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  
•       •       •

7335 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 02:47:32 PM

Kurmudgeon: SquiggsIN: and christ mass has no business being a federally-recognized holiday. that goes completely against our establishment of religion clause.

No it doesn't. You don't even understand what establishment of religion in this circumstance is.
It takes more than just a day off.


yeah references to deities on public property and our money and other stuff like that right? I love it when people tell you what you do and don't understand.
 
2012-10-09 02:51:03 PM
I see i drunk what is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people until the thread closes. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

IDW is, essentially, the ultimate troll (with the only difference being that he's not a deliberate one). He's not interested in discussion -- he just wants to dick you around.

His MO is to seize control of the discussion and keep it, and the most basic way to do this is to withhold information from others and never acquiesce to any questions, comments or requests. By claiming some hidden truth that is beyond everyone's insight but keeping it undefined, he places himself in a role as Teacher or Guru or whatever fantasy Authority he imagines himself as. He doesn't mind arguing in his own backyard, but he'd much prefer to constantly hop from backyard to backyard, forcing you to chase him through separate, discordant arguments and fallacies of distraction. If you corner him, he'll usually chop your post up into little pieces and then reply to each piece individually with one these responses:

1) a question attacking your line of questioning, turning it back on you
2) a loaded and nonsensical analogy which may include a dodge, misdirection, or introduction of additional and usually irrelevant subject matter or
3) a sarcastic snipe at the subject and/or you (sometimes with image attached)

And then the chase begins again. There's no knowledge or wisdom to gain here (from either you or him) and he has no insights to impart. His questions have no purpose. He just wants to control you and force you to jump through his hoops that he will constantly move around on you so that you fail and he can claim superiority. You are wasting your time.

For an example, in this three year old thread he concocted a logic game similar to the Wason Selection Task with rules that he could change at any time for any reason, foisted it upon the thread, toyed with the posters for a whole day while refusing to give the answer, and then eventually concluded that everyone was wrong.

It's part of his technique to constantly assume Authoritarian control. He gets off on giving people challenges and quests with no point other than so he can withhold the non-existent answers from them (like his "True Definition of Nature" theory -- he poses this riddle to everyone but there's no answer. He just enjoys watching people struggle). It's the old schoolyard power trip: "I know something you don't and I won't tell you what it is".

That he's been doing this schtick for so long is an indication that he will never stop and there's nothing to learn from him, like he's stuck in a perpetual feedback loop, recycling the same arguments in every religion thread (he's probably already posted the Wason test that he so infamously failed at solving many years ago. It's his way of dealing with the embarrassment by mocking it).

Despite the fact that he frequently loses these discussions, he'll continue posting them as if they're unsolvable, ignoring repeated and consistent replies defeating them. He has never been the type to swallow his pride and admit when he's wrong so you'll never get anywhere with him (and he'll always mock you if you try). It is very likely that he has NPD and people replying to him on Fark is how he strokes his ego so he can never stop no matter how many humiliating threads send him down in flames.

In short: He is a complete and total waste of your god damn time. Reply at your peril; I suggest ignore.
 
2012-10-09 02:51:06 PM

vpb: Pocket Ninja: Actually, they said that the fastest growing group is the religiously "unaffiliated," over half of whom still attend church and/or consider themselves "spiritual" and would certainly not label themselves as atheists. Although since there is no group easier to troll than online atheists, your headline will work just fine, subby.

I don't know. Many people who attend church only go to keep their friends and family happy.



I stopped going to chruch to make my family happy. Apparently, the constant shoulds of "But where's the proof?" or "Is that a wool/cotton blend?" or "They served shrimp at the fundraiser, why aren't you stoning them?" were upsetting to others.
 
2012-10-09 02:52:01 PM
Atheism is a Religion. A piss-poor Religion, but a Religion regardless.

The amusing part is where an almost endless supply of Schoolboy Atheists will launch into ever-decreasing circles of denial, and exercises of semantics worthy of any medieval theologian.
 
2012-10-09 02:52:47 PM

Ishkur: Bhruic: Unfortunately you are incorrect. "I do not believe in X" is not the same as "I believe X doesn't exist". Not believing can mean that you are sure that X isn't the case, but it also could mean that you lack enough evidence to believe something.

Whenever these threads get to this point, I start reading every post in Matt Dillahunty's voice.


Hehe, yeah. I was almost tempted to find the video where he went over this extensively with that one "professional debator", but I figured I could adlib it. Those guys do some great work, there's no way I could be as patient as they are. Well, I could be as patient as Jeff Dee. ;)
 
2012-10-09 02:53:46 PM

letrole: Atheism is a Religion. A piss-poor Religion, but a Religion regardless.

The amusing part is where an almost endless supply of Schoolboy Atheists will launch into ever-decreasing circles of denial, and exercises of semantics worthy of any medieval theologian.


Define religion, then demonstrate how atheism fits that definition. Until then, STFU.
 
2012-10-09 02:54:01 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.


Online trolls and 15 year old "atheists" on Reddit notwithstanding, I dont think most people who truly consider themselves atheists really look down on people who are happy with religion. They look down on people who try to shove their religion on everyone else (especially through law) without really bothering to actually adhere to the rules of the religion.

Besides, isn't it just as arrogant to believe that an all powerful being who created the universe loves YOU and hates people who aren't like you?
 
2012-10-09 02:54:16 PM

I May Be Crazy But...: For the sake of all that you hold sacred, will everyone stop the insipid comments about who killed who in the name of what? Everyone here knows that killing people is wrong. It doesn't matter if you do it in the name of God, Communism, atheism, Buddha or Jack Russel Terriers, it's wrong. Nobody here supports it.


I typically tend to find "who killed more people" arguments unhelpful, but I will admit that they have their own narrowly-defined place. The problem is that most "pogroms vs. Crusades" arguments are very poorly stated, largely because people engage in them without a clear premise that they're trying to support.

When someone pops into the thread and says "Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were atheists and look at all the people they killed," or, more inflammatorily, "look at all the people atheism kills," there are a number of different arguments that might be advanced by this statement, but what they actually are is often never stated. You might be arguing against the idea that atheism is sufficient to make people behave in a more humanitarian manner (or prevent atrocities,) in which case mentioning Stalin might be a valid rebuttal. If you are instead arguing that atheism by itself is sufficient to cause atrocities, that's a much more difficult sell, given the number of other characteristics that the Soviet, Chinese, and Khmer Rouge shared. If you bring up atrocities committed by atheists as a rebuttal to atrocities committed by Christians (or other religious folks,) that's often a simple Tu Quoque fallacy that doesn't address the point it's attempting to refute.

At a more abstract level, none of those mentions of Authoritarian genocide address whether or not God exists; they only argue whether or not belief in God is beneficial to society, which is a completely different argument.

Conversely, saying "look at the Crusades/witch trials/pedophiles" by itself isn't necessarily an argument for anything. The main difference I would point out between the two sides of this conversation is that the claims of "atheism" and the various flavors of Christianity are usually not symmetric, so these examples are not equally applicable. For instance, if a Christian is attempting to assert that Christianity is sufficient to make people morally superior (and by extension prove his religion is true,) then mention of the Crusades might be a legitimate counterexample. If, in rebuttal, the religious person mentions people killed by atheists, that proves nothing unless the non-theist has specifically asserted that atheism makes people more moral, or is sufficient to prevent genocide, or something like that.

I think discussions of past injustices do have a place in discussions of religion, but in order for them to work, you have to have a point beyond "ATHEISM/THEISM BAD!!!!"
 
2012-10-09 02:54:48 PM

mithras_angel: vpb: Pocket Ninja: Actually, they said that the fastest growing group is the religiously "unaffiliated," over half of whom still attend church and/or consider themselves "spiritual" and would certainly not label themselves as atheists. Although since there is no group easier to troll than online atheists, your headline will work just fine, subby.

I don't know. Many people who attend church only go to keep their friends and family happy.


I stopped going to chruch to make my family happy. Apparently, the constant shoulds of "But where's the proof?" or "Is that a wool/cotton blend?" or "They served shrimp at the fundraiser, why aren't you stoning them?" were upsetting to others.


/s/chruch/church
/s/shoulds/shouts

I can't spell today.
 
2012-10-09 02:57:43 PM

Martian_Astronomer: I think discussions of past injustices do have a place in discussions of religion, but in order for them to work, you have to have a point beyond "ATHEISM/THEISM BAD!!!!"


Okay, you have a good point.

Mostly around here it seems to just be used as a way to say "You support Hitler" or "You want to burn witches" and that gets under my skin, because whichever it is, it's a insult to me or my loved ones.
 
2012-10-09 02:58:26 PM

Metaphysical Ham Sandwich: letrole: Atheism is a Religion. A piss-poor Religion, but a Religion regardless.

The amusing part is where an almost endless supply of Schoolboy Atheists will launch into ever-decreasing circles of denial, and exercises of semantics worthy of any medieval theologian.

Define religion, then demonstrate how atheism fits that definition. Until then, STFU.


It's funny, I was just about to ask him if his username didn't give away his posting style to people, and cause him to get less bites than he otherwise would have, but I then he goes and gets one. Not that I blame you, it's just sad how many people seem to be amused by trolling these days.
 
2012-10-09 02:58:33 PM

JC Saviour: /it's IDW's pseudo intellectual version of Simon Says


uh oh! another loser just outed himself, how embarrassing

Leeds just warned you that your posts cannot be deleted, weren't you paying attention?

ok Leeds go ahead and mock him, he deserves it

Ishkur: He's not interested in discussion


i'm interested in discussing the solution with you, are you an honest intellectual?

dang Leeds, you're gunna busy mocking people in this thread, hope your net doesn't break

tl;dr

The Aristocrats Idiot Brigade

everyone give them a hand, they are the hardest working brigade in show business

/devouring oneself isn't as easy as it looks
 
2012-10-09 03:01:08 PM

Bhruic: Metaphysical Ham Sandwich: letrole: Atheism is a Religion. A piss-poor Religion, but a Religion regardless.

The amusing part is where an almost endless supply of Schoolboy Atheists will launch into ever-decreasing circles of denial, and exercises of semantics worthy of any medieval theologian.

Define religion, then demonstrate how atheism fits that definition. Until then, STFU.

It's funny, I was just about to ask him if his username didn't give away his posting style to people, and cause him to get less bites than he otherwise would have, but I then he goes and gets one. Not that I blame you, it's just sad how many people seem to be amused by trolling these days.


So is spending another post congratulating the troll helping or hurting the problem? Incidentally I don't care if he's a troll, my response applies to anyone that would read it.
 
2012-10-09 03:02:16 PM

cfreak: 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.

Online trolls and 15 year old "atheists" on Reddit notwithstanding, I dont think most people who truly consider themselves atheists really look down on people who are happy with religion. They look down on people who try to shove their religion on everyone else (especially through law) without really bothering to actually adhere to the rules of the religion.

Besides, isn't it just as arrogant to believe that an all powerful being who created the universe loves YOU and hates people who aren't like you?


Dude, I'm with you on that. People who use their belief systems to judge others and push their beliefs are wrong. I just point out the "fairy in the sky" saying idiots who lump all belief systems together. What I believe is none of your business as long as I show tolerance, even love, to my fellow man. Don't throw out stupid things that are meant to hurt people and generalize.

Hell, most of the Catholic priests I know do not agree with the Catholic Church Doctrine.

I'm not Catholic, far from it, but grew up Catholic which is the reason I'm using that as the example. I just see the atheists on this site throwing insults at other peoples' beliefs to be incredibly hypocritical. Can't everyone practice a little farking tolerance? If someone is pushing their religion on me, I tell them to fark off. Religious beliefs are personal and should be kept that way.
 
2012-10-09 03:03:24 PM

Bhruic: Hehe, yeah. I was almost tempted to find the video where he went over this extensively with that one "professional debator", but I figured I could adlib it. Those guys do some great work, there's no way I could be as patient as they are. Well, I could be as patient as Jeff Dee. ;)


I like those callers the best. I don't like the dumbasses who call in with idiot questions (cuz they all end the same), but the professional theologians and apologetics guys who call in and they just grind away for a half hour.
 
2012-10-09 03:05:14 PM

kgf: Spanky_McFarksalot: "The fastest growing "religious" group in America is made up of people with no religion at all..."

Not having a religion does not equal atheist, no matter how much atheists say it does.

Ahem. See if you can follow this.

a- = without, and theism = belief in a god, therefore atheism = no belief in a god

Since all religions have a god, and conversely the belief in a god is religion, then not having a religion = not having a god, therefore not having a religion = atheist

If someone believes in a god, but say they have no religion, they are wrong.


Not my take, but ok.

One key item there: the belief in a god is not necessarily a religion. The dogmatic adherance to a code of worship around a specific god might be, but what about the belief that there is a (or maybe more than one) god.

So you can be a non-religious, non-dogmatic theist, which is very different from an atheist, and somewhat different from a (50-50) agnostic. Theistic Agnostics are generally not big religion nuts
 
2012-10-09 03:07:01 PM
letrole: Atheism is a Religion. A piss-poor Religion, but a Religion regardless.
The amusing part is where an almost endless supply of Schoolboy Atheists will launch into ever-decreasing circles of denial, and exercises of semantics worthy of any medieval theologian.


Metaphysical Ham Sandwich: Define religion, then demonstrate how atheism fits that definition. Until then, STFU.



QED
 
2012-10-09 03:08:43 PM

JC Saviour: I May Be Crazy But...: Out of curiosity, what do you mean by those cards? I went to the Watson Selection Task page on wikipedia, but I'm still lost about the meaning here

Oh Jesus no!!!

//it's IDW's pseudo intellectual version of Simon Says.


IDW says, don't join the Idiot Brigade, simple logic tests aren't that difficult to understand

besides if you fail at basic logic why would intelligent people waste their time trying to explain concepts that require advanced logic...?

riddle me that, Leedsman

does anyone know the correct answer? the answer link has already been posted, all you have to do is copy-pasta the solution, and you can at least pretend to be intelligent...

I May Be Crazy But...: I went to the Watson Selection Task page on wikipedia


luckily i may be crazy but, was saved at the last minute by a fellow IB, who gave him the "original thought" red alert and sheltered his precious snow-flake's ears from having to think for himself

good catch JC, that was a close one *whew*

/assume the positions
 
2012-10-09 03:10:11 PM

I May Be Crazy But...: I drunk what: Leeds: In case you haven't noticed, you can't erase posts once you've posted them. So your idiocy is there for all to see and mock.

upload.wikimedia.org

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by those cards? I went to the Watson Selection Task page on wikipedia, but I'm still lost about the meaning here.


That's an image that signifies the drunk one's inability to grasp logic. For some reason, he's proud of the fact that he failed that test and for completely inexplicable reasons he drags it out to showcase his shame.

Here's the original thread link.

All the rest copied directly from that link:

Q: If I tell you that the rule is all cards with an even number on them have to have red backs, which two cards do you flip over to check if this is true?
IDW's Answer: is the fourth card orange?
IDW's Second Answer: i got tired of waiting so now I have to ASSUME the 4th card is red (though it appears orange on my computer). My answer is : the first two cards "3" "8"
Patient Response #1: Err, no, the third card is red, the fourth brown. Are you perchance red green deficient? I'll give you time to think about it again.
IDW's Second Answer: then I'm stuck because I need to flip 3 8 and brown
Patient Response #2: Well, then the situation is worse than I thought. I'll restate the question, in writing. You have four cards on a table. One shows a '3', another an '8', another is red, the last is brown. You are told that the rule is that all cards with an even number on one side must be red on the other side. Which two cards do you flip to determine if the rule has been violated?
IDW's Third Answer: ok let me try to restate in writing. I would choose-flip the first card (which shows a '3') and the second card (which shows an '8'). was this the way you wanted me to answer [in writing]
IDW starting to lose it: I'm stuck because I need to flip 3 8 and brown. But then he said only 2 so, I think it's a trap!

It goes on and on and on and on and on and on. IDW still doesn't understand that test or why he keeps failing it. And that was February of 2009.

THIS is why that idiot is on everyone's ignore list. Even when you show him the error in his ways, even when you educate him about where the problem lies, he still doesn't get it. And then to make matters worse, instead of being embarrassed by his inability to understand basic logic he chooses instead to post that picture all over the place as some sort of badge of honor. He's actually proud of being a card-carrying moron.
 
2012-10-09 03:13:59 PM

crazyeddie: Funny to see


hysterical

crazyeddie: (abb3w, perhaps?).


nope, he was about the only one who got it right, unfortunately as Leeds indicated, his posts could be seen by others (and not deleted) and i guess he's been kissing arse ever since then to, repair the damage?

i guess it's his way of doing penance for burning that bridge
 
2012-10-09 03:16:24 PM

Weaver95: Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: We should really create our own religion here on Fark. Think of the benefits brought on by the tax exempt status!

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x407]

All hail the omnissiah!


Fark already has that. His name is Obama.
 
2012-10-09 03:20:33 PM

Leeds: He's actually proud of being a card-carrying moron.


Leeds, as a concerned friend i must warn you:

Leeds: Know how I know you didn't click on the link?

Here's a free tip- Learn to read and people won't mock your stupidity to your face nearly as much. In case you haven't noticed, you can't erase posts once you've posted them. So your idiocy is there for all to see and mock. Allow me to be the first so far today to openly mock you, troll.


heed these words... carefully

and just for bonus lulz:

Leeds: Patient Response


cuddlebuggery.com

8/10

*searches for Fark handle "Patient Response"*

/No such user 'patient response'. Tastes like chicken.
 
2012-10-09 03:23:32 PM

I drunk what: JC Saviour: I May Be Crazy But...: Out of curiosity, what do you mean by those cards? I went to the Watson Selection Task page on wikipedia, but I'm still lost about the meaning here

Oh Jesus no!!!

//it's IDW's pseudo intellectual version of Simon Says.

IDW says, don't join the Idiot Brigade, simple logic tests aren't that difficult to understand

besides if you fail at basic logic why would intelligent people waste their time trying to explain concepts that require advanced logic...?

riddle me that, Leedsman

does anyone know the correct answer? the answer link has already been posted, all you have to do is copy-pasta the solution, and you can at least pretend to be intelligent...I May Be Crazy But...: I went to the Watson Selection Task page on wikipedia

luckily i may be crazy but, was saved at the last minute by a fellow IB, who gave him the "original thought" red alert and sheltered his precious snow-flake's ears from having to think for himself

good catch JC, that was a close one *whew*

/assume the positions


Is the answer God? It's God right? What, you're saying God is not the answer? Maybe your definition of The Answer (TM) is different than mine. LOL The answer is as natural as science is to the Stupid Troops.

Now keep in mind the first 8 are place holders and some dumping bins.

Nature/God
1. A varience of constant states of (and moving properties) that define and create the shapes of binding precedents and objects observed in the conscious and unconscious:
a. Quantum mind
b Galaxy morphological sytem
c Infinit truth proposition (God Mind)
d Neural correlates
e Oscillation Matter/Synchronized Matter (both varieties)
f Quantum Electromagnetism (subset of Quantum Physics)
g Nuclear
h Non-nuclear
i. ∩ (dump containers)
Blackhole
Fision
Invariance (mathematics & physics)
j. Light. i Radiation and/or Guiding principles of morality (John 1:5)
k. Numbers (Numbers)
l. Morphology of Love - Love Body Matrix (romans 12:5)
m. Ghost Sphere - sets out the entire structure (circular action) of the universe (set) and biology related material (Matthew 14:26)
n. Infinity - Eternal reward system ∩ Feed back loop (John 1:2)

Notes:
Contextualism defines (completely) subsets and the whole sets (above) through which observation is restritive in allowance of the sets.

Riddle me this Drunktard:

Is it natural, for a house to be ransacked by thugs, the family tied up in the basement, with socks in their mouths with the front door knob so bloody you can't even get in?
 
2012-10-09 03:25:58 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.


*sigh* no it doesn't. There is observable evidence for evolution and the Big Bang and every other science that you dismiss as "to crazy to put in writing". Observable science is testable. That's why it's science. You cannot test for God.

Secondly, there is no atheistic creed, no agreed on book. Most atheists accept the scientific explanations for things but there is no requirement. One can be an atheist and believe that a giant turtle carries the world on its back.

Thirdly one can be Christian and believe that the Bible isn't really that specific about creation and understand that people living 6000 years ago wouldn't have understood science. That is to say that all the scientific processes are true but that a Creator designed it that way. No disavowing of faith necessary.

Finally this is a classic example of a deeper tragedy of a (collective) church leadership who has gone and done something specifically frowned upon in the Bible. Right there in the 10 commandments it says "Thou shalt not bear false witness." And yet every Sunday the lies are spewed forth, about how Christians are persecuted, about how everyone is out to destroy America unless we turn back to Jesus, about how the evil liberal atheists (the world) have a grand conspiracy to undermine all that is holy. And let's not forget the big lie: a belief in a vision of 1950s America where everyone and everything was perfect. There were no gays or atheists or drugs or child abuse. No unwed mothers or divorce. No unwanted pregnancy, abortion or birth control!

It's no wonder the church is descending into irrelevancy. It gave up on things that made it relevant years ago: social justice, equality, and compassion no matter who you were or where you came from. Maybe that church never existed at all.
 
2012-10-09 03:27:18 PM

I drunk what:

*searches for Fark handle "Patient Response"*

/No such user 'patient response'. Tastes like chicken.


duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude
* my eyes bulging more and more *
 
2012-10-09 03:29:29 PM
Oh jeebus. Vactech- Surely you have seen the evidence posted above. You're feeding the least intelligent troll on this entire site. Please don't, he really does relish his failures and one gets no satisfaction trying to educate people who see no difference between right and wrong, false or true.

That's why so few people respond to that idiot. 99% of all farkers have already put him on ignore.

// We're still working on banning him again though. Religious farkers are ashamed of him and atheist farkers tend to believe that idiots who cannot grasp logic are un-fixable.
 
2012-10-09 03:30:09 PM

Ishkur: Bhruic: Hehe, yeah. I was almost tempted to find the video where he went over this extensively with that one "professional debator", but I figured I could adlib it. Those guys do some great work, there's no way I could be as patient as they are. Well, I could be as patient as Jeff Dee. ;)

I like those callers the best. I don't like the dumbasses who call in with idiot questions (cuz they all end the same), but the professional theologians and apologetics guys who call in and they just grind away for a half hour.


The problem with the latter class is they usually get hung up on a specific spot. Like the one guy I was thinking of, his argument started off with "something cannot come from nothing". Which Matt wouldn't agree with. And the guy concluded that must mean that Matt thought that something could come from nothing. And Matt kept saying, "No, I just don't agree that something can't come from nothing". And they went back and forth on that for awhile, until Matt finally hung up because the guy just couldn't get it.
 
2012-10-09 03:35:49 PM

Leeds: Oh jeebus. Vactech- Surely you have seen the evidence posted above. You're feeding the least intelligent troll on this entire site. Please don't, he really does relish his failures and one gets no satisfaction trying to educate people who see no difference between right and wrong, false or true.

That's why so few people respond to that idiot. 99% of all farkers have already put him on ignore.

// We're still working on banning him again though. Religious farkers are ashamed of him and atheist farkers tend to believe that idiots who cannot grasp logic are un-fixable.


Don't worry. Once he starts into my questions, he'll get bogged down on the pickle matrix and that will keep him away for a long time.
 
2012-10-09 03:40:54 PM

letrole: Atheism is a Religion. A piss-poor Religion, but a Religion regardless.

The amusing part is where an almost endless supply of Schoolboy Atheists will launch into ever-decreasing circles of denial, and exercises of semantics worthy of any medieval theologian.


Do you know how I can tell you don't own a dictionary?
 
2012-10-09 03:47:13 PM

vactech: Don't worry. Once he starts into my questions, he'll get bogged down on the pickle matrix and that will keep him away for a long time.


Hamburger earmuff references?

In my fark?

// Evidently more common than you think
 
2012-10-09 03:54:44 PM

Leeds: vactech: Don't worry. Once he starts into my questions, he'll get bogged down on the pickle matrix and that will keep him away for a long time.

Hamburger earmuff references?

In my fark?

// Evidently more common than you think


Glayvin
 
2012-10-09 04:02:33 PM

I drunk what: Leeds: He's actually proud of being a card-carrying moron.

Leeds, as a concerned friend i must warn you:

Leeds: Know how I know you didn't click on the link?

Here's a free tip- Learn to read and people won't mock your stupidity to your face nearly as much. In case you haven't noticed, you can't erase posts once you've posted them. So your idiocy is there for all to see and mock. Allow me to be the first so far today to openly mock you, troll.

heed these words... carefully

and just for bonus lulz:

Leeds: Patient Response

[cuddlebuggery.com image 407x405]

8/10

*searches for Fark handle "Patient Response"*

/No such user 'patient response'. Tastes like chicken.


LMFAO! Damnit, You owe me a new keyboard with that meme pic!!!!!
 
2012-10-09 04:02:34 PM
So the dude was like "I just believe in one less god than you do" and then the guy was like "But I'm Hindu." and then the dude was like "Who cares, I'm smartr"
 
2012-10-09 04:16:12 PM

Buttknuckle: It is about tolerance, you horses ass. If it makes someone else happy and doesn't affect you, deal with it and STFU.


When they expect to legislate according to their fairy tales, it most certainly does affect me.

Try again.
 
2012-10-09 04:16:51 PM
Stats like this make me very happy:

According to the poll, 34% of "younger millennials" - those born between 1990 and 1994 - are religiously unaffiliated. Among "older millennials," born between 1981 and 1989, 30% are religiously unaffiliated: 4 percentage points higher than in 2007.

Poll respondents 18-29 were also more likely to identify as atheist or agnostic. Nearly 42% religious unaffiliated people from that age group identified as atheist or agnostic, a number far greater than the number who identified as Christian (18%) of Catholic (18%).

Green says that these numbers are "part of a broader change in American society."


These days it seems as though all the trends and stats are bad, so it's nice to see evidence of positive change as well!

I gotta say though, this election is a real nail-biter for me. I grew up under the stifling yoke of Mormon authoritarianism and enforced conformity- I have absolutely no desire to be back under the oppression of that fascist cult. I don't think anyone, even conservatives; really know what they are getting into. (Other than escaped Mormons, like me.)

The Mormon Church is a rigidly hierarchical organization, demanding veneration of the Leader (a.k.a. "Prophet, Seer, and Revelator") as the living mouthpiece of God. If Romney really is a Mormon, then it is ludicrous for him to claim that this nation won't be governed from Salt Lake City if he is elected.
 
2012-10-09 04:30:44 PM

sodomizer: I enjoy the safety of agnosticism. I'm not telling religious people or atheists that they're wrong or right. Just that me, I don't know or don't care to take a position.


+1

Although I'm comfortable telling traditional religious folks that they are wrong. If there is a supreme being, I'm reasonably sure he isn't at all like they picture him. Or at least, I hope not!

As for atheists, I think that's a little close-minded. How can we possibly know for certain? I don't think we can.

But really I'm just too lazy and apathetic to make up my mind. Something may be out there. I think that whatever the truth is, it's unknowable. And I don't really care.
 
2012-10-09 04:35:51 PM

Bhruic: The problem with the latter class is they usually get hung up on a specific spot. Like the one guy I was thinking of, his argument started off with "something cannot come from nothing". Which Matt wouldn't agree with. And the guy concluded that must mean that Matt thought that something could come from nothing. And Matt kept saying, "No, I just don't agree that something can't come from nothing". And they went back and forth on that for awhile, until Matt finally hung up because the guy just couldn't get it.


That was the second time he called, just a few weeks ago. The first time was last march, and both times they got stuck on the "something from nothing" argument for 20+ minutes. See, the guy hadn't really thought of it, he just had rehearsed statements and talking points, and his frustration was that Matt wasn't giving him any answer that he had a prepared rebuttal for. I thought Tracy's argument is far more devastating just by its practical application: The something from nothing argument is wrong for two reasons:

1) The laws of causality do not apply to the quantum level, so somethings can come from nothings.
2) The laws of causality only apply to somethings, not nothings (everything that was a cause is a Something coming from another Something, not a Nothing). We don't have any examples of nothing, so we cannot verify whether something can come from it.

He couldn't wrap his head around that and they kept going in circles. Funny, because it was his FIRST assertion of a SEVEN point plan about the declaration of God's existence. So apparently he has six more of them, but they haven't gotten through the first one yet in two whole shows.
 
2012-10-09 04:39:58 PM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: tgambitg: Atheism = not a religion.

Antitheism (which a majority of your vocal internet atheists subscribe to, whether they know it or not) = Most definitely a religion.

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

What the fark are you on?


A duck, apparently.

/'cause it's made of wood?
 
2012-10-09 04:41:29 PM

Ishkur: Bhruic: The problem with the latter class is they usually get hung up on a specific spot. Like the one guy I was thinking of, his argument started off with "something cannot come from nothing". Which Matt wouldn't agree with. And the guy concluded that must mean that Matt thought that something could come from nothing. And Matt kept saying, "No, I just don't agree that something can't come from nothing". And they went back and forth on that for awhile, until Matt finally hung up because the guy just couldn't get it.

That was the second time he called, just a few weeks ago. The first time was last march, and both times they got stuck on the "something from nothing" argument for 20+ minutes. See, the guy hadn't really thought of it, he just had rehearsed statements and talking points, and his frustration was that Matt wasn't giving him any answer that he had a prepared rebuttal for. I thought Tracy's argument is far more devastating just by its practical application: The something from nothing argument is wrong for two reasons:

1) The laws of causality do not apply to the quantum level, so somethings can come from nothings.
2) The laws of causality only apply to somethings, not nothings (everything that was a cause is a Something coming from another Something, not a Nothing). We don't have any examples of nothing, so we cannot verify whether something can come from it.

He couldn't wrap his head around that and they kept going in circles. Funny, because it was his FIRST assertion of a SEVEN point plan about the declaration of God's existence. So apparently he has six more of them, but they haven't gotten through the first one yet in two whole shows.


Everyone knows where he'd be going with those other six points anyway. The same old rehashed cosmological crap that's trotted out every time. Even if he'd gotten past the first premise it still would have ended up being a waste of time.
 
2012-10-09 05:18:13 PM
So how long has Agnosticism been the new "I need something to call myself in a smug manner to prove my superiority to the maximum number of people" thing?

/it's okay, not admitting you're an atheist is the first step to being one
 
2012-10-09 05:20:12 PM

vactech: Is it natural, for a house to be ransacked by thugs, the family tied up in the basement, with socks in their mouths with the front door knob so bloody you can't even get in


shoot the hostage
 
2012-10-09 05:28:40 PM

vactech: Is the answer God?


hello this is dog

vactech: It's God right?


left

vactech: What, you're saying God is not the answer?


your saying what, say what again, i double dog dare you

vactech: Maybe your definition of The Answer (TM) is different than mine.


which is to be master - that's all?

needs moar dots, and you did not refer to yourself in 3rd person at least 40% of the time...

and that is why you fail

/we are not amused
 
2012-10-09 05:30:28 PM
Let's consider the medieval theologian. There's a man who probably got laid more often than anyone else in the dark ages. Think about him at the bar.

Medieval Theologian: God wants you to sleep with me.
Her: No, sex outside of marriage is wrong.
MT: No, you see, what He said was...

40 minutes later

Her: Yes YES oh God!
MT: Although Christ never specifically said anything about the female orgasm, we can easily deduce that...
 
2012-10-09 05:33:19 PM

Leeds: It goes on and on and on and on and on and on


I've seen the card thread ABOUT A HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SEVEN TIMES, AND IT KEEPS GETTING FUNNIER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT... NOT TO MENTION THE FACT THAT YOU'RE TALKING TO A DEAD GUY...

/NOW WHAT DO YOU THINK?
//You think I'm qualified?

zombie card thread... riiiiiise
 
2012-10-09 05:43:00 PM

Ishkur: IDW is, essentially, the ultimate troll


and Ishkur is, essentially, the ultimate final boss of the internet

s3-ec.buzzfed.com

i guess we'll have to have an ultimate fighting championship to settle this
 
2012-10-09 05:58:23 PM

I drunk what: Ishkur: IDW is, essentially, the ultimate troll

and Ishkur is, essentially, the ultimate final boss of the internet

[s3-ec.buzzfed.com image 500x723]

i guess we'll have to have an ultimate fighting championship to settle this


Can i set up a concession stand?
 
2012-10-09 06:49:05 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.


Speaking of Bill Maher, here's a popular segment he did on why atheism is not, in fact, a religion:

Link

Sample quote: "Your stuff has to go over there, on the shelf with Zeus and Thor and the Kraken."
 
2012-10-09 06:58:18 PM

Jument: As for atheists, I think that's a little close-minded. How can we possibly know for certain? I don't think we can.


Who said we know for certain?
We just don't believe until we are shown something to believe in.
Thus we are atheists.
 
2012-10-09 08:36:25 PM

Weaver95: Carousel Beast: Weaver95: incidentally, the Catholic Church is VERY worried about the growth of 'secular' government and the 'lack of faith' among so many people. US evangelicals hate/fear anyone who isn't 'christian' (that includes atheists, pagans, Muslims, Buddhists or whatever).

Citation Needed.

well that was easy.


Daaamn, that's some serious...I'm not sure what to call it. Not looney, so much. I mean, I get the basic concept - making sure people don't lose their moral compass, but some of the rhetoric. Hmm, maybe you have a good word for it.

I'm not Catholic, though, and don't follow them at all. I was actually more interested in your broad brush on Evangelicals. I am Protestant, and we have Buddhists and a thriving Wiccan community nearby. The Wiccans we don't take seriously (they're college kids for the most part), but the Buddhists are good people.
 
2012-10-09 08:46:33 PM
I believe in rock and roll
 
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