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  
•       •       •

7842 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jan 2014 at 4:28 AM (33 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 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!!
 
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