In a sense, I know that we should respect everybody, but do we really just need to keep quiet when crazy religious people preach and yell and affect law? I personally don't think so. Maybe I am too closed minded, but I think the more vocal the atheist community becomes and LESS vocal the religious community can be the world would be better off...Faith is not based in fact, as everybody knows. So why not publicly denounce all faiths as ignorant and detrimental. 

Does anybody else have any thoughts on this?

Tags: back, fight

Views: 1445

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

if someone is not following the teachings of their religious, well I guess they are not very religious (the word religious implies observance as in "i work-out religiously). I agree these people are sometimes merely liberal enablers of the true people of faith and as such they may respect atheists. For the faithful bible is still the bible.

RE: "For the faithful bible is still the bible." - Personally, I would rephrase that Robert.

I would say that for the faithful, who prefer not to investigate the Bible, and learn about all of the biblical scholars who have evidence that Moses did not write any of the books labeled, "According To Moses," who chose not to learn about all of the other forgeries, pseudepigraphical writings, and insertions by anonymous authors into authentic texts, not to mention the first Council of Nicaea, in which it was arbitrarily decided which books would be included in the New Testament, and which would not (of which, many of the latter were destroyed), then, yes, the Bible is still the Bible.

And an ostrich is still an ostrich --

I agree. The "word of god" is not the "word of god" at all.
I believe it is a human book with no supernatural providence that is "sold" as being infallible and must be taken on faith. And of course, the suspension of the natural laws of physics and biology in front of bewildered crowds of desert tribes are used to somehow prove that. The pope is also claimed to infallible, and thus for faithful catholics a drastic change to a more liberal stance would be hard to swallow. All other liberal sects are less faithful. So no, I don't see droves of the religious suddenly challenging biblical authorship. If atheists were respected by the religious we would not have to fear discrimination, especially in the south where I live.

I owe you an apology, Robert - despite the cool allosaur avatar, I took your post to mean you were a theist, and it was my natural instinct to go into attack mode. Desculpame! (Forgive me!)

I owe you an apology, Robert - despite the cool allosaur avatar, I took your post to mean you were a theist, and it was my natural instinct to go into attack mode. Desculpame! (Forgive me!)

No need archaeopteryx, I always enjoy your posts and lately I have been a bit more confrontational with theists myself.

sorry..i cant edit for some reason...time to reboot !

Try "refresh" first, and if that doesn't work, copy (just in case) and reboot, which should empty your browser cache - or, you could get a Mac!

RE: "We have cookies." - So does Safari, the Mac browser!

Hmmmm....  Linux/Ubuntu and even regular windows has a host of non-proprietary and sometimes free software That you can run on LOTS of different systems....  and Mac requires the purchase of new overpriced hardware, and software and the restrictions of their operating system...  I can also run Safari on my PC... as well as Firefox, Opera, Chrome and others...


Our cookies are ultimate fudge cookies!! LOL

I've had Firefox and Opera for years, and really don't care for Chrome, but could run it if I chose. Macs and the Mac OS are created by the same company, and far more likely to be compatible than Windows and the computers it works on, made by two different concerns, hence Windows' trademarked crashes. I know of no such restrictions on the Mac OS, and I've had Macs since the early 90's, with zero crashes.

Little Billy Gates used to be Steve Jobs gopher, and the first Tweet Steve made after he died, was that heaven had no walls, therefore - no Windows and no Gates!:)) laughing

BTW - cool avatar!

Yeah, I knew X was Unix, but I wasn't aware of all of the particulars. Frankly, though X has a more polished look, I could do more with OS 9 and lower, than with X, and in fact, don't have a MacBook, but rather an iBook G4, which allows me to partition and run both X and 9, otherwise, I'd have had to replace a couple of thousand dollars worth of software that will run on 9, but not on X.

Um... Bill Gates was NEVER Steve Jobs "Gopher"..  they were contemporaries true enough and Jobs had wanted to buy some of Gates programs but Gates refused the offer and went to IBM for more money. Also remember that Windows came first, before the Mac and BOTH were based on Sun's PARC work on GUI's.  I started on a PDP-11 and programming punch cards and have followed the tech all throughout. 

The Mac has always been more "arts" related, being initially much stronger with graphics and sound, whereas the PC was directed towards business concerns. They have become essentially equivalent with preferences based mostly on personal taste. I have owned, built or used computers from Altair, Kaypro, Commodore, Radio Shack, Compaq, Apple and IBM,

If you want something easy to use and functional that you don't have to worry about too much, pay a little extra for the convenience and get a Mac.  If you want something with the widest variety of options and uses,  Get a PC base and a la carte the rest that you need. Yes it can take a little more work and a little more knowledge but you can mold it into what you really want and/or need, not what one company decides you want.

Neither is truly superior, each is just more suited to their users.

Thanks on the avatar, that is my personal 'heraldry' that I designed for use in the SCA

RSS

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service