# Atheists unveil their symbol of nonbelief



## Shinigami Perv (Jun 30, 2013)

> *Atheists Unveil Monument Near Ten Commandments In Florida *
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Told you this shit was going to happen with the militant atheists.

First a holy book (God Delusion), now a holy symbol. What next?  


*Spoiler*: __ 



Before you bitch about source, it's AP


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jun 30, 2013)

> First a holy book (God Delusion)



Must have missed that part


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jun 30, 2013)

You did. Pay attention.


----------



## Cheeky (Jun 30, 2013)

What a fun bunch. Symbol looks too complex, too "busy", though.


----------



## Mael (Jun 30, 2013)

Silly folks and their ironies. 

But whatever...not like they're taking offense to cartoons and blowing people up.


----------



## Gain (Jun 30, 2013)

should be a fedora


----------



## E (Jun 30, 2013)

should be a mouth with shit coming out of it


----------



## Linkofone (Jun 30, 2013)

> "When you look at this monument, the first thing you will notice is that it has a function. Atheists are about the real and the physical, so we selected to place this monument in the form of a bench," said David Silverman, president of American Atheists.



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvmUtfgZTpA[/youtube]

Shut up Mokuba.


----------



## Sarry (Jun 30, 2013)

Sooooo they are confirming that Atheism is just another religion that worships no Deity. 

How..ironic.




> While Silverman said he believes religion is wrong and teachings in the Bible are violent, he said he welcomes non-Christian religions to follow the atheists' example and put in their own monuments in free-speech zones.



Give any movement or any ideology enough time, and a certain number of members and they will turn violent and misuse the original ideals. This isn't limited to religion
case in point: some elements of modern Feminism, or ALF


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jun 30, 2013)

Looks like everyone glossed over these parts



> While Silverman said he believes religion is wrong and teachings in the Bible are violent, he said he welcomes non-Christian religions to follow the atheists' example and put in their own monuments in free-speech zones.





> "It is an attack, but it's an attack on Christian privilege, not an attack on Christians themselves, and not so much an attack on Christianity."



But hey, its actually way easier to poke fun at something and strawman it to hell


----------



## Revolution (Jun 30, 2013)

. . . . are they scientologists or WHY ARE YOU DECLARING A UNIVERSAL SYMBOL?

WTF IS THIS SHIT???  I can't believe this OMG  Real Athiests are not going to want to call themselves Athiests anymore for fear of being attached to a religion


----------



## Cheeky (Jun 30, 2013)

This will surely help solve a lot of the problems that they always complain about.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jun 30, 2013)

> . . . . are they scientologists or WHY ARE YOU DECLARING A UNIVERSAL SYMBOL?



Read the fucking article. It's a novel concept, I know


----------



## αce (Jun 30, 2013)

> Sooooo they are confirming that Atheism is just another religion that worships no Deity.



what the fuck


----------



## Patchouli (Jun 30, 2013)

I don't even this whole thread.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Jun 30, 2013)




----------



## Enclave (Jun 30, 2013)

Who cares what certain atheists do.  As an atheist myself it has no impact on me so who cares.


----------



## KaiserWombat (Jun 30, 2013)

Good thing that atheism is an umbrella term basically encapsulating everyone who do not believe in the existence of a spiritual or physical deity and does not categorise specific demographics who adhere to a strict code of beliefs, symbols and/or moral values, eh?

If this common body of atheists wish to convey their sincere belief in the absence of deities from reality in the form of iconography, that is their choice as an atheist organisation. I admit to find the usage of symbolism and iconography in the identity of atheism to be a little bizarre, but that's my personal viewpoint on the matter.

Just be informed enough to realise that many atheists do not themselves and as a whole should not be identified as a single unitary belief structure in the vein of most religious groups, and you'll be fine.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Jun 30, 2013)

Worshiping the atom bomb eh?


----------



## Buskuv (Jun 30, 2013)

Enclave said:


> Who cares what certain atheists do.  As an atheist myself it has no impact on me so who cares.



Oh please.

Everyone loves to pile on when there's another dumb Christian/Muslim thread, but heaven forbid these goobers get called out on being mouthbreathing troglodytes.  It's really quite fun.  Try it.


----------



## Mael (Jun 30, 2013)

Again symbol or not, parody or not, these folks aren't lobbying courts to reinstate bans on same sex marriage or preaching damnation to those not in the circle, or reacting to cartoons/YT vids like children and killing or stalking filmakers/cartoonists or demanding the UN make criticizing their faith illegal while they blow people up.


----------



## Buskuv (Jun 30, 2013)

Mael said:


> Again symbol or not, parody or not, these folks aren't lobbying courts to reinstate bans on same sex marriage or preaching damnation to those not in the circle, or reacting to cartoons/YT vids like children and killing or stalking filmakers/cartoonists or demanding the UN make criticizing their faith illegal while they blow people up.



...and?

Silly vitriol on a Naruto forum yields exactly zero impact on anything whatsoever.


----------



## Bender (Jun 30, 2013)

@us atheist= Badass fuckers 


Talks about sweet ass fucking symbol


----------



## E (Jun 30, 2013)

E said:


> should be a mouth with shit coming out of it



i took the liberty to spend a couple hours on paint (it was actually PS but you get what i mean)



now that's what you call a symbol, im quite proud of it


----------



## Mael (Jun 30, 2013)

Dr. Boskov Krevorkian said:


> ...and?
> 
> Silly vitriol on a Naruto forum yields exactly zero impact on anything whatsoever.



Lesser of two evils, thus why give so much of a fuck?


----------



## Buskuv (Jun 30, 2013)

Mael said:


> Lesser of two evils, thus why give so much of a fuck?



What?  Oh no no no.

It's a silly thread, and the people are undoubtedly harmless, but I enjoy a good skewer every now and then.


----------



## Linkofone (Jun 30, 2013)

Meh, they can do whatever they want ... I just hope this thread doesn't turn into a religion bashing thread.

Also, somehow I went from here to the Atheist thread ... I don't even know how that happened.


----------



## Revolution (Jun 30, 2013)

> American Atheists sued to try to have the stone slab with the Ten Commandments taken away from the courthouse lawn in this rural, conservative north Florida town



IMO a true atheist would leave that stone slab be and not discriminate against the Ten Commandments.  This whole this is absurd and blasphemous in the eyes of zealots if anything.


----------



## Shivers (Jun 30, 2013)

This is really quite silly. But, oh well.



Sarahmint said:


> IMO a true atheist would leave that stone slab be and not discriminate against the Ten Commandments. This whole this is absurd and blasphemous in the eyes of zealots if anything.



What are you even saying?


----------



## Smiley (Jun 30, 2013)

Isn't that the symbol for the atom, or something like that? How can it be the symbol for atheism? Atheism isn't a science, and atheists aren't scientists, but beside that, these people aren't even atheists if they want to form a group and make a religion out of their "non beliefs".

Also, the title should read "A few people unveil their small cult's new symbol". 



Elim Rawne said:


> A No True Scotsman right out the gate



Ah, I see that you're new to words and their fixed definitions. Why don't we categorize your categorization of this as "a no true Scotsman" as a no true Scotsman, if you're going to use a fixed concept like that.

No true Scotsman could use words like atheism and disallow alternative interpretations of the meaning that they intend to communicate when using the word, just as no true Scotsman could judge whether or not another man is a true Scotsman, or not, based solely on their use of predefined language.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Jun 30, 2013)

A place for dog owners to let their dogs go urinate and relieve themselves. What a thoughtful gift.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Jun 30, 2013)

Smiley said:


> Isn't that the symbol for the atom, or something like that? How can it be the symbol for atheism? Atheism isn't a science, and atheists aren't scientists, but beside that, these people aren't even atheists if they want to form a group and make a religion out of their "non beliefs".
> 
> Also, the title should read "A few people unveil their small cult's new symbol".
> 
> ...



All atheists are scientists. What exactly is so hard for you to grasp?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 30, 2013)

Sarahmint said:


> IMO a true atheist would leave that stone slab be and not discriminate against the Ten Commandments.  This whole this is absurd and blasphemous in the eyes of zealots if anything.



So wait, christianity gets a special privilege that no other religion gets by having a monument to its doctrine in a secular court and trying to get it removed is discrimination?

What is this I don't even.



Dr. Boskov Krevorkian said:


> Oh please.
> 
> Everyone loves to pile on when there's another dumb Christian/Muslim thread, but heaven forbid these goobers get called out on being mouthbreathing troglodytes.  It's really quite fun.  Try it.



Maybe that's because they can use scripture to justify their insanities whereas an atheist would have to admit that something is his own opinion? And do read the article before judging the people who did this.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 30, 2013)

Smiley said:


> Ah, I see that you're new to words and their fixed definitions. Why don't we categorize your categorization of this as "a no true Scotsman" as a no true Scotsman, if you're going to use a fixed concept like that.



Yeah, no, that makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Jun 30, 2013)

Misleading thread title. It's not an attempt to launch a "symbol for atheism".



> American Atheists sued to try to have the stone slab with the Ten Commandments taken away from the courthouse lawn in this rural, conservative north Florida town best known for the prison that confines death row inmates. The Community Men's Fellowship erected the monument in what's described as a free speech zone. During mediation on the case, the atheist group was told it could have its own monument, too.
> 
> "We're not going to let them do it without a counterpoint," Silverman said. "If we do it without a counterpoint, it's going to appear very strongly that the government actually endorses one religion over another, or – I should say – religion in general over non-religion."


Nothing wrong with this. They have to put something on the 'monument' - looks shit though.


----------



## Nic (Jun 30, 2013)

I'm confused, why is this supposed to be news?


----------



## Zaru (Jun 30, 2013)

As an atheist, the whole concept of atheists banding together, forming organizations, getting political and dicking around in general is highly ironic to me. 

Oh well, given any large enough group of loosely connected people, there's bound to be a cancerous part of it.


----------



## Arya Stark (Jun 30, 2013)

Shouldn't be these people just "not giving a fuck" ?

Making symbols etc., that's stupid imho.


----------



## Pliskin (Jun 30, 2013)

On one hand I understand why the religious crowd is having a field day with this.

On the other hand, it is quite hilarious that they feel so pushed against the wall that being able to say 'Ha-Ha, you are just as nutty as we are ' is like Christmas (sorry I mean happy holidays)  to them. Even though they are wrong and didn't read the article, but Narutoforums, nobody does.


----------



## Nic (Jun 30, 2013)

Zaru said:


> As an atheist, the whole concept of atheists banding together, forming organizations, getting political and dicking around in general is highly ironic to me.
> 
> Oh well, given any large enough group of loosely connected people, there's bound to be a cancerous part of it.



giving relevance to any sort of small group in a particular place, makes me think a couple of religious zealouts wanted to make a desperate point out of it.


----------



## Enclave (Jun 30, 2013)

Dr. Boskov Krevorkian said:


> Oh please.
> 
> Everyone loves to pile on when there's another dumb Christian/Muslim thread, but heaven forbid these goobers get called out on being mouthbreathing troglodytes.  It's really quite fun.  Try it.



I don't give a darn what anybody believes in as long as they aren't trying to push those beliefs on others or judge others based on their beliefs.

Besides, why give them crap for organising?  Do you ever see anybody get up set when a Catholics organise at their church and have their religious icons all around them?


----------



## blackbird (Jun 30, 2013)

Guh, this is how it starts... 



Ayanli said:


> All atheists are scientists. What exactly is so hard for you to grasp?


This statement is both haughty and untrue.  one example of why.


----------



## Revolution (Jun 30, 2013)

The problem with an Atheist monument is it shows ideals set in stone. I had assumed to be an athiest is to be fluid and ever changing with the new knowledge that hits us all the time. To make an athiest monument is counterproductive.


----------



## Cheeky (Jun 30, 2013)

Sarahmint said:


> The problem with an Atheist monument is it shows ideals set in stone. *I had assumed to be an athiest is to be fluid and ever changing with the new knowledge that hits us all the time.* To make an athiest monument is counterproductive.



That's just being an intelligent and open-minded person, regardless of beliefs.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Jun 30, 2013)

blackbird said:


> Guh, this is how it starts...
> 
> 
> This statement is both haughty and untrue.  one example of why.



 **


----------



## Nemo (Jun 30, 2013)

Zaru said:


> As an atheist, *the whole concept of atheists banding together, forming organizations, getting political and dicking around in general is highly ironic to me*.
> 
> Oh well, given any large enough group of loosely connected people, there's bound to be a cancerous part of it.



i agree with you. 

however, the monument was set up in response to a '10 commandments' monument being erected at the same place; in other words, the atheists wouldn't have put up the monument if Christians hadn't put up theirs--sort of an 'acting in defense' thing, i guess.

not sure if that makes much of a difference, but it's worth considering.


----------



## Buskuv (Jun 30, 2013)

Enclave said:


> I don't give a darn what anybody believes in as long as they aren't trying to push those beliefs on others or judge others based on their beliefs.
> 
> Besides, why give them crap for organising?  Do you ever see anybody get up set when a Catholics organise at their church and have their religious icons all around them?



I think you're assuming I had far more vitriol for these people than I actually do.

The whole thing is very silly, and people calling it silly is completely appropriate.  I mean, look at that design; it's hideous.


----------



## HighLevelPlayer (Jun 30, 2013)

Ayanli said:


> All atheists are scientists. What exactly is so hard for you to grasp?



What the fuck are you even saying? Do you realize there are  people who place absolutely no respect in science and are atheists? The same way there are also religious scientists?


----------



## Cheeky (Jun 30, 2013)

HighLevelPlayer said:


> What the fuck are you even saying? Do you realize there are  people who place absolutely no respect in science and are atheists? The same way there are also religious scientists?



Next you'll be telling us there are homosexuals against gay marriage.


----------



## Bishop (Jun 30, 2013)

I feel that atheism is becoming a religion in that many of them evangelize, hold meetings and now even have a symbol...The ebook will be here soon.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jun 30, 2013)

Wow what a bunch of immature twats. Not believing in god doesn't mean you have to go and start a cult.


----------



## Arya Stark (Jun 30, 2013)

Bishop said:


> I feel that atheism is becoming a religion in that many of them evangelize, hold meetings and now even have a symbol...The ebook will be here soon.



And that's stupid. Why do you dedicate your life to something you believe that doesn't exist? They criticise religious people for doing that but what I am seeing isn't so different.


----------



## Enclave (Jun 30, 2013)

Dr. Boskov Krevorkian said:


> I think you're assuming I had far more vitriol for these people than I actually do.
> 
> The whole thing is very silly, and people calling it silly is completely appropriate.  I mean, look at that design; it's hideous.



Well if you also think Christians worshipping a cross is silly or Muslims putting so much importance in the Koran is silly then I'll agree with you.  If you think neither of those are silly though then I must call you a hypocrite.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Jun 30, 2013)

HighLevelPlayer said:


> What the fuck are you even saying? Do you realize there are  people who place absolutely no respect in science and are atheists? The same way there are also religious scientists?



That logic is faulty.

Atheist rely on logic, theories backed by evidence, and facts. What does this mean? That only atheists are scientists and all scientists are atheists. 

How about you redo your last year of HS.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jun 30, 2013)

Megaharrison said:


> Wow what a bunch of immature twats. Not believing in god doesn't mean you have to go and start a cult.



Oi Beluga whale, read the fucking article.


----------



## Arya Stark (Jun 30, 2013)

Enclave said:


> Well if you also think Christians worshipping a cross is silly or Muslims putting so much importance in the Koran is silly then I'll agree with you.  If you think neither of those are silly though then I must call you a hypocrite.



I'm sorry but atheists are people who think dedicating yourself to religion (book, monument, amends etc) is stupid.

They are doing the same thing they make fun of.


----------



## αce (Jun 30, 2013)

Not all atheists believe in logic. Some are just atheists to spite religious people. Or their parents. Or both.


----------



## Zaru (Jun 30, 2013)

Arya Stark said:


> And that's stupid. Why do you dedicate your life to something you believe that doesn't exist? They criticise religious people for doing that but what I am seeing isn't so different.



Well, many atheists want to convince others that their beliefs are wrong, which is a mirror behaviour of wanting to convince others that your belief is right.
The reasons for that can be numerous though. Ranging from selfish "I think I'm right and so I will convince others that I'm right" to "religion is holding humanity down and a dangerous tool for control" philanthropy, it can be well-intentioned, but it's nearly impossible to achieve anything without the risk of attaining the same negative attributes that atheists criticize about religion...


----------



## MunchKing (Jun 30, 2013)

It's a group of atheists making a point about religious monuments in public space. 

That's it. 

Why is everyone in this thread making such a fuss about this? Wait, I forgot nobody can read anymore. Never mind. Just answered my own question.

Funny that there was such a vitriolic response by some christians. I guess those few can't see the funny side of it.


----------



## Enclave (Jun 30, 2013)

Arya Stark said:


> I'm sorry but atheists are people who think dedicating yourself to religion (book, monument, amends etc) is stupid.
> 
> They are doing the same thing they make fun of.



It's funny how you seem to think that all atheists have the same belief in this regard.


----------



## αce (Jun 30, 2013)

Also, to be fair, organizing groups of atheists can be a positive thing. Most of the time it just turns into a cesspool though. Making symbols and baiting religious people always seems to be the result of these groups sadly.

Oh well 



> I'm sorry but atheists are people who think dedicating yourself to religion (book, monument, amends etc) is stupid.



Uh that's a bad generalization. I don't think it's stupid. I just think it's wrong. Please don't generalize.


----------



## Arya Stark (Jun 30, 2013)

> Uh that's a bad generalization. I don't think it's stupid. I just think it's wrong. Please don't generalize.



Wrong or stupid, it's a mistake these guys are also doing.


----------



## Patchouli (Jun 30, 2013)

Why the fuck are we arguing over a rock.


----------



## Patchouli (Jun 30, 2013)

What even is this. 

Why does anyone of any religion care about this.


----------



## Arya Stark (Jun 30, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Well, many atheists want to convince others that their beliefs are wrong, which is a mirror behaviour of wanting to convince others that your belief is right.
> The reasons for that can be numerous though. Ranging from selfish "I think I'm right and so I will convince others that I'm right" to "religion is holding humanity down and a dangerous tool for control" philanthropy, it can be well-intentioned, but it's nearly impossible to achieve anything without the risk of attaining the same negative attributes that atheists criticize about religion...



What I'm seeing from this news is the first, that kind of action is always prone to getting backfire. Of course I know atheists who fall to second group but in general they seem this type of "monuments" quite meaningless.

I agree with you though.


----------



## Zaru (Jun 30, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> Why the fuck are we arguing over a rock.



Rocks can be quite important. Millions of muslims point their head at one multiple times a day, even though it's just a pagan object of worship


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Jun 30, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Rocks can be quite important. Millions of muslims point their head at one multiple times a day, even though it's just a pagan object of worship



It isn't an object of worship. It's purpose is simply to guide the direction of our prayers.


----------



## Patchouli (Jun 30, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Millions of muslims point their head at one multiple times a day



To be fair, that's a very nice looking rock.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jun 30, 2013)

Not sure it made it into the article: they have engraved what "atheists believe" (must be a quote by some atheist) into the monument and plan to build 50 more. 



So now they speak for all atheists.


----------



## Mael (Jun 30, 2013)

Surprise!  Mother Nature dictates disease, not you.  Poverty will never go away so long as material possession is a real thing.  And humans will always find a reason to fight, because religion isn't the sole cause of conflict.

But nice try though. :33


----------



## Zaru (Jun 30, 2013)

Ayanli said:


> It isn't an object of worship. It's purpose is simply to guide the direction of our prayers.



And why the fuck do prayers need a geographical direction on earth
Not to mention that it's mandatory to go there once in your life


----------



## Mael (Jun 30, 2013)




----------



## Arya Stark (Jun 30, 2013)

Zaru said:


> And why the fuck do prayers need a geographical direction on earth
> Not to mention that *it's mandatory* to go there once in your life



It has qualifications about your economic and health situations if I remember correctly. It's not mandatory, especially if you can't afford it.


----------



## Zaru (Jun 30, 2013)

"If you can go, you have to" is pretty much mandatory

The draft exempts cripples too, that doesn't mean it's not mandatory


----------



## Doge (Jun 30, 2013)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Not sure it made it into the article: they have engraved what "atheists believe" (must be a quote by some atheist) into the monument and plan to build 50 more.
> 
> 
> 
> So now they speak for all atheists.



I don't understand why they'd have a basis of their own assumed belief that all atheists are for some reason always inclined to help humanity and that the religious are always inclined to sit back and pray.

It's a good gimmick, but is full of generalization and irrational thought.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Jun 30, 2013)

Zaru said:


> And why the fuck do prayers need a geographical direction on earth



To unify us as we all perform the same prayer, at the same time, in the same direction for the same God. It ties in with the extreme importance of preserving the ummah (community).


----------



## Mael (Jun 30, 2013)

Ayanli said:


> To unify us as we all perform the same prayer, at the same time, in the same direction for the same God. It ties in with the extreme importance of preserving the ummah (community).



Understandable...but I would tell that ummah to get a little thicker skin:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_W8174U1sQ[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Jun 30, 2013)

Mael said:


> Understandable...but I would tell that ummah to get a little thicker skin:
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_W8174U1sQ[/YOUTUBE]



Muslims don't have the slightest clue as to why the ummah needs to be preserved. We are hypocrites. We hurt each other more than anything else in existence.
Generalizing a bit, but you get the point.


----------



## Navy Scribe (Jun 30, 2013)

Lol this is more Ironic than the NSA's stance on thier policies.


----------



## Zaru (Jun 30, 2013)

kresh said:


> I don't understand why they'd have a basis of their own assumed belief that all atheists are for some reason always inclined to help humanity and that the religious are always inclined to sit back and pray.
> 
> It's a good gimmick, but is full of generalization and irrational thought.



It's fully understandable that they want to paint themselves in a good light though.

Atheists are among the most disliked groups in the entire world where religious majorities exist.

Particularly in the USA, the religious nuts are so distrustful and biased against atheists, a study showed that even rapists are in some instances preferred to atheists. When it comes to their children marrying someone, atheists are notably worse accepted than muslims, afro-americans and everyone else. Less than half of americans would vote for an atheist president regardless of his/her qualifications.


----------



## Mael (Jun 30, 2013)

And it makes no sense as atheists by and large are perhaps the least obnoxious next to Buddhists and Jews in the US.  Obviously you've got your typical YT celeb being a douche but that's about as far as it really goes.

Evangelicals just want to feel special so they cast someone out blindly despite far greater evils abound.


----------



## Zaru (Jun 30, 2013)

I wonder how bad atheists in the USA would have it if they had some obvious identifying characteristic (the equivalent of for example having a dark skin color)


----------



## Mael (Jun 30, 2013)

A lot worse...but depends on the region.  New England and the NW?  Not so bad.

South and Midwest...hold on to your hats, folks.


----------



## Zaru (Jun 30, 2013)

Mael said:


> New England and the NW?  Not so bad.
> 
> South and Midwest...hold on to your hats, folks.



Why does it sound like you could say the exact same about pretty much most minorities


----------



## Mael (Jun 30, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Why does it sound like you could say the exact same about pretty much most minorities



Because it's true.


----------



## Azeruth (Jun 30, 2013)

Zaru said:


> I wonder how bad atheists in the USA would have it if they had some obvious identifying characteristic (the equivalent of for example having a dark skin color)



Now they have a symbol they could stick on a necklace.


----------



## Krippy (Jun 30, 2013)

gayseal.jpg **


----------



## Ghost_of_Gashir (Jun 30, 2013)

Atheists trying to turn atheism into a religion.


----------



## Freechoice (Jun 30, 2013)

Utterly incongruous.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Jun 30, 2013)

Ayanli said:


> All atheists are scientists. What exactly is so hard for you to grasp?



The word 'atheist' means to believe that a god cannot exist.

The word 'agnostic' means to simply not have the knowledge of the existence of gods.

The word 'theist' means to believe that a god exists.

Good scientists will not deal with extremes of atheist or theist, therefore most are probably going to be agnostic towards an unknown deity, like Einstein was. I suspect that most good scientists are atheist towards known deities like Allah, Jesus, Zeus, Vishnu and co. But they'll still say they're Christian or Jewish or Muslim, not because they believe, but because it's part of their culture/tradition.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 30, 2013)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Not sure it made it into the article: they have engraved what "atheists believe" (must be a quote by some atheist) into the monument and plan to build 50 more.
> 
> 
> 
> So now they speak for all atheists.



These fucking people... that's secular humanism, and while many atheists tend to be such, it is not atheism in itself.  Idiots. 

This is what an atheist believes:


----------



## -JT- (Jun 30, 2013)

SEXIST  The passage only makes use of the masculine personal pronoun! 

---

Also, I laughed at someone throwing a toilet seat


----------



## Spock (Jun 30, 2013)

Honk for Jesus.

Lol .


----------



## Fiona (Jun 30, 2013)

As an athiest myself i am slightly irked by this


----------



## Stunna (Jun 30, 2013)

Id be fine with my daughter marrying an atheist if he wasnt a douche like some guys on here.


----------



## Archangel Michael (Jun 30, 2013)

David silverman 

I don't care that he doesn't believe in god but standing on the monument was disrespectful.


----------



## JellyButter (Jun 30, 2013)

Jimmy Neutron ishh.


----------



## JellyButter (Jun 30, 2013)

Stunna said:


> Id be fine with my daughter marrying an atheist if he wasnt a douche like some guys on here.



What about son?


Yes, all atheists aren't douche's.
One of my old bestfriends was one and he was cool as shit.

Some atheists are just bitter, like damn. calm your dick.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 30, 2013)

♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> The word 'atheist' means to believe that a god cannot exist.
> 
> The word 'agnostic' means to simply not have the knowledge of the existence of gods.
> 
> ...



... ok... 

Atheism, in its very name is a state of non-belief. There are no set beliefs in atheism, they will vary according to individual or group. The only consensus in atheism is rejection of theistic beliefs and claims. 

What's more is that gnosticism and agnosticism answer a completely different question of whether one knows, "gnostic"  meaning "knowledge"  and agnostic meaning "without knowledge". They are not terms mutually exclusive to atheism or theism. 

Most atheists are agnostic atheists, meaning that they have no belief in a deity in light of insufficient evidence for such claims, but make no claim to know one doesn't exist. 

Gnostic atheists are rare, those who do not believe in a deity and claim to know none exist. An illogical stanpoint, because of you can't prove a negative. 

The majority of theists are gnostic theists. They believe in and claim to know their respective deity or deities exist. Burden of proof lies on the theist, and since no evidence that exists for their deity, that is why theism become synonymous with faith and the supernatural.

Also behaviorally, I think it says a lot on how little we've progressed as a species when most societies react to atheism as if it's inherently unreasonable. Like the olden days when one is as outcast for not following trite, superstitious rituals.


----------



## Zaru (Jun 30, 2013)

Archangel Michael said:


> David silverman
> 
> I don't care that he doesn't believe in god but standing on the monument was disrespectful.





That meme is both the person in question and my reaction to doing that


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 30, 2013)

What's the problem? It's a rock, and one most Christians don't revere through action and practice anyway. At least he's upfront about it.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jun 30, 2013)

>Symbology

Dammit atheists. You're really bad at showing you're atheism and not a theism


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Jun 30, 2013)

It's ugly.


----------



## dummy plug (Jun 30, 2013)

now can they shut up already?


----------



## ShadowReij (Jun 30, 2013)

I do believe irony is the word for this.


----------



## Linkofone (Jun 30, 2013)

I mean I guess they got their 30 seconds of fame before going into obscurity again?


----------



## blackbird (Jun 30, 2013)

Please don't make this symbol a thing. Please don't start trying to monopolize disbelief. 


Sunuvmann said:


> >Symbology


----------



## Ennoea (Jun 30, 2013)

These guys speak for how many of us? Not me that's for sure.


----------



## Ae (Jun 30, 2013)

So they're worshiping something that doesn't exist?


----------



## Mael (Jun 30, 2013)

Masterpiece said:


> So they're worshiping something that doesn't exist?



It's not nice to blaspheme about Lord Spaghetti.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 30, 2013)

A group of atheists making themselves look even stupider and more like the very thing they claim to dislike. Die in a fire.


----------



## Mael (Jun 30, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> A group of atheists making themselves look even stupider and more like the very thing they claim to dislike. Die in a fire.



It's silly, yes, but I can't share this sentiment when one particular monotheistic faith is going into overdrive (and violent overdrive in some areas) to the UN because they can't handle a little criticism.


----------



## Thor (Jun 30, 2013)

Lol Atheism is such a religion.


----------



## Raiden (Jun 30, 2013)

Yeah they're going to need divine intervention to get anyone to like that lol.


----------



## αce (Jun 30, 2013)

No it isn't. I love how people tell us to not generalize all religious people everytime the subject is brought up, yet idiots are doing the same in this thread.


----------



## αce (Jun 30, 2013)

Although to be honest, I'm not exactly sure why anyone gives a fuck about this.


----------



## MartialHorror (Jun 30, 2013)

While I have no problem with it, it is just another step to Atheism becoming its own religion. Seriously, Atheism should be the one belief system that DOESNT have a symbol.


----------



## Mael (Jun 30, 2013)

αce said:


> Although to be honest, I'm not exactly sure why anyone gives a fuck about this.


----------



## αce (Jun 30, 2013)

mael
please

too much clothing


----------



## Ae (Jun 30, 2013)

Why are you guys even bringing up "speaks for all atheist". That's like saying the Westboro Baptist Church speaks for all Baptist.

*Solution:* Stop being so proud of being an atheist and don't consider yourself anything


----------



## Al-Yasa (Jun 30, 2013)

its a shiity symbol


----------



## Mael (Jun 30, 2013)

αce said:


> mael
> please
> 
> too much clothing



I dun wanna BH it, ace. 

Take it and LIKE IT.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 30, 2013)

Masterpiece said:


> Why are you guys even bringing up "speaks for all atheist". That's like saying the Westboro Baptist Church speaks for all Baptist.
> 
> *Solution:* Stop being so proud of being an atheist and don't consider yourself anything


Pretty much this.


----------



## Madara103084 (Jun 30, 2013)

So nothing for agnostics 
Cool symbol, but this is looking way too much like religion and that ain't what atheism is about.


----------



## Bioness (Jun 30, 2013)

I'm mixed on this, on one hand I feel it will bring more acknowledgement to atheist/agnostics in general, on the other hand it seems obnoxious and too much in your face about it.



Archangel Michael said:


> David silverman
> 
> I don't care that he doesn't believe in god but standing on the monument was disrespectful.



I've met David Silverman in person (he came to my college), and I can say I have no respect for the man. He is the very definition of militant atheist, he is also extremely thick.



Zaru said:


> That meme is both the person in question and my reaction to doing that



He actually used that meme incessantly during his presentation at VCU. >.>



Seto Kaiba said:


> What's the problem? It's a rock, and one most Christians don't revere through action and practice anyway. At least he's upfront about it.



I think it borders on bad taste and lack of respect.


----------



## Ennoea (Jun 30, 2013)

Atheism has no symbol. This group speaks for noone except themselves


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 30, 2013)

Masterpiece said:


> Why are you guys even bringing up "speaks for all atheist". That's like saying the Westboro Baptist Church speaks for all Baptist.
> 
> *Solution:* Stop being so proud of being an atheist and don't consider yourself anything





Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Pretty much this.



Except what he said was completely stupid. Atheism is a state of non-belief, in not believing in a deity by default one is an atheist. That is the only thing that makes an atheist. This group has gone beyond simply an atheist group, it's more accurately a secular humanist group whose members are atheist. As soon as they claimed "an atheist believes"  they completely discredited themselves.

One that doesn't believe in any deity is an atheist. Anything else is specific to the individual(s).


----------



## WraithX959 (Jun 30, 2013)

And this is why Atheist piss me off.

Edit: Why "some" Atheist piss me off.


----------



## Mael (Jun 30, 2013)

I still think it should've been a bowl of pasta with noodles, sauce, and polpette.


----------



## Wolfgang Grimmer (Jun 30, 2013)

do i have to drink irradiated shit

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos[/youtube]


----------



## Smiley (Jun 30, 2013)

Mael said:


> I still think it should've been a bowl of pasta with noodles, sauce, and polpette.



Pasta and noodles in the same bowl? I knew that you were special, Mael, but that borders on savant tier.



Ennoea said:


> Atheism has no symbol. This group speaks for noone except themselves



It's not a fucking group.


----------



## Mael (Jun 30, 2013)

Smiley said:


> Pasta and noodles in the same bowl? I knew that you were special, Mael, but that borders on savant tier.



Spaghetti noodles you dink.


----------



## Smiley (Jun 30, 2013)

Oh, then forget that I momentarily considered you somewhat conscious on a level above the apes. Incorrectly calling spaghetti "noodles" takes barely any thought at all, I coud do it, a child could do it. That's not true intelligence.


----------



## Mael (Jun 30, 2013)

Smiley said:


> Oh, then forget that I momentarily considered you somewhat conscious on a level above the apes. Incorrectly calling spaghetti "noodles" takes barely any thought at all, I coud do it, a child could do it. That's not true intelligence.





Face, in yours.


----------



## Jeefus (Jun 30, 2013)

Wow, they paid a lot of money for a chunk of rock just to have that carved on top


----------



## happiholic (Jun 30, 2013)

The symbol is damn ugly, imo.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Jun 30, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> ... ok...
> 
> *Atheism, in its very name is a state of non-belief. There are no set beliefs in atheism, they will vary according to individual or group. The only consensus in atheism is rejection of theistic beliefs and claims.*
> 
> ...



*Agreed. I should've been clearer and should've avoided the word "belief".*


----------



## Smiley (Jun 30, 2013)

Mael said:


> Face, in yours.



Don't care.

Spaghetti is Italian, noodles are asian.


----------



## Dolohov27 (Jun 30, 2013)

That symbol is having demonic effect on me. To purge myself i plan to cum it asap.


----------



## ShadowReij (Jun 30, 2013)

Masterpiece said:


> Why are you guys even bringing up "speaks for all atheist". That's like saying the Westboro Baptist Church speaks for all Baptist.
> 
> *Solution:* Stop being so proud of being an atheist and don't consider yourself anything



I would think this is the route people would go for if they didn't believe in any deity or the supernatural without the need to mock.


----------



## Doge (Jun 30, 2013)

Zaru said:


> It's fully understandable that they want to paint themselves in a good light though.



Of course it is, that's why it's a gimmick.  As for rational thought though, it doesn't add up.  Atheists are stereotypically peaceful and intelligent.  Yet why would an atheist community suddenly up and adopt a flawed and irrational motto?  



Zaru said:


> Atheists are among the most disliked groups in the entire world where religious majorities exist.



I have a hard time believing that parts of Europe actually like Muslims more than Atheists.  In America, I believe it.  But still, no excuse for some gimmick that isn't really accurate.



Zaru said:


> Particularly in the USA, the religious nuts are so distrustful and biased against atheists, a *study showed that even rapists are in some instances preferred to atheists.* When it comes to their children marrying someone, atheists are notably worse accepted than muslims, afro-americans and everyone else. Less than half of americans would vote for an atheist president regardless of his/her qualifications.



Bolded:  I'd like to see this study and the demographics asked.  Because that's a pretty ridiculous conclusion.

Furthermore, the general distrust between the people of faith and the nonbelievers still doesn't necessarily grant groups of atheists to adopt a gimmick that just paints them a certain way just like a nation, faith, etc. would with statements like the one in the picture.  It's just large generalizations, assumed descriptions of an atheist (which is nothing outside of not believing in a deity), and a gimmick that just makes the claim to rationality less valuable.

To be honest, I think the whole rationality over faith slogan is more accurate than the atheists for world peace one.  It's to the point, isn't trying to make atheism look like some sort of group of people care instead of nonbelief, and it's somewhat less generalizing.



ShadowReij said:


> I would think this is the route people would go for if they didn't believe in any deity or the supernatural without the need to mock.



They're just trying to sell Atheism like a faith, nation, organization, etc.  It's no longer nonbelief, but a social group and status.  

It's kind of fun to watch Atheism become connotated with a special group of people, with a special mode of thought, similar to the "...and I'm a Mormon" videos on Youtube.


----------



## Krory (Jun 30, 2013)

And here I thought Bioness was the most embarrassing atheist.

New level, folks. New level.


----------



## Mael (Jun 30, 2013)

Bioness is an atheist?


----------



## Ae (Jun 30, 2013)

Mael said:


> Bioness is an atheist?



God hates gay remember


----------



## Mael (Jun 30, 2013)

Masterpiece said:


> God hates gay remember



Touche, salesman.

/5drinksinmealreadyandit'sSunday


----------



## Ae (Jun 30, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Except what he said was completely stupid. Atheism is a state of non-belief, in not believing in a deity by default one is an atheist. That is the only thing that makes an atheist. This group has gone beyond simply an atheist group, it's more accurately a secular humanist group whose members are atheist. As soon as they claimed "an atheist believes"  they completely discredited themselves.
> 
> One that doesn't believe in any deity is an atheist. Anything else is specific to the individual(s).



Always trying to get at me


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Jul 1, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Except what he said was completely stupid. Atheism is a state of non-belief, in not believing in a deity by default one is an atheist. That is the only thing that makes an atheist. This group has gone beyond simply an atheist group, it's more accurately a secular humanist group whose members are atheist. As soon as they claimed "an atheist believes"  they completely discredited themselves.
> 
> One that doesn't believe in any deity is an atheist. Anything else is specific to the individual(s).



I agree with you as I have already admitted before, somewhere on here. I'll just say however that non-belief might still be considered a belief....which would be a bit confusing  but paradoxically true. :amazed


----------



## Snowless (Jul 1, 2013)

I don't really give a shit about anything in the article.
But from what I can tell, atheism is a growing phenomenon and given several generations, could possibly be a rival for the majority in several places. Don't know about America, but oh well.

Anyway, people can believe whatever the hell they'd like, so long as they don't use those believes to refute scientific evidence or takes rights away from human beings. Those are really my only gripes with religion.


----------



## Zaru (Jul 1, 2013)

kresh said:


> Of course it is, that's why it's a gimmick.  As for rational thought though, it doesn't add up.  Atheists are stereotypically peaceful and intelligent.  Yet why would an atheist community suddenly up and adopt a flawed and irrational motto?


Ask the ones who did it, since lots of atheists seem to disagree with what they did 



kresh said:


> I have a hard time believing that parts of Europe actually like Muslims more than Atheists.  In America, I believe it.  But still, no excuse for some gimmick that isn't really accurate.


In europe, the majority religion (christianity) has generally been weakened in the general population. It's either being replaced by personal brand spiritualism and deism, or atheism, or the religions of non-european immigrants. And the religious people that do exist are far less zealous in average than, say, their american counterparts.



kresh said:


> Bolded:  I'd like to see this study and the demographics asked.  Because that's a pretty ridiculous conclusion.


Just put the search words "study atheist trust rapist" (without the quotation marks) into google and you'll find plenty of references to it.



kresh said:


> Furthermore, the general distrust between the people of faith and the nonbelievers still doesn't necessarily grant groups of atheists to adopt a gimmick that just paints them a certain way just like a nation, faith, etc. would with statements like the one in the picture.  It's just large generalizations, assumed descriptions of an atheist (which is nothing outside of not believing in a deity), and a gimmick that just makes the claim to rationality less valuable.
> 
> To be honest, I think the whole rationality over faith slogan is more accurate than the atheists for world peace one.  It's to the point, isn't trying to make atheism look like some sort of group of people care instead of nonbelief, and it's somewhat less generalizing.
> 
> ...


Mostly agreeing with you there anyway


----------



## Pilaf (Jul 1, 2013)

The OP calls this a symbol of nonbelief, but I see it as a symbol of belief in one another as humans and in our potential for fairness and personal growth. Look at the words inscribed into it. 

?An atheist believes that a hospital
should be built instead of a church.
An atheist believes that deed must
be done instead of prayer said.
An atheist strives for involvement in life
and not escape into death.
He wants disease conquered,
poverty vanished, war eliminated.? -  Madalyn Murray O'Hair

That is undeniably a statement of belief in something tangible. Nobody ever said atheists can't believe things. It's just that we believe things with good reason which we know may plausibly exist and which can be striven towards.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jul 1, 2013)

The symbol looks vaguely familiar  eh whatever as long as they're not hurting anyone. Don't see the need for doing this, think it's kind of stupid really. I'm an atheist and I find this hilarious.


----------



## Gino (Jul 1, 2013)

Being an atheist is the in thing these days.


----------



## Island (Jul 1, 2013)

So they're doing this as a symbol of protest? That doesn't make much sense; it'd be like the Protestants protesting the Pope by making their own Pope. You're essentially combating religious symbols by creating your own under the guise of being ironic and/or because you want to stir up trouble.

Also:



Unlosing Ranger said:


> Worshiping the atom bomb eh?


----------



## Blue (Jul 1, 2013)

Atheists are retarded.

Come at me!


----------



## Masa (Jul 1, 2013)

C'mon atheists, you can do better than that...

Religions should be ridiculed and dismissed through wit and symbols of irony. 

The very least they could do is erect a 50 foot tall statue of the flying spaghetti monster next to the Christian monument..


----------



## Xyloxi (Jul 1, 2013)

Masterpiece said:


> God hates gay remember



Wait, Bioness is gay?


----------



## Surf (Jul 1, 2013)

It's actually happening. Just as the Wise One said it would. Atheists are splitting. War is at hand. Which side will you be on? 


*Spoiler*: __


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 1, 2013)

Pilaf said:


> The OP calls this a symbol of nonbelief, but I see it as a symbol of belief in one another as humans and in our potential for fairness and personal growth. Look at the words inscribed into it.
> 
> ?An atheist believes that a hospital
> should be built instead of a church.
> ...



Those beliefs are fine and dandy, but that isn't atheism. If they want to promote secular humanism on the other hand then they need to call it as such, this only gets the religious, pompous agnostics (which doesn't even answer the same question theism or atheism does) the wrong idea of what it is to be atheist.

They would have had so much more of a message their slab had no symbol and the following, "An atheist believes":   


















.


----------



## Blue (Jul 1, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> this only gets the religious, pompous agnostics (which doesn't even answer the same question theism or atheism does) the wrong idea of what it is to be atheist.



You're the one with the wrong idea you fucking brick, how many times does reality have to contradict you before you finally fucking realize that an agnostic is not an atheist?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 1, 2013)

Blue said:


> You're the one with the wrong idea you fucking brick, how many times does reality have to contradict you before you finally fucking realize that an agnostic is not an atheist?



"agnostic" is not a mutually exclusive term to atheism or theism, agnosticism means to not know if a god exists, "without knowledge" in contrast to "gnostic", that is, "with knowledge; but it doesn't answer the question of whether or not one believes god exists. Two different questions. Which is why, as I told you before, most atheists are agnostic atheists primarily because such claims have no veracity, and most theists are gnostic theists because that is what the faith requires. What I told you, in contrast to your cowardice over the label of being considered 'atheist', is that an agnostic that is not religious and does not profess a belief in a god would be atheist too. It's *a state of non-belief.*

Don't try to discuss this, because it's more than clear the fact you're so scared of being called atheist has kept you from even understanding the basic meaning of it.


----------



## Blue (Jul 1, 2013)

You can be a firefighter and a medic too, but one is not the other.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 1, 2013)

Blue said:


> You can be a firefighter and a medic too, but one is not the other.



That post just went way over your head.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jul 1, 2013)

I for one have never really cared for semantic arguments. Kinda seems like a waste of time.

But yeah Blue, apparently there's a spectrum of shit.
*Gnostic Atheists* - There is no god even if Morgan Freeman magically gives you 12 fingers.
*Agnostic Atheists* - There is no god until proven otherwise

Mildly curious if there's a label for my variety of agnosticism. "The atheists are probably right but it sure would be nice if there's some form of afterlife or reincarnation. Otherwise non-existence sounds terrible."


----------



## Hitt (Jul 1, 2013)

Sunuvmann said:


> Otherwise non-existence sounds terrible."



I for one would rather have non-existence over existence for all eternity.

If you just think about that for a few minutes, no matter if it's heaven or hell, it's a torture for any sentient mind.

Let's put this another way.  You have no memory or feeling of before you were born right?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 1, 2013)

I know you're more childish than slow Blue, but I'll try this in an abridged form:

*Atheism* and *theism* answer "Do you believe in a god?"

*Agnosticism* and *Gnosticism* answer "Do you know a god exists (or not)?"

Most atheists are "I do not believe in a god but I cannot say for certain one does not exist". *Agnostic atheist.*

Most theists are "I believe in a god and I know such deity or deities exists". *Gnostic theist.*

I've pointed out earlier in the thread that there exists those that claim:

"I do not believe in god, and I know none exist". *Gnostic atheists*; which would be an irrational standpoint to take. You can't prove a negative. 

"I do believe in god, but I don't know if one exists". A little more common than a gnostic atheist, as that is usually the teetering point to non-belief, ie, ATHEISM; but still uncommon, the *agnostic theist*.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jul 1, 2013)

Hitt said:


> I for one would rather have non-existence over existence for all eternity.
> 
> If you just think about that for a few minutes, no matter if it's heaven or hell, it's a torture for any sentient mind.
> 
> Let's put this another way.  You have no memory or feeling of before you were born right?


I think of it more this way: When you exist, there's always more adventure to be had. Nonexistence and the adventure is over.

(Kinda why I'm hoping for immortality through technology before I kick it)


----------



## Zaru (Jul 1, 2013)

Hitt said:


> I for one would rather have non-existence over existence for all eternity.
> 
> If you just think about that for a few minutes, no matter if it's heaven or hell, it's a torture for any sentient mind.
> 
> Let's put this another way.  You have no memory or feeling of before you were born right?



People who honestly believe in an afterlife probably just think your mind will be kept sane by god or something.


----------



## Blue (Jul 1, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> That post just went way over your head.


I didn't actually read it, I'm sure it's the same make-believe shit you've been trying to push this whole time and were only ever able to support with some moron's blog post.



Sunuvmann said:


> I for one have never really cared for semantic arguments. Kinda seems like a waste of time.
> 
> But yeah Blue, apparently there's a spectrum of shit.
> *Gnostic Atheists* - There is no god even if Morgan Freeman magically gives you 12 fingers.
> *Agnostic Atheists* - There is no god until proven otherwise



Agnostic Atheism is not the same as agnosticism. It is the belief in the nonexistence of god, but the acknowledgement that that belief is irrational.

Agnosticism is not a subset of atheism. "Atheism" means "without god". "Agnosticism" means "without knowledge". You can (claim to be) one, or both, or neither, although in reality anyone who claims to be gnostic is full of shit.

There also exists agnostic theism. The belief that god exists but that it cannot be proven.

In both these cases, agnosticism acts as a modifier for theism or atheism, but the pure form of agnosticism is that there is no way of knowing if there is a god or not, and is therefore neither atheist or theist.

Agnosticism in any of its forms - theist, atheist, or pure - is rational. You believe in god, but you realize that it is a irrational belief, therefore you are thinking rationally.

Gnostic theism and atheism are irrational. Usually when we speak of atheists in the media, we're talking gnostic atheism. They're scum.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 1, 2013)

Blue said:


> *I didn't actually read it*, I'm sure it's the same make-believe shit you've been trying to push this whole time and were only ever able to support with some moron's blog post.



Then that makes the rest of your response completely idiotic.

As I can plainly see...

You evidently didn't read Sunuvmann's post either.



> In both these cases, agnosticism acts as a modifier for theism or atheism, but the pure form of agnosticism is that there is no way of knowing if there is a god or not, and is therefore neither atheist or theist.



Agnosticism in itself only answers the question of knowledge, not belief. Since, you seem to be a little off today I will repeat:

An agonstic, that follows no religion and professes no belief in a god, by the very meaning of the word, is an _atheist._ Our discussion before was your splitting hairs over this and just being basically too cowardly to call yourself one because you thought atheism in itself says for certain that god doesn't exist on top of not believing in one.


----------



## Blue (Jul 1, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Then that makes the rest of your response completely idiotic.



Implying I was even addressing you?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 1, 2013)

Blue said:


> Implying I was even addressing you?



You didn't read anyone's response. It makes you look really stupid.


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jul 1, 2013)

What am I if I believe the whole subject is irrelevant?


----------



## Blue (Jul 1, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You didn't read anyone's response. It makes you look really stupid.



Shut up and get out already, fuck. Last time we had this debate you posted my own evidence for me. Give it the fuck up.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 1, 2013)

Nightbringer, I'd assume that means you have no belief in a deity of any kind if you believe it's irrelevant correct? That means you don't follow a religion or profess any belief in god?

Than an atheist in simpler terms. Although, those like to call themselves "apatheist" as well, "apathetic atheist".


----------



## Blue (Jul 1, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I'd assume that means you have no belief in a deity of any kind if you believe it's irrelevant correct?
> 
> Than an atheist in simpler terms. Although, those like to call themselves "apatheist" as well, "apathetic atheist".



NO

FUCK THATS WRONG

I'M BEING TROLLED SO HARD AND IT FEELS BAD


----------



## Hitt (Jul 1, 2013)

Blue you are acting like such a petulant child. What you just posted is essentially agreeing with what Seto just said.

Your attempt to post all kinds of denial to avoid being called an "atheist", even though that's exactly what it is, is just making a fool of yourself.  You really should just stop.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 1, 2013)

Blue said:


> Shut up and get out already, fuck. Last time we had this debate you posted my own evidence for me. Give it the fuck up.



I posted, valid sources from books and a blog that cited various others. You can be such a child sometimes. It just makes your post in that Dillard whatshisname thread all the more ironic. In this thread, it just makes you look completely foolish. You didn't even read my response because you cannot dispute it. Mainly because you don't even know its contents.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jul 1, 2013)

Blue said:


> NO
> 
> FUCK THATS WRONG
> 
> I'M BEING TROLLED SO HARD AND IT FEELS BAD



American conservatives, everyone


----------



## Blue (Jul 1, 2013)

Hitt said:


> Blue you are acting like such a petulant child. What you just posted is essentially agreeing with what Seto just said.
> 
> Your attempt to post all kinds of denial to avoid being called an "atheist", even though that's exactly what it is, is just making a fool of yourself.  You really should just stop.



Why don't you fucking read something about the subject instead of relying on an internet debate to inform you. I could find 20 sources that back up what I'm saying (and have, before) but I don't have the fucking patience to even search for my old post.



Actually I'm getting out

Peace bitches


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jul 1, 2013)

> I could find 20 sources that back up what I'm saying (and have, before) but I don't have the fucking patience to even search for my old post.



You forgot to mention that you are Navy Seal with 300000 confirmed kills


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 1, 2013)

Well, OK then.


----------



## Hitt (Jul 1, 2013)

Blue said:


> I could find 20 sources that back up what I'm saying (and have, before) but I don't have the fucking patience to even search for my old post.



You mean the sources, which as evidenced by *your own post*, agrees with what Seto just said?


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jul 1, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Than an atheist in simpler terms. Although, those like to call themselves "apatheist" as well, "apathetic atheist".



This sounds special and unique.

nice


----------



## Al Mudaari (Jul 1, 2013)

I believe, Stalin would have something about that symbol...


----------



## Hand Banana (Jul 1, 2013)

I see a star and something that resembles a moon in that picture. Know who else has that?


----------



## santanico (Jul 1, 2013)

burn the heretics!


----------



## WT (Jul 1, 2013)

What gets me is that atheists believe they own science, hence the logo with the atom.

If there ever was a message I wanted them to understand clearly, it would be:

'YOU DONT OWN SCIENCE BITCH, NOW STFU'


----------



## santanico (Jul 1, 2013)

Religious people just irk me


----------



## Stunna (Jul 1, 2013)

sorry**


----------



## WT (Jul 1, 2013)

starr said:


> Religious people just irk me



Quite a few of them are pretty damn stupid so not surprised


----------



## Nihonjin (Jul 1, 2013)

Blue said:


> -snip-



I never once understood the problem you have with being called an atheist..

If I ask you if you believe a God exists, your answer would be "No.", right? Since you do not subscribe to any God claims. That makes you an atheist. 

If I would then say, well you can't prove a God doesn't exist so you don't know for sure you're right! You'd say "That's correct. I don't know (and likely never will)." That makes you an agnostic.

So why do you struggle so hard not to be called an atheist? What about the label do you think does not accurately reflect your position? (Which happens to be exactly mine as well (and Seto's))



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


On Topic..

The only proper symbol for atheism would be a lack of one.. We're not a group.. >____>


----------



## Corruption (Jul 1, 2013)

I like to call myself an agnostic because the answer to the question of is there a god is: I don't know, but probably not.



White Tiger said:


> What gets me is that atheists believe they own science, hence the logo with the atom.



Since when do they claim that? No, that monument is not claiming that.


----------



## santanico (Jul 1, 2013)

White Tiger said:


> Quite a few of them are pretty damn stupid so not surprised



true that, I'm sure there are some who don't go about shoving their God and Jesus talk down everyone's throat or wear it "proudly" in their sig for all to see.


----------



## Stunna (Jul 1, 2013)

White Tiger said:


> Quite a few of them are pretty damn stupid so not surprised


That's people in general.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jul 1, 2013)

@Blue & Seto: I don't see any point to your argument. This is stupid. You're basically saying the exact same things.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Jul 1, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Well, OK then.



LOL dude, I love coming to the cafe.


----------



## Blue (Jul 1, 2013)

Sunuvmann said:


> @Blue & Seto: I don't see any point to your argument. This is stupid. You're basically saying the exact same things.



I'm an agnostic. Am I an atheist and is it an important distinction if I'm not?

I say no, I'm not, and yes, it is.
He says yes, I am, and no, it's not.

It's kind of an important distinction. Like you calling yourself a conservative and a fascist coming along and telling you you're one of them.

I'd have used liberal-communist but I'm afraid you actually are a communist.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jul 1, 2013)

Blue said:


> I'm an agnostic. Am I an atheist and is it an important distinction if I'm not?
> 
> I say no, I'm not, and yes, it is.
> He says yes, I am, and no, it's not.
> ...


Oh well then he's probably wrong.

I missed that because it was mindnumbingly boring semantics.

Its kinda a spectrum really.

Gnostic Atheists
Agnostic Atheists
True Agnostics
Agnostic Theists
Gnostic Theists


----------



## Blue (Jul 1, 2013)

Sunuvmann said:


> Oh well then he's probably wrong.






> I missed that because it was mindnumbingly boring semantics.
> 
> Its kinda a spectrum really.
> 
> ...


I guess you could organize it like that.

When we speak of atheists in the media, including I'm assuming most of these in question here, we speak of gnostic atheists. Because most agnostic atheists wouldn't be stupid or rude enough to fuck with religious people.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jul 1, 2013)

Blue said:


> I'm an agnostic. Am I an atheist and is it an important distinction if I'm not?
> 
> I say no, I'm not, and yes, it is.
> He says yes, I am, and no, it's not.
> ...


(I'm actually more of a Scandinavian-stlye Socialist because they actually have a pretty great system there which I'm jealous of. Its something America should aspire for. Also communism is a terribly stupid system, just as extreme as libertarianism. They both make the fundamental mistake of having their heads up their ass with idealism and taking no note of how humans actually behave.

Socialism takes into account human behavior and the validity of capitalism but seeks to curtail the excesses for the good of the society as a whole.)


----------



## Krory (Jul 1, 2013)

Blue said:


> Atheists are retarded.
> 
> Come at me!



This is a pretty accurate assessment.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jul 1, 2013)

How can you create a symbol for non-belief in a god?  Is there a symbol for non-belief in bigfoot?


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jul 1, 2013)

Blue said:


> I guess you could organize it like that.
> 
> When we speak of atheists in the media, including I'm assuming most of these in question here, we speak of gnostic atheists. Because most agnostic atheists wouldn't be stupid or rude enough to fuck with religious people.



They certainly are the most visible ones.

Though it could just be that they're agnostic atheists but just kinda dickish about it.

However, I consider them useful idiots. Basically as a counterpoint to the theist zealots.


----------



## Blue (Jul 1, 2013)

America is pretty heavily socialist already. 60% of the federal budget is social programs. 
Which, you know, I consider good. As long as we can pay for them, one way or another.

The difference with Scandinavia is the tax burden. As an American you're paying about 60% less taxes on average than a Viking. If you add up that money over a lifetime it's a fucking huge number. More than you're ever likely to use on medical bills or education.
I (and most Americans) prefer the government not decide how we spend our own money. But people are really stupid and spend it on nonsense and then find themselves broke when it comes time to pay the cancer bills, so you can see both sides of the argument as a statesman.

As a citizen it's fucking obvious. Fuck off with your taxes.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jul 1, 2013)

Tsukiyomi said:


> How can you create a symbol for non-belief in a god?  Is there a symbol for non-belief in bigfoot?



Seeing how long it took for this to happen, could you give it time before tey decide to make a symbol for it.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jul 1, 2013)

Tsukiyomi said:


> How can you create a symbol for non-belief in a god?  Is there a symbol for non-belief in bigfoot?


Pretty much my point of this thread.

Doing the symbolism thing is classic theism.


Blue said:


> America is pretty heavily socialist already. 60% of the federal budget is social programs.
> Which, you know, I consider good. As long as we can pay for them, one way or another.
> 
> The difference with Scandinavia is the tax burden. As an American you're paying about 60% less taxes on average than a Viking. If you add up that money over a lifetime it's a fucking huge number. More than you're ever likely to use on medical bills or education.
> ...


That's the problem right thar.

I mean if people began financial planning with their first job (my plans are when I actually get employed to split my after tax moneys in 3. 1/3 for necessities/discretionary, 1/3 for savings/rainy day, 1/3 for retirement savings) a much smaller welfare state would be needed.

Except they don't.

Which causes problems for everyone when shit happens and they're left poor.

So its generally good government policy to take care of allocating for its people when they don't do that themselves. It makes for a much more stable and happy society. You're more free to take risks/start a business/shit like that if you don't need to be stuck to your job for insurance or worry about being on the streets if your business fucks up and you go bankrupt.

If the government takes care of the bullshit, you can get on with your life. There's your freedom.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jul 1, 2013)

Sunuvmann said:


> Pretty much my point of this thread.
> 
> Doing the symbolism thing is classic theism.



Exactly.

The problem is atheism is in no way an organization or affiliation.  Saying you're a Christian or a Jew indicates a subscription to a similar set of ideals and beliefs.  You're in an association with other people around that belief.

Even if you take absolutely no stance on the existence of a deity, if that question has never once entered into your mind you're still an atheist, since atheism is _anything_ other than "yes there is a god".

You can't group people together by their lack of belief in something.  There are little kids in the world who think Superman is real, does that mean we need to come up with a separate classification and symbol for people who don't believe in Superman?


----------



## Blue (Jul 1, 2013)

Sunuvmann said:


> It makes for a much more stable and happy society.



America is the most stable and happy society in the world, the single longest running government in existence today, the wealthiest, most advanced, and most powerful nation in history. 

Meanwhile Scandinavia is rioting over brown people

I'm just sayin'.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jul 1, 2013)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Exactly.
> 
> The problem is atheism is in no way an organization or affiliation.  Saying you're a Christian or a Jew indicates a subscription to a similar set of ideals and beliefs.  You're in an association with other people around that belief.



Really now?



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Atheism is accepted within some religious and spiritual belief systems, including Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Raelism, Neopagan movements such as Wicca, and nontheistic religions. Jainism and some forms of Buddhism do not advocate belief in gods, whereas Hinduism holds atheism to be valid, but some schools view the path of an atheist to be difficult to follow in matters of spirituality.







> You can't group people together by their lack of belief in something.  There are little kids in the world who think Superman is real, does that mean we need to come up with a separate classification and symbol for people who don't believe in Superman?



You make some of the dumbest fucking analogies I've ever seen.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jul 1, 2013)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Exactly.
> 
> The problem is atheism is in no way an organization or affiliation.  Saying you're a Christian or a Jew indicates a subscription to a similar set of ideals and beliefs.  You're in an association with other people around that belief.
> 
> ...


The solution of course is to create a Secularist Organization or some such thing.

Throw some philosophy or other such things in for good measure.

But no beliefs required.


----------



## Zaru (Jul 1, 2013)

Blue said:


> America is the most stable and happy society in the world




No ranking I can find puts them at the top. Top 10 at best.


----------



## Krory (Jul 1, 2013)

I, for one, welcome our new Kal-El Overlord.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jul 1, 2013)

Zaru said:


> No ranking I can find puts them at the top. Top 10 at best.



Best college in the world.


----------



## Zaru (Jul 1, 2013)

Hand Banana said:


> Best college in the world.



We were both talking about "Happiness".


----------



## Blue (Jul 1, 2013)

Zaru said:


> No ranking I can find puts them at the top. Top 10 at best.



I'm generalizing, we're not the most advanced either, more like top 4, wealthiest is debatable, several oil states and Austria come in ahead, and the UK is debatably the longest existing government, simply not the same government.

But while all the other countries are going up and down, there's always one at #3.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jul 1, 2013)

Zaru said:


> We were both talking about "Happiness".



You wouldn't be happy if you got accepted into that college? You lame, cuz.


----------



## Krory (Jul 1, 2013)

Hand Banana said:


> You wouldn't be happy if you got accepted into that college? You lame, cuz.



No.

Too much work.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jul 1, 2013)

krory said:


> No.
> 
> Too much work.



I would. IT background. Wouldn't be happy about tuition tho.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jul 1, 2013)

Blue said:


> America is the most stable and happy society in the world, the single longest running government in existence today, the wealthiest, most advanced, and most powerful nation in history.
> 
> Meanwhile Scandinavia is rioting over brown people
> 
> I'm just sayin'.


>Happiest

Not so much.

Top 5
1. Denmark
2. Finland
3. Norway
4. Netherlands
5. Canada

US is 11.


>Single longest running government, most stable

Well no. UK's been good since 1688. (I guess you could count losing colonies but then you'd have have to count the Civil War, in which case the winner would be Switzerland who's kinda been good for 200 years. And a lot of combos were broken by Hitler and Stalin's shenanigans.)

>Wealthiest
Well in total GDP sure.

GDP per capita, i.e. populace is wealthy, again, we're 11. Luxembourg, Qatar, Norway, Switzerland, Australia, UAE, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, Singapore are all better off.

Notice how all the Scandinavian countries except Finland are higher.

>Most advanced
Debatable. Our university system is pretty much the best in the world. So we're generally leeching off foreign talents by bringing in the best and brightest world over.

But on a civic level, not really. Considering our infrastructure and mass transit system nearing 3rd world levels.

>Most powerful
Sure.

>Rioting over brown people
Well not really surprising. When you have a sea of white for centuries and some technicolor gets introduced, its bound to bring out the latent racists <_>


----------



## Blue (Jul 1, 2013)

Blue said:


> I'm generalizing, we're not the most advanced either, more like top 4, wealthiest is debatable, several oil states and Austria come in ahead, and the UK is debatably the longest existing government, simply not the same government.
> 
> But while all the other countries are going up and down, there's always one at #3.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jul 1, 2013)

Lol I missed that post while I was too busy typing out my long ass one >_>


----------



## Zaru (Jul 1, 2013)

Hand Banana said:


> You wouldn't be happy if you got accepted into that college? You lame, cuz.


Normal folk getting accepted into a top university is like a poor guy getting a $10 million mansion that he can't sell. It looks nice at first but the running costs will bankrupt you
>Sweden
Spot on


----------



## Nihonjin (Jul 1, 2013)

Sunuvmann said:


> Gnostic Atheists
> Agnostic Atheists
> True Agnostics





Knows, does not believe  
Doesn't know, does not believe 
Doesn't know, does not believe 

How are the last two not the same?


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jul 1, 2013)

Nihonjin said:


> Knows, does not believe
> Doesn't know, does not believe
> Doesn't know, does not believe
> 
> How are the last two not the same?


You're making the mistake of athiesm being doesn't believe. Its more qualifications of the statement "There is no god."

Its more like

Thinks there is no God, Believes
Thinks there is no God, Doesn't Know
There may or may not be a God, we dont/cannot know


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jul 1, 2013)

Sunuvmann said:


> You're making the mistake of athiesm being doesn't believe. Its more qualifications of the statement "There is no god."
> 
> Its more like
> 
> ...



In the strictest sense of the word atheism is the lack of belief in a God, so anything other than "yes there is a god" is atheism.  Even if you never even contemplate the question you're an atheist, because you lack the affirmative belief in a deity.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Jul 1, 2013)

Sunuvmann said:


> You're making the mistake of athiesm being doesn't believe.* Its more qualifications of the statement "There is no god."*
> 
> Its more like
> 
> ...



No, atheist means "Not theist".  That is literally what putting the "A" before another word means.  So anyone who isn't a theist, is by by definition, an atheist.  Therefore the last two on that list still fall into the category of atheist.   Someone who "Thinks there is no God, Doesn't Know" is obviously not a theist (once again, making them, by definition, an atheist). 

That's all there is to it.


----------



## olaf (Jul 1, 2013)

Nihonjin said:


> *Knows, does not believe *
> Doesn't know, does not believe
> Doesn't know, does not believe
> 
> How are the last two not the same?


if you know you don't have to believe. 

correct me if I'm wrong but faith is all "I have no proof of X but still claim that X". so how can you have faith in something when you found some tangible (in your opinion) proof

that is the most weird thing for me, somebody saying there have proof of god's existence and still talking about their faith in his existence/power/whatever.


----------



## Ae (Jul 1, 2013)

Tsukiyomi said:


> How can you create a symbol for non-belief in a god?  Is there a symbol for non-belief in bigfoot?



Stop calling it a nonbelief
It's the belief in no god


----------



## Blue (Jul 1, 2013)

Masterpiece said:


> Stop calling it a nonbelief
> It's the belief in no god



This.

Atheism is the belief - the irrational belief - in the absence of a God.
"God doesn't exist because the Earth wasn't created 6000 years ago" doesn't cut it. You can't simply strawman the existence of any divine force as the Biblical Jehovah and say the Bible's wrong therefore atheism.



> No, atheist means "Not theist". That is literally what putting the "A" before another word means. So anyone who isn't a theist, is by by definition, an atheist.


"Theist" in this etymology, refers to God, not the belief in a god. Therefore atheism is "without god", i.e the active denial of theism.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jul 1, 2013)

Masterpiece said:


> Stop calling it a nonbelief
> It's the belief in no god





Blue said:


> Atheism is the belief - the irrational belief - in the absence of a God.
> "God doesn't exist because the Earth wasn't created 6000 years ago" doesn't cut it. You can't simply strawman the existence of any divine force as the Biblical Jehovah and say the Bible's wrong therefore atheism.



Atheism is the _lack_ of a belief in a deity.  As I pointed out if the idea of a god has _never_ entered into your mind, if you've never even contemplated the concept for a moment, you're still by definition an atheist even though you've never even had the thought "there is no god".

_Anything_ other than the affirmative "there is a god" is atheism.


----------



## Raidoton (Jul 1, 2013)

Christians used the tern "atheist" to simply describe non-believers, because they lived a life without god (atheos = without god).


----------



## Ae (Jul 1, 2013)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Atheism is the _lack_ of a belief in a deity.  As I pointed out if the idea of a god has _never_ entered into your mind, if you've never even contemplated the concept for a moment, you're still by definition an atheist even though you've never even had the thought "there is no god".
> 
> _Anything_ other than the affirmative "there is a god" is atheism.



Well now we'll just go back and forth on what we think Atheism is.


----------



## Raidoton (Jul 1, 2013)

Masterpiece said:


> Well now we'll just go back and forth on what we think Atheism is.


Is this your first discussion here about the term? It's always like that... :/


----------



## Ae (Jul 1, 2013)

Raidoton said:


> Is this your first discussion here about the term? It's always like that... :/



No, that's why I pointed it out and didn't continue.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jul 1, 2013)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Atheism is the _lack_ of a belief in a deity.  As I pointed out if the idea of a god has _never_ entered into your mind, if you've never even contemplated the concept for a moment, you're still by definition an atheist even though you've never even had the thought "there is no god".
> 
> _Anything_ other than the affirmative "there is a god" is atheism.



Ignorance does not make you an atheist, stupid. Atheist reject the idea of a God. If you never knew of, or lack the ability to contemplate a god, that does not make you an atheist.


----------



## Zaru (Jul 1, 2013)

Why is this labelling game so important to some people


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 1, 2013)

I love how the wording of a sentence causes all of this.


----------



## Nihonjin (Jul 1, 2013)

That's what I'm trying to figure out..


----------



## Tiger (Jul 1, 2013)

As someone who rejects organized religion as a social concept, with absolutely no consideration for who is right or wrong, or if such a black and white answer is humanly possible - I reject these fools with the _exact same tone_.

They're just creating their own religion and calling it anti-religion. Did not one of them look through a dictionary?


----------



## Hand Banana (Jul 1, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Why is this labelling game so important to some people



You have the nerve.


----------



## Ae (Jul 1, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Why is this labelling game so important to some people





Masterpiece said:


> Stop being so proud of being an atheist and don't consider yourself anything



But you know...


Seto Kaiba said:


> what he said was completely stupid.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 1, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Why is this labelling game so important to some people



Mostly because atheists are the least trusted group of people in America. Obviously many atheists there don't want to be referred to as atheists and instead try to argue their way around it by saying they're agnostics or some such nonsense.

It's just that they associate some nonsense with atheism and think that admitting the fact that they're atheists will lead to them being whatever they associate with the term.


----------



## WT (Jul 1, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> Mostly because atheists are the least trusted group of people in America. Obviously many atheists there don't want to be referred to as atheists and instead try to argue their way around it by saying they're agnostics or some such nonsense.
> 
> It's just that they associate some nonsense with atheism and think that admitting the fact that they're atheists will lead to them being whatever they associate with the term.



I find it funneh when atheists are discriminated against like this.


----------



## Mael (Jul 1, 2013)

Sauf that's pretty false.  I'm pretty sure an ethnic minority overtakes atheists as the least trusted group in America.


----------



## Cheeky (Jul 1, 2013)

I'd say Muslims are the least trusted people in America, at the moment.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 1, 2013)

Sunuvmann said:


> @Blue & Seto: I don't see any point to your argument. This is stupid. You're basically saying the exact same things.



He didn't even read my response, so take it up with him. It was his specific case that I said he's atheist by its meaning, but the only reason he avoids it is fear. He's pretty much agreed with me and my sources, but he's too much of a child to admit to it. You notice that he didn't read my response and wound up parroting me. 


*Spoiler*: __ 





> Blue said:
> 
> 
> > To be honest atheists are probably one of the groups I trust least in America as well, and I'm an agnostic social liberal. Atheism reeks of intellectual elitism. I certainly consider intellectuals the elite, but education shouldn't be used to lord it over the masses. I also consider atheism indefensible intellectually, as it's basically another faith system, faith that God does not exist. Certainly one could prove the Christian (or Muslim, etc) God doesn't exist, but proof that a random wizard didn't do it? There is none.
> ...





> Blue said:
> 
> 
> > But that's wrong. You can explain to me all you'd like about how babies come from storks, you're still dumb.
> ...





> Blue said:
> 
> 
> > God, shut up already.
> ...






He has pretty much done a 180, and agrees with the supposed sources he derided earlier.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 1, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> Mostly because atheists are the least trusted group of people in America. Obviously many atheists there don't want to be referred to as atheists and instead try to argue their way around it by saying they're agnostics or some such nonsense.
> 
> It's just that they associate some nonsense with atheism and think that admitting the fact that they're atheists will lead to them being whatever they associate with the term.


Flat out bullshit. Atheists can't be as untrusted as Muslims or even Blacks...


----------



## Zaru (Jul 1, 2013)

One  showed that even atheists trust atheists less than religious people  At least in America


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 1, 2013)

Zaru said:


> One  showed that even atheists trust atheists less than religious people  At least in America


A lot of atheists are dicks. And they play the victim card often enough.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jul 1, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Flat out bullshit. Atheists can't be as untrusted as Muslims or even Blacks...



Theres been a couple of studies on it that indicate atheists are the most distrusted minority:



> Atheists are one of the most disliked groups in America. Only 45 percent of Americans say they would vote for a qualified atheist presidential candidate, and atheists are rated as the least desirable group for a potential son-in-law or daughter-in-law to belong to. Will Gervais at the University of British Columbia recently published a set of studies looking at why atheists are so disliked. His conclusion: It comes down to trust.
> 
> Gervais and his colleagues presented participants with a story about a person who accidentally hits a parked car and then fails to leave behind valid insurance information for the other driver.* Participants were asked to choose the probability that the person in question was a Christian, a Muslim, a rapist, or an atheist. They thought it equally probable the culprit was an atheist or a rapist, and unlikely the person was a Muslim or Christian.* In a different study, Gervais looked at how atheism influences people?s hiring decisions. *People were asked to choose between an atheist or a religious candidate for a job requiring either a high or low degree of trust. For the high-trust job of daycare worker, people were more likely to prefer the religious candidate. For the job of waitress, which requires less trust, the atheists fared much better.*
> 
> ...


Source:


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 1, 2013)

*Spoiler*: _From a past thread_ 





> Blue said:
> 
> 
> > I've already explained in this thread why it's not true.
> ...






Blue can't even acknowledge that he conceded these points, as of this thread at least.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jul 1, 2013)

Mael said:


> Sauf that's pretty false.  I'm pretty sure an ethnic minority overtakes atheists as the least trusted group in America.



As a minority, I'll believe sauf and take his word. Less hatred on us.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 1, 2013)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Theres been a couple of studies on it that indicate atheists are the most distrusted minority:
> 
> Source:


The problem with these studies is that for someone to be known as an atheist they have to call attention to it. If someone has to do that then they're sowing distrust. 

A black person or Muslim or any other race is easily spotted right off.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jul 1, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The problem with these studies is that for someone to be known as an atheist they have to call attention to it. If someone has to do that then they're sowing distrust.
> 
> A black person or Muslim or any other race is easily spotted right off.


Maybe atheists should wear a little red badge that says A.


----------



## Mael (Jul 1, 2013)

Obviously these people are free to do as they please.  My only concern is how much of a target their obnoxiousness makes for other atheists who don't want a thing to do with these people.


----------



## Zaru (Jul 1, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> A lot of atheists are dicks. And they play the victim card often enough.



Whether that's true or not (I don't know enough atheists to form an opinion about that), the very fact that you can say something so generalizing and derogative is highly ironic.

Imagine if a white guy said that about blacks. The "racist!" screamers would be storming into the thread like an infected horde like they always do.

Atheists are not under the protection of political correctness. It's hunting season and they are fair game. As I said, a major reason why they don't have it as bad as discriminated minorities in some parts of the USA is that you can hardly tell when someone is an atheist.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jul 1, 2013)

Mael said:


> Obviously these people are free to do as they please.  My only concern is how much of a target their obnoxiousness makes for other atheists who don't want a thing to do with these people.




Do what every religion does and make another branch.



Zaru said:


> Whether that's true or not (I don't know enough atheists to form an opinion about that), the very fact that you can say something so generalizing and derogative is highly ironic.
> 
> Imagine if a white guy said that about blacks. The "racist!" screamers would be storming into the thread like an infected horde like they always do.
> 
> Atheists are not under the protection of political correctness. It's hunting season and they are fair game. As I said, a major reason why they don't have it as bad as discriminated minorities in some parts of the USA is that you can hardly tell when someone is an atheist.



Why must you always use blacks as a reference? Why not Native Americans.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 1, 2013)

> A lot of atheists are dicks. And they play the victim card often enough.



It's funny, most theists I run into seem to be pretty stupid.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 1, 2013)

White Tiger said:


> I find it funneh when atheists are discriminated against like this.





Mael said:


> Sauf that's pretty false.  I'm pretty sure an ethnic minority overtakes atheists as the least trusted group in America.





Cheeky said:


> I'd say Muslims are the least trusted people in America, at the moment.





Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Flat out bullshit. Atheists can't be as untrusted as Muslims or even Blacks...



Tsukoyomi already posted the evidence, it pretty much speaks for itself.

Also, there are some interesting psychological experiments showing atheist are clearly less trusted than muslims and somewhere in the ballpark of rapists as far as trust goes (). So yeah, America has huge trust issues so it's no wonder that so many are afraid to admit they're atheists.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> A lot of atheists are dicks. And they play the victim card often enough.



A good example of anti-atheist prejudice, thank you for the demonstration.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jul 1, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> A lot of atheists are dicks. And they play the victim card often enough.





Zaru said:


> Whether that's true or not (I don't know enough atheists to form an opinion about that), the very fact that you can say something so generalizing and derogative is highly ironic.
> 
> Imagine if a white guy said that about blacks. The "racist!" screamers would be storming into the thread like an infected horde like they always do.
> 
> Atheists are not under the protection of political correctness. It's hunting season and they are fair game. As I said, a major reason why they don't have it as bad as discriminated minorities in some parts of the USA is that you can hardly tell when someone is an atheist.



A lot of black people are dicks. And they play the race card often enough.


----------



## Zaru (Jul 1, 2013)

Sunuvmann said:


> A lot of black people are dicks. And they play the race card often enough.



Das' rac-

Wait you're a jew

WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO SAY NOW


----------



## Cheeky (Jul 1, 2013)

Regarding the study; If they had just identified themselves as "Humanists", their probably wouldn't have been a problem. Humanism has inherent values associated with it, that are as good natured as any religion. Atheism doesn't.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 1, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Whether that's true or not (I don't know enough atheists to form an opinion about that), the very fact that you can say something so generalizing and derogative is highly ironic.
> 
> Imagine if a white guy said that about blacks. The "racist!" screamers would be storming into the thread like an infected horde like they always do.
> 
> Atheists are not under the protection of political correctness. It's hunting season and they are fair game. As I said, a major reason why they don't have it as bad as discriminated minorities in some parts of the USA is that you can hardly tell when someone is an atheist.


The difference between atheists and any other group is that there's not really a reason for them to speak up. There's no doctrine telling them to spread their faith. They don't have to live with any racial stigma. I know plenty of atheists who are happy to leave religious people and other forms of believers alone. Nothing happens to them, no one judges them because they're not acting like they have a bone to pick with everyone who disagrees.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 1, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The difference between atheists and any other group is that there's not really a reason for them to speak up. There's no doctrine telling them to spread their faith. They don't have to live with any racial stigma. I know plenty of atheists who are happy to leave religious people and other forms of believers alone. Nothing happens to them, no one judges them because they're not acting like they have a bone to pick with everyone who disagrees.



This is stupid. 

You're essentially saying if they keep their heads down and keep quiet they're OK. The reason atheism received the stigma it has in the first place is it because it spoke out against religious practices and claims during a time in which society did, and I'd argue largely still does, believe in such claims without evidence. There are perfectly valid reason to speak out and it's not about 'spreading atheism', but questioning unchallenged theistic beliefs, practices, and claims.

Atheists are skeptical of theism, and in a society that is mostly theistic that is not received well. Most theists base, or believe themselves to, their whole outlook on life as well as death on their religion. Naturally, doubts and challenges to those beliefs and revealing inconsistencies in them, if not proving them to be outright false, are not received well.


----------



## Ae (Jul 1, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> A lot of atheists are dicks. And they play the victim card often enough.



They're always on their high horse, thinking they're so philosophical, and such critical thinker because they watch George Carlin.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jul 1, 2013)

I'm thinking of making a poll thread because of curiosity of where people are religiously in the Cafe.

What are the options I should do?

I'm thinking

Atheist
Agnostic
Jew
Christian - Catholic
Christian - Baptist
Christian - Misc. Protestant
Christian - Mormon
Islam - Sunni
Islam - Shi'a
Islam - Other
Hindu
Buddhist
Sikh
Scientology
Wicca
Rastafaian
Pastafarian


----------



## Mael (Jul 1, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> Tsukoyomi already posted the evidence, it pretty much speaks for itself.
> 
> Also, there are some interesting psychological experiments showing atheist are clearly less trusted than muslims and somewhere in the ballpark of rapists as far as trust goes (). So yeah, America has huge trust issues so it's no wonder that so many are afraid to admit they're atheists.





			
				article said:
			
		

> despite this evidence, distrust of atheists has not been directly compared with distrust of other religious groups in psychological studies. Study 2 therefore tested whether distrust of atheists is more pronounced than distrust of a number of other groups of people, including Muslims, a prominent and often vilified religious outgroup in North America (Cimino, 2005).



So yeah I'm going to wait until I get my head to head comparison thank you.  You already help the stereotype of the pretentious skeletons in the closet Euro.  I don't need more of it.


----------



## Cheeky (Jul 1, 2013)

Why _don't_ these people just call themselves humanists anyway?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jul 1, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The difference between atheists and any other group is that there's not really a reason for them to speak up. There's no doctrine telling them to spread their faith. They don't have to live with any racial stigma. I know plenty of atheists who are happy to leave religious people and other forms of believers alone. *Nothing happens to them, no one judges them because they're not acting like they have a bone to pick with everyone who disagrees.*



You're wrong.  There are people out there that will disown their children if they come out as atheists.

I remember my families reaction when I said I didn't have any belief in God, my mother was fine with it but several of my aunts, uncles and cousins were absolutely shocked.  They were especially shocked when I told my grandmother after she asked me directly "do you believe in God?", the usual reaction I got was "do you have any idea how much you must have hurt her by saying that?".

That's not even to mention when I get people coming to my door trying to convert me to their religion.  Just a few weeks ago a pair of women from a church I had never heard of came to my door and as soon as I told them I didn't believe in God they whipped out a bible with a bunch of post-it notes sticking out of it and they spent the next hour standing on my stoop reading me different verses to try to convince me that not only was God real but that theirs was the correct faith.

I didn't go out of my way to find any of these people, I didn't "act like I had a bone to pick with them", I simply answered my door and honestly answered their questions when they asked me about God and they _did_ judge me.  And its not a rare occurrence either.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 1, 2013)

Sunuvmann said:


> I'm thinking of making a poll thread because of curiosity of where people are religiously in the Cafe.
> 
> What are the options I should do?
> 
> ...



You can be agnostic and most any of those other categories, and you can be atheist and buddhist as well.


----------



## Raidoton (Jul 1, 2013)

Cheeky said:


> Why _don't_ these people just call themselves humanists anyway?


Most Atheists call themselves humanists as well, but since there are also christian humanists, some people just wanna make it clear that they are atheists.


----------



## Ae (Jul 1, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> It's funny, most theists I run into seem to be pretty stupid.



Not that I'm a theist, but I much rather be stupid than a douchebag.


----------



## Mael (Jul 1, 2013)

Do we have a label for "I'm too busy/distracted with my daily goings-on in life that the thought of faith or whatever despite upbringing doesn't even register because I'm too busy/distracted to think about it?"


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 1, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> This is stupid.
> 
> You're essentially saying if they keep their heads down and keep quiet they're OK. The reason atheism received the stigma it has in the first place is it because it spoke out against religious practices and claims during a time in which society did, and I'd argue largely still does, believe in such claims without evidence. There are perfectly valid reason to speak out and it's not about 'spreading atheism', but questioning unchallenged theistic beliefs, practices, and claims.
> 
> Atheists are skeptical of theism, and in a society that is mostly theistic that is not received well. Most theists base, or believe themselves to, their whole outlook on life as well as death on their religion. Naturally, doubts and challenges to those beliefs and revealing inconsistencies in them, if not proving them to be outright false, are not received well.


But it's not their place to be skeptical of anyone else who isn't effecting them. If someone wants to be a religion or hold a belief that doesn't effect me and I go out of my way to insult or belittle them then there's something wrong with me. Not them. 

I mean things like the Smut for Smut campaign where Athesits were saying holy books were smut and they would trade you porn for holy books you brought in is grade A attention whoring and is just the kind of thing that people think of when they think atheists. They brought this on themselves.


----------



## Goobtachi (Jul 1, 2013)

Mael said:


> Do we have a label for "I'm too busy/distracted with my daily goings-on in life that the thought of faith or whatever despite upbringing doesn't even register because I'm too busy/distracted to think about it?"



Yes, being futile...


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Jul 1, 2013)

Tsukiyomi said:


> That's not even to mention when I get people coming to my door trying to convert me to their religion.  Just a few weeks ago a pair of women from a church I had never heard of came to my door and as soon as I told them I didn't believe in God they whipped out a bible with a bunch of post-it notes sticking out of it and they spent the next hour standing on my stoop reading me different verses to try to convince me that not only was God real but that theirs was the correct faith.



I mean these as legitimate questions and not as suggestions that you did the wrong thing.

Why did you tell them what you believed?
Did you ask them to leave?
Why did you listen them for an hour?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 1, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> But it's not their place to be skeptical of anyone else who isn't effecting them.



One, oftentimes it is. 

Second, even if it didn't, that argument is completely stupid. They have every right to be skeptical of such claims. 

Finally, such things often have come out as a matter of circumstance. Often with a greater understanding of ourselves, our environment and the universe they naturally will clash with long-held religious beliefs.



> If someone wants to be a religion or hold a belief that doesn't effect me and I go out of my way to insult or belittle them then there's something wrong with me. Not them.



It's not about going out of your way, you seem to have this really ignorant idea of what it is to be atheist. An atheist will challenge theistic claims, because an atheist is a skeptic. An atheist, as anyone, has every right to challenge claims made by ones that have failed to provide evidence for them. 

You clearly have a double standard at play here. 

A theist can shove his book into a person's face and tell them bullshit about how their god or pantheon are the one true god or pantheon, their religion is the only right one, and acceptance of it results in eternal paradise and rejection eternal pain and damnation. Theism, and the Abrahamic religions of Islam and Christianity in particular, only spread as such through conversion forced or voluntary. And that's not going "out of their way?" 



> I mean things like the Smut for Smut campaign where Athesits were saying holy books were smut and they would trade you porn for holy books you brought in is grade A attention whoring and is just the kind of thing that people think of when they think atheists. They brought this on themselves.



You bitch and moan when people generalize you or other Christians with the nutcases in evangelicalism and the Vatican so don't give me that. 

Also, I find it funny you even mention something like that being a Catholic and considering all the shit the Catholic Church has done in history, in the name of the church and the religion.


----------



## Cheeky (Jul 1, 2013)

Raidoton said:


> Most Atheists call themselves humanists as well, but since there are also christian humanists, some people just wanna make it clear that they are atheists.



It seems sad to identify yourself based on what you _don't_ believe in.


----------



## Mael (Jul 1, 2013)

Goobtachi said:


> Yes, being futile...



That's kind of dumb.  So no matter how productive one is, if you don't pay attention to faith because you're so wrapped up in the tangible, the present, and the constructive, it's futile?

Smoke more weed...seriously...


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jul 1, 2013)

SubtleObscurantist said:


> I mean these as legitimate questions and not as suggestions that you did the wrong thing.
> 
> Why did you tell them what you believed?



They asked me directly if I believed in God, my answer was just "no".  We went back and forth from there with them asking me "well what about Jesus?" and such.



SubtleObscurantist said:


> Did you ask them to leave?



Nope, I'm more than happy to have this discussion with anyone.



SubtleObscurantist said:


> Why did you listen them for an hour?



Two reasons mainly:

First I was curious to see what kind of case they could make for their religion.

Second, I enjoy having these kind of discussions and hope if nothing else I can at least get people to think a little more about what they believe and why.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jul 1, 2013)

Mael said:


> That's kind of dumb.  So no matter how productive one is, if you don't pay attention to faith because you're so wrapped up in the tangible, the present, and the constructive, it's futile?
> 
> Smoke more meth/crack...seriously...



Leave weed out of this.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 1, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> One, oftentimes it is.
> 
> Second, even if it didn't, that argument is completely stupid. They have every right to be skeptical of such claims.



Why? Why do you have a right to confront people who are doing nothing to you? 



> Finally, such things often have come out as a matter of circumstance. Often with a greater understanding of ourselves, our environment and the universe they naturally will clash with long-held religious beliefs.


Okay, but antagonizing people about the religion directly isn't going to make them come around and see things your way. 




> It's not about going out of your way, you seem to have this really ignorant idea of what it is to be atheist. An atheist will challenge theistic claims, because an atheist is a skeptic.



There you go assigning attributes to a word that only has one meaning. An atheists doesn't believe in a god. That's all they have to be. A skeptic is almost as stupid to be as someone who's blindly faithful. 



> You bitch and moan when people generalize you with the nutcases in evangelicalism and the Vatican so don't give me that.


I'm making it pretty clear that all atheists aren't the same. 



> Also, I find it funny you even mention something like that being a Catholic and considering all the shit the Catholic Church has done in history, in the name of the church and the religion.


The same could be said about America, the UK, or any other long standing large group.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 1, 2013)

Tsukiyomi said:


> They asked me directly if I believed in God, my answer was just "no".  We went back and forth from there with them asking me "well what about Jesus?" and such.



Similar experience. Theists have an incredible double standard when it comes to atheism. They are fine with themselves being up-in-your face about their beliefs but as soon as they see theirs being challenged, it's off-limits. 

As I explained to CTK, that is the reason atheism received such stigma in the first place because people that were expected to believe in theistic claims and beliefs did not, and even moreso for their own reasons, questioned such matters.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 1, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Why? Why do you have a right to confront people who are doing nothing to you?



You basically should be asking why people discuss anything at all with that kind of logic. Why anyone who disagrees with another would question that person on why. 



> Okay, but antagonizing people about the religion directly isn't going to make them come around and see things your way.



Any doubts an atheist will present has and still is considered antagonistic, because to the theist that is challenging everything they've based or believed to base their entire outlook on life, death, and the universe at large on. 



> There you go assigning attributes to a word that only has one meaning. An atheists doesn't believe in a god. That's all they have to be. A skeptic is almost as stupid to be as someone who's blindly faithful.



Christ...

Atheism, is a state of non-belief and atheism cannot exist without theism. So where do you think that state of non-belief comes from? Skepticism. An atheist that challenges theistic claims does so from a position of skepticism in the face of theist claims.



> I'm making it pretty clear that all atheists aren't the same.



You have not established that at all. Many of your statements have been pretty broad.



> The same could be said about America, the UK, or any other long standing large group.



So why gripe over atheists at all? People have committed great atrocities and still do in the name of religion. Even locally, religious individuals have or at least try to stifle any kind of progression in our society. I'd say a lot of theists go above and beyond simply being jerks, and far more than simply questioning beliefs or claims.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Jul 1, 2013)

Tsukiyomi said:


> They asked me directly if I believed in God, my answer was just "no".  We went back and forth from there with them asking me "well what about Jesus?" and such.
> 
> *Nope, I'm more than happy to have this discussion with anyone*.
> 
> ...



Well then, in that light, what's the problem? If you welcome such opportunities, make no effort to conceal your beliefs, and actively engage challenges, then is anything really happening _to_ you? If you had said "not interested" or "no, but I would like you to leave" etc etc and then they kept coming, then I suppose that would be an example of being judged even when you weren't putting yourself out there. 

But actively engaging in debate and discussion doesn't seem to fit the bill. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it doesn't seem quite fair to say that you were just doing your own thing and got pressed upon anyway. You were pressed upon to exactly the same extent anyone of any belief is when such people arrive at the door. The conversation from that point onwards, judgement included, was contingent upon your active engagement.


----------



## Raidoton (Jul 1, 2013)

Cheeky said:


> It seems sad to identify yourself based on what you _don't_ believe in.


It's not about not believing, it's about denying. Denying what you think is bad.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jul 1, 2013)

Goobtachi said:


> Had a PM that kinda proved or atleast hinted it...



I don't even want to search what futile pedo means because I'm at work. Whats the def?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jul 1, 2013)

SubtleObscurantist said:


> Well then, in that light, what's the problem? If you welcome such opportunities, make no effort to conceal your beliefs, and actively engage challenges, then is anything really happening _to_ you? If you had said "not interested" or "no, but I would like you to leave" etc etc and then they kept coming, then I suppose that would be an example of being judged even when you weren't putting yourself out there.
> 
> But actively engaging in debate and discussion doesn't seem to fit the bill. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it doesn't seem quite fair to say that you were just doing your own thing and got pressed upon anyway. You were pressed upon to exactly the same extent anyone of any belief is when such people arrive at the door. The conversation from that point onwards, judgement included, was contingent upon your active engagement.



I was merely responded to the assertion that you don't get judged as an atheist unless you get out in peoples faces.  I've been told on many occasions about how I'm going to hell because I don't believe in God and I have people try to convert me quite often.

If that's not being judged then I don't know what is.

The fact that I enjoy the opportunity to challenge their judgments doesn't mean its not judgment nor that I think there is nothing wrong with it.

I've also been called racial slurs in public before, I enjoy making those people look like assholes in front of whoever happens to be around, that doesn't mean that there isn't anything wrong with that persons prejudice against me.


----------



## Corruption (Jul 1, 2013)

Masterpiece said:


> They're always on their high horse, thinking they're so philosophical, and such critical thinker because they watch George Carlin.



Considering that most religions require people to forgo rational thought, it's not surprising why some atheists act like that.


----------



## Gnome (Jul 1, 2013)

Sitting on that thing looks like it would be a bitch on the ol' rump.


----------



## Ae (Jul 1, 2013)

Corruption said:


> Considering that most religions require people to forgo rational thought, it's not surprising why some atheists act like that.



Yeah, it just rub me the wrong way.


----------



## LesExit (Jul 1, 2013)

I guess I don't know how I feel about a symbol...cause it makes me feel like I'm kinda being thrown into some kind group because I'm an atheist. Being an atheist simply means you don't believe in a deity, everything else is up in the air. 

Was that supposed to be an original symbol though, I saw the same one like over a year ago by my friend o___o

I get why they did it though. Religion is very privileged, and it shouldn't be, when there are many people who don't share those beliefs.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Jul 1, 2013)

I just told my mom a couple weeks ago that I didn't think I really believed in god. She told me I better shut up before I go to hell. l o l


----------



## Krory (Jul 1, 2013)

Zaru said:


> One  showed that even atheists trust atheists less than religious people  At least in America



Not surprised.

They're pretty untrustworthy.


----------



## Mael (Jul 1, 2013)

Obviously atheists are the central target for distrust.  The Jews needed a patsy and the Muslims were all taken so they thought, "Hm, now who better to shift the distrust on than those with a complete lack of faith!  Perfect!"

And so here we are.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jul 1, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You can be agnostic and most any of those other categories, and you can be atheist and buddhist as well.


It'd be multiple choice


----------



## Blue (Jul 1, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Blue can't even acknowledge that he conceded these points, as of this thread at least.



I didn't concede shit you disgusting little troll. I don't want to play this game with you anymore because pretending that agnostics are atheists is a ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) little game that only children on the internet play and I shouldn't have to pretend you're not full of more shit than a 13 year old Bruce Lee fan, .

Fucking last time I'm posting this, FROM A SOURCE THAT YOU YOURSELF POSTED BECAUSE THE IDEA THAT AGNOSTICS ARE ATHEISTS IS A DELUSION THAT YOU WILL ONLY FIND ON INTERNET POSTS MADE BY IDIOT ATHEISTS:



> "It follows, even from what has just been said, that Agnosticism is not Atheism. Agnosticism is sometimes spoken of as only another name for atheism, or as a kind of atheism. This should never be done."


----------



## αce (Jul 1, 2013)

> A lot of atheists are dicks. And they play the victim card often enough.



If I made this statement about Christians or Texans, you'd lose your shit and tell me not to generalize:sanji


----------



## αce (Jul 1, 2013)

Also, Blue is angry. I'm turned on.


----------



## Ae (Jul 1, 2013)

αce said:


> If I made this statement about Christians or Texans, you'd lose your shit and tell me not to generalize



Well he said a lot not all


----------



## αce (Jul 1, 2013)

Also, he's right - agnosticism isn't atheism. Atheism is the absolute belief that there isn't a deity, which is impossible to know in the first place. It's the equivalent of theists claiming that they know god exists, which again, they can't possibly know.

I suppose I just call myself an atheist when I actually am agnostic because I don't really think about the labels too much. I suppose I should stop calling myself an atheist. Not just because I'm not but because Neil Degrasse made a compelling argument. I don't want all that baggage attached to me whenever I label myself anything. I just don't believe. Don't put a title on it.

I mean, by his own definition, even fucking Richard Dawkins is an agnostic. He's just too caught up in trolling religious people. In his book, when he rated himself on a scale of 1-7 in disbelief of god, he gave himself a 6. When asked why, he told people that he couldn't possibly put 7 because he can't possibly know that there isn't a god, and that by doing so he would just be doing the same thing that theists do.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jul 1, 2013)

αce said:


> Also, he's right - agnosticism isn't atheism. Atheism is the absolute belief that there isn't a deity, which is impossible to know in the first place. It's the equivalent of theists claiming that they know god exists, which again, they can't possibly know.



Where are people getting that definition of atheism?

This is what the Oxford English Dictionary has for the definition of the word atheism:

*noun*

disbelief *or lack of belief* in the existence of God or gods. 

* Origin:*

 late 16th century: from French _ath?isme_, from Greek _atheos_, *from a-  'without' + theos  'god'

*The word literally means "without god", so even if you're an agnostic (which I classify myself under) and you say "I don't know if there is a god, there isn't even evidence to say definitively" that is still technically atheism because you still lack belief in a God or gods.


----------



## Blue (Jul 1, 2013)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Where are people getting that definition of atheism?



EVERYWHERE


----------



## Krory (Jul 1, 2013)

"I don't know why people think that's what it means. This is what it means:"

>Posts definition that means the same thing


----------



## Mael (Jul 1, 2013)

The other ironic thing about atheism...this odd pecking order that seems to exist within the battle of semantics.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Jul 1, 2013)

OOOH, here's a doozy.

What if you do kinda believe in some sort of deity, but also kinda don't believe in some sort of deity?


----------



## Krory (Jul 1, 2013)

SubtleObscurantist said:


> OOOH, here's a doozy.
> 
> What if you do kinda believe in some sort of deity, but also kinda don't believe in some sort of deity?



Then you're just full of shit.


----------



## Gnome (Jul 1, 2013)

SubtleObscurantist said:


> OOOH, here's a doozy.
> 
> What if you do kinda believe in some sort of deity, but also kinda don't believe in some sort of deity?



Then you need to make up your damn mind.


----------



## Tony Stark (Jul 1, 2013)

They totally ripped off the A of the Avengers, Marvel won't be pleased.


----------



## Blue (Jul 1, 2013)

Blue said:


> EVERYWHERE



I guess I should be more comprehensive in my reply.

Here's the 11th Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, which is considered one of the best ever written and still often used today as the starting point for any etymological research.





> ATHEISM (from Gr. a-, privative, and O?6, God), literally a system of belief which denies the existence of God.



The Oxford entry isn't wrong but is written to provide the vaguest and least questionable definition of the word.


----------



## Mael (Jul 1, 2013)

Gnome said:


> Then you need to make up your damn mind.



So...basically a woman? 

*neg shields up*


----------



## Ae (Jul 1, 2013)

krory said:


> "I don't know why people think that's what it means. This is what it means:"
> 
> >Posts definition that means the same thing



I hope he isn't advising people how to debate


----------



## Blue (Jul 1, 2013)

Mael said:


> So...basically a woman?
> 
> *neg shields up*



Women want you to tell them what to do, they hate being asked what they want

I was much happier after I figured that out.


----------



## αce (Jul 1, 2013)

Just go to google and type in "define atheism"
problem solved



google>encyclopedia britannica 





hail your google overlords have arrived


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jul 1, 2013)

krory said:


> "I don't know why people think that's what it means. This is what it means:"
> 
> >Posts definition that means the same thing



Lack of belief and absolute belief that something doesn't exist are not the same thing.  As I've pointed out numerous times _anything_ that is not the affirmative "yes a god exists" is atheism, even refusing the answer the question would count as atheism because you are without theistic beliefs.


----------



## Mael (Jul 1, 2013)

αce said:


> Just go to google and type in "define atheism"
> problem solved
> 
> 
> ...



Real men take a challenge head on.  

Real men use Bing.


----------



## Blue (Jul 1, 2013)

αce said:


> Just go to google and type in "define atheism"
> problem solved
> 
> google>encyclopedia britannica
> ...



>Spoonfeeding

You damn kids


----------



## Ae (Jul 1, 2013)

Now we're going to argue which dictionary is more correct!


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 1, 2013)

Blue said:


> I didn't concede shit you disgusting little troll. I don't want to play this game with you anymore because pretending that agnostics are atheists is a ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) little game that only children on the internet play and I shouldn't have to pretend you're not full of more shit than a 13 year old Bruce Lee fan



You have such awful memory it is laughable:


*Spoiler*: _Example #1_ 





> Blue said:
> 
> 
> > To be honest atheists are probably one of the groups I trust least in America as well, and I'm an agnostic social liberal. Atheism reeks of intellectual elitism...I also consider atheism indefensible intellectually, as it's basically another faith system, faith that God does not exist. Certainly one could prove the Christian (or Muslim, etc) God doesn't exist, but proof that a random wizard didn't do it? There is none.
> ...








*Spoiler*: _Example #2_ 





> Blue said:
> 
> 
> > But that's wrong. You can explain to me all you'd like about how babies come from storks, you're still dumb.
> ...









*Spoiler*: _Example #3_ 





> Blue said:
> 
> 
> > God, shut up already.
> ...








*Spoiler*: _Example #4, as to reveal your concessions in the present_ 






> Blue said:
> 
> 
> > You're speaking of agnosticism, which despite what Kaiba will try to tell you is not a subset of atheism, which is the specific belief that there are no gods.
> ...








*Spoiler*: _Example 5_ 





> Blue said:
> 
> 
> > Agnostics as agnostic atheists is bullshit dreamt up by atheists who want to include the entirety of the nonreligious in their anti-religious agenda.
> ...








*Spoiler*: _Example 6, revealing your lack of understanding of atheism_ 





> Blue said:
> 
> 
> > And if you do neither, because forming a conclusion without sufficient evidence is illogical?
> ...








*Spoiler*: _Example 7, More of your fundamental misunderstanding_ 





> Blue said:
> 
> 
> > I've already explained in this thread why it's not true.
> ...








*Spoiler*: _Final Example_ 





> Blue said:
> 
> 
> > "It follows, even from what has just been said, that Agnosticism is not Atheism. Agnosticism is sometimes spoken of as only another name for atheism, or as a kind of atheism. This should never be done."
> ...


----------



## Hand Banana (Jul 1, 2013)

Mael said:


> Real men take a challenge head on.
> 
> Real men use Bing.



Get them bing points.


----------



## αce (Jul 1, 2013)

Can Seto and Blue get married already? I'll pay for the drinks.


----------



## Krory (Jul 1, 2013)

ITT: People who still haven't grasped reading comprehension.


----------



## Blue (Jul 1, 2013)

Only you would use yourself as a source, Kaiba. I did that once in freshman history and got an F.

Like I said, your definition of agnosticism only exists in dumb internet posts.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 1, 2013)

Blue said:


> Only you would use yourself as a source, Kaiba. I did that once in freshman history and got an F.
> 
> Like I said, your definition of agnosticism only exists in dumb internet posts.



You didn't even read it. 

It's only showing that you wound up conceding to the points I laid out in this thread in the present time.


----------



## Blue (Jul 1, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You didn't even read it.
> 
> It's only showing that you wound up conceding to the points I laid out in this thread in the present time.



I read it when you first posted it 2 months ago.

It was wrong then and is still wrong now.

And I don't honestly understand how you found a concession in that


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 1, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I know you're more childish than slow Blue, but I'll try this in an abridged form:
> 
> *Atheism* and *theism* answer "Do you believe in a god?"
> 
> ...





Blue said:


> *I didn't actually read it, I'm sure it's the same make-believe shit you've been trying to push this whole time and were only ever able to support with some moron's blog post.
> *



But then he goes on to post this:



> Agnostic Atheism is not the same as agnosticism. It is the belief in the nonexistence of god, but the acknowledgement that that belief is irrational.
> 
> Agnosticism is not a subset of atheism. "Atheism" means "without god". "Agnosticism" means "without knowledge". You can (claim to be) one, or both, or neither, although in reality anyone who claims to be gnostic is full of shit.
> 
> ...



Which means he pretty much has conceded to what I was pointing out to him to begin with.


----------



## Blue (Jul 1, 2013)

The critical difference in our opinions is my acceptance of the existence of agnosticism outside atheism and theism.

Also that your opinion is shit and mine isn't, but that's besides the point


----------



## αce (Jul 1, 2013)

:sanji:sanji


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 1, 2013)

Blue said:


> The critical difference in our opinions is my acceptance of the existence of agnosticism outside atheism and theism.



You have forgotten to read?:



> Atheism and theism answer "Do you believe in a god?"
> 
> Agnosticism and Gnosticism answer "Do you know a god exists (or not)?"





> Do you believe in god? Atheism and theism answer this question.
> 
> Do you know god does or does not exist? Gnosticism and agnosticism answer this question.





> Agnostic merely means "without knowledge". It does not answer the same questions about an individual that atheism or theism would.





> You're tripping over yourself. Agnosticism only answers the question of if one has the knowledge of whether or not god exists, not a belief or lack thereof.



As I repeat ad nauseum...agnosticism doesn't answer what atheism or theism would. Having a state of *non-belief* would make one atheist by default. So an agnostic that does not believe in a god, would have *no belief in a god.*


----------



## Revolution (Jul 1, 2013)

Once you commit to believing in something, you cannot say "I don't believe in anything", so the very idea of putting a monument to something you believe in makes you a believer and you can no longer say you are an atheist.


----------



## αce (Jul 1, 2013)

> Once you commit to believing in something, you cannot say "I don't believe in anything", so the very idea of putting a monument to something you believe in makes you a believer and you can no longer say you are an atheist.



A believer....in non-believing? Makes sense to me


Also, the latter part makes no sense. These people still don't believe in God. If they put up a monument celebrating their non-belief, somehow, they aren't atheists anymore? That would require them to believe in God. So what, the monument pulled an inception and made them believers?

Sarahmint, you're giving me cancer.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 1, 2013)

Sarahmint said:


> Once you commit to believing in something, you cannot say "I don't believe in anything", so the very idea of putting a monument to something you believe in makes you a believer and you can no longer say you are an atheist.



No, an atheist has no belief in god, but like this group many can and are secular humanists; which is in truth what they are promoting. The problem isn't that they believe in anything, it's that they claim "an atheist believes". Atheism is to have no belief in a deity, that's it. However, an atheist, as any person, can have their own outlooks and ideals which will vary according to the individual or group. Like secular humanism.


----------



## Blue (Jul 1, 2013)

Kaiba, fuuuck

I want to imagine you're this little kid that I could pick up and dunk in the toilet

But for all I know you might be this massive fat dude who'd kick my ass

Anyway I meant that you do not believe that a person can exist outside the spectrum of theism-atheism and that agnosticism cannot represent a point outside this spectrum

I disagree, I believe a person can be neither theist or atheist and that such a person would be described as agnostic

This is where you tell me "But you're wrong blue, I proved this" and quote yourself as evidence

I'm just imagining you going "Blurb blur brong blu" while being held upside down, gargling toilet water


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 1, 2013)

Mael said:


> So yeah I'm going to wait until I get my head to head comparison thank you.  You already help the stereotype of the pretentious skeletons in the closet Euro.  I don't need more of it.



Reading comprehension, try it some time. The quote says that *because* it hasn't yet been compared in the past, *they're doing it in that experiment*.


----------



## Zaru (Jul 1, 2013)

Atheists, theists, agnostics, at the end of the day we're all a bunch of cunts arguing about religion on an animanga forum


----------



## αce (Jul 1, 2013)

> Atheists, theists, agnostics, at the end of the day we're all a bunch of *cunts* arguing about religion on an animanga forum



HEY!

i prefer the term ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)
thanks


----------



## Pliskin (Jul 1, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Atheists, theists, agnostics, at the end of the day we're all a bunch of cunts arguing about religion on an animanga forum



Now I feel sad.

Brb, gonna eat Ice cream and listen to Linkin Park.

Speaking of LP, now I feel old, too.

Thanks Zaru.

(But seriously, I like to pretend i frequent here for intellectual debate and such. Stop reminding me that this is a teenage nardo site, goddangit)


----------



## Zaru (Jul 1, 2013)

αce said:


> HEY!
> 
> i prefer the term ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)
> thanks



True story, I was gonna type ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) first but then someone would think I'm a homophobe

It's hard to endearingly use slurs without offending someone nowadays


----------



## Mael (Jul 1, 2013)

krory said:


> ITT: People who still haven't grasped reading comprehension.



Then school 'em, kiddo.



αce said:


> A believer....in non-believing? Makes sense to me
> 
> 
> Also, the latter part makes no sense. These people still don't believe in God. If they put up a monument celebrating their non-belief, somehow, they aren't atheists anymore? That would require them to believe in God. So what, the monument pulled an inception and made them believers?
> ...



You act like this is an extraordinary accomplishment.



Zaru said:


> Atheists, theists, agnostics, at the end of the day we're all a bunch of cunts arguing about religion on an animanga forum



I prefer the term douchebag.  Rolls off the tongue so nicely.


----------



## αce (Jul 1, 2013)

honestly
^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) doesn't mean gay
it just means ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 1, 2013)

Blue said:


> Kaiba, fuuuck
> 
> I want to imagine you're this little kid that I could pick up and dunk in the toilet
> 
> ...



If you'd stop throwing temper tantrums when you're wrong you'd see that I have always argued that agnosticism answers a separate question. It is not an alternative to theism or atheism because of that, it simply elaborates on the brand of such one carries. While all deal with the same topic they answer different questions relating to it. So again:

Atheism or Theism answer "Do you believe god or gods exist?"

Anything other than "yes" to this question makes one atheist by default. Atheism is a state of non-belief. 

Agnosticism or Gnosticism answers "Do you know such god or gods exist (or don't exist)?"

Anything other than "I know" makes one Agnostic.

You are, like many that claim to be agnostic on the basis of claiming a logically superior standpoint from atheists and theists, have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means. That is my issue with you Blue, you took the label of agnostic thinking it gave you a one-up on theists and atheists alike, it doesn't, because it doesn't touch on the question either of those do.


----------



## Ae (Jul 1, 2013)

αce said:


> honestly
> ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) doesn't mean gay
> it just means ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)



Gay doesn't have to mean homosexual either


----------



## αce (Jul 1, 2013)

yes
yes it does

stop that


----------



## Mael (Jul 1, 2013)

αce said:


> honestly
> ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) doesn't mean gay
> it just means ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)





Masterpiece said:


> Gay doesn't have to mean homosexual either





αce said:


> yes
> yes it does
> 
> stop that



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2fmZ2C2CdA[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## kandaron (Jul 1, 2013)

Can't we all just call ourselves ?


----------



## αce (Jul 1, 2013)

YOU KNOW WHAT FUCK IT HERE YOU GO MURICANS


----------



## Krory (Jul 1, 2013)

>Instagram


----------



## LesExit (Jul 1, 2013)

kandaron said:


> Can't we all just call ourselves ?


NO 

actually...I wouldn't mind. I like the philosophy of it :33 

I still don't get people who are saying atheism is a belief and makes some kind of claim, when it's _lack_ of belief and the rejection of a claim which lacks evidence to back it up. It's not saying "God does not exist", it's saying "You claim God exists, yet provide no evidence, therefore I reject your claim." I don't really feel like I need to claim anything because after that conversation, we're still as far as we know living in a godless world until the claim is proven to be true.

Though can anyone really know, of course not, it's unfalsifiable. Just like no one can really know theres an invisible unicorn in my backyard whom eats oatmeal, that is only observable to me :amazed


Is that picture implying that people actually find Canada to be bad in the first place?


----------



## αce (Jul 1, 2013)

i use instagram
judge me


----------



## Pliskin (Jul 1, 2013)

αce said:


> YOU KNOW WHAT FUCK IT HERE YOU GO MURICANS



Hey, what do you know, there is a Monopoly Canada edition. Looks pretty.


----------



## αce (Jul 1, 2013)

im just all kinds of gay aren't I?


----------



## Ae (Jul 1, 2013)

What's your instagram? You super fine.


----------



## αce (Jul 1, 2013)

i like how posting a picture results in a witty response about instagram
yeah, get off your high horse dear



> What's your instagram? You super fine.



@ilikedicksallsizes


----------



## Ae (Jul 1, 2013)

Is the nonexistence of size a size?


----------



## Mael (Jul 1, 2013)

kresh said:


> Ones a gross misspelling and the other contains an offensive racial slur.  This thread has bombed.



In comes a Euro to kill the fun.


----------



## Hitt (Jul 1, 2013)

Offensive thread is offensive!


----------



## Mael (Jul 1, 2013)

Gino said:


> Having fun with that word white boy?



Like a kid in a candy store.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Jul 1, 2013)

LesExit said:


> I still don't get people who are saying atheism is a belief and makes some kind of claim, when it's _lack_ of belief and the rejection of a claim which lacks evidence to back it up. It's not saying "God does not exist", it's saying "You claim God exists, yet provide no evidence, therefore I reject your claim." I don't really feel like I need to claim anything because after that conversation, we're still as far as we know living in a godless world until the claim is proven to be true.



That's called believing the null hypothesis.


----------



## ImperatorMortis (Jul 2, 2013)

So... When can we expect the churches?

Extra points if they build them right next to theistic churches.


----------



## Nihonjin (Jul 2, 2013)

Blue said:


> I disagree, I believe a person can be neither theist or atheist and that such a person would be described as agnostic



You're either a theist or not a theist. It's flatout impossible to fall outside these two possibilities. You cannot be neither, you cannot be both. You either believe a God exists or you do not (necessarily).

Being "agnostic" still makes you a non-theist/atheist. To argue against that is to either not understand basic logic or to lack a fundamental understanding of what it means to be an atheist/not be a theist. 

To me it seems like you bought into the giant and most popular strawman of what atheism is or that you have some personal issues with the word we're unaware of.. 

Either way, this discussion will pretty much never end since our definitions don't match up. So I kindly suggest you pick up a dictionary..?


----------



## rac585 (Jul 2, 2013)

the fact that it has an A on it...


----------



## Mael (Jul 2, 2013)

The truth is that there really is no God...only Za Warudo.


----------



## Pliskin (Jul 2, 2013)

Mael said:


> The truth is that there really is no God...only Za Warudo.



And the Spirit of Emptiness, Vanilla Ice.


----------



## Gnome (Jul 2, 2013)

The idea of a pantheon of gods is so much more appealing and badass than monotheism. God's that are partiers, petty, and violent; who will fuck up your lives on a daily basis, I wish that shit was real.


----------



## Krory (Jul 2, 2013)

Gnome said:


> The idea of a pantheon of gods is so much more appealing and badass than monotheism. God's that are partiers, petty, and violent; who will fuck up your lives on a daily basis, I wish that shit was real.



I still consider it more likely. Makes more sense than one God who is more bipolar than an adventurous bear.


----------



## Gino (Jul 2, 2013)

MY version of God is a hot sexy women with an infinite supply of Dr pepper.


----------



## Krory (Jul 2, 2013)

Gino said:


> MY version of God is a hot sexy women with an infinite supply of Dr pepper.



I'm sure your mother would be very flattered to know you think she's God.


----------



## Gino (Jul 2, 2013)

I don't have one of those......


----------



## Krory (Jul 2, 2013)

...father?


----------



## Gino (Jul 2, 2013)

Nope..........


----------



## Krory (Jul 2, 2013)

Do you have a dog or a cat that you appreciate a great deal?

Or maybe a parakeet?


----------



## Gino (Jul 2, 2013)

AHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Garfield (Jul 2, 2013)

It's always nice to see people uniting against tyranny.


----------



## Gnome (Jul 2, 2013)

krory said:


> I still consider it more likely. Makes more sense than one God who is more bipolar than an adventurous bear.



Exactly. Especially coming from a God who claims Omnibenevolence.


----------



## Krory (Jul 2, 2013)

Gino said:


> AHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!



PARAKEET GODS ARE NO LAUGHING MATTER, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE SEXY WITH DR. PEPPER.

GOD, GROW THE FUCK UP, THIS IS SUPER-SERIOUS.


----------



## Gino (Jul 2, 2013)

The power in that post I can FEEL IT!!!!


----------



## Krory (Jul 2, 2013)

Gino said:


> The power in that post I can FEEL IT!!!!





DO YOU THINK THIS IS A FUCKING GAME?


----------



## Gino (Jul 2, 2013)

krory said:


> DO YOU THINK THIS IS A FUCKING GAME?


.........................:amazedYESS!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm outta here Bitches GOTTA GET MY GAME ON!!!!


----------



## Krory (Jul 2, 2013)

I will murder your fucking vagina, just you wait, Gino.

You'll rue the day you slighted the Parakeet Gods.

*RUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE*.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jul 2, 2013)

Mael said:


> The truth is that there really is no God...only Za Warudo.



You spelt Ultimate Cars wrong.


----------



## G (Jul 2, 2013)




----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Jul 2, 2013)

The hell is that?


----------



## Kathutet (Jul 2, 2013)

Gino said:


> MY version of God is a hot sexy women with an infinite supply of Dr pepper.


What a coincidence, so is mine

Should we start a cult/religion


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 2, 2013)

Is that a real human being? If so, I want to find and punch him.


----------



## Zaru (Jul 2, 2013)

Fedoratheists who lack the capability for self-reflection are usually among the spearhead of those who give atheism a bad name


----------



## Sanity Check (Jul 2, 2013)

If only being an intelligent or decent person were as easy as checking a box next to your name that says 

[] atheist
[] theist
[] agnostic

If curing human stupidity were that easy, I might take labels seriously.


----------



## Mael (Jul 2, 2013)

Kenneth said:


> What a coincidence, so is mine
> 
> Should we start a cult/religion



I thought yours was a combination of Naruto and Rudolf Von Stroheim.


----------



## Mael (Jul 2, 2013)

Parrots > Parakeets.

Just Saiyan.



Tranquil Fury said:


> You spelt Ultimate Cars wrong.



Bitch I will kill you.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Jul 2, 2013)

Nihonjin said:


> You're either a theist or not a theist. It's flatout impossible to fall outside these two possibilities. You cannot be neither, you cannot be both. You either believe a God exists or you do not (necessarily).



And yet a whole lot of people are neither/both all the time...It is called "wishy washy", "goes back and forth", or "on the fence".


----------



## Nihonjin (Jul 2, 2013)

SubtleObscurantist said:


> *And yet a whole lot of people are neither/both all the time*...It is called "wishy washy", "goes back and forth", or "on the fence".



Not possible.

Going back and forth is one thing, but you can't be both at the same time. They're mutually exclusive. And everything in existence falls in one of the two categories.

Either you're a theist or _not_ a theist. Being on the fence means you're still _not _a theist.


----------



## Mael (Jul 2, 2013)

I can't possibly be a theist.  I'm too busy being racist and sexist.


----------



## Narcissus (Jul 2, 2013)

Not bothering to read this entire thread, but besides the misleading and dishonest thread title, there seems to be a lot of ignorance from everyone in here, theist and atheist alike.

First of all, that symbol isn't new by any means... it is the Atomic Whirl and is approved by the Department of Veterans Affairs as an official emblem.


More importantly, in no way does this mean atheists are trying to turn atheism into a religion. Even if they were, they would fail because they cannot do so by the very premise of atheism. And there is nothing wrong with atheists coming together and organizing (and still would not make this a religion).

As for the jokes about atheists doing silly things, I could easily post nonsense from religious people that trumps that, and hard.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Jul 2, 2013)

Nihonjin said:


> Not possible.
> 
> Going back and forth is one thing, but you can't be both at the same time. They're mutually exclusive. And everything in existence falls in one of the two categories.
> 
> Either you're a theist or _not_ a theist. Being on the fence means you're still _not _a theist.



You are telling me you can't hold two different, contradictory opinions at the same time?

Nonsense. That's the very _definition_ of being on the fence, or being wishy washy. The human mind is capable of contradicting itself, my friend.


----------



## Blue (Jul 2, 2013)

Nihonjin said:


> Either you're a theist or _not_ a theist. Being on the fence means you're still _not _a theist.



That's your opinion, not a fact

My opinion is different

And mine has much more support in the literature

Yours has like none at all, nobody ever made the claim that agnostics are atheists until relatively recently when atheist stopped being a bad word.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jul 2, 2013)

> And mine has much more support in the literature


DO show them, Ayn Rand


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jul 2, 2013)

Blue said:


> That's your opinion, not a fact
> 
> My opinion is different



Actually, it is a fact as it is logically entailed.

Theist = belief in a deity

Agnosticism = On the fence

Atheism = disbelief in a deity[/QUOTE]

The latter categories are mutually exclusive with theism but not with each other. If you do not know something; you don't believe in it so thus you cannot be a Theist as Theism requires a positive belief. If you do not know that God exists then you don't believe in God. If you don't believe in God you are an Atheist. Atheism does not = God does not exist but it includes it. Basically; if you were to draw a ven diagram; you would see Atheism and Agnosticm being linked (at least partially) and Theism a different circle completely.


----------



## Nihonjin (Jul 2, 2013)

Blue said:


> That's your opinion, not a fact
> 
> My opinion is different



So let me see if I get your logic right by analogy.

Theism:

Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
^So that's the belief you have to hold in order to be called a theist.


1) "Theists" - _God is guilty of existing
_
2) "One the fence" - _He might exist, but not sure_
3) "Not enough evidence"  - _Not guilty._
4) "Convinced" - _Innocent! Definitely doesn't exist_

So you disagree when I say that 2, 3 and 4 are all _not_ 1?
Do I understand that correctly?



> Yours has like none at all, nobody ever made the claim that agnostics are atheists until relatively recently when atheist stopped being a bad word.



I'm not sure what your point is?

And I'm sure if you go back in time far enough people would call Dolphins fish. We learned as a society that they're not.

Until recently we called Pluto a planet. Then we realised that looking by how we define a planet, Pluto doesn't really fit that description.

Similarly, until recently, people didn't call agnostics atheists, but it doesn't take a genius to see that they are definitely _not_ theists, which is the only requirement to be called an atheist. It doesn't really mean anything else except that.


I pretty much explained all of that in my previous post though. Why did you ignore the whole thing and only reply to that specific part? I went out of my way to type it all up for you and was genuinely curious about what you had to say..


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 2, 2013)

SubtleObscurantist said:


> You are telling me you can't hold two different, contradictory opinions at the same time?
> 
> Nonsense. That's the very _definition_ of being on the fence, or being wishy washy. The human mind is capable of contradicting itself, my friend.



No it isn't. Being on the fence means you haven't made a final decision on the matter. That one can switch back and forth from belief to non-belief based on their circumstances, when dealing with the matter of religion particularly. Which means they are one or the other at one point, but never both. That transitory period is very common when someone is leaving religion. What they are excluded from is being _gnostic_ atheists or theists. 



Blue said:


> That's your opinion, not a fact
> 
> My opinion is different
> 
> ...



Theism requires a 'yes' to the question of 'Do you believe in God?', anything else would make you non-theistic, IE, atheist. If one never thought of it either way, then that is not theism by it's very definition. Agnosticism is not a third alternative to either atheism or theism as I told you, as most atheists tend to be agnostic atheists. Because agnosticism explains a different matter than atheism or theism would. So anyone that, like yourself, took up the term 'agnostic' in the idea that it gave you some superior ground in regards to reason revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of what agnosticism is.

Agnosticism is not atheism, I myself have stressed to you completely why they are different and because of that why you use it so incorrectly. Because agnosticism is a category that elaborates on the question of 'do you know?' not 'do you believe?'; it serves to elaborate on the type of atheism or theism one has. As I stated you attempt to use it under the mistake that it is a third alternative to theism or atheism, it's not. It only explains whether or not a person KNOWS a deity exists or not and the type of atheist or theist one is.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jul 2, 2013)

> You are telling me you can't hold two different, contradictory opinions at the same time?



That's called cognitive dissonance


----------



## navy (Jul 2, 2013)




----------



## Banhammer (Jul 2, 2013)

I can imagine to be very hard to make atheists agree to be religiously areligious


----------



## Zaru (Jul 2, 2013)

Elim Rawne said:


> That's called cognitive dissonance



As far as I understand it, cognitive dissonance is the conflict (often causing negative emotions) you feel when you hold contradictory opinions, which results in some kind of coping mechanism.

What you mean is the 1984-coined "doublethink", which is when you actually feel perfectly fine with two contradictory opinions/beliefs due to lack of thinking or indoctrination.


----------



## Gino (Jul 2, 2013)

krory said:


> I will murder your fucking vagina, just you wait, Gino.
> 
> You'll rue the day you slighted the Parakeet Gods.
> 
> *RUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE*.


 Krory are you alive bro?
Who is this cunt? 


Kenneth said:


> What a coincidence, so is mine
> 
> Should we start a cult/religion


Yes we should Kenneth yes we should.


----------



## baconbits (Jul 2, 2013)

Maybe a lot of you atheists aren't religious, but these folks clearly are.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jul 2, 2013)

ITT: Hella religious butthurt.

Not to mention butthurt induced retardation.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Jul 2, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> No it isn't. *Being on the fence means you haven't made a final decision on the matter.* That one can switch back and forth from belief to non-belief based on their circumstances, when dealing with the matter of religion particularly. Which means they are one or the other at one point, but never both. That transitory period is very common when someone is leaving religion. What they are excluded from is being _gnostic_ atheists or theists.



"Final decision". That phrasing is an exercise verbal gymnastics, and _not_ a definition. I think the core of your argument is entirely contained in that original choice of language, so I will spend some time analyzing it. 

Someone's "final decision" could be to sit on the fence. Or someone could die before they "made up their mind". Likewise, it is disingenuous to use the word "final" as a descriptive adjective for "decision", because it implies...finality. But nothing compels finality in decision making about a belief, and indeed, I think everyone is well aware of people who have struggled with a decision, come to a conclusion, and then changed their mind later. That peculiar phrasing evidently is an attempt to put undue weight on the moment where someone struggling with a decision comes down on one side or the other. The problem with that reasoning is as follows: there is no clear justification for weighting decision making like that. All moments in time are weighted equally. So while you call the moment where they come off the fence as the "final decision" in order to undermine the notion that sitting on the fence _can be a decision in itself_, one could just as easily declare _no decision_ final until the hypothetical person dies. Especially in this case, since the actual consequences of belief vs disbelief in a deity can't be assessed properly until then. 

If, for instance, there is a God, and all that mattered was the person's state of belief upon death, then it would be eminently silly to describe a decision at age 25 to come off the fence and believe in God if they changed their mind a year before dying at age 80. Likewise, if there isn't any deity, then a fence sitter's decision to reject belief in a deity at age 25 that was reversed 5 years later and they then died at 80, then an atheist could still assess that in the _final_ analysis, they wasted their lives  or something like that. So I have shown that in attempting to slip the word "final" improperly into decision making processes that aren't necessarily final, you are clouding that being on the fence consciously is itself a decision. And many self identified agnostics (regardless of what the word actually means), do consciously sit on the fence. Indeed, why would you even use the word "final" in front of "decision" if not to qualify "decision" to exclude an option. It is a classic No True Scotsman! "Well they have decided to sit on the fence, but it isn't a _final_ decision so it doesn't count."

Fundamentally, your argument, which goes on to say (in response to my claim that the human mind is capable of holding two contradictory opinions at once but without actually formulating any reason to reject my claim before asserting your own) that the human mind has binary options in holding opinions and cannot hold contradictory ones. Between that, and your improper use of the word "final" to describe something which is not final, it strikes me that you are in - in this instance- rejecting the dynamic and complicated nature of human thought processes. Since I am sure you don't reject that notion in general, I think you are gravely erring in your reasoning. Although I can see the advantage to your argument in doing so.


Zaru said:


> As far as I understand it, cognitive dissonance is the conflict (often causing negative emotions) you feel when you hold contradictory opinions, which results in some kind of coping mechanism.
> 
> What you mean is the 1984-coined "doublethink", which is when you actually feel perfectly fine with two contradictory opinions/beliefs due to lack of thinking or indoctrination.



Well doublethink is actually more normal, and natural, than the insidious form we encounter in 1984. Any time one upholds any opinion or belief, that person necessarily thinks it is true. Otherwise, they wouldn't believe it. However, it is necessary to engage in some doublethink in order to challenge one's own beliefs. They must not only doubt the truth of their belief, but psychology has shown that when entertaining a different belief that contradicts the first, they must actually entertain the truth of that belief. However, regardless of what form doublethink takes, it _does_ exist, regardless of whatever those who (wrongly) believe that the concepts of the human mind are restrained by the logical law of non-contradiction continue to say on this thread.


----------



## Mael (Jul 2, 2013)

Elim Rawne said:


> That's called cognitive dissonance




*Spoiler*: __


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jul 2, 2013)

What's that ? An overrated art game ?


----------



## Mael (Jul 2, 2013)

Elim Rawne said:


> What's that ? An overrated art game ?



You should know you silly goose.  Your avatar was once the main character.


----------



## Nihonjin (Jul 2, 2013)

SubtleObscurantist said:


> -snip-



You wrote all of that just because he used the word "final" when he simply meant you haven't swung either way yet, not that you can't change your mind or that it doesn't count until you're absolutely convinced..? ~___~





> sitting on the fence can be a decision in itself



Yes, yes it can. But that doesn't matter.

I'll say it one more time. Theists are OVER the fence. Anyone not OVER the fence is not a theist. 

Whether you're on the fence (purposely or accidentally), under the fence, running away from the fence, reject the idea of a fence or simply never even heard of the fence, that means you're not OVER the fence and by definition NOT a theist.

I really don't understand what part of this doesn't make sense to you.


----------



## Ceria (Jul 2, 2013)

I wonder if any florida residents got the irony of this being released from Starke. 

If not, Starke holds the big house of Florida, aka the state penitentiary. The irony of an atheist symbol being in the same city where many prisoners come to the faith. 

Though i'm surprised that it was Starke where the ten commandments were posted, as i remember Cross city being the source of that argument, i saw the tablets the last time i was there.


----------



## Narcissus (Jul 2, 2013)

E said:


> should be a mouth with shit coming out of it


lol you must be talking about the symbol for the Bible.





Blue said:


> Atheism is the belief - the irrational belief - in the absence of a God.


Complete rubbish. I don't care one bit about this argument over labels, because it isn't important. But to say that the belief, or non-belief, whatever, is irrational is blatantly false. It is the religious side that carries the burden of proof, and if they fail to provide evidence of extraordinary claims then it is not irrational to reject them.

The fact that you went on to straw man the reasons people give for their disbelief is only more damning...





baconbits said:


> Maybe a lot of you atheists aren't religious, but these folks clearly are.


Nonsense, don't be silly, and try reading the article.

Having a symbol and organizing as a group does not make them religious (and the symbol existed well before this Monument was constructed).

This was a case of freedom of speech, in response to the Ten Commandments slab in the courthouse lawn.

The OP just set the thread title and article up in a misleading and dishonest way. It's also very telling of how many people in the thread didn't actually read the article.

By definition, these people cannot be religious.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 2, 2013)

I think there's being a conflict of language between the term "Faith" (capital F for semantics) and the term "religion"


----------



## Pliskin (Jul 2, 2013)

22 pages of glorious semantics.

It's like the Internet is designed to drain human productivity.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Jul 2, 2013)

Nihonjin said:


> You wrote all of that just because he used the word "final" when he simply meant you haven't swung either way yet, not that you can't change your mind or that it doesn't count until you're absolutely convinced..? ~___~



Actually I wrote it because his use of "final" in that context to modify "decision" revealed his thought process in an peculiar way.


> I'll say it one more time. Theists are OVER the fence. Anyone not OVER the fence is not a theist.
> 
> Whether you're on the fence (purposely or accidentally), under the fence, running away from the fence, reject the idea of a fence or simply never even heard of the fence, that means you're not OVER the fence and by definition NOT a theist.



That depends on how you define the "fence". Here, I was using it merely to describe a state of doublethink. If you are engaging in doublethink, then it becomes possible for one part of you to believe in God, and another part not to believe _at the same time_. The human mind has not now, nor has it ever, been bound to be logically consistent. Now you defined theism as belief in god(s) and atheism as lack of belief in god(s). But if you want your definition to hold up to the implications of doublethink, then you have to add on the criteria that a theist "exclusively believes in god(s}". "Exclusively believes" meaning that they hold only the belief that Gods exists and does not entertain the other belief. 

Of course you then encounter two problems. First, you have moved beyond your favorable definition from literal translation. Secondly, you are being psychologically unrealistic. The fact of the matter is that people are capable of having multiple contradictory beliefs on the same subject. And many religious people I know have revealed that they don't always believe in Allah/Yahweh/God etc and will be in a state of turmoil caused by simultaneously believing in God but not believing at the same time. The phenomenon of cognitive dissonance wouldn't even exist if people couldn't hold two contradictory opinions at once. What differentiates theists is not the state of their belief (indeed, I doubt there are that many people who truly never stop believing in their god(s)), but their state of willingness to take a leap of faith and go with the stronger and more consistent of their beliefs despite the presence of an opposing belief and then arrange their other beliefs about all matters influenced by religious opinion around that.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 2, 2013)

Blue said:


> This.
> 
> Atheism is the belief - the irrational belief - in the absence of a God.
> "God doesn't exist because the Earth wasn't created 6000 years ago" doesn't cut it. You can't simply strawman the existence of any divine force as the Biblical Jehovah and say the Bible's wrong therefore atheism.
> ...



This is exactly why people say you don't know what the hell you're talking about. It's the rejection of a belief, not a belief in itself. You don't have a belief in no god. As I told you as well, those that claim to know a god doesn't exist are *gnostic* theists. You are again showing a critical lack of understanding of what atheism is and what agnosticism is. Atheism cannot exist without the concept of theism. I told you countless times before as well that it is in the name itself. A-"without" theist - "God". One that is without god. 

Agnosticism and Gnosticism refers to what you know or don't know. Not what you believe or don't believe. That's what 'theism' and 'atheism' answer.

I mean, then you go on a moronic diatribe about the reason why atheism came to be and why people are atheist, even after having it layed out to you where a child could understand it. *For your case only*, I call you a coward exactly because of this; because you only shy away from the atheist label because of social stigma, not out of understanding of the term. You only identify yourself as agnostic because you mistakenly believe it gives you the one-up on reason towards atheists and theists, and as one of the sources I quoted you fit it exactly in that it is more of spite toward the former than the latter.



SubtleObscurantist said:


> "Final decision". That phrasing is an exercise verbal gymnastics, and _not_ a definition. I think the core of your argument is entirely contained in that original choice of language, so I will spend some time analyzing it.



It's not verbal gymnastics at all. It simply means you are not resolute in whatever inclination you may have at the time. You're not sure of its permanence. When one tells people 'they're on the fence' that's synonymous with 'I haven't made up my mind' or 'I can't come to a resolute decision'.


----------



## Corruption (Jul 2, 2013)

baconbits said:


> Maybe a lot of you atheists aren't religious, but these folks clearly are.



Umm....no.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 2, 2013)

I think it was incredibly stupid and arrogant to choose that symbol, considering how it implies religious people don't believe in atoms, and rather very hypocritical to presume to speak for the atheist community
They have shunned God, but they sure as hell haven't shunned religion, which is the single most retarded way you could go about it


----------



## Gino (Jul 2, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> I think it was incredibly stupid and arrogant to choose that symbol, considering how it implies religious people don't believe in atoms, and rather very hypocritical to presume to speak for the atheist community
> They have shunned God, but they sure as hell haven't shunned religion, which is the single most retarded way you could go about it



What are you gonna do about it?


----------



## Sarry (Jul 2, 2013)

I've tried to read the last page alone, and I got bored. At least the NK, Egypt, and Syria threads are more relevant/interesting.


Though this whole event is still ironically funny.
Atheism now has a symbol, and a figurehead (Dawkins)


----------



## Gino (Jul 2, 2013)

Get yo punk azz out the thread then.


----------



## Mael (Jul 2, 2013)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECuarAmpK00[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 2, 2013)

Gino said:


> What are you gonna do about it?



I'm going to demand that absolutely no symbol is raised next to the atheists symbols to represent my opinion on the impact of symbology in the court of law

And you bet your ass they are going to do as I tell them


----------



## hazashi (Jul 3, 2013)

Although atheism is not synonymous with anti-religiosity, it is to me - an atheist, in the sense I don't believe in any conception of divine being - really unnecessary to try to create a group, or a movement, out of disbelief for something, almost contradictory. But hey, do whatever you want to do; I just hope I never see fanatic or terrorist atheists, lol.


----------



## ImperatorMortis (Jul 3, 2013)

Lol at this pretentious douche. :rofl


----------



## Tsuchi (Jul 3, 2013)

Bishop said:


> I feel that atheism is becoming a religion in that many of them evangelize, hold meetings and now even have a symbol...The ebook will be here soon.



Agree with this. They're failing to realize that they're becoming more religious than they want to be. 

And seriously, that sign is sooooooooo original, why didn't anyone else think of it


----------



## Zhariel (Jul 3, 2013)

Symbol has been around for a while now, and definitely looks like the Albuquerque Isotopes logo.


----------



## ImperatorMortis (Jul 3, 2013)

Graeme said:


> Symbol has been around for a while now, and definitely looks like the Albuquerque Isotopes logo.



That is way too busy.


----------



## Bungee Gum (Jul 3, 2013)

Tsuchi said:


> Agree with this. They're failing to realize that they're becoming more religious than they want to be.
> 
> And seriously, that sign is sooooooooo original, why didn't anyone else think of it



Having a symbol, getting together and speaking with one another, listening to speeches...That is your idea of religion? 

Religion has to be based on a belief system and faith, and also involving the supernatural/God(s). Please, tell me how Atheists are becoming religious. 

I guess businesses are religious, since they have symbols and signs, get together for meetings, work together, eat together, etc. Who'd a thunkit?


----------



## KFC (Jul 4, 2013)

Goova said:


> Having a symbol, getting together and speaking with one another, listening to speeches...That is your idea of religion?
> 
> Religion has to be based on a belief system and faith, and also involving the supernatural/God(s). Please, tell me how Atheists are becoming religious.
> 
> I guess businesses are religious, since they have symbols and signs, get together for meetings, work together, eat together, etc. Who'd a thunkit?



I'm kinda with goova on this one. I mean, for practical reasons, it's always good to have a symbol and name that allows for easy recognition of the group you belong to. And the idea that people in a group meet with each other routinely doesn't make them a religious organization, it just makes them an organization.

And as far as proselytizing, you forget that one of main things that some atheist groups do is move against religion, so I mean, of course it would require TELLING people about atheism. I mean, part of it is a movement against religion and a belief in God, and they can't exactly get more people to believe them by not saying anything.


----------



## Vasto Lorde King (Jul 4, 2013)

Athiest symbol. Oh the Irony.


----------



## Doge (Jul 4, 2013)

Mill?n Vasto said:


> Athiest symbol. Oh the Irony.



But, we're the sthuper smart people!  We're rational and caring and everyone hates us!  We're not just people w/o a belief, no different than a newborn child, we're a new kind of sthociety!  You can't be atheist without science!  Youtube comments and r/atheism told me so!


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jul 4, 2013)

And you two idiots with your smug sense of superiority didnt even read the article...

Oh irony


----------



## Doge (Jul 4, 2013)

Elim Rawne said:


> And you two idiots with your smug sense of superiority didnt even read the article...
> 
> Oh irony



Everyone here's referring to the slab that's supposed to state what Atheists do.  Even if it's a statement of free speech, that doesn't mean it's not an irrational description and false generalizations of atheists.  

If they don't want to describe atheism accurately and without charming slogan to attract people to it like a faith, political candidate, etc., that's a-okay.  But it's still an inaccurate description and false statement.


----------



## Narcissus (Jul 4, 2013)

Mill?n Vasto said:


> Athiest symbol. Oh the Irony.



There is nothing ironic about it. Symbols are not exclusive to religion, and they are not worshiping it.

Trying to paint atheism as a religion is both dishonest and ignorant, because by definition it cannot be religious..

...and there is nothing wrong with atheists forming and organizing groups, as they have that right.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 4, 2013)

Yeah, but my problem with that group is they are only, at least inadvertently, exacerbating people's ignorance on atheism.


----------



## Madara103084 (Jul 5, 2013)

I think this will be a great symbol for agnosticism.





Represents how think on the subject of religion and sprituality.


----------



## Chausie (Jul 5, 2013)

not believing in religion seems to be a really big deal to some people.


----------



## Big Mom (Jul 5, 2013)

This group of atheists are weird. First of all, I thought Atheism wasn't a religion? Like you don't practice and stuff?

That's not my problem with this though. I'm happy for them that they have a symbol there, but sueing to get another symbol removed? ARE YOU KIDDING? I'm not a fan of Christianity or religion for that matter, but they are entitled to have their symbol there. If you are an atheist, cool for you. But don't shove your belief down others throats, and that goes for all religions. 

Those atheists are acting so childish. They are only doing this to spite the other religions. Their lawsuit failed so they decided to put a big symbol next to the other one. Wow.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 5, 2013)

Chausie said:


> not believing in religion seems to be a really big deal to some people.



Because people often ostracize and mischaracterize those that don't have a religion or believe in God. We're still at a point in society where one is considered strange for not believing in an unproven, supernatural concept such as a deity.


----------



## Reznor (Jul 5, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> We're still at a point in society where one is considered strange for not believing in an unproven, supernatural concept such as a deity.


And you think that this is going to make it seem _less_ strange?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 5, 2013)

Reznor said:


> And you think that this is going to make it seem _less_ strange?



Well, considering that my previous post stated that I think they will only exacerbate people's ignorance...


----------



## Reznor (Jul 5, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Well, considering that my previous post stated that I think they will only exacerbate people's ignorance...


Ah, fair enough.

Too much of the dialogue concerning atheism is controlled by people that are too involved. I hear way too many regurgitating of party lines whenever people talk about this, which makes the conversations dumb for those that don't want to enter into the atheist/theist meta-game.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 5, 2013)

All an atheist is is one that doesn't believe in any kind of god, so one doesn't really have to do anything to become one. The involvement stems from people like I said still being in a state where one is expected to believe in god, and those that don't being outcast for it. I am annoyed that in the middle of what's already a messy situation, they put on a slab "an atheist believes" and then list down things that are actually secular humanist ideals.


----------



## Reznor (Jul 5, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> All an atheist is is one that doesn't believe in any kind of god, so one doesn't really have to do anything to become one. The involvement stems from people like I said still being in a state where one is expected to believe in god, and those that don't being outcast for it. I am annoyed that in the middle of what's already a messy situation, they put on a slab "an atheist believes" and then list down things that are actually secular humanist ideals.


I think an atheist should sue for falsely representing their believes.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 5, 2013)

Or more accurately, lack of belief. Ultimately the ideals an atheist has will be dependent on the individual, and their (non-theistic) religion if they have one. I'm all for betterment of humanity too, but that's not what atheism touches upon and they only compromise the discussion by trying to give it a set of beliefs. Radical Christians hate secular humanism too...it has the word 'secular' in it after all.


----------



## Chausie (Jul 5, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Because people often ostracize and mischaracterize those that don't have a religion or believe in God. We're still at a point in society where one is considered strange for not believing in an unproven, supernatural concept such as a deity.



I have personally not seen this as an atheist in society. generally people don't give a shit if you don't shove it in their faces. like i don't care what other people worship as long as it's not shoved in my face as the only 'right' way to live.


----------



## αce (Jul 5, 2013)

> I have personally not seen this as an atheist in society. generally people don't give a shit if you don't shove it in their faces. like i don't care what other people worship as long as it's not shoved in my face as the only 'right' way to live.



worship me or burn


----------



## Chausie (Jul 5, 2013)

who says i don't already, ace?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 5, 2013)

Chausie said:


> I have personally not seen this as an atheist in society. generally people don't give a shit if you don't shove it in their faces. like i don't care what other people worship as long as it's not shoved in my face as the only 'right' way to live.



I live in the Bible Belt of the Southeastern United States. So my experience naturally would have been far different. Although, I hear Ireland is particularly religious too, or is where you live an outlier to that?


----------



## Chausie (Jul 5, 2013)

I grew up in england, moved here a few months ago. I went to a catholic school in england, and no one seemed to care that i didn't believe.

here, i guess catholicism is a part of the culture, but it's slowly moving away from it, compared to when my mother was growing up.

you get things which i would class as odd, like shrines in every other town, where you would least expect it, but i view that as part of the culture. i have mentioned that i don't believe in religion, and no one seemed to care, or view me as strange. i have not had one person say to me that i will go to hell or whatever else, for not believing.

i think that the catholic religion has done a lot of bad in this country, to go with any good they have done. and i think a lot of younger people are realising that.


----------

