Joe Rogan's "You're a Fucking Human Being"

[Keegan Birrell]

Sorry if I came off as an asshole, it was clear that my post was pretty hate filled. For that I apologize!

However I do strongly believe that you should not have "jacked" the thread by turning (and knowingly doing so) into a religious debate. The poster's original intent was to share that Rogan has opened his eyes a bit and is getting on a healthier life path because of it. There is nothing but positivity there. You felt the need to write a mini novel filled with nothing but negativity, because you didn't agree with 5 minutes of what Joe had to say out of a 2 hour podcast. You shouldn't have posted at all if you dislike him so much for so little, and you knew that it with every comment agreeing with you, you would have 10 who wouldn't. More useless negativity.

I'm sure you're 1 year old would be disappointed if he was old enough to comprehend that his father is a preaching troll... lol

Seriously though, don't take what I say to heart.. you seem like a pretty sensitive guy regarding a topic we shouldn't have even gotten into!

For the TS; Great job pal, hope you continue on with what you're doing! You'll keep seeing improvements as long as you stay motivated and keep pushing towards whatever your set goal is. Keep up updated!

[Peter Hirt]

Well, I think this forum was clearly inviting religious view points. The title of Rogan's video is the central theme. If you are merely human and think that you are privy to any "beyond life" answers, you're crazy. Not zealots or extremists only... IMHO. I'd hate to put words in Joe's mouth; but I think it's pretty obvious.

I love threads like these, but the debate will never end; It boils down to rational thinking and logic vs. superstition -and that's just not a fair fight. I've decided to try and bridge the gap and merge logic with superstition so now I pray to God(squared), or God to the second power. You know... God's God. If intelligent design is right, and anything complex had to be fabricated by a builder -why then who is to say that God is simple and knowable? No one! God MUST have been created by a super-super intelligence.

I'm tellin' you. Religions are only praying to middle management.

[Taylor Culbertson]

[Orlando Rosæ]

@Peter, you're crazy if you think rational thinking and logic are the exclusive property of the atheists only. And based on the conclusion you made as a result of your God squared scenario, I find it unlikely that reason and logic are your forte. I would put my skills in reason and logic up against yours or anyone else of your choosing so as to make it a "fair fight," to borrow a phrase. But, your condescending sarcasm was laughable though. God Bless.

[AJ Camacho]

His god squared comment was just a parody of the cyclical self defeating flawed logic of the "then who created it?" argument. He also never stated once that he was an atheist. That's the ultimate issue anyways, religion is in conflict with the lack of proof and logic within itself. You could kill all the atheists on the planet and that conflict would still exist.

[Pete Daly]

@Orlando, I'm pretty sure his logic is rock solid, but he does come off a little condescending. And it's pretty clear he's an atheist. I do, however, have a problem with your post. At least Peter had a point in his post, whereas you just had an attack without a counterpoint. I mean, you couldn't just rest on a rhetorical point like atheists aren't the only logical party in a religious debate, and think you won the argument, could you? I, for one, would like to hear an elaboration.

[Orlando Rosæ]

AJ, I understand that it was a parody because of his attempted humorous tone and the flawed logic. What I took exception to was the: "It boils down to rational thinking and logic vs. superstition -and that's just not a fair fight." statement. As if it is a "fight", a "fight" (his words), or argument between the rational and logical vs the superstitious (non-rational, Synonym: gullible, untrue, born yesterday, apprehensive, credulous, etc, etc ). He's implying that his argument is the only one derived from rationality and logic. And that it is superior to the counter point. Why else would he call it, "not a fair fight?" BTW I never said, he is an atheist" or "he said he was an atheist." I am arguing against the generalized statement not the man.

Pete D., My post was a reaction to the implication that theists are "crazy"for their beliefs, and not "rational" or not "logical." It wasn't an attack. It was in defense of generalized statement he made. I purposely left my post open ended to potentially invite others into the conversation, and return to it as it progresses. This is a conversation, right? It's not "a hit and run" speech making session. There will be no winner and loser. We're just talking. And at the end of the day, they are just words. From experience,we all know that there will be no clear cut answer that satisfies either side. I see it as trying to squeeze out an easy/trivial answer to a monumentally complex/significant question. People much smarter and much more invested in this debate than us haven't come up with "the answer." Can you agree with my statement that ration thought and logic are not the exclusive property of the non-theist (atheist)? Or do you want me to prove it? Or offer a Mathematical Real analysis that his logic is faulty? AJ and I already acknowledged it was purposefully faulty for the sake of satire.

[Yordan Rodriguez]

Posted by joe on twitter pretty crazy.

[Orlando Rosæ]

AJ,
"That's the ultimate issue anyways, religion is in conflict with the lack of proof and logic within itself." I don't agree with this statement, religion is in conflict because of peoples hypocrisy and their failure to abide by their own moral code. "You could kill all the atheists on the planet and that conflict would still exist." It's interesting that you phrased it that way. Do you think theists want non-theists dead?

To go back a statement you made earlier. About the "blessed" lady, I found it interesting that you rejected Josh's interpretation of the word "blessed" as "lucky." Instead, interpreted her word " blessed" to say, "Jesus has specifically granted me the honor of having a pleasant day as a reward for my religious convictions," even though there was not any previous indication in her belief in Jesus. No wonder there is such a disconnect. We (humans) are not even perceiving words the same.

Because everyone lives by a different personal moral code, all I can do is try to try to determine if people are being true to their own particular belief system and if their intention is honorable. One time, while on a run on a Saturday morning, I passed a Rabbi and as I passed him I wished him a "good morning," his reply "Good Shivas" [sic]. Now, I'm not Jewish nor do I understand or know what he meant, but I did receive his good intention through his body language. To this day, I don't know what that means but respected him for speaking to me in his own authentic way which is grounded his own particular belief system. I respectfully, ask you to try and not be offended when you identify that people are being true to what they believe in. Life's too short.

BTW, I think that is a great picture with you and your child. To me it's about love for all people. Though, I will admit that some people are harder to love than others. :-) Have a good one.

[AJ Camacho]

...religion is in conflict because of peoples hypocrisy and their failure to abide by their own moral code.

Yes, well that goes back to my Scientology analogy. Religion requires a perpetual state of sin in order to have followers. That's the hook to it all. Sinning, atonement, sinning atonement, it's all a very vicious cycle. The bar is set high for a reason. But all of that is a different issue altogether from what my point was.

The burden of proving that Jesus came back from the dead or that Joseph Smith found some gold plates in the woods lies on those that choose to believe. These sorts of claims will never go without question as long as logic and rational are present. I personally don't view myself as an atheist. I'm just a guy who asks questions when things don't make sense. In all current religions, there's a lot of things that don't make sense. It's as simple as that.

That older woman who said she was "blessed", was sincerely referring to a higher power. Maybe she did say it in a clichéd passing manner, but the term itself implies that someone is giving the blessing, in this case her god. Openly giving props to invisible people will always lead to awkward moments.

"You could kill all the atheists on the planet and that conflict would still exist." It's interesting that you phrased it that way. Do you think theists want non-theists dead?....

Some do, I've definitely heard such sentiments. Generally though, I don't fear for my life when surrounded by theists, so I would say that most don't. That wasn't the point of my statement though. What I was trying to point out was that the logic that I use to disregard a religion exists with or without me. An atheist doesn't have a belief to espouse, just hundreds to tear down... all with the basic question, "Where is your god?"

It is entirely rational for someone to logically work their way to the presumption that a god does exist. Some would say that Descartes did this quite well in his own work. However, when accounting for specific religious ideologies and literal accounts within theistic literature... it all starts to fall apart rather quickly.