(April 19, 2016 at 8:19 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(April 19, 2016 at 8:08 pm)Losty Wrote: I can't even tell if you're joking lol

I am not.

I've already discussed before 3 out of the 5 things that I posted (about 9/11, psych medications, and the multiverse hypothesis).
http://atheistforums.org/thread-21489-po...#pid526917
http://atheistforums.org/thread-27217-po...#pid703067
http://atheistforums.org/thread-23665-po...#pid612956

OMG you are serious?

(April 19, 2016 at 6:50 pm)Napoléon Wrote:

(April 19, 2016 at 6:45 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: All properly done and documented medical studies show there is no validation to any links between vaccinations and autism.

There has been a rise in reported autism cases, but that has much to do with many mental illnesses being reclassified as autism.

So none of these are properly done and documented?

http://yournewswire.com/30-solid-scienti...se-autism/

Just playing devil's advocate. I see a lot of people say "there are no studies", but then when some are presented they're instantly dismissed.

And yes, it says "Source Facebook" at the bottom, like the one idiot commenter points out. I think he misses the point that any of these journal articles can be googled, and it's exactly the kind of "hurr this is stupid" I'm talking about.

Went to the article in the link. My take on the first 10 to 30 referenced studies:

1.       Retrospective study. No direct cause and effect to the vaccine.
2.       Indicates environmental toxicity, no link to vaccine toxicity.
3.       Indicates environmental toxicity no link to vaccine toxicity.
4.       Secondary porphyria related to multiple disorders including hematologic disorders, hepatobiliary diseases, and toxins (eg, alcohol, benzene, lead). No link to vaccines.
5.       From the study: Therefore, autism is the result of genetic defects and/or inflammation of the brain. The inflammation could be caused by a defective placenta, immature blood-brain barrier, the immune response of the mother to infection while pregnant, a premature birth, encephalitis in the child after birth, or a toxic environment. Vaccination can result in encephalitis however read the following that indicates genetic link not vaccine link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2603512/
6.       Proposed thimerosal (mercury) link. Thimerosal removed from vaccines as early as 1992 yet autism continues to rise. Google CDC + Thimerosal
7.       See #6
8.       Neuroinflammatory process link to autism. No link to vaccination discussed.
9.       Overview of autism potential causes. Author a thimerosal supporter. See #6. Also see: https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/cra...titutions/
10.   See #6

Don't see much point in reading the next 20.

Umm, I don't know if these are really controversial

Purely because it's considered "controversial" these days, fuck knows why, not wanting to throw secularism under the bus for the sake of ass-kissing particular religions.

Being openly against multiculturalism as a political ideology (not as a social lived experience) and cultural relativism

Might sound antithetical, short of burkas (which I understand the dislike for) I hate the policing of Muslim womens' clothing. Telling Muslim women to unveil makes you no better than the people who force them to veil.

Believing that people who were adopted, or were born through surragocy or sperm donorship, have the legal right to know who their biological parents are.

(April 19, 2016 at 5:59 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: I really don't think much of the Beatles music.

(damn, I've dated AND outed myself big time now)

I hate Elvis.

I actually dislike a lot of music. Unless it hits me on an emotional level, it's just sound to me. So the bulk of stuff a lot of people like I don't. What's frustrating about that is that a lot of people think it's because I haven't heard their favorite band or song and that my opinions are based on a lack of exposure, which is simply not true. I've listened to a ton of music in my lifetime. I likely have heard whatever the other person finds to be the pinnacle of music. I just simply find most of it annoying-to-terrible.

I'm that guy who dislikes entire genres of music. I loathe country. Old country is filled with cheesy, schlocky crap. New country is essentially watered-down pop rock. Full of whiny/nasally voices and terribly twangy guitars. Yuck. I'm not into hip-hop or rap. I don't actively hate it like country, but aside from a few exceptions, it's annoying at best. Too much repetition, no real melody... nope.

I've learned the hard way to just let it go, because music is an intensely personal thing to a lot of people, and despite how it may seem at times on here, I really don't try to be an asshole all the time. So, I don't usually say something. But, I might find a convenient reason to leave the room for 3-6 minutes....

(April 19, 2016 at 8:19 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(April 19, 2016 at 8:08 pm)Losty Wrote: I can't even tell if you're joking lol

I am not.

I've already discussed before 3 out of the 5 things that I posted (about 9/11, psych medications, and the multiverse hypothesis).
http://atheistforums.org/thread-21489-po...#pid526917
http://atheistforums.org/thread-27217-po...#pid703067
http://atheistforums.org/thread-23665-po...#pid612956

Rayaan..... did you stand too close to a suicide bomber?  The blast effect can be a bitch.

Is this Rayaan the same mod that resigned?

Nutella is mediocre at the very best.

(April 19, 2016 at 4:12 pm)Aoi Magi Wrote: for me I guess it would be that I believe pedophiles are not the same as child-molesters, and shouldn't be treated as demonic outcasts rather be approached with kindness and offered proper help and +treatment so they don't become actual child-molesters.

I agree. I think the biggest problem here is with language. Most people treat these terms as being the same. So much so, that you have to qualify the first with "non active" or something if you're not talking about the second.

The second biggest problem is hysteria/bigotry. It's just not possible to "come out" as a pedophile. It should be, without instantly being branded a criminal and a threat. People should be supportive instead. I share your view that they are much more likely to actually offend when they have to deal with it on their own. If someone told me they were a pedophile, I'd be fine with it. I would be supportive. I wouldn't go report them to the police or whatever, or smear their name. And I wouldn't think any less of them. In fact, I'd consider them brave for having told me.

(April 19, 2016 at 5:10 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: Around here?  That god belief isn't the great satan of delusional thinking.  No one should get special privileges in relation to their private beliefs but neither should they be harangued for them.

I agree also. As long as they're not harming anyone, or pushing their beliefs onto others, I'm happy to let people be. I don't pick fights with people over their beliefs, either IRL or on the forum. But if someone presents their beliefs here on the forum, they shouldn't be surprised if they get analysed. I'm not endorsing insulting the person as well though.

My own most controversial view would be that happiness and suffering are not in the same currency. I don't think you can compare the two and come up with "overall this person's life was good/bad". In other words, happiness doesn't automatically compensate for suffering. Of course, an individual may feel that this is actually the case, with regard to their own experiences.

The upshot of this is that I consider bringing any sort of sentient life into being to be a morally dubious proposition. Even if you can be very confident that the happiness will probably "outweigh" the suffering, I think it's still dubious. I'm not saying it's simply wrong, I'm saying it's not clear cut right. And this is of course only my opinion. I wouldn't feel comfortable bringing any life into the world, because I would be deciding on its behalf that it's life is overall likely to be "good" or "worth living". I don't feel I can make that judgement, in advance, for a life which needn't ever be here at all. I understand the objection that you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, but the fact is there is no actual need to keep creating more life. We do it because we want to, essentially. Put simply, I don't automatically think life is better than non-life.

People should be free to cease living whenever they choose to. Their body, their right.

(April 21, 2016 at 6:57 am)Irrational Wrote: People should be free to cease living whenever they choose to. Their body, their right.

No.