# your favorite religious propaganda



## zhn0k (Dec 5, 2012)

this one's my favorite... i can't believe people really believe this shit.


----------



## MojoRison (Dec 5, 2012)

The first thing that came to mind


----------



## psilocybindude (Dec 5, 2012)

^^ What he said!


----------



## Carne Seca (Dec 5, 2012)

Don't Christian bashing threads belong in the Spirituality forum?


----------



## drolove (Dec 5, 2012)

lol i can talk any christian into the "i cant explain it, you just gotta have faith"
thats enough for me to know it bullshit when even the followers have no clue and all they have is blind faith.
sure do wish more people in this world had more common sense to know better than to believe these story books.


----------



## MojoRison (Dec 5, 2012)

I do agree with Carne...there is a place for this type of thread


----------



## drolove (Dec 5, 2012)

but this also toke and talk where pretty much anything can be posted. right now im toking and talking so whats the problem??


----------



## psilocybindude (Dec 5, 2012)

George Carlin "People are always asking what would Jesus do, what would Jesus do? They don't want to know so they can do it, they want to know so they can tell you to do it!"


----------



## MojoRison (Dec 5, 2012)

There's no problem...just an agreed upon place where these type of threads "tend" to be talked about.


----------



## kenny ken 77 (Dec 5, 2012)

We'll just cap this one off with, all religion sucks!!!


----------



## 420God (Dec 5, 2012)




----------



## psilocybindude (Dec 5, 2012)

Lol arguing about where this thread should be located, is just about as pointless arguing that your religion is the right one, nether of you have any proof but one of you is still right and one of you is still wrong in your own opinion's, i say we take a page out of the jokers philosophy and let the chips fall where they may, the thread was created in the toke n talk forum and so it is where it was meant to be.


----------



## Blue Wizard (Dec 5, 2012)

.............


----------



## PeyoteReligion (Dec 5, 2012)

Blue Wizard said:


> View attachment 2432219.............


This picture is fucking awesome! I'm saving this bad boy!


----------



## rainman36 (Dec 5, 2012)

yall are going to hell.


----------



## rainman36 (Dec 5, 2012)

But mines have to be the christian religion,that's classic shit right their,the whole hell thing,and burning for eternity,I'm like how? so if the physical body is flesh,bones,nerves and can be burned and feel pain right? so how can the soul feel anything,let alone burn for an eternity,how is that possible? and another thing is the pastors,and their big fancy churches,they know their wrong for what they are doing,bcuz if you are teaching the word of god,then you don't need a big church,fancy glass mirrors,to feel the spirit of god,learn to live the right way,and have to give up cash in the collection plate,what I'm saying is if the blind is leading the blind,then how and the fuck can we as a people get anywhere,and expect to go to heaven,when these people put money before the the word of god,bcuz if you aint giving up that cash,they damn sure as hell aint gonna be preaching shit,you think they are doing it bcuz they love it.

I believe in god,but I can't follow a religion,and I don't wanna offend anybody who may be a christian or whatever on this site,but you really have to ask yourself,is religion just another trap another way of control,and I said this before,if it was one true religion,then I think that it would be instilled in us from birth.If you know deep down that yopu are a good person,then you don't need to be stamped with a religion for it to be certified,and a preacher who sins trying to tell you how the fuck you need to live.only he without sin can tell me if my means justify my end.


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Dec 5, 2012)

Carne Seca said:


> Don't Christian bashing threads belong in the Spirituality forum?


yes they do


----------



## drolove (Dec 5, 2012)

Dr. Greenhorn said:


> yes they do


your lame!


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Dec 5, 2012)

drolove said:


> your lame!


and?&#8203;.....


----------



## drolove (Dec 5, 2012)

Dr. Greenhorn said:


> and?&#8203;.....


and now i dont even feel like posting in this tread....
*unsubscribes and storms out like a little kid.*


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 5, 2012)

His lame. cn


----------



## psilocybindude (Dec 6, 2012)

This to me is the most disgusting piece of religious propaganda ever created, i cant believe i forgot to mention it in my first post because i have been preaching my rhetoric against it since i saw Fight Club,






"In God We Trust" eh? So i am supposed to believe the supposed creator of all life on this planet who made all men equal, endorses money? The few pieces of worthless paper that are the difference between being shit on and being "the shit", the difference between having a home and living under a bridge in the middle of winter? I mean come on people does any one have common sense, it doesn't take much critical thinking to realize that it is a complete contradiction and should be removed from the dollar bill, and what ever happened to the separation between church and state? I don't believe in the christian god or any others in particular, and i don't mind religious people they can believe in what ever they want, what i cant stand is people who try and convert me specially when they are usually such fucking self righteous hypocrites, i understand that pretty much all of these people grew up with it and so they were conditioned to believe in it but they also grew up with Santa Clause and the tooth ferry and they don't believe in them any more.

Religion is a method of control that has been institutionalized upon almost all of us, if these people wanna waste there lives feeling guilty and being indentured to a life of servitude for there savior for no reason that's fine with me, morality is subjective and i choose to live my life knowing that if there is a god that gives a fuck about me, i don't have to accept Jesus into my heart, i will be in a better place because i am a reasonably good person.

And enough with the self righteousness already, "The _only true_ wisdom is in knowing _you know nothing_&#8221; &#8213; Socrates


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Dec 6, 2012)

dont forget we even have the more subtle form of God indoctrination weve been exposed to ,just take a look at the old pledge of allegiance.


----------



## psilocybindude (Dec 6, 2012)

I didn't know they had changed it but yeah i remember it being that way when i was in elementary school i refused to do it.


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Dec 7, 2012)

rainman36 said:


> But mines have to be the christian religion,that's classic shit right their,the whole hell thing,and burning for eternity,I'm like how? so if the physical body is flesh,bones,nerves and can be burned and feel pain right? so how can the soul feel anything,let alone burn for an eternity,how is that possible? and another thing is the pastors,and their big fancy churches,they know their wrong for what they are doing,bcuz if you are teaching the word of god,then you don't need a big church,fancy glass mirrors,to feel the spirit of god,learn to live the right way,and have to give up cash in the collection plate,what I'm saying is if the blind is leading the blind,then how and the fuck can we as a people get anywhere,and expect to go to heaven,when these people put money before the the word of god,bcuz if you aint giving up that cash,they damn sure as hell aint gonna be preaching shit,you think they are doing it bcuz they love it.
> 
> I believe in god,but I can't follow a religion,and I don't wanna offend anybody who may be a christian or whatever on this site,but you really have to ask yourself,is religion just another trap another way of control,and I said this before,if it was one true religion,then I think that it would be instilled in us from birth.If you know deep down that yopu are a good person,then you don't need to be stamped with a religion for it to be certified,and a preacher who sins trying to tell you how the fuck you need to live.only he without sin can tell me if my means justify my end.


i actually asked a friend at work , who told me i was going to hell , how would i burn if i had no bones or flesh , and i was just a spirit, his answer was ( and he said it with sincerity ) 'the devil has a different kind of fire that can burn souls.'


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 9, 2012)

see io thought this was gonna be actual religious propaganda,, not a bunch of whiney psuedo-atheists pissing about somebody not believing like you do. 

this is how you post your favorite religious propaganda:


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 10, 2012)

What's a pseudo-atheist?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 11, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> What's a pseudo-atheist?


atheists who adopt that stance because it's trendy, and ohh so very rebellious. 

kind of like the 12 year old emo kid psuedo-anarchist numbskulls who think noam chomsky is a genius. 

basically, twats.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 11, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> atheists who adopt that stance because it's trendy, and ohh so very rebellious.
> 
> kind of like the 12 year old emo kid psuedo-anarchist numbskulls who think noam chomsky is a genius.
> 
> basically, twats.


By what criteria can you distinguish a pseudo-atheist from the real deal? I would agree that atheism is trending, but not necessarily trendy.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 11, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> By what criteria can you distinguish a pseudo-atheist from the real deal? I would agree that atheism is trending, but not necessarily trendy.


just like in political theories, those who are unable to elucidate WHY they believe a particular way, and are unable to form a rational defense of their position are generally the poseurs and trend followers, the psuedo-_________ists. 

an "anarchist" who cannot explain why anarchy would be a good thing is a psuedo-anarchist
an "atheist" who can only spout tired memes and weak ass quotes dot com bullshit is not really an atheist, he is simply adopting the beliefs of people who are actual atheists, thus placing his faith in the ideology of the "religion of atheism"
these atheist adherents follow the guidelines laid out by the high priests of their new faith, and follow the teachings of their gurus just like any religion. the irony is, the gurus arent trying to be gurus. 

the worst kind of fake atheists though, are the part-time atheists. the ones who deride and assail every whispered rumor of christian encroachment on the pure and sacred "wall of separation" but express their admiration for islam, sikhism, sufism, buddhism, new age crystal worship, primitive fetishism, animism and pretty much any religion which is not the familiar christians and jews. they are opposed not to religious belief, but to religious beliefs which they view as conformist. they are halfassed satanists who are just too chicken to put on the mascara and pentagrams of the real deal douchenozzles who scream "LOOK AT ME! I'M REBELLING!" through the ear gauging, faux-tribal tatoos (seriously, WHAT TRIBE??) and elaborate hairstyles of the angsty teen stereotype.


----------



## cleverpiggy (Dec 11, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> just like in political theories, those who are unable to elucidate WHY they believe a particular way, and are unable to form a rational defense of their position are generally the poseurs and trend followers, the psuedo-_________ists.
> 
> an "anarchist" who cannot explain why anarchy would be a good thing is a psuedo-anarchist
> an "atheist" who can only spout tired memes and weak ass quotes dot com bullshit is not really an atheist, he is simply adopting the beliefs of people who are actual atheists, thus placing his faith in the ideology of the "religion of atheism"
> ...


Well Fucking said, bravo sir, so poignant and clear! ^^^


----------



## greenswag (Dec 11, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> just like in political theories, those who are unable to elucidate WHY they believe a particular way, and are unable to form a rational defense of their position are generally the poseurs and trend followers, the psuedo-_________ists.
> 
> an "anarchist" who cannot explain why anarchy would be a good thing is a psuedo-anarchist
> an "atheist" who can only spout tired memes and weak ass quotes dot com bullshit is not really an atheist, he is simply adopting the beliefs of people who are actual atheists, thus placing his faith in the ideology of the "religion of atheism"
> ...


That last paragraph is so awesome I want to get it framed. I don't know why I detest the emo/goth people so much, some of the chicks are kinda hot though if you can get passed all the underlying issues they have (trust me I know, I've dated a couple).

edit: Rant- I guess I just hate the total lack of self esteem they have. Ever notice how they carry themselves? The majority of them are pale mother fuckers who hide at home in their dark bedroom and when they go in public they're hunched over. If you're going through all that trouble to stand out with your shitty make-up, dyed black hair, black elevator combat boots and all black clothing why are you trying to hide yourself when you're in public, you are obviously ashamed of yourself. I give some small respect to the ones who stand up straight and just enjoy the punk rock culture or whatever it is they like, just have some fucking self confidence. I see someone hunching over and my instincts start telling me to rip them apart. -End rant.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 12, 2012)

who doesnt like to snare a girl with daddy-issues? 

[video=youtube;pP4aI18XODA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP4aI18XODA[/video]


----------



## drcucumber (Dec 14, 2012)

my favorite religious propaganda is the Saudi nonsense that pretends there is advanced science in the quran.


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 14, 2012)

[video=youtube;is2x7QTZ8AI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=is2x7QTZ8AI#![/video]

It's our fault that kids get shot at school.


----------



## Omgwtfbbq Indicaman (Dec 14, 2012)

this one still cracks me up, Fundie logic is baffling. 






a Creation Museum....


----------



## psilocybindude (Dec 14, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> [video=youtube;is2x7QTZ8AI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=is2x7QTZ8AI#![/video]
> 
> It's our fault that kids get shot at school.


What a fucking douche bag, 

1700s
The earliest known United States shooting to happen on school property was the Pontiac's Rebellion school massacre on *July 26, 1764*, where four Lenape American Indians entered the schoolhouse near present-day Greencastle, Pennsylvania, shot and killed schoolmaster Enoch Brown, and killed nine or ten children (reports vary). Only three children survived.[SUP][18][/SUP]


1800s


*November 2, 1853:* Louisville, Kentucky A student, Matthew Ward, bought a self-cocking pistol in the morning, went to school and killed Schoolmaster Mr. Butler for excessively punishing his brother the day before. Even though he shot the Schoolmaster point blank in front of his classmates, he was acquitted.[SUP][19][/SUP]
 

An *April 30, 1866* editorial in the New York Times argued against students carrying pistols, citing "..._pistols being dropped on the floor at balls or being exploded in very inconvenient ways. A boy of 12 has his pantaloons made with a pistol pocket; and this at a boarding-school filled with boys, who, we suppose, do or wish to do the same thing. We would advise parents to look into it, and learn whether shooting is to be a part of the scholastic course which may be practiced on their boys; or else we advise them to see that their own boys are properly armed with the most approved and deadly-pistol, and that there may be an equal chance at least of their shooting as of being shot._"[SUP][20][/SUP]
 

*June 8, 1867:* New York City At Public School No. 18, a 13 year old lad brought a pistol loaded and capped, without the knowledge of his parents or school-teachers, and shot and injured a classmate.[SUP][21][/SUP]
 

*December 22, 1868:* Chattanooga, Tennessee A boy who refused to be whipped and left school, returned with his brother and a friend, the next day to seek revenge on his teacher. Not finding the teacher at the school, they continued to his house, where a gun battle rang out, leaving three dead. Only the brother survived.[SUP][22][/SUP]
 

*March 9, 1873:* Salisbury, Maryland After school as Miss Shockley was walking with four small children, she was approached by a Mr. Hall and shot. The Schoolmaster ran out, but she was dead instantly. Hall threw himself under a train that night.[SUP][23][/SUP]
 

*May 24, 1879:* Lancaster, New York As the carriage loaded with female students was pulling out of the school's stables, Frank Shugart, a telegraph operator, shot and severely injured Mr. Carr, Superintendent of the stables.[SUP][24][/SUP]
 

*March 6, 1884:* Boston, Massachusetts As news of Jesse James reached the east coast, young kids started to act in the same manner. An article from the New York Times reads, _Another "Jesse James" Gang_ - _Word was brought to the Fifth Police Station to-night that a number of boys were using the Concord-street School-house for some unknown purpose, and a posse of officers was sent to investigate. The gang scattered at the approach of the police, and in their flight one drew a revolver and fired at Officer Rowan, without effect, however. William Nangle, age 14, and Sidney Duncan, age 12, were captured, but the other five or six escaped, among them the one who did the shooting. The boys refused to disclose the object of their meeting, but it is thought that another "Jesse James" organization has been broken up._[SUP][25][/SUP]
 

*March 15, 1884:* Gainesville, Georgia In the middle of the day, a group of very drunk Jackson County farmers left the Jug Tavern drinking and shooting their revolvers as they headed down the street driving people into their homes. As they approached the female academy, the girls fled the schoolyard into the school where the gang followed swearing and shooting, firing several rounds into the front door. No one was hurt.[SUP][26][/SUP]



*July 4, 1886:* Charleston, South Carolina During Sunday school, Emma Connelly shot and killed John Steedley for "circulating slanderous reports" about her, even though her brother publicly whipped him a few days earlier.[SUP][27][/SUP]
 

*June 12, 1887:* Cleveland, Tennessee Will Guess went to the school and fatally shot Miss Irene Fann, his little sister's teacher, for whipping her the day before.[SUP][28][/SUP]
 

*June 13, 1889:* New Brunswick, New Jersey Charles Crawford upset over an argument with a school Trustee, went up to the window and fired a pistol into a crowded school room. The bullet lodged in the wall just above the teacher's[SUP][_vague_][/SUP] head.[SUP][29][/SUP]
 The first known mass shooting in the U.S. where students were shot, was on *April 9, 1891*, when 70 year old, James Foster fired a shotgun at a group of students in the playground of St. Mary's Parochial School, Newburgh, New York, causing minor injuries to several of the students.[SUP][30][/SUP] The majority of attacks during this time period by students on other students or teacher, usually involved stabbing with knives, or hitting with stones.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 3, 2013)

[video=youtube;6Qvo4_hMrF4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=6Qvo4_hMrF4[/video]

Published on Dec 29, 2012
A Wahhabi religious cleric in Saudi Arabia, Muhammed al-Arifi, who is very influential in Jihadi circles, has recently issued a fatwa (religious edict) that permits all Jihadist militants in Syria to engage in short-lived marriages with Syrian women that each lasts for a few hours in order to satisfy their sexual desires and boost their determination in killing Syrians. He called the marriage as 'intercourse marriage'. It requires that the Syrian female be at least 14 years old, widowed, or divorced.


----------



## cheechako (Jan 3, 2013)




----------



## ManWithTheHex (Jan 7, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> just like in political theories, those who are unable to elucidate WHY they believe a particular way, and are unable to form a rational defense of their position are generally the poseurs and trend followers, the psuedo-_________ists.
> 
> an "anarchist" who cannot explain why anarchy would be a good thing is a psuedo-anarchist
> an "atheist" who can only spout tired memes and weak ass quotes dot com bullshit is not really an atheist, he is simply adopting the beliefs of people who are actual atheists, thus placing his faith in the ideology of the "religion of atheism"
> these atheist adherents follow the guidelines laid out by the high priests of their new faith, and follow the teachings of their gurus just like any religion. the irony is, the gurus arent trying to be gurus.


Who are you to define the meaning of being an atheist? 
Being an atheist don't require anything from you. It's just the label we have put on people who don't believe in a god. The only defense anyone need for being atheist is "I don't believe it because I don't see enough evidence to do so", nothing more. Your whole idea of psyuedo-atheists are, sorry to say, retarded.


----------



## 420IAMthatIAM (Jan 10, 2013)

drolove said:


> lol i can talk any christian into the "i cant explain it, you just gotta have faith"
> thats enough for me to know it bullshit when even the followers have no clue and all they have is blind faith.
> sure do wish more people in this world had more common sense to know better than to believe these story books.


lol.... but whats really interesting is when you get to the point of understanding of what faith really is then these story books as you call them become really clear...because that's what we all are...we are a story been told. http://youtu.be/0PFXk5Nuwls


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 11, 2013)

ManWithTheHex said:


> Who are you to define the meaning of being an atheist?
> Being an atheist don't require anything from you. It's just the label we have put on people who don't believe in a god. The only defense anyone need for being atheist is "I don't believe it because I don't see enough evidence to do so", nothing more. Your whole idea of psyuedo-atheists are, sorry to say, retarded.


there are fake atheists just like there are fake moslems, fake christians, fake jews fake buddhists.... 

an atheist who announces his atheism as soon as he walks into a room, then dares everyone to be scandalized is EXACTLY as fake as a supposed christian who waves a sign reading "god hates fags" outside a funeral. 

most atheists i have met spend most of their time trying to convert people to their own belief system. 

i do not believe in santa claus, but untill some asshole tries to sell me on his idiotic god of brightly wrapped presents and dubious morality, you would never discover that fact. 

i also do not believe that putting a penny on a railroad track will de-rail a train. dumb beliefs are simply dumb, and refuting the claim of fools is easy as fuck, but fake atheists do exactly the same shitty stand-up routine as "satanists" and new age hucksters. they sell an agenda and attempt to gain social status by putting on their reverse sack-cloth and ashes. atheists who go out looking for a reason to be offended are as phony as a weeping televangelist and his magic prayer hankies. 

this makes me wonder why your butthurt levels are so high. 

does my disdain for fake atheists strike too close to home? 
are you perhaps only atheist on the high holy days? 
perhaps you are, as i suspect, like the fool who carries around a copy of some book he thinks smart people read, just so nobody realizes he is illiterate.
perhaps you "read" Scientific American by pulling off the cover and wrapping it around the latest issue of Teen People...


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 11, 2013)

420IAMthatIAM said:


> lol.... but whats really interesting is when you get to the point of understanding of what faith really is then these story books as you call them become really clear...because that's what we all are...we are a story been told. http://youtu.be/0PFXk5Nuwls


rejected. 

categorically denied. 

"Faith" is belief in somethinng without the presence of evidence to support that belief. it is not idiotic unthinking acceptance of dogma, religious ritual, or 700 million year old alien ghosts that cause all human frailties. 

that kind of blind acceptance is not faith, it is submission. 

and submission has never been cool.


----------



## 420IAMthatIAM (Jan 12, 2013)

psilocybindude said:


> Lol arguing about where this thread should be located, is just about as pointless arguing that your religion is the right one, nether of you have any proof but one of you is still right and one of you is still wrong in your own opinion's, i say we take a page out of the jokers philosophy and let the chips fall where they may, the thread was created in the toke n talk forum and so it is where it was meant to be.


http://youtu.be/X1sgTKbt124 because no religion is the right one.


----------



## rooky1985 (Jan 12, 2013)

I saw a sign once that had a huge  on it and it said "SMILE YOUR MOM CHOSE LIFE". I found it very funny and I did smile.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 15, 2013)

rooky1985 said:


> I saw a sign once that had a huge  on it and it said "SMILE YOUR MOM CHOSE LIFE". I found it very funny and I did smile.


it might as well have read "Smile! Your dad got laid at least once!"


----------



## cheechako (Jan 15, 2013)

rooky1985 said:


> I saw a sign once that had a huge  on it and it said "SMILE YOUR MOM CHOSE LIFE". I found it very funny and I did smile.


