Comments | armrha: the mix of worlds

armrha

the mix of worlds

Mar 04, 2009 09:25

In my last post, I basically talked about why I don't think atheists should shirk away from any debate about religion they can, if they think religion is dangerous or wasteful. The central point here that most people get upset about is the idea that you can think your beliefs are right and other people's beliefs are wrong ( Read more... )

Comments 12

guns_of_dawn March 4 2009, 21:56:09 UTC

From what I've read, historically speaking, most religions were not exclusionary; They were considered the beliefs and customs of those that held them. The people on the other side of the what have you might have different ones, but then again they weren't "our" community, so who knows? They might have Gods for themselves, as well ( ... )

armrha March 5 2009, 02:03:31 UTC

It's the screaming douchefucks that get me going so fervently to push back at them. If people don't want to interfere with science or education or any of that and keep their belief system going, more power to them; Though I still like to talk about it and find out why.

guns_of_dawn March 5 2009, 02:14:26 UTC

And that would be perfectly okay! Honestly, any religion that's against science or education obviously does not have the best interests of it's people at heart, and is therefore kind of defeating the purpose of religion. (Because any religion wants good things for at least their adherents, if not all mankind.)

Redefining Ignorance about Religion... divinecovenant March 6 2009, 07:07:02 UTC

You seem to see the world in only polemics. Unfortunately the harsh reality, at least to your worldview, is that the rest of world does not see it they way you do. The main problem is that you seem to believe that your way of viewing things is absolutely true, or rather that all others are operationg under a false pretense specifically in the age-old absence of evidence claim. I too once laid claim to this line of argumentation: That all religion was BS because there was no evidence. However, as time passed an my erudition increased, I learned that it was I who had created a "safety bubble" around my world view and did not allow anything to penetrate. If you see the world of religion as full of chaos and with your worldview being the only refuge, than I"m afraid you are no different than a fundamentalist. I deal with religious people everyday of my life and I can say that they are not crazy, or deluded, or mis-informed, or any of the supercilious and polemical ways you describe them ( ... )

Re: Redefining Ignorance about Religion... armrha March 6 2009, 08:55:39 UTC

I deal with the crazy people every day. And you're doing that thing again, where you say something is invalid but don't say why. That's what irritated me originally on your journal. If you want to claim 'You falsely believe there is no evidence' and then say that you changed your mind about it, you need to explain why -- Where did the evidence come from? Otherwise, it just looks like a lot of other tactics I deal with every day from people who have no idea how to argue, the classic 'Ah, you would know the truth of this, if only you were smarter ( ... )

Re: Redefining Ignorance about Religion... divinecovenant March 6 2009, 16:16:41 UTC

Investigation of actual religious behavor of real people including personal friends who were believers in addition to the actual arguments for atheism (which were very weak in reality) are what shunned me away from the position. Of course there is more to my story than simply this. The real problem is what you define as "evidence" and I think I have mentioned this before, but you seem to only want emperical evidence and operate only on a naturalistic assumption that matter is the only thing that is "real" therefore the metaphysical lies beyond proof. The difficult thing about this view is that God simply lies beyond emperical proof. Philosophers of Religions, both atheistic and theistic, have no problem accetping this. Additionally, there are many things in life that we adhere to that we cannot prove emperically to be true. If you don't believe me try and emperically prove to me this statement ""All truth claims must be emperically verifiable in order to be true ( ... )

Re: Redefining Ignorance about Religion... armrha March 6 2009, 18:06:41 UTC

This is the most tolerable of your posts. I actually rather liked this one ( ... )

Thread 7

divinecovenant March 6 2009, 16:45:44 UTC

Anyways, this will be my last post because my Spring Break is ending. Therefore it's back to normality such as my students and my school work...oh joy..

Just kidding, I love it

armrha March 6 2009, 18:08:05 UTC

You always do this. 'You're wrong, there's evidence for god, okay I'm going to tell you, oh wait I have to leave I'm really busy now.'. It does not make a strong case for you as anything other than some kind of stage illusionist caught off of his game. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain?