Trump

Callers to action, creators of Superpacs, and championers of causes great and small unite! Air all your political thoughts here. Whitened teeth, dyed hair, and spray-on tans not required but preferred.

Re: Trump

Postby Moonwood the Hare » Sat Nov 19, 2016 1:44 pm

Keep The Reason wrote:
Argument and evidence are not really alternatives. If there is a good argument for something that is evidence of its truth and I say there are good argument that it is valid to base beliefs on


Argument for unicorns.

1. Unicorns are a form of horse. Horses exist and it is commonly known that they do, in massive numbers no less. This is not controversial in any way.

2. Unicorns are marked by a singular other trait and that is a long, pointed, often spiral-etched horn coming from their foreheads. There is good demonstrable evidence for animals with a single horn. A rhinoceros is one such example, and a narwhal whale is an even better example.

These are easily referenced as real factual animals, so please check them out. This is not controversial in any way.

3. While we don't see unicorns today, this merely means they have gone extinct. We do not see many animals today but know they factually existed. This is not controversial in any way.

Well, that wasn't hard to disprove. I have a good argument for the existence unicorns. Do they in fact exist? No. They are fictional creatures and have no real existence anywhere on planet Earth nor have they ever existed.

So none of that argument is evidence for the truth of their existence because they do not, at least on planet Earth, exist, nor is arguing for them anything more than a loopy dream.

And you know what else? My argument for unicorns is VASTLY stronger than millenia of arguments for any and every god and/or religious tenet who has ever been said to have existed or has ever said to be true. You can't even come CLOSE to offering as strong an argument for sin, salvation, eternal disposition, miracles, etc. as I can even casually offer compelling existing information that you can easily check for validity to see if unicorns could possibly have existed. Not even close.

It's not a strong argument as I'm sure you realise. But your reason for thinking unicorns do not exist is also based on argument. Therefore you have two arguments and you try to determine which is the stronger. I have said recently, and received a great deal of derision from from Simply Me for it, that because you have evidence for something that does not mean it is true. I am certainly not suggesting that because you have an argument for something that means it is true.
All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.
User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:24 am
Affiliation: Christian - pretty traditional

Re: Trump

Postby Rian » Sat Nov 19, 2016 6:07 pm

Reading the comments from the atheists makes me wonder - if they really believe what they say, then why are there so few atheists in the world?

SimplyMe asserts that religious people are stupid. However, this isn't even an argument, it's merely an assertion, and it's an unfounded one at that because he never backs it up with anything! In fact, it's easy to show that many religious people are very intelligent, so he's wrong.
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion

Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.
User avatar
Rian
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6210
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Arizona, USA ... for now ...
Affiliation: Christian/truth-seeker

Re: Trump

Postby Simplyme » Sat Nov 19, 2016 8:11 pm

Rian wrote:Reading the comments from the atheists makes me wonder - if they really believe what they say, then why are there so few atheists in the world?

SimplyMe asserts that religious people are stupid. However, this isn't even an argument, it's merely an assertion, and it's an unfounded one at that because he never backs it up with anything! In fact, it's easy to show that many religious people are very intelligent, so he's wrong.


What is it that we say Rian? Because it seems you guys never know what that is, even after being told a million times.

I back it up quite well. If you believe in a deity that you can't prove, then you are stupid. If you believe in Santa you are stupid, If you believe in Fairy Tales you are stupid. Am I saying you are stupid in general? Never. Just on this particular matter. Now if you want to back up your claims of a god existing with evidence, then Shit, you can shut me up quite quickly. But you guys will not, you will just continue with your bullshit excuses and arguments.

But once again I was not expecting you guys to get it. Like we keep harping on for centuries. It is the same bullshit argument over and over and over again.
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5958
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Trump

Postby Keep The Reason » Sat Nov 19, 2016 9:17 pm

Rian wrote:Reading the comments from the atheists makes me wonder - if they really believe what they say, then why are there so few atheists in the world?


Maybe we're ahead of the curve. Maybe most people are gullible and prefer comforting falsehoods to stark truths. Maybe most people realize they will die, are afraid, and cling to a belief that death isn't the end, so they and their loved ones are fine.

Maybe it's a lot like people who refused to believe in evolution. At first, there were few evolutionists, now it's broadly accepted and the people who look like regressive dingbats who reject mountains of demonstrable scientific evidence are those who insist on creationism. Today, maybe more theists. Tomorrow, you're the ones who believed in a burned witches. Wait. That's already the case. Hardly any Christians believe in burning witches today, yet it used to be that a lot of them thought it was just fine. Go figure.

