Hotter, Badder, and Unpopularer Takes

[Karpatsky]

EC, have you ever seriously wondered if like....you’re wrong? Like, what if you die and actually do go to whatever form of hell (literal or more metaphorical) exists? Does that not trouble you even a little bit? If I’m wrong, I just rot in the ground. But if you’re wrong...?

This did used to get to me, until I kept hearing the same thing from people with all sorts of incompatible belief systems. Are you not troubled about burning in the hells of any of the other hundreds of religions? In most cases that I've heard, righteous pagans (or equivalent) get off better than infidels, and there are too many to roll the dice on one in particular, don't you think?

[MasterJedi]

EC, have you ever seriously wondered if like....you’re wrong? Like, what if you die and actually do go to whatever form of hell (literal or more metaphorical) exists? Does that not trouble you even a little bit? If I’m wrong, I just rot in the ground. But if you’re wrong...?

This did used to get to me, until I kept hearing the same thing from people with all sorts of incompatible belief systems. Are you not troubled about burning in the hells of any of the other hundreds of religions? In most cases that I've heard, righteous pagans (or equivalent) get off better than infidels, and there are too many to roll the dice on one in particular, don't you think?

As South Park said, the correct answer was Mormon, please enjoy your stay in the lake of fire.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Again, you are demanding FACTS that serve as 100% certified evidence when such a standard is not remotely feasible. That standard is like letting obvious criminals go free because you did not witness the crime happen. Evidence is available for the taking. Your line of thinking totally disregards the goodness offered by having faith in life and in discovering truth. But you have the freedom to decline access to that virtue and stick to only what you can see.

You can say that you have lifted a 1500 pound car with your bare hands and then be unable to lift a table later that day thanks to something like hysterical strength. Oddities do happen. I don't know what supposed miracles happened in history or which one in the Bible were unable to be understood by humans of the time - whether they are all divine miracles, logic-defying oddities or allegory to teach, I cannot say. Nor do I say with complete certainty that there is a deity. Any of those explanations are reasonable. Your dismissiveness of the other side being reasonable when it very clearly is very reasonable is one of the most embittering instances in politics today that creates the constant fury. You literally did is yet again to Tom who gave a verbose but reasonable response. "Words n stuff" is something you do to a loon rather than someone speaking very rationally. It only makes you look like the loon to all but a tiny subset of cretins.

Regardless of whether of not there is a deity, I don't think it matters all that much. The values created by (modern western though probably some other) religion largely continue to be extremely relevant in maintaining a successful and happy life

[Karpatsky]

  I see religion as a remnant of our more primitive past where we didn't have science and made up Gods and Goddesses just to explain things that science can easily explain now. there is simply no need for religion in modern society, and the sooner it's eradicated to the dust bin of history, the better.

I disagree strongly with you on this one. I think religion plays a vital role in modern society in constraining those who are incapable of independent moral thought, which I believe is a much larger population than most of us would like to think. There are people out there who believe that moral and ethical rules are derived solely from divinity and enforced only by the pain of divine retribution - can you imagine what this sort of people would do if freed from that threat?

I don't think it's a coincidence that most serial killers tend to be nonbelievers - there are a lot of people who simply wouldn't think twice about harming their fellow man for their own gain without the threat of punishment hanging over their head, and unfortunately, the existence of such killers show that our current justice system is insufficient to completely deter them.

Forming an independent moral system requires high-level thought and good parenting and education, and our society is nowhere near being able to provide that to everyone. Until then, I am very happy that those who don't feel that they have something breathing down their back to prevent them from harming me.

I've never met anyone of any belief system who fully agrees with me on this take, by the way, so hopefully it's unpopular enough to re-rail the thread.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

  I see religion as a remnant of our more primitive past where we didn't have science and made up Gods and Goddesses just to explain things that science can easily explain now. there is simply no need for religion in modern society, and the sooner it's eradicated to the dust bin of history, the better.

