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

(The Age (Melbourne))   Atheist convention miraculously sells out six weeks in advance   ( theage.com.au) divider line
    More: Interesting, political convention, Victorian Government, atheist convention, Tell Your Friends, atheists, Canberra, Victorian era, secularism  
•       •       •

10581 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Feb 2010 at 9:26 PM (7 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



724 Comments     (+0 »)
 
 
2010-02-02 07:32:43 PM  
Has to be the first time 'grass roots' will be accurately applied to describe an organization.
 
2010-02-02 07:34:56 PM  
Praise the Lord!!

Wait....
 
2010-02-02 07:37:00 PM  
Richard Dawkins is God.
 
2010-02-02 08:12:31 PM  
I hear the speaker line up is divine.
 
2010-02-02 08:29:31 PM  
i dont believe it
 
2010-02-02 08:32:44 PM  
''We think this is a turning point for secularism in Australia, and it will be looked at by the rest of the world,'' Mr Nicholls said. ''We will see it happening more through the free planet, and our aim is to make the whole planet free.''

Change a few words in there and it sounds like it could have come from the mouth of the most dogmatic of religious fundamentalists, or even some wacky fringe cult leader. Make the whole world `Free' you say? Free to adhere to your particular belief that there is no god, but how are you promoting the freedom to subscribe to any particular religion?

Now if it were an agnostics convention, I might buy that. Atheists and religious types both just need to stfu and quit trying to feel important. Nobody cares.
 
2010-02-02 09:03:17 PM  
I'm glad they sold it out. I was planning on attending purely out of curiosity, but at $200 a ticket, not a chance.
 
2010-02-02 09:05:50 PM  

MonkeyVegetables: i dont believe it


/snicker/
 
2010-02-02 09:12:11 PM  
So they're not waiting for God?....Doh!

/obscure?
//a stretch?
 
2010-02-02 09:28:42 PM  

nekom: 'We think this is a turning point for secularism in Australia, and it will be looked at by the rest of the world,' Mr Nicholls said. 'We will see it happening more through the free planet, and our aim is to make the whole planet free.'

Change a few words in there and it sounds like it could have come from the mouth of the most dogmatic of religious fundamentalists, or even some wacky fringe cult leader. Make the whole world `Free' you say? Free to adhere to your particular belief that there is no god, but how are you promoting the freedom to subscribe to any particular religion?

Now if it were an agnostics convention, I might buy that. Atheists and religious types both just need to stfu and quit trying to feel important. Nobody cares.


Would you care... For a Klondike Bar?.

/Seriously
//Militant Religious = Militant Atheists
 
2010-02-02 09:29:06 PM  
Any other non-stamp collectors want to get together and party?

Please?

/so so lonely
 
2010-02-02 09:29:29 PM  
Is this almost as silly as Atheist Summer Camps?
 
2010-02-02 09:31:08 PM  
See what happens when you just have faith?
 
2010-02-02 09:31:32 PM  
Let us gather and praise...?
 
2010-02-02 09:31:40 PM  
nekom
Change a few words in there and it sounds like it could have come from the mouth of the most dogmatic of religious fundamentalists, or even some wacky fringe cult leader. Make the whole world `Free' you say? Free to adhere to your particular belief that there is no god, but how are you promoting the freedom to subscribe to any particular religion?

You would have a point, except that religion is stupid and atheism is not.
 
2010-02-02 09:31:58 PM  
No snark from me.

Enjoy the convention, and tell Dawkins that his wife kicks major ass!

/not only I'm a theist, I'm a Whovian!
 
2010-02-02 09:32:03 PM  

CygnusDarius: //Militant Religious = Militant Atheists


This. If you're Fundy Theist and keep the Fundy but lose the Theism, you're still a Fundy. FUNDY
 
2010-02-02 09:32:16 PM  
a convention? seriously? what the hell are they thinking? god dammit

/atheist
 
2010-02-02 09:32:42 PM  

nekom: t how are you promoting the freedom to subscribe to any particular religion?

Now if it were an agnostics convention, I might buy that. Atheists and religious types both just need to stfu and quit trying to feel important. Nobody cares.


I'm pretty sure she meant free to do anything you want and not have relgion force anything on you as most atheists do.
 
2010-02-02 09:32:44 PM  
Last years event went really well...

i81.photobucket.com
 
2010-02-02 09:33:07 PM  
I should throw an agnostic convention, but its impossible to know if anybody would show up.
 
2010-02-02 09:33:57 PM  

InCaseOfFire: a convention? seriously? what the hell are they thinking? god dammit

/atheist


How else are they going to meet and reproduce to form the army that will defeat the evil Lord Robertson?
 
2010-02-02 09:34:21 PM  
What do they need a convention for?
 
2010-02-02 09:35:50 PM  

Bhasayate: CygnusDarius: //Militant Religious = Militant Atheists

This. If you're Fundy Theist and keep the Fundy but lose the Theism, you're still a Fundy. FUNDY


I read that as fondue. Which I'd totally support.

/Mmmm
//Fondue cheese
 
2010-02-02 09:36:43 PM  
Sold out? And Theists are giving this shiat away for free? No wonder they're so popular. Get your shiat together Atheists. S
 
2010-02-02 09:36:45 PM  
"In order not to believe in evolution you must either be ignorant, stupid or insane." - Richard Dawkins

somehow i don't think this will go over well with the creationist crowd.
 
2010-02-02 09:37:04 PM  
Angry Magic Sky Man will be angry.
 
2010-02-02 09:38:01 PM  

Nightjars: I should throw an agnostic convention, but its impossible to know if anybody would show up.


That's why Werner Heisenberg never threw parties
 
2010-02-02 09:38:05 PM  

Nightjars: I should throw an agnostic convention, but its impossible to know if anybody would show up.


You could just be an Academic Skeptic and say things like "It seems like people are going to show up, so I'll plan on it, knowing full well that I don't know that, but that's OK, because beliefs cause anxiety, and since I don't have any belief about it one way or the other, I'm totally cool with whatever happens."
 
2010-02-02 09:38:22 PM  

Nightjars: I should throw an agnostic convention, but its impossible to know if anybody would show up.


But deep down inside don't you wonder if maybe they would?
 
2010-02-02 09:38:36 PM  
A busy convention, eh? If only there was a way for like minded individuals to meet on a regular basis at a place dedicated to their belief system.

/Doesn't really care.
//Atheists will find out in the end.
 
2010-02-02 09:39:12 PM  

Isitoveryet: "In order not to believe in evolution you must either be ignorant, stupid or insane." - Richard Dawkins

somehow i don't think this will go over well with the creationist crowd.


"The fool says in is heart 'there is no evolution'"

St. Dawkins
 
2010-02-02 09:39:33 PM  
Sooo....what?
Are they going to stand around talking about what they don't believe?

Or is it just another excuse to fart into wine glasses and sniff it?
 
2010-02-02 09:39:52 PM  
Nightjars
I should throw an agnostic convention, but its impossible to know if anybody would show up.

SATURDAY AGENDA:
8:00 Breakfast, perhaps
9:00 Does God exist? Who knows? Anyone?
10:00 Do we even care whether or not God exists?
11:00 Everyone gives up and goes home because we're a bunch of blubbering wimps who can't take a stand on anything and don't know how to use basic logic or scientific reasoning.
12:00 Lunch
 
2010-02-02 09:40:07 PM  

RanDomino: nekom
Change a few words in there and it sounds like it could have come from the mouth of the most dogmatic of religious fundamentalists, or even some wacky fringe cult leader. Make the whole world `Free' you say? Free to adhere to your particular belief that there is no god, but how are you promoting the freedom to subscribe to any particular religion?

You would have a point, except that religion is stupid and atheism is not.


To me you are comparing zero and infinity. Both are important concepts, but neither one truly means anything.
 
2010-02-02 09:40:57 PM  
I'm a little confused to who is mad at whom. It says the organizers didn't want to risk putting it in bigger venues, but also that the organizer David Nicholls is mad at the government for not supporting it? Were they expecting the government to foot the bill or something.

/ only scanned the article.
 
2010-02-02 09:41:36 PM  
"He said more than 2500 tickets had been sold, about half to Victorians..."


I thought them to be generally prudish people.
 
2010-02-02 09:41:42 PM  

friedrice2003: Sooo....what?
Are they going to stand around talking about what they don't believe?

Or is it just another excuse to fart into wine glasses and sniff it?


That's why I posed my question asking what they needed a convention for. I was not trolling. It just seems like a bunch of people patting themselves on their backs for having similar beliefs, kind of like going to church.
 
2010-02-02 09:42:09 PM  

D-Liver: Nightjars: I should throw an agnostic convention, but its impossible to know if anybody would show up.

But deep down inside don't you wonder if maybe they would?


Not if you're skeptic. You wouldn't get attached to any outcome, or form beliefs about it one way or the other, thus achieving a state of ataraxia - i.e., unpurterbedness. Absolute equanimity with respect to the truth value of statements.

Of course, you could still go with appearances, and so say "Oh that looks like a duck" and "That quacks like a duck", you just wouldn't form a belief about it's being a duck, or not being duck.
 
2010-02-02 09:42:22 PM  

Panty Sniffer: What do they need a convention for?


To protect our rights form the knuckle-dragging, bible-thumping masses?

Just a thought...
 
2010-02-02 09:42:24 PM  

Bhasayate: Isitoveryet: "In order not to believe in evolution you must either be ignorant, stupid or insane." - Richard Dawkins

somehow i don't think this will go over well with the creationist crowd.

"The fool says in is heart 'there is no evolution'"

St. Dawkins


it's weird, he walks like a Liberal heathen yet talks like a god fearing conservative.
 
2010-02-02 09:43:39 PM  

jingks: I'm a little confused to who is mad at whom.


Confusion results only because you want to KNOW what's going on. Give up, stop trying to figure it out. Only then will you be happy.
 
2010-02-02 09:43:46 PM  

nekom: `Free' you say? Free to adhere to your particular belief that there is no god, but how are you promoting the freedom to subscribe to any particular religion?


Um, by not threatening the disbelievers with eternal punishment in a lake of fire?
 
2010-02-02 09:43:53 PM  

Point02GPA: Let us gather and praise...?


Hypno-toad. Obviously.

RanDomino: nekom
Change a few words in there and it sounds like it could have come from the mouth of the most dogmatic of religious fundamentalists, or even some wacky fringe cult leader. Make the whole world `Free' you say? Free to adhere to your particular belief that there is no god, but how are you promoting the freedom to subscribe to any particular religion?

You would have a point, except that religion is stupid and atheism is not.


Look, believing everything someone says betrays both the basics of religious discourse and scientific procedures. And sadly, a lot of people that have that claim, and that are Dawkins' groupies, believe everything the "top atheists" believe: If suddenly Dawkins would claim that the universe was created by a gain vomit thrown up by the Benevolent Cosmic Bunny, some people will believe it.

I can only talk with a Catholic POV, so take this with a grain of salt; it betrays religious discourse because it betrays one of Jesus' teachings: Do not believe everything you say. That, and the loud minority that claims to be christian don't really behave in a christian manner.

It also betrays Scientific Procedures because trusting only one source is akin to ignorance, the core principles of science is to question everything, and to test those afforemented "laws" to see if they work, and even then, you never get an answer, only more options to which to test the laws. You seek answers, not look for them, catch my drift?.
 
2010-02-02 09:43:57 PM  

Bhasayate: CygnusDarius: //Militant Religious = Militant Atheists

This. If you're Fundy Theist and keep the Fundy but lose the Theism, you're still a Fundy. FUNDY


They may be fundies, but given the choice I'd rather listen to fundy atheists than fundy religious. Fundy atheists just sound like assholes, fundy religious sound like retarded assholes.
 
2010-02-02 09:43:57 PM  

Isitoveryet: it's weird, he walks like a Liberal heathen yet talks like a god fearing conservative.


Link (new window)
 
2010-02-02 09:44:38 PM  
I don't believe in atheists.
 
2010-02-02 09:44:48 PM  
imprimere
To me you are comparing zero and infinity. Both are important concepts, but neither one truly means anything.

Religion says it has all the answers, based on the drug-and-fasting-fueled visions of cavemen. Atheism says that's stupid, stop trying to confuse people.

I mean, religious people seriously think they can get some kind of effect by holding their hands together and saying some words?? What the fark? Oh, oh, maybe if they just believe hard enough, something will happen!
Someone should tell them, you need to point your finger at something to cast Lightning Bolt!
 
2010-02-02 09:45:43 PM  
nekom: "Change a few words in there and it sounds like it could have come from the mouth of the most dogmatic of religious fundamentalists, or even some wacky fringe cult leader."

Yes, when you change words around, you can make anything say anything.

nekom: "Make the whole world `Free' you say? Free to adhere to your particular belief that there is no god, but how are you promoting the freedom to subscribe to any particular religion?"

Do you know what secularism is? Did you see that they took care to promote the event as a turning point for secularism in Australia?

nekom: "Now if it were an agnostics convention, I might buy that."

Of course, because you're an agnostic.

nekom: "Atheists and religious types both just need to stfu and quit trying to feel important. Nobody cares."

I do, and I'm someone. Evidently there are an awful lot of someones who care, or the convention hall would have been empty. I can buy that you, personally, don't care. But that's because you're a South Park Agnostic. I.e. you don't actually understand the nuances in either side of any issue, so you take a position halfway between them while deriding both as extremists. You hope to appear moderate and reasonable without having to actually research the matter and form an opinion that doesn't boil down to trendy contrarianism and false equivalence.

People like you do absolutely nothing to improve the human condition. You're out to elevate yourself above all parties in any given argument by shiatting on all of them, without doing anything to conclusively resolve the matter. You're worse than useless, you're actively obstructing progress.
 
2010-02-02 09:46:24 PM  

Panty Sniffer: What do they need a convention for?


I'd never go to one, but why do you give a shiat? I haven't seen any atheists trying to stop any tent revivals. Someone should regulate those thieves but I don't think the atheists want the job.
 
2010-02-02 09:47:13 PM  

RanDomino: a bunch of blubbering wimps who can't take a stand on anything and don't know how to use basic logic or scientific reasoning.


We don't know you are but what are we?
 
2010-02-02 09:47:27 PM  

Isitoveryet: Bhasayate: Isitoveryet: "In order not to believe in evolution you must either be ignorant, stupid or insane." - Richard Dawkins

somehow i don't think this will go over well with the creationist crowd.

"The fool says in is heart 'there is no evolution'"

St. Dawkins

it's weird, he walks like a Liberal heathen yet talks like a god fearing conservative.


Yeah, but this is even weirder: "Think for yourself and be rational" but then says "If you believe in God, you're an idiot", moreover, all of his arguments against the rationality of theism are pretty much shiat.

Dawkins is a good scientist, and many of his books are very good, especially his work on genetics.

But he don't know philosophy. But he's all "IM SCIENTIS!" and then, ex catherdra says shiat like that quote there and we're supposed to accept what he says as Gospel Truth.
 
2010-02-02 09:49:16 PM  

Daroc: Bhasayate: CygnusDarius: //Militant Religious = Militant Atheists

This. If you're Fundy Theist and keep the Fundy but lose the Theism, you're still a Fundy. FUNDY

They may be fundies, but given the choice I'd rather listen to fundy atheists than fundy religious. Fundy atheists just sound like assholes, fundy religious sound like retarded assholes.


The subject matter has nothing to do with it, to be honest. Representatives of either belief or non-belief can be and are retarded assholes.
 
2010-02-02 09:49:28 PM  

Farker T: I don't believe in atheists.


Then they must not exist.

That's logic y'all
 
2010-02-02 09:49:38 PM  
When told of the sellout, the convention organizer said his prayers had been answered.
 
2010-02-02 09:50:27 PM  

Control_this: When told of the sellout, the convention organizer said his prayers had been answered.


That's apocryphal.
 
2010-02-02 09:51:00 PM  

Mine was right:

i228.photobucket.com

How about you?

 
2010-02-02 09:51:10 PM  

jingks: I'm a little confused to who is mad at whom. It says the organizers didn't want to risk putting it in bigger venues, but also that the organizer David Nicholls is mad at the government for not supporting it? Were they expecting the government to foot the bill or something.

/ only scanned the article.


FTFA:

The Parliament of the World's Religions, held in Melbourne in December, received $2 million from the federal government and the state government.
 
2010-02-02 09:52:13 PM  
Twenty minutes in my dungeon basement, they'll be praying to God.
 
2010-02-02 09:52:24 PM  

farkin_Gary: Farker T: I don't believe in atheists.

Then they must not exist.

That's logic y'all


www.nndb.com

Agnewstic
 
2010-02-02 09:52:53 PM  

khonshu: Mine was right:


Mine too.
 
2010-02-02 09:52:57 PM  
Bhasayate: "This. If you're Fundy Theist and keep the Fundy but lose the Theism, you're still a Fundy. FUNDY"

What are the fundamentals of atheism?

CygnusDarius: "/Seriously
//Militant Religious = Militant Atheists"


You've knowingly drawn a false equivalence here due to personal bigotry. You know very well that atheists are proportionally underrepresented in prisons, overrepresented in the sciences and that statistically, intelligence scales inversely with religiosity. You know these to be true. But because you hold superstitious beliefs and atheists think poorly of them, you feel the need to lash out at atheists as a group when it isn't their fault that you believe silly things, it's yours.
 
2010-02-02 09:53:40 PM  

Nightjars: I should throw an agnostic convention, but its impossible to know if anybody would show up.


It's possible that I'll come, but I won't know for sure unless I find out other people are coming.
 
2010-02-02 09:54:09 PM  
come, they told me
 
2010-02-02 09:54:10 PM  

Heroic Poser: Last years event went really well...


they looked when they opened the ark

they should have l listened to indian
 
2010-02-02 09:54:42 PM  
They're doing it wrong.
 
2010-02-02 09:54:55 PM  

ScottHimself: Any other non-stamp collectors want to get together and party?

Please?

/so so lonely


dirty dirty philatelists?
 
2010-02-02 09:55:30 PM  
Bhasayate: "The subject matter has nothing to do with it, to be honest. Representatives of either belief or non-belief can be and are retarded assholes."

Let's not pretend that the proportions are equal, though. When directly compared in all of the relevant ways, atheists come out well ahead of the religious.
 
2010-02-02 09:55:37 PM  
People should be free to worship as they choose.

I adore the Holy Trinity

i676.photobucket.com
 
2010-02-02 09:56:11 PM  
jingks
/ only scanned the article.

FTFA
The Parliament of the World's Religions, held in Melbourne in December, received $2 million from the federal government and the state government.


CygnusDarius
Look, believing everything someone says betrays both the basics of religious discourse and scientific procedures. And sadly, a lot of people that have that claim, and that are Dawkins' groupies, believe everything the "top atheists" believe: If suddenly Dawkins would claim that the universe was created by a gain vomit thrown up by the Benevolent Cosmic Bunny, some people will believe it.

Are you saying that many, or even a significant number of atheists are like that? How many people do you really believe became atheists because they want to blow Dawkins? Three or four?
I'm not an "athe-ist" so much as an "a-theist", and I'm sure most atheists are like that. Religions have a pretty big claim to prove, and not only do they offer the scarcest evidence, but they have (knowingly) outright fabricated nearly all of their so-called evidence; nearly all investigation by religious people on the topic is a joke; they have actively impeded contradiction; they use brainwashing techniques (such as peer-reinforcement, authoritarianism, and isolation)... People are religious due to inertia, not logic; therefore God can suck my balls..
 
2010-02-02 09:56:34 PM  
I'll be holding a convention for any fellow Apatheists. I don't expect that I'll care enough to show up for it, so you probably shouldn't bother either. I'll recommend that instead of incurring any expenses, we all stay home and read a book.
 
2010-02-02 09:56:45 PM  

khonshu: Mine was right:

How about you?


Can't I be an amoral heathen and a Christian?

/Just asking.
 
2010-02-02 09:56:52 PM  

Zamboro: People like you do absolutely nothing to improve the human condition. You're out to elevate yourself above all parties in any given argument by shiatting on all of them, without doing anything to conclusively resolve the matter. You're worse than useless, you're actively obstructing progress.



So it's better to be wrong, than indifferent?
 
2010-02-02 09:56:53 PM  
Well, apparently some people feel the need to meet together in support groups, and reassure each other that they aren't going to hell.
 
2010-02-02 09:57:01 PM  

Zamboro: Bhasayate: "This. If you're Fundy Theist and keep the Fundy but lose the Theism, you're still a Fundy. FUNDY"

What are the fundamentals of atheism?

CygnusDarius: "/Seriously
//Militant Religious = Militant Atheists"

You've knowingly drawn a false equivalence here due to personal bigotry. You know very well that atheists are proportionally underrepresented in prisons, overrepresented in the sciences and that statistically, intelligence scales inversely with religiosity. You know these to be true. But because you hold superstitious beliefs and atheists think poorly of them, you feel the need to lash out at atheists as a group when it isn't their fault that you believe silly things, it's yours.


No, we just trolls.

And we only lashes out at people who uses -but- to start a sentence.

/Go ahead, test me, I dare ya.
 
2010-02-02 09:57:05 PM  

nekom: Nobody cares.


It's time to start caring.
 
2010-02-02 09:58:06 PM  

farkin_Gary: Farker T: I don't believe in atheists.

Then they must not exist.

That's logic y'all


Almost. Maybe try:

I don't believe in atheists.
And there are a vast array of conflicting - even contradicting - descriptions of what they may look like, how they behave, what they want, and so on.
And there is absolutely no evidence of their existence.
Then they must not exist.
 
2010-02-02 09:58:10 PM  

Zamboro: Bhasayate: "This. If you're Fundy Theist and keep the Fundy but lose the Theism, you're still a Fundy. FUNDY"

What are the fundamentals of atheism?



Believing that there is no God...duh.
 
2010-02-02 09:58:18 PM  

Isitoveryet: "In order not to believe in evolution you must either be ignorant, stupid or insane." - Richard Dawkins

somehow i don't think this will go over well with the creationist crowd.


Two words: Cambrian explosion.

Darwin himself knew this was a huge hole in his theory. Science has tried for over 150 years to explain it, but has only made the problems worse when it comes to Darwin's theory.

Darwinian evolution can explain a lot, but it does not explain everything. In order to believe only in evolution you must either be ignorant, stupid or insane. Richard Dawkins needs to stay in biology. His books on religion are simply an embarrassment to himself.

/BTW, Intelligent design does not equal creationism.
 
2010-02-02 09:58:38 PM  

fusillade762: FTFA: The Parliament of the World's Religions, held in Melbourne in December, received $2 million from the federal government and the state government.


Well there you go. Personally I think they should be trying to stop such government handouts, not asking for them themselves.
 
2010-02-02 09:58:45 PM  

ScottHimself: Any other non-stamp collectors want to get together and party?

Please?

/so so lonely


I will party with you, Scott! Where & when?
 
2010-02-02 09:58:52 PM  

Zamboro: You've knowingly drawn a false equivalence here due to personal bigotry. You know very well that atheists are proportionally underrepresented in prisons, overrepresented in the sciences and that statistically, intelligence scales inversely with religiosity. You know these to be true. But because you hold superstitious beliefs and atheists think poorly of them, you feel the need to lash out at atheists as a group when it isn't their fault that you believe silly things, it's yours.


If personal bigotry means defending myself from both sides of the stream for a) Not being Christian (Catholics are blamed for this), and b) Mocking my beliefs, then yes, I am a bigot.

Look, let us just end this with this statement My Side of the Land, Your Side of the Land, no one bothers what is going on the other side unless there's too much noise.
 
2010-02-02 10:00:13 PM  
You Do Not Exist: "So it's better to be wrong, than indifferent?"

Agnostics aren't indifferent. They're actively hostile to both atheists and theists. If you envision an organized debate between theists and atheists, the agnostic would be the naked guy smeared with shiat who runs into the room screaming ephitets until he's forcibly removed.

All I'm saying is, figure out what you can do that will improve the human condition, and put your effort behind that. Don't just sit in the middle of the road and impede everyone else.
 
2010-02-02 10:00:14 PM  

Crosshair: Isitoveryet: "In order not to believe in evolution you must either be ignorant, stupid or insane." - Richard Dawkins

somehow i don't think this will go over well with the creationist crowd.

Two words: Cambrian explosion.

Darwin himself knew this was a huge hole in his theory. Science has tried for over 150 years to explain it, but has only made the problems worse when it comes to Darwin's theory.

Darwinian evolution can explain a lot, but it does not explain everything. In order to believe only in evolution you must either be ignorant, stupid or insane. Richard Dawkins needs to stay in biology. His books on religion are simply an embarrassment to himself.

/BTW, Intelligent design does not equal creationism.


The Cambrian Explosion is not a problem. It's just fascinating.

Intelligent Design = Creationism = Stupid.
 
2010-02-02 10:00:44 PM  

CygnusDarius: Point02GPA: Let us gather and praise...?

Hypno-toad. Obviously.

RanDomino: nekom
Change a few words in there and it sounds like it could have come from the mouth of the most dogmatic of religious fundamentalists, or even some wacky fringe cult leader. Make the whole world `Free' you say? Free to adhere to your particular belief that there is no god, but how are you promoting the freedom to subscribe to any particular religion?

You would have a point, except that religion is stupid and atheism is not.

Look, believing everything someone says betrays both the basics of religious discourse and scientific procedures. And sadly, a lot of people that have that claim, and that are Dawkins' groupies, believe everything the "top atheists" believe: If suddenly Dawkins would claim that the universe was created by a gain vomit thrown up by the Benevolent Cosmic Bunny, some people will believe it.

I can only talk with a Catholic POV, so take this with a grain of salt; it betrays religious discourse because it betrays one of Jesus' teachings: Do not believe everything you say. That, and the loud minority that claims to be christian don't really behave in a christian manner.

It also betrays Scientific Procedures because trusting only one source is akin to ignorance, the core principles of science is to question everything, and to test those afforemented "laws" to see if they work, and even then, you never get an answer, only more options to which to test the laws. You seek answers, not look for them, catch my drift?.


First of all, not all atheists are alike, herding cats, etc. Second, any atheist who believes everything one person says just because they say it, is a farking idiot. One would like to think atheists have reason to believe besides one person's say so. Also, principles of empiricism, blah blah blah (you mentioned this). But you did tell me to take it with a grain of salt.

/And atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive
//I'm an agnostic atheist
 
2010-02-02 10:01:18 PM  
Zamboro
But that's because you're a South Park Agnostic. I.e. you don't actually understand the nuances in either side of any issue, so you take a position halfway between them while deriding both as extremists. You hope to appear moderate and reasonable without having to actually research the matter and form an opinion that doesn't boil down to trendy contrarianism and false equivalence.

People like you do absolutely nothing to improve the human condition. You're out to elevate yourself above all parties in any given argument by shiatting on all of them, without doing anything to conclusively resolve the matter. You're worse than useless, you're actively obstructing progress.


Your newsletter- put it in my mouth.
I mean, subscribe me to it.
 
2010-02-02 10:02:10 PM  

Zamboro: Bhasayate: "This. If you're Fundy Theist and keep the Fundy but lose the Theism, you're still a Fundy. FUNDY"

What are the fundamentals of atheism?


Being a Fundamentalist is said in at least two senses: (a) as it pertains to a body of propositions that formulate a body of doctrine or belief, such as "the fundamentals of particle physics" or "the fundamentals of geometry", etc, (b) as it pertains to the attitudes one has or displays towards of body of doctrine or belief, including acceptance, disdain, derision, love, hate, and all manner of cognitive attitudes.

One can be a fundamentalist in either or both respects.

While Atheism might not be a body of belief, it certainly takes a cognitive stance, and in the likes of Dawkins, et al, these Fundies take a pathologically negative cognitive stance towards the very idea of God, and towards anyone who dares affirm that God exists. They are dead set against modifying this stance; they are inflexible, immovable, arrogant, and impossible to reason with.

This is the sense in which Dawkins is a Fundy.
 
2010-02-02 10:02:31 PM  

khonshu: Mine was right:

How about you?


nope
 
2010-02-02 10:02:47 PM  

RanDomino: imprimere
To me you are comparing zero and infinity. Both are important concepts, but neither one truly means anything.

Religion says it has all the answers, based on the drug-and-fasting-fueled visions of cavemen. Atheism says that's stupid, stop trying to confuse people.

I mean, religious people seriously think they can get some kind of effect by holding their hands together and saying some words?? What the fark? Oh, oh, maybe if they just believe hard enough, something will happen!
Someone should tell them, you need to point your finger at something to cast Lightning Bolt!


What a simplistic view of complex concepts. Both are exclusionary and therefore closed to other possibilities.
 
2010-02-02 10:02:58 PM  
Im pretty sure I can remain atheist or nihilist or whatever the fark I am without paying 200 bucks or going to the other side of the planet.
 
2010-02-02 10:03:24 PM  
Sounds about as exciting as a Baptist convention. A bunch of people proclaiming they know the truth.
 
2010-02-02 10:03:25 PM  

Zamboro: They're actively hostile to both atheists and theists.


Um, no. Most agnostics are atheists. Nearly all atheists are agnostic. "Theist" is the set of all individuals that believe in divine entities. "Atheist" is any individual not in that set.

"I don't know if there is a god" is not "I believe in god", ergo, most agnostics are atheists. There are a subset of agnostics that are theists- "I don't know if there is a god, but I'm going to assume there is and act accordingly", but most agnostics are atheists.

Nothing is worse, however, than Internet Agnostics, who loudly proclaim that they're sooooo much better than atheists, and yet are suspiciously mum on the topic of theists.
 
2010-02-02 10:03:34 PM  

Joan of Fark:

I will party with you, Scott! Where & when?


Not late at night, and definitely nowhere near the post office. See you there!
 
2010-02-02 10:04:03 PM  

Bhasayate: Isitoveryet: Bhasayate: Isitoveryet: "In order not to believe in evolution you must either be ignorant, stupid or insane." - Richard Dawkins

somehow i don't think this will go over well with the creationist crowd.

"The fool says in is heart 'there is no evolution'"

St. Dawkins

it's weird, he walks like a Liberal heathen yet talks like a god fearing conservative.

Yeah, but this is even weirder: "Think for yourself and be rational" but then says "If you believe in God, you're an idiot", moreover, all of his arguments against the rationality of theism are pretty much shiat.

Dawkins is a good scientist, and many of his books are very good, especially his work on genetics.

But he don't know philosophy. But he's all "IM SCIENTIS!" and then, ex catherdra says shiat like that quote there and we're supposed to accept what he says as Gospel Truth.


He doesn't ask you to take it as gospel truth. Stop misrepresenting. I'm not an apologist for Dawkins, but come on.
 
2010-02-02 10:04:22 PM  

CygnusDarius: nekom: 'We think this is a turning point for secularism in Australia, and it will be looked at by the rest of the world,' Mr Nicholls said. 'We will see it happening more through the free planet, and our aim is to make the whole planet free.'

Change a few words in there and it sounds like it could have come from the mouth of the most dogmatic of religious fundamentalists, or even some wacky fringe cult leader. Make the whole world `Free' you say? Free to adhere to your particular belief that there is no god, but how are you promoting the freedom to subscribe to any particular religion?

Now if it were an agnostics convention, I might buy that. Atheists and religious types both just need to stfu and quit trying to feel important. Nobody cares.

Would you care... For a Klondike Bar?.

/Seriously
//Militant Religious = Militant Atheists


That last slashy is a great troll. I almost bit myself, but then I realize no one is stupid enough to actually believe that.

/I hope
 
2010-02-02 10:04:58 PM  

Zamboro: Bhasayate: "The subject matter has nothing to do with it, to be honest. Representatives of either belief or non-belief can be and are retarded assholes."

Let's not pretend that the proportions are equal, though. When directly compared in all of the relevant ways, atheists come out well ahead of the religious.


I don't care about "majority rules" here, and there is disagreement about what counts as "all of the relevant ways", and there is no neutral starting point from which to evaluate theists and atheists. I.e., there is not one body of standards to which all theists and atheists equally agree and so can appeal to adjudicate the dispute that is at issue.

Different starting points, different results, and different ending points.
 
2010-02-02 10:05:22 PM  
I'm just waiting for the Great Atheist coin set:

flashyourstache.files.wordpress.com


50 Million Dead

//Mao Zedong is next
 
2010-02-02 10:05:45 PM  

Shakin_Haitian: I realize no one is stupid enough to actually believe that


What? You don't remember that time that militant atheists firebombed a church in Alabama? Or when militant atheists flew air liners into buildings?
 
2010-02-02 10:05:46 PM  

Perducci: farkin_Gary: Farker T: I don't believe in atheists.

Then they must not exist.

That's logic y'all

Almost. Maybe try:

I don't believe in atheists.
And there are a vast array of conflicting - even contradicting - descriptions of what they may look like, how they behave, what they want, and so on.
And there is absolutely no evidence of their existence.
Then they must not exist.


Bu-Bu-But that's a higher plane than we usually play on!
 
2010-02-02 10:05:46 PM  

nekom: Now if it were an agnostics convention, I might buy that. Atheists and religious types both just need to stfu and quit trying to feel important. Nobody cares.


The only people who say things like this are the ones who seriously don't get the message that Athiests are putting out there, or they are theists of some stripe who are terribly uncomfortable with the level of logic and reason that is required to see religious belief for what it really is.
 
2010-02-02 10:06:03 PM  
i224.photobucket.com
 
2010-02-02 10:06:12 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: nekom: Nobody cares.

It's time to start caring.


that's too much butthurt for one page to contain
 
2010-02-02 10:06:28 PM  

khonshu: Mine was right:

How about you?


So I was I_TP not sure whether I look at basic information, or interpret it as I get it. That makes me either a muslim extremist or an atheist. That is a pretty big gulf to cross.

/atheist
 
2010-02-02 10:07:43 PM  

lisarenee3505: nekom: Now if it were an agnostics convention, I might buy that. Atheists and religious types both just need to stfu and quit trying to feel important. Nobody cares.

The only people who say things like this are the ones who seriously don't get the message that Athiests are putting out there, or they are theists of some stripe who are terribly uncomfortable with the level of logic and reason that is required to see religious belief for what it really is. people who visit this site and read the daily atheist butthurt


ftfy
 
2010-02-02 10:08:06 PM  
friedrice2003

Or is it just another excuse to fart into wine glasses and sniff it?

Who needs an excuse, really? I certainly don't.

/a lovely bouquet of corn, beef, and garlic
 
2010-02-02 10:08:26 PM  

You Do Not Exist: Zamboro: People like you do absolutely nothing to improve the human condition. You're out to elevate yourself above all parties in any given argument by shiatting on all of them, without doing anything to conclusively resolve the matter. You're worse than useless, you're actively obstructing progress.


So it's better to be wrong, than indifferent?


I think so.

But then again, I've spent most of my life as agnostic until I listened to a 40+ hour lecture on Nietzsche. Pretty militant atheist after that.

I don't know why people liken atheists to the fundies... completely different animal.
 
2010-02-02 10:09:10 PM  

falcon176: Man On Pink Corner: nekom: Nobody cares.

It's time to start caring.

that's too much butthurt for one page to contain


So, in your view, people who are harmed by the widespread practice of religion should _________.
 
2010-02-02 10:09:44 PM  
CygnusDarius: "If personal bigotry means defending myself from both sides of the stream for a) Not being Christian (Catholics are blamed for this), and b) Mocking my beliefs, then yes, I am a bigot."

The worst crimes you can attribute to movements like American Atheists, the Secular Coalition and so on are offending Christians and petty litigation. To say that they're no better than the Evangelical theocrats out there shooting abortion doctors, bombing clinics and oppressing gays is ignorant and deeply hurtful.

CygnusDarius: "Look, let us just end this with this statement My Side of the Land, Your Side of the Land, no one bothers what is going on the other side unless there's too much noise."

Hey, did you hear something?

crazytrain: "I'm just waiting for the Great Atheist coin set"

That's a Communist. Many ideologies are atheistic, including forms of Buddhism, Jainism, Humanism and Objectivism. As, of these, only Communism has resulted in atrocities, it should be pretty obvious that atheism isn't what made Communism murderous.

But you won't be reasoned with, because you consider that to be your best argument, and you refuse to see it disarmed.
 
2010-02-02 10:10:05 PM  

RanDomino: Are you saying that many, or even a significant number of atheists are like that? How many people do you really believe became atheists because they want to blow Dawkins? Three or four?
I'm not an "athe-ist" so much as an "a-theist", and I'm sure most atheists are like that. Religions have a pretty big claim to prove, and not only do they offer the scarcest evidence, but they have (knowingly) outright fabricated nearly all of their so-called evidence; nearly all investigation by religious people on the topic is a joke; they have actively impeded contradiction; they use brainwashing techniques (such as peer-reinforcement, authoritarianism, and isolation)... People are religious due to inertia, not logic; therefore God can suck my balls..


Religion -as a whole- is something that can't be measured, although apparently there is such a thing as a God Neuron (new window, also check Neurotheology), although under the same "God can suck my balls", there is also the tail-bone and the apendix.

Has Religion caused much pain, misery, and ignorance? Absolutely. The Holy See has much to blame for the Inquisition, The Crusades, and such other lovely things today.

But, on the same token, Religion has helped with philosophy, architecture, and several other forms of art. Can the religious institutes do more? Yes, they should.

I don't believe because I want to convert people, I believe because I want to. And frankly, the thought of 'just dying' is kinda depressing. But the thought of the Universe as a dynamic thing that constantly evolves, it's just as wonderful and wondrous to me, as an afterlife and transcendence when I die.
 
2010-02-02 10:10:10 PM  

Zamboro: nekom: "Change a few words in there and it sounds like it could have come from the mouth of the most dogmatic of religious fundamentalists, or even some wacky fringe cult leader."

Yes, when you change words around, you can make anything say anything.

nekom: "Make the whole world `Free' you say? Free to adhere to your particular belief that there is no god, but how are you promoting the freedom to subscribe to any particular religion?"

Do you know what secularism is? Did you see that they took care to promote the event as a turning point for secularism in Australia?

nekom: "Now if it were an agnostics convention, I might buy that."

Of course, because you're an agnostic.

nekom: "Atheists and religious types both just need to stfu and quit trying to feel important. Nobody cares."

I do, and I'm someone. Evidently there are an awful lot of someones who care, or the convention hall would have been empty. I can buy that you, personally, don't care. But that's because you're a South Park Agnostic. I.e. you don't actually understand the nuances in either side of any issue, so you take a position halfway between them while deriding both as extremists. You hope to appear moderate and reasonable without having to actually research the matter and form an opinion that doesn't boil down to trendy contrarianism and false equivalence.

People like you do absolutely nothing to improve the human condition. You're out to elevate yourself above all parties in any given argument by shiatting on all of them, without doing anything to conclusively resolve the matter. You're worse than useless, you're actively obstructing progress.


Well stated, and saved me a lot of time thinking of and writing out a lengthy response that would have ended up half as eloquent.

I do have a question though,

1.bp.blogspot.com

Why do they need a convention?

a330.g.akamai.net

Why do they need a convention?

santafe.org

Why do they need a convention?

faculty.rpcs.org

Why do they need a convention?

I mean, look at them. They all look like they're in church or something.

/btw, the answer to this question is in the DEFINITION OF THE WORD CONVENTION!
//Christ almighty a couple of you are real sub-morons
 
2010-02-02 10:10:25 PM  
"Hey everyone, we're descending on Australia."

"Oh I get! Is funny because Australia is land down under!"

"Yes, that's exactly why it's funny."

i224.photobucket.com
 
2010-02-02 10:10:38 PM  

crazytrain: 50 Million Dead


Personality cults are not atheistic. Try selling atheism in North Korea and see how that works out for you.
 
2010-02-02 10:11:31 PM  
Bhasayate: "I don't care about "majority rules" here, and there is disagreement about what counts as "all of the relevant ways", and there is no neutral starting point from which to evaluate theists and atheists. I.e., there is not one body of standards to which all theists and atheists equally agree and so can appeal to adjudicate the dispute that is at issue.

Different starting points, different results, and different ending points."


Hey man, whatever helps you rationalize casual dismissal of evidence which contradicts your views.
 
2010-02-02 10:12:07 PM  

CygnusDarius: //Militant Religious = Militant Atheists


a7.vox.com

Yeah, totally the same thing.

/rolls eyes
 
2010-02-02 10:12:28 PM  

wilshire: Bhasayate: Isitoveryet: Bhasayate: Isitoveryet: "In order not to believe in evolution you must either be ignorant, stupid or insane." - Richard Dawkins

somehow i don't think this will go over well with the creationist crowd.

"The fool says in is heart 'there is no evolution'"

St. Dawkins

it's weird, he walks like a Liberal heathen yet talks like a god fearing conservative.

Yeah, but this is even weirder: "Think for yourself and be rational" but then says "If you believe in God, you're an idiot", moreover, all of his arguments against the rationality of theism are pretty much shiat.

Dawkins is a good scientist, and many of his books are very good, especially his work on genetics.

But he don't know philosophy. But he's all "IM SCIENTIS!" and then, ex catherdra says shiat like that quote there and we're supposed to accept what he says as Gospel Truth.

He doesn't ask you to take it as gospel truth. Stop misrepresenting. I'm not an apologist for Dawkins, but come on.


I don't think so. He's on record for being 'virtually certain that' there is no God. (And that his shiatty arguments 'all but prove that' -- he says as much in "The God Delusion.")

He's like a secular messiah: he's enlightened and he's on a mission to save us all from ignorance. But he doesn't love the lost, basically, if we agree with him, then he's all "you're in the cool kid club now", but if you reject his teachings, he hates you and thinks you're an ignorant, stupid, or insane. But you're NOT ignorant, because he just told you the truth. So, you're stupid or insane. NO OTHER OPTIONS U CAN HAS
 
2010-02-02 10:13:01 PM  

Shakin_Haitian: That last slashy is a great troll. I almost bit myself, but then I realize no one is stupid enough to actually believe that.

/I hope


I'm bored, bitter (cold, cloudy day), and I did got a bit serious when it got personal. But yes, fundamentalist christians are just waaaaaay worse than pretty much anyone else.
 
2010-02-02 10:13:56 PM  
i228.photobucket.com
 
2010-02-02 10:13:59 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: falcon176: Man On Pink Corner: nekom: Nobody cares.

It's time to start caring.

that's too much butthurt for one page to contain

So, in your view, people who are harmed by the widespread practice of religion should _________.


blog?

Talon: CygnusDarius: //Militant Religious = Militant Atheists

Yeah, totally the same thing.

/rolls eyes


militant atheist should look really angry and have a computer in front of him instead of a beer
 
2010-02-02 10:14:23 PM  
i281.photobucket.com
 
2010-02-02 10:14:24 PM  
CygnusDarius
And frankly, the thought of 'just dying' is kinda depressing.

To me, it's liberating:

This is your life. This is it. Make the most of it. Go do everything you want to do. Make the world totally awesome.
 
2010-02-02 10:15:00 PM  
lisarenee3505:The only people who say things like this are the ones who seriously don't get the message that Athiests are putting out there, or they are theists of some stripe who are terribly uncomfortable with the level of logic and reason that is required to see religious belief for what it really is.

Some get the message and just don't care. If the beliefs are being forced on me, then fine. But otherwise it doesn't matter to me how ignorant the majority of the population is to science. It it no way affects my life. Research still occurs. Those that claim research is being stiffed have unrealistic ideas of how and how often "breakthroughs" happen.
 
2010-02-02 10:15:17 PM  

the_chief: The Cambrian Explosion is not a problem. It's just fascinating.


No, The Cambrian Explosion is fatal to Darwin's theory that gradual natural selection over time caused all life to evolve from a single ancestor. The so called "Tree of Life". Time has only exacerbated this problem. You just choose to ignore it because it is inconvenient.

The Cambrian explosion was too rapid and had no transition species up to that point. Fossils have been found before that time, but do not explain the sudden appearances of such a wide variety of life.

That is not to say Darwin's theory is wrong, just that it does not explain everything. It is one part of something bigger.

the_chief: Intelligent Design = Creationism = Stupid.


You sound like an Atheist. :P
 
2010-02-02 10:15:58 PM  

Bhasayate: he says as much in "The God Delusion."


No he doesn't. You may have read it, but you certainly didn't understand it, Otto.

//The London Underground is not a political movement.
 
2010-02-02 10:16:03 PM  

Talon: CygnusDarius: //Militant Religious = Militant Atheists

Yeah, totally the same thing.

/rolls eyes


Stalin would fit better in the third panel. Or Mao.

I'm agnostic, I guess it would be call 'strong agnostic'. I couldn't imagine paying to go to a convention of people with that belief. What would be the point? If people want to go on in self delusion, whatever. I don't care.
 
2010-02-02 10:16:50 PM  

RanDomino: CygnusDarius
And frankly, the thought of 'just dying' is kinda depressing.

To me, it's liberating:

This is your life. This is it. Make the most of it. Go do everything you want to do. Make the world totally awesome.


And I do.

/And yes, the whole atheist/christian thing it was huge trolling
//But I am catholic, but a commie one
///Theology of Liberation (new window)
////However, I hope beer is the one uniter
 
2010-02-02 10:18:14 PM  

you have pee hands: Talon: CygnusDarius: //Militant Religious = Militant Atheists

Yeah, totally the same thing.

/rolls eyes

Stalin would fit better in the third panel. Or Mao.

I'm agnostic, I guess it would be call 'strong agnostic'. I couldn't imagine paying to go to a convention of people with that belief. What would be the point? If people want to go on in self delusion, whatever. I don't care.


No.

Both played on the worship of the individuals, why do you think Stalin froze Lenin's body?

North Korea follows a similar route.
 
2010-02-02 10:18:16 PM  

RanDomino: You would have a point, except that religion is stupid and atheism is not.


Both are equally stupid, in my opinion. I don't know why there is something instead of nothing, and neither does anyone else. All I know is here we are, for whatever reason, so it makes since to me that we should not be total dicks to each other, whether you want to ascribe that philosophy to Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, or the golden rule, it works the same.

Anybody who thinks that they have all of the answers can go fark themselves, from Richard Dawkins to the Pope and everyone in between.
 
2010-02-02 10:18:31 PM  

Crosshair: The Cambrian Explosion is fatal to Darwin's theory that gradual natural selection over time caused all life to evolve from a single ancestor.


Um... no it isn't. The Cambrian explosion didn't just happen on a specific Tuesday. It was gradual selection over time. It is fatal to the tree of life idea, because that idea is an abstraction of a much more complex phenomenon and generally doesn't deal with the horizontal gene transfer that made the explosion possible.

I'm not saying the Cambrian explosion is completely explained, but that's hardly unique. I can't completely explain what I did at work today.
 
2010-02-02 10:19:34 PM  
estevan6669: "I don't know why people liken atheists to the fundies... completely different animal."

Because moderates resent both for different reasons. They resent the fundies because their behavior tarnishes the image of Christianity and makes moderates ashamed to share ideological ground with bumpkins. They resent atheists because we represent a point further removed from fundamentalist Christianity than even moderate Christianity. We are in relation to them, as they are in relation to fundamentalists.

That realization has got to sting. Rather than recognize that they have a ways to go yet before their worldview becomes logically tenable, they re-order that hierarchy such that the extremely rational and the extremely irrational now share the bottom rung, with the moderate's own brand of mild superstition infused with plagiarized scientific findings at the top.

It's a weird world they live in.
 
2010-02-02 10:19:40 PM  

nekom: RanDomino: You would have a point, except that religion is stupid and atheism is not.

Both are equally stupid, in my opinion. I don't know why there is something instead of nothing, and neither does anyone else. All I know is here we are, for whatever reason, so it makes since to me that we should not be total dicks to each other, whether you want to ascribe that philosophy to Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, or the golden rule, it works the same.

Anybody who thinks that they have all of the answers can go fark themselves, from Richard Dawkins to the Pope and everyone in between.


42.
 
2010-02-02 10:20:51 PM  

Zamboro: estevan6669: "I don't know why people liken atheists to the fundies... completely different animal."

Because moderates resent both for different reasons. They resent the fundies because their behavior tarnishes the image of Christianity and makes moderates ashamed to share ideological ground with bumpkins. They resent atheists because we represent a point further removed from fundamentalist Christianity than even moderate Christianity. We are in relation to them, as they are in relation to fundamentalists.

That realization has got to sting. Rather than recognize that they have a ways to go yet before their worldview becomes logically tenable, they re-order that hierarchy such that the extremely rational and the extremely irrational now share the bottom rung, with the moderate's own brand of mild superstition infused with plagiarized scientific findings at the top.

It's a weird world they live in.


Define 'normal'.
 
2010-02-02 10:21:29 PM  

crazytrain: I'm just waiting for the Great Atheist coin set:

50 Million Dead

//Mao Zedong is next


That black thing on his face isn't a mustache, it's a representative of the Russian Orthodoxy.

/Guess who Stalin drew some of his strongest support from
 
2010-02-02 10:21:33 PM  
Good for them. I've sure all 5 of them will be entertained.
 
2010-02-02 10:21:40 PM  
Wow. They are truly blessed.
 
2010-02-02 10:21:55 PM  

Crosshair: the_chief: The Cambrian Explosion is not a problem. It's just fascinating.

No, The Cambrian Explosion is fatal to Darwin's theory that gradual natural selection over time caused all life to evolve from a single ancestor. The so called "Tree of Life". Time has only exacerbated this problem. You just choose to ignore it because it is inconvenient.

The Cambrian explosion was too rapid and had no transition species up to that point. Fossils have been found before that time, but do not explain the sudden appearances of such a wide variety of life.

That is not to say Darwin's theory is wrong, just that it does not explain everything. It is one part of something bigger.

the_chief: Intelligent Design = Creationism = Stupid.

You sound like an Atheist. :P


A personal god is a more likely explanation, riiiiiiight.
 
2010-02-02 10:22:01 PM  
CygnusDarius
///Theology of Liberation (new window)

I like Liberation Theology's projects, I just can't stand its rationale. This whole stupid orientation to a non-existent magic world is idiotic and unnecessary when orientation to the world which actually exists can result in the same actions.
 
2010-02-02 10:22:05 PM  

Zamboro: Bhasayate: "I don't care about "majority rules" here, and there is disagreement about what counts as "all of the relevant ways", and there is no neutral starting point from which to evaluate theists and atheists. I.e., there is not one body of standards to which all theists and atheists equally agree and so can appeal to adjudicate the dispute that is at issue.

Different starting points, different results, and different ending points."

Hey man, whatever helps you rationalize casual dismissal of evidence which contradicts your views.


But you don't get it. The very debate at issue is what gets to count as evidence in the first place.

Suppose you are an empiricist, in which case you do not believe that we can know anything on non-empirical grounds. Suppose you give an argument to an Empiricist that his view is false but that the premises you use are one's that you think are known by non-empirical means -- such as rational intuition, etc.

The Rationalist is OK with such evidence. That sort of argument would convince him/her. But it won't work against the Empiricist.

The very debate is about whether to accept rational intuition as a basic source.

In a similar fashion, Theists typically accept sources of evidence that Atheists do not, or they do not agree on the quality of said evidence. For either to appeal to the other, or simply call the other names, or say "i'm rational and you're not" hides the fact that they do not mean the same thing when they speak of 'what is rational to believe'

Much in the same way that people disagree about what is just, what actions are right. etc.

Did Obama's solemnly saying "It's the right thing to do" after one of his lines in the SOTUS MAKE it right? Would anyone who thought he was wrong about that go "OH, OK, i guess you're right now."

Anyway,
In our society, you can't tell if someone isn't a brain dead moran no matter what they say or don't say.

that is,

"Theists are idiots"
"I like turtles"

as they are used in public discourse, are more expressions of EMOTION than they are statements that have any real cognitive meaning
 
2010-02-02 10:23:12 PM  
farm1.static.flickr.com
 
2010-02-02 10:24:17 PM  

t3knomanser: Bhasayate: he says as much in "The God Delusion."

No he doesn't. You may have read it, but you certainly didn't understand it, Otto.

//The London Underground is not a political movement.


Want to dig it up or have me quote the relevant passages? It's towards the end of his "747 Argument", if I recall rightly. You'll find passages that don't say this VERBATIM, but the sense of it is there.
 
2010-02-02 10:24:22 PM  

CygnusDarius: RanDomino: CygnusDarius
And frankly, the thought of 'just dying' is kinda depressing.

To me, it's liberating:

This is your life. This is it. Make the most of it. Go do everything you want to do. Make the world totally awesome.

And I do.

/And yes, the whole atheist/christian thing it was huge trolling
//But I am catholic, but a commie one
///Theology of Liberation (new window)
////However, I hope beer is the one uniter


It is, consider yourself favorited. Any fan of beer is a friend of mine.
 
2010-02-02 10:24:56 PM  

Crosshair: the_chief: The Cambrian Explosion is not a problem. It's just fascinating.

No, The Cambrian Explosion is fatal to Darwin's theory that gradual natural selection over time caused all life to evolve from a single ancestor. The so called "Tree of Life". Time has only exacerbated this problem. You just choose to ignore it because it is inconvenient.


Take a college level biology class before you go spouting about how evolution doesn't work. There is nothing about the Cambrian Explosion which doesn't fit the Theory of Evolution.

/All fossils are transitional species.
 
2010-02-02 10:25:07 PM  

CygnusDarius:

/And yes, the whole atheist/christian thing it was huge trolling
//But I am catholic, but a commie one
///Theology of Liberation (new window)
////However, I hope beer is the one uniter


I can attest to the power of beer: Met a few geeks at OSCON in Portland, one thing lead to another, and one guy said: "I'm an Militant Atheist." I responded: "No problem. It does not stop us from enjoying today. Let's grab some beer." And it was mellow and good.

/cool story, sis
//if you see me in heaven, we'd have beer
///Libertarian and Lutheran
 
2010-02-02 10:26:21 PM  

Bhasayate: but the sense of it is there


And the central tenet of Buddhism is not "every man for himself".
 
2010-02-02 10:26:50 PM  

Zamboro:
People like you do absolutely nothing to improve the human condition. You're out to elevate yourself above all parties in any given argument by shiatting on all of them, without doing anything to conclusively resolve the matter. You're worse than useless, you're actively obstructing progress.


This is no way to conclusively resolve the matter. To take a position on either side is to falsely claim to have divine knowledge. Any argument that goes in either way is logically unsound and requires just as much faith on the untestable premises of the argument.
 
2010-02-02 10:27:16 PM  

Zamboro: All I'm saying is, figure out what you can do that will improve the human condition, and put your effort behind that. Don't just sit in the middle of the road and impede everyone else.


I don't care what Theists want to believe, as long as they don't force it force upon me.

I don't care what Atheists think, as long as they don't try to take away the Theist's right to believe.

You can take your human condition and start another war with it.
 
2010-02-02 10:27:19 PM  
I want a religion that worships wombats.

Are you all with me!

Hello? Anyone?
 
2010-02-02 10:27:34 PM  

t3knomanser: What? You don't remember that time that militant atheists firebombed a church in Alabama? Or when militant atheists flew air liners into buildings?


Stalin: 23 million (And don't use the "Stalin was in a seminary" cop-out. He was forced there by his parents and hated it.)
Mao: 50 million
Pol Pot: 1.7 million
I can't find the source, but IIRC some French Atheists around the French Revolution managed to slaughter a few hundred thousand.
 
2010-02-02 10:28:14 PM  
nekom
I don't know why there is something instead of nothing, and neither does anyone else.

For certain? No; but there is progress being made in fields of quantum mechanics and we'll probably have a much better answer than "magical deity is magical" within ten or twenty years.

That's one of the worst part about theists- they think "science can't explain why the universe exists" is a counter-proof to atheism, when "God's always existed" contains the same flaw, except amplified because they require their magically-existing reality-making mechanism to spontaneously be intelligent

All I know is here we are, for whatever reason, so it makes since to me that we should not be total dicks to each other, whether you want to ascribe that philosophy to Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, or the golden rule, it works the same.


I ascribe it to the greater survivability of social species. We're nice to each other because it works, not because the Divine Will farted it into our brains.
 
2010-02-02 10:28:27 PM  

the_chief:
/All fossils are transitional species.


Really.
 
2010-02-02 10:28:48 PM  
As an atheist, I fully support your right to believe in things without evidence.
 
2010-02-02 10:28:52 PM  

khonshu: Mine was right:

How about you?


Wow.

When I take it, I end up solidly NTP, and then borderline I/E. That chart nails me exactly.
 
2010-02-02 10:29:33 PM  

gaslight: I want a religion that worships wombats.

Are you all with me!

Hello? Anyone?


It's okay, gaslight, they can't hear you. They are too busy copying and pasting the same tired and smarmy comments about how "right" they are.
 
2010-02-02 10:29:36 PM  

farkin_Gary: the_chief:
/All fossils are transitional species.

Really.


Really.
 
2010-02-02 10:30:12 PM  

Bhasayate: t3knomanser: Bhasayate: he says as much in "The God Delusion."

No he doesn't. You may have read it, but you certainly didn't understand it, Otto.

//The London Underground is not a political movement.

Want to dig it up or have me quote the relevant passages? It's towards the end of his "747 Argument", if I recall rightly. You'll find passages that don't say this VERBATIM, but the sense of it is there.


Oh yeah. The title of Chapter Four of "The God Delusion" is "Why There Almost Certainly is no God."
 
2010-02-02 10:31:39 PM  

t3knomanser: Bhasayate: but the sense of it is there

And the central tenet of Buddhism is not "every man for himself".


OK, but I never said that it was or wasn't. You're totally off topic man ...
 
2010-02-02 10:32:06 PM  

the_chief: farkin_Gary: the_chief:
/All fossils are transitional species.

Really.

Really.


Well, I maintain that all fossils are individual species unto themselves.

Prove me wrong?
 
2010-02-02 10:33:10 PM  

RanDomino: I ascribe it to the greater survivability of social species. We're nice to each other because it works, not because the Divine Will farted it into our brains.


I don't know about that. The farts of divine will of course I don't believe, but seriously think about this. What is the evolutionary advantage to being nice? The strong survive right? Well not the strong, but those most adaptive to change, according to Darwin anyway. What is the advantage though, for a species, of kindness to the weak?

I'm not suggesting that we should adhere to some law from a particular scripture, but it does seem to me that there is some sort of natural law out there, which seems to be echoed in any number of the world' major religions in some way or another. Was it given to mankind in a divine revelation? Well that's a question for faith. Was it discovered by mankind as the ultimate `way to be'? Well, that's a question for philosophy. Is there a scientific reason for it? If there is, I'd like to hear it.

/no really, I would.
 
2010-02-02 10:33:23 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: crazytrain: 50 Million Dead

Personality cults are not atheistic. Try selling atheism in North Korea and see how that works out for you.


They can be. But any competition to a personality cult is gonna get you murdered, regardless of what it entails. Maoism, the Il family, Stalinism, all atheistic. There's just massive other stuff, much of which is shared by cults and religions, which makes them oh-so-dangerous.

None of those commonalities have appeared in any 'atheist' organizations I'm aware of.

farkin_Gary: the_chief:
/All fossils are transitional species.

Really.


Are you your father? Is your son you? If you answered no, congratulations, you're a transition between the two.
 
2010-02-02 10:33:26 PM  
Well I'm sure most of Fark would have been there, but of course most of the 23 year old's here have been to far more exotic locales, and are far too busy here pointing out to more normal Americans how they are wrong and complete morons.
 
2010-02-02 10:33:54 PM  

farkin_Gary: the_chief: farkin_Gary: the_chief:
/All fossils are transitional species.

Really.

Really.

Well, I maintain that all fossils are individual species unto themselves.

Prove me wrong?


Not mutually exclusive.
 
2010-02-02 10:35:52 PM  
nekom: "Both are equally stupid, in my opinion."

Well, let's see:

nekom: "I don't know why there is something instead of nothing, and neither does anyone else."

'The free lunch that made our universe'.

Would you like to see the math which demonstrates that the total energy of the universe balances out to zero? The origination of the universe, as it turns out, doesn't violate the law of conservation. On top of that, we've observed (and reproduced experimentally) the causal mechanism. Some more reading material:

It's Confirmed: Matter is Merely Vacuum Fluctuation

Something from Nothing a Quantum Possibility
 
2010-02-02 10:37:06 PM  
You Do Not Exist
I don't care what Theists want to believe, as long as they don't force it force upon me.

You got lucky. Every generation is brainwashed by the previous. Those who escape do so by chance.


Crosshair
Stalin: 23 million (And don't use the "Stalin was in a seminary" cop-out. He was forced there by his parents and hated it.)
Mao: 50 million
Pol Pot: 1.7 million
I can't find the source, but IIRC some French Atheists around the French Revolution managed to slaughter a few hundred thousand.


Those were due to authoritarianism (capital-C Communism), not communism or atheism.

I wish capitalists and theists would apply the same standard to every other war and famine. How about the millions who died in India and Ireland due to famine and occupation by the British? Do we count those against "Imperialism" or "Capitalism" or "Christianity" or what? Or, using the standards of the capitalists and theists, to all of them when convenient?
 
2010-02-02 10:37:49 PM  
nekom: "What is the evolutionary advantage to being nice? The strong survive right? Well not the strong, but those most adaptive to change, according to Darwin anyway. What is the advantage though, for a species, of kindness to the weak?"

....Are you being serious?

i63.photobucket.com
 
2010-02-02 10:39:49 PM  

ninjakirby:

Are you your father? Is your son you? If you answered no, congratulations, you're a transition between the two.


However, I'm not a fossil. You stepped outside the initial premise. Once I become a fossil, I can no longer be in transition.
 
2010-02-02 10:40:21 PM  

Crosshair: The Cambrian Explosion is fatal to Darwin's theory that gradual natural selection over time caused all life to evolve from a single ancestor.


Feh.

And that doesn't even include punctuated equilibrium from non-uniform random walks in a variable fitness landscape.
 
2010-02-02 10:40:39 PM  
Let the emoting begin:

www.faithmouse.com
 
2010-02-02 10:42:07 PM  

thunderbird8804: crazytrain: I'm just waiting for the Great Atheist coin set:

50 Million Dead

//Mao Zedong is next

That black thing on his face isn't a mustache, it's a representative of the Russian Orthodoxy.

/Guess who Stalin drew some of his strongest support from


Jews?
 
2010-02-02 10:42:28 PM  
LrdPhoenix: "This is no way to conclusively resolve the matter. To take a position on either side is to falsely claim to have divine knowledge. Any argument that goes in either way is logically unsound and requires just as much faith on the untestable premises of the argument."

But that's wrong. It's something Christians tell themselves so as to avoid feelings of insecurity in their belief. As an atheist I make no claims to divine knowledge.

When I say that science has discredited all gods currently worshiped, do you think I mean they've been disproven to the absolute standard, or the probabilistic one? For that matter, do you know what the probabilistic standard is, and how it differs from the absolute standard? Which do you think science employs, and which is used by religion?
 
2010-02-02 10:42:29 PM  

Zamboro: ....Are you being serious?


Dude, you'z bein troll'd.
 
2010-02-02 10:43:30 PM  

CygnusDarius: No.

Both played on the worship of the individuals, why do you think Stalin froze Lenin's body?

North Korea follows a similar route.


Mao and Stalin were promoting allegiance to the state and the idea over any form of allegiance to organized religion moreso than any sort of Pharoah-ish man-as-god. NK doesn't really fit with those two because 'Supreme Leader' is more deity-ish. Stalin kept Lenin frozen as a PR stunt.

Regardless, they're the most famous examples of a twisting of Atheist 'beliefs', if there are such a thing. You think your average Christian wants to be judged by the actions of the Spanish Inquisition? Atheism itself isn't violent but neither is Christianity. Turn the other cheek. Jesus is a lot closer to Ghandi than he is to George Bush. Rather both Christianity and the idea of the absence of religion have been perverted by power hungry assholes, and I don't see any particular reason why it's fair to dissociate Atheists from their assholes but not Christians. Just my two cents.
 
2010-02-02 10:43:56 PM  
I don't get it. I'm a non-believer. My parents were. My grandfathers were.
But I don't get it. What the hell's the point if you end up going to church anyway? Sermons are boring - I don't care what they're about.
 
2010-02-02 10:44:52 PM  

You Do Not Exist: Zamboro: People like you do absolutely nothing to improve the human condition. You're out to elevate yourself above all parties in any given argument by shiatting on all of them, without doing anything to conclusively resolve the matter. You're worse than useless, you're actively obstructing progress.


So it's better to be wrong, than indifferent?


Way to illustrate his point.

Group A: There is/are a god/gods.
Group B: There are no gods.

One of them has to be right, but rather than exert the effort over deciding which one is, you'd rather take the easy way out and be indifferent.

/As we all know, indifferent people are the one that make positive changes in the world.
 
2010-02-02 10:46:02 PM  

Zamboro: Bhasayate: "This. If you're Fundy Theist and keep the Fundy but lose the Theism, you're still a Fundy. FUNDY"

What are the fundamentals of atheism?

CygnusDarius: "/Seriously
//Militant Religious = Militant Atheists"

You've knowingly drawn a false equivalence here due to personal bigotry. You know very well that atheists are proportionally underrepresented in prisons, overrepresented in the sciences and that statistically, intelligence scales inversely with religiosity. You know these to be true. But because you hold superstitious beliefs and atheists think poorly of them, you feel the need to lash out at atheists as a group when it isn't their fault that you believe silly things, it's yours.


And here I thought he was drawing a comparison between overbearing asshole atheists and overbearing asshole theists.
 
2010-02-02 10:48:00 PM  

khonshu: gaslight: I want a religion that worships wombats.

Are you all with me!

Hello? Anyone?

It's okay, gaslight, they can't hear you. They are too busy copying and pasting the same tired and smarmy comments about how "right" they are.


static.guim.co.uk
/High 4 and a nub
 
2010-02-02 10:48:16 PM  

Colonelcool: Zamboro: Bhasayate: "This. If you're Fundy Theist and keep the Fundy but lose the Theism, you're still a Fundy. FUNDY"

What are the fundamentals of atheism?

CygnusDarius: "/Seriously
//Militant Religious = Militant Atheists"

You've knowingly drawn a false equivalence here due to personal bigotry. You know very well that atheists are proportionally underrepresented in prisons, overrepresented in the sciences and that statistically, intelligence scales inversely with religiosity. You know these to be true. But because you hold superstitious beliefs and atheists think poorly of them, you feel the need to lash out at atheists as a group when it isn't their fault that you believe silly things, it's yours.

And here I thought he was drawing a comparison between overbearing asshole atheists and overbearing asshole theists.


Seems like a dumb thing to draw. I'm drawing a picture of a nekkid girl.
 
2010-02-02 10:48:17 PM  

Colonelcool: Zamboro: Bhasayate: "This. If you're Fundy Theist and keep the Fundy but lose the Theism, you're still a Fundy. FUNDY"

What are the fundamentals of atheism?

CygnusDarius: "/Seriously
//Militant Religious = Militant Atheists"

You've knowingly drawn a false equivalence here due to personal bigotry. You know very well that atheists are proportionally underrepresented in prisons, overrepresented in the sciences and that statistically, intelligence scales inversely with religiosity. You know these to be true. But because you hold superstitious beliefs and atheists think poorly of them, you feel the need to lash out at atheists as a group when it isn't their fault that you believe silly things, it's yours.

And here I thought he was drawing a comparison between overbearing asshole atheists and overbearing asshole theists.


Some people cant read good and stuff.
 
2010-02-02 10:48:52 PM  
i10.photobucket.com
 
2010-02-02 10:49:11 PM  

Crosshair: t3knomanser: What? You don't remember that time that militant atheists firebombed a church in Alabama? Or when militant atheists flew air liners into buildings?

Stalin: 23 million (And don't use the "Stalin was in a seminary" cop-out. He was forced there by his parents and hated it.)
Mao: 50 million
Pol Pot: 1.7 million
I can't find the source, but IIRC some French Atheists around the French Revolution managed to slaughter a few hundred thousand.


The main problem I have with this is that atheism is not an idealogy. Stalin didn't have a religious text to justify his atrocities. You could just as easily blame any other quality of Stalin. Stalin and Hilter both have moustaches... people with moustaches are the greatest mass murders of all time!

It should also be noted that these regimes were not so much pro-atheism but rather anti-religion because religious organization was a threat to their power.
 
2010-02-02 10:49:31 PM  

FlyingPenguini: khonshu: gaslight: I want a religion that worships wombats.

Are you all with me!

Hello? Anyone?

It's okay, gaslight, they can't hear you. They are too busy copying and pasting the same tired and smarmy comments about how "right" they are


Copy pasta is for wimps.
 
2010-02-02 10:50:40 PM  

Bhasayate: Colonelcool: Zamboro: Bhasayate: "This. If you're Fundy Theist and keep the Fundy but lose the Theism, you're still a Fundy. FUNDY"

What are the fundamentals of atheism?

CygnusDarius: "/Seriously
//Militant Religious = Militant Atheists"

You've knowingly drawn a false equivalence here due to personal bigotry. You know very well that atheists are proportionally underrepresented in prisons, overrepresented in the sciences and that statistically, intelligence scales inversely with religiosity. You know these to be true. But because you hold superstitious beliefs and atheists think poorly of them, you feel the need to lash out at atheists as a group when it isn't their fault that you believe silly things, it's yours.

And here I thought he was drawing a comparison between overbearing asshole atheists and overbearing asshole theists.

Some people cant read good and stuff.


I wouldn't feel the need to lash out at atheists or fundies if they keep their dirty cock-holsters shut.
 
2010-02-02 10:51:01 PM  

Crosshair: Stalin: 23 million (And don't use the "Stalin was in a seminary" cop-out. He was forced there by his parents and hated it learned a lot.)


FTFY, no charge this time
 
2010-02-02 10:51:17 PM  

falcon176: lisarenee3505: nekom: Now if it were an agnostics convention, I might buy that. Atheists and religious types both just need to stfu and quit trying to feel important. Nobody cares.

The only people who say things like this are the ones who seriously don't get the message that Athiests are putting out there, or they are theists of some stripe who are terribly uncomfortable with the level of logic and reason that is required to see religious belief for what it really is. people who visit this site and read the daily atheist butthurt

ftfy


No not really. It was perfectly accurate the way I wrote it. Thanks for the effort though.
 
2010-02-02 10:51:50 PM  
you have pee hands: "Regardless, they're the most famous examples of a twisting of Atheist 'beliefs', if there are such a thing."

You're talking about communism. Atheism is a facet of communism, not the other way around. Atheism by itself is only a binary descriptor, and it applies to a great many ideologies, nearly all of which are famously peaceful.

you have pee hands: "You think your average Christian wants to be judged by the actions of the Spanish Inquisition?"

The thing is, that wasn't Christianity plus some economic ideology (as with atheistic communism). It was just Christianity.
And it's just one of countless examples of plain 'ol Christianity motivating mobs to go out and slaughter.

you have pee hands: "Atheism itself isn't violent but neither is Christianity."

How is unreason not the primary cause of violence?

you have pee hands: "Turn the other cheek. Jesus is a lot closer to Ghandi than he is to George Bush."

The Christian god ordered several genocides. How is revering such a god morally superior to revering Hitler?

you have pee hands: "Rather both Christianity and the idea of the absence of religion have been perverted by power hungry assholes, and I don't see any particular reason why it's fair to dissociate Atheists from their assholes but not Christians. Just my two cents."

Because the crimes of Communism did not result from the perversion of atheism, but rather the perversion of Communism. Communism is an ideology. You're using atheism and communism interchangeably when it has zero bearing on modern atheist organizations in America. I am not a Communist. I shouldn't have to tell you that. I don't believe what a Communist believes. But a modern day Christian believes all, or nearly all of what a European crusader believed circa 1100AD. There's no parasitically attached economic or political "ism" to lay the blame on, as with Communism's entanglement with atheism. The crimes of Christianity, throughout history, have been the crimes of Christianity.
 
2010-02-02 10:52:10 PM  
Stalin, Mao et al weren't atheists. They were anti-religionists.
 
2010-02-02 10:52:37 PM  
pix.motivatedphotos.com
 
2010-02-02 10:53:17 PM  

mllawso: Way to illustrate his point.

Group A: There is/are a god/gods.
Group B: There are no gods.

One of them has to be right, but rather than exert the effort over deciding which one is, you'd rather take the easy way out and be indifferent.

/As we all know, indifferent people are the one that make positive changes in the world.


Agnosticism is not the same thing as indifference.

Whatever God is, or isn't, presumably exists outside the physical bounds of our universe. The big bang happened, but I believe that science will never be able to tell why or what predated it. It's unknowable. Did it just happen? Did God do it? Are we a giant petri dish for some bored 5th dimensional being? I think it is outside our capability to answer these questions and will always remain so.

That's Agnosticism in a nutshell.
 
2010-02-02 10:53:47 PM  

GonadtheBarbarian: Bhasayate: Colonelcool: Zamboro: Bhasayate: "This. If you're Fundy Theist and keep the Fundy but lose the Theism, you're still a Fundy. FUNDY"

What are the fundamentals of atheism?

CygnusDarius: "/Seriously
//Militant Religious = Militant Atheists"

You've knowingly drawn a false equivalence here due to personal bigotry. You know very well that atheists are proportionally underrepresented in prisons, overrepresented in the sciences and that statistically, intelligence scales inversely with religiosity. You know these to be true. But because you hold superstitious beliefs and atheists think poorly of them, you feel the need to lash out at atheists as a group when it isn't their fault that you believe silly things, it's yours.

And here I thought he was drawing a comparison between overbearing asshole atheists and overbearing asshole theists.

Some people cant read good and stuff.

I wouldn't feel the need to lash out at atheists or fundies if they keep their dirty cock-holsters shut.


some fundies are atheists
 
2010-02-02 10:54:02 PM  

jso2897: I don't get it. I'm a non-believer. My parents were. My grandfathers were.
But I don't get it. What the hell's the point if you end up going to church anyway? Sermons are boring - I don't care what they're about.


I have varying feelings on atheist conventions, but it more of a response towards the general negative view of atheists and discrimination. If seperation of church and state was complete and people accepted atheism on the same level as say christianity you would probably see way less atheist organizations/conventions.
Meanwhile, christians would keep going to church no matter what, even if it was the only religion in the world.

It's more "organize" for equality IMHO, less worship and singing.

Voters in the United States are more likely to vote for a Muslim than an atheist if all other things are equal.
 
2010-02-02 10:54:22 PM  
ColonelCool: "And here I thought he was drawing a comparison between overbearing asshole atheists and overbearing asshole theists."

He declared the two to be identical. I pointed out that doing so is extremely hyperbolic, ignorant and offensive.

Personally, I don't find 'militant atheists' to be 'overbearing assholes'. They're aggressively correct, and that's the sort of thing we need more of.

Bhasayate: "Some people cant read good and stuff."

Easy now. You're the religious person here, not me.
 
2010-02-02 10:54:40 PM  

jingks: lisarenee3505:The only people who say things like this are the ones who seriously don't get the message that Athiests are putting out there, or they are theists of some stripe who are terribly uncomfortable with the level of logic and reason that is required to see religious belief for what it really is.

Some get the message and just don't care. If the beliefs are being forced on me, then fine. But otherwise it doesn't matter to me how ignorant the majority of the population is to science. It it no way affects my life. Research still occurs. Those that claim research is being stiffed have unrealistic ideas of how and how often "breakthroughs" happen.


Yeah but it does affect your life, because those ignorant masses are allowed to do things like vote and make policy and drive cars on the same roads as those of us who live in the real world.
 
2010-02-02 10:55:08 PM  
Bhasayate: "some fundies are atheists"

You're being a douche right now. Does that make you a fundie as well?
 
2010-02-02 10:55:47 PM  

ninjakirby: They can be


Not really IMHO. Personality cults are called personality cults because they exploit the same mental security flaw that allows religion to take hold: the one that causes people to follow a powerful charismatic leader without question.

Fix one, you fix the other.
 
2010-02-02 10:56:33 PM  

Zamboro: Bhasayate: "Some people cant read good and stuff."

Easy now. You're the religious person here, not me.


How do you figure? I never defended theism in this thread, I just said Dawkins is a Fundy. How does saying that give you any reason at all to think that I'm a theist?
 
2010-02-02 10:57:16 PM  

Zamboro: Bhasayate: "some fundies are atheists"

You're being a douche right now. Does that make you a fundie as well?


No.
 
2010-02-02 10:58:08 PM  
Bhasayate: "How do you figure? I never defended theism in this thread, I just said Dawkins is a Fundy. How does saying that give you any reason at all to think that I'm a theist?"

Moderate/agnostic shibboleths in your posts.
 
2010-02-02 10:59:04 PM  

Zamboro: I do, and I'm someone. Evidently there are an awful lot of someones who care, or the convention hall would have been empty. I can buy that you, personally, don't care. But that's because you're a South Park Agnostic. I.e. you don't actually understand the nuances in either side of any issue, so you take a position halfway between them while deriding both as extremists. You hope to appear moderate and reasonable without having to actually research the matter and form an opinion that doesn't boil down to trendy contrarianism and false equivalence.


I really like that term. I may steal it.

Still, I think you may want to chill out just a teeny little bit. And I mean that in a topically abstracted sense. Diplomacy, and all that.

LrdPhoenix:
This is no way to conclusively resolve the matter. To take a position on either side is to falsely claim to have divine knowledge. Any argument that goes in either way is logically unsound and requires just as much faith on the untestable premises of the argument.

Well, I mean, technically there's no way to conclusively prove that you're not a brain floating in a tank or that God created the world last Thursday, either - but that doesn't stop you from drawing conclusions about the world around you. And I would argue that the evidence we have does in fact permit us to draw a few conclusions about the various concepts of God that people have held.
 
2010-02-02 10:59:41 PM  
Bhasayate: "No."

Oh, of course. Not you.
 
2010-02-02 11:00:12 PM  

Zamboro: Bhasayate: "How do you figure? I never defended theism in this thread, I just said Dawkins is a Fundy. How does saying that give you any reason at all to think that I'm a theist?"

Moderate/agnostic shibboleths in your posts.


Oh, so that suggests Theism??
 
2010-02-02 11:01:16 PM  
"Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder, 'Why, why, why?'

Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand."
 
2010-02-02 11:01:52 PM  

Zamboro: Bhasayate: "No."

Oh, of course. Not you.


I'm attacking Fundies, silly person! I'm MOCKING THEM.

I tried arguing, but as usual, that doesn't work on Fark.
 
2010-02-02 11:02:24 PM  
Martian_Astronomer: "Still, I think you may want to chill out just a teeny little bit. And I mean that in a topically abstracted sense. Diplomacy, and all that."

But I'm not trying to be particularly persuasive. I'd rather guys like nekom, CygnusDarius and Bhasayate not be atheists. I'd be kind of embarrassed to call myself one if they were. :-\
 
2010-02-02 11:04:05 PM  
Bhasayate: "Oh, so that suggests Theism??"

Well, yes. You rarely see someone who isn't a creationist use certain arguments and phrases like "evolutionism". Likewise you rarely see anyone who isn't a religious moderate or agnostic talking about atheism the way you have.

If you're worried about being misunderstood, why not simply be up front about where you stand?
 
2010-02-02 11:04:09 PM  

mllawso: You Do Not Exist: Zamboro: People like you do absolutely nothing to improve the human condition. You're out to elevate yourself above all parties in any given argument by shiatting on all of them, without doing anything to conclusively resolve the matter. You're worse than useless, you're actively obstructing progress.


So it's better to be wrong, than indifferent?

Way to illustrate his point.

Group A: There is/are a god/gods.
Group B: There are no gods.

One of them has to be right, but rather than exert the effort over deciding which one is, you'd rather take the easy way out and be indifferent.


Yes because it all comes down to that one single religion you have to choose from.

Tell you what, I'll take this stance with no real reasoning what so ever behind it. You can then either mock it or ignore it as it will never have any real world impact on your life at all.

I'll take old earth creationism where in the Christian God used evolution over millions of years to get humanity to the point where it is today. He set everything up and hasn't had direct contact with us since Christ. There.
 
2010-02-02 11:06:30 PM  
nekom
What is the evolutionary advantage to being nice? The strong survive right? Well not the strong, but those most adaptive to change, according to Darwin anyway. What is the advantage though, for a species, of kindness to the weak?

More survive in general. Two people can do more together than two individuals working seperately.

I'm not suggesting that we should adhere to some law from a particular scripture, but it does seem to me that there is some sort of natural law out there, which seems to be echoed in any number of the world' major religions in some way or another.

If it's species-wide, that sounds like a pretty strong argument for an evolutionary cause.


Zamboro
....Are you being serious?
(The Moral Animal


Kropotkin did it!


you have pee hands
Whatever God is, or isn't, presumably exists outside the physical bounds of our universe. The big bang happened, but I believe that science will never be able to tell why or what predated it. It's unknowable. Did it just happen? Did God do it? Are we a giant petri dish for some bored 5th dimensional being? I think it is outside our capability to answer these questions and will always remain so.

"We don't know and we probably never will so let's just give up" is the attitude that got Baghdad destroyed by the Mongols.
 
2010-02-02 11:06:50 PM  

Zamboro: You're talking about communism. Atheism is a facet of communism, not the other way around. Atheism by itself is only a binary descriptor, and it applies to a great many ideologies, nearly all of which are famously peaceful.


No I'm not, I'm talking about Atheism perverted by a power hungry dictator. He perverted Marxism, too, but that's beside the point.

The thing is, that wasn't Christianity plus some economic ideology (as with atheistic communism). It was just Christianity.
And it's just one of countless examples of plain 'ol Christianity motivating mobs to go out and slaughter.


No it wasn't, it was Christianity perverted by a Monarch. Just another form of manipulation.

How is unreason not the primary cause of violence?

Not all types of unreason are violent. Those people who think that you're hurting a tree by picking its fruit so you should only eat what falls on the ground aren't the least bit reasonable, but they're not violent. I feel the same way about Buddhists who sweep bugs off the sidewalk before they walk there, and people who believe in reincarnation. Not reasonable. Not violent. The idea that Christianity isn't reasonable and is therefore violent simply doesn't follow.

The Christian god ordered several genocides. How is revering such a god morally superior to revering Hitler?

This really depends whether you're looking at the teachings of Christ or the old testament. Christ didn't order any genocides. Anyway I'll try and mostly duck the strawman but I think any sort of moral absolutism is almost as silly as belief in any one specific all powerful God.

Because the crimes of Communism did not result from the perversion of atheism, but rather the perversion of Communism. Communism is an ideology. You're using atheism and communism interchangeably when it has zero bearing on modern atheist organizations in America. I am not a Communist. I shouldn't have to tell you that. I don't believe what a Communist believes. But a modern day Christian believes all, or nearly all of what a European crusader believed circa 1100AD. There's no parasitically attached economic or political "ism" to lay the blame on, as with Communism's entanglement with atheism. The crimes of Christianity, throughout history, have been the crimes of Christianity.

The Crusades had a hell of a lot more to do with politics and power plays than anything that would have ostensibly come out of the mouth of Jesus.

I'm not using Atheism and Communism interchangeably. I'm talking about the acts of some people who were perverting both Atheism and Marxism to gain and keep individual power, which isn't much different from what many monarchs and more than a few Cardinals and Popes have done with Christianity over the last thousand years.
 
2010-02-02 11:07:18 PM  

lisarenee3505: Yeah but it does affect your life, because those ignorant masses are allowed to do things like vote and make policy and drive cars on the same roads as those of us who live in the real world.


Living in the real world is realizing that people will never allow some fantasy Utopian world to exist. People aren't always rational. People don't always think about the long term effect. People are often greedy and self involved. People sometimes use extra-logical (i.e. religion) devices to help them cope with the world. All action of which can likely explained by the "selfish gene". Religion is a human construct and the opiate of the masses... but it does not mean that religion is an incorrect approach to life.
 
2010-02-02 11:07:25 PM  

Bhasayate: GonadtheBarbarian: Bhasayate: Colonelcool: Zamboro: Bhasayate: "This. If you're Fundy Theist and keep the Fundy but lose the Theism, you're still a Fundy. FUNDY"

What are the fundamentals of atheism?

CygnusDarius: "/Seriously
//Militant Religious = Militant Atheists"

You've knowingly drawn a false equivalence here due to personal bigotry. You know very well that atheists are proportionally underrepresented in prisons, overrepresented in the sciences and that statistically, intelligence scales inversely with religiosity. You know these to be true. But because you hold superstitious beliefs and atheists think poorly of them, you feel the need to lash out at atheists as a group when it isn't their fault that you believe silly things, it's yours.

And here I thought he was drawing a comparison between overbearing asshole atheists and overbearing asshole theists.

Some people cant read good and stuff.

I wouldn't feel the need to lash out at atheists or fundies if they keep their dirty cock-holsters shut.

some fundies are atheists


Is this moronic comment supposed to spark some great theological debate? Just because you passed a psychology course back in your state college doesn't make you an intellectual worthy of debating the existence of god. Go back to your feeling superior to theists and your accounts payable job.
 
2010-02-02 11:09:09 PM  

Zamboro: Martian_Astronomer: "Still, I think you may want to chill out just a teeny little bit. And I mean that in a topically abstracted sense. Diplomacy, and all that."

But I'm not trying to be particularly persuasive. I'd rather guys like nekom, CygnusDarius and Bhasayate not be atheists. I'd be kind of embarrassed to call myself one if they were. :-\


LOL ZING!

Right. Because an atheist or a non-theist could NEVER say Dawkins is an idiot.

"Unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously. I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/02/atheism-daw​kins-ruse

-- Michael Ruse

Oh, I guess he must be a theist? No, he's an atheist, too.
 
2010-02-02 11:10:24 PM  

YodaTuna: jso2897: I don't get it. I'm a non-believer. My parents were. My grandfathers were.
But I don't get it. What the hell's the point if you end up going to church anyway? Sermons are boring - I don't care what they're about.

I have varying feelings on atheist conventions, but it more of a response towards the general negative view of atheists and discrimination. If seperation of church and state was complete and people accepted atheism on the same level as say christianity you would probably see way less atheist organizations/conventions.
Meanwhile, christians would keep going to church no matter what, even if it was the only religion in the world.

It's more "organize" for equality IMHO, less worship and singing.

Voters in the United States are more likely to vote for a Muslim than an atheist if all other things are equal.


Fine with me. I ain't runnin' for office.
 
2010-02-02 11:11:22 PM  
They believe that people are coming just because the tickets are sold, but they can't be sure that anyone is really going to come. Think of it as "Waiting for Richard Dawkins"
 
2010-02-02 11:12:06 PM  

Zamboro: Bhasayate: "Oh, so that suggests Theism??"

Well, yes. You rarely see someone who isn't a creationist use certain arguments and phrases like "evolutionism". Likewise you rarely see anyone who isn't a religious moderate or agnostic talking about atheism the way you have.

If you're worried about being misunderstood, why not simply be up front about where you stand?


Oh, sorry for using big words, I am in college. And sorry for saying Dawkins is an Fundy blow hard.

I'm pissed at the flock of idiots who think that Dawkins is some sort of secular saint. He's not. Perhaps I'm annoyed at people being mindless sheep. Yeah. That's it.

I'm picking on those who pick on Theism.

I mean, by your logic, I have good reason to believe Michael Ruse is a sekret theist.
 
2010-02-02 11:12:38 PM  

Bhasayate: "Unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously. I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/02/atheism-daw​kins-ruse


I like this observation of Dawkins.
 
2010-02-02 11:13:04 PM  
You Do Not Exist: "I'll take old earth creationism where in the Christian God used evolution over millions of years to get humanity to the point where it is today. He set everything up and hasn't had direct contact with us since Christ. There."

Cool story. But what are your reasons for thinking it's factually correct?

The fact that evolution is a thoroughly proven theory does not somehow mean that tacking on Christian theology will somehow make that theology more credible by association.

Theories aren't like congressional measures. You can't sneak special interest addons in there and then get it passed anyway. When you add elements to a theory, you've produced a new revision of that theory which has to be tested on it's own merits to see if it's more or less credible than the original.

In brief, "well-meaning syncretism is no substitute for science".
 
2010-02-02 11:13:26 PM  

LrdPhoenix: This is no way to conclusively resolve the matter. To take a position on either side is to falsely claim to have divine knowledge. Any argument that goes in either way is logically unsound and requires just as much faith on the untestable premises of the argument.


This similarly applies to the question of whether your skull is occupied by a brain or a piece of cauliflower.

jso2897: Seems like a dumb thing to draw. I'm drawing a picture of a nekkid girl.


There are only five things really worth drawing; four of them are pretty girls and the fifth is cats. - Robert A. Heinlein

YodaTuna: The main problem I have with this is that atheism is not an idealogy.


Depends on how you use the term; "atheism" can refer to either the isolated philosophical tenet "there is no god" (held either as primary premise or held from such as (absolute or probabilistic) inference), or to various anthropological movements most noted for including such tenet as part of the unifying beliefs. Sloppy reasoning usually results from equivocation on these, akin to a Masked Man fallacy.
 
2010-02-02 11:14:20 PM  

chuggernaught: khonshu: Mine was right:

How about you?

Can't I be an amoral heathen and a Christian?

/Just asking.


Sure you can. Especially if you happen to be my ex-wife's ex-assistant-pastor. Or his wife.
 
2010-02-02 11:16:17 PM  
I always show up late to the good threads.

I see we've covered "fundy atheism" and Stalin the mass murdering atheist talking points.

What's next on the list of busted objections to atheism?
 
2010-02-02 11:17:32 PM  

jingks: Bhasayate: "Unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously. I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/02/atheism-daw​kins-ruse

I like this observation of Dawkins.


wow, that's almost as rationally compelling as this one

Link
 
2010-02-02 11:18:34 PM  

Baryogenesis: I always show up late to the good threads.

I see we've covered "fundy atheism" and Stalin the mass murdering atheist talking points.

What's next on the list of busted objections to atheism?


right. because anyone who calls Dawkins an idiot can't be an Atheist!
 
2010-02-02 11:19:00 PM  

RanDomino: awesome


Words cannot express how much I agree with this statement. A simple "THIS" is not enough.


Make this world awesome. We only have one life, one world, so we should all try and make it as awesome as we can before we leave it.
 
2010-02-02 11:19:52 PM  

Zamboro: Moderate/agnostic shibboleths in your posts.


I was presuming you made an inference from prior data; however, you evidently didn't catch that thread at the time.

GonadtheBarbarian: Is this moronic comment supposed to spark some great theological debate?


Inflammatory comments aren't particular helpful as responses, either.
 
2010-02-02 11:20:14 PM  

Baryogenesis: I always show up late to the good threads.

I see we've covered "fundy atheism" and Stalin the mass murdering atheist talking points.

What's next on the list of busted objections to atheism?


Something about cake and pie, but I'm not entirely sure.

/One trollish comment and everyone jumps at you
 
2010-02-02 11:20:27 PM  
Bhasayate: "Oh, sorry for using big words, I am in college. And sorry for saying Dawkins is an Fundy blow hard."

Where did I criticize you for using big words?

Bhasayate: "I'm pissed at the flock of idiots who think that Dawkins is some sort of secular saint. He's not. Perhaps I'm annoyed at people being mindless sheep. Yeah. That's it."

Are they? I think they aren't, but that you're inclined to see them that way, because the growing popularity of a position which necessarily contradicts your own really burns your ass.

Bhasayate: "I'm picking on those who pick on Theism."

Religion is the most prolific and aggressive promoter of unreason in the world today. To promote faith in matters of doctrine as a virtue is to promote uncritical acceptance of supernatural claims.

Anyone who seriously values reason ought to pick on theism. It's extremely deserving.

Bhasayate: "I mean, by your logic, I have good reason to believe Michael Ruse is a sekret theist."

In what sense? If you pay attention to the terminology he uses and the context in which he uses it, it takes all of thirty seconds listening to him to conclude that he's a skeptic.
 
2010-02-02 11:20:40 PM  
So... atheists are convening in order to protect their God given right?
 
2010-02-02 11:21:23 PM  

CygnusDarius: Baryogenesis: I always show up late to the good threads.

I see we've covered "fundy atheism" and Stalin the mass murdering atheist talking points.

What's next on the list of busted objections to atheism?

Something about cake and pie, but I'm not entirely sure.

/One trollish comment and everyone jumps at you


Isn't that the point of trolling?
 
2010-02-02 11:21:28 PM  

abb3w: Zamboro: Moderate/agnostic shibboleths in your posts.

I was presuming you made an inference from prior data; however, you evidently didn't catch that thread at the time.

GonadtheBarbarian: Is this moronic comment supposed to spark some great theological debate?

Inflammatory comments aren't particular helpful as responses, either.


Go fark yourself you wannabe intellectual. Don't motherfarkin talk down to me you office drone.
 
2010-02-02 11:22:35 PM  
abb3w: "I was presuming you made an inference from prior data; however, you evidently didn't catch that thread at the time."

Starting today, every new farky will have an accompanying thread ID. I have a terrible memory, so it's really something I should've done from the outset.
 
2010-02-02 11:23:42 PM  

Bhasayate: Baryogenesis: I always show up late to the good threads.

I see we've covered "fundy atheism" and Stalin the mass murdering atheist talking points.

What's next on the list of busted objections to atheism?

right. because anyone who calls Dawkins an idiot can't be an Atheist!


It's interesting that you draw that conclusion from what I said. Feel free to dislike Dawkins, but your continuous and ineffectual rants about his style tells me more about you than it does about him.
 
2010-02-02 11:24:38 PM  

t3knomanser: Shakin_Haitian: I realize no one is stupid enough to actually believe that

What? You don't remember that time that militant atheists firebombed a church in Alabama? Or when militant atheists flew air liners into buildings?


Or that time militant atheists overthrew a government and then proceeded to kill anyone who disagreed with their political viewpoints?

Oh, wait.

/stfu.
//ideology is ideology.
 
2010-02-02 11:24:46 PM  
GonadtheBarbarian: "Go fark yourself you wannabe intellectual. Don't motherfarkin talk down to me you office drone."

To anyone that might otherwise have taken this (obviously eloquent, thoughtful) poster seriously, let it be known that he's a climate change denier.
 
2010-02-02 11:25:49 PM  

GonadtheBarbarian: Don't motherfarkin talk down to me you office drone.


Would you prefer "Shut up you foul-mouthed asshat, the grown-ups are talking"?
 
2010-02-02 11:26:09 PM  

GonadtheBarbarian: abb3w: Zamboro: Moderate/agnostic shibboleths in your posts.

I was presuming you made an inference from prior data; however, you evidently didn't catch that thread at the time.

GonadtheBarbarian: Is this moronic comment supposed to spark some great theological debate?

Inflammatory comments aren't particular helpful as responses, either.

Go fark yourself you wannabe intellectual. Don't motherfarkin talk down to me you office drone.


Hehehe, I always love it when someone attacks intellectualism by acting like a total idiot.

jokereatingpopcorn.gif
 
2010-02-02 11:26:21 PM  
Bhasayate: "Oh, I guess he must be a theist? No, he's an atheist, too."

So you guessed incorrectly. But I wouldn't have.
 
2010-02-02 11:27:51 PM  
Thread: tl; dr

Its been my experience that the majority of atheists are of the "let me believe what I want, you believe what you want" variety. the only time most of us want to get obnoxious about it is when the religious types try and incorporate your beliefs into law. Which would in effect be forcing your beliefs on everyone else. Oh, and if you're a pharmacist. (for fark's sake. If you're a strict catholic or other factions that don't believe in birth control, you weren't meant to be a pharmacist. Douchebags who think otherwise piss me off to no end).

Aside from that do what you like in your church and your home life.
 
2010-02-02 11:27:56 PM  

Zamboro: Martian_Astronomer: "Still, I think you may want to chill out just a teeny little bit. And I mean that in a topically abstracted sense. Diplomacy, and all that."

But I'm not trying to be particularly persuasive. I'd rather guys like nekom, CygnusDarius and Bhasayate not be atheists. I'd be kind of embarrassed to call myself one if they were. :-\


Well, those guys not withstanding, there it's hard to deny that there "embarrassing atheists." (Maybe not the ones in the article, or Dawkins, but they exist.) The thing is, it shouldn't matter if you've framed the conversation in terms of actually arguing for a viewpoint, and not for a people group. Theistic belief has a need to defend the character of the "true believers" because of the claims that particular religions make. On the other hand, even of atheism did automatically turn you into a baby-eating psychopath, it says nothing about whether or not God exists.

If you look at the content of these threads, about 90% of the discussion is either "atheists are fundies and should shut up," "No, our godless amps go to 11!" or "I'm going to sound wise by rebuking the extremes and not saying anything." It's mostly about "atheists," and much less about atheism. That tends to make the conversations kind of retarded.

/See how I wise I look when I criticize everyone including people who take the middle ground?
//Jesus was an extraterrestrial
 
2010-02-02 11:29:13 PM  
Ok so in the intrest of full disclosure, I've been an atheist since 7th grade when I decided my religion teacher was an idiot for telling me humans and dinosaurs lived together.

I honestly don't see the point of this. What do you get together to discuss at an atheist convention, you don't have anything in common besides the lack of beleif in something? So what is everyone going to talk about? The fact that we don't beleiv in something? Or are we going to sit around and complain about how wrong religious people are?

Sorry but thats just being a douche, if people want to be religious as long as there not forcing it on anyone else who cares? And holding it in Melbourne, I've never had my atheisim questioned in my entire life living in Australia. Hell going through school I knew two religious people.
 
2010-02-02 11:29:36 PM  
GonadtheBarbarian: "Don't motherfarkin talk down to me you office drone."

abb3w: "Would you prefer "Shut up you foul-mouthed asshat, the grown-ups are talking"?

i63.photobucket.com
 
2010-02-02 11:29:59 PM  

KhanFusion: t3knomanser: Shakin_Haitian: I realize no one is stupid enough to actually believe that

What? You don't remember that time that militant atheists firebombed a church in Alabama? Or when militant atheists flew air liners into buildings?

Or that time militant atheists overthrew a government and then proceeded to kill anyone who disagreed with their political viewpoints?

Oh, wait.

/stfu.
//ideology is ideology.


You're getting communism and their cult of personality confused with their atheism. Here's an example of the mistake you're making.

A white guy kills his girlfriend for cheating on him, therefore white guys are evil.

Being white has nothing to do with the murder in my example just as being atheist had nothing to do with the atrocities Stalin committed. It's an incidental property.
 
2010-02-02 11:32:11 PM  
Jesus should have been aborted.
 
2010-02-02 11:32:45 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: So they're not waiting for God?....Doh!


Bravo.
 
2010-02-02 11:33:01 PM  
ViolentHippy
Make this world awesome. We only have one life, one world, so we should all try and make it as awesome as we can before we leave it.

Hell, I'm going to awesome-up this thread right now-

th02.deviantart.net
 
2010-02-02 11:33:43 PM  

Baryogenesis: GonadtheBarbarian: abb3w: Zamboro: Moderate/agnostic shibboleths in your posts.

I was presuming you made an inference from prior data; however, you evidently didn't catch that thread at the time.

GonadtheBarbarian: Is this moronic comment supposed to spark some great theological debate?

Inflammatory comments aren't particular helpful as responses, either.

Go fark yourself you wannabe intellectual. Don't motherfarkin talk down to me you office drone.

Hehehe, I always love it when someone attacks intellectualism by acting like a total idiot.

jokereatingpopcorn.gif


Yeah, because the folks here at fark are intellectuals. Get over yourself
 
2010-02-02 11:34:45 PM  
I don't get why subby decided this was worthy of being greenlighted. Why is this news, or funny, or anything?
 
2010-02-02 11:35:07 PM  

GonadtheBarbarian: Baryogenesis: GonadtheBarbarian: abb3w: Zamboro: Moderate/agnostic shibboleths in your posts.

I was presuming you made an inference from prior data; however, you evidently didn't catch that thread at the time.

GonadtheBarbarian: Is this moronic comment supposed to spark some great theological debate?

Inflammatory comments aren't particular helpful as responses, either.

Go fark yourself you wannabe intellectual. Don't motherfarkin talk down to me you office drone.

Hehehe, I always love it when someone attacks intellectualism by acting like a total idiot.

jokereatingpopcorn.gif

Yeah, because the folks here at fark are intellectuals. Get over yourself


I see you're doing your best to drag down the level of discourse. Perhaps you need to get over your inferiority complex.
 
2010-02-02 11:35:18 PM  
Other than fellow Farkers nobody cares what any of you believe or don't believe. And Farkers only care so they can argue about it.
 
2010-02-02 11:35:28 PM  
Benza: "I honestly don't see the point of this. What do you get together to discuss at an atheist convention, you don't have anything in common besides the lack of beleif in something? So what is everyone going to talk about? The fact that we don't beleiv in something? Or are we going to sit around and complain about how wrong religious people are?"

Political coordination. When theists accuse modern atheism of being a religion, they're almost right. If it's anything, it's a nebulous, disorganized political movement in the process of getting its shiat together. And political movements can closely resemble religions to the layperson as they share many of the same large-scale organizational and motivational techniques.
 
2010-02-02 11:35:34 PM  

Zamboro: abb3w: "I was presuming you made an inference from prior data; however, you evidently didn't catch that thread at the time."

Starting today, every new farky will have an accompanying thread ID. I have a terrible memory, so it's really something I should've done from the outset.


Yeah, I forgot about that thread, too.
 
2010-02-02 11:36:38 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: Not really IMHO. Personality cults are called personality cults because they exploit the same mental security flaw that allows religion to take hold: the one that causes people to follow a powerful charismatic leader without question.


Right, but theism and religion are two separate but related concepts. Take Maoism and The Peoples Temple (Jonestown). Both personality cults, both arguably religions, but one is theistic and the other is not.

It's the mental insecurities that cause people to blindly follow a cause or identity that is the problem, not the a/theism.
 
2010-02-02 11:36:58 PM  

Baryogenesis: KhanFusion: t3knomanser: Shakin_Haitian: I realize no one is stupid enough to actually believe that

What? You don't remember that time that militant atheists firebombed a church in Alabama? Or when militant atheists flew air liners into buildings?

Or that time militant atheists overthrew a government and then proceeded to kill anyone who disagreed with their political viewpoints?

Oh, wait.

/stfu.
//ideology is ideology.

You're getting communism and their cult of personality confused with their atheism. Here's an example of the mistake you're making.

A white guy kills his girlfriend for cheating on him, therefore white guys are evil.

Being white has nothing to do with the murder in my example just as being atheist had nothing to do with the atrocities Stalin committed. It's an incidental property.


Well that's stupid. I mean Hitler incorporated some catholic practices in his government, therefore all christians are Hitler.
 
2010-02-02 11:38:04 PM  

the_chief: Jesus should have been aborted.


img13.imageshack.us
 
2010-02-02 11:38:38 PM  

jingks: lisarenee3505: Yeah but it does affect your life, because those ignorant masses are allowed to do things like vote and make policy and drive cars on the same roads as those of us who live in the real world.

Living in the real world is realizing that people will never allow some fantasy Utopian world to exist. People aren't always rational. People don't always think about the long term effect. People are often greedy and self involved. People sometimes use extra-logical (i.e. religion) devices to help them cope with the world. All action of which can likely explained by the "selfish gene". Religion is a human construct and the opiate of the masses... but it does not mean that religion is an incorrect approach to life.


This right here always bugs me (that's only part of the quote), just because the whole quote from Marx is so poetic, and conveys a different point than the opiate bit by itself.

"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions."

He's actually trying to get across that religious faith spawns from being broke as hell and totally without hope. His harsher criticism of religion was this one:

"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself."

If I remember correctly, that was all from a refutation of something Hegel wrote, I can't remember what it was exactly.

abb3w: YodaTuna: The main problem I have with this is that atheism is not an idealogy.

Depends on how you use the term; "atheism" can refer to either the isolated philosophical tenet "there is no god" (held either as primary premise or held from such as (absolute or probabilistic) inference), or to various anthropological movements most noted for including such tenet as part of the unifying beliefs. Sloppy reasoning usually results from equivocation on these, akin to a Masked Man fallacy.


A safer and more accurate definition of "atheism" would be the lack of a professed belief in a god/deity. It's simpler and will cover absolutely everyone that professes to be an atheist. Atheist is a bit of a weird classification in that it can only tell you the one thing someone doesn't believe, and absolutely nothing that they do. It doesn't even convey the reason for the lack of belief.
 
2010-02-02 11:39:19 PM  
Martian Astronomer: "Well, those guys not withstanding, there it's hard to deny that there "embarrassing atheists." (Maybe not the ones in the article, or Dawkins, but they exist.) The thing is, it shouldn't matter if you've framed the conversation in terms of actually arguing for a viewpoint, and not for a people group. Theistic belief has a need to defend the character of the "true believers" because of the claims that particular religions make. On the other hand, even of atheism did automatically turn you into a baby-eating psychopath, it says nothing about whether or not God exists."

I agree in principle, but it is entirely fair and relevant to bring up the statistical information which shows that, for whatever reason, atheists are found towards the upper end of the IQ scale. They tend to be wealthier, better educated, and (perhaps disturbingly) overwhelmingly white and male. Seize onto any part of that and use it as you like (there's actually been a great deal of discussion on feminist blogs as to why atheism seems to be a "male thing" at present, and on socialist blogs as to why atheism seems to be the domain of the wealthy) but those are the facts, and I see nothing wrong with bringing them to light.
 
2010-02-02 11:39:27 PM  
Remember, Hitlers are atheists.
 
2010-02-02 11:39:43 PM  

Zamboro: Bhasayate: "Oh, I guess he must be a theist? No, he's an atheist, too."

So you guessed incorrectly. But I wouldn't have.


No, you incredibly silly person. I know who Ruse is. I know he's not a Theist.

I'm still mystified why you think I'm a theist simply because Dawkins chaps my hide.

And I'm still wondering why -- even thinking about my last rant against D. -- anyone would take from that that I'm a theist.

I'm saying the arguments are not good. Then lot's of assertions about a bunch of "blah blah" to the effect that D's arguments ARENT bad, which amount to "I like turtles", insofar as their having any weight at all. And, yeah, that gets me all WTF

So, yeah, I have pet peave against D and like philosophy. I guess I must be a Muslim?

At least Ruse is actually a philosopher.
 
2010-02-02 11:40:19 PM  
Bhasayate: "Yeah, I forgot about that thread, too."

Don't worry. Now you've got me to remind you. :3
 
2010-02-02 11:41:12 PM  

Zamboro: Bhasayate: "Yeah, I forgot about that thread, too."

Don't worry. Now you've got me to remind you. :3


hehe and what does it 'prove' about me again?
 
2010-02-02 11:41:24 PM  

Baryogenesis: CygnusDarius: Baryogenesis: I always show up late to the good threads.

I see we've covered "fundy atheism" and Stalin the mass murdering atheist talking points.

What's next on the list of busted objections to atheism?

Something about cake and pie, but I'm not entirely sure.

/One trollish comment and everyone jumps at you

Isn't that the point of trolling?


Point taken.
 
2010-02-02 11:42:16 PM  

CygnusDarius: Baryogenesis: CygnusDarius: Baryogenesis: I always show up late to the good threads.

I see we've covered "fundy atheism" and Stalin the mass murdering atheist talking points.

What's next on the list of busted objections to atheism?

Something about cake and pie, but I'm not entirely sure.

/One trollish comment and everyone jumps at you

Isn't that the point of trolling?

Point taken.


there is no point to trolling, not really
 
2010-02-02 11:44:40 PM  

GonadtheBarbarian: Is this moronic comment supposed to spark some great theological debate? Just because you passed a psychology course back in your state college doesn't make you an intellectual worthy of debating the existence of god. Go back to your feeling superior to theists and your accounts payable job.


Is there like a philosopher/theologian analogue for "Internet Tough Guy?" Because I think I've found an archetype.
 
2010-02-02 11:44:43 PM  
a lot of stupid going on in this thread
 
2010-02-02 11:48:43 PM  

jingks: Bhasayate: "Unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously. I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/02/atheism-daw​kins-ruse

I like this observation of Dawkins.


Meh. His points seem to be

1. Religion does good stuff, too.
2. Stop picking on the first cause argument, because philosophically speaking, it's internally consistent.
3. There are a lot of really smart religious people, so don't be so condescending.
4. You get more flies with honey than with vinegar. Even though empirical evidence does refute certain core tenets of religions (e.g., young earth creationism), you should lie and pretend that both can mutually coexist. Do this so that the militant crazies don't take real science out of the classroom and fark us royally for generations to come.

This guy is a philosophy professor? Is that the best he can do? I mean, point 1 is true (but no rational atheist disagrees with it, or uses it as refutation); 2 is a philosophy professor getting all pedantic about esoterics interpretation of an academic argument; 3 and 4 are basically saying "You are right, but shhhhhhh you'll offend their delicate egos."

That's hardly a crushing defeat for atheism, or Dawkins, for that matter. You were impressed by this? Maybe I'm missing something. Can you point me to some of his other work?
 
2010-02-02 11:49:35 PM  

Benza: I honestly don't see the point of this. What do you get together to discuss at an atheist convention, you don't have anything in common besides the lack of beleif in something? So what is everyone going to talk about? The fact that we don't beleiv in something? Or are we going to sit around and complain about how wrong religious people are?


well, one example would be that religion has a far larger grasp over politics than it should. Look at Proposition 8 in California. You bet your ass the anti-gay-marriage movement is largely fueled by the religious.

The fact that the actions of the religious set can and do affect the lives of the nonreligious, I think, is something quite worthy of discussion.
 
2010-02-02 11:49:35 PM  
CntrBrdr
a lot of stupid going on in this thread

There wasn't until you showed up and reminded us how awesome you are
 
2010-02-02 11:50:49 PM  
Bhasayate: "No, you incredibly silly person. I know who Ruse is. I know he's not a Theist."

And I know you know that. But you were saying "this is a mistake you would make" when I'm certain I wouldn't. I've been at this for some time, I've gotten pretty good at inferring people's beliefs based on their choice of words.

Bhasayate: "I'm still mystified why you think I'm a theist simply because Dawkins chaps my hide."

And Harris. And Hitchens. And Dennet. And you're generally antagonistic to atheists. Gee, how could I ever get the impression that you're not an atheist?

Bhasayate: "And I'm still wondering why -- even thinking about my last rant against D. -- anyone would take from that that I'm a theist."

I think you're not an atheist. But I don't think you belong to any mainstream organized religion and you seem to take pride in that. Based on statements you made earlier I suspect you're at the very least sympathetic to and interested in eastern religions.

Bhasayate: "I'm saying the arguments are not good. Then lot's of assertions about a bunch of "blah blah" to the effect that D's arguments ARENT bad, which amount to "I like turtles", insofar as their having any weight at all. And, yeah, that gets me all WTF"

They may not have any weight to you, but that does not mean they are objectively poor arguments. I don't believe they are. I think you're in the habit of dismissing contrary opinions as worthless without having really considered their content. I don't expect you to agree with that, of course.

Bhasayate: "So, yeah, I have pet peave against D and like philosophy. I guess I must be a Muslim?"

I want to say Hare Krishna. Or a liberal Hindu/Buddhist.
 
2010-02-02 11:51:13 PM  

we_hates: the_chief: Jesus should have been aborted.


Best episode of season 1.
 
2010-02-02 11:53:04 PM  

crazyeddie: jingks: Bhasayate: "Unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously. I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/02/atheism-daw​kins-ruse

I like this observation of Dawkins.

Meh. His points seem to be

1. Religion does good stuff, too.
2. Stop picking on the first cause argument, because philosophically speaking, it's internally consistent.
3. There are a lot of really smart religious people, so don't be so condescending.
4. You get more flies with honey than with vinegar. Even though empirical evidence does refute certain core tenets of religions (e.g., young earth creationism), you should lie and pretend that both can mutually coexist. Do this so that the militant crazies don't take real science out of the classroom and fark us royally for generations to come.

This guy is a philosophy professor? Is that the best he can do? I mean, point 1 is true (but no rational atheist disagrees with it, or uses it as refutation); 2 is a philosophy professor getting all pedantic about esoterics interpretation of an academic argument; 3 and 4 are basically saying "You are right, but shhhhhhh you'll offend their delicate egos."

That's hardly a crushing defeat for atheism, or Dawkins, for that matter. You were impressed by this? Maybe I'm missing something. Can you point me to some of his other work?


For crying out loud there are a lot of jumping to conclusions flying about.

I referenced Ruse ONLY because he is someone who (a) criticizes Dawkins and (b) is not a Theist.
 
2010-02-02 11:54:11 PM  
I think that if forced to be honest, most people would admit there is no god, but that act like there is because they're trying to be cool among their peers.

I want it to be true that some omniscient being knows and watches me, but accept that it probably isn't. Christians I know tend (and appreciate "tend" here) to be kinda dumb and have no appreciation for the incredible complexity and beauty of nature. They tend to be bad people and don't care because they're magically forgiven. They cheat, steal, and neglect their animals.
 
2010-02-02 11:56:09 PM  
I could have been watching the episode of Heroes I DVR'd last night, but instead I've spent the evening following this thread.

"God is real!"
"No he's not!"
"Theists are all delusional!"
"Atheists are all assholes!"
Wahhh, my penis!

I swear, this is more entertaining than a bag of cats at a dog show.
 
2010-02-02 11:56:31 PM  

Shakin_Haitian: Baryogenesis: KhanFusion: t3knomanser: Shakin_Haitian: I realize no one is stupid enough to actually believe that

What? You don't remember that time that militant atheists firebombed a church in Alabama? Or when militant atheists flew air liners into buildings?

Or that time militant atheists overthrew a government and then proceeded to kill anyone who disagreed with their political viewpoints?

Oh, wait.

/stfu.
//ideology is ideology.

You're getting communism and their cult of personality confused with their atheism. Here's an example of the mistake you're making.

A white guy kills his girlfriend for cheating on him, therefore white guys are evil.

Being white has nothing to do with the murder in my example just as being atheist had nothing to do with the atrocities Stalin committed. It's an incidental property.

Well that's stupid. I mean Hitler incorporated some catholic practices in his government, therefore all christians are Hitler.


I'm not saying that at all. Christianity was incidental to Hitler's craziness, atheism was incidental to Stalin's craziness.
 
2010-02-02 11:56:36 PM  

SuperCatBarf: most people would admit there is no god, but that act like there is because they're trying to be cool among their peers.


That's only true of the US. In other western countries, atheism doesn't carry the same stigma. Weird how the US considers itself the most advanced country on the planet, but still clings fiercely to Stone Age beliefs.
 
2010-02-02 11:56:48 PM  

chuggernaught: khonshu: Mine was right:

How about you?

Can't I be an amoral heathen and a Christian?

/Just asking.


With the greatest of ease. It's pretty common.
 
2010-02-02 11:58:12 PM  
I can't wait until the day that personal beliefs become just that... personal. I am so thankful that our founding fathers and framers were wise and tolerant enough to establish a foundation for our great country that gives the American people the freedom to believe (or not believe) whatever they want without fear of persecution. I long for the day that tolerance and humility finds its way into our society, but I know that I will die long before that ever happens... if it ever happens. We have gone from a nation that once valued brotherhood and understanding to one of superiority complexes and fragile egos.


"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

-Thomas Jefferson
 
2010-02-02 11:58:25 PM  

Martian_Astronomer: GonadtheBarbarian: Is this moronic comment supposed to spark some great theological debate? Just because you passed a psychology course back in your state college doesn't make you an intellectual worthy of debating the existence of god. Go back to your feeling superior to theists and your accounts payable job.

Is there like a philosopher/theologian analogue for "Internet Tough Guy?" Because I think I've found an archetype.


Yep..that is the fark way isn't it?...discount anybody that disagrees with you as not worthy. To me, that is the mark of acoont.
 
2010-02-03 12:00:53 AM  

ninjakirby: It's the mental insecurities that cause people to blindly follow a cause or identity that is the problem, not the a/theism.


Yep.
 
2010-02-03 12:01:42 AM  

Baryogenesis: GonadtheBarbarian: Baryogenesis: GonadtheBarbarian: abb3w: Zamboro: Moderate/agnostic shibboleths in your posts.

I was presuming you made an inference from prior data; however, you evidently didn't catch that thread at the time.

GonadtheBarbarian: Is this moronic comment supposed to spark some great theological debate?

Inflammatory comments aren't particular helpful as responses, either.

Go fark yourself you wannabe intellectual. Don't motherfarkin talk down to me you office drone.

Hehehe, I always love it when someone attacks intellectualism by acting like a total idiot.

jokereatingpopcorn.gif

Yeah, because the folks here at fark are intellectuals. Get over yourself

I see you're doing your best to drag down the level of discourse. Perhaps you need to get over your inferiority complex.


Perhaps you need to get over your superiority complex. How bout we meet for a few beers and you talk your shiat and I bust out your teeth. You know, the ones that like to scrape up and down shafts and slide up over glans penis on weekends?
 
2010-02-03 12:01:52 AM  

GonadtheBarbarian: Martian_Astronomer: GonadtheBarbarian: Is this moronic comment supposed to spark some great theological debate? Just because you passed a psychology course back in your state college doesn't make you an intellectual worthy of debating the existence of god. Go back to your feeling superior to theists and your accounts payable job.

Is there like a philosopher/theologian analogue for "Internet Tough Guy?" Because I think I've found an archetype.

Yep..that is the fark way isn't it?...discount anybody that disagrees with you as not worthy. To me, that is the mark of acoont.


To me the mark of a coont is someone who can't argue his points well, gets frustrated because of that and then lashes out at everyone who calls him out for acting like a petulant child who just learned to swear.
 
2010-02-03 12:03:11 AM  

Baryogenesis: GonadtheBarbarian: Martian_Astronomer: GonadtheBarbarian: Is this moronic comment supposed to spark some great theological debate? Just because you passed a psychology course back in your state college doesn't make you an intellectual worthy of debating the existence of god. Go back to your feeling superior to theists and your accounts payable job.

Is there like a philosopher/theologian analogue for "Internet Tough Guy?" Because I think I've found an archetype.

Yep..that is the fark way isn't it?...discount anybody that disagrees with you as not worthy. To me, that is the mark of acoont.

To me the mark of a coont is someone who can't argue his points well, gets frustrated because of that and then lashes out at everyone who calls him out for acting like a petulant child who just learned to swear.


I'm not frustrated at all...make your point. I know your head is still soft from all of that state college education, but try me.
 
2010-02-03 12:03:40 AM  

Zamboro: Bhasayate: "No, you incredibly silly person. I know who Ruse is. I know he's not a Theist."

And I know you know that. But you were saying "this is a mistake you would make" when I'm certain I wouldn't. I've been at this for some time, I've gotten pretty good at inferring people's beliefs based on their choice of words.

Bhasayate: "I'm still mystified why you think I'm a theist simply because Dawkins chaps my hide."

And Harris. And Hitchens. And Dennet. And you're generally antagonistic to atheists. Gee, how could I ever get the impression that you're not an atheist?

Bhasayate: "And I'm still wondering why -- even thinking about my last rant against D. -- anyone would take from that that I'm a theist."

I think you're not an atheist. But I don't think you belong to any mainstream organized religion and you seem to take pride in that. Based on statements you made earlier I suspect you're at the very least sympathetic to and interested in eastern religions.

Bhasayate: "I'm saying the arguments are not good. Then lot's of assertions about a bunch of "blah blah" to the effect that D's arguments ARENT bad, which amount to "I like turtles", insofar as their having any weight at all. And, yeah, that gets me all WTF"

They may not have any weight to you, but that does not mean they are objectively poor arguments. I don't believe they are. I think you're in the habit of dismissing contrary opinions as worthless without having really considered their content. I don't expect you to agree with that, of course.

Bhasayate: "So, yeah, I have pet peave against D and like philosophy. I guess I must be a Muslim?"

I want to say Hare Krishna. Or a liberal Hindu/Buddhist.


Holy Quoting hell!

1. "I've been at this for some time, I've gotten pretty good at inferring people's beliefs based on their choice of words."

I've seen a lot of photoshops in my time, and I can tell by the pixels ...

2. "And Harris. And Hitchens. And Dennet. And you're generally antagonistic to atheists. Gee, how could I ever get the impression that you're not an atheist?"

The weird thing is some how inferring "isn't an atheist" that I'm a Theist.

3. "They may not have any weight to you, but that does not mean they are objectively poor arguments. I don't believe they are. I think you're in the habit of dismissing contrary opinions as worthless without having really considered their content. I don't expect you to agree with that, of course."

The arguments, such as they are, not good. They are logically fallacious throughout. I'm not ripping on the content, per se, but the argument. Why? Because it's sort of fun, in a way, to compare Dawkins and "Neo-Atheists" to True Believers.

There are good arguments against theism. John Schellenberg, William Rowe. Generally, the problem of evil is a big one. John Mackie's "The Miracle of Theism" isn't bad, but not great.There are more.

Anyway, you're filling in gaps with your own projections.

I mean, at the beginning of the thread I was 'defending' Academic Skepticism!

4. "I want to say Hare Krishna. Or a liberal Hindu/Buddhist."

lol
 
2010-02-03 12:06:46 AM  

GonadtheBarbarian: Baryogenesis: GonadtheBarbarian: Baryogenesis: GonadtheBarbarian: abb3w: Zamboro: Moderate/agnostic shibboleths in your posts.

I was presuming you made an inference from prior data; however, you evidently didn't catch that thread at the time.

GonadtheBarbarian: Is this moronic comment supposed to spark some great theological debate?

Inflammatory comments aren't particular helpful as responses, either.

Go fark yourself you wannabe intellectual. Don't motherfarkin talk down to me you office drone.

Hehehe, I always love it when someone attacks intellectualism by acting like a total idiot.

jokereatingpopcorn.gif

Yeah, because the folks here at fark are intellectuals. Get over yourself

I see you're doing your best to drag down the level of discourse. Perhaps you need to get over your inferiority complex.

Perhaps you need to get over your superiority complex. How bout we meet for a few beers and you talk your shiat and I bust out your teeth. You know, the ones that like to scrape up and down shafts and slide up over glans penis on weekends?


This is priceless. I might have to actually make popcorn instead of just posting a .gif.
 
2010-02-03 12:07:16 AM  

whatshisname: SuperCatBarf: most people would admit there is no god, but that act like there is because they're trying to be cool among their peers.

That's only true of the US. In other western countries, atheism doesn't carry the same stigma. Weird how the US considers itself the most advanced country on the planet, but still clings fiercely to Stone Age beliefs.


Shut the fark up, and make me more molsens. After that shift, make me some breakfast at the hortons you work at to satisfy my fat american ass with breakfast.
 
2010-02-03 12:08:26 AM  

Baryogenesis: GonadtheBarbarian: Baryogenesis: GonadtheBarbarian: Baryogenesis: GonadtheBarbarian: abb3w: Zamboro: Moderate/agnostic shibboleths in your posts.

I was presuming you made an inference from prior data; however, you evidently didn't catch that thread at the time.

GonadtheBarbarian: Is this moronic comment supposed to spark some great theological debate?

Inflammatory comments aren't particular helpful as responses, either.

Go fark yourself you wannabe intellectual. Don't motherfarkin talk down to me you office drone.

Hehehe, I always love it when someone attacks intellectualism by acting like a total idiot.

jokereatingpopcorn.gif

Yeah, because the folks here at fark are intellectuals. Get over yourself

I see you're doing your best to drag down the level of discourse. Perhaps you need to get over your inferiority complex.

Perhaps you need to get over your superiority complex. How bout we meet for a few beers and you talk your shiat and I bust out your teeth. You know, the ones that like to scrape up and down shafts and slide up over glans penis on weekends?

This is priceless. I might have to actually make popcorn instead of just posting a .gif.


Yeah...I know that kind of stuff is always priceless to you intellectuals. Till I meet you at a fark party and you're my friend. farkin pussy.
 
2010-02-03 12:10:33 AM  

Bhasayate: Maybe I'm missing something. Can you point me to some of his other work?

I referenced Ruse ONLY because he is someone who (a) criticizes Dawkins and (b) is not a Theist.


Put your pants back on, my friend. I'm not saying that you held his work out as the paragon of Dawkins refutation. I'll ask anyone: Can anyone point me to some of his (Ruse's)other work? Perhaps something you see as meaningul or valuable?

Thanks!
 
2010-02-03 12:12:41 AM  
Crosshair:

Stalin: 23 million (And don't use the "Stalin was in a seminary" cop-out. He was forced there by his parents and hated it.)
Mao: 50 million
Pol Pot: 1.7 million
I can't find the source, but IIRC some French Atheists around the French Revolution managed to slaughter a few hundred thousand.


*SIGH* OK thick people, one more time...

The difference, dumbasses, is Christian & Islamic Fundies are actually killing in the so-called service of their God. That's their cause. And feel oh-so-holy for it.

Stalin & Mao (& their ilk), tho murdering pigs, were not doing so in the cause of atheism. Their goals went way beyond any anti-religious ends.

Sure atheist are capable of killing. We just don't do it as an organized group of holy fools, like your lunatics.

/Jeeze
//Pull yer heads outta yer asses - you'll find the view's better.
 
2010-02-03 12:14:59 AM  

whatshisname: That's only true of the US. In other western countries, atheism doesn't carry the same stigma. Weird how the US considers itself the most advanced country on the planet, but still clings fiercely to Stone Bronze Age beliefs.


Fixed that for you. Stay in school... EUROPEAN SCHOOL!
 
2010-02-03 12:15:56 AM  

crazyeddie: Bhasayate: Maybe I'm missing something. Can you point me to some of his other work?

I referenced Ruse ONLY because he is someone who (a) criticizes Dawkins and (b) is not a Theist.

Put your pants back on, my friend. I'm not saying that you held his work out as the paragon of Dawkins refutation. I'll ask anyone: Can anyone point me to some of his (Ruse's)other work? Perhaps something you see as meaningul or valuable?

Thanks!


doh sorry ... venting a bit there my bad

he wrote a book against sociobiology (essentially, argues that its pseudoscience, if i remember rightly, and i might not), and a book arguing that Darwinism is inconsistent with Theism, but I think he doesn't think those arguments are good anymore.

other than that? i dunno
 
2010-02-03 12:18:06 AM  

RanDomino: CntrBrdr
a lot of stupid going on in this thread

There wasn't until you showed up and reminded us how awesome you are


That's what your mom told me.

/Stokin' the fire
//It's cold here
///We need LeTrole here
 
2010-02-03 12:19:38 AM