/b/ - Random

Anything posted here are autistic works of fiction, only a fool would take them seriously.

Posting mode: Reply

Check to confirm you're not a robot
Drawing x size canvas

Remember to follow the rules

Max file size: 350.00 MB

Max files: 5

Max message length: 4096

Manage Board | Moderate Thread

Return | Catalog | Bottom

Expand All Images

Anonymous 01/24/2018 (Wed) 21:30:39 [Preview] No.14800 del
Public schools should be banned too.

Anonymous 01/24/2018 (Wed) 22:13:35 [Preview] No.14804 del
>atheists preaching about "proper" state education
lel again

Anonymous 01/25/2018 (Thu) 05:02:58 [Preview] No.14809 del
Science attempts to explain reality with the most logical explanations which at times might not be the actual explanation for an observed phenomena and the real explanation has yet to be discovered, but I digress, the evidence is heavily against the theory of creationism and Adam and Eve, but you still see professors teaching such concepts. Imagine if I was teaching a class about geology and instead of using science and observations to explain how various types of rocks form over time due to conditions such as heat and pressure, I simply stated that rocks formed due to a "magical" realm of energy above our reality which allows humans to harness it's power through crystals, what do you think parents would think of such a thing?

As someone who works in a public high school setting, I can tell you that some of the teachers are competent and enjoy educating children (The Honors/Advanced Placement teachers in the U.S. to be specific) and generally do a good job conveying the subject at hand to their students. The majority of students are little shits who are forced to go to school and instigate problems the first chance they get, you get the idiots who distribute drugs in the school property, kids to love to intimidate others and cause fights, the "nerds" that are more obsessed with memes and social trends than actual study and an understanding of reality, and a few select individual in the entirety of the school that are smarter than some of the teachers and can literally tell you anything regarding a particular subject. Students should be capable of learning the subjects they want to learn, not forced to enroll in a specific class and end up disregarding it and failing because they didn't favor it in the first place. Most of them don't read either, we had setup a school-wide program to encourage the kids to read by "Dedicating thirty minutes a day to picking up a book, reading it, and drafting a summary based on what you read", and we scrapped it because no one wanted to have any of it. I don't like reading either, it is an inefficient means of injecting knowledge into your mind, and I'm certain the future will have some... interesting technology, I have already conceived some interesting ideas.

Anonymous 01/25/2018 (Thu) 07:41:47 [Preview] No.14814 del
You don't think some subjects should be compulsory? I have a friend from school who is near completing his master's in mathematics (no idea what he wants to do) but he was completely disinterested in math until we go to shit like geometric proofs in high school.

Anonymous 01/25/2018 (Thu) 08:20:12 [Preview] No.14816 del
I don't want a teacher who doesn't like reading. It's not that hard to read a book for at least 30 minutes a day to stay abreast without reading bullshit on social media, and to ward of dementia. However, it matters what they're reading. At some point you need to convince kids to stop reading Harry Potter and fantasy, and to read something more difficult and educational. Reading for the sake of reading can only take you so far.

>The majority of students are little shits who are forced to go to school and instigate problems the first chance they get

If you go in with a condescending attitude and aren't a pro actor, your kids will sense you don't like them, not like you back, and you will have disciplinary problems galore. I don't see why it's hard to like kids. Don't tell me you're not a pedo? Give the job to a pedo who wants it.

Anonymous 01/25/2018 (Thu) 15:52:13 [Preview] No.14823 del
The only one compulsory class that's really needed is how to see through genuinely held convictions about bullshit. Religion used to be a good one, but thanks to tireless efforts from partisan atheism we now live in a world where that's not quite enough, because now being an atheist is no indication at all that you can actually see through bullshit any better, moreover you're probably sucking on Steven Pinker's dick more than ever.
Anyone who attacks any ideology as a monolith is de facto acting as a proponent of the correspondent slave-mindedness that makes up everything bad about the monolith itself. They just want to funnel the damage it causes to another ideology and take over that one, like locusts moving to another field.

Religions ground an ideology into a set of principles that live out their exact form in real-time discussion and reformation, while movements like atheism extract vague superstitiousness out of them, kill the grounding, and insert the superstition into retarded regression movements like communism or atheism+. It's inevitable, and the godslayer is left crying "but I didn't mean to!". Commmunism is an anxiety about a balance that is currently being worked out, so they idealize a stale system that is still like death from the beginning, and it goes hand in hand with atheism that fantasizes about every idea and truth being self-evident and immutable. It's like looking at an equation and being scared of math so much that all you can say is "yeah, but 0=0 and that's always right, so I'm always right".

Anonymous 01/27/2018 (Sat) 01:04:29 [Preview] No.14853 del
>the Christcuck enabler
You're like an abused woman who can't leave her abusive spouse.

Why’re are an atheist's reasons better? Because they’re reasons that are truly defensible, you don’t have to believe any bullshit to have them.

Anonymous 01/27/2018 (Sat) 16:31:29 [Preview] No.14871 del
You need to believe in bullshit to learn English from your fucking mum, stop cucking yourself.

Anonymous 01/28/2018 (Sun) 01:02:28 [Preview] No.14874 del
(189.33 KB 600x644 DT3lyg0VMAA2EAl.jpeg)
“I want to give my life for Islam.” This boy is 15. He says his elder brother has already been “martyred” and his parents are happy that he's to become a suicide bomber. Could anything other than religion inspire such madness?


Anonymous 01/28/2018 (Sun) 02:36:56 [Preview] No.14875 del
Atheism is a tool to convince yourself you're not able to eat Tide just for being stupid, propped on an actively enforced idea of theistic strawman God. Inspired? You're a reactionary mind sink, you don't get inspired for good or ill.

Anonymous 01/29/2018 (Mon) 09:25:23 [Preview] No.14901 del
First, a religion requires an organization with conventions and dogma. So atheism is not a religion. Second, even if you're talking about a faith, it requires no supreme being one way or another, but it does require a cosmology which is taken on faith, which atheism lacks.
Atheism requires no faith whatsoever.

There is no faith required to believe that god does not exist.
The rules of empiricism state that anything which cannot be proven to exist must be assumed to not exist
Therefore god does not exist, as a default position, unless and until it's proven that he does.
That is atheism. Atheists do not say "There absolutely is no god, and no evidence will ever convince me otherwise." Atheists say "I will believe in your god when you provide me with proof of his existence."

Anonymous 01/29/2018 (Mon) 11:07:54 [Preview] No.14903 del
isn't that agnosticism and not atheism?

Anonymous 01/29/2018 (Mon) 11:37:32 [Preview] No.14904 del
You're a dumbass.

Anonymous 01/29/2018 (Mon) 12:44:42 [Preview] No.14906 del
(64.42 KB 503x676 not-stalin.jpg)
>anything which cannot be proven to exist must be assumed to not exist
money, for instance
state re-education facilities incidentally not

Anonymous 01/29/2018 (Mon) 13:08:41 [Preview] No.14908 del
how so? There is a difference even though it may seem like you're splitting hares.

Anonymous 01/29/2018 (Mon) 14:11:19 [Preview] No.14909 del
A core issue with Christianity that atheists rarely address is that Christians have longer linguistic memory than secularists, so secularists come up with new terminology they don't even pay careful attention to and use it to redefine the context of what the bible actually even says.

You could say that atheists believe that if bible was true and god created freedom, the bible should still have been written specifically for the people reading it in 21th century, not 20th century or 22th century when secularists inevitably have rewritten their dictionaries once again just to retroactively falsify the bible and also whatever secular document they swear up and down is 100% fact today. Not that believe it, they just say it. Or when pressed they replace their de facto belief with actual splitting of hairs (which is one of the reasons they continue redefining words to begin with, sophistry). 100 years from now the Greek New Testament will be retranslated as confidence in God and atheists will swear up and down that they don't confide in anything.

Anonymous 01/31/2018 (Wed) 10:11:03 [Preview] No.14986 del
A core argument Christians don't address is how ridiculous everything you have to believe is.

Anonymous 01/31/2018 (Wed) 23:03:22 [Preview] No.15002 del
>a bit too complicated for an atheist to read, but here's a moving picture that still ignores the issue in favor of beating a dead strawman

totes ridick, sandra, well meme'd!

Anonymous 01/31/2018 (Wed) 23:27:36 [Preview] No.15003 del
That's cute. A hundred years from now you've catalogued your idols' speeches in 1:1 format and lazily copypaste it everywhere exactly the way you do here, without engaging or holding up to a standard of engagement, because that's the regressive power atheism is built to wield. No doctrines about living communion, just listen and believe, and it will be the actual reality, not religious history from middle ages. Well done, well done.

Anonymous 02/01/2018 (Thu) 03:29:37 [Preview] No.15010 del
(51.87 KB 1200x316 DMc-C-RUIAACmxp.jpeg)
Steven sounds smarter than you. You won't even read his new book because it doesn't confirm the narratives underlying your dumb prejudices.

Anonymous 02/01/2018 (Thu) 15:06:53 [Preview] No.15048 del
Out of all options you had throw the fucking pinkerton at my face, fucking spare me...
I'll spare your money and write more succinctly and for free.
What about how atheists present their identity of non-believer as the only thing that makes an atheist,
but christians are held to strict standard of what must be the belief of a true christian. Atheists fling around this idea of compelled thought so naturally, I can never understand how somebody can be so slave-minded. Like if you're told something you just have to take it at face value, like they're people who had to be specifically trained to think for themselves and that seems like an amazing thing to them. I actually don't think atheists should be converted. They probably would be the machiavellians rising on top of secular churches and using it only for evil. More on that later if you ask.

Pinker does no control grouping. He just posits that if there's a christian ever inventing something useful then it's not a real christian if there's not enough hay peeking from under his hat to burn a witch with, in the atheist witch hunt for the one true christian strawman. The requirement for the purity test suddenly gets a lot stricter when it suits you, when previously the purity test you invented rewrote reality (what a christian must believe) instead of conforming to it (christian is as christian does, but only when it's something bad and barbaric that everybody is doing at the time).

Atheist ethic: hang everybody up to cross for days, if it doesn't matter in the end it won't count in the end. Sounds like good way to handle people who refuse to believe lecturers in athiest opinion manufacturing facilities.
God didn't say you'd survive, and I killed you, so non-god was right!

Anonymous 02/01/2018 (Thu) 15:38:05 [Preview] No.15049 del
Steven is right, a Christian has to compartize his mind and stop being a Christian to get any science done. All Christians become children of the enlightenment while they do science or they won't accomplish anything, and the older a scientist the more likely he is to stop being a Christian. Most leading scientists are too smart to be Christians.

Anonymous 02/02/2018 (Fri) 04:53:07 [Preview] No.15071 del
Okay, ergo, all warfare is caused by godlessness because theists literally can't get anything done. And atheism has never been more than pointless moral grandstanding.

Anonymous 02/02/2018 (Fri) 04:57:24 [Preview] No.15072 del
This inevitably means that regardless of matters of faith, pinker is a con man, he could just as well be selling cure for cancer but it's a fake cure by design.

Anonymous 02/03/2018 (Sat) 02:59:47 [Preview] No.15096 del
It's not grandstanding to say you can control your own mind and don't need popes or books by iron age savages to lead your life. Religion is recognized as the biggest problem that causes wars in the world today.

Anonymous 02/03/2018 (Sat) 15:10:40 [Preview] No.15147 del
It is when you justify it by 'theism', which is atheism by definition.

But not deistic religions? Not voodoo? Not feminism, communism or even just plain old atheism, because atheists can do no wrong? Oh yeah, records of Hitchens will serve you when logic fails so you know when to flip flop between when it applies and when it doesn't. Just find your favorite saint and take his word for it.

Christianity emerged from judaism to question this bullshit, not only in judaism and within itself but especially in any outlook that starts choking on its own Dunning-Kruger effect. That's why Christians translated the bible into all languages and preserve access to the original to their best ability, while atheists are currently enfrocing compelled speech policy that doesn't even make sense in languages that don't have pronouns that are strictly gender-related.

Anonymous 02/04/2018 (Sun) 23:25:50 [Preview] No.15159 del
>I don't like reading either, it is an inefficient means of injecting knowledge into your mind, and I'm certain the future will have some... interesting technology, I have already conceived some interesting ideas.
What kind of ideas?

Anonymous 02/06/2018 (Tue) 06:51:26 [Preview] No.15184 del
Atheism is more like saying God is so improbable that it isn't taken into consideration. So improbable that it isn't worth considering. Like for example the teapot orbiting around mars. You can't disprove that there is no teapot, but it is so very unlikely that there is one that you live your life under the assumption that there isn't, if that makes sense.

It's described much MUCH better in "The God Delusion" by Dawkins. It's a very good book, and it's written very well so if anyone's curious about the topic I'd recommend reading it.

Anonymous 02/06/2018 (Tue) 10:58:15 [Preview] No.15185 del
He probably couldn't convey them through writing :^)

Anonymous 02/12/2018 (Mon) 16:14:46 [Preview] No.15323 del
>religious schools should be banned.
start with the jewish ones

Anonymous 02/13/2018 (Tue) 02:53:19 [Preview] No.15329 del
Faith is just belief without evidence.

Anonymous 02/13/2018 (Tue) 02:56:17 [Preview] No.15330 del

Anonymous 02/13/2018 (Tue) 03:09:41 [Preview] No.15332 del
Ask yourself this: are you scared of God, even if you might not believe there is one? Why slander faith? Especially if its NOT real? Wouldn't you simply ignore it? Something has you scared enough to preach against faith in God. Are you scared that there might just be a God? You best pray there isn't.

Anonymous 02/13/2018 (Tue) 05:06:43 [Preview] No.15336 del
> Wouldn't you simply ignore it?
Would you ignore schizophrenics when they try to take over the givernment? We don't ignore untrue ideas. To do otherwise is dangerous for everyone.

Anonymous 02/13/2018 (Tue) 06:35:10 [Preview] No.15337 del
>Faith is just belief without evidence.
Well put. Knowledge, then, is just belief with partial evidence, and skepticism the devout attempt to destroy the in-between state of searching for evidence in the faith that such can be found. If truth comprises of what we know and what we don't know, "knowledge" is the superstition that what we do know can paint the whole picture of truth regardless. That is indeed quite schizoid. Skeptics don't find faith to be even a useful concept, because theirs is the attempt to rule out free will entirely under communism where induction is illegal and additional information should only be extracted by deduction out of what knowledge we already have.

In practice, faith is the function of handling information before its validation without bogus quantum superpositions about whether that information is false or correct. Skeptics are happy to lambast such a concept, because just like INGSOC in 1984 they're happy to go back to the record after the fact and correct it: "the state had this knowledge, and acted accordingly", because any mention of the previous moment when the state acted on a whim would just be inconvenient. In the skeptic worldview "I assumed correctly" and "I knew all along" are interchangeable, because risk-taking that doesn't bear out is to simply be covered up anyway. Because skepticism, quite simply, is to take a permanent break from taking risks and send that load into the desert on the backs of the faithful. Any lexicon that can be objective about the entire exchange is their scapegoat. And it is only for this reason they attack faith, because faith has no other function and their doublespeak has no other result. It would be markedly easy to just separate faith as the local function of the same thing as knowing, but they're more concerned about convincing people who hear voices that those voices are phenomenologically self-evident.

In the free marketplace of ideas, those who buy luxuries talk with disdain about people who would need pragmatic purchases they don't really want to chain themselves onto anyway but must. The insanity about not needing faith is "let them eat cake" to the letter, of fool aristocrats who don't see the wheat base in cake itself over their gluttony.

Anonymous 02/14/2018 (Wed) 16:12:27 [Preview] No.15350 del
>would you ignore schizophrenics when they try to take over the givernment?

Would you? I have some bad news for you if you haven't paid any attention: schizophrenics have taken over our government already. Where were you for the last 40+ years?

Anonymous 02/14/2018 (Wed) 16:23:28 [Preview] No.15351 del
The big problem is trying to get rid of peaceful people who don't share the same ideologies as you, or trying to de-huminize groups of people who share different opinions.

Ask yourself this: how often to Christians go around killing people today? Very rarely. Hell, Muslims on average will turn to religious extremes a lot more often than most other religious cultures out there. Do I hear anyone whining about that?

My point is unless someone actually turns to extremism, you should leave them alone. Now, if they do try to harm you or your family, you should have the right to defend yourselves in lethal matter. And police also have the right to get involved if an individual (or group of individuals) turn violent or extremist.

Otherwise, leave them be. They are only humans like me and you, they just hold different beliefs. That's not dangerous, its called true diversity.

Anonymous 02/15/2018 (Thu) 03:31:37 [Preview] No.15357 del
Christianity is bullshit and it can lead to extremism, period. Not as often as with Islam, but the trigger is still there. For instance Christians still bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors. The latent potential for irrational violence and susceptibility to demagoguery is enough reason to attack the idea, because the idea of religion turns you into a gulible sheep.

Atheism has no tenants that leads to extremism. You hardly see atheists in America who commit violence and are driven by ideology, because atheists are in general calmer and more rational.

Anonymous 02/15/2018 (Thu) 18:01:04 [Preview] No.15370 del
>Christians still bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors.

