Rank #53157 on SubscribersLevel 312 Comments: Wizard
OfflineSend mail to luthervonappledorf Block luthervonappledorf Invite luthervonappledorf to be your friend
|Last status update:|| |
|Date Signed Up:||5/01/2012|
|FunnyJunk Career Stats|
|Content Thumbs:||4558 total, 5046 , 488|
|Comment Thumbs:||13327 total, 14651 , 1324|
|Content Level Progress:|| 60% (60/100) |
Level 145 Content: Faptastic → Level 146 Content: Faptastic
|Comment Level Progress:|| 72% (720/1000) |
Level 312 Comments: Wizard → Level 313 Comments: Wizard
|Times Content Favorited:||103 times|
|Total Comments Made:||3168|
|Favorite Tags:||is (2)|
Well, I am a collection of cells and electronic impulses fuelled mostly by daily doses of sarcasm and misguided attempts to come up with a plausible way to time travel.
latest user's comments
|#9 - Tone-deaf Boner Biscuit... this is my new insult.||01/17/2014 on Elitist taint pirate||+1|
|#8 - Bill Murray dressed as the easter bunny riding a Hitlersaurus … [+] (2 new replies)||01/17/2014 on A proposal to FJ'ers||+1|
|#1 - Comment deleted||01/17/2014 on what a twist||0|
|#4 - For once, I did not see that coming.||01/17/2014 on Not so sweet||+3|
|#3 - Congrats!||01/17/2014 on Well, it finally happened...||0|
|#5 - Isn't that the basic plot of Rambo?||01/17/2014 on That's dedication||+2|
|#49487 - I've recently started working with a bunch of people who are v… [+] (63 new replies)||01/17/2014 on Religion Board||+1|
#49596 - theism (01/19/2014) [-]
Explore a few religions and philosophies. Look at the world, think, learn some science and philosophy. Make your own conclusions. Explore the thought systems you like, talk to people. Take what you like to heart, don't bother with what you don't. Think critically. if something doesn't make sense, question it. Don't let anyone tell you to shut up about your opinion. Just don't be a dick.
#49563 - kanadetenshi (01/18/2014) [-]
You don't need to follow a specific spiritual religion, it may sound cliché but if you just look at the wonder and awe of the natural world and the beauty surrounding it then you'll most likely be able to find your own path be it a naturalistic one or a spiritual one.
#49548 - anon (01/18/2014) [-]
Go Tao/Zen, you can be spiritual in your own way if you just observe the world around you and look for a balance and prosperity. There's a lot, a LOT to learn about the whole universe, and there's a lot to be understood about the future of the human race, and being emotional beings, there can always be room for any self-made spirituality, as long as it's in the philosophy realm, none of those claims about beyond reality unless it's just totally out of reach and aids in daydreaming and is comforting. Reality is pretty spiritual itself though, if you just seek to learn about it.
#49533 - unncommon (01/18/2014) [-]
Well..if you want to be religious then follow some of the practices of that religion (e.g. meditation and prayer). If you don't care whether you are or not then just sit down, address it mentally and think on it for a while so it's not pounding at your thoughts or anything. If you find yourself not believing then that's okay, if you find yourself wanting to believe then look into it. Either way is o.k. just make sure that you're happy with your decision.
#49511 - rebornpooper (01/18/2014) [-]
If you're looking for spiritual advice, don't ask strangers on the internet, especially in communities that attract people such as this. The last thing that you need if you want to "find" faith is the opinions of several atheists pushing their worldview onto you.
#49523 - rebornpooper (01/18/2014) [-]
1. This wasn't a reply to you. This was a reply to the OP. I don't owe you anything.
2. "Address your points. Let's see here...
"You want to delude yourself"
Nothing much to argue here, just a cheap shot at religious beliefs.
"generally require evidence and procedure before taking something as truth, I don't really think that you will find one"
Again, nothing much here other than a cliche "religion no eviDUNCE!!!", so there's nothing to argue.
Again, nothing much to argue. The rest of the paragraph is a subjective philosophy and, not to mention a projection imposed on the OP's identity. At the end of the day, you are not OP, nor can you speak for him/her.
3. If you expect me to not thumb down something idiotic or dumb when it clearly is, sorry I don't care if someone finds it insulting.
#49526 - noblexfenrir (01/18/2014) [-]
Obviously the post I responded to wasn't, My response was purely connected to you obviously reading and thumbing down my comments. Which I would have preferred instead an actual reply explaining your point.
"Nothing much to argue here, just a cheap shot at religious beliefs. "
Not really since he literally wrote that he finds no reason to believe but really wants to. Doing such is desiring to be deluded in absence of evidence for the belief you want to be true. I was pointing out a fact of what he wanted, not calling religious beliefs inherently deluded.
"Again, nothing much here other than a cliche "religion no eviDUNCE!!!", so there's nothing to argue."
Present some or otherwise I was again, simply pointing out a fact about what his approach to this subject entails.
"If you expect me to not thumb down something idiotic or dumb when it clearly is, sorry I don't care if someone finds it insulting."
I could care less what you thumb down, I do however care if you do so and then actually present your point. Otherwise, you just make it seem like you don't like what I said but have nothing to propose against it.
#49528 - rebornpooper (01/18/2014) [-]
"actually address my points"
This clause is unrelated to the reply subthread form the OP's argument. I don't owe you a damn thing from it even if I disagree with you on different topic.
"Not calling religious beliefs inherently deluded."
"are you saying you want to find a way to delude yourself?"
Those are your exact words. You refer to the action of pursuing a religion as this terminology. You've directly contradicted yourself, and insult me as a debater by attempting to redirect this at a shallow "I'm not saying that religion is bad, but if you want to believe in anything without evidence (which you will if you believe in religion), then you're deluding yourself". I can cite most of that paraphrase with your reply, without cowardice from the original post.
"Present some or otherwise I was again"
"If you generally require evidence and procedure before taking something as truth, I don't really think that you will find one."
>If you require evidence, then I doubt you will find religion.
Once again, you deviate from your own post. The previous sentence is more direct to this topic, but stronger.
>nothing to propose against it
There is nothing of worth to propose against it because it's the same manner of immature logic that's been beaten into the ground on this board over and over again. As for your reasoning of why the OP shouldn't pursue, there's nothing to present because there's nothing to present it too. The subject matter is entire subjective, but proposed on the OP. Unless you know or are the OP, the reasoning holds little grounds.
#49529 - noblexfenrir (01/18/2014) [-]
"Those are your exact words. You refer to the action of pursuing a religion as this terminology."
Again, no I wasn't. OP specifically said " I want to believe in something more but, for some reason I just can't." when I'm talking about him deluding himself, I'm talking about the process he is going about to believe in something.
">If you require evidence, then I doubt you will find religion.
Once again, you deviate from your own post. The previous sentence is more direct to this topic, but stronger. "
I meant provide evidence for religion, otherwise I wasn't wrong in how I addressed it.
" Unless you know or are the OP, the reasoning holds little grounds."
I never said he shouldn't pursue, simply he may be narrowing his possibilities of things he could find to specifically religion. His desire and the matter itself is entirely subjective, however the reasoning and logic applied to finding the answer to it, is fairly concrete.
#49547 - luthervonappledorf (01/18/2014) [-]
I understand your point here. Because I haven't found or already had a religion you are saying it is going to be much harder for me to do so because of how I already think. I do generally think along the lines of 'evidence = belief' therefore it will be more difficult to truly believe in something more.
I've accepted that, which is why I decided that the more Earth and spiritual based religions are the way for me to go.
#49534 - rebornpooper (01/18/2014) [-]
"no I wasn't"
"delusion - an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument"
You've insisted that the OP naturally thinks like an atheist, by attempting to pursue a thought path that you've deemed delusional (citation: definition of delusion, "require evidence and procedure" bullshit) and judging the OP to be considered delusional, otherwise judging the action without understanding the OP's reasoning as delusion. Again, you present this as you draw the connection in the post between "reasoning without evidence" and religion, yet now insist that you were, in no way shape or form, claiming that religion correlates with delusion? Sorry, but I'm going to call bullshit.
"I meant provide evidence for religion"
"If you generally require evidence and procedure before taking something as truth, I don't really think that you will find [religion]."
The difference between these two statements in content prominently being that you've proposed a stereotype judged that religion typically has no evidence, again, results in nothing much here other than a cliche "religion no eviDUNCE!!!", so there's nothing to argue.
"I never said he shouldn't pursue"
"Because at the end of the day, it seems you just are trying to find some reason to make yourself believe in something you know isn't supported, because part of you wants it to be true."
Right, because all of the mocking, loaded questions, and rhetoric totally correlates with what you just said.
#49536 - noblexfenrir (01/18/2014) [-]
"You've insisted that the OP naturally thinks like an atheist"
No I've insisted he thinks like a rational human being, as he has already supported by claiming he has searched for evidence in his course for religious belief.
"by attempting to pursue a thought path that you've deemed delusional"
Desiring to believe something you have no evidence for nor have found any evidence for, is delusional. Again I'm not specifically talking about religion. I'm talking about how OP is approaching this topic, he is essentially saying that if he could remain ignorant and believe, he would desire such. This process can be applied to anything (gravity, heliocentric solar system, germ theory, etc.) and it would be delusional for this approach to be taken.
", otherwise judging the action without understanding the OP's reasoning as delusion."
He explained the process by which he made his judgement, that is all I needed to declare his desire to be delusion, or atleast to be deluded if offered the opportunity.
"yet now insist that you were, in no way shape or form, claiming that religion correlates with delusion"
The process by which he would be believing in religion would correlate to delusion. But fine, if you want me to say if that does make belief in religion without evidence delusional? YES. But again, I am not calling religion the delusional part, it's the BELIEF-WITHOUT EVIDENCE aspect that makes the entire idea delusional. Replace it with evolution and even though it's scientific fact, I would say the belief in evolution without evidence, is delusional.
"prominently being that you've proposed a stereotype judged that religion typically has no evidence"
Again, provide evidence or my current evaluation of it still stands. I'm open and willing, if you can provide evidence, then belief would not be delusional in that sense, so I'm asking for evidence to support religious belief. Simple.
#49590 - noblexfenrir (01/18/2014) [-]
Bahaha, what the hell have you even picked apart? All you've done is show you obviously misunderstood my original post, don't understand how we determine reality, that you succumb to basic theist arguments, and at the end of the day think that I am in anyway trying to justify my original post when I still say without a problem that it stands perfectly fine on its own like it always has.
#49594 - rebornpooper (01/19/2014) [-]
>you obviously misunderstand my original post
I can't help but laugh at the smugness. Not only have you provided in this argument with little correlation between how your statements relate to the messaging of the original post, but you've proposed an errata that only supports a claim of opposition. You have yet to prove most of the claims that you have made regarding any hidden meaning within your posts, and make no effort to stand against dissection. In addition, the red herrings you've brought in serve only to distract from the unreliable insults you've persisted.
"Don't understand how we determine reality"
No. Hitchens' Razor is a fallacious argument that you have yet to enforce or prove outside of even the most simple of atheistic-style copypasta. Your proposition ignore basic pattern recognition (a phenomena that does not require evidence to complete, but is still a trait we've evolved to have), providing a huge flaw in an already unstable argument.
"Perfectly fine on its own like it always has."
How noble to pat yourself on the back there, but you relate barely to the OP's reply, push an uncalled for bias, and what's worst now is that you apparently hold enough of an arrogant attitude about it to not take any criticism for it.
"Most basic of theistic arguments"
Rereading, there has been little in my posts that were specified for theism when the topic at hand was the absence of evidence being the same as evidence of absence.
#49540 - rebornpooper (01/18/2014) [-]
>I've insisted he thinks like a rational human being
...By using a trail of logic primarily found within the atheist community, despite huge fallacy, the OP thinks "rationally". I won't go into detail for this, because there's nothing more to argue than against a shallow "because atheists are rational" statement.
>searched for evidence
No, the OP claimed that none of them really "fit". This is a vague terminology. The OP may or may not culturally agree with some of the religions, felt intimidated by the populaces that practiced mentioned religions, or any other number of reasons. You've just drawn that assumption based again on an projection of the OP.
Which is exactly why asking strangers on the internet to questions to personal dilemmas is a questionable idea, because the strangers know little about the situation to pass judgement to.
"nor have found any evidence for, is delusional"
Okay, I see what you're doing now. You're just using buzzwords to pass a silent judgement, no different than "ignorant" because you bluntly misuse the word. "Delusion" is holding of the belief when evidence directly contradicts the case held believing. The idea must be proven false and known to be false. Belief without evidence being presented is a fallacy resulting from "evidence of absence is the absence of evidence". What you're proposing isn't "logic objective to delusion", it's a mature form of infantile object permanence. Believing in objects and entities without evidence is an every-day task that the Information Age helps reward. Ironically, the most delusional concept in this entire discussion is your meaning of delusion.
"He explained his process"
Sorry, but his vague terminology was that the faith "didn't fit". Discomfort doesn't explicitly equate to "dismissed thinking". You've done nothing but draw assumption from the OP.
#49583 - noblexfenrir (01/18/2014) [-]
" I won't go into detail for this, because there's nothing more to argue than against a shallow "because atheists are rational" statement. "
I never mentioned atheists. Rational thought is well, rational, inherently because of the process it follows. Religious people can easily be rational, would I say they are applying their rationality to their religion? Probably not, but that's only in one instance. Unless ofcoruse they provided evidence for said belief, then it would be completely rational.
"This is a vague terminology."
Sure, still can easily apply to evidence as I addressed. It doesn't matter, in the end he was looking for reason to believe and then I brought up the subject of evidence. Still really doesn't change what I was trying to get across. If my initial reading of OP was wrong, then we are simply pushing the problem back one step and now must address the problem from a rational point of view.
" You're just using buzzwords to pass a silent judgement"
No I'm using a word to describe a specific process of determination.
" no different than "ignorant" because you bluntly misuse the word."
Actually I don't.
" The idea must be proven false and known to be false."
What? No, an idea must be proven true to be considered true. Otherwise the default is non-belief in the idea being presented. You technically can't 'prove' something false, as all evidence for disproving it would be evidence directly against evidence for the affirmative.
"Believing in objects and entities without evidence is an every-day task that the Information Age helps reward."
Inductive reasoning is applied this way every single day, yes you're correct. Except you forget that for someone to do this, every step applies in the reasoning and the final product are first verified and shown to be true to the individual.
#49599 - rebornpooper (01/19/2014) [-]
"I never mentioned atheists"
"If you seek religion, you will most likely be seeking something irrational. I believe that if you use logic and reason, you will be skeptic." -Rehashed from your initial reply
Simple grammar highlights the problem with your claim.
"It can easily apply"
The most grand irony about this statement is that you present your interpretation as the base for truth, build on it, and then ignore that multiple interpretations being available causes problem with the reliability of your argument, similar to the reasoning of a stereotypical creationist.
"From a rational view"
Have you no shame that you must run the same buzzwords into the ground long past submergence into a seven-foot grave?
"No, I'm using a word to describe a specific process of determination"
No, the terminology you use for "rational" and "delusion" cannot reasonably be described as being employed to do anything more than project a bias.
"Actually I don't."
Actually, you do. Reread that definition before attempting a shallow denial.
"Otherwise the default is non-belief in the idea being presented."
Rejecting an idea is nowhere near the logical position of rejection of an idea and dismissal as false.
"You can't technically 'prove' something false"
Get out. Not only is the statement a direct contradiction of itself (If a negative cannot be proven, then this statement cannot be proven. If it is provable and justifiable, then its own reasoning nullifies the meaning of it), but logical testing allows for usage of impossibility of negative case of phenomenon without the need to propose "because I don't see it there". In addition, the absence of evidence only applies as evidence of absence when the field of said phenomenon are under complete control. This is how scientific experimentation works; with too many variables and too narrow of a scope, reliable results cannot be obtained. In the case of religion, assuming that AoE is EoA, omnipotence is imposed.
#49584 - noblexfenrir (01/18/2014) [-]
I know what a bowling alley is used for, I know what a bowling ball is, and how it's used. I've seen it be used to hit pins, I know how the pins act and what sound they make when they fall. Etc.Thus I don't need to see the ball hit every single time to know that when I hear pins falling, it's most likely a bowling ball that did it.
In no way would this justify me thinking Reindeer blasted into the bowling alley and ran straight into the pins. It doesn't follow from previous experience. You also must remember that this process is not used for proving an idea, only supporting an assertion made when the subject or process of the idea is not immediately done or seen.
So again, this means absolutely nothing for believing in something without evidence.
Better argument than most you've brought up but I must say that you tried to rip on me for using atheist rhetoric? This is probably the most overused theist argument outside of the cosmological one.
#49601 - rebornpooper (01/19/2014) [-]
"In no way would this justify me thinking Reindeer"
Except you've doing nothing but providing a false analogy. A reindeer is detectable by your identification of it alone. There exists a confirmation as to why your phenomenon is false compared to the bowling alley.
The slightest hope that can be used to disprove that a phenomenon will break from indicated pattern is the Gambler's Fallacy. Whether or not this identification leads into a fallacy fallacy deserves attention, as this identification of fallacy doesn't nullify that the deviating phenomenon will occur, but the indication is highly situational, depending on the field and subject the claim is made towards.
"Better argument than most you've brought up."
It helps to learn how to deviate from the same logic that's been battered all around this board repeatedly to the point where the topic is a comfort zone to retreat to. Rhetoric aside, it honestly might help yourself if you can manage to deviate a little.
"For using atheist rhetoric"
Oh my, whichever do you mean, the basic "everything you say is a lie until you prove religion" style of commenting, "religious people are illogical and dumb" arrogance, or any of the et cetera. Criticism of this style of attitude isn't strictly for the theistic mindset, mind you. Even if it was an "overused theistic mindset", this identification alone is not enough to dismiss it.
#49539 - rebornpooper (01/18/2014) [-]
"I am not calling religion the delusional part"
"Do I think [religion] is personally? Absolutely."
I'm insulted that combined with all of the judgmental language, loaded questions, and anon call of non sequitur, that you expect me to not notice the subtle agenda and meaning behind the post. Of course, because insisting that the stereotypical religious being is delusional doesn't sound as comforting to state. "If you believe in religion, typically you are deluded." The claim that there is not an insult brought into this discussion, both direct and indirect, is full of shit. Do not even try to argue otherwise when you infer "it takes a delusional mind to believe in something, but I'm not saying anything bad about it", when the whole attitude towards the subject is a passive insult revealed throughout evidence within your post.
"Provide evidence or my current evaluation of it still stands."
Here's a revolutionary thought: Nobody gives a shit. Quote from my first post in the thread "The rest of the paragraph is a subjective philosophy". The OP didn't ask for your biased and flawed evaluation.
"Then belief would not be delusional in that sense"
"Religious belief is delusional until it provides me with evidence. Religion doesn't have evidence though."
Paragraph two of your initial post in a nutshell. Here's a thought to the red herring though (why the RH was needed is a sarcastic wonder), I'm not here to research for you. I am not here to make you feel better. Lastly I don't care what you think of religion because, all accusations of ad hominem aside, you're nothing more than a confirmation-biased cancer only worth to this board a pretentious stubbornness to post with little more thought than copy/pasted of atheist cliches. The OP wanted to know if faith came along with automatic or passive identification. Logically one with such a denial of the subject of faith has little relation to the subject unless otherwise proven to have a history with.
#49582 - noblexfenrir (01/18/2014) [-]
"I'm insulted that combined with all of the judgmental language"
"Here's a revolutionary thought..."
My "subtle agenda" means nothing, as it stands reality is not "subjective philosophy" and my current knowledge of religion and the information I currently have researched, has given no evidence whatsoever.
So for the last time, I will explain my original answer in slightly more depth since you obviously can't fucking read and are arguing a point that makes no sense. If you want to argue my approach to religion, so be it, but that is a different discussion.
>OP specifically says that he cannot find evidence for religion, even though he has searched for it constantly.
>OP expresses a desire to believe, even though he acknowledges this lack of evidence.
The process of believing something without supporting evidence is what I call being "deluded". Thus the desire to be "deluded" was present.
Then when I talk about religion, the only thing I say about religion itself is it does not have supporting evidence, again debate me on that all you want and provide evidence, however under my current knowledge and available information, religion has none.
Then we get to my statement that under these guidelines, desiring belief in a religion, is then desiring to be deluded.
Do you honestly need it spelled out anymore?
"you're nothing more than a confirmation-biased cancer only worth to this"
"Logically one with such a denial of the subject of faith has little relation to the subject"
I'm biased towards the specific method of determining reality. Which, evidence wise, religion has not met the degree of proof, and I don't deny faith, I specifically point it out as a useless tool for doing anything besides deluding yourself.
"The OP didn't ask for your biased and flawed evaluation. "
And I didn't ask for a stilted false analysis of my original post, obviously I wrote something you didn't like but besides that all you've done is misrepresent my writings
#49604 - rebornpooper (01/19/2014) [-]
"stilted false analysis of my original post, obviously I wrote something you didn't like but besides that all you've done is misrepresent my writings"
Applying the definition of a word towards a passage of text that uses it? Recognizing buzzwords that exist from an obviously biased source? Seeing an assumption made by the author of a text that stands the potential of misinterpreting broad terminology? You're right, clearly the fault is mine for misinterpreting a text with a meaning that shifts around and has nothing more than a personal philosophy to back it up, and for recognizing that you understand everything about the OP by such in depth terminology such as "doesn't fit". Oh, wait a moment.
"I don't deny faith"
Here we go again. Under your definition, you're either dismissing the concept as irrational (why, if rationality is such a high concept to hold, a bluntly "irrational" idea should be held is beyond all rhetoric that I can muster at this moment) or, using the definition of deluded, already made that judgement as religion being false. The fact that you seem to continually press this non sequitur/argument from ignorance/(whatever of the many fallacies that fit this) without any other justification does nothing to my argument. You're turning into a one-trick-pony.
#49602 - rebornpooper (01/19/2014) [-]
"reality is not "subjective reality""
Woah there big boy, taking a few writing classes from the "enlightened", have we? Actually, I don't give a crap. The fact that your proposed logic bastardizes the scientific method leaves me as an outside body to interpret that you have no authority over what is "real" and "rational". Ironically, anything that exists outside our scope of knowledge can easily be dismissed as "irrational" on grounds of a lack of evidence. Reality doesn't give a crap about what you deem "irrational".
"Since you obviously can't fucking read"
And the most creative insult goes to...
"makes no sense"
I would take your criticism into consideration if you haven't proven to me to be anything more than stubborn with how you judge your own arguments and criticism.
"OP specifically says"
Nowhere in the OP did he make that claim. That claim is presented after your argument presented that claim and doesn't indicate that OP has exhausted all possible evidence. Once again, this is nothing more than a projection you've chosen to stick with. Nothing can be claimed about it until the OP has confirmed the scale in which he's searched.
"Is what I call deluded"
And once again, we have nothing more than a judgmental language and bias to be thrown in, without any real meaning.
"The desire to be deluded is present."
Let's swap out "deluded" with "as I judge to be irrational", since, buzz terminology aside, this is what you insist that the term really means in this context. "The desire to be [as I judge to be irrational] is present." This is nothing more than an opinion disguised as logic. Swapping for the true meaning, we have "The desire to be [stubborn in holding a false idea] is present." This case leaves nothing but a silent judgement in which you know the subject of ideology B to be false. Again, there's nothing really new to discuss since this is a shallow "religion is stupid" attitude-enforce judgement. "Do you honestly need it spelled out anymore?"
#49507 - noblexfenrir (01/18/2014) [-]
I'm not understanding you really, are you saying you want to find a way to delude yourself?
Religion doesn't "find" you, your approach to logical thinking and reasoning is what leads you to specific religions or no religion. If you find you can believe something with very little unsupportive evidence then generally you'll find the "right" religion for you eventually. If you generally require evidence and procedure before taking something as truth, I don't really think that you will find one.
Otherwise, the rest of your reasoning sorry to say, sounds stupid. You WANT to believe in something more? You have an entire universe above your head that is infinitely more complex than yourself, with knowledge we've only scraped from the surface, and is more expansive than we ever thought previously. What exactly do you mean by "something more"? Because at the end of the day, it seems you just are trying to find some reason to make yourself believe in something you know isn't supported, because part of you wants it to be true.
#49546 - luthervonappledorf (01/18/2014) [-]
Science and religion are not interchangable. I love science. I love the infinite depth and scope of it, but it does no give someone something tangible to follow. I don't want a religion with a God or a doctrine as such, I prefer the ideologies of a more peaceful, spiritual based religion such as Taoism. The problem is it's much harder to just practise because the people that practise it daily have a fervent belief in it that I fundamentally lack.
#49508 - anon (01/18/2014) [-]
"Otherwise the rest of your reasoning sorry to say sounds stupid."
It's nice to see that the religion board can have civil discussions without the need to insult others for their viewpoints.
Oh, wait a minute, fuck you.
#49510 - anon (01/18/2014) [-]
"If you expect me to not call something idiotic or dumb when it clearly is,"
I'm sorry, clearly having a different view of the world is idiotic and dumb. What civil discussion this is an example of.
#49519 - anon (01/18/2014) [-]
"I'm not saying the belief is dumb, I'm saying trying to get the belief is dumb."
This is what you are actually presenting to me. This is absolute bullshit.
#49525 - anon (01/18/2014) [-]
"wasn't insulting the belief"
You're full of shit and now you're just trying to go for any technicality to cop-out.
#49527 - noblexfenrir (01/18/2014) [-]
Why do people think I was calling religious belief delusion? Do I think it is personally? Absolutely. However, in my original paragraph I was calling the process OP was applying, him deluding himself. By not believing in something and not finding any evidence, but desiring to believe it regardless, that is an act of delusion. I'm describing what he is doing, not what he desires.
#49530 - anon (01/18/2014) [-]
"Do I think it is personally? Absolutely."
"wasn't insulting the worldview"
"Hey OP, you want to find religion? Do you want to delude yourself? If you believe in things without evidence, you're deluding yourself. If you believe in evidence, then you won't find religion, because you might find religion if you don't need evidence, but again I'm not saying that religion is delusion, even though if you believe in things without evidence (religion) you believe in things that are clearly contradicted and irrational, but again, I'm not insulting religion. I'm just saying you want to delude yourself by getting one."
Do you enjoy being full of shit or does it come with the ego?
#49531 - noblexfenrir (01/18/2014) [-]
""Hey OP, you want to find religion? Do you want to delude yourself?"
For the fifth (I think) time, I was not calling religion the delusion, I was calling the act of wanting to believe something when you personally cannot find evidence for an act of desiring to be deluded. Seriously, how fucking hard is that to get?
"If you believe in things without evidence, you're deluding yourself."
Yeah you are.
"If you believe in evidence, then you won't find religion"
Most likely not, because it hasn't prevented anything concrete or worthwhile to examine as evidence. The fact that faith is required most of the time for belief reinforces my point.
" but again I'm not saying that religion is delusion,"
I did say it was in my post before this one, but I did not in my original response.
" even though if you believe in things without evidence (religion) you believe in things that are clearly contradicted and irrational"
No, you just believe in something that is unsupported by evidence.
"but again, I'm not insulting religion. I'm just saying you want to delude yourself by getting one."
No I'm saying he wants to delude himself by desiring belief in something he cannot find evidence for and something believers tend to not have evidence for. Is this really that difficult to understand?
#49537 - anon (01/18/2014) [-]
>I was not calling religion the delusion, I was calling the act of wanting to believe religion to be deluded, but this wasn't an insult to religion
You don't know if the OP has been looking into religious arguments. All that can be gotten from this post is that he has been unsuccessful in forcing a faith. Everything else you've assumed about him.
You're full of shit dude. "I'm saying he wants to delude himself by desiring belief in something he cannot find evidence for" and yet "require evidence and procedure before taking something as truth, I don't really think that you will find one" It's not that hard to put two-and-two together. "I think that if you believe in something without evidence, you delude yourself. I think that religious people believe in something without evidence, but I'm not saying that I think they're deluded." Holy flying fuck, how non sequitur can you get?
#49538 - noblexfenrir (01/18/2014) [-]
I'm not typing out the same fucking thing again, here's my reply to reborn on the matter, it sums it up rather nicely.
"The process by which he would be believing in religion would correlate to delusion. But fine, if you want me to say if that does make belief in religion without evidence delusional? YES. But again, I am not calling religion the delusional part, it's the BELIEF-WITHOUT EVIDENCE aspect that makes the entire idea delusional. Replace it with evolution and even though it's scientific fact, I would say the belief in evolution without evidence, is delusional. "
When concerning religion, I was merely mentioning how little to no evidence is provided to support it. So yes, BELIEF based on that, is delusional. So for the last time, I'm not calling the subject delusional, but the process involved in believing the subject. However, the validity of the subject through evidence is applied in the process, so the amount of evidence is applied when declaring a belief through such a process, delusional.
Again, so fucking simple.
#49496 - luthervonappledorf (01/17/2014) [-]
Why do I want it to? Because I want something more. I'm so tired of believing there is nothing more. I need something to believe in and, it's actually making me sad. I feel like there's no purpose for anything and I just want there to be. I want there to be a God.
#49497 - lulzforhiroshima (01/17/2014) [-]
Well first off if you want to believe based on logic/making sense then its best to stay agnostic.
The reasons you stated are why i am not an atheist.
However, if you want advice on how to be more happy while believeing in atheism then im not your guy, why dont you go cry about it :' (
#49544 - anon (01/18/2014) [-]
Whatever happened to the well being of your fellow human race?
|#8 - Now you've pointed it out it does! Oh ****... I'm goi…||01/17/2014 on #Selfie||0|
|#3 - Picture [+] (3 new replies)||01/17/2014 on #Selfie||0|
|#2 - Best photo's I've taken. [+] (4 new replies)||01/17/2014 on #Selfie||+5|