"Yes, and then he made an argument to support his thesis, unlike you. I'm not even quite certain what to make of the mess you've ejaculated upon the world wide web."
Mmm, of course. You disagree with my arguments, therefore they aren't actually arguments at all, but rather they are ejaculate. And insulting me out of nowhere is the rational response to this. Although I admit it is a bit funny.
Furthermore, his only argument to the thesis that religious tolerance was like murder tolerance is the assertion that it was not viable in modern society. This assertion was backed up by another assertion, that the religious are mentally unstable (with no arguments to support that one). This is the extent of his argument.
I counter that the religious are not mentally unstable by attempting to show that it is arbitrary to decide that their level of belief without proof is beyond sanity and our level is not.
It's become popular on the Internet these days to claim that somebody didn't argue something. Even if you thought my argument was utter bullshit (even if it is utter bullshit, and you can prove it), there is no way you're telling me I didn't back up my claim.
Sorry to go off like that. The rest of your post was more rational.
"I never stated it was. I'm stating that it's similar to religion. Believing in the absurd without proof."
I agree. And I know you didn't state they were the same, but the thing is, you were arguing that it was a sign of mental instability, and doing so in defense of a post that was saying that a sort of mental instability was the same as murder. I know you aren't actually arguing that, but it is meant to be an example of how the post deserves to be on here.
"Appeal to popularity."
Thank you.
"God is by its very nature an untenable position; it can never be proven. Atrocities like genocide can easily be proven through eye-witness accounts, forensic evidence, and the like."
They can be, but have you actually gone through and done that for many of them? Or even any of them? A lot of people are essentially told that there is some good proof for God, and they accept that the way they accept that others have learned of atrocities.
That said, I'm not fond of this argument, so I'll concede it.
"Sure, but then, that's not what religion asks of you. It states that there is no proof, but for you the disciple to take it on pure 'faith'."
Then there are those who believe that the bible constitutes proof (which I think pass quite a bit closer to the looney bin than the general population). And some who believe that nature itself has manifest glory blah blah blah proof.
It doesn't actually, I know. But being mistaken about something is not the same as being insane. I chose the Coriolis effect as an example because it's so pervasive -- it made the Simpsons, so it has to be well-known -- and intelligent, otherwise-competent people believe it. My claim is that like thinking the toilets always flush one way, belief in God does not by itself constitute, or even come all that close to constituting, grounds for being declared insane.
"No, but they are signs of incompetence, paranoia, and general stupidity."
To an extent, yes. Everybody is guilty of some of these things some of the time, though. Surely some level of tolerance on this is important? Why is God worse than the toilet-flush direction?
"Say what?"
"Once again, I'm not quite getting what you're saying."
In those two I was attempting to establish that there are things we believe without proof. Such things include:
1. Past events are like the future (like if touching a hot thing hurt once, it will probably hurt again).
2. Logic simply works.
3. Human memory is more-or-less accurate (this relates back to number 1).
They are sort of required for science.
"Logic and religion don't mix. Religion requires one to relinquish logic in order to have faith."
I was not arguing that religion was a logical conclusion. However, one need not relinquish logic, they need only make an error. The Christians are right about one thing: humans are fallible, we make mistakes. It's not insanity, it's reality.
"No, it makes sense. Someone who states, with any irony, that they believe in something they know has no evidence to support it is an idiot or fucking insane."
Many of these people don't know that there is no evidence. They mistake non-evidence for evidence.
"Yes, and someone in a position of responsibility who allows their religious beliefs to interfere with their position is clearly a danger to those around them. Look at christian pharmacists and that bastard Dubya."
A Christian pharmacist who won't do their job properly is a bad pharmacist. One who will, is a good pharmacist.
As for Dubya, he doesn't merely believe in God. I think he's one of those who thinks he's holding regular discussions with him (not sure).
"More than likely. Doesn't mean that the idea of religious fucktards in power is appealing at all. "
