The worst thing about religion

Post Reply New Topic

*sigh* i was playing around. but i guess maybe the seemingly manic change in tone was too much.

I like having the last word. In addition to my colossal arrogance and stupidity, it is my greatest flaw.

I do not have a positive belief that god does not exist. I am agnostic. However I also think everyone else should be agnostic also. This is a logical demand of agnosticism. If I come to the conclusion that there isn't sufficient reason for myself to believe in god, then it follows that everyone else should also come to such a conclusion. Either I am incorrect or theists are incorrect.

I see no reason to believe in any god. Thus I conclude that others who believe in god hold an incorrect belief. An incorrect belief is a delusion. Thus everyone who believes in a god is delusional and insane in my opinion. No atheist or agnostic could disagree with this or they would be admitting the existence of gods.

All faith is an "incorrect belief" to all atheists and agnostics.

Is that clear enough?

I have stated that I do not consider the cosmological argument to be logically coherent or proof of a deity.

My applying religious terms to atheists is starting to catch on! Woot.

Holy s**t, this thread exploded while I was away.

Strong agnostic.



And just so we're clear, once and for all, insults aren't ad hominems in the meaning of the fallacy. An ad hominem is "You're stupid, ergo, you're wrong". An insult is "You're wrong, oh, and you're stupid too."

I'm not entirely sure I understand this infinity business. It is quite easy to have a system in which an infinite amount of time "passed" prior to now. Time doesn't pass if you view spacetime as "simultaneously" whole and infinite, one just happens to be at a particular point in it. The idea is weird, but entirely consistent. Saying it's impossible is no more rational than saying "How did I get to 0 if an infinity of numbers precede it". It seems a contradiction from the way we naively understand things; the question is the problem. At least, that is my on the spot impression.

That sounds like fundamentalist atheism, I mean, it sounds something like black and white issue, in a way, it seems to resemble fundamentalist christianity. I can't speak for atheists though, me as agnostic (I don't know where exactly I stand to be honest), I would consider delusional, a fundie, of course in this case, the term is informal, because the term actually refers to a mental problem, but mostly when it comes to attitude towards others, when it comes to judging other people and mostly if they want to influence society to go according to their fundamental beliefs, other type of christians (liberal christians they might call them) I wouldn't, I don't consider Orwell, delusional for example.

On the other hand, we all might be delusional, if it turns out, reality isn't as we see it or as we believe to be.

Last edited by greenblue on 19 Aug 2008, 8:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Saying someone is stupid, calls into question the validity of their argument and is thus an ad hominem attack.

Any insult is an ad hominem attack. If you say my ideas are stupid, this is not an insult. Saying I am stupid is an insult.

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

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

i generally tend to disprove because it tends to act as an ad hominem but i know you know better.

A logical demand? Why is it a demand? Well, corroonb, um.... such a view is epistemic arrogance. I mean, whether or not you are correct, or incorrect, does not have anything to do with whether a person can honestly disagree with you or not, or whether or not you can ever be mistaken on an issue.


Ok, I still would argue that you have not created a very good answer to the cosmological argument. The 3rd sentence is false, incorrect beliefs are not the same as delusions, at least in connotation, which is still important. If you ot the wrong answer to a math problem, nobody is ever going to say you had a delusion, people are going to say you were mistaken. It certainly is different than any psychological use of the term, which prevents it from being involved with insanity. Heck, with the way you are using it, the very fact of being wrong is a sign of insanity, which means everybody is insane. It also means that because you assign insanity, anyone who disagrees with you is insane.

An atheist or agnostic can very freely argue that the terms you are using are dishonest. In fact, especially an agnostic, as agnostics would not argue that a positive belief in god is done against all evidence but rather is done with perhaps a lack of the preferred level of evidence.


True, and a better term than the emotionally laden ones used by you throughout this debate.


It shows some very clear problems.


You've mostly dismissed it, you haven't really brought about a good reason for any of the premises to be wrong. Mostly you've tried to assert that an infinite past is possible, but the issue is that if the past were infinite you'd never have reached the present, which is a valid argument and one I don't think you've countered. Not only that, but even if you disagree with it, that does not mean that another person couldn't accept the argument and remain their intelligibility.

Against AG? Good luck.


False. You are a devout and evangelical atheist.


What are you, some type of missionary? I've met atheistic missionaries before, but agnostics do not usually proselytize.


Only if your epistemology is the only valid one, and if your experience is universal enough that no one else has greater understanding of the topic than you do. Do you see now why you are being perceived as arrogant?


It is entirely possible that both you and theists are incorrect. In any case, you are incorrect in several of your arguments here. But really, the issue of one or the other being wrong is that we can't very easily verify which one that is now. Yes, there is an objective reality concerning the existence or non-existence of God, but it appears to be outside human abilities to settle the matter.


That only works if you have greater reason and greater knowledge than all others who believe in god. This logical "proof" of yours relies on the implicit assumption that you know everything, or close to it. Thus, I conclude that you are supremely arrogant.


Not necessarily. Check the definition again.


And you attempt to advance your opinion as though it were objective fact.


A true agnostic would easily acknowledge that this subject is one where rational people can disagree. And even most reasonable atheists (even many devout atheists) will admit that it is possible for sane people to believe in a deity.


In this post, you have essentially asserted the non-existence of God, which makes you an atheist rather than an agnostic. If you were truly agnostic as you claimed, you would stop identifying with atheists because atheists hold a positive belief for which there is no justification, just as theists do. Such a dogmatic agnostic fundamentalist as you claim to be would be equally disgusted with both sides.


Yes. Your views are drivel.


I don't care what you consider. If you are unable to find the logical flaw in the argument, and can not provide a satisfactory alternate explanation, the cosmological argument still stands as a valid proof of a deity. You tried to refute one of the premises (about infinite regress) but failed. You might have more luck simply denying causation altogether, in order to undermine one of the other premises.

and if i could clarify in general. i say i'm an atheist more for functionality. agnostic creates the misunderstanding that i'm on the fence about whatever religion du jour. there could be something....just not anything as described by all the popular theistic religions.

If that is true, then you don't hold logically consistent views.

Why do you not believe in God?

Orwell believes in God. He is correct if he is not mistaken (delusion). If he is not delusional, then you are holding a delusional belief and you are insane.

Either you are correct and this belief is false or Orwell is correct and this belief is true. There is no equivocating in this issue.

No, it doesn't. It says you are stupid. Stupid people can have perfectly legitimate arguments. Just look at the wiki you've cited:

"consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject."

Nope, there is a difference by your OWN source. The key term is "rather". You need to address your insanity.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 19 Aug 2008, 8:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

From the wiki entry on ad hominem:

If discrediting you isn't part of their reasoning, they're "just" being mean.

Well then, you are mistaken. I am quite mad indeed.

I just like to see the double-take when I use such terms, and also I like to get people thinking about how similar mindsets really can be between the two extreme camps- eg a belief in the incontrovertible truth of their claims, the infallibility of their arguments, a desire to convert everyone else to their beliefs, etc. Both far extremes are equally irrational to my perception.