Funny because I don't recall that happening anytime recently. Maybe it happens once in a while but the police and FBI are there to deal with those kinds of nutjobs, right? OK. Just because there are a few extremists does not mean our leaders can go full Stalin and ban Christianity or ban other religions.

And remember our Freedom of Religion does not only protect Christianity but all faiths, tens of millions of innocent people who have done nothing wrong to anyone.

>The latent potential for irrational violence and susceptibility to demagoguery is enough reason to attack the idea

Its OK to speak out against religion, or God, as long as you do it peacefully. You have the right to Freedom of Speech.

The way I see it is the people who violently attack other people (whether they are religious or not) are the extremists and belong in jail for their actions. I don't care if its over politics, religion, whatever the dispute no one should have the right to harm others and get away with it.

Anonymous 02/15/2018 (Thu) 19:13:53 [Preview] No.15371 del
Christianity = the Catholic church allying with Nazi germany
it also = inquisition and attacks on scientists

Religion is the most reactionary spooked thing there is. You need religion with its bad logic to convince a good person do bad things. By contrast there is nothing inherit in the idea of atheism that caused Stalin to be a jerk. He was simply a jerk to begin with.

>And remember our Freedom of Religion
The 1st amendment was also intensed to protect freedom from religion, i.e. non-believers. Jefferson loathed religion and Christianity with every pore of his body. He wanted it kept out of government.

"Faith beats evidence because God has trust issues," that's why he keeps demanding you follow his orders and is so insecure in the bible. You guys are afraid of a devil with a funny name. You know what is crazier than having an imaginary friend? Having an imaginary enemy.

Anonymous 02/16/2018 (Fri) 00:32:13 [Preview] No.15373 del
>attacks on scientists

I don't think religious people "attack" scientists, many religious people just don't agree with certain scientific theories such as evolution. Funny because there was a very controversial dude during the 1990s who was both religious... AND A SCIENTIST with a PhD. Forgot his name. But this dude used to have debates with other scientists, publicly, about theories like evolution. It was jaw-dropping how smart this guy was, yet he is religious and does believe Jesus was the son of God.

There are all kinds of people in this world and we should learn to get along. Even if we don't agree with one another, thats what civilized society is all about.

>The 1st amendment was also intensed to protect freedom from religion, i.e. non-believers.

That is very true. Like I said earlier everyone has the right to Freedom of Speech as well Religion. And we can speak freely against what we don't believe in. Banning religion or religious schools would be an attack on 1st Amendment rights, something that would go to the Supreme Court if politicians tried this in the US.

Anonymous 02/16/2018 (Fri) 04:24:58 [Preview] No.15380 del

not just Darwin, the abortion debate is stupid. They think a handful of fertilized eggs in your hand have more value and life than a real person.
your scientist is suffering cognitive dissonance and has compartmentized his mind, otherwise he would recognize logically there is zero evidence to believe, and religion is empirically speaking immoral.

>Banning religion or religious schools would be an attack on 1st Amendment rights

Religious schools not get any public funding, not for being public school, that is a violation of the first amendment and it should be banned.

Anonymous 02/17/2018 (Sat) 15:55:56 [Preview] No.15425 del
That's not "my" scientist, he is his own man, living his own life who has his own beliefs. Second of all science is all about theory and in science theories often change, unless they are 100% proven fact. PROVEN FACT. PROVEN AS IN 100% WE ALL KNOW AND THERE IS NO PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY.

So science is much more complicated than a bureaucracy stamping a political approval on something. Sometimes these scientific theories are debated for a long, long ass time. There are still scientific theories about the universe still debated and we don't exactly know them to be facts yet. Thats the way science is supposed to work, lots of open debates, lots of critical analysis and HELL NO not all scientists agree with one another. You'd be shocked with how many scientists dispute against one another. Happens all the time.

We do not know if there is or is not a God. That really has NOT been proven. Some scientists believe "God" exists as in a super-quantum God-like computer that is creating this reality for us. But then who runs it? Does it run itself? Who knows? Let the debates continue.

Anonymous 02/18/2018 (Sun) 11:01:58 [Preview] No.15429 del
Religion should be treated as a quick debate. There is not a shred of evidence for it. If you had any evidence you wouldn't need faith.
Religion should be dismissed the way you don't believe in anything else without evidence.

Anonymous 02/18/2018 (Sun) 15:19:50 [Preview] No.15434 del
Fortunately thats not the way the world works today. People have the right to believe what they want and are not commanded by some dictator telling them what or what not to believe. This should be considered a good thing for humanity, not a bad thing.

Anonymous 02/19/2018 (Mon) 00:13:39 [Preview] No.15437 del
You're entitled to your own opinions (based on facts), but not your own facts. It's a fact that if Christ's resurrection did not happen then Christianity is false. It is the basis of the religion, and supposedly had to happen to save us from hell.

It's a fact that there is no evidence it occurred and there is tons of evidence that the bible is bullshit just like any other religion with their own "bibles" like Buddhism or Islam. It's most likely that Christianity is false, and we can treat that as a fact just like how the theory of gravity or evolution appears to be a fact even if you claim it isn't proven. 99.999999 percent probability is enough to act upon what is most plausible.

Anonymous 02/19/2018 (Mon) 03:52:38 [Preview] No.15439 del
I'm really on the sideline in this debate, I'm looking at it from an unbiased perspective. Sorry, but I don't want to live under old USSR standards of faith discrimination as I am older and have learned exactly what that leads to. I take a logical approach "live and let live." As long as people are not hurting one another let bygones be bygones.

People are entitled to their own opinions whether they be based on facts or not. Just because you hold hostility against Christians does not mean they should be banned from their beliefs (whether true or false). And I hardly doubt you have any proof that Christ's resurrection did not happen. If you did, so would others and thus the debate would be over by now. Even the most brilliant scientists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist. No human can, thats why faith exists in the first place, we are not handed proof, we either choose to believe or choose not to believe. And until we all die we won't ever find that out.

If there is one thing science cannot prove its what happens to "us" ("us" as in our energy fields / mindsets / souls) after we die. It has always been and likely will always remain a mystery for human kind.

Anonymous 02/19/2018 (Mon) 15:55:13 [Preview] No.15450 del
>It is the basis of the religion
No it's not, you just took the definition of "religion" from some fundamentalist self-identifying as such instead of anthropologic study. On faith that this anti-science way to identify things is accurate, and now you lie that you didn't need faith to make that claim. You're a dangerous lunatic who tries to muddle the limit between faith and knowledge and actually cause people to think their faith is actually a form of knowledge, because you present your faith as a form of knowledge like an idiot every time you fail to be autistically accurate about something, and you often do: case in point right here.

Religions form because morons like you exist, and mostly what they do is contain your shit so you're sometimes harmless, but no organization is perfect and when a religion fails they're the ones who take the blame you're dishing out without seeing any of the irony. Without bibles to spread the knowledge of how to read with they would form around anything, god or no god. I know you pretty much had to be forced to learn how to read.

Anonymous 02/20/2018 (Tue) 08:38:33 [Preview] No.15456 del
I am losing interest in this discussion. You are a religiohs zealot and do not realize faith will never be anything except deciding to believe without evidence. Why? Because either it makes you feel good or you're afraid of being wrong and maybe being sent to hell for not believing. The idea of hell is immoral, and Christianity leads to many immoral beliefs because it's untrue. I have expressed this before, and if you read God is not Great by Hitchens you would have plenty of evidence that religion has been more bad than good throughout history, and it will likely remain that way in the future. I have said all of this before

If you cannot accept that faith is bad, of that religious people would not need faith if there was the evidence that we expect for other things, then I am done arguing with you. I have laid out clearly why you are wrong. I was a Christian before who read the bible repeatedly, until I learned why the thoughts I had to defend the religion were built only on fallacies and the Dunning-kruger effect.

Anonymous 02/20/2018 (Tue) 17:41:52 [Preview] No.15463 del
Which one of us is a "religious zealot" exactly?

I was this anon: >>15439

>If you cannot accept that faith is bad
Faith itself is not "bad"... religious extremism is what is bad (whether that be radical Christians trying to bomb abortion clinics or radical Muslims trying to commit "jihad" against the "infidels"). And I am not arguing about whether or not there is a God. I am simply arguing against religious discrimination (which has lead to just as much evil as religious extremism!) You don't have to be religious to be an extremist either. There are many forms of extremism, some who wish to discriminate against political groups, or social minority groups, or even religious groups. Stalin and Hitler were two who practiced religious discrimination. Many Chinese dictators of the past did as well. It ended up in roundups and mass persecutions.

I'm not arguing whether you are right or wrong about God. I'm simply arguing for freedom to practice what one believes to be true, unless of-course it involves any form of discrimination or radicalization.

Top | Return | Catalog | Post a reply