Don't you hate it when...
Offline This is a pet peeve of mind. I get irritated when someone shrugs their shoulders and says (with all sincerity)
“Well, I guess we’ll find out when we die”
Excuse me? You believe that you will discover some sort of vast and universal truth about the nature of reality after your creative mind and ability to think and understand the universe…is gone? I guess that lump of gray matter between your ears is useless, after all. What a pathetic abdication of epistemological responsibility! You might as well have just shrugged your shoulders and said “Well, I’m too frightened/lazy/ignorant to attempt to understand the nature of reality while my cognitive abilities are up and running, I will invent this fantasy where I don’t have to exercise my ability to think. I can just put it off to the side”.
Ugh.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
- Login to post comments
That pisses me off no end, but I find it even more annoying when that same expression is uttered with a slight hint of smug satisfaction, as if to say "We can't possibly know in the here and now, so we'll have to wait until the afterlife to find out I'm right".
M
Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss
That pisses me off, mainly because I already found "it" out whatever it is. It needs only a regression therapy session, astral travel or lucid dreaming course, or any such a course like that. This provides an experiential basis, so next an adept for knowledge can read more on it and start to search for the truth. Warning: may take more than 20 years.
None of the theories must be held as a dogma, because a personal understanding develops all the time, and one must be ready to update it or accept the same thing said in better form. The best form is not the most perfect, but the most close one to our understanding. Better words are useless, if they can't be understood. Anyway, the understanding may become so great, that it's practically unspeakable. This is the case of the greatest saints with the vaguest words.
Of course, there are various types of people, and some of them doesn't really need or want to know if there's anything after a death, (right, IAGAY? ) but for others it's an important technical knowledge for their work in this life.
DG, how do you mean it, you're pissed at the people who says that we can't find the truth unless after a death, but at the same time, you're pissed at those who says they already found it, like me. So what do you want, then?
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
“Well, I guess we’ll find out when we die”
I usually cringe when I hear this. It's equivalent to "bless you". There are several others.
If the speaker is serious, how does he/she know this? I often wonder if the speaker is merely mechanically blurting out this meme-byte as an auto-response from a lack of not knowing what else to say, which would indicate that not much effort is being applied to examining common blurbs and this in turn would indicate an individual who blindly follows the crowd.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Yeah, I think I'd rather be told that I'm going to hell. Why the need to shade the truth? They supposedly know that their soul is secure and that mine is not, so why not admit it? I honestly think that they don't want to admit to themselves the cold hard fact that they've failed (once again) at spreading and defending the faith.
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
I suspect it's sometimes an unspoken fallback to Pascal.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
That reminds me of a comment that made me laugh about those asshats that claim to be able to talk to the dead - "I can talk to the dead too. They don't talk back though. Cause they're fucking dead. "
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Luminon, I don't think DG's pissed at anything but the ridiculousness of either concept.
The first is a cop-out. It keeps people from looking for the answers.
The second (yours) can't be proven to be anymore than bat squeeze given to the gullible by those they prey on. Most of those sessions I've researched the therapist is feeding the information to the subject.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
What it means to prove atheism? You can mention a several inconsistencies in faith, and the other side is supposed to hope that these are enough to really make you an atheist.
You see, I've driven it ad absurdum, to show that in some cases, when you can't prove the negative, you must believe in a positive, as for an other person's stance. It would be very interesting if this would be a standard. If you don't doubt that the other person is atheist, agnostic, or theist, as they say, so why do you doubt that someone is gnostic? I believe this was the case with Arj's trollship.
Just asking, I don't mean to provoke you, I just think it's an interesting question.
Btw, if you ever encounter a regression therapist who cares mainly about the stories from past lives, leave. The story behind it is irrelevant. The physical and emotional reaction of the client's body on the story is important, this is why a good therapist tends to cut the crap and doesn't explore the background situation in that past life, and definitely doesn't feed the client with any additional information. The purpose is to help the client from a physical problem in form of phobia, or allergy, or something like that, not to write him a curriculum vitae of his past life.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
It's a cop-out. I see it as a sign of them conceding and giving in.
Because weak atheism (the majority here) and agnosticism are not making a positive claim. They are disputing the positive claims brought by theists. The majority of theists claim "There is a God" or "I know there is a God". Arj's claim was "I have firsthand experience of the spirit world so I know it exists." Claims such as this can and should be questioned.
Find a strong atheist, someone who claims there is no God, and you can ask for proof of that claim all you want. I'll join you.
If I find a regression therapist who doesn't lead the client in the direction the therapist desires, it will be a first on two counts.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Have you ever been to a court of law? If so, you know what the defense counsel must do. They don't need to prove their client is innocent. In fact, they rarely do. They need only poke enough holes in the prosecution case to establish a reasonable doubt. This would then make it impossible for a fair jury to deliver a verdict of guilty. When the jury delivers a verdict of not guilty, they are not saying that the defendant is innocent. They are saying that guilt has not been established. A weak atheist or agnostic need only poke holes in a priori and a posteriori arguments given for God to be able to hold their position.
Of course it does, Sherlock. That would be the equivalent of the prosecution case. You never say to a defense counsel: "prove that your client is innocent".
No, because the defense counsel has nothing to prove. They are only defending their client. The prosecution is the one with something to prove.
This is an ad ignorantium fallacy
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Luminon, you are f**king crazy.
You want me to provide evidence that I see no evidence for something?????
That would imply that you think I am conciously ignoring something which is evidence for the 'something'.
OK, then point to what you think I am ignoring, IOW show me what you consider evidence, and we can debate it.
IOW until the person who claims to know some entity, some substance, some actual phenomena exists can point to the basis for that belief that doesn't simply rely on personal testimony, I have no reason to believe it, so I am 100% justified in treating it as merely an empty claim, and no more.
And yes you can get 'clever' and start talking about double negatives, which is why I specifically restrict my statement to claims about actual external things, NOT statements about other statements.
So I apply this criterion to supernatural claims of all sorts, which without evidence of some sort, have no claim to be 'knowledge' (which is actually just very strongly held belief supported by what the 'knower' believes to be strong and easily demonstrable evidence ), merely ordinary belief. It is all about the evidence, which can involve personal testimony, but that testimony must correlate with other people's testimony in significant ways which are not explicable by alternative theories, and, better, some physical evidence, IOW not purely individual testimony.
Faith is totally irrelevant to knowledge, virtually by definition.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
“Well, I guess we’ll find out when we die”
What's this 'we' shit? Why don't you die and come back and tell me?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
They use the same false dichotomy there as they do in Pascal's wager. One of the religions that doesn't have a heaven and hell could conceivably be right (when you're reincarnated you don't remember your past lives so you wouldn't "find out. " )
It's also funny picturing the Christian winding up in hell like in those fucktard Chick tracts or in the South Park movie (of course being in hell would be better than in the mormon heaven - as demonstrated by Satan sending Saddam there. )
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
If that knowledge is objectively true or available for everyone to check, that's a different problem, but this doesn't prevent anyone from being called atheists, theists or agnostics, though they can argue about a validity of their stance for all the day.
The "gnostics" are simply recognized as they don't value the faith too much, but the knowledge, as they claim to have and to seek for more. It may be a knowledge about some crazy stuff, which is another important recognizing sign. But for such a "gnostic", even a knowledge of God doesn't mean that he must fall on knees and start worshipping, singing, muttering Hebrew phrases, and more of such a crazy stuff what Christians do. That's another recognizing sign.
By the way, you may ask what I'm doing here if I can't give any proof through the internet. I'm simply meeting a people with different (and opposing) points of view, trying to understand them, and thus I build my open-mindedness. I do the same with Christians, just personally, because they are near. What a wonderfully tolerant person I will become by that method!
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
It pisses me of too. It's like they've just given up on any hope of finding the truth, and in responce I usually give up helping them find it. You can't help somebody who doesn't want it. If they want to go on praying to the invisible man in the sky that's their problem. I willl say this though, everytime I hear something like that a little piece of me dies. We as a species will always be held back until we can cast off the shackles of irrationality and laziness, and that what that stament implies. I reeks of laziness. God Forbid we find answers ourselves. Err... I mean... I forbid...
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
- it must be a short word
- it must be known to everyone, worshipped by masses
- it must be something great or powerful and related to supernatural realm
- yet it must not be able to reach us if we break our promises
What about Oprah?
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Oprah Dammit? Kind of like that but might make you look like a part of some weird Oprah-worshipping cult...
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Believe it or not... I just got back from having a lengthy religious debate with a table full of theist.
Guess what phrase reared it's ugly head... No it wasn't Oprah Damn it... "Well, I guess we’ll find out when we die." It took a while but who can blame them? My logic was inescapable, might as well use one of the worst cop-outs there is and avoid having to think to deeply on the matter. And to make things even more spectacular as we are exiting the restaurant their paster is entering it. Must have been a Godsend. I mean, what are the odds that he would feel like having chinese too? I'm guessing 1 in 10^1000000... 
Anyway we run into him leaving and one of the debaters asks me to present my case to him, as if he is going to defend the faith in a way that they could not. So I state my case (standard problem of the morality of an all-knowing, all-powerful being creating people just to send them to hell) and he responds with the most intellectualy lazy cop-out to ever exist. "I guess it's one of those things we're not sopposed to know." I called him out on it being a cop-out and he had nothing to say. Score another for me. Organized Religion:0 Me: No idea, I lost count. 
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Him: “Well, I guess we’ll find out when we die”
Me: *taking out the gun* "How curious are you?"
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
I'm personally keeping my post-mortem expectations low, which is a good strategy for expectations in general.
Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.
Why Believe?
I find the instance of those who neglect to sanitize their hands after using the lavatorial facilities to be more... discommoding.
LOMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've decided personally since I do not believe in eather heaven or hell, I've got no place to go after death; So I'm not going.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
This reminds me of a *kick* I got on for almost a whole month last year. I started cursing and swearing, which I rarely ever do, like that Tourettes Guy from the YT videos.... "OH, BOB SAGET !!!"
It was funny at the time.