I’m actually a bit confused by the exchanges of Gum and Lord Ashtar-the way I see it is this:
Gum mentions some atrocities that certain religious people do.
Lord Ashtar says that he can’t think of a serious religion that either commit or advocate such things, and that only fundamentalists do that; thereby seperating serious religion from fundamentalism branches.
Then Gum said don’t fundamentalist branches teach that sort of stuff?
To which Lord Ashtar seems to agree.
Gum then says there is a religion that supports such stuff (or a fundamentalist branch, I’m not sure).
Invidious Courgette makes a comment about Gum having no point.
Me, I’m not feeling well, my heads cloudy and I the above is what I percieve. It seems to me as though Lord Ashtar is making a distinction between religion and fundamentalists.
I could be wrong, and it’s time to take some more medicine…
To be completely clear, I was trying to make a distinction between normal, reasonable religious folk and people like Jack Chick, Fred Phelps, and the guy that gum mentioned earlier.
Lord Ashtar, I don’t know. I’m not an Imam. There’s certainly more than just one nutjob. [as I’m sure there are certainly more crazies who attack abortion clinics]
Meatros I’ll just repeat: All fundamental branches, of *all religions *who teach that sort of stuff, are enough to make me happy to be an atheïst. [which is what this debate is about, correct?]
You specifically mentioned Imams. They are specifically Moslem. You have demonstrated your hatred of Moslems in the Pit. I was hoping you were not trying to take this thread down that road. I am glad that you have not.
Talking of intelligent posts, about what was Lord Ashtar wrong, when he agreed with your point that fundamentalists spew crazy ideas?
Fine.
No. Had he used the Koran as his source material, again the answer would be no. If he uses the outpourings of some crackpot Imam to slur Islam then I am concerned. Had he used some nutty ideas of a Christian extremist to slur Christianity I would be similarly perturbed.
No.
I mentioned: that “condoms are a curse, abortion doctors ought to be killed”
I haven’t seen muslims doing that. Have you?
By IC:
Would you have been slightly less focused on your desire to be trendy, you would have noticed I: 1) I don’t hate. & 2) I dislike any religion. [see a thread of mine called: “Fuck the Church”]
By IC
It seems to me you were hoping this thread would get down that road.
I haven’t heard a thing from you about atheïsm vs theïsm. [FYI: what this thread is about]
And further: Honey, I don’t care whether you’re glad or not.
By IC
[Yes, let us]
Lord Ashtar said: “I can’t think of a serious religion that teaches any of that. That sort of stuff usually comes the fundamentalist branches.” [underlining mine]
We already have established such things are, indeed, taught.
By IC
That’s interesting. I haven’t heard from you in my “Fuck the Church” thread?
You asked me where you mentioned Moslems specifically. I pointed out your reference to Imams who are specifically Moslem. OK? You have also alluded to Christian fundamentalist whackjobs. I acknowledge that. OK?
I am not attempting to be trendy. I dislike all attempts to slur large groups of people on the basis of the ideas or actions of a few. There is nothing trendy in that.
Hate can be defined as extreme dislike. That was the impression I got from you in the Islamo Facist thread. If that impression is incorrect then fine.
When Lord Ashtar said “That sort of stuff usually comes the fundamentalist branches.” what exactly do you think he meant by comes if not “teaches”?
I have not seen your “Fuck the Church” thread. I don’t think I will be looking out for it anytime soon.
That’s how I feel too, Loopydude. I’d take the pill. Especially desirable if and when I lose somebody close to me, I expect.
Does your theory about natural selection mean that the human race will move towards theism or atheism? Are we selecting people who are capable of living with futility as the superstitions recede? Or will people who can believe prove the hardier and less prone to suicide and stress-induced cancers?
This I find really interesting because I was having a similar thought the other day; suppose you’re offered a choice of two pills:
The blue pill will conform the universe to whatever you currently believe it to be - you won’t necessarily know how much has changed, of course, but it will impose your beliefs on the structure of reality.
The red pill will leave the universe completely unchanged, but will enlighten you about the beliefs you currently hold that are objectively incorrect - you won’t know everything, so there will still be stuff to discover, but you’ll know what you ought to discard.
The blue pill has the capacity to make things nicer, but the red pill is the honest option. Which do you choose?
As an atheist, I would take the red pill, on the chance of discovering that I’m wrong - which would be great. I would have thought a theist would want one of those blue things. Surely there’s nobody who would *prefer *the absence of a God?
Interesting dichotomy. (Is this the premise of Matrix IV or something? :)) Red pill (but then, of course, do we not all seek a worldview such that taking either the red or blue pill made no difference? Whooaaa…)
I absolutely would. My happiness derives directly from the thought that I am the most incredible thing in an incredible universe. I am a pattern of ever-changing atoms which somehow has the ability to think. Nothing like me existed for 12 billion years. I am borne of supernovae, I am Made of Stars. Every piece of sensory input I receive has an inexplicable quantum effect on the universe - I am the universe’s way of observing itself.
Finding out that some supernatural entity magicked all of this into being the case would be a huge disappointment. How unimaginative!
Thus, even were God to literally appear before my very eyes, I would think it more likely (and would be happier in believing) that I was being deceived by advanced technology. (Some even argue that that is a more likely scenario than ‘real’ existence [anyway/url]!)
And God has [url=http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=2826106]appeared to me](http://www.simulation-argument.com/) in a sense: I considered this religious epiphany to be merely another aspect of this incredible piece of physical offal in my head. I consider myself to have the best of both worlds: an atheist who delights in the absence of God and yet experiences all the neuropsychological fireworks associated with believing in one!
Sort of; the thought occurred to me in more abstract form; I merely hammered it into the Red/blue pill metaphor for fun, but the resonance is there nevertheless; do you want to be right(blue pill) or do you want to know what’s really going on?(red pill).
I want to know what’s really going on, even if that turns out to be something I don’t particularly like. I choose the red pill.
Interesting use of the word “merely”. What about me? The blue pill is your chance to give me everlasting life, and you’re saying your moral integrity (or something) is more important. Tsk.
Another vote for the red pill. It looks like most of us would take that choice. The separation would seem to be as to whether you hope you discover you are right or hope that you discover that you are wrong. There would be few theists who hope that they are wrong, I suspect. There is a bit more of a quandry for atheists though. I might hope that I discover that I am wrong and that there is a caring, loving God. I might worry that I discover I was wrong and there is a God who is not even interested in us.
