The "controversial opinions" thread!

[timislegend]

There is no such thing as a Vegan.

there are a lot of companies that do make these products that do not contain animal specimen/material (with out the use of animals).

this picture would have been relevant about 10 years ago but so much has changed with animal rights/activism etc. (at least, in the united states).

the only thing that is rarely vegan is medicine/medication (over-the-counter or prescription) it is all tested on animals.

but recently, there has been more development without animal testing.

so, there. :Smug:

 

[sprack]

Platypus milk is the best.

What if Koala milk is the best shit in the world and we just don't know it yet?

Have yet to try this:

 

[Limak]

I hear what you're trying to say- that an atheist doesn't literally consider himself to be some kind of god, and being that an atheist believes there to be no actual deity in control of the universe and no spiritual beings at work in the world, then psychologically, the concept of God is void...I won't argue with that, and I can see why that makes sense on the surface. But what I'm saying, is that from a functional standpoint, atheists are choosing to live as if they are their own god; that if God exists and has made his presence knowable in some way, atheists have chosen to let their own intellect take precedence over God's revelation. In that way, they have made their own intellect their god, completely ignoring that the path to belief may not be strictly a matter of intellectual accumulation.

Nothing I've posted in this thread so far is even specific to a Christian worldview- I am only arguing that if God exists and he has made his existence knowable, then atheists, with all their intellect, are completely and utterly missing the point because they have chosen their own minds to be gods, as it is their own mind that is keeping them from knowing God. If God doesn't exist, then fine- everything I do and believe is utterly meaningless anyway, but the question of God and eternity is certainly important enough that it deserves serious consideration...consideration that reaches beyond the conclusions can be drawn by mere scientific and physical calculation.

An atheist is willing to trade the potential of eternity for what they perceive to be maximum earthly fulfillment, while a Christian is willing to humble himself in regards to eternity, and he finds maximum earthly fulfillment in the process.

I see your view on that and logic going behind it. It is true that atheists are in the worse position by rejecting ,,the creator" cause if you turn out to be right non-believers are screwed.

But please consider this train of thought:
Lets say our John Smith worships Christian god for example(or Allah, or any god for that matter). By chosing this one particular god he also accepts the fact that he is placing his own deity above all and to be the only true one while rejecting other possibilities. So in a way if for example Allah turns out to be the real one Christians are screwed as much as atheists are(according to your post). Now lets say God, Allah, Jahwe, etc are all same thing(basically lets asume every monotheistic religions actually worship the same god without even accepting or knowing it). Then this point wouldn't stand true. But what about polytheistic religions? By chosing monotheism we reject all other possibilities of other gods that could possibly share their chore on the ruling of the universe/humanity. Who said there has to be exactly one ,,The Creator"? You can't be sure(hell, that is the argument most theists use against atheists - ,,you can't be sure").
Now following this train of thought there is one logical implication of all of this: you could call every christian/muslim/jew/pagan/whatever an atheist because they actually reject possibilities as much as atheists do.

Now, this obviously doesn't make sense - theists clearly can't be atheists. Which is exact same thing you(and some other people) do when calling atheists to be ,,religious".

 

[Cheesebone]

there are a lot of companies that do make these products that do not contain animal specimen/material (with out the use of animals).

this picture would have been relevant about 10 years ago but so much has changed with animal rights/activism etc. (at least, in the united states).

the only thing that is rarely vegan is medicine/medication (over-the-counter or prescription) it is all tested on animals.

but recently, there has been more development without animal testing.

so, there. :Smug:

Lol I'm sure you're right, I just thought it was a crazy picture.

Still, I can't say I've seen any sheetrock for sale that advertised it's animal-free origins, lol.

 

[DanLights]

Now following this train of thought there is one logical implication of all of this: you could call every christian/muslim/jew/pagan/whatever an atheist because they actually reject possibilities as much as atheists do.

Now, this obviously doesn't make sense - theists clearly can't be atheists. Which is exact same thing you(and some other people) do when calling atheists to be ,,religious".

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/i_contend_that_we_are_both_atheists-i_just/219252.html

 

[midget donkeys]

Platypus milk is the best.

Truth

 

[SocialNumb]

Nice Philosophy Bro! :Smug:

I am only arguing that if God exists and he has made his existence knowable, then atheists, with all their intellect, are completely and utterly missing the point because they have chosen their own minds to be gods, as it is their own mind that is keeping them from knowing God. If God doesn't exist, then fine- everything I do and believe is utterly meaningless anyway, but the question of God and eternity is certainly important enough that it deserves serious consideration...consideration that reaches beyond the conclusions can be drawn by mere scientific and physical calculation.

1: Pascal's Wager
2: Assumption, that all A-theist have answers or intellect.

An atheist is willing to trade the potential of eternity for what they perceive to be maximum earthly fulfillment, while a Christian is willing to humble himself in regards to eternity, and he finds maximum earthly fulfillment in the process.

See 1

 

[Aaron Smith]

1 - You keep mentioning "if god has manifested himself" (made his existence knowable) as if it has happened, and it has not[...]

And how are you so sure of this?

Excuse human beings for actually trusting science, given how it has actually PROVEN to be the most useful thing ever. How some people consider actually using our brains to the highest extent possible to be "mere calculation" is something I'll never understand

Science is incredible, and I'm not the type to treat the Bible like it can be read as a scientific textbook...but if God exists, then he is the author of science, so using science to try to systematically disprove his existence is totally asinine.

 

[Mattayus]

I just wanna know what guy originally decided to get it from a cow... did he go around drinking the tit-juice of every other mammal before he settled on that one being the best? What if Koala milk is the best shit in the world and we just don't know it yet?

