The Ranting/Debate Thread

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

You can suggest it, but ye never know... though yer probly right.

Anyway, I am actually pulling out of this now simply because I've gotten all my points across, and I think everyone's agreed on a possibility of a diety. That and the debate is starting to go in directions I have no intention of defending.

As to Squid... well the evidence is highly debatable and there is nothing really down on paper. I find any evidence has to come from within, as it did for me. Call me mad, but hey I'm cool with that. If I'm wrong I'll either be in Oblivion or some sorta hell.

 

[Alias]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

Hey. Question for you all. If an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a higher power at all (including something like fate, which I guess is determinism? been a while since I studied religion, forget which is which), what label would you put on someone who doesn't really believe anything like that exists but is fully willing to accept the possibility of it existing and even go so far as giving it an equal likelihood as something not existing? Is it still atheism, but I guess you'd call it moderate atheism? Or would there be another term for it? (No, not agnosticism. If you think that's what it is you'll need to re-read the post more carefully.)

 

[Exofluke]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

Hey. Question for you all. If an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a higher power at all (including something like fate, which I guess is determinism? been a while since I studied religion, forget which is which), what label would you put on someone who doesn't really believe anything like that exists but is fully willing to accept the possibility of it existing and even go so far as giving it an equal likelihood as something not existing? Is it still atheism, but I guess you'd call it moderate atheism? Or would there be another term for it? (No, not agnosticism. If you think that's what it is you'll need to re-read the post more carefully.)

It's a good question and Sam I think is aiming to answer that:

Part1:

You must be registered to see the links

Part2:

You must be registered to see the links

 

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

Short answer Vuki without having to watch the video?

 

[Alias]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

Short answer Vuki without having to watch the video?

Seconded. I hate following links blindly.

 

[Unknown Squid]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

... If an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a higher power at all (including something like fate, which I guess is determinism? been a while since I studied religion, forget which is which) ...

Not sure about an answer for your question, but I don't think determinism can be called or linked to a higher power. It's not really saying anything more than "there are set consistent laws of physics, and stuff will happen a certain way". You could certainly describe it as fate, but there's nothing abstract or mystical about it. I'd say the vast majority of atheists agree with the concept of determinism even if they haven't really thought about it yet. Unless your talking about quantum physics or believe in something that can act outside of normal physics, then it's kind of the standard.

I'll admit, I hadn't actually heard of the actual term till this discussion came up here, but I'd already independently thought up the concept myself back in collage and at the time had a brief 'wow moment' until I realised it wasn't really that special.

 

[Exofluke]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

Short answer Vuki without having to watch the video?

"We should not call ourselves atheists. We should not call ourselves secularists. We should not call ourselves secular-humanists, or freethinkers , or rationalists, or anti-theists or brights. We should not call ourselves anything."

"Rather than declare ourselves atheists, I think we should simply advocate intellectual honesty and reason."

It's not about calling ourselves anything, but rather: being called something after we've committed an action. The actions we commit (atheists) are merely the expression of what is supposed to be obvious. We point out the facts and express why such facts show that the religious claims (or just wild claims) are incorrect with what's real.

Sure it may be an action, but because the effect of the action is merely on a thought-to-thought basis... judgement should be limited or none. Regardless of how much we express the facts, it's still up to that individual(s) to make the choice.

But then you have actions like murder, where the affect is actually causing an effect with people. Choice is then inevitable due to such actions... so judgement needs to be inevitable.

Simply put, we should be judging/labeling people by the actions they commit in which actually causes and effects people, not simply by mere ideas or expression of the ideas. The minute an individual blows them self up in the name of Allah, killing a ton of people, then I think that's the time we judge religion for it's apparent manipulation.

 

[Hentaispider]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

Hey. Question for you all. If an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a higher power at all (including something like fate, which I guess is determinism? been a while since I studied religion, forget which is which), what label would you put on someone who doesn't really believe anything like that exists but is fully willing to accept the possibility of it existing and even go so far as giving it an equal likelihood as something not existing? Is it still atheism, but I guess you'd call it moderate atheism? Or would there be another term for it? (No, not agnosticism. If you think that's what it is you'll need to re-read the post more carefully.)

If one doesn't believe in any god, it's still atheism. Does one believe in one god? Then it's monotheism. Does one believe in multiple gods? Then it's polytheism. None of the above? Atheism.

 

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

The actions we commit (atheists) are merely the expression of what is supposed to be obvious.

Thank you for the answer, but would ye stop saying things like this please?

 

[Newbie]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

The most vocal theists seem to believe atheists to be morally and spiritually bankrupt.
The most vocal atheists seem to believe theists to be intellectually lacking and gullible.

I have seen many atheists try and start 'debates' with theists, often over something as simple as a "bless you" for a sneeze. These usually turn into bullying and derision.

I have seen many theists try and start 'debates' with atheists, often over similarly trifling issues. These usually turn into conversion attempts.

Frankly, both sides have their zealots. This is essentially an unproven and unprovable idea. Science is merely the best working model we have, and God is essentially the same thing for a different demographic.

 

[Luppikun]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

This topic keeps making me think of this...

You must be registered to see the links

 

[DarkFire1004]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

I know you guys are going on with the religion issue, but I recently had this argument with my friend over airport security. We were watching the news and basically people were outside an airport, protesting the increased security measures being completely ineffective and it was borderline unconstitutional.

Now my friend argued about how the security measures were put there because of all the threats that've emerged. If there weren't so many dangers, he said, then there wouldn't be so many new measures.

My bullshit detector went off and I told him that the measures didn't even do anything. A fullbody x-ray scan would produce only the naked body. What happens to the guy who hides something in an orifice? Like his mouth? He responded that people can choose between the scanner and a patdown. Now it's an issue between getting blasted with radiation and getting molested. Granted, the radiation is minute and unless you fly everyday or something, you won't be cancer, but the fact is they're introducing potentially harmful things instead of completely solving the issue.

I say we do things like Israel. They've got way better security than us, and none of the silly regulations. But that's beside the point. What do you guys think?

 

[Luppikun]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

I agree, DarkFire. I mean, we just keep on upping security. It was fine before. So, what's next, we gonna defend against underwear bombers by making everyone take off all their clothes?

Now it's an issue between getting blasted with radiation and getting molested.

But... when you get blasted with the radiation, they stare at your naked body. So, molested either way...

 

[Newbie]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

you won't be cancer

I'ma be a supervillain!

In seriousness, I am firmly against current TSA regulations. It's very easy to find something like a horror story a day, and often the TSA feels that "the agents are new and need to be trained" is a sufficient excuse. It is not. It is your job to make sure they know the rules before they go to be in charge of our security.

 

[OAMP]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

I know, most of these regulations are just stupid and fueled by paranoia. Infact, I'm way more afraid of going through airport security then I am of actually flying.

 

[Luppikun]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

"Whoa! Sir, we need to pull you aside. You have over .02 ounces of liquid on your person."
"What, you mean from my runny nose? DON'T TOUCH MY JUNK!"

 

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

I think the religion discussion is all wrapped up Dark... so on to yer topic.

I honestly can't speak for Airport security really. I havn't flown often as a civilian very often, and even then my green passport got me shuffled through pretty quickly (most Canadian passports are blue).

As for searching, I know it can feel intrusive, but there are times it's necessary. Like I said I can't really speak for the airport situation, but overseas when I searched people (and we could search whoever we wanted if we felt threatened in any way or they approached us at all) and we would get right up into their crotch to ensure there is nothing there. Ye have to, because people hide shit there.

Anyway, I don't really have any information to make any points or take any sides in this, just wanted to put some more information out there for others. If it helps.

 

[Alias]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

There's a difference between a necessary invasion of privacy and blatant disregard for another person's rights. We've all had to have someone measure our in-seam at one point or another, and we've all had to pull our pants down in front of the doctor at some point or another. That's something that you expect when you go to the dresser, or the hospital. These people are just doing their jobs - they have to know to make your pants fit right, or to make you healthy, or that you're not concealing something other than your concealed weapon... (teehee)

It's a completely different story when you're talking about a case like the guy with the bladder bag (check the news thread if you haven't heard). Poor fucker had to go through security, wait for his flight, board the flight, and wait for them to take off, all covered in urine because they knocked the tube out of the seal.

But even past that, in fact, the intrusive searching isn't strictly necessary. Take a middle eastern country known for their extremist factions like Israel or Pakistan. You know how they pick out the terrorists? They hire people to talk to the passengers in line, and based on how they act, point them out to security to do more investigation. None of this random strip search bullshit. Local airport security could take a leaf out of these guys' books - after all, if anybody knows how to spot potential terrorists, these guys would.

 

[DarkFire1004]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

Wait, just how does the patdown work anyway?

 

[Unknown Squid]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

It involves paddles, butter, and a paddling pool full of hungry tadpoles.