I disagree strongly with you on this one. I think religion plays a vital role in modern society in constraining those who are incapable of independent moral thought, which I believe is a much larger population than most of us would like to think. There are people out there who believe that moral and ethical rules are derived solely from divinity and enforced only by the pain of divine retribution - can you imagine what this sort of people would do if freed from that threat?

I don't think it's a coincidence that most serial killers tend to be nonbelievers - there are a lot of people who simply wouldn't think twice about harming their fellow man for their own gain without the threat of punishment hanging over their head, and unfortunately, the existence of such killers show that our current justice system is insufficient to completely deter them.

Forming an independent moral system requires high-level thought and good parenting and education, and our society is nowhere near being able to provide that to everyone. Until then, I am very happy that those who don't feel that they have something breathing down their back to prevent them from harming me.

I've never met anyone of any belief system who fully agrees with me on this take, by the way, so hopefully it's unpopular enough to re-rail the thread.

I don't see how religion prevents people from doing terrible things, in fact, religion inspires just as many people to do terrible things as it does to do good things, and there is no good deed tat can be done by a believer that can't be done by someone who doesn't believe. the idea that we need religion to give people morals or a sense of right vs. wrong is simply not true. I go by a very simple moral code: don't be an asshole, and treat others the way you would like to be treated.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Religion is a remnant of our more primitive past, just like eating and sex. It's really time we get beyond that sort of thing.

[afleitch]

Religion is a remnant of our more primitive past, just like eating and sex. It's really time we get beyond that sort of thing.

I know. I can't pass a flock of pigeons without them praying. And my cat keeps making offerings to it's saviour.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Religion is a remnant of our more primitive past, just like eating and sex. It's really time we get beyond that sort of thing.

LOL what?! humans have to eat to survive, and have to have sex to reproduce so the species survives. we definitely don't need religion to survive.


You're comparing two very natural things to something that is the opposite of natural. all animals must eat and reproduce to survive, but humans are the only ones who have made up magical deity's to make themselves feel better about their lack of understanding.

[RINO Tom]

Religion is a remnant of our more primitive past, just like eating and sex. It's really time we get beyond that sort of thing.

LOL what?! humans have to eat to survive, and have to have sex to reproduce so the species survives. we definitely don't need religion to survive.


You're comparing two very natural things to something that is the opposite of natural. all animals must eat and reproduce to survive, but humans are the only ones who have made up magical deity's to make themselves feel better about their lack of understanding.

Again, you deliberately dumb down the debate to make your own viewpoint look smarter in comparison and refuse to accept that many people who believe in a higher power don't "need" to; they simply do.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Religion is a remnant of our more primitive past, just like eating and sex. It's really time we get beyond that sort of thing.

LOL what?! humans have to eat to survive, and have to have sex to reproduce so the species survives. we definitely don't need religion to survive.


You're comparing two very natural things to something that is the opposite of natural. all animals must eat and reproduce to survive, but humans are the only ones who have made up magical deity's to make themselves feel better about their lack of understanding.

Again, you deliberately dumb down the debate to make your own viewpoint look smarter in comparison and refuse to accept that many people who believe in a higher power don't "need" to; they simply do.

I didn't say otherwise, I realize that people who believe in a "higher power" simply choose to do so rather than there being some inherent biological or natural reason to do so. but comparing religion to eating or sex is just patently absurd, it's like if I compared using the internet to breathing. the internet and religion are both things we absolutely do not need to survive, while having sex, eating, and breathing are inherently things we must have/do to survive.

[RINO Tom]

Religion is a remnant of our more primitive past, just like eating and sex. It's really time we get beyond that sort of thing.

LOL what?! humans have to eat to survive, and have to have sex to reproduce so the species survives. we definitely don't need religion to survive.


You're comparing two very natural things to something that is the opposite of natural. all animals must eat and reproduce to survive, but humans are the only ones who have made up magical deity's to make themselves feel better about their lack of understanding.

Again, you deliberately dumb down the debate to make your own viewpoint look smarter in comparison and refuse to accept that many people who believe in a higher power don't "need" to; they simply do.

