WTF is the point of these endless back-and-forth banters?
Offline It has been said that unless humans beings find a way to live together, we will all die together.
There are places on this earth that are locked into fierce conflict that seems impossible to solve. For example "the Palestine problem" and various ethnic conflicts that has been going on for decades in Africa. It is a relative privilege to be situated in a peaceful part of the world, but he quarrelsome nature of the human being will surface somehow anway.
What is the fucking point in rehashing conflicts that will not get solved?
I for one am not particularly interested in "turning" people of belief... and there isn't a snowflake's chance in a supernova that they will "turn" me. So why debate along such lines? I get sucked into it every now and then in sheer irritation over what I perceive as retarded arguments, although they probably make perfect sense to the person who's harbouring such points of view.
The John Lennon in me wants to say give peace a chance. The more analytically oriented rationalist part wants to know how.
An obvious solution is of course to not engage; to not feed a pointless "debate" that seems to follow the same genius strategy that made World War 1 so mind-bogglingly bloody: Massive firepower and very little mobility. In an attempt at humour, I will compare this predicament to the slightly less than realistic proposition of certain religious figures in America: The safest and surest way to avoid STD's and unwanted pregnancies is to practice abstinence.
Thou shalt not engage in pointless conflict.
Assuming (for ourself) or projecting a group identity onto any individual is of course not good either.
Stereotyping is the engine that produces strawman arguments.
Any ideas?
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
- Login to post comments
People do get turned here. I was on the fence about the whole religion thing, untill I found this place and read a debate with a creationist. The sheer obstinate stupidity displayed by that individual shocked me to the core, and blasted me off the fence for good.
As for pointless debate, I guess it's still preferable to bloody conflict.
However bloody conflict thins the herd.
How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais
I always thought that the best way to stop fighting is to... well... stop fighting.
You're assuming that they will not get solved. The only consistent thing in this universe is change. While things often may take a long while to be solved, solved they will be eventually. (Forgive the Yoda speech patterns there)
Good to hear you're open minded. The problem here is obvious I think. While I'm a very firm atheist, I cannot justify sticking to a belief no matter what.
Because if there is a truth out there it's in our best interest to investigate and discover it. Isn't that a good enough reason of its own? How about the fact that any belief that has a basis of faith more than observation could potentially be harmful, especially if that belief turns out to be wrong; even moreso if that belief is so profound that we live our lives by it. In the case of the existence of God, this is a pretty important thing to establish, in my opinion.
I'm pretty sure that there are peaceful ways of determining the difference between truth and belief. In fact, I'm pretty sure that this forum is one of them.
I disagree that this conflict is pointless. I disagree that this conflict is not peaceful (yes, the double negative is appropriate here). And I think for now, this forum is a reasonable way to peacefully resolving this particular conflict. I'm working on a project that may provide another means as well. It's effectiveness will be tested when I'm finished (which may be some time).
I find it very interesting that you dichotomise these two concepts.
To me they seem to be most intimately connected; with the idea of "truth" being what motivates all beliefs to begin with.
Is there a truth (in the abstract sense)? And, if so, may it be known by man? My money is on no.
You can of course argue that this is a belief in and of itself, but I will disagree and call it an applied non-belief.
Unlike many others, I am not even all that interested in the Bible and whatever "holy scriptures" have you.
I care no more - or less - what they say in those books than I do about the motherfucking Lord of the Rings.
My problem with the issue begins when people demand that fantasy should have a place in politics and academia.
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
http://www.kinkspace.com
It may seem pointless now, but the history of activism is illustrated with small groups of people who started out simply wanting change.
I'm sure the prospect of slaves having full rights of citizenship seemed fairly pointless even in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, and rightly so. It would take another 100 years for those rights to become enshrined in law.
As far as the Rational Response Squad goes, you have to keep in mind the target audience here is not theists or even atheists - it's those who are on the fence. I think our debates here help keep us sharp and create community. I certainly felt isolated in my atheism until finding RRS.
And most importantly, as we seem to do a good job derailing theist arguments here, we help convince those people who aren't sure.
Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.
Why Believe?
No one wants to discuss the real source of human conflict. Everyone says religion and politics are the source of conflict, not our genetics and our finite resources planet.
So what's the point?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
<.< Y' gotta good point EXC. That is the main problem. I will, however, defend the position of dickering over religion, or rather Faith in my case, baised as I may be. As long as there is blind faith and an obsession with respecting other people's beliefs, no matter how psychotic they might be, you're going to have the blind cover for that silent war over resources. I would be interested in a discussion about the real problems though. aka, genetics and more to the point, resources, because when it all boils down to it, that's what the real argument is all about. How to distribute the fininte resources on our planet.
I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that there is no truth. There either is a sandwich in my refrigerator or there is not. There is either pancake sitting on my head or there is not. God either exists or he doesn't.
There is something true about everything. The truth is going to be what it is regardless of what we believe. That is to say, the truth doesn't operate based on our beliefs. It just is. The problem is the methods we go about finding that truth. If a group of people attempts to attain truth using a book written by uneducated primitive wanderers written thousands of years ago, I think it's pretty important that we correct them. Especially if they use that as a reason to bend and shape our laws. Especially, if they continue to spread the idea that this is a good thing where its application consumes a monumental amount of resources that was otherwise obtained through better means of gaining knowledge.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, if their contribution to society is to pray, while they devour everyone else's contributions, they need to be corrected. Also, in my opinion, our conclusion as to what's going to happen with the rest of our eternity is a pretty important thing to come to.
ah, i can't help but recall the renowned dr. henry jones jr.'s famous differentiation between "fact" and "truth."
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson