You can't argue against our beliefs so instead you're going to lash out at us on some other level... It's pretty lame phatchance.
Maybe if you capitalist neocons weren't so busy burning books in the name of science the bourgeoise wouldn't need to revolt.
Capitalist neocon? If anything I'm an ordoliberal economically and a liberal socially...
and that the objectives of many of those people partaking in this discussion aren't the religious persecution of others then go for it.
I don't wish the persecution of anyone and neither do MOST people in this thread , you're talking out of your hide here... There are a couple of more extreme atheists and a couple of the more extreme theists, remember though the atheists extremism isn't a part of their 'religion', it's more a part of their personal political views.
However, by choosing to criticise and attack others belief systems, and by attempting to analyse a faith based (non-scientific) system, through a scientific (non-religious) framework all you are doing is creating tension and argument and getting nowhere.
Why do you always critique our critiques with a critique then insist that all such actions are 'pointless'. I honestly don't believe that free and open exchange of ideas with people who disagree with you is ever a pointless undertaking, it does seem (at least to me) to lead to a modification of premises even if you stick with the same logical conclusions, which is great... I'm very happy that people in this thread have improved their basic theological arguments over time.
Is it possible your own insecurity and lack of immortal surety makes you strike out at others who are confident and happy in the resolution of their lives?
Yeah that's possible, but I imagine our reasons for wishing to discuss such topics (idk what you mean by strike out... we're just talking) with people is similar to why theists do, it's a search for the truth.
Is it some sick and deluded tall poppy syndrome that makes it ok to persecute others for their belief systems?
...No. Is it your frustration at your inability to form a strong argument in favour of religious belief that leads you to instead attack our characters? Yes.
Does fear of the unknown or the uncertain, force you to attempt to conquer it, knowing that your arguments in this thread will never make a difference?
Again with the nihilism... If you think arguments here don't make a difference to people even on a personal level of intellectual interest then why are you bothering to communicate yourself? Personally I've really enjoyed it when new avenues of interest have been opened up, when some aspect of my beliefs has been shown to be weak and I've been forced to re-evaluate it by my own mind (they don't force the change)...
It's an enriching experience to engage in discussion/debate with others.
Yes my personal philosophic standpoint on life is a bit of a mishmash of ideologies and there are a hundred million valid scientific arguments that could counter each point
You seem to be conflating science with philosophy, I really don't think it works that way.
but it's the system of moral belief I've arrived at, having given just as much thought to these things as you ever have, albeit, probably with a more open minded approach.
You seem to consider that just as much 'thought' is put in given time. However I would say it also depends on how much reading has been down, what the base level of intelligence of the individuals is, what they read and how much time they spend on the particular topic.
As for open minded, I am open minded. What makes you think I'm not?
Often when you believe everything scientific you are told, you end up harbouring just as many misconceptions as those people with religious beliefs
I don't know what you're talking about exactly... If there's a misconception in science, science will move to clear it up. I'm also not that comfortable that you keep pitting science against religion, it's silly for a religious person to be anti-science, science is not your enemy.
I know a lot of the science I learnt and accepted as a child turned out to be a flawed, incomplete view of the whole.
How did you learn it was flawed? You probably had an opposing scientific view given to you that you felt offered better evidence. Though I do see you left something about 'incomplete view of the whole', obviously science is incomplete and there are even areas of life where I don't think science offers answers, that's why often in this thread you'd see we present philosophical arguments not just science.
'm sure there will be massive shifts in scientific thinking in the next hundred years that lay waste to a lot of what you accept as fact at this point,
Maybe? For starters, I don't think too often we lay waste to entire large-scale theories... for example while much of evolution has changed, the general thesis has remained the same. I'd also like you to consider how fast the rate of scientific discovery is happening these days and how minimal our need for revision (at least, for the layman) has been.
there are so many arguments and counter arguments about what the universe might be, or where we come from, that your system of belief is no more resolute than the bible.
Sounds like Solipsism to me...
My main point is that you capitalist neocons are burning books and you deserve to go to hell for it, you neocon bastards.
- The bourgeoise
Ok.
