Conquer Club

CoffeeCream wrote:I've been Rickrolled by atheists more than any other group here. I think that's one reason to oppose them!

Yes, Neotony I'm talking about you

I wonder if there is a correlation between atheism and rickrolling...

It really sucks that this thread got started when my internet was FUBAR. However, I will not vote because "elitist" is not in the poll.

What further need have we of witnesses? Fairies, invisible creatures ... this is the manure that the average childish CC Athiest espouses again and again.

heavycola wrote:To parpahrase Richard Dawkins, I am agnostic about the existence of god in the same way i am agnostic about fairies living at the bottom of my garden. Agnosticism is the only rational position.

heavycola wrote:Does a lack of belief in an invisible creature living in the sky confer immaturity?

Build a strawman (at least no one I have seen has talked about faries or invisible creatures) and tear it down. This is the childish elitism we are used to in forums all over.

I ask the real athiests out there; do you wish to be tarnished with the reputation of heavycola?

Then speak out or forever hold your peace.

Heavy's reputation is one that I endorse.

tzor wrote:
I ask the real athiests out there; do you wish to be tarnished with the reputation of heavycola?

I very much do.

Someone who is atheistic about fairies is also being unreasonable, as there is no way to be sure they don't exist. So why is it silly when talking about fairies but not when talking about god?

Snorri1234 wrote:So why is it silly when talking about fairies but not when talking about god?

Because it is silly to belittle a person's ideas and beliefs by literally using fairy tale associations. It would be equally silly to, for example, respond to a person who seriously believes in socialism with strawman references to smurfs, for instance. Aside from the point that it's also an insult to anyone who might actually believe in fairies.

Or suppose you believe that there is intelligent life out there in the universe somewhere (I mean consider the odds ... space is large) and someone were to compare you to an old Star Trek epsiode and babble about blue skinned female space aliens.

tzor wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:So why is it silly when talking about fairies but not when talking about god?

Because it is silly to belittle a person's ideas and beliefs by literally using fairy tale associations. It would be equally silly to, for example, respond to a person who seriously believes in socialism with strawman references to smurfs, for instance.

Except the association is true.

The fact is that the comparison is good. The leap from agnosticism to atheism in reference to god is the same as the leap from being undecided on fairies and believing that they don't exist. It's not that we deny the existance of God, it's that we don't actually believe in it.

Aside from the point that it's also an insult to anyone who might actually believe in fairies.

Well I don't mind insulting people who believe in fairies.

Or suppose you believe that there is intelligent life out there in the universe somewhere (I mean consider the odds ... space is large) and someone were to compare you to an old Star Trek epsiode and babble about blue skinned female space aliens.

Except that is different. We are not comparing God to fairies, we're comparing the belief in God to believing in fairies, i.e. agnosticism on it is silly.

tzor wrote:What further need have we of witnesses? Fairies, invisible creatures ... this is the manure that the average childish CC Athiest espouses again and again.

heavycola wrote:To parpahrase Richard Dawkins, I am agnostic about the existence of god in the same way i am agnostic about fairies living at the bottom of my garden. Agnosticism is the only rational position.

heavycola wrote:Does a lack of belief in an invisible creature living in the sky confer immaturity?

Build a strawman (at least no one I have seen has talked about faries or invisible creatures) and tear it down. This is the childish elitism we are used to in forums all over.

I ask the real athiests out there; do you wish to be tarnished with the reputation of heavycola?

Then speak out or forever hold your peace.

I don't think I have ever before been called childish by a man with a dead pelican stapled to his head (OK, that was childish)

Dude - the fairies/god parallel is in your head. The point RD was making was that he cannot disprove god's existence any more than he can disprove fairies, or the existence of a teapot orbiting Mars. It is a matter of degrees of agnosticism, not a comment on the nature of god.

EDIT fastposted by dutchie

As for 'invisible creature' - well, sir, i stand by that. I would have used Skydaddy™ but I can't afford Backglass' exorbitant royalties. Look, basically i think these arguments never end in anyone's actual beliefs being changed, although I and many others have had very fruitful and illuminating conversations with believers on these very forums. But don't post in a thread debating whether atheists are childish and expect a grown-up response. Puh-LEASE.

tzor wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:So why is it silly when talking about fairies but not when talking about god?

Because it is silly to belittle a person's ideas and beliefs by literally using fairy tale associations. It would be equally silly to, for example, respond to a person who seriously believes in socialism with strawman references to smurfs, for instance. Aside from the point that it's also an insult to anyone who might actually believe in fairies.

Or suppose you believe that there is intelligent life out there in the universe somewhere (I mean consider the odds ... space is large) and someone were to compare you to an old Star Trek epsiode and babble about blue skinned female space aliens.

