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.

(New Yorker)   Bible is the best-selling book of the year -- like it is every year. Suck it, haters   (newyorker.com) divider line 1014
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

6826 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Dec 2006 at 1:37 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1014 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-12-11 05:35:17 PM  
felixstrange: it would be nice to be civil to people you don't agree with.

Hate to break it to you, but this is FARK, not "The Week In Review." Civility has a very small place here. Read the headline again.
 
2006-12-11 05:35:30 PM  
Rethorn

Elaborate, please.


Okay, Socrates:

If all religions write God as loving, but Christianity's is not, the only LOGICAL conclusion one can make from your argument is that Christianity is not a religion.

But, obviously, Christianity IS a religion, so LOGICALLY, one must discard your premise that "all religions write God as loving." In fact, I'd wager that if you did a theological census, you'd find a hell of a lot more 'flay your children alive and devour their hearts before throwing them still screaming into a fire' gods than loving, paternal gods.
 
2006-12-11 05:35:37 PM  
bake420: that fell under the real boring part!!

Well, boring for everyone else. For you, not so much ;)

That's the option I have the most trouble visualizing.

"Ok...I'm going to be lying there, really bored."
"No, wait...I won't be thinking. How can I be bored?"
"ARRRGGGHH!"

Rethorn: LOL. Earth is God's "Trust Camp." Dying for us was the equivilant of the cosmic fall-backwards-into-their-arms.

With all that fire and brimstone God was playing with in the old testament, it's entirely possible by the time Jesus was finished with his preaching of love, God was like "Ok...I'll resurrect you for a couple of days, but I don't know if I'm going to leave you in the ground afterwards..."

muninsfire: I know some folks would turn to Jesus just to make the torture stop.

I heard it in Florida. Being a counterfeit ride doesn't make it any further away from hell...

/I use it to get other songs out of my head. It's strong mojo, and I'm used to it.

I used to get the song stuck in my head for weeks at a time. I now find the Mahaminah song to be a good mental scourer, though...and a LOT more bearable.
 
2006-12-11 05:35:56 PM  
muninsfire: /Hopefully this will get me my "Damn you to hell!" checkmark for today.

damn you to hades

thing ya need a couple coins for the boat ride
 
2006-12-11 05:36:19 PM  
muninsfire: Any 'Christian' who denies alcohol is going against the actions of Jesus.

The Bible however does have precautions about drunkenness.
I personally abstain from alcohol (I get hives in my mouth ick), but it is clearly not a sin to enjoy it.
 
2006-12-11 05:36:32 PM  
muninsfire: Jesus turned water into wine.

He could also turn sugar into cocaine.
 
2006-12-11 05:36:58 PM  
votegreen: You set up a straw-man here: G-d is, by definition, not something that can be proven or disproven.

Do you, by chance, come in an abridged version?
 
2006-12-11 05:37:07 PM  
DisneyOnIce: Hate to break it to you, but this is FARK, not "The Week In Review." Civility has a very small place here. Read the headline again.

Oh, sorry. In that case, go blow a goat. KTB.
 
2006-12-11 05:37:12 PM  
WTF...where is Bevets

summon bevets and senseless, random quotes
 
2006-12-11 05:37:32 PM  
Votegreen

There is no proof of God.

There is no proof of a lack of God. However, there is evidence of God.
 
2006-12-11 05:37:43 PM  
Of course they're best sellers. Bibles make great kickstands for motorcycles, and they can level out coffee tables.
 
2006-12-11 05:38:28 PM  
Rethorn: there is evidence of God.

soft wet pussy gets my vote
 
2006-12-11 05:38:58 PM  
IXI Jim IXI: He could have set things into motion, hung around for a little while, and wandered off, to come back later. He could have inspired the old testament, and gotten horribly pissed off by all the stuff Jesus was spouting about "turn the other cheek" and decided to go look over some aliens for a while. He could be watching, and laughing his ass off. Things could be going exactly by his plan, that he just didn't bother to tell the people writing the bible.

Perhaps. But that would be a god unworthy of worship.
 
2006-12-11 05:39:47 PM  
Hey folks, just got here. Did I miss anything? :-)
 
2006-12-11 05:40:14 PM  
DisneyOnIce: Perhaps. But that would be a god unworthy of worship

hahaha
if the idea is true (it could be, you dont know) you just blasphemed like a muther farker
 
2006-12-11 05:40:20 PM  
felixstrange: Why does everyone have to have the same beliefs as you?

Uncertainty is threatening to the weak-minded.
Go ye, therefore, into all the world...
 
2006-12-11 05:40:33 PM  
Rethorn
Whats your point?

My point is that your conceptions cloud your understanding of other people's conceptions...and do nothing to improve the clarity of either.
 
2006-12-11 05:40:37 PM  
Somacandra: Hey folks, just got here. Did I miss anything? :-)

I think this time, we've finally resolved the question of God's existence once and for all.

Other than that, not really.
 
2006-12-11 05:40:44 PM  
Heh. I remain amused at how many people say it's hypocritical to sell the Bible, then turn around and complain that its spot on the best-seller list doesn't count because so many churches and organizations are buying them in bulk to give them away.
 
2006-12-11 05:41:29 PM  
bake420

soft wet pussy gets my vote

That would be evidence of a *Goddess*, not a God. :-)
 
2006-12-11 05:43:21 PM  
felixstrange

I think this time, we've finally resolved the question of God's existence once and for all.

Aw, jeez. I take just one afternoon off balling a melon instead of reading FARK, and this is what I get.
 
2006-12-11 05:43:32 PM  
The CraneMeister: Heh. I remain amused at how many people say it's hypocritical to sell the Bible, then turn around and complain that its spot on the best-seller list doesn't count because so many churches and organizations are buying them in bulk to give them away.

No one's biting an obvious strawman (except for me, obviously).
 
2006-12-11 05:44:04 PM  
Somacandra: soft wet pussy gets my vote

That would be evidence of a *Goddess*, not a God. :-)


i'z be takin it werez i be be getzin it ;0)

christianity would go a long way in making itself legit by admitting the the feminine, as well as the others


god must be keepin her barefoot and pregnant though huh? ;p
 
2006-12-11 05:44:08 PM  
815
/w00t!
 
2006-12-11 05:44:13 PM  
I never understood why people hate religion so much, Americans in particular. I am also not going to sit here and argue why religion is this and that, or what's good or bad about it, because I admit, I am not truly versed in it.

I am born and raised Catholic, but I am not devout, and I do not go to church every Sunday, but if a person finds religion as something that fulfills and enriches one's lives, more power to them. I've encountered so many people who vilify other people for "finding religion."

Fiction or not, it has done some good for some people.
 
2006-12-11 05:45:51 PM  
So, the scoreboard as it stands after 10,000 years of debate...


Proof that God exists: none

Proof that God doesn't exist: "I don't see him."
 
2006-12-11 05:45:56 PM  
Zyuu: Fiction or not, it has done some good for some people.

and also horrendous

/i think the horrendous outweighs the good
 
2006-12-11 05:46:16 PM  
Zyuu

If anything, Americans LOVE religion.
 
2006-12-11 05:46:46 PM  
equuscd

If all religions write God as loving, but Christianity's is not, the only LOGICAL conclusion one can make from your argument is that Christianity is not a religion.

Christianity does write God as loving, but certain parts of it portray him as not loving, like hell. The vast majority of Christianity says he is loving, but there are a few sections (mostly OT) that say he is not. I shouldn't have said as a whole, I should have clarified it better. After all, love was the thing that Jesus taught. That was his bag.

In fact, I'd wager that if you did a theological census, you'd find a hell of a lot more 'flay your children alive and devour their hearts before throwing them still screaming into a fire' gods than loving, paternal gods.

Actually, most 'flay your children alive and devour their hearts etc etc.' come from polytheism. Judaism used to be polytheistic, and then at about Moses/Zoroaster's time they switched over to monotheism. Ever since religions have generally been suggesting that God is loving, except when you follow another religion, because most religions seem to have a sort of root in Zoroastrianism.
 
2006-12-11 05:46:50 PM  
trappedspirit: Proof that God doesn't exist: "I don't see him."

apparently a lot of women do,,,especially when they get it in the ass!
 
2006-12-11 05:47:24 PM  
votegreen wins! flawlwss logic, calm temperment, and obviously an above average IQ. If you were a woman, I'd probably marry you sight unseen.
 
2006-12-11 05:48:04 PM  
equuscd

My point is that your conceptions cloud your understanding of other people's conceptions...and do nothing to improve the clarity of either.

Eh?
 
2006-12-11 05:49:49 PM  
elroy1: votegreen wins! flawlwss logic, calm temperment, and obviously an above average IQ. If you were a woman, I'd probably marry you sight unseen.

You've one today's grand prize!

A brand new set of italic tags complete with complementary bold tags!
 
2006-12-11 05:52:00 PM  
bake420

christianity would go a long way in making itself legit by admitting the the feminine, as well as the others... god must be keepin her barefoot and pregnant though huh? ;p

Sorta....

www.scborromeo.org

I hear she's a virgin...though Borat would say that implies a nice tight vajeen. Still has a kid, though.
 
2006-12-11 05:52:18 PM  
EricRS
Left to my own self-devices, I tend to say screw my neighbor, I'm doing whats in my best interest.

Thats because you're a sociopath.
 
2006-12-11 05:52:29 PM  
It's the presnt that keeps on collecting dust and being brought up as a reason of shiatty holiday and gifts past.

THE BIBLE...if you love your kids you wont try and pass this piece of shiat off as a present :)
 
2006-12-11 05:54:39 PM  
bake420

In your experience, do dudes also give a shout out to the Almighty whilst engaged on the receiving end of buggery?
 
2006-12-11 05:55:32 PM  
votegreen:

Consciousness is a result of brain chemistry. We dont understand it fully, but that is not proof of god.

You're statement is not intact. You threaten to contradict yourself.

elroy1:

votegreen wins! flawlwss logic, ...

Keep it in your pants.
 
2006-12-11 05:58:20 PM  
Rethorn
Eh?

Essentially, your conception of religion in general is so limited that you do not even recognize the existence of religions that are significantly different from your concept of "God."

While a good portion of the world's extant religions ("portion" as function of population, not number of religions) are not of the blood-thirsty variety, for a good portion of them, the notion of a "loving God" is not even relevant both in terms of the personification in general and the emotional character.

Now, as for the extinct religions...well...
 
2006-12-11 05:59:26 PM  
Meh. I guess I just don't believe that a lack of proof is proof to the contrary, and some people do.
 
2006-12-11 05:59:27 PM  
www.theonion.com




Well my goodness gracious,
Let me tell you the news.
My heads been wet with the midnight dew.
I've been down on bended knee,
Talkin to the man from Galiee.
He spoke to me in a voice so sweet,
I thought I heard the shuffle of angels feet.
He called my name and my heart stood still,
When He said "John go do my will"

Go and tell that long tongue liar,
Go and tell that midnight rider,
Tell the rambler, the gambler, the back biter,
Tell 'em that God's gonna cut 'em down.

You can run on for a long time,
Run on for a long time,
Run on for a long time,
Sooner, or later, God'll cut you down.
Sooner, or later, God'll cut you down.


/Beautiful song.
//Beautiful video.
 
2006-12-11 05:59:30 PM  
Even if you're not big into Jesus...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3-cKc9_tJG4
 
2006-12-11 06:00:10 PM  
Most bought, least read?
 
2006-12-11 06:02:54 PM  
Too much like playing basketball with a seven-foot-tall hoop.

Too easy.
 
2006-12-11 06:02:55 PM  
bake420: and something about seed bearing plants

Somehow, I knew you'd say something about that...

damn you to hades

There we go, Checkmark for Monday.

thing ya need a couple coins for the boat ride

Heheheheh....nice, very nice.

IXI Jim IXI: I used to get the song stuck in my head for weeks at a time. I now find the Mahaminah song to be a good mental scourer, though...and a LOT more bearable.

It's a Small World will even get that damn "Milkshake" song out of my head, which Mahnahmahnah won't make a dent in.

clifton: /has no problem with Christians
//except the theocratic ones


Same.

votegreen:

First of all, lad, kindly italicize what you're quoting from me so that I can tell how you're responding. 's only polite. There's a quick reference here if you want one, or you can pick up Fnord's Farkit extension for Firefox, which will do that automatically.

It makes things much easier to read in these long threads.

In most god stories, he is given all manner of abilities. Omniscience, everlasting existence, universe-creator, speaks through fire-bushes, and all manner of *real* manners of action *in our world*. If god does not act in our world, he is measurable (provable). If he does not act, he does not exist.

You suggest he acts. I say "provide proof".
You say he does not act. I say "then he doesnt exist".
You say the nature of god is unprovable. I say then he does not exist because he does not act.


I say nothing of the sort, and putting words in my mouth is just constructing a straw-man.

If I were going to bother arguing for the existence of G-d--which I do not, mind you, as I hold no belief one way or the other--then I would say: "As an omnipotent being, G-d has the ability to preclude any experiment that could possibly prove His existence. No matter what experiment you try to devise to prove that He exists, He can alter the variables, the equipment, the results, or even you, to hide His existence from the world. He is omnipotent, and as such, able to do all these things. If it pleases Him to hide himself, who are you to try to say He doesn't exist?"

Do you see the point there? To say that G-d does not exist implies that you have some sort of proof of that statement--but an omnipotent being could preclude you from ever obtaining or recognizing any possible proof: thus, there is no way to prove or disprove his or her existence.

Hm, this is fun. Now, I'd say your Jewish. I guess this because of the "G-d" hilarity. As ive mostly seen this type of behaviour from them... though, you may be Muslim... humour me, what is it?

None of the above. The closest thing that describes me is Agnostic Taoist; today, on the theistic scale, I'm being atheist, interestingly enough.

Do not assume you know what perspective I'm arguing from; I take all sides of an arguement at once sometimes. ;-þ

To answer the question: I regard the pantheons of the Greeks, Romans, Norse, Egyptians, Gaels, et al as being earlier templates in the evolution of human theology.

This is a most queer notion. How is a Fundamentalist different from a stock theist?

A fundamentalist does not accept the possibility that anyone else's beliefs could have merit.

A 'stock theist' does not have that restriction, and could see that other folks' systems may have some good ideas.

Does the stock-theist not provide quarter to the fundamentalist and vice-versa?

Not necessarily.

What are you trying to suggest here?

Well, for one, that Fundamentalist thought is not restricted to any particular philosophy, but is the province of all who are convinced that they are in the right.

When you boil theism down, both Fundamentalists and NonFundamentalists(?/stock-theists) make the same claims. One group uses its belief to justify evil...and the other defends them? Where are you going with this?

Nah. All Fundamentalists make the same claims: that their way is the Only Way. That there definitely [is/is not] a G-d, and that anyone who believes otherwise is obviously mentally ill. That everyone else should think exactly as they do--and if they don't, they're Wrong.

Yes, you can be cognizant of natural processes. But you critically fail when you draw a place for theism.

Why?

Why could I not say, for instance, that G-d set up the initial conditions for the Big Bang, and created the laws of physics so that life could inevitably evolve? What's wrong with that?

Faith is willful ignorance.

Is it?

I would take the position that Faith is more a belief in something which cannot be proven. Ignorance is the disbelief in something that *can* be proven.

Anti-theism: I am against the machine that makes claims about god. Making claims about god is evil because it is memetic garbage which renders its victims incapable of sound decision making. See above for the direct evils theism contributes to.

Not correct.

The definition of Antitheism is as follows:

Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is a direct opposition to theism. The word has had a range of applications; in secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to belief in any deity, while in theistic ones, it sometimes refers to opposition to an actual god or gods. It is not to be confused with atheism, although the two are similar.

Reread what I said using this definition; it ought to make a lot more sense.

There is no proof of God.

To use a trite old saw that always comes up in these threads:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is also no *dis*proof of G-d.

Except your being dishonest here. I am actually claiming that thiesm (faith/belief in the supernatural) is evil.

That is your opinion. Substitute "evil" for "barking mad"--the fundie evangelicals think that you're evil, too; this is why they want to throw you on the "pyre", after all.

Your vein of thought seems vaguely that being that there are two camps (theists and atheists), and that one believes the other is false, therefore both camps should tolerate one another else they embody some of the ills they ascribe to the other. That being an intolerant hypocrite is the thing both must avoid... or somesuch.

Not quite.

I'm saying that there are *three* camps--the theists, the atheists, and the antitheists.

The flaw here is that theists make an unprovable claim.

Not a flaw; its' figured in. The theists and the antitheists both make unprovable claims--that there is and is not a G-d, respectively.

The true atheists make no claims.

Why must we tolerate it?

Elementary psychology, mostly. To wit: if you attack other folks' beliefs, insisting that they are wrong, then they become defensive and less likely to change.

If you do *not* attack their beliefs, and work with them according to a reasonable middle ground, then they are more likely to make conscessions towards your beliefs, as you pose no threat to them.

Thus, to effect social change--which you *say* you want--you would be far better served, rather than attacking everyone who believes in G-d by insisting that he doesn't exist, to instead work with them in trying to fight injustice, feed the poor, all that sort of jazz.

Help out all the good things, and politely decline the bad things: in this way, change happens.

Everyone who insists that things be done their way? Fundamentalist, closed-minded, and ultimately unsuccessful.
 
2006-12-11 06:03:17 PM  
equusdc

Essentially, your conception of religion in general is so limited that you do not even recognize the existence of religions that are significantly different from your concept of "God."

Eh? Still don't follow.

How, exactly, does you saying "If every time I think the word God represents a rutabaga, regardless of whether I treat the rutabaga like the definition of God means to everyone else, God as everyone else defines it loses its meaning" translate into me having a limited concept of Religion?

And, if my concept of Religion is limited, what is your concept of Religion? Do you even fully understand my concept of Religion from how I argue whether God exists or not?

God and Religion aren't the same, you know. Perhaps you're the one with the limited view of religion.
 
2006-12-11 06:06:00 PM  
IXI Jim IXI: Do you, by chance, come in an abridged version?

He was quoting me.

elroy1: votegreen wins! flawlwss logic, calm temperment, and obviously an above average IQ. If you were a woman, I'd probably marry you sight unseen.

Sheeze...half of what he just wrote was my stuff. X.x

This, votegreen, is why we italicize what we're quoting around here: so that folks can figure out who's saying what.
 
2006-12-11 06:06:41 PM  
i lol'ed til i cried....
 
2006-12-11 06:08:10 PM  
maudibjr I don't understand why people buy so many of them, once you own one, why do you need anouther?

I heard that God's been letting George Lucas screw around with the Bible to get it closer to His original vision:

home.comcast.net
 
2006-12-11 06:08:17 PM  
Rethorn
God and Religion aren't the same, you know. Perhaps you're the one with the limited view of religion.

Yet you are the one who does not recognize even the existence of religions whose concepts of god are anything but an anthropomorphized father figure--or at least are so tied to that idea that something must be wrong with a religion that differs from that...or that otherwise the god in question simply must not exist.

That's disregarding the fact that your "argument" wasn't even internally consistent, so admittedly, it may be a bit hard to divine (har har) out your actual conclusions on the topic.
 
Displayed 50 of 1014 comments

First | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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