Haha, God. - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Haha, God.
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »

Posted by Lira on May-22-2008 01:24:

quote:
Originally posted by Clovis
I just feel like "NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING SO BOTH SIDES ARE WRONG" serves to render more credibility to the religious.

Funny how I actually feel the opposite. As a matter of fact, if we take all three statements:

(My) God exists.
No God exists.
Both (a) and (b) are wrong

All of them are equally arrogant, granting no advantage to either side, specially because (c) is simply absurd. (A) because it makes an unwarranted claim that one's personal belief is true even though there's no evidence. (B) because of the vagueness concerning the word "God", so it would have to exclude pretty much every possible conception of the word, including a possible pantheist meaning, which renders this claim absurd.

This doesn't mean, however, that atheism is less likely to be true than theism. Quite on the contrary, as a refutation of theism, it's a lot more robust, given the fact that theism has to first define "What God is" and, given the fact that one interpretation must be (even if partially) right, a claim supporting the existence of a particular God is certainly more fragile than its negative equivalent.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Indeed. But for me, the difference is that atheism isnt a group of like-minded individuals that attempt to dominate government policy or school curriculum. what was it, 35% (or more) of americans believe in a young earth?? and yet im labelled as "the same" as those wackos because i oppose these enemies of science? bollocks.

Who said that? I'm just a bit lost here, pkc

Posted by Krypton on May-22-2008 01:27:

The fundamental ideologies of the world begin at...

1. God exists.
2. God does not exist.
3. Everything is God.

From these 3 is what people's basic morals are based from.

Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on May-22-2008 01:32:

quote:
Originally posted by Lira
Who said that? I'm just a bit lost here, pkc

Virtually every clueless fuck on TA.

"oh, youre just the same as the christians. Atheism is the same as christianity. White is the same as black. islam is a religion of peace."

or as my friend pat condell says, yes they'd be exactly the same if language had no meaning.

Posted by Lira on May-22-2008 01:32:

quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
The fundamental ideologies of the world begin at...

1. God exists.
2. God does not exist.
3. Everything is God.

From these 3 is what people's basic morals are based from.

Not necessarily. Buddhism, for instance, is known not to care about theism at all¹. Personally, I don't see why I should care about the existence of God, given the fact that it's not part of my daily life. I'd first think about my peers, then about other animals, then about other living creatures, and only then, about any supernatural entity.

quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Virtually every clueless fuck on TA.

"oh, youre just the same as the christians. Atheism is the same as christianity. White is the same as black. islam is a religion of peace."

Hence why they're clueless

¹ Here's an interesting paragraph concerning this aspect of Buddhism:

quote:

Instead of taking an interest in metaphysics and academic theories, the Buddha deals with problems per se and approaches them in a concrete way. This is again something which is very much in agreement with western ideas about utilitarianism. That is, if something works, use it. It is very much a part of western political, economic and scientific philosophy. This attitude of pragmatism is clearly expressed in the Culamalunkya Sutra where the Buddha made use of the example of the wounded man. The man wounded by an arrow wishes to know who shoots the arrow, from which direction it comes, whether the arrow head is made of bone or iron, whether the shaft is of this kind of wood or another before he will have the arrow removed. This man is likened to those who would like to know about the origin of the Universe, whether the world is eternal or not, finite or not before they will undertake to practise a religion. Just as the man in the parable will die before he has all the answers he wants regarding the origin and nature of the arrow, such people will die before they will ever have the answers to all their irrelevant questions. This exemplifies what we call the Buddha�s practical attitude. It has a lot to say about the whole question of priorities and problem solving. We would not make much progress developing wisdom if we ask the wrong question. It is essentially a question of priority. The first priority for all of us is the problem of suffering. The Buddha recognized this and said it is of no use for us to speculate whether the world is eternal or not because we all have got an arrow in our chest, the arrow of suffering. We have to ask questions that will lead to the removal of this arrow. One can express this in a very simple way. We can see that in our daily life, we constantly make choices based on priority. If, for instance, we happen to be cooking something on the stove and we decide that while the beans are boiling we will dust the house, and as we dust the house we smell something burning. We have to make the choice, whether to carry on with our dusting or whether to go to turn down the flame on the stove to save the beans. In the same way, if we want to make progress towards wisdom we have to recognize our priorities and this point is made very clearly in the parable of the wounded man.

http://www.buddhanet.net/funbud1.htm

Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on May-22-2008 01:32:

quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
From these 3 is what people's basic morals are based from.

that's absolute fucking nonsense. "morals" come from reason.

Posted by Ania_xox on May-22-2008 01:49:

quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yeah, let's just leave religion alone while it terrorises the planet's population.

