Would you like to add or edit content here? Here's how you can have an account!
Alternate main page being designed
An alternate, more Wikipedia-like main page is being staged here: Main Page (work) If you have ideas for it, please help us work on it.
Where to put it?
I would like to add this article to a page in this wiki as an example of religious indoctrination and the need for secular government. I'm not sure where it would best fit in. Any ideas? Eddie 12:34, 12 October 2009 (CDT)
I would copy the article text and create a new page here, with a rebuttal. use the bluebox template to quote the original text, then assign it a category of "theological arguments" "commentary" "christianity" etc. I really want to host more content than link to it - if that story disappears then our site is outdated. I don't mind listing credit but I'd prefer to copy the commentary and host it here.--Pile 12:50, 12 October 2009 (CDT)
After people start makin pages, i'll go through and edit them up, try to make em look cleaner, cause I suck at writing lol--LaoTzu 19:21, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile". Failed SuicideKurt Vonnegut email@example.com
I struggled to find a description of the freethoughtpedia logo. Since the description is cool and since I don't see it when I google on this domain, I recommend adding something like the following, for instance to a page titled symbol or freethoughtpedia_symbol. --Ransage 02:24, 3 November 2007 (CDT)
- The freethoughtpedia symbol is "an escape symbol. The connotations should be obvious: freedom from the arbitrary confines of religious thought; shedding the insistence of dogma so that real truth may be pursued." It was contributed by magilum in response to a request for logos at rationalresponders.com.
My wife just pointed out that the favicon is a yin-yang -- why not use the symbol in the upper left of the page as the favicon? If you need help generating one, I'd be happy to contribute that little bit. --ransage 04:39, 3 November 2007 (CDT)
Excellent ideas! I'm all for it. If you want to do a favicon, go ahead and e-mail it to pile(a#t)bsalert. --Pile 11:01, 3 November 2007 (CDT)
FYI - The freethoughtpedia logo and the logo at http://www.netzwelt.de/ look almost identical
RW is superior.188.8.131.52 16:54, 4 March 2009 (CST)
Saying 9/11 would not have happened without religion is simply wrong.
"Islamic fundamentalist terrorism" is a misnomer created by those who want to make our enemies seem as alien and scary as possible. Suicide terrorism is primarily motivated by political concerns. See Robert Pape's "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism." Religion could easily have been replaced in the 9/11 equation by any other unifying cultural force. To single it out as a sine-qua-non is really grasping at straws. Certainly there are enough other examples of atrocities committed in the name of God that would be better here?
I respectfully disagree. Although extreme nationalism can be responsible for suicidal behavior, in our modern age, religion has been proven to be the primary catalyst, and in the case of 9/11, I don't think many people doubt that had the hijackers not been devout muslims, they wouldn't likely have been so willing to give up their lives. If you want to discuss further, and it might not be a bad idea, I'd go to the forums: http://forum.freethoughtpedia.com/ --Pile 11:54, 30 April 2009 (CDT)
- Hey Pile, I have spent some time arguing against the people on conservapedia about God and such, so it would maybe surprise you when I say that this statement is completely wrong ;)
- Although there is a lot to the 9/11 collapse, much which normally isn't discussed, I would still argue that religion isn't the reason to why someone would suicide-bomb it. First of all religion is shaped into what the cultures and politics is at the times and not the other way around, and in many ways you could say that the bad things in their religion has been emphasized while the good things have not, like for example punishment and strict behavior rules. The is partly because the older and perhaps more primitive cultures in africa adapted this religion, and gradually changed it to fit them more.
- The point is, you should not blame the religion itself, you should blame the people who committed these crimes. By attacking the religion itself and the people who believe in it, you are generalizing a large amount of people into a group who is naturally stupid and naive, and maybe even evil....
- And you know that groups and stereotypes are very often inaccurate and mistaken, not everyone you include fit in. So my opinion is that you should rather try to target the real reasons to why people act in the way they do, and not because of an attribute they share and have in common....
- --184.108.40.206 08:43, 5 November 2009 (CST)
This site costs a lot of money in bandwidth and resources. We are glad to bring it to you free, but would you consider helping support our site by making a donation? Any amount would go a long way towards helping us continue to provide this useful service to the community.
Click on the Paypal button below to donate. Your support is most appreciated!