During the start of the whole Anti-Freemason trend, a judge ruled a man as an incompetent witness because he was an athiest.
So, inregards to [atheists] being a distrusted minority, I think thats nonsense, they don't ever get together and meet and discuss their common idiocy. But I could do well with a lot less of those people.
As of the strong/weak thing. Weak athiests are just agnostics in my opinion, its sad they lack faith, but atleast they don't try to deny it. Thats the real idiocy, the denial.
30 comments
<<they don't try to deny it. Thats the real idiocy, the denial>>
Actually, the common attribution among psychologists and philosophers for a belief in SOMETHING is the terror management theory. This theory says that a belief in a god, and an agerlife is created to relieve our fear of being dead. Atheists simply confront and overcome that fear. Really, they're mentally healthier.
This guy is right on the brink of understanding the entire bullshit deal that is religion:
"I mean the whole need to worship something is ingrained in the human psyche."
"During the start of the whole Anti-Freemason trend, a judge ruled a man as an incompetent witness because he was an athiest."
Well to quote Crash Davis in Bull Durham.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094812/quotes
I myself believe two things.
Everyone can be educated, tolerant, caring and enlightened (sually stemming from educated), but also believe for every idiot you educate, two more will take their place.
So . . . not believing in God equates to not believing in anything?
You know what the difference is between Elder Spawn, and an imbicile?
Yeah, its sad that we don't have web forums and peer review and wikipedia... We never share our ideas with each other.
It's interesting that he argues that going against an ingrained need of the human psyche is petty and contrary given that nearly everything the bible tells you to do does just that.
Besides which, I do believe in something, I believe in a rational, observable universe whose fundamental mechanisms can be deduced from careful and accurate study. If it was all kicked off by something, I imagine that the initial whatever, if analysable at all, will be equally discernible through logic and experiment.
My reason for believing this is that it appears to have worked well enough so far.
"He was called an incompetent witness because he's an atheist."
Isn't that a discrimination on religious basis, therefore something that a judge should NOT apply to anyone during trial?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
