User Panel
I think deep down everyone knows that there is God. Some folks tend to think that they ARE God.
|
|
Quoted:
Apparently, so does Islam, or else there wouldn't be so many adherents to it. That doesn't make it reasonable or true. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
I am truly astonished everyday with how smart every atheist i encounter are. Ive compiled a few examples of these people here to show how smart they are. . View Quote I think you should learn elementary level English before calling other people stupid. |
|
Quoted:
So, they don't have enough information, but get suckered into believing things (many of which go against good objective evidence: literal Adam and Eve, Earth is the center of the cosmos, etc.) because of shiny, pretty things that make them feel emotional? That's bad. They should really learn some critical thinking skills skills then. One should be more skeptical about believing things for bad reasons. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
I think you should [master, learn, use] elementary level English before calling other people stupid. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I am truly astonished everyday with how smart every atheist i encounter are. Ive compiled a few examples of these people here to show how smart they are. . I think you should [master, learn, use] elementary level English before calling other people stupid. Goose, gander, whatever. |
|
>it's a "let's argue using the conception of religion that a 12 year old would create" thread
We certainly can't use any of the absolutely mind boggling ideas that are rooted in religions such as Christianity though, because obviously science makes a compelling case for the sanctity of the individual, that everyone is "created" equal, and most of the founding principals of the greatest nation on Earth. The problem with rationalism and science based value centers is that people aren't rational, and science is in its infancy. Especially compared to religions which have been evolving in parallel with us over millions of years. Unsurprisingly, some atheists have an issue with religion that is deeply rooted and manifested within their value system(not unlike hardcore evangelicals), thus lash out it, hilariously parodying their claims of "rationalism". It's no different then how cetain religious people lash out at all science. Checkmate, atheists. |
|
Quoted:
Of course not. But if you truly want to make a persuasive argument against Islam you have to understand why people believe in the religion. Islam proclaimed that it was God's final message to mankind through the prophet Muhammed. As proof, Islam offered it's success on the battlefield. For the first 1200 years, Islam had an almost unbroken chain of success against the infidels. When Christianity leapt past Islam in the last two centuries, Islam was thrown into confusion. Now that the western world is in the process of committing suicide, Islam has again felt confident enough to wage war against it. Yet even then, it is maintained largely by the sword. View Quote Most people believe in religion because they're brainwashed into it. That's why religion is a very geographic-specific. It's not like people are making their mind up objectively in a vacuum. That's not even getting into the "Believe this specific thing or you'll BURN IN HELL FOREVER!!!!!", cult-like verses ("the more you're hated, the more you're really right!", "faith is evidence for things unseen", etc.) in the Abrahamic texts. Islam wasn't exposed to the Enlightenment for hundreds of years, people (in general) don't have good critical thinking skills. Forgive me for getting on my Atheist high-horse, but I have no idea how many times I've had to explain how a scientific theory is different from a layman's definition of a theory, etc. Religious fundamentalism is a rejection of Modernity. In the West, Modernity/the Enlightenment won. The religious wand-waving about ignoring getting to the actual truth and instead believe these old lies failed. Like it or not, Christianity was similar to ISIS during the Dark Ages. In the Middle-East, they tried Modernity (see Egypt, Iran, etc.), but they never really questioned their God, they just learned pharmacology/engineering/etc. without learning the humanities/critical thinking/etc. When things with Modernity didn't go well, they just went full Allah Ackbar (and people didn't have the tools to say "you're an idiot"). I'm hopeful with the Internet, that many will secularize (there's plenty of people in the Middle-East [Saudi Arabia, etc.) commenting on/interacting on sites like Youtube). The thing is their religion is pretty much a brown-skinned Evangelicalism where it's a very closed-minded system. If you attack them as a whole, you'll radicalize more people. "LOOK! WE'RE BEING ATTACKED! THE BOOK SAID THIS WOULD HAPPEN!!". You have to take jabs at specific claims (Quran talks of a literal world-wide flood, semen coming from the back, a literal first-person Adam and Eve [even though some try to make it work with a "God made man from clay" verse where microbes are], etc.). The taboo about criticizing ideas/beliefs has to go. We live in a nuclear world (Pakistan already has nukes). Humanity is going to have to deal with other's sooner or later. I would much rather that be before more nuclear proliferation. Attacking people with a broad-brush (like it or not) just feeds religious fundamentalism, they thrive off of paranoia and being persecuted ("Look! The book said that it would happen!"). |
|
Same with all the religious people who somehow think their religion is the only way to get to heaven lol. I'm a Christian, everyone else is going to hell. I'm a Muslim, everyone else is going to hell. I'm Jewish, everyone else is going to hell.
