# Any Athiest F.A's?



## The Fez (May 1, 2009)

No arguments incited, I'm just curious. Is it a considerably small % of American's that consider themselves athiest? I ask because this board is predominantly American, as far as I'm aware.

And I'm athiest-agnostic, for the record :bow:


----------



## Observer (May 1, 2009)

According to the Harris Poll (2004) 77% of American adults classify themselves as Christians with numerous subsets, 11% as other faiths, and 12% as atheists and agnostics. There is no breakdown between the last two, but from general observation I would suspect agnostics predominate.


----------



## The Fez (May 1, 2009)

I'm not sure what the official stats are over here, but in the UK I would guess there's far fewer religious people; they're probably still the majority with immigrants being mostly religious mind you.

Maybe it's contextual for age brackets too; of my friends, the ratio is probably 8 non-religious for every 2 religious people


----------



## Still a Skye fan (May 1, 2009)

I'm a baptized Catholic who only went to church because his parents had the power to make him go: I've had weekly religious instruction classes, I was an altar boy throughout my teen years...I'm well acquainted with all this good stuff but none of it ever meant anything to me.

My parents eventually quit going and I haven't been to a mass since the end of high school, which was over 20 years ago. The last time I was in a church was for a wedding in 2000.

I consider religion a non-issue so I guess I'm atheist ~shrugs~

Dennis


----------



## Teleute (May 1, 2009)

<---- atheist bbw/ffa


----------



## aptx (May 1, 2009)

Atheist, but Im also British so it isn't a shocker
last time I looked at polls something like 45% of the UK was not religious, like you said I think that number is propped up by Immigrants and Indian/Pakistanis


----------



## Chode McBlob (May 1, 2009)

Yeah, I'm an Atheist FA. Born Jewish, got my Bar Mitzvah and that's my heritage but I surely don't believe in God or any other supreme being/creator of the Universe.


----------



## Surlysomething (May 1, 2009)

Present!


and i'm not down with organized religion.


----------



## Thyme (May 1, 2009)

If one doesn't want to be too picky on semantics, I guess you could say I'm an atheist. I'm certainly irreligious, though. 

Except that I live in Quebec, so I guess I wouldn't really count in your non-poll poll. 

Aaaaand an FA, of course.


----------



## kioewen (May 1, 2009)

Still a Skye fan said:


> I'm a baptized Catholic who only went to church because his parents had the power to make him go: I've had weekly religious instruction classes, I was an altar boy throughout my teen years...I'm well acquainted with all this good stuff but none of it ever meant anything to me.



Something like this. Same Catholic background, same eventual rejection of the God premise. I'd say that I stopped believing in God around Grade 9 or so.

Having said that, though, I'm a big believer in the Catholic church in the sense that I think it's a noble institution, especially in this day and age. I admire it for standing in the face of the leftward drift of society.

People sometimes say, "I believe in God, but not in any particular church." I'm the opposite. God is a big fiction, of course, but some churches (Catholicism and the Mormon church, for example) are genuinely worthwhile institutions.

As forces of shaping social morals, I think the traditional churches are superior institutions to the modern political religion of "social justice" which is displacing Christianity exactly as Christianity displaced paganism. At least Christianity gave people a belief in something bigger than themselves. "Social justice" (same dismal slave ethics as The Sermon on the Mount, but without the notion of transcendence) reduces people to thinking in nothing but material terms. And that's a pathetic, indeed a dystopian idea on which to build a culture.

Or to put it another way, a culture that worships Aphoridite or the Virgin Mary is a much richer one than one that worships Paris Hilton or Angelina Jolie.


----------



## TraciJo67 (May 1, 2009)

I'm an agnostic, bordering on being an outright atheist. I admire some principles of most organized religions, but I just don't believe in a particular deity -- or, more to the point, that if said deity exists, religion accurately represents His/Her/Its message.


----------



## Tad (May 1, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> I'm an agnostic, bordering on being an outright atheist. I admire some principles of most organized religions, but I just don't believe in a particular deity -- or, more to the point, that if said deity exists, religion accurately represents His/Her/Its message.



What she said, especially that last part.

(Although I think it would be nice if there was some sort of higher being and all that)


----------



## bigpulve (May 1, 2009)

agnostic bording on belief in a god of some sort.


----------



## Ivy (May 1, 2009)

i'm somewhere in between atheist and agnostic. probably closer to being an atheist. i was raised in a very religious lutheran household, went to an all girls catholic grade school, middle school, and high school and spent a year and a half at an all woman catholic college. i can appreciate religion and respect other people's religious beliefs, but it's just not something that has ever really spoken to me.


----------



## Jezebel (May 1, 2009)

Atheist here. 

I was raised Catholic and went to private catholic school up until my last year of high school. I've always struggled with the faith but it was probably the brainwashing catho-whore camps I was sent to that made me come home gung-ho about church every summer for a couple of years. 

My mother was a crazy nut and would wake us up in the middle of the night to pray rosaries etc. when I was a little girl but she's slacked off and now nobody in my family has gone to church in a long time.

I'm totally and absolutely disillusioned with organized religion most especially Catholicism. Though I have to say I wouldn't imagine there being a great deal of real Christian freaks on this board. Gluttony is a sin folks.


----------



## Scorsese86 (May 1, 2009)

*No*.

Everyone else says yes, so I decided to say my view, even though I new this wasn't a thread for me. And no to the atheist thing. Yes to FA.


And I won't try and convert anyone. People have free will, and can think for themselves. Some believe in God, some don't. Man, where is Hyde Park???


----------



## disconnectedsmile (May 1, 2009)

Ivy said:


> i'm somewhere in between atheist and agnostic. probably closer to being an atheist. ... i can appreciate religion and respect other people's religious beliefs, but it's just not something that has ever really spoken to me.


i was gonna post here, and then i read this.
it's like you took the words out of my head. that may explain the itch in my cerebral cortex.


----------



## Captain Save (May 1, 2009)

I respect religious practices as far as other people are concerned, but I'm much too cynical to feel any involvement in church. There is also an incomprehensible amount of wisdom in religious texts; I simply have no desire to maintain a relationship with a higher power. I am much more interested in the community at large.


----------



## Oirish (May 1, 2009)

Agnostic. I'll steal a line from Bill Maher and say "I'm selling doubt." I just don't know what's right and don't believe that anybody else does either. The questions which religion so often attempts to answer involve things that humans are not truly capable of grasping. Certainly things beyond the comprehension of the people alive at the time the events took place. What we have the most evidence of is the editorial process, at least in Western faiths.


----------



## Orso (May 1, 2009)

Agnostic.

I think that one needs faith to believe and the same amount of faith, just with the opposite sign, to disbelieve. I do not have either

BTW, I'm Italian, so I don't know if I get into the statistics


----------



## The Fez (May 1, 2009)

Ivy said:


> i'm somewhere in between atheist and agnostic. probably closer to being an atheist. i can appreciate religion and respect other people's religious beliefs, but it's just not something that has ever really spoken to me.



this is where I am, and what athiest-agnostic is (as far as I'm aware). I'm sure there's a wiki entry on it somewhere, hah


----------



## fffff (May 1, 2009)

culturally Jewish, spiritually atheist


----------



## Edens_heel (May 1, 2009)

Definitely an atheist/agnostic here. I used to be a little more spiritual, but the fact is that I've never seen or experienced anything to make me believe that there is a higher power guiding us in any way. As a matter of fact, I'd go so far as to say that I believe organizing religion into different sects is the single greatest mistake in human history.

How many massacres and wars have been started because one person believed their imaginary best friend up above was better than that of someone else?

Then again, I guess my name kind of gives my feelings away a little bit (though the name was not created for that purpose - it has something bigger to it).


----------



## mediaboy (May 1, 2009)

Its not that I hate you, God. 

I've just never had much of a use for you.

Sincerely, Mediaboy


----------



## Ash (May 1, 2009)

Not an FA, but I'm agnostic/atheist (leaning more and more atheist as time goes by, though). 

I was also raised as a strict Catholic--Catholic school and everything.


----------



## Wild Zero (May 2, 2009)

Edens_heel said:


> As a matter of fact, I'd go so far as to say that I believe organizing religion into different sects is the single greatest mistake in human history.
> 
> How many massacres and wars have been started because one person believed their imaginary best friend up above was better than that of someone else?



Yeah it's not like anything good, be it deeds or works of art has ever been done in the name of a religion


----------



## FaxMachine1234 (May 2, 2009)

Wild Zero said:


> Yeah it's not like anything good, be it deeds or works of art has ever been done in the name of a religion



Ack, I sense a political discussion brewing! _SHUT IT DOWN, man!_ lol


----------



## MisterGuy (May 2, 2009)

Atheist, and I don't respect others' medieval superstitions, I mean, religious beliefs.


----------



## The Fez (May 2, 2009)

I swear, if you guys turn this thread into another christian vs. athiest shit-storm...


----------



## MisterGuy (May 2, 2009)

Says the guy who starts an atheist thread directly under a christian one...


----------



## FaxMachine1234 (May 2, 2009)

Freestyle Fez said:


> I swear, if you guys turn this thread into another christian vs. athiest shit-storm...



Yeah, we could create an entire encyclopedia-length tome based on the ones just from the past year.


----------



## The Fez (May 2, 2009)

directly under a christian one? I wasn't aware I controlled the order of threads in this forum

pretty nifty trick though


----------



## Paquito (May 2, 2009)

I notice he doesn't bring up the polytheist or pagan threads...


----------



## MisterGuy (May 2, 2009)

Ok, Let me rephrase that. 

Says the guy who starts an atheist thread very shortly after a Christian one was started on the same board, about the same topic. Just seems a little rich to be worried about Christians and atheists subsequently arguing, that's all.

Fwiw, I have no interest in arguing with Christians about anything, and reserve more personal annoyance for mealy-mouthed atheists/agnostics.


