you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 4 months ago (1 child)

Religion is cancer. Every and any.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -26 points 4 months ago* (6 children)

    Atheism is a religious stance, and is practiced like one. When it's used to harm non-believers especially it's really easy to see this.

    I wouldn't give Christians or any other religion a pass on this, so I'm not giving Atheists one either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Nobody has hurt more people than religion. They long ago lost any benefit of the doubt. We don't have to be polite, or give them any power, because we've seen what they will do with it, every single fucking time.

    So, No, fuck those religious whack jobs, we shouldn't have to live OUR lives, based on THEIR delusions.

    Start by taxing, and regulating, churches.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Good thing your opinion means jack shit, because your basis is fundamentally flawed and incorrect.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Do you think it shows weakness to be polite to those you disagree with? I think it works better to approach people with respect if I want them to consider what I'm saying. It already feels like an attack when someone says you're wrong, and I don't want to harden minds against what I think is right.

    I'm not always good at it, and I have spoken to people harshly often. It never produced anything but hard feelings on their part. I think it can be satisfying to be mean, and I was looking for an excuse to act in a way that's less moral without feeling bad about myself. I think even if I was right, I usually didn't need to be mean about it.

    I think that it's likely nothing I'm doing on this website is important enough to justify me being unkind about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    No, it's not.

    Not watching football isn't a "football stance".

    Not eating pork chops isn't a "pork chop stance".

    Not drinking jagermeister isn't a "jagermeister stance".

    Not reading Spider-Man comics isn't a "Spider-Man stance".

    Not being religious isn't a "religious stance".

    Not doing something isn't a stance on that something, that's goofy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Wrong. Atheism is the rejection of religion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    Almost every religion has a tenant of the rejection of every other religion, and then goes on to persecute the other ones believers.

    If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... it might be a duck.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (1 child)

    That doesn't make atheism a religion, nor does atheism call for the persecution of anyone. Your logic is flawed and your argument is factually incorrect.

    All ducks have legs, but not all birds with legs are ducks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    A muscovy duck isn't a duck. Technically.

    But if someone complains about all the misbehaving ducks in the pond and your defense for your duck's musbehaviour is "technically not a duck!" you're not really saying anything of worth.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    I can only infer from your statement that "Muscovy ducks aren't technically ducks" which you've followed up by stating "anyone who says technically not a duck isn't saying anything worthwhile", means you're telling me what you're saying isn't anything of worth.

    Well, thanks, we already established that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Why would I think this was worthwhile? You "Um Actually"-ed my post about the moral behavior of atheists who get religious about atheism.

    This was only ever a long shot at best.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (1 child)

    Ah, but that wasn't what you originally said:

    Atheism is a religious stance, and is practiced like one.

    Don't try to change your argument when it gets proven wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    My man, it's a stance on a theological issue. You don't want to admit that, and I'm not going to force you. What does going "Yah-huh / Nuh-uh" back and forth forever do for anyone?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Thanks.

    If whatever you believe means you feel you have the right to be unkind to people who believe otherwise, it's problematic. Even if you want to hold onto a different definition of whatever it is you believe, if you use it as an excuse to be unkind it's still a problem. It's not the label that's the problem, it's the behavior.

    If you end up acting just like them, why should anyone believe you're any different?

    Very "it's not a warcrime if it's not wartime" energy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Sounds something that a nazi would say.

    It's the same tolerance paradox. I don't have to be kind if your "beliefs" create suffering.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    I'm honored that you conceded the argument, if not gracefully.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Text comprehension isn't your strongest side, is it? But then again, religion has been suppressing education for centuries, so it makes sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child)

    Though obviously I'd prefer a more civil exchange of ideas I can't deny the ego boost of seeing someone give up. Once it's down to name calling, it means you gave up on arguing your point.

    When people have the faith in their ideas to agree to disagree, they don't need to resort to name calling. People feel threatened and lash out. It's understandable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Tone policing wen you're out of arguments, classic. Fuck your religion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (1 child)

    It's not tone, it's absence of content. Once you need to make it about me, it means you've given up on discussing what I said. What's true is true no matter who says it, even if you were right about everything you said it wouldn't change a single thing.

    Though if you could be polite too that'd be stellar. Manners and consideration are not weakness.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (1 child)

    "Religion is cancer" isn't an invitation for a discussion. You said some nonsense about atheism being a religion - I'm not discussing that either, because that's all it is - nonsense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago*

    You stopped discussing things several posts ago, I noticed. I told you that you did so. Why are you repeating to me what I said to you over my last 2 replies as if it's news?! I've been snarkily complaining about it. It's not news!

  • source
  • parent