Moderator: Community Team
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Neoteny wrote:Lmao
I'm no relationship expert, but maybe if you were so intently questioning your place in this weirdly performative, imaginary world, you should have included your wife in the top level discussion and addressed your kids' needs for consistency and social interaction before acting in a manner of draconian control and caprice you really only see in the Old Testament.
warmonger1981 wrote:I did address this with my wife before the kids you idiot. We did it together as a couple. Sometimes the truth hurts. But when it comes to be in no God it's obviously fact. You should be happy that you have inspired me to tell the truth to my children.. are you saying that I should consistently lied to my children about there being a god? or is it better to have my children deal with people who are in reality and fact-based. Remember you're the one for socialism to control. So again I say thank you especially to you. But don't think you know about my family's conversations to say that it was draconian. Every time my kids step out of the door they are interacting socially with people. You act like I said I was locking them up. It seems to me that you are implying that I should have my young children around anyone. If anything you should take credit for my so called Draconian actions as you have inspired me. What you say has real-life implications. So please take a bow.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Neoteny wrote:warmonger1981 wrote:I did address this with my wife before the kids you idiot. We did it together as a couple. Sometimes the truth hurts. But when it comes to be in no God it's obviously fact. You should be happy that you have inspired me to tell the truth to my children.. are you saying that I should consistently lied to my children about there being a god? or is it better to have my children deal with people who are in reality and fact-based. Remember you're the one for socialism to control. So again I say thank you especially to you. But don't think you know about my family's conversations to say that it was draconian. Every time my kids step out of the door they are interacting socially with people. You act like I said I was locking them up. It seems to me that you are implying that I should have my young children around anyone. If anything you should take credit for my so called Draconian actions as you have inspired me. What you say has real-life implications. So please take a bow.
Lol what a full diaper we have here. Most of this is barely comprehensible dude. And it definitely all happened, yes.
I was more referring to opening the conversation on such a major topic to thought and discussion over a longer period of time instead of springing it on her one night before "I've decided the family..." Nothing draconian there. You later said they wouldn't be seeing their friends anymore. Top-notch parenting for sure. And just leaving them all to "get over it." You're a real winner, eh? It's a bit silly that you're trying to conflate atheism with absolute sociopathy, but I think all this emoting really says more about you than it does about atheism.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
warmonger1981 wrote:faith in nothing.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
warmonger1981 wrote:If you are an atheist would you care if I sold my children or my wife?
mookiemcgee wrote:I think it's silly how you think there could even be a Atheism 101.
DoomYoshi wrote:Zizek said something along the lines of "there is only one question... if there was a God, would you change the way you live? atheists are the people who answer no to that question".
tzor wrote:DoomYoshi wrote:Zizek said something along the lines of "there is only one question... if there was a God, would you change the way you live? atheists are the people who answer no to that question".
But here we see the double problem generally used by atheists.
The first point is "if there is a God." This is a moot question. It's like asking If string theory is correct. Well it is and it isn't but the question should be if I knew that string theory was correct. If it was correct and I thought it
wasn't correct the fact that I don't know that it is correct isn't going to impact my life in any manner whatsoever.
On the second place knowing something doesn't mean a person is going to change their way of life. There are many people who know smoking is a road to painful death but smoke anyway. The knowledge that smoking is a road to painful death may not change the way they live.
tzor wrote:mookiemcgee wrote:I think it's silly how you think there could even be a Atheism 101.
I would argue that there is an Atheism 101, because anything that is not "positive" atheism collapses into mild agnosticism ("I don't know and I assume no") when the arguments are put to the test. Atheist 101 demands that anything that cannot be proven cannot exist. (Never mind that you have just caused the entire universe to vanish in a puff of logic because we can't prove a lot of fundamental things at the deepest scientific level ... at least not yet.)
The second level of Atheism 101 is snark and straw men. Trying to compare Atheism with the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" would be like me trying to compare religious with Darleks. (I mean look at history ... eventually all atheists start running around the countryside shouting "exterminate.") The greatest of the strong atheists are nothing more than insult generators.
Symmetry wrote:A scientist is not a priest- a scientist tests, and retests, and has their research tested and retested before it is accepted. A priest tells people that it is accepted.
tzor wrote:Symmetry wrote:A scientist is not a priest- a scientist tests, and retests, and has their research tested and retested before it is accepted. A priest tells people that it is accepted.
A priest is not a scientist. To compare the apple and the orange is confusing at best and insulting at worst.
Theology is in the province of theologians, not priests. It's interesting to note that most types of theology work in exceptionally vague terms; only Western Christianity tends to get into complex details because that's a legacy of the engineers of Rome. That problem exists everywhere and even impacted the development of science to this present day.
This is made even further confusing that "science" as we know it today, which is a product of the "scientific method" is a relNotative recent notion. Originally, the Greeks categorized such sciences as one of the three philosophies (or bodies of knowledge). Natural philosophy would later evolve to the sciences. Moral philosophy would evolve into ethics. Metaphysical philosophy would evolve into both theology and logic.
So "scientists" basically come from natural philosophy (unless they are math majors in which case they hail from metaphysical philosophy and generally don't go around performing "experiments").
Now let's bring this back full circle. Nobody does experiments on the Hippocratic oath (or any major issue of ethics). Not every branch of philosophy (knowledge) is driven through experiment. That doesn't disparage the other branches. They are just different, just as the apple is different from the orange.
Symmetry wrote:You're definitely stretching the "apples and oranges" thing here. The simile was flawed before you used it, to be fair- both round, both sweet, both fruit, etc.
Symmetry wrote:Take Francis Bacon as an example- someone who combined his Protestant theology with his politics and early modern scientific methodology.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users