peterbound Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 I give a fuck because whether we like or not the pope is a very influential person so when he goes to these countries full of people who actually think he's the vicar of christ and starts preaching horrible things whether it be against the rights of homosexuals to marry, or that condoms cause AIDS or that women shouldn't be able to do what they want with their body then real people are impacted because people take this sinister old windbag seriously. And no, I don't think sitting back and acting like nothing is wrong is an argument against anything, what nonsense. That's just it. You're not having an argument. You're throwing a tantrum. What's your fix? Telling 2 billion people they can't believe how they choose? Or sticking to your own internal moral compass, and living what you scream about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gears of the Beast Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 That's just it. You're not having an argument. You're throwing a tantrum. What's your fix? Telling 2 billion people they can't believe how they choose? Or sticking to your own internal moral compass, and living what you scream about? Personally, when I speak out against something I don't feel the need to think that in doing so that I'm making a substantive difference. Do you? But if we're talking specifically about my pope post it was mostly directed to liberal/secular types who take part in all this demagogy. I see this shit all over the place including this forum, so what's wrong with saying 'this guy isn't actually any better, look at his positions, stop holding him up some kind of progressive'? Am I saying that I'm going to fix anything? Why do I need a 'fix' is order to speak out against something..? Also, I'm not sure where this 2 billion figure is coming from, there are 1.2 billion catholics and they don't all hold the same positions as the pope. But if they did I would not say to them that 'you can't believe what you want' but rather, 'what you believe is immoral and irrational'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterbound Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Add the Muslims you seem to hate as well = 2 billion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gears of the Beast Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Add the Muslims you seem to hate as well = 2 billion. :lol: Actually that would be closer to 3 billion. But I'm glad you were able to get your "you hate Muslims!" in before your vapid tirade came to an end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 GotB,You don't hate religious faith and hold those of us who profess it in extreme disdain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gears of the Beast Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 GotB,You don't hate religious faith and hold those of us who profess it in extreme disdain?I hate plenty of positions and belief systems and I somehow manage to not hate everyone who holds these views. So to answer your very stupid question I hate religion and I hate 'faith' but my opinion of the people who hold religious beliefs/faith varies from person to person because I can still get a long with people who I disagree with because I'm not an asshole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 GotB,In my, limited, experience with you you've been fairly dismissive and conemptuous with people who admit to holding religious beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Peterbound, This is really the worst time to make your stand. I suppose it's been building since the Charlie Hedbo threads but this really isn't a case where the disdain is unwarranted. I'd go so far as to say that there's nothing novel or particularly egregious here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gears of the Beast Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 GotB,In my, limited, experience with you you've been fairly dismissive and conemptuous with people who admit to holding religious beliefs.Where's the line between being dismissive and contemptuous of religious ideas espoused in the religion thread for example and being dismissive and contemptuous of the people themselves because they happen to be religious? I suspect you're blurring these lines a bit, which is understandable given that religious faith is obviously very important and personal to those who espouse it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matrim Fox Cauthon Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Sure. Which is why I left Catholics out of my post. He may be progressive for them, but the people I'm talking about see him in a positive light that goes far beyond him being progressive for Catholics, and thus good in a practical sense. Which is how you end up with the sort of flipping in the reddit threads I'm talking about, as if this is a surprise. Although him speaking out on this now where he did seems even more self-serving than the things he usually says. And they're delusional people who hear what they want to hear and not what is actually being said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Doing some research on Islam and wow... Pretty ridiculous any one believes this stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Pretty ridiculous any one believes this stuff The same is true of Christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gears of the Beast Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 The same is true of Christianity. And definitely Judaism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Or any religious faith. But it is a faith based, not empirically based system. Plus, you have people making claims about the belief systems of others that are not true. For example "The Once and Future Kings" claim in a Charlie Hebdo thread that to be a devout Christian or Jew you had to believe that Genesis was literally Six Twenty-four hour days a claim which is demonstrably incorrect but he, nevertheless, insisted was factual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Or any religious faith. But it is a faith based, not empirically based system. I don't see why that matters? We can already see the Gears counter here right? I'm sure there are religious beliefs that can claim to stand beyond empirical claims. But I don't know if that would apply to the first versions of Islam TPTWP would hit if he threw a stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 not worthwhile to get too exercised over the lack of empirical support for some theist propositions. i have no empirical evidence that the future will be like the past as regards physics and whatnot, but rely instead on the fallacy identified by hume that in the past the future had always been like the past, and so therefore one believes that in the future the future will always be like the past. also contra hume, and as a marxist, i believe that we can know causality and identify determinations of effects. there's no reason in the world to believe this stuff, however, other than aesthetic convenience. similarly, i believe without any evidence whatsoever that the phenomenological basis of my perceptions is consistent with extended physical space. i believe further that extended physical space exists, despite the acknowledged problem of my perceptions having no obvious connection to same, supra. i believe that the perceptions are caused by the external world and not descartes' 'evil genius' or dream vision. i believe without evidence in one problem quine identified, i.e., the analytic/synthetic distinction. i assume without anything at all that other minds exist, that i can know them, and understand them, and vice versa. all derridean posturing aside i believe without any possible evidence at all that our common languages together are significant and that we can make manifest our intentions through them--even while understanding that there is no way to falsify this belief, as the tests must occur through the same linguistic apparatus to be falsified. my head is accordingly shot through with unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable propositions, and we haven't even got to politics or economics yet. considering all that, how is it that i with a clear conscience can call a religious person out on the carpet for want of an empirical basis in the relatively trifling belief that after death something happens to an animus that is no more or less verifiable than a corpus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 not worthwhile to get too exercised over the lack of empirical support for some theist propositions. i have no empirical evidence that the future will be like the past as regards physics and whatnot, but rely instead on the fallacy identified by hume that in the past the future had always been like the past, and so therefore one believes that in the future the future will always be like the past. also contra hume, and as a marxist, i believe that we can know causality and identify determinations of effects. there's no reason in the world to believe this stuff, however, other than aesthetic convenience. similarly, i believe without any evidence whatsoever that the phenomenological basis of my perceptions is consistent with extended physical space. i believe further that extended physical space exists, despite the acknowledged problem of my perceptions having no obvious connection to same, supra. i believe that the perceptions are caused by the external world and not descartes' 'evil genius' or dream vision. i believe without evidence in one problem quine identified, i.e., the analytic/synthetic distinction. i assume without anything at all that other minds exist, that i can know them, and understand them, and vice versa. all derridean posturing aside i believe without any possible evidence at all that our common languages together are significant and that we can make manifest our intentions through them--even while understanding that there is no way to falsify this belief, as the tests must occur through the same linguistic apparatus to be falsified. my head is accordingly shot through with unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable propositions, and we haven't even got to politics or economics yet. considering all that, how is it that i with a clear conscience can call a religious person out on the carpet for want of an empirical basis in the relatively trifling belief that after death something happens to an animus that is no more or less verifiable than a corpus? So...any sort of consensus on the sorts of things it would take for something to be true (between religious people and other religious people/atheists) is just the result of a bunch of implicitly accepted premises like naive realism? If a religious person was to come to me and say:"don't let your child out after dark when they're young or they'll become a delinquent" (yes, this happened) am I supposed to take this as a sort of metaphysical claim that they don't believe can be proven empirically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Sologdin,Hume attacked empiricism and inductive reasoning as fallacous? How can non a priori things be investigated without empricism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 I feel the need to point out that Hume was all but an avowed atheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 I feel the need to point out that Hume was all but an avowed atheist. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.