Chatlog thread
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-07-2012, 11:44 AM (This post was last modified: 02-08-2012 03:56 AM by Vosur.)
Chatlog thread
Hey there, folks!

This thread is meant for those of you who want to share funny/weird/interesting chatlogs with the community, whether they come from Omegle, Facebook, Emails or other sources.

I'll start off with mine which will hopefully be merged with this thread soon.

Conversations posted prior to this thread:
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...orm-Omegle
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...per-Omegle
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ork-Omegle
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ian-Omegle
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ist-Omegle

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
31-07-2012, 04:18 PM
RE: Chatlog thread
Cool. I actually found these quite interesting. I'm glad it's you and not me!! Tongue

Although, I can see it possibly inspiring some future endeavor ... if I'm drunk enough. Wink

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2012, 02:54 AM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2012 08:26 AM by Vosur.)
RE: Chatlog thread
Another conversation about witchcraft. Drinking Beverage

You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!

You and the stranger both like Religion.


You: Hello

Stranger: hi

You: What religion do you belong to?

Stranger: I don't prescribe to any organized faith.

Stranger: you?

You: Same here. Care to elaborate? What do you believe in?

Stranger: I'm pagan, not much to it. How bout you, any details?

You: Haha, well, I'm non-religious. I don't know too much about paganism, do you mind explaining ot to me?

Stranger: Well paganism is an umbrella term that encompasses many religions and non-religious paths. It doesn't really have a set of doctrines since it's a large term.

You: What do you believe in in particular?

You: i.e. what part of paganism

Stranger: I am a European polytheist. Sometimes I call myself heathen. Less important than what I believe is what I practice. Orthopraxy vs orthodoxy.

You: I can already see that I know not even closely enough about religions other than the five world religions. I blame the school system.

You: How do you practice your religion?

Stranger: 'the' five world religions? There are a lot more than that. I recognize a few major holidays throughout the year that relate to seasons and such, as well as trying to maintain an attitude of honesty, self-reliance, and hospitality, which means standing up for a lot of things that others do not. I practice folk magic as well, which is loosely tied with my religion but is also somewhat separate. I am currently a bit more focused on witchcraft than religion.

You: For whatever reason, the five 'world religions' are Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism

You: I suppose they are called that way because of their distribution

Stranger: They are the 'largest' religions, by number of practitioners. Perhaps call them 'the five biggest' or something, otherwise you erase hundreds of other religions

You: Oh well, I didn't choose to call them that way

You: You mentioned witchcraft, how exactly does that work?

Stranger: That is an extremely open question. Mind being a bit more specific?

You: I guess so. I don't know anything about witchraft. Like, what is it about?

You: As for the "largest" religions, it's interesting that this isn't true. Judaism only has 14 million followers worldwide.

Stranger: Well I cannot speak for all practitioners, as all witchcraft is different. My personal practice is a way of affecting the world in ways that I find most appealing. It also connects me to older, historical practices, as I focus on folk magic and things, so it's important to me to keep those older things alive. I also use herbalism often, which is very practical and medicinally based.

so what are the five numerically largest religions? it's probably just because the western world loves to think itself first in all things, thus citing the religions closest to christianity in lineage.

You: Christianity: ~2.1 billion
Islam: ~1.5 billion
Hinduism: ~900 million
Buddhism: ~400 million
Chinese national religions: ~400 million

Stranger: ah, of course Chinese national religion doesn't count because it doesn't have as strict a doctrine or as organized a priesthood.

Stranger: it is kind of hodgepodge in some parts

You: Judaism is #9 on the list

Stranger: yup, ethnocentrism.

You: Anyway, back to the topic at hand. What effects does this "folk magic" you pratice have? Or rather: what can you use it for?

Stranger: Anything and everything, really. The effects vary with what types of implements or practices you employ. Folk magic, again, is extremely varied and not very organized, so it's hard to explain

You: Anything that one would categorize as "supernatural"?

Stranger: I don't personally believe in the 'supernatural'. If something is not natural for our planet, it would not occur. I think all things are natural, though they might occur in energy or physics that is not observable by our current tools.

You: That depends on what you're actually doing. Magic tricks seem supernatural at first, but upon further investigations you may find out the trick behind it. Can you name me, like five things, that one can do with folk magic?

Stranger: Ok let's backtrack here. You're still using the term 'supernatural' after I just clarified that nothing I do IS supernatural. There's no 'trick' to it, unless I'm working for a client, in which the placebo effect is actually pretty powerful magic itself. Like I said, any goal you have can be affect by folk magic. Most common things I've seen are protection, banishing of negative things, attracting love/partners, causing garden/crops to grow, and making money.

You: That's what I mean. Most of the things you named would be called supernatural because it is impossible to reach that effect based on our current knowledge.

You: On an unrelated note: What do you mean by "making money"?

Stranger: Impossible is a silly word, really. And I already clarified that our 'science' is incapable of measuring a lot of things that we know to exist, not just the effects of witchcraft. Making money involves increasing profits from a job, getting a job, or even winning prizes/finding random cash.

