First, only large errors will cost you 5-10 karma and you should stop doing them pretty fast.
Second, you don’t need positive karma to post comments (as opposed to top-level posts) and that’s more than enough for a lot of participation and learning.
This site calls itself a “community blog”, but it lies—it’s actually a forum and you could be an active participant without ever making a top-level post.
Well that is good to know. But even though my mistakes are more obvious now in hindsight, I think I will stay out of any sort of discussion involving religion after this one. I´m not sure it´s not worth to discuss anything related to religion with hardcore atheists.
I´m not sure it´s not worth to discuss anything related to religion with hardcore atheists.
That, of course, depends on whether the participants of the discussion are willing to change their mind (to “update” in local lingo).
I don’t think your mistake was in trying to discuss religion with atheists, I think it was in assuming the other side was uneducated and stupid: “Look—Newton believed in God, haha, bet you didn’t know this!” :-/
You assuming that I assumed that you are stupid is what is really stupid. This is where you get it all wrong and so it clouds everything you read since you can´t keep your neutral attitude towards me or the so called article. Fun to be me.
I´m not using this as a “look at me I´m a theist, look how much I know!” argument. Cause I have no argument. But I do believe that many (not even calling it a majority, that would be going far too far) knows just how widespread theism was amongst the old thinkers and some of the modern. (meaning 1900 ->) The fact that many who have commented here seems to think that religion was a primitive superstition that was only occuring because it was the norm “back then”, is a new attitude that I haven´t stumbled upon earlier. It is really interesting from my point of view. Like theism is a disease that is being cured when someone learns nuclear physics or something.
Consider that being an atheist back then was really unsafe. Unsafe as in being fired, becoming a social outcast, possibly depending on how far back being jailed, lynched, exiled, or killed.
Why not? The fact that someone who announces they are atheist would be lynched would explain why scientists were religious back then. Any one who didn’t wouldn’t stay alive and well and we’d never hear from them again.
You are vastly overestimating the concequences of being atheist and you seem to think this was true for all these people. If they did not ACTUALLY believe in a god there was no need for supporting it and writing about it.
Yes, a good point. One of the reasons why many atheists criticize theists is indeed because many theists have this idea that God can only fit in the gaps of what we don´t know yet.
First, only large errors will cost you 5-10 karma and you should stop doing them pretty fast.
Second, you don’t need positive karma to post comments (as opposed to top-level posts) and that’s more than enough for a lot of participation and learning.
This site calls itself a “community blog”, but it lies—it’s actually a forum and you could be an active participant without ever making a top-level post.
Well that is good to know. But even though my mistakes are more obvious now in hindsight, I think I will stay out of any sort of discussion involving religion after this one. I´m not sure it´s not worth to discuss anything related to religion with hardcore atheists.
That, of course, depends on whether the participants of the discussion are willing to change their mind (to “update” in local lingo).
I don’t think your mistake was in trying to discuss religion with atheists, I think it was in assuming the other side was uneducated and stupid: “Look—Newton believed in God, haha, bet you didn’t know this!” :-/
You assuming that I assumed that you are stupid is what is really stupid. This is where you get it all wrong and so it clouds everything you read since you can´t keep your neutral attitude towards me or the so called article. Fun to be me.
I´m not using this as a “look at me I´m a theist, look how much I know!” argument. Cause I have no argument. But I do believe that many (not even calling it a majority, that would be going far too far) knows just how widespread theism was amongst the old thinkers and some of the modern. (meaning 1900 ->) The fact that many who have commented here seems to think that religion was a primitive superstition that was only occuring because it was the norm “back then”, is a new attitude that I haven´t stumbled upon earlier. It is really interesting from my point of view. Like theism is a disease that is being cured when someone learns nuclear physics or something.
Consider that being an atheist back then was really unsafe. Unsafe as in being fired, becoming a social outcast, possibly depending on how far back being jailed, lynched, exiled, or killed.
Good point. Wouldn´t have changed my beliefs though.
Why not? The fact that someone who announces they are atheist would be lynched would explain why scientists were religious back then. Any one who didn’t wouldn’t stay alive and well and we’d never hear from them again.
You are vastly overestimating the concequences of being atheist and you seem to think this was true for all these people. If they did not ACTUALLY believe in a god there was no need for supporting it and writing about it.
You might be interested in the God of the gaps approach.
Yes, a good point. One of the reasons why many atheists criticize theists is indeed because many theists have this idea that God can only fit in the gaps of what we don´t know yet.