Religion Thread

[Vermillion_Hawk]

Until you take the time to actually understand what my position is, you're never going to be able to lodge a real complaint against it.

Once again, vice versa.

No, you haven't. I explained explicitly why this scale makes no sense. Logic and faith are categorically different things, not diametric opposites. In order for your scale to make sense "logic" would have to be a kind of belief, just like faith is. And the only time I ever mentioned objectivity vs subjectivity was in regards to a different topic entirely. Should I go back and find the quotes for you?

Normally yes. But in this case, no. The application of logic is subjective. I wasn't referring to you directly saying that it was subjective or objective, I was referring to the fact that you're approaching the whole issue from a subjective manner. And yes, please give me these great minds of the 20th and 21st century who were antitheists.

 

[Duh]

The greatest minds of the 20th and 21st centuries can't be wrong, hahaha. I don't think Einstein spent a lot of time wearing his beanie and hanging out with rabbis but I could be wrong.

How can you be wrong? 

 

[Magorian Aximand]

Once again, vice versa.

I do understand your position, as you have presented it. Again, if I misunderstand the onus is on you to show me where and how, not just claim that I just don't get it. I've explained where and how you went wrong every time you tried to misrepresent my position. And again, that's a tu quoque fallacy.

Normally yes. But in this case, no. The application of logic is subjective. I wasn't referring to you directly saying that it was subjective or objective, I was referring to the fact that you're approaching the whole issue from a subjective manner.

You're going to have to do more explaining than that.

And yes, please give me these great minds of the 20th and 21st century who were antitheists.

Lawrence Krauss, Thomas Paine, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, AC Grayling, Bertrand Russell, Aldous Huxley, Mark Twain, Christopher Hitchens, ... should I keep going?

Again I ask, what do you think antitheism is? Why do you think that I claim to believe gods can't exist?

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

Lawrence Krauss, Thomas Paine, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, AC Grayling, Bertrand Russell, Aldous Huxley, Mark Twain, Christopher Hitchens, ... should I keep going?

Again I ask, what do you think antitheism is? Why do you think that I claim to believe gods can't exist?

Well if you're wondering why I think you claim to disbelieve the possibility of the existence of gods then maybe you should consider revising the epithet. Not to mention the fact that only maybe two of those people above are people who have contributed anything major to society, being Thomas Paine and Huxley. Not exactly the greatest minds. Also Samuel Clemens can barely be counted in the 20th century, and Paine certainly is not.

You're going to have to do more explaining than that.

I shouldn't have to at this point.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

Well if you're wondering why I think you claim to disbelieve the possibility of the existence of gods then maybe you should consider revising the epithet.

You mean not call myself an antitheist? So you still don't understand what that means. Despite being correct multiple times. Lovely.

Not to mention the fact that only maybe two of those people above are people who have contributed anything major to society, being Thomas Paine and Huxley. Not exactly the greatest minds. Also Samuel Clemens can barely be counted in the 20th century, and Paine certainly is not.

Nitpicking, and demonstrates your ignorance of the accomplishments of these men or your dishonesty in this endeavor. Pick whichever you like. Krauss and Dawkins have contributed to their fields in a similar degree to Einstein or Hawking. Both of whom still don't support your point, I should add. Your attempt to use them was dishonest. And "great minds" don't have to be scientists. I can keep going with names, but I think the point is clear.

I shouldn't have to at this point.

You're trying to make a new point, but you're being exceptionally vague. If you want to make the point, then actually make it.

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

Nitpicking, and demonstrates your ignorance of the accomplishments of these men or your dishonesty in this endeavor. Pick whichever you like. Krauss and Dawkins have contributed to their fields in a similar degree to Einstein or Hawking. Both of whom still don't support your point, I should add. Your attempt to use them was dishonest. And "great minds" don't have to be scientists. I can keep going with names, but I think the point is clear.

I wasn't intending for them to support my point. I was intending for them to refute yours. Simple as that.

I'm not trying to make a new point. You should know that this point is what I've been stressing since the beginning.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

I wasn't intending for them to support my point. I was intending for them to refute yours. Simple as that.

And they don't. They're not religious, they don't have faith. And the only worldview they can actually be used to argue against is one that I don't hold. So...

Way to dodge the bit about antitheism and the rest, by the way.

I'm not trying to make a new point. You should know that this point is what I've been stressing since the beginning.

This bit about subjectivity is new. You haven't talked about it before. I understand that you're trying to use it to support your main point, that I'm somehow an extremist, but you've yet to elucidate how it supports that point.

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

And they don't. They're not religious, they don't have faith. And the only worldview they can actually be used to argue against is one that I don't hold. So...

Determining whether or not they're religious in the conventional sense is probably going a little too far out on a limb, but it really doesn't matter for the purposes of what I was trying to say. What I was getting at was, why aren't they all "outspoken anti-theists" such as yourself?

The bit about subjectivity is certainly not new, and your failure to see it is either purposeful or once more proof of my earlier points.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

Determining whether or not they're religious in the conventional sense is probably going a little too far out on a limb, but it really doesn't matter for the purposes of what I was trying to say. What I was getting at was, why aren't they all "outspoken anti-theists" such as yourself?

What kind of point is this? The puerile nature of this argument can be shown clearly when I can point out that they aren't men of faith either. Why don't they share your views? Why does Einstein call superstitions exactly of the kind you hold "childish"? Their views on faith are far more in line with mine than yours. The only thing they don't share is an opposition to religion. But as Krauss and Dawkins demonstrate, I'm not alone in that regard. So again, what kind of lame ass point is this?

And you're still dodging the fact that you still don't understand antitheism.

The bit about subjectivity is certainly not new, and your failure to see it is either purposeful or once more proof of my earlier points.

Then quote for me the posts you brought it up before. Show me what I missed.

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

What kind of point is this? The puerile nature of this argument can be shown clearly when I can point out that they aren't men of faith either. Why don't they share your views? Why does Einstein call superstitions exactly of the kind you hold "childish"? Their views on faith are far more in line with mine than yours. The only thing they don't share is an opposition to religion. But as Krauss and Dawkins demonstrate, I'm not alone in that regard. So again, what kind of lame ass point is this?

Well extremists never are alone unfortunately. Which was what I was trying to get at. And I suppose we've now gotten down the root of the matter if you're making a value judgment on someone's beliefs like that without proper knowledge of their intricacies.

Then quote for me the posts you brought it up before. Show me what I missed.

You've evidently missed nothing, yet everything. Is it a failure to comprehend? Is it willful ignorance? Explain to my why you do not understand.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

Well extremists never are alone unfortunately. Which was what I was trying to get at. And I suppose we've now gotten down the root of the matter if you're making a value judgment on someone's beliefs like that without proper knowledge of their intricacies.

... that's not what you were getting at. Way to dodge, again. And from what you've said of your beliefs, the little you gave, is enough to demonstrate that you hold the kind of superstition Einstein found to be foolish. I'm not making a value judgement here. It is presumptuous, on your part, to call Krauss an extremist...

You've evidently missed nothing, yet everything. Is it a failure to comprehend? Is it willful ignorance? Explain to my why you do not understand.

I don't understand what you're saying by saying that I'm approaching this subjectively, or how anything I can imagine that could mean would support your point. And it isn't something you've said before. Again, quote for me what I missed.

And you're still dodging the fact that you still don't understand antitheism. Or atheism.

 

[rebelsquirrell]

What kind of point is this? The puerile nature of this argument can be shown clearly when I can point out that they aren't men of faith either. Why don't they share your views? Why does Einstein call superstitions exactly of the kind you hold "childish"? Their views on faith are far more in line with mine than yours. The only thing they don't share is an opposition to religion. But as Krauss and Dawkins demonstrate, I'm not alone in that regard. So again, what kind of lame ass point is this?

Well extremists never are alone unfortunately. Which was what I was trying to get at. And I suppose we've now gotten down the root of the matter if you're making a value judgment on someone's beliefs like that without proper knowledge of their intricacies.

Then quote for me the posts you brought it up before. Show me what I missed.

You've evidently missed nothing, yet everything. Is it a failure to comprehend? Is it willful ignorance? Explain to my why you do not understand.

The man probaly has more intricate knowledge of the various faiths than you give him credit for.

Generally comes along with being one o' dem book learnin type folk.

I'm sure he picked up some wisdom during his days as a river boat gambler trvlin up and down the Mississippie I'd bet.

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

... that's not what you were getting at. Way to dodge, again. And from what you've said of your beliefs, the little you gave, is enough to demonstrate that you hold the kind of superstition Einstein found to be foolish. I'm not making a value judgement here. It is presumptuous, on your part, to call Krauss an extremist...

