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.

(The Christians are coming)   Fark hasn't found religion. Religion has found Fark: "In particular, religious discussions on Fark present an opportunity for Christians to interact with atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists."   (thebanner.org) divider line 589
    More: PSA  
•       •       •

9686 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Dec 2008 at 7:34 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



589 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-12-01 06:10:33 PM
I'm more comfortable with sectional humanists. They tend to fit the decor.
 
2008-12-01 06:11:55 PM
GWShenlong05: bobbette: I wouldn't feel right if I didn't respect your outreach and give you a warm welcome:

Yannow, not all of us are horrified at the thought of two people of the same sex settling down.


Too true. However, the people who are actively planning to go onto sites as Internet Missionaries are probably not the laid-back tolerant Canadian-style religion type.
 
2008-12-01 06:14:11 PM
netweavr: Anything existing outside the physical realm of existence.

Well, two things:

1) Wouldn't any "spirits" or "demons" or even ghosts count in that definition?
2) What does it mean to "exist"? And how is it possible to exist outside of the 'physical realm' (aka nature)? I don't mean to be socratic - I believe the supernatural is basically impossible.
 
2008-12-01 06:16:29 PM
Diogenes: I did a "proof" of the existence of God for a symbolic logic class that employed Godel's Incompleteness Theory. I basically said God was the infinite superset.

God is in my pants.
 
2008-12-01 06:17:00 PM
DamnYankees: 1) Wouldn't any "spirits" or "demons" or even ghosts count in that definition?

Yes.

DamnYankees: 2) What does it mean to "exist"? And how is it possible to exist outside of the 'physical realm' (aka nature)? I don't mean to be socratic - I believe the supernatural is basically impossible.

You just need nature to be a subset of existence. I don't think I understand what you're getting at.
 
2008-12-01 06:17:44 PM
bobbette: Too true. However, the people who are actively planning to go onto sites as Internet Missionaries are probably not the laid-back tolerant Canadian-style religion type.

That type of person wouldn't last long around here, I think. With the exception of a particular Bible-quoting bot they never really have.
 
2008-12-01 06:19:48 PM
I miss TruBluBaptist. now that was entertainment.
 
2008-12-01 06:22:39 PM
timujin: Diogenes: I did a "proof" of the existence of God for a symbolic logic class that employed Godel's Incompleteness Theory. I basically said God was the infinite superset.

God is in my pants.


Then you're just playing with words. God, to most everyone who believes in him (and even those who don't), is not the same thing as a ghost or demon.

netweavr: You just need nature to be a subset of existence. I don't think I understand what you're getting at.

Then what does it mean to exist outside of nature? Can you give me some sort of definition for "existence" which (1) isn't recursive* and (2) covers both natural and supernatural?

*By that I mean "Existence is the state of having being", and then "being is the state of existing".
 
2008-12-01 06:27:31 PM
DamnYankees:

Dude's church is a stadium.

A. Stadium.


It is actually the arena that the Rockets used to play in, but close enough.
 
2008-12-01 06:41:30 PM
DamnYankees: Then what does it mean to exist outside of nature? Can you give me some sort of definition for "existence" which (1) isn't recursive* and (2) covers both natural and supernatural?

*By that I mean "Existence is the state of having being", and then "being is the state of existing".


I think you may be approaching an axiom in regards to logic. For the sake of argument, let's define existence as "not being a logical impossibility." Everything and anything that is not a logical contradiction necessarily fits this definition of existence. However, not everything and anything necessarily exists in the physical universe.

Logical impossibility being anything that contradicts itself by definition, e.g. a square circle.
 
2008-12-01 06:46:29 PM
netweavr: For the sake of argument, let's define existence as "not being a logical impossibility." Everything and anything that is not a logical contradiction necessarily fits this definition of existence. However, not everything and anything necessarily exists in the physical universe.

That's why that's a bad definition. The scenario "DamnYankees wearing a red hat at 6:45 PM on December 1, 2008" is not logically contradictory, but it doesn't exist.

