Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Is atheism a religion?


Off-Topic Discussions

601 to 650 of 1,394 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>

XxAnthraxusxX wrote:


Of all the groups sent to concentration camps, i am sure gays comprised a tiny fraction of them. As in a number so small it hardly warrants mention.

Why do you believe that?

Shadow Lodge

Still waiting on that proof.

Andoran

Darkwing Duck wrote:
XxAnthraxusxX wrote:


Of all the groups sent to concentration camps, i am sure gays comprised a tiny fraction of them. As in a number so small it hardly warrants mention.
Why do you believe that?

Truthiness.

I prefer at least rudimentary research, but hey...


Jeeze... Holocaust huh? I feel better that I'm not the best troll on these boards.


I know I missed a day in this thread, but Holocaust denial...really?

LazarX wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
You use religion as a scapegoat, leaders use religion as a tool, but soldiers use religion as a comfort.

But this is a bad thing in its own right. Maybe it would be harder for tyrants and dictators to manipulate populations if we didn't have a societal blind spot of non-critical thinking that they could exploit.

It's not a societal blind spot as it is a genetic one. There's mounting evidence that Humans, even those who consider themselves Atheistic, are pre-disposed to religous-type beliefs. When you take a look at the equally venom-filled flame wars on browser, operating system choice, or even game system choice, you see the same kinf of fervor that you see in religous rallies.

Humans do indeed have an evolutionary pre-disposition to making up patterns and explanations. That is why it especially important for everyone to think critically all the time. Atheists are generally just the people who understand this and take it the most seriously I have found.

So, I have very little sympathy for people who abdicate their responsibility to think critically. Maybe if more people were critical thinkers, the sort of mass societal manipulation I was talking about would be harder. And that would be a good thing.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Saint Caleth wrote:
I know I missed a day in this thread, but Holocaust denial...really?

He certainly knows the script.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saint Caleth wrote:
Humans do indeed have an evolutionary pre-disposition to making up patterns and explanations. That is why it especially important for everyone to think critically all the time. Atheists are generally just the people who understand this and take it the most seriously I have found.

Atheist elitism for the win. Clearly, not believing in a god or gods means you think critically about the world. You're not going to be scammed if your an atheist etc. If you are one of the sheeple who does believe that's there's a god out there, clearly your mind is poisoned and you just aren't as likely to understand how important it is to think critically.


Ok yea, that did come out a little bit more ass-hatty than I intended now that you mention it. Also, that is not what I said, and you know it.

You don't have to be an athiest to think critically, I know plenty of people of various faiths who understand the importance of critical thinking, including some pretty fundamentalist Christians.

Conversely, Atheists can be some of the worst sheeple. As they say, a little bit of knowledge is the most dangerous thing.


Did you know, that Christopher Columbus' departure date from coincided with the expulsion of Jews from Spain. He had his crew spend the night on board to avoid any problems with the authorities.

Jews were given the choice, convert to Christianity, or be expelled from Spain. The Spanish Inquisition followed shortly after, because some people started to suspect that their conversions weren't very genuine.

Yup, we should all just assume that Christianity had nothing to do with a European culture that thought it was okay to oppress Jews.

Christopher Columbus wrote:
Your Highnesses, as Catholic Christians, and princes who love and promote the holy Christian faith, and are enemies of the doctrine of Mahomet, and of all idolatry and heresy, determined to send me, Christopher Columbus, to the above-mentioned countries of India, to see the said princes, people, and territories, and to learn their disposition and the proper method of converting them to our holy faith; and furthermore directed that I should not proceed by land to the East, as is customary, but by a Westerly route, in which direction we have hitherto no certain evidence that any one has gone. So after having expelled the Jews from your dominions, your Highnesses, in the same month of January, ordered me to proceed with a sufficient armament to the said regions of India

Unfortunately, that excerpt is second-hand, the original diaries of Columbus have been lost forever.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Saint Caleth wrote:
Conversely, Atheists can be some of the worst sheeple. As they say, a little bit of knowledge is the most dangerous thing.

I think the problem comes from when people think they know it all. Most humans are susceptible, regardless of what forces they believe control the world. I used to blame religion too, then I looked at atheists, I use to blame my country for being stupid, but then I looked at all the failures other countries were capable of, and then it clicked. The world is full of stupid people, and everyone is stupid at some point.

We don't have infinite time to check and verify everything and so in order to delve and focus in one area, we tend to neglect another so we have to rely on trusting that someone else who's spent a significant amount of time on their selected subject. Sometimes that other person we trust is family, sometimes it's a priest, sometimes it is a scientist with credentials.

Who you trust with what information is important. Anyone who trusts a single source for large quantities of information is doomed to be a tool. Atheist or theist.

Andoran

TOZ wrote:
Still waiting on that proof.

Read it and weep.

Checkmate, Atheists.


cranewings wrote:
@Zombieneighbors, I'm not going to reply to your whole post because most of it was just picking for pickings sake.

That picking for picking sake was your argument being demolished. The point is that even in combination those elements do not make something a religion.

cranewings wrote:


I just skipped to the end when you asked if I was kidding you for thinking that Christians and Atheists are the same group of people. No, I'm not kidding. You are exactly the same.

If I were to make a gut guess, I'd say Christians were probably better.

If we made a body count of people killed by Christian Governments vs. people killed by Atheist governments, I bet I'd get a higher total if I get to include Stalin and Mao.

Where is your evidence that it was their atheism that made them do it. What is the logical steps that take you form 'i do not believe in god' to 'I will commit genocide'? This needs to be a positive reason. Simple saying something like 'there is no reason i shouldn't', is not sufficient as it does not lead logically to 'there for I should'

On the other hald there are plenty of positive reasons for the religious to do rather nasty things. Stoning woman for sex outside of marrage, marrying underaged girls, commit act of genocide, keeping slaves and much, much else besides, are all directly instructed by various scriptures and in many cases by gods themselves.

It was the civilisation of Christianity by the enlightenment that stopped the worst of this in Europe and America, but in much of the rest of the world, religions are still doing harms which rank pretty highly on the scale of evil. From accusations of witchcraft, to opposition of the use of condoms by the catholic church.

cranewings wrote:


If we based who is better on who does more good works, and measure it in dollars donated - you can tally up all of your Atheist organizations and I'll count up the Christian ones, and I bet I crush you 20 to 1.

*Coughs* where it goes to fund worthy causes such as this,this, this,this, this and so on, and so on, and so on.

I'd be interested to see an impact study of the efficacy of charitable giving by the two groups. Or how about a donation metric not tied to the size of the community, such as dollars per person.

cranewings wrote:


The only thing you have to complain about is that Christians are disgusted by homosexuality, but I've got news for you, PEOPLE in general often are. The most homophobic people I've ever known weren't religious. Men are afraid of seeing other mens' reproductive parts and they are afraid that gay people want to show them, plain and simply. That's not a Christian problem. That's a human nature problem.

Mmm.. hardly the only thing I have against religion, I mean yes that was the example I gave, but it's hardly the only issue. Other issues I have with religion include but are not limited too:

- magical thinking being used to justify murder, rape and mutilation
- prosperity ministry
- dominion-ism and theocracy
- The indoctrination of children
- separate standards for religion childcare and secular childcare, which leads to deaths and abuse of children.
- conspiracy to protect paedophile priests.
- the abuse school to teaching demonstrably false religious ideas dressed up as science to children.
- the war on the womb

While we are at it, I wasn't talking exclusively about christians, notice that when talking about homosexuality I also mention Islam for instance.

But in answer to the point you tried to make. I'm sorry, but religion is strongest predictor of an individuals homophobia, only political conservatism comes close. Might I suggest this article as it gives a pretty good explination of Wade C. Rowatt ect. all(2009) and Bernard Whitley (2009)'s papers on this subject


Saint Caleth wrote:
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
You use religion as a scapegoat, leaders use religion as a tool, but soldiers use religion as a comfort.

But this is a bad thing in its own right. Maybe it would be harder for tyrants and dictators to manipulate populations if we didn't have a societal blind spot of non-critical thinking that they could exploit.

Just offering the other side of the coin.

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”


Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:
Humans do indeed have an evolutionary pre-disposition to making up patterns and explanations. That is why it especially important for everyone to think critically all the time. Atheists are generally just the people who understand this and take it the most seriously I have found.
Atheist elitism for the win. Clearly, not believing in a god or gods means you think critically about the world. You're not going to be scammed if your an atheist etc. If you are one of the sheeple who does believe that's there's a god out there, clearly your mind is poisoned and you just aren't as likely to understand how important it is to think critically.

On one aspect of it, yes.

Without compelling evidence for the existence of gods, there is no reason to believe in them. That's the rational starting point. it also applies to magic, fairies, unicorns, flying spaggetti monsters, and much to my personal displeasure, great old ones.

Most atheists have this basic element of rationality down pat(it is possible to be an atheist for other reasons than rationality regarding gods but it is relatively rare), all religions people do not.

Now it is possible that a religious person might be entirely rational about everything but the existence of gods, and that an atheist might be entirely irrational about everything but gods, but I doubt it is common. after all, if some one is going to swallow something as cosmically unlikely as gods, it is unlikely they have the skill set to be rational about other elements of life.


ciretose wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Still waiting on that proof.

Read it and weep.

Checkmate, Atheists.

Squee!!! Edward Current!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Zombie, atheists support science which will blow up the world in nuclear fire, so you still lose. If Christianity succeeded in stopping science we wouldn't be facing extinction at the hands of nuclear bombs or engineered virus. ;)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
XxAnthraxusxX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

12 million. 6 million jews, 6 million other (largely poles and russians, with some of Rom (gypsy) homosexuals, and political dissidents tossed into the mix)

It wasn't just gas chambers. I think the biggest method of execution was either working people to death or just machine gunning them into mass graves.

They happened to be fighting a war at the time. If the only thing they had to do was kill Jews, then certainly i would concede that it was possible. But fighting off the other mass murderer Stalin, as well as the rest of the Allied powers, maybe not so much. The Red Army did rape pillage and burn its way all the way to Berlin. I rarely if ever see anybody mention that, or seem to care.

Pol Pot, ally of the United States is generally acknowledged to have killed over a million of his own people. And he didn't have trains or modern equipment to expedite the process. You may want to join the legion of Holocaust Deniers, but yes it's quite feasible given working 20th century technology and an industrial infrastructure.

Also remember that Germany wasn't alone. They were called the Axis Powers for a reason. Germany wasn't fighting a two front war until Hitler turned on Stalin. The Nazis got a fair amount of native help in areas such as Poland and Czechoslovakia when it came to rounding up the local Jewish and other "undesirable" populations. When you add up all of the others the actually tally is around 12 million or so.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Zombieneighbours wrote:

On one aspect of it, yes.

Without compelling evidence for the existence of gods, there is no reason to believe in them.

The fact that we are wired genetically to do so, has been reason enough.


LazarX wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:

On one aspect of it, yes.

Without compelling evidence for the existence of gods, there is no reason to believe in them.

The fact that we are wired genetically to do so, has been reason enough.

Oh our tendency to pattern finding is well demonstrated, but all that does is explain why we make up gods, it doesn't say that we should make up gods or that gods, as something other than an emergant property of cultural, exist. Such 'cultural gods' are believed in on a basis of reason.


When we come to understand why we can dream about people we know have died, we may be close to understanding why we created gods.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd rather know why I keep having nocturnal emissions about women I slept with over 15 years ago. I don't think any of them are dead, though...


cranewings wrote:
Zombie, atheists support science which will blow up the world in nuclear fire, so you still lose. If Christianity succeeded in stopping science we wouldn't be facing extinction at the hands of nuclear bombs or engineered virus. ;)

It's not the engineered pathogens we need to worry about. We have a large, concentrated and mobile population. It isn't a matter of if we will see the emergence of a global pandemic that threatens human civiliation, it is a matter of when.

If the Bio-luddites and creationists win(and to a lesser extent libertarians), we will have lost our ability to fight back against such a disease.


Zombie, a disease of our own making. That's a part of what I mean by atheists and religious people are the same with different tastes. Atheists want nuclear power and genetic engineering. Christians want political power by giving their culture to big groups of people. Neither group cares about the people are or will be squashed along the way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
cranewings wrote:
Zombie, a disease of our own making. That's a part of what I mean by atheists and religious people are the same with different tastes. Atheists want nuclear power and genetic engineering. Christians want political power by giving their culture to big groups of people. Neither group cares about the people are or will be squashed along the way.

Who the what now?

I'm only speaking personally, but I don't want nuclear power and genetic engineering any more or less than I do political power or any of the myriad other things I want. If I have to make my lack of belief in god a political stance, which I don't particularly want to do, it will only go so far as seeing that religion doesn't infringe on any other members of society.

Simply put, I hope for for a government that works to ensure that the bare minimum number of people are squashed along the way.


cranewings wrote:
Zombie, a disease of our own making. That's a part of what I mean by atheists and religious people are the same with different tastes. Atheists want nuclear power and genetic engineering. Christians want political power by giving their culture to big groups of people. Neither group cares about the people are or will be squashed along the way.

I don't think wanting nuclear power or genetic engineering is linked at all to religion or the lack of it.

Some atheists want one or both. Some want neither.
Some religious people want one or both. Some want neither.

What's the relevance?


Oh what does whether you believe in a god have to do with whether or not you prefer nuclear power, and since when was it decreed that atheists shy away from politics?

Also, there plenty of religious people who would rather not have politics

Right now cranewings, you're being irrational and just saying stuff, which isn't really making your case any better.

Also I don't see the problem with nuclear power, first off I don't see any mandates from any almighty powers that says it's a sin to use it and honestly in comparison to all the pollution and hazards that come about from fossil fuels it is no higher on the risk factor.

This is seriously almost as bad as when people were claiming that all religious people start wars or blow themselves up to kill others


The only difference between a theist and an atheist is that one believes in higher powers that have or have had an effect on the world around us while the latter doesn't.

Anything more is just assumptions and generalizations that don't apply to all of either group and can be found in the other group.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:


Also I don't see the problem with nuclear power, first off I don't see any mandates from any almighty powers that says it's a sin to use it and honestly in comparison to all the pollution and hazards that come about from fossil fuels it is no higher on the risk factor.

In the decades we've had it, we still don't have a plan on how to deal with long-lived nuclear wastes which remain toxic for far longer than our civilisation has lasted to date. And whatever the risk factors we have from fossil fuel, the worst that a coal plant explosion might do, won't leave a large area uninhabitable for a thousand years or more. So saying that the risk factors are equivalent, is a study of selective ignorance.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
cranewings wrote:
Zombie, atheists support science which will blow up the world in nuclear fire, so you still lose. If Christianity succeeded in stopping science we wouldn't be facing extinction at the hands of nuclear bombs or engineered virus. ;)

Cranewings, species go extinct quite regularly without nuclear weapons or engineered viruses -- it's estimated that 99.9% of all species that have existed on Earth are now extinct. What science can do for us is provide shelter from changing climates, enhanced food production to feed our population, and early warning of impacts (like the one that most likely wiped out the dinosaurs ~65 million years ago)... none of which would be possible if we abandon all technology and go back to living as tribal hunter-gatherers (which is what you seem to be advocating).


LazarX wrote:
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:


Also I don't see the problem with nuclear power, first off I don't see any mandates from any almighty powers that says it's a sin to use it and honestly in comparison to all the pollution and hazards that come about from fossil fuels it is no higher on the risk factor.

In the decades we've had it, we still don't have a plan on how to deal with long-lived nuclear wastes which remain toxic for far longer than our civilisation has lasted to date. And whatever the risk factors we have from fossil fuel, the worst that a coal plant explosion might do, won't leave a large area uninhabitable for a thousand years or more. So saying that the risk factors are equivalent, is a study of selective ignorance.

Hmm. While this topic interests me, I feel that this is getting extremely way off topic.


LazarX wrote:
In the decades we've had it, we still don't have a plan on how to deal with long-lived nuclear wastes which remain toxic for far longer than our civilisation has lasted to date. And whatever the risk factors we have from fossil fuel, the worst that a coal plant explosion might do, won't leave a large area uninhabitable for a thousand years or more. So saying that the risk factors are equivalent, is a study of selective ignorance.

Your analysis assumes that (a) coal is infinite in supply; and (b) anthropogenic climate change is a myth. If either of those assumptions are underturned, your conclusion shifts back towards nuclear energy very quickly.

Of course, an even better solution is to reduce the human population (and therefore fuel needs and pollution quotient) by about 90%, but I assume you're not advocating that.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
LazarX wrote:
In the decades we've had it, we still don't have a plan on how to deal with long-lived nuclear wastes which remain toxic for far longer than our civilisation has lasted to date. And whatever the risk factors we have from fossil fuel, the worst that a coal plant explosion might do, won't leave a large area uninhabitable for a thousand years or more. So saying that the risk factors are equivalent, is a study of selective ignorance.

Your analysis assumes that (a) coal is infinite in supply; and (b) anthropogenic climate change is a myth. If either of those assumptions are underturned, your conclusion shifts back towards nuclear energy very quickly.

Of course, an even better solution is to reduce the human population (and therefore fuel needs and pollution quotient) by about 90%, but I assume you're not advocating that.

It also ignores the significant radiation dumped into the environment by burning coal. It's only trace amounts in coal, but we burn a lot of coal and it's dispersed widely.

Nuclear reactors produce more radioactive waste, but it's concentrated and can be contained.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
cranewings wrote:
Zombie, atheists support science which will blow up the world in nuclear fire, so you still lose. If Christianity succeeded in stopping science we wouldn't be facing extinction at the hands of nuclear bombs or engineered virus. ;)
Cranewings, species go extinct quite regularly without nuclear weapons or engineered viruses -- it's estimated that 99.9% of all species that have existed on Earth are now extinct. What science can do for us is provide shelter from changing climates, enhanced food production to feed our population, and early warning of impacts (like the one that most likely wiped out the dinosaurs ~65 million years ago)... none of which would be possible if we abandon all technology and go back to living as tribal hunter-gatherers (which is what you seem to be advocating).

Yup, the world use to have some kind of equilibrium before atheist science came along. Now thanks to their crappy genetic engineering and fossil fertilizers, we can feed billions of people: so people breed until they get hungry again. Now the world is still subject to hungry people and starvation, but we are WAY over the population limit we can have without fossil fuel fertilizers, and WHEN those become too difficult to come by, their is going to be a massive famine the likes of which have never been seen - that is if there are any people left when they use the nuclear weapons to get at the last of the oil. We are already past peak Uranium, wind and geothermal are complete, so unless the guys at the Hadron Collide start pulling energy straight out of the either, all science did was stack up more people to kill later.

Thanks for that.


cranewings wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
cranewings wrote:
Zombie, atheists support science which will blow up the world in nuclear fire, so you still lose. If Christianity succeeded in stopping science we wouldn't be facing extinction at the hands of nuclear bombs or engineered virus. ;)
Cranewings, species go extinct quite regularly without nuclear weapons or engineered viruses -- it's estimated that 99.9% of all species that have existed on Earth are now extinct. What science can do for us is provide shelter from changing climates, enhanced food production to feed our population, and early warning of impacts (like the one that most likely wiped out the dinosaurs ~65 million years ago)... none of which would be possible if we abandon all technology and go back to living as tribal hunter-gatherers (which is what you seem to be advocating).

Yup, the world use to have some kind of equilibrium before atheist science came along. Now thanks to their crappy genetic engineering and fossil fertilizers, we can feed billions of people: so people breed until they get hungry again. Now the world is still subject to hungry people and starvation, but we are WAY over the population limit we can have without fossil fuel fertilizers, and WHEN those become too difficult to come by, their is going to be a massive famine the likes of which have never been seen - that is if there are any people left when they use the nuclear weapons to get at the last of the oil. We are already past peak Uranium, wind and geothermal are complete, so unless the guys at the Hadron Collide start pulling energy straight out of the either, all science did was stack up more people to kill later.

Thanks for that.

Before science created effective condoms, there were plenty of hungry people. People have always liked to breed. Anyone who shuns contraception and abortion probably does not have a strong argument against over-population.

I don't know it just seems you're arguing against raising food to feed people and creating medicine to help people live longer, because people are just stupid and keep on breeding (despite the fact that science has also created contraception to alleviate us from this problem). Well now we have science to kill each other off better (otherwise we'd have to bash each other in the heads with stones, and that would just take too long and be exhausting).

In turn, you are saying that it's useless to try to help people because they will doom themselves anyway.


cranewings wrote:
wind and geothermal are complete,.

???

No idea what you mean by that.
Wind capacity is small but growing quickly. As is solar, which you don't mention. I don't know enough about geothermal.


cranewings wrote:

Yup, the world use to have some kind of equilibrium before atheist science came along. Now thanks to their crappy genetic engineering and fossil fertilizers, we can feed billions of people: so people breed until they get hungry again. Now the world is still subject to hungry people and starvation, but we are WAY over the population limit we can have without fossil fuel fertilizers, and WHEN those become too difficult to come by, their is going to be a massive famine the likes of which have never been seen - that is if there are any people left when they use the nuclear weapons to get at the last of the oil. We are already past peak Uranium, wind and geothermal are complete, so unless the guys at the Hadron Collide start pulling energy straight out of the either, all science did was stack up more people to kill later.

Thanks for that.

The potential of solar is practically limitless. As scarcity drives up the price of fossil fuels, the economic incentives for developing that potential will grow. Granted, it will be a painful transition, but the doomsday scenario you're predicting will never happen -- at least not because of fossil-fuel scarcity.

P.S. Say hi to Malthus for me. :)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
cranewings wrote:

1. Yup, the world use to have some kind of equilibrium before atheist science came along.

2. Now thanks to their crappy genetic engineering and fossil fertilizers, we can feed billions of people: so people breed until they get hungry again.

Sorry, guy, but you're violently confused on a couple of points.

1. Any equilibrium you think you perceive is an illusion. The continents move; climates change; random impact events occur. Species die all the time. No science needed.

2. People breed regardless of food supply. They either starve now or starve later, or kill each other off first. That's how things work, with or without science.

P.S. If you really hate science and technology so much, and aren't just trolling, then put your money where your mouth is. Get off the power grid. Start hunting and gathering all your food. Start making your tools out of stone. All of that takes time that you're wasting by posting in the internet via computer -- both of which are manifestatins of that evil science and technology, by the way. Until then, your statements seem a trifle hypocitical.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
People breed regardless of food supply. They either starve now or starve later, or kill each other off first. That's how things work, with or without science.

To be fair, I think his point was that "later" is dozens of generations later, so many, many more people will exist to starve than otherwise would have.

Shadow Lodge

Cranewings wrote:
Yup, the world use to have some kind of equilibrium before atheist science came along.

Unless you count spears and bows as science this isn't the case. Humans have been a roving mass extinction event since they left Africa.


Seriously...I can't tell who's being funny and who's being serious any more in this thread...

:
Seriously, you can always trust the serious people to be serious. It's the funny people you have to watch out for.....
You never know when they're going to do something....funny.....:P

Not just wanting to seem a random 'Poster and runner'...I would join in this fascinating topic but, between the time zone differences and shift working, this means that there are 40 odd posts to catch up on with each visit and I can't keep track of where the conversation is...or might be going. *Bows*

Much cheers to you and yours.


bugleyman wrote:
To be fair, I think his point was that "later" is dozens of generations later, so many, many more people will exist to starve than otherwise would have.

So that it's better for those people to not exist, than for them to exist and die? That would be a great case in favor of mandating sterilization and/or abortions for almost everyone from now on, but I don't think that's what he had in mind -- even if I personally might be on board with it.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

cranewings wrote:
Now the world is still subject to hungry people and starvation, but we are WAY over the population limit we can have without fossil fuel fertilizers, and WHEN those become too difficult to come by, their is going to be a massive famine the likes of which have never been seen - that is if there are any people left when they use the nuclear weapons to get at the last of the oil.

Fortunately, I've already got my super-charged Ford Falcon Coupe and asymmetrical leather jacket/armor, so I feel like my chances of survival in the wastelands are pretty good.

So give me your best shot, science!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Cranewings wrote:
Yup, the world use to have some kind of equilibrium before atheist science came along.
Unless you count spears and bows as science this isn't the case. Humans have been a roving mass extinction event since they left Africa.

Any activity where there are observable differences between success and failure is going to produce at least informal science. Before there were bows and spears people surely knew the best ways to chase easy to catch game, what plants made them sick and which did not, where to find edible carrion, etc from experience. It isn't as formalized as we would like, but they didn't have the benefits we've enjoyed that let us refine the method.


cranewings wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
cranewings wrote:
Zombie, atheists support science which will blow up the world in nuclear fire, so you still lose. If Christianity succeeded in stopping science we wouldn't be facing extinction at the hands of nuclear bombs or engineered virus. ;)
Cranewings, species go extinct quite regularly without nuclear weapons or engineered viruses -- it's estimated that 99.9% of all species that have existed on Earth are now extinct. What science can do for us is provide shelter from changing climates, enhanced food production to feed our population, and early warning of impacts (like the one that most likely wiped out the dinosaurs ~65 million years ago)... none of which would be possible if we abandon all technology and go back to living as tribal hunter-gatherers (which is what you seem to be advocating).

Yup, the world use to have some kind of equilibrium before atheist science came along. Now thanks to their crappy genetic engineering and fossil fertilizers, we can feed billions of people: so people breed until they get hungry again. Now the world is still subject to hungry people and starvation, but we are WAY over the population limit we can have without fossil fuel fertilizers, and WHEN those become too difficult to come by, their is going to be a massive famine the likes of which have never been seen - that is if there are any people left when they use the nuclear weapons to get at the last of the oil. We are already past peak Uranium, wind and geothermal are complete, so unless the guys at the Hadron Collide start pulling energy straight out of the either, all science did was stack up more people to kill later.

Thanks for that.

I can't tell whether you are serious by "atheist science." Do you not know how many seminal scientific and mathematical personages in the history of the West have been devoutly religious?


Samnell wrote:
Any activity where there are observable differences between success and failure is going to produce at least informal science. Before there were bows and spears people surely knew the best ways to chase easy to catch game, what plants made them sick and which did not, where to find edible carrion, etc from experience. It isn't as formalized as we would like, but they didn't have the benefits we've enjoyed that let us refine the method.

So what you're saying is that our noble ancestors were actually (gasp) evil atheist scientists!? Let's use our forbidden, evil knowledge of archaeology and heavy excavation techniques to find and dig up their bones and defile them!

Shadow Lodge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Samnell wrote:
Any activity where there are observable differences between success and failure is going to produce at least informal science. Before there were bows and spears people surely knew the best ways to chase easy to catch game, what plants made them sick and which did not, where to find edible carrion, etc from experience. It isn't as formalized as we would like, but they didn't have the benefits we've enjoyed that let us refine the method.
So what you're saying is that our noble ancestors were actually (gasp) evil atheist scientists!? Let's use our forbidden, evil knowledge of archaeology and heavy excavation techniques to find and dig up their bones and defile them!

I'll get my kit!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Samnell wrote:
Any activity where there are observable differences between success and failure is going to produce at least informal science. Before there were bows and spears people surely knew the best ways to chase easy to catch game, what plants made them sick and which did not, where to find edible carrion, etc from experience. It isn't as formalized as we would like, but they didn't have the benefits we've enjoyed that let us refine the method.
So what you're saying is that our noble ancestors were actually (gasp) evil atheist scientists!? Let's use our forbidden, evil knowledge of archaeology and heavy excavation techniques to find and dig up their bones and defile them!

You know that's not a bad idea. Our natural inclination to think very well of ourselves often expresses itself in reverence for our ancestors because they, after all, led to the glory that is us. But if you pull off the nostalgia filter, set aside our natural narcissism, and actually look at what daily life, let alone large-scale civilizations, was like in the past it's an incredible horror show. Even if one neglects all the enormous suffering caused just from the lack of modern medicine or sanitation, it's still a horrific orgy of violence, ignorance, and general human-caused misery.

Maybe we should have a holiday for that. Go urinate on the graves of our great-grandparents to keep the point in mind. Sort of like trick-or-treating.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
So that it's better for those people to not exist, than for them to exist and die?

I don't see what else he could have meant, but I suppose only he can say for sure.

Edit: Though I would guess he would say "exist and starve," even if the distinction seems moot.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
So that it's better for those people to not exist, than for them to exist and die?

I don't see what else he could have meant, but I suppose only he can say for sure.

Aside the condemnation of Big Bad Science, I'm not sure that it would be worse never to exist than to exist and then die. Never having existed isn't the same thing as being killed, but in fact is very different. Nobody who wants to be taken seriously would say that every time we are fertile and have a chance to reproduce and do not, we are murdering a child. Some people might actually believe that, of course.

Consider what it entails to never have existed: There is no joy and no happiness, sure. There is also no misery or loss. There's not even boredom from the endless uniform void, because there's no person to feel it. Natural language isn't great at expressing this, but nothing is nothing. 0=0. :)

That is very different from a person who has existed. Such a person has the chances at happiness, but also pain. Our lives can be pretty good or pretty bad on the balance. Some of us wish them over and would prefer nonexistence because even if we cease to exist, so too does the pain we are in or the situation we can't bear. Some of us have it the other way around and see death as taking away our chance at more happiness or whatever other things we desire to do.

It is true that overpopulation causes incredible misery and that overpopulation is in large part due to the advances in science cutting down on infant mortality, starvation, and disease. But it is equally true that we have science to fix those problems too: condoms, contraception, education, and abortions. It is perverse to blame atheistic science for overpopulation. Norman Borlaug, quite possibly the greatest humanitarian that ever lived, didn't go around telling people to grow corn and have lots of babies but not use condoms. Quite the opposite, the responsibility for overpopulation lies with those who want to take one part of science and use it without the other parts. They created this problem and work even now to preserve it and all the misery it causes. They are the ones mass-producing misery. They deserve our ire.

601 to 650 of 1,394 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Is atheism a religion? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.