Feminists Have More Fun (LiveScience)

Post Reply New Topic

Heh. Well, with that attitude,
I can see why you have troubles.

It sounds like you believe that anybody who disagrees with you is just wrong.

Of course they can. I'm just saying that they can't do it without being a hypocrite. I believe everyone is a hypocrite in some way, though. Calling someone a hypocrite is a pretty weak attempt at a put down that is frequently used by atheists to describe religions when they are invariably guilty of being a hypocrite themselves.



I never understood why they would need that feeling if they truly believe that there is nothing.



In which case you are agnostic, meaning that my first comment wasn't even aimed at you, I was aiming at people that believe definitively that there is no God and nothing after we die but who still have hangups about the "good of the human race". Must've struck a chord somewhere, though. I must be getting my touch back.



Ragtime started it when he said that there were no serious discussions anymore on this site. calandale exacerbated it when he mentioned mainstream religion. Of course I take no blame myself.



calandale, I'm disappointed. I thought you wouldn't have had an issue with that because I thought you had no respect for humanity, which made you immune even though you seem to be an atheist. Please tell me you still have no respect for humanity. Misanthropy is lonely enough as it is.

Maybe atheism wasn't the exact word I was looking for. The point I was making is that if someone truly believes that there is no afterlife and no consequences for your actions after death, one would be rather stupid to go out of their way to do right over wrong if there is no benefit.

Now I'm going to piss you all off. I'm going to go back on topic.

Feminists have more fun, if they're girls at least. Those b*****s are so picky though that unless you fit into a very certain set of parameters a male feminist won't have any fun unless he's lucky enough to get one of those picky b*****s.

I don't see how there's really a difference in believing that there's nothing "after" and not bothering to spend time dwelling on what may exist after death, specifically not living life as if it has some consequence after death.

Sure, I'm agnostic, but in this kind of situation it wouldn't change anything if I were atheist.

I guess I don't see what's so hypocritical about wanting to do more than just look out for number one in the time one has on this planet.

Hypocrite? First, you're assuming that an atheist
has no source of morals, without God. All that is
needed is SOME belief in a purpose. Now, this could
be as minor as egoism, or the evolutionary issue, but
damn, one has to do SOMETHING, and without any
moral guidance, no choice is possible.



It comes from our society. We learn (or evolved)
to get a reward for certain behavior. To ignore the
pleasure of this reward, WITHOUT any morality
would seem silly.



I can respect humanity, and still hate it.



AFTER death? Why be so limited? There are still consequences.
The sense of aesthetics being the major one, in my case. Hell,
I don't have reason to believe it has any particular value, but
I adhere to a certain moral code (largely undefined), based
solely on this.

The difference is that you haven't spend time dwelling on it. The people I am talking about have spent time dwelling on what may exist after death and came to a conclusion. With the conclusion that they made there are implications that do make them either hypocritical or very stupid if they do anything good that detriments them in anyway.

If you were an atheist you would be a hypocrite. If I got to know you better I'm sure I could find a way in which you already are a hypocrite. As I said earlier, everyone is a hypocrite in some way, it's inescapable. Calling someone a hypocrite is a much weaker statement than most think, it's like telling someone that they have an ass.

That would be true if greed and fear were the only possible motivations. But they aren't.

Actually, my aesthetics find hypocrisy
to be among the greatest of sins. Not
that I don't manage it, but it's one of
the worst things that one can be accused
of.

Yep. As my friend's friend said,
"The truth will set you free.
It'll also get you killed."

It can't get me killed over the net, but troubles ensue all the same. (And not just online.)

If I were an atheist I would come to the conclusion that life has no purpose and should be destroyed, of course, I came to the latter part of that conclusion anyway. The whole world would be a worthless hunk of rock, and people would be nothing but fermented compost that exist solely to keep reproducing pointlessly when it would be less painful to just die out. It would be difficult to maintain egoism after death, if it is about being remembered people will eventually forget you, even if you do something crazy like kill a celebrity.




Sounds pretty hollow. Ironic that they would still follow codes set by religions for a reward but that would make sense. If they could see through how hollow it all is I don't see them getting any pleasure from it. To pull this off one would have to be pretty stupid, fortunately for them, humans are very stupid.





At least I'm hoping that you would support an environmentally friendly bombing of an overpopulated country/city.





If you are an atheist and your life sucks and isn't going to improve what reason would there be not to just go out and kill as many people as you can before you get killed? Aside from just being too much of a p**** to do it.

You do realize that when I said that everyone is a hypocrite that includes me and you.



Maintaining pleasure for one. I was talking about a specific situation. There are other motivations, of course, but one who did enough dwelling to come to the conclusion that there are no afterlife consequences for their actions would see that there is no reason for any other way. But, as I have already said, humans are very stupid.

Last edited by GoatOnFire on 19 Oct 2007, 10:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Funny how it's always people
who KNOW they are right causing
all the problems of the world. Not
just religious people, mind you.

Well, I DID, but not for any reason other than
that 'tis more aesthetically pleasing to achieve
nothing of value with nothing, than with complexity.
Without morals, I can't see coming to this decision
(or any other).


You're missing the point. These morals
mostly precede religion. Now, one could
argue that they come directly from God,
or from what is RIGHT, but they help ensure
survival, and thus are necessary. What is
necessary need not be GOOD.





Just for kicks, maybe. But, 'twould weaken
the overall capacity for taking it all down.




Maybe you wouldn't enjoy it? Maybe you believe in
some purpose, and don't wish to damage it. Maybe
you feel that you have some duty. It's not all about
the self, necessarily. God or not.

Church.

Of course. And I believe you are right,
but that doesn't mean that I should be
MORE of one, just because I cannot
be perfect.

So, do people who know they are right cause a disadvantageous shift in plate tectonics?

So far on this thread I have said "f**k Africa" and I made a sexist comment. But the only indignant responses I have gotten so far are about the comments I make about atheism. Interesting...