/atheism/ - Atheism

> You have more in common than you think

Stopped reading right there.

Meh, I laugh at those who go out of their way to not to be offended and I hate those who shove their morals down everyone throats for the sake of their personal peace of mind. The religious, SJWs, stormfags, marxists, even atheists based on the circumstances. I don't really care who I trigger.

The title sounds like something from The Onion.

>>8869

> I hate those who shove their morals down everyone throats for the sake of their personal peace of mind

Does that mean you hate everyone who believes in the law? Religions can't shove anything "down your throat" against your will, but the law sure will be imposed on you and I know few people who think this way about the law. Same with all the other groups you mentioned: the most they can do is talk. Talk is cheap.

As to being offended, I think everyone needs to both grow a pair and calm down. It's perfectly possible to discuss, but you have to let the adults speak and ignore the retarded (guess which is more newsworthy though).

>>8852

>The biggest problem some of them seem to have with Dawkins is because he seems insensitive.

Agreed, and they say Hitchkins is more respectable, mainly because his book is less persuasive imo.

>>9967

> What I was saying was that I don't like groups who say that everyone needs to live according to their standards.

Still works with my point. Society is a group, it has a set of laws, it imposes that set of laws via police. Standards, laws, rules, the name doesn't matter, the idea is the same and the result is the same.

> I'm moreso a live and let live sort of fellow. Of course things like murder or robbery are against the law because they involve infringing on another person's rights.

Most things you do infringe someone's right sooner or later, unless you have conceptual myopia. Most products you buy and use depend on whether someone's rights somewhere are being violated; the wealth you can tap into because of your country is generally the result of that country either winning some war or battle or having won an economic war in which some citizens are slaves and the others benefit from that slavery.

It remains that religious groups, or atheists, or the others, won't arrest you for anything, whereas the police will.

>>9967

>I do wonder what happened to the homosexual rights movement to make it more harmful for gays than beneficial.

By making it an actual threat. In the past, homos hadn't affected laws, for instance, but now they have and so people have realised that their traditions are being changed because of homos (actually because of political activists who, for their majority, aren't homos, but love to attack those they consider to be their enemies: the right, the conservative, the religious, their parents, etc).

In some countries, homo rights are perceived nationally: Russia sees it as Western propaganda intended to weaken Russia the same way it weakened France, England, America, etc. I don't disagree on that.

Most people don't know about the overlap between homosexuality and pedophilia and are shocked to see that Russia does see a connection between the two. Fact: over two thirds of pedophiles are homosexual pedophiles and they attack little boys, not little girls. The connection is overwhelming but it's a taboo here.

>>9943

Maybe I'm amongst few in that, but I appreciate atheists. Hitchens is a smug cunt on many occasions, the sort who thinks a good joke is a good argument ("Celestial North Korea", quite ironic considering this is state atheism), but I always welcomed his arguments. I expect my side to come up with worthy counters or at least a reflection.

I don't feel threatened by any of them, though. Often, though, the argument is based on misunderstanding something or not knowing enough. The quote that opens Dawkins' book, which you use as a banner, is one of the most retarded things I have ever read. The one with the garden and the fairies at the bottom of it. If you see a garden, you wonder if there's a gardener, not if some fairies live in it. Terrible quote. Also, it's incredibly unscientific and uncurious, it's like saying, "Pluto looks great from here, why come closer?" Why ask questions? Why do any research? I don't know…

Atheists too often that every Christian is a moron and that, because of this, the debate can be taken to that moronic level. That weakens the debate and the arguments (like reading the OT literally, that's just… amazing, from either side).

>>10022

>Still works with my point

Not quite. I get what you're coming from, but what I'm saying is that many of the moral guardian types I originally mentioned are the types to persecute people for victimless crimes (crimes where only the perpetrator is the victim, such as private drug use).

>Society is a group, it has a set of laws, it imposes that set of laws via police

The problem is that society is an incredibly varied group, with many different values and ideas on what's right and wrong, even within the same culture/subculture. This is more or less why I advocate for a live and let live philosophy, because this way the only thing that's illegal is fucking with other people. Nobody gets to exact their rules over everyone else but nobody can become a despot (i.e. a militant atheist banning religion or an SJW turning the place into Sweden) and shit like murder, robbery and rape are still treated as crimes.

>Fact: over two thirds of pedophiles are homosexual pedophiles and they attack little boys, not little girls

True, but how many gays are pedophiles? And there needs to be more psychological studies done on these cases before a conclusion can be made. Correlation does not equal causation, and their pedophilia can be caused by other things (such as mental trauma).