My definition of existence is basically "has a causal impact" (eg a baseball bat), or a combination of things that do (eg a baseball game).
 
2008-12-01 07:00:45 PM
CtrlAltDelete: We are a civilized, rational group of relatively educated adults who can treat religion with the respect it appropriately deserves, given the situation.

You bunch of c*nts.


Sounds about right.

bobbette: Enjoy your interactions with secular humanists!

Every once in a long while, I am uplifted by a Fark post. Like that one.

Diogenes: I did a "proof" of the existence of God for a symbolic logic class that employed Godel's Incompleteness Theory. I basically said God was the infinite superset.

Can you apologize against the Problem of Evil from that position? Most Christians that I know of would argue that God is only slightly more than half of that set: encompassing only those items and positions that are "good."

Of course, I find that to be completely unconvincing. The POE is why I'm a strong atheist.

GWShenlong05: I am, however, a little weirded out by the Gay Singles ads that pop up when I visit TFD while in the office. Annoying ads are the single biggest reason I won't be re-upping my TF membership. I thought I was paying to get away from that.

Firefox and ADP should be your best friend at the office then.
 
2008-12-01 07:01:21 PM
John 14.6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me."

John 10.37 "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. ~ Philip Dick
 
2008-12-01 07:09:41 PM
They should update the article with the link to this thread at 7:34PM EST.
 
2008-12-01 07:10:57 PM
Bevets: Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. ~ Philip Dick

awesome!
 
2008-12-01 07:16:58 PM
DamnYankees:
That's why that's a bad definition. The scenario "DamnYankees wearing a red hat at 6:45 PM on December 1, 2008" is not logically contradictory, but it doesn't exist.


I don't understand your objection. Wearing a red hat would exist, according to said definition, but simply would not be a member of the sub-group "natural universe."
 
2008-12-01 07:18:34 PM
I eat a lot of psychedelic mushrooms, so I talk to god all the time.
 
2008-12-01 07:20:16 PM
netweavr: I don't understand your objection. Wearing a red hat would exist, according to said definition, but simply would not be a member of the sub-group "natural universe."

But it doesn't exist. On December 1, 2008, at 6:45 PM, I was not weating a hat. Thus, the scenario I described did not exist.

It's not logically impossible, since I could have put on my read had and make that scenario extant, but it didn't.

You still haven't explained what it means to exist outside of the "natural universe". Also, I never said only the universe exists, so I'm not sure why you tossed that in there.
 
2008-12-01 07:31:30 PM
In particular, religious discussions on Fark present an opportunity for Christians to interact with atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists. If you do so, however, expect to be challenged, taunted, and tested. Fark-like the real world-is messy and filled with diverse and strong opinions.



'diverse opinions'? I don't think that author has ever actually BEEN on fark during the weekly 'I hate God' thread(s) every Sunday afternoon.

I've been here for quite some time now and lemme tell ya - when it comes to God or religion this site is one of the most closeminded, bigoted and hate fueled sites I have *ever* seen. Now that's not to say that every atheist on fark is like that. In fact, I've bumped into several agnostics and atheists who's opinons I respect....but in general, fark is hostile to religion. It's even hostile to spirituality. Unrelentingly so, I might add.
 
2008-12-01 07:32:54 PM
Weaver95: I've been here for quite some time now and lemme tell ya - when it comes to God or religion this site is one of the most closeminded, bigoted and hate fueled sites I have *ever* seen. Now that's not to say that every atheist on fark is like that. In fact, I've bumped into several agnostics and atheists who's opinons I respect....but in general, fark is hostile to religion. It's even hostile to spirituality. Unrelentingly so, I might add.

Why is arguing a position in any way "bigoted" or "hate fueled"?
 
2008-12-01 07:33:34 PM
DamnYankees: But it doesn't exist. On December 1, 2008, at 6:45 PM, I was not weating a hat. Thus, the scenario I described did not exist.

It's not logically impossible, since I could have put on my read had and make that scenario extant, but it didn't.

You still haven't explained what it means to exist outside of the "natural universe". Also, I never said only the universe exists, so I'm not sure why you tossed that in there.


It does exist according to the definition I gave, it just is not within the natural universe subgroup. Just because something didn't "happen" doesn't mean it doesn't "exist" according to the definition provided.

We could define "natural universe" as "having a casual impact or a combination of things that do" and have it sit within the super-group of "exist" while maintaining rationality.
 
2008-12-01 07:33:52 PM
img407.imageshack.us
 
2008-12-01 07:36:04 PM
netweavr: It does exist according to the definition I gave, it just is not within the natural universe subgroup. Just because something didn't "happen" doesn't mean it doesn't "exist" according to the definition provided.

Well, you've given a a really weird definition of existence. According to you, anything which is logically possible *must*, by definition, exist. Do you base this on some sort of multiverse theory?

Also, what about the scenario "DamnYankees wearing a red hat at 6:40 on 12/1/08 in this natural universe"?
 
2008-12-01 07:38:52 PM
Weaver95: In particular, religious discussions on Fark present an opportunity for Christians to interact with atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists. If you do so, however, expect to be challenged, taunted, and tested. Fark-like the real world-is messy and filled with diverse and strong opinions.



'diverse opinions'? I don't think that author has ever actually BEEN on fark during the weekly 'I hate God' thread(s) every Sunday afternoon.

I've been here for quite some time now and lemme tell ya - when it comes to God or religion this site is one of the most closeminded, bigoted and hate fueled sites I have *ever* seen. Now that's not to say that every atheist on fark is like that. In fact, I've bumped into several agnostics and atheists who's opinons I respect....but in general, fark is hostile to religion. It's even hostile to spirituality. Unrelentingly so, I might add.


Aren't you one of those "diverse opinions," then?

/pops another shroom
 
2008-12-01 07:38:54 PM
I have never, ever seen Scriptural references as badly mangled as I have here. Just sayin'.
 
2008-12-01 07:39:24 PM
DamnYankees: netweavr: It does exist according to the definition I gave, it just is not within the natural universe subgroup. Just because something didn't "happen" doesn't mean it doesn't "exist" according to the definition provided.

Well, you've given a a really weird definition of existence. According to you, anything which is logically possible *must*, by definition, exist. Do you base this on some sort of multiverse theory?


That's kinda irrelevant.

Also, what about the scenario "DamnYankees wearing a red hat at 6:40 on 12/1/08 in this natural universe"?

It exists but apparently wasn't a member of the naturalistic universe.
 
2008-12-01 07:41:10 PM
netweavr: That's kinda irrelevant.

No its not. On what basis do you think everything logically possible must exist?

I mean, we can all make up any definition we like, I guess, but when the definition we have crafted doesn't make sense to anyone else, we may want to rethink it, no?

netweavr: It exists but apparently wasn't a member of the naturalistic universe.

What does that even mean? If I told you that "Jim lives North of the North Pole", would you say "hm, I guess he lives there, but that's not in the non-naturalistic universe", or would you say "that makes no sense".
 
2008-12-01 07:41:18 PM
Just stopped by to say it's 4:20

/That is all
 
2008-12-01 07:41:45 PM
There goes the neighborhood (again).
 
2008-12-01 07:41:55 PM
That is a very true headline. I have pondered much at night from Fark religious threads. I would even go as far to say that my viewpoint has changed quite a bit from the discussions here. I am a much better grounded person because of that.

That said, funny picture time:

img.photobucket.com

img.photobucket.com

img.photobucket.com

img.photobucket.com

img.photobucket.com
 
2008-12-01 07:42:28 PM
Link FARKed
 
2008-12-01 07:44:15 PM
All in favor of nominating "Fark" as your religion, say "Aye"
 
2008-12-01 07:44:30 PM
You don't need Internets to speak to Atheists, Agnostics, and Secular Humanists. They're right there in your town.
 
2008-12-01 07:44:38 PM
Religion = DICKS LOL
 
2008-12-01 07:45:42 PM
FTA:

Of course, to paraphrase Matthew, if anyone doesn't welcome you or listen to what you say, you can always click away from that website and shake its dust off your feet

/shaking the dust, wiping hands on pants, making the popcorn.
 
2008-12-01 07:45:44 PM
Weaver95: ...fark is hostile to religion. It's even hostile to spirituality. Unrelentingly so, I might add.

Shut up and burn in hell, Fundie!

/just kidding.
 
2008-12-01 07:45:50 PM
beerrun: and Methodists.

You beat me to it...
 
2008-12-01 07:46:16 PM
Githerax: I have never, ever seen Scriptural references as badly mangled as I have here. Just sayin'.

I've spent time on some Christian message boards with apologetics sections. It isn't pretty.
 
2008-12-01 07:46:25 PM
Am I too late to pop some popcorn?
 
2008-12-01 07:46:34 PM
Evil Twin Skippy: All in favor of nominating "Fark" as your religion, say "Aye"

Not until I get BIE.
 
2008-12-01 07:46:35 PM
Subby: Fark hasn't found religion. Religion has found Fark

That sounds like a threat, subby. And we don't take kindly to threats around these parts.
 
2008-12-01 07:46:39 PM
Religious people. How droll.
 
2008-12-01 07:47:06 PM
FarkinHostile

I miss Calvin and Hobbes :(
 
2008-12-01 07:47:20 PM
DamnYankees: netweavr: That's kinda irrelevant.

No its not. On what basis do you think everything logically possible must exist?


By definition. You have to start somewhere, otherwise what's the point of trying?

I mean, we can all make up any definition we like, I guess, but when the definition we have crafted doesn't make sense to anyone else, we may want to rethink it, no?

Depends on who is included when you say "anyone."

netweavr: It exists but apparently wasn't a member of the naturalistic universe.

What does that even mean? If I told you that "Jim lives North of the North Pole", would you say "hm, I guess he lives there, but that's not in the non-naturalistic universe", or would you say "that makes no sense".


North of the North Pole would not "exist" by the definition provided. As it is a sub-group of "exist," "naturalistic universe" would not contain it either.
 
2008-12-01 07:47:31 PM
Memes Ate My Balls: You don't need Internets to speak to Atheists, Agnostics, and Secular Humanists. They're right there in your town.

But they usually don't admit it because they don't want their house firebombed.
 
2008-12-01 07:47:53 PM
Ah, religious threads. Where the atheists come out to shout to the world how intelligent and logical they are, and how everyone else is the pinnacle of stupidity; incapable of rational opinions.
 
2008-12-01 07:48:10 PM
Weaver95: I've been here for quite some time now and lemme tell ya - when it comes to God or religion this site is one of the most closeminded, bigoted and hate fueled sites I have *ever* seen. Now that's not to say that every atheist on fark is like that. In fact, I've bumped into several agnostics and atheists who's opinons I respect....but in general, fark is hostile to religion. It's even hostile to spirituality. Unrelentingly so, I might add.

I think the personal spiritual side of the discussion leans toward respectful differences in philosophical viewpoints (you are right however, there are unwarranted exceptions).

When politics hits the mix (i.e. debate on a law that has clear religious purpose or bias), a flamewar is probably inevitable. I'm not talking about ninnies who object to a public Christmas tree or plaque, but public policy that is forced on everyone. It's hard to imagine much respect when that poison is mixed.
 
2008-12-01 07:48:26 PM
I always feel bad for the Pre-BC people and the folks that lived in North and South America, Sub-Saharan Africa, Northern Europe and Asia...they really didn't have a lot of choice in the matter.
 
2008-12-01 07:48:44 PM
You mean that stuff I read in the other threads was a "discussion"? Sheesh.
 
2008-12-01 07:48:44 PM
atheistkiwi.files.wordpress.com
 
Displayed 50 of 589 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report