In short, your wrong
In short, calling someone wrong with bad spelling and grammar makes you look like an idiot.
If I had said "Yur spelling in bad. You sillY" then perhaps. But since this is...you know...not a discussion about spelling, and is the internet, I think a few slightly lower standards could be applied. I'm sorry if I fail in spelling, but on several occasions on this forum, you've failed at being a nice person. I know which one is more important.
I think a few slightly lower standards could be applied.
You're free to judge people by your own standards, but people will do the same to you. I know I'm not the only person on this website who thinks your constant lack of proof-reading makes you sound like an idiot from time to time.
I'm sorry if I fail in spelling, but on several occasions on this forum, you've failed at being a nice person. I know which one is more important.
I've no qualms about someone thinking I'm a dick. Do you feel the same about people thinking you're an idiot? I think if you truly did you wouldn't even feel the need to reply to people calling you out on your spelling.
I konw you can raed tihs... Snice your so fkcinug sarmt, why dont you jsut atuo-tnraslate some... (selintly... in your mnid)?
Why, because you could hear me shit myself as you read it?
I'd sound like a moron if I tried to speak that way, however being norwegian I sound like a moron anyway... speaking english that is...
But unlike yours, my brain won't go "WARNING WARNING! syntax error" on me (like a fucking computer) for every little missing or misplaced letter in a script.
What's up with the grammar battle? Is that really necessary? -.- Intelligence isn't determined by how well someone constructs a sentence. I personally get irked when people use the wrong "your" in a sentence but come on, I don't make it into my main argument.
@ Vertigo_one (because I'm stupid and forgot to actually reply to him)
"Since over 90% of the world is relgious in one way or other, yet a much much smaller stat than that is biggoted in the way you describe, I'm going to say that there isn't enough of a correlation for you to make that kind of leap."
We're not just talking about your religion here, sir. Would you admit that other religions, at least, have caused great harm?
Since you're not willing to look at yours objectively. How can you, since you think it's absolute truth? Your bias is inevitable.
Look over in the Middle East. The fact that Islam is still so prominent and respected over there is the reason the people are so horribly oppressed. It's not that Arabs are inherently less advanced than us, of course, so what other cause could you point to? It's the reason that lots of things we think are atrocious can be justified. Really, though, Puritan America was almost as bad, when Christianity had this choke hold on everyone. If you weren't a Christian, or the wrong kind of Christian, you might as well be dead. You'd be despised, ostrocized by everyone. If you wanted to kill someone, you call them a witch. Church was basically mandatory. It might have been less brutal than the Middle East is at the moment, but maybe not by much.
While we're on it, let's not forget the countless genocides/infantacides promoted by Jehovah and executed by his children in the Old Testament. And rape. And excessive punishments for the smallest things. If, in Islam, there was a law that stated if a woman accidently (or intentionally) touches a man in the groin area trying to protect her husband while he's in a fight, she must have that hand removed, you would baulk at the ridiculousness of it. If, however, I told you that that existed in the Bible, you'd come up with all sorts of justifications, wouldn't you? Deuteronomy 25:11.
In short, he's right.
On an individual level, it probably helps a lot of people. But all the atheist or agnostics I know experience basically the same amount of happiness and sadness per event - their belief that there is no sky daddy in the sky to petition for their every desire doesn't make them depressed or think that life has no meaning. Therefore, I'm sure plenty of people who are religious could benefit by being void of it. The net gain isn't worth the loss.
Look over in the Middle East. The fact that Islam is still so prominent and respected over there is the reason the people are so horribly oppressed.
Iraq, prior to the removal of Saddam, was a scientific socialist state. Also, look at Turkey. Its majority Muslim but its not an oppressive dictatorship. There are problems there, but it would be impossible to call it oppression. Also, Egypt was a nationalist dictatorship, as is Syria etc. The Islamists are heavily opressed etc around there. It isn't Islam that causes these dictatorships. Its much much more complex than that. As a great man once said "The truth resists simplicty"
The problem with your examples is that there is not a correlation.
The point I was making is that yes, there are instances where religious people do bad things, but the fact is that there are many many more examples of religious people doing so many great things (these examples don't make good chapters in history books/newspaper colombns etc). Therefore, using a scientific mind, you cannot conclude that it is the religion that causes bad things. Because if you've got some examples of religion linked with bad and some with religion linked with good. Thus, there is no correlation, thus the bad must be caused by something else.