This comment is very annoying because you attempt to convey some sort of sardonic message while addressing absolutely *nothing* in reality.
Religion on its own doesn't terrorize anything.
Debating it causes conflict.
That's the point I was driving before.

And call it an inference but based on a subconscious analysis of your post history as far as I have seen it, you really don't seem to be the type to care give a flying fuck about overpopulated parts of the world and their subsequent problems. Your posts drip with disdain and sarcasm - I would be highly surprised if I saw you post something in defense of any demographic.

Posted by Yan on May-22-2008 02:08:

quote:
Originally posted by Ania_xox
This comment is very annoying because you attempt to convey some sort of sardonic message while addressing absolutely *nothing* in reality.
Religion on its own doesn't terrorize anything.
Debating it causes conflict.
That's the point I was driving before.

And call it an inference but based on a subconscious analysis of your post history as far as I have seen it, you really don't seem to be the type to care give a flying fuck about overpopulated parts of the world and their subsequent problems. Your posts drip with disdain and sarcasm - I would be highly surprised if I saw you post something in defense of any demographic.

Debating does cause conflict... but the true evil is behind the curtain. That, of course, are the various governments of the world. Ever since the archaic state (when governments created religion to have even more control over the masses), religion has done what its original purpose was.

LOL THAT'S SO BIASED.

Posted by Fpcookie on May-22-2008 02:14:

inb4pkcreply

Posted by RJT on May-22-2008 02:16:

Oh for fucks sake.

Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on May-22-2008 02:25:

quote:
Originally posted by Ania_xox
And call it an inference but based on a subconscious analysis of your post history as far as I have seen it, you really don't seem to be the type to care give a flying fuck about overpopulated parts of the world and their subsequent problems. Your posts drip with disdain and sarcasm - I would be highly surprised if I saw you post something in defense of any demographic.

Im at a total loss at how to reply to that... I can understand your inference given how i do treat people with a healthy mix of disdain and sarcasm (though it must be noted that it is rarely undeserved), but i must borrow a line from arnold "ace" rimmer and say you're "brimming over with wrongability".

just coz i don't wander in here with some hippy-esque retarded view full of sunshine and smiles and trying to hug everybody doesn't mean i don't care. i might not care about the members of the COR, but i am a strong believer in social justice in the global context.

perhaps in future it would be wise to judge my arguments and my words and refrain from attempting to extrapolate that into what kind of person i must be.

Posted by RJT on May-22-2008 02:27:

quote:
Originally posted by Arbiter
No.

Then again, that is probably why the typical person is at their most foolish in those three areas, plus sex. After all, avoiding discussing some particular subject is a good way to preserve one's ignorance on the matter.

Amen. Thank god some of us were taught better.

There has to be at least one of you that found that phrasing funny.

Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on May-22-2008 02:28:

quote:
Originally posted by RJT
There has to be at least one of you that found that phrasing funny.

well, not quite as funny as rape, but definitely as funny as ania_xox getting bowel cancer.

Posted by jastiC on May-22-2008 02:29:

there is no god.

just a lot of insecure people

Posted by Ania_xox on May-22-2008 02:41:

quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Im at a total loss at how to reply to that... I can understand your inference given how i do treat people with a healthy mix of disdain and sarcasm (though it must be noted that it is rarely undeserved), but i must borrow a line from arnold "ace" rimmer and say you're "brimming over with wrongability".

just coz i don't wander in here with some hippy-esque retarded view full of sunshine and smiles and trying to hug everybody doesn't mean i don't care. i might not care about the members of the COR, but i am a strong believer in social justice in the global context.

perhaps in future it would be wise to judge my arguments and my words and refrain from attempting to extrapolate that into what kind of person i must be.

The COR is comprised of people you don't know.
"The world" and the greater portion of your imagination that it fits into (as one does not ever view "the world" in its entirety - but rather a collection of ideas and facts about those who inhabit it) is ALSO comprised of people you don't know.

The "fucks" you scorn at on TA are no different than the people you claim to defend in the name of social justice. Please don't attempt humour me with a discourse on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Part of social justice is the belief in equality and fairness for all, is that not correct?

The TA you just called a fucking idiot for making a typo and commenting on something you find offensive or immature could be sitting by his PC hungry as all hell but not going out to by himself any food tonight b/c he needs the money to make his car payment. The TA chick you just called a dishonourable slut could have actually been molested when she was younger. The ALT you called a greedy prick could be sending portions of his salary to his relatives who live in the slums of Honduras. WHATEVER.

Therefore - this is how I have judged you. I'm not narrow-minded, my opinions flex. This is just my opinion right now.

