People who believe in god are broken

[iNow]

You are suggesting that they would change their entire behaviour pattern in order to perhaps achieve eternal life and what's more throw away everything of value in the immediate for a pie in the sky dream based on that wishful thinking. Are we really suppose to take you seriously?

Do what you want. My argument is sound and supported by evidence.

 

After saying my personal incredulity is not a valid argument, you make your own personal argument above.

Argument from incredulity [math]\ne[/math] saying something personal in nature.

 

But yet no one who is sound of mind in all other aspects of their lives is willing to sacrifice their son for belief in the easter bunny, probably because there is no evidence of the easter bunny. Can you see the difference?

No. I cannot. What evidence of your god(s) do you have to put forth to show us the difference? As I stated previously, there are more people who believe in god than the easter bunny, and belief in god is granted special deference wherein belief in the easter bunny is not, but there is no difference in the evidence supporting the claims of existence. Deal with it, or rebut it.

 

I think your definition of mental illness is far too broad, and beyond professionally accepted boundaries. (Mental health is one of those terms resistant to a simple definition, so there is room to manoeuvre.)

 

How about this scenario: tribe of hitherto unknown apes are discovered. They have a rudimentary language. It is discovered that they have developed a belief in the farting unicorn. Would you say these creatures have developed a high level of intelligence (compared to other animals), in that they are able to conceptualised something outside their experience, or are they just mentally ill?

Noted. Mentally ill is not the term I wanted to use, anyway. Someone else introduced it. My term was broken, later equated with childish.

[Iggy]

But yet no one who is sound of mind in all other aspects of their lives is willing to sacrifice their son for belief in the easter bunny, probably because there is no evidence of the easter bunny. Can you see the difference?

For the promise of an eternal afterlife they're willing to gut their kid, but not for the promise of chocolate eggs?

[music]

There's a difference between saying something someone does, or believes, is childish and saying someone is childish. It would only be slander if the latter was stated.

 

That nuance doesn't seem to be in iNow's post, to which I was responding; anyway, even if you are right about the law, I was using the term informally. It is certainly insulting and meant to be insulting to tell an adult that she does or believes in something childish.

 

 

[iNow]

There really is no polite way to tell someone that they've wasted their entire life on a fairy tale, or that their most cherished belief is nonsense.

 

Well, and too, there’s no polite way to say to somebody … do you realise you’ve wasted your life? Do you realise that you’ve just devoted all your efforts and all your goods to the glorification of something which is just a myth? Or have you ever considered – even if you say have you even considered the possibility that maybe you’ve wasted your life on this? There’s no inoffensive way of saying that. But we do have to say it, because they should jolly well consider it. Same as we do about our own lives.

http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/fourhorsementranscript

[Villain]

Villain - You've asked me numerous questions I've already answered repeatedly throughout the thread. I apologize if you couldn't/didn't keep up, but I don't feel the need to repeat myself and start the cycle over again from the beginning.

 

Also, you don't seem to know what an appeal to incredulity is. Here: http://rationalwiki....rom_incredulity

More specific to our exchange: http://rationalwiki....rom_incredulity

 

 

Although I used the words 'I can't believe', my argument read in it's entirety is not an argument from incredulity. If you must classify my argument, appeal to reason, is a more appropriate definition.

 

There really is no polite way to tell someone that they've wasted their entire life on a fairy tale, or that their most cherished belief is nonsense.

 

Dan Dennett said:

 

Well, and too, there’s no polite way to say to somebody … do you realise you’ve wasted your life? Do you realise that you’ve just devoted all your efforts and all your goods to the glorification of something which is just a myth? Or have you ever considered – even if you say have you even considered the possibility that maybe you’ve wasted your life on this? There’s no inoffensive way of saying that. But we do have to say it, because they should jolly well consider it. Same as we do about our own lives.

http://richarddawkin...sementranscript

 

 

The Bible says that we cannot judge and that is the ultimate truth because no human has access to ultimate reality.

 

This is not a mystic statement just a logical truth.

[tar]

Villian,

 

But a logical truth follows.

 

If we cannot judge, then we should not think we could. But since we CAN judge, then our judgements are true and existant and can be taken at face value, with no possibility of having made a mistake in thinking we are able to judge.

 

Where people who believe in God are broken, is in their assumption that their judgement is not their own, but inspired by a "true" judge, who has magically revealed the basis upon which true judgements are actually made. This is contrary to reality. Either we can make judgements, or we can't. The evidence, whether subjective or objective, is that we CAN make judgements.

 

Then, since we can make judgements, all that we have together determined is true, is true, if we judge it to be true, based on our common ability to judge the difference between fact and fancy.

 

As Inow is pointing out to us, we HAVE the ability to determine the truth, to distinquish reality from imagination, and we use it to determine everything we think about, everything we do, and everything we discover, share and maintain...except, suddenly, in one particular instance, we figure we DON'T have the ability to judge after all, and that ability must only be in something else's mind.

 

Villian, let me ask you this. Do you believe that Joseph Smith actually found, with the help of an Angel, golden tablets, inscribed with the words upon which Joseph Smith based the Mormon religion? Or that the voices that Mohammed heard came from an actual angel?

 

Is there not a "problem" in mistaking the idea of God, for God? Is there not a "problem" in supposing that your judgements are the same ones God would make? Or in the case of Mohammed, or any person deemed to be a prophet of God, speaking for God? How, in reality, could Mohammed's judgements, be equivalent to God's judgements?

 

Either God is real and natural, and evident, and we can all make a judgement on its existence...or God is a made up image in an individual mind, that projects upon reality, human judgements.

 

I would think that belief in the former is not broken, and that belief in the later may very well be broken.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

(the later) Equivalent to the belief in fairies, demons, and thunder gods.

 

Or, if God is that which is beyond our understanding, would it not be quite broken to claim that you understood it?

 

Understanding THAT there is something beyond ones understanding is one thing.

 

Believing that you magically have special knowledge of that thing, is somewhat inappropriate, under the circumstances.

 

It is better to describe exactly where your knowledge is actually coming from, and what it is you are actually describing. So that others can make a valid judgement on its existence. Thereby pushing the outer borders of our undertanding a bit further into "that which is beyond" our understanding.

 

In this, the "people who believe in God are broken" camp is absolutely on the right track.

 

Identifying "false" gods is the best way to learn about God. Assuming God is actually the case.

 

And scientific method is the best way we have to elimate personal bias from the investigation.

Edited June 23, 2012 by tar

[ydoaPs]

The teachings and the wisdom in the religious scriptures are not so ordinary either to conclude that they were made up by goat herders or to call it childish.

 

Yes, yes they are.

[Prometheus]

[

That nuance doesn't seem to be in iNow's post, to which I was responding; anyway, even if you are right about the law, I was using the term informally. It is certainly insulting and meant to be insulting to tell an adult that she does or believes in something childish.

 

Well the nuance is in my posts.

 

I'm not sure it is meant to be insluting, only the OP will know that. It obviously has insulted, but that in itself should not detract from any debates. If someone is so sensitive that they cannot help but become offended or insulted discussing a contrary view of their beliefs they should stick their head back in the ground (not saying you are, not followed this thread close enough to judge, but i've seen it in plenty of places, certain religious groups in particular).

 

 

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

1340494583[/url]' post='686011']

I scientifically through the use of probability and mathematics can prove there is a God fairly simply.

 

...

 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

 

nrh0904,

 

You already have a thread in which you address this. Since it is speculative, we ask that you do not hijack other threads by trying to introduce it elsewhere. I have removed your comment as a result. And again, please do not post your personal details in your posts.

Edit: I've also removed all of the replies.

 

[tar]

Yes, yes they are.

 

ydoaPs,

 

Childish in the sense that we, as a collective (humanity) have become more conscious of the world, are more mature than when the scriptures were written. More facts have come to light. Reasons why things can or cannot be the case, are in our collective minds. But the scriptures were still written by adults, even if they might have been goat herders, or entwined the ledgends of the goat herders into their writings. It is still the same reality (in essence) that was contemplated by humans, then, as now.

 

And even 3500 hundred years ago, palaces and civilizations were built by humans. Adult humans, without the benefit of that which we have learned since.

 

While I think it appropriate to consider certain religious beliefs outdated, and the pervue of a "younger" humanity, the "reasons" for certain beliefs, existing then, may still be the same "reasons" that exist now. And I do believe a certain "benefit of the doubt" should be extended to other "Adults" who arrive at workable insights about human existence, whether they have arrived at such 3500 years ago, or just yesterday.

 

With age, comes wisdom, no doubt. But if humanity is to be thought of as one life, that has an infancy, a childhood, an adolesence, a young adulthood, a maturity period and an old age...exactly how old do you think we currently are?

 

Would a 4000 year old civilization, like the Chinese one, be then considered further advanced than an infant, like the United States?

 

Should each successive "improvement" in philosophy, religion and law, be considered a "new" thing, an "infant", or is it better to go with Hegel with the ascending spiral metaphor. That as consciousness goes, we follow a similar path as did the consciouness before us, and pass the same "marks", but having the benefit of the knowledge gained on the previous pass, make the cycle on a slightly higher level.

 

So to think that TAR2 is at any kind of "mark", that has not been passed before is both true and somewhat ordinary. And "childish" is a relative term, indeed.

 

Childish, therefore, should probably not be likened to "broken".

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited June 24, 2012 by tar

[ydoaPs]

ydoaPs,

 

Childish in the sense that we, as a collective (humanity) have become more conscious of the world, are more mature than when the scriptures were written. More facts have come to light. Reasons why things can or cannot be the case, are in our collective minds. But the scriptures were still written by adults, even if they might have been goat herders, or entwined the ledgends of the goat herders into their writings. It is still the same reality (in essence) that was contemplated by humans, then, as now.

 

And even 3500 hundred years ago, palaces and civilizations were built by humans. Adult humans, without the benefit of that which we have learned since.

 

While I think it appropriate to consider certain religious beliefs outdated, and the pervue of a "younger" humanity, the "reasons" for certain beliefs, existing then, may still be the same "reasons" that exist now. And I do believe a certain "benefit of the doubt" should be extended to other "Adults" who arrive at workable insights about human existence, whether they have arrived at such 3500 years ago, or just yesterday.

 

With age, comes wisdom, no doubt. But if humanity is to be thought of as one life, that has an infancy, a childhood, an adolesence, a young adulthood, a maturity period and an old age...exactly how old do you think we currently are?

 

Would a 4000 year old civilization, like the Chinese one, be then considered further advanced than an infant, like the United States?

 

Should each successive "improvement" in philosophy, religion and law, be considered a "new" thing, an "infant", or is it better to go with Hegel with the ascending spiral metaphor. That as consciousness goes, we follow a similar path as did the consciouness before us, and pass the same "marks", but having the benefit of the knowledge gained on the previous pass, make the cycle on a slightly higher level.

 

So to think that TAR2 is at any kind of "mark", that has not been passed before is both true and somewhat ordinary. And "childish" is a relative term, indeed.

 

Childish, therefore, should probably not be likened to "broken".

 

Regards, TAR2

 

How about childish in the sense that it's the thinking of a spoiled two year old? I think that counts as childish. The entire OT's message is "do what I say or I will kill you" which is an extension of the completely childish view of justice based on "you hurt me, so I'm going to hurt you". This is a straight up two year old mentality. People try to justify it by talking about the "love" of the NT, but that just shows they missed the point. The NT just takes the OT's "do what I say or I will kill you" and turns the "kill you" into "torture you forever". There is nothing constructive about Hell. You do not come out of it a better person, or at all for that matter. Hell is the ultimate "you hurt me, so I'm going to hurt you"; there is no justice there. The entire anthology is of a two year old mentality. It's just that the NT turns the two year old into a psychotic stalker as well.

 

There is NOTHING backing up Immortal's claim I quoted earlier. It's historically incorrect. It's scientifically incorrect. The morality is such that slavery is moral and consentual love between two adults is worthy of death. There is nothing there that could not have been dreamt up by goat herders, and as I discussed above, it is incredibly childish.

Edited June 24, 2012 by ydoaPs

[tar]

How about childish in the sense that it's the thinking of a spoiled two year old? I think that counts as childish. The entire OT's message is "do what I say or I will kill you" which is an extension of the completely childish view of justice based on "you hurt me, so I'm going to hurt you". This is a straight up two year old mentality. People try to justify it by talking about the "love" of the NT, but that just shows they missed the point. The NT just takes the OT's "do what I say or I will kill you" and turns the "kill you" into "torture you forever". There is nothing constructive about Hell. You do not come out of it a better person, or at all for that matter. Hell is the ultimate "you hurt me, so I'm going to hurt you"; there is no justice there. The entire anthology is of a two year old mentality. It's just that the NT turns the two year old into a psychotic stalker as well.

 

There is NOTHING backing up Immortal's claim I quoted earlier. It's historically incorrect. It's scientifically incorrect. The morality is such that slavery is moral and consentual love between two adults is worthy of death. There is nothing there that could not have been dreamt up by goat herders, and as I discussed above, it is incredibly childish.

 

ydoaPs,

 

Well wait a minute. If there is no punishment, then there is no reward either. If concern for the afterlife is to be had, then it is had. Why would you even start to say that hell doesn't make a person a better person, then realize NOBODY makes it out of hell at all? Are you considering that there is "something" of you that will care one way or the other, once you are dead?

 

Let me make a guess, as to my own "thinking" on this. (I am allowed, since I have been around me rather consistently for 58 years.) I was brought up believing in heaven and hell. I do not think that such beliefs are easily shed. Perhaps re-evaluated, but not shed. I have, like you have, realized that God would be rather a nut-case to create the devil in the first place. Makes no sense. How can God have a nemesis? If he created the thing in the first place? Wouldn't the devil have to be part of God? Sort of a split personality problem at best.

 

So, we throw out the Abrahamic God Idea. No hell, no heaven, no actual supernatural being, making the call, as to the disposition of your immortal soul. Which leaves what? Who is going to make the judgement? It has to be you, and the people around you, and the "spirit" of the universe that you are made up of, that...and we are back to a consideration of "God". Well, wait. I was talking about me, and I slipped into first person plural, sorry...So I throw out the Abrahamic God idea, but am still left with the idea of God, in that it still seems rather correct, that I am not "other" than reality, and can still consider it mine, even that which was, previous my birth, and that which will be, after I die. And it therefore makes a difference to me, whether TAR2 does good things, or TAR2 does evil thing. I would much rather have objective reality, judge me good, and not evil...even though I have no fear of burning in hell, or any hope that virgins and rivers of honey await me. Which means, I am pretty much taking responsibility for my life, on my own authority. And I care about the universe and life on Earth...as if I was going to be around to continue to witness it.

Whether this is a "real" pact I have with objective reality is a matter of interpretation. That I HAVE the pact, is not a question in my mind. I have it, without any other human's permission. Its between me and it. And I don't know that my notions are not in some ways extensions or reinterpretations of what I learned in Sunday School, held against the ideas of other human's that I have talked to, or read, or learned about.

 

So, ydoaPs, is there any evidence that you should care about life on Earth, after you die? Do you not have to have "some" belief in God, even if only figurative in nature, to care? Do you not have to have some understanding of your "immortal nature", to feel responsible to a "greater power" than yourself?

 

I don't know that you have to be broken, or a spoiled child, to care about your immortal soul. There may be valid reasons, to do such.

 

Regards, TAR2

[ydoaPs]

Thank you for completely ignoring my entire post.

[music]

Well the nuance is in my posts.

 

I'm not sure it is meant to be insluting, only the OP will know that. It obviously has insulted, but that in itself should not detract from any debates. If someone is so sensitive that they cannot help but become offended or insulted discussing a contrary view of their beliefs they should stick their head back in the ground (not saying you are, not followed this thread close enough to judge, but i've seen it in plenty of places, certain religious groups in particular).

 

 

You claim some nuance in your post, not insulting people who disagree with you (as if you were merely "discussing a contrary view of their beliefs), insulting only their world views I suppose, and then you conclude that they should "stick their heads back in the ground."

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Iggy]

You claim some nuance in your post, not insulting people who disagree with you (as if you were merely "discussing a contrary view of their beliefs), insulting only their world views I suppose, and then you conclude that they should "stick their heads back in the ground."

What are you proposing? What is your position?

 

A newspaper in Denmark drew satirical cartoons of the prophet Muhammad making him, and his pathetic ideology, look silly. Muslims everywhere were insulted. They were offended. They marched on western embassies -- burned them -- bombed them -- trying to kill whatever westerner they could find. The cartoonist ended up in a panic room in his house in Denmark while a Muslim militiaman took an axe to the panic room door screaming that the pig is going to die for daring to insult his prophet. Yes, these people are really insulted.

 

So, what do you suggest? Nobody satire Islam? Nobody tell them that they are stupid for thinking they get paid 72 virgins for suicide? If you speak your mind you are going to insult these people. If you tell me I can't speak my mind then you are going to insult me. So, besides telling iNow or Prometheus that they are insulting people (which isn't an argument at all) what is it that you propose?

[music]

What are you proposing? What is your position?

 

A newspaper in Denmark drew satirical cartoons of the prophet Muhammad making him, and his pathetic ideology, look silly. Muslims everywhere were insulted. They were offended. They marched on western embassies -- burned them -- bombed them -- trying to kill whatever westerner they could find. The cartoonist ended up in a panic room in his house in Denmark while a Muslim militiaman took an axe to the panic room door screaming that the pig is going to die for daring to insult his prophet. Yes, these people are really insulted.

 

So, what do you suggest? Nobody satire Islam? Nobody tell them that they are stupid for thinking they get paid 72 virgins for suicide? If you speak your mind you are going to insult these people. If you tell me I can't speak my mind then you are going to insult me. So, besides telling iNow or Prometheus that they are insulting people (which isn't an argument at all) what is it that you propose?

 

Wow, that can barely be construed as relevant to what we were talking about before. Being respectful to people who disagree with you on a message board even if they're religious = endorsing the riots over the Mohammad cartoons?

 

There is really no middle ground in your mind? We have to choose between characterizing all religious people as "broken," "childish," having "their heads in the sand," or not questioning the belief (held, apparently, by "Muslims everywhere") that "they get paid 72 virgins for suicide?"

 

And if there is some middle ground possible in your opinion, then why in the world did you respond with that diatribe?

 

Come on, man. When you resort to arguments that unnecessarily bad, you discredit yourself.

 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2012 by music

[Iggy]

Wow, that can barely be construed as relevant to what we were talking about before. Being respectful to people who disagree with you on a message board even if they're religious = endorsing the riots over the Mohammad cartoons?

It is exactly relevant because it demonstrates that a large number of people are determined to be insulted at the smallest satirical statement. To say that a person has insulted the parties of God means nothing more than a person freely and sensibly speaking rational things.

 

Nowhere did I compare being respectful to endorsing the rioters. I expect you'll either show me exactly where I said or implied anything of the sort or have the decency to apologize.

 

There is really no middle ground in your mind? We have to choose between characterizing all religious people as "broken," "childish," having "their heads in the sand," or not questioning the belief (held, apparently, by "Muslims everywhere") that "they get paid 72 virgins for suicide?"

 

Those choices are not mutually exclusive and not something that I compared.

 

You do, however, have to choose between insulting a large number of people, and "questioning the belief". If you live in Iran and question Muslim beliefs they are insulted enough to sentence you to death.

 

If you would have iNow and Prometheus not insult the parties of God then you would have to be asking them not to say what they believe about religion and the religious. The thread can be closed in that case because nobody affirming the motion of the OP can acknowledge it.

