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.

(Patheos)   That awkward moment when a creationist gets outwitted by a sixth grader   (patheos.com) divider line 628
    More: Amusing, Hemant Mehtas, Portland State University, existence of God, ancient Greeks, innovations  
•       •       •

35973 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Nov 2012 at 1:38 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
HBK
2012-11-22 03:59:16 AM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: HBK: Wow, now I'm convinced you're an idiot.

no, you're just a douchebag and I choose not to argue with you.

But yet you persist.


You made a pointless political statement in a religion thread.

it was intended to be biting, and it was hardly pointless. not my fault you disagree with it.

I never said whether or not I agreed with it. I merely asked you to support it.

You couldn't make an argument to support your statement.

you are deliberately mistaking the fact that I choose not to argue with you about it with the sophomoric insinuation that I "can't".

Well sure, I can fly and have sex with Jessica Alba at the same time, but I won't because I don't need to support my claims.


When people make odd statements in threads, I am legitimately interested in why they believe that and especially why they would shiat it in a thread that had nothing to do with the thread.

oh so it's just an "odd" statement (despite the fact that it's rather mainstream among conservatives and liberals, and I used the word TEND) and you're interested. Fine.

It was "odd" because it was in queer in context. To dumb it down for you, it was strange that you would make a political statement that was wholly unrelated to the thread

So go fark yourself or stop threadshiatting with your bullshiat political statements that: have nothing to do with the thread; and that you cannot muster a single argument to support.

Oh so you're NOT just interested, because apparently it's "bullshiat". So you lied about your intentions. And you repeat the juvenile assertion that because I choose NOT to bring the argument into the thread... which you are trying to do... that I am incapable of doing so.

It's bullshiat because you made a treadshiatting statement and failed to support it. If someone makes a bald claim and fails to support it, I call bullshiat.

I repeat. fark off.


Right back at you, buddy.
 
2012-11-22 03:59:18 AM

Gyrfalcon: Arguing with a religious person who insists there is a god because they know there is a god will get you exactly nowhere. However, arguing with a non-religious person who insists there is no god because they know there is no god will get you exactly the same place. And that's pretty much where this thread will end up. At the end of the day it DOES NOT MATTER if there is a god or there is not a god; what DOES matter, however, is how people react when challenged about the existence or non-existence of a deity.


The issue, in my opinion, is that some people (and it's usually the religious fascist nutjobs) want to prove that their "faith" is based in objective fact. I've never seen an atheist use objective fact to prove that no "god" exists. And in the case of the kid in this video there was the question: "do you have proof?" and the answer was total bullshiat.

I don't need to prove to you that I have justification for believing you're a crazy, lying piece of shiat. I just need to top trusting anything you say. Then I'm done.
 
2012-11-22 04:00:10 AM
What a douche to keep bringing up the kid's father instead of simply speaking to the kid.
Then he smugly crows at the end, when thinks he's won some point by trying to wedge the kid's argument from his father's. What an utter dick.


SevenizGud: Even more awkward will be when the little shiat descends to hell to burn in agony for all eternity.


I realize that in this case, you are probably just trolling, but the sick thing is that one does occasionally meet people who really do take comfort in statements like that.

Even in the cases of people who are upset by the idea that other people could suffer eternal damnation, and therefore they try to "save" them... It's bizarre to me that anyone could be comfortable believing in the idea of a "just" god who would roast people for eternity for not accepting his existence. What a bizarrely narcissistic, unmerciful God that would have to be. (I'm reminded of the portrayal of God in the Preacher comics as a deity desperately craving the adoration of his most wretched creations.)
 
2012-11-22 04:02:24 AM

sonorangal: Why is it that when I disagree with a fundie they always start talking in a certain tone of voice that tries to convey excitement of their beliefs?


weird...I've noticed that too.
 
HBK
2012-11-22 04:03:24 AM

Isildur: What a douche to keep bringing up the kid's father instead of simply speaking to the kid.
Then he smugly crows at the end, when thinks he's won some point by trying to wedge the kid's argument from his father's. What an utter dick.



That was really annoying. Instead of addressing the argument he implied the kid was parroting his dad's beliefs, but never addressed those points.
 
2012-11-22 04:05:19 AM
Religious (Or theist) folks are known to have crises of faith... do atheists and agnostics have crises of disbelief?
 
2012-11-22 04:06:18 AM

0z79: Ed Finnerty: If God doesn't exist, who is making me type this?

Not a soul except you.

But of course, I'm crazy enough to believe that God created us because He got sick of being surrounded by yes-men that He created and imbued with conscience but no free will, so....

....

Us.


1) How does time exist for an infinite entity like God?

2) If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn't he see his boredom coming and just not create the yes-men in the first place?
 
2012-11-22 04:11:32 AM

Pitabred: 1) How does time exist for an infinite entity like God?

2) If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn't he see his boredom coming and just not create the yes-men in the first place?


1. If god is omnipotent, he doesn't need "time"

2. Maybe he did see his boredom coming , but figured he'd deal with it later because he was currently busy with something else, like say, the production of yes-men.
 
2012-11-22 04:11:58 AM

HoratioGates: Scientists are not out to prove there is no god, rather they are out to find scientific explanations for everything. Either god is beyond the rules of science and they will never figure him out, or he isn't, in which case scientists will explain him, or he doesn't exist.


I agree, although I'd phrase it a little differently.
Instead of conjecturing whether he is beyond the "rules of science", the real question is, "does he have any effect on the observable universe?" If he does, it can conceivably be measured. If not, he is consigned to irrelevance since he is unable to do anything that might affect us (in which case he can hardly be called "God").

There is still the cop-out idea of god having created the natural laws and set them in motion like some giant cosmic Rube Goldberg machine. In this case, though, god is indistinguishable from the Big Bang and is certainly not the same God that stopped the sun in the sky, and impregnated some girl with his son, and that appeared on a slice of toast or whatever other 'miracles' people attributed to him. He doesn't answer prayers or care if you go to church on Sunday, either ;after all, his job was done a long time ago.
 
2012-11-22 04:12:07 AM

Yogimus: Religious (Or theist) folks are known to have crises of faith... do atheists and agnostics have crises of disbelief?


No, but I'm willing to try.
What have you got that might cause it?
 
2012-11-22 04:13:59 AM

Yogimus: Religious (Or theist) folks are known to have crises of faith... do atheists and agnostics have crises of disbelief?


Oh, and one more thing.
Finding out that you were wrong on this subject, for me anyway, wouldn't cause a crisis. It would be FARKING FASCINATING!
 
2012-11-22 04:16:01 AM

Tony_Pepperoni: [i.imgur.com image 850x481]


No no! He's not SAYING it's aliens.... but it's aliens....
 
2012-11-22 04:19:59 AM

Isildur: SevenizGud: Even more awkward will be when the little shiat descends to hell to burn in agony for all eternity.

I realize that in this case, you are probably just trolling


Sevenizgud, trolling? Unpossible!

HBK: Catholics get a bad rap for the child rapes


When you say they get `a bad rap` are you saying they did not rape the children or that they did rape the children and we should just excuse them?

Either position makes you a douche. Please backpedal like the guy in TFA and try to explain your meaning.
 
2012-11-22 04:20:44 AM
Religion is so funny. What's hysterical, in my opinion, is that mortal beings such as ourselves believe we can understand the thoughts and feelings of a God. An omnipotent being that knows the exact location of every single atom in existence in billions of galaxies each with billions of stars and celestial bodies. A being who knows the exact temperatures, pressure differences, atmospheric conditions, atomic components, and potential/kinetic energy ratios of every atom of existence. Then people say "God wants _______." Laughable.

As soon as I meet a person who can keep track of all of this information at the same time, and can tell me WHY every rule of science functions the way it does (we know how, but not why), then I will say we have a chance of understanding the thoughts and feelings of a God. Until then, throw your Bibles and Korans and Buddhist scripture away. Those books assume humans can understand divine intellect.
 
2012-11-22 04:20:55 AM
A lot of self proclaimed atheists, myself included, only care in a couple of circumstances:

1. Science/logic is called lies, or science/logic is twisted into a lie(and no longer logical or science). No, rain is not gods tears, and thunder is not his anger..Teaching ignorance does no one any favors, and can indeed be very harmful.
2. Religion tries to force it self on people of other religions, or people who are not religious. Also included here are the religious that try to punish/exclude/ or trample the rights of those other groups.

Unfortunately, that happens a lot. With modern communication and the internet, we see more and more all of the time. Can't say there is more frequency, but it's more out in the open and bandied about.

______________________________________

When I say "There is no god" it's shorthand for a multitude of different things. I'm not a firm dis-believer, and any rational person will not pedantically jump to that conclusion. There is an inherant meaning in almost everything we say, "I could be wrong" or " I may be lacking information that is currently not available, and may never be".

Nothing is wrong with an atheist that chooses to forgo constant backpedalling as such. It's pretty much the default stance of an atheist.

Sure, you have your active dis-believers that pretend certain knowledge, but they're actually fairly rare. May not sound like it to a pedant misanthrope, but it is. Along with that goes the disclaimer, some atheists are not self aware, and shoot off at the mouth, not deficient much, but not into really examining what is / can be known)

The rest of us are merely readying a bet, but keeping a keen eye on up to the second statistics and odds.

A vast majority of self proclaimed atheists, are actually agnostic. We say atheist, because many agnostics can lead very religious lives. It's a concept in imagery beyond mere definition. The collective of what society sees in those words.

Annoying subterfuge sometimes, and sometimes just OCD like compulsion to categorize, whichever, it's annoying and not productive in the least.

Refer to the top of my post:

Most of the time a non-religious person joins an argument, it's because a religious person made a claim that was false, or a logic that was forced and hammered into sounding good the the uneducated but that was totally irrational, or something of the sort. #1 in my list.

Getting too pedantic in this case, for whatever reason, is just as bad for the conversation at hand. Much like stepping on someone's foot, sometimes it's on purpose, other times it's due to people being unaware of what's going on. Muddying the waters, and all sides do it. Conflating the off hand comment to mean a christian/atheist is a firm (un)believer with no evidence and is delusional, etc.

It gets old, Fark.
Will you ever learn?

You're not helping . JPG

/sigh
//just throwing it out there, a token effort if you will
 
2012-11-22 04:21:02 AM

HBK: We had a PhD. AP biology teacher. He told us on the first day of class "the more I learn about biology, the more certain I am that God exists." He went on to discuss the intricacies of the human eye and how unlikely it is that it would form without some guidance.


PhD or not, he isn't very good at evolutionary biology if he buys that whole "irreducible complexity" BS. The evolution of the eye is well documented, and in fact it evolved independently in many, many different species in a variety of different ways.
 
2012-11-22 04:22:30 AM

dready zim: When you say they get `a bad rap` are you saying


He's saying they were gifted with a live rendition of Ice Ice Baby by none other than Vanilla Ice.
 
2012-11-22 04:26:19 AM

log_jammin: Pitabred: 1) How does time exist for an infinite entity like God?

2) If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn't he see his boredom coming and just not create the yes-men in the first place?

1. If god is omnipotent, he doesn't need "time"

2. Maybe he did see his boredom coming , but figured he'd deal with it later because he was currently busy with something else, like say, the production of yes-men.


So what is "later" without time?
 
2012-11-22 04:27:14 AM
I was taught in Sunday school that God was omnipresent and that hell was a place where God was not present. I think that was the very first WTF moment of my life.
 
2012-11-22 04:29:15 AM

Pitabred: So what is "later" without time?


I don't know. I'm not god.
 
HBK
2012-11-22 04:29:28 AM

dready zim: HBK: Catholics get a bad rap for the child rapes

When you say they get `a bad rap` are you saying they did not rape the children or that they did rape the children and we should just excuse them?

Either position makes you a douche. Please backpedal like the guy in TFA and try to explain your meaning.


Okay, either you're a wife beater or a homosexual. No, that's not right. You can't pigeon-hole the statement I made into the two categories you provided.

They get a bad rap because a handful of priests raped children, then a lot of the Catholic hierarchy chose to ignore/hide it. The rapes and the complicity are inexcusable. BUT, Despite the failings of some of the Catholicism's leadership, the almost 2,000 year old religion is in many ways more rational than the more fundamental Christian groups.
 
2012-11-22 04:31:00 AM

gremlin1: These things drive me crazy. I am not an atheist but I agree with their right to not believe in God.
However I believe in God (not organized religion)and have no trouble believing in science.


That's good, since the two are completely unrelated. It's not the belief in god/s that contradicts science. It's belief in myths about the natural world that are attributed to god/s.

Ambivalence: How come agnostics are never represented in these debates. I have some pretty good arguments why the entire question of whether God exists or doesn't farking matter.


a) The atheist in the debate IS agnostic (the dad, not the kid) and it is explicitly stated in the conversation. You may have missed it since it seems that,
b) you don't understand what agnosticism is. If you did, you would know that,
c) the position you're actually describing is known as Apatheism, or pragmatic atheism

ThrobblefootSpectre: An agnostic doesn't think the concept of god is defined and therefor would not hope for or be interested in the idea of one being discovered


No, that's called Ignosticism, and it's not a theological position either.

, as you said you are. It is an interesting difference between atheists and agnostics. It's perfectly valid (and common) for an atheist to say, "I think it would be cool if there really was a god." Whereas an agnostic thinks that idea is as silly as asserting there already is a god.

This is wrong. Agnosticism is not a position about the existence of gods. It's about knowledge in general. An agnostic believes there are some things which intrinsically cannot be known, not by the fault of the observer, but by the nature of knowledge itself. It essentially says that there can be no perfect knowledge. It has nothing to do with belief in gods. Atheism/Theism is a binary position. You either have belief in god/s or you don't. There's no in between position known as "agnostic". Far from being a refuge from the theist/atheist question, agnosticism is actually a much more difficult position to defend logically.

ThrobblefootSpectre: And some of us know that one can be agnostic and not atheist.


This is true, but if and only if you're an agnostic theist.

j0ndas: Atheism, incidently, is a religion too.


Not by any accepted definition of the word "religion". You can argue that there is faith involved in atheism that is arrived at by rational means, because all logic and rational thought is based upon unproven axioms, but that's not remotely similar to being a religion.
 
2012-11-22 04:34:10 AM
Being a lifelong believer myself, I wish that other Christians would get it that we can't really prove that the God we believe in does exist. And that atheists would get it that God's existence can't be proven, it also can't be dis-proven.
 
2012-11-22 04:35:30 AM

j0ndas: You can say that it's scientifically impossible for life to evolve through random chance - because the odds are something like 1 over 10 to the 4000th power, or in other words, 1 over infinity


Do even you know what you mean when you say "evolve through random chance"? Because that phrase is more vague and meaningless than a political campaign speech. Are you talking about a DNA or RNA molecule randomly assembling itself? If that's what you mean, nobody has ever suggested that a self-replicating molecule simply sprang up without any chemical precursors. Or are you talking about the actual process of evolution? Because if you're talking about the process of natural selection that is responsible for shaping us and the other life on Earth, it is decidedly NOT random.

And how are those odds being calculated, and what are you calculating the odds OF?

You sure to like to argue with vagaries.
Although I guess that's your only option when you don't actually know anything about anything.
 
2012-11-22 04:37:13 AM
And that both sides would get it that being insulting to the other side instead of calm and logical like those two were will never get anyone to change their mind.
 
HBK
2012-11-22 04:39:46 AM

Gawdzila: HBK: We had a PhD. AP biology teacher. He told us on the first day of class "the more I learn about biology, the more certain I am that God exists." He went on to discuss the intricacies of the human eye and how unlikely it is that it would form without some guidance.

PhD or not, he isn't very good at evolutionary biology if he buys that whole "irreducible complexity" BS. The evolution of the eye is well documented, and in fact it evolved independently in many, many different species in a variety of different ways.


I don't know anything about irreducible complexity. I don't know when this argument arose. To give a time-frame, this was over ten years ago. And I was learning the intelligent design, watch-in-an-ocean, argument nine years ago at a secular university. Also, the biology professor may have just been trying to force intelligent design into his biology course to appeal to make it more appealing to the students and faculty.
 
2012-11-22 04:40:11 AM

Z-clipped: You either have belief in god/s or you don't.


lol!
 
2012-11-22 04:42:34 AM
the guy keeps talking about certainty.

Faith != Certainty.

Faith is belief in the absence of knowledge. Knowledge is literally the enemy of faith. If you had a perfect knowledge of God, you would have no faith. If you claim to have a perfect knowledge of God, you're a liar, and you're probably selling something.
 
2012-11-22 04:43:01 AM

Revek: j0ndas: The correct answer is that there's no scientific proof for God. You can say that it's scientifically impossible for life to evolve through random chance - because the odds are something like 1 over 10 to the 4000th power, or in other words, 1 over infinity - but God still has to be believed in, if for no other reason than you can't be sure -whose- God created things. The God of Christianity is massively different from the God of Islam, for instance. The "Jesus" of Islam is more or less identical to the Antichrist of Christianity.

Atheism, incidently, is a religion too. It's a just a religion that replaces God with self. Atheists are some of the least tolerant people there are when it comes to other religions, and atheist nations have historically killed more people than all religious wars combined.

Which atheist nation would that be?

/or did you pull all that out your ass



he didn't pull anything out of his ass. he's wrong but isn't smart enough to know it. I'm assuming that he believes that hitler, stalin, pol pot and mao were all atheist.

heres a gem from 'Mein Kamph": "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."

this is another good Hitler quote "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922


There is more evidence, but I'm not being paid to do research for you. stop being lazy and read a book (that isn't the bible)
 
2012-11-22 04:45:54 AM

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: And that atheists would get it that God's existence can't be proven, it also can't be dis-proven.


The last part of this wish has been granted millions of times. Pay attention.
The first part? If God showed herself it would be proof. So that's just silly.
 
2012-11-22 04:46:30 AM

naughtyrev: Mike_LowELL: I guess I must be watching a different video than you guys. I just saw an intelligent, mature adult destroy a whiny kid in a debate. In other words, a Republican exchanged ideas with a Democrat. Lol.

Weak troll. You should've put more effort into supporting douchebag than calling a child who won a debate whiny.


And referring to a YEC as a mature adult is a bit of a stretch, too.
 
2012-11-22 04:46:50 AM
Ow! I think I sprained my ontology.

You know how there's that stratification of wealth everyone is talking about? There's a stratification of intelligence too. Sure people are getting smarter, but some groups are getting drastically less intelligent.
 
2012-11-22 04:47:06 AM

Rent Party: When he reached #4, you should have referred him back to #1, and then went and got some White Castle while he tried to figure it out.


In my second year of school they tried to get me to sing "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the bible tells me so". At six years old I could recognise a circular argument.
 
2012-11-22 04:48:02 AM

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: And that atheists would get it that God's existence can't be proven, it also can't be dis-proven.


Oh but we do get that. In fact it is exactly our point.

From a purely logic-driven empirical standpoint, a theory that can be neither proven nor disproven is of absolutely no use. You can never know anything about how true or false it might be, which means it is unable to make helpful predictions, or provide new knowledge about the real world, because if it could then there would be a basis upon which to prove or disprove it.

There are an infinite number of ideas that share that status. Not just Christianity, but Hinduism, or Zoroastrianism, or the idea of reincarnation, or the 3 Fates, or any brand new religion or mythological entity someone may invent. I don't believe in any of them, and all for the same reason. You, on the other hand, have decided (or were taught) to believe in one of them. You seem to agree with me about ignoring the others as irrelevant, though ;)
 
2012-11-22 04:53:53 AM
Spinoza sez

God is not he who is
God is that which is
 
2012-11-22 04:58:23 AM

Pocket Ninja: Mike_LowELL: I guess I must be watching a different video than you guys. I just saw an intelligent, mature adult destroy a whiny kid in a debate. In other words, a Republican exchanged ideas with a Democrat. Lol.

I'll say. And since we all know how much of a fan the Left is now that "math" (since Saint Clinton invoked it at their convention) and "statistics" (since the Mainstream Media has annointed Saint Nate Silver as the Holy Crusader of Liberalism), here's a test they can do to see it for themselves.

1) Watch the video with pen and paper in hand.
2) Mark each time the little boy says "um" or "uh" or some other vocalized pause and each time the man does.
3) Tally up the scores and weep.

See, vocalized pauses are like a clinch in boxing...it's what a defeated opponent does to buy himself time. I've often thought about studying linguistics, and that's a fact of the science. And here's another fact: the higher pitched someone's voice gets in an argument, they more they know they're losing. Listen the video again, and now listen to their voice tones. Tell me who sounds like the frantic, defeated loser.

This is how criminals are caught, people.


God help me, but I agree with you. I feel dirty somehow.
 
2012-11-22 04:59:47 AM

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: And that atheists would get it that God's existence can't be proven, it also can't be dis-proven.


They do get it. They just understand that this position is not specific to god/s, nor does it in any way support belief in such.
I wish that theists of all colors would recognize that god/s are not exempt from the epistemic rules of onus probandi:

"You can't prove that God doesn't exist!"
"You can't prove that there's not an invisible unicorn in my bathroom, either."
"But there's a difference between your unicorn and my God..."
"Really? What?"
"I REALLY REALLY want the God thing to be TRUE!"

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: And that both sides would get it that being insulting to the other side instead of calm and logical like those two were will never get anyone to change their mind.


I don't think most atheists care whether other people believe in deities or not. I would hazard that most of us just want to be treated equally under the law, and not socially reviled as amoral heretic devil worshipers by religious folks. If theists would knock off the obnoxious proselytizing... that would just be icing on the cake at that point.

log_jammin: lol!


What's funny? I missed a comma?
 
2012-11-22 05:02:16 AM

Gawdzila: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: And that atheists would get it that God's existence can't be proven, it also can't be dis-proven.

Oh but we do get that. In fact it is exactly our point.

From a purely logic-driven empirical standpoint, a theory that can be neither proven nor disproven is of absolutely no use. You can never know anything about how true or false it might be, which means it is unable to make helpful predictions, or provide new knowledge about the real world, because if it could then there would be a basis upon which to prove or disprove it.

There are an infinite number of ideas that share that status. Not just Christianity, but Hinduism, or Zoroastrianism, or the idea of reincarnation, or the 3 Fates, or any brand new religion or mythological entity someone may invent. I don't believe in any of them, and all for the same reason. You, on the other hand, have decided (or were taught) to believe in one of them. You seem to agree with me about ignoring the others as irrelevant, though ;)


Evidence and faith are diametrically opposed.
 
2012-11-22 05:02:39 AM
I'm singularly unimpressed by Pascal's Wager, and I still believe it was written when Pascal was having a really off day, probably after being kicked in the head by a mule. It ignores every other religious possibility other than Pascal's own faith.
 
2012-11-22 05:05:18 AM

cynicalbastard: I'm singularly unimpressed by Pascal's Wager, and I still believe it was written when Pascal was having a really off day, probably after being kicked in the head by a mule. It ignores every other religious possibility other than Pascal's own faith.


The secret to a good wager is setting the conditions so that you know you will get the outcome you want. I'll take that bet any day.
 
2012-11-22 05:07:14 AM

log_jammin: sonorangal: Why is it that when I disagree with a fundie they always start talking in a certain tone of voice that tries to convey excitement of their beliefs?

weird...I've noticed that too.


Because a) they're taught that people like you are an exciting opportunity for them to do one of the things their god commands them to and b) they're usually so cloistered in their own fundie social circle that they think atheists are a rare find?.

The harder and louder they evangelize, the more God loves them.
 
2012-11-22 05:08:27 AM

Z-clipped: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: [snippy]
I don't think most atheists care whether other people believe in deities or not. I would hazard that most of us just want to be treated equally under the law, and not socially reviled as amoral heretic devil worshipers by religious folks. If theists would knock off the obnoxious proselytizing... that would just be icing on the cake at that point.
[snipperdoddle]


Part of the Christian faith requires that they "witness" or as you call it proselytize. What most fail to understand is there is a limit to it as Jesus commanded... Basically, 3 attempts can be made to bring someone to the truth, after which you leave them alone. Unfortunately, quite a few Christians are hunt-n-peck Christians (they hunt-n-peck for parts of the Bible they like and ignore the rest). In addition, if a Christian is not knowledgeable in their faith and also competent then they should refrain from ANY debate.
 
2012-11-22 05:09:21 AM

Z-clipped: What's funny?


your comment. I thought I made that clear. Why is it funny? Because your argument is silly, forces a binary choice, and is destroyed by by one simple phrase.

Q. You either have belief in god/s or you don't. do you believe in gods/s?

A. "I don't know"


there are more types of agnosticism than agnostic theist/agnostic atheist.
 
2012-11-22 05:10:11 AM

Ed Grubermann: I find Pascal's wager offensive for two reasons:


cynicalbastard: It ignores every other religious possibility other than Pascal's own faith.


Yeah, I was going to say, I'm offended that Pascal thinks I can't count higher than "1".
 
2012-11-22 05:13:06 AM

Z-clipped: log_jammin: sonorangal: Why is it that when I disagree with a fundie they always start talking in a certain tone of voice that tries to convey excitement of their beliefs?

weird...I've noticed that too.

Because a) they're taught that people like you are an exciting opportunity for them to do one of the things their god commands them to and b) they're usually so cloistered in their own fundie social circle that they think atheists are a rare find?.

The harder and louder they evangelize, the more God loves them.


I doubt you could be any more wrong on the psychology behind that. The truth is that once a believe finds someone that is not a believer (be it Athiest, or anyone else for that matter), the excitement comes from the belief that they a bringing someone to the truth and therefore helping them get closer to God, and therefore gaining eternal life (not for themselves, but for the one they are speaking to)... It has nothing to do with thinking God will love them any more... that would imply selfishness, and the act of (as you call it) evangelizing is a self-less act... It is no skin off their back if you don't believe and burn in hell, but God commands them to do it to save people from that fate.

That is the true psychology behind it.
 
2012-11-22 05:14:41 AM
"once a believeR finds..."

/FTFM
//Preview is your friend
///SLASHIES!
 
2012-11-22 05:15:36 AM

Pitabred: 2) If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn't he see his boredom coming and just not create the yes-men in the first place?


Here's a better, if God is omnipotent, why couldn't God be anything to anyone? Or put another way, why couldn't an omnipotent God appear one way to one group and another way to another group? Funny thing is, while even today many Christians will flip at the suggestion Genghis Khan considered it the truth, that God could be anything to anyone and that everyone worshipped the same God no matter the name or names used.
 
2012-11-22 05:25:22 AM

Hector Remarkable: Yogimus: strobe: Time is cubed

would be awesome if he was right.

You worship Satanic impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

Opposite Creation dooms human singularity. There's no human entity, only corner Cubics,
rotating life's 4 corner stage metamorphosis.


FYI: a cube has eight corners.
 
2012-11-22 05:27:13 AM
Dumb jerky loser atheists pointlessly fighting with dumb jerky loser christians. Can we move past this already? Farking snoozefest. Religion/spirituality isn't the problem. Lack of faith/god-given morals isn't the problem. People are the problem. We are all garbage across the board.
 
2012-11-22 05:30:46 AM

log_jammin: Q. You either have belief in god/s or you don't. do you believe in gods/s?

A. "I don't know"


The point is, "I don't know" doesn't answer the question. You weren't asked what you know. Only whether you hold a belief. Even if by "I don't know" you mean you don't know whether you hold a belief, the question still remains unaddressed. For any logical proposition X, you either have a belief that X is true or you don't. The choice is binary because it is literally the choice between 0 and 1, a thing (your belief in X) either is or is not.

Also, note that being asked the question is not necessary to the position; A person to whom the idea of a deity has never occurred is not in some kind of theological limbo... He is an atheist, because he holds no belief in a deity. This question as it's phrased here is a lot simpler than you think.

log_jammin: there are more types of agnosticism than agnostic theist/agnostic atheist.


True. But none of those are theological positions. They are epistemological.
 
Displayed 50 of 628 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report