A case for religion, and against AA.

Page 48 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ThinClient

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2013
3,977
4
0
Moving goalposts is actually a logical fallacy that the atheists oh-so love.

I've literally never seen an atheist concede a single point even if the point they were making was utterly ignorant "There is no evidence of Jesus" and such.

Like I've been saying I'm not surprised at all.

I'm not sure these guys can even watch a movie without telling the audience that Neo isn't the one, its just Keanu Reaves in tight black leather and they're all stupid for playing along with such clearly false shenanigans as if they were the smartest (or dumbest, IMO) man in the room. Because the audience is past that and miles ahead. They know Neo isn't the one, they know its Keanu Reaves, but they follow the story anyway.

They're completely missing out on what religion represents by obsessing about who wrote what and if they saw it with their own eyes, etc.

Genesis to me is creation stories and thats how it was taught to me in 12 years of catholic school. Parts of the lineage in the old testament was how credibility was established in the past, some of the hyperbole about peoples ages "400 years old" and such is just that, hyperbole, IMO. Around Jesus' time something remarkable DID happen. The messages in the parables IS applicable to modern life (the human condition in particular) and I still do believe in God, so yup. Though I highly respect the fact that not all sects believe that and thats okay with me. Where as it seems to just reallly grind the gears of the atheists, they can't stand creationists and such.

Atheists are totally missing the point. Not the smartest man in the room, I assure you. I'm not saying its me because its not. Atheists aren't as clever as they think they are though. Like no one has ever questioned their faith before, like the atheists are on to some big epiphany, yea, right.

If you guys were so smart and you took Pascals wager which would you choose? You must really be 99.9% confident in something to which there is zero evidence on either side. That makes you smart? How? I think its dumb. You don't know and neither do I. I think that's a big difference between those who believe and those who don't. Having faith recognizes the fact that in your mortal life you will never know but choose to believe anyway. Where as Atheists have just as little information but choose to pretend that they know that answer, that god doesn't exist. Pretending you know something that you actually don't know is dangerous, IMO. So whenever I see an atheist talk, I know that they are just pretending to know, in their own little pretend beliefs that they share with each other. Er... sorry, lack of belief, whatever. Call it what you want.

Dumb people claim that Jesus didn't exist.

Smart people challenge the positive claim that he was divine.

You got proof that god exists? Let's have it. Otherwise, sit down and stop spreading your lies.

No personal attacks - direct or indirect - allowed in Discussion Club. -Admin DrPizza
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ThinClient

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2013
3,977
4
0
Pascals Wager was groundbreaking work in mathematics/game theory. It stirred up both the religious and the atheists. I would suggest to our angry atheists here to not be so quick to dismiss as "silly" such work. Perhaps a discussion of why you think it is silly would be in order.

I continue to find it amusing our angry atheists dismiss completely any proposal for God's existence. Even to the point of rejecting sound archeological and historical evidence simply to avoid ever having to acknowledge a particular person lived.

To me, it borders on a theism of its own, an unshakeable faith that there can be no God, ever. But of course our angry atheists will reject they have any faith or religion, that they are only acting rationally, with reason, waiting to see the proof/evidence of divination while closing their minds to accepting the possibility there ever could be any such evidence.

If I am wrong in my Faith, I have harmed no one. If I am right, I have gained so much.

Pascal's Wager says that it's better to believe just in case it's true.

If that's the case, then why don't you believe in EVERY god that has ever existed in literature? Why do you reject all but one? Why do you endorse Pascal's Wager when you don't even follow it because you don't believe in every single god that's ever been claimed to have existed?

Because even Christians know that Pascal's Wager is pure stupidity.

Again, no personal attacks. (Your last line) Your infraction points led to an auto-vacation. -Admin DrPizza
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ThinClient

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2013
3,977
4
0
Some of us were told to be civil......and stop calling names either directly or indirectly.....
I would say everything will be made plain someday.....
I would also say the word "faith" comes into this as does a Christians belief in what the Bible says.

Faith is the epitome of willful ignorance. It's a cop-out. It's a logical fallacy.

Why don't you have faith that fairies exist? Why don't you have faith that vampires exist?

Claim 1: The Judeo-christian god exists.

Claim 2: Fairies and vampires and unicorns exist.

Claim 3: An invisible teapot orbits Jupiter.

All three of these claims share the same level of evidence. None. All three of these claims are positive claims with zero evidence. All of these claims are equally true.

Get it?
 

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
180
106
Is anyone up to speed on the evolution of this thread? I think the sum of the issue would be to identify the perceived deficiency of an 'Angry Atheist' and then attempt to come to a consensus on what those deficiencies are resultant from in our comparative worldviews. For my part, I think that an 'Angry Atheist' suffers from depression resulting from existential stress. Many philosophers have suffered similarly, and not all of us can take the stress of the mental development of becoming Übermensch. Some try to take things too far, they ponder consciousness, reality, and they can lose their grip on it. They separate themselves from the group, and they find themselves unable to politely discourse with it. The transformation is fraught with pitfalls.

what does this have to do with ubermensch
 

schmuckley

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2011
2,335
1
0
Charts and suppositions:
http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolution/

vs:
Real life photos
Lycopsid_joggins_mcr1.JPG
and places:
https://www.google.com/search?q=pol...AeyiICwBA&sqi=2&ved=0CCQQsAQ&biw=1566&bih=714
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126

jhbball

Platinum Member
Mar 20, 2002
2,917
23
81

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,151
108
106
Faith is the epitome of willful ignorance. It's a cop-out. It's a logical fallacy.

Why don't you have faith that fairies exist? Why don't you have faith that vampires exist?

Claim 1: The Judeo-christian god exists.

Claim 2: Fairies and vampires and unicorns exist.

Claim 3: An invisible teapot orbits Jupiter.

All three of these claims share the same level of evidence. None. All three of these claims are positive claims with zero evidence. All of these claims are equally true.

Get it?

I have to ask, what would evidence for an invisible teapot look like anyway?
 

Agent11

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2006
3,535
1
0
what does this have to do with ubermensch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Übermensch

I believe that the Übermensch is the goal collectively and singularly to which we all strive. Individually a person wants to better themselves, expand their mind and understand the world and their existence, and evolve as a person. Collectively we undergo evolution as well, both socially and genetically, the Übermensch ideal would apply toward a 'good' or even 'better' evolutionary outcome. This confuses some people. From an existential perspective it is fascinating, and a much preferred outcome compared to nihilism. I hate nihilists.
 
Last edited:

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
180
106
the idea of ubermensch has little to do with christianity or atheism today even if that was what the original founder of the idea thought about. more or less it is the thought of nordic superman. a strong germanic warrior type.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
Why don't you have faith that fairies exist? Why don't you have faith that vampires exist?

Because my Faith resides in my soul, in salvation, in a supreme Being all of which I find best represented in Christianity. Faith would play no part in unicorns, vampires or other such mythical entities.
 

schmuckley

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2011
2,335
1
0
Homo Habilis? Homo Erectus? No? They don't count as transitional?


Homo Habilis: different,yes.Transitional,no.

Homo erectus,same.

People come in all shapes and sizes;still people.

I saw a documentary about a nomadic tribe that fits the description of
Homo Habilis exactly about a year ago.Still living.

What about all the other species?There are no "arm-flipper" fossils,or
"wing-arm" arm fossils;
because there never have been.
 
Last edited:

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,766
6,335
126
Homo Habilis: different,yes.Transitional,no.

Homo erectus,same.

People come in all shapes and sizes;still people.

I saw a documentary about a nomadic tribe that fits the description of
Homo Habilis exactly about a year ago.Still living.

What about all the other species?There are no "arm-flipper" fossils,or
"wing-arm" arm fossils;
because there never have been.

Incorrect.
 

Agent11

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2006
3,535
1
0
the idea of ubermensch has little to do with christianity or atheism today even if that was what the original founder of the idea thought about. more or less it is the thought of nordic superman. a strong germanic warrior type.


I would suggest reading this entire page thoughtfully, researching existentialism, nihilism, and then reading it again.

When the God-forsaken worldliness of earthly life shuts itself in complacency, the confined air develops poison, the moment gets stuck and stands still, the prospect is lost, a need is felt for a refreshing, enlivening breeze to cleanse the air and dispel the poisonous vapors lest we suffocate in worldliness. ... Lovingly to hope all things is the opposite of despairingly to hope nothing at all. Love hopes all things – yet is never put to shame. To relate oneself expectantly to the possibility of the good is to hope. To relate oneself expectantly to the possibility of evil is to fear. By the decision to choose hope one decides infinitely more than it seems, because it is an eternal decision.

Kierkegaard Works of Love p. 246-250
 
Last edited:

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Show me 1 transitional fossil.There are 0.

There are no organisms that are not "transitional." Every single organism is in transition between it's ancestors and its descendents. Species are never fixed in principle, so your request not only makes no sense, it betrays a deep ignorance of biology and the theory of evolution.
 
Last edited: