Interesting religious breakdown on gay marriage

[qazplm]

This one deserves a repost.

Still waiting to be told what I believe.

Why aren't we getting answers?

What you need to wait on is understanding basic English. I said everyone believes things about themselves that make them feel better that are untrue. I did not say people actually believe things they know is not true...its why I used the words blind spot and self aware...and appropriately for you...delusional.

But gr8 is right...you think you are the one human on the planet with a perfect understanding of reality and perfect self awareness... So again delusional.

 

[qazplm]

Uber-liberal orthodoxy.

So very afraid to offend.

Lmao yes if there's one thing I'm known for its being afraid to offend. You're just posting like a monkey flings poo at this point.

 

[ecouch]

What you need to wait on is understanding basic English. I said everyone believes things about themselves that make them feel better that are untrue. I did not say people actually believe things they know is not true...its why I used the words blind spot and self aware...and appropriately for you...delusional.

But gr8 is right...you think you are the one human on the planet with a perfect understanding of reality and perfect self awareness... So again delusional.

What do you believe about yourself that isn't true?

If it is too personal, we understand.

 

[ecouch]

Which statement is true?

¶ 304.3: The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.

¶ 304.3: The practice of homosexuality is compatible with Christian teaching.

I'm sorry. You are incompatible with God.

 

[qazplm]

What do you believe about yourself that isn't true?

If it is too personal, we understand.

It's like talking to a three year old. How much simpler do I have to make it?

If I was perfectly self-aware and knew everything about myself exactly as it was, then I'd not be human, and I wouldn't "believe anything about myself that isn't true."
Since I'm not, and you are not, and no one is, then there are things about myself that I believe, that I THINK are true, but aren't.
So continually asking me this insipid question shows you can't understand a really, really basic concept. I'm pretty sure I'm not as smart or as good-looking or as good of a person as I think I am. I am absolutely sure you aren't as smart as you think you are, but clearly you have other ideas.

People who are religious don't think their religion is a lie. People who think they are perfectly self-aware don't think that isn't true. I'm sure there are a ton of other things that people think about themselves, that give them comfort, that those who are on the outside know isn't true. It's a pretty basic concept, that even I, someone several on here view as arrogant, understand and apply to myself. That you don't is ridiculous.

 

[ecouch]

Yes.

Give us an example of this.

Since I'm not, and you are not, and no one is, then there are things about myself that I believe, that I THINK are true, but aren't.

It's like talking to a three year old. How much simpler do I have to make it?

If I was perfectly self-aware and knew everything about myself exactly as it was, then I'd not be human, and I wouldn't "believe anything about myself that isn't true."
Since I'm not, and you are not, and no one is, then there are things about myself that I believe, that I THINK are true, but aren't.
So continually asking me this insipid question shows you can't understand a really, really basic concept. I'm pretty sure I'm not as smart or as good-looking or as good of a person as I think I am. I am absolutely sure you aren't as smart as you think you are, but clearly you have other ideas.

People who are religious don't think their religion is a lie. People who think they are perfectly self-aware don't think that isn't true. I'm sure there are a ton of other things that people think about themselves, that give them comfort, that those who are on the outside know isn't true. It's a pretty basic concept, that even I, someone several on here view as arrogant, understand and apply to myself. That you don't is ridiculous.

Your inability to defend your statements is leading me to believe that you are a troll. Deliberate redefinition. Inability to answer. There are a lot of claims in this post. That second paragraph is a goldmine.

If I was perfectly self-aware and knew everything about myself exactly as it was, then I'd not be human, and I wouldn't "believe anything about myself that isn't true."

A new species has emerged.

Honestly, you are coming across as a new age hippie type.

We can't know anything , man. Knowledge is a construct. What if this is all a dream?

 

[BBG]

Do you believe things because they make you feel better?

Well to be fair, after reading through this thread you clearly feel better for not believing in something so why not the opposite?

I really didn't want to get mixed up in this debate, but the irony of your statement had to be pointed out. I do find it kind of funny however, that you and some other hard lined atheists I have come across in my travels are so bent on saying there is no God, that the irony is some treat being an atheist in similar ways to being in a religion.

 

[qazplm]

Yes.

Give us an example of this.

Since I'm not, and you are not, and no one is, then there are things about myself that I believe, that I THINK are true, but aren't.


Your inability to defend your statements is leading me to believe that you are a troll. Deliberate redefinition. Inability to answer. There are a lot of claims in this post. That second paragraph is a goldmine.

If I was perfectly self-aware and knew everything about myself exactly as it was, then I'd not be human, and I wouldn't "believe anything about myself that isn't true."

A new species has emerged.

Honestly, you are coming across as a new age hippie type.

We can't know anything , man. Knowledge is a construct. What if this is all a dream?

My inability to get through basic concepts to you that are pretty universally understood I think is the problem, or rather your problem. The rest of that stuff is more poo-flinging, word salad silliness that isn't remotely reflected of anything I've said.

 

[Beeazlebub]

 

[ecouch]

And...I think we are done here

View embedded media

It is a shame the reptiles in Indiana cost us $2 Million dollars and Qaz is defending it.

Intellectually handcuffed liberalism is hard to watch.

His inability to address his assertions is comical.

Conclusion?

Troll. GMM v. 2.0.

 

[ecouch]

My inability to get through basic concepts to you that are pretty universally understood I think is the problem, or rather your problem. The rest of that stuff is more poo-flinging, word salad silliness that isn't remotely reflected of anything I've said.

What do you beleive without evidence?

If believing in Jesus makes someone a better person, or gives them comfort, then there is plenty of utility and value there. Just like any other idea, there's good and there's ill depending on the person involved.

How would believing in Jesus make someone a better person?

For the comedic, you used the term belief.

 

[ecouch]

Well to be fair, after reading through this thread you clearly feel better for not believing in something so why not the opposite?

I really didn't want to get mixed up in this debate, but the irony of your statement had to be pointed out. I do find it kind of funny however, that you and some other hard lined atheists I have come across in my travels are so bent on saying there is no God, that the irony is some treat being an atheist in similar ways to being in a religion.

I have never said there is no god.

The "being an atheist is a religion" argument sends you back to elementary school.

Do some basic research.

Nice try, though.

 

[ecouch]

Qaz's argument is an antique.

 

[kescwi]

What do you beleive without evidence?


How would believing in Jesus make someone a better person?

For the comedic, you used the term belief.

Fuuck man you are really going over the top. Hate on tough guy

 

[BBG]

I have never said there is no god.

The "being an atheist is a religion" argument sends you back to elementary school.

Do some basic research.

Nice try, though.

Well I can see now that what everyone says about you in this thread is apparently true.

Clearly sarcasm, rational opinion and the ability to have a discussion without reducing yourself to defensive and combative rational are all new concepts to you.

I won't waste my time any longer on you, good day.

 

[qazplm]

Well I can see now that what everyone says about you in this thread is apparently true.

Clearly sarcasm, rational opinion and the ability to have a discussion without reducing yourself to defensive and combative rational are all new concepts to you.

I won't waste my time any longer on you, good day.

I can't believe it, ecouch has driven BBG and I to agreement!

 

[BBG]

I can't believe it, ecouch has driven BBG and I to agreement!

Ha you know what is funny, I very nearly posted something similar earlier. WHAT THE CRAP IS GOING ON HERE!!!

 

[ecouch]

This is why this place is so boring.

No one will defend their assertions. Qaz is the most guilty. Read a page of Russell. It is much easier to coalesce and back slap. Never become Prime Minister and subject yourselves to question time, Qaz.

I almost miss GMM. At least he had the balls to engage.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I almost miss GMM. At least he had the balls to engage.

I've spent so much time "engaging" over the years that it became a waste of time and effort. No one is going to convince you of God's existence nor are they likely to make a dent in your armor of "intellectualism." They'd rather ram their heads into walls than "engage" with you on this topic about which you feel very passionately for whatever reason, and I can't say I blame them.

 

[qazplm]

This is why this place is so boring.

No one will defend their assertions. Qaz is the most guilty. Read a page of Russell. It is much easier to coalesce and back slap. Never become Prime Minister and subject yourselves to question time, Qaz.

I almost miss GMM. At least he had the balls to engage.

You've confused lack of engaging with you inability to understand basic concepts. Everyone else on here knows exactly what I'm saying.

What is really becoming apparent is that you are really just trolling looking for manufactured drama then having a real, substantive discussion. And yes Gr8 is right, repeating the same things over and over again, very basic things, as they fly over your head, is like banging one's head against a wall, and I have better things to do.

 

[beardownboiler]

I don't believe something because it makes me feel better. Apparently, this is a feat. I didn't know.

.

You do realize that you won't actually know this, correct? If you believe it, you won't be able to objectively understand why you believe it, and can create any justification for your belief in your head.

 

[beardownboiler]

I've spent so much time "engaging" over the years that it became a waste of time and effort. No one is going to convince you of God's existence nor are they likely to make a dent in your armor of "intellectualism." They'd rather ram their heads into walls than "engage" with you on this topic about which you feel very passionately for whatever reason, and I can't say I blame them.

What baffles me is that he seems to believe there are no limitations to his own mind. Anything that exists outside of his ability to comprehend must be false. He's worshiping at the alter of himself.

 

[qazplm]

What baffles me is that he seems to believe there are no limitations to his own mind. Anything that exists outside of his ability to comprehend must be false. He's worshiping at the alter of himself.

Yes, this is the part that baffles me. We all have blind spots, we all have lies we tell ourselves that we don't recognize as lies but of course that's the whole point.

But not him...perfect self-awareness, he only tells himself the truth, and recognizes the entire world exactly as it is.
Sounds like a super power of some sort.

 

[Beeazlebub]

What baffles me is that he seems to believe there are no limitations to his own mind. Anything that exists outside of his ability to comprehend must be false. He's worshiping at the alter of himself.

If something exists outside the realm of human comprehension, then why should I accept its existence? To explain the inexplicable?

Demanding evidence in support of claims is not "worshiping at the alter of oneself". I don't understand the attacking in this thread.

 

[beardownboiler]

If something exists outside the realm of human comprehension, then why should I accept its existence? To explain the inexplicable?

Demanding evidence in support of claims is not "worshiping at the alter of oneself". I don't understand the attacking in this thread.

I never understand those who think that we, as humans, must be able to comprehend everything in order for it to be true. The incomprehensible must be false. This stance places the human mind as the highest form of knowledge and comprehension in the universe.

And the attacks in this thread are primarily coming primarily from one individual. And it's usually the atheists who come in with the mocking and sarcasm. I don't care how nutty some Christians are; atheists have been the most mean-spirited debaters I have ever met.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

If something exists outside the realm of human comprehension, then why should I accept its existence?

This is really pretty simple: in the history of the world, new things and new facts are discovered over time of which we had no knowledge or understanding previously.

This "attacking" is not limited to atheism. As qazplm rightly said, everyone believes something that makes them feel better but which may not be true. For most people, you can simply point to their religion which is almost certainly flawed in some way, even up to the point that there may not be a God/god. For others, it may be that their obesity is caused by a thyroid issue and not the fact that they can't stop eating Cheetos and drinking 2L of Coke. For others, it may be that they are "the man" with the ladies... in Attica. For still others, it might be that they are intelligent when the reality may be that they've just surrounded themselves with relative idiots.

Point is, everyone thinks and believes something which makes them feel better. No one is perfectly self-aware nor omniscient. Only someone of supreme arrogance would believe they understand everything possible in the universe, and that anything that they don't know or can't currently fathom thus must not exist.

The crux of the argument is that as a rather aggressive atheist (at least as portrayed in this thread), ecouch (and you?) not only do not believe in God/god, he does not recognize nor acknowledge why many people do, and in fact disparages such beliefs. The irony is that his "blind spot" may actually be the fact that he - like everyone - has blind spots.

 

[Beeazlebub]

I never understand those who think that we, as humans, must be able to comprehend everything in order for it to be true. The incomprehensible must be false. This stance places the human mind as the highest form of knowledge and comprehension in the universe.

And the attacks in this thread are primarily coming primarily from one individual. And it's usually the atheists who come in with the mocking and sarcasm. I don't care how nutty some Christians are; atheists have been the most mean-spirited debaters I have ever met.

I don't know of may atheists (like me) who would argue that the incomprehensible must be false. Not accepting a premise as "true" is not the same as saying it must be false. Many like me see no reason to believe in the incomprehensible until it becomes so.

