fuckin awesome, why get a hoodie when I can get a whole tracksuit: Internet Serious Business Women's Tracksuit > Internet Serious Business > The Pixel Garden
lol creationists
- Thread starter mattseh
- Start date
fuckin awesome, why get a hoodie when I can get a whole tracksuit: Internet Serious Business Women's Tracksuit > Internet Serious Business > The Pixel Garden
Thanks for the timely derail. Much needed...
Teguh tried, but even he failed...
Lemme try too:
That's great.
But at some point the joke gets old and it's time to shut the fuck up already.
If reality is absolute, the Bible must be either true or false. True and false can not be achieved through subjective means, which is all religion provides. Only by intelligent, objective, and deductive reasoning can one come to the conclusion that religion is objectively false. It actually is smart to not believe in the Bible.
For starters, this thread would be an example. You're not doing much other than calling people hypocrites, assholes, peasants, etc without providing substance as to why they're assholes. Another example of doing this would be here:
http://www.wickedfire.com/1557999-post56.html
You seem to give Hitchens' logic and character a nice bash there without really justifying any of it. In that thread I replied saying that and kindly asked what your views were, and this wasn't responded to.
You absolutely can, it's why our brain is a great utility. The theory of relativity started as a subjective thought in Einstein's brain that was eventually backed by objective study and evidence. If general relativity was not objectively supported, nobody would regard it as being true.
This is another example of you simply plopping something down on the table and walking away. It's useless.
Because it leads to more profitable states of existence. Religious belief is as objective as it is subjective. For example it often combats science and civil rights, and this slows progress.
But I actually back my subjective thoughts with objective statements. You don't.
"From all your posts I thought you were a cool guy but since I read that one post - you get 0/10!"
That's some rationality on display, my friend.
The best working definition of an atheist is a guy whose superior intellect can't get him laid. And yes, I'm thinking about that fat atheist guy on YouTube - probably couldn't even get a toehold in academia until the gospel of atheism lifted his meaty wings.
Some people believe reason should always be fought for because that's the only way to make progress in the world. It's not a need to feel intellectually superior, it's the desire to fight for intellect.
Teguh is 100% serious. That's what makes him entertaining.
I don't particularly care what you think of me.
I'm not butthurt at all.
Where did I say I was against religious debates?
Stupid people need something to do. Anything that keeps them out of my fridge is good by me. Or they can go back to github.
Hey asshole, no one asked you to read my posts. Take some goddamn responsibility for yourself.
The OP came at me, not the other way around. Go back and read.
If they understood that, we wouldn't even know they were atheists.
People believe all sorts of things. That doesn't make them right.
Everyone feels purpose and value differently, and you can be damn sure there are losers who love the feeling self-righteousness gives them.
Uber, I reply to you because I really get a good vibe from your desire to debate, but you argue in this autistic way that can be very frustrating to satisfy. A lot of what you ask can be figured out on your own, and it's really bad for my time management to have to break everything down to first principles for you.
Spend time here
stefbot - YouTube
I guarantee you will like it.
My point isn't to defend them, but to break things down to facts rather than opinions or big words. How does a subjective human mind perform objectively? Are you capable of ridding yourself of all emotion and bias?
Deduction is great, but it also has it's epistemological limits.
Statements like your last quote here aren't advancing your cause. To me, it reads like rhetoric, which is an emotional tactic in debate.
Seriously, what are the social, biological, technological, political, emotional etc advantages of believing or not believing? Just saying it is "smart" is like saying that chocolate ice cream is "the best". It's a paradox, a universalized interpersonal value statement.
The peasant stuff was outside the main discussion, and I expect you to read closely enough to understand that before trying to call me on it. Very sloppy work by you.
I disliked Christopher Hitchens because he was full of shit. If he didn't want to be judged that way, he should have stayed out of the public, but this stuff where people hold him up as some great intellectual just shows how little exposure people have to great thinkers. I feel fairly confident that people like Aristotle wouldn't have given Hitchens a fraction of the time I give you.
It's shameless.
You gotta see this from my POV. Most of you are trolls, peasants and retards. Some of you are fucking awesome and amazing, but a lot of you are not. Many are unremarkable people who will never do anything worth talking about.
Why would I spend hours and hours trying to communicate, let alone educate someone, about my views and perspectives here? Particularly when the people who do respond, like you, are fundamentally lazy and refuse to do any meaningful examination of what they write?
When I write here, it is for the people who can keep up, or who will hit me up privately to discuss something honestly.
Look, be happy I reply to you at all. Our relationship is digital, and for all intents and purposes an abstraction. WRT reallity, talking to my dogs is more real than talking to you, so stop wasting my time when I make an attempt, k?
The biggest drain on technological and social progress is the state, but you believe in the state (which like religion, is entirely an abstraction) and yet blame people who have faith as being the ones at fault.
This is my point. You, and many atheists cannot see the forest from the trees. You never subject yourself to the same level of intellectual scrutiny that you reserve for people of faith. It's just a crude form of intellectual tribalism.
Most of what we believe is bullshit. Regardless of the belief, most of it is untrue. If you don't "get that" you will never, ever get my posts.
You and me are done, you're going on my ignore list because you're a time sink. If you want to continue this discussion in real time, PM me your skype.
Spend time here
stefbot - YouTube
I guarantee you will like it.
Sure.
Right, but the human psychological experience is fundamentally subjective. We're not wired for truth. We're wired for interpretation. I feel awkward having to explain this to someone who is a marketer, and should already understand this on a pretty deep level.
You're mixing up a lot of terms there. There are many intelligent people who believe in religion. In fact, much of science and mathematics was created by people of faith.
My point isn't to defend them, but to break things down to facts rather than opinions or big words. How does a subjective human mind perform objectively? Are you capable of ridding yourself of all emotion and bias?
Deduction is great, but it also has it's epistemological limits.
Statements like your last quote here aren't advancing your cause. To me, it reads like rhetoric, which is an emotional tactic in debate.
You'd have to define smart here. And I am not being clever about that.
Seriously, what are the social, biological, technological, political, emotional etc advantages of believing or not believing? Just saying it is "smart" is like saying that chocolate ice cream is "the best". It's a paradox, a universalized interpersonal value statement.
My posts in this thread aren't topically homogenous.
Sure I did. If you want to judge others as though your own shit doesn't stink, you're probably an asshole. You're also a fucking hypocrite.
The peasant stuff was outside the main discussion, and I expect you to read closely enough to understand that before trying to call me on it. Very sloppy work by you.
Again, it is an opinion. Surely you understand the difference between 2+2=4 and "chocolate ice cream tastes good"?
I disliked Christopher Hitchens because he was full of shit. If he didn't want to be judged that way, he should have stayed out of the public, but this stuff where people hold him up as some great intellectual just shows how little exposure people have to great thinkers. I feel fairly confident that people like Aristotle wouldn't have given Hitchens a fraction of the time I give you.
No, you cannot. And if you assert you can, prove it. Prove that the human mind can exist without personality, emotion or bias.
You're doing it right now. You have no first hand knowledge of anything about Einstein's brain, but you're constructing a narrative that fits your opinion.
It's shameless.
Truth is independent of popularity. When many people believed the earth was flat, that didn't make it true.
Sure, well I want you to think for yourself. I don't have time to transfer my consciousness to you one forum post at a time. But you're such a fucking intellectual sloth, you refuse to do any reasoning from first principles, and in some quasi-Randian way, insist that your opinion on everything is correct, specifically that your mind operates different than everyone elses, and that their minds aren't acting the way they do either.
You gotta see this from my POV. Most of you are trolls, peasants and retards. Some of you are fucking awesome and amazing, but a lot of you are not. Many are unremarkable people who will never do anything worth talking about.
Why would I spend hours and hours trying to communicate, let alone educate someone, about my views and perspectives here? Particularly when the people who do respond, like you, are fundamentally lazy and refuse to do any meaningful examination of what they write?
When I write here, it is for the people who can keep up, or who will hit me up privately to discuss something honestly.
Look, be happy I reply to you at all. Our relationship is digital, and for all intents and purposes an abstraction. WRT reallity, talking to my dogs is more real than talking to you, so stop wasting my time when I make an attempt, k?
Profit is a value. It is subjective. You're once again using it as an objective value which is demonstrably false. C'mon.
Again, people of faith have generated much of the foundations of western science and mathematics. Maybe you're talking about American religion, but there are loads of Catholics and Muslims in the world who have made enormous contributions and continue to do so today.
The biggest drain on technological and social progress is the state, but you believe in the state (which like religion, is entirely an abstraction) and yet blame people who have faith as being the ones at fault.
This is my point. You, and many atheists cannot see the forest from the trees. You never subject yourself to the same level of intellectual scrutiny that you reserve for people of faith. It's just a crude form of intellectual tribalism.
Most of what we believe is bullshit. Regardless of the belief, most of it is untrue. If you don't "get that" you will never, ever get my posts.
I think I have put enough truth to this lie for one day.
You and me are done, you're going on my ignore list because you're a time sink. If you want to continue this discussion in real time, PM me your skype.
Redundant maybe. For instance, Newton's contribution should be attributed to him, not Christianity since it's not a direct result of his theology. Burning of the witches on the other hand..
Mass murderers in India are also vegans, but that doesn't mean having a vegan diet is gonna turn you into..etc
I agree, that's why they're called "belief".
Sorry I said I wasn't going to chime-in, couldn't help it.
Direct result is impossible to prove one way or another.
My point is, someone can concurrently believe in the supernatural and make meaningful contributions to science. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Believing in God is no different than believing that chocolate tastes better than vanilla. The reason why we don't have threads arguing over chocolate and vanilla is that those values aren't part of our psychological identity. Our religious, political etc perspectives very much define who we believe we are.
I'll leave a response to your post below and then we can call it a day. Any questions I provide back can just be open-ended.
And if you can't even see this post because I'm on the "ignore" list, this can just be for anybody else to read and think about. And respond to if they're on Guerilla's side.
Will do.
I completely understand this. My point was going back to the "asshole" thing. It's not hypocritical to judge someone's subjective belief objectively. If a person subjectively believes in something that is objectively false, they are deluded.
True, but these people are not intelligent about religion.
Brain chemistry.
No, but I do my best to do that when I'm attempting to discern truth about something. Human beings aren't optimally created.
Analyzing a situation and coming to a conclusion void of emotional bias.
A Muslim fundamentalist would not kill themselves if they didn't believe in God. Evangelical fundamentalists wouldn't raise their children teaching them that evolution is false, God hates gays, and that their purpose in life is to glorify God before all else. Families wouldn't reject medical treatment out of faith that God will heal them. etc.
It's fine that you judge him that way, but I've never heard you give any reasons as to why he's full of shit. That's what I was curious about but if I'm just a time-sink, I understand that you won't grace me with an explanation.
Did Einstein's theory not start with a thought in his brain? This thought was completely subjective, until he tested it objectively and found it to be correct. Ideas always start as thoughts in the brain.
You can take any subjective statement and test it objectively. This is because in reality, absolutes exist. If a person tells me they can fly, I will tell them they're delusional until they show me that they can fly. My subjective opinion that they're delusional comes from my objective observance of reality, in which humans don't have the physical capability to fly.
Right, but the people that believed the Earth was flat never tested the belief objectively. Once tested objectively, we learned the truth that the Earth is not flat.
When I say Einstein's theory had to be objectively supported, I mean by testing reality. If his theory didn't hold up in reality, it wouldn't be seen as true, because it wouldn't be true.
How can I come to change my opinions when there's no catalyst for it? If I say "chocolate is best" and you say "no, vanilla is best", and vanilla is actually the best, I'm not going to change my mind based on your unfounded statement.
Because you can help people grow intellectually. If you're only here to satisfy your own need to feel like Aristotle popping into threads dropping pompous one-liners, I guess that's reasonable too.
I attempt to examine what I write, and I write it publicly so others can examine it too. How does one meaningfully examine what they believe? I have put thought into some of the things you say, and I post only because I disagree with them.
Is this a dishonest discussion?
And no, it's not for the people "who can keep up", it's for the people that agree with you. Anybody that disagrees is simply met with a "You're wrong." statement from you, because they're not worth your time.
How is optimal performance not an objective value? In this context, a more profitable state of existence would be improved health, an economy that produces more resources, etc. These are all things that are objectively measured.
And the same people would make the same contributions without religious belief.
Someone who argues against women's rights with a Biblical basis is at fault. The fault is entirely caused by religious belief.
I'm an anti-theist more than I am an atheist. I assert that the negative (objective) impacts of theism absolutely smash any positive (objective) impacts that religious belief provides. I assert this due to a historical and objective look at human history.
Speaking of proof, can you prove that?
Philosophy is a dead science.
This, my friends. This.
All this talk about rationality and science is just a ruse. Atheists are just as stupid and often more hypocritical than the people they look down on.
The sheer self-deludedness of atheists can be too mindboggling to process in one sitting, as evidenced by the PZ Myers post.
It would make more sense to ask
Creationist: Is it possible for aliens to exists?
Evolutionist: Yes!
C: Is it possible for them to exist in a form different than us?
E: Yes!
C: Is it possible for it to exist in a radical sense, unlike any sense here on earth? Consciousness that exist purely in energy form only, for example?
E: Yes!
C: Is it possible that they may have abilities, that here on earth would seem super human? Telepathy for example?
E: Yes!
C: With our one technology advancing even to the point of cloning animals, is it possible for an alien race to be so advanced that it could create life?
E: Yes!
C: How about matter then? Is it possible they could create whole worlds possible if they were advanced enough?
E: Yes!
C: Destroy worlds?
E: Yes!
C: So its possible for an alien race to have all of these qualities at once?
E: Yes!
C: So an Invisible alien, with the ability to read minds, create worlds and people on it, that also has the ability to destroy the world it created and populated, could exist somewhere, right? Its possible?
E: Yes!
C: Can God exist?
E: Of course not, don't be silly.
=D
Creationist: Is it possible for aliens to exists?
Evolutionist: Yes!
C: Is it possible for them to exist in a form different than us?
E: Yes!
C: Is it possible for it to exist in a radical sense, unlike any sense here on earth? Consciousness that exist purely in energy form only, for example?
E: Yes!
C: Is it possible that they may have abilities, that here on earth would seem super human? Telepathy for example?
E: Yes!
C: With our one technology advancing even to the point of cloning animals, is it possible for an alien race to be so advanced that it could create life?
E: Yes!
C: How about matter then? Is it possible they could create whole worlds possible if they were advanced enough?
E: Yes!
C: Destroy worlds?
E: Yes!
C: So its possible for an alien race to have all of these qualities at once?
E: Yes!
C: So an Invisible alien, with the ability to read minds, create worlds and people on it, that also has the ability to destroy the world it created and populated, could exist somewhere, right? Its possible?
E: Yes!
C: Can God exist?
E: Of course not, don't be silly.
=D
This is of course not correct, God existing or not is not an opinion but an assessment of universe and everything that exists.
Chocolate tasting better than vanilla is a value assessment of my subjective reality whereas God existing or not is an assessment of building blocks of reality and is in it's core an assessment of objective reality.
However if I said that chocolate is built from ether and you'd say it's built from atoms, well that would be a comparison that'd fit the debate we're having in this thread.
The human mind is incapable of that sort of analysis.
God existing is completely opinion, in every case unsubstantiated, but opinion nonetheless.
Faith is not a science. It doesn't rely on facts.
Reality is objective, our perceptive abilities are subjective.
That's a different argument, but good try. I appreciate an honest discussion.
I don't think you got what I tried to communicate.
Yes, our perceptive abilities are subjective but that doesn't invalidate what I said in my previous post.
My argument was that personal preferences can not be equated with claims about what reality is.
I don't think there's a highly functioning individual that thinks his personal preferences indicate anything about building blocks of reality. We understand our senses and personal cognitive filters determine our valuations of reality - these are our personal preferences.
On another hand, God or any other mythological being existing or not is a direct assessment of objective reality.
I'm not even making a point about religion, I'm simply saying that your strategy of equating belief in God with personal preferences is a logical fallacy because mental mechanisms behind each of those beliefs are completely different.
You pointing out that faith doesn't rely on science is not something I'm arguing against.
I think we agree upon this.
Ouch, you just spanked the pee-pees of a lot of guys in this thread.
It is not meant to be.
No, they aren't. You're trying to introduce fact into faith. Faith is the absence of facts by definition.
Faith in ANYTHING is a personal preference.
Why I like chocolate ice cream is also devoid of fact. I may rationalize my choice with selective facts, but those facts aren't anything I can use to prove a universal.
I still don't think people get it. Religion has nothing to do with facts. NOTHING!