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 472
    More: Amusing, Pippa Evans, Cat Stevens, Godless Revival, central planning, live better, house band, East London  
•       •       •

7840 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jan 2014 at 4:28 AM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 472 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report