Thread: Atheists Discrimination

Atheist woman wasn't very good.


Liked the others.

Derp.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Atheist woman wasn't very good.


Liked the others.

Derp.

WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR ETHICS FROM!?!?!?

~

The only good atheist is a dead atheist.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The only good atheist is a dead atheist.

I have actually heard this said too often lately..

~

Funny how atheists throw the word "logic" around like they know what the hell it means. Sad, really, trying to justify your irrational desire to "get back at those pious dicks for discriminating against my beliefs [or lack thereof]" with a bunch of overplayed "Well think about it logically, just, just, just think about it LOGICALLY!!!" rhetoric.

Jesus Titty-Fucking Christ. Hasn't anyone figured out by now that one of the key features of logic its inability to disprove the existence of something? It's impossible to disprove the existence of anything at all.

You know what the atheist mind-frame is based on? It's based on an outdated, B.C. era "seeing is believing" way of thinking.

"Does God exist? Bring him down here and show him to me."

"I can't."

"Then he doesn't exist."

Jeez, sounds an awful lot like what Galileo heard in his day...

"The Earth revolves around the Sun? Then take me up into space and show me."

"I can't."

"Then the Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun."

Ooh, GREAT argument. Yes, because you can't see something, it doesn't exist...because it sounds too fantastic and contradicts what you believe in, it must not be true.

That's just plain intelligent coming from people who live on a planet where new species are STILL being discovered on an almost daily basis! I am SO impressed! Uh-huh, you atheists sure have got it all figured out. Please, enlighten us foolish believers about more things that couldn't possibly exist just because you haven't seen them with your own eyes, or because they seem too "ridiculous" to be true.

To any dedicated atheists on this board, I apologize for the dickheaded and blunt way I'm speaking, but shit. If you're gonna hide behind logic, at least make sure it's scientific logic, not something-I-can-use-to-deny-the-existence-of-a-higher-being 'logic'. That overplayed "Well just THINK about it...how can an all-powerful wizard-man create the universe and stuff!?" argument is doing nothing but making you look like a bunch of monkeys who have found a tool (the word 'logic') that you can use to your advantage to fend off the things in this world that bother you (religion).

Maybe I should just stop coming into this damn subforum. I'd A) piss a lot less people off and B) get pissed off by a lot less people.

Originally Posted by Lëzen

[an old and tired argument]

1. Atheists are people who don't believe in God. They do not necessarily affirm the nonexistence of God. All people who don't believe in God are atheists, including most agnostics.

2. Atheism isn't about disproving God's existence or asserting the probability of his existence. It is about asserting the logical and empirical foundation that religious faith is based upon. Since religious faith is not based on any actual evidence or logically valid principles, it is discarded as unreasonable. Atheism in itself contains no propositions or beliefs, it is the result of a certain methodology.

The number of possible propositions for which there is no evidence is infinite. Hence, it is not equally valid to believe and not to believe in one such proposition. It is invalid in any case. Belief only becomes valid once sufficient evidence has been provided.

Because the proposition that an "entity" created the universe is as reasonable as the proposition that a banana/monkey/desk/[anything] did it, atheists still go all the way and say "God doesn't exist" just as you would say "There is no giant invisible piece of corn strapped to my head".

Since I have successfully completed university courses in logic, I would assume that I am fairly accustomed to its proper use.

It's based on an outdated, B.C. era "seeing is believing" way of thinking.

Clearly you're a tool and don't know what the word 'science' means.

WER DU U GET UR MORELS FROM IF UR NOT SPUNFED DEM FRUM FAIRY BUK!?!?! I CANOT WERK OUT DAT KILL IZ BAD WIVAUT MY FAIRY BUK!!!

Originally Posted by Lëzen

duh

No, here, look; we don't believe in God because there is no evidence for God. It's very simple.

God may be a logical possibility. Sure. A teapot orbiting the sun may be a logical possibility too. But unless you can show me it's there, why the fuck should I believe you?

Athiests are athiests. Why should an athiest not be? If they like being one, they stay that way!

Originally Posted by Xei

No, here, look; we don't believe in God because there is no evidence for God. It's very simple.

God may be a logical possibility. Sure. A teapot orbiting the sun may be a logical possibility too. But unless you can show me it's there, why the fuck should I believe you?

LOL Nice.

You forgot about the Omnipresence part?



Nah, God's not a logical possibility. You don't punch Him into a calculator or spot him in outer-space!

Ah, the confusions, the irony...

..and the reason why she annoyed me was because she was clearly dodging his "where from are morals lol" question.

Should of just asked if his belief in God was the only thing that made him think killing is wrong. If God said killing was awwwrright would he feel it? No. He'd feel it was wrong because the morals come from him rather than some externality. (in b4 God is inside him)


And if she hadjust said that it'd made her look at least slightly less dumb.


I really didn't like her. >:[

And didn't agree with most of her stuff.

She was an idiot and Americans simply don't know how to host a debate. Everybody was basically given one chance to speak. :\

Nah, God's not a logical possibility. You don't punch Him into a calculator or spot him in outer-space!

These words don't make sense together.

He makes too many assumptions.(Dawson)

Though I agree with keeping God out of Government and school. Teaching all religions on the other hand, I welcome.

That reverend is an idiot, you don't need the Bible for ethics..

Originally Posted by DeathCell

He makes too many assumptions.(Dawson)

Though I agree with keeping God out of Government and school. Teaching all religions on the other hand, I welcome.

That reverend is an idiot, you don't need the Bible for ethics..

lul Dawson.

Hearing Dawkins say "flying spagetti monster" makes me giggle.

Also, why do all self righteous people pronounce it "Amurrican"?

Mmm, Dawkins. <3

After that part, it started sucking real fast. Same old arguments on both sides, with faked passion.

Originally Posted by Abra

Mmm, Dawkins. <3

After that part, it started sucking real fast. Same old arguments on both sides, with faked passion.

Umm... you think Dawkins was original? He says pretty much the same stuff in every interview I've ever seen with him. Its all "Blah blah blah, [poorly worded version of a Stephen Roberts quote] blah blah blah, flying spaghetti monster, blah blah blah, religious people are irrational, blah blah blah, atheists all are scientists"

I don't mind Dawkins as a populariser of philosophy. But I do mind people who think his philosophy is amazing and original.

I agree with him but really, empiricism had this sorted centuries ago.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Umm... you think Dawkins was original? He says pretty much the same stuff in every interview I've ever seen with him. Its all "Blah blah blah, [poorly worded version of a Stephen Roberts quote] blah blah blah, flying spaghetti monster, blah blah blah, religious people are irrational, blah blah blah, atheists all are scientists"

You know, you do a lot of straw-manning for someone who claims to be a really intelligent person.

The fact is that Richard Dawkins has done a lot that many people have not but no one will discuss those matters with him. Have you considered that the questions are always the same? "Why don't you believe in God?" will always render the Atheist response, "There's no reason to".

Furthermore, have you read the Selfish Gene or God Delusion? There's a good reason why Dawkins is revered over others - he's got balls.

~

I thought the selfish gene was a genetic theory, not a ballsy philosophical argument. :\

Originally Posted by Xei

I thought the selfish gene was a genetic theory, not a ballsy philosophical argument. :\

......that was my point!!

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

You know, you do a lot of straw-manning for someone who claims to be a really intelligent person.

The fact is that Richard Dawkins has done a lot that many people have not but no one will discuss those matters with him. Have you considered that the questions are always the same? "Why don't you believe in God?" will always render the Atheist response, "There's no reason to".

Furthermore, have you read the Selfish Gene or God Delusion? There's a good reason why Dawkins is revered over others - he's got balls.

~

When have I ever claimed to be a really intelligent person? Dawkins is a smart man and a good evolutionary biologist, but I wasn't saying anything about any of that. Abra said she enjoyed the dawkins portion of the video, but it was exactly like every other interview he's ever done. Why is it that atheists have to blindly defend this man whenever anyone gives him any sort of criticism?

P.S. no self respecting evolutionary biologist and atheism advocate should ever have to mention the flying spaghetti monster in order to make their point.

P.S.S. I've got balls too. Testicles do not make an interesting interview...unless he's being interviewed about his testicles, I'd watch that.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Abra said she enjoyed the dawkins portion of the video, but it was exactly like every other interview he's ever done.

I don't see what else he would need to say.

It's no different than a religious zealot spewing the bibles rhetoric over and over again.
Wait.... that is until they decide to rephrase one of the fables to fit their liking.

Maybe it is threatening to have an unwavering argument!

Originally Posted by Howie

It's no different than a religious zealot spewing the bibles rhetoric over and over again.
Wait.... that is until they decide to rephrase one of the fables to fit their liking.

Maybe it is threatening to have an unwavering argument!

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

P.S. no self respecting evolutionary biologist and atheism advocate should ever have to mention the flying spaghetti monster in order to make their point.

I have to agree with this, considering there's been a gaping flaw with that argument. Any intellectual should already know that.

And I don't really know why you pay Dawkins so much mind O'nus, you could do much better than him, I think.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

I have to agree with this, considering there's been a gaping flaw with that argument. Any intellectual should already know that.

And I don't really know why you pay Dawkins so much mind O'nus, you could do much better than him, I think.

That's the point!! He uses a ridiculous comparison to bring to light a very valid question.
Why is the belief of a flying spaghetti monster any more or less absurd than any other type of God?
Why is it that at one time the majority would believe in Zeus, but not now? Don't you wonder the same about Christianity in 100 years?