Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@4m2a

my problem with that way of thinking is this:

I can say someones mom does illicit things in the back alleys for a nominal fee of 5 cents. I cannot prove or disprove this.

I am not however taking that someone's right to love their mom away.

dig?

who's Mum does illicit things in back alleys?

(Why mOm, does anyone actually pronounce it with an O.... Its our language, don't change it )



(P.S, i know England didn't just come up with the English language one day, it was influenced by others etc etc. But still)

rodgers37 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

rodgers37 wrote:I know what will make this all go away...

Lets all watch Inception

Oh God no. Lets go watch from Dusk Til Dawn.

Yeah, thats fun as well. I've always wondered though, why Tarantino played that character... He probably wrote it with himself in mind, he's a disturbing character.

Probably so he could have Hayak's foot in his face. He has a female foot fetish.

Sure if you want to say stuff like that you can. Without any proof no one worth listening too is going to pay you any attention.

It's not really the same either. Thats just radomly coming up with comments. If someone has a view point and they tell people it, people are able to respond. If their view opposes yours tough. They have as much right to say it as you do.

@4m2a

true...but will some people get offended? and do they have the right to be offended?

Frazzled wrote:

rodgers37 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

rodgers37 wrote:I know what will make this all go away...

Lets all watch Inception

Oh God no. Lets go watch from Dusk Til Dawn.

Yeah, thats fun as well. I've always wondered though, why Tarantino played that character... He probably wrote it with himself in mind, he's a disturbing character.

Probably so he could have Hayak's foot in his face. He has a female foot fetish.

That makes sense.

Has anyone watched the sequels? I only know they exist because Wikipedia told me....

No the right to not get offended is stupid. What is offensive is entirely different between people. All that happens is that people with common views can say what they like as lots of people back them up and otehr people have to take it.

rodgers37 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

rodgers37 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

rodgers37 wrote:I know what will make this all go away...

Lets all watch Inception

Oh God no. Lets go watch from Dusk Til Dawn.

Yeah, thats fun as well. I've always wondered though, why Tarantino played that character... He probably wrote it with himself in mind, he's a disturbing character.

Probably so he could have Hayak's foot in his face. He has a female foot fetish.

That makes sense.

Has anyone watched the sequels? I only know they exist because Wikipedia told me....

Not I said the spy.

4M2A wrote:No the right to not get offended is stupid. What is offensive is entirely different between people. All that happens is that people with common views can say what they like as lots of people back them up and otehr people have to take it.

youre right. whats offensive is subjective so its just good sense to be respectful eh?

besides its not as if atheists dont push back and throw their weight around. I mean "One nation under God" right?

If I were to say that privacy was a fairytale? Free will? Equality? Suddenly it's not so offensive. But you add in the word 'heaven' and folks are up in arms about it.

Look: you're likely not truly offended, but rather looking for a reason to be offended in the first place. Stephen Hawking didn't go out and proclaim on a street corner his perception of the afterlife, he responded to a question of how he viewed it. Woe is him to have a varying view point on spirituality because he understands the natural world better than all of us combined.

Look: you're likely not truly offended, but rather looking for a reason to be offended in the first place.

I apologise most profusely; you obviously have better knowledge of my thoughts and feelings than I do and you've managed to see what I really mean without actually having met me or even heard of me before.

/sarcasm

I AM offended, and it would be great if you refrained from trying to imply otherwise in the future, mmmkay?

I do think saying Hawkins was offensive is being a little strong. He made a poke at religion- was anyone surprised he felt that way? I’m torn on this because it bugs me when people lack common courtesy or respect for others, but I’m also extremely tired of this politically correct world where I have to worry that anything I say might be offensive to someone. I know, it’s pretty contradictory…

Avatar 720 wrote:I AM offended

And Christians offend non-Christians (atheists and other religions) all the time as well. Welcome to the world where your way of thinking isn't the only one, even within your own group.

Ahtman wrote:

Avatar 720 wrote:I AM offended

And Christians offend non-Christians (atheists and other religions) all the time as well. Welcome to the world where your way of thinking isn't the only one, even within your own group.

Excuse me, but I don't believe I said it was the only one; in fact, i'm pretty sure I said i'm all for people having their own views. I don't honestly see your point here; am I not allowed to be offended because some spankers who call themselves Christians or members of other religions have gone and given everyone else a bad name?

...

No one seemed to respond to my question of Reincarnation as an afterlife, but I suppose it was partly rhetorical. Anyway, I personally believe in such an afterlife, because that is what I actually think will happen, not what I wish would happen. When someone says I only believe in such things because of my fear of death, I get annoyed because they seem to be implying that they are better than me because they don't need that belief to cope with death. But honestly, if it isn't true, if there really is no afterlife, then I don't really care, because there is nothing I can do. By the time I find out, it won't really matter now will it?

I think most Religious argument stem from people's need to be right. They want to feel smarter or better than others. That's why everyone tries to find ways to make the other side look bad, so they can feel like they are better people. No seriously every argument is like that. People keep on insisting that people from a certain belief did bad things therefore others from that belief are bad etc.

Avatar 720 wrote:I don't honestly see your point here

Well color me shocked.

Answer this: why should we care that you are offended? Do you think it is going to change anyone's opinion of Mr. Hawking? Do you think anyone is going to think you are in a better position to judge Mr. Hawking's personal views? What do you get out of getting all teary eyed about this? It changes nothing and makes you appear intolerant of other peoples ideas. The reasonable reaction is to just realize you don't agree with him and move on instead of getting all bent out of shape for someone having a different line of thinking than your own. So again, why should we give a damn that you are offended?

While I'm not really offended by the comment, there is a difference between "I have foung nothign to support the concept of life after death or heaven" and "People who believe in God are silly fools". I realize that's not how he put it but that was the implication.

Ahtman wrote:

Avatar 720 wrote:I don't honestly see your point here

Well color me shocked.

Answer this: why should we care that you are offended? Do you think it is going to change anyone's opinion of Mr. Hawking? Do you think anyone is going to think you are in a better position to judge Mr. Hawking's personal views? What do you get out of getting all teary eyed about this? It changes nothing and makes you appear intolerant of other peoples ideas. The reasonable reaction is to just realize you don't agree with him and move on instead of getting all bent out of shape for someone having a different line of thinking than your own. So again, why should we give a damn that you are offended?

Simple answer: You shouldn't. I don't expect you to be.

As for the rest of your post, how is it making me appear intolerant? He was the one that made the jab, not me, if anything he is being intolerant of my beliefs. I'm not saying that athiests are dumb or what have you; where exactly do I start to appear intolerant? Before or after I decided to defend my beliefs?

The reasonable reaction for me is to defend what I believe. I have previously stated that if he had simply stated his beliefs sans the insult, i'd have no qualm with it.

What part of what I am saying is fueling your hatred here?

Avatar 720 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Avatar 720 wrote:I don't honestly see your point here

Well color me shocked.

Answer this: why should we care that you are offended? Do you think it is going to change anyone's opinion of Mr. Hawking? Do you think anyone is going to think you are in a better position to judge Mr. Hawking's personal views? What do you get out of getting all teary eyed about this? It changes nothing and makes you appear intolerant of other peoples ideas. The reasonable reaction is to just realize you don't agree with him and move on instead of getting all bent out of shape for someone having a different line of thinking than your own. So again, why should we give a damn that you are offended?

Simple answer: You shouldn't. I don't expect you to be.

As for the rest of your post, how is it making me appear intolerant? He was the one that made the jab, not me, if anything he is being intolerant of my beliefs. I'm not saying that athiests are dumb or what have you; where exactly do I start to appear intolerant? Before or after I decided to defend my beliefs?

The reasonable reaction for me is to defend what I believe. I have previously stated that if he had simply stated his beliefs sans the insult, i'd have no qualm with it.

What part of what I am saying is fueling your hatred here?

Well...if were going to discuss intolerance..
What,by and large ,is the Chistian view concerning Homosexuals ?...What about those who engage in pre-marital sex?

Avatar 720 wrote:The reasonable reaction for me is to defend what I believe.

But you aren't defending what you believe so much as attacking what someone else does. A guy you don't know and probably have never met has an opinion different from you so lash out. If tolerance was your goal you'd think "se la vie" and move on, because the very act of someone with a differing viewpoint wouldn't require you to barge onto the internet to express your outrage over someone not agreeing with you. You act as if he came to your house and told you you were wrong. I mean, with all the real things in the world that are offensive, like children starving to death, you choose this to complain about. A guy just doesn't feel the same way about religion you do and when asked about it was honest. If you want to get offended, there are much better things and much more overtly anti-Christian people you could go after.

Mike Noble wrote:...

No one seemed to respond to my question of Reincarnation as an afterlife, but I suppose it was partly rhetorical. Anyway, I personally believe in such an afterlife, because that is what I actually think will happen, not what I wish would happen. When someone says I only believe in such things because of my fear of death, I get annoyed because they seem to be implying that they are better than me because they don't need that belief to cope with death. But honestly, if it isn't true, if there really is no afterlife, then I don't really care, because there is nothing I can do. By the time I find out, it won't really matter now will it?

I think most Religious argument stem from people's need to be right. They want to feel smarter or better than others. That's why everyone tries to find ways to make the other side look bad, so they can feel like they are better people. No seriously every argument is like that. People keep on insisting that people from a certain belief did bad things therefore others from that belief are bad etc.

My only input would be is there is any evidence to support the idea of reincarnation? This is is isn't barring the fact that the number of living things on this earth is rapidly increasing making the concept a bit of a stretch to begin with. But you're right: by the time we reach the end, the debate itself will be pointless as we're no longer here to argue back and forth. I'll repeat my statement in my post once again to address the afterlife: is these any proof to begin with?

Ahtman responded to the overly-aggressive Avatar better than I could have. Avatar is all for individuals having their own opinions, but is outraged when they don't match his own. This falls in line with a common fault in America (and possibly other places in the world): "You can believe what you want, but I don't want to see it, hear it or find it expressed in any fashion while I ignore things that I happen to agree with due to bias and/or cognitive dissonance".

There's nothing inflammatory about what Hawking has said until you make it more than it actually is. If I said that privacy and equality were a myth, would people then be offended? Surely these are things people hold dear.

Well...if were going to discuss intolerance..
What,by and large ,is the Chistian view concerning Homosexuals ?...What about those who engage in pre-marital sex?

From what I can tell, the main teaching is intolerance, but I cannot (and I must stress this) speak for everyone. I personally find nothing wrong with either of them, in fact, i'm bisexual myself, so it'd be pretty strange for me to believe homosexuality was wrong.

Pre-marital sex doesn't bother me; you can do what you want with your body and your partner(s).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

Avatar 720 wrote:The reasonable reaction for me is to defend what I believe.

But you aren't defending what you believe so much as attacking what someone else does. A guy you don't know and probably have never met has an opinion different from you so lash out.

Are you missing the fact that he insulted me to start it, or simply ignoring it? For the umpteenth time I don't care if he has a different opinion, I care that he insulted a lot of people (myself included) by mouthing off at everyone who believes otherwise.

If tolerance was your goal you'd think "se la vie" and move on, because the very act of someone with a differing viewpoint wouldn't require you to barge onto the internet to express your outrage over someone not agreeing with you. You act as if he came to your house and told you you were wrong. I mean, with all the real things in the world that are offensive, like children starving to death, you choose this to complain about. A guy just doesn't feel the same way about religion you do and when asked about it was honest. If you want to get offended, there are much better things and much more overtly anti-Christian people you could go after.

This is simply flame-bait, so i'm going to choose not to throw a spark on it.

Avatar 720 wrote:

Well...if were going to discuss intolerance..
What,by and large ,is the Chistian view concerning Homosexuals ?...What about those who engage in pre-marital sex?

From what I can tell, the main teaching is intolerance, but I cannot (and I must stress this) speak for everyone. I personally find nothing wrong with either of them, in fact, i'm bisexual myself, so it'd be pretty strange for me to believe homosexuality was wrong.

Pre-marital sex doesn't bother me; you can do what you want with your body and your partner(s).

Ok,so admittedly there is a tendency towards intolerance in the teachings within organized relegion...so surely it can't be much of a surprise when some "backlash" occures...chickens will come home to roost..so to speak.
Now,on a more personal level,you yourself seem to have a more tolerant outlook,which is a good thing.

I know I'm probably going to get lambasted for this but I’m just trying to explain what I was taught through religion... Again from my experience in religion- yes homosexuality and premarital sex is considered bad, but one should treat everyone with love and respect. You can disagree with someone’s actions and still be kind, respectful, etc. People now seem to think if you disagree with them you must be intolerant.

Graveyman wrote:I know I'm probably going to get lambasted for this but I’m just trying to explain what I was taught through religion... Again from my experience in religion- yes homosexuality and premarital sex is considered bad, but one should treat everyone with love and respect. You can disagree with someone’s actions and still be kind, respectful, etc. People now seem to think if you disagree with them you must be intolerant.

I would think it's a bit difficult to treat people with "love and respect" if you believe them (or at least their lifestyle) to be "bad"...but I get the point your trying to convey.
I openly admit to disliking organized religion and to disagreeing with many of it's "teachings"...but I do attempt to remain civil when discussing the subject.

Avatar 720 wrote:This is simply flame-bait, so i'm going to choose not to throw a spark on it.

I take it you don't really know what that means, or you meant to say "I have no real response to this so I'm not going to try". It isn't flame-bait in any way, it is a serious set of questions. Just because you have trouble answering in an honest and reasonable manner doesn't mean they aren't part of a valid line of inquiry.

Hawking didn't insult you, you were insulted, there is a difference. You are taking something that isn't about you (Mr. Hawking's personal beliefs) and making it all about you and somehow personal.

that is a fairy story for people who are afraid of the dark.

Sorry, but I think most would consider this to be a disparaging remark. Horribly offensive? Not to me, but that’s just me.

Ahtman wrote:

Avatar 720 wrote:This is simply flame-bait, so i'm going to choose not to throw a spark on it.

I take it you don't really know what that means, or you meant to say "I have no real response to this so I'm not going to try". It isn't flame-bait in any way, it is a serious set of questions. Just because you have trouble answering in an honest and reasonable manner doesn't mean they aren't part of a valid line of inquiry.

Take it however you want, I know what it means and I know how answering the questions will end, so I will choose not to answer. Call me Mr Unadventurous, but I don't see how being engaged in a protracted argument that will ultimately end in you trying to provoke me into saying something stupid would benefit the discussion in any way.

Hawking didn't insult you, you were insulted, there is a difference. You are taking something that isn't about you (Mr. Hawking's personal beliefs) and making it all about you and somehow personal.

He did insult me? According to him, I believe in fairy tales and i'm afraid of the dark because I believe in an afterlife. If that's not an insult then I don't know what exactly is.

It is also not his personal beliefs, he stated it as fact. Saying "I don't believe in the existance of heaven" is stating your personal beliefs; saying "Everyone who believes in a heaven believes in fairytales and is afraid of the dark" is not stating your beliefs, it is an insult aimed at those who believe in heaven. There is a difference, and i'm wondering how you cannot see it, because several members of this thread can.

Orlanth wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

How would you even go about proving/disproving the existance of Heaven, anyway?

I dont. I gave my opinion, not a stated fact.

Sorry, that wasn't directed at you, more of just a general thought.

Off Topic: You know what I don't understand about the whole Pre-Marital Sex is a no-no? We, Human Beings, were made (according to the Adam and Eve story) to be little more than animals right off the bat. Animals have sex whenever they want.....

Also, I don't understand Preists not being able to marry; God gave man woman to love and cherish, it just seems odd to me that his high priests would cut themselves off from one of his gifts (According to Catholic Beleif and the Bible.)


On topic; I won't honestly pretend to know what is waiting for us after we die. Maybe our soul just stays in our body, buried underground forever. Maybe theres Heaven/Hell. Maybe theres reincarnation. I don't know. Unlike most people I have met, I won't pretend to. But there has to be something, right? Too much random stuff that nobody can explain happens for there to NOT be some sort of spiritual existance.

Why does there have to be a spiritual existance. Why not, when you die, your brain goes click, off, gone? And you're dead. That's it. Nothing. There's certainly nothing that points towards a supernatural occurance other than our own inclinations to believe in one, largely based on our own fears of our mortality.

It's not like your computer has any thoughts floating around once you take out its power supply.