Originally posted by inimalist
its good, I'm sure its well above whatever rating we are supposed to keep on this board though
I realized that after readin your reply to my 'fixed' post. It's just that...there's like.....4-5 active members that are under 18, here, and I really forget, sometimes, that we have to dumb down our 'adult' conversations. It frustrates me, at times.
Originally posted by inimalist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCA8rLya5qg
Fun fact: Linda Blair was 12 during filming, so that was actually a stand-in actress in her 20's doing that scene. Blair never knew that part of the movie existed until the premier. It was done behind her back so she wouldn't constantly wonder why they didn't want her for one scene.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Fun fact: Linda Blair was 12 during filming, so that was actually a stand-in actress in her 20's doing that scene. Blair never knew that part of the movie existed until the premier. It was done behind her back so she wouldn't constantly wonder why they didn't want her for one scene.
lol, i was actually thinking about how they must have shot that when I was posting it
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You don't believe, right? And assuming you consider yourself rational; so am I way off?
These questions are framed in such a way as to make it seem bad for me regardless of how I answer. Either I don't consider myself rational, or I have to identify myself with the condescending elitist atheist of your earlier post. I reject both of those.
Hence why some thought has to be put into the approach. To perpetuate the stereotype put forth in your post would probably do more harm than anything.
Originally posted by Digi
These questions are framed in such a way as to make it seem bad for me regardless of how I answer. Either I don't consider myself rational, or I have to identify myself with the condescending elitist atheist of your earlier post. I reject both of those.Hence why some thought has to be put into the approach. To perpetuate the stereotype put forth in your post would probably do more harm than anything.
Well, first off, stereotypes exist for a reason. A lot of them are sadly true.
----
By definition, Atheists do not believe in any god(s), otherwise the word has no meaning. Most I know personally and ones I've seen on tv say that in their search for the truth, they feel there's insufficent evidence for believing in anything that our five (very limited) senses can't detect. If it can't be found with modern scientific instruments, then it simply doesn't exist. (Like that Librarian in Star Wars: "If its not in the archives, it doesn't exist"😉. They often say that their rational outlook on life won't allow them to believe in God. And I believe that they believe that.
^If none of that applies to your reasons for unbelief, let me know and I'll apologize.
But quite honestly, what "thought" needs to go into this thread? In fact, I'm half-tempted to start it now just to get it over with and save you the trouble of "putting thought" into the opening post.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Well, first off, stereotypes exist for a reason. A lot of them are sadly true.
Yes, stereotypes exist for a reason but it's not because they're true. If we apply that thinking then I can conclude that all the Jews are part of a conspiracy to rule the world.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
By definition, Atheists do not believe in any god(s), otherwise the word has no meaning. Most I know personally and ones I've seen on tv say that in their search for the truth, they feel there's insufficent evidence for believing in anything that our five (very limited) senses can't detect. If it can't be found with modern scientific instruments, then it simply doesn't exist.
That's certainly not true of atheists who are scientists. We have predicted many things that have yet to be observed directly because there is a lot of indirect evidence for them.
If you're going to say that using evidence and reason is a bad thing then you'll have to accept belief in absolutely anything you are told. I take it you reject the existence of Russel's teapot?
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Well, first off, stereotypes exist for a reason. A lot of them are sadly true.----
By definition, Atheists do not believe in any god(s), otherwise the word has no meaning. Most I know personally and ones I've seen on tv say that in their search for the truth, they feel there's insufficent evidence for believing in anything that our five (very limited) senses can't detect. If it can't be found with modern scientific instruments, then it simply doesn't exist. (Like that Librarian in Star Wars: "If its not in the archives, it doesn't exist"😉. They often say that their rational outlook on life won't allow them to believe in God. And I believe that they believe that.
^If none of that applies to your reasons for unbelief, let me know and I'll apologize.
But quite honestly, what "thought" needs to go into this thread? In fact, I'm half-tempted to start it now just to get it over with and save you the trouble of "putting thought" into the opening post.
That were not the implications of your earlier post though. Very dishonest.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's certainly not true of atheists who are scientists. We have predicted many things that have yet to be observed directly because there is a lot of indirect evidence for them.
It's not like science turns them into Atheists; they're Atheists going in. They operate under the assumption that there is no God by default. That's baised, and it compromises their judgement. It's like a judge who's already made up his mind: no matter what the defense says or does, the judge has already decided the accused is guilty and is gonna hang him no matter what. (How can you respect that?)
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you're going to say that using evidence and reason is a bad thing then you'll have to accept belief in absolutely anything you are told. I take it you reject the existence of Russel's teapot?
You mean the teapot orbiting Mars? C'mon, that's a joke meant to make fun of religion, just like the Flying Spagetti Monster.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That were not the implications of your earlier post though. Very dishonest.
Yeah they were, just shorter, sweeter, and more to the point. They don't believe, and cite being rational and empirical as their main reasons.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It's not like science turns them into Atheists; they're Atheists going in. They operate under the assumption that there is no God by default. That's baised, and it compromises their judgement. It's like a judge who's already made up his mind: no matter what the defense says or does, the judge has already decided the accused is guilty and is gonna hang him no matter what. (How can you respect that?)
You've started with a false assumption and didn't even bother to back it up. Most people grow up being religious, it's an inevitable part of our culture, and then become atheist for one reason or another. I certainly grew up going to Sunday school, singing in church even doing lay reading of Bible passages. But as I got older and looked at the world I found that science did a good job of explaining the questions I had, looked at the methods behind it and concluded that any God I could reconcile with the world around me would be irrelevant to the world.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You mean the teapot orbiting Mars? C'mon, that's a joke meant to make fun of religion, just like the Flying Spagetti Monster.
Not really. It's a demonstration of why it is better to rely on your senses and reason than to not do so. Most atheists don't believe in God for the same reason you don't believe in Russel's Teapot, because they see no good evidence.
If you claim that you don't need good evidence then not only do you have to believe in Russel's Teapot you have to believe anything you're told.
It only becomes a mockery of religion when religious people insist that they're not using their reason. At that point mockery is very much deserved since you would have to be insisting that you are irrational. (which is clearly untrue to some extent, you can't walk through a house without applying some reason)
In my experience religious people believe in God because they perceive good evidence not because they deny reason wholecloth like you are trying to do.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yeah they were, just shorter, sweeter, and more to the point. They don't believe, and cite being rational and empirical as their main reasons.
No, the connotation of your post was quite clearly that atheists smugly look down on religious people. Since then you've been backpedaling.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Well, first off, stereotypes exist for a reason. A lot of them are sadly true.----
By definition, Atheists do not believe in any god(s), otherwise the word has no meaning. Most I know personally and ones I've seen on tv say that in their search for the truth, they feel there's insufficent evidence for believing in anything that our five (very limited) senses can't detect. If it can't be found with modern scientific instruments, then it simply doesn't exist. (Like that Librarian in Star Wars: "If its not in the archives, it doesn't exist"😉. They often say that their rational outlook on life won't allow them to believe in God. And I believe that they believe that.
^If none of that applies to your reasons for unbelief, let me know and I'll apologize.
But quite honestly, what "thought" needs to go into this thread? In fact, I'm half-tempted to start it now just to get it over with and save you the trouble of "putting thought" into the opening post.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, the connotation of your post was quite clearly that atheists smugly look down on religious people. Since then you've been backpedaling.
That.
Here was your original post:
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
What thought?[b]The Official Atheist Thread
This is where me and other Brights say how proud we are to not believe! Boy, I love being rational!
^There you go, start the thread. [/B]
Now, misunderstandings happen through typed communication. However, if you are really trying to tell me that this post isn't sarcastic and degrading to atheists, then there's two options: One, you don't have the requisite intelligence to understand obvious linguistic nuance. Or Two, you're lying to us. You're not an idiot, just a jerk, so I'm guessing the latter.
And at this point I'm not going to make the thread, and there will be a warning if you do so to intentionally spite anyone. It was just a harmless musing that you turned into a bash-fest, and I'm not going to make a thread that will likely just be a continuation of such nonsense.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You've started with a false assumption and didn't even bother to back it up. Most people grow up being religious, it's an inevitable part of our culture, and then become atheist for one reason or another. I certainly grew up going to Sunday school, singing in church even doing lay reading of Bible passages. But as I got older and looked at the world I found that science did a good job of explaining the questions I had, looked at the methods behind it and concluded that any God I could reconcile with the world around me would be irrelevant to the world.
Yes, most people grow up being religious, but they stop being religious long before they decide to become scientists.
Let's go to any of the top science universities and talk randomly with doctoral physics and bio students (or even the professors). Do you honestly think they we all devout God-fearing people all through under-grad and then after their first semester of grad school thought "Wow, my entire upbringing was a sham! To think I believed all that crap!". C'mon, scientists who are Atheists stopped believing long before they decided to write their thesis and enter their chosen profession.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's a demonstration of why it is better to rely on your senses and reason than to not do so. Most atheists don't believe in God for the same reason you don't believe in Russel's Teapot, because they see no good evidence.If you claim that you don't need good evidence then not only do you have to believe in Russel's Teapot you have to believe anything you're told.
It only becomes a mockery of religion when religious people insist that they're not using their reason. At that point mockery is very much deserved since you would have to be insisting that you are irrational. (which is clearly untrue to some extent, you can't walk through a house without applying some reason)
In my experience religious people believe in God because they perceive good evidence not because they deny reason wholecloth like you are trying to do.
So wouldn't Hubble have picked up the teapot by now? Unless its transcendant, then how would it be "orbiting"?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, the connotation of your post was quite clearly that atheists smugly look down on religious people. Since then you've been backpedaling.
Yes, I believe most Atheists do look down on those who believe. I'll own that. In my 42 years, I've had a lot of inter-faith dialogues (including with Atheists), so its not like I'm taking shots in the dark here. I'm not a complete idiot.
Originally posted by Digi
That.Here was your original post:
Now, misunderstandings happen through typed communication. However, if you are really trying to tell me that this post isn't sarcastic and degrading to atheists, then there's two options: One, you don't have the requisite intelligence to understand obvious linguistic nuance. Or Two, you're lying to us. You're not an idiot, just a jerk, so I'm guessing the latter.
And at this point I'm not going to make the thread, and there will be a warning if you do so to intentionally spite anyone. It was just a harmless musing that you turned into a bash-fest.
Oh, I'll be honest: I'm a jerk.
Sorry I killed the idea before it got off the ground. To be honest, for about the past year or so, I was wondering why no one ever started an atheist-themed thread.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Oh, I'll be honest: I'm a jerk.
Well, then add dishonest and misleading to the list, based on this admission in light of the recent discussion. You only stopped backpedaling when confronted with your own words.
Btw, your experience with atheists may also have something to do with your own approach, not just theirs. Because I have no hatred, dislike, animosity, or even annoyance with religion or religious people. It's a fact of the world, and a tool for good or evil like anything else. Yet I'm hostile toward you. Why do you think that is? It has everything to do with your tone, words, and demeanor, and nothing to do with your religion. Because if this is how you act in religious discussions, it's no wonder that's what you think of atheists.
Angry atheists exist, just like angry religious people exist. To pretend that either comprise the majority of their demographic is, frankly, laughable. You're posts, imo, display an angry, small man, and the fact that you choose religion as the medium through which you disseminate your personality is a discredit to your religion.
Originally posted by Digi
Well, then add dishonest and misleading to the list, based on this admission in light of the recent discussion. You only stopped backpedaling when confronted with your own words.Btw, your experience with atheists may also have something to do with your own approach, not just theirs. Because I have no hatred, dislike, animosity, or even annoyance with religion or religious people. It's a fact of the world, and a tool for good or evil like anything else. Yet I'm hostile toward you. Why do you think that is? It has everything to do with your tone, words, and demeanor, and nothing to do with your religion. Because if this is how you act in religious discussions, it's no wonder that's what you think of atheists.
Angry atheists exist, just like angry religious people exist. To pretend that either comprise the majority of their demographic is, frankly, laughable. You're posts, imo, display an angry, small man, and the fact that you choose religion as the medium through which you disseminate your personality is a discredit to your religion.
You are one person, not every non-believer. You don't have to hate someone to think they're a fool who is wasting their time.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
[b]You are one person, not every non-believer.[/B]
Agreed. It was to give you something to think about, not refute your entire worldview. Because, like I said, if you treat religious discussion in real life like you do on KMC, I can guarantee you some of the negativity you've experienced is personal, not religious.
There was also more to the post, but I suppose it's wishful thinking to believe you'd react to it with anything but dismissal.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You don't have to hate someone to think they're a fool who is wasting their time.
And now I'm at the point of wasting my own. Good luck to you.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yes, most people grow up being religious, but they stop being religious long before they decide to become scientists.Let's go to any of the top science universities and talk randomly with doctoral physics and bio students (or even the professors). Do you honestly think they we all devout God-fearing people all through under-grad and then after their first semester of grad school thought "Wow, my entire upbringing was a sham! To think I believed all that crap!". C'mon, scientists who are Atheists stopped believing long before they decided to write their thesis and enter their chosen profession.
You seem to think that there is this thing called "science" that people go and learn. There isn't, people think scientifically and use that thinking to do science. People that grow up to be scientists have usually been thinking scientifically for a long time.
Here's the process:
Born (no knowledge of religion)
Raised (religious)
Thinks about the world scientifically (for our purposes, the child becomes atheist)
Becomes a scientist professionally (our final product is an atheist scientist who became an atheist before becoming a scientist but did so because of science)
And no, plenty of atheists don't think of their upbringing as "To think I believed all that crap!" anymore than they can't believe some people white after Labor Day. I certainly don't look down on religious people as stupid or gullible, I just disagree and feel I can defend my points better than they can. If I didn't think my beliefs were right and theirs were wrong I would be religious and the opposite applies to them.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So wouldn't Hubble have picked up the teapot by now? Unless its transcendant, then how would it be "orbiting"?
Hubble isn't pointed at Mars. If someone blew $10 million dollars to do that search for some reason it still wouldn't matter, the teapot can be anywhere in the universe and the same point would still hold.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yes, I believe most Atheists do look down on those who believe. I'll own that. In my 42 years, I've had a lot of inter-faith dialogues (including with Atheists), so its not like I'm taking shots in the dark here. I'm not a complete idiot.
To be brutally honest, you don't come off that way. You just seem pointlessly hostile toward some group called "atheists" and determined to prove to me that your own beliefs are irrational.