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.
Note: forcing pagination mode for this thread because of the high number of comments. (why?)

(Daily Mail)   Christians hit back at atheists, paying for their own series of bus ads stating 'There definitely is a God. So join the Christian Party and enjoy your life"   ( dailymail.co.uk) divider line
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

12642 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Feb 2009 at 11:20 AM (8 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1258 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest

 
2009-02-05 09:52:30 AM  
They should be required to *prove* any statement that includes "definitely."
 
2009-02-05 10:00:26 AM  
"definitely"?


Do tell...
 
2009-02-05 10:00:31 AM  
So, their argument is "nuh-uh".

Anyways, let them have their ads. They are going to be obsolete soon enough anyways.
 
2009-02-05 10:03:31 AM  
If I were in London I'd be really pissed off. I can see the bus traffic now:
[yes there is][no there isn't][is too!!!!][is not!!!!][ uh-huh ][ nuh-uhh ]
o-----------o__o------------o__o--------o__o-------o__o-----o__o -------o
 
2009-02-05 10:07:27 AM  
The Christian Party? As in, political party? Well isn't that just a kick in the pants.
 
2009-02-05 10:26:36 AM  
I'm sure this thread is going to be full of people who normally bash atheists for being so "certain" in their "beliefs" bashing Christians for this "definitely" nonsense. Right? Right?
 
2009-02-05 10:30:07 AM  
No YOU'RE a Towel: They are going to be obsolete soon enough anyways.

I'm not seeing any end-of-life notices on Stupidity v.2009. They just keep releasing new versions.
 
2009-02-05 10:31:47 AM  
When you have to resort to such piddling measures to keep your religion relevant, it's too late...
 
2009-02-05 10:36:08 AM  
Things needed for a successful party:

Boobies
Alcohol
Drugs
Loud rock music
Two drunk chicks making out

Things considered sinful or of the debil:

See all of above
 
2009-02-05 10:43:34 AM  

Abstruse: Things needed for a successful party:

Boobies
Alcohol
Drugs
Loud rock music
Two drunk chicks making out

Things considered sinful or of the debil:

See all of above


Can I join?
 
2009-02-05 10:46:55 AM  
I'd like to see their evidence to support "definitely." Sounds like false advertising to me.
 
2009-02-05 10:48:13 AM  
how can you enjoy life when god is looking over your shoulder all the time. i can't have fun and be good at the same time, now can i?
 
2009-02-05 10:53:50 AM  

crimsin23: Can I join?


Sure...you get to sleep in on Sundays too.
 
2009-02-05 10:57:27 AM  
exick:

The Christian Party? As in, political party? Well isn't that just a kick in the pants.

We call them Republicans

.
 
2009-02-05 10:58:08 AM  
If it is on the side of a bus, it must be true. There's your PROOF!
 
2009-02-05 10:59:22 AM  
nitwits: There definitely is a God.

Yup, but it's Zeus. Sorry, Christians!
 
2009-02-05 10:59:54 AM  
Let me lay out why this is dumb:

People don't need to create a pro-Christian zeitgeist. You don't need ads to make people comfortable being Christian. Christianity is not just accepted, but overwhelmingly dominant. The idea behind the atheist bus signs, even if you think they are retarded, are much the same as the aims behind things Richard Dawkins does - to move the Overton window and just get atheism into the public consciousness. Make people aware, make it a comfortable and normal part of existence.

This is dumb.
 
2009-02-05 11:05:07 AM  
BunkoSquad nitwits: There definitely is a God Zod.

Yup, but it's Zeus. Sorry, Christians!


host.trivialbeing.org



/Sorry, Bunko!
 
2009-02-05 11:05:31 AM  
I believe there is a God, but I also think that Jesus was the David Copperfield of his time.
 
2009-02-05 11:07:29 AM  
I also like the correlation. "There is a God so be a Christian!" Do they say there is a Christian God? Nooope. What if they mean like, There is a (Roman) God, but fark him and be a Christian instead? Well then they're just dooming you to suffer the wrath of Zeus. What jackasses.
 
2009-02-05 11:07:44 AM  
GIS for Christian Party:

www.student-subway.com

...is pretty much exactly what you'd expect.
 
2009-02-05 11:09:43 AM  
Cue popcorn....
 
2009-02-05 11:11:33 AM  

Mad Tea Party: ...is pretty much exactly what you'd expect.


Actually, I expected more cankles.
 
2009-02-05 11:13:38 AM  
Caradoc: They should be required to *prove* any statement that includes "definitely."

As long as this goes for both Theists and Atheists, I'm fine with that.
 
2009-02-05 11:13:44 AM  
only christians go to heaven you heathen.
 
2009-02-05 11:13:55 AM  
FootInMouthDisease: /Sorry, Bunko!

Can't speak. Too busy kneeling.
 
2009-02-05 11:14:48 AM  

Tatsuma: Caradoc: They should be required to *prove* any statement that includes "definitely."

As long as this goes for both Theists and Atheists, I'm fine with that.


We actually agree on something. Odd.
 
2009-02-05 11:15:11 AM  
Tatsuma, you are making the claim that god exists, therefore, the burden is on you.

i6.photobucket.com

 
2009-02-05 11:16:41 AM  
DamnYankees: We actually agree on something. Odd.

Beer is delicious, women are beautiful, never a truer statement: "I love scotch. Scotchy, scotch, scotch. Here it goes down, down into my belly... ", if everyone made peace it would be awesome, the sky is blue, life even with all its occasional setbacks is beautiful and worth living, celine dion and nickelback is the reason why canada should be nuked from orbit

I'm sure we agree on plenty of things!
 
2009-02-05 11:17:14 AM  

Tatsuma: I'm sure we agree on plenty of things!


I actually don't like the taste of beer.
 
2009-02-05 11:17:18 AM  
FootInMouthDisease: Tatsuma, you are making the claim that god exists, therefore, the burden is on you.

And when you make the claim that G-d doesn't exist (ch"vs), the burden falls on you, no?
 
2009-02-05 11:18:54 AM  
DamnYankees: I actually don't like the taste of beer.

What is wrong with you?!?

If you tell me you can't enjoy a cold Guinness during a hot evening, that's fighting words, mate.
 
2009-02-05 11:18:59 AM  

Tatsuma: And when you make the claim that G-d doesn't exist (ch"vs), the burden falls on you, no?


To the same extent it's my burden to prove that leprechauns don't exist.
 
2009-02-05 11:19:21 AM  

Tatsuma: FootInMouthDisease: Tatsuma, you are making the claim that god exists, therefore, the burden is on you.

And when you make the claim that G-d doesn't exist (ch"vs), the burden falls on you, no?


If anyone were to make that claim, sure. But most people don't, even if they word it that way.

I also think its pretty easy to show most formulations of god don't exist.
 
2009-02-05 11:19:56 AM  

Tatsuma: If you tell me you can't enjoy a cold Guinness during a hot evening, that's fighting words, mate.


I've never actually had Guinness. I'm not really a drinker. I'm addicted to diet soda.
 
2009-02-05 11:21:37 AM  
DamnYankees: I've never actually had Guinness.

Jerusalem this summer, you, me, a tall Guinness and a plate of Shawarma.

Then it's scotch scotch scotchy scotch. Sounds good?

If anyone were to make that claim, sure. But most people don't, even if they word it that way.

I see you're new to these threads. Enjoy it!
 
2009-02-05 11:22:12 AM  
Who really gives a shiat?

/tards
 
2009-02-05 11:22:35 AM  
Tatsuma no you are making a positive assertion.

I'm sure in temple, 'god did it' is an okay explanation, but science doesnt care about magic, we look for actual answers, instead of blind indoctrination.

yes i realize most Jews understand the torah is more like a book of allegories, than taken for sooth, but you really ought to be more careful with the conjectures you posit.

img170.imageshack.us

 
2009-02-05 11:23:16 AM  
I enjoy my life a lot more now that I know there's no God up there toying with me.
 
2009-02-05 11:23:29 AM  
Rewrite headline:

Christians hit back at atheists nonreligious people, paying for their own series of bus ads stating 'There definitely is a God. So join the Christian Party and enjoy your life" "Our god story/description is the only 'truth' you need to know so join our social club" T-Shirt
 
2009-02-05 11:23:59 AM  

FootInMouthDisease: yes i realize most Jews understand the torah is more like a book of allegories, than taken for sooth, but you really ought to be more careful with the conjectures you posit.


Sooth?
 
2009-02-05 11:24:11 AM  
FootInMouthDisease: Tatsuma no you are making a positive assertion.

The fact that my assertion is positive or not is irrelevant. ARe you saying that if I say "Man never walked on the moon", since this is a negative assertion, i don't need to prove it?

Same goes for "Yoshke never actually existed", actually.
 
2009-02-05 11:24:15 AM  
Good for them. Won't change anything.
 
2009-02-05 11:24:21 AM  
Tatsuma off to give a lecture, i'll check back around 1:30PM CST (or -6GMT)

/don't disappoint me fark!
 
Bf+
2009-02-05 11:24:41 AM  
"definitely is"?

Depends of what the definition of is is, I suppose.
 
2009-02-05 11:25:35 AM  
Does anyone else think that Hindu goddess with all the arms is hot?

If you don't, then neither do I.
 
2009-02-05 11:26:08 AM  
the atheist bus campaign: there probably isn't a god, stop worrying and enjoy your life
christian bus campaign: there definitely is a god, etc.

to be honest the atheist bus campaign sounds more like the agnostic bus campaign.
 
2009-02-05 11:26:11 AM  
Tatsuma The fact that my assertion is positive or not is irrelevant.

Only in your mind, is this irrelevant.
 
2009-02-05 11:26:35 AM  
There is definitely more to the multiverse than we comprehend.

Whether it's all wrapped up in undead Hebrews is less certain. Just a bit.
 
2009-02-05 11:26:46 AM  

Tatsuma: If you tell me you can't enjoy a cold Guinness during a hot evening, that's fighting words, mate.


Cold Guinness? Them's fightin' words, mate!

Anyways, religion seems to be fading in the US but it's going pretty good in other parts of the world as far as I know and let's not forget that there are still quite a number of rabid fundies around. My prediction is that it will make a comeback in a decade or two. It's comfort food for the soul for some people. Hard to resist and it makes you fat (or something like that).
 
2009-02-05 11:26:47 AM  

Mad Tea Party: GIS for Christian Party:

...is pretty much exactly what you'd expect.


What do you talk about at a christian party?

"You like God? I like God too! We should totally not have sex."
 
2009-02-05 11:27:12 AM  
There is a god. And his name is Charlie.
 
2009-02-05 11:27:19 AM  
FootInMouthDisease:

So the universe is God?

/that's what I got from your image
 
2009-02-05 11:27:25 AM  
"It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
 
2009-02-05 11:27:25 AM  
"There definitely is a God. So join the Christian Party and enjoy your life"

[proof needed]
 
2009-02-05 11:27:30 AM  
I'm very concerned that either side thinks someone will make such important life decisions about faith or no faith based on what they saw on the side of a bus.

Reminds of an old Alexi Sayle's sketch about the stupidity vandals painting "Ban the Bomb" on a wall. As if Margaret Thatcher would be tooling along in her limo, see the graffiti and say "Oh my! I never thought of that!"
 
2009-02-05 11:27:53 AM  
FootInMouthDisease: Only in your mind, is this irrelevant.

Face it: "G-d exists" cannot ultimately be proved one way or another. Your position on it is ultimately rooted in taking that small leap of faith toward one position or another.

Or shrugging your shoulders, saying "Dunno" and try to live your life as best as you can.
 
2009-02-05 11:27:55 AM  
Isn't this basically the argument the Nazi's made for why you should join their party?

I'm sorry, I didn't want to Godwin the thread but I was thinking about the Anarchist Pogo Party of Germany. Now that's a political party we need to bring to the USA.
 
2009-02-05 11:27:55 AM  
I'm assuming the athiests out there are getting a kick out of the "definitely" thing. Personally, whether the almighty exists or not is really up to the group of people involved, and should not be put on busses or other crap like that. It stops being "theist vs athiest" at that point and becomes pure attention-whoring.

/dnrtfa
 
2009-02-05 11:28:07 AM  
Well, I'm convinced!

/My sarcasm doth overflow.
 
2009-02-05 11:28:18 AM  

Abstruse: Things needed for a successful party:

Boobies
Alcohol
Drugs
Loud rock music
Two drunk chicks making out

Things considered sinful or of the debil:

See all of above


What time do you start? What should I bring?
 
2009-02-05 11:28:37 AM  

DamnYankees: Tatsuma: I'm sure we agree on plenty of things!

I actually don't like the taste of beer.


Heathen!!!
 
2009-02-05 11:28:44 AM  
i202.photobucket.com
 
2009-02-05 11:29:07 AM  

Tatsuma: FootInMouthDisease: Tatsuma, you are making the claim that god exists, therefore, the burden is on you.

And when you make the claim that G-d doesn't exist (ch"vs), the burden falls on you, no?


NO U
 
2009-02-05 11:29:12 AM  
Mad Tea Party: ...is pretty much exactly what you'd expect.

Yes, but the Christian after parties are where you've got the gangbangs, anal sex and drinking.

\Should have joined the youth group in high school
 
2009-02-05 11:29:20 AM  
Jument: Cold Guinness? Them's fightin' words, mate!

Pff, I didn't say freezing, but everyone knows that a Guinness is not meant to be drank at room temperature (especially if you're in the Middle-East)
 
2009-02-05 11:29:30 AM  
z.about.com

They already hit back at atheists
 
2009-02-05 11:29:31 AM  
when someone wins the bus wars, please let me know, so I can know what I believe.
 
2009-02-05 11:29:31 AM  
There is a God?

Which one?
 
2009-02-05 11:29:40 AM  

kronicfeld: Tatsuma: And when you make the claim that G-d doesn't exist (ch"vs), the burden falls on you, no?

To the same extent it's my burden to prove that leprechauns don't exist.


No. You can't prove a negative. The default state is "no".

If I say I don't know how to drive a car, you don't put me behind the wheel and have me crash the car to show I don't. If I say I know how to drive a car, then I have to SHOW you that I do know how by safely driving a car.
 
2009-02-05 11:29:58 AM  
I hope there's a bus that has the atheist message on one side and the "there's definitely a god" message on the other side. I do find it amusing that the atheist message uses "probably" and the god one uses "definitely," even though belief in god is a matter of faith and not objectively knowable.

/Warms the shiat outta my cockles.
 
2009-02-05 11:30:06 AM  
i202.photobucket.com
 
2009-02-05 11:30:22 AM  
All it proves is they picked a shiatty advertising agency. What a crap slogan!
 
2009-02-05 11:30:31 AM  
I think I figured out who is winning this fight! The people who get paid to rent out these ad spaces.
 
2009-02-05 11:30:34 AM  
Well if the only explanation you have for why the universe exists, to the question "why are we here," sounds like this:

"...Because god made it"

Then you are a religious person who believes the cause of the universe is the mental image of a human man (a description or story) who is conveniently all-powerful and all-good and all-loving despite the misery and suffering that goes along with the human condition.

"Because god made it" is not an explanation. It is a story
 
2009-02-05 11:30:44 AM  

wademh: when someone wins the bus wars, please let me know, so I can know what I believe.


I like it.
 
2009-02-05 11:30:52 AM  
wildcardjack: Isn't this basically the argument the Nazi's made for why you should join their party?

No, I think it had to do with not being stupid and being a smarty instead
 
2009-02-05 11:31:01 AM  

ObscureNameHere: I'm very concerned that either side thinks someone will make such important life decisions about faith or no faith based on what they saw on the side of a bus.


But that's not what this is. It's not about converting someone with a bus slogan. It's very incremental. It's sort of like I'm not going to by a car because I saw an ad about it - but maybe it will make me aware of the existence of that car company which leads to purchases down the line.
 
2009-02-05 11:31:46 AM  
The reason the atheist campaign used "probably" is to get around the false advertising laws. And the courts supported them.

So I don't expect this to last long, at least in Britain.
 
2009-02-05 11:32:05 AM  
There definitely is a God. Unfortunately, his name is Cthulhu. Run, mortals! Run!
 
2009-02-05 11:32:14 AM  
i202.photobucket.com
 
2009-02-05 11:32:39 AM  

Tatsuma: Face it: "G-d exists" cannot ultimately be proved one way or another.


Yeah, ultimately, it could be, if there were evidence for it, just like one "proves" the existence of anything else.
 
2009-02-05 11:33:21 AM  
Tatsuma

Assuming for a minute that there is in fact a god. What denomination of what religion is, in your opinion, most correct?
 
2009-02-05 11:33:37 AM  
 
2009-02-05 11:33:55 AM  
img217.imageshack.us

Party, anyone?
 
2009-02-05 11:34:01 AM  
The difference is Atheists will think it's pretty cool.

Christians get PISSED when they see atheist ads. And it's not a 'we're angry they're posting something contrary to us' it's 'Why the hell are they even allowed to exist?!'
 
2009-02-05 11:34:03 AM  
"Enjoy life?" Too bad it seems like Christians, at least the ones who are up in arms over this ad, seem to have a massive persecution complex that cannot possibly lead to a happy life.
 
2009-02-05 11:34:26 AM  

PanicMan: "You like God? I like God too! We should totally not have sex."


I'm pretty sure that's what the two guys in the foreground are saying. You can cut the repressed sexual tension with a knife.
 
2009-02-05 11:34:28 AM  

Caradoc: They should be required to *prove* any statement that includes "definitely."


I agree 100% no B.S. And then since neither side can prove either way, they should ALL just shut the fark up. End of story.
 
2009-02-05 11:34:51 AM  

jake3988: The difference is Atheists will think it's pretty cool.

Christians get PISSED when they see atheist ads.


All the atheists in this thread seemed to get pretty pissed.
 
2009-02-05 11:34:51 AM  

The Icelander: The reason the atheist campaign used "probably" is to get around the false advertising laws.


No, it's because intellectual honesty demands accepting that "probably not" or "almost certainly not" is as far as you can go on the conclusion of god's non-existence.
 
2009-02-05 11:34:52 AM  
If only people cared more about the content of their religion rather than if they are right or wrong.
 
2009-02-05 11:35:14 AM  
Hahahahaha! Looks like the No God ads got their attention. Maybe we should move on to teleatheism.

Seriously, though. The Christian Party is a great way to enjoy life. Back in high school most of my friends were part of these youth groups that did, among other things, "lock-ins" at their church every month.

Activities at these lock-ins included wanton sex and smoking pot. The funny thing is that as an atheist I apparently had more respect for sacred grounds than the Jesus freaks did. My first girlfriend was in one and wanted me to come to the lock-in with her so that we could do it on the pews. I thought that was disrespectful, so we used my car instead.

Seriously, what adult thought locking two dozen horny teenagers in a huge church at night was a good idea?
 
2009-02-05 11:35:38 AM  
WHO CARES?

