it takes faith to be ignorant
- Thread starter 2minkey
- Start date
2minkey
bootlicker
yeah, totally. wouldn't want facts and rationality to get in the way of irrational faith/superstition.
i think there's an evil spirit in my pants.
catocom
Well-Known Member
rational
and That is the crux of the matter right there...
Man's rational vs God's rational.
Many times God's rational looks foolish to man, so
the more people make it out to be foolishness, the more the point is made.
So, where Does the truth lay? In the Bible.
If it's not in there, it doesn't matter much, and that's why I say ML has nothing
to do with it. His name appears nowhere in there.
That's Man's documentation stuff.
and That is the crux of the matter right there...
Man's rational vs God's rational.
Many times God's rational looks foolish to man, so
the more people make it out to be foolishness, the more the point is made.
So, where Does the truth lay? In the Bible.
If it's not in there, it doesn't matter much, and that's why I say ML has nothing
to do with it. His name appears nowhere in there.
That's Man's documentation stuff.
catocom
Well-Known Member
Re: Cat
what if those virgins are ugly demon-looking hags that just want to eat your flesh?
what if those virgins are ugly demon-looking hags that just want to eat your flesh?
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
2minkey
bootlicker
you seem very, very confused. but in a way you're picking up on what wonderboy isn't... phrased in your charming idiolect.
catocom
Well-Known Member
What makes your non-belief any better, or more realistic than his belief? I've always had trouble with that from the atheist argument.
2minkey
bootlicker
good point.
what makes you think i do or don't believe anything in particular and/or that i'm not just playing around with various concepts? is "rational" better than "irrational?"
rationality has many flaws, particularly when fetishized and full of latent value judgments... and in fact such uses are quite self-contradictory and pretty funny most of the time...
and "realistic," well, is full of potential sillyness too, particularly in the context of what is mythical.
the "foundational flaw" is speaking or writing in ways that either directly claim or suggest that rationality, science, facts, or knowledge have any bearing on faith. they don't. on the flip side someone is trying to find flaws in a survey design to counter the idea that those of faith don't know much, when it really doesn't mater if they know much or not. the entire thing is moot. i find athiests who are wrapped up in trying to "prove" that religion is silly to be very entertaining. they often shove their beliefs, shrouded as non-beliefs but fully vested in the (irrational) faith of rationality, down others' throats just as vigorously as any overly-avid christian.
what makes you think i do or don't believe anything in particular and/or that i'm not just playing around with various concepts? is "rational" better than "irrational?"
rationality has many flaws, particularly when fetishized and full of latent value judgments... and in fact such uses are quite self-contradictory and pretty funny most of the time...
and "realistic," well, is full of potential sillyness too, particularly in the context of what is mythical.
the "foundational flaw" is speaking or writing in ways that either directly claim or suggest that rationality, science, facts, or knowledge have any bearing on faith. they don't. on the flip side someone is trying to find flaws in a survey design to counter the idea that those of faith don't know much, when it really doesn't mater if they know much or not. the entire thing is moot. i find athiests who are wrapped up in trying to "prove" that religion is silly to be very entertaining. they often shove their beliefs, shrouded as non-beliefs but fully vested in the (irrational) faith of rationality, down others' throats just as vigorously as any overly-avid christian.
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
never mind [edit]
Which is what it appeared to me. If I am wrong, please accept my apology.
2minkey
bootlicker
i was just trying to spark conversation. if have a core belief, it is one that eschews any form of orthodoxy, be it that of a religious zealot, that of an anti-religious zealot, or that which depends on scripture of any kind. they are all essentially the same, each one bound up in a different set of myths and desperately opposed to the difficulties of having to make choices, while pretending they've actually made one. they haven't. they want to be led. and that, good sir, is the true nature of fascism.
Winky
Well-Known Member
Gonz, I am an Atheist. Let me explain my view to you to make things clear. I do not believe that it is any more or less valid for anyone to believe what they want to believe. It is their right and I would fight for their right to believe what it is they choose to believe. Whether I agree with that belief is irrelevant. I have no right to force them to change their belief through the making of law(s) or through social pressure. Their belief in a deity (or deities) is a personal choice.
With this in mind, I should have the same freedom and right to not believe in deities or the supernatural and should be given the same freedom from social and legal pressures.
Hope this explains my point of view as an Atheist.