4 ms·
Because you're calling a religion subscribed to by almost a quarter of the people on this planet, and by inference those subscribers, "insane".
by mathieuh 12y ago
Because you're calling a religion subscribed to by almost a quarter of the people on this planet, and by inference those subscribers, "insane".
- serf 12y agoNot agreeing with parent, but 'religion subscribed to' and 'insane' go hand in hand for me. I have never encountered a religion that didn't require a lack of focused logic and a certain suspension of disbelief in order to be a follower. Half of (some random religious group) followers say something like "Well, it's all symbolism, the stories are not meant to be taken factually but rather metaphorically", and the other half say "Well, it's a historical document and entirely true.". I'm may be a bigot and jaded with bias, but if I learn that you put a lot of faith into a deity based hocus-pocus religion i'll likely end up putting less faith in your personal reasoning skills as a human.
- mathieuh 12y agoI'm a dirty commie atheist, I just feel like the energy put into hating religion by people like Dawkins would be much better spent elsewhere. I've met plenty of at least nominally religious people whom I've been happy to associate with, and whom are the some of the smartest people I've met. I've also met plenty of the Dawkins-type anti-theists whose company I've evacuated post haste.