The Cynical Asshole Thread

[CypressDahlia]

If you claim to have met an intolerant atheist, then you don't know the meaning of intolerance.

This sentence reads as being very ironic.

[Peteman]

Theres more types of persecution than physical persecution. Religion is as much a part of a persons identity as it is 'thier religion'. So when an athiest starts bashing any form of Chrisitianity it is very easy to be horribly mean to the person who is not millitant yet still a Christian. In addition when most athiest argue they are, in there minds, attacking 'the religion'; when they are in fact attacking the person who holds those views. What I'm trying to say is one man's 'tolerance' is another mans 'persecution.'

It is good to look at both sides of the coin.

Also I disagree with your statement millitant Chrisitianity is more acceptable, per se. It's probably more likely that millitant Christian are more acceptable where there are other millitant Christians.

Edit: Heh, this isn't a very cynical post is it? Oops.

[CypressDahlia]

When your main point against an establishment is that it preaches intolerance, your main platform should not be that someone else's personal values are "wrong". That's just hypocritical.

[Harvester_Of_Sorrow]

I agree with that. My platform is that their values,opinions and ideas of their religion are founded on something unproven, and if one were to insist on believeing said value, opinion or idea despite this, they are a delusional moron. And thats an objective fact.

How can one be a 'militant' athiest anyway?

[Peteman]

The same way a Christian can. By aggresivly pronouncing to people that thier views are right and everyone else is a delusional moron.

Edit: So you believe someone is weird for valuing kindness, generosity, forgiveness and love? Those are Christian values are they not?

[GunZet]

Yea, like those dudes that attack someone at the slightest mention of God, and start a whole deal about it, and how there is no God.
Those types of Athiests I can't stand. It's almost as if they're trying to make themselves feel better about something.

[Harvester_Of_Sorrow]

The same way a Christian can. By aggresivly pronouncing to people that thier views are right and everyone else is a delusional moron.

Edit: So you believe someone is weird for valuing kindness, generosity, forgiveness and love? Those are Christian values are they not?

No, those are human values. The fact that said human is also a Christian is irrelevant. And I made it very clear that your values, opinions or ideas are only delusional moronary if you concede they are unproven but believe in them regardless. That just makes one silly. This is not my personal opinion, this is an objective fact. If you can provide proof or some kind of reason for your belief in said being, then by all means let me know it.

And I agree, GunZet, when someone just mentions a God or Gods and immediatly someone jumps on that person for it, I find that kinda annoying too, but only when its not relevant to the conversation. If you are talking about a God or Gods, then say what you like on the subject.

[Peteman]

No, those are human values. The fact that said human is also a Christian is irrelevant.

I'm sorry, but I'm studying Anthropology and that is a very wrong assumption. The ones I've mentioned are modern neo-liberal (in terms of all of history not modern politics) ideals at best. The social/cultural 'group' (I use that term loosely as cultures shift and overlap.) It's true that one does not have to be a Chrisitian to uphold those values, but being part of a larger cultural group which does, is. Even the notion of love which I mentioned is not neccessrily the same in western society as ii would be in say...Papa new Guinea

And I made it very clear that your values, opinions or ideas are only delusional moronary if you concede they are unproven but believe in them regardless.

You said nothing about the other person conceding they are unproven. Though yes, saying something is true and not true is quite illogical.
What you said was:

My platform is that their values,opinions and ideas of their religion are founded on something unproven,

Just because they are unproven to you it does not mean they are unproven to everybody. Even the very 'logic' with which your mind works is shaped by your sociocultural values.

[Gedeon]

Well its ball's for me since in my country where its a custom to be religious, so when we had Civil class we mentioned religion and the professor asked "Who here is religious?" Everyone except me said yes. And then all hell broke lose......." OH my god Gedeon! How can you not believe in god!!!?? Are you even baptized!!!?" Asked my class-mate who breaks at least 5 of the 10 commandments each day, and hasn't even opened the bible. Amused by her reaction i replied: "What father in their right mind wold take someone seriously, if he's name is Gedeon?!" And she said "Sorry Gedeon i can't be friends with you anymore" Of course it was a joke, and after that we all walked to the bus station together as always, but the thing that bugs me the most is that a lot of kids here in Serbia believe in god just cuz their parents said so, and there are even those that say that they don't really like the whole concept of christian religion, and are more conformable with the Buddhism. But they say that they don't wanna bother with changing religion. Sorry for the rant but i would like to ask how many people that are atheists, but went to the church some time in their past, do you know?

[Delphinus]

I'm sorry, but I'm studying Anthropology and that is a very wrong assumption. The ones I've mentioned are modern neo-liberal (in terms of all of history not modern politics) ideals at best. The social/cultural 'group' (I use that term loosely as cultures shift and overlap.) It's true that one does not have to be a Chrisitian to uphold those values, but being part of a larger cultural group which does, is. Even the notion of love which I mentioned is not neccessrily the same in western society as ii would be in say...Papa new Guinea

Fair comment. However, it's not a defence of Christianity's illogical elements; those can be demonstrated to be false. You can say that a person's beliefs are shaped by their environment, and that makes sense, but laws of logic are objective. Saying that the fallacy of popularity or the problem of evil are not based on objective truths is equivalent to saying that 2+2=5 (great song). Also, we don't care if you're studying anthropology: pulling rank in a debate is bad practice, as you should know.

Just because they are unproven to you it does not mean they are unproven to everybody. Even the very 'logic' with which your mind works is shaped by your sociocultural values.

The first sentence: fine, if obvious. "Just because you don't accept it it doesn't mean others can't accept it!" No shit, sherlock. When Harvester of Sorrow said 'proven', though, I think he meant 'able to withstand critical analysis without falling apart into slag'.

The latter is what's known as epistemic relativism, and is postmodernist drivel. (Read Intellectual Impostures by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont to see why) There are areas where arguing relativism is acceptable: knowledge of reality is not one. Logic itself is not a western value, and claiming that it is denies the fact of the evolution of philosophical schools in the Far East, the Middle East, and India - i.e. in all of the oldest large-scale civilisations. I'd think as an anthropology student you'd know of the development of those cultures. I don't include tribal cultures because they're too small to require elaborate and formalised systems of governance and logic: few tribes have built, say, cathedrals.
I think I've exposed myself to criticism for treating science as a meta-narrative. But - for the sane and intellectually honest - it ought to be fairly obvious that reality itself is a meta-narrative, and that science, mathematics, and logic reflect, to a greater or lesser extent, that reality.
Note that by 'science' I mean the hard sciences. I wouldn't include the social sciences or humanities, because their theory is, as you say, inextricable from cultural factors. Reality, on the other hand, doesn't change just because you believe it has. That's the definition of it.