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  
•       •       •

11385 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 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 29 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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report