This is always my argument for when people decide to challenge why we shouldn't drink it. I have exactly the same thought.

Killing and eating? Sure, part of our ancestry, easily explainable, and very natural. But we produce milk for our OWN offspring, so why it ever occurred to early man to take the substance from another animal that was intended ONLY for its own offspring eludes me completely.

Ok, so simple curiosity could explain that one, sure. But when, then, did it become a norm and a staple almost? Just seems a bit inexplicable!

 

[SocialNumb]

Science is incredible, and I'm not the type to treat the Bible like it can be read as a scientific textbook...but if God exists, then he is the author of science, so using science to try to systematically disprove his existence is totally asinine.

Pascal's wager!

Bro, you're in fear of the afterlife!

I can understand, an eternity of worship/bliss/what have you Vs. Eternal hell. (if that's your stance on the matter, not all Christians agree)

When does the bliss end?

How much of your natural senses would have to be removed from you to not feel empathy for those in hell, possibly a loved one?

I have these questions regarding a theist view of an afterlife.

To me it seems, in some time "Hell" would be a vacation in such a situation.

In my mind, after a life well lived, I would think "God" would give us true peace, nothing.

 

[Aaron Smith]

1: Pascal's Wager

I've seen you mention Pascal's Wager before, and I'm very familiar with the concept...but it's still not clear what point you're making here.

2: Assumption, that all A-theist have answers or intellect.

You're totally right, some atheists haven't really given a whole lot of thought to any scientific or theistic matters, and it's just easiest to settle on "Eh, I'm an atheist" and then continue living life with no restraints, but given that all my encounters with atheists on these boards has involved the "intelligent" breed of atheist, I've kind of narrowed the scope to better fit the makeup of atheists here.

 

[GarethSE]

Motion controls make me want to retch.
I don't want to flap my arms about like a lunatic when I play a game, I want to get deeply engrossed in a whole other world in the laziest manner possible: slumped on my sofa with my hand in a bag of maltesers and the other hand on the controller.

 

[DanLights]

And how are you so sure of this?

Science is incredible, and I'm not the type to treat the Bible like it can be read as a scientific textbook...but if God exists, then he is the author of science, so using science to try to systematically disprove his existence is totally asinine.

1: As sure as you are. IOW, no idea, no proof so your point remains invalid (and my point remains "we don't know", which is no assumption, but fact)

2: IF god exists he is the author of science. Some people actually believe he doesn't exist, those are the ones actively trying to disprove his existence so it makes perfect sense to use actual proven methods in their quest for their answers. Do you think someone who DOES believe god exists will try to disprove his existence through science? That doesn't make any sense, does it?

I speak mainly in third person because I personally do not seek to disprove existence of a god or of whatever, I think that's pointless and impossible, yet I am 300% against religion and see it as the worst plague to ever touch mankind

 

[DanLights]

Motion controls make me want to retch.
I don't want to flap my arms about like a lunatic when I play a game, I want to get deeply engrossed in a whole other world in the laziest manner possible: slumped on my sofa with my hand in a bag of maltesers and the other hand on the controller.

AGREED. Jesus fucking Christ I wanna play a video game sitting in my couch and pushing buttons, not doing fucking pantomime

 

[Limak]

Motion controls make me want to retch.
I don't want to flap my arms about like a lunatic when I play a game, I want to get deeply engrossed in a whole other world in the laziest manner possible: slumped on my sofa with my hand in a bag of maltesers and the other hand on the controller.

Well in all honesty motion controls have potential to make kids bit more healthy. Burning calories AND playing video games at the same time huh?

 

[GarethSE]

Talking of God in literal terms rather than metaphoric and symbolic is fucking stupid.

 

[DanLights]

Aaron, more assumption: Atheists live lives without restraints. Even if they don't believe that they will be punished by Thor if they are naughty, some people (myself included) actually have morals and try to be good people. I make the effort to be a good person in general, to help others whenever I can, to not get angry or fight with people over un-important things, etc. Same with thing religious people of course, some are good people and some are scumbags, although the fact that some need the "fear" of being punished in order to keep them straight makes me think they need to grow up a bit

 

[Aaron Smith]

Some people actually believe he doesn't exist, those are the ones actively trying to disprove his existence so it makes perfect sense to use actual proven methods in their quest for their answers.

It just makes no sense to me for a reasonable person to try to use science as a way to disprove God... I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this, and I don't want to drag this out indefinitely. I would rather talk about Bloodbath guitar tones...

 

[SocialNumb]

I've seen you mention Pascal's Wager before, and I'm very familiar with the concept...but it's still not clear what point you're making here.



You're totally right, some atheists haven't really given a whole lot of thought to any scientific or theistic matters, and it's just easiest to settle on "Eh, I'm an atheist" and then continue living life with no restraints, but given that all my encounters with atheists on these boards has involved the "intelligent" breed of atheist, I've kind of narrowed the scope to better fit the makeup of atheists here.

Why do you assume that the "Atheist" on this board are "intelligent" ?

We don't have the answers you're looking for. It is plain to see, no one does yet.

You have faith, fair enough.



By the way, "no restraints"? really?

 

[DanLights]

It just makes no sense to me for a reasonable person to try to use science as a way to disprove God... I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this, and I don't want to drag this out indefinitely. I would rather talk about Bloodbath guitar tones...

It makes no sense to you for anyone to disprove god because you believe he exists, and it never will, or can you suggest a better way to try to disprove him? Of course you can't.

Fine with me, but I don't find anything controversial about BloodBath so might as well take that to another thread