The entire second half of this thread is the result of a definition issue.

Now we could sit around and drink imperial stouts and talk about what might be incomprehensible all day, and I would even do my level best not to be mean-spirited, but there are no limits on such a discussion.

 

[Beeazlebub]

This is really pretty simple: in the history of the world, new things and new facts are discovered over time of which we had no knowledge or understanding previously.

Oh, I agree, and at that point there would be evidence to support such understanding.

This "attacking" is not limited to atheism. As qazplm rightly said, everyone believes something that makes them feel better but which may not be true. For most people, you can simply point to their religion which is almost certainly flawed in some way, even up to the point that there may not be a God/god. For others, it may be that their obesity is caused by a thyroid issue and not the fact that they can't stop eating Cheetos and drinking 2L of Coke. For others, it may be that they are "the man" with the ladies... in Attica. For still others, it might be that they are intelligent when the reality may be that they've just surrounded themselves with relative idiots.

The idea that what someone contends may not be true is always a possibility. I study climate change, and all available evidence points to greenhouse gases as the dominant cause for global warming. Someone else may contend that there is a dragon outside of the realm of our comprehension that is blowing invisible fire into the climate system. If that person, or group of persons, can make the dragon visible, collect some poo, or convince the dragon to fly down and build a nest on Mt. Rainier, I would be forced to re-think my original claim. If someone believes something without verifiable evidence, there is no reason to take that belief seriously.

Point is, everyone thinks and believes something which makes them feel better. No one is perfectly self-aware nor omniscient. Only someone of supreme arrogance would believe they understand everything possible in the universe, and that anything that they don't know or can't currently fathom thus must not exist.

Is this a distortion? Nobody has said that concepts we don't understand must not exist, have they?

The crux of the argument is that as a rather aggressive atheist (at least as portrayed in this thread), ecouch (and you?) not only do not believe in God/god, he does not recognize nor acknowledge why many people do, and in fact disparages such beliefs. The irony is that his "blind spot" may actually be the fact that he - like everyone - has blind spots.

I think ecouch recognizes why many people do believe in a supernatural being, he just thinks that belief in God/religion receives unwarranted special respect in the public sphere. If a belief does not have verifiable supporting evidence, it should be fair game. As a result they are open to as much ridicule as Dr Oz when he claims to have found "magic" coffee beans or Bill Maher when he claims the flu vaccine causes brain damage.

 

[qazplm]

If something exists outside the realm of human comprehension, then why should I accept its existence? To explain the inexplicable?

Demanding evidence in support of claims is not "worshiping at the alter of oneself". I don't understand the attacking in this thread.

There's attacking going on alright, but you seem to have missed it. I don't think beardown was remotely saying that "demanding evidence in support of claims = worshiping at the alter of oneself."
There's a wee little bit more going on to it than that. No one is attacking all atheists...SOME or perhaps a certain atheist is certainly being attacked, but that's pretty much in response to what he's posted and his own attacks in this thread.

 

[beardownboiler]

A specific person in this thread is mocking the religious the same as one would mock a believer in Santa Claus, because we know Santa Clause to be false.

 

[qazplm]

I think ecouch recognizes why many people do believe in a supernatural being, he just thinks that belief in God/religion receives unwarranted special respect in the public sphere. If a belief does not have verifiable supporting evidence, it should be fair game. As a result they are open to as much ridicule as Dr Oz when he claims to have found "magic" coffee beans or Bill Maher when he claims the flu vaccine causes brain damage.

Here's the problem right here. You and ecouch actually think religion IS special...because you think those folks who believe should be ridiculed. Not that folks who use religion to oppress or attack or make things worse should be ridiculed, folks who simply believe in God or a religion. So MLK, Obama, Ghandi, Mother Theresa, all folks to be ridiculed? One of my points is and has been that there are things we all believe that could be ridiculed by someone else who knows that particular belief isn't true. It's a lot easier to establish that the flu vaccine doesn't cause brain damage than the existence or non-existence of a God...that you equate the two is baffling to me.

Furthermore, the reason why we ridicule the last two things is because those things lead to no good, only harm. They lead folks to not taking the flu vaccine or buying magic beans that do not work. Religion gives folks a moral compass, gives them peace in dealing with the tough problem of what happens when I or my loved ones die, or does other good things. That shouldn't be mocked, because even if it's not true, so what?

When religion harms, that's a different story...but that's a delineation neither of you appear to be making or interested in...and thus we are back to Person A ridiculing Person B for belief C when Person A has at least one or more equally ridiculous belief somewhere about something.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

qaz pretty much responded perfectly as far as I'm concerned, so... what he said.

 

[Beeazlebub]

I think ecouch recognizes why many people do believe in a supernatural being, he just thinks that belief in God/religion receives unwarranted special respect in the public sphere. If a belief does not have verifiable supporting evidence, it should be fair game. As a result they are open to as much ridicule as Dr Oz when he claims to have found "magic" coffee beans or Bill Maher when he claims the flu vaccine causes brain damage.

Here's the problem right here. You and ecouch actually think religion IS special...because you think those folks who believe should be ridiculed. Not that folks who use religion to oppress or attack or make things worse should be ridiculed, folks who simply believe in God or a religion. So MLK, Obama, Ghandi, Mother Theresa, all folks to be ridiculed? One of my points is and has been that there are things we all believe that could be ridiculed by someone else who knows that particular belief isn't true. It's a lot easier to establish that the flu vaccine doesn't cause brain damage than the existence or non-existence of a God...that you equate the two is baffling to me.

Furthermore, the reason why we ridicule the last two things is because those things lead to no good, only harm. They lead folks to not taking the flu vaccine or buying magic beans that do not work. Religion gives folks a moral compass, gives them peace in dealing with the tough problem of what happens when I or my loved ones die, or does other good things. That shouldn't be mocked, because even if it's not true, so what?

When religion harms, that's a different story...but that's a delineation neither of you appear to be making or interested in...and thus we are back to Person A ridiculing Person B for belief C when Person A has at least one or more equally ridiculous belief somewhere about something.

You have an excellent knack for putting people on the defensive, kudos. I would hire you as an attorney if I were ever accused of a crime.

You're telling me what I think - Where have I said anything about religion being special? or are you simply burning down a straw man?

Using belief in the supernatural to explain phenomena should be subject to ridicule. If Mother Theresa was so staunchly entrenched in her belief to take a stance against condoms in the face of an AIDS epidemic, her position should be ridiculed. If MLK took a stance that the earth is 6000 years old, his position should be ridiculed. Ridiculous positions should be subject to ridicule, regardless of who or what is making the claim. Does that mean I should have told my grandma that she's crazy because she believed in heaven? Of course not.

Much to the chagrin of yet another one of your straw men, I applauded the Pope's recent encyclical on climate change because I understand the influence on the greater good for society - See I just made a "delineation". I also applaud his work for the poor, disenfranchised, etc. That doesn't mean I wouldn't ridicule him if he made some supernatural claim that flies in the face of verifiable evidence.

The stance that I will continue to maintain and repeat - There is no reason for me to believe something is true until there is supporting evidence. Saying God is outside of our comprehension is not evidence in support of its existence. See Bertrand Russell & many other philosophers. What I am NOT saying is that God definitely does not exist.

 

[qazplm]

You have an excellent knack for putting people on the defensive, kudos. I would hire you as an attorney if I were ever accused of a crime.

You're telling me what I think - Where have I said anything about religion being special? or are you simply burning down a straw man?

Using belief in the supernatural to explain phenomena should be subject to ridicule. If Mother Theresa was so staunchly entrenched in her belief to take a stance against condoms in the face of an AIDS epidemic, her position should be ridiculed. If MLK took a stance that the earth is 6000 years old, his position should be ridiculed. Ridiculous positions should be subject to ridicule, regardless of who or what is making the claim. Does that mean I should have told my grandma that she's crazy because she believed in heaven? Of course not.

Much to the chagrin of yet another one of your straw men, I applauded the Pope's recent encyclical on climate change because I understand the influence on the greater good for society - See I just made a "delineation". I also applaud his work for the poor, disenfranchised, etc. That doesn't mean I wouldn't ridicule him if he made some supernatural claim that flies in the face of verifiable evidence.

