Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(CNN)   The official Atheist church just launched last year, but there's already a schism in the congregation. That religion of yours is getting complicated, guys   (religion.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 467
    More: Amusing, Pippa Evans, Cat Stevens, Godless Revival, central planning, live better, house band, East London  
•       •       •

7858 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jan 2014 at 4:28 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2014-01-06 12:02:13 AM  
Trilbies vs Fedoras?
 
2014-01-06 12:13:32 AM  
Oh God.
 
2014-01-06 12:16:29 AM  
rule one of atheism: no vegans

no really
that was the first rule
well it is the first rule in my church of atheism


our three sacraments are:
sex
drugs
gambling
and meat

of four sacraments
 
2014-01-06 12:24:53 AM  
He also said he advised them to leave the dive bar "where women wore bikinis," in favor of a more family-friendly venue.

I'll stick with the booze and bikini version, thanks.


namatad: rule one of atheism: no vegans

no really
that was the first rule
well it is the first rule in my church of atheism

our three sacraments are:
sex
drugs
gambling
and meat

of four sacraments


Looks like you would, too.
 
2014-01-06 12:35:38 AM  
IT'S HIS SURNAME! Jeez!
 
2014-01-06 12:45:02 AM  
He also said he advised them to leave the dive bar "where women wore bikinis," in favor of a more family-friendly venue.

You know, now that I think about I don't like this "family friendly" idea. Just as I don't think children should be indoctrinated into religion I wouldn't want them indoctrinated into atheism. Let them grow up and make up their own minds.
 
2014-01-06 12:49:52 AM  
after a schism, a question: can atheist churches last?

Catholic
Baptist
Christian
Methodist / Wesleyan
Lutheran
Presbyterian
Protestant
Pentecostal/Charismatic
Episcopalian/Anglican
Mormon / Latter-Day Saints
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Congregational/United Church of Christ
Jehovah's Witness
Assemblies of God
Evangelical
Church of God
Seventh-Day Adventist
Orthodox (Eastern)
Holiness/Holy
Church of the Nazarene
Disciples of Christ
Church of the Brethren
Mennonite
Reformed/Dutch Reform
Apostolic/New Apostolic
Quaker

Christian Science
Christian Reform
Independent Christian Church
Foursquare Gospel
Fundamentalist
Born Again
Salvation Army
 
2014-01-06 12:53:13 AM  
Well, this seems to working out as well as the Anarchist's Union.
 
2014-01-06 01:01:11 AM  
Say what you want about the tenants of National Socialism, but at least it was an ethos.
 
2014-01-06 01:04:58 AM  

fusillade762: He also said he advised them to leave the dive bar "where women wore bikinis," in favor of a more family-friendly venue.

You know, now that I think about I don't like this "family friendly" idea. Just as I don't think children should be indoctrinated into religion I wouldn't want them indoctrinated into atheism. Let them grow up and make up their own minds.


all religion is brainwashing
atheism is not a religion

rational thought is not a religion, nor brain washing
 
2014-01-06 01:09:46 AM  
If they believe in nothing, how can there be a schism?

Did they divide by zero?
 
2014-01-06 01:13:29 AM  
I'm sorry, I can't comment on all of this. I am too consumed with the need to deliver a punch in the face to the guy in the photo.
 
2014-01-06 01:34:24 AM  
I'm an atheist and these people are all assholes.

I don't need to join a damn club to be an atheist. Are you just lonely?

What awful human beings.
 
2014-01-06 01:38:01 AM  

Confabulat: I'm an atheist and these people are all assholes.

I don't need to join a damn club to be an atheist. Are you just lonely?

What awful human beings.


They're assholes, but the important thing is that people can realize just why they might be assholes.

Given the way the areligious and non-Christians have been treated in the United States ever since McCarthy launched his witch hunts, and even before, I think they have every right to be assholes if they choose to do so.
 
2014-01-06 01:42:56 AM  
Welcome to my Not Collecting Stamps club!  We don't collect stamps here, so let's get together and talk about not collecting stamps.
 
2014-01-06 01:47:11 AM  

gameshowhost: Welcome to my Not Collecting Stamps club!  We don't collect stamps here, so let's get together and talk about not collecting stamps.


I don't have a collection of commemorative stamps from the 70's to the present day.
 
2014-01-06 01:49:32 AM  

simplicimus: gameshowhost: Welcome to my Not Collecting Stamps club!  We don't collect stamps here, so let's get together and talk about not collecting stamps.

I don't have a collection of commemorative stamps from the 70's to the present day.


That's a shame. I hear that NASA had some really nice stamps in the 1970s.
 
2014-01-06 01:49:38 AM  

hardinparamedic: Given the way the areligious and non-Christians have been treated in the United States ever since McCarthy launched his witch hunts, and even before, I think they have every right to be assholes if they choose to do so.


That's not true. I've been an atheist my whole life and that gives me no excuse to be an asshole. I do that all on my own.
 
2014-01-06 01:54:52 AM  

Confabulat: That's not true. I've been an atheist my whole life and that gives me no excuse to be an asshole. I do that all on my own.


Some men just want to watch the world burn. :)
 
2014-01-06 01:55:53 AM  

Confabulat: I'm an atheist and these people are all assholes.

I don't need to join a damn club to be an atheist. Are you just lonely?

What awful human beings.


they're still better than those atheism+ people.

now THOSE people are assholes.
 
2014-01-06 01:56:15 AM  

hardinparamedic: simplicimus: gameshowhost: Welcome to my Not Collecting Stamps club!  We don't collect stamps here, so let's get together and talk about not collecting stamps.

I don't have a collection of commemorative stamps from the 70's to the present day.

That's a shame. I hear that NASA had some really nice stamps in the 1970s.


That was a funny read. "Additional verification needed". Like there's a USPS center on the moon to cancel the stamps.
 
2014-01-06 02:01:58 AM  

simplicimus: hardinparamedic: simplicimus: gameshowhost: Welcome to my Not Collecting Stamps club!  We don't collect stamps here, so let's get together and talk about not collecting stamps.

I don't have a collection of commemorative stamps from the 70's to the present day.

That's a shame. I hear that NASA had some really nice stamps in the 1970s.

That was a funny read. "Additional verification needed". Like there's a USPS center on the moon to cancel the stamps.


If you want a series of good laughs, read up on the Apollo, Gemini and Mercury programs. Those guys got away with a LOT in those days.
 
2014-01-06 02:10:30 AM  

log_jammin: they're still better than those atheism+ people.

now THOSE people are assholes.


How so? And, I really do mean that as an honest question. I'm just an (apathetic agnostic) atheist, so don't really know much about all of these "official" factions and movements and such. What are the atheism+ people and what makes them assholes?
 
2014-01-06 02:17:41 AM  

mamoru: log_jammin: they're still better than those atheism+ people.

now THOSE people are assholes.

How so? And, I really do mean that as an honest question. I'm just an (apathetic agnostic) atheist, so don't really know much about all of these "official" factions and movements and such. What are the atheism+ people and what makes them assholes?


I'm going to go ahead and point out that's the joke.
 
2014-01-06 02:22:07 AM  

Confabulat: I'm going to go ahead and point out that's the joke.


WOOOOSH!

I'm gonna just go crawl into a hole now and hide for a bit.
 
2014-01-06 02:31:05 AM  

mamoru: log_jammin: they're still better than those atheism+ people.

now THOSE people are assholes.

How so? And, I really do mean that as an honest question. I'm just an (apathetic agnostic) atheist, so don't really know much about all of these "official" factions and movements and such. What are the atheism+ people and what makes them assholes?


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism_Plus

so they are nice people
without god
 
2014-01-06 02:31:53 AM  

hardinparamedic: simplicimus: hardinparamedic: simplicimus: gameshowhost: Welcome to my Not Collecting Stamps club!  We don't collect stamps here, so let's get together and talk about not collecting stamps.

I don't have a collection of commemorative stamps from the 70's to the present day.

That's a shame. I hear that NASA had some really nice stamps in the 1970s.

That was a funny read. "Additional verification needed". Like there's a USPS center on the moon to cancel the stamps.

If you want a series of good laughs, read up on the Apollo, Gemini and Mercury programs. Those guys got away with a LOT in those days.


: /

Guys, please stay on topic.
 
2014-01-06 02:37:34 AM  

mamoru: How so? And, I really do mean that as an honest question. I'm just an (apathetic agnostic) atheist, so don't really know much about all of these "official" factions and movements and such. What are the atheism+ people and what makes them assholes?


long story short, you're either with them or you're a misogynist.
 
2014-01-06 02:39:03 AM  
martinbaena.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-01-06 02:42:06 AM  

gameshowhost: hardinparamedic: simplicimus: hardinparamedic: simplicimus: gameshowhost: Welcome to my Not Collecting Stamps club!  We don't collect stamps here, so let's get together and talk about not collecting stamps.

I don't have a collection of commemorative stamps from the 70's to the present day.

That's a shame. I hear that NASA had some really nice stamps in the 1970s.

That was a funny read. "Additional verification needed". Like there's a USPS center on the moon to cancel the stamps.

If you want a series of good laughs, read up on the Apollo, Gemini and Mercury programs. Those guys got away with a LOT in those days.

: /

Guys, please stay on topic.


OK, what stamps haven't you collected?
 
2014-01-06 02:44:33 AM  

gameshowhost: hardinparamedic: simplicimus: hardinparamedic: simplicimus: gameshowhost: Welcome to my Not Collecting Stamps club!  We don't collect stamps here, so let's get together and talk about not collecting stamps.

I don't have a collection of commemorative stamps from the 70's to the present day.

That's a shame. I hear that NASA had some really nice stamps in the 1970s.

That was a funny read. "Additional verification needed". Like there's a USPS center on the moon to cancel the stamps.

If you want a series of good laughs, read up on the Apollo, Gemini and Mercury programs. Those guys got away with a LOT in those days.

: /

Guys, please stay on topic.


24.media.tumblr.com

Hey, it is on topic. The crew of Apollo 8 were very religious.

They also weren't dicks.

upload.wikimedia.org

"And from the crew of Apollo 8, we close with good night, good luck, a Merry Christmas - and God bless all of you, all of you on the good Earth."
 
2014-01-06 02:45:20 AM  

gameshowhost: Welcome to my Not Collecting Stamps club!  We don't collect stamps here, so let's get together and talk about not collecting stamps.


I'm bald. Are you bald? Let's get together and talk about hair color.
 
2014-01-06 04:15:49 AM  

namatad: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism_Plus

so they are nice people
without god


log_jammin: long story short, you're either with them or you're a misogynist.


Hmmm... I guess I could see that happening. Based on the link, their ideas seem fine and good, and advocating those ideas seems fine and good. But I could imagine folks getting carried away with a "you're either with us or against us, and if you don't agree with everything about how we do it in exactly the way we say, then you are against us" kind of mentality. It seems to happen all too often in just about any movement.

Not having met or interacted with any of them, I guess I'll take your statement with a provisional "fair enough". :)
 
2014-01-06 04:22:21 AM  

log_jammin: long story short, you're either with them or you're a misogynis


Sounds like the opposite of Men's Rights Activists. Either you agree blanket with them, or you're a man-hating misandrist or something.
 
2014-01-06 04:31:25 AM  
Science dammit!
 
2014-01-06 04:32:37 AM  

hardinparamedic: Say what you want about the tenants of National Socialism, but at least it was an ethos.


The tenants of National Socialism couldn't afford the high rent.
 
2014-01-06 04:35:47 AM  

hardinparamedic: "And from the crew of Apollo 8, we close with good night, good luck, a Merry Christmas - and God bless all of you, all of you on the good Earth."


Pfft, typical GE bigotry.. Just because Bad Earth eats kitten-heart cake for breakfast doesn't mean we don't exist, you know...
 
2014-01-06 04:36:06 AM  
Either you're drinkin with me or you're drinkin against me.
 
2014-01-06 04:43:58 AM  
After a schism, a question: Can atheist churches last?

Headline in the form of a question, so the answer is as always the exact opposite of what is being implied, e.g. in this case atheist churches can, in fact, last.

On a more serious and less meme-y note, there are already plenty of atheist social clubs based around community-building, arbitrarily fabricated ritual, and tongue-in-cheek references to theist religions.  And some of the freemason lodges are going on two or three centuries old now... so, historically, the answer is also yes.

IronTom: If they believe in nothing, how can there be a schism?

Did they divide by zero?


"Atheist" is an adjective describing an organisation or philosophy, not a noun naming a specific philosophy in itself.

There are plenty of atheist organizations and philosophies around, 99% of logic-based philosophy is by definition atheist (including, interestingly, most religious philosophy, since the entire point there is to prove that the morality of x religion is a basic law of the universe whether you believe in that religion or not).  Several  religions, interestingly, are even atheist, and not just the entertaining modern ones like the Jedi or the Subgenius guys... Taoism, a religion four centuries older than Christianity, has a number of schools that are atheist.

So, no, atheists don't "believe in nothing" necessarily, they just believe in a set of things that don't include a god or gods.  Which, in complete and utter honesty as an atheist myself, I have to admit frequently still includes frivolous bullshiat of both the supernatural and pseudoscientific variety.  Social darwinism, telepathy, animism, homeopathy, etc... plenty of atheists in the ranks of the followers of all sorts of dumbass woo.
 
2014-01-06 04:44:00 AM  
I like the word schism and I like the word crampon and I like Elizabeth II Regina.
 
2014-01-06 04:46:50 AM  
So, we're gonna wind up with the Atheist Church, the Reformed Atheist Church, The Free-Will Atheists, the Mission Atheists, the Southern Atheists, the Seventh Day Atheists, Greek Orthodox Atheists, the First Church of Atheism-Scientist, the Atheist Witnesses, the Church of Jesus Martinez of Latter-Day Atheist, and Episcopalians. Where will it all end?

It's getting so you can't believe in God in peace around here anymore.

At least Atheists finally got a song.
 
2014-01-06 04:48:50 AM  

gameshowhost: hardinparamedic: simplicimus: hardinparamedic: simplicimus: gameshowhost: Welcome to my Not Collecting Stamps club!  We don't collect stamps here, so let's get together and talk about not collecting stamps.

I don't have a collection of commemorative stamps from the 70's to the present day.

That's a shame. I hear that NASA had some really nice stamps in the 1970s.

That was a funny read. "Additional verification needed". Like there's a USPS center on the moon to cancel the stamps.

If you want a series of good laughs, read up on the Apollo, Gemini and Mercury programs. Those guys got away with a LOT in those days.

: /

Guys, please stay on topic.


While drinking at a strip club with some Navy pilots wearing their flightsuits, (the strippers were swarming us) one of the boys pulled a penny from his pocket.  These girls were D-U-M-B dumb, and believed every word of BS about these dudes in clearly-marked Navy flightsuits being astronauts who brought the penny back from the Moon.  While not a stamp, that routine (complete with, "NO you can't give her the *MOON* penny, are you crazy???" and "but she's SPECIAL, I want her to have it!") got them perhaps more tang than real astronauts.  Quite the vaudeville act.
 
2014-01-06 04:50:06 AM  

CoonAce: Either you're drinkin with me or you're drinkin against me

You're an Alvian too?

 
2014-01-06 04:50:34 AM  

CoonAce: gameshowhost: hardinparamedic: simplicimus: hardinparamedic: simplicimus: gameshowhost: Welcome to my Not Collecting Stamps club!  We don't collect stamps here, so let's get together and talk about not collecting stamps.

I don't have a collection of commemorative stamps from the 70's to the present day.

That's a shame. I hear that NASA had some really nice stamps in the 1970s.

That was a funny read. "Additional verification needed". Like there's a USPS center on the moon to cancel the stamps.

If you want a series of good laughs, read up on the Apollo, Gemini and Mercury programs. Those guys got away with a LOT in those days.

: /

Guys, please stay on topic.

While drinking at a strip club with some Navy pilots wearing their flightsuits, (the strippers were swarming us) one of the boys pulled a penny from his pocket.  These girls were D-U-M-B dumb, and believed every word of BS about these dudes in clearly-marked Navy flightsuits being astronauts who brought the penny back from the Moon.  While not a stamp, that routine (complete with, "NO you can't give her the *MOON* penny, are you crazy???" and "but she's SPECIAL, I want her to have it!") got them perhaps more tang than real astronauts.  Quite the vaudeville act.


Dumb whore are dumb.
 
2014-01-06 04:51:45 AM  
Any room for us Flat Earth Atheist?
 
2014-01-06 04:52:42 AM  
I think I want to start a 12-step program for non-addicts. I feel I'm missing out on all the sharing and stale donuts that addicts get.
 
2014-01-06 04:53:18 AM  
Well, the only reason people state things like "I am a(n) <insert flavour of the month group>" is to follow it up by "..and I am deeply offended by <nonissue of the month>. Queue strongly worded tweets and hashtags.
 
2014-01-06 04:55:41 AM  

hardinparamedic: Confabulat: That's not true. I've been an atheist my whole life and that gives me no excuse to be an asshole. I do that all on my own.

Some men just want to watch the world burn. :)


I don't want to set the world on fire . . .

/Obligatory FO response, amirite?
 
2014-01-06 04:56:50 AM  
I also wonder if Obamacare would pay to send me to a Sane Asylum.
 
2014-01-06 04:56:50 AM  
In before "Atheism is not a religion".

/quacks like a duck
 
2014-01-06 05:00:42 AM  

Prophet of Loss: quacks like a duck


Sincerely doubt your particular brand of mental aberration qualifies you for understanding why atheists identify themselves as such..

/barks like a frog
 
2014-01-06 05:00:44 AM  

Prophet of Loss: In before "Atheism is not a religion".

/quacks like a duck


Lulz, you're a bit late.  Lots of whiteknighting going on already. Which is just and right, since they're so clearly superior.
 
2014-01-06 05:01:47 AM  

drjekel_mrhyde: Any room for us Flat Earth Atheist?


Just slip 'em in under the door.
 
2014-01-06 05:05:45 AM  
What a bunch of fruitcakes.

i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-06 05:05:49 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: I think I want to start a 12-step program for non-addicts. I feel I'm missing out on all the sharing and stale donuts that addicts get.


Crap. Does this mean I have to start smoking again?
 
2014-01-06 05:08:09 AM  

nulluspixiusdemonica: Prophet of Loss: quacks like a duck

Sincerely doubt your particular brand of mental aberration qualifies you for understanding why atheists identify themselves as such..

/barks like a frog


LOL, you sound like a lot of religious people I know ...
 
2014-01-06 05:10:27 AM  

Prophet of Loss: you sound like a lot of religious people I know ..


Given that I have yet to reference sky faeries, I'm going to require some empirical evidence of this before accepting it as anything other than delusional butt-hurt masquerading as lulz...
 
2014-01-06 05:10:42 AM  
wherever two or three are gathered in mutual enmity
 
2014-01-06 05:11:00 AM  

fusillade762: He also said he advised them to leave the dive bar "where women wore bikinis," in favor of a more family-friendly venue.

You know, now that I think about I don't like this "family friendly" idea. Just as I don't think children should be indoctrinated into religion I wouldn't want them indoctrinated into atheism. Let them grow up and make up their own minds.


What? Tell me you're trolling. It's not like it's convoluted, "There are a lot of people who believe in a lot of silly things. I hope you don't fall in line with that." is hardly indoctrination.  You sort of need a doctrine to do that.
 
2014-01-06 05:18:14 AM  

namatad: fusillade762: He also said he advised them to leave the dive bar "where women wore bikinis," in favor of a more family-friendly venue.

You know, now that I think about I don't like this "family friendly" idea. Just as I don't think children should be indoctrinated into religion I wouldn't want them indoctrinated into atheism. Let them grow up and make up their own minds.

all religion is brainwashing
atheism is not a religion

rational thought is not a religion, nor brain washing


You're one of those militant, "born-again" atheists. The "I'm right and anyone who thinks different is an idiot" atheists. I've heard certain denominations of Christians say their church is not a religion, just the truth.
/check your superiority at the door
//and your fedora
 
2014-01-06 05:24:33 AM  

DubyaHater: You're one of those militant<...>


That's not how "militant" works.

When I meet an adult with unimpaired cognitive facilities who professes to believe in sky faeries I will call them out on it because it is hilarious and weirdly disturbing.

If my taunting them results in the sort of childish pique witnessed in adolescents discovering Santa Claus was a lie, well that's just funnier still...
 
2014-01-06 05:25:00 AM  
omeganuepsilon:  It's not like it's convoluted, "There are a lot of people who believe in a lot of silly things. I hope you don't fall in line with that." is hardly indoctrination.  You sort of need a doctrine to do that.

Such as Atheism.
 
2014-01-06 05:26:48 AM  
Can I launch a not-a-windsurfer club and what the hell does that even mean? An atheist church is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.
 
2014-01-06 05:29:56 AM  

nulluspixiusdemonica: That's not how "militant" works.


It's the modern usage.

You know, "I don't have anything against blacks, it's those *militant* blacks...." and, "I don't have anything against gays, it's those *militant* gays....," and, "oh, I love women, it's those *militant* feminists that get to me!"

It basically means, "a member of a minority group that doesn't accept his or her subordination."
 
2014-01-06 05:33:23 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: It basically means, "a member of a minority group that doesn't accept his or her subordination."


I've always understood it to be a lame straw-man mock-up used to denigrate the opposition without the need to refer to anything factual...
 
2014-01-06 05:34:33 AM  

nulluspixiusdemonica: Lenny_da_Hog: It basically means, "a member of a minority group that doesn't accept his or her subordination."

I've always understood it to be a lame straw-man mock-up used to denigrate the opposition without the need to refer to anything factual...


Naw. See "uppity" for a synonym.
 
2014-01-06 05:41:17 AM  

LonMead: omeganuepsilon:  It's not like it's convoluted, "There are a lot of people who believe in a lot of silly things. I hope you don't fall in line with that." is hardly indoctrination.  You sort of need a doctrine to do that.

Such as Atheism.


Citation Needed
 
2014-01-06 05:42:25 AM  
These people are fundie plants tasked with giving fundies an excuse to say atheists are a religion.
 
GBB
2014-01-06 05:43:32 AM  

SpdrJay: Science dammit!


I study science.  That's why I joined up with the Scientologists.
 
2014-01-06 05:45:58 AM  
Does anyone else ever feel like they're the only person that actually RTFA? I only read the first 20 or so comments. The collective I.Q. here is plummeting. I haz a sad now
 
2014-01-06 05:46:21 AM  

omeganuepsilon: LonMead: omeganuepsilon:  It's not like it's convoluted, "There are a lot of people who believe in a lot of silly things. I hope you don't fall in line with that." is hardly indoctrination.  You sort of need a doctrine to do that.

Such as Atheism.

Citation Needed


Specifics needed
 
2014-01-06 05:47:22 AM  

Prophet of Loss: In before "Atheism is not a religion".

/quacks like a duck



Not believing in anything is a belief! You're a superstar amongst geniuses.

/quarks, Einstein
 
2014-01-06 05:47:39 AM  
There has always been a human need for ritual of some sort.
I suspect that it's been both profound ignorance and the need for such ritual that has kept religion going for as long as it has.

I have yet to see a group, humanist, atheist or anything in between that instead of just providing communal entertainment proposed to talk about current social and ethical issues.  Professional organizations have these sorts of courses built right in to their professional licensing requirements under the term "professional ethics".

It would be brilliant accomplishment for any organization to gather people under the same roof to discuss ethical and social issues.  It would be even better if they could invite proponents of different sides of the issue to speak on these issues.  For example, next Sunday, the theme could be "Does absolute power corrupt?"  Jamie Dimon and Bill Gates would speak.

Until such an organization forms, I'll just stay home and watch documentaries.
 
2014-01-06 05:49:21 AM  

LonMead: omeganuepsilon:  It's not like it's convoluted, "There are a lot of people who believe in a lot of silly things. I hope you don't fall in line with that." is hardly indoctrination.  You sort of need a doctrine to do that.

Such as Atheism.


Responding to someone calling you "silly" by demonstrating that you don't understand the difference between someone pointing out that your extraordinary claim has no proof and them making an extraordinary claim themselves... isn't really a counter-argument so much as pointing out that they should have gone with "stupid" instead of "silly".
 
2014-01-06 05:49:48 AM  

cassapolis: Does anyone else ever feel like they're the only person that actually RTFA? I only read the first 20 or so comments. The collective I.Q. here is plummeting. I haz a sad now


I left my pills for that in another thread.
 
2014-01-06 05:51:41 AM  

omeganuepsilon: fusillade762: He also said he advised them to leave the dive bar "where women wore bikinis," in favor of a more family-friendly venue.

You know, now that I think about I don't like this "family friendly" idea. Just as I don't think children should be indoctrinated into religion I wouldn't want them indoctrinated into atheism. Let them grow up and make up their own minds.

What? Tell me you're trolling. It's not like it's convoluted, "There are a lot of people who believe in a lot of silly things. I hope you don't fall in line with that." is hardly indoctrination.  You sort of need a doctrine to do that.


Considering that these people appear to have a schism based on social issues and how to behave morally (don't go to dive bars, go to family friendly establishments) I'd say that they are pretty well on their way to establishing a doctrine.

/How to be a good Atheist
//Buy my book
///Required reading, but definitely not a bible
 
2014-01-06 05:52:49 AM  
Smells like atheism Animal Farm addition. (Just as long as they don't start slaughtering people, I'm just going to sit back here with my popcorn and enjoy the fireworks.)
 
2014-01-06 05:54:31 AM  

DerAppie: //Buy my book


Na-ah. Buy *my* book. Easier read, faux beaver cover and it has a laugh-track.
 
2014-01-06 06:02:32 AM  

Danger Avoid Death: cassapolis: Does anyone else ever feel like they're the only person that actually RTFA? I only read the first 20 or so comments. The collective I.Q. here is plummeting. I haz a sad now

I left my pills for that in another thread.


...but don't feel sorry for me. I'm glad I had a second chance in life like you said to be smart because I learned a lot of things that I never knew were in this world, and I'm grateful I saw it even for a little bit.

//Passed TFA on the way up, and then on the way down, and I don't think I shall R this FA again.
 
2014-01-06 06:08:56 AM  

Jim_Callahan: After a schism, a question: Can atheist churches last?

Headline in the form of a question, so the answer is as always the exact opposite of what is being implied, e.g. in this case atheist churches can, in fact, last.



Betteridge's law of headlines states pretty much that any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word 'no'?
 
2014-01-06 06:09:22 AM  

GungFu: Prophet of Loss: In before "Atheism is not a religion".

/quacks like a duck


Not believing in anything is a belief! You're a superstar amongst geniuses.

/quarks, Einstein


But you do believe in something jackass, you believe that the universe, life, and everything is a accident.

Others believe differently.
 
2014-01-06 06:14:55 AM  

DerAppie: omeganuepsilon: fusillade762: He also said he advised them to leave the dive bar "where women wore bikinis," in favor of a more family-friendly venue.

You know, now that I think about I don't like this "family friendly" idea. Just as I don't think children should be indoctrinated into religion I wouldn't want them indoctrinated into atheism. Let them grow up and make up their own minds.

What? Tell me you're trolling. It's not like it's convoluted, "There are a lot of people who believe in a lot of silly things. I hope you don't fall in line with that." is hardly indoctrination.  You sort of need a doctrine to do that.

Considering that these people appear to have a schism based on social issues and how to behave morally (don't go to dive bars, go to family friendly establishments) I'd say that they are pretty well on their way to establishing a doctrine.

/How to be a good Atheist
//Buy my book
///Required reading, but definitely not a bible


But "those people" are not the entire group that is atheism in general, hence my reply.

Although it does stand to logic.  The "church"(if we are to only talk about that) is a construct meant to replace the social parts of religion.  It stands to reason that they'd do so in a place that's "family friendly".

A dive bar is going to exclude a lot of people.  Using it as an excuse to have a bunch of hipsters in your bar is not the same thing.
 
2014-01-06 06:15:08 AM  

Prophet of Loss: But you do believe in something jackass, you believe that the universe, life, and everything is a accident.


I'm an atheist and a determinist. Nothing is an accident. Everything happens the only way it can happen.
 
2014-01-06 06:16:09 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Prophet of Loss: But you do believe in something jackass, you believe that the universe, life, and everything is a accident.

I'm an atheist and a determinist. Nothing is an accident. Everything happens the only way it can happen.


Quantum physics disagrees with you.
 
2014-01-06 06:17:18 AM  

mamoru: What are the atheism+ people and what makes them assholes?


They're feminists first and atheists second, of the "join us or be cast out" variety.

More divisiveness from the Atheism Plus crowd
 
2014-01-06 06:17:42 AM  

Prophet of Loss: Lenny_da_Hog: Prophet of Loss: But you do believe in something jackass, you believe that the universe, life, and everything is a accident.

I'm an atheist and a determinist. Nothing is an accident. Everything happens the only way it can happen.

Quantum physics disagrees with you.


No, it doesn't, unless you read science fiction.
 
2014-01-06 06:18:32 AM  

Prophet of Loss: But you do believe in something jackass, you believe that the universe, life, and everything is a accident.


You do realize that atheism is generally about  not anthropomorphising statistical and natural forces, right?  And that something being an "accident" requires that one anthropomorphize statistical and natural forces?

I'm actually rooting for trolling here because if you're actually mouthing off so loudly with a declaration that is essentially "hey, look at how stupid I am over here and how I fail to understand the basic definitions of words and shiat" then I'm going to actually have to feel kind of sad for how terrible you are and how much your mental deficiencies must make your life suck.
 
2014-01-06 06:20:23 AM  

Prophet of Loss: Quantum physics disagrees with you.



imgs.xkcd.com
 
2014-01-06 06:22:05 AM  

Prophet of Loss: Lenny_da_Hog: Prophet of Loss: But you do believe in something jackass, you believe that the universe, life, and everything is a accident.

I'm an atheist and a determinist. Nothing is an accident. Everything happens the only way it can happen.

Quantum physics disagrees with you.


Ok, everything occurring above the nanometer scale happens the only way it can happen then.

//QM doesn't mean what the Woo books you've been reading seem to have led you to believe it means.  It still collapses into classical physics on the macro scale, i.e. the scale on which human biology and the shiat we interact with operates on.
 
2014-01-06 06:24:50 AM  

Jim_Callahan: //QM doesn't mean what the Woo books you've been reading seem to have led you to believe it means.  It still collapses into classical physics on the macro scale, i.e. the scale on which human biology and the shiat we interact with operates on.


And it's only useful in predicting what might or might not occur. In the end, only what will occur does occur.
 
2014-01-06 06:27:02 AM  
i232.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-06 06:29:56 AM  
"Compassionate Conservatism"
"Moral Majority"
"Random Order"
"Fresh Frozen"
"Recorded Live"
"Military Intelligence"
"Religious Education"
"Government Integrity"
"Atheist Church"
 
2014-01-06 06:31:58 AM  

nulluspixiusdemonica: Prophet of Loss: you sound like a lot of religious people I know ..

Given that I have yet to reference sky faeries, I'm going to require some empirical evidence of this before accepting it as anything other than delusional butt-hurt masquerading as lulz...


I'm guessing you count "witty banter" as exercise, since I'm gonna guess you are in desperate need of it.
 
2014-01-06 06:32:51 AM  
Atheist church has got the be the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.  As one of our famous prophets said "The best part of being an atheist is it takes so little of your time".
 
2014-01-06 06:34:45 AM  

Prophet of Loss: But you do believe in something jackass, you believe that the universe, life, and everything is a accident.

Others believe differently.


This is relevant how? Also, if you're referencing the atheists who discount the biblical farce of creation, you probably aren't processing that whole scientific method thing correctly and would likely need to go develop your own conclusions based on personal research and reflection..

I get that theists prefer to have someone tell them what to believe, but you really should think about engaging your critical faculties... 

Just because you believe in sentient purple spigots invading Saturn doesn't make it true.
 
2014-01-06 06:35:55 AM  

Mr.Tangent: Atheist church has got the be the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.  As one of our famous prophets said "The best part of being an atheist is it takes so little of your time".


Only if you're doing it right.
 
2014-01-06 06:38:51 AM  
Would it be easier for people to believe we are organic robots settled here eons ago by the aliens that brought us here to create the pyramids?

That would be a kick-ass religion!  I give you the beginning of Robotalienism.  The headgear alone has some amazing promise I think.
 
2014-01-06 06:42:36 AM  
nulluspixiusdemonica: I get that theists prefer to have someone tell them what to believe, but you really should think about engaging your critical faculties...

You mean, kind of like the way you prefer to tell us what we should believe?
 
2014-01-06 06:42:41 AM  

mamoru: what makes them assholes?


Anyone who puts a plus sign at the end of a word and calls it XXXX Plus is an enemy of learning and knowledge.
 
2014-01-06 06:44:51 AM  

LonMead: You mean, kind of like the way you prefer to tell us what we should believe?


I told someone what to believe? Where?
 
2014-01-06 06:44:51 AM  

luxup: Would it be easier for people to believe we are organic robots settled here eons ago by the aliens that brought us here to create the pyramids?

That would be a kick-ass religion!  I give you the beginning of Robotalienism.  The headgear alone has some amazing promise I think.


I just stick with Church of the Sub-Genius... Great coffee!

I seek a return to perfect slack...
 
2014-01-06 06:45:06 AM  

Uncle Tractor: mamoru: What are the atheism+ people and what makes them assholes?

They're feminists first and atheists second, of the "join us or be cast out" variety.

More divisiveness from the Atheism Plus crowd


Oh god! Not feminists!

Why do people come out of the wood work to white knight a guy who was mad because he got called out for acting an ass at a con, and then lied about it?
 
2014-01-06 06:46:17 AM  

doglover: mamoru: what makes them assholes?

Anyone who puts a plus sign at the end of a word and calls it XXXX Plus is an enemy of learning and knowledge.


Damn. Does that mean I should turn down my invitation to join Fark+ then?
 
2014-01-06 06:47:44 AM  

Danger Avoid Death: doglover: mamoru: what makes them assholes?

Anyone who puts a plus sign at the end of a word and calls it XXXX Plus is an enemy of learning and knowledge.

Damn. Does that mean I should turn down my invitation to join Fark+ then?


No, it just means you're an enemy of learning and knowledge.

art.penny-arcade.com
 
2014-01-06 06:51:10 AM  

doglover: Danger Avoid Death: doglover: mamoru: what makes them assholes?

Anyone who puts a plus sign at the end of a word and calls it XXXX Plus is an enemy of learning and knowledge.

Damn. Does that mean I should turn down my invitation to join Fark+ then?

No, it just means you're an enemy of learning and knowledge.

[art.penny-arcade.com image 850x425]


The history of it is kinda interesting.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism_Plus

The whole concept was proposed because many female skeptics and atheist con goers were tired of shiatbags like TAA and Thunderf00t acting like assholes and getting away with it.
 
2014-01-06 06:51:37 AM  
I sympathize with them and understand their goals here I really do.  The positive social aspects or a weekly gathering with unified purpose and numerous.  Church creates a community that can help members in need when tragedy strikes and help the wider community as well.  They are simply trying to do away with god and keep those, and other, positives.  The thing is that it's much much harder to form a group based on a lack of belief in something because that doesn't narrow down the conflicting motives, views or opinions that will cause friction within the group.  I'm not saying it's impossible but it is much more difficult.
 
2014-01-06 06:52:22 AM  
*sees pic in article*

Is that type of douchebag the atheist equal to the slick-haired suit-wearing preacher man for Christians?
 
2014-01-06 06:52:54 AM  

Prophet of Loss: But you do believe in something jackass, you believe that the universe, life, and everything is a accident.

Others believe differently.


My belief is conditional and based on evidence and reason.

But answer me this. What's the end game here? Why do people like you keep trying to conflate acceptance of scientific findings with faith? What do you think that you're trying to prove? That your unfounded belief, based on the scribblings of men claiming to be the voice of gods has the same gravitas as understandings based on empirical evidence and reason?
 
2014-01-06 06:53:34 AM  

hardinparamedic: doglover: Danger Avoid Death: doglover: mamoru: what makes them assholes?

Anyone who puts a plus sign at the end of a word and calls it XXXX Plus is an enemy of learning and knowledge.

Damn. Does that mean I should turn down my invitation to join Fark+ then?

No, it just means you're an enemy of learning and knowledge.

[art.penny-arcade.com image 850x425]

The history of it is kinda interesting.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism_Plus

The whole concept was proposed because many female skeptics and atheist con goers were tired of shiatbags like TAA and Thunderf00t acting like assholes and getting away with it.


So they took a stand against the English language itself.

Good for them.
 
2014-01-06 06:55:15 AM  

nulluspixiusdemonica: LonMead: You mean, kind of like the way you prefer to tell us what we should believe?

I told someone what to believe? Where?


Forgive me if I misunderstood you, but...

nulluspixiusdemonica:When I meet an adult with unimpaired cognitive facilities who professes to believe in sky faeries I will call them out on it because it is hilarious and weirdly disturbing.

If my taunting them results in the sort of childish pique witnessed in adolescents discovering Santa Claus was a lie, well that's just funnier still...


... Sounds an awful lot like you're telling someone what they should believe (yes, by denigrating someone's belief's, you are telling them that they shouldn't believe in them).

/just engaging my critical faculties here...
 
2014-01-06 07:00:03 AM  

Ed Grubermann: Prophet of Loss: But you do believe in something jackass, you believe that the universe, life, and everything is a accident.

Others believe differently.

My belief is conditional and based on evidence and reason.

But answer me this. What's the end game here? Why do people like you keep trying to conflate acceptance of scientific findings with faith? What do you think that you're trying to prove? That your unfounded belief, based on the scribblings of men claiming to be the voice of gods has the same gravitas as understandings based on empirical evidence and reason?


And many people have spiritual beliefs based on the scientific evidence that they have observed. Saying "evidence" and "reason" doesn't make one's views accurate or correct if they are actually not, seeing as we all discover a little something new every day.
 
2014-01-06 07:02:50 AM  

LonMead: /just engaging my critical faculties here...

"You really should believe in the FSM because magic"

- Telling you to believe in something

"You have got to acknowledge that processing reality using a belief system is childish behavior for an adult" - Not telling you to believe something.

Panties knotted? You're probably not employing critical faculties.
 
2014-01-06 07:03:28 AM  

Ed Grubermann: Why do people like you keep trying to conflate acceptance of scientific findings with faith?


It comes from ambivalent usage of "belief" as meaning both understanding and rote/emotional learning, when they're really quite different.
 
2014-01-06 07:07:29 AM  

nulluspixiusdemonica: LonMead: /just engaging my critical faculties here...

"You really should believe in the FSM because magic" - Telling you to believe in something

"You have got to acknowledge that processing reality using a belief system is childish behavior for an adult" - Not telling you to believe something.

Panties knotted? You're probably not employing critical faculties.


Panties quite flat, thank you. But you seem a little worked up over it.
 
2014-01-06 07:07:44 AM  

namatad: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism_Plus



Take a look at the talk page.

so they are nice people
without god



Some are.  Some are complete assholes.
 
2014-01-06 07:10:23 AM  

memebot_of_doom: namatad: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism_Plus


Take a look at the talk page.

so they are nice people
without god


Some are.  Some are complete assholes.


Nonsesne, I've been told repeatedly that for good people to do bad things, religion is required!

/which is kind of magical thinking of itself, given that it ascribes powers/abilities to the idea/organization that is 'religion' that, apparently, cannot be duplicated by any OTHER idea/organization...
//but I've also people get huffy when you point that out.
 
2014-01-06 07:10:37 AM  
Like Atheist churches weren't set up to create a false equivalency so the weirdos could beat their strawman without looking so stupid.
 
2014-01-06 07:15:20 AM  

Phil Moskowitz: Like Atheist churches weren't set up to create a false equivalency so the weirdos could beat their strawman without looking so stupid.


As nearly as I can tell, they weren't. Most Christian churches I'm familiar with are as much(or more) about getting together and hanging out with people you agree with(they call it "fellowship") as with theology. Same thing with atheist church.
 
2014-01-06 07:16:20 AM  

Felgraf: memebot_of_doom: namatad: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism_Plus


Take a look at the talk page.

so they are nice people
without god


Some are.  Some are complete assholes.

Nonsesne, I've been told repeatedly that for good people to do bad things, religion is required!

/which is kind of magical thinking of itself, given that it ascribes powers/abilities to the idea/organization that is 'religion' that, apparently, cannot be duplicated by any OTHER idea/organization...
//but I've also people get huffy when you point that out.


Nationalism, schizophrenia, drugs/alcohol, PTSD, etc etc call all cause good people to do bad things. Then again i'm pretty sure nobody ever told you that religion was the sole cause of good people doing bad things.
 
2014-01-06 07:19:42 AM  
Voiceofreason01:  Same thing with atheist church.

Surely a better atheist gathering should be a collection of individuals who don't agree with each other?
 
2014-01-06 07:31:32 AM  

omeganuepsilon: DerAppie: omeganuepsilon: fusillade762: He also said he advised them to leave the dive bar "where women wore bikinis," in favor of a more family-friendly venue.

You know, now that I think about I don't like this "family friendly" idea. Just as I don't think children should be indoctrinated into religion I wouldn't want them indoctrinated into atheism. Let them grow up and make up their own minds.

What? Tell me you're trolling. It's not like it's convoluted, "There are a lot of people who believe in a lot of silly things. I hope you don't fall in line with that." is hardly indoctrination.  You sort of need a doctrine to do that.

Considering that these people appear to have a schism based on social issues and how to behave morally (don't go to dive bars, go to family friendly establishments) I'd say that they are pretty well on their way to establishing a doctrine.

/How to be a good Atheist
//Buy my book
///Required reading, but definitely not a bible

But "those people" are not the entire group that is atheism in general, hence my reply.

Although it does stand to logic.  The "church"(if we are to only talk about that) is a construct meant to replace the social parts of religion.  It stands to reason that they'd do so in a place that's "family friendly".

A dive bar is going to exclude a lot of people.  Using it as an excuse to have a bunch of hipsters in your bar is not the same thing.


I understand that they do not represent all atheists. I, for one, do not feel represented by them.

And about the locale: if I were to start an "atheist church" I would want people with similar interests to join. Meeting in bars might very well be part of it. If others feel excluded because if the location they can start their own club. I see no reason to be all inclusive.

/It isn't a real group until you exclude someone
 
2014-01-06 07:38:27 AM  

Egoy3k: Nationalism, schizophrenia, drugs/alcohol, PTSD, etc etc call all cause good people to do bad things. Then again i'm pretty sure nobody ever told you that religion was the sole cause of good people doing bad things.


... You've *never heard* that quote before? It crops up FREQUENTLY in religion/atheism threads.

" Frederick Douglass told in his Narrative how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him to justify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham. Mark Twain described his mother as a genuinely good person, whose soft heart pitied even Satan, but who had no doubt about the legitimacy of slavery, because in years of living in antebellum Missouri she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God's will. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.  " Steven Weinburg (taken from wikiquote).

So. Uh. Yes. I have heard people say that, and it's parroted FREQUENTLY in religion/atheism threads (Often crops up at least once a thread, though that could very well be observer/sampling bias. I may simply be remembering it because it triggers the "THIS IS A TERRIBLE ARGUMENT AND AS A PHYSICIST YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER, fark half our our PhD's and Bachelor's degrees are TRAINING in critical thinking. Come on man!" parts of my brain).
(it is a very specific part of my brain, apparently)
 And when I point out that it's falling prey to a LOT of the same logical fallacies that *Allow* religions/religious people to do evil things (People who do bad things always have trait X! I do not have trait X, therefore if I do it, it's probably not a bad thing), and when I mention that the quote shows a remarkable lack of critical thinking and honestly an ignorance of history(because, as you said, you can EASILY shove nationalism into that gap. fark, we've *Seen it happen*), I've had people get quiiiteee pissed at me because. Um. I'm not sure. Apparently thinking critically is only OK if you criticize religion, and not well-liked atheists, or something?
 
2014-01-06 07:43:57 AM  

Felgraf: Apparently thinking critically is only OK if you criticize religion


Basically. It's the same with the people who hate one group of people for hating a third group. Applying actual objective thinking and discovering a flaw in your side is not cool. But tearing the other guys apart? Go for it.
 
2014-01-06 07:44:03 AM  

namatad: rational thought is not a religion, nor brain washing


Hey, just because you're an atheist doesn't mean you're rational. See: Ayn Rand.
 
2014-01-06 07:46:45 AM  

hardinparamedic: log_jammin: long story short, you're either with them or you're a misogynis

Sounds like the opposite of Men's Rights Activists. Either you agree blanket with them, or you're a man-hating misandrist or something.


I've never met such a Men's Rights Activist.  I have, however, met plenty of Feminists who say they have met such a Men's Rights Activist.
 
2014-01-06 07:47:46 AM  

Felgraf: So. Uh. Yes. I have heard people say that


Are you saying that bad is equal to evil? Because the quote you quoted, and as it's often quoted and/or paraphrased says it takes religion for good people to do evil.

If your dog poops on the floor, do you say "Evil dog! Evil evil dog!"?
 
2014-01-06 07:48:34 AM  
Atheist organizations and "churches" giving the rest of us a bad rep.
i1036.photobucket.com
/You're not helping
//where's my trilby
 
2014-01-06 07:54:31 AM  

doglover: Felgraf: Apparently thinking critically is only OK if you criticize religion

Basically. It's the same with the people who hate one group of people for hating a third group. Applying actual objective thinking and discovering a flaw in your side is not cool. But tearing the other guys apart? Go for it.


Heh, to be fair, I'm not sure I count as *atheist*. I'm not really sure... *what* I count as. Conditional Theist? ( For instance, I have a sort of... reverse-pascal's wager I've worked out in my head: If there is a god and they are *worth* worshiping, then what really matters most is simply helping your fellow man, and trying to leave the world a better place than when you came in. If there isn't a god... you've still tried to make the world better for the people to follow you, and that's a wonderful legacy to leave. If there s a god, but they'd punish you for not worshiping them, even if you tried to leave the world a better place/helped your fellows/etc? Theeeennn that's not a god worth worshiping in the first place)

I have half-jokingly reffered to myself as a "Pratchettist". (THE TURTLE MOVES.)

Maybe apatheist, but I'm not even sure that works, because I do toy with things in my head. (Pondering what I do and don't believe, working through potential implications of things, because.. I dunno, I'm strange, I guess.)

I think one of the reasons that quote frustrates me so is... well, the incredible lack of critical thinking, the lack of  knowledge of history, and frankly the engagement in magical thinking *while decrying magical thinking*, and it's coming from a physicist. It's sort of like how I don't expect someone who visits the creationism museum to display critical thinking skills/I am not surprised if one thinks the moon landing is faked (though it is still irritating), it doesn't compare to the frustration and anger I get when I encounter a physicist that's a conspiracy theorist.
 
2014-01-06 07:57:42 AM  

Felgraf: With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.


Yes the literal interpretation of that suggesta that all evil acts done by good people are the result of religion.  Then again only a moron would take it that way.
 
2014-01-06 07:59:23 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-01-06 07:59:43 AM  

Prophet of Loss: Lenny_da_Hog: Prophet of Loss: But you do believe in something jackass, you believe that the universe, life, and everything is a accident.

I'm an atheist and a determinist. Nothing is an accident. Everything happens the only way it can happen.

Quantum physics disagrees with you.


If that were true, the universe would be a blob of unstructured matter. Chaos and uncertainty are two of the most misused terms on Earth.
 
2014-01-06 08:00:52 AM  

mamoru: Felgraf: So. Uh. Yes. I have heard people say that

Are you saying that bad is equal to evil? Because the quote you quoted, and as it's often quoted and/or paraphrased says it takes religion for good people to do evil.

If your dog poops on the floor, do you say "Evil dog! Evil evil dog!"?


No, I don't think bad=evil. But he apparently does!

But it appears he also said it the first way *first*, (that is, at a talk in 1999, Wikiquotes claimed he said " Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. "), and then expanded on that in a later article, replacing evil with bad and mentioning fredrick douglass, etc.

So I apparently swapped two very similar quotes from the same man,  and went with the one where he tried to illuminate his views *more*.

Is there a problem?

It's still wrong, shows an ignorance of history, and engages in magical thinking by elevating the idea (or organization) of 'religion' by giving it powers that apparently cannot be possessed by any other idea/organization.
 
2014-01-06 08:03:21 AM  

namatad: rule one of atheism: no vegans

no really
that was the first rule
well it is the first rule in my church of atheism


our three sacraments are:
sex
drugs
gambling
and meat

of four sacraments



I came in here to say that an atheist church was the dumbest thing I had ever heard of but you just changed my mind. I'm assuming you hold services at a bar Saturday night?
 
2014-01-06 08:04:54 AM  

Egoy3k: Felgraf: With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.

Yes the literal interpretation of that suggesta that all evil acts done by good people are the result of religion.  Then again only a moron would take it that way.


Wow, that's a well reasoned and wonderfully laid out rebuttal there.

How dare I take the man at his word.

Are you just frustrated that you said "No one's ever said that!" and I went "Uh, yes. They have. They've said it, and then they've said it AGAIN, swapping evil with bad."

Prophet of Loss: Quantum physics disagrees with you.


Uh... no, I don't think so? While there *is* a many-worlds interpretation of Q-mech, that's... not really been proven. (... Though Brian Greene loves to talk about it like it's fact. He likes to talk about string theory in a similar fashion, which I find frustrating.)
 
2014-01-06 08:06:03 AM  

Confabulat: I'm an atheist and these people are all assholes.

I don't need to join a damn club to be an atheist. Are you just lonely?

What awful human beings.



They want political power, so yes they are awful human beings like any politicians.
 
2014-01-06 08:06:39 AM  
Like I said, having an atheist church is like having a not plumbers convention. People sitting around specifically with the purpose of not talking about plumbing. How about just living your life and going to conventions, movies, skiing. Life?

It's such an absurd idea that it seems fabricated so that theists have someone to fight.
 
2014-01-06 08:08:21 AM  

Felgraf: Are you just frustrated that you said "No one's ever said that!" and I went "Uh, yes. They have. They've said it, and then they've said it AGAIN, swapping evil with bad."


Hrm, actually, that is kind of a dickish comment, and unfair of me. Especially since I highly dislike it when people try to say "oh, the REAL reason you're arguing X isn't because Y, but because you really think Z."

I retract this accusation.
 
2014-01-06 08:13:19 AM  
I was born and raised am atheist. I don't believe in gods as much as anybody alive.
But having ransacked my mind and it's life experience, and I can come up with no rational explanation for these people (or many others  but that's for other threads).
I have never met one IRL.
Their stated purposes seem insane to me.
I can neither praise nor critisise them - they are , to me, gibberish in human form.
 
2014-01-06 08:14:01 AM  
The daily atheism thread. Add a teacher sleeps with student. Mugshot roundup, and drunk person does something stupid thread and the Fark day will be complete.

I would say what I normally say in these threads, but ehh, you already know.
 
2014-01-06 08:14:08 AM  

Felgraf: Egoy3k: Felgraf: With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.

Yes the literal interpretation of that suggesta that all evil acts done by good people are the result of religion.  Then again only a moron would take it that way.

Wow, that's a well reasoned and wonderfully laid out rebuttal there.

How dare I take the man at his word.

Are you just frustrated that you said "No one's ever said that!" and I went "Uh, yes. They have. They've said it, and then they've said it AGAIN, swapping evil with bad."


No I'm not frustrated I'm confused as to why you seem to think that a poorly chosen phrase should be taken as literally as possible unless, of course, you have an axe to grind.  The discussion was on the topic of religion, not nationalism, the first statement is that without religion good people are good bad people are bad then the second phrase, admittedly, says that religion is the only cause of good people acting bad.  The thing is do you honestly take it that way given that a much more logical argument would be the following;

Without religion good people are good and bad people are bad, with it good people can act bad.

Again I don't dispute that the quote does say exactly what you claim that it says. My dispute is that a thinking person should understand, in my opinion, that it was made within the context of a discussion of religion, and only religion.  It does not encompass topics outside of the theological. Furthermore I'm 100% sure that the vast majority of people that you ever see repeating the quote would readily admit that religion is not the only thing in the world that can cause good people to act bad.
 
2014-01-06 08:16:40 AM  

DerAppie: I see no reason to be all inclusive.


Depends one one's agenda.

You want government laws to not be based in religion(ie gay laws, equal rights for women/races, etc)?
 Inclusion is a good idea.
You want religion to not taint or even replace real education?
Inclusion also works well here.
You want local public offices to not fall into a setup similar to Dominionism because they're all of the same religion?
Inclusion here is great.
(Or Sharia Law or other similar control schema's)

There is some valid reasoning to be as inclusive and friendly as possible. You can have a cause and not have a doctrine. You can believe in something(equal rights), without BelievingTM in magic, sky gods(and obedience thereof), worship, etc.

If your agenda is to more simply have friends and hang out in a bar, well, that's easy, you can even join a "club".
 
2014-01-06 08:17:05 AM  

Egoy3k: Without religion good people are good and bad people are bad, with it good people can act bad.


Wow I messed it up too, see how easy it is?

Lets try;

It takes outside justification for good people to act bad, religion is a commonly used to justify atrocities.
 
2014-01-06 08:20:05 AM  
There are plenty of atheist religions, Taoism, Catholicism, Buddhism come to mind. I suppose Judaism as well. Heck, I think Protestants are the only Theists after all.
 
2014-01-06 08:20:41 AM  

Egoy3k: It takes outside justification for good people to act bad



It's rather adamant that good people cannot in fact act bad and be good. If you act bad, you are bad.
 
2014-01-06 08:24:24 AM  

fusillade762: He also said he advised them to leave the dive bar "where women wore bikinis," in favor of a more family-friendly venue.

You know, now that I think about I don't like this "family friendly" idea. Just as I don't think children should be indoctrinated into religion I wouldn't want them indoctrinated into atheism. Let them grow up and make up their own minds.


NO! All children must be bathed in the knowledge that there is no god and nothing that man doesn't know.

NO GOD WILLS IT!
 
2014-01-06 08:28:21 AM  

jaybeezey: and nothing that man doesn't know.


...about that.... 

No.

What they should be taught is that inserting "magic" in place of "I don't know" is wrong. Hurting people because they refuse to accept your demented interpretation of magic is evil.
 
2014-01-06 08:30:58 AM  
If there are women in bikinis, it's not a dive bar. Dive bars serve hard drinks to men who want to get drunk fast, and they don't need any characters around to give the joint atmosphere.

Best bar in Manhattan, if you actually want to go to a bar and just drink.
 
2014-01-06 08:32:10 AM  

Egoy3k: No I'm not frustrated I'm confused as to why you seem to think that a poorly chosen phrase should be taken as literally as possible unless, of course, you have an axe to grind. The discussion was on the topic of religion, not nationalism, the first statement is that without religion good people are good bad people are bad then the second phrase, admittedly, says that religion is the only cause of good people acting bad. The thing is do you honestly take it that way given that a much more logical argument would be the following;

Without religion good people are good and bad people are bad, with it good people can act bad.

Again I don't dispute that the quote does say exactly what you claim that it says. My dispute is that a thinking person should understand, in my opinion, that it was made within the context of a discussion of religion, and only religion. It does not encompass topics outside of the theological. Furthermore I'm 100% sure that the vast majority of people that you ever see repeating the quote would readily admit that religion is not the only thing in the world that can cause good people to act bad.


Perhaps it's just observation bias. The last time it came up in a thread, I pointed out the problems with it and got blasted repeatedly (granted, by one guy). I suppose that may have lodged something in my brain.

Given the number of people I've seen on these fark threads that say stuff like "Most of the world's problems would be solved if religion were to vanish!", and such, I have to disagree with you, though. Hell, I *know* a self-proclaimed 'anti-theist' (his words) in real life. (... Though I can't prove this, and that sounds reaaalllly close to "Hey, I have a black friend!").

And I *know* I've seen people go "Well, what happened in communist russia was turning love of the state INTO a religion, so it's still religion's fault, etc etc (Which feels very No True Scotsman-ish)

Furthermore, again, given that he's said it twice, and the first time he said it he included the phrase "For good people to do evil things, that takes religion", and he furthermore states "<b>
With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.", I... that really seems to strongly imply that, yeah, it *IS* religion that makes good people do terrible things, and without religion, good people wouldn't do those terrible things.

I mean, yes, he was talking about religion when he brought it up (.. because.. I'm not sure that would come up in a conversation about, say, geography). I'm... I guess I'm confused about why that shields it from criticism of being, well, *wrong*, especially given how frequently it gets bandied about.

I mean, hell. Are you that charitable when people talk about, say, Genesis? Do you go "Well, the bible clearly has two conflicting origin stories right after each other. Clearly these were not meant to be taken literally, or they would have obviously made them line up with each other, so I will assume anyone talking about genesis knows this and does not take it literally"?

And I dislike it when it shows up because, again, it's the same kind of thinking that *allows religious people to do horrible things.* Not on the same scale, but it's still "Us vs Them, and They're bad, and we're not" style thinking, and that goes dangerous, dangerous places.


To quote pratchett (.. Okay maybe I am a pratchettist)

"It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things."
―  Jingo
 
2014-01-06 08:36:08 AM  
Obligatory, tl:dr version:

(Pushes him off the bridge) "Die, Heretic!"
 
2014-01-06 08:40:08 AM  

Egoy3k: Egoy3k: Without religion good people are good and bad people are bad, with it good people can act bad.

Wow I messed it up too, see how easy it is?

Lets try;

It takes outside justification for good people to act bad, religion is a commonly used to justify atrocities.


Aye, and that is a fair interpretation. I've just run across (..granted, on Fark, but I don't often *get* into discussions about religion with people in real life, since... I dunno. I feel it might be rude of me), people that tend to think that most all atrocities *are caused by religion*. They talk about how the world would be better if religion/all the religious people were gone, etc. It's possible they're just venting.

But, to echo the statement I just made (which, since I doubt you posses causality breaking powers, you had not read when you posted that! =) )

I don't think that's always *The way people who parrot it* are thinking. Just like many parts of the bible are clearly parable/not *MEANT* to be taken literally (again, literally, Genesis. Two origin stories, things happen *in different orders*, an they are next to each other. Even if you have a low opinion of the intelligence of religious people, the *writers* likely realized this wasn't 100% literal historical truth). But there's a lot of people that *view* it as 100% historical truth (.. Until you ask them about shrimp. Or loving one's neighbor.)

So I suppose my main beef isn't so much the phrase, as it is what a lot of people saying it are implying/interpreting/feel they are agreeing with when they repeat it.

Also, I fear I may not be able to respond to...well, any responses for a bit. I'm apparently still a bit low on sleep, so I've got to vanish for a few hours.
 
2014-01-06 08:41:58 AM  
Oi. Why did anybody think this would be a good idea?

My folks once joined something of an atheist club and they ended up splitting over politics (liberal vs. libertarian) and internal politics (which man got to talk the most). Knowing the kind of BS that goes on in Christian churches, I imagine it being ten times worse with atheists.
 
2014-01-06 08:42:00 AM  
Up on the hilltop where the vultures perch
That's where I'm gonna build my church
Ain't gonna be no priest, ain't gonna be no boss
Just Charles Nelson Reilly nailed to a cross
I don't piss, I don't shiat, I'm gettin' no relief
People shake their heads in disbelief, go
Just me on a hilltop with 15 girls
In a Nelson Reilly orgy that'll make your hair curl
I don't piss, I don't shiat, I'm gettin' no relief
People shake their heads in disbelief
Yeah, Charles Nelson Reilly, he's our man
He can't heal the sick with the touch of his hand
He can't walk on the water, can't make wine flow
Just another greedy actor on the late, late show
I don't piss, I don't shiat, I'm gettin' no relief
People shake their heads in disbelief, go
Just me on a hilltop with 15 girls
In a Nelson Reilly orgy that'll make your hair curl
I don't piss, I don't shiat, I'm gettin' no relief
People shake their heads in disbelief
 
2014-01-06 08:42:12 AM  

nulluspixiusdemonica: jaybeezey: and nothing that man doesn't know.

...about that.... 

No.

What they should be taught is that inserting "magic" in place of "I don't know" is wrong. Hurting people because they refuse to accept your demented interpretation of magic is evil.


You are wrong!

NO GOD WILLS IT!
 
2014-01-06 08:43:31 AM  
Saying that atheism is a religion is an insult to religions.
 
2014-01-06 08:48:50 AM  

Felgraf: And I dislike it when it shows up because, again, it's the same kind of thinking that *allows religious people to do horrible things.* Not on the same scale, but it's still "Us vs Them, and They're bad, and we're not" style thinking, and that goes dangerous, dangerous places.


This I won't argue with.
 
2014-01-06 08:49:53 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Saying that atheism is a religion is an insult to religions.


Deep.

Assuming from context you're a Satanist?
 
2014-01-06 08:56:09 AM  

Schmegicky: There has always been a human need for ritual of some sort.
I suspect that it's been both profound ignorance and the need for such ritual that has kept religion going for as long as it has.

I have yet to see a group, humanist, atheist or anything in between that instead of just providing communal entertainment proposed to talk about current social and ethical issues.  Professional organizations have these sorts of courses built right in to their professional licensing requirements under the term "professional ethics".

It would be brilliant accomplishment for any organization to gather people under the same roof to discuss ethical and social issues.  It would be even better if they could invite proponents of different sides of the issue to speak on these issues.  For example, next Sunday, the theme could be "Does absolute power corrupt?"  Jamie Dimon and Bill Gates would speak.

Until such an organization forms, I'll just stay home and watch documentaries.



You're in luck;  Ethical Culture's been around for over 140 years.
 
2014-01-06 08:58:47 AM  
I love how big a deal it is when a tiny percentage of atheists decide to organize a church-like meeting.

They can do what they want ... they do not represent all atheists. We are not an organization. We do not have any rules, guidelines, leaders, etc.

It is likely made up of people who likely miss the meeting/social part of religion but don't miss the fairy-tales. Who cares?
 
2014-01-06 09:00:37 AM  

This About That: Oh God.


Or "god", if you prefer.

Fish needing bicycle problem, if you ask me. I can take stupid or I can take godless, but both?
 
2014-01-06 09:01:07 AM  

fusillade762: He also said he advised them to leave the dive bar "where women wore bikinis," in favor of a more family-friendly venue.

You know, now that I think about I don't like this "family friendly" idea. Just as I don't think children should be indoctrinated into religion I wouldn't want them indoctrinated into atheism. Let them grow up and make up their own minds.


Everybody is born an atheist.
 
2014-01-06 09:01:22 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Saying that atheism is a religion is an insult to religions.


Not to mention male pattern baldness and stamp collecting.
 
2014-01-06 09:02:28 AM  
img.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-06 09:03:27 AM  

Farking Canuck: I love how big a deal it is when a tiny percentage of atheists decide to organize a church-like meeting.

They can do what they want ... they do not represent all atheists. We are not an organization. We do not have any rules, guidelines, leaders, etc.

It is likely made up of people who likely miss the meeting/social part of religion but don't miss the fairy-tales. Who cares?


Religious people seem to care a lot about these freaks.
I sure as shiat don't - they have nothing to do with me.
 
2014-01-06 09:04:36 AM  

IronTom: If they believe in nothing, how can there be a schism?

Did they divide by zero?

NEVER DIVIDE BY ZERO1


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-01-06 09:05:29 AM  

GilRuiz1: Schmegicky: Until such an organization forms, I'll just stay home and watch documentaries.

You're in luck;  Ethical Culture's been around for over 140 years.


I'd almost forgotten about them... I had a friend who belonged to the Washington Ethical Society when I was attending Georgetown. She invited me to a couple meetings... interesting perspectives on the issues of the day. I'd recommend visiting them to anybody.
 
2014-01-06 09:06:43 AM  

Farking Canuck: I love how big a deal it is when a tiny percentage of atheists decide to organize a church-like meeting.

They can do what they want ... they do not represent all atheists. We are not an organization. We do not have any rules, guidelines, leaders, etc.

It is likely made up of people who likely miss the meeting/social part of religion but don't miss the fairy-tales. Who cares?


Religious people care because it fits the letrole narrative of "atheism is a religion!"

Which is the theological equivalent of the "both sides are bad" philosophy. If atheism is just another religion, then you can ignore it just like you would any other religion besides your own, because then it's all subjective.
 
2014-01-06 09:09:41 AM  

miscreant: Farking Canuck: I love how big a deal it is when a tiny percentage of atheists decide to organize a church-like meeting.

They can do what they want ... they do not represent all atheists. We are not an organization. We do not have any rules, guidelines, leaders, etc.

It is likely made up of people who likely miss the meeting/social part of religion but don't miss the fairy-tales. Who cares?

Religious people care because it fits the letrole narrative of "atheism is a religion!"

Which is the theological equivalent of the "both sides are bad" philosophy. If atheism is just another religion, then you can ignore it just like you would any other religion besides your own, because then it's all subjective.


I'd be happier to be ignored by the people in question.
 
2014-01-06 09:11:10 AM  
Eh, I've been an atheist for about 40 years (was raised a Catholic.)  Religious or not, people generally want to do some sort of good on a philosophical level.  My moral code is quite flexible and adaptive, barely qualifying for the word code.  It's largely based on some of the commandments/Socrates greatest good/know thyself/know your audience.

That said, I HATE people who preach at me or lecture me.  Any discussion worth having has to be a two way exchange of ideas.  I have no great desire to influence or change anyone's way of thinking.  But, there are certainly people out there who want everyone to think and act exactly like themselves.  These people often seem to lead congregations, and they're always pushy enough and inflexible of thought enough to scare me.

TLDR version: Righteous people suck, no matter the religion/atheist/political slant they're pushing.
 
2014-01-06 09:21:13 AM  
The guy who started this should just go to his local UU church.  Unitarianism Universalism has no prescribed supernatural beliefs and contains some huge percentage of Atheists.

"Our mother or father, who may or may not be in heaven..."
 
2014-01-06 09:25:01 AM  

FlyingLizardOfDoom: [martinbaena.files.wordpress.com image 720x556]


Came for this, leaving satisfied.
 
2014-01-06 09:28:31 AM  

Egalitarian: Oi. Why did anybody think this would be a good idea?

My folks once joined something of an atheist club and they ended up splitting over politics (liberal vs. libertarian) and internal politics (which man got to talk the most). Knowing the kind of BS that goes on in Christian churches, I imagine it being ten times worse with atheists.


Including the sexual abuse and coverups?
 
2014-01-06 09:31:29 AM  

Confabulat: I'm an atheist and these people are all assholes.

I don't need to join a damn club to be an atheist. Are you just lonely?

What awful human beings.



I think you could join the club if you wanted to "spread the word".  The awful human beings are the religious leaders perpetuating religious dogma.
 
2014-01-06 09:32:46 AM  

OhioKnight: The guy who started this should just go to his local UU church.  Unitarianism Universalism has no prescribed supernatural beliefs and contains some huge percentage of Atheists.

"Our mother or father, who may or may not be in heaven..."


Only if he answers his own phone.
 
2014-01-06 09:35:11 AM  

OhioKnight: The guy who started this should just go to his local UU church.  Unitarianism Universalism has no prescribed supernatural beliefs and contains some huge percentage of Atheists.

"Our mother or father, who may or may not be in heaven..."


How do you know you've pissed off some Unitarians?

You find a question mark burning on your lawn.
 
2014-01-06 09:36:48 AM  

fusillade762: gameshowhost: Welcome to my Not Collecting Stamps club!  We don't collect stamps here, so let's get together and talk about not collecting stamps.

I'm bald. Are you bald? Let's get together and talk about hair color.


Do you like your sandwiches with three pieces of bread?
 
2014-01-06 09:38:37 AM  

Prophet of Loss: In before "Atheism is not a religion".

/quacks like a duck


Does mean they are also going to start going door to door?

Do we have to limit their connections with government? No use of government facilities, funds or atheists prayers at school to keep atheist church and state separate.

I wonder what they will choose as their symbol. When groups like this get organized they normally get a logo or symbol.
 
2014-01-06 09:38:53 AM  
When humans collaborate and congregate for anything at all that revolves around perpetuating a message then it always goes to shiat when the survival of said congregation relies solely upon the spreading of said message.
 
2014-01-06 09:44:08 AM  
Yup they are a religion:

Instead of receiving self-improvement nudges or engaging in conversation with strangers, I watched the founders fret (a lot) over technical glitches with the web streaming, talk about how hard they had worked to pull the service off, and try to sell me $unday A$$embly $wag.


"Actually," he admitted, "we do have expan$ion aim$."
 
2014-01-06 09:49:35 AM  

RedTank: When humans collaborate and congregate for anything at all that revolves around perpetuating a message then it always goes to shiat when the survival of said congregation relies solely upon the spreading of said message.


This athiest 'Church' has a bigger problem then normal, because they recognize nothing higher than their own limited intellects and egos; hence nothing they can defer to.

A lack of faith is one thing, a smug self-satisfied lecturing atheist is just a bit too precious about his own perfect rationality; as if s/he has risen above such a common and often helpful part of the human experience.
 
2014-01-06 09:51:26 AM  

Ghastly: Trilbies vs Fedoras?


bronies vs. goths
 
2014-01-06 09:53:08 AM  
i762.photobucket.com

"Oh, this should be good."
 
2014-01-06 09:54:57 AM  

jso2897: Farking Canuck: I love how big a deal it is when a tiny percentage of atheists decide to organize a church-like meeting.

They can do what they want ... they do not represent all atheists. We are not an organization. We do not have any rules, guidelines, leaders, etc.

It is likely made up of people who likely miss the meeting/social part of religion but don't miss the fairy-tales. Who cares?

Religious people seem to care a lot about these freaks.
I sure as shiat don't - they have nothing to do with me.


I'm sure a lot of Christians say the same thing about Pat Robertson or WBC.

The difference is, that our current political leaders actually heed Pat Robertson's advice.
 
2014-01-06 09:56:19 AM  
Probably fighting over which god to not believe in.
 
2014-01-06 10:04:55 AM  

dfenstrate: RedTank: When humans collaborate and congregate for anything at all that revolves around perpetuating a message then it always goes to shiat when the survival of said congregation relies solely upon the spreading of said message.

This athiest 'Church' has a bigger problem then normal, because they recognize nothing higher than their own limited intellects and egos; hence nothing they can defer to.

A lack of faith is one thing, a smug self-satisfied lecturing atheist is just a bit too precious about his own perfect rationality; as if s/he has risen above such a common and often helpful part of the human experience.


You are describing any flawed religious person in their zealously.  The issue of faith in that "they recognize nothing higher than their own limited intellects and egos " is unimportant to the outcome and unimportant in regards to the perception by other people outside their group...  If your claim is that Atheists suffer from their self righteousness more than the average religious person then I may agree to that only because they are a new "religion" with a bit more to "prove" than other established and aged groups.
 
2014-01-06 10:07:55 AM  

miscreant: Farking Canuck: I love how big a deal it is when a tiny percentage of atheists decide to organize a church-like meeting.

They can do what they want ... they do not represent all atheists. We are not an organization. We do not have any rules, guidelines, leaders, etc.

It is likely made up of people who likely miss the meeting/social part of religion but don't miss the fairy-tales. Who cares?

Religious people care because it fits the letrole narrative of "atheism is a religion!"

Which is the theological equivalent of the "both sides are bad" philosophy. If atheism is just another religion, then you can ignore it just like you would any other religion besides your own, because then it's all subjective.


And they'd have a point if these atheist churchgoers were more than a tiny, tiny fringe group.

What religious people want this to mean: Atheists miss church.

What it really means: Only a tiny fraction of atheists miss church. But they don't miss the fairy-tales so they invented one that is based on reason and humanistic values.
 
2014-01-06 10:08:03 AM  

Confabulat: I'm an atheist and these people are all assholes.

I don't need to join a damn club to be an atheist. Are you just lonely?

What awful human beings.


Yea, this. As there is a direct correlation between the number of humans in a group and how farking stupid that group becomes, I'll stick with not being part of the idiocy that is a church. Any church.
 
2014-01-06 10:18:43 AM  

RedTank: You are describing any flawed religious person in their zealously. The issue of faith in that "they recognize nothing higher than their own limited intellects and egos " is unimportant to the outcome and unimportant in regards to the perception by other people outside their group...


A shared dogma helps limit and mend rifts within a sect. Lacking scripture, the dogma/practices/mores of this atheist church can only be based on what members can talk each other into from week to week.

As to whether atheists suffer from self-righteousness more than others- I refer only to the lecturing, smug self-satisfied atheists, many of whom have participated in this very thread.
 
2014-01-06 10:20:29 AM  

dfenstrate: RedTank: When humans collaborate and congregate for anything at all that revolves around perpetuating a message then it always goes to shiat when the survival of said congregation relies solely upon the spreading of said message.

This athiest 'Church' has a bigger problem then normal, because they recognize nothing higher than their own limited intellects and egos; hence nothing they can defer to.

A lack of faith is one thing, a smug self-satisfied lecturing atheist is just a bit too precious about his own perfect rationality; as if s/he has risen above such a common and often helpful part of the human experience.


They usually fall back onto their capital-N Nationalism, or just cults of personality. That's been the historical trend, anyway.
 
2014-01-06 10:22:03 AM  

dfenstrate: As to whether atheists suffer from self-righteousness more than others- I refer only to the lecturing, smug self-satisfied atheists, many of whom have participated in this very thread.


I.E. anyone who dares to have an opinion that differs from the religious majority.

We all knew what you meant.
 
2014-01-06 10:22:15 AM  

omeganuepsilon: DerAppie: I see no reason to be all inclusive.

Depends one one's agenda.

You want government laws to not be based in religion(ie gay laws, equal rights for women/races, etc)?
 Inclusion is a good idea.
You want religion to not taint or even replace real education?
Inclusion also works well here.
You want local public offices to not fall into a setup similar to Dominionism because they're all of the same religion?
Inclusion here is great.
(Or Sharia Law or other similar control schema's)

There is some valid reasoning to be as inclusive and friendly as possible. You can have a cause and not have a doctrine. You can believe in something(equal rights), without BelievingTM in magic, sky gods(and obedience thereof), worship, etc.

If your agenda is to more simply have friends and hang out in a bar, well, that's easy, you can even join a "club".


There is strength in numbers. The various organisations could simply work together instead of shoehorning everyone in one ill-fitting collective.
 
2014-01-06 10:23:33 AM  

dfenstrate: RedTank: When humans collaborate and congregate for anything at all that revolves around perpetuating a message then it always goes to shiat when the survival of said congregation relies solely upon the spreading of said message.

This athiest 'Church' has a bigger problem then normal, because they recognize nothing higher than their own limited intellects and egos; hence nothing they can defer to.

A lack of faith is one thing, a smug self-satisfied lecturing atheist is just a bit too precious about his own perfect rationality; as if s/he has risen above such a common and often helpful part of the human experience.


They can defer to factual information.
IE not teaching creationism(which debilitates the potential of the students, ie tomorrows leaders and workers).

That alone is worth pushing some boundaries, a better educated populace. Also, separation of church and state, and equal rights.

I love how undercover believers(or alternatively, anarchists) come in here and badmouth teh "smug" while denying and denigrating the factual legitimacy of atheism as a cultural/social movement.  Damned uppity atheists trying to improve society!
 
2014-01-06 10:25:46 AM  

dfenstrate: As to whether atheists suffer from self-righteousness more than others- I refer only to the lecturing, smug self-satisfied atheists, many of whom have participated in this very thread.


I love it when someone accuses someone else of being 'smug' in the most condescending manner possible.  It's like calling out a typo with poor grammar.
 
2014-01-06 10:30:11 AM  

This About That: Oh God.


Don't you mean "0 god"?
 
2014-01-06 10:30:33 AM  

Egoy3k: dfenstrate: As to whether atheists suffer from self-righteousness more than others- I refer only to the lecturing, smug self-satisfied atheists, many of whom have participated in this very thread.

I love it when someone accuses someone else of being 'smug' in the most condescending manner possible.  It's like calling out a typo with poor grammar.


Do you really love it?
 
2014-01-06 10:33:36 AM  

lordjupiter: Egoy3k: dfenstrate: As to whether atheists suffer from self-righteousness more than others- I refer only to the lecturing, smug self-satisfied atheists, many of whom have participated in this very thread.

I love it when someone accuses someone else of being 'smug' in the most condescending manner possible.  It's like calling out a typo with poor grammar.

Do you really love it?


Yes?
 
2014-01-06 10:35:57 AM  
The major churches should be starting up "membership not required" activities for just this purpose. Let college kids do volunteer work instead of attending services and just wait out their rebelliousness until their spirituality matures beyond the "I don't believe in Santa Claus" phase.

Does anyone already do this?
 
2014-01-06 10:36:34 AM  

namatad: atheism is not a religion


Because the meanings of words change, yes, it is. It's deity is the importance of ridding society of the notion of deities. Atheists gather, organize, and proselytize.

You may not be a religious atheist, but plenty are. Just like someone can believe in god and not be religious, someone can not believe in god, and be religious.

Atheism is a religion, because some atheists practice it like one.

Convincing someone of anything that has no proof is brainwashing.
 
2014-01-06 10:37:30 AM  

s2s2s2: namatad: atheism is not a religion

Because the meanings of words change, yes, it is. Its deity is the importance of ridding society of the notion of deities. Atheists gather, organize, and proselytize.

You may not be a religious atheist, but plenty are. Just like someone can believe in god and not be religious, someone can not believe in god, and be religious.

Atheism is a religion, because some atheists practice it like one.

Convincing someone of anything that has no proof is brainwashing.


/ftfm
 
2014-01-06 10:38:25 AM  

dfenstrate: A shared dogma helps limit and mend rifts within a sect. Lacking scripture, the dogma/practices/mores of this atheist church can only be based on what members can talk each other into from week to week


Perhaps it's time Atheists wrote a book about it all then?  I suppose that would be a bit too on the nose....

dfenstrate: As to whether atheists suffer from self-righteousness more than others- I refer only to the lecturing, smug self-satisfied atheists, many of whom have participated in this very thread.


Perhaps you shouldn't base your opinions on Atheists from a small samples size of anonymity from the internet.  I've met plenty of smug self-satisfied people in my life and if I hated them for it I would undoubtedly hate everyone by now and I'd be living in a cave.
 
2014-01-06 10:39:39 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The major churches should be starting up "membership not required" activities for just this purpose. Let college kids do volunteer work instead of attending services and just wait out their rebelliousness until their spirituality matures beyond the "I don't believe in Santa Claus" phase.


Are you suggesting that people with "Mature Spirituality" start to believe in Santa again?

Love that term btw. It makes believing in things without evidence sound so noble.
 
2014-01-06 10:39:43 AM  
Science be praised!
 
2014-01-06 10:40:26 AM  

omeganuepsilon: They can defer to factual information.
IE not teaching creationism(which debilitates the potential of the students, ie tomorrows leaders and workers).

That alone is worth pushing some boundaries, a better educated populace. Also, separation of church and state, and equal rights.

I love how undercover believers(or alternatively, anarchists) come in here and badmouth teh "smug" while denying and denigrating the factual legitimacy of atheism as a cultural/social movement. Damned uppity atheists trying to improve society!


Oh, you can try to improve society. I just don't see any basis to brag about how great your movement is, or to say it'll be a successful long term project.

On the other hand, the judeo-christian tradition has a few thousand years of history, and gave birth to the enlightenment, which gave non-believers footing to criticize religion to begin with.

Athiests love to preach about how religion is brainwashing and population control, (I know, I did the same.... when I was a teenager.), but when it comes time to replicating the positive functions religion performs, they come up rather dry. Or they make silly 'churches.'

My argument is that religion fulfills a basic human need, and that need doesn't go away when some athiests start yapping about sky wizard this and santa claus that. If Athiests cannot understand that need; and cannot fill it, they will only ever be a small segment of society; eternally frustated that they're not as important and prominent as they think they should be.

Maybe something good will come of all this Athiest 'church' turmoil, but right now it looks like a cargo plane cult.
 
2014-01-06 10:43:25 AM  

Egalitarian: Oi. Why did anybody think this would be a good idea?

My folks once joined something of an atheist club and they ended up splitting over politics (liberal vs. libertarian) and internal politics (which man got to talk the most). Knowing the kind of BS that goes on in Christian churches, I imagine it being ten times worse with atheists.


That sounds just like my local atheist group.
 
2014-01-06 10:44:36 AM  
SPLITTERS!!!
 
2014-01-06 10:44:44 AM  

Jim_Callahan: And some of the freemason lodges are going on two or three centuries old now... so, historically, the answer is also yes.


Freemasons are not, as an organization, atheist. Individual members might be, but shouldn't be. Believing in a higher power is a requirement for joining.

Jim_Callahan: Taoism, a religion four centuries older than Christianity, has a number of schools that are atheist.


Taoism is better described as apatheist. I don't know of any branch that actively denies a belief in god. The ones that aren't actively theist generally take a "We have more important shiat to do than worry if a god does or does not exist."
 
2014-01-06 10:45:18 AM  

Egoy3k: lordjupiter: Egoy3k: dfenstrate: As to whether atheists suffer from self-righteousness more than others- I refer only to the lecturing, smug self-satisfied atheists, many of whom have participated in this very thread.

I love it when someone accuses someone else of being 'smug' in the most condescending manner possible.  It's like calling out a typo with poor grammar.

Do you really love it?

Yes?


Do you love it as much as  dfenstrate did in regards to hatred of smug Atheists?   dfenstrate called out smugness and then you called him out for his smugness and then you get challenged by lordjupiter for a certain hypocrisy in your love of the situation and now here I am doing it to you...  I love calling out people who call out people whom call out people.  I love it for it's lunacy and circular logic.
 
2014-01-06 10:45:42 AM  

dfenstrate: omeganuepsilon: They can defer to factual information.
IE not teaching creationism(which debilitates the potential of the students, ie tomorrows leaders and workers).

That alone is worth pushing some boundaries, a better educated populace. Also, separation of church and state, and equal rights.

I love how undercover believers(or alternatively, anarchists) come in here and badmouth teh "smug" while denying and denigrating the factual legitimacy of atheism as a cultural/social movement. Damned uppity atheists trying to improve society!

Oh, you can try to improve society. I just don't see any basis to brag about how great your movement is, or to say it'll be a successful long term project.

On the other hand, the judeo-christian tradition has a few thousand years of history, and gave birth to the enlightenment, which gave non-believers footing to criticize religion to begin with.

Athiests love to preach about how religion is brainwashing and population control, (I know, I did the same.... when I was a teenager.), but when it comes time to replicating the positive functions religion performs, they come up rather dry. Or they make silly 'churches.'

My argument is that religion fulfills a basic human need, and that need doesn't go away when some athiests start yapping about sky wizard this and santa claus that. If Athiests cannot understand that need; and cannot fill it, they will only ever be a small segment of society; eternally frustated that they're not as important and prominent as they think they should be.

Maybe something good will come of all this Athiest 'church' turmoil, but right now it looks like a cargo plane cult.


You should understand that atheism is a lot more common in other countries, and it's the American atheists who usually have a rage-boner over religion.
 
2014-01-06 10:48:03 AM  

dfenstrate: On the other hand, the judeo-christian tradition has a few thousand years of history, and gave birth to the enlightenment, which gave non-believers footing to criticize religion to begin with.


img.fark.net


Athiests love to preach about how religion is brainwashing and population control, (I know, I did the same.... when I was a teenager.), but when it comes time to replicating the positive functions religion performs, they come up rather dry. Or they make silly 'churches.'

Any positive functions can be done without the religious component.

Nobody cares what you did as a teenager. Your attempts to equate the other people's application of logic and reason to your rebellious years is pathetic.

Only a tiny percentage of atheists have/are participating in these "silly churches". As a religious person, please explain why you thing churches are silly? I have my own opinions but I am curious about yours.
 
2014-01-06 10:48:11 AM  

RedTank: Perhaps you shouldn't base your opinions on Atheists from a small samples size of anonymity from the Internet. I've met plenty of smug self-satisfied people in my life and if I hated them for it I would undoubtedly hate everyone by now and I'd be living in a cave.


I don't base my opinion of Atheists on Internet commenters. I was calling out obnoxious behavior by some atheists, behavior I've seen in this thread in particular.

I can understand atheism as a lack of belief in a higher power. I'm sympathetic to it, actually.

I just don't see that Atheists (as some sort of guiding philosophy or movement) have any real ground to criticize what constructive religions have done for humanity, and they have precious little ground to say they can do better.
 
2014-01-06 10:48:12 AM  

dfenstrate: omeganuepsilon: They can defer to factual information.
IE not teaching creationism(which debilitates the potential of the students, ie tomorrows leaders and workers).

That alone is worth pushing some boundaries, a better educated populace. Also, separation of church and state, and equal rights.

I love how undercover believers(or alternatively, anarchists) come in here and badmouth teh "smug" while denying and denigrating the factual legitimacy of atheism as a cultural/social movement. Damned uppity atheists trying to improve society!

Oh, you can try to improve society. I just don't see any basis to brag about how great your movement is, or to say it'll be a successful long term project.

On the other hand, the judeo-christian tradition has a few thousand years of history, and gave birth to the enlightenment, which gave non-believers footing to criticize religion to begin with.

Athiests love to preach about how religion is brainwashing and population control, (I know, I did the same.... when I was a teenager.), but when it comes time to replicating the positive functions religion performs, they come up rather dry. Or they make silly 'churches.'

My argument is that religion fulfills a basic human need, and that need doesn't go away when some athiests start yapping about sky wizard this and santa claus that. If Athiests cannot understand that need; and cannot fill it, they will only ever be a small segment of society; eternally frustated that they're not as important and prominent as they think they should be.

Maybe something good will come of all this Athiest 'church' turmoil, but right now it looks like a cargo plane cult.


So your argument is that we should be grateful that the Church killed fewer thinkers and allowed them a little bit more freedom with respect to what they studied and wrote?  Thanks a lot!

You're not understanding that the Jesus-sized hole in your heart can be filled by lots of things.  Believing in a god because you think it must be real isn't exactly the most persuasive argument for the existence of a deity.
 
2014-01-06 10:48:39 AM  

Confabulat: I'm an atheist and these people are all assholes.

I don't need to join a damn club to be an atheist. Are you just lonely?

What awful human beings.


I'm an atheist, but also.an anthropologist. Religious communities are the basis for small scale community organization. And religion is hard-wired into us; we can see that in how LSD triggers religious euphoria. We have frigging chemical receptors in our neurons that trigger long term religious feelings.

To deny that religious participation is the human norm is an irrational ideological position that ignores scientific studies across many disciplines and through many methodologies.

At the end of the day most people desire communal rituals and ceremonies, need life skills counseling and mentorship and be sermonized to.

Why ignore those tendencies wired into most of us just because of a difference of opinion over the existence of a deity? Simply because you don't feel the need for such things does not invalidate the social needs and desires of most other people.

Plus call yourself a church and you can get away with so much more without IRS or SEC backlash. There are incentives built into the system to favor religions because of how valued they are to society.
 
2014-01-06 10:48:41 AM  

grumpfuff: Jim_Callahan: And some of the freemason lodges are going on two or three centuries old now... so, historically, the answer is also yes.

Freemasons are not, as an organization, atheist. Individual members might be, but shouldn't be. Believing in a higher power is a requirement for joining.

Jim_Callahan: Taoism, a religion four centuries older than Christianity, has a number of schools that are atheist.

Taoism is better described as apatheist. I don't know of any branch that actively denies a belief in god. The ones that aren't actively theist generally take a "We have more important shiat to do than worry if a god does or does not exist."


There are breakway mason lodges that accept atheists (Link)
 
2014-01-06 10:49:40 AM  

RedTank: Egoy3k: lordjupiter: Egoy3k: dfenstrate: As to whether atheists suffer from self-righteousness more than others- I refer only to the lecturing, smug self-satisfied atheists, many of whom have participated in this very thread.

I love it when someone accuses someone else of being 'smug' in the most condescending manner possible.  It's like calling out a typo with poor grammar.

Do you really love it?

Yes?

Do you love it as much as  dfenstrate did in regards to hatred of smug Atheists?   dfenstrate called out smugness and then you called him out for his smugness and then you get challenged by lordjupiter for a certain hypocrisy in your love of the situation and now here I am doing it to you...  I love calling out people who call out people whom call out people.  I love it for it's lunacy and circular logic.


To be fair I don't think I was being particularly smug.
 
2014-01-06 10:50:36 AM  
Thanks, Obama.
 
2014-01-06 10:50:50 AM  

verbaltoxin: You should understand that atheism is a lot more common in other countries, and it's the American atheists who usually have a rage-boner over religion.


Well, that is kind of how we Americans roll. Good to know though.
 
2014-01-06 10:50:56 AM  

Farking Canuck: Are you suggesting that people with "Mature Spirituality" start to believe in Santa again?


I'm suggesting it's possible to enjoy and appreciate Christmas without believing in Santa.
 
2014-01-06 10:51:17 AM  

dfenstrate: RedTank: Perhaps you shouldn't base your opinions on Atheists from a small samples size of anonymity from the Internet. I've met plenty of smug self-satisfied people in my life and if I hated them for it I would undoubtedly hate everyone by now and I'd be living in a cave.

I don't base my opinion of Atheists on Internet commenters. I was calling out obnoxious behavior by some atheists, behavior I've seen in this thread in particular.

I can understand atheism as a lack of belief in a higher power. I'm sympathetic to it, actually.

I just don't see that Atheists (as some sort of guiding philosophy or movement) have any real ground to criticize what  constructive religions have done for humanity, and they have precious little ground to say they can do better.


The Holocaust?  The Crusades?  Slavery?  Subjugation of women?  Of homosexuals?  The development of incredibly creative torture implements?  I'm not sure those gifts of religion are very constructive.

Here's something science did for us:

blog.zap2it.com

Amazing, innit?
 
2014-01-06 10:52:21 AM  
youredoingitwrong.jpg
 
2014-01-06 10:52:54 AM  

whatshisname: SPLITTERS!!!


fc09.deviantart.net
 
2014-01-06 10:53:44 AM  

Egoy3k: dfenstrate: As to whether atheists suffer from self-righteousness more than others- I refer only to the lecturing, smug self-satisfied atheists, many of whom have participated in this very thread.

I love it when someone accuses someone else of being 'smug' in the most condescending manner possible.  It's like calling out a typo with poor grammar.


Eh, takes one to know one. On that note, welcome to the club!
 
2014-01-06 10:54:02 AM  

BolloxReader: Confabulat: I'm an atheist and these people are all assholes.

I don't need to join a damn club to be an atheist. Are you just lonely?

What awful human beings.

I'm an atheist, but also.an anthropologist. Religious communities are the basis for small scale community organization. And religion is hard-wired into us; we can see that in how LSD triggers religious euphoria. We have frigging chemical receptors in our neurons that trigger long term religious feelings.

To deny that religious participation is the human norm is an irrational ideological position that ignores scientific studies across many disciplines and through many methodologies.

At the end of the day most people desire communal rituals and ceremonies, need life skills counseling and mentorship and be sermonized to.

Why ignore those tendencies wired into most of us just because of a difference of opinion over the existence of a deity? Simply because you don't feel the need for such things does not invalidate the social needs and desires of most other people.

Plus call yourself a church and you can get away with so much more without IRS or SEC backlash. There are incentives built into the system to favor religions because of how valued they are to society.


You make a really good point.  Groups like the FFRF and American Atheists need to follow all kinds of rules and stuff when it comes to taxes.

If you call yourself a "church," you pay no taxes, don't have to tell anyone where your money goes and you can ignore the few rules anyway.
 
2014-01-06 10:56:04 AM  

gimmegimme: ey have precious little ground to say they can do better.

The Holocaust?  The Crusades?  Slavery?  Subjugation of women?  Of homosexuals?  The development of incredibly creative torture implements?  I'm not sure those gifts of religion are very co


And when are those ungrateful injuns going to thank the Spanish Missionaries for converting their heathen butts to Christianity (even if it involved a little torture)?  Religion is willful ignorance.  Something like 60% of Republicans don't believe in evolution anymore.  They don't believe in evolution ... just let that sink in.
 
2014-01-06 10:56:11 AM  

Egoy3k: RedTank: Egoy3k: lordjupiter: Egoy3k: dfenstrate: As to whether atheists suffer from self-righteousness more than others- I refer only to the lecturing, smug self-satisfied atheists, many of whom have participated in this very thread.

I love it when someone accuses someone else of being 'smug' in the most condescending manner possible.  It's like calling out a typo with poor grammar.

Do you really love it?

Yes?

Do you love it as much as  dfenstrate did in regards to hatred of smug Atheists?   dfenstrate called out smugness and then you called him out for his smugness and then you get challenged by lordjupiter for a certain hypocrisy in your love of the situation and now here I am doing it to you...  I love calling out people who call out people whom call out people.  I love it for it's lunacy and circular logic.

To be fair I don't think I was being particularly smug.


Well the deeper we go the less smug we all are.
 
2014-01-06 10:58:47 AM  

gimmegimme: The Holocaust? The Crusades? Slavery? Subjugation of women? Of homosexuals? The development of incredibly creative torture implements? I'm not sure those gifts of religion are very constructive.


Bibles for disaster relief obviously.  Because everyone being handed a blanket after a natural disaster wants to be told that it was their lack of faith that caused the disaster to start with.

I kid!  It's only a small percentage of religious extremists that pull that crap.
 
2014-01-06 11:00:30 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Farking Canuck: Are you suggesting that people with "Mature Spirituality" start to believe in Santa again?

I'm suggesting it's possible to enjoy and appreciate Christmas without believing in Santa.


Does anyone not enjoy christmas because of their belief / non-belief in Santa or Jesus?
 
2014-01-06 11:00:59 AM  
gimmegimme:
The Holocaust?  The Crusades?  Slavery?  Subjugation of women?  Of homosexuals?  The development of incredibly creative torture implements?  I'm not sure those gifts of religion are very constructive.

Given a timeline of centuries to millenia, what is your basis for saying that athiests would consructed  better societies? You do know that Godless commies have murdered a few hundred million people within the last hundred years, don't you?

Here's something science did for us:

(picture of moon landing.)

Amazing, innit?


How did you arrive at the premise science and religion is an either/or choice?

I bet if you took a poll of the engineers who made that happen, a great many of them were faithful.

I suppose you might have started out with young-earth creationists as your model for all religious people, but that would be rather silly. For the record, I think they're morons, too.
 
2014-01-06 11:04:39 AM  
Because the meanings of words change, yes, it is. It's deity is the importance of ridding society of the notion of deities. Atheists gather, organize, and proselytize.

You may not be a religious atheist, but plenty are. Just like someone can believe in god and not be religious, someone can not believe in god, and be religious.

Atheism is a religion, because some atheists practice it like one.

Convincing someone of anything that has no proof is brainwashing.


You're equivocating the literal and metaphorical meanings of the word "deity" here. When you say the more common "his god is money" you don't literally mean that the person worships money as a literal god. What you mean is that the person holds money in as high regard as someone would a god.

Addressing your other points, the Sierra Club gathers, organizes, and proselytizes. So does your local union. Or HOA. None of these are religions.
 
2014-01-06 11:05:38 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: I'm an atheist and a determinist. Nothing is an accident. Everything happens the only way it can happen.


Even your belief system?
 
2014-01-06 11:06:05 AM  

dfenstrate: gimmegimme:
The Holocaust?  The Crusades?  Slavery?  Subjugation of women?  Of homosexuals?  The development of incredibly creative torture implements?  I'm not sure those gifts of religion are very constructive.

Given a timeline of centuries to millenia, what is your basis for saying that athiests would consructed  better societies? You do know that Godless commies have murdered a few hundred million people within the last hundred years, don't you?

Here's something science did for us:

(picture of moon landing.)

Amazing, innit?

How did you arrive at the premise science and religion is an either/or choice?


Well they aren't mutually exclusive but only if you consider religion as useful for ritual and don't actually believe in any of the claims that it makes.

I bet if you took a poll of the engineers who made that happen, a great many of them were faithful.

Yeah but they sure as hell didn't design it using religion.  They didn't leave the return trip in the hands of god for example.

I suppose you might have started out with young-earth creationists as your model for all religious people, but that would be rather silly. For the record, I think they're morons, too.

How are they any more moronic than any religious person?  They simply believe more unfounded nonsense than a less literal theist, but at the end of the day both mainstream theists and young earth creationists both believe in magic.
 
2014-01-06 11:08:42 AM  

hardinparamedic: Confabulat: I'm an atheist and these people are all assholes.

I don't need to join a damn club to be an atheist. Are you just lonely?

What awful human beings.

They're assholes, but the important thing is that people can realize just why they might be assholes.

Given the way the areligious and non-Christians have been treated in the United States ever since McCarthy launched his witch hunts, and even before, I think they have every right to be assholes if they choose to do so.


This.
 
2014-01-06 11:10:01 AM  

Epicedion: You're equivocating the literal and metaphorical meanings of the word "deity" here. When you say the more common "his god is money" you don't literally mean that the person worships money as a literal god. What you mean is that the person holds money in as high regard as someone would a god.

Addressing your other points, the Sierra Club gathers, organizes, and proselytizes. So does your local union. Or HOA. None of these are religions.


I know I am equivocating, because the only real difference is in interpretation. If I believe that a relationship with god is of utmost importance, and there is no god, it's not actually different than believing I can save the world from catastrophic climate change.

Religion is practice. Religion is not belief. I believe in some sort of higher intelligence to the universe(kinda like what Einstein said), but I am not at all religious.
 
2014-01-06 11:13:57 AM  

Egoy3k: They simply believe more unfounded nonsense than a less literal theist, but at the end of the day both mainstream theists and young earth creationists both believe in magic.


Is the science settled on whether or not something can live outside of our known reality, aka, The Supernatural?
 
2014-01-06 11:15:13 AM  

dfenstrate: gimmegimme:
The Holocaust?  The Crusades?  Slavery?  Subjugation of women?  Of homosexuals?  The development of incredibly creative torture implements?  I'm not sure those gifts of religion are very constructive.

Given a timeline of centuries to millenia, what is your basis for saying that athiests would consructed  better societies? You do know that Godless commies have murdered a few hundred million people within the last hundred years, don't you?

Here's something science did for us:

(picture of moon landing.)

Amazing, innit?

How did you arrive at the premise science and religion is an either/or choice?

I bet if you took a poll of the engineers who made that happen, a great many of them were faithful.

I suppose you might have started out with young-earth creationists as your model for all religious people, but that would be rather silly. For the record, I think they're morons, too.


Here's what you're not understanding.  Someone believing in a god and being happy has no effect on whether or not their god is real.  Guess who else was an extremely devout believer in Christ?

archive.theamericanview.com

As Hitchens points out, religion makes otherwise decent people do terrible things.  Think of all of the otherwise faithful and decent Germans who became complicit in the Holocaust...they thought God was with them.  W. went into Iraq partially because he hallucinated a deity telling him to do so.

The biggest thing that you don't get is that ideas are more important than people and that respect must be earned.  You shouldn't think a person is good because he's a Christian...it should be for the things he does and says.  Engineers don't believe that a rocket is going to get to space because an invisible sky god is helping them out; they've done countless calculations and experiments and used logic and reason.
 
2014-01-06 11:15:39 AM  
I learned long ago that it's pointless to use logic and debating techniques in any kind of faith based discussion.  If a person is going to make the leap of faith to believe in a god, then they're going to use the same thought process to disagree with anyone who doesn't hold their beliefs.

It's like arguing with a stoner, they'll never get it.  Let them be happy as long as they don't harm you.
 
2014-01-06 11:16:34 AM  

verbaltoxin: grumpfuff: Jim_Callahan: And some of the freemason lodges are going on two or three centuries old now... so, historically, the answer is also yes.

Freemasons are not, as an organization, atheist. Individual members might be, but shouldn't be. Believing in a higher power is a requirement for joining.

Jim_Callahan: Taoism, a religion four centuries older than Christianity, has a number of schools that are atheist.

Taoism is better described as apatheist. I don't know of any branch that actively denies a belief in god. The ones that aren't actively theist generally take a "We have more important shiat to do than worry if a god does or does not exist."

There are breakway mason lodges that accept atheists (Link)


Huh. Learn something new every day.
 
2014-01-06 11:18:01 AM  

dfenstrate: Given a timeline of centuries to millenia, what is your basis for saying that athiests would consructed  better societies? You do know that Godless commies have murdered a few hundred million people within the last hundred years, don't you?


Ahhh the old "commies murdered because of atheism" canard. Show me where in atheist writings, teachings, or words of the atheist leaders that violence or any other actions are suggested. Difficulty: these things don't exist. P.S. You really should use a browser with spell check.

dfenstrate: How did you arrive at the premise science and religion is an either/or choice?

I bet if you took a poll of the engineers who made that happen, a great many of them were faithful.


You are mis-representing his conclusion. It was that the moon landings were enabled by science. Praying did not build any of that technology. If any of the scientists or engineers were religious they did not take their value of Pi from the bible when they did their calculations or the astronauts would have died on the launchpad.
 
2014-01-06 11:19:02 AM  

s2s2s2: Egoy3k: They simply believe more unfounded nonsense than a less literal theist, but at the end of the day both mainstream theists and young earth creationists both believe in magic.

Is the science settled on whether or not something can live outside of our known reality, aka, The Supernatural?


Here's the great thing about science.  When science doesn't have an answer or, in this case, simply can't provide an answer, they don't make something up.  That's what religion does.

The whole idea of proving the existence of the supernatural is silly.  Did you know that I have a unicorn in my living room?  Sure, I do.  Oh, you want proof?  The unicorn is invisible and can't be detected by any known means...but it's totally there.  Now excuse me while I pass around the plate.
 
2014-01-06 11:19:03 AM  

Felgraf: "It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things."
― Jingo


By the power vested in me as a psychology professor, I hereby award Terry Pratchett an honorary PhD in Social Psychology.  That was beautiful.
 
2014-01-06 11:19:39 AM  

gimmegimme: As Hitchens points out, religion makes otherwise decent people do terrible things.


No it doesn't. Mental illness does. Now, you can say that someone who is religious has a mental illness, but scientifically speaking, the mental illness allows for the religion, not the other way around. That dude has no religious basis for his bombing a building. He may have had a political one.

That dude wasn't "otherwise decent".
 
2014-01-06 11:19:49 AM  

dfenstrate: I don't base my opinion of Atheists on Internet commenters. I was calling out obnoxious behavior by some atheists, behavior I've seen in this thread in particular.


Well, fair enough but to what ends?

dfenstrate: I can understand atheism as a lack of belief in a higher power. I'm sympathetic to it, actually.


I actually think many religious people can understand that as many grapple with their faith which is sort of part of the religious experience and almost the entire point really.  Although I am making the assumption that you're religious...

dfenstrate: I just don't see that Atheists (as some sort of guiding philosophy or movement) have any real ground to criticize what constructive religions have done for humanity, and they have precious little ground to say they can do better.


I'll admit to the fact that religion has helped humanity in at least one way.  Historically together people are stronger and more civilized (to their own at least) and religion expedited that coming together of people.  But that processes didn't come without a cost which may or may not have been worth it. I'm not going to be one of those people that quotes all the horrible things religions have done, you seem smart enough so you should know the horrible things people have done in Gods name.
 
2014-01-06 11:20:02 AM  

Farking Canuck: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Farking Canuck: Are you suggesting that people with "Mature Spirituality" start to believe in Santa again?

I'm suggesting it's possible to enjoy and appreciate Christmas without believing in Santa.

Does anyone not enjoy christmas because of their belief / non-belief in Santa or Jesus?


Anyone? Ever?

Almost certainly.
 
2014-01-06 11:22:42 AM  

on the road: Lenny_da_Hog: I'm an atheist and a determinist. Nothing is an accident. Everything happens the only way it can happen.

Even your belief system?


Yes. It's the result of my physical brain working on physical principles, reacting to sensory input that works on physical principles in a physical universe. Just because it's too complex for anyone to predict doesn't mean it becomes magic.
 
2014-01-06 11:23:21 AM  

gimmegimme: Here's the great thing about science.  When science doesn't have an answer or, in this case, simply can't provide an answer, they don't make something up.


Not out of whole cloth, perhaps, but they make guesses, then set about proving it. Of course, science doesn't do anything. People do, with science. I have no problem with science. Science has helped me understand a lot about what the bible actually means.

The natural world is the world we live in. Science is currently asking questions about the existence of a world we don't live in. That is the supernatural. Nothing that happens in this world is supernatural, whether or not a god does it.
 
2014-01-06 11:23:38 AM  

s2s2s2: gimmegimme: As Hitchens points out, religion makes otherwise decent people do terrible things.

No it doesn't. Mental illness does. Now, you can say that someone who is religious has a mental illness, but scientifically speaking, the mental illness allows for the religion, not the other way around. That dude has no religious basis for his bombing a building. He may have had a political one.

That dude wasn't "otherwise decent".


How dare you doubt his faith?  He did what he believed a deity told him.  If you believe he's mistaken, how do you know he wasn't really talking to a god?  (Show your work.)  What's the difference between McVeigh's religious conviction and Bush's?  (Aside from body count.)
 
2014-01-06 11:23:48 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The major churches should be starting up "membership not required" activities for just this purpose. Let college kids do volunteer work instead of attending services and just wait out their rebelliousness until their spirituality matures beyond the "I don't believe in Santa Claus" phase.

Does anyone already do this?


Every church I've ever been in does this.  I've never once seen any young person booted from an activity because they didn't show up last Sunday.
 
2014-01-06 11:27:52 AM  

s2s2s2: gimmegimme: Here's the great thing about science.  When science doesn't have an answer or, in this case, simply can't provide an answer, they don't make something up.

Not out of whole cloth, perhaps, but they make guesses, then set about proving it. Of course, science doesn't do anything. People do, with science. I have no problem with science. Science has helped me understand a lot about what the bible actually means.

The natural world is the world we live in. Science is currently asking questions about the existence of a world we don't live in. That is the supernatural. Nothing that happens in this world is supernatural, whether or not a god does it.


How, pray tell, is science exploring a world that exists outside of science and doesn't adhere to any of the other constants seen in the universe and can't be explained using science or understood by human beings?
 
2014-01-06 11:31:42 AM  

Son of Thunder: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The major churches should be starting up "membership not required" activities for just this purpose. Let college kids do volunteer work instead of attending services and just wait out their rebelliousness until their spirituality matures beyond the "I don't believe in Santa Claus" phase.

Does anyone already do this?

Every church I've ever been in does this.  I've never once seen any young person booted from an activity because they didn't show up last Sunday.


Pfft. I was booted from a Presbyterian church in 4th grade because I was asking the wrong questions -- like questioning the Noah's ark fable.They told me I was too disruptive to the rest of the class.
 
2014-01-06 11:43:00 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Pfft. I was booted from a Presbyterian church in 4th grade because I was asking the wrong questions -- like questioning the Noah's ark fable.They told me I was too disruptive to the rest of the class.


Not denying your experience.  Just saying that I've been in churches from coast to coast in the US and Canada and never experienced it.
 
2014-01-06 11:44:12 AM  
The Sunday Assembly was riding high.

Stopped reading there
 
2014-01-06 11:45:00 AM  

s2s2s2: Science is currently asking questions about the existence of a world we don't live in.


What?

Do you mean you have a problem with the Mars rovers?

Or science on a smaller scale like electronics on down to quantum mechanics?

Science does not really question religion, it ignores it as much as other unfounded irrelevant fictional nonsense.
 
2014-01-06 11:45:38 AM  
isn't that just darling?  the hipsters want to play church just like the gays want to play house.
 
2014-01-06 11:49:34 AM  

colon_pow: isn't that just darling?  the hipsters want to play church just like the gays want to play house.


religionpoisons.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-01-06 11:51:16 AM  

gimmegimme: He did what he believed a deity told him.


So you were told. Do you really believe it?

gimmegimme: How, pray tell, is science exploring a world that exists outside of science


So you think we live in "science"? Because that's not what I said. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then you shouldn't be appealing to science in such a manner, because it's exactly like an appeal to a deity.

omeganuepsilon: quantum mechanics


Yes. The multiverse, and stuff like that. The idea that there are universes we aren't in.
 
2014-01-06 11:57:43 AM  

dfenstrate: On the other hand, the judeo-christian tradition has a few thousand years of history, and gave birth to the enlightenment, which gave non-believers footing to criticize religion to begin with.


Just....LOL

No.  It killed and punished free thinkers just a tiny bit less diligently each century, and finally had a blowout near the end where they finally decided that was bad form.

In other words, your "few thousand years of history" were mostly death and destruction.  As far as enlightenment goes, it didn't give birth, it only somewhat stopped trying to avoid enlightenment, stopped trying to crush it outright.  Still does though today in some forms and locations.
 
2014-01-06 11:57:48 AM  

s2s2s2: gimmegimme: He did what he believed a deity told him.

So you were told. Do you really believe it?

gimmegimme: How, pray tell, is science exploring a world that exists outside of science

So you think we live in "science"? Because that's not what I said. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then you shouldn't be appealing to science in such a manner, because it's exactly like an appeal to a deity.

omeganuepsilon: quantum mechanics

Yes. The multiverse, and stuff like that. The idea that there are universes we aren't in.


I love that you think there's no difference between quantum physicists conducting experiments and collaborating to develop, define or disprove the idea of the multiverse and...

www.danjarrard.com
 
2014-01-06 11:58:09 AM  

gimmegimme: colon_pow: isn't that just darling?  the hipsters want to play church just like the gays want to play house.

[religionpoisons.files.wordpress.com image 450x266]


Nothing better to dissuade the religious than quotes from fictional figures.
 
2014-01-06 11:58:56 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Pfft. I was booted from a Presbyterian church in 4th grade because I was asking the wrong questions -- like questioning the Noah's ark fable.They told me I was too disruptive to the rest of the class.


Amateur.  I came out of the womb excommunicated because I already had the universe figured out.
 
2014-01-06 12:00:30 PM  

fusillade762: You know, now that I think about I don't like this "family friendly" idea. Just as I don't think children should be indoctrinated into religion I wouldn't want them indoctrinated into atheism. Let them grow up and make up their own minds.


You can't raise kids without indoctrinating them. Even if you let them make up their own minds about whether they think Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Baby Jesus are real, you still have to teach them how to about deciding if something is real.
 
2014-01-06 12:00:45 PM  

gimmegimme: I love that you think there's no difference between quantum physicists conducting experiments and collaborating to develop, define or disprove the idea of the multiverse and...


I love that you think that's what I think. "There is no try, only do or do not."

You are not doing.
 
2014-01-06 12:02:50 PM  
Why do so many people think that the inability of the scientific method to prove something, one way or another, provides a strong argument on that thing?
 
2014-01-06 12:04:14 PM  

s2s2s2: gimmegimme: colon_pow: isn't that just darling?  the hipsters want to play church just like the gays want to play house.

[religionpoisons.files.wordpress.com image 450x266]

Nothing better to dissuade the religious than quotes from fictional figures.


www.atheistmemebase.com
 
2014-01-06 12:04:25 PM  

s2s2s2: gimmegimme: colon_pow: isn't that just darling?  the hipsters want to play church just like the gays want to play house.

[religionpoisons.files.wordpress.com image 450x266]

Nothing better to dissuade the religious than quotes from fictional figures.


Hugh Laurie is a fictional figure?
The writers for the show were fictional?

The person pictured did indeed say those words, it's an event that happened and we recorded it.  It runs in syndication still on television.

What's in a name?
 
2014-01-06 12:05:57 PM  

gimmegimme: s2s2s2: gimmegimme: colon_pow: isn't that just darling?  the hipsters want to play church just like the gays want to play house.

[religionpoisons.files.wordpress.com image 450x266]

Nothing better to dissuade the religious than quotes from fictional figures.

[www.atheistmemebase.com image 545x380]


Do you think that's a counterpoint?
 
2014-01-06 12:07:00 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Hugh Laurie is a fictional figure?
The writers for the show were fictional?


The quote is attributed to neither. Lighten up.
 
2014-01-06 12:08:26 PM  

s2s2s2: Egoy3k: They simply believe more unfounded nonsense than a less literal theist, but at the end of the day both mainstream theists and young earth creationists both believe in magic.

Is the science settled on whether or not something can live outside of our known reality, aka, The Supernatural?


So it is your position that young earth creationists are morons but other theists are not.  I have to ask, what is your reasoning for that? Neither position is justified by our current understanding of the universe.
 
2014-01-06 12:08:54 PM  

dfenstrate: On the other hand, the judeo-christian tradition has a few thousand years of history, and gave birth to the enlightenment, which gave non-believers footing to criticize religion to begin with.


That's a pretty stupid historical analysis.

Religion brought us the Dark Ages, between the Light of Rome and the Enlightenment. It crushed history, science, and the arts for hundreds of years.

You're saying that since the church put us all in prison and starved us that it's responsible for us breaking out of prison to find food. Therefore, the church fed us.
 
2014-01-06 12:10:32 PM  

s2s2s2: gimmegimme: s2s2s2: gimmegimme: colon_pow: isn't that just darling?  the hipsters want to play church just like the gays want to play house.

[religionpoisons.files.wordpress.com image 450x266]

Nothing better to dissuade the religious than quotes from fictional figures.

[www.atheistmemebase.com image 545x380]

Do you think that's a counterpoint?


Geez...I guess you're right.  Religious people really don't like quotes from fictional figures.
 
2014-01-06 12:10:35 PM  

namatad: rule one of atheism: no vegans

no really
that was the first rule
well it is the first rule in my church of atheism


our three sacraments are:
sex
drugs
gambling
and meat

of four sacraments


I didn't expect a sort of Atheist Inquisition.
 
2014-01-06 12:21:56 PM  

mamoru: log_jammin: they're still better than those atheism+ people.

now THOSE people are assholes.

How so? And, I really do mean that as an honest question. I'm just an (apathetic agnostic) atheist, so don't really know much about all of these "official" factions and movements and such. What are the atheism+ people and what makes them assholes?


I'm only going by what I've read on the Internet, so take this with a grain of salt, but my understanding is that Atheism+ is (or at least is supposed to be) Atheism plus progressive/leftist social causes, particularly feminism and gay rights.  It was formed in the aftermath of Elevatorgate because there was a sense that too many vocal atheists were misogynistic, racist, or homophobic and that the "face" or "voice" of modern atheism was too white/male/heterosexual.

Not surprisingly, those atheists who weren't big fans of feminism to begin with don't much care for "Atheism+."

Again, this is just what I've read, so I would welcome input from anyone who has more direct knowledge.
 
2014-01-06 12:23:01 PM  

log_jammin: mamoru: How so? And, I really do mean that as an honest question. I'm just an (apathetic agnostic) atheist, so don't really know much about all of these "official" factions and movements and such. What are the atheism+ people and what makes them assholes?

long story short, you're either with them or you're a misogynist.


As opposed to say, the New Atheists, where you're either with them or you're a drooling moron.
 
2014-01-06 12:24:27 PM  

CoonAce: gameshowhost: hardinparamedic: simplicimus: hardinparamedic: simplicimus: gameshowhost: Welcome to my Not Collecting Stamps club!  We don't collect stamps here, so let's get together and talk about not collecting stamps.

I don't have a collection of commemorative stamps from the 70's to the present day.

That's a shame. I hear that NASA had some really nice stamps in the 1970s.

That was a funny read. "Additional verification needed". Like there's a USPS center on the moon to cancel the stamps.

If you want a series of good laughs, read up on the Apollo, Gemini and Mercury programs. Those guys got away with a LOT in those days.

: /

Guys, please stay on topic.

While drinking at a strip club with some Navy pilots wearing their flightsuits, (the strippers were swarming us) one of the boys pulled a penny from his pocket.  These girls were D-U-M-B dumb, and believed every word of BS about these dudes in clearly-marked Navy flightsuits being astronauts who brought the penny back from the Moon.  While not a stamp, that routine (complete with, "NO you can't give her the *MOON* penny, are you crazy???" and "but she's SPECIAL, I want her to have it!") got them perhaps more tang than real astronauts.  Quite the vaudeville act.


Threadjack, but I have to wonder how these guys would feel about someone who never served wearing a uniform to score with the girls...
 
2014-01-06 12:25:59 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: I also wonder if Obamacare would pay to send me to a Sane Asylum.


I can get you some Primus tickets.  Is that close enough?
 
2014-01-06 12:26:50 PM  

ciberido: mamoru: log_jammin: they're still better than those atheism+ people.

now THOSE people are assholes.

How so? And, I really do mean that as an honest question. I'm just an (apathetic agnostic) atheist, so don't really know much about all of these "official" factions and movements and such. What are the atheism+ people and what makes them assholes?

I'm only going by what I've read on the Internet, so take this with a grain of salt, but my understanding is that Atheism+ is (or at least is supposed to be) Atheism plus progressive/leftist social causes, particularly feminism and gay rights.  It was formed in the aftermath of Elevatorgate because there was a sense that too many vocal atheists were misogynistic, racist, or homophobic and that the "face" or "voice" of modern atheism was too white/male/heterosexual.

Not surprisingly, those atheists who weren't big fans of feminism to begin with don't much care for "Atheism+."

Again, this is just what I've read, so I would welcome input from anyone who has more direct knowledge.


Yeah Atheism+ people are crazy.  Luckily, the organization is collapsing under the weight of its insanity.  This video from Thunderf00t is a pretty good start for understanding.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95LG9crl3yo

Basically: there's a schism in the movement because some people want the atheism/secular/critical thinking movement to be about atheism and secularism and critical thinking and other people want the ASC movement to be about preventing sexist toy stores from labeling some toys by gender.
 
2014-01-06 12:27:17 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: dfenstrate: On the other hand, the judeo-christian tradition has a few thousand years of history, and gave birth to the enlightenment, which gave non-believers footing to criticize religion to begin with.

That's a pretty stupid historical analysis.

Religion brought us the Dark Ages, between the Light of Rome and the Enlightenment. It crushed history, science, and the arts for hundreds of years.


No it didn't.
 
2014-01-06 12:27:49 PM  

ciberido: It was formed in the aftermath of Elevatorgate because there was a sense that too many vocal atheists were misogynistic, racist, or homophobic and that the "face" or "voice" of modern atheism was too white/male/heterosexual.

Not surprisingly, those atheists who weren't big fans of feminism to begin with don't much care for "Atheism+."


I'm a fan of feminism and I think that 'elevatorgate' is the stupidest thing ever. As such I'm not a huge fan of Atheism+ but that doesn't mean I hate women.

/The misogynist backlash for 'elevatorgate' was shameful but that doesn't mean that  the actual incident wasn't stupid and pretty harmless.
 
2014-01-06 12:28:12 PM  

Egoy3k: So it is your position that young earth creationists are morons but other theists are not.


Every ism has morons. Plenty of moronic atheists in this thread, alone. I'm glad you included this important qualifier:

Egoy3k: our current understanding of the universe.


...because it's going to change, dramatically, and people who don't keep up are going to have some moronic ideas about the universe that they got from "believing in" science.

If you can't do the work of science to reach scientific conclusions, you still only have belief. And if science will ultimately upend old conclusions for new ones, all the old ones were belief, too; no matter how much math was involved.

gimmegimme: s2s2s2: gimmegimme: s2s2s2: gimmegimme: colon_pow: isn't that just darling?  the hipsters want to play church just like the gays want to play house.

[religionpoisons.files.wordpress.com image 450x266]

Nothing better to dissuade the religious than quotes from fictional figures.

[www.atheistmemebase.com image 545x380]

Do you think that's a counterpoint?

Geez...I guess you're right.  Religious people really don't like quotes from fictional figures.


Please look up the word I bolded.
 
2014-01-06 12:29:40 PM  

ciberido: log_jammin: mamoru: How so? And, I really do mean that as an honest question. I'm just an (apathetic agnostic) atheist, so don't really know much about all of these "official" factions and movements and such. What are the atheism+ people and what makes them assholes?

long story short, you're either with them or you're a misogynist.

As opposed to say, the New Atheists, where you're either with them or you're a drooling moron.


How else would you describe people who believe everything in the Bible really happened?
 
2014-01-06 12:32:44 PM  

s2s2s2: Egoy3k: So it is your position that young earth creationists are morons but other theists are not.

Every ism has morons. Plenty of moronic atheists in this thread, alone. I'm glad you included this important qualifier:

Egoy3k: our current understanding of the universe.

...because it's going to change, dramatically, and people who don't keep up are going to have some moronic ideas about the universe that they got from "believing in" science.

If you can't do the work of science to reach scientific conclusions, you still only have belief. And if science will ultimately upend old conclusions for new ones, all the old ones were belief, too; no matter how much math was involved.

gimmegimme: s2s2s2: gimmegimme: s2s2s2: gimmegimme: colon_pow: isn't that just darling?  the hipsters want to play church just like the gays want to play house.

[religionpoisons.files.wordpress.com image 450x266]

Nothing better to dissuade the religious than quotes from fictional figures.

[www.atheistmemebase.com image 545x380]

Do you think that's a counterpoint?

Geez...I guess you're right.  Religious people really don't like quotes from fictional figures.

Please look up the word I bolded.


You're not making sense.  Are you denouncing the word of the Lord?  The Judeo-Christian God told people to sell their raped daughters to the rapists.  Did the Bible report this rule incorrectly?
 
2014-01-06 12:35:08 PM  

s2s2s2: Egoy3k: So it is your position that young earth creationists are morons but other theists are not.

Every ism has morons. Plenty of moronic atheists in this thread, alone. I'm glad you included this important qualifier:

Egoy3k: our current understanding of the universe.

...because it's going to change, dramatically, and people who don't keep up are going to have some moronic ideas about the universe that they got from "believing in" science.

If you can't do the work of science to reach scientific conclusions, you still only have belief. And if science will ultimately upend old conclusions for new ones, all the old ones were belief, too; no matter how much math was involved.


I can do the work, and so can you. That is the beauty of science, it's an explanatory framework that hinges on, among other things, our ability to reproduce results.
 
2014-01-06 12:38:59 PM  

Egoy3k: s2s2s2: Egoy3k: So it is your position that young earth creationists are morons but other theists are not.

Every ism has morons. Plenty of moronic atheists in this thread, alone. I'm glad you included this important qualifier:

Egoy3k: our current understanding of the universe.

...because it's going to change, dramatically, and people who don't keep up are going to have some moronic ideas about the universe that they got from "believing in" science.

If you can't do the work of science to reach scientific conclusions, you still only have belief. And if science will ultimately upend old conclusions for new ones, all the old ones were belief, too; no matter how much math was involved.

I can do the work, and so can you. That is the beauty of science, it's an explanatory framework that hinges on, among other things, our ability to reproduce results.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-01-06 12:38:59 PM  

gimmegimme: You're not making sense.


Your inability to understand sense made is not the same as my not making sense.

Egoy3k: I can do the work, and so can you. That is the beauty of science, it's an explanatory framework that hinges on, among other things, our ability to reproduce results.


If you put a research paper in front of me, right now...no. I couldn't. People have the potential to learn it. Not everyone has the ability to learn it. I believe science has been done that has reached the same conclusions.
 
2014-01-06 12:41:10 PM  
"Official", subby? I guess it was endorsed by the Pope of Atheism or something.
 
2014-01-06 12:41:24 PM  

s2s2s2: gimmegimme: You're not making sense.

Your inability to understand sense made is not the same as my not making sense.

Egoy3k: I can do the work, and so can you. That is the beauty of science, it's an explanatory framework that hinges on, among other things, our ability to reproduce results.

If you put a research paper in front of me, right now...no. I couldn't. People have the potential to learn it. Not everyone has the ability to learn it. I believe science has been done that has reached the same conclusions.


You seem to be saying there are peer-reviewed, scientific papers that prove the existence of a deity.  How was this kept a secret for so long?  Can you provide a link?  Which deity was it?  Zeus?  That snake god that Alan Moore believes in?  Wait...don't tell me.  I want it to be a surprise.
 
2014-01-06 12:41:41 PM  

memebot_of_doom: namatad: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism_Plus


Take a look at the talk page.

so they are nice people
without god


Some are.  Some are complete assholes.


Interesting.  And I see they've invoked "the 7th law" again (the claim that Buddhism is special and shouldn't be lumped in with other religions) with their Venn diagram.
 
2014-01-06 12:42:29 PM  

gimmegimme: You seem to be saying there are peer-reviewed, scientific papers that prove the existence of a deity.


s2s2s2: Your inability to understand sense made is not the same as my not making sense.

 
2014-01-06 12:47:10 PM  

s2s2s2: gimmegimme: You seem to be saying there are peer-reviewed, scientific papers that prove the existence of a deity.

s2s2s2: Your inability to understand sense made is not the same as my not making sense.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-01-06 12:48:14 PM  

gimmegimme: s2s2s2: gimmegimme: You seem to be saying there are peer-reviewed, scientific papers that prove the existence of a deity.

s2s2s2: Your inability to understand sense made is not the same as my not making sense.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x300]


This is your best response, so far.
 
2014-01-06 12:49:35 PM  

s2s2s2: Egoy3k: I can do the work, and so can you. That is the beauty of science, it's an explanatory framework that hinges on, among other things, our ability to reproduce results.

If you put a research paper in front of me, right now...no. I couldn't. People have the potential to learn it. Not everyone has the ability to learn it. I believe science has been done that has reached the same conclusions.


So basically, some people don't understand science therefore it's only a belief system and no better than religion?  That has got to be the weakest argument I have ever read.  I mean that is right up there with pascals wager, the watchmaker, and the perfect entity argument in terms of sheer stupidity.
 
2014-01-06 12:55:57 PM  

Egoy3k: So basically, some people don't understand science therefore it's only a belief system and no better than religion?


Show me where I said science is a belief system.

Egoy3k: That has got to be the weakest argument I have ever read.


That's why you made it up.
 
2014-01-06 12:59:17 PM  

s2s2s2: Show me where I said science is a belief system.


OK

s2s2s2: If you can't do the work of science to reach scientific conclusions, you still only have belief. And if science will ultimately upend old conclusions for new ones, all the old ones were belief, too; no matter how much math was involved.

 
2014-01-06 01:00:02 PM  

Ghastly: Trilbies vs Fedoras?


I was thinking about your post, while watching Downton, last night.

"post" rawr.
 
2014-01-06 01:00:40 PM  

s2s2s2: Epicedion: You're equivocating the literal and metaphorical meanings of the word "deity" here. When you say the more common "his god is money" you don't literally mean that the person worships money as a literal god. What you mean is that the person holds money in as high regard as someone would a god.

Addressing your other points, the Sierra Club gathers, organizes, and proselytizes. So does your local union. Or HOA. None of these are religions.

I know I am equivocating, because the only real difference is in interpretation. If I believe that a relationship with god is of utmost importance, and there is no god, it's not actually different than believing I can save the world from catastrophic climate change.

Religion is practice. Religion is not belief. I believe in some sort of higher intelligence to the universe(kinda like what Einstein said), but I am not at all religious.


The practice of religion is tied to the beliefs of the members. If there doesn't have to be a god in the religion, then there's really nothing separating the meanings of "religion" and "club."

The same sense applies when you use the word "cult" instead of "religion" -- if you call both the Suicide Pact of the Holy Comet and Christianity "cults" you're really watering down what it means to be a "cult."

But this is all largely pedantic. If religion's only response to atheist get-togethers is to say "but but but that makes you a church and so atheism is just a religion too!" it doesn't speak highly of what the religious think of religion, as if it's some standard to be lowered to.
 
2014-01-06 01:01:08 PM  

Egoy3k: s2s2s2: Show me where I said science is a belief system.

OK

s2s2s2: If you can't do the work of science to reach scientific conclusions, you still only have belief. And if science will ultimately upend old conclusions for new ones, all the old ones were belief, too; no matter how much math was involved.


Read that until you actually understand you haven't shown me saying science is a belief system. Perhaps ask an English major to help you out.
 
2014-01-06 01:02:36 PM  

gimmegimme: dfenstrate: RedTank: Perhaps you shouldn't base your opinions on Atheists from a small samples size of anonymity from the Internet. I've met plenty of smug self-satisfied people in my life and if I hated them for it I would undoubtedly hate everyone by now and I'd be living in a cave.

I don't base my opinion of Atheists on Internet commenters. I was calling out obnoxious behavior by some atheists, behavior I've seen in this thread in particular.

I can understand atheism as a lack of belief in a higher power. I'm sympathetic to it, actually.

I just don't see that Atheists (as some sort of guiding philosophy or movement) have any real ground to criticize what  constructive religions have done for humanity, and they have precious little ground to say they can do better.

The Holocaust?  The Crusades?  Slavery?  Subjugation of women? Of homosexuals?  The development of incredibly creative torture implements?  I'm not sure those gifts of religion are very constructive.

Here's something science did for us:

[blog.zap2it.com image 310x248]

Amazing, innit?


Hold up for a second, I could go either way on this one. While I do love intelligent, ambitious women, the ability to snap your fingers and have a lovely gal bring you a sandwich and a Bj is pretty sweet. My really bright and really cool girlfriend also likes the way our subjugated house-wench cleans the place and also enjoys a sandwich and "more" as well.
 
2014-01-06 01:04:35 PM  

s2s2s2: omeganuepsilon: Hugh Laurie is a fictional figure?
The writers for the show were fictional?

The quote is attributed to neither. Lighten up.


So that wasn't a picture of Hugh Laurie?

The phrase was not spoken by a fictional anything, they were said by a living being, a being still alive today, and it was recorded on film.  Who cares if he meant it or if he came up with the line?
 
2014-01-06 01:05:12 PM  

Epicedion: But this is all largely pedantic. If religion's only response to atheist get-togethers is to say "but but but that makes you a church and so atheism is just a religion too!" it doesn't speak highly of what the religious think of religion, as if it's some standard to be lowered to.


Well, I don't think highly of religion at all. But this article isn't about atheist get togethers, it's about atheist churches.

From the article: The world's most voguish - though not its only - atheist church opened last year in London, to global attention and abundant acclaim.
I'm sorry there are religious atheists, but the fact you don't like it, doesn't make it less true.
 
2014-01-06 01:06:48 PM  

Epicedion: s2s2s2: Epicedion: You're equivocating the literal and metaphorical meanings of the word "deity" here. When you say the more common "his god is money" you don't literally mean that the person worships money as a literal god. What you mean is that the person holds money in as high regard as someone would a god.

Addressing your other points, the Sierra Club gathers, organizes, and proselytizes. So does your local union. Or HOA. None of these are religions.

I know I am equivocating, because the only real difference is in interpretation. If I believe that a relationship with god is of utmost importance, and there is no god, it's not actually different than believing I can save the world from catastrophic climate change.

Religion is practice. Religion is not belief. I believe in some sort of higher intelligence to the universe(kinda like what Einstein said), but I am not at all religious.

The practice of religion is tied to the beliefs of the members. If there doesn't have to be a god in the religion, then there's really nothing separating the meanings of "religion" and "club."

The same sense applies when you use the word "cult" instead of "religion" -- if you call both the Suicide Pact of the Holy Comet and Christianity "cults" you're really watering down what it means to be a "cult."

But this is all largely pedantic. If religion's only response to atheist get-togethers is to say "but but but that makes you a church and so atheism is just a religion too!" it doesn't speak highly of what the religious think of religion, as if it's some standard to be lowered to.


He unwittingly diminished religion earlier, too, when he acknowledged that the bible is as fictional as House.
 
2014-01-06 01:07:12 PM  

omeganuepsilon: The phrase was not spoken by a fictional anything, they were said by a living being, a being still alive today, and it was recorded on film.  Who cares if he meant it or if he came up with the line?


Maybe you shouldn't suspend your sense of humor for these threads. Are you really going to ask me to explain it to you? It's not gonna help your smart-guy cred.
 
2014-01-06 01:07:25 PM  

gimmegimme: You're not making sense.  Are you denouncing the word of the Lord?  The Judeo-Christian God told people to sell their raped daughters to the rapists.  Did the Bible report this rule incorrectly?


no.  you are interpreting it incorrectly.  study it out.
 
2014-01-06 01:09:10 PM  
s2s2s2:
Read that until you actually understand you haven't shown me saying science is a belief system. Perhaps ask an English major to help you out.

You've constructed it so that the belief that science holds reasonable or good answers to questions is the same as unfounded belief. The belief that science holds reasonable or good answers to questions is based on precedent, and held with the knowledge that future evidence could lead to different, probably better answers.

But, of course, there are no guarantees. Just a pretty good track record.

So, again, you're equivocating. There is such a thing as rational belief, and so the belief that science is worth paying heed to is justified by science's record. This is not in the same ballpark as the belief-without-evidence (or "faith") of the religious.
 
2014-01-06 01:12:08 PM  
s2s2s2:
Well, I don't think highly of religion at all. But this article isn't about atheist get togethers, it's about atheist churches.

From the article: The world's most voguish - though not its only - atheist church opened last year in London, to global attention and abundant acclaim.
I'm sorry there are religious atheists, but the fact you don't like it, doesn't make it less true.


So, if I call my Wednesday evening trip to the bar "going to church" does that make drinking a religion? If I call a regular seminar discussing clever mathematical solutions "The Church of Math" does that make mathematics a religion?

You really don't have a leg to stand on here, except pure pedantry.
 
2014-01-06 01:13:30 PM  

colon_pow: gimmegimme: You're not making sense.  Are you denouncing the word of the Lord?  The Judeo-Christian God told people to sell their raped daughters to the rapists.  Did the Bible report this rule incorrectly?

no.  you are interpreting it incorrectly.  study it out.


So you're saying that God is just a really bad writer who can't say what he means in a clear fashion.  Interesting.
 
2014-01-06 01:15:13 PM  
Please, oh please let the Onion do a piece on big tent atheist revivals complete with atheist barkers.  "I felt myself sliding away from atheism into belief in a God but this revival got me back on track."
 
2014-01-06 01:22:01 PM  

Epicedion: s2s2s2:
Read that until you actually understand you haven't shown me saying science is a belief system. Perhaps ask an English major to help you out.

You've constructed it so that the belief that science holds reasonable or good answers to questions is the same as unfounded belief. The belief that science holds reasonable or good answers to questions is based on precedent, and held with the knowledge that future evidence could lead to different, probably better answers.

But, of course, there are no guarantees. Just a pretty good track record.

So, again, you're equivocating. There is such a thing as rational belief, and so the belief that science is worth paying heed to is justified by science's record. This is not in the same ballpark as the belief-without-evidence (or "faith") of the religious.


No. I've taken exception with those who say "you don't 'believe' in science."
I do believe science is worth paying attention to. I didn't use the word "faith", so what's your problem?

Epicedion: s2s2s2:
Well, I don't think highly of religion at all. But this article isn't about atheist get togethers, it's about atheist churches.

From the article: The world's most voguish - though not its only - atheist church opened last year in London, to global attention and abundant acclaim.
I'm sorry there are religious atheists, but the fact you don't like it, doesn't make it less true.

So, if I call my Wednesday evening trip to the bar "going to church" does that make drinking a religion? If I call a regular seminar discussing clever mathematical solutions "The Church of Math" does that make mathematics a religion?

You really don't have a leg to stand on here, except pure pedantry.


If you go to the bar, every Wednesday night, and treat it with a high level of respect, bordering on reverence, then yes. That would be religious practice. The word religion means "to bind", or "obligation". If you think we should use the original meaning of the word religion, and you think science is super important....guess what you have.
 
2014-01-06 01:25:42 PM  
Homosexuality is a Learned Behaviour.
 
2014-01-06 01:32:16 PM  

s2s2s2: If you go to the bar, every Wednesday night, and treat it with a high level of respect, bordering on reverence, then yes. That would be religious practice. The word religion means "to bind", or "obligation". If you think we should use the original meaning of the word religion, and you think science is super important....guess what you have.


You've now classified anything that anyone holds in high regard and/or does regularly as "religion." School is religion, daily walks in the park are religion, and picking up your kid from daycare is a religion. Is there anything that's not a religion?
 
2014-01-06 01:33:18 PM  

letrole: Homosexuality is a Learned Behaviour.


Now THAT'S a non-sequitur!


s2s2s2: If you go to the bar, every Wednesday night, and treat it with a high level of respect, bordering on reverence, then yes. That would be religious practice. The word religion means "to bind", or "obligation". If you think we should use the original meaning of the word religion, and you think science is super important....guess what you have.


So Barney Stinson's religion is "Strip Clubism?"  You don't have much respect for religion if you think that anything people like or get together to discuss is a religion.
 
2014-01-06 01:34:26 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: I think I want to start a 12-step program for non-addicts. I feel I'm missing out on all the sharing and stale donuts that addicts get.


It's called "Alanon".
 
2014-01-06 01:34:32 PM  

Egoy3k: lordjupiter: Egoy3k: dfenstrate: As to whether atheists suffer from self-righteousness more than others- I refer only to the lecturing, smug self-satisfied atheists, many of whom have participated in this very thread.

I love it when someone accuses someone else of being 'smug' in the most condescending manner possible.  It's like calling out a typo with poor grammar.

Do you really love it?

Yes?


Ok well enjoy.
 
2014-01-06 01:35:13 PM  

letrole: Homosexuality is a Learned Behaviour.


Open wide.
 
2014-01-06 01:37:29 PM  

Egoy3k: ciberido: It was formed in the aftermath of Elevatorgate because there was a sense that too many vocal atheists were misogynistic, racist, or homophobic and that the "face" or "voice" of modern atheism was too white/male/heterosexual.

Not surprisingly, those atheists who weren't big fans of feminism to begin with don't much care for "Atheism+."

I'm a fan of feminism and I think that 'elevatorgate' is the stupidest thing ever. As such I'm not a huge fan of Atheism+ but that doesn't mean I hate women.

/The misogynist backlash for 'elevatorgate' was shameful but that doesn't mean that  the actual incident wasn't stupid and pretty harmless.


"Elevatorgate"  was the backlash. More specifically, it was the insistence by prominent atheist figures that the misogynist backlash the woman received for speaking out was not really misogynist, or at least not as bad as religious misogyny so she needed to get over it.

The incident in which Rebecca Watson was propositioned by a man in an elevator prompted an initial comment from her which amounted to "don't do that, it's creepy".  If it had stopped there, there would be no controversy.
 
2014-01-06 01:38:05 PM  

Epicedion: s2s2s2: If you go to the bar, every Wednesday night, and treat it with a high level of respect, bordering on reverence, then yes. That would be religious practice. The word religion means "to bind", or "obligation". If you think we should use the original meaning of the word religion, and you think science is super important....guess what you have.

You've now classified anything that anyone holds in high regard and/or does regularly as "religion." School is religion, daily walks in the park are religion, and picking up your kid from daycare is a religion. Is there anything that's not a religion?


Incorrect. Colloquialism and the changing nature of language have removed the notion of those things as religious. The word religion can accurately be applied to any binding or obligatory practice. If you do not like this,that is not my problem, but you are rejecting objective fact.

The fact that people get their panties in a twist over this fact is further proof that they revere their status as atheists, and therefore are religious.
 
2014-01-06 01:40:50 PM  

wingedkat: Egoy3k: ciberido: It was formed in the aftermath of Elevatorgate because there was a sense that too many vocal atheists were misogynistic, racist, or homophobic and that the "face" or "voice" of modern atheism was too white/male/heterosexual.

Not surprisingly, those atheists who weren't big fans of feminism to begin with don't much care for "Atheism+."

I'm a fan of feminism and I think that 'elevatorgate' is the stupidest thing ever. As such I'm not a huge fan of Atheism+ but that doesn't mean I hate women.

/The misogynist backlash for 'elevatorgate' was shameful but that doesn't mean that  the actual incident wasn't stupid and pretty harmless.

"Elevatorgate"  was the backlash. More specifically, it was the insistence by prominent atheist figures that the misogynist backlash the woman received for speaking out was not really misogynist, or at least not as bad as religious misogyny so she needed to get over it.

The incident in which Rebecca Watson was propositioned by a man in an elevator prompted an initial comment from her which amounted to "don't do that, it's creepy".  If it had stopped there, there would be no controversy.


Yes, yes.  You're right.  Watson and everyone in her clown car are blameless victims of those big, bad fedora-wearing men and never did anything wrong.

Can we please have a moment of silence for the perpetual victims?
 
2014-01-06 01:45:25 PM  

s2s2s2: Epicedion: s2s2s2: If you go to the bar, every Wednesday night, and treat it with a high level of respect, bordering on reverence, then yes. That would be religious practice. The word religion means "to bind", or "obligation". If you think we should use the original meaning of the word religion, and you think science is super important....guess what you have.

You've now classified anything that anyone holds in high regard and/or does regularly as "religion." School is religion, daily walks in the park are religion, and picking up your kid from daycare is a religion. Is there anything that's not a religion?

Incorrect. Colloquialism and the changing nature of language have removed the notion of those things as religious. The word religion can accurately be applied to any binding or obligatory practice. If you do not like this,that is not my problem, but you are rejecting objective fact.

The fact that people get their panties in a twist over this fact is further proof that they revere their status as atheists, and therefore are religious.


After explaining to us how an archaic dictionary definition of a word is an unending truth, please explain why you ostensibly haven't held up your part of the Christian bargain as delineated in the Bible.
 
2014-01-06 01:45:37 PM  

wingedkat: Egoy3k: ciberido: It was formed in the aftermath of Elevatorgate because there was a sense that too many vocal atheists were misogynistic, racist, or homophobic and that the "face" or "voice" of modern atheism was too white/male/heterosexual.

Not surprisingly, those atheists who weren't big fans of feminism to begin with don't much care for "Atheism+."

I'm a fan of feminism and I think that 'elevatorgate' is the stupidest thing ever. As such I'm not a huge fan of Atheism+ but that doesn't mean I hate women.

/The misogynist backlash for 'elevatorgate' was shameful but that doesn't mean that  the actual incident wasn't stupid and pretty harmless.

"Elevatorgate"  was the backlash. More specifically, it was the insistence by prominent atheist figures that the misogynist backlash the woman received for speaking out was not really misogynist, or at least not as bad as religious misogyny so she needed to get over it.

The incident in which Rebecca Watson was propositioned by a man in an elevator prompted an initial comment from her which amounted to "don't do that, it's creepy".  If it had stopped there, there would be no controversy.


Fair enough but I took issue with the 'don't do that, it's creepy' and I would have liked a civil discussion about how attitudes from both genders need to change in order to move forward.  Too bad a bunch of man children ruined it.
 
2014-01-06 01:45:37 PM  

wingedkat: Egoy3k: ciberido: It was formed in the aftermath of Elevatorgate because there was a sense that too many vocal atheists were misogynistic, racist, or homophobic and that the "face" or "voice" of modern atheism was too white/male/heterosexual.

Not surprisingly, those atheists who weren't big fans of feminism to begin with don't much care for "Atheism+."

I'm a fan of feminism and I think that 'elevatorgate' is the stupidest thing ever. As such I'm not a huge fan of Atheism+ but that doesn't mean I hate women.

/The misogynist backlash for 'elevatorgate' was shameful but that doesn't mean that  the actual incident wasn't stupid and pretty harmless.

"Elevatorgate"  was the backlash. More specifically, it was the insistence by prominent atheist figures that the misogynist backlash the woman received for speaking out was not really misogynist, or at least not as bad as religious misogyny so she needed to get over it.

The incident in which Rebecca Watson was propositioned by a man in an elevator prompted an initial comment from her which amounted to "don't do that, it's creepy".  If it had stopped there, there would be no controversy.


Not to mention that her point was that she had just been talking about how that sort of thing(isolating a female to proposition her) was viewed as predatory and how she wishes guys wouldn't do that. She announced that she was very tired and wanted sleep, then left. Having recognized the guy from that group, it was a little more than creepy that he did what she was just saying made her very uncomfortable.
 
2014-01-06 01:48:02 PM  

s2s2s2: wingedkat: Egoy3k: ciberido: It was formed in the aftermath of Elevatorgate because there was a sense that too many vocal atheists were misogynistic, racist, or homophobic and that the "face" or "voice" of modern atheism was too white/male/heterosexual.

Not surprisingly, those atheists who weren't big fans of feminism to begin with don't much care for "Atheism+."

I'm a fan of feminism and I think that 'elevatorgate' is the stupidest thing ever. As such I'm not a huge fan of Atheism+ but that doesn't mean I hate women.

/The misogynist backlash for 'elevatorgate' was shameful but that doesn't mean that  the actual incident wasn't stupid and pretty harmless.

"Elevatorgate"  was the backlash. More specifically, it was the insistence by prominent atheist figures that the misogynist backlash the woman received for speaking out was not really misogynist, or at least not as bad as religious misogyny so she needed to get over it.

The incident in which Rebecca Watson was propositioned by a man in an elevator prompted an initial comment from her which amounted to "don't do that, it's creepy".  If it had stopped there, there would be no controversy.

Not to mention that her point was that she had just been talking about how that sort of thing(isolating a female to proposition her) was viewed as predatory and how she wishes guys wouldn't do that. She announced that she was very tired and wanted sleep, then left. Having recognized the guy from that group, it was a little more than creepy that he did what she was just saying made her very uncomfortable.


This part is not factually correct in any of Watson's descriptions of the event.

Egoy3k: wingedkat: Egoy3k: ciberido: It was formed in the aftermath of Elevatorgate because there was a sense that too many vocal atheists were misogynistic, racist, or homophobic and that the "face" or "voice" of modern atheism was too white/male/heterosexual.

Not surprisingly, those atheists who weren't big fans of feminism to begin with don't much care for "Atheism+."

I'm a fan of feminism and I think that 'elevatorgate' is the stupidest thing ever. As such I'm not a huge fan of Atheism+ but that doesn't mean I hate women.

/The misogynist backlash for 'elevatorgate' was shameful but that doesn't mean that  the actual incident wasn't stupid and pretty harmless.

"Elevatorgate"  was the backlash. More specifically, it was the insistence by prominent atheist figures that the misogynist backlash the woman received for speaking out was not really misogynist, or at least not as bad as religious misogyny so she needed to get over it.

The incident in which Rebecca Watson was propositioned by a man in an elevator prompted an initial comment from her which amounted to "don't do that, it's creepy".  If it had stopped there, there would be no controversy.

Fair enough but I took issue with the 'don't do that, it's creepy' and I would have liked a civil discussion about how attitudes from both genders need to change in order to move forward.  Too bad a bunch of man children ruined it.


I know!  It's like every problem in the world is caused by men.  Can you believe they cry "sexism!" when we point that out?!?!?!
 
2014-01-06 01:49:03 PM  
s2s2s2:

Incorrect. Colloquialism and the changing nature of language have removed the notion of those things as religious. The word religion can accurately be applied to any binding or obligatory practice. If you do not like this,that is not my problem, but you are rejecting objective fact.

The fact that people get their panties in a twist over this fact is further proof that they revere their status as atheists, and therefore are religious.


Now you're just declaring things. Your criteria seems to be that everything  you say is a religion is a religion, while other things with indistinguishably similar properties  aren't religions.

It all sounds remarkably like bullshiat.

With regards to "binding or obligatory practice," that would mean that paying your taxes is a religion. In fact, anything with real negative consequences for noncompliance would be a religion. If a mugger pulls a gun on you and demands your wallet, giving wallets to muggers is a religion.
 
2014-01-06 01:49:15 PM  

gimmegimme: s2s2s2: Epicedion: s2s2s2: If you go to the bar, every Wednesday night, and treat it with a high level of respect, bordering on reverence, then yes. That would be religious practice. The word religion means "to bind", or "obligation". If you think we should use the original meaning of the word religion, and you think science is super important....guess what you have.

You've now classified anything that anyone holds in high regard and/or does regularly as "religion." School is religion, daily walks in the park are religion, and picking up your kid from daycare is a religion. Is there anything that's not a religion?

Incorrect. Colloquialism and the changing nature of language have removed the notion of those things as religious. The word religion can accurately be applied to any binding or obligatory practice. If you do not like this,that is not my problem, but you are rejecting objective fact.

The fact that people get their panties in a twist over this fact is further proof that they revere their status as atheists, and therefore are religious.

After explaining to us how an archaic dictionary definition of a word is an unending truth, please explain why you ostensibly haven't held up your part of the Christian bargain as delineated in the Bible.


I'm sorry I'm not picking the same cherries you are. I guess by using the root definition of a word, I've committed some kind of sin. What makes you think I have any obligation to hold up a Christian bargain, other than your imagination, and inability to understand much of anything I've posted in this thread?
 
2014-01-06 01:52:16 PM  

Epicedion: s2s2s2:

Incorrect. Colloquialism and the changing nature of language have removed the notion of those things as religious. The word religion can accurately be applied to any binding or obligatory practice. If you do not like this,that is not my problem, but you are rejecting objective fact.

The fact that people get their panties in a twist over this fact is further proof that they revere their status as atheists, and therefore are religious.

Now you're just declaring things. Your criteria seems to be that everything  you say is a religion is a religion, while other things with indistinguishably similar properties  aren't religions.

It all sounds remarkably like bullshiat.

With regards to "binding or obligatory practice," that would mean that paying your taxes is a religion. In fact, anything with real negative consequences for noncompliance would be a religion. If a mugger pulls a gun on you and demands your wallet, giving wallets to muggers is a religion.


Yeah, if it fits the definition of religion, I feel free to apply the word. I'm a farking maverick, I tell ya!
 
2014-01-06 01:52:52 PM  

s2s2s2: gimmegimme: s2s2s2: Epicedion: s2s2s2: If you go to the bar, every Wednesday night, and treat it with a high level of respect, bordering on reverence, then yes. That would be religious practice. The word religion means "to bind", or "obligation". If you think we should use the original meaning of the word religion, and you think science is super important....guess what you have.

You've now classified anything that anyone holds in high regard and/or does regularly as "religion." School is religion, daily walks in the park are religion, and picking up your kid from daycare is a religion. Is there anything that's not a religion?

Incorrect. Colloquialism and the changing nature of language have removed the notion of those things as religious. The word religion can accurately be applied to any binding or obligatory practice. If you do not like this,that is not my problem, but you are rejecting objective fact.

The fact that people get their panties in a twist over this fact is further proof that they revere their status as atheists, and therefore are religious.

After explaining to us how an archaic dictionary definition of a word is an unending truth, please explain why you ostensibly haven't held up your part of the Christian bargain as delineated in the Bible.

I'm sorry I'm not picking the same cherries you are. I guess by using the root definition of a word, I've committed some kind of sin. What makes you think I have any obligation to hold up a Christian bargain, other than your imagination, and inability to understand much of anything I've posted in this thread?


No, you're using an archaic definition of a word to try and apply the meaning to modern usage.  Language evolves, brah.  It's like saying that your ex-wife still has to be married to you and obey you Bible-style even though she divorced you fifty years ago.
 
2014-01-06 02:02:05 PM  

s2s2s2: Yeah, if it fits the definition of religion, I feel free to apply the word.


Hence, everything is a religion. That makes the word useless. Congratulations, everything is everything and your contributions are meaningless.
 
2014-01-06 02:03:06 PM  

gimmegimme: Language evolves, brah.


Yeah, and thanks to the evolution of the word "religion" it can be applied to more than just those who observe rituals surrounding a deity. When I use that definition, I get complaints. When I use the root meaning of the word, I get complaints. The problem is that religion does NOT only mean "belief in a deity", but because that is a way the word has been applied, a lot of people fear being associated with it.

It started out meaning "obligation" it evolved to mean "church folks" then morphed again to mean "whatever your most favorite thing is that you pay special attention to" and you only want me to apply one out of three of the possible meanings.

religion |riˈlijən|
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion.
• a particular system of faith and worship: the world's great religions.
• a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance: consumerism atheism is the new religion.
The fact is, you can't win. Especially when people are establishing atheist churches. You lose, objectively, metaphorically, and factually.
 
2014-01-06 02:04:28 PM  

Epicedion: Hence, everything is a religion. That makes the word useless. Congratulations, everything is everything and your contributions are meaningless correct.


FTFY

And atheism is a religion.
 
2014-01-06 02:06:20 PM  

s2s2s2: gimmegimme: Language evolves, brah.

Yeah, and thanks to the evolution of the word "religion" it can be applied to more than just those who observe rituals surrounding a deity. When I use that definition, I get complaints. When I use the root meaning of the word, I get complaints. The problem is that religion does NOT only mean "belief in a deity", but because that is a way the word has been applied, a lot of people fear being associated with it.

It started out meaning "obligation" it evolved to mean "church folks" then morphed again to mean "whatever your most favorite thing is that you pay special attention to" and you only want me to apply one out of three of the possible meanings.

religion |riˈlijən|
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion.
• a particular system of faith and worship: the world's great religions.
• a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance: consumerism atheism is the new religion.
The fact is, you can't win. Especially when people are establishing atheist churches. You lose, objectively, metaphorically, and factually.


You're right.  Everything is a religion.  Therefore, religion isn't special.  Religion is just another pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance, like a brony with My Little Ponies and furries with giant stuffed animals.  We agree with you; religion is just another thing.
 
2014-01-06 02:06:45 PM  

doglover: hardinparamedic: doglover: Danger Avoid Death: doglover: mamoru: what makes them assholes?

Anyone who puts a plus sign at the end of a word and calls it XXXX Plus is an enemy of learning and knowledge.

Damn. Does that mean I should turn down my invitation to join Fark+ then?

No, it just means you're an enemy of learning and knowledge.

[art.penny-arcade.com image 850x425]

The history of it is kinda interesting.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism_Plus

The whole concept was proposed because many female skeptics and atheist con goers were tired of shiatbags like TAA and Thunderf00t acting like assholes and getting away with it.

So they took a stand against the English language itself.



When you complain about another's grammar or spelling like this, it's often a tacit admission that you have no better argument to offer.
 
2014-01-06 02:09:13 PM  
The amusing thing about Atheism threads is the way that the Atheists are dogmatic about having no dogma, orthodox about having no orthodoxy, and evangelical about having no evangelism.
 
2014-01-06 02:09:14 PM  

grumpfuff: Jim_Callahan: And some of the freemason lodges are going on two or three centuries old now... so, historically, the answer is also yes.

Freemasons are not, as an organization, atheist. Individual members might be, but shouldn't be. Believing in a higher power is a requirement for joining.


One can believe in a higher power without believing in a religion. That's basically what quite a few of the founding fathers were.  It's not atheism, of course, but the deist founding fathers carried a lot of the same feelings about organized religion.
 
2014-01-06 02:09:15 PM  

ciberido: doglover: hardinparamedic: doglover: Danger Avoid Death: doglover: mamoru: what makes them assholes?

Anyone who puts a plus sign at the end of a word and calls it XXXX Plus is an enemy of learning and knowledge.

Damn. Does that mean I should turn down my invitation to join Fark+ then?

No, it just means you're an enemy of learning and knowledge.

[art.penny-arcade.com image 850x425]

The history of it is kinda interesting.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism_Plus

The whole concept was proposed because many female skeptics and atheist con goers were tired of shiatbags like TAA and Thunderf00t acting like assholes and getting away with it.

So they took a stand against the English language itself.


When you complain about another's grammar or spelling like this, it's often a tacit admission that you have no better argument to offer.


Look, someone had to take a stand against "fake jewelry."  That's just not OK.  I mean, it's jewelry and it's fake!

The best part of FTB and A+ is that they are so open and so willing to have a discussion with anyone...even people who disagree with them.
 
2014-01-06 02:09:35 PM  

Epicedion: s2s2s2: Yeah, if it fits the definition of religion, I feel free to apply the word.

Hence, everything is a religion. That makes the word useless. Congratulations, everything is everything and your contributions are meaningless.


I have always found it entertaining when religious people attempt to disparage something (like science or atheism) by calling it a religion. What does that say about their own actual religion?
 
2014-01-06 02:10:33 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Phil Moskowitz: Like Atheist churches weren't set up to create a false equivalency so the weirdos could beat their strawman without looking so stupid.

As nearly as I can tell, they weren't. Most Christian churches I'm familiar with are as much(or more) about getting together and hanging out with people you agree with(they call it "fellowship") as with theology. Same thing with atheist church.


If you actually sit down and listen to two or more Christians talk about why they go to church A rather than church B, or why they left church C to go to church D, it's rather enlightening.
 
2014-01-06 02:10:55 PM  

gimmegimme: Everything is a religion


No everything, just that to which we are bound or obliged. And, not "a religion" but "religion".

Seems obvious to me that if people would stop trying to dissociate themselves from a word they dislike, it could be used to great benefit.
 
2014-01-06 02:13:45 PM  

Farking Canuck: Epicedion: s2s2s2: Yeah, if it fits the definition of religion, I feel free to apply the word.

Hence, everything is a religion. That makes the word useless. Congratulations, everything is everything and your contributions are meaningless.

I have always found it entertaining when religious people attempt to disparage something (like science or atheism) by calling it a religion. What does that say about their own actual religion?


He's saying that...

www.catholicmatch.com
www.decodeunicode.org
fc09.deviantart.net
 
2014-01-06 02:15:11 PM  

doglover: Felgraf: Apparently thinking critically is only OK if you criticize religion

Basically. It's the same with the people who hate one group of people for hating a third group. Applying actual objective thinking and discovering a flaw in your side is not cool. But tearing the other guys apart? Go for it.


No.  What you are saying is literally the opposite of critical thinking.

Criticizing or scorning group B for hating members of group C does not make you "just as bad as" group B.
 
2014-01-06 02:15:26 PM  

Farking Canuck: I have always found it entertaining when religious people attempt to disparage something (like science or atheism) by calling it a religion. What does that say about their own actual religion?


Well, I'm not religious, and I'm not trying to disparage anything.
 
2014-01-06 02:15:36 PM  

gimmegimme: "Elevatorgate"  was the backlash. More specifically, it was the insistence by prominent atheist figures that the misogynist backlash the woman received for speaking out was not really misogynist, or at least not as bad as religious misogyny so she needed to get over it.

The incident in which Rebecca Watson was propositioned by a man in an elevator prompted an initial comment from her which amounted to "don't do that, it's creepy".  If it had stopped there, there would be no controversy.

Yes, yes.  You're right.  Watson and everyone in her clown car are blameless victims of those big, bad fedora-wearing men and never did anything wrong.

Can we please have a moment of silence for the perpetual victims?


uh-huh.   Whoever you are sarcastically agreeing with, it isn't me.

Between the lines of weird anti-feminist, anti-blogger(?) sentiment, the linked-to article is a very honest and well-referenced summary of what happened, so thanks for that.
 
2014-01-06 02:17:09 PM  

gimmegimme: Farking Canuck: Epicedion: s2s2s2: Yeah, if it fits the definition of religion, I feel free to apply the word.

Hence, everything is a religion. That makes the word useless. Congratulations, everything is everything and your contributions are meaningless.

I have always found it entertaining when religious people attempt to disparage something (like science or atheism) by calling it a religion. What does that say about their own actual religion?

He's saying that...

[www.catholicmatch.com image 400x300]
[www.decodeunicode.org image 196x196]
[fc09.deviantart.net image 850x477]


Strong point in my favor. Thank you.
 
2014-01-06 02:18:48 PM  

wingedkat: gimmegimme: "Elevatorgate"  was the backlash. More specifically, it was the insistence by prominent atheist figures that the misogynist backlash the woman received for speaking out was not really misogynist, or at least not as bad as religious misogyny so she needed to get over it.

The incident in which Rebecca Watson was propositioned by a man in an elevator prompted an initial comment from her which amounted to "don't do that, it's creepy".  If it had stopped there, there would be no controversy.

Yes, yes.  You're right.  Watson and everyone in her clown car are blameless victims of those big, bad fedora-wearing men and never did anything wrong.

Can we please have a moment of silence for the perpetual victims?

uh-huh.   Whoever you are sarcastically agreeing with, it isn't me.

Between the lines of weird anti-feminist, anti-blogger(?) sentiment, the linked-to article is a very honest and well-referenced summary of what happened, so thanks for that.


So you're acknowledging that Watson, Myers, Benson, et. al. are to blame for at least some of the unpleasantness?
 
2014-01-06 02:21:00 PM  

s2s2s2: And atheism is a religion.


Since your contributions are meaningless, this is most assuredly bullshiat.

s2s2s2: No everything, just that to which we are bound or obliged. And, not "a religion" but "religion".

Seems obvious to me that if people would stop trying to dissociate themselves from a word they dislike, it could be used to great benefit.


The universe is religion, as literally everything is obligated to follow its rules.

Now that this is established, literally  everything is religion. The word has no distinguishing feature, and thus its use is entirely irrelevant. Typing it ever again is simply wasting space.

Now we need a word that describes how theists get together and do stuff for their gods. I know, how about "religion."
 
2014-01-06 02:21:34 PM  

s2s2s2: gimmegimme: Farking Canuck: Epicedion: s2s2s2: Yeah, if it fits the definition of religion, I feel free to apply the word.

Hence, everything is a religion. That makes the word useless. Congratulations, everything is everything and your contributions are meaningless.

I have always found it entertaining when religious people attempt to disparage something (like science or atheism) by calling it a religion. What does that say about their own actual religion?

He's saying that...

[www.catholicmatch.com image 400x300]
[www.decodeunicode.org image 196x196]
[fc09.deviantart.net image 850x477]

Strong point in my favor. Thank you.


So we agree that a virgin brony dressed up as Twilight Sparkle has as much access to a magic deity as a virgin dressed in all black with a collar as both are just engaging in a hobby they love.  We're agreeing all over the place.
 
2014-01-06 02:23:24 PM  
Farking Canuck: I have always found it entertaining when religious people attempt to disparage something (like science or atheism) by calling it a religion. What does that say about their own actual religion?

The disparagement is happening inside your own head.

The only real point to be made is that Atheism is indeed a Religion, just not a very good one.
 
2014-01-06 02:25:12 PM  

devine: Yeah, Charles Nelson Reilly, he's our man
He can't heal the sick with the touch of his hand
He can't walk on the water, can't make wine flow
Just another greedy actor on the late, late show



Lord knows you just don't mess around with CNR.
 
2014-01-06 02:26:32 PM  

Epicedion: Since your contributions are meaningless, this is most assuredly bullshiat.


Tell that to one of the many Churches of Atheism. Guess you can take it on faith, since facts are working for you.

Epicedion: The universe is religion, as literally everything is obligated to follow its rules.


This is a factually accurate statement. Welcome to objective reality.

Epicedion: Now that this is established, literally  everything is religion.


That's just stupid. I'm not obligated to stamp collecting.

Epicedion: Now we need a word that describes how theists get together and do stuff for their gods. I know, how about "religion."


There are already lots of other words for it. Did you forget them while obsessing over how you aren't religious?
 
2014-01-06 02:27:08 PM  

s2s2s2: since facts aren't working for you


ftfm
 
2014-01-06 02:28:54 PM  

s2s2s2: s2s2s2: since facts aren't working for you

ftfm


No, I'm sorry, we have to stick with the original.  Definitions don't change.
 
2014-01-06 02:29:10 PM  

Egoy3k: "Elevatorgate"  was the backlash. More specifically, it was the insistence by prominent atheist figures that the misogynist backlash the woman received for speaking out was not really misogynist, or at least not as bad as religious misogyny so she needed to get over it.

The incident in which Rebecca Watson was propositioned by a man in an elevator prompted an initial comment from her which amounted to "don't do that, it's creepy".  If it had stopped there, there would be no controversy.

Fair enough but I took issue with the 'don't do that, it's creepy' and I would have liked a civil discussion about how attitudes from both genders need to change in order to move forward.  Too bad a bunch of man children ruined it.


Indeed, the backlash really overshadowed the original issue.   I think that a calm, rational discussion of gender relations within the atheist community is still called for, although it seems to be such an emotional topic I'm not sure such a discussion can be had in a public forum... yet.   

I think people are still talking about how attitudes need to change in order for things to move forward.  I myself got so fed up with it I started ignoring the drama before this Atheist+ movement became a thing.  Based on the reactions certain posters here have to that movement, I'm open to the idea that the discussion may be going on there and plan to check it out.
 
2014-01-06 02:29:20 PM  

namatad: fusillade762: He also said he advised them to leave the dive bar "where women wore bikinis," in favor of a more family-friendly venue.

You know, now that I think about I don't like this "family friendly" idea. Just as I don't think children should be indoctrinated into religion I wouldn't want them indoctrinated into atheism. Let them grow up and make up their own minds.

all religion is brainwashing
atheism is not a religion

rational thought is not a religion, nor brain washing


Yeah, you don't sound like a fundie at  all...

/all religion is brainwashing
christianity is not a religion

rational thought is not a religion, nor brainwashing

//See?
///Seriously, you even got the 'poetic' spacing and lack of caps right. Does your group have people who will encourage those kids to choose their path? Yes? Then it's probably not kid-friendly, even if it's not-religion.
 
2014-01-06 02:30:29 PM  

gimmegimme: So we agree that a virgin brony dressed up as Twilight Sparkle has as much access to a magic deity as a virgin dressed in all black with a collar as both are just engaging in a hobby they love.


Nope, but we are saying they both have as much proof. They still both have religion, and they both might lose it, someday.
 
2014-01-06 02:31:40 PM  

AdamK: Ghastly: Trilbies vs Fedoras?

bronies vs. goths


whynotboth.jpg

Gronies?  Broths?
 
2014-01-06 02:34:45 PM  

s2s2s2: namatad: atheism is not a religion

Because the meanings of words change, yes, it is. It's deity is the importance of ridding society of the notion of deities. Atheists gather, organize, and proselytize.


Atheist is a life stance.  It is not a religion.
 
2014-01-06 02:35:02 PM  
If someone happens to have no faith in a Creator, then the word 'atheist' is simply a descriptor or an attribute. Those who take on Atheist as an identity in itself can universally be regarded as smarmy, conceited, and belligerent tossers. This thread bears those facts out plainly.

The motivations for the Schoolboy Atheist are generally anger and resentment. Those who simply had no faith would have no interest in discussions such as this.* It's safe to say that the common heathen just doesn't care -- but these lads here? They have serious mummy and daddy issues.

Atheism is a Religion. A piss-poor Religion, but a Religion regardless. The amusing part is where an almost endless supply of Schoolboy Atheists will launch into ever-decreasing circles of denial, and exercises of semantics worthy of any medieval theologian.

*complementary smack with a clue-by-four
.
 
2014-01-06 02:35:20 PM  

gimmegimme: No, I'm sorry, we have to stick with the original.  Definitions don't change


No, I said they do. And the definition of religion has evolved to include atheists and science buffs.

Which way do you want it? Original(fits)? Middle(doesn't really fit, though some intrepid atheists are trying to make it fit)? Most recent(clearly fits)?

See, I can say "atheism is a religion" and not be saying "you are just like Pentecostals!" You just really get irked by having the word applied to that precious precious thing you revere. The harder you protest, the more clearly you display your religious reverence for atheism/science/whatever it is that clearly compels your fervent arguing.
 
2014-01-06 02:36:36 PM  

wingedkat: Egoy3k: "Elevatorgate"  was the backlash. More specifically, it was the insistence by prominent atheist figures that the misogynist backlash the woman received for speaking out was not really misogynist, or at least not as bad as religious misogyny so she needed to get over it.

The incident in which Rebecca Watson was propositioned by a man in an elevator prompted an initial comment from her which amounted to "don't do that, it's creepy".  If it had stopped there, there would be no controversy.

Fair enough but I took issue with the 'don't do that, it's creepy' and I would have liked a civil discussion about how attitudes from both genders need to change in order to move forward.  Too bad a bunch of man children ruined it.

Indeed, the backlash really overshadowed the original issue.   I think that a calm, rational discussion of gender relations within the atheist community is still called for, although it seems to be such an emotional topic I'm not sure such a discussion can be had in a public forum... yet.   

I think people are still talking about how attitudes need to change in order for things to move forward.  I myself got so fed up with it I started ignoring the drama before this Atheist+ movement became a thing.  Based on the reactions certain posters here have to that movement, I'm open to the idea that the discussion may be going on there and plan to check it out.


Please do!  This is a funny welcome thread.

Here's the thing.  Once you post, you are offered a basket of links that contain thousands of words of rules that dictate what you are allowed to say on the board and how.  Believe me (but investigate for yourself), the discussion we're having right now on FARK is not allowed on A+ or FTB.

This thread's pretty funny, too.  It gets good halfway through.

And of course, you should check out (and verify if you like) what Thunderf00t says about A+/FTB.
 
2014-01-06 02:37:40 PM  

ciberido: s2s2s2: namatad: atheism is not a religion

Because the meanings of words change, yes, it is. It's deity is the importance of ridding society of the notion of deities. Atheists gather, organize, and proselytize.

Atheist is a life stance.  It is not a religion.


From your link: A person's life stance, or lifestance, is their relation with what they accept as being of ultimate importance.

From a dictionary: religion |riˈlijən|
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion.
• a particular system of faith and worship: the world's great religions.
• a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance: consumerism having a life stance is the new religion.

Try again?
 
2014-01-06 02:40:45 PM  
s2s2s2:

Epicedion: The universe is religion, as literally everything is obligated to follow its rules.

This is a factually accurate statement. Welcome to objective reality.

Epicedion: Now that this is established, literally  everything is religion.

That's just stupid. I'm not obligated to stamp collecting.


If the universe is religion, and stamp collecting is part of the universe (and thus part of the religion that is the universe), then you're obligated to stamp collecting. By your own words.

If you're not obligated to stamp collecting, then either stamp collecting is not part of the universe, or the universe is not religion. Since stamp collecting is obviously a part of the universe, then the universe is not religion.

You're now holding two completely contradictory things in your worldview. Which makes you wrong.
 
2014-01-06 02:42:39 PM  

s2s2s2: gimmegimme: No, I'm sorry, we have to stick with the original.  Definitions don't change

No, I said they do. And the definition of religion has evolved to include atheists and science buffs.

Which way do you want it? Original(fits)? Middle(doesn't really fit, though some intrepid atheists are trying to make it fit)? Most recent(clearly fits)?

See, I can say "atheism is a religion" and not be saying "you are just like Pentecostals!" You just really get irked by having the word applied to that precious precious thing you revere. The harder you protest, the more clearly you display your religious reverence for atheism/science/whatever it is that clearly compels your fervent arguing.


We've tangled before; I really think that you would benefit by putting down the dictionary and picking up some works of philosophy.  Depending on which definition you're talking about (as though the generally accepted societal one doesn't matter), religion requires one to abandon critical thinking.  Unlike a religion, I don't truck with dogma.  If one of my beliefs is disproven, then I change my mind.  This is not the case with religion.  Jesus said he'd come back during the lifetime of his followers...then they moved the goalposts instead of understanding that Jesus was just telling a story, like Transformers or White Chicks.
 
2014-01-06 02:44:33 PM  

Epicedion: By your own words.


Or rather by your failure to understand my words, accept objective fact.

You started failing to properly counter presented facts, and just tried to throw a big blanket over it and call it everything. I am not bound to, nor obligated to "everything" accepting that something exists is not being bound, nor obligated, to it.

If you really care about science being properly represented, recognize that you are not the person for the job.
 
2014-01-06 02:46:44 PM  
s2s2s2:
See, I can say "atheism is a religion" and not be saying "you are just like Pentecostals!" You just really get irked by having the word applied to that precious precious thing you revere.

See, that's what's known as "being a dick." You're intentionally misusing a word as a pejorative to prove how sensitive people are when you go out of your way to try to insult them. Then you're falling back on a pedantic argument of "nuh uh I totally didn't mean you're just like a stupid group we all hate (ha ha), I meant it in insert misinterpreted, unused, or metaphorical definition of word here so all this shows is that you're a sensitive poopy-head!"

Yeah, that's pretty explicitly and tenaciously just being a dick. Good job. You're a dick.
 
2014-01-06 02:48:03 PM  

s2s2s2: I am not bound to, nor obligated to "everything" accepting that something exists is not being bound, nor obligated, to it.


Apparently you're not really bound to making a whole lot of sense, either.
 
2014-01-06 02:48:33 PM  

s2s2s2: ciberido: s2s2s2: namatad: atheism is not a religion

Because the meanings of words change, yes, it is. It's deity is the importance of ridding society of the notion of deities. Atheists gather, organize, and proselytize.

Atheist is a life stance.  It is not a religion.

From your link: A person's life stance, or lifestance, is their relation with what they accept as being of ultimate importance.

From a dictionary: religion |riˈlijən|
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion.
• a particular system of faith and worship: the world's great religions.
• a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance: consumerism having a life stance is the new religion.

Try again?


I guess you're right.  God is real.  Just look at the definition.

god  (g
n.1. God
a.
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6.
A powerful ruler or despot.


By definition, we all believe in God.  CHECK. MATE.  ATHEISTS.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-01-06 02:48:55 PM  

Ker_Thwap: I learned long ago that it's pointless to use logic and debating techniques in any kind of faith based discussion.  If a person is going to make the leap of faith to believe in a god, then they're going to use the same thought process to disagree with anyone who doesn't hold their beliefs.


If you actually believe that it's clear you need to read more books or take a class in history.  Anything to reliever such terrible ignorance.   Doubt: A History by Jennifer Hecht might be a good start.
 
2014-01-06 02:49:05 PM  
www.telecompie.com

SPLITTERS!
 
2014-01-06 02:49:33 PM  

gimmegimme: s2s2s2: gimmegimme: No, I'm sorry, we have to stick with the original.  Definitions don't change

No, I said they do. And the definition of religion has evolved to include atheists and science buffs.

Which way do you want it? Original(fits)? Middle(doesn't really fit, though some intrepid atheists are trying to make it fit)? Most recent(clearly fits)?

See, I can say "atheism is a religion" and not be saying "you are just like Pentecostals!" You just really get irked by having the word applied to that precious precious thing you revere. The harder you protest, the more clearly you display your religious reverence for atheism/science/whatever it is that clearly compels your fervent arguing.

We've tangled before; I really think that you would benefit by putting down the dictionary and picking up some works of philosophy.  Depending on which definition you're talking about (as though the generally accepted societal one doesn't matter), religion requires one to abandon critical thinking.  Unlike a religion, I don't truck with dogma.  If one of my beliefs is disproven, then I change my mind.  This is not the case with religion.  Jesus said he'd come back during the lifetime of his followers...then they moved the goalposts instead of understanding that Jesus was just telling a story, like Transformers or White Chicks.


Maybe the wandering Jew is a super nice guy and has been quietly solving all the worlds problems so Jesus just can't bring himself to return.
 
2014-01-06 02:52:18 PM  

gimmegimme: By definition, we all believe in God.  CHECK. MATE.  ATHEISTS.


OR IS IT:

Middle English: from HAND + -SOME.   The original sense was 'easy to handle or use'
 
2014-01-06 02:55:14 PM  

gimmegimme: religion requires one to abandon critical thinking.


I know. That is why I became "unreligious". I realized I didn't have to abandon my belief in god, to abandon obligation to a church. This is why I reject the necessity of a supernatural being as a requirement for religion. Most religious people have no real relationship with their god. It's just an excuse for their particular flavor of bigotry.

I love everyone(you included). I love science(I'm using the shiat out of some of its results, right now!).

I have a friend that likes to argue about the value of science. I argue for, he against.

My point in these threads is that atheism, on its own, is not a religious practice ala Assemblies of God churches. It is simply not believing in a supernatural entity(seems far fetched, and presumptive, but whatever).

That said, there are lots of religious people making "no god" their god, out there. Now that they are forming churches, they can be called a religion(it's part of their own reasoning for doing so).

I'm sorry the mean atheists have betrayed you.
 
2014-01-06 02:56:51 PM  

gimmegimme: wingedkat: gimmegimme: "Elevatorgate"  was the backlash. More specifically, it was the insistence by prominent atheist figures that the misogynist backlash the woman received for speaking out was not really misogynist, or at least not as bad as religious misogyny so she needed to get over it.

The incident in which Rebecca Watson was propositioned by a man in an elevator prompted an initial comment from her which amounted to "don't do that, it's creepy".  If it had stopped there, there would be no controversy.

Yes, yes.  You're right.  Watson and everyone in her clown car are blameless victims of those big, bad fedora-wearing men and never did anything wrong.

Can we please have a moment of silence for the perpetual victims?

uh-huh.   Whoever you are sarcastically agreeing with, it isn't me.

Between the lines of weird anti-feminist, anti-blogger(?) sentiment, the linked-to article is a very honest and well-referenced summary of what happened, so thanks for that.

So you're acknowledging that Watson, Myers, Benson, et. al. are to blame for at least some of the unpleasantness?


There were over-reactions on both sides, yes, and some of the reactions to Dawkins's ill-conceived "Dear Muslima"  letter were as uncalled for and unhelpful to the discussion as the letter itself.  

However, the majority of the real "unpleasantness" was directed toward women, presumably by men.  I'm not talking about the blog discussions, but the anger and threats of rape, murder and other violence.

I find it very odd that even after being confronted by the reality of this unpleasantness, many people feel free to dismiss the entire issue of misogyny in the atheist community as being made up by feminist man-haters, attention whores and "perpetual victims".
 
2014-01-06 02:58:56 PM  

s2s2s2: gimmegimme: religion requires one to abandon critical thinking.

I know. That is why I became "unreligious".


Don't you see, you've only slaved yourself to the religion of critical thinking.

Also, all blanket statements are wrong.
 
2014-01-06 02:59:38 PM  

Epicedion: You're intentionally misusing a word


Sorry. Correctly using a word, per its definition(s) is not misusing a word. But I'm cool with being a dick. I'm a dick. At least I can admit it. Did you think I was gonna cry like some atheist?

Epicedion: Apparently you're not really bound to making a whole lot of sense, either.


s2s2s2: Your inability to understand sense made is not the same as my not making sense.


gimmegimme: I guess you're right.  God is real.  Just look at the definition.


See? We can have fun! I think that might even be the point of these little soirees.
 
2014-01-06 03:01:15 PM  

Epicedion: Also, all blanket statements are wrong.


/Hugs you.
 
2014-01-06 03:07:27 PM  

wingedkat: gimmegimme: wingedkat: gimmegimme: "Elevatorgate"  was the backlash. More specifically, it was the insistence by prominent atheist figures that the misogynist backlash the woman received for speaking out was not really misogynist, or at least not as bad as religious misogyny so she needed to get over it.

The incident in which Rebecca Watson was propositioned by a man in an elevator prompted an initial comment from her which amounted to "don't do that, it's creepy".  If it had stopped there, there would be no controversy.

Yes, yes.  You're right.  Watson and everyone in her clown car are blameless victims of those big, bad fedora-wearing men and never did anything wrong.

Can we please have a moment of silence for the perpetual victims?

uh-huh.   Whoever you are sarcastically agreeing with, it isn't me.

Between the lines of weird anti-feminist, anti-blogger(?) sentiment, the linked-to article is a very honest and well-referenced summary of what happened, so thanks for that.

So you're acknowledging that Watson, Myers, Benson, et. al. are to blame for at least some of the unpleasantness?

There were over-reactions on both sides, yes, and some of the reactions to Dawkins's ill-conceived "Dear Muslima"  letter were as uncalled for and unhelpful to the discussion as the letter itself.

However, the majority of the real "unpleasantness" was directed toward women, presumably by men.  I'm not talking about the blog discussions, but the anger and threats of rape, murder and other violence.

I find it very odd that even after being confronted by the reality of this unpleasantness, many people feel free to dismiss the entire issue of misogyny in the atheist community as being made up by feminist man-haters, attention whores and "perpetual victims".


Are you aware of the recent spate of rape accusations lobbed about by Myers and the FTB crowd?  I'm sure we both think rape is a serious crime that should be handled by the authorities...FTB doesn't.

How many times must Watson cry wolf before we stop seeing her as the perpetual victim?  She pushed for sexual harassment/language policies at cons, and then proceeded to give a talk that violated the policy. (In which she, ironically, ridiculed her Mormon boyfriend for his discomfort with some of the sexual practices she kept pushing him to do.)

Do you know what they did to Justin Vacula?  All the poor guy wanted to do was to attend Women in Secularism 2 (a conference dedicated to women's issues...I suppose I'm waiting for Men in Secularism 1).  The FTBullies demanded extra security and whined that they didn't feel safe even though they had no reason to believe he was a problem.  Funny postscript: some of them later ridiculed him for being anti-social and for not talking to them...even though they lobbed such horrible labels at them.

When Watson got kicked out of a conference for using her free table as a dealer table...misogyny.
When people point out the FTB user who admitted to a very serious crime on their site, only to receive affection that was ironic in the context of the accusations fiasco...misogyny.
When someone Storified their public tweets...misogyny.
When PZ Myers repeatedly made sexual comments to a young woman he didn't know during a conference presentation...misogy---oh, wait.  That was not misogyny.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could have this free and open exchange of thoughts on Freethought Blogs or on Atheism Plus?  Sadly, it doesn't work that way.  Freeze Peach and all that, donchaknow.
 
2014-01-06 03:08:56 PM  

s2s2s2: Epicedion: You're intentionally misusing a word

Sorry. Correctly using a word, per its definition(s) is not misusing a word. But I'm cool with being a dick. I'm a dick. At least I can admit it. Did you think I was gonna cry like some atheist?

Epicedion: Apparently you're not really bound to making a whole lot of sense, either.

s2s2s2: Your inability to understand sense made is not the same as my not making sense.

gimmegimme: I guess you're right.  God is real.  Just look at the definition.

See? We can have fun! I think that might even be the point of these little soirees.


You're right.  In the beginning, George Clooney spoke and the universe burst into existence...
 
2014-01-06 03:12:07 PM  

Son of Thunder: Felgraf: "It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things."
― Jingo

By the power vested in me as a psychology professor, I hereby award Terry Pratchett an honorary PhD in Social Psychology.  That was beautiful.


Oh man, seriously, if you haven't read his books, I highly reccomend them. They're like the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy for fantasy fantasy (But there's... a *lot* more of them). I also reccomend looking up/reading his speech to the House of Lords where he argues for the legalization of assisted suicide (He has/has been diagnosed with early onset alzheimers, and as part of his argument:

"Now, however, I live in hope - hope that before the disease in my brain finally wipes it clean, I can jump before I am pushed and drag my evil Nemesis to its doom, like Sherlock Holmes and Moriarty locked in combat as they go over the waterfall.
In any case, such thinking bestows a wonderful feeling of power; the enemy might win but it won't triumph. "

ciberido: doglover: Felgraf: Apparently thinking critically is only OK if you criticize religion

Basically. It's the same with the people who hate one group of people for hating a third group. Applying actual objective thinking and discovering a flaw in your side is not cool. But tearing the other guys apart? Go for it.

No.  What you are saying is literally the opposite of critical thinking.

Criticizing or scorning group B for hating members of group C does not make you "just as bad as" group B.


I'm not sure where you're getting "Just as bad" from.

I am saying it is a simillar *style* of thinking, or it is the *same* kind of *thinking* that lets religious folks do terrible things (Us Vs. Them), but at no point did I, anywhere, say (or even mean to *imply*) that this means the groups are equal.

But this is what I was talking about. I say "This statement is wrong on an amazing number of levels, and is ironically the same style of thinking that allows religious folks to do terrible things", and... apparently this means I feel "Both sides r bad, so vote religiouslican!" Because they aren't. It is, however, another step on the *road* to making the exact same mistakes, I think.
 
2014-01-06 03:12:23 PM  

ciberido: AdamK: Ghastly: Trilbies vs Fedoras?

bronies vs. goths

whynotboth.jpg

Gronies?  Broths?


Felbies? Tridoras?
 
2014-01-06 03:13:35 PM  

wingedkat: gimmegimme: wingedkat: gimmegimme: "Elevatorgate"  was the backlash. More specifically, it was the insistence by prominent atheist figures that the misogynist backlash the woman received for speaking out was not really misogynist, or at least not as bad as religious misogyny so she needed to get over it.

The incident in which Rebecca Watson was propositioned by a man in an elevator prompted an initial comment from her which amounted to "don't do that, it's creepy".  If it had stopped there, there would be no controversy.

Yes, yes.  You're right.  Watson and everyone in her clown car are blameless victims of those big, bad fedora-wearing men and never did anything wrong.

Can we please have a moment of silence for the perpetual victims?

uh-huh.   Whoever you are sarcastically agreeing with, it isn't me.

Between the lines of weird anti-feminist, anti-blogger(?) sentiment, the linked-to article is a very honest and well-referenced summary of what happened, so thanks for that.

So you're acknowledging that Watson, Myers, Benson, et. al. are to blame for at least some of the unpleasantness?

There were over-reactions on both sides, yes, and some of the reactions to Dawkins's ill-conceived "Dear Muslima"  letter were as uncalled for and unhelpful to the discussion as the letter itself.  

However, the majority of the real "unpleasantness" was directed toward women, presumably by men.  I'm not talking about the blog discussions, but the anger and threats of rape, murder and other violence.

I find it very odd that even after being confronted by the reality of this unpleasantness, many people feel free to dismiss the entire issue of misogyny in the atheist community as being made up by feminist man-haters, attention whores and "perpetual victims".


There is no 'atheist community'. At most you are discussing issues endemic to the 'online atheist blogger/youtuber community'.  This is not even remotely representative of the majority ofatheists or their views. Also for all we know the comments were made by non atheists, women, or more likely just pathetic trolls with noaffiliation other than 'the lulz'.  It might night be good but it is the nature of the internet.  Being a feminist is pretty much a neon sign over your head that tells the shiatheads exactly how to troll you.
 
2014-01-06 03:14:09 PM  
Just read the Elevatorgate article.

Man I've never been happier to be a cock sucker in my life.
 
2014-01-06 03:22:06 PM  

gimmegimme: George Clooney spoke and the universe burst into existence...


...from his glorious chin, and was lit by his sparkling smile.

Egoy3k: There is no 'atheist community'.


Ok, I can see denying there are religious atheists, as a semantic, albeit losing argument; but if you simply click on the link for which this thread is relevant, you will find that you are incorrect.
 
2014-01-06 03:47:39 PM  

gimmegimme: Are you aware of the recent spate of rape accusations lobbed about by Myers and the FTB crowd?  I'm sure we both think rape is a serious crime that should be handled by the authorities...FTB doesn't.

How many times must Watson cry wolf before we stop seeing her as the perpetual victim?  She pushed for sexual harassment/language policies at cons, and then proceeded to give a talk that violated the policy. (In which she, ironically, ridiculed her Mormon boyfriend for his discomfort with some of the sexual practices she kept pushing him to do.)

Do you know what they did to Justin Vacula?  All the poor guy wanted to do was to attend Women in Secularism 2 (a conference dedicated to women's issues...I suppose I'm waiting for Men in Secularism 1).  The FTBullies demanded extra security and whined that they didn't feel safe even though they had no reason to believe he was a problem.  Funny postscript: some of them later ridiculed him for being anti-social and for not talking to them...even though they lobbed such horrible labels at them.

When Watson got kicked out of a conference for using her free table as a dealer table...misogyny.
When people point out the FTB user who admitted to a very serious crime on their site, only to receive affection that was ironic in the context of the accusations fiasco...misogyny.
When someone Storified their public tweets...misogyny.
When PZ Myers repeatedly made sexual comments to a young woman he didn't know during a conference presentation...misogy---oh, wait.  That was not misogyny.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could have this free and open exchange of thoughts on Freethought Blogs or on Atheism Plus?  Sadly, it doesn't work that way.  Freeze Peach and all that, donchaknow.


The Atheism+ forum rules are definitely over the top and clearly reactionary, but possibly for a good reason.  Not all forums need to be equal, and there are plenty of forums out there which do not restrict posting the way Atheism+ does.  I personally do not think I will find it difficult to follow their rules.

As for the rest of the above mess, well that's a whole different set of issues beyond Elevatorgate itself.  People have taken sides and drawn lines, and forgotten both manners and decency.  For the most part, I've been ignoring that whole mess.
 
2014-01-06 03:56:09 PM  

wingedkat: The Atheism+ forum rules are definitely over the top and clearly reactionary, but possibly for a good reason. Not all forums need to be equal, and there are plenty of forums out there which do not restrict posting the way Atheism+ does. I personally do not think I will find it difficult to follow their rules.


Be careful, friend.  Try not to use a pronoun until you have asked which one ze, cie, quey, phie or zhey prefer.

I do agree that people have drawn lines, but it's a false dichotomy to say that both sides are equally bad.  One side is lobbing unfounded hearsay rape accusations around...the other one wants to deal with secular issues, etc.
 
2014-01-06 04:02:20 PM  

s2s2s2: gimmegimme: As Hitchens points out, religion makes otherwise decent people do terrible things.

No it doesn't. Mental illness does. Now, you can say that someone who is religious has a mental illness, but scientifically speaking, the mental illness allows for the religion, not the other way around. That dude has no religious basis for his bombing a building. He may have had a political one.

That dude wasn't "otherwise decent".


McVeigh wasn't crazy. He knew what he was doing, why he was doing it, and what it was supposed to accomplish. And it even accomplished his goals! He knew it was going to lead to his arrest and execution. He didn't even try to hide.
 
2014-01-06 04:05:07 PM  
It looks like the Sunday Assembly has split into high-church and low-church atheism.  The high-church atheists lecture on quantum mechanics and have established an order of succession (i.e. franchising).  They have presented a Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral that prescribes as little as possible.  They even offer tea and cake.

The low-church atheists want to go into dive bars and insist on a Reformed, purified antitheology.

It looks like we have a bunch of atheists trying to play Anglican.
 
2014-01-06 04:06:48 PM  
A comedy show doesn't turn into a religion just because the comedian calls it a religion.
 
2014-01-06 04:10:16 PM  

This text is now purple: McVeigh wasn't crazy. He knew what he was doing, why he was doing it, and what it was supposed to accomplish. And it even accomplished his goals! He knew it was going to lead to his arrest and execution. He didn't even try to hide.


Not sure if you are aware of the latest science on this, but a person can be mentally ill without being crazy(aka unfit to stand trial).
 
2014-01-06 04:11:38 PM  

JuggleGeek: A comedy show doesn't turn into a religion just because the comedian calls it a religion.


A religion doesn't become a comedy show, just because a bunch of atheists call it a comedy show?
 
2014-01-06 04:16:35 PM  

s2s2s2: It is simply not believing in a supernatural entity(seems far fetched, and presumptive, but whatever).


Requiring evidence before accepting claims is "fetched, and presumptive"?? Keep repeating it ... someday someone will buy this load of crap.

That said, there are lots of religious people making "no god" their god, out there.

[citation needed] - please show someone out there that ascribes the properties of a god to a lack of gods.

Your statement is in fact an idiotic sentiment ... another pathetic and dishonest attempt to frame the lack of belief in something as something else so you can attack it. "No Bigfoot" is not my god. "No unicorn" is not my god. "No god" is not my god.

Now that they are forming churches, they can be called a religion(it's part of their own reasoning for doing so).

A tiny percentage of atheists are forming "churches". And even though some of this tiny group is calling them churches, there is still nothing religious about these gatherings. You continue to be dishonest when you insist there is.

I'm sorry the mean atheists have betrayed you.

There is no betrayal here. It is simply a case of you repeating religious talking points (even though you claim to be non-religious) and your arguments getting decimated.
 
2014-01-06 04:26:26 PM  

SPLITTERS!


www.prosourcerentall.com
 
2014-01-06 04:35:59 PM  

s2s2s2: Epicedion: s2s2s2: If you go to the bar, every Wednesday night, and treat it with a high level of respect, bordering on reverence, then yes. That would be religious practice. The word religion means "to bind", or "obligation". If you think we should use the original meaning of the word religion, and you think science is super important....guess what you have.

You've now classified anything that anyone holds in high regard and/or does regularly as "religion." School is religion, daily walks in the park are religion, and picking up your kid from daycare is a religion. Is there anything that's not a religion?

Incorrect. Colloquialism and the changing nature of language have removed the notion of those things as religious. The word religion can accurately be applied to any binding or obligatory practice. If you do not like this,that is not my problem, but you are rejecting objective fact.

The fact that people get their panties in a twist over this fact is further proof that they revere their status as atheists, and therefore are religious.


False equivalency, or equivocation fallacy.

I get on fark religiously. =\= Fark is a religious experience.

One of the devout's favorite fallacies.  Mince words when you're on the losing end of an argument.

In a thread about religion, colloquial usage does not apply, trying to include that definition of "religious" is intellectually dishonest, muddying the waters so to speak.  The thread, in context has a definitive lexicon, a technical language if you will.

Yeah, my smart guy cred is the one that's being flouted here.

You're in over your head, Junior.
 
2014-01-06 05:10:38 PM  

Farking Canuck: citation needed] - please show someone out there that ascribes the properties of a god to a lack of gods.


Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order... This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" -Einstein

Farking Canuck: Requiring evidence before accepting claims


Then the statement that there is no god is likewise idiotic. It is made by more than a few atheist. It is the loudest voice, because those that simply don't care, don't talk about it much.

Farking Canuck: A tiny percentage of atheists are forming "churches". And even though some of this tiny group is calling them churches, there is still nothing religious about these gatherings.


So long as we don't look too closely at the meaning of the word "religious", sure.

Farking Canuck: There is no betrayal here. It is simply a case of you repeating religious talking points (even though you claim to be non-religious) and your arguments getting decimated.


You never win at "spot the sarcasm" do you? No one has decimated my arguments. People have flailed wildly avoiding actually answering my points, appealing to the ever changing meaning of words so they can cherry pick a definition that suits them, and making statements like "Then everything is religious". Utterly ridiculous and moronic.

omeganuepsilon: I get on fark religiously. =\= Fark is a religious experience.


I didn't say that doing something religiously was a "religious experience" I said it was a religious practice. If you state that you get on fark religiously, then you have used the word correctly, and admitted to religious practice.

omeganuepsilon: You're in over your head, Junior.


The bottom of my toes aren't even damp.

Stop confusing the word "religious" with the word "spiritual".
 
2014-01-06 05:34:46 PM  

Felgraf: Son of Thunder: Felgraf: "It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things."
― Jingo

By the power vested in me as a psychology professor, I hereby award Terry Pratchett an honorary PhD in Social Psychology.  That was beautiful.

Oh man, seriously, if you haven't read his books, I highly reccomend them. They're like the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy for fantasy fantasy (But there's... a *lot* more of them). I also reccomend looking up/reading his speech to the House of Lords where he argues for the legalization of assisted suicide (He has/has been diagnosed with early onset alzheimers, and as part of his argument:

"Now, however, I live in hope - hope that before the disease in my brain finally wipes it clean, I can jump before I am pushed and drag my evil Nemesis to its doom, like Sherlock Holmes and Moriarty locked in combat as they go over the waterfall.
In any case, such thinking bestows a wonderful feeling of power; the enemy might win but it won't triumph. "


I have read several (all Night Watch books, so far; I'm currently deciding whether to get into the Rincewind or Death books next), and I love his writing.  I was crushed to hear of his diagnosis.  My grandmother was a university professor, and Alzheimer's is how she went out.  I wouldn't wish that end on anyone, but there's something even more tragic when it strikes someone whose lifeblood is their intellect.
 
2014-01-06 05:59:25 PM  

Son of Thunder: Felgraf: Son of Thunder: Felgraf: "It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things."
― Jingo

By the power vested in me as a psychology professor, I hereby award Terry Pratchett an honorary PhD in Social Psychology.  That was beautiful.

Oh man, seriously, if you haven't read his books, I highly reccomend them. They're like the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy for fantasy fantasy (But there's... a *lot* more of them). I also reccomend looking up/reading his speech to the House of Lords where he argues for the legalization of assisted suicide (He has/has been diagnosed with early onset alzheimers, and as part of his argument:

"Now, however, I live in hope - hope that before the disease in my brain finally wipes it clean, I can jump before I am pushed and drag my evil Nemesis to its doom, like Sherlock Holmes and Moriarty locked in combat as they go over the waterfall.
In any case, such thinking bestows a wonderful feeling of power; the enemy might win but it won't triumph. "

I have read several (all Night Watch books, so far; I'm currently deciding whether to get into the Rincewind or Death books next), and I love his writing.  I was crushed to hear of his diagnosis.  My grandmother was a university professor, and Alzheimer's is how she went out.  I wouldn't wish that end on anyone, but there's something even more tragic when it strikes someone whose lifeblood is their intellect.


Oh damn you read what are IMO the best of his books first.  My favorite is Night Watch, smart, soulful, sad uplifting, hilarious, it's the perfect novel. None of the books are bad in fact all of them are great but some of the books are outstandingly good.  Unfortunately none of the books featuring Rincewind are as good as the others.  He just isn't as likable as most of the secondary characters from other books let alone his own stories.  I'd rather see stand alone stories featuring Ponder Stibbons, or Cohen the Barbarian than him.
 
2014-01-06 05:59:34 PM  

s2s2s2:
Then the statement that there is no god is likewise idiotic. It is made by more than a few atheist. It is the loudest voice, because those that simply don't care, don't talk about it much.

That's going to require some evidence. Going by popular writing, there are remarkably few atheists who would make the claim that gods certainly don't exist.

s2s2s2: So long as we don't look too closely at the meaning of the word "religious", sure.


At one meaning. A metaphorical meaning. If you say "the clouds are marshmallow puffs" that doesn't mean  the clouds are actually puffs of marshmallow. You went off the rails awhile back, and instead of backing up and trying again you've just changed your destination to fit your circumstances.

s2s2s2: You never win at "spot the sarcasm" do you? No one has decimated my arguments. People have flailed wildly avoiding actually answering my points, appealing to the ever changing meaning of words so they can cherry pick a definition that suits them, and making statements like "Then everything is religious". Utterly ridiculous and moronic.


You're the one who agreed that the universe is religion (and of course denied the consequences). Likewise, you continue failing at making sense, while insisting that, instead, everyone else is failing to understand you. This is not an effective means of communication.

s2s2s2: I didn't say that doing something religiously was a "religious experience" I said it was a religious practice. If you state that you get on fark religiously, then you have used the word correctly, and admitted to religious practice.


Again, that's a metaphorical use of "religiously." If I said "you are a brain-dead dim bulb," I obviously  don't mean that you're the corpse of a failing light bulb. In this case, "religiously" does not mean "of or pertaining to religious practice" but instead "in a devoted manner, reminiscent of the manner of a religious practitioner."

See, you go to church  religiously, because that's a requirement of belonging to the religion. You go to the pub religiously, because you like beer.

s2s2s2: Stop confusing the word "religious" with the word "spiritual".


This, of course, is the meat of things. Just what do you mean by "spiritual," exactly?
 
2014-01-06 06:08:33 PM  

s2s2s2: If you state that you get on fark religiously, then you have used the word correctly, and admitted to religious practice.


No.  English, how the fark does it work?
1.bp.blogspot.com

Now that we've identified the fact that you're refusing reality, the only question that remains is; Are you mentally unstable or just a pathetic troll.

/reality being that you're making an equivocation fallacy.
//seriously, look it up and see why you're not making a good argument at all

s2s2s2: omeganuepsilon: You're in over your head, Junior.

The bottom of my toes aren't even damp.


Only because you went in head first.
 
2014-01-06 06:18:31 PM  

IlGreven: hardinparamedic: log_jammin: long story short, you're either with them or you're a misogynis

Sounds like the opposite of Men's Rights Activists. Either you agree blanket with them, or you're a man-hating misandrist or something.

I've never met such a Men's Rights Activist.  I have, however, met plenty of Feminists who say they have met such a Men's Rights Activist.


Here. Now you can't repeat this lie anymore, since you've used it multiple times..
 
2014-01-06 06:20:59 PM  

hardinparamedic: IlGreven: hardinparamedic: log_jammin: long story short, you're either with them or you're a misogynis

Sounds like the opposite of Men's Rights Activists. Either you agree blanket with them, or you're a man-hating misandrist or something.

I've never met such a Men's Rights Activist.  I have, however, met plenty of Feminists who say they have met such a Men's Rights Activist.

Here. Now you can't repeat this lie anymore, since you've used it multiple times..


I just think it's crazy that some people believe men should have rights and should engage in activism to preserve or attain those rights.
 
2014-01-06 06:29:00 PM  

gimmegimme: I just think it's crazy that some people believe men should have rights and should engage in activism to preserve or attain those rights.


Yeah. That's not what it's about. The Men's Rights Movement is like any group which calls its' self a "Family" activism group or any country which has "People's Republic" in it. They're not concerned with the "rights of men", but rather furthering the idea that men are oppressed by their fellow men as a reactionary persecution complex knee-jerk to feminism.

They also want to paint any idea of feminism in general, such as wage equality and women's health as "RadFem".

Among their greatest hits is the idea that most women who are abused are done so out of self-defense because they attack the man first, and that most women who are raped are lying about it.
 
2014-01-06 06:32:59 PM  

s2s2s2: This text is now purple: McVeigh wasn't crazy. He knew what he was doing, why he was doing it, and what it was supposed to accomplish. And it even accomplished his goals! He knew it was going to lead to his arrest and execution. He didn't even try to hide.

Not sure if you are aware of the latest science on this, but a person can be mentally ill without being crazy(aka unfit to stand trial).


Other than you don't like his actions, why do you assume McVeigh was mentally ill?

Or is it just because mental illness is a convenient boogie man with no real objective criteria than still contains enough social stigma such that you can use it to effectively slander your opponents?
 
2014-01-06 06:33:09 PM  

IlGreven: grumpfuff: Jim_Callahan: And some of the freemason lodges are going on two or three centuries old now... so, historically, the answer is also yes.

Freemasons are not, as an organization, atheist. Individual members might be, but shouldn't be. Believing in a higher power is a requirement for joining.

One can believe in a higher power without believing in a religion. That's basically what quite a few of the founding fathers were.  It's not atheism, of course, but the deist founding fathers carried a lot of the same feelings about organized religion.


That was kinda my point. Freemasons(except the splinter branches linked up thread, as I learned) are theist, not atheist.
 
2014-01-06 06:41:00 PM  
s2s2s2: Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order... This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" -Einstein

Einstein explicitly denied being an atheist. You cannot use a quote from him to represent atheism. Nice try though.

s2s2s2: Then the statement that there is no god is likewise idiotic. It is made by more than a few atheist. It is the loudest voice, because those that simply don't care, don't talk about it much.

The vast majority of atheists do not make the claim of absolute knowledge of the non-existence of gods. It is an illogical position. The religious like to dishonestly claim that this is the position of atheists when, in reality, the vast majority of atheists simply take the position that there is no god based on the available evidence.

You can continue arguing against what an infinitesimally small fraction of atheists believe or you can take the intellectually honest position of arguing what the people you are actually arguing with believe. The vast majority of theists choose the former because it is much easier and, in my experience, they have little concern with being honest when they are arguing in the name of gawd.

s2s2s2: So long as we don't look too closely at the meaning of the word "religious", sure.

You are the one who has decided to stretch the meaning of religious to include people who chose not to accept the claims of the religious. Where do you get off complaining when others do the same??

And sticking your fingers in your ears and running around screaming "I'm still winning" is great for convincing yourself. The rest of us not so much.
 
2014-01-06 06:41:38 PM  

Son of Thunder: I have read several (all Night Watch books, so far; I'm currently deciding whether to get into the Rincewind or Death books next), and I love his writing. I was crushed to hear of his diagnosis. My grandmother was a university professor, and Alzheimer's is how she went out. I wouldn't wish that end on anyone, but there's something even more tragic when it strikes someone whose lifeblood is their intellect.


The first couple rincewind books are kinda weak-They're more 'parody of fantasy tropes' than his later works are. (Which is why I get people started with either the Watch books, or one-off's like Small Gods).

I really, REALLY liked Reaper Man (second death book), so I can reccomend that.

I'd probably reccomend the Witches over Rincewind, though. (Carpe Jugulum's how I kinda became aware of that liiittllleee voice in the back of my head. The one that tells you how easy it would be to destroy someone emotionally, or manipulate people, etc, the voice that's a part of you but you sometimes wish wasn't.)  Plus it's got one of the best definitions of sin/evil I've ever seen. ("There's no grays, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised you don't know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That's what sin is." )

Note that I do not consider "Equal Rites" part of the Witches series, since... it.. kinda doesn't fit anywhere in the discworld timeline *anyways*. I consider Wyrd Sisters the first 'Witches' book.
 
2014-01-06 06:45:25 PM  

This text is now purple: s2s2s2: This text is now purple: McVeigh wasn't crazy. He knew what he was doing, why he was doing it, and what it was supposed to accomplish. And it even accomplished his goals! He knew it was going to lead to his arrest and execution. He didn't even try to hide.

Not sure if you are aware of the latest science on this, but a person can be mentally ill without being crazy(aka unfit to stand trial).

Other than you don't like his actions, why do you assume McVeigh was mentally ill?

Or is it just because mental illness is a convenient boogie man with no real objective criteria than still contains enough social stigma such that you can use it to effectively slander your opponents?


Were his actions sane? I think not.
 
2014-01-06 06:49:39 PM  

Farking Canuck: s2s2s2: Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order... This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" -Einstein

Einstein explicitly denied being an atheist. You cannot use a quote from him to represent atheism. Nice try though.

s2s2s2: Then the statement that there is no god is likewise idiotic. It is made by more than a few atheist. It is the loudest voice, because those that simply don't care, don't talk about it much.

The vast majority of atheists do not make the claim of absolute knowledge of the non-existence of gods. It is an illogical position. The religious like to dishonestly claim that this is the position of atheists when, in reality, the vast majority of atheists simply take the position that there is no god based on the available evidence.

You can continue arguing against what an infinitesimally small fraction of atheists believe or you can take the intellectually honest position of arguing what the people you are actually arguing with believe. The vast majority of theists choose the former because it is much easier and, in my experience, they have little concern with being honest when they are arguing in the name of gawd.

s2s2s2: So long as we don't look too closely at the meaning of the word "religious", sure.

You are the one who has decided to stretch the meaning of religious to include people who chose not to accept the claims of the religious. Where do you get off complaining when others do the same??

And sticking your fingers in your ears and running around screaming "I'm still winning" is great for convincing yourself. The rest of us not so much.


I didn't stretch anything. I narrowed my target down early on. I said some atheist are religious in their fervor.
And that because of them atheism is a religion. I don't think it is, to you. But what it is to you, isn't the be all end all. You(and others) have had to mischaracterize my position to claim I'm losing. That is failure.
 
2014-01-06 06:52:22 PM  
All this thread tell us is that atheists are at least as big a bunch of w*nkers as the religious mob.

Oh, and have an equally poor understanding of what 'science' is.
 
2014-01-06 06:52:46 PM  

hardinparamedic: gimmegimme: I just think it's crazy that some people believe men should have rights and should engage in activism to preserve or attain those rights.

Yeah. That's not what it's about. The Men's Rights Movement is like any group which calls its' self a "Family" activism group or any country which has "People's Republic" in it. They're not concerned with the "rights of men", but rather furthering the idea that men are oppressed by their fellow men as a reactionary persecution complex knee-jerk to feminism.

They also want to paint any idea of feminism in general, such as wage equality and women's health as "RadFem".

Among their greatest hits is the idea that most women who are abused are done so out of self-defense because they attack the man first, and that most women who are raped are lying about it.


Wow, those are extreme strawmen.

I'm sorry.  Strawpyrsyns.
 
2014-01-06 06:53:12 PM  
Y'all can't not follow dogma worth a fark.
 
2014-01-06 06:54:43 PM  
Oh, look is a fat fedora defending MRAs?

WHAT A SURPRISE.
 
2014-01-06 06:55:14 PM  

omeganuepsilon: s2s2s2: If you state that you get on fark religiously, then you have used the word correctly, and admitted to religious practice.

No.  English, how the fark does it work?


Now that we've identified the fact that you're refusing reality, the only question that remains is; Are you mentally unstable or just a pathetic troll.

/reality being that you're making an equivocation fallacy.
//seriously, look it up and see why you're not making a good argument at all

s2s2s2: omeganuepsilon: You're in over your head, Junior.

The bottom of my toes aren't even damp.

Only because you went in head first.


Using a definition that fits, and showing that it fits isn't equivocation, just because you respond using a different definition. I haven't claimed atheist believe in god. I did say they have something in the place of a god, and even called it "their deity" if you failed to grasp that was word play, your bad.
 
2014-01-06 06:56:23 PM  

s2s2s2: I didn't stretch anything. I narrowed my target down early on. I said some atheist are religious in their fervor.


Do you have a beeper or something for when you backpedal like this? Safety first!
 
2014-01-06 07:03:37 PM  

gimmegimme: Wow, those are extreme strawmen.

I'm sorry.  Strawpyrsyns.


I'm sorry, you don't seem to know the definition of a strawman. Hint: When a citation is provided to their own words, it's not a strawman.

You also seem to be engaging in the Fallacist's Fallacy to dismiss an argument inconvenient to your world view.
 
2014-01-06 07:30:12 PM  

hardinparamedic: gimmegimme: Wow, those are extreme strawmen.

I'm sorry.  Strawpyrsyns.

I'm sorry, you don't seem to know the definition of a strawman. Hint: When a citation is provided to their own words, it's not a strawman.

You also seem to be engaging in the Fallacist's Fallacy to dismiss an argument inconvenient to your world view.


You seem to think that A Voice For Men represents all people who want equal rights and protection for everyone, regardless of gender identification.

You can't understand what men go through; these constant microaggressions just prove to many of us that we live in a culture that doesn't think we matter.  Pop culture, the criminal justice system...it's a problem that some people just won't allow themselves to be educated about.
 
2014-01-06 07:34:35 PM  

Farking Canuck: Do you have a beeper or something for when you backpedal like this?


This is my breasteses on the subject, in this thread:

s2s2s2: You may not be a religious atheist, but plenty are. Just like someone can believe in god and not be religious, someone can not believe in god, and be religious.

Atheism is a religion, because some atheists practice it like one.

Convincing someone of anything that has no proof is brainwashing


Back it up, Canuck!
 
2014-01-06 07:34:57 PM  

ciberido: Ker_Thwap: I learned long ago that it's pointless to use logic and debating techniques in any kind of faith based discussion.  If a person is going to make the leap of faith to believe in a god, then they're going to use the same thought process to disagree with anyone who doesn't hold their beliefs.

If you actually believe that it's clear you need to read more books or take a class in history.  Anything to reliever such terrible ignorance.   Doubt: A History by Jennifer Hecht might be a good start.



I'm wondering if you've read the book yourself.  From the jacket description, it seems to me that these great minds are doubters and skeptics, which seems to jibe well with my statement.  Anyway, I'm not saying faith based believers aren't capable of logic and debate on any other given topic.  But if they're always going to fall back on faith, then it's pointless, by the very definition of faith.
 
2014-01-06 07:57:07 PM  

s2s2s2: some atheist are religious in their fervor.


Let's break this sentence down to it's components.  Some atheists are fervent.  So, they have a passionate intensity.  Sure, that seems reasonable.  Some do.

You just confuse the issue when you use the word religious in that sentence.   All your saying is that some religious people are fervent and some atheists are fervent.  Some atheists and some religious people are fervent about spreading opposite opinions.   You're just abusing the word religion in your statement.

You may as well state that some atheists are religious about eating every day.  It makes just as much sense to your conclusion of "And that because of them atheism is a religion ."
 
2014-01-06 08:13:14 PM  

s2s2s2: Back it up, Canuck!


s2s2s2: And atheism is a religion.


I don't see "some atheists are religious" there. I see the grand encompassing catch-all of "atheism". That is, all people who do not have a god. All of us. No exclusions there. (you see where I'm going with this?).

You realize we can look back at all your posts right?
 
2014-01-06 08:32:11 PM  

s2s2s2: omeganuepsilon: s2s2s2: If you state that you get on fark religiously, then you have used the word correctly, and admitted to religious practice.

No.  English, how the fark does it work?


Now that we've identified the fact that you're refusing reality, the only question that remains is; Are you mentally unstable or just a pathetic troll.

/reality being that you're making an equivocation fallacy.
//seriously, look it up and see why you're not making a good argument at all

s2s2s2: omeganuepsilon: You're in over your head, Junior.

The bottom of my toes aren't even damp.

Only because you went in head first.

Using a definition that fits, and showing that it fits isn't equivocation,


It is when you go on to conflate it to another definition of religious.  habitual =\= ritual

Here's Merriam Webster's version:

1. of or relating to religion
2. believing in a god or a group of gods and following the rules of a religion
3. very careful to do something whenever it can or should be done

Now, equivocation as a fallacy:
Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

I say "3" and you say, "Of course, 1!"
/refer to the MW excerpt above if you still don't get it
//if you're still having problems, google "define religious practice"

Textbook equivocation fallacy.

Personally, I don't care if other people will decide to argue with you further or just ignore the fark out of you, but you might want to consider that if you care about your image whatsoever.  You are not fooling anyone....unless...

anongallery.org

/congrats retard
//now, seriously, fark off
 
2014-01-06 08:36:46 PM  

Ker_Thwap: You're just abusing the word religion in your statement.


+1
He's a one trick pony this thread.
 
2014-01-06 08:37:15 PM  

gimmegimme: You seem to think that A Voice For Men represents all people who want equal rights and protection for everyone, regardless of gender identification.

You can't understand what men go through; these constant microaggressions just prove to many of us that we live in a culture that doesn't think we matter.  Pop culture, the criminal justice system...it's a problem that some people just won't allow themselves to be educated about.


Keep telling yourself that.

You seem to have this fantasy world where you equate anyone who wants divorce/family court reform MUST BE associated with the "MRA" movement, and pretending that people want others to think "you don't matter" because of your gender - which is an insane persecution complex delusion. I don't oppose MRA because I don't "want to be educated". I oppose MRA because it's a group of idiots who use the cry of MAH RIGHTS to vindicate and venerate rape, act like a flippant asshole to women and not be called out, and because these are people who actually justify feminism with their actions.

See, here's the thing. I acknowledge that there is gender bias in certain things. I acknowledge that the legal system should be changed to reflect the movement from traditional parental units to single fathers and mothers.  I don't, however, justify this with blatant lies, chauvinistic chest beating moral panics about what a "real man" is, or scapegoating of women.

MRA doesn't speak for men, and it doesn't speak for rights. It's just another reactionary "traditional values" bit of knee-jerk BS.
 
2014-01-06 09:24:12 PM  
Ok ok, it's not a religion.

It's a cult.
 
2014-01-06 09:54:09 PM  

omeganuepsilon: s2s2s2: omeganuepsilon: s2s2s2: If you state that you get on fark religiously, then you have used the word correctly, and admitted to religious practice.

No.  English, how the fark does it work?


Now that we've identified the fact that you're refusing reality, the only question that remains is; Are you mentally unstable or just a pathetic troll.

/reality being that you're making an equivocation fallacy.
//seriously, look it up and see why you're not making a good argument at all

s2s2s2: omeganuepsilon: You're in over your head, Junior.

The bottom of my toes aren't even damp.

Only because you went in head first.

Using a definition that fits, and showing that it fits isn't equivocation,

It is when you go on to conflate it to another definition of religious.  habitual =\= ritual

Here's Merriam Webster's version:

1. of or relating to religion
2. believing in a god or a group of gods and following the rules of a religion
3. very careful to do something whenever it can or should be done

Now, equivocation as a fallacy:
Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

I say "3" and you say, "Of course, 1!"
/refer to the MW excerpt above if you still don't get it
//if you're still having problems, google "define religious practice"

Textbook equivocation fallacy.

Personally, I don't care if other people will decide to argue with you further or just ignore the fark out of you, but you might want to consider that if you care about your image whatsoever.  You are not fooling anyone....unless...



/congrats retard
//now, seriously, fark off


So since you claim I am arguing something I'm not arguing, I am equivocating. Now you are using bigoted epithets? Sad, dude.

Lash out!
 
2014-01-06 09:57:43 PM  

lordjupiter: Ok ok, it's not a religion.

It's a cult.


I belong to a religion. It has codified beliefs (dogma), rites and traditions. I have seen no evidence that atheists have any of that. So, not a religion.
 
2014-01-06 09:58:20 PM  

Farking Canuck: s2s2s2: Back it up, Canuck!

s2s2s2: And atheism is a religion.

I don't see "some atheists are religious" there. I see the grand encompassing catch-all of "atheism". That is, all people who do not have a god. All of us. No exclusions there. (you see where I'm going with this?).

You realize we can look back at all your posts right?


I laid out what I meant by that the first time I said it. Your failure to keep that in mind is just that; your failure.

Like Snoop said to that reporter, when asked about using the word "biatch". "Are you a biatch?"
Reporter: "no"
Snoop: "then I ain't talking about you."
 
2014-01-06 10:07:07 PM  

Ker_Thwap: s2s2s2: some atheist are religious in their fervor.

Let's break this sentence down to it's components.  Some atheists are fervent.  So, they have a passionate intensity.  Sure, that seems reasonable.  Some do.

You just confuse the issue when you use the word religious in that sentence.   All your saying is that some religious people are fervent and some atheists are fervent.  Some atheists and some religious people are fervent about spreading opposite opinions.   You're just abusing the word religion in your statement.

You may as well state that some atheists are religious about eating every day.  It makes just as much sense to your conclusion of "And that because of them atheism is a religion ."


Some very public atheist feel that it is imperative that "religion" be stamped out. I tend to agree, but I don't make a fuss about it. If you feel moral obligation to promote atheism, that can accurately be described as your religion. Belief in god does not make someone religious, nor does lacking belief.

But when people bring disbelief into the realm if moral duty, they make it a religion, by definition.

Demanding that I stop at an earlier definition, which isn't the original definition, doesn't make it less true. I know atheists do not have a super being, that doesn't disqualify them from having a religion.
 
2014-01-06 10:08:33 PM  

s2s2s2: I laid out what I meant by that the first time I said it. Your failure to keep that in mind is just that; your failure.


Beep ... beep ... beep ... beep ...
 
2014-01-06 10:12:20 PM  

s2s2s2: Some very public atheist feel that it is imperative that "religion" be stamped out. I tend to agree, but I don't make a fuss about it. If you feel moral obligation to promote atheism, that can accurately be described as your religion. Belief in god does not make someone religious, nor does lacking belief.


Said people are called anti-theists. Most atheists I have met aren't.
 
2014-01-06 10:14:31 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Ker_Thwap: You're just abusing the word religion in your statement.

+1
He's a one trick pony this thread.


Yet no one has been able to do m
 
2014-01-06 10:18:05 PM  

s2s2s2: omeganuepsilon: Ker_Thwap: You're just abusing the word religion in your statement.

+1
He's a one trick pony this thread.

Yet no one has been able to do m


What is this m of which you post?
 
2014-01-06 10:20:39 PM  

s2s2s2: Ker_Thwap: s2s2s2: some atheist are religious in their fervor.

Let's break this sentence down to it's components.  Some atheists are fervent.  So, they have a passionate intensity.  Sure, that seems reasonable.  Some do.

You just confuse the issue when you use the word religious in that sentence.   All your saying is that some religious people are fervent and some atheists are fervent.  Some atheists and some religious people are fervent about spreading opposite opinions.   You're just abusing the word religion in your statement.

You may as well state that some atheists are religious about eating every day.  It makes just as much sense to your conclusion of "And that because of them atheism is a religion ."

Some very public atheist feel that it is imperative that "religion" be stamped out. I tend to agree, but I don't make a fuss about it. If you feel moral obligation to promote atheism, that can accurately be described as your religion. Belief in god does not make someone religious, nor does lacking belief.

But when people bring disbelief into the realm if moral duty, they make it a religion, by definition.

Demanding that I stop at an earlier definition, which isn't the original definition, doesn't make it less true. I know atheists do not have a super being, that doesn't disqualify them from having a religion.


I demanded nothing  I just pointed out your statement was logically flawed, and that based on what YOU said you came to a goofballs conclusion.  If you want to say some atheists are smug, I'll agree with you.  If you're trying to convince us that you have your very own personal definition of "religious" well that's just special for you.

No no and no.  I don't care what you meant to say.  What you said was goofballs, just admit it and move on.  Or don't, I don't care.
 
2014-01-06 10:21:14 PM  

s2s2s2: It is simply not believing in a supernatural entity(seems far fetched, and presumptive, but whatever).


Oh, you can't just "whatever" that one. Do go on.
 
2014-01-06 10:23:37 PM  
...y argument any harm.

I'm trying to demystify the word religion. It became associated almost exclusively with theists, because people are stupid, and forgot what it actually means. If atheists(apparently what the cool agnostics call themselves, because they don't like accuracy, either) would stop panicking when this claim is made, you might stop looking like children claiming victim status.

I have not once stated that atheist have spiritual belief. I haven't conflated a farking thing. There is no equivocation in my argument, when every time someone has taken issue with my use of the word, I have provided the same rationale. Pointing to the definition I have specified that I am NOT using as if I am...that's equivocating, and therefore failing.
 
2014-01-06 10:39:30 PM  

s2s2s2: ...y argument any harm.

I'm trying to demystify the word religion. It became associated almost exclusively with theists, because people are stupid, and forgot what it actually means. If atheists(apparently what the cool agnostics call themselves, because they don't like accuracy, either) would stop panicking when this claim is made, you might stop looking like children claiming victim status.

I have not once stated that atheist have spiritual belief. I haven't conflated a farking thing. There is no equivocation in my argument, when every time someone has taken issue with my use of the word, I have provided the same rationale. Pointing to the definition I have specified that I am NOT using as if I am...that's equivocating, and therefore failing.


So, basically your arguing that some atheists are very careful to do something whenever it can or should be done?  Holy farking crap, that's genius.  So, you're saying nothing at all that's even remotely pertinent to this discussion.  No one is panicking like a child, we're just pointing out your woeful grasp of language and logic.  You've entirely wasted the adults' time.
 
2014-01-06 10:41:05 PM  

Confabulat: hardinparamedic: Given the way the areligious and non-Christians have been treated in the United States ever since McCarthy launched his witch hunts, and even before, I think they have every right to be assholes if they choose to do so.

That's not true. I've been an atheist my whole life and that gives me no excuse to be an asshole. I do that all on my own.



This.  I'm 63 and have been a atheist since my early teens and I've never had a problem being one.  Assholes have problems, not atheists.
 
2014-01-06 10:46:35 PM  

Ker_Thwap: s2s2s2: ...y argument any harm.

I'm trying to demystify the word religion. It became associated almost exclusively with theists, because people are stupid, and forgot what it actually means. If atheists(apparently what the cool agnostics call themselves, because they don't like accuracy, either) would stop panicking when this claim is made, you might stop looking like children claiming victim status.

I have not once stated that atheist have spiritual belief. I haven't conflated a farking thing. There is no equivocation in my argument, when every time someone has taken issue with my use of the word, I have provided the same rationale. Pointing to the definition I have specified that I am NOT using as if I am...that's equivocating, and therefore failing.

So, basically your arguing that some atheists are very careful to do something whenever it can or should be done?  Holy farking crap, that's genius.  So, you're saying nothing at all that's even remotely pertinent to this discussion.  No one is panicking like a child, we're just pointing out your woeful grasp of language and logic.  You've entirely wasted the adults' time.


This is a discussion about an atheist church. It isn't the first. It won't be the last. I'd say when atheists are founding assemblies called "church" the relevance of the word "religion" is pretty damned pertinent to This discussion.

My grasp of language is quite firm. A lot of people have failed to loosen it.

No one can waste your time for you.
 
2014-01-06 10:49:09 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: s2s2s2: It is simply not believing in a supernatural entity(seems far fetched, and presumptive, but whatever).

Oh, you can't just "whatever" that one. Do go on.


I was typing on a phone while getting takeout. I'm n
 
2014-01-06 10:51:20 PM  

s2s2s2: My grasp of language is quite firm. A lot of people have failed to loosen it.


You're Ken M from College Humor, aren't you.
 
2014-01-06 10:51:58 PM  
...ot standing by that one.

Damn I hate typing in this phone.

WHERE IS MY GOD NOW?!?!

Anywho. There is no way atheists are starting churches, and reasonably expecting to avoid assotiation with "religion". Take it up with them.
 
2014-01-06 10:55:41 PM  
all religions, even non-religions and flawed, because men are flawed.
 
2014-01-06 11:01:53 PM  

Ker_Thwap: s2s2s2: My grasp of language is quite firm. A lot of people have failed to loosen it.

You're Ken M from College Humor, aren't you.


If I knew who he was, I promise i'd think that was funny.

Look, I'm not trying to piss people off, and I'm not saying atheists are the same as xtians. I have specifically said they aren't. I'm saying there are a lot of atheists who have filled a religion sized hole with a godless religion. I don't think that's a bad thing. Like minded people should assemble. I'm sure they try to do good things with it.

I have said a lot of atheists fear association with the word. Have any of you shown how I'm wrong, yet?
 
2014-01-06 11:15:41 PM  

s2s2s2: ...ot standing by that one.

Damn I hate typing in this phone.

WHERE IS MY GOD NOW?!?!

Anywho. There is no way atheists are starting churches, and reasonably expecting to avoid assotiation with "religion". Take it up with them.


I don't get it either. It's not a religion, but when some folks want some sort of ritual or some such, it feels a bit culty. If you want a sense of community, get involved in it. I went to church for years as a kid, and we went in, did the mass, peace be with you, and left. Never said a farking word to anyone. Few knew each other. It wasn't a damn town hall. It was top-down leadership: listen to the guy up front. Parrot like a parrot. Baaa when told to. I mostly went because my mother would bribe me with McD breakfasts, and I checked out the girls. At no point did I get a sense of community. That's NYC, so not a great comparison perhaps. But I also would spend summers in Missouri. Yes, lots of greeting and small talk there. That's it. No sense of community, just some chit chat and bullshiat. So I have no idea what Atheists who have "churches" are thinking. Do they want a support circle? Fine, get a damn meetup going. Do they want to discuss things? Great, start a philosophy club. Apart from that, I can't imagine what people are thinking.
 
2014-01-06 11:16:12 PM  

Popular Opinion: all religions, even non-religions and are flawed, because all men are flawed.



ftfm
 
2014-01-06 11:27:53 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: s2s2s2: ...ot standing by that one.

Damn I hate typing in this phone.

WHERE IS MY GOD NOW?!?!

Anywho. There is no way atheists are starting churches, and reasonably expecting to avoid assotiation with "religion". Take it up with them.

I don't get it either. It's not a religion, but when some folks want some sort of ritual or some such, it feels a bit culty. If you want a sense of community, get involved in it. I went to church for years as a kid, and we went in, did the mass, peace be with you, and left. Never said a farking word to anyone. Few knew each other. It wasn't a damn town hall. It was top-down leadership: listen to the guy up front. Parrot like a parrot. Baaa when told to. I mostly went because my mother would bribe me with McD breakfasts, and I checked out the girls. At no point did I get a sense of community. That's NYC, so not a great comparison perhaps. But I also would spend summers in Missouri. Yes, lots of greeting and small talk there. That's it. No sense of community, just some chit chat and bullshiat. So I have no idea what Atheists who have "churches" are thinking. Do they want a support circle? Fine, get a damn meetup going. Do they want to discuss things? Great, start a philosophy club. Apart from that, I can't imagine what people are thinking.


I'm from Austin, home of the First Church of Atheism. The first of its kind. It was a troll to get tax exempt status, but it opened the door to atheism being branded with that big, scary word.
 
2014-01-06 11:28:10 PM  

Egoy3k: ciberido: It was formed in the aftermath of Elevatorgate because there was a sense that too many vocal atheists were misogynistic, racist, or homophobic and that the "face" or "voice" of modern atheism was too white/male/heterosexual.

Not surprisingly, those atheists who weren't big fans of feminism to begin with don't much care for "Atheism+."

I'm a fan of feminism and I think that 'elevatorgate' is the stupidest thing ever. As such I'm not a huge fan of Atheism+ but that doesn't mean I hate women.

/The misogynist backlash for 'elevatorgate' was shameful but that doesn't mean that  the actual incident wasn't stupid and pretty harmless.


Yes, but you have it backwards: the original incident may have been stupid and pretty harmless, but the backlash proves just how serious the misogyny really is.
 
2014-01-06 11:28:28 PM  

Popular Opinion: Popular Opinion: all religions, even non-religions and are flawed, because all men are flawed.


ftfm


But you sure did prove your point.
 
2014-01-06 11:31:17 PM  
s2s2s2: I'd say when atheists are founding assemblies called "church" the relevance of the word "religion" is pretty damned pertinent

And you'd be wrong. They chose church for a variety of reasons but none of which have to do with religion. They could have called it "meeting" or "club" and you would probably still make the same argument.

s2s2s2: But when people bring disbelief into the realm if moral duty, they make it a religion, by definition.

Who the fark feels it is their moral duty. Do you have some imaginary atheist friends that you are speaking for? 'Cause I know you are not speaking for any atheists I've ever met or talked to.

s2s2s2: I'm trying to demystify the word religion.

You're trying to force your definition. Sorry Charlie,when you get coronated as king of the English language you can do this ... until then tough shiat

.s2s2s2: If atheists(apparently what the cool agnostics call themselves, because they don't like accuracy, either)

Accuracy like taking the word from the Greek roots atheos which translates directly to "without god". I like accuracy very much that's why I use the correct word for myself. You don't get to tell me what definition I must use when I am choosing the name I call myself.

Your ego is about the size of Rhode Island. Get over yourself.
 
2014-01-06 11:32:43 PM  
i thought the idea was to organize community works (help people) without worthless or tedious ritual or dogma.
i was probably wrong.
 
2014-01-06 11:34:29 PM  

gimmegimme: wingedkat: Egoy3k: ciberido: It was formed in the aftermath of Elevatorgate because there was a sense that too many vocal atheists were misogynistic, racist, or homophobic and that the "face" or "voice" of modern atheism was too white/male/heterosexual.

Not surprisingly, those atheists who weren't big fans of feminism to begin with don't much care for "Atheism+."

I'm a fan of feminism and I think that 'elevatorgate' is the stupidest thing ever. As such I'm not a huge fan of Atheism+ but that doesn't mean I hate women.

/The misogynist backlash for 'elevatorgate' was shameful but that doesn't mean that  the actual incident wasn't stupid and pretty harmless.

"Elevatorgate"  was the backlash. More specifically, it was the insistence by prominent atheist figures that the misogynist backlash the woman received for speaking out was not really misogynist, or at least not as bad as religious misogyny so she needed to get over it.

The incident in which Rebecca Watson was propositioned by a man in an elevator prompted an initial comment from her which amounted to "don't do that, it's creepy".  If it had stopped there, there would be no controversy.

Yes, yes.  You're right.  Watson and everyone in her clown car are blameless victims of those big, bad fedora-wearing men and never did anything wrong.


You do realize, don't you, that when you exaggerate your opponents argument like this, you're essentially admitting that you can't argue against what he really said?

"Yeah you're right.  I'll shut up now" would amount to the same thing, save people time, and have the virtue of honesty.
 
2014-01-06 11:34:50 PM  
*whiny voice* It's not a religion dammit! *stamps feet*

Atheism, becoming exactly what it hates, the most obnoxious religion.
 
2014-01-06 11:42:07 PM  

Terrible Old Man: *whiny voice* It's not a religion dammit! *stamps feet*

Atheism, becoming exactly what it hates, the most obnoxious religion.


Yes. They dared to get together once a week. They are so evil!!
 
2014-01-06 11:56:03 PM  

Farking Canuck: s2s2s2: I'd say when atheists are founding assemblies called "church" the relevance of the word "religion" is pretty damned pertinent

And you'd be wrong. They chose church for a variety of reasons but none of which have to do with religion. They could have called it "meeting" or "club" and you would probably still make the same argument.

s2s2s2: But when people bring disbelief into the realm if moral duty, they make it a religion, by definition.

Who the fark feels it is their moral duty. Do you have some imaginary atheist friends that you are speaking for? 'Cause I know you are not speaking for any atheists I've ever met or talked to.

s2s2s2: I'm trying to demystify the word religion.

You're trying to force your definition. Sorry Charlie,when you get coronated as king of the English language you can do this ... until then tough shiat

.s2s2s2: If atheists(apparently what the cool agnostics call themselves, because they don't like accuracy, either)

Accuracy like taking the word from the Greek roots atheos which translates directly to "without god". I like accuracy very much that's why I use the correct word for myself. You don't get to tell me what definition I must use when I am choosing the name I call myself.

Your ego is about the size of Rhode Island. Get over yourself.


1: Yup, I'd be right, and I have shown why.

2: Dawkins. Hitchens. O'Hare. But you don't know them, so they don't count. Plus, two of them are dead.

3: No, I'm consistently using a real definition, and you are claiming that I'm not, so you can claim I'm equivocating.

4: "Without" doesn't mean "maybe with". Yes, you are free to force your preferred definition. Doesn't eliminate the actual meaning.

5: Texas, buddy. I'd have to get over myself though, you certainly aren't getting over on me.
 
2014-01-07 12:13:28 AM  
I'll give you points for being stubborn. You just keep on inventing definitions of words and railing against the internet ... I'm sure everyone will see it your way eventually.

s2s2s2: "Without" doesn't mean "maybe with"


Without isn't a positive claim of non-existence. I am also without belief in unicorns and without belief in big foot.

You keep on trying convince the world that your definitions are the ones we all must use. I've updated my tag for you so I can keep checking back and see how it's going. Actually I updated your tag twice in this thread ... a new record.

I'm getting off this ride before you back up again.
 
2014-01-07 12:17:00 AM  

hardinparamedic: IlGreven: hardinparamedic: log_jammin: long story short, you're either with them or you're a misogynis

Sounds like the opposite of Men's Rights Activists. Either you agree blanket with them, or you're a man-hating misandrist or something.

I've never met such a Men's Rights Activist.  I have, however, met plenty of Feminists who say they have met such a Men's Rights Activist.

Here. Now you can't repeat this lie anymore, since you've used it multiple times..


That's.... that's parody, right?  You Poe's Law-deploying bastard, you.
 
2014-01-07 12:53:53 AM  

Farking Canuck: I am also without belief in unicorns and without belief in big foot.


So you allow for the possibility of Unicorns and Bigfoot. I'm glad to see you still have hope for a fantastical future.

Farking Canuck: You keep on trying convince the world that your definitions are the ones we all must use.


No, I keep reminding you which one I use and when/how I'm applying it. I also acknowledge that it isn't the same one applied to Mormons.

Farking Canuck: I'm getting off this ride before you back up again.


You are a trooper. I'm impressed you haven't put me on ignore. You tag me however you like. I am only whatever you choose to believe I am, after all.

I haven't backed up anything but my argument, and that, with fact.
 
2014-01-07 01:27:29 AM  

ciberido: but the backlash proves just how serious the misogyny really is.


I disagree. 99% of the backlash was internet trolls trolling an easy target.
 
2014-01-07 01:48:31 AM  

ciberido: That's.... that's parody, right?  You Poe's Law-deploying bastard, you.


That website needs a disclaimer. "This is what they actually believe"

PZ Meyers regularly slams them on his blog.

Hell, even the Southern Poverty Law Center has put out an intelligence report about them.
 
2014-01-07 02:52:58 AM  

hardinparamedic: ciberido: That's.... that's parody, right?  You Poe's Law-deploying bastard, you.

That website needs a disclaimer. "This is what they actually believe"

PZ Meyers regularly slams them on his blog.

Hell, even the Southern Poverty Law Center has put out an intelligence report about them.


24.media.tumblr.com

I haz a sad :(
 
2014-01-07 05:06:56 AM  

s2s2s2: I'm trying to demystify the word religion. It became associated almost exclusively with theists, because people are stupid, and forgot what it actually means.


Wow.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=religion

It's been "associated almost exclusively with theists" for 800 years dude, your crusade on fark is not going to change that.
 
2014-01-07 08:02:20 AM  
So what? We aren't going to end racism any time soon either, and we will likely never irradiate poverty. It's still worth trying.
 
2014-01-07 08:48:38 AM  

s2s2s2: Farking Canuck: I am also without belief in unicorns and without belief in big foot.

So you allow for the possibility of Unicorns and Bigfoot. I'm glad to see you still have hope for a fantastical future.


Of course I do. To precisely the same amount I allow for the possibility of a magical, invisible, bearded white man who lives in the sky. That is to say that the available evidence extraordinarily strongly supports the position of non-existence but, since I cannot claim absolute knowledge, I must allow for the infinitesimally small possibility that these things exist. I take the position of non-existence, i.e. I am without any of them, but I allow for the possibility.

It is the only logical, rational position.
 
2014-01-07 08:50:42 AM  

s2s2s2:  and we will likely never irradiate poverty.


Maybe if we try hard enough and refine enough uranium.
 
2014-01-07 09:15:25 AM  

Epicedion: s2s2s2:  and we will likely never irradiate poverty.

Maybe if we try hard enough and refine enough uranium.


LOL. I really need one of these: craziestgadgets.com
 
2014-01-07 09:18:27 AM  

Farking Canuck: Of course I do.


savethenarwhals.org

www.bigfoot4x4.com

2 down....
 
2014-01-07 11:55:15 AM  

hardinparamedic: gimmegimme: You seem to think that A Voice For Men represents all people who want equal rights and protection for everyone, regardless of gender identification.

You can't understand what men go through; these constant microaggressions just prove to many of us that we live in a culture that doesn't think we matter.  Pop culture, the criminal justice system...it's a problem that some people just won't allow themselves to be educated about.

Keep telling yourself that.

You seem to have this fantasy world where you equate anyone who wants divorce/family court reform MUST BE associated with the "MRA" movement, and pretending that people want others to think "you don't matter" because of your gender - which is an insane persecution complex delusion. I don't oppose MRA because I don't "want to be educated". I oppose MRA because it's a group of idiots who use the cry of MAH RIGHTS to vindicate and venerate rape, act like a flippant asshole to women and not be called out, and because these are people who actually justify feminism with their actions.

See, here's the thing. I acknowledge that there is gender bias in certain things. I acknowledge that the legal system should be changed to reflect the movement from traditional parental units to single fathers and mothers.  I don't, however, justify this with blatant lies, chauvinistic chest beating moral panics about what a "real man" is, or scapegoating of women.

MRA doesn't speak for men, and it doesn't speak for rights. It's just another reactionary "traditional values" bit of knee-jerk BS.


Friend, at no point have I considered myself aligned with the "MRA" movement, and I've been to AVFM exactly once in my life when I wanted to find out what it was for myself instead of simply believing what radical feminists told me about it.

Do you realize that much of what you say can easily be applied to the radical feminists who engage in disgusting behavior such as pulling the fire alarm at a conference at which men's rights are discussed?  Your paranoia has led you to believe that women are being subjugated in ways they are not.  I hope you'll do some exploration and will learn more about what is going on from a perspective other than that of the feminist...that perspective is quite limiting.
 
2014-01-07 11:57:47 AM  

omeganuepsilon: s2s2s2: I'm trying to demystify the word religion. It became associated almost exclusively with theists, because people are stupid, and forgot what it actually means.

Wow.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=religion

It's been "associated almost exclusively with theists" for 800 years dude, your crusade on fark is not going to change that.


I think it's funny that it comes from "read again". That would mean a lot of people posting things like "go back and read my post again" are making a call to religion. Reading a book a second time is the most accurate use of the word. That would make a whole lot of American Xtians decidedly unreligious.

After all:
mericanradness.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-01-07 12:01:38 PM  

hardinparamedic: ciberido: That's.... that's parody, right?  You Poe's Law-deploying bastard, you.

That website needs a disclaimer. "This is what they actually believe"

PZ Meyers regularly slams them on his blog.

Hell, even the Southern Poverty Law Center has put out an intelligence report about them.


PZ Myers also throws around rape accusations as though they are meaningless.  He is a laughingstock outside of his very small commentariat of lunatics and mentally damaged people.  (And as I pointed out, we could not have this discussion on his blog, even though we are civil.  He and his horde mock Freeze Peach.)

You may want to check out Girl Writes What.

You're not going to like him very much, but 6oodfella spotlights a lot of the things that you don't see because you have been told that men DESERVE to have violence visited upon them and that they DESERVE to lose their children in a divorce and so on.
 
2014-01-07 12:11:27 PM  

ciberido: hardinparamedic: ciberido: That's.... that's parody, right?  You Poe's Law-deploying bastard, you.

That website needs a disclaimer. "This is what they actually believe"

PZ Meyers regularly slams them on his blog.

Hell, even the Southern Poverty Law Center has put out an intelligence report about them.

[24.media.tumblr.com image 500x282]

I haz a sad :(


Don't worry...don't worry.  Hardinpaladin is going to solve all of the problems.  He or she is going to fix the gender disparity in colleges.  He or she is going to fix the fact that GenX and GenY women make more than men do.  He or she is going to end the alimony system and not only because it treats women (90+% of recipients) like children.  He or she is going to end the societal acceptance of genital mutilation in the United States.  He or she is going to eliminate the evil idea that every man is a potential rapist in addition to all other unsubstantiated radical feminist dogma.  He or she is going to make sure everyone knows that women are responsible for at least 40% of domestic violence so the PSAs can start addressing women, too.  I'm sure Hardinpaladin is opposed to discrimination and unfairness against ALL, not just against women.
 
2014-01-07 12:31:18 PM  

gimmegimme: because you have been told that men DESERVE to have violence visited upon them and that they DESERVE to lose their children in a divorce and so on.


lolwut


And how did this thread go from atheists to MRAs? WTF?
 
2014-01-07 01:19:15 PM  

grumpfuff: gimmegimme: because you have been told that men DESERVE to have violence visited upon them and that they DESERVE to lose their children in a divorce and so on.

lolwut


And how did this thread go from atheists to MRAs? WTF?


The atheist/secular/rational community is going through a schism.  Some of us want to advance the atheist/secular/rational cause and others want to enforce a complicated of pronoun usage to protect fee fees.
 
2014-01-07 01:46:24 PM  

gimmegimme: grumpfuff: gimmegimme: because you have been told that men DESERVE to have violence visited upon them and that they DESERVE to lose their children in a divorce and so on.

lolwut


And how did this thread go from atheists to MRAs? WTF?

The atheist/secular/rational community is going through a schism.  Some of us want to advance the atheist/secular/rational cause and others want to enforce a complicated of pronoun usage to protect fee fees.


Huh. That sounds more like whining about feminists or transgendered people than a commentary on atheism. Maybe I should go back and read the thread.
 
2014-01-07 02:16:17 PM  

gimmegimme: grumpfuff: gimmegimme: because you have been told that men DESERVE to have violence visited upon them and that they DESERVE to lose their children in a divorce and so on.

lolwut


And how did this thread go from atheists to MRAs? WTF?

The atheist/secular/rational community is going through a schism.  Some of us want to advance the atheist/secular/rational cause and others want to enforce a complicated of pronoun usage to protect fee fees.


So I went back and read a bit. So you're not an MRA, you just have all the same talking points.

Reminds me of "libertarians" who are just too ashamed of being called Republican and/or the Fark IndependentsTM
 
2014-01-07 02:18:26 PM  

gimmegimme: Friend, at no point have I considered myself aligned with the "MRA" movement, and I've been to AVFM exactly once in my life when I wanted to find out what it was for myself instead of simply believing what radical feminists told me about it.


If you quack like a duck and look like a duck...

No, sorry. You've just been defending them this entire thread because they're such swell guys. Ypu're in no way a liar because you're being associated with slimeballs.

.g

immegimme: He or she is going to fix the fact that GenX and GenY women make more than men do.


Citation Needed.

gimmegimme: He or she is going to end the societal acceptance of genital mutilation in the United States.


Circumcision is in no way comparable to Female Genital Mutilation. Are you also one of those "intactivist" nutballs?

gimmegimme: He or she is going to eliminate the evil idea that every man is a potential rapist in addition to all other unsubstantiated radical feminist dogma


Citation Needed.

gimmegimme: He or she is going to make sure everyone knows that women are responsible for at least 40% of domestic violence so the PSAs can start addressing women, too.


Citation needed. And I say that as someone who was in an abusive relationship for three years.

gimmegimme: The atheist/secular/rational community is going through a schism.  Some of us want to advance the atheist/secular/rational cause and others want to enforce a complicated of pronoun usage to protect fee fees.


You don't get to talk about rationality with your behavior in this thread. Also, lie to us again about how you're not espousing MRA positions. At best, you're a liar and a hypocrite. At worst, you're another stereotypical neckbeard pig who's looking for a justification to act like a social retard.

Here's the thing. I'm not concerned with solving your problems. I was, however, raised to believe in two things: You don't treat women like objects, and you don't act a complete dick to women because you feel entitled to do so.

You've successfully demonstrated your ability to do both on a regular basis. Again, you're not fighting for my "rights"
 
Displayed 467 of 467 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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