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.

(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
    More: PSA  
•       •       •

9691 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Dec 2008 at 7:34 PM (7 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



589 Comments     (+0 »)
 


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

 
2008-12-01 08:03:28 PM  

Joey JoJo Junior Shabadoo: 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.


I find that on the internet I hear someone whining about it happening about 100 times more often than I actually see it happening.

jessemoya.com
 
2008-12-01 08:03:34 PM  

Weaver95: that's like saying Perl is the same as JCL because they're both programming languages used by computers. technically true, but the differences in their history and details of how they function are extremely important.


No argument from here. But most of the Fark threads about religion are about the validity of religious faith, not which sect is better or worse than another in political terms.

Weaver95: yes, but fark assumes that ALL people of faith are de facto religious fanatics. Or slightly retarded.


We don't assume that at all. I can just as easily accuse you of projection.

What many atheists *do* assume is that the moderate is no more justified in his faith than the fanatic. And that often really annoys moderates.

theorellior: Well, in the quantum multiverse, there exists a separate fork of reality in which various quantum events had different outcomes. It is usually referred to by the shorthand of "every time you make a decision, the Universe splits depending on the choices you did or didn't make." So, somewhere in the multiverse, there exists a reality where DamnYankees did actually put on a red hat or was already wearing a red hat at 6:40 on 12/1/08.


Fair enough. I suppose that's a possibility.
 
2008-12-01 08:04:00 PM  

vossiewulf: Howie Spankowitz: What about scoundrels, scalliwags, money-changers, harlots and n'erdowells?

Can't speak for them, but I know that blessed are the cheesemakers.


in a little late, but here anyway.

img.photobucket.com
 
2008-12-01 08:04:03 PM  
Weaver95: "The basic assumption of most farkers is that *all* Christians are evangelical bible thumping creationists. Which isn't true of course, but try telling the dawkins idiots that. it's a waste of time."

See, now this is really deeply interesting to me. From another thread:

Zamboro: " find that moderate Christians are commonly concerned about being misunderstood, misrepresented and tarred with the same brush as fundamentalists. When they meet someone hostile to their religion they set out with the assumption that one of the reasons that person is hostile to Christianity is because they are unable or unwilling to distinguish between fundamentaists and moderates."

I sympathize. I know a lot of atheists are frankly jerks because they think that the fact that you're wrong about the existence of god somehow means that your life is forfeit and anything they care to say or do to you is justified. We atheists have a special term for those sorts. "Teenagers".

Just understand that no, most Fark atheists don't actually lump you together with fundies. The way in which evangelicals tarnish the public image of your faith weighs so heavily on your mind that when you come into religious threads you wind up seeing that assumption everywhere, at least that's my theory. Also understand that sometimes the less considerate atheists who do say stuff like "all Christians are like Fred Phelps" are doing it because they know it's the last thing you want to hear and will get under your skin, the way many Fark atheist haters are fond of saying that atheism is a religion.

Hope that clears things up a little and by the by I bear no ill will towards you, you're one of my favorite posters in fact.
 
2008-12-01 08:04:19 PM  

AppleOptionEsc: This sounds like a job for...Bored AppleOptionEsc


I like the fact that Tatsuma got his own little pie slice. That dates the chart, though, because Tats has been rather quiet the last couple years.
 
2008-12-01 08:04:21 PM  

Mordant: I've never seen the value of converting people.


Nobody can convert anyone else because faith cannot be imposed on a person. They have to find it for themselves. However, behavior can be forced upon people and that seems to be the only thing the church (of mostly modern-day pharisees) care about anyway.


/big difference in faith and religion
 
2008-12-01 08:04:25 PM  

maddogdelta: Weaver95: Which isn't true of course, but try telling the dawkins idiots that. it's a waste of time.

So, which religion has demonstrable evidence that their belief is the correct one?


Not only did you miss my point, you landed on a different time zone, took 2 trains and then drove to a small cabin in the woods while trying to avoid it.

It's not about who's 'right', it's that fark automatically assumes the atheist point of view to be 'proper'. And if you aren't on board with that groupthink, then you get viciously attacked. THAT is my point. Care to discuss it?
 
2008-12-01 08:04:34 PM  
Time to feed the troll.

Bevets: Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. ~ Philip Dick


You've never "believed" in evolution or the evidence supporting it - does this quote prove that evolution and the evidence supporting it has been a constant reality the whole time?
 
2008-12-01 08:04:36 PM  

Weaver95: The basic assumption of most farkers is that *all* Christians are evangelical bible thumping creationists. Which isn't true of course, but try telling the dawkins idiots that. it's a waste of time.


Only 75% of Christians. The other 25% are child-molesting Catholic priests.
 
2008-12-01 08:05:03 PM  

Ed Grubermann: Weaver95: II'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.

Kinda like you in any gay or womens rights thread.


Weaver95 is not anti-gay or anti-woman. That's a terribly unfair thing to say. Unless I'm misremembering, this is way over the line.
 
2008-12-01 08:05:07 PM  

maddogdelta: Weaver95: yes, but fark assumes that ALL people of faith are de facto religious fanatics. Or slightly retarded.

Still waiting for the religion which has evidence to demonstrate its correctness.


you work very very hard to miss the point, don't you?
 
2008-12-01 08:05:50 PM  
There is only One True diety, and His name is Jupiter Optimus Maximus.

Link for any of you unwashed barbarians who wish to become enlightened
 
2008-12-01 08:06:47 PM  

DamnYankees: Weaver95:

blah blah blah expurgated

netweavr: North of the North Pole is a logical impossibility.


UP is a logical impossibility? who'da thunk we were in a 2 dimensional univoise?!?
 
Ant
2008-12-01 08:07:05 PM  

black_knight: "In particular, religious discussions on Fark present an opportunity for Christians to interact with atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists. We know we won't be able to convert Pagans because they're just too smart their religion is just as kooky as ours."
/added for truth's sake


FTFY
 
2008-12-01 08:07:23 PM  

DamnYankees: Ed Grubermann: Weaver95: II'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.

Kinda like you in any gay or womens rights thread.

Weaver95 is not anti-gay or anti-woman. That's a terribly unfair thing to say. Unless I'm misremembering, this is way over the line.


it's also very much what I've just been talking about.

step out of line, get accused of all sorts of off topic, horrible things.
 
2008-12-01 08:07:33 PM  

doofusgumby: UP is a logical impossibility? who'da thunk we were in a 2 dimensional univoise?!?


North of the north pole is a logical impossibility. He's right - that's why I posed the question.
 
2008-12-01 08:07:37 PM  
Weaver95: "It's not about who's 'right', it's that fark automatically assumes the atheist point of view to be 'proper'. And if you aren't on board with that groupthink, then you get viciously attacked. THAT is my point. Care to discuss it?"

Saying that we're atheists due to groupthink is a bit like conservatives claiming that people only voted for Obama because they were brainwashed.

/Bright people flock to good ideas.
 
2008-12-01 08:07:45 PM  

DamnYankees: netweavr: I defined a word. I don't think you understand how this works.

You defined it really weirdly and have made no attempt to explain or justify your definition.


"Really weirdly" doesn't mean anything to me in this context. The burden of proof is not on me to defend this definition. You can either agree with it and gain some ground on which to argue, or disagree and force another attempt to define a common ground. That or find some logical inconsistency in the definition itself.

netweavr: North of the North Pole is a logical impossibility.

Ok. Now answer the question.

If something is logical but does not exist in the naturalistic universe...where does it exist?


You're attempting to redefine "exist." I didn't say it didn't "exist" in the naturalistic universe, I said it wasn't a member of the sub-group "naturalistic universe" within the super-group "exist."
 
2008-12-01 08:08:09 PM  

Weaver95: DamnYankees: Ed Grubermann: Weaver95: II'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.

Kinda like you in any gay or womens rights thread.

Weaver95 is not anti-gay or anti-woman. That's a terribly unfair thing to say. Unless I'm misremembering, this is way over the line.

it's also very much what I've just been talking about.

step out of line, get accused of all sorts of off topic, horrible things.


Dude. This is Fark. Happens all the time. Brush it off and move on.
 
2008-12-01 08:08:48 PM  

netweavr: By the definition provided. Logically contradictory implies non-existence.


Then please explain why things that are not present in reality are assumed to exist? The example of such a thing that you provided was given the designation "God."

Weaver95: that's like saying Perl is the same as JCL because they're both programming languages used by computers. technically true, but the differences in their history and details of how they function are extremely important.