You: Well, as I've said, impossible based on our current knowledge. It would've thought to be impossible to fly to the moon a few hundred or thousand years ago. As we gain more knowledge, the number of things that we cannot do declines. In order to prove that these effects actually have anything to do with the magic that is practiced, one would have to make, for example, a study about it. What you mentioned could just as well be a coincidence.

Stranger: Of course, a coincidence that millions upon millions of people put faith in and employ the use of, for tens of thousands of years, crossing barriers of race, creed, or culture. Witchcraft is one of the oldest human practices. I doubt that thousands of years of practices and symbols is just a coincidence.

You: That's an argument from tradition, is it not? "It's old therefore it is valid.". Prayer was thought to have an effect for thousands of years as well, but since it has been tested over and over and over again, we've concluded that there is no causal relationship betweening praying and something actually happening

Stranger: It's an argument that, over the course of human history, throughout many varied cultures, people seem to have come to similar conclusions about witchcraft. Witchcraft itself is a form of experimentation. If it didn't work, then why has it continued to this day? And if our scientific tools can't measure everything, something you admitted, then why would experiments using those tools hold any weight?

You: Prayer doesn't work either, yet it has continued to this day.

There is quite a big difference between being unable to, for example, measure dark matter, and being able to find a correlation between practicing witchcraft and things happening. If magic is supposed to have an effect on our world whenever you practice it, then it should be easy to verify it. Such as: practicing one particular spell one hundred times and counting the number of times it had an effect.

Stranger: But often spells have effects that are very different from what is expected. Often the effects are delayed for months or years. If you did the same spell a hundred times, you might get 100 different results because spells are more than ingredients, and there are a lot of variables that go into them, time of day, position of certain bodies, emotional state of the practitioner, etc, that would vary each time they are done.

You: That's exactly what I'm talking about. Prayer is claimed to work the same way. You pray for getting a better job and even if it happens years or months later, it was prayer that caused it.

Stranger: Is there a point you're trying to prove? because even if you don't think my personal practices are 'real' or effective, I'm not going to stop doing what I want because of some random dude on the internet.

You: I'm not trying to get rid of your faith and I don't want you to stop whatever your doing either. I'm pointing out that it's flawed to claim that is has any effect when on further investigation, it becomes more and more abstract.

Stranger: Would you like to give me citations and sources for these so-called studies that have disproved witchcraft? Because witchcraft is not the same as prayer. I would like links, or at least names of books and authors. I'm not claiming to do anything that is measurable by science, and therefore I'm not making any flawed claims.

You: I don't know if there have been any studies made on witchcraft. But from what you've told me there are quite a few parallels to prayer, which there are numerous studies on that I can provide you with.

Stranger: There is a big difference between petitioning a deity to do something for you and creating change yourself through sympathetic actions and charged materials. If you want to give me sources on witchcraft, feel free, but do stop the comparison to religious activity, as witchcraft is not religious inherently and is very different from prayer.

You: The way you practice it may differ, but the core is still the same thing. You perform a ritual of some sort, no matter how, and even if the change does not occur immediatly, but days, months or even years later, it is ascribed to what you did at that point.

Stranger: How are you qualified to tell me about witchcraft, especially my own practices? How long have you been studying anthropology and folk magic? What sources are you using?

You: Why would I need to study folk magic to point out logical inconsistencies with your description of it?

Stranger: Because you're saying that 'it's all the same at the core' which is false. If you're going to make such a general statement, you need to back it up with experience or with actual sources. You're just lumping different practices together because YOU consider them to be similar, and because you do not fully understand them.

You: I'm saying that your particular form of practicing folk magic and religious prayer have the same core. How could I make this statement about all kinds of folk magic without knowing them? I'm referring to the description you gave me about the way you practice it. Also, what makes you think that the core is different?

Stranger: brb

You: Alright

Stranger: I didn't give you a description of any of my practices, actually. You asked a vague question about folk magic, and I gave you a vague answer about folk magic in general, not my practices. Please, if you would like to compare what you think is 'folk magic' to prayer, give me specific citations within this conversation on how it is similar to prayer, in action, NOT in result. Just because the effects of both are not easily measurable and their time of effectiveness varies, does not mean they are similar in action, it just means that they both defy current science, which could be said about a lot of things, like gravity.

You: This right here:

"But often spells have effects that are very different from what is expected. Often the effects are delayed for months or years. If you did the same spell a hundred times, you might get 100 different results because spells are more than ingredients, and there are a lot of variables that go into them, time of day, position of certain bodies, emotional state of the practitioner, etc, that would vary each time they are done."

I didn't say that they are similar in action, I said that the result is the same.

Why does gravitation defy current science?

Stranger: So just because they are both equally immeasurable in result they are 'the same at the core'? that makes no bloody sense. You really don't have much of an argument here, as I suspect you have not actually studied witchcraft of any kind and do not understand how it operates.

Science actually does not know why gravity exists, or how its actions take place, though they can see its results. Not exactly the same, but just a common example of things we don't have a lot of evidence for, that still work.

You: The point of practicing witchcraft is not the ritual itself, but the effect of it, is it not? What would be the point of performing a ritual that allows you to earn more money if you thought it didn't do anything? Why would you pray to get a new house if you think that it's not going to do anything?

