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.

(Indiegogo)   Cool: Comedian Doug Stanhope starts an IndieGoGo campaign to raise $50,000 for the woman who said "I'm actually an atheist" after surviving the Oklahoma tornado. Really Cool: The goal was met in the first 24 hours. Fark: There are 59 days to go   (indiegogo.com) divider line 527
    More: Hero, Oklahoma, Doug Stanhope, Wolf Blitzer, yard sign  
•       •       •

12948 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 May 2013 at 6:19 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-25 12:12:31 PM  

A stranger in the Alps: Churches help out their own. Atheists just did the same. Nobody needs to get butthurt about it.


Are you kidding? Most of America's going to get butthurt - the devout just watched the unbelievers financially assist an avowed unbeliever, diverting that money from the faithful that clearly deserved it. 72% of America is Christian, in one denomination or another, and to the more extreme of them, the very idea that an atheist deserves a reward for demonstrating atheism in a polite and friendly manner is like claiming that Dexter deserves a reward because he picks his victims well and cleans up afterwards.

I'm surprised she's still alive, honestly, given how religious extremism has been escalating in the United States.
 
2013-05-25 12:14:28 PM  

LasersHurt: Waldo Pepper: LasersHurt: Waldo Pepper: LasersHurt: Waldo Pepper: I think you will find that at some point atheism will be classified as a religion of sort.

There's no way to do it.

When this is money to be made and power to be gained someone will find a way to make it happen.

But it would categorically NOT be atheism, then. The very definition of the word prohibits it.

Definitions of that word can change over time.

It LITERALLY means a-theism - without religion. How could that change over time to mean exactly the opposite?


Did "Gay" always mean homosexual
 
2013-05-25 12:15:12 PM  

Cupajo: nekom: Helping out a person who happens to be an atheist?  Fantastic.
Helping out a person BECAUSE she's an atheist?  Well, it's still helping, but it's a pretty dick motivation.

I would say it's more "helping out someone who had the courage to say she was an atheist on national TV in a country where such proclamations are generally scorned by a bullying Christian majority."


awwww, the atheists are now feeling that they are being bullied.
awwww, poor babies, because we all know that the atheists never, ever, have any scorn for Christians.
 
2013-05-25 12:15:14 PM  

CaptSacto: Maybe she'll get enough to get out of Oklahoma.
I'm thinking she might not be real popular in her neighborhood now.


Who cares? It's not like her neighborhood is actually there anymore.

/But agree about getting out of Oklahoma. I lived in northwest Texas and far as I'm concerned that whole part of the country can burn to the farking ground.
 
2013-05-25 12:18:21 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Cupajo: nekom: Helping out a person who happens to be an atheist?  Fantastic.
Helping out a person BECAUSE she's an atheist?  Well, it's still helping, but it's a pretty dick motivation.

I would say it's more "helping out someone who had the courage to say she was an atheist on national TV in a country where such proclamations are generally scorned by a bullying Christian majority."

awwww, the atheists are now feeling that they are being bullied.
awwww, poor babies, because we all know that the atheists never, ever, have any scorn for Christians.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-25 12:23:00 PM  

gimmegimme: tenpoundsofcheese: I May Be Crazy But...: tenpoundsofcheese: /i wonder how many atheists believe in karma

A fair number, actually. Now that I have your attention, I have to explain a bit. They probably don't believe explicitly in karma, but something similar. And they aren't the flavor of atheist that I am (I'm the "there's nothing that science can't explain" type) but they certainly don't believe in any sort of god or god-like figure.

Okay, but they believe in some sort of magical power in the sky that balances things out.

same thing for people who believe in luck, or superstition, or wearing a lucky shirt, or wearing your team baseball cap at a 30 degree angle during a game.

You're right; all magical thinking is stupid.  There is, however, a big difference between wearing a lucky ballcap to "help" your team and believing that your magical invisible friend in the sky told you to treat another human being like crap because they don't believe in that same deity.

Some people knock on wood in a futile effort to tilt metaphysics in their favor, others use their belief in Mr. Kolob to deprive fellow Americans of civil rights.


No, I don't think there is a difference.
At the end of the day each believes in magic.

Some use that belief to help others, some for selfish reasons, some to do harm as you noted
 
2013-05-25 12:23:25 PM  

eggrolls: IT BEGINS:

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/23/glenn_beck_cnn_interview_with_atheis t_ tornado_survivor_was_a_setup/


"You gotta thank the Lord.  Do you thank the Lord?"
That's definitely an attempted setup.
 
2013-05-25 12:23:40 PM  

gimmegimme: Ant: gimmegimme: Ant: log_jammin: I can't give my feelings on this matter until Rebecca Watson tells me if it's rooted in sexism or not.

I honestly don't understand why everyone hates her so much. "Guys, don't do that" is not exactly the kind of phrase I would expect could bring down such hatred.

Unfortunately, she didn't stop there.  The Atheism+ bullies are trying to turn a movement about resisting theocracy into yet another radical feminist echo chamber.

I just don't see it. I admit that sometimes my immediate knee-jerk reaction to some of their criticisms and complaints is "Oh, give me a farking break!", but usually when I've read their point of view on the subject, it makes sense why they might take offense to things that are said and done every day without thought.

Check out some of Thunderf00t's thoughts on the subject.  I don't know why the FTB don't just create their own radical feminist organization; that would be fine.  But it has nothing to do with skepticism or freethought.




Wow, I was blissfully ignorant of all of that.
 
2013-05-25 12:24:10 PM  

Waldo Pepper: Did "Gay" always mean homosexual


Bad example. The original meaning of gay has not been compromised in any way. It is just that a new meaning was added.

That said, I do actually agree with you that words often do change for a variety of reasons. As an example, the current common use of the expression "a moot point" is to describe a point that is not worth discussing (due to it being already settled or unchangeable, etc.). The original use of this expression was to describe an interesting point that should be discussed further ... at the next 'moot' (which is a meeting).
 
2013-05-25 12:25:04 PM  

Nabb1: As have I, but some people seem to act as though that behavior is universal for all people of faith. It's the flip side of the same coin.


So it's not a farking straw man argument, dumbass.  I realize I'm late, but farking hell...
 
2013-05-25 12:26:04 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: gimmegimme: tenpoundsofcheese: I May Be Crazy But...: tenpoundsofcheese: /i wonder how many atheists believe in karma

A fair number, actually. Now that I have your attention, I have to explain a bit. They probably don't believe explicitly in karma, but something similar. And they aren't the flavor of atheist that I am (I'm the "there's nothing that science can't explain" type) but they certainly don't believe in any sort of god or god-like figure.

Okay, but they believe in some sort of magical power in the sky that balances things out.

same thing for people who believe in luck, or superstition, or wearing a lucky shirt, or wearing your team baseball cap at a 30 degree angle during a game.

You're right; all magical thinking is stupid.  There is, however, a big difference between wearing a lucky ballcap to "help" your team and believing that your magical invisible friend in the sky told you to treat another human being like crap because they don't believe in that same deity.

Some people knock on wood in a futile effort to tilt metaphysics in their favor, others use their belief in Mr. Kolob to deprive fellow Americans of civil rights.

No, I don't think there is a difference.
At the end of the day each believes in magic.

Some use that belief to help others, some for selfish reasons, some to do harm as you noted


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, and that's why most atheists strike back against magical thinking, particularly the forms that cause so many problems in the world.  (Religion, anti-vaxxers, etc.)
 
2013-05-25 12:26:11 PM  

Some Bass Playing Guy: Just as you probably wouldn't like people to think all atheists are bloviating anti-theists, it's probably not a good idea to
claim all religious people act or think the same way.


As all religious people believe in absolute nonsense, I am fairly comfortable with claiming that they are all idiots.
 
2013-05-25 12:27:09 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: No, I don't think there is a difference.
At the end of the day each believes in magic.


Ask the person who is superstitiously wearing a ball cap to help their sports team if they really believe that they are magically improving their team's chances and most will say no. It is part of the fun of being a sports fanatic ... not usually an actual belief in magic (unlike religion).
 
2013-05-25 12:41:44 PM  

LasersHurt: Waldo Pepper: LasersHurt: Waldo Pepper: LasersHurt: Waldo Pepper: I think you will find that at some point atheism will be classified as a religion of sort.

There's no way to do it.

When this is money to be made and power to be gained someone will find a way to make it happen.

But it would categorically NOT be atheism, then. The very definition of the word prohibits it.

Definitions of that word can change over time.

It LITERALLY means a-theism - without religion. How could that change over time to mean exactly the opposite?


A = without, the = god, ism = belief system

It means to believe there is no god. Some try to use, "no, it just means I don't have a belief in god." But that is the same thing. To not believe there is a god, is to believe there is not one.
 
2013-05-25 12:43:17 PM  

s2s2s2: LasersHurt: Waldo Pepper: LasersHurt: Waldo Pepper: LasersHurt: Waldo Pepper: I think you will find that at some point atheism will be classified as a religion of sort.

There's no way to do it.

When this is money to be made and power to be gained someone will find a way to make it happen.

But it would categorically NOT be atheism, then. The very definition of the word prohibits it.

Definitions of that word can change over time.

It LITERALLY means a-theism - without religion. How could that change over time to mean exactly the opposite?

A = without, the = god, ism = belief system

It means to believe there is no god. Some try to use, "no, it just means I don't have a belief in god." But that is the same thing. To not believe there is a god, is to believe there is not one.


I do not own a Maserati.  I am a-Maserati.  Therefore, I do not believe that Maseratis exist.
 
2013-05-25 12:43:49 PM  
The bible defines faith as belief without evidence. If you believe there is no god, due to lack of evidence, you have faith.
 
2013-05-25 12:44:25 PM  

s2s2s2: The bible defines faith as belief without evidence. If you believe there is no god, due to lack of evidence, you have faith.


The Bible also tells you to stone homosexuals and to sell your raped daughter into sex slavery.
 
2013-05-25 12:49:20 PM  

Farking Canuck: Waldo Pepper: Did "Gay" always mean homosexual

Bad example. The original meaning of gay has not been compromised in any way. It is just that a new meaning was added.

That said, I do actually agree with you that words often do change for a variety of reasons. As an example, the current common use of the expression "a moot point" is to describe a point that is not worth discussing (due to it being already settled or unchangeable, etc.). The original use of this expression was to describe an interesting point that should be discussed further ... at the next 'moot' (which is a meeting).


which point do you feel is not worth discussing, the chance that atheism with become an organized "religion" or the chance that the definition will change or be altered?

The Gay example is a perfect example. Much like the word Gay being hijacked in modern usage to mean homosexual/lesbian, the word atheist or atheism at some point in the future will come to mean a member of an organization or "religion" of non believers.
 
2013-05-25 12:52:37 PM  

gimmegimme: I do not own a Maserati. I am a-Maserati. Therefore, I do not believe that Maseratis exist.


No... aMaserati-ism would be the belief that Maseratis don't exist.
 
2013-05-25 12:54:54 PM  

miscreant: gimmegimme: I do not own a Maserati. I am a-Maserati. Therefore, I do not believe that Maseratis exist.

No... aMaserati-ism would be the belief that Maseratis don't exist.


Thanks for tipping the ball in for me.
 
2013-05-25 12:58:04 PM  

Waldo Pepper: The Gay example is a perfect example. Much like the word Gay being hijacked in modern usage to mean homosexual/lesbian, the word atheist or atheism at some point in the future will come to mean a member of an organization or "religion" of non believers.


Doubtful. That's probably as likely as the term "theist" being considered a religion in the future, which I think is not very likely. Those words are too broad. If you were to claim Humanism would be considered a religion in the future (or already is depending who you ask), you'd be closer to the mark. A religion requires more structure than simply "there is/isn't a god".
 
2013-05-25 12:59:53 PM  

s2s2s2: Some try to use, "no, it just means I don't have a belief in god." But that is the same thing. To not believe there is a god, is to believe there is not one.


If a person calls them self an atheists to indicate that they lack a belief in god then that is what they mean.

You can argue that they are using the term wrong but you are being dishonest when you insist that they are making positive claims that no gods exist. Most atheists do not make this claim and yet religious people like to insist they do because it gives them something to argue against ... a strawman.

/ argue what people believe ... not what you decide to impose on them with your particular definitions of words
 
2013-05-25 01:12:55 PM  

stryed: I can't believe that, in this day and age, there are still atheists and believers.
It takes a lot more courage to say "I don't know, but let's find out", and to constantly juggle possible hypotheses on existence while we can.


lol. It doesn't take any courage at all to avoid making a choice. It is exactly the opposite. I will take the "there is a god" hypothesis seriously as soon as you idiots can provide a single bit of evidence that one exists. I won't be holding my breath.
 
2013-05-25 01:13:25 PM  

Dinki: Nabb1: So, you're doing it not for it's own sake, but to make a point to other people and knock down a straw man you've set up. That's nice.

Straw man? I can't begin to count the thousands of times I've been told about 'Christian charity' as if there were no other kind. The religionists have made an industry out of showing everyone how charitable they are, and how that charity must flow from their religion.


Of course charity is a big part of the Christian religion.  What is troubling to me is why you seem to have a problem with it.  Do you want them to just hoard their money and resources?  Vanilla atheism I understand, but you militant ones are every bit as baffling and annoying as those Jehovah's witnesses that feel the need to bang on every door in the neighborhood.
 
2013-05-25 01:14:47 PM  

gimmegimme: rzrwiresunrise: The Billdozer: LasersHurt: The Billdozer: /understands atheism
//can't understand "atheists"

You don't understand that the language naturally implies a term for a group of people?

To dumb it down:

I get why people don't collect stamps.

I don't get why a subset of these same people have groups, charities, people who wrote blogs and books, and are extremely vocal about their disdain for not collecting stamps and then biatch and whine when people point out their non-hobby "hobby".

I miss this analogy so much. Just tickles me to see something people hold dear to their hearts-- some so much so that they dedicate their lives to it-- reduced to a... "hobby."

Well, that's what happens when you dedicate your life to something that isn't real.  It's one thing to enjoy the original Star Wars films; it's quite another to think you are a Jedi who can move things with your thoughts and that Chewbacca is going to hang out with you at some point.


blog.angelatung.com
 
2013-05-25 01:25:41 PM  
Serious question, and none of this semantic rhetorical circle-jerkery if you respond.

Have you ever met someone who was 100% convinced of the truth of the Gospel, that Jesus was indeed the son of God, etc etc --

yet then completely rejected salvation because of sheer defiance, hatred, and pride?

That's mighty spooky. It's one thing to have no belief or faith, but another entirely to have real belief and faith, yet still not accept.
 
2013-05-25 01:27:34 PM  
img16.imageshack.us

Captain Dan: Offering her help because she's an atheist is bullshiat.  That's like offering a whites-only scholarship.


Actually, that's a really poor analogy. In every way imaginable, atheists would be considered a minority in America (especially in America!). So it's like offering a specific-minority-only scholarship... of which there are many.
 
2013-05-25 01:31:52 PM  

Kali-Yuga: planes: [www.global-air.com image 150x195]

French philosopher Blaise Pascal reasoned that even though God may not exist, you should wager that he does, because you have everything to gain, and nothing to lose. (new window)

And Pascal's wager is flawed for several reasons:

Fallacy One: It assumes that there is only one god which can be believed in, the Christian one. This is not true, since there are thousands of gods that have been worshiped throughout time. This would have to be applied to each and every one of those gods to be true, and this would clearly be impossible, due to the clashing natures of many of the said gods.

Fallacy Two: It assumes that simply wagering on God will buy one entrance into Heaven. While this may be so, the Wager does not instill a belief, it instills an appearance of a belief. Since the god in question is presumed to be all-knowing, he would be able to tell a false from a true belief. Therefore, the belief from the Wager would not qualify should belief be the requirement for entrance into Heaven.

Fallacy Three: It ignores too many alternate possibilities - some of which are addressed by existing religions, and some which are not. Some examples: A God could reward on criteria which seem meaningless to us - hair color, taste in clothes, music etc. or A God might not be concerned with humans at all - the universe could be here for hydrogen for all we know. Or God may even reward those who don't believe.


Fallacy Four: It assumes you have nothing to lose. But you do. Religious people spend a great deal of time doing religious stuff, like going to church. And they donate money and time to their church. They read scripture, they try to live by religion's rules, they feel guilty constantly, the list goes on.
 
2013-05-25 01:33:56 PM  
Farking Canuck:
You can argue that they are using the term wrong but you are being dishonest when you insist that they are making positive claims that no gods exist. Most atheists do not make this claim and yet religious people like to insist they do because it gives them something to argue against ... a strawman.

/ argue what people believe ... not what you decide to impose on them with your particular definitions of words


you sound persecuted
 
2013-05-25 01:37:42 PM  

Hoban Washburne: Nabb1: Of course. I am sure it is as you say.

I've heard things like this as well as "People would have no morality if it wasn't for religion" arguments from religious people way more times than I can count.  I have a very tolerant non fundamentalist Christian friend ask me once how I would instil morals in my children without religion.  She wasn't trying to be mean about it, just asking because we were talking about religion/atheism.  She's one of the nice ones.


My answer: I'd tell them, "Never take anything from anyone else without their permission. That is the core of all morality. Everything else is just window dressing."
 
2013-05-25 01:38:26 PM  

i upped my meds-up yours: We agnostics are like a dead cat in the left turn lane right now. We just keep getting run over and ignored.


As they should be. Agnostics are more obnoxious than fundies or atheists can ever hope to be. You found a way to feel superior to both groups, so CONGRATULATIONS, HAVE A FARKING COOKIE.
 
2013-05-25 01:40:06 PM  

Lor M. Ipsum: Donating to people in need is great, but if you want to really send a message, donate to people regardless of their religion (or lack thereof).  It seems like this is just driving the stake deeper in an already polarized debate.


Again, I say: on a teeter totter with a 90-pound girl and a 2-ton elephant, the balance point is not in the exact middle. That favors the elephant.
 
2013-05-25 01:41:54 PM  

umad: As they should be. Agnostics are more obnoxious than fundies or atheists can ever hope to be. You found a way to feel superior to both groups, so CONGRATULATIONS, HAVE A FARKING COOKIE.


so having a life philosophy that doesn't insist on you being a raging lunatic or a complete asshole is a bad thing?
 
2013-05-25 01:42:06 PM  

rzrwiresunrise: gimmegimme: rzrwiresunrise: The Billdozer: LasersHurt: The Billdozer: /understands atheism
//can't understand "atheists"

You don't understand that the language naturally implies a term for a group of people?

To dumb it down:

I get why people don't collect stamps.

I don't get why a subset of these same people have groups, charities, people who wrote blogs and books, and are extremely vocal about their disdain for not collecting stamps and then biatch and whine when people point out their non-hobby "hobby".

I miss this analogy so much. Just tickles me to see something people hold dear to their hearts-- some so much so that they dedicate their lives to it-- reduced to a... "hobby."

Well, that's what happens when you dedicate your life to something that isn't real.  It's one thing to enjoy the original Star Wars films; it's quite another to think you are a Jedi who can move things with your thoughts and that Chewbacca is going to hang out with you at some point.

[blog.angelatung.com image 300x256]


Oh, I'm well aware of what "Chewbacca" means.
 
2013-05-25 01:44:54 PM  

Waldo Pepper: Did "Gay" always mean homosexual


Did "Gay" USED to mean "heterosexual"?
 
2013-05-25 01:46:55 PM  

Voiceofreason01: umad: As they should be. Agnostics are more obnoxious than fundies or atheists can ever hope to be. You found a way to feel superior to both groups, so CONGRATULATIONS, HAVE A FARKING COOKIE.

so having a life philosophy that doesn't insist on you being a raging lunatic or a complete asshole is a bad thing?


What makes a mainstream atheist an asshole?  Stating their beliefs?  Protesting the teaching of creationism in schools?
 
2013-05-25 01:49:14 PM  

LasersHurt: Waldo Pepper: Did "Gay" always mean homosexual

Did "Gay" USED to mean "heterosexual"?


The Oxford English Dictionary rules.
 
2013-05-25 01:49:51 PM  

hardinparamedic: log_jammin: I doubt this lady experiences more than a few whispers between coworkers about "did you hear she's an atheist?". and hopefully she won't even experience that until her home is rebuilt and her life is back in order. There is a lot of derp and derpers in red states, but for the most part, the people in them, don't worry themselves of what religion their coworkers are, or aren't.

Studies have found that people who commit abhorrant crimes are trusted more than Atheists and Secular Humanists in the United States. In reality, discrimination against Atheists in employment and government positions is rampant, even going so far as to being written into State employment laws and even State Constitutions when it comes to holding political office. Many states in the south outright make it illegal for an Atheist or nOn-theist to hold office.


Of course, thanks to Torcaso v. Watkins, these laws are unenforceable. If they try, they will get slapped down by every court imaginable.
 
2013-05-25 01:50:07 PM  

gimmegimme: LasersHurt: Waldo Pepper: Did "Gay" always mean homosexual

Did "Gay" USED to mean "heterosexual"?

The Oxford English Dictionary rules.


That link doesn't go anywhere. What?
 
2013-05-25 01:50:11 PM  

Pumpernickel bread: Of course charity is a big part of the Christian religion.  What is troubling to me is why you seem to have a problem with it.  Do you want them to just hoard their money and resources?  Vanilla atheism I understand, but you militant ones are every bit as baffling and annoying as those Jehovah's witnesses that feel the need to bang on every door in the neighborhood.



In 2011, the majority of charitable dollars in the U.S. went to religion (32%), education (13%), human services (12%), and grant making foundations (9%)

Using money to advance one's religion isn't really charity and money given to one's church is more of a social insurance policy for members of that group than anything else. The vast majority, as high as 80-90% in some sects, of religious "charity" goes to help other members of that same religion, not society as a whole in any way.
 
2013-05-25 01:52:17 PM  

LasersHurt: gimmegimme: LasersHurt: Waldo Pepper: Did "Gay" always mean homosexual

Did "Gay" USED to mean "heterosexual"?

The Oxford English Dictionary rules.

That link doesn't go anywhere. What?


For me, it goes to the OED definition of "gay."  The OED offers a comprehensive history of the word "gay" and what it has meant over the years.
 
2013-05-25 01:52:20 PM  

gimmegimme: rzrwiresunrise: gimmegimme: rzrwiresunrise: The Billdozer: LasersHurt: The Billdozer: /understands atheism
//can't understand "atheists"

You don't understand that the language naturally implies a term for a group of people?

To dumb it down:

I get why people don't collect stamps.

I don't get why a subset of these same people have groups, charities, people who wrote blogs and books, and are extremely vocal about their disdain for not collecting stamps and then biatch and whine when people point out their non-hobby "hobby".

I miss this analogy so much. Just tickles me to see something people hold dear to their hearts-- some so much so that they dedicate their lives to it-- reduced to a... "hobby."

Well, that's what happens when you dedicate your life to something that isn't real.  It's one thing to enjoy the original Star Wars films; it's quite another to think you are a Jedi who can move things with your thoughts and that Chewbacca is going to hang out with you at some point.

[blog.angelatung.com image 300x256]

Oh, I'm well aware of what "Chewbacca" means.


I'm not sure you quite got it. Think about who made the comparison in the post I quoted. That's the joke.
 
2013-05-25 01:53:22 PM  

rzrwiresunrise: So I'm guessing the ones whining about donations to this lady "because" she's atheist don't whine about people being persecuted for their Christian beliefs in Muslim countries simply "because" they're Christian?


They also justify denying donations to her "because" she's an atheist.
 
2013-05-25 01:53:46 PM  
gimmegimme:
What makes a mainstream atheist an asshole?  Stating their beliefs?  Protesting the teaching of creationism in schools?

We can argue semantics about what is and isn't "mainstream atheism" but Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher are both extremely vocal and in a lot of people's eyes are pretty representative of atheists in general(yes I know that they're not) and they're both assholes with their anti-theism.

/much the same way certain people point to The Westboro Baptist Church or The American Family Association as being representative of Christianity.
 
2013-05-25 01:55:25 PM  

Voiceofreason01: umad: As they should be. Agnostics are more obnoxious than fundies or atheists can ever hope to be. You found a way to feel superior to both groups, so CONGRATULATIONS, HAVE A FARKING COOKIE.

so having a life philosophy that doesn't insist on you being a raging lunatic or a complete asshole is a bad thing?


A life philosophy that gives the same respect to the irrational as it does to the rational is indeed a bad thing. Grow a spine and start using your farking brain already.
 
2013-05-25 01:58:44 PM  

gimmegimme: LasersHurt: Waldo Pepper: Did "Gay" always mean homosexual

Did "Gay" USED to mean "heterosexual"?

The Oxford English Dictionary rules.


You surely realize none of us have accounts there.
 
2013-05-25 02:00:17 PM  

umad: A life philosophy that gives the same respect to the irrational as it does to the rational is indeed a bad thing. Grow a spine and start using your farking brain already.


rationality? Like claiming that religion is the direct cause of much of the world's violence and blaming Christianity in general for abuses taken in the name of a similar belief system, half a world away?
 
2013-05-25 02:00:49 PM  

LasersHurt: It LITERALLY means a-theism - without religion. How could that change over time to mean exactly the opposite?


You are trying to make a logical argument in a discussion with a religious nutbag.  It's a waste of time.
 
2013-05-25 02:01:33 PM  

Voiceofreason01: gimmegimme:
What makes a mainstream atheist an asshole?  Stating their beliefs?  Protesting the teaching of creationism in schools?

We can argue semantics about what is and isn't "mainstream atheism" but Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher are both extremely vocal and in a lot of people's eyes are pretty representative of atheists in general(yes I know that they're not) and they're both assholes with their anti-theism.

/much the same way certain people point to The Westboro Baptist Church or The American Family Association as being representative of Christianity.


Wow, that's an UNFAIR comparison.  WBC says all those horrible things about...everyone.  The American Family Association actively works to make the lives of others worse.  Surely you can provide examples of equivalent assholitude from Dawkins and Maher.

DoctorCal: gimmegimme: LasersHurt: Waldo Pepper: Did "Gay" always mean homosexual

Did "Gay" USED to mean "heterosexual"?

The Oxford English Dictionary rules.

You surely realize none of us have accounts there.


Oh.  Sorry.  I suppose this demonstrates how intelligent and well-educated I think (most) Farkers are.
 
2013-05-25 02:01:42 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Farking Canuck:
You can argue that they are using the term wrong but you are being dishonest when you insist that they are making positive claims that no gods exist. Most atheists do not make this claim and yet religious people like to insist they do because it gives them something to argue against ... a strawman.

/ argue what people believe ... not what you decide to impose on them with your particular definitions of words

you sound persecuted


Nope ... I live in Canada. Nobody ever asks what church I go to and very few would have an issue if I said "none" or "I am an atheist".

I was simply pointing out a common dishonest and logically unsound argument that religious people tend to make.
 
Displayed 50 of 527 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report