OwlFancier posted:I think Dawkins probably likes lots of money for books and TV programs and enjoys being a self righteous bellend at people he thinks are stupider than him. He actually adjusts his tone relative to the intellectual standing of his opponent, if he has one. He's fairly reasonable if he has an opponent of good standing, e.g.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EjO-7Wynd0 When he's on stage with some loony tunes evangelical from the South I think he sees the red flag and goes for the gore. When a narrator alone on television, he likewise has carte blanche to go full obnoxious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 14:10 |
|
|
Disinterested posted:I cannot comprehend that you of all people think that someone else's form of atheism burns bridges but yours doesn't. Your arguments are always more reductive versions of Dawkinsesque ones. The simple arguments are fine, more complicated ones are not needed. What isn't fine is the New Atheists' bigotry, white supremacism and misogyny that underpins literally everything they say and do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:The simple arguments are fine, more complicated ones are not needed. What isn't fine is the New Atheists' bigotry, white supremacism and misogyny that underpins literally everything they say and do. Don't forget the tendency for New Atheism to attract MRAs and Islamaphobes as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 17:12
|
|
SedanChair posted:The simple arguments are fine, more complicated ones are not needed. What isn't fine is the New Atheists' bigotry, white supremacism and misogyny that underpins literally everything they say and do. They're a mixed bag, but there is a lot of that. They are, as are a lot of people, their own argument's worst enemy.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Is "New Atheist" a definite term for something that I didn't get the memo for?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Is "New Atheist" a definite term for something that I didn't get the memo for? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
I'm just not of the mind that religion needs to be challenged everywhere. It doesn't in itself hurt anything. It's simply not relevant in the realities of law, science, morality, anything in the physical world, and as long as it can be kept apart from those, what is the harm? Most religious people I know seem to be able to do exactly that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:I'm just not of the mind that religion needs to be challenged everywhere. It doesn't in itself hurt anything. It's simply not relevant in the realities of law, science, morality, anything in the physical world, and as long as it can be kept apart from those, what is the harm? Most religious people I know seem to be able to do exactly that. Unfortunately, the most vocal and political of the religious crowd are the ones who do harm. Those are the types I oppose, especially in my home state of Georgia, where they've actively tried to edit both the US History courses and Science courses to make them 'More Christian friendly' and push woo in regards to abortion and pass legislation that back their specific creed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 18:23
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:I'm just not of the mind that religion needs to be challenged everywhere. It doesn't in itself hurt anything. It's simply not relevant in the realities of law, science, morality, anything in the physical world, and as long as it can be kept apart from those, what is the harm? Most religious people I know seem to be able to do exactly that. Religion is just one of a number of forms of ideology capable of motivating otherwise ordinary people into acts they wouldn't ordinarily pursue, as well as the first form. To really get up to some truly evil poo poo en masse you either need a religion or something that functions in a similar way. That's why it's relevant as a historical talking point, simply put.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Religion is just one of a number of forms of ideology capable of motivating otherwise ordinary people into acts they wouldn't ordinarily pursue, as well as the first form. To really get up to some truly evil poo poo en masse you either need a religion or something that functions in a similar way. That's why it's relevant as a historical talking point, simply put. Well yes, I worded it a bit wrong, it's obviously relevant in understanding our history and how the human mind works, true. But in the way a modern society functions, religion offers nothing. It has nothing to contribute towards our future and advancement. In the same way, private faith is not harmful in any way or form. Like any other ideology, its when you try to impose it on others it becomes a problem. I'm fine with people believing in things that to me are dumb - I do things that are dumb and illogical too. It just doesn't touch the lives of others (I hope so anyway).
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
That doesn't really seem very new, strong atheism has been around for quite a while.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 18:36
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Well yes, I worded it a bit wrong, it's obviously relevant in understanding our history and how the human mind works, true. But in the way a modern society functions, religion offers nothing. It has nothing to contribute towards our future and advancement. In the same way, private faith is not harmful in any way or form. Like any other ideology, its when you try to impose it on others it becomes a problem. I'm fine with people believing in things that to me are dumb - I do things that are dumb and illogical too. It just doesn't touch the lives of others (I hope so anyway). Here the new atheists are quite divergent. Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens don't all mind the concept of a domesticated or private religion (though they don't recommend one per se), Dawkins however seems to view it as a very high good to actively work towards the total eradication of religion. My own view is close to the Marxian one that religion is a form of false consolation and removing the situation that requires illusions will also cause the death of religion, though where that's coming from is more of a mystery to me than it ever was to Marx. I also think there's something to the argument that religions partly stay domesticated because they're constantly put under pressure to stay that way - that is to say, there's no reason to suppose that anti-clericalism, for example, is a bad idea in the present just because there isn't as pressing a need for it any more.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:You're correct that there are many differences in belief between a theologian and the average believer, but there are many differences in belief between the average believers themselves, ditto for theologians. You brought up the No True Scotman fallacy, so be careful you don't commit it yourself: one person considers God as the First Cause, another as literately a 10 foot tall man with a beard who lives in the stratosphere - if they both belong to the same church, then that simply means that the community has a plurality of beliefs. Neither is invalidated by the other, although we can certainly judge who has the better argument, is nicer person, whatever. I agree with you, to a degree. No doubt there is a plurality of belief types even within the non-academic sphere. And for me to exclude a subset on the sole apparent basis of "is bad for my argument" would be a NTS just as much as it is when the believers do it. But for some beliefs, it is possible to exclude subsets on a reasonable basis. For example, unlike Protestantism where someone can start a fly-by-night denomation by virtue of holding a Bible study in his garage with a neighbor and be a Protestant Christian by definition, Catholicism has an established top-down hierarchy with well-defined correct and incorrect beliefs. Someone that espouses the incorrect ones would very much be a No True Catholic, non-fallaciously. Also neither type of belief is "invalidated" by the other in the sense of excluding it from the class (see Protestantism as we just discussed) but it can very much be "invalidated" by contradiction. Barlow posted:Nor does the fact that "popular" religiosity is often less sophisticated really diminish the need to address these "academic" voices. Hell, Aquinas is the center of reasoning for the entire Catholic church and Dawkins repeats some gross over simplifications of his ideas and declares him beaten after three pages. If religious people directed their criticism solely at arguments made by r/atheism users we should likewise be critical. Yes it actually does diminish that need. Why do you think there is such a "need" to begin with? I feel no such need. Do you mean by that that it's required to refute a theistic position that would otherwise be left standing? If so, there's no such requirement concerning basic popular religion. It's refuted by a basic comparison with reality. You say Catholicism stands on the shoulders of Aquinas' work, but it's still false prima facie. It's a belief that the universe was created by a magical all-powerful African ape that once wanted us to cut off pieces of our penises, and has a regular magical ceremony where we make bread and wine Since the conclusion is wrong, there's something wrong with the premises or inference, and it's up to the Catholics to do the legwork of figuring that out if it's that important to them. It's like if someone's trying to calculate the distance between two cities and comes up with a negative number, obviously there's a math error and it's not on my shoulders to figure it out for them. I feel no such "need."
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
vessbot posted:I agree with you, to a degree. No doubt there is a plurality of belief types even within the non-academic sphere. And for me to exclude a subset on the sole apparent basis of "is bad for my argument" would be a NTS just as much as it is when the believers do it. But for some beliefs, it is possible to exclude subsets on a reasonable basis. For example, unlike Protestantism where someone can start a fly-by-night denomation by virtue of holding a Bible study in his garage with a neighbor and be a Protestant Christian by definition, Catholicism has an established top-down hierarchy with well-defined correct and incorrect beliefs. Someone that espouses the incorrect ones would very much be a No True Catholic, non-fallaciously. The best kind of athiests are robot people that talk poo poo about stuff they don't understand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That doesn't really seem very new, strong atheism has been around for quite a while. Nobody said it was new, only that it is a defined movement with leaders.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:The best kind of athiests are robot people that talk poo poo about stuff they don't understand. Where do you think I went wrong? Please be specific.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Those are the types I oppose, especially in my home state of Georgia, where they've actively tried to edit both the US History courses and Science courses to make them 'More Christian friendly' and push woo in regards to abortion and pass legislation that back their specific creed. Heh, Georgia is where I took that photo of the "Word made flesh" mattress store advertisement. And the school stuff is one of the reasons I'm getting my family the gently caress out of this state. The racism, conservatism, and authoritarianism it's just awful. And the state is really just crazy loving weird almost schizo about it too, especially in the rural areas. Went into a grocery store near Jesup the other day, Christian stuff on the outside, ladies magazines covered up, but then vibrating cock rings just right out on the shelf. What the hell? I don't think I'll ever really get the deep south.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Nobody said it was new, only that it is a defined movement with leaders. I guess colour me unimpressed. Seems depressingly similar to the thing they're supposedly trying to get rid of.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
vessbot posted:You say Catholicism stands on the shoulders of Aquinas' work, but it's still false prima facie. It's a belief that the universe was created by a magical all-powerful African ape that once wanted us to cut off pieces of our penises, and has a regular magical ceremony where we make bread and wine Yet in giving such caricatures you often fail to understand the subject you are criticizing. Take transubstantiation, which you mentioned here, the wine and bread in Catholicism change Aristotelian categories of "essence" but they don't change physical properties. The Catholic Church doesn't believe that if you looked at consecrated communion wine under a microscope that it would look like the body of Christ. It's perfectly possible to consider religions carefully and reject them, but if you're going to talk about the subject you should at least be informed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I don't think I'll ever really get the deep south. Miltank fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Feb 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Miltank posted:"Protestant Christianity" as shorthand for participation in the Cult of State. Now that is a valid concern about Christianity, and a far more interesting one than scientific plausibility.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Heh, Georgia is where I took that photo of the "Word made flesh" mattress store advertisement. And the school stuff is one of the reasons I'm getting my family the gently caress out of this state. The racism, conservatism, and authoritarianism it's just awful. And the state is really just crazy loving weird almost schizo about it too, especially in the rural areas. Went into a grocery store near Jesup the other day, Christian stuff on the outside, ladies magazines covered up, but then vibrating cock rings just right out on the shelf. What the hell? I don't think I'll ever really get the deep south. I've heard Atlanta's pretty cool?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:I've heard Atlanta's pretty cool? Like many large cities in the South, Atlanta is pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Barlow posted:Yet in giving such caricatures you often fail to understand the subject you are criticizing. Take transubstantiation, which you mentioned here, the wine and bread in Catholicism change Aristotelian categories of "essence" but they don't change physical properties. The Catholic Church doesn't believe that if you looked at consecrated communion wine under a microscope that it would look like the body of Christ. Whether or not you think transubstantiation is silly, why does God want you to eat his body and drink his blood during communion? Is it a punishment for the sins that he died for? A reward for being faithful? A test to see if you'll just do any drat thing he says? I understand that rituals are symbolic, I'm just struggling to understand the symbolism of the Eucharist. Is the recommended way to get the holy spirit inside of you to loving eat God?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Barlow posted:Yet in giving such caricatures you often fail to understand the subject you are criticizing. Take transubstantiation, which you mentioned here, the wine and bread in Catholicism change Aristotelian categories of "essence" but they don't change physical properties. The Catholic Church doesn't believe that if you looked at consecrated communion wine under a microscope that it would look like the body of Christ. What if I reject it because "essence" is meaningless conceptual garbage?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Barlow posted:Yet in giving such caricatures you often fail to understand the subject you are criticizing. Take transubstantiation, which you mentioned here, the wine and bread in Catholicism change Aristotelian categories of "essence" but they don't change physical properties. The Catholic Church doesn't believe that if you looked at consecrated communion wine under a microscope that it would look like the body of Christ. What caricature? It's an unkind description of the entailments of the belief, but an accurate one nevertheless. And I'm aware of the Aristotelian justification of transubstantiation; it's nonsense just the same. That doesn't defeat anything I said.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Whether or not you think transubstantiation is silly, why does God want you to eat his body and drink his blood during communion? Is it a punishment for the sins that he died for? A reward for being faithful? A test to see if you'll just do any drat thing he says? The doctrine of the Church regarding the effects or the fruits of Holy Communion centres around two ideas: (a) the union with Christ by love and (b) the spiritual repast of the soul. Both ideas are often verified in one and same effect of Holy Communion. The union with Christ by love The first and principal effect of the Holy Eucharist is union with Christ by love (Decr. pro Armenis: adunatio ad Christum), which union as such does not consist in the sacramental reception of the Host, but in the spiritual and mystical union with Jesus by the theological virtue of love. Christ Himself designated the idea of Communion as a union love: "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh blood, abideth in me, and I in him" (John 6:57). St. Cyril of Alexandria (Hom. in Joan., IV, xvii) beautifully represents this mystical union as the fusion of our being into that of the God-man, as "when melted wax is fused with other wax". Since the Sacrament of Love is not satisfied with an increase of habitual love only, but tends especially to fan the flame of actual love to an intense ardor, the Holy Eucharist is specifically distinguished from the other sacraments, and hence it is precisely in this latter effect that Francisco Suárez, recognizes the so-called "grace of the sacrament", which otherwise is so hard to discern. It stands to reason that the essence of this union by love consists neither in a natural union with Jesus analogous to that between soul and body, nor in a hypostatic union of the soul with the Person of the Word, nor finally in a pantheistical deification of the communicant, but simply in a moral but wonderful union with Christ by the bond of the most ardent charity. Hence the chief effect of a worthy Communion is to a certain extent a foretaste of heaven, in fact the anticipation and pledge of our future union with God by love in the Beatific Vision. He alone can properly estimate the precious boon which Catholics possess in the Holy Eucharist, who knows how to ponder these ideas of Holy Communion to their utmost depth. The immediate result of this union with Christ by love is the bond of charity existing between the faithful themselves as St. Paul says: "For we being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread" (1 Corinthians 10:17). And so the Communion of Saints is not merely an ideal union by faith and grace, but an eminently real union, mysteriously constituted, maintained, and guaranteed by partaking in common of one and the same Christ. The spiritual repast of the soul A second fruit of this union with Christ by love is an increase of sanctifying grace in the soul of the worthy communicant. Here let it be remarked at the outset, that the Holy Eucharist does not per se constitute a person in the state of grace as do the sacraments of the dead (baptism and penance), but presupposes such a state. It is, therefore, one of the sacraments of the living. It is as impossible for the soul in the state of mortal sin to receive this Heavenly Bread with profit, as it is for a corpse to assimilate food and drink. Hence the Council of Trent (Sess. XIII. can. v), in opposition to Luther and Calvin, purposely defined, that the "chief fruit of the Eucharist does not consist in the forgiveness of sins". For though Christ said of the Chalice: "This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins" (Matthew 26:28), He had in view an effect of the sacrifice, not of the sacrament; for He did not say that His Blood would be drunk unto remission of sins, but shed for that purpose. It is for this very reason that St. Paul (1 Corinthians 11:28) demands that rigorous "self-examination", in order to avoid the heinous offense of being guilty of the Body and the Blood of the Lord by "eating and drinking unworthily", and that the Fathers insist upon nothing so energetically as upon a pure and innocent conscience. In spite of the principles just laid down, the question might be asked, if the Blessed Sacrament could not at times per accidens free the communicant from mortal sin, if he approached the Table of the Lord unconscious of the sinful state of his soul. Presupposing what is self-evident, that there is question neither of a conscious sacrilegious Communion nor a lack of imperfect contrition (attritio), which would altogether hinder the justifying effect of the sacrament, theologians incline to the opinion, that in such exceptional cases the Eucharist can restore the soul to the state of grace, but all without exception deny the possibility of the reviviscence of a sacrilegious or unfruitful Communion after the restoration of the soul's proper moral condition has been effected, the Eucharist being different in this respect from the sacraments which imprint a character upon the soul (baptism, confirmation, and Holy orders). Together with the increase of sanctifying grace there is associated another effect, namely, a certain spiritual relish or delight of soul (delectatio spiritualis). Just as food and drink delight and refresh the heart of man, so does this "Heavenly Bread containing within itself all sweetness" produce in the soul of the devout communicant ineffable bliss, which, however, is not to be confounded with an emotional joy of the soul or with sensible sweetness. Although both may occur as the result of a special grace, its true nature is manifested in a certain cheerful and willing fervor in all that regards Christ and His Church, and in the conscious fulfillment of the duties of one's state of life, a disposition of soul which is perfectly compatible with interior desolation and spiritual dryness. A good Communion is recognized less in the transitory sweetness of the emotions than in its lasting practical effects on the conduct of our daily lives. Forgiveness of venial sin and preservation from mortal sin Though Holy Communion does not per se remit mortal sin, it has nevertheless the third effect of "blotting out venial sin and preserving the soul from mortal sin" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, cap. ii). The Holy Eucharist is not merely a food, but a medicine as well. The destruction of venial sin and of all affection to it, is readily understood on the basis of the two central ideas mentioned above. Just as material food banishes minor bodily weaknesses and preserves man's physical strength from being impaired, so does this food of our souls remove our lesser spiritual ailments and preserve us from spiritual death. As a union based upon love, the Holy Eucharist cleanses with its purifying flame the smallest stains which adhere to the soul, and at the same time serves as an effective prophylactic against grievous sin. It only remains for us to ascertain with clearness the manner in which this preservative influence against relapse into mortal sin is exerted. According to the teaching of the Roman Catechism, it is effected by the allaying of concupiscence, which is the chief source of deadly sin, particularly of impurity. Therefore it is that spiritual writers recommend frequent Communion as the most effective remedy against impurity, since its powerful influence is felt even after other means have proved unavailing (cf. St. Thomas: III:79:6). Whether or not the Holy Eucharist is directly conducive to the remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, is disputed by St. Thomas (III:79:5), since the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar was not instituted as a means of satisfaction; it does, however, produce an indirect effect in this regard, which is proportioned to the communicant's love and devotion. The case is different as regards the effects of grace in behalf of a third party. The pious custom of the faithful of "offering their Communion" for relations, friends, and the souls departed, is to be considered as possessing unquestionable value, in the first place, because an earnest prayer of petition in the presence of the Spouse of our souls will readily find a hearing, and then, because the fruits of Communion as a means of satisfaction for sin may be applied to a third person, and especially per modum suffragii to the souls in purgatory. The pledge of our resurrection As a last effect we may mention that the Eucharist is the "pledge of our glorious resurrection and eternal happiness" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, cap. ii), according to the promise of Christ: "He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up on the last day." Hence the chief reason why the ancient Fathers, as Ignatius (Letter to the Ephesians 20), Irenĉus (Against Heresies IV.18.4), and Tertullian (On the Resurrection of the Flesh 8), as well as later patristic writers, insisted so strongly upon our future resurrection, was the circumstance that it is the door by which we enter upon unending happiness. There can be nothing incongruous or improper in the fact that the body also shares in this effect of Communion, since by its physical contact with the Eucharist species, and hence (indirectly) with the living Flesh of Christ, it acquires a moral right to its future resurrection, even as the Blessed Mother of God, inasmuch as she was the former abode of the Word made flesh, acquired a moral claim to her own bodily assumption into heaven. The further discussion as to whether some "physical quality" (Contenson) or a "sort of germ of immortality" (Heimbucher) is implanted in the body of the communicant, has no sufficient foundation in the teaching of the Fathers and may, therefore, be dismissed without any injury to dogma.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Can you not just re-post whole pages of the Catholic Encyclopedia (which, by the way, is not always on the money doctrinally)? And if you do, can you at least give a citation? E.g. your whole post is here.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:I understand that rituals are symbolic, I'm just struggling to understand the symbolism of the Eucharist. Is the recommended way to get the holy spirit inside of you to loving eat God? No no you misunderstand, in Catholic thought the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not metaphorical, allegorical, symbolic, representative, virtual, or figurative. It's "real and true!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Can you not just re-post whole pages of the Catholic Encyclopedia (which, by the way, is not always on the money doctrinally)? And if you do, can you at least give a citation? That one's a pretty good summation, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
vessbot posted:No no you misunderstand, in Catholic thought the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not metaphorical, allegorical, symbolic, representative, virtual, or figurative. It's "real and true!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:I understand this already. It makes literally eating God to prove how much you love each other that much more strange. Perhaps fellating God was considered too crass? Perhaps he just likes a swallower and doesn't want to say it out loud.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:That one's a pretty good summation, though. If the Eucharist is that good for you, why would you ever eat anything else? Is there not enough to go around? Infinite Karma fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Feb 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:If the Eucharist is that good for you, why would you ever eat anything else? Is there not enough to go around? That rather....misses the point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:The best kind of athiests are robot people that talk poo poo about stuff they don't understand. Atheists probably know more about Christianity than Christians do about the hundreds of other religions that they reject out of hand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:Atheists probably know more about Christianity than Christians do about the hundreds of other religions that they reject out of hand. They know more about the monstrous Christianity that they construct in their minds and assume that every Christian believes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:I'm just not of the mind that religion needs to be challenged everywhere. It doesn't in itself hurt anything. It's simply not relevant in the realities of law, science, morality, anything in the physical world, and as long as it can be kept apart from those, what is the harm? Most religious people I know seem to be able to do exactly that. Counterpoint - Anti Vaccination movement. Faith Healing. There's quite a lot of harm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:They know more about the monstrous Christianity that they construct in their minds and assume that every Christian believes. No true
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
In Monster Church, we kill and eat God, it rules 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 14:10 |
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:They know more about the monstrous Christianity that they construct in their minds and assume that every Christian believes. Actually he's right, check your reflexive assumption that people who disagree with you must be making stuff up. http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/ Atheists and agnostics know more about the Bible and Christianity (6.7/12, 56%) than Christians know about world religions. (4.7/11, 43%)
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:47
|
|