Of course you can believe in those things. But it's a false equating between physical existence and concepts. Goals, values, ideals, these are simply concepts and attitudes. Gods are an actual question of existence. Saying "I believe in friendship" and "I believe in Goblins" are two totally different realms of belief.
That's exactly my point Mayo but according to Cal, not all gay people are born gay. So I just asked him which straight guy would willingly give up boobs to turn gay lmao
The most salient point of the whole debate right here. When I moved to America I was in complete disbelief that my biology teacher had to state that we were going to cover evolution and that if anyone was offended they could leave! This is incredibly tame too, other parts of America clearly have it much worse. This type of shit never happens in Scotland. You can believe what you want, but the second it starts interfering with my education I have a massive problem with it.
It's also disturbing how only one side can claim drunkenness as a defense. Why does the onus of responsibility, when both parties are drunk, always fall on the male?
So, you're using intolerance in order to find out who the other intolerant folks are?No no no, you got it all wrong. I've done this thread a great service by effectively separating worthless intolerant atheists from inoffensive atheists. My opinion or your opinion doesn't matter here. What's important is that we will know who the scumbag atheists are.
See people can't say they respect other people beliefs then start arguing with them for 2 pages about why they feel they are wrong or stupid for believing in "fairytales" or believing in something metaphysical. Any time an atheist tries to question someone else's belief and/or asks them to provide scientific proof to back up their belief they fall into the "worthless" category and prove they in fact do not respect other people's beliefs since they are actively trying to discredit, ridicule and devalue those beliefs.
If most atheists just sat in their corner with their own little insignificant belief then I would have no reason to hate them. But it's the fact that too many of them are trying to impose their views to the believers that truly makes them the scum of the earth. I'm 100% agnostic even if I believe the chances of an intelligible designer not existing is almost 0%. But for example my mom is religious and I hate it when my atheist brother or someone else tries to convince her that the bible she reads and her god is full of shit. I mean it's ok if you don't personally share their belief but why try to take away something that makes them happy and gives them hope? My mom doesn't play video games and doesn't take drugs so religion and god is like her passion and it's her way to find inner peace, comfort and just feel good in general. Spitting on her belief is spitting on her entire life. Why is it your business that some people believe in these things? Just let them and keep thinking you are intellectually superior.
I still think Atheism is ultimately pointless. Their only common and universal belief is that they do not believe in the existence of a deity. Ok... Well that's a super interesting, imaginative, useful and constructive point of view! Not. It's like saying you don't like MK in a MK board. Who cares, good for you? Do you want a cookie? What's your purpose? Are you trying to convince MK players that MK sucks? No? Then why do you exist? And why do you feel the need to keep telling MK players that you don't like MK?
However it's important to note that I only hate Explicit and Aggressive Atheists. Any other kind of Atheism might as well be considered Agnostic or "inoffensive".
Also, I completely understand that religion is more important in the US which makes atheists a prouder minority (between 4-8%) while they are becoming a majority in Canada. Here a lot of people will look at you weird for being anything other than atheist. Which also explains why there is a growing hate towards Explicit/Aggressive atheists since they are becoming more and more "convinced", condescending towards Christians and racist towards immigrants, especially Arabs/Muslims. These types of atheists are convinced that they know better than everyone else (because they have science on their side) and they firmly believe that the world would be better without any religion or without religious people. They are becoming more and more extremist so people who believe in equality are fighting back against ignorance, xenophobia and intolerance. Laic/Secular Agnostics refuse to let their multicultural nation or country be defined by intolerance/atheism of any kind.
You guys simply haven't experienced Atheism at its strongest and final form. It's absolutely disgusting, unhealthy and might as well be considered a terrorist/hate group at that point.
This my friend is 100% untrue -- while it's convenient for people to try to reduce human beings to a simple black vs. white, the truth is that there are people that have feelings all the way along the spectrum (and there is a spectrum, not a switch or a toggle). For example, you could have a guy that likes girls -- but also discovered feelings toward one particular guy at one time. Those feelings might last forever, might turn into liking other guys, or might not translate to liking any other guys, ever. Or they just might go away. There are also probably people that have liked one thing, until they tried something else, and then they ended up liking that. There are people who have probably made the change in either direction.
In my country, indigenous Australians were not allowed to vote. A referendum was conducted in 1967 on whether or not they should be given the vote. If I voted against that, would that be morally ok? Would I not be forcing my bigotry and hatred onto others? I'd be imposing my belief that they don't deserve the same rights and privileges as the rest of the members of society.
I always forget you don't have to vote. I can respect not voting, but I could not respect someone encouraging others to vote against it or actually voting against it themselves.
It's unbelievably stupid. A man is at fault for being drunk, but a woman is absolved of all responsibility. Where's the logic in that? The man has to insert his penis, so he knows what he's doing?
They would either:
Or C. They'd have a giant bukkake ice cream orgy while killing people as assassins usually do.
I think this also plays into the modern age. 2000 years ago, dude on the street yells some crazy prophecy that happens to come true, he's a prophet. Same thing now? Crazy guy got lucky. There was something I watched on the History channel (lolz) a few years back about a guy who made some REALLY accurate predictions using some weird mathematical formula (predicted the date of the big recession we just had if I remember right) and he didn't get much notice. To that end, I think we have way more actual crazies who make that guy look crazy because there is no ruling church who'll burn you alive for trying to prophesize anymore
Yes I'd love it if people stopped looking at me with disgust when I'm with my boyfriend in public (not kissing or feeling each other up, just holding hands). I'd love it if people didn't actively campaign against equal rights for me.
Meme should know that it's best for business, not good for business
That's a good question. If the ideal is equality why are we infantilizing women by allowing them to be absconded of responsibility for being drunk but not men? This doesn't seem to me to be something that feminists would be in favor of, unless I'm missing something (which I probably am)
