moviefreakedmind

Dek Rollins said:

Honestly I always assumed you were around 50.

Subtract approximately 28 years.

It’s definitely beyond any condescension I’ve seen Dawkins use. I’d rather be called an idiot than told my beliefs are dumber than believing in a cosmic space duck.

You’re giving me too much credit.

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

It’s funny you mention 30, because 30-35 is my goal in terms of lifespan. And no, my goal isn’t to live that long, it’s to not live any longer than that.

But I thought you were already like 60 or something*.

*Based entirely on grumpy factor

No no. I’m horrifyingly young for my temperament.

It depends on what they believe.

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

I’ll never understand this. I’m terrified of death.

Why? As long as I don’t die from being buried alive, I’m cool with death.

LordZerome1080 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

It’s funny you mention 30, because 30-35 is my goal in terms of lifespan. And no, my goal isn’t to live that long, it’s to not live any longer than that.

As for the movies and reading, that’s a fair point.

You sure about that bro?

Hell yeah bro.

Why not just let life lead you rather than ending everything at 30-35.

I didn’t say anything about ending anything, I just said I hope that I don’t live longer than 30-35. This has been a longtime fixation of mine. Even when I was only 12 or 13 I really hoped I’d die before age 18. And not in a depressed suicidal way either, I just hoped that it would happen. I can’t explain it, it’s just a weird quirk of mine.

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

Sure, atheists view things differently, but the kind of duck deity you conceptualize is wholly unlike God conceived by most theists.

The duck was created with the following criteria: no matter how preposterous the rest of it was, it must not be disprovable. So not wholly unlike – your modern gods were created with the same overriding criteria.

That something can’t be disproven or fully understand doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Science proceeds on all manner of theories that can’t be disproven.

Ah, that’s the point of contention, and it’s based on a misunderstanding of the duck post. It’s not the lack of disprovability that means it doesn’t exist, it’s the completely off-the-wall preposterousness of it. The feathers and bill are what made it not exist, not the lack of disprovability. The lack of disprovability is just what keeps the duck plausible enough for its believers. It doesn’t mean anything to me.

You’re right that the duck deity I conceptualize is wholly unlike the gods conceived by most theists, but my point was that because the duck was considerably more plausible than those gods, and I was comfortable saying with certainty that the duck didn’t exist, then it followed that I was comfortable saying the same thing about those gods.

I don’t know your basis for saying the duck is more plausible. If the problem is the bill and feathers, then maybe the bill and feathers don’t exist. The discussion on pages 27-28 I mentioned is relevant to that point. Flawed conceptions of God are common but don’t demonstrate that God is implausible.

A fairly mild and minimalist god, maybe your watchmaker-style god, is still, in my mind, more preposterous than the duck, even if the duck was blowing a party horn and wearing a fez. Clearly YMMV.

EDIT: Originally linked to the wrong Wikipedia article. What I mean by watchmaker is the God who set the universe in motion and then just walked away, leaving it to its own devices.

I tend to agree with this comparison and had in mind [believers] of that kind of deity as not included in my reference to “most theists” who recognize a deity based on their own perceptions. A God that is not present is like your imaginary duck. That’s not what most theists see as God.

Which is why the duck was set up as the less preposterous example. You start adding new roles for God and it just gets further and further out there.

moviefreakedmind said:

I’ve never met someone who actually, somehow, thinks that religion is a net positive for society yet has as insulting of an attitude toward the existence of God as you.

Religion is a net positive and God doesn’t exist. That’s really the only two points I’ve made. I’ve actually tried to avoid being insulting, but if people ask what I think, I’m going to be honest with them. I like God. God is neat. You don’t have to be real to be neat.

It’s kind of surreal actually because I’m extremely anti-Christ, anti-religion, and anti-theist in general, but I would never be so absurd as to say that a technicolored duck with party-favors is more plausible than a god.

Once you’ve thrown “setting the universe in motion” on the table, IMO waterfowl and party favors aren’t a very big ask. Again, YMMV.

You call Dawkins an asshole, but even he has more respect for the premise of God than you do.

I call Dawkins an asshole because he insults people, not because he insults God.

If I believed in God I would find your duck oversimplification as offense as what Dawkins says. I don’t necessarily mind insulting people either, by the way. I just think it’s weird that you would be insulting to theist while simultaneously claiming that religion is a benefit to society.

It’s funny you mention 30, because 30-35 is my goal in terms of lifespan. And no, my goal isn’t to live that long, it’s to not live any longer than that.

As for the movies and reading, that’s a fair point.

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Longevity is over-rated.

Unless you’re 90, how would you know?

I don’t understand why anyone would want to live that long.

Longevity is over-rated. Even if Barbara or George Sr. had died young, their marriage still would’ve been as fulfilling as it apparently was. Obviously, a 73-year marriage is more romantic and poetic than one in which a partner was widowed young or in middle-age, but other than that there’s little difference. It’s the same with life-span. I’d rather have Jim Morrison’s life over Strom Thurmond’s any day.

Anyway, RIP Barbara Bush.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I was going off on a tangent and my commentary had nothing to do with Barbara Bush at all, just the idea of desiring longevity.

I’ve never met someone who actually, somehow, thinks that religion is a net positive for society yet has as insulting of an attitude toward the existence of God as you. It’s kind of surreal actually because I’m extremely anti-Christ, anti-religion, and anti-theist in general, but I would never be so absurd as to say that a technicolored duck with party-favors is more plausible than a god. You call Dawkins an asshole, but even he has more respect for the premise of God than you do.

Wrong thread.

Then again I did skip or miss on average 45 days of school each year in high school so I may have just not been present when I was supposed to read it.

I never had to read it.

I had the same problem with Amazon Prime’s prices on blu rays and DVDs. There’d be incredibly cheap movies that I wanted sold for sometimes as low as $4 but then I’d never end up watching them once I got them because I had so many and didn’t have time.

I was going to bring that up, actually. I’m not sure how uncommon this opinion is, but I think Batman Forever is only marginally better than Batman and Robin. Even though I’m opposed to film ratings, if I had to rate them I’d give Batman and Robin 1/10 and Batman Forever a 2/10. It’s been nearly Forever since I’ve seen either of them, but I remember having that feeling.

When someone fucks you up, you always go through insurance. Also, go through insurance even if it’s your fault.

People with opinions that are different from my opinions are wrong, but unfortunately I’ve never seen a David Lynch film so I can’t say if Frink is wrong here or not.

We’re definitely not better off with it in this day and age. We got mass literacy and science in spite of religion. The fact that such incredible technology was invented and implemented during the Roman Empire that was not improved upon for centuries is a great example of that. For all of your examples of furtherances, there are huge obstacles caused by religion. The opposition to evolutionary theory is a perfect example and most of the banned books throughout history have been banned because of them causing offense to religious sensibilities. Just because the Sistine Chapel is painted beautifully doesn’t mean that religion hasn’t done far more to censor art than it has to further it. Fundamentalist Islam has motivated the destruction of so many historical artifacts and works of art. Religious fundamentalism provides mankind, which I agree sucks, with an easy justification for its atrocities and even sometimes motivates its atrocities. Sane people wouldn’t be beheading people for apostasy if their religion didn’t call for it. Sane people wouldn’t be campaigning against gay rights if religion didn’t condemn homosexuality. I could go on and on.

It’s also funny that you bring up mass literacy when the Catholic Church forbid the Bible to be read or translated in any language other than Latin for centuries.

I definitely disagree that religion does more good than harm. I don’t know how you can come to that conclusion. Maybe a personal belief in a god can be a net positive maybe, but religion definitely not.

The reason I asked is because––and I know that this a very tired argument against religion but it applies to statements like these––a lot of people are dealt very shitty hands in life. If you believe that an omniscient God has blessed you and befriended you, then as banal it may sound you are essentially saying that you’ve been singled out over others since a lot of people have no relationship with the God you 100% believe exists and plenty are not so blessed. A friend of mind who I don’t talk to anymore but I used to be friends when we were children was severely mistreated in his youth. He and his brothers and sisters had a maniacal father that would beat them and rape them and starve them and then at some point before or during middle school, I don’t even exactly remember, his father was jailed or died or something and then he was homeless and lived in shelters and sometimes on the streets and then even when he got older was taken advantage of and mistreated (I think he might be mildly mentally challenged or stunted somehow) so overall, a pitifully depressing life. Now, I don’t really bring that up to challenge your personal experience. I just bring it up because I have never understood why someone would find the idea pleasant that God has had a positive impact on their own life when others obviously weren’t so lucky. You say “why me?” but I think “why not him?” If I believed that somebody was choosing to better my life whilst choosing not to help someone else, I wouldn’t be comforted by that thought.

If we’re interpreting the star ratings that way, then that puts Batman Forever at about a C, I guess? I find that frightening.

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I’m more disturbed by Batman Forever getting a 5/10. Granted, that is a solid F, but I don’t understand why anyone finds much redeeming quality in it.

I don’t think stars and letter grades should be considered equivalent. There’s nothing lower than F, so I don’t think it makes sense to give a 1/10 and a 5/10 the same weight.

Sure, but that’s more an indictment on our terrible grading system in the education system.

I don’t understand why you’re not answering any of my questions. I obviously want to know what your response will be.

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

I find it highly unlikely that God, if it exists, cares about anyone specifically. If it did, it would be choosing some people over other people and that’s a pretty shitty thing for a God to do.

But I could be wrong!

And if he did, then he wouldn’t be very likable. Or worth worshipping at all.

You better worship it or you’re going to hell pal.

That sounds hot. Count me in.