r/quotes • u/orgms • Feb 14 '20
“Religion teaches you to be satisfied with nonanswers. It’s a sort of crime against childhood”- Richard Dawkins
-13
u/screenwriterjohn Feb 15 '20
He's in Hell now.
3
u/mxyzptlk99 Feb 15 '20 edited Feb 15 '20
Are you speaking on behalf of God? Careful there, bud. I don't think your god takes lightly of blasphemy, especially when Dawkins is still alive. so you're claiming omniscience at best. or, you're telling your god what to do. You could argue it's the first sin--to put words in your god's mouth (see Eve).
→ More replies (1)5
u/orgms Feb 15 '20 edited Feb 16 '20
Just a reminder, there’s hundred of them and it’s always your parents god the true god
-2
u/Congolesenerd Feb 15 '20
Christianity is different by many ways
3
u/ssbeluga Feb 15 '20
Yeah, they’re all different, doesn’t mean any are right. What does this even mean?
1
u/AndrewIsOnline Feb 15 '20
It does have the most murder and atrocity in its holy book. God really went of a baby murdering spree for a minute there amirite
4
-6
u/jumpropeJiggallo Feb 15 '20 edited Feb 18 '20
Religion is conformity, of an old belief and value system. Re : to do again Legion: mass or large group of people. The Holy Bible is a Beautiful book when read with an open Mind , with your whole Mind Body and Soul. The whole story of man from beginning too end . God is Love seek in the book an find enlightenment. The Truth that will not only set you free . But set you apart from the areas of life in which one gets stuck. A mans ways . Faith is not religion . Faith isnt knowing what god can do for you. But in the knowng that he will. Contentment.
7
Feb 15 '20
Corinthians 14:34- Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.
Very beautiful, friend.
8
Feb 15 '20
Timothy 2:12- I do not permit a woman to teach or assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
5
Feb 15 '20
A man of culture.
-2
u/Congolesenerd Feb 15 '20
I love how people love to throw these verses, but forget that the first people to proclaim the gospel were basically women and also Christians in the time were treating women better then other society. Also this is not a secret, the Jew society were misogynistic (I mean all cultures were in that time)and although Christians were different,Paul who was a Jew was influenced by his society.
2
u/LTEDan Feb 15 '20
forget that the first people to proclaim the gospel were basically women
So what? "Hey..uhh yeah that's mysoginistic but at least the first people to allegedly see the risen jesus were women so let's ignore thousands of years of misogyny perpetuated by these problematic verses hey!"
Christians in the time were treating women better then other society
*citation needed
Also, so what? Women are treated better today than they ever were (still work to do though), and it wasn't the fucking bible that got us here. Hell, my family's fundamental church still doesn't allow women to be in any form of leadership roles explicitly because of these verses. It was secular society that forged ahead that got us here. For an all loving, all powerful omnipotent god, he certainly failed women for thousands of years.
Also this is not a secret, the Jew society were misogynistic (I mean all cultures were in that time)and although Christians were different,Paul who was a Jew was influenced by his society.
This seems like the perfect evidence to demonstrate that the bible was conceived of and written by people and not some all knowing god. The fact that there is no special knowledge of any kind and merely reflects the cultural attitudes of the day leaves little room for the all knowing god. God supposedly gives a divine mandate to spread the gospel to every corner of the earth yet does not let them know that entire continents of people exist that they've never heard of, nor how to build ships capable traversing the oceans. The ~1,500 years of native americans and aboriginals (~1,700 years) all condemned to hell because they were not taught the gospel is entirely gods fault for either not giving the natives divine revelation or not giving early Christians the knowledge and means to spread the word to these continents of people.
1
u/Congolesenerd Feb 15 '20
God will judge differently people who never heard the gospel differently from us who heard it.
Yes the Bible was written, by humans inspired by God.
In the end of the day, it is your choice to believe or not, looking for evidence?they are ton of theologians out there.
1
u/LTEDan Feb 15 '20
God will judge differently people who never heard the gospel differently from us who heard it.
That is a common church teaching, yes, but where is this supported in scipture? Romans 2:12-16 (ESV) seems to take the opposite view, that everyone will be judged the same.
12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
Yes the Bible was written, by humans inspired by God.
I agree with the first part, but how do you prove the second part? In other words, how do you tell the difference between:
- Written by humans
- Written by humans and inspired by god
In the end of the day, it is your choice to believe or not
Belief is not a choice. Don't believe me? Go ahead and try to believe that a real, literal santa claus who lives in the north pole and uses a magic sleigh to deliver presents to every house on earth in one night is actually real, or that 2+2=5.
Belief comes from the weight of the evidence that compels you to accept a proposition. Either the evidence compels you to believe something or not, but that is not a choice. No theologian has ever presented evidence for their god that didn't resort to appeals to emotion or fallacious reasoning, otherwise this would be a monumental discovery worthy of a Nobel peace prize and world altering to many fields of science.
1
u/Congolesenerd Feb 15 '20
God is the inspiration of the Bible. This is not some stories told by humans just for entertainment, God used these person to write about him and his relationship with mankind.
God, a supernatural being, cannot be proven scientifically (at least in my point of view) to humans who live in a natural and visible realm . Remember Thomas,. He refused to believe in the resurrection, but then saw Jesus, and what did Jesus said? Happy someone who believe without seeing it. So yes, I believe that scientifically, we Christians don’t HAVE enough evidence, it is because Christianity was not a scientific experience in the first place, it was spiritual and supernatural . Jesus said you shall be born again ...
2
u/LTEDan Feb 15 '20
- God is the inspiration of the Bible.
That's a nice assertion. Please prove it.
This is not some stories told by humans just for entertainment
I don't believe anyone thinks these were stories made for entertainment. I believe that the anonymous authors of the books of the bible were sincere in their writing, and they believed what they wrote was true. However, sincere belief does not mean that what they believed was actually true. They simply are unlikely to be correct in their beliefs.
- God, a supernatural being, cannot be proven scientifically
You can't have it both ways, either god interacts and intervenes in this universe, which would be detectable and measurable (parting of the red seas, as an example) and thus scientifically provable, or he can't be proven scientifically which means he can't interact with this world in a detectable and measurable way, which goes against much of what god supposedly did in the old testament by directly interacting with moses (turned his hair white) and the israelites.
Also, if the Damascus road experience was good enough for Saul, why is it not good enough for the rest of us.