 

And if there is some middle ground possible in your opinion, then why in the world did you respond with that diatribe?

Again, I didn't mention this ground you speak of or deny it has a middle.

 

It sounded like a diatribe because I asked the same question 4 times. I did that because I thought it would provoke an answer. It did not.

 

Come on, man. When you resort to arguments that unnecessarily bad, you discredit yourself.

I did not make an argument, but speaking of bad ones... nothing that you just said answered or addressed anything that I said. 100% of it was a misrepresentation or a deflection away from my very simple question.

[music]

It is exactly relevant because it demonstrates that a large number of people are determined to be insulted at the smallest satirical statement. To say that a person has insulted the parties of God means nothing more than a person freely and sensibly speaking rational things.

 

Nowhere did I compare being respectful to endorsing the rioters. I expect you'll either show me exactly where I said or implied anything of the sort or have the decency to apologize.

 

Those choices are not mutually exclusive and not something that I compared.

 

You do, however, have to choose between insulting a large number of people, and "questioning the belief". If you live in Iran and question Muslim beliefs they are insulted enough to sentence you to death.

 

If you would have iNow and Prometheus not insult the parties of God then you would have to be asking them not to say what they believe about religion and the religious. The thread can be closed in that case because nobody affirming the motion of the OP can acknowledge it.

 

Again, I didn't mention this ground you speak of or deny it has a middle.

 

It sounded like a diatribe because I asked the same question 4 times. I did that because I thought it would provoke an answer. It did not.

 

I did not make an argument, but speaking of bad ones... nothing that you just said answered or addressed anything that I said. 100% of it was a misrepresentation or a deflection away from my very simple question.

 

 

No, I didn't misrepresent a thing: You intentionally implied that my pointing out that "broken," "childish," having "their heads in the sand," are insults equates to an endorsement of the rioters you brought into the discussion.

But you have moved your position slightly: previously you denied insulting anyone, and now you claim that it is impossible to disagree with anyone without seeming to insult them, so we might as well just go all out with insults, and anyone somewhere we might even be sentenced to death for disagreement. In fact, you're correct to imply that my intention here was something along those lines. Because I am satisfied to say that a theistic belief has no evidence to support it and find no need to insult theists, I hope to set up a theocratic government in which we will not be allowed to say that theists are broken or childish. I will do so via mobs of rioters. Watch out!

Come on, man.

 

 

 

 

[Villain]

Villian,

 

But a logical truth follows.

 

If we cannot judge, then we should not think we could. But since we CAN judge, then our judgements are true and existant and can be taken at face value, with no possibility of having made a mistake in thinking we are able to judge.

 

 

We can only judge from our own limited perspective. None of us have access to ultimate reality and therefore no one can judge another's view from an ultimate reality as this is right and that is wrong. Only a possible creator who had ultimate knowledge of everything could make a conclusive judgement.

 

We might classify people in three ways:

 

- Ignorant of knowledge

- Knowledge of knowledge, ignorant of ignorance

- Knowledge of knowledge, knowledge of ignorance.

 

The last being translated into something along the lines of: the more we know the more we realise how little we know. Hence why in Plato's writings we see Socrates pleading his ignorance and how lesser men plead their knowledge to him even though it is shown that Socrates has a far superior knowledge and intellect.

 

How about childish in the sense that it's the thinking of a spoiled two year old? I think that counts as childish. The entire OT's message is "do what I say or I will kill you" which is an extension of the completely childish view of justice based on "you hurt me, so I'm going to hurt you". This is a straight up two year old mentality. People try to justify it by talking about the "love" of the NT, but that just shows they missed the point. The NT just takes the OT's "do what I say or I will kill you" and turns the "kill you" into "torture you forever". There is nothing constructive about Hell. You do not come out of it a better person, or at all for that matter. Hell is the ultimate "you hurt me, so I'm going to hurt you"; there is no justice there. The entire anthology is of a two year old mentality. It's just that the NT turns the two year old into a psychotic stalker as well.

 

There is NOTHING backing up Immortal's claim I quoted earlier. It's historically incorrect. It's scientifically incorrect. The morality is such that slavery is moral and consentual love between two adults is worthy of death. There is nothing there that could not have been dreamt up by goat herders, and as I discussed above, it is incredibly childish.

 

I could just as easily describe your reaction to the OT as childish: I don't like being told what I can and can't do, so I'm going to rebel and throw a tantrum.

[Prometheus]

Wow, that can barely be construed as relevant to what we were talking about before. Being respectful to people who disagree with you on a message board even if they're religious = endorsing the riots over the Mohammad cartoons?

 

There is really no middle ground in your mind? We have to choose between characterizing all religious people as "broken," "childish," having "their heads in the sand," or not questioning the belief (held, apparently, by "Muslims everywhere") that "they get paid 72 virgins for suicide?"

 

You won't be surprised to hear i agree with Iggy. It is a relevant comparison because it asks an important question: is it OK to satirise someone's beliefs? I for one believe it is; if someone is offended by this then that is their prerogative, but it should not hinder free speech.

 

If someone is so sensitive that they cannot help but become offended or insulted discussing a contrary view of their beliefs they should stick their head back in the ground (not saying you are, not followed this thread close enough to judge, but i've seen it in plenty of places, certain religious groups in particular).

 

 

 

Consider the quote in full. It takes an 'If/then' structure (even though the word 'then' is not explicitly used, it is implicit. I shall add it in to add clarity). If someone is so sensitive they will become offended at anything someone says contrary to their views, then they should bury their heads in the earth i.e. should not engage anyone in debate. Notice also the caveat that the comment was not directed at you, but was general (i have bolded that part). Incidentally, one of the religious groups i was thinking of was Islam, in relation to the Danish cartoons.

 

If people can't poke fun at themselves they're missing out on a lot of fun, and a lot of learning oneself. I think you need to ask yourself why you became so quickly offended at my post.

[tar]

Thank you for completely ignoring my entire post.

 

ydoaPs,

 

I read your post and agreed with it, mostly. I DO think that appealing to a non-existant authority is illogical, and there is no evidence that belief in such an authority is valid. I think that killing at the command of Allah, or being insulted, that someone else does not share your delusion, is extremely problematic, and have no problem with it being called broken, childish, insane, stupid, idiotic, selfish, ignorant, and wrong. No problem at all.

 

But this is a discussion about whether people who believe in god are broken (childish, wrong, illogical, deluded, etc.), so its important for me to inspect my own beliefs as to my claim's validity. Can I back up MY claims, as a non-believer in Mohammed's Allah, without acknowledging that I have some belief in my own interpretation of God?

 

So I challanged your "starting to" be concerned about the rehabilitation of the hell dweller. 'Cause I am after the truth. Same as you. I did not ignore your entire post.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited June 25, 2012 by tar

[music]

Go back and follow this discussion, starting from this post: http://www.sciencefo...post__p__685624

 

So, what has happened here is that I've agreed that religious believers are bad philosophers for believing something without adequate evidence, but not that they're all mentally ill, broken, childish, or silly.

 

That supposedly implied that I am against your freedom to say such things, and implied that I am against satirizing Islam, that I support the rioters, etc.

 

Of course I hadn't said anything against satire. But because I don't agree with your (tendentiously argued at best) conclusion that religious people are mentally ill, broken, childish, or silly - therefore I'm unwilling to question their beliefs? "Bad philosophers" isn't good enough for you?

 

No, it's clearly not. I have to agree with you that all theists are broken, childish and silly, or else am I against satire and unwilling to question their beliefs.

 

Wow.

 

If people can't poke fun at themselves they're missing out on a lot of fun, and a lot of learning oneself. I think you need to ask yourself why you became so quickly offended at my post.

 

I wasn't offended. I think you need to ask yourself why you thought I was.

Edited June 25, 2012 by music

[tar]

Villian,

 

So, since I am not as intelligent as Plato I must admit I am ignorant.

 

Fine and good.

 

I yield to all humans that know more than I do. About anything.

 

Except those that believe they know the disposition of my soul. I am the best judge of that.

 

Do you expect that you know what God thinks of me?

 

Based on what knowledge, do you establish this claim?

 

Regards, TAR2

[Iggy]

No, I didn't misrepresent a thing: You intentionally implied that my pointing out that "broken," "childish," having "their heads in the sand," are insults equates to an endorsement of the rioters you brought into the discussion.

I am *extremely* insulted by your continued mischaracterization of what I said. My point was that a very large number of Muslims would be insulted by the smallest satirical statement. I did not compare, equate, or in any way imply a connection between their conduct and your statements.

 

I wouldn't understand such a comparison. Muslims are insulted and you're pointing out that they are insulted... therefore... what? You are somehow similar? It makes no sense.

 

Please, show me exactly where I implied this comparison or apologize.

 

But you have moved your position slightly: previously you denied insulting anyone, and now you claim that it is impossible to disagree with anyone without seeming to insult them, so we might as well just go all out with insults, and anyone somewhere we might even be sentenced to death for disagreement.

Please show me where I "denied insulting anyone". The point of my post was exactly the opposite of that. I also didn't say or imply "we might as well just go all out with insults".

 

I haven't been that hard to understand. I have to think that your only means of replying to me is mischaracterizing me because you are deflecting away from the very simple question I asked.

 

In fact, you're correct to imply that my intention here was something along those lines. Because I am satisfied to say that a theistic belief has no evidence to support it and find no need to insult theists

When someone stones a woman accused of adultery to death for their theistic beliefs -- when acid is poured in the unveiled face of a girl because god deems it necessary -- you are satisfied saying "a theistic belief has no evidence to support it". I am not satisfied with that, and I hope you would not disparage other people who do choose to speak up against, and insult directly, such stupidity.

[music]

I am *extremely* insulted by your continued mischaracterization of what I said. My point was that a very large number of Muslims would be insulted by the smallest satirical statement. I did not compare, equate, or in any way imply a connection between their conduct and your statements.

 

I wouldn't understand such a comparison. Muslims are insulted and you're pointing out that they are insulted... therefore... what? You are somehow similar? It makes no sense.

 

Please, show me exactly where I implied this comparison or apologize.

 

Please show me where I "denied insulting anyone". The point of my post was exactly the opposite of that. I also didn't say or imply "we might as well just go all out with insults".

 

I haven't been that hard to understand. I have to think that your only means of replying to me is mischaracterizing me because you are deflecting away from the very simple question I asked.

 

When someone stones a woman accused of adultery to death for their theistic beliefs -- when acid is poured in the unveiled face of a girl because god deems it necessary -- you are satisfied saying "a theistic belief has no evidence to support it". I am not satisfied with that, and I hope you would not disparage other people who do choose to speak up against, and insult directly, such stupidity.

 

Now I'm basically against speaking out against people pouring acid on girls' faces. And you want an apology for my mischaracterizing your positions.

 

What simple question did you ask? What my position was? My only position in this discussion is that not all theists are mentally ill, childish, or silly. That isn't hard to understand.

 

I have not denied your right to hold or express such opinions - though you've mischaracterized my posts as having done so. Nor have I denied anyone's right to satire anything - though you've mischaracterized my posts as having done so. You will get no apology for mischaracterizing your posts unless you can prove that I have done so.

 

And yes, you intentionally did nothing other than draw a direct line from what I'd written to - first, the riots in response to the cartoons of Mohammad, and now to acid thrown on girls' faces for going to school. You are intentionally doing nothing other than slandering me - and let's get to the reason why - because I don't agree that all religious people are mentally ill, broken, childish, or silly. For holding that position, you have accused me of saying that you can't speak your mind, or that you can't satire Islam, or that my position has anything at all to do with the riots against people who do so, or the pouring of acid on a girls' face.

 

You are apparently unable to have a civil discussion with someone who disagrees with your diagnosis of religious people.