Poll: after life or oblivion
Oblivion duh
Reincarnation as human only
Resurrection only
I would be a ghost trolling humans
Reincarnation Hindu or Buddhist style
I dont know
heaven or hell and then resurrection
other
[Show Results]
 
afterlife or oblivion ?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-04-2016, 03:56 PM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(02-04-2016 11:20 AM)Nagoda Wrote:  
(02-04-2016 12:18 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The only point that I think is worth addressing is that creationism and related positions are not dismissed because of anti-theistic bias. They are dismissed because they are demonstrably, factually, and objectively very, very stupid.

I object to your use of the word stupid here- let's be more precise. What you mean to say is that they are ignorant of the evidence being presented. The word stupid has a negative value judgment attached to it, and can be seen as denigrating.

I'm pretty sure he meant it precisely that way. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2016, 03:57 PM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(02-04-2016 02:40 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(02-04-2016 11:10 AM)Nagoda Wrote:  First let's figure out what we mean by "factual positions"- if we are referring to someone stating a fact or facts

We are.

(02-04-2016 11:20 AM)Nagoda Wrote:  I object to your use of the word stupid here- let's be more precise. What you mean to say is that they are ignorant of the evidence being presented. The word stupid has a negative value judgment attached to it, and can be seen as denigrating.

I'm aware. That is the intent.

The vast, vast majority of creationists are not ignorant. Or, rather, they are willfully so. I see no reason to disrespect those who have simply not been educated on the subject, but a hallmark of creationist belief is that they have been - or, at least, many, many people have made the attempt, only to be actively rebuffed. See Call_of_the_Wild's posts on this very forum for an easy example.

I have nothing against ignorance. I detest willful idiocy.

(02-04-2016 11:53 AM)Nagoda Wrote:  Our experience is trivial? Our experiences as individuals is trivial? In the grand scheme of things as they relate to the entire universe, yes

As that is explicitly the context in which this statement was meant, everything following this is irrelevant. Once again, you are going off on a tangent to rail against a position that no one in this thread holds or has argued in favor of. This is called strawmanning.

I am sure that this is not intentional, but please, try not to put words in others' mouths. Chas, cjlr, and I all tend towards the extremely blunt and exceptionally literal. We mean exactly what we say, nothing more and nothing less.

Ok, the use of position is a poor choice of wording in this case: position usually refers to an overall position/belief on an issue that a person has looked into. If you mean statements of fact, say so and don't conflate the two. Half the problem I think we're having is that we (myself included) are not defining our terms and language very well. What was meant by a factual position was not clear at all to me due to the poor choice of wording.

If you are intending to denigrate people who are willfully ignorant, I'm sorry but that's rude and nonconstructive and gets the dialogue no where, and it's a tactic commonly used by bullies. It is not civil and that's what i take issue with: how people are treating other people. I try to respect the person and their beliefs no matter how willfully ignorant they are because it's better than resorting to denigration and name calling, even if the person deserves it.

It probably has to do with my Canadian background, we're very polite and believe that a person and their beliefs should be respected no matter what, because that's called being a decent human being where I come from. This is one of the notable distinctions of our culture I'd say, and we believe it because, very slowly, it produces a dialogue between different ideologies and gets results. This of course only works if both sides do this, and really the whole point of my rant was that Theists and Atheists both need to respect each other's beliefs, and the conduct of people on this forum and others should be better. I'll be honest: I have a hard time respecting blatant disrespect (ironically, given my belief on this issue) probably because it is disrespectful, and respect is a core value in Canadian culture and identity. However, I do respect your right to hold this opinion, and I vehemently disagree with you, as it's just bad conduct IMO.

I will do my best not to go on tangents and stay on topic, but I tend to ramble tons, so it's very difficult- professors used to grant me size extensions on papers in University (and I was the only one in my courses who asked for them)- I am very verbose, wordy, scatterbrained, and yes I am also blunt, but these things are a part of my personality as a whole. Staying on topic, and being as tearse and to the point as I can is difficult for me as I get very easily distracted (and I think I might have ADD, I'm going to see if I can get properly diagnosed). But thank you re: strawman arguments, that is helpful. I will do my best to reign myself in (even though I've failed to do so in the last few paragraphs and will probably continue to do so).

The other problem is, I'm new here (duh): I don't know you guys, don't know how people operate, and I have been making assumptions about people (especially Chas) which I should not be doing. I apologize to you and Chas and CJ and whoever else I've wrongly assumed about at this point who's on this forum, this is unbecoming of me and not good conduct at all.

However, here's my problem: even over time once I get to know more of you, the task of remembering how each of you write/operate and what they mean becomes increasingly difficult. I can keep track of maybe 3,4,5 maybe even ten of you and try to remember that in my head, but there are hundreds if not thousands of people on this forum: I cannot keep track of everyone!

Is it fair to say that the majority of people on this forum are blunt and literally mean what they say? Is it safe for me to assume that this is the general MO of folks on this forum?

I am still learning, and I make mistakes all the time. I also failed math, science, and formal logic in school. I have a lot to learn, and for me the learning curve is very high and difficult, as I'm a creative type and this stuff is difficult for me to grasp. I am going to do better at refraining from speaking about scientific topics I know nothing about or understand, especially quantum. Go gentle and easy on me and be patient: the main point is that I want to learn, no matter how hard it is.

If a Biblical Studies question comes up though, I'll jump right in: I have a B.A. in it and can speak on certain issues competently with some authority.

On a completely separate note: I found my source for the scientists who believe death is like a black hole: turns out it's in a very old book, so number one that means the information is likely outdated. One cognitive scientist (did not say who) basically took the theory of time being relative and the idea of time slowing down in a black hole and applied it to dying. Here's the catch: the book was about unproveable theories, therefore, disregard everything I said originally on the subject. I found my source, and it's shit.

I've generally come to the realization that I must be coming across as a rambling asshat who has no idea what he's talking about. I apologize: I tend to be impulsive and act before I think, it's a bad character flaw with me. Not sure I can do much about the rambling as it's just how I write/talk/speak, but I will do my best to at least ramble on topic from now on as best i can. I'm just bloody loquacious is all. The impulsiveness however is a huge flaw, and I am slowly working to correct it, but it will take years to correct. I am actually told by others I'm quite nice and thoughtful, so if i seem an ass, that's really not who I am, and I apologize for being a dick. Again, I ask for patience and to be gentle with me on everyone's part, I am still learning and will stumble, as do all of us.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2016, 04:10 PM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(02-04-2016 03:57 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  
(02-04-2016 02:40 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  We are.


I'm aware. That is the intent.

The vast, vast majority of creationists are not ignorant. Or, rather, they are willfully so. I see no reason to disrespect those who have simply not been educated on the subject, but a hallmark of creationist belief is that they have been - or, at least, many, many people have made the attempt, only to be actively rebuffed. See Call_of_the_Wild's posts on this very forum for an easy example.

I have nothing against ignorance. I detest willful idiocy.


As that is explicitly the context in which this statement was meant, everything following this is irrelevant. Once again, you are going off on a tangent to rail against a position that no one in this thread holds or has argued in favor of. This is called strawmanning.

I am sure that this is not intentional, but please, try not to put words in others' mouths. Chas, cjlr, and I all tend towards the extremely blunt and exceptionally literal. We mean exactly what we say, nothing more and nothing less.

Ok, the use of position is a poor choice of wording in this case: position usually refers to an overall position/belief on an issue that a person has looked into. If you mean statements of fact, say so and don't conflate the two. Half the problem I think we're having is that we (myself included) are not defining our terms and language very well. What was meant by a factual position was not clear at all to me due to the poor choice of wording.

If you are intending to denigrate people who are willfully ignorant, I'm sorry but that's rude and nonconstructive and gets the dialogue no where, and it's a tactic commonly used by bullies. It is not civil and that's what i take issue with: how people are treating other people. I try to respect the person and their beliefs no matter how willfully ignorant they are because it's better than resorting to denigration and name calling, even if the person deserves it.

It probably has to do with my Canadian background, we're very polite and believe that a person and their beliefs should be respected no matter what, because that's called being a decent human being where I come from. This is one of the notable distinctions of our culture I'd say, and we believe it because, very slowly, it produces a dialogue between different ideologies and gets results. This of course only works if both sides do this, and really the whole point of my rant was that Theists and Atheists both need to respect each other's beliefs, and the conduct of people on this forum and others should be better. I'll be honest: I have a hard time respecting blatant disrespect (ironically, given my belief on this issue) probably because it is disrespectful, and respect is a core value in Canadian culture and identity. However, I do respect your right to hold this opinion, and I vehemently disagree with you, as it's just bad conduct IMO.

I will do my best not to go on tangents and stay on topic, but I tend to ramble tons, so it's very difficult- professors used to grant me size extensions on papers in University (and I was the only one in my courses who asked for them)- I am very verbose, wordy, scatterbrained, and yes I am also blunt, but these things are a part of my personality as a whole. Staying on topic, and being as tearse and to the point as I can is difficult for me as I get very easily distracted (and I think I might have ADD, I'm going to see if I can get properly diagnosed). But thank you re: strawman arguments, that is helpful. I will do my best to reign myself in (even though I've failed to do so in the last few paragraphs and will probably continue to do so).

The other problem is, I'm new here (duh): I don't know you guys, don't know how people operate, and I have been making assumptions about people (especially Chas) which I should not be doing. I apologize to you and Chas and CJ and whoever else I've wrongly assumed about at this point who's on this forum, this is unbecoming of me and not good conduct at all.

However, here's my problem: even over time once I get to know more of you, the task of remembering how each of you write/operate and what they mean becomes increasingly difficult. I can keep track of maybe 3,4,5 maybe even ten of you and try to remember that in my head, but there are hundreds if not thousands of people on this forum: I cannot keep track of everyone!

Is it fair to say that the majority of people on this forum are blunt and literally mean what they say? Is it safe for me to assume that this is the general MO of folks on this forum?

I am still learning, and I make mistakes all the time. I also failed math, science, and formal logic in school. I have a lot to learn, and for me the learning curve is very high and difficult, as I'm a creative type and this stuff is difficult for me to grasp. I am going to do better at refraining from speaking about scientific topics I know nothing about or understand, especially quantum. Go gentle and easy on me and be patient: the main point is that I want to learn, no matter how hard it is.

If a Biblical Studies question comes up though, I'll jump right in: I have a B.A. in it and can speak on certain issues competently with some authority.

On a completely separate note: I found my source for the scientists who believe death is like a black hole: turns out it's in a very old book, so number one that means the information is likely outdated. One cognitive scientist (did not say who) basically took the theory of time being relative and the idea of time slowing down in a black hole and applied it to dying. Here's the catch: the book was about unproveable theories, therefore, disregard everything I said originally on the subject. I found my source, and it's shit.

I've generally come to the realization that I must be coming across as a rambling asshat who has no idea what he's talking about. I apologize: I tend to be impulsive and act before I think, it's a bad character flaw with me. Not sure I can do much about the rambling as it's just how I write/talk/speak, but I will do my best to at least ramble on topic from now on as best i can. I'm just bloody loquacious is all. The impulsiveness however is a huge flaw, and I am slowly working to correct it, but it will take years to correct. I am actually told by others I'm quite nice and thoughtful, so if i seem an ass, that's really not who I am, and I apologize for being a dick. Again, I ask for patience and to be gentle with me on everyone's part, I am still learning and will stumble, as do all of us.

Well. That earns you a +2 on content and a -1 for rambling.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2016, 04:22 PM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(02-04-2016 04:10 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(02-04-2016 03:57 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Ok, the use of position is a poor choice of wording in this case: position usually refers to an overall position/belief on an issue that a person has looked into. If you mean statements of fact, say so and don't conflate the two. Half the problem I think we're having is that we (myself included) are not defining our terms and language very well. What was meant by a factual position was not clear at all to me due to the poor choice of wording.

If you are intending to denigrate people who are willfully ignorant, I'm sorry but that's rude and nonconstructive and gets the dialogue no where, and it's a tactic commonly used by bullies. It is not civil and that's what i take issue with: how people are treating other people. I try to respect the person and their beliefs no matter how willfully ignorant they are because it's better than resorting to denigration and name calling, even if the person deserves it.

It probably has to do with my Canadian background, we're very polite and believe that a person and their beliefs should be respected no matter what, because that's called being a decent human being where I come from. This is one of the notable distinctions of our culture I'd say, and we believe it because, very slowly, it produces a dialogue between different ideologies and gets results. This of course only works if both sides do this, and really the whole point of my rant was that Theists and Atheists both need to respect each other's beliefs, and the conduct of people on this forum and others should be better. I'll be honest: I have a hard time respecting blatant disrespect (ironically, given my belief on this issue) probably because it is disrespectful, and respect is a core value in Canadian culture and identity. However, I do respect your right to hold this opinion, and I vehemently disagree with you, as it's just bad conduct IMO.

I will do my best not to go on tangents and stay on topic, but I tend to ramble tons, so it's very difficult- professors used to grant me size extensions on papers in University (and I was the only one in my courses who asked for them)- I am very verbose, wordy, scatterbrained, and yes I am also blunt, but these things are a part of my personality as a whole. Staying on topic, and being as tearse and to the point as I can is difficult for me as I get very easily distracted (and I think I might have ADD, I'm going to see if I can get properly diagnosed). But thank you re: strawman arguments, that is helpful. I will do my best to reign myself in (even though I've failed to do so in the last few paragraphs and will probably continue to do so).

The other problem is, I'm new here (duh): I don't know you guys, don't know how people operate, and I have been making assumptions about people (especially Chas) which I should not be doing. I apologize to you and Chas and CJ and whoever else I've wrongly assumed about at this point who's on this forum, this is unbecoming of me and not good conduct at all.

However, here's my problem: even over time once I get to know more of you, the task of remembering how each of you write/operate and what they mean becomes increasingly difficult. I can keep track of maybe 3,4,5 maybe even ten of you and try to remember that in my head, but there are hundreds if not thousands of people on this forum: I cannot keep track of everyone!

Is it fair to say that the majority of people on this forum are blunt and literally mean what they say? Is it safe for me to assume that this is the general MO of folks on this forum?

I am still learning, and I make mistakes all the time. I also failed math, science, and formal logic in school. I have a lot to learn, and for me the learning curve is very high and difficult, as I'm a creative type and this stuff is difficult for me to grasp. I am going to do better at refraining from speaking about scientific topics I know nothing about or understand, especially quantum. Go gentle and easy on me and be patient: the main point is that I want to learn, no matter how hard it is.

If a Biblical Studies question comes up though, I'll jump right in: I have a B.A. in it and can speak on certain issues competently with some authority.

On a completely separate note: I found my source for the scientists who believe death is like a black hole: turns out it's in a very old book, so number one that means the information is likely outdated. One cognitive scientist (did not say who) basically took the theory of time being relative and the idea of time slowing down in a black hole and applied it to dying. Here's the catch: the book was about unproveable theories, therefore, disregard everything I said originally on the subject. I found my source, and it's shit.

I've generally come to the realization that I must be coming across as a rambling asshat who has no idea what he's talking about. I apologize: I tend to be impulsive and act before I think, it's a bad character flaw with me. Not sure I can do much about the rambling as it's just how I write/talk/speak, but I will do my best to at least ramble on topic from now on as best i can. I'm just bloody loquacious is all. The impulsiveness however is a huge flaw, and I am slowly working to correct it, but it will take years to correct. I am actually told by others I'm quite nice and thoughtful, so if i seem an ass, that's really not who I am, and I apologize for being a dick. Again, I ask for patience and to be gentle with me on everyone's part, I am still learning and will stumble, as do all of us.

Well. That earns you a +2 on content and a -1 for rambling.

Tongue Still up by plus one! There's a reason I like Victorian literature and why I'm currently writing a novel in pseudo Victorian style. My best friend who's reading the first draft says I did too good of a job at emulating Victorian writers who were paid by the word Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2016, 04:44 PM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(02-04-2016 03:57 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  If you are intending to denigrate people who are willfully ignorant, I'm sorry but that's rude and nonconstructive and gets the dialogue no where

It was already going nowhere. That's rather the whole point of the phrase "willfully ignorant".

And yes, it is slightly rude and entirely nonconstructive. It's also warranted. You may not like it, but I see no issue with calling something stupid "stupid". We will have to agree to disagree on this point.

(02-04-2016 04:35 PM)diversesynergy Wrote:  Is it fair to say that the majority of people on this forum are blunt and literally mean what they say? Is it safe for me to assume that this is the general MO of folks on this forum?

Those who actually participate in serious discussions like this, yes.

(02-04-2016 04:35 PM)diversesynergy Wrote:  I've generally come to the realization that I must be coming across as a rambling asshat who has no idea what he's talking about.

Not an asshat, no. You actually seem quite polite, and I've been enjoying the discussion thus far. A bit rambling, yes, but this is a common problem, and if you actually want to change that, you can learn.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2016, 06:58 PM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
Since you allowed multiple boxes to be check, I'm voting for both oblivion and ghost-trolling.

I think oblivion (or, rather, the cessation of identity) is the most likely result.

Ghost-trolling is the one I would WANT, though. Oh, I would have SO much fun with Sye Ten and Ken Ham.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
03-04-2016, 01:24 AM (This post was last modified: 03-04-2016 01:50 AM by Szuchow.)
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Biased against religion- I define that as viewing religion as predominantly negative, unhealthy and/or destructive,

You define this as bias, I define this as seeing religion for what it truly is.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  which biases you against viewing religion in a more positive light, or acknowledging the positive religions have, and thus viewing them in a more objective manner.

Objective?

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Or, alternatively, not taking religious claims seriously because they're religious and religion is BS and shouldn't be taken seriously because they can't back up their claims.

Religion Is bullshit and forced brainwashing. And if religious people can't back their claims with something more than their faith in sky daddy such claims deserve to be dismissed or laughed at.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Atheists need to learn to be as critical of science and their own positions as they are of religion, otherwise we loose any and all credibility and become hypocrites.

I don't think you're qualified to say what atheists need to learn. It smacks of arrogance and/or preachiness.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Atheism and anti-theism have appeared to become coupled with each other, and I am incredibly skeptical of anti-theism as it's a horribly biased position and not objective in the slightest. It might be based on facts and evidence, but its interpretation of those facts has a very strong bias against religion.

If I say that stealing is wrong that means I'm biased against stealing?

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  It doesn't matter that someone has evidence to back up what they say,

Says you.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  what matters is that they think their world view is better than the other person's, and they try to convert them to their way of thinking because they believe themselves to be right and that the evidence proves them right.

If evidence prove them right they do not believe that they're right, they are. Also I have yet to met atheist who would try to convert someone.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  If religions or religious people do harm others, we have every right to point out the problems, but if belief in God or Jesus or Buddha or whatever has a positive impact on people's lives, no matter how untrue it may be, who the fuck are we to suggest what works best for them?

I don't give a shit about how positive belief in fairy tales is for some, what matters is damage that sheep do to others by trying to force their taboos on society.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  The problem is not religion, it's ideological superiority which can happen with anything, it just happened to be taken up by religion first because that's where we based our power structures back in the day.

I disagree. Religion is the problem as long as it do not stay private.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  It's my opinion that we as a community of Atheists do not practice self criticism in regards to our own beliefs as much as we should,that we do not think reflectively on our words and actions as much as we should or at least not as much as we reflect on the problems within religion.

Exactly, it is your opinion.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  You could respond with "well religious people don't base their opinions on evidence, I don't need to respect them", like Dawkins would say, but the problem with that is that if you do not show respect towards a person in a debate, you have shut down the conversation completely by calling their beliefs deluded, crazy, or calling them names like "Christotards" (I'm not saying you do Chas but I've seen others use the term on the forum multiple times).

Sure, I could. Fools do not deserve my respect.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  This behaviour is not respectful, this is not charitable, but above all this is not constructive behaviour: it does not promote a dialogue between Atheists and Theists.

Respect is earned. Also I don't give a damn about "dialogue" between theists and atheists.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Take creationists: I fully admit I do not respect the views of creationists, but I'm working to change that, because respecting their beliefs is the only way by which I will have a civil discourse with those people on the issues at hand.

I have zero respect for their view and discussion with people who held such belief has no sense. Arguing with faith is useless.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  They might be wrong, they might be teaching kids lies about evolution, but that can be corrected with dialogue and the only way you can do that is if both parties have a mutual respect for each other and their respective beliefs at the start of the conversation.

Possibility of "correcting" their view with dialogue is only your belief not fact. Also it's kinda arrogant too - for all your proclaimed respect you want to correct them. I couldn't care less about what they believe if it do not impact me.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  When people here in Canada generally act the way anti-theists like Dawkins do, they end up losing the respect of people and people generally view them as being intolerant and dickish towards other people's beliefs.

We aren't in Canada.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  I realize the Canadian perspective of respecting a belief while disagreeing with it is not practiced in many countries, but I believe it is the best way to ensure that the dialogue between Atheists and Theists keeps going and is constructive.

You're free to believe it.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  If you're here to turn religious people to Atheism, congratulations, you've become an Evangelist, just like the Christians but in reverse.

It is you who spoke of correcting in regards to creationists. Congratulations I guess.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Atheism comes in many varieties: I am not an anti-theist, and I wish people would stop associating me with them simply because I'm an Atheist, because they equate that word with people like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. And quite frankly to be associated with people who, by their own admission, are disrespectful towards religion, and who are blind to their own biases, is a damn shame.

Being associated with people who see primitive superstitions and childhood indoctrination as something bad make me feel good.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Anti-theists have effectively co-opted the conversation on Atheism and made themselves it's brand and posterchild- if that wasn't true Richard Dawkins would not be one of the first persons who comes to people's minds when you say the word Atheist.

It's only your belief not fact.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  This needs to stop:

Or what?

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Atheism is much bigger, much more diverse than the narrow interpretation these people have made it out to be.

Atheism is lack of belief.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  For one thing, some of us actually have respect for religions.

And some do not.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Atheism is a simply a lack of belief in gods- how that lack of belief is expressed is up to the individual, and it is quite diverse. It should not be associated, ever, with the disrespectful and rude behaviour of many anti-theists: it damages our credibility in the eyes of others and gives us a bad name.

Why exactly I should care how theists view me? Not to mention that I'm already viewed as communist for not believing in tribal superstitions.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  We can do better than this, and we know it!

You think that your way is better and I doubt it.

(02-04-2016 03:57 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  If you are intending to denigrate people who are willfully ignorant, I'm sorry but that's rude and nonconstructive and gets the dialogue no where, and it's a tactic commonly used by bullies.

It may be rude but even starting "discussion" with creationists or other such types is nonconstructive. When one side has nothing more than faith there is no sense in talking to them.

Also idiotic beliefs and people believing such silly shit when they have access to knowledge do not get my respect.

(02-04-2016 03:57 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  I try to respect the person and their beliefs no matter how willfully ignorant they are because it's better than resorting to denigration and name calling, even if the person deserves it.

You're free to do so but I think that beliefs warrant no respect as respect is given - or rather earned by - to people, not their ideas.

(02-04-2016 03:57 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  I have a hard time respecting blatant disrespect

I have hard time respecting idiocy.

(02-04-2016 03:57 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Is it fair to say that the majority of people on this forum are blunt and literally mean what they say?

Don't know but I haven't met someone who was speaking in parables.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
03-04-2016, 07:13 AM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
Hell. I love warm weather and eternal torture.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2016, 05:36 PM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(03-04-2016 01:24 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Biased against religion- I define that as viewing religion as predominantly negative, unhealthy and/or destructive,

You define this as bias, I define this as seeing religion for what it truly is.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  which biases you against viewing religion in a more positive light, or acknowledging the positive religions have, and thus viewing them in a more objective manner.

Objective?

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Or, alternatively, not taking religious claims seriously because they're religious and religion is BS and shouldn't be taken seriously because they can't back up their claims.

Religion Is bullshit and forced brainwashing. And if religious people can't back their claims with something more than their faith in sky daddy such claims deserve to be dismissed or laughed at.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Atheists need to learn to be as critical of science and their own positions as they are of religion, otherwise we loose any and all credibility and become hypocrites.

I don't think you're qualified to say what atheists need to learn. It smacks of arrogance and/or preachiness.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Atheism and anti-theism have appeared to become coupled with each other, and I am incredibly skeptical of anti-theism as it's a horribly biased position and not objective in the slightest. It might be based on facts and evidence, but its interpretation of those facts has a very strong bias against religion.

If I say that stealing is wrong that means I'm biased against stealing?

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  It doesn't matter that someone has evidence to back up what they say,

Says you.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  what matters is that they think their world view is better than the other person's, and they try to convert them to their way of thinking because they believe themselves to be right and that the evidence proves them right.

If evidence prove them right they do not believe that they're right, they are. Also I have yet to met atheist who would try to convert someone.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  If religions or religious people do harm others, we have every right to point out the problems, but if belief in God or Jesus or Buddha or whatever has a positive impact on people's lives, no matter how untrue it may be, who the fuck are we to suggest what works best for them?

I don't give a shit about how positive belief in fairy tales is for some, what matters is damage that sheep do to others by trying to force their taboos on society.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  The problem is not religion, it's ideological superiority which can happen with anything, it just happened to be taken up by religion first because that's where we based our power structures back in the day.

I disagree. Religion is the problem as long as it do not stay private.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  It's my opinion that we as a community of Atheists do not practice self criticism in regards to our own beliefs as much as we should,that we do not think reflectively on our words and actions as much as we should or at least not as much as we reflect on the problems within religion.

Exactly, it is your opinion.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  You could respond with "well religious people don't base their opinions on evidence, I don't need to respect them", like Dawkins would say, but the problem with that is that if you do not show respect towards a person in a debate, you have shut down the conversation completely by calling their beliefs deluded, crazy, or calling them names like "Christotards" (I'm not saying you do Chas but I've seen others use the term on the forum multiple times).

Sure, I could. Fools do not deserve my respect.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  This behaviour is not respectful, this is not charitable, but above all this is not constructive behaviour: it does not promote a dialogue between Atheists and Theists.

Respect is earned. Also I don't give a damn about "dialogue" between theists and atheists.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Take creationists: I fully admit I do not respect the views of creationists, but I'm working to change that, because respecting their beliefs is the only way by which I will have a civil discourse with those people on the issues at hand.

I have zero respect for their view and discussion with people who held such belief has no sense. Arguing with faith is useless.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  They might be wrong, they might be teaching kids lies about evolution, but that can be corrected with dialogue and the only way you can do that is if both parties have a mutual respect for each other and their respective beliefs at the start of the conversation.

Possibility of "correcting" their view with dialogue is only your belief not fact. Also it's kinda arrogant too - for all your proclaimed respect you want to correct them. I couldn't care less about what they believe if it do not impact me.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  When people here in Canada generally act the way anti-theists like Dawkins do, they end up losing the respect of people and people generally view them as being intolerant and dickish towards other people's beliefs.

We aren't in Canada.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  I realize the Canadian perspective of respecting a belief while disagreeing with it is not practiced in many countries, but I believe it is the best way to ensure that the dialogue between Atheists and Theists keeps going and is constructive.

You're free to believe it.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  If you're here to turn religious people to Atheism, congratulations, you've become an Evangelist, just like the Christians but in reverse.

It is you who spoke of correcting in regards to creationists. Congratulations I guess.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Atheism comes in many varieties: I am not an anti-theist, and I wish people would stop associating me with them simply because I'm an Atheist, because they equate that word with people like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. And quite frankly to be associated with people who, by their own admission, are disrespectful towards religion, and who are blind to their own biases, is a damn shame.

Being associated with people who see primitive superstitions and childhood indoctrination as something bad make me feel good.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Anti-theists have effectively co-opted the conversation on Atheism and made themselves it's brand and posterchild- if that wasn't true Richard Dawkins would not be one of the first persons who comes to people's minds when you say the word Atheist.

It's only your belief not fact.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  This needs to stop:

Or what?

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Atheism is much bigger, much more diverse than the narrow interpretation these people have made it out to be.

Atheism is lack of belief.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  For one thing, some of us actually have respect for religions.

And some do not.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Atheism is a simply a lack of belief in gods- how that lack of belief is expressed is up to the individual, and it is quite diverse. It should not be associated, ever, with the disrespectful and rude behaviour of many anti-theists: it damages our credibility in the eyes of others and gives us a bad name.

Why exactly I should care how theists view me? Not to mention that I'm already viewed as communist for not believing in tribal superstitions.

(01-04-2016 10:12 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  We can do better than this, and we know it!

You think that your way is better and I doubt it.

(02-04-2016 03:57 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  If you are intending to denigrate people who are willfully ignorant, I'm sorry but that's rude and nonconstructive and gets the dialogue no where, and it's a tactic commonly used by bullies.

It may be rude but even starting "discussion" with creationists or other such types is nonconstructive. When one side has nothing more than faith there is no sense in talking to them.

Also idiotic beliefs and people believing such silly shit when they have access to knowledge do not get my respect.

(02-04-2016 03:57 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  I try to respect the person and their beliefs no matter how willfully ignorant they are because it's better than resorting to denigration and name calling, even if the person deserves it.

You're free to do so but I think that beliefs warrant no respect as respect is given - or rather earned by - to people, not their ideas.

(02-04-2016 03:57 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  I have a hard time respecting blatant disrespect

I have hard time respecting idiocy.

(02-04-2016 03:57 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Is it fair to say that the majority of people on this forum are blunt and literally mean what they say?

Don't know but I haven't met someone who was speaking in parables.

You sound like a Laveyan Satanist without the religious language....

I find it interesting that on the one hand you express concern when people get harmed by religious people enforcing Dogma on others, yet state that you don't care what people believe as long as it doesn't affect you. You seem to have some cognitive dissonance going on, might wan to think about that.

It's sad to me that you do not see the value in promoting communication among opposing camps of thought and belief- and I am not trying to preach here, but if that's how I come across, I can't help it if that's what happens when you say people should stop being assholes to one another. That's just plain common sense.

Perhaps correct was not the term to use re: dialoguing with creationists, educate would be better. If educating people on science through dialogue in a respectful manner is proselytism, I'll contradict my usual anti-proselytism stance and say I'm I'm all for it.

In short, your views on the matters I brought up seem incredibly self centered to and greatly uncharitable. I find disrespect for opposing views to be one of the main hallmarks of fundamentalist religions- it's ironic to me that atheists who are opposed to religious fundamentalism would express support for behaviour amongst themselves that they object to when presented in a fundamentalist context. But we will just have to agree to disagree, as Unbeliever and I have.

All that said, this is getting off topic for this thread, and I'm trying to stay on topic as others have suggested. Let's stop the conversation here for now, and if any of us want to discuss merits of anti-theism or lack thereof, one of us can start a new thread. Fair?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2016, 12:34 AM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(03-04-2016 05:36 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  You sound like a Laveyan Satanist without the religious language....

And you like typical polish atheist who think that religion is a good thing preventing masses from falling into barbarity.

(03-04-2016 05:36 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  I find it interesting that on the one hand you express concern when people get harmed by religious people enforcing Dogma on others, yet state that you don't care what people believe as long as it doesn't affect you. You seem to have some cognitive dissonance going on, might wan to think about that.

There is no dissonance there. People are free to believe whatever they wish - though there is problem with religious indoctrination - but they have no right to force taboo of their sect onto others.

I don't much care for others but their rights are mine concern - if I won't stand for them who will stand for mine?

(03-04-2016 05:36 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  It's sad to me that you do not see the value in promoting communication among opposing camps of thought and belief- and I am not trying to preach here, but if that's how I come across, I can't help it if that's what happens when you say people should stop being assholes to one another. That's just plain common sense.

I don't feel sadness as one does not negotiate with "terrorists". One does not talk with people blinded by what they deem Truth and in consequence seeing him as second class citizen. You could try, but I'm not interested.

(03-04-2016 05:36 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Perhaps correct was not the term to use re: dialoguing with creationists, educate would be better. If educating people on science through dialogue in a respectful manner is proselytism, I'll contradict my usual anti-proselytism stance and say I'm I'm all for it.

You respect for people beliefs looks, let's say interesting when one consider your words. I don't mind people believing something I deem idiocy, they are as free to believe it as I am to believe something else. I feel no need to educate others.

(03-04-2016 05:36 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  In short, your views on the matters I brought up seem incredibly self centered to and greatly uncharitable.

Yours seem preachy and overtly concerned with showing respect when it isn't earned.

(03-04-2016 05:36 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  I find disrespect for opposing views to be one of the main hallmarks of fundamentalist religions- it's ironic to me that atheists who are opposed to religious fundamentalism would express support for behaviour amongst themselves that they object to when presented in a fundamentalist context. But we will just have to agree to disagree, as Unbeliever and I have.

I have no respect for beliefs, I reserve it for people who earn it. Religion I think is worthy only of contempt.

(03-04-2016 05:36 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  All that said, this is getting off topic for this thread, and I'm trying to stay on topic as others have suggested. Let's stop the conversation here for now, and if any of us want to discuss merits of anti-theism or lack thereof, one of us can start a new thread. Fair?

Fair.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: