You Forgot About History

SimplyAmusing · 3 days

The conquering of North America was not a holy endeavor.

Not specifically, but conversion certainly played a significant role. The Vatican explicitly permitted/condoned the actions carried out by the colonists (papal bull Dum Diversas, 1492).

poop_drunk · 3 days

One does not need to be crazy or a liar to have sincerely misunderstood what they have experienced. Our brains are not perfectly functioning machines and there is much room for error, both in initial perception and later interpretation.

First, it is essential to note that memory is not fluid. Rather, the brain recalls "snippets" of an event, like a scent and a piece of conversation, and then fills in the rest often subconsciously. The frequent gaps in our memories lend themselves to embellishment, particularly for those whom have already made up their minds about the supernatural.

There are also psychological phenomena, the most prominent of which (in dealing with the supernatural) is confirmation bias; we interpret the evidence to confirm what we already believe.

Also common is pareidolia, in which we perceive random patterns as something significant and with meaning, like how a colon and bracket can look like a smiley face. :) The human brain is best at detecting patterns and does so even when there is none to be found.

There is the simple alternative explanation that they've missed the physical source as well. In my house, on a windy day, opening the front door wide and then slamming it shut will cause the curtains at the back of the house to move even though there are no windows in the vicinity. People can mistake vent drafts, creaking, light, and all other sorts of things as supernatural phenomena.

Pirateer · 5 days

Evidently you can't boil a baby in it's mother's milk.

I'm fairly certain that that commandment refers specifically (and therefore only) to goats.

lukey · 5 days

So you re-eelcted the guy who literally shit on your freedom and civil liberties? Sweet.

I don't think you know what the word "literally" means.

Clarkinho · 13 days

Obligatory: Jedi Knight.

plissken627 · 15 days

Troll harder.

chirs3 · 25 days

You sound terribly bitter and alone.

Bebop0420 · 25 days

Bring on the downvotes

If you insist.

chirs3 · 25 days

women want to be dominated which is why none of y'all get pussy

I'm guessing you're not a woman. Hint: women aren't a hivemind. Some women prefer to be dominated, others prefer to be the dominator, and many many more prefer an equal relationship. Try not grouping three billion people under the same umbrella, kthx.

chirs3 · 26 days

We teach them to be decent and cover up. ... Our women are more decent then yours.

And here we see that you've boiled down a woman's worth (or her "decency") to her appearance and her sexual behaviour, and end up sounding like you're comparing your personal possession to your neighbour's. Who cares if one woman is covered up and another isn't? Why not judge people based on their character, their integrity, or their disposition? Decency, like modesty, is subjective. What is decent in one country is indecent in another. Where I live, everyone has different backgrounds, faiths, and philosophies. We espouse tolerance and live it by generally keeping our religion and political ideologies to ourselves. These are considered very personal matters. Here, an individual wearing an article of clothing that loudly proclaims their faith is seen as indecent. However, unlike you, I don't think less of people for not conforming to a particular cultural norm. That's because they have the freedom to wear whatever they like here.

We do not oppress them you do.

How do you figure? How am I oppressed by wearing clothes that suit the weather outside? No one told me what to wear, whether it be the government or my own family. The difference between freedom and oppression is the ability to choose openly. If I want to cover my hair, I can do it. If I want to get married and raise a family without ever holding down a job, I have that freedom. That same freedom also allows me to not cover my hair, to not get married or raise a family, and to pursue a career instead. You can delude yourself into thinking that a woman wearing a cloth over her head makes her inherently better than someone who doesn't, but at least familiarize yourself enough with the English language to know that this isn't freedom.

By the way, the lollipop analogy doesn't work because you're assuming that the world and society is the ground; dirty and disgusting. But what if the piece of unwrapped candy was rolled around in a jar of cinnamon and sprinkled with chocolate? Then you'd have an interesting and unique piece of candy, compared with the wrapped piece of candy which tastes exactly the same as every other piece of wrapped candy: safe and without character.

In any case, the most important reason why this analogy fails is because PROTIP: women are not candy. We are not inanimate objects whose only value is our appeal to someone else. The very idea that you judge a woman's worth based on how covered up she is and how she personally appeals to your tastes tells volumes about your misogyny and you don't even realize it.

chirs3 · 26 days

This has nothing to do with just islam.

...Except they were quoting from the Quran. While this certainly isn't representative of all interpretations, it is the Islamic holy book and I believe this particular verse is interpreted as permitting some degree of physical force in some Islamic countries. To say it is entirely irrelevant is inaccurate.

chirs3 · 26 days

No. From what I've read of this conversation, it appears that Chir has always maintained that force in the case of defense is justifiable while force to ensure obedience is wrong under any circumstances. You started this post by basically defending physical coercion, which is an opinion with which he and apparently many others, including myself, disagree.

chirs3 · 26 days

In case you're curious as to the number of downvotes, there is a long and thick line between listening to someone and obeying/submitting to them. The first is necessary in a marriage between two equal and loving partners, the second is reserved for a heirarchical system where one serves and the other is served.

chirs3 · 26 days

I've grown to hate women for the power they have over me.

You hate women for something they haven't even done to you? You hate the random female walking down the street because she's loosely associated to some other random female who was unfaithful to her husband? That's some brilliant logic right there.

Fifamaster · 29 days

That isn't so much ridiculous as it is extraordinarily callous and douchey.

PhiloCojones · 1 month

The amount of thought you've put into this is almost scary.

RPESteven · 1 month

I'm fairly certain the Bible specifically prohibits beating one's slave to death. One can, however, beat them so long as they can walk after a few days.

I would like to know the verse permissing beating slaves to death though.

RPESteven · 1 month

As early as 1839 the Pope condemned slavery.

Wow, and it only took 1839 years.

RPESteven · 1 month

Asking where the atheists were in regards to their opinion on slavery is a useless question because they had been demonized and marginalized into silence. If they did express themselves, they likely did so while masquerading as theists to avoid universal ostracism and retaliation.

The United States profited heavily from the slave trade. With slaves making up almost 1/25 people from a population of less than 20 million, I wouldn't exactly call the slave trade "not very active." Mentioning that other countries were worse doesn't prove anything.

Do you have any anger for the African American thugs that prey on poor neighborhoods?

Generally, those who commit violent crimes in poor neighbourhoods were raised in similar neighbourhoods where they learned that that kind of behavior is socially acceptable and even expected in their immediate environment. If they are also struggling with intergenerational neglect at home, and racism nationally, then successful conformity to the larger public is made even less likely. It's a bigger issue than simply "feeling anger for" criminals.

As per atheists with regard to charities, there are little or no atheist charities because we just donate to secular causes instead - you know, giving food and money simply for the sake of fulfilling the needs of others, all without trying to get something out of it like many evangelical missions.

Have you ever considered that America was the first country to go to war with itself to free the slaves?

Yes... other countries managed to free their slaves without a civil war as there was general consensus that it was the humane thing to do. Why you feel pride in the fact that so many American citizens so fully embraced slavery that they were willing to kill to protect it is beyond me.

Do you have any statistics regarding the economic or social success of black Haitians and Jamaicans compared to American-born black individuals?

justforpissingpploff · 1 month

Atheism - The theory or belief that God does not exist

Or, the lack of belief in a god. These are two different things.

How did the very first "ball" of energy that became EVERYTHING ever get created?

The laws of physics break down at the quantum level, where certain particles have been known to "pop" in and out of existence without cause. The singularity that initiated the space-time expansion that we call the Big Bang may have arose in the same manner.

Is calling it "God" really a big deal?

It is if you're trying to challenge our atheism. Historically and definitionally, gods have consistently maintained certain characteristics, like sentience/consciousness, and supernatural power. A singularity possesses none of those things. You can go ahead and call it God, but expect to have as much credibility as someone who calls their chair a god and challenges our atheism on the basis that chairs exist.

Strawberry_Poptart · 1 month

So rather than actually point out the flaw in my reasoning, you resort to accusations of self-deceit. Should I take this as an admission that you don't actually have an argument to make?

And where is the double-talk? All I did was note that the behaviors and characteristics that you believe is attributable to a supernatural force can be explained through natural means. There is a plethora of information and studies regarding the influence of the human brain that is available to read, if only you would use Google. The fact that you've somehow translated this evidence into an atheistic self-delusion is mind-boggling. Is that how you sleep at night?

Strawberry_Poptart · 1 month

So that is why I say "animals have a bit of a soul".

No, they just have a less dense concentration of the aforementioned neurons, in addition to lacking the extent of forethought that we humans are afforded due to the executive functioning of our prefrontal lobe. All that you call a soul is achievable through physiological means. There's no need to ascribe a supernatural explanation.

Strawberry_Poptart · 1 month

Well every human starts out with a simple "conscience".

Many non-human animals also have a capacity for empathy that drives what we consider to be a conscience.

That is God whispering in your ears the basic rules of humanity.

No, it is the effect of the sheer quantity of mirror neurons that we possess.

Strawberry_Poptart · 1 month

we know Earth goes through "hospital to life" cycles

wut.

uparrow · 1 month

Eh, I just finished mine. Best luck to you in yours.

Meridicia

TROPHY CASE

Meridicia

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login