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 | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-09-14 03:16:41 PM

Satanicpuppy: impaler: Satanicpuppy: And you wonder why people feel the need to put out articles debunking the "myth" that atheists are aggressive and rude?

See, for the vast majority of agnostics, the whole god/no god question is irrelevant. They just don't give a shiat. Then you come along, and you say, "Well, you don't believe in god, that means you're on my team, and you have to wear this shirt, and read these books, and have all these other beliefs that I have."

And when the poor agnostic says, "Hey, I don't think I believe this stuff..." you tell him he's wrong.

Uh?

Person1: "2+2 = 7!"
Person2: "No. 2 (1,2) plus 2 (3, 4) equals 4. 2+2=4"

Is person2 really being aggressive and rude?

Pointing out the meaning of words isn't someone trying to convert you to "their team." It isn't aggression, it isn't rudeness, and it certainly isn't a demand that you have to wear t-shirts or read books.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had factual evidence about the existence of God, thereby making that question equivalent to basic math!

Oh wait, you don't.

No, see, arguing about the existence of god is like arguing about Jersey Shore. On one side, we have the snookiests, and on the other, the antisnookiests. And because the whole rest of the world can be assumed to be antisnooky, by the fact that they don't even WATCH the farking show, the antisnookiests claim them, and claim that all those people support the antisnookiests beliefs'.

Yea. It just doesn't work that way. You go do your little...thing...and stop pretending like you can speak for me, hmmm?


The burden of proof is on you to show us that God exists. Not the other way around. His analogy holds.
 
2011-09-14 03:17:01 PM
The Oneth, and Only Necessary, Commandment: Try Not To Be A Dick. (We don't insist that you always succeed, so long as you gave it an honest try.)
 
2011-09-14 03:18:52 PM

KiltedBastich: Because I so easily shot down your attempt to disparage atheists for using arguments you don't understand, I already assumed you know very little about logic and debate. It appears you also have extremely poor observational skills and / or memory as well. Such a pity for you.


I hope you honestly believe you made some sort of skilled argument and/or victory and that it makes your day brighter. Meanwhile I will be busy laughing at your pseudointellectual "win," because it's all I can do to keep myself from being depressed that you count yourself part of the upper crust of the world's smart people.
 
2011-09-14 03:19:00 PM

PsiChi: On our planet, for example, there is a delicate balance that is required for life to be maintained. That includes the need for a certain speed of revolution, a certain distance from the sun, a certain mix of breathable air, etc. If any of these goes out of whack, we all die. Yet, we've lived here for, to avoid an argument about other topics, a very long time.


I don't disagree with your sentiment, however, that delicate balance is not as delicate as you perceive it to be. We live on a planet that is constantly spinning slower and slower, our distance from the sun varies by millions of kilometers during the year, and there are plenty of places on this planet where the air is not breathable by humans due to gas releases, thinning atmosphere, etc. It's not magical that we live in the habitable places. We wouldn't be here to have this conversation if we tried otherwise.
 
2011-09-14 03:19:34 PM

HeartBurnKid: If all atheists were as smug as you say, you'd have more examples.


Smug azzhole? No.

Dorky azzhole? Yes indeedy.

Send me your pic and I will post it. (Let me know if you want it posted in the smug or dorky column.)
 
2011-09-14 03:19:39 PM

Latinwolf: Grenwulf: Some 'Splainin' To Do 2011-09-14 11:09:58 AM

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.

I don't much care about this saying, one way or the other, but I've talked to atheist veterans who absolutely farking hate it when people say that.

Count me in that group.
Hardest thing ever was to convince S1 to actually put "Atheist" on my dog tags instead of "No Religious Preference"

And it had never occured to you that using the term "no religious preference" means you belong to no group nor belief system while insisting on having it replaced with the term "atheist" implies you strongly beleive that you are the member of a particualr belief system?


You're abusing the term "belief system". To be a system, you need something more than "I don't believe in X" or even, "I believe that X does not exist."

The word system indicates dogmas, creeds, and traditions, none of which atheism qua atheism has.

You're also making, yet another, argument for invisibility. Marking "no religious preference" would, IMO, simply feed into the notion that atheists don't exist by lumping us in with not only those who are religiously apathetic, but also those who are theistic but lacking a particular religious identity.
 
Ant
2011-09-14 03:19:48 PM
Obligatory
cectic.com
 
2011-09-14 03:19:55 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: [1] It's kind of an abstract hobby of mine: let us suppose that there did exist a perfect being: what attributes would it necessarily have? That doesn't mean that I think such a being is likely or even plausible.


I've been told "He" is not perfect. Nor does he know the future completely.
 
2011-09-14 03:20:08 PM

pwhp_67: So your counterpoint is that my statement was factually correct?


No, he's saying that your proof that the church is a lie also proves that murder is not a sin.
 
2011-09-14 03:20:25 PM

Hyperbolic Hyperbole: KiltedBastich: Because I so easily shot down your attempt to disparage atheists for using arguments you don't understand, I already assumed you know very little about logic and debate. It appears you also have extremely poor observational skills and / or memory as well. Such a pity for you.

I hope you honestly believe you made some sort of skilled argument and/or victory and that it makes your day brighter. Meanwhile I will be busy laughing at your pseudointellectual "win," because it's all I can do to keep myself from being depressed that you count yourself part of the upper crust of the world's smart people.


You just can't stop digging huh. After the last backpedal on how ignorant you are about debate and logic, I woulda thought you would have the smarts to simply disappear. Instead, you're doubling down on the dumbz.
 
2011-09-14 03:21:03 PM

Satanicpuppy: I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had factual evidence about the existence of God, thereby making that question equivalent to basic math!


Do you have factual evidence that there's no Flying Spaghetti Monster?
 
2011-09-14 03:22:21 PM

impaler: t3knomanser: Um... sure they will. You just have to be very, very patient. We have no trouble escaping the Sun's gravity, and we already have objects cruising away from it at speeds well exceeding its escape velocity. Traveling to another star simply becomes a matter of patience.

Which is good for probes.

A more valid question, I would think (and this goes with our exponential growth of electronics), is why aren't robots inhabiting every area of our galaxy?


What would be the point? Let's set aside murphy, and assume that infinitely self-replicating robots could spread easily across the universe. What species would think unleashing such things at no possible benefit, and considerable danger to themselves, is a good idea?

And, frankly, Murphy looms large in this discussion. Making an extra-solar jump is massively resource intensive and dangerous even for robots. Why would an AI of that sophistication even bother...Building a Dyson sphere is much easier, so why not do that?
 
2011-09-14 03:22:26 PM

Hyperbolic Hyperbole: I personally believe phrases like "ad hominem" and "straw man" were invented by Atheists to shout at people when they have absolutely run out of halfwit sayings they all seem to agree are clever.


Your attempt to justify use of fallacious argumentation will not render fallacious argumentation credible.
 
2011-09-14 03:23:33 PM

Hyperbolic Hyperbole: I personally believe phrases like "ad hominem" and "straw man" were invented by Atheists to shout at people when they have absolutely run out of halfwit sayings they all seem to agree are clever.


10/10. Subtle, effective trolling.
 
2011-09-14 03:24:15 PM

Hyperbolic Hyperbole: No, he's saying that your proof that the church is a lie also proves that murder is not a sin



So he's as retarded as you are then?

BTW: Considering how many people god killed or had ordered to be killed, I'm not so sure it is a sin to him. I think the sin might be thinking for yourself instead of just blindly following along...
 
2011-09-14 03:24:38 PM

brantgoose: No, the universe is bleak and lacks meaning. Humans MAKE meaning. They can't help it.


You sir, are pretty awesome.
 
2011-09-14 03:25:11 PM

Nick the What: Some 'Splainin' To Do: [1] It's kind of an abstract hobby of mine: let us suppose that there did exist a perfect being: what attributes would it necessarily have? That doesn't mean that I think such a being is likely or even plausible.

I've been told "He" is not perfect. Nor does he know the future completely.


That's fine, but, as I said, my interest in the subject is abstract. I'm not studying your god. I simply like to wonder what a hypothetical perfect being would necessarily be like.

I have no interest in starting from the presumptions of any particular religious traditions when I do this.
 
2011-09-14 03:25:16 PM

kgf: Shazam999: What's the one where you don't care if He's real or not?

That's the one I tend to be.

Atheists are douches.

If you don't care and you don't believe, you're already an atheist, so you just called yourself a douche.

If you don't care and you do believe, you're an idiot because you don't realize the absurdity of your own viewpoint.

So which is it - douche or idiot? I'm guessing you're an idiot.


Yeah, next time try to comprehend what I said before you try to apply logic to it.
 
2011-09-14 03:25:28 PM
Personally, I don't believe in gods, but I believe in the Phone Company.

I can't prove they really exist, but they send me a bill every month and I pay it so I'd feel really stupid if they were imaginary.
 
2011-09-14 03:26:02 PM
Does being an atheist myself make it bad that atheistic butthurt is one of my favorite things on the internet.
 
2011-09-14 03:26:11 PM

justtray: Satanicpuppy: impaler: Satanicpuppy: And you wonder why people feel the need to put out articles debunking the "myth" that atheists are aggressive and rude?

See, for the vast majority of agnostics, the whole god/no god question is irrelevant. They just don't give a shiat. Then you come along, and you say, "Well, you don't believe in god, that means you're on my team, and you have to wear this shirt, and read these books, and have all these other beliefs that I have."

And when the poor agnostic says, "Hey, I don't think I believe this stuff..." you tell him he's wrong.

Uh?

Person1: "2+2 = 7!"
Person2: "No. 2 (1,2) plus 2 (3, 4) equals 4. 2+2=4"

Is person2 really being aggressive and rude?

Pointing out the meaning of words isn't someone trying to convert you to "their team." It isn't aggression, it isn't rudeness, and it certainly isn't a demand that you have to wear t-shirts or read books.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had factual evidence about the existence of God, thereby making that question equivalent to basic math!

Oh wait, you don't.

No, see, arguing about the existence of god is like arguing about Jersey Shore. On one side, we have the snookiests, and on the other, the antisnookiests. And because the whole rest of the world can be assumed to be antisnooky, by the fact that they don't even WATCH the farking show, the antisnookiests claim them, and claim that all those people support the antisnookiests beliefs'.

Yea. It just doesn't work that way. You go do your little...thing...and stop pretending like you can speak for me, hmmm?

The burden of proof is on you to show us that God exists. Not the other way around. His analogy holds.


fark, I don't believe in god. But I also don't run around telling people that god doesn't exist, because that would be unscientific of me, to claim *real* knowledge of the actual state of affairs in the universe without actual physical data.

I think the existence of god is improbable. But improbable shiat happens, and I'm not going to fly off the philosophical deep end and claim to know things without proof.
 
2011-09-14 03:26:23 PM
letrole: More like someone trying to justify homosexuality by stating that it occurs in nature, and the counterpoint being raised that indeed all manner of disgusting practises are observed in nature.

pwhp_67: So your counterpoint is that my statement was factually correct?

My counterpoint is that you justify sexual perversion with the same logic and reasoning that would also justify infanticide, cannibalism, coprophilia, etc
 
2011-09-14 03:26:41 PM

Kahabut: 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]
[static.black-frames.net image 604x483]


Atheist - I don't think it means what you think it means. What your image refers to is the aforementioned dystheism.

static.black-frames.net
 
2011-09-14 03:27:23 PM

Charles Martel: HeartBurnKid: If all atheists were as smug as you say, you'd have more examples.

Smug azzhole? No.

Dorky azzhole? Yes indeedy.

Send me your pic and I will post it. (Let me know if you want it posted in the smug or dorky column.)


I'm quite aware that I'm a dorky asshole, thanks. That is, after all, a prerequisite to posting on Fark.
 
2011-09-14 03:28:24 PM

Dimensio: Shazam999: Dimensio: Shazam999: Atheists are douches.

Your use of a personal attack does not constitute a logical argument.

Are you a nice person? Do you care if people think you are? If you don't, then why do you care so much about what other people think?

You have still presented no logical argument.


Do you care what other people think?
 
2011-09-14 03:28:52 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Nick the What: Some 'Splainin' To Do: [1] It's kind of an abstract hobby of mine: let us suppose that there did exist a perfect being: what attributes would it necessarily have? That doesn't mean that I think such a being is likely or even plausible.

I've been told "He" is not perfect. Nor does he know the future completely.

That's fine, but, as I said, my interest in the subject is abstract. I'm not studying your god. I simply like to wonder what a hypothetical perfect being would necessarily be like.

I have no interest in starting from the presumptions of any particular religious traditions when I do this.


My bad. Not my god by the way.

let us suppose that there did exist a perfect being: what attributes would it necessarily have?

The attributes of "Light"....of "Perfect Love".... I dunno'
 
2011-09-14 03:28:55 PM

MrEricSir: Satanicpuppy: I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had factual evidence about the existence of God, thereby making that question equivalent to basic math!

Do you have factual evidence that there's no Flying Spaghetti Monster?


Nope, though I have seen spaghetti, and spaghetti tends not to fly, so I'd have to rank it below the sky jew in probability.

It's definitely not something I'd waste time thinking about.
 
2011-09-14 03:29:50 PM

justtray: Hyperbolic Hyperbole: KiltedBastich: Because I so easily shot down your attempt to disparage atheists for using arguments you don't understand, I already assumed you know very little about logic and debate. It appears you also have extremely poor observational skills and / or memory as well. Such a pity for you.

I hope you honestly believe you made some sort of skilled argument and/or victory and that it makes your day brighter. Meanwhile I will be busy laughing at your pseudointellectual "win," because it's all I can do to keep myself from being depressed that you count yourself part of the upper crust of the world's smart people.

You just can't stop digging huh. After the last backpedal on how ignorant you are about debate and logic, I woulda thought you would have the smarts to simply disappear. Instead, you're doubling down on the dumbz.


What I see in this thread is this - atheists, or in American parlance, angry ex-Christians, believing that they are correct with absolutely no proof that they are correct, and argue with the sheer inability to see their own folly, nor believe there is any possible intellectual endgame other than their own conclusions, and everyone who agrees joins the club for "smart" people. They argue semantics like the sign and signified are the very particles of existence. They argue as though their opponents (and they see them as opponents because of their fundamentalist Christian upbringing that they hated and now rail against at every opportunity as though fundmentalist American Christianity is the very soul of Jesus himself and not the perverted backwater cousin that everyone listens to just to hear how stupid he can be) believe every equal and opposite belief with the same incredible fervor that they themselves hold their own. And it's incredible how ludicrous you make yourselves look while you do it.
 
2011-09-14 03:29:54 PM

Satanicpuppy: fark, I don't believe in god. But I also don't run around telling people that god doesn't exist, because that would be unscientific of me, to claim *real* knowledge of the actual state of affairs in the universe without actual physical data.

I think the existence of god is improbable. But improbable shiat happens, and I'm not going to fly off the philosophical deep end and claim to know things without proof.


This.
 
2011-09-14 03:30:16 PM

Satanicpuppy: justtray: Satanicpuppy: impaler: Satanicpuppy: And you wonder why people feel the need to put out articles debunking the "myth" that atheists are aggressive and rude?

See, for the vast majority of agnostics, the whole god/no god question is irrelevant. They just don't give a shiat. Then you come along, and you say, "Well, you don't believe in god, that means you're on my team, and you have to wear this shirt, and read these books, and have all these other beliefs that I have."

And when the poor agnostic says, "Hey, I don't think I believe this stuff..." you tell him he's wrong.

Uh?

Person1: "2+2 = 7!"
Person2: "No. 2 (1,2) plus 2 (3, 4) equals 4. 2+2=4"

Is person2 really being aggressive and rude?

Pointing out the meaning of words isn't someone trying to convert you to "their team." It isn't aggression, it isn't rudeness, and it certainly isn't a demand that you have to wear t-shirts or read books.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had factual evidence about the existence of God, thereby making that question equivalent to basic math!

Oh wait, you don't.

No, see, arguing about the existence of god is like arguing about Jersey Shore. On one side, we have the snookiests, and on the other, the antisnookiests. And because the whole rest of the world can be assumed to be antisnooky, by the fact that they don't even WATCH the farking show, the antisnookiests claim them, and claim that all those people support the antisnookiests beliefs'.

Yea. It just doesn't work that way. You go do your little...thing...and stop pretending like you can speak for me, hmmm?

The burden of proof is on you to show us that God exists. Not the other way around. His analogy holds.

fark, I don't believe in god. But I also don't run around telling people that god doesn't exist, because that would be unscientific of me, to claim *real* knowledge of the actual state of affairs in the universe without actual physical data.

I think the existence of god is improbable. But improbable shiat happens, and I'm not going to fly off the philosophical deep end and claim to know things without proof.


He wasn't. You misunderstood. He was saying that when Theists come and say God exists because xyz, (2+2 = 7), and then you point out that that's not factually correct, 2+2 actually equals 4, that is not being aggressive or rude.

You're just arguing semanics and strawmen. The answer of course is no one knows, because you can't prove something doesn't exist, ever. When people say, "there is no god," they obviously don't have proof of that. They're simply saying, "I don't believe god exists."

The fact that you interpret it the other way is very telling of your actual beliefs.
 
2011-09-14 03:30:26 PM

impaler: Person1: "2+2 = 7!"
Person2: "No. 2 (1,2) plus 2 (3, 4) equals 4. 2+2=4"

Is person2 really being aggressive and rude?


No, but in your scenario Person one is saying something that is demonstrably false. Person 2 is saying something that is demonstrably true. They could do it rocks, or ho-ho's or whatever you prefer, and use fingers to count and everything.

God, and his/her/their existence is not something that is possible to prove or disprove.

//I consider myself an agnostic, but wouldn't care if someone referred to me as an atheist.
 
Ant
2011-09-14 03:30:34 PM

Rent is too damn high: do you believe that if your God was commanding you to kill non-believers (as the 9/11 hijackers did), that it would be a morally correct decision to kill non-believers?


Many theists tout the story of Abraham almost killing Issac as being a good thing. I'm not so sure I want to know the answer to your question.
 
2011-09-14 03:30:37 PM

Satanicpuppy: I think the existence of god is improbable. But improbable shiat happens, and I'm not going to fly off the philosophical deep end and claim to know things without proof.


So when the schizophrenic guy on the bus starts yelling about how there's invisible microscopic pigeons flying into your ears, you're going to treat that as a valid possibility that shouldn't be discounted?
 
2011-09-14 03:31:12 PM

Satanicpuppy: MrEricSir: Satanicpuppy: I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had factual evidence about the existence of God, thereby making that question equivalent to basic math!

Do you have factual evidence that there's no Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Nope, though I have seen spaghetti, and spaghetti tends not to fly, so I'd have to rank it below the sky jew in probability.

It's definitely not something I'd waste time thinking about.


I have seen jews, and jews tend not to live in the sky, so...
 
2011-09-14 03:32:19 PM

Kahabut:
[static.black-frames.net image 604x483]


1) Epicurus was not an atheist.

2) How is 33AD a victory date for atheists?
 
2011-09-14 03:32:52 PM

HeartBurnKid: PsiChi: 7wolf: PsiChi: eraser8: PsiChi: Look around you - pretty obvious there's intelligence behind the design.

What are you basing that on?

Be specific.

I've really made it my life's work to try and figure out what the hell is going on here. And, logically, I don't believe that life, animals, people, natural phenomena (e. g., stars, planets, solar systems, universes), could exist without intelligent design. On our planet, for example, there is a delicate balance that is required for life to be maintained. That includes the need for a certain speed of revolution, a certain distance from the sun, a certain mix of breathable air, etc. If any of these goes out of whack, we all die. Yet, we've lived here for, to avoid an argument about other topics, a very long time.

There is a certain graceful beauty to how things work out, and they are seen every day. You will argue that many things do not "work out." But we do not see the whole picture. How many times have you heard someone say, "If I had not gone through (some awful circumstance), I would never have learned to (some life-altering positive thing, such as love)"?

To believe in this way, IMO, you have to believe in reincarnation, which I do. What goes around, comes around. And this is where things get ugly... The way you treat people in a prior life is how you will be treated in this one. We must learn to be kind, one way or another. Apparently, we are very stubborn, and insist on doing things our own way, even when it seems to hurt us very deeply. But God will go to whatever lengths are necessary to bring you around. The problem is that some of these teaching methods don't seem to be too kind themselves.

If our conditions are so unlikely as to make the logical conclusion that someone put it all there, why is that someone and their own origin more likely to have happened by chance? That seems more like putting off the question than answering it...

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Would you mind rephrasing it?

I'll rephrase it for him: if God created existence, then who created God?


That I don't know. If someone created God, then they would be God. Which argument reminds me of this guy:

t1.gstatic.com
 
2011-09-14 03:32:53 PM

PsiChi:
Atheist - I don't think it means what you think it means. What your image refers to is the aforementioned dystheism.

[static.black-frames.net image 604x483]


I never found Epicurus convincing. If there was some kind of omnipotent thing controlling the universe, why the fark would it care about "evil"? If you've got an ant farm, do you really keep tabs on which ants are killing each other?

The whole problem of evil thing goes away if you imagine an entity who just doesn't give a shiat.
 
2011-09-14 03:33:02 PM

justtray: You're just arguing semanics and strawmen. The answer of course is no one knows, because you can't prove something doesn't exist, ever. When people say, "there is no god," they obviously don't have proof of that. They're simply saying, "I don't believe god exists."

The fact that you interpret it the other way is very telling of your actual beliefs.


No, I'm fairly certain they're saying that God does not exist, and that's that.
 
2011-09-14 03:33:38 PM

Hyperbolic Hyperbole: justtray: Hyperbolic Hyperbole: KiltedBastich: Because I so easily shot down your attempt to disparage atheists for using arguments you don't understand, I already assumed you know very little about logic and debate. It appears you also have extremely poor observational skills and / or memory as well. Such a pity for you.

I hope you honestly believe you made some sort of skilled argument and/or victory and that it makes your day brighter. Meanwhile I will be busy laughing at your pseudointellectual "win," because it's all I can do to keep myself from being depressed that you count yourself part of the upper crust of the world's smart people.

You just can't stop digging huh. After the last backpedal on how ignorant you are about debate and logic, I woulda thought you would have the smarts to simply disappear. Instead, you're doubling down on the dumbz.

What I see in this thread is this - atheists, or in American parlance, angry ex-Christians, believing that they are correct with absolutely no proof that they are correct, and argue with the sheer inability to see their own folly, nor believe there is any possible intellectual endgame other than their own conclusions, and everyone who agrees joins the club for "smart" people. They argue semantics like the sign and signified are the very particles of existence. They argue as though their opponents (and they see them as opponents because of their fundamentalist Christian upbringing that they hated and now rail against at every opportunity as though fundmentalist American Christianity is the very soul of Jesus himself and not the perverted backwater cousin that everyone listens to just to hear how stupid he can be) believe every equal and opposite belief with the same incredible fervor that they themselves hold their own. And it's incredible how ludicrous you make yourselves look while you do it.


I see a guy in a fark troll thread, complaining about being a fark troll thread. I see you in them a lot too.
 
Ant
2011-09-14 03:34:12 PM

Satanicpuppy: I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had factual evidence about the existence of God


The math problem had nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a god, it had to do with the definition of words. You claimed that atheism is a belief system, which is wrong.
 
2011-09-14 03:34:28 PM

letrole: My counterpoint is that you justify sexual perversion with the same logic and reasoning that would also justify infanticide, cannibalism, coprophilia, etc



Right, which isn't at all what I was doing.

If the religious leaders are not lying to us, or if like the other asshat claims, we wouldn't know it if they were, then why did your god create a sexual preference that he feels is sinful and an abomination before him?

That makes no sense.

On top of that, he doesn't just create this behavior in humans, he also creates it in nature where we can see it.

This is what religious people believe: That god made all life and everything is the way he created it.

Either the church's stance on homosexuality is a lie or god is one farked up entity. Personally, I don't care which of those you think is true or false. But then again, I eat pork and shellfish...
 
2011-09-14 03:34:57 PM

Ant: Satanicpuppy: I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had factual evidence about the existence of God

The math problem had nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a god, it had to do with the definition of words. You claimed that atheism is a belief system, which is wrong.


What is it then?
 
2011-09-14 03:35:29 PM

MrEricSir: Satanicpuppy: I think the existence of god is improbable. But improbable shiat happens, and I'm not going to fly off the philosophical deep end and claim to know things without proof.

So when the schizophrenic guy on the bus starts yelling about how there's invisible microscopic pigeons flying into your ears, you're going to treat that as a valid possibility that shouldn't be discounted?


It's as valid as you jokers arguing about the sky fairy, and about as entertaining.
 
2011-09-14 03:35:32 PM

Hyperbolic Hyperbole: justtray: Hyperbolic Hyperbole: KiltedBastich: Because I so easily shot down your attempt to disparage atheists for using arguments you don't understand, I already assumed you know very little about logic and debate. It appears you also have extremely poor observational skills and / or memory as well. Such a pity for you.

I hope you honestly believe you made some sort of skilled argument and/or victory and that it makes your day brighter. Meanwhile I will be busy laughing at your pseudointellectual "win," because it's all I can do to keep myself from being depressed that you count yourself part of the upper crust of the world's smart people.

You just can't stop digging huh. After the last backpedal on how ignorant you are about debate and logic, I woulda thought you would have the smarts to simply disappear. Instead, you're doubling down on the dumbz.

What I see in this thread is this - atheists, or in American parlance, angry ex-Christians, believing that they are correct with absolutely no proof that they are correct, and argue with the sheer inability to see their own folly, nor believe there is any possible intellectual endgame other than their own conclusions, and everyone who agrees joins the club for "smart" people. They argue semantics like the sign and signified are the very particles of existence. They argue as though their opponents (and they see them as opponents because of their fundamentalist Christian upbringing that they hated and now rail against at every opportunity as though fundmentalist American Christianity is the very soul of Jesus himself and not the perverted backwater cousin that everyone listens to just to hear how stupid he can be) believe every equal and opposite belief with the same incredible fervor that they themselves hold their own. And it's incredible how ludicrous you make yourselves look while you do it.


That's funny, I see Christians getting more and more insistent, and more and more violent defending THEIR beliefs, yet they have no evidence either. Kinda like the tides, you can't explain that. I'm not sure how many Atheists protest funerals and kill abortion doctors, but if you have stats, please share, otherwise the Christians win the 'We rant louder' war.
 
2011-09-14 03:35:59 PM

Sticky Hands: onions


I'm a big fan of the Gore Vidalia.
 
2011-09-14 03:36:23 PM

Hyperbolic Hyperbole: justtray: Hyperbolic Hyperbole: KiltedBastich: Because I so easily shot down your attempt to disparage atheists for using arguments you don't understand, I already assumed you know very little about logic and debate. It appears you also have extremely poor observational skills and / or memory as well. Such a pity for you.

I hope you honestly believe you made some sort of skilled argument and/or victory and that it makes your day brighter. Meanwhile I will be busy laughing at your pseudointellectual "win," because it's all I can do to keep myself from being depressed that you count yourself part of the upper crust of the world's smart people.

You just can't stop digging huh. After the last backpedal on how ignorant you are about debate and logic, I woulda thought you would have the smarts to simply disappear. Instead, you're doubling down on the dumbz.

What I see in this thread is this - atheists, or in American parlance, angry ex-Christians, believing that they are correct with absolutely no proof that they are correct, and argue with the sheer inability to see their own folly, nor believe there is any possible intellectual endgame other than their own conclusions, and everyone who agrees joins the club for "smart" people. They argue semantics like the sign and signified are the very particles of existence. They argue as though their opponents (and they see them as opponents because of their fundamentalist Christian upbringing that they hated and now rail against at every opportunity as though fundmentalist American Christianity is the very soul of Jesus himself and not the perverted backwater cousin that everyone listens to just to hear how stupid he can be) believe every equal and opposite belief with the same incredible fervor that they themselves hold their own. And it's incredible how ludicrous you make yourselves look while you do it.


Yes you feel persecuted, we get it already. You have no factual evidence to back up any of your claims whatsoever, so stop being a hypocrite ok?

Atheists don't know that God doesn't exist because the burden of proof is not on them. It's on Theists to prove God exists.

Since you don't understand even basic logic and debate, I don't expect you to understand that either.

You do live up to your name nicely though.
 
2011-09-14 03:36:24 PM
The myth about most of us being awesome is not a myth, it's totally true.
 
2011-09-14 03:36:30 PM

Hyperbolic Hyperbole: What I see in this thread is this - atheists, or in American parlance, angry ex-Christians, believing that they are correct with absolutely no proof that they are correct, and argue with the sheer inability to see their own folly, nor believe there is any possible intellectual endgame other than their own conclusions


This exact statement, minus "or in American parlance, angry ex-Christians" is just as true for anyone that believes in any organized religion. I've seen far fewer atheists (or agnostics) get fervent about their arguments when compared to people who are religious, and I've never heard of an atheist kill someone because of someone else's beliefs.
 
2011-09-14 03:38:04 PM

Satanicpuppy: Nope, though I have seen spaghetti, and spaghetti tends not to fly, so I'd have to rank it below the sky jew in probability.

It's definitely not something I'd waste time thinking about.


Come on. There's no reason to give something credence just because someone said it.
 
Ant
2011-09-14 03:38:13 PM

Satanicpuppy: fark, I don't believe in god.


So, you're not a theist?
 
Displayed 50 of 917 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report