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.

(CNN)   Road crosses ruled unconstitutional. Chicken inconsolable   (cnn.com ) divider line
    More: Sad  
•       •       •

19696 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Aug 2010 at 8:15 AM (6 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



641 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2010-08-19 04:27:49 PM  

Kazan: Truth is not subjective. Reality doesn't care how you feel about it. All opinions are not equally valid. Objecting to bullshiat is not "a dick move".



Can't wait to see the rebuttal for that one...
 
2010-08-19 04:32:44 PM  

pwhp_67: Kazan: Truth is not subjective. Reality doesn't care how you feel about it. All opinions are not equally valid. Objecting to bullshiat is not "a dick move".


Can't wait to see the rebuttal for that one...


she sounds like a product of the "Everyone's a perfect snowflake" mentality.
 
2010-08-19 04:50:43 PM  

Nattering Nabob:
Saturday. When the commandments came down the Sabbath was on SATURDAY.


I know, I know, I'm just trying to simplify it for ace. One step at a time...
 
2010-08-19 04:55:21 PM  

pwhp_67:
So you're either a very big liar or you're trolling. Which is it?


Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
 
2010-08-19 04:55:38 PM  

Kazan: pwhp_67: Kazan: Truth is not subjective. Reality doesn't care how you feel about it. All opinions are not equally valid. Objecting to bullshiat is not "a dick move".


Can't wait to see the rebuttal for that one...

she sounds like a product of the "Everyone's a perfect snowflake" mentality.


That's exactly why I've been imploring her not to breed. We don't need even more wharblegarblers in this country.
 
2010-08-19 04:55:44 PM  
Probably me, but I haven't seen so many of them thesedays. I think they've already been banned in NZ?
 
2010-08-19 04:58:42 PM  

Epicedion: ace in your face: I do believe there are militant atheists , the same way I believe there are militant theists, and both are obnoxious to me.

Can we please stop using the word "militant" do describe atheists who like to talk about atheism? It's completely unfair.


I can't help the way you take what I am saying. By no means do I think the word militant applies to all atheists and I have said so repeatedly.

pwhp_67: ace in your face: Why do you have to criticize it?

If I'm his boss, I'm not going to accept "I saw a leprechaun on the way in." as an excuse for being late.


ace in your face: Can't you just accept that someone else may have a reality not your own?

If that reality involves seeing and experiencing things that are not there, then no. That person needs help, not tolerance.


ace in your face: I may think that someone who claims to have seen a leprechaun is crazy, but I don't need to outright call them a liar and convince them they don't see leprechauns, because doing so is a dick move.


I wouldn't try to convince them of anything. I just wouldn't believe it and I would tell them that. If someone can tell me they saw a leprechaun, why can't I tell them they're full of shiat? What makes their claim so special that it deserves preferential treatment?

Also, why would not believing somebody who says something so ridiculous, and letting them know that (being honest), be a dick move?


1. I would no more expect you to accept "I saw god" as an excuse for being late. I also wouldn't accept "I saw cameron diaz" as an excuse for being late. None of that has anything to do with what I am saying.

2. They may need help if they are getting recurring visions. Simply believing in fairies isn't cause to think someone needs anything but for you to ignore them.

3. You would be making a statement that you couldn't prove anymore than they could. Neil Armstrong can tell someone he landed on the moon but not all people will believe him. A statement about fairies may as well be brushed off and ignored rather than get into some dumb argument where you both talk about the experience you have. Now if someone comes in and says the moon landing is false you can feel free to call them a liar.
 
2010-08-19 04:58:58 PM  

ace in your face: ace in your face: The ten commandments aren't very hard to follow.

Joce678: Are you making sure they don't cook or wash the dishes on Sunday?


ace in your face: So if you aren't Jewish you can't follow the bible?


You contradict yourself. You say "the ten commandments aren't very hard to follow" but goshdarn if you don't prove yourself incapable.

I'm done here, you're condemning yourself perfectly well without my help.
 
2010-08-19 05:06:53 PM  

Kazan: ace in your face: I think that the fundamentals of believing or not believing in god are a stupid point to argue since there is no real answer for either.

this assertion is false

ace in your face: since the existence of god is based entirely on emotion.

making it entirely a faulty premise from which to derive real world decisions on.

these people, with their demonstrably flawed reasoning, vote. irrational individuals are a danger to everyone in a democracy (or in a financial market....)

ace in your face: I do believe there are militant atheists , the same way I believe there are militant theists, and both are obnoxious to me. If you, or anyone, has felt I have characterized ALL atheists as obnoxious or irrational then I don't know how to help the fact that I have repeatedly said otherwise.

"militant atheist" is a VERY VERY VERY loaded term. you should probable avoid using it if you don't know that.

most people who use that term mean "any atheist who dare open their mouths and have the audacity to oppose anything a christian wants".

ace in your face: Can't you just accept that someone else may have a reality not your own?

The facts of reality are not subject to our feelings. Reality is. What we feel about that is irrelevant. someone believing things that are not supportable, or directly demonstrable false, is harmful to society.

ace in your face: What drives you to want to harass someone into believing what you believe if they have experienced a different truth?


Truth isn't subjective, it is thus impossible to "experience a different truth"

ace in your face: I may think that someone who claims to have seen a leprechaun is crazy, but I don't need to outright call them a liar and convince them they don't see leprechauns, because doing so is a dick move.

no it's not. thus excessively PC "Everyone's opinion is equally valid" bullshiat is a dick move.

if ever there was a time to quote "The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions" this is it.

this "everyone's opinion is equally valid" shiat you're selling is how an open society self-destructs through it's own "good" intentions.


Truth is not subjective. Reality doesn't care how you feel about it. All opinions are not equally valid. Objecting to bullshiat is not "a dick move".


1. Prove either.
2. Disagree. Simply believing or not believing in a greater power does not make you a danger to society in my opinion.
3. I can't help it if you or anyone else read into things or are oversensitive. Militant Christians would respond the same way.
4 &5. In this case there is no ultimate truth or ultimate reality since no one can prove weather god/fairies/big foot exist or not. Regardless of which side you fall on any of these arguments its your inner feelings that bring you there since there is no "truth". None of the above are like dinosaurs.
6. Again, you are only refuting what is real for you. Since there is no "truth" of an answer, its a dick move to tell someone they are wrong about their beliefs. Now if you tell some cavemen rode dinosaurs crazy person that never happened, that is calling out bullshiat based on a realistic truth.
 
2010-08-19 05:09:00 PM  

Kazan: pwhp_67: Kazan: Truth is not subjective. Reality doesn't care how you feel about it. All opinions are not equally valid. Objecting to bullshiat is not "a dick move".


Can't wait to see the rebuttal for that one...

she sounds like a product of the "Everyone's a perfect snowflake" mentality.


I believe in religious tolerance and tolerance in general. That doesn't mean that I personally think everyone is right, it means that I don't believe its my place to tell them they are wrong about something there is no proof for.
 
2010-08-19 05:10:33 PM  

Leeds: ace in your face: I don't think its wrong to argue different aspects of religion (with someone who is a willing participant) but the fundamental belief that there is or is not a god is a silly thing to argue.

Which is why you fail.


I've been following this thread all afternoon, casually checking in between games of Scrabble and masturbation break-time.

This quote sums up so much that I'm going to cross-stitch it into a pillow case so that it will be imprinted on my face when I wake up each morning.
 
2010-08-19 05:11:40 PM  

Joce678: ace in your face: ace in your face: The ten commandments aren't very hard to follow.

Joce678: Are you making sure they don't cook or wash the dishes on Sunday?


ace in your face: So if you aren't Jewish you can't follow the bible?

You contradict yourself. You say "the ten commandments aren't very hard to follow" but goshdarn if you don't prove yourself incapable.

I'm done here, you're condemning yourself perfectly well without my help.


You do realize that you don't have to be Christian to believe in god right? Are you aware of that? You don't have to even prescribe to an organized religion to believe in god.

If my point of this whole thing was to prove that militant atheists are equally as religiously intolerant as any other die hard religious group then I think I have done a pretty damn good job.
 
2010-08-19 05:12:18 PM  

ace in your face: it means that I don't believe its my place to tell them they are wrong about something there is no proof for.



We know, we know. It's because of people like you that the media tries to "balance" out reports by adding in some moron who doesn't have a farking clue what he/she's talking about. But it's an opposing viewpoint, and the desk jockey can't prove they're wrong, so they get equal time.

Thanks for bringing the country down a few notches...
 
2010-08-19 05:17:34 PM  

ace in your face: If my point of this whole thing was to prove that militant atheists are equally as religiously intolerant as any other die hard religious group then I think I have done a pretty damn good job.


More's the pity...
 
2010-08-19 05:22:30 PM  

ace in your face: Simply believing in fairies isn't cause to think someone needs anything but for you to ignore them.


Ahh but what if that person heard the fairy say that all homosexuals should be deported? If that fairy-listener tried to pass laws to make that happen then suddenly being a fairy-believer is not so beneficent a thing.

This is why theists are dangerous and deists and atheists are benign.

Please, please, please understand at least one post today. It's almost like you're Kanye West being told he's a gay fish. Just get it. Please.
 
2010-08-19 05:24:38 PM  

Leeds: Just get it. Please.



There's no hope. In the same paragraph she'll tell you that a person who says they saw a leprechaun is likely crazy, but that's no reason to tell them they didn't see one.

Wrap your brain around that one...
 
2010-08-19 05:31:38 PM  

ace in your face: 1. Prove either.


you cannot prove a negative, neither does a negative have the burden of proof.

you are thus committing a logical fallacy.

ace in your face: 2. Disagree. Simply believing or not believing in a greater power does not make you a danger to society in my opinion.


well see, that's where i bring in evidence and logic. irrationality breeds irrationality, irrationality in voting affects other people.

ace in your face: 3. I can't help it if you or anyone else read into things or are oversensitive. Militant Christians would respond the same way.


we're not reading anything in, you're using a very very well known very loaded term. if you don't want to convey the meaning of that term, choose a different one.

it's not a matter of "oversensitivity" it's a matter of "terms have meaning".

ace in your face: 4 &5. In this case there is no ultimate truth or ultimate reality since no one can prove weather god/fairies/big foot exist or not. Regardless of which side you fall on any of these arguments its your inner feelings that bring you there since there is no "truth". None of the above are like dinosaurs.


wrong. reality exists. reality is. reality doesn't care what we think of it.

A Vorlon once said, "The Truth is a tree-edged sword. There's your side, their side, and the Truth". Science is the process of attempting to make "your side" as close to "The Truth" as possible through observation. Religion is the process of asserting your side is the truth without any consideration of how close or not it is to the truth.

your feelings have no bearing on reality. and how you "Feel" about it matters not.

in the absence of evidence for something, the only position that is defensible is "i do not believe".

Emotion means nothing. emotion is a logical fallacy (appeal to emotion).

ace in your face: 6. Again, you are only refuting what is real for you. Since there is no "truth" of an answer, its a dick move to tell someone they are wrong about their beliefs. Now if you tell some cavemen rode dinosaurs crazy person that never happened, that is calling out bullshiat based on a realistic truth.


you're asserting that "There is no truth". You are wrong.

telling someone they're full of shiat isn't a dick move. and you know what? you're full of shiat. You're so afraid of being "a dick" that you refuse to be rational. You're so afraid of being "a dick" that you refuse to be reasonable. You're so afraid of being "a dick" that you allow for reality to be mutable to our emotions.

Reality exists independent of our conceptualization of it, and it is not subject to chain according to our conceptualization.

Reality exists.
Not all opinions are valid.
Telling someone that they're wrong is not "a dick move".

ace in your face: I believe in religious tolerance and tolerance in general.


You're confusing tolerance with "everything is equally valid" the two are NOT the same as I explained to you five or six pages ago.

ace in your face: That doesn't mean that I personally think everyone is right, it means that I don't believe its my place to tell them they are wrong about something there is no proof for.


it is your place to demand someone back up their assertions, or to cease believing in them. rationality is the greatest asset humanity has, and you're turning your back on it with this refusal to expect it of other people.

ace in your face: If my point of this whole thing was to prove that militant atheists are equally as religiously intolerant as any other die hard religious group then I think I have done a pretty damn good job.


and you failed, utterly. because you don't understand what constitutes "tolerance". you think you have to treat every opinion as equally valid to be "tolerant". this is false.

you must merely not discriminate against them on the basis of that opinion.

there is a huge difference between "respecting someone's right to an opinion" and "respecting that opinion". Learn it. The former is mandatory, the latter is utterly stupid.
 
2010-08-19 05:32:41 PM  

Leeds: ace in your face: Simply believing in fairies isn't cause to think someone needs anything but for you to ignore them.

Ahh but what if that person heard the fairy say that all homosexuals should be deported? If that fairy-listener tried to pass laws to make that happen then suddenly being a fairy-believer is not so beneficent a thing.

This is why theists are dangerous and deists and atheists are benign.

Please, please, please understand at least one post today. It's almost like you're Kanye West being told he's a gay fish. Just get it. Please.


Leeds finally said something worth you seeing ace. so i quoted it.
 
2010-08-19 05:34:24 PM  
I know of one anthro master's thesis written on the subject of roadside memorials-there are probably more. This is from the University of Southern Mississippi:

Jeffrey Caillouet (Spring 2005) - Thesis Title: Roadside Memorials: A Cultural Response to Sudden Death along Pearl River County Roadways
 
2010-08-19 05:50:54 PM  
I'm shocked at the number of people who didn't actually read the article.

/just kidding.
//it is FARK, after all.
 
2010-08-19 05:52:11 PM  
I preferred the human silouette cutouts stuck all over Bordeaux wherever anyone had been run over by a car.

/lots near the wineries
//in the middle of fields?
 
2010-08-19 05:59:26 PM  

Kazan: ace in your face: 1. Prove either.

you cannot prove a negative, neither does a negative have the burden of proof.

you are thus committing a logical fallacy.

ace in your face: 2. Disagree. Simply believing or not believing in a greater power does not make you a danger to society in my opinion.

well see, that's where i bring in evidence and logic. irrationality breeds irrationality, irrationality in voting affects other people.

ace in your face: 3. I can't help it if you or anyone else read into things or are oversensitive. Militant Christians would respond the same way.

we're not reading anything in, you're using a very very well known very loaded term. if you don't want to convey the meaning of that term, choose a different one.

it's not a matter of "oversensitivity" it's a matter of "terms have meaning".

ace in your face: 4 &5. In this case there is no ultimate truth or ultimate reality since no one can prove weather god/fairies/big foot exist or not. Regardless of which side you fall on any of these arguments its your inner feelings that bring you there since there is no "truth". None of the above are like dinosaurs.

wrong. reality exists. reality is. reality doesn't care what we think of it.

A Vorlon once said, "The Truth is a tree-edged sword. There's your side, their side, and the Truth". Science is the process of attempting to make "your side" as close to "The Truth" as possible through observation. Religion is the process of asserting your side is the truth without any consideration of how close or not it is to the truth.

your feelings have no bearing on reality. and how you "Feel" about it matters not.

in the absence of evidence for something, the only position that is defensible is "i do not believe".

Emotion means nothing. emotion is a logical fallacy (appeal to emotion).

ace in your face: 6. Again, you are only refuting what is real for you. Since there is no "truth" of an answer, its a dick move to tell someone they are wrong about their beliefs. Now if you tell some cavemen rode dinosaurs crazy person that never happened, that is calling out bullshiat based on a realistic truth.

you're asserting that "There is no truth". You are wrong.

telling someone they're full of shiat isn't a dick move. and you know what? you're full of shiat. You're so afraid of being "a dick" that you refuse to be rational. You're so afraid of being "a dick" that you refuse to be reasonable. You're so afraid of being "a dick" that you allow for reality to be mutable to our emotions.

Reality exists independent of our conceptualization of it, and it is not subject to chain according to our conceptualization.

Reality exists.
Not all opinions are valid.
Telling someone that they're wrong is not "a dick move".

ace in your face: I believe in religious tolerance and tolerance in general.

You're confusing tolerance with "everything is equally valid" the two are NOT the same as I explained to you five or six pages ago.

ace in your face: That doesn't mean that I personally think everyone is right, it means that I don't believe its my place to tell them they are wrong about something there is no proof for.

it is your place to demand someone back up their assertions, or to cease believing in them. rationality is the greatest asset humanity has, and you're turning your back on it with this refusal to expect it of other people.

ace in your face: If my point of this whole thing was to prove that militant atheists are equally as religiously intolerant as any other die hard religious group then I think I have done a pretty damn good job.

and you failed, utterly. because you don't understand what constitutes "tolerance". you think you have to treat every opinion as equally valid to be "tolerant". this is false.

you must merely not discriminate against them on the basis of that opinion.

there is a huge difference between "respecting someone's right to an opinion" and "respecting that opinion". Learn it. The former is mandatory, the latter is utterly stupid.


1. Nope. You can't prove it. So don't act like its the ultimate truth when it isn't.
2. Militant Christians would say you are irrational not to believe in god. They would say you shouldn't vote or breed. We don't have to believe you just because you say so.
3.Yep terms have meaning. Militant atheists can have their feelings hurt by being called out. If you aren't a militant atheist your feelings shouldn't be hurt.
4.Again on this topic there is no proven reality. When you find out what the ultimate reality is with this topic I am sure the world is waiting on baited breath. Good luck.
5.Telling people they are wrong about something they feel is a dick move. You don't have to accept it. You don't have to believe it. You also don't have to deride them for it. Its just like when my husbands christian coworker told his zoroastrian coworker that the earth didn't exist more than 6000 years ago. Dick move & false.
6. Religious tolerance includes not deriding people who think differently than you. You don't have to believe for yourself that its equally valid, you just have to accept that other people see things differently and you don't need to try to "correct" them on it.
7. You don't have to believe them, whether they back it up with their "evidence" or not. You also don't have to try to prove to them that they are wrong. Move on.
8. I don't think religious tolerance includes accepting everyones point of view personally, but to their face it means not telling them they are "wrong" about something you have no authority to know whether does or does not exist. I love that you advocate revoking voting rights, but then have the nerve to say you shouldn't discriminate against someone and you should respect their right to have an opinion. Classic.
 
2010-08-19 06:03:08 PM  

ace in your face: I am just as sick of evangelical atheists proselytizing as I am of evangelical christians doing it.


Wow, you called out evangelical atheists for being annoying and they decided to come in here and prove it.

At least annoying evangelical Christians (who I cant stand either) will give up eventually and say "Well I feel sorry for you but your going to hell." Evangelical Atheists can't give up and often are super arrogant but have just as little evidence as the Christians. For some reason evangelical atheists are much more inclined to force it down your throat followed by coarse insults and rudeness.

/Believe whatever you want, but tolerate other people's beliefs or you will annoy everyone more than the evangelical Christians.
//Unless all your friends are loser evangelical atheists too, then you can all sit around and talk about how smart you are.
 
2010-08-19 06:10:59 PM  

DarnoKonrad: Taking something to court isn't always an exercise in malice. There's good reasons, for all faiths and lack thereof, to keep the law on the side of secularism.


Individual members of the populace posting religious symbols on public land is equivalent to holding a religious protest on public land. It's an odd collision of the First Amendment.
 
2010-08-19 06:12:51 PM  
It's like we're watching the Energizer Bunny of fail...
 
2010-08-19 06:25:34 PM  
Ace in Your Face:

I mostly agree with your premise. I mostly disagree with the others' arguments. But more importantly, I don't think that this is a premise that you should continuously try to defend on this thread, because well, you're getting pretty demolished.

Here is why I agree with you. America was founded on the "Don't tread on me," attitude you are presenting. And issues like civil rights for all and equality has always been at the heart of society. I also don't think many would disagree that almost all of us are focused on the progression of society for the better.

With this in mind, I don't think it comes off as incredibly illogical to make the point that it shouldn't be one's place to criticize what one believes in and one doesn't. Most of the early people came here to flee religious persecution. So honestly, saying what you are saying is moderately consistent with this country's religious principles, which is that everyone has the right to practice according to their own beliefs, and if you don't believe in my religion, I don't give a damn. Just don't expect me to not be pissed when you say my beliefs are bullshait.

Religion debates are old and predictable. The argument boils down to one religion saying that they are more correct than the other, or in this case, atheists saying that they are more scientifically correct because those who believe in religion can't prove that what they believe in is true. This is why I disagree with the others. One who says, "You can't prove this, and therefore I am right," usually means that they can't prove their own assertions, and therefore have to attack yours.

Athiest or Diest, both are the same. Both believe in something. One doesn't believe in a god, the other does. It's worthless to attack what someone believes, because both present questions that can't be answered.
 
2010-08-19 06:28:46 PM  

Kazan: the virgin/whore dichotomy is litterally that. there is a difference between what you and i were call a whore/manwhore (Someone who has unsafe casual sex) than what they would call a whore (a girl who EVER has had extra-martial sex)


That's a slut. Whores get paid.
 
2010-08-19 06:30:10 PM  

ace in your face: Joce678: ace in your face: ace in your face: The ten commandments aren't very hard to follow.

Joce678: Are you making sure they don't cook or wash the dishes on Sunday?


ace in your face: So if you aren't Jewish you can't follow the bible?

You contradict yourself. You say "the ten commandments aren't very hard to follow" but goshdarn if you don't prove yourself incapable.

I'm done here, you're condemning yourself perfectly well without my help.

You do realize that you don't have to be Christian to believe in god right? Are you aware of that? You don't have to even prescribe to an organized religion to believe in god.

If my point of this whole thing was to prove that militant atheists are equally as religiously intolerant as any other die hard religious group then I think I have done a pretty damn good job.


Seriously, how are atheists militant? Did they invite you to be Guest of Honor at an _Auto da Fe_? Compared to xtians, atheists have MAJOR way to go to be called militant. Xtians have hundreds of wars to their credit, including three with actual combat today alone. When's the last war you heard of for atheism? Xtians are the militant ones, not atheists.
 
2010-08-19 06:32:29 PM  

Porgi: One doesn't believe in a god, the other does.



