that. Lastly, you CAN prove a negative!
Posted by Joss Weatherby on Oct-07-2011 00:25:
I have sustainable logical proof in the existence of santa clause.
Posted by Joss Weatherby on Oct-07-2011 00:28:
Also, at least in this country (the US) there should be contempt for religious people. They should be ridiculed and driven from having any sort of serious role in society. They contribute nothing to our advancement and they wrap up very bad policy in the guise of religion. If you take away the flock of sheep who will blindly follow religious conservatives we would solve a lot of the political problems in this country. They would have to find something else to convince people to vote for their horrible policy other than being "good god fearing bible worshiping politicians" which is the sole reason I have heard people vote for conservatives. These are the same poor people that rely on government help to let their families survive, and they are willing to throw it away because the people that are trying to take it from them are "good christians."
The dude thinks that Hitchens keeps saying no because he doesnt get the concept of "in theory" 
