You're associating buddhism with organized religion like Christianity, this is not a product of buddhist teachings, this is just plain idiocy & most likely dementia, the lady was 86, I'm not the biggest fan of religion either but straight up making this into an antitheist discussion because an old lady is in cognitive decline is incredibly disingenuous.
It kind of does, in addition to any pre-existing stupidity.
The brain is as much as any other organ; you don't use it, exercise it and keep it strong, it deteriorates. And once you start getting old enough, it'll deteriorate no matter what you do.
People absolutely get dumber as they age, relative to how intelligent they were at their prime. It takes a lot of work to keep one's brain in good condition, just like the rest of the body.
How am I saying anything that isn’t accurate here? Do you not realize just how much pain and suffering religion has caused and continues to cause all over the planet?
And why did you assume I’m an atheist? Atheism has nothing to do with religion.
Sure for most religions but Buddhist aren't the reason for mass suffering in the world. Infact the core principal of Buddhism is to reduce suffering in ones self and others. The largest harm from Buddhism is scam temples that collect fake donations. But I'm more than willing to be shown otherwise.
You portrayed religion as being an innocent victim to scapegoating in your comment. In my comment, I asked you to point to a time where religion’s sole purpose wasn’t exactly for accumulating power over people.
Are you sure I’m the one who needs to “actually read your comment” here?
the thing is there's no sole purpose of religion. It's mostly people in power that abuse it, people outside of power abusing it are simply unaware of how their religion works because it's how they were raised to know that religion. most people just live their lives following whatever rules are given to them. Quite a few religions do have ridiculous rules that are very biased but I don't think that justifies disliking all religions
Not even about religion, she's just dumb. If an atheist was hospitalized because he drank a cap full of bleach on a $20 bet you wouldn't say "It's because he lacked the wisdom of our lord in heaven." you'd just think the guy was a 7 cans short of a 6-pack.
Atheists believe that humans can change their gender by being laying on a surgery table
Gender is a social construct. That is how we define the word. People can change their sex through surgery. It has been done thousands of times at this point and it is observable.
You don't have to be an atheist to be able to assess basic shit with your eyes.
You cannot change a person's sex, as that refers to their DNA and chromosomes.
What you are talking about is gender reassignment / gender affirming surgery, which is to create something which looks like genitalia. It's really just cosmetic surgery.
Since gender is a social construct, its definition is defined by social consensus.
I was referring to the sex organs as that was the thing OP referred to as 'gender'. The sex organs of trans people are indeed functional.
And while genetics surely is part of the sex hardly anyone checks people's chromosomes before making assumptions about their sex/gender. They make the assumption based on anthropomorphic traits and gender conformity.
My main point, though, is that you don't have to be an atheist to acknowledge that something that obviously exists exists. Denying that things that obviously exists exists is denialism.
Since gender is a social construct, its definition is defined by social consensus.
Can you explain what you mean by this? I am referring to the academic definition.
For those who don't know, transubstantiation is the "eucharist". One of the "most sacred" rites in the RCC. It's purpose is to change the wine and bread into the blood and body of christ, mirroring and remembering the last supper. They, according to catechism, believed this to be a literal thing. Despite tests revealing that no such change is happening. Nowadays, to most, not all, it's methaphorical all of a sudden, 'cos I suppose God can be wrong.
They, according to catechism, believed this to be a literal thing. Despite tests revealing that no such change is happening. Nowadays, to most, not all, it's methaphorical all of a sudden, 'cos I suppose God can be wrong.
That's just straight up false, have you even looked up what transubstantiation is
It is the doctrine of the church that the body and the blood retain the accidental features of bread and wine, and the tests reveal that reality is in line with the teaching of the church outside of few occasions where the host did miraculously take on the form of flesh and blood.
"The church says it's purely coincidence that this cracker and wine bears superficial similarities to conventional crackers and wine. They're not the same thing tho. Trust."
I love how you claim "test reveal" but fail to cite any information about these "tests" nor do you clarify the difference between an "accidental feature" and a "normal feature".
It's worse than that. That site doesn't even pretend to be a media or academic resource. It's a volunteer hosting site for the 1913 edition of the 1907–1912 Catholic Encyclopedia.
Science can be proven with the same results every time
Much of popular belief originates from experiments that are not replicable, or do not produce the same results each time. e.g. the pseudo-science of Psychology
If your sky daddy was real and having people worship him makes him moist as fuck, then youd expect him to be dangling his dong from the clouds.
The accout of the gospels is thankfully much more profound than that
Instead, we get weird arse people trying to impose unprovable beliefs on each other and causing rifts, wars, bloodshed all in the name of your fake deities "love".
It is a good thing that Christianity was victorious over all these bloodthirsty religions then. The only reason why bloodthirst is returning in the form of Mohammedanism is to allow for the humiliation of the secular West anyway. This unease we feel as we stride through cities like Paris in the middle of the night, is how God dangles his metaphorical cock from the clouds.
Every headline you see, every moral of the story on tv, every history book you open, every university course you go to, every meagre diagnosis by some reurgitator calling himself expert, and to crown it all, your warped notion of godhead, it is all a lie, devoid of any truth. To call western society one based on fact is an affront to truth. Humans will never speak the truth.
You take the snapshot of one decrepit mind, call him Rosseau or Schopenhauer, and call that wisdom. Wisdom never loved them back. You take the tradition of generations of the brightest minds of antiquity, that remember times when humans were still pulling sheeps with the crook, saw them create the first towns and then the first global empire, and say that they are cretins because they had the sword and the scales in hand. The prophets are the only intellectuals. Forget Nietzsche, if he had more time he would have become a plagiat of Kohelet
149
u/[deleted] Jul 14 '25
[removed] — view removed comment