Shame on both groups for spending money on attention whoring, though.

/Catholic Mother
//Atheist Father
///"Just treat your fellow man decently" is what I ended up with
////Humanist, if you want a label, I guess.
 
2009-02-05 11:35:55 AM  
Cool tag? Really?
 
2009-02-05 11:36:17 AM  
Torok: Assuming for a minute that there is in fact a god. What denomination of what religion is, in your opinion, most correct?

All I'll say is that, like love, G-d is a four letter word.
 
2009-02-05 11:36:22 AM  

I Said: If I were in London I'd be really pissed off. I can see the bus traffic now:
[yes there is][no there isn't][is too!!!!][is not!!!!][ uh-huh ][ nuh-uhh ]
o-----------o__o------------o__o--------o__o-------o__o-----o__o -------o


are these guys driving?
farm2.static.flickr.com
 
2009-02-05 11:36:33 AM  
Christian Party ? As in hammers and nails instead of chips and salsa ?
Pass.
 
2009-02-05 11:36:40 AM  

Selfabortion: ... I do find it amusing that the atheist message uses "probably" and the god one uses "definitely,"...



"Trust those who seek truth. Doubt those who find it."
 
2009-02-05 11:36:42 AM  
FootInMouthDisease

Ah... thank you. Now I get it. I Googled that once to see if I could be educated and there was nothing doing.

/The more you know...
 
2009-02-05 11:37:05 AM  
"there definitely probably is a god."

That would have been the appropriate response to the atheists ad.
 
2009-02-05 11:37:08 AM  

Mad Tea Party: GIS for Christian Party:

...is pretty much exactly what you'd expect.


1) All white people.... check
2) Frumpy girls in dress.... check
3) Metro gay guy trying to be straight.... check

It's like they follow some rule book to make sure they make some status quo or something....
 
2009-02-05 11:37:17 AM  
i42.tinypic.com

God loves you so much he'll send you to hell to suffer for eternity.
 
2009-02-05 11:37:22 AM  

Caradoc: They should be required to *prove* any statement that includes "definitely."


Really? Since when did advertisers have to "prove" anything?
 
2009-02-05 11:37:26 AM  
Oh yeah? Well, if there really is a God, let him strike me dead right n
 
2009-02-05 11:37:28 AM  
Both sides are acting like children.
 
2009-02-05 11:37:36 AM  

Tatsuma: Pff, I didn't say freezing, but everyone knows that a Guinness is not meant to be drank at room temperature (especially if you're in the Middle-East)


Yeah but it should be cool, not cold. Not warm either. OTOH I don't mind them starting off cold because I tend to nurse my beer and it warms up quickly anyways.

/can I haz a point?
//no, I cannot
///can I haz a beer?
 
2009-02-05 11:37:46 AM  
Lots of irony in this debate.

Atheists often think that God is some unfun buzzkill. Therefore, believing he doesn't exist = happier existence.

Yet a study by the European Centre for Social Welfare Policy found that sincere and active religious individuals are happier, have more life satisfaction, and less stress.

But keep on going with that humanism and hedonism.
 
2009-02-05 11:37:51 AM  
DamnYankees: I actually don't like the taste of beer.

HEATHEN!

Back on track...

Actually, what is really funny about this, is that the original bus ads are ancient history as far as the news is concerned. But the people buying the new ads just gave a boatload more free publicity for the humanist group that put up the original ads.

Sort of like when Bill O'Rly brought on the Freedom From Religion foundation so he could bloviate all over them FOR AN ENTIRE WEEK, guaranteeing the FFRF much more publicity than they could have possibly paid for on their own.

Good jorb, folks! Keep it up!
 
2009-02-05 11:37:55 AM  
I don't need a bus sign to tell me that I believe in God but good to both Christians and Atheist for putting money back into local economies!
 
2009-02-05 11:38:10 AM  
As an agnostic, I can say that some people on both sides of the argument are pretty douchtastic. There's pretty reasonable logical arguments for both sides, but I can't see any reason to form any hard opinion on the issue.

I find the possibility that some entity that exists outside of space and time created our universe as some experiment.. Hell, why not? From our perspective, there's no way to prove or disprove this hypothesis, so its entirely outside the realm of science.

Is it possible the universe exists for no reason whatsoever? Sure, but I have yet to hear any reasonable explanation of the mechanics of this creation.

So, you're left with the reality that space, matter, time, and energy exists. Feel free to form an opinion on how this happened, but don't be a douche to people who formed a different opinion, considering how improbable it seems, at least to me, that either option could possibly be correct, except for the fact that it seems one or the other option must be correct.
 
2009-02-05 11:38:20 AM  

Broadcastdave: I believe there is a God, but I also think that Jesus was the David Copperfield of his time.


For the magic or for the raping of women?

/google knows all - google is god
/and i keed
 
2009-02-05 11:38:46 AM  
A higher power exists

/and I worship his noodley appendage
 
2009-02-05 11:39:16 AM  
I don't care if God exists. He ain't said shiat to me.
 
2009-02-05 11:39:31 AM  

Nightjars: I find the possibility that some entity that exists outside of space and time


What does it mean to 'exist' outside of space and time?
 
2009-02-05 11:40:25 AM  

Oblio13: Selfabortion: ... I do find it amusing that the atheist message uses "probably" and the god one uses "definitely,"...


"Trust those who seek truth. Doubt those who find it."


Didn't the Atheists HAVE to add the whole probably part? Seems like kind of a slap in the face that the thumpers get to use definitely.
 
2009-02-05 11:40:27 AM  
Atheist. I don't give a shiat what you believe, or not, as long as you extend the same courtesy to me.
 
2009-02-05 11:40:33 AM  

Firefly4F4: kronicfeld: Tatsuma: And when you make the claim that G-d doesn't exist (ch"vs), the burden falls on you, no?

To the same extent it's my burden to prove that leprechauns don't exist.

No. You can't prove a negative. The default state is "no".

If I say I don't know how to drive a car, you don't put me behind the wheel and have me crash the car to show I don't. If I say I know how to drive a car, then I have to SHOW you that I do know how by safely driving a car.


Bad analogy. Both statements of definite existence and non existence carry the same logical burden. The only way around this is to claim to not know, i.e. agnostic. Over-simplified example is, the sky is blue, the sky is not blue, ie. it is something else. The only way to claim superiority without proof, is to say I know know what color the sky is.
 
2009-02-05 11:40:34 AM  
According to this farking article the reason atheists said "there is probably no god" is because it is an opinion and so doesn't need to be proven. Saying that there "definitely is a god" is a statement of fact that can't be proven.

I wonder what level of butthurt these people will go to when their sign gets taken down for being incorrect.
 
2009-02-05 11:40:38 AM  
As an apathetic atheist, I don't really care much one way or the other, but ANYTIME I see militant, self-righteous types get all upset and angry, I get all happy inside.
 
2009-02-05 11:40:48 AM  

DamnYankees: Let me lay out why this is dumb:

People don't need to create a pro-Christian zeitgeist. You don't need ads to make people comfortable being Christian. Christianity is not just accepted, but overwhelmingly dominant. The idea behind the atheist bus signs, even if you think they are retarded, are much the same as the aims behind things Richard Dawkins does - to move the Overton window and just get atheism into the public consciousness. Make people aware, make it a comfortable and normal part of existence.

This is dumb.


I don't know where you hail from, but in the country where this story originated, christianity hasnt been the dominant force for many years. Practicing christians are so rare as to be almost an object of curiosity, and ridicule.
 
2009-02-05 11:40:54 AM  

Nightjars: As an agnostic, I can say that some people on both sides of the argument are pretty douchtastic. There's pretty reasonable logical arguments for both sides, but I can't see any reason to form any hard opinion on the issue.

I find the possibility that some entity that exists outside of space and time created our universe as some experiment.. Hell, why not? From our perspective, there's no way to prove or disprove this hypothesis, so its entirely outside the realm of science.

Is it possible the universe exists for no reason whatsoever? Sure, but I have yet to hear any reasonable explanation of the mechanics of this creation.

So, you're left with the reality that space, matter, time, and energy exists. Feel free to form an opinion on how this happened, but don't be a douche to people who formed a different opinion, considering how improbable it seems, at least to me, that either option could possibly be correct, except for the fact that it seems one or the other option must be correct.


Time is part of the universe. Without the universe there is no time and the question of what happened "before" or "after" is meaningless.
 
2009-02-05 11:41:29 AM  

justinguarini4ever: Lots of irony in this debate.

Atheists often think that God is some unfun buzzkill. Therefore, believing he doesn't exist = happier existence.

Yet a study by the European Centre for Social Welfare Policy found that sincere and active religious individuals are happier, have more life satisfaction, and less stress.

But keep on going with that humanism and hedonism.


My dog is happier than most people. He can lick his balls.
 
2009-02-05 11:41:34 AM  
kronicfeld: No, it's because intellectual honesty demands accepting that "probably not" or "almost certainly not" is as far as you can go on the conclusion of god's non-existence.

Well, maybe a little of both.

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Shame on both groups for spending money on attention whoring, though.

As has been pointed out before, the issue isn't about converting people to atheism. It's about making people realize that there are atheists out there. It's the equivalent of "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!" from the 1980s.

And the Christians putting this ad up are just validating that fact.

destitute college kid: All the atheists in this thread seemed to get pretty pissed.

Who's pissed? I'm not pissed. I think it's great. It's more free advertising.

And a pic of Ariane Sherine, who organized the Atheist Bus campaign, for good measure:

cache.daylife.com
 
2009-02-05 11:41:57 AM  
Well, it's a step up from this ad: Link (new window)
 
2009-02-05 11:42:19 AM  

nikknaack1: Firefly4F4: kronicfeld: Tatsuma: And when you make the claim that G-d doesn't exist (ch"vs), the burden falls on you, no?

To the same extent it's my burden to prove that leprechauns don't exist.

No. You can't prove a negative. The default state is "no".

If I say I don't know how to drive a car, you don't put me behind the wheel and have me crash the car to show I don't. If I say I know how to drive a car, then I have to SHOW you that I do know how by safely driving a car.

Bad analogy. Both statements of definite existence and non existence carry the same logical burden. The only way around this is to claim to not know, i.e. agnostic. Over-simplified example is, the sky is blue, the sky is not blue, ie. it is something else. The only way to claim superiority without proof, is to say I know know what color the sky is.


blah

I DON'T know
 
2009-02-05 11:42:23 AM  
Watching_Epoxy_Cure: Really? Since when did advertisers have to "prove" anything?

They do in Britain.
 
2009-02-05 11:42:55 AM  

odinsposse: According to this farking article the reason atheists said "there is probably no god" is because it is an opinion and so doesn't need to be proven. Saying that there "definitely is a god" is a statement of fact that can't be proven.


The article says nothing about why they used "probably."
 
2009-02-05 11:43:01 AM  

Tatsuma: Torok: Assuming for a minute that there is in fact a god. What denomination of what religion is, in your opinion, most correct?

All I'll say is that, like love, G-d is a four letter word.


You do you not wish to answer? I can't blame you as it is an impossible to answer question. Even if I wanted to believe in God there would be no point because it's not possible to determine how to go about doing it correctly.
 
2009-02-05 11:43:30 AM  
So lemme see here.... Atheists come up with a clever marketing scheme out of the blue that creates controversy, but gets people talking. They say there's 'probably' no God, which is my thought exactly.

And the Christians 'hit back' by mocking the atheists' message, which to me doesn't sound very Christian. They say there DEFINITELY is a God, which is absolutely and laughably unsubstantiated and forever unprovable. And they basically just have the all-around feel of an 6-year-old sore loser who's stamping their feet at someone who doesn't bow to their ever-perfect opinions.

Yeah, way to 'hit back', Christians. I'm SO impressed.
 
2009-02-05 11:44:58 AM  

The Icelander: And a pic of Ariane Sherine, who organized the Atheist Bus campaign, for good measure:


I would like to sign up to worship her.
 
2009-02-05 11:45:18 AM  

DamnYankees: What does it mean to 'exist' outside of space and time?


To have your existence not dependent on our existential constraints. From the deist perspective, it seems to me that if you create a playpen, and put a living organism in it, that the living organism would consider the playpen to be the delimiting parameters of existence. To the person putting the organism in the playpen, their delimiting parameters of existence are different.

Is it true? Meh, I don't really care. But I can conceptualize the possibility.
 
2009-02-05 11:45:21 AM  
Jument: OTOH I don't mind them starting off cold because I tend to nurse my beer and it warms up quickly anyways.

Exactly

///can I haz a beer?

You always can

Torok:

that was a joke. I guess you have to be Jewish to get it.
 
2009-02-05 11:45:23 AM  
So aside the usual flame wars here in Fark, we now have a bus campaign to show who's the most immature group...

And I have to say that I'm not surprised on who started it.


And yes I know that the religious signs have been all over for years, but they are usually various messages, some aiming to be inspirational, some are about having values that they believe in (and the world might be better if some non-religious folks were to make consider them too, even without being religious), etc. I can't recall seeing one that was aimed at calling atheist out as stupid or anything like that. They aren't aimed at attacking other's choice in beliefs.

While on the other hand, that's all I hear and see from the atheist groups. (with a very few exceptions)
 
2009-02-05 11:45:27 AM  

justinguarini4ever: Lots of irony in this debate.

Atheists often think that God is some unfun buzzkill. Therefore, believing he doesn't exist = happier existence.

Yet a study by the European Centre for Social Welfare Policy found that sincere and active religious individuals are happier, have more life satisfaction, and less stress.

But keep on going with that humanism and hedonism.


Ignorance is bliss?
 
2009-02-05 11:45:42 AM  

The Icelander: Watching_Epoxy_Cure: Really? Since when did advertisers have to "prove" anything?

They do in Britain.


Also in the 70's in America. Ford and Carter admins saw all kinds of pro-consumer laws that were gutted in the 80's by Reagan.

One of them was that if you endorsed a product you had to actually use it. The Joe Namath panty hose ad wouldn't have been allowed if it had been done later.
 
2009-02-05 11:45:49 AM  
Came for the athiest versus agnostic biatchfest...

/leaving disappointed
//athiest
///its the only honest position
////grabs popcorn
 
2009-02-05 11:45:51 AM  
justinguarini4ever: Atheists often think that God is some unfun buzzkill. Therefore, believing he doesn't exist = happier existence.

I think you've got it the wrong way round. It's no that we don't believe god doesn't exist. It's that we don't believe in god. The concept of "faith" is alien to a lot of us.

Maybe that faith makes people happier, but I'd rather be less happy and see the world as it is than be blissful and believe.
 
2009-02-05 11:45:52 AM  
The whole thing seems equally retarded and dickish on both sides. Does anyone really need an ad to tell them what to believe?

Wanna believe in a god? Fine, believe. Don't wanna believe? That's fine too. You do your thing and don't try to impose your belief system on me & we'll get along fine.

/agnostic
 
2009-02-05 11:46:07 AM  
I don't know who I could care less about... the annoying atheists of the world that spend all their time and money pushing their agenda on everyone else around them or the annoying religious people of the world who spend all their time and money pushing their agenda on everyone else around them.

Get a life and stop worrying about everyone else, all of you.
 
2009-02-05 11:46:16 AM  

Tatsuma: FootInMouthDisease: Only in your mind, is this irrelevant.

Face it: "G-d exists" cannot ultimately be proved one way or another. Your position on it is ultimately rooted in taking that small leap of faith toward one position or another.

Or shrugging your shoulders, saying "Dunno" and try to live your life as best as you can.


You, like a lot of religious folks, fail to understand the burden of proof on negative assumptions.

If one says, for example, that Unicorns don't exist, the burden of proof is on the person to prove they do exist, not on the person who says they don't.

Why? because you cannot prove nonexistence, because things that don't exist leave no evidence of non-existence.

Your moon analogy breaks down because if you claim we never walked on the moon, I can refute that by offering evidence that we did.

Now, If you say 'Man never walked on mars' you can only support that by saying 'there is no evidence man walked on Mars'. This works because without evidence, the default is also null, ie, non existence.

So in the end, you cannot prove Non-existence, only existence. Else, you'd have to believe in everything mythical, legendary, or fictional, merely because you can't prove those things don't exist, because you'll never find evidence to support non existence.
 
2009-02-05 11:46:23 AM  
An appropriate joke:

A teacher starts the school year by stating that she is a christian and asking the kids to raise their hands if they are also christians, to her surprise Suzy doesn't raise her hand. The teacher ask Suzy why she isn't a Christian. Well says Suzy my moms an atheist and my dads an atheist so I'm an atheist. Meaning to put Suzy in her place the teacher asks so if your mom was a moron and your dad was a moron than what would you be. A Christian replied Suzy.
 
2009-02-05 11:46:30 AM  

FootInMouthDisease: Tatsuma no you are making a positive assertion.


This. A thousand times over this.
 
2009-02-05 11:46:32 AM  

Nightjars: To the person putting the organism in the playpen, their delimiting parameters of existence are different.


Until they reach their hand in and move the organism around.
 
2009-02-05 11:46:58 AM  

Nightjars: As an agnostic, I can say that


As a militantly apathetic agnostic ...

\next thread please
\\don't really care that I don't know
\\\don't really care that you don't either
\\care if you think you do and make a big deal about it
\ intolerant of intolerance
 
2009-02-05 11:47:02 AM  
'There definitely is a God [Citation needed]. So join the Christian Party and enjoy your life"
 
2009-02-05 11:47:02 AM  
There DEFINITELY is a God, DEFINITELY... and- and we're gonna see him on judgement DAY, DEFINITELY judgement DAY, which is August 29th, two-thousand twenty-TWO... the honorable judge WAPNER presiding...

img18.imageshack.us

/UH-oh!
//Wapner
 
2009-02-05 11:47:18 AM  

Nightsweat: Nightjars: As an agnostic, I can say that some people on both sides of the argument are pretty douchtastic. There's pretty reasonable logical arguments for both sides, but I can't see any reason to form any hard opinion on the issue.

I find the possibility that some entity that exists outside of space and time created our universe as some experiment.. Hell, why not? From our perspective, there's no way to prove or disprove this hypothesis, so its entirely outside the realm of science.

Is it possible the universe exists for no reason whatsoever? Sure, but I have yet to hear any reasonable explanation of the mechanics of this creation.

So, you're left with the reality that space, matter, time, and energy exists. Feel free to form an opinion on how this happened, but don't be a douche to people who formed a different opinion, considering how improbable it seems, at least to me, that either option could possibly be correct, except for the fact that it seems one or the other option must be correct.

Time is part of the universe. Without the universe there is no time and the question of what happened "before" or "after" is meaningless.


OW my liver!
 
2009-02-05 11:47:19 AM  

justinguarini4ever:

Atheists often think that God is some unfun buzzkill.


Ah, no. The point is we don't think of God at all. However, I do think most Christians are unfun buzzkills.
 
2009-02-05 11:47:28 AM  
Now the Christian party, the Trinitarian Bible Society and the Russian Orthodox Church have paid for their own pro-God adverts that will run on 175 buses across central and east London and the West End for two weeks from Monday.

The advert for the Christian Party includes the slogan: 'There definitely is a God. So join the Christian Party and enjoy your life.'



Interesting. I wonder if Christian Voice will be complaining to the Advertising Standards Agency over these ads for breaking the codes on "substantiation and truthfulness", in the same way they did over the much less definite claims made in the original ads.
 
2009-02-05 11:47:38 AM  

imfallen_angel: And yes I know that the religious signs have been all over for years, but they are usually various messages, some aiming to be inspirational, some are about having values that they believe in (and the world might be better if some non-religious folks were to make consider them too, even without being religious), etc. I can't recall seeing one that was aimed at calling atheist out as stupid or anything like that. They aren't aimed at attacking other's choice in beliefs.


Take a highway road trip from Pennsylvania to Texas.

There are some very "inspirational" and "non-combative" signs along that corridor...
 
2009-02-05 11:47:43 AM  
The burden falls to the claimant.

There is a sea of difference between:
1. This specific God exists, and
2. A God exists

Most atheists do not make the statement, "God does not exist," but rather, "There is no evidence to suggest that a God or any specific God exists" (or something similar).

The claims with regard to the existence of any specific God are rather easily dismissed.
Claims with regard to the existence some sort of pantheistic God - the god of Einstein and Spinoza - are not so easily dismissed.

In any case, the statement "God does not exist" sits on the same logical shelf as similar statements about leprechauns, unicorns, sasquatch, the Loch Ness monster and cosmic teapots. There is no evidence to support the contention that they exist, and it remains impossible to demonstrate to a certainty that they do not exist.

Inability to provide convincing proof of the non-existence of something is a pathetically weak rationale for choosing to believe that they are real. Were it not, then one would be logically obligated to accept an infinite list of foolish claims...like "Jesus died for your sins" and such.
 
2009-02-05 11:47:58 AM  
Question: "Why are we here?"

Answer from:
i) an agnostic:
"I don't know"

ii) an atheist (nonreligious person):
"I don't know and you don't know either" (though you claim to)

iii) an antitheist:
"We don't know/can't know yet you put your faith in stories to get some feeling of certainty"
 
2009-02-05 11:48:08 AM  

Nightjars: To have your existence not dependent on our existential constraints. From the deist perspective, it seems to me that if you create a playpen, and put a living organism in it, that the living organism would consider the playpen to be the delimiting parameters of existence. To the person putting the organism in the playpen, their delimiting parameters of existence are different.

Is it true? Meh, I don't really care. But I can conceptualize the possibility.


I literally don't know what that means. You can define existence using the word "exist". That doesn't make sense.
 
2009-02-05 11:48:43 AM  

Tatsuma: Torok: Assuming for a minute that there is in fact a god. What denomination of what religion is, in your opinion, most correct?

All I'll say is that, like love, G-d is a four letter word.


Mighty Thor approves of this response and thanks you for your words of praise.
 
2009-02-05 11:48:47 AM  

destitute college kid: All the atheists in this thread seemed to get pretty pissed.


Not pissed, amused. Sharp difference.
The fundies are getting their panties in a twist and "striking back" against a foe who's statement basically amounted to "start enjoying life".

People here aren't "pissed", they're relishing in this; Shadenfruede.
 
2009-02-05 11:49:02 AM  
If only they never came up with that whole "proof denies faith" bit this thread would have been over after DistendedPendulusFrenulum's post.
 
2009-02-05 11:49:05 AM  

Tatsuma: FootInMouthDisease: Only in your mind, is this irrelevant.

Face it: "G-d exists" cannot ultimately be proved one way or another. Your position on it is ultimately rooted in taking that small leap of faith toward one position or another.

Or shrugging your shoulders, saying "Dunno" and try to live your life as best as you can.


Not believing in gods does not take a leap of faith. Does it take a leap of faith to believe in the non-existence of Thor or fairies? Or do you just not believe in them?

The latter post of this post is pretty good, but ignores that most religions and religious people want to push their beliefs on others and into public policy. If one believes that all life appeared on earth as they are now, all at once, that's fine with me. But when you want to teach kids that with tax dollars, i take issue. When people want to stop stem cell research which might cure or treat terrible diseases, i take issue. When some dick calls me a devil worshiper for playing D&D, that's an issue for me.
 
2009-02-05 11:49:11 AM  

The Icelander:
As has been pointed out before, the issue isn't about converting people to atheism. It's about making people realize that there are atheists out there. It's the equivalent of "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!" from the 1980s.

And the Christians putting this ad up are just validating that fact.


I realize this. I still contend there are better ways of getting that point across. At least with the gay pride marches, you saw the strength in numbers. I see your parallel, but buying up a bunch of bus ads falls short of the intended goal whereas something as simple as Obama's shout-out during the inauguration (I was working with the TV on beside me, and I swung my chair/head towards the TV when I heard that) accomplishes that goal far better. Perhaps having prominent and respected members of the community step up and declare their atheism would be better... however, it took quite some time to get a LGBT head of state, so maybe it'll take awhile for that to come around too.

The Christian ad-buyers are definitely the more annoying of the two, but still.
 
2009-02-05 11:49:15 AM  

Tatsuma: FootInMouthDisease: Tatsuma, you are making the claim that god exists, therefore, the burden is on you.

And when you make the claim that G-d doesn't exist (ch"vs), the burden falls on you, no?


I'd say that the resounding lack of evidence that he exists past unproven stories is evidence enough that he doesn't exist. There has been no "GOD MADE THIS HAPPEN" proof, thus that in itself is proof that God does not exist.

Let's take for example, Shai'tan from Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series. One could suggest that he exists in reality, even though the only 'evidence' of existence is on a page. One could attribute any number of real life events to the character, however, as there is no proof of existence, it is still assigning real life events to a fictional character. There has been no establishment between the fiction and the reality. Thus, there is nothing to disprove, as the connection is not there to disprove.

Now, with that said, if you can provide evidence connecting the fiction to the reality, I'd be happy to counter with evidence on the contrary to support my stance.

If you have it, please show it, otherwise, enjoy your fictional character.
 
2009-02-05 11:49:21 AM  

Tatsuma: No, I think it had to do with not being stupid and being a smarty instead


Rolf? From Dusseldorf? Is that you?
 
2009-02-05 11:49:28 AM  
I don't mean to ruin the good vibe, but someone is conspicuously absent from this thread....
 
2009-02-05 11:49:29 AM  
Came here for the Babelfish reference... Not going to leave disappointed.

The moment that there exists irrefutable proof that god exists, god will disappear in a puff of logic because he would never do something so blatantly obvious that proves his existence. IE, the babelfish.

So... Intelligent Designers... You're working towards your own god's demise by seeking such irrefutable proof.

Keep up the good work.
 
2009-02-05 11:49:35 AM  
Atropos77: And the Christians 'hit back' by mocking the atheists' message, which to me doesn't sound very Christian.

Bill Maher said it best: These people are being Christian, not Christ-like.
 
2009-02-05 11:49:42 AM  

imfallen_angel: So aside the usual flame wars here in Fark, we now have a bus campaign to show who's the most immature group...

And I have to say that I'm not surprised on who started it.


And yes I know that the religious signs have been all over for years, but they are usually various messages, some aiming to be inspirational, some are about having values that they believe in (and the world might be better if some non-religious folks were to make consider them too, even without being religious), etc. I can't recall seeing one that was aimed at calling atheist out as stupid or anything like that. They aren't aimed at attacking other's choice in beliefs.

While on the other hand, that's all I hear and see from the atheist groups. (with a very few exceptions)


I love how your profile has your mantra as "Show some respect, I'll do the same," yet you pop in here making baseless accusations and being insulting. Typical hypocrite.
 
2009-02-05 11:49:45 AM  
Figures they would hit back instead of offering the other cheek.
 
2009-02-05 11:50:26 AM  
I would prefer to ride a bus that says, "this bus will get you from point A to point B."
 
2009-02-05 11:50:43 AM  

Antimatter: So in the end, you cannot prove Non-existence, only existence. Else, you'd have to believe in everything mythical, legendary, or fictional, merely because you can't prove those things don't exist, because you'll never find evidence to support non existence.


Your name is eerily appropriate.
 
2009-02-05 11:50:51 AM  

Antimatter: Tatsuma: FootInMouthDisease: Only in your mind, is this irrelevant.

Face it: "G-d exists" cannot ultimately be proved one way or another. Your position on it is ultimately rooted in taking that small leap of faith toward one position or another.

Or shrugging your shoulders, saying "Dunno" and try to live your life as best as you can.

You, like a lot of religious folks, fail to understand the burden of proof on negative assumptions.

If one says, for example, that Unicorns don't exist, the burden of proof is on the person to prove they do exist, not on the person who says they don't.

Why? because you cannot prove nonexistence, because things that don't exist leave no evidence of non-existence.

Your moon analogy breaks down because if you claim we never walked on the moon, I can refute that by offering evidence that we did.

Now, If you say 'Man never walked on mars' you can only support that by saying 'there is no evidence man walked on Mars'. This works because without evidence, the default is also null, ie, non existence.

So in the end, you cannot prove Non-existence, only existence. Else, you'd have to believe in everything mythical, legendary, or fictional, merely because you can't prove those things don't exist, because you'll never find evidence to support non existence.


However, claims of knowledge still carry a burden. So if you cannot prove non-existence, you can not claim no "know" non-existence. Therefore to say God for sure does not exist is an unsound argument. However, to say God probably doesn't exist is a whole different Ball Game.
 
2009-02-05 11:50:57 AM  
www.markvernon.com

/You can't prove it's not hot.
 
2009-02-05 11:50:58 AM  

Tristan Fabriani: God loves you so much he'll send you to hell to suffer for eternity.


Win
 
2009-02-05 11:51:25 AM  

Tatsuma: FootInMouthDisease: Only in your mind, is this irrelevant.

Face it: "G-d exists" cannot ultimately be proved one way or another. Your position on it is ultimately rooted in taking that small leap of faith toward one position or another.

Or shrugging your shoulders, saying "Dunno" and try to live your life as best as you can.


See Russell's teapot (new window)
 
2009-02-05 11:51:28 AM  
Not only do I believe there is no god, I believe that you dont even really believe there is a god. Nobody could possibly be that stupid.
 
2009-02-05 11:51:33 AM  

DrZiffle: I would prefer to ride a bus that says, "this bus will get you from point A to point B."


By far the greatest campaign ever: "Expectoration is Forbidden."
 
2009-02-05 11:51:36 AM  

Tatsuma: FootInMouthDisease: Tatsuma no you are making a positive assertion.

The fact that my assertion is positive or not is irrelevant. ARe you saying that if I say "Man never walked on the moon", since this is a negative assertion, i don't need to prove it?


No, you don't. It's then up to me to show you evidence that man did walk on the moon. I would immediately point you to NASA photos on the internet and if you accepted that evidence we'd be done. If you then argued that the evidence was faked, it would be up to you to prove your assertion.

Likewise, when I say, "I don't believe God exists", it's then up to you to offer some proof. I can either accept that proof and we're done, or I can argue that evidence is false in some way. At that point it's up to to me to prove that the evidence is false, since I'm making the assertion.

BTW, saying "I don't believe God exists" is a little different than saying, "I believe God does not exist". I don't hold a believe about the existence of God. I hold an informed opinion, based on lack of evidence to the contrary, that God does not exist.
 
2009-02-05 11:51:58 AM  
Suprised no one has said anything about the stunningly convincing use of the word "probably." Doesn't that mean even the athiest are acknowledging there is a possibility that there is a God?
Its like saying: "there is a very very small chance there is a God, enjoy your life. do what makes you happy. But if you wind up spending eternity in hell don't blame us"

/Christian
/thinks Jesus would be try to gain followers by being nice and doing good works as opposed to arguing on the side of a bus
 
2009-02-05 11:52:01 AM  

Tatsuma: Jument: OTOH I don't mind them starting off cold because I tend to nurse my beer and it warms up quickly anyways.

Exactly

///can I haz a beer?

You always can

Torok:

that was a joke. I guess you have to be Jewish to get it.


I understood that it was a joke even if I don't get it. I just wanted to have a discussion and you seem to avoid engaging me. I will not demand that you answer the question but at least extend the courtesy of a proper response.
 
2009-02-05 11:52:02 AM  
The Icelander: As has been pointed out before, the issue isn't about converting people to atheism. It's about making people realize that there are atheists out there. It's the equivalent of "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!" from the 1980s.

I dunno, the advertisement doesn't just say "We don't believe in God." It even has instructions for people based on their claim. It'd be more like the "We're gay, now go have sex with someone of your gender" campaign that never really got off the ground.

/no problems with atheists or religious people for being atheists or religious
//For some of the stuff they SAY though...
 
2009-02-05 11:52:10 AM  

runawaywoodchipper: Maybe we should move on to teleatheism.


hell no. I don't think you're being serious, but I am a little concerned that I think a lot of atheists are co-opting Christian tactics to "spread their message", and it looks just as farking stupid and shameless when we do it. I also think that the idea of it being "us (theists) Vs Them (Christians/Religious)" is bullshiat. The appeal of atheism to me is that I can do whatever I want and not have to worry about anyone else but those close to me.
 
2009-02-05 11:52:23 AM  

Tatsuma: Jument: OTOH I don't mind them starting off cold because I tend to nurse my beer and it warms up quickly anyways.

Exactly

///can I haz a beer?

You always can

Torok:

that was a joke. I guess you have to be Jewish to get it.


You know something, it's easy to accept that ___ exists (what the fark does one letter missing do anyway?). All you have to do is decide that ___ is everything that ever was, is and will be. It's all a matter of definition, which makes it meaningless. Such is the nature of life. We are here to experience pleasure for the sake of the infinite.
 
2009-02-05 11:52:40 AM  
Crab Nicholson
Selfabortion


The use of the word "probably" in the atheist bus campaign was required to meet UK advertising standards.
It was not in the ad they had originally planned.
 
2009-02-05 11:52:41 AM  

The Icelander: And a pic of Ariane Sherine, who organized the Atheist Bus campaign, for good measure:


I'd sin with that.
 
2009-02-05 11:52:58 AM  
Atheist can not disprove the existence of God, just as Christians can prove God. Faith is needed in both positions. I just Atheist would claim that their "rational belief" can not be proven.
 
2009-02-05 11:52:59 AM  

Tatsuma: ARe you saying that if I say "Man never walked on the moon", since this is a negative assertion, i don't need to prove it?


Correct.

The burden of proof falls on the people claiming to have walked on the moon. Fortunately they have established ample proof of this, so the question is resolved in favor of the alternative hypothesis, namely "Man walked on the moon". If you really wanted to call that fact into question you would have to take issue with the evidence, i.e. posit that "Exhibit A" is Earth rock rather than lunar rock or something and thus undermine the rejection of the null hypothesis.

The same reasoning applies to the statement, "There is no God". Nobody is required to prove that, it is simply has to be accepted as the null hypothesis until proof of the alternative (i.e. "There is a God") has been established. I'll be waiting for that.
 
2009-02-05 11:53:10 AM  
StreetlightInTheGhetto: Perhaps having prominent and respected members of the community step up and declare their atheism would be better.

I agree. I often imagine what the uproar would look like if Miley Cyrus came out as an atheist.

But it's a fledgling movement that's only been really active for a couple years. It's still trying to get its feet under itself. The fact that it could raise almost $200,000 for a bus campaign shows how powerful it's going to be when it really gets organized.
 
2009-02-05 11:53:11 AM  
Its a Christian Party
Who could ask for more?
Everybody's coming leave your body at the door
Leave your body and soul at the door
 
2009-02-05 11:53:29 AM  

crockadock: Doesn't that mean even the athiest are acknowledging there is a possibility that there is a God?


Yes. It's called being intellectually honest. Many religious people throughout the world would be well served by looking into the concept.
 
2009-02-05 11:53:39 AM  
I went to a public discussion on the existence of God. The discussion was held by a famous Baptist minister, a famous Rabbi, and a famous atheist.

They had a wonderful discussion. They all scored hits and received applause. But it was the atheists in the crowd who shouted to their leader: "Tell 'em!!" and "That's right!!"

You atheists are the most religious people I know.
 
2009-02-05 11:53:48 AM  

DamnYankees: Let me lay out why this is dumb:

People don't need to create a pro-Christian zeitgeist. You don't need ads to make people comfortable being Christian. Christianity is not just accepted, but overwhelmingly dominant. The idea behind the atheist bus signs, even if you think they are retarded, are much the same as the aims behind things Richard Dawkins does - to move the Overton window and just get atheism into the public consciousness. Make people aware, make it a comfortable and normal part of existence.

This is dumb.


Except Christianity can't tolerate atheism as being comfortable or normal. Christianity already has competition in other religions. Not necessarily always a real competition. How often do people actually switch religions from the one they told they were a part of as a kid, regardless of the level of affiliation?
Atheism is a very real competition, and the ultimate competition. Not only can ANYONE get to it through any numbers of methods, it's basically saying the core tenet of religion is irrelevant/non-existent/unprovable/impossible. Making atheism acceptable is the single greatest threat to organized religion and religions in general. It makes it ok to doubt and question one's own faith and religion and god. That risks the flock. That risks the money, and the power, and the social influence. Atheism is a threat to the very business of religion.
 
2009-02-05 11:53:59 AM  
I find these campaigns deeply offensive.
 
2009-02-05 11:53:59 AM  

nikknaack1: However, claims of knowledge still carry a burden. So if you cannot prove non-existence, you can not claim no "know" non-existence. Therefore to say God for sure does not exist is an unsound argument. However, to say God probably doesn't exist is a whole different Ball Game.


Very few atheists will claim they know God doesn't exist. They'll generally claim there is no evidence God exists in the same way there is no evidence for an infinite number of other imaginary creatures/deities. You even see the difference in the bus ads: "There is probably not a God" vs. "There is definitely a God". The atheists are even being more honest in their propaganda!
 
2009-02-05 11:54:06 AM  

DamnYankees: Tatsuma: I'm sure we agree on plenty of things!

I actually don't like the taste of beer.


As usual, a religion thread on Fark quickly devolves from flaming and trolling to outright blasphemy!
 
2009-02-05 11:54:14 AM  

tomcatadam: Antimatter: So in the end, you cannot prove Non-existence, only existence. Else, you'd have to believe in everything mythical, legendary, or fictional, merely because you can't prove those things don't exist, because you'll never find evidence to support non existence.

Your name is eerily appropriate.


In what way? We know Antimatter exists, we've made it in the lab and described it with theory.

FYI, i'm a deist, but its easier to argue why the atheist feels a certain way then it in to argue religious belief as if it were fact.

I believe in Divine beings, I just don't have enough evidence to draft a scientific theory yet. But I'm confident such evidence will eventually be found and such a theory crafted.
 
2009-02-05 11:54:40 AM  

adamgreeney: I love how your profile has your mantra as "Show some respect, I'll do the same," yet you pop in here making baseless accusations and being insulting. Typical hypocrite.


baseless?

really?

I'm just stating what I've seen in here (and out)...

But YOU call me names.

You just proved my comment... thanks.
 
2009-02-05 11:54:42 AM  
friendlyatheist.com
 
2009-02-05 11:54:58 AM  

justinguarini4ever: Yet a study by the European Centre for Social Welfare Policy found that sincere and active religious individuals are happier, have more life satisfaction, and less stress.


So are drug addicts. What's your point? Being deluded is fun?
 
2009-02-05 11:55:01 AM  

randomizetimer: Faith is needed in both positions.


Tell me all about your faith in the following:

-Your non-belief in sasquatch
-Your non-belief in leprechauns
-Your non-belief that the moon landing was faked
-Your non-belief in vampires
-Your non-belief in the esquilax
 
2009-02-05 11:55:04 AM  

mephox: The moment that there exists irrefutable proof that god exists, god will disappear in a puff of logic because he would never do something so blatantly obvious that proves his existence. IE, the babelfish.


And then we will all be killed by a pack of rabid zebras, or something like that.

/I know that's not it, I make a funny
//DA is quite possibly my favorite author of all time
///plus he's the only non-family person whose dead made me leak about the eyes
 
2009-02-05 11:55:14 AM  

Antimatter: So in the end, you cannot prove Non-existence, only existence. Else, you'd have to believe in everything mythical, legendary, or fictional, merely because you can't prove those things don't exist, because you'll never find evidence to support non existence.


It is possible to prove the non-existence of some things by logical contradiction. For example, "There are no married bachelors."
Negative propositions can also be demonstrated in mathematics in a similar way by proving that all positive solutions are impossible.
 
2009-02-05 11:55:15 AM  

bachdog: Question: "Why are we here?"


My reply: Why do you think our existence requires a purpose?

(The alternate, smartass answer is "because humans like to f*** a lot" but I presume the intended question defines "we" as a species, not "we" as in speaker and immediate company)
=Smidge=
 
2009-02-05 11:55:40 AM  

August11: I went to a public discussion on the existence of God. The discussion was held by a famous Baptist minister, a famous Rabbi, and a famous atheist.

They had a wonderful discussion. They all scored hits and received applause. But it was the atheists in the crowd who shouted to their leader: "Tell 'em!!" and "That's right!!"

You atheists are the most religious people I know.


Honest question for you:

Could you please define religion and explain how atheists for into that definition for me?
 
2009-02-05 11:56:10 AM  

Abstruse: Boobies
Alcohol
Drugs
Loud rock music
Two drunk chicks making out


That WAS my church ....

/not far off
 
2009-02-05 11:56:11 AM  

SojakFA: Atheists have more fun (new window).


That was amazing.
 
2009-02-05 11:56:12 AM  
I wanna hang with them and play Twister.
 
2009-02-05 11:56:37 AM  
I bring to you the argument of the future, thanks to Arthur C. Clarke.

Deist: There is not more than one god.
Theist: There is not less than one god.

Translation: Deists believe that there is either no god or one god; possibly some indefinably mysterious intelligent force that may or may not be classified as a god directing things.

Theists believe that there is at least one god or indefinably mysterious controlling force and quite likely much more than one god or such indefinably mysterious force.
 
2009-02-05 11:56:38 AM  
crockadock: Suprised no one has said anything about the stunningly convincing use of the word "probably." Doesn't that mean even the athiest ATHEIST are acknowledging there is a possibility that there is a God?

Yes, we are. There is a minuscule possibility of god existing. But until there's some evidence, I'm not going to just assume god exists, let alone that it's the Christian god who wants me to wake up early on a Sunday and overdress so that I can apologize for being human.

Its like saying: "there is a very very small chance there is a God, enjoy your life. do what makes you happy. But if you wind up spending eternity in hell don't blame us"

Any god who would send anyone to hell for simply not believing in him isn't the sort of god I'd want to spend eternity with in the first place.
 
2009-02-05 11:56:49 AM  

Torok: Tatsuma: Torok: Assuming for a minute that there is in fact a god. What denomination of what religion is, in your opinion, most correct?

All I'll say is that, like love, G-d is a four letter word.

You do you not wish to answer? I can't blame you as it is an impossible to answer question. Even if I wanted to believe in God there would be no point because it's not possible to determine how to go about doing it correctly.


Atheists only care about being correct. When the answer is so far beyond the realm of correct. I can't tell you what the right decision is. But lets say this is a multiple-choice test. You have 4 choices. You have no idea which one is right, so you leave it blank. Well, all 4 could be right. All you had to do was answer. But you got it wrong.
 
2009-02-05 11:57:32 AM  
i202.photobucket.com
 
2009-02-05 11:57:33 AM  
That and I wanna bonk the Indian chick in the pic ...
 
2009-02-05 11:57:33 AM  
"Why are we here?"

Because our parents farked.
Because we are perpetuating the species.

That's pretty much it.

/Athiest
 
2009-02-05 11:57:44 AM  

DamnYankees: FootInMouthDisease: yes i realize most Jews understand the torah is more like a book of allegories, than taken for sooth, but you really ought to be more careful with the conjectures you posit.

Sooth?


i69.photobucket.com

approves.
 
2009-02-05 11:57:44 AM  
Being a Heathen, I would like to submit my own bus advertisement.

"Thor definitely exists. So join the Viking party and raid some villages."

/Doesn't really care what anyone else believes
//Don't shove your perception down my throat, we're cool
///That goes for both theists and atheists
 
2009-02-05 11:57:54 AM  
imfallen_angel
adamgreeney: I love how your profile has your mantra as "Show some respect, I'll do the same," yet you pop in here making baseless accusations and being insulting. Typical hypocrite.

baseless?

really?

I'm just stating what I've seen in here (and out)...

But YOU call me names.

You just proved my comment... thanks.


It's not calling names if it's true, and you've gotta admit your Boobies wasn't exactly "showing respect" like your profile said you would. So, no he didn't prove your comment, you've just proven you get butthurt and overreact to legitimate points.
 
2009-02-05 11:58:05 AM  

Prunes Please: Tatsuma: ARe you saying that if I say "Man never walked on the moon", since this is a negative assertion, i don't need to prove it?

Correct.

The burden of proof falls on the people claiming to have walked on the moon. Fortunately they have established ample proof of this, so the question is resolved in favor of the alternative hypothesis, namely "Man walked on the moon". If you really wanted to call that fact into question you would have to take issue with the evidence, i.e. posit that "Exhibit A" is Earth rock rather than lunar rock or something and thus undermine the rejection of the null hypothesis.

The same reasoning applies to the statement, "There is no God". Nobody is required to prove that, it is simply has to be accepted as the null hypothesis until proof of the alternative (i.e. "There is a God") has been established. I'll be waiting for that.


Wrong. "There is no God" is a claim of knowledge. ANY claim of knowledge requires proof. However, keep in mind this excludes "there probably isn't a God." You cannot just de-facto set your argument baseline to non-existence just because you want to. While it is true that claims of existence carry a different logical burden, claims of definite non-existence do also. The difference is, as I stated above, claims of definite non-existence can never be proved.
 
2009-02-05 11:58:08 AM  

nmathew01: Tatsuma: FootInMouthDisease: Only in your mind, is this irrelevant.

Face it: "G-d exists" cannot ultimately be proved one way or another. Your position on it is ultimately rooted in taking that small leap of faith toward one position or another.

Or shrugging your shoulders, saying "Dunno" and try to live your life as best as you can.

See Russell's teapot (new window)


Russell's teapot does not disprove God.
 
2009-02-05 11:58:12 AM  

crockadock: Suprised no one has said anything about the stunningly convincing use of the word "probably." Doesn't that mean even the athiest are acknowledging there is a possibility that there is a God?


Yes, that's exactly what it means. It's what sets us apart from the religious, who vigorously assert without proof that God does exist. We're bound to evidence, not dogma. And unlike the religious, we're fine with a little ambiguity in our lives. We don't know for sure (because you can't) and we're fine with not filling that uncertainty with even more unproven ideas.
 
2009-02-05 11:58:15 AM  

DeathByGeekSquad: Tatsuma: FootInMouthDisease: Tatsuma, you are making the claim that god exists, therefore, the burden is on you.

And when you make the claim that G-d doesn't exist (ch"vs), the burden falls on you, no?

I'd say that the resounding lack of evidence that he exists past unproven stories is evidence enough that he doesn't exist. There has been no "GOD MADE THIS HAPPEN" proof, thus that in itself is proof that God does not exist.

Let's take for example, Shai'tan from Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series. One could suggest that he exists in reality, even though the only 'evidence' of existence is on a page. One could attribute any number of real life events to the character, however, as there is no proof of existence, it is still assigning real life events to a fictional character. There has been no establishment between the fiction and the reality. Thus, there is nothing to disprove, as the connection is not there to disprove.

Now, with that said, if you can provide evidence connecting the fiction to the reality, I'd be happy to counter with evidence on the contrary to support my stance.

If you have it, please show it, otherwise, enjoy your fictional character.


I personally enjoy the idea of a God Machine / Futurama deity ("When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all").

But burden of proof is on Tatsuma here.

My best friend growing up was Hindu, and I did appreciate their style. Via Wiki:

In general, Hindu view of religious freedom is not based on the freedom to proselytize, but the right to retain one's religion and not be subject to proselyzation.

I hung out at her temple every now and then but I had to ask if I was curious about anything.

Anyhow, my point is to show where a Atheist would have the burden of proof put upon them. I go by first strike rule in arguments. If you attacked a Hindu on their beliefs (the likelihood that they started the argument being slim to nil), burden on proof would be on you.

Just live and let live, people.

/actually, it was live and let die
//whatever, whatever, it had a good rhythm...
 
2009-02-05 11:58:18 AM  

justinguarini4ever: But lets say this is a multiple-choice test. You have 4 an infinite number of choices.

 
2009-02-05 11:58:28 AM  

rathoth: Atheism is a threat to the very business of religion.


Which is why many countries which will accept religions other than the "official" religion of the state, will still kill you for being atheist. Atheists are demonized by pretty much every religion because you can't point at the person and say "well what you believe is highly improbably and stupid as well!"
 
2009-02-05 11:58:39 AM  
This thread is moving too fast.
 
2009-02-05 11:58:53 AM  
This thread interests me....
My take on the whole god thing is this: In order to prove or disprove god, you must first clearly define god. Even then, you can only prove or disprove a particular definition of god. Its hard to prove or disprove that which escapes definition. Me, I'm agnostic, I say I don't know and it seems to me that any of these people who are so certain they know there's a god and want to tell you about god's nature are just out for your money, either that or they're really credulous.

IMHO, if you are interested in trying to better understand the nature of our existence and the universe you'd be much better off learning about things like theoretical physics, quantum physics, astronomy and philosophy than going to some church, mosque or temple.
 
2009-02-05 11:58:56 AM  

The Icelander: And a pic of Ariane Sherine, who organized the Atheist Bus campaign, for good measure:


That may end up being the best thing about this thread.
 
2009-02-05 11:59:06 AM  

LordZorch: When you have to resort to such piddling measures to keep your religion relevant, it's too late...


Advertising is a piddling measure? How do you think any religion spreads?
 
2009-02-05 11:59:25 AM  
i42.tinypic.com

This about sums it up from the atheist side. Only thing it ignores is the fact that religion makes no sense, which is why we trust the labcoats and not the kneejerks who want us in church every Sunday.
 
2009-02-05 11:59:35 AM  

randomizetimer: Atheist can not disprove the existence of God, just as Christians can prove God. Faith is needed in both positions. I just Atheist would claim that their "rational belief" can not be proven.


That is so far from a logical argument it makes my head hurt.
 
2009-02-05 11:59:39 AM  
Antimatter: I believe in Divine beings, I just don't have enough evidence to draft a scientific theory yet. But I'm confident such evidence will eventually be found and such a theory crafted.

And when that evidence is found, I will happily accept it.

Which is the key difference between most atheists and most religious people. When asked what would make them believe in god, atheists say "evidence." When asked what would make them stop believing in god, religious people say "NOTHING! NOTHING WILL EVER SHAKE MY FAITH! MY FAITH IS A ROCK!"

Now, which of these responses sounds more reasonable?
 
2009-02-05 11:59:39 AM  

Tatsuma: Caradoc: They should be required to *prove* any statement that includes "definitely."

As long as this goes for both Theists and Atheists, I'm fine with that.


How does one go about proving a negative?
 
2009-02-05 12:00:48 PM  
"Bus religion. Serious business."

i224.photobucket.com
 
2009-02-05 12:00:53 PM  

miscreant: nikknaack1: However, claims of knowledge still carry a burden. So if you cannot prove non-existence, you can not claim no "know" non-existence. Therefore to say God for sure does not exist is an unsound argument. However, to say God probably doesn't exist is a whole different Ball Game.

Very few atheists will claim they know God doesn't exist. They'll generally claim there is no evidence God exists in the same way there is no evidence for an infinite number of other imaginary creatures/deities. You even see the difference in the bus ads: "There is probably not a God" vs. "There is definitely a God". The atheists are even being more honest in their propaganda!


I have no disagreement with what you said, I am only taking issue with the claim of knowledge of non-existence. And from a purely logical standpoint, the atheist ad is more honest.
 
2009-02-05 12:01:05 PM  

nikknaack1: "There is no God" is a claim of knowledge.


"There is no (evidence of a) God (and therefore no reason to assume there is one)."

The parentheticals are implied.
 
2009-02-05 12:01:19 PM  

The Icelander: StreetlightInTheGhetto: Perhaps having prominent and respected members of the community step up and declare their atheism would be better.

I agree. I often imagine what the uproar would look like if Miley Cyrus came out as an atheist.

But it's a fledgling movement that's only been really active for a couple years. It's still trying to get its feet under itself. The fact that it could raise almost $200,000 for a bus campaign shows how powerful it's going to be when it really gets organized.


Playing Devil's Advocate here (heh), wouldn't it be easy for the Christians to just claim some moneyed Antichrist was financing the whole thing?

Fair enough on the fledgling movement, I'll cut it some slack. But the burden is on the Atheists to carry the moral high ground, unfortunately, because like the gays anything that can be attacked will. Unfair and stupid but it's the truth.

And since I both gays and atheists that I love, I do hope both of ya'll end up prevailing in the end.
 
2009-02-05 12:01:28 PM  
StreetlightInTheGhetto: Just live and let live, people.

That's what we're working towards. We're trying to convince people to let us live and let live.

You know how I know when we're there? When I can put a Darwin fish on my car and not have it torn off in less than a week.
 
2009-02-05 12:01:30 PM  
subby: "Christians hit back at atheists,..."

Aren't Christians supposed to turn the other cheek?

/back from the dead
//ta daa!
///Zeitgeist Chapter 1, for the still confused
 
2009-02-05 12:01:51 PM  
Adults should not have imaginary friends.
 
2009-02-05 12:02:15 PM  

Mad Tea Party: GIS for Christian Party:

...is pretty much exactly what you'd expect.


That's hot.

/Jeezus made me do it.
 
2009-02-05 12:02:16 PM  
The original ads were agnostic, not atheist.
 
2009-02-05 12:02:17 PM  
Tatsuma

My religion is panthiesm, I.E. that everything is in itself a part of a god.

Would you say I was wrong?
 
2009-02-05 12:02:27 PM  
Wow, how petty and lame.

Also, which major religion seriously wants you to enjoy your life? The only message I ever hear from them is to submit like a slave and grovel like a dog before some jerk of a god (and of course his priests) or he will punish you, your family and/or your community.

Nothing really upbeat there.
 
2009-02-05 12:02:37 PM  
flowtv.org

When it comes to bullshiat, big-time, major league bullshiat, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshiat story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you.
 
2009-02-05 12:02:54 PM  

Nightjars: I find the possibility that some entity that exists outside of space and time created our universe as some experiment.. Hell, why not? From our perspective, there's no way to prove or disprove this hypothesis, so its entirely outside the realm of science.


There are a few interesting ideas about how we could test if we are existing inside a computer simulation.

randomizetimer: nmathew01: Tatsuma: FootInMouthDisease: Only in your mind, is this irrelevant.

Face it: "G-d exists" cannot ultimately be proved one way or another. Your position on it is ultimately rooted in taking that small leap of faith toward one position or another.

Or shrugging your shoulders, saying "Dunno" and try to live your life as best as you can.

See Russell's teapot (new window)

Russell's teapot does not disprove God.


Of course it doesn't. Anyone stating so is performing a gross misunderstanding of the argument. It's a clever device to demonstrate where the burden of proof should fall. I also find it a reasonable means of showing that the "you can never have evidence either way" statement is really weak. People disregard a near infinity of such things.
 
2009-02-05 12:03:21 PM  
i202.photobucket.com
 
2009-02-05 12:03:23 PM  

justinguarini4ever: Yet a study by the European Centre for Social Welfare Policy found that sincere and active religious individuals are happier, have more life satisfaction, and less stress.


So you're saying that ignorance is bliss?

/runs
 
2009-02-05 12:03:25 PM  
They don't seem to have a sound understanding of the word 'definitely'.
 
2009-02-05 12:03:40 PM  
I don't trust Fox News to repeat a story that's been shown on MSNBC. WHY would I trust a book that has been edited over thousands of years by "God" knows who?
 
2009-02-05 12:03:47 PM  

moralpanic: How does one go about proving a negative?


One proves lack of existence by proving the nonexistence of evidence of existence.
 
2009-02-05 12:03:47 PM  

Caradoc: They should be required to *prove* any statement that includes "definitely."


Agp4256
FREAKIN'
MEN

If I can see him, then I'll accept he's real. And no, I won't accept a damn flower or a baby as evidence.
 
2009-02-05 12:03:55 PM  

kronicfeld: randomizetimer: Faith is needed in both positions.

Tell me all about your faith in the following:

-Your non-belief in sasquatch
-Your non-belief in leprechauns
-Your non-belief that the moon landing was faked
-Your non-belief in vampires
-Your non-belief in the esquilax


Faith is needed in belief of your own perceptions. We only "know" through faulty perceptions that are subjective. The idea that subjective human beings can ever be fully objective is a lie.

Belief in whatever is really an ontological argument. Belief in anything may or may not correspond to a the reality of it. But to say you "know" the reality of a thing 100% is false. You can believe in the reality of thing with a degree of certainty, but you can never really know it for certainty.

Dawkins has an agenda, an admitted anti-religious agenda. My interest is in ontological examinations.
 
2009-02-05 12:04:01 PM  

lots of people:

Now, with that said, if you can provide evidence connecting the fiction to the reality, I'd be happy to counter with evidence on the contrary to support my stance.

If you have it, please show it, otherwise, enjoy your fictional character.

