Religion/Spirituality Athiest re-write the 10 commandments

[the cac mamba]

. Why can't you just let people believe what they want to believe

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...enier-james-inhofe-lead-environment-committee

this fakkit's reasoning? the bible. one of the most influential people in the country

so dead that shyt breh

 

[tmonster]

#dualities, atheists not realizing believing in nothing is actually believing in something I respect the agnostic more than the atheist, the atheist can't prove there's no God anymore than a Christian can really prove there is a God. Just say you believe/don't believe, end of discussion.

if you could grasp how crazy that sounds

 

[tmonster]

: insert umad.jpg :

furious!!!!

 

[joeychizzle]

Religious people never crawled out of the cave. Scientists, engineers and other innovative individuals forged this world through discovery, trial and error, and dedication. Not some fake mofukka in the sky claiming to have given you everything yet simultaneously providing nothing.


No one will ever admit it - but religion is the single biggest thing holding mankind back. It merely creates unnecessary divide and self proclaimed arrogance.

 

[HideoKojima]

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...enier-james-inhofe-lead-environment-committee

this fakkit's reasoning? the bible. one of the most influential people in the country

so dead that shyt breh

.... Politicians barely know anything about science but pass legislation and stuff. nikkas really think a fetus is life but thats another story.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

No one will ever admit it - but religion is the single biggest thing holding mankind back.

I believe you may be wrong about that.​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

.... Politicians barely know anything about science but pass legislation and stuff. nikkas really think a fetus is life but thats another story.

Thankfully, religious people aren't only politicians and many know a GREAT deal about science........

Matter of fact, they created it.....

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

That's the thing though. Someone saying they're agnostic, generally speaking, is saying the exact same thing as the person saying they're atheist.

This is false. A woman thinking about getting an abortion, but hasn't yet made up her mind one way or the other, is neither Pro-Choice nor Pro-Life.

Same thing applies to agnostics.

They don't know which way to go, so labelling them before their minds are made up is putting the cart before the horse.​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I don't know how atheists center their whole existence around "you're wrong. Science. Im right".

Some do, but that's due to their presuppositions of what 'science', 'truth' and 'reality' are. The same can be said of some theists in the proclaiming of their various religions.

Those are extremists, however, not the 'run-of-the-mill' general practitioners of each ideology.

The only real difference between the two: one believes in 'deity' and one does not.​

 

[noon]

#dualities, atheists not realizing believing in nothing is actually believing in something

Incorrect. Atheists don't "believe in nothing". You're thinking of nihilists. Atheists just don't buy your or anyone else's god stories.

 

[I.AM.PIFF]

Why are atheists such cornballs

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Why are atheists such cornballs

Bad idea to lump 'em all together. I mean, do ALL Muslims want the same things as ISIS? Do all Christians want the same things as the Klan? Do all Hebrews want Israel as a State?

Take 'em on a case-by-case basis.

​

 

[I.AM.PIFF]

Bad idea to lump 'em all together. I mean, do ALL Muslims want the same things as ISIS? Do all Christians want the same things as the Klan? Do all Hebrews want Israel as a State?

Take 'em on a case-by-case basis.

​

I'm being sarcastic breh. Obviously you can't lump atheists together because atheism is a bunch of...nothing. Other than not believing in God(s) and religions, does atheism have a moral standard, commandments,/interdictions or anything that can make you a better or worste atheist? Nope

So this commandment/science shyt is just corny as fukk breh. Sure, theists did and still do a lot of detestable shyt but at least there are morals or bases you can judge them, wether you agree or disagree with them. You can't say the same for atheism at all.

What makes Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking a "better atheist" than let's say, Stalin or Mao? Nothing at all

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I'm being sarcastic breh. Obviously you can't lump atheists together because atheism is a bunch of...nothing. Other than not believing in God(s) and religions, does atheism have a moral standard, commandments,/interdictions or anything that can make you a better or worste atheist? Nope

They actually do. Their moral standards come primarily from the societies in which they reside. So, although they can't be a 'better/worse' atheist, they CAN be a better/worse human being.​

So this commandment/science shyt is just corny as fukk breh. Sure, theists did and still do a lot of detestable shyt but at least there are morals or bases you can judge them, wether you agree or disagree with them. You can't say the same for atheism at all.

Yeah, it's corny. No argument there. But, as stated previously, their morals come from the societies in which they reside. They can be judged by them.​

What makes Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking a "better atheist" than let's say, Stalin or Mao? Nothing at all

Well, the fact that they aren't responsible for the deaths/suffering of nearly as many people in the 20th Century as the prior 2,000 years puts them more than a few rungs above Stalin and Mao. Also, their contributions to the collective knowledge of our species has been enormously beneficial.

A little criticism never hurt anyone.​

 

[I.AM.PIFF]

They actually do. Their moral standards come primarily from the societies in which they reside. So, although they can't be a 'better/worse' atheist, they CAN be a better/worse human being.​

Yeah, it's corny. No argument there. But, as stated previously, their morals come from the societies in which they reside. They can be judged by them.​

Well, the fact that they aren't responsible for the deaths/suffering of nearly as many people in the 20th Century as the prior 2,000 years puts them more than a few rungs above Stalin and Mao. Also, their contributions to the collective knowledge of our species has been enormously beneficial.

A little criticism never hurt anyone.​

I appreciate your reply breh, but this isn't what I'm getting at. I'm not judging atheists as case-by-case, just merely saying we have nothing to judge people on their "atheisness" as there aren't any atheist obligations, interdictions or dogma, unlike religious people. Is there any objective way to say X is a "better atheist" than Y? You can do that with religious persons, but not with atheists due to the lack of organized rules or common beliefs (or w/e).

Religious people also get a lot of their moral standards from the societies they reside in. And you can also compare them in terms of being a "better/worse human being". That's a moot point. Societal morals have jack to do with atheism

Obviously, scientists who contributed to enhance our knowledge and progress are better humans than ruthless dictators, but once again, it doesn't have shyt to do with atheism at all. I'm not comparing them as human beings, but as atheists. Can you say Stephen Hawking is a "better atheist" than Stalin (I know my examples are a bit extreme)? Neither are a representation of atheism/atheists.