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.

(AlterNet)   Columnist attempts to debunk 10 myths about atheists, manages to prove 9 of them are true   (alternet.org) divider line 917
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

38412 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Sep 2011 at 11:58 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



917 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-09-14 01:18:19 PM

PsiChi: Look around you - pretty obvious there's intelligence behind the design.


Not it isn't. I'm not even entirely convinced that intelligence belies human behavior. The idea that the world had an intelligent design strikes me as patently absurd.
 
2011-09-14 01:18:41 PM
The FA does read as if someone pissed in the author's Wheaties

.

pwhp_67: Homosexuality behavior has been observed as naturally occurring in nature.

FTFY, because homosexual contact is natural and has been observed in all the great apes, humans and some other higher mammals. But homosexuality - as in the identity - is human artifice. It's a silly label and nothing more.
 
2011-09-14 01:19:30 PM
2.bp.blogspot.com

It looks like Foxy Loxy has Willy Woodchuck on his hole.

He seems to be moving at a fair clip. Who can blame him? If I had a woodchuck hanging from my back side I'd be setting new personal records for speed.
 
2011-09-14 01:19:39 PM

impaler: drmda: Is this sarcasm, or did you just confirm myth 3) Atheists are aggressive and rude.

No, but you have just confirmed the existence of "confirmation bias."



Do you really think that I really think that one bad onion can spoil the whole stew?

/not a derp
/most of the time
 
2011-09-14 01:20:13 PM
William Shatner has a tribble on his head. Your arguments are most illogical.
 
2011-09-14 01:22:46 PM
2) Atheists are just angry with God.

If I do actually pass on from this world and meet the All-knowing creator, I will indeed be extremely irate since His "design" included, for no apparent reason, nerves inside human teeth which have caused me extraordinary amounts of pain over the years. Yes, if God does exist, he's either a sadistic bastard or else a complete incompetent. There are only two possibilities there. Three if you include the truth: there was no designer at all.
 
2011-09-14 01:24:20 PM
I remember a time when I was sitting in my house, minding my own business, and someone pounded on my door. I answered it. There were three mormons standing outside. They wanted to talk to me about Jesus, and they seemed to think that I should invite three men I didn't know into my house to do it. I told them I was an atheist, and that they were barking up the wrong tree. One of them, I can only assume he was the leader, asked me, "Are you an angry atheist?" I replied with "Not yet, I'm not."

I have to say, I don't get the methods they use. If, as they claim, America is a "Christian" country, why are they still knocking on peoples' doors and interrupting perfectly peaceful wake 'n' bakes to spread the good news everybody's already heard? What would make a man or group of men claiming to be Christians to think that it would be acceptable for them to ask to enter a house with a female alone in it? It's not the first time this has happened with missionaries trying to get into my house. Being told to take off doesn't seem to deter them like it should either. I don't go banging on strange doors to tell people I don't know how great my beliefs are. Maybe I should hang up a sign.

Anyway, I happen to know enough of the doctrine of these types to know that they play missionary for their own benefit and not mine or anybody else's. They're working up credit for heaven, and that's all they care about.
 
2011-09-14 01:24:30 PM

justtray: 1. Atheists don't attack Christianity. Christians simply get offended by facts and logic


Some people get very loose with "facts"
 
2011-09-14 01:24:54 PM

Hyperbolic Hyperbole: No, but atheism (and especially internet atheism) would have you believe it's not about live and let live, because they see religious folk as intellectually inferior, and specifically that their religiosity is what keeps them intellectually inferior. And typically, Christians are only religion you ever really see being treated this way


No, Christians are the only religion YOU NOTICE being treated that way.

Confirmation bias (new window)
Selective perception (new window)
 
2011-09-14 01:25:24 PM

roncofooddehydrator: I'm an agnostic. That's the only logically tenable position.

/Militant agnostic - I don't know and you don't either.


I'm glad that it works for you, but I find agnosticism to be as logically unassailable and philosophically interesting as solipsism.

If your standard is to refuse to take a stance unless you ave absolute knowledge, the only things you can believe are statements of mathematical proof (and not even that if you won't accept certain basic axioms as true). Much like Cartesian solipsism, it doesn't really leave any room to believe anything at all... never mind the question of whether or not there's a god.

Yes, you can't go wrong by refusing to take a stance, but I always find it curious that people think that it's a virtue, especially when they don't apply that same principle of logical unassailability to such topics as ghosts, leprechauns, sasquatches, and whether or not the people around them are sentient.
 
2011-09-14 01:25:45 PM
If asked, I just say that I'm "not religious", or "not superstitious". Calling yourself an atheist these days implies a certain stridency that I don't feel. The conflict between superstition and reason must be won by attrition, not by violent words or actions. Violence will only entrench the superstitious further in their foolishness.
 
2011-09-14 01:26:15 PM

Hyperbolic Hyperbole: we've been lied to" guy - "we've been lied to" implies that you have discovered the absolute truth, which is equally pompous a remark.


No, it implies you have identified a lie or lies. When you discover someone has lied to you, if you blindly trust everything else they say you're a fool.
 
2011-09-14 01:26:30 PM

xaveth: Well, that proves it. Athesists are right and everyone else is wrong. And if you still don't believe this, stay tuned to Fark for more pro-Atheist propaganda.


You must be reading a different thread; what I'm seeing is people saying religion shouldn't be mandated in law, and people biatching about atheists being as annoying as Christians. Personally, I think claiming to know if there is or is not a god is total hubris, but drafting legislation one way or the other is demonstrably wrong, hence churchies don't get a free pass. You in some manner of cult, or just a contrarian?
 
2011-09-14 01:26:55 PM
9) Atheists have no way to cope after losing loved ones without the belief in an afterlife.

Interesting. I discovered that, as an Atheist, when this kind of thing happens, as it did to me, that this is precisely the time when religion is so seductive. It's probably the reason why religion still has the hold it has. Who wouldn't love to believe that the child you just lost is somehow in some wonderful place, filled with joy and love and no pain, etc., etc. It's beautiful and seductive and it's a lie. It's the worst lie you can tell someone. You have no way of knowing what happens after death, you have only a theory, a belief that has no basis in fact.

So, the first thing you, as a religious type, wants to do to someone who has just lost a loved one is to tell them, "it's okay, they're in a better place", well fark you, you lying douche.
 
2011-09-14 01:27:24 PM

sheilanagig: I remember a time when I was sitting in my house, minding my own business, and someone pounded on my door. I answered it. There were three mormons standing outside. They wanted to talk to me about Jesus, and they seemed to think that I should invite three men I didn't know into my house to do it. I told them I was an atheist, and that they were barking up the wrong tree. One of them, I can only assume he was the leader, asked me, "Are you an angry atheist?" I replied with "Not yet, I'm not."

I have to say, I don't get the methods they use. If, as they claim, America is a "Christian" country, why are they still knocking on peoples' doors and interrupting perfectly peaceful wake 'n' bakes to spread the good news everybody's already heard? What would make a man or group of men claiming to be Christians to think that it would be acceptable for them to ask to enter a house with a female alone in it? It's not the first time this has happened with missionaries trying to get into my house. Being told to take off doesn't seem to deter them like it should either. I don't go banging on strange doors to tell people I don't know how great my beliefs are. Maybe I should hang up a sign.

Anyway, I happen to know enough of the doctrine of these types to know that they play missionary for their own benefit and not mine or anybody else's. They're working up credit for heaven, and that's all they care about.



Damnit. Now I'll never know what Mr Mormon would have said if you replied in the affirmative!

Do you think he had a speech prepared? A special blend of Koolaid?
 
2011-09-14 01:27:48 PM

justtray: Quit telling us god doesn't like gays and that the Founding Fathers were Christians


So, why did all the atheists go along with all this "deity" language in the founding documents?
 
2011-09-14 01:27:59 PM
You can't be angry with a being that you don't believe exists.

I dunno, I don't believe that horror movies are documentaries, but I still sometimes yell at the characters for being stupid enough to open that door, etc. It's not that we're incapable of suspension of disbelief, we just find the practice inappropriate in the policy, scientific, and social spheres in this context.

it's somehow ruder for an atheist to say, "I don't believe in God and here's why" than for a believer to intrude in your personal space with pamphlets, attack people when they're feeling low with religious claims, knock on your door to proselytize, or force your children to recite religious language in school.

All those things are rude, dude. The difference is that you'll only really hear about an atheist stranger's lack of faith unsolicited if he is, in fact, an asshole pushing his beliefs on you.

If someone is religious, it takes a big chunk of their life, so even in casual conversation where you're politely making chit-chat with the checkout guy (or whatever) things like church or religious retreats or missionary work are liable to come up, kind of like how you frequently know the sexual orientation of a stranger within half a minute of polite chat because they mention something to do with a wife/boyfriend/girlfriend. But the non-asshole kind of atheist doesn't base his life around it, doesn't go to meetings, and doesn't burn a lot of time just to be an atheist-- it is, after all, something we're not. So a casual conversation with an atheist will consist of the small-talk-worthy shiat in his life: family, sports, work, dating, etc. You aren't even going to notice that they are an atheist unless you get significantly more acquainted and invite them to church or something -- and even then, they might just go. I love church, there's free food.

But anyhow, this results in sort of a selection bias where atheism is concerned. Everybody's run into the kind of Christian (especially) who is a complete dick about their religion, but they've also run into a lot more perfectly normal people who they know attend church, etc. So Christians get rated as a mixed bag. But with atheists, you've run into those asshole "convert everyone" types and noted them, but there is no way to even notice the other 99% of us because not particularly talking about something is a lot less noticeable than talking about something. It's just how human brains work.
 
2011-09-14 01:28:02 PM

pwhp_67: Therefore, stating as fact that homosexuality is a sin and an offense to some god who allegedly created nature, is a lie.


How many of these do we have to sort through before you retract your ignorant remark?


You know, there are a lot of things about which I disagree with my church. And 99% of it all contradicts The two highest orders of Jesus. But then, I believe that Christianity was largely hijacked centuries ago.

But let's be honest here. I was talking about God, and you are trying to make this conversation about getting buttdicked.
 
2011-09-14 01:28:21 PM

HeartBurnKid: Bevets: SQUAWK

And now that our irrelevant parroting, quote-mining, and blatant appeals to authority out of the way, I'd like to know which 9 subby thinks author of TFA is guilty of. I think that'd be more telling of subby than the author, mind.


I've often said that the submitters name should be listed so they could be made fun of like in any other forum. It's like Drew purposely protects the trolls, or else he's afraid of people noticing a pattern of favoritism allowing certain people getting their posts arrpoved.
 
2011-09-14 01:28:39 PM
I see after reading granulorhoek's post that he has the reasoning ability of a young child. Nevermind.

KiltedBastich:

derp

Bevets:

Acting morally and having a philosophical justification for your actions are two separate issues.

Ennuipoet:

If atheist don't have a moral code but only a philosophical justification for not murdering doctors, blowing up abortion clinics, flying planes into buildings and stealing candy from babies, why are the prisons not full of atheists? If we are so amoral where are the atheist crimes of passion? Why are we not killing everyone that offends us?

Bevets:

You missed my point.

deadcrickets:

So you are telling me that since Christians would not otherwise act in a right manner and might murder me if it weren't for their God... that they are psychopaths?

Why would Christians who become atheists act differently than other atheists? Do you have any data to support your views?
 
2011-09-14 01:28:44 PM

drmda: JPJ007: A challenger appears: The only "problem" I have with Atheists is they spend too much time critizing Christianity and ignore Islam. I understand why though, if you talk crap about Islam they'll blow you up, if you talk crap about Christianity they'll usually just pray for you or leer at your unapprovingly.

That's mostly because, in the US at least, it's not the Muslims trying to legislate their morality or cripple science education.


So, as more muslims immigrate to the U.S. we can expect that atheists will spend less time criticizing christians and more time on muslims.
That's a win for our side boys!


Many of the "new atheists" that people think are "militant" are quite outspoken against Islam. See Sam Harris for example. The common joe-schmoe on the street angry atheist is mostly going to be angry about the religion they had to free themselves from which is most likely going to be Christianity in this country. Go to a country where another religion is prominent and find someone who angrily abandoned it; chances are you'll find the same kind of statistics.
 
2011-09-14 01:28:58 PM

FitzShivering: drmda: A challenger appears: The only "problem" I have with Atheists is they spend too much time critizing Christianity and ignore Islam. I understand why though, if you talk crap about Islam they'll blow you up, if you talk crap about Christianity they'll usually just pray for you or leer at your unapprovingly.

Yeah, why attack only christianity?

This is a myth.

Do not associate the idiot left-leaning sycophants you see on television with all atheists, just as you shouldn't associate the Fox News broadcasters with all Christians.


Yours is the only response to my comment that has had any merit (so far.) Most of the responders tried to deflect the observation by saying since Christianity is the dominant religion in the West that it wouldn't make sense to criticize Islam instead of address the point. I believe you're right about the tendency to lean left with the vocal Atheists that had me painting with a wider brush than I should have. It's a shame that their embedded political correctness makes them hypocrites of sorts. My post was really to see what sort of responses I would get and I believe I have all the information I need. Thanks.
 
2011-09-14 01:29:23 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: roncofooddehydrator: I'm an agnostic. That's the only logically tenable position.

/Militant agnostic - I don't know and you don't either.

I'm glad that it works for you, but I find agnosticism to be as logically unassailable and philosophically interesting as solipsism.

If your standard is to refuse to take a stance unless you ave absolute knowledge, the only things you can believe are statements of mathematical proof (and not even that if you won't accept certain basic axioms as true). Much like Cartesian solipsism, it doesn't really leave any room to believe anything at all... never mind the question of whether or not there's a god.

Yes, you can't go wrong by refusing to take a stance, but I always find it curious that people think that it's a virtue, especially when they don't apply that same principle of logical unassailability to such topics as ghosts, leprechauns, sasquatches, and whether or not the people around them are sentient.


Heh. My stance about my own atheism is that while I can never prove God doesn't exist (because you can never prove a negative), "God doesn't exist" is the limit to the function of "Does God Exist." The line never quite gets to "no" but it's so close that I'm just going to go ahead and say no anyway. I mean, 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001 isn't 0, but it's close farking enough.

/I should actually graph that. It's easier to visualize than read.
 
2011-09-14 01:29:50 PM

Gordon Bennett: See, this is why I have chosen to go with polytheism. There are plenty of gods out there, and you never quite know when one might be useful. So it's nice to pick and choose the ones you want at any given time. Or make up new ones on the spot if needs be.


culture.pagannewswirecollective.com

\A must read, people
\\Dammit, Quick!!!!
 
2011-09-14 01:30:10 PM

PsiChi: I don't see how anyone who has studied Life can be an atheist, someone who does not believe in God. Look around you - pretty obvious there's intelligence behind the design.


I'll only point out that this is an assertion and that I don't agree with the contention.

What I could believe is someone not believing that God is perfect, or all-good. This is called "dystheism." You don't hear too much about that, but that seems much more reasonable than atheism.

Is it intellectually dishonest to say you don't believe in God, when in fact you just can't bring yourself to believe that God would let all that is bad occur?


When I look at the universe and assume, for the sake of argument, that a god created it, I find that the evidence does not point to either a good god or an evil god but, rather, a remote and unconcerned god that doesn't appear to involve itself with its creation.

In other words, I find myself being pointed towards a Deistic god. Since Deism is functionally indistinguishable from atheism, except for an ontological quibble, I don't find much utility in that line of thought.
 
2011-09-14 01:30:37 PM

Jim_Callahan: You can't be angry with a being that you don't believe exists.

I dunno, I don't believe that horror movies are documentaries, but I still sometimes yell at the characters for being stupid enough to open that door, etc. It's not that we're incapable of suspension of disbelief, we just find the practice inappropriate in the policy, scientific, and social spheres in this context.

it's somehow ruder for an atheist to say, "I don't believe in God and here's why" than for a believer to intrude in your personal space with pamphlets, attack people when they're feeling low with religious claims, knock on your door to proselytize, or force your children to recite religious language in school.

All those things are rude, dude. The difference is that you'll only really hear about an atheist stranger's lack of faith unsolicited if he is, in fact, an asshole pushing his beliefs on you.

If someone is religious, it takes a big chunk of their life, so even in casual conversation where you're politely making chit-chat with the checkout guy (or whatever) things like church or religious retreats or missionary work are liable to come up, kind of like how you frequently know the sexual orientation of a stranger within half a minute of polite chat because they mention something to do with a wife/boyfriend/girlfriend. But the non-asshole kind of atheist doesn't base his life around it, doesn't go to meetings, and doesn't burn a lot of time just to be an atheist-- it is, after all, something we're not. So a casual conversation with an atheist will consist of the small-talk-worthy shiat in his life: family, sports, work, dating, etc. You aren't even going to notice that they are an atheist unless you get significantly more acquainted and invite them to church or something -- and even then, they might just go. I love church, there's free food.

But anyhow, this results in sort of a selection bias where atheism is concerned. Everybody's run into the kind of Christian (especially) who is a complete dick about their religion, but they've also run into a lot more perfectly normal people who they know attend church, etc. So Christians get rated as a mixed bag. But with atheists, you've run into those asshole "convert everyone" types and noted them, but there is no way to even notice the other 99% of us because not particularly talking about something is a lot less noticeable than talking about something. It's just how human brains work.


I think you're right.
 
2011-09-14 01:32:32 PM

Maus III: Jim_Callahan: You can't be angry with a being that you don't believe exists.

I dunno, I don't believe that horror movies are documentaries, but I still sometimes yell at the characters for being stupid enough to open that door, etc. It's not that we're incapable of suspension of disbelief, we just find the practice inappropriate in the policy, scientific, and social spheres in this context.

it's somehow ruder for an atheist to say, "I don't believe in God and here's why" than for a believer to intrude in your personal space with pamphlets, attack people when they're feeling low with religious claims, knock on your door to proselytize, or force your children to recite religious language in school.

All those things are rude, dude. The difference is that you'll only really hear about an atheist stranger's lack of faith unsolicited if he is, in fact, an asshole pushing his beliefs on you.

If someone is religious, it takes a big chunk of their life, so even in casual conversation where you're politely making chit-chat with the checkout guy (or whatever) things like church or religious retreats or missionary work are liable to come up, kind of like how you frequently know the sexual orientation of a stranger within half a minute of polite chat because they mention something to do with a wife/boyfriend/girlfriend. But the non-asshole kind of atheist doesn't base his life around it, doesn't go to meetings, and doesn't burn a lot of time just to be an atheist-- it is, after all, something we're not. So a casual conversation with an atheist will consist of the small-talk-worthy shiat in his life: family, sports, work, dating, etc. You aren't even going to notice that they are an atheist unless you get significantly more acquainted and invite them to church or something -- and even then, they might just go. I love church, there's free food.

But anyhow, this results in sort of a selection bias where atheism is concerned. Everybody's run into the kind of Christian (especially) who is a complete dick about their religion, but they've also run into a lot more perfectly normal people who they know attend church, etc. So Christians get rated as a mixed bag. But with atheists, you've run into those asshole "convert everyone" types and noted them, but there is no way to even notice the other 99% of us because not particularly talking about something is a lot less noticeable than talking about something. It's just how human brains work.

I think you're right.


i think he'shiat the nail on the head
 
2011-09-14 01:32:34 PM

snuff3r:

I don't need you to tolerate me, i need you to keep your personal beliefs to yourselves.


Really? That is your need. To not hear or know of the personal beliefs of others. You sound afraid.
 
2011-09-14 01:32:35 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: trappedspirit: 2) Atheists are just angry with God.

Well, I've seen a lot that sure do protest too much, and strangely only about the one particular branch of one particular religion they were raised in and haven't been able to shake the guilt of. So yeah, there's some "rebellious teenagers" out there in the quest for defining a personal cosmology. They are usually the loudest and therefore get the most attention.

I'll admit that there's some truth to this. Coming out as an atheist can be a hard thing in a culture that puts a premium on religious beliefs, and I've spoken to more than a few atheists who have been effectively disowned because of it.

When that happens, a certain amount of anger is natural and normal, and it makes sense that it'd be focused on the religion that the person is leaving behind, and you're correct that this does make up a certain fraction of atheist rhetoric and that's it's a fairly vocal segment.

However, I hate the implication that the only good atheist is a quiet atheist. In almost any other area of thought, it's considered perfectly normal to advocate for positions that you believe to be true. We don't, in general, just bash people for espousing political, philosophical, or religious beliefs (although we might bash the specific beliefs and arguments made for them), but there's this weird consensus that atheism is an exception and that it's gauche to make any arguments at all in favor of it when even the sloppiest religious apologist gets a free pass to espouse theism at the expense of atheism.

On principle, I don't like closets, and I think that this attitude is geared towards trying to keep atheists in the closet. Having come from an era where being an open atheist could cost you your job, your family connections, and make you a social pariah, I think that I owe a debt of thanks to people like Dawkins and Hitchens for getting atheism out in the public sphere and for making it easier for people to openly declare their atheism.

Yes, their rhetoric was often obnoxious, but when the polite thing is to be silent and invisible, it may well be the case that you need a bit of confrontationism to break through the social status quo.

To borrow an example from the gay rights movement, chanting "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!" wasn't a very nice thing to say. But it was effective.


THIS a million times over. Not that its the same but a similar sentiment has come with every out movement. "OK, OK, we get it. You are black/female/gay/atheist, now shut up and don't let me hear or see you being that".
 
2011-09-14 01:33:01 PM

WhackingDay: 9) Atheists have no way to cope after losing loved ones without the belief in an afterlife.

Interesting. I discovered that, as an Atheist, when this kind of thing happens, as it did to me, that this is precisely the time when religion is so seductive. It's probably the reason why religion still has the hold it has. Who wouldn't love to believe that the child you just lost is somehow in some wonderful place, filled with joy and love and no pain, etc., etc. It's beautiful and seductive and it's a lie. It's the worst lie you can tell someone. You have no way of knowing what happens after death, you have only a theory, a belief that has no basis in fact.

So, the first thing you, as a religious type, wants to do to someone who has just lost a loved one is to tell them, "it's okay, they're in a better place", well fark you, you lying douche.


I lost my dad and also my father-in-law two months apart last year. My dad's service was a celebration of his life. It was very touching for us to see how he'd moved people in his 72 years on Earth. My father-in-law's service was a 45-minute lecture on how if we accept Christ into our lives, we'll get to see Ted again. Which one was more comforting, the one with platitudes and lies, or the one with fond memories and funny stories?
 
2011-09-14 01:33:40 PM
So, as more muslims immigrate to the U.S. we can expect that atheists will spend less time criticizing christians and more time on muslims. That's a win for our side boys!

I'm glad that it works for you, but I find agnosticism to be as logically unassailable and philosophically interesting as solipsism. If your standard is to refuse to take a stance unless you ave absolute knowledge, the only things you can believe are statements of mathematical proof (and not even that if you won't accept certain basic axioms as true). Much like Cartesian solipsism, it doesn't really leave any room to believe anything at all... never mind the question of whether or not there's a god.

Yes, you can't go wrong by refusing to take a stance, but I always find it curious that people think that it's a virtue, especially when they don't apply that same principle of logical unassailability to such topics as ghosts, trolls, spammers, .Net developers, on-line retailers who have been in business for thirty years, Eskimos, leprechauns, sasquatches, and whether or not the people around them are sentient.
 
2011-09-14 01:33:44 PM

Leeds: Damnit. Now I'll never know what Mr Mormon would have said if you replied in the affirmative!

Do you think he had a speech prepared? A special blend of Koolaid?



I think I remember a slight odor of chloroform, but yes, I think he'd been trained on how to deal with angry atheists, and probably had some snappy comebacks he wanted to test out, or a theory that all atheists are angry at god and could be brought round to see it his way.
 
2011-09-14 01:33:48 PM

Ennuipoet: Bevets: 6) Atheists don't have a moral code.

Acting morally and having a philosophical justification for your actions are two separate issues.



I think this one bothers the me the most. If atheist don't have a moral code but only a philosophical justification for not murdering doctors, blowing up abortion clinics, flying planes into buildings and stealing candy from babies, why are the prisons not full of atheists? If we are so amoral where are the atheist crimes of passion? Why are we not killing everyone that offends us? Why aren't atheists killing their wives for cheating on them? Why aren't atheists robbing banks? After all, we have no moral code to prevent us from acting any way we choose.

To put it another way, considering the how much people like Bevets annoy me, why have I not beat them severely with a Ball Peen Hammer? One, I have a moral code and two, I know the laws of humanity will punish me. The laws of god, not so much.


Well, one could argue that at some point or another, your parents or your parents' parents were religious, or their ancestors were religious and learned their "moral code" from that and if by chance someone in your immediate family is atheist, then they only learned it because of a religious person beforehand.

/Though I think that's ridiculous, because society and culture just shapes and forms how we are.
//Like how Italian mobs are extremely religious and go to church but still are criminals.
///Or women go nuts over fashion for some reason.
 
2011-09-14 01:34:46 PM

PsiChi: I don't see how anyone who has studied Life can be an atheist, someone who does not believe in God. Look around you - pretty obvious there's intelligence behind the design.


It appears Bishop Paley has joined us. How's it going, Your Excellency?
 
2011-09-14 01:34:55 PM

drmda: justtray: Quit telling us god doesn't like gays and that the Founding Fathers were Christians

So, why did all the atheists go along with all this "deity" language in the founding documents?


No one said that the founders were atheists. It's pretty clear that a majority of them (particularly the influential ones) were Deists.

It's also interesting that you mention "founding documents" without specifying which ones you're referring to.

The Declaration does, indeed, reference a Creator. However, given the deistic sentiments of the authors, it's a far stretch to suppose that they're specifically referencing a certain Judean carpenter.

And, of course, the Constitution, which is the document that defines the legal framework of the country, not only lacks any mentions of creators (deistic or otherwise), it specifically states that the government has no place in that discussion.
 
2011-09-14 01:35:59 PM
#6 bugs me the most. I reject the assumption that one needs to believe in an all-knowing, all-seeing magical father figure in the sky ready to punish us in order to be a good person. I'd turn that assumption around and posit that the type of people who assume that of atheists do so because they themselves need the fear of Godly retribution to keep them moral.
 
2011-09-14 01:36:51 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: snuff3r:

I don't need you to tolerate me, i need you to keep your personal beliefs to yourselves.

Really? That is your need. To not hear or know of the personal beliefs of others. You sound afraid.


No, actually, our need is to not have jerks knock on our doors and proselytize to us during dinner. Our need is to not have jerks try to legislate based on their religious doctrines. Our need is to not have people hate us for simply being.
 
2011-09-14 01:37:36 PM

xaveth: Well, that proves it. Athesists are right and everyone else is wrong. And if you still don't believe this, stay tuned to Fark for more pro-Atheist propaganda.


Well, empirically, we are correct and you guys aren't. Any competent philosopher will note that empiricism isn't the only logically self-consistent philosophy, though, so the question of the existence of a generic divine being is technically still open.

Of course, in philosophy any self-contradictory construct is invalid, and most specific deities fall into that category. The usual Christian view of god, for instance, is a logical contradiction in several major ways, the most well-known one being the problem of evil. So the Christian god definitely does not exist. Flying spaghetti monster's still possible, since there really aren't a suite of stated powers, duties, and characteristics associated. This is why Christians bringing up logic or philosophy in reference to this matter makes me chuckle a bit.
 
2011-09-14 01:37:39 PM

Marley'sGirl: TsarTom: Rev. Skarekroe: 1) There are no atheists in foxholes.

That's not a myth, it's just an old saying intended to point out the horrors of war.

Interesting. My take on it was always: "When the chips are down, the important things become apparent." or some such.

/atheist

I interpret it as: "When things get bad enough, even an atheist will ask God for help as a last resort" I believe it to be true - what have you got to lose at that point?


Exactly. I obviously can't prove it, but I bet that on any given Sunday in church, at least half the people there don't believe a lick of what they're hearing, and are simply hedging their bets just in case.
 
2011-09-14 01:37:52 PM
Seriously? No one has linked the Bevets card?
 
2011-09-14 01:38:06 PM
Still no cure for retarded, trolling subbys or the people who greenlight them...
 
2011-09-14 01:38:11 PM

PsiChi: Look around you - pretty obvious there's intelligence behind the design.


What are you basing that on?

Be specific.
 
rpm
2011-09-14 01:38:58 PM

enforcerpsu: That is a terrible analogy and it doesn't even make sense.

I get what the original comes from. That's easy. Yours? Not so much.


I'm guessing this is what he was going for:

The deceased is now in eternal bliss in heaven with god. Why are you crying?
 
2011-09-14 01:39:23 PM

kronicfeld: Atheists are just jealous of Jesus's ripped abs.


Dennis: I don't wanna get too bulky.
Dee: Right.
Dennis: I wanna stay nice and lean and tight. I wanna get that Jesus on the cross look. You know what I mean?
Dee: I see what you're saying. I think that crucifixion must have been really good for your core because...
Dennis: Oh, absolutely. Jesus had, like, the best abs. He had the right idea. Hey, he knew: no pain, no gain.
Dee: He had good messages.
Dennis: I'm sure he started that.
 
2011-09-14 01:39:45 PM

eraser8: PsiChi: Look around you - pretty obvious there's intelligence behind the design.

What are you basing that on?

Be specific.


Moon, humans, stars, Earth. Are you stupid? How could a human vagina "just appear out of the nothing"?
 
2011-09-14 01:40:36 PM

drmda: justtray: Quit telling us god doesn't like gays and that the Founding Fathers were Christians

So, why did all the atheists go along with all this "deity" language in the founding documents?


First, that wasn't my quote.

Second, you're referring to "On the day of our Lord?" I presume? Because that was the standard way of dating documents back then.

Are you really this damn ignorant? Stop posting and go back to school.
 
2011-09-14 01:40:38 PM

PsiChi: I don't see how anyone who has studied Life can be an atheist, someone who does not believe in God. Look around you - pretty obvious there's intelligence behind the design.

What I could believe is someone not believing that God is perfect, or all-good. This is called "dystheism." You don't hear too much about that, but that seems much more reasonable than atheism.

Is it intellectually dishonest to say you don't believe in God, when in fact you just can't bring yourself to believe that God would let all that is bad occur?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 300x300]


*looks around*

Really? Because from where I'm standing and looking around, it seems like everything was done pretty half-assed at this point. Unless your going to say that Cancer and the other multitudes of diseases are also part of this intelligent design. Hell, the fact that we have so many different organs performing various functions screams "cobbled together ram-shackle biology" to me. Why not design a single super organ that just does everything? Hell, an intelligent design would be self sustaining! Why design life on earth to be so fragile? Hell, why design the planet to be so harsh?

Our existence is a nothing more than a minor infection to the universe, a glorious accident that we are all fortunate enough to be a part of. I plan to enjoy my time here as much as I can without worrying about the rest of it.
 
2011-09-14 01:41:09 PM

Bevets: derp


I love how the best you can do is link back to a thread with you doing a grade-school copy-paste "I know you are but what am I?" schtick. You've literally got nothing. A crude attempt at an ad hominem mockery combined with "NO U!" is all you can manage to address my critique of your basic motivations.

Do you not get that you are proving my point? Do you not get that by so behaviong, you are underlining and supporting my thesis? You would be better served to post nothing at all than to link back to a thread where you attempted to ignorantly argue by what amounts to "Nuh-uh! YOU are, so THERE!"

Well obviously not, it would seem. Just another example of irrational ego-defense, even more blatant than the anti-science quote mining. It's so pitiful that you can't separate yourself from your ego-involved ideology long enough to come to the basic realization that other people do not interpret the world the same way you do.
 
2011-09-14 01:41:10 PM
I don't know why people rag on Bevets all the time. I like his quotes, but I don't feel the need to defend my beliefs, or attack his.

/Secular humanist
 
rpm
2011-09-14 01:41:14 PM

Maus III: Moon, humans, stars, Earth. Are you stupid? How could a human vagina "just appear out of the nothing"?


Who put the waste treatment plant next to the amusement park?
 
Displayed 50 of 917 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report