2285: Follow the Money

[DaveNJ]

Yeah, I agree. My issue is just more with the focus on the sausage casing. I think it can be a red herring that allows people to argue about how we ought to justify what we do rather than take a look at what we're actually doing. And I'm not even completely against every action governments take in a complex geopolitical climate, but we should at least make decisions based on the actions themselves, not the PR campaign.

[Sparrow]

agreed.

but, we must still deal with the sea of herring ending up in our stomachs. it'll ease the constant belly aching.

[Mattman]

Originally Posted by MichaelApproved

An evidence-based rational thought process got us to the moon and also got us the computers we're communicating over. Advancements in human history are attributed to evidence-based rational thought process. It's kind of a big deal and a valuable tool for humanity.

Of course. My point was that people of faith are given the answer to the question "how did we all get here". Atheists have to work it out for themselves. And that is why atheists tend to stand by their way of thinking more strongly, or in some cases attack and belittle those who follow a faith-based ideology.

And many of mankind's achievements came from people with great faith, so they are no dumber than people whose ideology is based on fact and evidence alone.

[sinelex]

Another atheist here...religion should not get a free pass. It should be debated, discussed and satirized just like any other topic in our society. Perhaps even more so given the current state of US politics. I'll admit, Chemda's dialogue in this show made me uncomfortable, but that is what is needed. Making religion comfortable has warped the entire conversation to the point where it is not really a conversation. We have devolved into a shouting match. Just like "congress." Keep it coming, Chemda.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Mattman

My point was that people of faith are given the answer to the question "how did we all get here". Atheists have to work it out for themselves. And that is why atheists tend to stand by their way of thinking more strongly, or in some cases attack and belittle those who follow a faith-based ideology.

And many of mankind's achievements came from people with great faith, so they are no dumber than people whose ideology is based on fact and evidence alone.

Faith based answers to those questions are mythologies. they are stories. they are literature. empirically crap in terms of how we actually got here. like, the theory our precious humanity smashed into the earth's face as bacteria on a comet is more credible than 'God said.'

sometimes i have to say these things out loud to feel sane and settled. you want to talk about belittling others?! did you witness the gay marriage thing? i have half a dozen radio stations in my car telling me i deserve to burn for eternity.

those same learned men didn't know about germs. i still wash my hands.

[Sparrow]

that being said, there's no reason to fly off the handle at the believers. religion is an idea. it's not something you can make comfortable or not comfortable. /people/ can be made comfortable and uncomfortable and, generally speaking in my own experience, getting someone to roll over on themselves like that takes a strong honey.

[Los]

Originally Posted by sinelex

Another atheist here...religion should not get a free pass. It should be debated, discussed and satirized just like any other topic in our society.

Religion might be the one topic that can't be debated since it isn't based on evidence from either side. Unless you've come back from the dead and brought hard evidence about the afterlife with you, your position is based on personal belief. The true test of whether or not you're open to learning the truth is the ability to admit that you don't know, and that anything is possible. Only agnostics seem to be capable of this.

The issue is that atheists are trying to argue with a new class of religious people - they don't attend church or proselytize, and have no problem picking and choosing what they follow in religious texts, but have a belief that helps them get through life. This type of evolution of a belief system is how new religious are created.

They keep their beliefs to themselves (a good recommendation found in the bible), and don't assign them to others, but will undoubtedly get attacked when asked about them; atheists critize any sort of belief, religious people say they're not religious enough. Having an argument about religious fanaticism with someone in this group is counterproductive, and you'll know if this is the type of person you're talking to if you actually listen to them. Verbally beating the other person down until they either agree with you or give up is easier though.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Los

Verbally beating the other person down until they either agree with you or give up is [more fun] though.

FTFY

[DaveNJ]

Originally Posted by Los

Religion might be the one topic that can't be debated since it isn't based on evidence from either side. Unless you've come back from the dead and brought hard evidence about the afterlife with you, your position is based on personal belief. The true test of whether or not you're open to learning the truth is the ability to admit that you don't know, and that anything is possible. Only agnostics seem to be capable of this.

The issue is that atheists are trying to argue with a new class of religious people - they don't attend church or proselytize, and have no problem picking and choosing what they follow in religious texts, but have a belief that helps them get through life. This type of evolution of a belief system is how new religious are created.

They keep their beliefs to themselves (a good recommendation found in the bible), and don't assign them to others, but will undoubtedly get attacked when asked about them; atheists critize any sort of belief, religious people say they're not religious enough. Having an argument about religious fanaticism with someone in this group is counterproductive, and you'll know if this is the type of person you're talking to if you actually listen to them. Verbally beating the other person down until they either agree with you or give up is easier though.

The need to get people to agree with you and join your tribe doesn't go away. You can convince yourself you're doing the right kind of proselytizing, but that's the rationale of literally every preacher out there. Some people feel the calling, some don't. I'm very happy I don't.

[Los]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

FTFY

Arguing over religion is the least fun thing I can think of, but ok.

Originally Posted by DaveNJ

The need to get people to agree with you and join your tribe doesn't go away.

Unless there's money in it, I don't get anything from you agreeing with me. I guess I feel better for a minute. I don't get it.