The question of "why" something exists leads to an infinite regress. It's like explaining something to a child that will you ask you "Why is that?" ad infinitum.

Stranger: The fact that something is practiced for results does not mean that the operations of its results (in comparison to the operation of the results of prayer) gives reason to compare it to other similarly operating functions. Though it may achieve similar results to many things (job spells can achieve results similar to taking a 'better resume' seminar), it's action is unique. It is NOT the same thing as prayer, and they are NOT 'the same at the core'

You: You're repeating yourself. I told you that the practice of it is different. The core, as I see it, is to achieve some kind of result from doing so. Both of them share this trait, which is why they are the same at the core. It would be easier if you'd point out what you think the core of both practices is.

Stranger: The "core" of a practice? First of all, what does that even mean? The operating principle of prayer is that a deity or being will take favor upon a petitioner and grant them what they are asking for. The operating principle of witchcraft fucking varies depending on what type of witchcraft you're practicing. I am only repeating myself because you are doing the same thing, insisting upon categorizing things that you obviously don't understand. It's not possible to give you a 'witchcraft 101' because there are so many different types and operating principles. If you want a good starting point, try James Frazer's The Golden Bough

You: Once more: You gave me your description of witchraft and that is the type of witchraft that I'm criticizing. You seem to insist on telling me that I claim to know anything about other forms of witchcraft. The description of how witchraft works that you provided me with has the same core that prayer does.

Stranger: What description of witchcraft did I really give you? What operating principles did I outline? I simply told you some goals that witchcraft helps to achieve. Please point out where I gave you an operating principle of witchcraft. Fuck it, I'll give you an example. One type of magic works upon the principle that working physical change upon an object that contains some sort of fluids or dna of a specific person can work to affect that person through sympathetic magic. This is very, very different from petitioning a deity through prayer.

You: Your describing me the form of practice again. Clapping your hands together and talking to an imaginary being (one form of prayer) is obviously not the same as performing witchcraft rituals that involve materials. Making any kind of change to someone's fluids or DNA does not have any verifiable effect. You can also pray to your form of god to change affect the person, yet it's not going to influence the person. The way you try to achieve a certain effect may differ, but the core, achieving the result, is most definetly the same.

Stranger: "The core" is not a very helpful, objective, or practical term. It means literally nothing. "the core" of a practice varies from person to person. You are not advancing your argument at all. I described to you the operating principles of both actions, and just because they might sometimes try to achieve similar results, you call them the same? Are giving your boss sexual favors and studying well in high school the "same at the core" just because they both happen to advance your career prospects? What kind of logic are you smoking over there?

You: Is "the reason why you do it" more helpful to you than calling it "the core"?

You: You're using a strawman argument once more. I'm saying the core is the same, not that they are completely the same.

You: The reason why you practice witchcraft is the same why people pray to their god.

Stranger: there is no objective thing called 'the core' of any practice. "the reason you do it" is not the 'core' of witchcraft for many people.

And you have no right or information to tell ME why I practice witchcraft. You have no clue as to my motivations. Again, just because they sometimes happen to be aimed at the same goals does not mean they are inherently similar. You bore me with your pithy atheist fails.

You: Where did I say that the core of a practice is objective? In fact, I asked you to give me your definition, which indicates that it's a subjective term.

Feel free to enlighten me. You already revealed to me that you think it has has an effect on something. For what reason do you claim to practice witchcraft, if not to make a change of some sort?

Stranger: I don't "claim" to do anything. I DO IT. and I don't think it's possible to "enlighten" you.

You: You do it because you do it?

You: To give you an example "I eat because I'm hungry." or "I wash myself because I'm dirty". Can you do the same with the reason why you practice witchcraft?

Stranger: That is not what I said. You say that I 'claim' to practice witchcraft. I am telling you that I DO. My reasons are my own, and this conversation is over. Feel free to wallow in your own self-righteous opinion of yourself, and go bother someone else with your mental masturbation.

Your conversational partner has disconnected.

Edit: Met her a second time.

You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!

You and the stranger both like religion.


You: Hello

Stranger: hi

You: What religion do you belong to?

Stranger: i don't really belong to any organized religion

Stranger: you?

You: Me neither

Stranger: so you here to proselytize

Stranger: ?

You: Nope

You: I'm interested in debates about religion

Stranger: indeed? what's there to debate?

You: Well, I usually start off asking the person I'm talking to what exactly they believe in

Stranger: ha. why don't you tell me what you believe in?

You: I don't believe in anything.

Stranger: then why do you want to debate with others?

You: To sharpen my debating skills. Being non-religious allows me to avoid most forms of bias

Stranger: lmfao. sure, sure, I believe that.

You: What do you mean?

Stranger: you're not biased against those with religion? you're not biased towards a certain worldview?

You: Why would I be? I evaluate the corresponding religion/world view based on the arguments presented to me. Furthermore, didn't I say that I can avoid -most- forms of bias? You're always going to have some kind of bias

Stranger: So what are the first challenges you would present to someone? And why debate something that is so personal to many people, don't you think it would end with some hurt feelings?

Stranger: Especially since you don't really have any stake in the argument, but they do.You: I always try to be as respectful as possible.

You: And I avoid using an ad hominem argument at all costs

You: As for the challenges to the people, let me give you an example

You: Person A is me, Person B is a Christian

A: Why do you believe in god?
B: Because it says so in the bible
A: How do you know the bible is true?
B: Because it's the word of god
A: How do you know it's the word of god?
B: Because the bible says soAt that point I will usually point out that what they're using is circular reasoning, such as "I'm right because this book I wrote says I'm right"

Stranger: so how do you deal with those who don't base their belief on text?

You: I have yet to meet one who doesn't.You: But in case I did, it depends on the arguments they use

Stranger: well i suppose I will be your first, then.

You: Interesting. Well then, what religion would describe your belief for the most part?

Stranger: Polytheist, western European.

Stranger: with a bit of animism thrown in

You: What are the main characteristics of that belief?

Stranger: Acknowledgement of the existence of gods, ancestral spirits, and spirits of the land, among other beings.

Stranger: Living according to certain virtues, of my own discretion.

Stranger: Studying and being respectful of the culture of my ancestors

You: Alright. Let's start off with the following question then: What evidence do you have for the existence of these gods?

Stranger: The reports and personal experience of thousands of people, as well as my own personal experiences.

You: I assume that you are familiar with logical fallacies? In case you aren't, the argument you just made is based on anecdotal evidence. Here's a good explanation: http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

Stranger: What kind of evidence would be sufficient for you? And why do we need to prove that they exist in the first place? Is it not enough that I believe in them. I'm not insisting that all people do, nor am I claiming that my path is correct for everyone. And really, the gods are only a part of a much bigger worldview that I am attempting to create.

You: Evidence that can be refuted. Let me put it this way: Why would you believe in something if you do not have sufficient evidence for it?

Stranger: Because it gives me a cultural connection to my heritage that I would otherwise lack, and it allows me to interact with larger forces of nature in a way that is effective for me.

You: Is it impossible to have this cultural connection without believing in gods?

Stranger: Like I said, belief in the gods is only a fraction of this cultural context that I am attempting to create and work in. The gods are not center-stage for me. But knowing them and respecting their myths is a part of learning about my culture

You: I can see your point, but would you say that it is reasonable for a skeptical person to believe what you believe in?

i.e. Would you say that the evidence for your belief is compelling enough to convince a skeptical person that it is true?

Stranger: I don't need to. I'm not trying to convert anyone or to gain new believers. I don't think people should believe what I believe unless it is helpful to them.

You: Then there is sadly not much debate about, is there?

Stranger: I suppose. I mean, really theres

Stranger: not much reason for me to convince you of anything. if you don't believe it, then that's your deal. I'm not trying to convince anyone I'm right.

You: That's true. In that case I have two questions for you:
#1. What caused you to engage in this debate with me?
#2. Would you agree with my previous statement that I try my best to stay as respectful as I can?

Stranger: #1: curiosity and boredom, and to see if your claims where true
#2: I'm unsure. We didn't have much to disagree on. But it seems that you are operating in a worldview that isn't helpful to religious debate. You made assumptions about why I believed things and what my motivations were. But there was no direct disrespect. I'm not going to claim that you would always react in this way, though, as I do not have that experience.

You: #1. Well, are they?
#2. You are free to have this opinion, as it depends on the interpretation of what I said/asked.

Stranger: Again, unsure. I think there is a disconnect between our perspectives, so certain terms mean different things to each person

You: That is very likely. Either way, I appreciate that you didn't flee from the debate because we disagree, it tends to happen a lot on here.

Stranger: What you see as simple disagreement could very well be disrespect to the other person, you can

Stranger: *t know

You: There's no way I can avoid someone from thinking that way. Some people are more sensitive than others.

You: The notion of me not being Christian has made some people disconnect.

Stranger: Calling other people oversensitive is shaming of their emotions. You can avoid people being disrespected if you don't act in a disrespectful way.

You: As I've said, mentioning that I'm non-religious causes people to feel offended and disconnecting

You: Am I supposed to lie to them?

Stranger: Which is different than someone disconnecting after actually entering the 'debate'You: Not neccessarily.

Stranger: It's a giant indicator of male privilege to be able to say that SOMEONE ELSE is being "too sensitive" rather than you yourself being hurtful.

Your conversational partner has disconnected.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2012, 04:07 AM
RE: Chatlog thread
Hahahaha...

I read about half of this story and I have to say, this guy is good. I like paganism, I always did. A also like herbalism. There are some things that are not supernatural there, pagans tend to "worship" days like solar solstice or equinox, that all makes sense. In a way, this paganism is much much more in touch with nature and human body and mind than any other religion.

As for his spells, yeah right, but why not? He uses spells, other people pray, some other meditate... It can all have the same effect on human mind and that does not necessary need to be a bad thing.

This is the first one that you talked to on Omegol that had more knowledge than you did. He kinda hold his line pretty well, much better than anyone else. I could even say that he bested you in an argument.

As long as it is not a Christian or a Muslim, all is good.

Big Grin

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2012, 04:08 AM
RE: Chatlog thread
This is probably the shortest and most random conversation I have had on that website.

You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!

You and the stranger both like Religion.


Stranger: Ahh...Religion

You: Hello there

Stranger: I have three minutes to live...what should I do?

You: Masturbate

Stranger: I just had sex, not necessary

Stranger: Two minutes

You: Same answer

You: You can both masturbate and have sex

Stranger: No, you can't... scientific impossibility

Stranger: One minute

You: How is it impossible? You stick your dick into the woman's vagina only so much that you can still masturbate

Stranger: Why a woman's vagina...How about a man's asshole?

You: Same thing, right?

Stranger: REALLY?

Stranger: REALLY?

Stranger: REALLY?

You: Don't get worked up, you don't have much longer to live

Stranger: Fuck, I'm dead

Your conversational partner has disconnected.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
01-08-2012, 04:09 AM
RE: Chatlog thread
EPIC!!!

Big Grin

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2012, 04:15 AM
RE: Chatlog thread
(01-08-2012 04:07 AM)Filox Wrote:  As for his spells, yeah right, but why not? He uses spells, other people pray, some other meditate... It can all have the same effect on human mind and that does not necessary need to be a bad thing.
It may not be a bad thing, but it's definetly not working the way she describes it. Plus she (I assume that it was a female) is unable defend her point of view on a rational basis.

"Science isn't able to measure everything in the universe, therefore it is impossible to make a study about the actual effectiveness of witchcraft, therefore witchcraft works."

(01-08-2012 04:07 AM)Filox Wrote:  This is the first one that you talked to on Omegol that had more knowledge than you did. He kinda hold his line pretty well, much better than anyone else. I could even say that he bested you in an argument.

As long as it is not a Christian or a Muslim, all is good.

Big Grin
You should've read the whole thing. Tongue Admittedly, she knew more about witchcraft than I did, but it ultimately doesn't matter when my argument is that she is unable to affect the world she lives in on a supernatural level.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2012, 05:04 AM
RE: Chatlog thread
(01-08-2012 02:54 AM)Vosur Wrote:  ... working for a client... ... the reason why you do it...

The explanation, I think.

$$$

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
02-08-2012, 02:29 AM
RE: Chatlog thread
Another random one.

You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!

Omegle couldn't find anyone who shares interests with you, so this stranger is completely random. Try adding more interests!


Stranger: Hiiiiiiiiiiiii babyy

You: Hello

Stranger: SUCK MY LOLLIPOP NOW!

You: Gladly!

Stranger: Sorryyy,,,,,,I dont know what came over me..

You: Cum, probably

Stranger: MMMMMM All over the place.,

You: All the way across the sky

Stranger: Lol, ima girl.

You: I figured

Stranger: haha, are you a guy?

You: Yes

Stranger: YAY! How old??

You: 17

Stranger: i'm 14

You: Pedobear approves

Stranger: Hello pedo. Are you cute?

You: Yes. Do you want to suck a lollypop?

You: My lollypop, that is

Your conversational partner has disconnected.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
02-08-2012, 03:46 AM
RE: Chatlog thread
Very lengthy conversation with a KC-like theist.

You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!

You and the stranger both like Religion.


You: Hello

Stranger: Hello

You: Are you religious?

Stranger: Are you over 20?

Stranger: I keep talking with kids.

You: I'm 17

Stranger: I am religious.

Stranger: I'm putting off a paper for my MA in Theology right now.

You: What religion do you belong to?

Stranger: Christianity.

Stranger: Yourself?

You: None. Do you mind discussing about religion?

Stranger: Not at all.

Stranger: AMA.

You: AMA?

Stranger: Sorry, Redditspeak.

Stranger: Ask Me Anything.

You: Oh, I see.

Stranger: Where are you from?

Stranger: That's usually pertinent to religious discussion.

You: I'm from Germany

Stranger: I'm in Colorado, USA.

You: Let's start off with the following quesiton. Why do you believe in god?

Stranger: I believe that ethics have a real basis, that human beings have a real dignity and purpose.

Stranger: That's the theoretical reason, but its also supported by my own empirical experiences.

Stranger: These are obviously not verifiable, but that doesn't lead me to disregard them.

You: Experiences cannot be empirical, personal experiences are always anecdotal

Stranger: "Empirical" is by definition "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience."

You: Indeed. Personal experiences cannot be verified. Empirical science has the important trait that it can be repeated.

Stranger: Right. I'm using the term "empirical" in reference simply to "experience" - not to truths established by scientific method.

Stranger: But that's neither here nor there.

Stranger: Suffice to say, I've had experiences in conjunction with my theoretical ideas which are the foundation of my faith.

You: If I understand you correctly you base your belief in a higher being upon personal experience?

Stranger: And because I believe that there is a true and not arbitrary "right and wrong." I believe that human life is not mere coincidence.

You: It isn't mere coincidence whether you believe in god or not. The theory of evolution explains how we came into being very well.

You: And even with a religious belief, there are no objective moral values

Stranger: Well, there may be no exhaustive knowledge of moral values, but they exist as something besides convention.

You: Moral values are subject to change

You: Our history shows this very well

Stranger: I don't disregard the theory of evolution in itself - rather I would take issue with the idea that life simply spontaneously arose from primordial sludge.

You: It appears to me that you misunderstand the theory of evolution

You: It's a process that took millions of years, nothing happened "spontaneously"

Stranger: Right, right.

Stranger: I'm not expressing myself well, I think.

Stranger: It's rather that life would arise without cause. That it would cohere to form complex organisms.

You: That sounds like "I don't want to believe that life evolved without a cause, therefore it was god"

Stranger: That's probably a fair mockery.

You: You have my apologies

Stranger: I think that without cause, human life has no real dignity.

Stranger: No significance in contrast to the rest of the material world.

You: That does not change if a god exists. You should read the Old Testament.

Stranger: There's no particular reason why we ought to value human life over any other matter.

Stranger: I've read it.

You: Then you should know that human life isn't worth anything either way

Stranger: You'll have to explain how that follows from the Old Testament.

You: God himself wipes out the entire human race except for Noah's family and continues by slaughtering the Egyptians to free the Israelites. Once they are free, he orderes them to wipe out their enemies, including infants and women.

Stranger: And this is evidence that he doesn't care about human life, right?

You: Psalm 137:9
Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!

Stranger: The voice of an abused Israelite crying out in anguish.

You: Right, right. What about ordering to kill those who work on the Sabbath (even strangers who are not part of their tribe) and homosexuals?

You: If you believe that god is the creator of the human race, then obviously he is responsible for the existence of gay people.

Stranger: You want to go through the entire Levitical law and have me explain and justify each part?

Stranger: I'll admit - it's beyond me.

You: If you can't make sense of it, then why do you still accept it?

Stranger: I don't follow the Levitical law?

You: But you follow the god who established it

Stranger: Right.

Stranger: It was a law meant for the Israelites in ancient times.

Stranger: There was a new covenant established in Christ.

You: Not really. When Jesus spoke to his followers he said that he doesn't intend to abolish the old laws.

You: Give me a second

Stranger: I've read the passage.

Stranger: You don't need to look it up.

Stranger: Right, but he was "fulfilling" the laws.

Stranger: In essence, bringing them into a new meaning.

You: Not really. He abolished the law of "Eye for an eye" by introducing a new law that completely refutes the old one, which is "Turn your other cheek" to the one's who hurt oyu

You: Also:

Malachi 3:5-6
"5 And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the Lord of hosts.

6 For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."

Stranger: ?

Stranger: Why that passage?

You: "It was a law meant for the Israelites in ancient times."

Stranger: "I am the Lord, I change not"

You: Indeed

Stranger: This is not the same as saying no new covenant was introduced.

Stranger: Peter was told to eat all foods.

Stranger: Paul and the early church repeal requirements of circumcision and dietary laws for gentiles.

You: "And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers [...] For I am the Lord, I change not"

In the New Testament, God did change and is suddenly okay with adulterers

Stranger: How do you figure that?

Stranger: Jesus told the adulterous woman to repent and sin no more.

You: He didn't judge her, he defended her and said "He who is without sin casts the first stone"

You: That's definetly not the same as judging them

Stranger: Would you tell someone to repent if they had done nothing worthy of judgment?

Stranger: He didn't tell her she was condemned, but he told her to "sin no more."

Stranger: This is not the same as approving of adultery.

You: ...which is not the same as judging

You: Judgement would be "You're a sinner, you deserve to die"

Stranger: So any time someone commits adultery and God does not immediately judge them, he is being untrue?

Stranger: This isn't even the case in the Old Testament alone.

Stranger: The prophets are constantly asking God why they wait to see his judgment.

You: I didn't say that either. The point is that he judges adulterers and others in the OT and forgives them in the NT

Stranger: I don't think that's a fair conclusion.

You: That's like letting a murderer go and telling him "Murder no more" instead of punishing him

Stranger: You would have to see the particular sinner at the end of time to know that.

Stranger: That God did not judge them immediately is clear, but that he did not withhold judgement until a later time is unverifiable.

You: The punishment for adulterers was death in the OT, that's apparently not the case in the NT

You: The one's who wanted to stone her actually acted according to the old laws

Stranger: So Jesus is, in fact, moving towards a new covenant.

Stranger: And you think that this is in violation of God's unchanging nature?

You: Of course it is. He cannot say "I do not abolish the old law" and in the next breath establish completely new laws. Laws that cannot co-exist with the old ones.

Stranger: Isn't it possible God's work is contingent upon people?

Stranger: That the law, that God's mode of working in time is in some respect limited by the people he is working with?

You: Not at all. Why would being gay be okay with one group of people and the punishment for it being death for other people? That implies that homosexuality is a choice

You: That's like punishing someone for being born with blonde hair

Stranger: Crap - I've got to go.

Stranger: I'm also working on an After Effects project.

Stranger: Which is due in about 4 hours.

You: What a shame, it was just getting interesting

Stranger: Haha - I guess.

Stranger: You've got a lot of the typical atheist accusations I encounter down pat.

Stranger: I'll grant you that.

You: If you are interested in religious debates, I can refer you to a forum I am active on

You: We have a Christian on there who is on par with you

Stranger: I try to make candid answers.

Stranger: Eh, I'm not particularly interested.

Stranger: This kind of debate is centered around apologetics, reactionary reasoning and faith.

Stranger: I'm more interested in exploratory reasoning and faith - mystical experience.

You: Oh well, you can't have everything

You: I still enjoyed it though, you are a lot more mature than the usual theist on here

Stranger: For the record, I'm not really sure about the homosexuality debate.

Stranger: In the past, I've taken a position that homosexual nature is both genetic and volitional.

Stranger: That is, it is a tendency that is present in our genes, but a fulfillment made by will.

You: What's your current position then?

Stranger: Something like (and I realize this sounds bad, but I can't think of a better example) having a predisposition towards addiction.

Stranger: I wouldn't blame someone for having the disposition, but I still think substance addiction is crippling of potential, not right.

Stranger: Honestly - right now I think it's kind of a debate which is decided by biology.

You: You may not know this, but homosexuality occurs frequently in nature

Stranger: If it is in fact an unchangeable hardwired sexual orientation - how can anyone criticize it?

Stranger: If it is instead a genetic tendency and not totally determined, there's some room for choice.

Stranger: But like I said, this is for biologists, not myself.

You: Do you think that animals are capable of choosing their sexuality?

Stranger: I'm aware of homosexual tendencies in nature - I read Naked Lunch once.

Stranger: Animals do lots of things, the standards of "right or wrong" do not apply to unreflective creatures.

You: I wouldn't say that. Behaviour that is not beneficial to the survival of the species is "wrong" and vice versa

Stranger: So right and wrong is mere survival?

You: Yes

You: That's why animals do not kill members of their own species for the sake of killing

Stranger: Lots of animals eat their young.

You: It's always related to survival, i.e. praying matis, black widow, etc.

You: *mantis

Stranger: I guess I just don't really think that survival is itself a worthwhile goal.

You: It's the only goal, from a biological point of view

Stranger: When I'm feeling in a particularly unchristian mindset, I'm an absurdist. A Nihilist.

You: Haha, oh well, without a god you can make up your own meaning in life

Stranger: Or dismiss all meaning.

You: Or that

Stranger: Which is what I tend to do.

Stranger: I think Nietzsche meant for it to be a creative act though.

Stranger: It would have been interesting to see what he would have done with his later thought if he hadn't gotten syphilis.

You: Indeed

Stranger: I like the way Camus puts it though.

Stranger: Or rather, I like his framing of the problem, and Nagel's understanding of it.

Stranger: Neither of the two is staggeringly famous, but both are competent and more "literary" than most philosophers.

Stranger: Nagel's conclusion is that life should be approached with irony - realizing nothing we do has any real meaning or value.

Stranger: But doing it anyway.

You: That's a good approach to life one's life without a belief in a deity

Stranger: Agreed.

Stranger: But as I said, I find that worldview fundamentally disappointing.

Stranger: I can't live it.

Stranger: What was it Peter said to Jesus - -

Stranger: "Where else would I go?"

Stranger: That's a part of why I'm still a Christian.

Stranger: I don't think there's anything else worth being.

You: That may not be surprising to you, but I used to be a Christian as well. So did many atheists/agnostics

Stranger: Not surprising at all.

Stranger: I went through my own season of agnosticism.

You: Believing just for the sake of giving life a meaning seems kind of pointless to me

Stranger: It's not for the sake of giving it

Stranger: It's rather because I believe life does have meaning.

You: I'm curious. What meaning does life have with a belief in the christian god?

Stranger: I don't believe life doesn't have meaning and then proceed to adopt Christianity because I want an artificial construct to provide it for me.

Stranger: I suppose it means that there is something intrinsically good about mere existence.

You: How so?

Stranger: That there is joy and fulfillment to be found in embracing Being.

Stranger: I don't know. I've thought about this - and one question I've asked myself is "Why should God create something instead of nothing?"

Stranger: If we admit that God always does what is best, there must be something good about material existence.

You: That idea crumbles down when you actually read what kind of a god god is

Stranger: There must be something good about simply having a being reflect on the delight of our experiences.

Stranger: I suppose you mean that the more philosophical ideas of God don't jive with scripture?

You: Yes

You: And the more you get into philosophy, the less evidence you have for him

You: Until it becomes a mere delusion

You: Excuse my cynicism

Stranger: Nah, it's understandable.

Stranger: I've talked with atheists and been one myself.

Stranger: It doesn't phase me.

You: At the very least we can agree that there is no empirical evidence pointing towards the existence of the christian god, am I correct?

Stranger: Again, the definition of "empirical" needs to be qualified.

You: No scientific evidence, then

Stranger: I think not.

You: That's a big success.

Stranger: Now you reply with the evidentialist claim.

You: You're the first one to go that far

You: On Omegle, that is

Stranger: And argue that it is morally irresponsible for me to believe in anything which I don't have scientific evidence of.

Stranger: See what I mean? These talks are formulaic.

You: Well, do you have anything to counter that argument?

Stranger: I suppose - but it gets kind of convoluted.

Stranger: I offer some examples of things we believe in that are unfalsifiable.

Stranger: You counter that behavioralism serves as evidence for some of these.

Stranger: You change direction and suggest that faith has an impotent object, and that it is irrelevant regardless of whether it is true.

Stranger: I might try to explain how God could work in unfalsifiable ways.

Stranger: You dismiss those as obscurant, use Ockham's razor.

You: I assume that you are familiar with Occams razor?

You: Haha

Stranger: You may think I'm delusional, but at least don't think me stupid.

You: You're definetly not stupid, no

You: I would then bring up the example of using Ancient gods to explain phenomenas such as thunder (Thor)

Stranger: I make the defense that God is not a "God of the gaps."

Stranger: This is precisely why I didn't take the Apologetics degree at seminary.

You: It's a shame that Christopher Hitchens died so early, he dealt with apologists like William Lane Craig in such a efficient way

Stranger: This whole world is fundamentally uninteresting to me.

Stranger: Craig tries to get people fired up about rational defense.

Stranger: It seems so...I don't know, pointless?

Stranger: How many people are really convinced by rational argument that way?

You: Religion can be very dangerous

Stranger: It can be.

You: Have you ever heard about "Aryan Catholicism"?

Stranger: Not really.

Stranger: Is that Aryan as in Master Race or Aryan as in pre-Vedantic?

You: The first one

Stranger: Ugh.

Stranger: Religion can be dangerous, but it can also be beautiful.

You: It includes the delusion that the Holocaust never happened

Stranger: It's like anything with the power to shape the way people view the world.

You: I'd argue that the negative effects of religion outweight the positive one's by far. You should know that especially

You: Republican party anyone?

Stranger: Anyone who empathizes with the modern atheism movement would take that position.

Stranger: Even when I'm feeling irreligious, I still think that faith serves a function that is necessary.

Stranger: So I would not agree with that.

You: Having gay-marriage legalized would not be an issue if it wasn't for fundamental Christians in politics

You: Likewise (some) arabic countries wouldn't have stoning as a death penalty for adulterers

Stranger: Having gay-marriage legalized would not be an issue if we weren't dumb enough to make a Christian ceremony presided over by a secular government.

You: Marriage a Christian ceremony? Hm?

Stranger: Let me explain.

You: It's much much older than that

Stranger: The issue, in my mind, isn't so much that any Christian ought to be against gay marriage - we only have any say concerning specifically Christian marriage.

Stranger: I wouldn't expect to have the privilege of getting a Muslim marriage (I'm not Muslim).

Stranger: So, when someone says there's a gay marriage going on, and we look to our Bibles and it doesn't quite match up, the perception is that we are legalizing gay Christian marriage.

Stranger: Not gay civil union.

Stranger: The equal rights issue is fundamentally a civil issue, not a religious one.

Stranger: If there were an exclusively gay religion, in which only homosexuals could be married - I would not expect them to marry me to a woman.

Stranger: Protesting that they were violating my rights would be absurd - it's their religion.

You: What justification for the prohibition of any kind of official gay marriage (not even talking about a Christian ceremony) do you have other than religious fundamentalism?

Stranger: I don't protest gay marriage.

Stranger: If it's a secular marriage, what business is it of mine?

You: Indeed

Stranger: On the other hand, I would also expect that if our holy scriptures suggest that marriage is between man and woman - then a specifically Christian marriage by definition can't be a gay marriage.

Stranger: So I don't protest gay marriage at all - I just don't think it's Christian.

You: That's completely understandable. But denying them from getting a secular marriage is promoted by Christian fundamentalists such as the Republican party

Stranger: I believe gay people have all the rights anyone else does when it comes to our secular government's recognition.

You: or the CDU/CSU in Germany

Stranger: That's because right-wing people typically identify America as a Christian nation.

Stranger: Which it is not.

Stranger: It is a secular state.

You: The USA is by far not the only secular state not allowing gay marriage

Stranger: Fine, I just don't think that secular states have any ground for not allowing it, that's all.

Stranger: What defines marriage for a secular state?

Stranger: Convention?

Stranger: If convention changes, then so does marriage!

Stranger: There isn't a set standard.

You: There doesn't have to be one

Stranger: It's not so much fundamentalism as it is a conflation of church and state that leads to these protests.

You: Which means that the state isn't all that secular after all

You: Religion shouldn't have any place in politics

Stranger: It's unavoidable that religion has some place.

Stranger: Even if you're merely humanist, something must inform your values.

You: Laws

Stranger: That's working backwards.

Stranger: The laws are built to enforce certain values.

You: Laws tells the average citizen which is okay to do and what's not okay to do. Everything else is up to the individual

Stranger: Okay I'm seriously in trouble

Stranger: I should have started working on After Effects an hour ago

Stranger: you got me hooked with that "interesting" language

You: I'm sorry

Stranger: haha

You: You better get going then

Stranger: I was stupid enough to procrastinate on here

Stranger: serves me right

Stranger: Good talking with you.

You: Was it worth it, at the very least?

You: Likewise

Stranger: It was more interesting that refreshing Facebook at 3am and seeing nothing new.

Stranger: Wink

You: Thanks, I guess

You: Have a good day

Stranger: haha

Stranger: you too

Your conversational partner has disconnected.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: