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.

(Some Guy)   Large billboard outside Lincoln Tunnel calls Christmas a myth. The campaign is sponsored by the American Atheists, a non-prophet organization   (newyork.cbslocal.com) divider line 917
    More: Dumbass, American Atheists, Lincoln Tunnel, atheist group, prophets, Garden State, believers, target audience, atheists  
•       •       •

13188 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Nov 2010 at 1:44 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



917 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-11-28 07:21:51 PM  
Actually Christmas in its origins is an ancient pagan holiday that celebrates the winter solstice that morphed in to an annual winter festivity by the Germanic people, that got hijacked by Christians in the 18th century, and got capitalized in the 1930s.

It's all a bunch of stupid crap.
 
2010-11-28 07:22:12 PM  
t2.gstatic.com
I went to bible camp to learn to be more judgmental.
 
2010-11-28 07:22:31 PM  
FirstNationalBastard: Cats_Lie: I have a lot more respect for strong atheists, even if their position is hopeless, because at least they claim to believe in something.

You know, the way you describe it, the "strong atheists" are little better than religious people who need you to believe in their god.

The "weak, pussy atheists" are the sane ones, because they're humble enough to know that they don't know, and haven't solidified their thoughts on the subject into bullshiat beliefs.



Be careful. Weak atheism is not the same as agnosticism. I have a lot more respect for agnostics.

Weak atheists essentially take the position, "Religious people are wrong; however, I refuse to propose any kind of alternative, and therefore you can't possibly argue against it." It wins arguments, sure, but it also resembles a pussy.
 
2010-11-28 07:24:13 PM  
Cats_Lie:
Depends. A strong/explicit atheist believes, affirmatively, that there is no God. A weak/implicit atheist (a.k.a. a pussy) simply espouses a lack of belief in a God or gods.


Lol at the derp once again.

A strong/explicit bald person believes strongly that they have no hair. Plus, they don t have any hair since they are bald but hey apparently their are believing strongly about the fact that they lack hair.

A weak/implicit bald person (a.k.a kojak) simply espouses a lack of hair.

let me add:

A extremist bald person categorically believes with no doubts whatsoever that because they are bald, they are bald...but they are extremist about it

A medium bald person believes half strongly and half weakly that they are bald but in a mild/strong way.


All these do not change the fact that the person is bald.
 
2010-11-28 07:26:59 PM  
FirstNationalBastard: because they're humble enough to know that they don't know

Humility may keep a few people from the explicit position, but the majority of folks are taking a meek approach on a subject which they can reach an acceptable conclusion on in order to not seem as antagonizing. Saying one knows is not the same as possessing a belief is not the same as being absolutely certain.
 
2010-11-28 07:28:12 PM  
I'll just leave these here.
0.tqn.com

0.tqn.com

0.tqn.com

0.tqn.com
 
2010-11-28 07:29:38 PM  
Cats_Lie: FirstNationalBastard: Cats_Lie: I have a lot more respect for strong atheists, even if their position is hopeless, because at least they claim to believe in something.

You know, the way you describe it, the "strong atheists" are little better than religious people who need you to believe in their god.

The "weak, pussy atheists" are the sane ones, because they're humble enough to know that they don't know, and haven't solidified their thoughts on the subject into bullshiat beliefs.


Be careful. Weak atheism is not the same as agnosticism. I have a lot more respect for agnostics.

Weak atheists essentially take the position, "Religious people are wrong; however, I refuse to propose any kind of alternative, and therefore you can't possibly argue against it." It wins arguments, sure, but it also resembles a pussy.


Reminds me of:

Why the religious are so desperate for atheists approval

Link (new window)
 
2010-11-28 07:29:54 PM  
Cats_Lie: Weak atheists essentially take the position, "Religious people are wrong; however, I refuse to propose any kind of alternative, and therefore you can't possibly argue against it." It wins arguments, sure, but it also resembles a pussy.

The position of weak atheists is not lack of alternative because religious belief is in addition to the natural. Weak atheists are those who do not feel enough evidence is available to say a deity does not exist, but absolutely there is not enough evidence or any evidence to suggest a deity does. At least know who you are trying to call a pussy.
 
2010-11-28 07:32:48 PM  
Ow My Balls: Cats_Lie: Do you seriously expect someone to argue with you when you say there's no such thing as an invisible sky wizard? Some concepts of God are more sophisticated than that, you know.

I, too, hate the "sky wizard" label. And instead of "invisible," I like to say, "Unobservable." One cannot see, hear, or feel any of the purported anthropomorphized mysterious force behind our universe.

So is it okay to just say "unobservable man" since the God described in the Bible apparently is male?



The thing you have to remember is that language is inherently limited. The Bible doesn't mention God having a penis, so it can't be certain he was literally male. It talks about him being the Father of Jesus, but it doesn't state he actually had sex with his mother. Therefore "Father" is just the best word they could come up with-- not literally correct. But could you come up with a better word (given that this was written 2000 years ago)? Should they have used "ancestor" or "base class" and called Jesus a "derived class"? Chasing after literal word-meanings in the Bible is sort of silly.

There's an interesting passage that sort of tackles this problem, if you read it a certain way. John ch. 3. A supposed wise man, teacher of Israel (his name was Nicodemus so he must have been really smart) had a lot of difficulty understanding the concept of being "begotten of the spirit" (often translated as "born again"). He thought it literally meant jumping back into the mother's womb and coming out the birth canal again. Of course, it meant no such thing, and Jesus tried to set him straight. It's just a concept. A concept for which words are inadequate.
 
2010-11-28 07:37:19 PM  
Vangor: Cats_Lie: Weak atheists essentially take the position, "Religious people are wrong; however, I refuse to propose any kind of alternative, and therefore you can't possibly argue against it." It wins arguments, sure, but it also resembles a pussy.

The position of weak atheists is not lack of alternative because religious belief is in addition to the natural. Weak atheists are those who do not feel enough evidence is available to say a deity does not exist, but absolutely there is not enough evidence or any evidence to suggest a deity does. At least know who you are trying to call a pussy.


Needless to say, atheism and other beliefs (such as naturalism or secular humanism or whatever) are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But most of the weak (pussy) atheists that show up on Fark don't come out of the corner fighting for an alternative belief. All they do is sit there and say "you're wrong" without making any claims of their own. Because, frankly, I don't think they have the wits to defend whatever belief system they subscribe to. Hence pussies.
 
2010-11-28 07:37:53 PM  
I'm genuinely curious, what do you call someone who believes the following on the agnostic/atheist/deist scale (despite the rightness/wrongness of the argument):

The laws of physics and nature do not appear to be arbitrary. For existence to occur, something must keep it running (i.e. the rules, mechanics, and forces of the universe). This "thing" that supports existence one might call God. It is not apart from the universe and existence (just enforcing the rules), it IS the universe and existence.

I'm guessing Deist, but I'm really not into my religious studies.
 
2010-11-28 07:38:09 PM  
Because nothing says "reason" like mocking people who hold beliefs you disagree with.
 
2010-11-28 07:39:23 PM  
Ow My Balls: Cats_Lie: Do you seriously expect someone to argue with you when you say there's no such thing as an invisible sky wizard? Some concepts of God are more sophisticated than that, you know.

I, too, hate the "sky wizard" label. And instead of "invisible," I like to say, "Unobservable." One cannot see, hear, or feel any of the purported anthropomorphized mysterious force behind our universe.

So is it okay to just say "unobservable man" since the God described in the Bible apparently is male?

The red flags that go up in large quantities in my mind are there for a good reason. Religious people claim to know specific things about this unobservable man. For Christ's sake (if you'll pardon the phrase!)...One CANNOT know a specific fact about that which is unobservable.

So, it's probably fake.


Sounds like a black box problem. Behavioral psychologists would agree with you. Cognitive psychologists would like to have a word with you. Do you think they're worthy of the same kind of ridicule as the religious?
 
2010-11-28 07:40:09 PM  
I'm an atheist, and I love Christmas. It's like celebrating the Lord of The Rings. Would be really cool if true, but of course, it ain't.

Personally, I think the billboard sign is pretty obnoxious, but most Christians have it coming. Atheists are the one group that it is still safe to discriminate against and target, so fark you if you can't take a little of it back.
 
2010-11-28 07:40:29 PM  
A few days ago there was a man, dressed as Santa, who was holding an upside down cross and a sign that read " I'm as real as Jesus".

The Police were called, as it was reported that he was pushing the crosswalk buttons at a busy intersection. When questioned by the police he said that he would stop (pushing the crosswalk buttons) and said that he was demonstrating for atheists that were jailed in the 1860's.

My question is...

What's the purpose?
 
2010-11-28 07:40:36 PM  
Cats_Lie: on Fark

Using Fark for your sample is about as accurate a representation of the world as using NASCAR fans.

kyuzokai: This "thing" that supports existence one might call God. It is not apart from the universe and existence (just enforcing the rules), it IS the universe and existence.

Pantheist, aka Spinoza's God or, more recently, Einstein's (who calls it Spinoza's) God.
 
2010-11-28 07:41:23 PM  
A Festivus for the rest of us!
 
2010-11-28 07:41:33 PM  
Fuller:
Reminds me of:

Why the religious are so desperate for atheists approval

Link (new window)


Wow that article proves my point about the whole "smug" thing.

I think it is a mistake to assume you understand how a religious person's mind works, if you're an atheist.
 
2010-11-28 07:43:30 PM  
Epicedion: Cats_Lie: The "on high" bit is still pushing it. Maybe some Christians believe that God is "on high" but a lot of them would use the phrase "God is everywhere" instead.

The idea that there is an [invisible] force everywhere that influences everything... why does that strike you as absurd? Is it the "invisible" part that bothers you? I can't think of any "visible" forces in science.

Would you feel better if it was described as a "set of forces everywhere" instead of a single force? Semantics.

Anyway, sounds a lot like physics when you get right down to it.

You're defining "god" out of existence here -- making "god" indistinguishable from "no god." After doing so, it's strange to invest anything in the concept.


Nah. When a chemist acknowledges the role of physics, he doesn't make chemistry any less relevant. They're just different ways of looking at things, at different levels.

Science is reductionist. Religion is holistic. The two can work together just fine.
 
2010-11-28 07:43:48 PM  
Voiceofreason01: Because nothing says "reason" like mocking people who hold beliefs you disagree with.

You don t think mocking people who believe the earth is at the center of the universe or that the earth is 6000 years old...reasonable?

I find it pretty reasonable compared to having them sent to mental institutes. Overall yeah, mocking people who believe in stupid shiat is reasonable.
 
2010-11-28 07:44:26 PM  
I've decided that the tag that subby put on here was more of a prediction of how this thread would turn out than anything else. I must say the amount of wharrgarble from both sides of this discussion shows that subby had quite a lot of foresight. Good job subby!
 
2010-11-28 07:46:20 PM  
Cats_Lie: Vangor: Cats_Lie: Weak atheists essentially take the position, "Religious people are wrong; however, I refuse to propose any kind of alternative, and therefore you can't possibly argue against it." It wins arguments, sure, but it also resembles a pussy.

The position of weak atheists is not lack of alternative because religious belief is in addition to the natural. Weak atheists are those who do not feel enough evidence is available to say a deity does not exist, but absolutely there is not enough evidence or any evidence to suggest a deity does. At least know who you are trying to call a pussy.

Needless to say, atheism and other beliefs (such as naturalism or secular humanism or whatever) are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But most of the weak (pussy) atheists that show up on Fark don't come out of the corner fighting for an alternative belief. All they do is sit there and say "you're wrong" without making any claims of their own. Because, frankly, I don't think they have the wits to defend whatever belief system they subscribe to. Hence pussies.


And you accuse atheists of being smug.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a supreme being. Period. No belief system required. No rituals, no meetings, no Holy book of rules.

At least that's what it is for me. Not believing in something does not require any type of belief system.
 
2010-11-28 07:47:55 PM  
Cats_Lie:
Webster defines God as "supreme or ultimate reality." It's a concept, sort of like "the big picture."

It would be ridiculous to say there's "no such thing as the big picture."

You don't argue against the existence of a "big picture" by pointing at the sky and noting the lack of canvas and oil suspended around the clouds.

The difficulty with the word "God" is there is a tendency to anthropomorphize it. But it's not at all unreasonable to do so. The big picture is extremely complex, impossible to model with equations or by breaking down into smaller bits; the best avatar for such a thing is a sentient intelligence. Even if it lacks neurons, it is adequately complex to be best explained using that word-- "sentient" or "willful" or "intelligent"-- until, of course, someone comes up with a better word.

I think we can give the scholars of the Bronze Era a little slack, they didn't quite have the language skills we have today.

Anyway... you can't ask someone to prove the existence of the big picture. It exists, by defintion. Ergo, under this specific defintion of God, God exists, by defintion. No proof necessary. Thanks.


I'm not sure if I completely get your argument, but from what I can gather it looks as though you're referring to god as a concept, so that's what I'll address for now. If that wasn't what you meant, feel free to clarify.

Now, there's a difference between demonstrating that something is a concept capable of being (somewhat) articulated, and demonstrating that it exists.

Someone asked a while ago, "Does infinity exist?", to which I replied, "I don't know, does the number '3' exist?" (this exchange is paraphrased, of course). Now, one might be tempted to answer "Yes" to one or both of those questions, but if one thinks about it for a moment, one will quickly realize that it's the wrong question to begin with.

