Calling him a narcissist isn’t really an insult either way. It’s just a fact about him. The dude only cares about himself.
It looks like the real benefit of the doubt is that he’s hopefully talking about laws on voter ID being fixed. Still, what the hell is a presidential candidate doing telling people they don’t need to vote anymore? Even with the benefit of the doubt, this shit is ominous.
Edit: to be clear, I don’t give him the benefit of the doubt. All I’m saying is if somebody wants to, this is the best they’re able to do. It’s also important to be aware of the context of the quote, even if you believe he means it in the worst way.
Well tbf, in some cases, factually incorrect memes are a way to quickly spread misinformation and can definitely be bad for that reason.
I think the original commenter was at least somewhat joking in this particular instance, though. “How can we trust you?” seems like an odd thing to seriously ask a shitposter. I could be wrong, tone is hard to read online.
Did you even read what I said? I agree with you there. But technically, and I’m only bringing this up because you the original commenter* originally did, it is an accusation.
*Edit: I thought you were the same person, but my point still stands.
This particular case is, technically, an accusation, though. Even if we’re all just about certain that it’s true.
“[It] sucks they’re banning…”
Probably autocorrect or something like that, it’s not that hard to figure out.
For the vast, vast majority of Doom (2016) players who have never played Doom (1993), they would probably completely disagree.
I think it makes more sense to refer to the more relevant, popular, and well-known game as Doom and just refer to the other as “the original Doom” or Doom (1993). Especially since that’s what the store page does, as the other person made clear on the 2016 end, and this store page should make clear on the 1993 end.
Oh, I know. But the original comment you responded to said “I respect people who have faith” which is why I brought it up. I also believe faith itself is dumb and have little respect for it.
Somebody needs to tell Trump that his religion expects him to follow the commandments, not break them. Bet he’ll feel real silly for mixing that up.
Why shouldn’t people who have a faith be respected?
I still don’t see any reason to believe in things I don’t see any evidence for. If you want to believe in ghosts or spirituality or Bigfoot or whatever, have at it. I don’t agree with you, but I don’t really care either. I only take issue with people that have, and act according to, beliefs that cause direct harm to others. Religions, crystal healing, antivaxxers, etc.
Sure, a community based around not believing in flying pigs might not make sense to you. Why build a community around not believing something? But you’re missing the same point a lot of religious folk do when they say, “why do you hate god if you don’t believe in him?” See, what if you lived in a world where 90% of people believed in either flying pigs, flying sheep, or flying cows, and all around the world, people in power are making laws based around these things that directly hurt, suppress, and ostracize the lives of others? Suddenly, making a community around it makes more sense.
What do we get out of it? Well, we get a sense of community and belonging for one thing. We all have something in common, and many of us have even been directly hurt or oppressed by the beliefs we stand against. And besides, we’re not perfect human beings—sometimes it’s just fun to poke fun at things we find ridiculous with a group of like-minded individuals.
If the amount of people that just put up with ads currently instead of switching to Firefox is anything to go by, I think the number of people who truly care is less that you might think. Especially when YouTube is such a monopoly.
I mean, I agree completely. I’m an agnostic atheist myself. I believe it is highly unlikely a god exists, but outright claiming absolutely no gods exist is a positive claim that also requires evidence if you wish to convince others. It’s not a stance I’m willing to take.
That said, I’m very willing to make the positive claim that certain gods do not exist. The christian god, for example, at least as described in the bible, is so logically inconsistent that I am willing to take a hard atheist stance on its existence and say outright I believe it does not exist.
when science doesn’t have an explanation or evidence either
The difference is that we’re willing to admit we don’t know, while the religious think they do. We don’t have a burden of proof here because we’re not claiming anything.
A true scientist would acknowledge that there is possibility of interference-based creation based on our current understanding of physics.
Most people do acknowledge that its possible. Its just very, very, very, (…) unlikely to be the case. Everything else we’ve ever proven to be true has been caused by natural causes. Why should it suddenly be different? I’m open to being proven wrong when the time comes, but in the meantime I will continue to ignore wild ideas that contradict everything we know and are brought forth without any evidence. That’s not arrogance.
I currently live in a society where trans and gay rights are constantly under attack by religious folk simply because a ‘holy book’ supposedly says they’re sinners (despite it never mentioning trans people). Forgive me for not feeling sorry for the religious.
Besides, you’re in an atheist community. What do you expect us to talk about?
I never said we couldn’t. But even if we found the cause of the existence of everything (assuming there was one), and it wasn’t god, its still impossible to rule out that God just set all of that into motion. The likelihood gets smaller and smaller, and god’s influence gets smaller and smaller, but its physically impossible to actually disprove it. There will always be a smaller hole for a creator-being to crawl into. Which is why “nobody has disproved god” is a meaningless sentence.
You’ll find God there, scientifically or not.
I mean, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but it sure seems like you believe a god exists when you say something like that, no?
As for the rest of what you said… that’s irrelevant. The problem is that it could be (and IMO is) physically impossible for literally nothing to exist. We simply don’t know, as we don’t know what came before or caused the big bang. The concept of nothingness is a whole complicated philosophical debate. Saying “erm, things exists, therefore god” makes no sense.
Besides, god is ‘something’. You have the same problem regardless.
It is, quite literally, physically impossible to completely disprove that a god exists. Just like it’s physically impossible to disprove that space outside of the observable universe is actually made up of infinite tiny rainbow unicorns.
How would you disprove something you can’t interact with?
The video is still up on twitter for me. Regardless, here’s the source from fox news.
https://youtu.be/eRBhzBd2afE?si=HWLxq4Qxl6i5tpiB&t=76
The bit in the twitter post ends at 2:36.