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.

(Time)   Atheists are now creating their own anti-Nativity scenes   (ideas.time.com) divider line 478
    More: Interesting, nativity, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Yale Law School, Santa Monica  
•       •       •

21973 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Dec 2012 at 2:23 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-02 11:27:44 PM

ewurm: We need to come up with some atheist Christmas carols so that we can spread some atheist cheer during the holidays.


The example you give is rather hateful and bigoted. Try for less hate next time.
 
2012-12-02 11:34:45 PM

dickfreckle: RDixon: Xmas.

That is all.

I more or less despise Christianity, but even I have the courtesy of calling it "Christmas." "Xmas" to me has always come across as extremely petty and needlessly caustic unless the person using is it using it as a genuine abbreviation (which was common long before the "War on Christmas" was even a phrase).

There are many factual ways to irritate Christians if that's your thing, without resorting to denigrating their holiday. I irritate Christians frequently, but only via rebuttal to stupid claims on their part. But stooping to that as an insult is pretty damn douchey if you ask me.

/only celebrates Lord Kimbo Day


I always thought the X was short for 'cross'. Never thought of it as a perjorative.

Still. I'm glad you've shown me that my willingness to offend Xtians renders me morally inferior to you, who only irritate them to the extent that you're OK with it. I feel ashamed now.
 
2012-12-03 12:01:00 AM

Mambo Bananapatch: I always thought the X was short for 'cross'. Never thought of it as a perjorative.


X is the Greek letter "chi" (pronounced more like 'key' than 'chai'), and is an abbreviation for writing Christ in Greek (which is Χριστος or something like that, IIRC).
 
2012-12-03 12:01:02 AM
If someone says that they believe that the moon is made of cheese, or that the government plots to fly planes into skyscrapers, or that the President is not a citizen, that person is rightfully branded as an idiot. When a person says that a Jew died in order that he be made a scapegoat, and that he was corporeally reassembled and will return again to save mankind, we should "live and let live". That's nonsense. That's not what Christians do. Christians set up their nonsense displays because it is advertising for their myth. They are constantly trying to use the law to advance their religion. The belief that life is eternal and that "the Lord will provide" leads to a decimation of resources and an absolute disregard for our environment. If the religious want to have their beliefs in their own home, or in their own church, then they won't have to hear from me. As soon as they make it public, or try to incorporate their religion into law, then they have chosen to be criticized. If that makes me an asshole, send me a t-shirt with "asshole" written on it, and I will wear it. There are real consequences to people's beliefs.
 
2012-12-03 12:06:51 AM

ewurm: If someone says that they believe that the moon is made of cheese, or that the government plots to fly planes into skyscrapers, or that the President is not a citizen, that person is rightfully branded as an idiot. When a person says that a Jew died in order that he be made a scapegoat, and that he was corporeally reassembled and will return again to save mankind, we should "live and let live". That's nonsense. That's not what Christians do. Christians set up their nonsense displays because it is advertising for their myth. They are constantly trying to use the law to advance their religion. The belief that life is eternal and that "the Lord will provide" leads to a decimation of resources and an absolute disregard for our environment. If the religious want to have their beliefs in their own home, or in their own church, then they won't have to hear from me. As soon as they make it public, or try to incorporate their religion into law, then they have chosen to be criticized. If that makes me an asshole, send me a t-shirt with "asshole" written on it, and I will wear it. There are real consequences to people's beliefs.


"The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected."
- H L Mencken
 
2012-12-03 01:37:14 AM

cuzsis: This is why I don't get all the complaints regarding Christmas. Nobody get's that many holidays off a year, why would you fark with that?


No one really does screw with getting 1-2 weeks off for the holiday and new years. Everyone sane looks forward to the time off, kids to adults, religious and non. The holiday cheer and celebration is a big bonus.

Most of what we see / do is reaction to some zealotry born pushiness. It's an attempt to escort the belligerent and potential violent drunk out of the bar, or at least get him to lighten up. Sometimes that guy needs to be removed physically, sometimes he'll listen to a warning.

Like the christians who campaign for others to say Merry Christmas as vehemently as possible. "Happy Holidays" came about born of people being more open minded and fair(many religions and even non religious cultures find that deep dark part of winter a great excuse to party), and they take offense at that somehow, despite the positive sentiment conveyed, they blather on about how "It's farking christmas, you tell me merry christmas, not happy holidays, I love god and you should damn well know better!!1!!1!!" to random strangers, as if we all should know who to wish what kind of holiday to.

WTF is that about? Conceited farks. Can't we be happy with people just hoping we have a happy next few weeks? Apparently not.

No one is really putting christmas(or celebration of choice for that time of the year) in jeopardy by calling assholes out on their bullshiat, be it teaching bunk "science", striving for Dominionism, or just terrible freaking manners and people skills.
 
2012-12-03 01:44:03 AM
Atheism is a religion. A religion is a belief in regards to spirituality and atheists actively choose to believe in nothing just as ignorantly and arrogantly as the worst bible-thumping christian moron throwback. Fanatic atheists are just as bad as fanatic .

Sadly, the truth of the matter is, no intellectual is an atheist because frankly, you cannot disprove a divinity no matter how hard you try, anymore than you can prove it. At best investigation, a sane man could merely shrug, wisely choose agnostic since it's impossible to know, thus making a choice would be pretty foolish, and hedge his bets.

But 99% of atheists aren't even atheists, they're just anti-christians, putting on aires. Not one of them would say a thing to a muslim, hindu, native american sachem, or whatever. I'm sure you're enjoying your holy days all the same!

The only thing I'm sure we'll agree on is that everybody should keep their religious beliefs to themselves unless asked, that includes atheists.
 
2012-12-03 02:04:13 AM

Farking Canuck: There are two choices: Promote your views on private property or accept that views contradicting yours may be posted side-by-side with yours on public property.


It's not a parallel belief, it's a belief in the ridiculousness of the other guy's belief.
 
2012-12-03 02:44:00 AM

Terrible Old Man: Atheism is a religion.


And that's where you lost any credibility as a sentient life form. But I'm bored and have some free time to burn while get my nic fix.

Terrible Old Man: A religion is a belief in regards to spirituality


Most people that identify as atheists do not have any spirituality as there is no more evidence for spirituality than there is for batman or the easterbunny. They don't take the time to bother with it because it sounds largely like a fairy tale.

It is not a "Belief in nothing", you're really pushing logic and language to the breaking point with that doublespeak.

Religion is like anal sex. People who practice it have various things they prefer, lube, condoms, bareback, stretching, stuffing, altar boys etc.

Atheists are non-participants, non-members. They simply don't do what those other people do with anuses.

It's not even really a choice, it's simple rational thinking. [Disclaimer: Not to say religion is irrational by necessary fact. Sticking with religion after carefully examining it's reason and history is another matter.]

Terrible Old Man: Sadly, the truth of the matter is, no intellectual is an atheist because frankly


Now, here is a common argument, again, a twist of logic based on a faulty assumption on your part. An Atheist doesn't believe, but does not by default deny the possibility. You may want to read up on some of the definitions of the words you use. Sure, there are some people that deny the possibility, but they are actually a minority of realized atheists(as opposed to the kind of atheist who just adopts the title for many reasons). To pretend all Atheists are that way is pure prejudice or bigotry, whichever term you're more comfortable wearing.

Terrible Old Man: But 99% of atheists aren't even atheists, they're just anti-christians, putting on aires.


Where do you get that figure?
Anyhow, if someone is anti-christian and that stance makes them examine the rational thought behind their stance and they become neutral toward religion itself and more anti-asshole, then it's a stage I'll gladly tolerate for a short time.

Terrible Old Man: The only thing I'm sure we'll agree on is that everybody should keep their religious beliefs to themselves unless asked, that includes atheists.


Seeing as how you BelieveTM that atheism is a religion, by your own words, you should keep your idea's to yourself as well.
 
2012-12-03 03:08:31 AM

bigdanc: Farking Canuck: There are two choices: Promote your views on private property or accept that views contradicting yours may be posted side-by-side with yours on public property.

It's not a parallel belief, it's a belief in the ridiculousness of the other guy's belief.


So? It is their opinion that magic isn't real. They are allowed to post it.

Christians post that everyone who is not one of them is going to be tortured for eternity ... there is pretty much nothing more horrible or hateful that that bullshiat.

If you open up public property to opinions then you are going to get some you don't like. The government is not allowed to muzzle them ... it is called freedom of speech.

It is very simple. You have two choices: Either "nobody can present their opinion" or "everyone can present their opinion". But you guys want "only christians can present their opinion" which is unconstitutional.

It is pretty black and white ... sadly the reasoning skills of the religious are proven time and again to be lacking. This thread is a perfect example.
 
2012-12-03 03:45:39 AM

untaken_name: God, I hate religious people. Atheists are the worst of them, though.


At least you've found a way to feel superior to them all and that's what really matters.
 
2012-12-03 03:46:40 AM
DEATH TO ALL FANATICS!
 
2012-12-03 03:52:15 AM
Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion

/not mine
//slashies
 
2012-12-03 04:29:09 AM

scalpod: untaken_name: God, I hate religious people. Atheists are the worst of them, though.

At least you've found a way to feel be superior to them all and that's what really matters.


It's more than a feeling.

/more than a feeling
 
2012-12-03 05:04:43 AM

Terrible Old Man: Atheism is a religion. A religion is a belief in regards to spirituality and atheists actively choose to believe in nothing just as ignorantly and arrogantly as the worst bible-thumping christian moron throwback. Fanatic atheists are just as bad as fanatic .

Sadly, the truth of the matter is, no intellectual is an atheist because frankly, you cannot disprove a divinity no matter how hard you try, anymore than you can prove it. At best investigation, a sane man could merely shrug, wisely choose agnostic since it's impossible to know, thus making a choice would be pretty foolish, and hedge his bets.

But 99% of atheists aren't even atheists, they're just anti-christians, putting on aires. Not one of them would say a thing to a muslim, hindu, native american sachem, or whatever. I'm sure you're enjoying your holy days all the same!


img.photobucket.com

So, by your reasoning, not believing in UFOs is a religion, right? What about not believing in dragons? That is a religion, too, right?
 
2012-12-03 05:25:10 AM

Terrible Old Man: Sadly, the truth of the matter is, no intellectual is an atheist because frankly, you cannot disprove


I'll give you three guesses where one significant place is that you went completely wrong.
 
2012-12-03 05:48:15 AM

Relatively Obscure: Terrible Old Man: Sadly, the truth of the matter is, no intellectual is an atheist because frankly, you cannot disprove

I'll give you three guesses where one significant place is that you went completely wrong.


Odds are still stacked against him...

Unless he's just trolling, of course. I've never seen the attraction to intentionally posting drivel in that manner myself(my drivel is come by honestly). WOW, you can fool anonymous strangers into thinking you're dense, what a life skill.
 
2012-12-03 06:08:24 AM

omeganuepsilon: Relatively Obscure: Terrible Old Man: Sadly, the truth of the matter is, no intellectual is an atheist because frankly, you cannot disprove

I'll give you three guesses where one significant place is that you went completely wrong.

Odds are still stacked against him...

Unless he's just trolling, of course. I've never seen the attraction to intentionally posting drivel in that manner myself(my drivel is come by honestly). WOW, you can fool anonymous strangers into thinking you're dense, what a life skill.


i177.photobucket.com

Always relevant, in such cases.
 
2012-12-03 08:05:43 AM

Ed Grubermann: craig328: It's about creating laws. It says they can't make a law establishing a religion or a law banning it. Using the amendment as an excuse to push one agenda or another in the guise of "it offends me" has been taken to the ludicrous extreme that we see today. Arlington national cemetery is public land as well...guess what you'll see all over the place there.

Graves marked with the religions of the people buried there. All of the religions. Including those with no religion.

Public land does not necessarily in and of itself mean no religious symbols whatsoever...mostly because it can be argued that banning such promotes atheism and is prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Oh, look. Someone doesn't know the difference between secular and atheist. Typical whiny little God-botherer.


Actually Ed, it's about reading comprehension, a little more than your average, Fark-typical, mouthbreather IQ and not being a gigantic farking douuchebag...all of which you clearly fail. I've been in a church once in the past 15 years so "God-botherer" is much more a creation of your childish mind than anything resembling reality.

So, going forward, how about you stick to pumping the neighbor's dog rather than trying to engage your betters in discourse? You know, go with your strengths.
 
2012-12-03 08:08:36 AM

Farking Canuck: craig328:
Arlington national cemetery is public land as well...guess what you'll see all over the place there. Public land does not necessarily in and of itself mean no religious symbols whatsoever...mostly because it can be argued that banning such promotes atheism and is prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Arlington is an example that supports what happened in this story. Any group can be represented there which means the government is not endorsing one religion (which is constitutionally sound). The following symbols are available for gravestones there:

[img38.imageshack.us image 800x690]


Precisely what I was saying. The city did it right by simply declining all displays but the whiny, antagonistic atheists could do a whole lot better promoting their beliefs in humanity and science than simply devoting themselves to castigating the things they DON'T believe in.
 
2012-12-03 08:35:40 AM

craig328: atheists could do a whole lot better promoting their promoting their beliefs in humanity and science


Welcome to 1776.
 
2012-12-03 09:09:59 AM
To everyone who defends "In God We Trust" on currency:

How tolerant do you think you or other Xtians would be if instead it were changed to "Hail Satan!", "In Xenu we trust" or "Allah Akbar"? Yeah, I didn't think so.

It doesn't belong there, really. And if it's "not a big deal", why do you care if it gets removed?
 
2012-12-03 09:35:30 AM

BSABSVR: Errk: Pork....

[thechive.files.wordpress.com image 500x375]

Why is there what appears to be a sedan on the right hand side of the nativity scene?


Sleeping camel (do NOT look that up on urban dictionary).
 
2012-12-03 10:27:36 AM
Ok I don't really care about any of this, but... I do have one question for any hard core Atheist out there.
How can you prove a negative?
The few atheist I've met, all say pretty much the same thing, "There is no God, and only scientifically ignorant people would believe in such fairy tales about sky wizards."
OK, I can see that is a nice theory. Now how do you prove it?
 
2012-12-03 10:51:52 AM

MonoChango: Ok I don't really care about any of this, but... I do have one question for any hard core Atheist out there.
How can you prove a negative?



How many times does this idiotic drivel need to be addressed? It gets asked and answered over and over ... can you people note read or listen??

You obviously have no concept of logic as you cannot understand that the burden of proof is on the people making the claim.

Can I prove:
- unicorns don't exist?
- Santa doesn't exist?
- Russel's teapot doesn't exist?
- flying, invisible pink elephants don't exist??

The answer to all of the above, including your question, is: I don't have to. The burden of proof is not on me ... it is on the people claiming they do exist. The default position on the existence of anything is: "does not exist" until proven otherwise.
 
2012-12-03 11:22:49 AM

MonoChango: Ok I don't really care about any of this, but... I do have one question for any hard core Atheist out there.
How can you prove a negative?
The few atheist I've met, all say pretty much the same thing, "There is no God, and only scientifically ignorant people would believe in such fairy tales about sky wizards."
OK, I can see that is a nice theory. Now how do you prove it?


There is no god(within our grasp of understanding).

That's what any rational atheist will get down to if it's discussed in detail. We've got basic theory and reasoning for why we need to be lawful beings, where emotion and even matter(and then life) come from.

Why do we even need to talk about god? There is no question that man can come up with where god is a likely, much less, relevant answer that does not come off as some crackpot theory that makes leaps and bounds in jumping to conclusions, and ignorant of known science and theory built upon that.

So, why god?

Because your fairy tale(1 out of hundreds throughout the ages) of choice says we need one? Why that one? Why does that one get more credit than the others?

We're all atheists to a point, we just Believe in one less god than any other people. If anything, Atheists even are taking the safest route possible when it comes to the afterlife. Something something false gods. Well that's one sin we don't have a problem with, we don't worship any.
 
2012-12-03 11:29:07 AM

omeganuepsilon: There is no god(within our grasp of understanding).

That's what any rational atheist



Deist.
 
2012-12-03 12:11:07 PM

SkunkWerks: omeganuepsilon: There is no god(within our grasp of understanding).

That's what any rational atheist


Deist.


No, atheist.

Atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists. (cribbed from the wiki, you should read it)

Most self identified atheists are non-religious, but accede that there is a possibility.

A modern Deist believes in and defines God(as an abstract being, but still, belief).(paraphrased from the wiki on deism for the sake of brevity).

The two concepts are not interchangeable, and not what I was referring to. So, please, in the future, if you don't understand, don't try to put words into my mouth. Just makes you look like a buffoon.
 
2012-12-03 12:21:04 PM

omeganuepsilon: No, athdeist.


Thanks.
 
2012-12-03 12:25:30 PM

omeganuepsilon: don't try to put words into my mouth.


You seem to have plenty of them in there, I agree.

You're still describing a deist, though.
 
2012-12-03 12:26:50 PM

SkunkWerks: omeganuepsilon: don't try to put words into my mouth.

You seem to have plenty of them in there, I agree.

You're still describing a deist, though.


Also, I AM a buffoon. I'm comfy with this...

...mostly because I know the difference between an atheist and a deist.
 
2012-12-03 01:03:09 PM
Nice post spammage. Didn't take your adderall today?

Not sure if troll or obsessed.
 
2012-12-03 01:26:15 PM

MonoChango: Ok I don't really care about any of this, but... I do have one question for any hard core Atheist out there.
How can you prove a negative?
The few atheist I've met, all say pretty much the same thing, "There is no God, and only scientifically ignorant people would believe in such fairy tales about sky wizards."
OK, I can see that is a nice theory. Now how do you prove it?



You really don't prove negatives. The burden of proof is on those making the claim that something exists. People shouldn't just get to run up and shout, "Hey everyone, I have learned that we are being guided by a sentient pair of blue jeans travelling through the cosmos just out of reach of our scientific instruments, which I can speak to. If you can't prove I'm wrong, that means I win and I'm right."
 
2012-12-03 02:50:21 PM

MonoChango: Ok I don't really care about any of this, but... I do have one question for any hard core Atheist out there.
How can you prove a negative?
The few atheist I've met, all say pretty much the same thing, "There is no God, and only scientifically ignorant people would believe in such fairy tales about sky wizards."
OK, I can see that is a nice theory. Now how do you prove it?


"I do not believe in a god" is not the same as "I believe that god does not exist." A lack of belief is not the same as actively disbelieving, and atheism is a lack of belief.

Also, based on your question, you cannot disprove the existence of Odin, Thor, Freya, Sif, Zeus, Apollo, Dionysus, Hera, Ra, Thoth, Bast, Isis, or dragons, unicorns, elves, orcs, ogres, pixies, Big Foot, Yeti, Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, or 15-foot tall tripled breasted Amazonian hookers. I would bet you would say that none of those exist, right? But how can you disprove their existence? By your reasoning you must accept that they are all real, right? Do you now see the flaw of your argument?
 
2012-12-03 02:51:23 PM

Relatively Obscure: MonoChango: Ok I don't really care about any of this, but... I do have one question for any hard core Atheist out there.
How can you prove a negative?
The few atheist I've met, all say pretty much the same thing, "There is no God, and only scientifically ignorant people would believe in such fairy tales about sky wizards."
OK, I can see that is a nice theory. Now how do you prove it?


You really don't prove negatives. The burden of proof is on those making the claim that something exists. People shouldn't just get to run up and shout, "Hey everyone, I have learned that we are being guided by a sentient pair of blue jeans travelling through the cosmos just out of reach of our scientific instruments, which I can speak to. If you can't prove I'm wrong, that means I win and I'm right."


You are wrong. We are guided by a teapot orbiting around the sun.
 
2012-12-03 04:28:22 PM
Let us all join hands and agree that what little we we know about the vast universe is completely piddling compared to that universe. Likewise, let us agree that what we know about our home planet is also quite meager. So, if one considers this slim ratio of what we know, to what we don't know, maybe we should all be a bit humble when spouting off about what actually is. Let us celebrate the huge mystery that confronts us on this spinning magnetic ball, and do our best to push back the veil of what we do not know.

Personally, I find militant atheists to be just as boring as militant religious folks. It is the "militant" part that is boring.

Remember, the history of science is a history of mistakes, but with religion stuck on "faith" and believing rather than knowing . . . I will put my money on science, as flawed as it is.
 
2012-12-03 05:21:55 PM

porkloin: Let us all join hands and agree that what little we we know about the vast universe is completely piddling compared to that universe. Likewise, let us agree that what we know about our home planet is also quite meager. So, if one considers this slim ratio of what we know, to what we don't know, maybe we should all be a bit humble when spouting off about what actually is. Let us celebrate the huge mystery that confronts us on this spinning magnetic ball, and do our best to push back the veil of what we do not know.


And because we don't know answers ... let's argue that magic must be real!!!

/love the logic of religious people
 
2012-12-03 06:14:24 PM

Farking Canuck: Christians post that everyone who is not one of them is going to be tortured for eternity ... there is pretty much nothing more horrible or hateful that that bullshiat.


So a guy putting a nativity scene = him saying you're going to hell now?

"/love the logic of religious people," Farking Canuk

"If you open up public property to opinions then you are going to get some you don't like. The government is not allowed to muzzle them ... it is called freedom of speech."

No doubt. People in a functional society should know better, though.

"It is very simple. You have two choices: Either "nobody can present their opinion" or "everyone can present their opinion". But you guys want "only christians can present their opinion" which is unconstitutional."

This is where I say, Hasty Generalization and you say No true Scottsman! Also, see my above comment.

"It is pretty black and white ... sadly the reasoning skills of the religious are proven time and again to be lacking. This thread is a perfect example."

So we're attacking the person now too?

I haven't read this whole thread, I don't know how fired up you are, but your post was 100% knuckle-dragger man. I have every right to say, "hai guy yur dumb and what u think iz dum 2!"

But I wouldn't I respect your right to believe what you want to believe and I think that what you believe is right for you.
 
2012-12-03 06:54:32 PM

bigdanc: So we're attacking the person now too?


I don't know about you but I definitely am. Of course it is in addition to the point ... which was made.

bigdanc: So a guy putting a nativity scene = him saying you're going to hell now?


It is one of the prime messages of christianity so you don't get to dodge it because it isn't explicitly spelled out in this display ... I'm sure it is on several billboards within 5 minutes drive of the site. It is told to us by the door-to-door harassers, the street-corner whack-jobs, and regularly by internet posters. The very concept of hell is the epitome of evil and any god that allows it to exist (much less who created it and uses it to satiate his sadistic needs) is evil.

bigdanc: No doubt. People in a functional society should know better, though.


Sorry ... you do not get to curtail what other people's free speech is because you think it is unpleasant. I am certain that slave owners found the 'everyone is created equal' speech to be very offensive. But it needed to be said.

bigdanc: This is where I say, Hasty Generalization and you say No true Scottsman! Also, see my above comment.


I am not generalizing. I am directly addressing the people who do not understand this simple concept: When it is government property either everyone gets a fair chance to post what they want or nobody posts.

It is very simple, it is very clear in law, and I stand by my opinion that anyone who cannot comprehend this simple concept has poor reasoning skills.
 
2012-12-03 08:36:34 PM

Farking Canuck: It is one of the prime messages of christianity so you don't get to dodge it because it isn't explicitly spelled out in this display ... I'm sure it is on several billboards within 5 minutes drive of the site. It is told to us by the door-to-door harassers, the street-corner whack-jobs, and regularly by internet posters. The very concept of hell is the epitome of evil and any god that allows it to exist (much less who created it and uses it to satiate his sadistic needs) is evil.



Timothy 1:13
Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief.

Re: epitomizing evil - are you talking about the hell described in Dante's inferno?

So now we're saying Dante's Inferno = the bible/the word of god

And I'm pretty sure the prime message of Christianity is, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

Matthew 7:12

You said: I am not generalizing. I am directly addressing the people who do not understand this simple concept: When it is government property either everyone gets a fair chance to post what they want or nobody posts.


And I getcha man. I know you're not wrong. The question is: are you acting ethically?

I try to live my life according to Matty 7:12, so I find harassing people for the sake of harassing them somewhat offensive and I think it to be unethical.

You're right though, it's hypocritical to force my christian values on other people, I should be luke 6:29'n it.
 
2012-12-03 09:02:26 PM

Mock26: So, by your reasoning, not believing in UFOs is a religion, right? What about not believing in dragons? That is a religion, too, right?


Do they have international associations and meetings and clubs and message boards and a word people use to describe themselves based around this "lack of belief"? Then it's a religion. Oh, those things don't? Probably not religions, then. Atheism....yep, all those things. Religion. Sorry if you don't like it, but reality isn't influenced by your preferences. It is what it is. If it looks, acts, walks, quacks, and has the genetic profile of a duck, it ain't a liger, dude.
 
2012-12-03 09:09:24 PM

bigdanc: Re: epitomizing evil - are you talking about the hell described in Dante's inferno?


I am talking about eternal torture with no end, no parole, no attempt at rehabilitation. The standard definition of hell as I have ever heard it defined,

This place is a vision of pure sadism ... no crime justifies endless torture. No benevolent being could ever condemn anyone to eternal punishment.
 
2012-12-03 09:29:32 PM

untaken_name: Mock26: So, by your reasoning, not believing in UFOs is a religion, right? What about not believing in dragons? That is a religion, too, right?

Do they have international associations and meetings and clubs and message boards and a word people use to describe themselves based around this "lack of belief"? Then it's a religion. Oh, those things don't? Probably not religions, then. Atheism....yep, all those things. Religion. Sorry if you don't like it, but reality isn't influenced by your preferences. It is what it is. If it looks, acts, walks, quacks, and has the genetic profile of a duck, it ain't a liger, dude.


Then, fark is a church.

You are ascribing a personal definition, what "religion" means to you. Here's a hint, you don't know what you are talking about.

look up the definition of religion. You will not find "message boards" and "international associations" included.

What you can find those things under is cultural tools. A wish for society to be as good as it can is not a "belief" or a "religion". Talking about civil rights and equality is not a religion. It's survival instinct magnified, a study in cause and effect and reaching the best possible result for all beings(unless you're a republican, heh), not creation and spirituality. People with different goals, or different opinions about how to best reach the same goal, are not religious by necessity.

Sure, in the world of politics there is irrational theory abound, and while that bears a striking resemblance to religion, it is not quantitatively the same thing. They can even mix, what with morals and philosophy muddying the waters. But a mixture of two things does not make one the same as the other.
 
2012-12-03 10:18:14 PM

smadge1: Atheists can put up their atheistic displays on their national atheist holiday seasons.

Fairs fair


So what if my particular flavor of atheism tells me that every day is an atheistic holiday for me? Could I just leave my display(s) up, on public land, ALL year round then?
 
2012-12-03 10:32:42 PM

Farking Canuck: bigdanc: Re: epitomizing evil - are you talking about the hell described in Dante's inferno?

I am talking about eternal torture with no end, no parole, no attempt at rehabilitation. The standard definition of hell as I have ever heard it defined,

This place is a vision of pure sadism ... no crime justifies endless torture. No benevolent being could ever condemn anyone to eternal punishment.


On what are you basing your views of post-mortum morality? Do you believe in some type of afterlife? Have you experienced some type of afterlife? The Bible is very clear about how hell is "justified" and that's that God is the very embodiment of justice. I appreciate the approach you're taking - in trying to argue from a position of my belief, it shows maturity and a thoughtful approach, but if we're going to argue morality in the frame of the christian religion as defined by the bible the only guidance we have is the bible. What we're kind of doing here is cherry-picking evidence/logical starting points to support our arguments and that is pretty dishonest of us.
 
2012-12-03 10:56:33 PM

Farking Canuck: The answer to all of the above, including your question, is: I don't have to. The burden of proof is not on me ... it is on the people claiming they do exist. The default position on the existence of anything is: "does not exist" until proven otherwise.


If it's an open question or discussion, yes. If a person says, "I don't know if God (or pink unicorns, or streetlights) exists", and you want to convince them otherwise, then it's your burden of proof.

OTOH, if a person flatly asserts, "God does not exist," then it's their burden of proof. (I do realize that many if not most atheists don't assert this, often precisely because they know that it's pretty much unprovable.)

Finally, if one person asserts, "God exists", and the other, "Goes doesn't exist", then burden proof is undefined because it's no longer a yes/no question.
 
2012-12-03 11:23:02 PM

LL316: Lionel Mandrake: Revek: That you come in talking about how atheist don't do this or don't' do that but the truth is that they just do different asshole things.

For example?

Revek: I just simply don't care how wrong you are about the tendency of atheist to be just as uncompromising in their quest to be... Well assholes

When are atheists uncompromising?

When they demand that the Constitution be applied equally to all groups? When they fight to keep "Intelligent Design" out of science textbooks? When, like one guy sues over "In God We Trust" on the money? OK, that guy's an ass, but I happen to agree it doesn't belong there. Nevertheless, that is like ONE guy. Unless he's your neighbor or a relative, you can easily ignore the whole thing.

What exactly do atheists do but talk on a TV that you can turn off, and write books you don't have to buy, and chat in threads that you don't have to read?

Their douchiness is incredibly annoying. Isn't that enough reason to complain about them?


It isn't as annoying as the douchiness or derp from theists though...
 
2012-12-04 12:33:51 AM

omeganuepsilon: untaken_name: Mock26: So, by your reasoning, not believing in UFOs is a religion, right? What about not believing in dragons? That is a religion, too, right?

Do they have international associations and meetings and clubs and message boards and a word people use to describe themselves based around this "lack of belief"? Then it's a religion. Oh, those things don't? Probably not religions, then. Atheism....yep, all those things. Religion. Sorry if you don't like it, but reality isn't influenced by your preferences. It is what it is. If it looks, acts, walks, quacks, and has the genetic profile of a duck, it ain't a liger, dude.

Then, fark is a church.

You are ascribing a personal definition, what "religion" means to you. Here's a hint, you don't know what you are talking about.

look up the definition of religion. You will not find "message boards" and "international associations" included.

What you can find those things under is cultural tools. A wish for society to be as good as it can is not a "belief" or a "religion". Talking about civil rights and equality is not a religion. It's survival instinct magnified, a study in cause and effect and reaching the best possible result for all beings(unless you're a republican, heh), not creation and spirituality. People with different goals, or different opinions about how to best reach the same goal, are not religious by necessity.

Sure, in the world of politics there is irrational theory abound, and while that bears a striking resemblance to religion, it is not quantitatively the same thing. They can even mix, what with morals and philosophy muddying the waters. But a mixture of two things does not make one the same as the other.


I'm really sorry you're butthurt about being religious, but that doesn't change the facts. Just because you wish things were different doesn't actually MAKE them different.
 
2012-12-04 12:38:17 AM

Farking Canuck: bigdanc: Re: epitomizing evil - are you talking about the hell described in Dante's inferno?

I am talking about eternal torture with no end, no parole, no attempt at rehabilitation. The standard definition of hell as I have ever heard it defined,

This place is a vision of pure sadism ... no crime justifies endless torture. No benevolent being could ever condemn anyone to eternal punishment.


That comes from the Babylonian Mystery religion. The Hebrew Scripture describes complete obliteration as the "eternal" punishment for rebellion. It's not eternal in the sense that you are burning forever and ever, it's eternal in the sense that a cremated body is eternally gone. Note that I'm not defending this view, merely offering clarification. Going to Heaven and Hell after death come from other religions, not the Hebrew one. It's hilarious how many people who claim to be religious, basing their beliefs on the Hebrew writings, and they don't even know what comes from there and what comes from other religions. Sir Francis Bacon had a lot to do with that.
 
2012-12-04 01:37:01 AM

untaken_name: I'm really sorry you're butthurt about being religious, but that doesn't change the facts. Just because you wish things were different doesn't actually MAKE them different.


Thanks for proving to us you're a troll who's not to be taken with any seriousness due to an unwillingness to discuss the matter with any intelligence.

Have a nice life sparky, but I suggest you return to your village before they put out a bulletin for the missing idiot.
 
Displayed 50 of 478 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report