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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 229 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report