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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Funny that you say that, considering that no human, including you, is without beliefs, and it is impossible to ever get rid of. So explain what is the purpose of this comment? Without further elaboration, it is kinda of a nonsensical, throw-away one-liner.

Not all belief is equal. A belief that scientific observation of the universe and appropriate experimentation and calculation can allow you to describe how things behave and then predict what will happen if you then do something is borne out by the success of science to find things out and use them to predict what will happen.

The belief that there is a monster that lives under the bed is not borne out because one can look under the bed and see that there is nothing there. One can observe and experiment all day but still not find any evidence that there is a monster under the bed. However, some people will continue to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that there is a monster under the bed. And they will insist that because you "cannot prove a negative" they are right. And monsters under the bed should be taught in schools because it is important to "teach the controversy" that they have entirely made up in order to cram their own unsupported delusions into education and attempt to cut down on the time given to teaching about actual reality.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Funny that you say that, considering that no human, including you, is without beliefs, and it is impossible to ever get rid of. So explain what is the purpose of this comment? Without further elaboration, it is kinda of a nonsensical, throw-away one-liner.

Not all belief is equal. A belief that scientific observation of the universe and appropriate experimentation and calculation can allow you to describe how things behave and then predict what will happen if you then do something is borne out by the success of science to find things out and use them to predict what will happen if you do something that they have figured out how it works.

The belief that there is a monster that lives under the bed is not borne out because one can look under the bed and see that there is nothing there. One can observe and experiment all day but still not find any evidence that there is a monster under the bed. However, some people will continue to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that there is a monster under the bed. And they will insist that because you "cannot prove a negative" they are right. And monsters under the bed should be taught in schools because it is important to "teach the controversy" that they have entirely made up in order to cram their own unsupported delusions into education and attempt to cut down on the time given to teaching about actual reality.

Reality. A fickle, awful and dark thing it is.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Yes, unfortenately there are some people in the world who are not able to just let other people believe whatever the hell they want.

But then people who think they know more than they actually do would have trouble mocking others...especially online.

Speaking of mocking others, looks like this topic has been cooked enough no? Maybe we should stick it in the fridge for awhile. We can always reheat it later. Sometimes topics are even better then second day, after everything has marinated overnight.

Is this the part where it becomes a SCIENCE! vs religon thread?

 Ahtman wrote:
Is this the part where it becomes a SCIENCE! vs religon thread?

Maybe...

Some say cooking is a science. The wife says cooking is art. Baking is science.

I don't care as long as it produces chocolate cake!

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Reality. A fickle, awful and dark thing it is.

I guess it could be comforting to believe in fairies and unicorns if you can't cope with reality


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Some say cooking is a science. The wife says cooking is art. Baking is science.

I don't care as long as it produces chocolate cake!

But is baking cooking? And should we stone to death people who don't agree with us?

Eh. Im not feeding this troll.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Eh. Im not feeding this troll.

Are you then suggesting that a belief in something with no evidence for it in order to make yourself feel better about reality is in some way not a good thing?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Eh. Im not feeding this troll.

Are you then suggesting that a belief in something with no evidence for it in order to make yourself feel better about reality is in some way not a good thing?

Mmm. No, I am suggesting you are a troll, which you are.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 OneManNoodles wrote:
Blessed is she in the eyes of Ragu.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
This thread got serious. How does a thread about someone wearing a strainer for a hat get serious?

Religion. DakkaDakka. Mix. Explosion.

Unfortunately beliefs are an opinion that people happen to take far too seriously because they fail to realise they are just that.

Funny that you say that, considering that no human, including you, is without beliefs, and it is impossible to ever get rid of. So explain what is the purpose of this comment? Without further elaboration, it is kinda of a nonsensical, throw-away one-liner.

That was not the intention, nor do I say that I have no beliefs. Rather it was an attempt of making a point in a succinct manner by playing with the associations around two words which mean very similar things and trying to point out that if one might try treating one like the other.

Many seem take their belief(s) more seriously where they might not an opinion. It seems some are more willing to accept that their opinion could be wrong rather than what they believe, and those that do take it seriously tend to be less likely to accept that they may be wrong.

And yes I do have a few beliefs. I believe in belief for example but I cannot believe in any deities and find it curious that everyone refers to a binary Christian god or no gods which I find disrespectful to all the other people who live and have lived yet held different religious beliefs.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Eh. Im not feeding this troll.

Are you then suggesting that a belief in something with no evidence for it in order to make yourself feel better about reality is in some way not a good thing?

Mmm. No, I am suggesting you are a troll, which you are.

This is the forum equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling, "La, la, la, la! I can't hear you!"

Resorting to name calling because you can't verbalize a response is trolling, buddy.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Eh. Im not feeding this troll.

Are you then suggesting that a belief in something with no evidence for it in order to make yourself feel better about reality is in some way not a good thing?

Mmm. No, I am suggesting you are a troll, which you are.

This is the forum equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling, "La, la, la, la! I can't hear you!"

Resorting to name calling because you can't verbalize a response is trolling, buddy.

Engaging a troll in anyway besides ignoring him is technically trolling.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Mmm. No, I am suggesting you are a troll, which you are.

Whilst you may consider my posting style to be inflammatory, my comments have all been on topic (in so far as the topic developed), nor do I feel that I have said anything untrue. Given that you have in no way meaningfully responded to anything that I have said other than to call me "intolerant" when I suggested treating everyone the same regardless of their beliefs, to call me "sad" for suggesting that religions exploit their special legal status to exert undue influence over the lives of everyone, call catholics heretics - twice, sorry, three times, no... wait... four times, and then of course call me a troll... twice.

I feel that I must take my (trolling?) hat off to you sir. Well played

Edit: Stupid url tags

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Reality. A fickle, awful and dark thing it is.

I guess it could be comforting to believe in fairies and unicorns if you can't cope with reality

Eh, I've seen fairies. I am no Pastafarian, but I endorse their tolerance of all beliefs policy- so as long as those beliefs do not involve people harming others. Really, they are the most tolerant folks on the planet. I love teaching their 'Open Letter' to my students to showcase satire, and allow them a safe space to question their own beliefs.

 Frazzled wrote:
Some say cooking is a science. The wife says cooking is art. Baking is science.

I don't care as long as it produces chocolate cake!

Barbeque is the greatest possible combination of both art and science

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Barbeque is the greatest possible combination of both art and science

I've not seen a BBQ that could produce good cake however... And adding in a third reli... erm... cooking style will just lead to even more bloodshed!

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Barbeque is the greatest possible combination of both art and science

I've not seen a BBQ that could produce good cake however... And adding in a third reli... erm... cooking style will just lead to even more bloodshed!

Well, BBQ using gas is borderline heresy anyway.

Steelmage99 wrote:
Well, BBQ using gas is borderline heresy anyway.

I didn't watch it often, but possibly the funniest one I saw was when they had charcoal cooked food instead of propane

 Ahtman wrote:
Is this the part where it becomes a SCIENCE! vs religon thread?

No point, that argument was won the instant that churches started installing lightning rods.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Mmm. No, I am suggesting you are a troll, which you are.

Whilst you may consider my posting style to be inflammatory, my comments have all been on topic (in so far as the topic developed), nor do I feel that I have said anything untrue. Given that you have in no way meaningfully responded to anything that I have said other than to call me "intolerant" when I suggested treating everyone the same regardless of their beliefs, to call me "sad" for suggesting that religions exploit their special legal status to exert undue influence over the lives of everyone, call catholics heretics - twice, sorry, three times, no... wait... four times, and then of course call me a troll... twice.

I feel that I must take my (trolling?) hat off to you sir. Well played

Edit: Stupid url tags

I really do find your comments inflammatory. I also find it funny how you site all these sources about things I've to prove something that isn't.

For instance, you claim I am intolerant because I think Catholics are borderline heretical. My claim is entirely true if you look at what the bible teaches about deities, whom the Catholics have a lot of. The intolerance point is entirely false, however. To be intolerant I would say hateful things laced with enough spite to kill nearby plants. I can sit around Catholics and have a normal conversation with them. That is what is tolerance.

The troll comment was again an accurate depiction of how you got me into this ridiculous argument. You said something stupid like, "So you agree then that your religion is bad for you." I find that false and that I never said a thing. I said that the world is a fickle, dark thing. Please try and find a valid argument to come at me with other than "Hurr Durr, your a religious nut"

 SilverMK2 wrote:
The belief that there is a monster that lives under the bed is not borne out because one can look under the bed and see that there is nothing there. One can observe and experiment all day but still not find any evidence that there is a monster under the bed. However, some people will continue to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that there is a monster under the bed. And they will insist that because you "cannot prove a negative" they are right. And monsters under the bed should be taught in schools because it is important to "teach the controversy" that they have entirely made up in order to cram their own unsupported delusions into education and attempt to cut down on the time given to teaching about actual reality.

QFT.

This is not trolling, it is a simple explanation of what non-religious folk think of the religious. We try as hard as we can to get you people to see the light, but no matter how many examples we use, you people just keep right on a believin'.

Tell me, what would you do if everyone around you actually thought that Santa Claus slid down chimneys on Christmas eve? That they actually believed that?

It's easy to say "oh, I'd let 'um believe anything they want." Sure. Sometimes. But that doesn't mean we have to stay silent all the time. If you beleive in Santa Claus, actually, honest to Gawd believe it, I'm going to redicule you. Sometimes.

We non-religious folk do believe stuff, too. Like quantum mechanics. Boy do I not want to believe in that. But the evidence is there, that it does work, somehow. I'm hoping that before my life ends some physicist will come up with a rational explanation that does away with all the quantum bullcrap, but I'm not holding my breath.

In the meantime, the strainer girl can go right ahead ridiculing religious folk. It just shows how you people look to the rest of us.

This was the best part I think:

“Some claim that the church is purely a thought experiment or satire, illustrating that Intelligent Design is not science, just a pseudoscience manufactured by Christians to push Creationism into public schools,” an explainer on the site reads. “These people are mistaken — The Church of FSM is legit, and backed by hard science. Anything that comes across as humor or satire is purely coincidental.”

Ouch.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
I really do find your comments inflammatory. I also find it funny how you site all these sources about things I've to prove something that isn't.

I'm sorry you are so conflicted reading my posts in that case

For instance, you claim I am intolerant

I don't recall claiming that at all...

because I think Catholics are borderline heretical.

Although now you mention it...

My claim is entirely true if you look at what the bible teaches about deities

And yet there is little if any evidence to suggest that anything in the bible is true. That aside, your own religious beliefs are considered heretical by the 999999999 other religions that have existed since the dawn of time. Nor, I am sure, do any catholics reading your posts feel that your inflammatory comments are particularly funny

To be intolerant I would say hateful things laced with enough spite to kill nearby plants.

My ability to keep plants alive is not an issue!

To be intolerant one simply has to be intolerant. I treat everyone the same (or at least attempt to). If someone presented poor scientific reasoning for why plants are really animals, I would attempt to demonstrate why they were wrong. If someone presents poor scientific reasoning for why there must be a god, I will attempt to demonstrate why they are wrong. If someone just claims something as utter truth with no evidence to support it at all when that claim then flies in the face of reality... well... I will attempt to demonstrate why that is not a particularly valid position to hold, generally through the medium of sarcasm and humour as at least that way the discussion is entertaining to read.

If however you wanted to present some good evidence to support your beliefs rationally, I would discuss them with you.

I can sit around Catholics and have a normal conversation with them. That is what is tolerance.

Not really if you then go home and talk about how stupid catholics are and how their beliefs are heretical...

The troll comment was again an accurate depiction of how you got me into this ridiculous argument. You said something stupid like, "So you agree then that your religion is bad for you." I find that false and that I never said a thing. I said that the world is a fickle, dark thing.

You got yourself into this rediculous argument by not even attempting to discuss things rationally.

Please try and find a valid argument to come at me with other than "Hurr Durr, your a religious nut"

Ok, I will go straight back to my first post in this thread: What makes your beliefs more valid and deserving of special protections than any other belief? Given that one can put forward any belief which may or may not be supported by more weight of (good quality) evidence, what then is the point at which one can say "This belief is reasonable" and what distinguishes it from an unreasonable one?

Insofar as I can see, religion(s) seem to like claiming that they deserve special treatment without demonstrating why, or that they have anything underpinning the claims they make in order to consider them "reasonable beliefs" and therefore better than whatever someone decides to make up out of whole cloth.

This thread is nearing the end.

And if certain users cannot follow Rule #1, they may find their ability to post in the OT Forum, and possibly all of Dakka Dakka, becoming quite limited.

I have an odd hunch thats aimed towards me...

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
I have an odd hunch thats aimed towards me...

Oh there's several people in here that need to STFU, I think a lock would be beneficial.

 Alex C wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
I have an odd hunch thats aimed towards me...

Oh there's several people in here that need to STFU, I think a lock would be beneficial.

Agreed. Its kind of an eye sore

Well, as much as I am keen to hear your reply to my ernest question I am afraid I must head off to bed since I have to get up for work in not enough hours

I am sure I will be able to read it whilst making my breakfast however?

You have about 6 hours to make it really good as well

Do we have time for godwin's law to be enacted?