To both of you: Also, if you think taking 20 200mg pills of Seroquel is the same as taking a drink of alcohol, then by all means overdose on Seroquel and see where it gets you.
It might get me a little somnolence, dizziness, and faster heartbeat, and that's about it.
My drug guide tells me that an adult has died as low as 10.8 grams of quetiapine, but other patients have survived overdoses of 36 grams. That 4 gram dose that you took was not a suicide attempt, it was and apparently still is attention seeking behaviour. If you really intended to commit suicide, well, I'm sure there's tall buildings where you live. If you jumped off one and God intervened to give you a safe landing, that would be a miracle. What you experienced was normal organ function - your liver broke it down and your kidneys (mostly) excreted it out.
Did you not read the post I linked to? The other guy who overdosed on the same drug, ended up being mentally challenged. I could have ended up the same but I didn't. For a few years my mind was "cloudy", and it was hard to concentrate and it actually hurt my brain to do critical thinking and read books. It affected my brain, and killed some of my neurons.
Also, it was not attention seeking behavior. I genuinely wanted to kill myself back then I thought this would do it.
To both of you: Also, if you think taking 20 200mg pills of Seroquel is the same as taking a drink of alcohol, then by all means overdose on Seroquel and see where it gets you.
First of all, your body won't absorb a full 4,000mg of Seroquel. It'll only absorb ~800 before your body will refuse to accept any more, and the rest is passed through your digestive system and filtered out. However, if your liver recognized it as a poison, there is a huge chance that your body went into shock in your sleep and you vomited it all out. What happened to you wasn't a miracle, it was your body acting in self-defense.
Take a look at this:
I did throw up in my sleep. I could have choked on my vomit and died.
Also, it was not attention seeking behavior. I genuinely wanted to kill myself back then I thought this would do it.
Except isn't an attempt to commit suicide by pills inherently attention-seeking?
In the place that I lived, there were no tall buildings. And in Washington state, people with mental illnesses cannot legally own a gun (I have bipolar depression and OCPD). Not to mention that people with depression tend to have cognitive distortions, suicide by pills (you can die from overdosing on sleeping pills and Seroquel helps you go to sleep) seemed like the next best thing. I also thought about drowning in the Skagit River, but drowning is painful.
Agree with OP...I am a STONE COLD UNCOMPROMISING ATHEIST (Caps for how stone cold I am lol) and you just cannot reason with most christians and such since the answers they give are so unbelievably vague..."It's all part of god's plan" and such nonsense. The problem is ... you cannot prove a negative with logic. So all there is to do is argue.
Have a helicopter drop you off out front. Light your cigar with a small Indonesian boy holding a black lotus. Then bust out a craw wurm deck with no sleeves. Raw dog shuffle, loose terribly, flip the table, leave in a hovercraft.
Agree with OP...I am a STONE COLD UNCOMPROMISING ATHEIST (Caps for how stone cold I am lol) and you just cannot reason with most christians and such since the answers they give are so unbelievably vague..."It's all part of god's plan" and such nonsense. The problem is ... you cannot prove a negative with logic. So all there is to do is argue.
Arguing doesn't help really. You have to try and lead the conversation in a way to let them make contradictory statements (which doesn't take long usually). Then you hint at the seeming contradiction and leave it there. If you say: "HA, see your contradiction! I'm right!" they will become defensive. You have to let them figure it out by themselves.
This is why I don't try to convert theists (not with my definition of convert). It doesn't work. When someone is willing to believe in mythical beings unsupported by evidence, its so easy to just believe anything that will keep the concept of that being intact ("God works in mysterious ways" and the like). If what I do, trying to help people to figure it themselves, could be considered "converting", then by the defintion I guess I try to convert too.
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Why do atheists attempt to convert theists? and why is this inherently doomed?
In general, people who are atheist tend to be people who highly value truth. They are people who are willing to sacrifice social rewards and physical rewards for the mental comfort associated with being correct.
In general, theists tend to be people for whom the psychological comfort of being correct is not enough to compensate for loss of social rewards or physical rewards.
Therefore, the atheist, usually thinks he is doing the theist a favor by showing him the truth. However, the theist doesn't want the truth, they want the social rewards which come from belonging to a religious community or they want the physical reward of heaven. For them, the actual truth is irrelevent, as such, the debate ends in failure.
Why do atheists attempt to convert theists? and why is this inherently doomed?
In general, people who are atheist tend to be people who highly value truth. They are people who are willing to sacrifice social rewards and physical rewards for the mental comfort associated with being correct.
In general, theists tend to be people for whom the psychological comfort of being correct is not enough to compensate for loss of social rewards or physical rewards.
Therefore, the atheist, usually thinks he is doing the theist a favor by showing him the truth. However, the theist doesn't want the truth, they want the social rewards which come from belonging to a religious community or they want the physical reward of heaven. For them, the actual truth is irrelevent, as such, the debate ends in failure.
I think this theory definitely has merit, and would like to hear more of your thoughts on similar topics some time. I'll be looking out for your posts on similar threads (effectively stalking your profile lol).
Have a helicopter drop you off out front. Light your cigar with a small Indonesian boy holding a black lotus. Then bust out a craw wurm deck with no sleeves. Raw dog shuffle, loose terribly, flip the table, leave in a hovercraft.
In general, people who are atheist tend to be people who highly value truth. They are people who are willing to sacrifice social rewards and physical rewards for the mental comfort associated with being correct.
Does this imply that Theists don't highly value truth? I would argue that theist value truth just as much as atheists do. What is different is how we arrive at these truths.
What social and physical rewards are atheists giving up? As an atheist myself, I don't see what rewards I've given up socially or physically. So I have no idea what you mean.
I don't take comfort in being correct, it's just the logical conclusion I've drawn given the complete lack of evidence to support a deity.
Quote from shadows23 »
In general, theists tend to be people for whom the psychological comfort of being correct is not enough to compensate for loss of social rewards or physical rewards.
So Theists have lost some kind of social & physical rewards? Okay, what rewards are you referring to and how do you know that their psychological comfort of being correct is not enough to compensate?
Quote from Shadows23 »
Therefore, the atheist, usually thinks he is doing the theist a favor by showing him the truth. However, the theist doesn't want the truth, they want the social rewards which come from belonging to a religious community or they want the physical reward of heaven. For them, the actual truth is irrelevant, as such, the debate ends in failure.
I disagree with you completely. I as an atheist, do not argue with theists because I think I'm doing them a favor.
Secondly, Theists reject atheism, not because they don't want the truth. Theists reject atheism because they believe their god exists, to them THAT is the truth. They don't have evidence or proof that theism is correct, they have faith that theism is correct.
Theists have faith and they believe in that faith through and through, nothing an atheist says is going to change their mind. That's fine, but when I argue against theism, it's not to sway the theist, it's to sway those who are on the fence.
What social and physical rewards are atheists giving up? As an atheist myself, I don't see what rewards I've given up socially or physically. So I have no idea what you mean.
In general this statements depends on the culture in which you live. In, for example, a small rural town in the bible belt an atheist would absolutely be giving up some social rewards in the form of not being a part of the most significant aspect of the community (Sunday morning Church).
In a large urban area such as, say, LA or New York however they aren't giving up nearly as much (if at all).
Why do atheists attempt to convert theists? and why is this inherently doomed?
In general, people who are atheist tend to be people who highly value truth. They are people who are willing to sacrifice social rewards and physical rewards for the mental comfort associated with being correct.
In general, theists tend to be people for whom the psychological comfort of being correct is not enough to compensate for loss of social rewards or physical rewards.
Therefore, the atheist, usually thinks he is doing the theist a favor by showing him the truth. However, the theist doesn't want the truth, they want the social rewards which come from belonging to a religious community or they want the physical reward of heaven. For them, the actual truth is irrelevent, as such, the debate ends in failure.
This whole line of arguments assumes, incorrectly, that the theist actually thinks the atheist has the truth and they don't.
I'm glad I'm at least getting some discussion going if nothing else, so let me clarify a few things.
1) All generalizations are wrong (except this one). Obviously there are individuals to whom this argument does not apply.
2) Almost every discussion I've had with a theist ultimately boils down to community. The people at my church are great. Christmas time is the best time of year, it is the only time I ever get to see my folks. Singing with everyone makes me feel wonder. Etc. These sorts of things are what I largely meant by social rewards. There are some people who are willing to sacrifice them for the sake of knowing in their heart that they are right, and there are people that are not.
3) The point of LA and NYC is important. If your community doesn't highly value religion, then this argument probably won't appear to hold for the simple reason that the social rewards are drastically reduced. Even a small amount of comfort from knowing you are right would be higher than the non-existent social reward.
4) "This whole line of arguments assumes, incorrectly, that the theist actually thinks the atheist has the truth and they don't." This right here. This is exactly what I'm talking about. This is the exact error that atheists make when failing to convert theists: That the theist doesn't already know that they are wrong. The correct assumption is that they simply don't care that what they believe is untrue. The correct assumption is that the behavior they are exhibiting is being reinforced by some part of their environment and therefore being repeated.
4) (yes I know I'm repeating #4, this is a second attempt at communicating the same point) Lets consider two children. One child is given a Kit-Kat every time they get a math problem correct and spanked whenever he gets one wrong. The other child is given a Kit-Kat every time he sings at church and spanked every time he questions whether Santa Claus is real or not. The first child will grow up with a strong urge to be right. The second child will grow up with a strong bond with his religious community and never find the mental strength to abandon it.
That the theist doesn't already know that they are wrong. The correct assumption is that they simply don't care that what they believe is untrue.
No, I disagree with you once again. The correct assumption is that a theist assumes they are correct and the atheist is wrong. It's not like theists "don't care" that they are wrong, they just don't believe they are wrong. Once again, I'm pretty sure that theists do care that their beliefs are true and that's why they believe them and sometimes attempt to "save" others.
Quote from shadows23 »
The correct assumption is that the behavior they are exhibiting is being reinforced by some part of their environment and therefore being repeated.
Sure I can agree with this, but that can be true with just about any behavior.
Quote from shadows23 »
4) (yes I know I'm repeating #4, this is a second attempt at communicating the same point) Lets consider two children. One child is given a Kit-Kat every time they get a math problem correct and spanked whenever he gets one wrong. The other child is given a Kit-Kat every time he sings at church and spanked every time he questions whether Santa Claus is real or not. The first child will grow up with a strong urge to be right. The second child will grow up with a strong bond with his religious community and never find the mental strength to abandon it.
No, I don't agree with this assessment either. Speaking from personal experience, when you use corporal punishment on a child for getting something wrong it doesn't give the child a strong urge to be correct nor does it instill a child with a strong sense of community or a religious bond.
No, I don't agree with this assessment either. Speaking from personal experience, when you use corporal punishment on a child for getting something wrong it doesn't give the child a strong urge to be correct nor does it instill a child with a strong sense of community or a religious bond.
It does, however, help indoctrinate the child into whatever ideology they person in question wants them to believe in. I don't think 'bond' is the right term, so much as a pavlovian reaction to the childhood conditioning.
That the theist doesn't already know that they are wrong. The correct assumption is that they simply don't care that what they believe is untrue.
No, I disagree with you once again. The correct assumption is that a theist assumes they are correct and the atheist is wrong. It's not like theists "don't care" that they are wrong, they just don't believe they are wrong. Once again, I'm pretty sure that theists do care that their beliefs are true and that's why they believe them and sometimes attempt to "save" others.
