best netphorian as a human being

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

if there were an intelligent practicing Catholic on this board, I'm confident they could present reasoning behind their beliefs. Just because you're not familiar with it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I'll grant you that the vast majority of Christians I have encountered in my life have no reasoning behind anything and only believe what they do because they were raised to. But it's not the case with everyone.

they can provide reasoning, sure

just horrible reasoning



im not suggesting that being religious precludes being "intelligent" in any other way

im saying that being religious is akin to believing the world is flat

someone who believed that could be a veritable genius in whatever other sense

but theyre, fundamentally, not that bright

thats an inescapable reality that comes part and parcel with choosing to believe that

and i think its fine to hold people personally accountable for those choices

i think less of people by virtue of the fact that they are religious

but i dont hate them automatically, i have religious friends

fine, only religious acquaintances

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

Mormons aren't that different from Catholics. And they're both retarded.

that was kind of a joke.

And read up on Joseph Smith and then get back to me.

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Lie

Don't worry, I intend to.

cold

[Trotskilicious]

You're telling a history major who specializes in the 19th Century and the American West to read up on Joseph Smith. I graduate next semester, you just started and think every class you take makes you an expert on the subject. You are a little faggot, you know that? Go fuck yourself.

[Mablak]

Most of the religious folk at my college aren't stupid enough to belief historical fiction, they just use the bible as sort of a guiding compass. But they're all pretty smart people so I don't know what kind of meaning they get out of it. Hell they should really use Atlas Shrugged instead you guys.

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

but that's the whole idea behind the concept of faith. i mean, i often think to myself that almost everybody uses their faith as a crutch, and that maybe that is the whole idea behind Christianity....to give people a crutch when they need one. I still think that it is completely ridiculous to discredit someone's intelligence based on their faith.

As you can tell, I don't have any idea where I stand on issues concerning religion and whatnot. So I consider myself fairly objective. And I think everyone's spirituality is totally personal....and that if people truly have faith in something, there is no reason to call them idiots.

Except mormons and scientologists. they're fucking retarded.

would it be ridiculous to think less of my intelligence if i told you the moon was made of cheese?

it woudlnt only be not ridiculous, it would be ridiculous not to

as a human being, i have an obligation to justify my beliefs

you are allowed to make me live up to that obligation

does your ass still leak?

asl?

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by sleeper

they can provide reasoning, sure

just horrible reasoning



im not suggesting that being religious precludes being "intelligent" in any other way

im saying that being religious is akin to believing the world is flat

someone who believed that could be a veritable genius in whatever other sense

but theyre, fundamentally, not that bright

thats an inescapable reality that comes part and parcel with choosing to believe that

and i think its fine to hold people personally accountable for those choices

i think less of people by virtue of the fact that they are religious

but i dont hate them automatically, i have religious friends

fine, only religious acquaintances

No. There is proof that the world is not flat. There is no proof that Jesus Christ was not divine. There is proof that other people aren't and weren't, but there isn't any definitive proof that deals specifically with Jesus. There's plenty of reasoning behind saying it's bullshit, but there's some on the other side as well. Hopefully after two semesters of Theology classes at "the best Catholic university in the world," I will be able to do a better job in discussions like this.

[Grumble]

there was this old jehovah's witness guy in the town where i grew up; he was about 95 and he'd been 'witnessing' for over sixty years. and then one day he came to my house when no one else was home, so i had to talk to him (well i guess i could have shut the door on him or said i was busy, but he was old and frail and i was young and unassertive). he went into this ridiculous spiel about how it's obvious that you must know god's true name, saying something like 'if i told someone down the street that i'd been talking to 'a boy' they wouldn't know who i meant, would they, unless i told them your name?' i tried to just nod politely but i couldn't disguise my cynicism and boredom. anyway, he died about two weeks after that and i felt really guilty for a while, thinking that it was my fault for not pretending to be more interested in his drivel. i've always had a big, illogical guilt complex.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

You're telling a history major who specializes in the 19th Century and the American West to read up on Joseph Smith. I graduate next semester, you just started and think every class you take makes you an expert on the subject. You are a little faggot, you know that? Go fuck yourself.

