Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sergius]

Ack! Nooo!

What happened to all the talk of cheese and ninjas? (who are cheese personified, really)

I think excessive talk about cheese invoked the Law of Conservation of Fromagerie.

[Sergius]

I also have to laugh at the "he said ALL ideas! Let's use logic to prove that it's PARADOXICAL and thus WRONG!". You're missing the point by... about 2.5 kilometers.

Well, you haven't denied that point.  Even when I gave you plenty of ideas you could reject.  Your viewpoint remains self destroying until you clarify it.

It wouldn't be so bad, except that he keeps shoving the idea that All Ideas Are Valid, while spending the entire thread REJECTING the idea that Not All Ideas Are Valid. Without realizing it ("I'm not arguing!") apparently.

I just took everything out of context. You're not getting it as long as you refuse to let go of (cue reverbing sound effect) Absolute Logic. As the serpent who takes every rule literally and twists it to his own end, instead of looking at the intent of the laws, you're missing the point by concentrating on grammar.

You're telling him to let go of Absolute Logic? Are you saying that using absolute logic is a Wrong Idea? Is concentrating on grammar an Invalid Idea?

[Siquo]

It wouldn't be so bad, except that he keeps shoving the idea that All Ideas Are Valid, while spending the entire thread REJECTING the idea that Not All Ideas Are Valid. Without realizing it ("I'm not arguing!") apparently.

Not at all, I've said multiple times that not having that idea is equally valid. From my point of view/belief/paradigm however, it's a shame if you think that.

You're telling him to let go of Absolute Logic? Are you saying that using absolute logic is a Wrong Idea? Is concentrating on grammar an Invalid Idea?

Nope. Never did. Now stop trying to nitpick on technicalities, because, tadaa, you've WON! Ok? Feel good? Good boy.

[Sergius]

See? You've done nothing EXCEPT argue in this thread. In fact, this thread is not even about Atheism, or whether it makes sense to be an atheist, or whether it makes sense to believe in a god or follow a religion. From your first post in this thread it has been nothing but a massive threadcrap. In fact, it's succeeded in making everyone forget about actually focusing on the argument and focusing on you.

Instead of Atheism, the thread is now about "I'm Siquo and my worldview is awesome, y'all are idiots but in a good way, and it's not your faults, (winkwinkwink) and I'm not arguing, it's just that this horse is so high!". Instead of actually trying to exchange ideas, or even evaluate, you've done nothing but post that We Shouldn't Question Ideas, except the idea that We Should Question Ideas, which we should absolutely reject, except without actually rejecting it, because that would look bad.

Every single post of yours tells us that we're wrong because we're telling others that they're wrong, and telling others that they're wrong is wrong. Except in different words, adorned with massive doses of condescension, and winkies and "Just Kidding" responses when called on it. Thinly veiled insults like "And thus, the notion that you know jack must be unnerving. (pun intended) I get it, don't worry about it. It doesn't make you a lesser person ", just another say of saying "YOU ARE A FRICKING IDIOT" except without the risk of getting banned.

I've seen replies from both sides, some arguing against something, some arguing FOR something, and then there's your posts, saying "Arguing is stupid! Saying that something is wrong is stupid! You're all stupid! And wrong! And this is not an argument!". I suppose you're half right there, because arguing would require actual arguments instead of just "arguing is stupid!".

Nope. Never did. Now stop trying to nitpick on technicalities, because, tadaa, you've WON! Ok? Feel good? Good boy.

Talk about being passive aggressive...

[Leafsnail]

I just took everything out of context.

Funnily enough, you haven't provided an adequate answer to anything on that list.  Your viewpoint still horribly obliterates itself, and, what's more, I refuse to go any further with this discussion until you explain why "All ideas are equal" is correct and "Not all ideas are equal" isn't.

Oddly, you are one of the most close minded people I have found on this thread.  Sure, you select your beliefs with randomness instead of logic, but you still refuse to accept any kind of reasoning.  Indeed, your overall world view (that is doesn't matter what you believe, and you should change as much as possible even if you know your beliefs are wrong) seems to be an unquestionable pillar in your mind, which simply won't shift.

You're not getting it as long as you refuse to let go of (cue reverbing sound effect) Absolute Logic. As the serpent who takes every rule literally and twists it to his own end, instead of looking at the intent of the laws, you're missing the point by concentrating on grammar.

I have said absolutely NOTHING about grammar at any point during this thread.  I would like you to quote examples of me doing this..  Otherwise, I'd like an apology for bullshitting.

As for "refusing to let go of logic"... well, why the hell should I?  "Logic" is just another word for "reasoning".  Letting go of reasoning leaves you wide open to exploitation and fallacy.  Furthermore, once you say goodbye to reason, you cannot expect anyone else to understand or be convinced by your world view.  Because, by definition, it cannot be argued.

It's self defeating because he's rallying against something he's practicing.

Again, he talked about this in his open minded video.  You don't have to believe absolutely everything like a 3 year old in order to be open minded.  You need to be able to rationally consider something, and then discard it if it doesn't have enough evidence, or if it makes no logical sense.  Since he doesn't have the same definition of open-minded as you (although yours really does seem to line up with "hyper-gullible" more than anything else) there is absolutely no contradiction in his world view.

Look, if people operated on the principles you're suggesting... society wouldn't exist.  Indeed, nothing would exist.  For example, let's say I want to live in a new house.  Under your logic, the following two beliefs are equally valid (and no amount of evidence on either side will change this):
1. Getting a building project together and building a house will allow me to live in it.
2. Building a house will be useless, I need to just wait for 6 months and I'll get one automatically.
If everyone did just randomly change beliefs, ignore things they've learnt in the past and refuse to apply logic to anything, noone would get anywhere.

Well, both are actually equal in worth, but also both work. With six months waiting time you can get a house from the housing comittee, albeit a bad one.

You accuse me of missing the point and focusing on small details, then post THIS??  Ok, if you're being super pedantic now, I'll change the analogy to say "You're in a country with no kind of state housing provision for anyone".

So yeah, you took a bad example and I slapped you around with it, but if we did not change beliefs all the time, we'd still be worshipping stones and stars from our caves.

What the hell is wrong with you?

[Ampersand]

You guys really ought to go back and look at Siquo's earlier posts in this tread from several months ago. I've already admitted defeat. Not because he's right, but because, like Napoleon invading Russia, there is an infinite expanse of insane statements before me and attrition will wear me down before I reach St. Petersburg. And also, I have a silly hat.

[Micro102]

Ok back to atheism. Did you know some states won't let atheists be police officers? What's up with that?


Also, didn't the pope cover up a child molesting scandal?

[Jackrabbit]

Yes, Micro, I'd like to take a moment to address the injustices (and I'm not being sarcastic about them being injustices) caused in the name of religion. I'm of the following opinion - a man with power over others for any reason will exercise it however he wants, and will not always exercise it well. I'm sure the Pope meant well for dealing with it how he did. It was wrong and he was foolish for thinking he was and he shouldn't have and hopefully now that it's out in the open the Catholic Church will try and be a bit better about these things, especially in an age with mass communication. And, of course, a some people will use any excuse to do what they think is right or to stop things they think are wrong, or are afraid of, or don't understand. I'm not sure if some states actually prevent atheists from serving in the police but if they do it's because people can be smallminded, nasty and stupid and nothing will ever change that. It's why I like to think of my faith as extremely private and I don't particularly like getting involved with larger groups, because if there's one thing someone can abuse to try and force the world to fit their worldview, it's religion. I will strive to keep myself from doing the same until the day I die.

But I'd like to point out that if some people are nasty, small minded little jerks, it doesn't mean the religion is a bad one.

[Sergius]

Yes, Micro, I'd like to take a moment to address the injustices (and I'm not being sarcastic about them being injustices) caused in the name of religion. I'm of the following opinion - a man with power over others for any reason will exercise it however he wants, and will not always exercise it well. I'm sure the Pope meant well for dealing with it how he did. It was wrong and he was foolish for thinking he was and he shouldn't have and hopefully now that it's out in the open the Catholic Church will try and be a bit better about these things, especially in an age with mass communication. And, of course, a some people will use any excuse to do what they think is right or to stop things they think are wrong, or are afraid of, or don't understand. I'm not sure if some states actually prevent atheists from serving in the police but if they do it's because people can be smallminded, nasty and stupid and nothing will ever change that. It's why I like to think of my faith as extremely private and I don't particularly like getting involved with larger groups, because if there's one thing someone can abuse to try and force the world to fit their worldview, it's religion. I will strive to keep myself from doing the same until the day I die.

But I'd like to point out that if some people are nasty, small minded little jerks, it doesn't mean the religion is a bad one.

That's because it's easier to say things like "gays are evil!" and act on it (violently, maybe) when you believe you're in a position of moral superiority (religion, God says so, why do you hate Jesus?) than just saying "I think so because I'm a bigot". Not that it stops some people, but it definitely makes other "believers" more accepting to the actions of said person. Or even people who defend your "right to believe insane things" that are in positions of power, even if they don't share those beliefs.

[Sheb]

Cheese guys, cheese.

[Jackrabbit]

My point is that if it wasn't religion, it'd be something else. I don't like it, I'll fight to stop it (especially since it's me that'll be discriminated against) but man is the main issue, not the reason. Change the dogma (although it hasn't changed for hundreds of years), and the publics opinion, and the opinion of the masses (and we're already on our way) but always remember that people look for excuses to do what they do and it's the people who are the problem.

[Sergius]

My point is that if it wasn't religion, it'd be something else. I don't like it, I'll fight to stop it (especially since it's me that'll be discriminated against) but man is the main issue, not the reason. Change the dogma (although it hasn't changed for hundreds of years), and the publics opinion, and the opinion of the masses (and we're already on our way) but always remember that people look for excuses to do what they do and it's the people who are the problem.

I know that there are other excuses. And I understand that religion MIGHT not be the actual cause of said antisocial behavior (except the ones that actually said "DO BAD THINGS TO OTHER PEOPLE" in their official texts). But there's always some sort of taboo on calling out unacceptable behavior in society when it's done in the name of Religion, at least the regionally preferred flavour of Religion. Same way evil actions can be justified (and otherwise good people bullied into doing them) in the name of "The Party" or whatever.

[Jackrabbit]

Yes, I agree. And I think you're of the opinion we should try and prevent this as much as possible? Because I agree with that too.

[Sergius]

Yes, I agree. And I think you're of the opinion we should try and prevent this as much as possible? Because I agree with that too.

I do agree with that. Part of the solution is to eliminate the mob mentality of many Religions. The question is, is it even possible? Like things that are deemed "overreactions by atheists" like proposing not to force 100% of the population of a country to constantly say hello to this God person.

[Jackrabbit]

I think that that's a bit of an exaggeration - Fundies will always be around no matter what and they're really the only people who'd act like that. I'm not sure what you mean about eliminating mob mentality. Do you mean stopping people from all backing up each other when trying to push a point? Because I don't think that's possible, because it's not exclusive to religion. Everyone who has a viewpoint that's shared (and it doesn't have to even be very widely shared) by others will be backed up by them when they try to assert it, it's just that religion is one of the biggest mobs out there. I think it's more important to change the views than prevent the mob, because that's actually possible.