|
Haha, God. (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Yan |
| quote: | Originally posted by echosystm
not really dude. athiests are usually highly oppinionated and think they are more intelligent than everyone else. hence, they get great joy in educating people all about the faults in the bible, even though it is irrelevant. |
Your statement doesn't really correspond with mine. It's more of an aside that is over-generalizing things. |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
If they were the same, there would be nothing to argue about, would there? :D |
I just feel like "NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING SO BOTH SIDES ARE WRONG" serves to render more credibility to the religious. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
If they were the same, there would be nothing to argue about, would there? :D |
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. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Echo of Silence
Am I the only person who was taught as a child to don't discuss religion, money, or politics outside of the home?
:D |
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. |
|
|
| Lira |
| 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 :p |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Who said that? I'm just a bit lost here, pkc :p |
Virtually every clueless 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. |
|
|
| Lira |
| 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 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 :p
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 |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
From these 3 is what people's basic morals are based from. |
that's absolute ing nonsense. "morals" come from reason. |
|
|
| Ania_xox |
| 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 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. |
|
|
| Yan |
| 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 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. |
|
|
|
|
