More ISIS bs

[adam c]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/01/asia/bangladesh-dhaka-shooting/index.html

Currently demanding
JMB leader, Khaled Saifuddin, has to be freed.
They have to be given safe passage out of the area.
It should be acknowledged that this attack is to establish Islam.

[G-ZUS]

ISIS is far from Islam

[InRich]

^ lol ok... fucking idiot.

[G-ZUS]

Originally posted by InRich
^ lol ok... fucking idiot.

Very mature :rolleyes:, why don't you pull your head out of your ass and read into ISIS?

[CompletelyNumb]

Originally posted by InRich
^ lol ok... fucking idiot.

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/66915958.jpg

[duaner]

Originally posted by G-ZUS
ISIS is far from Islam
And how did you come to that conclusion?

[G-ZUS]

Originally posted by duaner

And how did you come to that conclusion?

How did you come.to the conclusion that ISIS is Islam? Does that mean the KKK represents all of Christianity? If ISIS is islam, why are they going around killing other muslims in muslim countries?

[duaner]

Originally posted by G-ZUS


How did you come.to the conclusion that ISIS is Islam? Does that mean the KKK represents all of Christianity? If ISIS is islam, why are they going around killing other muslims in muslim countries?
I haven't said anything, have I? How about you quit dodging and answer the question.

[Buster]

iSIS is basically Islam painted by the numbers.

[adam c]

Originally posted by G-ZUS


How did you come.to the conclusion that ISIS is Islam? Does that mean the KKK represents all of Christianity? If ISIS is islam, why are they going around killing other muslims in muslim countries?

It's no different than *insert religion here* killing other *insert religion here* in *insert religion here* countries... They just don't give a fuck

[01RedDX]

.

[turbotrip]

So were nazis Christianity? Or the LRA? Or the "Army of God"? Or the countless other Christian extremist groups?

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by turbotrip
So were nazis Christianity? Or the LRA? Or the "Army of God"? Or the countless other Christian extremist groups?

There is no such thing as a religious fundamentalist, or a moderate religionist for that matter.

We are all born atheist, and have to be brainwashed with theism. But hey, Seth wipes away his leprosy with virgin blood. And yes, the bible tells us so.

The WHOLE fucking problem is, most people don't understand the problem.

[sabad66]

Originally posted by adam c

It should be acknowledged that this attack is to establish Islam.
wot m8?

[adam c]

Originally posted by sabad66

wot m8?

I just copied and pasted what was posted elsewhere

[ragu]

Originally posted by Seth1968

We are all born atheist, and have to be brainwashed with theism. But hey, Seth wipes away his leprosy with virgin blood. And yes, the bible tells us so.


Really? There are athiests working equally hard to brainwash their children. See example below:

http://forums.beyond.ca/st/384688/seeking-explanatory-video-on-big-bang-evolution-/

[syritis]

Originally posted by ragu


Really? There are athiests working equally hard to brainwash their children. See example below:

http://forums.beyond.ca/st/384688/seeking-explanatory-video-on-big-bang-evolution-/

so scientific theories like the big band and evolution are not based on evidence nor logic and can only be spread through the deception of children? am i getting that right?

[SKR]

Originally posted by syritis


so scientific theories like the big band



_CI-0E_jses

[civic_stylez]

Originally posted by SKR




_CI-0E_jses

:rofl: :rofl: I came in here to offer a grown up response... left as part of the problem and laughing my ass off.

[A790]

Originally posted by ragu


Really? There are athiests working equally hard to brainwash their children. See example below:

http://forums.beyond.ca/st/384688/seeking-explanatory-video-on-big-bang-evolution-/
In the thread you link to the OP states pretty clearly that they're exposing their kids to the various myths of creation. I think that my be a process called "educating kids", though it may seem similar (to the uneducated) to another popular process called "brainwashing kids".

[ragu]

Originally posted by A790

In the thread you link to the OP states pretty clearly that they're exposing their kids to the various myths of creation. I think that my be a process called "educating kids", though it may seem similar (to the uneducated) to another popular process called "brainwashing kids".

My comment was regarding how atheists and theists approach this similarly by calling it educating meanwhile feeding kids their belief i.e. random chance vs. superbeing. Perhaps not the best example but Seth's claim that we're born atheists vs. theists was the concern.

[A790]

Originally posted by ragu
Perhaps not the best example but Seth's claim that we're born atheists vs. theists was the concern.
Can you disprove this? It would seem to me that the burden of proof lies with theists regarding such notions.

[HiTempguy1]

I'm not even the remotest bit religious, but why would you think that, besides disliking religion? It seems to me the burden of proof rests with whoever is making any claim about anything.

Hell, Elon Musk was just talking about us being in a matrix-type situation, which would be a completely literal claim to there being "gods", all knowing beings.

