I see dumbfucks all around me who claim that jehoova's witnesses and mormons(or whatever they're called) are scum for forcing their religion on others and then those same dumbfucks attack some religious friends by telling em that they are stupid for beleiving in a god.

So they criticize spreading religion and then start spreading atheism.

Seems to me like those atheists are just as bad as some religious ppl who force their views upon others.

So stop being hypocritical ppl.

Discuss.

[This message has been edited by Orillian (edited 12-05-2006).]

First, let me state that religion bashing is not a religion.

quote:Originally posted by Orillian:

Seems to me like those atheists are just as bad as some religious ppl who force their views upon others.

I don't see spreading rational thought as a bad thing. If people believed it was okay to have faith in any old thought, isn't it okay to explain that faith- belief in something without evidence- is not a very smart or good thing? There are people in the Bush administration that think we don't need to worry about global warming because of their Christian beliefs that the end times are near. Faith is not only idiotic, it's dangerous. One wouldn't have faith in any old auto mechanic or baby sitter, and for good reason.

Telling people that one should have beliefs based on evidence doesn't even come close to being "just as bad" as religious folks who tell children that God sends their non-Christian friends to Hell, sexual thoughts are sins, the Earth is 6000 years old because the Bible says so and evolution is nonsense, etc.

I agree that some atheist take their beliefs to far, making them almost as bad as religious people who push their beliefs on people.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Telling people that one should have beliefs based on evidence doesn't even come close to being "just as bad" as religious folks who tell children that God sends their non-Christian friends to Hell, sexual thoughts are sins, the Earth is 6000 years old because the Bible says so and evolution is nonsense, etc.

This is not a religion but a way of life. You worship what? Nothing. No religion here might as well be an Atheist.

title aside, Orillian makes a good point. pushing one view on someone is as good/bad as pushing the next, its all a matter of you believing you're right and they're wrong, and pushing your own shitty ideas down their neck.

but aren't ideas are all about sharing anyway? i only get pissed off with people spreading religion when i don't know them or don't want to listen to them- and canvassers are intrusive no matter what they're selling

quote:Originally posted by bitplane:

pushing one view on someone is as good/bad as pushing the next

No. All beliefs are not equal. Some are good, some are bad, and some are downright dangerous.

quote:Originally posted by bitplane:

its all a matter of you believing you're right and they're wrong, and pushing your own shitty ideas down their neck.

I can list shitty religious ideas all day. What's shitty about the idea of suspending belief in supernatural beings, until evidence is provided for their existence, especially when many of these beings support killing infidels, etc.?

the human mind's purpose isn't to understand the universe, which is why we can't easily imagine higher dimensions, or describe string theory in layman's terms.

the one thing the human mind is good at is sharing stories made of words, that's all we have. our whole advanced civilization is built on stories, a bunch of babbling ape noises passed from one person to another.

the majority of society are just a bunch of slaves anyway, contributing fuck all towards science and the advancement of the species, so who cares what stories they believe? what's important is the ability to get along with other humans, being tolerant of other people's stories is one way to achieve this. of course we shouldn't be tolerant of fundamentalists who stand in the way of science and progress, but the majority of religious people in the civilized world don't believe in adam and eve or that the earth is 6000 years old

so long as nobody is killing one another over it, how different is a belief in some fictional creator from believing that electrons are particles, that gravity obeys newton's laws, or that group selection takes place in evolution? they're just outdated stories, and if people don't want to believe the new ones they don't have to.

my point is, pushing a story down someone's throat is the same thing no matter how it's justified by religious, political or ethical arguments. an outsider looking in on the human race may make a statement like "they like to fight over stories". it doesn't matter what those stories are about.

The difference is our "story" is right. We can prove it too.

Which is more then anyone else can say. You'll never hear a scientist saying how you need faith to understand science.

quote:Originally posted by FunkyZombie:

The difference is our "story" is right. We can prove it too.

Which is more then anyone else can say. You'll never hear a scientist saying how you need faith to understand science.

Science is only as accurate as the scientist say it is.

There are constantly things that we've taken for fact being proved false.

Personally, I put much more faith into science then I do religion, however, we must understand that science is not infallible.

@FunkyZombie

speak for yourself.

I personally don't understand quantum mechanics, string theory, plate techtonics or a shitload of other current scientific theories. i have faith in science, and i have an abstracted story, a simplified version that will fit into my small undereducated brain. these stories aren't the actual truth- they're just a dumb stories, a babbling of words in some ape language.

i'm guessing here, that like myself and like the religious barbarians, you're just one of the slaves who makes fuck all difference to the progress of humanity. if you spent your whole life learning to understand the latest scientific theories, then you'd be out there changing the world and not sat here posting on totse.

the majority of us science fans dont have a clue about the theories we babble on about anyway, so they're just stories we have faith in.



[This message has been edited by bitplane (edited 12-06-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by AnAsTaSiO:

Science is only as accurate as the scientist say it is.

There are constantly things that we've taken for fact being proved false.

Personally, I put much more faith into science then I do religion, however, we must understand that science is not infallible.



No science isn't infallible but it is the closest we've ever come to infallibilty as a species. Plus thats the key thing about science. It's always improving, evolving, building upon itself and making itself better to fit our increased understanding of the world around us. Which is a hell of a lot nore then you can say about any typical religion.

Science may not be infallible but the scientific method is.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

No. All beliefs are not equal. Some are good, some are bad

I'd love to see some justification for this statement.

quote:Originally posted by rent-a-revolution:

I'd love to see some justification for this statement.

Well one could argue that the belief that fire is a delicious nutritous snack is an example of a bad belief.

While the belief that fire is not a delicious nutritious snack and that consuming it is in fact hazardous for your health is an example of a good belief.

quote:Originally posted by bitplane:

@FunkyZombie

speak for yourself.

I personally don't understand quantum mechanics, string theory, plate techtonics or a shitload of other current scientific theories. i have faith in science, and i have an abstracted story, a simplified version that will fit into my small undereducated brain. these stories aren't the actual truth- they're just a dumb stories, a babbling of words in some ape language.

i'm guessing here, that like myself and like the religious barbarians, you're just one of the slaves who makes fuck all difference to the progress of humanity. if you spent your whole life learning to understand the latest scientific theories, then you'd be out there changing the world and not sat here posting on totse.

the majority of us science fans dont have a clue about the theories we babble on about anyway, so they're just stories we have faith in.



None of which changes the fact that science can exist without faith while traditional religion on the other hand cannot.

Name one non-faith based traditional religion and I'll concede my point.

quote:Originally posted by FunkyZombie:

Well one could argue that the belief that fire is a delicious nutritous snack is an example of a bad belief.

While the belief that fire is not a delicious nutritious snack and that consuming it is in fact hazardous for your health is an example of a good belief.



What about my mate Jack who has a real hankering for fire and doesn't value his health?

For him your statements would be reversed, with what is good for you being bad for him and vice versa.

What objective standard can you point to and say 'Take that Jack, this proves my beliefs are objectively better than yours!'

There is no such standard.

quote:Originally posted by FunkyZombie:

None of which changes the fact that science can exist without faith while traditional religion on the other hand cannot.

Science is based on the faith that things other than my own mind exist.

quote:Originally posted by rent-a-revolution:

What about my mate Jack who has a real hankering for fire and doesn't value his health?

For him your statements would be reversed, with what is good for you being bad for him and vice versa.

What objective standard can you point to and say 'Take that Jack, this proves my beliefs are objectively better than yours!'

There is no such standard.

Yeah there is.

Jack just died because he drank flaming gasoline. I didn't. He's no longer here to argue the point. I am. I just won the argument.

Take that Jack, this proves my beliefs are objectively better than yours.

Besides Jacks personal preferences are irrelevant to the argument. The fact that he has a hankering for fire and doesn't care about his health doesn't change the fact that

A). Fire is an exothermic reaction.

B). Exothermic reactions have no nutritional value so fire can't be nutritious.

C). Exothermic reactions have no taste so fire can't be delicious.

quote:Originally posted by rent-a-revolution:

Science is based on the faith that things other than my own mind exist.



Are you stoned?

Thats the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. We have institutions for people who believe in nonsense like that.

If we're all in your mind why don't you control the world? Shouldn't you be able to dictate the flow of time, the laws of physics, change them at your slightest whim? According to you they're all just thoughts in your head. You can control your own thoughts right? So why aren't you off playing god?

quote:Yeah there is.

Jack just died because he drank flaming gasoline. I didn't. He's no longer here to argue the point. I am. I just won the argument.

Take that Jack, this proves my beliefs are objectively better than yours.



You are making the assumption that death is bad and you have yet to show that this is anything more than personal preference.

quote:Besides Jacks personal preferences are irrelevant to the argument.

Actually they are quite relevant as my whole point is that one's definition of a 'good belief' is wholly dependent on personal preference.

quote:The fact that he has a hankering for fire and doesn't care about his health doesn't change the fact that

A). Fire is an exothermic reaction.

B). Exothermic reactions have no nutritional value so fire can't be nutritious.

C). Exothermic reactions have no taste so fire can't be delicious.

Now you're making the assumption that disagreement with reality is bad. Please show that this is more than personal preference.

quote:

Thats the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Actually it's a serious philosophical position that has been discussed for literally thousands of years.

quote:If we're all in your mind why don't you control the world? Shouldn't you be able to dictate the flow of time, the laws of physics, change them at your slightest whim? According to you they're all just thoughts in your head. You can control your own thoughts right? So why aren't you off playing god?

As you stated yourself, this works on the assumption that I can control my thoughts, but you are basing this assumption on your personal experience, which cannot be proved to be accurate.

The truth is that none of our senses or memories can be proved to be accurate, yet science is based on a faith that they are.

quote:Originally posted by rent-a-revolution:

You are making the assumption that death is bad and you have yet to show that this is anything more than personal preference.

For the sake of winning an unresolved argument death is indeed a bad. You can't win an argument if you're dead you can only serve as statistic to prove someone else's. That's not an assumuption that's a fact.

quote:Originally posted by rent-a-revolution:

Actually they are quite relevant as my whole point is that one's definition of a 'good belief' is wholly dependent on personal preference.



I disagree. One's personal prefererences are shaped and determined by the surrounding world. So despite the fact that you percieve personal preference to be a matter of personal preference it's not.

quote:Originally posted by rent-a-revolution:

Now you're making the assumption that disagreement with reality is bad. Please show that this is more than personal preference.



Disagreement with reality is not a bad thing. There's nothing wrong with questioning ones' perceptions.

Questioning reality becomes a bad thing though when one refuses to accept the answers one gets out of some misplaced narcisistic belief that one's own perceptions and beliefs are the only ones that matter.



quote:Originally posted by rent-a-revolution:

Actually it's a serious philosophical position that has been discussed for literally thousands of years

The only people seriously dicussing this "philosophy" are bombed out of their mind stoners.

quote:Originally posted by rent-a-revolution:

As you stated yourself, this works on the assumption that I can control my thoughts, but you are basing this assumption on your personal experience, which cannot be proved to be accurate.

The truth is that none of our senses or memories can be proved to be accurate, yet science is based on a faith that they are.

If it is true that there is no universal truth then how can the non-existence of universal truth be true?



Nihilism is a philisophical dead end friend.

quote:For the sake of winning an unresolved argument death is indeed a bad. You can't win an argument if you're dead you can only serve as statistic to prove someone else's. That's not an assumuption that's a fact.

While I do believe that throughout history dead people have won many arguments, let us assume for the moment that it is impossible to win an argument when one is dead. This unfortunately, solves nothing, as you are simply shifting the assumption from death is bad to losing an argument is bad.

My friend Sarah doesn't particularly care about winning arguments, in fact, she rather enjoys losing them. Therefore, to her a belief that is bound to lose in an argument is a good belief, because she prefers to lose. But to you that is a bad belief, as you prefer beliefs that can stand up to others in argument.

So here we have a belief that is considered bad and good at the same time, depending on who is perceiving said belief.

Your arguments that your beliefs are objectively better have so far consisted of making an assumption about 'bad' and pointing to that and saying it is objective, therefore any belief that goes against this is bad.

What you need to do to win this argument is to justify this assumption.

quote:I disagree. One's personal prefererences are shaped and determined by the surrounding world. So despite the fact that you percieve personal preference to be a matter of personal preference it's not.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif). You just gave the definition of personal preferences and then said that since they follow this definition they are not really personal preferences.

I could easily rephrase my original statement to:

Actually they are quite relevant as my whole point is that one's definition of a 'good belief' is wholly dependent on the surrounding world and one's genetic make-up.

And it keeps the exact same meaning.

quote:Questioning reality becomes a bad thing though when one refuses to accept the answers one gets out of some misplaced narcisistic belief that one's own perceptions and beliefs are the only ones that matter.

Now you've done it again. In this case you have assumed that the consequences from such thought are 'bad'. I don't know exactly what consequences you mean but I am guessing you are referring to loss of health and/or insanity. If so, you need to prove that these are bad.

quote:The only people seriously dicussing this "philosophy" are bombed out of their mind stoners.

Au contraire. A two minute search brought the names of the following philosophers:

Gorgias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgias)

Zhuangzi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhuangzi)

Descartes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes)

Berkeley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley)

Putnam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Putnam)

As well as the following well discussed concepts:

Solipsism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism)

Brain in a vat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat)

Idealism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism)

This is just a tiny drop in the waterfall of the huge number of philosophers and discussions that have seriously focused on the ideas I am presenting.

quote:If it is true that there is no universal truth then how can the non-existence of universal truth be true?

When did I say there is no universal truth? I said there is no provable objective standard for defining good and bad, but this is not the same thing.

In fact, what I have stated here is a version of the only universal truth that can be objectively proved, the famous cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am.

Regardless, this is not a refutation of the argument that science is based on faith.

quote:

Nihilism is a philisophical dead end friend.

I am not a nihilist.



[This message has been edited by rent-a-revolution (edited 12-07-2006).]

This going nowhere fast.

You claim not to be nihilist so tell me what is it you believe.

Firstly, I believe that whether a belief is good or bad is wholly dependent on who is doing the labelling. Meaning it is almost pointless to call a belief bad in an argument, as this is nothing more than an expression of personal preference.

Secondly, I believe that the idea that there exists anything other than my mind cannot be refuted. The only way I or anyone else can dismiss it then, is through faith. Hence, since science relies on the human senses and memory without proof of their accuracy, it is based on faith.



[This message has been edited by rent-a-revolution (edited 12-07-2006).]

Atheists (obviousyly not all, but the intellectual ones) force critical thought onto others, not any belief in particular. Bashing religion is a moral imperative. Much like forcing parents to take there child to a doctor instead of the magical crystal guru. To let the irrational beliefs of religion go unchallenged would be immoral.

[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 12-07-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by FunkyZombie:

The difference is our "story" is right. We can prove it too.

Which is more then anyone else can say. You'll never hear a scientist saying how you need faith to understand science.

Ok then if you can prove your "story" is right, then go ahead and prove to me that god doesn't exist!

You can't, huh?

Or maybe explain to me how we think? Thinking itself, forming pictures and words and so in our minds, seems like a divine gift to me.

Don't you ever get the feeling that this world is functioning too perfectly to be just 'an accident' or a strange set of circumstances?

Just because you can prove how things work, label it as science and think you understand the whole world by natural laws, it doesn't mean that god doesn't exist.

Imagine that evolution went wrong and we were all IE deaf. Just because we would be deaf it doesn't mean that there wouldn't be any sounds. So why is it so hard to beleive that there are other things that humans can't perceive with their 5 primary senses?

Edited for spelling

[This message has been edited by Orillian (edited 12-07-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

Atheists (obviousyly not all, but the intellectual ones) force critical thought onto others, not any belief in particular. Bashing religion is a moral imperative. Much like forcing parents to take there child to a doctor instead of the magical crystal guru. To let the irrational beliefs of religion go unchallenged would be immoral.



Not taking your children to the hospital is immoral cause it's bad for their health, but religion isn't. Therefore i don't see how it's immoral to let anyone beleive in a god if it's not causeing them any pain and suffering.

http://www.apostatesofislam.com

http://www.faithfreedom.org

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/forum/index.php

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/index.php

http://www.faithfreedom.org/holiday/phpBB2/index.php

http://www.activistchat.com/phpBB2/index.php

http://www.activistchat.com/

http://www.masada2000.org/islam.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2829059.stm

http://www.islam-watch.org/

http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/

http://www.atcoalition.net/

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/pages/6-Mein%20Kampf_jpg_jpg_jpg.htm

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/moslem.htm

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

http://atheism.about.com/cs/islamandviolence/

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/08/17/martyr.culture/index.html

http://muslim-quotes.netfirms.com/jihad.html

http://www.domini.org/openbook/home.htm

http://www.persecution.org

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9583

http://www.danielpipes.org/

http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/kafirdomunity/action.htm

http://www.geocities.com/khola_mon/BTaliban/Bangla_Taliban_Photos.html

http://www.bwoi.cjb.net

http://www.chechentruth.cjb.net/

http://www.anti-cair-net.org/

http://www.arabsforisrael.com/pages/1/index.htm

http://www.rotter.net/israel/

http://www.geocities.com/khola_mon/Islam.html

http://www.geocities.com/milkmandan2003/TalibanOnline1.html

http://www.truthtree.com/Debating/posts/755.html

http://www.isralert.com/archives/2005/03/deceit_thy_name.php

http://www.factsandlogic.org

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d191/zakirnaik/zakicaptured.gif

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/

http://www.venusproject.com/prophet_of_doom/toc.html

http://www.venusproject.com/prophet_of_doom/quotes1.html#terrorism

http://www.pmw.org.il/

According to these links the Quran has been changed over time.

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-myths-koran-manuscripts.htm

http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter8/3.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/

http://www.jodkowski.pl/re/MBright.html

http://cremesti.com/amalid/Islam/Yemeni_Ancient_Koranic_Texts.htm

---------

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5197

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5237

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5258



"Modern Liberals, With Some Exceptions, Are Fascists. They Preach Peace At The Expense Of Liberty, Diversity At The Expense Of Common Sense, Equality At The Expense Of Fairness And Choice At The Expense Of Life. They Are The First To Speak About Rights, Yet They Seek To Deny You Yours If You Disagree With Them. They Vociferate The Importance Of Free Speech, Yet Do Everything In Their Power To Stifle Yours. They Demonize The Very System Which Allows Them The Freedom To Criticize In The First Place, And They Are The Last People In Line When It Comes To Defending The One Country On Earth That Would Ever Tolerate Their Hypocrisy. They Are Divisive, Immoral And Utterly Incapable Of Understanding Why Everything I Just Wrote Is The Truth." - Edward L. Daley

"Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole." - Thomas Sowell

“Some of the most vocal critics of the way things are being done are people who have done nothing themselves, and whose only contributions to society are their complaints and moral exhibitionism.” – Thomas Sowell

“A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.” – G. Gordon Liddy

------------------

quote:Originally posted by rent-a-revolution:

Firstly, I believe that whether a belief is good or bad is wholly dependent on who is doing the labelling. Meaning it is almost pointless to call a belief bad in an argument, as this is nothing more than an expression of personal preference.

Secondly, I believe that the idea that there exists anything other than my mind cannot be refuted. The only way I or anyone else can dismiss it then, is through faith. Hence, since science relies on the human senses and memory without proof of their accuracy, it is based on faith.



What made you decide that the world exists entirely in your mind?

when the natural growth of child SHOULD include rational thought, wich is being able to way teh facts, and look at things in each direction.

Wich happens (to kids/young adults who havent been forced into religion since they were born) naturaly and without any influence.

It should be everybodys job to help teach the people rational thought that havent had the chance to develop it on there own. Only a small percentage manage to grow out of there forced religion and develop rational thought on there owns

quote:Originally posted by FunkyZombie:

What made you decide that the world exists entirely in your mind?

I don't think that. But it is the most logical and rational explanation.

Occam's razor states that the theory that makes the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities tends to be the right one. Solipsism (the idea that everything is one's imagination) requires absolutely no assumptions or hypothetical entities.

In the same way that atheists are skeptical of God unless he can be proven, the solipsist views the accuracy of his senses skeptically until they can be proven. In fact, solipsism is the only system that takes skepticism to its logical conclusions. It questions everything.

Even saying that solipsism is a belief is similar to calling atheism a religion - in the same way that atheism is simply a lack of religion, solipsism is a lack of belief.

So solipsism, as backed up by Occam's razor, skepticism and lack of faith, is the most rational and logical idea in metaphysics. How then, do we ignore it and choose to make assumptions? Faith. Every single non-solipsist has faith that it is wrong. I have faith that it is wrong.

There are four choices that we have as humans when we decide what we believe. The first three are internally consistent, the fourth is not.

1. You can believe everything.

2. You can believe nothing.

3. You can believe only that which is proved (solipsism)

4. You draw an arbitrary line that limits the things you are skeptical about.

Just about every human in history has chosen number four. And then the atheist mocks the christian for drawing his line a little further down the spectrum then his own.

So when I see a non-solipsist atheist advocating more logic or denouncing a christian for his faith, I chuckle to myself.

[This message has been edited by rent-a-revolution (edited 12-08-2006).]