I personally enjoy the idea of a God Machine / Futurama deity ("When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all").

But burden of proof is on Tatsuma here.

My best friend growing up was Hindu, and I did appreciate their style. Via Wiki:

In general, Hindu view of religious freedom is not based on the freedom to proselytize, but the right to retain one's religion and not be subject to proselyzation.

I hung out at her temple every now and then but I had to ask if I was curious about anything.

Anyhow, my point is to show where a Atheist would have the burden of proof put upon them. I go by first strike rule in arguments. If you attacked a Hindu on their beliefs (the likelihood that they started the argument being slim to nil), burden on proof would be on you.

Just live and let live, people.

/actually, it was live and let die
//whatever, whatever, it had a good rhythm...


Most modern individuals would completely prefer the concept of religion to stay in the one that you mentioned with the Hinduism. I was raised to be a jew, but in no way does that mean I believe in a "god-concept". Hell, most reasoned individuals who weren't brainwashed tend to share that viewpoint of "do whatever, just don't be in my face about it". That goes double for people who've taken philosophy classes and didn't feel personally challenged to simply have their viewpoints challenged (aka people who are not republicans).

However, if it was illegal to proselytize, I think that would solve most religious problems everywhere.
 
2009-02-05 12:04:03 PM  

randomizetimer: Russell's teapot does not disprove God.


Yes, but it does prove that you should really consider what analogies you are going to have carry your name into perpetuity. Might as well have been Russell's doily.
 
2009-02-05 12:04:10 PM  

ipsofacto: justinguarini4ever: Lots of irony in this debate.

Atheists often think that God is some unfun buzzkill. Therefore, believing he doesn't exist = happier existence.

Yet a study by the European Centre for Social Welfare Policy found that sincere and active religious individuals are happier, have more life satisfaction, and less stress.

But keep on going with that humanism and hedonism.

Ignorance is bliss?


Bah, beat me to it
 
2009-02-05 12:04:38 PM  

mofomisfit: imfallen_angel
adamgreeney: I love how your profile has your mantra as "Show some respect, I'll do the same," yet you pop in here making baseless accusations and being insulting. Typical hypocrite.

baseless?

really?

I'm just stating what I've seen in here (and out)...

But YOU call me names.

You just proved my comment... thanks.

It's not calling names if it's true, and you've gotta admit your Boobies wasn't exactly "showing respect" like your profile said you would. So, no he didn't prove your comment, you've just proven you get butthurt and overreact to legitimate points.


Thanks! I didn't even catch that.

It's true though. If you automatically make assertions like you did (especially when they have no evidence to them), you can't claim that you're the one being offended.

I have never in my life seen an ad about atheism. We don't ask for holidays, we don't ask for time off from work or anything at all. We don't cry persecution when we see Jesus fish on cars or Christian book stores. I am forced to see ads for churches in malls, on billboards and on tv on a daily basis. You, on the other hand, can not claim that you have ever seen an ad for atheism, especially one that was insulting.

I'll just fall back on an old cliche. [citation needed].
 
2009-02-05 12:04:50 PM  

justinguarini4ever: Torok: Tatsuma: Torok: Assuming for a minute that there is in fact a god. What denomination of what religion is, in your opinion, most correct?

All I'll say is that, like love, G-d is a four letter word.

You do you not wish to answer? I can't blame you as it is an impossible to answer question. Even if I wanted to believe in God there would be no point because it's not possible to determine how to go about doing it correctly.

Atheists only care about being correct. When the answer is so far beyond the realm of correct. I can't tell you what the right decision is. But lets say this is a multiple-choice test. You have 4 choices. You have no idea which one is right, so you leave it blank. Well, all 4 could be right. All you had to do was answer. But you got it wrong.


Or all answers could be false...
 
2009-02-05 12:04:52 PM  

The Icelander: StreetlightInTheGhetto: Just live and let live, people.

That's what we're working towards. We're trying to convince people to let us live and let live.

You know how I know when we're there? When I can put a Darwin fish on my car and not have it torn off in less than a week.


Where do you live now? (I could just assume the obvious)

That's just sad. For the longest time I just assumed it was Biology and Anthro geeks who had those on their cars since the Natural History museum at school was full of them.

By the way, the "live and let live" is more directed towards the psycho Christians and the more annoying appearances of Christopher Hitchens. No worries.
 
2009-02-05 12:05:03 PM  
StreetlightInTheGhetto: Playing Devil's Advocate here (heh), wouldn't it be easy for the Christians to just claim some moneyed Antichrist was financing the whole thing?

People will always think that, despite the evidence of thousands and thousands of donations to the cause from all over the world.

\Including my $40.
 
2009-02-05 12:05:09 PM  

mofomisfit: It's not calling names if it's true, and you've gotta admit your Boobies wasn't exactly "showing respect" like your profile said you would. So, no he didn't prove your comment, you've just proven you get butthurt and overreact to legitimate points.


What are you guys? five or something...

overreact? wasn't showing respect?

How about you explain to me, in your infinite wisdom, where I "lacked" respect?

Let me have some perspective to your perception...

And try to be civil if you can...
 
2009-02-05 12:05:30 PM  

randomizetimer: You can believe in the reality of thing with a degree of certainty, but you can never really know it for certainty.


Except you're saying that my "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow is identical to someone else's "faith" in the existence of Zeus, which is a patently absurd equivalence.
 
2009-02-05 12:05:33 PM  
Ahhhh thanks guys. I'm posting this from page one... my first class is almost over and I'm really looking forward to spending my next class reading this.
 
2009-02-05 12:05:39 PM  
There really is a God. Um...but he lives in Canada, so you've never met him.
 
2009-02-05 12:05:54 PM  
Stop being silly.

People who take words like "God," "Atheist," "Christian," "Jew," or "soul" seriously as anything but a marginally interesting historical footnote are insane. That footnote being: "Historically, people have been farktarded."

/Theological noncognitivism. Suck on it.
 
2009-02-05 12:06:37 PM  

PanicMan: Mad Tea Party: GIS for Christian Party:

...is pretty much exactly what you'd expect.

What do you talk about at a christian party?

"You like God? I like God too! We should totally not have sex buttsecks so we can still claim to be "virgins"."

FTFY
 
2009-02-05 12:07:50 PM  
imfallen_angel
mofomisfit: It's not calling names if it's true, and you've gotta admit your Boobies wasn't exactly "showing respect" like your profile said you would. So, no he didn't prove your comment, you've just proven you get butthurt and overreact to legitimate points.

What are you guys? five or something...

overreact? wasn't showing respect?

How about you explain to me, in your infinite wisdom, where I "lacked" respect?

Let me have some perspective to your perception...

And try to be civil if you can...


Look, you're the one with "I'll show you respect if you show me respect" in your profile, you're the one who seems to be ultimately concerned with respect, and it's not uncivil to point out when you fail to meet your own standards.
 
2009-02-05 12:07:54 PM  

smokinfoo: The original ads were agnostic, not atheist.


No they weren't. If they'd said "It's impossible to know if a God exists" they would be agnostic. You're confusing "strong atheists" who would say "There is definitely no God"... a type which I've never met, with "weak atheists" who say "There is no evidence of a God and therefore the probability that one exists is pretty slim".

Agnostic concerns the ability to know if a God exists. Atheism concerns the belief as to whether a God exists. They're not mutually exclusive.
 
2009-02-05 12:08:15 PM  
Well there are two missing premises (unspoken beliefs) that keep coming up:

1) If there is a god, then you have to be a "good" person (or else no afterlife reward of pleasure for you)

2) If there is not a god, then you can do whatever you please even if it hurts others (and then you won't receive an afterlife punishment of pain)

Let's get rid of these.

Morality does not come from religion

Knowing right from wrong do not come from religion

Morality comes from reason, empathy, a good will; human characteristics

"Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one's conduct by reason. That is, doing what there are the best reasons for doing, while giving equal weight to the interests of all those affected by what one does." -James Rachels, American moral philosopher

Religions are not the source of morality. They are "moral codes" which means they are lists of rules. A hodgepodge of rules. Don't do this. Don't do that.

The problem is that there are always exceptions, even to these absolute rules.

Example: One of the 10 commandments is don't lie/give false witness. It is on par with don't murder. But we people lie all the time to, for example, protect people's feelings or appreciate fiction. See: Santa Claus

If there are strange rules to follow, that implies that you need "forgiveness" from a universal authority when you break the rules.

The rules and the forgiveness are supposed to come from the institution of religion? Institutionalized belief in stories? Ya, right.
 
2009-02-05 12:08:19 PM  
So they have knowledge of god, and not faith in him.

See you in hell.
 
2009-02-05 12:08:36 PM  
What IS uncivil, though, is saying "NAH NAH NAH YOU'RE FIVE YEAR OLDS" when people call you out.
 
2009-02-05 12:08:40 PM  
topicagnostic.com
 
2009-02-05 12:08:54 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: justinguarini4ever: Yet a study by the European Centre for Social Welfare Policy found that sincere and active religious individuals are happier, have more life satisfaction, and less stress.

So are drug addicts. What's your point? Being deluded is fun?


Drug addicts are satisfied with their life choices and feel accomplished???

That empty feeling of superiority sure must be comforting.

This thread is full of atheist insecurity. If you all are so certain, why would you care what other people think and why do you bother arguing about it. At least Christians have an incentive to tell people about God. Your incentive seems to be the shallow satisfaction of an internet pwn.
 
2009-02-05 12:09:03 PM  

nmathew01: August11: I went to a public discussion on the existence of God. The discussion was held by a famous Baptist minister, a famous Rabbi, and a famous atheist.

They had a wonderful discussion. They all scored hits and received applause. But it was the atheists in the crowd who shouted to their leader: "Tell 'em!!" and "That's right!!"

You atheists are the most religious people I know.

Honest question for you:

Could you please define religion and explain how atheists for into that definition for me?


When people attack religion, they attack its worst manifestations. The fury. The hating. The passionate or irrational participation. I just thought it fascinating how many athiests can get so zooked up when they are in the same hall. They look like the worst examples of what they are attacking.

So yes they do not fall into a definition along the lines of "A man-made system (rooted in belief) and used as a method of reaching the divine." But, man, they sure can hoot like Baptists.
 
2009-02-05 12:09:12 PM  

randomizetimer: Atheist can not disprove the existence of God


True, but you can't therefore say it is possible, as literally anything is possible. Reductio ad Absurdum.
 
2009-02-05 12:09:48 PM  

Kierkegaard's Pseudonym: nikknaack1: "There is no God" is a claim of knowledge.

"There is no (evidence of a) God (and therefore no reason to assume there is one)."

The parentheticals are implied.


The problem is, from a logical standpoint, those two TOTALLY different arguments. Just because they are very similar in our language doesn't mean one can be substituted for the other.
 
2009-02-05 12:10:26 PM  

justinguarini4ever: If you all are so certain, why would you care what other people think and why do you bother arguing about it.


Because they tend to be so frickin' loud about it, mostly.
 
2009-02-05 12:10:48 PM  
Not only does God definitely exist, but you had better pray that you are among the faithful that get eaten first.

/for you are crunchy and taste delicious with ketchup
 
2009-02-05 12:10:57 PM  

adamgreeney: It's true though. If you automatically make assertions like you did (especially when they have no evidence to them), you can't claim that you're the one being offended.

I have never in my life seen an ad about atheism. We don't ask for holidays, we don't ask for time off from work or anything at all. We don't cry persecution when we see Jesus fish on cars or Christian book stores. I am forced to see ads for churches in malls, on billboards and on tv on a daily basis. You, on the other hand, can not claim that you have ever seen an ad for atheism, especially one that was insulting.

I'll just fall back on an old cliche. [citation needed].


aaah..... I see the problem..

you are mistaking "assertions" vs "observations"

and then you state:

"I have never in my life seen an ad about atheism."

and then

"You, on the other hand, can not claim that you have ever seen an ad for atheism"

So, in other words, YOU claim to know about EVERYTHING that I've seen.

Well, isn't that nice.

And what are your basis for this?
 
2009-02-05 12:11:04 PM  
How does one "become" an atheist?

For me, it was lack of religion in my life. My father was abused by nuns as a kid, along with his 6 other brothers and sisters.
After his wedding to my mother, dad decreed "No more church". I've been to a couple weddings, and a couple funerals, and one Christmas Mass. I know nothing about religion, other than this:

I find your traditions quaint, and the basis for a code to living a decent life has been grossly distorted to give men power.
I feel sorry that most who believe, living their lives thinking something is better after they are dead.
I also feel that most people need something to believe in during the trials and tribulations of their lives, thus have faith in a deity. For myself, I choose to have faith in myself.
 
2009-02-05 12:11:27 PM  

imfallen_angel: mofomisfit: It's not calling names if it's true, and you've gotta admit your Boobies wasn't exactly "showing respect" like your profile said you would. So, no he didn't prove your comment, you've just proven you get butthurt and overreact to legitimate points.

What are you guys? five or something...

overreact? wasn't showing respect?

How about you explain to me, in your infinite wisdom, where I "lacked" respect?

Let me have some perspective to your perception...

And try to be civil if you can...


Your original statement was:

So aside the usual flame wars here in Fark, we now have a bus campaign to show who's the most immature group...

And I have to say that I'm not surprised on who started it.



And yes I know that the religious signs have been all over for years, but they are usually various messages, some aiming to be inspirational, some are about having values that they believe in (and the world might be better if some non-religious folks were to make consider them too, even without being religious), etc.I can't recall seeing one that was aimed at calling atheist out as stupid or anything like that. They aren't aimed at attacking other's choice in beliefs.

While on the other hand, that's all I hear and see from the atheist groups. (with a very few exceptions)


I put all the statements in bold that where insulting, baseless, and devoid of any actual fact. I also love the part about non-religious people needing to consider christian morals, implying that we don't have any of our own. All very ignorant statements and all very combative. Add in your profile mantra and it is very, very hypocritical.
 
2009-02-05 12:11:47 PM  

mofomisfit: Look, you're the one with "I'll show you respect if you show me respect" in your profile, you're the one who seems to be ultimately concerned with respect, and it's not uncivil to point out when you fail to meet your own standards.


And again... please explain how I did that...

You're kinda going around the issue here.
 
2009-02-05 12:11:51 PM  
lol, xians are stupid
 
2009-02-05 12:12:07 PM  
A brief look at human history shows that, whether or not there is a God, we should all apologize for being human.
 
2009-02-05 12:12:15 PM  

santadog: How does one "become" an atheist?


Start out as a theist. Like me.
 
2009-02-05 12:12:17 PM  

Tatsuma: Jerusalem this summer, you, me, a tall Guinness and a plate of Shawarma.


Maybe next year in Jerusalem.

Tatsuma: Face it: "G-d exists" cannot ultimately be proved one way or another.


The key there is the word "ultimately". It is similarly impossible to "ultimately" prove whether or not your skull houses a brain or a piece of cauliflower.

Tatsuma: And when you make the claim that G-d doesn't exist (ch"vs), the burden falls on you, no?


Perhaps once we agree on premises. Would you agree that (P OR Q) is logically equivalent to (Q OR P), such that either disjunction may be validly inferred from the other?

img521.imageshack.us


bachdog: Question: "Why are we here?"


img89.imageshack.us[i14.ebayimg.com!]

On what basis do you infer existence of any reason/cause for "we are here"?

/Because your parents were careless about the contraception
 
2009-02-05 12:12:44 PM  
StreetlightInTheGhetto: Where do you live now? (I could just assume the obvious)

Lancaster, PA. I've had a boss tell me that I should thank Jesus that I have a job. I've had a woman scream at me that my daughter should be taken from me and be given to a good Christian family. And I've gone through about a dozen Darwin fish before giving up. The preacher presiding at my wife's grandfather's funeral turned a memorial for a wonderful man into a screed against secularism.

Now, people might say that I should just move. But should black people just move to get away from racism? Should gay people just move to get away from bigotry? I'm just as much a citizen as the people who assault me?

That's just sad. For the longest time I just assumed it was Biology and Anthro geeks who had those on their cars since the Natural History museum at school was full of them.

Darwin fish are less about atheism and more about science. Atheists almost universally have a love and respect for science. But quite a few religionists think science and atheism are the same thing.

By the way, the "live and let live" is more directed towards the psycho Christians and the more annoying appearances of Christopher Hitchens. No worries.

Christopher Hitchens : atheism :: Pat Robertson : Christianity

But if you actually read his book, or see him somewhere other than a cable news "Talking Heads Shout At Each Other" show, he's actually an interesting person to listen to. (I highly recommend the audio version of his book, where he reads it himself.)

\Plus he can be quite amusing
\\"If you gave Jerry Falwell an enema you could bury him in a matchbox."
 
2009-02-05 12:12:59 PM  
imfallen_angel
mofomisfit: Look, you're the one with "I'll show you respect if you show me respect" in your profile, you're the one who seems to be ultimately concerned with respect, and it's not uncivil to point out when you fail to meet your own standards.

And again... please explain how I did that...

You're kinda going around the issue here.


Read your boobies.
 
2009-02-05 12:13:08 PM  

The Icelander: Antimatter: I believe in Divine beings, I just don't have enough evidence to draft a scientific theory yet. But I'm confident such evidence will eventually be found and such a theory crafted.

And when that evidence is found, I will happily accept it.

Which is the key difference between most atheists and most religious people. When asked what would make them believe in god, atheists say "evidence." When asked what would make them stop believing in god, religious people say "NOTHING! NOTHING WILL EVER SHAKE MY FAITH! MY FAITH IS A ROCK!"

Now, which of these responses sounds more reasonable?


Depends, its hard for an Atheist to debate a Deist because both use the exact same evidence as proof.

To me, Physics, chemistry, etc, are proof of Divine existence, due to the way the Deist god is described, ie, some sort of supreme engineer who uses physics as the tool to create and manage creation.

To thew Atheist, those very things are indicative of just another natural process, and thus not proof of any sort of being.

Its two conclusions from the same evidence describing the same processes. The argument, therefore, is something of a stalemate.

Since things like special magic based creation and such isn't a part of the argument, its also much more difficult to challenge.

It's like the such for the Bosin particle: we think its there, but we can't yet prove it.
 
2009-02-05 12:14:16 PM  

abb3w: Would you agree that (P OR Q) is logically equivalent to (Q OR P), such that either disjunction may be validly inferred from the other?


It's like a nightmare from which I never awake...
 
2009-02-05 12:14:24 PM  

The Icelander: crockadock: Suprised no one has said anything about the stunningly convincing use of the word "probably." Doesn't that mean even the athiest ATHEIST are acknowledging there is a possibility that there is a God?

Yes, we are. There is a minuscule possibility of god existing. But until there's some evidence, I'm not going to just assume god exists, let alone that it's the Christian god who wants me to wake up early on a Sunday and overdress so that I can apologize for being human.

Its like saying: "there is a very very small chance there is a God, enjoy your life. do what makes you happy. But if you wind up spending eternity in hell don't blame us"

Any god who would send anyone to hell for simply not believing in him isn't the sort of god I'd want to spend eternity with in the first place.


Point taken. I'm not the type of Christian that, one can spell to save my farking life, and two, thinks that I or anyone other mortal being that live or has ever lived, really truely knows how God will judge our eternal souls. I think it is extremely arogant to assume that Christianity or any other belief system(including atheism) hasn't been altered in some way shape or form to be used as a form of control, usually through fear, by man in order to get what he/she/they want out of people. I also think it is extremely arrogant to think that we as humans can even begin to wrap our brains around what God is thinking and what he expects of us. I choose Christianity because it is based around love, acceptance and forgiveness.

/thanks to the many hard line denominations for farking the whole love, acceptance and forgiveness thing up
 
2009-02-05 12:15:01 PM  
justinguarini4ever: If you all are so certain, why would you care what other people think and why do you bother arguing about it.

Because we exist and want to be recognized in the societies we live in, rather than reviled.

You know, the little things.
 
2009-02-05 12:15:05 PM  

Evil Ghandi: "Thor definitely exists. So join the Viking party and raid some villages."


Where do I sign up?
 
2009-02-05 12:15:27 PM  
Atheist group 1: There's probably not a God.
Christian group 1: Yes, there is.
Christian group 2: You're a fool if you say there isn't.

Which of these is not like the other?
 
2009-02-05 12:15:38 PM  

FootInMouthDisease: Tatsuma The fact that my assertion is positive or not is irrelevant.

Only in your mind, is this irrelevant.


www.jacklail.com

Speak like Yoda you do, yes?

/got nothin'
//other than slashies, that is
 
2009-02-05 12:15:54 PM  

miscreant: smokinfoo: The original ads were agnostic, not atheist.

No they weren't. If they'd said "It's impossible to know if a God exists" they would be agnostic. You're confusing "strong atheists" who would say "There is definitely no God"... a type which I've never met, with "weak atheists" who say "There is no evidence of a God and therefore the probability that one exists is pretty slim".

Agnostic concerns the ability to know if a God exists. Atheism concerns the belief as to whether a God exists. They're not mutually exclusive.


Ugg, not this argument again.

August11: nmathew01: August11: I went to a public discussion on the existence of God. The discussion was held by a famous Baptist minister, a famous Rabbi, and a famous atheist.

They had a wonderful discussion. They all scored hits and received applause. But it was the atheists in the crowd who shouted to their leader: "Tell 'em!!" and "That's right!!"

You atheists are the most religious people I know.

Honest question for you:

Could you please define religion and explain how atheists for into that definition for me?

When people attack religion, they attack its worst manifestations. The fury. The hating. The passionate or irrational participation. I just thought it fascinating how many athiests can get so zooked up when they are in the same hall. They look like the worst examples of what they are attacking.

So yes they do not fall into a definition along the lines of "A man-made system (rooted in belief) and used as a method of reaching the divine." But, man, they sure can hoot like Baptists.


Thanks. My question was earnest. I once thought about defining religion as a belief system about the supernatural/metaphysical realm, but I've come across several supernatural beliefs that I would not call a religion. Under that rejected definition, atheism would probably fall. I've seen many people claim that atheism is a religion, and many reject that idea, but no one defines religion in those biatchfests. I guess you were using the term as a bit of an analogy/sarcastic/ironic element, which is perfectly fair.

I personally love the agnostic vs atheist definition fights. It's not like there is a digital on/off option outside pure theist, so two words isn't going to suffice.
 
2009-02-05 12:16:29 PM  

nikknaack1: The problem is, from a logical standpoint, those two TOTALLY different arguments. Just because they are very similar in our language doesn't mean one can be substituted for the other.


But in conversational speech, they mean the same thing most of the time. I'm sure there are people who will assert that there is no God with the fanaticism that one would claim there is (and that is important to attack), but it's often not the case. Parsing it down into its true logical claim only serves to turn the argument into a semantic dick-waving contest, when it was originally clear what the guy meant by it.
 
2009-02-05 12:16:29 PM  
There sure are a lot of people claiming they know there is no God.

Kind of reminds of all of the people who claim they know there is a God.

To me, God is just a man-made psychological device, representing mysteries and that which we can not readily explain with science. Bits of God disappear over time, but there will always be more mystery, so people will continue to use the psychological device known as "God."

I guess I would be an agnostic...I believe people believe in God, and I believe that people do not. However, I enjoy thick, mystical metaphors, so I lean towards believing in God purely for story-telling and entertainment value.
 
2009-02-05 12:16:38 PM  

imfallen_angel: adamgreeney: It's true though. If you automatically make assertions like you did (especially when they have no evidence to them), you can't claim that you're the one being offended.

I have never in my life seen an ad about atheism. We don't ask for holidays, we don't ask for time off from work or anything at all. We don't cry persecution when we see Jesus fish on cars or Christian book stores. I am forced to see ads for churches in malls, on billboards and on tv on a daily basis. You, on the other hand, can not claim that you have ever seen an ad for atheism, especially one that was insulting.

I'll just fall back on an old cliche. [citation needed].

aaah..... I see the problem..

you are mistaking "assertions" vs "observations"

and then you state:

"I have never in my life seen an ad about atheism."

and then

"You, on the other hand, can not claim that you have ever seen an ad for atheism"

So, in other words, YOU claim to know about EVERYTHING that I've seen.

Well, isn't that nice.

And what are your basis for this?


That was a mighty fancy way of dodging the issue of citation :)
 
2009-02-05 12:16:58 PM  
We have a christian party here in the US. We call them Republicans.

PSA to Great Britain and every other nation in the world:

DO NOT allow a party driven by religion to run your country.
For example see the USA of the past 8 years.
That is all.
Have a nice day.
 
2009-02-05 12:17:13 PM  

justinguarini4ever: This thread is full of atheist insecurity. If you all are so certain, why would you care what other people think and why do you bother arguing about it. At least Christians have an incentive to tell people about God. Your incentive seems to be the shallow satisfaction of an internet pwn.


Religious people vote for religious representatives, who in turn create legislation that is based upon their beliefs and morals specific to their religion. The problem is that they place these beliefs ABOVE their fellow man and his devices (Science).
Thus, this legislation is often harmful to people who place their fellow man and science above religion.
They also do not like their tax money being used to further agendas that run counter to the advancement of society.

So there is a great incentive to reducing the numbers of religious people, especially if it's through the general illogical nature of religion itself.
 
2009-02-05 12:18:00 PM  

Crab Nicholson: the atheist bus campaign: there probably isn't a god, stop worrying and enjoy your life
christian bus campaign: there definitely is a god, etc.

to be honest the atheist bus campaign sounds more like the agnostic bus campaign.


Ehh, maybe. The glaring difference is that the nontheist campaign is saying essentially "There is no empirical evidence of God. Given this, despite all the efforts to prove his existence, it's safe to say there is no God until and unless some very good evidence comes along. Bring us extraordinary evidence and we'll be here to listen."

The theist ads simply state that there is a God because they say so, their bible says so and you can burn in hell if you disagree.

See how that works?
 
2009-02-05 12:18:59 PM  

FootInMouthDisease: Tatsuma, you are making the claim that god exists, therefore, the burden is on you.


Thank you!!! Please close the thread, how tatsuma even tries to argue after this, is beyond me.

I love reading Tatsuma's logic throughout this thread, it honestly reminds me of something a 2nd grader would come up with.

i14.photobucket.com

i14.photobucket.com

I like how subtard used the cool tag, have some more koolaid noob
 
2009-02-05 12:19:01 PM  
Torok: I understood that it was a joke even if I don't get it. I just wanted to have a discussion and you seem to avoid engaging me. I will not demand that you answer the question but at least extend the courtesy of a proper response.

It was a proper response, I was saying G-d according to the Torah!

MayorYana: My religion is panthiesm, I.E. that everything is in itself a part of a god.

Would you say I was wrong?


If you make the distinction that everything is from G-d, but not that G-d literally is everything, I'd say you're on the right path.
 
2009-02-05 12:19:02 PM  

Tavernknight: DO NOT allow a party driven by religion to run your country.


Republicans aren't a party driven by religion. They're a party using religion as a cudgel to try to get their way.

They've highjacked Christianity in a similar way that Muslim extremists have hijacked Islam. Republicans, though, prefer to send others to do the bombing for them.
 
2009-02-05 12:19:36 PM  
Antimatter: It's like the such for the Bosin particle: we think its there, but we can't yet prove it.

I think you're a little mistaken. It's not that we *think* the Higgs Boson exists. It's that quantum mechanics predicts that it exists and that we haven't observed it. Not because it's not there, but because we haven't built the right detector yet.

I've yet to see a mathematical prediction that says the divine must exist and we haven't detected it yet.

As far as physics and chemistry and constants indicating the presence of the divine, it could be that we live in one of an infinite number of universes, only a few of which have the correct properties to allow life to exist.
 
2009-02-05 12:19:43 PM  

abb3w: Tatsuma: Jerusalem this summer, you, me, a tall Guinness and a plate of Shawarma.

Maybe next year in Jerusalem.

Tatsuma: Face it: "G-d exists" cannot ultimately be proved one way or another.

The key there is the word "ultimately". It is similarly impossible to "ultimately" prove whether or not your skull houses a brain or a piece of cauliflower.

Tatsuma: And when you make the claim that G-d doesn't exist (ch"vs), the burden falls on you, no?

Perhaps once we agree on premises. Would you agree that (P OR Q) is logically equivalent to (Q OR P), such that either disjunction may be validly inferred from the other?


bachdog: Question: "Why are we here?"

[!]

On what basis do you infer existence of any reason/cause for "we are here"?

/Because your parents were careless about the contraception


Could you actually lay out the argument for me, or link to a place i can read about it? I've failed to find it online.
 
2009-02-05 12:19:58 PM  
tomcatadam

Religious people vote for religious representatives, who in turn create legislation that is based upon their beliefs and morals specific to their religion.

Lol?
 
2009-02-05 12:20:06 PM  
too late to Summon Bevets?
 
2009-02-05 12:20:25 PM  

Tatsuma: If you make the distinction that everything is from G-d, but not that G-d literally is everything, I'd say you're on the right path.


Hmm...that means I can still open my holy porn shop.

"Buy Hustler. It's from God"
 
2009-02-05 12:20:42 PM  

The Icelander: justinguarini4ever: If you all are so certain, why would you care what other people think and why do you bother arguing about it.

Because we exist and want to be recognized in the societies we live in, rather than reviled.

You know, the little things.



Personally, I want to take a ride in this:
i44.photobucket.com
 
2009-02-05 12:20:49 PM  

Antimatter: In what way? We know Antimatter exists, we've made it in the lab and described it with theory.


Just the "opposite" nature of antimatter (at least in pop culture) and the whole fact that this argument comes down to two extreme; there is a god, and there isn't.

D-D-D-Dave: There sure are a lot of people claiming they know there is no God.
Kind of reminds of all of the people who claim they know there is a God.


I'm certain that there's forces and sciences in this universe that we can't even begin to conceive. But we cannot prove them nor does their possible existence have any bearing on what we are doing now, so for the time being, we should not be making legislation around them; we should assume that they are possible, but for now, are as good as "non-existant";
same as God.
 
2009-02-05 12:20:59 PM  
jhuseby420: I love reading Tatsuma's logic throughout this thread, it honestly reminds me of something a 2nd grader would come up with.

You have 420 in your name, use the words "subtard" and "noob", wear your antitheism on your shirt and you're accusing me of acting like a child?
 
2009-02-05 12:21:08 PM  

santadog: How does one "become" an atheist?


I was a Deist (at least now I see it that way). Then I stopped caring. Then I heard Bill Maher go of on religion as mental illness. I don't really agree with that, but it was the perfect highlight to the complete utter absurdity that is religion. I then read some Thomas Paine and read Euthyphro by Plato. This plus a careful review of all the various paradoxes and circular arguments one gets into if a God really actually did exist as people say finally honed my philosophy.

I think you can logically rule out God. Not absolutely, but PRACTICALLY. And that's the point of science and logic: practical application of what is only theory. I can't rule out God as a possibility, but when it is literally impossible to answer "why does existence exist" by any means, including religion and science, ALL guesses are equally valid. That's faith right there. I choose not to have faith. I choose to say "no one knows"

So in conclusion: Based on the evidence presented, there is and can be no god. However, the question is stacked so that one must always say "who the hell knows for sure anyway". It's absurd to rule gods versus other "things" since everything is equally valid when you can't prove or disprove the question. It is MORE absurd to rule in a specific flavor of God and say that this is the truth.

Faith is protected illogic.
 
2009-02-05 12:21:19 PM  
crockadock: I choose Christianity because it is based around love, acceptance and forgiveness.

I'd just like people to see that you can base your life around love, acceptance and forgiveness without needing to believe in god.
 
2009-02-05 12:21:55 PM  

sxacho: Personally, I want to take a ride in this:


Just don't take the first ride...
 
2009-02-05 12:22:14 PM  

Tatsuma: jhuseby420: I love reading Tatsuma's logic throughout this thread, it honestly reminds me of something a 2nd grader would come up with.

You have 420 in your name, use the words "subtard" and "noob", wear your antitheism on your shirt and you're accusing me of acting like a child?


He said your logic was that of a 2nd grader. He didn't say you were acting like one.
 
2009-02-05 12:22:30 PM  

August11: nmathew01: August11: I went to a public discussion on the existence of God. The discussion was held by a famous Baptist minister, a famous Rabbi, and a famous atheist.

They had a wonderful discussion. They all scored hits and received applause. But it was the atheists in the crowd who shouted to their leader: "Tell 'em!!" and "That's right!!"

You atheists are the most religious people I know.

Honest question for you:

Could you please define religion and explain how atheists for into that definition for me?

When people attack religion, they attack its worst manifestations. The fury. The hating. The passionate or irrational participation. I just thought it fascinating how many athiests can get so zooked up when they are in the same hall. They look like the worst examples of what they are attacking.

So yes they do not fall into a definition along the lines of "A man-made system (rooted in belief) and used as a method of reaching the divine." But, man, they sure can hoot like Baptists.



Actually that's not even the worst, to me the worst is how people use religion as an excuse to be bigots, to oppress people, and even to start wars and kill. Not to mention the whole notion of "not thinking for yourself". Other than that, hey go be mindless zombies, I could care less, it's dangerous when your religious fantasies become public policy, or worse, when it costs lives.

i14.photobucket.com

i14.photobucket.com
 
2009-02-05 12:22:42 PM  
i114.photobucket.com
 
2009-02-05 12:22:50 PM  

adamgreeney: imfallen_angel: mofomisfit: It's not calling names if it's true, and you've gotta admit your Boobies wasn't exactly "showing respect" like your profile said you would. So, no he didn't prove your comment, you've just proven you get butthurt and overreact to legitimate points.

What are you guys? five or something...

overreact? wasn't showing respect?

How about you explain to me, in your infinite wisdom, where I "lacked" respect?

Let me have some perspective to your perception...

And try to be civil if you can...

Your original statement was:

So aside the usual flame wars here in Fark, we now have a bus campaign to show who's the most immature group...

And I have to say that I'm not surprised on who started it.


And yes I know that the religious signs have been all over for years, but they are usually various messages, some aiming to be inspirational, some are about having values that they believe in (and the world might be better if some non-religious folks were to make consider them too, even without being religious), etc.I can't recall seeing one that was aimed at calling atheist out as stupid or anything like that. They aren't aimed at attacking other's choice in beliefs.

While on the other hand, that's all I hear and see from the atheist groups. (with a very few exceptions)

I put all the statements in bold that where insulting, baseless, and devoid of any actual fact. I also love the part about non-religious people needing to consider christian morals, implying that we don't have any of our own. All very ignorant statements and all very combative. Add in your profile mantra and it is very, very hypocritical.


1) "who's the most immature group"

this is unbiased, I consider both sides to act like children.

2) "not surprised on who started this"

that is because some Atheists have been getting louder and more obnoxious, it's my observation, nothing more, are you saying that I'm not entitled to my opinions?

3) "some are about having values ..... I can't recall seeing ....aren't aimed at attacking other's choice in beliefs."

Again, I stated VERY clearly that these were my observations, so again, I'm not entitled to my opinions?

4) "While on the other hand, that's all I hear and see from the atheist groups. (with a very few exceptions)"

Look a repeat: Again, I stated VERY clearly that these were my observations, so again, I'm not entitled to my opinions? And I didn't generalized, I stated: "with a very few exceptions"

Also...

If you pay attention to other people posting, they mention how Atheist take this flaming way too seriously, and how they are so freaking angry.

So I'm not the only person that sees this.

And the fact is, I'm neither religious or atheist, I just find that this flaming over who's right or wrong, is only showing one thing... that Atheism IS a religion, or at least, some of you act like it is.

I'm waiting to see how long before Atheist start burning people at the stake for not believing the same things that they do.
 
2009-02-05 12:22:51 PM  
sxacho: Personally, I want to take a ride in this:

Your request is about as likely as mine, at least in the short term.
 
2009-02-05 12:23:18 PM  

tomcatadam: One proves lack of existence by proving the nonexistence of evidence of existence.


More formally, by providing some hypothesis not requiring existence to describe the evidence; burden of proof then shifts until a better explanation is put forward which uses the claim of existence.

randomizetimer: Faith is needed in belief of your own perceptions.


That is not a necessary premise of Faith, especially since when put that simply, it's wrong.
www.agenarisk.com
It may be taken to some degree as inference.

randomizetimer: You can believe in the reality of thing with a degree of certainty, but you can never really know it for certainty.


For clarity, a distinction should be made between primary premises held on Faith without priors, and premises only held as Inference as a result from other premises.

bachdog: Morality comes from reason, empathy, a good will; human characteristics


Actually, it comes from the Second Law of Thermodynamics; the human characteristics you refer to are simply particular by-products of that.
 
2009-02-05 12:23:20 PM  

Kierkegaard's Pseudonym: nikknaack1: The problem is, from a logical standpoint, those two TOTALLY different arguments. Just because they are very similar in our language doesn't mean one can be substituted for the other.

But in conversational speech, they mean the same thing most of the time. I'm sure there are people who will assert that there is no God with the fanaticism that one would claim there is (and that is important to attack), but it's often not the case. Parsing it down into its true logical claim only serves to turn the argument into a semantic dick-waving contest, when it was originally clear what the guy meant by it.


True, but the original reason I broke it down was because someone was stating that because its impossible to prove the existence of god we must assume, without a doubt, the non existence. That was my purpose for the logical semantics and syntax.

I just think it is an important distinction to make personally. An example is in the way that you would express how you feel about someone; "I love her" or "I think I love her." People are very careful when they choose such words because of the difference in meanings.
 
2009-02-05 12:23:27 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: Lol?


Redundant department of redundant redundancies.

The point is that a lot of these people want to make laws for what "goes against their religion"; not all, not necessarily a majority. But the fact remains that it's very logical to be angry at/with these people and to want to reduce the number of people like them in the future.
 
2009-02-05 12:23:28 PM  
The proper response to the question "Does God exist?" is to bonk the person asking upside the head with the nearest blunt object and move on to more civilized and useful activities. Like nose-picking or learning to juggle feces.
 
2009-02-05 12:23:52 PM  
adamgreeney: He said your logic was that of a 2nd grader. He didn't say you were acting like one.

Hey, I'm only up to simple math and sentences like "the green rabbit loves to each chocolate", give my reading comprehension a break.
 
2009-02-05 12:23:55 PM  
engine

Show me your baseball.
 
2009-02-05 12:24:01 PM  
engine

Are you implying you have a proof of God's existence and atheists are just ignoring you?
 
2009-02-05 12:24:30 PM  

tomcatadam:
D-D-D-Dave: There sure are a lot of people claiming they know there is no God.
Kind of reminds of all of the people who claim they know there is a God.

I'm certain that there's forces and sciences in this universe that we can't even begin to conceive. But we cannot prove them nor does their possible existence have any bearing on what we are doing now[citation needed], so for the time being, we should not be making legislation around them; we should assume that they are possible, but for now, are as good as "non-existant";
same as God.


I absolutely agree on the legislation part. If we are to teach religion, we must teach each religion equally, and that's just a damn waste of time.

However, these claims of "non-existence" are frivolous, and not even in a fun way
 
2009-02-05 12:24:31 PM  
engine: i114.photobucket.com

Usually when a believer says they've found evidence of god, another believer says they're wrong.

I'd say that they all need to agree on a definition of god before they start saying that god exists.
 
2009-02-05 12:24:48 PM  

engine: i114.photobucket.com


Whoever drew that is either ignorant beyond belief or an inveterate and intellectually dishonest liar.
 
2009-02-05 12:25:11 PM  

nmathew01: Thanks. My question was earnest. I once thought about defining religion as a belief system about the supernatural/metaphysical realm, but I've come across several supernatural beliefs that I would not call a religion. Under that rejected definition, atheism would probably fall. I've seen many people claim that atheism is a religion, and many reject that idea, but no one defines religion in those biatchfests. I guess you were using the term as a bit of an analogy/sarcastic/ironic element, which is perfectly fair.

I personally love the agnostic vs atheist definition fights. It's not like there is a digital on/off option outside pure theist, so two words isn't going to suffice.


Thanks for responding rationally to my irony.

And to take it one step further, I'm not sure I want a pantheon of Scientists telling me how to live my life either. If I take instruction from anyone, it is Herodotus.
 
2009-02-05 12:25:24 PM  
imfallen_angel


Look a repeat: Again, I stated VERY clearly that these were my observations, so again, I'm not entitled to my opinions? And I didn't generalized, I stated: "with a very few exceptions"


"That's not disrespectful! I SAID a few of you were ok!"
 
2009-02-05 12:25:37 PM  

Tatsuma: Torok: I understood that it was a joke even if I don't get it. I just wanted to have a discussion and you seem to avoid engaging me. I will not demand that you answer the question but at least extend the courtesy of a proper response.

It was a proper response, I was saying G-d according to the Torah!


not really
 
2009-02-05 12:25:38 PM  
Engine: image
I lol'd.
 
2009-02-05 12:25:45 PM  
umm.... FTFA It sparked almost 150 complaints to the Advertising Standard Authority

150?!?!?! What are we running on NBC numbers with the Jackson boobies exposed? Seriously... 150 complaints...
 
2009-02-05 12:25:47 PM  
DamnYankees: Nightjars: I find the possibility that some entity that exists outside of space and time


What does it mean to 'exist' outside of space and time?


The UniverseTM talked about this and it was one of the coolest, most eloquent explanations I've ever heard... I brought pictures and everything:

i39.tinypic.com

The observable universe or our 'light horizon' is dictated by how far light has had to travel (ie, time). Depending on how old you believe the universe to be, this varies, but for all intensive purposes, whatever it is, it's the same for all observers.

So that makes the blue sphere our observable universe with our galaxy at the middle. The red sphere represents a hypothetical galaxy at the edge of our visible universe so roughly half of its universe would overlap with ours, but roughly half as far in the opposite direction, would be a completely unknown universe from our viewpoint. This is a Level 1 parallel universe theory.

You could repeat this hypothesis over and over again with hypothetical other galaxies at the edge of each light horizon (beyond our observable concepts of space and time). This gets into all the crazy mind-fark stuff that I love... if you only see one episode of The UniverseTM this season, make it Parallel Universes.

i44.tinypic.com

/brought to you by Carl's Jr.TM
 
2009-02-05 12:26:03 PM  
PC LOAD LETTER: Wow!! That is so much more a complex line of thinking than mine about the topic. Yours was a journey, and mine was just a life not exposed to religion. I find that interesting.

How long were you a theist?
 
2009-02-05 12:26:18 PM  

Tatsuma: jhuseby420: I love reading Tatsuma's logic throughout this thread, it honestly reminds me of something a 2nd grader would come up with.

You have 420 in your name, use the words "subtard" and "noob", wear your antitheism on your shirt and you're accusing me of acting like a child?



So someone who acts like a child (me), is more logically sound than you. I see what you did there. I guess ignorance really is bliss.
 
2009-02-05 12:27:24 PM  

nmathew01: Could you actually lay out the argument for me, or link to a place i can read about it? I've failed to find it online.


Here it is in a thread. Prepare yourself. Link
 
2009-02-05 12:27:28 PM  

Wrath of Heaven: for all intensive purposes


My defense is impregnable, my heart is impetuous, my purposes are intensive.
 
2009-02-05 12:27:32 PM  

mofomisfit: imfallen_angel


Look a repeat: Again, I stated VERY clearly that these were my observations, so again, I'm not entitled to my opinions? And I didn't generalized, I stated: "with a very few exceptions"

"That's not disrespectful! I SAID a few of you were ok!"


Well, you're not helping your cause, in case you're wondering....
 
2009-02-05 12:27:34 PM  
Tatsuma
Hey, I'm only up to simple math and sentences like "the green rabbit loves to each chocolate"

i202.photobucket.com

Don't mean to pile on, but I couldn't resist.
 
2009-02-05 12:27:49 PM  
imfallen_angel:

No one ever said you were not entitled to your opinion. However, your opinion can still be combative and insulting. I could say it's my opinion that all people with red hair are ugly and smell bad, but if i did I can't say that i'm "respectfully expressing my opinion" and then get all mad when someone calls me out for being a dick. You made comments that were insulting. I called you out. You can believe them all you want, but they are still insulting.
 
2009-02-05 12:28:07 PM  
Love this pic

http://img525.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pedojesusrc4.gif
 
2009-02-05 12:28:38 PM  

Tatsuma: adamgreeney: He said your logic was that of a 2nd grader. He didn't say you were acting like one.

Hey, I'm only up to simple math and sentences like "the green rabbit loves to each chocolate", give my reading comprehension a break.


Loves to each chocolate? What?

Oh..... i see what you did there. . .
 
2009-02-05 12:29:11 PM  

I Said: If I were in London I'd be really pissed off. I can see the bus traffic now:
[yes there is][no there isn't][is too!!!!][is not!!!!][ uh-huh ][ nuh-uhh ]
o-----------o__o------------o__o--------o__o-------o__o-----o__o -------o


Thank you for peaking the thread early and saving my time :).
 
2009-02-05 12:29:34 PM  
i42.tinypic.com

Now with some Dawkins.
 
2009-02-05 12:29:35 PM  

adamgreeney: You, on the other hand, can not claim that you have ever seen an ad for atheism, especially one that was insulting.


I see lots of those legged fish stickers mocking christian symbols.
 
2009-02-05 12:30:20 PM  
I am getting really tired of this debate. Some people will believe in this mystical god. Some don't. I don't. And that's fine with me.
I appreciate the likes of Dawkins in that he is making Atheists more acceptable by society. This is relevant to me. I don't want to be burned at the stake for being a nonbeliever. Indeed, I don't want to be ashamed.

Tatsuma: Jerusalem this summer, you, me, a tall Guinness and a plate of Shawarma.

Then it's scotch scotch scotchy scotch. Sounds good?


Damn. Not only do I have infinately more respect for you Tatsuma, but you have shown me the light. I totally want to go out and find some Shawarma. I looked at the Wikipedia entry and now I just have to find somewhere in San Diego that serves Guinness and Shawarma.
 
2009-02-05 12:30:29 PM  
I'm waiting for two of these buses to crash into each other.
 
2009-02-05 12:30:58 PM  
tomcatadam:
So there is a great incentive to reducing the numbers of religious people, especially if it's through the general illogical nature of religion itself.


Sounds like you atheists are getting your crusade on.
 
2009-02-05 12:31:48 PM  

mod_reright: The proper response to the question "Does God exist?" is to bonk the person asking upside the head with the nearest blunt object and move on to more civilized and useful activities. Like nose-picking or learning to juggle feces.


Skip the physical violence part and I would completely agree with you.
 
2009-02-05 12:32:06 PM  

Caradoc: They should be required to *prove* any statement that includes "definitely."


1) The Bible tells us that there is a God.
2) The Bible is true because it is the word of God.
Q.E.D.
 
2009-02-05 12:32:07 PM  

justinguarini4ever: Lots of irony in this debate.

Atheists often think that God is some unfun buzzkill. Therefore, believing he doesn't exist = happier existence.

Yet a study by the European Centre for Social Welfare Policy found that sincere and active religious individuals are happier, have more life satisfaction, and less stress.

But keep on going with that humanism and hedonism.


The same that be said of any person that lies positively to him or herself and believes the lies.

Ignorance is bliss. So would be convincing oneself that this world doesn't matter because something better awaits upon death.

Seems like a great message that helps make the human mob less violent about its squalid existence in old times (and modern times for a lot of the world).
 
2009-02-05 12:32:14 PM  

cthu1hu: Now with some Dawkins.


is it me, or are those Dunkin Donut's colors? I saw the AD, and became mysteriously in the mood for donuts.
 
2009-02-05 12:32:22 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: adamgreeney: You, on the other hand, can not claim that you have ever seen an ad for atheism, especially one that was insulting.

I see lots of those legged fish stickers mocking christian symbols.


How are those mocking? Or are you saying Jesus fish are mocking of atheists too?
 
2009-02-05 12:32:43 PM  

miscreant: smokinfoo: The original ads were agnostic, not atheist.

No they weren't. If they'd said "It's impossible to know if a God exists" they would be agnostic. You're confusing "strong atheists" who would say "There is definitely no God"... a type which I've never met, with "weak atheists" who say "There is no evidence of a God and therefore the probability that one exists is pretty slim".


"You're confusing "strong atheists" who would say "There is definitely no God" "I definitely don't believe in your god stories/descriptions of a universal cause" as if they were accurate in anyway. Therefore I am nonreligious; I don't join groups of people who try to believe in the same story and pretend it makes them good people."
 
2009-02-05 12:32:43 PM  
ThrobblefootSpectre: I see lots of those legged fish stickers mocking christian symbols.

Just look at it as someone saying "The stuff symbolized by this symbol is as important to me as Christianity is to Christians."
 
2009-02-05 12:32:53 PM  
Ah, another religious flamewar. Where christians demonstrate their inability to comprehend science, and atheists demonstrate their inability to comprehend symbolism.

Frankly, if your world view can be changed by one of these pathetic ad campaigns, you should be forcibly sterilized.
 
2009-02-05 12:32:57 PM  

exick: The Christian Party? As in, political party? Well isn't that just a kick in the pants.


"Party heartily...but don't drink, don't dance, and please, don't fornicate without first obtaining the bond of marriage. And, if you don't party like it's 1099, you'll be tortured for all Eternity."

Sounds like a horrifying get-together to me. I'll stick with my little soirees instead.
 
2009-02-05 12:32:58 PM  

IXI Jim IXI: I'm waiting for two of these buses to crash into each other.


The passengers on the Christian bus will clearly walk away unharmed, whilst the passengers on the Atheist bus will all die fiery deaths. Right?
 
2009-02-05 12:33:12 PM  
The lols are strong here
 
2009-02-05 12:33:14 PM  

The Icelander: crockadock: I choose Christianity because it is based around love, acceptance and forgiveness.

I'd just like people to see that you can base your life around love, acceptance and forgiveness without needing to believe in god.


I believe that you absolutely can base a life around these things without believing in God. I have many friends and family that do. Personaly in my life I have had experiences (answered prayers, near death experiences, lucky things happening to me that i consider small miracles) i have to believe are divine intervention. Looking at the world in all its miraculous splendor, I have a hard time convincing myself there is not a God
 
2009-02-05 12:33:19 PM  

The Icelander: Darwin fish are less about atheism and more about science.


Considering the Darwin Fish are meant to look like the Jesus Fish, I have to disagree with this. I understand how a religious person would see it as a threat.

I'm certainly not condoning people ripping them off of your car. That's incredibly childish. But I do see the Darwin Fish as an anti-religion symbol.

/former Christian
 
2009-02-05 12:33:21 PM  

engine: i114.photobucket.com


FAIL.

Conventional logic IS Atheist logic.

Religion doesn't even have the damn "baseball" to show!
 
2009-02-05 12:33:24 PM  
Fairy tales is fairy tales! No matter the star, be it Santa, cyclops, tooth fairies or Gods. Embrace the chemistry that is you and love and care about your habitat. That's the message that should be on the bus.
 
2009-02-05 12:33:38 PM  

justinguarini4ever: This thread is full of atheist insecurity. If you all are so certain, why would you care what other people think and why do you bother arguing about it. At least Christians have an incentive to tell people about God. Your incentive seems to be the shallow satisfaction of an internet pwn.


Frankly, our incentive is to get you lot to shut the hell up and stop trying to run our lives. If you'd "pray in a closet", as the very man you call your savior told you to do, we'd have no problem with you, but the fact that you try to force the rules of your particular brand of piousness on everybody means we do have to speak up.
 
2009-02-05 12:34:03 PM  

santadog: How long were you a theist?


I would say until my early 20s.
 
2009-02-05 12:34:29 PM  
imfallen_angel
mofomisfit: imfallen_angel


Look a repeat: Again, I stated VERY clearly that these were my observations, so again, I'm not entitled to my opinions? And I didn't generalized, I stated: "with a very few exceptions"

"That's not disrespectful! I SAID a few of you were ok!"

Well, you're not helping your cause, in case you're wondering....


Look, I'm not the one who calls people five year olds and then admonishes them to be civil, nor am I who takes blatantly insulting things I've said and tries to spin them into something positive. I don't care what my standing is with a person like that, I only hope to expose that kind of person.
 
2009-02-05 12:34:50 PM  

Smacky the Frog: The passengers on the Christian bus will clearly walk away unharmed, whilst the passengers on the Atheist bus will all die fiery deaths. Right?


It all depends on whether the driver is raptured or not.
 
2009-02-05 12:36:24 PM  

sxacho: nmathew01: Could you actually lay out the argument for me, or link to a place i can read about it? I've failed to find it online.

Here it is in a thread. Prepare yourself. Link


Much thanks, and most appreciated.
 
2009-02-05 12:36:24 PM  
All that wine has got to make the Christian Party one hell of a party.
 
2009-02-05 12:36:42 PM  
Torok: not really

Yes, it is. As I said, it's a joke that I guess most Jews would understand, and for the gentiles in the audience, here's the explanation:

In Judaism, we call G-d by different names, each of them reflecting a different "reality" so to speak. Think of it that way: Your father is a doctor. You would call him by many different names depending on the situation. EG:

He's coming back from a trip: "Dad, I missed you"
You wrecked the car after stealing his liquor: "Father, I need to talk to you"
You're addressing him when he's giving a medical conference: "Doctor, I have a question"

Now, the Holiest name of G-d is composed of four letter, a Hud then a Hei than a Vav, then a Kei. So, when I said "G-d, just like love, is a four letter word", this is what I was referring to.

adamgreeney: Oh..... i see what you did there. . .

Someone did get it

Dangl1ng: Damn. Not only do I have infinately more respect for you Tatsuma, but you have shown me the light. I totally want to go out and find some Shawarma. I looked at the Wikipedia entry and now I just have to find somewhere in San Diego that serves Guinness and Shawarma.

Amen, brother, amen!
 
2009-02-05 12:37:02 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: adamgreeney: You, on the other hand, can not claim that you have ever seen an ad for atheism, especially one that was insulting.

I see lots of those legged fish stickers mocking christian symbols.


So what, the more offensive and mean spirited, the better. Maybe you will go cry to your priest. People who believe in fantasy and fairy tales should be mocked and ridiculed like the looney tunes they are.

Imagine how f*cking nuts people would think if you walked around actually still believing in Santa Clause, like really believed he was a physical manifestation that flew around every year dropping off gifts for kids. That's how we think of you f*cking crazies.

img15.imageshack.us
 
2009-02-05 12:37:06 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: santadog: How long were you a theist?

I would say until my early 20s.


Until you reached the Age of Reason, perhaps?
It's like dominos: the Boogie Man knocks over the Tooth Fairy, the Tooth Fairy knocks over Santa Claus, Santa Claus knocks over Jesus...
 
2009-02-05 12:37:20 PM  

engine: i114.photobucket.com


I'm calling your bluff. Show me your baseball. Show me this proof that God exists that you claim to have that would shut any rational person up. Please, I'm begging you.
 
2009-02-05 12:37:26 PM  
"Don't be stupid, be a smarty! Come and join the Christian Party!"

i63.photobucket.com

i63.photobucket.com
 
2009-02-05 12:37:58 PM  
Wow. This went flamewar in less than 15 minutes!
 
2009-02-05 12:38:21 PM  

santadog: PC LOAD LETTER: Wow!! That is so much more a complex line of thinking than mine about the topic. Yours was a journey, and mine was just a life not exposed to religion. I find that interesting.

How long were you a theist?


As someone that started out as church going Christian, and became agnostic atheist, I started the whole "find no reason to believe" journey when I read the old and new testaments when I was 11 or 12 ... and could find no one to answer my questsions about why the "word of God" had so much lack of consistency and blatant self-contradictions. By the time I was 13 or 14 I had moved to agnostic, and further reading has pushed me to agnostic atheist.

By just agnostic, I mean not possible to know but no opinion one way or the other as to the existence.

/Just felt like sharing.
 
2009-02-05 12:38:30 PM  

justinguarini4ever: This thread is full of atheist insecurity. If you all are so certain, why would you care what other people think and why do you bother arguing about it. At least Christians have an incentive to tell people about God. Your incentive seems to be the shallow satisfaction of an internet pwn.


Because you morans are dictating our public policy, that's why.

I couldn't care less about what people think as long as: 1) you don't try to pass it along as fact 2) it stays within the confines of religious gatherings.

Religion has failed resoundingly at both.
 
2009-02-05 12:38:41 PM  

adamgreeney: imfallen_angel:

No one ever said you were not entitled to your opinion. However, your opinion can still be combative and insulting. I could say it's my opinion that all people with red hair are ugly and smell bad, but if i did I can't say that i'm "respectfully expressing my opinion" and then get all mad when someone calls me out for being a dick. You made comments that were insulting. I called you out. You can believe them all you want, but they are still insulting.


So you're entitled you YOUR opinion, but not me, because YOU find it insulting/offensive.

Crap, isn't this what the Atheist hard-heads claim about what the Theist crowd?

btw, where did I get mad? I asked for clarifications/explanations.

The one that's sounding mad is you and your other Atheist buddy that decided to get all twisted over my comment.

But you know what?

You'll get over it...


i478.photobucket.com
 
2009-02-05 12:39:03 PM  
adamgreeney

How are those mocking?

The fish wasn't picked randomly.

Or are you saying Jesus fish are mocking of atheists too?

If atheists had held the "Darwin fish" as some sort of icon first, and the Christians made up the "Jesus fish" to signify specific rejection of it, I'd say the Christians were the ones doing the mocking. As is, the Christians beat you to it by almost two-thousand years.
 
2009-02-05 12:39:12 PM  

crimsin23: Abstruse: Things needed for a successful party:

Boobies
Alcohol
Drugs
Loud rock music
Two drunk chicks making out

Things considered sinful or of the debil:

See all of above

Can I join?


HELL YEAH!!! I want to go!!!!
 
2009-02-05 12:39:14 PM  

Smacky the Frog:
It's like dominos: the Boogie Man knocks over the Tooth Fairy, the Tooth Fairy knocks over Santa Claus, Santa Claus knocks over Jesus...


Off to photoshop!
 
2009-02-05 12:39:45 PM  

ReeferChiefer: i202.photobucket.com


Careful. I got banned for posting that pic. Wasn't even allowed to talk about it.
 
2009-02-05 12:39:48 PM  
nikknaack1:

Wrong. "There is no God" is a claim of knowledge. ANY claim of knowledge requires proof. However, keep in mind this excludes "there probably isn't a God." You cannot just de-facto set your argument baseline to non-existence just because you want to. While it is true that claims of existence carry a different logical burden, claims of definite non-existence do also. The difference is, as I stated above, claims of definite non-existence can never be proved.


OK, so I'm a positivist and I'm getting the idea that you're a constructivist. Way to go on the whole building of descriptive and functional theories thing because your camp has mine beat. But I still believe that the only intellectually honest logical and scientific method is to assume the null hypothesis on everything until an alternative has been posited and then supported with sufficient evidence to allow a rejection of the null.

To your last point, of course definite claims of non-existence cannot be proven anymore than the null hypothesis can be accepted. You don't accept the null, you just retain it as a possibility until evidence forces you to reject. This is a more complicated version of what the Atheist-bus-advertiser people are saying with the whole "their probably is no" thing. Basically you have to retain the negative position while simultaneously allowing the possibility for future evidence to force you to reject it.
 
2009-02-05 12:40:11 PM  
BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ah, another religious flamewar. Where christians demonstrate their inability to comprehend science, and atheists demonstrate their inability to comprehend symbolism.

Symbolism is great. I like symbolism. But symbolism doesn't make something real.

Frankly, if your world view can be changed by one of these pathetic ad campaigns, you should be forcibly sterilized.

Which worldview is that: The existence of God? Or the idea that atheists are citizens and deserve not to be hated more than any other minority?
 
2009-02-05 12:40:12 PM  
i63.photobucket.com

"So ya
thought ya
might light to
come to the show..."
 
2009-02-05 12:40:31 PM  

Tatsuma: FootInMouthDisease: Tatsuma, you are making the claim that god exists, therefore, the burden is on you.

And when you make the claim that G-d doesn't exist (ch"vs), the burden falls on you, no?


Can't prove a negative.

Your post does little to bolster your cred.
 
2009-02-05 12:40:51 PM  
Might LIKE, even...
 
2009-02-05 12:40:56 PM  

illuminatis: DamnYankees: Let me lay out why this is dumb:

People don't need to create a pro-Christian zeitgeist. You don't need ads to make people comfortable being Christian. Christianity is not just accepted, but overwhelmingly dominant. The idea behind the atheist bus signs, even if you think they are retarded, are much the same as the aims behind things Richard Dawkins does - to move the Overton window and just get atheism into the public consciousness. Make people aware, make it a comfortable and normal part of existence.

This is dumb.

I don't know where you hail from, but in the country where this story originated, christianity hasnt been the dominant force for many years. Practicing christians are so rare as to be almost an object of curiosity, and ridicule.


...as it should be.
 
2009-02-05 12:41:03 PM  
Here's what I don't understand about Christians:

Many religions have existed prior to the development of Christianity. So, you mean to tell me that everyone that has existed prior to this newly developed religion has been wrong? How can a group of people be so arrogant?

/Seriously, get over yourselves.
 
2009-02-05 12:41:04 PM  

Zafler: and could find no one to answer my questsions about why the "word of God" had so much lack of consistency and blatant self-contradictions.


Did you ever think of looking into how the books of the bible were actually selected? Did you ever bother to read any of the ones that were left out?
 
2009-02-05 12:41:13 PM  
jhuseby420: So what, the more offensive and mean spirited, the better. Maybe you will go cry to your priest. People who believe in fantasy and fairy tales should be mocked and ridiculed like the looney tunes they are.

You're not helping.
 
2009-02-05 12:42:00 PM  
There is definitely a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
We have as much proof of its existence as we do God's.
 
2009-02-05 12:42:31 PM  

i_eat_beans: How can a group of people be so arrogant?


Haven't most religions thought that previous religions had it wrong? Isn't that one reason why so many people kill each other?
 
2009-02-05 12:43:18 PM  

santadog: Smacky the Frog:
It's like dominos: the Boogie Man knocks over the Tooth Fairy, the Tooth Fairy knocks over Santa Claus, Santa Claus knocks over Jesus...

Off to photoshop!


Please share, because I liked Smacky's explanation :)

img26.imageshack.us
 
2009-02-05 12:43:23 PM  
"Saying as person of faith is happier than a nonbeliever is like saying a drunk is happier than a sober person"

Dawkins- The God Delusion
 
2009-02-05 12:43:24 PM  

adamgreeney: How are those mocking? Or are you saying Jesus fish are mocking of atheists too?


To me it's clearly mocking a symbol of Christianity that has been used for thousands of years.

But regardless of whether you think it is mocking or not, the point was I find your claim to have never seen an ad for atheism bizarre. I see bumper stickers, park benches, t-shirts galore. Do you live alone on a deserted island?
 
2009-02-05 12:43:33 PM  

The Icelander: Antimatter: It's like the such for the Bosin particle: we think its there, but we can't yet prove it.

I think you're a little mistaken. It's not that we *think* the Higgs Boson exists. It's that quantum mechanics predicts that it exists and that we haven't observed it. Not because it's not there, but because we haven't built the right detector yet.

I've yet to see a mathematical prediction that says the divine must exist and we haven't detected it yet.

As far as physics and chemistry and constants indicating the presence of the divine, it could be that we live in one of an infinite number of universes, only a few of which have the correct properties to allow life to exist.


I was using it as a loose analogy. And i've mentioned that we don't yet have enough evidence to support a scientific theory about God's existence. We need more evidence before we could make such a statement about divine properties. I'm hopeful we'll find it though, then we can craft a theory, then we can build the detector.

So I guess its more a early hypothesis based on the analysis of phenomenon.

The bosin has better evidence, and a solid theory, but the idea is the same. Good enough for a basic analogy at least.
 
2009-02-05 12:43:45 PM  

abb3w: tomcatadam: One proves lack of existence by proving the nonexistence of evidence of existence.

More formally, by providing some hypothesis not requiring existence to describe the evidence; burden of proof then shifts until a better explanation is put forward which uses the claim of existence.

randomizetimer: Faith is needed in belief of your own perceptions.

That is not a necessary premise of Faith, especially since when put that simply, it's wrong.

It may be taken to some degree as inference.

randomizetimer: You can believe in the reality of thing with a degree of certainty, but you can never really know it for certainty.

For clarity, a distinction should be made between primary premises held on Faith without priors, and premises only held as Inference as a result from other premises.

bachdog: Morality comes from reason, empathy, a good will; human characteristics

Actually, it comes from the Second Law of Thermodynamics; the human characteristics you refer to are simply particular by-products of that.


The second law is a mathematical relation that can be defined by calculus and partial diff equations that basically relate properties of matter in terms of temperature and pressure.

Science describes the natural world through observation and measurement based on a standard of comparison.

A law is a generalization that has no observed exceptions or an exception that can be approached by a mathematical explanation with some measureable degree of probability. Science is about the probability (a mathematical relation) or likelihood of predictable re occurrence of an event, not about the certain prediction

I appreciate that you question what I am writing.

When I refer to the question "why are we here?" I am talking about how the idea of cause and effect which are common sense notions. I learned that cause is actually built-into our language, it is a legacy of how indo-european language affects our reality. Common sense is different from common knowledge.

The sun revolves around earth ("sunrise/sunset") is a common sense notion

The earth revolves around sun (thank you Copernicus) is a common knowledge fact
 
2009-02-05 12:43:59 PM  
BraveNewCheneyWorld: Did you ever think of looking into how the books of the bible were actually selected? Did you ever bother to read any of the ones that were left out?

When I point out that Christians don't seem to be acting very Christ-like, people say "Don't follow people, follow god."

When I ask where to find God, they say "God is in the Bible."

And when I point out that people wrote the Bible, they get irate and call me an angry atheist.
 
2009-02-05 12:44:55 PM  

Smacky the Frog: PC LOAD LETTER: santadog: How long were you a theist?

I would say until my early 20s.

Until you reached the Age of Reason, perhaps?
It's like dominos: the Boogie Man knocks over the Tooth Fairy, the Tooth Fairy knocks over Santa Claus, Santa Claus knocks over Jesus...


Triangle wins.
 
2009-02-05 12:44:55 PM  
IXI Jim IXI

Haven't most religions thought that previous religions had it wrong? Isn't that one reason why so many people kill each other?

Not really. It seems that way because of the spread of post-Semitic monotheisms to half the world. Back in the day, though, most religions were relatively live and let live. A people had their own gods, other peoples had their own gods, and there wasn't much of a reason to kill each other over it. It would be like killing each other over having different parents.
 
2009-02-05 12:45:01 PM  
Who knew Christians were so hateful?
 
2009-02-05 12:45:33 PM  

imfallen_angel: adamgreeney: imfallen_angel:

No one ever said you were not entitled to your opinion. However, your opinion can still be combative and insulting. I could say it's my opinion that all people with red hair are ugly and smell bad, but if i did I can't say that i'm "respectfully expressing my opinion" and then get all mad when someone calls me out for being a dick. You made comments that were insulting. I called you out. You can believe them all you want, but they are still insulting.

So you're entitled you YOUR opinion, but not me, because YOU find it insulting/offensive.

Crap, isn't this what the Atheist hard-heads claim about what the Theist crowd?

btw, where did I get mad? I asked for clarifications/explanations.

The one that's sounding mad is you and your other Atheist buddy that decided to get all twisted over my comment.

But you know what?

You'll get over it...


When did I say you weren't entitled to your opinion?

Oh yeah, i didn't. I just told you that your opinions were insulting for someone that has a mantra of respecting others. You came in flinging insults (that i very clearly laid out for you) and you got mad and said we "twisted" your words. I know that you don't like hearing you're a hypocrite, but if you don't act like one, we won't point it out :)
 
2009-02-05 12:45:34 PM  

nikknaack1: Prunes


OK, I see where I screwed up in my Boobies... I should have been more clear that when I used the word "accept" that I meant "you need to accept that this is what the null hypothesis is" rather than "you need to accept that they null hypothesis is true"... which you should never ever do. Bad Prunes Please.
 
2009-02-05 12:45:37 PM  

The Icelander: jhuseby420: So what, the more offensive and mean spirited, the better. Maybe you will go cry to your priest. People who believe in fantasy and fairy tales should be mocked and ridiculed like the looney tunes they are.

You're not helping.


Sorry, I tend to save the rational discourse, for rational people.
 
2009-02-05 12:45:56 PM  

Zasteva: Tatsuma: FootInMouthDisease: Tatsuma no you are making a positive assertion.

The fact that my assertion is positive or not is irrelevant. ARe you saying that if I say "Man never walked on the moon", since this is a negative assertion, i don't need to prove it?

No, you don't. It's then up to me to show you evidence that man did walk on the moon. I would immediately point you to NASA photos on the internet and if you accepted that evidence we'd be done. If you then argued that the evidence was faked, it would be up to you to prove your assertion.

Likewise, when I say, "I don't believe God exists", it's then up to you to offer some proof. I can either accept that proof and we're done, or I can argue that evidence is false in some way. At that point it's up to to me to prove that the evidence is false, since I'm making the assertion.

BTW, saying "I don't believe God exists" is a little different than saying, "I believe God does not exist". I don't hold a believe about the existence of God. I hold an informed opinion, based on lack of evidence to the contrary, that God does not exist.


This sums it up pretty nicely, I think.
 
2009-02-05 12:46:12 PM  

santadog: Smacky the Frog:
It's like dominos: the Boogie Man knocks over the Tooth Fairy, the Tooth Fairy knocks over Santa Claus, Santa Claus knocks over Jesus...

Off to photoshop!


Please, do cite.
Maybe the two of us can get a month of TF from that gem and the accompanying illustration.
 
2009-02-05 12:47:13 PM  
BraveNewCheneyWorld

Yes, I did, and had a hell of a time getting them...I ended up having to save money to pay for gas to go to the college library as it was the only place that had them. If anything, they make the lack of internal consistancy and ouright self contradictions worse. Been over 15 years now, but the 2 versions of creation in Genesis and, as I recall, Leviticus were the most easily visible contradictory sections.
 
2009-02-05 12:47:33 PM  
I dont know what is worse, religious people that say what they believe in is the truth and thats that or Atheists...who say they are fools.

Science says we know next to nothing about our own planet let alone the universe, has proved time and again that things exsist beyond our ability to see and hear...

no one knows for sure if there is a God so everyone should STFU cause their heads are up their asses. You are either blinded by your faith or you are a pseudo-intellectual asshole.
 
2009-02-05 12:48:06 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: adamgreeney

How are those mocking?

The fish wasn't picked randomly.

Or are you saying Jesus fish are mocking of atheists too?

If atheists had held the "Darwin fish" as some sort of icon first, and the Christians made up the "Jesus fish" to signify specific rejection of it, I'd say the Christians were the ones doing the mocking. As is, the Christians beat you to it by almost two-thousand years.


So I take it you aren't too fond of the Jesus-Fish-Eating-Darwin-Fish magnets?
 
2009-02-05 12:48:21 PM  

Thisbymaster: Both sides are acting like children.


Good luck getting them to shake hands and be friends.
 
2009-02-05 12:48:31 PM  
Come on pal. Be a smarty. Come and join the Christian Party.
 
2009-02-05 12:48:35 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: A people had their own gods, other peoples had their own gods, and there wasn't much of a reason to kill each other over it. It would be like killing each other over having different parents.


I wonder how much of that had less to do with live and let live, and more to do with "Wait, I have to spend HOW long on a ship to kill those bastards?"
 
2009-02-05 12:48:52 PM  

draconian:

no one knows for sure if there is a God so everyone should STFU cause their heads are up their asses. You are either blinded by your faith or you are a pseudo-intellectual asshole.


There's a third thing...you can be a moron who refuses to believe what the best evidence shows you for fear of being wrong.
 
2009-02-05 12:49:02 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: adamgreeney: How are those mocking? Or are you saying Jesus fish are mocking of atheists too?

To me it's clearly mocking a symbol of Christianity that has been used for thousands of years.

But regardless of whether you think it is mocking or not, the point was I find your claim to have never seen an ad for atheism bizarre. I see bumper stickers, park benches, t-shirts galore. Do you live alone on a deserted island?


I've never seen a park bench, billboard, store signs, mall signs, anything. Shirts and bumper sticker rarely. But those two aren't ads.
 
2009-02-05 12:49:38 PM  
some people just can't get enuffa that Jewish mythology...

I always preferred the Greek stuff, myself.
(never actually, believed it, but it was good entertainment, much better in that regard than that Hebrew claptrap, which basically wrecked the world.)
 
2009-02-05 12:49:42 PM  
HeartBurnKid

So I take it you aren't too fond of the Jesus-Fish-Eating-Darwin-Fish magnets?

Hadn't seen that one. I really don't care one way or another what crap people put on their cars, and don't understand the need to advertise one's beliefs in traffic, of all places...
 
2009-02-05 12:50:22 PM  

Marla Singer's Laundry: draconian:

no one knows for sure if there is a God so everyone should STFU cause their heads are up their asses. You are either blinded by your faith or you are a pseudo-intellectual asshole.

There's a third thing...you can be a moron who refuses to believe what the best evidence shows you for fear of being wrong.


We call those Republicans.
 
2009-02-05 12:50:44 PM  
Believer or not, I think there's one thing we can all agree on: Beer and tits are awesome.

I mean, everyone likes beer. There's even beer for people with gluten allergies, so they can get in on the action. That's just awesome.

And titties, well, those are awesome too. Men, women, and children love them. I mean, if you had 100 people draw the ideal women, I can guarantee you that every last one of those pictures would have some killer cans involved. Tits are awesome, too.

Why must we fight, when we are united by our common humanity, our common hopes, dreams, fears, and anxieties, and our love for a nice, cold glass of brew and a nice set of hooters?
 
2009-02-05 12:50:59 PM  

exick: The Christian Party? As in, political party? Well isn't that just a kick in the pants.


I think their God just wants to party all the time, party all the time, party all the ti-ime.
 
2009-02-05 12:51:24 PM  

Caradoc: They should be required to *prove* any statement that includes "definitely."


So should atheists.

Prove there's no God. Prove there's a God.

Neither is conclusive, so we should stop bickering over this.

It makes jerkoffs feel superior to others when they can call them ignorant for believing in god/gods.

I don't see the point. I don't need to jerk off on other people to feel good about myself.

And you?
 
2009-02-05 12:51:43 PM  
Unless they can prove it, I'd say that was false advertising. Someone should contact the BBB or something.
 
2009-02-05 12:52:34 PM  
I also wonder why engine vanished. I'd really like to see his baseball. =]
 
2009-02-05 12:52:38 PM  
Speaking as an atheist who's seen a lot of religious debate online, I'll never understand why atheists, the side that claims to enjoy life more, do things that spark conflict. I dunno what other atheists find enjoyable, but for me, it's not getting into pointless debates that never actually lead anywhere. Sure you learn a lot from them, but they're overly hostile and full of fallacious arguments, from BOTH sides.

Other people's beliefs don't affect you. Their actions do. I stay away from people who ac