As much ass Foxblade and I disagree on religious matters, he's absolutely correct in this instance. The typical Theist does not already know that they are wrong -- we genuinely believe that we are correct.
I know Pascal's Wager has fallen out of favor to some extent as of late, but it was once a very common argument for theism and against atheism. Let's see what it says.
If theism is right and your theist you go to heaven
If theism is right and your atheist you go to hell
If atheism is right and your theist you lie in the dirt
If atheism is right and your atheist you lie in the dirt
Therefore it is logical to be theist because it has the best risk/reward ratio.
However, the problem with this argument is that it doesn't actually take into account which argument is actually correct. For comparison, lets go to a similar argument.
You are dieing of cancer and are approached by a snakeoil salesman.
If the salesman is right and you believe in him you live
If the salesman is right and you don't believe in him you die
If the salesman is wrong and you believe in him you die
If the salesman is wrong and you don't believe in him you die.
therefore it is logical to believe in the salesman because it has the best risk/reward ratio.
I suppose my point is that atheists tend to look at these arguments and are not convinced, whereas theists tend to be convinced by these style of arguments. Atheists tend to look for truth, Theists are either hedging their bets, haven't thought about it a lot, are slaves to their communities/upbringings, or some other reason other than the actual truth. In general, theists tend to believe in god since if they denounce god then they are legitimately afraid of something (either the wrath of god, or depending on the community: excommunication, social isolation, job loss, prison, or death), as such no logical argument can sway them, unless that argument can also mitigate the retribution the theist fears.
Long story short: How atheists should go about convincing theists they are wrong, is by directly asking them "If you denounce god what are you most afraid of?" and then go about removing these barriers. Only after this process is complete and the theist feels even remotely safe can any logical argument proceed.
That's an interesting reductio for Pascal's Wager that I hadn't heard before - the more common critique is that it doesn't actually capture all possibilities.
If the Bible is right and you're a believer, you go to heaven
If the Bible is right and you're a nonbeliever, you go to hell
If atheism is right and you're a believer, you lie in the dirt
If atheism is right and you're a nonbeliever, you lie in the dirt
If there is a God who will send all good people to heaven regardless of what you believe, and you're a believer, you go to heaven.
If there is a God who will send all good people to heaven regardless of what you believe, and you're a nonbeliever, you go to heaven.
If there is a perverse demon who will do the reverse of the Bible and you're a believer, you go to hell.
If there is a perverse demon who will do the reverse of the Bible and you're a nonbeliever, you go to heaven.
There are infinitely more options beyond these. Because Pascal's Wager depends on the thesis that we can't assign probabilities to unprovable ideas (God exists, for example), Pascal's Wager can't deal with more unprovable ideas.
That's an interesting reductio for Pascal's Wager that I hadn't heard before - the more common critique is that it doesn't actually capture all possibilities.
If the Bible is right and you're a believer, you go to heaven
If the Bible is right and you're a nonbeliever, you go to hell
If atheism is right and you're a believer, you lie in the dirt
If atheism is right and you're a nonbeliever, you lie in the dirt
If there is a God who will send all good people to heaven regardless of what you believe, and you're a believer, you go to heaven.
If there is a God who will send all good people to heaven regardless of what you believe, and you're a nonbeliever, you go to heaven.
If there is a perverse demon who will do the reverse of the Bible and you're a believer, you go to hell.
If there is a perverse demon who will do the reverse of the Bible and you're a nonbeliever, you go to heaven.
There are infinitely more options beyond these. Because Pascal's Wager depends on the thesis that we can't assign probabilities to unprovable ideas (God exists, for example), Pascal's Wager can't deal with more unprovable ideas.
The problem is bigger than that: there are multiple belief systems, many of which you'll not be able to believe in at the same time. Let's just say there are two believe systems, just two of them. Both say the same thing: believe in this: you win, don't believe in this: you lose.
So how would Pascall's wager work in this scenario? Picking either of the two belief systems means you still have a possibility of going to hell.
That's an interesting reductio for Pascal's Wager that I hadn't heard before - the more common critique is that it doesn't actually capture all possibilities.
If the Bible is right and you're a believer, you go to heaven
If the Bible is right and you're a nonbeliever, you go to hell
If atheism is right and you're a believer, you lie in the dirt
If atheism is right and you're a nonbeliever, you lie in the dirt
If there is a God who will send all good people to heaven regardless of what you believe, and you're a believer, you go to heaven.
If there is a God who will send all good people to heaven regardless of what you believe, and you're a nonbeliever, you go to heaven.
If there is a perverse demon who will do the reverse of the Bible and you're a believer, you go to hell.
If there is a perverse demon who will do the reverse of the Bible and you're a nonbeliever, you go to heaven.
There are infinitely more options beyond these. Because Pascal's Wager depends on the thesis that we can't assign probabilities to unprovable ideas (God exists, for example), Pascal's Wager can't deal with more unprovable ideas.
The problem is bigger than that: there are multiple belief systems, many of which you'll not be able to believe in at the same time. Let's just say there are two believe systems, just two of them. Both say the same thing: believe in this: you win, don't believe in this: you lose.
So how would Pascall's wager work in this scenario? Picking either of the two belief systems means you still have a possibility of going to hell.
Pascall's Wager can be distilled to a simple "You are better off to earnestly seek the divine." While his endorsement of a specific belief system may be problematic, there is useable general principle behind his idea.
Personally, part of my faith is an belief that a Creator is willing to lead a person to distinguish the proper action. After studying scripture, I came to the conclusion that God cared less about "belief systems" and specific sacred code words and more about a desire to discover and serve the Creator.