----------



## The Fez (May 2, 2009)

Because the motivation had to be malicious, right.


----------



## Preston (May 2, 2009)

I'm a staunch atheist, but I hardly think it's anyone's place to criticize anyone else's beliefs. I put my faith in science and human ingenuity, some others put it in a higher power. There's no reason we can't happily co-exist, unless one side develops a superiority complex and starts acting like a conflict has to happen.


----------



## Paquito (May 2, 2009)

We couldn't have possibly wanted to start a new discussion or some acceptance.

It had to be malicious.


Well, we are a bunch of evil people anyway, so I guess it was to be expected.


----------



## Preston (May 2, 2009)

And, Mister Guy, you come across as someone who is downright anti-theist, not atheist. Big difference.


----------



## Wild Zero (May 2, 2009)

Preston said:


> I'm a staunch atheist, but I hardly think it's anyone's place to criticize anyone else's beliefs. I put my faith in science and human ingenuity, some others put it in a higher power. There's no reason we can't happily co-exist, unless one side develops a superiority complex and starts acting like a conflict has to happen.


----------



## Edens_heel (May 2, 2009)

Wild Zero said:


> Yeah it's not like anything good, be it deeds or works of art has ever been done in the name of a religion



Of course good things have come from it as well, but they could have just as easily come from having faith, but not having a doctrine or a specific set of parameters that define one as being so entirely incompatible from another. Faith is not the problem I have, it's the strict division of religion into organizations that seem to want to squander all the good will they strive for on making others feel as if they're going to burn because they don't belong in the same clubhouse.


----------



## FaxMachine1234 (May 2, 2009)

Edens_heel said:


> Of course good things have come from it as well, but they could have just as easily come from having faith, but not having a doctrine or a specific set of parameters that define one as being so entirely incompatible from another. Faith is not the problem I have, it's the strict division of religion into organizations that seem to want to squander all the good will they strive for on making others feel as if they're going to burn because they don't belong in the same clubhouse.



*hyde park tractor beam...pulling me...in...*

Yeah, that must be really troubling for people who don't care about the clubhouses anyway.


----------



## MisterGuy (May 2, 2009)

Preston said:


> And, Mister Guy, you come across as someone who is downright anti-theist, not atheist. Big difference.



I guess I'm antitheist to the extent that I think people who believe in God are wrong in that belief, and they often make accordingly wrong choices based on their belief system. I can't imagine any intellectually honest atheist feeling any differently, as I can't imagine any intellectually honest Christian not feeling the same way about atheists. 

The whole self-congratulatory, "Kumbaya, let's all be friends" thing is great and all on internet boards, makes you sound like a marvelously liberal and openminded person, but when it gets to the real world, people's lives are affected by what other people, and the people they elect, believe or don't believe. I can absolutely respect a Christian as a person, and in any other facet of their life, but I don't respect the belief system itself. 

If that makes me anti-theist, fine.


----------



## MisterGuy (May 2, 2009)

Just to get a double-post in here, I might add that I accordingly don't expect Christians to respect my (lack of) beliefs. I expect them to respect my right to have those beliefs, but that's a different thing.


----------



## Preston (May 2, 2009)

Except, if you actually live it, the whole "tolerate others" thing is pretty freakin' wonderful. 

A person's spirituality is essentially them finding a way to come to terms with their place in the universe. That's nothing you should ever judge. It's a personal relationship with the universe, or god or existence or whatever you want to call it. If you can't deal having a different personal relationship with existence than you, you're not an atheist, you're a bigot.

If a person makes the right decisions in life, why should it matter whether they're motivated by religious ideals or personal ones?


----------



## The Fez (May 2, 2009)

people make wrong choices regardless of beliefs; for people using war as an example of religion causing violence, I think if religion didn't exist, those same people would find something else to have an excuse for what they do. Douchebags are douchebags, regardless of beliefs.

aaaand I'm out.


----------



## Mini (May 2, 2009)

Atheist and anti-theist. 

One side has evidence. One side does not. I will throw my lot in with the side backed by evidence *every* time.

Y'know, it wouldn't be such a big deal to me if the religiously inclined could keep their shit to themselves, but when they try to affect public policy based on superstition and dogma, or try to justify their hatred with debunked scripture, or propagate suffering and misery to appease a fictional deity, THEN I take issue with it.

See, I don't have respect for the beliefs. I can like the people and respect *them*, but when it comes to the silly shit, I will call it as I see it.


----------



## FaxMachine1234 (May 2, 2009)

Mini said:


> Atheist and anti-theist.
> 
> One side has evidence. One side does not. I will throw my lot in with the side backed by evidence *every* time.
> 
> ...



...And Hyde Park has returned! Well, that didn't take long, huh?


----------



## Edens_heel (May 2, 2009)

Mini said:


> Atheist and anti-theist.
> 
> One side has evidence. One side does not. I will throw my lot in with the side backed by evidence *every* time.
> 
> ...




Well said - pretty much helped to clarify my own stance on this.


----------



## MisterGuy (May 2, 2009)

Preston said:


> Except, if you actually live it, the whole "tolerate others" thing is pretty freakin' wonderful.
> 
> A person's spirituality is essentially them finding a way to come to terms with their place in the universe. That's nothing you should ever judge. It's a personal relationship with the universe, or god or existence or whatever you want to call it. If you can't deal having a different personal relationship with existence than you, you're not an atheist, you're a bigot.
> 
> If a person makes the right decisions in life, why should it matter whether they're motivated by religious ideals or personal ones?



I tolerate people. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I just don't respect the beliefs. I find it highly unlikely that you or anyone for that matter respects *everyone's* beliefs. Do you respect belief in UFO conspiracies? How about the belief that vampires are real? New earth theology? How about the guy wearing a tinfoil tophat that thinks Walt Disney is alive, all-powerful, and controlling his actions--respek? 

Most people have a rather arbitrary line they draw in the sand between beliefs they'll accord respect to, and those they won't, and it usually just has something to do with how many people there are that hold that belief. 

Why exactly is it important that we respect what each other believe anyway? The important thing is to respect each others' right to believe. There's this weird western cultural thing where you can debate about anything, but people's religious beliefs are off limits. Why is that? I feel like atheists are often too worried about offending religious folks' tender sensibilities, which is a weirdly patronizing/condescending position to take.


----------



## Paquito (May 2, 2009)

Maybe respecting _every_ belief system out there is difficult, but as long as everyone respects the choice to (not) have a belief system, then we can all coexist peacefully. That's just basic respect for your fellow man.


----------



## thatgirl08 (May 2, 2009)

I don't give a shit what religion people practice as long as they don't force it on me. Athiest all the way.


----------



## Littleghost (May 2, 2009)

Atheist. Sunday school bit off far more than it could chew with this one.


----------



## Captain Save (May 2, 2009)

Every time I have been in a discussion that turns to address religious beliefs and I disclose my own, everyone goes berserk and insists that my eternal soul is going straight to hell. It gets old after a while, so I avoid those discussions. Having seen so many people here with similar viewpoints makes me feel like I really belong, and for that, I just want to say, 'thanks, everybody!'


----------



## frankman (May 2, 2009)

I don't know. I actually don't care, because when my life's over, I hope that when judged (who or why is irrelevant), the scale tips slightly towards the good even if there's just a big nothing. I sincerely hope that the sum of my actions is mostly harmless, because that'd be the most pleasant for those around me.

And if there is a god (which I doubt), I hope it'll judge me on my actions as well, instead of on the number of times I sang its name in a big building.


----------



## Fuzzy Necromancer (May 2, 2009)

I consider myself a reluctant atheist. I dislike the feeling of a lonely and purposeless universe, but I'm still too skeptical and introspective to accept the organized religions currently offered. 

I haven't found a religion or cohesive world-schema ideology I can really deal with. In the mean I just use my fiction writing to give my brief, cosmically insignificant life meaning. 

Still, it's not fun to feel the CWoF (chilly winds of fate) blowing round your nethers.


----------



## Wild Zero (May 2, 2009)

This thread is a great example of how zealotry is zealotry and ignorance is ignorance whether its backed up by empirical evidence or interpreted scriptures.


----------



## Mini (May 2, 2009)

Wild Zero said:


> This thread is a great example of how zealotry is zealotry and ignorance is ignorance whether its backed up by empirical evidence or interpreted scriptures.



Show me an atheist who wants to burn bibles and then we'll talk about conflating the two.


----------



## The Orange Mage (May 2, 2009)

Raised Catholic, but none of it ever meant a damn thing to me.


----------



## Wild Zero (May 3, 2009)

Mini said:


> Show me an atheist who wants to burn bibles and then we'll talk about conflating the two.



That's a pretty narrow example, but I'd say the glib characterizations of faith as "imaginary friends in the sky" or a conspiracy theory no better than some "tinfoil tophat that thinks Walt Disney is alive, all-powerful, and controlling his actions" is as ignorant and short-sighted as any preacher's boilerplate hellfire and brimstone sermon against science, atheism or other beliefs that don't match their ideal world.


----------



## Mini (May 3, 2009)

Wild Zero said:


> That's a pretty narrow example, but I'd say the glib characterizations of faith as "imaginary friends in the sky" or a conspiracy theory no better than some "tinfoil tophat that thinks Walt Disney is alive, all-powerful, and controlling his actions" is as ignorant and short-sighted as any preacher's boilerplate hellfire and brimstone sermon against science, atheism or other beliefs that don't match their ideal world.



Really. Tell me exactly why "god" should be treated as anything but an imaginary man in a sky.

I say again, one side has evidence. The other does not. Why should *we* pay any respect to the "other side" when it has nothing but superstition and ignorance to offer?

Also again, if Christians, Muslims, Hindus, et al. would just keep it to themselves, I would have little issue. I'd still laugh at 'em for wasting their time and money, but more power to them. But when they take their beliefs political, it AFFECTS EVERYONE, INCLUDING THOSE WHO DO NOT ADHERE TO THEIR SUPERSTITIONS. If you're going to bring your ideas into the marketplace, you had better be prepared for the criticism that will follow.


----------



## Ash (May 3, 2009)

And this is why Hyde Park was closed.


----------



## Mini (May 3, 2009)

Ashley said:


> And this is why Hyde Park was closed.



Hey, I'm being civil!


----------



## Jack Skellington (May 3, 2009)

Mini said:


> Really. Tell me exactly why "god" should be treated as anything but an imaginary man in a sky.



Because this isn't the Hyde Park? 

There are Pagan and Christian threads going on and both are being polite _so far_ towards other beliefs. Maybe this thread might be giving the impression to some that Atheists are not able to discuss what they believe without insulting the beliefs of others. 

There is a difference between something like "I don't believe in any deity" and going into the sky fairies and superstitions type of remarks. Like they say, it's not what you do or do not believe, but how you express those beliefs and some junk like that. 

But you know, whatever, knock yourselves out.


----------



## The Orange Mage (May 3, 2009)

The problem is that the basic ideas of atheism _are_ insulting to the beliefs of others in a decent number of cases.


----------



## Mini (May 3, 2009)

Jack Skellington said:


> Because this isn't the Hyde Park?
> 
> There are Pagan and Christian threads going on and both are being polite _so far_ towards other beliefs. Maybe this thread might be giving the impression to some that Atheists are not able to discuss what they believe without insulting the beliefs of others.
> 
> ...



I like you, Jack, and we generally get along, but this is one area in which we'll have to agree to disagree. People don't fall into their faith for rational reasons, because faith is by definition irrational. Ergo, you're not going to reason them out of it. I find ridicule to be far more effective, not to mention gratifying.


----------



## Jack Skellington (May 3, 2009)

Mini said:


> I like you, Jack, and we generally get along,



I like you as well. 



> I find ridicule to be far more effective, not to mention gratifying.



Then by all means party down with your bad-selves. Make fun of the non-Atheists to your hearts content. 

But, again, you just _might_ want to keep in mind this is not the Hyde Park and that kind of behavior might be just a _weensy_ bit frowned on.


----------



## marlowegarp (May 3, 2009)

The Orange Mage said:


> The problem is that the basic ideas of atheism _are_ insulting to the beliefs of others in a decent number of cases.



Atheist here. I find the basic ideas of many religions insulting, but I don't knock on their doors and wake them up stupidly early on Sunday morning when they are only wearing their boxers and make them wonder where the fire is.

I watched "Religulous" recently and enjoyed it for what it was. I also once attended a meeting of atheists. It was interesting but ultimately pointless (why form a group based on non-belief? It doesn't make sense). The reason things like this exist is that there is an unfair double standard whereby religions can hate on atheists all they want and it is "expression", but when atheists ridicule religion, we are being "intolerant". I don't have anything against religion but it is like telling off the guy on the bus who yells into his phone instead of just speaking quietly like a normal person. I don't hate him, but I'm still not going to put up with having MY rights violated.


----------



## FaxMachine1234 (May 3, 2009)

marlowegarp said:


> The reason things like this exist is that there is an unfair double standard whereby religions can hate on atheists all they want and it is "expression", but when atheists ridicule religion, we are being "intolerant".



Most religions tend to ignore atheists, not seek them out to "hate on" them, but maybe I haven't talked to the right people.




Mini said:


> Show me an atheist who wants to burn bibles and then we'll talk about conflating the two.



Well, I can think of a couple that went to my school that advocated exactly that...a Catholic school that never told us what not to read and let in many students who weren't even religious, let alone Christian. Certainly didn't leave me with a good impression of the non-believer sect...


----------



## The Fez (May 3, 2009)

In hindsight, I should have known better than to make a thread like this :doh:


----------



## Ample Pie (May 3, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> I'm an agnostic, bordering on being an outright atheist. I admire some principles of most organized religions, but I just don't believe in a particular deity -- or, more to the point, that if said deity exists, religion accurately represents His/Her/Its message.




^sort of that. Except, I believe in God--wholeheartedly and completely. I just can't say I believe that any religion I've encountered has described or worshiped the God I've witnessed. Moreover, I'm not sure the God I've witnessed is a particularly present or wonderful being...so I'm not sure how I feel about him. What is someone who believes in a God but doesn't know if she worships said God? I mean, in my estimation, God is either not all-powerful or he's kind of a dick. I don't agree with his horrible "rape and murder*" policy, but I do agree with his "beautiful mountains and awesome rivers" policy...so I'm kind of split. I guess I don't know what I am. Confused. Yeah, confused.

* if God created all things, he created sin, too--that means rape and murder are his inventions. I can't dismiss them as "free will" and say these horrible things are tests for us, because, come on, any halfway decent all powerful deity could have come up with a way to teach people things that didn't involve such horrific pain, fear, whatever. I just can't see the necessity for a starving child. If that's the best way God has to teach us lessons, he's, well...I'll let Mini fill in the rest if he wants, but you get the point.


----------



## MisterGuy (May 3, 2009)

Wild Zero said:


> This thread is a great example of how zealotry is zealotry and ignorance is ignorance whether its backed up by empirical evidence or interpreted scriptures.



Wat. That makes no sense whatsoever--ignorance backed up by empirical evidence? This post, and your other ones itt, are great examples of the worst kind of feel-good, glib false equivalence.


----------



## pumpkingrower (May 3, 2009)

marlowegarp said:


> Atheist here. I find the basic ideas of many religions insulting, but I don't knock on their doors and wake them up stupidly early on Sunday morning when they are only wearing their boxers and make them wonder where the fire is.
> 
> I watched "Religulous" recently and enjoyed it for what it was. I also once attended a meeting of atheists. It was interesting but ultimately pointless (why form a group based on non-belief? It doesn't make sense). The reason things like this exist is that there is an unfair double standard whereby religions can hate on atheists all they want and it is "expression", but when atheists ridicule religion, we are being "intolerant". I don't have anything against religion but it is like telling off the guy on the bus who yells into his phone instead of just speaking quietly like a normal person. I don't hate him, but I'm still not going to put up with having MY rights violated.



Atheist here, you pretty much said anything I would have.


----------



## FaxMachine1234 (May 3, 2009)

Freestyle Fez said:


> In hindsight, I should have known better than to make a thread like this :doh:



Can't argue with that, though frankly I don't know why any of the other ones were made either


----------



## The Fez (May 3, 2009)

I think I'd be lying if I said on some level I didn't know this was going to happen


----------



## Suze (May 3, 2009)

i'm not an atheist or a fa so just ignore this post ok?

OK?!!



PLEASE!


----------



## Preston (May 3, 2009)

Yeah, tolerance is dumb anyway.


----------



## marlowegarp (May 3, 2009)

Ekim said:


> Most religions tend to ignore atheists, not seek them out to "hate on" them, but maybe I haven't talked to the right people.



You're right that "hate on them" is the wrong phrase. I mean more "disregard their right to believe in nothing". And not all religions seek out people at home, or at the park, disregarding "no soliciting" signs and common courtesy, but enough do (or have to me) that I consider it a problem.


----------



## DeathMetalKenny (May 3, 2009)

I'm an atheist, but I'd rather not get into an argument about basis of belief or lack therefor of. After all, those who believe will stick to their guns on the fact that they have the divine right to believe that there is a god and to smite all nay-sayers rather than just accept and ignore their preference, and non believers will always seek out ways to try to prove believers wrong at their own game. So, I have to pose the question - Can't we all just get along?


----------



## bexy (May 3, 2009)

Out of interest, should all of these "Any "insert religion thingy here" FA's?" threads not be on the FA board? Isn't that why it's there? Not being snarky, just wondering why they are still on the main board.


----------



## marlowegarp (May 3, 2009)

You're right! Wow, it seems weird, but I forget we have an FA board sometimes. I also always forget that Hyde Park is gone. It's kind of a necessary evil.


----------



## The Fez (May 3, 2009)

We don't need to argue guys

lets all hug it out


----------



## Wild Zero (May 3, 2009)

MisterGuy said:


> Wat. That makes no sense whatsoever--ignorance backed up by empirical evidence? This post, and your other ones itt, are great examples of the worst kind of feel-good, glib false equivalence.



So what would you call your posts in this thread slagging not just the examples of overzealous religious people but anyone who holds a different set of beliefs than yours? I'd call it just as ignorant as any religious person doing the same even though you root your beliefs in empirical evidence. And if someone were spouting similar garbage in any of the other, I guess we could call them belief threads, I'd be just as over that as I am this.

Many people have shared what they believe in this and other threads without insulting the beliefs of others, I don't see why you need to do so.

But Preston said it best a few pages back


Preston said:


> I'm a staunch atheist, but I hardly think it's anyone's place to criticize anyone else's beliefs. I put my faith in science and human ingenuity, some others put it in a higher power. There's no reason we can't happily co-exist, unless one side develops a superiority complex and starts acting like a conflict has to happen.


----------



## Mini (May 3, 2009)

Wild Zero said:


> So what would you call your posts in this thread slagging not just the examples of overzealous religious people but anyone who holds a different set of beliefs than yours? I'd call it just as ignorant as any religious person doing the same even though you root your beliefs in empirical evidence. And if someone were spouting similar garbage in any of the other, I guess we could call them belief threads, I'd be just as over that as I am this.



Stop with the false equivocation. When beliefs coincide with reality, they're valid. When they don't, they're not. You do no favors to anyone who's living in la-la land by pretending they're not talking out of their ass.


----------



## Wild Zero (May 3, 2009)

Mini said:


> Stop with the false equivocation. When beliefs coincide with reality, they're valid. When they don't, they're not. You do no favors to anyone who's living in la-la land by pretending they're not talking out of their ass.



Whether or not the beliefs coincide with reality is irrelevant when the belief holder is acting like a holier-than-thou ass.


----------



## Mini (May 3, 2009)

Wild Zero said:


> Whether or not the beliefs coincide with reality is irrelevant when the belief holder is acting like a holier-than-thou ass.



I respectfully disagree. We're adults here. If you can't handle the message irrespective of its delivery, the problem's on your end, not mine. Ridiculous ideas, beliefs, and actions should be met with ridicule. It's that simple. The idea that everyone needs to make nice and be respectful all the time is part of the reason religion is so fucking entrenched in our society.


----------



## TraciJo67 (May 3, 2009)

Mini said:


> Stop with the false equivocation. When beliefs coincide with reality, they're valid. When they don't, they're not. You do no favors to anyone who's living in la-la land by pretending they're not talking out of their ass.



I don't believe. Probably to the same extent that you don't believe, Mini. Like you, I place my faith in that which can be proven.

However, I'm not so arrogant as to profess that my system of belief is the only valid one. That would be bigoted and intolerant and flatly ignorant.


----------



## frankman (May 3, 2009)

Mini said:


> I respectfully disagree. We're adults here. If you can't handle the message irrespective of its delivery, the problem's on your end, not mine. Ridiculous ideas, beliefs, and actions should be met with ridicule. It's that simple. The idea that everyone needs to make nice and be respectful all the time is part of the reason religion is so fucking entrenched in our society.



You know, it took me a while to figure why I always enjoy reading your tirades against religion:

Don't ever change your avatar.


----------



## Mini (May 3, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> I don't believe. Probably to the same extent that you don't believe, Mini. Like you, I place my faith in that which can be proven.
> 
> However, I'm not so arrogant as to profess that my system of belief is the only valid one. That would be bigoted and intolerant and flatly ignorant.



It's the only one that is backed by actual empirical evidence. By any sane definition that makes it valid. Beliefs that have no justification beyond "it makes me feel better" are not. 

Now, that said, I do not profess that there is definitely no "god." I just say that by any reasonable measure we can safely assume there is no god, because there has been not a shred of evidence EVER provided for it. No, arguments from ignorance do not count as evidence.


----------



## MisterGuy (May 3, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> I don't believe. Probably to the same extent that you don't believe, Mini. Like you, I place my faith in that which can be proven.
> 
> However, I'm not so arrogant as to profess that my system of belief is the only valid one. That would be bigoted and intolerant and flatly ignorant.



Maybe the world would be a better place if smart atheists like yourself weren't so terrified of looking arrogant and intolerant to religious people. I bet Galileo looked pretty arrogant with his hi-falutin heliocentrism back in the day.

And anyway, I consider myself only as intolerant of religion as I am of anything else that people believe without any reason to do so--i.e. that their attic is totally haunted or that they have something in common with other Leos. Does that make me a bigot where ghosts or astrology are concerned? I know that type of comparison makes people angry, but it's all supernaturalism, is it not? Or is there something about the Abrahamic religions that inherently elevates them past that level? 

Also, atheism isn't a system of belief, period. I don't "believe" that God doesn't exist any more than I don't believe there is a giant purple dildo orbiting Neptune.


----------



## MisterGuy (May 3, 2009)

Wild Zero said:


> So what would you call your posts in this thread slagging not just the examples of overzealous religious people but anyone who holds a different set of beliefs than yours? I'd call it just as ignorant as any religious person doing the same even though you root your beliefs in empirical evidence. And if someone were spouting similar garbage in any of the other, I guess we could call them belief threads, I'd be just as over that as I am this.
> 
> Many people have shared what they believe in this and other threads without insulting the beliefs of others, I don't see why you need to do so.



So even if something is more likely to be right and supported by every available bit of extant empirical evidence, it's ignorant to profess that view because it might hurt someone's feelings. Gotcha.



> But Preston said it best a few pages back
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Preston View Post
> I'm a staunch atheist, but I hardly think it's anyone's place to criticize anyone else's beliefs. I put my faith in science and human ingenuity, some others put it in a higher power. There's no reason we can't happily co-exist, unless one side develops a superiority complex and starts acting like a conflict has to happen.



I want to add that Preston actually said it terribly, by parroting the religion-propagated canard that putting your belief in tangible/provable stuff like science and reason and putting it in a definitionally unknowable "higher power" ARE TOTALLY THE SAME THING. Because they're not, and for very very very obvious reasons.


----------



## FaxMachine1234 (May 3, 2009)

Yeah, all this religious discussion is all well and good, but I'm mostly troubled by the typo in the thread title. Is it asking for the FAs here who are the most Athi?


----------



## MisterGuy (May 3, 2009)

Ekim said:


> Yeah, all this religious discussion is all well and good, but I'm mostly troubled by the typo in the thread title. Is it asking for the FAs here who are the most Athi?



I was troubled by this as well. Clearly I'm quite athi.


----------



## FaxMachine1234 (May 3, 2009)

MisterGuy said:


> I was troubled by this as well. Clearly I'm quite athi.



But are you the athi-est? I think there should be a pageant held; the winner gets a sash and a pretty crown, and the only judge will be the _cold hand of science_.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (May 3, 2009)

Oh Jesus................





Funny, ain't I?


----------



## Wild Zero (May 3, 2009)

MisterGuy said:


> So even if something is more likely to be right and supported by every available bit of extant empirical evidence, it's ignorant to profess that view because it might hurt someone's feelings. Gotcha.



Would you kindly provide a link to peer reviewed journals discussing experiments that disprove the existence of a definitionally unknowable "higher power." 

I'm wondering how you'd conduct such an experiment, what would you look for if you're trying to test something that is unknowable? What's our control, variables, etc. 

Or are you just proclaiming there's no unknowable "higher power" from the same ignorance you mock religion for?


----------



## Preston (May 3, 2009)




----------



## Mini (May 3, 2009)

Wild Zero said:


> Would you kindly provide a link to peer reviewed journals discussing experiments that disprove the existence of a definitionally unknowable "higher power."
> 
> I'm wondering how you'd conduct such an experiment, what would you look for if you're trying to test something that is unknowable? What's our control, variables, etc.
> 
> Or are you just proclaiming there's no unknowable "higher power" from the same ignorance you mock religion for?



Again, if it's unknowable, then why the fuck should we pay respect to people who claim to know what it wants, needs, and will do to you if you don't follow their interpretation? For fuck's sake, THINK.

Putting the onus of "proof" on the shoulders of the non-believers is asinine. You don't believe in leprechauns just because we can't definitively prove that there's no such thing. You disbelieve because the burden of proof has not been met by those who claim they exist. The EXACT same thing applies to "god."


----------



## FaxMachine1234 (May 3, 2009)

Mini said:


> Again, if it's unknowable, then why the fuck should we pay respect to people who claim to know what it wants, needs, and will do to you if you don't follow their interpretation? For fuck's sake, THINK.



I hear the more times a person says "fuck", the smarter they are! Granted, I heard this from a homeless person near Pier 39, but...


----------



## pumpkingrower (May 3, 2009)

Ekim said:


> I hear the more times a person says "fuck", the smarter they are! Granted, I heard this from a homeless person near Pier 39, but...



Pier 39! I remember it well. First time when I was in the Navy, the pier next 
to us was a Lesbein convention(there was an article about it in playboy)
Then I took the family, some guy squirted what looked to be hand soap 
on my shoes and said I owed him $10 for a shine! Ah the memories!


----------



## Wild Zero (May 3, 2009)

Mini said:


> Again, if it's unknowable, then why the fuck should we pay respect to people who claim to know what it wants, needs, and will do to you if you don't follow their interpretation? For fuck's sake, THINK.
> 
> Putting the onus of "proof" on the shoulders of the non-believers is asinine. You don't believe in leprechauns just because we can't definitively prove that there's no such thing. You disbelieve because the burden of proof has not been met by those who claim they exist. The EXACT same thing applies to "god."



No thanks, if we're going to conduct irrelevant inconclusive experiments to determine the existence of unknowable beings I'd prefer impartial researchers over anyone seeking a certain outcome. 

The question remains, if you're basing your world view on science and reason where's the scientific evidence disproving an unknowable "higher power." What reason is there in making generalization that belittle the views of everyone you disagree with when your gripe is really with certain members of those groups? And if the supernatural is so divorced from science that it's impossible to test why waste time insulting the ultimately irrelevant beliefs of everyone with a faith instead of the people and groups who exploit faith for ill?


----------



## Tooz (May 3, 2009)

Mini said:


> Again, if it's unknowable, then why the fuck should we pay respect to people who claim to know what it wants, needs, and will do to you if you don't follow their interpretation? For fuck's sake, THINK.



Because you should just respect people? I mean, if they can't respect you, doesn't it make you look like the better person to respect them in spite of that? Beliefs aside, seriously... :\


----------



## Mini (May 3, 2009)

Wild Zero said:


> No thanks, if we're going to conduct irrelevant inconclusive experiments to determine the existence of unknowable beings I'd prefer impartial researchers over anyone seeking a certain outcome.
> 
> The question remains, if you're basing your world view on science and reason where's the scientific evidence disproving an unknowable "higher power." What reason is there in making generalization that belittle the views of everyone you disagree with when your gripe is really with certain members of those groups? And if the supernatural is so divorced from science that it's impossible to test why waste time insulting the ultimately irrelevant beliefs of everyone with a faith instead of the people and groups who exploit faith for ill?



You don't get things, and that makes me sad.

Faith, in the religious sense, is wasteful. It's useless. It keeps people from accepting reality, sometimes accepting responsibility, and in many cases leads to them making poor decisions. Just look at the kids who die because their parents choose prayer instead of medical help, or the fucking pope who tells people not to use condoms because it increases the risk of acquiring AIDS. Seriously, FUCK the pope. 

Why do I attack the moderates, too? Because they give shelter and reinforcement for the true wingnuts. Look at the USA; you've got assholes in Texas, Omaha, Ohio, etc. pushing creationism, sorry, "intelligent design" in the schools, pharmacists in Missouri who are now legally allowed not to fill prescriptions for birth control, you name it. 

And just so no one can accuse me of being unfair, I also think that homeopaths, crystal healers, magnet-power-whatever-the-fucks et. al should grow up, too. Believing *anything* without good reason is asinine. And believing demonstrably false non-facts, like the earth being only 6000 years old, or that evolutionary theory is "just a theory," makes you an enemy of reason.


----------



## The Fez (May 3, 2009)

guys

guys

stop it. HUG IT OUT.


----------



## MatthewB (May 3, 2009)

Ekim said:


> But are you the athi-est? I think there should be a pageant held; the winner gets a sash and a pretty crown, and the only judge will be the _cold hand of science_.



The Darwin Awards, perhaps? 

Anywho, I consider myself an atheist; I've only reached this after long deliberation, but that's my decision.


----------



## Mini (May 3, 2009)

Freestyle Fez said:


> guys
> 
> guys
> 
> stop it. HUG IT OUT.



Those shirts make me want to punch the bearer. >_>


----------



## The Fez (May 3, 2009)

what shirts

what


----------



## Mini (May 3, 2009)

Freestyle Fez said:


> what shirts
> 
> what



You've never seen a "Hug it Out" t-shirt?


----------



## The Fez (May 3, 2009)

not over here (UK), no


----------



## Jeff In Wichita (May 3, 2009)

just jumped to the end to check-in as an athiest. I don't really want to get into whatever argument is going on aboove me (but if a christian is involved, he/she is wrong wrong wrong )


----------



## TraciJo67 (May 3, 2009)

Why do I suddenly feel the need to rip off my clothes and splash mightily into a filthy mud puddle? I want to roll and squeal and WADDLE in this thread.

Oh. 

Kinda reminds me of Hyde Park. I feel kind of ... at home here. Maybe that's why


----------



## Edens_heel (May 3, 2009)

Mini, you're my hero. Don't ever change.


----------



## FaxMachine1234 (May 3, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> Why do I suddenly feel the need to rip off my clothes and splash mightily into a filthy mud puddle? I want to roll and squeal and WADDLE in this thread.
> 
> Oh.
> 
> Kinda reminds me of Hyde Park. I feel kind of ... at home here. Maybe that's why



Yeah, it reminds me of why half of me is actually glad Hyde Park is gone, because it's threads like this that got it closed in the first place!


----------



## Mini (May 3, 2009)

Tooz said:


> Because you should just respect people? I mean, if they can't respect you, doesn't it make you look like the better person to respect them in spite of that? Beliefs aside, seriously... :\



I misspoke. I meant to say, why should we be expected to respect those beliefs which are absurd. I've said up-thread that I respect the people, generally, but when it comes to the woo I draw the line. I would expect nothing less if I were to go around spouting bullshit.


----------



## Wild Zero (May 3, 2009)

Mini said:


> You don't get things, and that makes me sad.
> 
> Faith, in the religious sense, is wasteful. It's useless. It keeps people from accepting reality, sometimes accepting responsibility, and in many cases leads to them making poor decisions. Just look at the kids who die because their parents choose prayer instead of medical help, or the fucking pope who tells people not to use condoms because it increases the risk of acquiring AIDS. Seriously, FUCK the pope.



If we want to focus only on the negative aspects of faith we could only talk about what an awesome job Hoxha did running Albania into the ground and the efficient annihilation of individuals and their rights under other Stalinist societies. Or we could not look at it in such extreme terms and see the good well-meaning religious groups do along with the good secular organizations do when considering the merits of faith or atheism. 



> Why do I attack the moderates, too? Because they give shelter and reinforcement for the true wingnuts. Look at the USA; you've got assholes in Texas, Omaha, Ohio, etc. pushing creationism, sorry, "intelligent design" in the schools, pharmacists in Missouri who are now legally allowed not to fill prescriptions for birth control, you name it.



So the solution is to cast blanket statements which offend and only serve to radicalize moderately religious people on the internet? Funny I think a great idea would be to engage those people, find a common cause (because most moderates support a separation of church and state, being moderate and all) and pursue the change you want to see in society.



> And just so no one can accuse me of being unfair, I also think that homeopaths, crystal healers, magnet-power-whatever-the-fucks et. al should grow up, too. Believing *anything* without good reason is asinine. And believing demonstrably false non-facts, like the earth being only 6000 years old, or that evolutionary theory is "just a theory," makes you an enemy of reason.



Right, so how's paraphrasing Dawkins and believing in some secret research project that determined the non-existence of a supernatural maker (unless you feel like posting some peer reviewed journals where this breakthrough is discussed) any different than someone using a passage of scripture and pointing to similarly unprovable "evidence"?


----------



## Admiral_Snackbar (May 4, 2009)

Hi everyone! I just got back onto Dims after a few days away and I thought I'd chime in...

[reads thread]

ooook. Gotcha. Maybe I'll just nip off and make a grilled cheese sammich. 

For the record, I'm less of an atheist/agnostic/humanist these days and more of a staythehelloutofmybusinessist. I tire of the labels, I really do, mainly because no one has a single agreeable line across which to draw things. I don't walk into Sunday schools, churches or religious threads to push my particular pill (as to the latter, I will at times do my best to correct obvious factual error whenever possible), but I all too often find the faithful seem to feel the need to dig into my supposed character flaw at every opportunity. As if my lack of belief in the supernatural is any less bizarre and irrational than their affirmations to that position. My only tweaking point is I tend to base my positions on factual evidence, science and reason, but then facts are easy to ignore when you want to. I could make a cheeky remark about the last 8 years in America are proof positive that we can ignore facts when necessary, but I'd rather not see the thread inundated with 20 fucking cartoons from the "Ziggy Goes to Washington" Collection.

By and large the majority of us just want to live our lives. Love, have sex, make babies, raise a family. Watch movies, roll critical hits against an army of undead beholders--that's just my bag. I may have a personal interest or morbid curiousity as to why some of the minority of the faithful want to dance with snakes, choose to believe the literal truth of a global flood, buy their preacher a Rolls Royce or squeeze out 20 offspring, but by and large I'm finding that that's their groove and it's not my place to understand it; it most certainly is not within my power or desire to ban or suppress it. To wit, as long as it doesn't encroach upon my backyard, my kid's educations and/or the rule of law (read: establishment clause) in the U.S., they can do whatever the hell they want. Would that they extend me those who think like me the same courtesy.


----------



## Admiral_Snackbar (May 4, 2009)

Mini said:


> Just look at the kids who die because their parents choose prayer instead of medical help, or the fucking pope who tells people not to use condoms because it increases the risk of acquiring AIDS. Seriously, FUCK the pope.p


 I understand your ire, I really do. But the issue here is a) they will have to live with the memory of their decision if and when their child dies, so your frustration is warranted but your action is not, b) Don't sleep with devout Catholics from Africa and c) ignore the Vatican. They support evolution but ignore modern birth control and virology epidemiology, so all around they're not really playing with a full deck--at least in terms of the Papacy--I leave individual Catholics (and the spectrum of their adherence to doctrine is as varied as a Benneton catalog, I assure you)--to make up their own minds about the issues. 



> Why do I attack the moderates, too? Because they give shelter and reinforcement for the true wingnuts. Look at the USA; you've got assholes in Texas, Omaha, Ohio, etc. pushing creationism, sorry, "intelligent design" in the schools, pharmacists in Missouri who are now legally allowed not to fill prescriptions for birth control, you name it.


 I fight that fight in my head every day. It's on the websites I frequent, it's been the subject of countless legal battles. The other side refuses to quit and in true denialist manner, chooses to bend the truth of their argument that much further in order to squeak by an ignorant public (creationism --> Intelligent Design --> Academic Freedom). Never underestimate the tenacity of someone with a cause, especially when it goes to the core of everything they believe in. Your alternative is to teach the people you know and love about the truth behind the curtain. If you live in those states, do your civic duty to vote against candidates who support those positions. If your kid goes to school there, get active on the board, go to meetings, be heard. If you know the pharmacy involved in that selective patronage, boycott them and those affiliated with them. Assuming you have to overhaul society and it's thinking just puts your position that much closer to the Dominionists.



> And just so no one can accuse me of being unfair, I also think that homeopaths, crystal healers, magnet-power-whatever-the-fucks et. al should grow up, too. Believing *anything* without good reason is asinine. And believing demonstrably false non-facts, like the earth being only 6000 years old, or that evolutionary theory is "just a theory," makes you an enemy of reason.


You proceed from the false assumption that people wish to live their lives by reason. Whether someone thinks that the lattices in a crystal can align their chakras, or that the blood of a sacrificial lamb can burn away all of their past sins, you're only going to be so successful in convincing them that it doesn't make sense. It does to THEM, and any attempt at changing their minds is only going to be met with hostility, anger, and a possible further distancing your position from them.

Sooner or later people need to come around on their own. I find that out more and more every day. Some day, Kenneth Ham may wake up and think "why the hell do I believe this hogwash?" Maybe some morning Jim Bob will wake up and tell Michelle, "we got too many damn kids!" Maybe the Joker will stop working to kill Batman and decide to just have the most awesomest makeup sex in the history of DC comics. I don't know.

I quote Hemingway, "Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know."


----------



## Your Plump Princess (May 4, 2009)

Not sure.

I Have 'Beliefs' But I am not part of an organized religion, nor do I have any wish to participate in an 'organized religion' and for the most part I can tolerate other religions.

I Have minor issues with christianity. But only the extremeists / tin-foil-hat-wearin-preachers like fred phelps, for example. 

*Otherwise, I'm totally fine*. I have issues with all extremeists, I don't mean to offend, I just come across more christian extremists because of where I live.


----------



## FaxMachine1234 (May 4, 2009)

Mini said:


> I misspoke. I meant to say, why should we be expected to respect those beliefs which are absurd. I've said up-thread that I respect the people, generally, but when it comes to the woo I draw the line. I would expect nothing less if I were to go around spouting bullshit.



I'm sorry, _"if"?_


----------



## Spanky (May 4, 2009)

Once, many moons ago, there supposedly was a place called Hyde Park. People went there, followed it, participated, fought, argued, got banned, came back, left, cried, laughed. 

Then Hyde Park was crucified at the alter of jackassery. It died and on the third day......damn, still dead. While some of us believe Hyde Park died and will stay dead, others of us believe that Hyde Park just left us to find Kelligrl and bring her back to stand trial for leaving and leaving with lots of FAs money....but that is another story. Still others believe Hyde Park to be mortal, and was only here on Earth for a limited time, like the rest of us, never to return. Still others think Hyde Park will not return since it really wasn't the true Hyde Park. And they continue to wait for the real Hyde Park to come back to Dims someday, vanquish Main Dimensions Board, Weight Board, and the much hated Lounge and rule again for 1000 years or until Conrad has to extend bandwidth AGAIN. 

Then there are those who think that Hyde Park might as well be Wally World or the Red Light District in Salt Lake City, or a mix of both. There is no proof it exists or ever existed. There are ancient texts on Dimensions showing that there MAY have been a Hyde Park, but after hours, days, nee, WEEKS, we just cannot be sure anymore. 

I think Hyde Park does not exist. It never existed. There is NO PROOF. But perhaps there is a little Hyde Park in all of us. Just waiting to burst forth. To bring the mods with their atomizers and disperse us with some white smog being pumped from cannisters with shouts of "shoo shoo evil things".


----------



## Cat (May 4, 2009)

Well, color me impressed! Who knew there were so many athiests/agnotics on the board?

I'm not officially an FA...although there are a lot of people who are fat that I think are awesome.

I'm not an athiest nor agnostic. I don't really care for labels. I also haven't found a religion that I care for, either. Count me in the "non-believer" category if'n you need a category. Send me all of your missionaries...none make any more sense than another, athough the books they bring all have some interesting stories. I undertand that some of them are even on the best sellers list.

Spanky...the Red Light District in Salt Lake -- it's hidden under the temple or so I've heard.


----------



## Admiral_Snackbar (May 4, 2009)

Cat said:


> Spanky...the Red Light District in Salt Lake -- it's hidden under the temple or so I've heard.


 Actually the trick is to look from the sky; the Starbucks are all arrayed in the form of a pentagram and at it's center lies the...District.


----------



## MisterGuy (May 4, 2009)

Wild Zero said:


> Would you kindly provide a link to peer reviewed journals discussing experiments that disprove the existence of a definitionally unknowable "higher power."
> 
> I'm wondering how you'd conduct such an experiment, what would you look for if you're trying to test something that is unknowable? What's our control, variables, etc.
> 
> Or are you just proclaiming there's no unknowable "higher power" from the same ignorance you mock religion for?



I almost feel like you're being intentionally obtuse, and possibly having a laugh at my and Mini's expense. I find it hard to believe anyone could be missing the same point time after time. But in case you're being serious...

No such journals exist, obviously, because the burden of proof is on the people making the claim that something exists which has never been observed. This is basic level, elementary logic. To use the tenth example that you've ignored itt, if you go around telling people there's a magical fairy that lives in your shower, it's not up to those people to then disprove that claim. 

No one can definitively say there's no God, just the same as no one can definitively say there aren't almost an infinite number of other things that have never been observed, either. The fact that I can't disprove the existence of a fairy in your shower doesn't mean it's likely there is one, and it also doesn't elevate your claim to the level of claims that have some amount of evidence.


----------



## Tychondarova (May 4, 2009)

Atheist FA reporting for duty!

"That which can be proved without evidence can be disproved without evidence."

Great quote. Sums it up better than I can.

-Ty


----------



## Admiral_Snackbar (May 4, 2009)

MisterGuy said:


> No such journals exist, obviously, because the burden of proof is on the people making the claim that something exists which has never been observed. This is basic level, elementary logic. To use the tenth example that you've ignored itt, if you go around telling people there's a magical fairy that lives in your shower, it's not up to those people to then disprove that claim.


 I would love to see a grant application that investigates the existence of shower fairies . That in itself is precisely why such activities wouldn't be investigated; science-minded persons have better things to do with their time.



> No one can definitively say there's no God, just the same as no one can definitively say there aren't almost an infinite number of other things that have never been observed, either. The fact that I can't disprove the existence of a fairy in your shower doesn't mean it's likely there is one, and it also doesn't elevate your claim to the level of claims that have some amount of evidence.


 Well said. However, the audience you are using as your basis for comparison doesn't feel the need to investigate and provide evidence when their faith tells them that their book is both truthful and inerrant when it comes to the historical, theological and philosophical aspects of the Deity. It's precisely why a realistic debate between the groups is less about them proving their point and more about trying to debunk yours. They don't have to really provide any facts around it.


----------



## Spanky (May 4, 2009)

Atheist. 

Yes, I basically am. 

I am a Hyde Park Atheist. I was constantly reading shit there and stating, "I DON'T FUCKING BELIEVE IT". : P

The interesting thing for me is raising kids and delving into religion and what many do believe but without the faith and the acceptance. It is another history discussed at the dinner table and in the car. We discuss the life of Christ and Moses and the Israelites. They need to know about these things and be prepared to be in the world. I was raised on a steady diet of Roman Catholicism for 12 years. I don't want to shield the boys from God. They will need to make their own decision in time. I can only give them the stories and the history and then the facts. 

I do think they accept life and death and the "circle of life" better than I ever did. We are much more realistic and matter of fact about it. We apply it to the life and death of animals or older friends and family. It is so well shown in nature. Nature is such a great equalizer and a wealth of life examples. 

Church scared the shit out of me and made me fear life and dread death.


----------



## MisterGuy (May 4, 2009)

> Well said. However, the audience you are using as your basis for comparison doesn't feel the need to investigate and provide evidence when their faith tells them that their book is both truthful and inerrant when it comes to the historical, theological and philosophical aspects of the Deity. It's precisely why a realistic debate between the groups is less about them proving their point and more about trying to debunk yours. They don't have to really provide any facts around it.



Right, and that's religion's cleverest move. By making faith central, religions have foregrounded the weakest part of their ideology--i.e. lack of evidence--and made it the strongest and most unassailable.

I wouldn't even begin to try to convince a religious person not to be religious. I do, however, take issue with people trying to frame atheism as some sort of belief system equivalent to religious faith, when it's very clearly not.


----------



## Spanky (May 4, 2009)

MisterGuy said:


> Right, and that's religion's cleverest move. By making faith central, religions have foregrounded the weakest part of their ideology--i.e. lack of evidence--and made it the strongest and most unassailable.
> 
> I wouldn't even begin to try to convince a religious person not to be religious. I do, however, take issue with people trying to frame atheism as some sort of belief system equivalent to religious faith, when it's very clearly not.



I think a lot of believers see atheists as just "potentials" who are unconverted. They haven't seen the light yet. They need to be brought back into the flock. The lost sheep in the desert. 

I have neighbors who pray for my wife and I so that we may come to see the light.

Someday, I wish to have an atheist knock on my door and ask to discuss the concept of no god with me. I will welcome them in for coffee and have that discussion. No door slam or "GTFO" niceties.


----------



## TraciJo67 (May 4, 2009)

Spanky said:


> I think a lot of believers see atheists as just "potentials" who are unconverted. They haven't seen the light yet. They need to be brought back into the flock. The lost sheep in the desert.
> 
> I have neighbors who pray for my wife and I so that we may come to see the light.
> 
> Someday, I wish to have an atheist knock on my door and ask to discuss the concept of no god with me. I will welcome them in for coffee and have that discussion. No door slam or "GTFO" niceties.



Hey, now Sparks. I'm an atheist. And I live within shouting distance of you. 

Hell fire spitroasts, are you serving Starbucks? If so, I'll be RIGHT OVER!


----------



## Spanky (May 4, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> Hey, now Sparks. I'm an atheist. And I live within shouting distance of you.
> 
> Hell fire spitroasts, are you serving Starbucks? If so, I'll be RIGHT OVER!



As long as you don't pull out the stories about the flooring specialist Laminates and the Italian flock of Macaronis.

Then I will have to kick yo ass to the curb. May take more than one kick. But that isn't a bad thing. (just trying to sprinkle some FA stuff into the faux-HP thread).


----------



## FaxMachine1234 (May 4, 2009)

Spanky said:


> I think a lot of believers see atheists as just "potentials" who are unconverted. They haven't seen the light yet. They need to be brought back into the flock. The lost sheep in the desert.



Actually, I think most believers feel they have to go in knee-jerk defensive mode when it comes to their religious values nowadays; why do you think so many unqualified Republicans got congressional seats/the Presidency this decade? I don't think it's an unreasonable reaction; most atheists tend to act like jerks when it comes to talking about religion, as this thread demonstrates.


----------



## Spanky (May 4, 2009)

Ekim said:


> Actually, I think most believers feel they have to go in knee-jerk defensive mode when it comes to their religious values nowadays; why do you think so many unqualified Republicans got congressional seats/the Presidency this decade? I don't think it's an unreasonable reaction; most atheists tend to act like jerks when it comes to talking about religion, as this thread demonstrates.



Ekim, 

I truly have an interesting dilemma when it comes to being atheist and voting conservative and Republican. I voted for our congresswoman who is very conservative (and Republican) fiscally (tax lawyer background) but can be very conservative and wingnut about religious issues. 

When any religion is as big and powerful as the government, able to take more and more of what I earn, control me with regulation and banning, then I will start to vote based or weighted more towards religious views rather than fiscal policy. 

