What's your controversial opinion?

[Underground Man]

Every single one of these militant anti-religious atheists are arrogant pricks with an overinflated sense of self-importance. Seriously, you guys are just as annoying as the "sheep" you deride. I'm an agnostic, so don't confuse me with some Westboro Baptist nutcase, but acting like self-righteous dicks to anyone who holds a shred of spiritual beliefs is a hypocrite.

Most atheists are aware of their tiny place in the universe, unlike religious people who think the world was made for them. That isn't self-important at all.

Plus, the OP asked people's opinions, so people are giving them. It's just the nature of the thread.

 

[Roofstone]

I find fat people disgusting, lazy and not worth living.

Spoiler

People who just eat unhealthy, don't take care of themselves and above all are incredibly lazy. Not people with health conditions or that of the sort.

I agree, though it only applies to the fat people who complain and nag about their rights.. And "people like them".

Woah, that comment was weired, and frankly kind of creepy... you believe people deserve to die because of the way they look?

Sorry, I said that wrong. No, I dont think they deserve to die. Sorry.

 

[Shirokurou]

Well since there's been a thread that asked what opinion you had that others disagreed with, I'm taking it a step further. What opinion do you have that might cause outrage? (game hate when among said game's fanboys not withstanding.) If you feel the need, spoiler it, and put in the spoiler tag who it may offend.

Spoiler: devout religious people

I want to preface this by saying that I am a huge fan of culture and tradition, and for that reason, I do believe that various religious practices and ceremonies should continue due to their traditional and cultural value. However, while tradition can be important to maintain the identity of your people (If you're that kind of person) I do feel that when it comes to logical and scientific decision making, religion should not be factored, and until it is removed as a factor from important decisions like this, humanity is being held back. This can range from decisions of logic and safety, like the use of condoms, to steps in science such as Stem Cell research. While I appreciate the philosophical and moral aspects of this, the religious aspect of such an opinion is only getting in the way of dealing with it reasonably. I would say that the best solution would be some kind of checkbox when donating sperm, or eggs to a fertility clinic. Removing the emotional attachment a pregnant woman might feel towards the life growing inside her will help I realize it sounds a little harsh, and am only stating it as a step in the right direction. If I had to give a historical example, I would point out how several interpretations of religion forbade the dissection of humans, and it was only with the founding of the Greek city of Alexandria that things slowly came about to a more logical point of view.

It isn't my intention to pointlessly offend, and I have tried to state my argument in a reasonable way, suitable for a level headed debate.

Edit: Also, the forum posting button freaked out on me, I don't know if it'll mess stuff up.

Well if we're supposed to be controversial, then forgive my words, all who may be offended.

I think that religions are born of ignorance and fear of death and while once used for political influence, today are nothing but a rudimentary crutch... Except theocracies and countries where church laws are enforced by state.

But I also understand and enjoy their cultural value, so please... continue.

 

[marcooos]

Again removed because of teenage angsty stupidity

 

[Therumancer]

Well, let's see, there are so many of them.

I guess in the end my biggest one is that I'm a militant, along with being something of an American nationalist. This is at a time when the media in general, and the social communities for my other interests like gaming are generally dominated by the left wing, who are by and large anti-warfare, and where even the Americans are by and large anti-America and over criticial of their own goverment. I spent a lot of time argueing about things like going to war, how to fight wars, and argueing against historical re-inventionism and the like.

The second biggest one is that I'm anti-gay men, again in social communities that by and large gravitate around the other extreme.

Neither are opinions I'll get into here, there are back messages with me going into both subjects doubtlessly for those that are interested, but that's where I tend to draw the most contreversy, albiet a lot of that comes from the venues due to my interest in gaming and such. There are forums where both attitudes would be cheered since there are huge divides on issues like those, which is why the nation remains so deadlocked. It's just that I generally don't hang out on sites to argue politics and nothing but, that's always a minor sidelike compared to my interest in science fiction, fantasy, gaming, RPGs, etc... For the most part when I say something my intent is less to win debates, but to provide a reminder that there is another point of view aside from the ranting strawmen created to represent it, and that the nation is divided on a lot of these issues. Not to mention simply giving people something to think about from hearing the other side of the equasion even if it goes nowhere. Overall though if it wasn't for the major purpose of the sites I call being connected to by hobbies I wouldn't be there. I'm on The Escapist due to it's orientation on geek culture, not for the political arguements I find myself in from time to time for example.

That said, I don't think I have any real attitudes that represent a tiny minority, despite what people opposed to me tell themselves at times. If I wanted to do nothing but find people cheer on my political thoughts, it wouldn't be hard to create that enviroment for myself, but honestly in the end I really don't care that much, since I long ago realized that the opinion of an individual is irrelevent to how global society functions.

 

[DanielDeFig]

Two things, that shouldn't be controversial at all (but I know they are).

1. There is nothing a living being could ever do, that would make them "Deserving" of death. While debatably neccecary (animals for food, humans in the defence of other humans), it will never be "right" (not always "wrong", though).

2. While religion has been immensely useful for the purpose of organization, and created a sense of community, along with purpose in life, it has now outlived its purpose. Religion is now not only outdated and useless, but very easily dangerous, as the prevalence of education based on logic and reason means that anyone choosing to believe in religion, must believe strongly enough to deny the facts and proofs that have been presented to them. And once you start to deny basic facts and logic, you can make up anything you want and it will make sense to you.

 

[tycho0042]

the people who died in the planes in 9/11 had it coming except the ones that fought back.

There's a controversial opinion and then there's a "you're just an fucking idiot opinion"

For the purposes of not getting suspended, that may or may not have been directed at you.

Sorry if I believe that people don't deserve to live if they're going to let themselves be kidnapped and killed by people with box cutters. Fortunately, opinions are like assholes and everyone of them stinks. even yours

 

[Thyunda]

And therein lies the main problem with it.

Except we justify homosexuality and fetishes by saying "They aren't a choice, they're born with them." Again, those who practice paedophilia are entirely wrong, however to brand people with a 'P' on their hands to signify that they are genetically attracted to children will incite lynchings and mob violence on a man simply because he was born with immoral thoughts.
You also speak as though there's something inherently wrong with it. Five hundred years ago, it was the norm. The definition of 'child' keeps changing. The whole thing is too vague. Let's say we have two example females.
One is twenty-five years old. Sexually legal in all Western civilisations. Presumably she's globally legal, but I won't make assumptions I can't back up. However, she has lived in a single-roomed apartment her entire life. Completely alone. Devoid of anything vaguely sexual. She is fully educated, with the exception of sex, and has access to censored television. In all other aspects of life, she's totally mentally functional.
The law has no problem with a man having sex with her, despite the fact she genuinely does not understand or have experience of it.

The second is fifteen years old. One year below the legal age limit in the United Kingdom. She grew up in a brothel. She's been surrounded by sex since year one. She knows everything there is to know about it - taught by both her married and faithful mother, and by the resident prostitutes. She can see both angles of it.
She may not have sex. Full stop.


Obviously both examples are incredibly rare and unlikely, but you understand the sentiment behind them, yes?



(Once again, for those who haven't read my original post, I do not support or condone paedophilia. Personally, it does make me uncomfortable and I would probably refuse to co-operate with a practising paedophile. However, I cannot justify my personal feelings, and so I won't use them in argument. Going purely off logic, reasoning and logical ethics, this is what it came out as.)

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

And therein lies the main problem with it.

Except we justify homosexuality and fetishes by saying "They aren't a choice, they're born with them." Again, those who practice paedophilia are entirely wrong, however to brand people with a 'P' on their hands to signify that they are genetically attracted to children will incite lynchings and mob violence on a man simply because he was born with immoral thoughts.
You also speak as though there's something inherently wrong with it. Five hundred years ago, it was the norm. The definition of 'child' keeps changing. The whole thing is too vague. Let's say we have two example females.
One is twenty-five years old. Sexually legal in all Western civilisations. Presumably she's globally legal, but I won't make assumptions I can't back up. However, she has lived in a single-roomed apartment her entire life. Completely alone. Devoid of anything vaguely sexual. She is fully educated, with the exception of sex, and has access to censored television. In all other aspects of life, she's totally mentally functional.
The law has no problem with a man having sex with her, despite the fact she genuinely does not understand or have experience of it.

The second is fifteen years old. One year below the legal age limit in the United Kingdom. She grew up in a brothel. She's been surrounded by sex since year one. She knows everything there is to know about it - taught by both her married and faithful mother, and by the resident prostitutes. She can see both angles of it.
She may not have sex. Full stop.


Obviously both examples are incredibly rare and unlikely, but you understand the sentiment behind them, yes?



(Once again, for those who haven't read my original post, I do not support or condone paedophilia. Personally, it does make me uncomfortable and I would probably refuse to co-operate with a practising paedophile. However, I cannot justify my personal feelings, and so I won't use them in argument. Going purely off logic, reasoning and logical ethics, this is what it came out as.)

I do, but still. Some choices, they are simply wrong. Love may make them more difficult to resist but they are still wrong

And I still don't see why there are so many people defending them here. That is just to weird.

EDIT: I have nothing more to add beyond this, as I think I've made my point.

 

[t3h br0th3r]

I can't understand why Christianity gets so much hate.

It seems like most of the 'religion is evil' sentiment comes from kids, teens, and 20 somethings (of which i am one) wanting to 'stick it to the man' or offend their Christian parents as much as possible.

Atheism isn't about sticking it to "the man," unless by "the man" you are referring to the heaps of legislators throughout the United States that vote by their bibles. Atheism is about promoting humanistic values and encouraging rationalism, critical thinking, and scientific progress. kool

Where i am from (Mid-western USA), I'm considered a moderately religious guy (I pray before I eat a meal and before I go to bed) but the second i step onto the forums people suddenly look at me crazy and tell me I believe in fairy tales.

Moderate or no, there are still some things you are required to believe in if you want to consider yourself an xtian. Absurd things like a man calling himself the son of god came back from the dead. Or that saints rose from the grave and invaded the city and interacted with the people in it (though, for some reason none of the Roman officials felt the need to write any of this stuff down, and the only accounts of this happening are mutually-exclusive and written by men with an agenda long after this so-called son of god died). Therefore, you do, in fact, believe in fairy tales.

Not to mention the fact that, just by being paying members of religious organizations, moderates are complacent in the terrible things the more extreme members of their religion do.

This just isn't true. I am a member of Mt. Vernon AME(African methodist episcopal church)Church. When i put my tithe in the offering plate it goes to Mt. Vernon, who primarily uses the money for programs, keeping the lights on and (because we have a big congregation) paying the minister's salary. Some of it goes to The District (in my case the 3rd district) who then gives some to the AME brass. The brass uses it to give to struggling churches, various charities and to keep its operations going (like the colleges and seminary we run).

The money does not go to any extremists. The money doesn't even go to other, legit, denominations, therefore meaning I do not fund exstreamists, do not agree with them, and should we run into one another I argue against them.

Its as if some (and not all) of the atheists here think Christianity is some kind of sinister organization seeking to rule the world. Like any expression of faith, no matter how personal, is an attack on atheism or some kind of subliminal recruitment campaign.

Well, speaking as an atheist who has spent a lot of time listening/reading/talking about xtianity with other atheists, no. No one actually believes that. xtianity has hundreds of sects and is too decentralized to be an organization like you're describing. Now, if you mean individual groups of xtians, like fundamentalists or catholics, then yes. They want to (and have in the past) shape the country/world in their image. Same with islam.

Why can't we just respect region or leave it alone if we can't say anything good about it? Why must those who express their faith here be attacked for it? I don't go around calling atheists godless heathens, why treat me in the same manner?

Because people under the influence of religion have done terrible things, and whitewashing history to avoid offending people is tacit approval. It's not even like anyone is even "attacking" xtians -- at least not atheists. Atheists are just pointing out reality using words. Now, if you go to say, Saudi Arabia there you'll see xtians getting attacked, but not by atheists. By other religious people who are just as sure as you are that they are right.
I am not saying we should whitewash history, i am simply saying that we should show deeply held belifes respect. Calling the life, works, and story of Jesus a fairy tales is almost as offensive as calling me the N-word. I'm not saying forget the crusades, i am calling for civility.

I also have that opinion and its gotten me laughed at before, but to be Christian is to be counter-cultural to a certain existent, no mater where you live.

Why do xtians have such a persecution complex? xtians are not being persecuted. Something like 80% of people in the US think of themselves as religious. How is that counter-cultural at all?

There is a difference between checking a box on the census and the reality on the ground. In reality, the United States is an agnostic nation, not a Christian nation, at least culturally. If we still were a Christian nation then we wouldn't have an issue with teen pregnancy or STDs because people wouldn't be out having the premarital sex that causes the problem. The culture of the United States celebrates promiscuity and looks at virgins over the age of 20 as losers. Saying your not going to have sex until you are married is a counter cultural view in the United States.

The fact that you are even an xtian, and not hindu or muslim just goes to show how prevalent xtianity is in the US. Have you ever thought about why this religion, and not another? It's because you were born into a society heavily influenced by xtianity. If you had been born in Afghanistan, you'd be a muslim right now. Doesn't that very fact make you wonder about how legitimate any one religion is?
not really. I've played the 'what if I were born under different circumstances' game for days but in the end reality is reality. I believe God puts us where he puts us for a reason, one we may not know but he does.

 

[Thyunda]

And therein lies the main problem with it.

Except we justify homosexuality and fetishes by saying "They aren't a choice, they're born with them." Again, those who practice paedophilia are entirely wrong, however to brand people with a 'P' on their hands to signify that they are genetically attracted to children will incite lynchings and mob violence on a man simply because he was born with immoral thoughts.
You also speak as though there's something inherently wrong with it. Five hundred years ago, it was the norm. The definition of 'child' keeps changing. The whole thing is too vague. Let's say we have two example females.
One is twenty-five years old. Sexually legal in all Western civilisations. Presumably she's globally legal, but I won't make assumptions I can't back up. However, she has lived in a single-roomed apartment her entire life. Completely alone. Devoid of anything vaguely sexual. She is fully educated, with the exception of sex, and has access to censored television. In all other aspects of life, she's totally mentally functional.
The law has no problem with a man having sex with her, despite the fact she genuinely does not understand or have experience of it.

The second is fifteen years old. One year below the legal age limit in the United Kingdom. She grew up in a brothel. She's been surrounded by sex since year one. She knows everything there is to know about it - taught by both her married and faithful mother, and by the resident prostitutes. She can see both angles of it.
She may not have sex. Full stop.


Obviously both examples are incredibly rare and unlikely, but you understand the sentiment behind them, yes?



(Once again, for those who haven't read my original post, I do not support or condone paedophilia. Personally, it does make me uncomfortable and I would probably refuse to co-operate with a practising paedophile. However, I cannot justify my personal feelings, and so I won't use them in argument. Going purely off logic, reasoning and logical ethics, this is what it came out as.)

I do, but still. Some choices, they are simply wrong. Love may make them more difficult to resist but they are still wrong

And I still don't see why there are so many people defending them here. That is just to weird.

EDIT: I have nothing more to add beyond this, as I think I've made my point.

I will agree, too, it is a little bit weird that there are SO many people willing to fly off the handle to defend paedophilia. A little bit too much effort has gone into sympathising with them...

 

[Wyane380]

I think people shouldn't post their opinions on the internet.

 

[iDoom46]

That it is, actually, possible to accept modern science theories like evolution and the big bang as truths while still holding true to your religious faith. (A belief that is, sadly, more radical than it should be.)

That neither the liberals or the conservatives (in US politics) are as bad as the other side likes to believe but, in fact, have legitimate reasons for their beliefs, formed using perfectly grounded logic that is not at all unreasonable. (Again, a stance that is unfortunately more radical than it has any right to be.)

Yeah, I'm a radical centrist. So sue me.

 

[MaxwellMurder]

I think Pedophiles should be castrated hung upside down and there throat's slit. See How Russia took out Mussolini

 

[370999]

That neither the liberals or the conservatives (in US politics) are as bad as the other side likes to believe but, in fact, have legitimate reasons for their beliefs, formed using perfectly grounded logic that is not at all unreasonable. (Again, a stance that is unfortunately more radical than it has any right to be.)

Yeah, I'm a radical centrist. So sue me.

Bingo. It always baffles me that people think the other side is comprised enitrely of loonies who have no real reason for beleiving what they do other then simple malice or idiocy. I know people who are commumists and while I am not I would never pretend like these guys don't have a reason for their belief, it is jsut wrong IMHO.

On the Israel Palestine issue, both of them are in the wrong. Israel does have quite a vicious racist attitude towards arabs and does behave quite poorly in it's internationalr elations. The Palestinians are really helping things and seem to not properly get the concept that just like Ireland after the war of indepedence, you don't get what you want, so you have to work on diplomatically from there rather then just refusing to compromising.

 

[Amphoteric]

I think people shouldn't post their opinions on the internet.

I presume the irony was intentional.

 

[Spacelord]

I think the whole climate change thing is severely overblown and that honestly we don't have much to fear. I also do not believe charity has a lasting beneficial effect on third world countries - quite the opposite - and I believe that industrialised countries should phase out aid for the most part. Lastly, I favor the current lenient attitude towards immigration in my home country. But not because I'm a good person; because the Dutch socioeconomic climate attracts a lot of well educated and intelligent immigrants, thus facilitating the nation's competitive advantage in the global market of the future. This of course causes a significant brain drain in the countries of origin but hey, their fault for being such shitty places to live right?


I'm not a very good person at all!

 

[Fishehh]

I like to think that children who are born and are clearly horribly mentally challenged, should be killed. The world can't support the people we have, we don't need people in semi-conscious comas using up resources and tax dollars. Also the people who are this way; (and I mean horribly mentally challenged like can't walk, can't speak, can't eat, can't even stop themselves from drooling) do you really think that they enjoy life?

 

[Sinisterspider]

Freedom of speech is a shitty idea.

 

[dcdude171]

that sounds pretty much like idealist communism , here is why is doesnt work , when people get rewarded for nothing , there is no reason to work and therefore people we stop doing there job correctly because there are no consquences subsiquiently creating the downfall of the society because things dont get done