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.

(CNN)   CNN decides to try its hand at trolling, announces that the fastest growing religion is Atheism   (religion.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 369
    More: Interesting, demographic trends, Pew Research Center, religions and spiritual traditions, Secular Student Alliance  
•       •       •

7337 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Oct 2012 at 10:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



369 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-09 01:02:09 PM

stink factor: HotWingConspiracy: It's like any other business, people are just getting bored with the product.

A slick marketing campaign might help. Offer some new incentives, maybe roll back restrictions.

Instead of Jesus always being depicted in the same old boring ways (in a desert surrounded by kids or people eating fish and bread, hanging from a cross, eating food with some apostles at a fancy, boring dinner) why not show him in new and exciting ways? Riding in a standing position on the backs of dolphins, using his robe as a sail on his cross to go skydiving, chugging mountain dew atop mount everest and surrounded by ninjas with guitars. I just think Jesus could be much better marketed.


Been done.

thecityslacker.com
 
2012-10-09 01:03:21 PM
 
2012-10-09 01:03:49 PM

HotWingConspiracy: It's like any other business, people are just getting bored with the product.

A slick marketing campaign might help. Offer some new incentives, maybe roll back restrictions.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-10-09 01:03:52 PM

rolladuck: But it's been a strange few weeks. Seems that for some people, Christian compassion ends at the church door, and faith is thicker than blood. I might be invited back home eventually.


As I have have taken to saying, I may have left Christianity for evidence reasons, but all the stuff that happened after I left made damn sure I wouldn't be tempted to return for "emotional fulfillment" or "community." Would buy you a beer if you were in the same state.

/ brofist
 
2012-10-09 01:04:19 PM
Ugh. Mucked up the html again. You'd think I'd learn to use "preview" by now... *sigh*
 
2012-10-09 01:04:37 PM
Crap. Too slow.
 
2012-10-09 01:05:12 PM

Buttknuckle: I have come to realize something in the past couple years...

Atheists who look down upon others for their religious beliefs are arrogant. You cannot win an argument with an Atheist, because it is about logic. Religion is about BELIEF. There is so much we don't know out there and to assume that we as humans are "it" is arrogant as hell, IMHO. But it really bothers me when Atheists look down on those who get happiness and serenity in their lives with religion. Of course, this is contingent on the fact that they are not religious nutjobs trying to convert everyone in their path.


Actually, what's "arrogant as hell" is assuming that there's a magical sky fairy who created you, gave you dominion over the earth, and gives a fark about you.

The reality is, humans are not "it". There's a whole universe out there, and humans are but a tiny part of it. You aren't amazing or special or chosen. In the big picture, you are nothing. So, enjoy life while you've got it - nothing but the void awaits.
 
2012-10-09 01:06:21 PM

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: The Wizard of Frobozz: ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION!!!

In the name of Darwin, Hitchens, & the Holy Dawkins...Amen.

If you go on and on about it like, say Bill Maher does, then yes, it is a religion.


So if you make money off of it that pushes it into the realm of religions? Interesting.
 
2012-10-09 01:06:38 PM

FormlessOne: Why bother?


Because of all the Apologetics arguments I've heard, TAG is absolutely glorious in its rock-solid certainty. It's almost pure, raw, theoretical poetry how it is wrong for the same reasons it thinks it is right. And the whole purpose of TAG is not to actually prove anything, but to win arguments. It's like a loophole or technicality that lawyers often bring up in courtrooms, using the preferred wording of a phrase or clause to assert something that it wasn't intending.

We all know it's wrong. But how it's wrong is what's so fascinating about it. I love hearing people's explanations.
 
2012-10-09 01:06:49 PM
Unaffiliated. Just because I don't identify with a particular gang doesn't make me not thuglife.
 
2012-10-09 01:07:29 PM

Bhruic: Khanmots: If you're a gnostic (atheist or theist) I'll debate you and win (well so long as you actually debate and have been exposed to formal logic...).

Well, no, you won't, necessarily. Unless you predefine your argument as requiring logical proof. If I roll a die, and I see the result and you don't, I can easily win an argument about the result of that roll, simply because I have first-hand knowledge and you don't. Any argument from you that it's impossible to know the result of the die roll would be silly.

The same could easily be claimed (and is claimed) by some religious people. They firmly believe that they've had first-hand encounters with God. Personally, I don't believe them, and perhaps you wouldn't either, but if they truly did, then they can accurately claim to be gnostic theists. And no logic from you could disprove that.

