• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Survey

Malintent said:
It is a little embarrassing to read responses from you guys that quibble over the phrasing of the question, "how many...".
Click to expand...

I guess I missed the instruction to disable my sense of humor before viewing/responding to the OP. The OP was a well-poisoning post filled with snide derision in just a handful of sentences, and I felt the best way to deal with it was to make fun of the entire post.

Malintent said:
There is a group of people in a room working late.. an admin comes in and asks, "how many people want pizza?" Is a reasonable response from intelligent adults, "I don't know how many people want pizza, so go away"? Or, more likely, would there be a chorus of people saying, "I do" or "no thank you", and then the admin confirms, "ok, so 5 people are eating, should be about 45 minutes".
Click to expand...

That's gonna depend on the group of people. I know plenty of people, myself included, who would have answered that question the same way I answered the OP, given the right environment.
 
Last edited:
KeepTalking said:
I guess I missed the instruction to disable my sense of humor before viewing/responding to the OP. The OP was a well-poisoning post filled with snide derision in just a handful of sentences, and I felt the best way to deal with it was to make fun of the entire post.
Click to expand...
What?

How many of you would like to burn all books and artwork associated with religion, so as to remove its destructive influence upon mankind? :cheeky:
 
Malintent said:
It is a little embarrassing to read responses from you guys that quibble over the phrasing of the question, "how many...".

There is a group of people in a room working late.. an admin comes in and asks, "how many people want pizza?" Is a reasonable response from intelligent adults, "I don't know how many people want pizza, so go away"? Or, more likely, would there be a chorus of people saying, "I do" or "no thank you", and then the admin confirms, "ok, so 5 people are eating, should be about 45 minutes".
Click to expand...
I'd agree if DLH was an honest participant here.
 
Kharakov said:
KeepTalking said:
I guess I missed the instruction to disable my sense of humor before viewing/responding to the OP. The OP was a well-poisoning post filled with snide derision in just a handful of sentences, and I felt the best way to deal with it was to make fun of the entire post.
Click to expand...
What?

How many of you would like to burn all books and artwork associated with religion, so as to remove its destructive influence upon mankind? :cheeky:
Click to expand...

Oops, I crossed this thread with the one where he called us all stupid, and claimed to have livened up the place.

(ETA: fixed the original)
 
Raised moderate "Christian", but never really resonated with it. Openly declared my non-belief at age 15.

The word "destroyed" implies some external force laying violent waste to it. That isn't possible. Violence cannot destroy ideas or poor thinking. Also, the worst ideas promoted by most religions (and all monotheism) is that of authoritarianism and anti-liberty. External violence would only reinforce those ideas and values. That is why the actions of communist states against religion were themselves just a form of non-supernatural religion reinforcing bad values. This is why the worst most unreasoned forms of Christianity are spreading like wildfire in China and Russia. They are feeding off the very values of the authoritarian force that suppressed them.

I would like to see the number of people who accept religious claims, theistically-based morality, and accept faith as a valid epistemology go ever downward toward zero. I'd love to see churches either empty or used for a more positive social purpose (which includes a micro brewery). I'd like to see no politician ever use God or religious text as a rationale for any policy. I'd like to see formal ethics panels constructed where no one thinks it is important to have a religious authority there. I like a world where no one cares what the pope thinks, unless he is speaking on an issue where he has secularly based credentials and vetted expertise. But I don't want any of this to happen by way of coercion, because coercion is the way of religion and its most harmful quality. I would like to see this happen by way of people willingly engaging in more informed and rational thought, rejecting notions that cultural tradition has any inherent value, and coming to realize the inherent subjectivity and social construction of all morality and thus take responsibility for their own ethics.
 
Brought up RC, started questioning it at about 6 years old, fully atheist by my 12th birthday.

