DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Ħ on February 14, 2011, 11:22:13 PM
-
The thread title is an internet meme that is based off this popular concept that mocks the idea that you can believe something without hard proof. I guess it's also related to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
1) Why is this said about Christianity (and every faith in general)? I am trying to see the logic here. Is it the idea that people walk around saying "You can't disprove God, so therefore he exists"? I don't want to put any more words in people's mouths, so please tell me.
2) This is more directed toward Christian people. Is there truth in omission? For example...the "gap theory" that says there is a gap of time between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2, on account of there being darkness, God commanding man to replenish the earth, etc., even though there isn't really a direct passage or even a verse that proves or disproves such a claim.
I haven't looked into the gap theory in too much depth, so I don't really agree or disagree with it. I'm just using it as an example.
-
Well, according to Catholicism, all of Genesis before Abraham didn't necessarily happen. The two completely different stories of creation are two different stories which purposes are not actually about how God created the world. The first is to emphasize that all God made was good, and I don't remember what the second was...maybe to tell how we should take care of the Earth and its inhabitants? Also, it sets up for the fall as well.
...I'm not sure that actually answers you question, but I've never of this gap theory regarding Gen. 1 and 2.
Now that I think of it...at one time wasn't there a saying that went: "Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus wasn't black"?
EDIT: Wow. You actually said Gen. 1:1 and 1:2...sorry for not really contributing anything...
-
Thanks for your input. I guess the general idea can be applied to Catholic beliefs too, in that, from my understanding, Catholics and other liberal interpreters of the Bible will take many things allegorically and not literally. The creation is one example. But my quesiton is, how do you decide what things you take literally and what things you take allegorically? I think bosk1 said in a different thread that there wasn't exactly a specific verse that says you shouldn't take the six-day creation literally, but on the same token there isn't a verse that says you should take it literally. Thoughts? And can you clarify Catholicism's take on this?
-
The thread title is an internet meme that is based off this popular concept that mocks the idea that you can believe something without hard proof. I guess it's also related to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
1) Why is this said about Christianity (and every faith in general)? I am trying to see the logic here. Is it the idea that people walk around saying "You can't disprove God, so therefore he exists"? I don't want to put any more words in people's mouths, so please tell me.
I think you're right.
2) This is more directed toward Christian people. Is there truth in omission? For example...the "gap theory" that says there is a gap of time between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2, on account of there being darkness, God commanding man to replenish the earth, etc., even though there isn't really a direct passage or even a verse that proves or disproves such a claim.
[/quote]
There's truth in omission, in my opinion. But we have to be careful about inserting ideas into the text that were clearly never intended. I think the gap theory is one example. Concluding that there's a massive gap between verses 1 and 2 requires some pretty nifty exegesis.
-
The thread title is an internet meme that is based off this popular concept that mocks the idea that you can believe something without hard proof. I guess it's also related to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
1) Why is this said about Christianity (and every faith in general)? I am trying to see the logic here. Is it the idea that people walk around saying "You can't disprove God, so therefore he exists"? I don't want to put any more words in people's mouths, so please tell me.
Because both things are beliefs that cannot be proven and require a certain faith to believe in. A flying spaghetti monster is just as likely as a god.
-
I think there is truth in omission, but only the basest of facts can be inferred that way, ones that are corroborated by a lot of outside factors. It can't serve as a playground for wild theories, for example to make literalism work.
rumborak
-
Since symbolism is used quite liberally in the Bible... I'd say there's truth in omission.
-
Since symbolism is used quite liberally in the Bible... I'd say there's truth in omission.
That's based off your interpretation, many people have disagreements of what is symbolism and what is not. Omission typically is only a justifiable argument in extraordinary or specific cases. Such as when zombies roamed the earth in Mathew. There is no mention any where else but the bible for that so we can assume it is bull cocky.
-
This somewhat plays into the thread topic, but I think what is almost never justifiable is what I would call "deep analysis" of Biblical passages. That is, instead of going by the obvious meaning of a passage (e.g. Jesus saying no stone will be left unturned when the Kingdom comes), a secondary, "deeper" message is derived from the passage (here, Jesus foreseeing the destruction of the temple in 70AD).
rumborak
-
The thread title is an internet meme that is based off this popular concept that mocks the idea that you can believe something without hard proof. I guess it's also related to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
1) Why is this said about Christianity (and every faith in general)? I am trying to see the logic here. Is it the idea that people walk around saying "You can't disprove God, so therefore he exists"? I don't want to put any more words in people's mouths, so please tell me.
Because both things are beliefs that cannot be proven and require a certain faith to believe in. A flying spaghetti monster is just as likely as a god.
This is what I don't understand. Supposing I'm a guy with an uncorrupted mind, free of bias, observing the world, which, arguably, I am. I see evidence of a creator through the creation. Now, it wouldn't be fair of me to make any claims about the creator other than he's the creator. The claim that he's a flying spaghetti monster is just as invalid as the claim that the creator is just, is loving, or is even all powerful.
What also doesn't make sense is that the FSM is an attack on the probability of a god, because it's not really a probability issue at all. It's a where-does-the-evidence-point issue.
I have no idea what I'm trying to say. Maybe I'm just upset that the FSM idea mocks something that I'm conceding to...that we can't draw any more conclusions about the creator other than he's just a creator.
-
And maybe your creator is just a bunch of laws of physics and some matter? Who knows?
-
I have no idea what I'm trying to say. Maybe I'm just upset that the FSM idea mocks something that I'm conceding to...that we can't draw any more conclusions about the creator other than he's just a creator.
That's pretty much where I stand really. I can see if someone wants to argue the existence of a creator, but even that doesn't answer anything (who created the creator?). But from that point on (that something created this universe), you know it's pretty much all wrong. Especially the major religions.
rumborak
-
I have no idea what I'm trying to say. Maybe I'm just upset that the FSM idea mocks something that I'm conceding to...that we can't draw any more conclusions about the creator other than he's just a creator.
That's pretty much where I stand really. I can see if someone wants to argue the existence of a creator, but even that doesn't answer anything (who created the creator?). But from that point on (that something created this universe), you know it's pretty much all wrong. Especially the major religions.
rumborak
Well, I was about to say, that's where hunting for religion comes in. Once you confirm that there was a creator in your own mind, you go out and try to see if he's communicated with us, so that you can give him certain attributes. It's step 2 of the process, while determining the existence of a creator is step 1. I think the FSM critique sort of blends the two together.
But as to which religion is from the creator, or even if there even is anything, is a whole other discussion.
-
FSM started as a specific criticism of teaching creationism in public schools.
-
Upon reading wikipedia, I guess it was initially an attack on intelligent design, and later Christian creationism. Kinda silly if you ask me...the teaching of intelligent design is religiously ambigous, while the FSM religion is specific. So...fail.
-
It was actually a quite witty attack IMHO, because it showcased the arbitrariness of endorsing Christian theology in a school curriculum.
Intelligent design has never been an "academic field" disassociated from Christian theology. If you read the judge's statement in the Dover trial, he pretty much rants for several paragraphs about how ID is just another version of Creationism, and how they in some cases only did a word replacement in the documents.
Well, I was about to say, that's where hunting for religion comes in. Once you confirm that there was a creator in your own mind, you go out and try to see if he's communicated with us, so that you can give him certain attributes.
I see no reason to believe that something that put the universe in place at least 14 billion years ago, is "communicating" with us. That's where the whole thing make the transition from evidence-based (the universe is here) to wishful thinking (I would like to be part of this grand scheme).
rumborak
-
And can you clarify Catholicism's take on this?
To my knowledge, this is one of many areas where the Catholic Church allows for different takes on the topic. That is, it's acceptable for a Catholic to interpret the creation story in Genesis literally or figuratively.
This is what I don't understand. Supposing I'm a guy with an uncorrupted mind, free of bias, observing the world, which, arguably, I am. I see evidence of a creator through the creation. Now, it wouldn't be fair of me to make any claims about the creator other than he's the creator. The claim that he's a flying spaghetti monster is just as invalid as the claim that the creator is just, is loving, or is even all powerful.
What also doesn't make sense is that the FSM is an attack on the probability of a god, because it's not really a probability issue at all. It's a where-does-the-evidence-point issue.
I have no idea what I'm trying to say. Maybe I'm just upset that the FSM idea mocks something that I'm conceding to...that we can't draw any more conclusions about the creator other than he's just a creator.
I think you hit the nail on the head with this post (except for the part of supposing to have no bias :neverusethis:). It's not something that there's any point arguing because it comes down to personal feeling. The FSM thing is just somebody's childish way of ridiculing the other side.
-J
-
I think that the FSM was a brilliant bit of satire. Allowing creationism to be taught alongside evolution is ludicrous, and deserved every bit of derision thrown at it.
-
That's kinda mean-spirited doncha think?
Obviously there are major issues science teaches will have with 6000 years and all. But what's wrong with saying, "Oh yeah, well we don't exactly know how the planet began and how life began, so here's a couple theories so you can decide for yourself. And those are: Big-Bang Theory, Intelligent Design creating everything, etc."
-
That's kinda mean-spirited doncha think?
Obviously there are major issues science teaches will have with 6000 years and all. But what's wrong with saying, "Oh yeah, well we don't exactly know how the planet began and how life began, so here's a couple theories so you can decide for yourself. And those are: Big-Bang Theory, Intelligent Design creating everything, etc."
Intelligent design shouldn't be taught in schools because there is no scientific basis for it. There is nothing in science supporting intelligent design, so why teach it? It's a cop-out in the science world, until scientific evidence comes up for it.
-
What about the scientific evidence of....well, things existing? :P
-
What about the scientific evidence of....well, things existing? :P
All that tells us is that stuff is here. It says nothing of where it came from. So still no evidence that an intelligent design created it. Based on that alone, it is just as valid that the big bang is true. Why? Because things exist.
-
Intelligent design is not falsifiable. It is therefore not a scientific hypothesis. That's all there is to it.
-
Intelligent design is not falsifiable. It is therefore not a scientific hypothesis. That's all there is to it.
Sounds good to me. Let's move on.
Back to the main point that the FSM is a really childish snipe that I am honestly surprised to see supported by such...mature...scientists and professors. I mean, come on guys.
-
Quote from the founder on the wiki page:
"I don't have a problem with religion. What I have a problem with is religion posing as science."
I don't think FSM is any more harsh a criticism of religiosity, than, say, Life of Brian.
-
Would you prefer Russell's Teapot?
-
I for one, wish Jesus was a raptor. :xbones
-
I get the idea behind it, but why be so...mocking? It's kinda nasty to be mocking. There are better ways to express your view.
-
I get the idea behind it, but why be so...mocking? It's kinda nasty to be mocking. There are better ways to express your view.
Agree 100% with this.
-
I think it is absurd for anything religion to be talked about in a science class. Religion belongs in history, theology or philosophy.
-
I think it is absurd for anything religion to be talked about in a science class. Religion belongs in history, theology or philosophy.
Agreed.
-
I get the idea behind it, but why be so...mocking? It's kinda nasty to be mocking. There are better ways to express your view.
I think you're a bit too "inside" of your belief system to realize how ridiculous the claims of Christianity sound to an outsider. I'm pretty sure you would mock somebody equally as much if he was trying to get his geocentric belief taught in science class.
rumborak
-
The difference, imo, between the beliefs of many of what people would call "cults" versus more established religions is just time. I think people too easily dismiss those that don't agree with them as having some sort of fundamental problem (i.e. stupidity), which imo is a vast oversimplification.
EDIT: The latter sentence applies to non-theists as well.
-
I get the idea behind it, but why be so...mocking? It's kinda nasty to be mocking. There are better ways to express your view.
I think you're a bit too "inside" of your belief system to realize how ridiculous the claims of Christianity sounds to a bystander.
rumborak
Well I went through high school as an anti-Christian, anti-creationist, anti-ID atheist, and here I am two years later "batting for the other team" if you will. I've come to understand is that in any type of debate--religious, political, ethical, whatever--both sides are horribly misrepresented. I hate to generalize, but non-Christians have the view that Bible thumpers are blind science-shunning idiots when that is simply not the case. On the flip side, a lot of Christians have unfortunate misunderstandings of many scientific theories (such as evolution). In the end, it just results in two hostile, belittling, straw men arguments, and I wish that both sides learn to listen and present their points respectfully. When someone comes along and says believing in God is as ridiculous as believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that's both hostile (whether you admit it or not) and provokes the other side to hostility, and nobody gets anywhere.
tl;dr I try my best to understand both sides, and have represented both sides, so I don't think I'm falling victim to my ludicrous belief system.
-
Agree 100% with BrotherH on this.
Both sides should be more tolerant tbh.
-
The problem I have when religion gets involved with science, is when "because God exists" becomes an argument. It's like the filler for what is beyond our own knowledge. As we find out more through science, the further and further this "because of God" argument has to go into the abyss of what we don't know yet.
This is why I think religion has no place in the scientific community. It's apples and oranges. Religion has its place and science has its place.
I personally think there can be some kind of middle. I tend to think if there is a god, he set up the rules (physics) and let everything go. But really I feel like physics and science is "god". I think the rules of the universe govern everything, not some outside being.
-
When someone comes along and says believing in God is as ridiculous as believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that's both hostile (whether you admit it or not) and provokes the other side to hostility, and nobody gets anywhere.
I agree with you that it is somewhat hostile. Where I disagree is that it doesn't get the discussion anywhere. I honestly think a lot of Christians have a really hard time imagining that there are people who find their beliefs outlandish or even ludicrous. I think the FSM schtick made the point that to a lot of people, there is no difference between the Christian god and the FSM in terms of credibility. Once you're not emotionally invested in the Christian god, it really does sound the same.
rumborak
-
I think the FSM schtick made the point that to a lot of people, there is no difference between the Christian god and the FSM in terms of credibility. Once you're not emotionally invested in the Christian god, it really does sound the same.
That's not true. The Christian god has more going for him than the FSM. You can't prove that the Christian god was invented just as well as you can prove that the FSM was invented. They've got different levels of credibility.
-
The argument is easily made as spaghetti wasn't invented til about 1300 years ago. But then again, an apologist would say that FSM was the reason spaghetti was created in the first place..
I get the point.
-
Spaghetti was invented in the honor of the FSM. Don't disrespect aerial pasta.
-
I think the FSM schtick made the point that to a lot of people, there is no difference between the Christian god and the FSM in terms of credibility. Once you're not emotionally invested in the Christian god, it really does sound the same.
That's not true. The Christian god has more going for him than the FSM. You can't prove that the Christian god was invented just as well as you can prove that the FSM was invented. They've got different levels of credibility.
What exactly makes the christian god existing more credible than the FSM existing?
-
I think this thread should be merged with the "offended" thread. They belong together.
-
I think the FSM schtick made the point that to a lot of people, there is no difference between the Christian god and the FSM in terms of credibility. Once you're not emotionally invested in the Christian god, it really does sound the same.
That's not true. The Christian god has more going for him than the FSM. You can't prove that the Christian god was invented just as well as you can prove that the FSM was invented. They've got different levels of credibility.
What exactly makes the christian god existing more credible than the FSM existing?
We can historically prove beyond any measure of doubt that the FSM was invented. You can't prove to the same degree of certainty that the Christian god was made up. So the Christian god is more credible.
In other words, if you somehow narrowed the truth down to these two possibilities, and you had to pick one, you would pick the Christian god (I hope).
-
I think the FSM schtick made the point that to a lot of people, there is no difference between the Christian god and the FSM in terms of credibility. Once you're not emotionally invested in the Christian god, it really does sound the same.
That's not true. The Christian god has more going for him than the FSM. You can't prove that the Christian god was invented just as well as you can prove that the FSM was invented. They've got different levels of credibility.
What exactly makes the christian god existing more credible than the FSM existing?
We can historically prove beyond any measure of doubt that the FSM was invented. You can't prove to the same degree of certainty that the Christian god was made up. So the Christian god is more credible.
In other words, if you somehow narrowed the truth down to these two possibilities, and you had to pick one, you would pick the Christian god (I hope).
That isnt what I asked.
-
There is still no more evidence for the christian God than for FSM. And vice versa.
-
We can historically prove beyond any measure of doubt that the FSM was invented. You can't prove to the same degree of certainty that the Christian god was made up. So the Christian god is more credible.
The FSM wasn't invented. It was revealed to Henderson. And more, we actually know Henderson, so it makes FSM more credible. No one knows who wrote Genesis, and many Christian writings have been shown to be of false authorship. Very dubious.
rumborak
-
I'm with rumby. The FSM was a brilliant satire on why ID shouldn't be taught in science classes. But for an average atheist to just use the FSM as an attack on religious people out of context is hostile, and stupid.
-
I'm with rumby. The FSM was a brilliant satire on why ID shouldn't be taught in science classes. But for an average atheist to just use the FSM as an attack on religious people out of context is hostile, and stupid.
I don't think we needa have the ID discussion here. I'm pretty sure there's no one here that's in favor if teaching ID in science classes.
-
I wouldn't call it "brilliant." Six-year-olds can come up with that stuff.
-
I wouldn't call it "brilliant." Six-year-olds can come up with that stuff.
Six year olds can come up with satires on why Intelligent Design shouldnt be taught in science class?
I was unaware 1st graders were so smart. :\
-
I don't know. When I was in Kindergarten I conceived a brilliant satire of the status of race relations between the overall WASP population in my town and the influx of East Asian immigrants by colouring every person I drew with a neutral cream coloured pencil crayon.
-
I wouldn't call it "brilliant." Six-year-olds can come up with that stuff.
You sound agitated.
rumborak
-
No I'm serious. I would do that all the time. Someone would say something about God, or ask me what I believe, and I'd say "Oh I believe in Zeus" or "I believe in Din, Nayru, and Farore, and you can't prove me wrong so neener neener neener." Same thing.
-
I think you're totally missing the point of FSM.
-
Am I? The point of the FSM is to mock creationism/ID. A subpoint is to mock the teaching of creationism/ID in schools.
-
So what? I mean, I would think you know that in this day and age, believing in the Christian deity is (rightly so) seeing a lot of scrutiny.
rumborak
-
No, I think the point is that scrutiny and mocking are not the same thing. Scrutiny should be welcome. Mocking is not, and shows not only a lack of maturity, but also undercuts the credibility of the person making the argument.
-
Am I? The point of the FSM is to mock creationism/ID. A subpoint is to mock the teaching of creationism/ID in schools.
Yes you are missing the point.
It is a satirical protest with a very serious purpose. Mocking is to hold up to scorn or contempt, or to ridicule. He wasnt commenting directly on ID, but on school cirriculum. If you are not emotionally vested in ID, you wont see it as mocking.
-
No, I think the point is that scrutiny and mocking are not the same thing. Scrutiny should be welcome. Mocking is not, and shows not only a lack of maturity, but also undercuts the credibility of the person making the argument.
Or it shows just how ridiculous the original premise is. Especially when someone who is offended does a comparison and it finally clicks. It is the same mockery people receive at the hands of those who believe, if not less harsh. The FSM points how ludicrous the christian faith is and the christian faith condemns non-believers, sounds fair to me.
-
This discussion is prompting me to ask: why do atheists and other non-believers give themselves self-righteous titles like "bright," "freethinkers" ect?
-
No, I think the point is that scrutiny and mocking are not the same thing. Scrutiny should be welcome. Mocking is not, and shows not only a lack of maturity, but also undercuts the credibility of the person making the argument.
Or it shows just how ridiculous the original premise is. Especially when someone who is offended does a comparison and it finally clicks. It is the same mockery people receive at the hands of those who believe, if not less harsh. The FSM points how ludicrous the christian faith is and the christian faith condemns non-believers, sounds fair to me.
From my understanding of the subject, it doesnt show how ridiculous any premise is....not ID...not the christian god. It does not point out how ludicrous any faith is......it merely points out why ID should not be taught in science class in a satirical way. Reading anymore into it just shows ones own emotional bias.
-
This discussion is prompting me to ask: why do atheists and other non-believers give themselves self-righteous titles like "bright," "freethinkers" ect?
The same reason believers give themselves self-righteous titles like "saved", "chosen", and "blessed" perhaps?
-
This discussion is prompting me to ask: why do atheists and other non-believers give themselves self-righteous titles like "bright," "freethinkers" ect?
I think it goes back to what I posted before:
I think people too easily dismiss those that don't agree with them as having some sort of fundamental problem (i.e. stupidity), which imo is a vast oversimplification.
EDIT: The latter sentence applies to non-theists as well.
It's easier to think of oneself in any given argument as superior in some sense, to explain the gulf in opinion between them and an opposing party. It's the same thinking that manifests itself in "skeptics" or "truthers" or people who name political magazines Reason. :P
-
This discussion is prompting me to ask: why do atheists and other non-believers give themselves self-righteous titles like "bright," "freethinkers" ect?
The same reason believers give themselves self-righteous titles like "saved", "chosen", and "blessed" perhaps?
I don't think it's the same. Smarmy douche-baggery isn't built in to religious vocabulary the same way. Everybody can be saved, so when a Christian says they are it's not a matter of self-righteousness. But when a atheist calls himself a freethinker, the point clearly is to convey that believing in God requires a lack of critical thinking.
-
This discussion is prompting me to ask: why do atheists and other non-believers give themselves self-righteous titles like "bright," "freethinkers" ect?
I think it goes back to what I posted before:
I think people too easily dismiss those that don't agree with them as having some sort of fundamental problem (i.e. stupidity), which imo is a vast oversimplification.
EDIT: The latter sentence applies to non-theists as well.
It's easier to think of oneself in any given argument as superior in some sense, to explain the gulf in opinion between them and an opposing party. It's the same thinking that manifests itself in "skeptics" or "truthers" or people who name political magazines Reason. :P
:lol I'd read it if it was called "pudding pop magazine." But point taken. Thanks.
-
This discussion is prompting me to ask: why do atheists and other non-believers give themselves self-righteous titles like "bright," "freethinkers" ect?
The same reason believers give themselves self-righteous titles like "saved", "chosen", and "blessed" perhaps?
I don't think it's the same. Smarmy douche-baggery isn't built in to religious vocabulary the same way. Everybody can be saved, so when a Christian says they are it's not a matter of self-righteousness. But when a atheist calls himself a freethinker, the point clearly is to convey that believing in God requires a lack of critical thinking.
I agree that with your assessment on those specific words, but many religious people call themselves "enlightened" or "open-minded" or some other variation. I think it's something that's not specific to any one group, but common amongst any group of people who are passionate about a subject.
-
This discussion is prompting me to ask: why do atheists and other non-believers give themselves self-righteous titles like "bright," "freethinkers" ect?
The same reason believers give themselves self-righteous titles like "saved", "chosen", and "blessed" perhaps?
I don't think it's the same. Smarmy douche-baggery isn't built in to religious vocabulary the same way. Everybody can be saved, so when a Christian says they are it's not a matter of self-righteousness. But when a atheist calls himself a freethinker, the point clearly is to convey that believing in God requires a lack of critical thinking.
Smarmy douch-baggery is built into religious and non-religious vocablary equally.
Bright / Enlightened
-
But when you bring the term free-thinker into any sort of debate, it heavily implies that you believe a certain way because you are a free-thinker, and that those who do not agree with you do so because they are not. It's a term everyone would like to claim for themselves because it carries an intellectual esteem with it. No-one wants to think that they arrived at their own belief by any other way than an intelligent, rational, thought-out process.
-
But when you bring the term free-thinker into any sort of debate, it heavily implies that you believe a certain way because you are a free-thinker, and that those who do not agree with you do so because they are not. It's a term everyone would like to claim for themselves because it carries an intellectual esteem with it. No-one wants to think that they arrived at their own belief by any other way than an intelligent, rational, thought-out process.
But when you bring the term Enlightened into any sort of debate, it heavily implies that you believe a certain way because you are enlightened, and that those who do not agree with you do so because they are not. It's a term everyone would like to claim for themselves because it carries an spiritual esteem with it. No-one wants to think that they arrived at their own belief by any other way than a divinely inspired revelation.
I find it baffling that any rational person seriously thinks that one side describes themselves in any more a concieted way than the other. You see this type of language all the time from all types of people...not just religious/non-religious. It is only offensive or annoying if you are emotionally invested in one side.
-
But when you bring the term free-thinker into any sort of debate, it heavily implies that you believe a certain way because you are a free-thinker, and that those who do not agree with you do so because they are not. It's a term everyone would like to claim for themselves because it carries an intellectual esteem with it. No-one wants to think that they arrived at their own belief by any other way than an intelligent, rational, thought-out process.
But when you bring the term Enlightened into any sort of debate, it heavily implies that you believe a certain way because you are enlightened, and that those who do not agree with you do so because they are not. It's a term everyone would like to claim for themselves because it carries an spiritual esteem with it. No-one wants to think that they arrived at their own belief by any other way than a divinely inspired revelation.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that for one to have a constructive debate, one can't go around invoking terms like "free-thinker", because the implications will draw an immediate end to any sort of positive discourse. Of course one would think the label for themselves was earned, and the other person of course would bristle at the implication that they are not.
-
But when you bring the term free-thinker into any sort of debate, it heavily implies that you believe a certain way because you are a free-thinker, and that those who do not agree with you do so because they are not. It's a term everyone would like to claim for themselves because it carries an intellectual esteem with it. No-one wants to think that they arrived at their own belief by any other way than an intelligent, rational, thought-out process.
But when you bring the term Enlightened into any sort of debate, it heavily implies that you believe a certain way because you are enlightened, and that those who do not agree with you do so because they are not. It's a term everyone would like to claim for themselves because it carries an spiritual esteem with it. No-one wants to think that they arrived at their own belief by any other way than a divinely inspired revelation.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that for one to have a constructive debate, one can't go around invoking terms like "free-thinker", because the implications will draw an immediate end to any sort of positive discourse. Of course one would think the label for themselves was earned, and the other person of course would bristle at the implication that they are not.
On that point I agree...describing yourself in those terms would not help in any discussion. I only point out that no group has a monopoly on douchy self-descriptions.
-
Keep in mind also that being agnostic/atheist is still very much a minority view and goes against the mainstream view. It is only obvious that those people would describe themselves as something like freethinkers. Libertarians view themselves as freethinkers too.
rumborak
-
Keep in mind also that being agnostic/atheist is still very much a minority view and goes against the mainstream view. It is only obvious that those people would describe themselves as something like freethinkers. Libertarians view themselves as freethinkers too.
rumborak
Minority view? I don't think you would say that if you were in China. Or even in post-christian Europe
-
Libertarians view themselves as freethinkers too.
rumborak
The Randian fan boys do, with all the emphasis on "rationality" and so forth. But most others don't
-
Keep in mind also that being agnostic/atheist is still very much a minority view and goes against the mainstream view. It is only obvious that those people would describe themselves as something like freethinkers. Libertarians view themselves as freethinkers too.
rumborak
Minority view? I don't think you would say that if you were in China. Or even in post-christian Europe
Well, we're not in China, nor in Europe (most of us at least). I don't think atheists/agnostics call themselves "freethinkers" in Europe, since it's just a much more common sentiment.
The Randian fan boys do, with all the emphasis on "rationality" and so forth. But most others don't
The moderate agnostics don't call themselves freethinkers either really.
rumborak
-
The moderate agnostics don't call themselves freethinkers either really.
rumborak
Oh, I know. My question was more about the militant assortment of skeptics; the ones who form clubs and proselytize.
-
I wouldn't call it "brilliant." Six-year-olds can come up with that stuff.
Gives to show. If a mock religion can be made up with a six year old, how old do you need to be to think up a 'real' religion? Eight?
:neverusethis:
Sorry, that was just too easy of a jab to let it slide.
-
Lol...
-
When I hear someone say freethinker, I think of people's view toward government, not so much religous views.
-
To label yourself a "freethinker" sounds like douche-baggery. Hipsterism. "I'm more independent of thought than you".
And I'm a libertarian... lol
-
Weeeellllll .... you guys are aware that the term "freethinker" is an old historical term for a movement in the 17th century, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought
rumborak
-
I bet you weren't either til you looked it up on wikipedia.
Great insight though.
Then libertarians who are religious shouldn't be using the term.
-
Weeeellllll .... you guys are aware that the term "freethinker" is an old historical term for a movement in the 17th century, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought
rumborak
"Free thought: Four centuries of misinformed snobbery."
-
I bet you weren't either til you looked it up on wikipedia.
I could see how it would make you feel better, but I *do* know some European history.
rumborak
-
I bet you weren't either til you looked it up on wikipedia.
I could see how it would make you feel better, but I *do* know some European history.
rumborak
Crap. :lol
-
Ah German native knowing something about European history? SHOCKING
-
Oh, I know. My question was more about the militant assortment of skeptics; the ones who form clubs and proselytize.
Militant :rollin
Oh noez!! teh atheist are forming clubs and coming out against religion. They must be starting gang wars with there clubs and social gatherings.
Militant :rollin
-
Oh, I know. My question was more about the militant assortment of skeptics; the ones who form clubs and proselytize.
Militant :rollin
Oh noez!! teh atheist are forming clubs and coming out against religion. They must be starting gang wars with there clubs and social gatherings.
Militant :rollin
Do I really have to convince peeps that Richard Dawkins (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So2k9QkDAdU) and co. are militant about their atheism?
-
Militant
combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favouring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods
Yeah, I think you do.
-
Do I really have to convince peeps that Richard Dawkins (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So2k9QkDAdU) and co. are militant about their atheism?
Really you are using a clip from expelled? I'll look past that you are using a clip from that idiot drivel "documentary". But you use a clip in which PZ and Richard are calmly stating that they would like to see religion take it's rightful place as something that is not held in high regard. Given the definition of militant I was expecting some at least hostile language. Yes you still have to convince us.
Oh here a little clip of funny information about PZ and Richard on the expelled premiere.
PZ Myers: Expelled from Expelled! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c39jYgsvUOY)
-
Militant
combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favouring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods
Yeah, I think you do.
Realistically, most people in America don't resort to violence to achieve political or social ends. My point is, "brights" are just as prone as anyone else to evangelize the world for their cause, often aggressively. Dawkins, for example, has come out in favor of preventing parents from teaching their kids about religion, and Meyers said in the clip I linked to that he wants religion to become the equivalent of a weekend knitting club.
Do I really have to convince peeps that Richard Dawkins (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So2k9QkDAdU) and co. are militant about their atheism?
Really you are using a clip from expelled? I'll look past that you are using a clip from that idiot drivel "documentary". But you use a clip in which PZ and Richard are calmly stating that they would like to see religion take it's rightful place as something that is not held in high regard. Given the definition of militant I was expecting some at least hostile language. Yes you still have to convince us.
The source of the interview has nothing to do with my point, which is that these guys are hostile towards religion. The skeptics aren't just disinterested in religion; they see it has a force for evil in the world and want to dismantle it. I'm fine with them feeling that way, but it's ridiculous for you and GuineaPig to pretend that this isn't the case.
-
But there's the other side of the coin, religious ppl thinking that non-theists are evil and want to kill them off.
-
The source of the interview has nothing to do with my point, which is that these guys are hostile towards religion. The skeptics aren't just disinterested in religion; they see it has a force for evil in the world and want to dismantle it. I'm fine with them feeling that way, but it's ridiculous for you and GuineaPig to pretend that this isn't the case.
GuineaPig and I are not pretending to think otherwise of their demeanor. We take issue with the use of word militant, you are using it incorrectly.
-
I think it's fairly common practice for minority movements to make extensive use of hyperbole. That's nothing new, it's a way of getting your point across and be heard above the background noise of the mainstream.
rumborak
-
The source of the interview has nothing to do with my point, which is that these guys are hostile towards religion. The skeptics aren't just disinterested in religion; they see it has a force for evil in the world and want to dismantle it. I'm fine with them feeling that way, but it's ridiculous for you and GuineaPig to pretend that this isn't the case.
GuineaPig and I are not pretending to think otherwise of their demeanor. We take issue with the use of word militant, you are using it incorrectly.
Alright. Nothing to argue over then.
-
I think it's fairly common practice for minority movements to make extensive use of hyperbole. That's nothing new, it's a way of getting your point across and be heard above the background noise of the mainstream.
rumborak
This is true but the minority are the ones having the hyperbole used against them.
Except your complete misuse of a word. If militant atheism/skepticism/humanism etc is going to be thrown around to misrepresent it's "figure heads" than I'll start using this new term I've created bat-shit crazy Christians, BSCC for short. This term will be used for any Christian that thinks the "saved" go to heaven and the "sinners" go to hell and are vocal about it in the slightest degree.
-
Alright. Nothing to argue over then.
Except your complete misuse of a word. If militant atheism/skepticism/humanism etc is going to be thrown around to misrepresent it's "figure heads" than I'll start using this new term I've created bat-shit crazy Christians, BSCC for short. This term will be used for any Christian that thinks the "saved" go to heaven and the "sinners" go to hell and are vocal about it in the slightest degree.
I'm not going to argue semantics. I used "militant" in a colloquial sense, and I think it's clear that I didn't mean atheists are physically violent. Get over it. Start using "BSCC" all you want. You didn't invent it and the preaching atheists I'm talking about have been saying similar things for years.
-
I'm not going to argue semantics. I used "militant" in a colloquial sense, and I think it's clear that I didn't mean atheists are physically violent. Get over it.
Regardless of whether it was clear or not. When it was pointed out that you had used it incorrectly; instead of saying "your right I used it incorrectly", you defend it by stating "Do I really have to convince peeps that Richard Dawkins and co. are militant about their atheism?". Had you done the former I would have let it go but you continue to defend a position that is patently wrong. I would argue the same if you were wrong about calling anyone else militant when they were clearly not.
Start using "BSCC" all you want. You didn't invent it and the preaching atheists I'm talking about have been saying similar things for years.
I'm not going too, that was an example.
-
Is this debate really that relevant to the topic at hand?
-
At some point... we'll be discussing nazis.
Oh noes.
:vomitard: