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 | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-09-15 04:32:12 PM  

omeganuepsilon: thefatbasturd: I got called out for being a hypocritical asshole, and proven guilty even though I wasn't, and with absolutely NO evidence presented to back up the claim. Now I'm all pissed off, so I'm going to resort to "I'm rubber, you're glue" calling out an idiot who doesn't understand the meaning of "big people words" like "hypocrite" and "condescension" That will show him!

Yeah, I totally agree.


FTFY.

See just MAKING a claim doesn't constitute proof. Again, I challenge you to show me the hypocrisy or condescension in the post in which you originally claim to have found it. Otherwise STFU.
 
2011-09-15 04:39:50 PM  
RolandGunner:omeganuepsilon:

All 4 points are really meant to be taken together. I will admit it wasn't as clear as I meant (and probably won't be after this).

That is, once there is an environment which COULD support life (while we're aware of one general niche, there could be others), life that itself to the even more further constrained niches of that environment. The environment comes first, then the life. The environment will not form itself to the life.
 
2011-09-15 05:06:16 PM  
If someone wants you to swear on the bible, why would you care? I'll swear on your bible, I'll swear on the constitution, I'll swear on goddamn Green Eggs and Ham, because it's just a fricking book.

Then why swear on anything at all? Everyone should just swear with their hand on their heart.
The whole point of making someone swear on a Bible is so that they are aware that God is watching them and will smite them or send them to bed without cookies or something if they lie. It's a silly, archaic practice and it should be stopped. A Bible doesn't belong in a courtroom any more than the 10 commandments belong in the Legislature.
 
2011-09-15 05:28:48 PM  

whatshisname: If someone wants you to swear on the bible, why would you care? I'll swear on your bible, I'll swear on the constitution, I'll swear on goddamn Green Eggs and Ham, because it's just a fricking book.

Then why swear on anything at all? Everyone should just swear with their hand on their heart.
The whole point of making someone swear on a Bible is so that they are aware that God is watching them and will smite them or send them to bed without cookies or something if they lie. It's a silly, archaic practice and it should be stopped. A Bible doesn't belong in a courtroom any more than the 10 commandments belong in the Legislature.


Since the vast majority of people take the bible thing seriously, I don't see anything wrong with putting that out there. Most jurisdictions will allow you to swear in a secular way with the constitution, or just hand on heart, like you said.

I don't particularly see any need for a prop one way or the other, but the fact that atheists. vehemently object is bizarre to me. I'd expect a christian to object to being made to swear on the koran, or a muslim to object to swearing on the bible, but I don't understand the atheist objection. If you genuinely feel there is nothing to it, why would it bother you?
 
2011-09-15 06:04:37 PM  

thefatbasturd: Again, I challenge you to show me the hypocrisy or condescension in the post in which you originally claim to have found it. Otherwise STFU.

thefatbasturd: Whatever side you are on, if you can't make your point without stooping to condescension, chances are you aren't nearly as smart as you want to believe.


In the very same sentence, you ridicule his condescension and turn around and do the same damn thing right back.

Besides, a lot of people can make a point without condescension, but what is the fun in that?

fark off, retard.
 
2011-09-15 07:05:44 PM  
Theists stopped bugging me when I made this sign for my door : Soul soliciters will be shot on sight. Thank your God for the castle doctrine. ;) Thanks for the lulz , I couldn't give a tinker's dam about your myths or what theists and religious/superstitious people think about damn near everything.
 
2011-09-15 07:32:39 PM  

Satanicpuppy: Since the vast majority of people take the bible thing seriously, I don't see anything wrong with putting that out there. Most jurisdictions will allow you to swear in a secular way with the constitution, or just hand on heart, like you said.


[citation needed] People lie after swearing on the Bible all the time. Your "vast majority" is actually a small group of noisy evangelicals who like to pretend they speak for the nation.

I don't particularly see any need for a prop one way or the other, but the fact that atheists. vehemently object is bizarre to me. I'd expect a christian to object to being made to swear on the koran, or a muslim to object to swearing on the bible, but I don't understand the atheist objection. If you genuinely feel there is nothing to it, why would it bother you?

You just pointed out that people who do not believe as you do take offense at being forced to take part in your religion's rituals (example: swearing on a Bible before giving testimony). If you don't realize that you answered your own question, then there is no point in discussing this further.
 
2011-09-15 09:10:18 PM  

omeganuepsilon: thefatbasturd: Again, I challenge you to show me the hypocrisy or condescension in the post in which you originally claim to have found it. Otherwise STFU.

thefatbasturd: Whatever side you are on, if you can't make your point without stooping to condescension, chances are you aren't nearly as smart as you want to believe.

In the very same sentence, you ridicule his condescension and turn around and do the same damn thing right back.

Besides, a lot of people can make a point without condescension, but what is the fun in that?

fark off, retard.


I'M the retard? That sentence you chose to quote out of context was not ridiculing anyone. It wasn't responding to any condescending statement. It was speaking in abstracts ABOUT condescension. Did you even read the post or just skim it to find something you THOUGHT you could claim said something it didn't. Here's the whole thing:

justtray: thefatbasturd: The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: I don't see why atheists are supposed to sit quietly while religion takes over our government, which is not supposed to promote any religions. Also, irrespective of government, what is wrong with chiming in with your opinion (regarding religion) when the conversation warrants it? If there is a national discussion on religion, why can't the atheists have their say? I find it ridiculous when atheists get angry at other atheists for speaking their mind.

They don't. They get angry at atheists that can't discuss the issue without phrases like "invisible sky wizard" and "imaginary friend in the sky" etc. Those people are most often the most vocal on their side of the debate, just as the "no moral compass" and "atheism IS a belief" are for the opposing side. And all BOTH types do is make it harder for anyone with a rational well thought out position.

What rationale, well thought out position is there in support of the existence of God?

Just curious how this imaginary scenario plays out in your head.

I'm not making a case for either side, just pointing out piss poor attempts to make your point. If you are trying to get someone with an opposite opinion to agree with you or even to persuade others you are right and they are wrong, doing so by JUST ridiculing their beliefs or lack there of is NOT going to help your cause. Atheists like to think they are smarter than believers. Believers like to think they are smarter than atheists. Whatever side you are on, if you can't make your point without stooping to condescension, chances are you aren't nearly as smart as you want to believe


See the "you" being used in the part you quoted is something commonly referred to as "the Universal you" and is not directed specifically at one person. The you in the following sentence IS directed at one person. You are either extremely disingenuous or you are not very good at reading comprehension. And the second part of the snippet you quote is not condescension, it is just truth. If you can't make your point with your facts and have to resort to condescension, you probably AREN'T very bright.

Besides. A lot of people can reply to a Fark post after they have read it and understood the simple English it is written in, but where is the fun in that? (See THAT is condescension, just so you'll know what it might ACTUALLY look like)
 
2011-09-15 09:48:38 PM  

thefatbasturd: omeganuepsilon: thefatbasturd: Again, I challenge you to show me the hypocrisy or condescension in the post in which you originally claim to have found it. Otherwise STFU.

thefatbasturd: Whatever side you are on, if you can't make your point without stooping to condescension, chances are you aren't nearly as smart as you want to believe.

In the very same sentence, you ridicule his condescension and turn around and do the same damn thing right back.

Besides, a lot of people can make a point without condescension, but what is the fun in that?

fark off, retard.

I'M the retard? That sentence you chose to quote out of context was not ridiculing anyone. It wasn't responding to any condescending statement. It was speaking in abstracts ABOUT condescension. Did you even read the post or just skim it to find something you THOUGHT you could claim said something it didn't. Here's the whole thing:

justtray: thefatbasturd: The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: I don't see why atheists are supposed to sit quietly while religion takes over our government, which is not supposed to promote any religions. Also, irrespective of government, what is wrong with chiming in with your opinion (regarding religion) when the conversation warrants it? If there is a national discussion on religion, why can't the atheists have their say? I find it ridiculous when atheists get angry at other atheists for speaking their mind.

They don't. They get angry at atheists that can't discuss the issue without phrases like "invisible sky wizard" and "imaginary friend in the sky" etc. Those people are most often the most vocal on their side of the debate, just as the "no moral compass" and "atheism IS a belief" are for the opposing side. And all BOTH types do is make it harder for anyone with a rational well thought out position.

What rationale, well thought out position is there in support of the existence of God?

Just curious how this imaginary scenario plays out in your head.

I'm not making a case for either side, just pointing out piss poor attempts to make your point. If you are trying to get someone with an opposite opinion to agree with you or even to persuade others you are right and they are wrong, doing so by JUST ridiculing their beliefs or lack there of is NOT going to help your cause. Atheists like to think they are smarter than believers. Believers like to think they are smarter than atheists. Whatever side you are on, if you can't make your point without stooping to condescension, chances are you aren't nearly as smart as you want to believe

See the "you" being used in the part you quoted is something commonly referred to as "the Universal you" and is not directed specifically at one person. The you in the following sentence IS directed at one person. You are either extremely disingenuous or you are not very good at reading comprehension. And the second part of the snippet you quote is not condescension, it is just truth. If you can't make your point with your facts and have to resort to condescension, you probably AREN'T very bright.

Besides. A lot of people can reply to a Fark post after they have read it and understood the simple English it is written in, but where is the fun in that? (See THAT is condescension, just so you'll know what it might ACTUALLY look like)


Wow. Sensitive troll is sensitive.

thefatbasturd: it is just truth. If you can't make your point with your facts and have to resort to condescension, you probably AREN'T very bright.


OK, I'll bite.

Citation needed.

The pairing of condescension with a point, is not indicative of intelligence. It is indicative of style, or taste if you'd rather, for good or bad. Maybe indicative of what some may call morals, or societal beliefs on how people should treat each other, a sense of proprieties(all just different labels for the same thing really).... but intelligence? not so much.

Now, if you want to get into specific instances, yes, a dullard's "slam" combined with a lie(or honest ignorant spreading of misinformation), such as your posts, that is indicative of one's intelligence, or lack thereof. Not necessarily a clear indicator of course. It could be you're inebriated or high on crack. Or you're some sort of idiot savant, really good at math but can't tie both shoes in less than 20 minutes and have to move your lips while you read. The later wouldn't necessarily surprise any of us.

Thanks for playing. Come back when you've sobered up and passed some remedial classes on logic, maybe reading as well. Don't feel bad, I know people that didn't finish elementary school, you're not alone.

I do have one question though: Did your parents have any kids that lived?
 
2011-09-16 12:59:29 AM  
I have not checked the full discussion but I can to some extent agree with the articles comments (as in agreeing that the "myths" are false, not necessarially with the reasons why) and everything but number 5. That really comes down to a bunch of terms with multiple possible definitions and which you hold to. But saying Atheism is a faith does work and hold true under more simple/intuitive definitions for faith. Just in a different way then most religions meet the definition.
 
2011-09-16 01:14:57 AM  

sjmcc13: I have not checked the full discussion but I can to some extent agree with the articles comments (as in agreeing that the "myths" are false, not necessarially with the reasons why) and everything but number 5. That really comes down to a bunch of terms with multiple possible definitions and which you hold to. But saying Atheism is a faith does work and hold true under more simple/intuitive definitions for faith. Just in a different way then most religions meet the definition.


Some atheists do work on an article of faith. All rational people will admit that much......technically, it's true.

Some would move that those atheists aren't real atheists.

More or less though, it's a semantic argument, pedantic maybe. The real atheists, seemingly, don't get all pedantic all of the time. Only when discussing certain specific points, not broad generalizations such as "There is no god" That phrase in itself is construed as "faith" but many, like myself, use it as short for all of the "There's no reason to even think about god, the odds are low that such a being exists, etc etc". Which, is in turn a summation for whole threads here on fark, ironing out the exact politically correct way to make a the claim "I could be wrong, but.."

/just to catch you up.

The main point, is that concepts are larger than words, and focusing too much on tiny specific words, out of context, can be a monumental waste of time. At other times, smallest word can have a large effect on the meaning of a phrase or even post.

throw that in a blender, rinse and repeat about 500 times, and that's about half of any given fark religion thread.
 
2011-09-16 06:17:38 AM  

omeganuepsilon: dullard's "slam" combined with a lie(or honest ignorant spreading of misinformation), such as your posts,


Citation needed.

Where have I "lied" about anything or spread misinformation. That has been your MO. Picking quotes and claiming they were condescension directed at a previous poster when they were in fact NOT, as has been demonstrated over and over again to you.

omeganuepsilon: a dullard's "slam" combined with a lie(or honest ignorant spreading of misinformation), such as your posts, that is indicative of one's intelligence, or lack thereof. Not necessarily a clear indicator of course. It could be you're inebriated or high on crack. Or you're some sort of idiot savant, really good at math but can't tie both shoes in less than 20 minutes and have to move your lips while you read. The later wouldn't necessarily surprise any of us.


Congratulations! You've JUST described every post you've made to me, and by your own definition you are an idiot (no evidence of the savant in anything you've posted) hoisted by your own petard. And the majority of my "dullards slams" at you have been simply my turning your own phrases BACK at you. Like this one: Did your parents have any children that WEREN'T retarded?

omeganuepsilon: Thanks for playing. Come back when you've sobered up and passed some remedial classes on logic, maybe reading as well. Don't feel bad, I know people that didn't finish elementary school, you're not alone.


Again with the projecting from someone who has proven he has zero reading comprehension by not being able to understand that a post written in simple English was not accusing any person of condescension, but discussing generalities ABOUT condescension in answer to someones honest question about the subject and who somehow thinks insults and the aforementioned condescension somehow constitutes "logic".

Can you REALLY not see that with every single post you make, you prove my point more and more? You've taken the condescension route from the get go and have made damn little of anything that can be considered a "point" that hasn't been demonstrated to be incorrect at every turn. All the while working yourself up to what almost seems like an apoplectic rage where you cant post a single comment without telling me to go fark myself in some way or ending with some other stupid insult, while I just sit back and laugh at your pathetic attempts. But by all means keep digging your hole. You should be pretty close to China by now. I HONESTLY can't figure out if you are very good at trolling or very bad at debate, logic, and verbal communication in general.
 
2011-09-16 10:36:52 AM  

thefatbasturd: And the majority of my "dullards slams" at you have been simply my turning your own phrases BACK at you


omeganuepsilon: thefatbasturd: I got called out for being a hypocritical asshole, and proven guilty. Now I'm all pissed off, so I'm going to resort to "I'm rubber, you're glue" That will show him!

Yeah, I totally agree.


Genius
 
2011-09-16 02:33:22 PM  

omeganuepsilon: thefatbasturd: And the majority of my "dullards slams" at you have been simply my turning your own phrases BACK at you

omeganuepsilon: thefatbasturd: I got called out for being a hypocritical asshole, and proven guilty even though time and time again it has been demonstratively proven that this is incorrect. Now I'm all pissed off having a lot of fun watching some idiot with absolutely NO tenable position twist in the wind and bury himself because he's too stupid to admit he's beaten, so I'm going to resort to "I'm rubber, you're glue" play his own game and continue giving him PLENTY of rope to hang himself That will show him!

Yeah, I totally agree.

Genius


FTFY AGAIN!!!!!!

Retard
 
2011-09-16 04:24:06 PM  

thefatbasturd: omeganuepsilon: thefatbasturd:

Retard


I'm sure one of you is right but, may I point out...

www.andreasschwartz.com

/hot
 
2011-09-17 01:06:08 AM  

FarkLiberty: thefatbasturd: omeganuepsilon: thefatbasturd:

Retard

I'm sure one of you is right but, may I point out...

[www.andreasschwartz.com image 315x466]

/hot


I plead guilty. No way around that.
Although...
Hell, if I'm going to participate, I'm going to win.
 
2011-09-17 02:18:49 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Lsherm: Uh, are we inventing new math here?

Not math, discrete logic, as I said in my post. Google it.


Googled it - you're just wrong.
 
Displayed 17 of 917 comments

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | 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