Well you're a ****, but don't worry, that's totally not a value judgment. I said so.

And you're still dodging the fact that you still don't understand antitheism. Or atheism.

Hey, I'm showing as much willingness to do so as your willingness to discuss and learn the finer points of religious dogma, which you clearly elucidated in your earlier discussion with Lueii.

I don't understand what you're saying by saying that I'm approaching this subjectively, or how anything I can imagine that could mean would support your point. And it isn't something you've said before. Again, quote for me what I missed.

It's almost childlike innocence. Or mule-headedness. If you must make me spell it out, ask again, but know that this would undoubtedly make you one of the stupidest learned people I've had a lengthy discussion with.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

Well you're a ****, but don't worry, that's totally not a value judgment. I said so.

Quote for me the exact words where I made a value judgement then.

Hey, I'm showing as much willingness to do so as your willingness to discuss and learn the finer points of religious dogma, which you clearly elucidated in your earlier discussion with Lueii.

You really don't pay attention, do you? You missed the part where I referenced all the previous discussions Lueii and I have had where I do actually demonstrate knowledge of religious teachings, right?

It's almost childlike innocence. Or mule-headedness. If you must make me spell it out, ask again, but know that this would undoubtedly make you one of the stupidest learned people I've had a lengthy discussion with.

Or you could stop wasting my time and just explain it, now that I've asked thrice.

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

Why does Einstein call superstitions exactly of the kind you hold "childish"?

There you go. You made one, perhaps without even knowing it.

You really don't pay attention, do you? You missed the part where I referenced all the previous discussions Lueii and I have had where I do actually demonstrate knowledge of religious teachings, right?


Or you could stop wasting my time and just explain it, now that I've asked thrice.

Well you more focused on the one bit where you essentially claimed that most, if not all religious teachings were useless to follow if the source was flawed (something you inevitably believe considering your viewpoint).

Anyways, essentially what I was getting at is that the application of logic is subjective in the current circumstances, i.e., metaphysical discussion. Logic can be adhered to, but it is no longer applicable as a rigid methodology universally. Essentially, the same thing as what I was getting at with the whole dark room thing. How did you not get that?

 

[Magorian Aximand]

There you go. You made one, perhaps without even knowing it.

Do you think I was calling specific views childish? Because that's not what I said...

Well you more focused on the one bit where you essentially claimed that most, if not all religious teachings were useless to follow if the source was flawed (something you inevitably believe considering your viewpoint).

I'm focused on that because I'm making a specific point to that effect. It would be foolish to assume that because I'm making that point I'm unwilling to learn anything about any religious beliefs. You're making assumptions about me again...

Anyways, essentially what I was getting at is that the application of logic is subjective in the current circumstances, i.e., metaphysical discussion. Logic can be adhered to, but it is no longer applicable as a rigid methodology universally. Essentially, the same thing as what I was getting at with the whole dark room thing. How did you not get that?

Because it doesn't follow. How any person "applies logic" is always subjective. Whether or not any beliefs are actually valid or actually not valid (according to logical principles) is always objective fact. Those two things are true, regardless of the kind of discussion you're having or how you think I'm "approaching" it. Your assertion that metaphysical discussion is somehow exempt from the application of logic is one that you have never supported, and that must resort to special pleading to support. Like I've said all along...

 

[Oposum]

As we're all aware, making 1 dimensional graph which represents where is one positioned on sliding scale between logic and faith is meaningless without more information, I've took the liberty to supplement it with 2 additional dimensions to clarify things.

Coordinates: X2(9,-3, 6), X1(-10, 7, -20)
Position marked with X1 represents viewpoint of Hawk, while X2 represents viewpoint of Magorian.
As this graph undoubtedly shows, X2 is positioned firmly in domain of logic, while touching upon pie and having respect for donkeys dominion.
X1, on the other hand is on extreme end of faith, firmly in domain of necktie while clearly being an ass.

Furthermore, it is obvious that this graph is irrefutable proof that god exists and that logic cannot be applied without healthy dose of pie. Also, necktie is obviously requirement for gods if the god in question is not pie god.

 

[FinnishKnight]

Im a christian but i think im not a full one, but belive in god, jesus and afterlife. And im am not very religious.

 

[Kobrag]

In a perfect world that should be enough. =]

 

[Temuzu]

In a perfect world good people get good things, and bad people get bad, regardless of who you happen to worship or not.