Avatar of Jannah
  • Last Seen: 6 yrs ago
  • Joined: 12 yrs ago
  • Posts: 813 (0.18 / day)
  • VMs: 0
  • Username history
    1. Jannah 12 yrs ago

Status

User has no status, yet

Bio

User has no bio, yet

Most Recent Posts

Gah...I'll edit when I get home then.
Dutchbag said
I thought you guys were working on posts.


This RP seems kind of dead.
Dutchbag said
PM is more important. Also, you put available manpower down.


I just assumed that was the sort of thing the GM wanted.
Jorick said
Just because you don't agree with his opinions doesn't mean he isn't good at the secular humanism thing. But yeah, I figured that would be your reason for disliking it. We could skip having any sort of debate on the matter and ag


That's not my reason for disliking them. It was just another point I brought up. I'd rather not get into why I dislike them as it could turn ugly. I need sleep soon anyway(class in the morning).
Jorick said Hah, that term. It amuses me that people felt the need to relabel secular humanism as "New Atheism" just because Dawkins and Hitches and others got big sales with their books. But yeah, I can understand why you'd be hesitant to bring up specifics, because I can guarantee that there would indeed be debate, and I'd almost certainly be one of those arguing against you.


Well that's exactly it. I don't like Hitchens, Dawkins, etc. However, I do respect Dawkins for his work in evolutionary biology. He should have just stuck to that though since it's what he's actually good at.

Atheism+ and its ilk are garbage, largely because they're not "New Atheism" in any way. They have all sorts of dogma at work and reject a lot of reason (particularly that which contradicts their dogma), so they don't fit into the modern secular humanist category that is "New Atheism."


There's many dogmatic atheists and I don't like them either. Like there's that whole "atheist church" thing. That just seems weird. Why set up something that is almost universally a symbol of the exact group you claim to oppose? I have also noticed there tends to be a lot of conspiracy theorists in the atheist community. I suppose "free thinking" for them is taken a bit too literal. *shrugs*
It's not a War on Terror without a certain controversial state in the Middle East:

Country Name: State of Israel מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל
Population: 7,412,200
Military strength: 1,554,186 males, 1,514,063 females
Navy strength: (2001 estimation).
Air strength: (2001 estimation).
Country's leader: Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister. Moshe Katsav, President. (I put both since I'm not sure yet which is the more important one. It's Prime Minister I believe.)
Allegiance: NATO
I'll also let it be known I'm no fan of the "New Atheism" movement, because reasons I'd rather not reveal here since it'll certainly devolve into political discussion.
I'll respond here since it's the proper thread.

To me that's the same as saying "I knowing he's a raping, murdering, racist homophobic lunatic. But he's a nice guy if you get to know him".
Not in the sense that I claim all religious people are like that (In fact, that's not what I'm implying in the slightest). But in terms of how I view the Religion itself.
The good and bad are all part of that religion, and I'm not going to ignore all the vile stuff in the religion just cause it might also have some good in it.


Well I don't ignore the vile parts of religion, I just recognize that not everybody chooses to act on them. There are religious people who are capable of being decent, even if it does take massive cherry-picking to get there. I'd rather have decent half-assed followers than a bunch of Bible literalist fundies.
I think it's also worth noting that the drug was probably given to adults before this and children will often to react to things differently.
Marduk said
Modern history is so incredibly boring. @-@.


I like modern history actually. At least some aspects of it. However, I also like stuff like this.
© 2007-2026
BBCode Cheatsheet