Bill Maher's Religulous
- Thread starter abyssofdreams
- Start date
holy fuck do you love to ramble on about leprechauns and dragons and shit.... show me a book about leprechauns and dragons that causes young men and women to rush into army checkpoints and blow themselves up and then i will go down that road with you.So do you also refuse to believe that there are no unicorns and leprechauns? Because if you refuse to accept a stance on untestable claims - you can't fairly dismiss those either...that is, if you're being consistent.
I ask because if my argument indeed doesn't hold water, I'd like to find out why.
You might notice that I also condemned atheists who operate on the strong assertion that God does not exist. I freely admit that it is something that cannot be known - and likewise I accept the label "agnostic" (as should every honest person), but only as a modifier of sorts, not as an alternative to atheism.
And I don't claim to have any answers, but I'm not in the business of asking questions that cannot be answered.
Atheism is a default position, and frankly a meaningless word that should not exist. In contrast, theism has to be learned and adopted. Like I stated before, what is the alternative practice that one must adopt in opposition to astrology? There isn't one. Same thing, really.
If someone insists that the flying spaghetti monster created the universe - I don't have to allow for the possibility that it's true or even acknowledge his assertion at all until he offers real evidence. The default stance is non-involvement, or non-belief in other words. Think of the implications if we had to respect every claim that every potentially crazy or delusional person made with absolutely no evidence; there would be no end in sight. There is no burden of proof on all of those who decide not to buy into an untestable claim, and atheists clearly belong in that category.
If somebody says that there is an invisible dragon living in their garage, but that any attempt to qualify this will be a failure.....is it "arrogant" to assume that there is no invisible dragon? I don't think so.
Because millions of people believe in the invisible dragon with no evidence and have for centuries due to tradition does not make it any more likely to be true either, and should not change your position.
Is it arrogant to not believe in Zeus? What about Mithra? Most people have no problem operating as an atheist in terms of the countless other gods that people have worshipped over the years; we just go one god further, and it's the exact same thing.
to compare whimsical fairy tail stories to a mythos (god, allah, etc) that has propagated thousands of years of war and brutality on the world is just so ridiculous that i have to wonder if you are just being facetious.
it doesn't work... none of your analogies work. we are not talking about whether anyone believes in unicorns or not... so you can rattle on about it being "the same thing" until magic monkeys fly out of your butt. because then and only then will that type of argument mean anything.
SocialNumb
Damn Christians!
SocialNumb
Damn Christians!
"If someone insists that the flying spaghetti monster created the universe"
Speaking of the flying spaghetti monster:
Speaking of the flying spaghetti monster:
Last edited by a moderator:
Glenn Fricker
Very Metal &Very Bad News
and I thought my humor was as flat as Taylor Rain
Come to think of it, (pardon the pun) Taylor Rain's ass is certainly worth worshiping.
Glenn Fricker
Very Metal &Very Bad News
But you don't have to follow religion to lead a moral life.
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446579807/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224874183&sr=8-1"]God is not Great - How Religion Poisons Everything[/ame]
Here's a really good book on the subject.
Glenn Fricker
Very Metal &Very Bad News
That's because Christians used to burn people at the stake for asking the tough questions. Hell, in Afghanistan today, they'll give you 20 years.
Oh yeah, another good link for info:
http://www.disbeliefnet.com/
Metalhead's point was referring to Bertrand Russell's teapot which closed the doors to agnosticism before we had double bass. The effects of the belief in question are red herrings in this argument. The question is what you think the likelihood of something existing is.
A child who believes in Santa can do the same thing to his or her mother. The mother might say "Honey, I'm sorry but Santa is make-believe just like the tooth fairy. You don't believe in the tooth fairy, right?"
The child could respond with "But Mom, your analogy doesn't work. Santa and the tooth fairy are completely different. Santa has transcended western culture and can be found in parts of East Asia and India unlike the tooth fairy. Also Santa uses a flying sled for transportation while the tooth fairy uses wings. Your comparison of Santa and the tooth fairy is so ridiculous that I wonder if you're just being facetious."
To return to the topic, it is true that you can't reject the possibility of something existing because you can't see or detect it. This means we can't say God doesn't exist. In this manner, we also can't say Thor doesn't exist. But in normal conversation, we say these things don't exist and rely on implication that of course we can't be 100% certain.
Atheism is a very often misunderstood concept (to the point of being reviled especially in the US). The term carries a lot of baggage which can be partially attributed to the Cold War. It seems that agnostic is the term to use if you're don't believe in God since saying you're an atheist is social suicide (in many parts of the US mind you). An atheist and agnostic are not all that different anyways. Agnostics like to pride themselves on their ability to admit that they do not know the answer, but atheists can do the same thing, except they tend to go a step further and think "but it sure as hell doesn't have to do with a talking snake". This is probably why agnostics and atheists are lumped together in the same category in polls. These are really just terms for the same thing which is "non-religious".
As for people who think religion is necessary for a functioning society with charitable people, the one word answer is Sweden.
Skinny Viking
¯\(°_o)/¯ How do Lydian?
STINNETT
Bad / Nationwide
My analogies work perfectly unless your viewpoint is biased. The logic you're basing your rebuttal on is fallacious, and unfortunately, extremely common.
"Argumentum ad populum" or an appeal to the majority, and also an "Irrelevant Conclusion".
The fact that religious ideas have become rooted into our culture and are held by a vast majority of people does not make them any more true. At their core, they are no different than any other unsubstantiated claim that one might put forth - no matter how whimsical. I just use the whimsical ones because I think it's funnier that way.
As was already mentioned, see "Russell's Teapot" for an even more whimsical, but bulletproof, example of this line of reasoning.
And the fact that something no more rooted in reality than leprechauns and dragons has propogated thousands of years of war and brutality is the ridiculous thing.
STINNETT
Bad / Nationwide
STINNETT
Bad / Nationwide
I was thinking about this some more (imagine that....) and I thought I should address another aspect of your post.
I believe what you're doing is confusing my anaologies concerning unsubstantiated claims with a suggestion that religious ideas are no more significant in the world than dragons and unicorns. I don't think that at all. In fact I am all too aware of religion's significance, and also troubled by it - but that's not what we are discussing.
I don't think you can gather that from my posts, but nonetheless I believe that is what you're attacking.
Realize that I'm speaking only of the evidential basis on which all of these notions are built. In that, there is no difference, and illustrating that is made easier by citing examples of fantasy that are familiar to everyone - but also widely disregarded as being true.
spioraid
Fancy a pint? Or two?
I mean if I went around, saying I was Emperor because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
despite the $5 words, you obviously don't get my "logic" at all. you have me totally wrong here.. you are preaching to the choir for the most part.
"Ab absurdo ad absurdum" or taking the concept of establishing the validity of your argument by pointing out the absurdity of your opponent's position to the point of absurdity. see, i knowz me sum latinz too.
no sher, shitlock
.... i agree 100%. as i said, you took me completely wrong, or rather took my simple statements and attributed qualities of an extended argument to them that i just never claimed.bulletproof... quite a claim.... especially since your "line of reasoning" doesn't really have anything to do with my very simple assertion, as far as i'm concerned.
and again, i agree completely.And the fact that something no more rooted in reality than leprechauns and dragons has propogated thousands of years of war and brutality is the ridiculous thing.
let me now, for the record, restate the ONLY point i tried to make.... it was in response to your assertion that Agnosticism does not exist:
i am not an atheist... i certainly am not a theist, not by the description of any religion i've ever heard of.... i am an agnostic, and i embrace it. i do not subscribe to any religion, i don't believe any books, or sublimate myself to any precept of a particular higher being or force. i do not however believe that no such higher power, force, being, or consciousness exists. i simply make no claim to understand it or know any aspect of what it may be. "ergo" i am an agnostic:
[agnostic |agˈnästik|
noun
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.]
now go ahead and apply your own argument here and try to prove or disprove my existence by talking "whimsically" about unicorns and dragons if you like. just remember... Frustra laborant quotquot se calculationibus fatigant pro inventione quadraturae circuli
not citing the source for monty python quotes will cause agnostic unicorns to argue you out of existence.
SocialNumb
Damn Christians!
Never got the "you can't prove God exist or not" argument. If none one told you: would you dream God up your self? If I took a new born, kept it sheltered with no access to outside information. Will that child eventually ask me about God? I think not. God only exist in our minds because at some point we are asked to consider Gods existence. So it's fair to say without such consideration God would not exist. So did I prove God does not exist? Or do I actually have to torture a child to prove my point?
Similar threads