And maybe we're not as few as you think:

Various selected countries, according to the Oxford Handbook, with the highest percentages of non-believers, include:

Czech Republic – 55% atheist/agnostic (actual number: 4,649,620)

France – 41% (19,965,630)

Sweden – 39% (2,800,152)

Germany – 36% (24,564,226)

Netherlands – 34% (4,303,110)

Belgium – 34% (2,857,053)

Denmark – 32% (1,369,512)

Norway – 32% (1.146,464)

United Kingdom – 30% (14,579,992)

South Korea – 28% (10,419,885)

New Zealand – 28% (866,000)

Finland – 28% (1,172,404)

Japan – 28% (29,766,356)

Hungary – 27% (2,254,556)

Australia – 26% (5,058,772)

Spain – 21% (7,633,561)

China – 17.9% (234,595,000)


Maybe theists are on the losing side of history. Maybe, like those who promoted slavery which was the way of human commerce for millennia, will be looked upon as backwards, foolish, unprincipled, full of shit, small hearted, mindless... stupid.

SimplyMe asserts that religious people are stupid. However, this isn't even an argument, it's merely an assertion, and it's an unfounded one at that because he never backs it up with anything! In fact, it's easy to show that many religious people are very intelligent, so he's wrong.


From my understanding of SM's comments he believes it's a selective, conscious stupidity -- that he doesn't mean your IQ or your literacy, he means it more in the sense of the very idea of believing in such things as in any way factually true, is just downright silly. And I agree with him. You, Moon, Mitch -- not stupid in the sense of some inherent mental weakness. None of you are congenitally stupid, you're all smart enough to understand the concepts that support the contention that your Christian belief system isn't true, the arguments against Christianity's alleged truthfulness are simple and easily grasped, so no you aren't that kind of stupid. But that you nevertheless cling to fairy tales and think -- and insist, and try to evade demonstrating-- they are accurate representations of the existence we inhabit is a form of self-induced stupidity.

I can't say it's wrong. I agree with him. People do stupid things or embrace stupid beliefs all the time without actually being congenitally stupid. Then there's always that "Category stupid" effect: I look at a guy like Ben Carson who is some brilliant brain surgeon but at the same time is relentlessly stupid in about 50 other categories. Brain surgeon who actually thinks the pyramids were built by Joseph to store Cheerios. That is summmmm stoopit.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10416
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Trump

Postby Keep The Reason » Sat Nov 19, 2016 10:25 pm

Moonwood the Hare wrote:It's not a strong argument as I'm sure you realise. But your reason for thinking unicorns do not exist is also based on argument.


It's an nearly airtight argument, with precedent and demonstrable evidence that uni-horned animals already do exist. There is no reason not to conclude unicorns exist from my argument.

We both happen to know they don't, but what more could anyone possibly expect in an argument?

The arguments for god are massively weaker, spectacularly, limitlessly weaker and you couldn't hope to illustrate anywhere near what I was able to demonstrate as valid reasons for a conclusion of my assertion, but you just bat it away and claim I have the weaker argument.

So you opt for a special pleading.

I am certainly not suggesting that because you have an argument for something that means it is true.


You said a good argument and I have a far stronger argument for unicorns in 10 minutes than you could hope to have with your theists in 5,000 years.

But you'll never admit it. I get it. It's scary to admit your god arguments are far less valid than a simple unicorn one. And don't get me started on leprechauns. Short men, Irish brogues, green outfits, gold--easily placed in pots and buried in fields-- rainbows.. the whole enchilada... Or should I say shilleleah? Once again, light years more compelling evidence to believe in leprechauns and mount a strong valid and good argument than your silly god one.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10416
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Trump

Postby Rian » Sun Nov 20, 2016 12:27 am

Keep The Reason wrote:
Rian wrote:Reading the comments from the atheists makes me wonder - if they really believe what they say, then why are there so few atheists in the world?


Maybe we're ahead of the curve.

Or maybe not. If I'm right, we'll know, but if you're right, we won't ever know.

And I can speculate why atheism is growing in some areas, just like you speculated about religious people:

KTR wrote:Maybe most people are gullible and prefer comforting falsehoods to stark truths.

Maybe more people are getting more gullible and prefer comforting undemonstrable beliefs about not having to account for their actions and not being in charge as much as they think they are.

KTR wrote:Maybe most people realize they will die, are afraid, and cling to a belief that death isn't the end, so they and their loved ones are fine.

Maybe most atheists realize they will die, are afraid of the great big unknown and of being accountable, and cling to a belief that when they die, it's all over.

Rian wrote:SimplyMe asserts that religious people are stupid. However, this isn't even an argument, it's merely an assertion, and it's an unfounded one at that because he never backs it up with anything! In fact, it's easy to show that many religious people are very intelligent, so he's wrong.

KTR wrote:From my understanding of SM's comments he believes it's a selective, conscious stupidity -- that he doesn't mean your IQ or your literacy, he means it more in the sense of the very idea of believing in such things as in any way factually true, is just downright silly. And I agree with him. You, Moon, Mitch -- not stupid in the sense of some inherent mental weakness. None of you are congenitally stupid, you're all smart enough to understand the concepts that support the contention that your Christian belief system isn't true, the arguments against Christianity's alleged truthfulness are simple and easily grasped, so no you aren't that kind of stupid.

They're easily grasped, for sure - and easily seen for how flimsy they are.

When I was on a highly-moderated Tolkien discussion board (some of the members were very young people) they had a general discussion area, and we sometimes talked about worldviews like atheism and Christianity. The atheists used to say that if only the board wasn't moderated, they could really demolish Christianity. I was intrigued and interested, so I went to another board along with them and said go for it. All they could produce were the same flimsy arguments, but decorated with insults and bad language. I was very let down - I was expecting some interesting, intelligent insights, but I just got basically "I can't see God so you're stupid to believe in him!" Not impressive.

KTR wrote:But that you nevertheless cling to fairy tales and think -- and insist, and try to evade demonstrating-- they are accurate representations of the existence we inhabit is a form of self-induced stupidity.

Nope - see above, plus this:

Most Christians here have never claimed to be able to prove/demonstrate the existence of God in a scientific manner, because they know it's not a simple thing like "what temperature does water boil?" It's a more complex and experiential thing. It's supported by many things, but one of those things is usually always personal experience, and that's something that cannot be scientifically demonstrated; it can only be personally experienced. And talking about stupid, I think it's stupid to throw out personal experience. And again talking about stupid, I think it's really stupid when some atheists say things along the lines of "since you can't demonstrate it to ME, then it's really stupid for YOU to believe it!"

My belief in Christianity is based on reason and science, but it doesn't stop there - it is based on MORE than reason and science. It's also based on personal experience, and it would be dishonest of me to ignore that. I'm not going to discard what I believe is true, based on a lot of thought and analysis and experience, just because some whiny, silly atheists say I'm stupid to believe something that they can't even prove isn't true! Two reasonable people can reasonably come to two different conclusions about a worldview based on their own reasoning and experiences. I don't know why so many atheists haven't been able to figure out that simple concept.
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion

Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.
User avatar
Rian
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6210
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Arizona, USA ... for now ...
Affiliation: Christian/truth-seeker

Re: Trump

Postby Simplyme » Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:05 am

From my understanding of SM's comments he believes it's a selective, conscious stupidity -- that he doesn't mean your IQ or your literacy, he means it more in the sense of the very idea of believing in such things as in any way factually true, is just downright silly. And I agree with him. You, Moon, Mitch -- not stupid in the sense of some inherent mental weakness. None of you are congenitally stupid, you're all smart enough to understand the concepts that support the contention that your Christian belief system isn't true, the arguments against Christianity's alleged truthfulness are simple and easily grasped, so no you aren't that kind of stupid. But that you nevertheless cling to fairy tales and think -- and insist, and try to evade demonstrating-- they are accurate representations of the existence we inhabit is a form of self-induced stupidity.


Well said. Once again you took my third grade analogy and pimped it up.

I believe most of them know this. Most of the Xtians on here are rather intelligent(most). They know who they are.
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5958
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Trump

Postby Simplyme » Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:10 am

Or maybe not. If I'm right, we'll know, but if you're right, we won't ever know.


For fucks sake. The classic, "you will all be crying when you are in hell", coded "Pascal Wager" argument. Fucking hilarious!!!!

My belief in Christianity is based on reason and science, but it doesn't stop there - it is based on MORE than reason and science. It's also based on personal experience, and it would be dishonest of me to ignore that. I'm not going to discard what I believe is true, based on a lot of thought and analysis and experience, just because some whiny, silly atheists say I'm stupid to believe something that they can't even prove isn't true! Two reasonable people can reasonably come to two different conclusions about a worldview based on their own reasoning and experiences. I don't know why so many atheists haven't been able to figure out that simple concept.


Science? Rian, please refer us to the Science Papers for Christianity. And then you proudly say, "but it does not stop there it is based on MORE(notice the capitalized more) than reason and science. It's based on personal experience" You said this as if personal experience is more important then science or even reason. You just admitted that nothing will shake your beliefs...nothing....not SCIENCE, EVIDENCE, COMMON SENSE. It would seem we hit a nerve in Rian. She genuinely seem angered. She is angered that we are questioning her beliefs and she can't deal with it. I can see her almost foaming at the mouth at our eventual demise in an eternity in hell. I think we broke through her facade and her true self emerged. I knew it was there behind that smile.

Now Moon....how do you have a discussion with someone who would discard SCIENCE, REASON, COMMON SENSE over there belief.

Thank you Rian for proving my point with your post.
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5958
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Trump

Postby Moonwood the Hare » Sun Nov 20, 2016 1:08 pm

Keep The Reason wrote:
Moonwood the Hare wrote:It's not a strong argument as I'm sure you realise. But your reason for thinking unicorns do not exist is also based on argument.


It's an nearly airtight argument, with precedent and demonstrable evidence that uni-horned animals already do exist. There is no reason not to conclude unicorns exist from my argument.

I did not think I would have to go through this but okay.
1. Unicorns are a form of horse. Horses exist and it is commonly known that they do, in massive numbers no less. This is not controversial in any way.

This reduces to A is a type of B there are some B's therefore there is A. This is not a valid argument.
2. Unicorns are marked by a singular other trait and that is a long, pointed, often spiral-etched horn coming from their foreheads. There is good demonstrable evidence for animals with a single horn. A rhinoceros is one such example, and a narwhal whale is an even better example.

This is the same argument repeated. It still is not valid.
These are easily referenced as real factual animals, so please check them out. This is not controversial in any way.

No, the evidence is there but it does not support the argument.
3. While we don't see unicorns today, this merely means they have gone extinct. We do not see many animals today but know they factually existed. This is not controversial in any way.

This is the same argument repeated again and it is no more valid than it was the first time or the second.
We both happen to know they don't, but what more could anyone possibly expect in an argument?

I would not go so far as to say I know there are no unicorns. I think there are reasons for thinking there are unicorns but there exists a better explanation for the evidence than that the unicorns of legend exist. Essentially these are exaggerated accounts of the rhinoceros that found their way into the bestiaries. The horns are those of narwhals. The story about their susceptibility to virgins seems to derive from and old African tale and so on.
The arguments for god are massively weaker, spectacularly, limitlessly weaker and you couldn't hope to illustrate anywhere near what I was able to demonstrate as valid reasons for a conclusion of my assertion, but you just bat it away and claim I have the weaker argument.

I have said I do not believe in God because of arguments. None the less I do not believe these are as weak as you imagine. For example if you take the ontological argument you may remember that Bertrand Russell felt there was something in it and the distinction he makes between conceptualisation and instantiation which was very important in his philosophy stems from an attempt to counter the problems raised by the argument. Kurt Godel who is one of the greatest logicians who ever lived spent years working on the argument. I know Richard Dawkins dismisses it in half a page but that is mainly because he does not understand it as Russell and Godel, both atheists, did. Russell and Godel would howl with laughter at your suggestion that the rubbish you present above is as strong as the ontological argument.
So you opt for a special pleading.

No, I don't.
I am certainly not suggesting that because you have an argument for something that means it is true.


You said a good argument and I have a far stronger argument for unicorns in 10 minutes than you could hope to have with your theists in 5,000 years.

No, sorry you didn't.
But you'll never admit it. I get it. It's scary to admit your god arguments are far less valid than a simple unicorn one. And don't get me started on leprechauns. Short men, Irish brogues, green outfits, gold--easily placed in pots and buried in fields-- rainbows.. the whole enchilada... Or should I say shilleleah? Once again, light years more compelling evidence to believe in leprechauns and mount a strong valid and good argument than your silly god one.

Well, I won't change my views in the face of glib nonsense of the kind you have presented that is certain.
All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.
User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:24 am
Affiliation: Christian - pretty traditional

Re: Trump

Postby Keep The Reason » Sun Nov 20, 2016 6:00 pm

Rian wrote: Or maybe not. If I'm right, we'll know, but if you're right, we won't ever know.


OK so we have to play the "I'm rubber you're glue" game. How original.

So, on this point, no. We have precedent indicating that some worldviews are ahead of other worldviews and such events are pretty famous. For instance, some people in the American colonies were ahead of the curve on self governance in a representative democracy. Most people in the world were still very much grounded in a monarchy as the only means of governance. As time has gone on, monarchies are few, hardly in existence now, whereas the stronger desire is some form of self governance (not everywhere, just in more places).

I think religion will eventually die completely. It's already reduced to just a crutch for people with two strong legs (along with people who do in fact need crutches), but the trend is towards religions ending. Takes longer, granted. But yeah, we get very little real world information from religion that it only serves the thinnest of purposes now. I know you disagree, but disagree all you want, the math doesn't lie.

And I can speculate why atheism is growing in some areas, just like you speculated about religious people:


I didn't just speculate I shared facts with you. I know you sometimes have a hard time with that, but, shrug. Do better.

KTR wrote:Maybe more people are getting more gullible and prefer comforting undemonstrable beliefs about not having to account for their actions and not being in charge as much as they think they are.


Wrong. Almost everyone on the planet lives in a place with laws and are completely conscious that they may have to account for their actions. Atheists realize of course we're accountable for our actions, so you fail on that completely. We just know we're accountable here and now, and not in your fantasy land you insist exists.

If, when we die, we find out there's more to it, well, we'll cross that bridge, but it would still have absolutely nothing to do with us living every day knowing we are accountable for our actions, which we term "laws". We do that now. Right now. Totally cool with it.

So this one is dead.

Next...

Maybe most atheists realize they will die, are afraid of the great big unknown and of being accountable, and cling to a belief that when they die, it's all over

This is just a repeat of the first one. The only thing scarier to people other that just no longer being, is being in suffering. If you need to threaten one one into behaving by tossing out spooky punishments that you have utterly no way of demonstrating are true,, then you are an unprincipled, unethical loser and needn't be taken seriously.

The ONLY reason that one might have this fear of yours is because your RELIGION has done its damndest to infect that person with this unsupported fear. I don't disagree that your hate filled religion has a long history of that, but I blame the religion and you for promoting such vile nonsense. Rejecting such shit filled nonsense is an act of courage against your embrace of psychological oppression using fear tactics, and I've already explained how that characterizes anyone who tries it.

This approach of yours is the same as telling a victim of rape that they asked for it by wearing a skirt or being pretty. No, you are the criminal here, the victim of your reprehensible behavior is not the criminal. And you should be ashamed every time you try this fear based tactic. On the other hand, it really does expose you as the person you are comfortable showing here. Rest assured, we can all see it.

This one is dead.

They're easily grasped, for sure - and easily seen for how flimsy they are
.

When I was on a highly-moderated Tolkien discussion board (some of the members were very young people) they had a general discussion area, and we sometimes talked about worldviews like atheism and Christianity. The atheists used to say that if only the board wasn't moderated, they could really demolish Christianity. I was intrigued and interested, so I went to another board along with them and said go for it. All they could produce were the same flimsy arguments, but decorated with insults and bad language. I was very let down - I was expecting some interesting, intelligent insights, but I just got basically "I can't see God so you're stupid to believe in him!" Not impressive
.

Wow, that's quite an experience you had! And-- so what? Who cares? Your anecdote is meaningless. Your online experience is what's flimsy, and I really can't care about it less. I'll go with the massive library of books against your online disappointment story, ok? I'll go with Hitchens and Dawkins and Flew (yes, I know he mistakenly fell for the anthropomorphic argument as a very old and no longer grounded philosopher, but that doesn't wipe out his life's work). I'll go with Krauss and Sagan and Sherman over your "highly moderated Tolkien group".

Secondly, the arguments are not flimsy at all, demonstrably so. They are restructuring the entire planet as the inherent failure of religion to be able to account for its claims gets exposed over and over.

What's the fastest growing group of people in the USA again?

Nones. You know why? Because religion fails at every key point and people around the world are waking up to it.

This one's dead as well.

Most Christians here have never claimed to be able to prove/demonstrate the existence of God in a scientific manner, because they know it's not a simple thing like "what temperature does water boil?" It's a more complex and experiential thing. It's supported by many things, but one of those things is usually always personal experience, and that's something that cannot be scientifically demonstrated; it can only be personally experienced. And talking about stupid, I think it's stupid to throw out personal experience. And again talking about stupid, I think it's really stupid when some atheists say things along the lines of "since you can't demonstrate it to ME, then it's really stupid for YOU to believe it!"


There's the special pleading. "Stop insisting I have to account for my fairy tale being true! It does not! An' I never said it could, but it's true anyways!" Yawn.

Ok. So let's grant you your glass of whine. Everything you just said about how it's supported "by many things" ALSO can be said about Buddhism. Or Hinduism. Or Sufism. Or the cult of Isis. Or Kulkulkan. Or Quetzacoatl, or Islam or... then list goes on and on. What you insist is somehow special information that supports your Christianity you could swap in or out just about any other religion, long dead ones no less, and make the exact same claim. And in demonstrable fact, billions DO say the very same thing about their religion to illustrate how yours is wrong.

But for some magical reason... you AREN'T in any of those other religions and you'd argue that those other religions -- particularly the long dead ones -- were wrong. Yet-- the same rules of your claim of support easily supports them as well. So this is another DOA argument on your part as well.

My favorite part: After claiming it can't be proved by science... you go on to throw put the hilarious punchline:

My belief in Christianity is based on reason and science, but it doesn't stop there - it is based on MORE than reason and science.