I didn't say otherwise, I realize that people who believe in a "higher power" simply choose to do so rather than there being some inherent biological or natural reason to do so. but comparing religion to eating or sex is just patently absurd, it's like if I compared using the internet to breathing. the internet and religion are both things we absolutely do not need to survive, while having sex, eating, and breathing are inherently things we must have/do to survive.

I'm not agreeing with shua's comparison, but you literally have never once discussed non-atheists on this site without implying that they believe what they do because, in some way, it makes them feel better and for no other meaningful reason like coming to the well thought out conclusion that they think the most likely scenario for the Universe in its current state is an intelligent agent outside of space-time.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Religion is a remnant of our more primitive past, just like eating and sex. It's really time we get beyond that sort of thing.

LOL what?! humans have to eat to survive, and have to have sex to reproduce so the species survives. we definitely don't need religion to survive.


You're comparing two very natural things to something that is the opposite of natural. all animals must eat and reproduce to survive, but humans are the only ones who have made up magical deity's to make themselves feel better about their lack of understanding.

Again, you deliberately dumb down the debate to make your own viewpoint look smarter in comparison and refuse to accept that many people who believe in a higher power don't "need" to; they simply do.

I didn't say otherwise, I realize that people who believe in a "higher power" simply choose to do so rather than there being some inherent biological or natural reason to do so. but comparing religion to eating or sex is just patently absurd, it's like if I compared using the internet to breathing. the internet and religion are both things we absolutely do not need to survive, while having sex, eating, and breathing are inherently things we must have/do to survive.

I'm not agreeing with shua's comparison, but you literally have never once discussed non-atheists on this site without implying that they believe what they do because, in some way, it makes them feel better and for no other meaningful reason like coming to the well thought out conclusion that they think the most likely scenario for the Universe in its current state is an intelligent agent outside of space-time.

I'll agree to that. some people do in fact come to the conclusion that a deity exists based on their interpretation of facts and evidence, and while I strongly disagree with their opinion, it's just that, an opinion - and they're entitled to it. I believe that religion started as a way to explain things that were unexplainable at that time and as a way for humans to cope with their inevitable mortality, but I'm not saying that's still why people are religious. there are many different reasons why someone might choose to believe in a higher power, I'm not denying that. I'm simply saying I believe, based on the best scientific data, that the facts are on my side. I am NOT saying I believe my atheism makes me better than believers, and in fact, my significant other and many of my family members are religious and I still love most of them and think highly of them.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Your commitment to science is the problem, you dingus. Of course you can't prove the existence of something that defies the laws of the universe when your standard for it's existence is that it abides by the laws of the universe and can be recorded doing so.

As much as religions have repeatedly tried to establish themselves as epistemological special snowflakes as they are relegated to 'gods of the gaps', they are just as much as scientific theories claims about the literal nature of the universe. If you want to believe, that's your prerogative, but you have no right to talk down to someone who demands of your claims the same basic standard of reasoning we hold literally every other claim about the world to.

This is exactly right. if I claimed that I was the son of God, came about from a virgin birth, and had the power to turn wine into water, everyone would laugh and say I'm insane, yet Christians actually believe this crap. it's 100% nonsense that has no basis in science or reality. many of the stories in the Bible also are scientifically impossible.

     Of course they're physically impossible. That is why they are called miracles. Given that the ability to accomplish the impossible is key to the testimonials of Christ, as attested to by those who saw Him, this argument misses the mark and as such is unconvincing.

Miracles aren't real, there's zero evidence for them. you can't accomplish the impossible otherwise it wouldn't be impossible in the first place.

     They are only impossible physically. He who operates beyond the physical can accomplish them, and Christ did so in the Gospels.

You're missing the main point - E_C isn't arguing that your claims aren't technically logically consistent, but that you aren't providing a compelling reason why they should be believed. This argument would hold weight were there credible evidence of true miracles beyond the physically possible occurring, but the fact is that Iron Age testimonials and pictures on toast do not qualify as such.

