Majorian posted:

That's not really the case at all when it comes to the religious left. Do you think Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Desmond Tutu, or any other examples were just using religion cynically to motivate the plebs? No, they genuinely believed in what they were preaching, and that's why people followed them. They believed that their cause was right and just. One can say that things like morality and justice come from God, or that they're simply implicitly agreed-upon codes of behavior among humans, but either way, it's ridiculous to suggest that good religious people do good things for "the wrong reasons." They're not just doing it because of arbitrary commandments in ancient scriptures; they're doing it because they want to be good people and want to help their fellow man.

Majorian posted:

I'm not arguing that anyone should believe as I do, though. I'm just asking blowfish and all other r/atheism types to stop being dicks towards religious/spiritual/theistic/whatever people, as if we're all Pat Robertson fans or whatever.

That just helps convince people that left vs. right politics is the same as spirituality versus atheism, which it shouldn't be.

Brainiac Five posted:

Majorian posted:

Who What Now posted:

Humans are animals. So yes, animals can because humans can.

McDowell posted:

There are things humans can do that animals cannot do. Why is that? You could say that all living things have 'soul' but only humans have 'mind' - and in that mind-making process there is some small amount of individual choice/will. Remember the stories of genesis, which are allegory, or very deformed history from past ages. Humans have a level of self-awareness animals do not, but things like mortality and language still make us lesser than God.

blowfish posted:

There is no reason to think it's impossible for another animal to evolve human-like intelligence and self-reflection. Being able to think a little better does not inherently mean you're special.

J.A.B.C. posted:

Can I whine to Odin instead? Would that be more useful or less useful in seeing a grand design when all I see is nature and it's laws?

Crowsbeak posted:

You could. Don't know if it would do you any good. As the Eddas are clear he is rather limited. But all power to you.

J.A.B.C. posted:

Can I whine to OdinGod instead? Would that be more useful or less useful in seeing a grand design when all I see is nature and it's laws?

Humanists posted:

You could. Don't know if it would do you any good. As the EddasBible is clear he is rather limited. But all power to you.

J.A.B.C. posted:

Ok, now step back, and let's rearrange some things.



And that's where we start to hit a roadblock.

I don't know if it's because you're being obtuse about it or if you genuinely don't understand this, but your perception of reality and the world around us is different, sometimes at odds, with myself, other non-faithful and almost everything we use to interpret the world around us. From the deep sciences on down to casual observation of ourselves and others, we've been able to come up with explanations for things that were once in the domain of the divine. Not that it makes them any more or less amazing or beautiful, just now that we can trace that back.

When you look at us and see that we can't behold divine inspiration, we look at you and see that you can't behold the simple but elegant way that the world comes together, or how it has built up to that point. In a way, we see each other on the same level: ignorant of a basic truth.

But back to the point up above. When you say that praying to Odin probably won't do me much good, then you are simply stating a name on a list to us. Praying to Odin would be about as effective as praying to Zeus, or sending offering to Izanagi, or baptising ourselves in Jesus' name. They are, at their most, literary and oratory figures that had significance in stories and parables of the past, but never actually existed or had any of the strange powers that their texts said they had. They are Gilgamesh, or King Arthur and his Scabbard, or Harry Dresden. 'God', with much the same proof and validity as these other deities, is just another name on the list of things we don't have any evidence to believe in.

So when you argue with us that we have to take up that argument with God, realize that I might as well argue with Harry Dresden. It'd accomplish the same amount of change and end in the same way.

Crowsbeak posted:

the actual Creator.

Crowsbeak posted:

Well you see actually I could consider them existing. But being that they are of only the universe they wouldn't do you much good. Compared to the actual Creator.

J.A.B.C. posted:

Fine, then. By what standard does your God get any special treatment, as considered to the other Gods? Why is his creation myth valid while any number of others aren't?

J.A.B.C. posted:

Fine, then. By what standard does your God get any special treatment, as considered to the other Gods? Why is his creation myth valid while any number of others aren't?

Crowsbeak posted:

Well my God almost certainly is their origin

Crowsbeak posted:

Well my God almost certainly is their origin. Also about Allah, well to me Allah is just a bad interpretation of the Trinity. As are any other actual creator Gods.

Literally The Worst posted:

and your proof of this is?

blowfish posted:

ok which god is your god and how do you know he's not just a figment of your imagination

Crowsbeak posted:

Well I don't but then if you are implying I am insane in believing him I will gladly continue to seek him out. Because quite frankly his world is a good deal better then whatever you're offering.

blowfish posted:

so how can you be sure (or even reasonably assume) you're not just using belief as a coping mechanism for depression

Crowsbeak posted:

I cannot, none of us can. But I will still treat God to be there even if there isn't a God.

blowfish posted:

so basically you need to think you're being watched over by big brother god to keep functioning and probably have too much sadbrains to appreciate a world where people are adults and can choose their own destiny.

Crowsbeak posted:

Really I will say that if being secular means not being able to teach offspring how to not be rude then it really isn't worth it.

Crowsbeak posted:

Well it is sad that you think that being rude makes you an adult. Really I will say that if being secular means not being able to teach offspring how to not be rude then it really isn't worth it. At least thats what I am getting from you.

Literally The Worst posted:

"really what i'm hearing here is that not being religious makes you an immoral rear end in a top hat, shame, really"

come on dude

blowfish posted:

Still missing the point. At this point you're so thick it's probably intentional. Just in case you're actually that much of a dumb gently caress, being secular or religious and thinking that "wouldn't it be nice if we were all nice to each other " is the be-all end-all of human society aren't causally linked. See e.g. every religious extremist rear end in a top hat that exists.

Crowsbeak posted:

I didn't say not believing in God makes one so. I am saying that you two are very bad examples of your own side.


So, people treating each other better is appalling. Good to know. Once again I feel bad that at the moment the atheist side is being so badly represented.

Crowsbeak posted:

I didn't say not believing in God makes one so. I am saying that you two are very bad examples of your own side.

Kilroy posted:

God exists because some atheists were mean to me on the internet

Literally The Worst posted:

all i asked for was for you to back up your claims, dude, don't lump me in with that ding dong

blowfish posted:

if you think living in a nice but fundamentally delusional world is better than living in a world with rude people but where people actually try to discover and debate reality. protip: being rudely told off while someone is trying to prove your opinions dumb and wrong is better treatment than being babied by someone concerned over ever hurting someone's precious feelings

it makes you look like an eternal manchild

Crowsbeak posted:

No, but atheism is rather badly represented when those promoting it believe being utterly rude is the best way to do so. I mean how many people here love those street preachers that tell everyone God hates them?

Crowsbeak posted:

No, but atheism is rather badly represented when those promoting it believe being utterly rude is the best way to do so. I mean how many people here love those street preachers that tell everyone God hates them?

Kilroy posted:

I didn't decide to be an atheist because I was annoyed by street preachers.

blowfish posted:

I'm not trying to convert you over the internet.

Crowsbeak posted:

I didn't say you were. I am saying that Street preachers do not actually convert people but push them away. Just as you push people away from Atheism.,


THen why take offense to my believing in God if it was not offensive that I believed you would not care.

blowfish posted:

Because we are having an internet slapfight on D&D

Brainiac Five posted:

Many atheists are motivated by belief that they have achieved secret knowledge that other people have not. Like the Gnostics, some of them then conclude that people who don't immediately believe their revelation must have something wrong with them. Religiosity must be insanity.

McDowell posted:

There are things humans can do that animals cannot do. Why is that?

Crowsbeak posted:

I didn't say not believing in God makes one so.

Crowsbeak posted:

Really I will say that if being secular means not being able to teach offspring how to not be rude then it really isn't worth it.

Who What Now posted:

Again, humans are animals, we belong to the kingdom animalia, the phylum chordata, class synapsida, and so on so on so forth. So anything we can do is de facto something that can be done by animals (specifically the human animal). As for why we have different characteristics than other animals the answer is the same for why we can't run as fast as a cheetah, aren't a strong as a gorilla, and cannot fly like so many other species; we evolved differently. There's absolutely no reason to say that we are special beyond that we have evolved in a different manner when compared to other animals and not because of divine magic.

Who What Now posted:

Again, humans are animals, we belong to the kingdom animalia, the phylum chordata, class synapsida, and so on so on so forth. So anything we can do is de facto something that can be done by animals (specifically the human animal). As for why we have different characteristics than other animals the answer is the same for why we can't run as fast as a cheetah, aren't a strong as a gorilla, and cannot fly like so many other species; we evolved differently. There's absolutely no reason to say that we are special beyond that we have evolved in a different manner when compared to other animals and not because of divine magic.


Yes you did. Right here, to be exact:


You do realize that people can scroll up to see what you posted before, right? What you say doesn't just evaporate into the aether.

blowfish posted:

Recognising that humans are fallible and cannot possibly know there is some superior being (which conveniently tends to reward exactly what the believer thinks is good behaviour), the height of presumption and arrogance.

Also, unlike beliefs, brain activity measurements don't go away when you stop believing in them.

Crowsbeak posted:

I didn't say you were. I am saying that Street preachers do not actually convert people but push them away. Just as you push people away from Atheism.,