yes. .. I get that Richard Dawkins is supposed to be the face of atheism or whatever, but he's really a dick.
Click to expand


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#24 - Snookbone (09/23/2013) [-]
I hope this doesn't get me like, red thumbed or anything but here goes.

I never received any sort of religious instruction growing up, and my parents always made it clear that it was up to me what I decided to believe. So I just never believed anything exists unless I saw evidence for it. It kind of makes atheism a default position for me. I'm not an arse about it and nobody is an arse about their beliefs to me.

I think the only reason people have problems with religion being criticised is that it is often deeply intertwined with culture and therefore it is often perceived as "racist" to criticise certain beliefs (contrast, for example, how many people are called "racist" for criticising Islam compared to Christianity).

The thing is with any religious or non-religious view is that no matter how strongly you may feel, it is still only an opinion on how the world really works, and to take away the right to scrutinise an opinion is dangerous. Once someone allows another person to justify an act of brutality (eg an "honour killing") with religion then it has gone far too far.

That is the only situation in which we should look to quash not the religion itself, but the behaviour "justified" by it. Otherwise, live and let live eh?
#99 to #24 - anon (09/23/2013) [-]
You are the kind of people this world needs more of (especially the internet)
User avatar #340 to #24 - YllekNayr ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
You are the kind of atheist I wish more people knew about.
#39 to #24 - anon (09/23/2013) [-]
To be completely fair, Islam (the way Muhammad taught it) is a lot more tame and "comfortable" for an average human. It's less cruel than Christianity.
#42 to #39 - cursesnew (09/23/2013) [-]
I think you forget that Mohammed waged war against none believers to take back what was theirs from the start. Much like how Christianity did the same thing.

Religion was used a power tool to control people with threats of damnation. Islam is by far the worst one because even today they will still demand your head on a plate if you insult their prophet.

Christianity in the hands of a none fanatic could be good. Islam? Doesn't matter, it's all backwards and gone to hell already.
User avatar #280 to #42 - kombee (09/23/2013) [-]
Muhammed didn't wage war against none believers. He was in war against a tribe named Qureish, which held a strict political and military power over a big part of the old Yemen/Saudi-Arabia. They were polyteistic and believed in 300+ gods which had statues placed in Mecca. Basically everyone had to believe in the pagan religion back then (besides the few priviliged jewish people who had wealth and power) or they would lose many benefits, get no rights and/or get dent to jail or killed. On top of that, they had many pagan ceremonies and traditions which needed blood sacrifices, animal/human sacrifices etc. They were much like a big part of rural India is today. They were also similar to how Taliban and other so-called muslim organizations are today, trying to gain power by means of destruction and fear (Taliban doing things like stoning and mass-mudering in the name of Islam when it is in fact not something condoned by Islam at all). Reason why Qureish announced war against Muhammed was because Muhammed had begun to get a strong following in the religion he'd brought with him, namely Islam. Qureish feared they would lose power and influence and also feard that they would turn against them. So they denounced Islam as a religion and made anyone muslim a foe who they would kill. What Muhammed wanted to do was to expand his religion to anyone who wanted to conform to it, however Qureish wanted to stop that at all cost even by means of war. Therefore Muhammed had to fight, even though he and many of his followers used to be Pacifists who didn't even like the idea of fighting. Many of the pagans had simply abused religion as a means of getting power, filling ignorance, destruction and injustice to their lands. Muhammed wanted to fix that, or was chosen to depending on how you look at it, and was therefore told to take over Mecca. He did that without resistance or bloodshed. If you're interested in how, you can read his story online. Islam is in its heart a peaceful religion
#18 - hillbillypowpow ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
I get that Richard Dawkins is supposed to be the face of atheism or whatever, but he's really a dick.
User avatar #61 to #18 - aTastyCooky (09/23/2013) [-]
God damnit every time I quote fj I get punched in the face
#352 to #18 - shrolen (09/23/2013) [-]
I wish that nobody was considered the face of Atheism. To put a face to something like Atheism is much different than putting a face to a religious group. A religion follows a set of ideologies and principles based on something like the Bible. Atheism is just the lack of the belief in a god. Most religious people (and even a lot of Atheists) treat Atheism as if it is a religion. Where as a Catholic would have many of the same beliefs and ideologies as a fellow Catholic would, the only similarity between one Atheist to the other might just be not believing in a god.
User avatar #399 to #18 - liftplus (11/20/2013) [-]
who isn't the smarter someone is the more likely they are to be more of a dick
User avatar #96 to #18 - mrepicllort (09/23/2013) [-]
I thought this was a joke about his name.. Dick is short for the name Richard..
#132 to #18 - roykynx (09/23/2013) [-]
True that, Neil Degrasse Tyson made an excellent point in a debate with Richard Dawkins. He stated " I worry that you aren't sympathetic to others opinions, and come off as articulately barbed" < or something to that effect. I dislike Dawkins because of his ferocity and ignorance to others.
User avatar #242 to #132 - Ruspanic (09/23/2013) [-]
Could I get a link to this debate? Sounds amazing.
#250 to #242 - roykynx (09/23/2013) [-]

Not full debate, just the part i was talking about
#300 to #250 - anon (09/23/2013) [-]
I've always preferred black science man to white science man.
User avatar #251 to #250 - Ruspanic (09/23/2013) [-]
#255 to #251 - roykynx (09/23/2013) [-]
what do you think?
User avatar #308 to #255 - Ruspanic (09/23/2013) [-]
I haven't watched it yet, I don't have headphones with me. But I'll get back to you.
User avatar #83 to #18 - thebesttrumpeteer (09/23/2013) [-]
Richard Dawkins Interviews Creationist Wendy Wright (Complete) he did a good job of not being a dick to wendy wright. better than i would have.
#19 to #18 - anon (09/23/2013) [-]
I'm an atheist and I agree, the dude is kind of an asshole. Smart, but an asshole.
User avatar #26 to #19 - elsyrup (09/23/2013) [-]
Elaborate, why exactly is he a dick?
User avatar #80 to #26 - thebesttrumpeteer (09/23/2013) [-]
this is off the subject, but i wanted to share a word that may be new to you. just in case.
User avatar #146 to #80 - daerkxp (09/23/2013) [-]
I actually appreciate that, I'm happy to top off my vocabulary every chance I get (:
User avatar #51 to #26 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
He insults religious people a little out of hand. He'll refute their obviously incorrect notions but then in the same breath call them idiots for even thinking of the notion to begin with.
User avatar #379 to #51 - elsyrup (09/24/2013) [-]
But they didn't think of the notion to begin with, such is organised religion. You either accept it or you don't. If you accept as truth the claims from an age when science didn't exist to provide an alternative answer to "the man in the sky did it", then you do run the risk of being called an idiot. But to each their own, I was just curious, people like to jump on the bandwagon and call Dawkins an asshole without stating why like he's some kind of scapegoat for every teen "atheist" with a narcissistic streak, "oh yeah Dawkins is such an asshole, I'm an atheist but i'm not an asshole, Dawkins though, total asshole". The reality is he's an incredibly intelligent man and him being a potential asshole has nothing to do with his theories, it has a lot more to do with the insecurities of those looking to distance themselves from the "asshole" label. I don't want to fight his corner because I don't care, I just think it's a little shortsighted to call the man an asshole for challenging religion based on internet hearsay and vanity. The whole debate is pointless really, atheism is a label that shouldn't exist, godlessness is the default position of all people, babies aren't born Christian and tribes in Borneo with no concept of Christ aren't calling themselves atheist's, it's just not important. Spirituality and oneness is where it's at kids, there may be no God but love, thought and the universe are very real indeed!
#123 to #51 - anon (09/23/2013) [-]
ANd thereby calling himself an idiot to because he even wastes his time adressing those people.
#28 to #18 - chudboy (09/23/2013) [-]
I find him interesting. I like his books and programs, but yes he's pretty arrogant, and can be an asshole. Though, I think someone needs to be. To show that there are atheist out there, that do question things. If you didn't have that authoritative figure who did question things, maybe in an arsey way then people would still be hiding the fact that they are atheists.
#20 - teamrocketninja ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
I have no problem with religion at all. It may not line up with our modern theory of evolution, but thats it. Religious people can and do excel in many scientific pursuits.

Honestly, militant atheists like Dawkins and his ilk make me somewhat loathe to associate myself with their title.
User avatar #305 to #20 - bomberbib (09/23/2013) [-]
(Assuming you are speaking of Catholicism) The creation story written in the Bible is not meant to be, and should not be viewed as factual. Many stories in the Bible are meant to be allegory. After all, God did not write the book himself, men did. Therefore, evolution actually doesn't disagree with Catholicism. Thank you for your time.
User avatar #50 to #20 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
I have a friend who believes that:
The earth is 6000 years old
Being gay is entirely a choice
There is only male and female and transgendered people are deviants
Evolution never happened
The flood unquestionably happened

That's just a few things that religion and science disagree on. So isolating the issue to just evolution is doing a disservice to the problem.
User avatar #66 to #50 - teamrocketninja ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
It sounds like you bear some resentment towards your friend...

Not to go off topic, but there really is only male and female, barring the rare hermaphrodite which is usually corrected shortly after birth. Gender isnt determined by what one feels, but solely by what parts they have.
User avatar #104 to #66 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Sex is the mechanics of it. Gender is a spectrum.

My resentment stems from the fact that he is a fantastic person but whenever he starts talking about religion he becomes a bigot. It's really depressing watching such a wonderful person become a social pariah because he insults literally everyone who isn't heterosexual, male, white, and christian.
#55 to #50 - hoskins (09/23/2013) [-]
"The earth is 6000 years old"
-religious scientists who took every symbol in the Bible as literal, not canon to the Bible

"Being gay is entirely a choice"
this is a tough one, I could go into it if you ask me to, but I will say that the Bible doesn't say that genetics has nothing to do with being gay, all it says is that banging someone of the same gender is not good

"there is only male..."
this has nothing to do with religion, it's a personal belief.

"Evolution never happened"
also has nothing to do with religion. The Bible and the theory of evolution don't contradict in any way

"The flood unquestionably happened"
this is the only one on here that I agree with. There are "holes" in the story of Noah's ark, if you look at it strictly scientifically, but assuming it did happen, it was God's will. God. Meaning that he can do whatever the **** he wants, however he wants.
User avatar #58 to #55 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Ah but the issue isn't whether those are REAL issues, but whether they're being taught as real issues by religious leaders.

Oh and the flood happened, but not as the bible says it. There was a flood of the Caspian Sea. If the entire planet had been submerged in water for 40 days every piece of vegetation would have died... and 2 of every species living on a boat together harmoniously for 40 days is completely and utterly impossible unless you just assume it happened because God said so and you know God said so because it said so in his book, and you know it's his book because the book said so.

Presupposition everybody.
#67 to #58 - hoskins (09/23/2013) [-]
Never said they were the real issues. An argument was presented and so I presented a rebuttal that directly responded to it.

As for the "it happened because God said so," comment, wow you must have really come up with that one yourself! I suppose now I'll say "That's why it's called faith!"

No. I've been given more than enough reason to believe that if God wanted it done, it happened. You're assuming the postulate (for this discussion) that an entity created the whole damn universe in a week but you're challenging the possibility of keeping vegetation alive in unsurvivable conditions for just over a month? Huh.

Anyway, regardless of if it makes sense scientifically or not, if I choose to believe it, that is my choice. You can believe what you like, but you've no right to challenge my belief to me in such a way that it's offensive.

And theists are the ones that don't make sense.
User avatar #109 to #67 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
I'm not sure what to make of this comment... I didn't come up with that myself it is literally how christianity is taught. God revealed himself through his son jesus as documented by the bible. The bible is the word of God because it says so in the bible. That's not made up at all, that is literally what Christians tell me all the time.

Did you just say that I assumed that God made the universe in a week? Jesus Christ... I don't even think I'll dignify that little bit with a response...

I'm not a prick who'll call you a bad person for faith, but criticizing faith should not be considered abusive. There are serious flaws with religion on a sociological level that you really ought to take into consideration. Bugger all to whether god is real or all that crap. Pay attention to the ******** spewed by evangelicals and the hate that stems because of people misusing the bible. That's the problem. That's where presupposition is bothersome. That's why I agree with this post. Religion ALLOWS you to stop asking questions. It doesn't force you. However, if you fall under the right circumstances, it makes it quite easy.
#326 to #109 - cplfernandez (09/23/2013) [-]
A couple quick things I feel I should point out. God was not revealed through Jesus, Jesus served a much different purpose. Also any real Christian who has read the Bible and thought about it would never say everything in the Bible happened. Just look at the book of Jonah or Genesis. The book of Jonah is a story about a man who does not listen to God but if you read it, you will surely see that this is not a factual thing, no dates are given, nothing really happens, the story isn't concluded, but it is in my mind one of the most powerful books of the entire Bible. Also Genesis for example exists not to talk of how earth was created or how animals or any of that were created. Genesis exists to tell humanity that the almighty God created the world with nothing but his word, saying he holds all power, and secondly it tells that humanity is a broken. These are the main themes of Genesis. Like many things the bible is not interested in telling you how the earth was formed, or how gravity works. It simply doesn't matter compared to the story.
User avatar #328 to #326 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
And yet I've met christians who literally think Jonah was swallowed by a large fish and lived in her belly for a couple weeks in her womb somehow...
#341 to #328 - cplfernandez (09/23/2013) [-]
I also bet you have meet Atheist who claim to love science yet cannot even explain some baser level equations or explanations of physical phenomena, they might even be completely wrong about how some phenomena works such as thermodynamics or quantum mechanics which is crucial to understanding the interaction of matter. So simply because someone doesn't understand, doesn't mean they are bad people, idiots, or anything or the sort, they simply don't understand everything they believe. So the Christians you meet are misinformed, simple as that. Personally I'm an Engineer that is a Christian and I like both Christians and Atheist as long as they aren't dicks, so some debate is a good thing.
User avatar #344 to #341 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
To be honest I haven't :S

Most atheists I meet are like me, shunned by religion. Either that or too busy for religion.
#358 to #344 - cplfernandez (09/23/2013) [-]
Well of course you have meet someone who loves science yet doesn't understand it. I'm one of those people, I don't understand everything, so I try to find out the truth, but I often prove my self wrong, my current question that I think I'm right on, is about black holes, but nobody really understands black holes, so it is almost certain that my current belief on black holes will be proved wrong. What I am saying is we all have false assumptions that were either given to us by others or generated by our own learning process. It is simply the nature of learning, we make assumptions and then correct them as we learn more. The same goes for Christians, even those that don't like science learn this way.
Also I would like to point out that those of Christian affiliation that shun those that do not follow their beliefs are not actually Christians. Anyone that says they believe humans should love each other and then hates another human does not love all humans.
So basically those that you meet that say they are Christians, yet hate you and condemn you, are as much of Christians as the teenagers who join the Neo-Nazi party are Fascist. Just because you can associate with a group and can shallowly read rhetoric does not mean you believe what that group truly believes.
User avatar #22 to #20 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/23/2013) [-]
The biggest problem with religion, in my opinion, is understanding that you can believe in a faith and take science as fact, too. Many things in the Bible have scientific relations or can be explained through science. When people figure that out, things will be a bit better.
User avatar #32 to #22 - zenbass (09/23/2013) [-]
Fun fact: The Catholic Church accepts the theory of evolution, because it makes a lot of sense. The thing about God is, He's God. He can do whatever the hell he wants by sheer virtue of that alone.
#40 to #22 - anon (09/23/2013) [-]
Religion and science are the same thing?!
#47 - anon (09/23/2013) [-]
Yeah those damn Catholics not accepting and encouraging the theory of evolution!....oh wait.
#68 - I Am Monkey (09/23/2013) [-]
Religion doesn't discourage science. Backward rednecks do. Many of the world's greatest universities were founded as religious institutions. Many of the greatest scientific discoveries were made by religious people if not directly by members of the clergy. The current Pope has a masters degree in chemistry. He belongs to the Jesuit order; who's entire purpose is to advance science and learning.    
The way I see it; the places where science is repressed by horribly misinterpreted religion weren't going to be great sources of science to begin with. I don't think science is at much of a loss if some backwoods hillbilly never picks up a text book. It's not like you're going to take religion away from these people and they're going to become scholars.
Religion doesn't discourage science. Backward rednecks do. Many of the world's greatest universities were founded as religious institutions. Many of the greatest scientific discoveries were made by religious people if not directly by members of the clergy. The current Pope has a masters degree in chemistry. He belongs to the Jesuit order; who's entire purpose is to advance science and learning.

The way I see it; the places where science is repressed by horribly misinterpreted religion weren't going to be great sources of science to begin with. I don't think science is at much of a loss if some backwoods hillbilly never picks up a text book. It's not like you're going to take religion away from these people and they're going to become scholars.
#85 to #68 - gurubear (09/23/2013) [-]
Well, maybe your right, we will never get to those people.

But Dawkins point is that is that religion can stop the advancement of humans. Like evolution must be taught side by side with bible story's and It fuels hate (not by it self).

User avatar #71 to #68 - windson (09/23/2013) [-]
This. America has **** christian churches, so they make the whole world think christianity is bad.
#6 - loonquawl (09/23/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #119 - alltimetens (09/23/2013) [-]
Richard Dawkins really has no ******* clue what he is talking about. Prophet Mohammed himself said to "seek knowledge, even if you must travel great distances". He also said that "the ink of a scholar is more valuable than the blood of a martyr." Islam values science and mathematics. It's also the reason why while Europe was undergoing a "knowledge depression" called the Dark Ages, the Middle East and Eastern Asia were thriving with scientific advancements.

Richard Dawkins is smart when it comes to science, but he does not know enough about the history of certain religions in order to make a valid argument. He just throws complaints that are not true at all, and then he gets praised by a bunch of fedora-wearing retards who think that being an atheist is the only way to be perceived as being an "intellectual."

inb4 red thumbs
User avatar #133 to #130 - alltimetens (09/23/2013) [-]
I have to disagree with that. I know my beliefs. Prophet Mohammed said all of that before there was a strive for military domination. Like another commenter said, the main reason why Islamic scholars did go out and explore was because of the fact that they wanted to know more of God's work. If you're going to ignore everything I said and use some misinterpreted website as your source, then you my friend, are ignorant.
User avatar #137 to #133 - schnizel (09/23/2013) [-]
Bla, bla, bla, bla. That is all I can see.
Can't you just read what is in the link?
User avatar #139 to #137 - alltimetens (09/23/2013) [-]
I already did.
#144 to #139 - schnizel (09/23/2013) [-]
>top kek
User avatar #197 to #144 - alltimetens (09/23/2013) [-]
Implying that that's why we're here. If you're going to be an ignorant, racist idiot, then be my guest. You are not worth the sophisticated debate that I wanted you to partake in.
User avatar #298 to #197 - oilcookedsolanacea (09/23/2013) [-]
Ignore him, Schnizel is the official Nazi of Funnyjunk.
User avatar #376 to #298 - schnizel (09/24/2013) [-]
I'm an asshole, yes, a liar, no.
User avatar #155 to #143 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Ha, you again... Nazism still isn't cool though. Just wanted to make sure you remembered. Go back to killing your immigrants you socially responsible white male.
User avatar #377 to #155 - schnizel (09/24/2013) [-]
Necessity is better than coolness.
And you are?
#276 - englman (09/23/2013) [-]
I'll put this very simply and save everyone from my typical lectures.   
Science ≠ Against Religion   
Religion ≠ Against Science   
Open-mindedness ≠ Against Religion or Science   
Empirical Evidence/Theories = Science   
Opinions/Beliefs = Religion   
Closed-Mindedness/ Radically Exclusive Mindsets = Illogical People/ Foolishness   
We exist in a Universe that is infinitely complex, infinitely amazing, and infinitely ever-changing. The fact that we exist at all is a miraculous thing and almost demands to believe that anything is possible. So it makes me sad to see bright people become so 'against' any one idea. If you don't believe in a God, or anything about Religion, that's fine. You don't have  Just as I don't have to believe that there isn't a higher power. But I believe it is important to keep an open-mind and not bash beliefs by making claims such as this (at least not without first CAREFULLY analyzing why you're about to make the claim). I'm a Christian, but I still admit that this is just my own personal opinion/belief, that it is not factual, and that it could very possibly be 100% incorrect.   
If you want something to be against, be against closed-mindedness, apathy, and setting your mind to one type of thinking/believing.   
*For the record, I understand where Mr.Dawkins was coming from. However, it sounds like an incorrect remark spawned from misdirected anger, or perhaps even worse, simply an attempt to get a rise from his target audience(s). [Also, I am not familiar with him myself, so I speak in a fairly unbiased manner.]
I'll put this very simply and save everyone from my typical lectures.

Science ≠ Against Religion
Religion ≠ Against Science
Open-mindedness ≠ Against Religion or Science

Empirical Evidence/Theories = Science
Opinions/Beliefs = Religion
Closed-Mindedness/ Radically Exclusive Mindsets = Illogical People/ Foolishness

We exist in a Universe that is infinitely complex, infinitely amazing, and infinitely ever-changing. The fact that we exist at all is a miraculous thing and almost demands to believe that anything is possible. So it makes me sad to see bright people become so 'against' any one idea. If you don't believe in a God, or anything about Religion, that's fine. You don't have Just as I don't have to believe that there isn't a higher power. But I believe it is important to keep an open-mind and not bash beliefs by making claims such as this (at least not without first CAREFULLY analyzing why you're about to make the claim). I'm a Christian, but I still admit that this is just my own personal opinion/belief, that it is not factual, and that it could very possibly be 100% incorrect.

If you want something to be against, be against closed-mindedness, apathy, and setting your mind to one type of thinking/believing.

*For the record, I understand where Mr.Dawkins was coming from. However, it sounds like an incorrect remark spawned from misdirected anger, or perhaps even worse, simply an attempt to get a rise from his target audience(s). [Also, I am not familiar with him myself, so I speak in a fairly unbiased manner.]
User avatar #394 to #276 - dremarcleb (09/27/2013) [-]
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
#342 to #276 - vorack **User deleted account** (09/23/2013) [-]
...I like you.
#351 to #276 - theluppijackal ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Well said my friend, well said
Have some saturday morning breakfast cereal
#124 - rhinocerous **User deleted account** (09/23/2013) [-]
I am against elitist atheism (and elitist anything for that matter), because it is STILL perpetuating the stupidity, that one belief (or lack thereof) is superior to another. I cannot respect a person that looks down on somebody based on their beliefs instead of their action.I hate ignorant religious bigots as much as the next guy, but holy **** do little middle-school faggots that thing being a "militant atheist" makes them so ******* cool and edgy. It doesn't. And what kind of retardation is "militant atheism"? Is that where you get a gun and pull it to people's head ask they renounce their God or you'll pull the trigger?

Look kids, some people need something to believe in. That's what gets them up in the morning, or gives them the motivation not to be a total cockface. Why take that away from somebody? Because their not as interested in String Theory as you are? **** you.

As much as I respect Richard Dawkins for being well spoken and intelligent, I dislike him as a person. Mainly because for all his intelligence, he can't see that religion is not a disease, it is not a cancer, and it is not a threat to humanity. **** , all lot of human progress has been made thanks to the belief in sky people or whatever. And yes, there have been wars because of religion, but not all of them are about religion. not all religious people are brainwashed idiots who'll knife you unless you shove the Bible up your ass, so stay out of theirs.
User avatar #353 to #124 - msypsylon (09/23/2013) [-]
It's a difference between a belief based on nothing and a calculated guess. Wouldn't you say that the lack of belief in, let's say mermaids, is superior to the belief that they are real?

Ok, so some people might "need" something to believe in. Very well, they can believe whatever they want. But if you look at religion this way, it means it shouldn't affect people that are not religious in any way and they shouldn't preach it at all. Instead, a lot of resources are spent on religion, laws are influenced by it, it's been taught in schools in a lot of countries and sometimes human rights are violated because of it. So some people can feel warm and fuzzy inside because of their irrational belief. And I don't even want to take it away from them. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't let their beliefs affect other people.

Our progress wasn't made because of the belief in "sky people". Sure, a lot of it was made by religious people, but their religion didn't really help in their discoveries and all of this progress would've been made without religion just as easy. As a matter of fact it would've been much faster, as religion hindered progress a lot throughout history.
That's why people like Richard Dawkins are speaking against religion so much ( well to be fair I guess he does it mainly to promote his books, but still ), because it affects society in a negative way overall.
#369 to #353 - rhinocerous **User deleted account** (09/24/2013) [-]
1. No, not really. As long as the guy who believes in mermaids isn't harming anybody, neither belief is superior. There's no such thing as a "superior" belief.

2. I agree, a lot of resources are spent on religion, and laws are influenced by them, and that is very wrong. What I'm saying is we should have the freedom of religion, and the freedom from it, and the responsibility that goes with those freedoms. What that means is, in an ideal setting, I could put a Christmas tree out in public, and Muslims walking by wouldn't lose their **** . Vice versa. I'm all for people having their beliefs, rational or irrational as long as others don't suffer for it.

3. While it is sad that human rights are being violated in other countries, that is our business. We should take care of our own country before sticking our dick in others, pretending we're the world police.

4. You have a point there with progress, and I really can't debate that. But I will offer one viewpoint of mine. Is all of this progress for the sake of progress really worth it? What I mean is, yeah we can put a man on the moon for the hell of it, and we have these fantastic machines that give us the sum of all human knowledge at our fingertips. But was it worth it, to produce a generation of callous, apathetic jerks whose only response to a question is to pull up Google? Just a thought I've been having lately. It's great to have computers and the internet and all, but it's come with a heavy price. Maybe religion played a roll to sort of slow the pace of becoming so jaded, and without it we'd hardly act like human beings at all.
User avatar #375 to #369 - msypsylon (09/24/2013) [-]
You're missing the point. One of them isn't just a belief it's a calculated guess, I'd say it's almost common sense. I don't know what you understand by superior but I think that an idea ( or belief for that matter ) who reflects reality better is superior.

Yeah well it would be ideal if religions wouldn't affect everybody. Unfortunately that's pretty hard to achieve since many religions say that their teachings are the only ones that are true sacred and life should be lived only by them. If religion was a purely subjective matter it wouldn't be so much of a problem, but most people aren't religious because they feel the need to believe in something and they chose for themselves what they want to believe. They're religious because they were indoctrinated since they were children, they didn't even have a choice and now they feel like they are bound to follow their religion or horrible things will happen to them.

I didn't said a country should play world police (I'm not 'murrican), although it might prove useful if done correctly. I meant that every country should take care of their own problems.

It is worth it. Progress doesn't only mean that we have internet and we can send people to the moon. A thousands years ago, average lifespan was about 25-30 years, now it's almost 80 years, not to mention that life overall was a lot tougher. We may be a generation of jerks, but trust me, people used to be a lot worse before. If now, a typical response is to pull up Google (which isn't so bad if you ask me), before it was to pull up a knife (or a rock, whatever was the closest thing you can hurt someone with). We're not assholes because of our progress, we're assholes because it's in our nature. We've always been.
User avatar #16 - ganjalf (09/23/2013) [-]
I am against Richard Dawkins because he misinterpetes religion and its message.

Inb4 red thumbs from atheist-fags because "hurr-durr, religion is stoopid"
#25 - anon (09/23/2013) [-]
*Tips fedora*
#314 - YourAnalProbe (09/23/2013) [-]

Seriously, this channel seems to exist only to cause ********** . Not funny at all and there's no point in arguing. When you start arguing on the Internet, you've already lost.
#23 - RageRambo (09/23/2013) [-]
Except Christians have done alot of work for founding modern science. Sir Isaac Newton was religious. I bet he held science back didn't he?
#34 to #23 - chudboy (09/23/2013) [-]
I mean I'm not against revealing if someone is religious if they've done good. But to me it doesn't matter at all, its all about the person. Sure religion might of taken part in teaching and what not, but still it doesn't matter. The religion is taking credit, rather than the person who fully deserves it. It's like creating a stereotype and blaming the whole religious organisation when someone in that faith has done something terrible. The whole religion shouldn't get blamed.
#36 to #35 - chudboy (09/23/2013) [-]
User avatar #232 to #23 - sodaberg (09/23/2013) [-]
poor example. Newton was straight up ******** crazy
#43 to #23 - cursesnew (09/23/2013) [-]
He claimed to be Christian because Christian people had a tendency to put people on fire for not being one. Back then it was almost mandatory to be one unless you wanted to be an outcast.
User avatar #45 to #43 - attifyon (09/23/2013) [-]
Except he hid his anti-trinitarian belief because at the time that would mark him as a heretic. He was not an atheist, he just believed that God was the true, well, God and Jesus was only a prophet, not the son of God.
#27 to #23 - chudboy (09/23/2013) [-]
Just because a person was religious, doesn't mean the whole religion is held accountable for such discoveries or even tragedies. Thank or blame the person, not the whole organisation. That's why I despise such statements like "but Christianity created/discovered this" No, religion is out of the question here. It was the person/people that deserve the credit. We never see "an atheist scientist discovered the cure for aids" because atheism didn't have anything to do with it.
#30 to #27 - ReLigion (09/23/2013) [-]
#31 to #30 - chudboy (09/23/2013) [-]
**** YOU MAN
#33 to #31 - ReLigion (09/23/2013) [-]
User avatar #49 to #23 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
eeeeeeh... He wasn't a religious academic though, he was an academic who so happened to also be religious.

The problem isn't with religion not approving of science in general, just when science appears to conflict with religion's pressupositions. After all, if you've built your entire Church on a foundation that says God made the earth in 7 days and someone else says the earth is billions of years old... you can't really reconcile it without serious changes being made to one or the other. Now religion is finally coming around to evolution... ish... but that doesn't mean there aren't dozens of other places where religion and science disagree and whenever that happens religion is more than content to stay mired in presupposed notions.

Tl;dr: presupposition can suck a dick.
User avatar #107 to #49 - IamSofaKingdom (09/23/2013) [-]
You are missing the point. People keep saying religion retards scientific progress but many of histories greatest scientific minds progressed the field while believing in the biblical God. The fact that these men have had such an impact is just to point out that their beliefs do not hinder them from knowledge and scientific pursuits.
User avatar #113 to #107 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Ah but you need to separate contemporary religion and historical religion.

Initially the Church controlled academia, almost every literate person came from the church and most science was done with the Church's approval. There was certain retardation of science by the church in that time because obviously a scientist could not publish papers if he felt the Church would condemn him for it.

That aside they were harmonious. However, in contemporary times the divide has grown. Science is no longer beholden to religion and as a result papers are released that directly refute religious principles. Everyone thought homosexuality was evil, science proved it was genetic. Everyone thought being left handed was evil, science proved... well it's just genetic. Everyone thought the earth was maybe 10000 years old, science proved it was much much older.

Some religions adapted and worked along with science, but you'll find a great deal of religions do not. You cannot ignore this. You cannot ignore when certain religious groups take science out of context in order to promote bigotry. This is the problem that needs to be addressed. The rest is just details. How do we make the Church liable for their different sects and their abuse of science and their misleading of their followers.
User avatar #116 to #113 - IamSofaKingdom (09/23/2013) [-]
Science didn't prove homosexuality was genetic. What the hell are you reading? Science actually hurt the cause for that theory as they found nothing that could be the genetic root of it.
User avatar #117 to #116 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Did your pastor share that research with you, friend? I've read a paper to do with studies done on homosexuals and transgendered individuals which found the hormones in their brains more closely resembled the gender and sexual orientations that they identified with than that which they were born with. I'd prefer not to have to look them up for you because it's been like a year and goodness knows it's a hassle to sift through google scholar.