>>10024

Hitchens was undoubtedly a smug cunt, but he was the patron saint of smug cunts, and a cool guy to boot. He'll be missed.

>>10024

>Hitchens is a smug cunt on many occasions, the sort who thinks a good joke is a good argument

I doubt he believed that but he did have a great way of putting forth arguments in the form of jokes.

>Celestial North Korea", quite ironic considering this is state atheism

Even though they don't believe in a god in the sky they still have a god which is more akin to a pharaoh or in their case the supreme leader.

https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/journal_of_korean_religions/v004/4.2.jung.pdf

>I don't feel threatened by any of them

Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself more than me.

>he quote that opens Dawkins' book, which you use as a banner, is one of the most retarded things I have ever read. The one with the garden and the fairies at the bottom of it. If you see a garden, you wonder if there's a gardener, not if some fairies live in it. Terrible quote.

the quotes goes:

>There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?

It's quite curious, he's literally asking a question. It would be unscientific to suggest there are fairies without evidence just like with all these skywizards. He's not saying don't dig up your garden rather based on previous garden excavations there's no reason to expect fairies will be under yours.

>Atheists too often that every Christian is a moron

That is a mistake, very intelligent people can convince themselves of dumbest things.

>>10030

Both of you are citing someone who is citing a quote. The original is

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”

Hitchkins uses it too. The quote comes from Douglas Adams, writer of the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

>>10026

>Not quite. I get what you're coming from, but what I'm saying is that many of the moral guardian types I originally mentioned are the types to persecute people for victimless crimes (crimes where only the perpetrator is the victim, such as private drug use).

Persecution for victimless crimes? Let's see… Who persecutes you for cheating on your girlfriend/wife or having premarital sex? If we're talking about the West in general, I doubt that this happens.

As to drug use being a victimless crime, you couldn't be more wrong. The people who produce these drugs don't generally stop at drugs, and whatever else they do, you finance it. This usually involves human trafficking or terrorist groups, in the case of heroin. The money you spend on these drugs ends up being used for ends that definitely have actual victims. Also, there'd be no production without demand. There's a shared responsibility in this for anyone who finances this system. The only case where this argument doesn't work is when you grow your own stuff and consume it yourself. Everything else involves other people.

>>10026

>The problem is that society is an incredibly varied group, with many different values and ideas on what's right and wrong, even within the same culture/subculture

I don't see how that's a problem nor how that makes it different from any other group. You're probabling working from the assumption that Christian groups, and others, are rather monolithical in nature.

>True, but how many gays are pedophiles?

I doubt there are any good studies on this. All I know is over a third of pedos are homos, if not more, I forget.

>And there needs to be more psychological studies done on these cases before a conclusion can be made.

Not sure what you intend to do such that conclusion. Suppose 6% of homos are pedos, then what?

>Correlation does not equal causation, and their pedophilia can be caused by other things (such as mental trauma).

I never suggested there was a causal effect in there. I said most pedos are homosexual pedos, which is statistically true: male pedos tend to rape little boys far more often than little girls. I'm not hinting at any cause here. Being a homo doesn't mean you have to be a pedo too. What I said was that being a pedo most often means being a homosexual pedo.

As to the cause of pedophilia, it may be interesting to look for the cause of homosexuality too, but as long as we don't see it as a dysfunction, we won't look for a cause.

>homosexuals have it tough

>but let's not try to help!

>let's use it politically and ensure that we don't even look for any kind of cure, because it's not a disease!

Brilliant logic. That's how you know when someone cares for homosexuality more than for homosexuals: "Would you accept a cure if one was found?" You'll find that many are hostile to the idea, and that's when you know they don't care about homosexuals as people.

>>10044

On mobile, different ID

>no one persecutes you for victimless crimes

And thank goodness for that. But if groups such as SJWs, fundamentalist religious folks, or other ideologues got a hold of society, that may change, and likely not for the better. Imagine for a second if a crazily militant atheist group got a hold of society and banned religion. I imagine you would object to that.

Now, you do make a good point about drugs, and the issue is a bit more complex than I originally stated. But that would be an entirely different debate. So I'm just going to simply state that I think the legalization of milder drugs (marijuana for example) can avoid waste of police resources and keep production out of the hands of cartels. Of course, there is an alternative to legalization in decriminalization, which might be preferable depending on the circumstance.

>I don't see how that's a problem nor how that makes it different from any other group

The problem is that if you were going to make a society that could ban victimless crimes, then every group would rush to get the shit they hate banned. Sure maybe you get to see some shit you don't like outlawed, but it might also mean that shit you like could also get outlawed.

>You're probabling working from the assumption that Christian groups, and others, are rather monolithical in nature.

Didn't say this. In fact, it's the disagreements even within the same groups/sub-cultures that make this issue even more complicated.

>Not sure what you intend to do such that conclusion

So we can see if there is indeed a causation effect between homosexuality and pedophilia. If such is the case then by position on the issue may change.

>cure for homosexuality

You see, the problem with that statement is that it claims that homosexuality is a disease. The reason homosexuality isn't considered a mental disorder is because there is no evidence that it is debilitating in the majority of cases (you can still function in society even if you're a man who likes dick). Compare this to something like transexuality where high suicide rates and inability to function normally make it so that gender dysphoria is a mental disorder. I've talked to some trannies on /mental/ and even they agree that transexuality is a mental illness (albeit we disagreed on how best to treat it).

>homosexuals have it tough

Never said that (at least, in the Western world), but I am saying there are other possible explanations, which do need to be looked into. As you said, it is doubtful that many good studies have been done on this.

And for that matter, if there was a "cure" for homosexuality, I'd have no problem with people taking it. If homosexuals don't wish to be gay anymore, then I have no right to stop them. I would be especially supportive of a cure if it was indeed confirmed that homosexuality is a mental disorder and can cause things like pedophilia.

>>10139

>The best estimate is that 15% of students will be sexually abused by a member of the school staff during their school career.

Article is sensational bullshit.

>>10139

70% of the population is white.

Meanwhile 13% of the population is black while blacks account for about 50% of homicide perpetrators.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

>>10139

Most of the population is white. This means nothing anon.

>>10142

This is true, however, even if you were to chalk up every murder in the U.S. to one black person each (i.e. leaving out multiple homicides common in gang violence, which make up a large amount of said murders), a fraction of a percent of the black population actually commit homicides.

Now on that note, ~30% of black men in the US will go to prison, but that is mostly for nonviolent crimes.

>>10144

Of course, most people don't commit violent crimes.

I just wanted to highlight how SJcucks sound exactly like stormfags. Though stormfags can at least factor in proportionality though very crudely. They just seem to conveniently leave out proportion of how many of said population actually commit violence.

>>10147

I actually empathize with some of the positions that stormfags take, if only because it opposes the dumb fucks we call progressives and they can point out some legitimate problems. They're also more open to debate and discussion.

That said, they can really inflate the importance of otherwise petty issues, have some pretty retarded solutions for the issues that are actually of importance, and are willing to use poorly cited and ripped-from-context facts to justify their positions. And I disagree with most of their values.

>>10187

Yeah for sure. If I had to pick who I'd rather spend time discussing matters with stormfags >> SJcucks. At least stormfags allow debate. It's funny especially since SJcucks are supposedly the ones preaching tolerance.

I really hate how they took the label of progressive though. There is nothing progressive about them. They're the new conservatives in fact considering that their rainbow bullshit is the status quo. And their entire platform is based on bitching about the past and manspreading. "Back during the 1800s women were [x] that's why today we must decapitate all men who manspread."

>>10208

I can't relate to stormfags, and the concept of regression to a tribal mentality repulses me enough that I avoid their website. I have asian blood, and find their positions reprehensible. I doubt they would have more tolerance than their KKK or neonazi fathers. At least with SJWs I can laugh at their idiocy even if I can't hold a debate with them, but I despise all racists regardless of race, and not only do their views make them frightening, but in my experience you can't change any of their views. Because they're stupid enough to be racists, they will be inflexible.

>>10212

Many racists are fucking stupid, but it's not the racism that makes them stupid, it's their stupidity that draws them to racism. Like a sadist to violent video games. The games don't make him violent, the violence attracts him to it. But just like video games, racism doesn't affect any two people in the same way.

Most racists are stupid, but there is some truth to their claims. We already know that intelligence is genetic, so why do we deny the obvious truth that different racial groups have a different basal intelligence?

People will say that there is no such thing as race, but in med-school, you learn that this is just not the case. There are certain heart medication specifically designed for black people, and if you give them to white people, it can kill them. Just as you can look at a skeletal structure and determine the race from the structure of things such as the skull. Even between genders there are differences, so I never understood why people believe that there is no difference between races.

Certain racial groups have a higher chance of some illnesses, such as black people and sickle cell anemia. Some central american peoples even have a natural defense against malaria.

>I have asian blood

What kind? Korean blood is different from mongol blood, is different from japonic blood, is different from han chinese blood, is different from Indian blood. Just telling us that you're asian tells us nothing. Just like if someone told us that they were white. White what? European? Altaic? Finnic? Slavic? Caucasian?

It makes a difference, biologically and culturally.