"Dawkins and Pinker are jerks."

Jump to navigation Jump to search

In the minds of these people, being 'anti-religion' automatically makes you a complete prick.

F19:00, 12 February 2012

It does. What is your reason, your actual reason for disliking "all religions/all religious people", without 1)knowing them individually, or 2) knowing the religion?

most people who are anti-religion, know very little about religion, beyond their own personal experiences and that of the straw man "Fundimentalist" religion which we ALL have reason to truly dislike.

Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina19:03, 12 February 2012

Being fucking 'anti-religion' does not automatically mean 'anti-all_religious_people' -- Jesus, how do you not know that?

While religions do have differences, they're all based upon believing things on faith.

F19:07, 12 February 2012

Most are. Not all. Every single person believes things on faith. Until you have learned science, you can only trust (faith) that science is correct. You have faith that the legal system works or does not work; you have faith that your spouse loves you, etc.

this idea that we have "proof" is mostly a feel good BS position. SOME PEOPLE have proof, but those people are few and far between. most of us just trust that the proof that science has, is real. There are (made up number) 100 people in the world who understand the math behind the big bang - the rest of us just trust them. That is, no matter how much you couch it in "but it's science, it's different", still faith.

That said, it's a faith I trust, cause they do things that most religions cannot do, which is make accurate predictions about the world.

"Anti religion" is a tenant that RELIGION (and as you say, faith) IS BAD. there is no support for this, and infact, significant support that religion, while at times horrific, is also good for people. When you look at the whole picture, it is no better or worse than any other human invention.

Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina19:31, 12 February 2012

I have to respectfully disagree on the "but everyone takes things on faith" trope. Label it whatever you like, I've used "faith" and "trust" there, but my attitude towards science and even less rigorous things like my relationships and attitude to the law is certainly not the same as what religion professes.

Scarlet A.pngpostate19:35, 12 February 2012

Again, *some* religions. Abrahamic religions, by and large. But they do not represent religions.

And while I respect that you disagree, and while maybe teh issue is semantics, the fact that I know nothing about ACTUAL physics, yet believe the univers is 13.7 million years old, is based only on the fact that some TV shows told me so. Until I can do the math, it is a matter of trust/faith, and not a matter of "logically understanding the facts, and analyzing them" the way people who are "pro rationality" like to describe themselves.

But now we are back at the same point we always are. Do you make a decision first, then justify it with ration, or use ration to make your decisions. and i think you and I have never really agreed on this point, and science has (so far) little to offer, though we will prove one of us right sooner or later, cause we are just learning so much more about the mind each day.

Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina19:42, 12 February 2012

i think you meant billion? :P

il'Dictator Mikal19:44, 12 February 2012
 

Which religions don't have you accept things on faith? I don't know much about Eastern religions, but I do know that you have to accept based on faith that karma exists, or cows are divine, or whatever kind of supernatural bullshit you want to claim exists. Religion, by my definition, is an ideology based on a claim of knowledge on the supposedly supernatural, so I don't see how you could have one without accepting things on faith.

F19:50, 12 February 2012

buddhism isnt really focused on the SN...

il'Dictator Mikal19:52, 12 February 2012
 
 
 

Yes, you have to make some reasonable assumptions about things, like science, where you normally have to accept that the peer review process generally means that scientific studies aren't lying; I wouldn't call this faith, but a reasonable trust based on past experience, probabilities, and logic that allows us make sense and understand the world around us. Religion just makes up a lot of bullshit and wants you to accept it for no good reason -- this is an aspect of all religions, not just ones that explicitly say 'faith' is a good thing.

""Anti religion" is a tenant that RELIGION (and as you say, faith) IS BAD. there is no support for this, and infact, significant support that religion, while at times horrific, is also good for people. When you look at the whole picture, it is no better or worse than any other human invention." 1. Faith (or, depending on your definition of 'faith', unreasonable faith) is what makes them bad, in my opinion -- that's one of the reasons. 2. Like I said previously, there's nothing uniquely good about religion. Then again, it's not really uniquely bad either, so that really just makes it one more stupid, wholly unnecessary aspect of humanity.

F19:47, 12 February 2012