     Demanding scientific proof of the physically impossible misses the main point of my argument, because science is the empirical study of physical reality. I won't insist that you must believe, but it is a serious methodological error to apply inappropriate methods to address the question at hand. Note that me saying this isn't simply religious apologetics either; the practice of scientism is frequently criticized by philosophers of science, many of whom are not religious.

[Xing]

Getting back to the topic at hand: No one has any idea who the most "electable" candidate really is, and there isn't really any way to know before the election.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

EC in this thread:

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Generation X doesn't exist. The older half are post-Boomers and the younger half are pre-Millennials.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

EC in this thread:

No. I don't claim to be enlightened (my name is purely a joke), and I also do not claim to be a genius or posses a "vast intellect". I am of average intelligence at best.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Religion is a remnant of our more primitive past, just like eating and sex. It's really time we get beyond that sort of thing.

I know. I can't pass a flock of pigeons without them praying. And my cat keeps making offerings to it's saviour.

If only the poor beasts could science, they wouldn't need such superstitions

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Adding a hot take of my own, bicyclists going on major streets should have to carry a license. Make them more responsible for their actions rather than doing whatever and endangering everyone.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

     Adding a hot take of my own, bicyclists going on major streets should have to carry a license. Make them more responsible for their actions rather than doing whatever and endangering everyone.

Making people go to the DMV is anti-worker.

[RINO Tom]

    Adding a hot take of my own, bicyclists going on major streets should have to carry a license. Make them more responsible for their actions rather than doing whatever and endangering everyone.

Making people go to the DMV is anti-worker.

Amen!

While we are on the roads, there is a special place in hell for someone going 30 mph in a 35 like a ing loser but then still cruising at 30 mph right through the 20 speed limit school zone.  They clearly don't give a rat's ass about safety, they're just off in lala land.  Again, slow drivers tend to be worse and more dangerous drivers than fast ones, on average.

[MasterJedi]

     Adding a hot take of my own, bicyclists going on major streets should have to carry a license. Make them more responsible for their actions rather than doing whatever and endangering everyone.

Law says to share the road, usually it's some asshole driver who tries to clip them on purpose because he doesn't know the law or passing in the bike lane. All bike lanes should be protected, and drivers need to be severely prosecuted for their illegal activity.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

     Adding a hot take of my own, bicyclists going on major streets should have to carry a license. Make them more responsible for their actions rather than doing whatever and endangering everyone.

So true! Bicyclists have no respect for the rules of the road and are constantly the cause of nearly every problem I see on the road. I don't drive, but it's very obvious who is in the wrong from the pedestrian's perspective.

[MasterJedi]

     Adding a hot take of my own, bicyclists going on major streets should have to carry a license. Make them more responsible for their actions rather than doing whatever and endangering everyone.

So true! Bicyclists have no respect for the rules of the road and are constantly the cause of nearly every problem I see on the road. I don't drive, but it's very obvious who is in the wrong from the pedestrian's perspective.

Good thing the law says you're wrong!

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

    Adding a hot take of my own, bicyclists going on major streets should have to carry a license. Make them more responsible for their actions rather than doing whatever and endangering everyone.

So true! Bicyclists have no respect for the rules of the road and are constantly the cause of nearly every problem I see on the road. I don't drive, but it's very obvious who is in the wrong from the pedestrian's perspective.

Good thing the law says you're wrong!

The law says it is okay for them to bike the wrong way down the middle of a one way street? Go through red lights pre-emptively before it is safe? Bulldozing pedestrians over? Dangerously weaving through traffic? All extremely frequent occurrences. None of that is to mention the juvenile flash mobs who intentionally intimidate cars by faking them out by riding on one wheel and violently shaking back and forth towards each car's windshield. That's just the normal stuff. I can't help but think of who's poor mothers have to deal with the more severe bikers' intimidation.

Not all bikers are bad here. Those brave enough to go on the Parkway know the hand signals. But the streets? Totally unsafe. I respect the road enough to only bike where I am supposed to. A very rare thing.