I'd like to see them try to convert me.....

Newfieguy: I'd like to see them try to convert me.....

Same here. Actually, it took a year in a monastery to make me an atheist.

"We don't approve of anyone being an atheist. God is great and it doesn't matter which religion you believe in. The important thing is to believe," Soylu said.

We don't approve of anyone being an atheist gay.
We don't approve of anyone being an atheist black.
We don't approve of anyone being an atheist Asian.
We don't approve of anyone being an atheist Mexican.
We don't approve of anyone being an atheist Muslim, Christian, Jewish.

That statement doesn't sound good at all, with any group attached.

Why the hate, religious people? What is wrong with us enjoying this life and not believing and worshipping your God?

If they're taking Americans, I'll gladly go on that. And get a trip to Istanbul in the process.

A team of theologians will ensure that the atheists are truly non-believers and are not just seeking fame or a free holiday.

wat

I don't believe in atheism.

FTFA: The prize for converts will be a pilgrimage to a holy site of their chosen religion -- Mecca for Muslims, the Vatican for Christians, Jerusalem for Jews and Tibet for Buddhists.

That's kind of an odd choice.

DamnYankees: That's kind of an odd choice.

It would probably be my choice. That or Jerusalem. I've always liked the idea of an immortal soul that gets reborn over and over again. It is odd that they aren't doing it in Nepal, but I guess they don't think the country is safe yet. But then again, neither is Jerusalem.

DamnYankees: FTFA: The prize for converts will be a pilgrimage to a holy site of their chosen religion -- London for Muslims, Mobile, Alabama for Christians, The DeBeers world headquarters for Jews and the inside of a black hole for Buddhists.


FTFT

_{/that should do it}

GAT_00: DamnYankees: That's kind of an odd choice.

It would probably be my choice. That or Jerusalem. I've always liked the idea of an immortal soul that gets reborn over and over again. It is odd that they aren't doing it in Nepal, but I guess they don't think the country is safe yet. But then again, neither is Jerusalem.

Well, Tibet is beautiful, and I would recommend everyone go there if you have the chance. It's just a strange pick for the Buddhist Mecca.

ne2d: A team of theologians will ensure that the atheists are truly non-believers and are not just seeking fame or a free holiday.

wat

I'm pretty sure I could pass their initial "test" with flying colors. I'm also sure it would be the reason they would never have me on the show. What a bizarre premise.

As a former priest, I bet I could nail a free trip to the Vatican with relative ease.

eyehate: Why the hate, religious people? What is wrong with us enjoying this life and not believing and worshipping your God?


Because they have a little voice inside them that doubts. Seeing someone sure in their non-belief angers and fills them with guilt, so they lash out. Christianity (I'm not saying other religions don't but Christianity is the one I'm most familiar with) conditions you, usually from when you're a small child, to feel guilty for questioning God's existance.

I hear all about these 'militant atheists' trying to 'convert people'. I've never seen it, personally, though I'm sure there's some out there. Sure we'd like others to see things the way we do, but every Atheist I've met or read on these boards just wants religion to stay out of their life (seperation of church and state) and for Atheism to not be considered a 'four-letter word'.

DamnYankees: GAT_00:
Well, Tibet is beautiful, and I would recommend everyone go there if you have the chance. It's just a strange pick for the Buddhist Mecca.

That's no more strange than The Vatican for Christians. For Catholics sure, but not "Christians". A better choice would be Jerusalem. And for Buddhists, I'm guessing a better choice would be Nepal.

So, out of all the beliefs, atheism threatens their beliefs the most and uniformly amongst many religions. Hmmmm, that is very interesting. That speaks volumes.

eyehate: "We don't approve of anyone being an atheist. God is great and it doesn't matter which religion you believe in. The important thing is to believe," Soylu said.

We don't approve of anyone being an atheist gay.
We don't approve of anyone being an atheist black.
We don't approve of anyone being an atheist Asian.
We don't approve of anyone being an atheist Mexican.
We don't approve of anyone being an atheist Muslim, Christian, Jewish.

That statement doesn't sound good at all, with any group attached.

Why the hate, religious people? What is wrong with us enjoying this life and not believing and worshipping your God?

Didn't you know? God says it's okay to hate people.

/delusions!

I am a Catholic, and proud of it. I go to my church, I pray, I try to follow the Catholic way.

My Difference, if you are atheist, Jewish, Muslim, Scientology, FSM man, WHATEVER your religion is. I accept it. I could care less if you worshiped satan himself. Your life is your life. Literally, sorry to quote Rodney King, but "Why can't we all get along?"

I submitted the same article from a different source. Have to admit, subby's title is much better than the one I proposed. I still won't repent though...

I think this show sounds amusing. I would watch it. I hope they have a giant lectern like in the twilight zone "obsolete man" episode to cajole/rebuke the unbeliever from.

Outtaphase: ne2d: A team of theologians will ensure that the atheists are truly non-believers and are not just seeking fame or a free holiday.

wat

I'm pretty sure I could pass their initial "test" with flying colors. I'm also sure it would be the reason they would never have me on the show. What a bizarre premise.

Nah, they're going to sprinkle holy water blessed by the religious leader of their choosing. If you weigh more than a duck are burned by the holy water, you don't win. There's no fooling the holy water.

kxs401: Outtaphase: ne2d: A team of theologians will ensure that the atheists are truly non-believers and are not just seeking fame or a free holiday.

wat

I'm pretty sure I could pass their initial "test" with flying colors. I'm also sure it would be the reason they would never have me on the show. What a bizarre premise.

Nah, they're going to sprinkle holy water blessed by the religious leader of their choosing. If you weigh more than a duck are burned by the holy water, you don't win. There's no fooling the holy water.

HTMFail.

eyehate: "We don't approve of anyone being an atheist. God is great and it doesn't matter which religion you believe in. The important thing is to believe," Soylu said.

...

That statement doesn't sound good at all, with any group attached.

Why the hate, religious people? What is wrong with us enjoying this life and not believing and worshipping your God?

Not just that. Notice how they don't give a shiat which of several mutually incompatible things you believe. You just have to believe SOMETHING. Never mind that these beliefs are incoherent and self-contradictory. The important thing is to submit to them and stop thinking for yourself!

Wait a minute ...

What happens when you put a Muslim imam, a Christian priest, a rabbi and a Buddhist monk in a room with 10 atheists?

Isn't Buddhism atheistic, or at best agnostic?

And where my Hindus at?

geom_00: I am a Catholic, and proud of it. I go to my church, I pray, I try to follow the Catholic way.

My Difference, if you are atheist, Jewish, Muslim, Scientology, FSM man, WHATEVER your religion is. I accept it. I could care less if you worshiped satan himself. Your life is your life. Literally, sorry to quote Rodney King, but "Why can't we all get along?"


Matthew 28:19-20

Read those verses.

/agnostic

"You can't prove you believe in God."

Checkmate.

/show cancelled in one episode.

Outtaphase: Never heard if this one was real or parody. So hard to discern sometimes.

That's Poe's Law for ya. ;)

I love this!

Will they do a 'Bachelor/Bachelorette' style follow-up show where you take the previous season's (un-converted) runner-up and see if the heathen can destroy ten pious peoples' faith?

Outtaphase
Never heard if this one was real or parody. So hard to discern sometimes.

It's a parody. But obviously one performed by those in the know.

A game show like that seems like a stabbing or a bombing just waiting to happen.

The most hilarious moment on this show will come when the Buddhist says he doesn't believe in God either.

Religion should not be a subject for entertainment programs

"The Exorcist", "Touched by an Angel", "Constantine", "Medium", "Angels and Demons", "Highway to Heaven", and "The Ghost Whisperer" all respectfully disagree with you, sir.

hej: A game show like that seems like a stabbing or a bombing just waiting to happen.

More like it sounds like a religious circle jerk.

SynthLord: And where my Hindus at?

Hinduism is one of the things that made me stop believing in the idea of a god. I learned about just how many gods there were in current circulation and are the one and only, and I realized that this can't be right, it's all about what people are brought up around.

And that's sort of why the religious leaders freak out when they hear outspoken atheists. It's one thing to have parishioners sit back and chuckle at all the masks of the one true God, it's another thing to have atheists saying "The great wizard of Oz is a little prick behind the curtain".

are they gonna fix homosexuals too? that would be awesome!!

SynthLord: Isn't Buddhism atheistic, or at best agnostic?

And where my Hindus at?

Some. Depends on the school. And the Hindus don't care much if you believe or not. Twenty or thirty more iterations of you, and you'll come around. ^_^

eggrolls: Will they do a 'Bachelor/Bachelorette' style follow-up show where you take the previous season's (un-converted) runner-up and see if the heathen can destroy ten pious peoples' faith?

I think a "Big Brother" style program where you vote out the least faithful member of the house would be a real winner. Irony at every level.

/I am the serenest!

What happens when you put a Muslim imam, a Christian priest, a rabbi and a Buddhist monk in a room with 10 atheists?

Uh, three theists and 11 atheists?

Protip: Theism is not a requirement of all religions.

/Theravada ftw

eyehate: "We don't approve of anyone being an atheist. God is great and it doesn't matter which religion you believe in. The important thing is to believe," Soylu said.

We don't approve of anyone being an atheist gay.
We don't approve of anyone being an atheist black.
We don't approve of anyone being an atheist Asian.
We don't approve of anyone being an atheist Mexican.
We don't approve of anyone being an atheist Muslim, Christian, Jewish.

That statement doesn't sound good at all, with any group attached.

Why the hate, religious people? What is wrong with us enjoying this life and not believing and worshipping your God?

you are woefully ignorant. I pity your existance on this earth.

/doesn't go to church
//your a douchebag still

If there's a paid trip and a nice cash prize I'd happily make their clergy look foolish. Unfortunately, it's in Turkey so I'd probably be beheaded...

John Dewey: hej: A game show like that seems like a stabbing or a bombing just waiting to happen.

More like it sounds like a religious circle jerk.

No, that's the Catholic church.

/c'mon, admit it, you set that one up

blazemongr: Religion should not be a subject for entertainment programs

"The Exorcist", "Touched by an Angel", "Constantine", "Medium", "Angels and Demons", "Highway to Heaven", and "The Ghost Whisperer" all respectfully disagree with you, sir.

Don't forget "Life of Brian".

Will there be a bartender to say, "What, is this some kind of joke?"

geom_00: I am a Catholic, and proud of it... WHATEVER your religion is. I accept it."

What about a religion that believes in raping children? Is that cool? Can you just get along with them? Or do you actually have some method of filtering out beliefs are absurd? If so, I'd like to know how "magical man who isn't a man killed himself so he could forgive us for breaking his rules" doesn't classify as absurd.

Also, is Catholicism on the same level as Mormonism? Or are their beliefs a little wacky? How about the Scientologists? Is that cool, too? Do you ever go out and worship Thor or Shiva? Do you read Dianetics with the Bible? Or would that be silly? If so, why do you call yourself Catholic instead of Wotanist or Hindu? It seems absurd to use one label if you'll just believe anything anyone tells you. If not, why do you say you accept all religions instead of being honest and telling everyone the truth: you believe a certain collection of silly things you don't want criticized, so you're giving a pass to all other people who also believe obviously false things? If this is the case, it doesn't matter what's true or false as long as people are deluded in SOME way, so you can be excused for being deluded as well.

Didn't Socrates knock down the Divine Command Theory? They must be looking for those folks who claim atheist because their prayers for biatches and money haven't panned out.

NExD: you are woefully ignorant. I pity your existance on this earth.

/doesn't go to church
//your a douchebag still

You are woefully spiteful. I pity your existence on this earth.

/and your poor grammar

The makers of "Penitents Compete" are unrepentant


I guarantee you every one of these "penitents" will be a shill. It'll be just like American Idol, but with stonings afterward.

And can I still compete if I describe myself as ignostic?

And if you don't convert to any of the religions, you win the grand prize... reality!

/atheist buddhist

wildcardjack: SynthLord: And where my Hindus at?

Hinduism is one of the things that made me stop believing in the idea of a god.

For me it was Mormonism. Looking at how silly that system of belief is, and comparing it to others, made them all seem equally implausible. The only difference between planet Kolob and a talking snake is a few thousand years.

This will be like trying to make Frank Zappa laugh.

Kozaru: The only difference between planet Kolob and a talking snake is a few thousand years.

Wow. Well said!

anfrind: NExD: you are woefully ignorant. I pity your existance on this earth.

/doesn't go to church
//your a douchebag still

You are woefully spiteful. I pity your existence on this earth.

/and your poor grammar

indeed. now dont let me stop you from your douchebaggery activities tonight. goodnight.

FTA: What happens when you put a Muslim imam, a Christian priest, a rabbi and a Buddhist monk in a room with 10 atheists?

You get 14 atheists.

Everyone's an atheist. Everyone doesn't believe in some religion out there. The ones calling themselves atheists just happen to not believe in one fewer god than the theists.

Turn it around and try and convert the religous. Now you got something.

I am not a religious person, though I do believe in God. This doesn't make me wrong any more than not believing in god makes someone wrong. I can see why folks don't believe or are not religious. I think, if God wants atheists to believe, he, himself should come down and try to convert them... Otherwise leave them alone...no one has any business trying to impose their beliefs on anyone else...

ne2d: A team of theologians will ensure that the atheists are truly non-believers and are not just seeking fame or a free holiday.

wat

they want to make sure they don't get any seecrit Muslin's

Fine upstanding Catholic here. Don't believe in God or any supernaturalism. But it's a cool religion as they go.

I am an atheist, so I am getting a kick out of these responses. Nice title subby.

Proud2B_American: I am not a religious person, though I do believe in God. This doesn't make me wrong any more than not believing in god makes someone wrong. I can see why folks don't believe or are not religious. I think, if God wants atheists to believe, he, himself should come down and try to convert them... Otherwise leave them alone...no one has any business trying to impose their beliefs on anyone else...

I think God needs to do some housekeeping with his current believers before worrying about getting new ones.


/hotlinked

Proud2B_American: I am not a religious person, though I do believe in God. This doesn't make me wrong any more than not believing in god makes someone wrong.

It doesn't work that way. Just because you want to feel like everyone is right so we can all hug doesn't make it so. There is as much reason to believe in any kind of God as there is to believe in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, ghosts, or Neo from the Matrix. God is a myth. We made him up. Just like the rest of our myths. Why do you give certain myths a pass when you obviously don't believe others?

Arxane: The ones calling themselves atheists just happen to not believe in one fewer god than the theists.



"Well, you see, it's one fewer. When we need that extra reduction, and we're already at one, where else can you go, you know? So we had these Atheist models customized with a special "Zero" setting..."

I'd be willing to bet that athiests are the last people they will actually recruit for this. They will grab a pool of the undicided, wavering non-religious, and agnostics. They will then label them athiests and still struggle to convert any. There will be all types of social pressure mechanisms applied to try to get them to convert, but actual athiests are probably the LEAST likely demographic they can come up with for those to work on. Most have been bombarded with challanges to thier beliefs and social pressure, it just wont work.

TheGreatZarquon: "Well, you see, it's one fewer. When we need that extra reduction, and we're already at one, where else can you go, you know? So we had these Atheist models customized with a special "Zero" setting..."

Total win.

"Doing something like this for the sake of ratings is disrespectful to all religions. Religion should not be a subject for entertainment programs," High Board of Religious Affairs Chairman Hamza Aktan told state news agency Anatolian after news of the planned program emerged.

So... who wants to marry a millionaire midget on t.v. instead?

/ah, the sanctity of marriage

delphi_ote: geom_00: I am a Catholic, and proud of it... WHATEVER your religion is. I accept it."

What about a religion that believes in raping children? Is that cool? Can you just get along with them? Or do you actually have some method of filtering out beliefs are absurd? If so, I'd like to know how "magical man who isn't a man killed himself so he could forgive us for breaking his rules" doesn't classify as absurd.

Also, is Catholicism on the same level as Mormonism? Or are their beliefs a little wacky? How about the Scientologists? Is that cool, too? Do you ever go out and worship Thor or Shiva? Do you read Dianetics with the Bible? Or would that be silly? If so, why do you call yourself Catholic instead of Wotanist or Hindu? It seems absurd to use one label if you'll just believe anything anyone tells you. If not, why do you say you accept all religions instead of being honest and telling everyone the truth: you believe a certain collection of silly things you don't want criticized, so you're giving a pass to all other people who also believe obviously false things? If this is the case, it doesn't matter what's true or false as long as people are deluded in SOME way, so you can be excused for being deluded as well.

I like you

kxs401: If you are burned by the holy water, you don't win. There's no fooling the holy water.

Although, we do sometimes help the decision along.
During the ceremonies, we use holy water.
For the testing, we use H2SO4-ly water. Just getting a head start on the whole sulfurous brimstone lake thing, ya know.
/you gotta rig the tests, just ask the town leaders of Salem!

FTFA: The prize for converts will be a pilgrimage to a holy site of their chosen religion -- Mecca for Muslims, the Vatican for Christians, Jerusalem for Jews and Tibet for Buddhists.

Is there a religion centered in Vegas? Because I'll totally convert if it means a free trip.

Monty845: I'd be willing to bet that athiests are the last people they will actually recruit for this. They will grab a pool of the undicided, wavering non-religious, and agnostics. They will then label them athiests and still struggle to convert any. There will be all types of social pressure mechanisms applied to try to get them to convert, but actual athiests are probably the LEAST likely demographic they can come up with for those to work on. Most have been bombarded with challanges to thier beliefs and social pressure, it just wont work.

THIS

Or they'll get someone who is actually devout, and "convert" them

/I'd watch if they got Dr. Dawkins on the show

I'm agnostic and don't care to be converted. Try as you might, you're wasting your time. If anything I lean towards Buddhism.

TheGreatZarquon: Arxane: The ones calling themselves atheists just happen to not believe in one fewer god than the theists.

"Well, you see, it's one fewer. When we need that extra reduction, and we're already at one, where else can you go, you know? So we had these Atheist models customized with a special "Zero" setting..."
Our amps go to eleven and our faiths go to zero?

delphi_ote: geom_00: I am a Catholic, and proud of it... WHATEVER your religion is. I accept it."

What about a religion that believes in raping children? Is that cool?

Then I guess Islam believes in terrorism and jihad. For that matter, every pro-life follower condones killing people who give abortions and pro-choice followers believe that it is okay to forcibly abort children. Is that truly the case for these groups?

Come on. Just because a small fraction of people in one group do something, regardless of what that group is, does not mean that the entire group condones radical actions and beliefs. No matter what group it is, there are always people who take things way too far. Even atheists.

ShawnDoc: DamnYankees: GAT_00:
Well, Tibet is beautiful, and I would recommend everyone go there if you have the chance. It's just a strange pick for the Buddhist Mecca.

That's no more strange than The Vatican for Christians. For Catholics sure, but not "Christians". A better choice would be Jerusalem. And for Buddhists, I'm guessing a better choice would be Nepal.

or, perhaps, Bodh Gaya, India

I'm not stubborn enough to say I'm nonconvertible. If you've got a sound argument, I'd like to hear it.

The sad thing is I'm smart enough to know that other peoples' definition of "sound argument"--especially when it comes to religion--is pretty far off of mine...

NExD: //your a douchebag still

What, exactly, is a "douchbag still," and why do we feel we need to somehow concentrate or purify douchebaggery?

rkane1: are they gonna fix homosexuals too? that would be awesome!!

Are they broken? Who broke teh gheys?

or

Getting them fixed will not help anything, they are not breeding.

The love of money is the root... I don't remember the rest, but your mother's a whore.

serial_crusher: I'm not stubborn enough to say I'm nonconvertible. If you've got a sound argument, I'd like to hear it.

The sad thing is I'm smart enough to know that other peoples' definition of "sound argument"--especially when it comes to religion--is pretty far off of mine...

Wouldn't a "sound argument" involve proof?

Monty845: I'd be willing to bet that athiests are the last people they will actually recruit for this. They will grab a pool of the undicided, wavering non-religious, and agnostics. They will then label them athiests and still struggle to convert any. There will be all types of social pressure mechanisms applied to try to get them to convert, but actual athiests are probably the LEAST likely demographic they can come up with for those to work on. Most have been bombarded with challanges to thier beliefs and social pressure, it just wont work.

This.
In fact, I'll go so far as to say that all their "atheists" will be non-practicing Muslims.

FormlessOne:What, exactly, is a "douchbag still," and why do we feel we need to somehow concentrate or purify douchebaggery?

You won't be asking that after the nationwide roll-out of Massengill Vodak.

the_sidewinder: delphi_ote: geom_00: I am a Catholic, and proud of it... WHATEVER your religion is. I accept it."

What about a religion that believes in raping children? Is that cool? Can you just get along with them? Or do you actually have some method of filtering out beliefs are absurd?...If not, why do you say you accept all religions instead of being honest and telling everyone the truth: you believe a certain collection of silly things you don't want criticized, so you're giving a pass to all other people who also believe obviously false things?
I like you

Ultimate test for the 'religiously tolerant' crowd:

Yeah. People who want to adhere to religions that were killed by your ancestors.

Especially the polytheistic ones. Funny how the Christian-type community can't handle less than one or more than one god.

A team of theologians will ensure that the atheists are truly non-believers and are not just seeking fame or a free holiday.

Wild assumption, but you'll be ensuring the atheists aren't truly atheistic. I have yet to hear a convincing argument for anything beyond the natural; I am doubtful within the span of a month a few holy men of nonsensical beliefs and traditions could convince me of an anthropomorphic energy with concern for this pale blue dot as written down in contradictory, generic books.

God is great and it doesn't matter which religion you believe in.

Wait, are you suggesting that simultaneously the Jews, Christians, and Muslims, even Mormons, all possess the final word of God? To my knowledge, to the Gods of each of those faiths it very much does matter which religion you believe, and to the adherents of those faiths it very much does matter which sect of which religion you believe.

We are giving the biggest prize in the world, the gift of belief in God.

What does second place get?

Kliffoth: Because they have a little voice inside them that doubts. Seeing someone sure in their non-belief angers and fills them with guilt, so they lash out. Christianity (I'm not saying other religions don't but Christianity is the one I'm most familiar with) conditions you, usually from when you're a small child, to feel guilty for questioning God's existance.








Somehow I don't think you know the Christian tradition well enough then. Questioning and challenging notions of God's existence and grappling with religious doubts has been one of the major themes of Christian religious thought and theology (not to mention Judaism) for a very long time. And I'm not a Christian or Jew, yet I'm very religious and have no problem with atheists. I think secular humanists are far more interesting than just shouting "no" to everyone else, but that's where some people are at. After all, yelling "no" isn't really an ethos.

vertiaset: Atheists love it when they can shake the faith of a religious person, they call it "deconversion" and laugh about it amongst themselves. Why? I have no idea.

"they"?

Wait, so let me get this right. The contestant, an atheist, has to face a challenge: 4 belief structures. If the contestant fails to meet the challenge and succumbs to one of the four, then his punishment for losing is being sent to that holy land for more lecturing.

What is the prize for overcoming the challenge, maintaining your atheism, and winning the game?

I don't believe it.

seems like FOX would pick this show up pretty quick.

The truth is any atheist or even someone who might be spiritual but still have their mind grounded in reality wouldn't give two shiats about this show. Much like organized religion it's absurd and shouldn't waste your time with it. Just like a growing percentage of everything these day's it's just a scam to make money/ratings.

*goes back to playing Red Faction*

While we are at it, it would be a good idea to clarify what it means to be an athiest...

Not an Athiest:
Wavering believer
Agnostic
Non-practicing believer
Non-religious
Someone who disbeleives in a paticular religion but follows another thiestic religion or is in one of the above categories

If we are to follow the dictionary, an athiest is anyone who does not believe in a diety. But in common usage today, Athiesm typically means the active rejection, and not mere lack of beleif in all dieties, and furhter, all other religious beliefs. No spiritualism, no wicanism, etc...

Oh yeah, and religions that consider human sacrifice of nonmembers to be an event to be held as often as possible.

Kinda puts Rastafarian weed-smoking in perspective.

vertiaset: Atheists love it when they can shake the faith of a religious person, they call it "deconversion" and laugh about it amongst themselves. Why? I have no idea.

Proof? Evidence of this happening? Full of shiat douchebag? I'll go where the evidence takes me.

vertiaset: Atheists love it when they can shake the faith of a religious person, they call it "deconversion" and laugh about it amongst themselves. Why? I have no idea.

I love it when I can shake or strengthen the faith of anyone, I call it "discussion" and do so with anyone possible. Why? Because I am less than worried about anyone willing to talk.

FieroEtnl: delphi_ote: geom_00: I am a Catholic, and proud of it... WHATEVER your religion is. I accept it."

What about a religion that believes in raping children? Is that cool?

Then I guess Islam believes in terrorism and jihad. For that matter, every pro-life follower condones killing people who give abortions and pro-choice followers believe that it is okay to forcibly abort children. Is that truly the case for these groups?

Come on. Just because a small fraction of people in one group do something, regardless of what that group is, does not mean that the entire group condones radical actions and beliefs. No matter what group it is, there are always people who take things way too far. Even atheists.

I Thank you.

Monty845: If we are to follow the dictionary, an athiest is anyone who does not believe in a diety. But in common usage today, Athiesm typically means the active rejection, and not mere lack of beleif in all dieties, and furhter, all other religious beliefs. No spiritualism, no wicanism, etc...

Wrong, but thanks for playing.

Atheists still actively maintain that all atheism means is simple disbelief in gods.

And considering you can't even spell atheism, you can kindly shut up.

Bender The Offender: vertiaset: Atheists love it when they can shake the faith of a religious person, they call it "deconversion" and laugh about it amongst themselves. Why? I have no idea.

Proof? Evidence of this happening? Full of shiat douchebag? I'll go where the evidence takes me.

I'm not sure if I have ever 'deconverted' anyone, but I know I have gotten people to self identify as athiest after claiming they were religious. I don't think I really changed thier mind about any of thier beliefs, it was more a coming out of the 'athiesm closet'... I nonetheless gloat about it!

FieroEtnl: delphi_ote: geom_00: I am a Catholic, and proud of it... WHATEVER your religion is. I accept it."

What about a religion that believes in raping children? Is that cool?

Then I guess Islam believes in terrorism and jihad. For that matter, every pro-life follower condones killing people who give abortions and pro-choice followers believe that it is okay to forcibly abort children. Is that truly the case for these groups?

Come on. Just because a small fraction of people in one group do something, regardless of what that group is, does not mean that the entire group condones radical actions and beliefs. No matter what group it is, there are always people who take things way too far. Even atheists.
The difference comes when it's a systematic acceptance of the crime. While I don't doubt that most Catholics are correctly repulsed by the sexual abuse by the clergy, the upper echelons of the church actively worked to not only cover up the crimes, but move the offending priests around to new parishes so they could continue their crimes. The Catholic church is unique in that it's totally structured from the top down. No other religion has that kind of organization. There's no corresponding Pope of Islam, Judaism, or Hinduism. (Though if there were, I've little doubt that you'd see the same problems.) And the issue with the Catholic church is that the abuse was known within the organization. It's sad that more Catholics didn't leave the church because of that nonsense.

And I've never heard of an atheist that attributes any criminal act to his atheism, but there are plenty of believers that do awful things because of their beliefs. And that can include big awful things like murder, as well as small awful things like indoctrinating children in outdated methods of thought (like abstinence-only education) or forcing their beliefs on others (like the anti-abortion crowd).

Convert them to what, exactly? Bahai? Completely annoyed?

Arxane: Everyone's an atheist. Everyone doesn't believe in some religion out there. The ones calling themselves atheists just happen to not believe in one fewer god than the theists.

That is the most idiotic "point" raised in support of atheism yet. First of all, anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of the world is polytheist, not monotheistic, and polytheists don't practice other people's religions, but they don't disbelieve them either. Second of all, contrary to most atheists's perceptions, most religious activity worldwide is based in praxis and social identity, not belief, and thirdly, the monotheistic fundamentalists Farkers go crazy over tend to take other religions and their beliefs very seriously--just as demonic (per)versions of their own. This hackneyed and trite "one less god" quip is prima facie evidence that the person who uses it has no actual understanding of the nature of religion and religious people. Stop using it if you want to be taken seriously as an intellectual force.

I like how it's the Muslims that immediately leapt to the defense of atheists who just want to live their lives. Turkey's a strange place, but they're OK in my book.

SpaceLord: geom_00: I am a Catholic, and proud of it. I go to my church, I pray, I try to follow the Catholic way.

My Difference, if you are atheist, Jewish, Muslim, Scientology, FSM man, WHATEVER your religion is. I accept it. I could care less if you worshiped satan himself. Your life is your life. Literally, sorry to quote Rodney King, but "Why can't we all get along?"


Matthew 28:19-20

Read those verses.

/agnostic

I've heard more atheists and agnostics on Fark quote scripture than any Christian evangelist. You cry when religion doesn't accept evolution and yet here when geom_00 tries to open up a bit, you're first in line to say "SORRY CAN'T LET YOU DO THAT!"

Tomorrow you will be posting in disbelief at your perceived intolerance of religion that you and your ilk are so motivated to keep in existence. Fark you.

vertiaset: Atheists love it when they can shake the faith of a religious person, they call it "deconversion" and laugh about it amongst themselves. Why? I have no idea.

This is pure fiction save for the last sentence.

serial_crusher: I'm not stubborn enough to say I'm nonconvertible. If you've got a sound argument, I'd like to hear it.

The sad thing is I'm smart enough to know that other peoples' definition of "sound argument"--especially when it comes to religion--is pretty far off of mine...

The problem with a religious argument is that the evidence for a God is cited from a single source that is infallible - The Bible says God exists and is the word of God, therefore it is truth - but if the Bible is absolute truth, why are religious people able to pick and choose what lessons are just and which are antiquated?

The same book that says that a man laying with another man is sinful also claims that disobedient children should be stoned. "Officer, I murdered my child because they did not obey me." Is that going to stand up in court?

I think it is silly to place faith in a single source written by men - who are not infallible - and dismiss reason, accountability, and spend every waking minute praising a God that demands his/her ego is soothed.

I am much happier living this life for me and not trying to make sure an unseen father figure approves of me. And living for my fellow man. I don't think there is a better life beyond this, I think we die and the movie ends - I am not going to harm my fellow man or wish him injury. This is a one time shot. I hope he has the best imaginable life and dies with a smile.

That said, I would welcome a shot on this show - I love to travel. You won't win my soul, but I would love to see Mecca, just for punk rock points.

skinnyartist:
And considering you can't even spell atheism, you can kindly shut up.

Thank you for disregarding everything I said and justifing it on acount of my poor spelling.


Atheists still actively maintain that all atheism means is simple disbelief in gods.

And that is coming from who exactly? Is there some secret body that sets the Atheist agenda? I certainly don't remember voting for them... I know alot of people who use the stricter definition of atheism. I think the attraction of your position is we get to call more people atheists, but many of the aurguments against theism are actually aurguments against all religious beleif.

Somacandra: Somehow I don't think you know the Christian tradition well enough then.

Odd how the vast majority of people I know who are no longer Christian have related being made to feel guilty about questioning faith, often vocally been reprimanded for voicing questions, and similar. I, myself, was.

And I don't believe Christianity has particularly imbued adherents with the want to question as much as tried to quell since...Charlemagne or soon thereafter. Perhaps the traditions are, because there are some fantastic works by early Christians which do question belief, but for much of its history for the common believer this hasn't been instilled.

kleppe: SpaceLord: geom_00: I am a Catholic, and proud of it. I go to my church, I pray, I try to follow the Catholic way.

My Difference, if you are atheist, Jewish, Muslim, Scientology, FSM man, WHATEVER your religion is. I accept it. I could care less if you worshiped satan himself. Your life is your life. Literally, sorry to quote Rodney King, but "Why can't we all get along?"


Matthew 28:19-20

Read those verses.

/agnostic

I've heard more atheists and agnostics on Fark quote scripture than any Christian evangelist. You cry when religion doesn't accept evolution and yet here when geom_00 tries to open up a bit, you're first in line to say "SORRY CAN'T LET YOU DO THAT!"

Tomorrow you will be posting in disbelief at your perceived intolerance of religion that you and your ilk are so motivated to keep in existence. Fark you.

Being the Devil's advocate here, but I think the point of that scripture posting was to point out that geom's worldview does not mesh with his religion of choice

Heh.

My life story basically tells me there is no "God".

Yet I'm an Athiest Pagan who believes there MIGHT be a heaven to assure myself that my sister and grandmothers are there, because they are the only ones fit to BE there.

/Figure THAT out.
//Okay, Heaven's more like a HUGE garden and they're all in the backyard having tea and cookies whenever they feel like it.

Monty845: And that is coming from who exactly? Is there some secret body that sets the Atheist agenda? I certainly don't remember voting for them... I know alot of people who use the stricter definition of atheism. I think the attraction of your position is we get to call more people atheists, but many of the aurguments against theism are actually aurguments against all religious beleif.

The definition is the definition. You have qualifiers such as gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism, better known as strong and weak respectfully.

You are arguing that all atheists claim to be gnostic atheists, meaning they know and claim there is no god. They believe there is no god.

That is not an atheistic position. Atheism alone is an answer to one question. Do you believe in a god? No. Simple as that. If you want to go beyond that question, you have to augment your label that you want to put on us.

I am a gnostic atheist. I believe there is no god. But the vast majority of atheists do not make this claim and simply rest at saying they do not believe in a god. This is absolutely not the same thing as saying you believe there is no god.

Also, please revisit your 3rd grade grammar text book.

wildcardjack: Hinduism is one of the things that made me stop believing in the idea of a god

Same here. When I was young I thought about how people raised Hindu could possibly believe in the many armed gods, then I thought about how I only believed in Santa and god because I was told they were real from a young impressionable age. I was afraid of death and thought heaven was great, then I realized heaven is just what I want to be real because I'm afraid of dying and being nothing. It sounded like something you make up to calm a child down and give hope to the hopeless like the peasants long ago.

What happens when you put a Muslim imam, a Christian priest, a rabbi and a Buddhist monk in a room with 10 atheists?

Well, let's suppose they do this show. Here's what I think will happen.

The first half of the show is in trying to convince Atheists that there is a God. Assuming that they're at least somewhat well-read, it'll likely take a LONG time.

Now, assume it works. Hey, it's television.

The SECOND half of the show is when they get to try to figure out WHICH religion is right. The rabbi will bring out the Torah and start talking about JHVH. The priest will bring out the Bible and point out that he's got the Torah AND additional books in there, and talk about Jehovah. The imam will bring the Qu'ran for Allah and note that the Muslim faith counts Jesus as a prophet - one of the high ones. They will argue with each other for a long, long time, bringing in myth, fantasy, some history...and as soon as history comes up, the whole thing will devolve into a "you did this to my people" thing.

The first part of the show was "religion vs. contestant".
The second part of the show is "religion vs. religion."

More than likely, if any of the religions DO work, it would be the Buddhist one, that embraces the wholeness of nothingness. At least the Buddhist won't blow a gasket if people don't agree with him.

eyehate: "We don't approve of anyone being an atheist. God is great and it doesn't matter which religion you believe in. The important thing is to believe," Soylu said.

We don't approve of anyone being an atheist gay.
We don't approve of anyone being an atheist black.
We don't approve of anyone being an atheist Asian.
We don't approve of anyone being an atheist Mexican.
We don't approve of anyone being an atheist Muslim, Christian, Jewish.

That statement doesn't sound good at all, with any group attached.


That's only because all of those start with consonants, except for Asian. Anything sounds bad when you try to stick "an" before a consonant.

On a non-grammar Nazi note, I'm as atheist as they come. There is no supernatural anything, period. Biological life is complex, sure, but it's not magic. When you die, the electrical impulses in your brain stop firing, and your entire consciousness ceases to exist. As soon as decomposition takes hold and starts turning your brain to mush, even the neurological pathways that made up your personality, memory, etc., are irreversibly destroyed. The idea of a soul is comical, to me anyway.

Actually, I think death is a lot less scary knowing that there is nothing afterward. I never understood the appeal of an afterlife outside of my actual existence, even when it has candy coating applied.

Now, figure out how to download my consciousness into a robot and make me live forever, I'll be the first guy signed up. Of course, there's always the Marvin drawback - I might spend a lifetime sitting around a parking garage, or idly spinning in a mattress marsh. Still worth it.

vertiaset: Atheists love it when they can shake the faith of a religious person, they call it "deconversion" and laugh about it amongst themselves. Why? I have no idea.

I have no idea what you are going on about - but, I had a moment of eye rolling when a great friend of mine admitted she had 'baptised' Christians in their graves because she wanted to make sure they didn't go to Hell.

She was Mormon. Didn't hold it against her.

I guess the Mormons like to baptize you silly bastards in the grave to make sure you see the light. At least she wasn't worried about crashing a plane into a building or tying Matthew Shepard to a fence to die.

So its cool.

"We don't approve of anyone being an atheist. God is great and it doesn't matter which religion you believe in. The important thing is to believe," Soylu said.

My pretentious-ometer is going off the charts.

Sorry but God does not matter. In fact, not believing has made me much less uptight and more relaxed.

I would still be tempted to take the free trip to Tibet, though. Buddhism is pretty cool.

Eudeyrn: That's only because all of those start with consonants, except for Asian. Anything sounds bad when you try to stick "an" before a consonant.

Copy/pasta - my bad.

the_sidewinder: kleppe: SpaceLord: geom_00: I am a Catholic, and proud of it. I go to my church, I pray, I try to follow the Catholic way.

My Difference, if you are atheist, Jewish, Muslim, Scientology, FSM man, WHATEVER your religion is. I accept it. I could care less if you worshiped satan himself. Your life is your life. Literally, sorry to quote Rodney King, but "Why can't we all get along?"


Matthew 28:19-20

Read those verses.

/agnostic

I've heard more atheists and agnostics on Fark quote scripture than any Christian evangelist. You cry when religion doesn't accept evolution and yet here when geom_00 tries to open up a bit, you're first in line to say "SORRY CAN'T LET YOU DO THAT!"

Tomorrow you will be posting in disbelief at your perceived intolerance of religion that you and your ilk are so motivated to keep in existence. Fark you.

Being the Devil's advocate here, but I think the point of that scripture posting was to point out that geom's worldview does not mesh with his religion of choice

So why is SpaceLord free to choose his own beliefs and geom_00 isn't?

eyehate: /hotlinked

Missing: Me on a jetski

skinnyartist: Monty845: If we are to follow the dictionary, an athiest is anyone who does not believe in a diety. But in common usage today, Athiesm typically means the active rejection, and not mere lack of beleif in all dieties, and furhter, all other religious beliefs. No spiritualism, no wicanism, etc...

Wrong, but thanks for playing.

Atheists still actively maintain that all atheism means is simple disbelief in gods.

And considering you can't even spell atheism, you can kindly shut up.

You're playing a semantics game.

eyehate: Eudeyrn: That's only because all of those start with consonants, except for Asian. Anything sounds bad when you try to stick "an" before a consonant.

Copy/pasta - my bad.

I was only trying to preemptively be a dick about it, before someone tried to *actually* use to to derail your valid point. Scroll through any religion thread, and count the number of grammatical arguments. It's astounding how often it happens.

skinnyartist: Wrong, but thanks for playing.

He isn't actually inaccurate. Many people who are atheists do apply the term far more strictly, suggesting a disbelief in the supernatural altogether is necessary. Truly, the term means anywhere from simply a lack of belief in a deity, which I would prefer the term be used in such a way, but to others those religious trappings all stem from a belief in a deity initially; thus, to dismiss a deity should dismiss afterlife, a soul, magic, etc..

But true, most atheists I know would simply keep the term to mean anyone who lacks a belief in a deity.

A side note, atheist was initially a term for anyone who simply did not believe in your particular deity. Thus a Muslim was an atheist to a Christian, whereas a Christian was an atheist to a Muslim. Similar to applying a label of any relationship.

JQPublic: You're playing a semantics game.

Atheism: Not having a belief in a god.

This is NOT the same as believing there is no god. These are vastly different positions.

If you don't understand that, I'm sorry.

Vangor: He isn't actually inaccurate. Many people who are atheists do apply the term far more strictly, suggesting a disbelief in the supernatural altogether is necessary. Truly, the term means anywhere from simply a lack of belief in a deity, which I would prefer the term be used in such a way, but to others those religious trappings all stem from a belief in a deity initially; thus, to dismiss a deity should dismiss afterlife, a soul, magic, etc..

That isn't what he was arguing though. He was saying an atheist means you believe there is no god. And that is not the case.

Outtaphase: Never heard if this one was real or parody. So hard to discern sometimes.

It is serious.

I was shown that exact picture back when I went to youth groups with church.

Was one of the nails in the coffin of my blind belief.

I don't believe in Athiesm! Non-God doesn't exist! You are all sheeple!

Somacandra: Arxane: Everyone's an atheist. Everyone doesn't believe in some religion out there. The ones calling themselves atheists just happen to not believe in one fewer god than the theists.

That is the most idiotic "point" raised in support of atheism yet. First of all, anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of the world is polytheist, not monotheistic, and polytheists don't practice other people's religions, but they don't disbelieve them either. Second of all, contrary to most atheists's perceptions, most religious activity worldwide is based in praxis and social identity, not belief, and thirdly, the monotheistic fundamentalists Farkers go crazy over tend to take other religions and their beliefs very seriously--just as demonic (per)versions of their own. This hackneyed and trite "one less god" quip is prima facie evidence that the person who uses it has no actual understanding of the nature of religion and religious people. Stop using it if you want to be taken seriously as an intellectual force.

Hmm. Name-calling, ranting, and adjectives. No actual content.
That's convincing.

Now, if you REALLY wanted ratings, you shouldn't stick with the well-known, safe, POPULAR religions. You wouldn't being in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism.

You'd get....oh.....a...

Zoroastrianist,
Southern Baptist,
Jainist, and
an Aboriginal Shaman.


Now THAT'S a SHOW!

skinnyartist: JQPublic: You're playing a semantics game.

Atheism: Not having a belief in a god.

This is NOT the same as believing there is no god. These are vastly different positions.

If you don't understand that, I'm sorry.

Like I said, you're playing a semantics game. The dictionary literal meaning versus contempory implied meaning. If you want to be a Jedi, you go ahead, but please don't try to feign intelligence by claiming to be a Jedi-Atheist...or a Buddhist-Atheist...or a Wiccan-Atheist...or a Pagan-Atheist...because those are bullshiat, too.

Janine Melnitz: Do you believe in UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Atlantis?

Winston Zeddemore: Ah, if there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say.

/Tibet sounds like the best choice of the four

vertiaset: a sense that they have bested someone else

They have. People who believe in god are weak of mind. Most people should be converted away from religion, it would stop a lot of the drama in this world. Maybe use it to keep the little people in line- (N. Bonaparte)

Eudeyrn: Now, figure out how to download my consciousness into a robot and make me live forever, I'll be the first guy signed up. Of course, there's always the Marvin drawback - I might spend a lifetime sitting around a parking garage, or idly spinning in a mattress marsh. Still worth it.

oh hells no. I woke up from a nightmare just last night of being a consciousness in a box being put away on a shelf....

I don't know about a deity, but I do believe in some sort of spiritual connectivity beyond what science can explain. I don't have a convenient label for my beliefs, and I re-evaluate my beliefs on a moment-to-moment basis. sometimes I like to say that all religions are true -- for the person who believes.

my niece is a very smart girl. as best I can tell, her parents are atheist and raised their children to question the world. she converted to Mormonism. on some level, I envy her belief, and on another level, I'm completely baffled by it.

it's only when religions seek to actively convert that I have a problem with them. embrace the seeker, awesome. but brainwash the masses, nah - that's beyond my comfort zone.

skinnyartist:
That isn't what he was arguing though. He was saying an atheist means you believe there is no god. And that is not the case.

You: because the dictionary says so
Me: there are people, myself included, who use it to mean something different then the dictionary definition

Words change over time, don't tell me I'm wrong just because I don't use the word they way you like.

JQPublic: Like I said, you're playing a semantics game. The dictionary literal meaning versus contempory implied meaning. If you want to be a Jedi, you go ahead, but please don't try to feign intelligence by claiming to be a Jedi-Atheist...or a Buddhist-Atheist...or a Wiccan-Atheist...or a Pagan-Atheist...because those are bullshiat, too.

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this.

An atheist isn't making a claim about the existence or non-existence of a god. They simply do not believe the claims. That is call non-belief.

People who claim there is no god is making an entirely different argument. They are called either antitheists or strong/gnostic atheists.

By your logic, you're saying that all Christians should just be called Christians, and we shouldn't qualify the various different types because it's just "semantics." Sorry, but that doesn't fly.

SynthLord: Isn't Buddhism atheistic, or at best agnostic?

It really depends on how you define god(s).

I wish I were on that show. I would utterly destroy them.

And as usual they would end up asking me "who do you think you are?" "do you know everything?" "do you realize how arrogant you are?" while they're proclaim to know the being who created all, how he/she/it (usually he) did it, what its intentions are, and of course why he hates pigs.

vertiaset: However, don't take my word for it

No need. After a very short stint of belief I converted back to atheism at age 11, a long, long time ago. I don't read the websites cited, consider authors like Dawkins worthless, if not detrimental, and some of my favourite people are deeply religious though we never discuss religion. Where do I slot into your fantasy about 'atheists'?

Monty845: skinnyartist:
And considering you can't even spell atheism, you can kindly shut up.

Thank you for disregarding everything I said and justifing it on acount of my poor spelling.


Atheists still actively maintain that all atheism means is simple disbelief in gods.

And that is coming from who exactly? Is there some secret body that sets the Atheist agenda? I certainly don't remember voting for them... I know alot of people who use the stricter definition of atheism. I think the attraction of your position is we get to call more people atheists, but many of the aurguments against theism are actually aurguments against all religious beleif.

I think I should introduce you to some proper terminology

Gnostic Theist: Basically this means deeply devout, they KNOW there is a god, they are quite explicit about it

Agnostic Theist: This is what I see most Canadians as. They hold religious beliefs, and may even go to church, but they are not devout, and simply take the religion that was handed to them. They are a live and let live bunch, but, if pressed, would posit that a deity would be inherently unknowable.

Agnostic: Simply a person that lives by the thought that a god may or may not exist, that their existance would be intrinsically unknowable.

Agnostic Atheist: Again, posits that you can't be sure if there is a god or not, but tends to lean to the probably not side of things. They don't believe in a god, but they cannot be sure that one does not exist. They mesh with Weak Atheists

Weak Atheist: Seen as kinda of a default state, before religious indoctrination. Weak atheists can be described as: does not believe in a god because they have not been made aware of the existence of one; Agnostic Atheist; or pretty much any for of atheism that does not fall under Gnostic/Strong Atheism.

Gnostic/Strong Atheists: They posit that there is absolutely no god. They are explicit about this.

I'm sorry but I think atheists are the most ignorant out there! At least religious folks have some limited idea of a divine creator, but atheists completely deny it and rely on lolscience.

FTA: "We don't approve of anyone being an atheist. God is great and it doesn't matter which religion you believe in. The important thing is to believe," Soylu said.

Oh, BS. These producers know stuff like this riles up people and thus leads to people watching just to see the chaos that is sure to happen. Which, of course, will lead to large viewing numbers and profit.

If these people really gave a hoot about converting people, they wouldn't make something so personal and complex into a reality game show.

The more things like this happen, the more I think the Third Commandment ('You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.') isn't about refraining from saying, "Oh, I swear to God," as much as using God's name to further whatever vanity project you have in mind, be it; a government position, a war or in this case, a reality show.

The ones calling themselves atheists just happen to not believe in one fewer god than the theists.

This is what I tell my students ( some of whom go to religious schools )
I also send them links to every site I can think of to make them think!!!!! about what they believe

vertiaset: a sense that they have bested someone else and taken something from them which they themselves cannot possess.

Some atheists are assholes. Some atheists are some of the most ignorant and idiotic individuals you may find. However, what was said by you was, "Atheists love it when they can shake the faith of a religious person, they call it "deconversion" and laugh about it amongst themselves," as in all partake in this. Qualifiers are important, because atheists simply are not a singular group being a lack of belief in a deity.

vertiaset: The idea that people of faith are somehow not rational is ludicrous.

People of faith are not rational about one particular facet. Many people are rational about all other aspects of life except those of religion. If Jefferson is called a religious man, so am I, and this is the second to last term I would generally ascribe to myself.

Monty845: skinnyartist:
That isn't what he was arguing though. He was saying an atheist means you believe there is no god. And that is not the case.

You: because the dictionary says so
Me: there are people, myself included, who use it to mean something different then the dictionary definition

Words change over time, don't tell me I'm wrong just because I don't use the word they way you like.

Please read up on the current terms.

Words do have meanings. But they're meaningless unless we agree upon those definitions. Dictionaries and other sources, such as the one linked to, tell us what the general consensus is regarding the definition of a word.

You are deciding to change that definition because it doesn't suit you.

The Massengill is strong in this thread.

vertiaset: neenerist

vertiaset: Atheists love it when they can shake the faith of a religious person, they call it "deconversion" and laugh about it amongst themselves. Why? I have no idea.

This is pure fiction save for the last sentence.

I wish it were fiction.


It isn't fiction if you mean that 2 or more atheists buy it. Most of us just don't give a shiat.

skinnyartist: JQPublic: Like I said, you're playing a semantics game. The dictionary literal meaning versus contempory implied meaning. If you want to be a Jedi, you go ahead, but please don't try to feign intelligence by claiming to be a Jedi-Atheist...or a Buddhist-Atheist...or a Wiccan-Atheist...or a Pagan-Atheist...because those are bullshiat, too.

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this.

An atheist isn't making a claim about the existence or non-existence of a god. They simply do not believe the claims. That is call non-belief.

People who claim there is no god is making an entirely different argument. They are called either antitheists or strong/gnostic atheists.

By your logic, you're saying that all Christians should just be called Christians, and we shouldn't qualify the various different types because it's just "semantics." Sorry, but that doesn't fly.

That's an apples to oranges comparison. I'd prefer to call all Christians 'wrong' and be done with it. Sounds like you want to nitpick over the finer details between atheist and agnostic, and then try to tell us atheists what we think.

I also want to point out that this isn't a semantic game because some of you aren't familiar with the terms used when discussing this subject.

That's like telling a biologist to stop using their fancy words because you don't understand them.

Religion always sparks a he said/she said dialogue...not sure why people go at it since you're not going to convert anyone. Time to look for a more entertaining thread...

skinnyartist: That isn't what he was arguing though. He was saying an atheist means you believe there is no god. And that is not the case.

No, he was arguing common usage by many for atheism includes active rejection of anything religious in nature beyond merely a deity. This is true.

I don't particularly agree with his definition of an atheist, but he wasn't inaccurate in saying some use the term more strictly. Considering I believe he is an atheist as per a comment he has made, this wouldn't be inaccurate to say since he is evidence of this.

kleppe: the_sidewinder: kleppe: SpaceLord: geom_00: I am a Catholic, and proud of it. I go to my church, I pray, I try to follow the Catholic way.

My Difference, if you are atheist, Jewish, Muslim, Scientology, FSM man, WHATEVER your religion is. I accept it. I could care less if you worshiped satan himself. Your life is your life. Literally, sorry to quote Rodney King, but "Why can't we all get along?"


Matthew 28:19-20

Read those verses.

/agnostic

I've heard more atheists and agnostics on Fark quote scripture than any Christian evangelist. You cry when religion doesn't accept evolution and yet here when geom_00 tries to open up a bit, you're first in line to say "SORRY CAN'T LET YOU DO THAT!"

Tomorrow you will be posting in disbelief at your perceived intolerance of religion that you and your ilk are so motivated to keep in existence. Fark you.

Being the Devil's advocate here, but I think the point of that scripture posting was to point out that geom's worldview does not mesh with his religion of choice

So why is SpaceLord free to choose his own beliefs and geom_00 isn't?

Again, devils advocate, but I think that it's that he identifies as someone that has a set of defined values. If he were to say "I beleive in God yadda yadda yadda" but nothing that identifies a denomination, then a mix and match would be possible. Where as Spacelord identified as Agnostic, which is non denominational, it simply means that he is uncertain as to the existence of a god

JQPublic: That's an apples to oranges comparison. I'd prefer to call all Christians 'wrong' and be done with it. Sounds like you want to nitpick over the finer details between atheist and agnostic, and then try to tell us atheists what we think.

No, I'm trying to tell you that if you say "I do not believe in God," you are holding a different position than saying "I believe there is no God."

Because they're different positions, and thus need different terms to define them.

Am I making myself clear?

Here is an awesome lecture by a Standford professor on the relationship between mental illness and religious belief.

Link (new window)

Personally, I believe that it is possible that extreme atheists and evangelical theists can, in fact, co-exist peacefully.

My theory involves Sinfest, somehow.

Nobody who REALLY believes anything cares whether anybody else believes it.

Kliffoth: I hear all about these 'militant atheists' trying to 'convert people'. I've never seen it, personally, though I'm sure there's some out there.

I got into a discussion over drinks with a christian and a mormon friend. I was the atheist-leaning-agnostic at the table and they both ganged up on me. Whenever I tried to make my case that "I don't know" and that no one really can they try to turn that around on me, saying that if I was lucky I would eventually be given a "sign".

Thing is, since I "don't know," the best I could do as a rebuttal was say that even though i doubted it, that it was a possibility.

/really annoyed me
//mormon made my head asplode when gay marriage came up and she started talking about protecting families and "marriage" from the potentially harmful life styles of homosexuals.

Vangor: No, he was arguing common usage by many for atheism includes active rejection of anything religious in nature beyond merely a deity. This is true.

I would say that you're confusing various things that most atheists also subscribe to, such as naturalism, with atheism itself.

Again, atheism in the strictest sense is nothing more than the non-belief in a god.

Anything beyond that goes into other beliefs. It's absolutely true though that most atheists have naturalistic world-views, which affect their views on supernatural claims. But not believing in, say, ghosts has nothing to do with atheism itself.

You can't say that just because most atheists disbelieve in supernatural claims, even though it's for reasons other than atheism (as in naturalism), we can attribute it to their atheism.

Appropriately enough, my "conversion" to atheism was for the same reason a lot of people turn to religion in the first place.

When I was lost, confused, and life seemed to have no purpose, I looked to church - through my extended family. Religion and "faith", however, were unable to provide any real answers.

So I turned to logic, science, philosophy and humanism. And no, these disciplines don't have the answers either, but at least they're trying.

If believers are pissed off at Atheists, they should tell them @
The Rational Skeptics Society forum^


If you're an Atheist, you should check out The Rational Skeptics Society forum^


/shameless plug
//other farkers are already over there

skinnyartist:
No, I'm trying to tell you that if you say "I do not believe in God," you are holding a different position than saying "I believe there is no God." ....Am I making myself clear?

Not really. How can one logically state "I do not believe in God" without implying anything about the belief in the existence of gods? At best it means "haven't thought about it/decided", which implies agnostic. Wikipedia isn't an authoritative source.

JQPublic: That's an apples to oranges comparison. I'd prefer to call all Christians 'wrong' and be done with it. Sounds like you want to nitpick over the finer details between atheist and agnostic, and then try to tell us atheists what we think.

A is defined as believing X
You call yourself A
Therefore you must believe X

A is defined as believing X
You do not believe X
Therefore you are not A

Its amazing how many people think that everyone is trying to argue in the first manner when all they are trying to do is stop people from using the words incorrectly.

skinnyartist: JQPublic: That's an apples to oranges comparison. I'd prefer to call all Christians 'wrong' and be done with it. Sounds like you want to nitpick over the finer details between atheist and agnostic, and then try to tell us atheists what we think.

No, I'm trying to tell you that if you say "I do not believe in God," you are holding a different position than saying "I believe there is no God."

Because they're different positions, and thus need different terms to define them.

Am I making myself clear?

Why does every newbie atheist come here and do this?

Vangor: What does second place get?

JQPublic: Why does every newbie atheist come here and do this?

I'm sorry you can't grasp simple philosophical concepts about what belief is, and that there is a huge difference in saying you believe something, or that you lack belief in something.

skinnyartist: I would say that you're confusing various things that most atheists also subscribe to, such as naturalism, with atheism itself.

You're not actually reading my posts, are you? Instead, you seem to be simply pent because I am attempting to correct something you said.

I am not confusing anything, since I previously noted, "Truly, the term means anywhere from simply a lack of belief in a deity, which I would prefer the term be used in such a way." This is more accurate and more useful, I believe. However, I said too, "but to others those religious trappings all stem from a belief in a deity initially; thus, to dismiss a deity should dismiss afterlife, a soul, magic, etc.." This is not a position I hold myself to, which is why I noted others and gave an explanation as to why others consider atheism to encompasses this.

skinnyartist: You can't say that just because most atheists disbelieve in supernatural claims, even though it's for reasons other than atheism (as in naturalism), we can attribute it to their atheism.

Not attempting to say such a thing at all, merely that others do. Hence, common, or more accurately one of the common usages of the term "atheist".

vertiaset: There are many Christian sites out there too which discuss how to deal with the militant atheist. One common thread you find is that the most militant atheists, the harshest, the most dogmatic are those people who once had faith and for some reason lost it.

Religious faith, is a blanket of comfort, of warmth. It provides in many believers a sense of purpose and peace. Now, having once had this protection and now lost it, the newly converted atheist feels a sense, not only of loss, but of resentment toward those who still possess it. This may explain the strident militancy of these people as they go out of there way to attack the faith of others.

The easiest targets are those believers who have never, themselves, questioned their faith or their church. These folks can be swayed by pointing out inconsistencies in scripture, the harshness of the Old Testament, the pronouncements of Paul on family, women and slavery and the mythical basis for the stories contained in Genesis i.e. the Garden and the Flood.

They may also point to the tragic periods of history where faith was used as a pretext for great evil.

Thinking Christians, know the cultural and historical context of these stories. They see them as allegory or as stories meant to illustrate a point about the human condition to a pre-literate people.

The idea of Christ as the sacrificial Lamb of God, is a story of great love and sacrifice for ones fellow men. It illustrates a the new covenant with God wherein all men can be free, all men, of all creeds and races can be brothers.

Thoughtful people of all faiths know that societies are made of men and that men are fallible and subject to the influence of greed, lust and the desire for earthly glory.

A great many atheists, including Professor Dawkins themselves know the value of the teachings of Christ. Dawkins even refers to himself as a "cultural Christian". Who in the West is not? If you live in today's world and do not have as part of your cultural lexicon the Song of Solomon, the Beatitudes or Paul's Hymn to Love, then you are the poorer for it.

I've often wondered about that. i'm a non-believer who was raised as such, by 1950s bohemians - beatniks, if you will. I've never even seriously considered the possibility of any gods or other supernatural beings existing. And I've never felt the least hostility or contempt for any person of faith unless they have conducted themselves in a matter that warrants it.
I went to church with my Baptist grandmother, and sat politely and listened. When I went to catholic schools for a couple of years, I attended mass (though I did not, of course, take communion or anything like that).
To my mind, believers average out about the same as non-believers: Some's assholes, some's ain't. It's just people, and it's character and values that really count - not the superficial framework they hang upon.
What I have never understood is why anybody who is content and happy in what they believe would want to change anybody else's mind. What I believe is not going to magically become more satisfying or worthwhile to ME, just because I somehow convince YOU to agree. The sum total of my epistemological capital is not increased, and I am not made happier or wiser. What the hell's the point?
As long as you're willing to leave me the hell alone, you can believe whatever you want, and believe it with my full endorsement and approval. Conversely, if you agree, chapter and verse, with every single thing I think, and you're a dick - you're still a dick.
It can be fun to argue the finer points of these matters, at least with civil and intelligent folks - but I would never want to "convert" somebody else to think as I do.
One of me in this world is bad enough. :D

Ishidan: Ultimate test for the 'religiously tolerant' crowd:

what movie is that?

skinnyartist:
No, I'm trying to tell you that if you say "I do not believe in God," you are holding a different position than saying "I believe there is no God." ....Am I making myself clear?


Not really, because in your example sentence, you have "God" capitalized, which implies a specific god, being a proper noun and all.

If the person in your example is referring to a specific god, then both statements seem pretty equivalent.

I'm sorry you can't grasp simple grammatical concepts yada yada yada something sneering and pretentious.

am I doing it right?

skinnyartist: JQPublic: Why does every newbie atheist come here and do this?

I'm sorry you can't grasp simple philosophical concepts about what belief is, and that there is a huge difference in saying you believe something, or that you lack belief in something.

Allow me to throw gasoline on your bonfire, if I may. And if I could, let me do it with a bullshiat straw man argument, just to make it nice and toasty.

My 9 year old niece believes in faeries. As in, really and truly believes they exist. I do not believe in faeries. My brother does not believe in faeries. I, however, believe harder than my brother that faeries do not exist, as in I claim to know they do not. He, on the other hand, only passively disbelieves in their existence, without explicitly claiming knowledge of their non-existence. Explain the difference between my brother and I.

vertiaset
Thinking Christians, know the cultural and historical context of these stories. They see them as allegory or as stories meant to illustrate a point about the human condition to a pre-literate people.

The idea of Christ as the sacrificial Lamb of God, is a story of great love and sacrifice for ones fellow men. It illustrates a the new covenant with God wherein all men can be free, all men, of all creeds and races can be brothers.


And it sure makes a great story.

Too bad the Old Testament kicks its scrawny ass. Lots more smiting, a lot less turning the other cheek.

Vangor: Not attempting to say such a thing at all, merely that others do. Hence, common, or more accurately one of the common usages of the term "atheist".

Fair enough.

But my issue is still with the usage of the word, not necessarily by you.

Anyone stating that the word atheist means anything other than the non-belief in a god is wrong on the matter when it comes to a discussion like this. We are no longer in the realm of every day vernacular, much like people incorrectly using the term theory when discussing scientific theories.

Regardless of what the general public might want to try to say theory means, within the scientific community, the word theory holds a vastly different meaning. And I'm sure that any scientist coming across a person on the street would be irked when that person tried to tell them their scientific theory was nothing more than a guess.

jso2897: vertiaset: There are many Christian sites out there too which discuss how to deal with the militant atheist. One common thread you find is that the most militant atheists, the harshest, the most dogmatic are those people who once had faith and for some reason lost it.

Religious faith, is a blanket of comfort, of warmth. It provides in many believers a sense of purpose and peace. Now, having once had this protection and now lost it, the newly converted atheist feels a sense, not only of loss, but of resentment toward those who still possess it. This may explain the strident militancy of these people as they go out of there way to attack the faith of others.

The easiest targets are those believers who have never, themselves, questioned their faith or their church. These folks can be swayed by pointing out inconsistencies in scripture, the harshness of the Old Testament, the pronouncements of Paul on family, women and slavery and the mythical basis for the stories contained in Genesis i.e. the Garden and the Flood.

They may also point to the tragic periods of history where faith was used as a pretext for great evil.

Thinking Christians, know the cultural and historical context of these stories. They see them as allegory or as stories meant to illustrate a point about the human condition to a pre-literate people.

The idea of Christ as the sacrificial Lamb of God, is a story of great love and sacrifice for ones fellow men. It illustrates a the new covenant with God wherein all men can be free, all men, of all creeds and races can be brothers.

Thoughtful people of all faiths know that societies are made of men and that men are fallible and subject to the influence of greed, lust and the desire for earthly glory.

A great many atheists, including Professor Dawkins themselves know the value of the teachings of Christ. Dawkins even refers to himself as a "cultural Christian". Who in the West is not? If you live in today's world and do not have as part of your cultural lexicon the Song of Solomon, the Beatitudes or Paul's Hymn to Love, then you are the poorer for it.

I've often wondered about that. i'm a non-believer who was raised as such, by 1950s bohemians - beatniks, if you will. I've never even seriously considered the possibility of any gods or other supernatural beings existing. And I've never felt the least hostility or contempt for any person of faith unless they have conducted themselves in a matter that warrants it.
I went to church with my Baptist grandmother, and sat politely and listened. When I went to catholic schools for a couple of years, I attended mass (though I did not, of course, take communion or anything like that).
To my mind, believers average out about the same as non-believers: Some's assholes, some's ain't. It's just people, and it's character and values that really count - not the superficial framework they hang upon.
What I have never understood is why anybody who is content and happy in what they believe would want to change anybody else's mind. What I believe is not going to magically become more satisfying or worthwhile to ME, just because I somehow convince YOU to agree. The sum total of my epistemological capital is not increased, and I am not made happier or wiser. What the hell's the point?
As long as you're willing to leave me the hell alone, you can believe whatever you want, and believe it with my full endorsement and approval. Conversely, if you agree, chapter and verse, with every single thing I think, and you're a dick - you're still a dick.
It can be fun to argue the finer points of these matters, at least with civil and intelligent folks - but I would never want to "convert" somebody else to think as I do.
One of me in this world is bad enough. :D

I think it's because a good many people have it in their head that other people would be happier, or that the world would be better off if everyone thought like they did
/Not one of those myself

Eudeyrn: My 9 year old niece believes in faeries. As in, really and truly believes they exist. I do not believe in faeries. My brother does not believe in faeries. I, however, believe harder than my brother that faeries do not exist, as in I claim to know they do not. He, on the other hand, only passively disbelieves in their existence, without explicitly claiming knowledge of their non-existence. Explain the difference between my brother and I.

The difference is you claim. You make a positive assertion, and when in an argument, the burden of proof now rests on you to prove your claim.

Your brother, on the other hand, makes no claims either way. He simply doesn't accept the one claim. He doesn't have to say why he doesn't accept it; he has absolutely nothing to proof. To the contrary, the person trying to tell him faeries exist, your daughter, has the burden of proof.

That's why the positions are different.

skinnyartist: Your brother, on the other hand, makes no claims either way. He simply doesn't accept the one claim. He doesn't have to say why he doesn't accept it; he has absolutely nothing to prove. To the contrary, the person trying to tell him faeries exist, your daughter, has the burden of proof.

FTFM

If belief in nothing is a belief in and of itself, then it it actually a belief in something, that something being nothing. Hence something is nothing and the cycle of Budhism and Quantum Physics is complete. Tada!

For the atheists:
Some need a powerful sky daddy who tells them right from wrong, some take solace in an immeasurable deity who cannot be wrong or fall short by definition, some need an excuse to harness the amazing power of human will which their conscious mind has stinted and can only accept if attributable to an outside force on their lives, some are lonely and need an imaginary friend.

And you would want to take that away from them, some people need god, no matter if he really does or not.

For the Religious:
While I may not believe in your particular deity, I do respect the fact that you have a different set of life experience than I do and if your religion causes any of the following, I am cool with you and respect and even celebrate the fact that you are a good follower of a god who stands for these great principles

#1- You do not know everything, and cannot know everything, God- Maybe. But not you.

#2- Be nice to people. I do not care if Jesus, Moses, Allah, Zenon or Gilgamesh is who you worship, if they want you to be nice to others, encourage acts of charity, selflessness and human kindness, you should listen to them. Tip well, smile at people, offer a hand when needed, do not practice cruelty, steal or lie maliciously. Oh yeah, do not hate those who are different than you.

#3- Do not kill people, especially me

If your religion supports all of those three principles, then I cannot argue that you have not found the true faith and wish you well with it. Fark all the atheists trying to convert you. It seems to be working out for you and like I said, if your God wants you to follow the above listed principles, you are cool with me.

yelmrog: Not really, because in your example sentence, you have "God" capitalized, which implies a specific god, being a proper noun and all.

If the person in your example is referring to a specific god, then both statements seem pretty equivalent.

I'm sorry you can't grasp simple grammatical concepts yada yada yada something sneering and pretentious.

am I doing it right?

I stand corrected in accidentally capitalizing the G in god, which does in fact general refer to a specific god, when in fact I meant gods in general.

Force of habit, I'm using to arguing against Christians so the capital G is used more often.

madblader: Here is an awesome lecture by a Standford professor on the relationship between mental illness and religious belief.

Link (new window) (new window)

that is a fabulous lecture and totally worth the 90 minutes or so that it takes to listen to it!

skinnyartist: I stand corrected in accidentally capitalizing the G in god, which does in fact generally refer to a specific god, when in fact I meant gods in general.

FTFM. Plus it's almost 3am. So my typing is a little off at this point.

vertiaset: Atheists love it when they can shake the faith of a religious person, they call it "deconversion" and laugh about it amongst themselves. Why? I have no idea.

Sort of like how...... Christians love it when they can brainwash new initiates for their cause, and they call it "converting a nonbeliever"

Kind of like that?

skinnyartist: Your brother, on the other hand, makes no claims either way. He simply doesn't accept the one claim. He doesn't have to say why he doesn't accept it; he has absolutely nothing to proof.