But don't fall into the trap of a couple defining the majority. Atheists generally do not take their belief so personally. There is no god. Not "my BELIEF is that there is not god". There is no choice since the presence of a god is about as proven as ex-earth intelligent life. Atheists see UFOs and the proof thereof, or the discussion/argument or their existence as personal as the discussion of the existence of god. That can't be said for believers in god. I don't think believers in UFOs would be as heated in discussing issues with a non-believer in UFOs.


----------



## MisterGuy (May 4, 2009)

Ekim said:


> Actually, I think most believers feel they have to go in knee-jerk defensive mode when it comes to their religious values nowadays; why do you think so many unqualified Republicans got congressional seats/the Presidency this decade? I don't think it's an unreasonable reaction; most atheists tend to act like jerks when it comes to talking about religion, as this thread demonstrates.



Wat. I know you're not saying Bush got elected twice b/c atheists weren't being nice enough but it sure sounds that way...

As far as sounding like a jerk, I think this is an interesting exploration of the topic.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuyUz2XLp1E

In case you don't feel like watching, this is a good quote--"Religions have contrived to make it impossible to disagree with them critically without being rude. They play the hurt feelings card at every opportunity, and you're faced with the choice of, 'Well, am I gonna articulate this criticism or am I gonna button my lip?'"


----------



## FaxMachine1234 (May 4, 2009)

MisterGuy said:


> Wat. I know you're not saying Bush got elected twice b/c atheists weren't being nice enough but it sure sounds that way...
> 
> As far as sounding like a jerk, I think this is an interesting exploration of the topic.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuyUz2XLp1E
> 
> In case you don't feel like watching, this is a good quote--"Religions have contrived to make it impossible to disagree with them critically without being rude. They play the hurt feelings card at every opportunity, and you're faced with the choice of, 'Well, am I gonna articulate this criticism or am I gonna button my lip?'"



I didn't feel like watching, but it's like the option of buttoning one's lip is never even considered with most of the atheists I've talked to. They insist on repeating the same argument that's been made thousands of time for decade upon decade, when most religious people aren't even interested in _having_ that argument. And there's a big difference between playing the "hurt feelings" card and having the very real feeling that you'll get mocked if you profess your religious beliefs in open conversation. Just the condescending attitudes in this threads alone show that your garden variety atheist can't help but push people down as they pull themselves up (or at least that's how they see it). They consider their way to be the way the world ought to be and criticize everyone who doesn't agree with them...which is ironic, since that's exactly what they accuse religions of doing.


----------



## BothGunsBlazing (May 4, 2009)

As some one who is an atheist and attempts to discuss religion as little as possible, I can tell you from talking to other atheists that the reason so many of them are overlooking the whole "hurt feelings" deal is that while, yeah, you may cause some one discomfort by protesting what they believe in so vehemently, the discomfort is still nothing in comparison to the harm they feel has been caused by religion for so very long that spouting off about it really just isn't that bad in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## Poncedeleon (May 4, 2009)

Ekim said:


> I didn't feel like watching, but it's like the option of buttoning one's lip is never even considered with most of the atheists I've talked to. They insist on repeating the same argument that's been made thousands of time for decade upon decade, when most religious people aren't even interested in _having_ that argument. And there's a big difference between playing the "hurt feelings" card and having the very real feeling that you'll get mocked if you profess your religious beliefs in open conversation. Just the condescending attitudes in this threads alone show that your garden variety atheist can't help but push people down as they pull themselves up (or at least that's how they see it). They consider their way to be the way the world ought to be and criticize everyone who doesn't agree with them...which is ironic, since that's exactly what they accuse religions of doing.



I think that this is an unfair characterization; obviously the most vocal atheists are the ones who will stand out to you. You've probably met many other atheists in your life who were perfectly polite, but never mentioned that they were atheists.

I'm an atheist, but it's generally something that I don't argue about because I know that no matter how convincing I am I'll probably never change anyone's mind. I also don't get so worked up about it because there's a lot less religion in the Canadian political discourse than American politics.


----------



## MisterGuy (May 4, 2009)

Ekim said:


> I didn't feel like watching, but it's like the option of buttoning one's lip is never even considered with most of the atheists I've talked to. They insist on repeating the same argument that's been made thousands of time for decade upon decade, when most religious people aren't even interested in _having_ that argument. And there's a big difference between playing the "hurt feelings" card and having the very real feeling that you'll get mocked if you profess your religious beliefs in open conversation. Just the condescending attitudes in this threads alone show that your garden variety atheist can't help but push people down as they pull themselves up (or at least that's how they see it). They consider their way to be the way the world ought to be and criticize everyone who doesn't agree with them...which is ironic, since that's exactly what they accuse religions of doing.



Right, the difference being that atheists have basically no political power, although you'd never know that, the way religious people talk. I always find the sense of cultural grievance among the religious (particularly Christians, sorry to say) to be astonishing, given the fact that every single US president has been religious (and mostly or all Christian depending on where you place Deists), congress is overwhelmingly religious and Christian, etc. It's pretty easy to have a complacent, "why can't we all just be quiet and respectful" attitude when you're running the show.

Also, I don't think I've said anything particularly condescending in this thread, other than point out the obvious in various ways--that atheists live their lives in the real world based on empirical evidence, while religious folks clearly (in some ways) don't. That isn't condescending; it's an unalterable fact. If you feel it pushes your faith down, that says something about your faith not my lack thereof. 

You seem like a nice guy and I sincerely do believe everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want. My posts itt really have more to do with defending atheism from misrepresentation than telling anyone what they should believe.


----------



## FaxMachine1234 (May 4, 2009)

BothGunsBlazing said:


> As some one who is an atheist and attempts to discuss religion as little as possible, I can tell you from talking to other atheists that the reason so many of them are overlooking the whole "hurt feelings" deal is that while, yeah, you may cause some one discomfort by protesting what they believe in so vehemently, the discomfort is still nothing in comparison to the harm they feel has been caused by religion for so very long that spouting off about it really just isn't that bad in the grand scheme of things.



Yeah, I guess to be fair I think the argument on how religion has done more harm then good is crap (don't particularly want to pursue that here tho), which is why I don't particularly feel that's a reasonable defense for atheists to use for being douchebags about the whole deal. Plus, isn't that just a "hurt feelings" card being played by the other side, too?

Look, I'm not saying that atheists shouldn't be allowed to talk about their (lack of) beliefs for fear of offending somebody. I just find it very illustrative that the Christian thread was able to remain a relative calm and positive one, while this one couldn't even get to post #25 without someone characterizing others' spirituality as "having an imaginary friend". We shouldn't be having threads in this place that are so negative towards another contingent of posters, especially about something which doesn't have anything to do with the aim of the site in the first place (tho I know the OP wasn't intending that, but he should've known).


----------



## Chode McBlob (May 4, 2009)

One thing about being Atheist. We have no "religious" holidays to celebrate.


----------



## Jack Skellington (May 4, 2009)

Ekim said:


> They consider their way to be the way the world ought to be and criticize everyone who doesn't agree with them...which is ironic, since that's exactly what they accuse religions of doing.



The dark humor of it is not lost on me. This is just one of those threads where you grab some popcorn, sit back and enjoy the trainwreck.


----------



## Jack Skellington (May 4, 2009)

MisterGuy said:


> Must be nice not having a position you care about.



Meh, it has it's benefits. 

Now, don't mind me, go back to posting how everyone different from you is inferior so the rest of us can enjoy the sweet delicious dark humour of it all.


----------



## FaxMachine1234 (May 4, 2009)

MisterGuy said:


> My gosh you're so growned-up. Must be nice not having a position you care about.
> 
> Anyway, what I've gotten from this thread is that it's okay to be an atheist, just don't ever ever ever talk to a religious person about it, since there's no way to do so without seeming "arrogant" and "insulting." I guess I already knew that, although it's always interesting to rediscover how your basic worldview as an atheist, (i.e. that claims should be backed up with evidence), is so at odds with religion that you can't even describe your position without "offending" people.



I know you're intending to be sarcastic, but just remove all those quotation marks and that's exactly right.


----------



## MisterGuy (May 4, 2009)

Ekim said:


> I know you're intending to be sarcastic, but just remove all those quotation marks and that's exactly right.



You'd agree then, that there's no way for an atheist to talk to religious people about atheism without seeming arrogant and insulting, and offending them? The quotes were sarcastic, inasmuch as I obviously don't think insisting on evidence when making claims to truth is inherently arrogant or insulting. That a religious person like yourself feels it is, is a startling, and startlingly honest, admission.


----------



## Admiral_Snackbar (May 4, 2009)

Ekim said:


> Yeah, I guess to be fair I think the argument on how religion has done more harm then good is crap (don't particularly want to pursue that here tho), which is why I don't particularly feel that's a reasonable defense for atheists to use for being douchebags about the whole deal. Plus, isn't that just a "hurt feelings" card being played by the other side, too?
> 
> Look, I'm not saying that atheists shouldn't be allowed to talk about their (lack of) beliefs for fear of offending somebody. I just find it very illustrative that the Christian thread was able to remain a relative calm and positive one, while this one couldn't even get to post #25 without someone characterizing others' spirituality as "having an imaginary friend". We shouldn't be having threads in this place that are so negative towards another contingent of posters, especially about something which doesn't have anything to do with the aim of the site in the first place (tho I know the OP wasn't intending that, but he should've known).



Actually the first dissenting post in the thread was rather polite. The first pointed post did cut to the quick, but I think it was an intent to post some rather dark humor into a thread of similar intent. The Christian threads remain 'positive' because to be honest, most of us prefer to stay out of them. I would guess if you are a Christian going into a decidedly non-Christian topical thread, don't expect to hear praise and glory and respect for all creeds and denominations. Ergo, spare me the bruised feelings simply because you walked into the "Titty Twister" (because hey, the sign looked cool) and staggered out two minutes later shellshocked by all the nudity.

It's this exact inability to turn the other cheek (I believe I did read that somewhere before) and tolerate the opinions of others (no matter how offensive they may be) that is part and parcel of why these threads become so volatile. In the Internet world, since my dad can't beat up your dad, it's all about throwing down and sparring with each other intellectually, with varying amounts of wit and sagacity to back up your point. The cop out is "ohhh, he hurt my wittle feewings...waaah" that completely derails your argument to an appeal to emotions.

There are a lot of threads on this board that deal with topics considered highly offensive and objectionable to different members, and by and large they either stay on topic, discuss the issue intelligently in an adult manner, or they devolve into chaos and get closed. This is why I feel in a large part Hyde Park was closed down. If you're going to go on a board FOR adults run BY adults for the purposes of DISCUSSING adult behaviors, ideas and lifestyles, don't walk away like a kid with a skinned knee because you got offended. If so, get your ass over to Noggin.com and leave the grown-up talk for the rest of us.



Jack Skellington said:


> The dark humor of it is not lost on me. This is just one of those threads where you grab some popcorn, sit back and enjoy the trainwreck.


 Yeah, we're all here for the Hee-Haw hilarity of religion vs. disbelief. :doh:



Jack Skellington said:


> Meh, it has it's benefits.
> 
> Now, don't mind me, go back to posting how everyone different from you is inferior so the rest of us can enjoy the sweet delicious dark humour of it all.


Your troll-fu is weak, Daniel-san.


----------



## TraciJo67 (May 4, 2009)

Jack Skellington said:


> The dark humor of it is not lost on me. This is just one of those threads where you grab some popcorn, sit back and enjoy the trainwreck.



I like mine with a pinch of nutmeg, allspice, and cinammon. 

I'm enjoying the ride every bit as much as you are, Jack. While it lasts, that is. While it lasts


----------



## FaxMachine1234 (May 4, 2009)

MisterGuy said:


> You'd agree then, that there's no way for an atheist to talk to religious people about atheism without seeming arrogant and insulting, and offending them? The quotes were sarcastic, inasmuch as I obviously don't think insisting on evidence when making claims to truth is inherently arrogant or insulting. That a religious person like yourself feels it is, is a startling, and startlingly honest, admission.



I was of course meaning that they can't talk to religious people without _being_ arrogant and insulting, since their position is by necessity a negative one and they also can't help but mock people who believe in something that they don't. That's why I think the argument is lose-lose for everyone.




Admiral_Snackbar said:


> There are a lot of threads on this board that deal with topics considered highly offensive and objectionable to different members, and by and large they either stay on topic, discuss the issue intelligently in an adult manner, or they devolve into chaos and get closed. This is why I feel in a large part Hyde Park was closed down. If you're going to go on a board FOR adults run BY adults for the purposes of DISCUSSING adult behaviors, ideas and lifestyles, don't walk away like a kid with a skinned knee because you got offended. If so, get your ass over to Noggin.com and leave the grown-up talk for the rest of us.



Just...wow. Maybe I was wrong to stereotype the entire non-believer movement and just some of its representatives _here_ are pricks.


----------



## Admiral_Snackbar (May 4, 2009)

Ekim said:


> I was of course meaning that they can't talk to religious people without _being_ arrogant and insulting, since their position is by necessity a negative one and they also can't help but mock people who believe in something that they don't. That's why I think the argument is lose-lose for everyone.


It is perfectly possible to discuss the theological underpinnings of Christianity with a Christian if you take a contrary (agnostic/atheist/humanist) position. You both just have to agree ahead of time that the discussion is an objective one based on reason and is in no way intended to malign or belittle your opponent's beliefs (or lack thereof). If you can't handle your God being spoken of in an objectively irreverent and detached manner, then the aforementioned discussion is not for you. Too often people on both sides refuse to abide by this policy, and if one decides to throw shit first, well then it's on.



> Just...wow. Maybe I was wrong to stereotype the entire non-believer movement and just some of its representatives _here_ are pricks.


 I won't read you line and verse, sir, but you're reputation is well known around here, being one where you pointedly comment on items that you know _a priori _are going to offend your sensibilities and then give this pretense of being shocked and hurt and offended when someone calls you on it. I guess I can try to be the better person and ignore that sort of behavior, but over time it really gets old. If only the boy who cried wolf story was something that people eventually learned from.

If I'm the prick then someone around here is the asshole, and sooner or later someone's going to get screwed. I won't be the one who is going to fall for the dropped soap routine.


----------



## TraciJo67 (May 4, 2009)

"You're an arrogant prick!"

"No, YOU'RE an arrogant prick!"

"No, you are."

"No, you."

"You."

"You."

Rinse, repeat, recycle.

Oh God (and I mean that figuratively) I'm loving this thread.


----------



## MisterGuy (May 4, 2009)

> I was of course meaning that they can't talk to religious people without being arrogant and insulting, since their position is by necessity a negative one and they also can't help but mock people who believe in something that they don't. That's why I think the argument is lose-lose for everyone.



It's interesting that you think atheism is necessarily a negative or subtractive position. I think this again speaks to the misapprehension of atheism as a kind of negative belief--that our position involves an active disbelief in God. It doesn't, of course. 

I'd submit to you, instead, that religion, to an atheist, is constantly proffering an unnecessary _addition_ to what is already there, and fine as it is. Of course, this feels like subtraction or negation to someone who's used to the idea of God. It also, apparently feels like mockery. 

I think the difficulty just comes down to this: there's no nice way to tell people they're being irrational. I mean irrationality in its textbook definition, as an absence of reason, not the way I mean it when my gf is being crazy. Religion is fundamentally irrational. The central pillar and virtue of Christianity is faith--belief in that which cannot be proved. Furthermore, the lack of evidence for the existence of God is offered as one of the prerequisites of the church and the Abrahamic religions. I.e. if there was proof of God, religious faith would be rendered null and meaningless, therefore God's existence is necessarily mysterious.

It's a neat circular argument that inoculates religion from any real rational criticism, yet its proponents are--incredibly--still sensitive to the mildest insinuation that their belief system is not logical or rational. Comparing Christianity--the belief that Jesus died for humanity's sins, was resurrected, the existence of heaven and hell, etc.--to belief that Walt Disney is controlling someone's actions or that fairies lives in showers--could only be interpreted as mockery by someone so entrenched in their creed that they can't admit that all those examples have the same amount of evidence to back them up, which is to say, none.

None of this is to address whether religion, or Christianity, is actually true. It's possible it is. There's just no evidence for it, full stop.

My .02 and last post itt, cheers.


----------



## Admiral_Snackbar (May 4, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> "You're an arrogant prick!"
> 
> "No, YOU'RE an arrogant prick!"
> 
> ...


Go fix me a turkey pot pie!


----------



## TraciJo67 (May 4, 2009)

Admiral_Snackbar said:


> Go fix me a turkey pot pie!



... and we add patronizing to the mix.

This thread, it just keeps giving & giving & giving ...


----------



## FaxMachine1234 (May 4, 2009)

*wakes up as if from a long dream* Oh sorry folks, it appears that "Rabid Hyde Park Ekim" took possession of my body again. I thought he'd been banished from this realm forever once Hyde Park had been destroyed, but clearly he'd been lying in wait, waiting for another religion thread to spread his rantings. But don't worry, I've waved garlic in his face and I think he's down for good. *skips off to buy a soda pop*


----------



## TraciJo67 (May 4, 2009)

MisterGuy said:


> Actually, one more thing--the people in threads like these that post every once in a while being superior and falsely equivalent and so over it, are so much more fucking irritating to me than someone on the opposite side of the argument. It's an interesting little debate to have while at work, and I've enjoyed Ekim's perspective. GTF over yourselves.



MisterGuy, you're being paged to the "rug munchers" thread, stat. 

In other words, get thee to a SAFER area of discussion while at work. 

Also, bite me. I mean that figuratively, and with all due respect (COD, $.03 and a few strands of lint should cover it).


----------



## Paquito (May 4, 2009)

Ya know, here I was, just minding my own business, and a thought popped into my head - "God, I miss Hyde Park."

The fights, the bitchiness, the arrogance, the ignorance, way too much fun to throw away.

But alas, Hyde Park didn't die, it was merely reborn into this thread .


Pass the popcorn, por favor.


----------



## Spanky (May 4, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> "You're an arrogant prick!"
> 
> "No, YOU'RE an arrogant prick!"
> 
> ...







*AAAAAARRRRGGHHHHHHH!!!!!*




Would you STOP posting summaries of our intimate PMs. Please? Just this once?


----------



## Wild Zero (May 4, 2009)

Mini said:


> The rest of your post is tripe, so I'm only going to focus on this last bit: What the FUCK are you talking about? Super-secret project? Who the fuck said anything about that?
> 
> Again, you just don't get it, and one more stupid response like this and you're getting on the ignore list. I know, huge threat and all, but I am fucking tired of you missing the point.



You're making the claim that one side has truth on its side and one side does not. How is claiming that something that cannot be observed doesn't exist any different from claiming that it does exist? Neither side has truth on its side but both believe they do. It's a zero-sum game. And rather than recognizing that proving or disproving the existence of some supernatural unknowable creator isn't and shouldn't be the job of science, just as setting medical or environmental policy shouldn't be the job of scripture, you react with the same ire of a religious zealot. 

Care to respond? Or do you just want to gloss over my posts, call them stupid and cuss some more in righteous rage.


----------



## Admiral_Snackbar (May 4, 2009)

Two words: nonoverlapping magisteria. Say that seven times fast.


----------



## Sandie S-R (May 5, 2009)

There is nothing in this thread about fat, fat acceptance or FAs, except maybe the title. It is all about religion which is not a topic for the Main Board. 

I am also leaving this thread closed because it is looking like Hyde Park Junior.

/Moderator


----------