The stance that I will continue to maintain and repeat - There is no reason for me to believe something is true until there is supporting evidence. Saying God is outside of our comprehension is not evidence in support of its existence. See Bertrand Russell & many other philosophers. What I am NOT saying is that God definitely does not exist.

Ah yes the whole attorney line of attack...so original.

Yes, you clearly do think religion is special, unless you are telling me you are running out and ridiculing everything that anyone ever believes that isn't true.

On Mother Theresa, see now you are getting it, maybe, although probably not. Her stance on condoms, in fact, the Catholic Church's stance on condoms, is certainly something one can ridicule or attack if they think it is harmful to others. That's DIFFERENT from ridiculing simply for believing in a religion. Same with MLK. If he takes a specific position that is one thing.
If you want to attack a specific POSITION you think is harmful or problematic, feel free. I've done it many a time, but that certainly isn't what ecouch or you have espoused in this thread up to this point at all. So you might want to start being less general and more specific if you don't want to be lumped in with ridiculing grandma.

You made no "delineations" anywhere in this thread up til now, and neither did ecouch, but somehow my reaction to that, and in fact, everyone else's reaction to that = strawman?
No, not really.

OTOH not a single person in this thread has espoused that you, or anyone else should "believe something is true before there is supporting evidence." So talk about strawman.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

What I am NOT saying is that God definitely does not exist.

No, just that a belief that God DOES exist should be "subject to ridicule." Not disagreement. Not discussion or even argument. Ridicule.

When something is a closely held belief that gives people moral compass and comfort and the vast majority of the time causes no harm to anyone else, the only thing ridicule does is make you look like an asshole. If someone wants to say, "convert or be tortured", yes ridicule and denounce. If someone says, "I won't serve you since you are gay because God," then yes, ridicule if you see fit to do so.

The other issue I'd offer here is that the commonly held thought that society gets to judge what's acceptable and what's not based on "majority rule" applies across the board. It is hypocritical to laud the Supreme Court's judgement in favor of national gay marriage which affects a decided minority of the country, but then turn around and bemoan special treatment of religious groups when the bulk of the country is religious. In fact, one might call "ridicule" of such belief "intolerant." GASP!

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

Ridiculous positions should be subject to ridicule, regardless of who or what is making the claim.

So when ecouch suggests that belief in Jesus/God has never caused anyone to be a better person, that's a claim worthy of ridicule, right?

 

[beardownboiler]

Strange bedfellows in this thread.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Ah yes the whole attorney line of attack...so original.

Yes, you clearly do think religion is special, unless you are telling me you are running out and ridiculing everything that anyone ever believes that isn't true.

On Mother Theresa, see now you are getting it, maybe, although probably not. Her stance on condoms, in fact, the Catholic Church's stance on condoms, is certainly something one can ridicule or attack if they think it is harmful to others. That's DIFFERENT from ridiculing simply for believing in a religion. Same with MLK. If he takes a specific position that is one thing.
If you want to attack a specific POSITION you think is harmful or problematic, feel free. I've done it many a time, but that certainly isn't what ecouch or you have espoused in this thread up to this point at all. So you might want to start being less general and more specific if you don't want to be lumped in with ridiculing grandma.

You made no "delineations" anywhere in this thread up til now, and neither did ecouch, but somehow my reaction to that, and in fact, everyone else's reaction to that = strawman?
No, not really.

OTOH not a single person in this thread has espoused that you, or anyone else should "believe something is true before there is supporting evidence." So talk about strawman.

It wasn't an attack, it was a compliment, but such is the nature of a message board.

No, I don't think religion is special. Stop telling me what I think ffs. On occasion, I ridicule ridiculous positions, I even agree with you most of the time.

Most of what I've said in this thread is in regard to the differences between atheism and agnosticism, and it seems to be where this whole thing started.

 

[BoilerJS]

A specific person in this thread is mocking the religious the same as one would mock a believer in Santa Claus, because we know Santa Clause to be false.

Well Santa Clause wasn't false. He just wasn't who or what you thought he was.

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

Well Santa Clause wasn't false. He just wasn't who or what you thought he was.

This is totally not related to the point of the thread - and I'm not trying to be annoying. That said, isn't the idea of "santa claus" associated with Christmas so far removed from the actual historic person of St. Nicholas that you could say that Santa Claus really is "false?"