HOME | DD

ChikitaWolf In reply to ??? [2012-03-18 23:05:48 +0000 UTC]

You . . . never told me you had had death threats (?) Which is why I asked.

Yeesh, that's harsh D:

That's . . . odd. In all the mission trips I've been on (or come across), we just stood on the side of the street like derps, singing praise and worship music, handing out flyers, or doing some skits. If anyone had a question, they'd come up and ask; and if they wanted to hear about our Faith, they'd come up and ask. We never once forced our beliefs on anyone o3o I've yet to come across a mission trip group that does that too . . but then, I haven't been everywhere so
I wouldn't quite say that, but I guess everyone has their view on it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

vik1067 In reply to ChikitaWolf [2012-03-19 05:50:15 +0000 UTC]

Well, I thought the point of a mission trip was to attempt to convert people. The way you describe it makes it sound like a flash mob that's being ignored.
I *do* say that, and it's true enough. Scientists have always been persecuted by the church (and possibly other religious organisations). You sound slightly more sensible than the Vatican, so I'll assume you don't believe that the Bible is literally true. When Copernicus proposed that the Earth went around the Sun, he has tortured and killed by the Vatican - for speaking out against the "word of God". Galileo had similar issues - the Church only apologised for it's actions about ten years ago! In the 1500s and 1600s, anybody who *thought* was likely to have been burned at the stake for "heresy" and "blasphemy". When Darwin published The Origin of Species, it was met with such anger from religious leaders that he was forced, in later editions, to modify the concluding paragraph in fear of repercussion. And 150 years later, although we've got overwhelming evidence for evolution, although we know beyond all doubt that evolution is fact, 40% of the US believes it isn't true. And that's fine, they've got a right to their beliefs, but what they don't have is a right to their own facts. They aren't entitled to push bills that support the teaching of creationism in high school biology classrooms; they aren't entitled to ban abortions or contraception. They aren't entitled to condemn biologists and to actively attempt to mislead the public.
The point is, science, reason and rationality will lead to people losing "faith". This isn't a bad thing, all it means is that people aren't blindly believing what they're told. Morals don't come from religion, they come *despite* religion. Scientific "views" aren't the same as religious ones - in science, we try not to believe *anything* without prior evidence. And for religion to continue to dominate people's lives, it has to attack science and reason, because otherwise people will think about it, and they won't be religious any more.

Sorry, I've been going on a bit, but I feel very strongly about this. I'm not even forcing you to read this; you've a right to ignore it. As has been said, "I respect your right to your beliefs, but I can't respect your beliefs".

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ChikitaWolf In reply to vik1067 [2012-03-20 20:35:23 +0000 UTC]

Uh, not really like that either (flash mob-wise); but either way, I'm quite positive people would much rather listen to someone who's friendly and not attempting to shove a Bible down their throat.

Wait - woah - so Evolution is no longer a theory? I mean, I've never quite had an opinion on it, but our schools are still teaching it's a theory.

Well, upon the thought that Evolution is still a theory, I wouldn't mind having more than just Evolution and Creationism taught in public schools. I mean, putting Creationism and some other classes with different opinions on the subject as side-courses would be cool That's just my wishful thinking though

And I do agree with you -- there's a reason why our Founding Fathers put Church and State separated government-wise. I don't think it's fair at all for the government to make religion-pushed decisions over the people. The government should be protecting the rights of the people.

I'd like to think I'm rational and reasonable despite my beliefs I mean, there were a lot of great men in history who had faith in something, and they did quite well. But aside from that, from my personal experience, I feel there's reason to believe in a God just as others find a reason to believe in something else or believe in nothing. I wouldn't be believing so strongly in something if I wasn't 100% sure it existed! While I'm sure it's not the same for some people, I'm sure it is for others.

No, no; it's fine! I like hearing other people's opinions Even if we don't agree, it's nice to have discussions like this where we're not chucking flaming insults at each other

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

vik1067 In reply to ChikitaWolf [2012-03-21 03:33:41 +0000 UTC]

Oh, all right, then. I still have issues with people trying to convert other people - even if it's done politely - but that's my opinion.
Well, I do uni-level Biology, so I'm not talking off the top of my head here. We could now throw all the evidence Darwin used out of the window, and still have enough evidence to demonstrate that, for all practical purposes, evolution is fact. Creationists love confusing the distinction between the general and scientific definitions of the word "theory". In science, a "theory" is not just an idea - it is a hypothesis with enough evidence to be taken to be true. Evolution is as much of a theory as gravity is - from a scientific point of view. In general, it is a *fact*. We have demonstrated evolution in the lab.
Is Creationism mentioned in schools in the US?!? Promoting Creationism (and every honest biologist in the world will agree with me about this) is an act of intellectual dishonesty, of apathy overriding truth. We don't *need* opinions to be propagated, because we know that evolution has happened, and we know how it's happened. Teaching doctrines of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is as relevant as teaching Christian-based Creationism.