Lol! 'Just because'? That's simply acting without reason, as you appear to be. No use wasting time with the unreasoning then...

skinnyartist: I'm using to arguing against Christians

I'm going to regret it later, but after attacking both my spelling and grammar... DONT THROW STONES IF YOU LIVE IN A GLASS HOUSE

/believe or don't believe just don't rain on someone else's parade,
this should be required reading

ttc2301: The Massengill is strong in this thread.

When I was a dog groomer we used Summer's Eve to remove the stench from dogs who got skunked. This must be what you are talking about.

GAT_00: I've always liked the idea of an immortal soul that gets reborn over and over again.

The idea of having an immortal soul gets really horrific about 10 minutes after the heat death of the universe.

skinnyartist: Eudeyrn: My 9 year old niece believes in faeries. As in, really and truly believes they exist. I do not believe in faeries. My brother does not believe in faeries. I, however, believe harder than my brother that faeries do not exist, as in I claim to know they do not. He, on the other hand, only passively disbelieves in their existence, without explicitly claiming knowledge of their non-existence. Explain the difference between my brother and I.

The difference is you claim. You make a positive assertion, and when in an argument, the burden of proof now rests on you to prove your claim.

Your brother, on the other hand, makes no claims either way. He simply doesn't accept the one claim. He doesn't have to say why he doesn't accept it; he has absolutely nothing to prove. To the contrary, the person trying to tell him faeries exist, your daughter, has the burden of proof.

That's why the positions are different.

OK, that's where I thought you were going. This is an argument about the definitions of knowledge and belief. I think the discussion is getting hung up on whether disbelief is a passive act or an active one. I inadvertently laid a trap in my scenario with the word "passively," although I hadn't meant to. In my opinion, it is impossible to passively disbelieve something. In order to believe or not believe - and I mean truly here, not just superficially - one must use their own experiences, judgment, and knowledge to reach a conclusion. The very act of pondering the question requires knowledge, in the sense that arriving at a conclusion requires input. As a child, my father says God exists. My decision to also believe this is based on my experience that what my father says is an honest man. I have used my knowledge about my father to arrive at a belief. Were I to decide the opposite, that God does not exist, perhaps I would use my knowledge about my father (i.e., he is a liar and a doo-doo head) to arrive at a different belief.

BUT WAIT, you say. I've only said that I have knowledge about the messenger, not the message. This is what I think is so critical about religion. The message is non-existent. The supernatural exists outside the realm of proof, outside of reality, outside of human interaction. The only players are the messengers, other human beings, documents, etc. To claim a knowledge of non-existence is as futile as claiming a knowledge of existence. Knowledge in this sense is fundamentally incompatible with the belief. I cannot use knowledge of something unknowable to form a belief.

Somewhere in that 3am rambling is the reason why I think an atheist is an atheist is an atheist, regardless of the suffixes you choose to append. Seriously, I'm pretty sure it's in there.

neenerist: Lol! 'Just because'? That's simply acting without reason, as you appear to be. No use wasting time with the unreasoning then...

How am I acting without reason, exactly?

I have also made a very clear argument as to why this is a different position than lacking belief. One side is making a claim, the other is not.

Let me try another analogy.

You have two people. One of them flips a coin and calls it in the air as heads. The other person doesn't say anything, they wait for the coin to fall.

The one who calls it is like the gnostic atheist, because they make the claim. The other person is the tradition atheist, otherwise known as an agnostic atheist. They don't make the call; they don't claim either way. They do not believe it's going to fall on heads or tails, but they aren't saying for sure which one it is or isn't going to fall on.

Eudeyrn: BUT WAIT, you say. I've only said that I have knowledge about the messenger, not the message. This is what I think is so critical about religion. The message is non-existent. The supernatural exists outside the realm of proof, outside of reality, outside of human interaction. The only players are the messengers, other human beings, documents, etc. To claim a knowledge of non-existence is as futile as claiming a knowledge of existence. Knowledge in this sense is fundamentally incompatible with the belief. I cannot use knowledge of something unknowable to form a belief.

Here's the trick though, not everyone is going to agree with you that god(s) are fundamentally unknowable... thats why its important to make the distinction.

Monty845: I'm going to regret it later, but after attacking both my spelling and grammar... DONT THROW STONES IF YOU LIVE IN A GLASS HOUSE

Yeah, typoes after I admitted that my typing is suffering because it's late is different than repeatedly misspelling several words because you actually don't know how to spell them.

skinnyartist: neenerist: Lol! 'Just because'? That's simply acting without reason, as you appear to be. No use wasting time with the unreasoning then...

How am I acting without reason, exactly?

I have also made a very clear argument as to why this is a different position than lacking belief. One side is making a claim, the other is not.

Let me try another analogy.

You have two people. One of them flips a coin and calls it in the air as heads. The other person doesn't say anything, they wait for the coin to fall.

The one who calls it is like the gnostic atheist, because they make the claim. The other person is the tradition atheist, otherwise known as an agnostic atheist. They don't make the call; they don't claim either way. They do not believe it's going to fall on heads or tails, but they aren't saying for sure which one it is or isn't going to fall on.

You've entirely lost me, then. God is heads, no God is tails. The religious man believes (and claims) the coin lands heads. The "gnostic atheist" believes (and claims) the coin will land tails. The "agnsotic atheist" believes (but does not claim) the coin will land tails.

Are you saying the only difference is that a "gnostic atheist" is willing to put his belief into words? Forgive my derision, but I hope that's just a crappy analogy, because otherwise your argument no longer makes sense to me.

/Monty845:

I'm going to regret it later, but after attacking both my spelling and grammar... DONT THROW STONES IF YOU LIVE IN A GLASS HOUSE HORSE

Sorry, pet peeve.

Eudeyrn: You've entirely lost me, then. God is heads, no God is tails. The religious man believes (and claims) the coin lands heads. The "gnostic atheist" believes (and claims) the coin will land tails. The "agnsotic atheist" believes (but does not claim) the coin will land tails.

Are you saying the only difference is that a "gnostic atheist" is willing to put his belief into words? Forgive my derision, but I hope that's just a crappy analogy, because otherwise your argument no longer makes sense to me.

A gnostic atheist is similar to a theist in that they are making a claim and the burden of proof shifts to whoever is making the claim.

This is why an agnostic atheist is totally different, because they do not make claims on the existence or non-existence of god. They simply do not believe either claims. They're neutral on the position.

The person calling heads is a gnostic atheist, claiming god does not exist. While the person who calls nothing is the agnostic atheist, because they aren't claiming what the coin will land on.

oh goody

my favorite kind of religion thread is where we debate semantic definitions that prove how we're more atheist than the other

I'm just going to put this here. Again


Gnostic Theist: Basically this means deeply devout, they KNOW there is a god, they are quite explicit about it

Agnostic Theist: This is what I see most Canadians as. They hold religious beliefs, and may even go to church, but they are not devout, and simply take the religion that was handed to them. They are a live and let live bunch, but, if pressed, would posit that a deity would be inherently unknowable.

Agnostic: Simply a person that lives by the thought that a god may or may not exist, that their existance would be intrinsically unknowable.

Agnostic Atheist: Again, posits that you can't be sure if there is a god or not, but tends to lean to the probably not side of things. They don't believe in a god, but they cannot be sure that one does not exist. They mesh with Weak Atheists

Weak Atheist: Seen as kinda of a default state, before religious indoctrination. Weak atheists can be described as: does not believe in a god because they have not been made aware of the existence of one; Agnostic Atheist; or pretty much any for of atheism that does not fall under Gnostic/Strong Atheism.

Gnostic/Strong Atheists: They posit that there is absolutely no god. They are explicit about this.

at80eighty: oh goody

my favorite kind of religion thread is where we debate semantic definitions that prove how we're more atheist than the other

Sounds like something a person who's not much of an atheist would say.

/just sayin'

What would you call the belief that there is a vast universe out there, full of creatures who either don't care or see us as a food source? Also the further belief that one particular group is actively trying to turn us into cattle?

/besides fruitbatarianism...

Now that stupid theme song is stuck in my head. Subby's a jerk.

the_sidewinder: I'm just going to put this here. Again

They just aren't getting it.

I'm sure they think that theory means a guess anyone can pull out of their arse, too.

skinnyartist: The difference is you claim. You make a positive assertion, and when in an argument, the burden of proof now rests on you to prove your claim.

What is odd is we consider claims of non-existence to be positive claims/assertions. Truthfully, I believe our practical language is the culprit, as all other claims seem to be positive claims/assertions.

Consider the phrase, "I believe a god exists." Now, consider the phrase, "I do not believe a god does not exist," or, "I do not disbelieve a god exists." All are positive claims, I would say. After all, if you disbelieve, you don't believe, and thus if you don't disbelieve you believe. Simply, no other position exists when belief is a portion of the claim.

Thus, the phrase, "I do not believe a god exists," should be comparable to, "I do not disbelieve a god does not exist." Of course, this is a sloppy way of saying, "I believe a god does not exist," which somehow becomes a positive claim.

The result would be, therefore, all are positive claims, which seems nonsensical since passive non-acceptance of a claim not-known would demand a burden of proof, or only ones claiming positive existence are a positive claim.

at80eighty: my favorite kind of religion thread is where we debate semantic definitions that prove how we're more atheist than the other

make it stop

kleppe: SpaceLord: geom_00: I am a Catholic, and proud of it. I go to my church, I pray, I try to follow the Catholic way.

My Difference, if you are atheist, Jewish, Muslim, Scientology, FSM man, WHATEVER your religion is. I accept it. I could care less if you worshiped satan himself. Your life is your life. Literally, sorry to quote Rodney King, but "Why can't we all get along?"


Matthew 28:19-20

Read those verses.

/agnostic

I've heard more atheists and agnostics on Fark quote scripture than any Christian evangelist. You cry when religion doesn't accept evolution and yet here when geom_00 tries to open up a bit, you're first in line to say "SORRY CAN'T LET YOU DO THAT!"

Tomorrow you will be posting in disbelief at your perceived intolerance of religion that you and your ilk are so motivated to keep in existence. Fark you.


Whoa, settle down there, Beavis. I'm just point out the biblical book and verse that espouses evangelism/missionary work. I'm not making a judgment on what he does with his faith.

Thanks for being so kind and understanding.

Does someone have a dull axe, maybe?

at80eighty: Ishidan: Ultimate test for the 'religiously tolerant' crowd:

what movie is that?

Apocalypto. Jesus-Freak Mel Gibson directs a movie depicting what Mayan human sacrifice looked like. That, of course, was the priest delivering the killing strike, from the victim's perspective. Such as here: Not safe for lunch

(the movie also included one poor sonofabiatch who couldn't seem to have kids, being mercilessly punked by not only his peers but his boss and his mother in law)

spamdog: at80eighty: my favorite kind of religion thread is where we debate semantic definitions that prove how we're more atheist than the other

make it stop

No one is keeping you here.

And on that note, I head off to bed

Pmoon: ttc2301: The Massengill is strong in this thread.

When I was a dog groomer we used Summer's Eve to remove the stench from dogs who got skunked. This must be what you are talking about.

Either that or he meant it's massively missing.
Of course, you'd need a fire truck hooked up to a rail tanker car to deliver sufficient amounts of Massengill for adequate de-sanding operations in this topic.

Eudeyrn: Sounds like something a person who's not much of an atheist would say.

/just sayin'

not really - once I stopped caring about religion a) I stopped getting severely butthurt over most of the ZOMG FUNDIEZZ bullcrap, and b) most certainly don't see the point in pissing contests among other non-believers - so just because I don't have a cross to bear against religion like some of you , kinda proves my point

going by the rest of the thread , seems I hit a raw nerve on a bunch of you - keep pissing against the wind, fellow friends

Newfieguy: I'd like to see them try to convert me.....

You seem very proud of how closed-minded you are.

HairBolus:

There's an article? Where do you get to that from?

Ishidan: Apocalypto

dude I saw that movie. effing trippy . looked familiar as hell , just couldn't place it momentarily. might pop it in the DVD tonight!

at80eighty: Eudeyrn: Sounds like something a person who's not much of an atheist would say.

/just sayin'

not really - once I stopped caring about religion a) I stopped getting severely butthurt over most of the ZOMG FUNDIEZZ bullcrap, and b) most certainly don't see the point in pissing contests among other non-believers - so just because I don't have a cross to bear against religion like some of you , kinda proves my point

going by the rest of the thread , seems I hit a raw nerve on a bunch of you - keep pissing against the wind, fellow friends

Erm, you realize I was joking, right? You say "this thread is full of X." I respond with X!!!, thus proving your point. It's pretty complex, I don't know if I explained it well enough.

/knock, knock

HairBolus: Jesus, Mohamed, Vishnu, Darwin, and Buddha on a pogo stick. Doesn't anybody read the article or read the comments? This whole game show concept just seems to be a trollish publicity stunt to attract attention.

Wait, do you mean to tell me that someone produced a TV show with a novel 'hook' in order to attract viewers?

Inconceivable!

180IQ: Inconceivable!




/of course

Eudeyrn: Erm, you realize I was joking, right?

I blame being distracted by this fish with human teeth :-p

HOW DO YOU LIKE THAT EVOLUTION?

at80eighty: not really - once I stopped caring about religion a) I stopped getting severely butthurt over most of the ZOMG FUNDIEZZ bullcrap, and b) most certainly don't see the point in pissing contests among other non-believers - so just because I don't have a cross to bear against religion like some of you , kinda proves my point

My not-a-god can beat up your not-a-god.

Does anybody else skim right past the long posts, and stop mainly for the pictures and funny comments?

Let's change the world tonight!!!

180IQ: Wait, do you mean to tell me that someone produced a TV show with a novel 'hook' in order to attract viewers?

Inconceivable!

No, I mean a fameish Turkish transvestite has proposed but not produced a TV show mostly to get complaints and attention but with the small chance that there might be an audience in which case the show could go into production.

For your entertainment, Gibson's idea of a fun prank in Apocalypto.
The chaos begins at 4:50. Warning, includes nudity-NSFW.

The lunk is Blunted, who has not managed to have babies, despite having a perfectly serviceable wife. His mother in law is pissed off, and when on hunts, his buddies have been razzing him mercilessly-including making him go through fertility rituals they just made up to haze him.
So the village huntselder takes him aside, gives him some fatherly words, and gives him a handful of small, red, pointy fruits that he says should help. No, no, ya dumbass, you don't eat it, and you don't use it now, hours before you get back to your wife...you rub it on your pecker, and do it right before making love. In fact, better yet, have your wife help in making sure you get this stuff well applied to your manstick. Potent, yes, very potent. Have fun tonight, buddy!

Frankly I don't even know what half of your issues are. I'm not even in the camp I'm trying to defend.

But since I was criticized as a "newbie" for coming in and arguing this, let me put you off to the Iron Chariots Wiki, a site maintained by the president of the Atheist Community of Austin, TX, which is an organization that has, for over a decade I believe now, made it their duty to try to educate people about atheism, and matters such as this, through a weekly cable access show that is now aired world-wide on the internet, a bi-weekly podcast, a monthly public lecture they provide, and other events.

While they obviously do not speak for all atheists, I think that their history and record goes to show that they're probably a bit more knowledgeable about what atheism is and isn't than most of you.

Here is what they have to say about weak (agnostic) and strong (gnostic) atheism.

The only reason I'm even bothering with this is because I know a lot of weak atheists who would be annoyed and even angered by people trying to say they were the type of atheist I am, which is a strong atheist, because they don't go as far as I do.

And with that, I'm going to bed.

HairBolus: 180IQ: Wait, do you mean to tell me that someone produced a TV show with a novel 'hook' in order to attract viewers?

Inconceivable!

No, I mean a fameish Turkish transvestite has proposed but not produced a TV show mostly to get complaints and attention but with the small chance that there might be an audience in which case the show could go into production.

I'm confused as to why you're outraged. Are you upset that a celebrity is seeking attention or are you angry because they're 'testing the market'?

Does anyone else come to religion threads and read maybe the first hundred posts or so, then get bored of the same arguments repeating ad nauseam and scroll through the rest of the thread just looking for the funny pictures?

mental_27: Does anyone else come to religion threads and read maybe the first hundred posts or so, then get bored of the same arguments repeating ad nauseam and scroll through the rest of the thread just looking for the funny pictures?

Pretty much, yeah. Though I'll admit, I do occasionally enter the fray to try and set the record straight after the inevitable theistic attempts to redefine the term 'atheism'. I see that that's already been taken care of in this thread though, more or less.

geom_00: I am a Catholic, and proud of it. I go to my church, I pray, I try to follow the Catholic way. My Difference, if you are atheist, Jewish, Muslim, Scientology, FSM man, WHATEVER your religion is. I accept it. I could care less if you worshiped satan himself. Your life is your life. Literally, sorry to quote Rodney King, but "Why can't we all get along?"

Because apparently this is the "Catholic way."

Get your fairy tales out of my life, and you'll be surprised at how well we get along.

Tatsumaki Senpuu-Kyaku!: So I turned to logic, science, philosophy and humanism. And no, these disciplines don't have the answers either, but at least they're trying.

Absolutely. It takes real guts to admit that the Universe doesn't owe you an explanation of itself, and that the answers you do find will come at the cost of great effort and frustration.

It may take faith to be a believer, but it takes courage to be an atheist.

eyehate: I guess the Mormons like to baptize you silly bastards in the grave to make sure you see the light. At least she wasn't worried about crashing a plane into a building or tying Matthew Shepard to a fence to die.

She might not've tied him up, but she damn sure helped buy the rope.

mental_27: Does anyone else come to religion threads and read maybe the first hundred posts or so, then get bored of the same arguments repeating ad nauseam and scroll through the rest of the thread just looking for the funny pictures?

Yup.
Or StopArrestingMe word searches.
Or abb3w posts.

Alas, no green blocks at all in this thread, so I'm just going to skip it.

Don't know if it's been said yet, but I don't think this show is gonna happen. I'm military in Turkey right now, and one of the first things they told us is proselytizing is illegal in this country and punishable by fines and jail time.

/atheist
//would love to go to Istanbul, though it's nice here on the Mediterranean coast

TheGreatZarquon: As a former priest, I bet I could nail a free trip to the Vatican with relative ease.

I sincerely doubt you're a former priest, at least of the Roman Catholic variety.

When did the internet ordain you? Before or after you got drunk again on a Tuesday?

geom_00: My Difference, if you are atheist, Jewish, Muslim, Scientology, FSM man, WHATEVER your religion is. I accept it. I could care less if you worshiped satan himself. Your life is your life. Literally, sorry to quote Rodney King, but "Why can't we all get along?"

Dirty liberal.

I skimmed this thread but there has not nearly been enough praise for the subby. +1, would lol again.

/In the second season they could have a priest, imam, monk, rabbi and an atheist and try and get an agnostic to give a shiate one way or the other.

belowner: I sincerely doubt you're a former priest, at least of the Roman Catholic variety.

When did the internet ordain you? Before or after you got drunk again on a Tuesday?

Look out, you pissed off a catholic!

geom_00: I am a Catholic, and proud of it. I go to my church, I pray, I try to follow the Catholic way.

My Difference, if you are atheist, Jewish, Muslim, Scientology, FSM man, WHATEVER your religion is. I accept it. I could care less if you worshiped satan himself. Your life is your life. Literally, sorry to quote Rodney King, but "Why can't we all get along?"

You'll get hit for this, grasshopper, but it's all good.

Thanks for standing up for us. We Catholics are pretty damn good in the scheme of things. Not the best, not the worst, but overall positive.

Thank you.

/we aren't fundies.

People...

Atheism: Something that can't ever be proven correct.

Belief in your god: Something that can't ever be proven correct.

Pick a side, STFU, and stop trying to convert others.

spamdog: Look out, you pissed off a catholic!

Meh, I'm one already. He's a liar.

Liars and Catholics probably have plenty company on Fark.

belowner: He's a liar.

Liars and Catholics probably have plenty company on Fark.

What a great person you are.

Monty845: While we are at it, it would be a good idea to clarify what it means to be an athiest...

(snip)

If we are to follow the dictionary, an athiest is anyone who does not believe in a diety. But in common usage today, Athiesm typically means the active rejection, and not mere lack of beleif in all dieties, and furhter, all other religious beliefs. No spiritualism, no wicanism, etc...

Atheism is an absence of belief in gods. Period. That's it. That's all of atheism. Whether the atheist proclaims "there are no gods" or says "I have never seen any reason to believe in gods" does not matter. Atheism is an absence of belief in gods, and nothing more.

kleppe: SpaceLord: geom_00: I am a Catholic, and proud of it. I go to my church, I pray, I try to follow thI've heard more atheists and agnostics on Fark quote scripture than any Christian evangelist.

That's probably because atheists and agnostics often know more about the various Holy Books (not just the bible) than the people who believe in that stuff. Ditto WRT history.

HairBolus: Do you think he/she actually has religious judges copacetic with him/her and the show concept, or

Maybe this is just a big publicity stunt

What reality TV show isn't a big publicity stunt?

Monty845: Words change over time, don't tell me I'm wrong just because I don't use the word they way you like.

So use the words any way you like. Just don't expect other people to understand what you're saying.

These days, "atheism" means absence of belief in gods.

Uncle Tractor: Monty845: Words change over time, don't tell me I'm wrong just because I don't use the word they way you like.

So use the words any way you like. Just don't expect other people to understand what you're saying.

These days, "atheism" means absence of belief in gods.


"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't - till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

What said game show may look like (new window)

Uncle Tractor: Monty845: Words change over time, don't tell me I'm wrong just because I don't use the word they way you like.

So use the words any way you like. Just don't expect other people to understand what you're saying.

These days, "atheism" means absence of belief in gods.

Also these days exists a spate of douchebags who keep coming to fark.com and professing to be "Buddhist-Atheists" and "Wiccan-Atheists" and "Pagan-Atheists" and whatever bullshiat "spiritualism" they can wedge into -atheism so long as it doesn't have a mean bummer of a deity and a bunch of rules, man.

Anyone professing to me to be an atheist and then pulls out their deck of Tarot cards is begging for a crotch-punch.

spamdog: What a great person you are.

I give, are you a liar or a Catholic? Because I'm a Catholic. I'm a good old-fashioned Catholic who still goes to church. I actually LIKE going to church - it's a calm I don't find anywhere else.

And I have plenty of company here.

The asshole who claimed he was an ex-priest who could get into the Vatican also has plenty of company here. He was wrong to claim he was a priest, but plenty people will give him a pass.

But he's a liar, or he at least wasn't clear about what religion he was an "ex-priest" of. The Vatican is worse about ex-Catholic priests than they are about Protestant priests who want to do research. He wouldn't be allowed in, but he would know that if he was actually an ex-priest.

He lied.

We cannot be content in our own self-conscious absurdity unless everyone else acts equally absurd. So long as you have your essential human dignity, we must be ashamed of having none of our own. So long as there is a masterless man, we slaves must still be conscious of our own bondage.

Bleh. I can't decide whether it's the pathetically offensive premise of the show, or its clear ratings-grab cynicism that I find more distasteful.

Stopped reading at this gem "We don't approve of anyone being an atheist"

Choke on a giant atheist cack.

We are giving the biggest prize in the world, the gift of belief in God

Wouldn't the biggest prize be proof?

The trick would be to go onto the show and say to the four "Yes, I'm going to convert - but I'm going to convert to the *best* religion. Now prove yours is the best..."

Has anyone ever noticed how unrealistic reality shows are?

This thread is wayyy too long and no one's likley to read my little measly comment, but whatever. I'm writing it down:

I don't like (most)atheists because they talk about religion more than anyone I know. Which stands to reason, because they're against it.

Let me put it another way. If I like Apple Pie, and you like Apple Pie, or neither of us have strong opinions about Apple Pie there's nothing to talk about.

But if you meet someone who hates apple pie; apple pie just pisses them off - the filling, the crust, the hypocrisy of it being "american".... GUESS WHAT THEY TALK ABOUT CONSTANTLY?!!? Apple Farking Pie....

Now I'm not knocking all atheists or whatever, I don't care, if you get my point you already got it. But for most of you there's a better term... Haters.

/Peace
//I'm out like parachute pants.

biglot: We are giving the biggest prize in the world, the gift of belief in God

Wouldn't the biggest prize be proof?

you know - that's a good way of looking at it, given the 'absence of proof' thing

JQPublic: Uncle Tractor: Monty845: Words change over time, don't tell me I'm wrong just because I don't use the word they way you like.

So use the words any way you like. Just don't expect other people to understand what you're saying.

These days, "atheism" means absence of belief in gods.

Also these days exists a spate of douchebags who keep coming to fark.com and professing to be "Buddhist-Atheists" and "Wiccan-Atheists" and "Pagan-Atheists" and whatever bullshiat "spiritualism" they can wedge into -atheism so long as it doesn't have a mean bummer of a deity and a bunch of rules, man.

Anyone professing to me to be an atheist and then pulls out their deck of Tarot cards is begging for a crotch-punch.

I have to say that I suspect that to be not so much a flaw in the character of the people involved as a flaw in the entire epistemology of self-labeling. If one is actually a formal member of some organized group, it may be appropriate. But if you aren't, the exercise of attempting to find a proper name to call yourself can be pretty futile and time-wasting. I gave up on it a long time ago, myself.
I call myself a non-believer, and leave it at that. If you want to call me something else, feel free. It's not like I haven't been called plenty of things over the course of my life.

180IQ: I'm confused as to why you're outraged. Are you upset that a celebrity is seeking attention or are you angry because they're 'testing the market'?

I am outraged by all the stupid Farktards who so despairingly appear to need an opportunity to spew out their pro or anti religious opinions that they won't acknowledge that the article they are commenting on is about a publicity stunt by a transvestite proposing an imaginary religious game show.

Researcher: This thread is wayyy too long and no one's likley to read my little measly comment, but whatever. I'm writing it down:

I don't like (most)atheists because they talk about religion more than anyone I know. Which stands to reason, because they're against it.

Let me put it another way. If I like Apple Pie, and you like Apple Pie, or neither of us have strong opinions about Apple Pie there's nothing to talk about.

But if you meet someone who hates apple pie; apple pie just pisses them off - the filling, the crust, the hypocrisy of it being "american".... GUESS WHAT THEY TALK ABOUT CONSTANTLY?!!? Apple Farking Pie....

Now I'm not knocking all atheists or whatever, I don't care, if you get my point you already got it. But for most of you there's a better term... Haters.

/Peace
//I'm out like parachute pants.

This is odd, to me - I've seen it before , but don't understand it. An individual comes into a thread, and makes a few comments - comments on the subject, that would seem to invite discussion. Then, they state that they have nothing more to say, and that they are leaving.
I can't say I find the behavior objectionable - but it strikes me as oddly purposeless. Why do people do this? Why post at all?
I'm honestly not criticizing - just questioning.

HairBolus: 180IQ: I'm confused as to why you're outraged. Are you upset that a celebrity is seeking attention or are you angry because they're 'testing the market'?

I am outraged by all the stupid Farktards who so despairingly appear to need an opportunity to spew out their pro or anti religious opinions that they won't acknowledge that the article they are commenting on is about a publicity stunt by a transvestite proposing an imaginary religious game show.

And now, folks, it's time for "Stump the Inquisitor"! And here's our host, Eddie Izzard!

I want to play, I am an atheist and a Buddhist so clearly I can go to Tibet since I will "convert" to Buddhism...

Seriously, though, Buddhists have tons of holy sites in India that are far more spiritually important than Tibet, places where Siddharta Gautama actually lived and walked. Why Tibet? It's only important to Tibetan Buddhism and not even the most important area.

skinnyartist:

But since I was criticized as a "newbie" for coming in and arguing this, let me put you off to the Iron Chariots Wiki, a site maintained by the president of the Atheist Community of Austin, TX, which is an organization that has, for over a decade I believe now, made it their duty to try to educate people about atheism, and matters such as this, through a weekly cable access show that is now aired world-wide on the internet, a bi-weekly podcast, a monthly public lecture they provide, and other events.


they aren't using one of those low frequency, regional internet transmitters? these guys must be legit...

/random snark
//nothing of value to add to this discussion

JQPublic: Uncle Tractor: Monty845: Words change over time, don't tell me I'm wrong just because I don't use the word they way you like.

So use the words any way you like. Just don't expect other people to understand what you're saying.

These days, "atheism" means absence of belief in gods.

Also these days exists a spate of douchebags who keep coming to fark.com and professing to be "Buddhist-Atheists" and "Wiccan-Atheists" and "Pagan-Atheists" and whatever bullshiat "spiritualism" they can wedge into -atheism so long as it doesn't have a mean bummer of a deity and a bunch of rules, man.

Anyone professing to me to be an atheist and then pulls out their deck of Tarot cards is begging for a crotch-punch.

Dude. Atheist means lack of a belief IN A GOD. Not lack of a belief in a RELIGION. You are areligious/aspiritual and atheist. I am religious and atheist. You are adding all sorts of extra definitions to atheist, when in fact it's very simple-- anyone who does not believe in a god is an atheist, even if they believe in reincarnation, Tarot, or throwing salt over their shoulder for good luck.

That's why the term "secular humanist" exists-- because atheists who also don't believe in anything that cannot be proven by human experience realized atheist was too broad a term and decided to distinguish themselves from the Buddhists, who have never believed in a god of any sort but who can't really be lumped in with people who truly reject all spiritualism. That doesn't make Buddhism theist.

geom_00: I am a Catholic, and proud of it. I go to my church, I pray, I try to follow the Catholic way.

My Difference, if you are atheist, Jewish, Muslim, Scientology, FSM man, WHATEVER your religion is. I accept it. I couldn't care less if you worshiped satan himself. Your life is your life. Literally, sorry to quote Rodney King, but "Why can't we all get along?"


FTFM

I'm a Gozer worshiper, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies...

Of course, Gozer's fictional, which means I'm really an atheist. And I keep seeing the same theme in these threads; Atheists and low-key religious type asking "Why do some people feel the need to convert others to their religion?"

The answer lies in the selfish nature of the people who do this. People proselytize and witness for one of two reasons:

1. To get money and material rewards.
2. To earn favor with God in a desperate attempt to bump themselves up to First Class in Heaven/the afterworld.

These are the only two reasons, and they aren't mutually exclusive. Usually, it's one or the other, but sometimes you run into a deluded believer who thinks his god WANTS him to be rich, but also truly believes they're earning brownie points and a better seat at the Afterworld Buffet.

When a person goes door-to-door trying to change people's beliefs, they're doing it because they want guaranteed entry to Heaven, and because they want praise and favor from their god.

When a person hands out Bibles at a gay and lesbian pride festival, it's because they think that every soul they convert to Christianity (and thus away from homosexuality) is worth points on God's magic notepad.

When a person forms a ministry, preaches mostly about salvation from doom and focuses on conversion sermons instead of sermons aimed at the faithful, they're probably doing it for the extra butts in seats that will empty their wallets in the collection plate, buy the baptismal fountain replica, and donate to get the videos explaining how the End Times are upon us.

Nobody, but NOBODY, takes the time, effort and energy to convert people because they're truly worried about other people's fate. They don't give a shiat about you. When they say, "I'll pray for you." that's their condescending bullshiat way of saying "F*ck you. You're jeopardizing my spot in Heaven." or, more commonly, "I think I'm better than you, because you're a heathen, but I'll be vindicated when you burn for eternity."

"I'll pray for you." is the polite way to say, "I hate that you exist to remind me of my own religious doubts."

So that's it: It's all about GETTING SOMETHING. Nobody does the conversion thing without thinking about what they get in return. It's just simple human greed wrapped in fake sentimentality and dosed with an emotionally-crippling fear of death.

I'm guessing the "contestants" on this game/reality show will be paid actors rather than actual atheists.

Erm. Isn't this like trying to convert a Chemical Engineer into a high school drop out?

Outtaphase: Never heard if this one was real or parody. So hard to discern sometimes.

I want this on a t-shirt.

eyehate: Why the hate, religious people? What is wrong with us enjoying this life and not believing and worshipping your God?

FALL IN LINE!

You will OBEY their decrees and GIVE THEM MONEY when they ask (they ask every sunday).

Now STFU and hand over your life in exchange for a prize after your life is over. Do NOT look behind the curtain.

the_sidewinder: I think I should introduce you to some proper terminology

Gnostic Theist: Basically this means deeply devout, they KNOW there is a god, they are quite explicit about it

Agnostic Theist: This is what I see most Canadians as. They hold religious beliefs, and may even go to church, but they are not devout, and simply take the religion that was handed to them. They are a live and let live bunch, but, if pressed, would posit that a deity would be inherently unknowable.

Agnostic: Simply a person that lives by the thought that a god may or may not exist, that their existance would be intrinsically unknowable.

Agnostic Atheist: Again, posits that you can't be sure if there is a god or not, but tends to lean to the probably not side of things. They don't believe in a god, but they cannot be sure that one does not exist. They mesh with Weak Atheists

Weak Atheist: Seen as kinda of a default state, before religious indoctrination. Weak atheists can be described as: does not believe in a god because they have not been made aware of the existence of one; Agnostic Atheist; or pretty much any for of atheism that does not fall under Gnostic/Strong Atheism.

Gnostic/Strong Atheists: They posit that there is absolutely no god. They are explicit about this.

I describe myself as an "Apathetic Agnostic".

Is there a God? Don't know. Don't care.

Mayhem_2006: The trick would be to go onto the show and say to the four "Yes, I'm going to convert - but I'm going to convert to the *best* religion. Now prove yours is the best..."

THAT would be funny!

Researcher: This thread is wayyy too long and no one's likley to read my little measly comment, but whatever. I'm writing it down:

I don't like (most)atheists because they talk about religion more than anyone I know. Which stands to reason, because they're against it.

Let me put it another way. If I like Apple Pie, and you like Apple Pie, or neither of us have strong opinions about Apple Pie there's nothing to talk about.

But if you meet someone who hates apple pie; apple pie just pisses them off - the filling, the crust, the hypocrisy of it being "american".... GUESS WHAT THEY TALK ABOUT CONSTANTLY?!!? Apple Farking Pie....

Now I'm not knocking all atheists or whatever, I don't care, if you get my point you already got it. But for most of you there's a better term... Haters.

/Peace
//I'm out like parachute pants.

Yeah, I know what you mean. Like that Ghandi guy, always speaking out against violence. Or Martin Luthur King Jr. with his: Look at me! I don't like racism! Or Mother Therea constantly whining about starvation? How frigging annoying can these people be?!?

OK, back to reality. I'm not saying that the average atheist equates to one of these esteemed personages, but I do believe there's a common motivation. The average atheist I've know speaks out against organized religion because they view it as an unnecessary evil ... like racism, like violence, like starvation. You, as a follower of organized religion, obviously disagree. Which is fine -- I'm sure many of southern white plantation owners never saw Slavery in a negative light either.

Either way, your Apple Pie analogy fails at this test because it's a rather neutral element -- unless of course you're battling obesity.

/not atheistic
//definitely not a fan of organized religion
///most atheists I know have put far more thought into their spirituality than most organized religion followers I know
////please note the quantifier "most" in the line above.

Would not approve and I doubt his Boss would.



That's not the way to do it.

Blink: OK, back to reality. I'm not saying that the average atheist equates to one of these esteemed personages, but I do believe there's a common motivation. The average atheist I've know speaks out against organized religion because they view it as an unnecessary evil ... like racism, like violence, like starvation. You, as a follower of organized religion, obviously disagree. Which is fine -- I'm sure many of southern white plantation owners never saw Slavery in a negative light either.

So you equate Organized religion with the institute of Slavery? Holy fark do you need help because not only have you managed to insult about 90% of the planet but you diminished a brutal inhumane institution to being similar to something families dress up in their "nice clothes" to do on a Sunday afternoon.

That comparison is not quite as offensive as the idea of this Game show, however, yours was just an ignorant spewage; this is actually attempting to market and make a proffit off of peoples deeply held beliefs.

It's little different from the type of thing Martin Luther rebelled against, quite similar to what Christ himself raged about amongst the markets. It's a disgrace and a stupid TV idea. I hope if fails and never attempts to cross the pond over to the US.

skinnyartist: That's like telling a biologist to stop using their fancy words because you don't understand them.

You're just an atheist because your ribosome cell membranes allow homologous gametes to diffuse, leaving behind only hyperosmotic leucocytes.


HairBolus: Jesus, Mohamed, Vishnu, Darwin, and Buddha on a pogo stick. Doesn't anybody read the article or read the comments? This whole game show concept just seems to be a trollish publicity stunt to attract attention.

Approximately everyone ceased caring about the farking article before you said it the first time. You can settle down now.


skinnyartist: The only reason I'm even bothering with this is because I know a lot of weak atheists who would be annoyed and even angered by people trying to say they were the type of atheist I am, which is a strong atheist, because they don't go as far as I do.

I'd be annoyed mainly because the same kind of people who desire to conflate definitions are the same ones who do it with "theory" and are rarely the same type who would say "why yes, using only two one-word labels is a flawless way to identify the varied beliefs of a billion+ people" if you were bringing Christianity into play. Arguing the point tends to mean you don't want to know because it's easier to make blanket statements about people if you don't have all these "nuances" to keep in mind.

With you, I'd rather have a conversation as to the philosophical nitty-gritty, the same way I would with KiltedBastich's weakest-weak-that-ever-did-weak form of deism.


Researcher: Let me put it another way. If I like Apple Pie, and you like Apple Pie, or neither of us have strong opinions about Apple Pie there's nothing to talk about.

But if you meet someone who hates apple pie; apple pie just pisses them off - the filling, the crust, the hypocrisy of it being "american".... GUESS WHAT THEY TALK ABOUT CONSTANTLY?!!? Apple Farking Pie....

Now what if large swaths of society were trying to pass legislation that Apple Pie be the mandatory desert at all eating establishments, because this is America, dammit! What if large portions of society said you were immoral if you didn't like Apple Pie, and wouldn't trust you? What if certain organizations received public funding for social efforts, provided Apple Pie would be distributed? What if every local radio market had multiple stations extolling the virtues of Apple Pie, warning you away from other kinds of pie, and reinforcing the negative opinion of those who didn't like Apple Pie? What if the liking of Apple Pie was basically a requirement to holding public office, and major debates in the media would erupt if even a hint of non-Apple-Pie-loving were brought among prominent public officials? What if Apple Pie were printed on your money and chanted every day by schoolchildren? What if matters associated with Apple Pie loving are forced in by school councils to affect their science education?

...wouldn't you expect the subject might come up more often?

Researcher: But if you meet someone who hates apple pie; apple pie just pisses them off - the filling, the crust, the hypocrisy of it being "american".... GUESS WHAT THEY TALK ABOUT CONSTANTLY?!!? Apple Farking Pie....

It's not about pie, dumbshiat.

wildcardjack: SynthLord: And where my Hindus at?

Hinduism is one of the things that made me stop believing in the idea of a god. I learned about just how many gods there were in current circulation and are the one and only, and I realized that this can't be right, it's all about what people are brought up around.

And that's sort of why the religious leaders freak out when they hear outspoken atheists. It's one thing to have parishioners sit back and chuckle at all the masks of the one true God, it's another thing to have atheists saying "The great wizard of Oz is a little prick behind the curtain".

"Two men say they're Jesus; one of 'em must be wrong."
-Mark Knopfler, Industrial Disease

Man On Pink Corner: Researcher: But if you meet someone who hates apple pie; apple pie just pisses them off - the filling, the crust, the hypocrisy of it being "american".... GUESS WHAT THEY TALK ABOUT CONSTANTLY?!!? Apple Farking Pie....

It's not about pie, dumbshiat.


No, it's about having religion forced down our throats. It's about being run out of town ^{(^)} because we don't wiggle on the floor in praise of your favorite deity. It's about asking for people to allow us to live in peace, and the response being preachers telling us to STFU ^{(^)}, or being told that we aren't even human ^{(^)}.

I'm sure that if you were treated that way, you would sit back, smile, and say that it was the way of the universe to be treated like shiat. Great. You're a saint. Some of us get pissed off, though.

SynthLord: Wait a minute ...

What happens when you put a Muslim imam, a Christian priest, a rabbi and a Buddhist monk in a room with 10 atheists?

Isn't Buddhism atheistic, or at best agnostic?

And where my Hindus at?

Not quite. While Buddhism has a "heaven" (called Nirvana), and believes in rebirth, The premise is the teachings of a man. They have no "supreme god" per se, but a series of beliefs and teachings on how to attain Nirvana. Just because it has no supreme god does not make it atheistic (Could consider Karma a type of god). More is revealed here: Link (new window)

vertiaset: Atheists love it when they can shake the faith of a religious person, they call it "deconversion" and laugh about it amongst themselves. Why? I have no idea.

I am an atheist, I don't care what others believe, and I have never tried or even heard of this "deconversion," let alone laughed over it. Most of the atheists I associate with aren't evangelical about it; we just want to go about our non-religious business, which we would prefer the busybodies and the fundamentalists to stay out of.

SundaesChild: I am an atheist, I don't care what others believe, and I have never tried or even heard of this "deconversion," let alone laughed over it. Most of the atheists I associate with aren't evangelical about it; we just want to go about our non-religious business, which we would prefer the busybodies and the fundamentalists to stay out of.

There's a site thus-named, where these evil bastards hang out, and create a community to help support each other through the frequently painful process of coming to terms with your loss of faith, and the fallout it causes with friends, family, and community.

The evil bastards!

jso2897: This is odd, to me - I've seen it before , but don't understand it. An individual comes into a thread, and makes a few comments - comments on the subject, that would seem to invite discussion. Then, they state that they have nothing more to say, and that they are leaving.
I can't say I find the behavior objectionable - but it strikes me as oddly purposeless. Why do people do this? Why post at all?
I'm honestly not criticizing - just questioning.

I find the behavior objectionable, because it's passive-aggressive and kinda douchey. It incites discussion or argument, but does not deliver. It's a hit-and-run. It's a way of saying what you want to say, while somehow absolving yourself of having to read other comments, or defend your positions. It's the equivalent of picking up the phone, yelling something and someone, and hanging up. This whole thread approach is made worse by *telling* people that you're leaving, in effect given you the opportunity to have the last word--or, at least, the last word you claim to read.

It's just rather assholish, really.

/and with that, I'm out
//or am I? Would I even tell you?

Good to see comedy TV is still alive and well.

Uncle Tractor: These days, "atheism" means absence of belief in gods.

Which is why it is a meaningless concept. Everyone believes in a god or gods. Yes, even you. It may be a high, distant god whose nature was taught to you by your ancestors. It could be an esoteric concept of justice and rightousness, worked out over generations of legalistic argumentation. It could be a charismatic preacher whom you think has taught you the meaning of life. It could be an idol of stone, or an idol of flesh that you value above all other things. It could be nothing more than your own pride.

But you DO worship it, whatever it is. You worship it because it is your nature to do so. To be human is to believe.

Mouser: It could be an idol of stone, or an idol of flesh that you value above all other things.

Researcher: But if you meet someone who hates apple pie; apple pie just pisses them off - the filling, the crust, the hypocrisy of it being "american"... GUESS WHAT THEY TALK ABOUT CONSTANTLY?!!? Apple Farking Pie...
Ah, a fellow apple pie lover!
Do tell me, do you hold as your favorite the One True Apple Pie?
I mean, surely you recognize that the true Apple Pie may only be made with fresh apples which are both red and green, and have a crust featuring a crosshatched pattern and a brown sugar glaze. Anything else is just a false apple pie, in my opinion.
Why, I've heard of some people who use apples which are only green in their apple pies, can you believe it? You know, whatchu call em, Granny Smiths instead of Bramleys. Geehha. I once saw somebody bake a pie without a lattice top, it just had this kind of crumbly stuff on top. It was an abomination, we had to exile him for his disgusting behavior. I go to the store, and what do I see-canned apple pie filling?!? What an abomination that is, you can't tell what kind of apples are in it, and you're really paying somebody else to do the work that is necessary to properly appreciate the glory which is Apple Pie. You think that canned apple pie filling will get you a proper Apple Pie? I think not! No man who uses canned apple pie filling shall ever understand the full glory of apple pie. And why ruin the glory of apple pie by adding ice cream or whipped cream on the same plate? Is not the apple pie the lord of all desserts? Exalt the apple pie, and have no other desserts upon it.

Oh wait...you say you like crumb topped apple pie made from canned filling, served ala mode?

Well...I guess it doesn't really matter what apple pie you like, so long as you believe in apple pie.

And agree with us that no man should ever even consider partaking of pecan pie.

Researcher: This thread is wayyy too long and no one's likley to read my little measly comment, but whatever. I'm writing it down:

I don't like (most)atheists because they talk about religion more than anyone I know. Which stands to reason, because they're against it.

Let me put it another way. If I like Apple Pie, and you like Apple Pie, or neither of us have strong opinions about Apple Pie there's nothing to talk about.

But if you meet someone who hates apple pie; apple pie just pisses them off - the filling, the crust, the hypocrisy of it being "american".... GUESS WHAT THEY TALK ABOUT CONSTANTLY?!!? Apple Farking Pie....

Now I'm not knocking all atheists or whatever, I don't care, if you get my point you already got it. But for most of you there's a better term... Haters.

/Peace
//I'm out like parachute pants.

I just want to state that as an atheist myself I almost never "talk" about religion with anyone ever. I don't know where you work or what your family is like, or who your friends are but I have only ever argued about my stance on god or 'believe/lack of believe/I'm an atheist/no you're not your agnostic/Gnostic -atheist/anti-theist/theistic- atheist/this this the dictionary definition/this is the fark definition/you believe in fairy tales/blah blah blah' on internet message boards.
So sorry if I declare bullshiat on your claim that "(most)atheists talk about religion more than anyone I know" because I personally have never been proselytized by an atheist but have most certainly been by a theist.

If a man also eateth with pecan, as he eateth with Apple, he hath committed an abomination.

maddogdelta: Mayhem_2006: The trick would be to go onto the show and say to the four "Yes, I'm going to convert - but I'm going to convert to the *best* religion. Now prove yours is the best..."

THAT would be funny!

YES! I'd love to see that.

skinnyartist: JQPublic: Like I said, you're playing a semantics game. The dictionary literal meaning versus contempory implied meaning. If you want to be a Jedi, you go ahead, but please don't try to feign intelligence by claiming to be a Jedi-Atheist...or a Buddhist-Atheist...or a Wiccan-Atheist...or a Pagan-Atheist...because those are bullshiat, too.

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this.

An atheist isn't making a claim about the existence or non-existence of a god. They simply do not believe the claims. That is call non-belief.

Except atheism is denial of existence or disbelief in ANY "God", and ALL "Gods" or "Deities". Which is how it is defined in the dictionary and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Defining "atheism" as a "lack of belief" is an irrational, untenable bullshiat semantic position that contemporary atheists are trying to play. Babies, rocks, trees, cats and dogs "lack belief". Rational people are able to look at reality and existence and either take a philosophical position. Or, if they choose, intentionally ignore it from either side as a meaningless, endless, pointless, non-falsifiable argument from either position and complete distraction from other things (e.g. Buddhist non-theism).

THAT's why even vocal atheist advocates think defining atheism as a "lack of belief" is a bullshiat semantic game being played buy naive ignorant neo-atheists to imply anyone who isn't a strong theists must be an atheist. But, people (including many atheists in the sciences and philosophy) are able to see it for the complete bullshiat it is. That's why we have agnosticism, non-theism, ignosticism and other definitions that ARE NOT atheism or theism. No matter how much you cry about it or insist that only "atheists who agree with you" get to define what atheism is....



People can see through the bullshiat.

"Remember kids! In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."
~Stephen Colbert

/while you're at it.... grow up....

CanisNoir:

So you equate Organized religion with the institute of Slavery? Holy fark do you need help because not only have you managed to insult about 90% of the planet but you diminished a brutal inhumane institution to being similar to something families dress up in their "nice clothes" to do on a Sunday afternoon.

That comparison is not quite as offensive as the idea of this Game show, however, yours was just an ignorant spewage; this is actually attempting to market and make a proffit off of peoples deeply held beliefs.

It's little different from the type of thing Martin Luther rebelled against, quite similar to what Christ himself raged about amongst the markets. It's a disgrace and a stupid TV idea. I hope if fails and never attempts to cross the pond over to the US.

You're being quite one-dimensional here. Let's talk more about Slavery, shall we? Slavery was, for many, a good thing. Imagine if you received housing, security, and were treated well -- as long as you completed the tasks assigned to you. That's actually an upgrade for the sorry state most working joes are in right now. You don't have to worry about being fired. You don't have to worry about whether you'll be able to afford food. Etc, etc.

For many, that WAS the reality of Slavery. In fact, when emancipation occurred, many of those slaves were thrown out into the streets with absolutely no way to fend for themselves. They descended into poverty -- and many of their descendants remain as such to this day.

Now, I'm obviously leaving off the many negative aspects of slavery -- but I think we all know what those were. What I'm getting at is that an argument could've been made for Slavery at one time for the Positive aspects it supplied.

This is very similar to Organized Religion. I won't deny many religious organizations achieve positive, society-improving accomplishments. But like Slavery, organized religion has a very dark side.

Due to organized religion, many of history's wars and the atrocities committed therein can be attributed to religious practices. Due to organized religion, homosexuals are treated like criminals because they are different -- never mind the fact that gay people don't hurt anyone -- but still organized religions dictate we should shun and discriminate against them. Due to organized religion, scientific advances are stunted and dissuaded. I can go on and on.

The point is that Organized Religion is a crutch for keeping inclusive members up and others down. And that sounds strikingly like many of the major disagreements with Slavery that most people have. I apologize that you're offended.

Ooh, let's act superior to those OTHER people!

/works both ways

Mouser: Uncle Tractor: These days, "atheism" means absence of belief in gods.

Which is why it is a meaningless concept. Everyone believes in a god or gods. Yes, even you. It may be a high, distant god whose nature was taught to you by your ancestors. It could be an esoteric concept of justice and rightousness, worked out over generations of legalistic argumentation. It could be a charismatic preacher whom you think has taught you the meaning of life. It could be an idol of stone, or an idol of flesh that you value above all other things. It could be nothing more than your own pride.

But you DO worship it, whatever it is. You worship it because it is your nature to do so. To be human is to believe.

You,

Are an idiot, who does not understand the first thing about Atheism at all.

It is a lack of theistic belief.
IE: No dogma, no magic, no mythological creations.

eyehate: Eudeyrn: That's only because all of those start with consonants, except for Asian. Anything sounds bad when you try to stick "an" before a consonant.

Copy/pasta - my bad.

Copy pasta? Is this a new Italian dish?

FieroEtnl: delphi_ote: geom_00: I am a Catholic, and proud of it... WHATEVER your religion is. I accept it."

What about a religion that believes in raping children? Is that cool?

Then I guess Islam believes in terrorism and jihad. For that matter, every pro-life follower condones killing people who give abortions and pro-choice followers believe that it is okay to forcibly abort children. Is that truly the case for these groups?

Come on. Just because a small fraction of people in one group do something, regardless of what that group is, does not mean that the entire group condones radical actions and beliefs. No matter what group it is, there are always people who take things way too far. Even atheists.

Funny how you responded to the first part of what I wrote, but not the rest. Go back and read it again. Get back to me if you can tell me how you filter out patently absurd nonsense from religious truth. Then we'll talk.

kerpal32: skinnyartist: JQPublic: Like I said, you're playing a semantics game. The dictionary literal meaning versus contempory implied meaning. If you want to be a Jedi, you go ahead, but please don't try to feign intelligence by claiming to be a Jedi-Atheist...or a Buddhist-Atheist...or a Wiccan-Atheist...or a Pagan-Atheist...because those are bullshiat, too.

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this.

An atheist isn't making a claim about the existence or non-existence of a god. They simply do not believe the claims. That is call non-belief.

Except atheism is denial of existence or disbelief in ANY "God", and ALL "Gods" or "Deities". Which is how it is defined in the dictionary and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Defining "atheism" as a "lack of belief" is an irrational, untenable bullshiat semantic position that contemporary atheists are trying to play. Babies, rocks, trees, cats and dogs "lack belief". Rational people are able to look at reality and existence and either take a philosophical position. Or, if they choose, intentionally ignore it from either side as a meaningless, endless, pointless, non-falsifiable argument from either position and complete distraction from other things (e.g. Buddhist non-theism).

THAT's why even vocal atheist advocates think defining atheism as a "lack of belief" is a bullshiat semantic game being played buy naive ignorant neo-atheists to imply anyone who isn't a strong theists must be an atheist. But, people (including many atheists in the sciences and philosophy) are able to see it for the complete bullshiat it is. That's why we have agnosticism, non-theism, ignosticism and other definitions that ARE NOT atheism or theism. No matter how much you cry about it or insist that only "atheists who agree with you" get to define what atheism is....



People can see through the bullshiat.

"Remember kids! In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."
~Stephen Colbert

/while you're at it.... grow up....


Still regurgitating the same old vomit I see. No matter how many time's you're beaten you still come back. Got to admire your tenacity though.

Kliffoth: Still regurgitating the same old vomit I see. No matter how many time's you're beaten you still come back. Got to admire your tenacity though.

Sorry if you can't handle the truth. No matter how many times you have your ignorant ass kicked in public forums with it. Even by other atheists.

My favorite is when ignorant people like your pal Zamboro think being anti-theistic is like being an abolitionist; or when people like skinnyartist think theism is responsible for everything bad in life and if he just acts like a militant e-thug long enough and loud enough everyone will agree with him. Because any moron can rationalize their bigotries and hate when they think they have a moral imperative.

Sorry man. Atheism IS just a philosophical position. No matter how much you try to convince people otherwise, even many quite rational and vocal atheists can see that. If you are a scientist you have to be a methodological naturalist (i.e., assume for operative purposes that nature and natural laws are all that there is); but this doesn't commit you to the stronger position of philosophical naturalism (i.e., to the claim that there really isn't anything outside of nature and its laws). That requires a philosophical position.

Trying to include "lack of belief" as a definition of atheism is just a bullshiat semantic game by ignorant people.


maybe you should go grab an ice cube for your brain. Or switch to another alias. Or accuse me of being anyone (including atheists) on Fark who points out the truth about your views to you.

kerpal32: Sorry if you can't handle the truth. No matter how many times you have your ignorant ass kicked in public forums with it. Even by other atheists.


Wow nice projection there.


My favorite is when ignorant people like your pal Zamboro think being anti-theistic is like being an abolitionist; or when people like skinnyartist think theism is responsible for everything bad in life and if he just acts like a militant e-thug long enough and loud enough everyone will agree with him. Because any moron can rationalize their bigotries and hate when they think they have a moral imperative.


Zamboro is my pal? I don't know the guy at all apart from what he's posted on FARK. Oh right IT"S A BIG CONSPIRACY ALL THE MEAN ATHEISTS ARE GANGING UP ON POOR LITTLE YOUUUUU! Cry me a river you poor little victim you.


Sorry man. Atheism IS just a philosophical position. No matter how much you try to convince people otherwise, even many quite rational and vocal atheists can see that. If you are a scientist you have to be a methodological naturalist (i.e., assume for operative purposes that nature and natural laws are all that there is); but this doesn't commit you to the stronger position of philosophical naturalism (i.e., to the claim that there really isn't anything outside of nature and its laws). That requires a philosophical position.

Show me some evidence. Repeating the same shiat over and over doesn't make it true. Where have I tried to convice people otherwise, considering I've seen nobody agree with all your shiat? You're full of shiat, that's what I'm saying. I've seen your same tired garbage debunked in multiple threads by multiple people.


maybe you should go grab an ice cube for your brain. Or switch to another alias. Or accuse me of being anyone (including atheists) on Fark who points out the truth about your views to you.


My other aliases? This is my sole FARK account and has always been. You are a pathetic, paranoid, little man aren't you?

I also don't get all this 'other Atheists kicked your ass' BS. Never has any other Atheist 'kicked my ass'. I don't even recall any other Atheists taking issue with anything I've said.

Just keep making shiat up though, I realise it's all you have, you poor, sad, little victim you.

Most for-profit (let's be honest here) religions require that their members recruit in order to fully live up to their faith.

Kliffoth:

kerpal32: Sorry man. Atheism IS just a philosophical position. No matter how much you try to convince people otherwise, even many quite rational and vocal atheists can see that. If you are a scientist you have to be a methodological naturalist (i.e., assume for operative purposes that nature and natural laws are all that there is); but this doesn't commit you to the stronger position of philosophical naturalism (i.e., to the claim that there really isn't anything outside of nature and its laws). That requires a philosophical position.

Show me some evidence. Repeating the same shiat over and over doesn't make it true. Where have I tried to convice people otherwise, considering I've seen nobody agree with all your shiat? You're full of shiat, that's what I'm saying. I've seen your same tired garbage debunked in multiple threads by multiple people.

Evidence of what? That atheism is based on materialism and philosophical naturalism? That atheism tends towards skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence. Or do you deny that Naturalism is a philosophical position that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws....

I'm sorry, are you denying this? Do you even know what the fark you're talking about or what position you're taking? What about the other atheists who make the same comments as I do? Or as usual, are you just showing you "have a bug up your ass" about anything I post.

Or are you just arguing my point for me by demanding "evidence" of this....

lmao.



Seriously, doesn't it bother you to be metaphorically kicked in the nuts repeatedly in public forums and shown to be a complete idiot every time you post?

It still boggles my mind that religion is still more than a passing curiosity in 1st world countries. If you're living in a shack in a 3rd world country and need a "god" to help you get through the day, I get it. Otherwise, let it go. Like the VCR or 8 track tapes.

Muad'dibs Ghola: Mouser: Uncle Tractor: These days, "atheism" means absence of belief in gods.

Which is why it is a meaningless concept. Everyone believes in a god or gods. Yes, even you. It may be a high, distant god whose nature was taught to you by your ancestors. It could be an esoteric concept of justice and rightousness, worked out over generations of legalistic argumentation. It could be a charismatic preacher whom you think has taught you the meaning of life. It could be an idol of stone, or an idol of flesh that you value above all other things. It could be nothing more than your own pride.

But you DO worship it, whatever it is. You worship it because it is your nature to do so. To be human is to believe.

You,

Are an idiot, who does not understand the first thing about Atheism at all.

It is a lack of theistic belief.
IE: No dogma, no magic, no mythological creations.

Hit a nerve there, didn't I?

The god of your pride must've been very aggrieved for you to defend him so vigorously.

kerpal32: Seriously, doesn't it bother you to be metaphorically kicked in the nuts repeatedly in public forums and shown to be a complete idiot every time you post?


More projection.

Anyway I'm not wasting any more of my day on you. Here's your blankie, a box of tissues, and your teddy bear. Try not to cut youself too much emo boy. I know you have no friends but I'm not playing this little game with you.

Oh and leave the lights on so the BIG BAD ATHEISTS won't gang up and hurt poor little you. Remember they can't hide in the shadows when there are none.

Feel free to spout more WHARRGARBLE about me after I leave. I might be back later, if I need a good laugh.

Happy 4th!

Mouser:

Hit a nerve there, didn't I?

The god of your pride must've been very aggrieved for you to defend him so vigorously.

To claim the position of an atheist is simply to claim a lack of belief in theism. There's nothing more to it. Stop attaching shiat.

Kliffoth: More projection.



lmao. why don't you just stfu, dry-the-fark up, and go the fark away since you can't actually farking debate any of the points I've made, or disagree with the other atheists making the exact same points I made here, and you consistently show you've got a massive farking bug up your ass about anything I post. No matter what it is, or again the fact that you can't actually farking debate it.

You say I (and others obviously since I'm agreeing with a couple of atheists here) am picking on the "big bad atheists", but you can't admit it's the same small group of ignorant, hateful, self-absorbed, fanatics you love to defend each time I point out their ignorant fallacies.

the only wharrgarble going on here is from you.

ScottHimself: Mouser:

Hit a nerve there, didn't I?

The god of your pride must've been very aggrieved for you to defend him so vigorously.

To claim the position of an atheist is simply to claim a lack of belief in theism. There's nothing more to it. Stop attaching shiat.

Actually, you're partly right. There is nothing more to it--in fact, there's nothing to it at all.

"Seek or not, God is there" - Carl Jung

"The ill-mannered goat farmer then skillfully, but reluctantly, tossed aside the stolen hallucinogenic mushrooms in favor of the youthful dog's longing gaze." - Reverend Odom Harbinger

"I can't, because I forgot my trousers." - Imam Habib Muhammud

"All this talk of Spanish Influenza has me feeling nostalgic." - Rabbi Ira Liebevitz

Can't we all just get a long? Little doggies?

Seriously.

/I've read the Gnostic Gospels, have you?

At this point, I'm just disgusted with the contempt from the athiest side.

If we don't believe, why the fark should you behave like a pseudointellectual douchebag?
With the strength of faith, those who came before us have accomplished amazing things.
Terrible things were done also.
But few criminals are devout before they go to jail.

There is no moral superiority, especially when you are talking about someone's feelings.

Had some Witnesses stop by my house today, it seemed simple enough to return the pamphlet and tell them that they need not stop by again.
And wish them a happy holiday.

A bunch of ya'all seem to be evolving into that which you despise.
A person with a belief that becomes an axe to grind on anyone who doesn't agree completely with my feelings on the subject.

Down boy! Down!

kerpal32: Kliffoth: More projection.



lmao. why don't you just stfu, dry-the-fark up, and go the fark away since you can't actually farking debate any of the points I've made, or disagree with the other atheists making the exact same points I made here, and you consistently show you've got a massive farking bug up your ass about anything I post. No matter what it is, or again the fact that you can't actually farking debate it.

You say I (and others obviously since I'm agreeing with a couple of atheists here) am picking on the "big bad atheists", but you can't admit it's the same small group of ignorant, hateful, self-absorbed, fanatics you love to defend each time I point out their ignorant fallacies.

the only wharrgarble going on here is from you.



Ok here's the thing. I don't care what you believe as far as your arguement goes, I think you're wrong, but I have no problem with people who believe things I don't.

My problem with you is your attitude. Every time an Atheist disagrees with you he's a "ignorant, hateful, self-absorbed fanatic". More than a few people on this board seem to have this sort of attitude but you're the most douchey about it.

It's perfectly acceptable for a religious person to argue strongly for the existance of their god(s), in fact it's expected and even admired by some.

However if an Atheist expresses his non-belief strongly he is 'hate-filled'. I'm sick of this. I love having civil-minded dicussions with believers, I wish they all were like that. If someone wants to sling shiat because someone has a differing opinion I can do that too.

I've seen, in multiple threads, your same arguements unfold. I have never found your arguements sufficiently compelling to sway my opinion. When people say they think you're wrong you ridicule and insult them usually with the "ignorant, hateful, self-absorbed fanatic" line.

When it's more than one Atheist refuting your point they are a 'cabal that gangs up on you'. You act like we meet in secret and try to take over FARK via the religion threads. You say this over and over. Then you whine that we're picking on you. It is sad. You are paranoid. Hey maybe we just think you're wrong and are argueing that?

This is why I ridicule you. You aren't interested in civil discourse, ever. Why should I treat you civilly when you aren't interested in civillity yourself?

As I thought your comment was LOLworthy. Here's a tip: just because you include a clever pic with your post it doesn't mean your point is any more valid.


Off to celebrate guys, happy 4th

skinnyartist: I am a gnostic atheist. I believe there is no god. But the vast majority of atheists do not make this claim and simply rest at saying they do not believe in a god. This is absolutely not the same thing as saying you believe there is no god.

It pleases me to hear this from an atheist. Many, many times I have heard and seen it stated that the two statements are equivalent and interchangeable.

Kliffoth: My problem with you is your attitude.

my attitude is in specific response to the posts and attitudes of certain Farkers' attitudes and their irrational mocking/ridiculing attitudes, bigotries, intolerance, and regular hate rhetoric these promote on Fark.

Funny that you get a sandy vagina because I ridicule them about that. Even funnier that you can't admit that. The pathetic part is you aren't actually capable of debating, and the best you can do is act like some e-thug.

I can't imagine this possibly working.

The Buddhist is going to say something the Muslim disagrees with, who is going to say something which contradicts the Christian, who is going to deny the validity of the Jew who is going to..

"See John, life is chaotic, hectic and many of this world act as child. Our thoughts make us who we are, but every sensation of the mind is carried through the body. This is dukkha or misery. You can overcome this; simply come to the Buddha and learn to forsake wordly things. Experie-"

"While I respect our Monk friend here, I must say that he is mistaken. Misery cannot be forgone, it is the fundamental human property; sin granted to Man via the Fall. One can only find absolution in the eyes of the LORD through the blessing and atonement of Jesus the Christ, the only Begotten Son of God. Repentance, baptism and-"

"Now hold on a minute Priest. I agree with our Buddhist friend here, suffering is a cause to be overcome with proper ceremony, but as was written "You shall have no other God before me." To say that salvation from this world lies with another deity, your Christ, is to blaspheme. As a prophet he shall be remembered as one of Addonai's chosen, but-"

"It is rare I should say this, but I must agree with our Jewish friend here. The line of Prophets ends only with Muhammed, peace and blessing upon him, who tells us "The reward of deeds depends upon the intentions and every person will get the reward according to what he has intended." One is forced to conclude that our Monk friend was wrong to say that our thoughts make us who we are, for it is Allah who shapes us according to our deeds.


-- I can't imagine the atheist would ever get to even participate.

kerpal32: Kliffoth: My problem with you is your attitude.

my attitude is in specific response to the posts and attitudes of certain Farkers' attitudes and their irrational mocking/ridiculing attitudes, bigotries, intolerance, and regular hate rhetoric these promote on Fark.

Funny that you get a sandy vagina because I ridicule them about that. Even funnier that you can't admit that. The pathetic part is you aren't actually capable of debating, and the best you can do is act like some e-thug.


Yeah I be thugging yo.

In every instance I have seen you've thrown the first punch. I can debate but it'll just be the same damn scenario again. That and I'm half drunk at the moment and need to grab more beer.

Oh and I haven't seen any Atheist 'hating' on FARK. Just because someone disagrees with you doesnt mean they hate you. If you wish to supply some evidence of this I may change my mind accordingly.

On the contrary, my love for him is like a truck.

maddogdelta: I'm sure that if you were treated that way, you would sit back, smile, and say that it was the way of the universe to be treated like shiat. Great. You're a saint. Some of us get pissed off, though.

Let's just say... watch the attributions a little more closely when replying. :-P

cthellis: On the contrary, my love for him is like a truck.



*Please note, lest this be interpreted as evidence of 'atheists hating', it is not. It is a joke. The humor of the joke is that my love for Kerpal is also like a truck. This truck. Because I don't like Kerpal - as a person, not as a homogeneous ideology.

Kliffoth: Oh and I haven't seen any Atheist 'hating' on FARK. Just because someone disagrees with you doesnt mean they hate you. If you wish to supply some evidence of this I may change my mind accordingly.

I've seen some folks slamming religious folks who believe in evolution as part of the crossfire during those trollfests.

Kerpal32 always falls into "help help I'm being repressed" mode though.

Christians should win a trip to meet Bevets.

I meant apart from the obvious douche trolls on both sides yes, I try to discount those who haven't anything to say besides 'hurr you guys are teh stupid', i.e. 'FARK static'. I don't doubt these hating Atheists exist, but I haven't seen it in these epidemic numbers he claims, and certainly by nobody I'd take seriously. I know which people he's referring to and they don't come off as 'haters'.

ninjakirby:

Got a ticking clock comic there, punk?

cthellis: Got a ticking clock comic there, punk?

No, but this was in the GIS...

ninjakirby: cthellis: Got a ticking clock comic there, punk?

No, but this was in the GIS...

Bah.

eyehate: /hotlinked



"Imagine no possessions" - John Lennon

I like how kerpal32 talks about how other people are "ethugs" and push people around in hateful ways but does it in the most douchetastic, thuggish, hateful way possible.

See, this is why we giggle.

Paulistinian: I like how kerpal32 talks about how other people are "ethugs" and push people around in hateful ways but does it in the most douchetastic, thuggish, hateful way possible.

He claims to be a Zen practitioner, but I've seen few people on the Intarwebs or in real life who act less like Zen practitioners.

Kliffoth
More projection.



I've never seen such projecting. It's in cinema scope with Dolby surround.

If they get some intelligent Atheists and they convert all the religious people to Atheism..

Where would they get to go as their prize??

Sin City?

A University of their choice?

Cheetahs?

Bill Mahar's home?

Maher oops

RaisedOnATARI: If they get some intelligent Atheists and they convert all the religious people to Atheism..

Where would they get to go as their prize??


Secular heaven.

I recommend 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins.

Link (new window)

A most excellent read.