Not sure if a wind-up or not.
and no, i don't agree with the article.
*i don't like the phrase religious
Oh how come?
religion implies rules and dogma
So which is the smart party, here? Is it the atheists, who live short, selfish, stunted little lives – often childless – before they approach hopeless death in despair, and their worthless corpses are chucked in a trench
Meat > Shovel > Grave
had chris_is_cool in it the other day.
He's essentially saying that the delusionally happy people are happier than those more likely to doubt.
Whoever decided to compare IQs of atheists to the IQs of religious believers was fucking idiot and this is the rebuttal it deserves.
15 minutes ago
Muslims are not atheist ( just saying )!
Clearly AngryDave expects the Torygraph to slag off Islam at all turns. I'd hope it's not quite *that* sort of paper just yet but maybe is says a lot about what this sort of Daily Mail aping can result in.
Everyone has a go at Richard Dawkins for being a bigot. I used to. But the more I read his stuff and follow him on various social media wankeries, the more he's not a bigot at all.
religious people are the bigots, with their gay bashing, and other-religion-hating and women hating, and sex hating and whatever.
Yeah. THEY'RE THE BIGOTS.
That was it. Carry on.
People are quick to say that his brand of atheism is like a religious fundamentalist. It's not the same but equally, he has an argument to make and he makes it incredibly badly.
And it's a problem. If I want to proclaim myself an atheist I have to run the risk of people thinking I'm some sort of frothing nutcase, hellbent on eradicating religion. It's a bit like when you say you're left-wing and then someone brings up that cunt Galloway.
Anyway, Dawkins actually seems to have lost it recently. He's begun specifically attacking Islam (making Tweets that match the EDL main guy) and then acting all surprised when people accuse him of being racist, etc. Yeah, Islam isn't a race, slow clap mate, but you're also intelligent enough to know EXACTLY how the implications of this sort of rhetoric are far wider than some academic bubble you've retreated to.
But in his defence he targets Islam because of how hotly debated it is in government and by the media.
From his point of view, there'd be a small audience interested in him tearing into Sikhism or Ba'Hai people. It's just that by going for it, he will inevitably be linked with nationalists. Not fairly, in my opinion, but inevitably.
religious people are the bigots, with their gay bashing, and other-religion-hating and women hating, and sex hating and whatever
Remember, Christian thought says that Hitler went to hell - Right, fair enough. But it also says the 6m jews he killed were in hell with him as they didn't go through Christ to get to God.
Nice going. There's a zillion examples. Women in Islam may as well forget ever having any rights. No catholic female priests (why?!), they all hate the gays, probably because they don't reproduce so you can't indoctrinate future generations.
I know religious people can be good, but non religious people can be good, without worshipping some book full of bigotry and guilt.
Anyway: THEO: You're right, Dawkins is goading people, but I think his point is he should be allowed to mock religion, it's fucking stupid. That's why he was talking about Muhammed's magic horse or whatever.
Pretty inflammatory stuff though as it's all linked to culture. Actually, I guess you're right. But someone's gotta take a stand.
without "worshipping some book full of bigotry and guilt".
You either chuck your lot in with the framework which is responsible for every war in history, or youre out. You cant have a wishy washy "Oh I believe in some higher power but, golly, not organised religion" view.
That's a ludicrously black and white view.
when s_a_d is being the most 'right-on' in an arguement i don't know what to think anymore
maybe technically. There is evidence to suggest that belief in some form of God is innate to humans, seeing as basically every culture worldwide has some form of religion or higher power. So not believing in that could be some malfunction in the brain. Or just application of logic as opposed to blindly following the masses, who knows.
What a fun way to live one's life.
Application of logic party!
"The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality." -- George Bernard Shaw
Beyond that, 7/10 for the article. Thought Pascal's wager was pretty poorly used, but he did some good ATHIESTS R THE STUPIDS.
*believing things with no evidence
someone let the first years in.
but that article is disgustingly ableist.
Is that I don't understand why someone would deny themselves some of the simple pleasures of life (sex, alcohol, drugs, food for a week in some cases, freedom), just in service of a being that they don't properly understand and who for all they know might not even exist.
I mean, I respect those that do, but I really really really can't empathise.
religious people go to church and therefore by and large have a close knit support network of friends, priests, whatever around them who provide a safety net from the kinds of isolation that a lot of the mental health stuff mentioned here is predicated upon. This does not make 'being religious' any more worthy or valuable than any other secular activity, in fact all it shows is that human beings are gregarious creatures who do better together than on their own.
SOrry if I'm stating the bleeding obvious.