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.

(Dallas Observer)   Atheists troll Dallas for the Easter holiday weekend   (blogs.dallasobserver.com) divider line 346
    More: Amusing, Easter, Easter Holidays, The Matches, Christian theology, Dallas-Fort Worth, atheists, trolls, Good Friday  
•       •       •

8119 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Mar 2013 at 4:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-30 09:32:54 PM

IlGreven: common sense is an oxymoron: Both of these are specific examples in which all of the components are pretty well defined (although in Elwood's defense, *something* opened the door and crossed the room), and it is generally accepted that there is absolutely zero evidence that dogs are capable of ordering humans about (via telepathy, at any rate). In the case of "god," there is no single definition which everyone can agree with, so what is the basis for claiming that all possible definitions are false?

That every single definition claims something supernatural, making them unfalsifiable in science...and irrelevant in the natural world.



I gave a non-supernatural definition upthread, but I agree that any definition of "god" is unfalsifiable, and it makes no sense to me to choose any one over all of the others.

However, "irrelevant" is not the same as "false."
 
2013-03-30 09:34:42 PM

IlGreven: s2s2s2: Another picture of a unicorn(look it up):
[www.frogmusic.com image 550x356]

What an actual "unicorn" might look like:

[currencewiki.wikispaces.com image 500x346]


Existence of unicorns: confirmed.
 
2013-03-30 09:35:29 PM

s2s2s2: Any assertion lacking supporting evidence is a statement of faith.


I guess I'll have to take your word for that.
 
2013-03-30 09:35:37 PM

Lionel Mandrake: common sense is an oxymoron: There are other religions besides Christianity, and there are definitions of "god" which may not belong to any religion at all.

Really?  Golly, thanks for pointing that out.



You're welcome.

Next time, try using a non-Christian example. Or, better yet, all of them.
 
2013-03-30 09:37:01 PM

Fart_Machine: common sense is an oxymoron: Fart_Machine: common sense is an oxymoron: Fart_Machine: common sense is an oxymoron: Nor is there irrefutable evidence of the NONexistence of a god.

Except that they don't have to.  Hence the whole "you can't prove a negative".


If it can't be proven, then what is one's disbelief based on?

Not sure if serious.  If it can't be proven then the logical thing is to remain skeptical.  Do you feel this way about people who don't believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny?


The existence of Santa Claus/the Easter bunny can be disproven by the physical impossibility of a reindeer-driven flying sleigh/rabbit delivering presents to billions of people in one day. However, the supposed nature of Santa/EB is pretty much agreed upon by everyone participating in the discussion.

When the very definition of "god" is open to interpretation, disproof becomes far more difficult, perhaps even impossible.

It's about as impossible as an entity creating the Universe in 6 days?



*sigh*
 
2013-03-30 09:37:01 PM

s2s2s2: antisocialworker: s2s2s2: Lionel Mandrake: s2s2s2: Science has, literally, nothing to say about the existence of god. That does not qualify the assertion that god does not exist.

Science has nothing to say about the existence unicorns, either.

Science has plenty to say about the existence of unicorns.

But it has nothing to say about the invisible, non-corporeal unicorns. Right.

Why should it?


You in another comment: "Any assertion lacking supporting evidence is a statement of faith."

So, saying "invisible, non-corporeal unicorns don't exist" is a statement of faith?
 
2013-03-30 09:38:29 PM
Atheist: I don't see a reason to believe in the existence of god. It's not the same as believing in the non-existence of god!!!

Theist: Is there a god?

Atheist: No, there is not one.

Theist: LOL

Atheist: LOL means you lose!
 
2013-03-30 09:39:02 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: IlGreven: common sense is an oxymoron: Both of these are specific examples in which all of the components are pretty well defined (although in Elwood's defense, *something* opened the door and crossed the room), and it is generally accepted that there is absolutely zero evidence that dogs are capable of ordering humans about (via telepathy, at any rate). In the case of "god," there is no single definition which everyone can agree with, so what is the basis for claiming that all possible definitions are false?

That every single definition claims something supernatural, making them unfalsifiable in science...and irrelevant in the natural world.


I gave a non-supernatural definition upthread, but I agree that any definition of "god" is unfalsifiable, and it makes no sense to me to choose any one over all of the others.

However, "irrelevant" is not the same as "false."


See, the problem is how you're looking at it.  It is not our job to give evidence against God. It is a theist's job to give evidence for god.  True that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but that means that the default is the null hypothesis, aka "there's nothing there", unless evidence is given for any other hypothesis.  You can speculate and believe what you want, but as long as there's no evidence for any religion's god, and no evidence for any god any single person can come up with, the only logical conclusion is the default conclusion, the null hypothesis, "there's nothing there".
 
2013-03-30 09:42:10 PM

antisocialworker: s2s2s2: antisocialworker: s2s2s2: Lionel Mandrake: s2s2s2: Science has, literally, nothing to say about the existence of god. That does not qualify the assertion that god does not exist.

Science has nothing to say about the existence unicorns, either.

Science has plenty to say about the existence of unicorns.

But it has nothing to say about the invisible, non-corporeal unicorns. Right.

Why should it?

You in another comment: "Any assertion lacking supporting evidence is a statement of faith."

So, saying "invisible, non-corporeal unicorns don't exist" is a statement of faith?




It's better to just say there is no credible evidence for their existence, and therefore no good reason to believe that they exist, and they aren't worth wasting any time over. Much the same as deities.
 
2013-03-30 09:42:33 PM

antisocialworker: s2s2s2: antisocialworker: s2s2s2: Lionel Mandrake: s2s2s2: Science has, literally, nothing to say about the existence of god. That does not qualify the assertion that god does not exist.

Science has nothing to say about the existence unicorns, either.

Science has plenty to say about the existence of unicorns.

But it has nothing to say about the invisible, non-corporeal unicorns. Right.

Why should it?

You in another comment: "Any assertion lacking supporting evidence is a statement of faith."

So, saying "invisible, non-corporeal unicorns don't exist" is a statement of faith?


Are you making that assertion?
 
2013-03-30 09:44:58 PM

Repo Man: antisocialworker: s2s2s2: antisocialworker: s2s2s2: Lionel Mandrake: s2s2s2: Science has, literally, nothing to say about the existence of god. That does not qualify the assertion that god does not exist.

Science has nothing to say about the existence unicorns, either.

Science has plenty to say about the existence of unicorns.

But it has nothing to say about the invisible, non-corporeal unicorns. Right.

Why should it?

You in another comment: "Any assertion lacking supporting evidence is a statement of faith."

So, saying "invisible, non-corporeal unicorns don't exist" is a statement of faith?

It's better to just say there is no credible evidence for their existence, and therefore no good reason to believe that they exist, and they aren't worth wasting any time over. Much the same as deities.


Bingo.
 
2013-03-30 09:47:12 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: Fart_Machine: common sense is an oxymoron: Fart_Machine: common sense is an oxymoron: Fart_Machine: common sense is an oxymoron: Nor is there irrefutable evidence of the NONexistence of a god.

Except that they don't have to.  Hence the whole "you can't prove a negative".


If it can't be proven, then what is one's disbelief based on?

Not sure if serious.  If it can't be proven then the logical thing is to remain skeptical.  Do you feel this way about people who don't believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny?


The existence of Santa Claus/the Easter bunny can be disproven by the physical impossibility of a reindeer-driven flying sleigh/rabbit delivering presents to billions of people in one day. However, the supposed nature of Santa/EB is pretty much agreed upon by everyone participating in the discussion.

When the very definition of "god" is open to interpretation, disproof becomes far more difficult, perhaps even impossible.

It's about as impossible as an entity creating the Universe in 6 days?


*sigh*


Yes trying to justify the belief in fantasy is indeed sigh-worthy.
 
2013-03-30 09:48:49 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: Lionel Mandrake: common sense is an oxymoron: There are other religions besides Christianity, and there are definitions of "god" which may not belong to any religion at all.

Really?  Golly, thanks for pointing that out.


You're welcome.

Next time, try using a non-Christian example. Or, better yet, all of them.


I didn't realize my use of an example was supposed to be kept within certain parameters.
 
2013-03-30 09:52:53 PM

Lionel Mandrake: common sense is an oxymoron: Lionel Mandrake: common sense is an oxymoron: There are other religions besides Christianity, and there are definitions of "god" which may not belong to any religion at all.

Really?  Golly, thanks for pointing that out.


You're welcome.

Next time, try using a non-Christian example. Or, better yet, all of them.

I didn't realize my use of an example was supposed to be kept within certain parameters.


God doesn't need goal posts.
 
2013-03-30 10:05:09 PM
Aw, are we really going the "debate semantics until all words are meaningless" route, apologists?

I was really looking forward to "cite laughably unscientific 'reasearch' that proves there's a god."

I thought after that book "heaven is real" the second method would have experienced a resurgence in popularity.
 
2013-03-30 10:05:12 PM

IlGreven: common sense is an oxymoron: IlGreven: common sense is an oxymoron: Both of these are specific examples in which all of the components are pretty well defined (although in Elwood's defense, *something* opened the door and crossed the room), and it is generally accepted that there is absolutely zero evidence that dogs are capable of ordering humans about (via telepathy, at any rate). In the case of "god," there is no single definition which everyone can agree with, so what is the basis for claiming that all possible definitions are false?

That every single definition claims something supernatural, making them unfalsifiable in science...and irrelevant in the natural world.


I gave a non-supernatural definition upthread, but I agree that any definition of "god" is unfalsifiable, and it makes no sense to me to choose any one over all of the others.

However, "irrelevant" is not the same as "false."

See, the problem is how you're looking at it.  It is not our job to give evidence against God. It is a theist's an evangelist's job to give evidence for god.  True that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but that means that the default is the null hypothesis, aka "there's nothing there", unless evidence is given for any other hypothesis.  You can speculate and believe what you want, but as long as there's no evidence for any religion's god, and no evidence for any god any single person can come up with, the only logical conclusion is the default conclusion, the null hypothesis, "there's nothing there".



Even a theist can agree that there is no direct evidence, which is why it's called "faith." Why shouldn't the same hold true for atheists?

As for the null hypothesis, it is based upon existing evidence (or lack thereof). From a practical viewpoint, I agree that there is no reason to believe that any particular religion is true, but I am also willing to concede that we don't know everything about the universe. The null hypothesis may be the default position, but that doesn't make it an absolute truth.
 
2013-03-30 10:09:45 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: Why shouldn't the same hold true for atheists?


Because that's not how science works?
 
2013-03-30 10:10:26 PM

FloydA: common sense is an oxymoron: whidbey: Giltric: My antiquated world view is "mind your own business" something that atheists nor the religious have a grasp of.

Oh I have a total grasp of it. But sometimes minding one's own business allows ignorance and injustices to continue unchallenged. See=any civil rights issue of the past 100 years.

But as a free thinking man of the times you do not see the irnoy of the atheists process to convert people to atheism or the attempted conversion? You sound very religiously atheist.

Free-thinkers don't try to push the fallacy that a system based on reason and knowledge is somehow a "religion." Troll harder, dude.


Atheism isn't a religion, but it is based on faith rather than irrefutable evidence.

Prove it.

No, seriously, I want you to prove that my unwillingness to support your bald assertion is a form of "faith."   Tell me, with a strait face, that my unwillingness to accept your claims requires as much "faith" as your willingness to propose them.

Theists say "there is a god."  We agree that this claim requires "faith."

Atheists say "Oh yeah?  Show me." LOL u stoopid fer bleevin in god lolololol peepole who bleeve in god r stoopid lolololol

explain to me how the atheist is relying on "faith."


Fixed for accuracy.

If someone doesn't believe in something why do they need someone who believes in something to prove to them that that something exists? If it was all about not believeing they would just go their merry way onstead of trying to force their lack of belief on others......
 
2013-03-30 10:12:30 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: IlGreven: common sense is an oxymoron: IlGreven: common sense is an oxymoron: Both of these are specific examples in which all of the components are pretty well defined (although in Elwood's defense, *something* opened the door and crossed the room), and it is generally accepted that there is absolutely zero evidence that dogs are capable of ordering humans about (via telepathy, at any rate). In the case of "god," there is no single definition which everyone can agree with, so what is the basis for claiming that all possible definitions are false?

That every single definition claims something supernatural, making them unfalsifiable in science...and irrelevant in the natural world.


I gave a non-supernatural definition upthread, but I agree that any definition of "god" is unfalsifiable, and it makes no sense to me to choose any one over all of the others.

However, "irrelevant" is not the same as "false."

See, the problem is how you're looking at it.  It is not our job to give evidence against God. It is a theist's an evangelist's job to give evidence for god.  True that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but that means that the default is the null hypothesis, aka "there's nothing there", unless evidence is given for any other hypothesis.  You can speculate and believe what you want, but as long as there's no evidence for any religion's god, and no evidence for any god any single person can come up with, the only logical conclusion is the default conclusion, the null hypothesis, "there's nothing there".


Even a theist can agree that there is no direct evidence, which is why it's called "faith." Why shouldn't the same hold true for atheists?


Because there's nothing for most atheists to assert.  True, some are adamant that there is no god. That's faith. But until there is evidence for something, anything, other than the default position, the default position is the only one that does not require faith, because the default position makes no assertions.

common sense is an oxymoron: As for the null hypothesis, it is based upon existing evidence (or lack thereof). From a practical viewpoint, I agree that there is no reason to believe that any particular religion is true, but I am also willing to concede that we don't know everything about the universe. The null hypothesis may be the default position, but that doesn't make it an absolute truth.


It does, however, make it a position that you can take without faith.
 
2013-03-30 10:12:42 PM

winterbraid: Aw, are we really going the "debate semantics until all words are meaningless" route, apologists?

I was really looking forward to "cite laughably unscientific 'reasearch' that proves there's a god."


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

What more proof do you need, heathen?
 
2013-03-30 10:14:34 PM
Nah, too obvious. The best trolls are far more subtle. For example, I was at Target today and saw this...

i601.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-30 10:15:52 PM
It doesn't take faith to not believe in something.
 
2013-03-30 10:16:51 PM
 
2013-03-30 10:18:10 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Because that's not how science works?


You know, another instance where science doesn't work, is when it has nothing to work with.

Lack of evidence of god isn't an example of science at work.
 
2013-03-30 10:19:31 PM

Fart_Machine: It doesn't take faith to not believe in something.


This is precisely true. This is also a constraint on the validity of the assertion that "god, in fact, does not exist".
 
2013-03-30 10:20:19 PM
assertion |əˈsərSHən|
noun
a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief: [ with clause ] : his assertion that his father had deserted the family.
• the action of stating something or exercising authority confidently and forcefully: the assertion of his legal rights.
 
2013-03-30 10:22:54 PM
faith |fāTH|
noun
1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something: this restores one's faith in politicians.
2 strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
• a system of religious belief: the Christian faith.
a strongly held belief or theory: the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe.
 
2013-03-30 10:23:53 PM
If someone doesn't believe in something why do they need someone who believes in something to prove to them that that something exists? If it was all about not believeing they would just go their merry way onstead of trying to force their lack of belief on others......

People don't have to prove anything. Birthers do not have to prove that Barrack Obama is not a citizen of the United States. They are free to believe that, and no one has the right to tell them otherwise. I'm free to mock them for having that belief, and I'm under no obligation to either share their belief, or treat is as sacred just because they hold it. This is true of many beliefs.
 
2013-03-30 10:27:03 PM

s2s2s2: faith |fāTH|
noun
1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something: this restores one's faith in politicians.
2 strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
• a system of religious belief: the Christian faith.
• a strongly held belief or theory: the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe.


So nothing is something now.
 
2013-03-30 10:34:04 PM

Fart_Machine: So nothing is something now.


it is when the people who claim its nothing, turn it into something.
 
2013-03-30 10:34:15 PM

Fart_Machine: common sense is an oxymoron: Fart_Machine: common sense is an oxymoron: Fart_Machine: common sense is an oxymoron: Fart_Machine: common sense is an oxymoron: Nor is there irrefutable evidence of the NONexistence of a god.

Except that they don't have to.  Hence the whole "you can't prove a negative".


If it can't be proven, then what is one's disbelief based on?

Not sure if serious.  If it can't be proven then the logical thing is to remain skeptical.  Do you feel this way about people who don't believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny?


The existence of Santa Claus/the Easter bunny can be disproven by the physical impossibility of a reindeer-driven flying sleigh/rabbit delivering presents to billions of people in one day. However, the supposed nature of Santa/EB is pretty much agreed upon by everyone participating in the discussion.

When the very definition of "god" is open to interpretation, disproof becomes far more difficult, perhaps even impossible.

It's about as impossible as an entity creating the Universe in 6 days?


*sigh*

Yes trying to justify the belief in fantasy is indeed sigh-worthy.


Lionel Mandrake: common sense is an oxymoron: Lionel Mandrake: common sense is an oxymoron: There are other religions besides Christianity, and there are definitions of "god" which may not belong to any religion at all.

Really?  Golly, thanks for pointing that out.


You're welcome.

Next time, try using a non-Christian example. Or, better yet, all of them.

I didn't realize my use of an example was supposed to be kept within certain parameters.



As I've said repeatedly, I am not a theist, and no religion has given me a reason to believe in its tenets over those of any other religion. However, it seems to me that many, perhaps most, atheists are actually arguing against a specific form of Christianity rather than against the concept of "god," the definition of which seems to vary from person to person.

I'll repeat my hypothetical example: Suppose our universe was the result of a physics experiment in some other universe. Our universe would then be the result of a specific act of creation, meaning that there would have been a creator, but that creator would have had no effect on our universe once it had been created.

Would this creator be a "god"? And how could we distinguish this scenario from the Standard Model?

And holy crap, it's later than I thought. I need to make dinner.
 
2013-03-30 10:36:59 PM

Fart_Machine: s2s2s2: faith |fāTH|
noun
1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something: this restores one's faith in politicians.
2 strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
• a system of religious belief: the Christian faith.
• a strongly held belief or theory: the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe.

So nothing is something now.

 
2013-03-30 10:39:43 PM
Nothing like other atheists to make me not want to be an atheist anymore just so I'm not associated with these retards.
 
2013-03-30 10:44:41 PM

s2s2s2: Fart_Machine: s2s2s2: faith |fāTH|
noun
1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something: this restores one's faith in politicians.
2 strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
• a system of religious belief: the Christian faith.
• a strongly held belief or theory: the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe.

So nothing is something now.


Why would you think that was a strong belief?
 
2013-03-30 10:45:56 PM

Fart_Machine: Why would you think that was a strong belief?


Why would I think what was a strongly held belief(or theory)?
 
2013-03-30 10:47:39 PM
you know what I don't believe in? Unicorns.

You know what I don't do? Form groups, hold meetings, attend lectures, write books, buy books, take out ads on buses and billboards, and spend hours on the internet letting everyone know I don't believe in unicorns.

But then again, I'm cool with what (almost) anyone want to believe in. As long as you're not a dick about it.

Looking at you too christians.
 
2013-03-30 10:51:14 PM

Spanky_McFarksalot: you know what I don't believe in? Unicorns.


They exist, just not the ones you don't believe in. Please look upthread for proof of the unicorns of other faiths.
 
2013-03-30 10:53:30 PM

s2s2s2: Fart_Machine: Why would you think that was a strong belief?

Why would I think what was a strongly held belief(or theory)?


You've managed to equate not having a strong belief or theory with having one.
 
2013-03-30 10:55:47 PM

Fart_Machine: You've managed to equate not having a strong belief or theory with having one.


Nope. I'm holding people to a distinction between the two.

Cam said he has no faith, then made statements that are, by definition, statements of faith; backed up ONLY by a lack of evidence.
 
2013-03-30 10:57:34 PM

Ennuipoet: Leave Easter alone, let 'em have it.  We won the War on Christmas, we can be magnanimous in the this low dollar value holiday!


I was willing to do that until they started throwing Chocolate Crosses into the stores. Fark you guys, you need to shove your symbol in my face?
 
2013-03-30 11:01:33 PM

s2s2s2: Fart_Machine: You've managed to equate not having a strong belief or theory with having one.

Nope. I'm holding people to a distinction between the two.

Cam said he has no faith, then made statements that are, by definition, statements of faith; backed up ONLY by a lack of evidence.


No, at no time did I cite a strongly held belief; only a lack of evidence to support a belief.
 
2013-03-30 11:02:15 PM

saintstryfe: Fark you guys, you need to shove your symbol in my face?


Republican, atheist-like typing detected.
 
2013-03-30 11:04:56 PM

cameroncrazy1984: at no time did I cite a strongly held belief


At 09:09:11PM:

cameroncrazy1984: Until such a time as that evidence presents itself, then god in fact does not exist.


Oh, I guess you meant he would start existing if/when you find him. Sounds legit.
 
2013-03-30 11:15:45 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com
Now Audible.
 
2013-03-30 11:16:18 PM

s2s2s2: cameroncrazy1984: at no time did I cite a strongly held belief

At 09:09:11PM:
cameroncrazy1984: Until such a time as that evidence presents itself, then god in fact does not exist.

Oh, I guess you meant he would start existing if/when you find him. Sounds legit.


Again, that is not a belief, that is a lack of evidence to support a belief. The belief that god exists is unsupported by evidence. That is factual.
 
2013-03-30 11:16:53 PM
Excuse me for having other things to do,  s2.Some of us do other things with our lives.
 
2013-03-30 11:20:23 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Excuse me for having other things to do,  s2.Some of us do other things with our lives.


Pretty sure all of us do.

Standard Fark fare. It would have been better as a .gif.
 
2013-03-30 11:21:33 PM

s2s2s2: cameroncrazy1984: Excuse me for having other things to do,  s2.Some of us do other things with our lives.

Pretty sure all of us do.

Standard Fark fare. It would have been better as a .gif.


You don't appear to have anything better to do; you had time to come up with that witty pin dropping cliche.
 
2013-03-30 11:22:35 PM
You're ok in my book, Cameron. Not that it would or should matter to you, but it does to me.
 
2013-03-30 11:23:35 PM

cameroncrazy1984: You don't appear to have anything better to do; you had time to come up with that witty pin dropping cliche.


It's being a cliche made it very time efficient.
 
Displayed 50 of 346 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report