Yes, well, a large number of people are usually rational and reasonable; however, an equally massive number of fanatics aren't. If you look at history, you'll find that anybody without faith was immediately killed by the church, and so every great man had to, by default, be religious.
You have a right to your beliefs, but I'll assume for the moment that you don't mind me discussing them. I'm fairly certain that if you'd not been indoctrinated into Christianity by your parents (and other adults during your early childhood), you wouldn't be Christian. Similarly, if you'd been born in Afghanistan, you'd be Muslim; if you'd been born in India, you'd probably be Hindu. How, then, can you be certain that the god you believe in is the One True God?
I am an atheist because I cannot force a false belief on myself - I have looked at the case for the existence of god(s), and found it devoid of reality.

Well, there you go, then. That was my original point - that outspoken atheists are not "militant"; we can be polite and rational, and usually are.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ChikitaWolf In reply to vik1067 [2012-03-21 22:21:58 +0000 UTC]

I'm still a tad confused here -- has evolution become "law" now? Or is it still classified officially as "theory"? And isn't gravity a "law" not a "theory"? Because the #Domain-of-Darwin group I watch still has it classified as "theory"

Nah, nah; while I was in middle school some people brought the possibility up of having an extra class for it (Creationism as well as another theory I forgot), but it was refused. That was the same week they confinscated my Bible when I brought it to school

Wait - what about biologists who don't support evolution? Not every biologist supports it - or they haven't given complete trust in it anyway; I don't think that should exclude them from being "honest".

And what I meant was, it'd be nice to have other topics offered :S
To be knowledgeable in all theories is always nice, at least to me. Even if you don't believe in it, extra knowledge on it never hurts -- including the pros and cons of each. Otherwise we may end up arguing about areas we don't fully understand
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is awesome.

"If you look at history, you'll find that anybody without faith was immediately killed by the church, and so every great man had to, by default, be religious."
Eh, I feel like that's a little blown out of proportion. Yes, there were instances in history where people were killed for not believing a certain thing; but I wouldn't say it so broadly lest it look as if /everyone/ was killed for not believing something. (If this isn't what you meant, then ignore this ).

My parents didn't indoctrine me into Christianity. Yes, my dad is Catholic (bordering on agnostic) and my mom is nondenominational, but they never pushed anything onto me. In the end, I was the one who chose going to Church and learning about Christianity
As for my certainty, it's kind of hard to explain without sounding crazy, LMAO. It kind of depends on your views of whether things happen for a reason or are mere coincidences; but from what I've experienced and seen for myself personally, I am certain. But that's me~ |D

D: I never said all atheists were "militant" Dx I'm sorry if it sounded that way!
I was just saying that there are some really scary radical ones out there >3<"
I mean, for instance, you haven't called me an ignorant, gullible, Bible fapper who should just go do everyone a favor and die (along with some nasty crude stuff that I'd prefer not to mention). That's the kind I was referring to >___<""

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

vik1067 In reply to ChikitaWolf [2012-03-22 03:29:15 +0000 UTC]

In biology, we don't call things "laws". Again, I'll ask you to look up the meaning of the word "theory" - the scientific definition, I mean. There's another way to explain that. Evolution, simply put, is change over time. You cannot deny that isn't happening. The theory of explanation is the hypothesis proposed to explain the mechanisms that lead to evolution - an explanation, mind you, that fits *all* the evidence.
We understand evolution far better than we understand gravity. For 150 years, the evidence has been growing, and there's an overwhelming amount. It takes wilful, deliberate dishonesty to look at all the evidence for evolution and then claim it isn't happening. I know it makes people feel less important when they realise they haven't been designed, but reality doesn't owe them anything.

There are *no* real biologists who don't think evolution is true. (N.B the word "believe" doesn't really fit here, because in science, we try not to believe anything) I know people like Michael Behe and the other liars at the Discovery Institute (and similar places) claim not to "believe" in evolution, but if you look closely, they're being funded by a Christian organisation - they're all Christians who take the Bible literally.
I'm not sure the "extra knowledge" point is applicable here - the *point* of science is to learn more. There are thousands of evolutionary biologists across the world doing good research, and throwing new light on evolution. There's no need to learn about what isn't true. Would you want to be taught about the "stork theory of human reproduction" in school, then? If you want to learn about creationism in school, ,you should be taught about all 4300 varieties. There is no reason to favour the Christian version over any others.
I'll challenge you to name me one biologist who does serious science research who thinks evolution isn't true.

Okay, I'll rephrase that. I meant the *vast majority* of people who didn't take the Bible literally were tortured and murdered by churches - that's why there was no scientific or technological progress until about 1500.

About indoctrination, I meant Christians have had an influence on you while you were very young - and that you've had a Christian upbringing. Well, you're entitled to your views, but how does some deity controlling everything that happens sound more plausible than that occurrences are results of the laws of physics? I find reality much more wonderful as it is, without having to insert fairies and other supernatural entities into it.
"I believe that an orderly universe, one indifferent to human preoccupations, in which everything has an explanation even if we still have a long way to go before we find it, is a more beautiful, more wonderful place than a universe tricked out with capricious ad hoc magic." - Richard Dawkins, (Unweaving the Rainbow)

Well, no, I haven't. And I can't believe that there are all that many atheists who've told you to "do everyone a favour and die". How many murders have you heard of that were committed in the name of atheism?
Anyway, I have issues with the church, and I'll list 'em here. They're inciting genocide in Africa, they spread lies about contraception and AIDS that have caused hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths, they rape young children, they promote homophobia and support a sexist agenda that is the very opposite of progress. And they demand respect, hoarding wealth in the name of supposed charity while allowing millions of people in Africa to starve to death.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ChikitaWolf In reply to vik1067 [2012-03-22 22:45:27 +0000 UTC]

I wasn't up for getting my Chemistry book to quote things |D So here's something from physicsforum.com |D
"A scientific Law is a readily demonstrable fact, that cannot be disproven.
A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been rigorously tested, and not found faulty, usually also having been found somewhat useful."
^ With this in mind, I don't think I'd go comparing the Law of Gravity and the theory of Evolution. Now, just to add once again, I don't have a full opinion on evolution. I'm not saying it's false or true. However, with these definitions, I'd say that there still /is/ a possibility for evolution to be proven wrong (as the #Domain-of-Darwin group mentioned in the comments section to an inquirer about it, if I remember correctly). That's why it's still considered a theory, I would presume. I'm going by these terms ("theory" and "law") as that's what all of the other webites I've looked up has defined them as.
And as a side note, I have a few Christian friends who believe in evolution - just that God moved it along Not all Christians are anti-evolution.

And I can't give an opinion on the people you've mentioned, because I've honestly never heard of them |D
Hmmm-- off the top of my head, I remembered Professor Henry F. (Fritz) Schaefer being mentioned during our evolution study at school.
This was the best I could find in regards to him:
"Professor Henry F. (Fritz) Schaefer is one of the most distinguished physical scientists in the world. The U.S. News and World Report cover story of December 23, 1991 speculated that Professor Schaefer is a “five time nominee for the Nobel Prize.” He has received four of the most prestigious awards of the American Chemical Society, as well as the most highly esteemed award (the Centenary Medal) given to a non-British subject by London’s Royal Society of Chemistry. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Moreover, his general interest lectures on science and religion have riveted large audiences in nearly all the major universities in the U.S.A. and in Beijing, Berlin, Budapest, Calcutta, Cape Town, New Delhi, Hong Kong, Istanbul, London, Paris, Prague, Sarajevo, Seoul, Shanghai, Singapore, Sofia, St. Petersburg, Sydney, Tokyo, Warsaw, Zagreb, and Zürich.
For 18 years Dr. Schaefer was a faculty member at the University of California at Berkeley, where he remains Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus. Since 1987 Dr. Schaefer has been Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and Director of the Center for Computational Chemistry at the University of Georgia."
If this doesn't suffice, I'll do some more digging

