atheist hypocrites. . 12 Signs You Are on Unquestioning "atheist 1. You argue that crimes committed by theists prove that all theism's bad but crimes and commit atheist hypocrites 12 Signs You Are on Unquestioning "atheist 1 argue that crimes committed by theists prove all theism's bad but and commit
Upload
Login or register

atheist hypocrites

Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
12 Signs You Are on Unquestioning "atheist
1. You argue that crimes committed by theists prove
that all theism's bad but crimes and committed by
atheists do not prove that all atheism is bad.
It You think Christians are idiots for believing that
God simply exists and wasn' t created, but have no
problem believing that the universe was empty and
then an 1' dense and tiny ball came into
existence, grew exponents ally just because, and then
expanded/ exploded to we ate errthing.
3. You think Christians are idiots for believing that
humans were created from dirt but have no problem
a version of spontaneous
generation, that life started from ponyloving material.
at You think religion and faith are crutches but choose
to overlook the faith it takes you to believe in
astronomic ally small prob abilities while also delving
that you put faith in things em day of your life.
5. You claim that religious people are brainwashed
sheep, but out off quotes from renowned atheists to
defend your beliefs.
6. You find it more logic and or comforting to believe
that you are a descendant with no real
purpose in life other than to survive and reproduce to
ensure the continuity of ow species, instead of the
possibility that you were awfully and wonderfully
made by the God of the universe who has a beauti ful
plan and purpose for your life.
I You claim that there is no ab solute morality but get
angry if somebody scams you instead of thinking
Shucks, Iguess I' m just a victim of Social
Darwinism" because justice implies that there must
be morals.
3. You Say that there is no absolute truth, and are
ab solute's sure of it
9. You point at Christian faults while ignoring the
mana good things Christi ans have done like setting
up orphanages, hospitals, and soup kitchens, and
then claim to be detached and objective.
10. You sav that vou' re op unamended and dont want
beliefs crammed down your throat, but lash out and
or mo ck anybody who believes in God and then try
to cram your beliefs down their at.
1 1. You think that people who believe in the existence
of God are stupid and simple minded but live in a
world shaped by men like Copernicus, Kepler,
Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Mendel, and
Schrodinger to name a few.
12. You are posting in a forum or intenet thread,
bashing on Christians because of something bad
someoe who claimed to be Christian once
did/ s aid to you or someoe you know, and
there fore condemn all Christians because of that
experience, instead of h aving a conversation with a
true follower of sus Christ.
Double standards dorm unless on the receiving end
...
+235
Views: 42646 Submitted: 06/15/2013
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (654)
[ 654 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#7 - tittylovin
+52 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #472 to #7 - ironsoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
YOU ARE FAT!
#638 to #7 - anon id: 3d993c7f
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
okay
User avatar #13 to #7 - jellybob
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
NO!
User avatar #23 to #7 - insertclevernames
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
AHHHHH
User avatar #349 to #7 - HighLitedHelios
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
Your scent is not one that pleases me.
#351 to #7 - dwarfman
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
User avatar #387 to #7 - Blarge **User deleted account**
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
AT ME!!!!!!
User avatar #11 to #7 - lolollo
Reply +142 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
Your hair looks bad.
#77 to #11 - takedatsociety
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
To far
User avatar #197 to #77 - spectralbanshee
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
or not to far... THAT, is the question...
#57 to #11 - tittylovin
+3 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#364 to #11 - incognitoad
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
And your shirt is gay.
#263 to #11 - archeryisfun
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
User avatar #73 - pastelink
Reply +96 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
1. Who the **** says that?
2. That's a gross oversimplification of the big bang theory.
3. The difference is that the evolutionistic position is that life had very, very simple origins and took billions of years to get where it is now whereas the bible talks of man being created entirely in an instant.
4. Those are two totally different kinds of faith and it's misleading to talk about them as if they're the same.
5. Some quotes just put what we want to say more elegantly than we ever could.
6. How comforting something is has no bearing on whether or not it's true.
7. There is absolute morality, just not the sort that is defined by divinity. In any given situation, there are actions that will yield the net best results.
8. There is absolute truth. 2+2=4
9. Who the **** does that? I think everyone recognizes that religion has been responsible for both a lot of good and a lot of bad.
10. Being open minded does not entail believing things that are proven to be false, such as creationism.
11. Throughout history, the majority of people have believed in some sort of God or another. I'm sure that if these men of science had lived now, when we're all less persecuting about such beliefs, they would be atheists. And even if they wouldn't, their discoveries and contributions were in no relation to their beliefs.
12. Anyone who hates on a larger group because of something one of the members did to them is silly and should be mocked. On this, I am in agreement.
User avatar #96 to #73 - GrimTheRealReaper
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
Yes, because creationism is a proven false.
User avatar #103 to #96 - captainfuckitall
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
It's still HIGHLY unlikely, and goes against what roughly 98% of what biological science states in favour of stone-age priests and logicians. While it's true that ancient wisdom is sometimes more valuable than modern day wisdom, intelligence and wisdom are two very different things, and facts cannot be ignored or decided based upon belief or opinion
User avatar #108 to #103 - GrimTheRealReaper
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
About as unlikely as a random explosion happening out of ******* nowhere right? As unlikely as the particles of tiny ass atoms colliding in just the perfect way to create a rock, then a meteor, then a planet, then you, then your computer, and everything else right? Because it seems EXTREMELY likely that that could all happen by sheer ******* chance with no hand guiding it. You accuse Christians of too much faith when you have the faith to believe something like that could happen out of nowhere.
User avatar #112 to #108 - captainfuckitall
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
There's a lot more to the Big Bang than that, have you even looked it up? It's a folly to try and fight something without knowing exactly what it is or how it works. Furthermore, it didn't happen so instantly like that, it went on for billions upon billions of years. Have you ever heard of the 'Entropy Principle'? It basically means that the longer something is around, the higher the chances of something improbable happening (to the point where, no matter how unlikely it is, it eventually gets to 100% and then happens). It could be said that time was irrelevant before the big bang, as there was nothing that could have recorded the time that passed (For all we know, it could have been a literally uncountable number of years, eventually making the chances of a universe appearing 100%, as well as everything that followed, which has to do with chemistry, physics, biology, quantum physics, and many other things that will take years to master)

Just look it all up, it's easy and you have google
#299 to #112 - anon id: 7ae4e606
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
but the basic thing with the criticism shown here is that there was either eternally something (some kind of matter if we consider the monistic interpretation of most of the fields of science) or nothing out of which came something. Both are quite strange if you think about it. As for once, how can being come into existance from non being. Also about the eternal existance, the difference between God and matter is that matter is purely potential element and its actualization seems to should have came from something with the ability to actualize it.
User avatar #301 to #299 - captainfuckitall
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
There is absolutely eternally something, but that eternal something may not always be here. Well there wasn't 'non-being', otherwise you would be right and we wouldn't be here, there is ALWAYS something, but whatever it was was not a part of our known universe or perhaps a different one.
#310 to #301 - anon id: 7ae4e606
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
Still it depends of if we consider that there could be an nfinite chain of causes we cannot point to the existance of an Absolute creator. However if we consider the chain to be limited then everything that has potential element in it cannot be the final and efficient cause of whole of the creation. Thus every event like big bang points to somethin that caused it, actualized it. The conclusion from that is such, that the ultimate being cannot have potency, thus material element in its structure. Such a thing is called the Absolute, and in Christian religion interpreted as God. I dont really know much about the existance of the parallel universes thus my answer might be a little off as to what you were trying to point to.
User avatar #627 to #310 - captainfuckitall
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
Eh, there may very well be an 'Absolute creator', but I certainly do not believe it is a sentient being or a being at all. It could just be a single atom reacting chemically or through nuclear fission for all we know
#634 to #627 - anon id: 7ae4e606
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
But atom is a part of matter. As such, what would be the cause of its existance.
User avatar #640 to #634 - captainfuckitall
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
I already told you, we're talking about 'existence' here. Existence has always existed, we're talking about the universe which has come INTO existence
#642 to #640 - anon id: 7ae4e606
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
By existance you mean a purely existing being or a purely material being? By what you've called the existing existance. Do you mean the chemically reacting atom? Because if so then my point stil stands. Something that is material needs existance from outside. Its existance is per aliud. If you mean pure existance then you mean something non material.
User avatar #643 to #642 - captainfuckitall
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
Technically speaking, things that exist on a Quantum level, the atoms which collided to create the big bang, are not 'material'. You're referring to "Outside" in the context of a being outside the universe, I refer to "Outside" as a universe that isn't this one, of which it is generally accepted there are many. Atoms pass through universes all the time, who's to say that they did not appear in a void and collide in a freak accident, or who's to say there was "nothing" at all, as there could have very well been a previous universe beforehand that was destroyed when ours came into being
#644 to #643 - anon id: 7ae4e606
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
That's the monistic vision of Atomists like Leucippus or Democritus of Abdera. I do not know the concept of the immateriality of atoms you have in mind but i think it does not contradict what I have said. If something is immaterial it would mean that it has no body and collection of such beings would not be able to create body, neither would they be able to collide in any way, as collision is the ability of material being.
User avatar #650 to #644 - captainfuckitall
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
I would be lying if I said I could explain it properly. The most I can do is suggest you look up Quantum Physics for yourself. You won't be able to get it either, but it'll give you a bearing of what I mean
#651 to #650 - anon id: 7ae4e606
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
i looked it up but the problem is i need it referenced to the concept of the philosohical matter as a part of the ontic structure of being. But even in the wave description it does not seem like a matterless thing. What might be the cause of misunderstanding is also the different definition of matter we seem to bear in mind. Anyway, ciao, gl&hf
User avatar #201 to #108 - fabbethefirst
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
Well the thing is that even though the chance of that happening is very small, the chance of us living in such a universe is equal to P(humans living in this universe)=1 because it must be so, we cannot live anywhere else, thus the fact that we are able to observe this universe is a constant fact.
#128 to #108 - mrloki
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
**mrloki rolled a random image posted in comment #644575 at Anime & Manga - anime shows, anime games, anime art, manga ** how to easily explain why you are totally wrong: what is the chance that over 100 year, someone throwing a coin every 5 seconds, manage to get 5 tails in a row? it's pretty high chance once you factor time and relativity into it
User avatar #414 to #128 - traelos
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
Here's the problem with that:

We're not talking about getting tails 5 times in a row.
We're talking more like getting tails 10,000 times in a row.
User avatar #593 to #414 - mrloki
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
and we aren't talking about 100 year, we are talking about a non existent number of time, near infinity.
User avatar #605 to #593 - traelos
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
Yes but we're also talking about a series of occurrences with a nigh infinite chance of not happening.
#612 to #605 - mrloki
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
**mrloki rolled a random image posted in comment #2456154 at Friendly ** let's put it in math 0.0001% x infinite = 100% / 0.00000000000000000000000000000001 x infinite = 100%

it was going to happen eventually, the only problem was how long until mass reached that critical point.
User avatar #619 to #612 - traelos
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
But there's no reason time is infinite, which means that there's no reason the chances of the big bang happening couldn't be a smaller fraction than the time it had to do so was a large number.

.000000000000001 * 10000000000000 = .1 while 10000000000000 x .00000000000001 = 1
#623 to #619 - mrloki
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
**mrloki rolled a random image posted in comment #4720538 at My Little Pony fanfiction, backgrounds, songs, lyrics, and GIFs. ** now you entered something else, since there was no time as we know before the big bang, the time we consider here is not a linear progression, not any kind of progression. You will need to read over the relation between matter and time, as well as converting energy to matter so we could better explain it. Basically, we can not consider before the bigbang as a time passing but an infinite amount of possibilities happening at a time with no progression. I can't simplify that as I did with the time x probability explanation.

that's basically the same thing you need to read to properly understand what **************** said.
#624 to #623 - traelos
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
That's a theory, and not a very accepted one either.

You're treading a fine line between theoretical physics and Sci-Fi.
#626 to #624 - mrloki
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
**mrloki rolled a random image posted in comment #66 at Llullaillaco Maiden ** now you are throwing another controversial theme. The big bang is a theory because all "proof" we have of it comes from physics, logic, chemistry, math ...
beyond all being theory here, what you don't understand can be seen as sci-fi

I won't keep explaining everything here, just look for it on google or wikipedia.

This can help a little : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

and that's it, I'm not replying anymore
User avatar #180 to #96 - cadencee
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
May parts of creationism have been proven false and as such the story has been forced to change and mould to get around what we do and don't currently know until it is eventually discovered exactly how the universe came into being until their default answer because 'God did all that'.
User avatar #162 to #73 - imagewicked
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
Thank you! And at number 8, I believe he mean't we cannot be sure of anything. We can only be 100 percent sure of something if we created the rules that govern it, like, as you said, simple math but in nature we can never be certain. But thanks for typing that out. I was hoping someone in the comments took the time to refute most of these.
#216 to #73 - anon id: 8396cf2c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
found the unquestioning atheist
#290 to #73 - anon id: ec804488
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
Not to be touchy, but for number 8. We still not sure whether math is an invention or a discovery. If it's an invention mathematical property can't be defined as an universal truth
#389 to #290 - anon id: 7d9482a5
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
Well, there is a misrelation between theoritical mathimatics and math used in physics, thus the need for the "renown" constants to adjust our system of math to the reality around us. Sooo... It's probably an invention? .__.
#308 to #73 - anon id: f95f5deb
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
You cannot personally prove to me that the earth is round or that stars are giant balls of hydrogen being fused into helium just as I cannot personally prove to you that the God I believe in exists. We are both choosing to believe in something other people came up with. Whether the other's belief is true or not should not affect our own belief.
I am studying engineering in college. I understand that laws of science and math that we as human beings have come up with have more evidence than that of a being/beings of higher divinity. I still choose to believe in something divine because I want to. I realize that arguing on the internet is futile and will serve no purpose, and I realize that you are likely to ignore this post, but I truly believe that our two conflicting faiths should not cause the people of our two conflicting faiths to fight. There is no reason to profanely argue with one another. Calm discourse will yield more results.
User avatar #315 to #308 - drfreeman
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
The earth is spherical, there are pictures. There are videos of our round earth turning. There is a major difference between belief and fact.
#484 to #315 - articulate
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
It's times like this that I wish everyone had my 9th grade Earth Science teacher (you da man Mr. Roberts!) At the beginning of the year he told us that it was a fact that the earth was flat. He then has us come up with experiments to prove that the earth was flat. After the projects were all done he told us that a fact is something that more than one person believe in, so it is a fact that the earth is flat and a fact that we never landed on the moon because people really believe that. He also told us that it was impossible to know the truth because it is so easy to fool the brain. So, belief and fact are not all that different.
It's times like this that I wish everyone had my 9th grade Earth Science teacher (you da man Mr. Roberts!) At the beginning of the year he told us that it was a fact that the earth was flat. He then has us come up with experiments to prove that the earth was flat. After the projects were all done he told us that a fact is something that more than one person believe in, so it is a fact that the earth is flat and a fact that we never landed on the moon because people really believe that. He also told us that it was impossible to know the truth because it is so easy to fool the brain. So, belief and fact are not all that different.
#494 to #484 - anon id: 7ae4e606
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
fact is something that is in accordance with reality
User avatar #514 to #494 - articulate
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
Fact - 4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened
#518 to #514 - anon id: 7ae4e606
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
source on that? looks like a dictionary and one of few meanings.
User avatar #524 to #518 - articulate
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact
Yeah, you didn't know? Words have multiple meanings.
#527 to #524 - anon id: 7ae4e606
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
from what I remember the order of meanings in dictionaries usually corresponds to the frequency of its use.
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth
Also, usually when dealing with terminology of some field of investigation the terms seem to differ from their common use. So the best way to provide definitions is the use of specialistic dictionary/encycloedia.
#378 to #315 - anon id: 7ae4e606
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
I think that by faith the author ment pre-suppositions taken by sciences. To show a rather noticable example would be the before-Copernicus pre-supposition that sun goes around earth. It is an old example and the scale is rather grand, but such things still exist.
#405 to #315 - traelos
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
Really? Because I have a picture right here of Hitler holding an Iphone.

Also 99.99% of the pictures you see of the Earth from space are artists renditions, satellites orbit too close to the planet to show the full thing in one shot, the only actual pictures we have are from moon landings
#664 to #405 - anon id: 466c4a70
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/28/2014) [-]
Yeah satellites *orbit* our flat earth too closely except for the ones that dont - eg. any geostationary satellite
#416 to #405 - anon id: 7ae4e606
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
even if the only ones are from the moon landing it still means that there are some pictures. Another thing is that we can deduce the shape of the Earth from not only the full-thing ones.
User avatar #417 to #416 - traelos
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
Those pictures are also all fakes

Obviously I believe the Earth is round, I'm just saying it's based on a great deal of faith that we're not being lied to
#419 to #417 - anon id: 7ae4e606
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
Well that's a hypothesis. Though I doubt that all the picutres would be falsified. Yet as my knowledge in this subject is not sufficient for a more detailed discussion I would rather not continue.
User avatar #488 to #308 - ChewyConor
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
I think a lot of atheists do have genuine concerns that religion is not a force for good in the world, and in fact is the direct and indirect cause of a lot of pain, suffering, death and negative contribution to humanity. Not saying I agree with that but I understand those concerns and I think that's why many people consider that it does matter what everyone else believes.
#346 to #73 - anon id: 4bad7e8d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
I like your post, but as for number seven, I highly doubt there is an absolute morality...
#329 to #73 - recan
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
Just wanted to point out that 2+2=4 Is not an absolute truth. If we switch over to a base 4 mathematical system 2+2=10.
User avatar #487 to #329 - ChewyConor
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
that's just being pedantic. a more appropriate criticism of that is that mathematics is built upon axioms which are essentially assumptions that we just take to be true because we believe them to be true, not because we have proved them true. everything 'proved' in mathematics relies on axioms. there is still no absolute truth in it.

"I think therefore I am." is a far better example of an absolute truth. However, an atheist claiming that 'there is no absolute truth' would likely be referring to the lack of absolute proof that we as humans can have about just about everything so we ought to base our beliefs on logic, reason and evidence in higher priority than faith.
#666 to #487 - anon id: 9bd582bf
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/22/2014) [-]
Sooooo... you're saying that mathematics is just one big if/then statement?
If/then statements are also true or false.
User avatar #545 to #73 - makeithail
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
You can't really use math to say there are absolute truths... There could be people who are convinced that 2+2=8 and that's why some atheists say truth is a relative thing. Best argument I've ever heard for absolute truths would be that anyone who jumps of a skyscraper while ass-naked is going to plummet to the ground, you can't just say "oh gravity doesn't apply to me right now because i don't believe in it at the moment"
#566 to #73 - nicholasmann
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
How ******* neato, this is just what I though, and wanted to comment. Now I don't need to write ****, or even try to be eloquent. Good job mate.
#589 to #73 - corkscrew
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
2+2=5
#616 to #73 - anon id: 85da81ae
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
That's a gross oversimplification of morality. There is no absolute morality - the world is not that black and white. If it were, scholars would not be constantly debating over the many theories of justice and ethics. What YOU would consider to be morally right may well be very different to what someone like you would choose to do if you were out in the same situation.

Just saying
#662 to #73 - anon id: d7425527
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/11/2014) [-]
Mendel was a monk, he would absolutely not be an atheist.
User avatar #497 to #73 - croski
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
In a ternary numeral system 2+2=11 and in quaternary numeral system it equals 10.

Just saying...
User avatar #198 to #73 - fabbethefirst
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
Thank you for doing that for me, and probably everyone else, who are to lazy to sit down and debunk such an ignorant post.
#80 to #73 - tinglyturtletaint
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #388 to #73 - traelos
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
1. So you've never heard someone blame religion for starting wars?
2. Not really, the big bang theory does no more to suggest why the pre-universal dust exists than any religion does to explain why God exists
3. Which is easier to believe? That simple life just kind of happened and then evolved, or that complex life was designed by an overwhelmingly intelligent super creature?
4. Clearly you're not religious if you think there is a difference between the faith I have in the existence of a higher power and the faith I have that the sun will rise tomorrow
5. Doesn't that make you a sheep for not being able to articulate your own thoughts?
6. No, but given two options of equal likelihood you've gotta be a twisted kind of person to assume the less comforting one is more likely
7. You clearly don't understand your own argument there. What defines the "best results" (outside of a divine being) would be morality, therefore without God absolute morality would be taking the choice which produces the best results, the best results are the results which fit best into morality, it's a circular logic.
8. What if you went to a different part of the universe and 2+2 = 5? It's theoretically possible
9. A great deal of people do that, you have too much faith in the atheist community as a whole
10. No, being open minded means accepting that other people believe in things that you feel are false
11. Einstein and Planck were both Christians and are fundamentally responsible for our modern understanding of physics
12. Yeah pretty much
#391 to #388 - articulate
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
baa
User avatar #392 to #391 - traelos
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
Who the **** sits there trying to think of a name for an account and comes up with articulate?

Also I like your picture.
User avatar #394 to #392 - articulate
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
This is my third account and all the good names were taken. I like the word "articulate" because it is said "articu-lit" and "articu-late" depending on the context. I was thinking about that around the time of making this account.
User avatar #397 to #394 - traelos
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
You...you...

You're an english major aren't you?
User avatar #399 to #397 - articulate
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
You can't have a major until you graduate from high school. I'm not entirely sure what I want to do, yet.
User avatar #400 to #399 - traelos
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
Try to commit suicide and fail (Just put the gun on your chin and aim straight up)

The government will pay for the rest of your life.
User avatar #401 to #400 - articulate
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
I'll keep that in mind...
#485 to #73 - anon id: f428060a
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
Found the Atheist. Thanks for proving the entire thing.
User avatar #179 to #73 - cadencee
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
I was about to reply but this is a perfect example of your 5th line.
#10 - theguyrightbehindu
Reply +50 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
#255 to #10 - anon id: c8a7a185
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
this is actually not true.. Most people here are ignorant to how christianity works... The original bible and scriptures don't mention hell at all.. Hell/the devil is something that came into exsistence in the middle ages as a scare tactic. According to christianity, following the 10 commandments isn't necessary anymore. It was necessary before the birth of christ, but after his birth we were all saved.. hence the "dying for our sins."
#598 to #255 - theguyrightbehindu
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
i was raised/indoctrinated roman catholic and i dont have to tell you that christianity is not standardized
there are thousands of denominations because its all up to interpretation
your specific christian god doesnt exist to most other people
#4 - houseofbrick
Reply +35 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
As an fence-sitting pussy agnostic, I say live and let live until the way you run your life interferes with the way that I or another run our own lives.
#9 to #4 - anon id: 2bb3a1ee
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
10/10 would agree again. I'm a christian, and you just summed up my thoughts. This post annoys me as much as the atheist posts in the same vein. I love you brick.
#21 to #9 - houseofbrick
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
I love you, too. Hope you guys got enough food past the DMZ.
#156 to #4 - anon id: 8050a21a
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
"an fence"............ an is only used before a vowel, which f is not.
User avatar #295 to #156 - fataliteehee
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
He probably typed "an agnostic", then went back and added "fence sitting pussy".
User avatar #496 to #295 - houseofbrick
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
yep.
#248 to #4 - lolsrsslybro
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
agnostic here, with the exact same view. thumb for you.


c:
User avatar #294 to #4 - fataliteehee
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
Ditto.
#606 to #4 - anon id: 8b199d14
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
agnostic = atheist
User avatar #630 to #606 - houseofbrick
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
Atheist = Agnostic
#350 to #4 - dwarfman
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
I'm a theist, yet agnostic makes sense to me: Not taking something at face-value, and not getting on a soapbox and belittling those that do not share your views. It makes logical sense!
I'm a theist, yet agnostic makes sense to me: Not taking something at face-value, and not getting on a soapbox and belittling those that do not share your views. It makes logical sense!
#160 - HordeyWordey
Reply +23 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
How about we just call the extremists from both sides idiots and call it a day?
How about we just call the extremists from both sides idiots and call it a day?
User avatar #176 to #160 - misfitsftw
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
how likely do you think that outcome is, on the internet?
it would be nice if it was like that but it isn't
User avatar #182 to #160 - cadencee
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
There are extremists and there are retards, I have come across far too many retards who claim to be atheists and just starts insulting people for their beliefs without a sound argument against it.

I have yet to come across an athiestic extremist who kills or maims in the name of well.... nothing. If someone does I'd gladly pull the lever to fry them myself.
User avatar #61 - darman
Reply +21 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
This post sounds an awful lot like number 12 in reverse with the broad generalizations and condescending tone.
There are Atheist a-holes, there are Christian a-holes, there are Islamic a-holes, and there are millions of different types of a-holes. A person's whole identity is not contained in a particular set of beliefs and his or her status as an a-hole isn't entirely rooted in that fact.
User avatar #500 to #61 - somefunnyshitihope
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
this post wasn't referring to all Athiests. It's pointing out 12 things that would make you a "athiest hypocrite" or "unquestioning athiest" but agree with you that a person's whole identity etc..
User avatar #70 to #61 - Big Josh
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
I think it's just aimed toward Atheist assholes, not Atheists in general.
User avatar #352 to #70 - darman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
The point I was trying to make is that they aren't "Atheist assholes", rather just a general asshole and would behave that way regardless of their religious beliefs.
User avatar #88 to #70 - ilovehitler
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
Actually, I think just aimed at unquestoning atheists, I.E., the ones who are more or less religious in their beliefs of science and a lack of god, and don't question anything scientists say.
User avatar #659 to #88 - thereoncewasaman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/30/2013) [-]
Someone who defines themselves as an atheist but is unquestioning in that way is a pathetic excuse for an atheist (not to mention a pathetic excuse for a human being). But the post contains so many misunderstandings and misinterpretations of what atheists say or, for lack of a better word, believe. I think anyone who lives their life unquestioningly is barely living at all, but religion promotes unquestioning loyalty whereas atheism discourages it. I think living a life of skepticism and logic will lead you to atheism, but people who blindly follow anything are sad human beings.
#316 to #88 - anon id: 80b3f29f
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
Thats how i read it.
#147 - phantomhawkfour **User deleted account**
+18 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #153 to #147 - demandsgayversion
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
It wasn't easy, but I'm doing it.
User avatar #154 to #153 - demandsgayversion
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
Nevermind, I can't do it.
#264 to #147 - roarflmao
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#265 to #147 - roarflmao
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
Ohh its zlamous.. Now i feel retarded..
User avatar #30 - jtistillam
Reply +18 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
I don't care at all. I don't care if you're an atheist, a Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or anything else. I hate everyone regardless.
#19 - Holyshizznips
Reply +17 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #159 - demandsgayversion
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
1. Religous people's crimes are done BECAUSE they're religious. When was the last time an athiest flew planes into a tower because someone disagreed with their science?

2. We have logic behind this and didn't just make it up.

3. It's a gradual process that we KNOW took place. Yours is just fairy tales with zero basis in reality.

4. Not an argument I would make, moot

5. Being brainwashed with facts isn't brainwash, it's learning

6. It doesn't matter what's more comforting, it matters what's factual

7. Morality is a human creation. Knowing it's arbitrary doesn't hold us immune to it, however.

8. Not something I would say, moot

9. Doesn't take religion to be a good person.

10. BECAUSE IT'S ******* RIDICULOUS AND HAS NO LOGICAL BASIS!

11. They were doing the best with the knowledge they had at the time, but the important thing is that they searched for more.

12. Because the 'true followers' are actually nice people who avoid talking about religion, everyone else is assholes who need a good dose of 'this is why you're retarded'
#168 to #159 - wersand
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
My thoughts on number 6.
If new evidence arises to debunk this method, we either develop new theories to test, or we throw it out and adopt a more likely theory.

#199 to #159 - anon id: 4e1bcde6
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
1: When was the last time someone murdered or stole from someone else because they disbelieved in a moral code? And you can't blanket statement like that accurately.
2: Well, to be fair, you read about it in a book that someone else wrote, and you personally can't prove they didn't just make it up, or prove that there is logic behind it. You simply believe it because you were taught it, and it made sense to you.
3: Well, besides numerous historical texts... And there are still quite a few unexplained issues, such as the cambrian explosion, and irreducible complexity.
4: Just because you wouldn't make it does not render it moot, it has been made before.
5: Valid point...
6: Good point, but it's honestly ludicrous to believe simple organisms evolved into what we are today.
7: If morality is strickly human, then can't one persons morality differ from anothers? therefor making scamming 'right' for the scammer?
8: Refer to #4
9: No, but religions have a set moral code.
#202 to #199 - anon id: 4e1bcde6
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
10: Still a complete hypocrisy.
11: You can't justify the beliefs of long dead others by claiming they were ignorant, they weren't, they made some of the most scientific advances of their times. They were smart people.
12: Who are you to define "true followers" of a religion you're not part of. And this makes you an asshole of atheism, going around calling other peoples beliefs "******* ridiculous"

We don't KNOW how everything began, and/or why it did, and until we do, it's a bit crazy to claim one side or the other is 100% right, the probability is that it is a mixture of many beliefs.
#254 to #159 - anon id: 2f3dae66
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
Think we found the Unquestioning Atheist.
#291 to #159 - anon id: b90ac0fd
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
Stalin blew up Churches and killed priests for atheism/anti-theism. Also most of the other Communists.
#334 to #159 - swagloon
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#486 to #159 - anon id: f428060a
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
Found the butthurt bitch
User avatar #629 to #486 - demandsgayversion
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
Good job refuting any of my points, you really pointed out the flaws in my reasoning.