Conquer Club

shickingbrits wrote:

nietzsche wrote:You don't know shit. I will prove it by saying you don't know shit. You don't know shit. See I've said it so I must be right.

Can't argue with that.

nietzsche wrote:

shickingbrits wrote:

nietzsche wrote:You don't know shit. I will prove it by saying you don't know shit. You don't know shit. See I've said it so I must be right.

Can't argue with that.

You can do that. You can quote me on something I didn't say.

shickingbrits wrote:I guess you're right all. The US government would never cooperate with Monsanto to harm people.

Well, not Americans.

Well, not intentionally.

Well, oh, sorry I guess it's all of you who are wrong.

Does it amaze me that people can understand full well that a hazardous waste is being put into their own drinking water and they care not? Not really. I'd say most of those defending it don't drink the water. So all is well.

Gillipig wrote:There's nothing in our existence that could not be explained without free will so assuming that free will exists purely out of habit or doctrine has to be considered at the very least a lazy thing to do.

Gillipig wrote:If a phenomenon has not been observed scientifically why should you assume that it exists?

Gillipig wrote:It is only because of our culture and our instinctive, and as often demonstrated, faulty perception of how our brain works, that you believe we have free will, it's not rooted in logic or science, it's rooted in emotion, and emotional arguments tend to be pretty weak.

Gillipig wrote:For example the whole idea that we are free to choose what to do is grounded in a feeling we have when our conciousness is active, we feel like we are completely free to do what we want at any given moment, but when scientists monitor the brainwaves of test subjects and ask them to make simple choices such as pressing one button or the other, they can predict some seconds before a person makes a choice what choice they are going to make, the test subject at this time is not even aware of what he's going to choose yet, he still thinks he's free to choose what he want, these kinds of experiment show how faulty our perception is, and it does not appear natural to me that in light of research such as that arrive with a positive assertion that we have free will.

BoganGod wrote:Further proof religion poisons everything. Shittingtricks last poster in many dead threads. Religious zealots killing balanced conversations since language evolved.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BoganGod wrote:Further proof religion poisons everything. Shittingtricks last poster in many dead threads. Religious zealots killing balanced conversations since language evolved.

Nice try, except opposition to "religion" is itself a "religion".

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BoganGod wrote:Further proof religion poisons everything. Shittingtricks last poster in many dead threads. Religious zealots killing balanced conversations since language evolved.

Nice try, except opposition to "religion" is itself a "religion".

People get illogical about many strong feelings. You can find plenty of idiots inside churches, but you can find plenty who don't go as well. Humanity is full of idiots.

If you want to know if you are TRULY thinking independently, then think truly about how often to talk to and LISTEN to people who really and truly disagree with you.. to understand, not just to come up with the next argument against. If you have not done that, then you are merely deluding yourself, you cannot be thinking independently because you never face true opposition.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Nice try, except opposition to "religion" is itself a "religion".

BoganGod wrote:Player the person that told you that was not acting in your best interest. Religion is not the absence of god, or the absence of belief in a god. Religion is organised worship of a deity/deities.

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.

The terms "atheist" (lack of belief in any gods) and "agnostic" (belief in the unknowability of the existence of gods), though specifically contrary to theistic (e.g. Christian, Jewish, and Muslim) religious teachings, do not by definition mean the opposite of "religious". There are religions (including Buddhism and Taoism), in fact, that classify some of their followers as agnostic, atheistic, or nontheistic. The true opposite of "religious" is the word "irreligious". Irreligion describes an absence of any religion; antireligion describes an active opposition or aversion toward religions in general.

nietzsche wrote:Atheists that are stupid tend to behave similarly to religious persons that are stupid.

They ridicule, bully religious persons every chance they get. They blindly follow and repeat arguments without understanding them. They worship Darwin and Dawkins and HItchens just like religious persons worship the Pope. They fail to recognize that at some point they adopted a belief as well. They probably became atheists because they are dumb and are afraid that others find out they are dumb.

On the other extreme, thinkers like Spinoza who wrote with genius and beauty, were God believers.

Just saying. Perhaps what matters is not the metaphysical beliefs, but other beliefs that deal with empathy toward others.

chang50 wrote:

nietzsche wrote:Atheists that are stupid tend to behave similarly to religious persons that are stupid.

They ridicule, bully religious persons every chance they get. They blindly follow and repeat arguments without understanding them. They worship Darwin and Dawkins and HItchens just like religious persons worship the Pope. They fail to recognize that at some point they adopted a belief as well. They probably became atheists because they are dumb and are afraid that others find out they are dumb.

On the other extreme, thinkers like Spinoza who wrote with genius and beauty, were God believers.

Just saying. Perhaps what matters is not the metaphysical beliefs, but other beliefs that deal with empathy toward others.

So how about showing some empathy yourself towards people with different beliefs to your own.I for one am not feeling any after reading that rant.

shickingbrits wrote:Whenever atheists are given a platform, they use it to denounce religion. They make strawman jokes, call adherents all kinds of names, make fun of God in any way they can. They express hate. They express the feelings of a child who felt abandoned.

Maybe you'd get more empathy if you didn't emulate your idols, Chang.

shickingbrits wrote:Ok, then just you're a dick.

shickingbrits wrote:Not a valid point until you've defined what kind of atheist you are referring to.

Your kind, those who specifically become atheist as a protest to perceived abandonment by God, do.

shickingbrits wrote:I've defined my use of atheist for the purposes of this thread which has yet to be challenged. Challenge it if you will, until then don't get pissy.