Yes, but while evolution is a theory, why not look at some other stuff? Like I said, extracurricular classes or the like would be really cool, in my opinion. It's like a mythology class I took back in middle school. I didn't believe it, but it was cool to learn about it all the same
Woah, I didn't mention /just/ Creationism, you know. I said "and others" or something along the lines. I don't know all the names to all the other theories Creationism has just been the most common that I've seen aside from Evolution (and I'm saying this in the context of public school, as Creationism /is/ mentioned while learning Evolution). But like I was saying, it would be cool. Get the most popular ones in there and discuss them in an extra class, that is

And for me, I find that it's just as equally possible for a higher being to have created such a complex universe. For me, I just can't reason how everything around me happened by something as mere as chance or an accident. But once again, that's my thoughts on it

Well, I can't exactly prove it to you other than with my word . I've been threatened many a time and been given nasty insults. It doesn't matter whether you're an atheist or a Christian -- there are some people out there that hate others for their beliefs. And voice it in horrible ways, or act on it.

.___________.
/People/ do that. People incite genocide, spread lies about stuff, rape other people, promote hatred for different groups, etc. I'm not saying that lost areas of the church /aren't/ doing what you're saying. But a majority of the Church definately /isn't/. All of the healthy Churches I've visited do nothing of the sort that you've mentioned. Yes, the Catholic church isn't so high on contraception, but not all Catholics are out there lying just to fit their agenda. As for money, 5 out of 6 churches I've visited are in debt from donating and helping the needy. Now, Westboro Church and the like-- that's a whole 'nother monster. But then again, that's why denominations came to be - from disagreement over certain doctrines. To just pin it on a single religious group is ridiculous. That's like saying all Muslims are flying planes into things. Yet what about the kamekazi's (sp?) of Japan?

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

vik1067 In reply to ChikitaWolf [2012-03-23 03:30:37 +0000 UTC]

Sorry, I didn't respond to this bit in my previous reply.
"^ With this in mind, I don't think I'd go comparing the Law of Gravity and the theory of Evolution. Now, just to add once again, I don't have a full opinion on evolution. I'm not saying it's false or true. However, with these definitions, I'd say that there still /is/ a possibility for evolution to be proven wrong (as the #Domain-of-Darwin group mentioned in the comments section to an inquirer about it, if I remember correctly). That's why it's still considered a theory, I would presume. I'm going by these terms ("theory" and "law") as that's what all of the other webites I've looked up has defined them as.
And as a side note, I have a few Christian friends who believe in evolution - just that God moved it along Not all Christians are anti-evolution. "

*Nothing* in science is ever said to be "proven"; in science, we do not use the word proof. As Karl Popper argued, in science we only make testable hypotheses that have not yet been demonstrated to be untrue. If a hypothesis cannot be falsified, it isn't scientific. Gravity and evolution can both, theoretically, be falsified. However, the probability of either being shown to be untrue is so unlikely that for all practical purposes, we can accept them to be true. Antibiotic resistance has come about because of bacterial evolution. There isn't an AIDS vaccine yet because of how fast the virus evolves. I don't know about the Domain-of-Darwin group, but I get my information from primary peer-reviewed research articles and the leading professors of evolutionary biology. In any case, there's nothing wrong with calling it the "theory of evolution", if people remember that "theory" here is NOT an idea, but a hypothesis that has been demonstrated to be true.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

vik1067 In reply to ChikitaWolf [2012-03-23 03:11:25 +0000 UTC]

Like I said, in *biology*, things aren't called laws. If they haven't been found to be true, we call 'em hypotheses - once we've got enough evidence to demonstrate that they'er correct, they become theories. If we're going to quote, I'll give you this: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" - Theodore Dobzhansky. *All* modern biology, and most of modern medicine depends on evolution. If evolution really was "just an idea", vaccinations would be based on hope and not on evidence-based reason.
I'll say it again: evolution is not a theory, evolution is a fact.

About Henry Schaefer:
1. He's not a biologist, he's a chemist. He's talking about things he doesn't understand.
2. Only the Discovery Institute has claimed he's a 5-time Nobel Prize nominee. Nobel Prize nominations remain confidential for fifty years.
3. He is associated with the Discovery Institute, so he's using the Bible instead of science, reason and rationality.
Therefore, he's a liar and an idiot. Sorry, you have to do better.

Well, if you want to learn about myths, go ahead. But not in a science class, not in a biology classroom. I didn't say you mentioned *just* Christian-based creationism; there are/have been in excess of 4300 religions in the world, and each of 'em has a slightly different version of the same untruth. If you really want to learn how each of them got it wrong, well, that's up to you.

I should say, here, that evolution is emphatically NOT a chance process. Yes, mutations are random, but natural selection is most certainly not. I wouldn't call it an accident, because that would mean there was a defined goal - which there isn't. Life just is, because it's evolved this way. It could equally possibly have been totally different. There is no *purpose* or path that life follows; no guiding hand. The problem with claiming that a deity has had a hand in either creating or controlling the progress of the universe, Earth and life is that it immediately postulates a bigger question: who created the designer/creator? It leads to an infinite regress, and most believers only escape this by claiming that said deity is exempt from both the laws of physics and his own personal laws. When you use Ockham's razor (which is the best method by which to distinguish between two hypotheses when no conclusive proof is available for either), you find that the simplest explanation is to be accepted over the other - which means that instead of a complex deity meddling with matter, antimatter and energy, it's much more probable that the universe is not controlled by anything other than the laws of physics. Which, in my opinion, makes it much more awesome.

Yes, I agree. However, if you look at the proportions of people making those threats, you'll find that the vast majority are fundamentalist religious people. In countries around the world, atheists are persecuted even today. So are women and homosexuals, but atheism is usually considered the prime evil.

And yeah, the church is exclusively a human invention. I'm talking about the Vatican, which boasts two billion followers. It is flooded with wealth, and exists primarily as a mechanism to protect paedophiles. "...not all Catholics are out there lying..." - well, if they don't agree with the atrocities propagated by their church, *why* are they still members of it? If they wanted to pray sincerely, why couldn't they do it at home? Why need a middle-man between them and their god? I'm not pinning this on just the Vatican, I could find examples of atrocities committed by just about every religious organisation. As Steven Weinberg said, "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
Have you actually read the Bible? Have you read Genesis? If you claim it's all metaphorical, then you admit it isn't true. Either way, you should also condemn it as the single most immoral piece of writing in all human history.
Remember, you don't have to defend the church all the way - I'm making evidence-based statements, I'm not accusing *you*.

We (as a species) have evolved a modern secular morality. This has come about independent of religion. I think I'm a fairly moral person, and I donate as much as I can to helping the needy. I can do this without religion - I do it because it's the right thing to do, not because I want to be rewarded (which is the whole concept of heaven).
About the kamikazi pilots (and the Japanese military), they were supposed to have been Buddhist, but they were forced to worship their emperor as a god. It was religious devotion that got 'em to commit suicide. *That* is why religion is dangerous - it gives us the weird and fanciful idea that this life isn't all we've got, that there's another one if we screw up.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

VentAnger In reply to ??? [2012-03-14 16:48:06 +0000 UTC]

You've come across a religious person who wants to murder somebody who doesn't share the same opinion? Where do you live?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

vik1067 In reply to VentAnger [2012-03-14 17:02:40 +0000 UTC]

Haven't physically come across - but I've encountered a fair share of loonies on the internet.
In any case, what I meant was that many apologists and accommodationists brand people like Dawkins and Myers as "militant" and "extremist", whereas the same description is used to label the 9/11 terrorists; which is an exhibition of appalling double standards.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

VentAnger In reply to vik1067 [2012-03-14 17:14:24 +0000 UTC]

Ah. Well you should not say "I've never come across an atheist who wants to murder people for not believing in their opinion" when you've never actually come across a religious person who does either, right? Surely if you're talking about "on the internet" you've come across one or two atheists who think Christians shouldn't breed, should be banished on an island, sent to reeducation camps, burned at the stake, etc. I don't understand why you'd be appalled by people who label Dawkins and Bin Laden as "extremist", it's a relatively innocuous and subjective word. I don't think you're applying the concept of a "double standard" correctly in your example, it means a standard is being applied to one similar group and a different standard applied to the other.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

vik1067 In reply to VentAnger [2012-03-15 03:00:07 +0000 UTC]

Uh.. wait, what?
I've had death threats from random fundies on the internet. Agreed, this isn't as frightening as being held at gunpoint, but it isn't something to ignore as not being an issue either.
Actually, to be honest, I haven't come across an atheist who wants anybody burned at the stake (or punished equivalently) just for believing in a deity. While this does not mean that there aren't atheists with absurd opinions like that, they are relatively rare.

I'd call Bin Laden an "extremist" too, but Dawkins doesn't fly planes into buildings. All he does is talk - and express an opinion (but with substantial evidence and reason behind it) that says religion shouldn't be thrust upon people who don't want it. "Extremist" is not an innocuous or subjective word - in the same sense that a non-vegetarian isn't a murderer because (s)he ate a sausage for breakfast. If you call a mass-murdering fanatic an extremist, you cannot also call an outspoken honest person that as well. I meant "double standard" with respect to the definition(s) of the word "extremist" when being applied in the two cases.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

321Cynderbottle123 In reply to ??? [2012-03-13 23:52:44 +0000 UTC]

Agreed! Oh, and you're getting constant faving because you're right!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ChikitaWolf In reply to 321Cynderbottle123 [2012-03-13 23:53:43 +0000 UTC]

LMAO, thank you!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

GreenGuy-DA In reply to ??? [2012-03-13 23:40:36 +0000 UTC]

I don't support attacking people for thier beliefs, but I also don't support religious people forcing thier religions and beliefs on others.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ChikitaWolf In reply to GreenGuy-DA [2012-03-13 23:42:44 +0000 UTC]

I don't support religious folk shoving their beliefs onto others; and I also don't support nonreligious folk shoving their lack of belief onto others.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

GreenGuy-DA In reply to ChikitaWolf [2012-03-14 07:46:28 +0000 UTC]

"I also don't support nonreligious folk shoving their lack of belief onto others. "
Whats that supposed to mean?
I respect everyones right to believe in whatever they wish.
I may be an Agnostic, but I still have a level of respect for other religions.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ChikitaWolf In reply to GreenGuy-DA [2012-03-14 20:19:47 +0000 UTC]

Eh? Exactly what it means o3o I don't like it when either side tries to force their beliefs on others.
I didn't accuse you of anything. I'm sorry if it came off that way. o__o"

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

SoliderWolf23 In reply to ??? [2012-03-13 23:25:10 +0000 UTC]

I agree 110% everyone is intitled to their opinion

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

New-Creature-04 In reply to ??? [2012-03-13 23:13:39 +0000 UTC]

I agree, if one has a different opinion and wishes to voice it they should do so politely with actual reason, instead of just saying "Your wrong because I disagree! Blah blah bluh..."

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ChikitaWolf In reply to New-Creature-04 [2012-03-13 23:25:57 +0000 UTC]

Exactly!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ChikitaWolf In reply to DireDandelion [2012-03-13 23:25:13 +0000 UTC]

Well said!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DireDandelion In reply to ChikitaWolf [2012-03-13 23:31:48 +0000 UTC]

Thank you! And thank you for bringing up the matter.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ChikitaWolf In reply to DireDandelion [2012-03-13 23:32:22 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Kash-Tin In reply to ??? [2012-03-13 22:40:38 +0000 UTC]

it seems to get more and more acceptable to be nasty to each other. i dont always take this advice either but the world would probably be a much better place if more people did.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ChikitaWolf In reply to Kash-Tin [2012-03-13 22:51:53 +0000 UTC]

I've been really surprised by how bad it's gotten
Agreed~!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

darkparadise27 In reply to ??? [2012-03-13 22:12:06 +0000 UTC]

i say: have fun.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

HaveFunXB In reply to ??? [2012-03-13 22:08:28 +0000 UTC]

I love you <3

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ChikitaWolf In reply to HaveFunXB [2012-03-13 22:10:45 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Lon3NightWolf In reply to ??? [2012-03-13 21:43:22 +0000 UTC]

-claps- Nicely said dear.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ChikitaWolf In reply to Lon3NightWolf [2012-03-13 21:49:57 +0000 UTC]

Thank you~! |D

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Lon3NightWolf In reply to ChikitaWolf [2012-03-14 22:21:52 +0000 UTC]

You're welcome.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

h-irsch In reply to ??? [2012-03-13 21:31:11 +0000 UTC]

I hate annoying religious people and I also hate atheists who attack every religious folk. Thank you for this stamp.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ChikitaWolf In reply to h-irsch [2012-03-13 21:37:37 +0000 UTC]

Agreed. :I
Thanks for commenting!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

IWantToGoToThere In reply to ??? [2012-03-13 17:09:11 +0000 UTC]

Exactly! Plus it's not like you're going to convince anyone that you're right in the end (especially with comments on a freaking ART site)! You both just walk away pissed and icky feeling...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ChikitaWolf In reply to IWantToGoToThere [2012-03-13 20:10:39 +0000 UTC]

And that's exactly it .____."

