Why? There are some good racks in Valhalla.

At this point, how does the submitter not qualify as a troll? I propose that we just leave this thread entirely alone. Don't feed the troll.

I'll wait until 2525.

That way it won't even matter.

Nostradamus? Can we still believe in him?

CommandantVonThrash: I'll wait until 2525.

That way it won't even matter.

It might matter, if man is still alive.

I'd wait until 7510 before making a judgement.

Every time I see these I think 'not this shiat again', but every time they do show up, a flame war erupts.

MikeSass: At this point, how does the submitter not qualify as a troll? I propose that we just leave this thread entirely alone. Don't feed the troll.

Even if he is a troll, he's right.

Once again, the fanatical atheist missionary attempts to convert the unwashed masses, but ends up merely preaching to the choir.

Cue the "You're doing it wrong" pics.

WFern:

Your troll-fu is weak. GBTW.

It still amazes me that in this day and age people still need their Sky Wizard and his wonderful Unicorn factory in the clouds.

/take a look around at the world and tell me anything cares about us

that's a lot of work to prove something doesn't exist.

I don't believe in Lucky the Leprechaun

Here's how I prove it to myself:

I ask myself: "Is Lucky the Leprechaun real?"
and then I look at the evidence and conclude:
"No, he's a farking cartoon"

and this leaves me ALL day to masturbate PROPERLY.

"Your God is completely imaginary. Make 2009 the year you prove to yourself that your God is a complete and total illusion."

But...but...if my God is the submitter, then......

/waits for the thread to implode on itself and disappear

I just wanted to say, starting the thread on Monday instead of Friday was my idea.


/look at me look at me

Make Monday the day to prove to yourself that your God is a complete and total illusion.

"My God is imaginary? Then how did I rip out this dude's heart?"

/hotter than a flaming heart

Submitter is the kind of militant, self-rightous douchebag that makes Athiests and Agnostics look batshiattier than the fundamentalists.

As long as people aren't hurting anyone, what right do you have to tell them what they believe is wrong.

This isn't Saudi Arabia, douchemitter

/and you paid 40 bucks to peg this? HA-HA.

hardinparamedic: As long as people aren't hurting anyone, what right do you have to tell them what they believe is wrong.

So then what do we tell Israel and Palestine?

hardinparamedic:
/and you paid 40 bucks to peg this? HA-HA.

Nope. They've paid at least $200 so far. I can remember 5 threads that stand out in my memory, I'm sure there have been more.

God blessed subby with idle cash I guess.

It may be right, but preaching your atheism is just as bad as preaching any other religion. Especially paying to push your beliefs on other people. I'm an atheist, I don't agree with religion. I see no reason to push my beliefs on other people. If someone says god bless you when I sneeze, I don't argue with their beliefs. I say thanks, because they are wishing me well. If you start pushing your beliefs on another group then you are become what you hate, a group that pushes it's beliefs on other people. Get used to the fact that people may not believe what you believe, and move on with your life. If you're comfortable in your beliefs you won't feel the need to push them on people, or mock other people because of their beliefs. Submitter, you give a bad name to atheists.

Balchinian: WFern:

Your troll-fu is weak. GBTW.

How is that trolling? God isn't real. Get over it.

WFern:

It is trolling in the same way this ad is trolling. The sole purpose of the comment/ad is to start an argument. That is trolling. You did it again just now, btw. The argument has been made that subby has posted this ad so frequently and so often that it can not possibly serve any other purpose but to incite argument--that it has gone beyond the point of being informative and is now serving no purpose but to use religious differences to get people angry with each other solely for the submitter's personal enjoyment. I think that argument has some merit, and I think the suggested response, not engaging in any discussion of whether God exists or not (not feeding the troll) is a good one. If one accepts this, then your comments are considered trolling because they "feed the troll".

It may be however, that you are not aware of this ad's history. Or it may be that you think that the submitter is actually accomplishing something constructive by placing this ad every few weeks for the last year and a half. Or maybe you are simply a shill. If any of these are the case, then by all means proceed with your support of him. But don't expect to get a polite reception, because this submitter and his ad are disliked by both atheist and religious Farkers equally.

Trolling aside, do you seriously believe that people that *have* no proof as basis for their religion will take a random website as (excuse the pun) gospel?

TBQFH if they don't need proof to believe, why the hell would they need to prove to not believe?

Vern
...preaching your atheism is just as bad as preaching any other religion. Especially paying to push your beliefs on other people...If you start pushing your beliefs on another group then you are become what you hate, a group that pushes it's beliefs on other people.

This. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Balchinian
...this submitter and his ad are disliked by both atheist and religious Farkers equally.

