Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 86721

Dear Atheists: Welcome to the discussion.
I think it's just fine and dandy that you have a belief, and you have a support group for that belief.
However there ARE a few rules for people professing a religious faith, which you ARE doing.
...
You have to learn about your belief, so you can explain it. Since you now are now a religious zealot, it is no longer good enough for you to lean back in your chair and just criticize other people.
..
You have to now live as you believe and believe as you live. Since you proclaim your belief passionately, there is no room for hypocrites. Because you wish to base your life on scientific principles of absolute physical evidence and scientific methods, you may no longer follow astrology or any other occultist practice, such as tarot cards, psychic readings, etc. That means no more Harry Potter movies or books, unless you are really a “Satanist” pretending to be an “atheist”. No more vampire books and movies. Gambling, which is mostly depending on magical “luck”, to the atheist will now be frowned upon, because it truly is faith-based. You have to have a lot of faith to spend hundreds of dollars each year believing that you might win a million $.
..
I mentioned "scientific methods". Now, you have arrived in the world of science. You now must be able to "prove" everything. For example: You must prove evolution takes place by using real-life examples. If it's just bones dug up, that's not good enough. I want "proof" that a monkey can evolve into a man, not theories. If it’s “scientific”, then you should be able to reproduce it. If you can’t reproduce your scientific theory, then it’s only a theory or a faith-based belief. If your only proof is rolling your eyes and telling me how ignorant I must be, that's not proof. It's stalling. I also want proof that it is possible to create brand new life out of inert substances, so get out your chemistry set. To my knowledge, no human has ever done this before. Richard Dawkins did not have a very good answer when Ben Stein asked him how the first living cell was created. The evolutionist's general answer is:"a lightning bolt struck a pile of mud, and miraculously, a living cell was created that had its own internal organs, its own genetic code, and the ability to reproduce by itself until it magically developed male and female versions of organisms. If you cannot create new life in a laboratory, then all the theorizing about evolution is a mute point. You don’t have evolution if you do not have a beginning.

conservamercan, Fox News Forums 62 Comments [3/31/2012 6:25:16 AM]
Fundie Index: 90
Submitted By: Wenyandawik
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3


So much fail. all I can say is: an education, get one.

3/31/2012 11:29:33 AM

checkmate

there ARE a few rules for people professing a religious faith

I find it interesting that this individual thinks he has the right to

1) proclaim definitions for other people's existence,

2) make up rules to which those people have to adhere.

Not only that, all of his subsequent assumptions are faulty. Every single one.

I'm surprised he didn't end up saying "you bought a Megamillions ticket but didn't win, therefore it is proven that God exists exactly like the Bible says and Jesus was his son. Jesus lives. Hallelujah!"

3/31/2012 11:39:49 AM

Anon-e-moose

"You must prove evolution takes place by using real-life examples. If it's just bones dug up, that's not good enough. I want "proof" that a monkey can evolve into a man, not theories. If it’s “scientific”, then you should be able to reproduce it."

The same can be said about your Bible. Why?:

"Richard Dawkins did not have a very good answer when Ben Stein asked him how the first living cell was created. The evolutionist's general answer is:"a lightning bolt struck a pile of mud, and miraculously, a living cell was created that had its own internal organs, its own genetic code, and the ability to reproduce by itself until it magically developed male and female versions of organisms"

Here's a handful of dirt. Now unzip, get the ol' fella out, and start fucking, until you can 'create' me a man. Chop-chop! Your 'God' did essentially the same with dirt, as per the Bible; and 'Faith can move mountains' and all that jazz, so...!

...oh, and show me a species of snake which exists today, that can still talk. That scientific enough for you?

What stone did you crawl out from under? Kitzmiller vs. Dover was almost seven years ago, and your precious 'Creationism' failed then.

And (to use your own logic) - like evolution - you can't have a 'God'. Even he had to have had a 'beginning', like all things must; again, going by your logic. And if even he had a beginning, then he is an inferior being to his creator. Thus he's not God. Therefore he's a contradiction to himself, ergo he doesn't exist, shit happened & we appeared purely by chance - and you must now show us a more scientific explanation which is superior to current scientific knowledge (and the Bible as it is now just doesn't cut it, re. the hows of things, instead of the irrelevant whys; diagrams, equations & formulae are needed) instead of relying on 'Goddidit'. Q.E. and D., bitch.

One more thing: if Atheism is a 'faith', then therefore it's a religion too (as so many of you cuntbrains have always said). Ergo, we demand our tax-exempt status too. And seeing as you lot are so insistent on we being a 'faith'-based 'religion', then you & your ilk must pony up the untold billions owed to us in tax rebates; backdated & with interest. So come on, unchain those wallets. Chop-chop II!

Because every second you don't, you admit - by admission - that Atheism' isn't a 'faith', thus annihilating your own argument. And if we're not a 'faith', therefore we're not a religion, thus annhilating your argument II.

...oh, and as you lot keep claiming, Christianity isn't a religion, but a 'personal relationship with God/Jesus'. So, you want to make that call to the IRS, or shall I...? >:D

3/31/2012 11:48:06 AM

Blue the Thief



So many words, so little intelligence....

3/31/2012 12:10:04 PM

Old Viking

Oh, look, look! It's a whole army of straw men.

3/31/2012 12:48:43 PM

TheJebusFire

Since you now are now a religious zealot..
Atheism isn't a religion.

Because you wish to base your life on scientific principles of absolute physical evidence and scientific methods, you may no longer follow astrology or any other occultist practice, such as tarot cards, psychic readings, etc. That means no more Harry Potter movies or books, unless you are really a “Satanist” pretending to be an “atheist”.

Or they could use their powers of observation to see that Harry Potter is indeed a work of fiction and should be treated as such. There are unicorns, no dragons, and there is no deatheaters hiding in your closet.

You now must be able to "prove" everything. For example: You must prove evolution takes place by using real-life examples.

Why don't you prove that a man was created out of dirt and woman from his rib.

I want "proof" that a monkey can evolve into a man, not theories.

And I want "proof" of Noah's arc, not just a bible story.

I also want proof that it is possible to create brand new life out of inert substances, so get out your chemistry set.

And I want proof that you can create a man out of dirt, so get a pot of dirt and pray that your god makes a human out of it.

The evolutionist's general answer is:"a lightning bolt struck a pile of mud, and miraculously, a living cell was created that had its own internal organs, its own genetic code, and the ability to reproduce by itself until it magically developed male and female versions of organisms.

As opposed to an knowing god who put two naked humans in a garden that contained a tree with forbidden frut, who then got angry when the humans ate the frut, even though it knew they were going to do it in the first fucking place.

3/31/2012 1:38:50 PM

Amadaun

...no. You are making shit up. If this was an RPG, you could make up a bunch of rules for the faith-class 'atheist' to keep the game balanced, or something, but this is the really real world, okay? Not a pretend game. You don't get to make up rules in the real world.

Mind, a serious hard-bitten atheist doesn't believe tarot cards work, generally speaking, but there's nothing forcing anyone to be in the anti-spiritualism camp just because they don't accept a god. Because we're still not playing a pretend game, and there still aren't random rules like that lying around.

Lordy-lou.

3/31/2012 1:58:57 PM

Atheist Jr.

someone should teach him the ABC's of religion

3/31/2012 2:48:32 PM

David B.

Dear Atheists: Welcome to the discussion.

Thank you.

I think it's just fine and dandy that you have a belief, and you have a support group for that belief.

Well everyone has beliefs, but in the case of atheism, the common denominator is a lack of belief, whether there is a corollary belief in the lack isn't a prerequisite.

Also there are actually many support groups for atheists out there, you'd be surprised at how difficult it is for them to advertise sometimes, however the reason rally isn't one of them and was more to do with secularism than atheism, IMO.

However there ARE a few rules for people professing a religious faith, which you ARE doing.

Ahh, no. You see it's very much not a faith based position for me, quite the opposite, nor is it a religion. Unless you are going to use equivocation, so that atheism is my "religion" in much the same way as Manchester United is described as such by an ardent fan, my atheism has none of the characteristics of a religion as the term is defined with respect to the other world religions such as Christianity, Islam, etc.

Also, I've found no evidence at all that there are any rules for people professing a religious faith. In fact, the US constitution seems to be quite clear that such rules are not to be drafted, so I'm quite confident that there at least there are no such rules are enforced.

3/31/2012 3:19:08 PM

David B.

You have to learn about your belief, so you can explain it. Since you now are now a religious zealot, it is no longer good enough for you to lean back in your chair and just criticize other people.

Well it's certainly a good idea to learn about your beliefs, or lack thereof, since critically appraising such beliefs can be a vital first step in detecting and abandoning false ones, but it's hardly obligatory. Nor is there any obligation for me to explain my beliefs, or even be able to, though I can; freedom of and from belief is entirely a private affair, which was kind of the point of the constitutional protection in the first place.

As previously mentioned, the connotations of religion are not a match for atheism, so I am no more a religious zealot about there not being a god than I am about there not being magic moon-cheese fairies in my sock drawer. In fact, your assertion that I couldn't be both a religious zealot and an armchair critic would support this, since a good number of publicly very religious people are obviously both.

You have to now live as you believe and believe as you live.

Good advice.

Since you proclaim your belief passionately, there is no room for hypocrites.

Now that doesn't really follow. Look at all the pastors who have passionately proclaimed their beliefs only to be caught "in flagrante". Passion is no good indicator of anything but being passionate; why would you think otherwise?

3/31/2012 3:19:52 PM

David B.

Because you wish to base your life on scientific principles of absolute physical evidence and scientific methods, you may no longer follow astrology or any other occultist practice, such as tarot cards, psychic readings, etc.

Well I certainly base my worldview on evidence, reason and logic, but that's not the same thing as basing my life on it. Also, I don't follow any of those other things, but that I don't is entirely a separate issue to my atheism. Lack of belief in gods doesn't automatically imply lack of belief in ghosts, psychic powers or other supernatural phenomena; many atheistic Buddhists, for example, still believe in reincarnation.

That means no more Harry Potter movies or books, unless you are really a “Satanist” pretending to be an “atheist”. No more vampire books and movies.

Er, I'm quite comfortable with the concept of "fiction" thank you, it's the category I put things like the bible in. I've no problem with there being Harry Potter books and vampire films (Twilight excluded) since they are not being peddled as fact.

Gambling, which is mostly depending on magical “luck”, to the atheist will now be frowned upon, because it truly is faith-based.

Actually most gambling you or I will encounter is firmly grounded in probability and statistics, the multi-million dollar casinos, racecourses and lotteries aren't basing their profits on faith, but on cold, hard analysis of expected outcomes over the long run.

But of course if you don't risk more than you can afford to lose, and don't take losing as some personal affront, gambling can be an entertaining way to pass some time.

You have to have a lot of faith to spend hundreds of dollars each year believing that you might win a million.

Or just very bad math skills. :-)

3/31/2012 3:20:32 PM

David B.

I mentioned "scientific methods". Now, you have arrived in the world of science.

I was already there, nice of you to join me.

You now must be able to "prove" everything.

No, this is science, mathematics is down the corridor and turn left, unless you meant "prove" in its original sense, meaning "to test" in which case you are correct. In science proof can only mean "strongly confirmed" since it is essentially an inductive method, hence the problem of induction would apply.

So in the strong sense, since science makes statements along the lines of "if P then Q", later confirmation of Q is not proof of P (it's a formal fallacy called "affirmation of the consequent"), however disconfirmation of Q would be disproof of P. Hence Karl Popper's formulation of science as a process of falsification. Recently, a more Bayesian view of science has been adopted, repeated independent confirmation of P is said to increase our confidence in it. In essence science makes the statement "if P then Q1, Q2, Q3 … Qn", then as more instances of Qx are confirmed, we hold P to be more likely to be true (in a Bayesian sense), but never consider it absolutely so.

For example: You must prove evolution takes place by using real-life examples. If it's just bones dug up, that's not good enough.

Why? That's not a requirement of science or the scientific method. As I said before, we are testing statements of the type "if P then Q", all that is required is that we show that Q is not false, if you'll pardon the double negative.

3/31/2012 3:21:20 PM

David B.

I want "proof" that a monkey can evolve into a man, not theories. If it’s “scientific”, then you should be able to reproduce it.

Charitably assuming that by "proof" you mean confirmation, then the theory of evolution has repeatedly confirmed that man arose from a common primate ancestor with modern monkeys and the other apes, and scientists are extremely confident that it is so. Reproducibility extends only to the confirmation, not the phenomenon itself.

If you can’t reproduce your scientific theory, then it’s only a theory or a faith-based belief.

I can reproduce any theory with a simple ctrl-p or a photocopier. A scientific theory is an explanation of demonstrated accuracy and utility, faith in it is not required.

If your only proof is rolling your eyes and telling me how ignorant I must be, that's not proof.

No, but that doesn't stop it being a statement of fact.

I also want proof that it is possible to create brand new life out of inert substances, so get out your chemistry set. To my knowledge, no human has ever done this before.

Define "inert". Craig Venter last year made an entire genome out of off-the-shelf chemicals, though admittedly his shelf is a little longer than most, and all life is made from members of the same table of lifeless elements you see hanging in the average highschool chem class.

3/31/2012 3:22:31 PM

David B.

Richard Dawkins did not have a very good answer when Ben Stein asked him how the first living cell was created.

Probably not, as a scientist Dawkins would be aware of several possible answers to that question, none of which are particularly strongly evidenced. Still, science doesn't claim to know everything, it leaves that particular delusion to gods and their followers.

The evolutionist's general answer is:"a lightning bolt struck a pile of mud, and miraculously, a living cell was created that had its own internal organs, its own genetic code, and the ability to reproduce by itself until it magically developed male and female versions of organisms.

Actually that was Ben Stein's answer, though he ungraciously attributed it to scientists in an effort to discredit them. It's called a "strawman" argument, and no scientist working in the field of biology or biochemistry believes the cell appeared fully formed in anything approaching its current form. Modern cells and their structure are as much the result of billions of years of evolution as the organisms they comprise.

If you cannot create new life in a laboratory, then all the theorizing about evolution is a mute point. You don’t have evolution if you do not have a beginning.

No, biological evolution is a process that acts upon life, it does not require any specific theory of abiogenesis to operate. That would be like saying you can't deal a deck of cards until it has been shuffled, they are separate events and occur independently of one another.

3/31/2012 3:23:15 PM

thatotherguy

Eh...at least he's sort of kind of reaching out...kind of

3/31/2012 8:52:41 PM

michael3ov

Straw man...

Ah fuck it I don't feel like dealing with this crap right now.

3/31/2012 11:16:40 PM

grimsoncrow

How about wanking?
Can I still have a wank every now and then?
Can I?
Pretty please?

4/1/2012 12:57:33 AM

Tolpuddle Martyr

No it's not a belief and science does not freaking work that way!

4/1/2012 2:28:38 AM

Mister Spak

"You have to learn about your belief, so you can explain it. Since you now are now a religious zealot, it is no longer good enough for you to lean back in your chair and just criticize other people."

That beam in your eye seems to be restricting your vision. Or maybe it's because you are blinded by the shiney mirror.


4/1/2012 5:17:07 AM

Canadiest

Religion has a belief in God(s)
Atheism is a absence of belief in God(s)

No matter how many arguments or speculations you make after claiming the opposite don't mean anything. You don't even understand the terms.

Then you add to it by claiming Atheist believe in, pretty much every other supernatural concept which makes you a fully indoctrinated Fundie idiot. The following and most lucrative market for psychics is the Bible Belt. Sales indicate that Christians have to be buying Harry Potter books. Gambling statistics and people praying at Vegas games prove you gamble as much as anyone.

And like usual, the only proof you'll accept for evolution is a magical transformation, for your lot a supernatural manifestation is the only proof you'll accept YET you never apply it to your own Christian beliefs.

4/1/2012 8:19:51 AM

rubber chicken

When was conservamercan awarded the power to decide the rules for everyone else ? Did I miss a meeting ? Can I call for a recount ? Is there a penalty if I choose to ignore his rules ?

4/1/2012 8:54:15 AM

Philbert McAdamia

Conman, I read your drivel, and I can only say; I know you are but what am I? And to further explain it in terms you might better grasp, I also add; Nanner nanner nanner!

-------------

@ Robespierre
And all of you who profess the religion of no-Santa, beware.

*Gasp* Could there be an AntiSanta? Oh, say not so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Brendan Rizzo
Also, this is the first time I've ever come across a Murkin actually calling himself that.

I''d spell it merkin Some of us will have to look it up.

4/1/2012 9:00:14 AM

Berny

Rarely have I read such a convoluted pile of fail.
Since when is someone who espouses a realistic worldview and an acceptance of the scientific evidence for our existence barred from being able to enjoy works of fiction?
At least we know fiction when we read it, which is more than I can say for most fundamentalist Christians.

4/1/2012 9:46:11 AM

The Duelist

The link to the page doesn't work. I want to debate this fucktard, damn it; how can I do that if the link doesn't take me to the comment section it was posted in? And I've already looked for it on the site and found nothing.

4/1/2012 11:49:36 AM

Brendan Rizzo

@ Philbert McAdamia:

I know what a "merkin" actually is. I deliberately did not spell it that way in order to avoid being vulgar.

4/1/2012 12:58:57 PM
1 2 3