Davkaus Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 It's fine it working both ways, because anyone who ridicules someone for not believing in a god is an unmitigated cretin and worthy of even more ridicule, and it's nice that they'd identify themselves. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 It's fine it working both ways, because anyone who ridicules someone for not believing in a god is an unmitigated cretin and worthy of even more ridicule, and it's nice that they'd identify themselves. I'd say that description could be widened to anybody who ridicules someone for their beliefs full-stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packoman Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 The old gods (Norse, Greek, Roman etc.) were a much cooler idea than the ones still around today. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frobisher Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 The old gods (Norse, Greek, Roman etc.) were a much cooler idea than the ones still around today. I was thinking this the other day. I'd definitely believe in them if it was still fashionable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Their beliefs are fair game, in my book. I wouldn't want someone in a position of responsibility to believe in sky fairies. It suggests a complete lack of critical thinking, which I can't abide. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) Their beliefs are fair game, in my book. I wouldn't want someone in a position of responsibility to believe in sky fairies. It suggests a complete lack of critical thinking, which I can't abide. As I said to someone else earlier, don't then be offended then if some mock your own opinions. It's a shame really because this kind of attitude that seems to be prevalent on both sides doesn't really do anyone any good. Edited February 7, 2014 by Mantis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) As I said to someone else earlier, don't then be offended then if some mock your own opinions.I'm not sure that anyone should be offended by having their opinions or beliefs mocked (I'm talking about the not based on anything factual/observeable/falsifiable and so on opinions as opposed to opinions formed through some sort of reasoning).They should only get offended if they are told not to have them or that having them is wrong. Edited February 7, 2014 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 As I said to someone else earlier, don't then be offended then if some mock your own opinions. I'm not sure that anyone should be offended by having their opinions or beliefs mocked (I'm talking about the not based on anything factual/observeable/falsifiable and so on opinions as opposed to opinions formed through some sort of reasoning). They should only get offended if they are told not to have them or that having them is wrong. To be honest I don't even think mocking someone's opinions is that bad - it's mocking the person just because they hold those opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 8, 2014 Moderator Share Posted February 8, 2014 I struggle with an explanation for Déjà vu too. Terrible film. I had to watch it twice to reach that conclusion. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted February 8, 2014 Administrator Share Posted February 8, 2014 Some people try and turn it into a group though and some words can be loaded with more meaning than their initial purpose but even if it isn't a group I still reject the label for myself. Is there a term for people who don't believe in Santa or Ghosts? Maybe there is, but I'm sure people don't go around using the terms with as much pride as some people who use the word atheist, which is maybe one of the things that puts me of the word, it seems to be used by some as a mark of their superiority. The only word I can think of which sums up the position that I think you hold is "sceptic". At present that term hasn't become loaded with additional meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted February 8, 2014 Administrator Share Posted February 8, 2014 The old gods (Norse, Greek, Roman etc.) were a much cooler idea than the ones still around today. Jesus is a Roman god. The current presentation of the Jesus myth was codified by the Romans in the 4th century. The Romans were good at this. They recognised early that when they were planning to add territory to their empire (which they largely did by trade), they would show the locals that the god of the local lake was an aspect of Neptune. It made them less like strangers. If you've been indoctrinated from birth to believe in myths, it's hard to be enemies with people who share the same myths. Of course later you have to have wars because the other lot aren't worshipping Bacchus properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I don't get why its taboo to be religiously intolerant?Religion is a choice, you should be allowed to discriminate against others based on their own personal choicesJust as long as that works both ways. That said I'm not one to belittle others because of their religious beliefs (or lack of them).You mock people who you believe have irrational beliefs in the football section all the time . Why should religious beliefs be immune ? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Some people try and turn it into a group though and some words can be loaded with more meaning than their initial purpose but even if it isn't a group I still reject the label for myself. Is there a term for people who don't believe in Santa or Ghosts? Maybe there is, but I'm sure people don't go around using the terms with as much pride as some people who use the word atheist, which is maybe one of the things that puts me of the word, it seems to be used by some as a mark of their superiority. The only word I can think of which sums up the position that I think you hold is "sceptic". At present that term hasn't become loaded with additional meaning. Thanks, sceptic sounds like a good word. God is either in existence or not in existence that's 50/50. It is a fact that I don't know either way, although I'm very sceptical to point where I am happy to say that I don't believe, if asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted February 8, 2014 Administrator Share Posted February 8, 2014 God is either in existence or not in existence that's 50/50. It is a fact that I don't know either way, although I'm very sceptical to point where I am happy to say that I don't believe, if asked. The first sentence make you both agnostic and atheist. The second sentence confirms that you are agnostic and then that you are atheist. To be sceptic you require evidence before you believe a claim (and that the evidence must be proportional to the size of the claim). I suspect this does describe you although you word it the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I don't think you can say the existence of a god is 50/50. That's like saying that winning the lottery is 50/50, you'll either win it or you won't. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I don't think you can say the existence of a god is 50/50. That's like saying that winning the lottery is 50/50, you'll either win it or you won't. There either is a "god" or there isn't, there are only two possible outcomes. That's what he meant by 50/50 I assume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward then brother, that person is a piece of shit. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 (edited) If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward then brother, that person is a piece of shit. "I guess we really are 'true detectives', Rust." Edited February 9, 2014 by useless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Or with human beings at all. Why would it give a **** about us? Cos it's coming back to eat us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted February 9, 2014 Administrator Share Posted February 9, 2014 Or with human beings at all. Why would it give a **** about us? Cos it's coming back to eat us. If it's from a different origin of life, it's unlikely it could eat us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts