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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 225 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report