Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Local6)   Study shows that almost 90 percent of Americans believe in the FSM or some other flying monster   (local6.com) divider line 1050
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

19285 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Sep 2006 at 2:28 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1050 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-09-11 03:57:49 PM  
absoluteparanoia

Virtually certain is very different than certain. You may argue that your computer is in an infinite loop. I would contend that it is still trying out all possibilities.

By your definition you would argue that a thermometer is caught in an infinite loop. Every instant, it records a value, and destroys any evidence of its previous loop and does it again.


Once again you are ignoring your own admitted definition.
"Proof" as non-mathematical, is sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. I programmed the thng, I know it shouldn't have taken more than a minute.

Faith is belief without evidence.

There is evidence that it is in an infinite loop.

Therefore it is not faith.

Period.
 
2006-09-11 03:57:59 PM  
Tell that to the victims of the abortion clinic bombings and Timmy McVeigh

McVeigh was an atheist, yawn.
 
2006-09-11 03:58:23 PM  
What was really cool was when God told the Israelites to smash the Canaanite's baby's heads open on the rocks and then steal their lands.
 
2006-09-11 03:58:32 PM  
Mekongcola: "That's what Phelps teaches. He's kinda like those Muslim suicide bombers, y'know? Except he doesn't have the decency to kill himself."

Wrong. The bible states that gays must die. If you believe in the bible and "god" you must believe in this...


No, the bible only states that homosexual acts are prohibited to those who follow the first covenant; said covenant is overturned halfway through Acts where G-d tells wossname that the new rules are in play.

( I really have to reread that section so I can quote it better )

Speak to Tatsuma as to why they didn't regularly stone people back in the day.

At any rate, it's not relevant to Phelps, anyway, because he's a nutjob new-testament type, and thus is covered only under the new covenant--which, I might add, he's way in violation of; his message of hate directly contradicts what he's supposed to be preaching.

So in other words, my comparison of him with a suicide bomber, without having the decency to blow up, is fairly apt.

Deal with it...

Learn your own farking book, asstard. ;-þ
 
2006-09-11 03:58:35 PM  
untrustworthy: The color blue can be documented. The existence of a god has not been documented. Yes, that means there could be a god, but there could also be the FSM or unicorns or whatever else you want to believe in without any actual evidence of its existence.

Maybe the gods are simply not the sort of things that lend themselves to quantitization. That's what science does. It breaks reality into smaller and smaller cognitive pieces. But like I said to paranoia, there's no scientific "truth" hiding at the bottom of the world, in the world's smallest piece. Just stranger and more exotic phenomenea from the looks of it.
 
2006-09-11 03:58:50 PM  
HA! HA!

You farksticks are arguing about religion!

/submitter
 
2006-09-11 03:58:52 PM  
letrole

Widely accepted? My, how fine our distinctions become when faced with an inconvenient argument.

Bonus Challenge: Bill Clinton, please define "is".



Translation: got nuthin'.
 
2006-09-11 03:59:00 PM  
If atheism, with its lack of beliefs, can be considered a religion (well, by ignorant trolls, maybe), then what isn't a religion?

Letrole is teh suck.
 
2006-09-11 03:59:05 PM  
In fact, I think I'll take a break right now and go get a hooker off Colfax.
Better get 'em now before some asstard sends me to heaven with all the other cultish sheep.

Whatever you believe, I'm 100% sure your not 100% correct.
 
2006-09-11 03:59:21 PM  
Many would say that the existance of the holocaust is evidence that God does not exist.

Any compassionate being with the power to stop the holocaust would have clearly done so.

Any being capable of stopping the holocaust but chooses not to is probably undeserving of worship.
 
2006-09-11 03:59:24 PM  
czarangelus: I don't understand how some of the rules in the Torah would really bring someone closer to the mystical experience of god, if that's what religion is supposed to be about.

Well, there are different types of rules...

1) Some appear to have a basis in hygeine (don't eat shrimp, pork, and other such things).

2) Some merely are an expression of ritual purity (don't wear garments of mixed fabric).

3) Some appear to help physically distinguish Jews and non-Jews (letting the peyos grow).

4) Certain rules don't appear to make sense (tzitzit on four-cornered fabrics). I believe the explanation is either because humans can't comprehend them... or because they help you think about G*d when doing mundane things... or because they fit into rules #1-3 in nonobvious ways.

/This is from the perspective of a non-Jew and I will probably soon be scolded
 
2006-09-11 03:59:27 PM  
muninsfire: I think half of your disagreement stems from trying to compare an abstract concept to concrete concepts.

Mmm... I don't think that is the case. They are two topics that we are discussing, but I don't think there is any confusion thus far. But I can't speak for the other parties.

Cheeseburger: Is Barbecue Bob(2006-09-11 03:45:03 PM) a typical atheist?

Nah, he's a typical asshole.
 
2006-09-11 03:59:28 PM  
Blindman
Someone comes to tell me that they saw a guy poison the hamburger I just ate and that unless I go to the hospital I'm dead within an hour. I have no evidence that this is truthful except the testimony of a third party. Most would consider it an act of considerable faith to calmly finish my burger and then settle in for a nice afternoon nap.

That's just Pascal's Wager dressed up in an analogy.
 
2006-09-11 04:00:09 PM  
Mr. Clarence Butterworth: baby's

What's hilarious is when Bob the Angry Flower comes down on you for your blatant misuse of apostrophe position, much less spelling.

You want the word to be: babies'

/If you're going to troll, at least don't offend the GrammarNaziSense.
 
2006-09-11 04:00:26 PM  
czarangelus: And you don't understand that to be an entirely arbitrary definition? That's the whole point - science is nothing more than an ad hoc vocabulary for experience. A recursive quantitization. But there's no "truth" at the bottom of that, hiding somewhere.

Wow, thats quite an assertion.

/I have faith reality exists and is exhibits consistant characteristics.
//Since you seem to reject science, you must have very powerful faith
 
2006-09-11 04:00:35 PM  
Proof that Jeseus lied:

Jesus is quoted many times in the Bible saying that a believer can ask for anything through prayer and receive it. He even goes so far as to say that mountains and trees can be thrown into the sea simply by praying for it. This is clearly a lie, and can be proven to be a lie by any believer. Simply pray for me to be converted to Christianity right away. Or better yet ask God to move the mountains behind my house. He could make a lot of converts that way. If I'm converted today, I'll post a public apology on my web site and devote my life to kissing God's ass. If I'm not converted it would only be fair for you to apologize and devote your life to kissing my butt.



Here are the quotes from Jesus that proves that he lied:



1) And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen. "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." (Matthew 21:21-22 NAS)



2) Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8 NAB)



3) Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst. (Matthew 18:19-20 NAS)



4) Amen, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it shall be done for him. Therefore I tell you, all that you ask for in prayer, believe that you will receive it and it shall be yours. (Mark 11:24-25 NAB)



5) And I tell you, ask and you will receive; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Luke 11:9-13 NAB)



6) And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14 NAB)



7) If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask for whatever you want and it will be done for you. (John 15:7 NAB)



8) It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he may give you. (John 15:16 NAB)



9) On that day you will not question me about anything. Amen, amen, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you. Until now you have not asked anything in my name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete. (John 16:23-24 NAB)
 
2006-09-11 04:00:43 PM  
Once you believe in God, you pretty much have a culturally specific ready-made metaphyics, epistemology, moral/ethical theory, and authority heirarchy built up around it that are fairly dogmatic... a institutionalized cultural system.

I have highlighted the weasel words in Clever Neologism's thoughtful post for easy reference. No doubt you're too smart to generalize, CN, and hence the word choice. But it's worth further noting that (as you hint further down) very few believers in God share "culturally specific ready-made metaphyics, epistemology, moral/ethical theory, and authority heirarchy."

Using Christianity alone, you can slice through the layers of protestant/catholic, liberal/conservative, western/eastern, mystic/mainstream ... and go on and on ... and never find two denominations/churches/believers that subscribe to exactly the same things. The noisy monolith of American Evangelical Fundamentalism aside, Christianity is remarkably diverse, and i suspect you know it.

/Liberal Dutch Neocalvinist here
 
2006-09-11 04:00:53 PM  
muninsfire
I think half of your disagreement stems from trying to compare an abstract concept to concrete concepts.


Yeah, I think you pretty much summed up any argument that has ever taken place about proving the existence of a God or gods.
 
2006-09-11 04:01:20 PM  
BlindMan

You, hume, and the a-guy have sufficiently twisted and distorted the word so far that it could apply to just about anything, and is hence, useless.

But that's the english language for you.

"Faith" implies that we have an undying devotion to a belief even without evidence or contrary evidence.

If god came down today and says "Sup", atiests would be all like "Sup, god", and we'd be believers.

It's the lack of evidence that has us where we are.

Athiests with faith doesn't compute.
 
2006-09-11 04:01:40 PM  
untrustworthy
The color blue can be documented.

No, it can't. Color is a perception. We can say electromagnetic radiation of a certain frequency is "blue," but we can't objectively say that something is "blue." We can only say how much of what frequencies of light is reflecting.
 
2006-09-11 04:01:42 PM  
wh0mprat: Atheism can only be described as a faith insofar as it has none of the defining characteristics of faith.

Wrong. The reason is simple, and it is in BlindMan's post and I don't care to repeat it here.
 
2006-09-11 04:01:42 PM  
Mekongcola

I'm no bible scholar, but what verse is it that says gays must die?
 
2006-09-11 04:01:56 PM  
Tatsuma

Enlightening breakdown, thanks. ^_^ I'm always afraid people will take it the wrong way and think I'm trying to "find a chink in their armor to exploit," while it really just comes from an honest desire to understand their point of view. (Of themselves and others.)


And overall, guys... And we PLEASE stop with comments like "are you retarded??!" if anyone even REMOTELY puts a word in your mouth or doesn't understand what you meant?

absoluteparanoia

I said atheism requires faith. Thats it.

Gnostic atheism, perhaps. Agnostic atheism...? Not really. I can't say "not in the slightest," but that's only because you can use it in its' most technical form. And I find most "believers" would be insulted if their faith was being equated to that of the most diluted levels.

Certainly you CAN use the words "belief" and "faith" on some level to describe anyone with ANY viewpoint, but don't make the mistake that it's on anywhere near the level of those to whom the words have personal, heartfelt meaning.
 
2006-09-11 04:02:07 PM  
czarangelus: Maybe the gods are simply not the sort of things that lend themselves to quantitization.

Why not?

That's what science does. It breaks reality into smaller and smaller cognitive pieces. But like I said to paranoia, there's no scientific "truth" hiding at the bottom of the world, in the world's smallest piece. Just stranger and more exotic phenomenea from the looks of it.

What more truth could there be than documentable evidence?
 
2006-09-11 04:02:35 PM  
Mr. Clarence Butterworth: What was really cool was when God told the Israelites to smash the Canaanite's baby's heads open on the rocks and then steal their lands.

Well, it was a better fate than being sodomized and then burnt alive as a sacrifice to Baal... or whatever other atrocities the Canaanites supposedly committed that doomed them.
 
2006-09-11 04:02:52 PM  
Atheists are welcomed in my religion. (pops)
 
2006-09-11 04:03:36 PM  
I've always been partial to "Kissing Hank's Ass" as a great depiction of religious idiocy:

This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:

John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."
Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?"
John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the shiat out of you."
Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"
John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His ass."
Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."
Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"
Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."
John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"
Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."
Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"
John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."
Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"
Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the shiat out of you."
Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"
John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."
Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"
John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."
Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"
Mary: "Well, He gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."
Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"
John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"
Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."
John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass He'll kick the shiat out of you."
Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him..."
Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."
Me: "Then how do you kiss His ass?"
John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."
Me: "Who's Karl?"
Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."
Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?"
John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."

From the Desk of Karl
Kiss Hank's ass and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
Use alcohol in moderation.
Kick the shiat out of people who aren't like you.
Eat right.
Hank dictated this list Himself.
The moon is made of green cheese.
Everything Hank says is right.
Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
Don't use alcohol.
Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
Kiss Hank's ass or He'll kick the shiat out of you.

Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."
Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."
Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."
John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."
Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"
Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."
Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the shiat out of people just because they're different?"
Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."
Me: "How do you figure that?"
Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"
Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."
John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."
Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."
John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."
Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."
Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."
Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."
John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"
Me: "We do?"
Mary: "Of course we do, Item 7 says so."
Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"
John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."
Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"
Mary: She blushes.
John: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."
Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"
John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."
Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"
Mary: She looks positively stricken.
John: He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"
Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"
Mary: Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."
John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."
Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."
Mary: She faints.
John: He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shiat out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."
With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.
 
2006-09-11 04:03:39 PM  
www.drunken-ninja.com
 
2006-09-11 04:03:41 PM  
Anyway, I don't think it's a coincidence that the two hellfire-ist religions are also the #1 and #2 biggest religions in the world.

I kind of thought that Christianity's appeal came from the simple recognition of human's personal sin and God's free redemption.

I would argue that someone's personal concern of hell comes out of a recognition of their need of forgiveness and reconciliation with God.
 
2006-09-11 04:04:08 PM  
absoluteparanoia: /I have faith reality exists and is exhibits consistant characteristics.
//Since you seem to reject science, you must have very powerful faith


You, my friend, have some very mixed up ideas about the relationship between "reality" and the human experience. There's a lot of levels of interpretation - for instance, the hardware limitation of our eyes which don't allow us to see in infrared, ultraviolet, or radio waves. There's the lingusitic level of interpretation, and that's another really important one. Are atoms "real?" Are they more or less real than a puppy? Are atoms real to a puppy, or does their reality really only have meaning within a certain microcosm of phenomenology?
 
2006-09-11 04:04:15 PM  
wh0mprat

BlindMan

The submitter for example, seems to be laboring under the belief that religious people in general are stupid or deluded in some fashion, which suggests that he or she has never managed to pick up a single major work of theology and has also missed reading the largest portion of our greatest literature. The submitter must not only not have read any of these works, but in fact be unaware of their existence, and therefore feel him/herself well qualified to opine in this fashion. That's amazing.


You:
Well, religious people have certainly demonstrated a certain lack of rationality. They can be very well informed irrational people, but irrational nonetheless.

Most people in general are irrational, so I wouldn't disagree with this. However I have no evidence whatsoever that atheist/agnostics are any more rational than anyone else.

That's a subjective determination however, so I won't try to convince you of it.

What I will say is that stating the unequivocal nonexistence of anything in particular is irrational in the strictest interpretation - that is to say contrary to logic. After all, if something does not exist it's impossible to find any evidence of it by which you might prove its nonexistence.

I'm not trying to use that argument to prove that the reverse must be true, as it doesn't prove god exists or that unicorns exist for that matter. However it doesn't allow for the out of hand dismissal of either conclusion. So then, it comes down to what reason we have for believing in god or unicorns.

I've personally found the reason more than sufficient for god, and not at all sufficient for unicorns. At worst, that's an extra-rational, rather than irrational, conclusion. So if I must make a choice I'm inclined to act as if god exist and act as if unicorns don't. It so happens that the concept of a unicorn doesn't require me to hold an opinion on them either way, the concept of god does, so ignoring the question will not suffice.

But that's another debate entirely. Still the specific point here is the hard line atheist conclusion can never be logically justified.
 
2006-09-11 04:04:19 PM  
For the last time, people:

LACK OF FAITH DOES NOT REQUIRE FAITH!
 
2006-09-11 04:04:25 PM  
theknuckler_33: I'm no bible scholar, but what verse is it that says gays must die?

Leviticus 18:22, correlated with Leviticus 20:13
 
2006-09-11 04:04:31 PM  
Drasancas: Once again you are ignoring your own admitted definition.

"Proof" as non-mathematical, is sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.


Where did I ever say that?

I programmed the thng, I know it shouldn't have taken more than a minute.

Clearly you've never made a computer program of any degree of complexity.

Faith is belief without evidence.

Faith is belief without the need for evidence (either for or against). So it still works for atheism.

There is evidence that it is in an infinite loop.

There is evidence, but no proof. So your assertion is still a matter of faith.

Therefore it is not faith.

Wrong

Period.

Exclaimation point!
 
2006-09-11 04:04:54 PM  
2006-09-11 03:51:10 PM absoluteparanoia
Wrong again

"Hot" can be defined as energy content, or (in the case of spicy foods) or the density of the chemical that makes the food hot.

"Valuable" is definied according relative abundance. (Or peculiarity in intrisic structure)

"Good" is often used in the scientific community with regards to energy. There is Good (High Quality) energy (like rays from the sun). And Bad (Low Quality) energy, like thermal emission from the earth.

/try again,/b>

sorry, but i would argue those are qualitative modifiers of quantitative measurements. "hot" or "cold" is imprecise, even if it is not inaccurate. scientifically, it would have to be specific- it is 214 or 32 degrees F, for example.

and different people have different interpretations of the spiciness of food, for example. even on the low end of scoville heats units scale for capsicum, my wife would be on fire, but i would lick my lips and ask for another wing..
 
2006-09-11 04:05:27 PM  
The Icelander: No, it can't. Color is a perception. We can say electromagnetic radiation of a certain frequency is "blue," but we can't objectively say that something is "blue." We can only say how much of what frequencies of light is reflecting.

Blue is the term that we use to define a certain range of light frequency. Human eyes see this frequency as a hue that can be identified and recreated by the human. This definition was created by people and taught to children. Perhaps you could argue that in your mind you see a particular color that you classify as blue, but if I were to be able to jump into your mind I'd call it red, but that's total random speculation.
 
2006-09-11 04:05:33 PM  
untrustworthy: What more truth could there be than documentable evidence?

I think we have the documentable evidence of people's experiences.

Most people, however, do not want to lend these experiences any credibility. Despite the fact that the only reason we know that there is anything is becuase of people's experiences of a phenomenon or its effects.
 
2006-09-11 04:05:49 PM  
"No, the bible only states that homosexual acts are prohibited to those who follow the first covenant; said covenant is overturned halfway through Acts where G-d tells wossname that the new rules are in play"

Wrong again, alowm me to quote YOUR book for you:

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

GOT IT?

God wants you to kill gays...Have you been doing your godly duty?
 
2006-09-11 04:05:57 PM  
2006-09-11 03:51:10 PM absoluteparanoia
Wrong again

"Hot" can be defined as energy content, or (in the case of spicy foods) or the density of the chemical that makes the food hot.

"Valuable" is definied according relative abundance. (Or peculiarity in intrisic structure)

"Good" is often used in the scientific community with regards to energy. There is Good (High Quality) energy (like rays from the sun). And Bad (Low Quality) energy, like thermal emission from the earth.

/try again

sorry, but i would argue those are qualitative modifiers of quantitative measurements. "hot" or "cold" is imprecise, even if it is not inaccurate. scientifically, it would have to be specific- it is 214 or 32 degrees F, for example.

and different people have different interpretations of the spiciness of food, for example. even on the low end of scoville heats units scale for capsicum, my wife would be on fire, but i would lick my lips and ask for another wing...
 
2006-09-11 04:06:00 PM  
What it comes down to is that theists are asserting concepts, feelings or 'strengths' of beliefs, etc, in atheists that simply do not exist.

You wouldn't like it if I kept asserting that you are a child molester.

Once again, Ill have to check in later.
 
2006-09-11 04:06:17 PM  
Funkmaster Frank: If atheism, with its lack of beliefs, can be considered a religion (well, by ignorant trolls, maybe), then what isn't a religion?

Almost anything can be a religion. How many kids worship a given entertainer? When does a hobby like stamp collecting become idol worship?

Atheism isn't simply a lack of belief. It's an alternate system of belief. Compare someone who doesn't happen to smoke with a 'non-smoker'.
 
2006-09-11 04:06:18 PM  
elchip: I don't have time to reply on everything you said, but I just wanted to actually clarify that bit before leaving for work:

Certain rules don't appear to make sense (tzitzit on four-cornered fabrics).

The word has a numerical value of 600. Each tassel has eight threads (once you doubled them) and five sets of knots, for a total of 13. 613 is the number of mitzvot. Everytime you see the tzitzit, you should be remind of the mitzvot (incidently, there are 365 positive mitzvot, who correspond to the days of the year, so that everyday you should be reminded to make a mitzvah, and there are 248 negative mitzvot, which represent the halachic divisions in your body, so that whenever you want to commit a transgression, your whole body fights against it)

leaving for the day
 
2006-09-11 04:06:28 PM  
There is no God, Satan, Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny...etc. There is no Hell other than the one we create here on this planet for our neighbors. Want proof?


SUCK IT GOD! You blow donkeys!

yep I'm still here... case closed
 
2006-09-11 04:06:59 PM  
MadAsshatter: It's the anti-religious who cry about persecution, that's the hypocrisy. People whining about anything to do with religion and systematically having it removed is in fact doing more to persecute than to help. BTW: I'm not the one crying persecution. I'd have to be a religious person to do that.

Fair enough. My original comment was directed at the poster who wrote: "the handful of atheists that actually exist are constantly demanding 'tolerance' for their beliefs while trying to prevent everyone else from practicing theirs," and I just wanted one example of someone of any consequence doing that. Most atheists I know don't really give a shiat what you think about their beliefs or lack-thereof.

In my experience, the non-Christians* just don't want any government endorsement of religion, through tax moneys, legislation, or oaths. No one is talking about closing churches or making prayer illegal.

*I don't use "anti-religious" because I'm including Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. who are also sick of all this.
 
2006-09-11 04:07:01 PM  
Lord_baul

Yeah, it does.
You have to believe something doesn't exist, don't you? God can never, NEVER be disproven. I am not just saying that because I believe, but because no matter how much science you throw at faith, you can say it is part of Gods plan, or that God made things this way, and you cannot disprove that. So, it takes faith to believe that this isn't the case.
 
2006-09-11 04:07:02 PM  
Not all atheists are asshats about it. Not all christians are, either. So stop biatching. :(

/atheist
//many atheist friends
///many christian friends
////don't they teach tolerance and kindness in preschool?
 
2006-09-11 04:07:20 PM  
*blink*

People are still using Pascal's Wager?

What is this, 1952?
 
2006-09-11 04:07:46 PM  
Clever Neologism

I believe with all of my soul that Jupiter has an orbiting collection of Pez dispensers.

Pardon me, good sir, but might you have a newsletter expounding on such a wonderous happenstance?
 
2006-09-11 04:07:51 PM  
Mekongcola:

Have you ever had an original thought? Seriously, have you? I have to wonder about that ideal of atheism, The Critical-Thinking Individual, whenever I see those accusations lifted from anti-theist sites. I'm going to run. I'm sure your response will be parroted from another source, so I won't bother waiting to see it.
 
2006-09-11 04:07:53 PM  
czarangelus: I think we have the documentable evidence of people's experiences.

How do you document it? By asking them?

Most people, however, do not want to lend these experiences any credibility. Despite the fact that the only reason we know that there is anything is becuase of people's experiences of a phenomenon or its effects.

I have had the feeling that I could fly before, but that doesn't mean I can fly. Experiences in and of themselves are not completely infalable evidence of the existence of something.
 
Displayed 50 of 1050 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report