Oh and science would never be hurt by anything because science has no bias. Science just says "we have a question" then "we ran a bunch of tests and think we got an answer" then "we're gonna proofread" ad infinitum. Religion ruins science nowadays because religious scientists have this chip on their shoulder where they need to already have their conclusion written before they run their tests. That's not a very fun way of doing science. Where's the discovery if you're just trying to validate presupposition?
User avatar #118 to #117 - IamSofaKingdom (09/23/2013) [-]
Science would "hurt" something because if a theory is presented and found to be false it is hurt. That isn't even an argument and a non point on your side. I also never stated my religious beliefs in this discussion and you just assumed and attacked me for some imaginary pastor.

I have several homosexual friends who constantly throw this stuff about and I have had numerous discussions about it. Not one person has provided a scholarly source on homosexuality in genetics that wasn't simply theory or unfounded speculation. The argument you just presented was basically that imbalances in biological make up could cause a person to identify more with the opposite sex.

That is not genetics determining sexuality. That is an issue of social normative. A man could be born with a lack of testosterone and a brain that identifies more with female traits but that doesn't make him gay, it makes him more likely to prefer men. It also refers to societies idea of what is masculine and feminine. We see a dress and make up as feminine but nothing about those things presents an innate feminine quality, we assign those to it ourselves. So the functions of the brain that are more related to the opposite gender are a social matter and I guarantee you that there will be brains similar to those of homosexuals that are heterosexual. If it is genetic it would be fact not happenstance.
User avatar #122 to #118 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Oh and here, have an abstract

Some scholarly info for you. Having the same neurons as a female... but obviously since he has a penis he must be completely male because....?
User avatar #129 to #122 - IamSofaKingdom (09/23/2013) [-]
Wow, why did you even bother linking that? You did exactly what I said the other people did. You provided a source that told me the biological traits of each gender but it didn't even mention homosexuality as a result of any of it. It only stated the average number of particular cells and molecules within the minds of each gender. I don't think that article was even presenting a theory on the origin of homosexuality. It was a case for why people associate themselves with a certain gender. Did you even read it?
User avatar #135 to #129 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
It literally said that Transgendered individuals had the same neural network as the gender they identified with. You think maybe having the same brain makeup as the opposite gender may add validity to trans individuals feeling like "a woman trapped in a man's body"?
#177 to #135 - transgendered (09/23/2013) [-]
Can you stop mentioning me please? I dont like having to come back to the ********* argument I've seen on here every five minutes
User avatar #182 to #177 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Honey what'd you think would happen if you made that your username?
#183 to #182 - transgendered (09/23/2013) [-]
People wouldn't have aggressive debates as to whether homosexuality and transgenderism are godly qualities or not....
User avatar #187 to #183 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
You really are new here... I'd suggest you remake your account if this stuff isn't fun for you, cause if a religious post pops up there's gonna be at least one argument that throws your name around.
User avatar #145 to #135 - IamSofaKingdom (09/23/2013) [-]
Do you know what "literally" means? because it does not say that anywhere in the article and the way you worded it means it should be in there verbatim. The only thing they said was that the imbalances studied make a clear case for an origin of gender identity disorder. They are researching a psychologically imbalance within the brain, it isn't even about homosexuality. You didn't even understand an abstract that you included into the discussion yourself. I sincerely hope you randomly googled that and didn't do earnest research because that would be embarrassingly off topic.
User avatar #147 to #145 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Jesus christ, and you think I'M bad at debating?

Here, let me spoon feed it to you

"Regardless of sexual orientation, men had almost twice as many somatostatin neurons as women" - biological difference between males and females

"The number of neurons in the BSTc of male-to-female transsexuals was similar to that of the females" "In contrast, the neuron number of a female-to-male transsexual was found to be in the male range" - we have data that supports transexuals having the same structures in their brain as the sex they identify with

"The present findings of somatostatin neuronal sex differences in the BSTc and its sex reversal in the transsexual brain clearly support the paradigm that in transsexuals sexual differentiation of the brain and genitals may go into opposite directions and point to a neurobiological basis of gender identity disorder." <-Our findings support the idea that transexuals are telling the truth when they say they feel like they belong as the opposite sex.

Have I made it clear enough for you?
User avatar #149 to #147 - IamSofaKingdom (09/23/2013) [-]
I can read the argument, thanks for rehashing it again and proving to me it has nothing to do with the origin of homosexuality but instead the problem on a personality disorder within the brain.

It seems the only thing you are good at is repeating yourself so thanks for all of this waste of time and text, I assure you that this discussion has gone nowhere and I will return to my normal daily activities while you stew on it.
User avatar #153 to #149 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
oh and it's not personality, it's biological. They were looking at hormones and brain structures. That's not some kind of touchy feely social study.
User avatar #151 to #149 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
You are so incapable of making a point that I feel the need to keep repeating myself because I can't quite tell if you even understood it...
User avatar #120 to #118 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
What do you think causes testostherone deficiency.

I'll give you a hint, it's not lack of red meat in your diet.

Also, if you have identical hormonal levels to a woman as a man you are going to think and behave incredibly femininely and lets face it, the hormones that dictate attraction will be almost identical to that of a womans. You cannot discount the biological components of behaviour and just assume it's a choice and that because society said it's okay SUDDENLY everyone became gay. Gayness existed forever. Gayness has been found in dozens of species besides humans. The only difference now is that we don't kill gay people when we see them.

If you define gayness as a societal thing would you want society to return to condemning homosexuality? After all, if it's just society's approval that causes it, surely if we all start gaybashing like in Russia it will cure those ill with it.
User avatar #125 to #120 - IamSofaKingdom (09/23/2013) [-]
Wow, you are really bad at discussion. Not only are you making unrelated assumptions and statements but your argument changes topic just about every sentence.

A deficiency in testosterone would not CAUSE homosexuality, as I already stated. It may make a person more inclined to prefer the same gender but it does not determine it at birth. That alone undermines your whole argument. Also "think and behave like a woman" would be a social construct. What a woman behaves like has varied from era to era because what we determine to be lady like as a people changes how they act, so that is not something rooted in genetics as much as popular opinion.

I never mentioned condemning homosexuality at all, the fact that you even bring it up shows how poor your stance is. You are making personal attacks without provocation. If you don't have enough knowledge or courtesy to carry on a discussion without outlandish and ungrounded slander than I suggest you just go ahead and end the discussion.
User avatar #131 to #125 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
I didn't change the subject at all... I replied to your assertion that hormones don't affect a person's sexual orientation...

At birth most of our genome isn't bloody expressed. That alone undermines your argument. Puberty literally flips our bodies upside down and how does it do that? WITH HORMONES! How does it decide which hormones to flood us with? GENES.

Behave like a woman is genetic in certain respects. There are certain genetic differences between men and women. Some simple stuff would be men being better with spatial reasoning and women being better at determining colour differences. They evolved as the hunter gatherer roles were established and women were responsible for sifting through the earth for roots and preparing them properly which required very keen vision while men needed to navigate hunting routes and needed good direction.

If you look closely I didn't attack you at all, I attacked what your position espouses. If we all were to believe what you believe then wouldn't it make sense to condemn homosexuality? Are you going to offer your stance or just scream at me for making a logical inference?
User avatar #138 to #131 - IamSofaKingdom (09/23/2013) [-]
No you definitely made personal attacks on me twice. First you tried to demean me with a comment about a pastor as if I was a brainwashed theologian and then you asserted that I was a homophobe out to attack homosexuals. It is upsetting that you would be so crude as to attempt such a thing and pitiable to then try and hide it. You didn't make any logical points and you have pretty much just ignored everything I said while constantly repeating your flawed stance on the argument.

I stated that homosexuality has no evidence to suggest it is determined on a genetic level at birth. I clearly explained multiple times how your presentation of the differences in male and female genes has nothing to do with my statement and your rebuttal everytime has been to repeat yourself and in most cases try to insult me. In fact, this last time you tried to insult me again by saying I am screaming at you when I am being far more logical and factual in this discussion.

