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.

(Huffington Post)   Atheist billboard wants to wish you a merry Christmyth   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 528
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

15753 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Nov 2011 at 2:22 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



528 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-11-16 11:24:32 AM

halfof33: Leeds: No but the fact that you seem unwilling to grow up and accept reality seems to have left you pretty butthurt. I'd suggest laying off the religious/anti-religious threads for a while. Perhaps you could use the time off to read up on this subject so that you aren't just a whiny little magic-believeing crybaby. We adults will be still be here when you get back.

I'm sorry that pointing out the hypocrisy of the Atheists has caused you regress to third grade level insults.

I'd point out the irony in your last post, but I don't think you'd understand.

Hey, maybe you'll enjoy this!

Link (new window)


Can't we all agree that you're both pretty annoying right now?
 
2011-11-16 11:24:43 AM

Uncle Tractor:
I wonder what you think my criteria are.

As for the four you mentioned; all four left evidence of their existence, something Jesus did not. Also, unlike Jesus, they never violated the laws of nature. I suppose to mentioned Tacitus and Pliny because they are often used as examples of "documentation" that Jesus lived. Unfortunately, that's not much;

Pliny wrote about the persecution of early Christians. That does not in any way prove the existence of Jesus.

Tacitus mentioned the death of Jesus, but it's not a first-hand account, nor does it give any specifics that could lead to actual evidence. What he wrote about Jesus could just as easily be something he was told by a christian.

The idea that Jesus is a well-documented historical figure is just a truism. If there is any evidence that he existed, then I have yet to see it. (not that that proves anything)


It's true Jesus didn't leave any physical artifacts behind. Yet, you've got 4 eponymous eyewitness accounts written within 40 years of the events taking place, and between 10 and 12 secular sources (of varying quality, some highly hostile) written between 50AD-200AD. Those secular sources repeat (in short form) pretty much the same things that the 4 gospels do. When you've got multiple attestations from a variety of sources, you have to be pretty obtuse to say they're all out of their gourds :) You're well within your rights to say that the events that took place are suspect, (as sources cannot prove that miracles took place), but you can't deny the fact that people around Jesus thought he was doing something miraculous *and* then wrote about it. There are very few biblical scholars who will outright deny the existence of a man called Jesus (Robert Funk and George A Wells come to mind, although the latter changed his mind some years ago), and most of them reside on the 'woo' side of biblical scholarship (I'm looking at you Barbara Thiering).

It also beggars belief to assume that tens of thousands of people would suddenly decide to throw in their lot with a belief system, that was not only opposed to and persecuted by the reigning governmental and religious systems, but was also nothing but a fabrication by the remaining twelve apostles. This is not to say that people won't believe stupid and untrue things, but Christianity offered so very little reward in contrast to what was around people at the time, that *something* must have convinced them that it was something true and worthy of belief (although this changes post-Constantine). The idea that 12 people would be able not only to maintain a lie, but also proselytize that lie for no benefit stretches my credulity at least.

/this post brought to you by the Oxford comma
 
2011-11-16 11:25:14 AM

halfof33: Leeds: It's frightening that this billboard is even necessary.

We have put men on the moon, we travel around faster than the speed of sound, we can drop a rover on a different planet, we can plant the organs of one human being into another one and we all have incredibly powerful computers in our pockets that allow us to communicate with virtually anyone on the planet with delays measured in milliseconds.

It's painful to note that despite all of these advances there are still people who believe in magic.

If silly religious people would only grow up, we sure as hell wouldn't have to put up billboards like this one reminding them that reality > magic.

Well there is this damn thing called tolerance and the First Amendment.

Doesn't get much respect in Atheist circles, unfortunately.


For a while you started to seem like less of a troll and more of an incredibly butthurt little girl.

But now you say that atheists putting up a billboard to explain their viewpoint indicated that they don't respect the first amendment. Wow. That's a bold troll there!!!

In case you really are as stupid as you claim to be- the reason I'm laughing at you is that the first amendment is something that these people seem to understand quite well, as that's what allows them to put up the billboard in the first place.

Bravo idiot. You are now officially the laughing stock of fark.

img193.imageshack.us
 
2011-11-16 11:26:07 AM

publikenemy: Show me these billboards specifically mocking atheists. Even if there were a billboard like you say, it would be nowheres near the same thing. There is no central belief with atheism so how can they attack it? Mocking the birth of Christ can not be paralleled in any way with an attack on atheism since there is nothing equivalent to mock.


i.imgur.com
 
2011-11-16 11:26:22 AM
"Only the most dense and simple-minded person would put [Jesus] in the same category as the other three. Clearly, even those who lack a personal commitment to Jesus recognize that there was in fact some historical figure by this name -- religious leader and teacher -- around 2,000 years ago."

Prove it.

Funny how nobody at the time bothered to comment on the existence of this guy.
 
2011-11-16 11:27:25 AM
WAY TO GO A-HOLES!!
 
2011-11-16 11:30:49 AM

Kome: PYROY: Believing you know there is nothing is just as stupid as believing you know there is something.

True. Unless there is evidence for either of those beliefs, it is stupid in and of itself. However, most atheists don't believe there is nothing. Most atheists accept the fact that there is no unambiguous evidence for the affirmative belief, so they don't believe in supernatural nonsense. And given that the burden of proof goes to the person making the affirmative belief, even if atheists did actively belief they know there is nothing supernatural is not as logically an untenable position as theists believing they know there is something in spite of the complete lack of evidence for that belief.


I've had conversations with my believing friends and they always ask "How do you KNOW there's no God." First, I tell them that I don't know that there's no god, only no proof of a god. If God came down and proved to me that he existed, or even if someone gave me undeniable proof, my being an atheist would still be correct. There being a proof of a god doesn't change my outlook on the world in terms of the way I believe things or not, because I don't rely on faith.

I don't know if I explained that clearly, but when I tell people this, I generally blow their minds.
 
2011-11-16 11:31:19 AM

daveUSMC: Where do aetheists get their ethical or moral codes?


Codes of personal conduct and rules on how to live peaceably in society pre-date organized religion. Do you need to believe in a divine entity to have morality or ethics? Our prisons are filled with self-professed Christians.
 
2011-11-16 11:33:39 AM

forfarkonly: you don't know how you're able to talk, or think, or move; all these things you take for granted, yet none of you can explain how any of it came to be. Now that is funny! Yet you mock others for believing there is something more than what we can see or measure, but can you explain light? No. Yet you just happen to be able to see, with your eyes - objects so complex, and perfectly designed to take in light, and transfer images that the brain can interpret instantly. You ask for evidence, and you live inside of it!


What are you rambling on about?

I'm pretty sure we know how we're able to talk. Scientists, studying the body, discovered vocal cords, muscles, nerves, tongues and lips. That's how we talk. It's fairly well established.

We also know how we think. Again, scientists studied the body. We have what's called a "brain" with neurons firing signals to each other. We've known this for years.

We know how we move. They're called muscles, and when attached to bones and given the right signals, they flex.

Scientists discovered all of these things. No mention of any of that is in the Bible.

Then you move on to your light argument. We have a fairly good understanding of how light works. We don't know exactly what it is, in an over-arching way, but scientists (see how that word keeps coming up?) have studied the properties of light for centuries.

If I'm reading you correctly, your argument is based around the idea that "science doesn't know everything, therefore Jesus is the right answer".

You talk about "You atheists are more ignorant than a 5 year old child" but then immediately start spouting off about how magic is real and invisible people watching you and judging you. That sounds pretty ignorant to me, and rather childish.
 
2011-11-16 11:34:07 AM
Not going to read 350+ comments, so I'll just say my piece and skedaddle.

I'm an atheist - and proud of it.

But I tend not to discuss it unless I'm asked. (except for this time, of course)

For that reason, I think those billboards are douchey, and could ruin a perfectly good holiday for many people - especially kids.
 
2011-11-16 11:34:24 AM
Why are people debating religious views via billboards when we could be doing it better on sitcoms? Link (new window). Community does a fine job of it. Billboards are ugly (both the Christian ones and the atheist ones).
 
2011-11-16 11:40:57 AM

Flubb: Yet, you've got 4 eponymous eyewitness accounts written within 40 years of the events taking place, and between 10 and 12 secular sources (of varying quality, some highly hostile) written between 50AD-200AD.


Ah, ha ha, no. The four canonical gospels are generally written well after the death of Jesus, with Mark being the oldest (and least varnished) version being written around, what, 60AD or just after? None of them were contemporary accounts, and some of them were written over a century afterwords. Heck, a most (or rather all, if I'm not mistaken) of the gospels were written in Greek rather than Hebrew or Aramaic, which pretty much guarantees that none of them are eyewitness accounts.

And, if you read any of the gospels closely, most of them do not identify the author as a particular apostle. The "author" is generally anonymous within the gospel itself and wasn't actually attributed to any particular apostle until much later, sometimes hundreds of years after the death of Christ.
 
2011-11-16 11:41:22 AM

daveUSMC: Where do aetheists get their ethical or moral codes? How do they come to a general agreement on what is right and what is wrong, and why do they hold those beliefs? Is it kind of like a spirit-fingers community-based voting system a la OWS?

i.e. we all hear the "don't hurt other people" basics, but why not hurt other people? What makes that "wrong" to atheists?

And I ask this out of genuine curiosity, not as a troll.

I save my trolling for gay marriage and illegal immigrants.
They took err jerbs, and farked err dudes, etc.


Personally, I find most atheists are humanists. Meaning if we want good in the world, then we are the only ones who are capable of making that goodness.

It's a biological imperitive to be good to the people around you as we are social animals. Very complex society is part of our human nature. We can live better when we work in groups. No culture allows for wanton killing annd stealing as that would interrupt the benefits of society. Wolves, chimps, lions, etc, all social animals don't kill eachother inside of the group (not counting power struggles with the alphas- which also happens in our society)
 
2011-11-16 11:43:53 AM

Fart_Machine: daveUSMC: Where do aetheists get their ethical or moral codes?

Codes of personal conduct and rules on how to live peaceably in society pre-date organized religion. Do you need to believe in a divine entity to have morality or ethics? Our prisons are filled with self-professed Christians.


Why, though? Is it out of self-preservation? I am not questioning that atheists have moral codes, I am just curious as to why bother having them if they believe that they are their own "god" per se. What determines right and wrong, and why bother to follow those principles?

Again, you'll have to trust that I am not Trollin' fer Jesus here.
 
2011-11-16 11:44:02 AM

Nabb1: Slaves2Darkness: If you don't recognize the paraphrasing of that quote let me give it to you in all it's glory No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.... I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists. Geroge H. W. Bush, President of the United States.

You see how an atheist could feel a little threatened when the farking president of the United States goes around telling people that you are not a citizen. Of course it is atheists that are being assholes by professing a non-belief in god, but christians who put up giant JESUS! billboards or 100' crosses across America are a-okay with you. Just like arresting Jews was a-okay with all good Germans.

That was twenty years ago. And he lost re-election. I completely agree that was not a nice thing to say at all and he should not have said such a thing, but you should really be over that by now. And giant billboards or large crosses may be in poor taste or be eyesores, but they aren't necessarily antagonistic. If Christians put up billboards insulting other beliefs, that's no less obnoxious than atheists doing the same. And to compare people who are okay with that with Germans tolerating the holocaust is incredibly stupid. If you think you are oppressed anything like the Jews in the Holocaust, you have some serious persecution complex.


Yeah 20 years ago, but the sentiment has not gone away those people still believe that shiat and they still have more power then anybody should be comfortable with. As for comparing people to good Germans being paranoid:
"Frst they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me."


Maybe you have not been paying attention, but the Tea Bagging crowd and the sentiment that goes with it is coming real close to fascism and revolution. Those folks make me real nervous, they also prompt me to buy more guns.
 
2011-11-16 11:44:15 AM

Leeds: But now you say that atheists putting up a billboard to explain their viewpoint indicated that they don't respect the first amendment. Wow. That's a bold troll there!!!

In case you really are as stupid as you claim to be- the reason I'm laughing at you is that the first amendment is something that these people seem to understand quite well, as that's what allows them to put up the billboard in the first place.

Bravo idiot. You are now officially the laughing stock of fark.


It is rare when someone allows themselves to become so blinded with Rage that they lose their bearings. Now leeds, I fully understand that you are angry, but it appears that you have forgotten what the first amendment actually says.

here let me quote it for you because you appear unaware of what it actually says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Did you notice the bolded part? First time you've seen that, huh?

Now, leeds, go back and re-read what I wrote.

I think you'll find that when I said that Atheists don't understand or respect the First Amendment, I'll just point to your post.

Who is the laughing stock leeds?

/it really never occured to me that he didn't know what the first amendment said. Kind of sad really. But Fundie Atheists, what are ya gonna do?
 
2011-11-16 11:44:37 AM

Lollipop165: I've had conversations with my believing friends and they always ask "How do you KNOW there's no God." First, I tell them that I don't know that there's no god, only no proof of a god. If God came down and proved to me that he existed, or even if someone gave me undeniable proof, my being an atheist would still be correct. There being a proof of a god doesn't change my outlook on the world in terms of the way I believe things or not, because I don't rely on faith.

I don't know if I explained that clearly, but when I tell people this, I generally blow their minds.


You've had better experiences than I have, it seems. I get people who, after I say something similar, will repeat verbatim the same line of questioning as though I didn't respond. Only rarely do I get people who relent and sort of acknowledge the possibility that what I said makes sense. Still, you explained that quite clearly.
 
2011-11-16 11:45:18 AM
img35.imageshack.us
 
2011-11-16 11:45:47 AM

Lollipop165: daveUSMC: Where do aetheists get their ethical or moral codes? How do they come to a general agreement on what is right and what is wrong, and why do they hold those beliefs? Is it kind of like a spirit-fingers community-based voting system a la OWS?

i.e. we all hear the "don't hurt other people" basics, but why not hurt other people? What makes that "wrong" to atheists?

And I ask this out of genuine curiosity, not as a troll.

I save my trolling for gay marriage and illegal immigrants.
They took err jerbs, and farked err dudes, etc.

Personally, I find most atheists are humanists. Meaning if we want good in the world, then we are the only ones who are capable of making that goodness.

It's a biological imperitive to be good to the people around you as we are social animals. Very complex society is part of our human nature. We can live better when we work in groups. No culture allows for wanton killing annd stealing as that would interrupt the benefits of society. Wolves, chimps, lions, etc, all social animals don't kill eachother inside of the group (not counting power struggles with the alphas- which also happens in our society)


Ah, more what I was looking for.

So there are no morals, just societal ethics and best practices? Or am I typing words in your keyboard?
 
2011-11-16 11:46:53 AM

halfof33: Who is the laughing stock leeds?


I'm pretty sure you both are.
 
2011-11-16 11:47:48 AM

daveUSMC: Fart_Machine: daveUSMC: Where do aetheists get their ethical or moral codes?

Codes of personal conduct and rules on how to live peaceably in society pre-date organized religion. Do you need to believe in a divine entity to have morality or ethics? Our prisons are filled with self-professed Christians.

Why, though? Is it out of self-preservation? I am not questioning that atheists have moral codes, I am just curious as to why bother having them if they believe that they are their own "god" per se. What determines right and wrong, and why bother to follow those principles?

Again, you'll have to trust that I am not Trollin' fer Jesus here.


A great many animal species have social codes for behaving with each other. Most mammals care for their young, their mates, and their pack-mates. They share food, show compassion for each other, help others when they're in distress, defend them from predators.

They do it because they expect similar treatment when their luck is down. It's an evolutionary adaptation to make the survival of the entire group a more certain thing.
 
2011-11-16 11:50:18 AM

daveUSMC: So there are no morals, just societal ethics and best practices? Or am I typing words in your keyboard?


Don't need a religion to establish a schema for morality. Frankly, I think people generally and fundamentally sense what is right or wrong and that is the basis for morality. In any case, if your heart and mind tells you that it's wrong to kill people, does it matter whether there's a religion governing it?
 
2011-11-16 11:50:54 AM

halfof33: Leeds: But now you say that atheists putting up a billboard to explain their viewpoint indicated that they don't respect the first amendment. Wow. That's a bold troll there!!!

In case you really are as stupid as you claim to be- the reason I'm laughing at you is that the first amendment is something that these people seem to understand quite well, as that's what allows them to put up the billboard in the first place.

Bravo idiot. You are now officially the laughing stock of fark.

It is rare when someone allows themselves to become so blinded with Rage that they lose their bearings. Now leeds, I fully understand that you are angry, but it appears that you have forgotten what the first amendment actually says.

here let me quote it for you because you appear unaware of what it actually says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Did you notice the bolded part? First time you've seen that, huh?

Now, leeds, go back and re-read what I wrote.

I think you'll find that when I said that Atheists don't understand or respect the First Amendment, I'll just point to your post.

Who is the laughing stock leeds?

/it really never occured to me that he didn't know what the first amendment said. Kind of sad really. But Fundie Atheists, what are ya gonna do?


You aren't even highlighting the relevant parts of the first amendment, idiot.

Fark is more fun when you middle-schoolers aren't posting derp on all the threads. It sucks having to spend so much time explaining things to your retards that should be self evident. (Like magic is make-believe).
 
2011-11-16 11:51:03 AM

daveUSMC: Fart_Machine: daveUSMC: Where do aetheists get their ethical or moral codes?

Codes of personal conduct and rules on how to live peaceably in society pre-date organized religion. Do you need to believe in a divine entity to have morality or ethics? Our prisons are filled with self-professed Christians.

Why, though? Is it out of self-preservation? I am not questioning that atheists have moral codes, I am just curious as to why bother having them if they believe that they are their own "god" per se. What determines right and wrong, and why bother to follow those principles?

Again, you'll have to trust that I am not Trollin' fer Jesus here.


Probably the same evolutionary origins for morality and ethical behavior that exist in other species of animals, notably primates and some other social mammals. And like most other things about humans that have their evolutionary origins in ancestral species we have it in a quantitative and/or qualitatively different manner.

I don't mean to imply that a particular moral prescription or prohibition is a biological imperative (although some, like the incest taboo, might be) but that our cultures and societies developed in ways that were conductive to our biological predispositions for and against certain behaviors. Add in unique flavors that make us human (handedness, clothing styles, etc.) and suddenly you might begin to have a coherent explanation as to why humans have moral codes even when they don't have religion.

I admit I'm reaching a little bit as the psychology of moral development isn't what I'm most familiar with, but it is tangentially related to things I do study so I'm not pulling this entirely out of the air. I hope this makes sense to you, though.
 
2011-11-16 11:52:58 AM

JackieRabbit: The new atheists are such dicks. They should all make it a point of going to work on Christmas day.

/celebrates Pagan Solstice Holiday instead of Christmas, but, hey, to each his own.


Christmas is a Pagan Celebration.
 
2011-11-16 11:55:21 AM

Leeds: You aren't even highlighting the relevant parts of the first amendment, idiot.

Fark is more fun when you middle-schoolers aren't posting derp on all the threads. It sucks having to spend so much time explaining things to your retards that should be self evident. (Like magic is make-believe).


Face palm.

Freedom of Religion is not relevant in a thread about Religion.

Ok leeds, I get it, you are a true believer, I'll just farky you as Fundamentalist Nutjob Atheist and move along. Good luck with that. Hey, call me an idiot again.

Have a Blessed Day!

youMADbro.jpg/ lulz
 
2011-11-16 11:57:06 AM

daveUSMC: Why, though? Is it out of self-preservation? I am not questioning that atheists have moral codes, I am just curious as to why bother having them if they believe that they are their own "god" per se. What determines right and wrong, and why bother to follow those principles?


Self-preservation by acting as a community which is the way society has always functioned. Throwing a god or gods into the mix is irrelevant to this.

And atheists don't believe they are their own "god". We refer to those people as megalomaniacs.
 
2011-11-16 11:58:58 AM
God is an atheist.

/And a Farker. S/He's everyone, and everything.
//Particularly enjoying God right now, thanking Him for the fresh corn on the cob and organic butter I'm having for lunch. :-9
 
2011-11-16 11:59:46 AM

mainstreet62: autopsybeverage: mainstreet62: I will issue a challenge to atheists right here, right now.

Go to a Muslim country, and put up you billboards full of atheist bullshiat. Let's see what happens.

Just remember that you farksticks would be burned at the stake in basically any other country than the US.

You idiots feel emboldened to shout down religion everywhere? Uh, HELLO McFLY, huge conflicts have started over religion, do you REALLY think telling the warring sides that their gods don't exist is the right path?

Sure thing. Right after a Christian group tries to promote their beliefs via billboard in the area, followed by an encore with Fred Phelps and his band of morons spending a month picketing for their brand of crazy with anti-Islamic signs.

Uh huh. So you're going after a splinter group of Christians that even 99.9999% of all Christians think suck donkey balls. Seriously?

I find it amusing that atheists think they should be listened to. Women and gays around the world had to fight for rights. They have been legit oppressed, and are earning hard fought freedoms.

And then atheists come swooping in, all butthurt because no one takes your one stupid idea seriously.

The Bible, the Koran, and plenty other religious texts have a moral code embedded within to help people treat fellow man with love and respect. What have atheists written that does the same?

What will allow atheists to write any kind of moral code when their one idea, the assertion of a lack of God, relegates religious texts with moral codes to the fiction section?


You don't need religion to know what's wrong and what's right.
 
2011-11-16 12:02:38 PM
Gonna suck to be self-identified as an Atheist come January 2013 ....
 
2011-11-16 12:03:22 PM

Flubb: It's true Jesus didn't leave any physical artifacts behind. Yet, you've got 4 eponymous eyewitness accounts written within 40 years of the events taking place, and between 10 and 12 secular sources (of varying quality, some highly hostile) written between 50AD-200AD.


Not even close. The gospels were 'recorded' by people born two generations AFTER the time of Jesus's death. I repeat, there is nothing in the Bible writen by people that WERE ACTUALLY THERE. In addition, the bible didn't even take form until the Synod of Hippo in 393 - a whopping 360 years after the actual events happened. Before that there was a swirling mass of writings of all kinds being used by different groups of people who claimed to be Christians. All kinds of bizarre scriptures and gospels were chucked out when the bible was actually 'written'.

So after considering that, isn't it a little strange that we have all of these direct quotes and stories in the Gospels which people accept as the Word of God? Hell, we have very few direct quotes from the American Founding Fathers when they were actually acting against Britain. And that is in a time 150 years more recent and it benefits from the printing press being in common use.
 
2011-11-16 12:03:28 PM

halfof33: Leeds: You aren't even highlighting the relevant parts of the first amendment, idiot.

Fark is more fun when you middle-schoolers aren't posting derp on all the threads. It sucks having to spend so much time explaining things to your retards that should be self evident. (Like magic is make-believe).

Face palm.

Freedom of Religion is not relevant in a thread about Religion.

Ok leeds, I get it, you are a true believer, I'll just farky you as Fundamentalist Nutjob Atheist and move along. Good luck with that. Hey, call me an idiot again.

Have a Blessed Day!

youMADbro.jpg/ lulz


What's being called into question is freedom of speech, as in "I'm religious and I don't think they should be able to say that on a billboard."

You really aren't start enough for fark, are you?
 
2011-11-16 12:07:55 PM

Leeds: halfof33:
What's being called into question is freedom of speech, as in "I'm religious and I don't think they should be able to say that on a billboard."

You really aren't start enough for fark, are you?


No I guess I'm not "start" enough.

"Well there is this damn thing called tolerance and the First Amendment. Doesn't get much respect in Atheist circles, unfortunately."

Every post you make you establish without a doubt that you don't understand tolerance and the First Amendment.

Have a Blessed Day, Captain Angry!
 
2011-11-16 12:08:21 PM

daveUSMC: Fart_Machine: daveUSMC: Where do aetheists get their ethical or moral codes?

Codes of personal conduct and rules on how to live peaceably in society pre-date organized religion. Do you need to believe in a divine entity to have morality or ethics? Our prisons are filled with self-professed Christians.

Why, though? Is it out of self-preservation? I am not questioning that atheists have moral codes, I am just curious as to why bother having them if they believe that they are their own "god" per se. What determines right and wrong, and why bother to follow those principles?

Again, you'll have to trust that I am not Trollin' fer Jesus here.


See, that's guilt and fear coming from religion. Atheists don't have the burden of religious guilt. What I get from your statement, "..why bother to follow those principles" is that guilt and fear motivate religious moral codes.

I don't need a guilt trip or the threat of hell to tell me stealing is bad. I don't need a book to tell me murder is bad.
Just can't wrap my head around the idea "if there was not religion, we'd not know right from wrong".

If there was not religion, there would be a lot less guilt and fear, that's for sure.
 
2011-11-16 12:09:00 PM
Hmmm, points taken. I'll leave before we start derping each other in the butt.
 
2011-11-16 12:16:33 PM

Clemkadidlefark: Gonna suck to be self-identified as an Atheist come January 2013 ....


Just like alllllll the other times the world ended.. yup.

When do all the "believers" finally feel derp of mis-calling their Raptures or Ends of the Worlds?

BTW: When is the next date.. you know.. after THIS one?

We had May 21st of 2011..
We had Oct 21st of 2011, but that one didn't get much press..

So far after that we have 2016, and 2034.. but of course we'll probably squeeze a couple more in before that.

Oh heck.. here's a site (new window) that schedules the whole Rapture/End of the World Tour!
 
2011-11-16 12:24:53 PM

BurnShrike: halfof33: Fundie Atheists are hilarious. Good luck with your proselytizing billboards!

Atheists "proselytize" the same way that English teachers proselytize about proper grammar and spelling, and how Math teachers proselytize about proper order of operations.


There's a story about today about a math teacher who taught her student that the correct order of operations is + - + - + - + -...+ - + - = BANG!
 
2011-11-16 12:31:43 PM

Kome: ParaHandy: MayoSlather: As an atheist I've cooled on my abhorrence of religion. I just don't care to piss off others with my non-belief or to openly mock religion anymore. If people shove religion in my face I'll calmly denounce it as a farce, but even that doesn't really do any good. Religion will go away on its own as the world slowly becomes more free thinking and education rises; pissing off religious folk will only make them cling to it longer.

THIS, and lots of it.

Bad ideas do not go away on their own. It took concentrated effort to reduce the racist, sexist, and homophobic attitudes that have existed in much worse and more prevalent states in human history, and it's taking just as much effort now to reduce those views even more. Bad ideas spread like wildfire - look at anti-vaccination views since 1998, or acceptance rates of homeopathic "medicine" over the last few decades years, or how quickly Obama being a Muslim became a fact to such a large number of people in the United States over a period of months. Religious ideas are more entrenched bad ideas, personally and socially. It will take much more effort to diminish the influence of those delusional, bad ideas. Idly sitting by accomplishes less than nothing when it comes to combating erroneous views.


I do agree with you on some level, but just not in this case. I feel it's better to ignore it and stop letting it be a red herring that shapes public opinion. Republicans troll on religion and mention god all the time because they know it will piss off the left and cause a response, which only further serves to separate people that largely have the same base interests. Openly bashing religion as an atheist is only biting on the troll bait.
 
2011-11-16 12:33:07 PM

daveUSMC: Hmmm, points taken. I'll leave before we start derping each other in the butt.


I think your point is, in the context of our greater societal understanding of moral principles (codified laws, religious prohibitions, etc.) it was a good question to ask, and a very important conversation that needs to be had. Because, sadly, there are many people who think that lacking a religion equates to having no strict moral code or behaving immorally. I.e. the billboard that SPna15 posted a picture of.

So, whether you leave or not I think it was an important conversation to discuss.
 
2011-11-16 12:36:16 PM

MayoSlather: Republicans troll on religion and mention god all the time because they know it will piss off the left and cause a response, which only further serves to separate people that largely have the same base interests.


I disagree. The majority of liberals are themselves religious, the majority of Democrats are themselves religious. I suspect that the Republicans troll on religion because it excites their base, not their opponents base.
 
2011-11-16 12:41:53 PM
Atheists are so cute...So sure they are right with no way to prove it, same as the theists.
 
2011-11-16 12:42:05 PM

halfof33: BurnShrike: halfof33: Fundie Atheists are hilarious. Good luck with your proselytizing billboards!

Atheists "proselytize" the same way that English teachers proselytize about proper grammar and spelling, and how Math teachers proselytize about proper order of operations.

Teachers take out billboards?


www.nysut.org

/are you really that intellectually lazy?
 
2011-11-16 12:42:45 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Wait, is he saying that Saint Nicholas, aka Santa Claus, was a myth? Because there's a whole hell of a lot more evidence of Saint Nick than there is of Jesus.


Lord Dimwit: Saint Nicholas existed. In fact, there's more non-biased evidence for his existence than there is for Jesus.


Why the fark do you people keep bringing up Santa Claus?
 
2011-11-16 12:53:47 PM

RexTalionis: Flubb: Yet, you've got 4 eponymous eyewitness accounts written within 40 years of the events taking place, and between 10 and 12 secular sources (of varying quality, some highly hostile) written between 50AD-200AD.

Ah, ha ha, no. The four canonical gospels are generally written well after the death of Jesus, with Mark being the oldest (and least varnished) version being written around, what, 60AD or just after? None of them were contemporary accounts, and some of them were written over a century afterwords. Heck, a most (or rather all, if I'm not mistaken) of the gospels were written in Greek rather than Hebrew or Aramaic, which pretty much guarantees that none of them are eyewitness accounts.

That's what 'written within 40 years of the events taking place' means (unless you want to get pendantic and include the birth of Jesus) - the earliest (Mark) written around the late 50's-60's, and the last (John) coming in around the 80's. Granted, John is just outside the 40 year range, but Matthew (written in Hebrew/Aramaic, Irenaeus points to a 40-50AD origin), and Luke (circa 70's, also pointing to a 40-50AD origin) still fit reasonably within that period. You'll also need to distinguish when a book is found and when a book is written (or may have been written) - simply because you can only date Mark to 60AD, doesn't mean it wasn't written down before that.

It's anachronistic to think that an account can only be accurate if it's written down at the moment it took place (which apparently is shorthand for 'as the person was speaking'). Your point hinges on whether oral sources are accurate or not, and the most recent scholarship indicates so (as per Richard Bauckham). There are also semitisms in some of the texts that indicate a non-native Greek origin, and considering that Christianity was an proselytizing religion, it would make sense that things were translated into Greek asap.

And, if you read any of the gospels closely, most of them do not identify the author as a particular apostle. The "author" is generally anonymous within the gospel itself and wasn't actually attributed to any particular apostle until much later, sometimes hundreds of years after the death of Christ.

You're correct in that none of the gospels specifically tag a name to them. But all 4 are tagged within a very short amount of time, within a hundred years. They're not considered pseudoepigraphic unlike many other works floating around at the time. The only really problematic gospel is John, which is mostly down to the fact that it's heavily theological and less biographical. Modern scholarship has a problem with John, early scholarship doesn't, and the book itself said it was written by the 'disciple whom Jesus loved', and there is a fair amount of internal evidence to suggest that it was written by someone there.

I'm not going to argue that every case is water-tight, or is free from problems, but it's certainly not as loose as it's often made out to be.
 
2011-11-16 12:59:44 PM
i141.photobucket.com
 
2011-11-16 01:00:14 PM

Slaves2Darkness: Meh, that sounds like a bunch petulent kids, i.e. 16-26, who are mad at mommy and daddy.


And the rationalization kicks in.

"I can't find a reason why you might be wrong, so I'll just attack you personally instead."

SirCodeAlot: Atheists are so cute...So sure they are right with no way to prove it, same as the theists.


Well it's good that you've found a way to feel superior to both.
 
2011-11-16 01:03:33 PM
FTA "equally thought-provoking and spark plenty of conversations nationally"

It's very thought provoking, first thought is; what a bunch of assholes, and that's usually the centerpoint of the conversation.

Look, I really don't care what you believe, or what you don't. If someone wishes you a Merry Christmas, Happy Hollidays, Happy Hannakuh, or Happy Kwanza or whatever, instead of going instant asshole about it, simply accept that they are giving you good wishes, appreciate the intent, and get on with your life. The atheist who insists on this kind of action isn't any different than the born again types insisting that I need to be saved, you're BOTH assholes.

And sorry, the excuse that their religion "affects" you because of how it affects they way they vote and the way they act is groundless. They have their moral code because they've decided that is what is "right", which is exactly as much justification as your moral code has, it's simply what you've decided is "right". Yours is no more superior, and no more valid to be enforced upon me than theirs is, everybody is free to express and vote their conscious, welcome to freedom, it exposes you to that you might wish to avoid by forcing others to be exposed to your particularly brand of idiocy as well.

We'd all be a lot better if you'd all adopt an attitude of not farking with other people, and just because someone is farking with you doesn't justify your farking with somebody else. Leave me alone to run my life as long as I'm not directly impacting you, and live yours as you chose with the same restriction of not directly impacting my freedoms to do the same.

This isn't about provoking thought or discussion, it's simply about provoking, which just makes you an asshole.
 
2011-11-16 01:03:34 PM

craigdamage: Why can't people stop being assholes?

Who f*cking cares?

yeah...I'm real goddamned cool and smart because I figured out that ancient desert prophecies are all silly myths....big deal.

I KEEP MY MOUTH SHUT

So what if money says: "In God We Trust" or peope say "Bless you" or "God bless you" or whatever......

I love Christmas.
It reminds me of my Grandmother. I really miss her.

I still sometimes imagine that somehow she is watching.......

maybe that is why I am NOT an asshole.


Loudmouth atheists are jerks who hate their grandmothers.


Didja ever think that maybe they just hate your grandmother?

\what a biatch that woman was...
 
2011-11-16 01:04:14 PM

James F. Campbell: Why the fark do you people keep bringing up Santa Claus?


Because TFA mentioned an atheist billboard that showed Santa Claus, Jesus, Satan and Posiedon. A christian in TFA commented that only one of those figures is based upon a real historical person (Jesus). Now the arguement is that Santa is also based upon a real historical person.
 
2011-11-16 01:12:47 PM

Kome: MayoSlather: Republicans troll on religion and mention god all the time because they know it will piss off the left and cause a response, which only further serves to separate people that largely have the same base interests.

I disagree. The majority of liberals are themselves religious, the majority of Democrats are themselves religious. I suspect that the Republicans troll on religion because it excites their base, not their opponents base.


Not all republicans act that way, mind you. There are more atheist Republicans out there than most people realize.

We (Atheist Republicans) are the libertarian faction of the GOP and we're currently fighting with the magic-believing anti-science types over who controls our party.
 
Displayed 50 of 528 comments

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



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report