I was going to say much the same thing. If discussing a 9/11 conspiracy theory, it’s threadshitting. If discussing whether there were any conspiracies, it may be relevant, but still pointless without any reasoning backing it up, so it’s not threadshitting, but it’s really not any better because it’s still noise.
This sort of behavior I find particularly bothersome because it’s done in the name of fighting ignorance, but it actually makes it more difficult because, at best, it adds noise to a potentially interesting thread, and often it can result in thread derailment. It’s fine if he believes there’s no afterlife, but as that’s not relevant to the topic and he wants to discuss it, he can make a new thread to discuss it. There’s no need to take an interesting thread about some specific and interesting aspects of a particular set of religious beliefs and generalize it into yet another “religion vs atheism” thread.
And for any who still don’t see it as threadshitting, here’s as close to an opposite example as I can come. Imagine someone starts a thread asking about how evolution explains a particular characteristic, and some creationist jumps into the thread and just says that evolution is a lie. Even if he absolutely believes that to be true, the best case is that everyone ignores his post, and the worst case is that a potentially interesting thread devolves into yet another silly “evolution vs creationism” thread.
And even if a post is relevant, adding another “me too” post to a GQ or GD thread isn’t helpful because the whole point of those forums is that positions are backed up with evidence, reasoning, argument, or whatever.
I’m not understanding: Are you saying you don’t accept that they disbelieve? How can you comment on their disbelief? Are you saying you don’t accept their right to believe or not? What aren’t you accepting when you say that you (and the majority of religious people) don’t accept their disbelief? But I’m willing to amend the statement to: I get it, you don’t believe. I accept your disbelief and your right to it.
So your point would be exactly what? Are you saying that if someone believes something to be real, and others don’t, any discussion *about *the belief, is fair game for a discussion about the truth of the belief to be introduced?
Is the issue with me using the word *fiction *to illustrate a point? One can compare two things and still not mean they are equal.
I’m not trying to put words into your mouth, I’m trying to understand how the point is relevant to my point.
I’ll try to make mine clearer.
Asking about the *particulars *of a religion *is *comparable to discussing the particulars of fiction, in as much as it does not *require *an agreement that either is truth.
Discussion can be had without debate of the truth. You can believe in God, I can believe in none and we can still discuss what you believe.
I can say for instance, Do Christians believe in a literal hell? That can be discussed without me believing, or anyone requiring proof of hell. The discussion is about the belief, not about whether hell exists. We could then go into more detail. How is that belief supported in your religious books? I could be given quotes from various chapters. I wouldn’t have to agree that hell exists in order to discuss what is said about it.
To compare then, I could ask how Harry Potter escaped from the Chamber Of Secrets (or whatever, I’m as sketchy on Potter as I am on religion.) I could be directed to a particular book and chapter. A discussion can be had about each, with no need to even discuss who believes what.
Now, we could also discuss whether or not your belief is reality, but the first discussion does not require the second, and is often hindered by it.
What did the Greeks believe in regards to Medusa’s snakes, did they have to eat? There was no Medusa.
What do Jews believe in regards to hell? There is no hell.
Does the Islam religion really believe anything about 72 virgins in heaven? There is no heaven.
In Jewish and Christian Canon, can Fallen Angels ever be forgiven? There are no Angels.
These statements add nothing to a discussion *about *the beliefs.
So when you say: Religion is real, how does it address my point that you need not believe in order to discuss?
If I started a thread that said: How do 9/11 conspiracy theorists propose XXXX happened, it would add nothing to the discussion to say “look, guys, there was no 9/11 conspiracy.” Asking what someone believes is not the same as asking for a debate on whether the belief is correct. So, unlike your example, one can ask about what people believe without assuming the belief is true.
And a personal favorite quote of mine (it’s actually mine, copyrighted and everything) goes like this:
The correct response to “absence of evidence doesn’t mean evidence of absence” is “You’ve got nuthin’”.
And it’s the height of something (more ignorance than arrogance) to say in effect “You can’t prove me wrong, so my beliefs must be respected!”
No, beliefs without evidentiary foundation need not be respected. This of course does not mean that it is necessary to pop into theological discussions to declare that religion is bunk. Civility, and all that.
Deep-seated. And you may be right about those who don’t believe who also rain on people’s parades. You could also say the same thing about those who do believe who feel the need to treat atheists like immoral scum. So don’t go feeling superior to atheists just yet.
I don’t think this was what he actually had in mind, but he could have had a very good point: atheists don’t believe in an afterlife, but nobody asks us what our motivation for being nice people is.
You’re correct in the general but wrong in the specific: CC’s post was threadshitting, but not because he was wrong about there being an afterlife.
You were asking a concrete question about beliefs, which means that for someone to come in and point out that the thing the beliefs are about doesn’t exist is pointless and retarded. But to claim that it’s equally logical to believe in an afterlife as to not is fucking retarded and demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the rules of science and logic.
If you disagree, I’d like to introduce you to the invisible, intangible, floating, silent dragon who lives in the garage of my apartment building. Oh, and he doesn’t eat, breathe, shit, or give off heat. But you can’t prove he doesn’t exist, so it’s arrogant to claim that I’m wrong!
I was going to point out that this is “deep seated,” but **BT **beat me to it. He also beat me to a critique of your argument. So, really, I guess this post is pretty redundant.
Not so much, really, speaking for myself and the other atheists I know.
It may be true that those who feel obliged to trumpet their atheism at inappropriate times and places (as well as religious people who likewise insert discussions of their faith inappropriately) may have personality issues of some kind; I would not presume to guess what kind. On such questions I am agnostic.
Nitpick: it’s “deep-seated”.
As for the OP, I agree 100%. In the original thread, the question was “what do Jews believe about an afterlife?” There was no question at all about whether there is or even might be an actual afterlife. Therefore, saying “there is no afterlife” is irrelevant to the question posed in the thread.
I must have mistaken the point of this thread. When I read it it seemed to have to do with an atheist being an ass, not a believer feeling superior. I merely provided an observation as to why that may have occurred.
BTW, thanks for pointing out my eggcorn. I lose 1/2 point.
Some people feel that religion leads to destructive behavior. Why should I tell somebody not to give their bank account number to a Nigerian scammer? Why would I want to rain on their parade?
Yeah, this atheist in question was an ass, but it wasn’t his atheism that made him an ass, which is what your post effectively said, it was his assholishness that made him an ass.
You’re relating a Nigerian scammer to a religious belief? There are abundant examples of people being scammed. That doesn’t come down to taking someone’s word on it.
However, when it comes to belief in a higher being, there is no proof either way. In the case of this thread, the OP is describing an atheist being an ass in another thread. If he (CC) had proof, then presenting it would have been proper and legitimate. But he didn’t, he had his personal wild ass guess as to what’s on the other side of the big door. Presenting a personal wild ass guess as a fact is raining on someone’s parade.
I’m not relating a Nigerian scammer to a religious belief. I am pointing out that it is reasonable for others to do so.
CC is not making a “personal wild ass guess”. He is making an educated guess. Of course, that doesn’t mean it’s a fact, or that it was appropriate for him to post it.
While this is true, a key difference is that few participants of Harry Potter threads will profess a belief that Harry was a real person who died* for our sins, that Dumbledore sees everything we do and becomes particularly cross when I masturbate, or that passages of the Harry Potter canon should appear on our money, in our national pledge, and wherever else possible because America was founded on the values of J. K. Rowling.
not to be construed as a spoiler; I actually have no idea.
Maybe I’m missing something here Really Not All That Bright. If you are you saying CC’s beliefs are an educated guess, how would you describe a believer,s beliefs?
I wanted to point out that it is not CC’s opinion. It is either a fact that there is no afterlife, or it is fact that there is an afterlife. If CC says there isn’t one, and he is incorrect, then he is just incorrect on the facts. Doesn’t change it into an opinion. It would be an opinion if he said believing in an afterlife is dumb. Right? That’s how I remember learning it in grade school. But I went to public school. So a cup of salt with that.
Geeting back to the OP, CC was wrong because his post was not on topic. The thread was not asking about whether an afterlife existed. It was asking about what Jews believe. CC’s post was as irrelevant as the posts in that same thread that outlined Christian beliefs.