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.

(Sydney Morning Herald)   The 10 Commandments for atheists. Thou shalt not eat babies strangely absent from list   (smh.com.au) divider line 229
    More: Interesting, atheists, Ash Wednesday, Charlton Heston  
•       •       •

11380 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Feb 2013 at 8:04 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-02-05 01:36:48 AM
They really shouldn't be called "Commandments", then.

Religion demands obedience and submission to their edicts and provide negative consequences (Hell) for those who don't obey; even one of the Commandments says that you can't have any other god above this one.

These atheist "commandments" aren't orders at all, rather suggestions on how to be a well adjusted, functioning member of society. There's no consequences involved with not adhering to them.
 
2013-02-05 02:16:05 AM
img.youtube.com
 
2013-02-05 06:49:39 AM
As an atheist, there's really only one "commandment" I try to live my life by.

Don't be an asshat (except on Fark)
 
2013-02-05 07:49:37 AM
Thou shall not laugh at believers for talking to their invisible friend in the sky
 
2013-02-05 07:52:34 AM

Dead for Tax Reasons: Thou shall not laugh at believers for talking to their invisible friend in the sky


picturespoilers.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-05 08:08:07 AM

Dead for Tax Reasons: Thou shall not laugh at believers for talking to their invisible friend in the sky


I can't see your dick, does that mean it doesn't exist?

/ BURN, THREAD, BURN
 
2013-02-05 08:08:22 AM

miss diminutive: They really shouldn't be called "Commandments", then.

Religion demands obedience and submission to their edicts and provide negative consequences (Hell) for those who don't obey; even one of the Commandments says that you can't have any other god above this one.

These atheist "commandments" aren't orders at all, rather suggestions on how to be a well adjusted, functioning member of society. There's no consequences involved with not adhering to them.


It's like atheists are expected to live through the application of reason.
 
2013-02-05 08:08:23 AM

OtherLittleGuy: Dead for Tax Reasons: Thou shall not laugh at believers for talking to their invisible friend in the sky

[picturespoilers.files.wordpress.com image 704x550]


Harvey > God
 
2013-02-05 08:09:50 AM
There is but one atheist commandment: reject God.

All else is handwaving and bluster.
 
2013-02-05 08:10:13 AM

miss diminutive: They really shouldn't be called "Commandments", then.

Religion demands obedience and submission to their edicts and provide negative consequences (Hell) for those who don't obey; even one of the Commandments says that you can't have any other god above this one.

These atheist "commandments" aren't orders at all, rather suggestions on how to be a well adjusted, functioning member of society. There's no consequences involved with not adhering to them.


Well, only the consequences Society agrees to, anyway.
 
2013-02-05 08:10:56 AM
Thou shalt be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nookie, and try REALLY hard not to kill anybody.

/Joe Bless You
 
2013-02-05 08:11:52 AM
i560.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-05 08:11:53 AM
religion is for teh weak, atheism included
 
2013-02-05 08:12:47 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: There is but one atheist commandment: reject God.

All else is handwaving and bluster.


Rejecting something acknowledges that it exists.
 
2013-02-05 08:13:20 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: There is but one atheist commandment: reject belief in a God.

All else is handwaving and bluster.


You left something out. Slight difference, there.
 
2013-02-05 08:13:28 AM
Oh great.  Ok everyone. Figure out if your children have become strangely absent.  They're on the menu if they haven't.

(I love deliberately misreading things)
 
2013-02-05 08:14:44 AM
Aw, man.

I thought half the fun of being an atheist was not having to obey a bunch of rules.
 
2013-02-05 08:14:59 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: religion is for teh weak, atheism included


Ooh. You almost got me. This one is good.
 
2013-02-05 08:15:12 AM

aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: There is but one atheist commandment: reject belief in a God.

All else is handwaving and bluster.

You left something out. Slight difference, there.


Being an atheist doesn't mean you have to reject that others can believe in God. Just that you reject God.
 
2013-02-05 08:15:34 AM
11. Don't be a dick because you have a different opinion

/actually thats for everyone
 
2013-02-05 08:15:35 AM
And unfortunately that article was about as long as the Book of Exodus.
 
2013-02-05 08:15:57 AM
It's not one of the Jewish commandments either, is it?
 
2013-02-05 08:16:14 AM
11. Popcorn: For the internet debates
 
2013-02-05 08:16:16 AM
Be excellent to each other.

/Party on, dudes.
 
2013-02-05 08:17:12 AM
Babies are for a special occasion. We can't just eat babies every day, its not healthy.

/I live by Wheaton's law.
//why remember 10, when you can remember 1?
 
2013-02-05 08:17:18 AM

The 10 Commandments for atheists.


It would be nice if everybody could/would use them.
 
2013-02-05 08:18:05 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: There is but one atheist commandment: reject belief in a God.

All else is handwaving and bluster.

You left something out. Slight difference, there.

Being an atheist doesn't mean you have to reject that others can believe in God. Just that you reject God.


Dude, you trollin' again? I accept that others' belief in God exists. I have none. I reject the concept as unsupported by reason or evidence.

Of course, if I did accept the existence of the Christian god, I would still reject it. I don't like genocide half as much as that asshole.
 
2013-02-05 08:18:16 AM
Those are good rules for anyone, faith or no.

And it almost sounds like he's reverse-engineering Buddhism from the ground up...
 
2013-02-05 08:19:28 AM

aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: There is but one atheist commandment: reject belief in a God.

All else is handwaving and bluster.

You left something out. Slight difference, there.

Being an atheist doesn't mean you have to reject that others can believe in God. Just that you reject God.

Dude, you trollin' again? I accept that others' belief in God exists. I have none. I reject the concept as unsupported by reason or evidence.

Of course, if I did accept the existence of the Christian god, I would still reject it. I don't like genocide half as much as that asshole.


Refuse to believe in God, Reject God. Eh. It's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.
 
2013-02-05 08:19:29 AM
This guy's right and so is everyone else in this thread.  Religion is just silly! All it's ever done is provide a structure for the complex questions that each and every person feels deep within their own being! I mean, who gives a crap about that stuff?
 
2013-02-05 08:19:56 AM
Why would this list be exclusively for atheists?  Everyone should be generally in line with this.
 
2013-02-05 08:20:20 AM
God already did it

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-02-05 08:20:54 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Being an atheist doesn't mean you have to reject that others can believe in God. Just that you reject God.


Hmmm. I'm an agnostic pantheist, but I know that people who say they believe in god are lying. And so do they.
 
2013-02-05 08:21:06 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: There is but one atheist commandment: reject belief in a God.

All else is handwaving and bluster.

You left something out. Slight difference, there.

Being an atheist doesn't mean you have to reject that others can believe in God. Just that you reject God.

Dude, you trollin' again? I accept that others' belief in God exists. I have none. I reject the concept as unsupported by reason or evidence.

Of course, if I did accept the existence of the Christian god, I would still reject it. I don't like genocide half as much as that asshole.

Refuse to believe in God, Reject God. Eh. It's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.


Belief in the legitimacy/supremacy/necessity/goodness of a being is one thing. Its existence, completely another.
 
2013-02-05 08:21:08 AM
Quick, someone tell Dawkins about #10... Confidence is not arrogance.

/not a theist.
 
2013-02-05 08:21:16 AM
Don't eat where you poop?
 
2013-02-05 08:21:33 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Dead for Tax Reasons: Thou shall not laugh at believers for talking to their invisible friend in the sky

I can't see your dick, does that mean it doesn't exist?

Maybe you should turn around.
 Maybe

 
2013-02-05 08:22:37 AM
Even though what the guy who came up with the 10 commandments for atheists seems well intentioned the very idea of accepting a codified set of rules seems silly.

It implies atheists lack a structure to live by, and that is true, but why do we need to build a new structure in the place of religion?

If we are to build such a structure to replace the old I suggest we model ourselves after the Fonz and just be cool.
 
2013-02-05 08:23:47 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: There is but one atheist commandment: reject God.

All else is handwaving and bluster.




"Put no other god before me*" appears in other religions.
Nothing unusual there.

/Just that "god" will be played by the part of Richard Dawkins or yourself.
/...tho there are man centric religions too.
 
2013-02-05 08:24:05 AM
The problem I always had with the original 10 commandments was the Supreme being wasted a lot on "Hey don't disrespect me". I mean really, God sends down rules and he is obsessed with people loving him.
 
2013-02-05 08:24:33 AM
Well that was obnoxious on every level. Mankind is the only animal that believes the deity sits up nights admiring him.

/Is it Friday yet? I want a hot dog.
 
2013-02-05 08:26:33 AM

domo_kun_sai: The problem I always had with the original 10 commandments was the Supreme being wasted a lot on "Hey don't disrespect me". I mean really, God sends down rules and he is obsessed with people loving him.


Maybe he had something to hide, like "I'm not really the Supreme being, but this one tribe of sheep farkers thinks I am."
 
2013-02-05 08:26:44 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Dead for Tax Reasons: Thou shall not laugh at believers for talking to their invisible friend in the sky

I can't see your dick, does that mean it doesn't exist?

/ BURN, THREAD, BURN


If I couldn't see it, I would believe I was obese
 
2013-02-05 08:27:28 AM

way south: /Just that "god" will be played by the part of Richard Dawkins or yourself.
/...tho there are man centric religions too.


I don't think the comparison between worship of the self and worship of an external entity is a fair one. Worship of an outside force is linked inextricably with obeisance, and self "worship" does not have that downside.
 
2013-02-05 08:28:54 AM
Ah yes, this guy. He was the guy who made a splash a while ago for suggesting that there were certain aspects of religion that atheists should adopt for both holistic and PR reasons, and most of what I've read about him since then has been along those same lines. As such, I tend to have mixed feelings. On the one hand I understand that people find comfort, grounding, and community in ceremony, codes, traditions, etc., so I don't object to that, per se - do what you need to do to stay sane.

However, I also tend to agree a lot with a few criticisms of his ideas. First, part of what gives religion its ability to gain/retain adherents is its coerciveness. At the worst, this can be "do X or Hell," but even in more positive communities, you're still getting a message that "belonging to X is a better way/the best way/the only way to truly live." An atheist community won't have that luxury of being able to say that. We've already got a religion that draws from various traditions but doesn't make you believe any of them: The Unitarian Universalists. They can be nice people, but they lack a great deal of what people find motivating about religion.

The second criticism I agree with is that it's incredibly condescending and paternalistic to imply "Well, the little people are so stupid that they will never break free from harmful religions unless we introduce a pseudo-religion to act as a palatable substitute." Not only is this tremendously disrespectful to people that you want as your allies, but many of the people who have left religious communities are very, very sensitive to any institution that tries to establish creeds, create organized structures for endorsing standards of behavior, or act authoritarian. Some atheists admire or miss religious traditions and might be open to the idea, but a lot of them want absolutely nothing to do with anything that even resembles a religion, so if you tell them there's an "atheist church" that they ought to join they will tell you you ought to go fark yourself.
 
2013-02-05 08:28:58 AM
Okay, so the list has nothing specifically to do with atheists. It has nothing to do with the concept of "10 commandments" - a term that was apparently just spontaneously and arbitrarily chosen. It's a generic list of suggestions on how to be a good/happy person that could apply to anyone.

de Button is an atheist who is so in love with religion that he can't see anything outside of that box as any kind of cognitive framework for understanding.

He's constantly pulling crap like this.
 
2013-02-05 08:28:59 AM
Hitch did it.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNtsq3LYl1E
8 is the best.
NSFW language.
 
2013-02-05 08:29:32 AM
Those arent for atheists. They are for people.
 
2013-02-05 08:29:43 AM
Also, what the hell kind of word is REPSHSFHC? Was he starting out on one of those self help acronyms, had a few brandys too many, and just went "fark it, ten commandments"
 
2013-02-05 08:29:55 AM

domo_kun_sai: The problem I always had with the original 10 commandments was the Supreme being wasted a lot on "Hey don't disrespect me". I mean really, God sends down rules and he is obsessed with people loving him.


He has problems with sexual inadequacy; it manifests in other areas. I mean, just one liason with that Mary chick, and that's it man; that's his whole love life. 2000 years of pent-up sexuality. Why do you think he hates it when his creations get all that crazy, spider-monkey sex, but he's but pounding his divine Pud ever since that one (probably completely un-landscaped) Middle-Eastern chick.

Dude is chafin'.
 
2013-02-05 08:30:39 AM

nerftaig: way south: /Just that "god" will be played by the part of Richard Dawkins or yourself.
/...tho there are man centric religions too.

I don't think the comparison between worship of the self and worship of an external entity is a fair one. Worship of an outside force is linked inextricably with obeisance, and self "worship" does not have that downside.


Good insight.
 
2013-02-05 08:30:51 AM

domo_kun_sai: The problem I always had with the original 10 commandments was the Supreme being wasted a lot on "Hey don't disrespect me". I mean really, God sends down rules and he is obsessed with people loving him.


Helped maintain the idea of monotheism to a tiny minority of people for millennia. I wonder if we'd all be polyrheistic pagans if Jews didn't have those first few commandments.
 
2013-02-05 08:31:47 AM
What people like AverageAmericanTroll fail to grasp is that atheists also do not believe that Satan exists. Bad things happen in this world because bad human beings make them happen, and quite often they use "I'm doing God's Will" as an excuse for their bad behavior.
 
2013-02-05 08:33:51 AM

WordyGrrl: What people like AverageAmericanTroll fail to grasp is that atheists also do not believe that Satan exists. Bad things happen in this world because bad human beings make them happen, and quite often they use "I'm doing God's Will" as an excuse for their bad behavior.


I'm pretty sure that we humans haven't done anything to cause harlequin fetuses.

If you don't know what that is, don't GIS it at work.

//not safe for faith in a loving God
 
2013-02-05 08:34:52 AM
I'm not so much an atheist as an anti-theist. Damn the gods, as flies we are to them; they kill us for their sport. We should wipe them out when we get the chance.
 
2013-02-05 08:36:05 AM
So, is impaling babies on spikes still OK then?

/cake or death?
 
2013-02-05 08:36:16 AM

Nurglitch: I'm not so much an atheist as an anti-theist. Damn the gods, as flies we are to them; they kill us for their sport. We should wipe them out when we get the chance.


We're still trying to work out just how to fire missiles at right-angles to reality.
 
2013-02-05 08:44:10 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: There is but one atheist commandment: reject belief in a God.

All else is handwaving and bluster.

You left something out. Slight difference, there.

Being an atheist doesn't mean you have to reject that others can believe in God. Just that you reject God.

Dude, you trollin' again? I accept that others' belief in God exists. I have none. I reject the concept as unsupported by reason or evidence.

Of course, if I did accept the existence of the Christian god, I would still reject it. I don't like genocide half as much as that asshole.