Would I like to see religion "destroyed"? No, that's not an option. You can't make people stop believing in something, unless you go down the fascism route and forcibly indoctrinate them. What I'd like is for religion to lose its influence as more people are educated in how to think for themselves, and see it for the nonsense it so palpably is, to the point where nobody takes it seriously anymore. I think this will eventually happen but, sadly, not in my lifetime.
 
OK, thanks.. I get it... The quibbling was illustrative / responsive of the OPs lack of competence. I noted that too.
 
DLH said:
How many atheists here were once Christian?

If you answered yes, would you like to see religion destroyed and the same question to those who said no.
Click to expand...
I an an ex-Christian. I would prefer to see religion gone from the world, except I fear the ideologies that would replace Christianity, as they tend to be more frightening. Opposition to religion is too narrow. I oppose all ideologies.
 
Merriam Webster says it's skeptic, and sceptic is considered a "chiefly British variant."

When I see it spelled sceptic, I know it means skeptic, but it still looks like septic to me.
 
bilby said:
hylidae said:
Merriam Webster says it's skeptic, and sceptic is considered a "chiefly British variant."

When I see it spelled sceptic, I know it means skeptic, but it still looks like septic to me.
Click to expand...

Nah, septic is definitely American.
Click to expand...

Well, then, it must be superior. This, is a septic thinking tank. Everything is non-void.

Do do do.

 
hylidae said:
Merriam Webster says it's skeptic, and sceptic is considered a "chiefly British variant."

When I see it spelled sceptic, I know it means skeptic, but it still looks like septic to me.
Click to expand...
And more than a few thumpers gleefully use the sceptic/septic conflation....
 
Keith&Co. said:
hylidae said:
Merriam Webster says it's skeptic, and sceptic is considered a "chiefly British variant."

When I see it spelled sceptic, I know it means skeptic, but it still looks like septic to me.
Click to expand...
And more than a few thumpers gleefully use the sceptic/septic conflation....
Click to expand...

It's because they know atheists are little baby cecotropes, who confuse their own coprophagia and need for prepooped information with the Bible being bullshit, instead of bereshit. Not all shit is the same...
 
Keith&Co. said:
hylidae said:
Merriam Webster says it's skeptic, and sceptic is considered a "chiefly British variant."

When I see it spelled sceptic, I know it means skeptic, but it still looks like septic to me.
Click to expand...
And more than a few thumpers gleefully use the sceptic/septic conflation....
Click to expand...

Well, how could you not?

- - - Updated - - -

Kharakov said:
Keith&Co. said:
And more than a few thumpers gleefully use the sceptic/septic conflation....
Click to expand...

It's because they know atheists are little baby cecotropes, who confuse their own coprophagia and need for prepooped information with the Bible being bullshit, instead of bereshit. Not all shit is the same...
Click to expand...

I thought so.
 
DLH said:
Keith&Co. said:
And more than a few thumpers gleefully use the sceptic/septic conflation....
Click to expand...

Well, how could you not?

- - - Updated - - -

Kharakov said:
Keith&Co. said:
And more than a few thumpers gleefully use the sceptic/septic conflation....
Click to expand...

It's because they know atheists are little baby cecotropes, who confuse their own coprophagia and need for prepooped information with the Bible being bullshit, instead of bereshit. Not all shit is the same...
Click to expand...

I thought so.
Click to expand...

To the poop, all things are poop; butt to those who are defilled and unbelieving, nothing is poop, butt both their mind and their conscience are defilled (with nothing).


If only there was a bible passage that an asshole could fill (or did he mean an asshole that a bible passage could fill? hmmm).  Red_Hot_Catholic_Love
 
Everybody poops, so no I don't mind poop. What I do mind is religious people who seem to think they understand everything. But I think maybe our disagreement on religious matters is derailing this thread that DLH started. The main reason I joined this thread is because I am still pissed off at the Southern Baptists who taught me that I will be on fire for eternity if I didn't follow all their rules.
 
What is our disagreement on religious matters? As to the mind pooping thing... it's mind poop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom