More religion bashing

[FIF]

rational: able to reason (Oxford - what does Collins say?),

That would make your definition tortuous.

reason: power of the mind to think, understand, form opinions etc...

I like this and it shows that reason doesn't have to be right

 

[Blue Maniac]

My definition is the definition of reason taken from my copy of an Oxford dictionary - I prefer them to Collins - so where do we go from there?

The Collins one was a fiver.

I've read many papers about thought and reason and I really can't be bothered to stick up a few references here but if you can't agree that people's decisions are based conciously or unconciously on personal biases then we are unlikely to agree anyway.

Yes, they are. Mine are made based, consciously or unconsciously, on my personal bias towards things I can see, things that have been proven to me. I'm not going to let someone else guess the truth for me then blindly believe that. Neither should anybody else.

by the way I take back my negative comment of you being whatever I said you were I confused you with footyguts. :icon_lol:

Don't you ever, ever confuse me with him. Ever.

But you're forgiven, owing to the fact that I didn't see a personal insult (forgiveness isn't exclusive to the mentally ill either :icon_razz). Unless you mean when you called me a lunatic, a comment which can be backed up simply by reading the shit I write after every game (see link below), and can in no way be construed as a negative comment.

 

[FIF]

I'm not disagreeing that some religious people are tyrants. What I'm trying to help you understand is that some religious people are incredibly nice and helpful AND that non-religious people can be just as tyrannic.

Atheists focus too much on trying to show how bad religion is and miss the greater picture of how bad man is.

 

[Macky]

All officially atheist though, a point that is often swept under the carpet by people who want to believe that religion is the root of all evil.

I'm sure you know what 'specious' means Major.

 

[Blue Maniac]

rational: able to reason (Oxford - what does Collins say?),

That would make your definition tortuous.

Similar, so it seems you're right there. Cheapo dictionaries

I like this and it shows that reason doesn't have to be right

Wouldn't you say it's better to believe what you know for certain to be correct?

 

[Macky]

Many "atheists" are really "anti-religionists"

I am most definitely an 'anti-religionist', if such a thing exists. I think religion is a disease.

 

[The Major]

I'm sure you know what 'specious' means Major.

I do now I've just looked it up but I don't understand your point.

 

[FIF]

The Collins one was a fiver.



Yes, they are. Mine are made based, consciously or unconsciously, on my personal bias towards things I can see, things that have been proven to me. I'm not going to let someone else guess the truth for me then blindly believe that. Neither should anybody else.



Don't you ever, ever confuse me with him. Ever.

But you're forgiven, owing to the fact that I didn't see a personal insult (forgiveness isn't exclusive to the mentally ill either :icon_razz). Unless you mean when you called me a lunatic, a comment which can be backed up simply by reading the shit I write after every game (see link below), and can in no way be construed as a negative comment.

My Oxford cost many many times that! :icon_redf but price doesn't always relate to truth or quality.

I don't want to insult you but I think you base decisions on many things that you haven't seen and some things proven by people who you don't know and who could be raving nutters.

The day we don't believe in anything that hasn't been proven would be a sad day for man. history shows us that we are going to learn knew things which change our perception of life and living. If you were alive a few centuries ago you would not have believed that the earth was round, nor that it was not the centre of the universe, nor that Thor was not the God of Thunder (okay maybe not that one).

It was the lunatic comment to which I referred - we have so many foxes and blues and Leicester linked names on here I don't make too much of an effort to follow who is who. That way I don't make decisions on people's statements based on who they are. Apart from Newts and moderators , of course.

 

[Blue Maniac]

I'm not disagreeing that some religious people are tyrants. What I'm trying to help you understand is that some religious people are incredibly nice and helpful AND that non-religious people can be just as tyrannic.

I understand your point precisely, and this supports perfectly what I've been trying to say. Yes, some religious people are nice, but that's despite their beliefs. Some non-religious people are indeed utter scumbags, but imagine how many others would be on their side if they waved the name of a major religion above their head. Regardless of what you do, or even believe, saying publicly that you're part of religious group A or B gets people onside. This is insidious in the extreme.

Atheists focus too much on trying to show how bad religion is and miss the greater picture of how bad man is.

Again, you've missed the point. Religion is seen by many of its followers as an infallible excuse for the most inexcusable behaviour. If we eliminate it, these excuses disappear. The behaviour won't disappear entirely, nobody's naive enough to believe that, but the easiest 'justification' for horrible, horrible acts will be gone and these people will find it harder to get away with these things.

 

[Macky]

I'm not disagreeing that some religious people are tyrants. What I'm trying to help you understand is that some religious people are incredibly nice and helpful AND that non-religious people can be just as tyrannic.

But those people that are incredibly nice and helpful would still be the same people without religion, as would those that are tyrannic. Religion provides them with a device to exercise their inherent evil.

Atheists focus too much on trying to show how bad religion is and miss the greater picture of how bad man is.

Not me, I also hate everybody anyway.

 

[FIF]

I am most definitely an 'anti-religionist', if such a thing exists. I think religion is a disease.

That is obvious and I respect you for that. I have a dislike of a broad swath of catholics but that doesn't mean that I dislike every catholic alive - I don't.

 

[FIF]

May I add that makes you a zealot extremist

 

[Macky]

I do now I've just looked it up but I don't understand your point.

The fact that there have been evil people that were athiests, therefore religion isn't a problem is a very specious argument.

 

[Macky]

May I add that makes you a zealot extremist

No it doesn't, I don't subscribe to any dogma.

 

[FIF]

Wouldn't you say it's better to believe what you know for certain to be correct?

I think it is necessary to believe what you know for certain to be correct.

But

I'd question your basis for knowing it to be correct

AND

I'd say that it is important to believe some things that you don't know are certain to be correct. Not being certain doesn't mean that they are not correct. In fact believing they could be correct is fundamental for invention and possible leaps in human knowledge or standard of life.

 

[The Major]

The fact that there have been evil people that were athiests, therefore religion isn't a problem is a very specious argument.

The fact that there have been evil people that were religious, therefore atheism isn't a problem is a very specious argument.

It works both ways.

 

[FIF]

No it doesn't, I don't subscribe to any dogma.

I would suggest that you don't need to subscribe to a dogma (or believe that you don't) in order to zealously be extreme.

 

[The Major]

No it doesn't, I don't subscribe to any dogma.

Except that all religion is evil?

 

[Blue Maniac]

I don't want to insult you but I think you base decisions on many things that you haven't seen and some things proven by people who you don't know and who could be raving nutters.

Like Darwin? He was an absolute loon, but would anyone seriously argue against evolution?

The day we don't believe in anything that hasn't been proven would be a sad day for man.

I strongly disagree, I think it will be the day we save our species from early extinction.

history shows us that we are going to learn knew things which change our perception of life and living. If you were alive a few centuries ago you would not have believed that the earth was round, nor that it was not the centre of the universe, nor that Thor was not the God of Thunder (okay maybe not that one).

That's scientific discovery. Of course we have to keep an open enough mind to allow for understanding of new concepts (did you have an email address in 1990?) Besides, no educated person has seriously believed the earth to be flat nor that it's the centre of the universe for much longer than that. Your timeline's a bit wonky :icon_wink But that doesn't mean we should believe any old bollocks forced upon us.

It was the lunatic comment to which I referred - we have so many foxes and blues and Leicester linked names on here I don't make too much of an effort to follow who is who. That way I don't make decisions on people's statements based on who they are.

Or what you might 'believe' about them?

Apart from Newts and moderators , of course.

Obviously.

 

[Macky]

It works both ways.

Of course it does...but..eh? Wot u on abowt? That's even more specious.