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.

(Christian Post .com)   Old and busted: atheist visits Jesus Camp. New Hotness: Christian visits Atheist Church   (blogs.christianpost.com) divider line 403
    More: Interesting, Jesus Camp, Islington, Angels & Demons  
•       •       •

8410 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Feb 2013 at 4:47 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-02-09 12:16:59 PM  
A (perhaps first-ever) atheistic church band leading the congregation in hits from Queen, Stevie Wonder, and Nina Simone.

It seemed that most people were there for those very reasons - community and singing. Or, what we Christians like to call, fellowship and worship.


singing is worship now?  i guess they were worshipping freddie murcury by singing queen

It doesn't matter how many songs you sing or how many people you hang out with - if it's not centered around Jesus (the true reason for church in the first place) it's never going to be enough.

yes, it could.  not everyone needs god and jesus, just their fellow man

it seems like he just went there to point and laugh at how wrong the people there were, not to actually think or see the other side.
 
2013-02-09 12:27:25 PM  
This shiat is getting old. Fundies, please stop trying to force your religion on everyone. Atheists, please quit trolling the fundies
 
2013-02-09 12:29:38 PM  
They are missing the point entirely.

Church isn't about music, it isn't about making people feel happy, and it isn't about instilling wonder. Church isn't even about getting together in community to get your felt needs met.

Church is about Jesus.


Nah. Dude missed the point AND the joke.
 
2013-02-09 12:31:04 PM  
Dead for Tax Reasons:

it seems like he just went there to point and laugh at how wrong the people there were, not to actually think or see the other side.

Yep.

Two people see something that they don't completely understand.  The atheist will usually say "I don't know," and if s/he is motivated to do so, will go on to try to find an explanation.  The theist will usually say "must be God" and cease all further speculation, because s/he has already come to an answer that satisfies him/her.

If just slapping the name "God" on the mysteries of the universe is enough of an answer for you, then religion is probably satisfying.  If not, it's not.  If you want to actually understand things, simply calling them "supernatural" and ceasing any further research just isn't good enough.
 
2013-02-09 12:39:57 PM  
Atheists have camps?
 
2013-02-09 12:52:05 PM  

FloydA: Dead for Tax Reasons:

it seems like he just went there to point and laugh at how wrong the people there were, not to actually think or see the other side.

Yep.

Two people see something that they don't completely understand.  The atheist will usually say "I don't know," and if s/he is motivated to do so, will go on to try to find an explanation.  The theist will usually say "must be God" and cease all further speculation, because s/he has already come to an answer that satisfies him/her.


I find this stereotypical summation, typical of liberal bigotry, amusingly ironic.

Please, you two, tell us more about how "those people" think.  Make sure to fluff yourselves up as the enlightened class at the same time.  Extra bonus points for ridiculous generalizations and/or complete ignorance baout the people you are criticizing.
 
2013-02-09 12:56:24 PM  
"So," I thought to myself, "at the creation of the universe from nothing there was an inconceivable amount of light followed by the most improbable conditions that allowed for the entire universe to exist."

I couldn't hold back a huge smile.

Why? Because Cliff's talk sounded an awful lot like this:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

The earth was without form and void...

and God said, 'Let there be light.'"


It also sounds a lot like Ovid's Metamorphoses, and the Stoic conception of everything initially coming from fire. And a bunch of other old stuff, too.

What's your point, God boy?
 
2013-02-09 12:58:01 PM  

Lsherm: FloydA: Dead for Tax Reasons:

it seems like he just went there to point and laugh at how wrong the people there were, not to actually think or see the other side.

Yep.

Two people see something that they don't completely understand.  The atheist will usually say "I don't know," and if s/he is motivated to do so, will go on to try to find an explanation.  The theist will usually say "must be God" and cease all further speculation, because s/he has already come to an answer that satisfies him/her.

I find this stereotypical summation, typical of liberal bigotry, amusingly ironic.

Please, you two, tell us more about how "those people" think.  Make sure to fluff yourselves up as the enlightened class at the same time.  Extra bonus points for ridiculous generalizations and/or complete ignorance baout the people you are criticizing.


Well, it's a good thing you know better than to stereotype.
 
2013-02-09 01:16:09 PM  

Aar1012: Atheists have camps?


Only ones we put Christians in.  Uhh...I mean, they're re-education camps.  No, wait, I'm not supposed to say that either.  Uhh...knowledge camps!  That's it.
 
2013-02-09 01:17:33 PM  
Bzzzt.  Appeal to ignorance fallacy.  "We don't know, therefore God".

Please try again.
 
2013-02-09 01:29:18 PM  
Allow people their own relationship with God as they perceive him without insisting they profess belief in the supernatural. Otherwise your Special Magic Club is doomed.
 
2013-02-09 01:32:45 PM  
"Atheist Church" is an oxymoron. Also stupid, but I repeat myself.
 
2013-02-09 01:37:03 PM  

Aar1012: Atheists have camps?


Ask Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao about those.
 
2013-02-09 01:37:51 PM  

muck4doo: Aar1012: Atheists have camps?

Ask Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao about those.


how clever
 
2013-02-09 01:39:14 PM  

GAT_00: Aar1012: Atheists have camps?

Only ones we put Christians in.  Uhh...I mean, they're re-education camps.  No, wait, I'm not supposed to say that either.  Uhh...knowledge camps!  That's it.


They're the ones they put those who didn't have full faith in the government in. You would have loved them.
 
2013-02-09 01:39:51 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: muck4doo: Aar1012: Atheists have camps?

Ask Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao about those.

how clever


Yes, they thought that too.
 
2013-02-09 01:42:04 PM  
The press was there catching interviews. (They also recorded the entire service along with the attendees to a point that it made it uncomfortable).

Aww, the poor widdle baby didn't want people to mistake him for being a big bad atheist.

/and atheists don't have churches, silly christians
 
2013-02-09 01:43:00 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: Atheists, please quit trolling the fundies


Not until they stop trying to force their religions.
 
2013-02-09 01:43:55 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: /and atheists don't have churches, silly christians


Just camps for re-education.
 
2013-02-09 01:44:06 PM  

Lsherm: FloydA: Dead for Tax Reasons:

it seems like he just went there to point and laugh at how wrong the people there were, not to actually think or see the other side.

Yep.

Two people see something that they don't completely understand.  The atheist will usually say "I don't know," and if s/he is motivated to do so, will go on to try to find an explanation.  The theist will usually say "must be God" and cease all further speculation, because s/he has already come to an answer that satisfies him/her.

I find this stereotypical summation, typical of liberal bigotry, amusingly ironic.

Please, you two, tell us more about how "those people" think.  Make sure to fluff yourselves up as the enlightened class at the same time.  Extra bonus points for ridiculous generalizations and/or complete ignorance baout the people you are criticizing.


You should try RTFA if you want answers to those questions.
 
2013-02-09 01:56:15 PM  
That article was total farking bullshiat. Where were the baby bbq's? The gay orgies? The ritualistic virgin sacrifices to Hitchens? And he wasn't even forced to shoot heroin in his eyeballs once? That must have been some weenie junior camp.The atheist camp I went to, we were raping bald eagles and smoking the mary-juana before the hell wagon left the slaughterhouse! Kids these days....tsk, tsk.....
 
2013-02-09 01:58:07 PM  
 
2013-02-09 01:58:24 PM  

alwaysjaded: That article was total farking bullshiat. Where were the baby bbq's? The gay orgies? The ritualistic virgin sacrifices to Hitchens? And he wasn't even forced to shoot heroin in his eyeballs once? That must have been some weenie junior camp.The atheist camp I went to, we were raping bald eagles and smoking the mary-juana before the hell wagon left the slaughterhouse! Kids these days....tsk, tsk.....


All churches are just like Jesus camp too
 
2013-02-09 02:00:51 PM  

FloydA: Lionel Mandrake:


[i105.photobucket.com image 327x154]


Oh, I have no intention of going any further into the mud than that single, derisively sarcastic remark.  I know better than that.
 
2013-02-09 02:16:32 PM  
Atheist Church?  What, like Brazzers?
 
2013-02-09 02:19:28 PM  

thamike: Atheist Church?  What, like Brazzers?


i105.photobucket.com
What an atheist church might look like.
 
2013-02-09 02:23:00 PM  

FloydA: thamike: Atheist Church?  What, like Brazzers?

[i105.photobucket.com image 500x375]
What an atheist church might look like.


I know Atheists who don't drink. Don't try to paint them all as alcoholics.
 
2013-02-09 02:24:42 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Allow people their own relationship with God as they perceive him without insisting they profess belief in the supernatural. Otherwise your Special Magic Club is doomed.


No, it can't be done.

We are tribal monkeys. Only one tribe can be right.
 
2013-02-09 02:28:34 PM  
FTFA: After his introduction, we sang a Queen song as the service moved along.

"Who Wants to Live Forever"?

/there can be only one
 
2013-02-09 02:31:53 PM  
Also, FTFA: Here we were at an atheistic church service being delivered evidences of both God's existence (the improbability of asymmetry at the Big Bang) and the Bible's trustwwdow*whistling screeching dial-tuning noise*...

Yeah. :/

At best, Genesis is allegorical. I was half-expecting the author of TFA to suddenly say how the CERN scientist "proved" that the Earth is only 6000 years old, but I stopped reading at this point.
 
2013-02-09 02:32:28 PM  

FloydA: thamike: Atheist Church?  What, like Brazzers?

[i105.photobucket.com image 500x375]
What an atheist church might look like.


Mmmm. Great and yummy comfort food -- love the 5 Point Cafe! My kind of church!
 
2013-02-09 02:36:10 PM  

thamike: Atheist Church?  What, like Brazzers?


I once went to a UU church that had a smattering of everything:  "recovering" Catholics, agnostics, atheists, etc...I think a Buddhist even showed up once.  It seems to be mostly about fellowship than worshiping a cloudy sky wizard.

YMMV.  That place may have been an anomaly.  *shrug*  I know the *local* UU church where I live has a freakin' Pride flag out front.  Yes.  In The County (tm).  I'm surprised the place hasn't been burned down.  For extra fun goodness, they're right across the street from some screaming fundies.  These fundies are moving, though.  They're building a megachurch up the street on top of the hill.

:/

/csb
 
2013-02-09 02:40:08 PM  

xanadian: thamike: Atheist Church?  What, like Brazzers?

I once went to a UU church that had a smattering of everything:  "recovering" Catholics, agnostics, atheists, etc...I think a Buddhist even showed up once.  It seems to be mostly about fellowship than worshiping a cloudy sky wizard.

YMMV.  That place may have been an anomaly.  *shrug*  I know the *local* UU church where I live has a freakin' Pride flag out front.  Yes.  In The County (tm).  I'm surprised the place hasn't been burned down.  For extra fun goodness, they're right across the street from some screaming fundies.  These fundies are moving, though.  They're building a megachurch up the street on top of the hill.

:/

/csb


Ah yes, so they can have their little private enclave, and let the money changers in the house.

Good for them!
 
2013-02-09 02:41:02 PM  

OnceMoreWithFeeling: FloydA: thamike: Atheist Church?  What, like Brazzers?

[i105.photobucket.com image 500x375]
What an atheist church might look like.

Mmmm. Great and yummy comfort food -- love the 5 Point Cafe! My kind of church!


i105.photobucket.com
Dude, we should hang out!   ;-)
 
2013-02-09 02:42:20 PM  
i think atheist churches are idiotic, but at the same time, the fact that the non-religious aren't as a group a civic or political force is to their detriment - and that will only change with some semblance of community organizing.

just be frigged if i can convince myself that church services are the answer, tho.
 
2013-02-09 02:42:50 PM  
Atheists have church?  um...doesn't that kind of defeat the point of being an atheist?
 
2013-02-09 02:48:33 PM  
depends on where you look, but seeing 'non religious' at around 20% of the population in america is a fair enough average.

for comparisons sake, catholic is at about the same range. same with evangelical. same with 'vanilla' protestant.

the bassackwardness of attempting to coagulate a group based on what they don't think is just too much of a hurdle, tho.
 
2013-02-09 02:49:34 PM  

Aar1012: Atheists have camps?


There's one spot out in the forest on the Olympic Peninsula where there are some natural volcanic hot springs.  I've sometimes hiked out with a tent and backpack and stayed a few days.  Does that count?


Weaver95: Atheists have church?  um...doesn't that kind of defeat the point of being an atheist?


Yeah, calling it a "church" is kind of silly.  Gathering with like-minded individuals can be informative, entertaining, and enjoyable, and it's just as useful for non-believers as for believers.  I was under the impression that "church"  was supposed to be something more than just a casual get together.
 
2013-02-09 02:52:19 PM  

Weaver95: Atheists have church?  um...doesn't that kind of defeat the point of being an atheist?


Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.  Now I have to go around with some sort of absurd hyphenated clarification because of these bozos.
 
2013-02-09 02:56:14 PM  

Weaver95: Atheists have church?  um...doesn't that kind of defeat the point of being an atheist?


I think that atheists are getting organized as a group. More political power that way. Once crowds firms with a voice , the leaders have to notice.
 
2013-02-09 02:57:44 PM  

thamike: Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.


it does, but at the same time, organized group representation is how things work.

it's not like any other group has issue with 'hey, we think alike, let's group together in our own specific civic and political interests.'

that the commonality is in something they don't think is what turns things down an absurd cul-de-sac, but at the same time....i can't say we wouldn't be better off if that 20% slice of the country had as much political clout as other similarly large groupings.
 
2013-02-09 03:02:46 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Weaver95: Atheists have church?  um...doesn't that kind of defeat the point of being an atheist?

I think that atheists are getting organized as a group. More political power that way. Once crowds firms with a voice , the leaders have to notice.


Organized non-stamp collectors?
 
2013-02-09 03:03:06 PM  

thamike: Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.


I think you have atheism confused with anarchism. People can get together and talk about science while still being atheists.
 
2013-02-09 03:03:56 PM  
I guess they'd get a kick out of Unitarians' Atheist vs Theists softball games then...
 
2013-02-09 03:04:18 PM  

FloydA: Two people see something that they don't completely understand. The atheist will usually say "I don't know," and if s/he is motivated to do so, will go on to try to find an explanation. The theist will usually say "must be God" and cease all further speculation

==

"As in the other sciences, astronomers in the Muslim lands built upon and greatly expanded earlier traditions. At the House of Knowledge founded in Baghdad by the Abbasid caliph Mamun, scientists translated many texts from Sanskrit, Pahlavi or Old Persian, Greek and Syriac into Arabic, notably the great Sanskrit astronomical tables and Ptolemy's astronomical treatise, the Almagest. Muslim astronomers accepted the geometrical structure of the universe expounded by Ptolemy, in which the earth rests motionless near the center of a series of eight spheres, which encompass it, but then faced the problem of reconciling the theoretical model with Aristotelian physics and physical realities derived from observation. Some of the most impressive efforts to modify Ptolemaic theory were made at the observatory founded by Nasir al-Din Tusi in 1257 at Maragha in northwestern Iran and continued by his successors at Tabriz and Damascus. With the assistance of Chinese colleagues, Muslim astronomers worked out planetary models that depended solely on combinations of uniform circular motions. The astronomical tables compiled at Maragha served as a model for later Muslim astronomical efforts. The most famous imitator was the observatory founded in 1420 by the Timurid prince Ulughbeg at Samarkand in Central Asia, where the astronomer Ghiyath al-Din Jamshid al-Kashi worked out his own set of astronomical tables, with sections on diverse computations and eras, the knowledge of time, the course of the stars, and the position of the fixed stars. Essentially Ptolemaic, these tables have improved parameters and structure as well as additional material on the Chinese Uighur-calendar. They were widely admired and translated even as far away as England, where John Greaves, professor at Oxford, called attention to them in 1665."

===
Wow. If only your incredibly stupid generalization had any relevance to the actual history of science, and wasn't thus easily shown to be bullshiat, then it might be meaningful. People of varying religious commitments have made (and continue to make) remarkable contributions to science, medicine, engineering, economics and many forms of related knowledge. But I'm sure you'll apologize right away, right?
 
2013-02-09 03:06:03 PM  
muck4doo:
Organized non-stamp collectors?

if philatelist groups were advocating mandatory and tax payer funded stamp activities, why wouldn't it make sense for those who weren't into stamps to have a voice in the conversation?

again, i fully recognize that organization based on something people don't think is well into absurdville. but being a resident of absurdville doesn't stop any other group from having a voice or collective will, why should this be different?
 
2013-02-09 03:06:42 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: thamike: Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.

I think you have atheism confused with anarchism. People can get together and talk about science while still being atheists.


No. One is a political belief, the other is a religious belief, and the other is a science belief. Certain politicians in the past have believed the they are mutual though. You don't want to dig there.
 
2013-02-09 03:09:13 PM  
Somacandra:

Wow. If only your incredibly stupid

Well that was helpful. Thank you for advancing the conversation in a useful and effective way.
 
2013-02-09 03:10:50 PM  

heap: muck4doo:
Organized non-stamp collectors?

if philatelist groups were advocating mandatory and tax payer funded stamp activities, why wouldn't it make sense for those who weren't into stamps to have a voice in the conversation?

again, i fully recognize that organization based on something people don't think is well into absurdville. but being a resident of absurdville doesn't stop any other group from having a voice or collective will, why should this be different?


Because anti-absurdville tends to go in their own absurdville directions as well. Remember when that cross got stolen off the cemetery on some obscure California mountain?
 
2013-02-09 03:12:09 PM  

thamike: Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.


Being an "atheist" has no purpose by definition. Modern Western Atheism has no content--its a concept entirely founded on negating a complete strawman of a Protestant concept of religion. If instead you're going to talk about Humanism or an actual ethos of some kind, then social and ethical organizations have long been part of this tradition in Europe and the United States. Atheism does not mean non-religious: many Buddhists and Jains are 'atheists' but are nonetheless quite religious people.
 
2013-02-09 03:14:38 PM  
did i miss somacondra getting the wand passed to him by bevets, or something?


muck4doo: Because anti-absurdville tends to go in their own absurdville directions as well. Remember when that cross got stolen off the cemetery on some obscure California mountain?


people do goofy shiat, that's kinda what we're good at. it doesn't take an ethos to be a goofy bastard, and having an ethos doesn't negate being a goofy bastard.

that really doesn't have anything to do with what i was talking about, tho.
 
2013-02-09 03:17:10 PM  

heap: did i miss somacondra getting the wand passed to him by bevets, or something?


muck4doo: Because anti-absurdville tends to go in their own absurdville directions as well. Remember when that cross got stolen off the cemetery on some obscure California mountain?

people do goofy shiat, that's kinda what we're good at. it doesn't take an ethos to be a goofy bastard, and having an ethos doesn't negate being a goofy bastard.

that really doesn't have anything to do with what i was talking about, tho.


Fair enough
 
2013-02-09 03:27:11 PM  

muck4doo: Darth_Lukecash: Weaver95: Atheists have church?  um...doesn't that kind of defeat the point of being an atheist?

I think that atheists are getting organized as a group. More political power that way. Once crowds firms with a voice , the leaders have to notice.

Organized non-stamp collectors?


Okay, that made me laugh, you magnificent bastard. ;)
 
2013-02-09 03:36:31 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: Atheists, please quit trolling the fundies


They started it.
 
2013-02-09 03:41:54 PM  

Somacandra: thamike: Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.

Being an "atheist" has no purpose by definition. Modern Western Atheism has no content--its a concept entirely founded on negating a complete strawman of a Protestant concept of religion. If instead you're going to talk about Humanism or an actual ethos of some kind, then social and ethical organizations have long been part of this tradition in Europe and the United States. Atheism does not mean non-religious: many Buddhists and Jains are 'atheists' but are nonetheless quite religious people.


Many Buddhists are less inclined to believe in gods, but hold to the teachings, including the acceptance of metaphor in those teachings, because they have found something useful. At no point, do you need gods in Buddhism for the crux of the Eightfold Path and the Four Noble Truths to be adhered to. Many do, but that doesn't mean that the practice is necessarily "theist" or "atheist" as much what the practice means to that particular adherent. In Buddhism especially, gods serve as warning signs. Yes, many are useful, as paragons, but they are trapped in their roles. They can no more move on from their place than the Earth can stop revolving or the Sun to stop its march across the galaxy. Gods play roles, they have purpose, they serve the Celestial order, and are as forces of nature. You can respect nature, you can respect its power, find joy in a sunny day, and leap to avoid winds and rain, without falling down to worship it alone. Respect of place, respect in the order of things isn't quite the same as pure worship.

Atheism alone isn't a position. It's a lack of position. It means simply that you don't hold in a higher power. Organizing on that lack of a higher power is sort silly. As much a rejection of faith as Satanism. In this, I think that Somacandra is right to make the distinction. It isn't what you believe, but rather what you do with what you believe. Atheism and theism are broader terms to describe belief structures, or their lack, but it doesn't immediately mean that you're smarter, or dumber, or more or less violent, or better or worse, it is simply stating that you have or do not have belief structures based on the existence of powers beyond our kenn, and even then, some atheists do have some belief in some universal imperative, even if not named, or a shared consciousness. Simply identifying theist or atheist still covers a LOT of ground. Specificity is necessary in this particular conversation, and I don't think it's out of line to remind folks of that. It's not a team sport, and while in this case, this particular "church" is looking to draw folks together, to sort of mock institutions, it is sort of silly to do so on the basis of a rejection of structures alone. It is sort of the point, to have fun with it, to draw folks together, and if folks are having a good time together, more power to them, but it acts as a sort of lightning rod for the less discerning--which is perhaps the purpose--but it does sort of muddy the waters a bit.
 
2013-02-09 03:42:06 PM  

heap: muck4doo:
Organized non-stamp collectors?

if philatelist groups were advocating mandatory and tax payer funded stamp activities, why wouldn't it make sense for those who weren't into stamps to have a voice in the conversation?


Uh, yeah, if people were trying to cram philately into courtrooms and science classes, I'd oppose that, too.  I might even join or support an organization devoted to stopping that.
 
2013-02-09 03:54:39 PM  

hubiestubert: . In this, I think that Somacandra is right to make the distinction. It isn't what you believe, but rather what you do with what you believe.


In his Boobies in this thread, he called me "incredibly stupid."  I've seen what he does with what he believes.  I'm not impressed.
 
2013-02-09 04:14:18 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: thamike: Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.

I think you have atheism confused with anarchism.


But I probably don't.
 
2013-02-09 04:18:04 PM  

Somacandra: thamike: Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.

Being an "atheist" has no purpose by definition. Modern Western Atheism has no content--its a concept entirely founded on negating a complete strawman of a Protestant concept of religion. If instead you're going to talk about Humanism or an actual ethos of some kind, then social and ethical organizations have long been part of this tradition in Europe and the United States. Atheism does not mean non-religious: many Buddhists and Jains are 'atheists' but are nonetheless quite religious people.


Well put.
 
2013-02-09 04:51:57 PM  
Dear God,

What created you and what are you made out of? Also, who created whoever created you?
 
2013-02-09 04:55:37 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: This shiat is getting old. Fundies, please stop trying to force your religion on everyone. Atheists, please quit trolling the fundies



Some of us enjoy.
 
2013-02-09 04:56:38 PM  
Fundies, meet the Internets: the downfall of your silliness. People in Podunk who otherwise would have no contact with anyone outside their insulated community are able to receive the entirety of human knowledge at their fingertips - granted, most of that knowledge centers around porn and cats, but that's a different tale for a different time. The Webs will chip away at your base. The end is nigh.
 
2013-02-09 04:58:51 PM  
Avast:  Threat detected, URL blocked
 
2013-02-09 04:59:43 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Dear God,

What created you and what are you made out of? Also, who created whoever created you?


I'll start getting turtles. BRB.
 
2013-02-09 05:01:54 PM  
...and athiest....church?

You people are crazy, fark'yall I'm being whatever it is that doesn't believe in sky wizards or noodly flying monsters but doesn't waste his time in some church either.
 
2013-02-09 05:02:26 PM  
ArkyBeagle: I'll start getting turtles. BRB.

images.sodahead.com

already on the case
 
2013-02-09 05:03:02 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Dear God,

What created you and what are you made out of? Also, who created whoever created you?


img194.imageshack.us

It's all in your head.
 
2013-02-09 05:03:26 PM  
i47.tinypic.com

just sayin'
 
2013-02-09 05:04:08 PM  
They sing Queen songs at atheist churches? Damn, I wanna go now!
 
2013-02-09 05:05:48 PM  
ITT: small minded person misses point of thing.
 
2013-02-09 05:05:59 PM  

Four Horsemen of the Domestic Dispute: Peter von Nostrand: This shiat is getting old. Fundies, please stop trying to force your religion on everyone. Atheists, please quit trolling the fundies


Some of us enjoy.


and some of us grow weary of it.
*obvious parent is obvious*
 
2013-02-09 05:07:19 PM  
"So," I thought to myself, "at the creation of the universe from nothing there was an inconceivable amount of light followed by the most improbable conditions that allowed for the entire universe to exist."
I couldn't hold back a huge smile.
Why? Because Cliff's talk sounded an awful lot like this:
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
The earth was without form and void...
and God said, 'Let there be light.'"


And you would be wrong in thinking that it sounds an awful lot like the Genesis myth of creation. What Dr. Cliff is describing is not a direct process caused by an agent, but an emergent process caused by independent events acting simultaneously and randomly.You are making a categorical mistake by inferring from that description the presence of any causal agency, i.e. God, in any of it. Nature simply happens, with neither proximal nor distal causation necessarily coming from any intentional agent or agents.

My only complaint about Cliff's talk was that he never discussed the obvious question of how the most improbable condition was probable in the first place. What made the asymmetry, well, asymmetrical? He essentially sidestepped the chicken-or-the-egg issue with the Big Bang.

You only see a chicken-or-the-egg issue (which is not even the appropriate paradoxical allusion to make here) because you have already loaded your interpretation of what he said with an unwarranted assumption, i.e. the existence of a casual and intentional agency that set things in motion. As a parallel, that is akin to asking how much does velocity weigh, because it is assuming the referent being described belongs to a different ontological category that has different features and properties. You are assuming that things only happen if causation originates from intentionality. That is, you have already assumed a priori, with no justifiable reason to do so, that physical processes must have psychological properties in order to exist (in this case, the psychological property of intentionality as a casual factor to kick off physical events), when the reality is the overlap between physical ontologies and psychological ontologies only exists in animals... and even then only in a minority of them that happen to have a minimally sophisticated central nervous system.

It is for precisely this reason that religious dogmas either fail to be supported by scientific inquiry or are directly refuted by scientific inquiry, because the quantity and quality of a priori assumptions about reality are both greatly reduced and more logically justifiable. Whereas you, and all religious people for that matter, believe there is some psychologically-endowed entity causing things - whether it's proximally, as in intercessory prayer, or distally, as in the creation of the universe - in order to make sense of the reality you encounter, scientific inquiry has succeeded in maintaining the fewest number of relevant assumptions in order to draw any meaningful conclusion that helps us to understand the reality we encounter (for example, science assumes that all effects have causes, but doesn't assume that all causes originate from an intentional agent), making necessary additions and subtractions as more and more evidence piles in.
 
2013-02-09 05:08:27 PM  
for a not religion they sure do act like one
 
2013-02-09 05:11:35 PM  

Spanky_McFarksalot: for a not religion they sure do act like one


In what way?
 
2013-02-09 05:12:14 PM  

thamike: Weaver95: Atheists have church?  um...doesn't that kind of defeat the point of being an atheist?

Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.  Now I have to go around with some sort of absurd hyphenated clarification because of these bozos.


Free-range-atheist
 
2013-02-09 05:13:39 PM  

Aar1012: Atheists have camps?


www.moviefancentral.com
This one time, at atheist camp ...
 
2013-02-09 05:13:39 PM  

Lsherm: FloydA:
I find this stereotypical summation, typical of liberal bigotry, amusingly ironic.

Please, you two, tell us more about how "those people" think.  Make sure to fluff yourselves up as the enlightened class at the same time.  Extra bonus points for ridiculous generalizations and/or complete ignorance baout the people you are criticizing.


And I find this stereotypical dismissal, typical of conservative ignorance, just plain amusing.
 
2013-02-09 05:13:57 PM  

Somacandra: thamike: Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.

Being an "atheist" has no purpose by definition. Modern Western Atheism has no content--its a concept entirely founded on negating a complete strawman of a Protestant concept of religion. If instead you're going to talk about Humanism or an actual ethos of some kind, then social and ethical organizations have long been part of this tradition in Europe and the United States. Atheism does not mean non-religious: many Buddhists and Jains are 'atheists' but are nonetheless quite religious people.


Don't forget
theindiespiritualist.com

/also this
//NSFW
 
2013-02-09 05:15:19 PM  
gimmegimme: Spanky_McFarksalot: for a not religion they sure do act like one

In what way?


what with all the non-beliefs in deities and shiat
 
2013-02-09 05:15:27 PM  

maxheck: [i47.tinypic.com image 640x1188]

just sayin'


Max: your list is farked up nine ways to Sunday.  Christ, oddly enough was never recognized as the leader of christianity,; all the other items are easily refutable or easy enough to find examples of how being atheist is no different other than the one about live now for a future utpian society.  I'll agree there- not a lick of sense when it comes to you kids planning for your future be it financial or spiritual.
 
2013-02-09 05:17:03 PM  

Aar1012: camp



Camp Quest, now with 16 locations in 3 countries to serve you.

i224.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-09 05:17:19 PM  

FloydA: thamike: Atheist Church?  What, like Brazzers?

[i105.photobucket.com image 500x375]
What an atheist church might look like.


www.reverie.comI prefer the Church of the Inner Spring
 
2013-02-09 05:17:34 PM  
Peter von Nostrand:  Atheists, please quit trolling the fundies

Just as soon as they quit voting and trying to force their moral code onto the rest of us.
 
2013-02-09 05:18:37 PM  

GAT_00: Aar1012: Atheists have camps?

Only ones we put Christians in.  Uhh...I mean, they're re-education camps.  No, wait, I'm not supposed to say that either.  Uhh...knowledge camps!  That's it.


theparanoidgamer.com
What an atheist camp might look like.
 
2013-02-09 05:19:58 PM  
Well, this was the most condescending article I've read in a long time. I feel like theists, atheists, and even deists can agree that the author is a sanctimonious coont.
 
2013-02-09 05:21:57 PM  
If some atheists keep organizing like this I am going to have to get some identifier to make it clear that I am not affiliated.

Maybe "Chaos Atheist" - I like that.
 
2013-02-09 05:22:02 PM  

g4lt: FloydA: thamike: Atheist Church?  What, like Brazzers?

[i105.photobucket.com image 500x375]
What an atheist church might look like.

[www.reverie.com image 850x676]I prefer the Church of the Inner Spring


For a second there, I was wondering why you had a hidden stash of toilet paper.
 
2013-02-09 05:22:43 PM  
Sheeit! Religion again? Sooooo boring. Been there. Total waste of 30 years. And then I got crucified. And now I have to hang up here in this fuggin' white room listening to d-bag angels sing elevator music 24-7. Which is why I've got wifi because at least I can surf some porn.

Sure, believe in "God" all you want, insects. But take it from me, my dad's a total a-hole who's never followed through on a promise in his life - unless it's to torture you like some kid with an ant farm. You wanna worship that? What-e-ver.
 
2013-02-09 05:23:21 PM  

nerftaig: Well, this was the most condescending article I've read in a long time. I feel like theists, atheists, and even deists can agree that the author is a sanctimonious coont.


The fact that he saw everything through a brutal religious filter was pretty pathetic.
 
2013-02-09 05:23:53 PM  

Farking Canuck: If some atheists keep organizing like this I am going to have to get some identifier to make it clear that I am not affiliated.

Maybe "Chaos Atheist" - I like that.


I advise you to take the author's description of the meeting with a grain of salt; he's not necessarily a reliable, objective source of information about the event.
 
2013-02-09 05:25:04 PM  
I found it interesting that he was made uncomfortable by the press taking pictures and recording

The press was there catching interviews. (They also recorded the entire service along with the attendees to a point that it made it uncomfortable).

Yet he had no issue taking his own pictures covertly

I surreptitiously wandered around taking photos of the event. I was, after all, running a clandestine intel-gathering mission behind enemy lines.

At least the press was aboveboard and didn't sneak around like he did.

Also his use of the term enemy should put to rest any thought or even hint that he was there with even a slightly open mind.

The guy's an asswipe no matter which side he's on of any debate.
 
2013-02-09 05:25:21 PM  
clowncar on fire:

maxheck: [i47.tinypic.com image 640x1188]

just sayin'

Max: your list is farked up nine ways to Sunday. Christ, oddly enough was never recognized as the leader of christianity,; all the other items are easily refutable or easy enough to find examples of how being atheist is no different other than the one about live now for a future utpian society. I'll agree there- not a lick of sense when it comes to you kids planning for your future be it financial or spiritual.


Well, ok. We will await your easy refutation. Have at it.

I will take exception to your idea that the Christ isn't the center of worship... I'm pretty sure there are a few people who hang on his words and put his picture up everywhere. As an outsider, I am pretty sure that the Christ was considered a leader of his flock.
 
2013-02-09 05:27:05 PM  

susler: I found it interesting that he was made uncomfortable by the press taking pictures and recording

The press was there catching interviews. (They also recorded the entire service along with the attendees to a point that it made it uncomfortable).

Yet he had no issue taking his own pictures covertly

I surreptitiously wandered around taking photos of the event. I was, after all, running a clandestine intel-gathering mission behind enemy lines.

At least the press was aboveboard and didn't sneak around like he did.

Also his use of the term enemy should put to rest any thought or even hint that he was there with even a slightly open mind.

The guy's an asswipe no matter which side he's on of any debate.


A religious hypocrite?  HOW CAN THAT BE?  HE IS THE FIRST.
 
2013-02-09 05:28:59 PM  
Eww... I think I stepped in some smug. Didn't anybody clean up after TFA author?
 
2013-02-09 05:30:26 PM  
TFA: My only complaint about Cliff's talk was that he never discussed the obvious question of how the most improbable condition was probable in the first place. What made the asymmetry, well, asymmetrical?

Wizards. Next.
 
2013-02-09 05:31:18 PM  

maxheck: I will take exception to your idea that the Christ isn't the center of worship... I'm pretty sure there are a few people who hang on his words and put his picture up everywhere. As an outsider, I am pretty sure that the Christ was considered a leader of his flock.


Yup, around here, Jesus is a pretty big farking deal:

cdn.marshill.com

/I don't really get the donkey image, myself, if that's what it is.
 
2013-02-09 05:31:29 PM  
Shockingly, there's someone out there who thinks everyone ought to go to church to worship what he worships.
 
2013-02-09 05:31:38 PM  

FloydA: thamike: Atheist Church?  What, like Brazzers?

[i105.photobucket.com image 500x375]
What an atheist church might look like.


An atheist place to congregate and seek higher learning?

That's called a "school".  AN ATHEIST CHURCH IS A SCHOOL!

/unless it's a Catholic school
//or a public school in Arkansas
///or Tennessee
////or Texas
 
2013-02-09 05:33:27 PM  

Oznog: FloydA: thamike: Atheist Church?  What, like Brazzers?

[i105.photobucket.com image 500x375]
What an atheist church might look like.

An atheist place to congregate and seek higher learning?

That's called a "school".  AN ATHEIST CHURCH IS A SCHOOL!

/unless it's a Catholic school
//or a public school in Arkansas
///or Tennessee
////or Texas


Not really. Schools have an inherent system of values, (sports aside) - knowledge is good, intellect is good, etc. Atheism has no inherent value system.

Schools tend to be secular, but they were not always so and many (as you pointed out) still are not entirely secular.
 
2013-02-09 05:33:42 PM  

hubiestubert: I guess they'd get a kick out of Unitarians' Atheist vs Theists softball games then...


 I read the article and was thinking, "Here's an author who's apparently never heard of the UUs.

/atheist who attends a UU church in the Bible Belt
 
2013-02-09 05:33:54 PM  

ph0rk: maxheck: I will take exception to your idea that the Christ isn't the center of worship... I'm pretty sure there are a few people who hang on his words and put his picture up everywhere. As an outsider, I am pretty sure that the Christ was considered a leader of his flock.

Yup, around here, Jesus is a pretty big farking deal:

[cdn.marshill.com image 720x402]

/I don't really get the donkey image, myself, if that's what it is.


It's a reference to Ezekiel 23:20:

There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.


The word of the Lord.  Amen.
 
2013-02-09 05:35:53 PM  

gimmegimme: It's a reference to Ezekiel 23:20:


Aha, classy.

/not telling which party I mean
 
2013-02-09 05:36:13 PM  
Atheism is a Religion.
 
2013-02-09 05:36:59 PM  

letrole: Atheism is a Religion.


Oh good, now it's a party.
 
2013-02-09 05:38:04 PM  

letrole: Atheism is a Religion.


If you're going to le troll, at least pretend to support your assertion.
 
2013-02-09 05:38:16 PM  
letrole:

Atheism is a Religion.

"letrole" is a surname.

/ yes, we've heard it before, dumbass.
 
2013-02-09 05:38:21 PM  
Let's see what we've got here.

Smug self assurance?  Check.

Condescension?  Oh yeah.

Subtle dig at the media?  That's a big ten four, good buddy.

You sure this is from England and not somewhere in the gold old US of A?
 
2013-02-09 05:38:48 PM  

maxheck: letrole:

Atheism is a Religion.

"letrole" is a surname.

/ yes, we've heard it before, dumbass.


Also a sock puppet.
 
2013-02-09 05:41:13 PM  

ph0rk: maxheck: letrole:

Atheism is a Religion.

"letrole" is a surname.

/ yes, we've heard it before, dumbass.

Also a sock puppet.


Ya think?
 
2013-02-09 05:42:19 PM  

clowncar on fire: Avast:  Threat detected, URL blocked


I wish I had gotten that warning, because then I wouldn't have read that boring blog post.
 
2013-02-09 05:43:33 PM  

Farking Canuck: If some atheists keep organizing like this I am going to have to get some identifier to make it clear that I am not affiliated.

Maybe "Chaos Atheist" - I like that.


I don't know. There's nothing wrong with organizing around a shared characteristic or a shared goal. That's what sci-fi conventions, churches, political rallies, alcoholics anonymous meetings, sporting events, and even web-forums are for (among other things, I know). We are inherently social animals, even if some of us are more introverted than others. We like to congregate in some fashion, for whatever reason. This is just as arbitrary a reason as any other, and many people admit that they go to secular or atheist meetings because they enjoy the atmosphere of community, just as many people who go to church enjoy the community that they foster (again, among the myriad of other reasons for attending).
 
2013-02-09 05:43:56 PM  
I thought that was called "Unitarian Universalism".

Sample sermon:  www.uce.ca/wordpress/morality-without-god/
 
2013-02-09 05:45:15 PM  

muck4doo: alwaysjaded: That article was total farking bullshiat. Where were the baby bbq's? The gay orgies? The ritualistic virgin sacrifices to Hitchens? And he wasn't even forced to shoot heroin in his eyeballs once? That must have been some weenie junior camp.The atheist camp I went to, we were raping bald eagles and smoking the mary-juana before the hell wagon left the slaughterhouse! Kids these days....tsk, tsk.....

All churches are just like Jesus camp too


Eh, that was just a lite satire of those old "report from the frontlines of evil" type stories that used to float around churches. Like during Marilyn Manson's peak when all those kids were claiming they saw him slaughtering goats while sodomizing audience members and having alter calls for Satanism. Guess I'm not very funny today.

/ or ever
 
2013-02-09 05:45:33 PM  

grokca: thamike: Weaver95: Atheists have church?  um...doesn't that kind of defeat the point of being an atheist?

Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.  Now I have to go around with some sort of absurd hyphenated clarification because of these bozos.

Free-range-atheist


Ha!  Seriously though  f*ck that noise.  Atheism is a lack of a deity.  That's it.  Anyone who wants to lump in a bunch of stuff?  They should get the hyphens.  One of the things I used to enjoy about being an atheist was not getting asked questions about my belief system.
 
2013-02-09 05:45:57 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: This shiat is getting old. Fundies, please stop trying to force your religion on everyone. Atheists, please quit trolling the fundies


Yeah!

Ahmadinejad, quit gassing your own people and developing nukes to lob at Israel.

UN, quit writing strongly-worded letters to Ahmadinejad.
 
2013-02-09 05:46:40 PM  
I thought we had gone beyond this.  The denigration of an atheist "church" as if "church" implies faith and such(tatamount to calling atheism a religion in and of itself).  No, it's simply a gathering of people with similar interests.  Rockin' Science Sunday.

Regardless of your personal theory of how it all began, humans are very social creatures, and can fill a need by attending such an organized celebration, as it were.  Just because people ditch the dodgy trappings of religion does not mean they have to sacrifice all that makes society function.  Religion does not own society and therefore atheists are not required to GTFO.(And yes, that is what many of you imply).

As to the article:

Typical christian of an author, denigrate anything remotely informative and any who wish to participate.  Embrace the Ignorance!

Given that, there is no big surprise at people more or less fleeing from any given actual religion and calling themselves atheist(but with no real knowledge of what the word means).  Prevalent attitudes as such are what drive people away more and more, not necessarily so much any sort of formal education as to what atheism is, just the vitriolic and hateful actions of the "faithful".
 
2013-02-09 05:46:45 PM  

clowncar on fire: maxheck: [i47.tinypic.com image 640x1188]

just sayin'

Max: your list is farked up nine ways to Sunday.  Christ, oddly enough was never recognized as the leader of christianity,; all the other items are easily refutable or easy enough to find examples of how being atheist is no different other than the one about live now for a future utpian society.  I'll agree there- not a lick of sense when it comes to you kids planning for your future be it financial or spiritual.


Is this a troll?
 
2013-02-09 05:46:52 PM  

GAT_00: Aar1012: Atheists have camps?

Only ones we put Christians in.  Uhh...I mean, they're re-education camps.  No, wait, I'm not supposed to say that either.  Uhh...knowledge camps!  That's it.


*Golf clap*
 
2013-02-09 05:50:46 PM  
I don't know whether Farkers are trolling, or feeding the trolls. Either way, this thread is hilarious.
 
2013-02-09 05:51:02 PM  

maxheck: ph0rk: maxheck: letrole:

Atheism is a Religion.

"letrole" is a surname.

/ yes, we've heard it before, dumbass.

Also a sock puppet.

Ya think?


Well, specifically - he double-post outed himself in mid-summer 2012 or thereabouts.
 
2013-02-09 05:51:53 PM  

IlGreven: Peter von Nostrand: This shiat is getting old. Fundies, please stop trying to force your religion on everyone. Atheists, please quit trolling the fundies

Yeah!

Ahmadinejad, quit gassing your own people and developing nukes to lob at Israel.

UN, quit writing strongly-worded letters to Ahmadinejad.


What?
 
2013-02-09 05:52:17 PM  

muck4doo: The My Little Pony Killer: /and atheists don't have churches, silly christians

Just camps for re-education.


There are Lodz of places like that.
 
2013-02-09 05:54:23 PM  
letrole: Atheism is a Religion.

i259.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-09 05:54:53 PM  

Somacandra: Wow. If only your incredibly stupid generalization had any relevance to the actual history of science,


You mean the history of science that was suppressed by the centers of religion when they went against the sacred Word of GodTM? Galileo ring a bell? Library of Alexandria? Charles Darwin? Any time science went against religious status quo, religion has always responded swiftly and brutally to suppress it.
 
2013-02-09 05:56:10 PM  
There's no difference between atheists, christians, scientologists, and Nazi child molesters.

While typing the above sentence Firefox spellcheck flagged christians and scientologists for not being capitalized but left atheists alone. I like that.
 
2013-02-09 05:56:15 PM  

thamike: IlGreven: Peter von Nostrand: This shiat is getting old. Fundies, please stop trying to force your religion on everyone. Atheists, please quit trolling the fundies

Yeah!

Ahmadinejad, quit gassing your own people and developing nukes to lob at Israel.

UN, quit writing strongly-worded letters to Ahmadinejad.

What?


Do you really not grasp the concept that sometimes fighting is what is needed? Or that when meting out punishement/reprimand, not all things are created equal?
Or are you of the philosophy that "fighting never solved anything"?
 
2013-02-09 05:57:09 PM  

ultraholland: letrole: Atheism is a Religion.

[i259.photobucket.com image 463x620]


Out of curiosity- what happens if step 2 doesn't occur over the next few seconds.  Pro tip: identify your target before pulling the pin on your grenade.  Just sayin'.
 
2013-02-09 05:57:13 PM  
People that go to church don't really believe in god.  Church provides a way to connect with your community once a week, and provides recipes for child rearing (yes that's intentional) and dealing with your fellow man in an equitable manner, etc.

So religion and churches do provide valuable services in our civilization.  But there's no god as far as I can tell.
 
2013-02-09 05:57:44 PM  

thamike: IlGreven: Peter von Nostrand: This shiat is getting old. Fundies, please stop trying to force your religion on everyone. Atheists, please quit trolling the fundies

Yeah!

Ahmadinejad, quit gassing your own people and developing nukes to lob at Israel.

UN, quit writing strongly-worded letters to Ahmadinejad.

What?


Okay, how about...

Southern whites, please quit lynching blacks and allow them to live as free men.

Martin Luther King, please stop assembling large masses to sue for your right to live.

My point is, taking a "centrist" role in any issue where one side has a distinct advantage is as bad as taking the side with the distinct advantage.
 
2013-02-09 05:58:50 PM  

clowncar on fire: Avast:  Threat detected, URL blocked


Arrrrrr! Thar be Christians!

/Arrr.
 
2013-02-09 05:59:19 PM  
I think the point that the whole 'atheists don't church' argues are missing is that these people, who happen to be atheists, miss the sort of community and fellowship they had as children before they learned to think for themselves and leave the church. It's sad our culture is so divorced from its roots of small tight knit communities that people have become so disaffected they can't find that anywhere but at a place designated for something they don't believe in.

As a secular Jew, I understand these people. I'm an atheist, but I enjoy being with people I share a commonality with. I just don't want to do any pointless worshipping.

/Article writer was a self righteous prig.
//So ALL people were CREATED to worship Jesus. Must've been confusing for all those people who lived before him..
 
2013-02-09 06:00:19 PM  
Oxymorn or, diametrically opposed statement. YOU MAKE THE CALL
 
2013-02-09 06:01:12 PM  

FloydA: thamike: Atheist Church?  What, like Brazzers?

[i105.photobucket.com image 500x375]
What an atheist church might look like.


Ah the 5pt. Great place!
 
2013-02-09 06:01:17 PM  
Let edit TFA down a bit:

The Sunday Assembly, as the group is called, meets once a month at The Nave in North London for
"anybody searching for a sense of community, to meet and 'turn good intentions into action.'"
It is, all things considered, an atheistic church.
Yes. A church for atheists.


[..]

They are missing the point entirely.
Church isn't about music, it isn't about making people feel happy, and it isn't about instilling wonder.
Church isn't even about getting together in community to get your felt needs met.
Church is about Jesus.


Maybe there's a reason that the thing you attended wasn't called church?
Like, "all things considered", it not being a church after all?

Or to put it differently:
"Hah! My assumption was wrong. That means they failed!"
 
2013-02-09 06:01:24 PM  

xanadian: FTFA: After his introduction, we sang a Queen song as the service moved along.

"Who Wants to Live Forever"?

/there can be only one


Bohemian Rhapsody: "Beelzebub has a devil put aside for meeee...."
 
2013-02-09 06:01:38 PM  

omeganuepsilon: thamike: IlGreven: Peter von Nostrand: This shiat is getting old. Fundies, please stop trying to force your religion on everyone. Atheists, please quit trolling the fundies

Yeah!

Ahmadinejad, quit gassing your own people and developing nukes to lob at Israel.

UN, quit writing strongly-worded letters to Ahmadinejad.

What?

Do you really not grasp the concept that sometimes fighting is what is needed? Or that when meting out punishement/reprimand, not all things are created equal?
Or are you of the philosophy that "fighting never solved anything"?


Iran and Israel differences need be resolved, even if it is through conflict.

Fundies and atheists are not a conflict that needs resolution and trolling and not an acceptable method for reparation any how.  Trolling is about moving goal posts about, actual conflict/compremise is about finding a solution.
 
2013-02-09 06:03:01 PM  
This thread hasn't been nearly as derpy as I was expecting.
 
2013-02-09 06:03:07 PM  
Ooh - I forgot - churches also handled all the gay and insane people, back when nobody acknowledged that gay or insane existed.

So just imagine Ghastly in robes and a pointy hat.
 
2013-02-09 06:05:46 PM  

clowncar on fire: omeganuepsilon: thamike: IlGreven: Peter von Nostrand: This shiat is getting old. Fundies, please stop trying to force your religion on everyone. Atheists, please quit trolling the fundies

Yeah!

Ahmadinejad, quit gassing your own people and developing nukes to lob at Israel.

UN, quit writing strongly-worded letters to Ahmadinejad.

What?

Do you really not grasp the concept that sometimes fighting is what is needed? Or that when meting out punishement/reprimand, not all things are created equal?
Or are you of the philosophy that "fighting never solved anything"?

Iran and Israel differences need be resolved, even if it is through conflict.

Fundies and atheists are not a conflict that needs resolution. Trolling is not an acceptable method for reparation anyhow.  Trolling is about moving goal posts about, actual conflict/compromise is about finding a solution.

 
2013-02-09 06:06:28 PM  
clowncar on fire: Out of curiosity- what happens if step 2 doesn't occur over the next few seconds. Pro tip: identify your target before pulling the pin on your grenade. Just sayin'.

Just don't let the spoon go flying away and you're fine.
 
2013-02-09 06:06:47 PM  

noitsnot: Ooh - I forgot - churches also handled all the gay and insane people, back when nobody acknowledged that gay or insane existed.

So just imagine Ghastly in robes and a pointy hat.


Are you a wizard?!  He usually starts our chats that way.
 
2013-02-09 06:07:14 PM  

Smgth: I think ...

As a secular Jew, I understand ...

/Article writer was a self righteous prig.
//So ALL people were CREATED to worship Jesus. Must've been confusing for all those people who lived before him..


Being a jew must be complicated - there are political, religious, ethnic, and cultural facets.  It's hard for a gentile to keep it all straight.
 
2013-02-09 06:09:42 PM  

clowncar on fire: Fundies and atheists are not a conflict that needs resolution


What sheltered world do you live in?

Fundies attempt to pass, or grasp to, laws that are in place only because of religion.(gay marriage, women's rights, etc)
Fundies can and do abuse power, as per the Polk Under Prayer group.
Workplaces that will fire people who are gay/women, etc, do so more or less at the instruction of religion.

You don't see any of that as a problem, or are you just ignorant as to those things happening with an alarming regularity?
 
2013-02-09 06:11:53 PM  

BumpInTheNight: noitsnot: Ooh - I forgot - churches also handled all the gay and insane people, back when nobody acknowledged that gay or insane existed.

So just imagine Ghastly in robes and a pointy hat.

Are you a wizard?!  He usually starts our chats that way.


I love me some Ghastly.  (From afar....)
 
2013-02-09 06:13:46 PM  
omeganuepsilon: clowncar on fire: Fundies and atheists are not a conflict that needs resolution

What sheltered world do you live in?

Fundies attempt to pass, or grasp to, laws that are in place only because of religion.(gay marriage, women's rights, etc)
Fundies can and do abuse power, as per the Polk Under Prayer group.
Workplaces that will fire people who are gay/women, etc, do so more or less at the instruction of religion.

You don't see any of that as a problem, or are you just ignorant as to those things happening with an alarming regularity?


to put it more succinctly: Medieval modes of thought have no place in the 21st century.
 
2013-02-09 06:13:48 PM  

noitsnot: Smgth: I think ...

As a secular Jew, I understand ...

/Article writer was a self righteous prig.
//So ALL people were CREATED to worship Jesus. Must've been confusing for all those people who lived before him..

Being a jew must be complicated - there are political, religious, ethnic, and cultural facets.  It's hard for a gentile to keep it all straight.


Too right! The majority of Jews at least have God to fall back on when the whole thing makes no sense. Seculars are left adrift.

And most Jews don't know how to feel about Israel. I mean I'M not from there. BUT it's full of Jews. Now. BUT it wasn't always. And everything they do is hardly 'Jew-centric', as it were, so it's not like there's an obligation to agree with everything they do. BUT some feel that way.

/It's a quagmire to be sure.
//Most people don't really think about it. Good for you!
 
2013-02-09 06:16:37 PM  

Lsherm: FloydA: Dead for Tax Reasons:

it seems like he just went there to point and laugh at how wrong the people there were, not to actually think or see the other side.

Yep.

Two people see something that they don't completely understand.  The atheist will usually say "I don't know," and if s/he is motivated to do so, will go on to try to find an explanation.  The theist will usually say "must be God" and cease all further speculation, because s/he has already come to an answer that satisfies him/her.

I find this stereotypical summation, typical of liberal bigotry, amusingly ironic.


Didn't read the article, did you?

Please, you two, tell us more about how "those people" think.  Make sure to fluff yourselves up as the enlightened class at the same time.  Extra bonus points for ridiculous generalizations and/or complete ignorance baout the people you are criticizing.

I'll just quote a few paragraphs of the article, thanks:

My only complaint about Cliff's talk was that he never discussed the obvious question of how the most improbable condition was probable in the first place. What made the asymmetry, well, asymmetrical? He essentially sidestepped the chicken-or-the-egg issue with the Big Bang.

Perhaps it's because there needed to be an intelligence behind the asymmetry of matter and anti-matter in order to bring about the creation of the universe in the most explosive display of light in the universe's entire existence.

The answer is clear - God caused the conditions for the asymmetry. Furthermore, an ancient culture of divinly-inspired Jews nailed it on describing the event. If you're not looking at this data from a theistic perspective, the obvious will always evade you.

 
2013-02-09 06:18:09 PM  

iron de havilland: Lsherm: FloydA: Dead for Tax Reasons:

it seems like he just went there to point and laugh at how wrong the people there were, not to actually think or see the other side.

Yep.

Two people see something that they don't completely understand.  The atheist will usually say "I don't know," and if s/he is motivated to do so, will go on to try to find an explanation.  The theist will usually say "must be God" and cease all further speculation, because s/he has already come to an answer that satisfies him/her.

I find this stereotypical summation, typical of liberal bigotry, amusingly ironic.

Didn't read the article, did you?

Please, you two, tell us more about how "those people" think.  Make sure to fluff yourselves up as the enlightened class at the same time.  Extra bonus points for ridiculous generalizations and/or complete ignorance baout the people you are criticizing.

I'll just quote a few paragraphs of the article, thanks:

My only complaint about Cliff's talk was that he never discussed the obvious question of how the most improbable condition was probable in the first place. What made the asymmetry, well, asymmetrical? He essentially sidestepped the chicken-or-the-egg issue with the Big Bang.

Perhaps it's because there needed to be an intelligence behind the asymmetry of matter and anti-matter in order to bring about the creation of the universe in the most explosive display of light in the universe's entire existence.

The answer is clear - God caused the conditions for the asymmetry. Furthermore, an ancient culture of divinly-inspired Jews nailed it on describing the event. If you're not looking at this data from a theistic perspective, the obvious will always evade you.


"God Did It."

Okay, got it.  When are we sending this writer a Nobel Prize in Physics?
 
2013-02-09 06:19:24 PM  

ajgeek: "Atheist Church" is an oxymoron. Also stupid, but I repeat myself.


So your objection is to the word "church"?  If it was called "an atheist weekly social club" it would be fine?

Or do you think it's stupid for a group of like-minded atheists to get together on a regular basis to listen to music and lectures?
 
2013-02-09 06:21:41 PM  
Jones kicked the service off by warmly welcoming everyone and offering an amusing story of how he had learned that it was actually fellow atheists, not Christians as he had expected, who vocally disapproved of The Sunday Assembly.

This I did not expect.  Friendly fire?
 
2013-02-09 06:22:34 PM  

heap: the bassackwardness of attempting to coagulate a group based on what they don't think is just too much of a hurdle, tho.


143,000 atheists disagree with you.
 
2013-02-09 06:24:03 PM  

FloydA: Somacandra:

Wow. If only your incredibly stupid

Well that was helpful. Thank you for advancing the conversation in a useful and effective way.


Well, I disagree with you as well, but I won't say that you or your opinions are stupid.
 
2013-02-09 06:24:35 PM  

ciberido: ajgeek: "Atheist Church" is an oxymoron. Also stupid, but I repeat myself.

So your objection is to the word "church"?  If it was called "an atheist weekly social club" it would be fine?

Or do you think it's stupid for a group of like-minded atheists to get together on a regular basis to listen to music and lectures?


I gotta admit I find it more then a little strange that this group of people who are actively trying to reject the notion of religion are using a name universally recognized as reserved for houses of christian worship and applying it to their weekly club house.  This sort of radical anti-religion is mildly funny to me, like I'm sure I'd feel differently if I had to deal with the zealously religious on a more regular basis but to me the idea of identifying myself as 'not that' in reference to something I reject as opposed to identifying something I actually am is just strange.  Its counter productive and at the end of  the day your self identification is reliant on the thing you reject existing...this guaranteeing it can never be fully erased lest you become void of purpose yourself.

TL;DR?  Militant atheists are just as bad as militant fundamentalists, they're just bad in different ways.
 
2013-02-09 06:26:13 PM  

Somacandra: FloydA: Two people see something that they don't completely understand. The atheist will usually say "I don't know," and if s/he is motivated to do so, will go on to try to find an explanation. The theist will usually say "must be God" and cease all further speculation
==

"As in the other sciences, astronomers in the Muslim lands built upon and greatly expanded earlier traditions. At the House of Knowledge founded in Baghdad by the Abbasid caliph Mamun, scientists translated many texts from Sanskrit, Pahlavi or Old Persian, Greek and Syriac into Arabic, notably the great Sanskrit astronomical tables and Ptolemy's astronomical treatise, the Almagest. Muslim astronomers accepted the geometrical structure of the universe expounded by Ptolemy, in which the earth rests motionless near the center of a series of eight spheres, which encompass it, but then faced the problem of reconciling the theoretical model with Aristotelian physics and physical realities derived from observation. Some of the most impressive efforts to modify Ptolemaic theory were made at the observatory founded by Nasir al-Din Tusi in 1257 at Maragha in northwestern Iran and continued by his successors at Tabriz and Damascus. With the assistance of Chinese colleagues, Muslim astronomers worked out planetary models that depended solely on combinations of uniform circular motions. The astronomical tables compiled at Maragha served as a model for later Muslim astronomical efforts. The most famous imitator was the observatory founded in 1420 by the Timurid prince Ulughbeg at Samarkand in Central Asia, where the astronomer Ghiyath al-Din Jamshid al-Kashi worked out his own set of astronomical tables, with sections on diverse computations and eras, the knowledge of time, the course of the stars, and the position of the fixed stars. Essentially Ptolemaic, these tables have improved parameters and structure as well as additional material on the Chinese Uighur-calendar. They were widely admired and translated e ...



Were these advances made because of religion, or in spite of religion? Was every researcher and/or scientist that made an advance in human knowledge devout in their faith, or were they Muslim/Christian/Jewish/Whatever in name only?

Is there a single faith that embraces the scientific method? Is there any sacred writing that instructs the faithful to alter their beliefs in light of new and better evidence that contradicts the sacred writing?
 
2013-02-09 06:26:16 PM  

Somacandra: thamike: Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.

Being an "atheist" has no purpose by definition. Modern Western Atheism has no content--its a concept entirely founded on negating a complete strawman of a Protestant concept of religion. If instead you're going to talk about Humanism or an actual ethos of some kind, then social and ethical organizations have long been part of this tradition in Europe and the United States. Atheism does not mean non-religious: many Buddhists and Jains are 'atheists' but are nonetheless quite religious people.


There's the Humanist Manifestos (I , II,and III) if you want to compare Humanism to Atheism.
 
2013-02-09 06:26:25 PM  

BumpInTheNight: ciberido: ajgeek: "Atheist Church" is an oxymoron. Also stupid, but I repeat myself.

So your objection is to the word "church"?  If it was called "an atheist weekly social club" it would be fine?

Or do you think it's stupid for a group of like-minded atheists to get together on a regular basis to listen to music and lectures?

I gotta admit I find it more then a little strange that this group of people who are actively trying to reject the notion of religion are using a name universally recognized as reserved for houses of christian worship and applying it to their weekly club house.  This sort of radical anti-religion is mildly funny to me, like I'm sure I'd feel differently if I had to deal with the zealously religious on a more regular basis but to me the idea of identifying myself as 'not that' in reference to something I reject as opposed to identifying something I actually am is just strange.  Its counter productive and at the end of  the day your self identification is reliant on the thing you reject existing...this guaranteeing it can never be fully erased lest you become void of purpose yourself.

TL;DR?  Militant atheists are just as bad as militant fundamentalists, they're just bad in different ways.


1) What is a "militant atheist"?

2) How is the above "just as bad"?
 
2013-02-09 06:29:10 PM  

omeganuepsilon: clowncar on fire: Fundies and atheists are not a conflict that needs resolution

What sheltered world do you live in?

Fundies attempt to pass, or grasp to, laws that are in place only because of religion.(gay marriage, women's rights, etc) 
Fundies can and do abuse power, as per the Polk Under Prayer group.
Workplaces that will fire people who are gay/women, etc, do so more or less at the instruction of religion.

You don't see any of that as a problem, or are you just ignorant as to those things happening with an alarming regularity?


Laws regardings gays and women actually exist in every society, regardless of beliefs.  Can you believe that at one time fundies were actually out there trying to protect women from the evils that society was inflicting upon them (abuse, homeless, prostitution), thaough admittantly, I don't believe just a short 50 years ago there were too many advocates for homosexuality- fundie or otherwise.

Fundies abuse power *chuckles* only because they have a monopoly in that department.

Workplaces fire women for a variety reasons- not just because jesus told them to do so.  Try not to tie in sexism with religion though.  Gays get fired for similar reasons.  Anectadote time.  I work in a faith based hospital and we have many gay employees there- some who have been there longer than the 15 years I have been employed.  We're faith based and they are still employed- go figure , huh.  Gays who get fired either suck at what they do or become such a nuisance with their gayness that they begin to make others around them uncomfortable is gets them fired.

Fortunately, we have a group of intrepid individuals who are willing to take up the cause and devote an equal amount of time and effort countering every belief the fundies hold.
 
2013-02-09 06:30:02 PM  
Here we were at an atheistic church service being delivered evidences of both God's existence (the improbability of asymmetry at the Big Bang) and the Bible's trustworthiness (the fact that God's first creative act was light).

It was at this point that it became too obnoxious to tolerate. He already did the wrong thing by taking up two seats in a packed place. How would he feel if atheists went to his church and kept part of its real congregation from having a seat? What a jerk.
 
2013-02-09 06:30:54 PM  

maxheck: [i47.tinypic.com image 640x1188]

just sayin'


Several of those "X"s in your little chart are arguably checks.  Including "charismatic leader".
 
2013-02-09 06:32:04 PM  

gimmegimme: BumpInTheNight: ciberido: ajgeek: "Atheist Church" is an oxymoron. Also stupid, but I repeat myself.

So your objection is to the word "church"?  If it was called "an atheist weekly social club" it would be fine?

Or do you think it's stupid for a group of like-minded atheists to get together on a regular basis to listen to music and lectures?

I gotta admit I find it more then a little strange that this group of people who are actively trying to reject the notion of religion are using a name universally recognized as reserved for houses of christian worship and applying it to their weekly club house.  This sort of radical anti-religion is mildly funny to me, like I'm sure I'd feel differently if I had to deal with the zealously religious on a more regular basis but to me the idea of identifying myself as 'not that' in reference to something I reject as opposed to identifying something I actually am is just strange.  Its counter productive and at the end of  the day your self identification is reliant on the thing you reject existing...this guaranteeing it can never be fully erased lest you become void of purpose yourself.

TL;DR?  Militant atheists are just as bad as militant fundamentalists, they're just bad in different ways.

1) What is a "militant atheist"?

2) How is the above "just as bad"?


madmikesamerica.com
 
2013-02-09 06:32:23 PM  

Farking Canuck: If some atheists keep organizing like this I am going to have to get some identifier to make it clear that I am not affiliated.

Maybe "Chaos Atheist" - I like that.


Chaos Atheist ?  Is that like, the final boss or something?  Does it have special attacks?
 
2013-02-09 06:32:31 PM  

ciberido: maxheck: [i47.tinypic.com image 640x1188]

just sayin'

Several of those "X"s in your little chart are arguably checks.  Including "charismatic leader".


There isn't a charismatic leader of "atheism"

/Dawkins is a dick, just to start you off.
 
2013-02-09 06:32:46 PM  
Ah, just a contrarian troll then.  I get it.

The discussion was about fundies, not "faith based" organizations.  Nice equivocation though.
 
2013-02-09 06:32:47 PM  

gimmegimme: 1) What is a "militant atheist"?

2) How is the above "just as bad"?


People who stick their noses into other people's business and pushing their own world view upon others.  Its one thing to celebrate your decision to be completely self-responsible and all that, its quite another to brow beat others in an attempt to get them to convert to your point of view.  Then as I mentioned before its just kind of petty to primary identify yourself as 'not religion' as opposed to say 'free thinking'.

I don't care about religion myself and never felt a strong pull towards any of them but I'd sooner distance myself from a zealously religious person then actively challenge their core beliefs at every turn.  Again, things would probably be different if Canada has the same problems with fundamentalists like the states and the middle east do.
 
2013-02-09 06:34:03 PM  

ciberido: Chaos Atheist ?  Is that like, the final boss or something?  Does it have special attacks?


images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-02-09 06:34:45 PM  

BumpInTheNight: People who stick their noses into other people's business and pushing their own world view upon others.


How many atheists are doing that with guns or explosives, generally?
 
2013-02-09 06:35:30 PM  

Somacandra: Modern Western Atheism has no content--its a concept entirely founded on negating a complete strawman of a Protestant concept of religion.


1) You scolded someone else in this thread for a blindingly stupid generalization... then you say this.

2) "Atheism" as I experience it has nothing to do with negating any concept of religion whatsoever. Rather, it is the lack of belief in any god, gods, or the supernatural. Though the last isn't necessary to the concept of atheism. It just overlaps with it quite a lot.

3) What may have confused you, professor, is that atheists like myself frequently find ourselves arguing with obnoxious evangelists, usually Protestant, presenting us with a very real concept of Christian religion that 1) corresponds strongly with what common English translations of the Bible say in plain words, and 2) you probably don't care for because you feel, rightly or wrongly, that the many who practice it reflect poorly on you and what you regard as your more nuanced beliefs.

I do not speak to the question of whether reading common English translations of the Bible, and taking them literally is a sound epistemological approach to discovering religious truth, even within a Christian framework. I do say that it is a very real approach, and much as you'd like to pretend otherwise, the main approach among laypersons out here in red America. Neither do I speak to the question of whether adherents to this strain of Christianity in fact reflect poorly on sophisticates like yourself, other than to say that you yourself seem influenced by some stereotype of atheism arising from your interactions with some few of them.
 
2013-02-09 06:35:37 PM  

BumpInTheNight: ciberido: ajgeek: "Atheist Church" is an oxymoron. Also stupid, but I repeat myself.

So your objection is to the word "church"?  If it was called "an atheist weekly social club" it would be fine?

Or do you think it's stupid for a group of like-minded atheists to get together on a regular basis to listen to music and lectures?

I gotta admit I find it more then a little strange that this group of people who are actively trying to reject the notion of religion are using a name universally recognized as reserved for houses of christian worship and applying it to their weekly club house.  This sort of radical anti-religion is mildly funny to me, like I'm sure I'd feel differently if I had to deal with the zealously religious on a more regular basis but to me the idea of identifying myself as 'not that' in reference to something I reject as opposed to identifying something I actually am is just strange.  Its counter productive and at the end of  the day your self identification is reliant on the thing you reject existing...this guaranteeing it can never be fully erased lest you become void of purpose yourself.

TL;DR?  Militant atheists are just as bad as militant fundamentalists, they're just bad in different ways.


So it's 'militant' to want to hang out with a bunch if like minded people in the search for community our modern world is sadly lacking? Interesting.

Would they still be 'militant' if they didn't use the word 'church'? I assume they used that word to convey the point that their get together was meant to engender the spirt of togetherness the church does for it's adherents. Not as a means of proselytization of the 'atheist faith'.
 
2013-02-09 06:36:23 PM  

gimmegimme: BumpInTheNight: ciberido: ajgeek: "Atheist Church" is an oxymoron. Also stupid, but I repeat myself.

So your objection is to the word "church"?  If it was called "an atheist weekly social club" it would be fine?

Or do you think it's stupid for a group of like-minded atheists to get together on a regular basis to listen to music and lectures?

I gotta admit I find it more then a little strange that this group of people who are actively trying to reject the notion of religion are using a name universally recognized as reserved for houses of christian worship and applying it to their weekly club house.  This sort of radical anti-religion is mildly funny to me, like I'm sure I'd feel differently if I had to deal with the zealously religious on a more regular basis but to me the idea of identifying myself as 'not that' in reference to something I reject as opposed to identifying something I actually am is just strange.  Its counter productive and at the end of  the day your self identification is reliant on the thing you reject existing...this guaranteeing it can never be fully erased lest you become void of purpose yourself.

TL;DR?  Militant atheists are just as bad as militant fundamentalists, they're just bad in different ways.

1) What is a "militant atheist"?

A person who not only believes but must make sure anyone who believes otherwise better change their ways

2) How is the above "just as bad"?  Re-read all posts in this thread. Take the time to keep count of those who defend the fundies and the nature of their responses versus those who oppose the fundies.  Come to your own conclusions.
 
2013-02-09 06:36:26 PM  

BumpInTheNight: gimmegimme: 1) What is a "militant atheist"?

2) How is the above "just as bad"?

People who stick their noses into other people's business and pushing their own world view upon others.  Its one thing to celebrate your decision to be completely self-responsible and all that, its quite another to brow beat others in an attempt to get them to convert to your point of view.  Then as I mentioned before its just kind of petty to primary identify yourself as 'not religion' as opposed to say 'free thinking'.

I don't care about religion myself and never felt a strong pull towards any of them but I'd sooner distance myself from a zealously religious person then actively challenge their core beliefs at every turn.  Again, things would probably be different if Canada has the same problems with fundamentalists like the states and the middle east do.


Do you realize, by your own definition, you are a "militant atheist"?  You have entered a public forum and are indeed "browbeating" others to agree with your point of view through the use of inflammatory rhetoric.  Why not do as you urge others and not "stick your nose into the business of others?"
 
2013-02-09 06:36:31 PM  
Many atheists not only do not accept the existence of a theistic god (I know that is all atheist means) but actually have negative views towards organized religion.

Using the word church implies a religious structure which many of us would like to see go away.

While some people see a church as an example of unity, those of us who are not fans of religion see it as a source of division. While an atheist temple may be one we are welcome in and agree with, we would like to be free of temples. At least I would.

On a more practical level establishing an "atheist church" implies we need a church and unified moral code and defined unified structure that we are somehow lacking. Atheists don't need to send that message. It diminishes us all.
 
2013-02-09 06:37:34 PM  

Lsherm: FloydA: Dead for Tax Reasons:

it seems like he just went there to point and laugh at how wrong the people there were, not to actually think or see the other side.

Yep.

Two people see something that they don't completely understand.  The atheist will usually say "I don't know," and if s/he is motivated to do so, will go on to try to find an explanation.  The theist will usually say "must be God" and cease all further speculation, because s/he has already come to an answer that satisfies him/her.

I find this stereotypical summation, typical of liberal bigotry, amusingly ironic.

Please, you two, tell us more about how "those people" think.  Make sure to fluff yourselves up as the enlightened class at the same time.  Extra bonus points for ridiculous generalizations and/or complete ignorance baout the people you are criticizing.


You can't blame him -- that's how God made him.
 
2013-02-09 06:39:08 PM  

clowncar on fire: gimmegimme: BumpInTheNight: ciberido: ajgeek: "Atheist Church" is an oxymoron. Also stupid, but I repeat myself.

So your objection is to the word "church"?  If it was called "an atheist weekly social club" it would be fine?

Or do you think it's stupid for a group of like-minded atheists to get together on a regular basis to listen to music and lectures?

I gotta admit I find it more then a little strange that this group of people who are actively trying to reject the notion of religion are using a name universally recognized as reserved for houses of christian worship and applying it to their weekly club house.  This sort of radical anti-religion is mildly funny to me, like I'm sure I'd feel differently if I had to deal with the zealously religious on a more regular basis but to me the idea of identifying myself as 'not that' in reference to something I reject as opposed to identifying something I actually am is just strange.  Its counter productive and at the end of  the day your self identification is reliant on the thing you reject existing...this guaranteeing it can never be fully erased lest you become void of purpose yourself.

TL;DR?  Militant atheists are just as bad as militant fundamentalists, they're just bad in different ways.

1) What is a "militant atheist"? A person who not only believes but must make sure anyone who believes otherwise better change their ways

2) How is the above "just as bad"?  Re-read all posts in this thread. Take the time to keep count of those who defend the fundies and the nature of their responses versus those who oppose the fundies.  Come to your own conclusions.


How, exactly, does a "militant atheist" "make sure anyone who believes otherwise better change their ways" and why/how is this method unacceptable?
 
2013-02-09 06:41:54 PM  

thamike: Weaver95: Atheists have church?  um...doesn't that kind of defeat the point of being an atheist?

Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.  Now I have to go around with some sort of absurd hyphenated clarification because of these bozos.


I recommend "nontheist" or "anti organized religion" -- "heathen" if you're feeling playful.
 
2013-02-09 06:43:53 PM  

nerftaig: Many atheists not only do not accept the existence of a theistic god (I know that is all atheist means) but actually have negative views towards organized religion.


Two different concepts - not necessarily comorbid.

A certain type of devout theist will hold negative views about believers in other faiths, and others that are nominally of the same faith as the devout theist will not hold those negative views.

Theism/Atheism - belief, or not

Other people suck/You do what you want - Dick, or not.
 
2013-02-09 06:44:43 PM  

ennuie: thamike: Weaver95: Atheists have church?  um...doesn't that kind of defeat the point of being an atheist?

Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.  Now I have to go around with some sort of absurd hyphenated clarification because of these bozos.

I recommend "nontheist" or "anti organized religion" -- "heathen" if you're feeling playful.


I like "positive atheist." Actively disbelieve that god doesn't exist and actively believe that religion is evil.
 
2013-02-09 06:45:06 PM  

give me doughnuts: Was every researcher and/or scientist that made an advance in human knowledge devout in their faith, or were they Muslim/Christian/Jewish/Whatever in name only?



Isaac Newton is the one of best examples of what you suggest, he wrote more on religion than he did on natural science. Although he has in recent years found to be rather heterodox, his view on gravity provides insight into his position "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."
 
2013-02-09 06:45:58 PM  
Jesus you're a sensitive lot ;)  Yes I think its weird that a particular group of atheists decided to call their club house a church, yes I think its counter productive to decide you need to write down 'atheist' in the slot for 'religion' on your life score card rather then just leave it blank.  I think seeking out echo chambers of 'anti-religion' is just a silly notion, its a sign of insecurity to need to cluster over something you claim doesn't need to exist.  Now, these are my opinions and this is a discussion about the topic, beyond this discussion I really don't bring this topic up and that's why I'm not a militant or let's called it 'recruiting' atheist, I'm just someone who at the moment is bored but in general has no time to waste on bullshiat like religions or agonize that some people actually take them seriously.
 
2013-02-09 06:46:35 PM  

nerftaig: I like "positive atheist." Actively disbelieve that god doesn't exist and actively believe that religion is evil.


unfortunately it has a weird confusing connotation because of the word "positive"
 
2013-02-09 06:48:34 PM  
ciberido:

maxheck: [i47.tinypic.com image 640x1188]

just sayin'

Several of those "X"s in your little chart are arguably checks. Including "charismatic leader".


Such as?
 
2013-02-09 06:50:29 PM  

ph0rk: nerftaig: Many atheists not only do not accept the existence of a theistic god (I know that is all atheist means) but actually have negative views towards organized religion.

Two different concepts - not necessarily comorbid.

A certain type of devout theist will hold negative views about believers in other faiths, and others that are nominally of the same faith as the devout theist will not hold those negative views.

Theism/Atheism - belief, or not

Other people suck/You do what you want - Dick, or not.


My objection is not inherently an atheists position I understand that. I am using an argument that even if you want to have a church you shouldn't because it somehow diminishes atheists as a whole, and the movement of the world towards reason. Im not really a fan of treating atheists as a fringe group that needs to be protected anyway.

I think my argument would be sacrifice what you think is right for what I think is the good of the world. That is an unreasonable thing for me to ask.

So I'm willing to grant Im probably in the wrong here, but its how I feel.
 
2013-02-09 06:53:29 PM  

nerftaig: I am using an argument that even if you want to have a church you shouldn't because it somehow diminishes atheists as a whole,


I don't feel diminished.

nerftaig: and the movement of the world towards reason.


Too late for that, the pendulum has probably started to swing the other way.

nerftaig: Im not really a fan of treating atheists as a fringe group that needs to be protected anyway.


The ship has entirely sailed on that - Most Americans dislike Atheists more than any other group, including muslims and homosexuals.

/There is nothing wrong with those groups.
 
2013-02-09 06:54:15 PM  

fusillade762: This thread hasn't been nearly as derpy as I was expecting.


Give it time.
 
2013-02-09 06:54:23 PM  

BumpInTheNight: Jesus you're a sensitive lot ;)  Yes I think its weird that a particular group of atheists decided to call their club house a church, yes I think its counter productive to decide you need to write down 'atheist' in the slot for 'religion' on your life score card rather then just leave it blank.  I think seeking out echo chambers of 'anti-religion' is just a silly notion, its a sign of insecurity to need to cluster over something you claim doesn't need to exist.  Now, these are my opinions and this is a discussion about the topic, beyond this discussion I really don't bring this topic up and that's why I'm not a militant or let's called it 'recruiting' atheist, I'm just someone who at the moment is bored but in general has no time to waste on bullshiat like religions or agonize that some people actually take them seriously.


There are fairly well documented psychological and health benefits associated with religious participation. A popular theory holds that the benefits derive from the sense of belonging to a special community. There is no good reason atheists shouldn't seek to enjoy these benefits in a non-religious way. And if they want to call their special community a "church" because it fills the same role in their lives that other peoples' religion fulfills in theirs, that's fine too. At least to sensible people.
 
2013-02-09 06:55:46 PM  

gimmegimme: clowncar on fire: gimmegimme: BumpInTheNight: ciberido: ajgeek: "Atheist Church" is an oxymoron. Also stupid, but I repeat myself.

So your objection is to the word "church"?  If it was called "an atheist weekly social club" it would be fine?

Or do you think it's stupid for a group of like-minded atheists to get together on a regular basis to listen to music and lectures?

I gotta admit I find it more then a little strange that this group of people who are actively trying to reject the notion of religion are using a name universally recognized as reserved for houses of christian worship and applying it to their weekly club house.  This sort of radical anti-religion is mildly funny to me, like I'm sure I'd feel differently if I had to deal with the zealously religious on a more regular basis but to me the idea of identifying myself as 'not that' in reference to something I reject as opposed to identifying something I actually am is just strange.  Its counter productive and at the end of  the day your self identification is reliant on the thing you reject existing...this guaranteeing it can never be fully erased lest you become void of purpose yourself.

TL;DR?  Militant atheists are just as bad as militant fundamentalists, they're just bad in different ways.

1) What is a "militant atheist"? A person who not only believes but must make sure anyone who believes otherwise better change their ways

2) How is the above "just as bad"?  Re-read all posts in this thread. Take the time to keep count of those who defend the fundies and the nature of their responses versus those who oppose the fundies.  Come to your own conclusions.

How, exactly, does a "militant atheist" "make sure anyone who believes otherwise better change their ways" and why/how is this method unacceptable?


The  "method " is the usual: browbeat, troll, bully, etc.  In the framework of the cyber community, I would say the bravery of being out of range would be considered acceptable.

I, for example, am an atheist in regards to the existance of the Easter Bunny.  My disbelief in The Bunny is the end game.  In your venacular- whatever.  Why would I even bother to even debate about its existance as I know it not to exist?  As a true theist, with no doubt in my heart, I w ould not even see the oint of trying to expend my efforts to debunk that which is not debunkable.

A true theist would not see the need to engage in such discourse as to whether God exists or not, but rather be comfortable in the belief in non-existance.

Militant theists are an entirely different bird.  There appears to be an internal need, not unlike that of a bully, to defend a core belief to which the holder may himself have doubts.  In the case of theism, a need to express the non-existance of a diety and receive confirmation thereof.
 
2013-02-09 06:56:16 PM  

nerftaig: I think my argument would be sacrifice what you think is right for what I think is the good of the world. That is an unreasonable thing for me to ask.

So I'm willing to grant Im probably in the wrong here, but its how I feel.


At the very least you own up to it, and don't operate as if that's some hidden agenda and lie cheat and steal your way around it.

And if I'm reading you right, it's akin to pacifism?
 
2013-02-09 06:57:12 PM  
Church is just another form of atheism.
 
2013-02-09 06:57:23 PM  

thamike: Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.


Atheism has a "purpose" now?

Something tells me it's you who's confused about atheism.
 
2013-02-09 06:57:33 PM  

give me doughnuts: Is there a single faith that embraces the scientific method? Is there any sacred writing that instructs the faithful to alter their beliefs in light of new and better evidence that contradicts the sacred writing?



"If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."

― Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality
 
2013-02-09 06:58:00 PM  

nerftaig: ph0rk: nerftaig: Many atheists not only do not accept the existence of a theistic god (I know that is all atheist means) but actually have negative views towards organized religion.

Two different concepts - not necessarily comorbid.

A certain type of devout theist will hold negative views about believers in other faiths, and others that are nominally of the same faith as the devout theist will not hold those negative views.

Theism/Atheism - belief, or not

Other people suck/You do what you want - Dick, or not.

My objection is not inherently an atheists position I understand that. I am using an argument that even if you want to have a church you shouldn't because it somehow diminishes atheists as a whole, and the movement of the world towards reason. Im not really a fan of treating atheists as a fringe group that needs to be protected anyway.

I think my argument would be sacrifice what you think is right for what I think is the good of the world. That is an unreasonable thing for me to ask.

So I'm willing to grant Im probably in the wrong here, but its how I feel.


I agree with you, in principle. But I think the problem is that atheists, like religionists, like most of humanity, feels the need to belong to something bigger then itself to feel a sense if community, and that they aren't alone.

The problem being this role has been filled by religion for so long, it's hard to divorce the idea from result. I think they're using the word 'church' or 'temple' to show they're a community of like minded individuals who get together and do the sorts if things that they feel they're missing.

The modern world is an alienating one.
 
2013-02-09 06:58:09 PM  

ph0rk: ciberido: maxheck: [i47.tinypic.com image 640x1188]

just sayin'

Several of those "X"s in your little chart are arguably checks.  Including "charismatic leader".

There isn't a charismatic leader of "atheism"

 
2013-02-09 06:58:51 PM  

ciberido: ph0rk: ciberido: maxheck: [i47.tinypic.com image 640x1188]

just sayin'

Several of those "X"s in your little chart are arguably checks.  Including "charismatic leader".

There isn't a charismatic leader of "atheism"


[smug.jpg]
 
2013-02-09 06:59:04 PM  

mittromneysdog: BumpInTheNight: Jesus you're a sensitive lot ;)  Yes I think its weird that a particular group of atheists decided to call their club house a church, yes I think its counter productive to decide you need to write down 'atheist' in the slot for 'religion' on your life score card rather then just leave it blank.  I think seeking out echo chambers of 'anti-religion' is just a silly notion, its a sign of insecurity to need to cluster over something you claim doesn't need to exist.  Now, these are my opinions and this is a discussion about the topic, beyond this discussion I really don't bring this topic up and that's why I'm not a militant or let's called it 'recruiting' atheist, I'm just someone who at the moment is bored but in general has no time to waste on bullshiat like religions or agonize that some people actually take them seriously.

There are fairly well documented psychological and health benefits associated with religious participation. A popular theory holds that the benefits derive from the sense of belonging to a special community. There is no good reason atheists shouldn't seek to enjoy these benefits in a non-religious way. And if they want to call their special community a "church" because it fills the same role in their lives that other peoples' religion fulfills in theirs, that's fine too. At least to sensible people.


Thank you! I've been saying this is in this thread over and over. But no one seems to want to hear it.
 
2013-02-09 06:59:22 PM  

ph0rk: ciberido: maxheck: [i47.tinypic.com image 640x1188]

just sayin'

Several of those "X"s in your little chart are arguably checks.  Including "charismatic leader".

There isn't a charismatic leader of "atheism"

/Dawkins is a dick, just to start you off.



Sure Dawkins is a dick.  But he's a -charismatic- dick.
 
2013-02-09 06:59:45 PM  

mittromneysdog: BumpInTheNight: Jesus you're a sensitive lot ;)  Yes I think its weird that a particular group of atheists decided to call their club house a church, yes I think its counter productive to decide you need to write down 'atheist' in the slot for 'religion' on your life score card rather then just leave it blank.  I think seeking out echo chambers of 'anti-religion' is just a silly notion, its a sign of insecurity to need to cluster over something you claim doesn't need to exist.  Now, these are my opinions and this is a discussion about the topic, beyond this discussion I really don't bring this topic up and that's why I'm not a militant or let's called it 'recruiting' atheist, I'm just someone who at the moment is bored but in general has no time to waste on bullshiat like religions or agonize that some people actually take them seriously.

There are fairly well documented psychological and health benefits associated with religious participation. A popular theory holds that the benefits derive from the sense of belonging to a special community. There is no good reason atheists shouldn't seek to enjoy these benefits in a non-religious way. And if they want to call their special community a "church" because it fills the same role in their lives that other peoples' religion fulfills in theirs, that's fine too. At least to sensible people.


All good, hell I'm part of a couple special communities myself, work, a few hobbies, things like that.  No need to join a community bent on a dismantling another one though, that's again the line between militant and existent, to me.  Oh and none of my hobbies require a club house who's name is directly hijacked from something the in which the hobby's goal is to actively reject.  I think its ironic they called their building a church, I think Letrolle is right when it comes to these people:  At this point for those people being atheist is their religion.
 
2013-02-09 07:00:15 PM  

ennuie: thamike: Weaver95: Atheists have church?  um...doesn't that kind of defeat the point of being an atheist?

Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.  Now I have to go around with some sort of absurd hyphenated clarification because of these bozos.

I recommend "nontheist" or "anti organized religion" -- "heathen" if you're feeling playful.


Again, I point to the Unitarian Universalists. The minister before Victoria Safford took over at the Unitarian Society in Northampton was very much an atheist; so much so, that there was some push back from the congregation when she began services for being too theist in her approach. The language of faith, from many faith traditions, helps us to understand how those disparate faith traditions all approach things from slightly different perspectives, but to common goals, and with lessons that we can all learn from. Kindness. Charity. Forgiveness. Be you Buddhist, pagan, Jewish, Lutheran, Baptist, Hindu, Jain, Catholic, Muslim or Methodist, we can all learn from one another. Common values, common drives, desires, common needs, they transcend faith traditions, and even atheists can find important lessons in the disparate teachings, or even in the teachings of one tradition alone. Deeds over creeds tends to drive the UUs. Where you find the inspiration, that tends to come from one's own personal experiences. Ultimately, those experiences drive us, but we can find common ground in our actions. The language of faith, the lessons, those don't have to drive you to exclusivity that YOU are the only one who knows the back door to the Great and Secret Show.

The language of faith, the lessons contained, they can be gleaned without damning all those around you. Even Buddhists differ wildly in their interpretations of the Eightfold Path. Atheists are welcome in a UU community, because they bring their own experiences to the table, and they are just as valid as those of folks with theistic bends. Openness isn't a trait for only believers or unbelievers. Openness and willingness to listen, those are traits to be inculcated and nurtured. UUs are fantastic in their arguments amongst one another, and still within the bounds of looking to help each other define their own thoughts and processes. In an environment that is safe, and nurturing, where the questions are supposed to be asked of one another.
 
2013-02-09 07:00:40 PM  

ph0rk: BumpInTheNight: People who stick their noses into other people's business and pushing their own world view upon others.

How many atheists are doing that with guns or explosives, generally?


*cough*Red Army*cough*
 
2013-02-09 07:00:57 PM  

ciberido: ph0rk: ciberido: maxheck: [i47.tinypic.com image 640x1188]

just sayin'

Several of those "X"s in your little chart are arguably checks.  Including "charismatic leader".

There isn't a charismatic leader of "atheism"

/Dawkins is a dick, just to start you off.


Sure Dawkins is a dick.  But he's a -charismatic- dick.


Yes, but not a leader. He has fans, but not followers.
 
2013-02-09 07:01:27 PM  

Mad_Season: xanadian: FTFA: After his introduction, we sang a Queen song as the service moved along.

"Who Wants to Live Forever"?

/there can be only one

Bohemian Rhapsody: "Beelzebub has a devil put aside for meeee...."


Ok, now i'm picturing the entire "congregation" headbanging away like on Wayne's World :)

/thanks!
 
2013-02-09 07:02:25 PM  

ciberido: "If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."

― Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality



Heh.  So when science conclusively demonstrates that people don't reincarnate into spirits and bugs, then they will abandon those claims.  Seems like a pretty safe dodge.
 
2013-02-09 07:02:46 PM  
ciberido:

ph0rk: ciberido: maxheck: [i47.tinypic.com image 640x1188]

just sayin'

Several of those "X"s in your little chart are arguably checks. Including "charismatic leader".

There isn't a charismatic leader of "atheism"

/Dawkins is a dick, just to start you off.


Sure Dawkins is a dick. But he's a -charismatic- dick.


Probably not a Jesus / Stalin / Hitler / Mao level celebrity level of dick though. You were going to tell me what X's were checks? Do tell.
 
2013-02-09 07:03:09 PM  

nerftaig: On a more practical level establishing an "atheist church" implies we need a church and unified moral code and defined unified structure that we are somehow lacking. Atheists don't need to send that message. It diminishes us all.


How does establishing an "atheist church" imply that atheists NEED a church?  Maybe it just means that SOME atheists WANT a church.

I've been known to get together with atheists and eat nachos.  I'm not sure that that proves that I NEED nachos.
 
2013-02-09 07:03:58 PM  

maxheck: ciberido:

ph0rk: ciberido: maxheck: [i47.tinypic.com image 640x1188]

just sayin'

Several of those "X"s in your little chart are arguably checks. Including "charismatic leader".

There isn't a charismatic leader of "atheism"

/Dawkins is a dick, just to start you off.


Sure Dawkins is a dick. But he's a -charismatic- dick.

Probably not a Jesus / Stalin / Hitler / Mao level celebrity level of dick though. You were going to tell me what X's were checks? Do tell.


No, actually, I wasn't.
 
2013-02-09 07:04:03 PM  

Smgth: Thank you! I've been saying this is in this thread over and over. But no one seems to want to hear it.


It's Fark. It's about 65% trolls trolling other trolls. Don't take it too seriously.
 
2013-02-09 07:04:20 PM  

ph0rk: I don't feel diminished.


I do. What does that prove? Nothing. Its my position. Creating an atheist church implies we need a church.

ph0rk: Too late for that, the pendulum has probably started to swing the other way.


That is cynical and wrong.

ph0rk:

The ship has entirely sailed on that - Most Americans dislike Atheists more than any other group, including muslims and homosexuals.

/There is nothing wrong with those groups.


I understand the practical reasons of why in reality atheists are a fringe group that need protection. I just feel we don't need it because right is on our side and our numbers will continue to grow.

I wildly disagree that the rate of believers exists as a pendulum going back and fourth. This is the march of progress.
 
2013-02-09 07:06:31 PM  

ciberido: ph0rk: BumpInTheNight: People who stick their noses into other people's business and pushing their own world view upon others.

How many atheists are doing that with guns or explosives, generally?

*cough*Red Army*cough*


Mao's revolution was also also a terrible pinnacle of anti-intellectualism, an axis that atheism doesn't tend to align with in the West.

There aren't too many violent atheists in the US or anywhere else recently, though. If the worst you get is a mild internet troll, so be it. It's better than car bombs and assassinations.
 
2013-02-09 07:07:22 PM  

mittromneysdog: Smgth: Thank you! I've been saying this is in this thread over and over. But no one seems to want to hear it.

It's Fark. It's about 65% trolls trolling other trolls. Don't take it too seriously.


LOL. I suppose. Just frustrating. It's like you FEEL you're having an intelligent debate, a lot of the signs are there, but it's just pissing into the wind.

I just don't get how I can say the same thing 4 or 5 times, get no response, then have someone say the same thing, and people jump on it.

/Butthurt.
 
2013-02-09 07:08:02 PM  

Smgth: I agree with you, in principle. But I think the problem is that atheists, like religionists, like most of humanity, feels the need to belong to something bigger then itself to feel a sense if community, and that they aren't alone.


It's not just a basic psychological need.  It also serves as keeping the world a safe enough place in which to reproduce.  Community such as we have is a HUGE advantage over a solo-life.

It makes sense on a conscious level, and satisfies a sub-conscious need.

What's worrisome is the people in society who, even after thorough and often repeated explanation, refuse the existence of those truths.

That is the other problem a lot of atheists have with a lot of religious viewpoints, there is often a spreading of ignorance that goes hand in hand with the message.  That is yet another detriment to society as we know it.

The worrisome part is that we've only had a brief reprieve of humans being intellectual, and are going to return, by and large, to being sheep.  Signs point to it, what with liberals being every bit as bad as conservatives at times, in judging "right" and "wrong" based on personal feelings, not so much logical thought.
 
2013-02-09 07:10:09 PM  

FloydA: Dead for Tax Reasons:

it seems like he just went there to point and laugh at how wrong the people there were, not to actually think or see the other side.

Yep.

Two people see something that they don't completely understand.  The atheist will usually say "I don't know," and if s/he is motivated to do so, will go on to try to find an explanation.  The theist will usually say "must be God" and cease all further speculation, because s/he has already come to an answer that satisfies him/her.

If just slapping the name "God" on the mysteries of the universe is enough of an answer for you, then religion is probably satisfying.  If not, it's not.  If you want to actually understand things, simply calling them "supernatural" and ceasing any further research just isn't good enough.


Depends on what your religious tenet a person follows.
 
2013-02-09 07:10:47 PM  
I'm Drunk
 
2013-02-09 07:11:02 PM  

BumpInTheNight: No need to join a community bent on a dismantling another one though,


I'll grant, I only scanned the article. But of what I scanned, I saw nothing to indicate that the Sunday Assembly is bent on dismantling any other community. Can you copy and paste the relevant text?
 
2013-02-09 07:11:03 PM  

dopekitty74: Mad_Season: xanadian: FTFA: After his introduction, we sang a Queen song as the service moved along.

"Who Wants to Live Forever"?

/there can be only one

Bohemian Rhapsody: "Beelzebub has a devil put aside for meeee...."

Ok, now i'm picturing the entire "congregation" headbanging away like on Wayne's World :)

/thanks!


Have you ever listened to music in a foreign language you don't understand but enjoy it for its feel?  Church does not necessarily dwell in the words so much as the feel and vibe to a song.  I use to attend catchism as a kid- absolutely hated everything about it but there were some songs I really enjoyed singing simply for the feel of the music.  Even today I can enjoy properly sung gospel music (think Blues Brothers revival scene).  Well made music is captivating and powerful and the church understands this.
 
2013-02-09 07:12:39 PM  

tshauk: I'm Drunk


This.
 
2013-02-09 07:12:47 PM  

nerftaig: ph0rk: I don't feel diminished.

I do. What does that prove? Nothing. Its my position. Creating an atheist church implies we need a church.

ph0rk: Too late for that, the pendulum has probably started to swing the other way.

That is cynical and wrong.

ph0rk:

The ship has entirely sailed on that - Most Americans dislike Atheists more than any other group, including muslims and homosexuals.

/There is nothing wrong with those groups.

I understand the practical reasons of why in reality atheists are a fringe group that need protection. I just feel we don't need it because right is on our side and our numbers will continue to grow.

I wildly disagree that the rate of believers exists as a pendulum going back and fourth. This is the march of progress.


If you feel diminished, atheism is probably too important a pillar of your identity.

Re: pendulum swing: the secularization thesis is widely considered to be wrong.

If you want to operationalize it as "number of believers", that's great, I guess. Christians who think the bible is the literal word of god have remained stuck at around 33% of the population since at least the 80's when people started asking the question:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/say-bible-literally.aspx

Other data sets have similar results.

Looks like the peak of a long pendulum to me (starting with the enlightenment). Have a good long chat with a biblical literalist or two sometime. There are more of them than there are people in the US who can read and understand a scientific paper.
 
2013-02-09 07:14:03 PM  

Smgth: LOL. I suppose. Just frustrating. It's like you FEEL you're having an intelligent debate, a lot of the signs are there, but it's just pissing into the wind.

I just don't get how I can say the same thing 4 or 5 times, get no response, then have someone say the same thing, and people jump on it.

/Butthurt.


Happens to me all the time.
 
2013-02-09 07:14:37 PM  

mittromneysdog: BumpInTheNight: No need to join a community bent on a dismantling another one though,

I'll grant, I only scanned the article. But of what I scanned, I saw nothing to indicate that the Sunday Assembly is bent on dismantling any other community. Can you copy and paste the relevant text?


What article?  You mean these discussion topics come from articles?  What I'm referencing there is the general notion that a subset of self-identified atheists seek to 'do battle' with and convert fundamentlists and use terms like 'drag the world out of the dark ages' and other things like you'll find throughout this thread.  I also know that I'm secure enough in my belief that I don't belief in a higher power that I don't need to surround myself with like-minded people once a week to re-affirm with ourselves that we're doing it right.
 
2013-02-09 07:15:03 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Smgth: I agree with you, in principle. But I think the problem is that atheists, like religionists, like most of humanity, feels the need to belong to something bigger then itself to feel a sense if community, and that they aren't alone.

It's not just a basic psychological need.  It also serves as keeping the world a safe enough place in which to reproduce.  Community such as we have is a HUGE advantage over a solo-life.

It makes sense on a conscious level, and satisfies a sub-conscious need.

What's worrisome is the people in society who, even after thorough and often repeated explanation, refuse the existence of those truths.

That is the other problem a lot of atheists have with a lot of religious viewpoints, there is often a spreading of ignorance that goes hand in hand with the message.  That is yet another detriment to society as we know it.

The worrisome part is that we've only had a brief reprieve of humans being intellectual, and are going to return, by and large, to being sheep.  Signs point to it, what with liberals being every bit as bad as conservatives at times, in judging "right" and "wrong" based on personal feelings, not so much logical thought.


I'm not sure it's time to signal the death knell of the intellectual enlightenment JUST yet. I think that the Internet gives SO many a voice, that the craziest are the loudest, so those are the people who seem the most represented.

I take solace in the fact that there's something like CERN. Literally BILLIONS of dollars spent for research. Almost pure research. It might produce some new tech. It might just produce knowledge. But there were enough people who thought it was worth it.

It's not quite the new dark ages bad religion sings about yet. And even in the depths if the dark ages, scientific progress didn't cease. There's still hope for the world yet.

/Man, if _I_ have to be the optimistic one, we are DOOMED!
 
2013-02-09 07:17:36 PM  

BumpInTheNight: mittromneysdog: BumpInTheNight: No need to join a community bent on a dismantling another one though,

I'll grant, I only scanned the article. But of what I scanned, I saw nothing to indicate that the Sunday Assembly is bent on dismantling any other community. Can you copy and paste the relevant text?

What article?  You mean these discussion topics come from articles?  What I'm referencing there is the general notion that a subset of self-identified atheists seek to 'do battle' with and convert fundamentlists and use terms like 'drag the world out of the dark ages' and other things like you'll find throughout this thread.  I also know that I'm secure enough in my belief that I don't belief in a higher power that I don't need to surround myself with like-minded people once a week to re-affirm with ourselves that we're doing it right.


*meanwhile once again I wish to point out that I live in a part of the world where heavy handed religious types aren't constantly poised to push their agenda upon the rest of us so we don't have to be so vigilant against that sort of fundamentalism, if I were in the states or the middle east I might have a more active approach to shrugging off magical sky wizards and the crazy things people will do in their name.
 
2013-02-09 07:18:05 PM  

ciberido: Somacandra: thamike: Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.

Being an "atheist" has no purpose by definition. Modern Western Atheism has no content--its a concept entirely founded on negating a complete strawman of a Protestant concept of religion. If instead you're going to talk about Humanism or an actual ethos of some kind, then social and ethical organizations have long been part of this tradition in Europe and the United States. Atheism does not mean non-religious: many Buddhists and Jains are 'atheists' but are nonetheless quite religious people.

There's the Humanist Manifestos (I , II,and III) if you want to compare Humanism to Atheism.


Bookmarked your link for later perusal. Thanks!
 
2013-02-09 07:18:44 PM  

GAT_00: Aar1012: Atheists have camps?

Only ones we put Christians in.  Uhh...I mean, they're re-education camps.  No, wait, I'm not supposed to say that either.  Uhh...knowledge camps!  That's it.


You seem to have trouble focusing, why not try going to a concentration camp?

p.twimg.com
 
2013-02-09 07:20:52 PM  

mittromneysdog: BumpInTheNight: No need to join a community bent on a dismantling another one though,

I'll grant, I only scanned the article. But of what I scanned, I saw nothing to indicate that the Sunday Assembly is bent on dismantling any other community. Can you copy and paste the relevant text?


No.

heh

That's part of what I find disconcerting about these threads.  A lot of blame laying as such when there's nothing of the sort going on, or where there is something akin to that, it's a self-defense sort of action(Again, I'll refer to Polk under Prayer and their persecution of local vocal atheists((seriously, this shiat happens, atheists can and do get arrested based on trumped up charges there   http://free2think.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1458 ))).  Really, puts me in mind of people who'd badmouth Rosa Parks.

It's almost like we(fark) have a bunch of religious people who don't want to sound "bad" so they don't mention religion at all, but show up and denigrate atheism in all of it's forms, even going so far as to fabricate nefarious atheist plots.

At times I wonder if they even can realize they end up sounding like conspiracy theorists.
 
2013-02-09 07:20:59 PM  
The answer is clear - God caused the conditions for the asymmetry. Furthermore, an ancient culture of divinly-inspired Jews nailed it on describing the event. If you're not looking at this data from a theistic perspective, the obvious will always evade you.

But, hey. That's just me.

 Hopefully it  is just you, because I'd hate to think that that level of ignorance regarding what is nowadays pretty basic physics and history was typical of products of the British school system.

You know, things like how it's called the "big bang" specifically as a reference to Christian mythology (some of the scientists involved in early theories were, iirc, Catholic, and most were literate so literary references seemed apropos) and it wasn't a literal flash or bang in any sense, nor does it have any resemblance to the creation myth otherwise.  This argument is sort of like saying that there's a Carrier called the USS Maine, therefore the state of Maine is a large floating island powered by a nuclear reactor with lots of force projection.
 
2013-02-09 07:21:40 PM  
www.deeptruths.com
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-09 07:22:26 PM  

BumpInTheNight: mittromneysdog: BumpInTheNight: No need to join a community bent on a dismantling another one though,

I'll grant, I only scanned the article. But of what I scanned, I saw nothing to indicate that the Sunday Assembly is bent on dismantling any other community. Can you copy and paste the relevant text?

What article?  You mean these discussion topics come from articles?  What I'm referencing there is the general notion that a subset of self-identified atheists seek to 'do battle' with and convert fundamentlists and use terms like 'drag the world out of the dark ages' and other things like you'll find throughout this thread.  I also know that I'm secure enough in my belief that I don't belief in a higher power that I don't need to surround myself with like-minded people once a week to re-affirm with ourselves that we're doing it right.


While I will admit there are jerks on both sides of the religious debate, proselytization occurs in every case where there are people with ideas. But you're assuming that this is what is taking place here. Which may or may not be the case. I'd like to think that these people are just out to feel part of something. They aren't trying to convert or reinforce their anti-faith. Just hang out and have a sing along. Think of it as the nicotine patch for people who went to church as children but still want what the church provides minus the bad parts. They get the comraderie and belonging without the lung cancer and brainwashing belief.
 
2013-02-09 07:24:11 PM  

BumpInTheNight: What I'm referencing there is the general notion that a subset of self-identified atheists seek to 'do battle' with and convert fundamentlists and use terms like 'drag the world out of the dark ages' and other things like you'll find throughout this thread.


That doesn't really relate to the idea of atheist church as presented in this article.
 
2013-02-09 07:24:16 PM  
ciberido:

maxheck: ciberido:

ph0rk: ciberido: maxheck: [i47.tinypic.com image 640x1188]

just sayin'

Several of those "X"s in your little chart are arguably checks. Including "charismatic leader".

There isn't a charismatic leader of "atheism"

/Dawkins is a dick, just to start you off.


Sure Dawkins is a dick. But he's a -charismatic- dick.

Probably not a Jesus / Stalin / Hitler / Mao level celebrity level of dick though. You were going to tell me what X's were checks? Do tell.

No, actually, I wasn't.


fair enough.
 
2013-02-09 07:26:03 PM  

omeganuepsilon: It's almost like we(fark) have a bunch of religious people who don't want to sound "bad" so they don't mention religion at all, but show up and denigrate atheism in all of it's forms, even going so far as to fabricate nefarious atheist plots.


It's like that all over the internet. The atheism thread at Reddit is about 95% theists bashing various stereotypes of atheists.
 
2013-02-09 07:27:51 PM  

mittromneysdog: BumpInTheNight: What I'm referencing there is the general notion that a subset of self-identified atheists seek to 'do battle' with and convert fundamentlists and use terms like 'drag the world out of the dark ages' and other things like you'll find throughout this thread.

That doesn't really relate to the idea of atheist church as presented in this article.


Atheism sometimes appeals to people who have had bad experiences with religion, just for the reason that 'this (atheism) is not that (organized religion)'.

Truth is, atheist can organize and make good or bad groups just as often as theists.
 
2013-02-09 07:29:00 PM  

Smgth: Think of it as the nicotine patch for people who went to church as children but still want what the church provides minus the bad parts.


This is an important aspect I neglect to keep in mind, not having a religious background myself I never had to 'break up' with religion, it was just never a part of my life in the first place.  I still think they should call the place something different then a church though.  With that stigma it looks more like a support group, which with the above kept in mind its probably close to any ways.

milliondollarspatula.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-09 07:29:22 PM  

mittromneysdog: omeganuepsilon: It's almost like we(fark) have a bunch of religious people who don't want to sound "bad" so they don't mention religion at all, but show up and denigrate atheism in all of it's forms, even going so far as to fabricate nefarious atheist plots.

It's like that all over the internet. The atheism thread at Reddit is about 95% theists bashing various stereotypes of atheists.


Because defeating straw men will ALWAYS be the modus operandi of people who can't defeat the actual argument. Until it devolves to ad hominem attacks.

/Of course their ENTIRE belief system is the appeal to authority fallacy.
//Logic.
 
2013-02-09 07:30:02 PM  

ph0rk: nerftaig: ph0rk: I don't feel diminished.

I do. What does that prove? Nothing. Its my position. Creating an atheist church implies we need a church.

ph0rk: Too late for that, the pendulum has probably started to swing the other way.

That is cynical and wrong.

ph0rk:

The ship has entirely sailed on that - Most Americans dislike Atheists more than any other group, including muslims and homosexuals.

/There is nothing wrong with those groups.

I understand the practical reasons of why in reality atheists are a fringe group that need protection. I just feel we don't need it because right is on our side and our numbers will continue to grow.

I wildly disagree that the rate of believers exists as a pendulum going back and fourth. This is the march of progress.

If you feel diminished, atheism is probably too important a pillar of your identity.

Re: pendulum swing: the secularization thesis is widely considered to be wrong.

If you want to operationalize it as "number of believers", that's great, I guess. Christians who think the bible is the literal word of god have remained stuck at around 33% of the population since at least the 80's when people started asking the question:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/say-bible-literally.aspx

Other data sets have similar results.

Looks like the peak of a long pendulum to me (starting with the enlightenment). Have a good long chat with a biblical literalist or two sometime. There are more of them than there are people in the US who can read and understand a scientific paper.


I don't understand why you are being so antagonistic to me in attacking my character. I said I felt that atheism was diminished. My wording was unclear, and I apologize for that.

I don't deny for a second that ignorance is overwhelming. The proposition that ignorance is the way things will always be though is sad and I do not accept it.

On another note I in no way for a second deny that humanity needs community. Human beings coming together is a great and important thing, unless it creates an us versus them divide in our population. Which I believe religion does. So I want the word church no where near anything so sacred as secular human fellowship.
 
2013-02-09 07:30:38 PM  

Smgth: I think that the Internet gives SO many a voice, that the craziest are the loudest, so those are the people who seem the most represented.


A lot of people are fond of saying a lot of the old conservative types are dying out, but I really don't think so.  Liberals are quickly filling in those empty shoes, it's just a different and unorganized edict, but comes from the same place.

I mentioned above about what is part of human nature(the need and subsequent usefulness of society).

I think that this is another manifestation of that same need.  A certain amount of people will deny logic if it means they strengthen their bond with each other, and will choose any arbitrary "cause" they can get behind.

I don't think that humanity has the capability at large to be intellectually enlightened(to borrow the term), enlightened people will always be a minority of some margin.  At times it may seem like it, where by sheer chance the populace falls in line with what is provably right and fair for the topic of the age.  I think this is the "loss" that I referred to above.  We've hit and are quickly passing that time of day when the broken clock is correct.
 
2013-02-09 07:32:01 PM  
I amzed at the "scientific, clear thinking atheists" here that rad three paragraphs of the article and immediately just KNEW so much they didn't bother to read the rest.

/And they say Christians are closed-minded?
//Also, GB Shaw wrestled pigs?  How else would he know the pros and cons of it?
 
2013-02-09 07:32:45 PM  

boomm: Truth is, atheist can organize and make good or bad groups just as often as theists.


Historically, I'm not aware of very many atheists who've formed organizations "qua atheists," so to speak. I mean, atheists naturally gravitate to certain organizations dedicated to natural sciences, or skepticism, etc. But the idea of an organization dedicated to being social with other atheists just because they're other atheists is new as far as I know. Theists, by contrast, have a looooong history of forming organizations "qua theists."
 
2013-02-09 07:33:45 PM  

BumpInTheNight: Smgth: Think of it as the nicotine patch for people who went to church as children but still want what the church provides minus the bad parts.

This is an important aspect I neglect to keep in mind, not having a religious background myself I never had to 'break up' with religion, it was just never a part of my life in the first place.  I still think they should call the place something different then a church though.  With that stigma it looks more like a support group, which with the above kept in mind its probably close to any ways.


Well the problem is, if not 'church', what do you call it so that people immediately grasp what's taking place there?

It carries all those negative connotations, but the POSITIVE connotations are clearly what is attracting a standing room only crowd.

Much in the way that A-theism, still has theism in it. Just have to take the good with the bad. And as my friend was wont to say, the bad with the scotch.
 
2013-02-09 07:35:07 PM  

Smgth: BumpInTheNight: Smgth: Think of it as the nicotine patch for people who went to church as children but still want what the church provides minus the bad parts.

This is an important aspect I neglect to keep in mind, not having a religious background myself I never had to 'break up' with religion, it was just never a part of my life in the first place.  I still think they should call the place something different then a church though.  With that stigma it looks more like a support group, which with the above kept in mind its probably close to any ways.

Well the problem is, if not 'church', what do you call it so that people immediately grasp what's taking place there?

It carries all those negative connotations, but the POSITIVE connotations are clearly what is attracting a standing room only crowd.

Much in the way that A-theism, still has theism in it. Just have to take the good with the bad. And as my friend was wont to say, the bad with the scotch.


Congregation and fellowship are two words used by UUs.
 
2013-02-09 07:35:17 PM  
Come to think of it, one of the things I like about being an atheist is sleeping in on Sunday mornings.  No way in heck a hot place full of torture, but unrelated to any religion, am I giving that up.
 
2013-02-09 07:36:21 PM  

mittromneysdog: omeganuepsilon: It's almost like we(fark) have a bunch of religious people who don't want to sound "bad" so they don't mention religion at all, but show up and denigrate atheism in all of it's forms, even going so far as to fabricate nefarious atheist plots.

It's like that all over the internet. The atheism thread at Reddit is about 95% theists bashing various stereotypes of atheists.


It is now.  Relative to what I mentioned in my last post, we, the internet, are suffering from a resurgence(or insurgence if you prefer) of the populace that was previously unable and/or uninterested in the internet, and indeed, all the perks of the intormation age.   Lending more to that illusion of "loss" I referred to above.

I would have worked this into my last post had I caught up on the thread before posting, but eh, I'll catch it next thread if it comes up.

Fark, and the internet, has indeed gone downhill.
 
2013-02-09 07:36:46 PM  

Smgth: omeganuepsilon: Smgth: I agree with you, in principle. But I think the problem is that atheists, like religionists, like most of humanity, feels the need to belong to something bigger then itself to feel a sense if community, and that they aren't alone.

It's not just a basic psychological need.  It also serves as keeping the world a safe enough place in which to reproduce.  Community such as we have is a HUGE advantage over a solo-life.

It makes sense on a conscious level, and satisfies a sub-conscious need.

What's worrisome is the people in society who, even after thorough and often repeated explanation, refuse the existence of those truths.

That is the other problem a lot of atheists have with a lot of religious viewpoints, there is often a spreading of ignorance that goes hand in hand with the message.  That is yet another detriment to society as we know it.

The worrisome part is that we've only had a brief reprieve of humans being intellectual, and are going to return, by and large, to being sheep.  Signs point to it, what with liberals being every bit as bad as conservatives at times, in judging "right" and "wrong" based on personal feelings, not so much logical thought.

I'm not sure it's time to signal the death knell of the intellectual enlightenment JUST yet. I think that the Internet gives SO many a voice, that the craziest are the loudest, so those are the people who seem the most represented.

I take solace in the fact that there's something like CERN. Literally BILLIONS of dollars spent for research. Almost pure research. It might produce some new tech. It might just produce knowledge. But there were enough people who thought it was worth it.

It's not quite the new dark ages bad religion sings about yet. And even in the depths if the dark ages, scientific progress didn't cease. There's still hope for the world yet.

/Man, if _I_ have to be the optimistic one, we are DOOMED!


Why let the constraints of religion interfere with your ability to accept science?  Christ could well of existed as did the dinosaurs.  I'm not seeing anything in the good book that says otherwise.  You follow the order in which the biblical God created the universe, logical steps had been taken.  Universe, stars/sun, earth, life, and eventually mankind.  Has science disputed this other than it with the explanation of that it occurred "randomly on its own"- which, in itself, requires a huge leap of faith.  Seven biblical God days equal millions of pages of time consuming explanation to ancient populations seeking a quick, comforting explanation.

The bible was never intended as science but rather, a collection parables attempting to introduce law to a lawless society and answers to a society troubled with unanserable questions.
 
2013-02-09 07:37:10 PM  

nerftaig: ph0rk: nerftaig: ph0rk: I don't feel diminished.

I do. What does that prove? Nothing. Its my position. Creating an atheist church implies we need a church.

ph0rk: Too late for that, the pendulum has probably started to swing the other way.

That is cynical and wrong.

ph0rk:

The ship has entirely sailed on that - Most Americans dislike Atheists more than any other group, including muslims and homosexuals.

/There is nothing wrong with those groups.

I understand the practical reasons of why in reality atheists are a fringe group that need protection. I just feel we don't need it because right is on our side and our numbers will continue to grow.

I wildly disagree that the rate of believers exists as a pendulum going back and fourth. This is the march of progress.

If you feel diminished, atheism is probably too important a pillar of your identity.

Re: pendulum swing: the secularization thesis is widely considered to be wrong.

If you want to operationalize it as "number of believers", that's great, I guess. Christians who think the bible is the literal word of god have remained stuck at around 33% of the population since at least the 80's when people started asking the question:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/say-bible-literally.aspx

Other data sets have similar results.

Looks like the peak of a long pendulum to me (starting with the enlightenment). Have a good long chat with a biblical literalist or two sometime. There are more of them than there are people in the US who can read and understand a scientific paper.

I don't understand why you are being so antagonistic to me in attacking my character. I said I felt that atheism was diminished. My wording was unclear, and I apologize for that.

I don't deny for a second that ignorance is overwhelming. The proposition that ignorance is the way things will always be though is sad and I do not accept it.

On another note I in no way for a second deny that humanity needs community. Human beings coming together is a great and important thing, unless it creates an us versus them divide in our population. Which I believe religion does. So I want the word church no where near anything so sacred as secular human fellowship.


So now we're just arguing the semantics of the thing. I both agree and disagree with using the word 'church'. Your point is certainly valid. However it's a useful construct insomuch as it immediately informs the uninitiated as to what is taking place.
 
2013-02-09 07:38:23 PM  

evil saltine: Smgth: BumpInTheNight: Smgth: Think of it as the nicotine patch for people who went to church as children but still want what the church provides minus the bad parts.

This is an important aspect I neglect to keep in mind, not having a religious background myself I never had to 'break up' with religion, it was just never a part of my life in the first place.  I still think they should call the place something different then a church though.  With that stigma it looks more like a support group, which with the above kept in mind its probably close to any ways.

Well the problem is, if not 'church', what do you call it so that people immediately grasp what's taking place there?

It carries all those negative connotations, but the POSITIVE connotations are clearly what is attracting a standing room only crowd.

Much in the way that A-theism, still has theism in it. Just have to take the good with the bad. And as my friend was wont to say, the bad with the scotch.

Congregation and fellowship are two words used by UUs.


Fair enough.
 
2013-02-09 07:38:43 PM  

evil saltine: Smgth: BumpInTheNight: Smgth: Think of it as the nicotine patch for people who went to church as children but still want what the church provides minus the bad parts.

This is an important aspect I neglect to keep in mind, not having a religious background myself I never had to 'break up' with religion, it was just never a part of my life in the first place.  I still think they should call the place something different then a church though.  With that stigma it looks more like a support group, which with the above kept in mind its probably close to any ways.

Well the problem is, if not 'church', what do you call it so that people immediately grasp what's taking place there?

It carries all those negative connotations, but the POSITIVE connotations are clearly what is attracting a standing room only crowd.

Much in the way that A-theism, still has theism in it. Just have to take the good with the bad. And as my friend was wont to say, the bad with the scotch.

Congregation and fellowship are two words used by UUs.


Fellowship could work, but yah I can help but think using the word church to organize a bunch of people who get together primarily because they've all decided to reject religion is ironic.  I also think that it'd have been hilarious if they called it a mosque or even a synagogue.
 
2013-02-09 07:38:45 PM  

muck4doo: Lionel Mandrake: muck4doo: Aar1012: Atheists have camps?

Ask Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao about those.

how clever

Yes, they thought that too.


And that...is why you fail.
 
2013-02-09 07:38:47 PM  

Lee451: I amzed at the "scientific, clear thinking atheists" here that rad three paragraphs of the article and immediately just KNEW so much they didn't bother to read the rest.

/And they say Christians are closed-minded?
//Also, GB Shaw wrestled pigs?  How else would he know the pros and cons of it?


One needs only to hear a few insults to get tired of someone ranting in a backhanded manner.  Do you suggest we all be gluttons for punishment?

I mean, hey, if masochism works for you, more power to you, but let's not pretend we all need to suffer.
 
2013-02-09 07:39:46 PM  

clowncar on fire: Smgth: omeganuepsilon: Smgth: I agree with you, in principle. But I think the problem is that atheists, like religionists, like most of humanity, feels the need to belong to something bigger then itself to feel a sense if community, and that they aren't alone.

It's not just a basic psychological need.  It also serves as keeping the world a safe enough place in which to reproduce.  Community such as we have is a HUGE advantage over a solo-life.

It makes sense on a conscious level, and satisfies a sub-conscious need.

What's worrisome is the people in society who, even after thorough and often repeated explanation, refuse the existence of those truths.

That is the other problem a lot of atheists have with a lot of religious viewpoints, there is often a spreading of ignorance that goes hand in hand with the message.  That is yet another detriment to society as we know it.

The worrisome part is that we've only had a brief reprieve of humans being intellectual, and are going to return, by and large, to being sheep.  Signs point to it, what with liberals being every bit as bad as conservatives at times, in judging "right" and "wrong" based on personal feelings, not so much logical thought.

I'm not sure it's time to signal the death knell of the intellectual enlightenment JUST yet. I think that the Internet gives SO many a voice, that the craziest are the loudest, so those are the people who seem the most represented.

I take solace in the fact that there's something like CERN. Literally BILLIONS of dollars spent for research. Almost pure research. It might produce some new tech. It might just produce knowledge. But there were enough people who thought it was worth it.

It's not quite the new dark ages bad religion sings about yet. And even in the depths if the dark ages, scientific progress didn't cease. There's still hope for the world yet.

/Man, if _I_ have to be the optimistic one, we are DOOMED!

Why let the constraints of religion interfere with your ability to accept science?  Christ could well of existed as did the dinosaurs.  I'm not seeing anything in the good book that says otherwise.  You follow the order in which the biblical God created the universe, logical steps had been taken.  Universe, stars/sun, earth, life, and eventually mankind.  Has science disputed this other than it with the explanation of that it occurred "randomly on its own"- which, in itself, requires a huge leap of faith.  Seven biblical God days equal millions of pages of time consuming explanation to ancient populations seeking a quick, comforting explanation.

The bible was never intended as science but rather, a collection parables attempting to introduce law to a lawless society and answers to a society troubled with unanserable questions.


Many religionists would not agree with those assesments.
 
2013-02-09 07:41:15 PM  
clowncar on fire:

Smgth: omeganuepsilon: Smgth: I agree with you, in principle. But I think the problem is that atheists, like religionists, like most of humanity, feels the need to belong to something bigger then itself to feel a sense if community, and that they aren't alone.

It's not just a basic psychological need. It also serves as keeping the world a safe enough place in which to reproduce. Community such as we have is a HUGE advantage over a solo-life.

It makes sense on a conscious level, and satisfies a sub-conscious need.

What's worrisome is the people in society who, even after thorough and often repeated explanation, refuse the existence of those truths.

That is the other problem a lot of atheists have with a lot of religious viewpoints, there is often a spreading of ignorance that goes hand in hand with the message. That is yet another detriment to society as we know it.

The worrisome part is that we've only had a brief reprieve of humans being intellectual, and are going to return, by and large, to being sheep. Signs point to it, what with liberals being every bit as bad as conservatives at times, in judging "right" and "wrong" based on personal feelings, not so much logical thought.

I'm not sure it's time to signal the death knell of the intellectual enlightenment JUST yet. I think that the Internet gives SO many a voice, that the craziest are the loudest, so those are the people who seem the most represented.

I take solace in the fact that there's something like CERN. Literally BILLIONS of dollars spent for research. Almost pure research. It might produce some new tech. It might just produce knowledge. But there were enough people who thought it was worth it.

It's not quite the new dark ages bad religion sings about yet. And even in the depths if the dark ages, scientific progress didn't cease. There's still hope for the world yet.

/Man, if _I_ have to be the optimistic one, we are DOOMED!

Why let the constraints of religion interfere with your ability to accept science? Christ could well of existed as did the dinosaurs. I'm not seeing anything in the good book that says otherwise. You follow the order in which the biblical God created the universe, logical steps had been taken. Universe, stars/sun, earth, life, and eventually mankind. Has science disputed this other than it with the explanation of that it occurred "randomly on its own"- which, in itself, requires a huge leap of faith. Seven biblical God days equal millions of pages of time consuming explanation to ancient populations seeking a quick, comforting explanation.

The bible was never intended as science but rather, a collection parables attempting to introduce law to a lawless society and answers to a society troubled with unanserable questions.


Follow through on that thought.

Are we still in that society? Should we be drawing from those answers to the situations we're facing now?

Things may have changed since the Council of Nicea.
 
2013-02-09 07:43:03 PM  

Lee451: I amzed at the "scientific, clear thinking atheists" here that rad three paragraphs of the article and immediately just KNEW so much they didn't bother to read the rest.

/And they say Christians are closed-minded?
//Also, GB Shaw wrestled pigs?  How else would he know the pros and cons of it?



It seems like you are being purposely cryptic. Why post if you are afraid to be clear in your actual opinion?
 
2013-02-09 07:43:20 PM  

mittromneysdog: Historically, I'm not aware of very many atheists who've formed organizations "qua atheists," so to speak. I mean, atheists naturally gravitate to certain organizations dedicated to natural sciences, or skepticism, etc. But the idea of an organization dedicated to being social with other atheists just because they're other atheists is new as far as I know. Theists, by contrast, have a looooong history of forming organizations "qua theists."


The premise of getting together with a common tie of disbelief might apply more if you allow for it to just be 'not that god,' instead of 'no god at all.' But specific to old history, since the 'heathens' in most histories weren't the ones interested in documenting the actions and beliefs of their group they don't come across as a cohesive continuous group. You have to take the believer's history as an account for how 'bad' they were treated by the heathens.
 
2013-02-09 07:47:45 PM  

ModernLuddite: I thought that was called "Unitarian Universalism".

Sample sermon:  www.uce.ca/wordpress/morality-without-god/


One could think of UU being a "Fair Trade" religion with none of the nasty "baggage" of all the rest (that they are all pretty stubborn about dumping)

Roman Catholics - Crusades, politics, against woman's reproductive rights while being celibate themselves, protecting child rapists
Protestant - Worshiping a nasty vengeful OT God, against women's rights, Messing with politics, passing blue laws, censorship of entertainment & prohibition of alcohol
Muslims - Terrorists, messing with politics, women's rights, censorship
Judaism - Women's rights (this bit is getting old), usury (well we actually blame this on the Christians), again messing with politics...

..and you can go on, but at least UU gives it's followers a clear conscience on what they are supporting. And if there was this all good and just god (like he is supposed to be), UU members would be the ones who will get their reward in the afterlife, while those supposedly "pious" folk will be meeting the horned red guy with the pitchfork..
 
2013-02-09 07:49:44 PM  

maxheck: Things may have changed since the Council of Nicea.


heh

We do not live entirely in that society.  Some religious schools still teach bunk science and misinformation upon which to prop themselves.  It's not that we let religion interfere with us, but to allow such propaganda to spread can be and is problem causing, not solving.

People wonder why our youth are progressively less and less capable little snowflakes....they blame gays and other assorted heathenry for corrupting life as we know it, and are blind to actual useful information.

This desire for all people to be decently educated and not lied to has nothing to do with theism/atheism as people are saying, that atheists "by definition" should be come sort of apathy personified(which ties into my original post in the thread).
 
2013-02-09 07:49:57 PM  

phrawgh: [www.deeptruths.com image 420x300]
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 500x298]


Better yet WHY would your Jesus return?
Given your society's / sect's previous attitude *sheesh*
 
2013-02-09 07:53:19 PM  

Robert Farker: It seems like you are being purposely cryptic. Why post if you are afraid to be clear in your actual opinion?


It must have been trained by the likes of SteveB and IDW when it comes to making a clear point.

An interesting snake oil pitch situation, a staple tactic to the loud religious "debaters", and indeed, anyone wanting to appear wise but with no real talent for it.
 
2013-02-09 07:55:10 PM  

maxheck: clowncar on fire:

Smgth: omeganuepsilon: Smgth: I agree with you, in principle. But I think the problem is that atheists, like religionists, like most of humanity, feels the need to belong to something bigger then itself to feel a sense if community, and that they aren't alone.


So you are saying there is nothing we can garnish from the bible or religion that no longer benefits today's society?  Does the bible/koran offer no comfort to its readers, no self evident law to which all members of society should not subscribe to- you know: don't steal shiat, obscess with others, respect authority, and recognise order through some rule of law?  No comfort in the belief that things may get better in the afterlife or possible governance over personal belief when defining right and wrong.

I would not even attempt to defend the bible in regards of science other than to say that it may offer simple explanation where simplicity over complexity may be needed.
 
2013-02-09 07:55:43 PM  
I visited an Athiest camp once.
I can't believe what I saw there.
 
2013-02-09 07:55:59 PM  
I thought an Atheist church was called a bar (or pub on the other side of the Atlantic)
 
2013-02-09 07:56:28 PM  

ciberido: So your objection is to the word "church"? If it was called "an atheist weekly social club" it would be fine?


Absolutely. The very definition of church in virtually EVERY dictionary is "A building used for public Christian worship." If it were a book club, meeting, hobby club or whatever I'd be fine, but "Atheist" and "Church" are mutually exclusive words.
 
2013-02-09 08:00:48 PM  

EngineerBob: I visited an Athiest camp once.
I can't believe what I saw there.


Want some whiskey in your water
Sugar in your tea
What's all these crazy questions they askin' me
This is the craziest party there could ever be
Don't turn on the lights, 'cause I don't want to see

Mama told me not to come
Mama told me not to come
That ain't the way to have fun, no

Open up the window
Let some air into this room
I think I'm almost chokin'
From the smell of stale perfume

And that cigarette you're smoking
'Bout scared me half to death
Open up the window, sucker
Let me catch my breath

[Refrain]
Mama told me not to come
Mama told me not to come
She said, that ain't the way to have fun, son
That ain't the way to have fun, son

The radio is blastin'
Someone's knocking at the door
I'm lookin' at my girlfriend
She's passed out on the floor

I seen so many things
I ain't never seen before
Don't know what it is
I don't wanna see no more

[Refrain]

Mama told me, mama told me, mama told me
Told me, told me
That ain't no way to have fun, whoah, yeah yeah
Mama told me not to come
Mama, mama, mama told me
That ain't no way to have fun

That ain't the way to have fun, no
That ain't the way to have fun, son
That ain't the way to have fun, no
That ain't the way to have fun, son  ~Three Dog Night
 
2013-02-09 08:05:01 PM  
Oh, FOR FARK SAKE, YOU ASSHOLE! You are at SOMEONE ELSE'S SERVICE! SHUT THE FARK UP ABOUT YOUR BELIEFS AND STOP ASSUMING THEY 'NEED' YOURS!

Goddamn, is there just something about being the dominant religion in a country that makes you completely farking forget basic good manners?
 
2013-02-09 08:05:41 PM  

clowncar on fire: maxheck: clowncar on fire:

Smgth: omeganuepsilon: Smgth: I agree with you, in principle. But I think the problem is that atheists, like religionists, like most of humanity, feels the need to belong to something bigger then itself to feel a sense if community, and that they aren't alone.

So you are saying there is nothing we can garnish from the bible or religion that no longer benefits today's society?  Does the bible/koran offer no comfort to its readers, no self evident law to which all members of society should not subscribe to- you know: don't steal shiat, obscess with others, respect authority, and recognise order through some rule of law?  No comfort in the belief that things may get better in the afterlife or possible governance over personal belief when defining right and wrong.

I would not even attempt to defend the bible in regards of science other than to say that it may offer simple explanation where simplicity over complexity may be needed.


How do you derive that from what I said?! I said people like to feel a sense of belonging. The end. This group of atheists wasn't getting it from the world around them, they don't believe in god, so they sought out a surrogate. How does that mean I don't think religious people should enjoy going to church?! If you want worship god, knock yourself out, no skin off my nose.

You're making a lot of large, unwarranted, assumptions about my position.
 
2013-02-09 08:08:00 PM  

PsiChick: Oh, FOR FARK SAKE, YOU ASSHOLE! You are at SOMEONE ELSE'S SERVICE! SHUT THE FARK UP ABOUT YOUR BELIEFS AND STOP ASSUMING THEY 'NEED' YOURS!

Goddamn, is there just something about being the dominant religion in a country that makes you completely farking forget basic good manners?


Nah, minority religions have NO problem being self-righteous smug assholes.

LOTS of people think they've the ONLY answer, and look down at the rest as deluded fools.

/The majority just have more room for smug.
 
2013-02-09 08:17:10 PM  

PsiChick: Oh, FOR FARK SAKE, YOU ASSHOLE! You are at SOMEONE ELSE'S SERVICE! SHUT THE FARK UP ABOUT YOUR BELIEFS AND STOP ASSUMING THEY 'NEED' YOURS!

Goddamn, is there just something about being the dominant religion in a country that makes you completely farking forget basic good manners?



lh3.googleusercontent.com
Because that's what they figure everyone needs...
 
2013-02-09 08:19:20 PM  

clowncar on fire: gimmegimme: clowncar on fire: gimmegimme: BumpInTheNight: ciberido: ajgeek: "Atheist Church" is an oxymoron. Also stupid, but I repeat myself.

So your objection is to the word "church"?  If it was called "an atheist weekly social club" it would be fine?

Or do you think it's stupid for a group of like-minded atheists to get together on a regular basis to listen to music and lectures?

I gotta admit I find it more then a little strange that this group of people who are actively trying to reject the notion of religion are using a name universally recognized as reserved for houses of christian worship and applying it to their weekly club house.  This sort of radical anti-religion is mildly funny to me, like I'm sure I'd feel differently if I had to deal with the zealously religious on a more regular basis but to me the idea of identifying myself as 'not that' in reference to something I reject as opposed to identifying something I actually am is just strange.  Its counter productive and at the end of  the day your self identification is reliant on the thing you reject existing...this guaranteeing it can never be fully erased lest you become void of purpose yourself.

TL;DR?  Militant atheists are just as bad as militant fundamentalists, they're just bad in different ways.

1) What is a "militant atheist"? A person who not only believes but must make sure anyone who believes otherwise better change their ways

2) How is the above "just as bad"?  Re-read all posts in this thread. Take the time to keep count of those who defend the fundies and the nature of their responses versus those who oppose the fundies.  Come to your own conclusions.

How, exactly, does a "militant atheist" "make sure anyone who believes otherwise better change their ways" and why/how is this method unacceptable?

The  "method " is the usual: browbeat, troll, bully, etc.  In the framework of the cyber community, I would say the bravery of being out of range would be considered acceptable.

I, for example, am an atheist in regards to the existance of the Easter Bunny.  My disbelief in The Bunny is the end game.  In your venacular- whatever.  Why would I even bother to even debate about its existance as I know it not to exist?  As a true theist, with no doubt in my heart, I w ould not even see the oint of trying to expend my efforts to debunk that which is not debunkable.

A true theist would not see the need to engage in such discourse as to whether God exists or not, but rather be comfortable in the belief in non-existance.

Militant theists are an entirely different bird.  There appears to be an internal need, not unlike that of a bully, to defend a core belief to which the holder may himself have doubts.  In the case of theism, a need to express the non-existance of a diety and receive confirmation thereof.


If, as a theist, the worst thing that can happen to you for your religious position is to get trolled on Fark, you're getting off light. As an atheist in Arkansas, I can be disqualified from serving on a jury or to hold state public office. Once you start getting discriminated against for being a Christian and having your actual civil rights revoked, you call me up.
 
2013-02-09 08:23:21 PM  

Somacandra: thamike: Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.

Being an "atheist" has no purpose by definition. Modern Western Atheism has no content--its a concept entirely founded on negating a complete strawman of a Protestant concept of religion. If instead you're going to talk about Humanism or an actual ethos of some kind, then social and ethical organizations have long been part of this tradition in Europe and the United States. Atheism does not mean non-religious: many Buddhists and Jains are 'atheists' but are nonetheless quite religious people.


My lack of belief in god is entirely focused on negating a strawman?

Please elaborate.
 
2013-02-09 08:23:26 PM  
while i am not religious, i have a growing dislike for the anti-religious.
i am battered daily by protestations from the FSM worshippers proclaiming the absolute disconnection between church and charity, and yet for 17 years now, I have yet to meet an atheist group at the local community center feeding the poor.
i could understand if i only worked at a few, or only at faith based centers...

atheist is another word for selfish and don't give a f*ck about anyone else. jmo.

and i don't even believe in "god".
 
2013-02-09 08:29:57 PM  
Well, he almost made a good point about our instinctual need for community, until he got all smug about his religion.

Our need for community and social bonds stems from biology, not religion. It's too bad the author can't understand this, and wastes energy feeling pity for people who are probably happier than he is.
 
2013-02-09 08:31:15 PM  
Popular Opinion:

while i am not religious, i have a growing dislike for the anti-religious.
i am battered daily by protestations from the FSM worshippers proclaiming the absolute disconnection between church and charity, and yet for 17 years now, I have yet to meet an atheist group at the local community center feeding the poor.
i could understand if i only worked at a few, or only at faith based centers...

atheist is another word for selfish and don't give a f*ck about anyone else. jmo.

and i don't even believe in "god".


So you'd agree that say, legislation based on faith is ok, and *not* getting in someone's face?

There may have been an example or two of that lately, just saying. I can in fact name a class of people who don't seem to give a fark about anyone else. It's not the one you're thinking of.
 
2013-02-09 08:33:11 PM  

Popular Opinion: while i am not religious, i have a growing dislike for the anti-religious.
i am battered daily by protestations from the FSM worshippers proclaiming the absolute disconnection between church and charity, and yet for 17 years now, I have yet to meet an atheist group at the local community center feeding the poor.
i could understand if i only worked at a few, or only at faith based centers...

atheist is another word for selfish and don't give a f*ck about anyone else. jmo.

and i don't even believe in "god".


You're certainly welcome to view the world as if your experiences are the only way the world functions. But just because you haven't seen at your community center doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_secularist_organizations

But please, continue to paint all atheists with the same brush.
 
pc
2013-02-09 08:38:59 PM  
i50.tinypic.com
/just saying
 
2013-02-09 08:41:44 PM  
Smgth:

Popular Opinion: while i am not religious, i have a growing dislike for the anti-religious.
i am battered daily by protestations from the FSM worshippers proclaiming the absolute disconnection between church and charity, and yet for 17 years now, I have yet to meet an atheist group at the local community center feeding the poor.
i could understand if i only worked at a few, or only at faith based centers...

atheist is another word for selfish and don't give a f*ck about anyone else. jmo.

and i don't even believe in "god".

You're certainly welcome to view the world as if your experiences are the only way the world functions. But just because you haven't seen at your community center doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_secularist_organizations

But please, continue to paint all atheists with the same brush.


I have a sneaking suspicion that he's full of crap and flat-out lying trying to make a point, but that's just an opinion, man.
 
2013-02-09 08:44:50 PM  

Popular Opinion: while i am not religious, i have a growing dislike for the anti-religious.
i am battered daily by protestations from the FSM worshippers proclaiming the absolute disconnection between church and charity, and yet for 17 years now, I have yet to meet an atheist group at the local community center feeding the poor.
i could understand if i only worked at a few, or only at faith based centers...

atheist is another word for selfish and don't give a f*ck about anyone else. jmo.

and i don't even believe in "god".


http://www.squidoo.com/Atheist-Charities

Man, that google search sure was hard.

Go on with your superiority complex holding self, though.
 
2013-02-09 08:46:56 PM  

Marcintosh: phrawgh: [www.deeptruths.com image 420x300]
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 500x298]

Better yet WHY would your Jesus return?
Given your society's / sect's previous attitude *sheesh*


I'm not Jewish.
 
2013-02-09 08:48:00 PM  

GAT_00: Aar1012: Atheists have camps?

Only ones we put Christians in.  Uhh...I mean, they're re-education camps.  No, wait, I'm not supposed to say that either.  Uhh...knowledge camps!  That's it.


"Did I say Death camps? I meant 'Happy Camps'!"
i142.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-09 08:48:24 PM  

maxheck: Smgth:

Popular Opinion: while i am not religious, i have a growing dislike for the anti-religious.
i am battered daily by protestations from the FSM worshippers proclaiming the absolute disconnection between church and charity, and yet for 17 years now, I have yet to meet an atheist group at the local community center feeding the poor.
i could understand if i only worked at a few, or only at faith based centers...

atheist is another word for selfish and don't give a f*ck about anyone else. jmo.

and i don't even believe in "god".

You're certainly welcome to view the world as if your experiences are the only way the world functions. But just because you haven't seen at your community center doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_secularist_organizations

But please, continue to paint all atheists with the same brush.

I have a sneaking suspicion that he's full of crap and flat-out lying trying to make a point, but that's just an opinion, man.


LOL, well that just like your opinion man...

I was going to be nice and give them the benefit of the doubt and just assume they lived in some Podunk town no atheist would be caught dead in. Because any atheist there would be killed.

Or maybe atheists don't need to make a big show of their charity because they believe it will get them into heaven?

/Is it ACTUALLY charity if you're doing it for a reward?
//As long as the poor get fed, I don't really care, I just find it interesting.
 
2013-02-09 08:49:19 PM  

Rindred: If, as a theist, the worst thing that can happen to you for your religious position is to get trolled on Fark, you're getting off light. As an atheist in Arkansas, I can be disqualified from serving on a jury or to hold state public office. Once you start getting discriminated against for being a Christian and having your actual civil rights revoked, you call me up.


This.  Exactly what I was talking about above.

If such a persecution/discrimination story does make the news, it puts the Atheists in the light of the troll.  Polk Under prayer being a great example, most who have heard about it only know it was a group of atheists "unblessing" a highway.

The real story, is that PUP prayed for anyone to does not follow jesus get deported or barred from town(hence the "deblessing"), had people(atheists) arrested from a school board meeting even though they were not disruptive(AND it had not started yet), relocated public school equipment to the church, on the cities dollar, and arrested a mean old atheist with a force of police in SWAT like get-ups under charges of "FRAUD" for tacking "Esquire" onto her name.(while inquiring about the funds to the school equipment).  etc etc

The formerly great thing about this country, is the whole freedom of speech thing.  Doesn't work so well when a conglomeration of people in power decide to assert their religious preferences in such bold ways.

If we have to allow Westboro Baptists to protest in their inane fashion, we should certainly allow some Atheists to protest the distinct and obvious mingling of church and state.
 
2013-02-09 08:50:24 PM  
Belief in a higher power is one of the deepest, most fundamental traits of being a human being. I would put it up there with upright walking, opposible thumbs, and intelligence. So much of what humans are in our very nature is religious. It has been that way since the very first cave paintings and will remain that way when we are watching two nebulae pass through each other from our starships one day. Athiests are denying themselves a major part of what it is to be human. Athiesm really is a loss and should not be responded to with anger.
 
2013-02-09 08:52:43 PM  

StrangeQ: Popular Opinion: while i am not religious, i have a growing dislike for the anti-religious.
i am battered daily by protestations from the FSM worshippers proclaiming the absolute disconnection between church and charity, and yet for 17 years now, I have yet to meet an atheist group at the local community center feeding the poor.
i could understand if i only worked at a few, or only at faith based centers...

atheist is another word for selfish and don't give a f*ck about anyone else. jmo.

and i don't even believe in "god".

http://www.squidoo.com/Atheist-Charities

Man, that google search sure was hard.

Go on with your superiority complex holding self, though.


He believes if he doesn't see it, it's not happening. So because there are no atheist organizations there when he is (which must be ALL DAY EVERY DAY), there are none.

/No Chinese people in my house, must mean there are no Chinese people.
 
2013-02-09 08:52:57 PM  

amquelbettamin: Belief in a higher power is one of the deepest, most fundamental traits of being a human being. I would put it up there with upright walking, opposible thumbs, and intelligence. So much of what humans are in our very nature is religious. It has been that way since the very first cave paintings and will remain that way when we are watching two nebulae pass through each other from our starships one day. Athiests are denying themselves a major part of what it is to be human. Athiesm really is a loss and should not be responded to with anger.



Citation and specificity needed.
 
2013-02-09 08:54:54 PM  

amquelbettamin: So much of what humans are in our very nature is religious. It has been that way since the very first cave paintings and will remain that way when we are watching two nebulae pass through each other from our starships one day. Athiests are denying themselves a major part of what it is to be human. Athiesm really is a loss and should not be responded to with anger.


It's not a lifestyle choice, you know. Either you have faith or you don't. I can't "choose" it anymore than I can choose my gender.
 
2013-02-09 08:55:03 PM  

omeganuepsilon: amquelbettamin: Belief in a higher power is one of the deepest, most fundamental traits of being a human being. I would put it up there with upright walking, opposible thumbs, and intelligence. So much of what humans are in our very nature is religious. It has been that way since the very first cave paintings and will remain that way when we are watching two nebulae pass through each other from our starships one day. Athiests are denying themselves a major part of what it is to be human. Athiesm really is a loss and should not be responded to with anger.


Citation and specificity needed.


I'm not your Google bot.
 
2013-02-09 08:55:32 PM  

clowncar on fire: I would not even attempt to defend the bible in regards of science other than to say that it may offer simple explanation where simplicity over complexity may be needed.


Simple is fine. But "we don't know therefore god did it" is simple-minded. And that is not fine.
 
2013-02-09 08:56:18 PM  

amquelbettamin: Belief in a higher power is one of the deepest, most fundamental traits of being a human being. I would put it up there with upright walking, opposible thumbs, and intelligence. So much of what humans are in our very nature is religious. It has been that way since the very first cave paintings and will remain that way when we are watching two nebulae pass through each other from our starships one day. Athiests are denying themselves a major part of what it is to be human. Athiesm really is a loss and should not be responded to with anger.


You can believe in a greater good without attaching a higher power.
 
2013-02-09 09:01:02 PM  

amquelbettamin: Belief in a higher power is one of the deepest, most fundamental traits of being a human being. I would put it up there with upright walking, opposible thumbs, and intelligence. So much of what humans are in our very nature is religious. It has been that way since the very first cave paintings and will remain that way when we are watching two nebulae pass through each other from our starships one day. Athiests are denying themselves a major part of what it is to be human. Athiesm really is a loss and should not be responded to with anger.


Yes. Atheists CHOOSE to not have faith. Very good argument.

Like all those poor gays choosing to be gay and suffer all that discrimination needlessly. War is part of mans nature too, should we embrace that? Human sacrifice was the main part of many religions for a long time, should that be brought back because it was endemic to humanity? Humans naturally hate and fear things different from them, should we regret the decline of racism?

There are a LOT of negative traits left over from our evolution, the belief in sky people who make thunder isn't any more special then any other traits holding us back.

/Being human aint so great, I wouldn't be bragging about it.
//We're pretty flawed. But some of us are smart enough not to cling to those flaws as if they were our defining features.
 
2013-02-09 09:01:18 PM  

BumpInTheNight: amquelbettamin: Belief in a higher power is one of the deepest, most fundamental traits of being a human being. I would put it up there with upright walking, opposible thumbs, and intelligence. So much of what humans are in our very nature is religious. It has been that way since the very first cave paintings and will remain that way when we are watching two nebulae pass through each other from our starships one day. Athiests are denying themselves a major part of what it is to be human. Athiesm really is a loss and should not be responded to with anger.

You can believe in a greater good without attaching a higher power.


A greater good is a higher power.
 
2013-02-09 09:02:50 PM  

amquelbettamin: omeganuepsilon: amquelbettamin: Belief in a higher power is one of the deepest, most fundamental traits of being a human being. I would put it up there with upright walking, opposible thumbs, and intelligence. So much of what humans are in our very nature is religious. It has been that way since the very first cave paintings and will remain that way when we are watching two nebulae pass through each other from our starships one day. Athiests are denying themselves a major part of what it is to be human. Athiesm really is a loss and should not be responded to with anger.


Citation and specificity needed.

I'm not your Google bot.


Nor intelligent.
 
2013-02-09 09:09:05 PM  

amquelbettamin: Belief in a higher power is one of the deepest, most fundamental traits of being a human being.


A human being that has fallen victim to a snake-oil salesman or been indoctrinated as a child. Those of us who can see through the religious snake-oil salesmen do not have this "trait" that you claim exists.

amquelbettamin:  I would put it up there with upright walking, opposible thumbs, and intelligence.


You would rank it that high likely because of the aforementioned indoctrination that leads you feel that belief without evidence is a positive trait.

amquelbettamin: So much of what humans are in our very nature is religious. It has been that way since the very first cave paintings and will remain that way when we are watching two nebulae pass through each other from our starships one day.


Only to people who are prone to see everything through a religious filter ... like the deluded author of this article. The rest of us can appreciate the universe for what it is without the need to attach magic to it.

amquelbettamin: Athiests are denying themselves a major part of what it is to be human. Athiesm really is a loss and should not be responded to with anger.


Theist, are the ones that refuse to see reality. By dismissing everything as magic and as a pale reflection of what they will get in heaven they are dismissing reality. They hide behind their fantasy believing the next life is the important one. Sad.

P.S. Spell-check is your friend ... apparently god doesn't help with that either.
 
2013-02-09 09:09:52 PM  

Smgth: amquelbettamin: Belief in a higher power is one of the deepest, most fundamental traits of being a human being. I would put it up there with upright walking, opposible thumbs, and intelligence. So much of what humans are in our very nature is religious. It has been that way since the very first cave paintings and will remain that way when we are watching two nebulae pass through each other from our starships one day. Athiests are denying themselves a major part of what it is to be human. Athiesm really is a loss and should not be responded to with anger.

Yes. Atheists CHOOSE to not have faith. Very good argument.

Like all those poor gays choosing to be gay and suffer all that discrimination needlessly. War is part of mans nature too, should we embrace that? Human sacrifice was the main part of many religions for a long time, should that be brought back because it was endemic to humanity? Humans naturally hate and fear things different from them, should we regret the decline of racism?

There are a LOT of negative traits left over from our evolution, the belief in sky people who make thunder isn't any more special then any other traits holding us back.

/Being human aint so great, I wouldn't be bragging about it.
//We're pretty flawed. But some of us are smart enough not to cling to those flaws as if they were our defining features.


The evolution of humans away from evil and towards good is in fact what we are seeing with humanity. With time it appears humans are getting less like animals and more like the gods they wish to be and worship. I think humanity will continue to progress away from those atrocities you mention, but will retain their spirituality in the same way we have moved away from multiple wives, but retained our sexuality.
 
2013-02-09 09:11:12 PM  
Societal norms =/= evolution
 
2013-02-09 09:19:19 PM  

amquelbettamin: The evolution of humans away from evil and towards good is in fact what we are seeing


You, uh, don't read the news much do you?  People are still killing each other and being terrible to each other all across the board.
 
2013-02-09 09:19:30 PM  

Farking Canuck: amquelbettamin: Belief in a higher power is one of the deepest, most fundamental traits of being a human being.

A human being that has fallen victim to a snake-oil salesman or been indoctrinated as a child. Those of us who can see through the religious snake-oil salesmen do not have this "trait" that you claim exists.

amquelbettamin:  I would put it up there with upright walking, opposible thumbs, and intelligence.

You would rank it that high likely because of the aforementioned indoctrination that leads you feel that belief without evidence is a positive trait.

amquelbettamin: So much of what humans are in our very nature is religious. It has been that way since the very first cave paintings and will remain that way when we are watching two nebulae pass through each other from our starships one day.

Only to people who are prone to see everything through a religious filter ... like the deluded author of this article. The rest of us can appreciate the universe for what it is without the need to attach magic to it.

amquelbettamin: Athiests are denying themselves a major part of what it is to be human. Athiesm really is a loss and should not be responded to with anger.

Theist, are the ones that refuse to see reality. By dismissing everything as magic and as a pale reflection of what they will get in heaven they are dismissing reality. They hide behind their fantasy believing the next life is the important one. Sad.

P.S. Spell-check is your friend ... apparently god doesn't help with that either.


I don't have the time to go point for point with you.

I strongly feel God inside me and all around people I meet. I also see and feel evil or the opposite of God at times. I guess it really comes down to that.

I also wonder how so much order can come about in the universe. I am taught disorder should come with time or at least an equal and opposite disorder should come with each order. I don't really see that; I see good and order coming with time through humans.
 
2013-02-09 09:20:00 PM  

amquelbettamin: Smgth: amquelbettamin: Belief in a higher power is one of the deepest, most fundamental traits of being a human being. I would put it up there with upright walking, opposible thumbs, and intelligence. So much of what humans are in our very nature is religious. It has been that way since the very first cave paintings and will remain that way when we are watching two nebulae pass through each other from our starships one day. Athiests are denying themselves a major part of what it is to be human. Athiesm really is a loss and should not be responded to with anger.

Yes. Atheists CHOOSE to not have faith. Very good argument.

Like all those poor gays choosing to be gay and suffer all that discrimination needlessly. War is part of mans nature too, should we embrace that? Human sacrifice was the main part of many religions for a long time, should that be brought back because it was endemic to humanity? Humans naturally hate and fear things different from them, should we regret the decline of racism?

There are a LOT of negative traits left over from our evolution, the belief in sky people who make thunder isn't any more special then any other traits holding us back.

/Being human aint so great, I wouldn't be bragging about it.
//We're pretty flawed. But some of us are smart enough not to cling to those flaws as if they were our defining features.

The evolution of humans away from evil and towards good is in fact what we are seeing with humanity. With time it appears humans are getting less like animals and more like the gods they wish to be and worship. I think humanity will continue to progress away from those atrocities you mention, but will retain their spirituality in the same way we have moved away from multiple wives, but retained our sexuality.


Evolution and morality are not in concert. You hold to morality thousands of years old. So you're unevolved? Which, by your argument, makes you more evil. We've shown NO signs that we're evolving past atrocity. We just use bombs for human sacrifice now.

And not everyone has moved beyond multiple wives. Some still believe it to be moral. And you've no right to say your morality is more moral then theirs. So you're saying Muslims are less evolved and less moral then you are?

And I have NO clue what 'retained our sexuality' means. I'm not touching that landmine.
 
2013-02-09 09:21:40 PM  

amquelbettamin: The evolution of humans away from evil and towards good is in fact what we are seeing with humanity.


[citation needed]

In the western world we have implemented laws that make many acts illegal that were not illegal in the past but this does not make the people that are subject to these laws 'good'. It makes them less able to do 'evil' without punishment.

You talk a lot and you assume a lot but you never provide any evidence to support your statements. Let me guess: Are you religious??
 
2013-02-09 09:23:20 PM  

ciberido: FloydA: Somacandra:

Wow. If only your incredibly stupid

Well that was helpful. Thank you for advancing the conversation in a useful and effective way.

Well, I disagree with you as well, but I won't say that you or your opinions are stupid.


Thank you.

I am quite happy to discuss issues with people who disagree with me.  (Most of my friends and family disagree with me about this issue, and I love them dearly.)

But when people call me "incredibly stupid" for stating what I think, well, I don't know what to say.  They are empirically, measurably, wrong.  I may be a jerk, I may be misguided, and I may even be misinformed, but I've got rather conclusive proof that I am not "stupid."

If the response to my lack of belief is insults, then I have to say that I'm unconvinced.

You and I may believe different things, and that's fine, we can still respect each other and just agree to disagree.  But when someone tells me that I'm "incredibly stupid" because I am not convinced by their stories, well, I have to admit that I get a bit "tetchy."

I don't blame Christians, as a whole, for what  Somacandra said, but I do have to hold him responsible for his words.  He acted in a way that is not only a violation of basic common courtesy, but also in violation of the principles of the religion that I presume he was trying to defend.

Whatever our religious beliefs, or lack thereof, may be, "being a complete dick for no reason" is generally considered "haram" or "not kosher" or whatever the local equivalent.   Somacandra decided that being a dick was the appropriate response to my lack of belief, so... OK,

I like and trust you, and I'm willing to take your advice.  How do you think I should respond to him?
 
2013-02-09 09:23:42 PM  

amquelbettamin: I also wonder how so much order can come about in the universe. I am taught disorder should come with time or at least an equal and opposite disorder should come with each order. I don't really see that; I see good and order coming with time through humans.


Yes humans can harness external energy and locally increase order. This does not in any way violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It also does not, in any way, imply that magic is real.
 
2013-02-09 09:29:21 PM  

Farking Canuck: amquelbettamin: I also wonder how so much order can come about in the universe. I am taught disorder should come with time or at least an equal and opposite disorder should come with each order. I don't really see that; I see good and order coming with time through humans.

Yes humans can harness external energy and locally increase order. This does not in any way violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It also does not, in any way, imply that magic is real.


I didn't mean in terms of energy, but in terms of morality. We should all be tending toward more disorder and chaos with increasing populations, not more order and peace.
 
2013-02-09 09:30:16 PM  

Smgth: Popular Opinion: while i am not religious, i have a growing dislike for the anti-religious.
i am battered daily by protestations from the FSM worshippers proclaiming the absolute disconnection between church and charity, and yet for 17 years now, I have yet to meet an atheist group at the local community center feeding the poor.
i could understand if i only worked at a few, or only at faith based centers...

atheist is another word for selfish and don't give a f*ck about anyone else. jmo.

and i don't even believe in "god".

You're certainly welcome to view the world as if your experiences are the only way the world functions. But just because you haven't seen at your community center doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_secularist_organizations

But please, continue to paint all atheists with the same brush.


i should have added some disclaimer, to be sure. sorry.
i am not saying that all atheists are not charitable, although perhaps the inference is present when the logic isn't..
there are secular groups for sure. high school groups...but nothing specifically atheist.

am i purposely being provocative (i suppose that is trolling)?
i don't think any provocation to help people less fortunate that yourself is a bad thing.
 
2013-02-09 09:30:44 PM  
Dear Athiesmo,

Please forgive these Christians, for they know not what they do.

Ramen.
 
2013-02-09 09:33:58 PM  

amquelbettamin: I didn't mean in terms of energy, but in terms of morality. We should all be tending toward more disorder and chaos with increasing populations, not more order and peace.


Again ... speculation without support. Walk in the wrong parts of any big city and you will see disorder and chaos. Go to war-torn Africa or the middle east and you will see chaos and disorder.

You look at the world through your god colored glasses and see what you want to see. Denying reality ... as I mentioned above.
 
2013-02-09 09:38:17 PM  

Popular Opinion: Smgth: Popular Opinion: while i am not religious, i have a growing dislike for the anti-religious.
i am battered daily by protestations from the FSM worshippers proclaiming the absolute disconnection between church and charity, and yet for 17 years now, I have yet to meet an atheist group at the local community center feeding the poor.
i could understand if i only worked at a few, or only at faith based centers...

atheist is another word for selfish and don't give a f*ck about anyone else. jmo.

and i don't even believe in "god".

You're certainly welcome to view the world as if your experiences are the only way the world functions. But just because you haven't seen at your community center doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_secularist_organizations

But please, continue to paint all atheists with the same brush.

i should have added some disclaimer, to be sure. sorry.
i am not saying that all atheists are not charitable, although perhaps the inference is present when the logic isn't..
there are secular groups for sure. high school groups...but nothing specifically atheist.

am i purposely being provocative (i suppose that is trolling)?
i don't think any provocation to help people less fortunate that yourself is a bad thing.


Trolling or not you said Athiest meant selfish. Which is an unsupportable statement.

And as has been said repeatedly in this thread, there's no REAL need for atheist organizations. Any more then we need an anti-Easter bunny coalition. Atheists give to charity through secular organizations because their lack of belief doesn't define them.
 
2013-02-09 09:46:18 PM  

Farking Canuck: amquelbettamin: I didn't mean in terms of energy, but in terms of morality. We should all be tending toward more disorder and chaos with increasing populations, not more order and peace.

Again ... speculation without support. Walk in the wrong parts of any big city and you will see disorder and chaos. Go to war-torn Africa or the middle east and you will see chaos and disorder.

You look at the world through your god colored glasses and see what you want to see. Denying reality ... as I mentioned above.


Pinker: The surprising decline in violence
 
2013-02-09 09:53:44 PM  

Smgth: Popular Opinion: Smgth: Popular Opinion: while i am not religious, i have a growing dislike for the anti-religious.
i am battered daily by protestations from the FSM worshippers proclaiming the absolute disconnection between church and charity, and yet for 17 years now, I have yet to meet an atheist group at the local community center feeding the poor.
i could understand if i only worked at a few, or only at faith based centers...

atheist is another word for selfish and don't give a f*ck about anyone else. jmo.

and i don't even believe in "god".

You're certainly welcome to view the world as if your experiences are the only way the world functions. But just because you haven't seen at your community center doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_secularist_organizations

But please, continue to paint all atheists with the same brush.

i should have added some disclaimer, to be sure. sorry.
i am not saying that all atheists are not charitable, although perhaps the inference is present when the logic isn't..
there are secular groups for sure. high school groups...but nothing specifically atheist.

am i purposely being provocative (i suppose that is trolling)?
i don't think any provocation to help people less fortunate that yourself is a bad thing.

Trolling or not you said Athiest meant selfish. Which is an unsupportable statement.

And as has been said repeatedly in this thread, there's no REAL need for atheist organizations. Any more then we need an anti-Easter bunny coalition. Atheists give to charity through secular organizations because their lack of belief doesn't define them.


yeah, i kind of regret that, but my reference was directed at what i consider the militant atheist types (ie worshipers of the FSM). rather than meaning people that don't believe in a "supreme being" (or your definition) i meant those that also blame religion for pretty much everything that's gone wrong since there was such a thing.
 
2013-02-09 09:57:40 PM  

amquelbettamin: Pinker: The surprising decline in violence


As I said in my previous post when you were actually claiming that people were getting "less evil" (I noticed you abandoned that line pretty quick), we are imposing more order through rule of law and better enforcement through forensic science. So yes, in societies where rule of law is well enforced we are seeing a decline in violence. In places were society is in tatters the violence still runs rampant.

If this decline was due to your god's magic, don't you think he could have improved it everywhere?

Whereas, if it is due to the evolution of society combined with the improvements in forensic sciences (i.e. non-magical man), there would only be improvements where societies are stable. And, funny enough, this is the case.
 
2013-02-09 09:58:48 PM  

Popular Opinion: i kind of regret that, but my reference was directed at what i consider the militant atheist types (ie worshipers of the FSM)


Nobody worships the FSM. It is a parody. So who exactly were you targeting??
 
2013-02-09 10:01:01 PM  

Popular Opinion: Smgth: Popular Opinion: Smgth: Popular Opinion: while i am not religious, i have a growing dislike for the anti-religious.
i am battered daily by protestations from the FSM worshippers proclaiming the absolute disconnection between church and charity, and yet for 17 years now, I have yet to meet an atheist group at the local community center feeding the poor.
i could understand if i only worked at a few, or only at faith based centers...

atheist is another word for selfish and don't give a f*ck about anyone else. jmo.

and i don't even believe in "god".

You're certainly welcome to view the world as if your experiences are the only way the world functions. But just because you haven't seen at your community center doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_secularist_organizations

But please, continue to paint all atheists with the same brush.

i should have added some disclaimer, to be sure. sorry.
i am not saying that all atheists are not charitable, although perhaps the inference is present when the logic isn't..
there are secular groups for sure. high school groups...but nothing specifically atheist.

am i purposely being provocative (i suppose that is trolling)?
i don't think any provocation to help people less fortunate that yourself is a bad thing.

Trolling or not you said Athiest meant selfish. Which is an unsupportable statement.

And as has been said repeatedly in this thread, there's no REAL need for atheist organizations. Any more then we need an anti-Easter bunny coalition. Atheists give to charity through secular organizations because their lack of belief doesn't define them.

yeah, i kind of regret that, but my reference was directed at what i consider the militant atheist types (ie worshipers of the FSM). rather than meaning people that don't believe in a "supreme being" (or your definition) i meant those that also blame religion for pretty much everything that's gone wrong since there was such a thing.


So what you MEAN to say, is that extremists are bad. I think we (sane people) can all get behind that. I dislike proselytization in all its pernicious forms. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, just don't try and force it on others.

Extremists of every ilk make those who agree with them look bad. 'Militant' ANYTHING is a bad thing. I mean, I love animals, but PETA are psychos.

/You need to work on how you make your points. Not an insult, constructive criticism.
 
2013-02-09 10:08:26 PM  

Farking Canuck: Popular Opinion: i kind of regret that, but my reference was directed at what i consider the militant atheist types (ie worshipers of the FSM)

Nobody worships the FSM. It is a parody. So who exactly were you targeting??


i'm not sure that it is possible to explain my reference if you don't get it already.
again (ime) those that "worship" the flying spaghetti monster means those that demean any and all facets of religion, and believe that anyone that believes is god, or goes to church must be some sort of retard.
in retrospect, since most politicians claim to go to church, this might not be far off base.
 
2013-02-09 10:09:08 PM  

amquelbettamin: Pinker: The surprising decline in violence


P.S. Did you actually watch this video? It completely supports my position that there was no magic involved in the 'civilization' of society that has resulted in the reduction in violence. In fact, he has an entire section on how horrifically violent the bible is.
 
2013-02-09 10:13:53 PM  

Farking Canuck: amquelbettamin: Pinker: The surprising decline in violence

As I said in my previous post when you were actually claiming that people were getting "less evil" (I noticed you abandoned that line pretty quick), we are imposing more order through rule of law and better enforcement through forensic science. So yes, in societies where rule of law is well enforced we are seeing a decline in violence. In places were society is in tatters the violence still runs rampant.

If this decline was due to your god's magic, don't you think he could have improved it everywhere?

Whereas, if it is due to the evolution of society combined with the improvements in forensic sciences (i.e. non-magical man), there would only be improvements where societies are stable. And, funny enough, this is the case.


As I age I have started to equate evil with disorder and good with order. I see things like the violence at Newtown as being an act of great disorder. The ripples of that sort of act will cause even more hurt, pain, and disorder. I see acts of great kindness as instilling order. For example If someone is able to get someone the help they need to sober up that can make great ripples of good and order in that person's life and those around him rather than abuse and neglect. Ripples from a good act like that or the prevention of a suicide can span generations.

I have begun to equate good with order and I believe that with time more good will come of humanity. I believe with time, order and God's will will prevail in the hands of man. It will take time, but humanity is essentially good and that is because we have a likeness with God. In that sense our world is a work in progress. No one said magic.
 
2013-02-09 10:17:12 PM  

Farking Canuck: amquelbettamin: Pinker: The surprising decline in violence

P.S. Did you actually watch this video? It completely supports my position that there was no magic involved in the 'civilization' of society that has resulted in the reduction in violence. In fact, he has an entire section on how horrifically violent the bible is.


Yes, but, then God sent either a profet (if you are a Jew or Muslim) or himself (if you are a Christian) to tell man he was doing it wrong. What God wanted was for us to love and forgive each other. That message has been ignored throughout time by most, but does not negate that this is His will. The section of that talk supports my point as well.
 
2013-02-09 10:20:14 PM  

Popular Opinion: Farking Canuck: Popular Opinion: i kind of regret that, but my reference was directed at what i consider the militant atheist types (ie worshipers of the FSM)

Nobody worships the FSM. It is a parody. So who exactly were you targeting??

i'm not sure that it is possible to explain my reference if you don't get it already.
again (ime) those that "worship" the flying spaghetti monster means those that demean any and all facets of religion, and believe that anyone that believes is god, or goes to church must be some sort of retard.
in retrospect, since most politicians claim to go to church, this might not be far off base.


You are taking the arguments that people make on Fark and painting people with them. It isn't fair.

I am vary anti-religion myself as I feel it preys on the vulnerable and it pushes cave-man morals on to modern society. I will argue this on Fark with religious people who will defend the actions of the child raping catholic church or orthodox jews spitting on a women because she dared to take pictures on the sabbath.

Neither side of the argument necessarily does this in their day to day life. Members of my family are religious and I do not feel they are stupid.

Your assumptions are like assuming a boxer beats the snot out of everyone he meets because that's what he does in the ring. Fark is a sparring ring for topics like this ... if you don't want to go a few rounds don't get in the ring.
 
2013-02-09 10:20:45 PM  

Lsherm: FloydA: Dead for Tax Reasons:

it seems like he just went there to point and laugh at how wrong the people there were, not to actually think or see the other side.

Yep.

Two people see something that they don't completely understand.  The atheist will usually say "I don't know," and if s/he is motivated to do so, will go on to try to find an explanation.  The theist will usually say "must be God" and cease all further speculation, because s/he has already come to an answer that satisfies him/her.

I find this stereotypical summation, typical of liberal bigotry, amusingly ironic.

Please, you two, tell us more about how "those people" think.  Make sure to fluff yourselves up as the enlightened class at the same time.  Extra bonus points for ridiculous generalizations and/or complete ignorance baout the people you are criticizing.


So you're complaining about a generalization, while making one about liberals *in the same sentence*. Smooth.
 
2013-02-09 10:21:53 PM  
I hate to bug out, but I must. I'll read for ten more minutes without comment so I don't try to steal the last word.
 
2013-02-09 10:23:10 PM  
This thread has taken a turn that would make Poe(of Poe's Law) dizzy and nauseous.
 
2013-02-09 10:24:53 PM  

amquelbettamin: As I age I have started to equate evil with disorder and good with order. I see things like the violence at Newtown as being an act of great disorder. The ripples of that sort of act will cause even more hurt, pain, and disorder. I see acts of great kindness as instilling order. For example If someone is able to get someone the help they need to sober up that can make great ripples of good and order in that person's life and those around him rather than abuse and neglect. Ripples from a good act like that or the prevention of a suicide can span generations.

I have begun to equate good with order and I believe that with time more good will come of humanity. I believe with time, order and God's will will prevail in the hands of man. It will take time, but humanity is essentially good and that is because we have a likeness with God. In that sense our world is a work in progress. No one said magic.


Well equating order with good and vise versa is a common, if not necessarily correct, position. But then you had to go and throw the god stuff in there where there is absolutely no justification.

Man has invented over 1000 gods ... which one do you feel is responsible and why?

/by definition, god is magic. When you say "god did it" you are saying "it was magic"
 
2013-02-09 10:29:06 PM  

amquelbettamin: I strongly feel God inside me and all around people I meet. I also see and feel evil or the opposite of God at times.


Wow.
 
2013-02-09 10:34:39 PM  

ciberido: FloydA: Somacandra:

Wow. If only your incredibly stupid

Well that was helpful. Thank you for advancing the conversation in a useful and effective way.

Well, I disagree with you as well, but I won't say that you or your opinions are stupid.


I would not make that a blanket rule. Some people's opinions  arestupid.
 
2013-02-09 10:38:11 PM  

Farking Canuck: Popular Opinion: Farking Canuck: Popular Opinion: i kind of regret that, but my reference was directed at what i consider the militant atheist types (ie worshipers of the FSM)

Nobody worships the FSM. It is a parody. So who exactly were you targeting??

i'm not sure that it is possible to explain my reference if you don't get it already.
again (ime) those that "worship" the flying spaghetti monster means those that demean any and all facets of religion, and believe that anyone that believes is god, or goes to church must be some sort of retard.
in retrospect, since most politicians claim to go to church, this might not be far off base.

You are taking the arguments that people make on Fark and painting people with them. It isn't fair.

1) I am vary anti-religion myself as I feel it preys on the vulnerable and it pushes cave-man morals on to modern society. I will argue this on Fark with religious people who will defend the actions of the child raping catholic church or orthodox jews spitting on a women because she dared to take pictures on the sabbath.

2) Neither side of the argument necessarily does this in their day to day life. Members of my family are religious and I do not feel they are stupid.

3) Your assumptions are like assuming a boxer beats the snot out of everyone he meets because that's what he does in the ring. Fark is a sparring ring for topics like this ... if you don't want to go a few rounds don't get in the ring.


1) rule #1 (and really the only one you need): do unto others as you would have done unto you.
2) i think deep down you do, or you rationalize it by telling yourself they just do it out of habit or tradition, and not because they actually believe god took a rib from adam to make eve.
3) your assumptions of my assumptions are so far off, i don't even understand your interpretations of my assumptions.
 
2013-02-09 10:47:47 PM  
OK, I'm a late arrival but I know all of the major arguments for the existence of A God.   none of them acctually point at there being a Christian God, nor do they preclude the existance of other equally powerful Gods.

The idea of God.   if you think about an all powerful infinite being that knows everything is everything etc.  you cannot imagine something greater and because you cannot imagine something that nothing can be greater than God it must be God.

the universe is finite and required a first cause, a cause prior to all other causes  (contradicts previous)

We have not yet found a society where the people did not understand the concept of Gods.  thus the Christian Gods must exist.

You cannot have a clock without a clock maker.    much the same as argument 2.

People have an emotional need for a God, thus there must be such a being.

Without a God, and the possiblility of horrific punishments people would just kill each other.

It is impossible to know everything or understand the concepts of everything thus the universe needs a dungeon master, God.

The Universe and Universal laws are to orderly and work so absolutly the same way that the only way this could happen is God.

you cannot prove a negative, thus God must exist.
 
2013-02-09 10:56:02 PM  
Smgth:

I was going to be nice and give them the benefit of the doubt and just assume they lived in some Podunk town no atheist would be caught dead in. Because any atheist there would be killed.

Or maybe atheists don't need to make a big show of their charity because they believe it will get them into heaven?

/Is it ACTUALLY charity if you're doing it for a reward?
//As long as the poor get fed, I don't really care, I just find it interesting.


i suppose the motivation might be hard to grasp, especially since i already said i am not religious. i certainly don't think i am going to heaven and spend eternity in the blessed presence of some divine lord. (although that would be cool, lol)

i don't think everyone can necessarily get anything out of volunteering, in the same way that everyone is not capable of violence against an innocent victim.

if you genuinely find it interesting, you should give it a try. the reward will present itself to you.
 
2013-02-09 10:56:54 PM  

madgordy: OK, I'm a late arrival but I know all of the major arguments for the existence of A God.   none of them acctually point at there being a Christian God, nor do they preclude the existance of other equally powerful Gods.

The idea of God.   if you think about an all powerful infinite being that knows everything is everything etc.  you cannot imagine something greater and because you cannot imagine something that nothing can be greater than God it must be God.

the universe is finite and required a first cause, a cause prior to all other causes  (contradicts previous)

We have not yet found a society where the people did not understand the concept of Gods.  thus the Christian Gods must exist.

You cannot have a clock without a clock maker.    much the same as argument 2.

People have an emotional need for a God, thus there must be such a being.

Without a God, and the possiblility of horrific punishments people would just kill each other.

It is impossible to know everything or understand the concepts of everything thus the universe needs a dungeon master, God.

The Universe and Universal laws are to orderly and work so absolutly the same way that the only way this could happen is God.

you cannot prove a negative, thus God must exist.


Lovely. But not sure what it brings to the thread...
 
2013-02-09 11:06:20 PM  

Popular Opinion: Smgth:

I was going to be nice and give them the benefit of the doubt and just assume they lived in some Podunk town no atheist would be caught dead in. Because any atheist there would be killed.

Or maybe atheists don't need to make a big show of their charity because they believe it will get them into heaven?

/Is it ACTUALLY charity if you're doing it for a reward?
//As long as the poor get fed, I don't really care, I just find it interesting.

i suppose the motivation might be hard to grasp, especially since i already said i am not religious. i certainly don't think i am going to heaven and spend eternity in the blessed presence of some divine lord. (although that would be cool, lol)

i don't think everyone can necessarily get anything out of volunteering, in the same way that everyone is not capable of violence against an innocent victim.

if you genuinely find it interesting, you should give it a try. the reward will present itself to you.


No, I meant I found the 'charity of religionists doing charity solely in order to secure a place in heaven' paradox interesting. As an intellectual problem. I understand why people give to charity. It's the right thing to do. But people shouldn't be in it to get something out of it. I mean if it makes you feel good, so much the better. But enlightened self interest states what's good for others is good for you. Plus, as a society, those with more SHOULD help with those with less.

/I felt really good when I helped repaint that battered woman's shelter, or did all those canned food drives, but I didn't do it to get into heaven or because I thought it would make me feel better about myself, but because they needed help and I was able at the time.
//And I only mention it here to make my point that I believe in charity, not because I feel I deserve a pat on the back or to brag.
 
2013-02-09 11:20:25 PM  

Smgth: Popular Opinion: Smgth:

I was going to be nice and give them the benefit of the doubt and just assume they lived in some Podunk town no atheist would be caught dead in. Because any atheist there would be killed.

Or maybe atheists don't need to make a big show of their charity because they believe it will get them into heaven?

/Is it ACTUALLY charity if you're doing it for a reward?
//As long as the poor get fed, I don't really care, I just find it interesting.

i suppose the motivation might be hard to grasp, especially since i already said i am not religious. i certainly don't think i am going to heaven and spend eternity in the blessed presence of some divine lord. (although that would be cool, lol)

i don't think everyone can necessarily get anything out of volunteering, in the same way that everyone is not capable of violence against an innocent victim.

if you genuinely find it interesting, you should give it a try. the reward will present itself to you.

No, I meant I found the 'charity of religionists doing charity solely in order to secure a place in heaven' paradox interesting. As an intellectual problem. I understand why people give to charity. It's the right thing to do. But people shouldn't be in it to get something out of it. I mean if it makes you feel good, so much the better. But enlightened self interest states what's good for others is good for you. Plus, as a society, those with more SHOULD help with those with less.

/I felt really good when I helped repaint that battered woman's shelter, or did all those canned food drives, but I didn't do it to get into heaven or because I thought it would make me feel better about myself, but because they needed help and I was able at the time.
//And I only mention it here to make my point that I believe in charity, not because I feel I deserve a pat on the back or to brag.


i never claimed to be some altruistic saint, and therefore feel no shame from mentioning that i donate *.*
the point in fact is that i do get something out of it, and that's probably the only reason i do it.
i've had people serving community service assigned to help me, and some come back afterwards and do it because they felt good doing it.
 
2013-02-09 11:27:39 PM  
 
2013-02-09 11:33:32 PM  

Popular Opinion: Smgth: Popular Opinion: Smgth:

I was going to be nice and give them the benefit of the doubt and just assume they lived in some Podunk town no atheist would be caught dead in. Because any atheist there would be killed.

Or maybe atheists don't need to make a big show of their charity because they believe it will get them into heaven?

/Is it ACTUALLY charity if you're doing it for a reward?
//As long as the poor get fed, I don't really care, I just find it interesting.

i suppose the motivation might be hard to grasp, especially since i already said i am not religious. i certainly don't think i am going to heaven and spend eternity in the blessed presence of some divine lord. (although that would be cool, lol)

i don't think everyone can necessarily get anything out of volunteering, in the same way that everyone is not capable of violence against an innocent victim.

if you genuinely find it interesting, you should give it a try. the reward will present itself to you.

No, I meant I found the 'charity of religionists doing charity solely in order to secure a place in heaven' paradox interesting. As an intellectual problem. I understand why people give to charity. It's the right thing to do. But people shouldn't be in it to get something out of it. I mean if it makes you feel good, so much the better. But enlightened self interest states what's good for others is good for you. Plus, as a society, those with more SHOULD help with those with less.

/I felt really good when I helped repaint that battered woman's shelter, or did all those canned food drives, but I didn't do it to get into heaven or because I thought it would make me feel better about myself, but because they needed help and I was able at the time.
//And I only mention it here to make my point that I believe in charity, not because I feel I deserve a pat on the back or to brag.

i never claimed to be some altruistic saint, and therefore feel no shame from mentioning that i donate *.*
the point in fact is that i do get something out of it, and that's probably the only reason i do it.
i've had people serving community service assigned to help me, and some come back afterwards and do it because they felt good doing it.


There's nothing wrong with doing something good because it makes you feel good. There's no shame in mentioning it. I did.

MY point was merely that doing good because you think it will afford you a special place in heaven, under the cloak of piety, is disingenuous.

Frankly my view is as long as charity gets done, I don't care the circumstances. I don't care why people do it, I don't care if they brag about it, I don't care if they think it will get them special favors.
 
2013-02-09 11:41:18 PM  
Smgth:
There's nothing wrong with doing something good because it makes you feel good. There's no shame in mentioning it. I did.
MY point was merely that doing good because you think it will afford you a special place in heaven, under the cloak of piety, is disingenuous.
Frankly my view is as long as charity gets done, I don't care the circumstances. I don't care why people do it, I don't care if they brag about it, I don't care if they think it will get them special favors.


and that comes full circle back to my point.
i don't see that many non faith-based groups.
even secular groups, like high school clubs, tend to have volunteers that are religious, so saying they are not also motivated by some church teaching would not be true.
i went to both parochial school and public school, and we never did things for the homeless or poor in public school (except private clubs).
 
2013-02-09 11:45:32 PM  

Dead for Tax Reasons: it seems like he just went there to point and laugh at how wrong the people there were, not to actually think or see the other side.


You're right! How dare he?! I could never see an atheist doing such a thing.
 
2013-02-09 11:50:40 PM  

Popular Opinion: Smgth:
There's nothing wrong with doing something good because it makes you feel good. There's no shame in mentioning it. I did.
MY point was merely that doing good because you think it will afford you a special place in heaven, under the cloak of piety, is disingenuous.
Frankly my view is as long as charity gets done, I don't care the circumstances. I don't care why people do it, I don't care if they brag about it, I don't care if they think it will get them special favors.

and that comes full circle back to my point.
i don't see that many non faith-based groups.
even secular groups, like high school clubs, tend to have volunteers that are religious, so saying they are not also motivated by some church teaching would not be true.
i went to both parochial school and public school, and we never did things for the homeless or poor in public school (except private clubs).


I'm sorry, I just can't parse any of that in any way that makes sense to me.

I thought your original point was that atheists don't do charity?

I didn't do charity in school either, but I don't see what that had to do with anything.

I think I've lost the thread of this conversation entirely.
 
2013-02-09 11:50:51 PM  

Smgth: Much in the way that A-theism, still has theism in it. Just have to take the good with the bad. And as my friend was wont to say, the bad with the scotch.


So does A-Team, and I pity the fool.
 
2013-02-09 11:58:06 PM  

clowncar on fire: The bible was never intended as science but rather, a collection parables attempting to introduce law to a lawless society and answers to a society troubled with unanserable questions.


Lewis Black has an explanation not too different from yours.
 
2013-02-10 12:02:33 AM  

Smgth: Popular Opinion: Smgth:
There's nothing wrong with doing something good because it makes you feel good. There's no shame in mentioning it. I did.
MY point was merely that doing good because you think it will afford you a special place in heaven, under the cloak of piety, is disingenuous.
Frankly my view is as long as charity gets done, I don't care the circumstances. I don't care why people do it, I don't care if they brag about it, I don't care if they think it will get them special favors.

and that comes full circle back to my point.
i don't see that many non faith-based groups.
even secular groups, like high school clubs, tend to have volunteers that are religious, so saying they are not also motivated by some church teaching would not be true.
i went to both parochial school and public school, and we never did things for the homeless or poor in public school (except private clubs).

I'm sorry, I just can't parse any of that in any way that makes sense to me.

I thought your original point was that atheists don't do charity?

I didn't do charity in school either, but I don't see what that had to do with anything.

I think I've lost the thread of this conversation entirely.


"militant atheists (in my experience) claim that religion serves no purpose,
i would argue that it does, since (again, ime) the overwhelming majority of private groups, functions, facilities and such tend to be faith based.
 
2013-02-10 12:05:47 AM  

BumpInTheNight: Militant atheists are just as bad as militant fundamentalists, they're just bad in different ways.


Ob:
imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-02-10 12:12:18 AM  
FloydA: How do you think I should respond to him?

Assume that he reacted as defensively/rudely as he did because he felt as if you had attacked and insulted his deeply-held beliefs.  Ignore the sentences before and after the meat of  Somacandra's argument and focus on that meat ("People of varying religious commitments have made (and continue to make) remarkable contributions to science, medicine, engineering,  economics and many forms of related knowledge")

If that had been all that Somacandra had said, then how would you have responded to that?
 
2013-02-10 12:12:34 AM  

Popular Opinion: 3) your assumptions of my assumptions are so far off, i don't even understand your interpretations of my assumptions


You are not even arguing my point. You referred to "FSM worshippers" ... I explained that this is a parody ... you clarified that you were referring to people "who demean all facets of religion" ... I explained that arguments made on Fark cannot be considered sufficient to decide what a person is like due to it being one limited aspect of the person (like a boxer when they are in the ring tells you nothing about them except how they box).

And now you put out this gem ...

Popular Opinion: militant atheists (in my experience) claim that religion serves no purpose,


Please explain how having an opinion, based on a lot of reasonable evidence, makes one 'militant'? Is it because you don't agree with the opinion? Do the words hurt you??

Islamic extremists are militant ... they blow people up. Christian abortion doctor murderers are militant as they use weapons to kill people they disagree with. How is someone who does not like a snake-oil industry militant???
 
2013-02-10 12:16:02 AM  
Small group of atheists troll the christians... and they get taken seriously. Now, the rest of us will never hear the end of it.
 
2013-02-10 12:18:36 AM  

Popular Opinion: militant atheists (in my experience) claim that religion serves no purpose,


There is a service inherent in most religions(people socializing), but that service is not exclusive to religions.

Ergo, religion is not required.  It serves no purpose that cannot be achieved via normal human drives and needs or other societal structures.

Law, "right" and "wrong", even socializing, etc, none of these things are exclusive to religions, indeed, many non-religious people practice such things all of the time.

Just because religion has popularized something like "thou shalt not murder", does not mean that it is right only because of religion, or was even invented by religion(as in we owe religion the credit).  In humans, even present in some animals, is a hashing out of things that can cause danger to one's self and making them not so much condoned.  Primates often shun members that "break the rules" in some circumstances, for example.  Completely and utterly without religion.
 
2013-02-10 12:22:47 AM  

Smgth: Popular Opinion: Smgth: Popular Opinion: while i am not religious, i have a growing dislike for the anti-religious.
i am battered daily by protestations from the FSM worshippers proclaiming the absolute disconnection between church and charity, and yet for 17 years now, I have yet to meet an atheist group at the local community center feeding the poor.
i could understand if i only worked at a few, or only at faith based centers...

atheist is another word for selfish and don't give a f*ck about anyone else. jmo.

and i don't even believe in "god".

You're certainly welcome to view the world as if your experiences are the only way the world functions. But just because you haven't seen at your community center doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_secularist_organizations

But please, continue to paint all atheists with the same brush.

i should have added some disclaimer, to be sure. sorry.
i am not saying that all atheists are not charitable, although perhaps the inference is present when the logic isn't..
there are secular groups for sure. high school groups...but nothing specifically atheist.

am i purposely being provocative (i suppose that is trolling)?
i don't think any provocation to help people less fortunate that yourself is a bad thing.

Trolling or not you said Athiest meant selfish. Which is an unsupportable statement.

And as has been said repeatedly in this thread, there's no REAL need for atheist organizations. Any more then we need an anti-Easter bunny coalition. Atheists give to charity through secular organizations because their lack of belief doesn't define them.



Since we're at the point where we're repeating things, allow me to repeat something I already said in this thread earlier: Why is it about NEED?  What if some atheists just WANT to get together and have an atheist club?  Why is it a problem?  Those atheists who WANT to go can, and those atheists who aren't interested can stay home and sleep in.

I honestly am having difficulty understanding why so many people seem to have a problem with this.
 
2013-02-10 12:26:55 AM  

amquelbettamin: Farking Canuck: amquelbettamin: I didn't mean in terms of energy, but in terms of morality. We should all be tending toward more disorder and chaos with increasing populations, not more order and peace.

Again ... speculation without support. Walk in the wrong parts of any big city and you will see disorder and chaos. Go to war-torn Africa or the middle east and you will see chaos and disorder.

You look at the world through your god colored glasses and see what you want to see. Denying reality ... as I mentioned above.

Pinker: The surprising decline in violence


Pinker's ideas are interesting, but his work is a bit flawed.

For what it's worth, I've read and enjoyed several of Pinker's books.  But he has his limitations.
 
2013-02-10 12:29:14 AM  

Farking Canuck: Popular Opinion: i kind of regret that, but my reference was directed at what i consider the militant atheist types (ie worshipers of the FSM)

Nobody worships the FSM. It is a parody. So who exactly were you targeting??


I'm Christian, but I pretend to worship FSM sometimes because I find in amusing.  I've never worried that anyone was going to mistake my little joke as ACTUAL belief in Pastafarianism.
 
2013-02-10 12:35:31 AM  

ciberido: What if some atheists just WANT to get together and have an atheist club?  Why is it a problem?


It's not.  People like to make it look like they're trolling, however.  See below:

Suroool: Small group of atheists troll the christians... and they get taken seriously. Now, the rest of us will never hear the end of it.


It's difficult to understand because it's an irrational concept to begin with, that people are "trolls" for simply organizing a social function.

Some people, even those not particularly religious, are so trained that even admitting atheism is now some huge attack upon the religious, some social faux paus(that's not in spell check and I'm too lazy to deal with it as i'm about to go to bed) that is not to be tolerated.  It's but one example of how liberal people can be, and are really, just as bad as conservatives at times.  Tolerate everyone, except those people I don't like...
 
2013-02-10 12:38:16 AM  

ciberido: I've never worried that anyone was going to mistake my little joke as ACTUAL belief in Pastafarianism.


Most don't have that worry, until some-one comes along, as above, who flat out calls it worship, as if we know exactly what he means despite the words he uses..
 
2013-02-10 12:39:30 AM  

Farking Canuck: Popular Opinion: 3) your assumptions of my assumptions are so far off, i don't even understand your interpretations of my assumptions

You are not even arguing my point. You referred to "FSM worshippers" ... I explained that this is a parody ... you clarified that you were referring to people "who demean all facets of religion" ... I explained that arguments made on Fark cannot be considered sufficient to decide what a person is like due to it being one limited aspect of the person (like a boxer when they are in the ring tells you nothing about them except how they box).

And now you put out this gem ...

Popular Opinion: militant atheists (in my experience) claim that religion serves no purpose,
o.
Please explain how having an opinion, based on a lot of reasonable evidence, makes one 'militant'? Is it because you don't agree with the opinion? Do the words hurt you??

Islamic extremists are militant ... they blow people up. Christian abortion doctor murderers are militant as they use weapons to kill people they disagree with. How is someone who does not like a snake-oil industry militant???


let me clarify again...<sigh>
when i say militant, i mean those that denigrate all religion and seek to banish it, but in my opinion, are not prepared or willing to replace the actual good things some of them do. all talk.
the negativity is not only not helpful, it is possibly harmful to the efforts of many good people just wanting to help (for whatever reason).
it is one thing to not buy into the bullshiat, but another thing altogether to bash others that have some "faith" or beliefs that you might find laughable. the red cross, while not a faith based organization, was founded by people that thought it was their religious duty to help others.
 
2013-02-10 12:43:25 AM  

omeganuepsilon: ciberido: I've never worried that anyone was going to mistake my little joke as ACTUAL belief in Pastafarianism.

Most don't have that worry, until some-one comes along, as above, who flat out calls it worship, as if we know exactly what he means despite the words he uses..


worship/invocation fsm = making fun of anyone with religious beliefs.
it is obviously used only mockingly.
 
2013-02-10 12:44:43 AM  

ciberido: Smgth: Popular Opinion: Smgth: Popular Opinion: while i am not religious, i have a growing dislike for the anti-religious.
i am battered daily by protestations from the FSM worshippers proclaiming the absolute disconnection between church and charity, and yet for 17 years now, I have yet to meet an atheist group at the local community center feeding the poor.
i could understand if i only worked at a few, or only at faith based centers...

atheist is another word for selfish and don't give a f*ck about anyone else. jmo.

and i don't even believe in "god".

You're certainly welcome to view the world as if your experiences are the only way the world functions. But just because you haven't seen at your community center doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_secularist_organizations

But please, continue to paint all atheists with the same brush.

i should have added some disclaimer, to be sure. sorry.
i am not saying that all atheists are not charitable, although perhaps the inference is present when the logic isn't..
there are secular groups for sure. high school groups...but nothing specifically atheist.

am i purposely being provocative (i suppose that is trolling)?
i don't think any provocation to help people less fortunate that yourself is a bad thing.

Trolling or not you said Athiest meant selfish. Which is an unsupportable statement.

And as has been said repeatedly in this thread, there's no REAL need for atheist organizations. Any more then we need an anti-Easter bunny coalition. Atheists give to charity through secular organizations because their lack of belief doesn't define them.


Since we're at the point where we're repeating things, allow me to repeat something I already said in this thread earlier: Why is it about NEED?  What if some atheists just WANT to get together and have an atheist club?  Why is it a problem?  Those atheists who WANT to go can, and those atheists who aren't interested can stay home and sleep in.

I honestly am having difficulty understanding why so many people seem to have a problem with this.


I'm with you. I just meant that organized religion, by its nature, must be an organization, whereas atheists don't NEED to get together. But they want to. As most people do. As we are communal animals. People naturally gravitate towards each other, and, naturally, gravitate towards those who share beliefs (or lack thereof).

I THINK people are mostly up in arms because of the co-opting of the term 'church', muddying the waters betwixt religionists and atheists. Which some atheists deem a retreat towards religion and some religionists see an imposition on their territory, where it need not be either.

These people just want a community of like minded individuals so they can hang out with people like themselves, and get that same community feeling people get when they go to a church or temple or whatever.

/I'm ok with this.
 
2013-02-10 12:48:36 AM  

Popular Opinion: when i say militant, i mean those that denigrate all religion and seek to banish it, but in my opinion assumption, are not prepared or willing to replace the actual good things some of them do. all talk.


FTFY

You seem to assume an awful lot about how people deal in society based on very limited experience of them.  Not to mention the repeated misuse of "militant".

We don't all need the social structure created by religion.
We can't all volunteer.  Many have not the time nor the energy.

You seem to genuinely think people who do not do these things are "bad" people for some reason or another which is why we're having problems understanding you, either that or your skill with the written word is lacking. (which would be evidenced by your constant need to clarify, but held in contrast with your insistence with using words like "militant" and some unexplainable view of how people "should" volunteer or whatever).

In short, you're sending mixed signals.
 
2013-02-10 12:51:11 AM  

madgordy: OK, I'm a late arrival but I know all of the major arguments for the existence of A God.   none of them acctually point at there being a Christian God, nor do they preclude the existance of other equally powerful Gods.


Strictly speaking, nothing in the Christian Bible precludes the existence of other gods.  The modern interpretation of Christianity is that no other gods ever existed, but the Bible itself never makes that claim.  It doesn't even say you can't worship them.  It merely says that Jehovah must come first.
 
2013-02-10 12:53:35 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Popular Opinion: when i say militant, i mean those that denigrate all religion and seek to banish it, but in my opinion assumption, are not prepared or willing to replace the actual good things some of them do. all talk.

FTFY

You seem to assume an awful lot about how people deal in society based on very limited experience of them.  Not to mention the repeated misuse of "militant".

We don't all need the social structure created by religion.
We can't all volunteer.  Many have not the time nor the energy.

You seem to genuinely think people who do not do these things are "bad" people for some reason or another which is why we're having problems understanding you, either that or your skill with the written word is lacking. (which would be evidenced by your constant need to clarify, but held in contrast with your insistence with using words like "militant" and some unexplainable view of how people "should" volunteer or whatever).

In short, you're sending mixed signals.


i can only comment on what i see, and excuse me if i transfer and apply those experiences to generate an overall opinion for how things are, and then express that opinion.

isn't that the point of this forum.
 
2013-02-10 12:58:14 AM  

Farking Canuck: Islamic extremists are militant ... they blow people up. Christian abortion doctor murderers are militant as they use weapons to kill people they disagree with. How is someone who does not like a snake-oil industry militant???


The atheistic equivalent would be someone who bulldozes churches, burns religious books, and makes worship a crime, because he doesn't want anyone to follow any religion.  Someone who did such things would be a militant atheist.  Using force (whether it be guns or imprisonment) to prevent someone from following their religious beliefs would be militant.
 
2013-02-10 12:58:41 AM  
God makes a male and female of everything EXCEPT humans, then wonders why the man is so lonely.
God puts the one thing he doesn't want touched right smack in the middle of the garden with two people who have no idea why it would be bad to touch it.
God is all-seeing and all-knowing, yet he fails to notice the snake/Lucifer screwing things up.
God's response to said screw-up is to curse all of creation forever to punish all of the descendants of one species of animal forever.
God later gets so emo over a few thousand humans not kowtowing to him that he decides to destroy all of creation right then and there, and he would have if not for one person saying "Hey, God, it's cool, I still like you".
God then purposefully harden's Pharaoh's heart several times so that he could be justified with unleashing worse and worse plagues upon Egypt, instead of simply letting Pharaoh release the Israelites  like he demanded.
God then slaughters half of the Israelites he just had freed because they kneeled to a gold cow.
God later makes a bet with Lucifer and utterly farks up Job's life to make a point both of them knew about anyway.
God then demands an old man sacrifice his only son to him to prove his loyalty (aka for shiats and giggles, since he should already know that Abraham was loyal to him), then says "Psyche! Just fooling ya, you value me over everything else".
God then completely massacres two cities over hospitality issues, and spares one guy and (most) of his family despite the guy practically tossing his daughters to the crowd in exchange for leaving the angels alone, then turns his wife into salt for looking back at the carnage.
God later sends two bears to slaughter a bunch of children because they called an old guy "Baldy".
etc, etc etc.

And Christians wonder why not everyone is willing to throw everything away to kowtow to God (and yes, throwing everything away is part of going to heaven, Jesus said that you must abandon your friends and family and home and ownings in order to follow him and be saved).
 
2013-02-10 12:59:04 AM  

ciberido: madgordy: OK, I'm a late arrival but I know all of the major arguments for the existence of A God.   none of them acctually point at there being a Christian God, nor do they preclude the existance of other equally powerful Gods.

Strictly speaking, nothing in the Christian Bible precludes the existence of other gods.  The modern interpretation of Christianity is that no other gods ever existed, but the Bible itself never makes that claim.  It doesn't even say you can't worship them.  It merely says that Jehovah must come first.


Well, not to be an apologist, but the 'Christian bible' wasn't really meant to replace, in it's entirety, the Torah. And THAT states no worshiping of false idols (meaning no worshipping other gods) and says that shalt have no other gods before me. Which implies there ARE other gods. And it says that other cultures have gods, such as Baal, which are false gods, and says no worshipping those guys either.

So I don't see why the Christian bible would go out of its way to reassert any of these when it was all covered in 'the old testament', an essential part of the canon.
 
2013-02-10 01:29:01 AM  

leonel: They sing Queen songs at atheist churches? Damn, I wanna go now!

COOL!!   Fat botomed girls....anyone?
 
2013-02-10 01:35:26 AM  

FloydA: thamike: Atheist Church?  What, like Brazzers?

[i105.photobucket.com image 500x375]
What an atheist church might look like.

Yeah, and Catholic . And Episcopalian , one-day-a-week Baptist, etc.
 
2013-02-10 01:46:05 AM  

phrawgh: Marcintosh: phrawgh: [www.deeptruths.com image 420x300]
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 500x298]

Better yet WHY would your Jesus return?
Given your society's / sect's previous attitude *sheesh*

I'm not Jewish.

You know, I wasn't going there.  Just so you know.  I'm igerrant, not unkind.
 
2013-02-10 02:09:26 AM  

mt.madman: leonel: They sing Queen songs at atheist churches? Damn, I wanna go now!
COOL!!   Fat botomed girls....anyone?


You say God --- give me a choice
You say Lord --- I say Christ, I don't believe in Peter Pan, Frankenstein, or Superman.
 
2013-02-10 03:49:30 AM  
I'm a militant agnostic.  I don't know, and neither does anyone else.
 
2013-02-10 04:35:39 AM  

amquelbettamin: So much of what humans are in our very nature is religious. It has been that way since the very first cave paintings and will remain that way when we are watching two nebulae pass through each other from our starships one day. Athiests are denying themselves a major part of what it is to be human. Athiesm really is a loss and should not be responded to with anger.


Yeah...and according to Kirk Cameron we all have a God-sized hole in our hearts...and you know what? I agree. It's very compelling. BUT IT'S NOT PROOF OF ANYTHING.
 
2013-02-10 06:12:32 AM  

amquelbettamin: Farking Canuck: amquelbettamin: Pinker: The surprising decline in violence

As I said in my previous post when you were actually claiming that people were getting "less evil" (I noticed you abandoned that line pretty quick), we are imposing more order through rule of law and better enforcement through forensic science. So yes, in societies where rule of law is well enforced we are seeing a decline in violence. In places were society is in tatters the violence still runs rampant.

If this decline was due to your god's magic, don't you think he could have improved it everywhere?

Whereas, if it is due to the evolution of society combined with the improvements in forensic sciences (i.e. non-magical man), there would only be improvements where societies are stable. And, funny enough, this is the case.

As I age I have started to equate evil with disorder and good with order.


You're Lawful Neutral?
 
2013-02-10 06:18:33 AM  

Popular Opinion: Smgth:
There's nothing wrong with doing something good because it makes you feel good. There's no shame in mentioning it. I did.
MY point was merely that doing good because you think it will afford you a special place in heaven, under the cloak of piety, is disingenuous.
Frankly my view is as long as charity gets done, I don't care the circumstances. I don't care why people do it, I don't care if they brag about it, I don't care if they think it will get them special favors.

and that comes full circle back to my point.
i don't see that many non faith-based groups.
even secular groups, like high school clubs, tend to have volunteers that are religious, so saying they are not also motivated by some church teaching would not be true.
i went to both parochial school and public school, and we never did things for the homeless or poor in public school (except private clubs).


Modern secular taxpayers have done more for the poor than every religion ever invented, combined.

Your failure to see your surroundings does not accordingly adjust reality.

That would be religious thinking :)
 
2013-02-10 06:31:29 AM  

PunGent: amquelbettamin: Farking Canuck: amquelbettamin: Pinker: The surprising decline in violence

As I said in my previous post when you were actually claiming that people were getting "less evil" (I noticed you abandoned that line pretty quick), we are imposing more order through rule of law and better enforcement through forensic science. So yes, in societies where rule of law is well enforced we are seeing a decline in violence. In places were society is in tatters the violence still runs rampant.

If this decline was due to your god's magic, don't you think he could have improved it everywhere?

Whereas, if it is due to the evolution of society combined with the improvements in forensic sciences (i.e. non-magical man), there would only be improvements where societies are stable. And, funny enough, this is the case.

As I age I have started to equate evil with disorder and good with order.

You're Lawful Neutral?


What's your THAC0?
 
2013-02-10 06:51:19 AM  
*whines* But athiesm isn't a religiooooon guys!!!
 
2013-02-10 08:39:43 AM  
Atheism is a Religion. A piss-poor Religion, but a Religion regardless.

The amusing part is where an almost endless supply of Schoolboy Atheists will launch into ever-decreasing circles of denial, and exercises of semantics worthy of any medieval theologian.
 
2013-02-10 08:40:05 AM  
Atheist church signs are WAY funnier than Christian church signs
 
2013-02-10 08:40:28 AM  

Popular Opinion: i can only comment on what i see


False.  You can also learn to add information that is not readily available via direct observation(the internet is a wonderful thing like that).  Well, ideally anyhow, it does seem you have issues with that.

PunGent: Your failure to see your surroundings does not accordingly adjust reality.

That would be religious thinking :)


Pretty much that.

Forming a concrete image from only what is observed and felt, and attempting to apply that to the wider world, despite others having noted otherwise even linked to citation, is not exactly rational thought, and very similar to the mental leaps and bounds stumbles and trips that many religious people make.

It is very akin to a southerner not believing we have snow up north, people thinking the moon landings are fake, etc.
 
2013-02-10 09:44:09 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: thamike: Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.

Atheism has a "purpose" now?

Something tells me it's you who's confused about atheism.


Just stop.
 
2013-02-10 09:45:59 AM  

omeganuepsilon: thamike: IlGreven: Peter von Nostrand: This shiat is getting old. Fundies, please stop trying to force your religion on everyone. Atheists, please quit trolling the fundies

Yeah!

Ahmadinejad, quit gassing your own people and developing nukes to lob at Israel.

UN, quit writing strongly-worded letters to Ahmadinejad.

What?

Do you really not grasp the concept that sometimes fighting is what is needed? Or that when meting out punishement/reprimand, not all things are created equal?
Or are you of the philosophy that "fighting never solved anything"?


I really don't what any of this has to do with the thread topic.
 
2013-02-10 09:50:35 AM  

IlGreven: thamike: IlGreven: Peter von Nostrand: This shiat is getting old. Fundies, please stop trying to force your religion on everyone. Atheists, please quit trolling the fundies

Yeah!

Ahmadinejad, quit gassing your own people and developing nukes to lob at Israel.

UN, quit writing strongly-worded letters to Ahmadinejad.

What?

Okay, how about...

Southern whites, please quit lynching blacks and allow them to live as free men.

Martin Luther King, please stop assembling large masses to sue for your right to live.

My point is, taking a "centrist" role in any issue where one side has a distinct advantage is as bad as taking the side with the distinct advantage.


What about taking a useless non sequitur-spouting outside agitator role?  Where does that rank?
 
2013-02-10 09:53:08 AM  

Popular Opinion: let me clarify again...<sigh>
when i say militant, i mean those that denigrate all religion and seek to banish it, but in my opinion, are not prepared or willing to replace the actual good things some of them do. all talk.


<sigh>

Then how about you learn to use the correct term. There is absolutely nothing 'militant' about what you describe. Are you just trolling?

</sigh>
 
2013-02-10 10:30:48 AM  

thamike: I really don't what any of this has to do with the thread topic.


All but ignoring how you accidentally a word or three..
Why do people still resort to this as a defense for being uncomprehending dullards?

Anyway, *sigh*

That is how discussion works Sparky.  We have a starting point, the article or headline as is typical on Fark, and as we discuss, the thread topic drifts and branches out, differing opinions and ideas and concepts are traded. Without that, all threads would be incredibly short and Drew wouldn't make as much money from page hits.

If you dislike discussion, maybe, just maybe, the comments sections of Fark is not for you.
 
2013-02-10 10:40:06 AM  

omeganuepsilon: thamike: I really don't what any of this has to do with the thread topic.

All but ignoring how you accidentally a word or three..
Why do people still resort to this as a defense for being uncomprehending dullards?

Anyway, *sigh*

That is how discussion works Sparky.  We have a starting point, the article or headline as is typical on Fark, and as we discuss, the thread topic drifts and branches out, differing opinions and ideas and concepts are traded. Without that, all threads would be incredibly short and Drew wouldn't make as much money from page hits.

If you dislike discussion, maybe, just maybe, the comments sections of Fark is not for you.


True discussion involves multiple fark retards agreeing with each other.
 
2013-02-10 10:42:18 AM  

muck4doo: True discussion involves multiple fark retards agreeing with each other.


I'm sure there are a lot of retards that would agree with this.
 
2013-02-10 10:42:32 AM  

ciberido: Strictly speaking, nothing in the Christian Bible precludes the existence of other gods.  The modern interpretation of Christianity is that no other gods ever existed, but the Bible itself never makes that claim.  It doesn't even say you can't worship them.  It merely says that Jehovah must come first.


The Bible says the exact opposite of everything you've said.  Many times.
 
2013-02-10 10:55:03 AM  

Farking Canuck: muck4doo: True discussion involves multiple fark retards agreeing with each other.

I'm sure there are a lot of retards that would agree with this.


Careful careful! Fark has no tolerance for your sort and will put the "B" word on you if you are not careful and not support the group think. Hey modmins, ya notice I didn't mention what the "B" word is? :p
 
2013-02-10 11:19:26 AM  

GilRuiz1: ciberido: Strictly speaking, nothing in the Christian Bible precludes the existence of other gods.  The modern interpretation of Christianity is that no other gods ever existed, but the Bible itself never makes that claim.  It doesn't even say you can't worship them.  It merely says that Jehovah must come first.

The Bible says the exact opposite of everything you've said.  Many times.


Go on, then, cite a Bible verse that stats no other gods besides Jehovah exist.
 
2013-02-10 11:34:34 AM  

ciberido: Go on, then, cite a Bible verse that stats no other gods besides Jehovah exist.


Try Isaiah 43:10 and 45:5, and 1 Corinthians 8:6.

Of course, the Bible is not particularly consistent on this.
 
2013-02-10 12:23:39 PM  

abb3w: ciberido: Go on, then, cite a Bible verse that stats no other gods besides Jehovah exist.

Try Isaiah 43:10 and 45:5, and 1 Corinthians 8:6.

Of course, the Bible is not particularly consistent on this.



Very well, I withdraw my claim.  I'll have to go with something different, such as "the Bible is not consistent about how many gods exist."  Something like that.
 
2013-02-10 12:27:10 PM  

PunGent: Popular Opinion: Smgth:
There's nothing wrong with doing something good because it makes you feel good. There's no shame in mentioning it. I did.
MY point was merely that doing good because you think it will afford you a special place in heaven, under the cloak of piety, is disingenuous.
Frankly my view is as long as charity gets done, I don't care the circumstances. I don't care why people do it, I don't care if they brag about it, I don't care if they think it will get them special favors.

and that comes full circle back to my point.
i don't see that many non faith-based groups.
even secular groups, like high school clubs, tend to have volunteers that are religious, so saying they are not also motivated by some church teaching would not be true.
i went to both parochial school and public school, and we never did things for the homeless or poor in public school (except private clubs).

Modern secular taxpayers have done more for the poor than every religion ever invented, combined.

Your failure to see your surroundings does not accordingly adjust reality.

That would be religious thinking :)


secular taxpayers? they pay taxes that believers to not?
no, they do only what they have to. and others do much more,
 
2013-02-10 12:28:26 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Popular Opinion: i can only comment on what i see

False.  You can also learn to add information that is not readily available via direct observation(the internet is a wonderful thing like that).  Well, ideally anyhow, it does seem you have issues with that.


oh, you mean i am supposed to say that atheists give as much or more that religious types, because you say?
yeah, right.
 
2013-02-10 12:31:51 PM  

ciberido: GilRuiz1: ciberido: Strictly speaking, nothing in the Christian Bible precludes the existence of other gods.  The modern interpretation of Christianity is that no other gods ever existed, but the Bible itself never makes that claim.  It doesn't even say you can't worship them.  It merely says that Jehovah must come first.

The Bible says the exact opposite of everything you've said.  Many times.

Go on, then, cite a Bible verse that stats no other gods besides Jehovah exist.



A non-exhaustive list I was able to pull together really quick.


Deuteronomy 4:39:  Acknowledge and take to heart this day that theLord is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other.

Deuteronomy 32:39:  See now that I myself am he!  There is no god besides me.

1 Kings 8:60:  so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the Lord is God and that there is no other.

Isaiah 37:19-20:  They have thrown their gods into the fire and destroyed them, for they were not gods but only wood and stone, fashioned by human hands. Now,  Lord our God, deliver us from his hand, so that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you,  Lord, are the only God.

Isaiah 44:6:  "This is what the  Lord says - Israel's King and Redeemer, the  Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last;  apart from me there is no God.

Isaiah 45:6:  so that from the rising of the sunto the place of its setting people may know there is none besides me. I am the  Lord, and there is no other.

Isaiah 45: 21-22:  And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior;  there is none but me. Turn to me and be saved,all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other.

Jeremiah 16: 19-21:  "Our ancestors possessed nothing but false gods, worthless idols that did them no good.  Do people make their own gods?  Yes, but they are not gods!"
 
2013-02-10 12:37:15 PM  

omeganuepsilon: That is how discussion works Sparky. We have a starting point, the article or headline as is typical on Fark, and as we discuss, the thread topic drifts and branches out, differing opinions and ideas and concepts are traded. Without that, all threads would be incredibly short and Drew wouldn't make as much money from page hits.


I already addressed that retard's ridiculous purpose.  It applies to you too, in a trickle down, tangential, branching out sort of way.
 
2013-02-10 12:45:22 PM  

ciberido: FloydA: How do you think I should respond to him?

Assume that he reacted as defensively/rudely as he did because he felt as if you had attacked and insulted his deeply-held beliefs.  Ignore the sentences before and after the meat of  Somacandra's argument and focus on that meat ("People of varying religious commitments have made (and continue to make) remarkable contributions to science, medicine, engineering,  economics and many forms of related knowledge")

If that had been all that Somacandra had said, then how would you have responded to that?


If that had been all that he said, I would have replied that it was certainly correct, but it in no way relates to my point.  He basically set up a straw man, presented a powerful refutation of the point that he wished I had made, while ignoring the point I actually made, and then threw some insults in to top it off.

It wouldn't bother me if he was just some troll, but he has been reasonable and interesting in the past, so it ticked me off that he would act that way.
 
2013-02-10 12:50:34 PM  

Farking Canuck: Popular Opinion: let me clarify again...<sigh>
when i say militant, i mean those that denigrate all religion and seek to banish it, but in my opinion, are not prepared or willing to replace the actual good things some of them do. all talk.

<sigh>

Then how about you learn to use the correct term. There is absolutely nothing 'militant' about what you describe. Are you just trolling?

</sigh>


i don't think my usage is that far off, if at all.
i am not talking about non-believers, i am talking about people that actively bash those that believe differently than themselves.

mil·i·tant
1. vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause: militant reformers.
 
2013-02-10 01:00:11 PM  

Popular Opinion: omeganuepsilon: Popular Opinion: i can only comment on what i see

False.  You can also learn to add information that is not readily available via direct observation(the internet is a wonderful thing like that).  Well, ideally anyhow, it does seem you have issues with that.

oh, you mean i am supposed to say that atheists give as much or more that religious types, because you say?
yeah, right.


No one said they "give as much or more".  In point of fact, atheists are still a minority, so where you got that supposition from is irrational in and of itself(as a collective).  As far as any given individual goes, an atheist can and sometimes does give just as much as any given religious person.  To deny the possibility because you haven't witnessed it personally, at this point in the game, willfully ignorant on your part.

What was said is that they do give.  Citations were even given, so it's not just "because I say", but rather, documented actions and organizations.

But whatever, stick your head back in the sand, preferably far enough so that you can no longer type(or breathe).
 
2013-02-10 01:06:03 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Popular Opinion: omeganuepsilon: Popular Opinion: i can only comment on what i see

False.  You can also learn to add information that is not readily available via direct observation(the internet is a wonderful thing like that).  Well, ideally anyhow, it does seem you have issues with that.

oh, you mean i am supposed to say that atheists give as much or more that religious types, because you say?
yeah, right.

No one said they "give as much or more".  In point of fact, atheists are still a minority, so where you got that supposition from is irrational in and of itself(as a collective).  As far as any given individual goes, an atheist can and sometimes does give just as much as any given religious person.  To deny the possibility because you haven't witnessed it personally, at this point in the game, willfully ignorant on your part.

What was said is that they do give.  Citations were even given, so it's not just "because I say", but rather, documented actions and organizations.

But whatever, stick your head back in the sand, preferably far enough so that you can no longer type(or breathe).


you confuse omission with contradiction.
my statements stand.
your references are no more relevant that your own personal experiences would be (to me).
if you had said, "I personally witness more atheists giving and we have more atheist charity groups and church based", i may believe you as much as any link, but it still doesn't represent my reality, or what i see.
if i saw that non-church going types like myself were more giving than phony-baloney bible toting idiots, i would happily say so.
 
2013-02-10 01:08:52 PM  
sorry for so many typos. i am teaching my dog to type for me.
 
2013-02-10 01:31:41 PM  

Popular Opinion: but it still doesn't represent my reality


we don't each have one individual reality..

You're starting to sound on par with the guy above that says he feels god.

Popular Opinion: my statements stand


No, because they imply a world view that differs from reality.

Your observations stand, sure, that's your experience.  your implications that your view is the way the world works is what is mistaken.
 
2013-02-10 01:33:29 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Popular Opinion: but it still doesn't represent my reality

we don't each have one individual reality..

You're starting to sound on par with the guy above that says he feels god.

Popular Opinion: my statements stand

No, because they imply a world view that differs from reality.

Your observations stand, sure, that's your experience.  your implications that your view is the way the world works is what is mistaken.


and that is only your opinion as well.
 
2013-02-10 01:45:58 PM  

Popular Opinion: and that is only your opinion as well.


No, it is observation of fact, but not only that of myself. But even if I was alone in my observation, it would still carry equal weight of your own observation.

Say, you claim I have no snow in my yard, based on the logic that you do not, you assume the general rule that snow cannot be in any yard.

I claim that I do have snow in my yard.  That is not an opinion, that is fact.  If I chose to prove it, I could take a picture and link it, I could fly you here and let you observe it.

My opinion, that I like snow, that is what is not able to be "proven" as such.

Now, you can continue to troll with big lebowski logic, that's like, you're right man, but the more you do it the more you convince people that you're pants on head retarded.  Maybe you're genuinely retarded, but even if you're play acting being retarded, guess what, that's still retarded.  If that's the case, congrats, you fooled me, I think you're retarded.

*shakes head and uses features built into fark for such asshats.
 
2013-02-10 02:02:30 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Popular Opinion: and that is only your opinion as well.

No, it is observation of fact, but not only that of myself. But even if I was alone in my observation, it would still carry equal weight of your own observation.

Say, you claim I have no snow in my yard, based on the logic that you do not, you assume the general rule that snow cannot be in any yard.

I claim that I do have snow in my yard.  That is not an opinion, that is fact.  If I chose to prove it, I could take a picture and link it, I could fly you here and let you observe it.

My opinion, that I like snow, that is what is not able to be "proven" as such.

Now, you can continue to troll with big lebowski logic, that's like, you're right man, but the more you do it the more you convince people that you're pants on head retarded.  Maybe you're genuinely retarded, but even if you're play acting being retarded, guess what, that's still retarded.  If that's the case, congrats, you fooled me, I think you're retarded.

*shakes head and uses features built into fark for such asshats.


my observations are just that, and i have made no claims otherwise,
your counter-argument: "atheists give as much or more", without or without links to online articles that might support such claims, is laughable at best. ingenious for certain.
 
2013-02-10 02:03:46 PM  

omeganuepsilon: *shakes head and uses features built into fark for such asshats.


You're giving him a month of free TotalFark?  You cruel cruel bastard, what did those two people pretending to be women and the men they fool ever do to you?
 
2013-02-10 02:05:02 PM  

BumpInTheNight: omeganuepsilon: *shakes head and uses features built into fark for such asshats.

You're giving him a month of free TotalFark?  You cruel cruel bastard, what did those two people pretending to be women and the men they fool ever do to you?


heh
 
2013-02-10 02:24:26 PM  
omeganuepsilon:

But whatever, stick your head back in the sand, preferably far enough so that you can no longer type(or breathe).

generalizations run the world. okay, so you are a bonafide atheist and you give and volunteer for various charities. me too,
congratulations for being and outstanding human being.
now get over yourself and accept the fact that you do not represent the fark FSM delegation.
 
2013-02-10 03:01:43 PM  
Why do Christians have to shiat on everything Atheist have.

If an Atheist went into a church and came out talking about herd mentality and how Christians are just herd animals, and now that Atheist church is doing the same thing, that it is all about the fellowship and not about the worship.

But you know, they aren't.

Christians feel the need to go around and make sure to tell everyone else how they are doing thing wrong and how they are just looking out for you for being to dumb to know that God will handle it all for you if you are willing to just give over to his glory and admit you are nothing but a broken shell of a piece of shiat that must pray constantly or you will perish in a lake of fire for all eternity amen.
 
2013-02-10 03:07:01 PM  

Popular Opinion: now get over yourself and accept the fact that you do not represent the fark FSM delegation.


How do you know? Where do you get off judging us? Isn't some shiat in your magic book that says you shouldn't do this??
 
2013-02-10 09:08:56 PM  

Farking Canuck: Popular Opinion: now get over yourself and accept the fact that you do not represent the fark FSM delegation.

How do you know? Where do you get off judging us? Isn't some shiat in your magic book that says you shouldn't do this??


i don't believe in magic books, as i already said.
 
2013-02-10 09:16:32 PM  
being a non-believer myself, i have no other motivation for calling out atheists other than because that's how i see it.
 
2013-02-11 12:55:46 AM  

Popular Opinion: now get over yourself and accept the fact that you do not represent the fark FSM delegation.


Popular Opinion: being a non-believer myself, i have no other motivation for calling out atheists other than because that's how i see it.


You use the same dishonest arguments as theists. You build strawmen about our positions and claim to know what everyone thinks. You also refer to us as a group ... which the religious insist on doing.

I highly doubt that you are a non-believer.
 
2013-02-11 01:53:17 AM  

Farking Canuck: You also refer to us as a group


This is what I find humorous.  Personally, Farking Canuck, I hate you, for your position on other matters.

But because of this thread I took you off ignore and more simply noted those stances and this one under a favorite label.

Because I agree.  We do see the same faults in this seeming poser.

But outside of that, we're a group?  That is a laughable concept.  Sure, some atheists group together.  So do people who play chess, or like to discuss astro physics, or porn afficionado's.  There's no sin in being part of a social group, except as purported by those who find some reason to oppose said group.

One huge motivator for people to band together?  Black sheep, and common adversaries.  Basic human sociology right there.  If there is a heavy concentration of social atheists, odds are there is a reason for it.  Take the (again, a tired example, but it fits so well in so many situations) Atheists in florida, adversaries of the Dominionism of Polk Under Prayer.  They gain momentum and members specifically because those religious fold in Polk County are farking assholes.(Seriously, these guys approach Westboro Baptist level of farked in the head).

In a sense, you could say Public Opinion here was wrong, but has played a part in fulfilling his own prophecy, by giving people like you and I that common ground, by being a blathering idiot at the same time as he also tries to be coyly vitrolic.

I would sincerely wager real money that PO was raised christian(or closely to/in a christian community), still thinks like one, despite the admission of having no actual belief.  A common thing in arbitrarily self identified atheists with such a history.  I think the whole "why give up the good parts of religion" may just be a bit of projection, in that he clings to some of the morality and logic that amount to a turd floating in the pool that otherwise could have been a great day in the sun but is now soiled by human waste bobbing and weaving in the gentle waves, slowly dissolving so that there is a brown halo of a cloud around the floater.
 
2013-02-11 08:49:28 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Personally, Farking Canuck, I hate you, for your position on other matters.


Heh ... I've noticed that as well (and recently removed you from ignore). It is rare to align on some issues and be so different on others (i.e. I've never noticed it with any other Farker).
 
2013-02-11 03:00:28 PM  
is it wrong to call out others to help those in need?
obviously, if you already give, i am not refering to you.
 
2013-02-11 05:51:07 PM  
Let us be reminded what actually transpired in the thread that got you the heat.

Popular Opinion: atheist is another word for selfish and don't give a f*ck about anyone else. jmo.


Sorry you live by a bunch of assholes, but it is no excuse for blind prejudice.
 
2013-02-11 06:56:33 PM  
so i guess that doesn't apply to you either.
as i said, it was jmo, based on what I see personally.
 
2013-02-11 07:15:56 PM  

Popular Opinion: so i guess that doesn't apply to you either.
as i said, it was jmo, based on what I see personally.


Language doesn't really work that way though.  Individuals don't get to arbitrarily assign words a new definition.  Sure, it can catch on, that is the nature of language.

But you take social rules into account, trying to turn a label into a hateful meaning based on your prejudice is a whole other situation.

/when the fark did jmo start, thought that was a typo
//you're either very young, or very sheltered/inexperienced
///it's traditionally "imo" (in my opinion)

After looking at the Urban Dictionary, it's something that never caught on, and is either largely mocked or used in a wide variety of ways by very disturbed people.

Or maybe I'm wrong, are you offering 5$ blowjobs?
Asking me to jerk you off?

IMO has a pretty solid first page.

The first entry for JMO looks like someone trying to make something work(who's username is JMO...), oddly enough, like you and your personal "definition" of atheist.

memecrunch.com
 
2013-02-11 07:20:03 PM  
LOLZ!


(is that allowed?)
 
2013-02-11 08:09:47 PM  

Popular Opinion: as i said, it was jmo, based on what I see personally.


For most people, there's a difference between one's personal circle of acquaintance and a statistically representative sample of the larger population. Subjective versus objective measure is another factor.

You might look into Altemeyer's social psychology research, both on authoritarianism, religion/irreligion, and atheists. Quoting one of his recent summaries of his empirical findings, "atheists showed more integrity, open-mindedness, acceptance of others, independence, and so on than fundamentalists did, who instead showed double standards, closed-mindedness, prejudice, and authoritarianism".

The sort of traits you're discussing appear to correspond roughly to high levels on the SDO personality measure, which is nigh-uncorrelated to religiosity; unlike the RWA personality measure, which strongly correlates to religiosity. That is, the fraction among the irreligious is about the same as among the religious; but the irreligious assholes don't expect you to do what they say just because they said so.
 
2013-02-11 09:05:31 PM  
yes, but did he visit the local outreach center to check for himself, or is he taking their word for it, based on some interview or survey?

it isn't that I am unwilling to believe atheists can be or are good and help people (we know that some do).
i just wish it was more apparent...rather than feeling that the group was under represented.
obviously i must accept that they may be out in droves...just in places I don't see.
 
2013-02-12 08:24:06 AM  

Popular Opinion: yes, but did he visit the local outreach center to check for himself, or is he taking their word for it, based on some interview or survey?

it isn't that I am unwilling to believe atheists can be or are good and help people (we know that some do).
i just wish it was more apparent...rather than feeling that the group was under represented.
obviously i must accept that they may be out in droves...just in places I don't see.


It's as apparent as you choose to see it.
 
Displayed 403 of 403 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report