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 443
    More: Interesting, nativity, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Yale Law School, Santa Monica  
•       •       •

21976 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»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
2012-12-04 02:02:19 AM  

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.


So, the Elks and Masons and Moose Lodge and Boy Scouts and SCA and International Chess Federation and every single group of people that meets and has clubs and message boards is a religion? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahaha!

And as for reality, it is not influenced by your preferences, either. So your claims that it is a religion are pretty much null and void!
 
2012-12-04 08:43:33 AM  

aerojockey: 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.)


Since you acknowledge that the majority of atheists are not making the positive claim then you must agree that the burden of proof remains on the religious.

There is no value in making a case against a small fringe group that nobody takes seriously.
 
2012-12-04 02:26:55 PM  

aerojockey: 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.)


No. They do not make the claim because that is not what they think. The truth is that they simply do not believe. It really is that simple.
 
2012-12-04 05:14:56 PM  

Mock26: aerojockey: 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.)

No. They do not make the claim because that is not what they think. The truth is that they simply do not believe. It really is that simple.


Oh, the claim is made, but is not assertion of an unprovable point as framed there.

There is no Easter Bunny.
There is no Tooth Fairy.
Their is no invisiible Cheshire Cat.
There is no Bogeyman(though i suppose we do apply the title to human monsters)

I don't Believe those things, reason points to them as being accurate(so far). We all talk about those beings as if they exist, but in reality most people simply have no belief that they are real. It's a culture reference, or a humoring of people who do believe.

People like to create a polar opposite of Belief, but to attribute the same flaw of argument to make themselves feel better, but that is twisted logic in and of itself. It's a trick of language to imply "a belief in the negative", a trick, not a credible argument.

A statement of "There is no X" is most commonly a simplified paraphrase of "There is no evidence for X", which in turn is a simplification of "There is no evidence for X that is any more reliable than any other fable(a written story)...." the ... standing in for all the other discussion of "evidence" and simple reason as to why the idea is preposterous and debunking of religious claims that are asserted, etc.

It is to imply that if credible evidence were to surface tomorrow, and that people who say "There is no God" are guaranteed to ignore that evidence. That is a prediction that has zero basis in reality. It is a projection of the flaw that the religious zealot holds, that evidence and reason will be denied in some imaginary scenario, therefore both parties have at least equal flaw.

It's a bunk tactic. If evidence were to surface, it would not require belief, but acknowledgement of established and demonstrable fact.

Variants of the argument are:
You Believe in science.......... Placing trust in proven methodology is not Belief, but in reality the safest wager. Note here, when the prediction science makes fails, it's met with a restructuring of that methodology that led us astray, and an examining of the data to see what was missed.
You Believe in politic X...........A concern for societal future is not Belief, it's a form of survival drive. We desire a world that's good for us, and for our offspring.
You Believe in your children.......Confidence in our family is merely a positive outlook, because negative outlooks can be self fulfilling prophecies.

I believe the last time I had bacon was more than a week ago.(sadface)

That statement, as worded, is obviously a simple guess. I know it wasn't in the last few days, and it hasn't been a month...so...

Ad nauseum.

It's all an ignorant(or intellectually dishonest) equivocation on language to project that same flaw. Common parlance "belief" has a different meaning, indeed several, than the more technical and singular religious meaning of "reliance on something as fact with zero evidence"
 
2012-12-04 05:38:37 PM  

Farking Canuck: aerojockey: 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.)

Since you acknowledge that the majority of atheists are not making the positive claim then you must agree that the burden of proof remains on the religious.


No, I don't agree that burden of proof ever "remains" with anyone. It changes depending on the question. It's absolutely not true that every question about the existence of God has burden of proof with the theist.

If the question is "Is there a God?" then burden of proof is on those who claim there is a God.

If the question is, "Is it a fact that there is no God?", then burden of proof is on those who claim there is no God.
 
2012-12-04 05:51:50 PM  

Mock26: aerojockey: 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.)

No. They do not make the claim because that is not what they think. The truth is that they simply do not believe. It really is that simple.


I'm sure what you write is true, and really that simple, for some people calling themselves atheists, but I GUARANTEE you that a significant percentage of them privately believe in the non-existence of God. I'm not saying that to criticize; in fact, I respect those people because they recognize the impossibility of proof and so don't try to make claims they can't substantiate. And I'm certainly not trying to make some sort of argument that their belief in something they can't prove is a matter of faith. It might be for some, but every human being believes things they have no proof for. Lots of things. It's a human weakness.
 
2012-12-04 05:56:19 PM  

Farking Canuck: There is no value in making a case against a small fringe group that nobody takes seriously.


BTW, there are philosophies (Materialism is one that comes to mind) that do assert non-existence of God, and adherents of those philosophies are far from "fringe groups that nobody takes seriously".
 
2012-12-04 06:25:40 PM  

aerojockey: If the question is, "Is it a fact that there is no God?", then burden of proof is on those who claim there is no God.


Wrong, or rather, a dishonest question.

That question still originates with the original question, which originates from "There is a God".

Changing the form and twisting the words does not change that.

Without the claim, "There is a god" any supposed disbelief is irrelevant. That statement is the origin of the whole debate. If no one had ever made that out to be "fact", there would be nothing to debate about. Once that positive claim is made, all burden is on the claimant. Re-wording and pretending that claim doesn't exist simply does not work.

-----------------

Now, with credibility issues and rational reasons for a story as such to come into existance coming into play(gain status/leadership manage the "flock" etc). Occam's razor kicks in heavily. The reliability of the testimony is irrevocably tarnished. Call it establishing character, there is no shortage of lying and fabricating "fact" to gain status among the creature that is man. Why is one story as such more believable than others? It is not, they're all equally dubious.

Because so many people believe it? No, reality is not a democracy. The earth is not flat, and NEVER was. Discarded rags to not magically transform into mice or rats. Masturbation does not cause cancer. etc etc etc.

Those were all things that an ignorance populace once largely "believed" because it's what they were taught.

For any explanation of an alleged "god", there are simpler and more rational explanations that make actual sense.
Emotion, love? biochemists, hormones, medical study, that's all explaining it, down to why a parent bonds with it's child over children that are not it's own. Oxytocin down to survival / evolutionary advantages.

Rain, lightning, planets, stars, etc, it's all been touched on science to a degree that's built upon observable fact. What some call an educated guess carries with it a large amount of certainty a lot of the time. If I let go of this laptop, it will fall until it hits an obstruction. A simple prediction based on valid reasoning.

Religion has no such valid reasoning, despite it's claims and attempts. Still just the word of man, much of the literal parts having been demonstrated as tall tales, if not outright proven wrong, with science. Creationism, Noah's ark, etc. A fictional story based on real events is still a fictional story.

Yes, at one point the world didn't exist, does not necessitate Creation by an intelligent entity. Chemistry and physics explain it much more accurately.

Yes, there was once a large flood, several in fact, but a global one and a boat large enough to carry two of every sort of animal(and food and drinkable water, etc)? Preposterous.
 
2012-12-04 08:40:10 PM  

aerojockey: If the question is, "Is it a fact that there is no God?", then burden of proof is on those who claim there is no God.


Show me one person in this thread making this claim. If you cannot find anyone making this claim and, unless I missed something, you won't, why would you employ this argument??

If an argument doesn't apply to the people you are arguing against then it is intellectually dishonest to employ it.
 
2012-12-04 08:43:43 PM  

aerojockey: I'm sure what you write is true, and really that simple, for some people calling themselves atheists, but I GUARANTEE you that a significant percentage of them privately believe in the non-existence of God


That is completely true ... I do not believe in the existence of god.

This is a completely different thing from making the claim that no gods exist.

One is a position taken based on the weight of available evidence and the other is a statement of certainty (which is subject to the burden of proof).

If you ask religious people, the majority of them will state that it is a fact that god exists. The opposite is not true of atheists. Therefore we do not bear the same burden of proof. Full stop.
 
2012-12-04 09:12:57 PM  

aerojockey: Farking Canuck: There is no value in making a case against a small fringe group that nobody takes seriously.

BTW, there are philosophies (Materialism is one that comes to mind) that do assert non-existence of God, and adherents of those philosophies are far from "fringe groups that nobody takes seriously".


Philosophy isn't necessarily a way of life that is adhered to and therefore resembling religion, but many times simply an effort to describe, in that case, a conclusion that is reached naturally.

You are letting the -ism make it feel like a religion in that sense(an organized and structured group of people).

Equivocation of the various meanings of "philosophy" is the fallacy there.
 
2012-12-04 11:26:03 PM  

Farking Canuck: aerojockey: If the question is, "Is it a fact that there is no God?", then burden of proof is on those who claim there is no God.

Show me one person in this thread making this claim.

Why? Whether anyone's making the claim doesn't have any bearing on the truth or falsity of this statement.

 
2012-12-04 11:26:43 PM  

Farking Canuck: aerojockey: If the question is, "Is it a fact that there is no God?", then burden of proof is on those who claim there is no God.

Show me one person in this thread making this claim.


Why? Whether anyone's making the claim doesn't have any bearing on the truth or falsity of this statement.
 
2012-12-04 11:32:12 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Philosophy isn't necessarily a way of life that is adhered to and therefore resembling religion, but many times simply an effort to describe, in that case, a conclusion that is reached naturally.


Jesus. For people who claim to believe only what you have evidence for, you people are awfully good at reading into things things that aren't there.

I brought Materialism as an example of mainstream philosophy that asserts the non-existence of God. This was to counter to your opinion that people who assert non-existence of God that are a meaningless fringe group, and nothing more.
 
2012-12-05 01:10:18 AM  

aerojockey: Farking Canuck: aerojockey: If the question is, "Is it a fact that there is no God?", then burden of proof is on those who claim there is no God.

Show me one person in this thread making this claim.

Why? Whether anyone's making the claim doesn't have any bearing on the truth or falsity of this statement.


Fine ... let's derail this thread into a discussion of how christians like to murder doctors.
 
2012-12-05 01:30:37 AM  

aerojockey: omeganuepsilon: Philosophy isn't necessarily a way of life that is adhered to and therefore resembling religion, but many times simply an effort to describe, in that case, a conclusion that is reached naturally.

Jesus. For people who claim to believe only what you have evidence for, you people are awfully good at reading into things things that aren't there.

I brought Materialism as an example of mainstream philosophy that asserts the non-existence of God. This was to counter to your opinion that people who assert non-existence of God that are a meaningless fringe group, and nothing more.


aerojockey: (Materialism is one that comes to mind) that do assert non-existence of God, and adherents of those philosophies


Yeah, I'm the one with the reading issue.

Also, because you're confused, I'm not saying anything about some "fringe group", that is another poster.

If you'd actually, you know, read my posts, you'd see that I already covered "There is no god" people in a much different light.
 
2012-12-05 01:37:23 AM  
Bolded the wrong parts. It was the "adhering to" point that you had said and that I replied to.

One does not go down a list and pick a philosophy that they agree with and live by it's tenets. That is what you implied, and what I called you out on. There is no organization known as Materialism as you imply. There is no church, no worship. There is no large population of materialists, no clubs, no support groups, no community. All of which is what you imply by saying they're not a fringe group. You imply massive numbers.

A little bit of reading comprehension goes a long ways if you want to debate in a text based forum.
 
2012-12-05 03:43:00 PM  

Farking Canuck: aerojockey: Why? Whether anyone's making the claim doesn't have any bearing on the truth or falsity of this statement.

Fine ... let's derail this thread into a discussion of how christians like to murder doctors.


How is this sidetracking? Burden of proof is a part of this discussion, and I was commenting on that part of it. I'm not aware of any etiquette that says facts you introduce to the discussion have to always wholly pertain to everything that's been talked about so far.

omeganuepsilon: One does not go down a list and pick a philosophy that they agree with and live by it's tenets. That is what you implied,


No it isn't, and anyway I'm not sure what relevance you think it has to the point I was making. I admit "adherents" might not have been the best word. But regardless: someone claimed that those who assert the non-existence of God are a tiny group of people not worth even thinking about because they're so irrelevant. I say that's not true, and the fact that Materialism exists as a mainstream philosophy, taught in schools and everything, is evidence of that. That's it. That's all I said.

Do you deny that? Are you going to tell me that people who assert non-existence of God are as a whole tiny, irrelevant, and not worth thinking about, despite the fact that their philosophies are considered mainstream? If so, you're being ridiculous. If not, I don't see what you're objecting to, because that's ALL I was saying.
 
2012-12-05 03:55:05 PM  

omeganuepsilon: aerojockey: If the question is, "Is it a fact that there is no God?", then burden of proof is on those who claim there is no God.

Wrong, or rather, a dishonest question.


No it's not. Whenever someone makes an assertion, the approrpiate question is, "Is the assertion true?" If a man walks into a room and says, "There is no God", then the example above is the correct question.
 
2012-12-05 04:03:38 PM  

aerojockey: How is this sidetracking?


You are arguing against a tiny minority that are not even here. Pretty much admitting that you have no legitimate argument for the vast majority of atheists.

I guess this is better than most religious people on Fark who insist the 'you cannot prove god doesn't exist' argument applies to all atheists.
 
2012-12-05 05:12:36 PM  

Farking Canuck: aerojockey: How is this sidetracking?

You are arguing against a tiny minority that are not even here.


Let me tell you what I think is hilarious.

There are apparently a group (tiny according to you) of atheists you evidently don't want to exist, because you are unfathomably butthurt over the fact that I even bothered to mention them.

When I did mention them, I said that they are subject to burden of proof when they make their assertion, which (I assume) is one of the main reason you don't want them to exist, i.e., they're doing the same thing that religious nutcases do (assert things they have no hope of proof for), and worse, they are doing it while calling themselves the same thing you call yourself.

And yet when I pointed out what was "wrong" with them, you cried bloody murder, as if I was attacking the whole institution of atheism from top to bottom.

Persecution complex much? Seriously, you and your buddies on this thread have to have one to interpret what I said as "arguing against" anyone, as opposed to what I was really doing, just having a minor quibble with someone's oversimplified ideas on the burden of proof.

As for the other point of contention in this threa, namely my belief that the people you say are a tiny and insignificant group are not really tiny and insignificant, well tough. Everyone has people they don't approve of throwing in with them. Deal.
 
2012-12-05 05:20:33 PM  

aerojockey: As for the other point of contention in this threa, namely my belief that the people you say are a tiny and insignificant group are not really tiny and insignificant, well tough. Everyone has people they don't approve of throwing in with them. Deal.



So, do you have any citations that this is a mainstream group? Or is it just to be accepted as a fact that every athiest is an anti-thiest until proven otherwise?
 
2012-12-05 05:33:56 PM  

the ha ha guy: aerojockey: As for the other point of contention in this threa, namely my belief that the people you say are a tiny and insignificant group are not really tiny and insignificant, well tough. Everyone has people they don't approve of throwing in with them. Deal.

So, do you have any citations that this is a mainstream group? Or is it just to be accepted as a fact that every athiest is an anti-thiest until proven otherwise?


Persecution complex again. You're accusing me of saying all atheists are antitheists. I said nothing of the sort; in fact in my very Boobies in this thread I credited "many or most" atheists of not being antitheists. Lots of good that did.

As for citations, I don't have one handy, but if you go back in the thread that I gave the mainstrreamness of Materialist philosophy as evidence that antitheists are not a tiny and insignificant group. Since all I was saying was that people who assert non-existence of God are not so tiny as to be worth ignoring completely (which, you'll note, is not the same thing as saying that all atheists are antitheists--hard to believe, I know), then that bit of evidence will suffice to make my point. (Which, again, is NOT that all atheists are antitheists, which is totally not the point.)

BTW, I'm not saying that all antitheists are atheists. I just want you to know that. Or most atheists for that matter. Or even a healthy minor. Nope, not saying that either. Not completely insignificant number? Yeah I'll say that.

Which you'll note does not imply that all atheists are antitheist.
 
2012-12-05 06:05:42 PM  

aerojockey: As for citations, I don't have one handy, but if you go back in the thread that I gave the mainstrreamness of Materialist philosophy as evidence that antitheists are not a tiny and insignificant group.


So you cite your own comment as evidence of your assertion that they are anythng but a fringe group? If they were mainstream, shouldn't there be some evidence of that? The WBC is nearly universally acknowledged as a fringe group bordering on cult status, but even they have a larger visible following than the anti-theist movement.

Also, you're the only one looking for persecution here. I'm an ordained Christian minister, so I have nothing at all to gain by defending the athiests, but I don't feel that any valid point can be made for or against either side when it's based on erronious or nonexistent evidence.

/Yes, I do see the hypocrisy of that last statement, but I think my point still stands.
 
2012-12-05 06:23:36 PM  

the ha ha guy: So you cite your own comment as evidence of your assertion that they are anythng but a fringe group? If they were mainstream, shouldn't there be some evidence of that?


Since my point was that they are not a tiny enough group to ignore--which is what that Farking Canuck wants me to do--I feel the example of Materialism as a mainstream is sufficient evidence to make that rather small point. That Materialism is a mainstream philosophy is a commonly accepted fact, and I think you might be unfair to compare it to WBC, which is "mainstream" only in the sense that they get a lot of media attention.
 
2012-12-05 06:38:25 PM  

aerojockey: That Materialism is a mainstream philosophy is a commonly accepted fact


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2012-12-05 09:52:27 PM  

aerojockey: I feel the example of Materialism as a mainstream

What

example? You have yet to provide one.

You're making an unsubstatiated claim that there's some mainstream movement, when there is no evidence of them being anything other than a fringe type of personality, for surely there are some.

In my posts I also let on, at length, that saying "There is no god." is more figurative than literal, so you can't just say "Well a LOT of people say that". The way our language works is that some statements can mean multiple things. It's an argument of equivocation if you go that route.
 
2012-12-05 11:40:01 PM  

aerojockey: There are apparently a group (tiny according to you) of atheists you evidently don't want to exist, because you are unfathomably butthurt over the fact that I even bothered to mention them.


I am not remotely butt hurt.

I am simply pointing out that you are arguing with people who are not here ... apparently because you have no argument against actual atheism.

It is sad and pathetic that you cannot support anything you say. I asked you to produce one atheists from this thread that actually believes what you say we believe ... you produced nothing.

omeganuepsiilon has asked you several times to produce some support for your 'Materialism' claims ... you produced nothing.

You are a typical religious person ... attacking strawmen of your own creation because you cannot accept that your belief in magic is illogical and unsupported by evidence.

Go back to your mommy and daddy ... they'll tell you over and over that jesus loves you and that will make your weak mind feel better. It really is magic.
 
Displayed 43 of 443 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report