It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
low rated
avatar
yogsloth: If you tell me you're a woman, and you believe you're a woman with all your heart and soul, I too will pay you the common, decent, human courtesy and regard you as you wish to be regarded.

But you still can't give birth.
Sick fucks are really obsessed with forcing little girls to go to the bathroom with grown men, aren't they?

Shame on you, GOG.
avatar
yogsloth: If you tell me you're a woman, and you believe you're a woman with all your heart and soul, I too will pay you the common, decent, human courtesy and regard you as you wish to be regarded.

But you still can't give birth.
avatar
Starmaker: Sick fucks are really obsessed with forcing little girls to go to the bathroom with grown men, aren't they?

Shame on you, GOG.
Not sure if serious, but if so, you and I are not on the same team.
avatar
yogsloth: Not sure if serious, but if so, you and I are not on the same team.
I think he is talking about HERO aka bathroom ordinance
Great, another thread about religion filled with angry people. There's really nothing better to talk about on a game distributor's forum?

I always thought reddit was the place for these things, or was OP afraid of the response they'd get there?

Anyway, I think it's time to figure out what to list on the backlog club. I'm too happy to engage any further here.
He definitely seems prickly at times, but he's also well-spoken and fairly respectful from what little I've seen of him. Maybe less so toward the idea of religion, but us religious people aren't exactly fragile little flowers that wilt at the slightest criticism. Having your views challenged is always a healthy thing.

avatar
MaximumBunny: You'll find an equal dose of stupidity from all sides, as well as brilliance and wisdom from all sides.
Well said.
avatar
dtgreene: If you replace "transphobic" with "racist", does your opinion change at all?

Also, here is a case of transphobia from a tweet by the man himself:
https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/658622852405534721

Note that he says he will only call a trans woman "she" "out of courtesy", as opposed to because a trans woman is a woman.

(Also, the chromosome argument is false: There are cis men with XX chromosomes and cis women with XY chromosomes, as well as people with other chromosome configurations.)

There is a difference between free speech and hate speech. As I just mentioned, how would you react if the speaker is racist? Should racism be tolerated under the guise of "free speech"?
avatar
RWarehall: Well, I see you like to partake in slander...
I looked at your Tweet. He DID NOT say he would ONLY refer to her as "she" out of respect. He just said he would refer to her as "she" out of respect. A big difference there.

Hate speech? Here we go, dtgreene telling everyone else what they should think and who anyone else should be allowed to listen to....

Should Mel Gibson be banned from speaking at a college about acting merely because of his Jewish rant caught on tape? Should that speaker be banned from talking about feminism because you found something she said in the past that you find offensive. Should you be banned from this forum for adding the word "ONLY" to Mr. Dawkin's Tweet in your vain attempt to make him look worse?

The answer in all cases should be "No".
Truths hurts.

Because it hurts, it is hate speech.

Truths should be silenced.
avatar
227: He definitely seems prickly at times, but he's also well-spoken and fairly respectful from what little I've seen of him. Maybe less so toward the idea of religion, but us religious people aren't exactly fragile little flowers that wilt at the slightest criticism. Having your views challenged is always a healthy thing.

avatar
MaximumBunny: You'll find an equal dose of stupidity from all sides, as well as brilliance and wisdom from all sides.
avatar
227: Well said.
Since you are more open minded to discussion. Can I ask why there are so many branches in Christianity?
Like a portion of Christianity is vegetarian but others are not.
Or a portion of Christian worship Jesus and another Jesus mother?

How can you be sure you are following the correct teaching in Christianity?

What should be the correct perception of Christianity?
Post edited November 23, 2015 by Gnostic
avatar
Gnostic: Since you are more open minded to discussion. Can I ask why there are so many branches in Christianity?
Because the book they're all based on is incredibly vague and full of metaphors and analogies, and it's remarkably easy to turn it into a gloried Rorschach test that supports just about anything you already believe. Add on top of that the all-too-human tendency to disagree on details and two thousand years of trying to read the same book in different ways and it was really an inevitability that there'd be a million different branches.

avatar
Gnostic: How can you be sure you are following the correct teaching in Christianity?
Is there even such a thing? Plenty of people have their reasons for believing that their flavor of belief is the most right, but I tend to subscribe to the idea that all branches are a little right and a lot wrong about a lot of things. Most agree on basic things like compassion and other broad strokes like that, which is something I can get behind, but I don't think anyone's ever come up with a flawless interpretation because of the corruption that typically follows anything too formal. Some churches are little more than popularity contests, and I've even seen a pastor finish a sermon, then beat his kid in the parking lot immediately afterward.

If you're a decent human being, then I'd say you're doing well enough regardless of which details you subscribe to. There are no guarantees when it comes to religion, so you can't really judge anyone's wrongness or rightness beyond that.

avatar
Gnostic: What should be the correct perception of Christianity?
Whichever one is being nicest at the moment, I suppose.
Post edited November 23, 2015 by 227
avatar
Gnostic: Since you are more open minded to discussion. Can I ask why there are so many branches in Christianity?
avatar
227: Because the book they're all based on is incredibly vague and full of metaphors and analogies, and it's remarkably easy to turn it into a gloried Rorschach test that supports just about anything you already believe. Add on top of that the all-too-human tendency to disagree on details and two thousand years of trying to read the same book in different ways and it was really an inevitability that there'd be a million different branches.

avatar
Gnostic: How can you be sure you are following the correct teaching in Christianity?
avatar
227: Is there even such a thing? Plenty of people have their reasons for believing that their flavor of belief is the most right, but I tend to subscribe to the idea that all branches are a little right and a lot wrong about a lot of things. Most agree on basic things like compassion and other broad strokes like that, which is something I can get behind, but I don't think anyone's ever come up with a flawless interpretation because of the corruption that typically follows anything too formal. Some churches are little more than popularity contests, and I've even seen a pastor finish a sermon, then beat his kid in the parking lot immediately afterward.

If you're a decent human being, then I'd say you're doing well enough regardless of which details you subscribe to. There are no guarantees when it comes to religion, so you can't really judge anyone's wrongness or rightness beyond that.

avatar
Gnostic: What should be the correct perception of Christianity?
avatar
227: Whichever one is being nicest at the moment, I suppose.
Ah I see.

If there is a god, he cannot be define by human perception or want. Like the book of god that is made by humans?
Or rather god that humans defined is not required in being a decent human?

The supernatural happenings around us may be attributed to a certain force we conveniently called god but not necessary be the god humans defined and humanized?
Post edited November 23, 2015 by Gnostic
low rated
avatar
yogsloth: Not sure if serious, but if so, you and I are not on the same team.
avatar
Hunter65536: I think he is talking about HERO aka bathroom ordinance
I am talking about the fertility requirement for being counted as a woman. Which little girls, news at 11, don't meet.
avatar
Gnostic: If there is a god, he cannot be define by human perception or want. Like the book of god that is made by humans?
Or rather god that humans defined is not required in being a decent human?
Is that a question or a statement? I'm not really sure where you're going with this. Moreover, theorizing about the nature of deities is fun (I even have my own unique beliefs that mesh a little bit of quantum mechanics into the mix), but it doesn't really get anyone anywhere. Once you boil them down to their essence, most religions are more about the actions and accountability of normal people than the dealings of higher beings.
low rated
avatar
Hunter65536: I think he is talking about HERO aka bathroom ordinance
avatar
Starmaker: I am talking about the fertility requirement for being counted as a woman. Which little girls, news at 11, don't meet.
You'd be surprised. A girl named Lina Medina gave birth at the age of 5.

It just goes to say that, when it comes to biology, you can't make assumptions. Biology is strange sometimes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Medina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers
avatar
Gnostic: If there is a god, he cannot be define by human perception or want. Like the book of god that is made by humans?
Or rather god that humans defined is not required in being a decent human?
avatar
227: Is that a question or a statement? I'm not really sure where you're going with this. Moreover, theorizing about the nature of deities is fun (I even have my own unique beliefs that mesh a little bit of quantum mechanics into the mix), but it doesn't really get anyone anywhere. Once you boil them down to their essence, most religions are more about the actions and accountability of normal people than the dealings of higher beings.
Well I saw your statement about the bible so I thought your belief is not rigidly in line with the bible, so I ask if your belief is something like what I describe. For you to be able to make the statement of a little right about some things and a lot wrong about a lot of things.
avatar
Starmaker: I am talking about the fertility requirement for being counted as a woman. Which little girls, news at 11, don't meet.
avatar
dtgreene: You'd be surprised. A girl named Lina Medina gave birth at the age of 5.

It just goes to say that, when it comes to biology, you can't make assumptions. Biology is strange sometimes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Medina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers
you're comparing a cis-female(biologically speaking and everything) to trans-females or pre-ops. how is that even fair?
low rated
avatar
dtgreene: You'd be surprised. A girl named Lina Medina gave birth at the age of 5.

It just goes to say that, when it comes to biology, you can't make assumptions. Biology is strange sometimes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Medina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers
avatar
dick1982: you're comparing a cis-female(biologically speaking and everything) to trans-females or pre-ops. how is that even fair?
Where am I making that comparison here?
By your reasoning only religious people can have critical opinions about religion.
Yet religious people can have critical opinions of all things not religious, such as science ?
What you are implying is incredibly hypocritical.

Are you serious ? Religious people have been forcing their psychosis unto others for millennia.
What do you think ISIS is doing ? what do you think the Creationist movement is doing ?

Rationality and scientific thinking is under attack today, as it has been ever since the very idea of gods was conceived.