Beemo Dinosaurierfuß

Not that my opinion matters any more than the next person’s, but I also can’t recommend Celeste enough.

It does so many things so very right.
The pure gameplay is crisp and responsive platforming.
Like any good platfmorer it has some specific mechanics that make it unique, but every one is intuitive enough to pick up easily enough. I have heard it called something like “the hardest platformer that everyone can finish.”

And it is true. I could never finish some of the harder SMB levels but I never got too frustrated with Celeste.
And if I were, there would have been accessibility options to make the game more approachable.

But it also caters to the hardcore crowd with completely optional collectibles that are organically included into the gorgeous level design.

It is speedrunnable for those folks.

And as if that wasn’t enough to make a good platformer it also tells a heartwarming story supported by a beautiful soundtrack.

Sorry I am rambling, but Celeste is fucking awesome.

So by your own claim you are part of the polytheistic church of Paul?
That just is not catholicism.
Which is so easy to prove because the catholics love to write down their many rules.

So I honestly would just answer right back at you:

FFS read a book.

And btw, while I have been an atheist for many years now, I was raised strictly catholic in a highly religious area by my catholic family that included a catholic nun and the headmaster of a catholic school and I intensively studied christianity before I made my break with this religion.

You can’t bullshit me.

Catholicism is the church of Paul, and isn’t strictly monotheistic, trinitarianism and unitarianism aside.

That is just plain wrong, no two ways about it.

To me it sounds like you listened to some protestant that doesn’t care much for the catholic church and just repeat his rant without questioning it much.

And don’t get me wrong, I couldn’t care less about christian infighting. I was just curious about the reasoning how the catholic church, which is one of the oldest and most “original” christian churches, could be considered not christian at all.
After your post I don’t believe there is much basis to this claim at all.

That is totally new to me.

Can you give me one or two of those many definitions for my understanding?

I am willing to bet that you are simply more used to the imperial system.

I am not convinced that it has any objective advantage over the metric system.

My foot is about 50% larger than my SO’s, but I can perfectly invision 30cm whenever I want or need to.

I had success talking about the tortoise one with imaginary time stamps.

I think it gets more understandable that this pseudo paradox just uses smaller and smaller steps for no real reason.
If you just go one second at a time you can clearly see exactly when the tortoise gets overtaken.

I mean he defrauded rich people.

Off course he gets the book.

What?

That asshole doesn’t deserve a meme, cmm.

Just use Calvin.

It is possible he doesn’t like the texture of mushrooms.

If I am somewhere and am served squeaky mushroom sponges I don’t like them either.

I didn’t want to reply at all because it is starting to get ridiculous and noone else keeps reading this.

But please just for the sake of being honest, show me where I am intolerant or hateful?
I replied to other comments in this thread as well, there should be plenty to pick from.

Show me my intolerance, show me my hate.

I even make it easier for you.

I think religion is a cancer to society.
I think all religions are basically cults.

Make a straightforward argument how my statements are either hateful or intolerant.

Because while those statements are my honest opinion, I am still strongly in favour of freedom of religion.
I would never forbid anyone from practicing their religion as long as they don’t infringe on someone else’s rights in doing so.
I don’t hate anyone for being religious. There are wonderful religious people.

Still I think they are wonderful despite their religion, not because of it.

I don’t even hate you, despite your ongoing insults towards me.
I just think you are very wrong on a fundamental level and haven’t yet learned to deal with being told so.

Reported.

I think you understand neither what a skepticist is, nor how religion or free churches work.

Well you’re wrong in both, but I am curious why you would think that.

And by your logic I assume you have to be an anarchist,

Hilariously wrong here.

since every government that ever existed - or society for that matter - has exercised some form of suppression.

Care to explain what that has to do with anything I said in this thread?

I think your overgeneralizing, intollerant way of thinking is sickening and hardly better than that of a racist or sexist.

And I think you resort to personal insults because you have no valid arguments against my positions.
But please humor me and tell me how I am intolerant in an comparable way to a racist or sexist.

And please don’t tell me what my beliefs are. That’s pretty church-y of you.

I’m a pansexual protestant Christian

Are you kidding me? You told about your beliefs yourself.

And it’s especially rich after your whole post made assumptions about me.

The sheer arrogance to post a philosophical minority opinion paired with an insult and then end it with a sigh.

And while I am not particularly familiar with Mr. Antony’s work I can tell you that he either didn’t understand or purposefully misused Hitchen’s Razor insofar as you indeed can not apply it to Atheism the same way you can apply it to christianity.
The reason for that being that there is no particular thing at all you have to believe to be an atheist.
Atheism in and of itself doesn’t assert anything at all.
So there is nothing that could be dismissed.

Atheism says there is no reason to believe in god.
How does Hitchen’s Razor dismiss that? It doesn’t.

Not to mention your quote still is no argument towards the positive existence of god.

And if you don’t show me how I am supposed to be intolerant, I will take it as the baseless insult that it is and will no longer discuss with you.

We’re using fancy words now to seem smart?
Works better if you know what they mean.

And I don’t have any problem believing that vast majorities of a population can fall to a cult.
I mean in the middle ages people didn’t even have a choice about their religion and I hope you are not trying to tell me crusades and literal witch hunts are not cult behaviour.

I did what now?

I said there are millenia worth of disproven lies.
Which there are.

Like that the whole world was flooded and repopulated by one single family, which is disproven by DNA samples.
Or that it is gods will that priest stay unmarried, which is historically agreed that it was a measure to keep wealth inside the church organization.
Or so so many more.

I never said there was prove god doesn’t exist.
And like I said, there doesn’t need to be as long as there is no documented sign whatsoever that points towards god actually existing.

No it doesn’t go both ways.

If something exists it should be easy to prove.
There should be some form of sign of it.

On the other hand it is hard to disprove the existence of anything at all.
How do we know there is not some teapot in outer space?

We can’t.
But that is no reason to believe there is one.

Hey first and foremost, thanks for the good faith discussion.

I want you to be reassured that I don’t hate you for your religion.
And I don’t think you or any religious person is necessarily dumb.
We just happen to fundamentally disagree on certain points that seem to hold at least some value for both our lives.

And I will gladly admit that believing in god has the fundamental difference to believing in a flat earth that you described. The flat earth is soundly disproven and the existence of god is not.

I would in reply try to refine my point to saying that I think believing in god is comparable to believing in the easter bunny or the often quoted flying spaghetti monster (that I purposefully didn’t want to invoke earlier).

Yes you are absolutely free to believe in any of those things.
I would fight to defend your right to believe in them.

But I cannot ever accept it as truth or even an educated opinion to hold without any proof pointing specifically towards the existence of any god.

And not to end on a negative note.
I love life around me, I love nature, I love animals.
I think the world is a wonder.

I do not believe any god made it the way it is.
I have no reason to believe that.
I just love it for itself.

What now?

I don’t think anyone but you believes this thread is about wether extremism is unique to religion.

Obviously there are other forms of dangerous extremism.

Nazis were pretty fucking extremist.
Now they were not (at least not primarily) extremist Darwinists off course, but extremist racists and antisemites (among other things).

But the meme makes the insecure loser guy say “We should be fighting religion”.
And what I think this thread truly highlights is, that a majority in it doesn’t see it as a loser thing to fight religion.

Ffs fighting racists and fascists is way more important than fighting religion at this specific point in history.
Still religion is also a cancer that should be fought in my opinion, and seemingly in others as well.

I don’t have to proof something doesn’t exist, someone that wants to be taken seriously has to proof why they would believe something does positively exist.

“what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”