Mark Zuckerberg says he's not an atheist anymore


And the Jews control the media, right? Maybe try reading a book about Islam and the many different ways it’s actually practiced instead of making assumptions based on your prejudices?


So Women’s rights are suppressed in Saudi Arabia and Iran, but at the same time countries with over 80% muslim populations have elected women presidents, e.g. Megawatt Sukarnoputri from Indonesia, Sheikh Hasina in Bangladesh. It’s simply not accurate to conflate Islam with suppressing women’s rights. Women’s rights get suppressed in countries that happen to be predominantly Islamic, but it’s a cultural issue bound to specific countries rather than to the whole religion.


And it’s not like only Muslims suppress women’s rights, either. Look at all the places HERE IN THE US where our right to access reproductive care is being surely and steadily eroded.


And you’d be wrong, in that MRAs are targetedly harmful in a way that broadly one can be fiercely feminist and Muslim.

He has, by Dawkins, Ann Coulter…


Only religious people would think people are being emotional for detesting and opposing it. Would you say I was being emotional for detesting and opposing racism, fascism, imperialism , colonialism, statism? No, we have seen them in action. We can oppose them in principle, in detail. But why should I do so in every instance when IN FACT I oppose them in total, ab ova ?. Religion is false and hateful, and I hate i just like I hate colonialism, and for pretty much the same reason.
I could surprise you by a long list, off the top of my head, detailing the depth of depravity that hides under everyday religious practice, and its history. The fact that, in the course of their burning infidels, exterminating opponents, each other, cats, old women, young women, homosexuals, unsanctioned hetrosexuals, etc, the proponents of their various systems have pontificated on many and varied religious questions is supposed to be interesting?. No doubt the colonialists could offer the same “interesting” field of study, with their amusing debates as to quite how the lower races are unworthy, which are the most effective poisons to use on “coloured” people, etc.

No. You don’t convince me. It is an interesting topic to no one who is rational.


Sure… but only in Islamic theocracies and developing countries with dangerous radicalized Islamic movements like Boko Haram.

Boko Haram: Nigeria’s Original MRA/PUA Community™

Online radicalization

I was perfectly clear in my replies, to the point of saying mind repeatedly. It was someone else who spoke of brain, and I answered them with a re-iteration of the use of the term mind. I qualified it further by saying “Not only is the human mind totally and utterly tabula rasa at birth, it is non-existent. It arises in the prepared matrix that is the human brain, via experience, and becomes a human mind”.

So, nope, your assertion is wrong.


Right up there with Christianity, it is true.


Doubling down, I see.

So your a priori assumption is that religion is an universal evil and nothing good has ever come about under its rubric?

You do realize that Western science arose out of Christianity, right? (As did most of our art, music, and much of our philosophy…)


You may think that you were being perfectly clear, but generally, if you have to tell someone that you were being perfectly clear, you weren’t.

Many people use “brain” and “mind” interchangeably. By the time you clarified by using both in the same paragraph, the original person you were arguing with was sick of arguing, possibly not even reading to that part because, instead of trying his argument, you accused him of being indoctrinated (but not of what he had been indoctrinated to believe).

Yes, once, out of this whole discussion (before I called you out to clarify), you did say one thing that might have shown that you were referring to “brain” and “mind” as two different concepts.

My assertion that position that no one is arguing that “the thinking mind” (as opposed to the underlying structure of the brain) is predisposed to create gods?

Fine, that’s an easy assertion for you to prove wrong. Find a post, later on the thread than your “the mind arises from the brain” post (where it becomes clear that were talking about them as two separate entities), that is making that argument.


Duce, seriously, confirming every negative stereotype of atheists ain’t helping Team Godless. As I’ve made abundantly clear I am an atheist. What I am suggesting is that you might do well to find a more nuanced and more informed understanding of topics you are literally proud about being willfully ignorant of.


Arguable: science certainly came to us via the lens of Christianity (after the Islamic scholars were done with it), but that was largely because the Church dominated intellectual life in the theocracies of medieval Europe to such an extent that secular thought was effectively eliminated.

And a lot of those “religious” scholars weren’t actually very religious; Copernicus kept a mistress throughout his monastic life, while Galileo had several illegitimate children and wrote one of the foundational documents of the secular enlightenment (Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina).

On the medical side, pretty much every advance came through the direct violation of religious edicts. The prohibition of autopsy and the enforced authority of classical theory was a massive handicap to medicine.


That’s a “No True Scotsman” sort of argument.

Many of the Popes has children with mistresses but most would argue that they were still pretty religious.


I’ve had Catholics pull the No True Scotsman charge on me when it comes to those popes, saying they don’t count.


The race to conform to the anti-woman, anti-Islam, anti-Christian and pseudoskeptical beliefs of the so-dubbed New Atheist leaders like Dawkins really is a sad thing.


It’s a sad thing you think that is actually a thing that happens.


I’m an absolute atheist and enjoyed my time at JREF meetups, but there is most certainly an ideological slant to the persons who appreciate Dawkins’ rhetoric.

I enjoy targeted applications of the skeptical toolset but calling oneself a “skeptic” (in general, not you specifically) doesn’t make one immune to ones own myopic views and failings. I often find myself disappointed with persons who should be more skeptical of bizarre misogynist and colonialist style mindsets.


Oh, I’m with you there. The kerfuffles that occurred disappointed me and the actions the SJW/Mysoginyst skeptic wars were eye opening. Thunderb00b showed that all too well by his actions. Same with Pat Condell. Being skeptical or atheistic doesn’t mean people are good or universally skeptical. And being a “feminist” doesn’t mean a person can’t also be a jerk.


I’m a Buddhist. They all look the same to me.


You’re saying Dawkins doesn’t do these things or that people don’t race to emulate Dawkins? I assure you that Dawkins does these things.