People who assume that just because the universe exists, it must been have crafted especially for us.
They also assume it must have a purpose. In their desperation for said purpose, they are willing to ignore all evidence to the contrary of the validity of their dogmatic teachings. Such denial often results in much hilarity (see Creationism).
If that weren't enough, they go further in assuming the fantastic privilege of an afterlife, when no such evidence for one exists.
They also assume it must have a purpose. In their desperation for said purpose, they are willing to ignore all evidence to the contrary of the validity of their dogmatic teachings. Such denial often results in much hilarity (see Creationism).
If that weren't enough, they go further in assuming the fantastic privilege of an afterlife, when no such evidence for one exists.
Ah, religious people...no wonder they used to think all the planets revolved around the Earth!
If the word anthropocentric doesn't fit in just perfectly here, I don't know what does.
If the word anthropocentric doesn't fit in just perfectly here, I don't know what does.
by Submitters of Words April 04, 2011
While some atheists can certainly be annoying and intolerant as fuck, there is actually no such thing as "fundamentalist" atheism.
The definition of a fundamentalist is someone who won't be swayed by evidence - someone who relies on "faith". This is in contrast to the nonbeliever, who relies on hard evidence and reason.
And believe me, the second an intelligent nonbeliever finds a good enough reason to believe in any particular deity, he will do so immediately.
But what sort of evidence would convince a religious person that his faith is false?
The definition of a fundamentalist is someone who won't be swayed by evidence - someone who relies on "faith". This is in contrast to the nonbeliever, who relies on hard evidence and reason.
And believe me, the second an intelligent nonbeliever finds a good enough reason to believe in any particular deity, he will do so immediately.
But what sort of evidence would convince a religious person that his faith is false?
"fundamentalist atheism"
Look up the definition of fundamentalism in dictionary, folks. "Angry" atheists are preaching for rationality and a respect for evidence, not faith.
Look up the definition of fundamentalism in dictionary, folks. "Angry" atheists are preaching for rationality and a respect for evidence, not faith.
by Submitters of Words June 15, 2011
I just wanted to clear up some misconceptions people have about liberals and the death penalty. Many conservatives, with their usual black and white thinking, suppose that every single American liberal alive opposes the death penalty, and not only that, but feels sorry for the criminal to boot. This is balderdash however. We despise criminals just as much as you do, and only a very small but vocal minority of liberals actively opposes the death penalty.
To the main point: Why do some liberals oppose the death penalty?
A) It's very, very expensive. Yes, a lot more so than just shoving the bastard in prison for the rest of his life. Huge pull on our tax dollars
B) The number of people who have been wrongfully convicted, sentenced to death, and then found to be innocent is disturbingly high.
C) Statistically, minorities are far, far more likely to be put to death largely because of preconceived biases among the jury. Also, poorer minorities have to deal with shitty public defenders that can't put forth a good case, unlike far wealthier white criminals who can hire the best of the best.
To the main point: Why do some liberals oppose the death penalty?
A) It's very, very expensive. Yes, a lot more so than just shoving the bastard in prison for the rest of his life. Huge pull on our tax dollars
B) The number of people who have been wrongfully convicted, sentenced to death, and then found to be innocent is disturbingly high.
C) Statistically, minorities are far, far more likely to be put to death largely because of preconceived biases among the jury. Also, poorer minorities have to deal with shitty public defenders that can't put forth a good case, unlike far wealthier white criminals who can hire the best of the best.
If it were up to me, the death penalty would be applicable only in cases of definitive guilt (hard evidence that the perpetrator is the right dude). Also, he'd have to be at least 18, of course, and above a certain IQ threshold.
by Submitters of Words June 14, 2011
Similar to the race card, but used by conservatives.
Something they tout as an answer to every single social issue in existence. Such reasoning is fallacious, however, because in actuality life is much more complicated..
Conservative: If people don't want babies, they shouldn't have sex. That way, abortion wouldn't even be necessary. Think, liberals, think! Personal responsibility, people!
Liberal/Moderate: Ok, so if abortion was banned, it's true that less people would have irresponsible sex, and there might be far fewer abortions. You're right on that one. But what about in cases of rape? You can't mount the "personal responsibility" defense there - people don't choose to get raped.
Conservative: Make abortion legal only in cases of rape then.
L/M: Well how are you supposed to know when the hell she's lying then? You'd be encouraging women to lie. Same problem as before, she just has to employ a different method of getting around it. How are you supposed to distinguish between the liars and the true victims?
Conservative: Polygraph.
L/M: In a perfect world, those things are fully reliable. But they're clearly not. Since we don't live in a perfect world, and polygraphs sometimes fail, we may as well legalize abortion considering that there are many cases where it's very necessary. Of course there are whores who will use it as birth control. But that's unavoidable.
Something they tout as an answer to every single social issue in existence. Such reasoning is fallacious, however, because in actuality life is much more complicated..
Conservative: If people don't want babies, they shouldn't have sex. That way, abortion wouldn't even be necessary. Think, liberals, think! Personal responsibility, people!
Liberal/Moderate: Ok, so if abortion was banned, it's true that less people would have irresponsible sex, and there might be far fewer abortions. You're right on that one. But what about in cases of rape? You can't mount the "personal responsibility" defense there - people don't choose to get raped.
Conservative: Make abortion legal only in cases of rape then.
L/M: Well how are you supposed to know when the hell she's lying then? You'd be encouraging women to lie. Same problem as before, she just has to employ a different method of getting around it. How are you supposed to distinguish between the liars and the true victims?
Conservative: Polygraph.
L/M: In a perfect world, those things are fully reliable. But they're clearly not. Since we don't live in a perfect world, and polygraphs sometimes fail, we may as well legalize abortion considering that there are many cases where it's very necessary. Of course there are whores who will use it as birth control. But that's unavoidable.
"personal responsibility card"
Personal responsibility is important but it doesn't take into account factors that are outside of the person's control. For instance, conservatives are operating under the assumption that welfare discourages the work ethic and personal responsibility. But what about people with Parkinson's, or similar diseases? What about valuable workers that have been laid off en masse by struggling companies and need aid to get that back on their feet? Are they necessarily lazy and lacking personal responsibility?
Personal responsibility is important but it doesn't take into account factors that are outside of the person's control. For instance, conservatives are operating under the assumption that welfare discourages the work ethic and personal responsibility. But what about people with Parkinson's, or similar diseases? What about valuable workers that have been laid off en masse by struggling companies and need aid to get that back on their feet? Are they necessarily lazy and lacking personal responsibility?
by Submitters of Words June 15, 2011
Literally "belief lover".
As for the previous poster, you fool that's not what credophile means. Credophile is an awesome term coined originally by the writer L. Sprague de Camp, in a letter to James Randi.
It's a label for those who appear particularly gullible and are particularly inclined to believe whatever claims come their way. (See Scientologist).
As for the previous poster, you fool that's not what credophile means. Credophile is an awesome term coined originally by the writer L. Sprague de Camp, in a letter to James Randi.
It's a label for those who appear particularly gullible and are particularly inclined to believe whatever claims come their way. (See Scientologist).
To quote de Camp directly,
A credophile gets positive pleasure from belief and pain from doubt... The credophile collects beliefs the way a jackdaw does nest ornaments: not for utility but for glitter. And, once having embraced a belief, it takes something more than mere disproof to make him let go.
A credophile gets positive pleasure from belief and pain from doubt... The credophile collects beliefs the way a jackdaw does nest ornaments: not for utility but for glitter. And, once having embraced a belief, it takes something more than mere disproof to make him let go.
by Submitters of Words April 03, 2011
Think about it: You cut right to the chase. Ok sure, statistically, only 1 in 100 women will say yes. And you might get some people mad along the way. But it's still a time saver since you don't have to indulge in any long conversation/pointless flirting etc.
Also, you'll be surprised at how many women appreciate the frank honesty associated with it. No games!
So, whaddya say?
Wanna have sex?
Also, you'll be surprised at how many women appreciate the frank honesty associated with it. No games!
So, whaddya say?
Wanna have sex?
by Submitters of Words June 28, 2011
Obama Got Osama...it's awfully embarrassing for the Bush administration, too, considering the massive amount of time and money they put into the "war on terror" over eight long years.
by Submitters of Words June 28, 2011