I think what you are claiming is that no gnostic can prove to anyone else that they are correct, which I would agree with.


I'll agree with you on that. There's a subset of gnostic (thiests only?) who believe that they have observed God and they have a sound reason to have a gnostic stance. Can't argue that :)

So I should perhaps revise to say that gnostic atheism is logically untenable. Contrarily, gnostic theism can be given the assumption that the individual has had an "experience" to serve as his observation; but the result is a gnostic that can't prove he's correct.
 
2012-10-09 01:07:38 PM

tgambitg: If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck, it's a duck.


YOU LEFT OUT "QUACK" WHICH IS THE ONLY WAY THAT SAYING MAKES SENSE

sorry, had to get mad about something

mbillips: What have religions ever done for us


The religious gave human life intrinsic value when the State was killing people by the millions.
 
2012-10-09 01:07:58 PM

IAMTHEINTARWEBS: Atheism is a belief system and therefore a religion.


Believing the sun will rise tomorrow is a belief system, but not a religion.
 
2012-10-09 01:08:01 PM

FormlessOne: I wonder what CNN thinks about ignosticism...


hasn't apple tried to patent that word? iGnosticism ? sounds like a cool something or other.
 
2012-10-09 01:08:30 PM

Khanmots: On a side note you might want to read up on Godel's incompleteness theorems.


Yes, because none of us have read very widely in this subject except you.

Your condescension is showing.
 
2012-10-09 01:09:48 PM

Buttknuckle: I have come to realize something in the past couple years...

Atheists who look down upon others for their religious beliefs are arrogant. You cannot win an argument with an Atheist, because it is about logic. Religion is about BELIEF. There is so much we don't know out there and to assume that we as humans are "it" is arrogant as hell, IMHO. But it really bothers me when Atheists look down on those who get happiness and serenity in their lives with religion. Of course, this is contingent on the fact that they are not religious nutjobs trying to convert everyone in their path.


Philosophers have grappled with this question when searching for the secret of happiness. Paraphrased, it was noted like this:

A pig does not know of the fate the farmer has in store for him. He is fed and housed without apparent compensation. When he's hot, he happily rolls in the mud to cool down, and spends his days without care, eating, sleeping, and rutting. By every apparent measure, it seems like he would have quite a happy life, until like all things, it comes to an end. One must then ask oneself, is it better to be an ignorant pig, happy to be rolling in the mud, or should one aspire to be a human, aware of the world, and thus experience the greater heights and lower depths that come with that understanding.

In layman's terms, the question was this: "Ignorance makes us happy, but is it worth it?"

Like many philosophical quandaries, this is not a question that can be answered definitively, except on a personal level, so this schism will always exist.

It doesn't take much to look at people who choose ignorance, or deliberately inflict it upon themselves with drink or drugs. There's an obvious and natural conflict between those who've chosen ignorance over contemplation, and feel that their choice should be shared with others. Just like the more outspoken religious folks want to spread their message because they truly believe that it is for the benefit of others, the vocal atheist will do the exact same thing, for the exact same reason.

So you may see this come from a sense of arrogance, but if they were so self-important, they wouldn't share it with you in the first place - unless you're actively causing harm to their lifestyle (see: school boards vs. evolution, etc).
 
2012-10-09 01:10:00 PM

rolladuck: busy chillin': Because there never was no God.


fail

quit reading right there

It's poetic license. These are song lyrics, not an english term paper.

And it's Frank Turner, who in addition to being farking awesome, was, along with my gay friends, my inspiration to come out as an atheist to my parents recently.

But it's been a strange few weeks. Seems that for some people, Christian compassion ends at the church door, and faith is thicker than blood. I might be invited back home eventually.


double negatives drive me bananas...especially in that poem.

But yeah, I haven't told my parents I am no longer a Christian yet. I think they have it figured out a bit...but I just haven't wanted to hear it. It means something to them and I see no reason to break my mom's heart...so we just don't talk about it.
 
2012-10-09 01:10:59 PM

vactech: Sticky Hands: I've been on sites that have a much more substantial Muslim presence, and they are anything BUT "Don't believe in God? Good, more heaven for me!"

Do they pull some pseudo philosophy? Strawman arguments? Endless debates of circular logic? If so, post the site. I bet there are lots of farkers in here who would like to mix it up a little and get some fresh theist blood to flame war with. But you're probably not talking about that sort of posting are you?


Of course they do, every group has a subset that engages in that.
Some get quite enraged at the concept of no religion at all.
Some will troll Westerners about our open attitudes.

Most of my experience with them has been over at the xat chat rooms, which have a lot of Pakistanis in them. But I've bumped into that in any number of international sites.
(usually chat, since forums tend to be one language only, and more heavily moderated)

Hell, just last week I saw some Islamic OP trolling /b
Even Muslims occasionally will do it for the lulz.
 
2012-10-09 01:11:00 PM

kgf: Since all religions have a god


Not necessarily.
 
2012-10-09 01:11:12 PM
I object to religions the way I object to cold fusion claims .... they are both disinformation. There aren't any gods. It's OK.

/ if that makes me antitheist, I am proud to wear the label
 
2012-10-09 01:12:05 PM

vactech: IAMTHEINTARWEBS: Atheism is a belief system and therefore a religion.

Believing the sun will rise tomorrow is a belief system, but not a religion.


We all know the sun is the annoying bug-eyed chihuahua of light, running from the pit bull of darkness. The moon is the miniature poodle of night-time illumination, which is occasionally caught by the pit bull of darkness who takes a bite out, causing the phases of the moon.

What? You think I can make up a whole theology in a couple minutes and have it make sense and not be completely stupid?

/Bet you didn't think I could make you root for the sun to go out, though.
 
2012-10-09 01:13:44 PM

Ishkur: I love hearing people's explanations.


That argument was invented before thinking machines managed to encode logic using a mechanism that was not based on reason. It's invalid now, but it was a lot tougher to refute back in the day. I like the ontological proof myself :)
 
2012-10-09 01:14:05 PM

IAMTHEINTARWEBS: athesim is a belief system. you cannot, at the current time, disprove the existence of gods


And that explanation is why I'm ignostic.

Theists say "gods exist." Atheists say "gods don't exist." Agnostics say "gods may or may not exist." Ignostics ask "what's a god?" We're not equipped to even define the thing about which theists, atheists, and agnostics argue, never mind prove or disprove the existence of that thing. It's been a pointless argument for millenia.

Anyone claiming to be a theist, atheist, or agnostic, really isn't sure about what they're talking. The more extreme the position they take on the subject, the less likely I am to provide any real respect to them, because they're willing to argue, fight, even kill, over something they can't even understand, never mind prove.
 
2012-10-09 01:15:32 PM

Khanmots: So I should perhaps revise to say that gnostic atheism is logically untenable


Well, since you can't prove a negative, I would hope that it's logically untenable. ;)
 
2012-10-09 01:17:39 PM
Only a person with no knowledge of science would assert that subscription to an idea based on its having a high probability of correctness equals certainty.

People with knowledge of science don't believe in certainty, they believe in probability. I am an atheist because gods are as improbable as invisible, intangible unicorns that fill the universe from one end to another. Nothing is impossible in this universe, but things can reach a level of improbability so as to render them unable to happen within the life-span of a thousand universes. That's not the same as impossibility.

It is improbable that your underwear that you put on this morning would suddenly be translocated back into your top dresser drawer. However, it is not impossible. If a trillion wormholes from your dresser to atoms within your underwear formed at random but coincedentally all surrounding your Underwearium atoms, and all leading to your dresser drawer, your underwear would seem to disappear from your bottom and reappear in your dresser simultaneously. Such a thing is absurdly unlikely to happen, but it is NOT impossible.

Likewise, gods, beings of infinite complexity, arising from nothing, and having no measurable qualities, are as unlikely as underwear teleportation in my opinion. At least the big bang, protein self-assembly, membrane formation, ribosome self-assembly, DNA self-assembly all provides an explanation for why several finite, mortal, foolish beings came into existence eventually. It seems likely to me that you're reading this. It seems unlikely to me that you're god. And if you aren't, and I'm not, and he's not, and she's not, and nobody can see him or feel him or taste him or measure him with billions of dollars worth of equipment, then he doesn't exist until one of those measurements changes. Same as underwear teleportation. It hasn't happened, until the first time it's observed to have definitely happened on a day when you definitely didn't just forget to put on your underwear (subject to peer review and reproducability).
 
2012-10-09 01:19:04 PM

Ishkur: FormlessOne: Why bother?

Because of all the Apologetics arguments I've heard, TAG is absolutely glorious in its rock-solid certainty. It's almost pure, raw, theoretical poetry how it is wrong for the same reasons it thinks it is right. And the whole purpose of TAG is not to actually prove anything, but to win arguments. It's like a loophole or technicality that lawyers often bring up in courtrooms, using the preferred wording of a phrase or clause to assert something that it wasn't intending.

We all know it's wrong. But how it's wrong is what's so fascinating about it. I love hearing people's explanations.


TAG is a logical argument that attempts to dance around the 600-pound assumption in the room, hoping that folks will either miss it entirely or buy into it unthinkingly. It's why the Church bailed on it long ago, but so many folks cling to it - it's semantic tomfoolery at its finest.
 
2012-10-09 01:20:05 PM
*grabs popcorn bag*

anyone want some popcorn? This is proving to be an interesting thread!

/Buddhist
 
2012-10-09 01:22:46 PM
"Anybody else feel like they shouldn't have worn a jumper today?"
-- John Lennon, burning in Hell
 
2012-10-09 01:23:15 PM

FormlessOne: IAMTHEINTARWEBS: athesim is a belief system. you cannot, at the current time, disprove the existence of gods

And that explanation is why I'm ignostic.

Theists say "gods exist." Atheists say "gods don't exist." Agnostics say "gods may or may not exist." Ignostics ask "what's a god?" We're not equipped to even define the thing about which theists, atheists, and agnostics argue, never mind prove or disprove the existence of that thing. It's been a pointless argument for millenia.

Anyone claiming to be a theist, atheist, or agnostic, really isn't sure about what they're talking. The more extreme the position they take on the subject, the less likely I am to provide any real respect to them, because they're willing to argue, fight, even kill, over something they can't even understand, never mind prove.


Ah, yes the I'm too stupid to understand the question, so I'll pretend superiority defense.

You are a dumbass.
 
2012-10-09 01:23:26 PM
"It's not the humidity, it's the infernal heat that makes it so hot".
-- John Lennon, burning in Hell
 
2012-10-09 01:24:05 PM
"What I wouldn't give for a single drop of cool water right now. Or maybe an Eskimo Pie."
-- John Lennon, peckish whilst burning in Hell.
 
2012-10-09 01:24:43 PM
We don't label groups of people who don't believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny, so why do we label people who don't believe in their own flavour of fictional character?
 
2012-10-09 01:24:51 PM

FormlessOne: IAMTHEINTARWEBS: athesim is a belief system. you cannot, at the current time, disprove the existence of gods

And that explanation is why I'm ignostic.

Theists say "gods exist." Atheists say "gods don't exist." Agnostics say "gods may or may not exist." Ignostics ask "what's a god?" We're not equipped to even define the thing about which theists, atheists, and agnostics argue, never mind prove or disprove the existence of that thing. It's been a pointless argument for millenia.

Anyone claiming to be a theist, atheist, or agnostic, really isn't sure about what they're talking. The more extreme the position they take on the subject, the less likely I am to provide any real respect to them, because they're willing to argue, fight, even kill, over something they can't even understand, never mind prove.


Alright, this is enough to suck me in.

Some of us are not happy to sit around refusing to talk because our definition for something isn't completely satisfying. And some of us are unwilling to take the path of the (more militant) agnostic and say that since we can't ever know for sure, any discussion is worthless. So yes, I'm an atheist. And here's exactly what I'm talking about. I refuse to explain anything in this universe as the work of a god or the supernatural. I reject the notion that any physical event is unexplainable by human science, give enough time and work by intelligent people. I have thought about this subject and decided (for reasons that aren't really the point here) that this position is the one I will support as opposed to simply shouting "there is no god" or "I don't know anything".

I don't know everything, but I refuse to let that cripple me.
 
2012-10-09 01:25:22 PM

FormlessOne: Theists say "gods exist." Atheists say "gods don't exist." Agnostics say "gods may or may not exist." Ignostics ask "what's a god?" We're not equipped to even define the thing about which theists, atheists, and agnostics argue, never mind prove or disprove the existence of that thing. It's been a pointless argument for millenia.


Well, there's Theism (there is a God), Antitheism (there is no God), Atheism (there's nothing period), Autotheism (I am God), Transtheism (you are God), Misotheism (I hate God), Mysticism (I talk to God), Agnosticism (I don't know), Apatheism (I don't care), and Ignosticism or theological noncognitivism (define God).

Among the theisms, there's Monotheism (there's one god), Bitheism (there's two gods), Ditheism (there's two gods, but one is good and one is evil), Polytheism (there's lots of gods), Monolatrism (there's lots of gods but only one of them matters), Henotheism (there's one god even though there are others), Anthropotheism (God is dead people), and then within these there are ranging attitudes towards divinity, such as Dystheism (God is an asshole), Post-theism (God is dead), Theocentrism (God is why we're here), Immanentism (God can't violate the laws of physics), Interventionism (yes He can), Deism (god isn't God), Pantheism (God is everything), Panentheism (God is more than everything), Theopanism (God becomes everything), and the merciless and unforgiving Maltheism (God isn't worth worshipping). And then there is plain ole Philosophy (What is God?).

Among the monotheisms, there's Christianity (God), Judaism (YHWH), Zoroastrianism (Ahura Mazda), Atenism (Aten), Islam (Allah), Sikhism (Waheguru or Ik ōaṅkār), Shavism (Shiva), Vaishnavism (Vishnu), Shaktism (Shakti), Bahà'i Faith (God), Jainism1 (Mahavira), and Unitheism (they're all the same guy!). But really, I don't think God cares what we call him.

1 Jainism doesn't believe in God, per se; rather that anyone can become a god (Jina) through enlightenment. That makes it technically a polytheism, a monotheism, and an atheism at the same time, which is quite a feat for a religion. Mahavira is the faith's founder.

(I'm probably leaving many out. If you take issue with one or more of these terse, parenthetical descriptions, calm down - I'm going for authenticity here, not accuracy)
 
2012-10-09 01:25:37 PM

Ishkur: Khanmots: On a side note you might want to read up on Godel's incompleteness theorems.

Yes, because none of us have read very widely in this subject except you.

Your condescension is showing.


When presented with that pile of dreck how can one not be at least *slightly* condescending?

But if you want condescending, here's a question... does "All cows are the same color" ring any bells? I'm guessing that you've never been presented an argument with even somewhat subtly faulty logic that reaches a demonstrably erroneous conclusion and asked to pick it apart.

Or perhaps I should ask if you know the difference between logic and philosophy?

Or... I could assume that you're not completely stupid and intellectually lazy and with a little prodding I could get you thinking for yourself.

// ?
 
2012-10-09 01:26:37 PM
"At least Yoko's not here. Not yet".
-- John Lennon, contemplating ways it could be worse whilst burning in Hell
 
2012-10-09 01:27:04 PM

jonawald: Religion = people who believe in something they can't see, can't prove.

Atheists = people who believe that the everything we know came from nothing in some kind of big bang. That this something that came from nothing somehow changed and "evolved" into a single cellular living being that had a system for respiring, digesting, eliminating waste and reproducing? Wow. That alone is a lot of faith. It goes on though. they believe that somehow this something that came from nothing and got life and systems evolved into a multicelular being that had all the above functions. It goes on from there, but it gets to crazy to put down in writing.

People laugh at religions people who believe in a God, and Creator. Think about how funny these people are. They certainly have a weird religion.


Where did this God that created everything come from? Religion has the same flaws as Atheism, but they add an extra step, nothing makes an Omnipotent thing, then that thing creates everything else.
 
2012-10-09 01:27:17 PM
"Could God make a rock so big that He couldn't lift it? Ha, answer that!"
-- John Lennon, losing his classic ironic wit and just revelling in smug atheist circle-jerkery whilst burning in Hell.
 
2012-10-09 01:27:28 PM
and... forgot no fake html tags on this forum... my slashie was a fake /snark tag

*sigh*
 
2012-10-09 01:31:15 PM

FormlessOne: IAMTHEINTARWEBS: athesim is a belief system. you cannot, at the current time, disprove the existence of gods

And that explanation is why I'm ignostic.

Theists say "gods exist." Atheists say "gods don't exist." Agnostics say "gods may or may not exist." Ignostics ask "what's a god?" We're not equipped to even define the thing about which theists, atheists, and agnostics argue, never mind prove or disprove the existence of that thing. It's been a pointless argument for millenia.

Anyone claiming to be a theist, atheist, or agnostic, really isn't sure about what they're talking. The more extreme the position they take on the subject, the less likely I am to provide any real respect to them, because they're willing to argue, fight, even kill, over something they can't even understand, never mind prove.


Interesting. Thanks for the post. I've been thinking about this a lot recently, but have not encountered the term ignostic before.

I have found that the definition of (a)god, is always suspiciously missing in these conversations.

On a related note, I feel Christians engage atheists more due to the unique nature of their paradoxical God who is both anthropomorphic and highly conceptual.

In some sense, I think the definitions of god(s) is as unique as every individual who has ever believed in one.
 
2012-10-09 01:32:12 PM

letrole: "At least Yoko's not here. Not yet".
-- John Lennon, contemplating ways it could be worse whilst burning in Hell


This is my favorite by far.

and for those playing the home game: Imagine all these coming from the rude french man from Monty Python and the Holy Grail

//can't remember which Farker came up with that but it increased teh lulz..
 
2012-10-09 01:34:29 PM

I read fark for the pics: We don't label groups of people who don't believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny, so why do we label people who don't believe in their own flavour of fictional character?


They are labeled "grown ups."
 
2012-10-09 01:34:37 PM

FormlessOne: TAG is a logical argument that attempts to dance around the 600-pound assumption in the room, hoping that folks will either miss it entirely or buy into it unthinkingly. It's why the Church bailed on it long ago, but so many folks cling to it - it's semantic tomfoolery at its finest.


I find that, when you dress down all the logic, at its core it's just a rehash of the "assert something exists outside of existence" game. That so long as you know that there's knowledge that we can't know, you can assert a God-of-the-gaps null hypothesis in there. Especially if that knowledge is abstract or metaphysical or, even better, outside of the very bounds of reality, then it's impossible to account for it. Thus, TAG can declare victory.

At least, that's what they think they're doing. If only that meant anything.

All arguments for God, religion or anything else cannot and should not consist purely of word games, loaded analogies, stuffed rhetoric and rank sophistry. Eventually one has to stop the clever wordplay and get down to practical application.
 
2012-10-09 01:35:18 PM
I look around all I see are people
am I doing this wrong?
You say my name is a clever phrase
something about the voice of god
I look at you and think
I liked it as a clever play on my name
but you want to see god in everything and everyone
Perhaps that's why we disagree.
 
2012-10-09 01:36:25 PM

Bhruic: athesim is a belief system. you cannot, at the current time, disprove the existence of gods
if you hold that there is no god then that is an unprovable belief.

snip

Atheism is defined by belief

So what you are saying is that not believing in anything that you can't actually prove to not exist is a belief system?


There are too many negatives for me to follow this sentence.

So not believing in unicorns is a belief system? yes, for example "I do not believe unicorns exist" = "I believe unicorns do not exist". in both cases believe is the verb
 
2012-10-09 01:36:50 PM
As an atheist all I can say is, "The proof is in the dying."
 
2012-10-09 01:37:13 PM

I read fark for the pics: We don't label groups of people who don't believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny, so why do we label people who don't believe in their own flavour of fictional character?


www.whatdaphuk.com

Or, there's a better image that comes up why you search for that one.

tshirtgroove.com
 
2012-10-09 01:37:59 PM

FormlessOne: it's semantic tomfoolery at its finest.


not even close
 
2012-10-09 01:38:45 PM

Khanmots: But if you want condescending, here's a question... does "All cows are the same color" ring any bells? I'm guessing that you've never been presented an argument with even somewhat subtly faulty logic that reaches a demonstrably erroneous conclusion and asked to pick it apart.


To be fair, you have yet to do so.

Khanmots: Or perhaps I should ask if you know the difference between logic and philosophy?


Why?

Khanmots: Or... I could assume that you're not completely stupid and intellectually lazy and with a little prodding I could get you thinking for yourself.


I see that you are an Athenian.

I am an Ionian.

Let's battle.
 
2012-10-09 01:41:41 PM

vactech: On a related note, I feel Christians engage atheists more due to the unique nature of their paradoxical God who is both anthropomorphic and highly conceptual.


Christians engage atheists more because of access. There aren't a lot of atheists in Muslim places. Also, to Christians, the belief itself is what makes them Christian. A lot of other faiths are more action-based and can just do things to assert their beliefs. They don't have to have the argument.
 
Displayed 50 of 369 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report