Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Cracked's Atheists and Theists article...

tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 9:14:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Actually called "10 things Christians and Atheists can agree on".

http://www.cracked.com...

Absolutely brilliant article which should be mandatory reading for anyone who wants to argue on these forums. I agree with all ten things by the way.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 10:27:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 9:45:40 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
3, 4, and 10 were true

01. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One
02. Both Sides Really Do Believe What They're Saying
03. In Everyday Life, You're Not That Different
04. There Are Good People on Both Sides
05. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them
06. We Tend to Exaggerate About the Other Guy
07. We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, Too
08. Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You Stupid
09. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table
10. You'll Never Harass the Other Side Out of Existence

The only reason I can see for not agreeing with all of them (assuming you read the article and not just the headers) is that you're just stubborn and probably proving 6 and 7 to be correct.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 10:42:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Great article. However, since I have an opinion and therefore I have to criticize something, the author talked quite a bit about how atheists contradict themselves by... having emotions. Yeah. Apparently you cannot believe solely in science and also have emotions.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 10:43:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 10:27:24 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 7/10/2012 9:45:40 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
3, 4, and 10 were true

01. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One
02. Both Sides Really Do Believe What They're Saying
03. In Everyday Life, You're Not That Different
04. There Are Good People on Both Sides
05. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them
06. We Tend to Exaggerate About the Other Guy
07. We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, Too
08. Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You Stupid
09. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table
10. You'll Never Harass the Other Side Out of Existence

The only reason I can see for not agreeing with all of them (assuming you read the article and not just the headers) is that you're just stubborn and probably proving 6 and 7 to be correct.

Another thing we can agreed on.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 10:45:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 10:45:03 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
Great article. Thanks for posting it TV.

This.

I feel all warm and fuzzy inside now......

*gives all atheists on DDO a bear hug*
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 10:49:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 10:42:20 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
Great article. However, since I have an opinion and therefore I have to criticize something, the author talked quite a bit about how atheists contradict themselves by... having emotions. Yeah. Apparently you cannot believe solely in science and also have emotions.

Ok, gotta police myself. I'm already falling prey to the dreaded #6! To be fair he did not talk "quite a bit" about it, it was only like 2 paragraphs. It is discussed under #3, I believe.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 10:50:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 10:49:49 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/10/2012 10:42:20 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
Great article. However, since I have an opinion and therefore I have to criticize something, the author talked quite a bit about how atheists contradict themselves by... having emotions. Yeah. Apparently you cannot believe solely in science and also have emotions.

Ok, gotta police myself. I'm already falling prey to the dreaded #6! To be fair he did not talk "quite a bit" about it, it was only like 2 paragraphs. It is discussed under #3, I believe.

*bear hug*
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 10:57:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 10:50:47 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/10/2012 10:49:49 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/10/2012 10:42:20 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
Great article. However, since I have an opinion and therefore I have to criticize something, the author talked quite a bit about how atheists contradict themselves by... having emotions. Yeah. Apparently you cannot believe solely in science and also have emotions.

Ok, gotta police myself. I'm already falling prey to the dreaded #6! To be fair he did not talk "quite a bit" about it, it was only like 2 paragraphs. It is discussed under #3, I believe.

*bear hug*

*terrestrial mammalian life form hug*

Oh no the article was right!
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 11:05:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 10:27:24 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 7/10/2012 9:45:40 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
3, 4, and 10 were true

01. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One
02. Both Sides Really Do Believe What They're Saying
03. In Everyday Life, You're Not That Different
04. There Are Good People on Both Sides
05. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them
06. We Tend to Exaggerate About the Other Guy
07. We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, Too
08. Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You Stupid
09. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table
10. You'll Never Harass the Other Side Out of Existence

The only reason I can see for not agreeing with all of them (assuming you read the article and not just the headers) is that you're just stubborn and probably proving 6 and 7 to be correct.

*Operates on flawed assumption*
*Makes conclusion based on flawed assumption*
FVCK FVCK FVCK GOOD ARG

Many of them are too severely flawed to accept. If you'd like me to explain why, I will.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 11:21:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 11:05:06 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 7/10/2012 10:27:24 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 7/10/2012 9:45:40 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
3, 4, and 10 were true

01. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One
02. Both Sides Really Do Believe What They're Saying
03. In Everyday Life, You're Not That Different
04. There Are Good People on Both Sides
05. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them
06. We Tend to Exaggerate About the Other Guy
07. We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, Too
08. Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You Stupid
09. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table
10. You'll Never Harass the Other Side Out of Existence

The only reason I can see for not agreeing with all of them (assuming you read the article and not just the headers) is that you're just stubborn and probably proving 6 and 7 to be correct.

*Operates on flawed assumption*
*Makes conclusion based on flawed assumption*
FVCK FVCK FVCK GOOD ARG

Many of them are too severely flawed to accept. If you'd like me to explain why, I will.

Please do.

Or why not just argue about it on the Cracked forums? You'd probably get a response from Wong, he's on there plenty often.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 11:37:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 11:21:10 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 7/10/2012 11:05:06 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 7/10/2012 10:27:24 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 7/10/2012 9:45:40 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
3, 4, and 10 were true

01. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One
02. Both Sides Really Do Believe What They're Saying
03. In Everyday Life, You're Not That Different
04. There Are Good People on Both Sides
05. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them
06. We Tend to Exaggerate About the Other Guy
07. We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, Too
08. Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You Stupid
09. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table
10. You'll Never Harass the Other Side Out of Existence

The only reason I can see for not agreeing with all of them (assuming you read the article and not just the headers) is that you're just stubborn and probably proving 6 and 7 to be correct.

*Operates on flawed assumption*
*Makes conclusion based on flawed assumption*
FVCK FVCK FVCK GOOD ARG

Many of them are too severely flawed to accept. If you'd like me to explain why, I will.

Please do.

This.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 12:19:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
01. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One
Association fallacies aside, one can link the texts of Christianity and Islam and others to acts of hatred and violence. Atheism, in it's most basic form, says I do not believe there is a God / I believe there is no God. There is no causal mechanism or plausible reason for going from atheism to the previously stated evils. If we add on the rich ideological backing to atheism of naturalism and reason, there is still no causal mechanism or catalyst for evil actions. No society or person ever suffered from being too reasonable, or demanding of evidence, or unwilling to accept dogma.

02. Both Sides Really Do Believe What They're Saying
I'll assume you guys have heard of Corporate Christianity, insincere faith, Pascal's Wager, societal inducement, and sociological group behavior.

03. In Everyday Life, You're Not That Different
Agreed, and I make this point frequently with my girlfriend.

04. There Are Good People on Both Sides
Agreed.

05. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them
Believing in God or any other sophistical delusion is not offensive to me. Religious faith has been moderated greatly by human decency and other outside pressures such as science, reason, and philosophy.

06. We Tend to Exaggerate About the Other Guy
I don't exaggerate about the other guy. I, as well as other atheists on this site, understand that the basic belief in God has good arguments such as the Modal Cosmological Argument and Kalam Arguments. If someone exaggerates the position of another in a straw man, he probably doesn't understand a position enough to criticize it on its own merits. Furthermore, I don't think this is true for the majority of atheists/theists, especially since these types of debates most frequently happen between family members, friends, acquaintances, generally people with whom we would like to have mutual respect.

07. We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, Too
I don't exaggerate about my views. I concede that there is always the possibility that I am wrong. Atheism must function under that presupposition of knowledge. Contrarily, most religious faiths mandate dogmatism.

08. Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You Stupid
Focusing on the negative example of Osama Bin Laden or any other terrorist figure who uses correctly interpreted passages of the Quran as sufficient justification for terrorism and malevolence adequately demonstrates the danger of religious faith and its textual encouragement to those actions. That doesn't make me stupid, that shows my competency in observing causal mechanisms between faith and devastation. The negative examples should be used, but only if they are accurate of the faith's teachings.

09. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table
If we look at this claim for the proportion of good to bad, we see that it's superficially plausible but actually false. To give you an example, Hamas donates to charity. Does that mean Hamas is a good organization? No. The sum total of its actions is negative.

Looking at Christianity's bad: homophobia, racism, slavery, genocide, torturing of "witches," cruelty to animals, wishful thinking, guilt, aversion to science, dogmatism, etc.

Looking at Christianity's good: charity, occasionally good moral teachings, healthcare

10. You'll Never Harass the Other Side Out of Existence
Agreed, some people will always wish to have something supernatural to believe in that provides false consolation. Atheism is the fastest growing group, so it likely won't be harassed out of existence. A good trend in the metaphorizing of religious texts, which deprives more of the evil and damaging aspects of religion.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 12:22:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 12:19:03 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
01. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One
Association fallacies aside, one can link the texts of Christianity and Islam and others to acts of hatred and violence. Atheism, in it's most basic form, says I do not believe there is a God / I believe there is no God. There is no causal mechanism or plausible reason for going from atheism to the previously stated evils. If we add on the rich ideological backing to atheism of naturalism and reason, there is still no causal mechanism or catalyst for evil actions. No society or person ever suffered from being too reasonable, or demanding of evidence, or unwilling to accept dogma.

02. Both Sides Really Do Believe What They're Saying
I'll assume you guys have heard of Corporate Christianity, insincere faith, Pascal's Wager, societal inducement, and sociological group behavior.

03. In Everyday Life, You're Not That Different
Agreed, and I make this point frequently with my girlfriend.

04. There Are Good People on Both Sides
Agreed.

05. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them
Believing in God or any other sophistical delusion is not offensive to me. Religious faith has been moderated greatly by human decency and other outside pressures such as science, reason, and philosophy.

06. We Tend to Exaggerate About the Other Guy
I don't exaggerate about the other guy. I, as well as other atheists on this site, understand that the basic belief in God has good arguments such as the Modal Cosmological Argument and Kalam Arguments. If someone exaggerates the position of another in a straw man, he probably doesn't understand a position enough to criticize it on its own merits. Furthermore, I don't think this is true for the majority of atheists/theists, especially since these types of debates most frequently happen between family members, friends, acquaintances, generally people with whom we would like to have mutual respect.

07. We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, Too
I don't exaggerate about my views. I concede that there is always the possibility that I am wrong. Atheism must function under that presupposition of knowledge. Contrarily, most religious faiths mandate dogmatism.

08. Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You Stupid
Focusing on the negative example of Osama Bin Laden or any other terrorist figure who uses correctly interpreted passages of the Quran as sufficient justification for terrorism and malevolence adequately demonstrates the danger of religious faith and its textual encouragement to those actions. That doesn't make me stupid, that shows my competency in observing causal mechanisms between faith and devastation. The negative examples should be used, but only if they are accurate of the faith's teachings.

09. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table
If we look at this claim for the proportion of good to bad, we see that it's superficially plausible but actually false. To give you an example, Hamas donates to charity. Does that mean Hamas is a good organization? No. The sum total of its actions is negative.

Looking at Christianity's bad: homophobia, racism, slavery, genocide, torturing of "witches," cruelty to animals, wishful thinking, guilt, aversion to science, dogmatism, etc.

Looking at Christianity's good: charity, occasionally good moral teachings, healthcare


10. You'll Never Harass the Other Side Out of Existence
Agreed, some people will always wish to have something supernatural to believe in that provides false consolation. Atheism is the fastest growing group, so it likely won't be harassed out of existence. A good trend in the metaphorizing of religious texts, which deprives more of the evil and damaging aspects of religion.

You just proved the whole articles point.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 12:31:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 10:45:48 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/10/2012 10:45:03 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
Great article. Thanks for posting it TV.

This.

I feel all warm and fuzzy inside now......

*gives all atheists on DDO a bear hug*

Get off me, God lover!

I agree with the list so I might not read the article, but it's on cracked so I approve.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 1:10:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 12:22:52 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/11/2012 12:19:03 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
01. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One
Association fallacies aside, one can link the texts of Christianity and Islam and others to acts of hatred and violence. Atheism, in it's most basic form, says I do not believe there is a God / I believe there is no God. There is no causal mechanism or plausible reason for going from atheism to the previously stated evils. If we add on the rich ideological backing to atheism of naturalism and reason, there is still no causal mechanism or catalyst for evil actions. No society or person ever suffered from being too reasonable, or demanding of evidence, or unwilling to accept dogma.

02. Both Sides Really Do Believe What They're Saying
I'll assume you guys have heard of Corporate Christianity, insincere faith, Pascal's Wager, societal inducement, and sociological group behavior.

03. In Everyday Life, You're Not That Different
Agreed, and I make this point frequently with my girlfriend.

04. There Are Good People on Both Sides
Agreed.

05. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them
Believing in God or any other sophistical delusion is not offensive to me. Religious faith has been moderated greatly by human decency and other outside pressures such as science, reason, and philosophy.

06. We Tend to Exaggerate About the Other Guy
I don't exaggerate about the other guy. I, as well as other atheists on this site, understand that the basic belief in God has good arguments such as the Modal Cosmological Argument and Kalam Arguments. If someone exaggerates the position of another in a straw man, he probably doesn't understand a position enough to criticize it on its own merits. Furthermore, I don't think this is true for the majority of atheists/theists, especially since these types of debates most frequently happen between family members, friends, acquaintances, generally people with whom we would like to have mutual respect.

07. We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, Too
I don't exaggerate about my views. I concede that there is always the possibility that I am wrong. Atheism must function under that presupposition of knowledge. Contrarily, most religious faiths mandate dogmatism.

08. Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You Stupid
Focusing on the negative example of Osama Bin Laden or any other terrorist figure who uses correctly interpreted passages of the Quran as sufficient justification for terrorism and malevolence adequately demonstrates the danger of religious faith and its textual encouragement to those actions. That doesn't make me stupid, that shows my competency in observing causal mechanisms between faith and devastation. The negative examples should be used, but only if they are accurate of the faith's teachings.

09. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table
If we look at this claim for the proportion of good to bad, we see that it's superficially plausible but actually false. To give you an example, Hamas donates to charity. Does that mean Hamas is a good organization? No. The sum total of its actions is negative.

Looking at Christianity's bad: homophobia, racism, slavery, genocide, torturing of "witches," cruelty to animals, wishful thinking, guilt, aversion to science, dogmatism, etc.

Looking at Christianity's good: charity, occasionally good moral teachings, healthcare


10. You'll Never Harass the Other Side Out of Existence
Agreed, some people will always wish to have something supernatural to believe in that provides false consolation. Atheism is the fastest growing group, so it likely won't be harassed out of existence. A good trend in the metaphorizing of religious texts, which deprives more of the evil and damaging aspects of religion.

You just proved the whole articles point.

FVCK FVCK FVCK GOOD ARG!!! Pray tell me where you do think I am mistaken.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 1:13:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 12:19:03 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
01. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One
Association fallacies aside, one can link the texts of Christianity and Islam and others to acts of hatred and violence. Atheism, in it's most basic form, says I do not believe there is a God / I believe there is no God. There is no causal mechanism or plausible reason for going from atheism to the previously stated evils. If we add on the rich ideological backing to atheism of naturalism and reason, there is still no causal mechanism or catalyst for evil actions. No society or person ever suffered from being too reasonable, or demanding of evidence, or unwilling to accept dogma.

Not even a relevant rebuttal, lol. The fact that having a lack of belief in a deity does not directly correlate with doing terrible things has nothing to do with whether one can do terrible things in the name of having a lack of belief in a deity.

02. Both Sides Really Do Believe What They're Saying
I'll assume you guys have heard of Corporate Christianity, insincere faith, Pascal's Wager, societal inducement, and sociological group behavior.

So you mean to imply that I don't actually believe in a God? Come on, man... Really?

03. In Everyday Life, You're Not That Different
Agreed, and I make this point frequently with my girlfriend.

04. There Are Good People on Both Sides
Agreed.

05. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them
Believing in God or any other sophistical delusion is not offensive to me. Religious faith has been moderated greatly by human decency and other outside pressures such as science, reason, and philosophy.

Point negated by your response to #9.

06. We Tend to Exaggerate About the Other Guy
I don't exaggerate about the other guy. I, as well as other atheists on this site, understand that the basic belief in God has good arguments such as the Modal Cosmological Argument and Kalam Arguments. If someone exaggerates the position of another in a straw man, he probably doesn't understand a position enough to criticize it on its own merits. Furthermore, I don't think this is true for the majority of atheists/theists, especially since these types of debates most frequently happen between family members, friends, acquaintances, generally people with whom we would like to have mutual respect.

Point negated by your response to #9.

07. We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, Too
I don't exaggerate about my views. I concede that there is always the possibility that I am wrong. Atheism must function under that presupposition of knowledge. Contrarily, most religious faiths mandate dogmatism.

Your response to #6 is negated by that last sentence, lol. Also, notice the qualifier "we tend to", not, "we always".

08. Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You Stupid
Focusing on the negative example of Osama Bin Laden or any other terrorist figure who uses correctly interpreted passages of the Quran as sufficient justification for terrorism and malevolence adequately demonstrates the danger of religious faith and its textual encouragement to those actions. That doesn't make me stupid, that shows my competency in observing causal mechanisms between faith and devastation. The negative examples should be used, but only if they are accurate of the faith's teachings.

Focusing on negative examples without focusing on positive examples renders your analysis of a religion incomplete, and, stupid.

09. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table
If we look at this claim for the proportion of good to bad, we see that it's superficially plausible but actually false. To give you an example, Hamas donates to charity. Does that mean Hamas is a good organization? No. The sum total of its actions is negative.

Looking at Christianity's bad: homophobia, racism, slavery, genocide, torturing of "witches," cruelty to animals, wishful thinking, guilt, aversion to science, dogmatism, etc.

>.< Case. And. Point. #6 #8

Looking at Christianity's good: charity, occasionally good moral teachings, healthcare

10. You'll Never Harass the Other Side Out of Existence
Agreed, some people will always wish to have something supernatural to believe in that provides false consolation. Atheism is the fastest growing group, so it likely won't be harassed out of existence. A good trend in the metaphorizing of religious texts, which deprives more of the evil and damaging aspects of religion.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 2:05:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 1:13:47 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 7/11/2012 12:19:03 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
01. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One
Association fallacies aside, one can link the texts of Christianity and Islam and others to acts of hatred and violence. Atheism, in it's most basic form, says I do not believe there is a God / I believe there is no God. There is no causal mechanism or plausible reason for going from atheism to the previously stated evils. If we add on the rich ideological backing to atheism of naturalism and reason, there is still no causal mechanism or catalyst for evil actions. No society or person ever suffered from being too reasonable, or demanding of evidence, or unwilling to accept dogma.

Not even a relevant rebuttal, lol. The fact that having a lack of belief in a deity does not directly correlate with doing terrible things has nothing to do with whether one can do terrible things in the name of having a lack of belief in a deity.

That is incoherent. I don't believe in unicorns. That does not motivate me to do terrible things in the name of it. Sam Harris argues that atheism is a term we really don't need, because it's the default position, a lack of belief in gods. Can you describe the causal mechanism or reasoning behind doing something terrible in the name of something that doesn't really need a name?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 2:08:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
With the others, it seems you are having a difficult time determining the difference between realistic, legitimate criticism and exaggeration. But if you like to play the game at that abject a level, by all means carry on. It doesn't hurt me, only your reputation.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 2:14:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Focusing on negative examples without focusing on positive examples renders your analysis of a religion incomplete, and, stupid."

I guess you skimmed over where I typed, "That doesn't make me stupid, that shows my competency in observing causal mechanisms between faith and devastation. The negative examples should be used, but only if they are accurate of the faith's teachings." You were looking at the de facto religious zeitgeist and community as stemming from the religion's teachings, which is of course false because as I explained earlier in the post, many of the dangerous and evil religious teachings are safely ignored today or tempered by human decency, reason, science, and philosophy. We don't see people stoning a woman to death in Aspen for infidelity, for example.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 7:54:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 9:14:45 PM, tvellalott wrote:
Actually called "10 things Christians and Atheists can agree on".

http://www.cracked.com...

Absolutely brilliant article which should be mandatory reading for anyone who wants to argue on these forums. I agree with all ten things by the way.

You're right, absolutely brilliant, thanks for posting it.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 9:32:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 2:05:19 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 7/11/2012 1:13:47 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 7/11/2012 12:19:03 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
01. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One
Association fallacies aside, one can link the texts of Christianity and Islam and others to acts of hatred and violence. Atheism, in it's most basic form, says I do not believe there is a God / I believe there is no God. There is no causal mechanism or plausible reason for going from atheism to the previously stated evils. If we add on the rich ideological backing to atheism of naturalism and reason, there is still no causal mechanism or catalyst for evil actions. No society or person ever suffered from being too reasonable, or demanding of evidence, or unwilling to accept dogma.

Not even a relevant rebuttal, lol. The fact that having a lack of belief in a deity does not directly correlate with doing terrible things has nothing to do with whether one can do terrible things in the name of having a lack of belief in a deity.

That is incoherent. I don't believe in unicorns. That does not motivate me to do terrible things in the name of it. Sam Harris argues that atheism is a term we really don't need, because it's the default position, a lack of belief in gods. Can you describe the causal mechanism or reasoning behind doing something terrible in the name of something that doesn't really need a name?

There is no question of an association fallacy, because the article doesn't claim that religion is the cause of violence. Or vice versa. It simply states that one can do terrible things in the name of both the beliefs.

I can hit a christian because I think he is too fvcking stupid. That is an action as a result of my belief. And it is violent.

Onto positive claims, http://www.northkoreanchristians.com...

^ That is a list of attrocities committed by an atheist state to the Christians.

Go on. Deny it.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 9:36:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 9:32:09 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/11/2012 2:05:19 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 7/11/2012 1:13:47 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 7/11/2012 12:19:03 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
01. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One
Association fallacies aside, one can link the texts of Christianity and Islam and others to acts of hatred and violence. Atheism, in it's most basic form, says I do not believe there is a God / I believe there is no God. There is no causal mechanism or plausible reason for going from atheism to the previously stated evils. If we add on the rich ideological backing to atheism of naturalism and reason, there is still no causal mechanism or catalyst for evil actions. No society or person ever suffered from being too reasonable, or demanding of evidence, or unwilling to accept dogma.

Not even a relevant rebuttal, lol. The fact that having a lack of belief in a deity does not directly correlate with doing terrible things has nothing to do with whether one can do terrible things in the name of having a lack of belief in a deity.

That is incoherent. I don't believe in unicorns. That does not motivate me to do terrible things in the name of it. Sam Harris argues that atheism is a term we really don't need, because it's the default position, a lack of belief in gods. Can you describe the causal mechanism or reasoning behind doing something terrible in the name of something that doesn't really need a name?

There is no question of an association fallacy, because the article doesn't claim that religion is the cause of violence. Or atheism is. It simply states that one can do terrible things in the name of both the beliefs.

I can hit a christian because I think he is too fvcking stupid. That is an action as a result of my belief. And it is violent.

Onto positive claims, http://www.northkoreanchristians.com...

^ That is a list of attrocities committed by an atheist state to the Christians.

Go on. Deny it.

Fixed.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 1:50:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ok WSA, you've annoyed me now because I'm fairly sure you didn't read this article at all and you're only addressing the headers.

Here is a quote from #1:
"All I need from you is agreement that it's entirely possible for either an atheist or theist world to devolve into a screaming murder festival. The religious leader sends his people into battle because he thinks God commanded it, the Stalins and Maos of the world do the same because they see their people as nothing more than meaty fuel to be ground up to feed the machinery of The State. In both cases, the people are equally dead."

...and...

"And can we further admit it's actually physically impossible to calculate whether, if your side had its way, the volume of terrible things happening would go up, or down, or stay the same? I know you have an opinion on that, and I can guess what it is. But we don't know, and can't state it like it's fact. Right?"

I don't see how you can, having read that say:

Association fallacies aside, one can link the texts of Christianity and Islam and others to acts of hatred and violence. Atheism, in it's most basic form, says I do not believe there is a God / I believe there is no God. There is no causal mechanism or plausible reason for going from atheism to the previously stated evils. If we add on the rich ideological backing to atheism of naturalism and reason, there is still no causal mechanism or catalyst for evil actions. No society or person ever suffered from being too reasonable, or demanding of evidence, or unwilling to accept dogma.

No true scotsman applies to Atheists too.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...