Downvoted because this kind of quote is the kind of snide simplistic atheism that is best left on Reddit’s atheism subreddit or similar places. It has no value here; it’s not even good Dark Arts.
If at some point you choose to actually express any of the thoughts that motivated you to post this comment, rather than simply emote about them, you might manage to communicate them more successfully.
Yahoo Answers is not a sacred text, nor is it the first appearance of that quote. You can and should spell correctly in your posts. Not that it matters much this time; I would have downvoted it anyway.
It’s important to keep in mind that the karma system can’t distinguish between “Eleven people separately think this was a bad comment on net” and “The community thinks this comment is so utterly and completely awful that it deserves a score of minus-eleven.”
For myself, I agree with Gwern about the snideness and simplicity, but I wouldn’t say the quote is wrong, either.
Well, I would certainly say it’s misleading, in that it suggests that people who start religious wars are substantially motivated by abstract comparisons of the quality of their god vs. somebody else’s god, which I think is simply false about the world.
But aphorisms can be both misleading and valuable, so that isn’t in and of itself a reason to not want it on the site.
Neither is the implication that anything that criticizes religion necessarily has to do with rationality, I suppose, though I personally find that more of a problem.
The trouble with this quotation (besides its typo and lack of attribution) is that it says nothing but “religions are false”. This is a trivial point, and this quotation does not support it. An eloquent support for a truth is worth quoting, an instructive explanation of the implications of a truth is worth quoting, but this is neither.
Downvoted because this kind of quote is the kind of snide simplistic atheism that is best left on Reddit’s atheism subreddit or similar places. It has no value here; it’s not even good Dark Arts.
11 downvotes and 22 upvotes for its disapproval. On a rationality site! Good Lord!
If at some point you choose to actually express any of the thoughts that motivated you to post this comment, rather than simply emote about them, you might manage to communicate them more successfully.
Probably didn’t help that you misspelled (or failed to correct/sic the quote’s misspelling) “imaginary”.
http://mw1.meriam-webster.com/dictionary/imaginary
...And? Your quote says “imaginery”.
Yes, you are correct about spelling. I see now, I’ve copied with an “e”. But was it the spelling or it was just a rude quotation, I wonder.
The quotation alone would probably have gotten downvoted, but I expect that the spelling may have exacerbated it.
An exact copy from here:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080715092325AAV45NQ
Who am I to change it in any way?
Yahoo Answers is not a sacred text, nor is it the first appearance of that quote. You can and should spell correctly in your posts. Not that it matters much this time; I would have downvoted it anyway.
?
That’s not the quote in the parent comment. That one was upvoted.
It’s farther down on the linked page.
It’s the fifth one down the list.
Look around on that site!
It’s important to keep in mind that the karma system can’t distinguish between “Eleven people separately think this was a bad comment on net” and “The community thinks this comment is so utterly and completely awful that it deserves a score of minus-eleven.”
For myself, I agree with Gwern about the snideness and simplicity, but I wouldn’t say the quote is wrong, either.
Well, I would certainly say it’s misleading, in that it suggests that people who start religious wars are substantially motivated by abstract comparisons of the quality of their god vs. somebody else’s god, which I think is simply false about the world.
But aphorisms can be both misleading and valuable, so that isn’t in and of itself a reason to not want it on the site.
Neither is the implication that anything that criticizes religion necessarily has to do with rationality, I suppose, though I personally find that more of a problem.
The trouble with this quotation (besides its typo and lack of attribution) is that it says nothing but “religions are false”. This is a trivial point, and this quotation does not support it. An eloquent support for a truth is worth quoting, an instructive explanation of the implications of a truth is worth quoting, but this is neither.