It's funny how close fundamentalists and atheists actually are

[Hollywood]

Well, a good percentage of each, how similar they are. Both are: extremely arrogant and think they have it ALL figured out, belittle anyone elses beliefs, and have an unhealthy obsession with argunig about it to try to convince someone they're right - as if they'll change someone's minds. Quite ironic. 

[recursivelyenumerable]

also, "x is a fundamentalist" and "x is an atheist" are both single-argument predicates with the exact same type signature

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

I'm not sure if I fit into that category but at one time, I definitely was.

These days, I just don't care.

[Van Cruncheon]

A time traveler from the usenet days is here to visit old and poorly formed arguments upon us i see.

i also hear that the information must be free (man).

[Van Cruncheon]

i will after i finish this 6000 line (80 column) arpanet missive about how jcl on the system 370 is the future, and how vax/vms is dragging society into decline

[Human Snorenado]

i will after i finish this 6000 line (80 column) arpanet missive about how jcl on the system 370 is the future, and how vax/vms is dragging society into decline

Arpanet?  Say hi to Al for me.  Also let him know that he'll never be President, the poor bastard.

[Van Cruncheon]

i said hi, but he's still heartbroken over tipper getting pounded by john "the schlong" edwards in the dorm room next to his

[Bildi]

I don't think it's fair to say atheists in general are even close to fundamentalists.  But I agree "fundamental atheists" are just as big pain in the ass as traditional fundamentalists.

[Positive Touch]

basically, obnoxious people are obnoxious.  truly mind-blowing

[Fresh Prince]

These are militant atheists or new atheists or whatever they call themselves to differentiate themselves from the, "I respect your belief system but I reserve the right to make fun of you behind your back for believing in fairyland." atheists.

[APF]

Anyone with strong beliefs will strongly defend them.  A key difference though, is that fundamentalism implies an adherence to doctrine, which is rarely the case with atheism--or else that atheism would only be one part of a wider ideology or codified system of beliefs.  Even "science" is more a method of discovery and observation than, again, an inviolate Word.

[Flannel Boy]

Let's replace the parties.

It's funny how creationists and evolutionists are the same. Both groups are extremely arrogant and think they have it ALL figured out, belittle anyone else's beliefs, and have an unhealthy obsession with arguing. THEY'RE THE SAME

And? Should we become agnostic? Should we withhold judgment. Should we shrug our shoulders and say "both groups make compelling arguments"?

A middle of the road position may seem more reasonable, but it's not.

[Van Cruncheon]

LET'S HEAR BOTH SIDES, THEY ARE CLEARLY EQUALLY RIGHT AS THIS MUST BE A BINARY PROPOSITION

AM I NOT MAGNANIMOUS

[Oblivion]

It always sucks to be on any extreme, but I think I'd rather be with an extreme atheist than an extreme religious nut.

[TVC15]

I basically want to be the dude in that guro comic, and most world religions tell me that it would be immoral to do what I desire.  I think my "religious" beliefs are more in line with those espoused by classic canadian children's show Today's Special:  imagination will let me do anything, and that's better than Jesus or alla or Buddah or whatever the shinto jesus is named.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

I think we need to bring back eugenics.  If you lose more than three of your teeth due to not brushing them, you get sterilized.  Call me extreme but if you don't know how to use a toothbrush, you should lose your right to make babies.

[TVC15]

I think we need to bring back eugenics.  If you lose more than three of your teeth due to not brushing them, you get sterilized.  Call me extreme but if you don't know how to use a toothbrush, you should lose your right to make babies.

I dunno.  Is there any reason that eugenics were written off aside from political correctness?  A look at the past few decades in sports will tell you that races weren't made equal when it comes to physical activities, so why would the same pattern not be found in less politically correct areas of humanity?

[Smooth Groove]

I think we need to bring back eugenics.  If you lose more than three of your teeth due to not brushing them, you get sterilized.  Call me extreme but if you don't know how to use a toothbrush, you should lose your right to make babies.

I dunno.  Is there any reason that eugenics were written off aside from political correctness? 

It's too long to argue the ethical issues but the science of eugenicists were kinda iffy. 

[Eel O'Brian]

i think anyone who spends more than a couple of hours a day on the internet should be sterilized

spoiler (click to show/hide)

with a zippo lighter

[close]

[TVC15]

I think we need to bring back eugenics.  If you lose more than three of your teeth due to not brushing them, you get sterilized.  Call me extreme but if you don't know how to use a toothbrush, you should lose your right to make babies.

I dunno.  Is there any reason that eugenics were written off aside from political correctness? 

It's too long to argue the ethical issues but the science of eugenicists were kinda iffy. 

No doubt they were iffy at the time, but hasn't the science been pretty much abandoned for a long ass time?  I don't think ethical issues should stand in the way of a promising thesis.

[Van Cruncheon]

eugenics is the long way around. fascism is much easier: you can let them babble all they want about all ideas being equal right before the rope tightens, permanently refuting their arguments

[TVC15]

eugenics is the long way around. fascism is much easier: you can let them babble all they want about all ideas being equal right before the rope tightens, permanently refuting their arguments

I'm TRYING to save people here.  I believe that if we cross breed black people with, say, catholic irish or italians, we might be able to somehow give them souls so they can go to heaven.

[Smooth Groove]

I think we need to bring back eugenics.  If you lose more than three of your teeth due to not brushing them, you get sterilized.  Call me extreme but if you don't know how to use a toothbrush, you should lose your right to make babies.

I dunno.  Is there any reason that eugenics were written off aside from political correctness? 

It's too long to argue the ethical issues but the science of eugenicists were kinda iffy. 

No doubt they were iffy at the time, but hasn't the science been pretty much abandoned for a long ass time?  I don't think ethical issues should stand in the way of a promising thesis.

That's an interesting idea but scientists today care more a lot about ethical issues than they used to.  It's pretty hard just to get approval for testing relatively harmless drugs on human subjects.  

Also, humans have long life cycles therefore it'd be pretty hard for a scientist to prove his eugenic theories during his lifetime.  

[Van Cruncheon]

nobody wants to breed with italians

[CajoleJuice]

It's funny how close sfags and xbots actually are

[Smooth Groove]

nobody wants to breed with italians

You wouldn't breed with this?

[Flannel Boy]

My position is moderate: I don't believe in god(s). I'm no more extreme than those who don't believe in pixies or unicorns or spaghetti monsters. And at least those entities are material, unlike an immaterial, infinite, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all loving God.
Are we children?

TVC15, I don't have a problem with voluntary eugenics as long as it's not coercive and the autonomy of individuals is respected. So I'm obviously against forced sterilization, forced abortions, forced marriages, forced pregnancies, etc. But I'm for genetic screening, sperm banks, and even some government incentives.

[Van Cruncheon]

exception that proves the rule, dude

guido.gif

[CajoleJuice]

I saw plenty more exceptions in the hot girl thread

[TVC15]

I think we need to bring back eugenics.  If you lose more than three of your teeth due to not brushing them, you get sterilized.  Call me extreme but if you don't know how to use a toothbrush, you should lose your right to make babies.

I dunno.  Is there any reason that eugenics were written off aside from political correctness? 

It's too long to argue the ethical issues but the science of eugenicists were kinda iffy. 

No doubt they were iffy at the time, but hasn't the science been pretty much abandoned for a long ass time?  I don't think ethical issues should stand in the way of a promising thesis.

That's an interesting idea but scientists today care more a lot about ethical issues than they used to.  It's pretty hard just to get approval for testing relatively harmless drugs on human subjects.  

Also, humans have long life cycles therefore it'd be pretty hard for a scientist to prove his eugenic theories during his lifetime.  

Well, if there were some sort of difference mentally, wouldn't there be some sort of physiological evidence for it that could be discovered?  It's sad to say that this is as potentially a valid field as any, but there's no one eloquent enough to be able to start research without being branded as a racist or something.  Maybe when society is a little more mature. Or maybe the genome will turn up something.  Political correctness sucks.

[Flannel Boy]

I saw plenty more exceptions in the hot girl thread

high five

I'm all for being forced to breed with Italian women. Though, it sure won't be me who is being forced!

[CajoleJuice]

*effiel tower high-five*

[Van Cruncheon]

CAJOLE ERECTILE TRIGGER DISCOVERED; "NJ SEXY FOR ME!" HE SAYS

[CajoleJuice]

fuck, now i won't be able to go to sleep

guuuuidddooosssssss

[Smooth Groove]

I think we need to bring back eugenics.  If you lose more than three of your teeth due to not brushing them, you get sterilized.  Call me extreme but if you don't know how to use a toothbrush, you should lose your right to make babies.

I dunno.  Is there any reason that eugenics were written off aside from political correctness? 

It's too long to argue the ethical issues but the science of eugenicists were kinda iffy. 

No doubt they were iffy at the time, but hasn't the science been pretty much abandoned for a long ass time?  I don't think ethical issues should stand in the way of a promising thesis.

That's an interesting idea but scientists today care more a lot about ethical issues than they used to.  It's pretty hard just to get approval for testing relatively harmless drugs on human subjects.  

Also, humans have long life cycles therefore it'd be pretty hard for a scientist to prove his eugenic theories during his lifetime.  

Well, if there were some sort of difference mentally, wouldn't there be some sort of physiological evidence for it that could be discovered?  It's sad to say that this is as potentially a valid field as any, but there's no one eloquent enough to be able to start research without being branded as a racist or something.  Maybe when society is a little more mature. Or maybe the genome will turn up something.  Political correctness sucks.

Well, you'd also have to rule out other factors that might affect IQ development.  It's a pretty hard experiment to do considering you can't treat humans like lab rats and humans do many unpredictable things.  

[demi]

demi does, but just the bigger guys, so i don't think that counts

you cant breed with men, smh

[Van Cruncheon]

IQ is an untestable quality; it's a poorly-defined aggregate of non-physical attributes and values elevated by a specific culture at a moment in time

edit: although it is safe to assume that libertarians have IQs below 80

[Oblivion]

exception that proves the rule, dude

guido.gif

You know, I always wondered about that phrase. If something has an exception, then technically, wouldn't it not be a rule? /randomderail

[TVC15]

I think we need to bring back eugenics.  If you lose more than three of your teeth due to not brushing them, you get sterilized.  Call me extreme but if you don't know how to use a toothbrush, you should lose your right to make babies.

I dunno.  Is there any reason that eugenics were written off aside from political correctness? 

It's too long to argue the ethical issues but the science of eugenicists were kinda iffy. 

No doubt they were iffy at the time, but hasn't the science been pretty much abandoned for a long ass time?  I don't think ethical issues should stand in the way of a promising thesis.

That's an interesting idea but scientists today care more a lot about ethical issues than they used to.  It's pretty hard just to get approval for testing relatively harmless drugs on human subjects.  

Also, humans have long life cycles therefore it'd be pretty hard for a scientist to prove his eugenic theories during his lifetime.  

Well, if there were some sort of difference mentally, wouldn't there be some sort of physiological evidence for it that could be discovered?  It's sad to say that this is as potentially a valid field as any, but there's no one eloquent enough to be able to start research without being branded as a racist or something.  Maybe when society is a little more mature. Or maybe the genome will turn up something.  Political correctness sucks.

Well, you'd also have to rule out other factors that might affect IQ development.  It's a pretty hard experiment to do considering you can't treat humans like lab rats and humans do many unpredictable things.  

I think under the right conservative reign, we'd be able to use federal prisoners and lifers as lab rats.  I think with the right carrot in front of their noses, they'd be willing to offer themselves up for such research.  This, of course, rules out studying the developmental angle, and being felons, there'd have to be allowances made for them not being "normal" people, but it would be a starting point, and once any solid, promising evidence was found, i think doors for research might open elsewhere.

[Smooth Groove]

I think we need to bring back eugenics.  If you lose more than three of your teeth due to not brushing them, you get sterilized.  Call me extreme but if you don't know how to use a toothbrush, you should lose your right to make babies.

I dunno.  Is there any reason that eugenics were written off aside from political correctness? 

It's too long to argue the ethical issues but the science of eugenicists were kinda iffy. 

No doubt they were iffy at the time, but hasn't the science been pretty much abandoned for a long ass time?  I don't think ethical issues should stand in the way of a promising thesis.

That's an interesting idea but scientists today care more a lot about ethical issues than they used to.  It's pretty hard just to get approval for testing relatively harmless drugs on human subjects.  

Also, humans have long life cycles therefore it'd be pretty hard for a scientist to prove his eugenic theories during his lifetime.  

Well, if there were some sort of difference mentally, wouldn't there be some sort of physiological evidence for it that could be discovered?  It's sad to say that this is as potentially a valid field as any, but there's no one eloquent enough to be able to start research without being branded as a racist or something.  Maybe when society is a little more mature. Or maybe the genome will turn up something.  Political correctness sucks.

Well, you'd also have to rule out other factors that might affect IQ development.  It's a pretty hard experiment to do considering you can't treat humans like lab rats and humans do many unpredictable things.  

I think under the right conservative reign, we'd be able to use federal prisoners and lifers as lab rats.  I think with the right carrot in front of their noses, they'd be willing to offer themselves up for such research.  This, of course, rules out studying the developmental angle, and being felons, there'd have to be allowances made for them not being "normal" people, but it would be a starting point, and once any solid, promising evidence was found, i think doors for research might open elsewhere.

Genetically, it'd also be pretty hard to explain the significance of your experiments.  Did the "dumb" genes (actually alleles) come from the father, mother or is it a recombination of both, etc? 

I don't think modern scientists would accept the sorta theory you have, unless it's backed up by biochemical evidence. 

[CajoleJuice]

exception that proves the rule, dude

guido.gif

You know, I always wondered about that phrase. If something has an exception, then technically, wouldn't it not be a rule? /randomderail

yeah, it's actually a logical fallacy. but whatever

[TVC15]

I think we need to bring back eugenics.  If you lose more than three of your teeth due to not brushing them, you get sterilized.  Call me extreme but if you don't know how to use a toothbrush, you should lose your right to make babies.

I dunno.  Is there any reason that eugenics were written off aside from political correctness? 

It's too long to argue the ethical issues but the science of eugenicists were kinda iffy. 

No doubt they were iffy at the time, but hasn't the science been pretty much abandoned for a long ass time?  I don't think ethical issues should stand in the way of a promising thesis.

That's an interesting idea but scientists today care more a lot about ethical issues than they used to.  It's pretty hard just to get approval for testing relatively harmless drugs on human subjects.  

Also, humans have long life cycles therefore it'd be pretty hard for a scientist to prove his eugenic theories during his lifetime.  

Well, if there were some sort of difference mentally, wouldn't there be some sort of physiological evidence for it that could be discovered?  It's sad to say that this is as potentially a valid field as any, but there's no one eloquent enough to be able to start research without being branded as a racist or something.  Maybe when society is a little more mature. Or maybe the genome will turn up something.  Political correctness sucks.

Well, you'd also have to rule out other factors that might affect IQ development.  It's a pretty hard experiment to do considering you can't treat humans like lab rats and humans do many unpredictable things.  

I think under the right conservative reign, we'd be able to use federal prisoners and lifers as lab rats.  I think with the right carrot in front of their noses, they'd be willing to offer themselves up for such research.  This, of course, rules out studying the developmental angle, and being felons, there'd have to be allowances made for them not being "normal" people, but it would be a starting point, and once any solid, promising evidence was found, i think doors for research might open elsewhere.

Genetically, it'd also be pretty hard to explain the significance of your experiments.  Did the "dumb" genes (actually alleles) come from the father, mother or is it a recombination of both, etc? 

I don't think modern scientists would accept the sorta theory you have, unless it's backed up by biochemical evidence. 

Well, it's not a field I've looked into.  I was just stating that I think there could feasibly be things discovered in eugenics-oriented research.  I'm more into psychology, so if I ended up in research, I'd primarily be focused on tormenting and trolling research.

[Hollywood]

Let's replace the parties.

It's funny how creationists and evolutionists are the same. Both groups are extremely arrogant and think they have it ALL figured out, belittle anyone else's beliefs, and have an unhealthy obsession with arguing. THEY'RE THE SAME

And? Should we become agnostic? Should we withhold judgment. Should we shrug our shoulders and say "both groups make compelling arguments"?

A middle of the road position may seem more reasonable, but it's not.

Eh, I really don't give a shit about that argument. It's completely different, because most people say if you believe in creationism, you are a Bible thumper who says the book of Genesis is the written history of man. I'm Catholic, and some people can't get the difference between parable and literal meaning. That's all that is. There's different types of "creationism" To me, I don't give a shit about evolution. Things evolve, I get it. Where's the zero point though? Where was the point where these random atoms combined to make something that was LIVING - the almighty start point.

It kind of annoys me when a higher power is ruled out, when literally, we can't even observe 97% of the universe made up of dark matter/energy that supposedly moves galaxies. We don't even have our shit together on our own planet, but yet someone people are high and mighty enough to rule out a higher power, and then arrogant enough to insult those who believe its possible.

[Van Cruncheon]

no-one is ruling out a "higher power"; they're just ruling out your wacky christian god from your insignificant little time period on a backwater planet in this permutation of potentially countless universes. trust me, chances do NOT favor your particular god as being said higher power, even if some super-creational authority does indeed exist.

[Van Cruncheon]

hey, i'm not against believing in "god"; i'm against anyone acting like they can fathom said authority from a bunch of cribbed-together oral histories and a couple thousand years of belligerent social grandstanding. having faith in a "god" isn't necessarily stupid (although it strikes me as kinda pointless, yet i've probably believed in more useless things, like release schedules), but having faith that the bible -- or any other text -- is the revealed word and law of that god most definitely *is*. life appears nonsensical at times, but it doesn't have to be steeped in childish fantasy.

[Oblivion]

I believe in God, but not the same God that the major religions seem to worship. There's a lot of reasons why I believe that way, but one in particular that always struck me was how all the rules and regulations that govern the Abrahamic religions seem to just coincidentally fall in line with how societies in general were governing at the time.

[TVC15]

I can breed the christianity out of christians.  Just give me a gallon of PCP sprayed onto a bale of hay and the tender loins of Mabel from What's Happening.  Eugenics will make all right in the world.

[Hollywood]

i will after i finish this 6000 line (80 column) arpanet missive about how jcl on the system 370 is the future, and how vax/vms is dragging society into decline

i managed to recreate Jetpac and manic miner using JUST DCL on dec/vax mainframe.

can i do the same with JCL? can i fuck! because JCL is fucking horrible and the fact i have had to use it for 8 years in this job and 1 year in another job annoys the shit out of me after 4 years uni/4 years VAXing.

oh vax - i could get you to do anything...

JCL DIE DIE DIE.

It kind of annoys me when a higher power is ruled out, when literally, we can't even observe 97% of the universe made up of dark matter/energy that supposedly moves galaxies.

we can't see it !
we don't understand it!
it's so complex
then that MUST show some sort of god!
here, we have this book too! :O
we can't observe -expected- scientific results , theres a big gap to "oh wait, but there was this creator who just made all of it. No sorry, no proof. Did i mention this book we have?"

Did I say that? No. You're using a strawman argument, I never gave a god of gaps argument. My problem is what authority is there to device a solid argument on it when there are those gaps? It's kinda like turning on the TV to a basketball game for 5 seconds, not seeing the score. Turning it off for an hour, turning it back on for another 5 seconds. OK, now make your argument to which team won based off that. There's simply not enough information, or knowledge capability of our pitiful little organism to make assumptions like that. That sure doesn't keep certain people from being arrogant about it though.

[Van Cruncheon]

There's simply not enough information, or knowledge capability of our pitiful little organism to make assumptions like that.

so you're an agnostic

or a disingenuous believer looking for a rhetorical escape hatch

[Candyflip]

I can breed the christianity out of christians.  Just give me a gallon of PCP sprayed onto a bale of hay and the tender loins of Mabel from What's Happening.  Eugenics will make all right in the world.

I actually laughed out loud at this

[TVC15]

It's amazing that someone who belongs to the Catholic "bring us your boys" church can throw around the arrogant elitist label.  smh.

But I balance it out by being a Catholic (by birth) that fully supports the happy future that only eugenics could bring us.

[Hollywood]

There's simply not enough information, or knowledge capability of our pitiful little organism to make assumptions like that.

so you're an agnostic

or a disingenuous believer looking for a rhetorical escape hatch

Whether or not so and so is the decided Lord and Savior of the world and so on just a part of it. Even if you're not a believer in a Christian, Jewish, Muslim God - then there are still things you can take at face value out of it - like not being a prick, and lessons on life. Whether you goto an unconscious abyss, or an after life, or a reincarnation or whatever isn't the only part of it. I know its hard to believe, but its a little more than that.

[Van Cruncheon]

so what is your point here

[Hollywood]

My problem is what authority is there to device a solid argument on it when there are those gaps? It's kinda like turning on the TV to a basketball game for 5 seconds, not seeing the score. Turning it off for an hour, turning it back on for another 5 seconds. OK, now make your argument to which team won based off that. There's simply not enough information, or knowledge capability of our pitiful little organism to make assumptions like that. That sure doesn't keep certain people from being arrogant about it though.

... and christians aren't?
they have the least evidence of ANYONE yet they are pointing the finger and asking for -more- evidence from everyone else!
that's the HEIGHT of arrogance!

Christians in this analogy don't even see the game
their claim is "well, i hear there was this game of something on some channel - no one recorded it and we have no evidence , just hearsay... and what evidence do you have as to who won?"

More lions, less christians please.

Because I would like to know more information to have an opinion on something makes me arrogant? WTF? Christianity doesn't have anything to do with that, BTW. And isn't this the same argument thats been going on the past several years with the Iraq War? "Let's not be arrogant here, Iraq has WMD's, no need to wait for evidence. Fuck em, lets invade that shit."

[Van Cruncheon]

so you don't have an opinion and are therefore agnostic. why do you need to be a catholic then?

[Hollywood]

so you don't have an opinion and are therefore agnostic. why do you need to be a catholic then?

Well, a good part of it is on faith. Maybe I don't have a darn reason or proof to believe this way, but I think there's probably an afterlife for those who look for it. More than that, I think the Bible is a pretty good book on parables with meanings on just about everything. Not that I go to it often and read it, but there's some pretty good lessons in it.

[TVC15]

Crowley made the Bible obsolete.  His writ of the law is superior to anything in the bible:  "do what thou wilt."

[TVC15]

He looks like a big ol' cock.  I just want to sit on him.

[demi]

[demi]

i worship only to be rewarded