In a sense, things like infinity, the number 3, and (it appears) your conception of "god" do exist, but they exist only as concepts - i.e., they have some definition (however vague it might be), some relationship to other defined concepts, and so on. However, it's an altogether different kind of "existence" than the one we talk about when we ask whether some particular entity exists. And it is this latter type of existence that is the more relevant one for me (and I suspect for most people, both believers and atheists) when contemplating whether or not some given god or gods exist.
 
2010-11-28 07:48:09 PM  
CBFLATLINE: A few days ago there was a man, dressed as Santa, who was holding an upside down cross and a sign that read " I'm as real as Jesus".

The Police were called, as it was reported that he was pushing the crosswalk buttons at a busy intersection. When questioned by the police he said that he would stop (pushing the crosswalk buttons) and said that he was demonstrating for atheists that were jailed in the 1860's.

My question is...

What's the purpose?


Seriously?

Who calls the cops on Santa?
 
2010-11-28 07:48:59 PM  
JohnnyC: God is Santa Claus for adults...

Naughty or nice list (hell or heaven)... make offerings of cookies and milk (prayer or sacrifice of something)... etc.

Of course adults try to make their myth more complicated... but it's essentially the same thing.

Sadly, many adults don't grow out of it. They even get so upset that someone would call their favorite myth a myth that they might even try to kill you or burn your house down or something. Usually they just call you weird names like "heathen" or "blasphemer". Either way... they're just stories. Learn from them, but don't become an asshole because of them.


So true. You know it's weird...I recently joined Facebook and it's so strange to see all these old friends who, back when we hung out, we're about as far from religion as you could get, and now it seems like the only things they ever post are "Click Like if you think Jesus is you Lord and Savior".

I mean, adults grow out of their belief in Santa Claus because there is no evidence to support the belief, yet how do these same otherwise rational adults continue to believe these myths that also don't have any supporting evidence?

Just strange.
 
2010-11-28 07:50:35 PM  
Also....having said that...

Christmas is a secular holiday.
 
2010-11-28 07:50:45 PM  
Douchebags on both sides of the argument, is this the politics tab?
 
2010-11-28 07:51:39 PM  
Biological Ali: Cats_Lie:
Webster defines God as "supreme or ultimate reality." It's a concept, sort of like "the big picture."

It would be ridiculous to say there's "no such thing as the big picture."

You don't argue against the existence of a "big picture" by pointing at the sky and noting the lack of canvas and oil suspended around the clouds.

The difficulty with the word "God" is there is a tendency to anthropomorphize it. But it's not at all unreasonable to do so. The big picture is extremely complex, impossible to model with equations or by breaking down into smaller bits; the best avatar for such a thing is a sentient intelligence. Even if it lacks neurons, it is adequately complex to be best explained using that word-- "sentient" or "willful" or "intelligent"-- until, of course, someone comes up with a better word.

I think we can give the scholars of the Bronze Era a little slack, they didn't quite have the language skills we have today.

Anyway... you can't ask someone to prove the existence of the big picture. It exists, by defintion. Ergo, under this specific defintion of God, God exists, by defintion. No proof necessary. Thanks.

I'm not sure if I completely get your argument, but from what I can gather it looks as though you're referring to god as a concept, so that's what I'll address for now. If that wasn't what you meant, feel free to clarify.

Now, there's a difference between demonstrating that something is a concept capable of being (somewhat) articulated, and demonstrating that it exists.

Someone asked a while ago, "Does infinity exist?", to which I replied, "I don't know, does the number '3' exist?" (this exchange is paraphrased, of course). Now, one might be tempted to answer "Yes" to one or both of those questions, but if one thinks about it for a moment, one will quickly realize that it's the wrong question to begin with.

In a sense, things like infinity, the number 3, and (it appears) your conception of "god" do exist, but they exist only as concepts - i.e., they have some definition (however vague it might be), some relationship to other defined concepts, and so on. However, it's an altogether different kind of "existence" than the one we talk about when we ask whether some particular entity exists. And it is this latter type of existence that is the more relevant one for me (and I suspect for most people, both believers and atheists) when contemplating whether or not some given god or gods exist.



Hmmm well we might not have much to argue about then.

If you're struggling to see the entity-- I would posit that nature is the entity, and God is a way of looking at the holistic intelligence in nature.

The Bible never says God is a man with a white beard. It says He is everywhere, and inside of everyone. Sounds a lot like nature to me. God is the word that people used when struggling to identify that which unifies everything.
 
2010-11-28 07:52:45 PM  
Cats_Lie: Biological Ali:

Now, regardless of which type of deity you personally believe in (or not), I'd suggest that you go just ahead and present your arguments and/or evidence, rather than trying to guess at what I'm going to say next.

OK I guess that's only fair.

Webster defines God as "supreme or ultimate reality." It's a concept, sort of like "the big picture."

It would be ridiculous to say there's "no such thing as the big picture."

You don't argue against the existence of a "big picture" by pointing at the sky and noting the lack of canvas and oil suspended around the clouds.

The difficulty with the word "God" is there is a tendency to anthropomorphize it. But it's not at all unreasonable to do so. The big picture is extremely complex, impossible to model with equations or by breaking down into smaller bits; the best avatar for such a thing is a sentient intelligence. Even if it lacks neurons, it is adequately complex to be best explained using that word-- "sentient" or "willful" or "intelligent"-- until, of course, someone comes up with a better word.

I think we can give the scholars of the Bronze Era a little slack, they didn't quite have the language skills we have today.

Anyway... you can't ask someone to prove the existence of the big picture. It exists, by defintion. Ergo, under this specific defintion of God, God exists, by defintion. No proof necessary. Thanks.


I spent quite a few years trying to make my lack of belief in anything anybody I knew would call "God" or even "a god" reconcilable with their terminology just so I could get off on a technicality at Thanksgiving.

Trust me, redefining the idea that most hold of God so that it's technically irrefutable may make you feel more comfortable with it, psychologically, but intellectually you're in the same position as most -- if not all -- atheists or agnostics. This "Einsteinian God" bears no resemblance to the one spoken of in catechism, madrassa, or synagogue, and is the very thing held in so much awe and reverence by scientists who have simply dispensed with the mystical and supernatural.
 
2010-11-28 07:53:44 PM  
LittleSmitty: Cats_Lie: Vangor: Cats_Lie: Weak atheists essentially take the position, "Religious people are wrong; however, I refuse to propose any kind of alternative, and therefore you can't possibly argue against it." It wins arguments, sure, but it also resembles a pussy.

The position of weak atheists is not lack of alternative because religious belief is in addition to the natural. Weak atheists are those who do not feel enough evidence is available to say a deity does not exist, but absolutely there is not enough evidence or any evidence to suggest a deity does. At least know who you are trying to call a pussy.

Needless to say, atheism and other beliefs (such as naturalism or secular humanism or whatever) are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But most of the weak (pussy) atheists that show up on Fark don't come out of the corner fighting for an alternative belief. All they do is sit there and say "you're wrong" without making any claims of their own. Because, frankly, I don't think they have the wits to defend whatever belief system they subscribe to. Hence pussies.

And you accuse atheists of being smug.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a supreme being. Period. No belief system required. No rituals, no meetings, no Holy book of rules.

At least that's what it is for me. Not believing in something does not require any type of belief system.


Exactly. Which is great for you, because you like to win arguments, and you don't have to put forth a single proposition! All you have to do is knock down what someone else says. Pussy!

Come on, tell us what you affirmatively believe in, so I can ridicule you for it.
 
2010-11-28 07:54:30 PM  
kyuzokai: I'm genuinely curious, what do you call someone who believes the following on the agnostic/atheist/deist scale (despite the rightness/wrongness of the argument):

The laws of physics and nature do not appear to be arbitrary. For existence to occur, something must keep it running (i.e. the rules, mechanics, and forces of the universe). This "thing" that supports existence one might call God. It is not apart from the universe and existence (just enforcing the rules), it IS the universe and existence.

I'm guessing Deist, but I'm really not into my religious studies.


I would say that is simply a misleading and inaccurate use of the word 'god'. You can use it that way if you want to, but don't be surprised if you're misunderstood.
 
2010-11-28 07:54:39 PM  
Cats_Lie: Needless to say, atheism and other beliefs (such as naturalism or secular humanism or whatever) are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But most of the weak (pussy) atheists that show up on Fark don't come out of the corner fighting for an alternative belief. All they do is sit there and say "you're wrong" without making any claims of their own. Because, frankly, I don't think they have the wits to defend whatever belief system they subscribe to. Hence pussies.

Atheism isn't a "belief", nor is it a "belief system". The reason atheists can't/won't defend their "belief system" is because they don't have one.
 
2010-11-28 07:55:47 PM  
Cats_Lie: Sounds a lot like nature to me.

We have a word for "nature". The word is "nature". We do not need your word "god" to describe the word "nature". "Nature" does quite well in denoting "nature". Therefore, you believe in "nature", and "god" is just an extra word.
 
2010-11-28 07:56:29 PM  
Cats_Lie:
Come on, tell us what you affirmatively believe in, so I can ridicule you for it.


Reason.


Ridicule away.
 
2010-11-28 07:56:55 PM  
Cats_Lie: Hmmm well we might not have much to argue about then.

If you're struggling to see the entity-- I would posit that nature is the entity, and God is a way of looking at the holistic intelligence in nature.


To paraphrase a Dan Dennett quote: "Well, if you're going to going to define God like that, then I guess I'm a theist." I just wouldn't use the term "intelligence" since that implies some definite agency. "Order" might be a better word to use there.
 
2010-11-28 07:57:13 PM  
Cats_Lie: Fuller:
Reminds me of:

Why the religious are so desperate for atheists approval

Link (new window)

Wow that article proves my point about the whole "smug" thing.

I think it is a mistake to assume you understand how a religious person's mind works, if you're an atheist.


It's observational. I for one make no such assumptions, and the accusation that I do is just one on a long list of straw men and ad hominems that the religious tend to fall back on when they cannot defend their own position.
 
2010-11-28 07:59:35 PM  
myislanduniverse:
Trust me, redefining the idea that most hold of God so that it's technically irrefutable may make you feel more comfortable with it, psychologically, but intellectually you're in the same position as most -- if not all -- atheists or agnostics. This "Einsteinian God" bears no resemblance to the one spoken of in catechism, madrassa, or synagogue, and is the very thing held in so much awe and reverence by scientists who have simply dispensed with the mystical and supernatural.


Webster would like to have a word with you

Definition of God (new window)

the supreme or ultimate reality

Seems to me that makes it a pretty common definition.

I don't think you fully understand religious people. Have you ever talked to any of them about this in earnest? Ask them if they really think God is a "man with a beard in the sky," or if He is more of a "concept of the universe." You might be surprised! (I asked my very old-fashioned mother, who is Catholic, and she chose the latter-- anecdotal, I know-- but there are lots and lots of intelligent people who are religious, and they don't usually subscribe to the cartoonish image that you have in your head of what they "should" be believing if they're Christians)
 
2010-11-28 08:00:47 PM  
Cats_Lie: LittleSmitty: Cats_Lie: Vangor: Cats_Lie: Weak atheists essentially take the position, "Religious people are wrong; however, I refuse to propose any kind of alternative, and therefore you can't possibly argue against it." It wins arguments, sure, but it also resembles a pussy.

The position of weak atheists is not lack of alternative because religious belief is in addition to the natural. Weak atheists are those who do not feel enough evidence is available to say a deity does not exist, but absolutely there is not enough evidence or any evidence to suggest a deity does. At least know who you are trying to call a pussy.

Needless to say, atheism and other beliefs (such as naturalism or secular humanism or whatever) are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But most of the weak (pussy) atheists that show up on Fark don't come out of the corner fighting for an alternative belief. All they do is sit there and say "you're wrong" without making any claims of their own. Because, frankly, I don't think they have the wits to defend whatever belief system they subscribe to. Hence pussies.

And you accuse atheists of being smug.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a supreme being. Period. No belief system required. No rituals, no meetings, no Holy book of rules.

At least that's what it is for me. Not believing in something does not require any type of belief system.

Exactly. Which is great for you, because you like to win arguments, and you don't have to put forth a single proposition! All you have to do is knock down what someone else says. Pussy!

Come on, tell us what you affirmatively believe in, so I can ridicule you for it.


Please point out where I knocked anyone's belief. I'll wait. My position is that I don't believe in a supreme being. I haven't ridiculed anyone, I merely said I do not believe. That's a far cry from ridiculing anyone. You are the one ridiculing me for not believing in something.

And look, I managed to state my position without resorting to name calling. Do you talk to your mother with that mouth?
 
2010-11-28 08:04:43 PM  
Cats_Lie: I don't think you fully understand religious people. Have you ever talked to any of them about this in earnest? Ask them if they really think God is a "man with a beard in the sky," or if He is more of a "concept of the universe." You might be surprised! (I asked my very old-fashioned mother, who is Catholic, and she chose the latter-- anecdotal, I know-- but there are lots and lots of intelligent people who are religious, and they don't usually subscribe to the cartoonish image that you have in your head of what they "should" be believing if they're Christians)

If you're not talking about something supernatural when you talk about god, you're not talking about any god I know.

If you mean the word as the universe, say 'universe'. If you mean it as nature, say 'nature'. Don't try and wedge god in when its very clear that the vast majority of believers in the world fully understand god as something supernatural.

More than 50% of the US population are creationists. Yes, when people say god, chances are they mean magic.
 
2010-11-28 08:05:47 PM  
Wow! I'm not reading all that. Forgive me if this is now "off subject" or has already been covered.

To me, the billboard message looks like it could be a call to faith.

"Reason for the season."
 
2010-11-28 08:07:46 PM  
Cats_Lie: LittleSmitty: Cats_Lie: Vangor: Cats_Lie: Weak atheists essentially take the position, "Religious people are wrong; however, I refuse to propose any kind of alternative, and therefore you can't possibly argue against it." It wins arguments, sure, but it also resembles a pussy.

The position of weak atheists is not lack of alternative because religious belief is in addition to the natural. Weak atheists are those who do not feel enough evidence is available to say a deity does not exist, but absolutely there is not enough evidence or any evidence to suggest a deity does. At least know who you are trying to call a pussy.

Needless to say, atheism and other beliefs (such as naturalism or secular humanism or whatever) are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But most of the weak (pussy) atheists that show up on Fark don't come out of the corner fighting for an alternative belief. All they do is sit there and say "you're wrong" without making any claims of their own. Because, frankly, I don't think they have the wits to defend whatever belief system they subscribe to. Hence pussies.

And you accuse atheists of being smug.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a supreme being. Period. No belief system required. No rituals, no meetings, no Holy book of rules.

At least that's what it is for me. Not believing in something does not require any type of belief system.

Exactly. Which is great for you, because you like to win arguments, and you don't have to put forth a single proposition! All you have to do is knock down what someone else says. Pussy!

Come on, tell us what you affirmatively believe in, so I can ridicule you for it.


I believe in... the power of deductive logic to solve problems, and reliance on the scientific method to determine whether I can support or dismiss a hypothetical based on empirical evidence.
 
2010-11-28 08:08:02 PM  
Cats_Lie: Sure. But it's a totally different kind of annoying. Christians are trying to save your soul and make you praise Jesus. Atheists are just trying to prove how smart they are.

Actually... I would like people to be smart enough to know that their souls don't need saving. I would like people to be smart enough to know that this is the life they get and live it as such. Do not live in service of a life after death... When you die, your run is over. If you want some kind of immortality, have a kid. Then hope your genes and the training you give will lead to more variations of you in the future. With luck... your bloodline will last until the sun burns out or beyond. Of course, a few billion years is a pretty long time for any species of life to survive, unprecedented in fact, let alone your particular genes (or mine).

So do I want to save your soul if I talk about not believing in god? No... I want to save your life.
 
2010-11-28 08:09:04 PM  
myislanduniverse: Cats_Lie: LittleSmitty: Cats_Lie: Vangor: Cats_Lie: Weak atheists essentially take the position, "Religious people are wrong; however, I refuse to propose any kind of alternative, and therefore you can't possibly argue against it." It wins arguments, sure, but it also resembles a pussy.

The position of weak atheists is not lack of alternative because religious belief is in addition to the natural. Weak atheists are those who do not feel enough evidence is available to say a deity does not exist, but absolutely there is not enough evidence or any evidence to suggest a deity does. At least know who you are trying to call a pussy.

Needless to say, atheism and other beliefs (such as naturalism or secular humanism or whatever) are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But most of the weak (pussy) atheists that show up on Fark don't come out of the corner fighting for an alternative belief. All they do is sit there and say "you're wrong" without making any claims of their own. Because, frankly, I don't think they have the wits to defend whatever belief system they subscribe to. Hence pussies.

And you accuse atheists of being smug.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a supreme being. Period. No belief system required. No rituals, no meetings, no Holy book of rules.

At least that's what it is for me. Not believing in something does not require any type of belief system.

Exactly. Which is great for you, because you like to win arguments, and you don't have to put forth a single proposition! All you have to do is knock down what someone else says. Pussy!

Come on, tell us what you affirmatively believe in, so I can ridicule you for it.

I believe in... the power of deductive logic to solve problems, and reliance on the scientific method to determine whether I can support or dismiss a hypothetical based on empirical evidence.


www.tiricosuave.com
 
2010-11-28 08:10:36 PM  
Fuller: Cats_Lie: I don't think you fully understand religious people. Have you ever talked to any of them about this in earnest? Ask them if they really think God is a "man with a beard in the sky," or if He is more of a "concept of the universe." You might be surprised! (I asked my very old-fashioned mother, who is Catholic, and she chose the latter-- anecdotal, I know-- but there are lots and lots of intelligent people who are religious, and they don't usually subscribe to the cartoonish image that you have in your head of what they "should" be believing if they're Christians)

If you're not talking about something supernatural when you talk about god, you're not talking about any god I know.

If you mean the word as the universe, say 'universe'. If you mean it as nature, say 'nature'. Don't try and wedge god in when its very clear that the vast majority of believers in the world fully understand god as something supernatural.

More than 50% of the US population are creationists. Yes, when people say god, chances are they mean magic.


"Supernatural" is another of those words that is sort of vague. If you mean "apart from nature" then yes I agree. If you mean "that which is not explained by natural laws" then I disagree completely, since our ability to formulate natural laws and understand their interactions will always be inadequate.

The reason why we talk about "God" instead of nature is that nature is damned hard to understand. Not only is our knowledge limited, but our ability to apply that knowledge in everyday life is severely limited. It is a much more viable strategy to superimpose a mythology on nature to help us interpret it and act beneficially. That's where God comes in.
 
2010-11-28 08:11:18 PM  
Foxone: fusillade762:

Looks like Letrole has an alt.

How the hell do you "practice" non-belief?


Where did I say anything about "practicing" non-belief? Where? Pay attention please. Otherwise you are just trolling.


Sorry, didn't make it clear enough I was commenting on clowncar on fire's post.

its followers seem to be more hardcore in the practice of their non-beliefs

No need to get all snippy.
 
2010-11-28 08:11:31 PM  
...DNRTA, and don't really caaaaare. I pity the foo' who has to spend the night on his/her own with a bottle of alcohol while everyone else makes merry.

/will enjoy Christmas and a candle-light service with her family
 
2010-11-28 08:11:46 PM  
FirstNationalBastard: Good.

Christmas was a stolen holiday anyway.

Plus, what does it have to do with little Zombie Jesus anymore? The upcoming holiday should be renamed "Gift Giving Day" to reflect the true meaning of the season.


Jesus hates zombies

d1466nnw0ex81e.cloudfront.net
 
2010-11-28 08:12:21 PM  
Cats_Lie: Fuller: Cats_Lie: I don't think you fully understand religious people. Have you ever talked to any of them about this in earnest? Ask them if they really think God is a "man with a beard in the sky," or if He is more of a "concept of the universe." You might be surprised! (I asked my very old-fashioned mother, who is Catholic, and she chose the latter-- anecdotal, I know-- but there are lots and lots of intelligent people who are religious, and they don't usually subscribe to the cartoonish image that you have in your head of what they "should" be believing if they're Christians)

If you're not talking about something supernatural when you talk about god, you're not talking about any god I know.

If you mean the word as the universe, say 'universe'. If you mean it as nature, say 'nature'. Don't try and wedge god in when its very clear that the vast majority of believers in the world fully understand god as something supernatural.

More than 50% of the US population are creationists. Yes, when people say god, chances are they mean magic.

"Supernatural" is another of those words that is sort of vague. If you mean "apart from nature" then yes I agree. If you mean "that which is not explained by natural laws" then I disagree completely, since our ability to formulate natural laws and understand their interactions will always be inadequate.

The reason why we talk about "God" instead of nature is that nature is damned hard to understand. Not only is our knowledge limited, but our ability to apply that knowledge in everyday life is severely limited. It is a much more viable strategy to superimpose a mythology on nature to help us interpret it and act beneficially. That's where God comes in.


Behold cognitive dissonance.
 
2010-11-28 08:12:46 PM  
JohnnyC: I would like people to be smart enough to know that their souls don't need saving. I would like people to be smart enough to know that this is the life they get and live it as such.

People apply this rationality too specifically. Me, I want folks to be more rational. I do not give a damn if they believe or do not believe in a deity or all other supernatural nonsense. Where rationality takes them, I believe, will be a far greater spot than we currently are. This being in service to an invisible sky wizard, a respectable construct called God, Sol, All-Powerful Atheismo, or Her Pretty Pinkness the Unicorn is irrelevant. They'll make better choices, even if those choices are different from my own.
 
2010-11-28 08:12:47 PM  
myislanduniverse:
I believe in... the power of deductive logic to solve problems, and reliance on the scientific method to determine whether I can support or dismiss a hypothetical based on empirical evidence.


If reductionism and scientific method are the best ways to solve problems... and getting laid is one of life's foremost problems... why do scientists have such trouble getting laid?

This is a serious question.
 
Displayed 50 of 917 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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