You can't think of anything you believe in that if someone came to you to "discuss" you wouldn't react instantly negative and start calling the other person insults?
Why bother? I don’t hold any belief strongly enough to merit such a reaction, though I might react negatively for other reasons. For example, past experience showing the insincerity of their own debate tactics and a lack of patience for rehashing it all yet again.
I don't know you and can't speak for you. But my point that all the people on here criticizing people on their moral systems are baseless stands. These same people would've been in the mob in salem executing so called witches a couple hundred years ago and would have been just as certain in their beliefs then.
Religion is dividing our society. Its reasonable to wish for an independent believe system for our whole society.
Nonetheless arguing on hn is not a mob.
But yes discriminiation of woman is a bigger problem than religion. Forced marriages, hanging gay people, raping children, religious conflicts are a huge issue still today.
Unfortunate for us, sciencse or a global believe system doesn't need to have a church. It happens trhough alignment, communication etc.
We are already more aligned through knowledge but we just don't promote that. My friend and i are not going to our science church on sunday because we don't need to. We don't need to discuss 1+1=2 because its proven. And while social norms are not that explicit, we see big progress here as well: In germany for example, we don't hang people on carcranes because they are gay.
Its just harder to keep track of this and doing the right thing if you don't get it pushed in every sunday. And indepenedent of this, in bavaria you had one hour every week christian religion in school. I grew up with plenty of assholes. Clearly religioun did not brought us as humans together.
AFAIK witch hunts were often driven by political reasons and the church lent their credibility for it. Sometimes the church initiated them. Claiming atheists would have been a part of this is a bit far fetched, to put it mildly.
> These same people would've been in the mob in salem executing so called witches a couple hundred years ago and would have been just as certain in their beliefs then.
Not being able to speak for someone implies you do not know their thoughts or motivations.
So in the second sentence, you acknowledge that you do not know the thoughts or motivations of the person you are responding to, but the preceding sentence implies that you do know the thoughts and motivations of some other people, and what they would or would not have done a couple hundred years ago.
I.e. a very strong claim about one group of people you do not know, followed by an acknowledgement that said strong claim cannot be made for another group of people you do not know.