|
|
Quoted:
Most people believe in religion because they're brainwashed into it. That's why religion is a very geographic-specific. It's not like people are making their mind up objectively in a vacuum. That's not even getting into the "Believe this specific thing or you'll BURN IN HELL FOREVER!!!!!", cult-like verses ("the more you're hated, the more you're really right!", "faith is evidence for things unseen", etc.) in the Abrahamic texts. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
We don't have enough information to prove that the sky is blue. At some point, you have to make a conscious choice as to what seems like the best way to proceed. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
So, they don't have enough information, but get suckered into believing things (many of which go against good objective evidence: literal Adam and Eve, Earth is the center of the cosmos, etc.) because of shiny, pretty things that make them feel emotional? That's bad. They should really learn some critical thinking skills skills then. One should be more skeptical about believing things for bad reasons. We also see a blue sky, but the sky isn't really blue (it has to do with sunlight, etc.). Should I argue for a still Earth? It doesn't seem like the world is moving. |
|
Quoted:
Atheist are like: "You are silly for believing what is written in a book by a bunch of dead men. . . things you have never seen and can't prove for yourself. Just to prove you wrong . . . here is a science book full of stuff written by a bunch of dead men that I have never seen and can't prove myself" View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Why was Rene Descartes a devout Catholic? Was the father of modern philosophy "brainwashed" into it? View Quote I do question though, would he have still been Catholic if he was born in China? The God/religion people have is very geographically-specific (which is kinda weird for a God to do). I also believe Descartes was a weird deistic-like Catholic. |
|
Regardless of my own beliefs or the beliefs of others, I just want to be left the fuck alone. My life is absolutely no one else's business. Stop hassling me.
That is both my religious and political belief. What's that called? I need to know who to lump myself in with. |
|
Quoted:
Regardless of my own beliefs or the beliefs of others, I just want to be left the fuck alone. My life is absolutely no one else's business. Stop hassling me. That is both my religious and political belief. What's that called? I need to know who to lump myself in with. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
>it's a "let's argue using the conception of religion that a 12 year old would create" thread View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
>it's a "let's argue using the conception of religion that a 12 year old would create" thread We certainly can't use any of the absolutely mind boggling ideas that are rooted in religions such as Christianity though, because obviously science makes a compelling case for the sanctity of the individual, that everyone is "created" equal, and most of the founding principals of the greatest nation on Earth. Look into Secular Humanism and The Moral Landscape. The problem with rationalism and science based value centers is that people aren't rational, and science is in its infancy. Especially compared to religions which have been evolving in parallel with us over millions of years. Unsurprisingly, some atheists have an issue with religion that is deeply rooted and manifested within their value system(not unlike hardcore evangelicals), thus lash out it, hilariously parodying their claims of "rationalism". It's no different then how cetain religious people lash out at all science. Checkmate, atheists. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Regardless of my own beliefs or the beliefs of others, I just want to be left the fuck alone. My life is absolutely no one else's business. Stop hassling me. That is both my religious and political belief. What's that called? I need to know who to lump myself in with. |
|
Quoted:
It isn't the same question. He's asking if X is less than Y. Not if I believe X is less than Y. I'm not equipped to answer the question, therefore I by default don't believe X is less than Y. See the difference? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
So you just don't like the phrasing? Shuffling around the words and ask the exact same question? This is the equivalent of juggling around 3 = 2 + 1 and correcting someone to say, no, 3 - 2 = 1. You haven't changed a qualitative question into a quantitative one. It's the same question. He's asking if X is less than Y. Not if I believe X is less than Y. I'm not equipped to answer the question, therefore I by default don't believe X is less than Y. See the difference? I'm perfectly comfortable saying "I don't have enough information to put together a belief or case for either position" all the time. Maybe this is a different mindset thing. I'm accustomed to being held accountable for the literal and exact opinions I have on objective questions and advice I give. Do I believe there's a god? No, I don't. I've been given no rational reason to believe so. Do I know there's no god? Not really, I don't actually know anything because I have no information source I can really tap to give me any insight. Nobody does. I give definitive yes or no questions regularly, but I also give "I don't have the information available to answer that" if I must. This isn't a waffling position, this is an objective and candid answer. Answering "oh I believe X < Y" when X turns out to be greater than Y just means I stated my incorrect belief with less commitment. |
|
Quoted:
I said most people. I do question though, would he have still been Catholic if he was born in China? The God/religion people have is very geographically-specific (which is kinda weird for a God to do). I also believe Descartes was a weird deistic-like Catholic. View Quote |
|
|
Quoted:
We had morality and ethics before Christianity/Judaism. I really can't think of much new they added. We had civilizations in Rome (justice) and Greece (democracy) as well. We knew it wasn't good to kill and steal before Judaism/Christianity (though of course people still did it, same with the Jews and the Christians). It wasn't like Moses came down with the stone tablets and people were like "Oh! Killing people is wrong! Learn something new everyday!" either. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Pre-Christian morality was almost entirely based upon pagan religions. Greek law came from Zeus. Roman law came from Jupiter. Norse law came from Odin. View Quote What's Christian Western morality? What new thing was added? |
|
|
Quoted:
Well, many Dogmatic Atheists spend large amounts of time talking with other Dogmatic Atheists. Drowning themselves in mutual self congratulatory circle jerks. Then venture out to "engage" easy targets of annoying Dogmatic Theists with bumper sticker slogans and meme posts. Living in a self created bubble makes it easier to convince themselves and each other how smart and "woke" they all are. The bigger question is WHY do these Dogmatic Atheist have such a pressing NEED to proclaim their self-awarded status as intellectual giants? Most atheists are there just going day by day, like most everyone else. More than a little annoyed by the constant blather and "look at me!" antics. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
But Zeus, Jupiter and Odin (as described) don't exist (to Christians especially). It's almost like people have to think. What's Christian Western morality? What new thing was added? View Quote But more fundamentally, no one has created a secular morality on a large scale that has been successful. So far we have two examples, Leninism and Cultural Marxism. |
|
|
Quoted:
OMG that is some true shit right there. View Quote True how? Many simple experiments can be done for yourself if you need proof. Anyone who took high school physics or chemistry can attest to that. For more complex things that most people probably aren't able to test themselves the math and experiments and research and procedures and results are available for anyone to read. Whether or not you can understand it is on you. Sure they're are things that even to this day we don't understand. But anyone can go out and try to prove or disprove any theory they can come up with. The same can not be said for the Bible. |
|
|
|
Quoted:
It incorporated a lot of Greek philosophical as opposed to religious thought. As Nietzsche says, "Platonism for the People." In particular, it questioned secular authority in a way that classical paganism did not, and set the stage for the Renaissance and Enlightenment. But more fundamentally, no one has created a secular morality on a large scale that has been successful. So far we have two examples, Leninism and Cultural Marxism. View Quote Cultural Marxism is such a weird word. Is it criticizing Critical Theory? Psychoanalysis is definitely unfalsifiable garbage (though it made some good contributions). The mix of the words is honestly weird. Marxism views things in terms of economic class struggle, that's the be all and end all for them. Competing ideas/people/etc. not based on economics would be more Hegel. Look into Sam Harris - Moral Landscape for objective secular morality. |
|
Quoted:
Is this a serious reply? True how? Many simple experiments can be done for yourself if you need proof. Anyone who took high school physics or chemistry can attest to that. For more complex things that most people probably aren't able to test themselves the math and experiments and research and procedures and results are available for anyone to read. Whether or not you can understand it is on you. Sure they're are things that even to this day we don't understand. But anyone can go out and try to prove or disprove any theory they can come up with. The same can not be said for the Bible. View Quote |
|
Those people have as much modesty as people who claim to know the nature of the universe with 100% certainty because God/The Bible tells them so.
In short, they are assholes, and they are a certain percentage of every population. Look up the Dunning–Krugereffect. It will explain a lot. |
|
|
|
Atheists are in general smart. The most developed countries are secular, whereas the most backwards are religious based.
But, people posting arrogant comments on a reddit section are probably full of themselves. |
|
Had the thread been.
Why are Christians so smart? Or Why are Muslims so smart? Or Why are Buddhist so smart? etc. The thread would have been fragged before it started. I would have to assume that in GD, Atheism is not a religion as posited by some religious posters. CoC violations? |
|
Quoted:
Why are Atheists so smart? I am truly astonished everyday with how smart every atheist i encounter are... View Quote "Atheist" is not a proper noun and should only be capitalized if it's the first word of a sentence. "Every" and "day" should be separate words in this instance. And since you are speaking of atheists in the collective singular, "are" should be replaced by "is". You're welcome. |
|
Quoted:
Leninism is a socio-political theory. Morality was subordinate to Marxist thought. Cultural Marxism is such a weird word. Is it criticizing Critical Theory? Psychoanalysis is definitely unfalsifiable garbage (though it made some good contributions). The mix of the words is honestly weird. Marxism views things in terms of economic class struggle, that's the be all and end all for them. Competing ideas/people/etc. not based on economics would be more Hegel. Look into Sam Harris - Moral Landscape for objective secular morality. View Quote |
|
|
|
boy OP sure got em
edit- removed a letter to remove a reference. I feel smarter having posted in this thread. |
|
|
|
Quoted:
what's wrong with praying? https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/7c/22/ed/7c22ed24b1c35f0096b564848d29f519.jpg View Quote 0 for 2 with irrelevant memes. What's next? |
|
|
|
Quoted:
That's only accurate if you adopt the philosophy of logical positivism. While logical positivism is currently popular in mainstream society, it has never been a popular position in philosophy due to the work of Rene Descartes. If "I think, therefore I am" is all we can know, then logical positivism falls in on itself because there's "good objective evidence" on exactly nothing other than "I am." Also, it is boring. It doesn't allow you to explore any of life's more interesting questions. Instead you just sit there like a lump going "there's no proof" while everyone else in the philosophy department says "we know, we know. We wish he'd shut up about it already. He knows we know." If you want to talk about first order metaphysical questions, then the only somewhat objective way to do it is to look at the holistic world view portrayed by various religions/philosophies and decide which one best fits the world we are living in. For many of us, including myself, it makes more sense that something like this is the product of intelligence rather than random chance. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/61337/Inara-Serra-Promos-mal-and-inara-25451590-600-752-241383.JPG The reason Christianity has been the dominant religion for almost two millennia is that it offers an extremely coherent world-view from a theistic perspective. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
If you don't have enough information and if you're thinking critically then you likely don't believe. One shouldn't believe things until there's good objective evidence/information. If you want to talk about first order metaphysical questions, then the only somewhat objective way to do it is to look at the holistic world view portrayed by various religions/philosophies and decide which one best fits the world we are living in. For many of us, including myself, it makes more sense that something like this is the product of intelligence rather than random chance. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/61337/Inara-Serra-Promos-mal-and-inara-25451590-600-752-241383.JPG The reason Christianity has been the dominant religion for almost two millennia is that it offers an extremely coherent world-view from a theistic perspective. Islam on the other hand is growing, and for the most part it is illiterate nobodies carrying the increased growth. The chances of some industry changing tech, medical breakthrough or similar coming from a majority religious country is becoming exceedingly thin. Even the Asian countries that are prosperous have a clear divide between religion and government. Japan, Taiwan, Singapore - you name it. Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks to me like a religion is what's destroying those secular states. |
|
Quoted:
Good objective evidence (that one can look into it/research/examine/ec.) is on the same level as "You just gotta have faith! Even if it goes against reality/good objective evidence! Even if it does sound blatantly contradictory and God supposedly wants people to know him (then it's mysterious!)." for them. View Quote In science even theories can be tested with actual repeatable experiments. How can you test what is in the Bible? |
|
Quoted:
I think deep down everyone knows that there is God. View Quote My life would be easier if I believed in God. I've looked for that "even a little bit deep down" and it's not there. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.