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.

(Breitbart.com)   'The Bible', airing in March, promises to be a faithful adaptation of the stories of ancient peoples and their alien sky-wizards   (breitbart.com) divider line 225
    More: Interesting, Bibles, Hollywood, melody, Mark Burnett, adaptations, superstar, Darren Aronofsky  
•       •       •

2047 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 11 Jan 2013 at 9:37 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-11 09:25:06 AM  
As portrayed by middle-eastern Caucasians.
 
2013-01-11 09:37:12 AM  
Rated (R) for scenes of extreme violence and nudity
 
2013-01-11 09:40:10 AM  
Came for the Caucasian comment. Not disappointed. I wonder how the typical Breitbart reader would respond to a big-nosed, dark-skinned Jesus?
 
2013-01-11 09:40:13 AM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: Rated (R) for scenes of extreme violence and nudity


Plus incest!
 
2013-01-11 09:43:25 AM  
The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.
 
2013-01-11 09:43:54 AM  

jjwars1: DammitIForgotMyLogin: Rated (R) for scenes of extreme violence and nudity

Plus incest!


And let's not forget all the rapes. It seems God(TM) really likes seeing people get raped.
 
2013-01-11 09:44:20 AM  

kid_icarus: As portrayed by middle-eastern Caucasians.


Middle-eastern Caucasians with British accents.
 
2013-01-11 09:46:24 AM  

EfiniX: Came for the Caucasian comment. Not disappointed. I wonder how the typical Breitbart reader would respond to a big-nosed, dark-skinned Jesus?


When bigoted christians make comments about Jews I like to point out that Jesus lived his whole life as an orthodox Jewish rabbi
 
2013-01-11 09:46:25 AM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: jjwars1: DammitIForgotMyLogin: Rated (R) for scenes of extreme violence and nudity

Plus incest!

And let's not forget all the rapes. It seems God(TM) really likes seeing people get raped.


God really likes rape.
 
2013-01-11 09:48:44 AM  

potato_chip_eating_geek: DammitIForgotMyLogin: jjwars1: DammitIForgotMyLogin: Rated (R) for scenes of extreme violence and nudity

Plus incest!

And let's not forget all the rapes. It seems God(TM) really likes seeing people get raped.

God really likes rape.


You better watch your backside then. You know, just in case...
 
2013-01-11 09:49:59 AM  

EfiniX: Came for the Caucasian comment. Not disappointed. I wonder how the typical Breitbart reader would respond to a big-nosed, dark-skinned Jesus?


http://arago4.tnw.utwente.nl/stonedead/movies/life-of-brian/scene-03 .h tml
 
2013-01-11 09:50:25 AM  

kid_icarus: As portrayed by middle-eastern Caucasians.


Been a devout Christian my entire life. I can't stand it when I see pictures of "White Jesus."
 
2013-01-11 09:50:41 AM  
www.troll.me
 
2013-01-11 09:52:02 AM  
On the next exciting episode of The Bible: The Begats
 
2013-01-11 09:52:30 AM  

jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.


by default, those not believing in supernatural deities with as much proof of their existence as Harry Potter or any other literary fictional character, have a right to feel superior. Sorry, thems the breaks for believing in crazy.

And while we're here, I'd love to better understand what grounds religious people would have to not respect an atheists fact-based belief system.
 
2013-01-11 10:00:15 AM  

Dorf11: kid_icarus: As portrayed by middle-eastern Caucasians.

Middle-eastern Caucasians with British accents.


lol oh yeah, how could I forget that?

/It's so authentic to the time & culture...
 
2013-01-11 10:01:52 AM  

rtaylor92: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

by default, those not believing in supernatural deities with as much proof of their existence as Harry Potter or any other literary fictional character, have a right to feel superior. Sorry, thems the breaks for believing in crazy.

And while we're here, I'd love to better understand what grounds religious people would have to not respect an atheists fact-based belief system.


99.9% of the 'facts' atheists believe in have never been independently verified by themselves, so such belief is as faith-based as anything else.
 
2013-01-11 10:03:14 AM  
So this is gonna be a fantasy series.
 
2013-01-11 10:03:37 AM  
finally some good old sex and violence in the movies
 
2013-01-11 10:04:21 AM  

rtaylor92: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

by default, those not believing in supernatural deities with as much proof of their existence as Harry Potter or any other literary fictional character, have a right to feel superior. Sorry, thems the breaks for believing in crazy.

And while we're here, I'd love to better understand what grounds religious people would have to not respect an atheists fact-based belief system.


A great many religious people respect the views of many other beliefs, including atheism.  Act respectful of others, and they may return the courtesy.  Those that don't return the courtesy are likely narrow-minded zealots with a lot of insecurities who need to feel validated by mocking and demeaning people who don't think like they do.
 
2013-01-11 10:04:53 AM  

jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.


whoever said they wanted respect? their belief is the right one!
 
2013-01-11 10:05:13 AM  

jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.


What's wrong with the invisible sky wizard? That's a pretty cool concept. Plus he had a son who became an archlich.
 
2013-01-11 10:05:19 AM  

Nabb1: rtaylor92: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

by default, those not believing in supernatural deities with as much proof of their existence as Harry Potter or any other literary fictional character, have a right to feel superior. Sorry, thems the breaks for believing in crazy.

And while we're here, I'd love to better understand what grounds religious people would have to not respect an atheists fact-based belief system.

A great many religious people respect the views of many other beliefs, including atheism.  Act respectful of others, and they may return the courtesy.  Those that don't return the courtesy are likely narrow-minded zealots with a lot of insecurities who need to feel validated by mocking and demeaning people who don't think like they do.


Ah, I see you've visited us here in the South.
 
2013-01-11 10:06:13 AM  

PIP_the_TROLL: rtaylor92: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

by default, those not believing in supernatural deities with as much proof of their existence as Harry Potter or any other literary fictional character, have a right to feel superior. Sorry, thems the breaks for believing in crazy.

And while we're here, I'd love to better understand what grounds religious people would have to not respect an atheists fact-based belief system.

99.9% of the 'facts' atheists believe in have never been independently verified by themselves, so such belief is as faith-based as anything else.


75% of statistics are made up on the spot.
 
2013-01-11 10:07:45 AM  

Khellendros: PIP_the_TROLL: rtaylor92: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

by default, those not believing in supernatural deities with as much proof of their existence as Harry Potter or any other literary fictional character, have a right to feel superior. Sorry, thems the breaks for believing in crazy.

And while we're here, I'd love to better understand what grounds religious people would have to not respect an atheists fact-based belief system.

99.9% of the 'facts' atheists believe in have never been independently verified by themselves, so such belief is as faith-based as anything else.

75% of statistics are made up on the spot.


I'm 105% certain you just made that up.
 
2013-01-11 10:09:20 AM  

kid_icarus: Nabb1: rtaylor92: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

by default, those not believing in supernatural deities with as much proof of their existence as Harry Potter or any other literary fictional character, have a right to feel superior. Sorry, thems the breaks for believing in crazy.

And while we're here, I'd love to better understand what grounds religious people would have to not respect an atheists fact-based belief system.

A great many religious people respect the views of many other beliefs, including atheism.  Act respectful of others, and they may return the courtesy.  Those that don't return the courtesy are likely narrow-minded zealots with a lot of insecurities who need to feel validated by mocking and demeaning people who don't think like they do.

Ah, I see you've visited us here in the South.


I've lived in the South all my life.  But I grew up Catholic.  In South Carolina.
 
2013-01-11 10:11:00 AM  

kid_icarus: Khellendros: PIP_the_TROLL: rtaylor92: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

by default, those not believing in supernatural deities with as much proof of their existence as Harry Potter or any other literary fictional character, have a right to feel superior. Sorry, thems the breaks for believing in crazy.

And while we're here, I'd love to better understand what grounds religious people would have to not respect an atheists fact-based belief system.

99.9% of the 'facts' atheists believe in have never been independently verified by themselves, so such belief is as faith-based as anything else.

75% of statistics are made up on the spot.

I'm 105% certain you just made that up.


Prove it!
 
2013-01-11 10:11:07 AM  
Will The Bible: The TV Series have some creative liberties, Such as giving Jesus an Uzi and a wacky black sidekick? Why would I not be surprised?
 
2013-01-11 10:12:18 AM  
The comments for the article are brilliant!

They're already convinced that these yet to be made episodes are communist, liberal propaganda. They are already frothing at the mouth.

/people are stupid!
 
2013-01-11 10:13:57 AM  

Nabb1: A great many religious people respect the views of many other beliefs, including atheism.


I knew you were all right, Nabb.

Here's the thing... I'm not gonna say a word of what I do or don't believe. What I will say is I was brought up to respect people and not ridicule their beliefs or disbeliefs. It's actually not that hard.

But we all know where this thread will go. Train's never late.
 
2013-01-11 10:15:02 AM  

rtaylor92: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

by default, those not believing in supernatural deities with as much proof of their existence as Harry Potter or any other literary fictional character, have a right to feel superior. Sorry, thems the breaks for believing in crazy.

And while we're here, I'd love to better understand what grounds religious people would have to not respect an atheists fact-based belief system.


See, this is why Militant Atheists are just as bad as fundamentalists. They both treat anyone with different believes as ignorant scum and both believe they're superior to everyone else.
 
2013-01-11 10:15:40 AM  

jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.


Sorry, pursuing a view of the universe and our place in it based on reason, evidence, scrutiny and skepticism is NOT equally weighted with pursuing the same based on a personal relationship with a mystical, mythological being who can allegedly suspend the laws of nature to suit his adherent's needs.

You are entitled to believe in total horseshiat if you want to but you are out of your mind to expect that that entitles you to respect. Quite the opposite, actually. Especially when you use that horseshiat to try and shape policy, affect the lives of non-believers and the like.
 
2013-01-11 10:18:23 AM  

gshepnyc: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

Sorry, pursuing a view of the universe and our place in it based on reason, evidence, scrutiny and skepticism is NOT equally weighted with pursuing the same based on a personal relationship with a mystical, mythological being who can allegedly suspend the laws of nature to suit his adherent's needs.

You are entitled to believe in total horseshiat if you want to but you are out of your mind to expect that that entitles you to respect. Quite the opposite, actually. Especially when you use that horseshiat to try and shape policy, affect the lives of non-believers and the like.


You have to be fairly narrow-minded to think that scientific understanding and faith are mutually exclusive in all situations.  There are many people of science who embrace faith and vice versa.
 
2013-01-11 10:21:32 AM  

jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.


I didn't include the skywizard comment in the headline because I'm an atheist. I included it because of this: "debut on The History Channel March 3"

I mean, I could have used something else instead. Maybe something about Jewish pawnbrokers, or how dangerous it was at the time to fish on the Sea of Galilee, or perhaps worked in something about the trials of the loggers whose timber ends up in Jesus's woodshop, but to copy NowhereMon, I decided to go with this:
www.troll.me
 
2013-01-11 10:23:53 AM  

PIP_the_TROLL: rtaylor92: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

by default, those not believing in supernatural deities with as much proof of their existence as Harry Potter or any other literary fictional character, have a right to feel superior. Sorry, thems the breaks for believing in crazy.

And while we're here, I'd love to better understand what grounds religious people would have to not respect an atheists fact-based belief system.

99.9% of the 'facts' atheists believe in have never been independently verified by themselves, so such belief is as faith-based as anything else.


I saw that episode of It's Always Sunny. It was not their best.
 
2013-01-11 10:24:00 AM  
Before the discussion, we need to settle the ground rules.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-11 10:24:17 AM  

Nabb1: gshepnyc: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

Sorry, pursuing a view of the universe and our place in it based on reason, evidence, scrutiny and skepticism is NOT equally weighted with pursuing the same based on a personal relationship with a mystical, mythological being who can allegedly suspend the laws of nature to suit his adherent's needs.

You are entitled to believe in total horseshiat if you want to but you are out of your mind to expect that that entitles you to respect. Quite the opposite, actually. Especially when you use that horseshiat to try and shape policy, affect the lives of non-believers and the like.

You have to be fairly narrow-minded to think that scientific understanding and faith are mutually exclusive in all situations.  There are many people of science who embrace faith and vice versa.


Even completely ignoring the debate about whether God exists or not, if you can read the Bible and come away with the conclusion that the God described therein is worthy of anything more than our disgust and revulsion, then you're seriously lacking in critical thinking abilities
 
2013-01-11 10:25:47 AM  
http://www.tradersnarrative.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/colbert%20 t hreat%20down%20bears.jpg

Applies only to youngsters making fun of baldies.
 
2013-01-11 10:25:59 AM  
I hope they show the part where you burn in Hell for wearing 2 different types of cloth, eating meat of an animal with cloven hoofs, and are allowed to take wives as spoils of war.
 
2013-01-11 10:27:08 AM  
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-11 10:30:17 AM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: Nabb1: gshepnyc: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

Sorry, pursuing a view of the universe and our place in it based on reason, evidence, scrutiny and skepticism is NOT equally weighted with pursuing the same based on a personal relationship with a mystical, mythological being who can allegedly suspend the laws of nature to suit his adherent's needs.

You are entitled to believe in total horseshiat if you want to but you are out of your mind to expect that that entitles you to respect. Quite the opposite, actually. Especially when you use that horseshiat to try and shape policy, affect the lives of non-believers and the like.

You have to be fairly narrow-minded to think that scientific understanding and faith are mutually exclusive in all situations.  There are many people of science who embrace faith and vice versa.

Even completely ignoring the debate about whether God exists or not, if you can read the Bible and come away with the conclusion that the God described therein is worthy of anything more than our disgust and revulsion, then you're seriously lacking in critical thinking abilities


Well, don't we seem rather sure of ourselves?  Which version of the Bible, as in which translation?  There are a myriad of translations out there.  The Bible was written by human beings, trying to sort out their understanding of God.  I suppose if you take a certain version and read and interpret everything literally, you might develop a rigid opinion, but then that's also what leads to fundamentalism.
 
2013-01-11 10:37:24 AM  

rtaylor92: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

by default, those not believing in supernatural deities with as much proof of their existence as Harry Potter or any other literary fictional character, have a right to feel superior. Sorry, thems the breaks for believing in crazy.

And while we're here, I'd love to better understand what grounds religious people would have to not respect an atheists fact-based belief system.


It's about respect. Why would you expect religious people to respect you if you refer to their God as a "skywizard?". (maybe not you, but atheists as a generalization). From my experience, people learn and form better relationships when they aren't party to people who act douchy or superior regardless of who is right or wrong. A display of true honorable character will win more people over than a display of douche-nozzle superiority. You must earn respect as opposed to demanding it solely because your opinion is the "right" opinion to have.

Also, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The belief that there is a higher entity out there that one might consider a god is not that far fetched. Worshipping a god who likes animal sacrifices seems a little strange though.
 
2013-01-11 10:38:27 AM  
Will this guy be in it?

i560.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-11 10:39:11 AM  

jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.


Here's the thing. We don't give a shiat if you take us seriously or not. However, we will do whatever it takes to ensure that the rest of us don't have to live our lives to abide by whatever your invisible friend tells you how you think we should live our lives. We also will do whatever it takes to stop you from forcing schools from teaching our children Christian mythology as history and "my invisible friend did it" as science.

We don't want your approval. We just what you to shut the fark up.
 
2013-01-11 10:39:49 AM  
oblig-ish
i50.tinypic.com
 
2013-01-11 10:40:22 AM  

gunga galunga: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

Here's the thing. We don't give a shiat if you take us seriously or not. However, we will do whatever it takes to ensure that the rest of us don't have to live our lives to abide by whatever your invisible friend tells you how you think we should live our lives. We also will do whatever it takes to stop you from forcing schools from teaching our children Christian mythology as history and "my invisible friend did it" as science.

We don't want your approval. We just what you to shut the fark up.


Pkay reading comprehension. You were not speaking as a fundie. But my point still stands.
 
2013-01-11 10:41:09 AM  

Nabb1: Well, don't we seem rather sure of ourselves?  Which version of the Bible, as in which translation?  There are a myriad of translations out there.  The Bible was written by human beings, trying to sort out their understanding of God.  I suppose if you take a certain version and read and interpret everything literally, you might develop a rigid opinion, but then that's also what leads to fundamentalism.



Can you find me a version of the Bible in which God doesn't regularly command his followers to kill thousands of people? Or one which doesn't condone slavery? One in which he doesn't outright state that he's a jealous God?

Maybe you can find one in which he never decided to kill virtually everything that lived on the planet because he was disappointed with how his creations turned out?

It really doesn't matter which version you pick, the God they describe is petty, vengeful, and downright repulsive.
 
2013-01-11 10:41:25 AM  

Dorf11: Middle-eastern Caucasians with British accents.


All students of history know that only Ancient Romans spoke with British accents. Hebrews and Greeks spoke with American accents (but the Greeks could be distinguished by their frequent yelling and kicking things down holes), while Persians were basically the cultural ancestors of modern rave clubs.
 
2013-01-11 10:43:35 AM  

jjwars1: It's about respect. Why would you expect religious people to respect you if you refer to their God as a "skywizard?". (maybe not you, but atheists as a generalization). From my experience, people learn and form better relationships when they aren't party to people who act douchy or superior regardless of who is right or wrong. A display of true honorable character will win more people over than a display of douche-nozzle superiority. You must earn respect as opposed to demanding it solely because your opinion is the "right" opinion to have.


Yeah, about earning respect ...

i560.photobucket.com

Also, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So you concede that the Flying Spaghetti Monster might be real? Sorry, but no. Make claims as ludicrous as those in the Bible and you'd better have a way to back them up.

The belief that there is a higher entity out there that one might consider a god is not that far fetched.

Yes, it is that far-fetched.

Worshipping a god who likes animal sacrifices seems a little strange though.

No more strange than anything else in religion.
 
2013-01-11 10:49:06 AM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: Nabb1: Well, don't we seem rather sure of ourselves?  Which version of the Bible, as in which translation?  There are a myriad of translations out there.  The Bible was written by human beings, trying to sort out their understanding of God.  I suppose if you take a certain version and read and interpret everything literally, you might develop a rigid opinion, but then that's also what leads to fundamentalism.


Can you find me a version of the Bible in which God doesn't regularly command his followers to kill thousands of people? Or one which doesn't condone slavery? One in which he doesn't outright state that he's a jealous God?

Maybe you can find one in which he never decided to kill virtually everything that lived on the planet because he was disappointed with how his creations turned out?

It really doesn't matter which version you pick, the God they describe is petty, vengeful, and downright repulsive.


How do you know all of those stories are literal accounts of factual occurrences?  How do you know many of may very well be parables and allegory?  How do you know some of what was written was merely the writer's attempt to rationalize preconceived notions about the world as opposed to an understanding of the nature of God?  Human understanding evolves and changes, and no one is perfect.  Theology is as much philosophy as anything else.  If you aren't going to look deeper into scripture than what is on the fact of the literal text, you aren't approaching it in a very thoughtful manner, IMO.  And maybe you aren't interested enough to try it, and that's fine, but don't assume your sweeping generalizations are anything more than reactionary as opposed to the product of any real intellectual work.
 
2013-01-11 10:51:16 AM  

Uncle Tractor: jjwars1: It's about respect. Why would you expect religious people to respect you if you refer to their God as a "skywizard?". (maybe not you, but atheists as a generalization). From my experience, people learn and form better relationships when they aren't party to people who act douchy or superior regardless of who is right or wrong. A display of true honorable character will win more people over than a display of douche-nozzle superiority. You must earn respect as opposed to demanding it solely because your opinion is the "right" opinion to have.

Yeah, about earning respect ...

[i560.photobucket.com image 400x529]

Also, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So you concede that the Flying Spaghetti Monster might be real? Sorry, but no. Make claims as ludicrous as those in the Bible and you'd better have a way to back them up.

The belief that there is a higher entity out there that one might consider a god is not that far fetched.

Yes, it is that far-fetched.

Worshipping a god who likes animal sacrifices seems a little strange though.

No more strange than anything else in religion.


If you really think your little cartoon represents the opinions of all Christians towards atheists, you're just as narrow-minded and prejudiced as the people that cartoon portrays.  And sure, there are plenty of narrow-minded Christians out there, but if you think that's the way all of them are, well, you're not much different.  You're just wearing a different label.
 
2013-01-11 10:52:34 AM  
Will there be animal sacrifice and menstrual huts?
 
2013-01-11 10:53:57 AM  

someonelse: Will there be animal sacrifice and menstrual huts?


There's no room for animal sacrifice in modern society, but I could buy into menstrual huts.
 
2013-01-11 10:55:20 AM  

jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.


hostinga.imagecross.com
 
2013-01-11 10:59:54 AM  

Nabb1: someonelse: Will there be animal sacrifice and menstrual huts?

There's no room for animal sacrifice in modern society, but I could buy into menstrual huts.


Seriously, if the man cave can be a thing now, why can't we make the ladies lounge a trend? I envision a room full of super comfy sofas and lounge chairs, a mini fridge full of white wine, and a constantly restocked cabinet of Motrin. Also a big screen TV and the complete Downton Abbey on blu ray. Be quiet, my stories are on.
 
2013-01-11 11:00:20 AM  

Jodeo: oblig-ish
[i50.tinypic.com image 400x225]


Here you go.
 
2013-01-11 11:03:22 AM  

Nabb1: someonelse: Will there be animal sacrifice and menstrual huts?

There's no room for animal sacrifice in modern society, but I could buy into menstrual huts.


Man caves, garages, and bars are menstrual huts in a reverse sense. Instead of forcing the women away during this time, the men just hide in these areas until the time has passed.
 
2013-01-11 11:04:40 AM  

Burr: Nabb1: someonelse: Will there be animal sacrifice and menstrual huts?

There's no room for animal sacrifice in modern society, but I could buy into menstrual huts.

Man caves, garages, and bars are menstrual huts in a reverse sense. Instead of forcing the women away during this time, the men just hide in these areas until the time has passed.


Good point. I still like the lounge idea, though.
 
2013-01-11 11:05:56 AM  

someonelse: Nabb1: someonelse: Will there be animal sacrifice and menstrual huts?

There's no room for animal sacrifice in modern society, but I could buy into menstrual huts.

Seriously, if the man cave can be a thing now, why can't we make the ladies lounge a trend? I envision a room full of super comfy sofas and lounge chairs, a mini fridge full of white wine, and a constantly restocked cabinet of Motrin. Also a big screen TV and the complete Downton Abbey on blu ray. Be quiet, my stories are on.


Chocolate.  Do not forget the chocolate.
 
2013-01-11 11:08:15 AM  

Nabb1: someonelse: Nabb1: someonelse: Will there be animal sacrifice and menstrual huts?

There's no room for animal sacrifice in modern society, but I could buy into menstrual huts.

Seriously, if the man cave can be a thing now, why can't we make the ladies lounge a trend? I envision a room full of super comfy sofas and lounge chairs, a mini fridge full of white wine, and a constantly restocked cabinet of Motrin. Also a big screen TV and the complete Downton Abbey on blu ray. Be quiet, my stories are on.

Chocolate.  Do not forget the chocolate.


My conspiracy theory is that this already exists in women bathrooms. It just takes two women to activate the secret door in the bathrooms. This is why they always go to the bathroom in pairs.
 
2013-01-11 11:08:27 AM  

Richard C Stanford: rtaylor92: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

by default, those not believing in supernatural deities with as much proof of their existence as Harry Potter or any other literary fictional character, have a right to feel superior. Sorry, thems the breaks for believing in crazy.

And while we're here, I'd love to better understand what grounds religious people would have to not respect an atheists fact-based belief system.

See, this is why Militant Atheists are just as bad as fundamentalists. They both treat anyone with different believes as ignorant scum and both believe they're superior to everyone else.


The difference is that fundamentalists base their opinion on an even more ridiculous and retarded belief than the common religious people. The atheists on the other hand, base their opinion on fact, logic and common sense.

The fact is that there is zero evidence for the existence God while there is plenty of evidence from all fields of science that prove that all religion consists of fairytales and falsehoods made up by man, from archeological, historical and philological studies that have pointed out the falsehoods in the bible, to (evolutionary) psychology, sociology, physics, astronomy etc. Not to mention basic common sense and logic and simple fact that the Bible is so full of contradictions. There is no evidence nor real argument for the existence of God.

There is so much evidence and so many good arguments against it, that for anyone who bothers to think about it, the likelihood of a God existing and/or the Bible being the true word of God is so close to zero that you might just call it zero and get it over with.

So, why should I respect an adult who believes in God any more than an adult who still believes in Santa Claus? There is no difference between the two. There really isn't. Both are equally ridiculous. For the sake of politeness and social conventions I do my best not to ridicule religious people unless they start themselves, but respect for their opinions is not in any way necessary any more.

A few hundred years ago, in more ignorant times, it might have a been matter of opinion against opinion. But this is 2013.
Any person who had a basic education and has access to a library or the internet, yet still choses to believe in fairytales and invisible skywizards, is not in any way worthy of respect. He is someone who willingly choses to remain ignorant because he is too afraid to face his own fears.
 
2013-01-11 11:09:18 AM  

Nabb1: How do you know all of those stories are literal accounts of factual occurrences?  How do you know many of may very well be parables and allegory?  How do you know some of what was written was merely the writer's attempt to rationalize preconceived notions about the world as opposed to an understanding of the nature of God?  Human understanding evolves and changes, and no one is perfect.  Theology is as much philosophy as anything else.  If you aren't going to look deeper into scripture than what is on the fact of the literal text, you aren't approaching it in a very thoughtful manner, IMO.  And maybe you aren't interested enough to try it, and that's fine, but don't assume your sweeping generalizations are anything more than reactionary as opposed to the product of any real intellectual work.


So, essentially, what you're saying is that, in order not to come to the conclusion that god is a repugnant character, you have to read the text of the Bible and then assume that it means something completely different to what it actually says?

Aren't you, at that point, just making up your own supreme being and assigning it the characteristics that you'd like it to have?
 
2013-01-11 11:12:33 AM  
Having been an atheist, I still find 'Invisible Sky Wizard' hilarious. We giggle about it at church. Am also fond of 'Optimus Prime died for your sins.'

FWIW: The murdery rapey, incesty parts describe us as a people. (YMMV) Reporting, not condoning. You're supposed to be appalled, even when the guy cut up the girl and sent parts to the tribes. "Really God? You're trying to save us through _those_ people?" Yep, that's humanity all over. Look at the news, that's who we are.

David was a murder and an adulterer. Yet he was 'a man after God's heart', because he always repented. Not everybody repents. God showing up in the flesh didn't convince some people to repent.

Am also fond of the Apocrypha. It's got dragons and everything.
 
2013-01-11 11:15:32 AM  

Nabb1: How do you know all of those stories are literal accounts of factual occurrences? How do you know many of may very well be parables and allegory? How do you know some of what was written was merely the writer's attempt to rationalize preconceived notions about the world as opposed to an understanding of the nature of God? Human understanding evolves and changes, and no one is perfect. Theology is as much philosophy as anything else. If you aren't going to look deeper into scripture than what is on the fact of the literal text, you aren't approaching it in a very thoughtful manner, IMO. And maybe you aren't interested enough to try it, and that's fine, but don't assume your sweeping generalizations are anything more than reactionary as opposed to the product of any real intellectual work.


It's continually astonishing how far away from rational thinking religionists are willing to go to avoid having to admit the irrationality of their beliefs.

Feel free to claim that the entire bible is nothing more than metaphor and parable if you wish - but if you do that, you must also admit that your god is nothing more than metaphor and parable.
 
2013-01-11 11:17:19 AM  
With Martin Freeman as Rincewind? Please?
 
2013-01-11 11:17:44 AM  

grxymkjbn: Nabb1: How do you know all of those stories are literal accounts of factual occurrences? How do you know many of may very well be parables and allegory? How do you know some of what was written was merely the writer's attempt to rationalize preconceived notions about the world as opposed to an understanding of the nature of God? Human understanding evolves and changes, and no one is perfect. Theology is as much philosophy as anything else. If you aren't going to look deeper into scripture than what is on the fact of the literal text, you aren't approaching it in a very thoughtful manner, IMO. And maybe you aren't interested enough to try it, and that's fine, but don't assume your sweeping generalizations are anything more than reactionary as opposed to the product of any real intellectual work.

It's continually astonishing how far away from rational thinking religionists are willing to go to avoid having to admit the irrationality of their beliefs.

Feel free to claim that the entire bible is nothing more than metaphor and parable if you wish - but if you do that, you must also admit that your god is nothing more than metaphor and parable.


I'm not really that religious.  I'm fairly close to atheist - I doubt the existence of God, but I haven't ruled it out altogether - actually, but I'm just not an ass about it.  I have many friends who are atheist, many who are deeply devout.  Most of the people who argue here and slag other people are just petty, small-minded types.
 
2013-01-11 11:18:16 AM  
John Huston is disappoint.

/not clicking on a Breitbart link
 
2013-01-11 11:22:02 AM  

Felix_T_Cat: Having been an atheist, I still find 'Invisible Sky Wizard' hilarious. We giggle about it at church. Am also fond of 'Optimus Prime died for your sins.'

FWIW: The murdery rapey, incesty parts describe us as a people. (YMMV) Reporting, not condoning.


You're right. Yahweh did not condone the murder of all living things in the cities of Jericho, Ai, and other Canaanite cites by his Israelites.
He ordered it. He also ordered the murder of a man who disobeyed that command, along with the man's entire family.
 
2013-01-11 11:24:23 AM  

Nabb1: Most of the people who argue here and slag other people are just petty, small-minded types.


Defending Christianity is akin to defending racism and other forms of bigotry. It's indefensible to anyone who has a rational, coherent ethical system.

I don't go through the streets shouting "Your bigotry makes me sick!", nor do I go into churches to disrupt their rituals; but actively defending something as wrong as religion betrays a warped sense of morality, IMO.
 
2013-01-11 11:27:25 AM  

grxymkjbn: Nabb1: Most of the people who argue here and slag other people are just petty, small-minded types.

Defending Christianity is akin to defending racism and other forms of bigotry. It's indefensible to anyone who has a rational, coherent ethical system.


Okay, so all those Christian churches that were instrumental in the Civil Rights Movement were akin to racism and bigotry?  It seems to me you may have some bigotry issues of your own to sort out.
 
2013-01-11 11:30:42 AM  

Nabb1: Okay, so all those Christian churches that were instrumental in the Civil Rights Movement were akin to racism and bigotry? It seems to me you may have some bigotry issues of your own to sort out.


They were behaving contrary to their professed beliefs, as religionists most often do. Slavery is ordained in the bible - and not in some vague 'metaphorical' sense.

I think that the 'discussion' graphic posted above is a good guide for discussions of this nature. Would you agree with that statement?
 
2013-01-11 11:31:26 AM  

Nabb1: grxymkjbn: Nabb1: Most of the people who argue here and slag other people are just petty, small-minded types.

Defending Christianity is akin to defending racism and other forms of bigotry. It's indefensible to anyone who has a rational, coherent ethical system.

Okay, so all those Christian churches that were instrumental in the Civil Rights Movement were akin to racism and bigotry?  It seems to me you may have some bigotry issues of your own to sort out.


And Gandhi thought that black people were subhuman. It's quite possible to do good in one field while still being bigoted in another.
 
2013-01-11 11:32:06 AM  
Professionally speaking, these shows are almost always utter crap (cf. Christine Amanpour's recent one). A nice exception is Frontline's series, From Jesus to Christ Solid scholarship and next to no derp.
 
2013-01-11 11:33:04 AM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: Nabb1: grxymkjbn: Nabb1: Most of the people who argue here and slag other people are just petty, small-minded types.

Defending Christianity is akin to defending racism and other forms of bigotry. It's indefensible to anyone who has a rational, coherent ethical system.

Okay, so all those Christian churches that were instrumental in the Civil Rights Movement were akin to racism and bigotry?  It seems to me you may have some bigotry issues of your own to sort out.

And Gandhi thought that black people were subhuman. It's quite possible to do good in one field while still being bigoted in another.


Indeed, and often those people aren't even aware of their own self-contradiction, being so convinced they have the ethical and intellectual high ground and all.
 
2013-01-11 11:33:25 AM  

Farking Canuck: /people are stupid!


Well, yeah, they read the bible and believed it was all true.
 
2013-01-11 11:35:04 AM  

grxymkjbn: Nabb1: Okay, so all those Christian churches that were instrumental in the Civil Rights Movement were akin to racism and bigotry? It seems to me you may have some bigotry issues of your own to sort out.

They were behaving contrary to their professed beliefs, as religionists most often do.


They were behaving contrary to what you think their professed beliefs are.  It just seems to me you have an extreme disdain for all religious people, and that's pretty bigoted, in my opinion.
 
2013-01-11 11:35:48 AM  

Nabb1: Indeed, and often those people aren't even aware of their own self-contradiction, being so convinced they have the ethical and intellectual high ground and all.


It's very easy to convince me that I am mistaken; all that is necessary is to provide me with compelling, objectively verifiable evidence to the contrary of my understanding of the situation.
 
2013-01-11 11:36:08 AM  

Nabb1: Indeed, and often those people aren't even aware of their own self-contradiction, being so convinced they have the ethical and intellectual high ground and all.


Indeed. After all, reading the Bible and coming to the rational conclusion that the God described therein is not a being worthy of love and respect is exactly the same as believing that people who come to that conclusion should be punished for all eternity.
 
2013-01-11 11:38:14 AM  

Nabb1: They were behaving contrary to what you think their professed beliefs are. It just seems to me you have an extreme disdain for all religious people, and that's pretty bigoted, in my opinion.


If a person says "I am a Christian and I believe in the bible" and the bible quite clearly says "A" and the person behaves in contradiction to "A", then what *I* think does not enter into the equation.
 
2013-01-11 11:40:13 AM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: Rated (R) for scenes of extreme violence and nudity


That conservative? They took out all the good parts, then.

The Bible is NC-17 territory, at the least. NR territory for a real start.
 
2013-01-11 11:48:25 AM  
So it's going to be a lot of people begatting other people.
 
2013-01-11 11:49:35 AM  

grxymkjbn: Nabb1: Most of the people who argue here and slag other people are just petty, small-minded types.

Defending Christianity is akin to defending racism and other forms of bigotry. It's indefensible to anyone who has a rational, coherent ethical system.

I don't go through the streets shouting "Your bigotry makes me sick!", nor do I go into churches to disrupt their rituals; but actively defending something as wrong as religion betrays a warped sense of morality, IMO.


api.ning.com
 
2013-01-11 11:51:58 AM  
Sorry, but I don't watch enough South Park to get the reference.
 
2013-01-11 11:51:59 AM  

rtaylor92: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

by default, those not believing in supernatural deities with as much proof of their existence as Harry Potter or any other literary fictional character, have a right to feel superior. Sorry, thems the breaks for believing in crazy.

And while we're here, I'd love to better understand what grounds religious people would have to not respect an atheists fact-based belief system.


By not accepting that sky daddy will torture you for not loving him like he likes you makes you some sort of delusional nutjob?
 
2013-01-11 12:04:17 PM  
The article is meh. The comments are gold, so those of you who have an aversion to Breitbart should read them for the Derp.

FTFC: The Bible is about Jesus Christ start to finish

/Sorry about that, my Jewish friends.
 
2013-01-11 12:16:02 PM  

grxymkjbn: Sorry, but I don't watch enough South Park to get the reference.


Link
 
2013-01-11 12:26:32 PM  

Karac: Felix_T_Cat: Having been an atheist, I still find 'Invisible Sky Wizard' hilarious. We giggle about it at church. Am also fond of 'Optimus Prime died for your sins.'

FWIW: The murdery rapey, incesty parts describe us as a people. (YMMV) Reporting, not condoning.

You're right. Yahweh did not condone the murder of all living things in the cities of Jericho, Ai, and other Canaanite cites by his Israelites.
He ordered it. He also ordered the murder of a man who disobeyed that command, along with the man's entire family.


Well, to be frank, Achan coveted and and stole what he wasn't supposed to. He hid so much gold and silver in his tent that his family couldn't have missed it. Achan wasn't standing up for principle, it was greed. When caught red handed, he did confess, but it was too late. He had put the rest of the camp at risk of infection from greed.

Sodom and Gomorrah were given time to repent, but they did not. "If there are 10 good people, I will stay my hand." "Collect your family and leave."

Nineveh repented and Jonah was pretty pissed about God forgiving them.

The Israelites were in danger of being corrupted by the surrounding corruption and they were. Luckily, finally Jesus.

Also, I don't have the exact verse in front of me, but Moses commands not to return runaway slaves, "For you yourselves were once slaves." So you have to be careful of context,

The thing is that most people think that they know what's being offered, but they don't. The church in the west is pretty ineffective at getting the actual message out. A lot of Christians don't seem to know their own bible. I make a lot of obscure scripture jokes and most church people have no idea what I'm referencing.

I recommend going to a bible study to find out what their understanding is. I didn't want to become a Christian, those guys are nuts. Another guy I met started coming to a bible study I attend because he was atheist and wanted to rescue us. I thought that was an awesome and loving thing for him to do. 6 months later he got baptized.

When I started attending a bible study, I said a lot of outrageous and combative things. They wouldn't fight with me. Sometimes they would explain, but sometimes there wasn't much they could say about my vitriol. They just invited me back and kept going with the study. I'm glad I kept going. I found out that I 'didn't know what I thought I did.'

Really, my problem was confirmation bias. "God's a big old meany!" ...snip... ...snip... ...snip... see? They took the time to explain the context and historical situation.

Cheers
 
2013-01-11 12:26:41 PM  
Are there atheists that aren't arrogant a-holes? I'm starting to believe more in Santa than I believe in kind atheists. Seriously, it must exhausting being so arrogant.
 
2013-01-11 12:33:25 PM  

bluelime: Are there atheists that aren't arrogant a-holes? I'm starting to believe more in Santa than I believe in kind atheists. Seriously, it must exhausting being so arrogant.


Being right all the time IS exhausting, but it's worth it.
 
2013-01-11 12:38:46 PM  

jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.


Ya, I'll treat them the same way I treat people who believe in Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster and Alien abductions, smile politely and hope they don't own firearms.
 
2013-01-11 12:42:15 PM  

velvet_fog: Jodeo: oblig-ish
[i50.tinypic.com image 400x225]

Here you go.



Same old same old...
Something had to exist...
 
2013-01-11 12:43:43 PM  

kid_icarus: Khellendros: PIP_the_TROLL: rtaylor92: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

by default, those not believing in supernatural deities with as much proof of their existence as Harry Potter or any other literary fictional character, have a right to feel superior. Sorry, thems the breaks for believing in crazy.

And while we're here, I'd love to better understand what grounds religious people would have to not respect an atheists fact-based belief system.

99.9% of the 'facts' atheists believe in have never been independently verified by themselves, so such belief is as faith-based as anything else.

75% of statistics are made up on the spot.

I'm 105% certain you just made that up.


4 out of 5 dentists frown upon these shenanigans.
 
2013-01-11 12:44:55 PM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: jjwars1: DammitIForgotMyLogin: Rated (R) for scenes of extreme violence and nudity

Plus incest!

And let's not forget all the rapes. It seems God(TM) really likes seeing people get raped.


He not always a voyeur. He also participated at least once.
 
xcv
2013-01-11 12:48:13 PM  

Cheron: EfiniX: Came for the Caucasian comment. Not disappointed. I wonder how the typical Breitbart reader would respond to a big-nosed, dark-skinned Jesus?

When bigoted christians make comments about Jews I like to point out that Jesus lived his whole life as an orthodox Jewish rabbi


Isn't a cornerstone of the Christian Identity movement that WASPS are actually descendents of the real Jews and Jesus was more likely to have bad teeth than a big nose?
 
2013-01-11 12:51:11 PM  

Uncle Tractor: Will this guy be in it?

[i560.photobucket.com image 424x337]


The gun needs to be bigger.
 
2013-01-11 12:59:31 PM  

Nabb1: grxymkjbn: Nabb1: Most of the people who argue here and slag other people are just petty, small-minded types.

Defending Christianity is akin to defending racism and other forms of bigotry. It's indefensible to anyone who has a rational, coherent ethical system.

Okay, so all those Christian churches that were instrumental in the Civil Rights Movement were akin to racism and bigotry?  It seems to me you may have some bigotry issues of your own to sort out.


You're never bigoted when you decide everyone else is a bigot!
 
2013-01-11 01:03:06 PM  

gshepnyc: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

Sorry, pursuing a view of the universe and our place in it based on reason, evidence, scrutiny and skepticism is NOT equally weighted with pursuing the same based on a personal relationship with a mystical, mythological being who can allegedly suspend the laws of nature to suit his adherent's needs.

You are entitled to believe in total horseshiat if you want to but you are out of your mind to expect that that entitles you to respect. Quite the opposite, actually. Especially when you use that horseshiat to try and shape policy, affect the lives of non-believers and the like.


I really don't know what you are talking about. I don't use horseshiat to shape policy or affect the lives of non-believers nor do I think the fact based science approach entitles others to be disrespectful of people or give them the right to act like they are superior.

Respect is a simple concept people have a difficult time grasping, and they like to use strawman arguments as a reason why they shouldn't act like decent human beings.
 
2013-01-11 01:07:05 PM  

gunga galunga: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

Here's the thing. We don't give a shiat if you take us seriously or not. However, we will do whatever it takes to ensure that the rest of us don't have to live our lives to abide by whatever your invisible friend tells you how you think we should live our lives. We also will do whatever it takes to stop you from forcing schools from teaching our children Christian mythology as history and "my invisible friend did it" as science.

We don't want your approval. We just what you to shut the fark up.


Hahah, oh the irony!
 
2013-01-11 01:10:05 PM  

PIP_the_TROLL: rtaylor92: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

by default, those not believing in supernatural deities with as much proof of their existence as Harry Potter or any other literary fictional character, have a right to feel superior. Sorry, thems the breaks for believing in crazy.

And while we're here, I'd love to better understand what grounds religious people would have to not respect an atheists fact-based belief system.

99.9% of the 'facts' atheists believe in have never been independently verified by themselves, so such belief is as faith-based as anything else.


That is the silliest comment ever. I have never been to Wyoming, but I don't have to have faith to know it exists.
 
2013-01-11 01:11:24 PM  

EfiniX: Came for the Caucasian comment. Not disappointed. I wonder how the typical Breitbart reader would respond to a big-nosed, dark-skinned Jesus?


The bigger the nose, the more cocaine for drug-fueled gay orgies, bible style!
 
2013-01-11 01:14:33 PM  

bluelime: Are there atheists that aren't arrogant a-holes? I'm starting to believe more in Santa than I believe in kind atheists. Seriously, it must exhausting being so arrogant.


Here's the thing for me that makes me kind of a dick about the whole atheism thing. It's not necessarily the believing in some higher power thing that gets me. It's specific to the Christian religion because that's what I've grown up around. The story makes absolutely no sense to me. Please tell me if I get something wrong:
1. God creates man, man sins, man condemns himself and all future offspring to damnation
2. ... flood ...
3. God chooses Abraham and Abraham obeys, therefore all of Abrahams offspring through Isaac(or is it someone else) are God's chosen people. God's special children still manage to get shiat on for the rest of history. All other humans not of that lineage still going to hell.
4. God, being the omniscient and omnipotent being that he is, somehow changes his mind and decides that he doesn't want all humans to go to hell.
5. God decides that the best way to save them is to make himself a human, born to a virgin. This human IS God, but always refers to him as diety and him as God/man as distinct entities.
6. This God/man teaches some neat messages using parables, does some rabble rousing and gets killed. But he's farkING GOD, so he doesn't really die, it's just some stunt .... what????? ... but because of this ???? step, if you buy into this ???? you go to heaven. And that's all you have to do! You don't have to be a moral person, do good things, or anything. Just believe that God ritualistically committed fake suicide and you're in!
7. Everyone who doesn't believe that story, or *never heard of the story* because it would be farking impossible for them to hear the "good news" still goes to hell.
8. God's going to come back as God/man ANY MINUTE NOW, for the last 2000 years.

I'm an asshole about it because it hurts my mind to think that anyone buys into this after evaluating it. How is that even possible?

I'd love to just live and let live, but the people who buy into this story the most want to take selected pieces of the bible and use it to try and dictate how I live. But yada yada, that's been said so many times on Fark I don't even know why I said it again.
 
2013-01-11 01:28:24 PM  

Nabb1: DammitIForgotMyLogin: Nabb1: Well, don't we seem rather sure of ourselves?  Which version of the Bible, as in which translation?  There are a myriad of translations out there.  The Bible was written by human beings, trying to sort out their understanding of God.  I suppose if you take a certain version and read and interpret everything literally, you might develop a rigid opinion, but then that's also what leads to fundamentalism.


Can you find me a version of the Bible in which God doesn't regularly command his followers to kill thousands of people? Or one which doesn't condone slavery? One in which he doesn't outright state that he's a jealous God?

Maybe you can find one in which he never decided to kill virtually everything that lived on the planet because he was disappointed with how his creations turned out?

It really doesn't matter which version you pick, the God they describe is petty, vengeful, and downright repulsive.

How do you know all of those stories are literal accounts of factual occurrences?  How do you know many of may very well be parables and allegory?  How do you know some of what was written was merely the writer's attempt to rationalize preconceived notions about the world as opposed to an understanding of the nature of God?  Human understanding evolves and changes, and no one is perfect.  Theology is as much philosophy as anything else.  If you aren't going to look deeper into scripture than what is on the fact of the literal text, you aren't approaching it in a very thoughtful manner, IMO.  And maybe you aren't interested enough to try it, and that's fine, but don't assume your sweeping generalizations are anything more than reactionary as opposed to the product of any real intellectual work.


The problem with treating the entire Bible as metaphor and interpretation is that it undermines the core tenants of the faith. For example, the NT claims that Jesus died for humanity's sins. If you interpret that in a non-literal fashion, then the Christian faith's prime rationale for its reciprocal relationship with God is invalidated, as well as the dogma that defines Christianity as its own religion.
 
2013-01-11 01:36:46 PM  

All2morrowsparTs: I have never been to Wyoming, but I don't have to have faith to know it exists.


What do you base your knowledge of the existence of Wyoming off of?
 
2013-01-11 01:39:39 PM  
I can't wait for the scene where Moses commands his men to execute their defeated enemies and rape their virgin daughters.
 
