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.

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

38423 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Sep 2011 at 11:58 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



917 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-09-14 03:39:03 PM  

Shazam999: 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.


Well, then you learned something today. Maybe you won't judge atheists so ignorantly in the future now.
 
2011-09-14 03:39:29 PM  

Mikey1969: 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.


Agreed. When I drive home after work, I will see exactly 4 church billboard signs proclaiming some form of theism.
 
2011-09-14 03:40:43 PM  

justtray:
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.


You're trying to have it both ways. If a theist believes in god, that's 2+2=7. But if you believe there is no god, well, that's just a belief, not intended to be factual, like, for example, 2+2=4.

I think you'll find many theists will shy away from offering "proof" of the existence of god, and will instead speak of faith and belief. And, at that point, if you do not shut up, and walk away, you're being just as much of an irrational douchebag as the theist who claims that the existence of the (insert holy book here) proves the existence of god.
 
2011-09-14 03:40:53 PM  

Selfabortion: Well, first of all, Buddhism is an atheistic religion anyway.


Yeah, until you get into all the parts about supernatural stuff such as bodhisattvas, arhats, reincarnation, spirits of a zillion varieties, prayers for intercession, hell, and all the other stuff that Westernized Buddhism tries to pretend are just "metaphors" as if the millions of people who adhere to the religion don't believe in them.
 
2011-09-14 03:41:46 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.


Brilliant! An ad hominem and a straw man all in one. You've been doing this for a while!
 
2011-09-14 03:42:22 PM  

pwhp_67: pwhp_67:
The Catholic Church says homosexuality is wrong.

Homosexuality has been observed as naturally occurring in nature.

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


That argument only works if you assume there is no free will. Part of the point of morality is to separate humanity from the natural world as a matter of choice. The animal kingdom is full of naturally occurring behaviors that most people would consider immoral when humans do it to one another. An imbalance in an ecosystem -- like a loss of an apex predator -- leads to a natural destruction of the ecosystem.

If a deer population spikes due to the loss of an ecosystem's apex predator and those deer proceed to overfeed on the trees to the point of deforestation (something that happened in Yellowstone), we don't consider the deer immoral. Most of us consider the clear cutting of a forest by humans to be immoral, however.

I'm not arguing that homosexuality is immoral, just that your argument is very flawed.
 
2011-09-14 03:42:42 PM  
religion = socially advantageous group with a specific socially accepted delusion.

probably more than half of any religious sect have different beliefs from the specific written creed of their chosen sect... but it's socially advantageous to continue to belong to the group (especially if you plan to stay in the same geographical proximity). catholic, Mormon, baptist, evangelical, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist... claiming to conform to local societal norms for centuries.
 
rpm
2011-09-14 03:42:54 PM  

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


The results of science are fully consistent with no god. You can say that the concept of god hasn't been disproven. But the Abrahamic one? Specific claims made, specific claims failed, it's dead and gone.
 
2011-09-14 03:43:17 PM  

pwhp_67: Right, which isn't at all what I was doing.


You used the statement in support of the greater argument. The statement is completely insane. You cannot justify human behaviour by behaviour observed in nature. Unless, of course, you do indeed think it's ok to kill and eat newborns.

At which point do your logical fallacies stop and your "real arguments" begin?
 
2011-09-14 03:44:10 PM  

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


where Jeebus goes to get those ripped abs... (new window)

/Add your own jokes.
 
2011-09-14 03:44:27 PM  

Nick the What: I see a guy in a fark troll thread, complaining about being a fark troll thread. I see you in them a lot too.


bullshiat. I spend 99.5% of my time in TFD when that badge is lit up, and its been lit up pretty consistently for the last four years. If you were generalizing about seeing "me" here, do not. I am unlike any of the usual trash that wades through these threads.

Mikey1969: I see Christians getting more and more insistent, and more and more violent defending THEIR beliefs, yet they have no evidence either.


I'm sure you will refer to this as some sort of backpedal or failure to take responsibility for things that are somehow my personal fault, but I don't really consider fundamentalist American Christianity to be Christianity at all. This is not a "no true Scotsman" argument. I am saying simply that there are precepts given to us by Jesus, and fundamentalist American Christianity either outright doesn't follow it, or twists it into evil.

And it has nothing to do with being a Christian - love God, love other as well as yourself. Anything that falls outside of those two things is NOT Christian and cannot be identified as such, regardless of the people who try so hard to do so (and most of these people claim to be Christian, mind you)

If you want to say "God/Jesus" is bullshiat because of what religion has done in the 2000ish years since Jesus walked the earth, you're off the point.
 
Ant
2011-09-14 03:44:36 PM  

Shazam999: 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?


Theism = Belief in a personal god or gods

If you cannot call yourself a theist (and discounting the possibility that you're a deist), guess what you are...
 
2011-09-14 03:45:06 PM  

Satanicpuppy: I think you'll find many theists will shy away from offering "proof" of the existence of god, and will instead speak of faith and belief. And, at that point, if you do not shut up, and walk away, you're being just as much of an irrational douchebag as the theist who claims that the existence of the (insert holy book here) proves the existence of god.


In some settings, yes I totally agree.

The problem is that when they start using their superstition to make real-world decisions that impact other people. In cases like what should be taught in public school, faith-based decisions cannot be tolerated.
 
2011-09-14 03:45:23 PM  
Can I Godwin this thread? By definition the papacy is infallible with a direct line to (and speaks for) god. The current pope was in the Hitler youth and supported Hitler. Therefore God (if he exists) supports Hitler?
 
2011-09-14 03:46:20 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!

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?



I wasn't arguing about the existence of god. I was arguing about the meaning of words.
 
2011-09-14 03:46:53 PM  
misanthropic1 Quote 2011-09-14 12:19:03 PM
Sticky Hands: Atheists are like onions.

They make you cry as you peel away their layers, but are amazingly flavorful and sweet properly cooked ?


Nobody speaks of the onion wars. Those evil vidalias will never return
 
2011-09-14 03:46:58 PM  

Satanicpuppy: justtray:
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.

You're trying to have it both ways. If a theist believes in god, that's 2+2=7. But if you believe there is no god, well, that's just a belief, not intended to be factual, like, for example, 2+2=4.

I think you'll find many theists will shy away from offering "proof" of the existence of god, and will instead speak of faith and belief. And, at that point, if you do not shut up, and walk away, you're being just as much of an irrational douchebag as the theist who claims that the existence of the (insert holy book here) proves the existence of god.


You changed the analogy. Faith and belief are not evidence of a god existin and therefore are not the 2+2 of this equation. As I already pointed out, it is impossible to prove someting to not exist, so the response under this situation would not be to correct them, since they have presented no argument. The correct analogy here would be for the Theist to say God is 7. There is no response to that because there is no basis.

I believe your second paragraph to be true in my experience, but it does not address my post accurately.
 
2011-09-14 03:47:04 PM  

Ant: Shazam999: 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?

Theism = Belief in a personal god or gods

If you cannot call yourself a theist (and discounting the possibility that you're a deist), guess what you are...


An atheist? A belief that there are no gods?

Please spell it out for me.
 
G2V
2011-09-14 03:47:29 PM  

KiltedBastich: That is a variation on ignosticism. As you have phrased it, it's a subset of agnostic atheism.

Atheism does not require actively saying, "there is no God!" That's antitheism, which is a subset of atheism (usually a very vocal one).

All atheism requires is that you do not hold (as presented by the prefix a-) belief in a god or gods (theism). It's very minimalist. Everything else that gets added to it by social convention is not necessary to meet the most basic criterion. The version of atheism you refer to, for example (antitheism), requires more than those basic points.


eraser8: Not all atheists DISbelieve in gods in any active sense. Many of us simply have no belief in gods, just as we have no belief in fairies.

We're not trying to prove to anyone that gods don't exist.

This is a kind of atheism called agnostic atheism. And among atheists, it's an extremely popular view.


True, there can be a variety of definitions for atheism. Typically the one I see bandied about (and displayed on internet flame filled forums) is an active and conclusively felt belief that there are no Gods, rather than merely an absence of belief. I suppose to be more precise I would address my sentiments towards the former. I do consider myself an ignostic, but I suppose simply 'atheist' fits with that understanding. Essentially, "could god exist?" "yeah I guess so. so what?"


big pig peaches:
Dammit! Now you have me thinking about gigantic unicorns. Now I am never going to get any work done today.

I rescued you from work! Huzzah!

justtray: When you dont have a point, argue semantics. Never fails.


How dull.

Kome: Because other people are willing and eager to subjugate, enslave, rape, torture, and murder people in the name of their immaterial, invisible, intangible, magical, pink unicorn that shoots fire from its eyes and is the size of galaxies


Then I believe it is more important to consider those deranged by belief, their god remains essentially irrelevant. After all, it seems like Gods can be exploited to support any cause or fill any role desired by a good orator, so there's essentially nothing concrete to deal with anyway. Look at the Christian God, he loves everyone. he hates gays. He turns the other cheek. He sends disasters to destroy us. He will forgive everything. He will condemn you to eternal torment. Even Christians can't solidify an impression of the Christian God, damned if I can.
 
2011-09-14 03:47:53 PM  
Everyone is born an atheist.
 
2011-09-14 03:48:18 PM  

idiocy: Dimensio: The ancient man approached God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modem man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock. He is quite a kindly judge: if God should have a reasonable defense for being the god who permits war, poverty, and disease, he is ready to listen to it. The trial may even end in God's acquittal. But the important thing is that man is on the bench and God in the dock. ~ C.S. Lewis

Am I reading this incorrectly or is this an argument for atheism? I judge God to be lacking and I may ultimately decide to acquit. Until then, he can sit in oblivion with all the other failed deities.


That's exactly how I read this too. Man used to approach god with reverence and automatic belief. The god used to make the judgement on man's life.. Now people have changed stance and look at god without reverence and automatic belief. Instead we looks at the facts as would a judge of a courtroom and make a decision based on those facts.

I think that, from a former Christian perspective, maybe the pro-god argument here is supposed to be that people are now excessively arrogant to think they can judge god?

I don't know, but I'm trying to see how this quote is pro-god and I'm completely missing it. It seems to me that this is more of just a comment on how people now treat the discussion of the existence of god and not an argument in either way. I don't see at all how it's related to Atheists' supposed anger toward god. But then again, it's a Bevets-provided quote so I don't actually expect it to be relevant to either the article or the discussion (other than it is now the discussion itself).
 
2011-09-14 03:48:23 PM  

Sofa King Smart: religion = socially advantageous group with a specific socially accepted delusion.


Maybe that's true in some cases, but there's many places in the world where the religious leaders live like kings on the backs of the poor.
 
2011-09-14 03:48:55 PM  

justtray: Yes you feel persecuted


No I don't.

justtray: You have no factual evidence to back up any of your claims whatsoever, so stop being a hypocrite ok?


"You have no factual claims" is not a logical argument because no one does.

justtray: It's on Theists to prove God exists.


Theists are not out to prove God exists. You fail at spirituality.

justtray: Since you don't understand even basic logic and debate


If what you call logic leads me to think as shortsighted and empty as you do, thank f*cking God.

justtray: You do live up to your name nicely though.


Always.
 
2011-09-14 03:49:00 PM  
GSS suggests #4 is almost a fair cop. While not exclusively white/male, in the US Atheism runs very disproportionately male (circa 3:1 M:F), and a bit below what would be proportional for race. That said, even 25% of 1.5% of 300 million Americans works out to about a million atheist women in the US.

#9 has a paper-thin bit of substance; times of severe stress and dealing with the death of a loved one seems (from the A+H conversions study) to be one of the main things that brings those raised irreligiously to accept religion. But "no way to cope" ignores that most of the irreligious have indeed found ways to cope.

The other myths look to be even more lacking in backing from statistically representative sociological data.
 
2011-09-14 03:49:02 PM  

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

where Jeebus goes to get those ripped abs... (new window)

/Add your own jokes.



BEST part of that website(My empahsis added):
CAUTION
Like Iraq, this page is UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
And also, like Iraq, may always be under construction.
Thank you for your patience, and children.

WTF??
 
2011-09-14 03:49:44 PM  

Hyperbolic Hyperbole: What I see in this thread is this - 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 "moral/holy" 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 were subjected to and now rally around 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.


ftfm.
 
2011-09-14 03:50:26 PM  

MrEricSir: 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.


Agreed. That's why I show up and mock the eternal god/no god debate. Because both sides take it very seriously, and believe very strongly that they are correct without any shred of evidence.

Theists may not have much grounds for their belief, but there are a fark lot of them, and a great many of them claim personal contact with their respective sky fairies.

Now, I don't find this to be compelling proof of anything, however, just as I would take several billion people of all walks of life screaming about ear pigeons much more seriously than 1 random hobo, I take the billions of religious people seriously enough to acknowledge that, despite the fact that I have no evidence of a real phenomena, the volume of reports suggests that is possible that something is there, and I'm not going to utterly discount that just because it doesn't agree with my personal experience.
 
2011-09-14 03:51:04 PM  

Satanicpuppy: 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.


Well, I think more like an entity who is, as the female says in the song, "a slob like one of us." Sometimes S/He feels nice, and does something sweet. Other times, S/He feels like shiat, and does something not so nice. It takes a lot to occupy God's time, and we are part of that lot.
 
2011-09-14 03:51:16 PM  

pwhp_67: 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.


Yeah, and greed. It's like god made us flawed and then asked us not to indulge those impulses. If he were smart he would have just made us all perfect and then we could have sat around being perfect. This is an outrage!
 
2011-09-14 03:51:34 PM  

letrole: You used the statement in support of the greater argument. The statement is completely insane. You cannot justify human behaviour by behaviour observed in nature. Unless, of course, you do indeed think it's ok to kill and eat newborns.



I only added the bit about it occurring in nature because so many religious people have claimed that it isn't natural. If it occurs in nature, how can it be unnatural? They used to believe, and many still do, that it is a choice that people make and that it can't be the way that person was born. This is not true. If you keep insisting that it is then you're a liar.

We've been lied to by religious leaders is a true statement. And we can know we've been lied to...
 
2011-09-14 03:51:47 PM  

justtray: 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.


Actually I was just arguing that someone that doesn't believe in god, but thinks they could be wrong, is an atheist. He's agnostic about his athiesm, but he is an atheist non the less.
 
2011-09-14 03:52:39 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.


Because your all rich white people
 
2011-09-14 03:54:06 PM  

Mikey1969: I'm not sure how many Atheists protest funerals and kill abortion doctors


Atheists would kill doctors that DON'T perform abortion!
 
2011-09-14 03:54:08 PM  

Satanicpuppy: Now, I don't find this to be compelling proof of anything, however, just as I would take several billion people of all walks of life screaming about ear pigeons much more seriously than 1 random hobo, I take the billions of religious people seriously enough to acknowledge that, despite the fact that I have no evidence of a real phenomena, the volume of reports suggests that is possible that something is there, and I'm not going to utterly discount that just because it doesn't agree with my personal experience.


So you believe in truth by consensus?
 
2011-09-14 03:54:25 PM  

JackieRabbit: OhFarkItAllToHell! Don't you people EVER tire of having this same argument once per week? Has anyone ever changed someone else's mind? Arguing about religion is the most utterly stupid thing one can do. You'd be more successful cutting down a Sequoia with a pocket knife. Let others believe what they want.

/from a dyslexic agnostic, who stays up at night pondering the existence of Dog.


If this argument never existed anywhere, I might still be a Christian. Not saying any thread on Fark had anything to do with that change, but hey- if it bothers you so much, do not engage.
 
2011-09-14 03:54:46 PM  

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

So, you're not a theist?


They should make a word for that.
 
2011-09-14 03:54:59 PM  

Nick the What: 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'


As I said, its just a little philosophical hobby of mine. It's not meant to be taken too seriously.

My own list would have attributes like "completeness" and "unerringness". I'm not actually sure that it's meaningful to talk about moral traits, in this context. I don't know that moral perfection, or attributes like "perfect love" are sufficiently well defined to apply them.

If there is some context where we could talk about moral perfection, I'm equally unsure that we would have access to that context. It seems unlikely to me that human moral concerns are reflections of deeper moral truths. I would be less surprised to find that a hypothetical perfect morality would take the form of a blue and orange morality, to us.

But, then again, Lovecraft might be influencing my perspective on this one.
 
2011-09-14 03:55:04 PM  

Nick the What: Agreed. When I drive home after work, I will see exactly 4 church billboard signs proclaiming some form of theism.


And I bet you'll see none like this:

www.metroplexatheists.org
 
2011-09-14 03:55:07 PM  

Sofa King Smart: ftfm.


Your ability to take generic statements and mold them to your own beliefs are staggering. It's obvious to me that you must be right about everything you say with that kind of power to change some nouns and clauses.
 
2011-09-14 03:57:32 PM  

mjbok: 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.


What about atheists in the military?
 
2011-09-14 03:58:19 PM  

trappedspirit: Yeah, and greed. It's like god made us flawed and then asked us not to indulge those impulses. If he were smart he would have just made us all perfect and then we could have sat around being perfect. This is an outrage!



See? God hates homosexuals and so he makes people born that way. But it's just a TEST! Don't fall for it little gay man! Just pray to god and one day you WILL lust after women!

Or you'll fail and spend all of eternity in a lake of fire...
 
2011-09-14 03:59:37 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Nick the What: Agreed. When I drive home after work, I will see exactly 4 church billboard signs proclaiming some form of theism.

And I bet you'll see none like this:

[www.metroplexatheists.org image 426x420]


I see that one on the internet all the time. You won't see the signs I see(on my drive home) on the internet. You can't explain that!

My 4 signs to your 1 sign = I win.

How many theistic signs will you see the next time you drive?
 
2011-09-14 03:59:57 PM  

MrEricSir: Sofa King Smart: religion = socially advantageous group with a specific socially accepted delusion.

Maybe that's true in some cases, but there's many places in the world where the religious leaders live like kings on the backs of the poor.


don't all 'religious leaders' 'live like kings' (ie. take money from their 'flock') isn't that really the purpose of 'religion'? 1. to control a group by making them all members of the same 'group' and 2. taking money from them.
 
2011-09-14 04:01:10 PM  

pwhp_67: See? God hates homosexuals and so he makes people born that way. But it's just a TEST! Don't fall for it little gay man! Just pray to god and one day you WILL lust after women!


Well, don't stop there. The obvious extrapolation is that God hates people and tests them all in their own unique ways. The lake of fire bit was just added by angry people.
 
2011-09-14 04:02:15 PM  

Resin33: Everyone is born an atheist.


I'm not 100% sure if that's true. There is ongoing research into determining the differences in the brains of theists. It is possible that believing in the gods (or feeling a need to) is a medical condition and if so, it is likely one you are born with.

// Not kidding, several articles have even been linked on Fark
 
2011-09-14 04:02:22 PM  
The entire universe revolves around us. Stop being arrogant and just accept that.
 
2011-09-14 04:03:49 PM  

pwhp_67: I only added the bit about it occurring in nature because so many religious people have claimed that it isn't natural. If it occurs in nature, how can it be unnatural? They used to believe, and many still do, that it is a choice that people make and that it can't be the way that person was born. This is not true. If you keep insisting that it is then you're a liar.




Well then, that makes it completely different. I originally thought you were justifying homosexuality with the same twisted logic of naturally observed behaviour that would also justify infanticide, cannibalism, coprophilia, etc

Now that you've made it clear, I see that you were justifying homosexuality with the same twisted logic of naturally observed behaviour that would also justify infanticide, cannibalism, coprophilia, etc
 
2011-09-14 04:04:04 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Nick the What: Agreed. When I drive home after work, I will see exactly 4 church billboard signs proclaiming some form of theism.

And I bet you'll see none like this:

[www.metroplexatheists.org image 426x420]


I think I've pretty much seen every single atheist sign that has been put up in the entire US, at least in the past 10 years. Because they always created such tabloid outrage.

I've never seen one in person though.
 
2011-09-14 04:04:27 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Nick the What: 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'

As I said, its just a little philosophical hobby of mine. It's not meant to be taken too seriously.

My own list would have attributes like "completeness" and "unerringness". I'm not actually sure that it's meaningful to talk about moral traits, in this context. I don't know that moral perfection, or attributes like "perfect love" are sufficiently well defined to apply them.

If there is some context where we could talk about moral perfection, I'm equally unsure that we would have access to that context. It seems unlikely to me that human moral concerns are reflections of deeper moral truths. I would be less surprised to find that a hypothetical perfect morality would take the form of a blue and orange morality, to us.

But, then again, Lovecraft might be influencing my perspective on this one.


You'd have to define "perfect" and "being". For example, 100% pefection might mean that, we have to shed all material attributes as they could (possibly) degrade over time. The "being" as it approaches 100% might change from "being" to "god"....

Shifts over. that's the best I can do for now, in the 5 mins I had to write that.

Word to your momma!
 
2011-09-14 04:04:58 PM  
10 myths? I've never thought those things about atheists. What a load if crap.
/not an atheist
 
Displayed 50 of 917 comments

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | 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