it's hilarious because it's easier to open a banana by pinching the other end. monkeys have been doing it that way forever. That tab god put there mashes the end of my bananas and ruins them. god's an asshole. i eat all my bananas backwards because i hate god.
Ye Forgehub frequenters of the Religion thread- We welcome the compassionately-disabled. Oh wait, this is the internet, why even try.
The question might seem rhetorical, but if you can give me an honest answer, I'd appreciate it. Why do you think atheists tend to thrive on the internet?
Because many societies discriminate/look down at atheists so they go to the internet to do it right on back to religious people? Polarization man. I've caught my tongue numerous times in this thread, and have tried to remain polite. I don't deny many secularists have done the same.. but just look at the past two pages for counterexamples... or virtually any of Transhuman's posts (lol). Edit: I don't mean to start a flame war or anything..... don't take it personally?
You still haven't actually added to the conversation, just claimed to be "religiously persecuted", something we all should be familiar with christians doing. And as to why Atheists "thrive" on the internet: It's a mixed back. Yes, people that live in the bible belt of America are usually hated upon for their logical beliefs, but that is a portion of one country, nothing monumentally important in the grand scheme of the world. European countries are far more tolerant of atheism, and in fact contain some of the largest communities of atheists. I would like to also add, that a reason why you run into atheist on forums, websites, the internet in general, is because people that are 14 and brainwashed by their fundamentalist parents don't spend a large amount of time in the same places. You're more likely to find a group of logical, intelligent people on the internet, and thus more atheists. Yes, immaturity thrives on the internet, but only in certain cess-pools and on the surface of websites. Also, people are always more inclined to post their beliefs about anything when it's (mostly) anonymous.
In Erico's defense, there is a reason this discussion died. Just about everything that could be brought up, was brought up. Erico has numerous pages defending his beliefs from matty, shuman, rorak, me, etc and is perfectly understandable as to why he doesn't want to do all that again.
the new dumbest thing i've read on this forum So you're okay with doctors who think that there are souls in petri tree dishes? You think that their beliefs are inconsequential and will cause no harm? Beliefs cannot be supported by evidence or facts, so what is to save them from my condemnation? If you can't defend your belief then keep it to you're god damn self, and keep it out of my democracy, out of my healthcare and out of my education. I'm sick of this religious pacifism, bred by historically illiterate new-born nut jobs.
That's sarcasm right? If one holds a belief they cannot actually defend or support, it's not really a belief. It's just dogma, or idiocy coming from them. I think we've come far enough as a race of people where "critical thinking" should play a part in every decision we make. That happened for us about the time out ancestors figured out not to **** where they eat.
If you can defend or support it, it's not really a belief, but common knowledge. (Hence the use of the words faith and belief, "blind faith" is rather redundant) The problem is at what point do people lose their freedom? Would you consider it wrong to believe without reason? If so, you're supporting thought crime. Ethics, morals and most philosophies cannot be reduced to elemental facts. You'd also be rejecting most morality. Can you say that we should value continued survival, or progress in general? You can, but you would be applying your own beliefs. How does one prove that using logic and facts work? You can't use logic or facts, because that would be circular logic and circular reasoning. We can say logically that, having applied logic for many millenia, it helps. That doesn't really prove logic works though, as it is circular reasoning (which is also a logical construct, but according to logic, schools of thought are subject to their own principles). You could say we have faith in logic and mathematics. We have evolved to have 'built-in' thought modifiers. Why else would you think most people think so similarly? Have you ever objected to something almost immediately, without having thought it through? If not, do you think killing a child is different to killing an adult? It's clear that many modern ethics are derived from evolutionary processes. The reason there is almost a universal objection to things such as murder, cannibalism and incest (not to imply they are in any way similar) is because these things have previously had detrimental evolutionary effects. Inbreeding creates a reduced gene pool, often resulting in inability to adapt to diseases and deformalities. The fact that we use logic and mathematics is what has made us the dominant species on Earth (at least, dominant in one way). You can't say that any language such as logic or mathematics is absolute, as it is arbitrary to whomever created it. Language describes the universe, the universe doesn't describe language. The problem comes when people try to assert their beliefs, or use certain beliefs to instruct their lives. When you voice your opinion, expect judgement.
-_- That's what I was going for. Let me refine it. People's beliefs (or faith if you want to get technical about what belief means) should not affect other people. Good?
Well when people try to corrupt a political system based on their ideology then it more than affects other people. i.e. ultra-conservatives