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.