If you would prefer just to tell me again that men and women are different, therefore homosexuals are genetic and end it with an insult then I appreciate your waste of time and say good day to you as of now.
User avatar #142 to #138 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Let me make this easy for you because that last comment you made literally said a bunch of nothing

1) What would you do about homosexuality?

2) How do you think hormones affect development?

3) Are you religious?
User avatar #148 to #142 - IamSofaKingdom (09/23/2013) [-]
Wow, those questions have nothing to do with my statement and you are trying to make the discussion more personal since you have no ground to stand on. I don't care about homosexuals at all. If they want to get married and buy houses, then they should go do it. It affects me none. I told you plainly, more times then I should have to that my argument is that genetics don't determine sexuality at birth and you continually change the subject and provide unrelated arguments and evidence. I suggest you look up common courtesy of debates before you attempt another debacle or at the very least stay on topic.

P.S. religion has nothing to do with this discussion and if you want to be butthurt over it I suggect you find a religion thread to troll rather than a discussion on genetics and.
User avatar #150 to #148 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
In one line tell me your argument. This has literally turned into you boo hooing while I have to keep trying to decipher what the **** your argument is. I'm asking you simple questions give me answers.

Todays question


Can you answer that or is it too personal?

For the love of god you try my patience...
User avatar #41 to #23 - kyuubey (09/23/2013) [-]
Actually it's because of his religious views that he held back his potential. If you read any of his works you'll see that he never mentions god in any of them, because he understood most of it.

But when he got stuck with a problem regarding the stability of the solar system he suddenly started mentioning god, you know why? Because he couldn't figure it out. And it wasn't till a century till Laplace came and figured it out.

So even Newton, one of the most brilliant minds let religion hold him back, and i'm confident he could've done it because he's ******* Newton.
User avatar #57 to #41 - goldenglimmer (09/23/2013) [-]
I don't know which of "Newton's work" you've read, but I could paraphrase him for you.

Very rarely do people read up on Newton's take on metaphysics, because his research within physics is so profoundly insightful, and is the basis for much of today's modern science. However, his relationship to both are related to each other.

You want to know why Newton did what he did? Do you want to know what drove him to discover some of the most important secrets about the physical world? He wanted to, in his own words, "reveal the glory of God".

Ignorant atheists love to describe "religion" as a veil that clouds our mind, but our intellect is neither diminished nor inhibited by "religion". It is our will that is can be restrained, or misdirected, and not only by "religion" but by any philosophy or mindset. They call all faiths "religion" and them throw them into a tiny box which they brand "inferior", and then scoff at those who disagree with their progressive secularism. This, in itself, is supremely arrogant, and misguided, because the word "religion" encompasses many VASTLY different ways of thinking.

I would humbly agree that many religions hinder development. I would argue that Christianity in its true form does quite the opposite. It creates incentive, promotes personal liberty and self-realization, and, like with Newton, naturally instills an incandescent inquisitiveness. There is a difference within "religion", and anytime anyone begins a statement with "Religion is...", I am initially prone to take whatever follows with a grain of salt.

Just sayin'.
User avatar #106 to #41 - IamSofaKingdom (09/23/2013) [-]
You took that from a Neil Degrass Tyson lecture and if that were really true then he would have simply mentioned God instead of inventing a new type of math to explain elliptical motions. It wasn't until he was genuinely stumped that he declared that God must be a very powerful deity in order to have created something so complex that he couldn't even fathom how it operated. He wasn't held back by religion he acknowledged that the universe was more complex than even he could figure out despite his best efforts.
#82 to #23 - thebesttrumpeteer (09/23/2013) [-]
"he thought he could turn iron to gold and died eating mercury. thus making himself and everyone else on earth look like a bitch."
User avatar #112 to #82 - chuckbillrow (09/23/2013) [-]
to be fair alchemy was legit science at the time, we now know it to be bunk but alchemists used the scientific method and were basically chemists with out the benefit of the knowledge of molecules and atoms and other things that really disprove transmutation
#3 - mondprinzessin (09/23/2013) [-]
but.... thats not really true
User avatar #8 to #3 - sadistikal (09/23/2013) [-]
and why would that be?
User avatar #10 to #8 - croski (09/23/2013) [-]
A priest came up with the Big Bang theory, a priest found the rules of genetics, a priest set the foundation of the modern scientific method, inspired by Aristotle...
User avatar #54 to #10 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
That's because priests were the only ones allowed to read. You'll find priests doing far less science nowadays than they did back in the good 'ol days.

The rule of thumb with religion is objectivity until presupposition is threatened. You may find exceptions here or there, but the rule is still the rule. Nowadays as more and more to do with science conflicts with the presupposition of religion, religion responds with more radical denial of science and appears downright idiotic in popular media.

C'est la vie I guess..
User avatar #333 to #54 - unncommon (09/23/2013) [-]
Bro, the Big Bang Theory was conceived in the 20th century...
User avatar #338 to #333 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Exceptions exist. I've had this argument way too many times today... please just suffer my position in silence
User avatar #356 to #338 - unncommon (09/23/2013) [-]
Actually bro, you're wrong. Priests are doing an exceptional amount of science. The Jesuits, The Vatican, The Pope, and many more. They're all working not only to further the point on the existence of God, but to further science as well. And saying that the reason why religious people make a lot of scientific discoveries because other people aren't allowed to is quite ridiculous. This isn't the Dark Ages anymore, the amount of knowledge that's retained by humans is absolutely insane.
User avatar #357 to #356 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
blah blah blah don't wanna argue with anyone anymore today blaaaaahhh I'll probably read this tomorrow
User avatar #378 to #357 - croski (09/24/2013) [-]
Priests are not the only catholics that roam the world of science, and you can clearly see it today. Also, I don't think The Church and science are going two different ways. Yes, The Church criticizes cloning and tampering with human genome and they do condemn lots of sociological, psychological and similar research (Probably because you can't really confirm everything and they are often made up for propaganda).

Here and there you can find illogical responses from The Church, but don't let that make the whole picture.
User avatar #158 to #54 - darkrighteosnight (09/23/2013) [-]
Priests were the only ones allowed to read?
User avatar #159 to #158 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Until the printing press... more or less. I mean aristocrats read too but they definitely weren't scholars about it, they read for the sake of politics... goodness knows outside of the clergy and the aristocracy reading was not considered a useful skill.
User avatar #161 to #159 - darkrighteosnight (09/23/2013) [-]
No... not really the only one "allowed", but the largest group that chose to read.

What you typed implies that reading was outlawed, or something of that nature.
User avatar #163 to #161 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Ah semantics. the point remains that literacy didn't quite exist in the general public so scientific progress was always done with the church in mind.
User avatar #164 to #163 - darkrighteosnight (09/23/2013) [-]
User avatar #165 to #164 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
I have had far too many arguments today... One of which got me quite furious as my opponent literally stopped making points and just kept trying to insult me leaving me with no replies other than guiding questions.... which he would proceed to say was me insulting him for being religious... He was tiring...
User avatar #167 to #165 - darkrighteosnight (09/23/2013) [-]
I'm sorry about that. I hate when that happens.
User avatar #168 to #167 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Is it really that cruel when he asserts that homosexuality is entirely caused by social acceptance of homosexuality so I reply by asking him if he'd prefer that we do what Russia does and legislate gay bashing so people will be cured?

It was tongue in cheek at worst.
User avatar #173 to #168 - darkrighteosnight (09/23/2013) [-]
wait a moment...'' legislate gay bashing so people will be cured? '', I don't quite understand what you are saying.
User avatar #176 to #173 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
In Russia they have made it illegal to present homosexuality in a positive way. The treatment of gays in Russia is pretty abysmal. It stems from the fact that they figure people just choose to be gay so make them not want to make that choice.
User avatar #179 to #176 - darkrighteosnight (09/23/2013) [-]
... Damn...
User avatar #190 to #179 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
They're getting the olympics next year too so everyone is buzzing about how the Olympics committee is gonna spit in the eye of the Russians
#56 to #54 - hoskins (09/23/2013) [-]
Except for all the scientists who weren't priests.
User avatar #59 to #56 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
I have no idea what you're trying to say here...
#60 to #59 - hoskins (09/23/2013) [-]
You said that priests were the ones who made scientific breakthroughs because they were the only ones allowed to read.

And the scientific breakthroughs that weren't made by priests in those times?
User avatar #62 to #60 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Usually made by bored aristocrats by accident or people with some connection to the clergy.

I'm not talking 19th century and forward, I'm talking 1799 and earlier. Even Darwin was going to become a member of the clergy before he became a naturalist.
#63 to #62 - hoskins (09/23/2013) [-]
Or people who cared about science.

You can't just make a point with seemingly no exceptions, then when presented with exceptions, write them off with no significance.
User avatar #64 to #63 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
You provided no exceptions and my point is based off of the nature of the world before information was readily available and literacy was common. Science was widely run by religion. The first universities were religious institutions. Most people who studied science needed to be wealthy enough not to need to work the field or the factory for their meal every day.

So, please don't insult my integrity when you've brought nothing of value to the table yourself.
#65 to #64 - hoskins (09/23/2013) [-]
Google "secular scientists."

Says the one insulting my belief because I posted it on the internet.
User avatar #73 to #65 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Insulting your belief how? Allow me to elucidate my initial position.

Religion and science used to go hand in hand because science was initially only capable of being done by religious individuals who wanted to better understand god's work.

As we moved into contemporary times religion and science separated. Why? Because scientific breakthroughs were seen as conflicting with core religious values.

I will insult presupposition. It is the worst thing about religion. Do not presume I am insulting religion.
User avatar #128 to #73 - alltimetens (09/23/2013) [-]
I'll have to barge in on this argument and disagree with you on one major issue. Religion and science have never split up. The way I see it, if we were told to seek God's work, and we find something that disagrees with core religious principles, then they are apart of God's work nonetheless. That's why in Islam, we don't disagree with evolution or any major scientific discoveries. We accept them and try to incorporate them into our beliefs. Adam and Eve could have been metaphorical characters used to describe the first cells. I'm fairly certain that a great percentage of scientists today are in fact religious.
User avatar #391 to #128 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/25/2013) [-]
Yes... Israel is the war mongeror... the perpetual war begun by the surrounding nations in an attempt to murder every Israeli was obviously planned by Israel. Israel totally wants to have to enforce conscription just to survive...

You can't view the world with rose tinted lenses. You need to understand not just what Israel does wrong but what all of the populations in the region, including the gazans, have done wrong. I can tell you for certain that responding to Israel's attempts at land for peace offers with rockets is a very poor decision on the part of the Gazans. In my perfect world the states exist as the balfour report had initially split the land and there be a joint capital in Jerusalem. Doesn't that sound a lot nicer than liquidating Israel and submitting Israelis to the wrath of their neighbours?
User avatar #322 to #128 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Aw I wanted to give a narrative. What I was hoping to get towards a little more slowly was that both Jews and Palestinian Muslims have claims to the land. You can't just say that the whole land should belong to the Palestinian Muslims because that isn't fair to the Jews who were there for arguably, much longer than them... Heck, Israel was around centuries before Mohammed was even born.
User avatar #334 to #322 - alltimetens (09/23/2013) [-]
The Jews moved out of Israel and the Palis came in. Now, Israel forces them off. Not fair in my opinion.
User avatar #336 to #334 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Jews did not move out of Israel, they were conquered by the Romans and forced out. However, even though the majority were expelled from their land some remained on the land for the entirety of their exile. Jews have always lived in "palestinian" land
User avatar #372 to #336 - alltimetens (09/24/2013) [-]
Does that justify the slaughtering and basically genocide of thousands of Palis?
User avatar #373 to #372 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/24/2013) [-]
Calling it a genocide is a bit extreme. Israelis aren't trying to wipe out the palestinians... they're just engaging the palestinians like a proper military when the palestinians don't have much of a military.

I'm not saying Israel is squeaky clean, but by the same token you cannot deny that they have a right to a state just as much as the palestinians
User avatar #384 to #373 - alltimetens (09/25/2013) [-]
Israel cut off their internet, killed thousands of people and a majority of the deaths were women and children, and injured thousands more. Is that not genocide?

If China killed even one American on American soil, it's a murder. But when an Israeli soldier goes into that little strip of land and murders 20 people, it's just Israel enforcing its laws or whatever. I disagree with you in every possible way. I have friends who were there on the front lines of the conflicts. My friend told me that you could not even go to the mosque for Friday prayers without fearing an Israeli bombing. He saw houses being destroyed and people running for their lives. He saw children screaming over the bodies of their deceased parents, and parents mourning over the bodies of their dead children. Are these not acts of terror? Are these not human beings who deserve to live and be happy?

Having a "fight to the state" does not by any means allow Israel to go on with war crimes.
User avatar #385 to #384 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/25/2013) [-]
I'm sorry all I saw there was some anti-israeli rhetoric.

War is War. Israel won. If the Palestinians won they'd have murdered every single man woman and child in Israel and if you deny they you're ignoring a great deal of data on the issue. Now you can keep telling me that Israel drinks the blood of baby Palestinians 'til you're blue in the face but that's not a progressive strategy to fixing the region nor is it convincing me to decide that we should commit a genocide of Israelis as I presume you'd prefer since you've literally presented no other alternative.

Here I thought you were a moderate. So much hate man. So much hate.
User avatar #390 to #385 - alltimetens (09/25/2013) [-]
Are you implying that I'd rather kill a bunch of Israeli babies and women instead of murdering the zionist leaders of the country? That's my alternative. We could just kill the people who embrace the war and wield weapons against powerless civilians. War implies two countries fighting. The way I see it, Gaza is not recognized as a country and has no military. Therefore, Israel is going against a defenseless region home to thousands of families.
User avatar #289 to #128 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
My usual defense of Israel is "If you were president of Israel what would you do". It's a tough job trying to manage the mess of Middle East politics.
User avatar #296 to #289 - alltimetens (09/23/2013) [-]
How about NOT start a war and cause the deaths of thousands of people? It'd be better for everyone if we had peace councils than warfare.
User avatar #301 to #296 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Gotta be more specific. Here, I'll give you some context.

You pull out every Israeli from the Gaza strip in 2004. No presense at all, no checkpoints, no wall.

From 2004 - 2008 rockets are launched daily from Gaza unprovoked. How do you deal with this situation?
User avatar #304 to #301 - alltimetens (09/23/2013) [-]
You have to realize that Israel came into Gaza without permission. It's like someone coming into your home and then saying that you cannot come into the bathroom, the kitchen, or the bedroom because they now own half of your house. There is a reason why there were rockets being fired. And don't even get me started on how many Palestinians were killed/injured.
User avatar #307 to #304 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
To be fair the fight began a century ago, this is just the latest installment.

The way I see it, a unilateral disengagement is a wonderful gift. Israel could have sat happy in Gaza indefinitely but left out of good will. How was it repaid? Rockets.

You never did answer my question. You're president of Israel in 2008, you've sat for years as your border towns are being rocketed. What do you do?
User avatar #310 to #307 - alltimetens (09/23/2013) [-]
Your question remains unanswered because it completely ignores the fact that Israel being established is the reason why rockets were fired. Israel did not "leave out of good will". It left the Palestinians with a strip of land 1/3rd the size of Brooklyn and did not allow them to go into the lands that were theirs. That's the exact same problem with the Europeans and the Native Americans.
User avatar #313 to #310 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
So what you're saying is your only solution would be dissolving Israel. That unfortunately will never happen.

Now you seem to think Palestine was an autonomous country before Israel happened. Are you aware of where the region's name came from?
User avatar #316 to #313 - alltimetens (09/23/2013) [-]
The Native Americans were never an established country. Does that mean they deserved to be kicked out? I just don't see the justice in any people being forced out of their lands. I'm not saying dissolve Israel. I'm saying to let Palestinians have their lands back and let the Israelis live with them.
#291 to #289 - alltimetens has deleted their comment [-]
#292 to #291 - Sethorein has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #205 to #128 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
But those extremists tend to have a great deal of political strength. You can't exactly ignore them if they're kidnapping people, hijacking things, and bombing malls. They are clearly a problem.
User avatar #210 to #205 - alltimetens (09/23/2013) [-]
I understand your point. But does that make it fair to associate everyone with said extremists? I personally have never picked up a gun in my life. Neither have any of my family or close Muslim friends. As a matter of fact, Islam teaches us that killing one person is like murdering all of humanity. Murder is an extremely devastating sin. I'd say that it is the number one sin. The other being torture.
User avatar #212 to #210 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Which is why I treat muslims like anybody else... but the point still stands that regardless of how I personally treat you, there's a contingent of your population that would be happy to decapitate me... a contingent is is unfortunately much louder and more vocal than any violent contingents of any other religious group... Don't often see an evangelical school bomber or an orthodox Jew planejacking, or an Atheist kidnapping a high ranking islamic official. Our extremists just kinda picket things... maybe some vandalism.... Islamic extremism kind of freaked out the planet, y'know?
User avatar #219 to #212 - alltimetens (09/23/2013) [-]
You also have to take into consideration the biased views of the media. Less than a year ago, there were two major incidents with white Americans who have committed heinous crimes, each involving the deaths of 12-20 something people. Also, the statistics dictate that Muslims and Arabs only add up to approximately 6% of the crimes in the U.S. Is it only terrorism when a Muslim commits it? There have been far more records of black and hispanic violence than Arab/Muslim violence. You have to also take into consideration your own personal definition of terrorism. My definition of terrorism is an act that inflicts terror on innocent civilians.

You're probably not going to read all of that.
User avatar #223 to #219 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
No, I did read all that. The problem is that you're focusing on the race and ethnicity of the individuals, not their religion. For instance, look at the Sandy Hook shooting. That white guy killed a bunch of kids. However, he was mentally deranged and didn't do it in the name of anything. Most violent crimes comitted by non-muslims aren't done in the name of religion.

My point is that the religious extremists outside of Islam aren't documented to be nearly as violent as the extremists within Islam. If the same trend was seen elsewhere I'd point it out too, but there is no other trend quite like it. There is clearly some part of Islam that these extremists have decided approves of murder and the rest of the community is either powerless to stop them or could care less what they do.
User avatar #239 to #223 - alltimetens (09/23/2013) [-]
I believe that's the case because the Muslims are not just fighting for no reason, they all have a cause. Do I agree with how these extremists are spreading their cause? No.

For example, Bin Laden planned 9/11 because of the fact that he wanted to send a message about U.S intervention in Israel. I kind of have to agree with him. The U.S has to buzz off with problems it has nothing to do with. But I don't agree with how he chose to send his message.
User avatar #244 to #239 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
US polices the world 'cause they never got the memo that the cold war ended and their military budget needs to be spent somehow...

To be frank, I'd say supporting allies is not quite the worst thing a country could do... I mean every member of the Arab Bloq in the UN works together, you don't see Western countries throwing a fit. Israel is the West in the Middle East, so it seems rational that America would protect it.
User avatar #273 to #244 - alltimetens (09/23/2013) [-]
Actually, most Middle Eastern countries are strict in terms of staying neutral. I'm certain that if the relationship between the Middle Eastern countries was just as you described, Israel would have already been wiped off the map. From what I've read, Israel seems to be the douchebag of the confliction.
User avatar #134 to #128 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Ah but you are not religion as a whole and religion as a whole (particularly christianity as it has been particularly involved in western science development) do not follow your train of thought.
User avatar #136 to #134 - alltimetens (09/23/2013) [-]

Using Christianity as a source is kind of contradictory because Christianity has changed over the years. Christianity would probably be the last religion I would use as an example of the correlation of science and religion. Practically all of Europe (which was 99.99% founded on Christian beliefs) was scientifically ignorant during the Dark Ages.
User avatar #141 to #136 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Well to be fair I can only speak on behalf of Christianity and Judaism. Both had different approaches to science, Judaism was a lot better about it. At first they were as bad to gays as christians had been, but as time progressed Jews started to see the science and looked to their bible to see if there was some new way to read it alongside science instead of against science. That's all I'd ever ask from Christians.

About Islam though. How do you explain the fact that in Islamic countries where Shariah Law is in place they will give you the death penalty or a forced sex change if you are gay?
User avatar #191 to #141 - alltimetens (09/23/2013) [-]
I've never heard of that. Most people that use Shariah Law as a an example are misinformed.
User avatar #195 to #191 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
so you deny that Islamist countries kill their gays or force them to have sex changes? I can go google some videos of hangings in Iran.... I'd prefer not to though.
User avatar #198 to #195 - alltimetens (09/23/2013) [-]
Like I said, Sharia Law is only enforced in Saudi Arabia and in Iran. I'm all for gays and lesbian rights.
User avatar #201 to #198 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Oh I thought you were calling me misinformed, not them.

I figured you were a moderate muslim so you might explain the rationality behind that kind of poor treatment.
User avatar #204 to #201 - alltimetens (09/23/2013) [-]
The truth is, there are extremists in every aspect of groups. Whether it's atheism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. Most people tend to focus on Islamic extremists, despite there being very few. And when I say very few, I mean like 0.01% of the Islamic population.
#196 - bloopzoop (09/23/2013) [-]
I'm not religious, but I'm pretty sure he said that because he was arrogant.
User avatar #209 to #196 - deadadventurer (09/23/2013) [-]
Arrogance is not a bad thing. Hubris is.
User avatar #211 to #209 - bloopzoop (09/23/2013) [-]
They can be synonyms.
#9 - snakefire (09/23/2013) [-]
On a scale of 1 to euphoric how are you feeling OP?
User avatar #172 - IamEllis (09/23/2013) [-]
not true at all. I Believe in god but I have a realistic and balanced view of science and religeon
#94 - hellsjester (09/23/2013) [-]
not all atheist are arrogant complete dick bags. not all religious people are blind following belief shoveling douchenozzles
User avatar #98 to #94 - lordhaha (09/23/2013) [-]
That goes against Popular athieism however, all about the spread of hate and division.
User avatar #162 to #94 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
But that does not mean that those who are ignorant douchenozzles don't continue to do horrible things...

I mean arrogant dick bags, the worst they'll do is piss you off. They aren't exactly violent... Ignorant douchenozzles on the other hand...
User avatar #180 to #162 - hellsjester (09/23/2013) [-]
not that's not religious. that is extremism. religious is you follow your religions beliefs. extremism you blow **** up. i have never seen a nun or a orthodox Jew blow up an abortion clinic. same with atheists and not blowing up churches. the shia Muslim religion is a good example of extremism. in fact in the quran of the twelvers openly preaches extremism by stating jihad (also translates as "struggle") is necessary in a Muslims life. maken the loose definition gives birth to many ideals which fuels violence. same with any other loose definitions in any religion.
User avatar #185 to #180 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
I have seen orthodox Jews disown their children for marrying outside the religion. I've seen orthodox Jews tell non-orthodox Jews that they're the wrong kind of Jew and go out of their way to make them do poorly. I've seen orthodox Jews excommunicate Gays. My guess is this isn't something endemic to Jews, but I've just got a lot of experience there.

Religion is in dire straights because religious people focused too much on the worst parts of the bible. They may not kill you in the West, but trust me when I say that I didn't choose to be atheist, it was thrust upon me.
#193 to #185 - hellsjester (09/23/2013) [-]
there we go. we need to record this down. a religious person and a atheist having a civil conversation like grown men on the internet...... oh 			****		 i think we broke the interwebs
there we go. we need to record this down. a religious person and a atheist having a civil conversation like grown men on the internet...... oh **** i think we broke the interwebs
User avatar #199 to #193 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
I've fought with several people before you. I'm too tired to be a douche. No one liked my tongue in cheek comments very much...
#75 - matrixcrab (09/23/2013) [-]
**matrixcrab rolled a random image posted in comment #570 at Terrifying Comp (Part 2) ** what i think of the whole religion-atheist battle
#81 to #75 - masochists (09/23/2013) [-]
That's... actually very fitting. People Applauding
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)