2013-01-11 01:39:47 PM  

rthanu: bluelime: Are there atheists that aren't arrogant a-holes? I'm starting to believe more in Santa than I believe in kind atheists. Seriously, it must exhausting being so arrogant.

Here's the thing for me that makes me kind of a dick about the whole atheism thing. It's not necessarily the believing in some higher power thing that gets me. It's specific to the Christian religion because that's what I've grown up around. The story makes absolutely no sense to me. Please tell me if I get something wrong:
1. God creates man, man sins, man condemns himself and all future offspring to damnation
2. ... flood ...
3. God chooses Abraham and Abraham obeys, therefore all of Abrahams offspring through Isaac(or is it someone else) are God's chosen people. God's special children still manage to get shiat on for the rest of history. All other humans not of that lineage still going to hell.
4. God, being the omniscient and omnipotent being that he is, somehow changes his mind and decides that he doesn't want all humans to go to hell.
5. God decides that the best way to save them is to make himself a human, born to a virgin. This human IS God, but always refers to him as diety and him as God/man as distinct entities.
6. This God/man teaches some neat messages using parables, does some rabble rousing and gets killed. But he's farkING GOD, so he doesn't really die, it's just some stunt .... what????? ... but because of this ???? step, if you buy into this ???? you go to heaven. And that's all you have to do! You don't have to be a moral person, do good things, or anything. Just believe that God ritualistically committed fake suicide and you're in!
7. Everyone who doesn't believe that story, or *never heard of the story* because it would be farking impossible for them to hear the "good news" still goes to hell.
8. God's going to come back as God/man ANY MINUTE NOW, for the last 2000 years.

I'm an asshole about it because it hurts my mind to think that anyone buys i ...


SO MUCH THIS^^^^

And they still say that religion is not a mental illness? replace a lot of that with something else and people will call you delusional. but when it comes to god or jesus.

/you forgot that jesus' schlong was so long he was able to fark himself in the arse...
 
2013-01-11 01:39:51 PM  

Burr: All2morrowsparTs: I have never been to Wyoming, but I don't have to have faith to know it exists.

What do you base your knowledge of the existence of Wyoming off of?


Map of Pennsylvania.
 
2013-01-11 01:53:00 PM  

Nabb1: Uncle Tractor: jjwars1: It's about respect. Why would you expect religious people to respect you if you refer to their God as a "skywizard?". (maybe not you, but atheists as a generalization). From my experience, people learn and form better relationships when they aren't party to people who act douchy or superior regardless of who is right or wrong. A display of true honorable character will win more people over than a display of douche-nozzle superiority. You must earn respect as opposed to demanding it solely because your opinion is the "right" opinion to have.

Yeah, about earning respect ...

[i560.photobucket.com image 400x529]

Also, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So you concede that the Flying Spaghetti Monster might be real? Sorry, but no. Make claims as ludicrous as those in the Bible and you'd better have a way to back them up.

The belief that there is a higher entity out there that one might consider a god is not that far fetched.

Yes, it is that far-fetched.

Worshipping a god who likes animal sacrifices seems a little strange though.

No more strange than anything else in religion.

If you really think your little cartoon represents the opinions of all Christians towards atheists, you're just as narrow-minded and prejudiced as the people that cartoon portrays.  And sure, there are plenty of narrow-minded Christians out there, but if you think that's the way all of them are, well, you're not much different.  You're just wearing a different label.


The entire state of Utah.
 
2013-01-11 01:59:32 PM  
I love the way atheists, who don't claim to know any answers and don't think that we are so special that we deserve answers, are "arrogant".

But religious people, who claim to know all the answers and who attack other lines of thoughts because we cannot provide answers to all their questions, are "not arrogant".

/methinks religious people don't understand what the word arrogant means
 
2013-01-11 02:17:27 PM  
"I love the way atheists, who don't claim to know any answers and don't think that we are so special that we deserve answers, are "arrogant"."

Don't you think that mocking Christians and being certain they are stupid and wrong is sort of claiming to know answers?
 
2013-01-11 02:19:05 PM  

bluelime: Don't you think that mocking Christians and being certain they are stupid and wrong is sort of claiming to know answers?


Burden of proof my friend.
 
2013-01-11 02:21:00 PM  

Pincy: Burden of proof my friend.


So just to be clear, your stance is that, until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, anything other than what you believe is wrong and people who believe it are stupid?
 
2013-01-11 02:23:02 PM  

rthanu: Here's the thing for me that makes me kind of a dick about the whole atheism thing. It's not necessarily the believing in some higher power thing that gets me. It's specific to the Christian religion because that's what I've grown up around. The story makes absolutely no sense to me. Please tell me if I get something wrong:


Don't forget about the angels coming down and spawning a race of giants.
 
2013-01-11 02:27:14 PM  

Richard C Stanford: Will The Bible: The TV Series have some creative liberties, Such as giving Jesus an Uzi and a wacky black sidekick? Why would I not be surprised?


You mean Rufus, the thirteenth apostle?
 
2013-01-11 02:29:02 PM  

bluelime: Pincy: Burden of proof my friend.

So just to be clear, your stance is that, until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, anything other than what you believe is wrong and people who believe it are stupid?


Nobody suggests that anything can or needs to be proven beyond a doubt. Please do not suggest that we are asking for this.

What would be nice is even a scrap of evidence beyond "my mommy and daddy told me it is true".

In a way, religious people are not mocked for what they believe ... they are mocked for why they believe it.
 
2013-01-11 02:34:39 PM  

Farking Canuck: bluelime: Pincy: Burden of proof my friend.

So just to be clear, your stance is that, until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, anything other than what you believe is wrong and people who believe it are stupid?

Nobody suggests that anything can or needs to be proven beyond a doubt. Please do not suggest that we are asking for this.

What would be nice is even a scrap of evidence beyond "my mommy and daddy told me it is true".

In a way, religious people are not mocked for what they believe ... they are mocked for why they believe it.


'nough said.

christians believe what they believe because someone told them to, not because they chose it.
 
2013-01-11 02:35:10 PM  

bluelime: So just to be clear, your stance is that, until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, anything other than what you believe is wrong and people who believe it are stupid?


I think the more correct picture is that atheists of this stripe have found a defective, or at least insufficient, thought process with respect to what it takes to believe something is true, or likely true, in the case of theists. This can be expressed as a "burden of proof" problem, but I think is more adequately expressed by saying that the theists simply care less about what is actually true with respect to their religious beliefs. In the end, theists maintain a personal conviction, yet are incapable of adequately explaining why they think what they believe is true (except the rare few who completely admit they have no good reason yet prefer it anyway). Most logical arguments for god are created ex post facto of believing, and so lack any actual weight, and the general atheist audience probably isn't going to be heavily swayed by arguments from personal experience, as they tend to come off a little crazy.
 
2013-01-11 02:50:09 PM  
Wouldn't the Song of Solomon be rated NC-17?

And I look forward to seeing the 2 of every unclean animal and 7 of every clean animal on the ark.
 
2013-01-11 02:50:44 PM  
And I forgot to ask.

Which translation are they using?
 
2013-01-11 02:55:27 PM  

Epicedion: bluelime: So just to be clear, your stance is that, until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, anything other than what you believe is wrong and people who believe it are stupid?

I think the more correct picture is that atheists of this stripe have found a defective, or at least insufficient, thought process with respect to what it takes to believe something is true, or likely true, in the case of theists. This can be expressed as a "burden of proof" problem, but I think is more adequately expressed by saying that the theists simply care less about what is actually true with respect to their religious beliefs. In the end, theists maintain a personal conviction, yet are incapable of adequately explaining why they think what they believe is true (except the rare few who completely admit they have no good reason yet prefer it anyway). Most logical arguments for god are created ex post facto of believing, and so lack any actual weight, and the general atheist audience probably isn't going to be heavily swayed by arguments from personal experience, as they tend to come off a little crazy.


Well said. This also explains why you are Favorited with the simple tag: Logic.

I will admit that I do get into logic scraps with people but this is not usually why I post. In general am trying to correct the blatantly incorrect statements made about atheists (usually by religious people).

In this thread it was the repeated claim that 'atheists are arrogant'. Sure, like most people, we take a strong stance with our arguments but, as I pointed out, we are not the ones claiming absolute knowledge of the universe. What is more arrogant than that??

Yesterday I was arguing against the claim that "atheists are sad". A ridiculous, unsubstantiated claim that is commonly used as anti-atheist propaganda. Another similar gem is the "atheists have no morals" ... I hear/read that one a lot.

To be clear ... I am not interested in "converting" anyone. I like to clear up misconceptions about atheists and I enjoy a good argument.
 
2013-01-11 02:56:47 PM  
 
2013-01-11 03:01:55 PM  

Farking Canuck: Epicedion: bluelime: So just to be clear, your stance is that, until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, anything other than what you believe is wrong and people who believe it are stupid?

I think the more correct picture is that atheists of this stripe have found a defective, or at least insufficient, thought process with respect to what it takes to believe something is true, or likely true, in the case of theists. This can be expressed as a "burden of proof" problem, but I think is more adequately expressed by saying that the theists simply care less about what is actually true with respect to their religious beliefs. In the end, theists maintain a personal conviction, yet are incapable of adequately explaining why they think what they believe is true (except the rare few who completely admit they have no good reason yet prefer it anyway). Most logical arguments for god are created ex post facto of believing, and so lack any actual weight, and the general atheist audience probably isn't going to be heavily swayed by arguments from personal experience, as they tend to come off a little crazy.

Well said. This also explains why you are Favorited with the simple tag: Logic.

I will admit that I do get into logic scraps with people but this is not usually why I post. In general am trying to correct the blatantly incorrect statements made about atheists (usually by religious people).

In this thread it was the repeated claim that 'atheists are arrogant'. Sure, like most people, we take a strong stance with our arguments but, as I pointed out, we are not the ones claiming absolute knowledge of the universe. What is more arrogant than that??

Yesterday I was arguing against the claim that "atheists are sad". A ridiculous, unsubstantiated claim that is commonly used as anti-atheist propaganda. Another similar gem is the "atheists have no morals" ... I hear/read that one a lot.

To be clear ... I am not interested in "converting" anyone. I like to clear up misconceptions a ...


That is correct. They have no morals. Did you not know that christians have a 2000 year old copyright on morality? And as meat0918 asked, which translation? Wonder which version of christianity is the "correct" one.
 
2013-01-11 03:02:48 PM  

Charlie Chingas: Farking Canuck: bluelime: Pincy: Burden of proof my friend.

So just to be clear, your stance is that, until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, anything other than what you believe is wrong and people who believe it are stupid?

Nobody suggests that anything can or needs to be proven beyond a doubt. Please do not suggest that we are asking for this.

What would be nice is even a scrap of evidence beyond "my mommy and daddy told me it is true".

In a way, religious people are not mocked for what they believe ... they are mocked for why they believe it.

'nough said.

christians believe what they believe because someone told them to, not because they chose it.


Cultural indoctrination, social programing, and it sorta works for them when a persons ideals cost more than benefit them they will change.
 
2013-01-11 03:03:20 PM  

jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.


Hmm...I thought we were. See we command no respect, hence we give none. Funny how that works doesn't?
 
2013-01-11 03:04:52 PM  

Richard C Stanford: rtaylor92: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

by default, those not believing in supernatural deities with as much proof of their existence as Harry Potter or any other literary fictional character, have a right to feel superior. Sorry, thems the breaks for believing in crazy.

And while we're here, I'd love to better understand what grounds religious people would have to not respect an atheists fact-based belief system.

See, this is why Militant Atheists are just as bad as fundamentalists. They both treat anyone with different believes as ignorant scum and both believe they're superior to everyone else.


Ahh sorry about your but hurt, next time don't shove the bible up your ass. So which ancient mythological lie do you believe in?
 
2013-01-11 03:06:52 PM  

jjwars1: rtaylor92: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

by default, those not believing in supernatural deities with as much proof of their existence as Harry Potter or any other literary fictional character, have a right to feel superior. Sorry, thems the breaks for believing in crazy.

And while we're here, I'd love to better understand what grounds religious people would have to not respect an atheists fact-based belief system.

It's about respect. Why would you expect religious people to respect you if you refer to their God as a "skywizard?". (maybe not you, but atheists as a generalization). From my experience, people learn and form better relationships when they aren't party to people who act douchy or superior regardless of who is right or wrong. A display of true honorable character will win more people over than a display of douche-nozzle superiority. You must earn respect as opposed to demanding it solely because your opinion is the "right" opinion to have.

Also, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The belief that there is a higher entity out there that one might consider a god is not that far fetched. Worshipping a god who likes animal sacrifices seems a little strange though.


You assume we want respect from retards that worship ancient myths.
 
2013-01-11 03:11:06 PM  

bluelime: Are there atheists that aren't arrogant a-holes? I'm starting to believe more in Santa than I believe in kind atheists. Seriously, it must exhausting being so arrogant.


Not really, but then again your assumption is wrong. See the problem is not us it is you. You see us as arrogant assholes, but the reality is you are wrong. Once you accept their is no god you will see what you once that as being arrogant is just the natural order of the universe. It will free your mind.
 
2013-01-11 03:12:02 PM  

rthanu: bluelime: Are there atheists that aren't arrogant a-holes? I'm starting to believe more in Santa than I believe in kind atheists. Seriously, it must exhausting being so arrogant.

Here's the thing for me that makes me kind of a dick about the whole atheism thing. It's not necessarily the believing in some higher power thing that gets me. It's specific to the Christian religion because that's what I've grown up around. The story makes absolutely no sense to me. Please tell me if I get something wrong:
1. God creates man, man sins, man condemns himself and all future offspring to damnation
2. ... flood ...
3. God chooses Abraham and Abraham obeys, therefore all of Abrahams offspring through Isaac(or is it someone else) are God's chosen people. God's special children still manage to get shiat on for the rest of history. All other humans not of that lineage still going to hell.
4. God, being the omniscient and omnipotent being that he is, somehow changes his mind and decides that he doesn't want all humans to go to hell.
5. God decides that the best way to save them is to make himself a human, born to a virgin. This human IS God, but always refers to him as diety and him as God/man as distinct entities.
6. This God/man teaches some neat messages using parables, does some rabble rousing and gets killed. But he's farkING GOD, so he doesn't really die, it's just some stunt .... what????? ... but because of this ???? step, if you buy into this ???? you go to heaven. And that's all you have to do! You don't have to be a moral person, do good things, or anything. Just believe that God ritualistically committed fake suicide and you're in!
7. Everyone who doesn't believe that story, or *never heard of the story* because it would be farking impossible for them to hear the "good news" still goes to hell.
8. God's going to come back as God/man ANY MINUTE NOW, for the last 2000 years.

I'm an asshole about it because it hurts my mind to think that anyone buys i ...


Hope you don't mind but I am going to print your synopsis and replace all the Gideon Bibles I find in hotel rooms with it .
 
2013-01-11 03:12:53 PM  
Person A works with Person B for years, never knowing if they are religious or not. They are courteous and polite toward each other, swap stories on family life and even have the occasional weekend social with other coworkers. One day Person A happens to see Person B leaving a church/temple/synagogue.

If Person A is an atheist, is he now right in making the sweeping generalization that Person B is a crazy fundamentalist who wants to control other people's private lives? Would you think it is justified for Person A to suddenly treat Person B with disdain and disrespect at work? Mock him behind his back (coward's approach) or to his face (asshole's approach).

I can't help but feel that only an asshole would think any of this behavior is not only justified, but necessary...like it's a public service to show these people just how irrational and crazy they are, even though in every other facet of their lives they are just like you.

/Agnostic
//Do we get lumped in with theist?
 
2013-01-11 03:14:24 PM  
I can't wait to see the 30 second version...with bunnies.
 
2013-01-11 03:14:30 PM  

bluelime: "I love the way atheists, who don't claim to know any answers and don't think that we are so special that we deserve answers, are "arrogant"."

Don't you think that mocking Christians and being certain they are stupid and wrong is sort of claiming to know answers?


No we only know one answer, there are no Gods. Anything other then that is you projecting.
 
2013-01-11 03:14:56 PM  

neversubmit: Charlie Chingas: Farking Canuck: bluelime: Pincy: Burden of proof my friend.

So just to be clear, your stance is that, until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, anything other than what you believe is wrong and people who believe it are stupid?

Nobody suggests that anything can or needs to be proven beyond a doubt. Please do not suggest that we are asking for this.

What would be nice is even a scrap of evidence beyond "my mommy and daddy told me it is true".

In a way, religious people are not mocked for what they believe ... they are mocked for why they believe it.

'nough said.

christians believe what they believe because someone told them to, not because they chose it.

Cultural indoctrination, social programing, and it sorta works for them when a persons ideals cost more than benefit them they will change.


Yeap. You believe in what ever you're brought up. I think the reason it's hard for some people to stop believing is because they've become emotionally invested in their "beliefs" and don't want to come to terms with the fact that they were wrong in their "beliefs".
 
2013-01-11 03:15:07 PM  

bluelime: Pincy: Burden of proof my friend.

So just to be clear, your stance is that, until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, anything other than what you believe is wrong and people who believe it are stupid?


Now your getting, you farking moron.
 
2013-01-11 03:15:33 PM  

Farking Canuck: I love the way atheists, who don't claim to know any answers and don't think that we are so special that we deserve answers, are "arrogant".

But religious people, who claim to know all the answers and who attack other lines of thoughts because we cannot provide answers to all their questions, are "not arrogant".

/methinks religious people don't understand what the word arrogant means


We don't deserve answers... read Job without the happy ending :) But honestly, the people posting in this thread do claim to know. I would never use the word arrogant either. I would say 'hurt' is a better word. I wasn't arrogant so much as I felt betrayed. I didn't seek out people to bash their religion, but god help you if you brought it up.

Also Jesus didn't appear to be fond of religion. He often held it up as a stumbling block to relationship with God. The problem is that no one thinks that they are the Pharisee. He gave us some moral direction so that we wouldn't hurt ourselves or others; taught us how to access that relationship and gave us some goals to accomplish. People seem to have done a pretty poor job with the instructions ever since.

Pretty often people are smarting from an earlier instance with someone and bump into another person that they think apposes them on a topic. The new person gets the heat they can't direct at the previous person. The new person goes 'WTF' and he attacks the next person he perceives is on the other side on a topic. "Welcome to Fark" on a global scale throughout history. "Hey guys, what's going on in this..." WHACK "Oh motherfu...r, it's on now!"

I'm often annoyed by Christians. By claiming that label, they've got some pretty big shoes to fill. And only 40% of them even seem interested in trying.

/Love God, even if you don't get your way. Love your neighbor, even if it's inconvenient or hazardous.
 
2013-01-11 03:18:08 PM  

Gone to Plaid: Person A works with Person B for years, never knowing if they are religious or not. They are courteous and polite toward each other, swap stories on family life and even have the occasional weekend social with other coworkers. One day Person A happens to see Person B leaving a church/temple/synagogue.

If Person A is an atheist, is he now right in making the sweeping generalization that Person B is a crazy fundamentalist who wants to control other people's private lives? Would you think it is justified for Person A to suddenly treat Person B with disdain and disrespect at work? Mock him behind his back (coward's approach) or to his face (asshole's approach).

I can't help but feel that only an asshole would think any of this behavior is not only justified, but necessary...like it's a public service to show these people just how irrational and crazy they are, even though in every other facet of their lives they are just like you.

/Agnostic
//Do we get lumped in with theist?


Bwhahahahahahahahahaah!

So, have you ever seen an atheist do such a thing, given the scenario above? Because I haven't. On the other hand I have seen Person B lose their farking shiat when they discover Person A is an atheist.

Agnostics don't get lumped with theists they get lumped with cowards.
 
2013-01-11 03:27:17 PM  

Gone to Plaid: Person A works with Person B for years, never knowing if they are religious or not. They are courteous and polite toward each other, swap stories on family life and even have the occasional weekend social with other coworkers. One day Person A happens to see Person B leaving a church/temple/synagogue.

If Person A is an atheist, is he now right in making the sweeping generalization that Person B is a crazy fundamentalist who wants to control other people's private lives? Would you think it is justified for Person A to suddenly treat Person B with disdain and disrespect at work? Mock him behind his back (coward's approach) or to his face (asshole's approach).

I can't help but feel that only an asshole would think any of this behavior is not only justified, but necessary...like it's a public service to show these people just how irrational and crazy they are, even though in every other facet of their lives they are just like you.


The problem here is that this is a fabricated situation with a completely unrealistic response by your fictional atheist. In other words, you have built a strawman atheist.

As an atheist I can tell you I have many friends who are christians. And, since religion is rarely discussed here in Canada, most of the time I do not learn of their beliefs until after I've known them for a while (i.e. similar to your scenario).

Do I react in any way similar to your strawman atheist? No. Usually I just marvel at the power of childhood indoctrination (the reason most religious people are religious).

Why would I make "the sweeping generalization that Person B is a crazy fundamentalist who wants to control other people's private lives" when I know the person and know they are not this?? This is a ridiculous assumption.

Would I lose respect for the person? Probably a little but, again, I assume it was not their fault that they were indoctrinated. This in no way translates to answering 'yes' to your asinine question of "Would you think it is justified for Person A to suddenly treat Person B with disdain and disrespect at work?".

And finally, here on Fark we are in a 'religion thread' where we are discussing belief and where religious people are often making illogical arguments in defense of faith without evidence. This is not the case in real life so there is no mocking.

If you want to know how atheists think or act please ask us. Building ridiculous strawmen does not help anyone.
 
2013-01-11 03:28:03 PM  

Gone to Plaid: I can't help but feel that only an asshole would think any of this behavior is not only justified, but necessary...like it's a public service to show these people just how irrational and crazy they are, even though in every other facet of their lives they are just like you.


Yeah, this hardly ever happens. We're just arguing on the internet, here.

Gone to Plaid: /Agnostic
//Do we get lumped in with theist?


Generally you get lumped in with atheists unless there's a god you believe actually exists. If you want to get technical, "Agnostic" on its own is a useless distinction.

Felix_T_Cat: We don't deserve answers


I don't like that. It's looped past "humble" and come back around as "arrogant." Metaphysical claims about how much humanity may deserve or not deserve some metaphysical thing are loopy, anyway.
 
2013-01-11 03:29:40 PM  

Felix_T_Cat: Farking Canuck: I love the way atheists, who don't claim to know any answers and don't think that we are so special that we deserve answers, are "arrogant".

But religious people, who claim to know all the answers and who attack other lines of thoughts because we cannot provide answers to all their questions, are "not arrogant".

/methinks religious people don't understand what the word arrogant means

We don't deserve answers... read Job without the happy ending :) But honestly, the people posting in this thread do claim to know. I would never use the word arrogant either. I would say 'hurt' is a better word. I wasn't arrogant so much as I felt betrayed. I didn't seek out people to bash their religion, but god help you if you brought it up.

Also Jesus didn't appear to be fond of religion. He often held it up as a stumbling block to relationship with God. The problem is that no one thinks that they are the Pharisee. He gave us some moral direction so that we wouldn't hurt ourselves or others; taught us how to access that relationship and gave us some goals to accomplish. People seem to have done a pretty poor job with the instructions ever since.

Pretty often people are smarting from an earlier instance with someone and bump into another person that they think apposes them on a topic. The new person gets the heat they can't direct at the previous person. The new person goes 'WTF' and he attacks the next person he perceives is on the other side on a topic. "Welcome to Fark" on a global scale throughout history. "Hey guys, what's going on in this..." WHACK "Oh motherfu...r, it's on now!"

I'm often annoyed by Christians. By claiming that label, they've got some pretty big shoes to fill. And only 40% of them even seem interested in trying.

/Love God, even if you don't get your way. Love your neighbor, even if it's inconvenient or hazardous.


These are very good points. God may have been bipolar with his "Love me or die" theme in the old testament, but the message Jesus brought with him wasn't so bad. A message that most religious 'leaders' seem to have forgotten.
 
2013-01-11 03:30:20 PM  

Farking Canuck: Do I react in any way similar to your strawman atheist? No. Usually I just marvel at the power of childhood indoctrination (the reason most religious people are religious).


Personally, I tend not to care unless they corner me at work and start talking about how Lucifer and Satan are different people and fallen angels on the planet Nibiru and some shiat.

/actually happened
//guy was later fired and hauled off by the cops for physical threats
 
2013-01-11 03:32:08 PM  

Gone to Plaid: These are very good points. God may have been bipolar with his "Love me or die" theme in the old testament, but the message Jesus brought with him wasn't so bad. A message that most religious 'leaders' seem to have forgotten.


On a more technical track, that's a major strike against the Bible being a reliable portrayal of God. If you change a couple names there's no indication that the Old Testament and New Testament have very much to do with each other, and the gods are completely different.
 
2013-01-11 03:36:15 PM  
You mean God, subby?
 
2013-01-11 03:36:55 PM  

Epicedion: On a more technical track, that's a major strike against the Bible being a reliable portrayal of God. If you change a couple names there's no indication that the Old Testament and New Testament have very much to do with each other, and the gods are completely different.


Yup. If the New Testament was written today it would be considered more of a "Reboot" than a "Sequel"
 
2013-01-11 03:37:18 PM  

Cheron: EfiniX: Came for the Caucasian comment. Not disappointed. I wonder how the typical Breitbart reader would respond to a big-nosed, dark-skinned Jesus?

When bigoted christians make comments about Jews I like to point out that Jesus lived his whole life as an orthodox Jewish rabbi


Considering that the "orthodoxy" at the time - Pharisees - didn't want the J-man's contributions to their faith/culture, I'm gonna say "no".

// and the only support that he was a "Rabbi" (ordained as such, hence the capital 'R') is that his disciples called him that
// "rabbi" does mean teacher, and I myself have used it for religious-instructors who were not ordained, but to call Jesus a "Rabbi" is a bit of a stretch
// it'd be like calling Michael Moore a "gun rights expert"
 
2013-01-11 03:41:31 PM  

mcgreggers99: kid_icarus: As portrayed by middle-eastern Caucasians.

Been a devout Christian my entire life. I can't stand it when I see pictures of "White Jesus."


Blond-haired, blue-eyed, white Jesus, no less. Ridiculous.

Nabb1: I've lived in the South all my life. But I grew up Catholic. In South Carolina.


Yeah, they don't like us here. In Charleston it isn't bad, but moving away from here it gets rough... like "neighbors keep their kids away from your kids once they find out you're a papist" bad. And the bad treatment has nothing to do with the moral high ground about child sex abuse or any other basic wrong by the Catholic Church.

Based on what you've said, I think I'm pretty much in the same position as you. I've been Catholic my whole life but slowly realized that either I don't agree with or can't make any sense of what the Church prescribes. Having children in marriage is a blessed occasion, but Christ couldn't be conceived by a married couple or intercourse at all? And no way could Jesus be married, even though marriage is a sacrament? Oh, and it is just to horrible to imagine that Mary could have had other kids with Joseph, because again that's some sort of sin? And all these motherf*ckers in the pews that have been married for a decade and only have one kid, and the Church says that they reject the use of birth control with a straight face? Dafuq?

Not to mention all the evangelicals that want me to believe that God, the creator of the universe and all the laws of nature and physics, an eternal being to whom all knowledge and time belong, still had to rush through creation in seven calendar days with a "Shazaayum!" instead of, you know, just using the laws of physics and nature that God also invented? Seriously?

I'm not mean to religious people, they do so much good and charitable works and f*ck all of you that think that isn't true. I just have the overwhelming suspicion that even if the pastors and priests aren't scam artists, there's too much that seems like a giant scam to me in the psychological aspects of religion. Of course, yes there's a lot of shameful, embarrassing sh*t that Christians do to harm or denigrate people "in Christ's name."
 
2013-01-11 03:43:53 PM  

grxymkjbn: Slavery is ordained in the bible - and not in some vague 'metaphorical' sense.


Please describe the slavery as sanctioned in the Bible.

// hint - it's not what you think it is
 
2013-01-11 03:43:55 PM  

Farking Canuck: The problem here is that this is a fabricated situation with a completely unrealistic response by your fictional atheist. In other words, you have built a strawman atheist.


Admittedly yes, this is a very obvious strawman argument...built upon responses seen in this thread that essentially boil down to "why would I respect you when you believe in crazy...you deserve to be mocked"

That kind of thinking doesn't exactly further a duscussion either. BTW I do know how atheists think and act within my person social bubble, and it is very contrary to the way some fark atheists portray themselves.
 
2013-01-11 03:44:54 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: bluelime: Pincy: Burden of proof my friend.

So just to be clear, your stance is that, until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, anything other than what you believe is wrong and people who believe it are stupid?

Now your getting, you farking moron.


Whether religious or atheist, we can all agree on one thing: Slaves2Darkness is being a trollish asshole in this thread.
 
2013-01-11 03:44:58 PM  

All2morrowsparTs: That is the silliest comment ever. I have never been to Wyoming, but I don't have to have faith to know it exists.


You *KNOW* it exists? How? You've never been.

You've seen it on a map. You've heard people talk about it. You may have met people who claim to be from there. That's nothing but hearsay and from your perspective no more substantive than a sailor who told you he saw a mermaid.

You simply have faith that it's true.
 
2013-01-11 03:48:33 PM  

Epicedion: Generally you get lumped in with atheists unless there's a god you believe actually exists. If you want to get technical, "Agnostic" on its own is a useless distinction.


I've always been fond of the idea that the universe as it exists is simply the result of Cosmic AC figuring out how to reverse entropy.
 
2013-01-11 03:48:49 PM  

Gone to Plaid: Admittedly yes, this is a very obvious strawman argument...built upon responses seen in this thread that essentially boil down to "why would I respect you when you believe in crazy...you deserve to be mocked"

That kind of thinking doesn't exactly further a duscussion either. BTW I do know how atheists think and act within my person social bubble, and it is very contrary to the way some fark atheists portray themselves.


Well, Slaves is trolling about as hard as Pip.
 
2013-01-11 03:48:57 PM  
Ignostic. I like fiction as much as the next guy.
 
2013-01-11 03:50:10 PM  

Gone to Plaid: I've always been fond of the idea that the universe as it exists is simply the result of Cosmic AC figuring out how to reverse entropy.


Or Maxwell's Demon getting very bored.
 
2013-01-11 03:53:49 PM  

Gone to Plaid: Farking Canuck: The problem here is that this is a fabricated situation with a completely unrealistic response by your fictional atheist. In other words, you have built a strawman atheist.

Admittedly yes, this is a very obvious strawman argument...built upon responses seen in this thread that essentially boil down to "why would I respect you when you believe in crazy...you deserve to be mocked"

That kind of thinking doesn't exactly further a duscussion either. BTW I do know how atheists think and act within my person social bubble, and it is very contrary to the way some fark atheists portray themselves.


Because you know a few, they are all like that? At least that's how I'm reading it. What I'm getting is that some atheist are assholes because religious folks are assholes about being religious. I'd be an asshole too if some kept trying to convince me about some old fark in the sky. these people (both sides) remind me of apple customers...
 
2013-01-11 03:57:59 PM  
It's the History channel. So how are they going to work Hitler into it?
 
2013-01-11 04:02:41 PM  

runwiz: It's the History channel. So how are they going to work Hitler into it?


And aliens...
 
2013-01-11 04:24:03 PM  

Charlie Chingas: these people (both sides) remind me of apple customers...


imgs.xkcd.com

/oblig
 
2013-01-11 04:27:53 PM  

Charlie Chingas: Gone to Plaid: Farking Canuck: The problem here is that this is a fabricated situation with a completely unrealistic response by your fictional atheist. In other words, you have built a strawman atheist.

Admittedly yes, this is a very obvious strawman argument...built upon responses seen in this thread that essentially boil down to "why would I respect you when you believe in crazy...you deserve to be mocked"

That kind of thinking doesn't exactly further a duscussion either. BTW I do know how atheists think and act within my person social bubble, and it is very contrary to the way some fark atheists portray themselves.

Because you know a few, they are all like that? At least that's how I'm reading it. What I'm getting is that some atheist are assholes because religious folks are assholes about being religious. I'd be an asshole too if some kept trying to convince me about some old fark in the sky. these people (both sides) remind me of apple customers...


The many atheists I know are good people, not sure if you were reading my comment as saying they were assholes. And the christian you describe would piss me off too. Even when I identified myself as a catholic, my response would have been "keep that shiat to yourself and go worship in private like you are supposed to."

I think Felix hit the nail on the head with what he said above...what we have is a problem of transference.

Also I'd like to throw PC/Console fanboys in the BSAD category.
 
2013-01-11 04:29:49 PM  
BSAB

fark me I can't type this morning.
 
2013-01-11 04:42:26 PM  

Gone to Plaid: Charlie Chingas: Gone to Plaid: Farking Canuck: The problem here is that this is a fabricated situation with a completely unrealistic response by your fictional atheist. In other words, you have built a strawman atheist.

Admittedly yes, this is a very obvious strawman argument...built upon responses seen in this thread that essentially boil down to "why would I respect you when you believe in crazy...you deserve to be mocked"

That kind of thinking doesn't exactly further a duscussion either. BTW I do know how atheists think and act within my person social bubble, and it is very contrary to the way some fark atheists portray themselves.

Because you know a few, they are all like that? At least that's how I'm reading it. What I'm getting is that some atheist are assholes because religious folks are assholes about being religious. I'd be an asshole too if some kept trying to convince me about some old fark in the sky. these people (both sides) remind me of apple customers...

The many atheists I know are good people, not sure if you were reading my comment as saying they were assholes. And the christian you describe would piss me off too. Even when I identified myself as a catholic, my response would have been "keep that shiat to yourself and go worship in private like you are supposed to."

I think Felix hit the nail on the head with what he said above...what we have is a problem of transference.

Also I'd like to throw PC/Console fanboys in the BSAD category.


Yeap. Throw in Linux. Chocolate vs. Peanut Butter. Anything, basically. People have become so egocentric.
 
2013-01-11 04:43:14 PM  

jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.


If you have ridiculous, patently false beliefs, expect to be ridiculed for them.
 
2013-01-11 04:45:31 PM  

PIP_the_TROLL: rtaylor92: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

by default, those not believing in supernatural deities with as much proof of their existence as Harry Potter or any other literary fictional character, have a right to feel superior. Sorry, thems the breaks for believing in crazy.

And while we're here, I'd love to better understand what grounds religious people would have to not respect an atheists fact-based belief system.

99.9% of the 'facts' atheists believe in have never been independently verified by themselves, so such belief is as faith-based as anything else.


OOOOH BURN
 
2013-01-11 04:46:54 PM  

All2morrowsparTs: PIP_the_TROLL: rtaylor92: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

by default, those not believing in supernatural deities with as much proof of their existence as Harry Potter or any other literary fictional character, have a right to feel superior. Sorry, thems the breaks for believing in crazy.

And while we're here, I'd love to better understand what grounds religious people would have to not respect an atheists fact-based belief system.

99.9% of the 'facts' atheists believe in have never been independently verified by themselves, so such belief is as faith-based as anything else.

That is the silliest comment ever. I have never been to Wyoming, but I don't have to have faith to know it exists.


You saw it on a map and just believed it exists? That seems to take some level of faith that you just aren't being screwed with.
 
2013-01-11 04:47:13 PM  

Charlie Chingas: Gone to Plaid: Charlie Chingas: Gone to Plaid: Farking Canuck: The problem here is that this is a fabricated situation with a completely unrealistic response by your fictional atheist. In other words, you have built a strawman atheist.

Admittedly yes, this is a very obvious strawman argument...built upon responses seen in this thread that essentially boil down to "why would I respect you when you believe in crazy...you deserve to be mocked"

That kind of thinking doesn't exactly further a duscussion either. BTW I do know how atheists think and act within my person social bubble, and it is very contrary to the way some fark atheists portray themselves.

Because you know a few, they are all like that? At least that's how I'm reading it. What I'm getting is that some atheist are assholes because religious folks are assholes about being religious. I'd be an asshole too if some kept trying to convince me about some old fark in the sky. these people (both sides) remind me of apple customers...

The many atheists I know are good people, not sure if you were reading my comment as saying they were assholes. And the christian you describe would piss me off too. Even when I identified myself as a catholic, my response would have been "keep that shiat to yourself and go worship in private like you are supposed to."

I think Felix hit the nail on the head with what he said above...what we have is a problem of transference.

Also I'd like to throw PC/Console fanboys in the BSAD category.

Yeap. Throw in Linux. Chocolate vs. Peanut Butter. Anything, basically. People have become so egocentric.


I blame the internet and the ability to easily find and/or create nigh impenetrable echo chambers online.
 
2013-01-11 05:01:07 PM  

Snowflake Tubbybottom: All2morrowsparTs: PIP_the_TROLL: rtaylor92: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

by default, those not believing in supernatural deities with as much proof of their existence as Harry Potter or any other literary fictional character, have a right to feel superior. Sorry, thems the breaks for believing in crazy.

And while we're here, I'd love to better understand what grounds religious people would have to not respect an atheists fact-based belief system.

99.9% of the 'facts' atheists believe in have never been independently verified by themselves, so such belief is as faith-based as anything else.

That is the silliest comment ever. I have never been to Wyoming, but I don't have to have faith to know it exists.

You saw it on a map and just believed it exists? That seems to take some level of faith that you just aren't being screwed with.


Claiming that Wyoming exists is not on the same scale as claiming that a god exists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Normal everyday claims do not. If you come up to me at lunch and tell me that you've just come from the gym, I'm going to take your word for it. I'm not going to grill you and say "Oh yeah? Prove it!" and demand you prove your claim that you were at the gym (I'm sure some Farkers would say this but whatever). By the same token, there is a lot of evidence that Wyoming exists. Cartographers working independently of each other display Wyoming in the same location and with the same topographical features every time on every U.S. map that is currently produced. We have direct satellite imagery of Wyoming. You can actually get in a car and drive there.

By contrast, descriptions and evidence for a god is much different. Ask anyone who is a believer to describe their god and you're going to get several different answers depending on their faith, background, personal experience, etc. You're going to get completely different answers from each person. To say that Wyoming and god require the same amount of evidence for their existence is ludicrous.
 
2013-01-11 05:01:57 PM  

Snowflake Tubbybottom: You saw it on a map and just believed it exists? That seems to take some level of faith that you just aren't being screwed with.


This is a silly argument and you know it.

Taking a position on any topic is all about weight of evidence. In the case of a location on earth like an entire state in the USA, there are mountains of evidence from innumerable, reliable sources that it exists. The weight of evidence is so significant that it is completely reasonable and logical to take a position that it exists even without personally viewing it.

Conversely, look at the weight of evidence supporting the idea that there is an invisible man living in the sky. Well there's the bible: known to be both intentionally and unintentionally corrupted and is brutally self-contradicting. So zero evidence there. What else is there ... blurry images burnt into toast ... unanswered prayers ... unverifiable claims of healing (but curiously never on amputees) ... etc.

The weight of evidence supporting the existence of a magical creator is effectively zero. Does that say that he can't or doesn't exist or that magic isn't real? No. But, based on the available evidence, it is logical and reasonable to take the position that god doesn't exist until new evidence arrives ... then the position will be re-evaluated.
 
2013-01-11 05:02:42 PM  

factoryconnection: I'm not mean to religious people, they do so much good and charitable works and f*ck all of you that think that isn't true.


Using money to improve your church and recruit new members to spread your delusion aren't "good and chartiable" works.

Not to mention the fact that the god-botherers only behaving charitably out a sense of duty, obligation, or fear of punishment, while atheists and agnostics are charitable out of compassion and empathy.
Link
 
2013-01-11 05:07:39 PM  

had98c: Snowflake Tubbybottom: All2morrowsparTs: PIP_the_TROLL: rtaylor92: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

by default, those not believing in supernatural deities with as much proof of their existence as Harry Potter or any other literary fictional character, have a right to feel superior. Sorry, thems the breaks for believing in crazy.

And while we're here, I'd love to better understand what grounds religious people would have to not respect an atheists fact-based belief system.

99.9% of the 'facts' atheists believe in have never been independently verified by themselves, so such belief is as faith-based as anything else.

That is the silliest comment ever. I have never been to Wyoming, but I don't have to have faith to know it exists.

You saw it on a map and just believed it exists? That seems to take some level of faith that you just aren't being screwed with.

Claiming that Wyoming exists is not on the same scale as claiming that a god exists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Normal everyday claims do not. If you come up to me at lunch and tell me that you've just come from the gym, I'm going to take your word for it. I'm not going to grill you and say "Oh yeah? Prove it!" and demand you prove your claim that you were at the gym (I'm sure some Farkers would say this but whatever). By the same token, there is a lot of evidence that Wyoming exists. Cartographers working independently of each other display Wyoming in the same location and with the same topographical features every time on every U.S. map that is currently produced. We have direct satellite imagery of Wyoming. You can actually get in a car and drive there.

By contrast, descriptions and evidence for a god is much different. Ask anyone who is a believer to describe their god and you're going to get several different answers depending on their faith, background, personal experience, etc. You're going to get completely different answers from each person. To say that Wyoming and god require the same amount of evidence for their existence is ludicrous.


And who said it did? You took a hell of a long road in circumventing that you have faith Wyoming exists, having never seeing it yourself.
 
2013-01-11 05:11:54 PM  

Snowflake Tubbybottom: had98c: Snowflake Tubbybottom: All2morrowsparTs: PIP_the_TROLL: rtaylor92: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

by default, those not believing in supernatural deities with as much proof of their existence as Harry Potter or any other literary fictional character, have a right to feel superior. Sorry, thems the breaks for believing in crazy.

And while we're here, I'd love to better understand what grounds religious people would have to not respect an atheists fact-based belief system.

99.9% of the 'facts' atheists believe in have never been independently verified by themselves, so such belief is as faith-based as anything else.

That is the silliest comment ever. I have never been to Wyoming, but I don't have to have faith to know it exists.

You saw it on a map and just believed it exists? That seems to take some level of faith that you just aren't being screwed with.

And who said it did? You took a hell of a long road in circumventing that you have faith Wyoming exists, having never seeing it yourself.


I've been to Wyoming. It exists.
 
2013-01-11 05:12:39 PM  

had98c: Snowflake Tubbybottom: All2morrowsparTs: PIP_the_TROLL: rtaylor92: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

by default, those not believing in supernatural deities with as much proof of their existence as Harry Potter or any other literary fictional character, have a right to feel superior. Sorry, thems the breaks for believing in crazy.

And while we're here, I'd love to better understand what grounds religious people would have to not respect an atheists fact-based belief system.

99.9% of the 'facts' atheists believe in have never been independently verified by themselves, so such belief is as faith-based as anything else.

That is the silliest comment ever. I have never been to Wyoming, but I don't have to have faith to know it exists.

You saw it on a map and just believed it exists? That seems to take some level of faith that you just aren't being screwed with.

Claiming that Wyoming exists is not on the same scale as claiming that a god exists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Normal everyday claims do not. If you come up to me at lunch and tell me that you've just come from the gym, I'm going to take your word for it. I'm not going to grill you and say "Oh yeah? Prove it!" and demand you prove your claim that you were at the gym (I'm sure some Farkers would say this but whatever). By the same token, there is a lot of evidence that Wyoming exists. Cartographers working independently of each other display Wyoming in the same location and with the same topographical features every time on every U.S. map that is currently produced. We have direct satellite imagery of Wyoming. You can actually get in a car and drive there.

By contrast, descriptions and evidence for a god is much different. Ask anyone who is a believ ...


You want extraordinary proof? Try reading the bible. It's in there. There's your proof. Plus, my mommy told me so. So, there.
 
2013-01-11 05:16:03 PM  

had98c: Snowflake Tubbybottom: had98c: Snowflake Tubbybottom: All2morrowsparTs: PIP_the_TROLL: rtaylor92: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

by default, those not believing in supernatural deities with as much proof of their existence as Harry Potter or any other literary fictional character, have a right to feel superior. Sorry, thems the breaks for believing in crazy.

And while we're here, I'd love to better understand what grounds religious people would have to not respect an atheists fact-based belief system.

99.9% of the 'facts' atheists believe in have never been independently verified by themselves, so such belief is as faith-based as anything else.

That is the silliest comment ever. I have never been to Wyoming, but I don't have to have faith to know it exists.

You saw it on a map and just believed it exists? That seems to take some level of faith that you just aren't being screwed with.

And who said it did? You took a hell of a long road in circumventing that you have faith Wyoming exists, having never seeing it yourself.

I've been to Wyoming. It exists.


And god doesn't to me, being atheist and all. Faith itself doesn't live in a religious vacuum.
 
2013-01-11 05:18:18 PM  

Farking Canuck: Epicedion: On a more technical track, that's a major strike against the Bible being a reliable portrayal of God. If you change a couple names there's no indication that the Old Testament and New Testament have very much to do with each other, and the gods are completely different.

Yup. If the New Testament was written today it would be considered more of a "Reboot" than a "Sequel"


I hope that Greedo shoots first in the reboot, just to troll the fan base.
 
2013-01-11 05:32:21 PM  

jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.


So you mean zero?

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."

~ H. L. Mencken
 
2013-01-11 05:34:13 PM  
So it's going to be 5,000 hours long. Who'd watch that.
 
2013-01-11 05:43:13 PM  

Kali-Yuga: factoryconnection: I'm not mean to religious people, they do so much good and charitable works and f*ck all of you that think that isn't true.

Using money to improve your church and recruit new members to spread your delusion aren't "good and chartiable" works.

Not to mention the fact that the god-botherers only behaving charitably out a sense of duty, obligation, or fear of punishment, while atheists and agnostics are charitable out of compassion and empathy.
Link


This is absolute horse sh*t and you know it. I've done hundreds of hours of community service in my day with religious groups and none of it was out of fear of God's wrath. I didn't claim, as you did that the "others" do no good, I said that religious people are inspired constantly to help others in massive and meaningful ways. I didn't claim that all charitable giving to churches was a good action, yes I'm aware that expensive light-and-sound shows don't feed the poor. But you can't even get on a Habitat build around here as they're so inundated with work donations from church groups.

Believe it or not, when people go to a meeting every week and get solicited to donate or participate in charitable actions they're more likely to do it than people that are never asked. I will read your link, as I've often wondered about how church-based philanthropy breaks out.
 
2013-01-11 05:46:36 PM  
 
2013-01-11 05:47:29 PM  

rthanu: 7. Everyone who doesn't believe that story, or *never heard of the story* because it would be farking impossible for them to hear the "good news" still goes to hell.


Even when I was "indoctrinated" into the Faith as a kid, that was always a sore point with me.

/ agnostic now....
 
2013-01-11 06:03:11 PM  
There is more evidence of the existence of global warming/climate change than there is the existence of god.
 
2013-01-11 06:16:20 PM  

Nabb1: If you really think your little cartoon represents the opinions of all Christians towards atheists,


Nope. Just the in-your-face variety.
 
2013-01-11 06:20:24 PM  

Gone to Plaid: These are very good points. God may have been bipolar with his "Love me or die" theme in the old testament, but the message Jesus brought with him wasn't so bad.


Apart from the bad parts, of course:

i560.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-11 06:39:32 PM  

Uncle Tractor: Gone to Plaid: These are very good points. God may have been bipolar with his "Love me or die" theme in the old testament, but the message Jesus brought with him wasn't so bad.

Apart from the bad parts, of course:

[i560.photobucket.com image 512x668]


So, god wants me IN him? never pictured him a bottom
 
2013-01-11 06:49:00 PM  

Charlie Chingas: Uncle Tractor: Gone to Plaid: These are very good points. God may have been bipolar with his "Love me or die" theme in the old testament, but the message Jesus brought with him wasn't so bad.

Apart from the bad parts, of course:

[i560.photobucket.com image 512x668]

So, god wants me IN him? never pictured him a bottom


I guess he really is a Republican!
 
2013-01-11 06:55:36 PM  

Snowflake Tubbybottom: And who said it did? You took a hell of a long road in circumventing that you have faith Wyoming exists, having never seeing it yourself.


I don't require faith to know Wyoming exists. Faith is defined as a belief not based on facts. I can see Wyoming on a map. I can talk to people that have been there. I can check satellite pictures of Wyoming. These are facts I can gather just sitting at my computer. If I wanted to, I could prove it exists:
Hypothesis: Wyoming exists
Test: Get on an airplane to Wyoming. Confirm via GPS.
Result: Wyoming exists.

Let's do the same with God:
Hypothesis: God exists
Test: ?

So let's not be pedantic enough to travel down this road.
 
2013-01-11 07:07:05 PM  

Sarsin: Hypothesis: Wyoming exists
Test: Get on an airplane to Wyoming. Confirm via GPS.
Result: Wyoming exists.


I didn't claim Wyoming didn't exist, but I don't require empirical proof that it does either. I'm quite happy to believe that it does.

Atheists claim that the validity of their disbelief is that they refuse to believe in anything without empirical proof. Since empiricism can only truly be satisfied on a first-hand basis (and even then it could be a hallucination), anything short of vigorous testing of every single belief they hold makes them a hypocrite.

Your'e not supposed to believe. You're supposed to know beyond the shadow of any doubt based on empirical evidence collected by yourself. Otherwise it's just hearsay and blind faith.
 
2013-01-11 07:27:47 PM  

PIP_the_TROLL: Atheists claim that the validity of their disbelief is that they refuse to believe in anything without empirical proof. Since empiricism can only truly be satisfied on a first-hand basis (and even then it could be a hallucination), anything short of vigorous testing of every single belief they hold makes them a hypocrite.

Your'e not supposed to believe. You're supposed to know beyond the shadow of any doubt based on empirical evidence collected by yourself. Otherwise it's just hearsay and blind faith.


This is a blatant lie. We all take our positions based on weight of evidence. The quality of the evidence affects how much weight it contributes to the sum total ... every world atlas shows Wyoming = good evidence ... some pedo-protector claims to talk to an invisible friend who gives him all the answers and he'll share them if I put money in the basket - bad evidence.

The evidence supporting the idea that god is real is pretty near zero ... therefore the logical position is to not believe until new evidence is presented.

Whereas the evidence supporting the existence of Wyoming is so vast that it is not only reasonable and logical to take a position that it is real (even without verifying it yourself) it would be unreasonable to deny its existence.

There are no absolutes like you are claiming. As usual, you are misrepresenting the atheist position because you are unable to assault our real position.
 
2013-01-11 07:39:11 PM  
You misunderstand me. I'm merely holding you to the same standard you purport to hold people of faith. Since it's really Christians that most western atheists have a problem with, let's assume that's the belief system you're attacking. The most widely used version of the Bible is the KJV, and the assertions made in it do a pretty good job of laying out the world we live in and how we got here.

Now, if modern science disputes some of it, that's all well and good. But the 'evidence' from both physical and verbal history far older and even more widespread. The foundation of the 'evidence' you claim informs your decisions is new and has rewritten itself thousands of times in its short lifetime.

So if science can't even agree (evidentially) about things it's had hundreds of years and hundreds of thousands of experiments to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, how is any hard and fast belief in it anything more than faith?

Your belief in the 'facts' (which from the perspective of most people is nothing but hearsay) is no more valid than ancient romans believing going to bed with boots on would give you a boy or insufficient bile being the cause of everything under the sun. They heard it from lots of learned men and it was written down all sorts of places as fact.
 
2013-01-11 07:39:30 PM  
Here you go: Empirical evidence that Wyoming exists:

Link
 
2013-01-11 07:43:44 PM  
How is that Empirical? Because somebody wrote Wyoming on a page and claims to have weather reports of places said to be there?

It snows in Narnia and the deserts on Vulcan are a biatch.

Want me to find pages for you that say that too and hence are proof they exist?
 
2013-01-11 07:52:16 PM  

PIP_the_TROLL: The most widely used version of the Bible is the KJV, and the assertions made in it do a pretty good job of laying out the world we live in and how we got here.


media.comicvine.com

Light created on the first day. - The cause of light - stars and the sun, created on the fourth day

I can continue with more examples of the literally thousands of contradictions, and hundreds of historical, and scientific errors contained in the bible if you'd like.
 
2013-01-11 07:56:37 PM  
Awesome. Go ask Hawking which came first. Light or stars.

Protip: Not only stars produce light.
 
2013-01-11 07:57:04 PM  

PIP_the_TROLL: How is that Empirical? Because somebody wrote Wyoming on a page and claims to have weather reports of places said to be there?

It snows in Narnia and the deserts on Vulcan are a biatch.

Want me to find pages for you that say that too and hence are proof they exist?


They're actually live webcams which are broadcasting from various positions in Wyoming, which can be verified geographically by IP address among other ways. Plus you know, Ockham's Razor and all...

I can see where you're coming from though., When your entire worldview revolves around being willing to believe things without any sort of rational or logical proof you can imagine all sorts of interesting stories.

Vulcan and Narnia are nothing compared to cosmic jewish liches, snakes eating dirt, and women made from ribs.

I have to go feed the invisible pink unicon that lives in my garage now.
 
2013-01-11 08:04:12 PM  
Apparently you're lacking a full grasp of the term 'empirical evidence'.
 
2013-01-11 08:11:37 PM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: Rated (R) for scenes of extreme violence and nudity


R? Some of them should be XXX. The bit where the concubine gets raped to death and then cut into pieces by her master is pretty freaking hardcore.
 
2013-01-11 08:14:15 PM  

Felix_T_Cat: Having been an atheist, I still find 'Invisible Sky Wizard' hilarious. We giggle about it at church. Am also fond of 'Optimus Prime died for your sins.'

FWIW: The murdery rapey, incesty parts describe us as a people. (YMMV) Reporting, not condoning. You're supposed to be appalled, even when the guy cut up the girl and sent parts to the tribes. "Really God? You're trying to save us through _those_ people?" Yep, that's humanity all over. Look at the news, that's who we are.

David was a murder and an adulterer. Yet he was 'a man after God's heart', because he always repented. Not everybody repents. God showing up in the flesh didn't convince some people to repent.

Am also fond of the Apocrypha. It's got dragons and everything.


I'm curious about adult conversions to faith....why did you pick the religion that you did? Do you think that if you lived in India you might have gone for devotion to Krishna or Rama instead?
 
2013-01-11 08:28:07 PM  

Slaves2Darkness:
You assume we want respect from retards that worship ancient myths.


In all fairness, lots of the ancient myths are ripping good stories, with thought provoking ideas on the general human condition.

I'd love to know what exactly went down during the ceremonies of some of the classical Mediterranean mystery cults. It was probably some pretty enlightening shiat, as many Roman and Greek writers went away from the experience commenting on how life altering it was.

Who knows, maybe they were just doing shrooms.
 
2013-01-11 08:32:21 PM  

Epicedion: Gone to Plaid: These are very good points. God may have been bipolar with his "Love me or die" theme in the old testament, but the message Jesus brought with him wasn't so bad. A message that most religious 'leaders' seem to have forgotten.

On a more technical track, that's a major strike against the Bible being a reliable portrayal of God. If you change a couple names there's no indication that the Old Testament and New Testament have very much to do with each other, and the gods are completely different.


This is why Jews aren't Christian.
 
2013-01-11 08:41:10 PM  

PIP_the_TROLL: Apparently you're lacking a full grasp of the term 'empirical evidence'.


It means it's potentially testable.

Supernatural things by their theoretical nature aren't testable.
 
2013-01-11 08:42:38 PM  
Oh damn, I killed a dead thread.
This is what I get for not scrolling to the bottom.
 
2013-01-11 09:12:30 PM  

PIP_the_TROLL: You misunderstand me. I'm merely holding you to the same standard you purport to hold people of faith. Since it's really Christians that most western atheists have a problem with, let's assume that's the belief system you're attacking.
The only religions people I have a problem with are the ones who think theirs is so awesome that I shouldn't have much of a choice in following it. For example, I am extremely against Islam too. Why? They have a tenancy to execute people (especially atheists) that don't believe as they do. If you want to believe in magic sky elephants, that's your choice. Do good works in the name of sky elephant. Peachy. It's when it turns into "Sky elephant DEMANDS we not eat waffles! WE NEED TO BAN ALL WAFFLES!" that the line is crossed. Understand?

The most widely used version of the Bible is the KJV, and the assertions made in it do a pretty good job of laying out the world we live in and how we got here.

Now, if modern science disputes some of it, that's all well and good. But the 'evidence' from both physical and verbal history far older and even more widespread. The foundation of the 'evidence' you claim informs your decisions is new and has rewritten itself thousands of times in its short lifetime.

So if science can't even agree (evidentially) about things it's had hundreds of years and hundreds of thousands of experiments to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, how is any hard and fast belief in it anything more than faith?

Your belief in the 'facts' (which from the perspective of most people is nothing but hearsay) is no more valid than ancient romans believing going to bed with boots on would give you a boy or insufficient bile being the cause of everything under the sun. They heard it from lots of learned men and it was written down all sorts of places as fact.

If you're going to continue to be pedantic, then yes nothing can be proven 100%. If you want to shallowly define that 1% as faith, knock yourself out. I accept things to be true based on how close it gets to that 100% threshold. Higher power is currently sitting at maybe 1%. The Christian God would be about 1/300th of that, since there have been A LOT of religions in human history.

TL;DR: Just because you can't prove everything 100% doesn't mean everything that you can imagine is true.

 
2013-01-11 09:45:18 PM  
Hmm, I guess I got to the end of my skills at surviving life and found them dismally insufficient. I looked for who was happy and was thoroughly annoyed to find that people who talked about god generally appeared to be happy. More so than any others. Not Christians mind you, just 'generic' god people.

I asked around about what to do & they suggested prayer. "Who am I praying to?" "Don't worry about it, just do it once a night." "How do I pray?" "Make a list of things & people and say thanks for them each night." So I would say thanks every night for a week and then stop to see if anything happened. Then I would lay off for a week to see if anything didn't happen. I repeated this cycle until I found that life was 'easier' during the prayer cycles. I'd drive across town in the middle of night to a place, get on my knees and say "I don't know what I'm doing and don't know who I'm talking to, but I'm here." And would say thanks down through my list. Later I added people I couldn't stand to the list and found that I could forgive old hurts.

About that time, a Christian said, "Hey, the bible won't kill you." Again, pretty annoyed, I picked up a Catholic bible and started reading from Genesis on. It really moved me. I didn't understand much and was pretty much reading it like a novel. I hated the new testament, but I read the old testament for about an hour a night over and over for about 4 or 5 years I think. Then a friend invited me to his church and this is when I got really hostile to them. But they kept inviting me back. I went to a bible study where the guy leading it would get in depth with themes running through the books and a bunch of us would try & work out what it meant. I got to see how they were thinking & it wasn't what I thought it was. It wasn't some monolithic thought police. If you could find enough evidence for your position and state your case, you wouldn't face opposition. You were allowed to come to your own conclusions.

I've tried a couple other things, Western Buddhism & etc... but the more I aligned myself with what Christianity was calling for, the better I'm able to live. In the beginning I was so sick, you'd have thought I had a diagnosis. I went from someone thoroughly prepared and trying to die, to someone with ridiculous amounts of courage and peace. My focus has gone from selfishness to near constant concern for the suffering of others. My friends and I go out several times a week trying to find & equip unsheltered homeless. Trying to get them back into community without bending them to our idea of what that should be. "Are you healthy, have you eaten, do you need boots?"

I've seen prayer accomplish some bizarre things. I can take a guy I don't know from crying & anguish to smiling in about a minute. It's happened many times. I met a guy at a coffee shop, "Hey, I'm Felix." "I'm Bill and I'm angry at God." "Well, we've all got a beef with God." "No, I'm angry about his mercy!" (No shiat, this really happened) I'd never met this guy before. A thought came to me, that I just don't think about. It's never been my thing. "Prostitution?" "Yeah, I do that." He starts crying & cursing, so I sit with him & pray for him. He starts cursing people who pray for him. We talked for a bout a half hour. I never saw him again, but my friend saw him a week or so later. "Where's that guy? I need that guy. I haven't felt this good for 10 years." My friend, who had only been a Christian for about 3 months, says: "You should come to church, imagine how it would feel if 40 people were praying for you." "Naw, I hate those people."

So I don't think I'd be practicing some other faith. I've only been a Christian for about 6 years. I don't have any opinion on other faiths, but I feel called and sustained. I'll work with anyone of any faith or stripe to help folks who are suffering. I work alongside social workers who are atheist. They've been very supportive. As soon as I told them what I wanted to do, they started taking me into the field and we cooperate locating and serving the homeless. I don't want to wreck their work & I can help them when they get to a person that they haven't been able to reach.

But to look at me briefly, Fark folks would label me a fundy. I wouldn't do this if there was no benefit. It's not to make me feel better. That's what I wanted at first, but that's not what I got. I've been through a lot of crap. Finding dead guys, detoxing heroin addicts in my house, trying to support MICA guys, care for hostile and unbalanced folks... By commercial standards, my life is pretty poor. I've got no 'me time'. But that's not the point. My life isn't my own and it's not about my happiness. Love God & love your neighbor. Love the unloveable. Love people that cost you. I don't blame God for suffering, I blame us and the search for comfort.
 
2013-01-11 09:47:49 PM  

jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.


It will never be tired so long as it remains accurate.
 
2013-01-11 09:51:48 PM  

Epicedion: Gone to Plaid: I can't help but feel that only an asshole would think any of this behavior is not only justified, but necessary...like it's a public service to show these people just how irrational and crazy they are, even though in every other facet of their lives they are just like you.

Yeah, this hardly ever happens. We're just arguing on the internet, here.

Gone to Plaid: /Agnostic
//Do we get lumped in with theist?

Generally you get lumped in with atheists unless there's a god you believe actually exists. If you want to get technical, "Agnostic" on its own is a useless distinction.

Felix_T_Cat: We don't deserve answers

I don't like that. It's looped past "humble" and come back around as "arrogant." Metaphysical claims about how much humanity may deserve or not deserve some metaphysical thing are loopy, anyway.


That was a scripture joke. Sorry.
 
2013-01-11 09:55:24 PM  

Bonzo_1116: Epicedion: Gone to Plaid: These are very good points. God may have been bipolar with his "Love me or die" theme in the old testament, but the message Jesus brought with him wasn't so bad. A message that most religious 'leaders' seem to have forgotten.

On a more technical track, that's a major strike against the Bible being a reliable portrayal of God. If you change a couple names there's no indication that the Old Testament and New Testament have very much to do with each other, and the gods are completely different.

This is why Jews aren't Christian.


It's the _same_ god. You have to look at the themes throughout both sets of books.
 
2013-01-11 10:04:04 PM  

Felix_T_Cat: Hmm, I guess I got to the end of my skills at surviving life and found them dismally insufficient. I looked for who was happy and was thoroughly annoyed to find that people who talked about god generally appeared to be happy. More so than any others. Not Christians mind you, just 'generic' god people...............


Interesting. What's your take on the idea of Original Sin? I always thought it was indicative of a flaw in the idea of a truly omnipotent and benevolent God...or free will if the fix for the problem it absolutely requires Jesus and nothing else.

It also seems like you had to hit bottom before you swapped over to church.
 
2013-01-11 10:06:03 PM  
Well, looks like springtime in Florida is shaping up to be a lot of fun. I better stock up on my aneursym medicine now while I have the chance.
 
2013-01-11 10:09:57 PM  

Felix_T_Cat: Bonzo_1116: Epicedion: Gone to Plaid: These are very good points. God may have been bipolar with his "Love me or die" theme in the old testament, but the message Jesus brought with him wasn't so bad. A message that most religious 'leaders' seem to have forgotten.

On a more technical track, that's a major strike against the Bible being a reliable portrayal of God. If you change a couple names there's no indication that the Old Testament and New Testament have very much to do with each other, and the gods are completely different.

This is why Jews aren't Christian.

It's the _same_ god. You have to look at the themes throughout both sets of books.


A god that splits himself into a human that walks the earth as a normal man for a lifetime doesn't mesh very well with Old Testament Yahweh. Allah has more in common with Yahweh. More fiercely monotheistic.

The talk of sacrifice to atone for sins / covenants with various peoples does match up though. The whole "avatar of the divine appears on earth and urges everyone to get with the program" has more of a Hindu feel to me, though.
 
2013-01-11 11:02:56 PM  
rlv.zcache.com


/204 comments and no warning label jpg?
//Fark, I am dissapoint
///Now to read the thread...
 
2013-01-11 11:54:19 PM  

Charlie Chingas: Farking Canuck: bluelime: Pincy: Burden of proof my friend.

So just to be clear, your stance is that, until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, anything other than what you believe is wrong and people who believe it are stupid?

Nobody suggests that anything can or needs to be proven beyond a doubt. Please do not suggest that we are asking for this.

What would be nice is even a scrap of evidence beyond "my mommy and daddy told me it is true".

In a way, religious people are not mocked for what they believe ... they are mocked for why they believe it.

'nough said.

christians believe what they believe because someone told them to, not because they chose it.


Much like we mock Teabaggers and Fox News watchers. They can't actually prove that Obama is a Muslim or explain why he is a "Socialist", they just believe it because Sean Hannity said it or they read it on Breitbart.
 
2013-01-11 11:58:45 PM  

meat0918: And I forgot to ask.

Which translation are they using?


It's kind of funny that an entity so powerful and wise "wrote" a book so full of contradictions and open enough to interpretation to lead to schisms, sects and reformations within Christianity and Judaism.
 
2013-01-12 12:05:52 AM  
Look I have no proof that there is no God, but there is no proof that there is one either. I am an Atheist. I do not mock those that have faith but I also do not want their beliefs to infringe on others rights. You can believe eating pork is forbidden in your religeon but the minute you try to make that illegal for everybody else your "Rights" end. So that would go for reproductive rights, death penalty, assisted suicide, eating shrimp, wearing two different kinds of cloth, and whateverer your deal is. You want to sacrifice goats then what do I care as long as it doesn't effect me at all?

/to reasonable for Fark?
 
2013-01-12 12:46:15 AM  

Dorf11: kid_icarus: As portrayed by middle-eastern Caucasians.

Middle-eastern Caucasians with British accents.


Maybe that is what resided in the area at the time. Heck. we know just about as much concrete proof of the Bible so why not? Maybe magic really did exist back then, and when God left earth so did the magic. :O
 
2013-01-12 01:56:06 AM  

Felix_T_Cat: I wouldn't do this if there was no benefit


Placebos have been proven, with that evidence stuff you guys hate so much, to work beyond a doubt. So I am glad religion works for you.

The problem for a lot of us is that we can't put the cat back in the bag. We woke up and smelled the coffee ... we see religions for what they are and cannot go back to sleep and live happily in dreamland again.

No evidence, no belief. Simple math. Works for everything including religions.
 
2013-01-12 02:56:06 AM  

Kali-Yuga: Light created on the first day. - The cause of light - stars and the sun, created on the fourth day

I can continue with more examples of the literally thousands of contradictions, and hundreds of historical, and scientific errors contained in the bible if you'd like.


Check the handle of the person you're arguing with.
 
2013-01-12 05:55:30 AM  
"What is his name?" "Jesus."

BZZZZZZZZT. WRONG. The christian savior's name was Joshua. Jesus was an additional name he picked up later in his time as a Rabbi. Additionally, "Christ" was a title, not a part of his name, the interpretation of it as a last name is a result of British tradition where non-nobles were referred to by their profession as an ad-hoc surname, a tradition that didn't exist until the middle ages, iirc. So when he was a baby, named in the semitic tradition, Jesus' name would have been Joshua bin Josef. Or Yeshua, depending how finnicky you want to be about the transliteration of the name.

I mean, come the fark on. I know that the "all the actors are white" thing is mostly a result of, y'know, the majority of the available actors for c-grade history channel fiction being white, so that's forgivable. But why the fark wouldn't you even familiarize yourself with the damned bible when writing a movie named "The Bible"? Christ.
 
2013-01-12 06:18:26 AM  
I don't care how "accurate" they say it is! If it doesn't portray my personal interpretation of the meaning God's Word, it's an unchristian changing the words of the Bible!
 
2013-01-12 06:25:41 AM  

jjwars1: gshepnyc: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

Sorry, pursuing a view of the universe and our place in it based on reason, evidence, scrutiny and skepticism is NOT equally weighted with pursuing the same based on a personal relationship with a mystical, mythological being who can allegedly suspend the laws of nature to suit his adherent's needs.

You are entitled to believe in total horseshiat if you want to but you are out of your mind to expect that that entitles you to respect. Quite the opposite, actually. Especially when you use that horseshiat to try and shape policy, affect the lives of non-believers and the like.

I really don't know what you are talking about. I don't use horseshiat to shape policy or affect the lives of non-believers nor do I think the fact based science approach entitles others to be disrespectful of people or give them the right to act like they are superior.

Respect is a simple concept people have a difficult time grasping, and they like to use strawman arguments as a reason why they shouldn't act like decent human beings.


maybe you shouldn't think that your sacred cow is above mockery. this is a message board francis
 
2013-01-12 08:36:42 AM  

jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.


The only thing that you religious twats can offer up to support your ridiculous position is the idea that there is some kind of mythical being that farts rainbows.

No, I'm not going to respect that. Until you show me some evidence.

And while you're at it, show me how your personal "God" is any more real than Thor, Zeus, or any number of other the other alleged shiatstains that turn people into salt and send people to this "Hell" place that you farkers believe in.
 
2013-01-12 09:35:26 AM  

Trapper439: jjwars1: The skywizard thing is old and tired. Atheists, if you want religious folks to respect your opinion and take you seriously you'll have to quit acting like you are the superior supreme being douche, and treat them with the same amount of respect as you command.

The only thing that you religious twats can offer up to support your ridiculous position is the idea that there is some kind of mythical being that farts rainbows.

No, I'm not going to respect that. Until you show me some evidence.

And while you're at it, show me how your personal "God" is any more real than Thor, Zeus, or any number of other the other alleged shiatstains that turn people into salt and send people to this "Hell" place that you farkers believe in.


Who owes you evidence? We 'religious twats' are talking about things that are the literal definition of 'Transcendent'.

If you're so arrogant, so self-absorbed, so full of hubris that a deity of any sort needs to prostrate themselves in front of you in order for you to believe that you're *not* the center of the universe, then there's hardly any point.

You've already appointed yourself God in your own head.

You have no idea how small you look to us. How lost.

We're not angry at you. We're sorry for you. We know we will always have more in common with people of other religious faiths than we'll ever have with you.

When you wake up tomorrow, in that half second right after you open your eyes and oblivion is drowned out by the flood of life pouring into your consciousness, you'll have known God. Too bad you won't recognize Him.
 
2013-01-12 10:37:36 AM  

PIP_the_TROLL: Who owes you evidence?


i560.photobucket.com

We 'religious twats' are talking about things that are the literal definition of 'Transcendent'.

If you're so arrogant, so self-absorbed, so full of hubris that a deity of any sort needs to prostrate themselves in front of you in order for you to believe that you're *not* the center of the universe, then there's hardly any point.


What about those of us who can't make ourselves believe in things that we have no reason to believe in? If you believe in your god despite the utter lack of evidence, then why do you believe in that specific god? Why not any of the other million silly things people have made up in the course of human history.

The problem is that to me, your religion is no more real than the story about Jack and the beanstalk. If you think this has anything to do with hubris or massive egos (as your post more than suggests), then you simply do not understand why people do not believe in your specific fairy tale / religion.

I do not believe in gods because I have never in my life seen any reason to do so. Period. It's not about hubris or arrogance, it's about reason.
 
2013-01-12 12:22:02 PM  

Uncle Tractor: It's not about hubris or arrogance, it's about reason.


Bullshiat. Your life is influenced on a constant basis by forces you're physically unaware of and which neither you, nor science can explain.

You've done nothing but make a choice to say 'there is no God', with no more evidentiary reason to say so than any religious person has to say the opposite. Lack of physical evidence is not evidence of lack.

I'm not arguing that you need to believe in the Judeo-Christian God or in gods at all. I'm arguing that it's indefensible to take an affirmative position *against* the idea of a supreme being or power of any kind. We came here and found this universe. We're hairless primates that have barely been walking around long enough to take a decent shiat and you think you've got all the answers? That your fellow man has? That our towering intellects rise to the level of which we can say our hastily cobbled together view of the universe has divine veracity? You're telling me that's not hubris? Open a dictionary and read the definition.

200 years from now, our descendants will be laughing at us with the same disdain with which we regard bloodletters. They will have provided themselves a new world view that has built on and abandoned portions of ours. They'll want, as you do, to believe that if you understand what's out in the dark, it won't be scary anymore.

It's doubt that terrifies atheists. And the only ways to fight it are with faith or with lies we tell ourselves to make us feel safe that we can quantify and understand things that we really don't.

The questions will be different. The answers will be different. They'll call it an improvement over our unenlightened times as they replace our lies with theirs.

And some of them, again, will *know* that's the truth.
 
2013-01-12 12:43:15 PM  
Jesus was an extraterrestrial.
 
2013-01-12 12:56:06 PM  
Is Mel Gibson involved with any of this?
 
2013-01-12 01:53:15 PM  

PIP_the_TROLL: Bullshiat. Your life is influenced on a constant basis by forces you're physically unaware of and which neither you, nor science can explain.


On what basis do you make that claim? I'm not sure whether to call bullshiat or troll.

You've done nothing but make a choice to say 'there is no God',

No such choice was made. One day I realized that I didn't believe in gods. It wasn't a choice. Did you choose not to believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny?

with no more evidentiary reason to say so than any religious person has to say the opposite. Lack of physical evidence is not evidence of lack.

Nope, but when presented with claims that violate the known laws of nature, my answer will always be "show me."

I'm not arguing that you need to believe in the Judeo-Christian God or in gods at all. I'm arguing that it's indefensible to take an affirmative position *against* the idea of a supreme being or power of any kind.

I haven't even done that much. No evidence for => no reason to consider the possibility.

We came here and found this universe.

No: We were born in this universe, and we are every bit as much part of it as anything else in it.

We're hairless primates that have barely been walking around long enough to take a decent shiat and you think you've got all the answers?

Strawman #1.

That your fellow man has? That our towering intellects rise to the level of which we can say our hastily cobbled together view of the universe has divine veracity?

Strawman #2.

It's doubt that terrifies atheists.

Uh, no. If anything, doubt leads to atheism. Certainty is for the theists who "know" that there is a god.
 
2013-01-12 03:07:40 PM  
Pip the t r o l l.
 
2013-01-12 04:18:31 PM  

Smackledorfer: Pip the t r o l l.


I know, but it's hard to tell these days. There are too many sincerely derpy people around.
 
2013-01-13 09:06:15 PM  

Bonzo_1116: Felix_T_Cat: Bonzo_1116: Epicedion: Gone to Plaid: These are very good points. God may have been bipolar with his "Love me or die" theme in the old testament, but the message Jesus brought with him wasn't so bad. A message that most religious 'leaders' seem to have forgotten.

On a more technical track, that's a major strike against the Bible being a reliable portrayal of God. If you change a couple names there's no indication that the Old Testament and New Testament have very much to do with each other, and the gods are completely different.

This is why Jews aren't Christian.

It's the _same_ god. You have to look at the themes throughout both sets of books.

A god that splits himself into a human that walks the earth as a normal man for a lifetime doesn't mesh very well with Old Testament Yahweh. Allah has more in common with Yahweh. More fiercely monotheistic.

The talk of sacrifice to atone for sins / covenants with various peoples does match up though. The whole "avatar of the divine appears on earth and urges everyone to get with the program" has more of a Hindu feel to me, though.


Some folks I know regard occurrences of the 'Angel of the Lord' showing up in the old testament as Jesus. You couldn't look at the father and survive, burning mountain, etc... But also God walked with Adam, talked with Enoch, wrestled with Jacob, etc... Also, Angel of the Lord didn't show up when Jesus was around.

Original sin, I haven't really looked into the theology of that. I may someday, but I'm working on more immediate problems (for me) at the moment. Not so much "why is my butt on fire?", but "what do I do about it and how do I prevent it in the future?"

A guy like me. with my ego and determination, it worked out that I had to get to the end of my own attempts before I was open minded enough to try something else. So yeah, I hit bottom. :)
 
2013-01-13 09:26:02 PM  

Farking Canuck: Felix_T_Cat: I wouldn't do this if there was no benefit

Placebos have been proven, with that evidence stuff you guys hate so much, to work beyond a doubt. So I am glad religion works for you.

The problem for a lot of us is that we can't put the cat back in the bag. We woke up and smelled the coffee ... we see religions for what they are and cannot go back to sleep and live happily in dreamland again.

No evidence, no belief. Simple math. Works for everything including religions.


I don't hate evidence. I already laid out the steps I went through. I had an opinion about what religions are and came, through experimentation, to a different view. I do have to agree that christians tend use some pretty awful proofs. I didn't take their word for it though, I checked for myself. Believe me, christian was the _last_ thing I wanted.

I would be a complete ass though, if I hadn't tried to bridge some differences here. If I think I've got the best thing since sliced bread, I'd be a tool not to try & share it. So that's why I've been posting. I really expected to be ripped apart. This has been a pretty moderate religion thread. Thanks.
 
Displayed 225 of 225 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report