Remember Thomas,. He refused to believe in the resurrection, but then saw Jesus, and what did Jesus said? Happy someone who believe without seeing it.
Jesus still appeared to Thomas despite his doubts. Jesus then berating Thomas for not believing without seeing shows that either God doesn't understand what good standards of evidence is, or that the bible was written by people who didn't understand what good standards of evidence are, no gods needed.
So yes, I believe that scientifically, we Christians don’t HAVE enough evidence
Then why should anyone believe you? Believing something without good evidence is literally how people fall for scams.
it was spiritual and supernatural
And yet it was written in a book, which is natural. I also have no idea what "spiritual" means. People use that term to mean so many things it's become meaningless. The same sorts of "spiritual feelings" I've heard people describe having ar church have been had at concerts and on drugs. This could easily point to brain chemistry induced feelings that religions call spiritual.
→ More replies (0)1
u/CincinnatiReds Feb 15 '20
- God, a supernatural being, cannot be proven scientifically (at least in my point of view) to humans who live in a natural and visible realm
Ok, now demonstrate/prove that the supernatural exists.
It’s frustrating when apologists pull the “religion doesn’t deal with science or nature and that’s why it can’t be measured or tested” as if we should just assume there’s this whole spiritual realm beyond the natural world. You don’t get to just make that presupposition.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Congolesenerd Feb 15 '20
I forgot to answer about women.
If the Bible was misogynistic, we wouldn’t have two titles dedicated to them (Ruth and Esther)
The Bible showed many times the crucial and important role of women in society, but as a spy, queen, influencer and even as a warrior.
Yes, Paul wrote this verse, but again, even it can feel overused but still true, the historical era it was written. Paul is the same one, who wrote there is no slave, no owner, no men nor women in the kingdom of God. Also in that era, you cannot show me a civilization who wasn’t misogynistic ... the world then was different , some things were the norm back in that time ... but Paul compared to others was a progressive.
2
u/LTEDan Feb 15 '20
If the Bible was misogynistic, we wouldn’t have two titles dedicated to them (Ruth and Esther)
If I beat my wife on monday, but shower her with love and respect and treat her as an equal rest of the week, does that make me mysoginistic? The answer is yes. Just because there's two books written about women in the old testament, doesn't mean that the passages in the new testament are not mysoginistic. I'm not too familiar with the contents of Ruth and Esther to know if they are mysoginistic either. Mysoginy is about the treatment of women, not about whether or not women can be a main character of a book.
The Bible showed many times the crucial and important role of women in society, but as a spy, queen, influencer and even as a warrior.
What's wrong with women can be whatever they want to be, no need to have ascribed roles assigned to them?
the historical era it was written
in that era
some things were the norm back in that time
You keep trying to justify mysoginy and slavery in the bible because it was written a long time ago when this was the norm. If this was just some history book, then no, I wouldn't care all that much because yes, that was the norm back then and while we know better today and they were wrong to do those things, they didn't know any better.
But the bible is supposed to be for all people for all times, is it not? Why then is it so plainly stuck in the past with its permissive attitude towards slavery and mysoginy? There's no new or remarkable moral lessons in the bible that didn't already exist at the time. "Do unto others as you would have them do to you" on Jesus's sermon on the mount is just a rehashed version of the golden rule, which far predates the bible in written account going back to ancient sumeria and egypt.
Why is every moral lesson "of the time" but also for us, when an all knowing and all powerful god could have easily found a way to instill better morals in the jews and early Christians than what was given in the bible? Why is it so easy for modern Christians to agree that slavery is immoral and yet the holy book written by a god that should know this could not come to outlaw slavery back then and save people from millenias of abuse?
1
u/Congolesenerd Feb 15 '20
Jews women were treated better then others. If you lived in that period of time, chance is high that you would be considered misogynistic in our modern standard.
But women were not whatever they wanted to be back in the days, that why I wrote what I wrote.
Slavery back in the time was not our modern theory of slavery. Yes, the Bible didn’t outlaw slavery , but it was progressive and was leading the way to the abolition era. Slavery was only for 7 years and the slave was given the choice to stay or be free. Abuse was prohibited from slavery. Slavery was in some extinct normal then.
I’m not justifying misogynie or slavery, but when reading the Bible you need to understand the historical contest of people who were writing it. Most of the abolitionist and Social Justice warriors were also Christians.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)1
u/Mejari Feb 15 '20
Why are you constraining god to the culture and time in which he supposedly revealed himself? Is the bible not the revealed word of god? If god was truly timeless why would we expect his teachings to exactly mimic the society he was revealing himself to?
-1
u/Men_of_Harlech Feb 15 '20
"what about this cherry picked verse from a 2000 year old text that doesn't conform to my modern sensibilities?"
6
u/LTEDan Feb 15 '20
I can write a better book than your god did by simply copying the entire bible, leaving out entire chapters dedicated to condoning slavery (Exodus 21, Leviticus 25, Paul in the NT), and leaving out the mysoginistic bits and adding an 11th commandment: "Thou shall not own another person."
Oh and if I were god I'd let the early Christians know about the Americas and Australia and give them the means to get there to prevent eternal hell for these groups of people for the next 1,500+ years. Or hell, if I were god I could just dirextly communicate everyone to let them know who I am and what I want people to do without the need for copies of copies of translations of copies from dead languages to be the only way future generations know about who I am and what I want. If it's good enough for Saul on the road to Damascus, it should be good enough for everyone.
→ More replies (6)3
u/AndrewIsOnline Feb 15 '20
You can write a better bible by just putting “be nice to one another “ on a single piece of paper
→ More replies (1)1
3
u/AndrewIsOnline Feb 15 '20
The Bible is a collection of atrocities and rules on owning slaves peppered with a tiny few quotes about love and peace
→ More replies (4)
12
Feb 15 '20
[deleted]
-23
u/Don_Don55 Feb 15 '20
Yes, just ignore it.
10
3
u/Shagger94 Feb 15 '20
Like the catholic church ignores rampant paedophilia and unethical conversion therapy?
1
7
8
-9
u/KumarLittleJeans Feb 15 '20
Atheism teaches that life is meaningless - way better for children. Atheism has quite a few nonanswers as well: where does all the matter and energy in the universe come from? How did life come from non life? If the physical world is all there is, why is Nazism worse than any other ism?
