Agnosticism and the Major Stupidity of it

[Cool man]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

The Aztecs lacked the knowledge that human sacrifice wouldn't do shit for their crops.

So the conquistadors did a good thing in slaughtering their unhuman brutality of a civilization? I NEVER KNEW.

Originally Posted by The Scarecrow

Good point. I forgot that the Holocaust was based on a sound and reasonable argument.

It was for the Nazis. They ruled their country. If they think their argument was sound and reasonable, why should I care?

Originally Posted by Dogenzaka

Thread needs to be closed simply because of the topic title.
Cool man isn't very cool.

Yeah, I kind of said that in my third or something like that post in this thread. Good thing acknowledging that some... week later.

Because your insignificant human life is superior to their insignificant human life?
Do tell.

Why can't I think that my life is superior? It doesn't bother anyone else, and if it does - why the hell would you bother with what I think? I'm an ignorant narcissistic pompous jerk right?

[Phoenix]

So the conquistadors did a good thing in slaughtering their unhuman brutality of a civilization? I NEVER KNEW.

What do the conquistadores have to do with anything? I said that Aztecs thought human sacrifice helps the crops, and that is incorrect. Why would you even bring up the Spanish invasion of their lands?

It was for the Nazis. They ruled their country. If they think their argument was sound and reasonable, why should I care?

Because it was based on eugenics, which is faulty. Faulty argument led to millions of jews dead. Ignorance = massacre.

[kabal]

Originally Posted by Cool man

Why can't I think that my life is superior? It doesn't bother anyone else, and if it does - why the hell would you bother with what I think? I'm an ignorant narcissistic pompous jerk right?

Right!

Or was I not supposed to be answering this one?

[Cool man]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

What do the conquistadores have to do with anything? I said that Aztecs thought human sacrifice helps the crops, and that is incorrect. Why would you even bring up the Spanish invasion of their lands?

I'm asking you if you thought it was a good thing by the conquistadores to slaughter their race because they acted unethically based on ignorance. If you say "no" to that, it was unnecessary for you to bring up the example. I excuse myself if it looked eluding.

(what I'm trying to say is, debating on who is the most evil by ignorance will take us no where)

Because it was based on eugenics, which is faulty. Faulty argument led to millions of jews dead. Ignorance = massacre.

Since when are eugenics faulty now? It's a philosophy, damn it.

And, is no one going to close the damn thread or what? How can this rulebreaking continue?

[Phoenix]

I'm asking you if you thought it was a good thing by the conquistadores to slaughter their race because they acted unethically based on ignorance. If you say "no" to that, it was unnecessary for you to bring up the example. I excuse myself if it looked eluding.

No, it wasn't a good thing. How is it unnecessary for me bring up the example? I said that ignorance leads to human sacrifice, using the Aztecs as an example. What the hell?

Since when are eugenics faulty now? It's a philosophy, damn it.

"Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention"

Except that's not how it works. If you delete traits from your gene pool, you're hurting the human race as a whole. So, eugenics harms the human race, is based on ignorance and millions have died because of it.

[Square Ninja]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

"Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention"

Except that's not how it works. If you delete traits from your gene pool, you're hurting the human race as a whole. So, eugenics harms the human race, is based on ignorance and millions have died because of it.

The Bene Gesserit would like a word with you.

[Cool man]

Originally Posted by Cool man

(what I'm trying to say is, debating on who is the most evil by ignorance will take us no where)

That's the hell. But enough on that.

"That's not how it works"? Now you're doing just what I did against the word "religion", which you said was wrong.

And where is the human race as a whole actually needed? (mind you, I'm not saying slaughtering jews is right here, if anyone thinks that) The human race always divides itself anyway, wether it's ethnicity, nation, religion...

(And on another sidenote, since we're just shifting subject all the time, do you actually feel you're accomplishing something by this discussion? I sure don't)

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Cool man

It was for the Nazis. They ruled their country. If they think their argument was sound and reasonable, why should I care?

If you don't care, then why ask?

How are genocide and "unspeakable crimes" direct results of lack of knowledge?

The Nazi's lacked the knowledge that non-Aryan people weren't inferior to Aryan people. Thus, genocide. The fact that they ruled their country is completely irrelevant to this argument.

[Phoenix]

And where is the human race as a whole actually needed? (mind you, I'm not saying slaughtering jews is right here, if anyone thinks that) The human race always divides itself anyway, wether it's ethnicity, nation, religion...

Except, you know, less genes means more likely a chance of a plague killing us all. Who needs the human race? I do, for one, since without the human race I'd kind of die.

[Cool man]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Except, you know, less genes means more likely a chance of a plague killing us all. Who needs the human race? I do, for one, since without the human race I'd kind of die.

You need the whole human race to live? Is every human essential to your survival?

Originally Posted by The Scarecrow

The Nazi's lacked the knowledge that non-Aryan people weren't inferior to Aryan people.

Which has been scientifically proven where?

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Cool man

Which has been scientifically proven where?

...you can't be serious.

Assume you win this argument. Am I right in thinking you would condone the killing of, say, a dyslexic person purely because they're dyslexic?

Because that's what it sounds like you're getting at.

[Hollow Bastion]

Originally Posted by The Scarecrow

...you can't be serious.

Assume you win this argument. Am I right in thinking you would condone the killing of, say, a dyslexic person purely because they're dyslexic?

Because that's what it sounds like you're getting at.

You're failing to see his point and are now turning it into a personal issue.

Has the "knowledge" you mentioned actually been proven?

You could easily twist his point (or at least the point that I gathered from his question) into something regarding any claim of knowledge, particularly those that are rather difficult to prove their validity.

[Just put the Knife DOWN]

They lacked the knowledge, that's the point.

If you're insinuating that the fact that non-Aryans aren't inferior to Aryans can't be scientifically proven, then it fallaciously goes to suggest that their superiority can't be scientifically proven either.

Wow, we kinda come full-circle with the whole agnosticism thing. =D

Except that, of course, it was only ever referring to "secret" or "divine" knowledge and never knowledge in all its aspects.

[Hollow Bastion]

Originally Posted by Rhythm of Apathy

They lacked the knowledge, that's the point.

If you're insinuating that the fact that non-Aryans aren't inferior to Aryans can't be scientifically proven, then it fallaciously goes to suggest that their superiority can't be scientifically proven either.

Wow, we kinda come full-circle with the whole agnosticism thing. =D

Except that, of course, it was only ever referring to "secret" or "divine" knowledge and never knowledge in all its aspects.

I prefer to refer to it as philosophical skepticism/pyrrhonism.

[Cool man]

Originally Posted by The Scarecrow

...you can't be serious.

Assume you win this argument. Am I right in thinking you would condone the killing of, say, a dyslexic person purely because they're dyslexic?

Because that's what it sounds like you're getting at.

That is not an argument. You have nothing to retort.