Water never goes any damn specific direction down a drain unless it's pushed that way. Why would crossing the equator change anything about that?
I thought it was just a manifestation of the Coriolis Force.
The Coriolis Effect has a minutely small effect on the direction of water down a drain. It's 99% caused by the direction the water comes from or the structure of the drain.
If it was all the fault of Coriolis, then the water would swirl down about as fast as the Earth rotates around.
No. No no no no. Granted, some people are misanthropic but they are all seperete entities. It's a flawed argument
My desire to conserve the environment stems from my love for humanity and my want to protect mankind's future on this planet. If you were a true anthropocentric, you wouldn't be throwing perfectly good recyclable materials away or keeping pollution at a steady high. You'd realize you are being lazy and selfish, get to work, and make life a happy comfortable place for your future children and everyone else's.
The only misanthropes I see are the ones willing to throw away a forest for cattle, and thereby creating only temporary results - not longstanding happy human results.
I admit I subscribe to some of that feminist stuff mentioned.
I mean a lot of them do sound sexually frustrated.
If you believe women should be allowed to vote, have the same opportunities as a man (however, equal opportunity does not result in equal outcome; a mistake often made) and should be allowed to choose how to live their life, whether that's as a single, childless woman or as a married, stay-at-home mother, you are a feminist.
You're only not a feminist if you actually believe women are to some degree inferior, are incapable of working as hard as men, should not vote, and should remain at home in the kitchen.
If you believe women should be allowed to vote, have the same opportunities as a man (however, equal opportunity does not result in equal outcome; a mistake often made) and should be allowed to choose how to live their life, whether that's as a single, childless woman or as a married, stay-at-home mother, you are a feminist.
Right, that's the traditional meaning of the word "feminist".
In recent years though, some women have taken it further, into the man-hating realm. You should see some of the books out there. I was at the bookstore the other day checking some of them out. One goes like this:
How To Keep Your Man Around:
Tip 1: Have him do manual labor around the house. Ask him to hang a portrait on the wall. Pretend you like the result, then when he leaves the room, go and straighten the portrait. Men like it when they are feeling useful, yet you shouldn't criticize their work or they will get angry.
...
This is paraphrased, almost word by word (it made me so angry I still remember it well) from a book written by a famous "feminist", I forget her name. WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT?!?!
The International Women's Federation, who a bunch of super-conservative prudish hateful bitches a la your example above. They make a big deal out of claiming to be 'real feminists' while basically pushing the notion that women should be the kind of manipulative Stepfords described above, and that men should go back to being repressed and buying us everything. They are horrible awful people, and so I use IWF as shorthand for anti-feminists using similar muddy-the-waters tactics.
The International Women's Federation, who a bunch of super-conservative prudish hateful bitches a la your example above. They make a big deal out of claiming to be 'real feminists' while basically pushing the notion that women should be the kind of manipulative Stepfords described above, and that men should go back to being repressed and buying us everything. They are horrible awful people, and so I use IWF as shorthand for anti-feminists using similar muddy-the-waters tactics.
no, they're not feminist at all. As in, they're not arguing for an equal place in society, but some bizarre combination of private-sphere primacy and public-sphere... absence (except for them, because they're different). They're really basically women who make careers out of telling other women they shouldn't have careers, a la Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter. And wikipedia really isn't a great place to be reading about feminism, given that its largely written and edited by bitter techs.
The Cat on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
I remember reading that the 10% thing was actually true, just not the way people always take it. Apparently we never use more than 10% at any given time. We use more or less all the real estate, just not very efficiently.
This isn't true, either. Your brain has a bunch of different parts with different functions, and you use all of them more or less all the time.
I always thought it came from the proportion of processing neurons to dendritic material and support cells. I mean, it'd still be wrong, but it'd make more sense.
Nope. It comes, created whole cloth, from How to Win Friends and Influence People.
Also, we have a name for when we use higher and higher percentages of our brain - "seizure".
I don't want to launch an extensive analysis on this, so I'll just skip straight to the conclusion:
*ahem* Bullshit!
(Not to imply that it's vice versa. It doesn't work either way).
There is a severe misconception about that implies that atheists are something more than people who have a specific view about a specific claim. From one group, there's this claim that communism and Stalinism is some natural extension of atheism. Then there' some weird counter-claim that communists aren't "true" atheists, that atheists are some kind of skeptical juggernauts, or that the term is actually somehow synonymous with some notion like skepticism. Richard Dawkins is selling these inane "A" shirts (a is for atheist) on his site, as though atheists share views that are somehow cogent enough to draw themselves into a community.
I fucking hate that.
Loren Michael on
0
Options
MichaelLCIn what furnace was thy brain?ChicagoRegistered Userregular
I don't want to launch an extensive analysis on this, so I'll just skip straight to the conclusion:
*ahem* Bullshit!
(Not to imply that it's vice versa. It doesn't work either way).
There is a severe misconception about that implies that atheists are something more than people who have a specific view about a specific claim. From one group, there's this claim that communism and Stalinism is some natural extension of atheism. Then there' some weird counter-claim that communists aren't "true" atheists, that atheists are some kind of skeptical juggernauts, or that the term is actually somehow synonymous with some notion like skepticism. Richard Dawkins is selling these inane "A" shirts (a is for atheist) on his site, as though atheists share views that are somehow cogent enough to draw themselves into a community.
I fucking hate that.
There are plenty of people, Richard Dawkins not excluded, who are trying to paint Atheism as a community of people who are of a common mind. It doesn't really work though since they don't share a common belief. They share a common lack of belief. Or a common skepticism, whichever way you want to go. What are these people going to do when they get together?
I suppose they'd talk about how silly religion is and how silly it is to believe in it, and make themselves look like a community of Dawkins-esque assholes.
(I'm an atheist, and I agree with some things that Richard Dawkins says, but I don't think that, like RD, you need to be an asshole about it. He's a smart man, but he's a huge asshole.)
The biggest problem I see with the whole atheism "movement" that some of these groups are starting is that, by making atheism out to be a religion of some kind (though that's not the word they would use), they are starting to be guilty of a lot of the stupid shit they're bitching about.
GenoForPrez on
0
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
Yeah, I think the idea is that you don't want to be doing shots when you're already drunk, since you're more likely to overshoot. If you're drinking beers when you're already drunk, it's harder to do yourself that much harm (but certainly not impossible). How drunk you get is still just dependent on the usual factors though, like how much you drank, how fast, how skinny you are, how much you've eaten, and so on.
That's more or less how it goes. In general, there's also the lessened inhibitions and decision making when you offered the chance for more hard alcohol if you're already drunk to begin with. If you start off with they heavy stuff, and then switch over, you're probably going to be feeling pretty drunk and decide to take it easy, and your finishing off with more water, lower alcohol content, and generally consumed at a slower pace.
Gabriel_Pitt on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited August 2007
Which brings me to another thing people say all the time but I am sure is not true: Atheism is becoming a religion.
I have seen no real evidence for that. If someone can enlighten me, it'd be appreciated.
Which brings me to another thing people say all the time but I am sure is not true: Atheism is becoming a religion.
I have seen no real evidence for that. If someone can enlighten me, it'd be appreciated.
I have actually heard of atheist groups having meetings and such. Which seems totally ridiculous to me. "Hey guys, we still don't believe in god, right?"
On a side note, I hate preachy atheists. HATE.
edit: And on a misconception, CATHOLICS DO NOT WORSHIP MARY. THEY CONFER HER RESPECT. NOT WORSHIP. RAR
Which brings me to another thing people say all the time but I am sure is not true: Atheism is becoming a religion.
I have seen no real evidence for that. If someone can enlighten me, it'd be appreciated.
I have actually heard of atheist groups having meetings and such. Which seems totally ridiculous to me. "Hey guys, we still don't believe in god, right?"
On a side note, I hate preachy atheists. HATE.
edit: And on a misconception, CATHOLICS DO NOT WORSHIP MARY. THEY CONFER HER RESPECT. NOT WORSHIP. RAR
Yeah right.
I think you are relying on subtle theological dogma to backup your point, rather than the actual behavior of a lot of Catholics.
Shinto on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Which brings me to another thing people say all the time but I am sure is not true: Atheism is becoming a religion.
I have seen no real evidence for that. If someone can enlighten me, it'd be appreciated.
I have actually heard of atheist groups having meetings and such. Which seems totally ridiculous to me. "Hey guys, we still don't believe in god, right?"
On a side note, I hate preachy atheists. HATE.
edit: And on a misconception, CATHOLICS DO NOT WORSHIP MARY. THEY CONFER HER RESPECT. NOT WORSHIP. RAR
But there's a lot of difference between joining a club and becoming a religion, don't you think? MENSA is basically just a bunch of smart people getting together to talk about how smart they are, but nobody's calling MENSA a religion.
And I think the worship/respect Mary thing, like the saints, really is a case of six on one hand, half a dozen on the other. Maybe in a strictly Vatican-approved theological sense what you wrote is true, but "on the ground" there are tons of Catholics who pray directly to Mary and the various saints.
Which brings me to another thing people say all the time but I am sure is not true: Atheism is becoming a religion.
I have seen no real evidence for that. If someone can enlighten me, it'd be appreciated.
I have actually heard of atheist groups having meetings and such. Which seems totally ridiculous to me. "Hey guys, we still don't believe in god, right?"
On a side note, I hate preachy atheists. HATE.
edit: And on a misconception, CATHOLICS DO NOT WORSHIP MARY. THEY CONFER HER RESPECT. NOT WORSHIP. RAR
But there's a lot of difference between joining a club and becoming a religion, don't you think? MENSA is basically just a bunch of smart people getting together to talk about how smart they are, but nobody's calling MENSA a religion.
And I think the worship/respect Mary thing, like the saints, really is a case of six on one hand, half a dozen on the other. Maybe in a strictly Vatican-approved theological sense what you wrote is true, but "on the ground" there are tons of Catholics who pray directly to Mary and the various saints.
'Hail Mary'.
edit: I'm still surprised that I remember it all. Good job Catholic school nuns!
Malkor on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Praying directly to Mary doesn't mean that you're worshiping her. The best way I heard it explained was you're going to a person who's got pretty good influence with the big guy. I assume it's a way that was used to get women all happy and in with the worshiping thing back in the day. Hence the "hail mary." It looks like worship I'm sure, but the distinction is still there in a person's praying mind.
I was raised catholic, though I don't still consider myself as such, and it just bugs the hell out of me.
SniperGuy on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Praying directly to Mary doesn't mean that you're worshiping her. The best way I heard it explained was you're going to a person who's got pretty good influence with the big guy. I assume it's a way that was used to get women all happy and in with the worshiping thing back in the day. Hence the "hail mary." It looks like worship I'm sure, but the distinction is still there in a person's praying mind.
I was raised catholic, though I don't still consider myself as such, and it just bugs the hell out of me.
I, too, was raised Catholic. And I still hold that the distinction between worshipping Mary and merely praying for her intercession is so pedantic that, frankly, it reminds me of the way corporations and politicians will try and get away with things by just making up a new definition for it. Like torture.
Edit: And again, what you are saying doesn't jibe with the way Catholicism is actually practiced by its devotees.
But the catholic church doesn't get anything out of praying to Mary. Hell, I agree with the logic behind it. I mean, whoa, miraculous conception? That's pretty badass. You're the mom of our lord and savior and at one point you two shared a body? That's kinda, uh, kickass. Go you. I fail to see the harm in throwing up a high five to that.
edit: I also really did not mean to turn this into a religion thread.
As an agnostic raised catholic, the way I feel is if you are going to worship someone or something, is far better to worship a woman, specially if she's a mother as well, it just makes the most sense for me, whatever "sense" worshiping could have. Is probably the only thing I like about catholiscism.
And catholics do "worship" the Virgin Mary, in the literal sense of the word, but the big guy is always Jesus and God, she's never placed at the same level, which I think is the misunderstanding.
Yeah, I think the idea is that you don't want to be doing shots when you're already drunk, since you're more likely to overshoot. If you're drinking beers when you're already drunk, it's harder to do yourself that much harm (but certainly not impossible). How drunk you get is still just dependent on the usual factors though, like how much you drank, how fast, how skinny you are, how much you've eaten, and so on.
That's more or less how it goes. In general, there's also the lessened inhibitions and decision making when you offered the chance for more hard alcohol if you're already drunk to begin with. If you start off with they heavy stuff, and then switch over, you're probably going to be feeling pretty drunk and decide to take it easy, and your finishing off with more water, lower alcohol content, and generally consumed at a slower pace.
Again ti really boils down to experience. i drink in odd orders all the time but I've been drinking long enough t know when I'm good and when I can have more. even when I'm hammered my judgement on if I can have another drink tends to be pretty good.
Which brings me to another thing people say all the time but I am sure is not true: Atheism is becoming a religion.
I have seen no real evidence for that. If someone can enlighten me, it'd be appreciated.
I have actually heard of atheist groups having meetings and such. Which seems totally ridiculous to me. "Hey guys, we still don't believe in god, right?"
On a side note, I hate preachy atheists. HATE.
I run the Atheist Club on campus. We have meetings all the time. We talk a lot about how we can fix the prejudices most people have about the 10% of us atheists/agnostics. We organize a lot of charity drives and services to homeless shelters/convalescent homes/hospitals. We have some awesome discussions about things like religion & contemporary politics, religion & elementary education as it relates to the formation of a child's logical processes, morality without the context of religion, etc. We've organized Intelligent Design debates with some of the religious clubs on campus.
Which brings me to another thing people say all the time but I am sure is not true: Atheism is becoming a religion.
I have seen no real evidence for that. If someone can enlighten me, it'd be appreciated.
I have actually heard of atheist groups having meetings and such. Which seems totally ridiculous to me. "Hey guys, we still don't believe in god, right?"
On a side note, I hate preachy atheists. HATE.
I run the Atheist Club on campus. We have meetings all the time. We talk a lot about how we can fix the prejudices most people have about the 10% of us atheists/agnostics. We organize a lot of charity drives and services to homeless shelters/convalescent homes/hospitals. We have some awesome discussions about things like religion & contemporary politics, religion & elementary education as it relates to the formation of a child's logical processes, morality without the context of religion, etc. We've organized Intelligent Design debates with some of the religious clubs on campus.
On a side note, I hate preachy atheists. HATE.
We don't like you either.
Are you a preachy atheist? Do you hand out pamphlets? Do you mock people that believe in religion? Do you try and destroy other's religious beliefs?
Also, that whole "morality without the context of religion" thing...why bother being moral, other than not being a dick just for that? If you don't think there's any afterlife, how can you derive morals? Also, that's probably a different topic.
I always thought it was really dumb that people automatically associate morals with religion. If anything, they shouldn't, because how are those true morals when the only reason you're following them is because you're told to and to avoid damnation? Shouldn't you be doing good things just because they're good? Atheism does imply amorality. I don't get why it would.
I always thought it was really dumb that people automatically associate morals with religion. If anything, they shouldn't, because how are those true morals when the only reason you're following them is because you're told to and to avoid damnation? Shouldn't you be doing good things just because they're good? Atheism does imply amorality. I don't get why it would.
How do you differentiate good from bad? Good could be "get food, make myself happy."
If killing people makes you happy...
Yeah, I think the idea is that you don't want to be doing shots when you're already drunk, since you're more likely to overshoot. If you're drinking beers when you're already drunk, it's harder to do yourself that much harm (but certainly not impossible). How drunk you get is still just dependent on the usual factors though, like how much you drank, how fast, how skinny you are, how much you've eaten, and so on.
That's more or less how it goes. In general, there's also the lessened inhibitions and decision making when you offered the chance for more hard alcohol if you're already drunk to begin with. If you start off with they heavy stuff, and then switch over, you're probably going to be feeling pretty drunk and decide to take it easy, and your finishing off with more water, lower alcohol content, and generally consumed at a slower pace.
Yeah, basically. This has proven true in my experience.
One of my favorite (read: most hated) misconceptions is that physicians can't prescribe a drug until after they've gathered objective evidence towards a diagnosis. You see this a lot in threads on psych meds (which is why I'm thinking of it right now, there's a psych med thread in H/A).
I think this comes from watching too much House, MD where they use this imaginary principle of medicine as a drama point in pretty much every episode. "You can't give that patient quinine until you prove he has malaria!" "The blood tests will take 12 hours to come back from the lab! We don't have time to wait!" "I could get you disbarred for this, House!" Yeah, it doesn't exactly work that way - much of the time, all a physician has to go on is an educated hunch. If the drug works, great; if it doesn't, revise the original theory and try something else. It isn't a big fucking deal.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Universal medical care = socialized medicine. (A rectangle does not necessarily equal a square.)
Assault rifles are deadlier than other guns. (The difference is primarily cosmetic.)
Religion = belief in God. (This makes atheism threads rather annoying for me.)
Vaccines cause autism. (How can I put this tactfully? If you think this... you're a blithering idiot. That's about as tactful as I can be on this subject.)
Pharmaceutical companies don't want to cure anything because there's more money in treatment. (The first company to cure cancer would earn more money than all the world's billionaires put together.)
There's a vast conspiracy to make smoking seem more dangerous than it is. (Yeah, imagine all the money all those doctors wouldn't make on all the lung cancer and heart disease that wouldn't happen if everybody stopped smoking... oh, wait.)
I could also mention about a million other common misconceptions revolving around gender essentialism, gender roles, sexual behavior, and monogamy, but I'm afraid I'd drag the thread totally off-topic if I opened those cans of worms.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
One of my favorite (read: most hated) misconceptions is that physicians can't prescribe a drug until after they've gathered objective evidence towards a diagnosis. You see this a lot in threads on psych meds (which is why I'm thinking of it right now, there's a psych med thread in H/A).
[More words]
Yeah, it doesn't exactly work that way - much of the time, all a physician has to go on is an educated hunch. If the drug works, great; if it doesn't, revise the original theory and try something else. It isn't a big fucking deal.
Ditto in general to people taking medical and law shows as fact. I mean I love House and Law & Order, but I know they're fiction. Little fibs used to create drama are all over the place in these shows... and it bugs the hell out of me when people quote as them as if they were fact.
Also, one misconception I run into a lot is people who insist bisexual and transgender people are "just gay." Of course the bigots like a nice and tidy group to hate, but I'm surprised how many normal non-bigots I know insist on these fallacies being true. I usually do my best to kindly set them straight (har har), however. I'm not too surprised though, nor am I mad at them. Even progressive media outlets get this mixed up... and there isn't a big "here's what the GLBT acronym stands for!" campaign.
I always thought it was really dumb that people automatically associate morals with religion. If anything, they shouldn't, because how are those true morals when the only reason you're following them is because you're told to and to avoid damnation? Shouldn't you be doing good things just because they're good? Atheism does imply amorality. I don't get why it would.
How do you differentiate good from bad? Good could be "get food, make myself happy."
If killing people makes you happy...
Do you really need a fancy old book allegedly written by a higher power just to tell you that killing people is bad? Jesus Christ.
About the whole atheism and whether or not it's becoming a religion of sorts.
I'm an Atheist but I don't really go to any groups, I don't subscribe to the newsletter (I'm sure there are ample amounts), and you get the idea. But, I don't see anything wrong with a group of Atheists getting together. It's not uncommon for people that share interests, beliefs, or philosophies to get together and mingle. I wouldn't call it a religion, though.
Atheists, in general, believe that there is no god or higher being. We might not believe that there's a god but we share the idea that there's no god(s)/higher being/etc. That's what makes us part of that particular category. Seeing as how I live in the southern portion of the U.S., I don't see (or even know of) any other fellow atheists. Therefore, if I ever happen to meet someone that is, I would certainly enjoy getting together and discussing varies philosophies and ideas. I don't see how that's contradictory to being an Atheist.
Posts
I mean a lot of them do sound sexually frustrated.
you know, oppression thing
if I were a lady.
I thought it was just a manifestation of the Coriolis Force.
The Coriolis Effect has a minutely small effect on the direction of water down a drain. It's 99% caused by the direction the water comes from or the structure of the drain.
If it was all the fault of Coriolis, then the water would swirl down about as fast as the Earth rotates around.
No. No no no no. Granted, some people are misanthropic but they are all seperete entities. It's a flawed argument
My desire to conserve the environment stems from my love for humanity and my want to protect mankind's future on this planet. If you were a true anthropocentric, you wouldn't be throwing perfectly good recyclable materials away or keeping pollution at a steady high. You'd realize you are being lazy and selfish, get to work, and make life a happy comfortable place for your future children and everyone else's.
The only misanthropes I see are the ones willing to throw away a forest for cattle, and thereby creating only temporary results - not longstanding happy human results.
If you believe women should be allowed to vote, have the same opportunities as a man (however, equal opportunity does not result in equal outcome; a mistake often made) and should be allowed to choose how to live their life, whether that's as a single, childless woman or as a married, stay-at-home mother, you are a feminist.
You're only not a feminist if you actually believe women are to some degree inferior, are incapable of working as hard as men, should not vote, and should remain at home in the kitchen.
Right, that's the traditional meaning of the word "feminist".
In recent years though, some women have taken it further, into the man-hating realm. You should see some of the books out there. I was at the bookstore the other day checking some of them out. One goes like this:
How To Keep Your Man Around:
Tip 1: Have him do manual labor around the house. Ask him to hang a portrait on the wall. Pretend you like the result, then when he leaves the room, go and straighten the portrait. Men like it when they are feeling useful, yet you shouldn't criticize their work or they will get angry.
...
This is paraphrased, almost word by word (it made me so angry I still remember it well) from a book written by a famous "feminist", I forget her name. WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT?!?!
its pretty damn obvious you don't ever actually read anything produced by modern feminists so much as IWF members trying to coopt the term :roll:
What is IWF?
They seem to be an extremist subset of contemporary feminism.
Nope. It comes, created whole cloth, from How to Win Friends and Influence People.
Also, we have a name for when we use higher and higher percentages of our brain - "seizure".
There is a severe misconception about that implies that atheists are something more than people who have a specific view about a specific claim. From one group, there's this claim that communism and Stalinism is some natural extension of atheism. Then there' some weird counter-claim that communists aren't "true" atheists, that atheists are some kind of skeptical juggernauts, or that the term is actually somehow synonymous with some notion like skepticism. Richard Dawkins is selling these inane "A" shirts (a is for atheist) on his site, as though atheists share views that are somehow cogent enough to draw themselves into a community.
I fucking hate that.
There are plenty of people, Richard Dawkins not excluded, who are trying to paint Atheism as a community of people who are of a common mind. It doesn't really work though since they don't share a common belief. They share a common lack of belief. Or a common skepticism, whichever way you want to go. What are these people going to do when they get together?
I suppose they'd talk about how silly religion is and how silly it is to believe in it, and make themselves look like a community of Dawkins-esque assholes.
(I'm an atheist, and I agree with some things that Richard Dawkins says, but I don't think that, like RD, you need to be an asshole about it. He's a smart man, but he's a huge asshole.)
The biggest problem I see with the whole atheism "movement" that some of these groups are starting is that, by making atheism out to be a religion of some kind (though that's not the word they would use), they are starting to be guilty of a lot of the stupid shit they're bitching about.
I have seen no real evidence for that. If someone can enlighten me, it'd be appreciated.
I have actually heard of atheist groups having meetings and such. Which seems totally ridiculous to me. "Hey guys, we still don't believe in god, right?"
On a side note, I hate preachy atheists. HATE.
edit: And on a misconception, CATHOLICS DO NOT WORSHIP MARY. THEY CONFER HER RESPECT. NOT WORSHIP. RAR
Yeah right.
I think you are relying on subtle theological dogma to backup your point, rather than the actual behavior of a lot of Catholics.
But there's a lot of difference between joining a club and becoming a religion, don't you think? MENSA is basically just a bunch of smart people getting together to talk about how smart they are, but nobody's calling MENSA a religion.
And I think the worship/respect Mary thing, like the saints, really is a case of six on one hand, half a dozen on the other. Maybe in a strictly Vatican-approved theological sense what you wrote is true, but "on the ground" there are tons of Catholics who pray directly to Mary and the various saints.
edit: I'm still surprised that I remember it all. Good job Catholic school nuns!
Fo'serious. Mega bonus points if you still remember the entire Apostle's Creed.
I was raised catholic, though I don't still consider myself as such, and it just bugs the hell out of me.
I, too, was raised Catholic. And I still hold that the distinction between worshipping Mary and merely praying for her intercession is so pedantic that, frankly, it reminds me of the way corporations and politicians will try and get away with things by just making up a new definition for it. Like torture.
Edit: And again, what you are saying doesn't jibe with the way Catholicism is actually practiced by its devotees.
edit: I also really did not mean to turn this into a religion thread.
