You're assuming everybody on earth misunderstands me. In fact, this is the only place where it is so common. Other people (online and off line) seem to understand me just fine.
Well, if he wants to make your mind up he'll do so. I personally think that if there is a God then he's happy for you to be atheist (else he'd prove himself to you in some way or other). Hehe! If you ever read stories about people who "found God" I think you'll find that they all said that! It's only matter of time for you!
I'll take your word for your understood-ness outside this forum still doesnt really effect the options: 1. You post sensibly ON THIS BOARD and everyone else ON THIS BOARD is incapable of understanding your deep insightful posts. Hence, Poop Loops makes sensible posts ON THIS BOARD and everyone else ON THIS BOARD is to blame. 2. You don't post in a very sensical way or make particularly sensible points ON THIS BOARD. Hence, Poop Loops needs to think about what he posts ON THIS BOARD. Happy now? P.S. You could take issue with 'everyone' because I think the renowned rational brigade of thepunisher and tekkengod usually agree with you.
Strafio, I hope that was meant sarcastically. Otherwise I might have to put you into the preacher category from now on and frankly, what do you care, whether it does or doesn't happen to me ? You guys hoping for converts here on MAP ? As for my reference to GWB, total alcoholic converts to god and uses it to declare war on islam. I quoted him for a reason, that of converts being the worst example for their religions Strafio. I'm sure you wouldn't want me to become a fundamentalist Christian, would you ? Christian
Well, if he is an atheist like us CKava, I guess thats a reason we agree with him. But it looks like ppl are already starting to categorize again on this forum-meaning me, tekkengod and poop-loops one category, everyone else in the other. So whats your point exactly ? Christian
I think the crux of his point is that Poop Loops seems to have issues posting in a way that makes sence. His views/beliefs of a regious nature are irrispective of that. Maybe your IE comes with a nonsence filter that makes his posts understandable, mine doesn't. So bully for you for agreeing with him, i'll not agree with something i'm unable to understand. Moony
He had an unclear post, which he has clarified eventually. He made a mistake, and so there was a misunderstanding. It happens. Ohnoes! It's over, so why argue about how likely it is that someone may be misunderstood. Topic at hand; Subjective Evidence vs Objective Evidence. We've established what the difference between the two are, and how they apply in different scenarios. So, the real question; Which of the two (subjective vs objective) are relevant when explaining something such as God, which would have a very significant effect on your life. Personally, I don't have an issue with subjective evidence when it is used in the right situation. If someone says "I am cold" then I will take their word for it.There's not much risk or consequences when the situation is not of great importance. Depending on potentially wrong evidence, in not-so-important situations, is fine by me. Now, God (and thus "How to live your life", "What you should consider moral, even if you disagree", "etc") is something that I personally am not willing to gamble with, with subjective evidences. For something as important as this, I would want some objective evidence. That's just me, and you don't have to agree, but I seriously get confused when people are willing to accept such an important issue on subjective evidence. Thoughts?
It's okay, I'm just teasing you because I know your worst nightmare! It's true though. It's the people who hate Christianity most that are the closest to converting. You've built up such an anti-Christian point of view that if you ever experience what it's really about you'll be quite blown away. Although not everyone who hates Christianity converts, you never know which ones will or won't until it happens. The lord works in mysterious ways. :Angel: GWB is probably a bad example of a convert. I've meant plenty of fundamentalist Christians and even the louder preachy ones (which are in the minority) are as nice as can be when talking about non-religious things. If you became a Christian I reckon you'd know from experience how hardcore preaching drives people away, so I reckon you'd make a good Christian. Heck, you were named for it! You also make a nice atheist when you're not preaching it! :Angel:
I think that was really well put. The way I see it, faith isn't about knowing facts. There's rarely a sudden switch to strong faith in something and even in those crazy circumstances it takes a while for this faith to consolidate itself. I figure that you usually get the idea that something is going on by somebody else who practices and then start practicing yourself. From there, faith can build if it seems to work for you. Not necessarily make life "good" but this faith makes sense of your experience. It's a kind of intuition/gut thing. Is faith rational? It doesn't follow the rules of rationality quite as strictly as science but there's still some there. It's still got to make some sense. The same way that the best stories, as crazy as their settings might be, eg set in the future or having mythic monsters, to really work they need a believable element to them. So although they have different rules to our real world they still have rules to follow. They still have a depth to them that would be ruined if they started being completely random. So faith has got to fit with life's experience to work. Is it rational to have faith? If your mission in life was just to "know the facts" then it would not be. If your mission in life is to find happiness then I think having faith in something (doesn't have to be God) is near essential. Not that having faith requires you to give up rational belief. You still need the facts, you just have extra intuition to fill the gaps between them.
Don't blame anyone else for my views; 'people' aren't starting to categorise you, I am. As for the point of my category, thank you for asking, I'll clarify: You, tekkengod and Poop Loops commonly (though not always) exhibit the following characteristics: 1. You are all rather zealous, in that on most every thread about religion even ones which with no preachy agenda (they do exist) one of you will input a few comments about the evils of such and such religion (typically Christianity as this seems to be the only one your 'familiar' with). 2. You base your views on the evil of 'religion' solely on your interpretation of Christianity with occasional vague references to Islam and Judaism. This is further evidenced by the fact that the only frequently mentioned religious document used to highlight the truth of your accusations is the bible. 3. You portray understanding of science as being incompatible with religious belief. 4. You portray atheism as a crusade against religious belief. I am not suggesting this category is infallible and indeed sometimes you do step outside such boundaries but generally the characteristics listed above are why you would all agree. As such I would contest your suggestion that it is being an atheist or being interested in science that makes one agree with Poop Loops as the likes of Aegis, Moony, myself, slipthejab (pretty sure he's an atheist, he would need to be with such a foul mouth) and plenty of others share these features but yet seem to lack the persecution/constant fear of conversion/atheist crusade mentality exhibited by specimens PL, tp and TG. P.S. Please don't get all upset by this or take it too seriously because (to make the above relevant to the topic) this is my subjective interpretation based on the objective evidence of your posts... its a theory based on evidence but as with all theories it's open to debate . To ease your mind BendZr I wasn't basing my hypothesis on why Poop Loops is frequently misunderstood on a single badly worded post in this thread; I was making it based on MY own past experience debating with Poop Loops and HIS own assertation (which he has repeated in a number of threads) that people on this board frequently seem to 'get the wrong end of the stick' in regards his arguments or 'twist his words'. As per your question about why people are willing to accept subjective evidence on such an important issue perhaps its simply to do with the different values people attach to subjective experience. I, like you, consider such evidence to be rather flimsy and even if I had a religious awakening given my current sceptical mindset I doubt even a powerful experience would be enough to convince me that complete faith in any single specific belief system is justified. However, some people have different criteria and see the value in thing like faith and in fairness having faith can sometimes pay off. For EX: If you have faith in a person who keeps doing bad things the chances are your faith is going to be misplaced and they will disappoint you BUT there is also a slim chance that such faith in a person could give them the motivation to transform themselves. In such an instance the rational action might have been to walk away but it isn't necessarily the best option and it doesn't necessarily offer the best rewards. This is why people rarely tend to act like Mr. Spock... a completely logical human I doubt exists.
Actually CKava, on point 3 and 4 I don't agree with you at all. Especially not on point 4 because its rather theists portraying astheism as a crusade against religious belief. I don't really care what belief anyone actually has-whether they are Christian, Jewish, Mormon, Islamic or whatever. But what concerns my own belief, I don't like having ppl preach to me or try to convert me. And concerning point 3: Its not actually incompatible but when one (science) starts outweighing the other (religion)there is no more point believing in the religion, is there ? Which, in my case, is what I don't get. Christian
Points duly noted Mr.Punisher. Though I do have some queries, since you think theists portray atheism unfairly as a 'crusade against religion' does this mean you disagree with that view? that you accept atheism as a disbelief in God and not necessarily a quest to destroy belief? Just curious. Oh and as for point 3 if you recognise they aren't incompatible then why would one outweigh the other. Saying they are compatible then saying as one gets stronger the other gets weaker seems to me to be contradicting yourself as your suggesting they are opposing forces. Sorry to sidetrack just interested.
I disagree with that view mainly because I think actually alot of times its the other way around, lots of times theists can't accept someone being atheist and they try there hardest to convert them and second, because since I have no problems with religion in general myself I have no idea why atheists get portrayed this way in the first place. And YES for me atheism has always been a disbelief in god and not a quest to destroy it. Christian
I personally have no problems with religion, until it somehow gets my attention. Example: I have religious friends. We don't talk about it, I don't look down on them for it or anything of the like. The second someone DOES bring it up, all hell breaks loose. But I won't be the one to bring it up, unless it is in a humorous fashion (i.e. showing a picture of a water strider to my friend and proclaiming it is Jesus). Here, posts get started about religion, hence it is brought up. I don't scream "YOU RELIGIOUS DOLT!!!" on any other threads.
So it's not ok for people to bring it up in conversation in your presence but its ok for you to ridicule their beliefs? Is that what your saying?? Moony
