|
Post by Vypernight on Mar 10, 2009 3:11:11 GMT -5
There's nothing wrong with believing in anything (or not believing), as long as you don't push it on someone else. As long as it doesn't hurt you or anyone else, you can believe strongly in pink boas for all I care.
Except for the little piece of #$%@ Ironbite pictured. He deserves to burn for all eternity (the wrestler, not Ironbite) for ruining one of my favorite wrestlers.
Take care,
Jay
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 10, 2009 8:13:46 GMT -5
Finlay? WWE would have found another way to ruin him with or without Hornswoggle.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 10, 2009 10:24:30 GMT -5
Okay, back to the OP, I define myself as a weak atheist (or agnostic atheist), but I have to say, that uncertainty does not apply to any personal gods. Yahweh is a personal god. I only have the tiniest bit of doubt for beliefs like deism and pantheism. And that's only because they are innately unfalsifiable, not because I think there's a chance they're right.
|
|
|
Post by Green-Eyed Lilo on Mar 10, 2009 10:34:26 GMT -5
From another forum: This shit pisses me off so much, mainly because I see it every fucking day. Whats so arrogant about being certain theirs no god? Where all certain the FSM isn't real. Why am I an asshole for saying "God doesn't exist" rather than the long as hell "Well god could exist but the chances are very very very very very tiny and theirs no solid evidence"? I have a simple rule, anything with less evidence than bigfoot goes in the "not real" column. If you want to shut my arrogant ass up get some footprints and grainy video. Welcome back, Wackadoodle! Members of majority groups are often compelled to divide members of minority groups into "good" and "bad," at least in their minds. I heard from my grandparents in the South about "good negroes" (who helped them out and acted submissive to them) and "n*gg*rs" (who acted "ungrateful" and looked white people in the eye and stuff.) As a bisexual woman, I hear about "militant gay activists" and "militant homosexuals." "Militant" means you've made a contribution to an LGBT group, written a letter to the editor, and marched in a parade within the past few years. "Militants" are enemies, as opposed to the ones who the fundies think they can "save", or at least shove back into the closet. They don't hate all LGBTs, you see. They just have issues with the "militant gay activists", and love the rest of "the homosexuals." So now they're doing it with y'all as atheists. There are the "strong atheists" or the "new atheists." Oh, they love atheists and think God loves them, too...if you are very quiet and say you wish there was a God and listen to them preach. Stand up on your hind legs, though, and you become a "strong atheist," and therefore bad, and therefore an enemy they can treat however they want. Hope this made sense.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 10, 2009 11:01:09 GMT -5
Welcome back, Wackadoodle! Members of majority groups are often compelled to divide members of minority groups into "good" and "bad," at least in their minds. I heard from my grandparents in the South about "good negroes" (who helped them out and acted submissive to them) and "n*gg*rs" (who acted "ungrateful" and looked white people in the eye and stuff.) As a bisexual woman, I hear about "militant gay activists" and "militant homosexuals." "Militant" means you've made a contribution to an LGBT group, written a letter to the editor, and marched in a parade within the past few years. "Militants" are enemies, as opposed to the ones who the fundies think they can "save", or at least shove back into the closet. They don't hate all LGBTs, you see. They just have issues with the "militant gay activists", and love the rest of "the homosexuals." So now they're doing it with y'all as atheists. There are the "strong atheists" or the "new atheists." Oh, they love atheists and think God loves them, too...if you are very quiet and say you wish there was a God and listen to them preach. Stand up on your hind legs, though, and you become a "strong atheist," and therefore bad, and therefore an enemy they can treat however they want. Hope this made sense. Basically, they don't want to sound like a hate group, so they try and divide us into the ones who keep to themselves and the ones who do...Well, anything, because even as little as wanting to be treated like a person is militant and radical. Meanwhile, they've got their token, innocuous lot of homosexuals, atheists, whatever. And I kind of understand why they (The tokens) do it, too. I have a VERY strong desire to just be left alone. Doesn't mean I think it's right (As I'm a letter writer, donor, and periodic protester for GBLT rights), but I do understand where it's coming from.
|
|
Anti-Goth
New Member
IT'S A CONSPIRACY!
Posts: 32
|
Post by Anti-Goth on Mar 10, 2009 12:09:59 GMT -5
Welcome back, Wackadoodle! Members of majority groups are often compelled to divide members of minority groups into "good" and "bad," at least in their minds. I heard from my grandparents in the South about "good negroes" (who helped them out and acted submissive to them) and "n*gg*rs" (who acted "ungrateful" and looked white people in the eye and stuff.) As a bisexual woman, I hear about "militant gay activists" and "militant homosexuals." "Militant" means you've made a contribution to an LGBT group, written a letter to the editor, and marched in a parade within the past few years. "Militants" are enemies, as opposed to the ones who the fundies think they can "save", or at least shove back into the closet. They don't hate all LGBTs, you see. They just have issues with the "militant gay activists", and love the rest of "the homosexuals." So now they're doing it with y'all as atheists. There are the "strong atheists" or the "new atheists." Oh, they love atheists and think God loves them, too...if you are very quiet and say you wish there was a God and listen to them preach. Stand up on your hind legs, though, and you become a "strong atheist," and therefore bad, and therefore an enemy they can treat however they want. Hope this made sense. Basically, they don't want to sound like a hate group, so they try and divide us into the ones who keep to themselves and the ones who do...Well, anything, because even as little as wanting to be treated like a person is militant and radical. Meanwhile, they've got their token, innocuous lot of homosexuals, atheists, whatever. And I kind of understand why they (The tokens) do it, too. I have a VERY strong desire to just be left alone. Doesn't mean I think it's right (As I'm a letter writer, donor, and periodic protester for GBLT rights), but I do understand where it's coming from. You guys summed it up really well! FSTDT needs to publish a book of quotes or something.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Mar 10, 2009 13:03:48 GMT -5
There's nothing wrong with believing in anything (or not believing), as long as you don't push it on someone else. As long as it doesn't hurt you or anyone else, you can believe strongly in pink boas for all I care. Except for the little piece of #$%@ Ironbite pictured. He deserves to burn for all eternity (the wrestler, not Ironbite) for ruining one of my favorite wrestlers. Take care, Jay And don't ask me why but for some reason the 'Swog is a real hit round this wrestling message board schizo and I came from. Ironbite-him and the Boogyman for some reason.
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Mar 10, 2009 18:36:53 GMT -5
I'm aware of the caffeinated/decaffeinated atheist positions. To me it seems too angel/pinheady to lose much sleep over.
|
|
|
Post by unnecessary on Mar 10, 2009 18:56:11 GMT -5
Everyone defines belief slightly differently. Some people "believe" what they think is most likely. Some people "believe" what they are certain of. There are both types as well as other types in all religious or non-religious categories.
The criticism is directed at people who the criticizer believes believe there is no God because they intuitively feel it to be true, the same way the criticizer believes religious people intuitively believe in religion.
This subject is very hard to discuss without making generalizations.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 10, 2009 19:04:57 GMT -5
From another forum: This shit pisses me off so much, mainly because I see it every fucking day. Whats so arrogant about being certain theirs no god? Where all certain the FSM isn't real. Why am I an asshole for saying "God doesn't exist" rather than the long as hell "Well god could exist but the chances are very very very very very tiny and theirs no solid evidence"? I have a simple rule, anything with less evidence than bigfoot goes in the "not real" column. If you want to shut my arrogant ass up get some footprints and grainy video. Welcome back, Wackadoodle! Members of majority groups are often compelled to divide members of minority groups into "good" and "bad," at least in their minds. I heard from my grandparents in the South about "good negroes" (who helped them out and acted submissive to them) and "n*gg*rs" (who acted "ungrateful" and looked white people in the eye and stuff.) As a bisexual woman, I hear about "militant gay activists" and "militant homosexuals." "Militant" means you've made a contribution to an LGBT group, written a letter to the editor, and marched in a parade within the past few years. "Militants" are enemies, as opposed to the ones who the fundies think they can "save", or at least shove back into the closet. They don't hate all LGBTs, you see. They just have issues with the "militant gay activists", and love the rest of "the homosexuals." So now they're doing it with y'all as atheists. There are the "strong atheists" or the "new atheists." Oh, they love atheists and think God loves them, too...if you are very quiet and say you wish there was a God and listen to them preach. Stand up on your hind legs, though, and you become a "strong atheist," and therefore bad, and therefore an enemy they can treat however they want. Hope this made sense. Have I mentioned lately that I hate the word "militant?" There are more militant xians than militant atheists (or GLBT for that matter). Why? Compare abortion clinic bombings to church bombings. One happens and the other doesn't. And yet, it's us who get called militant.
|
|
|
Post by The_L on Mar 11, 2009 15:29:58 GMT -5
The only problem I ever have with "strong" atheism is when they actually try to de-convert people. It makes them look like Christian fundies. And that's the last thing anyone should want to be associated with.
Believe whatever you want to believe (or disbelieve, hell, I don't care). Just don't try to drag others into it.
|
|
starbrewer
Full Member
God can go to hell
Posts: 226
|
Post by starbrewer on Mar 11, 2009 15:34:54 GMT -5
How can anyone deny the existence of the Sun? We can see it.
May Joe Pesci guide you!
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 11, 2009 17:56:36 GMT -5
The only problem I ever have with "strong" atheism is when they actually try to de-convert people. It makes them look like Christian fundies. And that's the last thing anyone should want to be associated with. Believe whatever you want to believe (or disbelieve, hell, I don't care). Just don't try to drag others into it. To quote numerous xian fundies, faith is a double edged sword! If I get a conversion schpiel from a fundy, I use it as a witnessing opportunity to deconvert. Fair is fair. It's not like I publish "JonathanE Tracts", but fair is fair.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 12, 2009 5:25:33 GMT -5
Everyone defines belief slightly differently. Some people "believe" what they think is most likely. Some people "believe" what they are certain of. There are both types as well as other types in all religious or non-religious categories. The criticism is directed at people who the criticizer believes believe there is no God because they intuitively feel it to be true, the same way the criticizer believes religious people intuitively believe in religion. This subject is very hard to discuss without making generalizations. I don't know why though. You believe in a god, or you don't. It should be easy. The first parts of your post gave me a headache trying to decipher though. Could you clear up that up? And people don't "believe" in the religious sense, anything that they also know. I don't profess that I believe in the power of flight, I know it exists. I don't have to "believe" in my government because I know it exists. That is different from "believing in" the abilities of my government though which is what trips people up sometimes. There is nothing about the gods that is provable, if there were, then we wouldn't have "belief" it would simply be the knowledge and the 'truth" that they think that they have. Religions with gods don't have proof, they have "belief" and "faith". Now then... As Wacka said and as I have said in different forms or variations a hundred times; we all see bigfoot/little green men/fairies/FSM/IPUnicorn/Zeus/loki/santa/etc as "NOT REAL" and nobody flips out over it. If someone was rabidly screaming at you, telling you that you suck and will be tortured forever because you don't believe in loki, you'd think they were flipping nuts. Almost everyone would say, "You're right, why should you believe in the power/existence of loki just because this guy says it's true? He's obviously wrong as he is basing his conclusion off of no proof and all wishful thinking." But say that about christianity or the christian god and suddenly there are all sorts of limits and levels and styles of saying, "Biblegod sounds like a load of shit, to me." Nobody is up in arms that the "obvious truth" of jesus has thousands of versions of it. Nobody seems to care this religion is similar to the other big ones and that NOBODY has a monopoly on the "One true god". Instead, it is the outsiders, the ones who laugh at the whole debacle as being as silly as arguing over whether or not Lucky the Leprechaun could beat up Frankie the pink Frankenstein monster from the monster cereals. Nobody is making me take into consideration that leprechauns might actually exist and my writing them off is foolish. But if I state conclusively that I don't see any reason to believe in any of this shit I've mentioned in this post, then I'm as unreasonable as an abortion-clinic bombing fucking fundie? That's totally mad. I'm not the one making the outrageous and unprovable claims. I'm reasonably stating that it all sounds like horseshit. Yet the ones with the wild stories are being given the benefit of the doubt that THEY are right, even while being held to standards that are lower than that of the atheist. I guess, if we use this mindset, if I made some definitive claim about invisible robotic mauve hamsters who creep around silently, fucking national monuments after dark and I assured everyone that I'm the only one who really knows the real truth and that anyone who mocks my statements is doing so because of a giant conspiracy to stamp me and my unprovable beliefs out, that I would be considered the sane one and those who thought it was ridiculous would be seen as the fools. Yikes... But I do agree that it is most likely an attempt to divide people so that the "moderate" (they've all ready got us doing it by using these terms) atheist or agnostic isn't going to want to be lumped in with the nuts or the fringe. A house divided, the enemy of my enemy and all that. That is a lame attempt to align the Dawkins crowd or the anti-religion set as the equivalent of radical muslims and christians. This is not the case at all. Frankly, the only thing I see that weak atheism/agnostic mindset for is christians who are on the way out. Many times it is a bit like a cushion for atheism, or an out in case someone asks or a person dies and they think that will find out the biblegod is... gasp... REAL! Many times it is there as an "out" because years of christian guilt has made it that way. I say, "Shit or get off the pot." If you don't know, do some research. Shop around. Compare this god to other gods. Is there ANYTHING that you see that puts a particular god on a "Maybe it's true..." list above the rest? Can you really say that this religion is MORE believable than the Mayan religion? Is there one, single, solitary reason to give any god the benefit of the doubt while considering the others completely unnecessary to look into? If so, what is it? If not, why think about it any more than the gods of Finland or the birdgod, Tangatamanu? Or are you a weak atheist when it comes to Tangatumanu? You leaving the possibility that he MIGHT be your lord and saviour? Think that Babalu-Aye has enough credence to his story to justify leaving that door open? You agnostic towards Yara-Ma-Yha-Who or Aditinggi? People have been convinced without proof that they were real too.
|
|
|
Post by Vypernight on Mar 12, 2009 5:46:06 GMT -5
There's nothing wrong with believing in anything (or not believing), as long as you don't push it on someone else. As long as it doesn't hurt you or anyone else, you can believe strongly in pink boas for all I care. Except for the little piece of #$%@ Ironbite pictured. He deserves to burn for all eternity (the wrestler, not Ironbite) for ruining one of my favorite wrestlers. Take care, Jay And don't ask me why but for some reason the 'Swog is a real hit round this wrestling message board schizo and I came from. Ironbite-him and the Boogyman for some reason. All right, I won't ask.
|
|