Author Topic: RELIGION  (Read 32483 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LBSS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11936
  • plugging away...
  • Respect: +6876
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: RELIGION
« Reply #105 on: July 20, 2016, 12:54:48 pm »
0


The "why" question is simple - because they are ignorant on the true reasons why natural phenomena happen. That's why. Because in order to explain stuff they didn't understand, they invoked "it's because God said so" and that solved everything. Then they could continue to dwell in their ignorance. How can anybody appreciate that? Why would you appreciate that.



You are wrong about this, but by all means keep believing that your rigid dogma is superior to anyone else's rigid dogma.
Muscles are nonsensical they have nothing to do with this bullshit.

- Avishek

sunday: run 14+ km
monday: lift
tuesday: run 10-12 km
wednesday: run 10-12 km
thursday: run 10-12 km
friday: rest
saturday: run tempo/VO2 max/speed x 6-8 km

black lives matter

Raptor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14464
  • Respect: +2394
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - raptorescu
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: RELIGION
« Reply #106 on: July 20, 2016, 02:12:51 pm »
0
You can't say "you are wrong about this" and leave it like that. When you say that, and at the same time not participate in any way saying WHY I am wrong about this, it just means you have no backing for what you're saying and instead, you pretend "you don't need to bother explaining because I wouldn't get it anyway". Now THAT is arrogant and superior.

LBSS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11936
  • plugging away...
  • Respect: +6876
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: RELIGION
« Reply #107 on: July 20, 2016, 02:28:03 pm »
0
You can't say "you are wrong about this" and leave it like that. When you say that, and at the same time not participate in any way saying WHY I am wrong about this, it just means you have no backing for what you're saying and instead, you pretend "you don't need to bother explaining because I wouldn't get it anyway". Now THAT is arrogant and superior.

Lots of people believe in god because, among other reasons, they want a pat explanation for natural phenomena that they can't explain. But I don't think that that's the most important reason for most people. Belief gives structure to people's moral views, to their social lives, to their relationships to people they love and care about, to their understanding of their place in the universe. Belief comforts people who are suffering and animates people to do incredible things.

Why are you tossing all that aside?
Muscles are nonsensical they have nothing to do with this bullshit.

- Avishek

sunday: run 14+ km
monday: lift
tuesday: run 10-12 km
wednesday: run 10-12 km
thursday: run 10-12 km
friday: rest
saturday: run tempo/VO2 max/speed x 6-8 km

black lives matter

Raptor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14464
  • Respect: +2394
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - raptorescu
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: RELIGION
« Reply #108 on: July 20, 2016, 02:50:01 pm »
0
Because that sounds good, but proves not to be all that good. In fact, the strongest "believers" cover up the shit they do behind the scenes yelling how "religious" they are. Same with the Republican party and their "family values".

Because behind these "beliefs", people come in, like Today did, and arrogantly point toward atheist saying "hey, look at that guy, he had 3 marriages, that's because he's an atheist, if he had my superior religious moral beliefs, he would be happily married from the get-go".

Because moral views can be derived from rational thinking, science, common sense and good-will and respect for other people. Scientific facts should be used to promote morality. If we conclude a fetus is not a living human, or that it doesn't feel pain or anything whatsoever up until week 12 (imaginary number), then we should use that science-backed fact in order to decide the morality of abortions. Same with age of consent and on and on we go. Science can back up the moral decisions we make in terms of legislature.

Instead, religious people try to push their "religious holy book"-driven agenda that means essentially nothing. It means a book written by someone says so and so. Has no relevance on actual real facts whatsoever, it just represents someone's PURELY subjective opinion, based on no facts.

Belief also creates the false hope of an afterlife, diminishing the importance of this life. In a real case, a little girl killed herself because her dad was killed (I don't remember exactly how) but she wanted to go to Heaven to meet him (literally, she truly believed that) so she killed herself.

Belief is also used by scammers to "cure cancer" by taking all the money of "true believers". Just watch the John Oliver show on televangelists.

So all in all, belief diminishes the only life we have, this one.

They should have good relationships with the people they love and care about BECAUSE it's the moral thing to do, and because they love them, not because there's an almighty God up there and you will suffer if you mistreat these people. If you need a scary God figure in the sky to love people, then you're immoral to begin with, and you don't love them anyway. So it diminishes true, authentic love.

Understanding the place in the Universe? Why do you need God for that. YOU give your own meaning to your life. You don't need "God" for that. You don't need an imaginary figure for that. Sure, maybe it's reconforting thinking you won't die and completely dissappear forever, but so is believing in Santa Claus and the Toothfairy.

Should you be allowed to believe in God? Absolutely. There's not my place to deny you that right in any way. That's your personal thing. But from there to saying that I should be passionate about talking to religious "scholars", it sounds to me like you're trying to force me to do something I'm not interested in, and if I'm not, you're taking offense to that and saying "how can you not be?! you're bad!".

See how these things turn around?

So no, you don't need "God" for that. Obviously this is my opinion, but I would say it's a pretty logical one.

T0ddday

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
  • Respect: +1114
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: RELIGION
« Reply #109 on: July 20, 2016, 03:25:21 pm »
0
You can't say "you are wrong about this" and leave it like that. When you say that, and at the same time not participate in any way saying WHY I am wrong about this, it just means you have no backing for what you're saying and instead, you pretend "you don't need to bother explaining because I wouldn't get it anyway". Now THAT is arrogant and superior.

It's not arrogant and superior.  It's the best he can do for you because as you have stated you think studying religion is nonsense.  So, when you make a completely unfounded claim that is wrong... what more can we do but say you are wrong?  It's a fascinating question why people believe in god.  You make a very strong statement as if you know why people believe in god.  BUT... You don't believe in god.  You also don't believe in studying religion or why people believe in god.  So by what authority do you have to make such a claim?  It's certainly not true on a personal level (because you don't believe in god) and it's certainly not true on an academic level (because you think studying why people believe in god is silly). 

The only place it's true is on a personal level as far is it relates to why you don't practice religion.  You don't practice religion because you think it's just a childish explanation for natural phenomena.  That is true.  But really how often are people who don't study the topic correct about someone elses motivation for why they believe in something?   

I mean why do people want welfare or a social safety net?  There are two people you might ask.  You might get an answer on a personal level from someone on welfare who needs and wants the social safety net in place.  You might get an answer from a political scientist who studies welfare systems of govt.  But you aren't gonna get a reliable answer from someone who has neither experienced welfare or studied the topic and doesn't support it.  You will get some insulting answer along the lines of "It's because they want a handout and have been made dependent on the government teet".   

You are a very contradictory dude because you say things like this:

I am not interested in "studying" such a topic, of a religious background. I'm not interested in what people believe is the source of a lightning, either the hammer of Thor or Zeus throwing down lightning towards Earth, or God being angry about sodomites, or anything else whatsoever.

What I'm interested is what is true and how that can be explained, rationally, and based on facts. So you would have to apologize my complete lack of interest in discussing nonsense. Why would I care about religious beliefs, behaviors and institutions? Why should that matter for anybody?
Quote

I don't see why you would bother to "study" human ignorance, unless you're a masochist.

I don't have a problem with these statements.  You could have worded them a little more respectfully but besides that I can respect and actually understand your position....

BUT.... You can't hold this position and make claims about religion and how it's the cause of so much evil and then retreat back to claiming that the study of such things is silly. 

A lot of people think things I am interested in are silly or a waste of time.  For example my own mother.  Often times we have conversations like this where I obviously disagree with her position but totally respect it and probably would have an easier time defending it:


ME:     Hey mom I have to go jump around in my weighted vest because I really want to learn to plant Right-Left so I do a proper looking windmill dunk.
MOM: Why, do you waste so much time with this jumping nonsense?  You are highly educated.  Your past your prime. Grow up.  Humans wasting time trying to jump as high as possible is silly - we have airplanes and can go to the moon, do something useful!  Humans can build machines to jump as high as they want! 
ME:    Yeah good point.  But it's fun so I am going to do it.  By the way do you want to know about this cool study that just came out about squatting and improving your vertical?
MOM:  NO! I don't care.  I don't see why that's even funded research.  Why is anyone wasting time and money doing scientific research about jumping high and dunking a basketball...  This is a sign of the apocalypse.


I don't hold it against this very hyperbolic fictionalized version of my mom for having these views.  I can totally respect them and I understand her point.  I find value in both the practice of jumping and the study of jumping but I realize I may be in the minority and that's fine.  However... If the conversation ever went like this:

ME:      I'm finna go practice dunks.
MOM:  Oh yeah, you know what you should do to jump higher.  Leg Press.  Don't squat cause when you jump you don't have a weight on your back.  Plus you can use way more weight on the legpress so obviously and logically it's better to make your legs strong to jump high.
ME:   Actually mom, your wrong.  There is a lot of people who study this and if you read their research they have came to a consensus that squatting is superior to leg press for training your vertical jump.
MOM:   People actually study this?  I refuse to waste my time engaging with people who study such nonsense. Why is anyone wasting time and money doing scientific research about jumping high and dunking a basketball...  This is a sign of the apocalypse


See the difference?  The second version is inconsistent.  She makes statements that are logical (leg press allows more weight) just like you do about religion (religious justification for murder makes it easier and increases it's occurrence significantly OR people believe in god because it gives them an lazy explanation for phenomena that they can't explain scientifically)...  But when I remind her that this is an actual field of study and tons of time and hours of research has been poured into this and refutes the concepts that she states as obvious facts - she retreats to reminding me how silly it is to study such things.

