Too Stupid To Understand Science?

June 6th, 2011 | Categories: Funny Stuff, Interesting, picture | Tags: , , ,

I wish I could get this as a tshirt…

  1. June 6th, 2011 at 23:08
    Reply | Quote | #1

    CafePress.com
    ;)

  2. June 7th, 2011 at 05:44
    Reply | Quote | #2

    Or Zazzle. They let you make your own stuff too. It’d be a simple design to recreate too.

  3. milton
    June 7th, 2011 at 06:40
    Reply | Quote | #3

    MAKE ONE

  4. June 7th, 2011 at 07:00
    Reply | Quote | #4

    You angry atheists don’t seem to understand. Assigning anything not instantly obvious to “God did it” is far easier than thinking. Then there is more time for praying, praising the lord, and spreading the Word.

    • Fronald
      June 7th, 2011 at 16:48
      Reply | Quote | #5

      No James, you fool! God did not do it. You should try some science you idiot christian!

      • id
        June 8th, 2011 at 18:42
        Reply | Quote | #6

        you got trolled

        • mark
          June 9th, 2011 at 16:45
          Reply | Quote | #7

          that smells like irony…not a troll.

      • Brittany
        June 12th, 2011 at 22:27
        Reply | Quote | #8

        Lmao. Wow. You’re fucking gay. It’s such a waste of time to pray and have false faith.

        • K
          June 13th, 2011 at 15:23
          Reply | Quote | #9

          Don’t use gay as an insult. That makes you worse than him. Also, he was being sarcastic.

      • mike
        June 13th, 2011 at 08:32

        Fronald I think you may have missed the point , James is using sarcasm to make his point , no need for you to get defensive he is on our side.
        I must say you should bone up on your sarcasm skills,it will help you in your debates, and will not make you look like some one who doesn’t get the point!.

      • MASTEROFPUPPETS
        June 13th, 2011 at 20:19

        Gaynald, have you read the bible? do you know how to read? its so FUNNY how stupid people can be that judge stuff without knowing about it. Plus I am sure you do NOT even understand science. LOL.

        God bless you my monkey friend!

        • juan
          June 16th, 2011 at 16:37

          the good thing is that we may question what science says and try to find the answer. You, you do not have that right. Mental slavery perhaps

    • lolwut
      June 13th, 2011 at 01:30

      Christians and religious people aren’t creative enough to come up with a better reason. Silly people and your silly gods.

    • Mike
      June 16th, 2011 at 12:48

      We really DO need a sarcasm font!

      • spookiewon
        November 20th, 2011 at 03:04

        Just use the sarcasm tag!

    • juan
      June 16th, 2011 at 16:34

      if you think you have an answer, question it. if you get reassured then it may be true until the contrary is proben. if you do not question and accept, the you are an idiot.

    • melinda
      June 18th, 2011 at 04:10

      I do not see the point of why you people are arguing over something that you all do not even know that right answers to. Atheists either believe a God exists but don’t believe or follow religions, or they just do not believe in God due to the lack of evidence. As for Christians, such as myself, we do believe in a God and we do take the time to pray and have faith in a God. We do not need evidence or science to prove that God exists because we just know that there is a God. Believe whatever you want to believe, but if you have the slightest doubt in your mind that you are in the wrong just think about where you are going to end up, in heaven or hell.

      • June 18th, 2011 at 08:08

        God exists because we just know that there is a God

        Such a compelling argument.

        Believe whatever you want to believe, but if you have the slightest doubt in your mind that you are in the wrong just think about where you are going to end up, in heaven or hell.

        You must be one terrible Christian if the only reason you believe in god is you fear you’ll go to hell if you don’t….

        • BroDy
          July 17th, 2011 at 22:57

          Paraphrasing to insult someone is actually quite stupid.

      • George Klein
        July 10th, 2011 at 00:03

        Melinda. Is the Christian’s god the only one in the univers, or there are others, too?
        Like Yahve of the Jews, Allah of the Muslims, that of the Hindus, the Buddhists etc. etc.
        And, if there are no others why not, since Jews are convinced that theirs is the one, Muslims think the same. For a logically thinking person (within reason) this is really a dilemma. There is no logical explanation to this. None. I am not trying to convince you that you are wrong. No, not at all. But you are ilogical, for sure, and I am fully convinced of that. Thinking logically within reason and being a theist at the same time is an oxymoron.

      • me
        July 27th, 2011 at 03:50

        there may be a god for you, as in he’s there for you personally.
        but for me? there’s a lot i’ve been through, and there wasn’t a god to help me with anything.

        kids these days just believe in gods and then bam their shit’s easy.
        but man, back in my day, i had to do everything myself.

    • George Klein
      July 9th, 2011 at 23:52

      Please explain logically which god do you refer to: that of the Christians, the Jews, the Hindus, the Muslims, just to mention a few. And, why do you thing that yours is the “real” one, the other’s is just a fake.

  5. Michael
    June 7th, 2011 at 08:19

    @James Smith Joao Passoa,

    your unlogic hurts me so. Assigning everything to “God did it” is what religious people do. I say, we evolved over a few billion years in small steps, each one a small improvement over the last, you say “God did it! he waved his magic wand and poof, people and unicorns and fairies appeared”. Why would an atheist, literally means without god, attribute anything to god?

    • zeb
      June 7th, 2011 at 08:39

      Michael..I can’t tell if you just got trolled or if you are trolling yourself but James was very VERY obviously being sarcastic. I don’t even think he was trying to troll.

      • June 7th, 2011 at 08:56

        I’m pretty sure it was sarcasm by James, but keep in mind, a lot of people that post here actually think like that…

  6. illtsi
    June 7th, 2011 at 09:16

    god is something we can not understand with our consciousness… but god is part of everything… and everything is part of god…

    • June 7th, 2011 at 09:17

      If god is something you can’t understand then why do you pretend to know anything about god..?

    • Adam
      June 7th, 2011 at 18:31

      Did a human tell you that? or god himself? cause last time I checked, humans are susceptible to error, which could be caused by hallucination, ignorance, incompetence, stupidity or even spite. Just cause you were told something or “feel” something doesn’t mean there is a god. lol why did I just waste my time????? oh well.

      • Kirstie
        June 8th, 2011 at 18:20

        Funny you say that, Adam… You’re correct, humans are incredibly susceptible to error. So why do atheists decide they’ve got it all figured out? Because they’ve been deceived by themselves and believe what they’ve been told. If you’d truly think critically about how intricately designed you are.. And look out your window to see how beautiful this world is, you’ll realize there is indeed a creator. There is most definitely no evidence against one. And there’s no way that YOU happened by chance. No matter how much time. Your own reason is flawed, because you are a finite human being.

        • JTK
          June 8th, 2011 at 22:08

          Atheists don’t say there are no gods despite evidence that there are. Atheists say that due to total lack of evidence in any god the obvious answer is that none of them exist.

          Please don’t talk about critical thinking. You don’t understand it. If the strongest point you can find is that there is no evidence against it then you have to be equally accepting of unicorns and dragons. Are you? If you aren’t, then you are a hypocrite. You know that isn’t a convincing argument yet you make it anyway because your rational mind knows that its the best you have.

          Take a look outside your window and see how utterly uncaring it is. Parasitic worms? Predators and prey? You live in a world of fiction if you think the real world is about beauty.

          Please study critical thinking before you open your mouth about it. You make yourself look foolish.

          • Nick
            June 8th, 2011 at 23:41

            The idea that lack of evidence NECESSITATES the postulated’s non-existence is a funny one to me…yes, I agree it is essentially the same principle that one could use to argue for the existence of dragons, but at the same time I see no problem with belief in dragons. Not, anyway, sophisticated belief in dragons. I suppose that fire-proofing the house isn’t high on my list of priorities…

            Let me clarify that so that you don’t assume I’m “ignorant.” The problem with all (as someone referred to the group earlier) “angry atheists” is that they depend on a literal and fundamentalist reading of the Bible (or other holy texts) that is flawed, at best. Religion has actually only relatively recently become about “beliefs” and adherence to doctrine (obviously the relativity of this statement depends on the tradition under discussion).

            Prior to that–and still, for most people, although our society doesn’t think or incline us to formulate it this way–it was about an experience, the same experience, fundamentally, that great astronomers undergo when they view distant galaxies in their observatories (at least the astronomers I’ve met). It’s a feeling of the numinous and transcendental; for some people it’s located out there, for some people in the natural world, for other people in rituals of daily life or, yes, communal religion. That religious causes over the century have caused terrible events is undeniable, but I think I should point out that human beings as a species don’t exactly have a great track record. Ultimately, religion is about an experience for most people, rather than being right (although I personally think that the vocal-ness of the atheist movement today might be driven in part by a desire to be proven right–I find it really, REALLY hard to believe that there were never people before who thought this way).

            By the by, why can’t there be beauty in the natural world, even one that’s not God-created? Parasitic worms might provide valuable chemicals for medicine or industry, and predator-prey relationships are fundamental to the stability of the biosphere. Animals eating other animals isn’t senseless or ugly, it is a part of life, and a part of a balancing act that it’s frankly astounding that this planet has been able to sustain over the last 4-5 billion years.

            Hell, given the vicissitudes of evolution, existence itself is pretty beautiful. Every organism you encounter is the result of millions of years of “striving.”

          • JTK
            June 9th, 2011 at 02:17

            Religion is all about being right. Each and every one declares themselves to be right. Claims to the contrary are false. Name one religion that declares it is wrong. When you fail, please admit it to yourself and others. False premises get discarded and that one is clearly false.

            There is a total lack of evidence for ALL gods. Believers see that clearly about all religions other than their own. The very fact that they are blind to those same flaws in their own beliefs makes them hypocrites.

            I don’t need a literal or fundamentalist interpretation of the bible to show the flaws of religious belief. Nobody does. That is a common claim from believers however. They find it is easier to deal with straw men than to be honest. Furthermore, religion has not recently come to be about adherence to doctrine. Not adhering to doctrine got you killed thousands of years ago as it did hundreds of years ago as it does today. Again, false premises get discarded. Please discard that one too.

            By the way, I never claimed there was no beauty. I claimed the world is utterly uncaring. In order not to be seen as ignorant you may wish to avoid using those straw men and stating false premises.

            Open and honest discussions are the realm of the skeptic. True believers will lie and evade and make ridiculous claims because at least at some level they are aware that the truth isn’t enough to back up their claims.

            Fact over fiction. Lets stick with facts, OK?

          • pete
            June 13th, 2011 at 20:08

            …not sure i really grasp your thoughts but, geeeez your a true intellectual!

            (thanks for sharing)

        • Anonymous
          June 17th, 2011 at 03:47

          Kirstie has made an excellent point here and, again, the other atheists have not failed to flail rhetoric at it. So, to Kirstie, I give you this. From what I have read, not to mention the evidence through endless calculations made by astrophysicists, most of the beauty out there has been created through a beautiful process that has taken place over billions of years (13.4 billion to be exact). During this time, galaxies were born, and stars went through entire life cycles and died creating the heavy elements that exist today. You also said that we and the rest of life could not have been created at random. This couldn’t be more true. We are the fruits of the labor of those dying and reincarnating stars, not to mention our ancestors who, as a species, underwent an epic struggle of trial and error to finally hone down the blunt edge of humanity into who we are today. The same is true of the rest of the life outside the window you have so kindly asked me to direct my attention towards. As far as element tracing shows, we are made of the remains of ancient stars. Therefore we are quite literally the universe looking back at itself with awe and wonder. Isn’t that beautiful itself? I highly recommend the book “Thank God for Evolution” to all of you. It’s wonderfully written and takes a pretty good whack at putting the “Science vs. Religion” war to rest.

          • June 17th, 2011 at 08:55

            Anonymous :

            Kirstie has made an excellent point here and, again, the other atheists have not failed to flail rhetoric at it. So, to Kirstie, I give you this.

            Hmm, let’s see what she said:

            If you’d truly think critically about how intricately designed you are.. And look out your window to see how beautiful this world is, you’ll realize there is indeed a creator. There is most definitely no evidence against one.

            Not a fucking chance are you an atheist.

            Stop raising a false flag asshole. If you agree with that kind of statement, you cannot possibly be an atheist.

        • me
          July 27th, 2011 at 04:03

          When I look out my window all I want to do is kill myself because religion fucked it up.

    • mike
      June 13th, 2011 at 08:33

      prove it.

  7. Kyle
    June 7th, 2011 at 14:31

    Ian :If god is something you can’t understand then why do you pretend to know anything about god..?

    it requires unconsciousness to understand god. duh

  8. Jessica
    June 7th, 2011 at 22:17

    You all just got trolled so hard…

  9. Elijah
    June 7th, 2011 at 22:29

    I find it funny how atheists make it a stereotype that christians are narcissistic, hypocritical, and are always trying to force their religion down others throats because it’s “right”, yet all I see on the internet are athiests bashing on christainity or any other religion. demeaning there intelligence just because they believe in something they can’t see or calculate. Never have I seen in all my aimless surfing of the internet a religious person bashing on an athiest ATT ALL. But time and time again I find these kinds of pictures. What makes you any better then those who force their religion on others?

    • June 7th, 2011 at 22:44

      I find it funny how atheists make it a stereotype that christians are narcissistic, hypocritical, and are always trying to force their religion down others throats because it’s “right”, yet all I see on the internet are athiests bashing on christainity or any other religion.

      Obviously it’s because christians think computers are the work of the devil, therefore they stay away from the evil satan machines!

      But in all seriousness, religious people are without a doubt the oppressors. You can bitch and moan all you want that atheists are loud and mean, but at least we don’t get violent and we don’t force our views on others. Every week I hear some douchebag politician trying to pass some new law restricting the rights of everyone based on some retarded religious viewpoint.

      Religion ruins people’s lives. If you wanna be religious and ruin your own life, knock yourself out, just don’t force your shit on me.

      demeaning there intelligence just because they believe in something they can’t see or calculate.

      Correction: something that NO ONE can see or calculate. God(s) are non-sense and not a single person has ever proven their existence, instead they drone on about “faith”, simply because they can’t prove a damn thing they claim.

      Never have I seen in all my aimless surfing of the internet a religious person bashing on an athiest ATT ALL.

      LOL. How about cramming your shit down our throats every goddamn chance you get. Forcing prayer in school, outlawing abortions, outlawing gay marriage, anti-drug laws, and just about any other “morality” based law that has no actual social benefits. Name a single imposition that “atheists” have force upon your life. Name ONE. We bash what doesn’t make sense, if I see someone saying something that is blatantly false, I will not hesitate for a second to tell them they are wrong and/or lying.

      What makes you any better then those who force their religion on others?

      What? How is this picture forcing my views on you? You came to my website, I posted a funny picture, and somehow this translate to forcing myself on you? Do you have any concept of reality? What planet do you live on?

      FORCING your views on someone goes like this: I believe X, now I’m gonna require that you abide by the rules of X because I said so; if you don’t, I’ll either kill you or throw you in prison.

      THAT’S FORCING YOUR VIEWS ON SOMEONE. Get it right you fucking tool.

    • June 7th, 2011 at 22:56

      Ian pretty much just smoked you.

    • June 7th, 2011 at 23:09

      I think, honestly, that posts like Elijah’s here are what keeps this site going…

      Too many stupid people, man.

    • JTK
      June 8th, 2011 at 22:11

      Elijah, I am going to go out on a limb and call you a liar to your face. Never have you seen a religious person bashing on an atheist at all? Uh.. have you read the comments above you? You see, this is why people like you get treated with disrespect… because you show such disrespect for the truth.

      If you come back, please apologize for your lie. Honestly, you should be ashamed of yourself.

      • Cream
        June 10th, 2011 at 10:27

        Complete and total crap is what is coming out for your mouth.

        • Nick
          August 11th, 2011 at 14:45

          Look out!

          Crap is coming for your mouth! Close it quick!

    • Anonymous
      June 17th, 2011 at 03:54

      And this is what I’m here for. It’s true that the unfortunately vast majority of Atheists on the internet are just flamers or trolls who want to find something that makes them feel better about themselves, but don’t let them fool you. Most of these people aren’t even proper atheists and do not cite valid sources for their claims or even make real claims. However, try not to judge atheists by what you see on the internet. The good atheists are usually not the ones hanging around on forums about religion. I’m not saying I’m one of them, especially since I have a bad habit of making claims whose sources I cannot remember for the life of me but I can tell you can get a hell of a better argument out of atheists than you will out of these guys.

      • June 17th, 2011 at 08:58

        Hey dirtbag, stop pretending to be an atheist, you’re not fooling anyone.

        In your last reply you agreed with someone who said the universe has to have a creator.

        • Anonymous
          June 18th, 2011 at 03:50

          Just because I said that I agreed with a statement made by someone who believes the universe had a creator doesn’t mean that I agree that there is a creator. What Kirstie said that I was agreeing to was that we could not have been created by accident. I went on to qualify that agreement with a statement that the story that leads to us which science describes was not a random process at all. Although I didn’t cite it directly, my source to the statement was the book “Thank God for Evolution,” a book written by a minister with the help of his wife, who studies astrophysics, including citations and quotations from many scientists including Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan.

          • June 18th, 2011 at 08:06

            Although I didn’t cite it directly, my source to the statement was the book “Thank God for Evolution,” a book written by a minister with the help of his wife, who studies astrophysics, including citations and quotations from many scientists including Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan.

            Quotes from famous scientists? People frequently quote Einstein improperly in attempts to prove religious points even though he was not religious.

      • Dediex
        June 18th, 2011 at 03:01

        I was wondering, is there an option to just call yourself anonymous, or did you actually type in your name as “Anonymous”? Just wondering…

        • Anonymous
          June 18th, 2011 at 03:42

          Actually I put a number as my name… apparently it didn’t like it. I’m somewhat disappointed.

  10. hendoc
    June 8th, 2011 at 01:39

    So much anger. Just let the damn fools go their own way and don’t let them get to you. Let them have their demons, angels and spirits.

    • Andre
      June 8th, 2011 at 04:06

      Let them murder in the name of their imaginations.
      Let them indoctrinate more children.
      Let them bomb the abortion clinics.
      Let them destroy the lives of the teens who need those abortions but can’t.
      Let them influence the everyday lives of millions through insane laws.
      Let them have their demons, angels and spirits, it doesn’t harm the rest of us in the slightest.

    • JTK
      June 8th, 2011 at 22:12

      By that reasoning we should let them sacrifice children too. If it happens to be their religion, no problem right?

      Do you care to change your position?

      • Nick
        June 8th, 2011 at 23:44

        Ahh, fundamentalism. The classic fallback of new atheism!

        Or, we could, y’know, admit that there’s no way to know whether OR NOT God exists, and just sort of…you know…live life.

        • June 9th, 2011 at 00:19

          There’s absolutely nothing ‘new’ about atheism. Not believing in gods is older than religion itself.

          • Nick
            June 9th, 2011 at 00:47

            New atheism refers to Hitchens, Dawkins, etc. etc. etc. The group that claims that it is not only improbable/impossible for God to exist, but that the EXISTENCE of religion is harmful to the world. I quite agree, atheism has been around for a very long time, but new atheism is…well…new.

          • Andre
            June 9th, 2011 at 14:06

            @Nick
            The existence of religion is harmful, many of us have written multiple posts making this point, by all means go read them and try to understand what you’re really supporting.

          • Nick
            June 9th, 2011 at 19:49

            I have read Christopher Hitchens, who takes a similar vein. Haven’t gotten around to Dawkins yet, but I should. I was unimpressed. Guess a personal anecdote covers it best. This was a conversation between my dad, who’s a great influence on my life, and my grandmother, his mom, who’s very old and has some accidental prejudices sometimes. :P

            We were discussing my grandparents’ old Afghani neighbors for some reason.

            Grandma: Well, I was just surprised. They were the nicest people! And I had lots of nice chats with that lovely young woman, the wife–I forget her name.

            Dad: *non-plussed* So…?

            Grandma: Well, I was just surprised. You know, the way we hear about Muslims and, you know, people from that region. I didn’t expect them to have such a good relationship.

            Dad: Those people you see on TV? They’re mostly the extremists. Most people are normal, that’s what normal means.

            Grandma: You don’t think they’re mostly kind of like that?

            Dad: No! I don’t think any group of human beings is mostly anything!

            That last line always stuck with me.

          • Andre
            June 9th, 2011 at 22:20

            Not asking you to read Hitchens or Dawkins. Told you to read our posts right here on this website. The mere existence of religion is the only reason religious fundamentalism and extremism exists. You can’t get an extremist without a benign starting point. Religion and (almost) religion alone has been the reason humanity took so many thousands of years to make the technological and scientific advances it has made thus far. Open up a history book that wasn’t approved by the texas fucking schoolboard and learn something.

      • JTK
        June 9th, 2011 at 02:20

        Nothing I said has any connection to fundamentalism. What are you on about?

        • Nick
          June 9th, 2011 at 19:49

          For the Bible to be false, you require a literal interpretation. Fundamentalist.

          • Andre
            June 10th, 2011 at 18:04

            To interpret it in a non-literal sense is to allow it to mean anything and everything. Nonsense.
            Please shut the fuck up, Nick.

  11. james
    June 8th, 2011 at 05:45
  12. Merlin Dobaryan
    June 8th, 2011 at 07:15

    Here is the design of this t shirt. They are selling for last 2 years.

    http://www.stabilitees.com/store/too-stupid-to-understand-science-try-religion-t-shirt

  13. Markus
    June 8th, 2011 at 13:12

    I stumbled upon this site and i am a Christian, but i dont believe in forcing that on others. But i will say i love science, and so far science doesnt disprove God or the Bible. Not all Christians are stupid hillbillies with no logic or intelligence. I think everyone should be open minded and tolerant. If anyone who claims to be Christian acts violently or threateningly to anyone, then they obviously dont get who they stand for and have misinterpreted everything Jesus represented. I used to be an atheist myself.. but once i realized i was empty and i found God filled that void. Just know that not all Christians are hypocrites and jerks. A true Christian should love everyone regardless of religious views. I dont agree with abortion… I think its terrible.. but i’d like someone to explain why its necessary for teens? And prayer in school doesnt hurt anyone… so i dont get why it should be outlawed.. that just oppresses the believers.

    • June 8th, 2011 at 13:18

      I dont agree with abortion… I think its terrible.. but i’d like someone to explain why its necessary for teens?

      Abortion is like any other surgical procedure, no one *wants* abortion, but it’s required in a free society. You have no right to be telling someone else what they can and can’t do with their body. You might disagree, but a fetus is a part of its mother until it is born. Only once it is born is it an independent human. There are *many* reasons why abortion is necessary, outlawing it because you don’t like it is not a valid reason.

      And prayer in school doesnt hurt anyone… so i dont get why it should be outlawed.. that just oppresses the believers.

      Prayer in school is not outlawed. You can go to school and pray every day if you want.

      What *is* outlawed (and for good reason) is mandated prayer. eg, you are required to pray. You don’t see the harm? What if the tables were reversed? How would you like to be praying to Zeus, Odin or Allah, and if you don’t, you get punished.

      Religion is *supposed* to be about free will and choice, when you create laws that force your views on others, you are no longer giving people the option to believe if they want to. That’s bullshit, and I will fight anyone that tries to force me into their bullshit beliefs.

    • JTK
      June 8th, 2011 at 22:15

      Schools are public, provided for by the government. Would you be accepting of a school using public money to indoctrinate people into a religion you didn’t believe in? No, you would not. That makes you a hypocrite. Please smarten up. Nobody blocks people from praying, merely from using the government to make people pray. I am sure you know that, why would anyone honest misrepresent something so clear?

      I think you are a liar. It is very common for believers to pretend to have been an atheist in order to get taken more seriously. I don’t believe you.

      • Nick
        June 8th, 2011 at 23:46

        You call a lot of people liars…try educating instead. I thought atheists LIKED education! :P

        • June 9th, 2011 at 00:20

          Religious people that say they ‘know’ god exists, are liars.

          • Nick
            June 9th, 2011 at 00:49

            Mmmm. Depends on your definition of “know.” Can we call experiential knowledge knowing?

            Also, I was more making a general point about JTK’s attitude and approach to dialogue than a specific point about the argument.

        • JTK
          June 9th, 2011 at 02:27

          I call them as I see them. Making false claims is par for the course from believers. Markus used a cliche, I am sure you noticed. It is quite common for believers to pretend to have been atheists. A common lie. They are taught to use that tactic. You can look that up, I dare you to. You may educate yourself.

          The simple fact is that most people do not come to their religious beliefs through rational thought so it is foolish to think they should find their way out through rational thought. Ridicule however is quite powerful. People who see their cherished beliefs exposed as ridiculous and find that no matter how hard they try to change the subject or move the goalposts they still hold ridiculous beliefs deserve to be ridiculed. Education is not the only way to change a belief.

          Consider yourself educated. If you doubt what I have said, look it up. There are many studies on this matter I am sure you would find informative.

          • Nick
            June 9th, 2011 at 19:51

            Can you cite them? Also, doesn’t it seem counter-productive to wean someone to reason using ridicule, bullying, and emotion? Isn’t that sort of like weaning someone to religion with the threat of Hell?

            Waaaaaaaiiit a minute… :P

            Also, I THINK I’ve responded exhaustively to everything you’ve said.

          • Laura
            June 15th, 2011 at 21:00

            @JTK I don’t like you very much, your points a fair but your answers are extremely disrespectful. Everyone to their own, everyone, “in a free society” has the right to speak freely, let them give your opinions and if you feel it isn’t right, RESPECTFULLY reply. I believe in science, don’t believe in God but stop hating on the Religious, man, it’s not cool.
            I’ve studied alot of the beingings of religion, the crusades, the way religions treated each other. It was brutal and horrid and as false as you could get, that for me was the point where I didn’t understand religion. They killed each other. Stoning, brutal attacks. Such as in Alexandria with the Egyptions and then later the Jews, they outlawed the religion and attacked and intimidated until Christianity won all. I was watching a movie, Agora, and this egyption slave learned and studying in the Alexandrian Library, the greatest collection of writings in the time, of science, philosophy, society, the world. When the Christians came, they destroyed it, killed, maimed, cahsed out the egyptions and this one slave boy, still became Christian. The bible, which held rule over everything, and in the Christians frenzy for the blood of the heathens they committed atrocities yet, the boy began to believe in Christianity. I don’t believe any Religion is good. It makes people forget who they are sometimes, and it only takes 1 follower of a corrupt leader for people to catch on to the idea. Sheep.
            It’s the same with science too. People in science have been so blinded by their goal that they would have gone to any lengths to get the results. Scientist in the Concentration camps during the time of Hitler, they too committed atrocities and no one cared. No one did anything, they just did it.
            There are problems with our world, and there are better things we could all be doing than sitting here on our computers bickering over beliefs. There are Children in Africa, in Uganda and The Republic of Congo that are taken and taught to kill and maim other people, they are mutilated, in girls, they are, and sorry for the graphicness of this, but their clitorises are cut off, they cut off these childrens’ noses, lips, ears, hands, feet, the men that do this don’t care. In many cases these Children then have to kill their own families and by that time they are so brainwashed, many don’t even flinch.
            This is how screwed up our world is, put some effort into that, do something good for your communities if your that worried about them. Religion has good and bad things, thing I don’t agree with and I will fight for the rights of women who need abortions because they can’t bring up their child in a safe environment or can give them what they need, or any other reason for needing one. One day in the future when people see me as a women of standing, not just a 16 year-old, I will fight for the right to make and choose forthemselves and to live in a safe place. Please, I ask you, think of more than just the things that directly effect you. And grow up, it’s just a picture.

    • June 8th, 2011 at 23:03

      I dont agree with abortion… I think its terrible.. but i’d like someone to explain why its necessary for teens?

      You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. Abortion is performed before the fetus develops and becomes a human baby. A fetus inside a woman’s womb is similar to an egg that a chicken laid. Taking that egg and boiling it up is similar to abortion. It may sound silly, but it’s true.

      Also, if a woman is raped, do you think we should let her keep the baby to remind her of the scumbag that attacked her and forced her into sexual submission? Do you seriously think that your decision to outlaw abortion is more important than her own feelings about the man who raped her and gave her an unwanted pregnancy? You need to think deep and hard about what you just said because I smell pure ignorance. You don’t own anyone’s body but your own. You can’t tell people what to do with their bodies. Deal with it.

      • Nick
        June 8th, 2011 at 23:46

        Just want to preemptively say: pro-choice.

        BUT since we generally don’t use fertilized eggs in cooking, that is a bit of a false analogy.

        • June 9th, 2011 at 00:21

          We also don’t eat crocodile eggs….. what a strange argument to make.

          • Evan
            June 9th, 2011 at 00:32

            Uh … we totally fuckin’ eat fertilized eggs. Watch the Travel Channel.

          • Andre
            June 9th, 2011 at 22:21

            Also, some of us eat crocodile eggs. Stop making such rash assumptions Ian. tsk tsk.

  14. Markus
    June 8th, 2011 at 13:35

    Im not trying to force you into anything. And i meant prayer out loud in school or at a graduation. A lot of schools wont allow teachers to say anything about God and thats not fair. And why is abortion required? I dont see any benefits to society from it. I’m just tryin to see your viewpoint, im not arguing or fighting honestly.

    • June 8th, 2011 at 13:40

      There are no laws forbidding prayer at graduations. Schools are not allowed to sanction prayer, they can however make rules stating that people cannot have outbursts, sing songs or chant at a graduation, and enforce those rules.

      When you pray at the podium, you’re forcing your prayer on everyone there. If you want to pray on your own in your head, knock yourself out. If I have to sit there and listen to you prayer, then again, we have a problem.

      I’m sure you have no interest in hearing a muslim prayer, or a scientologist’s prayer to Xenu.. Why is this so hard to understand?

      I dont see any benefits to society from it.

      Pray on your own watch. You’ve got TONS of time to do it, go to church and pray.. go to the park and pray… go pray in your home, your backyard, your friends house….

      WHY do you NEED to pray in front of an assembly of people who are not necessarily christian?! Seriously, WHY?

      • Nick
        June 8th, 2011 at 23:49

        I would actually be fascinated to hear either of those prayers…and I’d point out that unless I was being tied down, I don’t think I’d think that it was being forced on me. Unless the prayer itself was offensive (eg, someone prays in a graduation speech, “God, protect us as we move out into the world, and please help all of those stupid atheists see the light.”) I think I’d take it as a good-faith (pun intentional) gesture and move on with my life.

        • Evan
          June 9th, 2011 at 00:14

          I believe that the point we try to make is we don’t want to hear about how you think there is a god when you don’t want to hear about how we don’t think there is a god. If you let us get up and say “Too bad there’s no one out there to protect us from harm, so let’s man up and stop being pansies and protect ourselves” (or something similar of course) then we probably wouldn’t care so much when people pray. We don’t have the right to practice our beliefs in public, and since we have as much right as anyone else, neither do you.

          • Nick
            June 9th, 2011 at 01:20

            See my reply to Ian below!

        • June 9th, 2011 at 00:22

          I find religion and irrational beliefs are offensive.

          • Nick
            June 9th, 2011 at 00:51

            Evan–please stop using the second person to me. I am not a Christian and not a theist. Also, I understand your point, and to keep with my high school graduation idea, I would invite you to do so, but not while interrupting the ceremony! ;P

            Ian–can’t you leave then? I mean, say I’m at a party and two drunk people start having sex on the sofa. Now, I’m ok with most things, but there are some things I don’t want to see. That’d be one of them. So, I leave the party. I make a decision: either the event I’m at is important enough for me to put up with unintentional offense, or it is not, and I leave, and stop being offended.

          • Andre
            June 9th, 2011 at 22:23

            @Nick
            Yeah the implied “go kill yourself” didn’t go unnoticed, FYI.
            This is quite possibly one of the stupidest analogies anyone ever makes by the way.

      • Markus
        June 9th, 2011 at 13:16

        I was talking about abortion when i said i dont see any benefits to society.lol not prayer.

    • Andre
      June 8th, 2011 at 17:14

      Why abortion? As Ian said, it isn’t a requirement, but let me ask you something: would you rather see a ton of teen mothers who can’t afford to pay for their child suffering in the streets? Would you rather those babies be born, and then die anyway because the parents can’t afford to feed it, or just plain don’t want it so they toss it?

  15. Markus
    June 8th, 2011 at 13:39

    And i’ve never seen anyone punished for not praying in school. Just because many people pray at one time doesnt mean you have to join in. You know? And anyone who talks down to someone for not praying should reanalyze his or her reason for praying! Because its wrong to oppress. There’s no love in that.

    • June 8th, 2011 at 13:42

      And i’ve never seen anyone punished for not praying in school.

      Because that would be illegal. State funded schools cannot sanction prayer, if there were no such laws in place, they easily could punish those who don’t pray.

      Because its wrong to oppress. There’s no love in that.

      You’ve demonstrated first hand that you support this oppression by being in favor of school sponsored prayer.

      • JTK
        June 8th, 2011 at 22:17

        Not too long ago a child who refused would be made to sit outside. Talk about humiliation, right?

        You are wrong on the facts. Please try to inform yourself before making such ridiculous posts.

        • Markus
          June 11th, 2011 at 23:00

          i’m not wrong on the facts.. i sais i’ve never seen it.lol and i haven’t.

          • Markus
            June 11th, 2011 at 23:00

            said not sais

      • Joey
        June 14th, 2011 at 09:32

        I was punished multiple times for not praying and not saying the pledge in school multiple times, i was a public school kid too. I guess thats what you get for being an aithiest growing up in the deep south

    • Guthrie
      June 8th, 2011 at 23:37

      You may think that “it’s wrong to oppress”, but the many if not the majority of your fellow believers do not share this opinion. The story linked to below puts the lie to your statements.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WYdcvXKoKo

    • Shawn
      June 13th, 2011 at 20:27

      In a country that is supposed to not have an official religion, and keep religion separate from the state, if you have Christian prayer time during school – even if its not a requirement and people can chose not to participate – you are implying that Christianity is “right” and you’re religion is insignificant or even “wrong.”

      Now, you personally as a Christian might believe that is true, but again – in a country without an official religion and that keeps religion separated, that’s culturally incompetent.

      • Shawn
        June 13th, 2011 at 20:28

        Oh, and even if you have a silent prayer time where people can pray to whoever they want to, its still implying that you “should” have a religion.

  16. Markus
    June 8th, 2011 at 14:06

    What??lol No i blatantly stated i was against the oppression.. Come on now. I’m not attacking anyone I’m just trying to understand. I’m in favor of believers being able to openly believe regardless of what position they hold. Teachers, Principals, Judges, even the President. It shouldnt matter. I dont think they should tell everyone to pray! thats wrong. But having a sanctioned time to pray together for all students and faculty wouldnt hurt. Like the moment of silence.. but that was removed from our schools due to complaints of teachers praying.

    • June 8th, 2011 at 14:12

      lol No i blatantly stated i was against the oppression..

      Followed by:

      I dont think they should tell everyone to pray! thats wrong. But having a sanctioned time to pray together for all students and faculty wouldnt hurt.

      ERRRR. Does not compute.

      Here’s why it’s oppression, because you aren’t letting me do what I want, which is to not pray. I have no interest in praying and should not be required to pray. If you wanna do it, go for it, but it should not disrupt my day.

      • Markus
        June 9th, 2011 at 05:04

        No no.. i just meant a moment of silence. No one was told to pray or asked to. but you could if you wanted!lol im not saying anyone should pray to God if they dont believe in Him, because that’d be pointless. And about the abortion thing, I hate rape… its so stupid and evil. I don’t think the girl should be punished for that, but there are other options out there besides abortion. But as for teens running around sleeping with people and not being smart about sex or cherishing it… it’s just a cop out. No responsibility for their actions. I know some who have had children and its changed their life for the best! It just seems selfish to end that life for your own benefit. There is adoption too. Give that baby a chance:) and im not using any tactic by saying i was atheist… its true. i thought Christians were annoying, pushy, and VERY hypocritical. How could someone proclaim Jesus and then go get drunk and high and cuss people out and hit their wife, molest children, lie, cheat, and all that? But i did find God and i did change. Completely! I realized most who claim to be Christian are blind to what it even means to be Christian. Love God with all your heart, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. Its not about forcing views, or fighting people we believe are wrong. It’s about peace and loving everyone regardless of what they’ve done or what they believe. So anyone who says you’re dumb for being atheist, or hates anyone who doesn’t agree with the Bible, isn’t following Christ very well. I’m just trying to explain that not all Christians are so dumb or so judgmental. Not looking to convert anyone, just hoping to break a few stereotypes on real Christians who practice what they preach:)

        • Len
          June 11th, 2011 at 06:15

          … but there are other options out there besides abortion.

          Yes, there are. For example, proper sex education and the use (and availability) of contraceptives. Not many other options.

          You mention adoption later in your text, but (considering a case of an unwed girl who accidentally got pregnant because of the lack of contraceptives – or even worse, a rape victim) that means the girl has to carry the baby she doesn’t want to full term. And everyone will know she’s carrying it. Unless everyone knew she was raped (pretty awful for her), she will be seen as shameful by all the christians. And then she will put the baby up for adoption. That will again be seen as shameful by all the christians. Adoption is not a realistic alternative to abortion in the real world.

          • Markus
            June 11th, 2011 at 22:52

            Dont say all the Christians… Everyone makes mistakes. Anyone who condemns others doesn’t get the true message. True Christians should help that girl and defend her. Not look down upon her. Adoption isnt seen as shameful by any of my Christian friends. I think adoption is amazing! But i do understand the rape situation being difficult, the only thing is it’s not that future child’s fault, so give him or her a chance at life:) ya know? There are many married couples looking for a child because they cant have one together. Once again i dont condemn those who have abortions.. i just dont agree with the concept. And it sucks to feel humiliated but knowing you’re doing something good is worth it.

  17. Garrett
    June 8th, 2011 at 16:50

    The fact that “I” as an atheist, even have to explain to you why I don’t want to pray to your God is at least pushy if not oppressive (especially if I have to explain my atheism to every religious zealot who would like to convert me, but luckily not all religions are conversion intensive (I’m lookin at you, Buddhism *winkwink)). I am not required to explain, follow or humor you or anyone for any reason. If a normal person realizes you do not feel like explaining yourself after they have asked a question, they will back-off if they have no agenda. But many christians’ agenda is conversion, so they don’t back off. They bleed their feeble ignorant rhetoric about why faith is important, they may spout some bible verses, and then it’s pray with jesus and me time. Christians: do us atheists and yourself a favor, let it go. Because I know if we have this conversation, I know where I’m spending eternity… with you, talking about Jesus.

    • June 8th, 2011 at 18:24

      We don’t claim to have it all figured out… But we do know a lie when we hear one. Also, not having evidence against something, is not evidence in favor of the claim…

  18. June 8th, 2011 at 19:59

    in the bible god MURDERD ,25 to 35 million people.here on earth death by religion has been prevalent through out history .faith IS THE ONE TRUE SIN!!!!

    • Nick
      June 8th, 2011 at 23:52

      Hm. Loud, capital letters where they shouldn’t be, and none where they should be. Takes a mythological text literally. That’s a convincing argument.

      • June 9th, 2011 at 00:23

        It’s called emphasis, don’t be stupid.

        • Nick
          June 9th, 2011 at 00:52

          It’s called grammar and irrelevancy. Thanks for using one and not the other!

          • Nick
            June 9th, 2011 at 00:54

            Atheists always claim to be after reasonable discourse, dialogue, et cetera. Yet that statement was defended. Why? If I put it this way:

            in the 20eth cintury stalin and mao murdered hundreds of thousands of people. communism since it began has brought nothing but woe to mankind and no good ideas .END COMMUNISM NOW!!!

            I HOPE you would call me a stupid asshole. :P

          • Andre
            June 9th, 2011 at 22:26

            @Nick
            Yes, we do go for more reasonable discourse. But can you have a reasonable conversation with a bird? With a gorilla? With your pet cat? No. Can you have a reasonable conversation with the schizophrenic in the crazy house? No. Just as you can’t have the aforementioned reasonable conversations, you can’t converse reasonable with the irrational and deluded. Please stop posting here, you’re only embarrassing yourself.

          • Len
            June 11th, 2011 at 06:26

            @Andre: Don’t knock talking to animals. My girlfriend’s dog sometimes understands me better than she does.

            ;-)

            But I agree that reasonable discussions with people who hold irrational beliefs is nigh on impossible, once you get past the “How have you been today?” stage.

          • Andre
            June 11th, 2011 at 13:02

            My cats just roll over expecting belly rubs. In actuality I’m yelling at them, but they just don’t get it!

    • Smithen
      June 11th, 2011 at 04:08

      ken :in the bible god MURDERD ,25 to 35 million people.here on earth death by religion has been prevalent through out history .faith IS THE ONE TRUE SIN!!!!

      You JUST acknowledged the bible to be true.

      • Len
        June 11th, 2011 at 06:31

        Not really. He just stated that the story book that christians believe says that their own god killed all those people (way fewer people than it says that Satan killed, by the way). Christians believe the bible, so – logically – they should also believe how nasty their god is. That they don’t believe he’s nasty is just one indication of the irrationality of their beliefs.

        • June 11th, 2011 at 20:37

          satan only killed 10.god allowed him to because god lost a bet with satan
          .the bible is nothing more then a story book.

          • melinda
            June 18th, 2011 at 04:15

            how do you know satan only killed 10? Seriously, you seem to be the story book here.

          • June 18th, 2011 at 08:12

            melinda :

            how do you know satan only killed 10? Seriously, you seem to be the story book here.

            You really need to read the bible if you think he’s wrong.

  19. Bob
    June 8th, 2011 at 20:37

    The United States is a scary place. Far behind the rest of the western world in far of still believing in ancient fairy tales.

  20. Edith
    June 8th, 2011 at 21:18

    Faith is hope and belief in the goodness or trustworthiness, of a person, concept or entity. If asked, I witness to being a believer. I have faith in mankind. I believe in God. Everybody has an opinion; let us all agree to disagree where needed in order that we might enjoy life a bit more.

    • JTK
      June 8th, 2011 at 22:22

      There is no agreeing to disagree on the facts. Facts just are, you don’t get your own facts to suit your own opinions. Elementary stuff, right? The facts say that the bible makes false statements. The facts say that the bible contradicts itself countless times and is not a reliable historical document due to huge numbers of transcription errors and additions over many generations.

      There is no agreeing to disagree on the structure of logic.

      You can have your belief in god, any god, and it is all completely indefensible logically or scientifically. That is what gets your goat, isn’t it? The fact that reason and science show your beliefs to be nonsense makes you feel ashamed. And it should.

      • Nick
        June 8th, 2011 at 23:53

        Actually, I would challenge to prove what makes the “structure of logic” inerrantly and inherently sound–not to mention immutable. Last I checked, logic was a tool developed by humans, which, as an atheist pointed out earlier, are fallible creatures.

        • Evan
          June 9th, 2011 at 00:09

          Science is also a tool invented by humans, however science and logic have been tested and re-tested over and over to prove that they are at least valid in our basic understanding of the universe. Logic and science use the observable and indisputable facts of the world we live in to expand our limited knowledge. No one claimed logic and science were completely right one hundred percent of the time, just that they get it right far more often than the bible thumpers.

          • Nick
            June 9th, 2011 at 00:55

            Ah! Interesting phrase, “bible thumpers.”

            What about moderates? :)

          • Nick
            June 9th, 2011 at 00:55

            Also, I’m still dubious about how “I don’t see evidence for it, so it must not exist” is in keeping with the “observable and indisputable facts of the world we live in.”

          • Len
            June 11th, 2011 at 06:40

            @Nick:

            Also, I’m still dubious about how “I don’t see evidence for it, so it must not exist” is in keeping with the “observable and indisputable facts of the world we live in.”

            But believers follow the path of “I don’t see evidence for it, so it must exist”.

            And please don’t say that believers see evidence. I’m not talking about emotions or desperate wishes, but real (ie, real-world) evidence.

        • June 9th, 2011 at 00:25

          Math can create proofs…

          wait.. are you seriously questioning the soundness of concepts like…. logic? dude, you’re just trolling now.

          • Nick
            June 9th, 2011 at 00:56

            So create the proofs! Or look them up! Seriously, I’m not trolling, I’m asking for a reasoned and argued defense! If you can’t give it to me, aren’t you defaulting to authority? Isn’t that something that bugs you about religious people?

          • JTK
            June 9th, 2011 at 02:35

            He is doing what theists always do.. muddy the waters. When they are shown as lying hypocrites, change the subject. Evade, avoid, confuse, misdirect.

            If Nick believed what he has said here today he would be as much a believer in Astarte or Isis as any other god, he would believe in dragons and fairies and demons. So either he is a liar, a hypocrite, or both.

            Virtually all believers are the same way. They are unable to use logic and reason to defend their beliefs but they crave that validation, they wish they had what we have. But they don`t, so they muddy the waters.

          • Dediex
            June 18th, 2011 at 03:48

            Honestly dude, I swear that he is either trolling us hard, or this is some kind of debate test/quiz thing to see if we know our stuff well enough to not get trounced in a real argument. There is no way he is actually being serious about this.

        • JTK
          June 9th, 2011 at 02:32

          If you truly believe that not seeing evidence for something means it does not exist then you will believe in Thor just as much as you believe in your god. You do not, so you are just grasping at straws. You don’t believe in Thor because you know that believing in Thor would be nonsensical. He is fictional. A myth.

          That means you are being a hypocrite. You expect other religions to meet standards of proof that you hold your own above.

          Oh, and if you could challenge the structure of logic you would have instead of just saying you could. You might succeed, right? If you do you will wind up on the cover of magazines and probably get rich doing speaking engagements.

          My guess is that you are hurt by my words and can’t deal with that cognitive dissonance openly and honestly, which is why you play these little games.

          • melinda
            June 18th, 2011 at 04:23

            Logic and evidence? Do you always need evidence to prove something exists? There’s no evidence to prove that you love someone, but you just do. Yes! there’s no evidence to support that a God exists, but all there is is our faith that God does exists. The whole point having faith in God is because we believers cannot see God but we know that God does exist. Stop insulting believers because you feel that what we believe in is wrong and stupid. Seriously, your judgements and thoughts don’t really matter so keep on talking about how ‘dumb’ or ‘stupid’ us believers are because no matter what you say WE’LL STILL BELIEVE THAT GOD EXISTS.

          • June 18th, 2011 at 08:15

            melinda :

            Logic and evidence? Do you always need evidence to prove something exists? There’s no evidence to prove that you love someone, but you just do.

            I lolled hard at this. No evidence that love exists? WTF? How about… amorous behavior as evidence? Seems pretty solid to me…

            all there is is our faith that God does exists

            I have faith in the flying spaghetti monster, THAT PROVES HE EXISTS!!!

  21. JTK
    June 8th, 2011 at 23:05

    Believers resent science because they are ashamed their beliefs don’t meet scientific standards.

    Imagine how proud someone would be if their religious beliefs were backed up by science, by reason, by established fact! The simple honest pride that person would feel for knowing their beliefs were tried and true, tested and re-tested, what an amazing feeling that would be. All believers wish that science backed them up. It doesn’t, no matter how much they wish for it.

    If you want that fantastic feeling of being right, become an atheist.

  22. Evan
    June 8th, 2011 at 23:22

    I hate how often Christians say that there is absolutely no evidence against god … alright, I’ll play your game for a second here. There’s no evidence against the existence of god. Sure. But there’s plenty of evidence against the existence of YOUR god. The bible (pronounced bib-lee) has TONS of it. You all claim that it is the inerrant word of god, yet it is full of contradictions (2 Samuel 23:8 and 1 Chronicles 11:11 DIRECTLY CONTRADICT each other and this is merely one of several hundred. In case you’re wondering they say that the chief of David’s captains killed 800 men and 300 men respectively.) which logically proves that your religion is false. That’s right, the bible PROVES YOUR RELIGION TO BE FALSE. Stop telling us that there is no evidence against god when in fact your own fucking book that you think is evidence FOR god is evidence AGAINST god.

    • Nick
      June 8th, 2011 at 23:58

      Whoa, whoa. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let’s…let’s all just calm down for a minute here.

      “it [the Bible] is full of contradictions”

      Ok. No problem, read on a literal/historical level, totally true.

      “which logically proves that your religion is false.”

      UM.

      Because no non-deific construction of the universe has ever been wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almagest#Ptolemy.27s_cosmos) or had its theories revised (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_revolutionibus_orbium_coelestium). And there’s CERTAINLY not a canon of revisionary theory, law, and argument from the founding of any world religion to today (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06001a.htm, to give just one example from one religion).

      • Evan
        June 9th, 2011 at 00:23

        Are you seriously trying to argue that it’s alright to revise the inerrant word of god? What the hell are you even talking about? It’s idiotic to even suggest that it’s alright to go changing religious theory that’s been handed down in a sacred text two thousand or so years old because of science. I mean I get that we know what we’re talking about, but the fact that you have to back peddle when we go hey look (instead of just admit you were fucking wrong), this is what it’s like out there and it’s an observable fact is just pathetic.

      • JTK
        June 9th, 2011 at 12:22

        The bible is full of contradictions, period. Please inform yourself. Try Bart Ehrman for starters.

        Are you trying to say that correcting a theory is a weakness? Please take a firm position on that. It is a crazy thing to say and if you really mean it I am sure I can humiliate you with how out of touch with reality you are. That would be clear and obvious attempt to trick people. If you need to trick people then you can’t be very confident of your beliefs.

        Come join us where nobody needs to lie to defend their beliefs. Its quite nice to be above that.

        • Nick
          June 9th, 2011 at 18:40

          You are horribly misreading my intent. I agree that revising theories is a strength. And I am saying that, for thousands of years, religious thinkers (like scientific ones, though the methods differ) have been DOING THAT.

          • Andre
            June 9th, 2011 at 22:27

            LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

          • June 9th, 2011 at 22:45

            Religion /=/ Science
            Fantasy /=/ Reality

      • Len
        June 11th, 2011 at 06:51

        Ok. No problem, read on a literal/historical level, totally true.

        Nick, if you say that the bible should be read on anything other than a literal level, then you’re saying that it should be interpreted by the reader. Which means that it becomes of no more value to the reader than any book of fairy stories.

        • Len
          June 11th, 2011 at 06:58

          … because each reader can interpret it to mean anything they want it to mean.

    • Nick
      June 9th, 2011 at 00:02

      I had a reply to this that linked web pages. Oh well. My problem:

      “it [the Bible] is full of contradictions”

      Ok, cool. Totally true, if read on a literal/historical level.

      “which logically proves that your religion is false.”

      Ok, see now you’ve really done it. I know now that Christianity is a lie. After all, it’s not like there’s ever been a non-deific conception of the universe (please see: Ptolemaic system) that was later revised (please see: Copernicus) and there are CERTAINLY no revisionary, interpretative, or clarifying writers in the history of religion (please see: any theologian).

      • Nick
        June 9th, 2011 at 00:03

        Oh look, it posted! Goody!

        • Evan
          June 9th, 2011 at 00:19

          As I posted a little further up, science doesn’t claim to be completely true all of the time. We’re extremely aware that we have NO FUCKING CLUE as what is really going on up there. We’re just doing the best we can. We, unlike you, admit our mistakes, think “Holy shit (pun intended) that’s MUCH more fascinating than I thought it was!” and continue the grand pursuit of knowledge. No where in there do we torture and kill the people trying to further our limited understandings.

          • Nick
            June 9th, 2011 at 01:00

            Again, knock off the second person! Geez, haven’t you ever heard of a “devil’s advocate?” :P

            And you’re switching the argument, which is not in accord with the “Debating a Christian” chart so popular on websites like this. According to that chart, I just default won! Yay! But I’m willing to let that one slide.

            My argument: Religion has rarely in practice claimed to be inerrant, and this is a relatively recent phenomenon. Ergo, your argument that Bible being not literally true invalidates religion makes no sense. In a manner similar to how scientists revise theories, most religious people revise theology or their practice to fit their times and observable universe.

            Your response: I never said scientists knew what they were doing all the time (neither did I!). Besides, we don’t torture and kill people who think differently.

            My counter-argument: Neither did the people to whom I refer.

          • JTK
            June 9th, 2011 at 12:31

            Back up your claims, Nick. Religions all over the world claim to be inerrant. I think you have been misled. Please cite your sources and be prepared to defend them. Those claims sound like the baseless things that Libery U tosses out expecting their students to be not quite bright enough to see through.

            What you are saying is a mix of common theist fallacies. The people to whom you refer? No true scotsman. Many people of many religions tortured and killed those who think differently but rather than admit it you use a fallacy that implies they aren’t actually christian or whatever.

            That is a sign either of dishonesty or sloppy thinking. Please take a logic course, and not one from a bible school.

            A fallacy is not a counter-argument. Please be honest with us and admit that. Honesty is the best policy, right? When a point is made an honest person can admit it. Show us you can be honest. I’ll wait patiently.

    • Shawn
      June 13th, 2011 at 20:36

      Though I realize you said “your god” and not god in general – I don’t like this argument simply because anything that is essentially human isn’t a very good argument against god, and people who use bashing a certain religion as evidence for atheism aren’t making very good arguments.

      I exist, and if a human decided to write a book about me filled with contradictions and pass it along, it wouldn’t suddenly mean I don’t exist. Same could be said about many of the anti-god arguments – god shouldn’t hate people (homosexuals), god this god that blah blah blah……humans came up with those rules – they might claim god “told it to them” (but we all know they’re nuts to begin with), but they’re all fabricated by man, and relevant to the historical period to which they evolved. And really, all religions show the same patterns, and the same imperfections that human beings display over and over, which is why I see them as man-made – I would hope a true god would be far above and beyond human pettiness and hate (I would imagine if there was a god, understanding him would be like explaining rocket science to an ant – and therefore, it wouldn’t care if you had a habit of saying fuck or other silly little things).

      People should be allowed to have whatever interpretation they want to have about god, and be able to completely ignore what is already out there if it doesn’t make sense to them – there are plenty of atheists who are atheist because they don’t like the current definition of god – and in that case, it seems more anti-people – which makes completely perfect sense if you’ve ever stepped back to observe people.

  23. Nick
    June 9th, 2011 at 03:00

    JTK :He is doing what theists always do.. muddy the waters. When they are shown as lying hypocrites, change the subject. Evade, avoid, confuse, misdirect.
    If Nick believed what he has said here today he would be as much a believer in Astarte or Isis as any other god, he would believe in dragons and fairies and demons. So either he is a liar, a hypocrite, or both.
    Virtually all believers are the same way. They are unable to use logic and reason to defend their beliefs but they crave that validation, they wish they had what we have. But they don`t, so they muddy the waters.

    When did you demonstrate to me that I was incorrect? Have I not asked for a proof of the logic that dictates that if we cannot observe the existence of God, the belief in a God is necessarily harmful? All I ask for is a logical, sound proof–and an explanation as to why the logic that was used is superior to any logic used to arrive at religious explanations.

    I really don’t think I’m muddying the waters here. I think I’ve asked for something reasonable.

    Also, on that same chart I mentioned to Evan, the rules of reasonable discourse chart, there’s a bit about how the person affirming something has to be the one to defend it. Shouldn’t that apply to principles (ie logic) as well as belief? I’m not claiming that I can disprove logic any more than that I can disprove God. Neither is within my capability; but logic works, and so in many ways can religion.

    You also are clearly misreading my posts. And ignoring the bits where I explicitly said (perhaps not to you, I grant–maybe you missed them) that I am not a theist, or a Christian. So your whole claim that I am demanding that “other religions” keep a standard which “mine” does not seems…unfounded.

    Not to mention a pretty crappy ad hominem argument, from someone who claims to like reasonable and critical discourse! Particularly the bit at the end, about me being hurt. I don’t care what you think, mostly because–lol–you haven’t figured out yet what faith (if any!) I am. So how could you hurt me? Your argument is weak and not founded in logic, but emotion. You cling to your belief that there must be an alien outsider there, so you demonize a group–in this case theists. Quickly, though, anyone who disagrees or questions becomes a member of that group by definition, and therefore a demon.

    Another weakness in your “Why don’t you believe in Thor, you hypocrite” clause is that I DON’T think it’s ridiculous to believe in Thor. At any rate, I’ve encountered some perfectly non-ridiculous people who do so. I don’t. But they can, and it’s good for them. That’s all that matters.

    PS, still waiting on my proof. Rather than showing why my arguments are invalid, all you’ve done so far is claim that I’m confusing things. Perhaps you mean that you’re confused? There’s a subtle difference, but I can try to explain myself more clearly if it will help! :)

    • JTK
      June 9th, 2011 at 12:42

      That is another attempt to move the goalposts and/or change the subject. Your opinions as expressed here are clearly hypocritical. You certainly don’t believe in every god every thought up yet you use an argument that defends all possible gods equally while still not believing in all gods equally. Clear and obvious hypocrisy. You don’t actually believe what you said but you said it anyway. That makes it a lie.

      Logic is not used to arrive at religious explanations. If you believe your religion is logical then you should be out proving it, I am sure anyone who could find a logical proof of any given religion would find himself on the cover of countless magazines and making appearances on Oprah. You are not, so you cannot. You are simply fooling yourself. You would be rich within a few weeks on speaking engagements alone. Why aren’t you? Because you are wrong.

      Also, if you aren’t a christian why do you refer to the debating a christian chart? That seems like a sign you aren’t being forthcoming.

      Another lie maybe? So what religion are you?

      The claim that you don’t think believing in Thor is ridiculous is also a lie. If a person came up to you on the street proclaiming the reality of Thor you would laugh. Honest people can admit that they find belief in fairies in the garden ridiculous and belief in blood sacrifice ridiculous and offensive.

      Honesty is the best policy and you resort to lies far to often to be reliable. Your claims show definite signs of deception. You have met people who believe in Thor? Uh, what? How many ridiculous claims do you have to make before you start to figure out that your lies are blatantly obvious?

      Go back to bible studies. Your lies have failed.

      • Nick
        June 9th, 2011 at 19:16

        I’ll attempt to address your paragraphs in order:

        JTK, who gave you permission to decide what I believe? How do you know that I “believe” (in the sense of “intellectually assent to”) any gods? Or how do you know that I don’t assent to all of them? Maybe I believe that belief makes a deity real. Why can’t I believe that? More importantly, how do you claim to know that I don’t.

        This is the functional equivalent of me calling you a hypocrite because you say I move the goalposts, but you refuse to meet the challenge or answer the question I have been consistently posing. But I’ll move on.

        My religion is plenty “logical,” although it makes claims that are very difficult to quantify; but more on that later. As it turns out, it has plenty of people who advocate it, but relatively few of them have become wealthy. Turns out human beings are going to believe what they believe–including that other (or any) beliefs are stupid and illogical.

        I refer to the “debating a christian flowchart” because that is what the thing is CALLED: http://atheismresource.com/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Flow-Chart.jpg Here is a copy, you’ll notice the title on the top. If I had to guess, I would say that it is unthinkingly called that because most virulent atheists in the West have grown up in an environment dominated by Christianity, and therefore automatically associate it with all forms of theism. I think–perhaps I’m wrong–that the makers of this chart would agree that it is meant to apply to any religious discussion (it was posted on this blog earlier).

        Not a lie. I’ll explain: religiously, I’m a mutt. I was raised in an (extremely loosely) Methodist household, but my family and I drifted away from our church as I grew up. I became interested in Buddhism, and after a while I began identifying as a Buddhist–closest to the Theravada and Zen traditions. However, I’m now not really practicing (although I keep thinking that I should–I enjoy it) and I’ve never taken refuge (the very, very loosely functional equivalent of baptism–formally joining a sangha). Although I applaud the bodhisattva ideal, I don’t really believe in reincarnation or any of the other metaphysical ideals associated particularly with Mahayana Buddhism–most of them are amalgamations of the worldview dominant at the time Siddhartha taught. For more on the experience of being a non-metaphysical Buddhist, I recommend Stephen Batchelor, author of the obviously-titled Buddhism Without Beliefs and Confession of a Buddhist Atheist.

        Also, if someone came up to me to announce the reality of Thor, I would probably blink, be startled, listen for a bit, and then politely move on. I would NOT, however, expect everyone to behave that way. It seems to me patently ridiculous to expect anyone else to behave exactly the way I do. I suspect that you would laugh and find it ridiculous. But why on earth do you think I would? I’m, y’know, not you. Honest people realize that there is more than one mode of existence, and that not everyone is like them or should be.

        Y’know, you’re right. The “met” was too strong a term. I should have used “encountered.” http://www.hrafnar.org/ http://www.asatru.org/ http://www.runestone.org/

        I don’t go to Bible studies, although I have read parts of the Bible. Since I don’t think I have lied, the second statement there simply doesn’t compute. Could you point out the lie again?

  24. Jake
    June 9th, 2011 at 03:07

    Guide reproduction with prudence. Christianity says “be fruitful and multiply”. I say, select the best stock and grow those bitches in test tubes! Science is for the future, fuck religion. Stop creating more dark ages for civilization with your humanity. WTF was Ghandi for? How do you think England took control of India in the first place? India had 25% of the worlds wealth and then they fell into a religious war that is still going on today. Let’s build a better future for our ancestors, even if you aren’t related to them :)

  25. Redirected
    June 9th, 2011 at 07:34

    Nick said;

    ” My argument: Religion has rarely in practice claimed to be inerrant ”

    By this statement, Am I to assume that you are excluding the claims of Fundamentalist
    Christianity from this discussion ?

    • Nick
      June 9th, 2011 at 07:56

      Not excluding them, just pointing out that they are in a relatively recent minority. Or perhaps I should say (now that I’m arguing in a more awake mode) that religion until recently has never claimed to be SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE. So, yes, they’re one of the rare exceptions to the statement.

      • JTK
        June 9th, 2011 at 12:45

        Since science itself is relatively new your words mean little.

        What does it mean to say that before science religion didn’t claim to be scientifically accurate?

        That is either sloppy thinking or another attempt to misrepresent the facts. All religions claim to be true, despite your claims to the contrary. If they didn’t their followers would quickly move on to one that did.

        Again, Nick, your words show either horribly sloppy thinking or outright deception.

        Either way, you ought to educate yourself some more if you want to have honest debates.

  26. Redirected
    June 9th, 2011 at 12:33

    Nick : I should say that religion until recently has never claimed to be SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE.

    I might assume that Copernicus and Galileo would disagree with your assertion that religion has never claimed to be scientifically accurate.

    Although, I don’t know if Christian leaders in the 16th century actually mouthed the words “scientifically accurate”, I do know however, that Copernicus and Galileo were both accused of blasphemy and heresy for suggesting that the Earth revolved around the sun,
    and the moon around the Earth.
    Galileo was actually tried by a Christian tribunal and was made to recant (under threat of torture) his scientific statements and to publicly agree with the book of Genesis that the sun and moon were attributes of the Earth.

    I guess the Religious leaders did consider the Bible scientific reality and were willing to defend their position even if it meant death of the offender.

    • JTK
      June 9th, 2011 at 12:47

      Proof that he is wrong won’t change his mind. He obviously has something invested emotionally in maintaining false beliefs. He may claim not to be a believer but as pointed out above that is a common tactic for theists. They find they get more credibility if they pretend to be atheists etc.

    • Nick
      June 9th, 2011 at 18:38

      JTK :Back up your claims, Nick. Religions all over the world claim to be inerrant. I think you have been misled. Please cite your sources and be prepared to defend them. Those claims sound like the baseless things that Libery U tosses out expecting their students to be not quite bright enough to see through.
      What you are saying is a mix of common theist fallacies. The people to whom you refer? No true scotsman. Many people of many religions tortured and killed those who think differently but rather than admit it you use a fallacy that implies they aren’t actually christian or whatever.
      That is a sign either of dishonesty or sloppy thinking. Please take a logic course, and not one from a bible school.
      A fallacy is not a counter-argument. Please be honest with us and admit that. Honesty is the best policy, right? When a point is made an honest person can admit it. Show us you can be honest. I’ll wait patiently.

      @JTK–when did I say I was an atheist?

      Also, Redirected, Copernicus and Galileo are cases of the change that happened when religion began trying to claim to be scientifically accurate–note that I said “until recently.” Now, as JTK points out, science itself is pretty recent, as far as the modern, Western scientific method goes. However, prior to that religion did not always claim the stories it told as literal truths. Look, for example, at the Kabbalah of Judaism.

      What happened during the Enlightenment is that there was a movement towards science, and swept up in some cases by enthusiasm and in some cases by fear, religious leaders tried to find ways to work religion into the new, scientific-method-dominated world of Enlightenment Europe. Ultimately this was a huge mistake, because it led to what first emerged then and is now all too common: a literal reading of the bible, and assumption that for belief in God (the term “belief” itself changed at the time too) the Bible must be scientifically and historically accurate. Prior to the attempts of Enl. religious leaders to fit religion into the scientific worldview, mystic traditions and other non-literal readings of religion were very popular.

      If you’re interested in learning more about this transition, I highly recommend The Case for God by noted religious historian Karen Armstrong.

  27. Markus
    June 9th, 2011 at 12:56

    Well the placement of the moon and sun doesn’t change the validity of the Bible.. So those people back then were stupid to attack Galileo and Copernicus. Like the Crusades… Not once did Jesus say that anyone had to claim Jerusalem or kill ANYONE. But they called it a Holy War. Senseless. Misrepresenting Jesus again. And thats why people have such harsh views of Christians, because people (even to this day) do and say ungodly things “in God’s name”.

  28. Bruce
    June 9th, 2011 at 17:25

    What the fuck does any of it matter? Get a life!

    • Nick
      June 9th, 2011 at 19:19

      A fair point. But for some reason, I have a perverse amount of fun trying to reason with people who refuse to listen. :P

      However, I applaud the sentiment! In my opinion, sir, you win this board. :)

  29. Rick
    June 9th, 2011 at 17:37

    Markus :Well the placement of the moon and sun doesn’t change the validity of the Bible
    .

    Psalm 19:6
    The sun rises at one end of the heavens and follows its course to the other end. Nothing can hide from its heat.

    • Markus
      June 12th, 2011 at 15:37

      Dont we still call it sunrise and sunset??? Its not technically rising but thats what it looks like! and david was a poet, so saying “the sun just sits there and we float around it” isn’t quite as awe inspiring. haha:)

  30. Redirected
    June 9th, 2011 at 19:04

    Nick Said;
    ” your argument that Bible being not literally true invalidates religion makes no sense ”

    If a religious text, claiming to be the word of the creator, is proven to be literally and historically inaccurate and contradictory, despite its claims,
    Is it then not logical to conclude that there are likely spiritual and doctrinal contradictions as well ?

    Does this not overwhelmingly degrade or perhaps even invalidate the claims of this book if the very precepts and conditions on which this religion rest its proclaimations are discredited ?

    BTW, I’m not trying to insult your religion :)

    • Nick
      June 9th, 2011 at 19:31

      I see what you’re saying, but ultimately all I ever see people pointing out about the Bible (and don’t worry–I don’t get offended easily, and it’s not my religion! :P) is (A) its historical/scientific inaccuracies and (B) the violence, misogyny, et cetera found in it.

      I think the crux of the matter is that–and JTK, I’m gonna point this out to you too, if you read this before I do–new atheists assume that a fundamentalist’s understanding of the Bible is somehow more true than that of anyone else’s, or even the ONLY true understanding. Why should this be so? The vast majority of Christians (or anything-ians) DO read the Bible selectively, consciously so. They see the valuable things (ie, Galatians 5:14-15) and recognize the negative ones (ie Hosea 13:16, particularly if you take it as a command and not a prophecy, which is its context) as throwbacks to a more violent, more primitive time. Because it was WRITTEN BY MEN FROM THAT TIME.

      Trust me, I was confirmed in a Methodist church, though I’m no longer Methodist (or even Christian, see above). When I had confirmation classes, it was all about the HISTORY of the Bible–theories on where the figures and ideas came from. For example, the possible Babylonian origins of the character we now think of as Satan.

      As to whether it “degrades” the spiritual methods, again, I somehow rarely see new atheists despising the beatitudes.

    • Nick
      June 9th, 2011 at 19:33

      By the by, I think any religious person would tell you that the claims of the Bible that CAN be taken literally–ie the ones that new atheists most often dispute–are the LEAST critical ones, not the “very precepts and conditions on which [the] religion rest[s] its proclamations.”

      • Redirected
        June 10th, 2011 at 21:26

        Really ?! Do you not think that condoning ownership and inheritance of human slaves diminishes the spiritual integrity of an “omniscient” God ?

        And the divinely guided systematic, genocidal ethnic cleansing in the old testament of nations foreign to the Children of Israel does not destroy the founding precepts of a forgiveness, love of your neighbor, do unto others, turn the other cheek mentality proclaimed by the adherents ?

        Is this a good moral framework on which to build a religion ?

        is religion dangerous ? Sounds like it could very well be if this is the behavior of the heavenly Father.

  31. Nick
    June 9th, 2011 at 19:42

    JTK :Back up your claims, Nick. Religions all over the world claim to be inerrant. I think you have been misled. Please cite your sources and be prepared to defend them. Those claims sound like the baseless things that Libery U tosses out expecting their students to be not quite bright enough to see through.
    What you are saying is a mix of common theist fallacies. The people to whom you refer? No true scotsman. Many people of many religions tortured and killed those who think differently but rather than admit it you use a fallacy that implies they aren’t actually christian or whatever.
    That is a sign either of dishonesty or sloppy thinking. Please take a logic course, and not one from a bible school.
    A fallacy is not a counter-argument. Please be honest with us and admit that. Honesty is the best policy, right? When a point is made an honest person can admit it. Show us you can be honest. I’ll wait patiently.

    What the hell is Liberty U? Again, an irrelevant ad hominem.

    You’re right that citations should be used. You should use some too! I’ve offered some sources for background in my slightly earlier posts–I encourage you to look into them!

    “The people to whom you refer? No true scotsman.”

    REALLY. O.o

    And so, you are qualified to say this because you are…affiliated with the religious organization (ie, every one in the world, so far as I can tell) in question, yes? Because if not…I can’t figure out how you would make that judgment call. Or, for that matter, WHY. I remember from a course I took a while ago–I may be able to find out the precise scholar, but I can’t remember who at the moment–reading something that made a lot of sense to me: a claim that unless one is a MEMEBER of a religion, one has no business–or need, for that matter, and ideally no interest–deciding who “is” or “is not” a member. That is something that religions have to figure out for themselves. Why would you even have a dog in that fight?? By the by, this was a course taught by one Jan Willis, one of the preeminent scholars of Tibetan Buddhism (and Buddhism generally) in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Willis) and taught at one of the top small colleges in America. So, not “Liberty U” whatever that is.

    Can you quote this fallacy to me please? I’m not clear on where I said that people who tortured weren’t or couldn’t be Christian. Maybe if you point it out I can clarify what I meant.

    Actually can you point out ALL of these fallacies you claim? Rather than listing them–which would make for a stronger argument, BTW–you reserve yourself to claiming they exist. Not to get TOO ironic here, but…where’s your proof? :P

    • Len
      June 13th, 2011 at 05:20

      What the hell is Liberty U?

      Interestingly, JTK didn’t say Liberty U, he said Libery U (ie, a typo). So I guess you did know of it or you looked it up. It would have been more honest to address his point, rather than make it look like you’d not heard of Liberty U.

  32. Redirected
    June 9th, 2011 at 20:19

    Nick Said :
    Also, Redirected, Copernicus and Galileo are cases of the change that happened when religion began trying to claim to be scientifically accurate–note that I said “until recently.”

    I didn’t realize that the 1500′s were considered “recently” Oh well, I guess that there weren’t many scientist walking around amung the poor, sheep hearding, illiterent, Hebrew peasents, so there was no need to claim scientific accuracy until them upity scientists came along to dispute the claims of those in authority.

    Its too bad and I’ll bet that you’ll agree that when you put total power in the hands of those who claim complete infallibility, especially when they’re wielding a book laced with contradictions, primitive animal expiation and out right senseless genocide and call it morality (as well as enforce it by law) These are the things that anger atheists and even those from other religions.

    For example, “thou shall not kill” works for just about anybody, but when its time to persecute gays (stone to death in Mosaic law) by condemning their life style and making laws that limit their honest pursuit of happiness, or legislating what a woman can and can’t do with her body, makes other people stand up and take notice and say “its time to put on the brakes”

    I believe that is why the beatitudes get overlooked Nick. You know; the killing, the religious genocide, the misogyny oh…and the scientific inaccuracies too.

    • Nick
      June 9th, 2011 at 21:04

      In the scope of the history of religion, yes, I would say that the 1500s are recent.

      Cite the total power that these people are wielding, please? Last I looked we weren’t stoning gays.

      And again, I really do think that there’s a misconception here (and I’m getting sick of repeating this): why is it that for some reason the fundies are the ones who are always the ones to atheists who are the “true” believers? Do you really believe that if all believers were like that, we’d still be living in the society we are?

      • Redirected
        June 10th, 2011 at 08:04

        I think the “fundies” as you call them, that get most of the attention by atheists and others simply because ” the squeaky wheel gets the oil”.
        Moderates, tend to be comparatively quiet and unassuming.

        When was the last time a Greek Orthodox, a Unitarian, a Methodist or otherwise moderate Christian followed you to your doorstep and handed you a pamphlet warning you to conform to their moral idea because the “End of the World” is coming and you’ll spend an eternity in hell ?

        Who, is attempting to control modern society by lobbying law makers to change legislation to meet their religious standards?

        Who will be standing in front of the Family Planning doors to show your daughter (who was ganged raped at a high school party), color pictures of a half consumed human fetus (because fear is the only tactic left until force of law is enacted) a Buddhist ?

        It’s the “fundies” who usually (not always, but usually) make the most outrageous statements.
        When they’re not telling you that the world will end on May 21th 2011, they are arguing that the Earth is 6000 years old, telling you that Satan deposited dinosaur fossils and that they know that God has disdain for homosexuals.

        Folks that don’t try to FORCE their religious views, tend to “play well with others” and coexist. Hence, escape much of the wrath of those of us who are quite tired of all this. Not just atheists.
        I hope this is demonstrative ?

        I’ll cite 2 examples of absolute power: You choose to go back 600 years and still call “recent” the trail of Galileo. Let’s go right there. The 1500 and 1600′s. The church had total power and could, without legal contention, try, convict, sentence and probably even carry out execution on those who would dare imply that our world was anything other than what the Bible describes:

        the Earth was mounted on pillars resting at the bottom of the sea, Psalm 24:1
        that the water and hail were stored up in the sky and released by flood gates Job 38:22,
        and that God sat on a dome above the Earth. Amos 9:5

        1623 Rome, Pope Urban VIII tried and imprisons Galileo for Blasphemy and heresy.
        1553 Geneva, John Calvin tries, convicts, ans sentences Micheal Servetus to death for blasphemy. Calvin even picked out the green wood to make the burning at the stake a miserably long and painful experience (that will teach those to challenge religious authority)

        Actually, for a bonus, I’ll throw in a 3rd. Jesus. He was really a victim of the religious authority of his day, (whom he pissed off royally BTW). It WAS Caiaphas, the high priest who interrogated Jesus and handed him over to Roman authorities for execution.
        I have to say that to be able to order the death of a human being unchallenged, constitutes the “total power that these people are wielding”

        • Nick
          June 10th, 2011 at 20:31

          I agree with pretty much everything you say. BUT you have an inconsistency here:

          –You agree that moderates are reasonable, and that most people are moderates.

          –Yet you argue that “religion is dangerous.”

          Now, is religion dangerous? Or is extremism, totalitarian power, and unchecked authority dangerous? I agree on one of those.

          • Redirected
            June 10th, 2011 at 21:13

            Nick Said:
            “…BUT you have an inconsistency here….Now, is religion dangerous? Or is extremism, totalitarian power, and dangerous? ”

            Religion is dangerous IF… AND WHEN…the adherents of said religion seek to force their “morality”, “views” and or “statutes” on other autonomous beings.

            Call it extremism, call it totalitarian, call it unchecked authority,
            call it religion,

  33. Hali
    June 9th, 2011 at 20:41

    I put it to you that the majority of athiests don’t actually understand science. In fact I would be so bold as to say that the majority of scientists only really understand their particular brand of science.

    Almost every person who reads this will only have a grasp of science as diseminated to them by various experts.

    I’m not trying to suggest that “some big dude did it in a really idiosyncratic way that is unexplainable but i’m right anyway!” is in anyway a good arguement. But lets not pretend that athiests are in some way more evolved than everyone else. It just makes us look like stuck up a-holes.

  34. jadek
    June 10th, 2011 at 02:58

    APATHEIST FTW

  35. Trololololo
    June 10th, 2011 at 03:17

    Troll picture brings out troll comments. ROFLCOPTER

    Intelligence and wisdom would lead one to realize that neither is this a medium that allows for persuasion, nor is it of any value ever to try and persuade someone forcibly to change their mind on such a fundamental issue. One must learn through experience whether or not there is a spirituality component to existence.

    In regards to the potential dangers of a religious or semi-religious or non-religious society and the apparent urgency and necessity to convince others to believe what one believes, examination of history will show that it is not any particular organization that causes human strife or suffering, but the insatiable appetites of human kinds inevitable ‘black sheep’ or naturally greedy/hateful/ignorant/malicious sons/daughters.

  36. fatuglynerd
    June 10th, 2011 at 03:27

    all of your comments are making baby jesus cry

  37. meatistastytastymurder
    June 10th, 2011 at 04:17

    rather like the shirt design .. i dont tend to enter into these long winded arguments with religious people ads dr.house once said – if you could reason with religious people there would be no religious people

  38. Nick
    June 10th, 2011 at 20:29

    Andre :Not asking you to read Hitchens or Dawkins. Told you to read our posts right here on this website. The mere existence of religion is the only reason religious fundamentalism and extremism exists. You can’t get an extremist without a benign starting point. Religion and (almost) religion alone has been the reason humanity took so many thousands of years to make the technological and scientific advances it has made thus far. Open up a history book that wasn’t approved by the texas fucking schoolboard and learn something.

    Oh please? Religion and religion (almost or not) ALONE is the sole reason we took so long? It had nothing to do with the fact that we had to, you know, evolve, develop tools (including language) and then gradually learn a process that would allow us to develop reliable ways of doing things and making discoveries?

    Because, you know, I always thought that our having to LEARN things–starting from NOTHING–might be slowing us down a bit. Or, I guess in reality, not at all–it just takes a little while for primitive hominids to develop rocket ships.

    I’m going to preempt something that you’re likely to say here: that religion was used as a tool to prevent progress. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the process that (as best we can understand) is the usual development of religion. It’s not, “A bunch of people made up stories to make themselves powerful.” It goes like this:

    –There are things in the universe that people can’t explain or control
    –They develop (for the time) logical explanations to solidify their worldview and root themselves in their own reality.
    –People exploit this system to abuse people.

    In scholarly circles, this is the difference between a RELIGIOUS ACTOR and a POLITICAL ACTOR who is USING religion or religious structures as a tool.

    • Andre
      June 11th, 2011 at 13:00

      If you want to talk evolution, please try and understand that it is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. If people 2000 years ago hadn’t jumped on the Christianity bandwagon we would have continued to develop off of the technological and scientific advances that had been started by the Egyptians. Christianity caused these advances to take a nose-dive, and for about 1800 years kept us scientifically stagnant. Notice how this has nothing to do with evolution, and everything to do with social development. Please don’t confuse the two as I’m sure we’re both aware of the concept of social-darwinism, and your current mistake is a very similar one. After those nearly 2000 years we were lucky enough to have more people support the idea of progress, rather than tradition, and we were able to start making up for lost time. 200 years later we come to today, and we are nowhere near where we could have been.
      If you must, take a trip to google and do some research. Read up on some of the technologies from before the Christian era, technologies pushed back by the dogmatic foolishness of religion.
      Notice that I ignored your little “I know what you’re going to say” bullshit and went right ahead into this. Not once did I say they did this for the express purpose of the prevention of progress, but it was certainly the result.
      I gotta ask you again: please shut up, you are a clueless wannabe intellectual with little to no knowledge of what you’re trying to talk about.

    • Andre
      June 11th, 2011 at 13:14

      I notice that I forgot to mention something here. I didn’t say it was the sole reason. Reread my post and try not to add words when you “paraphrase” if you can call what you’ve here paraphrasing. I certainly did make the point that it was a huge player, probably the primary, but I put in the (almost) as an obvious bid to say “but there were other things as well”. Again, as I said, evolution has nothing to do with it. We were already developing the tools, and we would have continued to do so.
      2000 years is an insignificant chunk of time in the development of coherent language necessary to communicate at the level required to make any of these developments. The languages used even further back would have been sufficient to get to where we are today and beyond. But this is not the point, and for the point I refer you to the post directly above this one.

      • Nick
        June 11th, 2011 at 20:10

        The wonderful thing about the internet, of course, is that you can be this rude to me without getting in trouble for it, or people thinking you’re obnoxious for it. Type is much less offensive than the spoken word. (Don’t believe me? Try reading our conversation out loud!)

        However, I would cite this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_historic_inventions#1st_millennium_AD and ask you which inventions you’re specifically referring to, and when they were quashed by Christianity. Social theory and philosophy are my strong suits, not history; perhaps you can enlighten me. I assume, since you’re so dismissive of my scholarship, that you have well-cited points to back yours up (thanks for the Google tip, by the way, it worked great to find that list).

        You are also misunderstanding a fundamental point I was making. You say that technology was pushed back by Christianity. I disagree, but I am not saying that technology continued to accelerate at the same pace. What I AM saying is that Christianity was not the root cause of this blockage–hence, again, the difference between religious and political actors. The centuries after the death of Christ were a tumultuous time for a huge region of the globe; if I had to put a finger on a “singular” cause of that (though that’s surely an oversimplification) I would actually probably put it on an event commonly known as the “fall of the Roman Empire.” You may have heard of it.

        Also, I paraphrased you that way (including the almost explicitly) because your implication was that religion, specifically Christianity was the biggest contributor by an enormous margin, which functionally becomes the same as it being the only one at all.

  39. Nick
    June 10th, 2011 at 20:34

    Lol. I mixed “Oh, please” and “Oh really?” there. Sound like I’m begging Andre. :P

  40. Nick
    June 11th, 2011 at 01:29

    Redirected :Nick Said:
    “…BUT you have an inconsistency here….Now, is religion dangerous? Or is extremism, totalitarian power, and dangerous? ”
    Religion is dangerous IF… AND WHEN…the adherents of said religion seek to force their “morality”, “views” and or “statutes” on other autonomous beings.
    Call it extremism, call it totalitarian, call it unchecked authority,
    call it religion,

    But you admit that there are moderate religious people who don’t bother you. This is why to me there’s no logical connection there. The first three things make sense, but the jump to associating ALL RELIGION AND REMOTELY RELIGIOUS PEOPLE with extremism seems to me like associating all atheists with Nazi eugenics.

    • Redirected
      June 13th, 2011 at 08:30

      “Religion is dangerous IF… AND WHEN…
      …the adherents of said religion seek to force their “morality”, “views” and or “statutes” on other autonomous beings. ”

      (Just in case the central statement was not fully absorbed it the first time round :)

      Nick Said:
      “The first three things make sense, but the jump to associating ALL RELIGION AND REMOTELY RELIGIOUS PEOPLE with extremism seems to me like associating all atheists with Nazi eugenics.”

      I believe that you made that jump Nick.
      At your request, I explained why I think atheists focus on “fundies” more and tend to coexist with moderates.

      Since moderates don’t stick blow horns in my ear when I’m down town in front of the cafe, and scream; “Prince william is reptilian and the anti Christ”, I tend to have a lot more respect for them. (…um moderates that is and not reptilians)

  41. Morgan
    June 11th, 2011 at 08:50

    My argument against an all-powerful, benevolent god:

    http://www.google.com/m/search?site=images&client=safari&hl=en&gl=us&source=mog&q=starving+children+in+africa&spell=1&ei=YmLzTdiUNYqZtgfly9WiAw&ved=0CBUQBSgA#i=52

    Doesn’t take much more evidence than that. Thanks for trying, Organized Religions. We’ll let you know when science fixes what you can’t.

  42. June 11th, 2011 at 11:05

    Nick, you apparently fail to appreciate a fundamental and fundamentally important concept, which I’ll summarize as follows: all religious moderates provide moral / philosophical support to religious extremists; thereby, they’re traitors to humanity.

    If you don’t see it, think about it. Religious moderates and other mystics (apparently including you) demonstrate willingness to believe, adopt, and act on ideas that have insufficient to zero evidentiary support. This failure to hold beliefs only as strongly as relevant, reliable evidence supports is a horrible moral failing. As W.K. Clifford wrote in his essay The Ethics of Faith: “It is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” And it’s exactly such moral failing of “moderates” that emboldens extremists (e.g., terrorists) to similarly cling to their beliefs, in the absence of evidence. Thereby, religious moderates and mystics support terrorists, and thereby, people such as you are traitors to humanity.

    If you still don’t see it, I invite you to click on my name (to get to my website) and see (e.g.) Chapter I entitled “Indoctrination in Ignorance”.

    • Nick
      June 11th, 2011 at 20:02

      Hi other Nick!

      I disagree; I think that ridiculous ideas can be contained, although truly DANGEROUS and MILITANT ones should be discouraged. However, I would quote the Dalai Lama to you (although I’m sure you don’t regard that as a good source): “What science finds to be untrue, religion must necessarily abandon. What science simply does not find is another matter.”

      I will look into your book when I get a chance!

      • June 12th, 2011 at 07:36

        Nick, in the long run and after horrendous bloodshed, you may be correct that “ridiculous ideas can be contained.”

        On the one hand, however, recall the painful, prolonged history of trying to contain ridiculous, inhumane Judeo-Christian ideas (as well as those of Nazism and Communism) – and I expect that, most unfortunately, much more blood will yet be shed before the ridiculous idea known as Islam is contained.

        And on the other hand, think of an alternative, bloodless, humane, humanistic option of containing such ideas, namely, teaching children to hold beliefs only as strongly as relevant evidence recommends – or, as someone whom I admire said (though I am disappointed that he, the Dalai Lama, failed to analyze the concept of ‘happiness’): “The ultimate authority must always rest with the individual’s own reason and critical analysis.”

        I agree with the Dalai Lama’s emphasis on “critical analysis”, but for reasons described elsewhere (e.g., see my Chapter R, entitled “Reason vs. Reality”), then as in the case of his superficial emphasis on ‘happiness’, I again find his analysis to be superficial. Thus, similar to many ancient Greeks philosophers (Aristotle, Epicurus, Zeno the Stoic…) and all religious philosophers, the Dalai Lama has given insufficient thought to the dangers of relying on reason rather than on the scientific method, i.e., relying on evidence to identify testable hypotheses.

        Reliance on reason rather than evidence led and continues to lead even well meaning people, such as Jesus (if he existed), Aristotle, Epicurus, Zeno the Stoic, “Saint” Paul, Augustine, Thomas, Marx, et al., to become traitors to humanity.

        • Redirected
          June 13th, 2011 at 15:26

          Very Well stated Mr. McConnell.

  43. stjustpaul
    June 11th, 2011 at 16:26

    can anyone tell me why atheists get so angry about believers and believers in god or gods get so angry at atheists? Surely we will all know the truth when we die!

    • Ben
      June 11th, 2011 at 17:25

      Hi StJustPaul, I think this lady puts the case for the justified anger of many atheists well – http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html

      Ultimately though, the causes for atheist anger are going to be within a huge spectrum as religion has influenced every aspect of humanity.

      I can’t speak for the religious case here – the causes are many, ultimately. My supposition of the main reason is that some/many theists see the atheist as wilfully bringing subversion to the imaginary/fantasised social harmony of the religious community – however, given the energy theists put into attacking each others religions on this same grounds, I’m not sure if there really is anything specific about atheism per se that upsets them. Probably best to ask elsewhere.

  44. June 11th, 2011 at 17:18

    I suspect that most atheists are angry that theists attempt to make us live in their delusions (and if we don’t, they’d kill us if they could – witness the Inquisition, Christian fundies, and Muslim terrorists). I suspect that most theists are angry at atheists because we threaten their delusions. And no, it’s extremely doubtful that we’ll know “the truth” when we die; instead, all evidences points to the conclusion that, when we die, we’ll be dead, knowing zip.

    P.S. to Nick: sorry, the chapter reference should have been to Ih, “Hypotheses, Probabilities, and Evidence”.

  45. Nick
    June 11th, 2011 at 19:55

    Andre :To interpret it in a non-literal sense is to allow it to mean anything and everything. Nonsense.
    Please shut the fuck up, Nick.

    No, not nonsense. Interpretive group reality-building. In fact, the way religion has operated for most of its existence (mists of ancient history —> Enlightenment.

    Please refrain from using language and make cases that allow for different interpretations of a work than your own. Language is fundamentally vague; the idea that something written down has to be taken at face value is the most basic mistake you can make when dealing with a text. Any text, religious or not.

    • Matt
      June 11th, 2011 at 23:32

      Why are we not allowed to take communication for face value? If we don’t take what people say for face value, then what is the point of communication at all? If I know what I’m going to say to someone is simply going to be misconstrued into something that I didn’t even say, let alone mean, what would be the point in me saying anything in the first place?
      And does that mean we shouldn’t take what you say at face value?

      Here is an example as to why interpretation can be a bad thing:

      Interpretation: You have missed a closing parentheses. It could be a sign of failing memory, since you cannot even remember a simple closing parentheses you must not have the capacity to remember anything. Or it could be that your communication skills are extremely poor, or even that you are extremely uneducated, because an educated person couldn’t possibly make such a simple mistake.

      Face value: You simply forgot to add, or missed the closing parenthesis, and it doesn’t effect your argument.

      • Len
        June 12th, 2011 at 06:35

        Indeed, this is why interpretation is a bad thing. Even (especially?) “Interpretive group reality-building”, because the “reality” that is built from interpretation will depend on the interpretation of the people with the loudest or most convincing voices.

      • Nick
        June 12th, 2011 at 15:12

        Hmmmmm. An interesting point, Matt, but I think that there is a difference of source material here. The terms of our conversation presuppose that we are communicating everything we intend: we are having an academic conversation.

        Most religious texts, however, were constructed so that they were MEANT to be interpreted and possess multiple meanings. Len makes an interesting point, however, that people with the loudest voices, in this case, construct the reality. However, I think that puts the onus on religious groups to make sure that their loudest speakers are the good ones.

        There’s also, of course some fault here in our modern news media: confrontation makes a good story and contentment does not. You never hear, for example, “Christian and atheist friends discuss reality over brunch, part full and satisfied with a new respect for each others’ traditions.” :P

        • Nick
          June 12th, 2011 at 15:13

          I should add that this problem is not just with reporting but with WHOM the media gives voice to; extremist people are more dramatic and engaging to watch than moderates.

          • Len
            June 13th, 2011 at 05:33

            However, I think that puts the onus on religious groups to make sure that their loudest speakers are the good ones.

            …this problem is not just with reporting but with WHOM the media gives voice to

            Do religious groups self-regulate? I don’t think so.

            These days, it’s not just the media reporting on the crazies that’s causing the crazy messages to be spread. Anyone with a half-way decent blog can gather followers whom they can influence.

  46. June 12th, 2011 at 04:18

    I’m too drunk to understand science but I am sane enough to understand that I was smart enough to understand that religion was ridiculous…. thankfully beer really got me out of this insanity…. Thank you Carl Sagan!

  47. Josh
    June 12th, 2011 at 11:43

    Markus : …im not using any tactic by saying i was atheist… its true. i thought Christians were annoying, pushy, and VERY hypocritical. How could someone proclaim Jesus and then go get drunk and high and cuss people out and hit their wife, molest children, lie, cheat, and all that?

    It sounds to me that you were merely experiencing a lack of faith. Now that your faith is rekindled you are not dependent on the merits of your fellow “christians” to endorse how you feel. I don’t really think that atheism out of spite is really getting to the roots of what it means to deny the unprovable existence of all deities past present and future.

  48. K
    June 12th, 2011 at 11:46

    All of you morons who are bashing on all religious people, you are not helping your argument. If someone is looking for a greater purpose in life, and finds god, there is no problem with that. You bashing on someone because you find them “ignorant” is completely ruining your arguement all of your arguements. I have no problem with you expressing your point of view, but please, have some respect when you do it.

    • June 12th, 2011 at 13:05

      If someone is looking for a greater purpose in life, and finds god, there is no problem with that.

      Sure it’s a problem, god doesn’t exist, that makes you delusional.

      I have no problem with you expressing your point of view, but please, have some respect when you do it.

      No. I will not respect your beliefs, why? Because they’re wrong. This is not a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of truth vs fantasy.

      • K
        June 12th, 2011 at 14:31

        Right now its a matter of you being a dick. You complain about religious people shoving there beliefs down your throat, and yet you do the same, without thinking of it as wrong. You are being extremely hypocrytical. And can you prove that there is no god. I can’t prove there is, but you can’t prove there isn’t.

        • June 12th, 2011 at 15:33

          No actually I’m not fucking doing the same thing you ass. I am NOT going up to you on the street telling you to stop believing in your religion, I’m NOT trying to get laws passed that force you to not believe in your fictitious gods, I’m not threatening to kill you over your laughable beliefs.

          What I AM doing, is mocking you for believing in non-sense, and I’m doing so on MY website that YOU came to visit. I am not shoving this in your face, you came here on your own.

          There nothing hypocritical about this.

          And can you prove that there is no god.

          I don’t have to. You’re the ones making the absurd and unsubstantiated claims, so FUCK YOU, YOU PROVE IT!!

          I can’t prove there is, but you can’t prove there isn’t.

          Exactly. You make an insane claim that you can’t prove, then you for whatever reason think that because I can’t disprove your non-sense, that somehow vaildates what you’ve said.

          Guess what, I can FUCKING FLY, but I’m only gonna do it when no one is looking.

          DISPROVE WHAT I JUST SAID, OTHERWISE IT PROVES THAT I CAN FLY.

          • K
            June 12th, 2011 at 15:40

            First off, chill out dude.
            Secondly, I am an athiest, so you can cool it with the attacking me, and my mind set.
            Thirdly, All you did in that last post was prove my point that you are being a dick, and doing nothing but disrespecting others.
            Also, your logic is flawed.
            Get off your high horse dude, and start being a intelligent human being, like your falsely claiming you are.

          • June 12th, 2011 at 17:04

            K :

            First off, chill out dude.

            You accuse me of being as bad as religious nutjobs, call me a hypocrite and somehow I’m the one lobbing personal insults? Fuck off.

            Also, your logic is flawed.

            How insightful.

            All you did in that last post was prove my point that you are being a dick

            I made an excellent point, to which all you can say is that I’m being a dick? Maybe next time don’t piss me off by insulting me and I’ll be a little more civil.

            Get off your high horse dude, and start being a intelligent human being, like your falsely claiming you are.

            Feel free to quote me as to where I claimed to be intelligent.

      • Nick
        June 12th, 2011 at 15:01

        Ian, there is a substantive difference between the statement, “There is no evidence that God exists, therefore it seems safe to assume that he doesn’t” and “There is no evidence that God exists, therefore he doesn’t.” One is in accord with logic. The other is not.

        • June 12th, 2011 at 15:35

          I take a firm stance against this lunacy because if I don’t, it gives morons like this above chap the wiggle room to think it’s ok to believe that shit.

          It isn’t. There’s no reason to believe in gods, therefore I will take a strong stance that they do not exist.

          • K
            June 12th, 2011 at 15:41

            Again, personally, I don’t believe in god. And being a dick about your point of view only makes people want to ignore you. It doesn’t matter how right you are, if you’re going to be a dick about it.

          • June 12th, 2011 at 17:05

            K :

            Again, personally, I don’t believe in god. And being a dick about your point of view only makes people want to ignore you. It doesn’t matter how right you are, if you’re going to be a dick about it.

            You take your approach, I’ll take mine.

  49. K
    June 12th, 2011 at 16:45

    One more thing Ian. One of the main things that bothers me about fundamentalists is the lack of logic they use, and their general closed-mindedness. Reading these comments has made me realize that religion has nothing to do with it. Turns out that humans like yourself simply can’t listen or consider a different point of view. Their view ultimately has to be right.
    So thank you. You being a stubborn ass has taught me a valuable lesson about who I’m going to have to deal with in this world.

    • June 12th, 2011 at 17:08

      I’ve been running this site for 4 years. I’ve tried time and again being civil with religious idiots. They always come back and repeat the same trash over and over verbatim. I’m done being nice, these people don’t deserve it. There is nothing “fundamentalist” about my attitude. My aggression is nothing more than words. I do not in any way force my views on others, I don’t punish people for not agreeing with me, and I never get violent.

      Yet somehow you’ve thrown logic to the wind and decided that my approach is in somewhat equal to those actions of the religious… you’re an idiot.

      • K
        June 12th, 2011 at 17:56

        I’m not an idiot. I’m thinking things through. It doesn’t matter how they are acting, if we act like asses, all it does is give them an example to say all athiests are asses. I get that its annoying to have to deal with it over and over again, but flipping out doesn’t help, expecially when you’re flipping out at someone who doesn’t even believe what you are rallying against.
        And I am sorry if I offended you, I meant no harm. Honestly, I was playing devils advocate, just wanted to see your counter arguements.

        • June 12th, 2011 at 23:07

          You seem like an alright guy. I do agree that we need to prove to the faithful that us atheists can be decent minded folks without the need for their religion in our lives. It’s true that we shouldn’t take shit from people that badmouth us, but the bigger man walks away and ignores them — why bring yourself down to their level?

  50. K
    June 12th, 2011 at 18:03

    Ian :

    K :
    First off, chill out dude.

    You accuse me of being as bad as religious nutjobs, call me a hypocrite and somehow I’m the one lobbing personal insults? Fuck off.
    I didn’t accuse you as being as bad as religious nutjobs. If I recall correctly, I asked you to be respectful and you said that, no, you would not respect my beliefs, because they are wrong. Thats not polite, respectful, or even proven.

  51. June 12th, 2011 at 23:00

    Wow. Everyone here is acting like a fucking 4th grader — all over some picture. Grow the fuck up. If you want to argue then at least keep it civil without resorting to “F U’s” and whatnot. Let’s act our own age around here, please.

  52. Mar
    June 13th, 2011 at 01:48

    I had to leave religion to find God.

    God has as much to do with religion as a towel has to do with traffic. God is something so much bigger than any man-made religion. Every religion takes symbols, stories and people from every other religion and makes up their own stories to perpetuate the agendas of the world leaders. If you don’t think so, do some historical research for about 17 minutes…unless you’re too afraid to think for yourselves…

    God and science are the same thing.

  53. mike
    June 13th, 2011 at 08:31

    Fronald I think you may have missed the point , James is using sarcasm to make his point , no need for you to get defensive he is on our side.
    I must say you should bone up on your sarcasm skills,it will help you in your debates, and will not make you look like some one who doesn’t get the point!.

  54. Kyle
    June 13th, 2011 at 13:55

    The way I see it, Atheists and religious people are exactly the same. Atheists KNOW that there is no higher power, and religious fanatics KNOW there is God. The fact is “science” is just speculation on how things work in an attempt to understand the universe. Scientists only support theories, which become laws if they are repeatedly supported. Nothing is “proven. Religion is just the simpler form of it where people assign the unknown as “God”. Science says that there are more dimensions, more universes, and uses math equations to say that there is a giant hole in space and time in the center of our galaxy. The fact is, we can’t KNOW these things until we see them for ourselves. We won’t in this lifetime. As far as I’m concerned, both sides are both right and wrong, because we don’t yet know if these theories are true, or if there really is a “creator”.

    Besides, I dislike both diehard religious fanatics, and diehard Atheists. Both think they KNOW everything. Both don’t accept another person’s view or even try to understand where the other side is coming from. Personally, I lean more towards the side of the Atheists. I believe that there likely is no “God” and if there really is a higher power, we as humans are completely incapable of understanding it. No “messiah” or “prophet” does either. The Pope, Jesus, Moses, Mohammed; they were all humans, born and died humans. I don’t see anything Holy about a baby born in to the same world as I was. I would like to believe that there is a higher power, but I’d rather not spend my life dwelling on what a book or set of stones tells me to do, and also what a group of mathematicians sitting in little rooms with a calculator tell me to believe either. I just find science more fascinating than religion.

    • June 13th, 2011 at 14:02

      Allow me to point out the obvious since it’s not apparent to you: not all theories are created equal.

      If I postulate that no gods exist, it is in no way equal to the claim that gods do exist.

      Allow me to further press this point: if I postulated two different theories, one that claims that my parents were dragons from the planet “Ogo” and another theory that says my parents are two humans from the planet Earth… these two theories are not equally valid, in fact, one is flat out wrong and the other is correct. You can argue all day long that the first theory has merit, but you’d be a fool for saying so.

      Both think they KNOW everything.

      Wrong. I never claimed to know everything, I simply claim to know that religion is bullshit, since it claims to know something it cannot possibly know to be factual.

      • Kyle
        June 13th, 2011 at 16:12

        Also, I never said they were equal. Everyone on Earth knows how humans are born. A mommy and a daddy get it on and then nature takes it from there. I merely am referring to what they really debate on, which is how the Universe came in to being. I don’t, as well as most of my religious friends, debate on how I as a human being was born. We don’t debate on evolution, sex, or morality or anything that we have already seen with our eyes. We debate on the origins of the universe and what the universe is. That’s the main debate. Again, I never said that all religious and scientific theories were equal.

        • June 13th, 2011 at 16:17

          Religious debates are almost never about the origins of the universe, so it’s not worth covering here. The main qualm atheists have with religious folk is instead their obsession with believing that there is a god overseeing the day to day actions of humans, and requiring various godly laws that humans must obey, eg, no homo-sex, and wearing stupid hats.

          This religious viewpoint is undoubtedly false. It’s so ridiculously false its laughable. The creator of the universe, time and everything, is concerned with your daily actions?

          It’d be a joke if it wasn’t taken so seriously by so many people….

          • Kyle
            June 13th, 2011 at 16:34

            Oh that’s not what I’m talking about. I don’t believe in THAT kind of “God” at all. If there is a God, I highly doubt it gives a fat rat’s ass about what we do on this Earth. Personally, I don’t really get WHY people do believe in that kind of god. Why would some higher being care about a bunch of sacks of water rolling in the mud? It really is just a bunch of stories meant to teach us moral lessons (whether right or wrong). Besides, when I read about history and learn about the terrible atrocities caused in the name of religion, it just makes me sick.

            No hate for religious people though, just what religion has often caused. :)

          • Striker019a
            June 13th, 2011 at 21:32

            Look. Religion has two parts.

            There’s the good side, which is allowing individuals to connect with their spiritual side as well as a communal thing that brings people of different types together.

            Then there’s the bad side, which is institutionalized religion that tries to middle man your faith in God.

    • K
      June 13th, 2011 at 15:19

      Thats a great theory, except for the fact that science has been developed through experimentation and collected data, and is repeatedly correct. Religion on the other hand is based on stories and a book that can not be proven. On top of that, religion has been wrong countless times before. They are not equal. The people blindly fighting one side or the other might be, but the religion and science are not the same thing.

  55. Kyle
    June 13th, 2011 at 16:07

    K :Thats a great theory, except for the fact that science has been developed through experimentation and collected data, and is repeatedly correct. Religion on the other hand is based on stories and a book that can not be proven. On top of that, religion has been wrong countless times before. They are not equal. The people blindly fighting one side or the other might be, but the religion and science are not the same thing.

    I never said the concepts were the same. I said that the PEOPLE who (generally) blindly fight on either side were the same. I guarantee that 99.9% of all Atheists on this site haven’t done a single real scientific experiment since high school or college. Also “correct” is not an accurate term because the things that religion and science compete about these days are on scales far greater than we can “experiment” with yet (ie the origins of the universe and how it all came in to being). We have not proven anything regarding the origins of the universe. We can only speculate on how it all began. I guarantee that nobody on this site is an actual scientist. Also, I said that I, myself, am more of an Atheist than a religious man. But I don’t kid myself about just how much science has actually “proven”.

    • June 13th, 2011 at 16:14

      I guarantee that 99.9% of all Atheists on this site haven’t done a single real scientific experiment since high school or college.

      29.6% of all people know that! Hahahahahaha, ludicrous statement.

      We have not proven anything regarding the origins of the universe.

      You’re right! Scientists have no idea how the universe came to be, none at all, not a thing! They’re absolutely clueless.

      I guarantee that nobody on this site is an actual scientist.

      What do I win when I prove you wrong?

      Also, I said that I, myself, am more of an Atheist than a religious man.

      Given your willingness to fabricate facts, I don’t believe you for a second.

      But I don’t kid myself about just how much science has actually “proven”.

      It’s proven a lot more than religion has, but that really isn’t hard, since religion hasn’t proven…. well.. anything!

      • Kyle
        June 13th, 2011 at 16:23

        Dude, chill. I’m trying to take as neutral a stance as possible. Let me just say this: 1) I don’t fabricate facts about what I believe. 2) My “statistics” were just to give a general idea of what I believe about the people on here (I found this via stumbleupon.com). 3) I never said “clueless”. I basically am trying to say we have theories that could be supported one day, and then unsupported the next. Science is not so black and white.

        Seriously dude, enough with the hate. I’m not trying to be hateful and nobody else should. Also, I say I lean more towards atheism because I don’t believe in any set religion’s teachings because I don’t believe that we as humans can understand the universe or a higher being (if any) no better than the man who listens. I don’t rule out that there may be a “greater power”, but for now I don’t see any. I’m sorry if I offended you, but I am just writing my beliefs just like everyone else.

        • June 13th, 2011 at 16:32

          Kyle :

          Dude, chill. I’m trying to take as neutral a stance as possible.

          Why? What value is neutrality? You’re falling into the fallacy of the Golden Mean.

          One group of people says, “Let’s kill all the kittens!” another group says, “let’s not kill any kittens”.. you in your ‘neutrality’ say, “how about we just kill half the kittens… that way I’m not taking any sides. I’m just being unbiased.”

          Seriously dude, enough with the hate.

          Hate? I’m being aggressive, not hateful. I’m sick to shit of people claiming they’re just being neutral by sitting in the middle of the road on issues that clearly do not need ‘neutrality’. Are you neutral about murder? Are you neutral about rape? Are you neutral about torture? Neutral about lying?

          There are things in the world that are simply apparent and unambiguous. Religion is undoubtedly an archaic means to control people that has far outlived its relevance and is badly needing to be removed from human civilization. It serves no useful purpose and instead is ridiculously harmful.

          By being neutral to religion you only serve to encourage the actions of its extremists.

          Before you foolishly call *me* an extremist, look at my actions. The worst I’ve done is insult and/or criticize you. If these are the actions of an extremist, you desperately need to investigate the term “religious extremism”.

          • Striker019a
            June 13th, 2011 at 21:29

            I’m an atheist, which is a religion in itself. I actively disbelieve in God. And I respect other people’s right to worship their own God.

            Plus, Christianity has the benefit of being community bonding. It brings people together when other aspects might drive them apart.

            Yeah, there’s wars, but religion is only a tool of geopolitics. This hatred most of you have of organized religion is childish.

  56. Kyle
    June 13th, 2011 at 16:43

    Ian :

    Kyle :
    Dude, chill. I’m trying to take as neutral a stance as possible.

    Why? What value is neutrality? You’re falling into the fallacy of the Golden Mean.
    One group of people says, “Let’s kill all the kittens!” another group says, “let’s not kill any kittens”.. you in your ‘neutrality’ say, “how about we just kill half the kittens… that way I’m not taking any sides. I’m just being unbiased.”

    Seriously dude, enough with the hate.

    Hate? I’m being aggressive, not hateful. I’m sick to shit of people claiming they’re just being neutral by sitting in the middle of the road on issues that clearly do not need ‘neutrality’. Are you neutral about murder? Are you neutral about rape? Are you neutral about torture? Neutral about lying?
    There are things in the world that are simply apparent and unambiguous. Religion is undoubtedly an archaic means to control people that has far outlived its relevance and is badly needing to be removed from human civilization. It serves no useful purpose and instead is ridiculously harmful.
    By being neutral to religion you only serve to encourage the actions of its extremists.
    Before you foolishly call *me* an extremist, look at my actions. The worst I’ve done is insult and/or criticize you. If these are the actions of an extremist, you desperately need to investigate the term “religious extremism”.

    Ummm… then why are you throwing hate in the face of someone who basically agrees with your stance on religion? If you read ALL my comments, you would see that I believe that the practice of religion itself is a bunch of nonsense. You’re starting to put words in to my mouth. I never called YOU anything, especially not “extremist”. I’ve had my hate-filled rants towards certain ideas, but I try not to have hate towards people. Also, the whole “killing kittens” thing is completely unrelated. I would never say “let’s just kill some kittens”. Religion vs Science is a debate where nobody is harmed and I can take a neutral stance if I want. If you must know, I would take the “let’s not kill kittens” stance. If you have a problem with neutrality than just ignore my statements. I am only responding to those who respond to me. I find it sad, though, that people feel it necessary to attack the person rather than the issue at hand. I was hoping that I could have an intelligent, calm discussion about religion vs science, and not a flame war.

  57. K
    June 13th, 2011 at 18:19

    Kyle, if you want to be neutral, I suggest not getting into it with Ian. He doesn’t tread lightly, and he won’t back down. I know you have your own oppinions you’d like to express, but realisticly, if you are going to stay neutral, this is not a *talk* that will get either of you anywhere.

  58. Neeshargo
    June 13th, 2011 at 19:01

    I am enjoying this conversation very much. Although i may be an atheist, i still would like to see the views of other people

  59. Shawn
    June 13th, 2011 at 20:42

    Oh please? Religion and religion (almost or not) ALONE is the sole reason we took so long? It had nothing to do with the fact that we had to, you know, evolve, develop tools (including language) and then gradually learn a process that would allow us to develop reliable ways of doing things and making discoveries?
    Because, you know, I always thought that our having to LEARN things–starting from NOTHING–might be slowing us down a bit.

    Well we were on a fast track to advancing as far as science was concerned, and then religion hit and things got attributed to voodoo and witch craft for a few hundred years, and then we went back to science – aka the dark ages – aka the period of intellectual darkness – although that was only a few hundred years and not thousands, still relevant.

    • Shawn
      June 13th, 2011 at 20:42

      That top bit was supposed to be quoted, dunno what happened there.

    • Andre
      June 14th, 2011 at 08:13

      This is exactly what I’ve said. I think twice already. It really is just this simple of a concept, can’t see why it goes right over Nick’s head like this. Though I have to say it, that period was well over 1000 years and most certainly closer to 2000. I’d call that thousands.

  60. Nick
    June 14th, 2011 at 12:53

    Striker019a :I’m an atheist, which is a religion in itself. I actively disbelieve in God. And I respect other people’s right to worship their own God.
    Plus, Christianity has the benefit of being community bonding. It brings people together when other aspects might drive them apart.
    Yeah, there’s wars, but religion is only a tool of geopolitics. This hatred most of you have of organized religion is childish.

    ^^My full support goes to you, sir! Bravo! (Just to be clear, given the tone of this discussion, I am being entirely serious!)

  61. Redirected
    June 14th, 2011 at 14:58

    Nick Said:
    “Ian, there is a substantive difference between the statement, “There is no evidence that God exists, therefore it seems safe to assume that he doesn’t” and “There is no evidence that God exists, therefore he doesn’t.” One is in accord with logic. The other is not.”

    Since it’s not in accord with logic for me to conclude that the Easter Bunny does NOT exisit due to the lack of evidence to disprove him,

    I think I may give some thought to praying to this mysterious figure..

    What do you think Nick ?

    Or do you think I should try Jesus Christ again ?

    • Nick
      June 14th, 2011 at 17:23

      I invite you to try praying to the Easter Bunny! Why not? It may grant you great insights into the world! :)

      And if it doesn’t, you harm no one.

      • Redirected
        June 14th, 2011 at 20:11

        “And if it doesn’t, you harm no one”.

        You’re Right ! No one would be harmed.

        No, wait !
        What if after I pray to the Easter Bunny, I have a vison of him in a cloud on a mountain,
        and then he tells me that from now on,
        we have to mutilate the genatalia of infant, male children as some kind of covenant ?!

        • Andre
          June 14th, 2011 at 21:50

          Or he tells you that the nonbelievers should be exterminated. <– Islam in a nutshell.

          • Nick
            June 14th, 2011 at 22:42

            Idiotic reading of Islam. It has no more calls to extermination than…well, almost any ancient religion (the ones that REALLY UNEQUIVOCALLY go for nonviolence, ie Buddhism, are the exception).

          • Andre
            June 14th, 2011 at 22:47

            My statement has nothing to do with reading or interpretation. Muslims have claimed that their god has told them to kill what they call infidels. There is no debate here.

          • Redirected
            June 15th, 2011 at 18:54

            Yeah,
            Human mutilation, animal mutilation, atoning for sins and keeping the gods happy has been a dirty, painful and bloody business through the centuries hasn’t it ?.

        • Nick
          June 14th, 2011 at 22:43

          Then I would say that your right to practice your religion ends when it violates the rights of others. Which mutilation clearly does.

          However! Your belief does not.

          • Andre
            June 14th, 2011 at 22:48

            Yep, it totally doesn’t matter if people just keep the doors open. You really need to stop trying.

          • Matt
            June 16th, 2011 at 01:43

            So then Christianity should be ended. Because circumcision is the mutilation of male children’s genitalia, and they are often too young to give consent when the surgery is performed.

          • Matt
            June 16th, 2011 at 05:13

            ..And Judaism. Mustn’t discriminate.

  62. June 14th, 2011 at 17:48

    I am a Goddess. I can make your wish <> true if you honor me with tithing

    • Redirected
      June 14th, 2011 at 20:15

      Yes your majesty.
      You need only to tell me how much do you require ?

      (…Pssst. 10% is what they’re getting downtown)

  63. Arychye
    June 15th, 2011 at 11:31

    Something I very quickly noticed is that many of you insult religious people in someway, argue with eachother at some point whether god(s) is/are real, and some of you didn’t even realise sarcasm when you saw it. Can we all just remember that this photo was posted here to be funny, and that a whole debate about it was unnecessary. Or atleast keep in mind that you don’t need to insult people in order to debate a topic.

  64. June 16th, 2011 at 00:51

    Atheists should be humble for we know that we emerged from slime molds. Religious sorts should be more reassured by having a ‘god’ and being chosen to………..not act like savages.
    We need to respect the tenaciousness of beliefs. Since we are convinced of the nobility of our thoughts, we believe that we are noble. Of course we are! How would we live with ourselves otherwise. It’s a bulwark of the personality.
    So why do so many not act noble on both sides?
    Because they have deficiencies which are displayed within their acts. For atheists this results in the most unbecoming behaviors. This is inexplicable if the atheists believes in cause and effect.
    Acting snotty, begets snottiness.
    So, if you believe in your nobleness, as an atheist, you have no choice but to act civil because your actions are you.
    Unless you’re an outlaw, then F U.

    • Matt
      June 16th, 2011 at 01:45

      Sorry, what? You lost me.
      Not trying to be mean, or sarcastic, I just can’t seem to follow your train of thought here.

    • Andre
      June 16th, 2011 at 02:52

      Disagree.
      Your points are valid but saying someone should be something because they are an atheist is a load of bull. Atheism isn’t a set of morals or a standard upon which to base any morals or anything of that sort. It is merely the lack of a belief in the supernatural.

  65. gim
    June 16th, 2011 at 15:50

    CORRECTION……..
    CHRISTIANITY IS NOT A RELIGION……..
    JESUS HATED RELIGION………
    I BELIEVE IN JESUS, I AM IRRELIGIOUS……..
    READ THE BIBLE, SALVATION COMES THROUGH FAITH ALONE, NOT BY WORKS………
    ISLAM AND OTHER RELIGIONS REQUIRE WORKS FOR SALVATION………
    THIS IS A SIN BECAUSE THEY ARE FOLLOWING FALSE IDOLS………..
    SAME CAN BE SAID ABOUT PEOPLE WHO LOOK UP TO WASHED OUT ROCKSTARS AND PEOPLE FROM THE GHETTO……………
    JESUS SAID THAT NO ONE MAY ENTER HEAVEN UNLESS THEY COME THROUGH TO HIM………….
    WILL YOU TAKE THAT STAND, WILL YOU ACCEPT JESUS TODAY AS YOUR SAVIOR

    • June 16th, 2011 at 15:51

      Why did you write your name “gim” without caps, then you wrote your entire message with capslock on?

      • Redirected
        June 16th, 2011 at 16:07

        I think he’s yelling at us.

      • Andre
        June 16th, 2011 at 18:44

        He makes a compelling argument, don’t you think?

    • K
      June 17th, 2011 at 19:01

      Hahahahaha! That just made me fall out of a chair laughing! Dude, please tell me you’re trying to be ironic here or something!

  66. Inquisitor
    June 16th, 2011 at 20:09

    1.Caps lock rage :P
    2.You are insulting other religions by saying YOURS is the right one.
    3.You mad bro?
    4.CHRISTIANITY IS NOT A RELIGION wtf? of course it is. And it is the religion which was the most responsible for slowing down, and stopping science from progressing.
    5.What do you have against rock stars, they’re just having fun, making the best out of their lives, you jelly?
    6.If i ever have children i’m not going to kill them and myself, only because some child rapist *oops i meant to say catholic priest* said the world is going to end.

    • gim
      June 16th, 2011 at 22:11

      I’M NOT IN POSITION OF AUTHORITY, ONLY GOD…. I HAVE SEEN FOR MYSELF THE TRUTH AND IT IS ONLY THROUGH JESUS…….

      NO WE ARE NOT BELIEVERS IN RELIGION BECAUSE RELIGION MEANS CONFUSION AND TO FOLLOW SPECIFIC LAWS AND SALVATION ONLY BEING MADE POSSIBLE THROUGH WORKS, NOT FAITH……. JESUS CAME AND BROKE THE CHAINS…. NOW EVERYONE IS CAPABLE OF GOING TO HEAVEN BUT SADLY THEY ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THEIR FREE WILL BY MOCKING THE VERY GOD THAT CREATED THEM….. THEY DONT REALIZE GOD LOVES US ALL…. HE WANTS YOU TO GIVE HIM A CHANCE…..

      • June 16th, 2011 at 22:29

        Religion means confusion and Christianity isn’t a religion? Go get a dictionary.

  67. Anonymous
    June 17th, 2011 at 03:22

    Hi, I’m an atheist and I’m here to help.
    What I have seen so far is a few people making some good, intelligent arguments in favor of religion and a bunch of atheists attempting to beat them down with logical fallacies. This disappoints me beyond measure because the atheist way (for lack of a better term) is based entirely around study, evidence and observable fact and what’s going on here is that the people arguing in favor of religion are providing more study and evidence than the atheists. Here’s a word of advice for my fellow atheists: First, make some real arguments instead of just repeating rhetoric about how stupid theists are; Second, provide evidence, cite sources and use logic instead of logical fallacy because that’s what we do (it is not up to the defending party to look up evidence to your claim, they aren’t your debate maids); Third and finally, develop a thesis to argue because otherwise you are shooting arguments out at random with no clear direction. Here’s mine: I believe that the discoveries of science have explained near to everything in existence and, so far as I have observed, the things that science hasn’t explained so far are not unexplainable by science but are simply a result of something we do not yet have the technology to measure. There. If you would like me to cite my sources I will do so to the best of my ability and if it is not to your satisfaction, I will concede my point with you. For the atheists out there: theism is a logical (in terms of evolutionary result) and moral way of life, so long as it does not lead to physical or social violence. Now stop acting like grade-schoolers and be a credit to your faith (or lack there of).

    • June 17th, 2011 at 08:52

      There’s a great deal of irony in what you just wrote.

      You accuse all the non-believers here of logical fallacies, of not citing any evidence, and “of just repeating rhetoric about how stupid theists are”… yet not once in your replies have you cited any evidence, you don’t quote any of these supposed ‘fallacies’, and fail to notice any of the stupidity spouted by theists (most of which is incomprehensible gibberish).

      How about you stop telling everyone that you’re an atheist (which I have my doubts), and actually start backing that statement up with something useful. While you’re at it, try being a little less arrogant, you’re acting like you know better than everyone else here, and from what I’ve seen so far, you’re quite terrible at convincing anyone.

      • Anonymous
        June 18th, 2011 at 03:35

        Evidence? Examples? Here you go:
        you idiot christian! (Ad hominem)

        the good thing is that we may question what science says and try to find the answer. You, you do not have that right. Mental slavery perhaps (Affirming disjunct)

        You don’t understand it. If the strongest point you can find is that there is no evidence against it then you have to be equally accepting of unicorns and dragons. (Faulty causality)

        Each and every one declares themselves to be right. Name one religion that declares it is wrong. When you fail, please admit it to yourself and others. False premises get discarded and that one is clearly false. (Faulty generalization, telling the opposing party to present evidence for them not to mention using the “if you can’t tell me otherwise, then I must be right” logic, also known commonly as dogmatism.)

        You can bitch and moan all you want that atheists are loud and mean, but at least we don’t get violent and we don’t force our views on others. (some more faulty generalization)

        Every week I hear some douchebag politician trying to pass some new law restricting the rights of everyone based on some retarded religious viewpoint. (A couple of cases of ad hominem and generalizations in this one along with a sprinkle of association fallacy)

        Hey dirtbag, stop pretending to be an atheist, you’re not fooling anyone.
        In your last reply you agreed with someone who said the universe has to have a creator.
        (cherry picking and affirming disjunct)

        In your previous statements about my beliefs, you have been using the last couple a lot. Just because I am able to see the good in some religions and can point out where they have something good to say does not make me not an atheist. I am an atheist but I am also a Unitarian Universalist. It’s a denomination in which people of any belief system can be united according to the seven principles (http://www.uua.org/beliefs/6798.shtml). It also teaches tolerance and understanding of religions outside of our own. In other words, I can like christians and understand them and defend them when they’ve been more mature and had cooler headed than the atheists they have been talking to and I can still be an atheist. Make sense?

        • Anonymous
          June 18th, 2011 at 03:41

          If you still think that isn’t enough, I have more examples here. And, before the argument comes up about where I got these fallacies and that my source is wrong about what the fallacies are, yes I did reference the Wikipedia list to confirm my suspicions. If you have a problem with that, I would be happy to find a new list to refer to.

        • June 18th, 2011 at 08:46

          Evidence? Examples? Here you go:
          you idiot christian! (Ad hominem)

          Uhm, you do realize that looking up some words on wikipedia doesn’t make you an expert on something (as is clear with your first example).

          Insulting someone is not actually an ad hominem logical fallacy. Instead to form a proper ad hominem, you must use an insult, then create an incorrect inference based on that insult.

          eg. You are fat, therefore your argument about god cannot be accurate.

          This is a false conclusion since you being fat has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of your argument.

          I do no engage in ad hominems, and think you’d be hard pressed to find a decent example of me making such a logical fallacy.

          the good thing is that we may question what science says and try to find the answer. You, you do not have that right. Mental slavery perhaps (Affirming disjunct)

          You’ve apparently paraphrased me (why not just quote me?), and I do not recall ever saying anything close to this..

          If you’re trying to say that I do not think someone can criticize science, or the scientific method, you’re only half correct.

          Science is an extension of logic. Postulating that science somehow ‘got it wrong’ is just stupid, since the person attacking the scientific method is use logic (usually).

          This is like writing a letter to someone that says “writing doesn’t doesn’t work as a means of communication”. It’s merely a deeply ironic statement to criticize science/logic.

          On the other hand, criticizing scientific conclusions is absolutely allowed, that said, FAR too many religious people criticize scientific conclusions (and refuse to accept them) for completely illogical or political reasons. This is not acceptable.

          eg. Evolution doesn’t work, because then my insane creation theory wouldn’t be valid.

          That sort of conclusion is laughable and I will always be happy to mock someone who makes that sort of assertion.

          You don’t understand it. If the strongest point you can find is that there is no evidence against it then you have to be equally accepting of unicorns and dragons. (Faulty causality)

          We all start at zero.

          If you postulate a new theory and it turns out to be incorrect, we return to zero.

          In this case, the claim is about god(s) and the ‘zero’ is a lack of gods.

          When someone fails to back their claim about their god, we return to the default.. which is a lack of belief in gods.

          If someone can claim something without any evidence whatsoever, it can be dismissed without evidence. My example of unicorns and dragons is merely a specious argument meant to highlight the stupidity of the claim, I in no way believe in any of the above (obviously).

          There’s no faulty causality in this line of thinking…

          Each and every one declares themselves to be right. Name one religion that declares it is wrong. When you fail, please admit it to yourself and others. False premises get discarded and that one is clearly false. (Faulty generalization, telling the opposing party to present evidence for them not to mention using the “if you can’t tell me otherwise, then I must be right” logic, also known commonly as dogmatism.)

          See above.

          For me to be ‘right’ all we need to do is return to zero.

          Since i don’t believe in gods (which is the default answer), yes, if your religious view is wrong, that makes me right, which is unfortunate, since it doesn’t work in reverse..

          You can bitch and moan all you want that atheists are loud and mean, but at least we don’t get violent and we don’t force our views on others. (some more faulty generalization)

          Faulty generalizations?

          I’ve never commited an act of violence in my life. I’ve never forced my views on others.

          Feel free to explain in more detail what you’re trying to say here…

          Every week I hear some douchebag politician trying to pass some new law restricting the rights of everyone based on some retarded religious viewpoint. (A couple of cases of ad hominem and generalizations in this one along with a sprinkle of association fallacy)

          No, an ad hominem would be: “Some douchebag politician tried to pass a law, and because he’s a douchebag his law must be bad”. I didn’t say that though, did I?

          He’s passing a bad law, THEREFORE he’s a douchebag. You really need to learn what an ‘ad hominem logical fallacy’ is.

          Hey dirtbag, stop pretending to be an atheist, you’re not fooling anyone.
          In your last reply you agreed with someone who said the universe has to have a creator.
          (cherry picking and affirming disjunct)

          Right, because you didn’t just do that (except you didn’t actually quote anything i said, you just paraphrased me since you feel it helps your case).

          The reason I bring up you not being an atheist is due to false flag attacks. People come in claiming to be x with the sole intention of underminding x unabated. This is unacceptable and I will always attempt to uncover such people when they come around.

          In your previous statements about my beliefs, you have been using the last couple a lot. Just because I am able to see the good in some religions and can point out where they have something good to say does not make me not an atheist. I am an atheist but I am also a Unitarian Universalist. It’s a denomination in which people of any belief system can be united according to the seven principles (http://www.uua.org/beliefs/6798.shtml). It also teaches tolerance and understanding of religions outside of our own. In other words, I can like christians and understand them and defend them when they’ve been more mature and had cooler headed than the atheists they have been talking to and I can still be an atheist. Make sense?

          I do not share your tolerance.

          • Anonymous
            June 18th, 2011 at 16:17

            Let me explain some things to make myself entirely clear:
            First, you are lying about my paraphrasing that quotation. It is a direct quote from earlier in the thread. Reread it. Second, affirming disjunct is a fallacy in which one sates that, if one thing is true something unrelated must be true. In second example of it I gave, you stated that since I agreed with something a theist said, I must not be an atheist. See where I’m going. Next, fallacy by association occurs when one party cites an instant in which one person did something and, since the opposing party has a similarity to that person, they must be the same way. In the “douchebag politician” example, the party said that since the theist politician passed an oppressive law, the theist they were arguing agreed with that law. Finally, a faulty generalization comes when a person makes a blanket statement about a set of people and does not provide significant evidence to back it up or ignores exceptions. For instance, when you said, “but at least we don’t get violent and we don’t force our views on others,” you made a generalization about atheists that you did not back up with any statistics, incidences or anything of that sort. There could be many exceptions to that rule and none of them were accounted for. Your argument that you do not do such things is not at all evidence that no atheists do. That is what I mean by faulty generalization. I will concede to you about the ad hominem fallacies. However, the nastiness towards an unhostile party does tend to earn the phrase “angry atheists,” something that I don’t want to happen. That’s why I am defending the theists on this thread. “Angry atheists” are not atheists that people are generally going to want to concede to or agree with. I will also concede on faulty causality because your point is stronger than mine. I would like to point out, however, that we have evidence against dragons and unicorns in that there is a significant lack of natural predators or prey for either of them. Also, in that example, I pointed out that the party used the opposing party’s thinking process as evidence, something that would get you kicked off of any debate team. One last note, because I know this post is getting long, I did not talk about my Unitarian Universalism to preach tolerance. I told you about it to show why I can be an atheist and still agree with theists on some points, something that you accused me of not being able to do.

  68. Rick
    June 17th, 2011 at 15:13

    Yes, School is out. Including the Christian universities.
    Summer assignment:

    Lie and masquerade as an atheist and attempt to cause anarchy.

    Purpose:
    To show the world that their God, is the God of truth.

    “Whoever invokes a blessing in the land will do so by THE GOD OF TRUTH; he who takes an oath in the land will swear by THE GOD OF TRUTH” Isaiah 65:16

    • Anonymous
      June 18th, 2011 at 04:12

      Oh yes, it’s true. I must come to confess as god is my witness. The Christian origins of Unitarian Universalism have caught up with me and I have been brainwashed into becoming a spy for the scheming, dangerous and obviously violent Christian faith. They wrote into the bible, completely contradicting other passages, that one must masquerade as a heathen in order to make them see the light. Naturally, being a Christian at heart, I had to blindly follow every word of the bible and carry out the orders and came under the guise of an atheist to make all the other atheists see that religion is the true way and that evidence and reason have no argument when a theist makes a single true statement. I must have been a terrible actor.

  69. Shannon
    June 18th, 2011 at 02:43

    I hate my first post to be a lot of steam, especially since it’s your hot hotheadedness that is bothering me but I’m not as patient as Nick. I can personally attest to Anonymous’s atheist-ness (don’t exactly know what I’m allowed and not allowed to give away here, but I think you guys can guess). I admit I still have a third of this conversation to go so I’m not completely up to date, but I am sick and tired of you guys accusing people of lying about being atheist. Ever consider that maybe they just aren’t as atheist as you? Say, atheist agnostic? Ian, I believe you said earlier that you were tired of dealing with the theists on this site. Maybe you should take a break if you’re so fed up you don’t read people’s posts all the way through and assume what they are and what they. (evidence: Nick said that he wasn’t christian or theist, yet you and JTK kept insisting he was. You know you did, don’t make me go up and site examples)
    Let’s have some trust here people! Atheists are a minority, we need to stick together. If a theist wants to masquerade as an atheist, let them – every debate makes us stronger. Do you want to improve your arguments for your beliefs? I know I do.

    • June 18th, 2011 at 07:53

      I am sick and tired of you guys accusing people of lying about being atheist.

      I’ve been running this site for nearly 5 years. In that time I have seen many people come on here claiming to be atheists/agnostics, only to praise religion and bash atheism (false flag). You’re sick of it? Try sticking around for a while.

      I’m sick of false flaggers.

      Ian, I believe you said earlier that you were tired of dealing with the theists on this site.

      No, I’m sick of irrational people spouting lies.

      Maybe you should take a break if you’re so fed up you don’t read people’s posts all the way through and assume what they are and what they.

      I read every single post on this site, all the way through. Maybe if you had to sift through all the trash spouted by religious people, you wouldn’t be so happy to criticize me for my animosity.

      Nick said that he wasn’t christian or theist, yet you and JTK kept insisting he was.

      Nick is just trolling. Here’s something he wrote: “Actually, I would challenge to prove what makes the “structure of logic” inerrantly and inherently sound–not to mention immutable.” Sorry, but when you start attacking concepts like “logic”… there’s no reason to believe he’s doing anything other than trolling. I don’t think he was even trying to be ironic with what he wrote.

      Atheists are a minority, we need to stick together.

      Just because we all share a common *dis*belief, does not mean we need to band together and agree about everything. Disagreement is good.

      I will reiterate my previous point, I hate false people who raise a false flag in an effort to undermine someone else, it’s complete deception.

      If you think god(s) exist, you are not an atheist.

      Do you want to improve your arguments for your beliefs?

      I do not have any beliefs.

      • Shannon
        June 18th, 2011 at 13:58

        “I do not have any beliefs”
        Belief doesn’t just mean “accepting something as real.” It also means “a firmly held opinion or conviction,” which I’m sure you have plenty of.

        “Nick is just trolling. Here’s something he wrote: “Actually, I would challenge to prove what makes the “structure of logic” inerrantly and inherently sound–not to mention immutable.” Sorry, but when you start attacking concepts like “logic”… there’s no reason to believe he’s doing anything other than trolling. I don’t think he was even trying to be ironic with what he wrote.”
        It didn’t appear Nick was trolling to me. Rather, I think he was hoping for an intellectual discussion so that he might hear all of your opinions and share his own. There is plenty of reason to believe he isn’t a troll. He is well spoken, has sources, and interesting opinions that aren’t cookie-cutter-made-to-press-your-buttons.

        “Just because we all share a common *dis*belief, does not mean we need to band together and agree about everything. Disagreement is good.
        I will reiterate my previous point, I hate false people who raise a false flag in an effort to undermine someone else, it’s complete deception.
        If you think god(s) exist, you are not an atheist.”
        You’re right. There are many types of atheists: baby atheists, angry atheists, tolerant atheists, atheist-agnostics, spiritual atheists, atheists who don’t care what other people think and we don’t all get along or need to agree on everything, but we can accept one another as atheists and not attack each others quality of non-believing (at the very least not on the internet where the world can see). I can see why you are tired of people flying false flags, but if they are that easy to spot why do they need calling out? How many times have you told someone they aren’t atheist, but then they were? The problem with the internet is that you have no idea what’s going on in someone’s head unless they tell you. Having been on this site for so long, you probably know that already though. I don’t know why you’ve been commenting for five years, I don’t know what your goals are. I know that I would like to end the discrimination of atheists and educate the theists who think their respective books have all the answers (it bugs me when people say they “don’t believe in science”). So I guess I am asking you to be less angry because it makes enemies out of potential friends, which I now realize is kind of selfish. Your goal might be to drive away the theists. That was an epiphany, and from debating on the internet too! I guess it does happen. Very well, I will leave you to your anger. Just curious though, what is your goal? There must be a reason you have kept at this through all the frustration.

        • Nick
          June 22nd, 2011 at 07:19

          Hey, Shannon–I’ve basically moved on in my life from this discussion (among other things, I’m working two full-time jobs) but I just wanted to say how pleasantly surprised I was when I checked back and saw your posts. I know that the first is a little vent-y, as you point out, but I do appreciate your pointing out the fact that Ian and JTK seem incapable of taking at face value my fairly straightforward outline of my beliefs! It’s nice to see someone (else) trying to raise the tone of the discussion. :)

  70. Shannon
    June 18th, 2011 at 02:44

    Pah, cite, not site.

  71. Anonymous
    June 18th, 2011 at 03:53

    Ian :

    Anonymous :
    Kirstie has made an excellent point here and, again, the other atheists have not failed to flail rhetoric at it. So, to Kirstie, I give you this.

    Hmm, let’s see what she said:

    If you’d truly think critically about how intricately designed you are.. And look out your window to see how beautiful this world is, you’ll realize there is indeed a creator. There is most definitely no evidence against one.

    Not a fucking chance are you an atheist.
    Stop raising a false flag asshole. If you agree with that kind of statement, you cannot possibly be an atheist.

    Also, if you had read the post that I left, you could clearly see that the piece you quoted was not the statement I was agreeing with. Meanwhile, I’d appreciate you not resorting to ad hominem attacks as a part of your argument against me. Instead of making me look less credible, it just makes you look like you have lost your cool.

    • Anonymous
      June 18th, 2011 at 18:26

      following latest post, please disregard mention of ad hominem attacks. We’ve had this discussion already. However, your hostility won’t get you anywhere. People just argue more with nasty people.

  72. Bill
    June 18th, 2011 at 06:58

    You should ask God whether you may have that printed…

    • June 18th, 2011 at 07:48

      Done.

      Got no response, I’ll take that as tacit approval.

  73. Anonnymoose
    July 3rd, 2011 at 01:00

    melinda :Atheists either believe a God exists but don’t believe or follow religions

    While I can’t speak for EVERY atheist out there, I’m pretty sure an atheist just doesn’t believe in god. Period. We don’t “believe but don’t follow religion”. That is more like agnostic.

    melinda :or they just do not believe in God due to the lack of evidence.

    The lack of evidence, in my case anyway, doesn’t inspire me to not believe. The sheer stupidity of the whole concept takes care of that all by itself. I stopped believing in the easter bunny, the tooth fairy, and santa clause when I was 7. When will all you religious nutters stop believing in your fairies? For that matter, don’t. Have your religious cake and eat it too. But don’t invite me to swallow it, and don’t try to make me live my life in accordance with your menu.

  74. Mara
    July 3rd, 2011 at 20:50

    People are too stupid to realize that if you want to judge christianity and religion so blatantly, you have to actually LEARN IT. I’m agnostic. But I’m not calling christians stupid. They just believe in something else.

  75. July 5th, 2011 at 09:55

    I want print one for me. Do You agree?
    a man without religion is a fish without a bicycle arthur bloch

  76. Kris
    July 6th, 2011 at 15:05

    Don’t argue against theists, it’s like a modern geographer arguing a geographer during the times when people thought the Earth was flat and he really believes it is. I know it’s not that strong of an analogy but that’s how I put it simply.

  77. Melissa
    July 16th, 2011 at 20:38

    I don’t understand why everyone is so polar on this subject. Why can’t it be both? I believe in evolution because it is a fact. But science doesn’t know where the very first cell that started all this incredible evolution came from. So why can’t it be some higher being that planted the seed of our birth?
    Why does someone who hopes, trusts, and believes that there is something more to this life have to be an idiot?
    Why does someone who believes that all there is food, shelter, sex, and dirt have to be an idiot?
    As far as I can tell there is no ONE answer. So why do we all have to be so stubborn in our thinking and refuse absolutely to concede that anyone else around us may have a point?

    • BroDy
      July 17th, 2011 at 22:59

      I was about to say the same and read this. Personally, I am agnostic, for lack of evidence on either side.

      • July 17th, 2011 at 23:03

        lack of evidence on either side? Are you agnostic to the existence of unicorns and ghosts as well? What about the FSM? You gonna pretend there’s a possibility the noodly one exists?

    • Andy
      July 31st, 2011 at 08:53

      science may not know for sure exactly how the first cell originated, but using many simple processes re creatable today they can show a method of how it was very likely created. Also the surprising thing is that this process ties in perfectly with characteristics of cells still alive today. I believe scientific facts fit in so perfectly with each other that it makes logical sense, religion not only disagrees with modern day facts but also cant even agree with its self. did you know there are 439 direct contradictions throughout the many biblical canon?

  78. BroDy
    July 17th, 2011 at 23:00

    All math, science, and philosophy is theory. We shouldn’t argue over something no one knows.

    • July 17th, 2011 at 23:05

      Math is not theory, it’s absolute and has actual proofs.

  79. CH
    July 31st, 2011 at 02:20

    I’m sure it’s not going to matter that I’m not a Christian, an Atheist, or that I, in fact, claim no religion but I’m putting that out there so that if someone disagrees with my comment they might refrain from attacking me for any particular religious affiliation/other belief.

    With that being said, after reading the entire conversation with an open-mind, if anyone on this site wants a worthy debate or a just a nice, respectful conversation, see Nick. I love to see respectful, humbling, AND intelligent human beings these days. Apparently they’re rare.

    Also. Math is not absolute truth. It’s an system of theorems and laws we use as a tool. It’s human creation. An idea. Maybe more efficient than some other ideas but an idea nonetheless.
    http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/10/science/useful-invention-or-absolute-truth-what-is-math.html (this is just the first link I came across, but I like it. Feel free to dislike it. :P)

    Existence precedes essence after all. Or so some say. Using this logic, all concepts (including god and math) have only been perceived and put to use because we created them. ;) But this is just one idea. There are so many more out there. Am I to say what’s true and right? Or am I only to perceive something to be true and right based off of my own unique observations and experiences? hmmmm. As prone to err we are, I’m inclined–at times–to agree with Plato: the senses (which we use to observe and experience as well as our mind) are capable of deceiving us.

    Or with Nietzsche, who claimed that one should balance reason and the instincts (senses). Because, being human and all, we aren’t able to reason things out perfectly and discover some great universal truth–such as the existence or non-existence of god(s). Our senses, our emotions, our imperfections, our capable mind, our ability to create and perceive are all factors that define us as human beings.

    All in all, the picture is funny, the conversation that follows is funnier. :)

  80. Crakii
    August 1st, 2011 at 17:38

    I find it funny how all atheists are so sure of what they believe. I find it funny because you are doing exactly what you make fun of Christians for doing. Atheists make fun of Christians for being so sure of what they believe to be true, yet you are all here doing the same thing. Claiming without doubt that there is no God. The only true statement that can be made about religion and the divine as well as the world around us is that we are 100% ignorant to it all. For you to sit here and make fun of people for their “stupid” beliefs you are saying that “what I believe is the only true answer and anyone else is a moron”…sounds a lot like religious extremists to me. Anyone to immediately shut down the idea of God as absurd is missing the idea of a God completely. You all claim to use science as your proof, but did you ever stop to think that science as we know it today could be used as evidence towards some kind of a Divine? Maybe the way we look at science isn’t the way it was meant to be interpreted. There are arguments using the atomic theory and truths about subatomic particles that suggest it would be crazy to not believe in some sort of God.

    • August 1st, 2011 at 21:46

      You find it funny?

      I find it funny that you’re an atheist yourself (to every other god except Yahweh)…

      Why don’t you believe in Zeus? Thor? Ra? The Sun God?

      Oh that’s right, cause that’s just silly non-sense, just like your god…

      BTW, I bet you didn’t know that Yahweh had a wife. Yes, the creator of the universe, had a wife, her name was Asherah. Hahahahahaha.

    • August 2nd, 2011 at 01:28

      You all claim to use science as your proof, but did you ever stop to think that science as we know it today could be used as evidence towards some kind of a Divine?

      Which “Divine” do you speak of? There are so many “Divines” out there; it would take me ages to list all the “Divines” thought up by humans since the dawn of mankind.

      But if you’re specifically speaking in defense of Christianity, then how come there has been NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE for Yahweh/Jesus/the stories in the KJV Bible since the religion was first established two thousand plus years ago?

      • CH
        August 3rd, 2011 at 23:44

        “thought up by humans”

        That’s EXACTLY it. There was a time before science and a time before god. Possibly they exist now (science as a tool for observing, god as an idea) because we created them by “thinking them up.”

        Anything is possible if you believe it to be so.

        Anyway, it’s noted by scientists, historians, atheists, Christians, and many others that Jesus Christ was actually a real person who existed on the planet. The only debate is the whole Son of God thing. So… umm… historical documentation is ACTUAL evidence of Jesus.

      • Crakii
        August 9th, 2011 at 14:51

        Ha when did I ever make a claim to a God of my own? If there actually is a Divine (I use Divine because any of the theories that have been produced hold just as much ground as the atheists beliefs) If your problem with Religion is that there is no proof of it being true then you are missing the whole point of religion. Its about the message it teaches. I believe in a Divine, but not necessarily the Christian God. If there is truly a God that exists, it doesn’t matter if you believed in Him or not, the only thing He would care about is the kind of life you lived. A wise man once said “I know that I know nothing.” Everyone here is so sure of their beliefs that they are willing to call anyone who doesnt have the same mindset a fool. However, all this really shows is that you are just as foolish as the religious nuts you all laugh at. Had any of you actually given thought to what you were saying I think you would realize how ignorant we really are as well as how foolish you have been for so strongly stating your claim.

        • September 19th, 2011 at 02:29

          “A wise man once said “I know that I know nothing.””
          That doesn’t sound wise to me, it sounds like a celebration of profound ignorance. And profound ignorance is a precondition for religious thinking, which is why religion is propagated to children of course…

          • Crakii
            September 30th, 2011 at 17:32

            I guess that is one way to look at it. what it is saying is that nothing is a sure thing. Only a fool claims to “know” anything. Science can’t even prove something. At best it can give us strong evidence to support something but there is always some shadow of doubt. I think it is only “propagated” to children because the message is what is important. Ill admit that most major religions go about this in an extreme way, but what makes your belief so much better than theirs? There is no actual evidence to say whether there is or is not a “God”. Although all of his work is theoretical, Baruch Spinoza was able to justify some sort of God. To the point that rejecting the idea of a God is the same as rejecting geometry.

  81. Rick
    August 4th, 2011 at 10:11

    CH :
    All in all, the picture is funny, the conversation that follows is funnier. :)

    Even funnier still, will be watching you make the jump from: “Existence precedes essence after all” to defending Jesus as being something other than just another virgin born, regenerating fertility god myth.

    • CH
      August 4th, 2011 at 23:19

      It’s what I’ve been going for.

  82. sanja
    May 8th, 2012 at 11:21

    all stupid atheists want shirt with that. Compensation for lack of intelligence, IMHO.
    Smart atheists do not have a need for that.

    Some “smart” things from my personal experience, that atheists who like this shit couldn’t comprehend:
    - one of them coldn’t comprehend that if someone has 13% of votes, after some voting, that means that he DIDN’t get 87% of votes. That dude just continued to shout “you cannot count like that! you cannot count like that!”.

    When i said “either you do not understand 2nd grade’s math, or you have some kind of blind spot”, he replied with “Oh, now you’re imlying some spots in my BRAIN”.

    So.
    He obviously never learned 7th grade biology.

    the dude is complete idiot.
    And he really, really needs a shirt whith this sign to help his selfconfidence.

  83. sanja
    May 8th, 2012 at 11:22

    don’t mind the typos and other shit. I’m selftaught in english.
    vozdra, raja :)

  84. sanja
    May 8th, 2012 at 11:26

    My point is this: there are many, many atheists who are also too stupid to understand maths, science, logics, etc.
    And – and that’s a paradox – they are the ones who would like T-shirt with that sign the most.

  85. Rolling Rock
    December 17th, 2012 at 18:16

    @JTK and Ian.

    So I am late to this party, it seems (just Stumbled on this today), but I did want to make an effort to impart something before moving on.

    Seriously, good job, guys; I like your arguments. They are valid, pithy, and relevant. Granted, a discussion from an athiest perspective tends to be pretty straight forward, but it can be easy to lose perspective and lose sight of the larger issue. Good job, and I’m sure I’ll visit this site frequently in the future. As a physicist, it’s refreshing to see logic implemented correctly in regards to religion. Keep it up, please!