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.

(Patheos)   Seminary professor announces that he will "live like an atheist" for a year as an experiment. Step 1: Facing religious bigotry as your seminary fires you less than a week into the experiment   (patheos.com) divider line 347
    More: Asinine, religious bigotry, seminary, Adventist Church, Hemant Mehta, experiments  
•       •       •

13643 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jan 2014 at 2:08 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-07 01:09:47 AM  

The Southern Dandy: meanmutton: jigger: HotWingConspiracy: LOL

So very Christ-like.

Here's some trivia for you: Jesus hated anyone that wasn't a Christian.

He doesn't hate them. He loves them. Just because he sends them into a lake of fire for eternity doesn't mean he hates them.

Technically, Christians believe that Jesus tries to get people to go to heaven but they choose the lake of eternal fire.

So Jesus/God is impotent?  He has no power to stop a person from going to hell? Why pray to him if he's impotent?


Epicurus called.

The usual argument is "free will."  Jesus doesn't want anyone to go to hell, but humanity having free will and the right to "choose" to not obey God is more important than saving everyone from hell, so Humans are allowed to reject Jesus.

The problem cases are people who never heard about Jesus, and those too immature/ignorant to be able to make adult decisions.  This leads to complications such as unbaptized babies going to Limbo and special places in Hell reserved for "virtuous pagans."  Then you get into issues like the Bosom of Abraham, and it gets complicated.
 
2014-01-07 01:16:41 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: Ant: Many atheists know believe they know The Bible backward and forward.

Not saying none do, but the percentage of Atheists I have debated who actually have any familiarity beyond basic Sunday School level is pretty much nil. Sure they can quote something they read in an atheist book or blog or whatever, but ask them something outside their pre-loaded bullet points? Blank.

To be fair, this is exactly the same situation when debating most Christians about their faith as well. Basic Sunday School level at best.


Oh, I'll freely admit that I don't have the silly thing memorized.  I've got better things to do with my time than memorize a book of fairy tales.

I've read it.  Once.  It's mostly deadly dull, with quite a bit of absurdity and plenty of violence.  I see no reason to read it again.

And there's no real point in debating any given point in it.  There is no god.  And once you understand that there is no god, any debate on a particular religion's views on gays or shrimp is absurdly irrelevant, other than as a bit of amusement.
 
2014-01-07 02:06:01 AM  

thisisarepeat: I wasn't in a foxhole though, so I guess there's that.


Been there, you just beg for it to stop.  Religion doesn't really come into it.  And it wasn't a foxhole, it was a plane crash.
 
2014-01-07 03:06:45 AM  
Let's see- my life consists mostly of working 12-hour shifts with a 40km commute each way, playing violin in a volunteer orchestra, and spending my off-days working in an unheated blacksmith shop for fun. Bet it kills him in a month.
 
2014-01-07 03:17:31 AM  
"I want to take a year off. Just hang out, you know?"
"No"
"I have interesting idea for an anthropological study for a year"
"No"
"Doing it anyway jerkwads"
 
2014-01-07 07:27:04 AM  

A Cave Geek: [global3.memecdn.com image 850x890]


Damn it, we've been over this. Jesus was a LICH. He raised himself from the dead, he wasn't mindless, and he could raise others. It's all there in the monster manual.
 
2014-01-07 07:30:57 AM  
Yeah, he's not planning to live as an atheist, he's trying to live as an "ATHEIST," aka an attention whore who pokes at reactionist religionics to get a reaction to his atheistness.
 
2014-01-07 07:33:58 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Vangor: Satanic_Hamster: I don't go to atheist lectures or clubs, apparently I'm doing it wrong?

Be mindful, his world-view is one of having been a pastor and professor in what is a rather structured denomination of Protestantism. For one to live as a member of any faith would be to steep themselves in the ritual and practices and representations of belief. Without solid ritual and practices and belief, this is what he has chosen.

Every night, I put a few cd's into the turn table, open a beer, and play Counter Strike.  Does that count?


I was led to believe that a turntable was for playing records (e.g. because it has a round table that turns so the needle plays the music) but if turntable also means multi-cd changer I'm all for it.
 
2014-01-07 07:34:52 AM  
Sounds like a success to me.
 
2014-01-07 08:26:14 AM  

OhioKnight: Valiente: HeartBurnKid: WTF does "live like an atheist" mean?  I mean, I'm an atheist (well, I'm trending more towards agnostic lately, just because of my own egocentrism), and as far as I can gather, the only major differences in my life are that I sleep in on Sundays and I don't go around telling everybody "Jesus is the reason for the season" every December.

If only more English words rhymed with "Mithras". Beyond "ass", I mean.

Oh, wait...

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 676x456]

I do wish people who don't know anything about the cult would stop tossing Mithras around -- he's nothing to do with Christmas and "Mithras" as "Mithras" doesn't pre-date Roman Christianity.  They pulled the name for the god from the Persian "Mitra" because Persian Magi are all mystic-like and foreign.

It was a "secret society" more like a men's lodge -- Shriners, Masons, Holy Order of Water Buffalos -- or a fraternity than a religious  movement.


Eh, who cares.  I don't get the mithras stuff either, though, since...

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-01-07 09:57:43 AM  

DiffMavis: I was led to believe that a turntable was for playing records (e.g. because it has a round table that turns so the needle plays the music) but if turntable also means multi-cd changer I'm all for it.


You can have a multi-disc cd player that's not a turn table.

thumbs2.ebaystatic.com

vs.

seattlecontent.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2014-01-07 11:37:00 AM  

Qaiwolf: Yeah, he's not planning to live as an atheist, he's trying to live as an "ATHEIST," aka an attention whore who pokes at reactionist religionics to get a reaction to his atheistness.


Oh?  What's his Fark handle?
 
2014-01-07 11:45:33 AM  

ciberido: This leads to complications such as unbaptized babies going to Limbo


Those poor kids... They'll have to hang around with those flash-sideways incarnations of all the Lost characters!
 
2014-01-07 11:51:12 AM  

DeaH: It matters because modern medicines are based on evolutionary science.


Not really. I hate to flip your lid here, but biology predates evolution. Evolution is a sub-set of biology. Can show me how evolutionary science directly impacts diagnosis of, say, lung cancer? Even when it comes to genetics, evolutionary science, which spans millennia and huge generational drifts isn't really relevant.

DeaH: Evolution is neither politics nor religion. It is the underlying basis for all biology.


Again, biology underpins evolution, but in practical terms, it's not the other way around. For instance, analysis of mitochondrial DNA provides support for evolutionary theory - biology (a much older filed) is used to support it. I would say you have an imperfect understanding of the theory of evolution and its role in science and biology if you believe this to be true. A medical physician has no real need to understand, much less accept evolutionary theory in order to competently diagnose and treat physical ailments.
 
2014-01-07 11:54:38 AM  

DeaH: Doctors who are bad biologists are bad doctors. The fact that you think evolution falls under politics or religion is quite telling.


A biologist is not the same thing as a physician is not the same thing as an evolutionary scientist. Any more than a theoretical mathematician is an engineer.

Also, I did not say that evolution falls under politics or religion. (although it's clear that for many see it that way).I said that using "belief in evolution" (whatever that means) as a criteria for selecting a physician makes as much sense as selecting a physician based on their politics or religion. The fact that you don't understand that is quite telling.
 
2014-01-07 12:03:15 PM  

ampoliros: I happen to think that there are a lot more atheists out there than you would find on a survey though many would decline the label.


Well, some are more against the Church than against a god.  In fact, I would say that there might be quite a few deists that are misidentified as atheist; those who think that there is a higher power, but that it's unlike anything any religion posits.
 
2014-01-07 12:09:09 PM  

Pitabred: Hehe. That's cute, you think you can distinguish between micro-evolution and macro-evolution using something as imperfect and fluid as "speciation". Species are just naming scientists use for shorthand... species have jumped entire taxonomic trees before, and it's far from a hard delineation like you seem to think it is. Microevolution and macroevolution are the exact same thing, only operating on different timescales. If you can't conceive of something larger than a few thousand years, then no wonder you think there's a difference between the two.



I think it's cute that you can't distinguish between the SCIENCE of verifiable, reproducible empirical evidence like genetic variation among species (micro evolution) and extrapolative, non-reproducible, hypothetical evidence like speciation (macro-evolution) where we don't have the ability to confirm results.

Yes, "speciation" is an imperfect and fluid concept, which is kind of the point. And to be clear, species have not "jumped entire taxonomic trees", rather, scientists have changed their understanding of which taxonomic groups they properly belong to, which is a whole other can of worms having to do with the assumptive and subjective practice of applying morphological characteristics in extrapolation of assumed (but often inprovable)  common descent. It is vitally important that one does not confuse the 'proven' genetic variation over generations which is demonstrable, verifiable and most importantly, reproducible (see dog breeding for instance) with non-reproducing, genetically incompatible divergence of species (Chihuahuas and great danes are still genetically compatible.)

This is NOT to say that epoch evolution (speciation, "macro-evolution") is wrong. Rather, I am pointing out that "believing in evolution" is not a binary condition, and that while one can and should accept that species change over time, there is a great deal still to be proven about speciation and common descent and therefore, even among evolutionary scientists, there is still a lot of speculation, hypothesis, contradiction and uncertainty. Which is as it should be. Science should never consider a matter settled, and in the case of evolution over millennia, it is decidedly unsettled. Hell, we're still working on the exact mechanisms by which is even occurs.
 
2014-01-07 12:21:41 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: DeaH: It matters because modern medicines are based on evolutionary science.

Not really. I hate to flip your lid here, but biology predates evolution. Evolution is a sub-set of biology. Can show me how evolutionary science directly impacts diagnosis of, say, lung cancer? Even when it comes to genetics, evolutionary science, which spans millennia and huge generational drifts isn't really relevant.

Again, biology underpins evolution, but in practical terms, it's not the other way around. For instance, analysis of mitochondrial DNA provides support for evolutionary theory - biology (a much older filed) is used to support it. I would say you have an imperfect understanding of the theory of evolution and its role in science and biology if you believe this to be true. A medical physician has no real need to understand, much less accept evolutionary theory in order to competently diagnose and treat physical ailments.


No, just because other biological knowledge came before knowledge of evolution, that does not mean that evolution isn't the underlying factor in biology. You seem to have an imperfect grasp of the difference between epistemological and informational hierarchies. And evolution has a lot to do with modern medicine.

Like all biological systems, both disease-causing organisms and their victims evolve. Understanding evolution can make a big difference in how we treat disease. The evolution of disease-causing organisms may outpace our ability to invent new treatments, but studying the evolution of drug resistance can help us slow it. Learning about the evolutionary origins of diseases may provide clues about how to treat them. And considering the basic processes of evolution can help us understand the roots of genetic diseases.

At the very least, an understanding of evolution helps physicians stop over-prescribing antibiotics. And that is the least-most application. Hereditary disease is often treated differently (and certainly diagnosed differently) than diseases that are not heritable. Hell, the flu alone is an excellent example of evolution, and a physician needs a basic grasp of this just to understand effective treatment and prevention. I go to a doctor, in part, because the doctor is supposed to be a lot more knowledgeable than I am about biological issues. I want expertise. A belief that evolution is just something made up is not expertise.

While it's true that I do not need a physicist to fix my computer, I do not want a tech who thinks the fairies make the system work. A doctor need not be en epidemiologist, but he or she better not think that the foundation for all biology is that all life was created in six days about six thousand years ago.
 
2014-01-07 12:24:54 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Pitabred: Hehe. That's cute, you think you can distinguish between micro-evolution and macro-evolution using something as imperfect and fluid as "speciation". Species are just naming scientists use for shorthand... species have jumped entire taxonomic trees before, and it's far from a hard delineation like you seem to think it is. Microevolution and macroevolution are the exact same thing, only operating on different timescales. If you can't conceive of something larger than a few thousand years, then no wonder you think there's a difference between the two.


I think it's cute that you can't distinguish between the SCIENCE of verifiable, reproducible empirical evidence like genetic variation among species (micro evolution) and extrapolative, non-reproducible, hypothetical evidence like speciation (macro-evolution) where we don't have the ability to confirm results.

Yes, "speciation" is an imperfect and fluid concept, which is kind of the point. And to be clear, species have not "jumped entire taxonomic trees", rather, scientists have changed their understanding of which taxonomic groups they properly belong to, which is a whole other can of worms having to do with the assumptive and subjective practice of applying morphological characteristics in extrapolation of assumed (but often inprovable)  common descent. It is vitally important that one does not confuse the 'proven' genetic variation over generations which is demonstrable, verifiable and most importantly, reproducible (see dog breeding for instance) with non-reproducing, genetically incompatible divergence of species (Chihuahuas and great danes are still genetically compatible.)

This is NOT to say that epoch evolution (speciation, "macro-evolution") is wrong. Rather, I am pointing out that "believing in evolution" is not a binary condition, and that while one can and should accept that species change over time, there is a great deal still to be proven about speciation and common descent and therefore, even ...


Are you trying to CDP?
Because you're f(l)ailing.
Badly.

Evolution is a mechanism. A fact. Observed directly. And the evidence - all of it - supports evolution.
You can quibble about how it works, and real scientists do, but evolution is a cold stone fact.
 
2014-01-07 12:30:21 PM  

Finger51: If by 'Utility' you mean I have no need for deluding myself into belief without evidence (which is what your faithful screwdriver really boils down to) then you are correct.


That is not what I mean. That is what you have chosen to replace what I mean with. What I mean, I said very simply:
"eligion is to Science as Music is to sculpture. One is not 'better' than the other, and it's good to have both.
They are different frameworks by which to grasp the cosmos."

YOU keep utterly missing the point with a fixation on "requiring faith" as a prerequisite to validity. The screwdriver does not require a screwdriver to be a tool. It *IS* the tool.

(Also, while we are using the tool metaphor, please remember that we are actually talking about cognitive, conceptual frameworks by which we can better understand existence. Neither Science nor Religion 'exist' in the way that a hammer or screwdriver do. Any more than 'Music' or 'sculpture' exist independently.)

Science and Religion (or philosophy if you prefer) are not addressing the same concerns. Just as it would be foolish to use a hammer to drive a screw into joining materials, it would be foolish to use Religion to treat cancer or practice chemistry. Just as it would be foolish to use a screwdriver to push a nail into joining materials, it would be foolish to use science to establish what love is, or determine justice.

Finger51: I find it curious that you think I said anything of the sort. The closest I can see that I said that one tool is evidence based and (implied) more valid, the other is faith based. How you claim that I've judged others as 'mistaken' is ... curious.


Because you insist that the "screwdriver" is an invalid tool. You have re-iterated this a number of times. Obviously, when you say that ONE of the two tools is completely invalid as a tool, you are implying that those who use it as a tool are mistaken. You may "be happy to let them", but you still insist that they are "deluding" themselves when they use it.
 
2014-01-07 12:36:54 PM  

DeaH: I wouldn't want an engineer who thinks pixies in the computers perform calculations. I don't want a doctor who think the all life was created in six days, six thousand years ago.


Ever been to Notre Dame Cathedral? Everyone involved in it's construction firmly believed in these "fairy tales". Oddly, their belief in the unprovable existence of God and angels, and demons (and probably witches and fairies and ghosts) did not in the least impact their ability to build an incredibly sound and massive building.

Both the father of modern biology and the man behind the "big Bang" theory (the science, not the TV show) were devoutly religious and firmly believed in these "fairy tales". Oddly, their belief in the unprovable existence of God and angels, and demons  did not in the least impact their ability to fundamentally advance science.

I don't know how many ways we can make this clear to you. Absolute acceptance of evolutionary theory is not a requirement for a physician.

But since it is YOUR doctor, you can use whatever criteria you like, no matter how nonsensical.
 
2014-01-07 12:40:34 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Evolution is a mechanism. A fact. Observed directly. And the evidence - all of it - supports evolution.


Your example is one of organisms changing over time. I think you missed what I am saying.

"It is vitally important that one does not confuse the 'proven' genetic variation over generations which is demonstrable, verifiable and most importantly, reproducible (see dog breeding for instance) with non-reproducing, genetically incompatible divergence of species (Chihuahuas and great danes are still genetically compatible.)"

You are making a common error. Proof of genetic variation over generations supports, but does not prove speciation and common ancestry over millennia.
 
2014-01-07 12:41:14 PM  

DeaH: Hereditary disease is often treated differently (and certainly diagnosed differently) than diseases that are not heritable.


You seem to be confusing genetics with evolution.
 
2014-01-07 12:41:50 PM  

Lsherm: Been there, you just beg for it to stop.



Who are you begging?
 
2014-01-07 12:43:57 PM  

DarkVader: Oh, I'll freely admit that I don't have the silly thing memorized. I've got better things to do with my time than memorize a book of fairy tales.


Thank you for your contribution.
 
2014-01-07 12:50:10 PM  

Gothnet: Frankly, most 'adult theology' I've ever encountered bears no resemblance to any sort of christianity, and is little more than word-soup and sophistry designed to justify irrational beliefs.But keep on keeping on, I understand you need to feel special and that death terrifies you.


I cannot speak to your personal experience, but it would seem obvious that you have not sought out subject matter experts.

Also, since I have not said anything whatsoever about my personal beliefs, I find your broad assumptions about them, or even the purpose they serve to be all I need to know about your level of intellect and inquiry.
 
2014-01-07 12:50:50 PM  
OK. I think that's everyone. If I missed anyone I apologize.

I'll check back later as time permits.
 
2014-01-07 12:54:14 PM  

AgentPothead: I'll try to explain what "living like an atheist" means since nobody seems to get it. Imagine your head was literally inserted into your anus. This was the normal way a large majority of the planet lived. Then imagine one day, you pulled your head out of your anus and got a chance to see reality, instead of the walls of your anal cavity. That's what "living like an atheist" means, pulling your head out of your ass. It means not being ignorant to the reality around you in the non existent chance a god will punish or reward you after you die.


I've been assured that being a smug, condescending asshat is entirely optional.
 
2014-01-07 01:00:10 PM  

AgentPothead: Ant: Pants full of macaroni!!: You also have to loudly inform everyone within hearing range that you are an atheist

I've never done that. Usually it starts with a question from a believer like "What church do you go to?" or "has your son been baptized?"

How those conversations actually go down in my experience.

Religious:What church do you attend/denomination do you subscribe to/another religious question
Atheist: Oh sorry I'm an atheist, I don't believe in any of that.
Religious:OH AN ATHEIST, HEAR THAT EVERYBODY AN ATHEIST, OHHHH AN ATHEIST.
Atheist: Yeah, I don't believe in organized religions as they are all organized by man as ways to control the masses and ignorant.
Religious:OH AN ATHEIST, HEAR THAT EVERYBODY, ETC.....
Atheist: I'll just be leaving now.


Funny, based on your earlier post I would have imagined it went more like this:

Religious: What church do you attend?

Atheist:  Pull your head out of your ass!  That way, you'll finally get a chance to see reality, instead of the walls of your anal cavity!  I'm an atheist!  That  means not being ignorant to the reality around me in the non existent chance a god will punish or reward me after I die.

Religious: Oh sorry, I didn't realize you were an obnoxious twatwaffle.  I'll just be going now.
 
2014-01-07 02:38:09 PM  

EvilEgg: How does one "live like an atheist"?


By living a very moral and ethical life and having very good reasons for everything you do, being able to explain the reasoning behind your personal moral code and why you hold it, and by examining every part of your life on a regular basis to make sure you're not doing anything irrational or harmful to yourself or others. .
 
2014-01-07 03:00:51 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: DeaH: Hereditary disease is often treated differently (and certainly diagnosed differently) than diseases that are not heritable.

You seem to be confusing genetics with evolution.


You seem to be under the impression that genetics are not a primary biological mechanism for evolution. Genetics are a subset of the Theory of Evolution.
 
2014-01-07 03:01:26 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: DeaH: Hereditary disease is often treated differently (and certainly diagnosed differently) than diseases that are not heritable.

You seem to be confusing genetics with evolution.


And you left off the rest of the examples I gave. Why?
 
2014-01-07 03:08:40 PM  

DeaH: Genetics are a subset of the Theory of Evolution.


Not really, no. Are you sure you understand what we are discussing?

DeaH: You seem to be under the impression that genetics are not a primary biological mechanism for evolution.


No clue how you arrived at that mistaken conclusion. You will notice, for instance that I pointed out that mitochondrial DNA supports evolutionary hypothesis?

I am unsurprised that you keep missing these important details, and instead opt to fly off against some perceived or imagined position.
 
2014-01-07 03:14:07 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: DeaH: I wouldn't want an engineer who thinks pixies in the computers perform calculations. I don't want a doctor who think the all life was created in six days, six thousand years ago.

Ever been to Notre Dame Cathedral? Everyone involved in it's construction firmly believed in these "fairy tales". Oddly, their belief in the unprovable existence of God and angels, and demons (and probably witches and fairies and ghosts) did not in the least impact their ability to build an incredibly sound and massive building.

Both the father of modern biology and the man behind the "big Bang" theory (the science, not the TV show) were devoutly religious and firmly believed in these "fairy tales". Oddly, their belief in the unprovable existence of God and angels, and demons  did not in the least impact their ability to fundamentally advance science.

I don't know how many ways we can make this clear to you. Absolute acceptance of evolutionary theory is not a requirement for a physician.

But since it is YOUR doctor, you can use whatever criteria you like, no matter how nonsensical.


Actually, the Catholic Church has no problem with evolution.

You also misread my example. I do not want a technician fixing my computer who thinks faeries are inside running things. I do not want a doctor who beleives the basis for biology is that all life was created in six days six thousand years ago. Those things directly affect how repairs (to a body or a machine) are done. If an architect believes that life was created in six days six thousand years ago, well, he's not working on a biological structure, is he? On the other hand, if he believes that faeries will buttress the arches, yeah, I'd screen him out, too.
 
2014-01-07 03:15:22 PM  

DeaH: And you left off the rest of the examples I gave. Why?


Because it's pointless, and beside the point. No one is disputing that hereditary diseases are treated differently.

But that doesn't have much to do with evolution. More accurately, you are failing to understand the distinction between variation of species over time and origin of species. As I have said countless times now, I do not think anyone disputes that organisms within a species change over time through iterative changes each generation. But that is not ALL of evolution.
 
2014-01-07 03:16:54 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: DeaH: Genetics are a subset of the Theory of Evolution.

Not really, no. Are you sure you understand what we are discussing?

DeaH: You seem to be under the impression that genetics are not a primary biological mechanism for evolution.

No clue how you arrived at that mistaken conclusion. You will notice, for instance that I pointed out that mitochondrial DNA supports evolutionary hypothesis?

I am unsurprised that you keep missing these important details, and instead opt to fly off against some perceived or imagined position.


I actually provided links to back up my points you are asserting an deliberately misrepresenting. I suppose that is what one has to do to defend such silliness.
 
2014-01-07 03:17:45 PM  

DeaH: Actually, the Catholic Church has no problem with evolution.


I don't believe I suggested that they did? Perhaps you don't know who either of the people I referenced are, or that they are Catholic?

I'm not really convinced that you and I are having the same conversation here. It's like you aren't reading my posts at all.
 
2014-01-07 03:24:00 PM  

DeaH: I actually provided links to back up my points you are asserting an deliberately misrepresenting.


Which points? I do not dispute that hereditary diseases are treated differently.

And regarding your e.coli example, I've already addressed it. It is proof of something that I already accept as 'proven'. You don't need thousands of generations of e.coli to prove what dog breeding proves in a few decades. There is ample and edequate proof that organisms within a species change over time through iterative changes each generation. We see it all the time. It is REPRODUCABLE.

But that is NOT proof of the origin of species or of common ancestry across millennia. It may well be true, and there is certainly compelling circumstantial evidence, but that aspect of evolution is still hotly contested, uncertain, and (as any evolutionary scientist can tell you) still unsettled.

Now all evolutionary scientists probably BELIEVE that its true, just as theoretical physicists may BELIEVE in string theory, but it's not accepted fact. Yet.

I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp, but you keep consistently missing the point and keep trying to argue against points I am not disputing.
 
2014-01-07 03:31:47 PM  

DeaH: While it's true that I do not need a physicist to fix my computer, I do not want a tech who thinks the fairies make the system work.


Of course not! Everyone knows it's the daemons that make the system work!
 
2014-01-07 05:02:25 PM  

ciberido: AgentPothead: Ant: Pants full of macaroni!!: You also have to loudly inform everyone within hearing range that you are an atheist

I've never done that. Usually it starts with a question from a believer like "What church do you go to?" or "has your son been baptized?"

How those conversations actually go down in my experience.

Religious:What church do you attend/denomination do you subscribe to/another religious question
Atheist: Oh sorry I'm an atheist, I don't believe in any of that.
Religious:OH AN ATHEIST, HEAR THAT EVERYBODY AN ATHEIST, OHHHH AN ATHEIST.
Atheist: Yeah, I don't believe in organized religions as they are all organized by man as ways to control the masses and ignorant.
Religious:OH AN ATHEIST, HEAR THAT EVERYBODY, ETC.....
Atheist: I'll just be leaving now.

Funny, based on your earlier post I would have imagined it went more like this:

Religious: What church do you attend?

Atheist:  Pull your head out of your ass!  That way, you'll finally get a chance to see reality, instead of the walls of your anal cavity!  I'm an atheist!  That  means not being ignorant to the reality around me in the non existent chance a god will punish or reward me after I die.

Religious: Oh sorry, I didn't realize you were an obnoxious twatwaffle.  I'll just be going now.


I can't speak for Mr. Ant, but IME, it tends to go more like this:

Religious: What church do you attend?

Atheist: None. I'm an atheist.

Religious:  You need to come to my church right now!

Atheist:  Sorry, no.

Religious:  But your immortal soul is in danger!

Atheist:  Nope.

Religious:  Oh, I see.  Satan already has your soul!  SATANIST!

Atheist:  Still no.

Religious:  I can't believe a SATANIST lives in my town!  How dare you even show your face in public!  You are a servant of evil!  Good Christian folk shouldn't even have to look at you!

Atheist:  Please go the fark away and leave me alone!

Religious:  YOU ARROGANT BIGOT!  How dare you infringe my religious freedom!
 
2014-01-07 05:22:10 PM  

HeartBurnKid: I can't speak for Mr. Ant, but IME, it tends to go more like this:


IME, this never actually happened to you.
 
2014-01-07 06:14:40 PM  

HeartBurnKid: I can't speak for Mr. Ant, but IME, it tends to go more like this:


Where do you people live? The most I've ever gotten was variations on, "Atheist? I don't understand what that means."... Once, a very confused looking Jehovah's Witness had a visible epiphany while contemplating what I'd just said and finally shouted, "Oh, I think I've heard of people like you before!", as if he'd just discovered a new lifeform he'd only read about existing in theory...
 
2014-01-07 06:41:51 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Lsherm: Been there, you just beg for it to stop.


Who are you begging?


Absolutely no one in particular.  Just for it to be over with.  I didn't even break any bones but I don't remember having any coherent thought while we were bumping on the ground.
 
2014-01-07 06:54:07 PM  

Lsherm: BojanglesPaladin: Lsherm: Been there, you just beg for it to stop.

Who are you begging?

Absolutely no one in particular.  Just for it to be over with.  I didn't even break any bones but I don't remember having any coherent thought while we were bumping on the ground.\


Understood. I just find it fascinating that at the most basic level, you instinctively believed that there was someone to be appealed to.
 
2014-01-07 07:14:05 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Lsherm: BojanglesPaladin: Lsherm: Been there, you just beg for it to stop.

Who are you begging?

Absolutely no one in particular.  Just for it to be over with.  I didn't even break any bones but I don't remember having any coherent thought while we were bumping on the ground.\

Understood. I just find it fascinating that at the most basic level, you instinctively believed that there was someone to be appealed to.


It's not necessarily a belief that there's someone or something there. It's just a socially conditioned behavior, like saying "bless you" reflexively doesn't mean you're actually trying to bless the person. We fall back on our patterns of behavior when our higher cognition is otherwise occupied or overwhelmed. I think you give too much credit to "basic level" being any more than well-worn behavior patterns taking over.
 
2014-01-07 07:21:42 PM  

RobSeace: HeartBurnKid: I can't speak for Mr. Ant, but IME, it tends to go more like this:

Where do you people live? The most I've ever gotten was variations on, "Atheist? I don't understand what that means."... Once, a very confused looking Jehovah's Witness had a visible epiphany while contemplating what I'd just said and finally shouted, "Oh, I think I've heard of people like you before!", as if he'd just discovered a new lifeform he'd only read about existing in theory...


I live in Lancaster, CA.  We have a lot of residents that are real dickheads about this sort of thing.  Including our mayor.
 
2014-01-07 07:43:51 PM  

Pitabred: It's just a socially conditioned behavior, like saying "bless you" reflexively doesn't mean you're actually trying to bless the person. We fall back on our patterns of behavior when our higher cognition is otherwise occupied or overwhelmed. I think you give too much credit to "basic level" being any more than well-worn behavior patterns taking over.


In my experience, during times of high stress, or panic, social niceties like "bless you" and "please" are the very first things to go. I'm sure you have observed the same.

Perhaps you are right about "well worn behavior patterns taking over", but I did not assume that you so frequently appealed to 'someone, anyone' that it had become a well worn pattern. I would be surprised to find that you are a frequent prayer?

Look. It's your experience, and it's your life and you understand best what happened and what it means to you. I am not trying to convince you of anything, and only you can interpret what, if anything, any of it means to you.

As I said, I just find it fascinating how common the instinctive appeal to some entity to change things is in times of extreme stress, panic or life-threatening circumstances. I found it notable that you identified as "begging" without first filtering it through a cognitive filter.
 
Displayed 47 of 347 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report