|
| ▲ | mckn1ght 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Because people in power of a similar age still go on about how they think it’s true? |
| |
| ▲ | graemep 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Who? I know there is the odd biblical literalist in power in the US, but have never come across one in the UK. The biggest group of Christians in the UK are Anglicans (who are not usually biblical literalists, although there are evangelical groups within it that might be) and Catholics (church firmly against Biblical literalism, although there might be odd individuals). I think the reason atheists argue with Bibilical literalists is that its easy. It is somehting of a straw man: you pick a sub-group that is easy to debunk/discredit and then discredit the whole group by association. This has always been a problem: St Augustine talked about the damage done by people who interpreted the scriptures as contradicting what is known to be true in the 4th century. |
|
|
| ▲ | arrowsmith 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Because it was edgy and transgressive when he was doing it 15 years ago. Nowadays not so much. |
| |
| ▲ | notahacker 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | To be honest, like most of his subsequent attempts to be edgy and transgressive, it wasn't really 15 years ago either. His entire career as a standup and Twitter commentator feels like an extension of the Brent "I don't live by The Rules you know" persona |
|
|
| ▲ | mvdtnz 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Have you not been following the news this week? A tremendous number of people still put a huge amount of stock into their silly superstitions. |
|
| ▲ | hkt 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| There's good money in it, I expect. Plus, there's no harm in making a career (or a joke) out of being vaguely anti-nonsense. |
| |
