Are you like this face-to-face? page 2

160 posts

Flag Post

Online I tend to just be sarcastic or take the piss out of religion – never the person, just the thing, and I can be pretty unpleasant towards it. I admit it’s probably one of my less-desirable traits.

In the real world… I won’t load up the sarcasm or take the piss if I’m discussing something with a friend, because that’d be disrespectful to a person I know and like.

Any other discussion would be with a stranger, and at first I’d be politely dismissive – eg, a Jehovah’s Witness knocking on my door gets a pleasant smile and a ‘no thanks’. If they insist on speaking about it I tend to stay polite but make it perfectly clear I think they’re talking crap. And if they really want to have an argument about religion, I’ll be rude.

So I’m hardly a belligerent troll, but I freely admit I’m a more respectful person in the real world than I am on the internet, like most people are whether they realise it or not. A face will always get a more understanding and tactful response than a line of text, because it’s far easier to consider what impact one may have on the feelings of the face.

Empathy doesn’t reach through a hundred miles of phoneline quite as well as it reaches through a foot of clear air.

 
Flag Post

I’m always open to hear out someone’s honest opinion, but inflammatory generalizations usually just outrage people to the point of squawking out horrible hateful sociopolitical parrot monologues which aren’t even relevant to what people really think or feel.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

When atheists do stuff wrong, you get a bunch of excuses for why they act like that, or how it’s fair because other people are wrong too (am I right arbitor).

No, you’re not right, because you’re generalising when not providing any evidence for it at all.

Just like how some atheists claim on the internet how anyone who is religous is a massogonistic, rape-supporting, “bible-thumping” murder-er?

Most atheists that are either untolerating or just out too piss people off claim anyone who believes in a god supports rape, is anti-abortion (I am pro choice; do what you want as long as you know there will be some kind of reprecussion), undermines women and will easily murder everyone in the name of Vishnu, God, Zeus, whoever.

Sure, history has shown that theists used to be like that, but we are much more advanced today.

 
Flag Post

I tear down Christians whenever possible. This includes real life.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:My only concern now is to say that atheists are somewhat of a minority in America and aren’t treated very well. That could lead to some actions and people justifying those actions due to hatred of bigotry.

I’m going to punch your mom in the face. When you complain I’ll point out in what ways I am a minority. That justifies my actions, right?

Originally posted by OmegaDoom:
Originally posted by MyTie:

Let me make an illustration for you then, and don’t take it as an insult, as your friends don’t.


Imagine that you and I are sitting at a table having a debate. I put forward my points in a logical fashion, and then you pull down your pants, bend over on the table, pull your cheeks apart, and push out a nutty brown loaf. That’s how some atheists act on the internet. I don’t care if your friends like the smell of your shit. I don’t.


oh look, some has watched South Park!


but really, the amount of crap from theists will always be far larger than the amound of crap from atheists. please point to any such brown loafs you find particularly smelly…

I don’t think there is a way of measuring the amount of poo that comes from either side. This thread is about the atheist side of that. Let’s not cover it up, or argue how it’s warranted, or fair, or whatever. Those arguments are what really grind my gears.

 
Flag Post

We’ve been over the omnipotence paradox and how it can be used to disprove any religion in which a deity is declared to be omnipotent; right?

 
Flag Post

^you mean like the stone that is heavyer than infinitely heavy?

yeah i always hate that argument cause it’s just a stupid word trick, and doesn’t prove anything.

 
Flag Post

It isn’t a word trick at all. If X is omnipotent, X can create a scenario that it can not resolve. If there is a scenario it cannot resolve, it is not omnipotent.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Captain_Catface:

It isn’t a word trick at all. If X is omnipotent, X can create a scenario that it can not resolve. If there is a scenario it cannot resolve, it is not omnipotent.

Your premise is wrong I think. If you define X to be omnipotent within the rules of logic, he creating a scenario he can’t resolve is outside the rules of logic. But if you define X to be omnipotent outside of logic, then you have a whole different situation.

 
Flag Post

When you complain I’ll point out in what ways I am a minority.

Are you not treated well? Is bigotry and hatred coming to you? Is it coming from a group of people I’m part of? If any of these questions are answered by “no”, you don’t have a leg to stand on. But you don’t any way, since I’ve never said that I completely justify their actions. I’m merely wishing their treatment to be better so none of those actions will happen.

About omnipotence, there are also definitions which state an omnipotent being can do everything which is logically possible, and doesn’t create inherent contradictions. You can say that’s a stupid definition, but let’s just say we both agree inherent contradictions aren’t possible.

 
Flag Post

I have thankfully only experienced the same levels of belief-system based intolerance a few times, face to face. When it does occur, I tend to get up in theirs. The one time that really sticks in my mind, was when a father did not wish his baby girl to be given prosthetics (even when the NHS is paying for them) because to his mind, god had denied her them for a reason. We would be defying god to give her them. I have to say I have never met a more dispicable man. The girl was three, and her legs had never properly formed.

Hopefully when she’s older she’ll be able to take the difficult road of learning to walk and get out of that damn chair his belief and intrangience condemned her to spend her childhood in when it didn’t need to be that way. That kind of rampant stupidity always angers me, and I tend to give them a piece of my mind, online or off.

 
Flag Post

Religion doesn’t really come up in real life. No one ever screams “God is real, debate me”.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Moderated:

Religion doesn’t really come up in real life. No one ever screams “God is real, debate me”.

I once had a conversation like this with someone from a Christian free church, although it was all in good spirit. After half an hour we concluded that each of us apparently has found what he is the happiest with right now and I got a book for free too. It was about Jesus Christ being a historical figure. The opening argument was that his description in the Bible is so detailed and believable that he must have existed. I never read any further.

 
Flag Post

I guess its the annoymity of the internet, combined with the way some Christians can be assholes to aethists, and the annoying, loud, media dominating fundamentalists America has who are only a small minority of Christians and make most of us face palm, but our put on a platform for all of the country and get to shout their inane views into everyone’s ears, and certain people build up resentment and vent it out online.

 
Flag Post

I hate to say it, but ‘serious discussion’ actually isn’t a very good name for this forum really. A more appropriate name might be ‘ridiculous discussion’ or ‘silly discussion’ or maybe even ‘wishful thinking discussion’. For every single decent post there are at least 10 to 15 useless posts that hold no logic or insight or show that the writer has actually used their brains for more than 10 seconds.

Most topics themselves have been rehashed to endless repetition. I’m pretty sure most people have seen their viewpoints made clear on at least 5 different occasions and if they really wanted to, all discussions could be reduced to quoting old posts.

I used to write some stuff in here, but gave up years ago, been watching the forum again for a week or so now, but instead of getting better it seems to have only gotten worse. So if you’re disappointed by this sub-forum, I would simply suggest to move on and let the majority of the ones that wish to reside here bask in their ignorance and those that are either too stubborn or too good-at-heart to let others go uneducated or simply too new to the forum or maybe even enjoying themselves try their best to show this actually can be a ‘serious’ discussion forum.
<sceptic>Come back in a year or so and see that it hasn’t (or has, surprise us!) improved.</sceptic>

Then again, serious doesn’t necessarily imply insightful and well thought out, so maybe my expectations are just wrong! xD

(author prepares to get either ignored or bashed ^^ )

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:

It was about Jesus Christ being a historical figure. The opening argument was that his description in the Bible is so detailed and believable that he must have existed. I never read any further.

EPR, do you remember the name of that book please? It sounds like the sort of thing that might be very useful in a fantasy campaign setting, as backstory for the dogma of the believers of religion X.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Captain_Catface:

We’ve been over the omnipotence paradox and how it can be used to disprove any religion in which a deity is declared to be omnipotent; right?

No, we haven’t. Enlighten me.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Captain_Catface:

It isn’t a word trick at all. If X is omnipotent, X can create a scenario that it can not resolve. If there is a scenario it cannot resolve, it is not omnipotent.

that’s only if you define “omnipotent”, or allcapable, as including the ability to do things outside of the logically possible. which is just a silly definition.

if we take the rock example, but use volume instead of weight, it becomes quite clear how ridiculous it is. if the universe (space) is finite, obviously God (assuming) would be able to create a rock too big for it. but clearly God can create an infinite universe.

then, no rock of any possible size would be too big for the universe. so no, God would not be able to create a rock that is too big for an infinite universe. iow: God would not be able to create a rock that is larger than infinitely large. so what? it can still create a rock of ANY size it wants, because there is no size larger than infinite. so he would still be omnipotent.

this is, when layed out, your argument. all you are saying is that God cannot create a rock heavyer than infinitely heavy. no such weight exists. he can still create a rock of any weight.

you may just as well claim that God wouldn’t be able to create a rock that weighs exactly one crapuncas, because we have no definition of one crapuncas. it’s a really bad argument.

furthermore, it could be suggested that even though God may be omnipotent, it only means He has the potential to do everything, but that it doesn’t nevessarily imply he can do anything he wants effortlessly. thus, the more effort he would put in to creating the rock, the more effort would be required to lift it.

this ability ecomposses everything. just not thing of non-existing definitions, because that just doens’t make any sense.

sometimes i can get so pissed off at how stupid slogans like that get thrown around by everyone…i realise how arrogant i’m sounding but honestly…ah, forget it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Moderated:

Religion doesn’t really come up in real life. No one ever screams “God is real, debate me”.

The semantic equivalent of that is “God isn’t real! Debate me!” as that invites “God is real! Debate me!” as an implication/ vice versa. The ends justify the means. If you say that the absence of debate potential of the aformentioned status renders religion pointless, then isn’t atheism at least just as pointless in hindsight as to the qualifying criterion of potential? xD The only way to say otherwise is to admit the significance of religion. All joking aside, your point is so flawed in so many different ways that I won’t even begin listing them (except for this sentence as my description was a metaphysical argument as to the failure in your reasoning).

I haven’t encountered even one aggressive atheist in RL. Just goes to show people are all bipolar. I’m serious about that. My hypothesis is that bipolarality <?> is an innately latent condition of which is triggered by certain mechanisms and it is the troubles with those mechanisms that causes one to sporadically fluctuate between mental states of which clinically registers as so-called insanity. “Double-standards” are naturally existing, birth necessities.

 
Flag Post

∞>∞=∞<∞

Infinity is a really really painful subject when it comes to math.

 
Flag Post
My hypothesis is that bipolarality <?> is an innately latent condition of which is triggered by certain mechanisms and it is the troubles with those mechanisms that causes one to sporadically fluctuate between mental states of which clinically registers as so-called insanity.

there should be a comma before “and”. “of which” should just be “which”. and the last part “of which clinically registers as so-called insanity” is just plain wrong.

i’ve found you out. you are so bad with words, you have no choice but to obfuscate with your grandiloquence and stretch it out with your verbosity; you can’t speak normal English. you can only spam lexicon in large, improperly conjuncted chains.

 
Flag Post

simeng, I think the behavior of people online comes from anonymity. People, at their hearts, are usually cowards.

I’ve never met an atheist who will be an opinionated jerk to your face… well… except… I do have an atheistic uncle who is a blunt opinionated straight shooter. He is hilarious, though, and a very very nice person. When he goes off, I know that it’s nothing personal at anyone, just his opinions. We get along very very well, even though our opinions on politics/religion have nothing in common. We both like beer, steak, movies, music, ,etc… We have a lot in common, including the ability to not take other’s opinions personally.

That’s the other component of this. People on the internet become personally affronted by people’s opinions or insults. When people go off on me on the internet, I think it’s either funny, or just kind of skim over it. So, you’ve got half of people who don’t mind being jerks, and the other half of people who become personally indignant at the other half. It’s a mess.

Either everyone has opinions and no one should care, or everyone should care and we should all hold hands and get along. We can’t have it both ways, and we certainly can’t have it so only the opinions that agree with us are displayed and everyone likes us personally. That’s just not the way it works, internet or otherwise.

 
Flag Post

Wait a sex…you cried ‘victim’ so many times MyTie…what couldn’t you of been more “

When people go off on me on the internet, I think it’s either funny, or just kind of skim over it.
” on the other threads?

But anyhow, I think it’s easier to be ‘rude’ towards ‘faceless’ strangers that you have very strong clashing opinions with.
But then again I have had some heated arguments face to face…I wll point out though that I don’t go ‘seeking’ debates about religion in real life, but if someone sits down next to me and tries to tell me that atheist scientists are conspiriing against God…well, I have to say something. But on the whole, most religious people I argue in real life with are decent, down to earth people that just happen to believe in something I think is imaginary.

 
Flag Post

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

Wait a sex…you cried ‘victim’ so many times MyTie…what couldn’t you of been more “

When people go off on me on the internet, I think it’s either funny, or just kind of skim over it.

” on the other threads?


But anyhow, I think it’s easier to be ‘rude’ towards ‘faceless’ strangers that you have very strong clashing opinions with.
But then again I have had some heated arguments face to face…I wll point out though that I don’t go ‘seeking’ debates about religion in real life, but if someone sits down next to me and tries to tell me that atheist scientists are conspiriing against God…well, I have to say something. But on the whole, most religious people I argue in real life with are decent, down to earth people that just happen to believe in something I think is imaginary.

See, like this post, flabby, I just read the first sentence. It’s pointed and insulting, so I just kind of skimmed over the rest. Nothing I saw noteworthy, so I’m just going to dismiss it. And you wonder why I don’t answer many of your questions. Try to approach the debate without heaving out a smelly mud monkey on the middle of the table.