|
Post by Shane for Wax on Dec 18, 2011 8:16:14 GMT -5
Except y'know... helping to fight the Nazis doesn't suddenly make all his evils vanish. I really don't understand what you're trying to say. That you can forgive a bigot for fighting against a different bigot? Because really, he used fighting against the Nazis as an excuse to wipe away the people he disliked. The casualty count could have been a lot lower on the USSR side if he hadn't been such a fucking bigot. And getting revenge doesn't make it any more forgivable either. I'm afraid that was Stalin's mindset. His people were just as much prisoners as were his foes. Chechins, for instance, who were wounded in battle were sent back to Russian and were routinely shot upon arrival. The same fate awaited heroes who he percieved as potential rivals. Unfortunately (for you) I was there and you were not, and know exactly what we, and the common Russian soldiery had to endure. Hitler was a monster who destroyed everything he touched as well as destroying everything he had to leave behind in order to leave us nothing. WW2 was an experience you never had to endure, which makes your comments on its morality absolutely meaningless. 9/11 was but a snowflake on top of a very large iceberg by comparison. Tyrants will always exist whether they are waving a Bible or not. Extremeism feeds of media coverage, and its justification is usually backed up by using a Holy book to cherry-pick from. Except my family was affected in the long term by Holodomor and other crimes against the Ukrainian people! But you're right, it's not the same since I was born in the US after my mother and grandmother went across the Atlantic. But somehow I can't hold an opinion towards WW2 and the people who were in it? My not being there shouldn't hold any weight as to whether I can find someone morally reprehensible or not. But you're right, I know nothing first hand. I should appeal to your higher authority because you were there. Because everyone can have different tints on their glasses when going through something making each god damn experience different but that shouldn't matter because you were there. Hitler and Stalin were some of the worst people to ever exist on this planet and you're defending one over the other because one was on the 'right' side of history. Everyone ignores Stalin's crimes over Hitler's because hey, Stalin helped defeat Hitler! Yay for fucking Stalin.
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Dec 18, 2011 13:56:12 GMT -5
You know what I hate? How people in the US throw the word socialism around like it carries the same weight as Nazi or communist. Like when they list all the things wrong with this country, they'll talk about corrupt politicians, fascism, and then throw socialism in their like its the worst thing to happen to the US ever. It's not that socialism is perfect or that it's without its flaws, but it's the general attitude that anything not capitalism is bad, and even the slightest change in economic policy that's not purely capitalist is bad (i.e. universal healthcare). I also suspect that many people in the US not only don't know the difference between communism and socialism, they don't care, since, like I said, if it's not capitalism (oh, I'm sorry, "free market"), it's bad. Don't worry Iosa. One of these days, probably soon, I am going to write an entire list of everything I can think of which is wrong with the contemporary United States, and one of the major things I will list is exactly what you said. That Americans do not know the difference between communism and socialism, and that they practically worship the free market. So here will be one list of everything wrong with the United States that will NOT include socialism.
|
|
czechmate
Full Member
Czech Republic / UK
Posts: 123
|
Post by czechmate on Dec 19, 2011 9:51:13 GMT -5
Hitler and Stalin were some of the worst people to ever exist on this planet and you're defending one over the other because one was on the 'right' side of history. Everyone ignores Stalin's crimes over Hitler's because hey, Stalin helped defeat Hitler! Yay for fucking Stalin. My sympathies were for the common Russian soldiery. As for your opinion on Hitler and Stalin. I wholeheartly agree, but in a situation like WW2, we didn't have much choice over allies. I would point out that the only country that didn't need visas (after our independance) was the UK. They were the only country that gave us hope throughtout that whole sorry episode unconditionally. The contraversies over WW2 will never end. This is not a 2-sided coin, just hope that history does not repeat itself. Our enemies are the extremists (of all callings) and a biased media whipping up fear to get a good circulation.
|
|
|
Post by rageaholic on Dec 19, 2011 11:00:17 GMT -5
You know what I hate? How people in the US throw the word socialism around like it carries the same weight as Nazi or communist. Like when they list all the things wrong with this country, they'll talk about corrupt politicians, fascism, and then throw socialism in their like its the worst thing to happen to the US ever. It's not that socialism is perfect or that it's without its flaws, but it's the general attitude that anything not capitalism is bad, and even the slightest change in economic policy that's not purely capitalist is bad (i.e. universal healthcare). I also suspect that many people in the US not only don't know the difference between communism and socialism, they don't care, since, like I said, if it's not capitalism (oh, I'm sorry, "free market"), it's bad. Of course it's only socialism when it's helping the little guy, but you never hear any complaints when the government is bailing out the already wealthy. Another couple I hate relating to hell. "God doesn't send anyone to hell, you send yourself there." or "You choose hell" Blaming the victim at it's finest. The robber didn't shoot you, you choose to shoot yourself when you didn't give him your money. "Does the clay question it's maker" Horrible horrible bible verse used by Calvinists when people question the shitty things god does. In other words, you don't own yourself, you are gods property and god can do what ever he wants to you. Nice, real nice for the self worth. Sounds like the words of an abuser.
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Dec 19, 2011 11:37:41 GMT -5
Horrible horrible bible verse used by Calvinists when people question the shitty things god does. In other words, you don't own yourself, you are gods property and god can do what ever he wants to you. Nice, real nice for the self worth. Sounds like the words of an abuser. Hell, The Last Action Hero got that one right. …or maybe not, because Jack Slater seemed okay with it in the end.
|
|
|
Post by Iosa the Invincible on Dec 20, 2011 9:29:01 GMT -5
Here's one that actually includes atheists, as well as religious people:
"Agnostics are fence-sitters, Agnostics don't know what they believe, Agnostics are pussy atheists, Agnostics are weak/scared atheists, Agnostics are people afraid of admitting to being atheists, etc. (agnostic is capitalized to show the separation of phrases, not because I consider it a proper noun)"
I've seen someone else complain about this before, though I can't remember where or when. Basically, I've seen both atheists and theists treat agnosticism as some no-man's land of spirituality used by people who don't know what they want or are too chicken to make the final leap towards atheism. While I don't doubt that there are agnostics that function like this, that doesn't make agnosticism itself any less valid.
Agnosticism is the idea that one can't be 100% sure of the existence or non-existence of a higher power, and holds the belief that such a thing can never be proven or disproven, at least completely. Yet some people have a hard time accepting this as a valid position. Why? It's fully capable of being its own solid stance. A position doesn't require a 100% conviction for or against something. If it did, there'd be no such thing as middle ground. And believe it or not, not every agnostic leans towards atheism. There are agnostic theists, which makes the "agnostics are half-assed atheists" argument stupid.
I've actually seen more cases of atheists talking down to agnostics more than Christians. Whenever I see them refer to agnostics as "fence-sitters," I keep getting the feeling that this is used in a really condescending and disparaging manner, like agnostics are cowards who can't stand up for or fully acknowledge their own beliefs (which are assumed to be atheist).
To me, this type of attitude is just as belittling as when Christians make false assumptions about the beliefs (or lack there of) of atheists. Telling an agnostic that they're only agnostic because they're scared of being atheist or that they don't know their own beliefs is the same as a Christian telling an atheist that they're only an atheist because they're angry with God. Agnostics can be sure that they can't be sure of the existence of a god, or its provability. As weird as it sounds, that in itself can be a solid belief (for lack of a better word).
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Dec 20, 2011 23:05:23 GMT -5
"God doesn't send anyone to hell, you send yourself there." or "You choose hell" That could technically work if the Hell is self-inflicted, although most people who shout that believe in the fiery torture chamber from Dante's Inferno. Although I have to see a sound explanation on how Hell can be self-inflicted.
|
|
|
Post by Kisare on Dec 21, 2011 3:26:51 GMT -5
One that has been mentioned, but personally makes me rage, is the "hate the sin, love the sinner". And my hatred isn't even religious in nature.
My dad tells me all the time "don't hate them, hate what they do" about my "sister" (not the sister ya'll from the IRC know and love). And it reeks of cop-out to me, because, yeah, I hate the shit she pulls, but I fucking can't stand HER for doing it to begin with!
A bit opposite from why everyone else doesn't like it, but it is what is is, really.
|
|
|
Post by wurdulac on Dec 21, 2011 7:03:52 GMT -5
Here's one that actually includes atheists, as well as religious people: "Agnostics are fence-sitters, Agnostics don't know what they believe, Agnostics are pussy atheists, Agnostics are weak/scared atheists, Agnostics are people afraid of admitting to being atheists, etc. (agnostic is capitalized to show the separation of phrases, not because I consider it a proper noun)"I've seen someone else complain about this before, though I can't remember where or when. Basically, I've seen both atheists and theists treat agnosticism as some no-man's land of spirituality used by people who don't know what they want or are too chicken to make the final leap towards atheism. While I don't doubt that there are agnostics that function like this, that doesn't make agnosticism itself any less valid. Agnosticism is the idea that one can't be 100% sure of the existence or non-existence of a higher power, and holds the belief that such a thing can never be proven or disproven, at least completely. Yet some people have a hard time accepting this as a valid position. Why? It's fully capable of being its own solid stance. A position doesn't require a 100% conviction for or against something. If it did, there'd be no such thing as middle ground. And believe it or not, not every agnostic leans towards atheism. There are agnostic theists, which makes the "agnostics are half-assed atheists" argument stupid. I've actually seen more cases of atheists talking down to agnostics more than Christians. Whenever I see them refer to agnostics as "fence-sitters," I keep getting the feeling that this is used in a really condescending and disparaging manner, like agnostics are cowards who can't stand up for or fully acknowledge their own beliefs (which are assumed to be atheist). To me, this type of attitude is just as belittling as when Christians make false assumptions about the beliefs (or lack there of) of atheists. Telling an agnostic that they're only agnostic because they're scared of being atheist or that they don't know their own beliefs is the same as a Christian telling an atheist that they're only an atheist because they're angry with God. Agnostics can be sure that they can't be sure of the existence of a god, or its provability. As weird as it sounds, that in itself can be a solid belief (for lack of a better word). No. Close, but no. Agnosticism is a claim of a lack of knowledge, typically about a deity (or deities), true; however, that's all it is. It is completely compatible with theism (the belief in at least one deity) and atheism (the lack of belief in any deities) because it is a separate question: "what do you know?" as opposed to "what do you believe?". It is not some middle ground between theism and atheism, because there is no third option. You either do believe in at least one deity, or you do not believe in any. It is not necessary to claim that no gods exist to be an atheist. An agnostic theist, therefore, would believe in a god/gods despite not knowing for certain that any exist. An agnostic atheist would not believe in any gods despite not knowing for certain none exist. A weak agnostic would hold the belief that it may be possible to know for certain one day, while a strong agnostic would not; the words "weak" and "strong" here do not reflect on the strength of the argument presented by either. Strange, I've (just now) read your post more thoroughly, and see you acknowledge the existence of agnostic theists, yet still seem confused as to what agnosticism actually entails. Not confused, perhaps, but that's the best word I can think of at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Dec 21, 2011 8:06:54 GMT -5
"Does the clay question it's maker" I've yet to meet a lump of clay which possessed emotions, abstract reasoning and self-awareness.
|
|
|
Post by Iosa the Invincible on Dec 21, 2011 9:30:11 GMT -5
Here's one that actually includes atheists, as well as religious people: "Agnostics are fence-sitters, Agnostics don't know what they believe, Agnostics are pussy atheists, Agnostics are weak/scared atheists, Agnostics are people afraid of admitting to being atheists, etc. (agnostic is capitalized to show the separation of phrases, not because I consider it a proper noun)"I've seen someone else complain about this before, though I can't remember where or when. Basically, I've seen both atheists and theists treat agnosticism as some no-man's land of spirituality used by people who don't know what they want or are too chicken to make the final leap towards atheism. While I don't doubt that there are agnostics that function like this, that doesn't make agnosticism itself any less valid. Agnosticism is the idea that one can't be 100% sure of the existence or non-existence of a higher power, and holds the belief that such a thing can never be proven or disproven, at least completely. Yet some people have a hard time accepting this as a valid position. Why? It's fully capable of being its own solid stance. A position doesn't require a 100% conviction for or against something. If it did, there'd be no such thing as middle ground. And believe it or not, not every agnostic leans towards atheism. There are agnostic theists, which makes the "agnostics are half-assed atheists" argument stupid. I've actually seen more cases of atheists talking down to agnostics more than Christians. Whenever I see them refer to agnostics as "fence-sitters," I keep getting the feeling that this is used in a really condescending and disparaging manner, like agnostics are cowards who can't stand up for or fully acknowledge their own beliefs (which are assumed to be atheist). To me, this type of attitude is just as belittling as when Christians make false assumptions about the beliefs (or lack there of) of atheists. Telling an agnostic that they're only agnostic because they're scared of being atheist or that they don't know their own beliefs is the same as a Christian telling an atheist that they're only an atheist because they're angry with God. Agnostics can be sure that they can't be sure of the existence of a god, or its provability. As weird as it sounds, that in itself can be a solid belief (for lack of a better word). No. Close, but no. Agnosticism is a claim of a lack of knowledge, typically about a deity (or deities), true; however, that's all it is. It is completely compatible with theism (the belief in at least one deity) and atheism (the lack of belief in any deities) because it is a separate question: "what do you know?" as opposed to "what do you believe?". It is not some middle ground between theism and atheism, because there is no third option. You either do believe in at least one deity, or you do not believe in any. It is not necessary to claim that no gods exist to be an atheist. An agnostic theist, therefore, would believe in a god/gods despite not knowing for certain that any exist. An agnostic atheist would not believe in any gods despite not knowing for certain none exist. A weak agnostic would hold the belief that it may be possible to know for certain one day, while a strong agnostic would not; the words "weak" and "strong" here do not reflect on the strength of the argument presented by either. Strange, I've (just now) read your post more thoroughly, and see you acknowledge the existence of agnostic theists, yet still seem confused as to what agnosticism actually entails. Not confused, perhaps, but that's the best word I can think of at the moment. I know what agnosticism is. You just said a bunch of things that I already knew. It seems to me that you're more hung up on my choice of words rather than my actual message (which you admitted to not reading thoroughly before starting your response). Here's the section I think you had a problem with: In the section before the bolded part, I already acknowledged that agnosticism was it's own stance. The bolded part was meant to refute the position some theists and atheists have regarding agnosticism, which is that a person can either be a theist (believing and claiming to know a god exists) or an atheist (not believing in a god and claiming to know gods don't exist), and that agnostics just don't know what they believe or they're too scared to be a full atheist. My argument was that according to this position, which is you have to be either 100% for something or 100% against something, then there would never be middle-ground (and probably compromises, by extension). I wasn't just talking about spirituality and agnosticism, I was talking about any situation in general. I was pointing out the absurdity of the argument that these people have, that agnostics are undecided or weak atheists. That argument implies that they think that people have to believe without a doubt the existence or nonexistence of gods, or that they don't know the difference between "I can't know for sure of god's existence" and "I don't know what to believe." I never said that I thought that agnosticism was a transition between theism and atheism.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Dec 21, 2011 10:56:37 GMT -5
"Does the clay question it's maker" I've yet to meet a lump of clay which possessed emotions, abstract reasoning and self-awareness. Never fucked Wonder Woman have you?
|
|
|
Post by Vypernight on Dec 21, 2011 19:38:58 GMT -5
It is now scientifically proven that Jesus is God
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Dec 21, 2011 19:49:55 GMT -5
"God doesn't send anyone to hell, you send yourself there." or "You choose hell" That could technically work if the Hell is self-inflicted, although most people who shout that believe in the fiery torture chamber from Dante's Inferno. Although I have to see a sound explanation on how Hell can be self-inflicted. And if God is both omnibenevolent and omnipotent, wouldn’t he prevent people from submitting them from an eternity of self-inflicted torture? A self-inflicted hell would pretty well require that God is missing at least one of those qualities.
|
|
|
Post by Iosa the Invincible on Dec 21, 2011 22:58:49 GMT -5
That could technically work if the Hell is self-inflicted, although most people who shout that believe in the fiery torture chamber from Dante's Inferno. Although I have to see a sound explanation on how Hell can be self-inflicted. And if God is both omnibenevolent and omnipotent, wouldn’t he prevent people from submitting them from an eternity of self-inflicted torture? A self-inflicted hell would pretty well require that God is missing at least one of those qualities. From what I've seen, their explanation goes back to free will and how God can't control that.
|
|