I am so sick of the righteous sanctimonious bullshit that comes with Christian beliefs. The God of Gaps is the only damn argument they have.
IT LITERALLY DOESN’T MATTER HOW HARD I DEBATE WITH THEM!!!
There’s always a bullshit answer that makes no fuckimg sense. I’m throwing my hands up. I’m done with them!
I could say anything & it’s always “God did this or God did that” and try hamfisting their bullshit into science and say something cant come from nothing. But when we use this argument against them their answer is “well God is eternal” and they dont go further with that. The entire religion is a fucking joke. I am so fucking sick of them and their self righteous cult. They are completely the worst group of disrespectful delusional fanatics I’ve ever had to put up with in my entire life.
I just wanna find a place where they aren’t allowed. A nice Atheist community run town that runs them off and censors them like they do everyone else who offends them.
Now I’m being serious here. As Greg House famously said 'if you could reason with religious people there wouldn’t be any". That is to say that religious beliefs
are based on Faith. A definition of faith is “belief in that not seen”. IE Superstition.
Those with faith based beliefs are impervious to facts and reason.
To support my claim:
Jesus himself is reported as saying: John 20:29 "Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (IE believe blindly)
As for reason: Martin Luther, father of the Protestant Reformation and founder of Lutheranism said:
" Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and an manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed,-------" etc etc ad nauseum
So, to try to argue with a believer is to beat your head against a wall.—It might feel good each time you stop, but will eventually cause you brain damage.
I fear the US is doomed, everything now has religious undertones.
The UK isn’t too bad, but we do typically worry about offending others, so someone can spout religious blah blah and when questioned on it, they cry and moan and we all have to polite and understanding.
Thats the ‘royal we’ by the way, I personally relish annoying theists.
I think the whole learn from history is lost on many people.
Vaccines have improved our survival and so many parents did not have to nurse or watch their children die from chicken pox, small pox, measles, tetanus, polio… etc etc
SO now these just “went away” because back then the air was cleaner and there was no gmo, and the water wasn’t fluorinated, and women were home cooking homemade meals plucked strait from the garden.
AND back then, a woman crossed her legs, held out till marriage and those marriages lasted. Abortion wasn’t an “option”.
A recent repeat of past history may be necessary. I’m in no way encouraging it, but if it pushes through (ignorance) it will naturally occur.
A return to abandoned babies, infanticide, scammers (via adoption agencies) and back alley abortions… a mutated virus that evolves “faster” than “natural” immunity .
MY hope??? Obviously that a woman retains her ability to choose. BUT, as Cranks always says, there are no “rights” except those granted by governments. MY hope is that those that can be vaccinated (no allergy to ingredients or other medical reasons), get vaccinated worldwide, but it does not appear likely and there will be consequences…
This is very true, and sadly those who are thick skinned and narrow minded therefore tend to be heard perhaps more than they should, but on the whole it’s not a bad trait to have, being inoffensive
Again i have found this, people feel they have the right to say whatever they want, but the minute you politely point out they’re spiel is irrational and unevidenced it’s like you’ve kicked their mother in the cu*t on mother’s day. FWIW I reserve the right to point and laugh if someone says something stupid, but try not make my life a misery when I do it.
Again I know what you mean, if they leave me alone I will leave them alone, most of my friends and family are atheists anyway, but there are some notable exceptions, and we generally don’t discuss it.
Careful what you wish for… Their freedoms are also your freedoms. The fact that they abuse their freedoms with ignoance and stupidity, is no reason to ban them from the use of that freedom. I strongly suggest that you focus on helping those with healthy minds and spend way less time on the unevoloved.
Someone asked Matt Dilahaunty; “Don’t you get tired of this shit?” His reply was epic and hits this issue square between the eyes.
Of course he admits to getting tired of the same old bullshit after 20 years of it. That’s why he has a TV show and a Podcast, and does everything publically. He does not give a shit about the idiot on the other end of that phone line, or the moron he might be debating. He is not doing it for them. He is doing it for the people that might be listening in. He is doing it so that other people out there will know that there is someone standing against this ignorance we call religion.
Change your focus MrDawn. Next time you have a talk with an ignorant theists, record it and put it on line. Videotape it. Show it to the world. After all, isn’t it the truth you care about and not the blind fool standing in front of you spouting his or her delusional nonsense?
…and that is exactly the reason why I bother arguing with creationists, flat-earthers(*), religious nutcases and science cranks. I don’t do it to convince the unconvincable, but to let the silent bystanders know that the shit the knuckle-dragging mouth breathers present is being challenged, and to be presented with science based counterarguments and even proof, if applicable. Also, there is an element of entertainment in it for me.