Posted by RJT on May-22-2008 02:45:

quote:
Originally posted by Ania_xox
. . .

Do you really believe all the shit you've babbled here?

To be honest, I'm shocked anyone even bothered to reply to your idiocy. You remind me of another TA female who has a penchant for playing fast and loose.

Posted by The17sss on May-22-2008 02:53:

Anyone here read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins? fucking great book... regardless of what side of the aisle you are on.

Posted by Renzo on May-22-2008 02:55:

quote:
Originally posted by RJT
You remind me of another TA female who has a penchant for playing fast and loose.

That is no way to speak about nachos.

Posted by RJT on May-22-2008 02:55:

Richard Dawkins: The Ken Ham of Atheists.

Those of you who don't get the analogy would do well to YouTube Mr. Ham.

Posted by Yan on May-22-2008 02:55:

quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
Anyone here read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins? fucking great book... regardless of what side of the aisle you are on.

FUCK YES. You are the best book EVER.

Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on May-22-2008 02:56:

quote:
Originally posted by Ania_xox
The "fucks" you scorn at on TA are no different than the people you claim to defend in the name of social justice. Please don't attempt humour me with a discourse on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Part of social justice is the belief in equality and fairness for all, is that not correct?

The TA you just called a fucking idiot for making a typo and commenting on something you find offensive or immature could be sitting by his PC hungry as all hell but not going out to by himself any food tonight b/c he needs the money to make his car payment. The TA chick you just called a dishonourable slut could have actually been molested when she was younger. The ALT you called a greedy prick could be sending portions of his salary to his relatives who live in the slums of Honduras. WHATEVER.

jesus, what an incoherent mess. where does one start? im not even sure of what your point is- that you have to be nice to people in order to make other internet personas think youre a good person?

I care about people in context. I care about the rapist who is unable to feed himself because of inequities in economic structures or the lack of development of such. But I don�t care about the rapist who is in court being charged with fingering kiddies. I care about the creationist who can't get a job because of lack of education or the colour of their skin, but I don�t care about the creationist that propogates ideas that are the enemy of reason and science.

i really dont see any contradiction.

Posted by idoru on May-22-2008 02:57:

quote:
Originally posted by Renzo
That is no way to speak about nachos.

Posted by The17sss on May-22-2008 03:11:

quote:
Originally posted by RJT
Richard Dawkins: The Ken Ham of Atheists.

Those of you who don't get the analogy would do well to YouTube Mr. Ham.

Haha.. I hear you man. I like Sam Harris better than Dawkins, but yeah... I know all about Ken Ham. Both Ham and Dawkins are solidly consistent with their far end of the spectrum beliefs, but at least Dawkins bases his beliefs on legitimate evidence and science that he's spend his life mastering. The fact that Ham believes dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans is enough to speak of his lack of credibility IMO.

Posted by Ania_xox on May-22-2008 03:12:

quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
jesus, what an incoherent mess. where does one start? im not even sure of what your point is- that you have to be nice to people in order to make other internet personas think youre a good person?

I care about people in context. I care about the rapist who is unable to feed himself because of inequities in economic structures or the lack of development of such. But I don�t care about the rapist who is in court being charged with fingering kiddies. I care about the creationist who can't get a job because of lack of education or the colour of their skin, but I don�t care about the creationist that propogates ideas that are the enemy of reason and science.

i really dont see any contradiction.

My point was that you claim to defend social justice but rip on people you don't know. (small example agaist a larger backdrop)
The COR is a little "world".

I'm not trying to be a hero. I don't ever really feel the need to respond to insults in order to defend myself or to further perpetuate an argument that is going nowhere.

Anyway, sorry if it was a little hazy... I read too much of George Lakoff's stuff. It becomes part of my line of reasoning when I'm trying to explain a complex idea and I guess I don't convey things as well as I should.

Posted by RJT on May-22-2008 03:18:

quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
Haha.. I hear you man. I like Sam Harris better than Dawkins, but yeah... I know all about Ken Ham. Both Ham and Dawkins are solidly consistent with their far end of the spectrum beliefs, but at least Dawkins bases his beliefs on legitimate evidence and science that he's spend his life mastering. The fact that Ham believes dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans is enough to speak of his lack of credibility IMO.

Yeah, Ken Ham is a complete idiot - there's no denying that, and Dawkins is legitimately a brilliant man. It's just unfortunate he's such a douchebag zealot about it all.

Oh well, "equal and opposite reaction" and all that jazz.

Posted by Lira on May-22-2008 03:24:

quote:
Originally posted by Ania_xox
I read too much of George Lakoff's stuff.

Interesting... I'm looking forward to reading "Whose freedom?" soon

Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »