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
 
2013-03-30 01:01:05 PM
Wow. O_O
 
2013-03-30 01:21:24 PM
Nope.  No trolling there.  None whatsoever.
 
2013-03-30 01:28:37 PM
It wasn't me.
 
2013-03-30 01:34:49 PM
As Christians find joy in "the sacrifice of the figure of Christ Jesus," Moore adds, "your Humanist siblings are likewise jubilant at the death of God, and we embrace the necessity of sacrifice from one for each other, in the interest of advancing a human-centered ethic that benefits us all."

Now that's how you troll.
 
2013-03-30 01:37:58 PM
That one's pretty dickish.

Last year's "Our Families Are Great Without Religion" was a good one; it was a positive message about atheist families.  This is just assholiness and trying to piss off the god botherers.

Rule number one of atheist advertising should be "don't be an asshole."
 
2013-03-30 01:57:35 PM
This makes no sense.  Why would atheists say that something that never existed is dead?
 
2013-03-30 01:58:14 PM

FloydA: Rule number one of atheist advertising should be "don't be an asshole."


As far as I'm concerned, that's rule number one of life.
 
2013-03-30 02:13:38 PM

Shostie: FloydA: Rule number one of atheist advertising should be "don't be an asshole."

As far as I'm concerned, that's rule number one of life.


True.  It's particularly important for despised minority groups who are trying to gain social acceptance, of course.
 
2013-03-30 02:44:37 PM
That will surely convince every Christian they are wrong.
 
2013-03-30 02:45:39 PM
Seems like a silly waste of time, energy and money.

Should have used it to feed some hungry people or something.
 
2013-03-30 02:56:35 PM
2/10. The funniest one I read this week is "Judas is the Reason for the Season"
 
2013-03-30 03:00:35 PM
The flowers and butterflies were a nice touch...

Krymson Tyde: That will surely convince every Christian they are wrong.


Well, hell, as long as it makes this group of atheists feel good about themselves while they pat each other on the back for a job well done, nothing else really matters.
 
2013-03-30 03:19:47 PM

Chariset: Nope.  No trolling there.  None whatsoever.


This. I was expecting something funny, though the use of the pastel colors was the only thing they got right.

There's something I never thought I would type.
 
2013-03-30 03:21:24 PM

GAT_00: This makes no sense.  Why would atheists say that something that never existed is dead?


LOL

Stuff like this is why I stay out of the atheism, tipping, tattoo, and Facebook threads.

/carry on
 
2013-03-30 03:22:42 PM
I bet I know what the other topic of Sundays service will be.

"We're winning you guys! The atheists are scared. They are attacking us but we shall remain vigilant. We're taking this country back. Now pass the collection plate and we now take Visa or MasterCard."
 
2013-03-30 03:30:33 PM
*you'renothelping.jpg*
 
2013-03-30 03:39:05 PM
I LOLd.
 
2013-03-30 03:49:12 PM
Leave Easter alone, let 'em have it.  We won the War on Christmas, we can be magnanimous in the this low dollar value holiday!
 
2013-03-30 03:58:13 PM

FloydA: That one's pretty dickish.

Last year's "Our Families Are Great Without Religion" was a good one; it was a positive message about atheist families.  This is just assholiness and trying to piss off the god botherers.

Rule number one of atheist advertising should be "don't be an asshole."


Yeah, absolutely.  This is really dumb.  Also, to be dead, one has to have first existed, right?  Therefore, they are professing their belief in God now.
 
2013-03-30 04:01:34 PM

ekdikeo4: FloydA: That one's pretty dickish.

Last year's "Our Families Are Great Without Religion" was a good one; it was a positive message about atheist families.  This is just assholiness and trying to piss off the god botherers.

Rule number one of atheist advertising should be "don't be an asshole."

Yeah, absolutely.  This is really dumb.  Also, to be dead, one has to have first existed, right?  Therefore, they are professing their belief in God now.


Either that or they're referencing Nietzsche, whose declaration that God is dead is meant metaphorically.
 
2013-03-30 04:14:19 PM
Trolling?  Check?

Douchebaggery? Double check.

Saying "God is dead" would imply he was once alive, therefore existed.

These chaps may want to re-tool their message.
 
2013-03-30 04:17:04 PM

GAT_00: Why would atheists say that something that never existed is dead?


For the same reason you tell people that your sex life is dead.
 
2013-03-30 04:19:48 PM
See everyone, it's just like not collecting stamps!
 
2013-03-30 04:20:37 PM

FloydA: That one's pretty dickish.

Last year's "Our Families Are Great Without Religion" was a good one; it was a positive message about atheist families.  This is just assholiness and trying to piss off the god botherers.

Rule number one of atheist advertising should be "don't be an asshole."


Yup. It should be positive messaging about how lack of religious belief doesn't make you in any way defective. It shouldn't be about denigrating other people's beliefs.
 
2013-03-30 04:21:35 PM

ekdikeo4: Also, to be dead, one has to have first existed, right?  Therefore, they are professing their belief in God now.


/thread
 
2013-03-30 04:22:42 PM

Lionel Mandrake: ekdikeo4: FloydA: That one's pretty dickish.

Last year's "Our Families Are Great Without Religion" was a good one; it was a positive message about atheist families.  This is just assholiness and trying to piss off the god botherers.

Rule number one of atheist advertising should be "don't be an asshole."

Yeah, absolutely.  This is really dumb.  Also, to be dead, one has to have first existed, right?  Therefore, they are professing their belief in God now.

Either that or they're referencing Nietzsche, whose declaration that God is dead is meant metaphorically.


The average "bible-thumper" south of the Mason-Dixon line has no idea who Friedrich Nietzsche was. These Atheists certainly fail at marketing, IMHO.
 
2013-03-30 04:24:56 PM

Forbidden Doughnut: Lionel Mandrake: ekdikeo4: FloydA: That one's pretty dickish.

Last year's "Our Families Are Great Without Religion" was a good one; it was a positive message about atheist families.  This is just assholiness and trying to piss off the god botherers.

Rule number one of atheist advertising should be "don't be an asshole."

Yeah, absolutely.  This is really dumb.  Also, to be dead, one has to have first existed, right?  Therefore, they are professing their belief in God now.

Either that or they're referencing Nietzsche, whose declaration that God is dead is meant metaphorically.

The average "bible-thumper" south of the Mason-Dixon line has no idea who Friedrich Nietzsche was. These Atheists certainly fail at marketing, IMHO.


Oh, yeah...no doubt about that.
 
2013-03-30 04:25:35 PM
This group sounds like a bunch of jackbags that are no better than the fundamentalist Christians they despise.

Now, the "our families are great without religion" one is good. You can advocate your morals and ideas outside of religion without throwing stones at the Christians to piss them off.
 
2013-03-30 04:26:38 PM

ekdikeo4: to be dead, one has to have first existed, right?


I think if you go so far as to try to read between the lines, they meant the "idea" of god is dead. which is partially true. christians are fighting a war to keep the religion alive anyway.
 
2013-03-30 04:27:21 PM

bulldg4life: This group sounds like a bunch of jackbags that are no better than the fundamentalist Christians they despise.

Now, the "our families are great without religion" one is good. You can advocate your morals and ideas outside of religion without throwing stones at the Christians to piss them off.


Attention whoring is still in style.

THANKS A LOT MTV!!
 
2013-03-30 04:28:47 PM
Good Friday commemorates the day Jesus died on the cross. So, before he came back to life, danced around and went to heaven, god (or at least, one third of him) was dead. It makes as much sense as the rest of it.
 
2013-03-30 04:29:20 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: ekdikeo4: to be dead, one has to have first existed, right?

I think if you go so far as to try to read between the lines, they meant the "idea" of god is dead. which is partially true. christians are fighting a war to keep the religion alive anyway.


Yeah but if you have half the planet worshiping what they call a "God" it ain't dead.

God Is Superstitious Bullshiat would have been a lot more accurate.
 
2013-03-30 04:30:30 PM

FloydA: That one's pretty dickish.

Last year's "Our Families Are Great Without Religion" was a good one; it was a positive message about atheist families.  This is just assholiness and trying to piss off the god botherers.

Rule number one of atheist advertising should be "don't be an asshole."


I both agree with this sentiment, and enjoy when assholes fail to agree.
 
2013-03-30 04:31:03 PM

Forbidden Doughnut: Lionel Mandrake: ekdikeo4: FloydA: That one's pretty dickish.

Last year's "Our Families Are Great Without Religion" was a good one; it was a positive message about atheist families.  This is just assholiness and trying to piss off the god botherers.

Rule number one of atheist advertising should be "don't be an asshole."

Yeah, absolutely.  This is really dumb.  Also, to be dead, one has to have first existed, right?  Therefore, they are professing their belief in God now.

Either that or they're referencing Nietzsche, whose declaration that God is dead is meant metaphorically.

The average "bible-thumper" south of the Mason-Dixon line has no idea who Friedrich Nietzsche was. These Atheists certainly fail at marketing, IMHO.


Who?
 
2013-03-30 04:32:22 PM

Krymson Tyde: Forbidden Doughnut: Lionel Mandrake: ekdikeo4: FloydA: That one's pretty dickish.

Last year's "Our Families Are Great Without Religion" was a good one; it was a positive message about atheist families.  This is just assholiness and trying to piss off the god botherers.

Rule number one of atheist advertising should be "don't be an asshole."

Yeah, absolutely.  This is really dumb.  Also, to be dead, one has to have first existed, right?  Therefore, they are professing their belief in God now.

Either that or they're referencing Nietzsche, whose declaration that God is dead is meant metaphorically.

The average "bible-thumper" south of the Mason-Dixon line has no idea who Friedrich Nietzsche was. These Atheists certainly fail at marketing, IMHO.

Who?


I believe he was the inventor of the moustache.
 
2013-03-30 04:32:55 PM
I wonder if they have considered what precisely Nietzsche meant by the phrase "God is dead"? Or care about the statement's context?

/yeah I know the ideas goes back at least to Hegel - whatever
 
2013-03-30 04:34:19 PM

AliceBToklasLives: I wonder if they have considered what precisely Nietzsche meant by the phrase "God is dead"? Or care about the statement's context?

/yeah I know the ideas goes back at least to Hegel - whatever


From what I gather of his work, he pretty much trolled the reader. Long before the Internets.
 
2013-03-30 04:34:33 PM

Krymson Tyde: Forbidden Doughnut: Lionel Mandrake: ekdikeo4: FloydA: That one's pretty dickish.

Last year's "Our Families Are Great Without Religion" was a good one; it was a positive message about atheist families.  This is just assholiness and trying to piss off the god botherers.

Rule number one of atheist advertising should be "don't be an asshole."

Yeah, absolutely.  This is really dumb.  Also, to be dead, one has to have first existed, right?  Therefore, they are professing their belief in God now.

Either that or they're referencing Nietzsche, whose declaration that God is dead is meant metaphorically.

The average "bible-thumper" south of the Mason-Dixon line has no idea who Friedrich Nietzsche was. These Atheists certainly fail at marketing, IMHO.

Who?


Some European guy.
 
2013-03-30 04:34:59 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Either that or they're referencing Nietzsche, whose declaration that God is dead is meant metaphorically.


Posted before I read your comment.  Yeah, it wasn't meant to be taken literally.  He was referring makers of dairy products in general.
 
2013-03-30 04:35:29 PM
I'm as atheist as they come but I don't see the point of creating and mailing a Nietzsche quote on Easter to Christians.  First its confusing, because they could interpret it literally, and second the metaphorical meaning about how we've ousted religion, divinity and miracles from our collective consciousness is obviously FALSE when you're mailing it to a group of people who sincerely believe in a god.

I'm thankful I live here in the godless SF bay area where the constant war between the godless and godful doesn't exist.

Our god is obliviously Steve Jobs.

/He Is Risen!
//Your vision come, your will be done, on mobile as it is in the cloud
 
2013-03-30 04:36:23 PM
I like it - laughing at xians is far more productive (and fun) than arguing with them

Drawing attention to the fact that they've had 2000 years of this

i48.tinypic.com

I also liked the cunning conflation of "Jesus is dead" with "God is dead" - basic Fox tactic to trick the stupid
 
2013-03-30 04:45:44 PM
It's fun to mock peoples personal beliefs. Live and let live is for pussies.

/ morans
 
2013-03-30 04:46:34 PM

whidbey: Krymson Tyde: Forbidden Doughnut: Lionel Mandrake: ekdikeo4: FloydA: That one's pretty dickish.

Last year's "Our Families Are Great Without Religion" was a good one; it was a positive message about atheist families.  This is just assholiness and trying to piss off the god botherers.

Rule number one of atheist advertising should be "don't be an asshole."

Yeah, absolutely.  This is really dumb.  Also, to be dead, one has to have first existed, right?  Therefore, they are professing their belief in God now.

Either that or they're referencing Nietzsche, whose declaration that God is dead is meant metaphorically.

The average "bible-thumper" south of the Mason-Dixon line has no idea who Friedrich Nietzsche was. These Atheists certainly fail at marketing, IMHO.

Who?

I believe he was the inventor of the moustache.


I thought that was Chuck Norris.
 
2013-03-30 04:50:13 PM
Meanwhile in Memphis, the KKK is disrupting the Mayor's Easter Egg roll
 
2013-03-30 04:52:17 PM
Atheists are so mad, that people practice religion, that they formed a 501c corporation?

And instead of fighting to keep religious paraphenalia off of government property and buildings they just go around mocking people who believe in practicing religion?

They sure are starting to sound like a religion themselves....I mean are they trying to convert people to atheism through shaming because that's what it sounds like they are trying to do.....
 
2013-03-30 04:52:29 PM

Krymson Tyde: whidbey: Krymson Tyde: Forbidden Doughnut: Lionel Mandrake: ekdikeo4: FloydA: That one's pretty dickish.

Last year's "Our Families Are Great Without Religion" was a good one; it was a positive message about atheist families.  This is just assholiness and trying to piss off the god botherers.

Rule number one of atheist advertising should be "don't be an asshole."

Yeah, absolutely.  This is really dumb.  Also, to be dead, one has to have first existed, right?  Therefore, they are professing their belief in God now.

Either that or they're referencing Nietzsche, whose declaration that God is dead is meant metaphorically.

The average "bible-thumper" south of the Mason-Dixon line has no idea who Friedrich Nietzsche was. These Atheists certainly fail at marketing, IMHO.

Who?

I believe he was the inventor of the moustache.

I thought that was Chuck Norris.


You're right, but originally it was Agnes Moorhead.
 
2013-03-30 04:54:14 PM

GAT_00: This makes no sense.  Why would atheists say that something that never existed is dead?


This.  It's a goofy graphic.
 
2013-03-30 04:54:30 PM

Giltric: Atheists are so mad, that people practice religion, that they formed a 501c corporation?

And instead of fighting to keep religious paraphenalia off of government property and buildings they just go around mocking people who believe in practicing religion?

They sure are starting to sound like a religion themselves....I mean are they trying to convert people to atheism through shaming because that's what it sounds like they are trying to do.....


Odd that you'd consider such free-thinking individuals a threat when they don't agree with your antiquated worldview. Just saying.
 
2013-03-30 04:55:57 PM
i28.photobucket.com

Really guys, did you have to feed their persecution complex and give Bill O' Reilly more stuff to whine about?
 
2013-03-30 04:57:22 PM

GAT_00: This makes no sense.  Why would atheists say that something that never existed is dead?


Because, for these people, atheism is a religion; therefore, atheism is a religion.
 
2013-03-30 04:58:11 PM

KrispyKritter: It's fun to mock peoples personal beliefs. Live and let live is for pussies.

/ morans




The majority of Fark threads consist of mocking people for what they believe.
 
2013-03-30 04:58:20 PM

whidbey: Giltric: Atheists are so mad, that people practice religion, that they formed a 501c corporation?

And instead of fighting to keep religious paraphenalia off of government property and buildings they just go around mocking people who believe in practicing religion?

They sure are starting to sound like a religion themselves....I mean are they trying to convert people to atheism through shaming because that's what it sounds like they are trying to do.....

Odd that you'd consider such free-thinking individuals a threat when they don't agree with your antiquated worldview. Just saying.


My antiquated world view is "mind your own business" something that atheists nor the religious have a grasp of.

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.
 
2013-03-30 04:58:43 PM

Giltric: Atheists are so mad, that people practice religion, that they formed a 501c corporation?

And instead of fighting to keep religious paraphenalia off of government property and buildings they just go around mocking people who believe in practicing religion?

They sure are starting to sound like a religion themselves....I mean are they trying to convert people to atheism through shaming because that's what it sounds like they are trying to do.....


Meh, religious holidays/events are the only atheists really get to fire up the troll-mobile, jumping up and down "look at me pleeeease!!!".
 
2013-03-30 05:00:04 PM

Lionel Mandrake: ekdikeo4: FloydA: That one's pretty dickish.

Last year's "Our Families Are Great Without Religion" was a good one; it was a positive message about atheist families.  This is just assholiness and trying to piss off the god botherers.

Rule number one of atheist advertising should be "don't be an asshole."

Yeah, absolutely.  This is really dumb.  Also, to be dead, one has to have first existed, right?  Therefore, they are professing their belief in God now.

Either that or they're referencing Nietzsche, whose declaration that God is dead is meant metaphorically.


The misuse of that quote is one of the most enduring legacies to the fact that atheism does not instantly equate to intelligence.
 
2013-03-30 05:01:43 PM

Giltric: whidbey: Giltric: Atheists are so mad, that people practice religion, that they formed a 501c corporation?

And instead of fighting to keep religious paraphenalia off of government property and buildings they just go around mocking people who believe in practicing religion?

They sure are starting to sound like a religion themselves....I mean are they trying to convert people to atheism through shaming because that's what it sounds like they are trying to do.....

Odd that you'd consider such free-thinking individuals a threat when they don't agree with your antiquated worldview. Just saying.

My antiquated world view is "mind your own business" something that atheists nor the religious have a grasp of.

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.


Says the man who crams his opinion in every politics thread.
 
2013-03-30 05:02:55 PM

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.
 
2013-03-30 05:06:20 PM
i1032.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-30 05:07:03 PM
The champions of reason strike again.
 
2013-03-30 05:07:18 PM
Easter Monday is April 1st, I'll be shocked if we don't see more of this.
 
2013-03-30 05:08:04 PM

cc_rider: [i28.photobucket.com image 551x675]

Really guys, did you have to feed their persecution complex and give Bill O' Reilly more stuff to whine about?


What does BRB mean?
 
2013-03-30 05:09:29 PM

DrD'isInfotainment: cc_rider: [i28.photobucket.com image 551x675]

Really guys, did you have to feed their persecution complex and give Bill O' Reilly more stuff to whine about?

What does BRB mean?


Sorry sorry: Be right Back...dah
 
2013-03-30 05:09:36 PM

DrD'isInfotainment: cc_rider: [i28.photobucket.com image 551x675]

Really guys, did you have to feed their persecution complex and give Bill O' Reilly more stuff to whine about?

What does BRB mean?


It means "barbecued ribs below." It's an old A&W in-joke.
 
2013-03-30 05:09:59 PM

s2s2s2: [i1032.photobucket.com image 531x199]


Still can't figure out how a Jewish guy missed all the cues on not stereotyping left by anti-Semites throughout history.
 
2013-03-30 05:10:42 PM

Repo Man: KrispyKritter: It's fun to mock peoples personal beliefs. Live and let live is for pussies.

/ morans

The majority of Fark threads consist of mocking people for what they believe.


No just stupid Republicans and other annoying right-wing conservative types.
 
2013-03-30 05:12:37 PM

Lionel Mandrake: s2s2s2: [i1032.photobucket.com image 531x199]

Still can't figure out how a Jewish guy missed all the cues on not stereotyping left by anti-Semites throughout history.


Tell me how you feel about "Christians" and "Republicans" feel free to single out "Old White Men" of note.

Also on the table: Religion, The Religious.
 
2013-03-30 05:13:20 PM
Further proof that atheism is the new "religion of peace" just like the Taliban.

/sure glad I don't know and don't care about the creation of the universe.
//Time for some lunch.
 
2013-03-30 05:14:02 PM

Forbidden Doughnut: Lionel Mandrake: ekdikeo4: FloydA: That one's pretty dickish.

Last year's "Our Families Are Great Without Religion" was a good one; it was a positive message about atheist families.  This is just assholiness and trying to piss off the god botherers.

Rule number one of atheist advertising should be "don't be an asshole."

Yeah, absolutely.  This is really dumb.  Also, to be dead, one has to have first existed, right?  Therefore, they are professing their belief in God now.

Either that or they're referencing Nietzsche, whose declaration that God is dead is meant metaphorically.

The average "bible-thumper" south of the Mason-Dixon line has no idea who Friedrich Nietzsche was. These Atheists certainly fail at marketing, IMHO.


Right, you should act stupid because other people are stupid.
 
MFL
2013-03-30 05:14:20 PM
Atheist liberals = free thinkers?

L.O.L.
 
2013-03-30 05:14:44 PM

whidbey: No just stupid Republicans and other annoying right-wing conservative types.


So it is ok to make fun of people for being stupid, because it often leads to the horror of living life paralyzed by irrational fear?

U R A BEACON!
 
2013-03-30 05:16:54 PM

whidbey: Repo Man: KrispyKritter: It's fun to mock peoples personal beliefs. Live and let live is for pussies.

/ morans

The majority of Fark threads consist of mocking people for what they believe.

No just stupid Republicans and other annoying right-wing conservative types.




And anti vaxers, homeopaths, chem trail believers, birthers, 9/11 truthers. All of whom, in my opinion, deserve being treated derisively for believing in demonstrable nonsense . Should I care if my making fun of a birther makes him cling to his delusional belief even more tightly than before? As these sorts of people seem to be immune to reason, facts, and evidence, I really don't think so.
 
2013-03-30 05:17:35 PM

Krymson Tyde: Forbidden Doughnut: Lionel Mandrake: ekdikeo4: FloydA: That one's pretty dickish.

Last year's "Our Families Are Great Without Religion" was a good one; it was a positive message about atheist families.  This is just assholiness and trying to piss off the god botherers.

Rule number one of atheist advertising should be "don't be an asshole."

Yeah, absolutely.  This is really dumb.  Also, to be dead, one has to have first existed, right?  Therefore, they are professing their belief in God now.

Either that or they're referencing Nietzsche, whose declaration that God is dead is meant metaphorically.

The average "bible-thumper" south of the Mason-Dixon line has no idea who Friedrich Nietzsche was. These Atheists certainly fail at marketing, IMHO.

Who?


This video should help educate you.
 
2013-03-30 05:17:55 PM

s2s2s2: Lionel Mandrake: s2s2s2: [i1032.photobucket.com image 531x199]

Still can't figure out how a Jewish guy missed all the cues on not stereotyping left by anti-Semites throughout history.

Tell me how you feel about "Christians" and "Republicans" feel free to single out "Old White Men" of note.

Also on the table: Religion, The Religious.


You sound oppressed.
 
2013-03-30 05:19:07 PM

Repo Man: And anti vaxers, homeopaths, chem trail believers, birthers, 9/11 truthers. All of whom, in my opinion, deserve being treated derisively for believing in demonstrable nonsense . Should I care if my making fun of a birther makes him cling to his delusional belief even more tightly than before? As these sorts of people seem to be immune to reason, facts, and evidence, I really don't think so.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-30 05:19:55 PM

Lionel Mandrake: You sound oppressed.


You can hear me?
 
2013-03-30 05:20:10 PM

MFL: Atheist liberals = free thinkers?

L.O.L.


Obviously, people who demand evidence for things are the real dogmatists!
 
2013-03-30 05:22:45 PM

Repo Man: who demand evidence


Rules are rules, right?
 
2013-03-30 05:24:51 PM
Yes. This was  exactly what the current religious-political climate needed.
 
2013-03-30 05:31:28 PM

The_Forensicator: Krymson Tyde: Forbidden Doughnut: Lionel Mandrake: ekdikeo4: FloydA: That one's pretty dickish.

Last year's "Our Families Are Great Without Religion" was a good one; it was a positive message about atheist families.  This is just assholiness and trying to piss off the god botherers.

Rule number one of atheist advertising should be "don't be an asshole."

Yeah, absolutely.  This is really dumb.  Also, to be dead, one has to have first existed, right?  Therefore, they are professing their belief in God now.

Either that or they're referencing Nietzsche, whose declaration that God is dead is meant metaphorically.

The average "bible-thumper" south of the Mason-Dixon line has no idea who Friedrich Nietzsche was. These Atheists certainly fail at marketing, IMHO.

Who?

Some European guy.


Chuck Norris is European?
 
2013-03-30 05:41:54 PM

Flappyhead: Easter Monday is April 1st, I'll be shocked if we don't see more of this.


If it were, you might be right
 
2013-03-30 05:46:48 PM

Shostie: FloydA: Rule number one of atheist advertising should be "don't be an asshole."

As far as I'm concerned, that's rule number one of life.


THESE.

/"Hello babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. On the outside, babies, you've got a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies-"God damn it, you've got to be kind."
 
2013-03-30 05:50:34 PM

FloydA: True.  It's particularly important for despised minority groups who are trying to gain social acceptance, of course.


Of course, one who despises another person for not believing in one's proof-less constructs deserves all the assholish behavior that comes their way..
 
2013-03-30 05:52:29 PM

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.
 
2013-03-30 05:52:42 PM

pxlboy: GAT_00: This makes no sense.  Why would atheists say that something that never existed is dead?

LOL

Stuff like this is why I stay out of the atheism, tipping, tattoo, and Facebook threads.

/carry on


images4.wikia.nocookie.net
Best start believing in Atheist threads.... You're in one.
 
2013-03-30 05:54:13 PM

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.




An absence of belief is not based on faith.
 
2013-03-30 05:58:08 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: Atheism isn't a religion, but it is based on faith rather than irrefutable evidence.


Where is the irrefutable evidence of the existence of a god?
 
2013-03-30 06:00:12 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: Atheism isn't a religion, but it is based on faith rather than irrefutable evidence


Faith in what?
 
2013-03-30 06:01:23 PM
img198.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-30 06:01:26 PM
That's what I hate about the term trolling. It used to imply some sort of creative or funny way to screw with someone. Now it's just devolved into being a dick and convincing yourself youre funny
 
2013-03-30 06:03:16 PM
When a sitting president says Christians should not be considered citizens, maybe I'll give a sh*t about how mean atheists are being to Christians by using their first amendment rights. Until then... your religion is your business, stop trying to make it mine.
 
2013-03-30 06:05:20 PM

Repo Man: An absence of belief is not based on faith.


A strong determination not to believe without evidence is.
 
2013-03-30 06:06:06 PM

GAT_00: This makes no sense.  Why would atheists say that something that never existed is dead?


My exact thought as well.
 
2013-03-30 06:06:34 PM
Not helping...
 
2013-03-30 06:08:32 PM
Reason 2.0
 
2013-03-30 06:08:46 PM
This is ridiculous. It's not funny or witty, and doesn't make any statement except, "Oh, hey, lets give others more fuel to stereotype atheists!"

I mean, I agree with a lot of the atheist crap that hits Fark. I can't be considered 'live and let live' by any stretch of the phrase... and I still think this is unnecessary and stupid.
 
2013-03-30 06:16:28 PM

Kurmudgeon: Repo Man: An absence of belief is not based on faith.

A strong determination not to believe without evidence is.


That's skepticism, not faith.
 
2013-03-30 06:17:00 PM

Kurmudgeon: Repo Man: An absence of belief is not based on faith.

A strong determination not to believe without evidence is.




Requiring evidence that something exists before believing in it is a form of faith?
 
2013-03-30 06:19:59 PM

Kurmudgeon: Repo Man: An absence of belief is not based on faith.

A strong determination not to believe without evidence is.


What irrefutable evidence convinced you that the Tooth Faerie isn't real?

Or are you still noncommittal about the TF's existence or non-existence?
 
2013-03-30 06:24:50 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Kurmudgeon: Repo Man: An absence of belief is not based on faith.

A strong determination not to believe without evidence is.

What irrefutable evidence convinced you that the Tooth Faerie isn't real?

Or are you still noncommittal about the TF's existence or non-existence?


The burden of proof is on the person making the claim that something exists. Not the other way around.
 
2013-03-30 06:39:29 PM

fusillade762: Lionel Mandrake: Kurmudgeon: Repo Man: An absence of belief is not based on faith.

A strong determination not to believe without evidence is.

What irrefutable evidence convinced you that the Tooth Faerie isn't real?

Or are you still noncommittal about the TF's existence or non-existence?

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim that something exists. Not the other way around.


My point was that the proof of non-existence is impossible.

I'm assuming he doesn't believe in the Tooth Faerie, so I was sarcastically asking him what proof of her non-existence finally convinced him.
 
2013-03-30 06:39:31 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Or are you still noncommittal about the TF's existence or non-existence?


I haven't bothered to pay the $5 per month to see if it exists or not.
 
2013-03-30 06:52:16 PM
Christ what assholes.

1) What never existed can't be dead
2) That's just a dick move

I have a compromise with Christians: don't try to convert me, I won't try to test your faith.  Live and let live dammit.
 
2013-03-30 06:53:30 PM

EnviroDude: 2/10. The funniest one I read this week is "Judas is the Reason for the Season"


Oh come on, it deserves at least a 4.

That judas line *is* funnier though...
 
2013-03-30 06:55:39 PM

Zarquon's Flat Tire: What never existed can't be dead


"That is not dead which can eternal lie
Yet with strange aeons even death may die."

 
2013-03-30 06:56:24 PM

Zarquon's Flat Tire: 1) What never existed can't be dead


Yeah, but that is not dead which can eternal lie
 
2013-03-30 06:59:12 PM
As far as I can tell, men more readily reject religion. Without fathers embracing the church, religion will die out. A while back I read that 2/3 of children attend church as adults if their fathers regularly attended throughout their childhood. Maternal attendance doesn't seem to matter. Maintain the separation of church and state and the country will gradually become less religious as a whole. However, people don't want to "come out" as atheists because they don't want to look like assholes. Let the losers be the assholes.

/wish I could find that data
 
2013-03-30 07:03:03 PM
A real troll would be to find that God's Diner or whatever it was called comic strip that had Jesus drinking away his woes with the pagan goddess of easter talking about how cute the eggs and little bunnies are, make a thousand copies, place them in eggs with hersey kisses and place them all over an egg hunt.


At least I'd do that if I had help in placing the eggs and I had a copy of that comic strip.
 
2013-03-30 07:03:04 PM

had98c: That's skepticism, not faith.


Close, that's skepticism based on faith. Faith is still a component.

"Requiring evidence that something exists before believing in it is a form of faith?"

Strongly disbelieving something without proof most certainly is.
I am sure this will turn into another long song and dance and twisting of words but atheists have no more proof for what they disbelieve than what most believers do for what they do believe.
Besides, you can't prove a negative.
 
2013-03-30 07:05:35 PM

Kurmudgeon: I am sure this will turn into another long song and dance and twisting of words but atheists have no more proof for what they disbelieve than what most believers do for what they do believe.
Besides, you can't prove a negative.


You realize you just countered your own argument right?
 
2013-03-30 07:10:03 PM

Kurmudgeon: had98c: That's skepticism, not faith.

Close, that's skepticism based on faith. Faith is still a component.

"Requiring evidence that something exists before believing in it is a form of faith?"

Strongly disbelieving something without proof most certainly is.
I am sure this will turn into another long song and dance and twisting of words but atheists have no more proof for what they disbelieve than what most believers do for what they do believe.
Besides, you can't prove a negative.


No, it's just skepticism. You don't need any faith to not believe in something. It's the default position. It doesn't require proving a negative, because the burden of proof is on the person making the claim that something exists.
 
2013-03-30 07:10:45 PM

Kurmudgeon: had98c: That's skepticism, not faith.

Close, that's skepticism based on faith. Faith is still a component.

"Requiring evidence that something exists before believing in it is a form of faith?"

Strongly disbelieving something without proof most certainly is.
I am sure this will turn into another long song and dance and twisting of words but atheists have no more proof for what they disbelieve than what most believers do for what they do believe.
Besides, you can't prove a negative.




What god(s) should people believe in and why? Is your lack of belief in Apollo a matter of faith? Can you prove that Apollo does not exist? If you cannot, is that a compelling reason to believe that such a being exists?
 
2013-03-30 07:20:18 PM
I'm sure this was only aimed at those people who make judgmental ads and campaigns against non-believers.

Everyone else should just ignore it, like they do the judgmental ads and campaigns against non-believers.
 
2013-03-30 07:22:35 PM

Repo Man: Kurmudgeon: had98c: That's skepticism, not faith.

Close, that's skepticism based on faith. Faith is still a component.

"Requiring evidence that something exists before believing in it is a form of faith?"

Strongly disbelieving something without proof most certainly is.
I am sure this will turn into another long song and dance and twisting of words but atheists have no more proof for what they disbelieve than what most believers do for what they do believe.
Besides, you can't prove a negative.

What god(s) should people believe in and why? Is your lack of belief in Apollo a matter of faith? Can you prove that Apollo does not exist? If you cannot, is that a compelling reason to believe that such a being exists?


2.bp.blogspot.com
NON-BELIEVER!!!
 
2013-03-30 07:26:42 PM

Fart_Machine: common sense is an oxymoron: Atheism isn't a religion, but it is based on faith rather than irrefutable evidence.

Where is the irrefutable evidence of the existence of a god?



IMHO, there is none. Nor is there irrefutable evidence of the NONexistence of a god.
 
2013-03-30 07:29:14 PM
Ho ho ho, this fills me with humor to know when the wrong side of this argument is dead, none shall mourn their passing.
 
2013-03-30 07:33:45 PM

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".
 
2013-03-30 07:33:51 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: Fart_Machine: common sense is an oxymoron: Atheism isn't a religion, but it is based on faith rather than irrefutable evidence.

Where is the irrefutable evidence of the existence of a god?


IMHO, there is none. Nor is there irrefutable evidence of the NONexistence of a god.


Or the nonexistence of flying pink unicorns that fart rainbows and poop cheeseburgers.
 
2013-03-30 07:35:10 PM
"Don't be an asshole" makes a pretty good religious tenet. That's because it's so damn common-sense that it can be used inside of religion and outside. So, y'know, "don't be an asshole". Oy.

Also, quoting Nietzsche makes you look about as stable and open-minded as quoting Ayn Rand, IMO.
 
2013-03-30 07:37:30 PM

Repo Man: Kurmudgeon: Repo Man: An absence of belief is not based on faith.

A strong determination not to believe without evidence is.

Requiring evidence that something exists before believing in it is a form of faith?



When there is no evidence to support either side of the argument, any assertion on either side is ultimately based on faith.

It might help to try to define what it is that you don't believe in.
 
2013-03-30 07:39:08 PM

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?
 
2013-03-30 07:39:09 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: any assertion on either side is ultimately based on faith.

It might help to try to define what it is that you don't believe in


I don't believe in things with no evidence. That doesn't require any faith whatsoever.
 
2013-03-30 07:39:45 PM

Lionel Mandrake: common sense is an oxymoron: Fart_Machine: common sense is an oxymoron: Atheism isn't a religion, but it is based on faith rather than irrefutable evidence.

Where is the irrefutable evidence of the existence of a god?


IMHO, there is none. Nor is there irrefutable evidence of the NONexistence of a god.

Or the nonexistence of flying pink unicorns that fart rainbows and poop cheeseburgers.




People who do not believe in flying pink unicorns that fart rainbows and poop cheeseburgers are just as bad as people who do! For some reason.

Astonishingly, this seems to be considered some sort of argument.
 
2013-03-30 07:41:13 PM

KrispyKritter: It's fun to mock peoples personal beliefs. Live and let live is for pussies.
/ morans


That's an idiotic idea.
 
2013-03-30 07:44:33 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: Repo Man: Kurmudgeon: Repo Man: An absence of belief is not based on faith.

A strong determination not to believe without evidence is.

Requiring evidence that something exists before believing in it is a form of faith?


When there is no evidence to support either side of the argument, any assertion on either side is ultimately based on faith.

It might help to try to define what it is that you don't believe in.


The only assertion that I'm making is that, if I do not find the evidence/arguments in favor of a proposition compelling, I'm not going to agree that the proposition in question is likely to be true. You know, extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence and all of that.
 
2013-03-30 07:44:41 PM

cameroncrazy1984: I don't believe in things with no evidence. That doesn't require any faith whatsoever.


You believe in the concepts of causality and evidence by faith.

You might be completely imaginary, and none of what you perceive exists. It takes faith to declare that the universe is real.
 
2013-03-30 07:48:45 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: cameroncrazy1984: I don't believe in things with no evidence. That doesn't require any faith whatsoever.

You believe in the concepts of causality and evidence by faith.

You might be completely imaginary, and none of what you perceive exists. It takes faith to declare that the universe is real.


Uh, no, you might be completely imaginary.  I'm farking real.
 
2013-03-30 07:50:13 PM

Lionel Mandrake: common sense is an oxymoron: Fart_Machine: common sense is an oxymoron: Atheism isn't a religion, but it is based on faith rather than irrefutable evidence.

Where is the irrefutable evidence of the existence of a god?


IMHO, there is none. Nor is there irrefutable evidence of the NONexistence of a god.

Or the nonexistence of flying pink unicorns that fart rainbows and poop cheeseburgers.



Flying unicorns of any color would be ruled out on aerodynamic grounds.

Rainbows are an optical phenomenon unrelated to flatulence.

As for the excretion of cheeseburgers...digestive systems DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!
 
2013-03-30 07:50:24 PM

AliceBToklasLives: Lenny_da_Hog: cameroncrazy1984: I don't believe in things with no evidence. That doesn't require any faith whatsoever.

You believe in the concepts of causality and evidence by faith.

You might be completely imaginary, and none of what you perceive exists. It takes faith to declare that the universe is real.

Uh, no, you might be completely imaginary.  I'm farking real.


Zealot.
 
2013-03-30 07:50:36 PM
<img src="i812.photobucket.com ">
 
2013-03-30 07:57:53 PM

had98c: No, it's just skepticism. You don't need any faith to not believe in something. It's the default position.


You can't have skepticism until you have something to be skeptical of.
Also:
skep·tic /ˈskeptik/Noun
1.A person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.
2.A person who doubts the truth of Christianity and other religions; an atheist or agnostic.

Note there is no mention of actual proof there, you can do it without proof.
If you have no proof, your assumption is a matter of faith, even if not an organized one.
 
2013-03-30 07:58:29 PM

Repo Man: common sense is an oxymoron: Repo Man: Kurmudgeon: Repo Man: An absence of belief is not based on faith.

A strong determination not to believe without evidence is.

Requiring evidence that something exists before believing in it is a form of faith?


When there is no evidence to support either side of the argument, any assertion on either side is ultimately based on faith.

It might help to try to define what it is that you don't believe in.

The only assertion that I'm making is that, if I do not find the evidence/arguments in favor of a proposition compelling, I'm not going to agree that the proposition in question is likely to be true. You know, extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence and all of that.



I agree, but stating that something is unlikely is not the same as claiming that it is impossible.

For the record, I don't believe that the existence of God(s) CAN be proven; and furthermore, given the fact that there seem to be about as many definitions of "god" as there are believers, I find it pointless to believe in one particular definition over any of the others.
 
2013-03-30 08:00:55 PM

Kurmudgeon: skep·tic /ˈskeptik/Noun
1.A person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.
2.A person who doubts the truth of Christianity and other religions; an atheist or agnostic


I'm skeptical of this definition.
 
2013-03-30 08:01:28 PM
The McRib has come back like twenty times. Ball's in your court, Jesus.
~ Patton Oswalt
 
2013-03-30 08:04:25 PM

AliceBToklasLives: Kurmudgeon: skep·tic /ˈskeptik/Noun
1.A person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.
2.A person who doubts the truth of Christianity and other religions; an atheist or agnostic

I'm skeptical of this definition.


I'm skeptical of either his intelligence or his honesty, depending on whether he's a troll or just stupid.
 
2013-03-30 08:06:47 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: Repo Man: common sense is an oxymoron: Repo Man: Kurmudgeon: Repo Man: An absence of belief is not based on faith.

A strong determination not to believe without evidence is.

Requiring evidence that something exists before believing in it is a form of faith?


When there is no evidence to support either side of the argument, any assertion on either side is ultimately based on faith.

It might help to try to define what it is that you don't believe in.

The only assertion that I'm making is that, if I do not find the evidence/arguments in favor of a proposition compelling, I'm not going to agree that the proposition in question is likely to be true. You know, extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence and all of that.


I agree, but stating that something is unlikely is not the same as claiming that it is impossible.

For the record, I don't believe that the existence of God(s) CAN be proven; and furthermore, given the fact that there seem to be about as many definitions of "god" as there are believers, I find it pointless to believe in one particular definition over any of the others.




So, who is claiming anything is impossible?
 
2013-03-30 08:07:08 PM

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."

explain to me how the atheist is relying on "faith."
 
2013-03-30 08:19:14 PM

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?
 
2013-03-30 08:23:09 PM
To determine if your atheism has any relation to faith, answer the question below.

Is there a god?
 
2013-03-30 08:24:53 PM
One thing I always enjoy about these threads is the special pleading. The Christian theists consider it insulting when you lump their god in with all of the others. Of course they don't believe in Zeus or Apollo, or Isis - those gods are just made up! it's like what Doug Stanhope said: "That's why they have to pump into your head when you're still little... ...and your brain grows around it like a clubfoot."
 
2013-03-30 08:26:36 PM
www.patentspostgrant.com

How am I the first one?
 
2013-03-30 08:27:55 PM

s2s2s2: To determine if your atheism has any relation to faith, answer the question below.

Is there a god?


There is no evidence that there is a god, no.
 
2013-03-30 08:30:06 PM

cameroncrazy1984: s2s2s2: To determine if your atheism has any relation to faith, answer the question below.

Is there a god?

There is no evidence that there is a god, no.


How can you be sure of that?
 
2013-03-30 08:32:23 PM

s2s2s2: cameroncrazy1984: s2s2s2: To determine if your atheism has any relation to faith, answer the question below.

Is there a god?

There is no evidence that there is a god, no.

How can you be sure of that?


Because there is no evidence that points to a god existing.
 
2013-03-30 08:34:33 PM

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


Because your belief in such things as 'evidence' and 'facts' is is just as much a belief as theirs in God. Its the religious form of Both Sides Are Bad.
 
2013-03-30 08:35:39 PM
wow, I didn't think our local goons would respond so strongly to such an obvious troll move, but these guys are really frothing.

7/10, dallas.
 
2013-03-30 08:38:29 PM

cameroncrazy1984: s2s2s2: cameroncrazy1984: s2s2s2: To determine if your atheism has any relation to faith, answer the question below.

Is there a god?

There is no evidence that there is a god, no.

How can you be sure of that?

Because there is no evidence that points to a god existing.





So you have examined all evidence of any kind, any where, and determined, through your own research, that there exists no evidence pointing toward the existence of some extra terrestrial intelligence?

I bet you're just really confident in what you believe. If only there was a word for that.
 
2013-03-30 08:38:41 PM

winterbraid: wow, I didn't think our local goons would respond so strongly to such an obvious troll move, but these guys are really frothing.


Nothing says 'I have complete faith in God' than taking the bait into beating atheists over the head with bad logic.
 
2013-03-30 08:39:07 PM

s2s2s2: cameroncrazy1984: s2s2s2: To determine if your atheism has any relation to faith, answer the question below.

Is there a god?

There is no evidence that there is a god, no.

How can you be sure of that?


Because someone in this thread would have pointed it out.
 
2013-03-30 08:40:17 PM

s2s2s2: So you have examined all evidence of any kind, any where, and determined, through your own research, that there exists no evidence pointing toward the existence of some extra terrestrial intelligence?


Jesus was a space alien. Three men in black said don't report this.
 
2013-03-30 08:41:53 PM
Don't get me wrong. I know of no testable evidence for the existence of god, either.
 
2013-03-30 08:42:01 PM

s2s2s2: So you have examined all evidence of any kind, any where, and determined, through your own research, that there exists no evidence pointing toward the existence of some extra terrestrial intelligence?

I bet you're just really confident in what you believe. If only there was a word for that.


Both Sides Are Bad, So Vote Jesus.
 
2013-03-30 08:42:45 PM

BMFPitt: s2s2s2: cameroncrazy1984: s2s2s2: To determine if your atheism has any relation to faith, answer the question below.

Is there a god?

There is no evidence that there is a god, no.

How can you be sure of that?

Because someone in this thread would have pointed it out.


This.  If there was any evidence whatsoever for the existance of a deity, the 4 billion theists on this planet would be rubbing our noses in it constantly.
 
2013-03-30 08:44:02 PM

s2s2s2: I bet you're just really confident in what you believe. If only there was a word for that


The scientific method?
 
2013-03-30 08:44:20 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: s2s2s2: So you have examined all evidence of any kind, any where, and determined, through your own research, that there exists no evidence pointing toward the existence of some extra terrestrial intelligence?

I bet you're just really confident in what you believe. If only there was a word for that.

Both Sides Are Bad, So Vote Jesus.


Nah, just helping Cam find the faith he lost drinking beer(BEER, YOU GUYS!) in the London Underground.
 
2013-03-30 08:45:01 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."

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



I am not a theist, and I make no claims regarding the existence of "god." Any such proposals I may make are purely hypothetical.

Some theists say, "God is [definition A];" other theists say, "God is [definition B];" etc. There are definitions of "god" that are not part of any organized religion, and there are definitions of "god" that may be believed by nobody.

If one assumes that "god" = "creator of the universe," then perhaps "god" was a long-deceased scientist who conducted a physics experiment somewhere/somewhen which produced a rapidly expanding bubble of space-time. In this case, there is no way to distinguish the existence of "god" from the nonexistence of same. The origin of the universe is beyond our ability to observe.

Asking a particular theist to "show me" MAY rule out that individual's definition of "god" but does nothing to address any other definitions.

When there is no way (at least from our current perspective) to settle the question one way or the other, how is the statement "There is NO god" based on anything other than faith?
 
2013-03-30 08:45:02 PM
Sorry, that's more of a phrase.
 
2013-03-30 08:45:55 PM

cameroncrazy1984: s2s2s2: I bet you're just really confident in what you believe. If only there was a word for that

The scientific method?


They came up with a way to use it to prove a negative?
I gotta renew my subscription to Popular Science!
 
2013-03-30 08:46:44 PM

s2s2s2: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: s2s2s2: So you have examined all evidence of any kind, any where, and determined, through your own research, that there exists no evidence pointing toward the existence of some extra terrestrial intelligence?

I bet you're just really confident in what you believe. If only there was a word for that.

Both Sides Are Bad, So Vote Jesus.

Nah, just helping Cam find the faith he lost drinking beer(BEER, YOU GUYS!) in the London Underground.


I have no faith. I have no idea why you'd bring up my profile picture, but glad you looked at it!
 
2013-03-30 08:48:10 PM

s2s2s2: cameroncrazy1984: s2s2s2: I bet you're just really confident in what you believe. If only there was a word for that

The scientific method?

They came up with a way to use it to prove a negative?
I gotta renew my subscription to Popular Science!


Has it proven the existence of god yet? No? Hey, science works!
 
2013-03-30 08:49:09 PM
Faith is believing in something without evidence. Science is proving something with evidence. I don't have faith.
 
2013-03-30 08:49:20 PM

cameroncrazy1984: s2s2s2: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: s2s2s2: So you have examined all evidence of any kind, any where, and determined, through your own research, that there exists no evidence pointing toward the existence of some extra terrestrial intelligence?

I bet you're just really confident in what you believe. If only there was a word for that.

Both Sides Are Bad, So Vote Jesus.

Nah, just helping Cam find the faith he lost drinking beer(BEER, YOU GUYS!) in the London Underground.

I have no faith. I have no idea why you'd bring up my profile picture, but glad you looked at it!





I was recalling a thread in which your trip had become a point of conversation. Just to let you know I respect you as a real person, and bear* you no ill will.

*is it "bare"?
 
2013-03-30 08:51:40 PM

s2s2s2: I was recalling a thread in which your trip had become a point of conversation


I don't remember this thread.

Perhaps I was drunk at the time!

s2s2s2: Just to let you know I respect you as a real person, and bear* you no ill will.


It's "bear"
 
2013-03-30 08:52:18 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Faith is believing in something without evidence. Science is proving something with evidence. I don't have faith.


So what you meant to say was, "I have seen no evidence to uphold any contention re: god."

Saying "no" to my question is an assertion.
 
2013-03-30 08:52:58 PM
In summary:

Christians: "On Good Friday, we celebrate the death of [1/3] God."

Dallas atheists: "Let me paraphrase: God is dead. Have a good Friday"

Christians, agnostics, and self-hating atheists: "ATHEISM IS A RELIGION."
 
2013-03-30 08:53:16 PM
Science has, literally, nothing to say about the existence of god. That does not qualify the assertion that god does not exist.
 
2013-03-30 08:53:33 PM

s2s2s2: cameroncrazy1984: Faith is believing in something without evidence. Science is proving something with evidence. I don't have faith.

So what you meant to say was, "I have seen no evidence to uphold any contention re: god."

Saying "no" to my question is an assertion.


Loaded question.
 
2013-03-30 08:55:27 PM

s2s2s2: That does not qualify the assertion that god does not exist.


If god did exist, wouldn't there be evidence of it?
 
2013-03-30 08:55:41 PM

antisocialworker: In summary:

Christians: "On Good Friday, we celebrate the death of [1/3] God."

Dallas atheists: "Let me paraphrase: God is dead. Have a good Friday"

Christians, agnostics, and self-hating atheists: "ATHEISM IS A RELIGION."


That's like saying "In sum, Jack Bauer saved America."  You're skipping all the good parts.
 
2013-03-30 08:55:49 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: s2s2s2: cameroncrazy1984: Faith is believing in something without evidence. Science is proving something with evidence. I don't have faith.

So what you meant to say was, "I have seen no evidence to uphold any contention re: god."

Saying "no" to my question is an assertion.

Loaded question.


Obviously*. I was hoping this would have been the Weeners.

*also effective
 
2013-03-30 08:57:27 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: When there is no way (at least from our current perspective) to settle the question one way or the other, how is the statement "There is NO god" based on anything other than faith?


Insert Morbo here.  "Faith does not work that way!"

To put it this way, think of Harvey. What you're saying is that its a matter of faith that Elwood's a little different upstairs and that there is no Harvey the pooka. Or for a more real world and less amicable argument, try David Berkowitz. Is it a matter of faith that there was no dog telling him to kill people?
 
2013-03-30 08:59:03 PM

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.
 
2013-03-30 08:59:58 PM

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.


You're just taking it on faith that unicorns don't exist, man!
 
2013-03-30 09:00:36 PM

cameroncrazy1984: s2s2s2: That does not qualify the assertion that god does not exist.

If god did exist, wouldn't there be evidence of it?


Maybe. Universe is a big place. Hell, maybe the evidence exists, but is currently beyond our means to detect it, or relate it to such existence.
 
2013-03-30 09:00:57 PM

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.
 
2013-03-30 09:02:12 PM

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.
 
2013-03-30 09:05:39 PM
savethenarwhals.org
 
2013-03-30 09:06:01 PM

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.


Psychology and neurology are sciences.
 
2013-03-30 09:07:49 PM
Another picture of a unicorn(look it up):
www.frogmusic.com
 
2013-03-30 09:09:11 PM

s2s2s2: cameroncrazy1984: s2s2s2: That does not qualify the assertion that god does not exist.

If god did exist, wouldn't there be evidence of it?

Maybe. Universe is a big place. Hell, maybe the evidence exists, but is currently beyond our means to detect it, or relate it to such existence.


Until such a time as that evidence presents itself, then god in fact does not exist.
 
2013-03-30 09:09:18 PM

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


You're not helping yourself.
 
2013-03-30 09:11:51 PM

FloydA: That one's pretty dickish.

Last year's "Our Families Are Great Without Religion" was a good one; it was a positive message about atheist families.  This is just assholiness and trying to piss off the god botherers.

Rule number one of atheist advertising should be "don't be an asshole."


And that's why you'll never be a good atheist advertiser.
 
2013-03-30 09:11:57 PM
Why don't atheist groups put positive ads up instead of going for the low hanging fruit and trolling reactionary retards?

Why feed that persecution complex any further? It needs a diet not an extra helping.

Howsabout... "You don't have to believe in God to believe in Good"?

That's just off the top of my head but ya get the idea.

/Atheist/Recovering Catholic.
 
2013-03-30 09:12:55 PM

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.


Well, people do make pretty specific claims about things that supposedly happened.

Is a flying reindeer any more ridiculous than feeding 5000 people with 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread?
 
2013-03-30 09:13:58 PM

bulldg4life: This group sounds like a bunch of jackbags that are no better than the fundamentalist Christians they despise.

Now, the "our families are great without religion" one is good. You can advocate your morals and ideas outside of religion without throwing stones at the Christians to piss them off.


Doesn't matter what atheists say, Christians and other Religions will take any mention of non-religion as an attack on theirs. So they might as well go full-out. Because it's not the devout Christian they're trying to convert.
 
2013-03-30 09:14:01 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: common sense is an oxymoron: When there is no way (at least from our current perspective) to settle the question one way or the other, how is the statement "There is NO god" based on anything other than faith?

Insert Morbo here.  "Faith does not work that way!"

To put it this way, think of Harvey. What you're saying is that its a matter of faith that Elwood's a little different upstairs and that there is no Harvey the pooka. Or for a more real world and less amicable argument, try David Berkowitz. Is it a matter of faith that there was no dog telling him to kill people?



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?
 
2013-03-30 09:17:34 PM

Lionel Mandrake: 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.

Well, people do make pretty specific claims about things that supposedly happened.

Is a flying reindeer any more ridiculous than feeding 5000 people with 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread?



There are other religions besides Christianity, and there are definitions of "god" which may not belong to any religion at all.
 
2013-03-30 09:17:43 PM

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.
 
2013-03-30 09:17:55 PM

cameroncrazy1984: s2s2s2: cameroncrazy1984: s2s2s2: That does not qualify the assertion that god does not exist.

If god did exist, wouldn't there be evidence of it?

Maybe. Universe is a big place. Hell, maybe the evidence exists, but is currently beyond our means to detect it, or relate it to such existence.

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


Presents itself? Your definition of facts sure assumes a lot in the absence of supporting evidence.
 
2013-03-30 09:18:23 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: it is generally accepted that there is absolutely zero evidence that dogs are capable of ordering humans about


So you have absolute faith that the neighbor's dog wasn't possessed by a demon.

.

common sense is an oxymoron: In the case of "god," there is no single definition which everyone can agree with


capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit  : infinite Mind
 
2013-03-30 09:18:33 PM

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

You're not helping yourself.


I don't need any. Thank you for your concern.
 
2013-03-30 09:19:35 PM

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?
 
2013-03-30 09:19:41 PM

IoSaturnalia: BMFPitt: s2s2s2: cameroncrazy1984: s2s2s2: To determine if your atheism has any relation to faith, answer the question below.

Is there a god?

There is no evidence that there is a god, no.

How can you be sure of that?

Because someone in this thread would have pointed it out.

This.  If there was any evidence whatsoever for the existance of a deity, the 4 billion theists on this planet would be rubbing our noses in it constantly.


They do.  At least, they rub our noses in what they believe is evidence in the existence of their deity.  Of course, they're really large books of bronze age fables mixed together with self-fulfilling prophecies, but that's enough evidence for someone who needs none.
 
2013-03-30 09:21:11 PM

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

You're not helping yourself.

I don't need any. Thank you for your concern.


True.  You're capable of looking foolish all by yourself.
 
2013-03-30 09:22:07 PM

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.
 
2013-03-30 09:22:26 PM

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?
 
2013-03-30 09:23:47 PM

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.
 
2013-03-30 09:25:06 PM

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

You're not helping yourself.

I don't need any. Thank you for your concern.

True.  You're capable of looking foolish all by yourself.


Also foolish: Declaring the inability to test for something = evidence against something.

Any assertion lacking supporting evidence is a statement of faith.
 
2013-03-30 09:27:28 PM

s2s2s2: Declaring the inability to test for something = evidence against something.


Now you're saying that we are not able to test for god? When did that happen?
 
2013-03-30 09:27:55 PM
Okay that's not bad, they should have made a whole set of these.
 
2013-03-30 09:30:43 PM

cameroncrazy1984: s2s2s2: Declaring the inability to test for something = evidence against something.

Now you're saying that we are not able to test for god? When did that happen?


There is a time stamp above the post you quoted, to the right.
 
2013-03-30 09:31:37 PM

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


What an actual "unicorn" might look like:

currencewiki.wikispaces.com
 
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.
 
2013-03-30 11:24:10 PM
*Its
 
2013-03-30 11:24:19 PM

s2s2s2: 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.


On that note, off to drink beers. Thanks for graciously losing the argument. I appreciate it.
 
2013-03-30 11:26:37 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Thanks for graciously losing the argument.


It was a semantic discrepancy, and I won on merit.

#Schrodinger's God
 
2013-03-30 11:28:17 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: common sense is an oxymoron: When there is no way (at least from our current perspective) to settle the question one way or the other, how is the statement "There is NO god" based on anything other than faith?

Insert Morbo here.  "Faith does not work that way!"

To put it this way, think of Harvey. What you're saying is that its a matter of faith that Elwood's a little different upstairs and that there is no Harvey the pooka. Or for a more real world and less amicable argument, try David Berkowitz. Is it a matter of faith that there was no dog telling him to kill people?


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?


If nobody can agree on what exactly "god" is that they're talking about, isn't the whole discussion pointless?

People are just talking past each other if religious dude A is thinking of a non-corporeal prime mover of the universe, religious dude B is thinking of Isis as a representation of feminine ideals, and atheist dude C is thinking of the Old Testament Yahweh in his tabernacle.

It's as meaningful as counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
 
2013-03-30 11:33:56 PM

Bonzo_1116: If nobody can agree on what exactly "god" is that they're talking about, isn't the whole discussion pointless?


For Atheists, it should be.
 
2013-03-30 11:38:07 PM

s2s2s2: Bonzo_1116: If nobody can agree on what exactly "god" is that they're talking about, isn't the whole discussion pointless?

For Atheists, it should be.


For most of them it is. They're the ones who show up to church tomorrow morning just to make their grandma happy during the ham dinner later that afternoon.
 
2013-03-30 11:43:56 PM

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


You wouldn't happen to be on the way to the gym would you?
 
2013-03-30 11:50:23 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: Would this creator be a "god"? And how could we distinguish this scenario from the Standard Model?


home.comcast.net
 
2013-03-30 11:57:40 PM

Giltric: 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......


When people who do believe are among the majority of people who get to make laws that effect everyone else, then it does become important to prove that the god fearing way is better than legislation that has nothing to do with religious belief.
 
2013-03-31 12:01:48 AM

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


What possible errand could tear you away from this? I'm cooking Easter dinner and I brought my laptop into the kitchen just to watch this halfwit strangle his dictionary.
 
2013-03-31 12:25:57 AM

bulldg4life: This group sounds like a bunch of jackbags that are no better than the fundamentalist Christians they despise.


Texas.

MFL: Atheist liberals = free thinkers?
L.O.L.


Not quite; atheists are a subset. The term dates back to the 1700s; search with Google Books for the term, if you're curious about the history.
 
2013-03-31 12:42:22 AM

IlGreven: common sense is an oxymoron: 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.


I have no problem with accepting the null hypothesis as a "best fit" for our current level of knowledge. For all practical purposes, I do so myself. But, as you say, some people go beyond that, and that's where skepticism becomes dogma and reason becomes faith.


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.


True. But then, what is atheism? I may be splitting hairs here, but to me being "adamant that there is no god" is what separates atheism from hard agnosticism.
 
2013-03-31 12:53:00 AM

Bonzo_1116: common sense is an oxymoron: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: common sense is an oxymoron: When there is no way (at least from our current perspective) to settle the question one way or the other, how is the statement "There is NO god" based on anything other than faith?

Insert Morbo here.  "Faith does not work that way!"

To put it this way, think of Harvey. What you're saying is that its a matter of faith that Elwood's a little different upstairs and that there is no Harvey the pooka. Or for a more real world and less amicable argument, try David Berkowitz. Is it a matter of faith that there was no dog telling him to kill people?


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?

If nobody can agree on what exactly "god" is that they're talking about, isn't the whole discussion pointless?

People are just talking past each other if religious dude A is thinking of a non-corporeal prime mover of the universe, religious dude B is thinking of Isis as a representation of feminine ideals, and atheist dude C is thinking of the Old Testament Yahweh in his tabernacle.

It's as meaningful as counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.



Yep. The same is true if people can't agree on what exactly "atheism" is.

Even if the end result is just running in circles, it's better mental exercise, and certainly no more meaningless, than obsessing over Honey Boo Boo.
 
2013-03-31 12:57:07 AM

James F. Campbell: common sense is an oxymoron: Would this creator be a "god"? And how could we distinguish this scenario from the Standard Model?

[home.comcast.net image 320x70]



Nice gif, but it doesn't really answer the question.
 
2013-03-31 01:03:22 AM

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.


lolwut
 
2013-03-31 01:07:11 AM

common sense is an oxymoron: James F. Campbell: common sense is an oxymoron: Would this creator be a "god"? And how could we distinguish this scenario from the Standard Model?

[home.comcast.net image 320x70]


Nice gif, but it doesn't really answer the question.


lulz
 
2013-03-31 01:18:13 AM

Bonzo_1116: For most of them it is. They're the ones who show up to church tomorrow morning just to make their grandma happy during the ham dinner later that afternoon.


Amen to that. It should also be a pointless discussion for believers.

The existence of god is never what I argue in these threads. I like to be a stickler's stickler, for the lulz.
 
2013-03-31 01:24:14 AM

winterbraid: What possible errand could tear you away from this? I'm cooking Easter dinner and I brought my laptop into the kitchen just to watch this halfwit strangle his dictionary.


A half wit? It's almost like you know me!

I guess showing that stating something as fact means you are making an assertion, which means you have a belief that if you can't show evidence for, is tantamount to faith, to someone who also stated they have no faith, is....oh, never mind.

/,
 
2013-03-31 01:38:21 AM

common sense is an oxymoron: IlGreven: common sense is an oxymoron: 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.


I have no problem with accepting the null hypothesis as a "best fit" for our current level of knowledge. For all practical purposes, I do so myself. But, as you say, some people go beyond that, and that's where skepticism becomes dogma and reason becomes faith.


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.


True. But then, what is atheism? I may be splitting hairs here, but to me being "adamant that there is no god" is what separates atheism from hard agnosticism.


One can be agnostic and atheist. Most atheists are. One can be agnostic and Christian. Most Christians are.

The words you are using do not mean what you've taken them to mean.
 
2013-03-31 01:49:54 AM
I am late to the thread.

So my Dad is Atheist (my brother probably is, I'm agnostic).  My family is Polish Catholic, so most/.all of our family traditions are completely intertwined with Catholic traditions.

The one day a year, as long as I've been alive, that my Dad goes to Mass is on Easter.  From what I can gather... because a) it means something to my Mom, and at one point my brother and I and b) because one day a year won't kill him, especially if it's important to his family ( / just my Mom, these days).

/I'll just leave this there
//Agnostic
///Gonna be in church tomorrow, like I do on Ash Wednesday and... that's about it
////But it still kind of matters to me, and again, my atheist for at least 3 decades that I know of Dad... even if we don't really believe in the events relayed, the message is still relevant.  And the family tradition is most certainly relevant.
 
2013-03-31 03:06:11 AM
That's how you tell if someone is secure in their atheism.  They go out of their way to needlessly provoke those who believe.
 
2013-03-31 03:35:26 AM

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: That's how you tell if someone is secure in their atheism.  They go out of their way to needlessly provoke those who believe.


I'll get back to you right after I answer the door here. Looks like it's a couple of people who don't know me, but want to say they're better than I am and are more knowledgeable about the universe, even though they've never held a conversation with me before.

brb.
 
2013-03-31 03:39:51 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: That's how you tell if someone is secure in their atheism.  They go out of their way to needlessly provoke those who believe.

I'll get back to you right after I answer the door here. Looks like it's a couple of people who don't know me, but want to say they're better than I am and are more knowledgeable about the universe, even though they've never held a conversation with me before.

brb.


[ohsnap]
 
2013-03-31 04:41:53 AM

Krymson Tyde: That will surely convince every Christian they are wrong.


I don't think trying to reason with Christians makes much sense. Making a lot of noise so people realize there is another way of looking at the world is probably just as good.
 
2013-03-31 06:12:52 AM

Shostie: FloydA: Rule number one of atheist advertising should be "don't be an asshole."

As far as I'm concerned, that's rule number one of life.


Well, FINE.. I'll just show myself out.
 
2013-03-31 07:15:18 AM

GAT_00: This makes no sense.  Why would atheists say that something that never existed is dead?


Because they have a huge amount of faith that He is.
 
2013-03-31 07:38:32 AM

GAT_00: This makes no sense.  Why would atheists say that something that never existed is dead?


Because it's a metaphor for the decline of religion?

/still think it's a dick move to do on someone's high holy day.
 
2013-03-31 07:49:02 AM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-31 07:58:02 AM

cameroncrazy1984: common sense is an oxymoron: any assertion on either side is ultimately based on faith.

It might help to try to define what it is that you don't believe in

I don't believe in things with no evidence. That doesn't require any faith whatsoever.


Oh?  So how do you know that 2+2 is 4?  Because your 1st grade teacher told you it was?   Did you ask her to prove it with evidence?

So you have faith in your 1st grade teacher that 2+2 does equal 4?

How do you know that pi is not a repeating number?   Because your 8th grade math teacher told you?   How many digits did that math teacher go to?   5?   10?   Did you require that math teacher to prove it with evidence?

So you have faith in your math teacher that pi is not a repeating number, and went on your merry way?
 
2013-03-31 08:26:30 AM
Pretty damned funny.

It is a tough call for Atheists as it is hard to just ignore all the asshole theists out there. On the other hand I am typically against my fellow Aetheists trolling people. Not good for us overall and trying to appear smarter than bible thumpers is like picking a fight with a two year old.

I expect this thread is full of people stating that all atheists are smug assholes for this, yet having zero problem with the 1000x more common religious dicketry we get on a daily basis.

Put up Christian billboard telling me I am going to hell? Nobody cares. Put up billboard like this? The abused oppressed christian bregade jumps into action!
 
2013-03-31 08:29:37 AM

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.


Don't forget your high school math teacher and his Algrbra religion.
 
2013-03-31 08:30:43 AM

Empty Matchbook: Lionel Mandrake: ekdikeo4: FloydA: That one's pretty dickish.

Last year's "Our Families Are Great Without Religion" was a good one; it was a positive message about atheist families.  This is just assholiness and trying to piss off the god botherers.

Rule number one of atheist advertising should be "don't be an asshole."

Yeah, absolutely.  This is really dumb.  Also, to be dead, one has to have first existed, right?  Therefore, they are professing their belief in God now.

Either that or they're referencing Nietzsche, whose declaration that God is dead is meant metaphorically.

The misuse of that quote is one of the most enduring legacies to the fact that atheism does not instantly equate to intelligence.


Since it is during Easter it is probably a reference to Jesus dieing. No?
 
2013-03-31 09:07:23 AM

MBrady: Oh?  So how do you know that 2+2 is 4?  Because your 1st grade teacher told you it was?   Did you ask her to prove it with evidence?

So you have faith in your 1st grade teacher that 2+2 does equal 4?


What am I, four? I don't "believe" 2+2=4. It IS. There is demonstrable evidence that taking two and adding two more equals four.

And you know what? When you're taught addition, you are proven why 2+2=4 usually with pennies or apples or some other physical object.

What a stupid analogy.
 
2013-03-31 09:25:33 AM
I really thought the average farker was more intelligent than this. Also, shame on you Christians for being clueless about your faith.

God is dead, have a good Friday.

Jesus is described as part of the holy trinity, both god's "son" and the physical manifestation of god on earth.

Good Friday represents the day that Jesus was crucified. Literally, god died that day to be resurrected on easter Sunday. On good Friday Christians celebrate/observe god/Jesus' death.

So..."deeerrrrp how cans it die if not exist? Stupid atheists". You guys are totally missing the point.

/yet another Atheist that knows much more about your religion than you do
 
2013-03-31 09:35:54 AM
On this day celebrating the Greatest Zombie Story Ever Told, let us not forget:

i.qkme.me
 
2013-03-31 10:28:46 AM

MBrady: cameroncrazy1984: common sense is an oxymoron: any assertion on either side is ultimately based on faith.

It might help to try to define what it is that you don't believe in

I don't believe in things with no evidence. That doesn't require any faith whatsoever.

Oh?  So how do you know that 2+2 is 4?  Because your 1st grade teacher told you it was?   Did you ask her to prove it with evidence?

So you have faith in your 1st grade teacher that 2+2 does equal 4?

How do you know that pi is not a repeating number?   Because your 8th grade math teacher told you?   How many digits did that math teacher go to?   5?   10?   Did you require that math teacher to prove it with evidence?

So you have faith in your math teacher that pi is not a repeating number, and went on your merry way?




Please continue giving examples of false equivalence.
 
2013-03-31 10:59:23 AM

cameroncrazy1984: MBrady: Oh?  So how do you know that 2+2 is 4?  Because your 1st grade teacher told you it was?   Did you ask her to prove it with evidence?

So you have faith in your 1st grade teacher that 2+2 does equal 4?

What am I, four? I don't "believe" 2+2=4. It IS. There is demonstrable evidence that taking two and adding two more equals four.

And you know what? When you're taught addition, you are proven why 2+2=4 usually with pennies or apples or some other physical object.

What a stupid analogy.


Notice that he ignores the rest of my post.  Obviously you didn't get past the age of 4 on the IQ chart.

Thanks for playing!
 
2013-03-31 11:00:20 AM

Repo Man: MBrady: cameroncrazy1984: common sense is an oxymoron: any assertion on either side is ultimately based on faith.

It might help to try to define what it is that you don't believe in

I don't believe in things with no evidence. That doesn't require any faith whatsoever.

Oh?  So how do you know that 2+2 is 4?  Because your 1st grade teacher told you it was?   Did you ask her to prove it with evidence?

So you have faith in your 1st grade teacher that 2+2 does equal 4?

How do you know that pi is not a repeating number?   Because your 8th grade math teacher told you?   How many digits did that math teacher go to?   5?   10?   Did you require that math teacher to prove it with evidence?

So you have faith in your math teacher that pi is not a repeating number, and went on your merry way?

Please continue giving examples of false equivalence.


Please continue ignoring your faith.
 
2013-03-31 11:07:13 AM

common sense is an oxymoron: Nice gif, but it doesn't really answer the question.


Oh, really? It seems to have shut you the fark up pretty good, Mr. Querulous "I'm-an-atheist-but-I'm-just-asking-questions" McSophist.
 
2013-03-31 11:11:06 AM

MBrady: Repo Man: MBrady: cameroncrazy1984: common sense is an oxymoron: any assertion on either side is ultimately based on faith.

It might help to try to define what it is that you don't believe in

I don't believe in things with no evidence. That doesn't require any faith whatsoever.

Oh?  So how do you know that 2+2 is 4?  Because your 1st grade teacher told you it was?   Did you ask her to prove it with evidence?

So you have faith in your 1st grade teacher that 2+2 does equal 4?

How do you know that pi is not a repeating number?   Because your 8th grade math teacher told you?   How many digits did that math teacher go to?   5?   10?   Did you require that math teacher to prove it with evidence?

So you have faith in your math teacher that pi is not a repeating number, and went on your merry way?

Please continue giving examples of false equivalence.

Please continue ignoring your faith.


Yes, people do take things on faith that are presented by trusted individuals. The difference is that at any time you can delve into the details and find evidence that what you took on "faith" was true.

You mentioned pi right? If I wanted to validate that I need only find a physical circle and back out the math. Poof. My faith is validated.

Testability and hard evidence are what seperates religion and science.
 
2013-03-31 11:17:05 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: That's how you tell if someone is secure in their atheism.  They go out of their way to needlessly provoke those who believe.

I'll get back to you right after I answer the door here. Looks like it's a couple of people who don't know me, but want to say they're better than I am and are more knowledgeable about the universe, even though they've never held a conversation with me before.

brb.


Hey! Awesome way to help that guy's point by pointing out that the religious atheists do the same thing the religious theists do!

See? We CAN all find common ground!
 
2013-03-31 11:18:33 AM

quatchi: [ohsnap]


Apparently "No YOU are!" is an oh snap moment?
 
2013-03-31 11:21:16 AM

nocturnal001: I expect this thread is full of people stating that all atheists are smug assholes


"All"? No one said "all". It's just the ones that should be smart enough to know when they are beings dicks, but do it anyway, just because they have faith that they are correct about god.
 
2013-03-31 11:22:49 AM
Um... this was a joke I frequently heard in church back when I was a Christian.

I'm not sure why the dude running the ad campaign thinks it's particularly clever.

//Though I did laugh at "Judas is the reason for the season", hadn't heard that before.
 
2013-03-31 11:24:16 AM

MBrady: Please continue ignoring your faith.


The difference between religion and science, you sorry excuse for an example of speciousness, is that if you fark up the rules of your religion, nothing bad is actually going to happen to you. But let's say you're an architect or a demolitions engineer: getting the science wrong may very well fark you up good and proper.

In other words, the universe does not give a shiat about your poorly constructed fairy tales.
 
2013-03-31 11:26:56 AM

s2s2s2: nocturnal001: I expect this thread is full of people stating that all atheists are smug assholes

"All"? No one said "all". It's just the ones that should be smart enough to know when they are beings dicks, but do it anyway, just because they have faith that they are correct about god.


Well good, everything went better than expected.
 
2013-03-31 11:27:51 AM

James F. Campbell: is that if you fark up the rules of your religion, nothing bad is actually going to happen to you.


"Thou shalt not kill"
Thou shalt not steal"
"Love your neighbor"
"Love your enemy"

Well, you know your speciousness!
 
2013-03-31 11:29:00 AM

nocturnal001: Well good, everything went better than expected.


I appreciate this response. Have a lovely day!
 
2013-03-31 11:41:02 AM
I have a nice standing rib roast (rosemary, thyme, lavender crust) in the oven for my secular Easter celebration. Should be a good day.
 
2013-03-31 12:06:50 PM
common sense is an oxymoron:

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

False Dichotomy.
 
2013-03-31 12:10:52 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: When there is no way (at least from our current perspective) to settle the question one way or the other, how is the statement "There is NO god" based on anything other than faith?


Onus Probandi.
 
2013-03-31 12:15:05 PM

Z-clipped: common sense is an oxymoron: When there is no way (at least from our current perspective) to settle the question one way or the other, how is the statement "There is NO god" based on anything other than faith?

Onus Probandi.


...would apply to anyone making a claim, one way or the other.
 
2013-03-31 12:31:18 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: True. But then, what is atheism? I may be splitting hairs here, but to me being "adamant that there is no god" is what separates atheism from hard agnosticism.


There is no separation between atheism and agnosticism, nor does there need to be.  Almost all atheists are agnostic, because agnosticism is an epistemological position and has nothing to do with whether gods exist or not.  It is not a "third opstion" between atheism and theism. It does not mean you are "undecided",

common sense is an oxymoron: I agree, but stating that something is unlikely is not the same as claiming that it is impossible.


Almost no atheists make this claim, so you may as well stop arguing against it.

common sense is an oxymoron: If it can't be proven, then what is one's disbelief based on?


You really need to study up on your logic if you're going to try to wield it in discussions like this.

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


This position is known as Ignosticism.

common sense is an oxymoron: For the record, I don't believe that the existence of God(s) CAN be proven; and furthermore, given the fact that there seem to be about as many definitions of "god" as there are believers, I find it pointless to believe in one particular definition over any of the others.


Congratulations.  You're an agnostic atheist.

common sense is an oxymoron: When there is no evidence to support either side of the argument, any assertion on either side is ultimately based on faith.


Incorrect.

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


Ignoratio Elenchi
 
2013-03-31 12:37:08 PM
Oh please.  Like no religion has ever paid for and put up advertising that insults people of other faiths. They just don't like it when the same game gets played against them instead of to their advantage.

/not gonna walk on eggshells around your delusion
 
2013-03-31 12:38:21 PM

s2s2s2: Z-clipped: common sense is an oxymoron: When there is no way (at least from our current perspective) to settle the question one way or the other, how is the statement "There is NO god" based on anything other than faith?

Onus Probandi.

...would apply to anyone making a claim, one way or the other.


It applies to the positive claim, "God exists".  Atheists generally do not claim that all gods do not exist.  Only that because the positive claim lacks any evidence, it can be easily dismissed.  When an atheist says "there is no god", it should be read as "for all intents, the likelihood that there is a god is negligible".  In other words, if there were no positive claim being made on the part of the theist, there would be no argument.
 
2013-03-31 12:47:42 PM
I should just assume anyone saying there is no god just means, "probably."?
 
2013-03-31 12:49:34 PM
I contend that it is the responsibility of the person that knows better, to be clear.

Sign should read, "God Probably Isn't".
 
2013-03-31 12:52:08 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: Yep. The same is true if people can't agree on what exactly "atheism" is.


Modern philosophers generally agree on what atheism is, as do most of the atheists on Fark.  It's generally only the theists and the "devil's advocates", like yourself, who try to portray atheism as something other than it is.

There are many flavors of atheism, but the common defining characteristic is simply a lack of belief in gods.  If you start from there, you won't have as many problems understanding the position.
 
2013-03-31 12:53:00 PM

s2s2s2: I should just assume anyone saying there is no god just means, "probably."?


More like, "almost certainly".
 
2013-03-31 01:02:04 PM

s2s2s2: Sign should read, "God Probably Isn't".


Do you preface every affirmative statement about the world with "Assuming that I exist, and that there is no Evil Genius tricking me into believing in reality..."?

Are you OK with people making the claim that "Santa Claus isn't real" without an epistemological disclaimer first?  Because atheists dismiss gods using precisely the same logic that most adults use to dismiss Santa.  The ONLY difference between the argument for Santa and the argument for god is the degree of Wishful Thinking involved.
 
2013-03-31 01:03:21 PM

MBrady: cameroncrazy1984: MBrady: Oh?  So how do you know that 2+2 is 4?  Because your 1st grade teacher told you it was?   Did you ask her to prove it with evidence?

So you have faith in your 1st grade teacher that 2+2 does equal 4?

What am I, four? I don't "believe" 2+2=4. It IS. There is demonstrable evidence that taking two and adding two more equals four.

And you know what? When you're taught addition, you are proven why 2+2=4 usually with pennies or apples or some other physical object.

What a stupid analogy.

Notice that he ignores the rest of my post.  Obviously you didn't get past the age of 4 on the IQ chart.

Thanks for playing!


It was still a really stupid analogy. You were trying to posit that actual information=based on faith.

Own up to it.

MBrady: Please continue ignoring your faith.


LOL you're still posting the same fallacious argument.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
 
2013-03-31 01:08:33 PM

Z-clipped: Because atheists dismiss gods using precisely the same logic that most adults use to dismiss Santa.


I used the "He is an invention of the Coca Cola company" as my reason for disbelieving in Santa Claus.
 
2013-03-31 01:14:07 PM
"Atheists Troll Believers in Dallas"

"Believers and Non-believers Troll Atheist, Troll Supporters in Thread"

Hilarious. Everyone falls for it.

Now let's all fnck.
 
2013-03-31 01:23:32 PM

s2s2s2: Z-clipped: Because atheists dismiss gods using precisely the same logic that most adults use to dismiss Santa.

I used the "He is an invention of the Coca Cola company" as my reason for disbelieving in Santa Claus.


Ummm... ok, if you say so. o_O
 
2013-03-31 01:32:22 PM

Z-clipped: Ummm... ok, if you say so. o_O


Oops. I got that wrong.

For example, in Washington Irving's History of New York (1809), Sinterklaas was Americanized into "Santa Claus" (a name first used in the American press in 1773)[21] but lost his bishop's apparel, and was at first pictured as a thick-bellied Dutch sailor with a pipe in a green winter coat. Irving's book was a lampoon of the Dutch culture of New York, and much of this portrait is his joking invention.
 
2013-03-31 01:40:34 PM

Giltric: whidbey: Giltric: Atheists are so mad, that people practice religion, that they formed a 501c corporation?

And instead of fighting to keep religious paraphenalia off of government property and buildings they just go around mocking people who believe in practicing religion?

They sure are starting to sound like a religion themselves....I mean are they trying to convert people to atheism through shaming because that's what it sounds like they are trying to do.....

Odd that you'd consider such free-thinking individuals a threat when they don't agree with your antiquated worldview. Just saying.

My antiquated world view is "mind your own business" something that atheists nor the religious have a grasp of.

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.


I know not his/her religious views, but I can say with certainty that Whitby is an idiot. They remind me of our old friend czar
 
2013-03-31 01:43:32 PM
Amused how little atheist dare troll Muslims.
 
2013-03-31 01:58:31 PM

Nemo's Brother: Amused how little atheist dare troll Muslims.


I imagine that you are amused by lots of things that only exist in your head.
 
2013-03-31 02:48:01 PM

Nemo's Brother: Amused how little atheist dare troll Muslims.


If American Christians behaved as well as American Muslims, atheists wouldn't have any reason to troll anybody.
 
2013-03-31 02:54:00 PM

FloydA: Nemo's Brother: Amused how little atheist dare troll Muslims.

I imagine that you are amused by lots of things that only exist in your head.


Yes, because being the real-life equilivant of r/atheism is super awesome and if these radness pioneers just had tickets to Saudi Arabia they would be doing the same thing there!
 
2013-03-31 03:09:34 PM

The Billdozer: FloydA: Nemo's Brother: Amused how little atheist dare troll Muslims.

I imagine that you are amused by lots of things that only exist in your head.

Yes, because being the real-life equilivant of r/atheism is super awesome and if these radness pioneers just had tickets to Saudi Arabia they would be doing the same thing there!


Can someone translate this from Derp to English for me?
 
2013-03-31 03:16:44 PM

FloydA: Can someone translate this from Derp to English for me?


It is easier to (atheistically)troll in white, christian USA, than it would be to do the same in Saudi Arabia.
 
2013-03-31 03:19:42 PM

s2s2s2: FloydA: Can someone translate this from Derp to English for me?

It is easier to (atheistically)troll in white, christian USA, than it would be to do the same in Saudi Arabia.


And also far less necessary. Atheists are winning in the courts. The trolls are happening as a result of those victories, not in hopes of. It is the atheistic equivalent of evangelistic trolling.

That is also why the thread more rapidly becomes about who is correct, rather than an admonishment of who is being a dick in a given situation.
 
2013-03-31 03:56:21 PM

FloydA: Can someone translate this from Derp to English for me?


I think it's something like "I refuse to recognize that atheists might have a legitimate reason to be annoyed at the Christians in this country, so their reasons for taking jabs at religion must not have any purpose but to be purely childish and contrarian."

It was a stupid question to begin with.  On one hand, you have a few little atheist groups here and there taking out potshot ads that occasionally cross the line into trollish and counterproductive.  On the other hand, you have US Congressmen and Senators speaking out in the media using religious dogma to deny American people their basic civil rights.  This ad is like shooting a Sherman tank with a BB gun, but you know... there's nothing religious people like better than imagining themselves to be David when they're really Goliath.

s2s2s2: That is also why the thread more rapidly becomes about who is correct, rather than an admonishment of who is being a dick in a given situation.


I agree that atheists should keep their message positive because that will ultimately help their cause the most, but if conservatives are looking for blanket condemnation of borderline tasteless ads like the the one in TFA, they've got a long wait for a train that isn't coming.  Especially considering the number of farkers with big broad brushes painting away in the first 20 or so posts of the thread.
 
2013-03-31 04:02:34 PM

s2s2s2: FloydA: Can someone translate this from Derp to English for me?

It is easier to (atheistically)troll in white, christian USA, than it would be to do the same in Saudi Arabia.


If the government in the US operated the way southern white evangelicals want it to, atheists who spoke out here would have just as much reason to fear for their lives as the atheists in Muslim dominated countries do.
 
2013-03-31 04:02:35 PM

Nemo's Brother: Giltric: whidbey: Giltric: Atheists are so mad, that people practice religion, that they formed a 501c corporation?

And instead of fighting to keep religious paraphenalia off of government property and buildings they just go around mocking people who believe in practicing religion?

They sure are starting to sound like a religion themselves....I mean are they trying to convert people to atheism through shaming because that's what it sounds like they are trying to do.....

Odd that you'd consider such free-thinking individuals a threat when they don't agree with your antiquated worldview. Just saying.

My antiquated world view is "mind your own business" something that atheists nor the religious have a grasp of.

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.

I know not his/her religious views, but I can say with certainty that Whitby is an idiot. They remind me of our old friend czar


First of all it's whidbey and personal attacks are not only against the Fark TOS, the fact that you're using them at all suggests you have nothing to bring to this discussion whatsoever.
 
2013-03-31 04:46:40 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Oh please.  Like no religion has ever paid for and put up advertising that insults people of other faiths. They just don't like it when the same game gets played against them instead of to their advantage.

/not gonna walk on eggshells around your delusion


Other people do it, so being an asshole is OK!
 
2013-03-31 05:11:56 PM

Z-clipped: s2s2s2: FloydA: Can someone translate this from Derp to English for me?

It is easier to (atheistically)troll in white, christian USA, than it would be to do the same in Saudi Arabia.

If the government in the US operated the way southern white evangelicals want it to, atheists who spoke out here would have just as much reason to fear for their lives as the atheists in Muslim dominated countries do.


I tend to think the only people that have a real reason to gripe about the signs, are the atheists than don't want to be as dickly as alleged Christians.

Also, my iPad autocorrects Christianity to be capitalized, but does not do the same for atheism.

RaciSt.
 
2013-03-31 06:42:28 PM

s2s2s2: I should just assume anyone saying there is no god just means, "probably."?


Well yes, by definition. You can never know 100percent that something does not exist.

There are no unicorns. I can't prove that but somebody who does believe in them has to prove they do exist. Otherwise their position is not logical.
 
2013-03-31 06:53:03 PM

Z-clipped: s2s2s2: FloydA: Can someone translate this from Derp to English for me?

It is easier to (atheistically)troll in white, christian USA, than it would be to do the same in Saudi Arabia.

If the government in the US operated the way southern white evangelicals want it to, atheists who spoke out here would have just as much reason to fear for their lives as the atheists in Muslim dominated countries do.


That bar is really low there.

Atheists do face a shiat ton of discrimination in heavily christian areas. It has been studied extensively. Some of the stories are very sad.
 
2013-03-31 06:58:11 PM

s2s2s2: And also far less necessary. Atheists are winning in the courts. The trolls are happening as a result of those victories, not in hopes of. It is the atheistic equivalent of evangelistic trolling.

That is also why the thread more rapidly becomes about who is correct, rather than an admonishment of who is being a dick in a given situation.


Well, while it's technically being a dick, the underdog being a bit of a dick in a relatively light-hearted fashion in an era where there is like one atheist in national government total is kind of hard to treat as a crime against humanity, it's just mild sarcastic subversiveness.

And it's in response to the continual religious displays on public property every other damned week, including outright permanent ones at courthouses, so the religious people not only started it, they're much bigger offenders.
 
2013-03-31 07:12:02 PM

100 Watt Walrus: The My Little Pony Killer: Oh please.  Like no religion has ever paid for and put up advertising that insults people of other faiths. They just don't like it when the same game gets played against them instead of to their advantage.

/not gonna walk on eggshells around your delusion

Other people do it, so being an asshole is OK!


In the real world....

"Hey, I think if I throw this hammer up in the air over and over again, it might hit a cloud and cause it to rain!"

"That's stupid."

----

"Hey, if I talk to myself and pretend it's a guy who got killed a couple of thousand years ago and ask him nicely, he'll let me live forever in the clouds!"

"That's stupid"

"Don't disrespect my faith! It's my faith, and now you're bad because you're disrespecting my faith! It's my *faith* and all, you know! Do you know what faith is? It's *faith*, and you have to respect it!...."
 
2013-03-31 07:14:38 PM

Jim_Callahan: s2s2s2: And also far less necessary. Atheists are winning in the courts. The trolls are happening as a result of those victories, not in hopes of. It is the atheistic equivalent of evangelistic trolling.

That is also why the thread more rapidly becomes about who is correct, rather than an admonishment of who is being a dick in a given situation.

Well, while it's technically being a dick, the underdog being a bit of a dick in a relatively light-hearted fashion in an era where there is like one atheist in national government total is kind of hard to treat as a crime against humanity, it's just mild sarcastic subversiveness.

And it's in response to the continual religious displays on public property every other damned week, including outright permanent ones at courthouses, so the religious people not only started it, they're much bigger offenders.


I'm no fan of any sort of religiosity.
 
2013-03-31 07:18:15 PM

Z-clipped: [stupid troll's name redacted]: FloydA: Can someone translate this from Derp to English for me?

It is easier to (atheistically)troll in white, christian USA, than it would be to do the same in Saudi Arabia.

If the government in the US operated the way southern white evangelicals want it to, atheists who spoke out here would have just as much reason to fear for their lives as the atheists in Muslim dominated countries do.



Seems as though the god-botherers can't even keep their story straight.   Salon whining about atheists being Islamophobes.
 
2013-03-31 07:49:39 PM

FloydA: Z-clipped: [stupid troll's name redacted]: FloydA: Can someone translate this from Derp to English for me?

It is easier to (atheistically)troll in white, christian USA, than it would be to do the same in Saudi Arabia.

If the government in the US operated the way southern white evangelicals want it to, atheists who spoke out here would have just as much reason to fear for their lives as the atheists in Muslim dominated countries do.


Seems as though the god-botherers can't even keep their story straight.   Salon whining about atheists being Islamophobes.


I don't understand your point.
 
2013-03-31 08:12:36 PM

nocturnal001: FloydA: Z-clipped: [stupid troll's name redacted]: FloydA: Can someone translate this from Derp to English for me?

It is easier to (atheistically)troll in white, christian USA, than it would be to do the same in Saudi Arabia.

If the government in the US operated the way southern white evangelicals want it to, atheists who spoke out here would have just as much reason to fear for their lives as the atheists in Muslim dominated countries do.


Seems as though the god-botherers can't even keep their story straight.   Salon whining about atheists being Islamophobes.

I don't understand your point.


Some Christians (like the troll whose name I snipped above)  claim that the mean old atheists are unfairly "picking on" them and claim that atheists are too scared to say anything bad about Muslims, when in fact Hitchens, Dawkins, and others are equally critical of all religions, including (and perhaps especially) Islam.  The self-appointed defenders of Christianity only notice when they think they are being "attacked."  And the supposed "attacks" on Christianity are things like saying "happy holidays" or Google commemorating the birthday of Cesar Chavez.

I just don't like whiners who declare themselves perpetual victims over the most trivial things, in hopes of getting sympathy.
 
2013-03-31 08:20:37 PM

FloydA: nocturnal001: FloydA: Z-clipped: [stupid troll's name redacted]: FloydA: Can someone translate this from Derp to English for me?

It is easier to (atheistically)troll in white, christian USA, than it would be to do the same in Saudi Arabia.

If the government in the US operated the way southern white evangelicals want it to, atheists who spoke out here would have just as much reason to fear for their lives as the atheists in Muslim dominated countries do.


Seems as though the god-botherers can't even keep their story straight.   Salon whining about atheists being Islamophobes.

I don't understand your point.

Some Christians (like the troll whose name I snipped above)  claim that the mean old atheists are unfairly "picking on" them and claim that atheists are too scared to say anything bad about Muslims, when in fact Hitchens, Dawkins, and others are equally critical of all religions, including (and perhaps especially) Islam.  The self-appointed defenders of Christianity only notice when they think they are being "attacked."  And the supposed "attacks" on Christianity are things like saying "happy holidays" or Google commemorating the birthday of Cesar Chavez.

I just don't like whiners who declare themselves perpetual victims over the most trivial things, in hopes of getting sympathy.


Ah ok.

Yes, that is something lost on these guys. If it seems like atheists focus more on Christians it is only because they have the power in the US. For all their pain in the assness I doubt many atheists would trade for muslims.
 
2013-03-31 11:45:32 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: 100 Watt Walrus: The My Little Pony Killer: Oh please.  Like no religion has ever paid for and put up advertising that insults people of other faiths. They just don't like it when the same game gets played against them instead of to their advantage.

/not gonna walk on eggshells around your delusion

Other people do it, so being an asshole is OK!

In the real world....

"Hey, I think if I throw this hammer up in the air over and over again, it might hit a cloud and cause it to rain!"

"That's stupid."

----

"Hey, if I talk to myself and pretend it's a guy who got killed a couple of thousand years ago and ask him nicely, he'll let me live forever in the clouds!"

"That's stupid"

"Don't disrespect my faith! It's my faith, and now you're bad because you're disrespecting my faith! It's my *faith* and all, you know! Do you know what faith is? It's *faith*, and you have to respect it!...."


And saying, "That's stupid" to the second person, apropos of nothing, is being an asshole. It actually is disrespectful - and without reason at that. So you've helped make my point.

In the case of this billboard, the "That's stupid" is a sucker punch for no justifiable reason. It's being a dick for the sake of being a dick. It doesn't further the case of atheism, nor does it further the cause of those who consider atheism to be a cause (which also seems pretty pointless to this atheist).

If someone is shoving their religion in your face, by all means tear them down. Run rings around them logically. Don't let them wiggle out of answering the questions they don't like to confront. Force them to face the fallacies of their beliefs. I'm all for dissuading a person of their delusions when that person is using their delusions to the detriment of others or is trying to force the world, or even another person, to conform to those delusions.

But doing a drive-by on someone's belief system is pointless and cowardly. If you don't have the stones and the intellect to engage in debate those with whom you disagree, STFU and stop making it harder for people who do have that courage and wherewithal.

It's not difficult to be an atheist without being a dick. In fact, if you're being a dick about it, you're really, really doing it wrong.
 
2013-03-31 11:51:55 PM

100 Watt Walrus: further the case of for atheism


FTFM
 
2013-04-01 12:37:44 AM

100 Watt Walrus: Force them to face the fallacies of their beliefs.


Impossible. Beliefs don't have fallacies. They're *faith!* You can say anything and say, "It's my faith!" 
 
Spare the rod and spoil the child! It's my faith! Make the woman faithful to her husband! It's my faith! Go ahead, try to argue anything about that while respecting my faith. You can't talk me out of punishing heretics with commerce or violence, because it's my faith! You have to respect my faith!
 
Bullshiat. Marginalize people who say stupid things when they say them. Ridicule, not respect. If you bow down to their idols out of respect, you're giving them the message that their idols indeed have magical powers.
 
2013-04-01 04:48:18 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: 100 Watt Walrus: Force them to face the fallacies of their beliefs.

Impossible. Beliefs don't have fallacies. They're *faith!* You can say anything and say, "It's my faith!" 
 
Spare the rod and spoil the child! It's my faith! Make the woman faithful to her husband! It's my faith! Go ahead, try to argue anything about that while respecting my faith. You can't talk me out of punishing heretics with commerce or violence, because it's my faith! You have to respect my faith!
 
Bullshiat. Marginalize people who say stupid things when they say them. Ridicule, not respect. If you bow down to their idols out of respect, you're giving them the message that their idols indeed have magical powers.


Not being a dick ≠ bowing down. And anyone who falls back on a mantra to answer any question that challenges them is someone on whom any effort is wasted. So, again, the billboard is pointless, and ridicule is pointless. They pretty much cannot serve to make anything better, and therefore only serves the smug self-satisfaction of those serving it up.

Now, offering persuasive arguments may not sway anyone clinging to "faith," but they can persuade others who might be open to different kinds of thinking. While on the other hand, being a dick is likely to turn away those otherwise open-minded people.

But if you can find some other, constructive purpose served by ridiculing religion junkies, I'm all ears.
 
2013-04-01 07:45:38 AM

MyEnamine: However, people don't want to "come out" as atheists because they don't want to look like assholes.


Are you saying that atheists are assholes?
 
I don't tell most people about my atheism because a significant portion of the US population not only believes, but actively teaches that a moral compass cannot exist without a God construct.
 
To my thinking, they're the assholes.  Not me.
 
2013-04-01 01:41:39 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Seems like a silly waste of time, energy and money.

Should have used it to feed some hungry people or something.


They just would have wasted the money this is something worth while.
 
2013-04-01 05:58:17 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Oh please.  Like no religion has ever paid for and put up advertising that insults people of other faiths. They just don't like it when the same game gets played against them instead of to their advantage.

/not gonna walk on eggshells around your delusion


You know, I think your a jerk. I dont go and post it all over the place though.
 
2013-04-01 07:47:38 PM

Lionel Mandrake: 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."

[Ray "Banana Man "Comfort image 280x156]

What more proof do you need, heathen?


If atheists in general really wanted to be @$$holes, we had a golden once-in-a-lifetime opportunity a few years ago, thanks to the @$$hole in Lionel's picture.

The KJV Holy Bible, which many of the more extremist Christian fundie theocrats hold to be the One True Word of God (some even going so far as to place it above the original Hebrew and Greek!), was first published in 1611. There were 400th Anniversary Editions of the KJV on sale in bookstores around the world in 2011.

Remember what Banana Man did a few years prior to that, for the 150th Anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species? We could've returned the favor in ♠♠♠♠♠. Imagine: Reprinting the full text from the Gütenberg original but with footnotes from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, 150-page introduction by Hitchens or Dawkins or some such showing the history of the Bible in general and the KJV in particular, and how it was used to justify all manner of atrocities including the Nazi Holocaust as well as U.S. southern slavery of blacks, etc. With a nice dedication right up front: "Sincerely and gratefully dedicated to Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, for giving us the idea."

Doing precisely this was seriously debated in various forums in 2009−2010 and even into 2011. But, it was not done, mainly because most atheists had no beef with Christians in general, and while Comfort had certainly provoked us mightily, doing such a thing would be insulting and @$$holish not only to Comfort and his ilk, but to all of Christianity, even the many in favor of Separation of Church and State, etc.
 
2013-04-01 09:36:48 PM
I always celebrate Wester myself.

Our Savior:

blogs.citypages.com
 
Displayed 346 of 346 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report