Out of those, I would choose "An all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God could and would destroy Satan". As for why He doesn't destroy Satan until the end times, read this thread: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=459625
It is very hard to make someone no longer believe something. This is more true when said person has possessed the belief since he or she was a small child. We all used to believe in Santa Claus. At some point we are given undeniable proof that Santa is not a real person. We then stop believing in Santa.
What undeniable truth is their for the non existence of God? I don't think there is any, because God is all knowing, all powerful, and perfect. So even something that is blatantly contradictory to God, like evolution, can be explained by saying God intended for evolution to occur. Or evolution can be denied, like dinosaurs and the heliocentric theory.
I think the worst part, is that science uses theories to explain things. A theory can only be reached once the whole scientific method has been used and proven the the best of our knowledge to be true. Science just accepts the fact that they do not have all the information. The bible is "God's Word".
It will be a never ending debate.
Out of those, I would choose "An all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God could and would destroy Satan". As for why He doesn't destroy Satan until the end times, read this thread: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=459625
Or, alternatively, there is no devil, and never has been. (I say "devil" instead of Satan because Satan does not necessarily refer to the devil. In earlier traditions, Satan is actually an angel. The Book of Job comes from this tradition.)
Also, the problem with that chart is to answer "no" to "Could God have created a universe with free-will but without evil?" falsely leads to, "Then God is not all-powerful." This is incorrect. To say that God's power is limited because of this is false because one cannot perform an evil action without free will by very definition. Free will is required for evil to exist at all. Therefore, it would be like asking if God could create a square circle, or a triangle with four sides; your question is meaningless.
The other possible answer that the flowchart doesn't consider as a possible answer is that there is no evil.
Further, the response to the "to test us" answer is completely inadequate. Yes, God does know what we do before we do it. That's not the point. The point is that we actually do it, and further, that through experience of hardship we become stronger, much as steel does when put to flame. It's not the answer I would choose, but that doesn't change the fact that the flowchart misses the point entirely.
It is very hard to make someone no longer believe something. This is more true when said person has possessed the belief since he or she was a small child. We all used to believe in Santa Claus. At some point we are given undeniable proof that Santa is not a real person. We then stop believing in Santa.
You were given undeniable proof that Santa is not real?
Actually....no. No you weren't.
What undeniable truth is their for the non existence of God?
What undeniable truth is there for the non-existence of anything?
There's none. You can't prove something doesn't exist. How could you - map out every atom in the universe perhaps?
I don't think there is any, because God is all knowing, all powerful, and perfect.
I believe in a magic tennis shoe that is also all knowing and all powerful. You have evidence of its non-existence? No? I guess our belief systems are of equal merit then.
I think the worst part, is that science uses theories to explain things.
Or maybe the worst part is that you don't know what a scientific theory is.
If you did, you would have realized that you just stated that scientists use explanations to explain things.
So even something that is blatantly contradictory to God, like evolution
The idea of evolution would be a profound compliment to God, if he exists. The idea that he could provide the right combination of materials to interact, combine, and for life to flourish without the need for divine intervention would be testament to a godlike intellect.
Or we could go the creationist route and say God is a deceiver who planted evidence of evolution, god is horribly cruel and creates needless death (for example species that produce thousands of babies where only a few survive), god is so unintelligent that he would make mistakes such as this one on purpose...
This the blind mole rat. It has eyeballs....that it can't see with because they are covered by skin.
Also, the problem with that chart is to answer "no" to "Could God have created a universe with free-will but without evil?" falsely leads to, "Then God is not all-powerful." This is incorrect. To say that God's power is limited because of this is false because one cannot perform an evil action without free will by very definition. Free will is required for evil to exist at all. Therefore, it would be like asking if God could create a square circle, or a triangle with four sides; your question is meaningless.
Agreed.
I think I diverge from your theology; I believe there is evil and that it will be destroyed. From my personal Christian perspective:
"Why doesn't He destroy evil now?" He is fulfilling the promise He made to Abraham and exercising mercy. For His own purpose (that is, His aspect called the Son), He is saving all that can be saved. In the meantime, the testimony of that mercy and grace accrues, among all people, in all different times, with all different knowledge.
If we have ever sinned, we have revoked our claim to the perfection of the Kingdom. We affirm that we willingly bring death into the world, but God's offers grace that renews our claim. Every moment we exist is time to build upon the eternal foundation built by Christ.
I honestly feel their are too many angry people on the internet. Religion isn't all that bad. There are many other sources of evil through out history that are completely unrelated to religion.
Yes, I understand that your die-hard pro life devote baptist looks like a flaming moron. As they should; because they have no other mode than "anger and damnation" and can't muster up the common sense to debate like a normal human being half the time because of the way they were raised. With religion.
In the same breath I can say atheists are enormous cynics who are most likely miserable due to the vocal majority's need to put down others for their beliefs, going as far as to claim religion is the one true evil in the world and life would be better off without it.
Would your childhood been better without Santa Claus? Honestly? That's what I thought. Belief is powerful and you are not above someone for not believing in what they believe.
tl;dr; there's a reason Atheists are rarely vocal in public and a reason Christians dont appear as vocal on the internet. just ****ing saying.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Mhjames: mtgsalvation: I DON'T SEE HOW THIS CARD IS GOOD. I KNOW PATRICK CHAPIN USED IT AND WENT 8-0, BUT THAT WAS A SMALL TOURNAMENT. THE CARD IS TOO SLOW. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE OPPONENT HAS A SPELL IN THE GRAVEYARD
I honestly feel their are too many angry people on the internet. Religion isn't all that bad. There are many other sources of evil through out history that are completely unrelated to religion.
How about we talk about religion in the here and now. Uganda just made homosexual relations illegal with a minimum sentance of life in prison, and a max of death. Religion did this, and nothing else.
Go take a look at what Saudia Arabia was like in the 60s. It looked strikingly similar to the US. People wore normal clothes, women didn't have to dress in sacks. And now? Religion did that.
The list of human rights efforts that are fought against by right wing religion includes: Woman's rights, gay rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, exceptance of scientific fact and much more. There is a lot of evil in the world that is unrelated to religion, sure. What's your point? Does that mean we should ignore the evil that is done in religion's name? No, no it doens't.
Yes, I understand that your die-hard pro life devote baptist looks like a flaming moron. As they should; because they have no other mode than "anger and damnation" and can't muster up the common sense to debate like a normal human being half the time because of the way they were raised. With religion.
I agree. But it doens't do much to support your position from the first paragraph.
In the same breath I can say atheists are enormous cynics who are most likely miserable due to the vocal majority's need to put down others for their beliefs, going as far as to claim religion is the one true evil in the world and life would be better off without it.
Debating and complaing about religous mumbo jumbo doesn't make us miserable. I'm perfectly happy with my life, but that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore or stay silent about something I have such strong opinons about.
Also keep in mind that simply making the statement "I believe there is no God" is insulting to people. It's hard to not put down people when they get offended by everything we have to say. Being told "you're gong to hell" by so many people doesn't facilitate civil debate. When someone says that to me I have a hard time not telling them how ****ing idiotic they sound.
Would your childhood been better without Santa Claus? Honestly? That's what I thought. Belief is powerful and you are not above someone for not believing in what they believe.
Is your child better with Santa? Belief is certainly powerful. There are people who have belief so strong that they BELIEVE they are meant to be martyrs! They BELIEVE god wants them to strap a bomb ot their chest and detonate it in a crowded place full of their enemies. They BELIEVE they will instantly go to paradise and recieve 72 virgins.
I don't put myself above anyone that has religious belief. All I expect is that those beliefs are not forced on me.
tl;dr; there's a reason Atheists are rarely vocal in public and a reason Christians dont appear as vocal on the internet. just ****ing saying.
I'm vocal when it's approprate. My lack of religious beliefs are personal though and don't need to be broadcasted it to everyone. I wish religious people all felt the same way.
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
I honestly feel their are too many angry people on the internet. Religion isn't all that bad. There are many other sources of evil through out history that are completely unrelated to religion.
How about we talk about religion in the here and now. Uganda just made homosexual relations illegal with a minimum sentance of life in prison, and a max of death. Religion did this, and nothing else.
Go take a look at what Saudia Arabia was like in the 60s. It looked strikingly similar to the US. People wore normal clothes, women didn't have to dress in sacks. And now? Religion did that.
I'm going to bite here.
Religion did not do any of that. People did. People choose to oppress and abuse others, sometimes in the name of religion, sometimes not. If religion were to not exist, people would find other causes to justify the same behavior. This is human nature. Human nature is oppressive and ignorant and abusive. If you believe in evolution and the animal/instinctive nature of man, then you must see this.
Religion gets the rap in today's day and age because religious agendas have become so closely entwined with politics. For centuries this bothered few, because it was simply accepted. But the last three generations of the western world have characterized themselves as "free thinking" and "enlightened" thus the move away from more traditional beliefs. That's all fine and dandy. But the point is that you can replace religion with any variable systematic, interpretive belief infrastructure, and you'd still find people oppressing and abusing others in its name. This is not religion's fault; it is the fault of individuals' subjective interpretations and how these interpretations manifest in oppressive behavior.
And speaking from a purely anthropological standpoint, how can one claim a universal cultural "right" or "wrong"? You can't. It's impossible. Every human being on the face of the earth carries some degree of ethnocentrism. Look at something like female circumcision in some African cultures. We see that, from the view of our own cultural ideals and beliefs, and scream bloody murder. But why? Is female circumcision objectively "wrong"? How can you prove that? EVEN if you make the claim that it is medically unhealthy, you're still making that claim from a biased Westernized medicinal perspective. What if an Eastern school of medicine claimed that chicken wasn't healthy to eat? Would you listen to them? No, because they're wrong, right?
Western critical thought has bloated to the point of sweeping generalizations about the rest of the world, their culture, their barbarism, their religion. Not only is this just as woefully ignorant as we claim the rest of the world to be, but it's inherently unsound. We believe we stand on moral and intellectual high ground because we're...what, exactly? More educated? Better looking? Each answer is as absurd as the next.
So to point the finger and say, "look at all the bad things religion is doing!!!1" is not only short sighted, philosophically, but outright biased, anthropologically. People like to pick on religion in our culture because that's just the way our culture has evolved. Pagans ruled the roost in Western Europe for centuries before their culture evolved. All of a sudden they became stupid, ignorant, and misinformed for believing in X, Y, and Z because the Christians said so. We're now witnessing another cultural evolution, in which Christians are becoming stupid, ignorant, and misinformed for believing in X, Y, and Z because the atheists say so. It's all cyclical.
You may have your personal agenda or resentment against organized Western religions, but your resentment is misplaced. Resent the oppressive nature of man - the drive to gain control and authority over others. Or better yet, don't resent it. Accept it and attempt to live a lifestyle of the opposite fashion. It can be done. In fact, certain religions around the world dictate such a lifestyle as their primary tenet.
Stop blaming religion for all the problems in the world. Be a part of the solution, not just another finger pointer.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Banner courtesy of Skizzik_NZ and Maelstrom Graphics
Did you not read the post I linked to? The other guy who overdosed on the same drug, ended up being mentally challenged. I could have ended up the same but I didn't. For a few years my mind was "cloudy", and it was hard to concentrate and it actually hurt my brain to do critical thinking and read books. It affected my brain, and killed some of my neurons.
