Do people hate the actual belief in God, or just the religious organizations?

[Thumpalumpacus]

i ridiculed no one.

Yeah, actually, laughing at someone for expressing their opinion is pretty much ridicule.

your argument consists only of hypothetical questions

It's not an argument. It is questions. I'm glad you can see at least that much.

i have 1 small piece for you to debunk. use google, idc.
if you find any reasonable reason to dismiss over 200 peoples eye witness and expert witness testimony...

then i will admit that i am wrong, you are right, and that 9/11 truthers are crazy nutjobs (including the truthers who are families of the victims)

saying 200 people were "mistaken" is more ludicrous than saying aliens were flying those planes.

The discussion is already full-blown in the other thread, and that's where I'll be following it from now on. No doubt the Staff doesn't want to have a plethora of threads all turning to shit on account of this.

good luck or give up
here it is, hidden.

---

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH1Xdcssw4A

---

good luck or give up

lol, "good luck or give up". You're new to this discussion stuff, aren't you?

No doubt you'd prefer silence, but that doesn't make for education.

As for the video, because of personal circumstances, I'll watch it later today, when I have better access to data. My phone's data-plan is limited and that's what I'm using right now as a hot spot.

[goombah111]

Yeah, actually, laughing at someone for expressing their opinion is pretty much ridicule.



It's not an argument. It is questions. I'm glad you can see at least that much.



The discussion is already full-blown in the other thread, and that's where I'll be following it from now on. No doubt the Staff doesn't want to have a plethora of threads all turning to shit on account of this.



lol, "good luck or give up".  You're new to this discussion stuff, aren't you?

No doubt you'd prefer silence, but that doesn't make for education.

As for the video, because of personal circumstances, I'll watch it later today, when I have better access to data. My phone's data-plan is limited and that's what I'm using right now as a hot spot.

okay later sounds good.

seems like your using hypothetical questions as a means to prove your point.
i guess im mistaken then, regardless, hold your questions till the end of class.

okay, laughing is ridicule, this is news to me.
after all, what would you expect from a nutjob like me.

personally i would like to have a civil dispute.
 its something i rarely see.

id like to stay here because why not. conversations naturally progress.
this happens to be a highly divided highly emotional topic with great implications.
its going to happen, seems contained enough here. and there.

i can still explain whats in the video and we can still discuss. 
the video is of over 200 eye witnesses/other accounts concerning secondary explosions. consisting of civilians, fire fighters, law officials, news reporters, and news broadcastings. recordings taking place both during and after the event took place.

with this limited information, what is your opinion as to why there are this many people are reporting (multiple) secondary explosions? surely they cant ALL be mistaken. (ive surprisingly heard that ludicrous argument before)

---

at the very least.

but everything has its opposite. it can make you creative, happy, and insightful. 
but it can also, under the right circumstances, make a person depressed and closed minded.

symbols are a tool. a knife can cut your food but can also cut you.
just depends on how you use them.

[Whateverist]

There is reason to be leery of that sort of evidence.

Abstract
Evidence from four studies demonstrates that social observers tend to perceive a “false consensus” with respect to the relative commonness of their own responses. A related bias was shown to exist in the observers' social inferences. Thus, raters estimated particular responses to be relatively common and relatively unrevealing concerning the actors' distinguishing personal dispositions when the responses in question were similar to the raters' own responses; responses differing from those of the rater, by contrast, were perceived to be relatively uncommon and revealing of the actor. These results were obtained both in questionnaire studies presenting subjects with hypothetical situations and choices and in authentic conflict situations. The implications of these findings for our understanding of social perception phenomena and for our analysis of the divergent perceptions of actors and observers are discussed. Finally, cognitive and perceptual mechanisms are proposed which might account for distortions in perceived consensus and for corresponding biases in social inference and attributional processes.

David Greene, now at Carnegie-Mellon University.

[goombah111]

There is reason to be leery of that sort of evidence.

Abstract
Evidence from four studies demonstrates that social observers tend to perceive a “false consensus” with respect to the relative commonness of their own responses. A related bias was shown to exist in the observers' social inferences. Thus, raters estimated particular responses to be relatively common and relatively unrevealing concerning the actors' distinguishing personal dispositions when the responses in question were similar to the raters' own responses; responses differing from those of the rater, by contrast, were perceived to be relatively uncommon and revealing of the actor. These results were obtained both in questionnaire studies presenting subjects with hypothetical situations and choices and in authentic conflict situations. The implications of these findings for our understanding of social perception phenomena and for our analysis of the divergent perceptions of actors and observers are discussed. Finally, cognitive and perceptual mechanisms are proposed which might account for distortions in perceived consensus and for corresponding biases in social inference and attributional processes.

David Greene, now at Carnegie-Mellon University.

in my psychology class they showed us an example of that. except the people had interaction with each other. they had an idea of what the consensus was. so their answer mostly reflected the popular consensus. but in this case, 
1; (not sure how to use a semi colon lol) ~1;~ they had no interaction with one another and no outside information, it was the day of the event for the most part. 
2; for those interviewed later, didnt agree with the popular consensus. still to this day the consensus is (i think) that muslims were responsible and that no secondary explosions existed or took part in the destruction of buildings.
bonus; even when reporters asked "it was a/the plane?" the people would still recall it the same. 

so i agree, group think basically. but i dont think that was the case here and to think it would be occurring on such a massive scale is, again, more ridiculous than what they are suggesting with their testimony in the first place.

[AceBoogie]

to OP

Religion does tend to ruin things and while most dumb people do believe in a god of some kind, believing in a god doesn't necessarily make you dumb. Although religion does, at times, make intelligent people very stupid.

Still though, I can't say I hate religion, religious people or religious institutions. I do feel some level of disgust and disdain for some of the things religious folks say and do, but I don't know if "hate" is quite the right word to use. I don't think I have ever met a non-believer who "hates" religious folks or religion itself for that matter.

Where exactly do you get this idea that atheists "hate" religion?

[goombah111]

to OP

Religion does tend to ruin things and while most dumb people do believe in a god of some kind, believing in a god doesn't necessarily make you dumb. Although religion does, at times, make intelligent people very stupid.

Still though, I can't say I hate religion, religious people or religious institutions. I do feel some level of disgust and disdain for some of the things religious folks say and do, but I don't know if "hate" is quite the right word to use. I don't think I have ever met a non-believer who "hates" religious folks or religion itself for that matter.

Where exactly do you get this idea that atheists "hate" religion?

review this thread and others. ridicule, much worse than laughing, has been put on theists by atheists. 

disrespecting, implying they are dumb, and/or flat out calling them stupid/dumb/retarded/etc.

[AceBoogie]

to OP

Religion does tend to ruin things and while most dumb people do believe in a god of some kind, believing in a god doesn't necessarily make you dumb. Although religion does, at times, make intelligent people very stupid.

Still though, I can't say I hate religion, religious people or religious institutions. I do feel some level of disgust and disdain for some of the things religious folks say and do, but I don't know if "hate" is quite the right word to use. I don't think I have ever met a non-believer who "hates" religious folks or religion itself for that matter.

Where exactly do you get this idea that atheists "hate" religion?

review this thread and others. ridicule, much worse than laughing, has been put on theists by atheists. 

disrespecting, implying they are dumb, and/or flat out calling them stupid/dumb/retarded/etc.

I don't think mockery or poking fun quite counts as hatred. It might serve you well to understand that to the atheist, you talking about jesus or god is the same as if we were talking to you about unicorns. It's just silly. Doesn't mean YOU are dumb if you believe in it... but you're certainly not applying your intelligence to that area of your life.

[goombah111]

review this thread and others. ridicule, much worse than laughing, has been put on theists by atheists. 

disrespecting, implying they are dumb, and/or flat out calling them stupid/dumb/retarded/etc.

I don't think mockery or poking fun quite counts as hatred. It might serve you well to understand that to the atheist, you talking about jesus or god is the same as if we were talking to you about unicorns. It's just silly. Doesn't mean YOU are dumb if you believe in it... but you're certainly not applying your intelligence to that area of your life.

well, i dont think you make fun of people you like. well, nice people dont.

unirregardless there are still many people who DO hate religion and its people.

[Jesster]

unirregardless...

[goombah111]

unirregardless...

you get it right?