And catholics do "worship" the Virgin Mary, in the literal sense of the word, but the big guy is always Jesus and God, she's never placed at the same level, which I think is the misunderstanding.
Again ti really boils down to experience. i drink in odd orders all the time but I've been drinking long enough t know when I'm good and when I can have more. even when I'm hammered my judgement on if I can have another drink tends to be pretty good.
One of my FAVORITE misconceptions.
I run the Atheist Club on campus. We have meetings all the time. We talk a lot about how we can fix the prejudices most people have about the 10% of us atheists/agnostics. We organize a lot of charity drives and services to homeless shelters/convalescent homes/hospitals. We have some awesome discussions about things like religion & contemporary politics, religion & elementary education as it relates to the formation of a child's logical processes, morality without the context of religion, etc. We've organized Intelligent Design debates with some of the religious clubs on campus.
We don't like you either.
Are you a preachy atheist? Do you hand out pamphlets? Do you mock people that believe in religion? Do you try and destroy other's religious beliefs?
Also, that whole "morality without the context of religion" thing...why bother being moral, other than not being a dick just for that? If you don't think there's any afterlife, how can you derive morals? Also, that's probably a different topic.
How do you differentiate good from bad? Good could be "get food, make myself happy."
If killing people makes you happy...
Yeah, basically. This has proven true in my experience.
One of my favorite (read: most hated) misconceptions is that physicians can't prescribe a drug until after they've gathered objective evidence towards a diagnosis. You see this a lot in threads on psych meds (which is why I'm thinking of it right now, there's a psych med thread in H/A).
I think this comes from watching too much House, MD where they use this imaginary principle of medicine as a drama point in pretty much every episode. "You can't give that patient quinine until you prove he has malaria!" "The blood tests will take 12 hours to come back from the lab! We don't have time to wait!" "I could get you disbarred for this, House!" Yeah, it doesn't exactly work that way - much of the time, all a physician has to go on is an educated hunch. If the drug works, great; if it doesn't, revise the original theory and try something else. It isn't a big fucking deal.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Universal medical care = socialized medicine. (A rectangle does not necessarily equal a square.)
Assault rifles are deadlier than other guns. (The difference is primarily cosmetic.)
Religion = belief in God. (This makes atheism threads rather annoying for me.)
Vaccines cause autism. (How can I put this tactfully? If you think this... you're a blithering idiot. That's about as tactful as I can be on this subject.)
Pharmaceutical companies don't want to cure anything because there's more money in treatment. (The first company to cure cancer would earn more money than all the world's billionaires put together.)
There's a vast conspiracy to make smoking seem more dangerous than it is. (Yeah, imagine all the money all those doctors wouldn't make on all the lung cancer and heart disease that wouldn't happen if everybody stopped smoking... oh, wait.)
I could also mention about a million other common misconceptions revolving around gender essentialism, gender roles, sexual behavior, and monogamy, but I'm afraid I'd drag the thread totally off-topic if I opened those cans of worms.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Ditto in general to people taking medical and law shows as fact. I mean I love House and Law & Order, but I know they're fiction. Little fibs used to create drama are all over the place in these shows... and it bugs the hell out of me when people quote as them as if they were fact.
Also, one misconception I run into a lot is people who insist bisexual and transgender people are "just gay." Of course the bigots like a nice and tidy group to hate, but I'm surprised how many normal non-bigots I know insist on these fallacies being true. I usually do my best to kindly set them straight (har har), however. I'm not too surprised though, nor am I mad at them. Even progressive media outlets get this mixed up... and there isn't a big "here's what the GLBT acronym stands for!" campaign.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'm an Atheist but I don't really go to any groups, I don't subscribe to the newsletter (I'm sure there are ample amounts), and you get the idea. But, I don't see anything wrong with a group of Atheists getting together. It's not uncommon for people that share interests, beliefs, or philosophies to get together and mingle. I wouldn't call it a religion, though.
Atheists, in general, believe that there is no god or higher being. We might not believe that there's a god but we share the idea that there's no god(s)/higher being/etc. That's what makes us part of that particular category. Seeing as how I live in the southern portion of the U.S., I don't see (or even know of) any other fellow atheists. Therefore, if I ever happen to meet someone that is, I would certainly enjoy getting together and discussing varies philosophies and ideas. I don't see how that's contradictory to being an Atheist.