Who's really right?

[Riverwolf]

Good. I worried for your sanity for a second.

lol

I do have what they would define as a disability, so who knows? I may be insane.

After all, I've heard it said that the definition of an insane person is someone who repeats the same thing over and over again expecting to get different results. Once, while playing Halo, five times in a row I charged my opponent, who had a shotgun, head on. I was fully aware of the stupidity of the tactic, yet I did it anyway.

 

[Riverwolf]

OK, so the year is wrong, but there was a time when it was an accepted "fact" that the earth was flat.

Yes there was.

Facts aren't always the way things actually are, but they are the accepted form of the way things are based on what we know at the moment.

 

[Riverwolf]

If that's the case, then there should still be no criticism of the religions themselves, but of the cultures.

Only if you know better.

If there's a culture in the world that still performs human sacrifice (that's not an isolated tribe), and you've moved far beyond it, then you can criticize it.

However, we can't yet criticize cultures which went to war constantly for stupid reasons, because much of our own culture still hasn't learned that lesson.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Only if you know better.

If there's a culture in the world that still performs human sacrifice (that's not an isolated tribe), and you've moved far beyond it, then you can criticize it.

However, we can't yet criticize cultures which went to war constantly for stupid reasons, because much of our own culture still hasn't learned that lesson.

Because most wars were religious in nature.

 

[Riverwolf]

Because most wars were religious in nature.

"Most?"

Seems like nearly all of them have been political in nature, with some religious justifications to keep the peasants happy and the soldiers' morality up.

 

[Vile Atheist]

"Most?"

Seems like nearly all of them have been political in nature, with some religious justifications to keep the peasants happy and the soldiers' morality up.

The mere fact any religion could be used to justify war should speak volumes of it.

 

[twinmama]

But if Christians can deny Muslims the right to tolerance,the Jews can deny Christians the right to tolerance, can't they? Give your opinion. Anything goes.

And Zoroanstrians can deny the right of tolerance from all 3? After all it is the oldest practised monotheistic faith in the world, faith that has influenced to all 3 faiths you mention.

 

[Vile Atheist]

And Zoroanstrians can deny the right of tolerance from all 3? After all it is the oldest practised monotheistic faith in the world, faith that has influenced to all 3 faiths you mention.

Atheism is the oldest, so does that mean we're right?

 

[twinmama]

Atheism is the oldest, so does that mean we're right?

Oldest MONOTHEISTIC religion?

 

[ThisisZAK]

Atheism is the oldest, so does that mean we're right?

:biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:

 

[Vile Atheist]

Oldest MONOTHEISTIC religion?

Oldest belief system.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Oldest MONOTHEISTIC religion?

Yeah. One non-existent God.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Oldest belief system.

Well religion predates homosapiens

Neanderthals have been shown to have religious acutriments

although this is not conclusive...

 

[Storm]

So, what is the difference between an opinion and a fact? Perhaps a definition of each is in order. I propose the following:

• Fact - proposition regarded as true by those best qualified to do so. Example: it is a fact that sugarless gum causes less tooth decay than sugared gum. 9 out of 10 dentists surveyed say so so it is a fact.
• Opinion - Proposition that does not have a reasonable consensus of those best qualified to judge it as true. Example: It is an opinion that The Matrix was the best movie ever made. There is no consensus among movie lovers so it is an opinion.

An interesting implication of these definitions is that facts are not always true. In 1491 it was a fact that the earth was flat because those best qualified to determine so regarded it as true.

Thoughts?

I think you're on the right track, but shaky. I would personally define each as:

Fact: A statement that is readily verifiable by conclusive evidence.
Opinion: A statement that is not necessarily supported by evidence and is of a subjective nature.

Fact: The Earth is round. Verifiable by satellite photos and weather patterns and circumnavigation.
Opinion: The Matrix is the best movie I've seen.


The problem I see with your definition of fact is that it leaves room for people to claim to be legitimate experts in a certain field and make these judgments while being able to technically pass their judgments as fact. Like theologians.

I'm gonna have to go with CM, here.

 

[MSizer]

... Some of whom like to view themselves as superior and consider those who have religion but are not fundamentalists to still be fundamentalists and to call them freaks and tell them they are intellectually inferior and a bunch of dimwits.

Yeah, we should be really thankful that the people who were persecuting because of anothers' belief will now be ... persecuting because of anothers' belief and their disbelief! Really, what the hell's the difference between them?

What are you talking about "persecuting because of another's non-belief"? Non-belief is simply the result of critical observation and logic. There is no evidence for any of the superstitious claims, and those claims are hinderances to morality. Wnen people actually let go of their superstions they're left only with what really is, and that's what we need in order to make rational decisions - a superstition free world view. It doesn't mean that being an atheist makes you good by default, it just means belief is not rational, and can only at best clould one's ability to make moral judgements.

 

[Storm]

Wnen people actually let go of their superstions they're left only with what really is, and that's what we need in order to make rational decisions - a superstition free world view. It doesn't mean that being an atheist makes you good by default, it just means belief is not rational, and can only at best clould one's ability to make moral judgements.

Stereotypes never help. Belief can indeed be rational, and supportive of morality.

 

[Breathe]

What are you talking about "persecuting because of another's non-belief"?

Simply that. It's not hard to understand.

Non-belief is simply the result of critical observation and logic.

Yes, and?

There is no evidence for any of the superstitious claims, and those claims are hinderances to morality.

I disagree with the latter, the "superstitious claims" is too vague to respond to.

Wnen people actually let go of their superstions they're left only with what really is, and that's what we need in order to make rational decisions - a superstition free world view. It doesn't mean that being an atheist makes you good by default, it just means belief is not rational, and can only at best clould one's ability to make moral judgements.

I never said it did make you a good person by default. I agree, belief is not rational - because belief is not something that can be measured.

The rest of your post, though, is really weird. I see no reason for you to post this at me. o_o

 

[Vile Atheist]

Well religion predates homosapiens

Neanderthals have been shown to have religious acutriments

although this is not conclusive...

You miss the point. We are all born atheistic until we are indoctrinated into the faith of our parents.

 

[Vile Atheist]

What are you talking about "persecuting because of another's non-belief"? Non-belief is simply the result of critical observation and logic. There is no evidence for any of the superstitious claims, and those claims are hinderances to morality. Wnen people actually let go of their superstions they're left only with what really is, and that's what we need in order to make rational decisions - a superstition free world view. It doesn't mean that being an atheist makes you good by default, it just means belief is not rational, and can only at best clould one's ability to make moral judgements.

When you get down to the nitty-gritty of it, you're basically saying:

Belief = Immorality
Non-Belief = Morality

And I heavily disagree with that. I agree that religions can be used to justify immoral actions. And I agree that non-belief (statistically, at least) does probably encourage morality (US Prison stats for example).

But I don't agree that there is a direct correlation. If a religion can justify immorality to a gullible theist, you need to ask questions like "Is it because the theist intentionally wishes to hurt and destroy, or because they have been duped?". The former is immoral, the latter is not necessarily immoral.

I think there is a strong correlation, but not a direct correlation.

 

[Willamena]

Oldest belief system.

ah, so atheism isn't just the lack of belief?