there were signs all around my uni that said “dump your socialist boyfriend” for like NO reason 😭😭
Once upon a time these batshit crazy politicians would be kicked out of US politics. The shift to ridiculous antics is purposeful … the media just accepts anything and everything these people do now.
“On second thought let’s not go to the United States. ‘t’is a silly place.”
Yes we are the only country on earth with religious fundamentalists
i wont be so sure of that, most religious right wing country of all western countries, yes.
Oh absolutely not, but the USA is without a doubt the silliest one at that.
In most countries political figures are boring by default. Maybe a few outliers but all in all blander than oatmeal with water instead of milk.
Do I even need to start describing the USA?
You guys have fucking wrestling in front of the White House that’s being wrecked to build a ginormous ballroom on top of a “secret” bunker. I could go on for pages but I’m gonna end up in tldr territory very quickly.
(Also, it was just a play on a Monty python quote)
This is absolutely correct. We should probably replace silly with madhouse tho
No, you’re not the only one. Do you think it makes you less so? Do you think it’s less silly place because there are others like that in the world?
Yeah but, we’re definitely the loudest
And most obnoxious
Well compared to most European countries you are sure clear winners
Europe’s been experiencing a far-right religious coded revival for nearly a decade.
German Catholics are fucking insane and they’re all over the political and business scenes. Poland maintains one of the highest rates of religious observance in Europe, with over 85% of citizens identifying as Catholic and regular church attendance remaining remarkably high. Romania hosts one of Europe’s largest evangelical communities, with Pentecostals seeing steadily growing membership for over a decade.
The pox of reactionary Christendom is spreading with the collapse of left-wing institutions and the ramp up of white nationalist propaganda.
All what you’re saying and more are big problems by European standards. And yet, the most insane Polish catholic will be seen as moderate woke by the most enlightened American public. Polland’s remarkably high religious observance is actually 30% of Catholics attended a mass at least once a year, according to 2024 numbers that I could find. Which actually down from 50% over last three decades with continuing downwards trend.
So yeah, if you look for very specific things like Pentecostsls in Romania, you can find some anomalies that you can then spin as a catastrophe, but the fact that you needed to do this anomaly hunt in the first place says enough.the most insane Polish catholic will be seen as moderate woke by the most enlightened American public
That’s not remotely true. And we know we isn’t true, because Victor Orban is out here funding CPAC. They’re all the same guys, in conversation with one another
Victor Orban is also very much not Polish, but what does it matter, right?
Anyway, sure, you’re technically correct, the most insane Polish Catholic is insane. Serves me right for trying to insert some literary flér of hyperbole in this serious scientific conversation.
We were talking about popluational trends and statistics though, in which case I will explicitly say that I’m talking about “median” population, not literaly the extreme 0.1%Victor Orban is also very much not Polish
Is he European?
We were talking about popluational trends and statistics though
Since the collapse of the USSR, the trend towards reactionary religious movements has only increased over time. You can definitely blame this on western evangelicals and Catholics piling into these countries during their brief liberalization phase. But to say Europe lacks a large and wealthy Christian community is to deny what’s in front of your eyes.
I will explicitly say that I’m talking about “median” population, not literaly the extreme 0.1%
The extreme 0.1% are the ones with all the money.
Past that, European parliaments all have their variation on the Christian Democrat Party. The CDU/CSU coalition is currently the largest party bloc in Germany, following the ignominious collapse of Olaf’s Greens. Idk how you win 208 MPs without a plurality of popular support.
Maybe I’m spoiled by my mostly atheist country. What you say makes me sad.
The Vatican is #1, but we’re the only other “Western Democracy” that is having a major resurgence of fundies in power. There’s always been a problem, but never have they had so much sway. And we’re not better off for it.
TBH I think Genesis 1:1 is much more about big bang denial/interpretation than evolution.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Isn’t there a better quote for being anti-evolution? Like about the creation of Adam and Eve? I say like Gen 1:20-27. Maybe they meant just Genesis 1?
I love when people are stupid about being stupid.
I don’t think the Bible denies the Big Bang. It doesn’t say how he created the universe except that it took 7 days which is a mistranslation anyway. The Hebrew word used in the Torah for day is ‘yom’ which means era.
In my opinion it’s very easy to reconcile the creation story with science.
It’s even easier to not bother
Only insofar as its too vague to mean anything
I’m not religious, but the thought of God planting the seeds of life and letting it do its thing is a way better story than him just snapping his fingers.
it’s even cooler if you ask me
I saw a big billboard that said “EVOLUTION IS A LIE GENESIS 1:1” with the ape evolving to man with a big ❌ over it and a phone number like 1-800-THE-TRUTH or something.
god I absolutely love living in Florida 🙃
The flip side of that is you can do bath salts and burn that shit and it probably won’t even make the local news
Do you think this person read the book he is quoting? Do you think he read like 20-30 verses? He just read the first and was like, well, close enough
No, you prove that you’re right.
Sounds like all the girls there (or at least the ones whoever printed the signs is interested in) are dating socialist guys?
Wouldn’t need to print the signs otherwise… :P
My uni just had constant protests against quad gods
Even the die-hard evangelicals on campus find these people embarrassing. They are just annoying losers.
Like, figure skaters?
someone with large quads?
Colloquial term for unauthorized campus preachers
Never, ever try and engage these people on their terms, for example, by trying to “challenge” them with counter arguments. They already have a whole script of replies ready for anything like that, designed to drag you down to his level of bad-faith bickering.
Instead, simply call out to their face what they actually are. These are bad-faith actors there for the sole purpose of undermining social cohesion by creating a false dichotomy between science and religion. They are not the only reason we are so divided but they are a large one. Tell them that. Don’t let them respond. Don’t give them questions to answer. Just keep pressing, stating what they are, to them, and to everyone who’s stopping to listen. Humiliate them by presenting them to the public as the cancer to society that they are.
Look for their partner nearby holding a video camera as it may be a lawsuit scheme.
Start recording, say the worst things possible, pray someone punches you.
Never, ever try and engage these people on their terms
Instead, simply call out to their face what they actually are.
Heckling can work when you’ve got a crowd on your side. But when it’s just you with your paper sign shouting slurs, you end up looking like the asshole instead of the folks you’re jeering.
At some point, you have to engage with the premise. Or, at least, put forward your own beliefs and positions. If it’s just a contest of vibes and mogging, the person with the professional experience in those fields is going to win.
I like to sing “the preacher and the slave” to them
This is pretty much prime territory for the same methods Kirk used for “debate”.
Gish gallop, butwhatabout, moving goalposts, exhausting the opponent with bs, etc.
They’re all the same, they’re not there for any honest conversation. There is absolutely no way to “win” with them because no matter what objective and truthful information you offer it will be rejected or you’ll be asked to “prove” something that cannot be done in any manner acceptable to the asker.
Not only that but both of them, Kirk and WBC, were experienced. Not at being good debators but at shutting down people who tried to prove them wrong. Even if they were wrong. They had months if not years built around defending a flawed view and shutting down naysayers. They regularly practiced all their tactics so most of the people they debated (regular students who had an opinion) weren’t ready for their tactics. You don’t have to outsmart your opponent or be correct, you just have to trip them up and make them publicly look foolish. These guys travel the country ragebaiting and begging people to call them out daily, they know how to dodge and redirect and speak over.
Once you stoop to their level, they beat you with experience. It doesn’t make them right.
Also I’m pretty sure half of WBCs old tactic was saying stuff that would get them punched and then suing.
They also are going in skilled at public debate and picking fights with the unskilled. They’re media trained, and you probably aren’t. They get to cut the video and decide if they post it. They’re fighting dirty, but they’re doing it in a game they rigged before the first fight.
creating a false dichotomy between science and religion
Was with you until this part. There’s nothing false about that dichotomy.
Plenty of religious scientists. The more you learn, the greater you are aware of how much is uncertain. You can still believe in a God whilst respecting the scientific method of iterative reasoning and refinement
The more you learn, the greater you are aware of how much is uncertain.
Yes, but similarly, the god of the gaps is pretty hard to ignore.
There will be questions we never will have the answer to, and if you’re actually serious about the scientific method as a philosophy, you aren’t uncomfortable with “we don’t know”.
To me, a mysterious universe is more wondrous than “god did it” and yes, I do very much question religious scientists, despite many great scientists being religious.
If you’re willing to just believe things “just because” then how can I trust you’ll actually apply the scientific method (also a philosophy) reliably?
I can happily coexist and work with mildly religious scientists/engineers, but I would straight up refuse to work with a creationist or someone born again. Religion is anti-scientific.
Religion vs science is not a false dichotomy, despite it being possible to be religious and a scientist at the same time.
the god of the gaps
Found my new religion.
It’s less accepting the uncertainties, and more seeing familiar patterns and constants and wondering of their nature. Why Pi, why 3 visible human dimensions, why the golden ratio in so many flora and fauna, why quark trios.
The scientific answer to many of these is “Nature of the universe, energy minimization dictates, we have Math models”, all which are fine answers. But you do still question why those values/patterns compared to others, and the truth is we may never know. If we do, that’s amazing(!), but if not, that’s probably alright too.
The scientific method answers “How?” questions. It lets us build models of reality - a map of the territory.
“Why?” questions imply intent- requiring an intelligence making a decision. The scientific method does not and cannot answer those questions.
That’s why it’s fun to ponder them
I question the expertise of any scientist who is willing to believe things with no evidence. It’s as simple as that.
There was a shortformvid clip I saw some time ago that stuck with me: You can only ‘believe’ in something that does NOT have evidence for it (or at least not conclusive evidence), otherwise you would KNOW it to be true. Belief requires a certain amount of uncertainty. Note that I am in no way religious and in no way am saying people should believe religious texts, just sharing an interesting take on the concept of ‘believing’
Ehh, I don’t necessarily agree with that but I understand the point.
I think if a thing is evident, then it’s irrelevant as to whether or not someone believes it. But it’s still a thing.
There are also a fair number of scientists that believe there may be a higher power or an afterlife that still devoutly hold to scientific study. You can be a person of science and a person of faith. As long as you don’t deny science along the way then there’s no problem with that. Now if you don’t believe in evolution or something then yes your credentials are weakened significantly, but believing that there is a higher power beyond earth doesn’t mean your test results are invalid.
People are amazing at holding mutually contradictory believes, but that’s only the commentary on people. Actually, it’s part of the reason we need scientific method in the first place.
As I said elsewhere in this thread: I do not trust the expertise of any scientist who is willing to believe in anything without evidence.
I do not care that these people exist. They are untrustworthy.
That’s not exactly what believe means. In a way we can’t be sure of anything, including our own existence, so everything we do is believing something based on what evidence we have. The difference between that and a religious conviction is that religion requires you to stop basing your believe on any evidence at all, and believe in their stuff regardless.
If I tell you I ate a piece of bread this morning, you’ll believe me. If I tell you I ate a piece of Uranium, you wouldn’t. Even though, you have the same amount of evidence for both claims. That’s normal believe. Religious believe requires you to believe everything religious higher ups tell you, but because humans aren’t wired to do that, they only tell you shit you can’t actually check, so your believes are “justified”.
Rightly so. If the scientific method is applied to religious claims, they fail as untestable assertions. Every time.
There are people who’re scientists and also religious people. People are amazing at compartmentalizing. My physics teacher in school was young earth creationists. She had no problems spending the whole academic hour correctly explaining how lead is formed over millenia in a heart of a dying start, and then spending an hour after school explaining to all who could listen, with the same conviction, that the earth is 6 thousands years old everything was made in 6 literal human 24 hours days.
People contain multitudes. Science and religion, however, are mutually exclusive. Scientific method is the opposite of religious conviction, and anyone who don’t see that doesn’t know what either of those words mean.
You can’t call them out either, they’re prepared for that probably even more. You debating them, you calling them names, you doing anything with them gives them what they want - attention and footage for their stupid youtube channels.
The only thing they’re afraid of is if you ignore them. The only footage that makes them look actually bad and which they can’t cut to make themselves look good is them sitting in the corner with their silly little bait bullshit, being ignored by society.About 25yrs ago we had a flurry of these types invade. So we pulled some strings, got permission, and started having local bands play the main spot where they wanted to preach during the busy part of the day. Drown them out. The best was our local death metal band where the guitarist dressed up like a priest in a gimp mask and the singer wore a prison jumpsuit and nylons over his face. They condemned it but left. Also, mid-day death metal in the center of campus is something to behold.
In this particular case, he has no audience except a banana and a time traveler, so you could also just ignore him. Nothing worse for him than a day of nothing happening.
You can tell they’re a time traveller because of the Mark V time machine in front of them.
Oh I can think of lots worse.
Ya. That doesn’t work either. What does work is doing the exact same thing they do. Get a sign write on it “Christianity is bullshit. Prove me wrong” and stand there.
Don’t look at him, don’t engage. When he does finally say something tell him that he’s oppressing your beliefs and he deserves to burn in everlasting hellfire…
Next time I bring you with me.
You’re right. They can’t have a response when you say big fancy words to them that mean actual things. They’ll be stumped.
Someones trying to hookup with your socialist boyfriend
our boyfriend
It’s me. Dump your socialist boyfriend so I can be his rebound relationship
I mean, he’s ape-brained still, he might have a point.
apes are quite intelligent, smooth like a koala’s brain.
I’m sorry… Is he saying that the Bible directly, as the first sentence of the first book, like, the very first thing the Bible says, is: “Evolution is a lie,” or, “prove me wrong”?
I shouldn’t think too hard about it, but I am.
Edit: I’m aware the first sentence is “god made everything” but everything includes evolution soo… 🤔
You’re arguing with a straw pigeon. There’s no logic to convince that person. You could put them in a time machine and walk them through the evolution of life and they still wouldn’t change their mind.
They would just blame their eyes for lying to them.
Not a believer, but I recently learned that a correct reading of the original Hebrew doesn’t say he created everything. He created the waters and the earth from the void that was already there.
Back to the sign. Dude is making the claim; he has to support it. Evolution is the most proven theory we have, it has been tested over and over. He’d first have to understand the basics of evolutionary theory, which I guarantee he doesn’t know; he wouldn’t be there if he did.
Evolution is the most proven theory we have, yet it has been falsified over and over.
Is this a typo? A theory need only be proven wrong once to nullify it as a theory and so far as I’m aware that hasn’t happened.
It’s a miswording. I meant the act of being falsifiable. Testable. If we found something that went totally against the core of the theory and was shown to be factual, we’d have to reconsider what was wrong. But the only debate within evolution are the details, not the main concept, which still hasn’t found bunny fossils older than dinosaurs (to use a common example).
I mean, christianity goes back to some water god on the local hill (“mountain”) with his wife.
Evolution is the most proven theory we have, it has been tested over and over.
I’ll see your Theory of Evolution and raise you the Theory of Gravity.
I’ll call. We understand much of how evolution works. Do we really understand how gravity actually works at the core level? There are a few theories, but that’s just it; we’re not sure, and have different models to try and explain what’s going on. Not one.
Does a theory need to be understood or explained to be tested/proven?
Not fully. But I’m not saying gravitational theory doesn’t qualify as a theory, I’m just saying we understand evolution very well.
Is the templar, banana and lighting McQueen toy part of his argument or are those people goofing on him?
Having attended several red state universities, I chose to take it as a statement that alongside the ubiquitous plaza preachers, who are never affiliated with the school and are generally no one’s favorite campus characters, there’s also plenty of standard college silliness and shenanigans. Apart from the big blue cities, the college towns of the south are generally the most educated and forward thinking enclaves of their red states, hence the huge pressure campaigns from their governors to being the schools themselves to heel.
Proof that we still monkey
Tho not sure if proving him wrong or right
We are just monkeys with main character syndrome.
Ni!
What sad times these are.
When ruffians can go around saying Ni allowed to old women.
Could you bring us a shrubbery? A nice one, not too expensive
It’s ridiculously easy to prove him wrong, but you know he won’t accept your numerous indisputable proofs, not just because he’s religious, but because he’s a cunt. Just look at him; you just know his profile pic is that sunglasses face in his truck at a weird angle and he constantly whines about everything being woke.
You first. Prove religion is right.
Here are the arguments theyll be sure are winners:
1
says in old book. You not have old book.
2
DIE UNBELIEVER!
3
hello, morality officer? Yes, i have an unbeliever here.
says in old book. You not have old book.
The first encyclopedia is about as old as the Bible.
So it’ll always end in answer 2 and 3.
Yeah it will. Love how we create misunderstandings and delusions that reinforce themselves to the point of killing those who disagree.
