|
Dear athetits: you can't reason yourself to policy preferences
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 07:22 |
|
|
This is a good post. Sentiments, not faith, are what guide us.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:This is a good post. condolences to your surviving family on account of your brain deadness 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:In this context atheism is a religion just like Christianity, and you are projecting your beliefs onto politics. You saying religion should be expunged from politics is no different than a conservative politician seeking to ban abortion or get Creationism taught in schools. With separation of church and state, arguably an atheist's opinion is worthwhile when it comes to policy. Hillary running for office in America should be talking about her Christianity, it's a smart move.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:condolences to your surviving family on account of your brain deadness I guess Hume isn't popular anymore?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
 I realize that it's kind of the point of an ink blot test, but I can't see anything other than a nutsack in that picture.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:
why does the dick have a moustache
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:How is atheism a religion in this context? Ok I'll bite one last time. Atheism is a belief system, which is something internet atheists are unable or unwilling to understand. Atheism is the belief that God(s) don't exist. It is not provable by science or logic. Your "faith" is that there is no God, and that's fine, but recognize it as such. You're doing the exact thing you're accusing Hillary of. You're basing your politics partly on your personal belief system (there is no God). Compare: Fundamentalist Christians believe in God. They think everyone who doesn't believe in God like they do is a toxic and corrosive influence on our politics and society. Therefore, we should be suspicious of non-Christians and work to elect fundamentalist Christians who hold the correct values. Atheists don't believe in God. They think everyone who does believe in God is a toxic and corrosive influence on our politics and society. Therefore, we should be suspicious of religious people and work to elect atheists who hold the correct values. I've asked you several times to post any actual religiously-influenced policy of Clinton's that you disagree with, but you've stated repeatedly that it's all just "feelings." It's no different than evangelicals being suspicious of atheists or muslims, it's bigotry plain and simple. I'm gonna guess your response will be along the lines of "Bbbbut atheism isn't a belief system, it's pure rational logic and science!" which would indicate you fundamentally don't understand science.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:
Oh god I see a ball sack, what does that meaaaan?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:
Same. To the point where I closed the window quickly when I first saw it since I'm still at work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I was watching MSNBC this morning, and a Trump surrogate kept responding to every question about this stupid move by saying "Donald Trump is the REAL leader of the U.S.!" https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/614845734278533120 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
I just want you to know that as an agnostic since the 4th grade I'm feeling really loving smug right now. 《- me irl
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Ok I'll bite one last time. As an addendum, I believe that many people who claim themselves to be Atheists actually mean they're Agnostic - people who believe that the existence (or lack thereof) of God is unknowable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
"And I will endeavor one day to ensure this tweet is the unambiguous truth"
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Oh my god
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
I choose to believe that that is actually an ink print of some scientist's ballsack.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Niton posted:As an addendum, I believe that many people who claim themselves to be Atheists actually mean they're Agnostic - people who believe that the existence (or lack thereof) of God is unknowable.  Same goes double for people who identify as "non-religious." That isn't necessarily synonymous with "atheism."
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Bad Moon posted:Also lol somebody so indoctorinated to hate religion doesn't see the irony of saying people should never talk about it in public and KEEP IT IN THE CLOSET WHERE IT BELONGS. You mean like the Bible specifically commands Christians to do? Coming of age during the Dubya years made it very clear how religion (and patriotism) so easily influences people for ill and against their fellow man. The discussion over the last few pages makes it clear just how young some of the folks here are. Also, I don't hate religion, some people probably need it. Even growing up in a liberal protestant sect, by my teenage years it had nothing to offer me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I guess Hume isn't popular anymore? i mean, not since kant, no
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Because mixing religion and politics isn't an inherently a bad thing like you seem to think based upon all your prejudiced as gently caress posting about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Obama's campaign wasn't constantly talking about God, nor did it explicitly use religion as a compelling reason to vote for him, nor was it placed front-and-center at his convention in '08. Can you please stop waffling between stating things as objective facts and falling back on 'it's just how I feel'? The quote right here is you stating as an objective fact that Obama's campaign was less religiously oriented than Hillary's. Now, people in the thread have disagreed with this and other things you've stated in the form of objective facts, but what you don't seem to understand is that this disagreement in and of itself is not why most people are getting annoyed. What is annoying is when someone takes the time to bring up an opposing argument using articles, quotes, data, and other sources only to have you handwave it away with lines like "I'm not sure how you can qualify a feeling as 'true' or 'false'" even though your initial statement was phrased as an objective fact and not a feeling. To help clarify things, here is the flow of a normal debate: statement --> counterargument + sources --> refutation of sources and/or counter-counter argument + new sources --> repeat until one side admits they were wrong or both sides effectively call it a draw with neither side convincing the other Now, here is the flow of what you have been doing: 1) statement --> counterargument + sources --> "It's just how I feel" Now, you have two valid paths in front of you. First, you could have your next post actually contain quotes, articles, and other actual sources and when/if they are challenged you debate in a logical, reasonable way by defending your sources by drawing attention to specific quotes or by providing new sources instead of falling back on feelings or refuting certain quotes from your own sources. Secondly, since the first one is looking to be unlikely at this point, you can just state in no uncertain terms the following phrase: "I am prejudiced specifically against Christians to the point that I must assume they are not Christian in order to feel comfortable speaking with them. I admit this opinion is based primarily upon bad experiences I had with a, relatively speaking, small number of people who fall into this group in a very specific part of the world. I view my particular form of prejudice as perfectly acceptable because it is not aimed at the more common targets of prejudice and I do not see it as a part of myself which I should work towards changing because I think it is a healthy and logical perspective to have".
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Zeno-25 posted:You mean like the Bible specifically commands Christians to do? Using religion to push for positive social and economic change is good where as using it to push for negative social and economic change is bad, it's all relative to who's pushing it really.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
I could totally see Pena saying he denied Trump, when Trump really did avoid the topic of Mexico paying for a wall. Who the gently caress would believe Donald Trump? I know I sure as poo poo would use Donald Trump like that to score some easy points.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Niton posted:As an addendum, I believe that many people who claim themselves to be Atheists actually mean they're Agnostic - people who believe that the existence (or lack thereof) of God is unknowable. And yet just about every atheist thinks that being agnostic means you're sitting in Target looking at Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, whatever trying to decide what fits best for you. I've heard "pick a side" probably 300 times, and I don't even bring up anything about religion unless people pester me about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
You know who else has problems with people sitting correctly....
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
"We're sorry something went wrong." The link doesn't seem to be working.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Niton posted:As an addendum, I believe that many people who claim themselves to be Atheists actually mean they're Agnostic - people who believe that the existence (or lack thereof) of God is unknowable. The two terms aren't mutually exclusive, unless your definition of an atheist is: A person who claims with absolute certainty that there is no God, and wouldn't change their mind in the face of evidence. That's a pretty narrow definition though, even Richard Dawkins doesn't go that far. E: I can't really blame people if they'd prefer to only identify as agnostic in order to differentiate themselves from crazy internet atheists though. Squatch Ambassador fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Sep 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:"We're sorry something went wrong." That's weird, it works for me
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
That atheist troll is still going? Jesus gently caress man, you remind me of myself when I was 11 and beaten by my grandpa for not going to church. He had a heavy hand. Thankfully that old gently caress has been dead for years and I've met a lot of chill religious people since. But I wonder: who is beating you?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Niton posted:As an addendum, I believe that many people who claim themselves to be Atheists actually mean they're Agnostic - people who believe that the existence (or lack thereof) of God is unknowable. Yup and there are a lot of Christians and other religious people who are also agnostic. They believe it's impossible to prove/disprove the existence of the Divine, but choose to be religious anyway. I don't have any problem with agnostics/atheists, we have a few regulars in the A/T Christianity thread who stimulate some great discussion. My main beef is with the new atheist crowd who would reject agnosticism and say we can use reason and science to prove God is a mind virus and religion is evil and should be discarded or whatever. 1) it's not intellectually honest because you can't empirically test religion and 2) it shits all over the vast majority of humans on this planet for whom religion is very important.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Ok I'll bite one last time. I was going to respond to this nonsense about atheists, but don't want to be associated with shbobdb. Suffice to say it's so far from the truth of atheists that I personally know that it's hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Zeno-25 posted:You mean like the Bible specifically commands Christians to do? Okay, now that we've gotten someone who's probably being serious I'll bite. I remember 2000-2008 and the corrosive influence of the patriotism-religion complex that permeated the culture for a lot of that era very well. It was disturbing. I am also an atheist. So, we're on the same page here. Clinton and Kaine are not making a public point of their faith just to wave around how incredibly faithful they are - that's what the Bible commands Christians not to do. If you see that in those speeches, you are reading it into them. Obviously, there is an aspect of that - appealing to Christians on the basis of identity - but Clinton and Kaine are incorporating that into a broader message which promotes an outlook on society that is still, totally objectively,extremely firmly grounded in Christian doctrine but which is oriented in a progressive direction rather than a regressive one. The difference between the Clinton/Kaine approach to talking about faith in the context of governing and the Bush era approach to the same thing is that for the Bush administration (and Republicans more generally of course) faith was being used as a blinder, to stoke divisions in society, and as a cover for implementing some of the most un-Christlike poo poo imaginable. The new Democratic line on Christianity is that it is an inherently progressive religion, which has the benefit of being actually true. Notice how every time "my faith" is brought up, it's followed by "and that's how I discovered my commitment to social justice" or something similar? That is punching the phony Buddy Christ of the Republicans square in the teeth. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Sep 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:I was going to respond to this nonsense about atheists, but don't want to be associated with shbobdb. Suffice to say it's so far from the truth of atheists that I personally know that it's hilarious. I was responding to shbobdb and his particular brand of atheism specifically. I agree that his views are not representative of really any atheists I know, either. Jazerus posted:Okay, now that we've gotten someone who's probably being serious I'll bite. Yeah I graduated high school in '05 and college in '09, I was agnostic/atheist for a lot of that time and it was largely in response to how loving disgusting the vocal Christian right was, I didn't want to be associated with it. I got back into religion in grad school doing a PhD in the sciences, amusingly. I agree that the best weapon against dark side Christianity is to give voice to progressive Christianity and reclaim religion as something perceived as a force for good in society. Basically, 
Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Sep 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
edit: uhhh wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
So has he had his press conference yet tonight? God his lies are so loving predictable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Reviews for Trump are in. A+++ Would Pivot again! https://twitter.com/ktmcfarland/status/771085045939437569?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/howiewolf/status/771087015387533313?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/Hadas_Gold/status/771087953988882432?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/Scaramucci/status/771084676987518977?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/AriMelber/status/771084632188133380?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/DougHeye/status/771085213577408512?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/ScottJenningsKY/status/771083382818234369?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Reviews for Trump are in. A+++ Would Pivot again! Cool, a whose who list of mentally retarded people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Cool, a whose who list of mentally retarded people. Or at the least pulling a standard retard
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:I was responding to shbobdb and his particular brand of atheism specifically. I agree that his views are not representative of really any atheists I know, either. Gotcha. Carry on, nothing to see here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 07:22 |
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Basically, I believe this is from an Al Franken book, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:43
|
|