I saw a similar sign once. My mom committed suicide when I was barely a teen. It made me very sad to think about. I was depressed for like a week.


----------



## psilocybindude (Jan 15, 2013)

420IAMthatIAM said:


> http://youtu.be/X1sgTKbt124 because no religion is the right one.


It's funny that you link me this video because for years the tower of babel has been a part of my logic i use against Christians, i don't really have a problem with people being religious they can believe what ever they want, i have a problem with people being all high and mighty because they glanced over a few pages of a book that was compiled hundreds of years ago and has been edited threw out history to suite the needs of those in power i also have a problem with people trying to convert me with out provocation...
What i say to the Christians is usually something along the lines of "okay so god decided to punish us for trying to build a tower to heaven and then he changed our races, our language, our cultures and then only gave the white man the right answer?" the arrogance is ungodly i have no doubt in my mind there could be a higher power but i do not believe in your god just because you were indoctrinated... I don't believe that we were made in gods image i believe that god was made in our image, the christian god seems very human like to me...

The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. &#8213; Socrates


----------



## psilocybindude (Jan 15, 2013)

[video=youtube;ZaLaTMaKjdY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaLaTMaKjdY[/video]


----------



## DavesMegaBBC (Jan 15, 2013)

my favorite religious propaganda.... Im not really sure if its propaganda , but what really pisses me off with religion is the way they are scaring everyone with this you sin you will go to hell , 
Its amazing , theyre basically saying 70-75% is going to hell , just because they did everything they were supposed to do in life except go to a church every sunday lmfao.
Now Im starting to understand the true face of religion its just like a drug , you feel accepted and superior to everyone else thats not in your religion because you think that you have an advantage , just because you go to church everty sunday to open and read a book you think you wont go to hell ,meh religiong is overated as fck anyways .


----------



## playallnite (Jan 21, 2013)

If Jesus is from the middle east, how come in every picture he looks like Berry Oakley from the Allman Brothers?


----------



## Omgwtfbbq Indicaman (Jan 24, 2013)

in black churches jesus is black, not kidding. or some churches hes black, its all about selling the image.


----------



## drolove (Jan 24, 2013)

Omgwtfbbq Indicaman said:


> in black churches jesus is black, not kidding. or some churches hes black, its all about selling the image.


lol in 21 jump street they talk about korean jesus


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Jan 24, 2013)

[video=youtube;i1Nh_3JCFj8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1Nh_3JCFj8[/video]

at 1:15 onward sais it all ,,lol


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 28, 2013)

Professor : You are a Christian, aren&#8217;t you, son ?


Student : Yes, sir.


Professor: So, you believe in GOD ?


Student : Absolutely, sir.


Professor : Is GOD good ?


Student : Sure.


Professor: Is GOD all powerful ?


Student : Yes.


Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to GOD to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn&#8217;t. How is this GOD good then? Hmm?


(Student was silent.)


Professor: You can&#8217;t answer, can you ? Let&#8217;s start again, young fella. Is GOD good?


Student : Yes.


Professor: Is satan good ?


Student : No.


Professor: Where does satan come from ?


Student : From &#8230; GOD &#8230;


Professor: That&#8217;s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?


Student : Yes.


Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn&#8217;t it ? And GOD did make everything. Correct?


Student : Yes.


Professor: So who created evil ?


(Student did not answer.)


Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don&#8217;t they?


Student : Yes, sir.


Professor: So, who created them ?


(Student had no answer.)


Professor: Science says you have 5 Senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son, have you ever seen GOD?


Student : No, sir.


Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD?


Student : No , sir.


Professor: Have you ever felt your GOD, tasted your GOD, smelt your GOD? Have you ever had any sensory perception of GOD for that matter?


Student : No, sir. I&#8217;m afraid I haven&#8217;t.


Professor: Yet you still believe in Him?


Student : Yes.


Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn&#8217;t exist. What do you say to that, son?


Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.


Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has.


Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?


Professor: Yes.


Student : And is there such a thing as cold?


Professor: Yes.


Student : No, sir. There isn&#8217;t.


(The lecture theater became very quiet with this turn of events.)


Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don&#8217;t have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can&#8217;t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.


(There was pin-drop silence in the lecture theater.)


Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?


Professor: Yes. What is night if there isn&#8217;t darkness?


Student : You&#8217;re wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light. But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn&#8217;t it? In reality, darkness isn&#8217;t. If it is, well you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn&#8217;t you?


Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man ?


Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.


Professor: Flawed ? Can you explain how?


Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good GOD and a bad GOD. You are viewing the concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, Science can&#8217;t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.


Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?


Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.


Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?


(The Professor shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was going.)


Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor. Are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?


(The class was in uproar.)


Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor&#8217;s brain?


(The class broke out into laughter. )


Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor&#8217;s brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?


(The room was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face unfathomable.)


Professor: I guess you&#8217;ll have to take them on faith, son.


Student : That is it sir &#8230; Exactly ! The link between man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving.


P.S.


I believe you have enjoyed the conversation. And if so, you&#8217;ll probably want your friends / colleagues to enjoy the same, won&#8217;t you?


Forward this to increase their knowledge &#8230; or FAITH.


By the way, that student was EINSTEIN.


----------



## Omgwtfbbq Indicaman (Jan 28, 2013)

^


except einstein never said that, its a forgery.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jan 28, 2013)

Omgwtfbbq Indicaman said:


> ^
> 
> 
> except einstein never said that, its a forgery.


thats why it's in this thread about religious propaganda bro. if it was factual it would be in the thread about your favorite religious apologia.


----------



## BigHulk (Jan 28, 2013)

zhn0k said:


> this one's my favorite... i can't believe people really believe this shit.


here check it 

[video=youtube;6SML7ogHiWM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SML7ogHiWM[/video]


----------



## Xub420 (Apr 10, 2013)

watching the phelps shit on you tube is hilarious!


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Apr 11, 2013)

Here is my antireligious propaganda to make it low in number like the Panda. 


Crucifixion is a lie.The "tropaion" is a sacred trophy/sun symbol for the ancient
Romans.The tropaion was decorated with armor,and was reserved for the spirits of there Gods.The trophy/victory symbol was displayed after a victorious battle in tribute to there Gods.Prisoners were bound at the base,and never placed on it for 
it is sacred.Julius Caesar held the title of Christos (annointed).Youtube search "wax imago" "caesars comet" "gospel of caesar" image search "tropaion"

Osiris mythology=Holy Trinity Used by early 175-225 C.E.Theologians to convert pagans who would be familiar of the Osiris mythos.Jesus Christ is modeled after Divus Iulius Christos aka Julius Caesar whose wax effigy was placed on a Tropaion on the Ides of March.

The early Christogram the Chi Ro (Christos) is modeled after the Julian Star that was the comet that deified Caesar when it appeared at his funeral games.Christos is a Greek title (annointed with oil),and Julius was a Christos to his celestial mother the goddess Venus.The core of the Old testament is plagiarism of ancient Sumerian cuneiform texts that predate it by atleast 2,000+ yrs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMVAUcFj3Aw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzU4bPkWVyY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1ty6-WtH1Q


(Wiki base reference only)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropaion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Caesar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi_Ro

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris_myth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_flood_myth

http://forum.grasscity.com/pandoras-box/1201905-religion-has-get-f-ck-out-here.html


----------



## ultraviolet pirate (Apr 11, 2013)

religions are for people not yet strong enough to be spiritual. their beliefs do not frighten me to the point I have to ridicule them. im met some good folks who really believe, really do love jesus, and who would give the shirt off of their backs to anyone in need. on the flip side I met a muslim from Syria last year, I worked with him 12 hours a day five days a week for two months in hot burning sun. ...he was a decent guy and talked shit on islam, and even got high with me, but he wouldn't eat my porkchops. he told me "people take religion way too seriously"


----------



## 1Shot1Kill (Apr 11, 2013)

Tubal Cain, the "Vulcan" of the pagans


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Apr 11, 2013)

ultraviolet pirate said:


> religions are for people not yet strong enough to be spiritual. their beliefs do not frighten me to the point I have to ridicule them. im met some good folks who really believe, really do love jesus, and who would give the shirt off of their backs to anyone in need. on the flip side I met a muslim from Syria last year, I worked with him 12 hours a day five days a week for two months in hot burning sun. ...he was a decent guy and talked shit on islam, and even got high with me, but he wouldn't eat my porkchops. he told me "people take religion way too seriously"


Religion is not needed for spirituality.

Religion is an infectious mental disorder,and holds mankind back as a whole.

Just take one whole look of this one page of this thread.

http://forum.grasscity.com/pandoras-box/1201905-religion-has-get-f-ck-out-here-14.html

I'm here to say that I can destroy 2 major psychotic world religions with one 
historically factual paragraph.


"Crucifixion is a lie.The "tropaion" is a sacred trophy/sun symbol for the 
ancient Greeks,and Romans.The tropaion was decorated with armor/weaponry,and was reserved for the spirits of there Gods to enter it.The trophy/victory symbol was displayed after a victorious battle in tribute to there Gods.Prisoners were bound at the base,and never ever placed on it for it is sacred inwich was reserved for divinity only.Julius Caesar held the title of Christos (annointed with oil),and his wax effigy was placed on it during the Ides of March."

The truth of the matter is history is distorted by the lie of the crucifixion perpetuated by a powerfull control freak organization.

The ancient Roman people would find it sacraligious to put anything not sacred like a prisoner on the Tropaion cross symbol.

In order for both Christianity,and islam to work they have to believe Jesus died on a cross at the hands of the ancient Romans inwich goes against historical facts of the symbols purpose.

This shows that Christians,and Muslims believe a total lie..........THINK ABOUT IT!!!!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropaion


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 12, 2013)

There's quite a bit of literary evidence that supports the claim that thousands of prisoners were indeed nailed to crucifix for punishment. I can find no scholarly work that supports the contention that equates tropaion and crucifixes.


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Apr 12, 2013)

mindphuk said:


> There's quite a bit of literary evidence that supports the claim that thousands of prisoners were indeed nailed to crucifix for punishment. I can find no scholarly work that supports the contention that equates tropaion and crucifixes.


The Romans were very symbolic,and I cannot find any epigraphy from that era of Jesus to support crucifixion.

I know people site literary references,and even though I cannot read ancient Greek,or Latin,I would like to see these references in actual form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_Crown
(The Civic Crown was a chaplet of common oak leaves woven to form a crown. During the Roman Republic and the subsequent Principate, it was regarded as the second highest military decoration to which a citizen could aspire (the Grass Crown being held in higher regard). It was reserved for Roman citizens who saved the lives of fellow citizens by slaying an enemy on a spot not further held by the enemy that same day. The citizen saved must admit it; no one else could be a witness.)

I cannot see Roman soldiers would put something that resembled a symbol of honor on a prisoner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMVAUcFj3Aw


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 12, 2013)

Plautus and Plutarch and Josephus. Crassus crucified 6,000 of Spartacus' men along the Via Appia. Appian of Alexandria wrote of this along with Plutarch.


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Apr 12, 2013)

Yes they say,but are they forgeries just like what was inserted into the writings of Josephus?
I do not trust from what I can numerously find examples of that contradict so called written history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUKJ59FaZgU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XweLF886kmo

Did you ever hear of Caesar's comet?

Caesar's Comet Sidus Iulium (Chrestus Ressurectus) 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Caesar (The comet during Caesar's funeral games that ressurected him into a God)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi_Ro (Emporer Constantine's Christogram modeled after the Julian star aka Caesar's comet)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_hoc_signo_vinces ("in this, win" Emperor Constantine's motto from a vision he had.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzU4bPkWVyY

Why do so called pagan societies have biblical angels in there culture for the ancient Romans had Victoria,and 
the ancient Greek's have Nike's.These are Biblical symbols not pagan...right?

Angels with wings in pagan settings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_(mythology)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike_(mythology)


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Apr 13, 2013)

mindphuk said:


> Plautus and Plutarch and Josephus. Crassus crucified 6,000 of Spartacus' men along the Via Appia. Appian of Alexandria wrote of this along with Plutarch.


Cremation makes more sense.

"Latin cremare(CREMO; &#8220;to cremate&#8221, which was understood as the Greek term ; &#8220;to hang from&#8221;, &#8220;to suspend&#8221;; Christian: &#8220;to crucify&#8221"

Maybe to suspend over fire or pyre?

I have to look more into this possible ancient Greek/Latin mistranslation.

EDIT: Latin cremo means &#8220;to burn&#8221; and the
homophonous Greek kremô instead means &#8220;to hang&#8221;, &#8220;to crucify&#8221;.
CREMO : KREMÔ &#8211; KREM(omega symbol)

Ok this makes more sense both logisticly,and keeps prisoners from being placed on a sacred symbol the Tropaion when used publicly for victorious display.

Burning 6,000 rebellors saves time,and prevents flies from spreading disease from rotting corpses.

Burn them instead of putting them on a symbol reserved for divinity in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropaion


----------



## BLueRoux (Apr 13, 2013)

More of the Same fallacious nonsense from the new leader of the world's largest pedophile ring's first address to his "merry" (wink, wink) men in dresses and pointy hats:

"When one does not profess Jesus Christ - I recall the phrase of Leon Bloy &#8211; &#8220;Whoever does not pray to God, prays to the devil.&#8221; When one does not profess Jesus Christ, one professes the worldliness of the devil."


HipTip: _Not buying into superstitions fictions doesn't signify allegiance to any of the fictional characters of those superstitious fictions._


----------



## BLueRoux (Apr 13, 2013)

The entire matter of the folly of a national "pledge of allegiance" aside, the words "under gawd" were added in the 50s after a huge propaganda campaign perpetrated by the catholic group "knights of columbus".



Dislexicmidget2021 said:


> View attachment 2432675
> 
> dont forget we even have the more subtle form of God indoctrination weve been exposed to ,just take a look at the old pledge of allegiance.


----------



## BLueRoux (Apr 13, 2013)

I love how superstitious people make shit up when they are cornered with facts.

This is what pathological liars do. I have been able to find no difference between the two.



ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> i actually asked a friend at work , who told me i was going to hell , how would i burn if i had no bones or flesh , and i was just a spirit, his answer was ( and he said it with sincerity ) 'the devil has a different kind of fire that can burn souls.'


----------



## Natural Gas (Apr 14, 2013)

BLueRoux said:


> I love how superstitious people make shit up when they are cornered with facts.
> 
> This is what pathological liars do. I have been able to find no difference between the two.


Woe be unto them that do Yea unto us...First Confusions!!! FWIW


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Apr 15, 2013)

Just go to post # 244 copy paste to notepad,and print out.Hand a copy to any Bible pusher that comes to your door.

http://forum.grasscity.com/pandoras-box/1201905-religion-has-get-f-ck-out-here-17.html

Problem solved....Of course they will think it is the work of the Devil,but anyone that throws critical thinking out the window deserves a slap.


----------



## tyler.durden (Apr 18, 2013)




----------



## tyler.durden (Apr 19, 2013)




----------



## Natural Gas (Apr 19, 2013)

A crucifix is effective against Vampires because Vampires are allergic to bullshit...Richard Pryor, 1971...FWIW


----------



## 420neverforget (Apr 22, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> just like in political theories,* those who are unable to elucidate WHY they believe a particular way, and are unable to form a rational defense of their position are generally the poseurs and trend followers, the psuedo-_________ists. *


I disagree. Atheism isn't a belief. It is the lack of that. It is saying "I don't believe in a god". No claims are made and thus no explanation is required.

To me, you sound pretty arrogant. It is evident your only wish with this post was to express how much of a true atheist you are and how you didn't believe before it was cool. Give me a break.



Heisenberg said:


> ........
> Forward this to increase their knowledge &#8230; or FAITH.
> 
> 
> By the way, that student was EINSTEIN.


I totally forgot what thread this was at first and was sure no one could take this "fwd:fwd:fwd:FWD:student proves GOD to professor" seriously


----------



## Dr Kynes (Apr 23, 2013)

420neverforget said:


> I disagree. Atheism isn't a belief. It is the lack of that. It is saying "I don't believe in a god". No claims are made and thus no explanation is required.
> 
> To me, you sound pretty arrogant. It is evident your only wish with this post was to express how much of a true atheist you are and how you didn't believe before it was cool. Give me a break.


except im not an atheist. im a polytheist, i have many gods, but they dont run my life.

atheism has become a trendy position for those hipsters who wish to sound intellectual, or prove their independant bonafides, but atheism without a rational reason is still just blind faith, whether that faith is in preists rabbis ministers and mullahs, or noam chomsky, richard dawkins or vladimir lenin. 

you seem to forget that the soviet union was also "Officially Atheist" and party members would go to great lengths to prove their lack of interest in religion, regardless of whether they actually disbelieved or not. 

it's easy to put on the trappings of belief/disbelief, but without a logical, intellectually sound, and moral reason for either, both are simply a fashion show for others, which is what many "atheists" do, they put their atheism up front and center, as their glorious cruaders' tabbard and dare anyone to challenge them, much in the way many "religious" persons do with their faiths

your faith or lack thereof should be personal, internal, and private, not a sandwich board that challenges anyone from the other side to a fight.


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 23, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> except im not an atheist. im a polytheist, i have many gods, but they dont run my life.
> 
> atheism has become a trendy position for those hipsters who wish to sound intellectual, or prove their independant bonafides, but atheism without a rational reason is still just blind faith, whether that faith is in preists rabbis ministers and mullahs, or noam chomsky, richard dawkins or vladimir lenin.


This is utter bullshit. Atheism is one thing, a lack of belief in any deities. The reason one is an atheist is inconsequential, whether it is through skeptical reasoning or mere naive atheism, where one hasn't been introduced to the god concept. They can have the exact same magical thinking as theists, as many people that believe in the New Age garbage, or crazy alien reptlian conspiracies, they are still technically atheists. There is absolutely no faith needed in the atheist position and those that come to it through skepticism and reason have certainly increased in number since the internet, especially youtube but to claim that it is somehow a hipster, pseudointellectual position, IMO needs some evidence beyond your personal perception.


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Apr 23, 2013)

Flying horses,and meteorite worship.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91O1IqzHJN4

Clash of the water gatherers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYWWtIVQlrc

Bobo,and friends.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViAT_P313hI


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 23, 2013)

Dalek Supreme said:


> Flying horses,and meteorite worship.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91O1IqzHJN4
> 
> ...


You know. I really wish you would participate in discussions once in awhile rather than try to have youtube videos speak for you. Most of the time the links don't even seem relevant to the conversation and feels like spamming. You have to take into consideration that not everyone has time to waste time watching videos when the sentiment can be summed up in paragraphs that take less than a minute to read.


----------



## 420neverforget (Apr 23, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> except im not an atheist. im a polytheist, i have many gods, but they dont run my life.


Well, that certainly explains your disdain for atheists, attempts to classify atheism as a belief system and manipulate the definition of the word.


Dr Kynes said:


> atheism has become a trendy position for those hipsters who wish to sound intellectual, or prove their independant bonafides, but atheism without a rational reason is still just blind faith, whether that faith is in preists rabbis ministers and mullahs, or noam chomsky, richard dawkins or vladimir lenin.


Atheism is trendy like not playing golf is trendy. One does not 'become' an atheist to be trendy and then go back to being a theist when it's too mainstream to be cool. It's simply the lack of belief. A belief, like all others, that some will feel arrogant for having. Do you define all groups by the dickheads or just the ones you don't belong to?


Dr Kynes said:


> you seem to forget that the soviet union was also "Officially Atheist" and party members would go to great lengths to prove their lack of interest in religion, regardless of whether they actually disbelieved or not.


Oh, they did? Good for them.


Dr Kynes said:


> it's easy to put on the trappings of belief/disbelief, but without a logical, intellectually sound, and moral reason for either, both are simply a fashion show for others, which is what many "atheists" do, they put their atheism up front and center, as their glorious cruaders' tabbard and dare anyone to challenge them, *much in the way many "religious" persons do with their faiths*


Exactly. So this behavior obviously isn't exclusive to atheism so I don't see why you attempt to paint atheists as the sole group responsible for arrogance when it is the individuals not the group. If you think atheism makes someone an asshole or that douchebaggery is a characteristic excluive to atheism, then you are mistaken.


Dr Kynes said:


> your faith or lack thereof should be personal, internal, and private, not a sandwich board that challenges anyone from the other side to a fight.


Agreed. I, personally, have never seen an atheist go out of their way to be a dick about it. I know it happens, of course, because my experiences are subjective. Not everyone will have the same experience.


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Apr 24, 2013)

mindphuk said:


> You know. I really wish you would participate in discussions once in awhile rather than try to have youtube videos speak for you. Most of the time the links don't even seem relevant to the conversation and feels like spamming. You have to take into consideration that not everyone has time to waste time watching videos when the sentiment can be summed up in paragraphs that take less than a minute to read.


People can just skip over it you know.Get over your B.I.B.S. Big Ignorrant Baby Syndrome.


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 24, 2013)

Dalek Supreme said:


> People can just skip over it you know.Get over your B.I.B.S. Big Ignorrant Baby Syndrome.


No need to be insulting. The reason I mentioned it is because I am more interested in what the individual people here have to say rather than what videos they like. The use of videos to support a point is not my issue, it is that it seems that's all you bring to the table sometimes. If I skip over the links, you really don't seem to have much else to say. Again, don't act all butt-hurt because I want to know more about what you have to say.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Apr 24, 2013)

mindphuk said:


> This is utter bullshit. Atheism is one thing, a lack of belief in any deities. The reason one is an atheist is inconsequential, whether it is through skeptical reasoning or mere naive atheism, where one hasn't been introduced to the god concept. They can have the exact same magical thinking as theists, as many people that believe in the New Age garbage, or crazy alien reptlian conspiracies, they are still technically atheists. There is absolutely no faith needed in the atheist position and those that come to it through skepticism and reason have certainly increased in number since the internet, especially youtube but to claim that it is somehow a hipster, pseudointellectual position, IMO needs some evidence beyond your personal perception.


just look at the wrangling in this very forum over who is or is not an atheist or agnostic. these two words have simple easy to understan meanings yet they have been tortured into bizzare forms which would do a pentecostal televangelist proud. 

*Agnostic: A*: lacking *Gnostic*: Knowledge. those who dont know if there are gods or a god or dieties in general etc. this simple logical principled belief in proof before acceptance is what most logical persons actually are. Agnostic. 

*Atheist: A:* lacking *Theist:* Deties. this is a step beyond having no proof, and into a real of certitude, a pretense of "Gnosis" or absolute knowlege on a subject, and when that subject is the supernatural, there can be no such Gnosis. only belief. 

Atheism is in fact a rejection of the agnostic's *"Prove to me there's a god"* or a theist's *"You will never convince me there's not a god" *into a whole new realm, whereby the atheist declares *"There simply is no god, and you're a fool to believe otherwise." *

most people who talk about their atheism do so with a false cetainty that there is no supernatural force of any kind, which is impossible to disprove, as are the theists claims that there IS a supernatual force in whatever form that force might take, from a bearded monotheistic skydaddy who loves to dole out punishments and torments willy nilly, to the new age "energies" and "vibrations" to the george lucas self aware "Force" which only maniufests itself to special persons, or my own pantheon of gods and powers who do their thing for their own reasons, and who's existence i could never prove to you, no matter what proofs i have seen. 

you are as unlikely to convince me to reject my gods as i am to convince you to embrace them. but i dont get butthurt over it, cuz my gods dont care about that shit. 

many atheist DO get butthurt when for example, a christian tells them *"The Bible says if, i believe it, that settles it" *or a moslem starts raging about how your disbelief makes you an enemy of islam, or a buddhist's benign smile, with the absolute certainty that eventually youll see, just maybe in the next incarnation. 

your own rage at the very idea that SOME people who assert their atheism as a trendy hipster fashion, or fake intellectualism proves the delicate nature of the atheistic posterior, and the ease with which some atheist booties become bothered.

unclench before you do yourself an injury, and ask yourself why, if there really is no god, it bothers you that i believe in several, or why if atheism is a reasoned and wise position, youre so upset that some so called atheists are just poseurs, and some are just blind followers muttering *"Richard Dawkins said it, I believe it, that settles it"* you certainly know a few clowns who shout their atheism from the rooftops, but cant explain why they believe so, beyond *"cuz christians are dumb"

*i've certainly met quite a few of those myself.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Apr 24, 2013)

420neverforget said:


> Well, that certainly explains your disdain for atheists, attempts to classify atheism as a belief system and manipulate the definition of the word.
> 
> Atheism is trendy like not playing golf is trendy. One does not 'become' an atheist to be trendy and then go back to being a theist when it's too mainstream to be cool. It's simply the lack of belief. A belief, like all others, that some will feel arrogant for having. Do you define all groups by the dickheads or just the ones you don't belong to?
> 
> ...


so, my theism is proof that i hate atheists and hold them in disdain? now THATS A STRETCH. 

religions have fads and trendy hipster followers, like madonna's kabballah and psuedo-judaism, which spawned a whole slew of copycats who would drink their own piss if a pop star said it was the thing to do, and after gulping down a pint of the bitter waters of their own making, they would swear to you that it was tasty as fuck, and gave them "energy" and "centered their vibrations" or some such twaddle. 

many fools diefy the dallai lama, and claim to be Buddhists, but even a casual observer can recognize that they are merely indulging in the trappings of Buddhism, and have no interest in the deeper beliefs, or in fact any of Buddhism's teachings. 

for a short time in the 80's catholicism had a brief trendiness, but it didnt last. after a few weeks the confessionals were empty again. 

scientoilogy is the biggest pile of horseshit on this or any other planet, yet people are still drawn to it, mainly through their celebrity endorsers and of course, preying on the weakminded fools. 

lately there has been an upswing in those self identifying as "jedi" on questions of religion, but thats mainly snark. still however, when one proseletizes the jedi faith, one is either crackers, or just plain cracked. or trolling. sometimes it's hard to tell. 

unless you propose to claim that atheism is totally different from any other religious view or belief and thus immune to the trendy hipster followers, you must accept that certainly some who claim this as their philosophy may in fact just be posuers, even if you havent met any yourself. 

but you know what they say, *"There's always at least one crazy person on the bus, and if you cant spot him..." *


----------



## Sativied (Apr 24, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> and some are just blind followers muttering *"Richard Dawkins said it, I believe it, that settles it"*


Fellow non-fairytale-believers often look at me strangely when I tell them that, within the context of arguing with religious fanatics, science is just another religion. The problem debating with Christians is often the circle of claiming the bible holds the truth because it's written by God which in turn is true because it's written in the bible God wrote it. Science works much the same way though. Scientists are able to claim with near certainty that there are certain gasses and fluids and perhaps even life on planets and places they've never been. They can't really go there (yet) and proof it, but they sure believe it. If you'd ask why, you'd end up in a similar circle (science proving science).



Dr Kynes said:


> but you know what they say, "There's always at least one crazy person on the bus, and if you cant spot him..."


No I don't know what they say, how does the story end? 



Dr Kynes said:


> beyond "cuz christians are dumb"


Frankly that does sum it up quite nicely. It is in my blunt opinion plain dumb to believe in 2000 year old desert tales. And there you have the difference between MODERN science and how people thought before they became educated and were still dumb (and still had sand in their vagina).


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Apr 24, 2013)

mindphuk said:


> No need to be insulting. The reason I mentioned it is because I am more interested in what the individual people here have to say rather than what videos they like. The use of videos to support a point is not my issue, it is that it seems that's all you bring to the table sometimes. If I skip over the links, you really don't seem to have much else to say. Again, don't act all butt-hurt because I want to know more about what you have to say.


I have nothing needed to say so skip away.

There are people that have no dots to connect,and there are people with preconceived connected dots.I feel no need to cater to either.

Most people that would come to this thread knows what religion is basicly about.My point is best for those that want to further connect the dots.To whine about my method earns no sympathy from me.


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 24, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> just look at the wrangling in this very forum over who is or is not an atheist or agnostic. these two words have simple easy to understan meanings yet they have been tortured into bizzare forms which would do a pentecostal televangelist proud.


Yet you cannot even seem to get these 'simple' meanings correct
Atheism and Agnosticism are discussion two different ontological questions. 



> *Agnostic: A*: lacking *Gnostic*: Knowledge. those who dont know if there are gods or a god or dieties in general etc. this simple logical principled belief in proof before acceptance is what most logical persons actually are. Agnostic.


No. You are partially correct. You have the root words correct but you are combining them incorrect. Agnostic is about whether or not one can have knowledge about a subject, in this case god or gods. This is the position of Huxley, the man who coined the term. If you feel that the god question is unknowable, then you are agnostic. 


> *Atheist: A:* lacking *Theist:* Deties. this is a step beyond having no proof, and into a real of certitude, a pretense of "Gnosis" or absolute knowlege on a subject, and when that subject is the supernatural, there can be no such Gnosis. only belief.


Once again, a-theism is lack of theism. One that doesn't possess theistic beliefs. You cannot change the root theism into deism. That's not only wrong, it's dishonest. 



> Atheism is in fact a rejection of the agnostic's *"Prove to me there's a god"* or a theist's *"You will never convince me there's not a god" *into a whole new realm, whereby the atheist declares *"There simply is no god, and you're a fool to believe otherwise." *


This is bullshit and usually claimed by people with an agenda. This is an example of only one type of atheism, the gnostic or strong atheist position and by no means the most common form. What do you call a person that has never been introduced to idea of a god? He cannot be agnostic because that requires thought on the subject of gods. You are combining the traits of soft and weak atheists and calling them agnostic. They most certainly will be agnostic but again, it's a different question that's answered by the terminology. What do you call the person that thinks there is a god but doesn't think he knows or thinks that this question is impossible to know? He is a theist by definition, he believes there's a god... but he's also agnostic because of his position on what is knowable. 

The theist is the only one that is proposing a positive claim. Anyone that rejects that claim, for whatever reason, can rightfully be called an atheist. Like the naive atheist I alluded to above, this is the default position, not accepting a claim without further validation. 



> most people who talk about their atheism do so with a false cetainty that there is no supernatural force of any kind


I have been on this board for a long time and I have rarely read anyone's post that dismisses anything, supernatural or otherwise with certainty. The certitude is a strawman leveled against the skeptic that doubts things like the supernatural because of lack of evidence. However, I challenge you to find any quotes from one of the atheists here or even someone like Sam Harris, Penn Gillette, Hitchens or even Dawkins that claims such absolute certainty you attribute to atheists. Russel's teapot and The Flying Spaghetti Monster are two methods of explaining the atheist position about certainty. 


> which is impossible to disprove, as are the theists claims that there IS a supernatual force in whatever form that force might take, from a bearded monotheistic skydaddy who loves to dole out punishments and torments willy nilly, to the new age "energies" and "vibrations" to the george lucas self aware "Force" which only maniufests itself to special persons, or my own pantheon of gods and powers who do their thing for their own reasons, and who's existence i could never prove to you, no matter what proofs i have seen.


 Not all claims have equal validity. If I told you Beefbisquit had eggs for breakfast today, you probably wouldn't spend much time deciding whether or not to doubt this claim but if I said that he astral traveled last night and spoke to my spirit guide, you would have plenty of questions to ask of me and would probably doubt the claim until you had sufficient evidence to believe it. 


> many atheist DO get butthurt when for example, a christian tells them *"The Bible says if, i believe it, that settles it" *or a moslem starts raging about how your disbelief makes you an enemy of islam, or a buddhist's benign smile, with the absolute certainty that eventually youll see, just maybe in the next incarnation.


Explain the butthurt. People get frustrated and exasperated trying to have an intelligent, rational discussion with people that make ridiculous claims regardless of who makes them. What some of us do get upset about is using non-critical, magical thinking to promote some agenda that causes actual harm to people. Not made up harm but actual injustice, physical harm and even death can accompany people that think they know some god wants of them. 


> your own rage at the very idea that SOME people who assert their atheism as a trendy hipster fashion, or fake intellectualism proves the delicate nature of the atheistic posterior, and the ease with which some atheist booties become bothered.


So because I get tired of strawman attacks and mischaracterization of my philosphical position to attempt to marginalize it, that proves that atheism is trendy, hipster fashion? Logic fail! First, you misidentify my disdain for your accusatory nature 'rage.' Second, even if I was angry as you claim, I fail to see how that makes rational skeptical atheism trendy or fake intellectually. Seems like a non-sequitur to me. 



> unclench before you do yourself an injury, and ask yourself why, if there really is no god, it bothers you that i believe in several, or why if atheism is a reasoned and wise position, youre so upset that some so called atheists are just poseurs, and some are just blind followers muttering *"Richard Dawkins said it, I believe it, that settles it"* you certainly know a few clowns who shout their atheism from the rooftops, but cant explain why they believe so, beyond *"cuz christians are dumb"
> 
> *i've certainly met quite a few of those myself.


It bothers me not one iota if you believe in one or many gods. I used to. I'm not upset that some atheists are poseurs, I get upset when people [read - YOU] try to use that to label all/most atheists that way in an ad hominem attack of their position rather than have actually have reasoned debate why they may or may not be wrong. I'll wait while you find quotes from some of these reasoned atheists that can't explain why they don't believe in gods. 

It sounds more like you have an agenda against many atheists, maybe they make too much sense and make you question your own beliefs. It certainly is easier to lash out and call names and misrepresent their position than to actually discuss why you believe in something for which you have no rational reasons to believe.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Apr 24, 2013)

Hello, my name is Zaehet and i am an atheist. I am an atheist because i do not believe that god or gods exist, or have ever existed (although i am not and will never say that god or gods certainly do not exist). This is merely because i have never had any testable proof of this, and also because i know and understand how fallible our brains, our mind and our senses can be... they are always tricking us. 

No, i don't know how the universe began, or what created it, or started it... "the big mover" in any case... but i don't claim to have that knowledge (like most theists claim to have) because i know and understand, that no matter how badly i want to know these things... if i am honest with myself, i know... that i don't know, no matter how hard i want to. 

Just because i don't know something (like how the universe began), does not give me any right to conclude anything... whether or not god or gods exist is not something i will ever know.

Anyone who claims with certainty that they know without a doubt that god or gods do or don't exist... in my opinion, is a liar. I don't care what experiences you have had, or what dreams you have had, or anything. They could all just be a manifestation of your brain trying to understand and make sense of an existence that doesn't really make any sense at all... not one bit. 

We all must do whatever it takes to fill our lives with meaning, understanding, happiness and joy... but i think, it is more courageous to accept reality and what we can really know within it... rather than to persist in what we want it to be...whether that be delusion, or or desired wishful thinking, no matter how satisfying it may be.


----------



## MojoRison (Apr 25, 2013)

It's all just words until we die....then we'll know


----------



## Dr Kynes (Apr 25, 2013)

mindphuk said:


> Yet you cannot even seem to get these 'simple' meanings correct
> Atheism and Agnosticism are discussion two different ontological questions.
> 
> No. You are partially correct. You have the root words correct but you are combining them incorrect. Agnostic is about whether or not one can have knowledge about a subject, in this case god or gods. This is the position of Huxley, the man who coined the term. If you feel that the god question is unknowable, then you are agnostic.
> ...


yep.... thats butthurt.

theists believe in god(s)

agnostics dont know. 

atheists insist there isnt shit. 

running on the dog-track of semantics until you collapse is good exercise, but you get nowhere, and in the end, agnostic still means "dont know" and atheist still means "no theology" (if you insist on parsing every phrase will it bleeds) which is exactly as untestable as any theology in existence. 

one who has never even heard of the idea of the supernatural, or theology would, no doubt invent one. thats a rhetorical fallacy all its own, since such a person does not exist unless you wish to indulge in an examination of The Jungle Book 

theists often bitch about people who believe in different or no gods, and even those who dont know one way or the other. 

agnostics dont know so they dont have an opinion, and thus their butts are relatively hurt-free, until somebody starts squeezing their peaches. 

atheists are often on a hair trigger, waiting for their opportunity to lay into anyone who disagrees with their CLAIM of knowledge of the lack of divinity. and it's just a claim. perhaps more logical than the claims of religions and faiths, but EQUALLY UNTESTABLE. 

that hair-trigger can be seen in effect right now as you rage and rail against the idea that you might not have the perfect handle on what is or is not atheism, or agnosticism. 

most hilarious indeed is your insistence that i have some agenda regarding atheism, and a desire to denigrate or insult those members of the atheist faith who firmly believe that there is not supernatural. yall can celebrate un-chistmas, anti-easter, and fuck-hallows-eve till your atheist ritual robes are drenched in the blood of your sacrificial victims.


----------



## Sativied (Apr 25, 2013)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Hello, my name is Zaehet and i am an atheist. I am an atheist because i do not believe that god or gods exist, or have ever existed (although i am not and will never say that god or gods certainly do not exist). This is merely because i have never had any testable proof of this, and also because i know and understand how fallible our brains, our mind and our senses can be... they are always tricking us.
> 
> No, i don't know how the universe began, or what created it, or started it... "the big mover" in any case... but i don't claim to have that knowledge (like most theists claim to have) because i know and understand, that no matter how badly i want to know these things... if i am honest with myself, i know... that i don't know, no matter how hard i want to.
> 
> ...


Good post man, sums it up nicely, not stuck on semantics. The format alone enticed me to read it. Though next time show some respect for yourself and capitalize "I" as well


----------



## automated (Apr 25, 2013)

The ultimate excuse, making any reference plausible:

"God works in mysterious ways"

Riiiiiiiiight .......


----------



## dgp (Apr 25, 2013)

&#9658; 2:53&#9658; 2:53
www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW8IY2ESmVA
Feb 28, 2013 - Uploaded by DeMundre Nelson
Watch Later Jesus Christ Is My Nigga REACTION VIDEOby ... "Jesus Is My Nigga Rap ...


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Apr 25, 2013)

Sativied said:


> Good post man, sums it up nicely, not stuck on semantics. The format alone enticed me to read it. Though next time show some respect for yourself and capitalize "I" as well


Dude there's like 50 I's in that post.... nah. lol. But thanks, the feedback is much appreciated.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Apr 25, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> yep.... thats butthurt.
> 
> theists believe in god(s)
> 
> ...


Repeating the same incorrect sentence does not for a correct statement, make.

An atheist is anyone who doesn't have a theology, the circumstances of their lack of belief is irrelevant. They could know absolutely nothing about the concept of god, or vehemently oppose all types of religion. 



> running on the dog-track of semantics until you collapse is good exercise, but you get nowhere, and in the end, agnostic still means "dont know" and atheist still means "no theology" (if you insist on parsing every phrase will it bleeds) which is exactly as untestable as any theology in existence.
> 
> *one who has never even heard of the idea of the supernatural, or theology would, no doubt invent one.* thats a rhetorical fallacy all its own, since such a person does not exist unless you wish to indulge in an examination of The Jungle Book



If a person had modern knowledge, but somehow was void of any theological knowledge you think they would invent their own religion? I strongly disagree, considering everything that has ever been accomplished has been done without any form of supernatural aid. So, if a person was allowed to explore all knowledge, minus theological claims, what basis would they have for jumping to 'miracles or divine intervention', or that invisible people must secretly pull the strings from another existence that has never been proven?




> theists often bitch about people who believe in different or no gods, and even those who dont know one way or the other.
> 
> *agnostics dont know so they dont have an opinion,* and thus their butts are relatively hurt-free, until somebody starts squeezing their peaches.


Agnostics only claim to not know, _for sure_. They can still believe or not believe, not that any of that has to do with simply having an opinion. 


*



atheists are often on a hair trigger, waiting for their opportunity to lay into anyone who disagrees with their CLAIM of knowledge of the lack of divinity. and it's just a claim. perhaps more logical than the claims of religions and faiths, but EQUALLY UNTESTABLE.

Click to expand...

*Proving _any _negative is impossible. That doesn't mean we believe in anything we can't disprove, that would just be silly.



> that hair-trigger can be seen in effect right now as you rage and rail against the idea that you might not have the perfect handle on what is or is not atheism, or agnosticism.


The perfect handle? You don't have _any _handle on what atheism, theism, and agnosticism, are based upon your definitions above. 



> * most hilarious indeed is your insistence that i have some agenda regarding atheism,* and a desire to denigrate or insult those members of the atheist faith who firmly believe that there is not supernatural. yall can celebrate un-chistmas, anti-easter, and fuck-hallows-eve till your atheist ritual robes are drenched in the blood of your sacrificial victims.


Why do you keep using incorrect terms? Seems like an agenda to me....


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 25, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> yep.... thats butthurt.
> 
> theists believe in god(s)
> 
> ...


Continuing to insist that this is the case does not make it true. Since the vast majority of self-identified atheists do not use your definition, you will constantly be creating straw men to argue against. As someone that is familiar with debate, you should know that the first goal in any discussion is to agree on terms and definitions, otherwise there can be no progress made on substantive matters. You're welcome to proclaim that atheism is a positive claim that a god doesn't exist but just be aware that it will not be productive discussing any issues with actual atheists that don't proscribe to your definition.

There are only two positions on belief of a concept. One either believes or he doesn't. My claim that a purple dragon lives in my garage, is countered by a lack of acceptance of that claim, not a new positive claim that dragons don't exist. Likewise, theists believe in a god or gods. Therefore the contrary position is one of no belief in god or gods, NOT a different, brand new claim that gods cannot or do not exist. It is much like our courts where a verdict of not guilty does not mean that they jury thinks the accused is innocent. A juror may indeed believe that the accused is innocent but that's not what the not guilty (atheist) position states, only a rejection of the guilty verdict. 

The theist/atheist terms has nothing to do with knowledge so agnostics can be either theists or not theists, i.e atheists.



> running on the dog-track of semantics until you collapse is good exercise, but you get nowhere, and in the end, agnostic still means "dont know" and atheist still means "no theology" (if you insist on parsing every phrase will it bleeds) which is exactly as untestable as any theology in existence.



_When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis"  had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.
So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took_.
----------
_Agnosticism is not properly described as a "negative" creed, nor indeed as a creed of any kind, except in so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty
_
​These quotes by Huxley demonstrate that agnosticism is not any claim or beliefs about god or gods but about whether one has knowledge on a subject. Having no theology is not an untestable claim because it is not a claim to begin with.




> one who has never even heard of the idea of the supernatural, or theology would, no doubt invent one. thats a rhetorical fallacy all its own, since such a person does not exist unless you wish to indulge in an examination of The Jungle Book
> 
> agnostics dont know so they dont have an opinion, and thus their butts are relatively hurt-free, until somebody starts squeezing their peaches.


Being agnostic does not mean you don't have an opinion on a subject. That's ridiculous. Quit changing the meaning of things to suit your agenda.


> atheists are often on a hair trigger, waiting for their opportunity to lay into anyone who disagrees with their CLAIM of knowledge of the lack of divinity. and it's just a claim. perhaps more logical than the claims of religions and faiths, but EQUALLY UNTESTABLE.


Until you can produce,as requested, a quote from atheists that any of them have claimed to have knowledge about the lack of gods, this assertion of yours will continue to stink as most shit does.



> that hair-trigger can be seen in effect right now as you rage and rail against the idea that you might not have the perfect handle on what is or is not atheism, or agnosticism.


You once again confuse my frustration of you as lack of having a handle rather than the righteous annoyance I have with you for continually misrepresenting my theological position. &nbsp;If I said that as a polytheist you must also believe in pink unicorns that fart rainbows, you would rightly be able to tell me that's not your position. &nbsp;However, here you are telling all of us self-identified atheists that we believe something we do not.



> most hilarious indeed is your insistence that i have some agenda regarding atheism, and a desire to denigrate or insult those members of the atheist faith who firmly believe that there is not supernatural. yall can celebrate un-chistmas, anti-easter, and fuck-hallows-eve till your atheist ritual robes are drenched in the blood of your sacrificial victims.


I have no idea other than some agenda-driven reason why you would continue to insist that we aren't correct in calling ourselves atheists if we don't take the positive claim position. If you can enlighten us as to why you want to misrepresent the position of lack of acceptance of the theistic position, by all means tell us.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Apr 25, 2013)

mindphuk said:


> I have no idea other than some agenda-driven reason why you would continue to insist that we aren't correct in calling ourselves atheists if we don't take the positive claim position. If you can enlighten us as to why you want to misrepresent the position of lack of acceptance of the theistic position, by all means tell us.


I think maybe he just want's to give atheists a bad wrap, or keep a notion in his mind that atheists are stupid/bad people. Some people do have a mind block though that won't allow them to see reason or think in a certain way, i've seen this time and time again. We've spelled it out for him in complicated ways, and easy ways... but nothing can change a mind that refuses to change. 

Let me try just one more time. 

*Atheist*: is someone that does not believe in god. This has nothing to do with knowledge of the existence or non-existence of gods, it is merely the statement that one has yet to be convinced that there is a god. Or more simply, the lack of belief in a god or gods. 

*Atheist agnostic*: is someone who does not believe in gods and also thinks that the existence of gods cannot be known. This might mean that they don&#8217;t believe in gods because they haven&#8217;t seen any evidence that supports their existence.

*Atheist gnostic*: is someone who does not believe in gods, and who thinks that we can know that gods do not exist. A fairly unusual position, they might think they have found proof of the non-existence of gods, or might have been persuaded by life experiences.

*Agnostic*: is someone who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena.

*Theist*: is someone who believes in the existence of a god or god.

*Theist gnostic*: is someone who believes in a god/gods and thinks that the existence of gods can be known. This position is usually referred to as just &#8216;theist&#8216;, since people who believe in gods, usually also think that their existence can be known.

*Theist agnostic*: is someone who believes in gods, but thinks that they could not know for sure that their god exists. Another fairly unusual position, as people who have faith in gods usually also think that their god can be known to be real.







Maybe this will help clear things up... but probably not. Once a mind is set... it tends not to budge.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Apr 25, 2013)

mindphuk said:


> Continuing to insist that this is the case does not make it true. Since the vast majority of self-identified atheists do not use your definition, you will constantly be creating straw men to argue against. As someone that is familiar with debate, you should know that the first goal in any discussion is to agree on terms and definitions, otherwise there can be no progress made on substantive matters. You're welcome to proclaim that atheism is a positive claim that a god doesn't exist but just be aware that it will not be productive discussing any issues with actual atheists that don't proscribe to your definition.
> 
> There are only two positions on belief of a concept. One either believes or he doesn't. My claim that a purple dragon lives in my garage, is countered by a lack of acceptance of that claim, not a new positive claim that dragons don't exist. Likewise, theists believe in a god or gods. Therefore the contrary position is one of no belief in god or gods, NOT a different, brand new claim that gods cannot or do not exist. It is much like our courts where a verdict of not guilty does not mean that they jury thinks the accused is innocent. A juror may indeed believe that the accused is innocent but that's not what the not guilty (atheist) position states, only a rejection of the guilty verdict.
> 
> ...


aldous huxley can pound sand, i care not what he claims, nor do i consider him an authority on any subject save implausible fiction novels. 

i know many self identified agnostics, and they dont know if there is or is not a god. you may consider this heresy, but they do not, nor do i. 

i know many self identified atheists and nearly every one insists there IS NO SUPERNATURAL, and usually follow it up with a lengthy screed about how dumb christians are, and how superior atheists are. 

atheism brings with it smug certitude, the sort bill maher trades in, this is not "not knowing" atheisim as delivered by many including yourself, iis declarative, and specific. "religion is dumb, and people who believe are superstitious fools" 

endlessly repeating the same drivel, that agnosticism is some convoluted epistemological bizzaro world of not understanding how impossible it is to understand what cannot be comprehended is specious. agnosticism conveys an uncertainty and lack of knowledge on a subject, not the impossibility of anyone ever understanding the subject. that shit might fly in a particularly fucked up philosophy class, but it does not comport with the facts, nor the usage of the phrase. 

Definition of *agnostic*
[h=3]noun[/h]

 a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. 
[h=3]adjective[/h]

 of or relating to agnostics or agnosticism. 


 (in a nonreligious context) having a doubtful or noncommittal attitude toward something:_until now I&#8217;ve been fairly agnostic about electoral reform_

 _ [usually in combination]_ _ Computing_ denoting or relating to hardware or software that is compatible with many types of platforms or operating systems:_many common file formats (JPEG, MP3, etc.) are *platform-agnostic*_
~http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/agnostic


Definition of *atheism*

[h=3]noun[/h]

 disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. 
[h=2]Origin:[/h] late 16th century: from French _athéisme_, from Greek _atheos_, from _a-_ 'without' + _theos_ 'god'



~http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/agnostic


so, as you can see, not knowing = agnosticism, insisting there is not = atheism. 

your philosophy professor was a sophist, not a philosopher. he fucked you over.


----------



## Sativied (Apr 25, 2013)

Zaehet Strife said:


> *Some people do have a mind block though that won't allow them to see reason or think in a certain way,* i've seen this time and time again. We've spelled it out for him in complicated ways, and easy ways... but nothing can change a mind that refuses to change.


Yes, the ones that are so clearly brainwashed rather than knowledgeable or enlightened. Although we cannot proof the absence of Gods, the bible has been disproved over and over again with cold hard scientific facts and yet many refuse to acknowledge that for example the world is _in reality_ much older. 

Which makes debating a pointless exercise. One side uses facts, the other believes. No fact or logic or explanation of labels will affect their beliefs, if that were possible they obviously wouldn't believe such nonsense in the first place. Which in turn is why the writers of the bible stressed how important it is to "believe" - cult 101, they got it all covered.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Apr 25, 2013)

Zaehet Strife said:


> I think maybe he just want's to give atheists a bad wrap, or keep a notion in his mind that atheists are stupid/bad people. Some people do have a mind block though that won't allow them to see reason or think in a certain way, i've seen this time and time again. We've spelled it out for him in complicated ways, and easy ways... but nothing can change a mind that refuses to change.
> 
> Let me try just one more time.
> 
> ...









*Protip: *Philosophy is NOT equivalent to opposition to religion or faith. philosophers before the 18th century were generally theologians first, philosophers second. 

what you got goin on here is SOPHISTRY. it is as poorly constructred as abandonconflict's "Libertarian Socialism". 

under the rules you establish, Plato Aristotle, Confucius, Mencius, Buddha, and all the rest are just religious crackpots and thus assumed to be daft.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Apr 25, 2013)

Sativied said:


> Yes, the ones that are so clearly brainwashed rather than knowledgeable or enlightened. Although we cannot proof the absence of Gods, the bible has been disproved over and over again with cold hard scientific facts and yet many refuse to acknowledge that for example the world is _in reality_ much older.
> 
> Which makes debating a pointless exercise. One side uses facts, the other believes. No fact or logic or explanation of labels will affect their beliefs, if that were possible they obviously wouldn't believe such nonsense in the first place. Which in turn is why the writers of the bible stressed how important it is to "believe" - cult 101, they got it all covered.


actually my gods are adequately proved to me, leaving your assertion that "the bible has been disproved" lying there like a dead salmon in the moonlight, shining and stinking. 

disproving the bible's claims is easy, thats naught but a strawman. proving your assertion that my gods do not exist is far beyond your ability, but i really am comfortable with your disbelief. it doesnt bother me, or my gods. 

the common atheist's assertion that my faith in my gods is just stupid, is offensive, egotistical and ridiculous, as you are incapable of disproving their existence, just as i am incapable of proving their existence to you. 

your insistence that everything must be your way, and any who hold a different view are just stubborn or stupid is just a conceit. just as zahet's inability to comprehend that some philosophies and some philosophers have theology, and mindphuk's embracing of sophistry and semantics neither prove nor disprove ANYTHING.
they are assertions based on your belief, nothing more. 

and remember, all this is about my assertion that SOME atheists are just poseuers. this remains just as true as it was when i said it. the fact hasnt changed. all thats changed is the assumption that *"some'* means *"every last one" *

some metalheads are poseurs too, playing dress up and make believe,, with no love of the powerchords, or the driving beat and bassline found within iron Maiden, or Judas Priest's collected works. 
some punk fans are just posuers too, wearing mohawks and liberty poles, but they cant tell you what who Mike Ness or Tesco Vee are. 

but apparently with atheists alone, it's all or nothing. they move as a single unit, guided by the Pope of Atheism, richard dawkins, and there can be no schism or heresy.

yep. atheism is a monolith. every person who claims to be one IS one, no questions asked. even if they are only pretending because they think it's a cool stance to take, until next week when they discover buddhism, or kabballah, or numerology, or astrology, or whatever else might strike their fancy.


----------



## Sativied (Apr 25, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> actually my gods are adequately proved to me,


Adequately to believe, not to know. If you do, please do share the proof. The only reason you can believe is because you do _believe_. No proof, no facts, no reason, no logical debate, just _believes_.

The only proof I see in your post is you proving the point I made in mine. You're hopelessly brainwashed to a point where reason no longer has influence on your thinking. That should be the modern meaning of the term "lost soul". 



mindphuk said:


> *My claim that a purple dragon lives in my garage, is countered by a lack of acceptance of that claim, not a new positive claim that dragons don't exist.*





Dr Kynes said:


> your insistence that everything must be your way


That's just the pot calling the cattle black much like the rest of your post. My lack of acceptance doesn't imply I want others to say there is no god. I don't need to disprove anything, I'm not the one trying to convince others of and control others with fairy tales, I'm not the one scaring people into believing, I'm not the one claiming to have proof there is one true god in the sky controlling everything. I don't need to proof to you or myself that you are wrong, my common sense and human intellect tells me with _near_ certainty there is no purple dragon living in your garage and there's no God either. 

