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  
•       •       •

12954 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 02:02:44 PM  

ha-ha-guy: I'm an atheist and I never got why people have such strong reactions to the occasional thank god, you're blessed, or other such stuff.  It's just a social formula you mouth, like when you tell the taxi driver you'll never see again if your life to take care and have a nice day.  If someone preaches to me, I'll respond, but just smile, say thanks, and accept as the social nicety it was meant as.


Blitzer was bizarre in the interview.  It was like watching The 700 Club.  He went on about blessings and praising the lord to a woman who's house was destroyed.
 
2013-05-25 02:04:17 PM  

gimmegimme: Oh.  Sorry.  I suppose this demonstrates how intelligent and well-educated I think (most) Farkers are.


Subscribing to the OED online is your litmus test for intelligence and education?
 
2013-05-25 02:06:38 PM  

LasersHurt: gimmegimme: Oh.  Sorry.  I suppose this demonstrates how intelligent and well-educated I think (most) Farkers are.

Subscribing to the OED online is your litmus test for intelligence and education?


No, I took it for granted that some Farkers would have access through library/university accounts and so on.  I was being serious; I've "met" a lot of very smart folks during my time on Fark.
 
2013-05-25 02:08:21 PM  

Voiceofreason01: 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.


...the fact that theists lump Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins together says more about them than either Maher or Dawkins. They are not at all alike. Maher's definitely the bigger asshole in this picture.  People only think Dawkins is an asshole because he had the temerity to name a book "The God Delusion".
 
2013-05-25 02:13:45 PM  

IlGreven: Voiceofreason01: 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.

...the fact that theists lump Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins together says more about them than either Maher or Dawkins. They are not at all alike. Maher's definitely the bigger asshole in this picture.  People only think Dawkins is an asshole because he had the temerity to name a book "The God Delusion".


upload.wikimedia.org
www.howanswers.us
sparrowsandsandcastles.files.wordpress.com
upload.wikimedia.org
a.abcnews.com
 
2013-05-25 02:13:55 PM  

gimmegimme: 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.


Of course. But got dayum they are expensive. OED is one of greatest things in existence, but I can't justify $300/year for it.
 
2013-05-25 02:16:57 PM  
Saying you are an agnostic does not mean you are above the fray.

Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion. I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods. None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof. Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?

Richard Dawkins has been heavily influenced by Russell, and he has really paraphrased this position as his own. And over and over, I see him characterized as an asshole for doing so. If it isn't this stance that makes him an asshole, but something else, I'd be curious to know; so far, every time I've asked someone who has called Dawkins an asshole for a specific quote or act that makes him one, they have left the thread.

It amuses me that some Christians take offense to the idea that their god should be lumped in with other gods that people have worshiped throughout history. Their dogma is plausible, whereas that other dogma is just ridiculous.
 
2013-05-25 02:22:47 PM  

Repo Man: Saying you are an agnostic does not mean you are above the fray.

Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion. I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods. None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof. Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?

Richard Dawkins has been heavily influenced by Russell, and he has really paraphrased this position as his own. And over and over, I see him characterized as an asshole for doing so. If it isn't this stance that makes him an asshole, but something else, I'd be curious to know; so far, every time I've asked someone who has called Dawkins an asshole for a specific quote or act that makes him one, they have left the thread.

It amuses me that some Christians take offense to the idea that their god should be lumped in with other gods that people have worshiped throughout history. Their dogma is plausible, whereas that other dogma is just ridiculous.


I found The God Delusion a little shrill, nor have I found the arguments against the existence of god(s) based on the reprobate character of the Judeo-Christian god compelling.
 
2013-05-25 02:25:29 PM  

Voiceofreason01: 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?


No. A strawman argument is a fallacy, and therefore irrational.
 
2013-05-25 02:26:01 PM  

rzrwiresunrise: I found The God Delusion a little shrill, nor have I found the arguments against the existence of god(s) based on the reprobate character of the Judeo-Christian god compelling.


You know, reading one or two pages of a book in an Amazon preview doesn't mean you know what the whole book says.
 
2013-05-25 02:26:05 PM  

Nabb1: 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.

Kind of agree.  I don't know if that was the intent, but it kind of smacks of some backdoor prejudices.


Yep absolutely upfront prejudices against ignorance, blind faith and near universal peer pressure to believe in god.
 
2013-05-25 02:31:15 PM  

hardinparamedic: 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.

This happens all the time, and is one of the major barriers that disaster planners and relief agencies have to work around when they are planning contengiency plans for these situations when involving faith based organizations. And I have far, far more respect for organizations like the United Methodist Church that help everyone (they have a huge kitchen ministry for disasters) than I do for some local church that only helps their congregation or religious belief. . And yes, people WILL refuse to help you after something like this if you are not of faith, or more accurately - their faith. The Red Cross tries to form agreesments with some churches that refuse to act as shelters along the principles of  the Red Cross because they cannot actively evangalicise or restrict the people they help to only those of their faith.

When the Pope says you're a bunch of douchebags for alienating good people on the basis of their faith, you're a bunch of douchebags.


You do realize Frances was directing that mesage at atheists, don't you?

 If you meant individuals who  help only those of their own faith or faith in general, that's like any other excuse for being stingy.  "Get a job, bum" means "get a job, like me, bum." I have never heard of a church that refused aid to a disaster victim, or a soup kitchen or homeless shelter that turned away anyone on the basis of faith.  You might have to listen to some proselytizing, but you'll get help.

First they'll do a little singin',
Then hear a little preachin'
And get saved for the 3rd time this week
A bowl of soup later and a pat on the shoulder
And by midnight, they're back on the street

"Midnight Choir" - Gatlin Bros.
 
2013-05-25 02:36:03 PM  

Billy Bathsalt: DoctorCal: I think it's quite possible that Wolf is patronizing her, and hoping for a highly emotional, affirmative response just for the entertainment value.

I mean, he's Jewish, so...thank the Lord, thank the Lord doesn't seem like it would be his sincere reaction.

?  Because Jews haven't heard of God?

If you watch the video, the first time he asks her she says "yuh."  After he presser her, "Do you thank the Lord?" she says, "Actually, I'm an atheist."  That's not attention whoring.  There is somebody downtown with a bullhorn right now berating people for not having the loud person's identical beliefs.  That's attention whoring.  I'm going to give her a donation just for getting Wolf to STFU with his assumptions about her.
There was also the "lost dog" woman, who when the interviewer asked "Are you able to comprehend yet what happened here?" and she said "I know exactly what happened here."
I have to admit that these two women gave me a lot more respect for the people of Oklahoma.  No tears and self-pity, just straightforward plain speaking.


Oklahoma: almost as good as Texas but colder and with Indians.
 
2013-05-25 02:37:31 PM  

hardinparamedic: Captain Dan: Christian charities don't limit aid to Christian victims.

BULL. shiat.

As I pointed out before, this is one of the major issues with disaster planning when engaging with Faith-based organizations. There are still churches out there that either A) Demand the right to evangelize or prosthelatize to the people they are aiding in a disaster, or B) Demand that they only help members of their congregation alone.

This is the reason that the American Red Cross will flat out refuse an offer from a church or homeless shelter to shelter victims after a disaster if they try to pull that shiat, and will even close a shelter or pull their endorsement if they catch someone doing that.


So when has the RC done that?
 
2013-05-25 02:39:09 PM  

Captain Dan: Lenny_da_Hog: And how many Christian charities make receiving their aid contingent upon listening to their sales pitch if you're not a member? It's not like it's without strings all the time. Sure, there are some really good ones that don't do that, but there are also plenty that do.

I've attended over a dozen churches across the country and never encountered that.

If a church did that, I would call them out on their bullshiat.  Selective aid is un-Christian behavior, and any church who practiced it would deserve all the ignominy they receive.

The parable of the Good Samaritan was intended to demonstrate the ethical imperative of helping all people, even those who you hate or have nothing in common with.  Jesus's teachings on this could not be any more clear.


Assemblies of God churches are pretty big on this actually. I went to help from them (I actually attended their church) but because I didn't go through their leadership program to become an official member, they denied the ability to help me. A bit later they built a huge addition to the church, a fountain, and a school (which they charge to attend.) I could point out quite a few churches that have no problem taking tithes from you as a "non-member" though.

This lesson in "Christianity" taught me that I'll find God without an organization or an asshole trying to sell me salvation.


/"New Life" church Renton/Maple Valley, WA is full of self serving hypocritical assholes by the way. Beautiful corporate campus though.
 
2013-05-25 02:39:19 PM  

liam76: LasersHurt: liam76: I don't agree with your assessment, but I think we both agree they don't say their charity only goes to christians.

An, in a general sense, neither do atheists. Let's all remember that this one campaign /= the sum total of atheist giving.

I am highlighting the problem with "this one campaign".

He should have set up a charity "atheists for tornado relief".


Like the one you set up, right?
 
2013-05-25 02:40:42 PM  
Atheists in general are pretty smart people.  A few atheists on Fark are pretty smart people.  Most of the atheists I've seen on Fark are dumber than paint.
 
2013-05-25 02:43:04 PM  

The Billdozer: Evilhippie: The Billdozer:
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".

Though your initial statement was indeed dumb; most blanket statements tend to be. I agree your following attempt to explain your bigoted opinion is even dumber. I'm not even going to waste time explaining why, since you can just read up on the last couple of post.

As long as you can feel superior to someone, the time you wasted writing that out was well worth it!


There you go.  Whether you believe or disbelieve; tolerate or discriminate; abstain or fark; you do it to feel better.
 
2013-05-25 02:44:11 PM  

ReverendJynxed: Captain Dan: Lenny_da_Hog: And how many Christian charities make receiving their aid contingent upon listening to their sales pitch if you're not a member? It's not like it's without strings all the time. Sure, there are some really good ones that don't do that, but there are also plenty that do.

I've attended over a dozen churches across the country and never encountered that.

If a church did that, I would call them out on their bullshiat.  Selective aid is un-Christian behavior, and any church who practiced it would deserve all the ignominy they receive.

The parable of the Good Samaritan was intended to demonstrate the ethical imperative of helping all people, even those who you hate or have nothing in common with.  Jesus's teachings on this could not be any more clear.

Assemblies of God churches are pretty big on this actually. I went to get help from them (I actually attended their church) but because I didn't go through their leadership program to become an official member, they denied the ability to help me. A bit later they built a huge addition to the church, a fountain, and a school (which they charge to attend.) I could point out quite a few churches that have no problem taking tithes from you as a "non-member" though.

This lesson in "Christianity" taught me that I'll find God without an organization or an asshole trying to sell me salvation.


/"New Life" church Renton/Maple Valley, WA is full of self serving hypocritical assholes by the way. Beautiful corporate campus though.


/FTFM
 
2013-05-25 02:46:15 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: The Billdozer: Evilhippie: The Billdozer:
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".

Though your initial statement was indeed dumb; most blanket statements tend to be. I agree your following attempt to explain your bigoted opinion is even dumber. I'm not even going to waste time explaining why, since you can just read up on the last couple of post.

As long as you can feel superior to someone, the time you wasted writing that out was well worth it!

There you go.  Whether you believe or disbelieve; tolerate or discriminate; abstain or fark; you do it to feel better.


Here's the difference: stamps exist.
 
2013-05-25 02:47:26 PM  
You know at the end of the day, I'm sure this lady couldn't give a flying flip what group wants to help her only that they do want to help her. She lost her home. She lost her neighborhood. She probably lost her car as well. She has a child to look after. And I am sure all she wants is a roof over her head and food in her belly.

If an atheist group has raised over 79 grand, I only hope that she sees every penny and that it helps her get her life back as close to normal as she can get it.

This whole thread is trivial. (Which, is basically what Fark arguments are. Often amusing but trivial.) So, if you think atheists are better than religious people, stop arguing and donate. If you think atheists are full of it in that line of belief, stop arguing and donate too.

Kids are expensive. Houses aren't cheap. Neither is therapy, which I am sure after going through this ordeal, she's going to need. 79 grand is nice but more would help.
 
2013-05-25 02:48:34 PM  
Cool.

Good on her. Hope her family gets the help she needs.
 
2013-05-25 02:53:20 PM  

gimmegimme: rzrwiresunrise: I found The God Delusion a little shrill, nor have I found the arguments against the existence of god(s) based on the reprobate character of the Judeo-Christian god compelling.

You know, reading one or two pages of a book in an Amazon preview doesn't mean you know what the whole book says.


You know, being a pr*ck about your atheism doesn't mean it's based on the most cogent reasoning. Attacking the deeds or character of a deity do nothing to advance the argument against its existence-- that's just a dressed-up form of an ad hom attack. The same argument could be used to try and refute the existence of Zeus, Odin or Huitzilopóchtli, each of whose adherents were accepting of their cruelties and made no naïve protestations as to their magnanimity, even as they gave thanks. The only thing it can do is demonstrate the ontological inconsistencies in Christianity.

Sing praises to Dawkins all you like, but my opinion of the book, and his general approach to boot, still stands. My atheism won't suffer a bit for it, either.
 
2013-05-25 02:53:28 PM  
Anything good that happens is because of God. But not anything bad. None of that is his fault.

/Must be nice.
 
2013-05-25 02:55:53 PM  
alklloyd: Anything good that happens is because of God Obama. But not anything bad. None of that is his fault.

/Must be nice.

FTFY
 
2013-05-25 02:56:59 PM  

rzrwiresunrise: gimmegimme: rzrwiresunrise: I found The God Delusion a little shrill, nor have I found the arguments against the existence of god(s) based on the reprobate character of the Judeo-Christian god compelling.

You know, reading one or two pages of a book in an Amazon preview doesn't mean you know what the whole book says.

You know, being a pr*ck about your atheism doesn't mean it's based on the most cogent reasoning. Attacking the deeds or character of a deity do nothing to advance the argument against its existence-- that's just a dressed-up form of an ad hom attack. The same argument could be used to try and refute the existence of Zeus, Odin or Huitzilopóchtli, each of whose adherents were accepting of their cruelties and made no naïve protestations as to their magnanimity, even as they gave thanks. The only thing it can do is demonstrate the ontological inconsistencies in Christianity.

Sing praises to Dawkins all you like, but my opinion of the book, and his general approach to boot, still stands. My atheism won't suffer a bit for it, either.


Why waste your time trying to find prickery in Dawkins or Maher when I've pointed out the real, tangible harm done by the prickery of religion?
 
2013-05-25 02:58:41 PM  
People who accuse atheists of attention whoring simply because they say they are atheists are exactly the same as people who accuse gays of "shoving their gayness down our throats" for simply asking for equal rights, and thus they deserve the same scorn.
 
2013-05-25 03:02:07 PM  

gimmegimme: IlGreven: Voiceofreason01: 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.

...the fact that theists lump Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins together says more about them than either Maher or Dawkins. They are not at all alike. Maher's definitely the bigger asshole in this picture.  People only think Dawkins is an asshole because he had the temerity to name a book "The God Delusion".

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x305]
[www.howanswers.us image 247x198]
[sparrowsandsandcastles.files.wordpress.com image 768x1024]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x308]
[a.abcnews.com image 320x240]


No they're not equivalent but they all stem from the same basic problem: bigotry, ignorance and tribalism and those are the issues that need to be addressed. As long as people look across the pew/aisle/fence/whatever and see someone different from themselves and hate them for those differences we're going to have problems; and call me a romantic but I tend to believe that it's the hatred and not the differences that are the problem.
 
2013-05-25 03:04:22 PM  

Voiceofreason01: gimmegimme: IlGreven: Voiceofreason01: 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.

...the fact that theists lump Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins together says more about them than either Maher or Dawkins. They are not at all alike. Maher's definitely the bigger asshole in this picture.  People only think Dawkins is an asshole because he had the temerity to name a book "The God Delusion".

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x305]
[www.howanswers.us image 247x198]
[sparrowsandsandcastles.files.wordpress.com image 768x1024]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x308]
[a.abcnews.com image 320x240]

No they're not equivalent but they all stem from the same basic problem: bigotry, ignorance and tribalism and those are the issues that need to be addressed. As long as people look across the pew/aisle/fence/whatever and see someone different from themselves and hate them for those differences we're going to have problems; and call me a romantic but I tend to believe that it's the hatred and not the differences that are the problem.


So you feel that Dawkins' book is an example of "bigotry, ignorance and tribalism"So which fields of academic endeavor are NOT representative of "bigotry, ignorance and tribalism?"
 
2013-05-25 03:09:29 PM  

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.


Sure there is, and it's already in motion.  The primary definition of "religion" is "the service or worship of God or the supernatural."  But more recent, expansive definitions include things like, "a cause, principle,, or system of beliefs held to with ardor or faith."  Atheism fits comfortably within the latter.   When we get to the point where religion is simply a belief system that relies upon faith, then atheism  is a religion.

There are definite advantages to being  considered a religious person.  Atheists might consider them before rejecting the label.
 
2013-05-25 03:12:00 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: 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.

Sure there is, and it's already in motion.  The primary definition of "religion" is "the service or worship of God or the supernatural."  But more recent, expansive definitions include things like, "a cause, principle,, or system of beliefs held to with ardor or faith."  Atheism fits comfortably within the latter.   When we get to the point where religion is simply a belief system that relies upon faith, then atheism  is a religion.

There are definite advantages to being  considered a religious person.  Atheists might consider them before rejecting the label.


Which dictionary are you using?  (You might want to cite such things in the future.)
 
2013-05-25 03:16:12 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?


Your Latin sucks.  A-theism means "without belief in God."
 
2013-05-25 03:16:52 PM  

Triumph: It's rare, but sometimes you gotta eject on takeoff.

[www.gruntdoc.com image 850x555]


that wasnt takeoff..
 
2013-05-25 03:17:26 PM  

gimmegimme: rzrwiresunrise: gimmegimme: rzrwiresunrise: I found The God Delusion a little shrill, nor have I found the arguments against the existence of god(s) based on the reprobate character of the Judeo-Christian god compelling.

You know, reading one or two pages of a book in an Amazon preview doesn't mean you know what the whole book says.

You know, being a pr*ck about your atheism doesn't mean it's based on the most cogent reasoning. Attacking the deeds or character of a deity do nothing to advance the argument against its existence-- that's just a dressed-up form of an ad hom attack. The same argument could be used to try and refute the existence of Zeus, Odin or Huitzilopóchtli, each of whose adherents were accepting of their cruelties and made no naïve protestations as to their magnanimity, even as they gave thanks. The only thing it can do is demonstrate the ontological inconsistencies in Christianity.

Sing praises to Dawkins all you like, but my opinion of the book, and his general approach to boot, still stands. My atheism won't suffer a bit for it, either.

Why waste your time trying to find prickery in Dawkins or Maher when I've pointed out the real, tangible harm done by the prickery of religion?


*pats head*

Hookay. Run along and play.
 
2013-05-25 03:32:28 PM  

gimmegimme: There you go.  Whether you believe or disbelieve; tolerate or discriminate; abstain or fark; you do it to feel better.

Here's the difference: stamps exist.


And what difference does that make?  Right; you feel better about believing in things that exist.
 
2013-05-25 03:32:43 PM  

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.


Conversely, the religious went in and "ministered" to the survivors which is exactly the same as doing nothing.
 
2013-05-25 03:33:39 PM  

dforkus: Wha profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul.,

ZZZzzz...

 
2013-05-25 03:34:14 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: gimmegimme: There you go.  Whether you believe or disbelieve; tolerate or discriminate; abstain or fark; you do it to feel better.

Here's the difference: stamps exist.

And what difference does that make?  Right; you feel better about believing in things that exist.


Yes...thank you.  I'm so glad we could come to an agreement.
 
2013-05-25 03:37:53 PM  

gimmegimme: BarkingUnicorn: 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.

Sure there is, and it's already in motion.  The primary definition of "religion" is "the service or worship of God or the supernatural."  But more recent, expansive definitions include things like, "a cause, principle,, or system of beliefs held to with ardor or faith."  Atheism fits comfortably within the latter.   When we get to the point where religion is simply a belief system that relies upon faith, then atheism  is a religion.

There are definite advantages to being  considered a religious person.  Atheists might consider them before rejecting the label.

Which dictionary are you using?  (You might want to cite such things in the future.)


Merriam-Webster.  Ffs, do not use dictionary.com, it's no more lexicography than About.com is encyclopedic.

it doesn't really matter what dictionary you use.  You'll find examples of such expansion everywhere, including in legislation and policies designed to protect "strongly-held personal beliefs."
 
2013-05-25 03:39:53 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: gimmegimme: BarkingUnicorn: 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.

Sure there is, and it's already in motion.  The primary definition of "religion" is "the service or worship of God or the supernatural."  But more recent, expansive definitions include things like, "a cause, principle,, or system of beliefs held to with ardor or faith."  Atheism fits comfortably within the latter.   When we get to the point where religion is simply a belief system that relies upon faith, then atheism  is a religion.

There are definite advantages to being  considered a religious person.  Atheists might consider them before rejecting the label.

Which dictionary are you using?  (You might want to cite such things in the future.)

Merriam-Webster.  Ffs, do not use dictionary.com, it's no more lexicography than About.com is encyclopedic.

it doesn't really matter what dictionary you use.  You'll find examples of such expansion everywhere, including in legislation and policies designed to protect "strongly-held personal beliefs."


Well, I'm sure language will keep evolving (as it always has) to ensure that people who believe in reality can differentiate themselves from those who don't.
 
2013-05-25 03:40:19 PM  

gimmegimme: BarkingUnicorn: gimmegimme: There you go.  Whether you believe or disbelieve; tolerate or discriminate; abstain or fark; you do it to feel better.

Here's the difference: stamps exist.

And what difference does that make?  Right; you feel better about believing in things that exist.

Yes...thank you.  I'm so glad we could come to an agreement.


Much division an strife could be avoided if people  would just admit that all they do is seek to feel better.
 
2013-05-25 03:41:58 PM  

gimmegimme: BarkingUnicorn: gimmegimme: BarkingUnicorn: 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.

Sure there is, and it's already in motion.  The primary definition of "religion" is "the service or worship of God or the supernatural."  But more recent, expansive definitions include things like, "a cause, principle,, or system of beliefs held to with ardor or faith."  Atheism fits comfortably within the latter.   When we get to the point where religion is simply a belief system that relies upon faith, then atheism  is a religion.

There are definite advantages to being  considered a religious person.  Atheists might consider them before rejecting the label.

Which dictionary are you using?  (You might want to cite such things in the future.)

Merriam-Webster.  Ffs, do not use dictionary.com, it's no more lexicography than About.com is encyclopedic.

it doesn't really matter what dictionary you use.  You'll find examples of such expansion everywhere, including in legislation and policies designed to protect "strongly-held personal beliefs."

Well, I'm sure language will keep evolving (as it always has) to ensure that people who believe in reality can differentiate themselves from those who don't.


I think the word, "realist" serves that purpose.  First known use, 1817.  Again, from m-w.com
 
2013-05-25 03:42:48 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: gimmegimme: BarkingUnicorn: gimmegimme: There you go.  Whether you believe or disbelieve; tolerate or discriminate; abstain or fark; you do it to feel better.

Here's the difference: stamps exist.

And what difference does that make?  Right; you feel better about believing in things that exist.

Yes...thank you.  I'm so glad we could come to an agreement.

Much division an strife could be avoided if people  would just admit that all they do is seek to feel better.


Agreed.  Far too many people are loathe to admit that they don't care if what they believe is true and that they prefer to live in a fantasy world rather than the real one.
 
2013-05-25 03:45:44 PM  

gimmegimme: BarkingUnicorn: gimmegimme: BarkingUnicorn: gimmegimme: There you go.  Whether you believe or disbelieve; tolerate or discriminate; abstain or fark; you do it to feel better.

Here's the difference: stamps exist.

And what difference does that make?  Right; you feel better about believing in things that exist.

Yes...thank you.  I'm so glad we could come to an agreement.

Much division an strife could be avoided if people  would just admit that all they do is seek to feel better.

Agreed.  Far too many people are loathe to admit that they don't care if what they believe is true and that they prefer to live in a fantasy world rather than the real one.


No, the difficulty is that most people don't want to admit they're entirely selfish.  Selfishness has acquired a bad rep.
 
2013-05-25 03:45:46 PM  

DrewFL: Such a passive aggressive and elitist thing to do...Because Stanhope had media and a figurehead he made a bullshiat point for no ones benefit but his own (im sure the "randomly atheist" winner was vetted and their home inspected for F5 code. Just shiatty. it's the belt buckle of the USA. People are religious there. It was an exceedingly mean and shiatty thing to do.


As an atheist, I'm ragingly "meh" about this.

However, I thought his perks for donations were awesome.
 
2013-05-25 03:47:34 PM  
I'll enjoy the followup story in which the woman uses part of the money to help her neighbors.
 
2013-05-25 03:47:55 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: gimmegimme: BarkingUnicorn: gimmegimme: BarkingUnicorn: gimmegimme: There you go.  Whether you believe or disbelieve; tolerate or discriminate; abstain or fark; you do it to feel better.

Here's the difference: stamps exist.

And what difference does that make?  Right; you feel better about believing in things that exist.

Yes...thank you.  I'm so glad we could come to an agreement.

Much division an strife could be avoided if people  would just admit that all they do is seek to feel better.

Agreed.  Far too many people are loathe to admit that they don't care if what they believe is true and that they prefer to live in a fantasy world rather than the real one.

No, the difficulty is that most people don't want to admit they're entirely selfish.  Selfishness has acquired a bad rep.


So you don't believe that truth is a necessity?  Why should anyone care what you have to say if you don't particularly care if what you  say is true?
 
2013-05-25 03:49:13 PM  

gimmegimme: BarkingUnicorn: gimmegimme: BarkingUnicorn: gimmegimme: BarkingUnicorn: gimmegimme: There you go.  Whether you believe or disbelieve; tolerate or discriminate; abstain or fark; you do it to feel better.

Here's the difference: stamps exist.

And what difference does that make?  Right; you feel better about believing in things that exist.

Yes...thank you.  I'm so glad we could come to an agreement.

Much division an strife could be avoided if people  would just admit that all they do is seek to feel better.

Agreed.  Far too many people are loathe to admit that they don't care if what they believe is true and that they prefer to live in a fantasy world rather than the real one.

No, the difficulty is that most people don't want to admit they're entirely selfish.  Selfishness has acquired a bad rep.

So you don't believe that truth is a necessity?  Why should anyone care what you have to say if you don't particularly care if what you  say is true?


No, truth is not necessary to feel better.  You  should care what I say only if it makes you feel better.
 
2013-05-25 03:50:58 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: gimmegimme: BarkingUnicorn: gimmegimme: BarkingUnicorn: gimmegimme: BarkingUnicorn: gimmegimme: There you go.  Whether you believe or disbelieve; tolerate or discriminate; abstain or fark; you do it to feel better.

Here's the difference: stamps exist.

And what difference does that make?  Right; you feel better about believing in things that exist.

Yes...thank you.  I'm so glad we could come to an agreement.

Much division an strife could be avoided if people  would just admit that all they do is seek to feel better.

Agreed.  Far too many people are loathe to admit that they don't care if what they believe is true and that they prefer to live in a fantasy world rather than the real one.

No, the difficulty is that most people don't want to admit they're entirely selfish.  Selfishness has acquired a bad rep.

So you don't believe that truth is a necessity?  Why should anyone care what you have to say if you don't particularly care if what you  say is true?

No, truth is not necessary to feel better.  You  should care what I say only if it makes you feel better.


Sorry.  Logic and reason and truth mean something to me.
 
2013-05-25 03:51:42 PM  

DoctorCal: I think it's quite possible that Wolf is patronizing her, and hoping for a highly emotional, affirmative response just for the entertainment value.

I mean, he's Jewish, so...thank the Lord, thank the Lord doesn't seem like it would be his sincere reaction.


I suspect they have a check-list when when interviewing tornado survivors.

Something like
Hilarious local accent [ ]
Pajamas [ ]
Curlers [ ]
Sad worthless item salvaged [ ]
Irreplaceable item lost [ ]
etc.
 
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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report