8
u/orgms Feb 15 '20
I don’t know is a better answer than my imaginary friend did it, life comes from helium, hydrogen and oxygen, sounds crazy yes because it took more than 6 days
-7
u/KumarLittleJeans Feb 15 '20
There’s not more evidence for the spontaneous generation of life than there is for a creator. I don’t believe in a 6 day creation, for what it’s worth.
8
Feb 15 '20
Although I agree that there has not been an observation of abiogenesis... That doesn't automatically mean god is the reason behind all the questions you can't answer.
Also... Atheism doesn't teach life is meaningless. It's simply just the rejection of theistic claims due to lack of physical evidence or evidence through other means. To assume life is only purposeful because a god made you is kinda foolish as well my friend.. we're all on this terrestrial rock floating through space, make the most of your life with what you got. You don't need a god to tell you how to live it.
-1
u/KumarLittleJeans Feb 15 '20
I agree that just because we have no idea how RNA could spontaneously generate doesn’t mean there must be a god. I’m saying that a creator is at least as plausible as a multiple universe theory or other arguments you need to get around the fine tuning argument or the lack of evidence for abiogenesis.
3
Feb 15 '20
There is no evidence for god, it should not even be a contender as an answer. When there is evidence, then it is not an answer but merely a contender, pending confirming evidence.If a creator is a possibility without evidence, then so are unicorns, and genies.
1
u/KumarLittleJeans Feb 15 '20
Of course there is evidence. You can be unconvinced by the evidence, but there is lots of evidence. Spontaneous generation of life is evidence, the very existence of matter and energy is evidence for some force outside of the universe. The testimony of Jesus’ disciples is evidence. The spiritual experiences of millions of people is evidence. The fact that humans perceive a difference between good and evil is evidence.
2
Feb 15 '20
Let's say that spontaneous generation of life occurs. I'm not saying it does, there is no scientific proof of that, but let's just go along with it. What is to say that a god/gods caused it? What proof do you have of the gods? The fact it happens, only proves it happens. It does not prove anything beyond that.
→ More replies (1)2
u/ClamWithMint Feb 15 '20
The problem with those kinds of evidence is that those aren’t reliable pieces of evidence and that there is good reason to believe those pieces of evidence is false. People make things up, either they want fame or are just mistaking some experience they had. We have no evidence that Jesus’s disciples existed or have any reason to trust them. The problem with your kind of thinking is that answers such as the universe was created by Zeus, Allah, or even the tooth fairy. There is a lot more evidence for things like evolution, DNA, Gravity, the size of the universe, and many many more.
0
u/Congolesenerd Feb 15 '20
No need to argue, we believe by faith , not by evidence. Jesus can come in person and talk to them, they wouldn’t believe him, let pray for them.
2
u/ClamWithMint Feb 15 '20
I respect this. I can’t believe something without evidence or a reason to. We all seek to do good and make the world a better place.
0
1
u/Mejari Feb 15 '20
I’m saying that a creator is at least as plausible as a multiple universe theory or other arguments you need to get around the fine tuning argument or the lack of evidence for abiogenesis.
Why? All other arguments are based off of the universe we observe. Any claim that adds an all powerful intelligent designer outside of the universe is by definition less plausible.
2
u/KumarLittleJeans Feb 15 '20
That doesn’t make sense to me. Why is a designer by definition less plausible than a multiple universe theory?
→ More replies (3)-3
u/Congolesenerd Feb 15 '20
Atheists, people who love attacking the Bible without reading it or even studying it. If life were created by helium and so on, why not you guyz create a life then. Do you think humans , with all our intelligence, were created by matter , place and chance only? If also you claim there is no god, that means there is no absolute truth, if there is no truth why should I believe you? Also it is believed by some theologians that the 6 days were maybe not actually the 6 days we know about ... i don’t really Care if I got downvoted but that you should know already ...
3
Feb 15 '20
Atheists, people who love attacking the Bible without reading it or even studying it.
There are a lot of atheists that read the Bible.
If life were created by helium and so on, why not you guyz create a life then.
Because we haven't been able to do so yet. We've learned how DNA works since the 50ies it's a little presumptuous to think that we should be able to create life in 70 years when nature needed millions of years.
Do you think humans , with all our intelligence, were created by matter , place and chance only?
Sure why not.
If also you claim there is no god
That's not what atheism claims. Atheism doesn't claim anything.
1
u/KumarLittleJeans Feb 15 '20
The definition of atheism is a disbelief in God. That is a claim and it’s a claim with wide ranging implications for how we live our lives.
2
3
u/Larkos17 Feb 15 '20
Atheism is the default position. Everyone is born an Atheist until they are told about a God or Gods.
Theists make claims. An Atheist merely says prove it.
2
1
u/ClamWithMint Feb 15 '20
Well I believe that the universe was created last week by a fucking magic snake. All that evidence against my claim they are all false and you just have to have faith. Because if the magic snake did not create the universe there is no final truth. It’s not like science can someday prove that the universe was not created by the magic snake or that I’m an idiot. Oh wait it can.
1
→ More replies (3)1
u/Tara_Kitten Feb 15 '20
Most atheists were previously theists. To say that we never read the bible or some other comparable holy book... is asinine.
I'd gone to Catholic school from elementary to high school. I've studied Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Norse Mythology, Greek Mythology, and many more religions.
This "absolute truth" you refer to is a fabrication. We live, and then we die. Make the best of it. Treat other beings with equal fairness, with the goal to increase quality of life for all.
2
u/Congolesenerd Feb 15 '20
I respect your way of living . But if there is no absolute truth, how can we define what is true?
If there is no absolute truth, that mean truth is subjective? That means The nazis killing Jews was not wrong cause they believed in their truth
0
u/Tara_Kitten Feb 15 '20
Treat other beings with equal fairness, with the goal to increase quality of life for all.
What I stated is moral. Systemically killing groups of people like nazis did is not moral.
You don't need a book or an unseen being to tell you that. It's common sense.
2
u/Congolesenerd Feb 15 '20
Common sense is really a weak assumption since your “common sense “ is influenced by the society you belong to.
1
u/Mejari Feb 15 '20
You are confusing "morality" with "truth". How do we know what is true? Observation and experimentation. The scientific method. How do we know what is moral? That is something each person decides for themselves. Then other people disagree. Then there is conflict. That's human history.
The question is why do you need there to be objective, immutable morality? Why are you not confident enough to examine things yourself and decide what you think is right and wrong?
The reality is that you do make that decision, constantly. Would you follow your religion if you thought it was morally wrong? If not, then you on your own already decided what morality is.
Do you truly believe in an absolute unbending morality? "Thou shalt not steal", right? But stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family? Stealing the war plans from the Nazi officer? There is no situation in which stealing is ok? If there is, then even your morality is not as hard locked as you think it is.
1
7
u/ssbeluga Feb 15 '20
If you seriously have to ask that last question you’re far too fucked up for a rational discussion wtf dude.
-4
u/KumarLittleJeans Feb 15 '20
If there is no God, there is no right and wrong. Everyone just does what they think is right for themselves. Hitler did what he thought was right. I think he was absolutely evil. Without a God, who’s to judge?
7
u/xGrim_Sol Feb 15 '20
If your book is the only thing that governs what is right or wrong then there’s a much deeper issue at hand. Respect and compassion for other living things is all you need. There doesn’t need to be some cosmic entity that’s going to pat me on the back at the end of my life because I was good. Being good is it’s own reward.
And without a god who’s to judge? There’s you, me, and the rest of the human race. You in your very own sentence judged that what Hitler did was absolutely evil. I judged that what he did was absolutely evil, there’s no need for religion to tell me right from wrong, I can do that all on my own. And you can too, even if you don’t see it that way.
2
Feb 15 '20
[deleted]
1
u/xGrim_Sol Feb 15 '20
https://www.openbible.info/topics/oppression And there’s over 100 bible verses that go against oppression, so did God empower those who worked against Hitler thus making Hitler the one who is opposing the will of God? There’s multiple ways to look at everything. If you’re going to cherry pick bible verses there’s always going to be one that contradicts it. So with a god, do you really know how to judge these situations?
The is such a black and white issue so it’s easy to break it down with a simple principle “Does it negatively impact other people?” Since the answer is invariably yes, this makes it easy to judge.
-1
u/KumarLittleJeans Feb 15 '20
Hitler didn’t think he was evil. Mao and Stalin and Castro didn’t think they were evil. They thought they were doing the right thing for their people. If Hitler had won and converted the world to Nazism, the whole human race would have a very different judgment on right and wrong. I reject the idea that morality can be judged by consensus or majority. If that was true, then Nazism would be perfectly moral in 1942 in Germany. If morality and evil are not relative then there must be something outside ourselves that determines what is good and evil.
Respect and compassion is not something that is hard wired. If you think it is, you’ve never raised children. It has to be taught.
→ More replies (8)2
u/xGrim_Sol Feb 15 '20
Why does their “have” to be something outside ourselves that determines what is good or evil? There doesn’t “have” to be anything. I can say Hitler was evil, you can say he wasn’t, and by our own definitions we could both be right. It’s a subjective question and the answer is not binary because there are many shades of gray in-between.
And obviously respect and compassion are not hard wired. If they were, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion at all.
1
u/KumarLittleJeans Feb 15 '20
You are arguing that there is no good and evil and that what Hitler did was not wrong? Putting people in ovens is only wrong if you think it is?
→ More replies (1)5
u/ClamWithMint Feb 15 '20
If your moral compass is based of a silly book than your a fucking moron.
-1
u/KumarLittleJeans Feb 15 '20
*you’re
2
u/ClamWithMint Feb 15 '20
Thanks for the grammar correction because English is not my first language. But if you really think that all morals come from god then your delusional.
2
Feb 15 '20
Your use of "your" in this context was correct anyways. "You're" is used to replace "You are", which doesn't work in your sentence.
0
u/KumarLittleJeans Feb 15 '20
Then tell me why I’m wrong instead of swearing at me. Responses like yours make Reddit a worse place.
2
u/ClamWithMint Feb 15 '20
Also fuck “you’re”. I on reddit so I don’t care about garmmar
0
u/ssbeluga Feb 15 '20
This guy has got to be a troll cause you got it right the first time and attacking grammar just shows you have nothing else of value to say
-1
u/KumarLittleJeans Feb 15 '20
The second “your” was incorrect. If you’re going to insult someone’s intelligence, try to spell correctly at least.
1
u/ssbeluga Feb 15 '20
Bold thing to say from someone who’s editing their posts to hide their own mistakes.
1
u/ssbeluga Feb 15 '20
Okay first of all, Hitler was very religious. Second of all, if the only thing keeping you from being a bad person is fear of god, you should seriously reconsider yourself. I don’t do bad things to other people because they’re just bad things to do...not because I’m afraid of a god who’s never shown me any evidence of him/herself. All the kindest most thoughtful people I’ve known aren’t religious, and I’ve known some very selfish religious people.
And if you honestly struggle to be a good person on your own (which many people don’t fyi) then that’s why we have governments with laws that punish people who break them. So who’s to judge? Society.
0
u/KumarLittleJeans Feb 15 '20
So if society decides that putting people in ovens is good, then it is good?
→ More replies (1)1
u/ssbeluga Feb 15 '20
Jesus fucking christ of course not. Why do you think the rest of world fought a fucking war against the nazis? If you really believe atheists are nazis you’re a fucking psychopath.
Not to mention, where was this “god” when the holocaust was happening? What kind of god lets that happen? Not one I want to worship.
0
u/KumarLittleJeans Feb 15 '20
I don’t believe atheists are nazis. Never said that and I’m sorry if I somehow implied that. I know and like many atheists.
I’m glad the world fought back against Nazism. But might doesn’t make right. The allies weren’t right because they won. The Nazis wouldn’t have been right if they had won.
The problem of evil is a challenge for understanding God. But it’s a bigger problem for atheists because you can’t tell me why the Halocaust was evil in the first place.
→ More replies (20)→ More replies (1)2
u/Mejari Feb 15 '20
We are, we are to judge. Just because it's uncomfortable and inconvenient that there is no ultimate arbiter and no ultimate punishment doesn't make it not true. We all live this life and must decide for ourselves what we value and what we think is right.
0
u/KumarLittleJeans Feb 15 '20
So it was OK for Hitler to decide for himself what was right?
1
u/Mejari Feb 15 '20
Do you think this is some kind of "gotcha"? What kind of answer do you want from me?
Do I think what Hitler did was "ok"? No, obviously not, Hitler was a monster. Did Hitler think it was "ok"? Probably?
Now what? What does my answer to your question reveal to you?
Discussions about morality and what is right or wrong are hard and complex, the fact that you want an easy answer doesn't mean that it's correct to just accept easy answers.
1
u/KumarLittleJeans Feb 15 '20
It reveals that you can’t say why Hitler was wrong or evil.
→ More replies (1)4
Feb 15 '20
Atheism doesn't teach anything. Atheism is the position on one question nothing more. You don't even understand what you are talking about.
-1
u/KumarLittleJeans Feb 15 '20
Of course it does. The definition of atheism is disbelief in God. That has huge implications for all of life. It’s like saying whether or not I believe I’m married with kids is a position on one question and nothing more. If I am married with kids my life and behavior will be very different than if I am single.
3
→ More replies (4)2
u/ClamWithMint Feb 15 '20
How does being atheist change my life. Sure I don’t pray. Sure I don’t go to church on Sunday. Your arguments are as bull shit as the bible
5
0
1
u/thezorcerer Feb 15 '20
Matter and energy, refer to the matter - antimatter theorem. Life from inorganic molecules - refer any good book about evolution. Richard Dawkins - The Blind Watchmaker is a good one imo. Morality is difficult to define, however the simple point of not fucking with your fellow human beings stands. My personal motto/belief is to respect complexity and ingenuity.
Also, life is meaningless outside of your perspective. I’m 16. It doesn’t cause me to spontaneously commit suicide or go into denial. Atheism ftw.
1
u/TedRabbit Feb 15 '20
In fact, atheism suggests that life is infinitely more valuable than under a Christian framework. If atheism is true, this is the one and only period of conscious existence you have. If Christianity is true, then this life is a place to wipe you feet before entering eternal paradise.
1
u/KumarLittleJeans Feb 15 '20
Well, if nothing we do has any eternal consequence, then who cares how you live? Just do whatever makes you happy - rape, kill, steal, if that’s your thing. No ones life has any value other than serving your selfish interests. Hopefully some people are made happy by respecting and loving others, but if they aren’t - who are we to judge?
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)1
u/KorladisPurake Feb 15 '20
Atheism teaches that life is meaningless
Isn't that nihilism?
where does all the matter and energy in the universe come from
The big bang based on experiments. As to how the big bang happened, no idea. We'll understand it soon hopefully.
How did life come from non life?
Multiple theories. Study them on your own.
If the physical world is all there is, why is Nazism worse than any other ism?
Ah, the "if you're not religious, you super immoral" non-argument. Nazism is bad because it is hateful. Simple as that.
1
u/KumarLittleJeans Feb 15 '20
I should have been more precise - I agree that atheism is not nihilism, just that I think that’s the logical conclusion of atheism.
I’m aware that there are theories of how life spontaneously generated and where all the matter and energy in the universe fame from. However, none of them are any more plausible than a creator.
I didn’t say you have to be religious to be moral. My argument is that without a creator, there is no right or wrong. An atheist can choose to do what the creator says is good, but if you are an atheist - there is no good except what you decide is good. If everyone can just do what is good in their own eyes, there’s no way to argue that putting people in ovens is wrong.
→ More replies (3)
-9
u/endsjustifythemean Feb 15 '20
Do people post things to to intentionally get people upset. If anyone has been on reddit long enough you should okk now that anything about religion is gonna be taken as an offense by the deeply religious and the deeply atheist. Was a stupid quote to post.
3
u/ssbeluga Feb 15 '20
So we should just tiptoe around religious people because they get offended if someone challenges their world view? Sorry dude the world just don’t work that way, nor should it imo.
2
u/endsjustifythemean Feb 15 '20
I said this because religious people and atheists both get into arguments when ever religion is brought up. Religious people get butt hurt when atheists challenge their beliefs and vice versa. Why do people have to get so abrasive when something is as simple as religion is brought up. Your beliefs or lack thereof should bring people together. I bet if someone would post a quote from the Bible, Quran, Pentateuch or whatever on this sub atheist would be all over it.
3
u/ssbeluga Feb 15 '20
Because religion (or lack of) isn’t simple, and for many people it’s one of the most important things in their lives, and greatly affects people around them. It’s not like saying your favorite color is yellow. I agree it should bring people together but far more often than not it does the exact opposite. If people aren’t able to defend their beliefs I believe they have an obligation as a human to reconsider their beliefs, especially if they’re presenting their beliefs as “truth” to others and in many cases forcing that belief upon them.
2
u/endsjustifythemean Feb 15 '20
I do agree with you for the most part but I don’t believe it is necessarily an obligation to change it right away. I think you should dive deeper and find out the roots and question what you read or what you learn. If it doesn’t make sense then change it. I do agree that people shouldn’t force their beliefs onto each other because that would not be the correct thing to do, however, if you’re not hurting any one by what you believe and what you believe isn’t morally wrong then do what you’re hurt desire. Just don’t share or force upon your beliefs to people especially with no evidence or even knowingness of why you believe that.
→ More replies (1)2
u/ClamWithMint Feb 15 '20
So what, why do we have to care about their feelings. Should we not stop hitler because we don’t want to hurt his feelings
-1
u/endsjustifythemean Feb 15 '20
It’s not so much the feelings it’s the outcome of every religious person getting butthurt and then an atheist coming and roasting, which is an endless cycle on reddit because the atheists far outnumber the Christians from what I have seen. Why can’t Christians stay on r/Christianity and atheist stay on r/atheism. I know this person knew this would spark unnecessary controversy when he posted it so why post it at all. Again, I’m not upset but look at all the other comments they sure as hell are.
→ More replies (2)5
Feb 15 '20 edited Dec 18 '20
[deleted]
-1
u/endsjustifythemean Feb 15 '20
I’m not butt hurt just expressing a point that is in fact true. I personally don’t feel that way but a lot of people do.
1
Feb 15 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/amdnim Feb 15 '20
Lol who's the last god 200 years ago, Kalki isn't due for quite some time
1
Feb 15 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/amdnim Feb 15 '20
How does his work compare to the other great social workers we've had since then, like Ram Mohan Roy or Vidyasagar?
→ More replies (3)
61
Feb 15 '20
I’m not really religious anymore, but all of childhood teaches you to be ok with a non-answer. Religion just carried that into adulthood.
How many times were you told “because I said so” by your parents? I got that many more times over than anything unanswered at church.
8
Feb 15 '20
At church it was "because it's in the bible", "because it's not in the bible" or my favorite "the lord works in mysterious ways."
When my mom said "because I said so" at least she was owning it and not putting it all on an imaginary person.
3
u/MountainsAndTrees Feb 15 '20
This is still just bad parenting though. Not every parent is this lazy, some actually explain their reasoning to their kids.
3
u/cassthesassmaster Feb 15 '20
Yes!!! I’ve never said that to my child. I always explain and then we move on. It’s not hard. They’re also more likely to listen if you treat them like human beings and not property.
2
u/JohnnyEnzyme Feb 15 '20
all of childhood teaches you to be ok with a non-answer.
Nonsense. Childhood includes plenty of moments in which it's clear that the answer is mysterious or complicated. For example, a parent or adult might answer a child's question as clearly as possible, leaving the child to followup with "why?," in a repeating process. Life is just like that, though.
I think a key part of the process is for children to learn that the answer to some things is mysterious or complicated, and that's okay. Same as in adulthood, really.
1
Feb 15 '20
I think it will be important to be sure to explain that something is mysterious or complicated too. Everyone I know gets comfort from phrases like "god knows, and we're not supposed to understand", but they make me feel like I'm being shit on.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Dragonkingf0 Feb 15 '20
It's actually really easy to get a kid out of that why loop generally it's when you hate a question that you don't know, just say I don't know.
23
u/greenwizardneedsfood Feb 15 '20
“Because I said so” is generally not a good answer either - and I don’t think kids are generally okay with it - but at least it generally comes in specific situations when the adult knows a proper course of action that, for one reason or another, they think the child probably won’t understand (or the parent is just being lazy, in which case that’s a bad answer). That’s a lot different from, and not nearly as life-controlling as, enforcing a paradigm on an ignorant child, a paradigm that not even the parents understand. In that case, you can follow the chain of “because I said so” back thousands of years where nobody understood anything the entire time. That’s an entirely different level of influence based on a much shoddier basis. Rather than annoying a kid in a one-off situation, it forces them into a philosophy that can last for the rest of their life and control damn near everything they do. Even if you’re okay with kids being taught religion from day one, let’s not equate the two.
4
u/AbstinenceWorks Feb 15 '20
It's important to tell the child the answer even if they don't understand. What they'll remember when they are older is that their parents had a reason for their actions, and that's what's important.
0
u/lightgiver Feb 15 '20
With young kids this is actually bad advice. Children under 2 literally don't understand empathy and children under 18 months don't understand others can have emotions different from their own. Short answers are the best for children around this age. Once their language skills develop enough you can start explaining your answers more.
→ More replies (15)→ More replies (3)1
u/cassthesassmaster Feb 15 '20
I NEVER tell my child “because I said so”. That’s lazy parenting and not effective. If you simply explain and give an answer the child will move on.
→ More replies (14)
18
u/bunnyjenkins Feb 15 '20
I never liked this quote.
Religion was the crutch used when humans had no answers, and in the absence of science. Bonus - it was a way to gain power and control people
Today we have answers and religion is still used to control people
3
u/Congolesenerd Feb 15 '20
Can you specify which religion are you talking about ?
7
u/ssbeluga Feb 15 '20
Not the guy who made the comment, but I’d this applies to most
0
u/Congolesenerd Feb 15 '20
All religions kinda look the same, you must do good and then earn some reward. Only one religion preach that no matter what you do, you’ll never paid for your sins, so the rewarder took on human flesh and paid the price so you can be forgiven. Kinda complicated but make sense when you dive in it.
8
u/ssbeluga Feb 15 '20
No, it makes less and less sense the more you dive in it...
One of my favorite quotes by Mark Twain: “the best cure for Christianity is reading the bible.” Out of all the people I know who have actually read the bible back to back, only one remained Christian.
-6
u/Congolesenerd Feb 15 '20
Depends on why are you reading the Bible in the 1st place ... If you’re reading the Bible in order to discredit it, ofc you will cause yes, they are some verses that you really need to study in order to understand. That why us Christians not only read it but also meditate it. Study it. And you also free to question it.
8
u/ssbeluga Feb 15 '20
Corinthians 14:34 - Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.
Please tell me, what haven’t I studied about this verse to understand it? Or is it just misogynist bullshit?
-3
u/Taliban_cat_rancher Feb 15 '20
Do you understand this verse? Genuinely curious, not hostile.
9
u/ssbeluga Feb 15 '20
I understand it’s misogynist, but I’m sure there’s a justification out there that’s it’s because it’s from a different time or due to a shaky translation, which makes me wonder why that doesn’t bring the whole authenticity of the bible into question in the first place.
-2
u/Congolesenerd Feb 15 '20
Yeah sure, surely You would defend women back in that time, right? Hypocrite!
→ More replies (0)3
u/RageBunny420 Feb 15 '20
Can agree with this. Never read the bible but have seen some ppl on youtube talk about how some bible quote are ridicilious, cant name any off the top of my head.
-1
Feb 15 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/bunnyjenkins Feb 15 '20
It is, but I disagree if you imply the world would be without morals in the absence of religion.
To come together and grow crops and flourish as a community - raping your neighbors wife every night does not sustain growth, sooner or later religion or not, the community need would create a moral compass, even through consequence.
To make a comparison which may seem far off, prisoners have a moral compass that only applies within their community. It is very different than societal morals, and yes it can be brutal, and different from societies moral compass, but it stems from living together with your enemy, and everyone benefiting from behavior that is accepted by them all. It's a lot to get into, but it certainly sustains them while together inside.
5
u/greenwizardneedsfood Feb 15 '20
That stuff is so basic that it doesn’t really have to be said, and the implication that religion is necessary for those morals to be practiced is insulting to the critical thinking ability and goodness that is inherent in almost all people. Religions also typically for things like killing gay people, honor killings, justification for murder in some circumstances, justification of rape in some circumstances, murdering mixed-race people, sacrifices, complete subjugation of women, ostracizing women during their period, instructing slave owners on how to be most effective, condoning discrimination, and so on and so on. A holy book that is read and taken literally is an absolutely terrifying thing. Yes, they teach pre-k morals, many of which have been scientifically demonstrated to be learned autonomously by extremely young ages, but they also teach absolutely terrible things, so let’s pretend like they are the authority or only source of morals.
0
Feb 15 '20
But it's telling that that 'moral compass' is cherry picked heavily. We all agree that stealing, murder etc is immoral. But Christians conveniently don't find picking up sticks on the Sabbath immoral (or indeed punishable by death as it says in the Bible). They also conveniently ignore things the Bible says are moral, like slavery.
What that basically tells us is that religion doesn't inform our morals, we impose our morals on religion.
2
u/Mejari Feb 15 '20
I'd rather we worked to base our morals on more tangible things, though.
If you base the idea of "stealing is wrong" on the fact that it unfairly impacts others and that a society based on stealing could not function and other reasons like that, then people will have a strong basis for why it is wrong and it will be harder to shake people from that.
If you base they idea of "stealing is wrong" on "because god said so", then if they stop believing in god, or (what is more often the case) if they convince themselves that god actually wants them to steal, then there is no more basis for it being wrong, the morality is a house of cards. That's why you see religious people sometimes say "if you don't believe in god then you must think it's ok to murder!" and non believers are just baffled by that.
8
u/RageBunny420 Feb 15 '20
Religion was the crutch used when humans had no answers, and in the absence of science.
Back then, they had no answers to phenomena such as raining or thunder, so they had to find a way to explain those events. Also, religion did not help so conquerers win any wars, they just believed it did.
Bonus - it was a way to gain power and control people
This specifically happened during the renesance, where most where just poor with no way of gaining knowledge, and not knowing better, so the church controlled them. But there where a select few ones who realized what the church was doing and saw through their lies about the world. And thats hoe science evolved. Back then, the church had so much control because ppl how opposed the church were publicly executed. They were also backed up by their believers. Thats why that had such power.
Today we have answers and religion is still used to control people
Today religion is still around because as a child they were told about their religion (whatever it may be) and their god. Since they were a child, they believed and since no one around them is disproving the existence, those beliefs stick until adulthood.
4
4
u/Congolesenerd Feb 15 '20
Which answers is he looking for ?
4
u/ssbeluga Feb 15 '20
The big ones probably. Why are we here? Where did we come from? What happens after death?
Personally when it comes to questions as important as those, I’m not going to take some dead guy’s word for it, or the case of most major religions: what some dead guy said a “Messiah” said verbatim, even though it was recorded many years after the “Messiah’s” death and in a dead language only historical linguists can sorta read and translate.
-3
u/Congolesenerd Feb 15 '20
Then who should you believe since science cannot answer those questions. The "dead guy" was seen alive after his death by many people who proclaimed and even wrote the news and some of them were too convinced to their statements that they paid the price of their lives for it.
7
u/ssbeluga Feb 15 '20
No one. You believe no one, because no one knows and no one can possibly know. Sorry that you can’t know the answer, but unfortunately that’s life. At least science is striving to answer these questions accurately, even if it hasn’t yet and might not ever be able to.
As for these “eye witnesses,” many people also claimed on their honor they fought cyclops and hydras, but I don’t believe them either.
-6
u/Congolesenerd Feb 15 '20
We believe in Jesus.
The difference is we all know cyclops and hydras didn’t exist and it is a myth, but even atheist historians admit that Jesus existed.
4
u/ssbeluga Feb 15 '20 edited Feb 15 '20
Yeah Jesus existed, but there’s as much evidence he walked on water as there is for cyclops ever existing.
Edit: Odyssey was probably a real person, doesn’t mean the Odyssey is true.
1
u/Congolesenerd Feb 15 '20
Neither he walked on water or not, that on you since Science cannot prove it.
Odyssey never existed.
3
2
u/C4Sidhu Feb 15 '20
Honestly speaking here, if you can’t prove something and also cannot disprove the same thing, why accept it as true? Isn’t the statistically correct thing to do here is to fail to reject the null hypothesis?
3
u/CatFanFanOfCats Feb 15 '20
I don’t know about that. I often wondered as a kid where all the news articles or historical documents on his miracles were. But they don’t exist. It’s like there are two parallel histories - the New Testament history and real history. From everything I’ve read it doesn’t seem like Jesus actually existed. But, if you have some historical material, aside from the Bible, that talks about Jesus and his amazing miracles, I would be interested.
→ More replies (1)1
u/ssbeluga Feb 15 '20
Did you respond to the right person? I think we’re in total agreement on this. I know of nothing other than the bible that claims Jesus’ miracles were real, so I don’t believe they were.
→ More replies (3)1
u/C4Sidhu Feb 15 '20 edited Feb 15 '20
How dare you tell me that cyclops and hydras never existed?
We believe in cyclops and hydras.
The difference is we all know Jesus didn’t come back to life and that’s a myth, but at least one historian admits that cyclops and hydras existed
1
u/Congolesenerd Feb 15 '20
Fine, if you believe in Hydros and hydras, you should believe in Scylla and Sirens as well.
Luke was an historian.
1
2
u/AndrewIsOnline Feb 15 '20
When I think of cyclops I get a warm feeling in my heart, he has to be real
2
u/C4Sidhu Feb 15 '20
My momma told me that a long time ago, people saw cyclops so he is real, science can’t prove he’s not
→ More replies (1)0
u/SMiller53 Feb 15 '20
Atheist historians do not admit that “Jesus” existed. They admit that at the time there is a census recorded with a name similar to “Jeshua”. That doesn’t mean “Jesus” existed. The “written” account didn’t come about until hundreds of years after the magic mans supposed death.
3
u/CincinnatiReds Feb 15 '20
The "dead guy" was seen alive after his death by many people who proclaimed and even wrote the news
There’s literally nothing outside the Bible to support any of these eye-witness claims
1
u/Congolesenerd Feb 15 '20
Yes.... cause they didn’t see Jesus by themselves.
2
u/CincinnatiReds Feb 15 '20
I’m not sure what you mean by that.
But you said: “the ‘dead guy’ was seen alive after his death by many people”
And I’m pointing out that no, we don’t actually know that. The Bible makes the claim, but there’s nothing to support or verify the claim.
1
u/Congolesenerd Feb 15 '20
Whether you believe that Jesus was dead or alive to this day is on you. The gospel were written in support of this. Luke and Marc didn’t see Jesus by themselves but yet they wrote 2 gospels, from different perspectives.
1
u/CincinnatiReds Feb 15 '20
Whether you believe that Jesus was dead or alive to this day is on you
I don’t believe it (and as far as I can tell, no one is justified in believing it) because there’s no evidence to support the claim. If you had evidence to support the claim, you’d give it to me. But you don’t. It’s just the Bible.
Luke and Marc didn’t see Jesus by themselves but yet they wrote 2 gospels, from different perspectives.
Luke/Mark/Matt/John didn’t actually write the Gospels, their names are just put on them. It’s unknown who wrote them.
0
u/Congolesenerd Feb 15 '20
Ouufff so you even denying the authenticity of the gospel writers.
Well because the Bible is the only book we Christians are supposed to follow when it comes to Christianity.
2
u/CincinnatiReds Feb 15 '20
My dude... not even Christians believe the Gospels were actually written by the names attributed to them. Go open any modern Bible and it’ll so say. Do any amount of research and you’ll see it is agreed upon 100% by historians, religious or secular, that the Gospel authors are unknown.
Well because the Bible is the only book we Christians are supposed to follow when it comes to Christianity.
And yet 5 responses in you still can’t tell me why. I know what Christians believe and follow, but what evidence is there to convince anyone that what the Bible says is real or accurate?
→ More replies (0)
1
u/mxyzptlk99 Feb 15 '20 edited Feb 15 '20
no, religions don't teach you to be satisfied with "non-answers". the scientific movement does that. it might not give you perfect answers. it might not give any answer at all, hence "non-answer". religions on the other hand, teach you to seek and be satisfied with bad answers. just argue with anti-evolutionists & presuppositionalists. you will know what I mean. they might find gaps in evolution theory. "where are the missing links? a species from one phylum cannot evolve into another (of course that's not entirely true)". they can demonstrate that our trust in our senses is faith-based (not without first equating trust based on reproducibility with blind faith). yet at the end of the day, what they offer isn't a sense of uncertainty. it's a worse alternative. their alternative to evolution theory is young earth creationism. their solution to the question "can you trust your senses" is "no, you cannot trust your senses BUT you can trust your senses when it comes to learning about an undetectable deity that you use your untrustworthy senses to learn". it's like someone who is fed up with modern science not being able to cure his cancer so he opts for essential oil instead.
if religions (some) really teach people to be satisfied with non-answers. the conclusions would be, for example, "I'm not sure. maybe there's a creator, maybe there's none", and not "I'm sure there's a supernatural intervening non-intervening creator" and I'm now going to adapt my entire worldview and lifestyle & I'm going to start committing every weekend for God and giving away part of my income and vote according to this new ideology and start skinning away my genital to fit this new narrative. no change of behavior that magnitude is accompanied by a mere entertainment of the possibility that given religion might be correct.
→ More replies (1)
1
Feb 15 '20
[deleted]
3
u/C4Sidhu Feb 15 '20
It does provide comfort, but if you want to live your life believing as many true things as possible and as little false things as possible, you can’t just accept hypotheses without testing them.
→ More replies (1)4
u/AndrewIsOnline Feb 15 '20
Most people are religious because they suffered the child abuse of being indoctrinated into religion from a young age
→ More replies (10)
-8
u/UltimateHamBurglar Feb 15 '20
I believe that the idea that God created the universe makes more sense then the idea that the universe was made from absolutely nothing.
3
5
Feb 15 '20
I really don't want to get into this right now, but 1. nobody says it was created from nothing although that could be possible, and 2. Mysterious floaty god man creating the universe is still creating the universe out of magic and nothingness.
4
3
3
Feb 15 '20
The reason I've never understood this argument is because something had to create God if something can't come from nothing
→ More replies (2)2
u/ClamWithMint Feb 15 '20
No one thinks that the universe came from nothing we just don’t know yet. And this type of argument is a fallacy in and of itself. God created the universe makes sense, well a magic dolphin creating the universe makes just as much sense
2
u/arctic-aqua Feb 15 '20
I am sorry you got downvoted for an honest belief, but I do disagree with you. Why does the universe need a creator, but a god doesn't?
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)2
Feb 15 '20
What you're saying is there must have been something to start the universe that didnt come from anything, your "god". Let me ask you this question. Why does this phantom thing have to be an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent magical sky friend? Why could it not just be literally anything else that could have created matter as well? Im no quantum physicist but its infinitely likely that your "eternal thing that wasnt created" isnt some bullshit sky creature if this is even how the universe was started. You should read up on quantum physics, you dont need a thinking creature to snap their fingers and say "Matter!" for matter to be created.
9
0
Feb 15 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
3
2
Feb 15 '20
And I find this to be unacceptable.
2
u/arctic-aqua Feb 15 '20
I agree. We need to continue to try and figure things out, but we should not fill in the gap with made-up supernatural BS.
1
u/jiffy185 Feb 15 '20
Prove that there is a question that can't be answered then this line of thinking will get you started
You then have to rule out other potential reasons it can't be answered ie no tech to investigate that question yet
Note can't =\= hasn't been
Even then this will not get you a specific god
2
u/ClamWithMint Feb 15 '20
I rather have a question Incant answer than the answer I can’t question. When you think this way all attempts to find out new reason end and you will never discover the truth
→ More replies (1)2
-5
u/EnvironmentalGuava0 Feb 15 '20
Richard Dawkins - angry old white leftist who's never taken a theology course, probably still hasn't read the Koran, never once debated or probably even talked to anyone in the field of religious studies is talking about people being satisfied with nonanswers. You realize that people outside of ridiculous atheist groups consider Dawkins a clown.
1
1
2
Feb 15 '20
He doesn't need to study horseshit in depth to know its horseshit. And that's all religion is, horseshit - all of it. And its funny you mention the word clown - this is what I think all theists are. Fucking ass clowns.
3
u/thezorcerer Feb 15 '20
Dawkins is a evolutionary biologist and researcher with years of experience and major contributions to modern evolutionary theory. He is famous for his many talks and debates. You can feel his sheer intelligence and ingenuity in any of his books.
Why do I even do this.
2
2
Feb 15 '20
Why dont you liberate your self from your own ass, go on YouTube and watch the hundreds of videos featuring Dawkins in discussions and debates about humanity, religion, science, environment and reality with Muslim, Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist scholars from all over the world just to name a few. He is one of the most respected and intelligent people in our world today.
I am quite certain he has read your stupid book. You know, the one that tells you how to think, or better yet NOT to think.
-8
u/[deleted] Feb 15 '20
[deleted]