I think it’s just people who are tired of paying bills and running the hedonic treadmill. They want it all to end, so they wish for the end of the world. In that way it is very similar to eschatological environmentalism, it’s all people who want the modern world to end.
“Multiple times you implied and directly stated that people who believed this faith-based magic were inferior and dumber than people who believed in some other version of faith-based magic. Which is exactly what I said you did.”
According to my scale, yes, they are dumber than regular christians. We speak here our opinions, don’t we? But you strawmaned me when you said I am drawing arbitrary lines between rationality and faith-based beliefs. I was only drawing the line between two irrational beliefs and comparing them which are more harmful (again, according to my scale). That’s all I did. What you implied or interpreted is your own imagination.
“Are you really going to try to make the argument that simply because something has never happened, ipso facto, it can’t happen? I really thought you were better than that. And “why should it happen now?” Well…Can you tell me why it shouldn’t?”
Because something never happened multiple billions zillions times, then yes, I can quite confidently say it is unlikely if it would happen now. Why should I accept uncritical claims by charlatans? Why should anyone? That was my point. I didn’t say it “can’t” happen. You again misusing my words and try to create a strawman. I dislike such tactics.
“Again, I cannot believe anyone would try to argue religion doesn’t affect how how people live their lives.”
Are you from imagination land? Where I said that "religion doesn’t affect how people live their lives? Quit this dishonest misinterpretation of my words.
"So basically religious beliefs long ago were okay because it was a “cultural thing”…but believing the exact same things today is “bizarre.” If you want to argue that it is more understandable that people would believe in such unbelieveable things back then because knowledge was so primitive and people needed to explain things they couldn’t explain, fine. "
You lost me here. Completely. I think it’s worthless to continue this discussion.
P.S.
“You were literally making a distinction between the people who believed this guy and people who believe everything else the guy believes, save for this one thing about exactly when this event would happen. And according to you, the former are “stupid” and “delusional” people who believe in “nonsense”, while the latter are not. That is nonsense in my opinion.”
I was making a distinction between two irrational beliefs (as I said above) and comparing the harm in believing them. Also I tried to be civil enough not to mock ordinary christians just because they culturally (in my opinion at least) believe in many crazy things, but I always mocked and will mock those, believing in such crazines like homeopathy, 9/11, or raptures. That is nonsense in my opinion. And that’s my subjective scale, I don’t have to explain it to you. I no longer see a world as black and white. Some beliefs, even irrational ones, are less crazy than the other. Just like spanking a kid would be called less violent than cutting his head.
You seem to be sad that I don’t buy your worldview. You really seem (don’t want to offend you) like an angry atheist from RichardDawkins forum (which I used to visit).
Isn’t that essentially the distinction between theism and deism? The theist believes that God exercises a supernatural influence over the observable universe, and the deist believes that God’s influence on the universe, if any, is objectively indistinguishable from natural processes.
Which, as far as I can tell, is based off of nothing more than what you personally believe. Again, exactly like I said.
Oh okay. So what you meant to say is that all Christians believe in “nonsense” and “mere stupidity” and are folly to a “mass delusion”…it’s just that these particular ones are moreso. Is that about the size of it?
What?? What does that even mean? You’re saying that “multiple billions zillions times” the Earth has never ended? What kind of language is that? Again, I could say the same thing for anything. There have been multiple billions zillions times that you’ve never been killed in a car accident. Does that mean it is “unlikely if it would happen” today? Tomorrow? Any day?
And again, I could ask the same thing about what all religious people profess. That was my point.
Just so we’re clear…You’re saying that because something hasn’t happen before, that doesn’t mean it can’t happen, but it means that it is “unlikely to happen now”. You have no way of differentiating “now” from “later” in terms of this event happening, but nonetheless you maintain that while yes, the event can by all rights happen, the odds are somehow greater that it will happen farther in the future as opposed to now. And what accounts for this difference in odds between the present and the future?? The fact that it hasn’t happened in the past.
You have got to be kidding.
Well what are you arguing? I said it dictates virtually every aspect of your life and that that’s what religion basically is: a prescription for how to live your life…and you keep arguing. You responded with “Well, by that meaning anything affects your life, every TV show or every written or read word in every book, though I didn’t want to imply that and take it to such extremes.”
And I pointed out the (what I thought to be) obvious difference between TV and a religion. Honestly if you agree that religion basically is a prescription for how to live your life and does dictate virtually every aspect of it, what are you arguing?
I never said you had to explain anything. I just said you’re not being very logical or consistent.
I didn’t even know we were talking about worldviews. I was just making a point about your inconsistency. You chose to rebut and debate that issue. I enjoy the discussion. I’m not angry in the slightest. I don’t care what you believe in terms of supernatural things. And I’ve never even been to a richard dawkins forum. To be honest, I’ve never read a single thing the guy’s written. So, you’re much farther along with him than I am.
That’s just getting ridiculous, why are you so invested in this? To a simple argument you reply with tons of text and interpretations. This time I won’t try to answer point by point, just say that I am done with this useless debate and your trying to win an argument. If I am being inconsistent, good, maybe I am, but the fact is that your passionate debate only shows your passive agressiveness towards people opinions. As I said, it was all my opinion about other peoples beliefs, why should I care if they are consistent or not? I prefer consistency in objective reality (science for that matter) and philosophy, but mere opinions are just that, mere opinions.
“I don’t care what you believe in terms of supernatural things.”
I don’t. I am an atheist if it was implied question.
So when I address a complete post a piece at a time, it’s a “reply with tons of text and interpretations”…and when you do it it’s an “answer point by point”. Got it.
For someone who accused me of seeming angry you sure do sound like the ticked off one. I’m not invested in anything, I made a comment and you responded, so I responded to your response. It’s called a conversation. There’s nothing to win. As I told you, I enjoy the discussion. I wouldn’t think you’d reply if you didn’t get more utility out of it than if you didn’t. If this annoys you so much I’m not sure why you continued it.
If you don’t have a problem with being illogical and inconsistent, that’s definitely your prerogative. Again, I never said you had to do anything. I simply made the point. If by “passive agressiveness towards people opinions” you mean that I am intolerant of others who just disagree with me, I would have to say you’re simply wrong. There’s nothing wrong with a difference of opinion. I would argue there is something wrong with an absence of logic and consistency in one’s judgement of the mental capacity of others. But again, if you see nothing wrong with that, there’s obviously nothing I can do about that. If you believe inconsistency and an absence of logic can be nullified by a simple “well it’s just my opinion and I’m entitled to it” defense, again, I can’t do anything about that.
But I never meant for you to get so frustrated. I really just thought we were having a discussion. If I annoyed you or hurt your feelings in some way you could have easily told me or simply not responded. I didn’t mean to alienate you in any way. I got the impression most people here (including you) were pretty well able to handle themselves as far as these kinds of conversations go. But if that’s not the case, I apologize.
And no, I was not implying anything about your beliefs nor asking what they were. As my statement clearly says, “I don’t care” what your beliefs are in terms of supernatural things (including if those beliefs are that those things aren’t real). I was just making the point that that was completely irrelevent to the discussion.
Not by a long shot. No one paid him for the ultimate revelation, they just donated to spread a message in which they believed.