[More Insane Ranting about FSTDT]
I guess after awhile - the mental indoctrination of atheism and all the circular blowjobs that come with it in a forum like FISTED that help reinforce their charade - you begin to lose track of language itself to accomodate newer, less refined definitions. Inaccurate, is kinder. Wrong definitions of words entirely is in fact what it is.
My point is that they just take their ideas for granted and don't examine them any longer. Redhunter actually thinks that religion should be proved. That God should serve man. That God should be put on trial. That God should be man's caddy.
Is it stupidity or the incremental layers of assumptions that cause this kind of ignorance? They just assume that proof is a part of religion and don't question it, and why would they? They OWN proof, right? Its theirs. Therefore, it must bleed into everything. Proof.
And yet faith is antithetical to proof and vice versa. Best not to let that get in the way of their agenda. Better to use words that have lost all meaning in order to retain their screeching-like-a-high-pitched-whine world view.
45 comments
Hmm, TWO graphic references to what your fellow conservatives would call unnatural sexual activity in your first sentence. What an interesting mind you have.
The act is "circle jerk," not "circular blowjobs." The two are entirely different group sex acts.I don't assume that proof is part of religion. In fact, I could go on at length about how the lack is a major failing. To make things even easier for me, "faith is antithetical to proof" is a point that's conceded in this very quote.
As far as "God should serve man"... WTF? You mean like anteing up on that "perfectly good and maximally powerful" thing? That's not serving man; that's being what you're claimed to be.
I imagine Redhunter just felt his IQ lower a few points, just by being mentioned on that board...
I don't think religion has proof. I don't think religion will ever have proof. I do, however, think that something should at least be rational and logical before you put blind faith in it.
I guess after awhile - the mental indoctrination of atheism and all the circular blowjobs that come with it in a forum like FISTED that help reinforce their charade - you begin to lose track of language itself to accomodate newer, less refined definitions. Inaccurate, is kinder. Wrong definitions of words entirely is in fact what it is. Redhunter actually thinks that religion should be proved.
I'd like religion to be proven before I subscribe to one. I mean, people put millions of (input currency of choice) each year into christianity alone. Why shouldn't I be allowed to know if I got the right one before adding my money to the account of some church?
That God should be put on trial.
Yeah, let's put God on trial for his actions described in the OT. He'd get the death penalty reinstated just for him in quite a few countries.
They just assume that lack of proof is a part of religion
- Fixed
Therefore, it must bleed into everything.
Well, as I said before. If you want me to give you money, services or just some of my time on daily/weekly basis, proof that you are right and that your god exists.
Well then, Tempus, Hallelujiah! If we get fifty FreeCon 'tards to visit, maybe one of them will start to question his beliefs and start thinking for himself.
I don't think anyone here has ever taken the stance the religion must be "proved." Instead, we make the assertion that religion, in fact, can't be proven by logical, empirical means.
You're right about religion not needing proof if it's someone's own personal belief and they're not trying to convince others to agree with them. But, if you're expecting people to believe in Jebus... and if those people who don't go to hell... some proof would be pretty fuckin' nice, doncha think?
Pissing off fundies is my business, and business is good.
Well, if you don´t spell properly, it´s symptomatic. And one thing more, maybe religion can´t be proved BUT THE ATTROCITIES THAT YOU CLAIM IN ITS NAME SAYING THAT GOD EXISTS AND MENANCING PEOPLE YESSS. You say that the Bible and so on says bla bla, that you should accept Jesus in our lives........but honestly, your own statements have so little sense and are so obscure that people walk away from you and your "religion". At least try to demonstrate that what you say makes a little sense. Because it doesn´t mean that God have to serve man(have you EVER studied theology man?), it means that you have to come into terms with your own lifestyle before imposing it into others.
When I click on the link, I get "No Thread Specified." Can anyone tell me which forum that thread is in?
When I click on the link, I get "No Thread Specified." Can anyone tell me which forum that thread is in?
People who say they believe in God or religion and either stop there or offer a rational discussion of it generally don't make it onto fstdt. Nobody here mocks Cardinal Newman or Father Copleston. People have been trying to prove or disprove God for 2,500 years and haven't succeeded yet. It's the ones who want laws or public schools changed to agree with their beliefs, misquote the Bible or say stupid stuff like Foley is a Democrat or humans killed off all the dinosaurs or Catholics aren't Christians that typically get quoted on fstdt.
I guess after awhile - the mental indoctrination of atheism... stay atheists. You have to be indoctrinated into a religion .
...and all the circular blowjobs that come with it...
My, my, you sure do think about sex a lot. Most of us don't.
Maybe it's because we're allowed to have sex while your religion forbids it. I'd presume you'd spend a lot of time thinking about sex if you're not actually allowed to have it.
...in a forum like FISTED that help reinforce their charade...
My my my, you do think about sex a lot, don't you?
...you begin to lose track of language itself...
Nope. Still talking.
...to accomodate newer, less refined definitions.
image image image
Define "kind" as is used by creationists.
Inaccurate, is kinder.
Pop quiz! Define the following words.
Liberal
Atheist
Evolution (Theory Of)
Communism
Fascism
Conservative
How'd you do? I'd be willing to suppose you got at least one wrong.
Wrong definitions of words entirely is in fact what it is.
The dictionary disagrees, bitch!
My point is that they just take their ideas for granted...
Assuming you're referring to atheists (or liberals), you have just commit the very crime you've accused us of. Oops.
...and don't examine them any longer.
Sorry, buddy. I always reexamine my beliefs. If presented with any evidence that my beliefs are false, I will check where I may have been wrong, and modify my beliefs if and when necessary.
Redhunter actually thinks that religion should be proved.
Proof can have several different meanings, from absolute certainty about something (what Descartes wanted) to enough evidence to establish something beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard of proof in criminal trials in the United States) or mere evidence that provides a good reason to believe something. (Actually, evidence that provides reason to believe something isn't "proof" and I like to avoid using the word "proof" in this sense, but people do use the word "proof" to refer to supporting evidence, so it's an accepted use of the word, I suppose.)
Proper "proof" in the sense of absolute certainty is impossible for pretty much anything in the universe; it's limited to mathematics. Evidence, however, is required. By definition, evidence for proposition X is anything that makes proposition X seem more likely to be true, or which makes its competing propositions seem less likely to be true, if the potential options are limited. Thus, religion does require evidence. Saying "religion should not require evidence" is essentially the same as saying: "You should believe religion to be true even though there is no rational reason to suppose that it is true."
Oh, and congrats, Redhunter, for pissing off the FreeConners so much that they gave you special recognition!
That God should serve man.
We don't think God should serve us. We don't think God exists, period. Asking for evidence that God exists and refusing to believe without a valid reason does not in any way constitute a belief that God should serve us. In fact, suggesting that God should serve us would contradict our actual beliefs.
That God should be put on trial.
We're not putting God on trial. We're simply asking for evidence that God exists. Until you show us the evidence, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that there is a god to put on trial in the first place.
That God should be man's caddy.
Arg! We say: "There is no evidence that any gods exist," but they hear: "A god exists, and should serve us." (Or sometimes, they hear: "A god exists and I hate him," or "A god exists, and he's evil." There is no way that you can hold a debate with someone who is incapable of even understanding what you believe.
For that matter, it's pretty hard to hold a debate with someone who is proud to be irrational too.
Is it stupidity or the incremental layers of assumptions that cause this kind of ignorance?
*turns off irony meter* Whew! *Boom anyway*
They just assume that proof is a part of religion...
Actually, we certainly don't assume that proof or evidence is a part of religion. Many of us are atheists because we don't assume religion is proven and recognize that there is no evidence for it.
Of course, I'm being charitable. You seem to be implying that evidence is not required for religion, and that is plainly absurd.
...and don't question it...
Most people don't need to be convinced that you need evidence for an absurd proposition before you believe it. In fact, only the most pathetically irrational people would think that you should believe something so far removed from ordinary experience without evidence suggesting that it's true.
...and why would they?
Damn, you're dense.
Anyway, since you claim that evidence is not necessary and claim that I simply take my ideas for granted, I will, for your sake, question my idea that evidence is a prerequisite for belief.
Let's reexamine it, shall we?
1. Evidence is not required for belief. (Your position.)
2. I propose that there are exactly 2 planets in the Sirius system. I have no evidence.
3. (from 1 and 2): We should believe that there are exactly 2 planets in the Sirius system.
4. I propose that there are exactly 3 planets in the Sirius system. I have no evidence.
5. (from 1 and 4): We should believe that there are exactly 3 planets in the Sirius system.
6. (from 3 and 5): We should believe that there are exactly 2 planets AND exactly 3 planets in the Sirius system. This, however, is impossible. Therefore:
7. Premise 1 is wrong.
They OWN proof, right?
Yes, and I'm a song from the sixties.
You can't "own" proof. "You own proof" is a semantic null; it's a gramatically correct English sentence, but it does not have any meaning.
We do, however, believe that any proposition needs evidence to support it. Every rational person agrees with us in this regard; otherwise you must hold mutually contradictory beliefs, as I've shown.
Its theirs.
Again, you're not saying anything meaningful. No one can "own" proof. However, every rational person believes that evidence is a prerequisite for belief.
Therefore, it must bleed into everything.
Yes, evidence is always a prerequisite for belief. If you think your personal religious fantasies are exempt, then please see the Special Pleading department in Room 203.
Proof.
Yes. Got some?
And yet faith is antithetical to proof and vice versa.
Yes, faith is belief without evidence. It's also irrational. If you believe that faith is rational, then please revisit my argument above, and mentally substitute: "I have faith..." where it says "I propose..." and replace "I have no evidence" with "I have faith."
Best not to let that get in the way of their agenda.
Agenda? Yes, beware of the agenda to spread rationality and critical thinking throughout the world! In a few years, our agenda will be fulfilled and no one will do stupid things for no reason! Mwahaha!
Better to use words that have lost all meaning in order to retain their screeching-like-a-high-pitched-whine world view.
Words like "terrorist?" "Pro-life?" "Family values?" You guys have even redefined "morality" to mean blind adherence to your cult's rituals. Trust me, you're the only people who are screeching in a high-pitched whine trying to protect your fantasies.
Its definetly not stupidity, thats your department. as for incremental layers of assumptions? partially true, though we make assumptions based on what we have learned to be true. and the thing about science, is that it tends to test things over and over, to see how they work. and then test them again, to make sure its consistent.
people here at FSTDT believe what they believe for the same reason you believe what you believe. you have a urge for truth. YOU want absolute truth, something that is true and explains everything. unfortunately for you, you have settled on an increasingly mistranslated book of fairy tales. WE on the other hand, have found truth in science, on proven and indisputable(until something to the contrary is observed, then it is re-examined, thats the way science works) fact. we are ok with the fact that we dont know everything about everything, and it drives us to learn more. we dont really care WHAT you believe. the reason FSTDT exists is because we care about HOW you go about believing in what you believe. you bash people for prejudiced reasons, for ignorant reasons, you(Christianity, as a collective) have imposed your will on the world for centuries, were responsible for the dark ages and the crusades. FSTDT stands as a showcase of the worst of christianity. you mearly fuel our fire. please, by all means, keep the quotes coming.
Actually, as long as you keep religion in churches, synagogues, mosques, temples etc, it really don't need any proof of anything. It can't really be proven in any way, shape or form, anyway, as it's all on faith.
But, when you try to shoehorn it into government, schools and science, then you need to prove that it has any place in there, by proving its credibility and validity. As you can't and won't do that, religion has no place in the secular world.
Which words are these, that have lost all meaning?
Excellent comments above already. Only adding: "That God should serve man". Interestingly, this is ironic and hypocritical: groups have been trying to enforce their ideology on others by quote mining what they chose from "holy" scripture, pretending that it's God's will. An easily dispelled fallacy, but those efforts are still ongoing. Similarly above, "indoctrination" was redefined and used out of context for misrepresentation.
More recently, some fundamentalists redefine "child grooming" to mean education (or misrepresent education by attempting to associate it with grooming). This is called misleading propaganda.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
