Florida church to hold 9/11 Quaran burnings

Actually, if you had the time and the right equipment, you could construct abestos versions of the Quaran, then appear to the preacher of this church as a fellow Christian who wants to see Muslims converted, thenoffer him all the 'free' Quarans he wanted. It'd be worth it to see what'd happen when they tried to light a pile of them on fire and they refuse to burn.

One can but dream...

Penguin wrote:

Nihilist wrote:

It's just intent- burning another religious text, no matter how retarded both seem, is disrespectful.

I don't see any reason to be respectful of willful delusion. Christianity included.

So you essentially have the same attitude that these Christians do, except you're lumping in Christianity as a delusion as well.

It doesn't matter whether they don't believe in the Quran, still doesn't give them the moral right to piss Muslim people off and turn them away by burning their book as some sort of half-assed protest. Like I said, it's counter-productive.

Rabid Badger wrote:

Actually, if you had the time and the right equipment, you could construct abestos versions of the Quaran, then appear to the preacher of this church as a fellow Christian who wants to see Muslims converted, thenoffer him all the 'free' Quarans he wanted. It'd be worth it to see what'd happen when they tried to light a pile of them on fire and they refuse to burn.

One can but dream...

I would love to see the look on the preacher's face if that happened.

Penguin wrote:

I don't see any reason to be respectful of willful delusion. Christianity included.

And you don't have any beliefs that another person could see as willful delusion?

Sutremaine wrote:

Penguin wrote:

I don't see any reason to be respectful of willful delusion. Christianity included.

And you don't have any beliefs that another person could see as willful delusion?

Perhaps everything is willful delusion. Maybe we're just brains floating in a nutrient solution and just think we believe what we believe.

Alternately, perhaps nothing is willful delusion. Perhaps everything is true (including furries, badfic, and dinosaurs with saddles).

I think, therefore I am. I think, therefore I am not.

[/bull session philosophy]

Penguin wrote:

I don't see any reason to be respectful of willful delusion. Christianity included.

If we burned everything that creates willful delusion I'd have nothing left to wank to.

Lady Anne wrote:

Perhaps everything is willful delusion. Maybe we're just brains floating in a nutrient solution and just think we believe what we believe.

Mm-hm. If everything or nothing is delusion, then it can be safely discounted when deciding how to react to other people. If everybody's delusional anyway, why judge people based on their delusions?

Sutremaine wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

Perhaps everything is willful delusion. Maybe we're just brains floating in a nutrient solution and just think we believe what we believe.

Mm-hm. If everything or nothing is delusion, then it can be safely discounted when deciding how to react to other people. If everybody's delusional anyway, why judge people based on their delusions?

Cue SCIENCE!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Yeah... wait.

delusion wrote:

–noun 1. an act or instance of deluding.

2. the state of being deluded.

3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.

4. Psychiatry . a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

Since it seems tossing this word around is going to be a "thing" I figured bringing up a definition would be useful.

Oh, and no sidestepping the issue by saying nothing matters because we can't be sure if it's real. You can certainly say, "Oh, everything is a delusion and nothing is real", but calling the physical world a delusion doesn't stop its effects on you. If you get hit by a truck going 80 miles/hour, you will fucking die regardless of whether you believe the truck is "real" or not. We treat the world as "real" because what happens in it matters. Therefore, it only makes sense to treat the physical world as a "real" thing, and delusion as a serious ailment as opposed to a masturbation aid for faux-intellectuals.

Sutremaine wrote:

Mm-hm. If everything or nothing is delusion, then
it can be safely discounted when deciding how to react to other people.
If everybody's delusional anyway, why judge people based on their
delusions?

muslim terrorist == little old lady who goes to church on Sundays == Fred Phelps == Mahatma Ghandi

they all have delusions so they're all the same

When Hermit's teacher asked him to prove that the physical world was real, he ran the teacher over with a car. And got an A+.

TheHermit wrote:

Oh, and no sidestepping the issue by saying nothing matters because we can't be sure if it's real. You can certainly say, "Oh, everything is a delusion and nothing is real", but calling the physical world a delusion doesn't stop its effects on you. If you get hit by a truck going 80 miles/hour, you will fucking die regardless of whether you believe the truck is "real" or not. We treat the world as "real" because what happens in it matters. Therefore, it only makes sense to treat the physical world as a "real" thing, and delusion as a serious ailment as opposed to a masturbation aid for faux-intellectuals.

Now why do I feel there's a fallacy lurking here? Quick, someone less lazy than me!

Oh, that works, Psy. Thanks. <3

saeku wrote:

Penguin wrote:

I don't see any reason to be respectful of willful delusion. Christianity included.

If we burned everything that creates willful delusion I'd have nothing left to wank to.

He's not saying burn everything that causes willful delusion. He's saying no one is under any obligation to respect it and people can burn shit they own.

As long as it's not some attempt at fraud or doesn't totally shatter any fire safety laws.

InkWeaver wrote:

Now why do I feel there's a fallacy lurking here? Quick, someone less lazy than me!

Oh, that works, Psy. Thanks. <3

If more-vigilant-than-thou is a fallacious method of arguing then yes.

Sutremaine was arguing for the relativity of the Truth, and that not believing in god looks like a willful delusion to religious people.

The trouble is, she was responding to Penguin (who painted THE ATHIEST ATHEIST DERP on his forehead), and the trouble with atheists is that they go with science like a goosestepping nazi army (just ask the 97% of academia who reject religion wholesale), and science is used to define reality (and has a pretty damn good track record), so beliefs of atheists are very concise with reality and truth (you can disagree, but good luck passing high school science courses).

So when you say(or imply) that beliefs of atheists are delusions in any way(while you have modern civilization and technology behind you), the best response you can get is a deep sigh and silent promises that when they finally find a cure for cancer, they won't set fire to the lab and murder everyone involved, just to spite you.

But it's not necessary to attack the hidden link that Sutremaine, probably, missed, when there is enough grounds to argue using Sut's own posts. Which is done in the second part of Hermit's post. (the first part was him throwing down the glove so hard that it bounced off and poked out an eye with its middle finger)

Sutremaine wrote:

If everybody's delusional anyway, why judge people based on their delusions?

Because people tend to act on their delusions, and there is a big difference between detonating forty pounds of explosives strapped to your chest, and saving a girl from a fire.

Malganis wrote:

So you essentially have the same attitude that these Christians do, except you're lumping in Christianity as a delusion as well.

Nope, I'm not pimping salvation.

Quote :

It doesn't matter whether they don't believe in the Quran, still doesn't give them the moral right to piss Muslim people off and turn them away by burning their book as some sort of half-assed protest.

"Moral" right? No. It doesn't have anything to do with a moral high ground. They do have the right, though.

Quote :

Like I said, it's counter-productive.

Most acts of protest are.

Sutremaine wrote:

And you don't have any beliefs that another person could see as willful delusion?

Everyone does, especially when you put in the extremely subjective "another person could see as" in there. But it seems we only feel a need to protect the outright irrational when it's claimed to be holy.

saeku wrote:

Penguin wrote:

I don't see any reason to be respectful of willful delusion. Christianity included.

If we burned everything that creates willful delusion I'd have nothing left to wank to.

Well, this forum's a good example. Do we respect fangirls' belief that Edward or the actor who plays him is meant for them and them alone?

Penguin wrote:

Malganis wrote:

So you essentially have the same attitude that these Christians do, except you're lumping in Christianity as a delusion as well.

Nope, I'm not pimping salvation.

You have an irrational belief in the non-existence of God(s) and believe that everyone who disagrees with you is delusional. The rational stance is to say that it is impossible to know either way.

Anon wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Malganis wrote:

So you essentially have the same attitude that these Christians do, except you're lumping in Christianity as a delusion as well.

Nope, I'm not pimping salvation.

You have an irrational belief in the non-existence of God(s) and believe that everyone who disagrees with you is delusional. The rational stance is to say that it is impossible to know either way.

Not in the slightest. Sure, whether a god or god exists cannot yet be proven. However, pretty much any religious belief system can be proven wrong because they go so much farther than saying "God exists."

Obligatory:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Penguin wrote:

saeku wrote:

Penguin wrote:

I don't see any reason to be respectful of willful delusion. Christianity included.

If we burned everything that creates willful delusion I'd have nothing left to wank to.

Well, this forum's a good example. Do we respect fangirls' belief that Edward or the actor who plays him is meant for them and them alone?

No, we mock it. Which is different than setting things on fire.

Also, I resent Psy-4 for implying that atheists are responsible for science. Historically, most scientists have not been atheists. The current correlation between science and atheism is mostly because pretty much all currently popular religions have anti-scientific elements.

And how is that relevant to the current situation?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Anon wrote:

You have an irrational belief in the non-existence of God(s) and believe that everyone who disagrees with you is delusional. The rational stance is to say that it is impossible to know either way.

Special pleading. In every other case in our lives, we do not accept a positive claim merely because there is no evidence it is wrong; there must be at least some evidence it is true. If you accept an idea as true simply because there's no evidence against it, why don't you believe in unicorns, leprechauns, and an elegantly crafted teapot orbiting Jupiter? The answer is that you don't; you offer this exclusive right to religion, and there is no compelling reason why it should be granted such clemency.

Psy-4 wrote:

And how is that relevant to the current situation?

No real relevance. I just find it amusing that somebody who's talking about how awesome science is at defining reality is confusing correlation with causation.

TheHermit wrote:

Anon wrote:

You have an irrational belief in the non-existence of God(s) and believe that everyone who disagrees with you is delusional. The rational stance is to say that it is impossible to know either way.

Special pleading. In every other case in our lives, we do not accept a positive claim merely because there is no evidence it is wrong; there must be at least some evidence it is true. If you accept an idea as true simply because there's no evidence against it, why don't you believe in unicorns, leprechauns, and an elegantly crafted teapot orbiting Jupiter? The answer is that you don't; you offer this exclusive right to religion, and there is no compelling reason why it should be granted such clemency.

Correction. All testing done in a scientific manor is the stating of hypothesis and attempting to prove it wrong, if you are able to do so a significant number times then the hypothesis is thrown out.
However if the experiment does not do this the hypothesis is put forward as a theory.
You can apply the same to your other examples, unicorns, leprechauns and teapots that orbit jupiter would leave physical evidence of there presence so can be tested.
The very idea of god is that technically he exists on another plane of existence (another thing which is very hard to prove or disprove, though certain groups of physicists are fond of trying to prove it one way or the other) unless heaven really is a place on earth so it's kinda hard to test either way.

tldr, It is just as impossible to prove as it is to disprove the existence of God (while given science today it is rather easy to disprove teapots orbiting Jupiter), which if you think about it makes sense cause otherwise it wouldn't be called faith.