One doesn't make laws regulating your behavior based on what someone thought was moral 10,000 years ago, the other does.

If there's an atheist movement now ("in your face" or not) it's because laws regarding civil rights for gays, minorities, and women as well as laws that prohibit behavior (such as sodomy laws) and many other things are based on one particular religion. And we've had enough of it.

We've gotten to the point now where politicians have to feign a belief in god or they can't run for office. The last presidential election had four or five Republican candidates who publicly stated during a televised debate that they don't believe in evolution because they were scared shiatless of losing the Bible Belt and the South. We have schools trying to "teach the controversy" without a shred of science to back up their claims. We have school districts with insane levels of AIDS and teen pregnancies that can't teach sex education because it offends Christians.

At some point we are going to have to make a choice regarding what role religion plays in this society and how much influence it is going to be allowed to have.

This isn't intolerance as ace thinks it is; though it is intolerance to willful ignorance...
 
2010-08-19 06:32:48 PM  

Pocket Ninja: I do not understand, at all, the impulse to mark the exact spot where a loved one died. It seems so empty and ultimately meaningless. You already have a marker--the grave. Unless the person was cremated and their ashes scattered right there at the spot where the accident happened, it just seems completely pointless to mark that spot in any way. What if they died on the way to the hospital? Would you erect a cross in the ambulance? What if your loved one was killed during a convenience store hold up? Would you expect to be able to erect a monument in front of the Fritos display? It's a silly gesture completely lacking in any coherent meaning (even a religious one).


In this case, it's to promote religion as well as to perpetuate the hero-cop myth.

The UHPA is as free to buy ordinary billboard space as anyone else.
 
2010-08-19 06:37:01 PM  

pwhp_67: It's like we're watching the Energizer Bunny of fail...


Go Porgi and Ace.

Uh oh, more people with common sense are coming, must be evening time when people with jobs start logging in. Watch out all you unemployed self-proclaimed geniuses who spend all day farking in your parents basement. Watch out you psuedo-intellectual lazy farkbags who go to work and sham all day playing on the internet and arguing on Fark (nobody likes you).

I am saddened to see the ridiculous and extremist views presented by people without jobs or with jobs who don't do them in posts placed on here from 8AM to 6PM when the gainfully employed are holding up the economy. When we log in we see you and we know how worthless you are.

/Please stop bringing up leprechauns, Santa Claus, or Jesus, you evangelical atheists in here seem to be obsessed with them and I don't want to hear about any of them.
 
2010-08-19 06:37:12 PM  

pwhp_67: Porgi: One doesn't believe in a god, the other does.


One doesn't make laws regulating your behavior based on what someone thought was moral 10,000 years ago, the other does.

If there's an atheist movement now ("in your face" or not) it's because laws regarding civil rights for gays, minorities, and women as well as laws that prohibit behavior (such as sodomy laws) and many other things are based on one particular religion. And we've had enough of it.

We've gotten to the point now where politicians have to feign a belief in god or they can't run for office. The last presidential election had four or five Republican candidates who publicly stated during a televised debate that they don't believe in evolution because they were scared shiatless of losing the Bible Belt and the South. We have schools trying to "teach the controversy" without a shred of science to back up their claims. We have school districts with insane levels of AIDS and teen pregnancies that can't teach sex education because it offends Christians.

At some point we are going to have to make a choice regarding what role religion plays in this society and how much influence it is going to be allowed to have.

This isn't intolerance as ace thinks it is; though it is intolerance to willful ignorance...


Belief in god!= conservative christianity
 
2010-08-19 06:37:24 PM  
ace in your face

i've tried to be polite about this. but you haven't the slightest idea what the hell you're talkin gabout

come back when you understand the difference between the following items

"persecution" and "disagreement"
"mean spirited" and "disagree"
"respect right to an opinion" and "respect that opinion"
"militarism" and "i think you're wrong, here's why: ..."
 
2010-08-19 06:37:50 PM  
Oh no. We went from one troll on this thread to three!

Please read up on what's already been posted here. I'm sure that you two noobs will understand the finer points that the preggers chick can't quite seem to grasp.
 
2010-08-19 06:39:14 PM  

flyarmy: ....


keep stroking that superiority complex you have there.

the only extremist opinion in this thread is "all opinions are equally valid".

that's extreme.

extremely stupid.


you know your entire "the founding fathers blah blah" bullshiat you just pulled out? Jefferson called, he said you're a farking idiot.
 
2010-08-19 06:39:41 PM  

Porgi: Ace in Your Face:

I mostly agree with your premise. I mostly disagree with the others' arguments. But more importantly, I don't think that this is a premise that you should continuously try to defend on this thread, because well, you're getting pretty demolished.

Here is why I agree with you. America was founded on the "Don't tread on me," attitude you are presenting. And issues like civil rights for all and equality has always been at the heart of society. I also don't think many would disagree that almost all of us are focused on the progression of society for the better.

With this in mind, I don't think it comes off as incredibly illogical to make the point that it shouldn't be one's place to criticize what one believes in and one doesn't. Most of the early people came here to flee religious persecution. So honestly, saying what you are saying is moderately consistent with this country's religious principles, which is that everyone has the right to practice according to their own beliefs, and if you don't believe in my religion, I don't give a damn. Just don't expect me to not be pissed when you say my beliefs are bullshait.

Religion debates are old and predictable. The argument boils down to one religion saying that they are more correct than the other, or in this case, atheists saying that they are more scientifically correct because those who believe in religion can't prove that what they believe in is true. This is why I disagree with the others. One who says, "You can't prove this, and therefore I am right," usually means that they can't prove their own assertions, and therefore have to attack yours.

Athiest or Diest, both are the same. Both believe in something. One doesn't believe in a god, the other does. It's worthless to attack what someone believes, because both present questions that can't be answered.


+1
 
2010-08-19 06:40:13 PM  

ace in your face: Belief in god!= conservative christianity


you don't have to be a conservative christian to be willfully ignorant.

you have to be willfully ignorant to be religious.
 
2010-08-19 06:41:32 PM  

Kazan: ace in your face

i've tried to be polite about this. but you haven't the slightest idea what the hell you're talkin gabout

come back when you understand the difference between the following items

"persecution" and "disagreement"
"mean spirited" and "disagree"
"respect right to an opinion" and "respect that opinion"
"militarism" and "i think you're wrong, here's why: ..."


I think you lack self realization.

Kazan: flyarmy: ....

keep stroking that superiority complex you have there.

the only extremist opinion in this thread is "all opinions are equally valid".

that's extreme.

extremely stupid.


you know your entire "the founding fathers blah blah" bullshiat you just pulled out? Jefferson called, he said you're a farking idiot.



You are the one who said that, not me.
 
2010-08-19 06:42:40 PM  

Kazan: ace in your face: Belief in god!= conservative christianity

you don't have to be a conservative christian to be willfully ignorant.

you have to be willfully ignorant to be religious.


What is a religious person "ignorant" about? Your personal perception of life?
 
2010-08-19 06:43:20 PM  

g4lt: Seriously, how are atheists militant? Did they invite you to be Guest of Honor at an _Auto da Fe_? Compared to xtians, atheists have MAJOR way to go to be called militant. Xtians have hundreds of wars to their credit, including three with actual combat today alone. When's the last war you heard of for atheism? Xtians are the militant ones, not atheists.


Obviously you've never argued with an evangelical atheist (not on the premise that Christianity is true, just that they can't prove it isn't). They are just as militant as extremist Christians. Their smug arrogance and inability to do anything other than tell you your wrong and that they have facts that they can't articulate into anything more than repeatedly saying that the Bible is fiction and saying you believe in leprechauns (which makes less sense than real Christianity) will overwhelm them into an ignorance induced violent rage.
 
2010-08-19 06:45:52 PM  

ace in your face: I think you lack self realization.


and i think you lack an education

ace in your face: You are the one who said that, not me.


you've been operating under that premise, i've repeatedly pointed out that it is a false premise.

ace in your face: What is a religious person "ignorant" about? Your personal perception of life?


logic. critical thinking. rationality.

they're believing in something for which there is no evidence.
 
2010-08-19 06:49:33 PM  

Kazan: ace in your face: I think you lack self realization.

and i think you lack an education

ace in your face: You are the one who said that, not me.

you've been operating under that premise, i've repeatedly pointed out that it is a false premise.

ace in your face: What is a religious person "ignorant" about? Your personal perception of life?

logic. critical thinking. rationality.

they're believing in something for which there is no evidence.


1. I have an education. I just don't believe what you do. Typical militant atheist to think "well this person just isn't as smart as me".
2.No. You have assigned me that premise because it fits with your strawman.
3.Religion has nothing to do with logic or critical thinking. Neither does atheism. They are BOTH entirely feelings based. Apparently that hurts yours.
 
2010-08-19 06:56:06 PM  

Kazan: flyarmy: ....

keep stroking that superiority complex you have there.

the only extremist opinion in this thread is "all opinions are equally valid".

that's extreme.

extremely stupid.


you know your entire "the founding fathers blah blah" bullshiat you just pulled out? Jefferson called, he said you're a farking idiot.


I never spoke of validity, just tolerance. Spouting hate at people for not believing what you believe (which Atheism is just that, a belief not a fact, just like Christianity) is intolerant and rude. There is a big difference between tolerance and validity. No one in this thread said all views are valid, but people have a right to them.

And quite frankly, Jefferson can call me an idiot all he wants, I really don't see what Jefferson has to do with tolerating others. I never spouted large ramblings of Jeffersonian thought, just tolerance and kindness. Your Jefferson comment had no purpose whatsoever as noone brought up Jefferson or any major parts of his school of thought.
 
2010-08-19 06:57:00 PM  
I thought TFD was loaded with stupid today. Holy fark.
 
2010-08-19 06:57:12 PM  

ace in your face: 1. I have an education. I just don't believe what you do. Typical militant atheist to think "well this person just isn't as smart as me".


actually i don't seriously believe that assertion, it was merely an example of how assertions like the one you made and i made in reply are stupid meaningless bullshiat that distract from the topic at hand.

you've been going on about "militant atheists" all thread. that's a smear that we've been ignoring.

you're committing the fallacy of poisoning the well.

ace in your face: 2.No. You have assigned me that premise because it fits with your strawman.


no, i have deduced that premise from your statements as it is the most accurate premise to describe your assertion that "it's a dick move to tell someone they're wrong".

ace in your face: 3.Religion has nothing to do with logic or critical thinking. Neither does atheism. They are BOTH entirely feelings based. Apparently that hurts yours.


right, wrong, wrong, wrong.

that would be:
religion has nothing to do with logic or critical thinking: True
neither does atheism: false
They are BOTH entirely feelings based: false
Apparently that hurt yours: false.


There is no equivalency between "I believe X, without evidence" and "I do not believe X, because there is no evidence for it".

I've been being very patient, and very nice up to this point. and i'm tired of hand holding. I'm going to call you on every logical fallacy you commit. Right here you're constructing a false equivalence, an appeal to emotion, and an argument from false premises. You've been committing poisoning the well from the Boobies you made (that's a form of argument ad hominem).

If you would like to start discussing this in an adult manner, please do so. Otherwise you're wasting our time.
 
2010-08-19 07:01:35 PM  

flyarmy: I never spoke of validity, just tolerance. Spouting hate at people for not believing what you believe (which Atheism is just that, a belief not a fact, just like Christianity)


disagreeing with someone is not intolerance
atheism is not a belief, it is a lack thereof

flyarmy: There is a big difference between tolerance and validity. No one in this thread said all views are valid, but people have a right to them.


and there is an even larger difference between tolerance and disagreement.

when atheists start persecuting Christians - when we start discriminating against them, when we tell them that they cannot be religious, when we tell them that they cannot put their symbols on private property, etc - that would be intolerance.

Telling them that they're irrational and believing in things with no evidence is not intolerance, it's disagreement.

Telling them that we find them harmful to society is also, not intolerance given the fact that we have evidence that they are.


you came into this thread calling people who merely want rationality extremist and implying that they were being somehow unamerican, that is not going to get a kind response.
 
2010-08-19 07:02:52 PM  
erg. there is an even larger difference between intolerance and disagreement.
 
2010-08-19 07:08:07 PM  

Kazan: Jefferson called, he said you're a farking idiot.


BTW, its obvious you don't know what atheism is and you're not one yourself if you are channeling and talking to the dead. You have some really odd religious practices but I guess that's your right.
 
2010-08-19 07:09:06 PM  

flyarmy: Kazan: Jefferson called, he said you're a farking idiot.

BTW, its obvious you don't know what atheism is and you're not one yourself if you are channeling and talking to the dead. You have some really odd religious practices but I guess that's your right.


don't be so serious.. it was a joke.

*eyeroll*
 
2010-08-19 07:13:04 PM  

Kazan: erg. there is an even larger difference between intolerance and disagreement.


I am totally cool with disagreement, we are on the same page there and that is not my issue.

My issue is with the evangelical atheists spouting hate at those who don't agree with them. I love pleasant debate. I don't like people putting down the beliefs of others because they think everything they believe is the supreme truth (only because they themselves believe it). That is the kind of attitude that fuels religious wars, it's just that atheists don't have a church at which to rally them and all their unnecessary contempt towards those who believe different than them.
 
Displayed 50 of 641 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report