If there is one thing you can always expect to find on Beyond, its irrational hatred of unions and religion :rofl:

[Feruk]

Originally posted by ragu
My comment was regarding how atheists and theists approach this similarly by calling it educating meanwhile feeding kids their belief i.e. random chance vs. superbeing.
Your example would only be fair of both cases were equally likely. However, one has plenty of evidence and is a theory rather than a belief while the other has plenty of "faith."


Originally posted by HiTempguy1
It seems to me the burden of proof rests with whoever is making any claim about anything.
Take a kid into the woods and abandon him/her permanently where they will never have human contact again. When the kid's an adult, it's not like they're gonna magically "find Christ." :nut:

[A790]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
I'm not even the remotest bit religious, but why would you think that, besides disliking religion? It seems to me the burden of proof rests with whoever is making any claim about anything.

Hell, Elon Musk was just talking about us being in a matrix-type situation, which would be a completely literal claim to there being "gods", all knowing beings.

If there is one thing you can always expect to find on Beyond, its irrational hatred of unions and religion :rofl:
If you're addressing me, I find it perfectly reasonable that should someone claim that a newborn is already a theist that they should somehow substantiate that.

It's logical to make the contrary statement (that kids are born atheists) because it operates on the assumption that knowledge must be learned.

Also, where's the irrational hatred of religion in my post? I simply stated that the burden of proof lies with whomever seeks to make the claim.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by Feruk


Take a kid into the woods and abandon him/her permanently where they will never have human contact again. When the kid's an adult, it's not like they're gonna magically "find Christ." :nut:

In response to both of you:

A kid is also not going to come up with the theory of relativity or quantum physics in the woods either :dunno:

And actually, if you left a kid in the woods, religion is EXACTLY what you'd get (look at humanity the past 10k years until VERY recently). Religion arguably allowed science to prosper, with some famous scientists being parts of religious orders.

And A790, I've seen some of your posts before, you are hardly "neutral" on religion. I don't fault anyone for that, but it really highlights how some people's dogma blinds themselves.

Again, I'm not advocating for or against, I'm personally agnostic, I just really don't care for either "side". But lots on Beyond would throw religion under a bus. Both sides should show proof of any claims. Some of the scientific "theories" being postulated lately have been stretching the currently "believable" in my opinion :dunno:

[01RedDX]

.

[A790]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
And A790, I've seen some of your posts before, you are hardly "neutral" on religion. I don't fault anyone for that, but it really highlights how some people's dogma blinds themselves.
I make no claims to be "neutral" on religion.

In this instance, I specifically asked you what was hateful towards religion in my post that you referenced. I didn't come in here with scientific papers a'blazin, now did I?

Saying that religion has allowed science to flourish isn't exactly accurate, either. You may recall several hundred years of scientific repression at the hands of the Catholic Church... not what you'd call super accommodating.

Regarding your not-so-relevant comments regarding scientific theories:

The beauty about science is that it doesn't ask you to believe what it cannot prove. Science doesn't want, or ask, for you to take it at face value. The entire scientific process is rooted in peer-review and replication of results. If you find some of the "theories" of today to be unpalatable, why don't you investigate them and vet their claims?

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by A790

You may recall several hundred years of scientific repression at the hands of the Catholic Church... not what you'd call super accommodating.

snip

If you find some of the "theories" of today to be unpalatable, why don't you investigate them and vet their claims?

Actually, a lot of debunking has gone on about that "scientific repression" in recent years, with actual history suggesting it wasn't nearly as awful as a lot of people make it out to be (don't get me wrong, it was still bad, but by today's standards, most thing over 2 centuries ago are!). That's not to say that religion has not tried to repress scientific fact before. Also, I was moreso referring to the fact that arguably, religion can be seen not only as a great divider, but also a great community builder during early civilization. Again, I'm neither for or against, but you clearly are not willing to even consider that religion has done anything positive for the world.

The theories of today aren't unpalatable or palatable. They are theories. I work in research, its what I do. Science fascinates me. My point is that you basically acclaim science to be some universally dictated way of being, where it is not, it is a social construct by humans and all of their failings. Additionally, rather than my incredulity on the science being bandied about right now being negative, it is simply one of healthy skepticism which anyone should have. Being skeptical isn't inherently negative, it is waiting for more information to be provided.

As for why I don't go into a theoretical field of research, uh #becauseracecar. Maybe if I had been born wealthy I would have, but life is only so long here on the planet and there are races to be won and cars to be crashed! ;)

And I think you are taking my religion hatred comment as way more directed at you then it actually was. Seems to have really gotten under your skin. Based on previous threads, you clearly dislike religion, to what is (in my opinion) almost a irrational dislike, kind of like, I dunno, a hatred. :devil:

[duaner]

Originally posted by A790

If you're addressing me, I find it perfectly reasonable that should someone claim that a newborn is already a theist that they should somehow substantiate that.

It's logical to make the contrary statement (that kids are born atheists) because it operates on the assumption that knowledge must be learned.
I could be wrong but it seems to me that Ragu wasn't claiming that a newborn was born theist. It really isn't clear what his point of contention was with Seth's claim.

However, Seth did claim that "we are all born atheist," so the burden of proof is on him to substantiate that claim. But I don't think he can since it really isn't a logical claim, as you state. We are born ignorant of the existence or lack thereof of a god, and I think, as HiTempguy1 has stated, that left to oneself, religion is likely to be the outcome.

We cannot be born atheist for the simple reason that we could not deny the existence of something we had never heard of.


Originally posted by A790
Saying that religion has allowed science to flourish isn't exactly accurate, either. You may recall several hundred years of scientific repression at the hands of the Catholic Church... not what you'd call super accommodating.
I'm curious as to just what scientific repression occurred.

[duaner]

Originally posted by 01RedDX


First, you have to understand that this construct of atheism being a belief is completely false. Atheism is the lack of belief in a "superbeing."


Not necessarily. There are those, typically among the militant atheist types that make the positive truth claim that God does not exist. In that case, the burden of proof is on such persons as it goes beyond a simple lack of belief.

For those "atheists" that claim atheism is just a lack of belief in a god, usually on the basis of a lack of evidence for theism (I cannot think of another reason), the rational position is agnosticism not atheism.

I am curious to hear of any other reason for atheism simply being "the lack of belief in a god or gods".

[A790]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
Actually, a lot of debunking has gone on about that "scientific repression" in recent years, with actual history suggesting it wasn't nearly as awful as a lot of people make it out to be (don't get me wrong, it was still bad, but by today's standards, most thing over 2 centuries ago are!). That's not to say that religion has not tried to repress scientific fact before. Also, I was moreso referring to the fact that arguably, religion can be seen not only as a great divider, but also a great community builder during early civilization.

I'd be curious to read more about the debunking you reference. Links? I'm up for some reading.

I also won't argue that religion didn't have it's place back when we didn't understand how the sky worked. However, as we must change and adapt our ways as new information and technologies present themselves, the same is true for religion. It seems oddly resistant to this fact, however....

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
Again, I'm neither for or against, but you clearly are not willing to even consider that religion has done anything positive for the world.

You would be completely mistaken on this point. There's no denying that much good has been done in the name of religion; conversely, so has much evil. That doesn't mean much, though.

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
The theories of today aren't unpalatable or palatable. They are theories. I work in research, its what I do. Science fascinates me. My point is that you basically acclaim science to be some universally dictated way of being, where it is not, it is a social construct by humans and all of their failings. Additionally, rather than my incredulity on the science being bandied about right now being negative, it is simply one of healthy skepticism which anyone should have. Being skeptical isn't inherently negative, it is waiting for more information to be provided.
You get that there's a difference between a theory and a scientific theory, right? I'd hope so given that you're a researcher.

Also, I don't see how you made the assumption that I assume science is a way of being. Science is a way of testing things to determine their qualities and applications. What I appreciate about science is that if someone says, oh I don't know, that they have a way to generate thrust in the absence of the mechanisms that would normally be there to generate thrust (think: EM Drive), that the scientific process vets the claims and results. I'm not expected to approach the news of the EM Drive with certainty; I'm actively encouraged to be critical of such claims.

You don't see a stark contrast to how religious institutions and belief systems like to run their show?

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
And I think you are taking my religion hatred comment as way more directed at you then it actually was. Seems to have really gotten under your skin. Based on previous threads, you clearly dislike religion, to what is (in my opinion) almost a irrational dislike, kind of like, I dunno, a hatred. :devil:
No, I'm defending my viewpoint. It's this thing that you do when you engage in a discussion with someone about something where you have contrasting perspectives. It's almost as if you're irrationally assuming I'm getting more worked up than I am ;) :poosie:

[sabad66]

Originally posted by duaner

and I think, as HiTempguy1 has stated, that left to oneself, religion is likely to be the outcome.

highly doubt this.

do you really think that people would know about jesus/mohammed/whoever if they weren't taught about this by their parents/church?

[duaner]

Originally posted by sabad66

highly doubt this.

do you really think that people would know about jesus/mohammed/whoever if they weren't taught about this by their parents/church?
I'm talking in very general terms, not any specific religion. For millennia people have worshiped trees, the earth, animals, the sun, the moon, etc. I think the argument can be made that historically people have tended to drift towards religious worship of some sort.

[R154]

religion =/= spirituality.

[01RedDX]

.

[Zhao Kan]

The problem with organized religion is:

it stops you asking questions about the universe.
It breeds a set of rules people feel others need to obey.
You don't need religion to have a set of ethics and morals aka be a good person.
It gives people an out for being a shitty human being.
It attracts and fertilizes nut jobs.

For the love of Zeus believe what you want but stfu about it and keep it to yourself.

[A790]

Originally posted by Zhao Kan

For the love of Zeus believe what you want but stfu about it and keep it to yourself.
That would apply to atheists as well, no?

[Zhao Kan]

worst argument ever. That's like Liberia or Pakistan telling Norway or Canada they need to improve their human rights track record

[A790]

Originally posted by Zhao Kan
worst argument ever. That's like Liberia or Pakistan telling Norway or Canada they need to improve their human rights track record
What are you talking about and who are you talking to?

[Zhao Kan]

You. You're trying to draw some non existant parallel with religious people and atheists broadcasting the 'good word'.

[A790]

Originally posted by Zhao Kan
You. You're trying to draw some non existant parallel with religious people and atheists broadcasting the 'good word'.
lol no, more like "I'm an atheist and it'd be nice if everyone, including atheists, just shut the fuck up." Myself included. You too.

Whatever parallels you're drawing are entirely your own.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[duaner]

Originally posted by Zhao Kan
The problem with organized religion is:

it stops you asking questions about the universe.
It breeds a set of rules people feel others need to obey.
You don't need religion to have a set of ethics and morals aka be a good person.
It gives people an out for being a shitty human being.
It attracts and fertilizes nut jobs.
Not at all to the first point. The second can go for any belief system, quite apart from religion. The third, while true, is in no way "a problem with organized religion". As to the fourth, perhaps it depends on religion but the same can be said for atheism, perhaps even more strongly. And the fifth, same can be said for most any belief system, including atheism, but also ignores all the other types of people they attract (again, could be dependent on the religion).



Originally posted by Zhao Kan
For the love of Zeus believe what you want but stfu about it and keep it to yourself.
You clearly don't think that all beliefs are equal, so why should someone stay silent about something they think another is wrong about? You didn't so why should a religious person have to be silent? Are you interested in truth and its pursuit?

[codetrap]

.

[duaner]

Originally posted by 01RedDX


It's actually a negative truth claim that god does not exist, and is at the very least, no less valid than your positive truth claim that god exists. I know this because there is no way you can disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russell's Teapot.
This is what I meant by "positive truth claim":

'“I do not believe there is a god.”
“I believe that there is no god.”

These sentences are similar to the previous pair. The first is a negative assertion, as the negation is not part of the assertion. The second is a positive assertion described negatively, as the negation is part of the assertion.'

Atheism Network (http://atheismnetwork.org/2011/07/10/positive-and-negative-assestions/)

As for the existence of the FSM and Russell's Teapot, those are just bad arguments, as theists and skeptics alike have shown. There are good reasons and evidence against such ideas. I would copy and paste but it won't let me copy:

Is Atheism Irrational? (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/is-atheism-irrational/?_php=true&_type=blogs&smid=tw-share&_r=1)

It's very close to the top; the second response by Alvin Plantinga.



Originally posted by 01RedDX
Attempting to shift the burden of proof only creates an argument from ignorance. If we play by your rules, you would have to disprove that Jesus was a gay socialist vegan with a manbun or that Reptilian Elites run our world or any other irrational claim I wish to make.
It is the atheist that shifts the burden of proof. To make the claim that "we are all born atheists," requires proof, as does the claim "there is no God." To say that there is no God and then put the onus is on the theist to prove otherwise, is shifting the burden of proof.

Just what is the purpose of books by atheists which attempt to disprove the existence of God if indeed such a thing cannot be disproved?


Originally posted by 01RedDX
I can see why you don't want to play by the real rules of epistemology, because then you would have to prove your own negative claims about people being born atheist, religious repression of Galileo and other scientists and Christianity pushing the world into the Dark Ages. In which case, you would also have to discredit a fuckload of empirical proof; historical records, eyewitness accounts, legal documents, church doctrine, etc. A real burden indeed!
I have shown why the claim that people are born atheist is silly. One cannot be born denying the existence of something that they have no knowledge of. Ignorance or agnosticism would be the more rational positions to take.

The "repression of Galileo." That's one I was expecting to show up sooner or later. But such an argument ignores the fact that the science of the day, and in fact for hundreds of years prior, even prior to Christianity, held that the Earth was the center of the universe. The Church at the time was in agreement with the scientific community.

Geocentrism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model)

As to proving negative claims, it can be done and is done: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/must-the-atheist-be-omniscient

[duaner]

Originally posted by codetrap
You can't talk truth when dealing with religion because everyone has their own version of it and they're all completely convinced that only their particular brand of "truth" is the correct one.
Would you agree then that you can't talk truth with scientists because there are competing theories? Does disagreement about something mean that the truth of the matter does not exist?

[codetrap]

.