/r/Atheism
Tags: lol | truuuuuuuuu
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
143 comments displayed.
#128 to #94
-
anon (10/05/2015) [-]
I'm left here wondering why a board was made to discuss lack of belief, and why people feel compelled to go there to discuss their lack of belief..
I feel like that's akin to having, like, a board devoted to people who do not wear glasses.
What the hell would you talk about?
(Update: I actually just checked the board, its majority anti-religion, and focused on information that would pertain to actual theists).
I feel like that's akin to having, like, a board devoted to people who do not wear glasses.
What the hell would you talk about?
(Update: I actually just checked the board, its majority anti-religion, and focused on information that would pertain to actual theists).
#211 to #128
-
blahblahblahblaaaa (10/05/2015) [-] 
is it really that hard to understand? we are a tribal species...we seek out like minded people almost instinctively. pretty simple stuff
#137 to #35
-
adamks (10/05/2015) [-]
It's so ******* cringy. Every time something starts to take off, people think they're cool for being the first ones to hate it. Holy **** can you get off your high horse. Atheism is ******* good, because it is for people who ******* believes in facts. Yeah, anti-theism sucks, because there is no reason to hate on people, but **** you people who think you're the good guys for never daring to have an opinion because you're afraid that people on the internet won't give you as many internet points.
#178 to #35
-
blitzblitz (10/05/2015) [-]
Dumbass the dude who made this is an atheist. Hes making fun of r/athiesm, not atheists.
#127 to #35
-
analcontractions (10/05/2015) [-] tbh, what of it?
I make fun of the Religious and I make fun of Atheists.
It's all just banter imo.
I make fun of the Religious and I make fun of Atheists.
It's all just banter imo.
#134 to #131
-
analcontractions (10/05/2015) [-] That's true.
And both of those people suck.
I mean there are tons of faults in Christian Extremist values and being a Militant Atheist is not any better.
The best we can as people do is realize that keeping our social and religious commentary at a moderate level is best while laughing at those who don't realize that.
And both of those people suck.
I mean there are tons of faults in Christian Extremist values and being a Militant Atheist is not any better.
The best we can as people do is realize that keeping our social and religious commentary at a moderate level is best while laughing at those who don't realize that.
#164 to #136
-
analcontractions (10/05/2015) [-] And Militant Muslims blow up buildings and terrorize their own countries and governments.
Buddhism is a very peaceful Philosophy but that didn't stop Mao Zedong from killing Millions of his own people.
The Hindus have a rich history of their Emperors and Sultans bloodily waging war against one another for religious reasons as well.
Greco-Roman Religions have done similar stuff as well.
Along with Aztec.
Along with Egyptian.
And Mesopotamian.
And Abrahamic.
Even traditional African beliefs have lead people to do bloody war.
>"militant atheist" means you talk about it on the internet aggressively
So I guess the Chris Harper-Mercer Shooting where he asked his fellow students if they were religious before deciding whether to fatally shoot them or not wasn't Militant Atheism? Or is this to you just an "outlier"?
And if we go back to our Mao Zedong example, he was an Atheist but he followed Buddhist teachings, yet he purposely targeted Christians and others of Abrahamic religions as a way to combat Western Influence.
And less than 60 Years before Zedong's upheaval, The Boxer Rebellion under the Qing dynasty where they massacred Christians.
And still 50 years before that during the Taiping Rebellion.
and this is only in China.
Adolf Hitler, though his religious beliefs are still disputed, described the spread of religion like a disease.
what about Joseph Stalin? His government spread Anti-religious propaganda, he passed laws favoring those who were not religious and during his time as dictator thousands of priests, nuns, clerics were murdered. Thousand of mosques, churches, synagogues, churches, religious artifacts and temples were destroyed.
What I'm trying to say is if you're going to compare the Ugandans who have been through countless coups and years of War to 15 Year Old Children who are upset their parents made them go to Sunday school (This is an exaggeration) , then why not compare the "evils" of The Westboro Baptist Church to the reign of Kim Jong Un who still sends Religious people to concentration camps? (1/2)
Buddhism is a very peaceful Philosophy but that didn't stop Mao Zedong from killing Millions of his own people.
The Hindus have a rich history of their Emperors and Sultans bloodily waging war against one another for religious reasons as well.
Greco-Roman Religions have done similar stuff as well.
Along with Aztec.
Along with Egyptian.
And Mesopotamian.
And Abrahamic.
Even traditional African beliefs have lead people to do bloody war.
>"militant atheist" means you talk about it on the internet aggressively
So I guess the Chris Harper-Mercer Shooting where he asked his fellow students if they were religious before deciding whether to fatally shoot them or not wasn't Militant Atheism? Or is this to you just an "outlier"?
And if we go back to our Mao Zedong example, he was an Atheist but he followed Buddhist teachings, yet he purposely targeted Christians and others of Abrahamic religions as a way to combat Western Influence.
And less than 60 Years before Zedong's upheaval, The Boxer Rebellion under the Qing dynasty where they massacred Christians.
And still 50 years before that during the Taiping Rebellion.
and this is only in China.
Adolf Hitler, though his religious beliefs are still disputed, described the spread of religion like a disease.
what about Joseph Stalin? His government spread Anti-religious propaganda, he passed laws favoring those who were not religious and during his time as dictator thousands of priests, nuns, clerics were murdered. Thousand of mosques, churches, synagogues, churches, religious artifacts and temples were destroyed.
What I'm trying to say is if you're going to compare the Ugandans who have been through countless coups and years of War to 15 Year Old Children who are upset their parents made them go to Sunday school (This is an exaggeration) , then why not compare the "evils" of The Westboro Baptist Church to the reign of Kim Jong Un who still sends Religious people to concentration camps? (1/2)
#166 to #164
-
analcontractions (10/05/2015) [-] (2/2)
>But more commonly, extremist christians (or insert whatever religion here) are fine with and routinely lobby for laws that impose their religious beliefs on others. You don't see atheists doing that. The laws that atheists lobby for are to KEEP theists from doing that.
And why wouldn't they be?
In their eyes they are doing their communities a favor by keeping their religious morals up.
It is after all a free country so they are allowed to do that.
Are they right in doing so?
No, not at all.
As a matter of fact due to the sensitivities of many religious people, scientific achievements have been hindered, but who is to pay the price to those faults? The same religious people that passed those laws for they will be remembered as those who hindered scientific progress.
Like I said, I don't really care for either or. It's all bants to me.
Sources:
Alan Bullock; Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives
Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography
Laurence Rees; The Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler
Alan Bullock; Hitler: a Study in Tyranny
The Party of Unbelief
The Religious Policy of The Bolshevik Party
Protest for Religious Rights in the USSR: Characteristics and Consequences
David Kowalewski
David Silbey. The Boxer Rebellion and the Great Game in China.
books.google.com/books?id=iWxKQejMtlMC&dq=Preston+Boxer&source=gbs_navlinks_s&hl=en__
www.nydailynews.com/news/national/christopher-harper-mercer-planned-kill-witness-article-1.2384171
www.thearda.com/internationalData/countries/Country_123_2.asp
>But more commonly, extremist christians (or insert whatever religion here) are fine with and routinely lobby for laws that impose their religious beliefs on others. You don't see atheists doing that. The laws that atheists lobby for are to KEEP theists from doing that.
And why wouldn't they be?
In their eyes they are doing their communities a favor by keeping their religious morals up.
It is after all a free country so they are allowed to do that.
Are they right in doing so?
No, not at all.
As a matter of fact due to the sensitivities of many religious people, scientific achievements have been hindered, but who is to pay the price to those faults? The same religious people that passed those laws for they will be remembered as those who hindered scientific progress.
Like I said, I don't really care for either or. It's all bants to me.
Sources:
Alan Bullock; Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives
Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography
Laurence Rees; The Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler
Alan Bullock; Hitler: a Study in Tyranny
The Party of Unbelief
The Religious Policy of The Bolshevik Party
Protest for Religious Rights in the USSR: Characteristics and Consequences
David Kowalewski
David Silbey. The Boxer Rebellion and the Great Game in China.
books.google.com/books?id=iWxKQejMtlMC&dq=Preston+Boxer&source=gbs_navlinks_s&hl=en__
www.nydailynews.com/news/national/christopher-harper-mercer-planned-kill-witness-article-1.2384171
www.thearda.com/internationalData/countries/Country_123_2.asp
#213 to #164
-
takingittoofar (10/05/2015) [-] We don't really know Chris Harper-Mercers' motivations behind killing those people, but we can take a pretty good guess. My guess is that he wasn't motivated by a hatred of religion or the religious.
Firstly, he wasn't an Atheist. He described himself in an online dating profile as "not religious but, 'spiritual' "
It should also be noted that although he only fatally shot those who revealed they were religious (as far as I know he didn't target a certain religion) he did wound those who weren't, by shooting them in the leg or foot. He also reportedly said that he would "be joining you soon" before he committed suicide, which would suggest he believed in some kind of afterlife. Coupled with the fact that he only wounded those who did not believe in an afterlife, it would seem to me that he killed them not out of hatred but because he thought 'if I kill these people they'll go to heaven with me, and so I won't kill the non believers, that would be cruel, I'll injure them though so that the level of bloodshed is as high as possible'.
Why do I think he'd want to spill as much blood as possible? Well he is also quoted as writing online in reference to Vestor L Flanagan, the news reporter who shot his two colleagues and posted the video online.
"On an interesting note, I have noticed that so many people like him are all alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are. A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems the more people you kill, the more you're in the limelight."
Looking at his online presence and his general demeanour it's safe enough to assume that he was probably a bit of a loner and probably didn't have many friends. He was probably starved of attention and he had discovered a quick and easy way of going down in history. this phenomenon, when someone acquires fame through destructive means, is known as herostratic fame.
To put the final nail in the coffin, he revered a Catholic terrorist group called the I.R.A (Irish Republican Brotherhood). the members of which group were, and still are to some extent, involved in a religious guerrilla war between catholics and protestants in Northern Ireland.
If anything it sounds as if this man used religion as a convenient way to justify killing. Any way you slice it, it certainly isn't as cut and dry as the Charlie Hebdo killings, which were undoubtedly motivated by religious doctrine.
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11906041/Chris-Harper-Mercer-Everything-we-know-about-the-Oregon-school-gunman-on-Saturday.html
I refreshed my memory on the details of this case using this article.
Firstly, he wasn't an Atheist. He described himself in an online dating profile as "not religious but, 'spiritual' "
It should also be noted that although he only fatally shot those who revealed they were religious (as far as I know he didn't target a certain religion) he did wound those who weren't, by shooting them in the leg or foot. He also reportedly said that he would "be joining you soon" before he committed suicide, which would suggest he believed in some kind of afterlife. Coupled with the fact that he only wounded those who did not believe in an afterlife, it would seem to me that he killed them not out of hatred but because he thought 'if I kill these people they'll go to heaven with me, and so I won't kill the non believers, that would be cruel, I'll injure them though so that the level of bloodshed is as high as possible'.
Why do I think he'd want to spill as much blood as possible? Well he is also quoted as writing online in reference to Vestor L Flanagan, the news reporter who shot his two colleagues and posted the video online.
"On an interesting note, I have noticed that so many people like him are all alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are. A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems the more people you kill, the more you're in the limelight."
Looking at his online presence and his general demeanour it's safe enough to assume that he was probably a bit of a loner and probably didn't have many friends. He was probably starved of attention and he had discovered a quick and easy way of going down in history. this phenomenon, when someone acquires fame through destructive means, is known as herostratic fame.
To put the final nail in the coffin, he revered a Catholic terrorist group called the I.R.A (Irish Republican Brotherhood). the members of which group were, and still are to some extent, involved in a religious guerrilla war between catholics and protestants in Northern Ireland.
If anything it sounds as if this man used religion as a convenient way to justify killing. Any way you slice it, it certainly isn't as cut and dry as the Charlie Hebdo killings, which were undoubtedly motivated by religious doctrine.
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11906041/Chris-Harper-Mercer-Everything-we-know-about-the-Oregon-school-gunman-on-Saturday.html
I refreshed my memory on the details of this case using this article.
#187 to #164
-
migueldecervantes ONLINE (10/05/2015) [-]
Hitler was a Christian. It is not disputed at all.
#247 to #245
-
migueldecervantes ONLINE (10/06/2015) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP_iNCGH9kY
It is mostly a satirical video, yet they make some valid and documented points. Sources are in the description. This is the most elegant source I can offer without having to spend time looking over all the historical essays I have read in the past years.
If you find this video trite or simply wish not to engage in a discussion without my providing higher-tier sources, I'll go over aforementioned texts and report back to you.
Enjoy the video and have a nice day.
It is mostly a satirical video, yet they make some valid and documented points. Sources are in the description. This is the most elegant source I can offer without having to spend time looking over all the historical essays I have read in the past years.
If you find this video trite or simply wish not to engage in a discussion without my providing higher-tier sources, I'll go over aforementioned texts and report back to you.
Enjoy the video and have a nice day.
#251 to #247
-
analcontractions (10/06/2015) [-] Oh I stopped caring about this argument.
Interesting video though, thanks!
Interesting video though, thanks!
#252 to #251
-
migueldecervantes ONLINE (10/06/2015) [-]
No problem.
I think an important conclusion to the argument is: whatever you believe in, learn what a good person is and then be that person.
Have a good day.
I think an important conclusion to the argument is: whatever you believe in, learn what a good person is and then be that person.
Have a good day.
#141 to #134
-
YllekNayr ONLINE (10/05/2015) [-] But more commonly, extremist christians (or insert whatever religion here) are fine with and routinely lobby for laws that impose their religious beliefs on others. You don't see atheists doing that. The laws that atheists lobby for are to KEEP theists from doing that.
#52 to #35
-
thechosentroll (10/05/2015) [-] To be fair, r/atheism really IS full of morons. But, so is most of reddit. And most of the internet. And most of the world.
#99 to #52
-
YllekNayr ONLINE (10/05/2015) [-] I've actually been pleasantly surprised by r/atheism a number of times.
I don't know if you've spent any time there. I have.
I've gotta say, they're certainly more reasonable than a lot of people here on Funnyjunk.
I've seen numerous anti-religion posts that give a cause-effect relationship, like the one shown here, where the top rated comments are pointing out how the claim is unfounded because of X, Y and Z reasons. And the comments were left by atheists. It's really not a bad place to test arguments by submitting it to their criticism. In general, posts are mostly just "this week in religion" in that you'd see something like "pope visits X" multiple times on the front page whenever something big occurs, legal disputes involving religion, news interviews involving religion, some memes, and like 20% quotes on a pretty background with a person's face.
They're certainly less bandwagony than Funnyjunk, contrary to popular belief.
I don't know if you've spent any time there. I have.
I've gotta say, they're certainly more reasonable than a lot of people here on Funnyjunk.
I've seen numerous anti-religion posts that give a cause-effect relationship, like the one shown here, where the top rated comments are pointing out how the claim is unfounded because of X, Y and Z reasons. And the comments were left by atheists. It's really not a bad place to test arguments by submitting it to their criticism. In general, posts are mostly just "this week in religion" in that you'd see something like "pope visits X" multiple times on the front page whenever something big occurs, legal disputes involving religion, news interviews involving religion, some memes, and like 20% quotes on a pretty background with a person's face.
They're certainly less bandwagony than Funnyjunk, contrary to popular belief.
#110 to #99
-
rollmeanddie (10/05/2015) [-] You know, if it weren't for Christian monks in Ireland, England, and France, even more knowledge would have been lost. They preserved as much as they could.
#113 to #111
-
rollmeanddie (10/05/2015) [-] I was trying to explain the reason for the error, worded it wrong.
#90 to #52
-
aywrightinglish ONLINE (10/05/2015) [-]
Yep, people are asshole just to relieve anger and because they didn't get hit when they were children, ******* kids.
#96 to #7
-
nightmarexnxnxnxnx (10/05/2015) [-]
This is so cringy that the muscles in my face tore themselves apart.
#29
-
Thebiggeorgy ONLINE (10/05/2015) [-] >Be Antagonistic
>Happy there is belief that helps people
>Live let Live
>Happy there is belief that helps people
>Live let Live
#200 to #39
-
Thebiggeorgy ONLINE (10/05/2015) [-] No, he's right, I typed and didn't check my spelling, thanks for the correction. My bad people.
#101 to #39
-
edgecutter (10/05/2015) [-] I don't know, in some parts of the world, it could very well be "antagonistic" as well.
#10
-
stilch ONLINE (10/05/2015) [-] I feel like /r/atheism is a transition phase for pretty much every converted atheist. I am an agnostic, and i speak from personal experiences. When you are Christian, you are used to the majority of people agreeing with you, and you (at least i was) taught that if you fall in love you should tell the world. When suddenly very few people agree with you, when very few people know that you are in love, you want to tell the world. Sadly, most of the people making transitions have never had to make logical thought, so all of their actions scream "I'm a D-Bag!".
I went through this phase. Every single one of my atheist friends went through this phase.
It's natural, just sucks that their voice is loud enough to be a nuisance.
I went through this phase. Every single one of my atheist friends went through this phase.
It's natural, just sucks that their voice is loud enough to be a nuisance.
#140 to #10
-
hongkonglongdong (10/05/2015) [-] >When you are Christian, you are used to the majority of people agreeing with you
Just 'Murrican things.
Seriously, when I was growing up my friend and I were the only two out of our whole class (thirty) to believe in God.
Just 'Murrican things.
Seriously, when I was growing up my friend and I were the only two out of our whole class (thirty) to believe in God.
#169 to #10
-
RedRooster (10/05/2015) [-]
I'm Christian in the US and I usually feel like I'm in the minority. (I rarely feel like i can talk about my beliefs without pissing someone off).
Probably because theres a difference between people who are religious in name only and those who practice their beliefs.
Probably because theres a difference between people who are religious in name only and those who practice their beliefs.
#83 to #57
-
molzy (10/05/2015) [-] I'm Agnostic and whilst that's true I'd rather think of it as 'I don't worship any God but I can't prove that they don't exist'. I don't get tied down to anything, don't have to believe in anything but don't have to be held down by the baggage that edgy atheists create.
#177 to #83
-
thepandaking (10/05/2015) [-] Look, I'm not going to call you mentally retarded for being agnostic like some would in the comments. Not sure how that helps. However, being agnostic isn't a position like theist or atheist. It's a condition of one, that being atheist. 90% of all atheists are what are called 'agnostic atheists.' This means that they don't believe in deities but they admit that they can't prove they don't exist. It's as simple as that.
Now if you take the position of being agnostic to avoid going to family dinners and getting old relatives all riled up after mentioning the word 'atheist,' that's all well and dandy. That's your decision, but just by my understanding, I don't think it's different at all to atheism.
Now if you take the position of being agnostic to avoid going to family dinners and getting old relatives all riled up after mentioning the word 'atheist,' that's all well and dandy. That's your decision, but just by my understanding, I don't think it's different at all to atheism.
#180 to #177
-
molzy (10/05/2015) [-] The whole reason I call myself agnostic is so that I don't have to sit through what I just have. It backfired terribly. You have good reasoning but I will continue to call myself agnostic in real life, but for the sole reason that nowhere outside the internet has anyone questioned it beyond 'what is that?' to what I'll continue to respond with, 'not worshiping but not denying existence'.
#190 to #180
-
thepandaking (10/05/2015) [-] I totally understand that. You should know though that the vitriol from that one person isn't at all the norm, but anyway my point is that you could say that you're atheist, and be able to explain your view in exactly those words as well. It doesn't make a difference except for atheist being a buzzword to some people, and that's where it becomes a philosophical difference of choice. I chose to call myself an atheist for the purpose of educating those who want to ask me about it or have a conversation, so that I can tell them that agnostic atheism is the vast majority of atheism, and that atheists hardly ever believe they know for a fact that there is no god. I just personally prefer confrontation in that matter over stepping aside, solely because I feel like I'm going out of my way to belittle my view to please others.
But even though I don't think agnostic can fully describe a position of a belief system, I understand why you'd use it. I just wanted to clarify the view that agnosticism is a sub-category of atheism, I hope it didn't sound like I was trying to force change.
But even though I don't think agnostic can fully describe a position of a belief system, I understand why you'd use it. I just wanted to clarify the view that agnosticism is a sub-category of atheism, I hope it didn't sound like I was trying to force change.
#192 to #190
-
molzy (10/05/2015) [-] I know that agnosticism is far from a believing in a religion but I also know that it's not absolute atheism, hence why I use it the word without being in the sub category of atheism. When ever I think of atheism I think of the absolute version of it, usually so as not to confuse myself because I'm a moron. I'd rather talk about topics regarding religion and my personal beliefs rather than get into arguments about what exact category I fall into.
#195 to #192
-
thepandaking (10/05/2015) [-] Fair enough, but then again you're putting atheism into a corner by thinking it's only gnostic atheism and nothing else. The term simply is just a disbelief or a lack of beliefs, not a belief that one has knowledge that there is no god. Anyway it's up to you whether you feel that makes sense to you, to group agnosticism with atheism. I just personally believe that agnosticism is mainly used to avoid using a buzzword, and my position is that if a buzzword would get people to talk about it, that it would help it not be a buzzword if it's explained further.
#199 to #195
-
molzy (10/05/2015) [-] You pretty much hit the nail on the head in regards to how I think, which helps me get what you're saying. I deem theology as an important part of our lives as such but I just don't think getting caught up in arguments over precise subcategories of ideologies is any fun. I said to the more hostile guy " I say 'agnostic' because 'nothing' is not valid and it best falls into my personal ideals." Anyway, thanks a bunch for approaching me with reason and understanding though.
#201 to #199
-
thepandaking (10/05/2015) [-] Yeah no problem, I get why you would want to avoid needless argument, and I do too. I just simply hope that the discussion it brings ends up being more 'discussion-y' rather than argumentative and it usually works out. Anyway glad it didn't come off as rude, just wanted to see what you thought on that distinction.
#204 to #201
-
molzy (10/05/2015) [-] I'd happily talk about my beliefs to someone else, as I much as I would listen, it's just the 'need' to define my exact stance in one word throws me off. Just as much as being tied down to an entire ideology, especially if it's not exactly how I feel does. After dealing with the other guy nothing you could say could come off as rude anyway.
#206 to #204
-
thepandaking (10/05/2015) [-] lol fair enough, I see what you mean. I felt that way when I was religious many years ago, I didn't want to identify as Christian let alone a denomination, but I just feel differently about this distinction because it just functions differently in my view. Anyway that's my take, but I do get why you separate the two.
#149 to #148
-
migueldecervantes ONLINE (10/05/2015) [-]
You are genuinely retarded.
Ask yourself the question: "Do I believe in God?" If the answer is yes, you are a theist. If the answer is no, you are an atheist.
No atheist would claim to be able to prove that God exist.
Are you agnostic about unicorns too? And leprechauns? And Santa, still?
Ask yourself the question: "Do I believe in God?" If the answer is yes, you are a theist. If the answer is no, you are an atheist.
No atheist would claim to be able to prove that God exist.
Are you agnostic about unicorns too? And leprechauns? And Santa, still?
#156 to #149
-
molzy (10/05/2015) [-] The whole point of Agnosticism is sitting on the fence, it's not binary. Do I believe in God? Not particularly. Can I prove there is no God? No. Atheists believe there is no God. Full stop. In my mind there's no way I can say that God straight up just does no exist, doesn't mean I have to worship him though.
#160 to #157
-
molzy (10/05/2015) [-] Any one can say God doesn't exist, as they have countless times in the past and forever will do so. I don't know why you're getting so touchy in regards as to what I like to refer to my self as in terms of a religious stance. I also don't know if you're a agnostic upset at the fact I don't believe in God at all or an atheist denying that agnosticism should even exist. If what you said above doesn't come under agnosticism I don't know what does, that guy even referred a comment to you that defines agnosticism as exactly that.
#163 to #160
-
migueldecervantes ONLINE (10/05/2015) [-]
I am getting upset because stupid people upset me. I apologize but I have no patience for the likes of you.
Why can't you answer my questions? Are you agnostic as to the existence of unicorns and the Eastern Bunny? Or would you say that you genuinely lack belief in these things and could be considered reasonably right to do so?
Now ask the same questions about any God that human beings have come up with. Any of the thousands of Gods available to you. Are they all real? Are one or some of them real, if so which one(s)? Or can they be said sans breaking any law of reason that they do not exist?
By what you are saying, you would genuinely never be able to prove that something is untrue. You would never be able to hold any actual belief and thus behave accordingly in this world since you would never know whether something is true or not.
You will never know the truth, the point is to get as close as possible to it, and being an agnostic is just shying away from the argument.
I want you to understand that an agnostic does not say "I both believe and do not believe in God." An agnostic either says that the question doesn't interest him or that he thinks that human beings are inherently incapable of knowing of his existence (and then proceeds to stupidly make a judgment on humankind's epistemological aptitudes).
An atheist says: "I do not believe in God." Then, they do not need to add anything to it. You have said "I do not believe in God." Thus, you are an atheist.
You are simply hiding behind agnosticism because of atheism's negative connotation.
Why can't you answer my questions? Are you agnostic as to the existence of unicorns and the Eastern Bunny? Or would you say that you genuinely lack belief in these things and could be considered reasonably right to do so?
Now ask the same questions about any God that human beings have come up with. Any of the thousands of Gods available to you. Are they all real? Are one or some of them real, if so which one(s)? Or can they be said sans breaking any law of reason that they do not exist?
By what you are saying, you would genuinely never be able to prove that something is untrue. You would never be able to hold any actual belief and thus behave accordingly in this world since you would never know whether something is true or not.
You will never know the truth, the point is to get as close as possible to it, and being an agnostic is just shying away from the argument.
I want you to understand that an agnostic does not say "I both believe and do not believe in God." An agnostic either says that the question doesn't interest him or that he thinks that human beings are inherently incapable of knowing of his existence (and then proceeds to stupidly make a judgment on humankind's epistemological aptitudes).
An atheist says: "I do not believe in God." Then, they do not need to add anything to it. You have said "I do not believe in God." Thus, you are an atheist.
You are simply hiding behind agnosticism because of atheism's negative connotation.
#191 to #163
-
molzy (10/05/2015) [-] I just wrote a full ******* response to this comment and lost it due to some stupid glitch (thanks addy) I'm just going to summarise what I said in that response in this comment.
Firstly, that whole first line is both very edgy athiest-esque and somewhat autistic.
The ideologies of Theism, Atheism and Agnoticism all revolve around religion, not folk tales, therefore it's apples and oranges. Because I'm not 'answering your questions', I do not believe in said fairy tales.
Are they all real? I can't say. Are some of them real? Again, I can't say. However, because I was raised in a Christian society and went through catholic schooling Christianity as a religion seems more probable, which is just reason.
To get through your last few points I'll quote what I replied to the much more reasonable user, thepandaking.
'The whole reason I call myself agnostic is so that I don't have to sit through what I just have. It backfired terribly. You have good reasoning but I will continue to call myself agnostic in real life, but for the sole reason that nowhere outside the internet has anyone questioned it beyond 'what is that?' to what I'll continue to respond with, 'not worshiping but not denying existence'.'
Maybe one day I will be much more invested in my stance but for me I care more about the topics being argued about than what ideology I fall under.
Firstly, that whole first line is both very edgy athiest-esque and somewhat autistic.
The ideologies of Theism, Atheism and Agnoticism all revolve around religion, not folk tales, therefore it's apples and oranges. Because I'm not 'answering your questions', I do not believe in said fairy tales.
Are they all real? I can't say. Are some of them real? Again, I can't say. However, because I was raised in a Christian society and went through catholic schooling Christianity as a religion seems more probable, which is just reason.
To get through your last few points I'll quote what I replied to the much more reasonable user, thepandaking.
'The whole reason I call myself agnostic is so that I don't have to sit through what I just have. It backfired terribly. You have good reasoning but I will continue to call myself agnostic in real life, but for the sole reason that nowhere outside the internet has anyone questioned it beyond 'what is that?' to what I'll continue to respond with, 'not worshiping but not denying existence'.'
Maybe one day I will be much more invested in my stance but for me I care more about the topics being argued about than what ideology I fall under.
#193 to #191
-
migueldecervantes ONLINE (10/05/2015) [-]
The ideologies of theism, atheism and agnosticism revolve around something larger: being, ontology, epistemology. These things can be applied to more than God(s). It is reasoning that is important, not the entity in question.
Also, "which is just reason"? How is being indoctrinated and thus believing only one facet of all of faith "reason"? You do understand that had you been raised in a mosque, you would be saying that Allah is most probable, right? I don't see how that can be claimed as reasonable.
Your arguments are very stupid, and it is obvious that you haven't thought about this subject much.
Look, I propose that we end the conversation here. It was a pleasure.
Have a good one.
Also, "which is just reason"? How is being indoctrinated and thus believing only one facet of all of faith "reason"? You do understand that had you been raised in a mosque, you would be saying that Allah is most probable, right? I don't see how that can be claimed as reasonable.
Your arguments are very stupid, and it is obvious that you haven't thought about this subject much.
Look, I propose that we end the conversation here. It was a pleasure.
Have a good one.
#196 to #193
-
molzy (10/05/2015) [-] "Your arguments are very stupid, and it is obvious that you haven't thought about this subject much."
No **** , that's more or less what I've been trying to say this whole time. The reason for my ideals is due to the fact that we get so caught up on this kind of stuff when we could be talking about a million other things. Sure, religions can be interesting and through my 7 years of Catholic education I have met some great and interesting Christian and Catholic people. Talking about theology is by no means a waste of time and contributes important factors to our lives and society. But, we just spent the better part of an hour arguing about what ideology I fall into and I find that completely obscure. I say 'agnostic' because 'nothing' is not valid and it best falls into my personal ideals. Anyway, I sense no reply, so have fun belittling those who don't fall into your category of intellectual superiority.
No **** , that's more or less what I've been trying to say this whole time. The reason for my ideals is due to the fact that we get so caught up on this kind of stuff when we could be talking about a million other things. Sure, religions can be interesting and through my 7 years of Catholic education I have met some great and interesting Christian and Catholic people. Talking about theology is by no means a waste of time and contributes important factors to our lives and society. But, we just spent the better part of an hour arguing about what ideology I fall into and I find that completely obscure. I say 'agnostic' because 'nothing' is not valid and it best falls into my personal ideals. Anyway, I sense no reply, so have fun belittling those who don't fall into your category of intellectual superiority.
#197 to #196
-
migueldecervantes ONLINE (10/05/2015) [-]
Here is my response:
You don't have to get all crabby about it, brah. Just have yourself a Taddy Porter, brah, and enjoy life, brah. No one's belittling you, brah. You're an okay, guy, brah. Stay awesome, brah.
<3
You don't have to get all crabby about it, brah. Just have yourself a Taddy Porter, brah, and enjoy life, brah. No one's belittling you, brah. You're an okay, guy, brah. Stay awesome, brah.
<3
#172 to #163
-
anon (10/05/2015) [-]
Your statement is wrong. An atheist would say "There is no God no matter what proof you show me ever."
In a sense atheists are almost non-existent because any sane person would believe in god if you showed them undeniable proof. Thus, anyone who doesn't believe in God, but would if proof were given, is agnostic. He is likely not "agnostic" about the Easter Bunny or Santa because we have undeniable proof that those things were just our parents.
In a sense atheists are almost non-existent because any sane person would believe in god if you showed them undeniable proof. Thus, anyone who doesn't believe in God, but would if proof were given, is agnostic. He is likely not "agnostic" about the Easter Bunny or Santa because we have undeniable proof that those things were just our parents.
#181 to #172
-
migueldecervantes ONLINE (10/05/2015) [-]
Atheist means non-theist. To be a non-theist is to not be a theist. A theist is someone who believes in a specific God/Gods.
Not to believe in God = atheism.
Atheism, then =/= claiming to know that God doesn't exist.
Atheist, then = claiming that they find no reason to believe in any God.
Not to believe in God = atheism.
Atheism, then =/= claiming to know that God doesn't exist.
Atheist, then = claiming that they find no reason to believe in any God.
#218 to #181
-
anon (10/05/2015) [-]
You can draw a conclusion based on premises that you presume to be true all you want. You simply can't argue semantics. The commonly accepted definition of atheism applies to both a disbelief in God(s) and a lack of belief in God(s).
Simply stating that being an atheist is the state of being "non-theist" doesn't support your argument, there is more to this discussion.
Should I take your definition at face value where atheism = "claiming that they find no reason to believe in any God." Then perhaps if I were to find a reason to complicate the definition, a need for a new defining term would arise?
If I were to tell an atheist, not by traditional definition, but by your aforementioned forged definition, that a considerable "reason to believe in any God" need not be present to elicit skepticism, would you be particularly surprised? Of course not, but this should come across as obvious. If we follow your definition, we have isolated what it is that makes an atheist an atheist (arguable outside of hypothetical scenarios), but I ask you, what term should apply to those who "find no reason to believe any God" while simultaneously finding no reason to believe in their lack of existence. This is the nature of the term you so readily shoot down.
Simply stating that being an atheist is the state of being "non-theist" doesn't support your argument, there is more to this discussion.
Should I take your definition at face value where atheism = "claiming that they find no reason to believe in any God." Then perhaps if I were to find a reason to complicate the definition, a need for a new defining term would arise?
If I were to tell an atheist, not by traditional definition, but by your aforementioned forged definition, that a considerable "reason to believe in any God" need not be present to elicit skepticism, would you be particularly surprised? Of course not, but this should come across as obvious. If we follow your definition, we have isolated what it is that makes an atheist an atheist (arguable outside of hypothetical scenarios), but I ask you, what term should apply to those who "find no reason to believe any God" while simultaneously finding no reason to believe in their lack of existence. This is the nature of the term you so readily shoot down.
#219 to #218
-
migueldecervantes ONLINE (10/05/2015) [-]
You cannot believe in a lack of existence, you idiot. You can only assume that something doesn't exist. You will never ever be able to prove that something doesn't exist. You can only prove that there is no legitimate reason to believe it.
Why can't you ******* retards understand that? Even in courts of law, you don't ******* prove that someone hasn't done anything. You simply take away the legitimacy of the evidence against them.
Why can't you ******* retards understand that? Even in courts of law, you don't ******* prove that someone hasn't done anything. You simply take away the legitimacy of the evidence against them.
#222 to #219
-
anon (10/05/2015) [-]
This isn't law, this is belief constructs. Ignoring your ad hominem, let's get to it.
Attend closely to my rebuttal, you're doing yourself no favors by skimming. The term agnostic is necessary to divide terms by their meanings. By your logic, I'd refer to every nail as a screw, and discard the term.
As to your argument by misunderstanding, I'll quickly help get you back on track -
belief of "lack of existence" occurs when an atheist says the following:
"I believe God doesn't exist"
Ever hear anyone say this? Belief isn't limited by anything. Anyone can believe anything. Do not confuse science with belief.
So, on what grounds is this based? Is there evidence to support this claim? This is precisely why it's a belief. Law is a completely different context, and demands distinct processes to function normally. Belief need not apply to stringent processes, like those that apply in the field of law or science. The subject matter of belief is not something that is rigorously tested in a controlled setting, it is a conclusion drawn from multiple sources, such as temperament, past experience, disposition, anecdotal evidence, virtually anything.
I encourage you to read this, and the previous reply, carefully.
Attend closely to my rebuttal, you're doing yourself no favors by skimming. The term agnostic is necessary to divide terms by their meanings. By your logic, I'd refer to every nail as a screw, and discard the term.
As to your argument by misunderstanding, I'll quickly help get you back on track -
belief of "lack of existence" occurs when an atheist says the following:
"I believe God doesn't exist"
Ever hear anyone say this? Belief isn't limited by anything. Anyone can believe anything. Do not confuse science with belief.
So, on what grounds is this based? Is there evidence to support this claim? This is precisely why it's a belief. Law is a completely different context, and demands distinct processes to function normally. Belief need not apply to stringent processes, like those that apply in the field of law or science. The subject matter of belief is not something that is rigorously tested in a controlled setting, it is a conclusion drawn from multiple sources, such as temperament, past experience, disposition, anecdotal evidence, virtually anything.
I encourage you to read this, and the previous reply, carefully.
#224 to #222
-
migueldecervantes ONLINE (10/05/2015) [-]
And I'm sorry, going back to the Eastern Bunny/unicorn thing: how exactly do you have undeniable proof that these things are imaginary?
#223 to #222
-
migueldecervantes ONLINE (10/05/2015) [-]
Why are you dissociating a belief in [something] from what belief is in general?
I am explaining to you that atheists "believe that God doesn't exist" because they do not have enough of evidence for his existence. They don't think they have evidence for his non-existence. The burden of proof lies with the one making an assertion. An assertion is a positive statement such as "God exists." This statement requires proof. A negative statement does not require proof.
The existence of something cannot be disproved. The non-existence of something can. Thus, if one says that he believes that God doesn't exist, one believes that there is not enough evidence to the contrary of the existence (for instance, a God who speaks to us directly in the contemporary era, or whatever).
Do you understand now?
I am explaining to you that atheists "believe that God doesn't exist" because they do not have enough of evidence for his existence. They don't think they have evidence for his non-existence. The burden of proof lies with the one making an assertion. An assertion is a positive statement such as "God exists." This statement requires proof. A negative statement does not require proof.
The existence of something cannot be disproved. The non-existence of something can. Thus, if one says that he believes that God doesn't exist, one believes that there is not enough evidence to the contrary of the existence (for instance, a God who speaks to us directly in the contemporary era, or whatever).
Do you understand now?
#225 to #223
-
anon (10/05/2015) [-]
Unfortunately, you've spun the argument in the wrong direction. We are not arguing about the existence of deities , or where the burden of proof lies. Our argument is nested within semantics, where you actively dismiss the term "agnostic" where, by definition, and justified by the wide range of beliefs that varying people can hold, it succinctly describes a particular set of beliefs.
As previously mentioned, "The commonly accepted definition of atheism applies to both a disbelief in God(s) and a lack of belief in God(s)". Should one claim to believe that they simultaneously have a lack of belief in God(s) due to insufficient evidence while maintaining that they believe that the existence of God is in the realm of possibility, they are no longer defined concisely by the term "atheist". This is why "agnostic" is necessary.
I hate to tell you this, but if both of these defining terms fit your belief system precisely, you are, by definition, that ghastly term that you have shown to despise. An agnostic. For this, I'm making assumptions in this particular scenario of course, so don't take it to heart.
As previously mentioned, "The commonly accepted definition of atheism applies to both a disbelief in God(s) and a lack of belief in God(s)". Should one claim to believe that they simultaneously have a lack of belief in God(s) due to insufficient evidence while maintaining that they believe that the existence of God is in the realm of possibility, they are no longer defined concisely by the term "atheist". This is why "agnostic" is necessary.
I hate to tell you this, but if both of these defining terms fit your belief system precisely, you are, by definition, that ghastly term that you have shown to despise. An agnostic. For this, I'm making assumptions in this particular scenario of course, so don't take it to heart.
#226 to #225
-
migueldecervantes ONLINE (10/05/2015) [-]
I understand your point, and I would agree in this case.
But in that case an atheist would be an agnostic. They would be the one and same thing. Unless of course, you think people can be stupid enough to actually claim to have proof of God's non-existence.
I have to admit that I didn't acknowledge such a possibility. I guess the little faith I have in human intellect is itself not enough...
May I ask: What is your take on the whole issue of existence of any deity?
But in that case an atheist would be an agnostic. They would be the one and same thing. Unless of course, you think people can be stupid enough to actually claim to have proof of God's non-existence.
I have to admit that I didn't acknowledge such a possibility. I guess the little faith I have in human intellect is itself not enough...
May I ask: What is your take on the whole issue of existence of any deity?
#227 to #226
-
anon (10/06/2015) [-]
Given the nature of beliefs, it is certainly within the realm of possibility for someone to claim that they know, with all certainty, that God doesn't exist. Of course, they have no actual proof, but their belief need not be supported by proof, as they are not pressing for scientific discussion.
To answer your question about my take on the topic of existence and the presence or absence of Gods, I can only speak as a rational agent. By this, I mean my rationality is flawed, simply because I am human with limited perception.
As it stands, with all scientific advances in mind, I cannot infer that a God exists with absolute certainty. in fact, an inference to the best explanation would be that "God does not exist" simply based on available evidence. If I remain true to my convictions and previous methods of inquiry, I must attempt (regardless of its futility) to apply the same reasoning to the other end of the construct. That is to say, I must attempt to reason out the possibility that a God could possibly exist outside of my current methods of understanding (where, my current methods of understanding are limited to scientific advances, which currently cannot absolutely refute the existence of a deity). This, by all accounts, is a silly proposition, because my understanding is, as stated, limited, and to attempt to reason outside of the threshold of human understanding is in the realm of impossibility. With that, I can only rationally say that there is a possibility, however small, that a God exists, but for my current purposes, I will follow my inference to the best explanation and say that there isn't one. My beliefs are malleable and contingent on scientific advancement.
To answer your question about my take on the topic of existence and the presence or absence of Gods, I can only speak as a rational agent. By this, I mean my rationality is flawed, simply because I am human with limited perception.
As it stands, with all scientific advances in mind, I cannot infer that a God exists with absolute certainty. in fact, an inference to the best explanation would be that "God does not exist" simply based on available evidence. If I remain true to my convictions and previous methods of inquiry, I must attempt (regardless of its futility) to apply the same reasoning to the other end of the construct. That is to say, I must attempt to reason out the possibility that a God could possibly exist outside of my current methods of understanding (where, my current methods of understanding are limited to scientific advances, which currently cannot absolutely refute the existence of a deity). This, by all accounts, is a silly proposition, because my understanding is, as stated, limited, and to attempt to reason outside of the threshold of human understanding is in the realm of impossibility. With that, I can only rationally say that there is a possibility, however small, that a God exists, but for my current purposes, I will follow my inference to the best explanation and say that there isn't one. My beliefs are malleable and contingent on scientific advancement.
#235 to #234
-
YllekNayr ONLINE (10/06/2015) [-] That's cool to know.
It doesn't help the stigma against atheists for the more lukewarm ones to distance themselves from it like it's a bad thing.
The more people know of others that identify as atheist and are pleasant to be around, the more the stigma can be erased.
It doesn't help the stigma against atheists for the more lukewarm ones to distance themselves from it like it's a bad thing.
The more people know of others that identify as atheist and are pleasant to be around, the more the stigma can be erased.
#237 to #236
-
YllekNayr ONLINE (10/06/2015) [-] I do not believe that is the case.
I believe that is the image painted against atheists by theists who generalize them all as hats with beards or whatever.
We're a vast minority, and from that small group we have even fewer that speak about it.
We need more people to make themselves known.
I believe that is the image painted against atheists by theists who generalize them all as hats with beards or whatever.
We're a vast minority, and from that small group we have even fewer that speak about it.
We need more people to make themselves known.
#142 to #57
-
anon (10/05/2015) [-] To believe in a God, I must have proof of it's existence. I do not have this (I'm restricted to my empirical realities).
To believe in the absence of a God, I must have proof of it's lack of existence. I do not have this (things I have not seen may exist out of my personal experience).
What I believe has no causal relationship with achieving the ends that I want to achieve in life. The fence is comfy, you're welcome to join if you like.
Yes I know you're just joking but I wanted to type this
To believe in the absence of a God, I must have proof of it's lack of existence. I do not have this (things I have not seen may exist out of my personal experience).
What I believe has no causal relationship with achieving the ends that I want to achieve in life. The fence is comfy, you're welcome to join if you like.
Yes I know you're just joking but I wanted to type this
#95 to #57
-
bigmanfifty (10/05/2015) [-] Even Richard Dawkins is an agnostic if you push him.
This could be a computer simulation... a dream.... anything. Impossible to prove either way.
This could be a computer simulation... a dream.... anything. Impossible to prove either way.
#9
-
anon (10/04/2015) [-]
Attacking the person and not the arguments
>inb4 fedora jokes
posting as anon cause i luv meself
>inb4 fedora jokes
posting as anon cause i luv meself
#189 to #9
-
sphincterface (10/05/2015) [-] Ehh. I don't see anything wrong with people choosing to be Atheist, and I consider myself to be a pretty strongly religious guy. I'm a Christian and all, but I don't shove it in peoples faces and act all high and mighty about it. But I hate the assholes who treat other people like **** because of something that they believe in. It's childish and immature, and if you act like this, you really need to grow the **** up.
#65 to #9
-
tarabostes (10/05/2015) [-] "m-muh arguments"
Dude , nobody is arguing with you , it's just supposed to be a funny video . Did you think of that before you posted ? NOPE
I thought atheists were supposed to be "rational" and ''logical''
also loginandsayitlikeaman.jpg
Dude , nobody is arguing with you , it's just supposed to be a funny video . Did you think of that before you posted ? NOPE
I thought atheists were supposed to be "rational" and ''logical''
also loginandsayitlikeaman.jpg
#87
-
kanadetenshi ONLINE (10/05/2015) [-] Jeez people need to calm down, of course this is a strawman. It's meant to be satire and comedy.