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TimLavey In reply to ??? [2012-03-13 16:51:08 +0000 UTC]

I believe in confronting people about their stupid and irrational beliefs. Beliefs inform our actions. They don't just exist in a vacuum. It is important to expose all beliefs to criticism no matter how dear they are to some people.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ChikitaWolf In reply to TimLavey [2012-03-13 20:12:59 +0000 UTC]

Confronting is a bit different than the "attacking" I'm talking about. I do believe in confronting people; however, outright attacking them with name-calling, etc, isn't going to make them inclined to listen to you.

So, yes, I do agree with you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

TellTaleTypist In reply to ChikitaWolf [2012-03-13 21:14:29 +0000 UTC]

Could you explain exactly what you mean by "attacking"? I don't mean to be rude, but you've been a little vauge about it and I'm not sure that I agree with you on where the line is between arguing and attacking. If you could explain your position a little more thoroughly I would appreciate it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ChikitaWolf In reply to TellTaleTypist [2012-03-13 21:32:49 +0000 UTC]

Oh, no; you're not being rude at all
"If you want more detailed, it would be name-calling (in the sense of "dumbass", "dickhead", "Bible/atheist fag") and/or belittling them (treating them like they're the scum of the earth). I'm sure there's more, but those are the most common I've seen." Is what I've responded with to ~TimLavey . I hope that clears where I'm standing a bit more?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TellTaleTypist In reply to ChikitaWolf [2012-03-13 21:58:26 +0000 UTC]

It does. thank you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TimLavey In reply to ChikitaWolf [2012-03-13 21:11:23 +0000 UTC]

I've had many people claim that I have been "attacking" their belief when I've told them about what I think is wrong with the belief itself or the reasoning behind it. I rarely call anyone names and I still am accused of attacking them. So if by attacking you actually meant calling someone something rude (and etc, whatever that might be) then say that instead and be clear with us.

Sometimes I do think that it is necessery for people to hear that they are idiots if they believe something truly stupid to be true. Being respectfull and trying to politely reason with that individual may not alone prove sufficient, but add some strong language and they may understand the seriousness of the matter.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

SapphiraTheMongoose In reply to TimLavey [2012-03-13 21:41:49 +0000 UTC]

"about their stupid and irrational beliefs."
------ ----------

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SapphiraTheMongoose In reply to SapphiraTheMongoose [2012-03-13 21:44:29 +0000 UTC]

That's clearly sending a message about what you think of the person, and makes it seem like you're oh-so-stuck on believing that "I'M right, and you're wrong," which makes you come off as a judgemental stuck up jerk even if you don't mean to be. It's leaving out the little things that help a conversation stay a conversation instead of a debate or a fight.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TimLavey In reply to SapphiraTheMongoose [2012-03-13 22:11:12 +0000 UTC]

When someone seriously tells me that NASA should be looking for stranded whales on the moon because some of them must have landed there a few thousand years ago when a world wide flood on Earth shot out giant high speed water columns into space, then I don't think there's much room for a conversation. I have nothing to gain from an ignorant idiot like that. All I can do is express my sheer amazement over his stupidity, explain the actual facts, and leave him shaking my head in disbelief. Some beliefs are actually stupid and irrational. If you can't admit that to yourself, that's your problem, not mine.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

VentAnger In reply to TimLavey [2012-03-14 17:00:36 +0000 UTC]

I've honestly never heard anyone say that, but I'll take your word for it. How could a flood shoot water into space, how could a whale survive the journey, if they were traveling at the speed needed to not suffocate, let alone die from exposure, once they reach the moon at that speed they'd be splattered against the surface, even if they reach the moon alive, if it happened a few thousand years ago they'd be dead by now, not stranded. I think you were just being trolled, buddy.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TimLavey In reply to VentAnger [2012-03-14 17:21:57 +0000 UTC]

I'm pretty sure I wasn't trolled. This guy have said many similarly crazy things and has never showed any sign of knowing any better. Either his whole life is committed to an act to make people think he's an idiot or he's simply an idiot.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

VentAnger In reply to TimLavey [2012-03-14 17:25:28 +0000 UTC]

Eesh. Ok, well if he's committed to an act to make people think he's an idiot then he should just be ignored, if he really is an idiot, then you shouldn't pick on the mentally challenged.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1