Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10
51
Chatter / Re: Gun Fails
« Last post by nogodsforme on February 05, 2016, 07:25:36 PM »
We agree on that. The easy presence of guns coupled with a cultural/historical bent toward solving problems with violence equals a lot more people getting shot and killed by other people. Add in the reckless shootings listed in the gun fails and that is a lot of unnecessary mayhem that US people are exposed to.
52
Chatter / Re: Gun Fails
« Last post by jaimehlers on February 05, 2016, 06:58:46 PM »
Not arguing against that, but the excessively high homicide rate is much more worrying to me.
53
Chatter / Re: Gun Fails
« Last post by nogodsforme on February 05, 2016, 06:08:08 PM »
It's also much easier to kill one's self with a gun, by the same token.  Which means less chance to reconsider or to let one's survival instinct override what one is doing.

Very true. Pills, jumping off a bridge, cutting wrists, etc. all have a better survival rate than a bullet to the head[1]. Most people who attempt suicide and fail are happy to have failed. Treatment for depression (meds and therapy) cures a lot of suicidal ideation and gives another chance at life. It is a lot harder to fail and get another chance at life with a firearm.
 1. Although a failed suicide by bullet often "survives" as a brain damaged vegetable doomed to life in an institution.
54
Chatter / Re: Why do athiests discuss God?
« Last post by none on February 05, 2016, 06:00:27 PM »
You can worship my ass.
seeing how you are the whole ass I don't think that's appropriate
55
I am sure that we could locate magical, made up religious passages from the bible that MM is not familiar with, switch the names of the gods and prophets mentioned, tell him they are from the Quran or the Gita, and ask him to evaluate them with his accuracy detecting skill. If he thought they were from some other religion, he would find them lacking truth value. "Of course, Krishna never died for three days and came back to life! That is ridiculous and impossible!"

Similarly, magical, made up religious passages from those other sacred texts, if inserted between some bible verses, would no doubt pass the smell test for MM. The reason why I think this would work is that it has been done experimentally and it does work. "Yes, if it says in the bible that Jesus rode to the moon on a white winged horse, he must have done."

OTOH, any magical, made up religious story, no matter what the claimed source, would be flagged as suspect or bogus by a rational atheist. Would not matter if it was inserted into a book and attributed to Carl Sagan or Richard Dawkins or Barack Obama or Paula Poundstone or Mohandas Gandhi or my next door neighbor. Because magical, made up religious. No evidence. Not factual.

What do you think, MM? Is a story in the bible therefore true because it really could have happened, or is it true because it is in the bible? Do you judge the truth value of a claim based on whether the claim seems factual, or do you judge it based on the supposed source? You said you would believe Jack and the Beanstalk if it had the same provenance as the bible. You'd believe in magic beans and talking harps if they were in the bible? Really?

In other words, do you always believe magical made up religious stories, if they are in the bible, but analyze them critically for truth value if they are in a different religious text? Consider what these questions mean. I think you are a basically honest and well meaning bloke. But Christianity is clouding your rational thinking.

56
Chatter / Re: Why do athiests discuss God?
« Last post by eh! on February 05, 2016, 05:50:35 PM »
You can worship my ass.
57
Chatter / Re: Why do athiests discuss God?
« Last post by none on February 05, 2016, 05:46:49 PM »
Me is god, I am yr fuking god dipshit.

Proof:

 I created the universe
The universe exists
Therefore I am God
QED.
whatever you say
for all I know you are an ass
58
Chatter / Re: Why do athiests discuss God?
« Last post by eh! on February 05, 2016, 05:23:42 PM »
Me is god, I am yr fuking god dipshit.

Proof:

 I created the universe
The universe exists
Therefore I am God
QED.
59
Religion & Society / Re: The Immorality Of Christian Evangelism
« Last post by jaimehlers on February 05, 2016, 05:15:45 PM »
The point I was trying to make is that you can make headway by showing that a belief is detrimental without having to show that it's false.  Otherwise modern secular legal restrictions on behavior wouldn't work.  It's true that the person in question may not believe that the detriments are important compared to "eternal damnation", but at that point, they're faced with the choice of either complying with the law anyway, or else getting to spend some quality time at a facility designed to prevent people like them from repeating their behavior.

We can make headway, at least with society, to argue against the detrimental effects of a belief without having to show that the belief is false.  For example, it is possible to make money off of a pyramid or Ponzi scheme (meaning, it is a true belief), but at the same time, the majority of people in the scheme are going to be harmed (or at least not helped) by it, and therefore such schemes can be legally shut down.  The same thing goes with some of the more egregious effects of religious belief.

The reason why it works, jdawg, is because humans are wired for empathy.  And while empathy can be short-circuited (you mentioned one way, "eternal damnation"; another is that it can sway people to empathize with someone who intends to abuse it), in general, it does what it's supposed to by making it difficult for humans in general to agree with doing harm to others.  That's especially true when you talk about things which can be shown to have concrete negative effects, versus an abstract positive one which cannot be shown.

It's not easy to reverse that equation.  It takes years for religious belief to manage it, and it only reliably works when there's no outside influences to detract from the process.  That may have been true in the past, but it isn't true now.  Look at the things that were permitted or required by religion in the past which have been successfully outlawed now, like slavery.  In order to get the same kind of influence as religion had in the past, Christians have to attempt to isolate themselves and their children from the world, and that's getting more difficult practically by the day.

And also, many evangelists aren't really pushing "eternal damnation" all that much anymore.  Some are, for sure, but in general it just isn't that effective, largely because society[1] is no longer structured to support it.  It doesn't do a lot of good to argue that eternal hellfire awaits those who are not saved anymore, unless one lives in a society which actively pushes the whole concept, rather than passively accepting it as ours does.

So while those like your Bob Smith undoubtedly exist, they no longer have society standing behind them with a big stick, wordlessly discouraging detractors from going their own way.  And by themselves, they simply aren't all that impressive.

I kind of went off-subject there a few times, but I hope this makes sense?
 1. at least in the first world nations
60
Chatter / Re: Why do athiests discuss God?
« Last post by none on February 05, 2016, 05:12:54 PM »
Prove me wrong bitch.
can't because I don't know what god is
back at you
what god?
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10