Refuse to believe in God, Reject God. Eh. It's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.


How can I "reject" that which I never possessed the capacity to accept to begin with? Would you say that I "refuse" to sprout wings and fly? It may not be as easy to comprehend what goes on in other people's heads as you seem to think it is.
 
2013-02-05 08:46:32 AM

jso2897: AverageAmericanGuy: aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: There is but one atheist commandment: reject belief in a God.

All else is handwaving and bluster.

You left something out. Slight difference, there.

Being an atheist doesn't mean you have to reject that others can believe in God. Just that you reject God.

Dude, you trollin' again? I accept that others' belief in God exists. I have none. I reject the concept as unsupported by reason or evidence.

Of course, if I did accept the existence of the Christian god, I would still reject it. I don't like genocide half as much as that asshole.

Refuse to believe in God, Reject God. Eh. It's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

How can I "reject" that which I never possessed the capacity to accept to begin with? Would you say that I "refuse" to sprout wings and fly? It may not be as easy to comprehend what goes on in other people's heads as you seem to think it is.


Do you accept that there are people who believe in God?
 
2013-02-05 08:46:51 AM
Joe Peanut - So, is impaling babies on spikes still OK then?
/cake or death
?

I didn't realize there would be such a run on cake!
 
2013-02-05 08:48:13 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: jso2897: AverageAmericanGuy: aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: There is but one atheist commandment: reject belief in a God.

All else is handwaving and bluster.

You left something out. Slight difference, there.

Being an atheist doesn't mean you have to reject that others can believe in God. Just that you reject God.

Dude, you trollin' again? I accept that others' belief in God exists. I have none. I reject the concept as unsupported by reason or evidence.

Of course, if I did accept the existence of the Christian god, I would still reject it. I don't like genocide half as much as that asshole.

Refuse to believe in God, Reject God. Eh. It's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

How can I "reject" that which I never possessed the capacity to accept to begin with? Would you say that I "refuse" to sprout wings and fly? It may not be as easy to comprehend what goes on in other people's heads as you seem to think it is.

Do you accept that there are people who believe in God?


Only grudgingly. It depresses me.
 
2013-02-05 08:48:32 AM

jso2897: Would you say that I "refuse" to sprout wings and fly?


I'm stealing that.

Belief is mostly on auto-pilot. I'm either convinced of something, or not.
 
2013-02-05 08:50:12 AM
Ugh.  Alain de Button?  Really?  This guy is one of the most aggravating, empty-headed accommodationists among well-known atheists.  This is a guy who desperately wants atheism be like religion, and model it after quasi-secular humanist values, because apparently he misses all the empty rhetoric, rituals and structure of organized religion.  And then he gets all pissy when a lot of atheists point out the obvious: that atheism isn't a religion, and a lot of us don't want anything to do with de Button's efforts to cope with the misplaced nostalgia he has for Sunday mass.

Atheism is simply a disbelief in the supernatural, you're kinda on your own to figure out your personal life philosophy after that.
 
2013-02-05 08:52:25 AM

aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: jso2897:

How can I "reject" that which I never possessed the capacity to accept to begin with? Would you say that I "refuse" to sprout wings and fly? It may not be as easy to comprehend what goes on in other people's heads as you seem to think it is.

Do you accept that there are people who believe in God?

Only grudgingly. It depresses me.


And you refuse to also believe?
 
2013-02-05 08:52:40 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: jso2897: AverageAmericanGuy: aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: There is but one atheist commandment: reject belief in a God.

All else is handwaving and bluster.

You left something out. Slight difference, there.

Being an atheist doesn't mean you have to reject that others can believe in God. Just that you reject God.

Dude, you trollin' again? I accept that others' belief in God exists. I have none. I reject the concept as unsupported by reason or evidence.

Of course, if I did accept the existence of the Christian god, I would still reject it. I don't like genocide half as much as that asshole.

Refuse to believe in God, Reject God. Eh. It's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

How can I "reject" that which I never possessed the capacity to accept to begin with? Would you say that I "refuse" to sprout wings and fly? It may not be as easy to comprehend what goes on in other people's heads as you seem to think it is.

Do you accept that there are people who believe in God?


I accept that there are people who say they do - and I can't question it, because I have no real idea of what they are talking about. If someone said they believed in "Bippityboppityboo" I wouldn't be in any position to argue with them, either.
 
2013-02-05 08:55:03 AM
Here's a pretty good list of guiding principles from an atheist-friendly church.

The inherent worth and dignity of every person;Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
 
2013-02-05 08:55:52 AM

DubtodaIll: This guy's right and so is everyone else in this thread.  Religion is just silly! All it's ever done is provide a structure for the complex questions that each and every person feels deep within their own being! I mean, who gives a crap about that stuff?


Bullshiat, there is not a single question "deep within my own being" that requires some invisible friend to tell me the answer to. "Why am I here?" A random sequence of amino acids came together in such a sequence that I turned out to be a human, rather than delicious bacon.

"Should I kill that guy?" No, if I am allowed to go around killing random dudes, other random dudes are within their rights to kill me as well, and that would suck. Do onto others, etc...
 
2013-02-05 08:56:30 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: jso2897:

How can I "reject" that which I never possessed the capacity to accept to begin with? Would you say that I "refuse" to sprout wings and fly? It may not be as easy to comprehend what goes on in other people's heads as you seem to think it is.

Do you accept that there are people who believe in God?

Only grudgingly. It depresses me.

And you refuse to also believe?


If you're seriously leading up to the idea that not believing in the existence of something is the same as rejecting it, perhaps you'd let me know why you've rejected the check for $1m that I just placed in your hands
 
2013-02-05 08:57:40 AM

Zugswang: Ugh.  Alain de Button?  Really?  This guy is one of the most aggravating, empty-headed accommodationists among well-known atheists.  This is a guy who desperately wants atheism be like religion, and model it after quasi-secular humanist values, because apparently he misses all the empty rhetoric, rituals and structure of organized religion.  And then he gets all pissy when a lot of atheists point out the obvious: that atheism isn't a religion, and a lot of us don't want anything to do with de Button's efforts to cope with the misplaced nostalgia he has for Sunday mass.

Atheism is simply a disbelief in the supernatural, you're kinda on your own to figure out your personal life philosophy after that.


I'm unfamiliar with the man himself, but the symptoms he displays can certainly be seen in many Fark posters I otherwise respect: defacto atheists or agnostics, many of which have mostly freed themselves from religion, but nonetheless cannot shake off that misplaced and unearned sense of respect for it.

It's very much like a scar upon one's ability to reason.
 
2013-02-05 08:58:44 AM
Thou shalt not murder, lie, steal, ... LULZ just kidding (only retards would be dumb enough to fall for that stuff)

1.  We own Science, so be sure to use a smug tone when condescending to the muggles "aka religious folk"
2.  We own Logic and Reason, so constantly remind the religious people how irrational they are.
3.  The only things that deserve worship is that beautiful most perfect person In The Mirror, and if you have time give praise to the saints Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Nietzsche, PZ Meyers, etc..
4.  It's OK to pretend to tolerate the lesser of our kind who invoke the saying "I'm OK you're OK", since they are the only way we can infiltrate the religious and  subvert their moral base, but in the end just remember not to make it too obvious that you are pretending, even morans will accidentally notice if you over do it.
5.  Openly mock the religious people and slander them by any means possible.  But worry not, the retards aren't intelligent enough to notice, and even the ones that do think they must be polite when taking abuse, lulz, so let them have it don't hold back.
6.  I'm OK you're OK.  (wink wink nudge nudge)
7.  Hate God with all your Body, Spirit and Mind
8.  Nature is stuff you can touch with your tongue.
9.  Sex, drugs and rock n roll... FOR SCIENCE!!1! vote democrat
10.   Kill all the Christians and any sympathizers, lolz just kidding, I'm OK you're OK, seriously though yeah.
 
2013-02-05 08:58:58 AM
Is this where the atheist "we're better than religious people" wank is going on?

/because sky wizards and science and stuff, right guys?
 
2013-02-05 09:00:44 AM

DammitIForgotMyLogin: AverageAmericanGuy: aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: jso2897:

How can I "reject" that which I never possessed the capacity to accept to begin with? Would you say that I "refuse" to sprout wings and fly? It may not be as easy to comprehend what goes on in other people's heads as you seem to think it is.

Do you accept that there are people who believe in God?

Only grudgingly. It depresses me.

And you refuse to also believe?

If you're seriously leading up to the idea that not believing in the existence of something is the same as rejecting it, perhaps you'd let me know why you've rejected the check for $1m that I just placed in your hands


Forget it; he's trollin'.

He knows perfectly well that conflating the two concepts is a highly effective way to push an atheist's buttons.
 
2013-02-05 09:01:12 AM
aagrajag:  We're still trying to work out just how to fire missiles at right-angles to reality.

We almost had it before Glenn Beck's reality distortion field crapped out on us. It still might be worth firing a missile at him just to see what happens.
 
2013-02-05 09:01:50 AM
Uggghhh... de Botton again. I really can't stand that guy and his incessant need to make atheism as ritualistic as organized religions. This is the same guy who suggested that atheists should go to atheist church so they can have the same sense of ritual and community that organized religions do.

DammitIForgotMyLogin: As an atheist, there's really only one "commandment" I try to live my life by.

Don't be an asshat (except on Fark)


That's all you need. Pretty much every positive aspect of society can be derived from this very simple rule.
 
2013-02-05 09:04:13 AM

DammitIForgotMyLogin: AverageAmericanGuy: aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: jso2897:

How can I "reject" that which I never possessed the capacity to accept to begin with? Would you say that I "refuse" to sprout wings and fly? It may not be as easy to comprehend what goes on in other people's heads as you seem to think it is.

Do you accept that there are people who believe in God?

Only grudgingly. It depresses me.

And you refuse to also believe?

If you're seriously leading up to the idea that not believing in the existence of something is the same as rejecting it, perhaps you'd let me know why you've rejected the check for $1m that I just placed in your hands


Are you comparing a physical thing (a check) with a spiritual thing (God)?
 
2013-02-05 09:04:26 AM

Martian_Astronomer: Ah yes, this guy.


Aaaannnndddd, I see you beat me to the punch with a much more thorough explanation of this guy than I gave. ;)
 
2013-02-05 09:04:41 AM

Joe Peanut: So, is impaling babies on spikes still OK then?

/cake or death?


Only if you are sacking Harfleur.


/once more unto the breach
 
2013-02-05 09:04:41 AM

I drunk what: Thou shalt not murder, lie, steal, ... LULZ just kidding (only retards would be dumb enough to fall for that stuff)

1.  We own Science, so be sure to use a smug tone when condescending to the muggles "aka religious folk"
2.  We own Logic and Reason, so constantly remind the religious people how irrational they are.
3.  The only things that deserve worship is that beautiful most perfect person In The Mirror, and if you have time give praise to the saints Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Nietzsche, PZ Meyers, etc..
4.  It's OK to pretend to tolerate the lesser of our kind who invoke the saying "I'm OK you're OK", since they are the only way we can infiltrate the religious and  subvert their moral base, but in the end just remember not to make it too obvious that you are pretending, even morans will accidentally notice if you over do it.
5.  Openly mock the religious people and slander them by any means possible.  But worry not, the retards aren't intelligent enough to notice, and even the ones that do think they must be polite when taking abuse, lulz, so let them have it don't hold back.
6.  I'm OK you're OK.  (wink wink nudge nudge)
7.  Hate God with all your Body, Spirit and Mind
8.  Nature is stuff you can touch with your tongue.
9.  Sex, drugs and rock n roll... FOR SCIENCE!!1! vote democrat
10.   Kill all the Christians and any sympathizers, lolz just kidding, I'm OK you're OK, seriously though yeah.


Makes as much sense to me as any other set of "commandments" - which is to say, none at all.
For the concept of a "commandment" to be meaningful to me, the questions "Who is doing the commanding, and on the basis of what authority?" would have to be answered. I can neither accept nor reject that which is meaningless to me.
 
2013-02-05 09:04:53 AM

SewerSquirrels: aagrajag:  We're still trying to work out just how to fire missiles at right-angles to reality.

We almost had it before Glenn Beck's reality distortion field crapped out on us. It still might be worth firing a missile at him just to see what happens.


I think he's operating in something more akin to an SEP-field, personally.

I wouldn't recommend it; the effects could be unpredictable.
 
2013-02-05 09:07:33 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: DammitIForgotMyLogin: AverageAmericanGuy: aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: jso2897:

How can I "reject" that which I never possessed the capacity to accept to begin with? Would you say that I "refuse" to sprout wings and fly? It may not be as easy to comprehend what goes on in other people's heads as you seem to think it is.

Do you accept that there are people who believe in God?

Only grudgingly. It depresses me.

And you refuse to also believe?

If you're seriously leading up to the idea that not believing in the existence of something is the same as rejecting it, perhaps you'd let me know why you've rejected the check for $1m that I just placed in your hands

Are you comparing a physical thing (a check) with a spiritual thing (God)?


Note that AverageAmericanGuy has now subtly shifted the argument such that it now rests upon the definition of "spiritual". Which is easily one of the most vague, hazy concepts evar. You can't win here, guys.
 
2013-02-05 09:07:39 AM
First (and only) Commandment: Try not to be a dick.*


*We don't insist that you succeed every time, so long as it was an honest attempt.
 
2013-02-05 09:09:04 AM
The way atheism seems to be presented strikes as more anti-theism.   I would imagine most atheist really have no problem with belief in a god and are really just upset at the practice of religion.

Bill Maher is an excellent example.  He doesn't seem to be atheist, more anti-religion.  I am tending to go the other way in my life and would almost deem myself an alltheist.  I have always found it interesting that mankind of all ages and locations (even isolated) come to believe that there is something out there greater than ourselves.  I have no problem believing in god or that a god exists; my problem lies with religions and their practices.  I never understood why every religion claims their god/deity is infinite in power but finite in name.

I think a world without god would be a horrible place;  a world without religions (in current form) would be a good start.
 
2013-02-05 09:11:09 AM

Hyjamon: The way atheism seems to be presented strikes as more anti-theism.   I would imagine most atheist really have no problem with belief in a god and are really just upset at the practice of religion.

Bill Maher is an excellent example.  He doesn't seem to be atheist, more anti-religion.  I am tending to go the other way in my life and would almost deem myself an alltheist.  I have always found it interesting that mankind of all ages and locations (even isolated) come to believe that there is something out there greater than ourselves.  I have no problem believing in god or that a god exists; my problem lies with religions and their practices.  I never understood why every religion claims their god/deity is infinite in power but finite in name.

I think a world without god would be a horrible place;  a world without religions (in current form) would be a good start.


That depends on the god. Frankly, I'd take the Shrike over Yahweh.
 
2013-02-05 09:11:29 AM
The Eight "I'd really rather you didn'ts" anyone?
 
2013-02-05 09:13:14 AM

I drunk what: lulz


Quit stealing Jon is teh kewl's shtick.
 
2013-02-05 09:13:18 AM

aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: DammitIForgotMyLogin: AverageAmericanGuy: aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: jso2897:

How can I "reject" that which I never possessed the capacity to accept to begin with? Would you say that I "refuse" to sprout wings and fly? It may not be as easy to comprehend what goes on in other people's heads as you seem to think it is.

Do you accept that there are people who believe in God?

Only grudgingly. It depresses me.

And you refuse to also believe?

If you're seriously leading up to the idea that not believing in the existence of something is the same as rejecting it, perhaps you'd let me know why you've rejected the check for $1m that I just placed in your hands

Are you comparing a physical thing (a check) with a spiritual thing (God)?

Note that AverageAmericanGuy has now subtly shifted the argument such that it now rests upon the definition of "spiritual". Which is easily one of the most vague, hazy concepts evar. You can't win here, guys.


Is this a contest? What is to be "won" here? For my part, I'm always willing to give somebody a listen - but sometimes, people are not able to explain what they are talking about in a way that is meaningful to me.
This is not necessarily a failing on their part, either. I don't "reject" ideas that I simply lack the frame of reference to process. But, neither can I accept them.
 
2013-02-05 09:15:05 AM

Hyjamon: I think a world without god would be a horrible place


Oh, I don't know about that. This universe seems pretty impressive so far. I'm sorry you think it's so horrible. ;)

/joking
//though from my perspective, the universe is wondeful and awesome, and I've never found any sign of any deity aside from stories told by other people
///but believe what you want as long as actions resulting from your beliefs don't infringe the rights of others; I'll do the same. :)
 
2013-02-05 09:16:50 AM

Hyjamon: I think a world without god would be a horrible place;


The belief in a god is a symptom of a more rudimentary problem - a staggering lack of critical thinking and evidence-based investigation. While most theists manage to compartmentalize their theistic beliefs from most of their day-to-day decision making, the same ineptitude towards applying rational, logical thought patterns to other decisions in their lives is more likely to hamper their capacity to make wise ones. It's "faith based thinking" - superstitious thinking that one has to practice skepticism and critical thinking to override. If you're out of practice/habit in applying that on a regular basis, you're more likely to believe in a god, and more likely be making other poor decisions because you aren't regularly applying skepticism/critical thinking.

The world would be a much better place if people were rational, skeptical and critical thinkers. That would be mutually exclusive with a theistic world.
 
2013-02-05 09:17:16 AM

Hyjamon: I think a world without god would be a horrible place


The thing is, whether the world would be a better place with a god or without one is entirely and completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not there actually is one
 
2013-02-05 09:17:28 AM
Alain de Botton's 10 commandments for non-believers could be a civilising influence on modern life, says Judith Woods.
Who the FARK is this Alain ass hat and who cares what he, she, it says?
Who died and left him, she, it boss?  Who the hell is Judith Woods?  Is that the person I had hanging off the headboard a few weeks ago?  Mother Theresa's erring sister?

How about Arrogance?  Is that good?  Alain and Judith seem to be full of it so it must be good.


Alain de Botton's 'list for life'

Resilience: Keeping going even when things are looking dark.
Empathy: The capacity to connect imaginatively with the sufferings and unique experiences of another person.
Patience: We should grow calmer and more forgiving by being more realistic about how things actually happen.
Sacrifice: We won't ever manage to raise a family, love someone else or save the planet if we don't keep up with the art of sacrifice.
Politeness: Politeness is closely linked to tolerance, -the capacity to live alongside people whom one will never agree with, but at the same time, cannot avoid.
Humour: Like anger, humour springs from disappointment, but it is disappointment optimally channelled.
Self-awareness: To know oneself is to try not to blame others for one's troubles and moods; to have a sense of what's going on inside oneself, and what actually belongs to the world.Forgiveness: It's recognising that living with others is not possible without excusing errors.
Hope: Pessimism is not necessarily deep, nor optimism shallow.
Confidence: Confidence is not arrogance - rather, it is based on a constant awareness of how short life is and how little we will ultimately lose from risking everything.


I have lived long enough to understand the depth of meaning when one utters the words - Drop. Dead.
 
2013-02-05 09:17:45 AM

jso2897: aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: DammitIForgotMyLogin: AverageAmericanGuy: aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: jso2897:

How can I "reject" that which I never possessed the capacity to accept to begin with? Would you say that I "refuse" to sprout wings and fly? It may not be as easy to comprehend what goes on in other people's heads as you seem to think it is.

Do you accept that there are people who believe in God?

Only grudgingly. It depresses me.

And you refuse to also believe?

If you're seriously leading up to the idea that not believing in the existence of something is the same as rejecting it, perhaps you'd let me know why you've rejected the check for $1m that I just placed in your hands

Are you comparing a physical thing (a check) with a spiritual thing (God)?

Note that AverageAmericanGuy has now subtly shifted the argument such that it now rests upon the definition of "spiritual". Which is easily one of the most vague, hazy concepts evar. You can't win here, guys.

Is this a contest? What is to be "won" here? For my part, I'm always willing to give somebody a listen - but sometimes, people are not able to explain what they are talking about in a way that is meaningful to me.
This is not necessarily a failing on their part, either. I don't "reject" ideas that I simply lack the frame of reference to process. But, neither can I accept them.


AAG is a smart guy. He knows perfectly well what he's talking about, but feigns ignorance and an inability to unambiguously express himself, for that would end the game. He's already been clearly explained the difference that he professes to not understand, but pointedly ignores that.

Meh; it's a hobby.
 
2013-02-05 09:18:49 AM
AKA: 10 ways to not be a pretentious twat.
 
2013-02-05 09:20:35 AM

give me doughnuts: First (and only) Commandment: Try not to be a dick.


All else is commentary.
 
hej
2013-02-05 09:21:25 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Dead for Tax Reasons: Thou shall not laugh at believers for talking to their invisible friend in the sky

I can't see your dick, does that mean it doesn't exist?

/ BURN, THREAD, BURN


Are you asking him to show it to you?
 
2013-02-05 09:27:17 AM

Drasancas: Hyjamon: I think a world without god would be a horrible place;

The belief in a god is a symptom of a more rudimentary problem - a staggering lack of critical thinking and evidence-based investigation. While most theists manage to compartmentalize their theistic beliefs from most of their day-to-day decision making, the same ineptitude towards applying rational, logical thought patterns to other decisions in their lives is more likely to hamper their capacity to make wise ones. It's "faith based thinking" - superstitious thinking that one has to practice skepticism and critical thinking to override. If you're out of practice/habit in applying that on a regular basis, you're more likely to believe in a god, and more likely be making other poor decisions because you aren't regularly applying skepticism/critical thinking.

The world would be a much better place if people were rational, skeptical and critical thinkers. That would be mutually exclusive with a theistic world.


Wow, that's a mighty broad brush you're painting with. I think you might have painted over some of the details there.

/I disagree, categorically, that a belief in God and being a rational thinker are mutually exclusive.
 
2013-02-05 09:28:59 AM
I have two rules.


·If you can't be a mensch, don't be a dick.


·Do not needlessly cause others pain.


That's all you need.
 
2013-02-05 09:30:28 AM

aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: DammitIForgotMyLogin: AverageAmericanGuy: aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: jso2897:

How can I "reject" that which I never possessed the capacity to accept to begin with? Would you say that I "refuse" to sprout wings and fly? It may not be as easy to comprehend what goes on in other people's heads as you seem to think it is.

Do you accept that there are people who believe in God?

Only grudgingly. It depresses me.

And you refuse to also believe?

If you're seriously leading up to the idea that not believing in the existence of something is the same as rejecting it, perhaps you'd let me know why you've rejected the check for $1m that I just placed in your hands

Are you comparing a physical thing (a check) with a spiritual thing (God)?

Note that AverageAmericanGuy has now subtly shifted the argument such that it now rests upon the definition of "spiritual". Which is easily one of the most vague, hazy concepts evar. You can't win here, guys.


can you touch it with your tongue? No. then it's not real and your an idiot who believes in unicorns, fairies and invisible sky wizards

you should not be allowed to own firearms

nice try religious retards
 
2013-02-05 09:30:56 AM
The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth
by Anton Szandor LaVey ©1967

1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.

2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.

3. When in another's lair, show him respect or else do not go there.

4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.

5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.

6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.

7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.

8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.

9. Do not harm little children.

10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.

11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.
 
2013-02-05 09:31:11 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Dead for Tax Reasons: Thou shall not laugh at believers for talking to their invisible friend in the sky

I can't see your dick, does that mean it doesn't exist?

/ BURN, THREAD, BURN


I can show you my dick, shove it in your mouth where you can taste it, shove it in your ass where you can feel it. Now then how about your god, can I see your god? No? Feel it? No? Taste it? No? Smell it? No? Hear it? No?

You must be delusional then, because if you told me that you a had an invisible, intangible, unknowable aardvark I'd think they were delusional.
 
2013-02-05 09:32:45 AM

Voiceofreason01: Drasancas: Hyjamon: I think a world without god would be a horrible place;

The belief in a god is a symptom of a more rudimentary problem - a staggering lack of critical thinking and evidence-based investigation. While most theists manage to compartmentalize their theistic beliefs from most of their day-to-day decision making, the same ineptitude towards applying rational, logical thought patterns to other decisions in their lives is more likely to hamper their capacity to make wise ones. It's "faith based thinking" - superstitious thinking that one has to practice skepticism and critical thinking to override. If you're out of practice/habit in applying that on a regular basis, you're more likely to believe in a god, and more likely be making other poor decisions because you aren't regularly applying skepticism/critical thinking.

The world would be a much better place if people were rational, skeptical and critical thinkers. That would be mutually exclusive with a theistic world.

Wow, that's a mighty broad brush you're painting with. I think you might have painted over some of the details there.

/I disagree, categorically, that a belief in God and being a rational thinker are mutually exclusive.


I see you capitalised that word. Humanity has believed in hundreds of thousands of gods, many of which cannot even co-exist in the same universe as described. Are they all equally likely to exist? Some must be sillier than others.

If a person tells me that an invisible being wants something from me, I require some proof of its reality. Pleasing all the world's gods just isn't possible.

Belief in a god is not intrinsically irrational, but it doesn't bode well for the lifestyle of the believer.
 
2013-02-05 09:34:09 AM
Voiceofreason01 /I disagree, categorically, that a belief in God and being a rational thinker are mutually exclusive.

That's nice, but without citing anything you just reject the argument you don't engage in it. If you want to provoke a discussion you have to start talking not just shut down.

Throwing your hands up and going "I DISAGREE" is silly. Come on now you are better than that.
 
2013-02-05 09:35:11 AM
aagrajag:
I see you capitalised that word. Humanity has believed in hundreds of thousands of gods, many of which cannot even co-exist in the same universe as described. Are they all equally likely to exist? Some must be sillier than others.

If a person tells me that an invisible being wants something from me, I require some proof of its reality. Pleasing all the world's gods just isn't possible.

Belief in a god is not intrinsically irrational, but it doesn't bode well for the lifestyle of the believer.


Wow, sophistry is one of your strong points isn't it.

10/10 - I thought you might be serious for a minute
 
2013-02-05 09:38:19 AM

Voiceofreason01: aagrajag:
I see you capitalised that word. Humanity has believed in hundreds of thousands of gods, many of which cannot even co-exist in the same universe as described. Are they all equally likely to exist? Some must be sillier than others.

If a person tells me that an invisible being wants something from me, I require some proof of its reality. Pleasing all the world's gods just isn't possible.

Belief in a god is not intrinsically irrational, but it doesn't bode well for the lifestyle of the believer.

Wow, sophistry is one of your strong points isn't it.

10/10 - I thought you might be serious for a minute


Perhaps you could elaborate on precisely what exactly, the sophistry is here which I've so expertly crafted.
 
2013-02-05 09:43:15 AM

nerftaig: Even though what the guy who came up with the 10 commandments for atheists seems well intentioned the very idea of accepting a codified set of rules seems silly.

It implies atheists lack a structure to live by, and that is true, but why do we need to build a new structure in the place of religion?

If we are to build such a structure to replace the old I suggest we model ourselves after the Fonz and just be cool.


I think it has use as PR. I've noticed that an awful lot of people think that all morality derives from religion, so atheists must necessarily be completely amoral.

See, for example, Justice Scalia, who argued (with a straight face) that if we did not allow religiously-derived laws (e.g. queers can't get married) there was no justification for outlawing murder.

It's BS, of course, there are plenty of ways to put together a moral framework that require neither deities nor their scriptures.

So one of the best PR things atheism can do is to convince the world that atheists can be just as moral as anyone else.
 
2013-02-05 09:47:02 AM

nerftaig: Even though what the guy who came up with the 10 commandments for atheists seems well intentioned the very idea of accepting a codified set of rules seems silly.

It implies atheists lack a structure to live by, and that is true, but why do we need to build a new structure in the place of religion?

If we are to build such a structure to replace the old I suggest we model ourselves after the Fonz and just be cool.


Thou shalt not jumpeth the shark.

Okay, that sounds pretty good.
 
2013-02-05 09:48:17 AM

Voiceofreason01: I disagree, categorically, that a belief in God and being a rational thinker are mutually exclusive.


Belief in a God implies that your beliefs need not have supporting evidence, nor are they relinquished when confronted with refuting evidence.

Once beliefs become unmoored from reality (if they fail to be "marked to market"), they can lead you to some pretty bad and/or unproductive places.

Current example: the US Republican party. By carefully constructing a reality bubble around themselves, they're hurting themselves (see: Mitt Romney apparently sincerely believing the Benghazi talking points in the debates, and that he would win handily because the polls were skewed).
 
2013-02-05 09:49:25 AM

Gaseous Anomaly: nerftaig: Even though what the guy who came up with the 10 commandments for atheists seems well intentioned the very idea of accepting a codified set of rules seems silly.

It implies atheists lack a structure to live by, and that is true, but why do we need to build a new structure in the place of religion?

If we are to build such a structure to replace the old I suggest we model ourselves after the Fonz and just be cool.

I think it has use as PR. I've noticed that an awful lot of people think that all morality derives from religion, so atheists must necessarily be completely amoral.

See, for example, Justice Scalia, who argued (with a straight face) that if we did not allow religiously-derived laws (e.g. queers can't get married) there was no justification for outlawing murder.

It's BS, of course, there are plenty of ways to put together a moral framework that require neither deities nor their scriptures.

So one of the best PR things atheism can do is to convince the world that atheists can be just as moral as anyone else.


I think that is a PR strategy to avoided if possible. Agreeing to play by the other side's rules for no benefit is usually a bad idea. The existing adult generation of believers is difficult to chip away at, but that kind of accommodation would undermine efforts to reach the next generation. Further, it's inherently offensive: I haven't learned morality from a being that murdered almost every living thing on the planet in a fit of pique.
 
2013-02-05 09:50:12 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Dead for Tax Reasons: Thou shall not laugh at believers for talking to their invisible friend in the sky

I can't see your dick, does that mean it doesn't exist?

/ BURN, THREAD, BURN


But you CAN see my dick.  Just stop over one day after work - I'll show it to you.  Bring beer.

/SOME things are easily proven
//existence of god, not so much
 
2013-02-05 09:52:47 AM

CheekyMonkey: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Dead for Tax Reasons: Thou shall not laugh at believers for talking to their invisible friend in the sky

I can't see your dick, does that mean it doesn't exist?

/ BURN, THREAD, BURN

But you CAN see my dick.  Just stop over one day after work - I'll show it to you.  Bring beer.

/SOME things are easily proven
//existence of god, not so much


Well, that escalated quickly.
 
2013-02-05 09:54:31 AM

domo_kun_sai: The problem I always had with the original 10 commandments was the Supreme being wasted a lot on "Hey don't disrespect me". I mean really, God sends down rules and he is obsessed with people loving him.


Yeah, He's pretty petty, for an all-powerful, omniscient being.  It's almost as if Man created God in his own image...
 
2013-02-05 09:55:33 AM

aagrajag: Gaseous Anomaly: nerftaig: Even though what the guy who came up with the 10 commandments for atheists seems well intentioned the very idea of accepting a codified set of rules seems silly.

It implies atheists lack a structure to live by, and that is true, but why do we need to build a new structure in the place of religion?

If we are to build such a structure to replace the old I suggest we model ourselves after the Fonz and just be cool.

I think it has use as PR. I've noticed that an awful lot of people think that all morality derives from religion, so atheists must necessarily be completely amoral.

See, for example, Justice Scalia, who argued (with a straight face) that if we did not allow religiously-derived laws (e.g. queers can't get married) there was no justification for outlawing murder.

It's BS, of course, there are plenty of ways to put together a moral framework that require neither deities nor their scriptures.

So one of the best PR things atheism can do is to convince the world that atheists can be just as moral as anyone else.

I think that is a PR strategy to avoided if possible. Agreeing to play by the other side's rules for no benefit is usually a bad idea. The existing adult generation of believers is difficult to chip away at, but that kind of accommodation would undermine efforts to reach the next generation. Further, it's inherently offensive: I haven't learned morality from a being that murdered almost every living thing on the planet in a fit of pique.


I'll give you that - there are no doubt better ways to inform the world atheists can be moral than co-opting "commandments". I'm partial to the simple "You can be good without God" but that can no doubt be improved as well.
 
2013-02-05 09:56:02 AM

Gaseous Anomaly: nerftaig: Even though what the guy who came up with the 10 commandments for atheists seems well intentioned the very idea of accepting a codified set of rules seems silly.

It implies atheists lack a structure to live by, and that is true, but why do we need to build a new structure in the place of religion?

If we are to build such a structure to replace the old I suggest we model ourselves after the Fonz and just be cool.

I think it has use as PR. I've noticed that an awful lot of people think that all morality derives from religion, so atheists must necessarily be completely amoral.

See, for example, Justice Scalia, who argued (with a straight face) that if we did not allow religiously-derived laws (e.g. queers can't get married) there was no justification for outlawing murder.

It's BS, of course, there are plenty of ways to put together a moral framework that require neither deities nor their scriptures.

So one of the best PR things atheism can do is to convince the world that atheists can be just as moral as anyone else.


The very idea of making a list for other atheists to follow says to me that atheists are immoral and need a list. It seems counterproductive to me.

It implies that atheists are lacking something fundamental, and need to fill a gap left by religion. I would argue that gap does not exist, but that is an argument about whether morality is inherent and not really the point here.

If you are suggesting that this is merely a publicity stunt to prove that us atheists are good people and don't secretly have horns and eat babies, then I think it is actually a morally reprehensible thing. We don't have to prove ourselves to anybody. fark 'em. (Also if we construct some narrative about being morally virtuous through a list of rules it makes us look bad)
 
2013-02-05 09:58:26 AM

According to George Carlin you only need two:

http://www.dvrbs.com/world/GeorgeCarlin-TheTenCommandments.htm

Thou shalt always be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nookie.

&
Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course they pray to a different invisible man than you.



Two is all you need; Moses could have carried them down the hill in his farkin' pocket. I wouldn't mind those folks in Alabama posting them on the courthouse wall, as long as they provided one additional commandment:

Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.
 
2013-02-05 09:59:19 AM
Too subjective and if taken seriously way too open to people getting "fundamentalist" like about it.

We already have some batshiat crazy groups trying to turn the conventions in to their own personal pet causes, particularly militant feminists.
 
2013-02-05 10:01:44 AM
I'm a lifelong diehard atheist, but I highly respect and admire those who devote their lives to their religion. Monasteries and churches are my favorite places to visit when I go to Europe. There's something so warm, mysterious and awesome about them despite my utter contempt for actual religion and religious organizations.

I'm strange, aren't I?
 
2013-02-05 10:03:14 AM
"Don't think that you are any smarter than the next person even if they are a believer." should be added to that list.  Or simply, "Don't be a smug son-of-a-biatch."
 
2013-02-05 10:04:09 AM

Free Radical: AverageAmericanGuy: There is but one atheist commandment: reject God.

All else is handwaving and bluster.

Rejecting something acknowledges that it exists.


Here's a really great video (that I didn't make) that explains why believers feel rejection and act angry when confronted with the fact that atheists exist.

The Real God: An Epiphany by DarkMatter2525
 
2013-02-05 10:04:49 AM
I have one for his list:

Hate the religion, not the believer.
 
2013-02-05 10:05:08 AM
The question I would pose here is: Is morality  via "the atheism club" ultimately a deity by proxy?
Perhaps that is going to far, but like it or not, this new fanciful trend of "organized atheism" is close to becoming a religion.

( not to mention If you put some ink drawings of lotus flowers around the border of these 10 commandments, I bet most people would think it was some sort of new age Buddhism. )
 
2013-02-05 10:07:52 AM
It's pointless to argue with monkeys, but so much fun to sit in the trees with them, laughing as we watch people worship the shiat we just dropped on them. This is the true commandment of the internet.
 
2013-02-05 10:08:55 AM

Whodat: "Don't think that you are any smarter than the next person even if they are a believer." should be added to that list.  Or simply, "Don't be a smug son-of-a-biatch."


If a person believes in manifestly absurd, self-contradictory things for which there is no evidence, I may not necessarily be smarter than that person, but I sure am more rational and possessed of greater critical thinking abilities. That's about as nice as I can be on the subject. Luckily for believers, I don't run about the neighbourhood bothering people at home to tell them that their comforting delusions are almost certainly a bunch of crap. Nor do I harangue passers-by on street corners.
 
2013-02-05 10:10:10 AM

nerftaig: Voiceofreason01 /I disagree, categorically, that a belief in God and being a rational thinker are mutually exclusive.

That's nice, but without citing anything you just reject the argument you don't engage in it. If you want to provoke a discussion you have to start talking not just shut down.

Throwing your hands up and going "I DISAGREE" is silly. Come on now you are better than that.


The basic premises are flawed. Your argument is based on the ideas that religion is essentially self delusion and irrational, I disagree and you've done nothing to show these to be true. Aside from your assertions implying that nearly the whole population of the planet is insane, we could spend all day listing very intelligent and imminent people who are/were religious. If you're going to dismiss all religious/religious thought than there is no discussion to be had.

CSB: In college I took a class about Islam and Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations". At one point we were discussing a book by an imminent Muslim Scholar(I don't remember the name and don't have the book handy) who is known for his very good, unbiased, study of Islam, and his view on Muslim theology but someone in the class wanted to dismiss everything the scholar said because the scholar is "religious and not a scientist" and worse the class mostly agreed with him.

/This is the level of discussion I've come to expect from you at FARK, "sure we can discuss theology, but you can't cite religious scholars because they aren't sciency enough"
 
2013-02-05 10:12:17 AM

I drunk what: can you touch it with your tongue? No. then it's not real and your an idiot who believes in unicorns, fairies and invisible sky wizards


You don't believe in your own elbows?
 
2013-02-05 10:12:42 AM

Marcintosh: Alain de Botton's 10 commandments for non-believers could be a civilising influence on modern life, says Judith Woods.
Who the FARK is this Alain ass hat and who cares what he, she, it says?
Who died and left him, she, it boss?  Who the hell is Judith Woods?


Came here to say this.  The reason I am not religious is because of this exact attitude.  It's quite an assumption that everyone outside of your mass delusion is "not civilized".

Stop trying to save me and concentrate on your own flock.  They could use some work.
 
2013-02-05 10:13:13 AM

huntercr: The question I would pose here is: Is morality  via "the atheism club" ultimately a deity by proxy?
Perhaps that is going to far, but like it or not, this new fanciful trend of "organized atheism" is close to becoming a religion.

( not to mention If you put some ink drawings of lotus flowers around the border of these 10 commandments, I bet most people would think it was some sort of new age Buddhism. )


That's their bald-ass assertion, and I for one, don't give it to them. They cannot conceive of anything outside their belief systems, because critical thinking is usually strongly discouraged. Many born-agains quite literally cannot accept that there are those who simply do not believe; the closest they can come is deciding that we worship the devil.
 
2013-02-05 10:18:03 AM

Voiceofreason01: nerftaig: Voiceofreason01 /I disagree, categorically, that a belief in God and being a rational thinker are mutually exclusive.

That's nice, but without citing anything you just reject the argument you don't engage in it. If you want to provoke a discussion you have to start talking not just shut down.

Throwing your hands up and going "I DISAGREE" is silly. Come on now you are better than that.

The basic premises are flawed. Your argument is based on the ideas that religion is essentially self delusion and irrational, I disagree and you've done nothing to show these to be true. Aside from your assertions implying that nearly the whole population of the planet is insane, we could spend all day listing very intelligent and imminent people who are/were religious. If you're going to dismiss all religious/religious thought than there is no discussion to be had.

CSB: In college I took a class about Islam and Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations". At one point we were discussing a book by an imminent Muslim Scholar(I don't remember the name and don't have the book handy) who is known for his very good, unbiased, study of Islam, and his view on Muslim theology but someone in the class wanted to dismiss everything the scholar said because the scholar is "religious and not a scientist" and worse the class mostly agreed with him.

/This is the level of discussion I've come to expect from you at FARK, "sure we can discuss theology, but you can't cite religious scholars because they aren't sciency enough"


Is he here yet? Haw, haw.

But seriously, folks, it's perfectly fine to cite a religious believer's works, provided that they are based in fact. Many faithful people have contributed greatly to the knowledge of a religion's history or evolution. It just often doesn't stop there.
 
2013-02-05 10:21:02 AM

Voiceofreason01: nerftaig: Voiceofreason01 /I disagree, categorically, that a belief in God and being a rational thinker are mutually exclusive.

That's nice, but without citing anything you just reject the argument you don't engage in it. If you want to provoke a discussion you have to start talking not just shut down.

Throwing your hands up and going "I DISAGREE" is silly. Come on now you are better than that.

The basic premises are flawed. Your argument is based on the ideas that religion is essentially self delusion and irrational, I disagree and you've done nothing to show these to be true. Aside from your assertions implying that nearly the whole population of the planet is insane, we could spend all day listing very intelligent and imminent people who are/were religious. If you're going to dismiss all religious/religious thought than there is no discussion to be had.

CSB: In college I took a class about Islam and Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations". At one point we were discussing a book by an imminent Muslim Scholar(I don't remember the name and don't have the book handy) who is known for his very good, unbiased, study of Islam, and his view on Muslim theology but someone in the class wanted to dismiss everything the scholar said because the scholar is "religious and not a scientist" and worse the class mostly agreed with him.

/This is the level of discussion I've come to expect from you at FARK, "sure we can discuss theology, but you can't cite religious scholars because they aren't sciency enough"


The idea that religion is not irrational seems to contradict the idea of the "leap of faith" to me. Surely you must accept that step in the journey to faith. If you know that god is real, and refute the leap of faith, I would like you to prove it. That is what I mean when I ask you to cite. I dont want you to quote anyone, just give me an example of what you mean.

Of course religious thinkers can make rational arguments and engage in rational discourse, but they are irrational on the fundamental issue of faith. I think this is the issue of contention for me. We are not arguing everything touched by a religious hand is insane. I think there is simply a confusion of language here.

When you say religion is wholly rational I can not agree. That is all I am saying.
 
2013-02-05 10:22:56 AM

Lady Sally: I drunk what: can you touch it with your tongue? No. then it's not real and your an idiot who believes in unicorns, fairies and invisible sky wizards

You don't believe in your own elbows?


"It's true, Your Honor. This man has no elbows."
 
2013-02-05 10:23:33 AM
Couldn't take it seriously or read much further after commandment #2:

Empathy: The capacity to connect imaginatively with the sufferings and unique experiences of another person.


I imagining that I lost my children in the most recent school shooting.  I imagining that I am homeless on the street.  UGH.  Let's imagine our life away!!
 
2013-02-05 10:26:24 AM

nerftaig: Voiceofreason01: nerftaig: Voiceofreason01 /I disagree, categorically, that a belief in God and being a rational thinker are mutually exclusive.

That's nice, but without citing anything you just reject the argument you don't engage in it. If you want to provoke a discussion you have to start talking not just shut down.

Throwing your hands up and going "I DISAGREE" is silly. Come on now you are better than that.

The basic premises are flawed. Your argument is based on the ideas that religion is essentially self delusion and irrational, I disagree and you've done nothing to show these to be true. Aside from your assertions implying that nearly the whole population of the planet is insane, we could spend all day listing very intelligent and imminent people who are/were religious. If you're going to dismiss all religious/religious thought than there is no discussion to be had.

CSB: In college I took a class about Islam and Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations". At one point we were discussing a book by an imminent Muslim Scholar(I don't remember the name and don't have the book handy) who is known for his very good, unbiased, study of Islam, and his view on Muslim theology but someone in the class wanted to dismiss everything the scholar said because the scholar is "religious and not a scientist" and worse the class mostly agreed with him.

/This is the level of discussion I've come to expect from you at FARK, "sure we can discuss theology, but you can't cite religious scholars because they aren't sciency enough"

The idea that religion is not irrational seems to contradict the idea of the "leap of faith" to me. Surely you must accept that step in the journey to faith. If you know that god is real, and refute the leap of faith, I would like you to prove it. That is what I mean when I ask you to cite. I dont want you to quote anyone, just give me an example of what you mean.

Of course religious thinkers can make rational arguments and engage in rational disco ...


Thanks, you put that better than I did. If I might paraphrase: "A religious person might be irrational upon at least one subject, but not necessarily others."

To take religion out of the discussion for a moment, we all know that guy who is convinced that UFOs abducted him that one, fateful night, but is perfectly rational and even quite intelligent on any other subject.

See also: the entire politics tab.
 
2013-02-05 10:27:42 AM

Lady Sally: I drunk what: can you touch it with your tongue? No. then it's not real and your an idiot who believes in unicorns, fairies and invisible sky wizards

You don't believe in your own elbows?


Please don't feed the troll.

IDW's latest schtick is that he has built up this strawman 'atheist' character and now posts ridiculous stuff in this persona.

It is typical religious dishonesty which is very common in these threads.
 
2013-02-05 10:28:05 AM

Voiceofreason01: nerftaig: Voiceofreason01 /I disagree, categorically, that a belief in God and being a rational thinker are mutually exclusive.

That's nice, but without citing anything you just reject the argument you don't engage in it. If you want to provoke a discussion you have to start talking not just shut down.

Throwing your hands up and going "I DISAGREE" is silly. Come on now you are better than that.

The basic premises are flawed. Your argument is based on the ideas that religion is essentially self delusion and irrational, I disagree and you've done nothing to show these to be true. Aside from your assertions implying that nearly the whole population of the planet is insane, we could spend all day listing very intelligent and imminent people who are/were religious. If you're going to dismiss all religious/religious thought than there is no discussion to be had.

CSB: In college I took a class about Islam and Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations". At one point we were discussing a book by an imminent Muslim Scholar(I don't remember the name and don't have the book handy) who is known for his very good, unbiased, study of Islam, and his view on Muslim theology but someone in the class wanted to dismiss everything the scholar said because the scholar is "religious and not a scientist" and worse the class mostly agreed with him.

/This is the level of discussion I've come to expect from you at FARK, "sure we can discuss theology, but you can't cite religious scholars because they aren't sciency enough"


The problem with being an "imminent scholar" is that if he doesn't have a degree, it is difficult, in our society with our established cultural norms, to prove that his opinion is reasoned and worthwhile.

What does "imminent scholar" mean compared to a Ph D in Philosophy/Religious Studies/History? That he spent less time being reviewed by those whose level of expertise exceeds his own? Why should I listen to him as compared to someone who reviewed the same amount of material, while obliging their work to be reviewed by superiors and peers?

I'm not saying it is the right thing to do; just explaining that "science" => reason, whereas having no background in "science" => Joe Schmuck. Sorry. : (

/You can be a "Philosopher of Christ"/"Christian Philosopher"- Thomas Jefferson was one. Namely followed the atheist commandments/Sermon on the Mount.
//Most people who use the phrase "Christian Philosopher" are not, as they believe in the miracle crap.
///"Jesus?! Where did all this wine come from? You didn't get this from the Romans up the street, did you?!?!?" "Hell, naw! I just turned water into wine!"
 
2013-02-05 10:29:01 AM

Lady Sally: I drunk what: can you touch it with your tongue? No. then it's not real and your an idiot who believes in unicorns, fairies and invisible sky wizards

You don't believe in your own elbows?


Why wouldn't he?  One's elbows are easily touched with one's tongue, after the judicious application of a saw to one's upper arms...
 
2013-02-05 10:29:58 AM

Voiceofreason01: /I disagree, categorically, that a belief in God and being a rational thinker are mutually exclusive.


Until a god is proven, it is irrational to believe it. Unambiguously. That's the only sense you can be right in them not being mutually exclusive.
 
2013-02-05 10:30:05 AM

Farking Canuck: Lady Sally: I drunk what: can you touch it with your tongue? No. then it's not real and your an idiot who believes in unicorns, fairies and invisible sky wizards

You don't believe in your own elbows?

Please don't feed the troll.

IDW's latest schtick is that he has built up this strawman 'atheist' character and now posts ridiculous stuff in this persona.

It is typical religious dishonesty which is very common in these threads.


I wasn't even entirely certain about which group of people he was attempting to troll.
 
2013-02-05 10:30:17 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-05 10:30:18 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: There is but one atheist commandment: reject God.

All else is handwaving and bluster.


That's like saying I "reject" unicorns, Bigfoot, Zeuz, Neptune, or Thor.
 
2013-02-05 10:31:17 AM

CheekyMonkey: Lady Sally: I drunk what: can you touch it with your tongue? No. then it's not real and your an idiot who believes in unicorns, fairies and invisible sky wizards

You don't believe in your own elbows?

Why wouldn't he?  One's elbows are easily touched with one's tongue, after the judicious application of a saw to one's upper arms...


Might be easier to remove the tongue.
 
2013-02-05 10:34:26 AM

Drasancas: Voiceofreason01: /I disagree, categorically, that a belief in God and being a rational thinker are mutually exclusive.

Until a god is proven, it is irrational to believe it. Unambiguously. That's the only sense you can be right in them not being mutually exclusive.


Not irrational precisely, but reeeaaaaaally bloody credulous.

//The above is only applicable to those gods whose definitions are not self-contradictory, or completely in opposition to observed reality.
///Any god which is simultaneously omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent while existing in a world full of evil would be a good example
 
2013-02-05 10:35:30 AM

aagrajag: IDW's latest schtick is that he has built up this strawman 'atheist' character and now posts ridiculous stuff in this persona.

It is typical religious dishonesty which is very common in these threads.

I wasn't even entirely certain about which group of people he was attempting to troll.


He used to drag people around in pointless philosophical circles ... endlessly asking leading questions without really engaging or taking a position. I would say that, from his past arguments, he is religious but I believe that he has denied or dodged questions of which religion.

He recently announced he was done with Fark but seems to have returned as this strawman atheist character. I think they changed his meds.
 
2013-02-05 10:40:07 AM

badscooter: [i.imgur.com image 800x574]


Is that Ted Haggard? It really looks like him. (Not pictured: gay hookers and meth.)

I'll address the first frame though, since it is commonly used against non-believers:

It is not your god with which we are angry; it is its followers, and their utter inability to mind their own bloody business.

Also, it contains seven (7) misspellings, and I won't even comment on the grammar.
 
2013-02-05 10:42:22 AM

Farking Canuck: aagrajag: IDW's latest schtick is that he has built up this strawman 'atheist' character and now posts ridiculous stuff in this persona.

It is typical religious dishonesty which is very common in these threads.

I wasn't even entirely certain about which group of people he was attempting to troll.

He used to drag people around in pointless philosophical circles ... endlessly asking leading questions without really engaging or taking a position. I would say that, from his past arguments, he is religious but I believe that he has denied or dodged questions of which religion.

He recently announced he was done with Fark but seems to have returned as this strawman atheist character. I think they changed his meds.


Ah. He isn't terribly good at it, is he?
 
2013-02-05 10:47:41 AM
Hope?  Really?  That's just a little too wishy washy and douchey for me.  How about integrity, dignity, or behaving in a way that will be respected by others.
 
2013-02-05 10:51:25 AM

Big_Fat_Liar: Hope?  Really?  That's just a little too wishy washy and douchey for me.  How about integrity, dignity, or behaving in a way that will be respected by others.


Those require effort. "Hope" is just a code word for "prayer".
 
2013-02-05 10:53:09 AM

DammitIForgotMyLogin: As an atheist, there's really only one "commandment" I try to live my life by.


George Carlin agrees.  (mildly NSFW)
 
2013-02-05 11:02:28 AM
Why be an atheist if you gotta have commandments?
 
2013-02-05 11:06:02 AM

oryx: Why be an atheist if you gotta have commandments?


Precisely. I only take orders from my conscience. It's far less likely to tell me to commit genocide against another ethnic group, or sacrifice my own son, or stone some mouthy kids to death, or...
 
2013-02-05 11:15:46 AM

oryx: Why be an atheist if you gotta have commandments?


How can there even BE commandments, with no commander with any authority to command?
 
2013-02-05 11:28:30 AM

oryx: Why be an atheist if you gotta have commandments?


We don't have commandments.

This one person wants atheism to be religion-like. He will not get what he wants.
 
2013-02-05 11:30:06 AM

aagrajag: He recently announced he was done with Fark but seems to have returned as this strawman atheist character. I think they changed his meds.

Ah. He isn't terribly good at it, is he?


Actually he was really good with the philosophical fishing ... used to hook people for days. This new schtick is just tiresome and dishonest.
 
2013-02-05 11:36:12 AM

Farking Canuck: oryx: Why be an atheist if you gotta have commandments?

We don't have commandments.

This one person wants atheism to be religion-like. He will not get what he wants.


With some, he will. Even many self-identified atheists seem to desperately require a "code", a central, inviolate, externally defined moral centre. That sort usually turns to religion eventually though, as more secular structures fail to fulfill that need.

Most will reject it; he is at best an apologist.
 
2013-02-05 11:48:05 AM

badscooter:


Where is that from?
 
2013-02-05 11:48:24 AM

saomai: Couldn't take it seriously or read much further after commandment #2:

Empathy: The capacity to connect imaginatively with the sufferings and unique experiences of another person.


I imagining that I lost my children in the most recent school shooting.  I imagining that I am homeless on the street.  UGH.  Let's imagine our life away!!


Spoken like a true conservative.

Slaves2Darkness: I can show you my dick, shove it in your mouth where you can taste it, shove it in your ass where you can feel it.


AverageAmericanGuy: Do you accept that there are people who believe in God?


I accept that there are people with blue eyes.  My eyes are green.  I don't "reject" having blue eyes.  I simply don't have them.
 
2013-02-05 11:48:52 AM

Martian_Astronomer: badscooter:

Where is that from?


Facebook, I presume. The stupid tends to settle there.
 
2013-02-05 11:52:01 AM

Slaves2Darkness: I can show you my dick, shove it in your mouth where you can taste it, shove it in your ass where you can feel it.


Dammit.

weknowmemes.com
 
2013-02-05 11:54:25 AM

Z-clipped: Slaves2Darkness: I can show you my dick, shove it in your mouth where you can taste it, shove it in your ass where you can feel it.

Dammit.

[weknowmemes.com image 240x180]


Notice that he didn't mention the senses of smell and hearing.

//Ew.
 
2013-02-05 11:58:00 AM

aagrajag: Z-clipped: Slaves2Darkness: I can show you my dick, shove it in your mouth where you can taste it, shove it in your ass where you can feel it.

Dammit.

[weknowmemes.com image 240x180]

Notice that he didn't mention the senses of smell and hearing.

//Ew.


The roar of the greasedtaint, the smell of the crowd?
 
2013-02-05 11:58:10 AM

saomai: Couldn't take it seriously or read much further after commandment #2:

Empathy: The capacity to connect imaginatively with the sufferings and unique experiences of another person.


I imagining that I lost my children in the most recent school shooting.  I imagining that I am homeless on the street.  UGH.  Let's imagine our life away!!


Let's imagine there's a sky wizard and we'll be reunited in his realm to rock out on...harps?

Y'know what? Hell has the babes and the music.
 
2013-02-05 11:58:15 AM
Christianity is perfectly rational, if you make the same presuppositions that Christians make. Most of us believe that there is a God who was involved in creation (not necessarily 6 days/6k years), that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God (when interpreted correctly which is where the trouble starts) and that there is more to the world than can be explained by empirical observation. In some extreme views of Christianity, violence and legal coercion are considered acceptable methods of dealing with those who disagree.

Atheism is also perfectly rational, if you make the same presuppositions that atheists make. Atheists seem to believe that the only valuable knowledge is empirical knowledge. Other forms of knowledge are inferior and dismissed. Anyone who does not hold to their ontological and epistemological presuppositions is irrational, and in some extreme branches of atheism, worthy of destruction.

As a Christian, I don't have an issue with atheists, or people of other faith traditions. You have a set of beliefs that you have arrived at based on a set of presuppositions and life experiences. Your presuppositions and life experiences differ from mine and so you have reached a different conclusion. I don't understand why it can't be that simple. Why does either side feel compelled to denigrate and attack anyone who disagrees?
 
2013-02-05 12:02:05 PM

aagrajag: Martian_Astronomer: badscooter:

Where is that from?

Facebook, I presume. The stupid tends to settle there.




It's worse. I found it on 4chan /b/.
 
2013-02-05 12:09:28 PM

badscooter: aagrajag: Martian_Astronomer: badscooter:

Where is that from?

Facebook, I presume. The stupid tends to settle there.

It's worse. I found it on 4chan /b/.


I truly hate to say this, but they probably got it from Facebook, then used it to troll.
 
2013-02-05 12:11:11 PM

badscooter: [i.imgur.com image 800x574]


Christians apparently can't spell worth a damn either.
 
2013-02-05 12:12:06 PM

monkey_licker: Christianity is perfectly rational, if you make the same presuppositions that Christians make. Most of us believe that there is a God who was involved in creation (not necessarily 6 days/6k years), that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God (when interpreted correctly which is where the trouble starts) and that there is more to the world than can be explained by empirical observation. In some extreme views of Christianity, violence and legal coercion are considered acceptable methods of dealing with those who disagree.

Atheism is also perfectly rational, if you make the same presuppositions that atheists make. Atheists seem to believe that the only valuable knowledge is empirical knowledge. Other forms of knowledge are inferior and dismissed. Anyone who does not hold to their ontological and epistemological presuppositions is irrational, and in some extreme branches of atheism, worthy of destruction.

As a Christian, I don't have an issue with atheists, or people of other faith traditions. You have a set of beliefs that you have arrived at based on a set of presuppositions and life experiences. Your presuppositions and life experiences differ from mine and so you have reached a different conclusion. I don't understand why it can't be that simple. Why does either side feel compelled to denigrate and attack anyone who disagrees?


Because you claim your life experiences and presuppositions are above testing, challenge and scrutiny, and should be accepted without question. You're privileged and offended when your privilege is attacked.

Atheists are saying, "I don't believe you, show your work," and your response is, "Well my personal anecdotes are perfectly good evidence!" and we say back, "No they're not. Demonstrate the validity of your claims," and you can't, so you drop back to the, "Well, EVERYONE presupposes and is irrational sometimes, so my irrationality is as good as anyone's! Take that, atheists!"

Don't project your framework onto us and claim that because we dismiss your claims, we're as irrational as you are.
 
2013-02-05 12:14:20 PM

monkey_licker: Christianity is perfectly rational, if you make the same presuppositions that Christians make. Most of us believe that there is a God who was involved in creation (not necessarily 6 days/6k years), that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God (when interpreted correctly which is where the trouble starts) and that there is more to the world than can be explained by empirical observation. In some extreme views of Christianity, violence and legal coercion are considered acceptable methods of dealing with those who disagree.

Atheism is also perfectly rational, if you make the same presuppositions that atheists make. Atheists seem to believe that the only valuable knowledge is empirical knowledge. Other forms of knowledge are inferior and dismissed. Anyone who does not hold to their ontological and epistemological presuppositions is irrational, and in some extreme branches of atheism, worthy of destruction.


Odd. I'm an "atheist" - and yet, I believe none of that. I am sure that there are some "atheists" who do believe some of those things - but, apparently, they are not intrinsic or necessary to "atheism".
 
2013-02-05 12:16:51 PM

monkey_licker: Atheism is also perfectly rational, if you make the same presuppositions that atheists make.


The point is to make as few presuppositions as possible.  You're ascribing presuppositions to atheists that are really just re-statements of your own bald assertions.  99.99% of atheists don't deny the possibility of a god's existence.  We just tend to assign it a more realistic probability (on par with that of unicorns and the Tooth Fairy) since we realize that wanting something to be true doesn't actually increase its likelihood.

monkey_licker: and in some extreme branches of atheism, worthy of destruction.


Whothewhatnow?

monkey_licker: I don't understand why it can't be that simple. Why does either side feel compelled to denigrate and attack anyone who disagrees?


Burning people at the stake, decrying them as incapable of morality, and passing laws that force them to the sidelines of society are not quite the same as making some smug remarks on the internet.   Have some perspective.
 
2013-02-05 12:17:50 PM

sdromeo: badscooter: [i.imgur.com image 800x574]

Christians apparently can't spell worth a damn either.


They don't actually read that book, you know.
 
2013-02-05 12:19:52 PM

Spanky_McFarksalot: 11. Don't be a dick because you have a different opinion

/actually thats for everyone


So much this!
/Tolerant Christian
 
2013-02-05 12:21:35 PM

Z-clipped: monkey_licker: Atheism is also perfectly rational, if you make the same presuppositions that atheists make.

The point is to make as few presuppositions as possible.  You're ascribing presuppositions to atheists that are really just re-statements of your own bald assertions.  99.99% of atheists don't deny the possibility of a god's existence.  We just tend to assign it a more realistic probability (on par with that of unicorns and the Tooth Fairy) since we realize that wanting something to be true doesn't actually increase its likelihood.

monkey_licker: and in some extreme branches of atheism, worthy of destruction.

Whothewhatnow?

monkey_licker: I don't understand why it can't be that simple. Why does either side feel compelled to denigrate and attack anyone who disagrees?

Burning people at the stake, decrying them as incapable of morality, and passing laws that force them to the sidelines of society are not quite the same as making some smug remarks on the internet.   Have some perspective.


Hey now, they haven't done that since we removed their legal ability to do so; credit where credit is due, right?
 
2013-02-05 12:22:06 PM

skinink: And unfortunately that article was about as long as the Book of Exodus.


Leviticus wasn't any shorter.  Reading Old Testament Law gave me a migraine.
 
2013-02-05 12:25:07 PM
Wow, people really can't deal with atheism not being a religion, can they?
 
2013-02-05 12:30:39 PM

Surool: Wow, people really can't deal with atheism not being a religion, can they?


It's how they view the world. Absolute, rigid, unalterable rules. I understand that there are those who do not share my worldview; they cannot.
 
2013-02-05 12:31:40 PM

aagrajag: Z-clipped: monkey_licker: Atheism is also perfectly rational, if you make the same presuppositions that atheists make.

The point is to make as few presuppositions as possible.  You're ascribing presuppositions to atheists that are really just re-statements of your own bald assertions.  99.99% of atheists don't deny the possibility of a god's existence.  We just tend to assign it a more realistic probability (on par with that of unicorns and the Tooth Fairy) since we realize that wanting something to be true doesn't actually increase its likelihood.

monkey_licker: and in some extreme branches of atheism, worthy of destruction.

Whothewhatnow?

monkey_licker: I don't understand why it can't be that simple. Why does either side feel compelled to denigrate and attack anyone who disagrees?

Burning people at the stake, decrying them as incapable of morality, and passing laws that force them to the sidelines of society are not quite the same as making some smug remarks on the internet.   Have some perspective.

Hey now, they haven't done that since we removed their legal ability to do so; credit where credit is due, right?


Well, the other night I was at a restaurant, and a Christian line cook burned... my steak... so close enough. 

/I said mid-rare, you Jesus-loving heretic!
 
2013-02-05 12:32:24 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: There is but one atheist commandment: reject God.

All else is handwaving and bluster.


7/10
 
2013-02-05 12:32:52 PM

WordyGrrl: What people like AverageAmericanTroll fail to grasp is that atheists also do not believe that Satan exists. Bad things happen in this world because bad human beings make them happen, and quite often they use "I'm doing God's Will" as an excuse for their bad behavior.


i1197.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-05 12:34:28 PM

Z-clipped: aagrajag: Z-clipped: monkey_licker: Atheism is also perfectly rational, if you make the same presuppositions that atheists make.

The point is to make as few presuppositions as possible.  You're ascribing presuppositions to atheists that are really just re-statements of your own bald assertions.  99.99% of atheists don't deny the possibility of a god's existence.  We just tend to assign it a more realistic probability (on par with that of unicorns and the Tooth Fairy) since we realize that wanting something to be true doesn't actually increase its likelihood.

monkey_licker: and in some extreme branches of atheism, worthy of destruction.

Whothewhatnow?

monkey_licker: I don't understand why it can't be that simple. Why does either side feel compelled to denigrate and attack anyone who disagrees?

Burning people at the stake, decrying them as incapable of morality, and passing laws that force them to the sidelines of society are not quite the same as making some smug remarks on the internet.   Have some perspective.

Hey now, they haven't done that since we removed their legal ability to do so; credit where credit is due, right?

Well, the other night I was at a restaurant, and a Christian line cook burned... my steak... so close enough. 

/I said mid-rare, you Jesus-loving heretic!


Ah. Anything below "medium" they view as a potential legal risk.

//try ordering a steak "blue"
 
2013-02-05 12:44:51 PM

jso2897: AverageAmericanGuy: jso2897: AverageAmericanGuy: aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: There is but one atheist commandment: reject belief in a God.

All else is handwaving and bluster.

You left something out. Slight difference, there.

Being an atheist doesn't mean you have to reject that others can believe in God. Just that you reject God.

Dude, you trollin' again? I accept that others' belief in God exists. I have none. I reject the concept as unsupported by reason or evidence.

Of course, if I did accept the existence of the Christian god, I would still reject it. I don't like genocide half as much as that asshole.

Refuse to believe in God, Reject God. Eh. It's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

How can I "reject" that which I never possessed the capacity to accept to begin with? Would you say that I "refuse" to sprout wings and fly? It may not be as easy to comprehend what goes on in other people's heads as you seem to think it is.

Do you accept that there are people who believe in God?

I accept that there are people who say they do - and I can't question it, because I have no real idea of what they are talking about. If someone said they believed in "Bippityboppityboo" I wouldn't be in any position to argue with them, either.


i1197.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-05 12:49:04 PM

I drunk what: Thou shalt not murder, lie, steal, ... LULZ just kidding (only retards would be dumb enough to fall for that stuff)

1.   We own Science, so be sure to use a smug tone when condescending to the muggles "aka religious folk"
2.   We own Logic and Reason, so constantly remind the religious people how irrational they are.
3.  The only things that deserve worship is that beautiful most perfect person In The Mirror, and if you have time give praise to the saints Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Nietzsche, PZ Meyers, etc..
4.  It's OK to pretend to tolerate the lesser of our kind who invoke the saying "I'm OK you're OK", since they are the only way we can infiltrate the religious and  subvert their moral base, but in the end just remember not to make it too obvious that you are pretending, even morans will accidentally notice if you over do it.
5.   Openly mock the religious people and slander them by any means possible.  But worry not, the retards aren't intelligent enough to notice, and even the ones that do think they must be polite when taking abuse, lulz, so let them have it don't hold back.
6.  I'm OK you're OK.  (wink wink nudge nudge)
7.  Hate God with all your Body, Spirit and Mind
8.  Nature is stuff you can touch with your tongue.
9.   Sex, drugs and rock n roll... FOR SCIENCE!!1! vote democrat
10.   Kill all the Christians and any sympathizers, lolz just kidding, I'm OK you're OK, seriously though yeah.


The bolded bits there...
i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-02-05 01:00:46 PM

monkey_licker: Christianity is perfectly rational, if you make the same presuppositions that Christians make. Most of us believe that there is a God who was involved in creation (not necessarily 6 days/6k years), that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God (when interpreted correctly which is where the trouble starts) and that there is more to the world than can be explained by empirical observation. In some extreme views of Christianity, violence and legal coercion are considered acceptable methods of dealing with those who disagree.

Atheism is also perfectly rational, if you make the same presuppositions that atheists make. Atheists seem to believe that the only valuable knowledge is empirical knowledge. Other forms of knowledge are inferior and dismissed. Anyone who does not hold to their ontological and epistemological presuppositions is irrational, and in some extreme branches of atheism, worthy of destruction.

As a Christian, I don't have an issue with atheists, or people of other faith traditions. You have a set of beliefs that you have arrived at based on a set of presuppositions and life experiences. Your presuppositions and life experiences differ from mine and so you have reached a different conclusion. I don't understand why it can't be that simple. Why does either side feel compelled to denigrate and attack anyone who disagrees?



Because your side is just a bunch of poopy-heads.
 
2013-02-05 01:04:10 PM
Actually, there is one thing to remember as an atheist (although there is no one to command it):

"Don't be a dick"
 
2013-02-05 01:08:13 PM

Surool: Actually, there is one thing to remember as an atheist (although there is no one to command it):

"Don't be a dick"


I try, but when a 45-year old man, with a family and bachelor's degree in engineering tells me that there's a man in the sky with whom he telepathically communicates, the odd giggle is liable to slip out.
 
2013-02-05 01:12:20 PM

aagrajag: Farking Canuck: oryx: Why be an atheist if you gotta have commandments?

We don't have commandments.

This one person wants atheism to be religion-like. He will not get what he wants.

With some, he will. Even many self-identified atheists seem to desperately require a "code", a central, inviolate, externally defined moral centre. That sort usually turns to religion eventually though, as more secular structures fail to fulfill that need.

Most will reject it; he is at best an apologist.


I'm atheist and already pretty much live by those rules. I don't see the harm in having them on paper. Our laws are largely based on the same sorts of guidelines, because that is what is needed to make society work. No killing, don't take what's not yours, treat people with respect.

/puzzled why other non-believers are upset about this list
 
2013-02-05 01:14:00 PM

aagrajag: Surool: Actually, there is one thing to remember as an atheist (although there is no one to command it):

"Don't be a dick"

I try, but when a 45-year old man, with a family and bachelor's degree in engineering tells me that there's a man in the sky with whom he telepathically communicates, the odd giggle is liable to slip out.


That isn't being a dick unless you pulled a militant atheist by shouting, "Shut up! I don't believe in your sky wizard monkey god!"
 
2013-02-05 01:14:06 PM

miss diminutive: There's no consequences involved with not adhering to them.


Well, there are consequences - they're just mundane consequences of the actions you and others take rather than supernatural punishment imposed from on high.
 
2013-02-05 01:21:35 PM
dopekitty74: I'm atheist and already pretty much live by those rules. I don't see the harm in having them on paper. Our laws are largely based on the same sorts of guidelines, because that is what is needed to make society work. No killing, don't take what's not yours, treat people with respect.

/puzzled why other non-believers are upset about this list


Because we are not a group. We have no leaders ... no authority ... no books ... and certainly no commandments.

All we have in common is a lack of belief that gods are real.

It is not that we do not live by rules of society ... it is that these rules have nothing to do with atheism. Trying to assign them to atheism is stupid and pointless.
 
2013-02-05 01:24:38 PM

Surool: aagrajag: Surool: Actually, there is one thing to remember as an atheist (although there is no one to command it):

"Don't be a dick"

I try, but when a 45-year old man, with a family and bachelor's degree in engineering tells me that there's a man in the sky with whom he telepathically communicates, the odd giggle is liable to slip out.

That isn't being a dick unless you pulled a militant atheist by shouting, "Shut up! I don't believe in your sky wizard monkey god!"


I only do that here. Which is more respect than I am given when their canvassers ignore my "No proselytising" signs. (In two languages, no less)
 
2013-02-05 01:25:57 PM

jso2897: Atheism is also perfectly rational, if you make the same presuppositions that atheists make. Atheists seem to believe that the only valuable knowledge is empirical knowledge. Other forms of knowledge are inferior and dismissed.


This is a strawman ... please do not tell us, a vast, culturally and educationally diverse group, what we think and/or why we think it.

For most atheists it boils down to this: The religious claim god is real. The atheists asks to see the evidence supporting this claim. The religious offer none.

It is this simple: Non-trivial claims require evidence. Extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence.
 
2013-02-05 01:28:16 PM

aagrajag: I only do that here. Which is more respect than I am given when their canvassers ignore my "No proselytising" signs. (In two languages, no less)


I suspect that religious canvassers do not know what "proselytizing" means. Try changing you sign to "Please don't spew your god crap at me".
 
2013-02-05 01:31:59 PM

Farking Canuck: aagrajag: I only do that here. Which is more respect than I am given when their canvassers ignore my "No proselytising" signs. (In two languages, no less)

I suspect that religious canvassers do not know what "proselytizing" means. Try changing you sign to "Please don't spew your god crap at me".


The Japanese ones (usually Jehova's witlesses) tend to respect it. The Mormon missionaries, however...
 
2013-02-05 01:35:41 PM

Farking Canuck: aagrajag: I only do that here. Which is more respect than I am given when their canvassers ignore my "No proselytising" signs. (In two languages, no less)

I suspect that religious canvassers do not know what "proselytizing" means. Try changing you sign to "Please don't spew your god crap at me".


The handwritten sign on my door reads:

No proselytising, please.
宣教謝絶
 
2013-02-05 01:46:33 PM

Farking Canuck: aagrajag: I only do that here. Which is more respect than I am given when their canvassers ignore my "No proselytising" signs. (In two languages, no less)

I suspect that religious canvassers do not know what "proselytizing" means. Try changing you sign to "Please don't spew your god crap at me".


If (as I suspect) aagrajag lives in Japan, there is a good chance the religious are educated enough to know what "proselytizing" means.
 
2013-02-05 01:57:27 PM

Surool: Farking Canuck: aagrajag: I only do that here. Which is more respect than I am given when their canvassers ignore my "No proselytising" signs. (In two languages, no less)

I suspect that religious canvassers do not know what "proselytizing" means. Try changing you sign to "Please don't spew your god crap at me".

If (as I suspect) aagrajag lives in Japan, there is a good chance the religious are educated enough to know what "proselytizing" means.


He does and they do. Their English is usually quite good, too. The American Mormons, I let give their sales-pitch in English. Then I reply in French. :)
 
2013-02-05 02:02:16 PM

Lady Sally: You don't believe in your own elbows?


i'm agnostic about them, you can't prove a negative

Two16: I drunk what: Thou shalt not murder, lie, steal, ... LULZ just kidding (only retards would be dumb enough to fall for that stuff)

1.   We own Science, so be sure to use a smug tone when condescending to the muggles "aka religious folk"
2.   We own Logic and Reason, so constantly remind the religious people how irrational they are.
3.  The only things that deserve worship is that beautiful most perfect person In The Mirror, and if you have time give praise to the saints Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Nietzsche, PZ Meyers, etc..
4.  It's OK to pretend to tolerate the lesser of our kind who invoke the saying "I'm OK you're OK", since they are the only way we can infiltrate the religious and  subvert their moral base, but in the end just remember not to make it too obvious that you are pretending, even morans will accidentally notice if you over do it.
5.   Openly mock the religious people and slander them by any means possible.  But worry not, the retards aren't intelligent enough to notice, and even the ones that do think they must be polite when taking abuse, lulz, so let them have it don't hold back.
6.  I'm OK you're OK.  (wink wink nudge nudge)
7.  Hate God with all your Body, Spirit and Mind
8.  Nature is stuff you can touch with your tongue.
9.   Sex, drugs and rock n roll... FOR SCIENCE!!1! vote democrat
10.   Kill all the Christians and any sympathizers, lolz just kidding, I'm OK you're OK, seriously though yeah.

The bolded bits there...
[i2.kym-cdn.com image 379x214]


of course you're ok with it, they are the 10 commandments, duh

i'm ok you're ok, death to christians!

FOR SCIENCE!!1!

aagrajag: I wasn't even entirely certain about which group of people he was attempting to troll.


The Intelligence Brigade is not a troll, we are serious business

if you got a problem with our views, we'll just have your posts deleted, so get bent
 
2013-02-05 02:05:23 PM

I drunk what: Lady Sally: You don't believe in your own elbows?

i'm agnostic about them, you can't prove a negative

Two16: I drunk what: Thou shalt not murder, lie, steal, ... LULZ just kidding (only retards would be dumb enough to fall for that stuff)

1.   We own Science, so be sure to use a smug tone when condescending to the muggles "aka religious folk"
2.   We own Logic and Reason, so constantly remind the religious people how irrational they are.
3.  The only things that deserve worship is that beautiful most perfect person In The Mirror, and if you have time give praise to the saints Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Nietzsche, PZ Meyers, etc..
4.  It's OK to pretend to tolerate the lesser of our kind who invoke the saying "I'm OK you're OK", since they are the only way we can infiltrate the religious and  subvert their moral base, but in the end just remember not to make it too obvious that you are pretending, even morans will accidentally notice if you over do it.
5.   Openly mock the religious people and slander them by any means possible.  But worry not, the retards aren't intelligent enough to notice, and even the ones that do think they must be polite when taking abuse, lulz, so let them have it don't hold back.
6.  I'm OK you're OK.  (wink wink nudge nudge)
7.  Hate God with all your Body, Spirit and Mind
8.  Nature is stuff you can touch with your tongue.
9.   Sex, drugs and rock n roll... FOR SCIENCE!!1! vote democrat
10.   Kill all the Christians and any sympathizers, lolz just kidding, I'm OK you're OK, seriously though yeah.

The bolded bits there...
[i2.kym-cdn.com image 379x214]

of course you're ok with it, they are the 10 commandments, duh

i'm ok you're ok, death to christians!

FOR SCIENCE!!1!

aagrajag: I wasn't even entirely certain about which group of people he was attempting to troll.

The Intelligence Brigade is not a troll, we are serious business

if you got a problem with our views, we'll just have your posts deleted, so get bent


Well done; I can no longer even attempt to tell if you are trying to troll, or just drunk.

Godspeed!
 
2013-02-05 02:07:06 PM

verbaltoxin: monkey_licker: Christianity is perfectly rational, if you make the same presuppositions that Christians make. Most of us believe that there is a God who was involved in creation (not necessarily 6 days/6k years), that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God (when interpreted correctly which is where the trouble starts) and that there is more to the world than can be explained by empirical observation. In some extreme views of Christianity, violence and legal coercion are considered acceptable methods of dealing with those who disagree.

Atheism is also perfectly rational, if you make the same presuppositions that atheists make. Atheists seem to believe that the only valuable knowledge is empirical knowledge. Other forms of knowledge are inferior and dismissed. Anyone who does not hold to their ontological and epistemological presuppositions is irrational, and in some extreme branches of atheism, worthy of destruction.

As a Christian, I don't have an issue with atheists, or people of other faith traditions. You have a set of beliefs that you have arrived at based on a set of presuppositions and life experiences. Your presuppositions and life experiences differ from mine and so you have reached a different conclusion. I don't understand why it can't be that simple. Why does either side feel compelled to denigrate and attack anyone who disagrees?

Because you claim your life experiences and presuppositions are above testing, challenge and scrutiny, and should be accepted without question. You're privileged and offended when your privilege is attacked.


Please show me where I made that claim. I simply said that there is no proof I could offer you that would meet your definition of empirical proof. You demand a type of proof that I can't provide because I have a fundamentally different worldview. I am OK with that - are you?

Atheists are saying, "I don't believe you, show your work," and your response is, "Well my personal anecdotes are perfectly good evidence!" and we say back, "No they're not. Demonstrate the validity of your claims," and you can't, so you drop back to the, "Well, EVERYONE presupposes and is irrational sometimes, so my irrationality is as good as anyone's! Take that, atheists!"

I would never say my anecdotes are perfectly good evidence. I would say that two thousand plus years of personal anecdotes are worthy of consideration. If those experiences align with my own experiences then I feel compelled to consider the validity of their claims. Presupposition isn't irrational, it just is. We live in a world of presuppositions. They are intellectual shortcuts that help us live effective lives instead of constantly revisiting each decision. Hopefully we examine our presuppositions occasionally and are willing to change if the underpinnings of those presuppositions prove faulty.
 
2013-02-05 02:07:23 PM

Farking Canuck: jso2897: Atheism is also perfectly rational, if you make the same presuppositions that atheists make. Atheists seem to believe that the only valuable knowledge is empirical knowledge. Other forms of knowledge are inferior and dismissed.

This is a strawman ... please do not tell us, a vast, culturally and educationally diverse group, what we think and/or why we think it.

For most atheists it boils down to this: The religious claim god is real. The atheists asks to see the evidence supporting this claim. The religious offer none.

It is this simple: Non-trivial claims require evidence. Extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence.


I can accept this.  As someone mentioned upthread, if there were evidence of god, then a leap of faith wouldn't be necessary.  I study mathematics and eventually our known/developed mathematics still cannot "define" certain terms (div by zero, indeterminate forms, etc, is a set a subset of itself).  Even in math their are paradoxes that we have to accept that the current structure cannot explain or reason an answer too.

I feel ones belief in god is similar to emotions.  Atheists ask for proof of god, a valid question that one cannot provide evidence of proof, so one must accept the possibility that god might not exist.

Do you believe in happiness/sadness?  Can you prove that you are happy/sad?  How do you prove to someone else that you are happy?  you can provide a string of evidence and we can inductively reason that you are happy, but can you deductively prove you are happy?

I propose that is why expressions like "felt the presence of god" exist.  It is an emotional ideal, not a physical/empirical one.  I believe god does exist and it is the something that put this big ball of wax together and is something beyond my comprehension.  Does that mean I still won't try to comprehend god? no, we are over curious creatures.  But I do feel god exists and he has created a wonderful world for us to exist in and explore.  There is so much wonderful structure and order to everything, I can't help but wonder if there is a reason. it is truly amazing.

I still propose that belief in religion is a much more destructive force than a belief in god.
 
2013-02-05 02:10:32 PM

I drunk what: aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: DammitIForgotMyLogin: AverageAmericanGuy: aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: jso2897:

How can I "reject" that which I never possessed the capacity to accept to begin with? Would you say that I "refuse" to sprout wings and fly? It may not be as easy to comprehend what goes on in other people's heads as you seem to think it is.

Do you accept that there are people who believe in God?

Only grudgingly. It depresses me.

And you refuse to also believe?

If you're seriously leading up to the idea that not believing in the existence of something is the same as rejecting it, perhaps you'd let me know why you've rejected the check for $1m that I just placed in your hands

Are you comparing a physical thing (a check) with a spiritual thing (God)?

Note that AverageAmericanGuy has now subtly shifted the argument such that it now rests upon the definition of "spiritual". Which is easily one of the most vague, hazy concepts evar. You can't win here, guys.

can you touch it with your tongue? No. then it's not real and your an idiot who believes in unicorns, fairies and invisible sky wizards

you should not be allowed to own firearms

nice try religious retards


All four of the people that you replied to are professed Atheists or Anti-Theists.  Calling them religious retards shows your lack of reading comprehension.  Congrats on winning your award.
i1197.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-05 02:10:52 PM

Z-clipped: Burning people at the stake, decrying them as incapable of morality, and passing laws that force them to the sidelines of society are not quite the same as making some smug remarks on the internet.   Have some perspective.


I don't know. How about Stalin, Mao, the Khmer Rouge. They killed millions of Christians and others that disagreed with their worldview, and they were atheists. Ugly, violent behavior against those in the opposition is not limited to Christianity.
 
2013-02-05 02:12:30 PM

FTDA: I drunk what: aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: DammitIForgotMyLogin: AverageAmericanGuy: aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: jso2897:

How can I "reject" that which I never possessed the capacity to accept to begin with? Would you say that I "refuse" to sprout wings and fly? It may not be as easy to comprehend what goes on in other people's heads as you seem to think it is.

Do you accept that there are people who believe in God?

Only grudgingly. It depresses me.

And you refuse to also believe?

If you're seriously leading up to the idea that not believing in the existence of something is the same as rejecting it, perhaps you'd let me know why you've rejected the check for $1m that I just placed in your hands

Are you comparing a physical thing (a check) with a spiritual thing (God)?

Note that AverageAmericanGuy has now subtly shifted the argument such that it now rests upon the definition of "spiritual". Which is easily one of the most vague, hazy concepts evar. You can't win here, guys.

can you touch it with your tongue? No. then it's not real and your an idiot who believes in unicorns, fairies and invisible sky wizards

you should not be allowed to own firearms

nice try religious retards

All four of the people that you replied to are professed Atheists or Anti-Theists.  Calling them religious retards shows your lack of reading comprehension.  Congrats on winning your award.
[i1197.photobucket.com image 399x582]


no thanks, i already got one didn't you notice the badge next to my logon? work the jaw sweety
 
2013-02-05 02:15:16 PM

Farking Canuck: This is a strawman ... please do not tell us, a vast, culturally and educationally diverse group, what we think and/or why we think it.

For most atheists it boils down to this: The religious claim god is real. The atheists asks to see the evidence supporting this claim. The religious offer none.

It is this simple: Non-trivial claims require evidence. Extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence.


You aren't saying anything different from what I said. You are asking for empirical evidence. It is the only evidence atheists will accept. There is a fundamental mismatch because that request is based on the assumption that empirical knowledge is the only valid type of knowledge. I do not live under that assumption.
 
2013-02-05 02:21:13 PM

I drunk what: Lady Sally: You don't believe in your own elbows?

i'm agnostic about them, you can't prove a negative

Two16: I drunk what: Thou shalt not murder, lie, steal, ... LULZ just kidding (only retards would be dumb enough to fall for that stuff)

1.   We own Science, so be sure to use a smug tone when condescending to the muggles "aka religious folk"
2.   We own Logic and Reason, so constantly remind the religious people how irrational they are.
3.  The only things that deserve worship is that beautiful most perfect person In The Mirror, and if you have time give praise to the saints Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Nietzsche, PZ Meyers, etc..
4.  It's OK to pretend to tolerate the lesser of our kind who invoke the saying "I'm OK you're OK", since they are the only way we can infiltrate the religious and  subvert their moral base, but in the end just remember not to make it too obvious that you are pretending, even morans will accidentally notice if you over do it.
5.   Openly mock the religious people and slander them by any means possible.  But worry not, the retards aren't intelligent enough to notice, and even the ones that do think they must be polite when taking abuse, lulz, so let them have it don't hold back.
6.  I'm OK you're OK.  (wink wink nudge nudge)
7.  Hate God with all your Body, Spirit and Mind
8.   Nature is stuff you can touch with your tongue.
9.   Sex, drugs and rock n roll... FOR SCIENCE!!1! vote democrat
10.   Kill all the Christians and any sympathizers, lolz just kidding, I'm OK you're OK, seriously though yeah.


The bolded bits there...
[i2.kym-cdn.com image 379x214]

of course you're ok with it, they are the 10 commandments, duh

i'm ok you're ok, death to christians!

FOR SCIENCE!!1!

aagrajag: I wasn't even entirely certain about which group of people he was attempting to troll.

The Intelligence Brigade is not a troll, we are serious business

if you got a problem with our views, we'll just have your posts deleted, so get bent


No no no... please read my response, then post back to me.
 
2013-02-05 02:27:14 PM

I drunk what: FTDA: I drunk what: aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: DammitIForgotMyLogin: AverageAmericanGuy: aagrajag: AverageAmericanGuy: jso2897:

How can I "reject" that which I never possessed the capacity to accept to begin with? Would you say that I "refuse" to sprout wings and fly? It may not be as easy to comprehend what goes on in other people's heads as you seem to think it is.

Do you accept that there are people who believe in God?

Only grudgingly. It depresses me.

And you refuse to also believe?

If you're seriously leading up to the idea that not believing in the existence of something is the same as rejecting it, perhaps you'd let me know why you've rejected the check for $1m that I just placed in your hands

Are you comparing a physical thing (a check) with a spiritual thing (God)?

Note that AverageAmericanGuy has now subtly shifted the argument such that it now rests upon the definition of "spiritual". Which is easily one of the most vague, hazy concepts evar. You can't win here, guys.

can you touch it with your tongue? No. then it's not real and your an idiot who believes in unicorns, fairies and invisible sky wizards

you should not be allowed to own firearms

nice try religious retards

All four of the people that you replied to are professed Atheists or Anti-Theists.  Calling them religious retards shows your lack of reading comprehension.  Congrats on winning your award.
[i1197.photobucket.com image 399x582]

no thanks, i already got one didn't you notice the badge next to my logon? work the jaw sweety


I noticed the, "I waste $60/year to feel special," badge and it doesn't mean anything other than you probably consider buying lottery tickets a more sound investment towards retirement than a 401k.
 
2013-02-05 02:54:54 PM

Z-clipped: aagrajag: Z-clipped: monkey_licker: Atheism is also perfectly rational, if you make the same presuppositions that atheists make.

The point is to make as few presuppositions as possible.  You're ascribing presuppositions to atheists that are really just re-statements of your own bald assertions.  99.99% of atheists don't deny the possibility of a god's existence.  We just tend to assign it a more realistic probability (on par with that of unicorns and the Tooth Fairy) since we realize that wanting something to be true doesn't actually increase its likelihood.

monkey_licker: and in some extreme branches of atheism, worthy of destruction.

Whothewhatnow?

monkey_licker: I don't understand why it can't be that simple. Why does either side feel compelled to denigrate and attack anyone who disagrees?

Burning people at the stake, decrying them as incapable of morality, and passing laws that force them to the sidelines of society are not quite the same as making some smug remarks on the internet.   Have some perspective.

Hey now, they haven't done that since we removed their legal ability to do so; credit where credit is due, right?

Well, the other night I was at a restaurant, and a Christian line cook burned... my steak... so close enough. 

/I said mid-rare, you Jesus-loving heretic!


He was Jewish and the Book of Leviticus says that an offering of oxen or cattle has to be anointed with scented oils and burnt to ash as an offering.  Jews don't believe in Jesus.
 
2013-02-05 03:10:11 PM

Martian_Astronomer: Ah yes, this guy. He was the guy who made a splash a while ago for suggesting that there were certain aspects of religion that atheists should adopt for both holistic and PR reasons, and most of what I've read about him since then has been along those same lines. As such, I tend to have mixed feelings. On the one hand I understand that people find comfort, grounding, and community in ceremony, codes, traditions, etc., so I don't object to that, per se - do what you need to do to stay sane.

However, I also tend to agree a lot with a few criticisms of his ideas. First, part of what gives religion its ability to gain/retain adherents is its coerciveness. At the worst, this can be "do X or Hell," but even in more positive communities, you're still getting a message that "belonging to X is a better way/the best way/the only way to truly live." An atheist community won't have that luxury of being able to say that. We've already got a religion that draws from various traditions but doesn't make you believe any of them: The Unitarian Universalists. They can be nice people, but they lack a great deal of what people find motivating about religion.

The second criticism I agree with is that it's incredibly condescending and paternalistic to imply "Well, the little people are so stupid that they will never break free from harmful religions unless we introduce a pseudo-religion to act as a palatable substitute." Not only is this tremendously disrespectful to people that you want as your allies, but many of the people who have left religious communities are very, very sensitive to any institution that tries to establish creeds, create organized structures for endorsing standards of behavior, or act authoritarian. Some atheists admire or miss religious traditions and might be open to the idea, but a lot of them want absolutely nothing to do with anything that even resembles a religion, so if you tell them there's an "atheist church" that they ought to join they will tell you you ...


Agree with literally everything else, but in Paganism, it's not 'this is the best way to live', it's more 'oh, hey, we're all doing exactly the same thing, let's hang out and have a potluck'.

/We say "Pagans are made, not born", but this is basically what it boils down to.
 
2013-02-05 03:40:48 PM

Two16: No no no... please read my response, then post back to me.


I'm OK you're OK

welcome to the club *brofisting*


/death to christians
 
2013-02-05 03:45:35 PM

FTDA: I noticed the, "I waste $60/year to feel special,"


u jelly?

images.cheezburger.com

hey   I_C_Weener! ,get a load of this guy^

what do ya think? should i get lottery tickets instead of a 401k?
 
2013-02-05 04:18:14 PM

Mega Steve: OtherLittleGuy: Dead for Tax Reasons: Thou shall not laugh at believers for talking to their invisible friend in the sky

[picturespoilers.files.wordpress.com image 704x550]

Harvey > God


seconded

/Elwood P Dowd, let me give you one of my cards
 
2013-02-05 04:22:10 PM

monkey_licker: Farking Canuck: This is a strawman ... please do not tell us, a vast, culturally and educationally diverse group, what we think and/or why we think it.

For most atheists it boils down to this: The religious claim god is real. The atheists asks to see the evidence supporting this claim. The religious offer none.

It is this simple: Non-trivial claims require evidence. Extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence.

You aren't saying anything different from what I said. You are asking for empirical evidence. It is the only evidence atheists will accept. There is a fundamental mismatch because that request is based on the assumption that empirical knowledge is the only valid type of knowledge. I do not live under that assumption.


100% wrong. I am asking for any evidence of any type. But it has to have some form of quality.

A book known to have many authors, to have been exposed to many opportunities to be accidentally corrupted and known to have been intentionally corrupted on several occasions (like the bible) is evidence but it is not quality evidence. Somebody saying "I have a feeling" when it has been well documented how easily human perceptions are misled is also poor evidence. Arbitrarily saying "everything needs a creator" (and then hypocritically saying "except our creator") is unsupported speculation and not actually evidence at all.

All evidence is welcome. The fact that the religious cannot provide any quality evidence of any type is their problem and should tell them something about what they believe. It certainly tells us a lot.
 
2013-02-05 04:32:03 PM

FTDA: All four of the people that you replied to are professed Atheists or Anti-Theists. Calling them religious retards shows your lack of reading comprehension. Congrats on winning your award.


IDW is a religious person trolling as a strawman atheist. Don't try to reason with him or he'll post pictures of stormtroopers*.


* For some reason he feels that atheists, who have no relationships with each other, no leadership, no rules or tenants, come from all different societies, are somehow all clones and are participating in some kind of group-think.
 
2013-02-05 04:53:44 PM

Farking Canuck: 100% wrong. I am asking for any evidence of any type. But it has to have some form of quality.


Fair enough. There is no shortage of apologetics literature by the likes of William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel and Alvin Plantinga. Have you read any of these works? I can't give a defense of the Christian faith on Fark, and I won't even try. There are wiser men than I who have written extensively on the issue and I would direct anyone interested to check them out.

If you have read them and you still choose to be an atheist, that is all well and good. I don't say you are irrational or unreasonable I just say we have looked at the available evidence and reached different conclusions. I still stand by my statement that there is no need for this antagonistic relationship between atheists and people of faith. I respect your position, and your right to hold it. Why must so many atheists belittle and attack people of faith? Why must so many Christians get angry and agitated because atheists have a different worldview?
 
2013-02-05 05:05:03 PM

Farking Canuck: * For some reason he feels that atheists, who have no relationships with each other, no leadership, no rules or tenants, come from all different societies, are somehow all clones and are participating in some kind of group-think.


Yay, projection.  Having been this way once myself, I can remember all too well what it's like to think this way; I was taught to define myself by my belief/faith, so I assumed all other groups with labels defining religious belief (or lack thereof) were the same.  It was all i knew, and very difficult to break out of.  This was one of the major adjustments I had to make in my perception of the world and the people in it when I left religion behind.

/exmo
 
2013-02-05 05:14:56 PM

Farking Canuck: FTDA: All four of the people that you replied to are professed Atheists or Anti-Theists. Calling them religious retards shows your lack of reading comprehension. Congrats on winning your award.

IDW is a religious person trolling as a strawman atheist. Don't try to reason with him or he'll post pictures of stormtroopers*.


* For some reason he feels that atheists, who have no relationships with each other, no leadership, no rules or tenants, come from all different societies, are somehow all clones and are participating in some kind of group-think.


Thanks for the heads up about him.  His posts in this thread were nonsensical and poorly contrived.
 
2013-02-05 05:19:31 PM
Atheism is a Religion.
 
2013-02-05 05:34:35 PM

letrole: Atheism is a Religion.


Not stamp collecting is a hobby.

/thanks for playing
//You thought you could sneak that in after the thread got cold?
 
2013-02-05 05:34:56 PM
Eating babies is a religion.
 
2013-02-05 05:57:58 PM

macadamnut: Eating babies is a religion.


I disagree; is not barbecueing stamps with kittens on them is a hair color?
 
2013-02-05 08:22:52 PM

phrawgh: letrole: Atheism is a Religion.

Not stamp collecting is a hobby.

/thanks for playing
//You thought you could sneak that in after the thread got cold?


Sorry man I usually stay relatively neutral on religion threads, but  that's not a fair analogy. Modern Atheism has had an explosion of growth in "philosophy", and public fandom in the last 10 -15 years. Dawkins is held on high as the current prince of Atheism and has active followers that try to convince people to leave their religion. That's darn close to worship.  Maybe not a religion... yet.

If all atheists did was mind their own business and go on with their hobby of "not stamp collecting" your analogy would make sense. Instead we have a barrage of "stamp collecting is a waste of time", "why do you continue to collect stamps knowing that it's just little squares of paper?",  "How do you know there is a Post Master General if you have never met him?" rhetoric that has been ratcheting up faster than the cost of postal stamps.

What I find most amusing, many atheists wear their Dawkin's rationalized heart on their sleeve and practice smug superiority without actually endeavoring to learn or contribute to Science. They go so far as to actively condemn people for their supposed ignorance of "life", yet they are no better than their religious counterparts.
 
2013-02-05 08:26:36 PM

huntercr: Maybe not a religion... yet.


There is no system of non belief, no matter how hard you try to say otherwise.
 
2013-02-05 08:47:52 PM

letrole: Atheism is a Religion.


Gears I oil in has time.
 
2013-02-05 09:00:33 PM
'Fratricide' is strangely missing from the list. Though in those days, fighting tribe against the same tribe was more unthinkable than incest.
 
2013-02-05 09:09:25 PM

huntercr: If all atheists did was mind their own business and go on with their hobby of "not stamp collecting" your analogy would make sense.


If there were no movements to enact religious based laws, to put religion into science classes, put religious messages on courthouses and other public property then you would not hear from 90% of atheists.

So please forgive the evil atheists for standing up for their constitutional rights. The oppression you feel must be unbearable!!
 
2013-02-05 09:17:17 PM

monkey_licker: There is no shortage of apologetics literature by the likes of William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel and Alvin Plantinga. Have you read any of these works?


I am familiar with the philosophical arguments that can be made to establish a position that theism is not unjustified. Personally I find this level of philosophy incredibly boring so I do not participate in those debates.

It does seem to me that, when your position requires so many philosophical back-flips the you could score a 9.9 from the Russian Olympic gymnastics judge, you are really stretching. All just to justify the idea that your position is not completely insane ... which does not even address whether or not it is correct.
 
2013-02-05 09:26:17 PM
unfollowingjesus.com
 
2013-02-05 09:42:15 PM

doczoidberg: Aw, man.

I thought half the fun of being an atheist was not having to obey a bunch of rules.


Atheist =/= Anarchist
 
2013-02-05 09:52:20 PM

monkey_licker: Fair enough. There is no shortage of apologetics literature by the likes of William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel and Alvin Plantinga. Have you read any of these works? I can't give a defense of the Christian faith on Fark, and I won't even try. There are wiser men than I who have written extensively on the issue and I would direct anyone interested to check them out.

If you have read them and you still choose to be an atheist, that is all well and good.


To be blunt, I read them while I was still a Christian, and they were instrumental in convincing me to become an atheist. There are good Christian thinkers out there, but the ones you mentioned are not among them. I still have a copies of Reasonable Faith and Case for a Creator on my bookshelf if you want to hash that out, though it doesn't sound like you do.

monkey_licker: Why must so many atheists belittle and attack people of faith? Why must so many Christians get angry and agitated because atheists have a different worldview?


In general, I try very hard to avoid "attacking" when discussing religion, mainly because I find it unhelpful. I will say that I have been harmed by religious communities, and I feel that even when they mean well the potential for them to harm others is very real, so there is definitely a tendency for me to get touchy if I'm not careful. That doesn't mean I think that religious people have bad motives, or that I'm obligated to argue with all of them at any given time.

However, the motivations of the Christians who become agitated at the existence of atheists are very easy for me to understand. All of the authors that you mentioned argue very strenuously that it is not only reasonable to be an [Evangelical Protestant] Christian [with a literalist hermenutic,] but that that is the only legitimate position that someone familiar with the evidence could possibly take. The existence of people who are familiar with the evidence yet still don't believe shakes their confidence, so they must, by necessity demonize their motives as well as criticize their thinking. The first chapter of WLC's Reasonable Faith states explicitly: "Therefore, when a person refuses to come to Christ it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God's Spirit on his heart. No on in the final analysis really fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God." (pp 35) Atheists are not confused, mistaken, or mislead; they are intrinsically evil.

The rest of the book, of course attempts to argue through cosmology, history, and philosophy that a fairly fundamentalist view of is the only possible conclusion a reasonable person may come to. The works of Strobel and Plantinga are in a similar vein. They all espouse the philosophy that the highest calling of a Christian is to make converts, that the evidence is on their side, but at the same time that evidence ultimately doesn't matter, because if it did a nonbeliever would have a legitimate excuse - and that's not what the Bible says.

I understand this point of view very well, because I used to believe it - and it was in large part my desire to be well-grounded in apologetics that ultimately led to my exit from the religion. I applaud you for not wanting to argue or be hostile, but chastising fundamentalist/evangelical types for freaking out over the existence of atheists is essentially asking them to abandon what they believe Christianity to mean.
 
2013-02-05 11:11:27 PM
Well this went down hill fast
 
2013-02-05 11:34:43 PM

Marcintosh: Well this went down hill fast


You want to know what is really funny? Christians think atheism is all about them.
 
2013-02-06 02:53:25 AM

huntercr: Sorry man I usually stay relatively neutral on religion threads, but  that's not a fair analogy. Modern Atheism has had an explosion of growth in "philosophy", and public fandom in the last 10 -15 years. Dawkins is held on high as the current prince of Atheism and has active followers that try to convince people to leave their religion. That's darn close to worship.  Maybe not a religion... yet.


Here's the thing; Dawkins and his book represents nobody but himself (and all he really does in his book is explain why he does not believe in gods). Atheists have no uniting philosophy. No common moral guidelines (despite joke threads like this). Nothing. Atheism is just an absence of belief in gods.

The reason we atheists want people to leave their religions is because religious people won't stay out of our faces ...and sometimes they do worse than that.
 
2013-02-06 08:15:24 AM

Surool: Marcintosh: Well this went down hill fast

You want to know what is really funny? Christians think atheism is all about them.


REALLY?  I never thought of that - not being a jerk or sarcastic - never thought about it.
OTOH,  I'm not really concerned about what others think because I'm not that way.
You do what you want and I'll be over here doing what I want.
The only time I'd be concerned is if you get hurt.

weird world, but then again, that's why it's called Dogma I guess.
 
2013-02-06 12:43:31 PM

Marcintosh: REALLY?  I never thought of that - not being a jerk or sarcastic - never thought about it.
OTOH,  I'm not really concerned about what others think because I'm not that way.
You do what you want and I'll be over here doing what I want.
The only time I'd be concerned is if you get hurt.

weird world, but then again, that's why it's called Dogma I guess.


I'm sorry... What are you babbling about?
 
Displayed 229 of 229 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report