religion

[paulgiamatti]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Your biggest problem seems to be that you think because of your world view you are somehow intellectually and morally superior to any and all that do not share same world view.

Not an accurate representation of any of my posts, so I'll just quote myself in hopes that you'll actually read and learn something.

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Atheism doesn't mean exemption from immorality - I've attacked Kagatob plenty of times, and I've questioned leewong as well. More importantly, I question my own morality every single day that I'm alive. I like to debate and I like to argue, but I'm not trying to be condescending or project an air of moral superiority around anyone here. No one is perfect, but this also doesn't mean everyone is equal in their morals - I try to avoid false balance at all costs. Just because two people are arguing doesn't mean you can simply cancel them out and assume they're both equally wrong or equally right. Objectivity has nothing to do with impartiality. I am extremely skeptical of people who are unbiased or impartial about everything.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Do I really need to make another post demonstrating what intellectual honesty is? Instead of just believing that a supreme infallible creator is responsible for everything and also decides for us what is moral and immoral - a worldview that is immoral by definition - I allow myself to learn things.

Crazy concept, huh? It's pretty weird how this science thing works, I know. It goes out into the real world and observes and discovers things, and changes the way we think about things in the process. It's called learning.

I believe we know nothing, and I believe that anyone who thinks they have the answers to the universe, just like religion does, is very likely wrong and definitely immoral.

You claim to strive for truth and intellectual honesty. You claim you love to learn new things and expand your knowledge. Yet, you admit that your worldview is based off of lack of knowledge, as if that somehow makes you intellectually superior by leaving room for advancement. Well have fun with your lack of knowledge of the universe. You won't offend me by remaining willfully ignorant of anything that might challenge your lack of knowledge. I am confident in my knowledge of the universe. I don't feel that i know everything about everything, but i don't need to in order to form a concrete belief in God and morality. I don't feel the need to backpedal and speak in half measures about subjects like morality and right and wrong. And for that I am thankful.
If you admit you have no clue about the universe, then why is it that you feel so vehemently that the bible or any other holy book is wrong? Maybe your lack of knowledge is restricting you from seeing an obvious truth.

[paulgiamatti]

That's not even worth responding to. Complete misconstrual of anything I've written, and if the only person that can subscribe to your fundamentally flawed line of thinking is RobotElvis, then I have nothing else to say.

But sure, yeah, you happen to know that there is a creator of the universe because you thought long and hard about it while taking a shit one morning. It just happened to occur to you based on no evidence and no rationality that that is the way things are. Never mind science and observation and experimentation and physics and cosmology, we don't need any of that nonsense. Let's just imagine things are the way they are, because it sounds nice to us, and then accuse anyone else who doesn't subscribe to the same notions as being close-minded.

Never mind actually admitting to the things we don't know, we can just pretend we know things! Then we'll try to convince others to do the same, but get this - instead of calling it willful ignorance, let's call it confidence!

[paulgiamatti]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

science has the responsibility of informing us on a fundamental level what is good and what is bad.

Rereading this, I think I'd change "good and bad" to "natural and unnatural". Good and bad are probably more subject to human rationality, although science can certainly tell us how some things are obviously good for us or obviously bad for us.

[paulgiamatti]

No, "scientism" is a perfect example of shitty jargon invented by people who don't understand science.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, "scientism" is a perfect example of shitty jargon invented by people who don't understand science.

Ah. So you think it was invented by religious types to deflect interest in real science. Nope.

[paulgiamatti]

And now the ad hominems - the desperate last resort of the side that knows they've lost the argument. You can mischaracterize me all you want, but no one's buying it.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And now the ad hominems - the desperate last resort of the side that knows they've lost the argument. You can mischaracterize me all you want, but no one's buying it.

Ad hominem? You mean like this?
"But sure, yeah, you happen to know that there is a creator of the universe because you thought long and hard about it while taking a shit one morning."

[paulgiamatti]

That's an attack on belief without evidence, not on you personally. I used you as an example - and no, I'm not sorry.

[Glenzig]

You misunderstand my belief and seek to distract from my posts by raising uninformed and meaningless objections that seek to undermine my credibility without intellectual evidence. That's ad hominem. The post was a direct response to mine and directed at me.