This is why its difficult debating with you.  You have an inconsistent viewpoint.  The moment you care enough to make serious statements about religion you become a religious scholar and can no longer claim that the study of such topics is silly.  This is why what you are doing is (dare I say) RELIGIOUS...  You make statements about religion.  You believe them.  The are logical just like a lot of religious 'facts' (there must be god cause otherwise who made the universe).  But... when called out about your statements by people who have spent time scientifically studying the issue you retreat to an anti-intellectual attack on the study of the topic... You don't have to like studying the topic...  But if you don't you can't cling to your beliefs about them unless you rely on faith...


LBSS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11936
  • plugging away...
  • Respect: +6876
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: RELIGION
« Reply #110 on: July 20, 2016, 03:35:24 pm »
0
raptor all you're doing is putting up straw men.
Muscles are nonsensical they have nothing to do with this bullshit.

- Avishek

sunday: run 14+ km
monday: lift
tuesday: run 10-12 km
wednesday: run 10-12 km
thursday: run 10-12 km
friday: rest
saturday: run tempo/VO2 max/speed x 6-8 km

black lives matter

T0ddday

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
  • Respect: +1114
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: RELIGION
« Reply #111 on: July 20, 2016, 03:52:53 pm »
0
*********
This debate has really gone off the rails...  I just have one more question...

 Do you know any religious people or any physicists?

Because your statement about religion existing so people can have explanations for what they can't explain with science is really pretty backwards... It's really quite the opposite.  I know lots of religious non-scientists.  They can't explain hardly anything with science.  They can't explain how their car works or how their computer turns on... But they don't say god did it.  They say science did it.  They have total faith in science as an explanation for physical phenomena.   That's sorta how modern religious non-scientists are.  Your model may have been true thousands of years ago when scientists couldn't explain any phenomena - but at this point science has explained and created so much that laypeople take it by faith that what they can't explain probably has been or will be explained by science...

In fact besides the "scientific" question of what caused the universe to exist I don't see most religious people using god as an explanation for scientific uncertainty...  Most religious people arrive at their beliefs not because they need an explanation for natural phenomena but because they "feel" god's existence - it's an emotional and spiritual journey that makes their life better...   

I mean tell me - have you ever heard a religious person say "OMG I am so thankful I found god because now I don't have to worry about sleepless nights thinking about Godels incompleteness theorem or Fermi's paradox or quantum entanglement because now I have an answer to them all - god!"

That doesn't happen precisely because religious laypeople have faith in science!

On the other hand it's physicists who struggle with this.  I know a lot of troubled physicists who do what is far more similar to what you describe.  One of my favorite professors in college was my quantum mechanics professor.  He was absolutely brilliant.  He was fascinated by Loschmidt's paradox and he was actually one of the first people in the 70s and 80s who built detectors for quantum entanglement. 

 I remember when he was explaining to me how as a young scientist he was so troubled by the EPR paradox and how it just didn't make sense for him and his worldview - how it just destroyed everything and it just made him feel like nothing was true.  He basically explained to me how after awhile he began to see this beauty in what appears as a violation of everything and evidence that our universe is just so much crazier than we think it is...  He even stated that it gave him a reverence for our universe or for "god" in some sense.  I'm not saying he started going to church or a mosque or believed in a personal god by any means... but just that his scientific work in explaining the natural world increased his reverence for it such that it made something like "god" necessary and comforting...

Basically, what's happened is the tables have been turned.  One thousand years ago that natural world was completely fucking puzzling to lay people so they needed god to explain it.  It was a little less puzzling to scientists so they needed religion a little less and butted up against the dogma...

Today it's the opposite.  Science has explained so much so well that educated non-physical scientists have consistently gotten scientific explanations for natural phenomena to such a degree that they now assume any phenomena they don't understand can also be concisely and clearly explained by science.  This faith in science means they don't need god as an explanation for the natural world (they still may believe in religion for a myriad of other reasons - emotional, spiritual, cultural - but not as a substitute for scientific explanation). 

Now it's the physicists who are more puzzled by the natural world. They are the ones who are constantly being shocked and having what made sense no longer possible - their model of the world is under attack by scientific experiment.   That the universe is so puzzling to them gives them a sense or reverence for the natural world - what you could describe as a belief in god...  It's why I became a physics major and now a scientist - because the feeling truly studying the unexplainable and exploring our universe for understanding is akin to the feeling you get in church - I feel like science is gods work!

*As an aside - I realize Richard Dawkins is a scientist.  But he isn't a physical scientist which illustrates my point perfectly.  It's why biologists (not medical doctors) often are hostile in their rejection of god - because science has answered their greatest question about where man came from.  Biologists consider the fact the evolution is somewhat of a solved question reason enough not to believe in god and are hostile to people who reject evolution.  Physicists on the other hand study far harder topics.  The study the universe itself.   And don't get me wrong - I'm not just saying that it's because their is more that science can't explain "yet" that causes them to be less hostile to religion.  Physicists realize that while it's truly amazing that our brains that evolved to throw bananas at each other as apes can now study the solar system there is no guarantee that we are capable of ever comprehending our universe.  This is what my professor explained to me.  That if the universe is simply not comprehend-able by our tiny brains then it starts to seem that the universe is superior to us - that the universe is god...  This is why I saw Richard Dawkins and Neil Degrasse Tyson speak at a conference when I was in college and RD was an ass and incredibly hostile and NGT was humble and nuanced.  Neither is a religious man by any means - but RD basically called those who are not athiests backwards and stupid while NGT rejected the atheist label - is a label for non-belief is a bit silly and had a respect for religion and his own sort of spiritual peace that he would die and become part of the universe again (not exactly exciting for me but he seemed to think it was awesome that the particles that he was made of were made in a star and would one day be part of a plant)...   To very different outlooks and maybe a coincidence but the one who isn't hostile to religion is far smarter than Richard Dawkins and far smarter than all of us...






T0ddday

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
  • Respect: +1114
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: RELIGION
« Reply #112 on: July 20, 2016, 04:00:15 pm »
0
Because behind these "beliefs", people come in, like Today did, and arrogantly point toward atheist saying "hey, look at that guy, he had 3 marriages, that's because he's an atheist, if he had my superior religious moral beliefs, he would be happily married from the get-go".

Really bro?  You really think that that is what I implied by my statement?  In the same statement pretty clear that the reason he had to get married three times is because he has an insufferable personality.  I've also been open on the forum about how I look up to Lebron as a role model for marrying his highschool sweetheart despite fame because I've struggled with infidelity and temptation despite the fact that the little professional and athletic success provides me with far less temptation in the form of beautiful women than what LBJ has to deal with...

Really though... Bravo.  You read my statement and then you took quite a leap of faith...    

Good luck in your journey!

Raptor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14464
  • Respect: +2394
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - raptorescu
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: RELIGION
« Reply #113 on: July 20, 2016, 04:06:06 pm »
0
Well, that's what it looked like - by the way, how do you know he has an "insufferable personality"? Have you dated him? Are you a woman and tried to "be" with him? I don't think so. So how do you know what kind of "personal personality" he has? No way of knowing, you're just projecting something over him just because you dislike him. And because you dislike him, you project your "dislikement" over his personal love-life like that's a fact, because you happen to dislike him.

Tell me, is that fair?

How do you know he was married three times BECAUSE he has an insufferable personality? How do you know the reasons behind that? You don't. You're just projecting what you think of him onto his personal life. That's not cool. That's what religious people always do. And then they pretend they didn't mean it, that they meant something else, and so on and so forth. Why not just admit it directly?

See, this is what bothers me about religious people.

PS. By the way, what does Richard Dawkins personality, whatever that is ("good" or "bad") have to do with all this? Why ever bring that up unless for making this statement. In reality, you really really wanted to say something bad about him, and you couldn't help yourself from doing it. If he liked to drive fast or drink, you would've said "that fucking maniac the speeds on the highway" or "he drinks a lot, with his terrible personality". Whatever small thing you could've found, you would've said it.

Now you can come in and say "you say the same things about religious people, that they say about how moral they are and then you turn around and pick on their personal lives". It's a different thing - Dawkins doesn't come in and say how "moral" he is. He is simply saying that he is interested in what's true in the world/Universe we live in, and that's pretty much it. He doesn't come in and say "if you don't believe in my God, you will burn in Hell for eternity!" (interesting how finite sins give you infinite pain, isn't it? How benevolent this God is!)
« Last Edit: July 20, 2016, 04:11:09 pm by Raptor »

John Stamos

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3445
  • Respect: +1399
    • View Profile
Re: RELIGION
« Reply #114 on: July 20, 2016, 05:41:21 pm »
+1
Every Monday
50 JR
10-1
BURPEES
WALLBALL X 20LB
JJ

PR: 19:51 --> 17:41

T0ddday

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
  • Respect: +1114
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: RELIGION
« Reply #115 on: July 20, 2016, 06:07:17 pm »
+1
Well, that's what it looked like - by the way, how do you know he has an "insufferable personality"? Have you dated him? Are you a woman and tried to "be" with him? I don't think so. So how do you know what kind of "personal personality" he has? No way of knowing, you're just projecting something over him just because you dislike him. And because you dislike him, you project your "dislikement" over his personal love-life like that's a fact, because you happen to dislike him.

Tell me, is that fair?

How do you know he was married three times BECAUSE he has an insufferable personality? How do you know the reasons behind that? You don't. You're just projecting what you think of him onto his personal life. That's not cool. That's what religious people always do. And then they pretend they didn't mean it, that they meant something else, and so on and so forth. Why not just admit it directly?

See, this is what bothers me about religious people.

PS. By the way, what does Richard Dawkins personality, whatever that is ("good" or "bad") have to do with all this? Why ever bring that up unless for making this statement. In reality, you really really wanted to say something bad about him, and you couldn't help yourself from doing it. If he liked to drive fast or drink, you would've said "that fucking maniac the speeds on the highway" or "he drinks a lot, with his terrible personality". Whatever small thing you could've found, you would've said it.

Now you can come in and say "you say the same things about religious people, that they say about how moral they are and then you turn around and pick on their personal lives". It's a different thing - Dawkins doesn't come in and say how "moral" he is. He is simply saying that he is interested in what's true in the world/Universe we live in, and that's pretty much it. He doesn't come in and say "if you don't believe in my God, you will burn in Hell for eternity!" (interesting how finite sins give you infinite pain, isn't it? How benevolent this God is!)

Seriously? Stop. 

Your not making sense any more.  Do you know what insufferable means?  It means intolerable and arrogant.

First of all I have met Richard Dawkins.  But why do I have to have met him or be a woman that's dated him to know he is insufferble?  I know you have an insufferable personality and I have never met you!  I know you make racist hateful statements about draymond green cause of how he plays basketball... That's enough for me. 

Second, Richard Dawkins is famous.  You don't have to meet famous people to know about their personality.  By all accounts Michael Jordan is a hyper competitive asshole.  By all accounts Kim Kardashian is a bit shallow.  These are not a stretch by any measure.  Famous people are interviewed, written about and accessible to us all.

Maybe I could surmise he is insufferable by article about him written by an atheist that quotes another atheist:

"Mr Dawkins has always been pugnacious. When I interviewed the philosopher Daniel Dennett, a professor at Tufts University and a fellow leading member of an atheist group that calls itself the Brights, he described himself as being the “good cop” to Mr Dawkins’s “bad cop”. Mr Dennett conceded: “Richard is so hostile and aggressive that he’s unsympathetic.”"

http://m.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/richard-dawkins-has-gone-so-far-hes-lost-even-his-atheist-friends

Are you outraged that the author called him pugnacious without meeting him?

Seriously stop trying to bully me!  I'm not debating my motivations for why I make jokes or say things.  I claim that I made a pretty harmless and factually true joke about Richard Dawkins because I thought it was funny!  You can claim that this is a function of me being religious and that my religiousness (which is pretty much non-existent) makes me want to say bad things about him so bad that I just can't help it as bad as I try... But that's ridiculous.  That's arrogant.  Your trying to argue with me about what goes on in my head and ascribe it to me being religious... So you realize how silly this is?  If you want to debate actual arguments fine but there is nothing more worthless than you telling what's actually going on in my head and how terrible it is... I kinda have the upper head on you as far as knowledge of my thoughts and intent... 

Why don't you instead attack the point I made.  It wasn't that strong really.  The point was pretty simple.  It was that Richard Dawkins claims to be a strict adherent to logic and believes "fairy tales" and "superstitions" like religion should be eliminated from society.  Yet by all accounts he is happily married and in love with his wife.  The fact that he got married for a third time is evidence only that he enjoys being married enough not to give up on the institution.  That's fine by me.  But... My point is that love is a pretty damn irrational thing.  Logically love and romance don't really make sense.  There are really two reasons to marry and be in love.  Marriage is an institution.  It's part of our (his) culture.  It's expected that you take part in it.  And it's fun and feels really good.  Being in love is awesome... The feeling that your partner is the only person in the world for you and you want to be with them forever is absolutely great!  I'm not asking him not to be in love, in fact I encourage it.  But let's not claim it's a choice we make out of pure rationality.  Richard Dawkins would probably kill 5 strangers to save his wife.  Most people in love would.  That's not rational or logic and can even have bad effects on society!  But love is part of being human - it's incredibly fulfilling and comforting and feels good and if not practiced too extremely doesn't really hurt anyone else...

Kinda sounds like religion to me.  Something you do cause it feels good provides fulfillment and is part of your culture...

That was my point.  That RD is a bit hypocritical when he claims to follow a life governed only by logic that religion is not compatible with...

But I mean he is the same man that tweeted that mitt Romney was an idiot for believing in Mormonism but had no criticism at all of Obamas Christianity and even justified it... Because he isn't truly an all out defender of a life governed by logic and reason - he just plays that guy when it suits him.  And it's career suicide to say that Obama is unfit because he is stupid enough to believe in the bible but snarky and acceptable to attack the less popular politician who is a member of a minority religion.  Attacking Mormonism and being incredibly rude about it will get people to realize your insufferable but won't offend half the world. 

I find this to be in poor taste.  I don't blame him for not going after Obama.  But I'd rather him say I'm an atheist but the world is still so damn religious that I'm not gonna after the faith of politicians.  But instead he attacks the one which is easy to attack.  I'm especially annoyed by this because I've seen him talk and one of his major points was that theists are also atheists to ever religion but theirs and that Christianity is no more logically valid than a belief in a Flying Spaghetti Monster...  I guess it's true except when your criticizing popular American politicians...




Raptor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14464
  • Respect: +2394
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - raptorescu
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: RELIGION
« Reply #116 on: July 21, 2016, 03:21:58 am »
0
Seriously? Stop. 

Your not making sense any more.  Do you know what insufferable means?  It means intolerable and arrogant.

First of all I have met Richard Dawkins.  But why do I have to have met him or be a woman that's dated him to know he is insufferble?

Because you put it in the context of the reason why it didn't work out for him, in his marriages. That's why. If you would've said "I have met Richard Dawkins and he's an arrogant asshole", then that's perfectly acceptable. That's your opinion, you're entitled to an opinion, and there's no problem whatsoever with it. However, you sneakely implied that he's an asshole and therefore it's a wonder that any woman would stay with him (that he would have any kind of happy marriage). Meaning, you projected your own feelings about him onto other people, and "set a standard" for them.

Quote
I know you have an insufferable personality and I have never met you!  I know you make racist hateful statements about draymond green cause of how he plays basketball... That's enough for me.

Really? How so? I am maintaining what I said about Draymond Green. He makes me think of a monkey playing basketball. That's how a monkey would play like, in my mind. If he would've made me think of a dolphin, or a bear, or a Gnu antelope playing basketball, I would've chosen that. It has nothing to do with racism whatsoever. In fact, it proves you're racist (yes, "you're", not "your"), since you immediately think that me saying that has to do with Green's skin color. If that's how you think, you must be racist. I could say that any player reminds me of a monkey, regardless of race - all that player has to do is act like a monkey on the basketball court. That's all. There's no "hidden agenda" behind my statement. For example, Luis Scola kind of fits the bill, but he's less aggressive and less of a piece of shit like Draymonkey Green is. Last time I checked, Scola is white. Where's my racism?

You can say it's insulting to that player that I use this terminology, and that would be perfectly acceptable. That's the whole point - I am insulting Green because he's a piece of shit that acts like an animal on the court (like Dennis Rodman did, in the past), and I dislike that. But it is NOT racist because my statement has nothing to do with his race.

Quote
Second, Richard Dawkins is famous.  You don't have to meet famous people to know about their personality.  By all accounts Michael Jordan is a hyper competitive asshole.  By all accounts Kim Kardashian is a bit shallow.  These are not a stretch by any measure.  Famous people are interviewed, written about and accessible to us all.

True. The problem is projecting that that would be a reason for his failed marriages.

Quote
Maybe I could surmise he is insufferable by article about him written by an atheist that quotes another atheist:

"Mr Dawkins has always been pugnacious. When I interviewed the philosopher Daniel Dennett, a professor at Tufts University and a fellow leading member of an atheist group that calls itself the Brights, he described himself as being the “good cop” to Mr Dawkins’s “bad cop”. Mr Dennett conceded: “Richard is so hostile and aggressive that he’s unsympathetic.”"

http://m.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/richard-dawkins-has-gone-so-far-hes-lost-even-his-atheist-friends

Are you outraged that the author called him pugnacious without meeting him?

No, that is his opinion. The same as I am not outraged by your opinion of him. I don't have a problem with that whatsoever. Dennett is entitled to his opinion just as much as you and me are, and that's perfectly acceptable. Again, it goes to do implying that "wow, it's amazing a woman would be with this guy" like you know how he acts with women in his personal life. That's the kind of projection that bothers me. Maybe he suffered years behind the scenes, maybe she cheated on him, maybe this maybe that. There's no way you can know that. Only they know that, and you shouldn't comment on people's personal lives in such broad terms. If more details would become available about how Dawkins would abuse his wife or anything like that, then I'm with you. But until then, it's just your projection onto his personal life, which is very uncool.

Quote
Seriously stop trying to bully me!  I'm not debating my motivations for why I make jokes or say things.  I claim that I made a pretty harmless and factually true joke about Richard Dawkins because I thought it was funny!  You can claim that this is a function of me being religious and that my religiousness (which is pretty much non-existent) makes me want to say bad things about him so bad that I just can't help it as bad as I try... But that's ridiculous.  That's arrogant.  Your trying to argue with me about what goes on in my head and ascribe it to me being religious... So you realize how silly this is?  If you want to debate actual arguments fine but there is nothing more worthless than you telling what's actually going on in my head and how terrible it is... I kinda have the upper head on you as far as knowledge of my thoughts and intent... 

Yes, you do. But that's like you saying to me that I'm "racist" with my comments towards Green. I just presented to you, above, what my "thoughts and intents" are, in my head, when I'm saying that. I hope it's clear now.

What do you mean by "factually true joke"? According to whom? Last time I checked, opinions about the personality of someone are not "factual",  but "subjective".

Quote
Why don't you instead attack the point I made.  It wasn't that strong really.  The point was pretty simple.  It was that Richard Dawkins claims to be a strict adherent to logic and believes "fairy tales" and "superstitions" like religion should be eliminated from society.  Yet by all accounts he is happily married and in love with his wife.  The fact that he got married for a third time is evidence only that he enjoys being married enough not to give up on the institution.  That's fine by me.  But... My point is that love is a pretty damn irrational thing.  Logically love and romance don't really make sense.  There are really two reasons to marry and be in love.  Marriage is an institution.  It's part of our (his) culture.  It's expected that you take part in it.  And it's fun and feels really good.  Being in love is awesome... The feeling that your partner is the only person in the world for you and you want to be with them forever is absolutely great!  I'm not asking him not to be in love, in fact I encourage it.  But let's not claim it's a choice we make out of pure rationality.  Richard Dawkins would probably kill 5 strangers to save his wife.  Most people in love would.  That's not rational or logic and can even have bad effects on society!  But love is part of being human - it's incredibly fulfilling and comforting and feels good and if not practiced too extremely doesn't really hurt anyone else...

I find that pretty rational and logic - to protect someone that is important to you, that is part of your family, basically. We can't live in a completely robotic society. You can now say "oh, so it's not 100% logic in life, is it?". Well of course it isn't. The point isn't that you should be a robot, a "Vulcan" from Star Trek, where logic is the way to go all the way, all the time. Here, we're talking about what society should value in terms of evolution of the society, of technology, and of legislation based on logic. Then you have different circumstances, where you should take the human nature under consideration.

Again, you come to me like I ever said you shouldn't be allowed to "believe in God". That's not true at all (I said so above, in another post). It's not a "problem" that you believe in God, the only problem is that people try to impose their religion onto others and onto legislature (look at abortion clinics attacks and abortion legislation, for example). A scientific problem should be solved by a scientific process, not by some arbitrary "holy book".

Quote
Kinda sounds like religion to me.  Something you do cause it feels good provides fulfillment and is part of your culture...

That was my point.  That RD is a bit hypocritical when he claims to follow a life governed only by logic that religion is not compatible with...

But I mean he is the same man that tweeted that mitt Romney was an idiot for believing in Mormonism but had no criticism at all of Obamas Christianity and even justified it... Because he isn't truly an all out defender of a life governed by logic and reason - he just plays that guy when it suits him.  And it's career suicide to say that Obama is unfit because he is stupid enough to believe in the bible but snarky and acceptable to attack the less popular politician who is a member of a minority religion.  Attacking Mormonism and being incredibly rude about it will get people to realize your insufferable but won't offend half the world. 

I'm not aware of the Obama story. However, about mormonism, and Romney:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN4M8PvpmW4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN4M8PvpmW4</a>

Quote
I find this to be in poor taste.  I don't blame him for not going after Obama.  But I'd rather him say I'm an atheist but the world is still so damn religious that I'm not gonna after the faith of politicians.  But instead he attacks the one which is easy to attack.  I'm especially annoyed by this because I've seen him talk and one of his major points was that theists are also atheists to ever religion but theirs and that Christianity is no more logically valid than a belief in a Flying Spaghetti Monster...  I guess it's true except when your criticizing popular American politicians...

I think we can be pretty much sure Obama is an atheist, and pretends to be religious only to appeal to the very religious American voters. Which is sad, that being true to being an atheist in America gets penalized heavily by the same people that pretend they are so moral because they're religious and if you're an atheist "what stops you from murdering people?". It's a sad reality.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2016, 03:47:39 am by Raptor »

T0ddday

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
  • Respect: +1114
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: RELIGION
« Reply #117 on: July 21, 2016, 04:14:03 am »
+1
I take it your an Obama fan and thus are completely sure of his athiesm.  Projecting much? 

No it's probably me.  Your right.  You got me.  I'm hyper religious.  And if anyone is not religious I project my negative views about atheism on them!  Sorry I apologize!  It's completely unreasonable that an insufferable asshole might have problems maintaining interpersonal relationships.  If Dawkins was religious I would probably encourage my sister to marry him!  I would say "yes by all accounts he is an insufferable asshole, but those are only people's opinions and even if they are right it's totally possible that someone is an asshole in every facet of life except for in their romantic relationships.  Dawkins turns off the asshole switch and is most likely a concientious and sensitive guy when it comes to his relationships!  You should go for it!

You also got me on being racist!  I'm racist and it's completely unreasonable for me to assume that you using a racist slur to describe a black player is racist!  If I wasn't so racist I would naturally think that your racial slur had nothing to do with race and was just purely a physical description.  It makes no sense that the reason he reminds you of a monkey is because your subconsciously racist!  It makes total sense that when you were told that your using a racist and offensive slur to describe a black player that you didn't apologize and say "I didn't intend to be racist I actually just thought that was his spirit animal but I apologize for those I offended and I will choose less inflammatory words so I don't use the same terms that racists use".  It makes total sense that instead you doubled down and continued to use racist language.  My finding this offensive or racist is clearly the result of my racism - maybe it comes from me being mixed that I'm so confused about whether I'm white or black that I just came out totally racist against both my ethnicities! 

You win.  I'm a racist hyper religious guy who just can't stand athiesm or black or white people so I project my feelings on them.   Clearly you have taken psychology 101 and are an expert at determining when someone is projecting.  You win!

Raptor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14464
  • Respect: +2394
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - raptorescu
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: RELIGION
« Reply #118 on: July 21, 2016, 04:24:55 am »
0
Finally! Thank you.

/sarcasm

PS. Seriously, that's the best you could do? Apparently, you ran out of serious arguments so you now portrait yourself as the "guy that took the high road, since there was no way of convincing my inferior self that I'm wrong". Great. More arrogance on your part.

T0ddday

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
  • Respect: +1114
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: RELIGION
« Reply #119 on: July 21, 2016, 04:45:34 am »
0
Finally! Thank you.

/sarcasm

PS. Seriously, that's the best you could do? Apparently, you ran out of serious arguments so you now portrait yourself as the "guy that took the high road, since there was no way of convincing my inferior self that I'm wrong". Great. More arrogance on your part.

No I just got tired of a white guy doubling down on racist offensive speech.  And then calling me out for being racist.  I'm a biracial dude living in America.  I get shit for being black and being white.  I got stopped by police and handcuffed and thrown in the back of their car cause they said I looked like a Hispanic criminal.  So I get it for being Hispanic too I guess. 

I don't need to deal with racism on the Internet as well.  They say arguing on the Internet is a waste of time.  I don't totally agree.  But arguing with someone that uses racial slurs and defends their right to use them and suggests your racist for being offended by it is certainly a waste of time.  I'm patient too - if you didn't know monkey is a racist term now you do.  You have been told by multiple people.  It's not a language or cultural barrier that causes you to continue to use racial slurs.  It's you.  And frankly that's not someone I can debate with.  Continue to think what you what you want.

Continue being arrogant.  Continue using racial slurs. Continue to have faith in quantum mechanics and cosmology.  But don't actually study physics.  Don't get in the trenches and actually do hours of problem sets and learn about pdes and statistical mechanics. Leave that for the idiots like me. Just pontificate about the implications of cosmological theory and how it's all that you need for your worldview even though you don't understand it in the slightest and believe it only because smart people say it's true...

You have a lot more faith than me.  You continue being you.  But just don't do it with meSss