Also, it was not attention seeking behavior. I genuinely wanted to kill myself back then I thought this would do it.
I did throw up in my sleep. I could have choked on my vomit and died.
In the place that I lived, there were no tall buildings. And in Washington state, people with mental illnesses cannot legally own a gun (I have bipolar depression and OCPD). Not to mention that people with depression tend to have cognitive distortions, suicide by pills (you can die from overdosing on sleeping pills and Seroquel helps you go to sleep) seemed like the next best thing. I also thought about drowning in the Skagit River, but drowning is painful.
Except isn't an attempt to commit suicide by pills inherently attention-seeking?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Arguing doesn't help really. You have to try and lead the conversation in a way to let them make contradictory statements (which doesn't take long usually). Then you hint at the seeming contradiction and leave it there. If you say: "HA, see your contradiction! I'm right!" they will become defensive. You have to let them figure it out by themselves.
This is why I don't try to convert theists (not with my definition of convert). It doesn't work. When someone is willing to believe in mythical beings unsupported by evidence, its so easy to just believe anything that will keep the concept of that being intact ("God works in mysterious ways" and the like). If what I do, trying to help people to figure it themselves, could be considered "converting", then by the defintion I guess I try to convert too.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
In general, people who are atheist tend to be people who highly value truth. They are people who are willing to sacrifice social rewards and physical rewards for the mental comfort associated with being correct.
In general, theists tend to be people for whom the psychological comfort of being correct is not enough to compensate for loss of social rewards or physical rewards.
Therefore, the atheist, usually thinks he is doing the theist a favor by showing him the truth. However, the theist doesn't want the truth, they want the social rewards which come from belonging to a religious community or they want the physical reward of heaven. For them, the actual truth is irrelevent, as such, the debate ends in failure.
I think this theory definitely has merit, and would like to hear more of your thoughts on similar topics some time. I'll be looking out for your posts on similar threads (effectively stalking your profile lol).
Does this imply that Theists don't highly value truth? I would argue that theist value truth just as much as atheists do. What is different is how we arrive at these truths.
What social and physical rewards are atheists giving up? As an atheist myself, I don't see what rewards I've given up socially or physically. So I have no idea what you mean.
I don't take comfort in being correct, it's just the logical conclusion I've drawn given the complete lack of evidence to support a deity.
So Theists have lost some kind of social & physical rewards? Okay, what rewards are you referring to and how do you know that their psychological comfort of being correct is not enough to compensate?
I disagree with you completely. I as an atheist, do not argue with theists because I think I'm doing them a favor.
Secondly, Theists reject atheism, not because they don't want the truth. Theists reject atheism because they believe their god exists, to them THAT is the truth. They don't have evidence or proof that theism is correct, they have faith that theism is correct.
Theists have faith and they believe in that faith through and through, nothing an atheist says is going to change their mind. That's fine, but when I argue against theism, it's not to sway the theist, it's to sway those who are on the fence.
In general this statements depends on the culture in which you live. In, for example, a small rural town in the bible belt an atheist would absolutely be giving up some social rewards in the form of not being a part of the most significant aspect of the community (Sunday morning Church).
In a large urban area such as, say, LA or New York however they aren't giving up nearly as much (if at all).
This whole line of arguments assumes, incorrectly, that the theist actually thinks the atheist has the truth and they don't.
1) All generalizations are wrong (except this one). Obviously there are individuals to whom this argument does not apply.
2) Almost every discussion I've had with a theist ultimately boils down to community. The people at my church are great. Christmas time is the best time of year, it is the only time I ever get to see my folks. Singing with everyone makes me feel wonder. Etc. These sorts of things are what I largely meant by social rewards. There are some people who are willing to sacrifice them for the sake of knowing in their heart that they are right, and there are people that are not.
3) The point of LA and NYC is important. If your community doesn't highly value religion, then this argument probably won't appear to hold for the simple reason that the social rewards are drastically reduced. Even a small amount of comfort from knowing you are right would be higher than the non-existent social reward.
4) "This whole line of arguments assumes, incorrectly, that the theist actually thinks the atheist has the truth and they don't." This right here. This is exactly what I'm talking about. This is the exact error that atheists make when failing to convert theists: That the theist doesn't already know that they are wrong. The correct assumption is that they simply don't care that what they believe is untrue. The correct assumption is that the behavior they are exhibiting is being reinforced by some part of their environment and therefore being repeated.
4) (yes I know I'm repeating #4, this is a second attempt at communicating the same point) Lets consider two children. One child is given a Kit-Kat every time they get a math problem correct and spanked whenever he gets one wrong. The other child is given a Kit-Kat every time he sings at church and spanked every time he questions whether Santa Claus is real or not. The first child will grow up with a strong urge to be right. The second child will grow up with a strong bond with his religious community and never find the mental strength to abandon it.
No, I disagree with you once again. The correct assumption is that a theist assumes they are correct and the atheist is wrong. It's not like theists "don't care" that they are wrong, they just don't believe they are wrong. Once again, I'm pretty sure that theists do care that their beliefs are true and that's why they believe them and sometimes attempt to "save" others.
Sure I can agree with this, but that can be true with just about any behavior.
No, I don't agree with this assessment either. Speaking from personal experience, when you use corporal punishment on a child for getting something wrong it doesn't give the child a strong urge to be correct nor does it instill a child with a strong sense of community or a religious bond.
It does, however, help indoctrinate the child into whatever ideology they person in question wants them to believe in. I don't think 'bond' is the right term, so much as a pavlovian reaction to the childhood conditioning.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
As much ass Foxblade and I disagree on religious matters, he's absolutely correct in this instance. The typical Theist does not already know that they are wrong -- we genuinely believe that we are correct.
If theism is right and your theist you go to heaven
If theism is right and your atheist you go to hell
If atheism is right and your theist you lie in the dirt
If atheism is right and your atheist you lie in the dirt
Therefore it is logical to be theist because it has the best risk/reward ratio.
However, the problem with this argument is that it doesn't actually take into account which argument is actually correct. For comparison, lets go to a similar argument.
You are dieing of cancer and are approached by a snakeoil salesman.
If the salesman is right and you believe in him you live
If the salesman is right and you don't believe in him you die
If the salesman is wrong and you believe in him you die
If the salesman is wrong and you don't believe in him you die.
therefore it is logical to believe in the salesman because it has the best risk/reward ratio.
I suppose my point is that atheists tend to look at these arguments and are not convinced, whereas theists tend to be convinced by these style of arguments. Atheists tend to look for truth, Theists are either hedging their bets, haven't thought about it a lot, are slaves to their communities/upbringings, or some other reason other than the actual truth. In general, theists tend to believe in god since if they denounce god then they are legitimately afraid of something (either the wrath of god, or depending on the community: excommunication, social isolation, job loss, prison, or death), as such no logical argument can sway them, unless that argument can also mitigate the retribution the theist fears.
Long story short: How atheists should go about convincing theists they are wrong, is by directly asking them "If you denounce god what are you most afraid of?" and then go about removing these barriers. Only after this process is complete and the theist feels even remotely safe can any logical argument proceed.
If the Bible is right and you're a believer, you go to heaven
If the Bible is right and you're a nonbeliever, you go to hell
If atheism is right and you're a believer, you lie in the dirt
If atheism is right and you're a nonbeliever, you lie in the dirt
If there is a God who will send all good people to heaven regardless of what you believe, and you're a believer, you go to heaven.
If there is a God who will send all good people to heaven regardless of what you believe, and you're a nonbeliever, you go to heaven.
If there is a perverse demon who will do the reverse of the Bible and you're a believer, you go to hell.
If there is a perverse demon who will do the reverse of the Bible and you're a nonbeliever, you go to heaven.
There are infinitely more options beyond these. Because Pascal's Wager depends on the thesis that we can't assign probabilities to unprovable ideas (God exists, for example), Pascal's Wager can't deal with more unprovable ideas.
The problem is bigger than that: there are multiple belief systems, many of which you'll not be able to believe in at the same time. Let's just say there are two believe systems, just two of them. Both say the same thing: believe in this: you win, don't believe in this: you lose.
So how would Pascall's wager work in this scenario? Picking either of the two belief systems means you still have a possibility of going to hell.
EDIT:
TheraminTrees's video "the impossible game" shows this idea as well.
Pascall's Wager can be distilled to a simple "You are better off to earnestly seek the divine." While his endorsement of a specific belief system may be problematic, there is useable general principle behind his idea.
Personally, part of my faith is an belief that a Creator is willing to lead a person to distinguish the proper action. After studying scripture, I came to the conclusion that God cared less about "belief systems" and specific sacred code words and more about a desire to discover and serve the Creator.
Out of those, I would choose "An all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God could and would destroy Satan". As for why He doesn't destroy Satan until the end times, read this thread:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=459625
What undeniable truth is their for the non existence of God? I don't think there is any, because God is all knowing, all powerful, and perfect. So even something that is blatantly contradictory to God, like evolution, can be explained by saying God intended for evolution to occur. Or evolution can be denied, like dinosaurs and the heliocentric theory.
I think the worst part, is that science uses theories to explain things. A theory can only be reached once the whole scientific method has been used and proven the the best of our knowledge to be true. Science just accepts the fact that they do not have all the information. The bible is "God's Word".
It will be a never ending debate.
Level 1 Judge
WUBRG
Or, alternatively, there is no devil, and never has been. (I say "devil" instead of Satan because Satan does not necessarily refer to the devil. In earlier traditions, Satan is actually an angel. The Book of Job comes from this tradition.)
Also, the problem with that chart is to answer "no" to "Could God have created a universe with free-will but without evil?" falsely leads to, "Then God is not all-powerful." This is incorrect. To say that God's power is limited because of this is false because one cannot perform an evil action without free will by very definition. Free will is required for evil to exist at all. Therefore, it would be like asking if God could create a square circle, or a triangle with four sides; your question is meaningless.
The other possible answer that the flowchart doesn't consider as a possible answer is that there is no evil.
Further, the response to the "to test us" answer is completely inadequate. Yes, God does know what we do before we do it. That's not the point. The point is that we actually do it, and further, that through experience of hardship we become stronger, much as steel does when put to flame. It's not the answer I would choose, but that doesn't change the fact that the flowchart misses the point entirely.
Actually....no. No you weren't.
What undeniable truth is there for the non-existence of anything?
There's none. You can't prove something doesn't exist. How could you - map out every atom in the universe perhaps?
I believe in a magic tennis shoe that is also all knowing and all powerful. You have evidence of its non-existence? No? I guess our belief systems are of equal merit then.
Or maybe the worst part is that you don't know what a scientific theory is.
If you did, you would have realized that you just stated that scientists use explanations to explain things.
The idea of evolution would be a profound compliment to God, if he exists. The idea that he could provide the right combination of materials to interact, combine, and for life to flourish without the need for divine intervention would be testament to a godlike intellect.
Or we could go the creationist route and say God is a deceiver who planted evidence of evolution, god is horribly cruel and creates needless death (for example species that produce thousands of babies where only a few survive), god is so unintelligent that he would make mistakes such as this one on purpose...
This the blind mole rat. It has eyeballs....that it can't see with because they are covered by skin.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
Agreed.
I think I diverge from your theology; I believe there is evil and that it will be destroyed. From my personal Christian perspective:
"Why doesn't He destroy evil now?" He is fulfilling the promise He made to Abraham and exercising mercy. For His own purpose (that is, His aspect called the Son), He is saving all that can be saved. In the meantime, the testimony of that mercy and grace accrues, among all people, in all different times, with all different knowledge.
If we have ever sinned, we have revoked our claim to the perfection of the Kingdom. We affirm that we willingly bring death into the world, but God's offers grace that renews our claim. Every moment we exist is time to build upon the eternal foundation built by Christ.
Yes, I understand that your die-hard pro life devote baptist looks like a flaming moron. As they should; because they have no other mode than "anger and damnation" and can't muster up the common sense to debate like a normal human being half the time because of the way they were raised. With religion.
In the same breath I can say atheists are enormous cynics who are most likely miserable due to the vocal majority's need to put down others for their beliefs, going as far as to claim religion is the one true evil in the world and life would be better off without it.
Would your childhood been better without Santa Claus? Honestly? That's what I thought. Belief is powerful and you are not above someone for not believing in what they believe.
tl;dr; there's a reason Atheists are rarely vocal in public and a reason Christians dont appear as vocal on the internet. just ****ing saying.
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
How about we talk about religion in the here and now. Uganda just made homosexual relations illegal with a minimum sentance of life in prison, and a max of death. Religion did this, and nothing else.
Go take a look at what Saudia Arabia was like in the 60s. It looked strikingly similar to the US. People wore normal clothes, women didn't have to dress in sacks. And now? Religion did that.
The list of human rights efforts that are fought against by right wing religion includes: Woman's rights, gay rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, exceptance of scientific fact and much more. There is a lot of evil in the world that is unrelated to religion, sure. What's your point? Does that mean we should ignore the evil that is done in religion's name? No, no it doens't.
I agree. But it doens't do much to support your position from the first paragraph.
Debating and complaing about religous mumbo jumbo doesn't make us miserable. I'm perfectly happy with my life, but that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore or stay silent about something I have such strong opinons about.
Also keep in mind that simply making the statement "I believe there is no God" is insulting to people. It's hard to not put down people when they get offended by everything we have to say. Being told "you're gong to hell" by so many people doesn't facilitate civil debate. When someone says that to me I have a hard time not telling them how ****ing idiotic they sound.
Is your child better with Santa? Belief is certainly powerful. There are people who have belief so strong that they BELIEVE they are meant to be martyrs! They BELIEVE god wants them to strap a bomb ot their chest and detonate it in a crowded place full of their enemies. They BELIEVE they will instantly go to paradise and recieve 72 virgins.
I don't put myself above anyone that has religious belief. All I expect is that those beliefs are not forced on me.
I'm vocal when it's approprate. My lack of religious beliefs are personal though and don't need to be broadcasted it to everyone. I wish religious people all felt the same way.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
I'm going to bite here.
Religion did not do any of that. People did. People choose to oppress and abuse others, sometimes in the name of religion, sometimes not. If religion were to not exist, people would find other causes to justify the same behavior. This is human nature. Human nature is oppressive and ignorant and abusive. If you believe in evolution and the animal/instinctive nature of man, then you must see this.
Religion gets the rap in today's day and age because religious agendas have become so closely entwined with politics. For centuries this bothered few, because it was simply accepted. But the last three generations of the western world have characterized themselves as "free thinking" and "enlightened" thus the move away from more traditional beliefs. That's all fine and dandy. But the point is that you can replace religion with any variable systematic, interpretive belief infrastructure, and you'd still find people oppressing and abusing others in its name. This is not religion's fault; it is the fault of individuals' subjective interpretations and how these interpretations manifest in oppressive behavior.
And speaking from a purely anthropological standpoint, how can one claim a universal cultural "right" or "wrong"? You can't. It's impossible. Every human being on the face of the earth carries some degree of ethnocentrism. Look at something like female circumcision in some African cultures. We see that, from the view of our own cultural ideals and beliefs, and scream bloody murder. But why? Is female circumcision objectively "wrong"? How can you prove that? EVEN if you make the claim that it is medically unhealthy, you're still making that claim from a biased Westernized medicinal perspective. What if an Eastern school of medicine claimed that chicken wasn't healthy to eat? Would you listen to them? No, because they're wrong, right?
Western critical thought has bloated to the point of sweeping generalizations about the rest of the world, their culture, their barbarism, their religion. Not only is this just as woefully ignorant as we claim the rest of the world to be, but it's inherently unsound. We believe we stand on moral and intellectual high ground because we're...what, exactly? More educated? Better looking? Each answer is as absurd as the next.
So to point the finger and say, "look at all the bad things religion is doing!!!1" is not only short sighted, philosophically, but outright biased, anthropologically. People like to pick on religion in our culture because that's just the way our culture has evolved. Pagans ruled the roost in Western Europe for centuries before their culture evolved. All of a sudden they became stupid, ignorant, and misinformed for believing in X, Y, and Z because the Christians said so. We're now witnessing another cultural evolution, in which Christians are becoming stupid, ignorant, and misinformed for believing in X, Y, and Z because the atheists say so. It's all cyclical.
You may have your personal agenda or resentment against organized Western religions, but your resentment is misplaced. Resent the oppressive nature of man - the drive to gain control and authority over others. Or better yet, don't resent it. Accept it and attempt to live a lifestyle of the opposite fashion. It can be done. In fact, certain religions around the world dictate such a lifestyle as their primary tenet.
Stop blaming religion for all the problems in the world. Be a part of the solution, not just another finger pointer.
Banner courtesy of Skizzik_NZ and Maelstrom Graphics
Currently Playing:
Anything U in Theogony IX's Cube: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=5794231&postcount=1
Check out our EDH Cube! Constructive discussion welcomed. Hell, just a response would be nice.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=8316611&postcount=1