Often hostile, or just having a bad day? I mean, I suppose I could have added an “I didn’t know that” to the end of my “Really?”, but either way it didn’t seem like that rude a remark to me.
I guess I’d always assumed religions relied on afterlife incentives for people to follow them.
Bolded mine. I think you’re taking the community mantra a little bit too seriously.
This board does have rules, and threadshitting, afaik, is not permitted. Your militant atheism has blinded you to the fact that you added absolutely nothing to the discussion.
"…but it’s a shame it’s allowed in GQ or GD. "
But it is, nonetheless. Deal with it.
I’m just a bit of an arsehole generally, and have been arguing with idiots in all there related threads for too long. The linked thread in the OP here is, ostensibly, about the incentive to follow a religion with no afterlife.
Mostly because it’s bullshit. The number one rule of this message board is “Don’t be a Jerk.” It overrides the “fighting ignorance” concept. And, furthermore, seeing as I can find as many citations backing up the existence of an afterlife as you can find refuting it, all you are doing by presenting one your untested hypothesis as fact. You are creating ignorance.
And, yes, we Dopers are perfectly well qualified to tell you what good manners are with regard to our message board, as we are the ones who determined what that is in the first place. The Dopers that don’t get pitted are obviously the ones following the social norms.
As I said, I thought it would be an unpopular opinion, and I don’t expect it to become policy. Just to point out, though, it’s not me going into threads outside the Pit and saying this - I’m aware of the rules. I wasn’t defending CC’s comments in the other thread, but his ones in this one.
You know, this assertion really does seem rather unlikely. Are you sure you’re not trying to pass a personal belief as a fact?
I suppose you could accuse the Vatican’s stance against contraception of promoting overpopulation and the spread of Aids, but for both problems there’s bigger culprits. Or you could say that Islam is often associated with terrorist attacks, but even if you accept it is the primary cause (rather than a factor used as an excuse) the amount of people affected by terrorism globally is really quite small.
You could point out some of the sizeable clashes in recent history where religion was held up as one of the rallying cries, but then I could point you to a large number of near identical atrocities where other excuses where used.
All in all, I’d say a little justification of that claim would be good.
You are damn right it isn’t.
Ritual denunciation of religion may be your notion of a fun debate, but is sure as shit isn’t mine. 
It is perfectly possible to be both an atheist and interested in the specifics of religious belief, purely from an anthropological, historical and cultural perspective. If you aren’t, that is also fine of course - but if you dislike in depth discussion, no-one is forcing you to engage in those threads.
You should check out the original thread. There is actually quite a good discussion on this very point in there.
Because you lot keep leading the parade through our lives and into our bed-rooms.
When I was single, I wouldn’t have minded a bit of a parade into my bedroom. Hell, they could even pray and preach a little before hand, if it made them feel any better about it.
Wow. What a bunch of fucking retards.
Most of us get that! It’s just that the few who don’t are the noticable ones who garner the personal and media attention. Same as how the most noticable Christians are the ones imposing their beliefs on others and acting very un-Christlike, rather than the millions who quietly live their lives.
I get on just fine with my religious friends, as long as we don’t try to convert each other.
Nitpicking spelling errors in common colloquialisms? I think that ship has already saled. Trying to reign it in is pointless now. It’s really two bad (probably even three), but that’s the way it is.