Hahahahahaaaaa!!!!!! "It can't be demonstrated by science but it's based on science". LOL -- only a theist could do that double twisted pretzel back flip and think it's completely legitimate.

Hey belief in unicorns, while not demonstrable by science, but it's based on science! LOL.

It's also based on personal experience, and it would be dishonest of me to ignore that. I'm not going to discard what I believe is true, based on a lot of thought and analysis and experience, just because some whiny, silly atheists say I'm stupid to believe something that they can't even prove isn't true!


As I said, your personal experience is meaningless to me. I rate it exactly how I would rate a Moslem saying his belief in Allah is his personal experience, or, if one was arund, how a Kukulkanist would insist Kulkulkan is true because of his or her experience. Your experiences are fine for you, but they end the same place the outer skin of your nose ends, and frankly, I don't give a damn about what you claim to expereince. Until you try to be an obstacle to the facts, like evolution, and social progress, and women's rights to reproductive autonomy, or the right to disbelieve what "your experience" compels you to force me to accept-- believe whatever the fuck you want, but don't any of you dare to insist I have to accept it. And that includes calling you stupid for believing in something so patently ridiculoous, childish and inane through and through-- laced with the ever present threat of torment if we don't believe your fantasy.

When any of us expressing that we think it's stupid stops you from actively having the freedom to believe it, then you can protest and then we can call you whiners. But right now you ain't the oppressed, lady. You don't hear of atheists macheting religious bloggers for being religious, almost anywhere in the world, but you do hear of theists doing that to atheists. We're the victims in this model, not you. So forgive me if "your personal experience" isn't worth a single square of toilet paper to me. It isn't. I could not care less about your "woo" moments.

Two reasonable people can reasonably come to two different conclusions about a worldview based on their own reasoning and experiences. I don't know why so many atheists haven't been able to figure out that simple concept.
[/quote]

The lack of awareness of you on this is galactic in size. You belong to the power bloc-- we do not. You have the entire culture behind you, we do not. And despite being embraces of a silly, superstitious, nonsensical and outright stupid worldview that doesn't jibe with a single objective fact -- you STILL own all the marbles.

We've figured it out. We're changing it. That's what you're seeing. Even this knucklehead Trump didn't win some major vote-- he lost the popular, and that from about 48% of the country even bothering to vote. But in terms of numbers swinging away from your religions? Your religion, like countless religions before it, is heading for the dustbin of history. It just is.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10416
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Trump

Postby Moonwood the Hare » Fri Nov 25, 2016 10:16 am

Thought you guys might enjoy this

Not sure if the BBC will take this down so watch it ASAP.
All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.
User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:24 am
Affiliation: Christian - pretty traditional

Re: Trump

Postby Rian » Mon Nov 28, 2016 5:33 pm

Keep The Reason wrote:So, on this point, no. We have precedent indicating that some worldviews are ahead of other worldviews and such events are pretty famous. For instance, some people in the American colonies were ahead of the curve on self governance in a representative democracy. Most people in the world were still very much grounded in a monarchy as the only means of governance. As time has gone on, monarchies are few, hardly in existence now, whereas the stronger desire is some form of self governance (not everywhere, just in more places).

I think religion will eventually die completely. It's already reduced to just a crutch for people with two strong legs (along with people who do in fact need crutches), but the trend is towards religions ending. Takes longer, granted. But yeah, we get very little real world information from religion that it only serves the thinnest of purposes now. I know you disagree, but disagree all you want, the math doesn't lie.

Do you even realize how many logical fallacies you're committing in these two paragraphs? I've been urging SM to make the effort to educate himself on logical thinking a little, but maybe you should join him.

Re your monarchies/democracy discussion - I just got back from the Grand Canyon and boy, that was a big hole. However, the gaping hole in your non sequitur makes the Grand Canyon seem small! Are you really trying to claim that since some changes that happened are good (according to your standard, btw), therefore the change KTR wants will happen and is good? Sheesh!

Re your "I think religion will eventually die completely". OK, I'm fine with that construction - you stated your opinion for what it is - an opinion. No arguments there, we just have different opinions. We'll see who's right.

Re your "the crutch" - Yawn, another ad hominem, plus several others. Not worth any more comment.

Re your "the trend is towards religions ending" - Well, not according to Pew Research Center, which projects the atheists, agnostics and unaffiliated group SHRINKING. What was your source? (I won't take Wiki).

Re what YOU think the purpose of religion is - well, I suppose SOME people might agree with you there, but not any Christians that I know. It serves many more (and better) purposes than the one you listed.

Re your "the math doesn't lie" - Stop, you're making me laugh so hard it's hurting!! That's hilarious!!! Talk about logical fallacies! A right whopper of an Argumentum Ad Verecundium fallacy just for starters. Wow!

Rian wrote:And I can speculate why atheism is growing in some areas, just like you speculated about religious people:

KTR wrote:I didn't just speculate I shared facts with you. I know you sometimes have a hard time with that, but, shrug. Do better.

Facts? You mean the things you prefaced with "Maybe"?

Rian wrote:Maybe more people are getting more gullible and prefer comforting undemonstrable beliefs about not having to account for their actions and not being in charge as much as they think they are.

KTR wrote:Wrong. Almost everyone on the planet lives in a place with laws and are completely conscious that they may have to account for their actions. Atheists realize of course we're accountable for our actions, so you fail on that completely. We just know we're accountable here and now, and not in your fantasy land you insist exists.

Yes, that's a very comforting belief, isn't it? I can see why a person might become an atheist in order to think that comforting thought.

Rian wrote:Maybe most atheists realize they will die, are afraid of the great big unknown and of being accountable, and cling to a belief that when they die, it's all over
KTR wrote:This is just a repeat of the first one. The only thing scarier to people other that just no longer being, is being in suffering. If you need to threaten one one into behaving by tossing out spooky punishments that you have utterly no way of demonstrating are true,, then you are an unprincipled, unethical loser and needn't be taken seriously.

It's very comforting to shape your beliefs so you don't have to face uncomfy possibilities, and I can see why some atheists might become atheists because they don't want to face these uncomfy possibilities.

Now I can believe that many atheists, like many Christians, come to their BELIEFS about the state of reality from good and honest motives, but if you're going to sling crap about Christian motives, then I'll sling it back at you about atheist motives.

KTR wrote:What's the fastest growing group of people in the USA again?

And how is that group doing world-wide again?

Nones. You know why? Because religion fails at every key point and people around the world are waking up to it.

This one's dead as well.

The Pew Research center says YOUR point is dead.


Anyway, this is a long post, so I'll break it up.
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion

Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.
User avatar
Rian
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6210
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Arizona, USA ... for now ...
Affiliation: Christian/truth-seeker

Re: Trump

Postby Keep The Reason » Mon Nov 28, 2016 6:23 pm

Rian wrote:Do you even realize how many logical fallacies you're committing in these two paragraphs?


none.

Re your monarchies/democracy discussion - I just got back from the Grand Canyon and boy, that was a big hole. However, the gaping hole in your non sequitur makes the Grand Canyon seem small! Are you really trying to claim that since some changes that happened are good (according to your standard, btw), therefore the change KTR wants will happen and is good? Sheesh!


Demonstration supports the contention. Monarchies are much like dictatorships and they lead to a singular viewpoint being considered the rule of law. A king or queen, being a human being with human foibles, is going to be inclined to do things in their best interests. People tend to be wired that way and when you have a sole voice as final law, there's little checks and balance to the model. Now, you may indeed luck out with a benevolent monarch, but only someone deluded would assume that would be the case with a string of monarchs, all descended down from one an other-- statistically speaking, at least some of those monarch would be power abusers.

Democracies on the other hand are incumbent upon a broad range of viewpoints that can morph with successive generations. further more, it doesn't boil down to a single vision of a single person; instead, the vision or goal must be shared across a larger number of people. Again, you may "bad luck" into someone like a Hitler who can convince people of a silly thing, but even then, we have options to forestall that-- checks and balances -- education and critical thinking skills for instance -- that help mold that. So yes, over time, democracies are in the upward trend because they are better-- better being defined as "the most good for the greatest number of people causing the least amount of harm" (and while that's an opinion,. I doubt there's a better explanation of what "good" actually is in a practical world), democracies outshine monarchies.

Re your "I think religion will eventually die completely". OK, I'm fine with that construction - you stated your opinion for what it is - an opinion. No arguments there, we just have different opinions. We'll see who's right.


Not likely. We'll both be dead.

Re your "the crutch" - Yawn, another ad hominem, plus several others. Not worth any more comment.


It's not an ad hominem. Religion, unless proven true and undeniably so, is something to lean on with hope. It's a crutch.

Re your "the trend is towards religions ending" - Well, not according to Pew Research Center, which projects the atheists, agnostics and unaffiliated group SHRINKING. What was your source? (I won't take Wiki).


Yeah, that's because Muslims and Hindus who are on a massive population spree, are rising in numbers. So your link shows how atheists will shrink as a "global share", but not how atheism is shrinking in specific numbers.

Here's what they are saying:

The number of Muslims will nearly equal the number of Christians around the world.

Atheists, agnostics and other people who do not affiliate with any religion – though increasing in countries such as the United States and France – will make up a declining share of the world’s total population.

The global Buddhist population will be about the same size it was in 2010, while the Hindu and Jewish populations will be larger than they are today.

In Europe, Muslims will make up 10% of the overall population.

India will retain a Hindu majority but also will have the largest Muslim population of any country in the world, surpassing Indonesia.

In the United States, Christians will decline from more than three-quarters of the population in 2010 to two-thirds in 2050, and Judaism will no longer be the largest non-Christian religion. Muslims will be more numerous in the U.S. than people who identify as Jewish on the basis of religion.

Four out of every 10 Christians in the world will live in sub-Saharan Africa.


So nice try, but it's not because atheism is dwindling, it's because the crazy religions like Islam are having babies in huge proportions-- irresponsibly so.

Re what YOU think the purpose of religion is - well, I suppose SOME people might agree with you there, but not any Christians that I know. It serves many more (and better) purposes than the one you listed.


Demonstrate those purposes are supported by facts and outcomes one can rely upon.

Re your "the math doesn't lie" - Stop, you're making me laugh so hard it's hurting!! That's hilarious!!! Talk about logical fallacies! A right whopper of an Argumentum Ad Verecundium fallacy just for starters. Wow!

Yes, that's a very comforting belief, isn't it? I can see why a person might become an atheist in order to think that comforting thought.


It's not a comforting belief-- it's a demonstrable fact. Peoples who do not have your religion or any specific religion behave according to laws. If they didn't they wouldn't exist because they would consume themselves.

Let me know how you can account for tribes that never heard of Judeo-Christianity also being against murder and theft. They have their own laws they live by, and did so without your lame-ass "nice comforting thought". We're intelligent, gregarious, social animals and have precedent behavior in simians who also exist with admittedly cruder, but no less viable hierarchies and rules in their tribes as well. this is all demonstrable fact.

It's very comforting to shape your beliefs so you don't have to face uncomfy possibilities, and I can see why some atheists might become atheists because they don't want to face these uncomfy possibilities.


I don't find ANY of the post death options particularly uncomfy-- well okay the idea of a sadistic monstrosity of a god tormenting people for petty bullshit is bizarre and vile, but I cannot for the life of me consider such a nonsensical thing to be real in any way. It's just so typically superstitiously-human in nature "Do as I say or dire consequences!" Hell, I've heard that about a billion things throughout life and frankly, it makes me just laugh at the idiot who A) Believes it and B) thinks that'll work.

Anyway, if there's a god, I'll find that fascinating. If there's nothing, I won't be comfortable or uncomfortable. Whatever comes, I'll worry about it when and if it happens.

Now I can believe that many atheists, like many Christians, come to their BELIEFS about the state of reality from good and honest motives, but if you're going to sling crap about Christian motives, then I'll sling it back at you about atheist motives.


Who cares? you all admit your fears in a thousand ways, and then scamp[er to hide it when you're directly confronted with them. but then you slip, like saying "god-fearing" or "god is to be worshiped" and so on. You're scared. Of being dead forever or going to Hell. It's like a shining billboard in a dark night.

And how is that group doing world-wide again?


Not bad. you might want to concern yourself less with us and more with the Muslims who have a tendency to mistreat you when they leave some of those more extreme madrassas they tend to attend in the middle east.

The Pew Research center says YOUR point is dead.


No it doesn't. It merely says the theists are reproducing far higher. And not your christian ones. You might want to wake the fuck up too.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10416
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Trump

Postby Rian » Mon Nov 28, 2016 7:44 pm

KTR, you need to fix the area around the "math doesn't lie" - you quoted me but forgot to put quote tags around it so it looks like you wrote it, and it confuses the post - plus you didn't respond to it. I'll wait for you to fix it before I reply. If you're past the edit limit, maybe you can copy your post, fix it and repost it, and I'll delete your old post for you if you'd like. But it's too confusing to respond to in its current state.
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion

Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.
User avatar
Rian
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6210
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Arizona, USA ... for now ...
Affiliation: Christian/truth-seeker

Re: Trump

Postby Tim-the-Hermit » Tue Nov 29, 2016 1:01 pm

Just because some atheists understand that they are accountable in the here and now doesn't mean that they don't also think that they are accountable in a bigger or wider way.

Some atheists see this life as the one chance in all eternity to get things right and so are extremely diligent about trying to do so. On the other hand, there are some Christians who abdicate responsibility very readily because they think that cheap forgiveness will always be handed their way as if it were a free side order of French fries.

So in my opinion no side is better than the other.
Tim-the-Hermit
veteran
veteran
 
Posts: 906
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:42 pm
Location: Wales, UK.
Affiliation: soft atheist

PreviousNext

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest