(I was there with my brother-in-law's sister, and we were visiting her dad in the hospital, and I noticed the 2 basement floors, and I thought it was pretty stupid, they should just make the building taller.... ) "
That's probably one of the reasons, I'm not sure though??? Most buildings don't even have one basement, because the ground is so hard to dig up with all the rocks and all...
Anyway, I am off to bed, but it is nice to see a fellow Atheist in St. George, of all places.
Mormans are funny! I
Is almost a natural law, as true as gravity; without them we wouldn't have 'orgazmo!'
some people are very, very good at arguing/debating, and they can make any idea sound good
Sadly I'm not one of them. Explanations of our moral behavior that rely only upon observation and fact, which reduce it to emotion or law, are simpler but only give us factual answers, telling us only what we do and never what we should do. I've wanted to identify some logical guide to action based around the nature of desire / value, the basis of all our judgments. We definitely desire those things we desire, and obtaining what is desired brings positive feelings; it seems a desired outcome by definition would be one where what is desired is obtained, and a better or more desired outcome is one where more that is desired or a greater total strength of desire is achieved. But should this be for us, as individuals, or for the group? And is this just clever (or not so clever) wordplay; is it all just what we do after all?
The issue of Bigger Longer Uncut (a most excellent film i'm sure you'll agree) brings me onto my view that aesthetics is a sub-discipline of ethics; that a better painting or book or other art work, is one that is likely to lead to the best or most desirable outcome. Individual aesthetic judgments (like moral judgments) are based on our actual values, which in turn are based on the interplay between experience and physiology. An original work is likely to appeal to a group that has not yet got works that appeal to it, providing more pleasure to them than a work that appeals to those who already have something to watch. Complex works have more appeal on re-viewing and provide pleasure for a longer time. These are the only two traits of a work that i believe always contribute something positive. Since the behavioral outcomes of a work are so hard to guess, these should not really count; south park might contribute a tiny amount to a person's decision to do [insert random good deed] and anther's decision to do [insert random evil deed] this is more an individual thing, as with enjoyment of the work.
You make it sound like religion is a bad thin
Belief without evidence generally leads to sub-optimal outcomes, no matter what the source of value; unless there is reason to suggest otherwise in that particular case, belief that is not backed up by evidence is a bad thing. Not only does the practice limit our ability to predict the outcomes of our actions efficiently, but when it spreads to ethics it leads directly to baseless judgments. Belief not based upon evidence, that strongly impacts upon action or judgment, is "f*cked up" and should not be respected; like drugs, it certainly should not be criminalized, perhaps it is good for certain people, but in general it should be discouraged, or certainly not encouraged. When people in power begin basing their judgents or actions upon faith, or baseless morals, the world is made a less valuable place.
Then again, people are irrational in so many ways, one more can't hurt that much; i have no reason to respect any of the ways people are irrational but it seriously wouldn't help that much except in cases where people deny science or support retributive or bigoted views because of it.
belief is no longer a "cool" thing
In the USA, it's certainly a 'cool' thing to believe; it's what the majority do, so it's what the crowd will push people into doing.
I... don't have anything against this, if all parties are equally free and adults.
You don't have to directly see something to have sufficient evidence to believe it ocured; did you see world war two, or Nixon or Kennedy as the president? But we have enough evidence to accept that those events happened.have you ever actually SEEN it happen?
Check my Fanarts!
Death will take us so don't fight it. Become it and lean to win.
Well, that's not the case
See...I find it cruel that some priests take their powers too far just because politicians are like people and they have their own rights to their own opinion.
I wish that church was STILL seen as seperate over the political ramifications and is seen seperate from the schools and other stuff too. I don't know. I should leave this thread before I start an argument!
I am a hybrid of Butters, Tweek, and Clyde.
Official Winner of Page 1900!
obviously I’m taking to many prescriptive hallucinogens.
I wish that church was STILL seen as seperate
Something I'm sure we can all agree on for once :O
Perhaps people have been turning from Catholicism, since it's a minority compared with protestantism in most of the US; but some form of theism is certainly preferred to athiesm.
.SS thinks athiests are more oppressed
When did I ever use those words? I was pointing out that peer-pressure is what makes something appear cool, and since the majority in the usa are religious, it is cool to be a theist; i never said it's uncool to be an athiest. Perhaps in areas with an atheistic majority, or for those rare individuals who react adversely to norms, athiesm is cooler than theism.
I do believe that in the US, some large parts of it at least, open atheists are oppressed, at the least as much so than pagans. But compared with the oppression of the poor, this is nothing.
called evil or satanic
Nice show of respect to all our Satanist friends out there m00n
if they know how it feels to be called delusional or superstitious because of beliefs that can not yet be proven with science
I don't know, because I base the majority of my beliefs on science; theists, especially those of particular faiths, do know, if someone like me is in the room with them and they bring up religion, in the appropriate context. People have said i'm a delusional fool precisely because i base my beliefs on science and not on a bronze age manuscript.
Check my Fanarts!
Death will take us so don't fight it. Become it and lean to win.
And Micheal didn't actually say he was oppressed either, I was just being overly dramatic to illustrate that you both seem overly dramatic to someone with different views than both of you. And whether or not Atheists or Christians have more power in America really depends on who you ask, and it seems both sides are kind of mad that they don't have more control. You know what else? The whole thing about people believing or not believing because it is "cool" can be said about both Christianity and Atheism. I know people who are perfect examples of this. What they believe is irrelevent, it is what everyone else believes or doesn't believe is what they care about. They have to go with the group so they will be accepted.
Sorry moon, but I do put belief in the superstition pile, especially the prayer/wishing aspect. I think that prayers coming true is by chance. The more likely it will happen IRL, the more likely it will come true. If it doesn't happen then your deity knows best or it didn't work that time, or you have to wait it out...
And I am sorry Kelly but about what you just said about people's prayers and wishes, well you don't know everything. People who believe in what you just called Superstition can't prove what they believe is true and you can't disprove it. So what you said is just your opinion, and I am sorry but you opinion is no better than anyone else's. And you know something else, some people who believe that some diety or spirit answered their prayers, they keep it to themselves. For many people, religion or spirituality is a personal thing, something they don't share with everyone. That is one thing I really don't like about your point of view, it just really seems like you lump all the people who believe in things you don't, who are minding their own business, not pushing their beliefs on anyone or harming anyone, into the same category with the assh*les who kill people over religion, push their beliefs on everyone and vote yes on prop 8. I am not one of those people, neither are any of my pagan friends. We keep to ourselves, and most people I know don't even know I am pagan.
And I am sorry Kelly but about what you just said about people's prayers and wishes, well you don't know everything.
I know I don't know everything. I try to gain as much knowledge as I can though... I guess it couldn't have hurt to show some statistics on the effectiveness of prayer, oh well...
That is one thing I really don't like about your point of view, it just really seems like you lump all the people who believe in things you don't, who are minding their own business, not pushing their beliefs on anyone or harming anyone, into the same category with the assh*les who kill people over religion, push their beliefs on everyone and vote yes on prop 8.
That's because I was speaking in a very general aspect of religion. Anybody can be affected by what I said yes, but that doesn't mean I should count it as less.
You seem to think that I would go out and harm people who mind their own business. But I don't. Really, I'd wish you'd stop playing this card, it gets us both nowhere. It doesn't solve anything and it seems like you are pushing me out of the way to prevent me from attacking religion ever again. It is getting pretty annoying. Yea, I know people keep it to themselves, but so do atheists. I basically keep my atheism quiet except for online, philosophy class I had, and my family (and we don't discuss it at all).
What it seems that you are saying is that if a person believes that black cats bring bad luck and keeps quiet that means you should disregard the superstition all together. This is why that annoys me. I'm attacking believes, not the people moon.
And I don't recall even saying anything about people that pray are suddenly for prop 8 :S. Or saying that they are bad people, I was basically saying I think that it was a superstition, not saying that people are suddenly bad people for it.
http://www.progressiveu.org/090035-scie ... ory-prayer
No one is getting along....
No one is getting along....
When did anyone learn anything from agreeing with one another? Plus, disagreeing in your ideas is a fun sport, it doesn't mean you don't get along. Though you may not want to get along with people who hold certain ideas.
you don't know everything.
Why would you need to be omniscient to justifiably believe that prayers do not come true? KMAC pointed out that prayer is a non-falsifiable (meaningless) hypothesis anyway since it has the escape hatch of appeal to divine mystery. But that doesn't mean that, based on the evidence available to us, belief in answered prayer is not wholly unjustified.
you can't disprove it
You can't 'prove' that an external reality exists, or that 1+1=2 (our reasoning could be systematically faulty) or that our senses are a good guide to the truth; but, based on our reason and the evidence available to us, we know what the most reasonable answers to such questions are. I don't see why you need this level of absolute proof for prayer before you accept it's false, but are willing to accept that the external world exists and 1+1=2 (i assume you accept those) as justified on the basis of the evidence (When you can never 'prove' absolutely that they are true).
Unless there's some special reason why it's impossible to show that such belief is unjustified that I'm missing? Can you provide evidence to justify the statement, "you can't disprove it," to me? Or the statement that what KMAC said is "just opinion" and crucially, "no better than anyone else's"?
it just really seems like you lump all the people who believe in things you don't, who are minding their own business, not pushing their beliefs on anyone or harming anyone, into the same category with the assh*les who kill people over religion
I dislike it when atheists do this, partly because it feeds devout fence-sitters like yourself, mainly because it misses the point completely. The reason religion should be attacked is that there is no evidence for the belief, and there does not appear (when the negatives are balanced against the positives) to be any reason why belief should not be discouraged. Attacking belief does not involve forcing people to denounce it, nor does spreading faith, except by legal means. I think for some people religion may be a good thing, like weed is for some and for much the same reason (they can't cope with reality and need artificial happiness) and much as i deny laws against pot, i deny laws against religion, but i do not deny that pot and religion should no be discouraged in favor of accepting the world as it is and working to better it. Self-deception is deception. Not accepting an evidentialist epistimiology (base beliefs on the evidence in proportion to the strength of the evidence) leads to sub-optimal decision procedure, and while religion is but one of the many, many irrationalities of the human mind, it is one of the easier to triumph over and one which, in making a piositive virtue of belief without or in spite of evidence (faith) actively encourages irrationality. Finally, religion has it's own moral code, which can discourage people from acting in the ways most likely to promote the good, and are most easily attacked by pointing out the flaws of the system as a whole. Finally, being quiet and minding to yourself doesn't mean you can't support an absolutely evil cause, which may express itself when time to vote comes around.
I don't see why you should stop "being nice" to someone based on their beliefs, but I don't consider pointing out the flaws in someone's beliefs to be unfriendly, criticism helps you identify your belief's flaws and improve them; if someone takes offense at criticisms of their beliefs, sees them as personal attacks, then that's a character trait of theirs I consider to be worth distancing yourself from someone for.
prevent me from attacking religion ever again
It doesn't actively succeed in doing this though, just as criticizing religion doesn't "force" the religious to denounce their faith and spreading religion doesn't "force" non-believers to accept it. When people attack those who "force" their beliefs on others, and define forcing their belief as pretty much expressing it in a debate context, they're "forcing" their belief that people shouldn't "force" belief on others. It's all very absurd and self contradictory and I wish people would stop it, it doesn't get anyone anywhere.
Can you prove your theory?
Answer it without having to search answers or give an answer based on what such and such said that made you believe it.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests