That way of thinking is even more ridiculous. People excuse others for making ignorant or just plain factually incorrect statements because "oh, he's a troll, he does that all the time, so it's okay." But then I am not allowed to respond, because I am not a troll? [inb4 ya ur a troll] I don't argue with people like that for their own benefit, you know. It's actually become rather frustrating to try and have discussions around here recently because it seems that any conversation with a degree of substance beyond "we all agree about basically everything except some minor details" is met with derision and disinterest. I enjoy talking with people I disagree with much more than people I agree with on everything. I don't think that's ridiculous at all.Quote:
SM, I just find it ridiculous that you engaged a troll like MOTO at all anymore.
I disagree. I feel like we were actually getting somewhere before everyone butted in and decided to make this argument about themselves.Quote:
So yeah, it was a dumb, circular argument you were having with him.
Gonna have to call you on that one, as it is at best a complete falsehood and at worst a blatant lie. I didn't say anything until you made the comment, "The world would be drab if everyone believed the same thing." I asked you if you thought it would be drab if everyone believed in gravity, and you said that gravity doesn't count, you were talking about "beliefs." And I said, "Yes, gravity is a belief. So is creationism." I said they were both beliefs.Quote:
Oh, and I posted a picture that said religion would disappear. Religion. Not creationism. You replied by asking if everyone believing in gravity would be drab.
You are limiting "religion" to one kind of religion, the kind that you like and find easy to defend.
Gonna have to call you on bullshit again. Here are my exact words:Quote:
You said absolutely nothing about creationism. You compared religion to not believing in gravity. And yes, that's very condescending.
You tried to separate gravity from creationism with the qualifier "gravity is a fact and you either believe in it or you don't. Beliefs related to faith or simply what's out there beyond what humans can see is wide open, with tons and tons of different views." Gravity is a fact; Creationism being true or false is a fact, because it is an active statement about our current world and its origins.Quote:
Creationism is a belief. They believe that we were created by a deity 6000 years ago, and that this deity exists and interacts with humans to this day. That's an assessment of what is out there beyond what humans can see. It's also factually incorrect, at least given the accounts that have been offered so far.
All that stuff about the afterlife and what's there that we can't see is basically just a "what if" game. No atheist ever said you can't play what if. It's only when people say, "I believe this is what happens after I die, and I have no evidence other than my belief that it would be neat," that they really begin to take issue with the reasoning.
It's actually kind of weird how often you get this sort of thing wrong. For someone who hates labels, you sure do oversimplify things a lot of the time, especially when they pertain to religion.
That said, I'm not going to discuss this particular previous, unrelated issue about religion with you here. You obviously never read what I wrote the first time *anyway,* so there's really no point in going over it again.
Step 1: I post image that says religion could disappear.
Step 2: I say that I woudn't necessarily enjoy it if all religion was gone.
Step 3: You ask if I'd also not enjoy it if everyone believed in gravity.
Your specific example about Creationism came several comments later. You did NOT make it clear that you were only specifically talking about Creationism with your gravity comparison, especially as Creationism hadn't even been mentioned before your gravity comment. You kidding me? Your comment was very condescending, so now you're trying to backpedal.
Oh, and I know people with a huge variety of religious views. I don't "like" any religion, nor do I care to "defend" any of them. I care to respect people around me despite the fact that we may disagree on religion. If someone is a shitty person, they're gonna be shitty no matter what their religious views are. I am against the institution of religion, but not people who have certain beliefs. Meanwhile, you like to shit on people for being religious.
At least in foster care, they might have a decent meal, clean clothes, and a sanitary environment.
I'm not generally an advocate for taking children away from parents and I don't equate welfare with being bad parents. However, when your children don't eat, because you spent your money on liquor and costumes, I draw a line. I grew up with neglect, but at least I always knew there would be dinner.
I just read SM's thread where he quoted someone calling me a troll???? Me...your humble MOTO...a troll. Well, to whatever (yes...IT is a "what") unimformed worthless fuck called me this...kiss my ass. Either this thing that "thinks" I'm a troll is a raving lunatic not possessing the mental capacity of two headed flat worm...or...is one of those "special" people I think are really good for this country. Read in any amount of sarcasm necessary. Please back to the topic at hand.
I agree. It is wrong to call MOTO a troll. When he says unbelievably ignorant things we all want to think he can't really mean it, he must be trolling. But no, I'm afraid he means it. MOTO is not a troll. He really is just that fucking wrong about pretty much everything.
(2) I just figured since we were bringing other random arguments into this that had nothing to do with anything in an attempt to discredit each other, I might as well point out that your initial jab against me (that I "compared religious people to people who don't believe in gravity") was not only completely false, but based on comments I made to you on the subject of an article that you had reposted without reading (you know, that thing you accused me of doing), and thus had not understood correctly, in the first place. Even if the article itself wasn't attached, it was referenced in the graphic, so there's really no excuse for not having at least glanced it over to confirm its basic authenticity.