Douchebag Thread for Politics & Religion Spill Over

knapplc said:
Atheism is founded on what is.Christianity is founded on what people want to be.Those are very different things.
Click to expand...
Atheism is founded on perceived and understood logic. Christianity was founded on the same thing because at the time, God was understood logic. So you're certain Atheism is the be all-end all answer eh?

 
zoogs said:
Not on equal empirical footing, if that's what you are implying. Not even close.
Click to expand...
Clearly they are very different isms. But those who call themself either and are committed to that ism are equally convinced that they are correct and the other is wrong. In that regard they are very similar.

 
You're really reaching to try to construct this artifice of equality that isn't there and shouldn't be there. It's a disservice to both sides.

 
Moiraine said:
1995 Redux said:
Atheists and devout Christians are equally stubborn.
Click to expand...
Yes.
Although... the super radical athiests are probably a lot less likely to kill people for their belief in God than the super radical Christians are to kill people for their unbelief in God. Or make laws to restrict unbelievers like those pesky Gays.

Athiests do and have done a lot less damage to society than devout Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc., imo.

However I've said it before and I'll say it again, if religion didn't exist people would find another reason to kill people at the same rate.
Click to expand...
Hitler. Stalin. Mao. Like you said though, bad people will find any reason to do bad things. Comparing which side is worse is unreasonable.
 
1995 Redux said:
knapplc said:
Atheism is founded on what is.Christianity is founded on what people want to be.Those are very different things.
Click to expand...
Atheism is founded on perceived and understood logic. Christianity was founded on the same thing because at the time, God was understood logic. So you're certain Atheism is the be all-end all answer eh?
Click to expand...
What do you think "understood logic" means?

Atheism is based on what can be observed. Billions of people every day do not encounter gods. That is a logical basis for not believing in gods.

On the other hand, if billions of people every day encountered the Christian god, and not in some esoteric, mystical occurrence outside the realm of observation and study, but a real, tangible god that anyone could see, touch and understand, then we'd all be Christian - or Muslim, or Jewish.

That we do not and can not point to such an occurrence necessarily means that either "God" is not real, or that the Biblical description is false. Which then would call into question the entire Christian faith, since it's an inverted pyramid based solely on disparate books whose authorship is in question and whose inclusion in the Bible was determined hundreds of years after the events they allegedly describe.

 
knapplc said:
1995 Redux said:
knapplc said:
Atheism is founded on what is.Christianity is founded on what people want to be.Those are very different things.
Click to expand...
Atheism is founded on perceived and understood logic. Christianity was founded on the same thing because at the time, God was understood logic. So you're certain Atheism is the be all-end all answer eh?
Click to expand...
What do you think "understood logic" means?Atheism is based on what can be observed. Billions of people every day do not encounter gods. That is a logical basis for not believing in gods.On the other hand, if billions of people every day encountered the Christian god, and not in some esoteric, mystical occurrence outside the realm of observation and study, but a real, tangible god that anyone could see, touch and understand, then we'd all be Christian - or Muslim, or Jewish.That we do not and can not point to such an occurrence necessarily means that either "God" is not real, or that the Biblical description is false. Which then would call into question the entire Christian faith, since it's an inverted pyramid based solely on disparate books whose authorship is in question and whose inclusion in the Bible was determined hundreds of years after the events they allegedly describe.
Click to expand...
Pretty simple. Understood logic is merely what we are capable of comprehending. If there is a God, us understanding the concept fully is unlikely.

 
One thing being based on logic and one thing being based on marginalizing logic makes these things closer to opposite than similar -- or at the least, operating on very different planes.

There's honesty in accepting this.

Indeed, it's curious why you would continue to make any sort of "similarly empirical" arguments when your very breakdown sorts one into the empirical camp and one into the explicitly not empirical camp.

You can't make an honest argument that these are equally logic/reason/evidence-based positions, and you shouldn't feel you have to.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogs said:
One thing being based on logic and one thing being based on marginalizing logic makes these things closer to opposite than similar -- or at the least, operating on very different planes.There's honesty in accepting this.Indeed, it's curious why you would continue to make any sort of "similarly empirical" arguments when your very breakdown sorts one into the empirical camp and one into the explicitly not empirical camp.You can't make an honest argument that these are equally logic/reason/evidence-based positions, and you shouldn't feel you have to.
Click to expand...
I'm fine with dropping it, I never had any intention of trying to convince you of anything. Nobody in their right mind should attempt such a feat.

 
knapplc said:
1995 Redux said:
knapplc said:
1995 Redux said:
Understood logic is merely what we are capable of comprehending. If there is a God, us understanding the concept fully is unlikely.
Click to expand...
What if there isn't a god?
Click to expand...
You act as though it's one or the other. It's not.
Click to expand...
Don't dodge the question. What if there isn't a god?
Click to expand...
I'm not dodging your question, merely pointing out it's flaw. If there is no God do you think that makes your ism correct?

 
Back
Top