Speaking as the only right-wing atheist here on CC to the best of my knowledge I sort of see where you are coming from on this. I get annoyed by the leftists here but many of them I agree with on the fact that there is no God. However, my wife does believe in some sort of deity and I would never equate her with fairy worshippers. It's insulting and I do understand how someone could take it the wrong way. I just can't see devoting my life to that though and so unless someone could produce evidence of God then I will stay where I'm at, and will try not to sound arrogant in the process. In reality, I've probably crossed that line already here.

bradleybadly wrote:and will try not to sound arrogant in the process. In reality, I've probably crossed that line already here.

Well you've only been arrogant in other regards.

Which also makes this whole thread silly, as the atheists who this thread is about are generally the loudmouths who argue all the time about it. Me, hc, dm, Frigidus and others. The problem is that we're arguers anyway. I have even argued with someone I actually agreed with, just because I like arguing a lot.

Neoteny wrote: I wonder if there is a correlation between atheism and rickrolling...

Not likely, but maybe there are correlations in other areas

bradleybadly wrote:However, my wife does believe in some sort of deity and I would never equate her with fairy worshippers.

What the hell is a fairy worshipper?

heavycola wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:However, my wife does believe in some sort of deity and I would never equate her with fairy worshippers.

What the hell is a fairy worshipper?

Someone who worships San Franciscans

*Rimshot*

got tonkaed wrote:If you require some type of absolute in order to base any set of beliefs, as no such standard exists, you run into real problems in believing in a lot of things.

you don't see the problem in what you just said?

got tonkaed wrote:In essence, i still reject his point.

that's fine

You've got your beliefs and he's got his

protectedbygold wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:If you require some type of absolute in order to base any set of beliefs, as no such standard exists, you run into real problems in believing in a lot of things.

you don't see the problem in what you just said?

That the question about god's existance is still undecided? That you can't really be entirely sure you're right?

I'd like to know the main arguments for non-atheists.

Snorri1234 wrote:

protectedbygold wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:If you require some type of absolute in order to base any set of beliefs, as no such standard exists, you run into real problems in believing in a lot of things.

you don't see the problem in what you just said?

That the question about god's existance is still undecided? That you can't really be entirely sure you're right?

Why don't you just let him speak for himself.

protectedbygold wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:If you require some type of absolute in order to base any set of beliefs, as no such standard exists, you run into real problems in believing in a lot of things.

you don't see the problem in what you just said?

got tonkaed wrote:In essence, i still reject his point.

that's fine

You've got your beliefs and he's got his

are you trying to make my argument for me? Your friend seems to suggest you cant be an atheist because no one has unlimited knowledge. Ive been arguing thats not a valid statement because you cant apply such a standard to one thing, when its not possible for any particular thing.

Im not sure where the disconnect is but you keep not getting what im trying to say.

got tonkaed wrote:are you trying to make my argument for me? Your friend seems to suggest you cant be an atheist because no one has unlimited knowledge. Ive been arguing thats not a valid statement because you cant apply such a standard to one thing, when its not possible for any particular thing.

Sure you can. There's no law saying you can't apply such a standard.

got tonkaed wrote:Im not sure where the disconnect is but you keep not getting what im trying to say.

Look at what I highlighted in red from you statement.

well i suppose i would simply operate from a different set of assumptions. I tend to think that it makes the most sense, in as far as we are being intellectually honest to not apply different standards to different sides of each position. Personally ive never been one to make believers attempt to prove that God exist to me at least, because that would be applying a different standard than i follow. Not everyone feels that way of course, but i suppose i think when you are looking at an issue with different positions, intellectual balance should be desirable.

As far as the statement in red, i think the fact that i dont believe in God as an absolute doesnt invalidate that statement. If you take some of the mindset from the paragraph above, you should be required to have limitless knowledge in order to believe in God if your going to require non-beilevers to have that as a minimum for not believing in God. I guess imo at least, your friends sentiment, which you seem to echo, reflect a bias and imbalance (especially in the non-debating setting which is what we originally started with) that i choose to try to avoid if possible.

protectedbygold wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:are you trying to make my argument for me? Your friend seems to suggest you cant be an atheist because no one has unlimited knowledge. Ive been arguing thats not a valid statement because you cant apply such a standard to one thing, when its not possible for any particular thing.

Sure you can. There's no law saying you can't apply such a standard.

Except that applying such a standard is ridiculous.

protectedbygold wrote:Why don't you just let him speak for himself.

Because I'm phat like that.

ParadiceCity9 wrote:I'd like to know the main arguments for non-atheists.

Psst... theists...

Neoteny wrote:

ParadiceCity9 wrote:I'd like to know the main arguments for non-atheists.

Psst... theists...

and this is why we're being viewed as either arrogant or childish

btownmeggy wrote:I like most of the atheists here. And most of the theists.

QFT it's been quite a fun war of words. I would be very much surprised if anything I posted actually changed anyone's opinions.