#28
-
themarineelite (10/05/2015) [-] I was raised catholic, honestly I hated going to church growing up, even though at the end of the day I still sort of believed in god, when I look back at it, it was more just having faith in something to help you get through life. I didn't read the bible or force it onto anyone else, It was just to myself. Nowadays I am WAY more agnostic than I was back then. But I can't ******* stand bible thumper Christians or "the church is evil" atheists. I just had a run in with both groups recently at my college campus over the past 2 weeks. Honestly I'm in a liberal establishment and not liberal to like SJW levels but more just believe what you wanna believe.
#72
-
komandantmirkoo (10/05/2015) [-] if you get in arguments about religion you've already lost. no matter what side you're on.
the most mind numbing pointless argument you can have is a religious one.
i know because i used to be one of those ********* before i realized i could literally do anything else and it would be a better use of my time.
the most mind numbing pointless argument you can have is a religious one.
i know because i used to be one of those ********* before i realized i could literally do anything else and it would be a better use of my time.
#182 to #103
-
blitzblitz (10/05/2015) [-]
most of the time i see the fedora its when the comment is like "huhuhe i dont believe in my make believe friends anymore" most of the time its just been trolls who get the fedora. Also this isn't exactly a site to discuss **** .
#91
-
wilicious (10/05/2015) [-]
I googled "r/atheism", it tried to autocomplete it into "r/atheism cringe"
#123 to #91
-
bendingtimeisgood ONLINE (10/05/2015) [-] I did the same thing, and the first suggestion was "r/atheism circlejerk"
#161
-
guanyu (10/05/2015) [-] FFS, you guys. This video doesn't criticize atheists as a whole, it criticizes r/atheism specifically. If you're not part of it, there's no need to get all defensive.
#138
-
nustix (10/05/2015) [-] I used to be atheist until I heard about agnosm which made more sense to me.But apperently people found that to be pretentious so now I just go for having no believe which is basically agnodm without the name.
#63
-
thejudgingmoose (10/05/2015) [-] You...you people realize this was specifically about /r/Atheism on Reddit, right?
This is not about all atheists.
This is not about all atheists.
#53
-
anon (10/05/2015) [-] > implying atheism is a belief
> implying people trying to educate your dumbass makes them dicks
> implying atheists are known for crashing funerals
> implying people trying to educate your dumbass makes them dicks
> implying atheists are known for crashing funerals
#68 to #53
-
tarabostes (10/05/2015) [-] Jesus Christ , another retard came to take it to heart?
''implying atheists are known for crashing funerals''
Did you ever stopped to think things over?
>WHAT IS COMEDY
>WHAT ARE JOKES
Also nice choice for a reaction image , Ţepeş was SO atheist
''implying atheists are known for crashing funerals''
Did you ever stopped to think things over?
>WHAT IS COMEDY
>WHAT ARE JOKES
Also nice choice for a reaction image , Ţepeş was SO atheist
#253 to #68
-
anon (10/06/2015) [-] The clip was making fun of things atheists do and say in general, among the list of common grievances against the reddit atheists they added crashing funerals. Seeing as there are groups in our society that actually do this, it is not far from believable. Thus, while the content is "funny" in that it is making fun of something, it can still be misleading. Just because someone says something as a joke, doesnt make it criticism immune. I shouldnt be offended by it, and Im not. But the humor was juvenile, delivery was **** , and the subject matter not accurate enough to be relatable to the community they are trying to make fun of.
Also, the reaction image was used to for the implying theme, I can see how it might have been easy to miss. Its only in huge green letters. But you are right, he wasnt an atheist, he was a christian, and a good one at that. I mean, with a nickname like "the impaler" he must have been a saint.
Also, the reaction image was used to for the implying theme, I can see how it might have been easy to miss. Its only in huge green letters. But you are right, he wasnt an atheist, he was a christian, and a good one at that. I mean, with a nickname like "the impaler" he must have been a saint.
#109 to #102
-
tarabostes (10/05/2015) [-] >implying sense of humour doesn't differ , just because you didn't see those ''evil catholics" getting shat on in this video it doesn't mean its "bashing"
>implying it doesn't happen the other way , yeah mane , anon wasn't bitching about the video at all?
You'd think you'd be aware that this was meant for r/atheism and not all atheists , since the intelligent guy , but why would you give a **** ? And you wonder why people always put "le hat joke" on argumentative atheists' posts.
Just ******* chill , also sorry if i ''bashed'' you , i know , i'm an opressive bastard...
>implying it doesn't happen the other way , yeah mane , anon wasn't bitching about the video at all?
You'd think you'd be aware that this was meant for r/atheism and not all atheists , since the intelligent guy , but why would you give a **** ? And you wonder why people always put "le hat joke" on argumentative atheists' posts.
Just ******* chill , also sorry if i ''bashed'' you , i know , i'm an opressive bastard...
#117 to #115
-
tarabostes (10/05/2015) [-] Suuuuure
You know what? I don't doubt that at all..
I actually do , i see pleny , get a sense of humour ... Or did it die when you took up the argumentative mantle ? OH NO IT'S THE MAGIC WORDS AGAIN! PLEASE STOP MISTER NAYR! UUGHHH... UHH... COMFIRMATION BIAS! SLIPPERY SLOPE!
AD HOMONEM!
also AGAIN mr opressed , sorry for forcing this faith down your throat ... I feel so dirty... OH LAWD WHY DOTH THY HAND PRESS SO HEAVY UPON MY SOUL!
<----------
You know what? I don't doubt that at all..
I actually do , i see pleny , get a sense of humour ... Or did it die when you took up the argumentative mantle ? OH NO IT'S THE MAGIC WORDS AGAIN! PLEASE STOP MISTER NAYR! UUGHHH... UHH... COMFIRMATION BIAS! SLIPPERY SLOPE!
AD HOMONEM!
also AGAIN mr opressed , sorry for forcing this faith down your throat ... I feel so dirty... OH LAWD WHY DOTH THY HAND PRESS SO HEAVY UPON MY SOUL!
<----------
#145
-
lulzdealer ONLINE (10/05/2015) [-] Take a sip from the Cup of Science and you will realize there is no God.
Finish the cup however, and you will realize there is.
Finish the cup however, and you will realize there is.
#98
-
spartantoaster (10/05/2015) [-] >atheists complain religions "don't treat women as equals"
>Atheism+ is a thing
>Atheism+ is a thing
#122 to #98
-
bendingtimeisgood ONLINE (10/05/2015) [-] To be fair, they're basically just the Westboro Baptist Church of atheism.
#45
-
dildobarbarian (10/05/2015) [-] this was definitely made by someone who believes in god, who in response to a statement like this would reply, "actually i don't"
