Print

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

[Sordid]

What is on the fourth fucking continent of the seventh planet from the star nearest us a few galaxies over? Is it nothing? Something? There's nothing to be had to say. Just you saying something about it is false.

You seem to have missed the point of atheism, mister expert on real atheism. It's not about saying there is nothing, period. It's about taking claims that others make and disbelieving them due to lack of evidence.
Oh, and guess what, everyone's an atheist. The only difference is which gods we disbelieve in. Believe in Yahweh? Atheist towards Zeus, Thor, and all the others. Unless of course you believe in all the gods humanity has managed to invent, as well as all the conceivable and inconceivable gods that might exist. At which point I'd guess your head would explode.

[Virex]

There is a difference between free expression and acting like everyone should belong to the same religion.  1st amendment, you have the right to believe what religion you want.  People who try to get you to do otherwise should go to jail.  Simple.

Any expression will influence the way someone thinks, intentional or not. Any line drawn between freedom of speech and the 1st amendment will be arbitrary. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done, but it is often good to realise that what seems a solid line is none more then a consensus. What to you may seem like indoctrination may be freedom of speech to another. For example, I would know of several "Free speech extremists" who would say that threathning someone with hell and damnation would fall under freedom of speech, because you're only acting verbaly and thus not crossing the line between freedom of speech and the abuse of force.

The reason why I say all of this may seem obscured at best, but that'll follow.

Because the point I'm getting to is that this discussion seems to be one between two or more moral systems. This means that what is unacceptable and utterly dorkish to one is perfectly acceptable to the other. Now this doesn't form a problem, unless you have two peopel from different moral systems who both implicitly claim moral superiority. Claiming moral superiority isn't bad in itself, but if two persons try to claim it on diferent grounds, they'll never get anywhere because they'll subconsiously regard the other as morraly inferior and thus the other has to adjust his or her moral system.

So I sugest you guys first try to work out some sort of framework for this discussion before you start throwing more arguments, ad homini and ad fundums at eachother...

With that out of the way, I've got some interesting things for you guys to ponder about:

If everything has a cause, then either there has to be a first cause, in which case you're breaking your axioma, or there is an infinit history, in which case you're also breaking your axioma, because history itself has to have a cause. So logicaly, both positions are equally false. Is this because this is a problem that can't be resolved, because one of the options is actualy right when seen in another light or explained differently, or is it a limit of the frame of reference we're using?

For humans many of our needs and ideas come forth from our subconsious, yet we have no controll over our subconsious. Now an omnipotent being can't have a subconsious, since then it would have no controll over it's own will, and thus it isn't omnipotent. But if it has controll over it's own will, then we get into a logical paradox, since it needs it's will to excert controll over it's will. How do we resolve this?

Just for the moment, assume that the bible was right and we were made in god's image. Now, god is omnipotence, and there must be an infinit gap between anything omnipotent and something that isn't omnipotent. But if there is an infinit difference between something omnipotent and something that isn't omnipotent, then somethign made to be even somewhat like an omnipotent being must be omnipotent (there isn't such a thing as somewhat omnipotent ). So why arn't we omnipotent then?

And another one regarding holy books. This might be a shocking concept, so brace yourselves. Imagine for the moment that the "devil" wants to lead all of humanity astray, away from "god" (I am using "devil" and "God" as general names for respectively an evil trancendental entity and a good transcendental entity). Now, one way to acomplish this would be by creating a false religion, complete with a false book, false prophets and what else you may want. How would it be possible to see the destinction between a holy book written by god's deciples, and a holy book writen by the devil. And by extention of that, can anyone claim that their holy book is definitly not written by the devil or another evil entity?

[Andir]

Go die and come back. THEN you have something to say.

I have died actually.  I was revived shortly after.

What makes it real to you?

Religion is a personal understanding and balance. He makes it real. Leave it as such and quite violating things.

It was a simple question.  The fact that you are seeing some sort of "violation" in it is interesting.

[LegoLord]

Basically, all I've been trying to say is that you shouldn't give a shit what other people believe as long as it A) does not actively cause obvious harm as a direct result of the teachings of the religion, and B) they aren't actively trying to make you believe what they believe.

Some seem to hold issue with the idea of neutrality towards beliefs of others.

Andir, stop being a dick.  Death is the end.  There's no coming back from it.  If you did, then you were not really dead.  Just closer to it than most people get without dying.

[Idiom]

Go die and come back. THEN you have something to say.

I have died actually.  I was revived shortly after.

What makes it real to you?

Religion is a personal understanding and balance. He makes it real. Leave it as such and quite violating things.

It was a simple question.  The fact that you are seeing some sort of "violation" in it is interesting.

You know DAMNED well what I meant by "die".

Are you LegoLord? No? Then LegoLord's universe is made by LegoLord. Else you're violating that.

You seem to have missed the point of atheism, mister expert on real atheism. It's not about saying there is nothing, period. It's about taking claims that others make and disbelieving them due to lack of evidence.

Disbelief is incorrect. Belief is incorrect. There is nothing to be had of it, Mr. 'I represent all of atheism'. There is no belief or disbelief to be had. There is nothing to make any belief or disbelief of. LegoLord, you stop then I stop and they have no audience to make a racket at.

[LegoLord]

One thing that many fail to realize about the rights you have in America is that they end where another person's rights begin.  For that reason, your right to punch someone in the groin hard enough to sterilize them is not protected, because it infringes on that person's right to a good life in which they can have children if they should so choose.  Trying to convert people infringes on their right to believe what they want.  A man-eating-demon cultist's right to believe what he wants is not protected because it infringes another person's right to not be sacrificed.

In short, there are no absolute rights in the constitution; there are always conditions.  And if I feel violated by another's attempts to convert me, be them atheist or Catholic or Muslim, then they are violating my first amendment, denying their first amendment rights in that situation because I was just minding my own business and telling people that I would prefer they didn't mind mine, and they were bothering me.

[Andir]

Basically, all I've been trying to say is that you shouldn't give a shit what other people believe as long as it A) does not actively cause obvious harm as a direct result of the teachings of the religion, and B) they aren't actively trying to make you believe what they believe.

Some seem to hold issue with the idea of neutrality towards beliefs of others.

Andir, stop being a dick.  Death is the end.  There's no coming back from it.  If you did, then you were not really dead.  Just closer to it than most people get without dying.

My heart was stopped and I had no brain functionality.  How much more dead do you want?

Also, you keep telling everyone to stop trying to make everyone believe what they believe, but you want Atheists to accept your belief and believe that it's valid.  It's would be a violation of everything they believe.  If an Atheist accepts that someone else believes in "God" then they are defying their own belief to do so.  They would have to accept that religion has purpose when Atheism is pretty much anti-religion.

[Andir]

In short, there are no absolute rights in the constitution; there are always conditions.  And if I feel violated by another's attempts to convert me, be them atheist or Catholic or Muslim, then they are violating my first amendment, denying their first amendment rights in that situation because I was just minding my own business and telling people that I would prefer they didn't mind mine, and they were bothering me.

You also have the right to walk away, but you haven't.  This tells me that you are the type of religious person that fights fervently with Atheists...

[Virex]

Perhaps he is, but I find it more likely that he initialy enjoyed the discussion, and then realised someone was wrong on the internet. I also have the tendency to correct people that are wrong according to me (luckely, I've restrained myself in this tppic)

One thing that many fail to realize about the rights you have in America is that they end where another person's rights begin.  For that reason, your right to punch someone in the groin hard enough to sterilize them is not protected, because it infringes on that person's right to a good life in which they can have children if they should so choose.  Trying to convert people infringes on their right to believe what they want.  A man-eating-demon cultist's right to believe what he wants is not protected because it infringes another person's right to not be sacrificed.

In short, there are no absolute rights in the constitution; there are always conditions.  And if I feel violated by another's attempts to convert me, be them atheist or Catholic or Muslim, then they are violating my first amendment, denying their first amendment rights in that situation because I was just minding my own business and telling people that I would prefer they didn't mind mine, and they were bothering me.

You can't state that as a hard line. Take for example the missionaries you mentioned. By spreading their faith they are infringing the first amandment of some. However, their faith demands that they go and spread the word, so making it illegal to convert people would infringe their first amandment.

Another example would be me telling you to shut up. You could argue that I am infringing your freedom of speech, but by claiming that I am not allowed to say "Shut up", you are infringing my freedom of speech. In either case a line has to be drawn and it can't just be drawn by saying "your rights end where mine begin", because our rights overlap on many occasions.

[Rilder]

Well considering this is a privately owned forum free speach doesn't really apply.

[Virex]

Well considering this is a privately owned forum free speach doesn't really apply.

Does that matter when we're discussing american civil rights?

Anyway, I havn't seen anyone take up the chalanges in my one to last last post yet. Anyone want to give it a try?

[Andir]

because our rights overlap on many occasions.

My personal opinion on this is that you have right up until those right infringe on another's rights.  You have the right to religion as long as it doesn't infringe on another person's right to their religion.  This means that door to door preaching, missionary work, and such marketing is illegal.  Your freedom to carry a weapon extends right up to the point of removing someone else's freedom of life and mobility...  overlaps in freedom would not be allowed.  Once your freedom infringes on another person's freedom, you are breaking the law.

[Virex]

because our rights overlap on many occasions.

My personal opinion on this is that you have right up until those right infringe on another's rights.  You have the right to religion as long as it doesn't infringe on another person's right to their religion.  This means that door to door preaching, missionary work, and such marketing is illegal.  Your freedom to carry a weapon extends right up to the point of removing someone else's freedom of life and mobility...  overlaps in freedom would not be allowed.  Once your freedom infringes on another person's freedom, you are breaking the law.

You said that yes, but you are ignoring the fact that in many cases, rights do overlap. I gave you the example that forbiding someone to preach might and can very well infring their first amendment, because preaching is a central part of their religion. So why would, in said case, the annoyance of one make it so that someone else is forbidden from following their religion?

(In case you didn't notice, I am playing the devils advocate now, mainly to see how well you can define "infringement" untill we need to get into specifick cases)

[LegoLord]

Preachers don't have to go and find people to preach to.  They can, you know, let people come to them (as they often do).  That appropriately fits the right to a choice of religion.  That said, going out and manually reprogramming people to be your religion is not central to a religion, because people can change religion independently of such forces.  Hence missionary work being unconstitutional.

Anyway, I never said atheists should accept my religion, just that people in general should accept the beliefs of others, because that belief is their choice and there is no evidence denying it.

[Andir]

You said that yes, but you are ignoring the fact that in many cases, rights do overlap. I gave you the example that forbiding someone to preach might and can very well infring their first amendment, because preaching is a central part of their religion. So why would, in said case, the annoyance of one make it so that someone else is forbidden from following their religion?

(In case you didn't notice, I am playing the devils advocate now, mainly to see how well you can define "infringement" untill we need to get into specifick cases)

I'm not ignoring anything.  You can have religion, you can gather, you can preach with other same religion believers... walking up to someone else on the street and handing them a pamphlet, knocking on their door, or invading their daily life with your religion would be illegal.  If someone decided to seek out your religion, they may feel free, and upon that time you may converse with them about it.