And this.

Honestly, I am surprised Drew still accepts these ads considering all the hate-speech* they have generated. But maybe he really does need the money that badly, I don't know. I sort-of wish I had the ability to think up and make a good parody site to this one and buy a classified for it. Not necessarily a religious parody, but maybe one about the fact that GWB is still our president even though there has been no evidence of it since November. If Drew needs the money, I'd rather see him get it through something that entertains people than through something that pisses people off. And really, that is all this ad has ever done.

*as defined by Fark

85% of adult Americans "Hey. Did you know that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity, because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree?"

Submitter "Wow, you need medical help. You, uh, you guys don't vote or anything, right?"

Geek chorus of painstakingly disinterested Fark commenters "Aw, not this shiat again. Why can't both sides just shut up? Why does Drew accept these ads? They only promote hate speech! Wah."

MOPC:
You really are as bad as thewah when it comes to being unable to re-state other peoples' viewpoints accurately. You simply can not help but add your own personal bias to every opinion you hear, can you? Nowhere on subby's site does he encourage anyone to seek medical attention for having religious beliefs, nor does he ever, anywhere, call into question whether the religious should be voting or not. This is all from your own head, not the subby's site, and no matter how much you may wish he had said it, he hasn't.

Further, if you don't have the balls to call Cottage Cheesecake out by name when you don't like something she says then you should just STFU entirely. That really is some pathetically chickenshiat behavior.

Man On Pink Corner:
Geek chorus of painstakingly disinterested Fark commenters "Aw, not this shiat again. Why can't both sides just shut up? Why does Drew accept these ads? They only promote hate speech! Wah."

I find it mainly promotes bore speech, mainly from you.

Balchinian: Further, if you don't have the balls to call Cottage Cheesecake out by name when you don't like something she says then you should just STFU entirely. That really is some pathetically chickenshiat behavior.

Oh. OK.

I find it mainly promotes bore speech, mainly from you.

What do you recommend we do instead? Religion pretty much sucks. What do you think life would be like if nobody ever called BS on religion?

It'd be exactly like life right now, only with less people annoying me.

CommandantVonThrash: It'd be exactly like life right now, only with less people annoying me.

C'mon, admit it. You'd just be looking for something else to sound self-righteous about.

Clearly I'm the one sounding self-righteous.

Yep. You and the 36 other Farkers who simply can't pass up a religion/atheism-related thread without taking the time to post your world-weary "<sigh> I swear, the atheists are just as pushy as the evangelicals" comments.

Simultaneously self-righteous, unoriginal, unhelpful, and just plain wrong. But it's always everyone else with an opinion who needs to STFU. Right?

I didn't say you were pushy. I said you were boring. You can be pushy all you like, but for God's sake find a new angle.

CommandantVonThrash: I didn't say you were pushy. I said you were boring. You can be pushy all you like, but for God's sake find a new angle.

Admittedly, it was unfair of me to lump you in with the rest of the peanut gallery. Appy-polly-loggies for that.

MoPC

blah blah blah blah blah blah

wawawwaaawawawawawaw blah wawawawwa hwawaaa

wah

/thewah

it's always everyone else with an opinion who needs to STFU. Right?

No, just you.

Opinions I have plenty of room for. Assholes, I do not. You, Man On Pink Corner, are an asshole. Not just that, but you are a cowardly asshole.

You have a bug up your butt because you feel that religion is unfairly intruding into your personal life, punishing you for making certain choices, rewarding you if you make others. Well congratulations, and welcome to the way the world works. If you could actually see things objectively you would recognize that there are many outside influences, which you may or may not agree with, all of which are unduly influencing and forcing their way into the lives of every person on this planet in exactly the same way religion is. The insurance industry works in precisely the same way, yet I don't hear you railing on about the character faults of insurance executives. The pharmaceutical industry works the same way. No insipid comments from you about that either. And yes, you dear little lab rat, even your precious scientific research industry works that way. If your research direction is not to the liking of the powers that be, you don't get funded. Only if you show that you are toeing the party line do you get the money. Never mind that people are dying while non-profitable research gets sidelined, you have your puckered worshipping lips up to that teat, don't you! So don't go acting like you are the only one whose life is being intruded upon and policies you are opposed to are being forced upon you and you alone, because we are all in that boat. It is simply part of life that we have to deal with things we don't like influencing our ability to freely choose how to live. Religion is only one of these things, but it is the only one you seem threatened by even though it has very little affect on our lives by comparison.

I have some related bad news for you, you sad, lonely little man. You are most certainly not an atheist. Oh, you may not believe in a traditional God, but you do have one. Your God is yourself. It is probably why you feel so threatened by "traditional" religion. In any case, something truly awful must have happened to you to make you so terribly self-protective and self-centered. I should probably feel sorry for you, but I work for lawyers. Compassion is sort of against the rules. Dickhead.

Cottage Cheesecake: The insurance industry works in precisely the same way, yet I don't hear you railing on about the character faults of insurance executives. The pharmaceutical industry works the same way

The insurance industry works to subvert science education in public schools?

The pharmaceutical industry sponsored Proposition 8?

I'll cheerfully wear the mantle of "asshole" here, because it's one I can doff in real life. You, ma'am, are simply an idiot. I don't imagine that washes off in the shower.

Man On Pink Corner: Cottage Cheesecake: The insurance industry works in precisely the same way, yet I don't hear you railing on about the character faults of insurance executives. The pharmaceutical industry works the same way

The insurance industry works to subvert science education in public schools?

The pharmaceutical industry sponsored Proposition 8?

I'll cheerfully wear the mantle of "asshole" here, because it's one I can doff in real life. You, ma'am, are simply an idiot. I don't imagine that washes off in the shower.

Intentionally failing to understand simple arguments is not an acceptable method of debate.

kiwichan: Intentionally failing to understand simple arguments is not an acceptable method of debate.

How am I misreading what she wrote? She's upset because she has different bees in her bonnet than I do, and she feels entitled to a share of my valuable personal outrage.

Come on, man, face reality and meet me halfway here. Her post was the work product of serious stupidity. There is no other way to spin it.

Man On Pink Corner: kiwichan: Intentionally failing to understand simple arguments is not an acceptable method of debate.

How am I misreading what she wrote? She's upset because she has different bees in her bonnet than I do, and she feels entitled to a share of my valuable personal outrage.

Come on, man, face reality and meet me halfway here. Her post was the work product of serious stupidity. There is no other way to spin it.

Continued insistence does not validate your argument. You took literally extremely specific references from a metaphorical argument. We know you're not bright, but we won't believe you're really that stupid.

kiwichan: Continued insistence does not validate your argument. You took literally extremely specific references from a metaphorical argument. We know you're not bright, but we won't believe you're really that stupid.

I appreciate even the backhanded compliment, believe me. Instead of continuing this hand-waving exercise, though, can you or anyone else tell me what part of

Cottage Cheesecake: If you could actually see things objectively you would recognize that there are many outside influences... exactly the same way religion is. The insurance industry works in precisely the same way ...

... can be interpreted in any way besides I don't believe in reading labels on household chemicals?

Seriously. Insurance, for Christ's sake? Is this some kind of obscure Monty Python reference or something? Help me out. If I'm missing something or attacking someone's post unjustly, I will admit I'm wrong, and have in fact done so elsewhere in this very thread.

Man On Pink Corner: kiwichan: Continued insistence does not validate your argument. You took literally extremely specific references from a metaphorical argument. We know you're not bright, but we won't believe you're really that stupid.

I appreciate even the backhanded compliment, believe me. Instead of continuing this hand-waving exercise, though, can you or anyone else tell me what part ofCottage Cheesecake: If you could actually see things objectively you would recognize that there are many outside influences... exactly the same way religion is. The insurance industry works in precisely the same way ...... can be interpreted in any way besides I don't believe in reading labels on household chemicals?

Seriously. Insurance, for Christ's sake? Is this some kind of obscure Monty Python reference or something? Help me out. If I'm missing something or attacking someone's post unjustly, I will admit I'm wrong, and have in fact done so elsewhere in this very thread.

Cottage Cheesecake: all of which are unduly influencing and forcing their way into the lives of every person on this planet in exactly the same way religion is.

Your argument for evangelizing against religion is that it's "forcing [its] way into the lives of every person on this planet." This is a long standing position for you, so it may or may not be specifically stated in this thread. The response then is that the insurance and pharmaceutical industries also unduly influence these same people's lives.

Imagine for a moment that you enjoy watching hockey. You tell someone you meet that hockey is interesting to watch and they reply "I watched a high school hockey game that was boring once, therefore you are an imbecile because this clearly proves that hockey is boring." That is the reply you made to Cottage Cheesecake. Disagree with the analogy all you like, but the people here aren't retarded enough to fall for your attempt to affirm the consequent.

Man On Pink Corner:

The insurance industry works to subvert science education in public schools?

No, but they work to control what food is served in public schools, how we drive, what sort of policies our government passes, and how much we pay for medical care. Among other things.

The pharmaceutical industry sponsored Proposition 8?

No, but they do work to control other policies the government passes, they control what medicines are available, and even publicly refuse to support the manufacture and provision of already existing life-saving medicine for third world countries for the sole reason that it is simply more financially beneficial for them to develop and manufacture yet another kind of hard-on pill. Among other things.

Once again you have exhibited an inability (or refusal) to comprehend even the most simply put point without someone holding your hand and walking you through it like a 5 year old. My guess is that it is deliberate, as kiwichan suggests, so that you don't have to end up addressing the actual substance of what has been said.

kiwichan: Your argument for evangelizing against religion is that it's "forcing [its] way into the lives of every person on this planet." This is a long standing position for you, so it may or may not be specifically stated in this thread. The response then is that the insurance and pharmaceutical industries also unduly influence these same people's lives.

The thing is, though, if an insurance company does something unethical or dishonest, you can seek recourse through the courts or arbitration and, if you're right, you'll win the case.

If a pharmaceutical company falsifies its FDA filings and patients are harmed as a result, our adversarial legal system virtually guarantees a day of reckoning. Hungry trial lawyers will take them down like coyotes on a deer. '60 Minutes' will trash the company's reputation, and the company's fortunes will suffer.

If research scientists lie or fudge critical data in an important paper, other scientists will cry foul when they can't reproduce the results. The peer-review system is hardly perfect but still, anyone trying to legitimize cold fusion, perpetual motion, or homeopathic snake oil will eventually be caught and ostracized from the scientific community.

But if a beloved religious figure tells hundreds of millions of Africans that condoms are not useful in fighting AIDS, and that birth control as a whole is sinful, he will face no accountability whatsoever. Religion, unlike insurance, research, drug development, or whatever the hell Cottage C was on about, amounts to a free pass for practically anything. Such willful ignorance harms us all. Religion leads millions of people to base their worldviews and attitudes on absolutely nothing but lies, threats, and mental fairy dust... and if you try to object? Well, anyone reading this thread can see what happens.

There is no reliable court the rationalist can turn to, there is no arbitration board, there is no journal editor. If all that is left is calling the waaaaambulance, well... I'm afraid I'm going to keep them on speed dial.

Cottage Cheesecake: No, but they work to control what food is served in public schools, how we drive, what sort of policies our government passes, and how much we pay for medical care. Among other things.

And if I don't like it, I have recourse. Not so with religion. If I object to other people wedging their so-called "values" into my life, I'm the bad guy. There are as many examples as Fark threads ("ASININE: Man sues to remove references to invisible sky fairy from national motto. DUMBASS: Atheist soldier whines about aggressive proselytizing within his chain of command. STUPID: Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster demands equal representation in state capitol building, next to shrine commemorating birth of cosmic Jewish zombie.")

It's this third-rail treatment of religion that makes it an entirely different, and much more insidious, problem for society than your errant insurance companies or cheating lab geeks. Hell, it's probably more politically-correct to object to someone's skin color than to his pattern of voluntary superstition. That's bullshiat, and it needs to change.

Your post falsely equated our sacred culture of irrationality to other, more mundane problems that are readily addressable through existing channels. This point of view is either extremely naive, or motivated by personal bias. You tell me which.

Subby has way too much time on his hands. That site is pretty fat with his arguments and out of context conjecture.

MOPC:

Pardon me for stepping in here, but now you are equating individual companies (or churches, if you will) with the industry as a whole. This was absolutely not what CC said. You are doing it again!

Yes, you have recourse with an individual company who crosses the line. Yes, there is accountability. The same goes for an individual church, if it is found to be scamming its parishoners, or invading the privacy of or harassing the general public. Churches get busted for this all the time, and ones that are not guilty of it ostracize the ones that do just like your scientists ostracize the ones who fudge data. It happens all the time. But what is your recourse against the insurance industry as a whole? What is the recourse that scientists have against unfair and biased funding practices by the industry? The same as it is against religion as a whole. You have two options...rational discourse, or the whaaambulance. By your own admission, you choose the latter.

Perhaps a better example would be the speculative economic industry. Care to argue that this industry has not adversely affected your life more than religion? Maybe it hasn't yet, but it certainly has for most people. You can see individual banks and organizations paying the price, but what about the entire industry as a whole? Is the SEC going to pay a price for allowing the Madoff debacle to go on for nine years while one of their top advisors was screaming at them to at least look at his books...for the past nine years? Don't get your hopes up...they are too big a part of the industry as a whole.

"If I object to other people wedging their so-called "values" into my life, I'm the bad guy."

No. You falsely assume that you are the bad guy for objecting. That is not it at all. You are the bad guy because of the manner in which you object. Your rationale is not consistent with your reaction, and your reaction to religion is not consistent with your reaction to other things which are equally objectionable according to your own rationale. Your objections are over-reactionary to a level which is, to put it politely, socially unappreciated. This in turn results in you becoming more and more frustrated as more and more people shut you out for what you assume is the objection, but is actually nothing more than your lack of social skills. No one minds that you object, but the fact that you do so rudely and with complete disregard for others is what makes you "the bad guy".

Do you want to be the good guy? Try reading what people say to you carefully. Most intelligent people choose their words carefully and precisely, you should read them the same way. When someone says "insurance industry" they probably mean the whole industry as a whole, not just one insurance company. When they say they agree with your position, but disagree with your reasoning, don't accuse them of disagreeing with your position, and don't just call them names! You should refrain from presenting what you think people are saying, or what you want them to be saying, to be what they they actually said. Don't say that a submitter says or believes something unless they have actually said it. And for crying out loud, take a logic class. No one can have a meaningful conversation with you if you do not refrain from logical fallacy with every single comment. No one, not even me, is willing to sit here and point out to you why you are misunderstanding, misrepresenting, and failing to gain any conversational headway at all, with each and every post you make.

If you had one single person sticking up for you on this, I would not be saying it. But you don't, and the fact that you don't should be a very strong signal to you that something you are doing is not right. Not one person in all of these threads has ever come out and said "No, MOPC is expressing himself perfectly well, characterizing everyone accurately, he seems to understand the argument clearly, it is the rest of you who are having the problem." No one. Not ever! Not even once has anyone expressed any support for your arguments, even when they agree with the position you are arguing for. Let me rephrase that for you to try to make it as clear as possible...many people agree with your objection, but nobody agrees with the manner in which you object. And the more people tell you that, the more you do it and the worse it gets because you are either not comprehensively listening to what you are being told or you are willfully ignoring it. The former is excusable until you have been told about it. The latter is not excusable, and may actually be dangerous for your long term mental health.

Balchinian:
Well put. I like the economy analogy, too. Surprised I didn't think of it.

Balchinian: Pardon me for stepping in here, but now you are equating individual companies (or churches, if you will) with the industry as a whole. This was absolutely not what CC said. You are doing it again!

Whatever. We'll agree to disagree. I'm not the one who's throwing out the non sequiturs, so I have little to defend.

The same goes for an individual church, if it is found to be scamming its parishoners, or invading the privacy of or harassing the general public.

ROFL. Yeah, that happens all the time. Oh, wait. No, it only happens when the clergyman is caught with a live boy, a dead girl, or a forged prescription.

If insurance companies were in the business of brainwashing customers, you might have a point.

No one can have a meaningful conversation with you if you do not refrain from logical fallacy with every single comment. No one, not even me, is willing to sit here and point out to you why you are misunderstanding, misrepresenting, and failing to gain any conversational headway at all, with each and every post you make. If you had one single person sticking up for you on this, I would not be saying it. But you don't, and the fact that you don't should be a very strong signal to you that something you are doing is not right. Not one person in all of these threads has ever come out and said "No, MOPC is expressing himself perfectly well, characterizing everyone accurately, he seems to understand the argument clearly, it is the rest of you who are having the problem." No one. Not ever! Not even once has anyone expressed any support for your arguments, even when they agree with the position you are arguing for. Let me rephrase that for you to try to make it as clear as possible...many people agree with your objection, but nobody agrees with the manner in which you object. And the more people tell you that, the more you do it and the worse it gets because you are either not comprehensively listening to what you are being told or you are willfully ignoring it. The former is excusable until you have been told about it.

The latter is not excusable, and may actually be dangerous for your long term mental health

Your words might have more impact if they weren't coming from someone who posts the same basic concern troll in random Fark ads from everyone from conspiracy nuts to indy musicians.

Cottage Cheesecake: I like the economy analogy, too. Surprised I didn't think of it.

Yes, that's one of the few that actually work. :)

Atheism's not a religion, but macroeconomics damned sure is.

MOPC:

"I'm not the one who's throwing out the non sequiturs, so I have little to defend."

You have everything to defend. Calling something absurd does not make it so. You have to provide something more than simple denial.

Me:
"...you are either not comprehensively listening to what you are being told or you are willfully ignoring it"

MOPC:
"Your words might have more impact if they weren't coming from someone who posts the same basic concern troll in random Fark ads from everyone from conspiracy nuts to indy musicians."

You don't deny it? Then is it safe to assume that the reason you come into these threads(and even submit some of them) is to provoke people who defend religion? And you don't see anything wrong with that?