I read multiple biographies that all said the same thing...that he was fucking crazy. Maybe my libraries banned all the pro-Smith biographies. who knows.

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Lie

For all you know the act of having believed in god might condemn you to everlasting hellfire. It's just as likely a possibility.

just out of curiosity (im not trying to draw you back into this) has your opinion changed at all since we last discussed this? y/n. and if so, in which direction?

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by sleeper

would it be ridiculous to think less of my intelligence if i told you the moon was made of cheese?

it woudlnt only be not ridiculous, it would be ridiculous not to

as a human being, i have an obligation to justify my beliefs

you are allowed to make me live up to that obligation

does your ass still leak?

asl?

i already refuted the moon/cheese analogy. it doesn't work. find a better one.


and my ass itself never leaked. it was a cyst at the base of my tailbone. and i got it removed.

19/m/il

[Trotskilicious]

Yeah of course he was crazy. That doesn't make the Mormon Church unlike the Catholic Church.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

You're telling a history major who specializes in the 19th Century and the American West to read up on Joseph Smith. I graduate next semester, you just started and think every class you take makes you an expert on the subject. You are a little faggot, you know that? Go fuck yourself.

...and i never took a class that discussed mormonism.

and admittedly, i could know a lot more about it. but everything i did read gave me the same impression. so i stopped trying to understand them.

i can see how that could be viewed as me being enormously hypocritical. i'll work on it.

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

No. There is proof that the world is not flat. There is no proof that Jesus Christ was not divine. There is proof that other people aren't and weren't, but there isn't any definitive proof that deals specifically with Jesus. There's plenty of reasoning behind saying it's bullshit, but there's some on the other side as well. Hopefully after two semesters of Theology classes at "the best Catholic university in the world," I will be able to do a better job in discussions like this.

its about justified belief

whatever form that comes in

[Trotskilicious]

By the way fuck off I'm trying to watch Ghost in the Shell 2nd Gig and I haven't seen this season yet.

[Mablak]

It's alright, commies are pretty mean. They don't know individual happiness

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

Yeah of course he was crazy. That doesn't make the Mormon Church unlike the Catholic Church.

I guess the 1800 years it was in operation before Smith doesn't automatically make it more legitimate.

But, there is no historical evidence of anything in the book of mormon, is there? please correct me if i am wrong, but wouldn't that be a pretty fundamental difference?

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Mablak

Hell they should really use Atlas Shrugged instead you guys.

just look at what ravages that brought to jczeroman. libertarianism makes one hell of an awful religion

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by sleeper

its about justified belief

whatever form that comes in

what about justified non-belief? is that always completely unnecessary?

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Grumble

there was this old jehovah's witness guy in the town where i grew up; he was about 95 and he'd been 'witnessing' for over sixty years. and then one day he came to my house when no one else was home, so i had to talk to him. he went into this ridiculous spiel about how it's obvious that you must know god's true name, saying something like 'if i told someone down the street that i'd been talking to 'a boy' they wouldn't know who i meant, would they, unless i told them your name?' i tried to just nod politely but i couldn't disguise my cynicism and boredom. anyway, he died about two weeks after that and i felt really guilty for a while, thinking that it was my fault for not pretending to be more interested in his drivel. i've always had a big, illogical guilt complex.

have you seen the film "last days"? this reminded me of that. i recommend you seeit if you havent for this reason. it can help you heal from this experience

without addressing the merits of any of your arguments about god, do you realize how lame it is to put forward these arguments against christianity? do you really think it's a feather in your cap that youve discovered that physical experience and evidence is stacked against the "truths" of the bible? your determination of this is NOTHING. youre a whiny little shit. and when you try to construct a system of morality without a god, the christian god you only prove that this is either your own play at being an intellectual, that youre either incapable of tackling the issue from a purely critical point or determined to bullshit arguements to fit some set of ends where you can look down on the family across the street but there is still some super-animal obligation for other human beings to keep bullies from beating you up and calling you a faggot

[Mablak]

If more people believe something for physical reasons then it's probably more likely to be true physically. I'd take someone's word that the sky is blue if I couldn't see it. But if more people believe something morally that doesn't make it more right

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

what about justified non-belief?

creationism

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

...and i never took a class that discussed mormonism.

and admittedly, i could know a lot more about it. but everything i did read gave me the same impression. so i stopped trying to understand them.

i can see how that could be viewed as me being enormously hypocritical. i'll work on it.

I don't claim to know everything about mormons. I know they're very church based with lots of strict rules which makes them like Catholics. I know the church demands that a portion of every mormon's salary which the Catholics would do if they could get away with it. I know all the money goes to the Church and filters down from the beuraucracy just like the Catholic Church. I know that their temple in Salt Lake City is a ridiculous extravagance just like the Vatican. I don't know about the Mormon heirarchy, so I can't draw that comparison to Catholics.

On the other hand, at least they never sold endulgences or allowed great human suffering to continue under their watch when they had the money to make it stop.

Mormons were indespensible for people trying to make it to California in 1849 since they had mapped and scouted the area and knew of grazing areas in bare desert.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by sleeper

creationism

right, that's an example. but i was referring more to the fact that there is no physical evidence against the major tenets of christianity. so those non-beliefs aren't justified, just like your saying the beliefs aren't justified.

but it was a question....so i'm wondering what you think the differences between the two are.

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Andrew Pakula

without addressing the merits of any of your arguments about god, do you realize how lame it is to put forward these arguments against christianity? do you really think it's a feather in your cap that youve discovered that physical experience and evidence is stacked against the "truths" of the bible? your determination of this is NOTHING. youre a whiny little shit. and when you try to construct a system of morality without a god, the christian god you only prove that this is either your own play at being an intellectual, that youre either incapable of tackling the issue from a purely critical point or determined to bullshit arguements to fit some set of ends where you can look down on the family across the street but there is still some super-animal obligation for other human beings to keep bullies from beating you up and calling you a faggot

see

exhibit A:

the mind of a catholic


gather round, folks

free admission for the juniors

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

I guess the 1800 years it was in operation before Smith doesn't automatically make it more legitimate.

No. It doesn't. At all.

But, there is no historical evidence of anything in the book of mormon, is there? please correct me if i am wrong, but wouldn't that be a pretty fundamental difference?

Wow.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

I don't claim to know everything about mormons. I know they're very church based with lots of strict rules which makes them like Catholics. I know the church demands that a portion of every mormon's salary which the Catholics would do if they could get away with it. I know all the money goes to the Church and filters down from the beuraucracy just like the Catholic Church. I know that their temple in Salt Lake City is a ridiculous extravagance just like the Vatican. I don't know about the Mormon heirarchy, so I can't draw that comparison to Catholics.

On the other hand, at least they never sold endulgences or allowed great human suffering to continue under their watch when they had the money to make it stop.

Mormons were indespensible for people trying to make it to California in 1849 since they had mapped and scouted the area and knew of grazing areas in bare desert.

So you go from Mr. 19th Century History major who knows more than Mormons than me to someone who knows little more about it than anybody else in the country.

The similarities are there, yes, but you're just neglecting to consider any of the differences that are undoubtedly present.

Cocky know-nothing bastard.

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

right, that's an example. but i was referring more to the fact that there is no physical evidence against the major tenets of christianity. so those non-beliefs aren't justified, just like your saying the beliefs aren't justified.

but it was a question....so i'm wondering what you think the differences between the two are.

the real question isnt what evidence exists against christianity (see: proving a negative)

its what exists for it

its not anyones job to refute nonsense

its the proponents job to prove it

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

Wow.

This is why I stated that with obvious uncertainty. So instead of answering the question, this is the response I'll get.

progress!