reply to post by TheWalkingFox
Atheism is not a position of skepticism. Agnosticism is a position of skeptcism. The skeptic position is to wait until evidence is conclusive for
either position. Atheism is a negative position, which incurs burden of proof in the same way that a positive one does, and tried to defend itself by
using an argumen from ignorance.
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
That's because you guys believe in some pretty funny stuff.
And that translates in you being justified to be a jerk exactly how?
Well, when someone is trying to tell everyone that the sky is lime green and full of angry wasps, one should be a good citizen and try to allay
You bring me the evidence that you possess that God doesn't exist, and I will accept your rationalization. Until then, comparing the belief in God to
the belief that the sky is lime green is both offensive and ridiculous, which only serves to prove my point that many atheists share a very easily
recognizable worldview, despite their claims that "there is no similarity between two atheists except their lack of believe in God".
Well, that IS exactly what the god of many religions is - invisible daddy who lives in the sky and does magic. There's no reason to take such
beliefs seriously, or to elevate them above myths of leprechauns and werewolves.
QED. You're not really helping your cause, don't you know that? There is absolutely no justification for a human being to be derrogative towards
another human being, specially when doing so consciously and intentionally.
Evil is hard to quantify. But as a source of harm, yes. Religion induces its believers to act in demonstrably harmful ways, both to themselves
and each other.
No, tribalism does. I do not expect people to have studied the dynamics of tribalism and intra and inter hostilities, but there is very little that
can be said about religion that can't be also said about any other variation of tribalism. On the other hand, there is a very important thing to be
said about religion that cannot be said about other variations of tribalism. Religion reduces intra-hostilities to near zero.
Europe and the Middle East are on the line; they'd like to have a word.
None of those wars were religious in nature. The wars on Europe were political in nature, and the wars on Middle East are nationalistic in nature.
No, actually this is the claim of the theists, and it's sort of like the skinny chess nerd who's claiming he can take on the entire wrestling
No, it isn't. It is a fact of history that science owes far too much to religion for religious people to believe in some sort of schism. Up to the
beginning of the 20th century, science was basically a religious endeavor.
Well, they are actually the best we have. They certainly generate far better results than previous systems. Maybe in the future we'll come up
with an even better way of examining hte world around us, but so far "collect data, run tests, draw conclusions, collect more data, run more tests,
revise conclusions" seems to work really, really well.
No, it isn't. Science is good for explaining the physical world when hard data is attainable and verifiable. It is woefully incapable of dealing with
other kinds of truth.
Never heard of prayer preventing polio. Vaccination, however?
It may surprise you, but there are no studies proving the efficacy of vaccination. There has never been any form of double-blind tests proving that it
can prevent anything. It is simply assumed to work since when the idea of vaccination appeared, there was no habit of making double-blind studies to
verify efficacy of things like that, and scientists have far too much on their hands to worry about "backlog".
Well, that's how logic works. Sorry if that's inconveniant for you.
No, that's not how logic works. That's how some people who are not trained in logic like to pretend that it works.
But it's not the priests of Huitzolipotchli who are today trying to start nuclear wars in the middle east while striving to control the
uteruses of my countrywomen, is it?
Actually, there is no one trying to start nuclear wars in the middle east, as far as I know. And as per the uteruses of your countrywomen, you should
worry less about Christians and worry more about MGTOW and MRA.
Only when religion is already involved in the discussion.
No, not really. Not on my experience, at least. I've seen people engage in a whole diatribe about how God doesn't exist because someone said "God
bless you" when another person sneezed.