That particular analogy is imperfect because (I assume here, as I'm not a programmer) that Perl and JCL use different terms and grammar, while the varieties of Christian often use the same structures, terms, etc.

DamnYankees: If something is logical but does not exist in the naturalistic universe...where does it exist?


Eh. You got there first. Oh Well.
 
2008-12-01 08:08:49 PM  

DamnYankees: If something is logical but does not exist in the naturalistic universe...where does it exist?


It doesn't exist. Just because something is logical, or can be imagined through completely logical trains of thought, does not mean that it does exist.
 
2008-12-01 08:10:02 PM  
The Value of One and God Entity are inferior to "Value of Unified Life Opposites, merging of Our Mom and Dads". To worship a religious/academic defied Queer (God) as your progenitor, equates to spitting puke in your Mom and Dad's face - a real beastly act. There is No God, only Godism - an organized profiteering crime, collecting $billions from tithes.
 
2008-12-01 08:10:10 PM  
Zamboro

/Bright people flock to good ideas.


You know what other bright people flocked to a "good" idea?


/You said "Bright".
 
2008-12-01 08:10:17 PM  

netweavr: "Really weirdly" doesn't mean anything to me in this context. The burden of proof is not on me to defend this definition. You can either agree with it and gain some ground on which to argue, or disagree and force another attempt to define a common ground. That or find some logical inconsistency in the definition itself.


I merely asked you to support your definition. I can't force you to accept another one. But I can't see how your definition makes any sense outside of somne kind of multiverse theory.

If you are happy to pop in, say something, have no one understand you, and move on, then fair enough. I figured the whole point of discussing things was to get us to a point where we understand each other.

netweavr: You're attempting to redefine "exist." I didn't say it didn't "exist" in the naturalistic universe, I said it wasn't a member of the sub-group "naturalistic universe" within the super-group "exist."


That's saying the exact same thing in two different ways. What's the difference?
 
2008-12-01 08:10:25 PM  
FTFA: Headlines are submitted by users and selected by moderators not only for their newsworthiness, but for wit and originality. (One recent example: "Bear in Alaska bites woman. Did she taste bad? I dunno, Alaska.")

Heheheh, I remember that one.
 
Ant
2008-12-01 08:10:40 PM  

Weaver95: At least fark seems to hate all religions equally.


Hey, that's something, right?
 
2008-12-01 08:11:02 PM  

Ed Grubermann: DamnYankees: If something is logical but does not exist in the naturalistic universe...where does it exist?

It doesn't exist. Just because something is logical, or can be imagined through completely logical trains of thought, does not mean that it does exist.


According to him, it does.
 
2008-12-01 08:11:24 PM  

Weaver95: It's not about who's 'right', it's that fark automatically assumes the atheist point of view to be 'proper'. And if you aren't on board with that groupthink, then you get viciously attacked. THAT is my point. Care to discuss it?


Unfortunately, I think it's self-selection bias. I figure 80% of the blather in the religion threads is done by 20% of the people posting. There's a reason Farkers call others out in jest for posting "rational, logical arguments". Most of the high-profile posts are anything but.

A good 300+ post thread doesn't get that way through rational, logical arguments; it gets that way through screeds and blather. Which means that, once again, the asshats (of whatever stripe) get the attention because they're louder.
 
2008-12-01 08:12:02 PM  
Weaver95: 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 do you suppose that might be?
 
2008-12-01 08:13:06 PM  

Weaver95: step out of line, get accused of all sorts of off topic, horrible things.


Yeah. Like being Lenin supporting baby-seal-clubbing Christ killers. Wait . . .
 
2008-12-01 08:13:07 PM  

DamnYankees: Dude. This is Fark. Happens all the time. Brush it off and move on.


Generally that is exactly what I do. However, my point was that anyone here who says anything even remotely positive about living a spiritual lifestyle is treated harshly. Unfair accusations are made, personal attacks occur, and in general the fark community treats faith as a joke and the faithful as slobbering idiots.

Then along comes someone right in the middle of my comments and does *exactly* what I said would happen. while it isn't insulting to me in any sort of personal manner, I think it's worth highlighting the comment(s). I'd like to see calm and somewhat reasonable conversations concerning the Church and/or matters of faith happen here. I think they'd be worthwhile for all concerned. But we can't do that until we confront the fact that fark is fairly slanted against any/all things religious.
 
2008-12-01 08:13:08 PM  

Weaver95: step out of line, get accused of all sorts of off topic, horrible things.


Dude, you do it all of the time. Yes, you've gotten a bit less emotional about it in the last few months, but you are amazing anti-homosexual and anti-womens rights. I've seen you be completely rational for days in the political tab and then suddenly melt down when a gay (especially gay marriage) thread pops up. You've been so bad at times that I've got you color-coded with the other homophobes. I'm pretty careful when I label people.
 
2008-12-01 08:13:25 PM  

SphericalTime: Then please explain why things that are not present in reality are assumed to exist? The example of such a thing that you provided was given the designation "God."


By the definition provided.

DamnYankees: I figured the whole point of discussing things was to get us to a point where we understand each other.


It is, and if you cannot agree on my attempted definition we'll need another one.

DamnYankees: That's saying the exact same thing in two different ways. What's the difference?


"Exist" was not defined as being a member of a set. If you wanted to define it that way we could go with that.
 
2008-12-01 08:13:44 PM  

theorellior: Weaver95: It's not about who's 'right', it's that fark automatically assumes the atheist point of view to be 'proper'. And if you aren't on board with that groupthink, then you get viciously attacked. THAT is my point. Care to discuss it?

Unfortunately, I think it's self-selection bias. I figure 80% of the blather in the religion threads is done by 20% of the people posting. There's a reason Farkers call others out in jest for posting "rational, logical arguments". Most of the high-profile posts are anything but.

A good 300+ post thread doesn't get that way through rational, logical arguments; it gets that way through screeds and blather. Which means that, once again, the asshats (of whatever stripe) get the attention because they're louder.


Religion threads tend to get real and good after the 400th post or so, when all the trolls have gone and new people who aren't really interested shrug their shoulders at the length of the thread. From then on out, its just people who are actually interested in talking.
 
2008-12-01 08:13:49 PM  

DamnYankees: doofusgumby: UP is a logical impossibility? who'da thunk we were in a 2 dimensional univoise?!?

North of the north pole is a logical impossibility. He's right - that's why I posed the question.


uhhhhh no. north of the north pole, you have galactic north, which is universal southeast or something.

stop being a flat-earther.
 
2008-12-01 08:13:55 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.


Would it be rude of me to suggest that describing a retaliation as "hostile", while simultaneously obfuscating the fact that it is a retaliation in the first place, is wholly disingenuous?

i242.photobucket.com

i242.photobucket.com
 
2008-12-01 08:13:59 PM  
Actually, most of the time atheists just demand answers. That's so much worse than claiming to be intelligent and logical.

At least if someone claims to be intelligent and logical you can just point and laugh.


It's difficult to compare the thoughts but:
Radio waves have always existed - Maxwell predicted it only in 1860, Marconi tried it successfully in 1895 did they not exist in 1100 BC?

My point is that looking at the growth of scientific knowledge and abilities, eventually we are as likely to learn how to detect and trigger life on suitable planets as well as extend life nearly indefinitely...becomeing like a, oh that's too much to believe for a Fark post
 
2008-12-01 08:15:10 PM  

DamnYankees: Ed Grubermann: DamnYankees: If something is logical but does not exist in the naturalistic universe...where does it exist?

It doesn't exist. Just because something is logical, or can be imagined through completely logical trains of thought, does not mean that it does exist.

According to him, it does.


Yeah? Well my mom thinks I'm cool.

/Wait. What?
 
2008-12-01 08:15:29 PM  

Weaver95: it's also very much what I've just been talking about.

step out of line, get accused of all sorts of off topic, horrible things.


Dude, you came into the thread and accused most everyone on Fark of being "bigoted" and "hatefilled." You don't get to play the victim card when people get upset with that.
 
2008-12-01 08:15:29 PM  

Ed Grubermann: Weaver95: step out of line, get accused of all sorts of off topic, horrible things.

Dude, you do it all of the time. Yes, you've gotten a bit less emotional about it in the last few months, but you are amazing anti-homosexual and anti-womens rights. I've seen you be completely rational for days in the political tab and then suddenly melt down when a gay (especially gay marriage) thread pops up. You've been so bad at times that I've got you color-coded with the other homophobes. I'm pretty careful when I label people.


Not that it's at all on point, but if you believe that then you have seriously and completely misunderstood almost everything I have ever written here.
 
2008-12-01 08:15:44 PM  
Weaver95: It's not about who's 'right', it's that fark automatically assumes the atheist point of view to be 'proper'. And if you aren't on board with that groupthink, then you get viciously attacked. THAT is my point. Care to discuss it?

First of all, I don't go along with "groupthink" as you put it. I am perfectly content discussing any topic with anyone without going to an authority to tell me what my opinion is.

Second, I have posted in several of these threads that one reason why atheists seem more prominent on the internet is that it is one of the few places where they can "come out" without risk of being fired from their jobs or getting driven from their homes. A point which is always ignored by representatives of "The Religion of Love"TM. Instead those representatives come out whining about how they are being asked to provide evidence for their beliefs and why is everyone persecuting them.

A point which you are illustrating quite well.

The only thing I ask of any believer is evidence. Show me that, and you will find a convert. Not only that, if you show evidence, most of the Fark Atheist CabalTM will probably become converts also.
 
2008-12-01 08:16:01 PM  

Bevets: 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."


APPROVES
NSFW (new window)
 
2008-12-01 08:16:09 PM  

FarkinHostile:


You know what other bright people flocked to a "good" idea?


Germany 1920-45?
 
2008-12-01 08:16:37 PM  

Weaver95: Generally that is exactly what I do. However, my point was that anyone here who says anything even remotely positive about living a spiritual lifestyle is treated harshly. Unfair accusations are made, personal attacks occur, and in general the fark community treats faith as a joke and the faithful as slobbering idiots.


Yeah. We do the same thing for people who support Bush, Boston sports fans, and lots of other things. Fark has a much higher proportion of atheists than the real world.

We treat *everything* harshly here. I don't know why religion would be different.

netweavr: It is, and if you cannot agree on my attempted definition we'll need another one.


I gave another one. What's wrong with it?

netweavr: "Exist" was not defined as being a member of a set. If you wanted to define it that way we could go with that.


If I'm understand this right, you think there is a set "Exist", and within that set, there is a smaller set of "natural universe". Correct? If that is so, what other sets are there within the "Exist" set, and on what basis?
 
2008-12-01 08:16:52 PM  
Can mental floss prevent truth decay?
 
2008-12-01 08:16:54 PM  
netweavr: "The burden of proof is not on me to defend this definition."

Hey, wanna see something neat?

Commonly said to be the foundational question of apologetics to which most retreat when all else fails, "Why does something exist rather than nothing" is as vital to atheist polemic as it is to theistic apologetics.

After all, if existence is the default state, then it requires no creator. But in assuming that nonexistence is the default state (and thus the universe requires a creator) the question implicitly accepts the null hypothesis.

The downside for the atheist is that while he can use the null hypothesis to place the burden of proof inarguably on the theist, he is then stuck with the problem of the first cause.

The downside for the theist is, as previously mentioned, that he cannot deny the null hypothesis without rendering their creator unnecessary and shooting apologetics in the foot.


Ta daaa!
 
2008-12-01 08:16:55 PM  
www.paranoidloveconspiracy.com

/hotlinked to save souls
 
2008-12-01 08:17:11 PM  
Religious people aren't dumb, but man are they gullible!
 
2008-12-01 08:17:40 PM  
All Christians are Wankers

/will be the title of my book when I write it
//is a wanker
///is a Christian too
 
2008-12-01 08:17:50 PM  

Weaver95: there are gigabytes of data refuting that point of view, but I'm not interested in digging them up right now.


There are gigabytes of data to validate it as well. I don't see fark as hostile to the idea of a spiritual lifestyle... but I do see it as hostile to dogma. If you say I should be spiritual, I would probably tell you that I am spiritual, at least to my definition of the word. I value my friends and family, I try to be good to other people, and do charitable works. I find that those things make my life more meaningful.

However, even ignoring the wealth of the Catholic Church. The Pope is being insulting as well, because although he might just be saying "be spiritual", he's the spokesman for an organization that says "be spiritual in the manner that WE deem appropriate, or you will burn in hell for eternity!", and it is an organization that encourages policies that I find abhorrent. Until I've see evidence that the church has done their own soul searching, I hardly think they have any place telling me what to do.
 
Displayed 50 of 589 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Newest | 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