(*) however, it seems like the steam has gone out of the flerfers over at the other forum I’m frequenting, as it’s been a while since the last time they were active.
Vaccination against small pox was used at least in the eighteenth century as far as I know. Some doctors knew it worked but didn’t know why.
One of my favourites is the building of the London sewers in the nineteenth century. Large number of people were dying of typhus due to contaminated drinking water. The Thames was used as a massive open sewer. Apparently the stench was eyewatering. At that time disease was associated with bad air, ‘miasma’.
Joseph Bazalgette built the sewers to remove the pong. The waste was released much further down stream where it was removed by the tide. The stink left, so did the typhus.
Trivia; Unsafe water was why people drank beer instead, even to relatively recent times. However, this was ‘small beer’ with a low alcohol content of around 1%
There was an outbreak of cholera in a London borough. One doctor (using the scientific method) traced all cases to a single water supply. He couldn’t prove it was causing the epidemic, but asked the borough council to close it. They initially refused, but eventually it was closed, and the outbreak ceased.
Untreated sewage was seeping into that water supply, and of course as science has now demonstrated Cholera is a water born disease, often originating in raw human sewage.
The ‘small beer’ to which I referred was drunk much earlier, as in Medieval times. Wasn’t aware the alcohol content was so high in the1920’s.
"At mealtimes in the Middle Ages, all drank small beer, regardless of age, particularly while eating a meal at the table. Table beer was around this time typically less than 1% ABV.
It was common for workers who engaged in laborious tasks to drink more than ten imperialpints (5.7 litres) of small beer a day to quench their thirst. Small beer was also consumed for its nutrition content. It might contain traces of wheat or bread suspended within it."
In 17th century England, it was an excise class which was determined by its wholesale price. Between the years 1782 and 1802, table beer was said to define that which cost between six and eleven shillings per barrel and the tax on this class was around three shillings. Cheaper beer was considered small beer while the more expensive brands were classed as strong (big) beer. The differences between small beer and table beer were removed in 1802 because there was much fraudulent mixing of the types.
Just sent an enquiry to my old school…apparently beer was served at varying strengths, 10 years olds got small beer, strapping louts of Flashman type at age 16+ got mild ale of about 2.5% Holiday beer consumed on Feast days and the like was 3.5% and then there was High Holiday and Founders Ale which was much stronger (up to 8%!!!). He is going to look at the old brewing yard recipes.
Bloody hell! The strongest beer I’ve ever had was in Yorkshire. “Old Peculiar”, and that was only about 6% from memory. Nice drop.
I stopped drinking in 2002, so I’m relying on memory . My favourite SA beer was Cooper’s Pale Ale at about 4%. I could drink a slab of that before I fell down*** Too bloody expensive for a hard core alkie. I drank ghastly cask wine instead; 5 litres for $10. I understand it was laced with glycerine to stop people gagging.
*** My dad always said you’re not drunk until you fall down. Never understood how he was never pinged for drink driving. I suppose he might have been, and he was too embarrassed to say…
Exactly right, science is a robust method, so confidence in its methods is warranted based on its demonstrable and measurable success. However speaking as a layman I am cautious about claims, as I know only too well that people dishonestly try to lend kudos to their beliefs and claims, by lying that they are supported by “science”, when they palpably are not.
As have I, and so I have learned to view all claims critically, and examine what I believe to ensure warrants that belief. When appeal to authority fallacies attempt to claim scientific evidence with broad sweeping claims, as the press sometimes do, I have learned to watch for the tell tale tone and absolute nature of the language and wording. Often the headline is plain wrong, but the article is peppered with scientific evidence, like creationists who cite physics, then make unevidenced assumptions about those facts derived from physics.
For example, that the universe we observe can only exist as we see it, in a very narrow set of parameters, which is true, then the unevidenced assumption this means it must be fine tuned, and of course requires a “tuner”.
And saying what something is not instead of defining it clearly is apophatic and not science. Shall we continue?
Homosexuality is not science. Hunger is not science. Chest pains are not science. My left testical is not science. The horse you rode in on is not science. The gooch or AGD is not science. Agastopia is not science. Kakorrhaphiophobia, is not science. Axter is not science. Zoanthropy is not science either. My therapist has assured me. How many other things can imagine are not science.
The challenge for that writer is to make a list of some things which are science, and why. Any dill can make a list about just about anything. Without explanation, such list may be taken as unfounded opinion and dismissed.
A pet hate is to hear any true believer pontificate about what they are against. I like to challenge them to tell me in detail what they are for, and why.