If you (and other believers) would keep their believes to themselves I wouldn't have much of a problem with it, but it's a virus that kept humanity back way too long already and I just hate to see modern people like yourself swallow that shit (without being able to proof anything) any longer. I sometimes feel an urge to go out on the streets and de-evangilize... if I can just save one soul...


----------



## Dr Kynes (Apr 25, 2013)

Sativied said:


> Adequately to believe, not to know. If you do, please do share the proof. The only reason you can believe is because you do _believe_. No proof, no facts, no reason, no logical debate, just _believes_.


you know not what i know, you only ASSUME what you BELIEVE i know, and thus your assertion is merely your faith that i am as daft as any person who might disagree with your close-held beliefs in disbelief. or is that too complex? 

you can never know my mind, nor can you know anyone's but your own. only your personal beliefs alllow you to make the assumption that i must be cracked, stupid, brainwashed or stubborn. i could make the same assertions about you, and it would be based on exactly the same level of evidence. 



Sativied said:


> The only proof I see in your post is you proving the point I made in mine. You're hopelessly brainwashed to a point where reason no longer has influence on your thinking. That should be the modern meaning of the term "lost soul".


thanks decartes, now contemplate your navel and tell me what that means about my own. 
you assert that im brainwashed, but you make this claim based on your assumptions, which are entirely unfounded, you apparently assume im a christian too, which is typical, you assume that im part of the easy to dismiss majority who have been indoctrinated from childhood to believe in a socially accepted religion. another failed assumption. 





Sativied said:


> That's just the pot calling the cattle black much like the rest of your post. My lack of acceptance doesn't imply I want others to say there is no god. I don't need to disprove anything, I'm not the one trying to convince others of and control others with fairy tales, I'm not the one scaring people into believing, I'm not the one claiming to have proof there is one true god in the sky controlling everything. I don't need to proof to you or myself that you are wrong, my common sense and human intellect tells me with _near_ certainty there is no purple dragon living in your garage and there's no God either.


the pot, calling the kettle black is a common cultural meme that indicates the hypocrisy of the accuser. what i believe you are grasping for is the schoolyard aphorism "I'm rubber you're glue..." but again, a failed assumption i care not what you believe, you can believe anything you like,, but when you make an erroneous assertion regarding any matter then you should expect disagreement. especially on a matter as contentious as the theist/agnostic/atheist roundabout. 



Sativied said:


> If you (and other believers) would keep their believes to themselves I wouldn't have much of a problem with it, but it's a virus that kept humanity back way too long already and I just hate to see modern people like yourself swallow that shit (without being able to proof anything) any longer. I sometimes feel an urge to go out on the streets and de-evangilize... if I can just save one soul...


funny, it YOU who is squawking and bleating about hoiw upset you are that anyone disbelieves your disbelief. you make the very point i originally asserted, some, and in fact MANY so-called atheists assume that stance as a pose, a demonstration of their individuality,, and their desire to be seen as part of the in-crowd who hold believers in any faith in contempt. (lol irony)

your obvious disdain for any religious faith is especially venomous for the christians, who you clearly hold beneath contempt, is just a sure sign that your faith in your disbelief is on shaky ground, and when the long cold nights come, youll be looking for answers you have so vehemently denied to others. 

if you are confident in your disbelief, why do you need converts? thats the sign of a faith that needs a herd to rally around, a belief that needs more people to agree just to reassure the evangelists. like Scientology. 
if you are confident in your disbelief then why does my belief bother you so?


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 25, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> aldous huxley can pound sand, i care not what he claims, nor do i consider him an authority on any subject save implausible fiction novels.


 I was quoting Thomas Henry Huxley, the person that coined the term agnostic. 



> i know many self identified agnostics, and they dont know if there is or is not a god. you may consider this heresy, but they do not, nor do i.


Many self-identified agnostics also happen to be atheists. Their position on knowledge has no bearing on whether or not they believe. That's the mental hurdle you seem to have such trouble getting over.


> i know many self identified atheists and nearly every one insists there IS NO SUPERNATURAL, and usually follow it up with a lengthy screed about how dumb christians are, and how superior atheists are.


Still waiting on links and/or quotes to all of these atheists that claim knowledge about the non-existence of gods. As to supernatural, that's a different subject altogether. There actually may not be a supernatural, it all depends on how one defines it. It seems however, you cannot seem to stop mixing up your arguments. Theism and atheism are the answers to one and only one question, the existential nature of deities. I know plenty of atheists, i.e. don't believe in a god but clearly believe in all sorts of 'supernatural' and magical things. They generally do not identify themselves as atheists but since they are clearly not theists, they are justifiably labeled as such. 



> atheism brings with it smug certitude, the sort bill maher trades in, this is not "not knowing" atheisim as delivered by many including yourself, iis declarative, and specific. "religion is dumb, and people who believe are superstitious fools"


Can't wait for these quotes. Since you include me in this group, I wonder if you can find any quote where I have claimed certainty with respect to gods. I can call you a fool, not because you are superstitious but because you keep making untrue claims as if they are fact. Continued assertions about supposed atheist is not evidence. Repetition is not persuasion. 



> endlessly repeating the same drivel, that agnosticism is some convoluted epistemological bizzaro world of not understanding how impossible it is to understand what cannot be comprehended is specious. agnosticism conveys an uncertainty and lack of knowledge on a subject, not the impossibility of anyone ever understanding the subject. that shit might fly in a particularly fucked up philosophy class, but it does not comport with the facts, nor the usage of the phrase.


Now you have misrepresented my posts once again. Maybe I should type slower so that you don't keep misunderstanding. 



> Definition of *agnostic*
> *noun*
> 
> 
> ...


This definition says the same thing I have been saying. It's about knowledge, NOT belief. YOU are the one that continues to claim it is a middle ground wrt belief. 


> a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.


This does unfortunately seem to reflect the common usage, the non-technical one that everyone thinks agnosticism means. It is not how Huxley used the term and since "...it was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley, and so there can only be one single point of departure for any discussion of the essence of agnosticism. That point is the definition of agnosticism chosen by Huxley himself:Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively, the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can take you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend that matters are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
-- "Agnosticism", 1889" 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/agnostic.html​


> Definition of *atheism*
> 
> *noun*
> 
> ...


So where in this definition is does it say that an atheist makes a positive claim that gods don't exist? A lack of belief in a god is the same as a lack of belief in the Loch Ness Monster. It is not a claim that god or Nessie doesn't exist or people that believe in them are stupid. Those continue to be your own baggage and stubbornness in realizing what you once thought was true is not. 



> so, as you can see, not knowing = agnosticism,


 Do you disagree that one can not know but still believe or not believe? Are you still attempting to claim that not knowing is mutually exclusive to belief in something? I'm agnostic about us living in a multiverse. I believe it is probably the case however. I am agnostic about the many-worlds theory. I actually do not think this is how things are. So it appears I can be agnostic about something and hold either a positive or a negative belief about it too. 



> insisting there is not = atheism.


Even your dictionary definition doesn't support you here. This is you continued assertion and have been proven wrong by not only etymology but by also by common usage. It appears you hold onto this definition in order to attack and marginalize those that you disagree with. I see no other reason to not accept the consensus of the vast majority of people that use this term to label themselves. 

Continue to use this narrow definition of atheism, then fine, I will just deny being an atheist. Not really a problem. It only becomes a problem for you when you attempt to assign specific beliefs and claims to someone merely on their identification of being an atheist. 


> your philosophy professor was a sophist, not a philosopher. he fucked you over.


Keep trying to attack and insult since it merely demonstrates you have run out of reason and thoughtful replies.


----------



## Sativied (Apr 25, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> you know not what i know, you only ASSUME what you BELIEVE i know, and thus your assertion is merely your faith that i am as daft as any person who might disagree with your close-held beliefs in disbelief. or is that too complex?


If you think that is complex matter I can see why reality is hard to grasp for you. I don't assume anything more than the obvious from what I read.



Dr Kynes said:


> you assume that im part of the easy to dismiss majority who have been indoctrinated from childhood to believe in a socially accepted religion.


Not exactly but more or less yes. People don't get infected by the major religions without someone or something else infecting them (something that by itself says it all). Whether that happened at childhood, or later, by people, or from reading a book, at some point your brain did get washed. You didn't make up your gods yourself (though that would explain a few things).



Dr Kynes said:


> the pot, calling the kettle black is a common cultural meme that indicates the hypocrisy of the accuser. what i believe you are grasping for is the schoolyard aphorism "I'm rubber you're glue..."


Nope, I meant you are the pot calling me the cattle black. Which simply means you are accusing me of what you do yourself. For example:


Dr Kynes said:


> but when you make an erroneous assertion regarding any matter then you should expect disagreement.


 And that was just an example because it applies to most of the rest I didn't quote as well. Including the "failed assumptions".



Dr Kynes said:


> it YOU who is squawking and bleating about how upset you are that anyone disbelieves your disbelief.


Disbelieving my disbelief? What a ridiculous far fetched attempt to twist. I'm starting to see why you refuse to see the main point made by others several times now, it would completely destroy your argument and thinking. AGAIN, just that I don't believe you have a purple dragon living in your garage doesn't mean I claim to know with certainty there is none and certainly doesn't mean I'm upset if you disbelieve my disbelief (I feel ridiculous typing that even though they aren't my own words). 



Dr Kynes said:


> your obvious disdain for any religious faith is especially venomous for the christians, who you clearly hold beneath contempt,


Hell yeah! If I had to pick I'd say I have a bigger problem with Islam though simply because the latter is even more backward. Christianity is the biggest problem because it's the religion in Western society, where holding back mankind has the largest influence.



Dr Kynes said:


> is just a sure sign that your faith in your disbelief is on shaky ground, and when the long cold nights come, youll be looking for answers you have so vehemently denied to others.


Faith in my disbelief? There's no such thing. Still not getting it... it's not just black and white... You can't go from not believing to faith in disbelieving, that makes sense only if you want it to for the sake of convincing yourself. 

Interesting assumption though, which leads me to another one myself: you are just scared and looking for comfort. I however do not fear the long cold nights, I do not fear life nor dead, but above all I do not fear admitting I don't know. 

Just like you don't know, you _believe_. I was going to say blindly believe but ah well, blindly is implied when it comes to believing isn't it.



Dr Kynes said:


> if you are confident in your disbelief, why do you need converts?


Speaking of "too complex"... that was sarcasm. Add "but I don't because I don't pretend to know".



Dr Kynes said:


> why does my belief bother you so?


Oh yeah why would that bother me... it's all so innocent isn't it... See previous post:


Sativied said:


> If you (and other believers) would keep their believes to themselves I wouldn't have much of a problem with it, but it's a virus that kept humanity back way too long already and I just hate to see modern people like yourself swallow that shit (without being able to proof anything) any longer.


Now let me ask you a question: why does it bother you so much that not every non-believer is a disbeliever? SO much even that you refuse to acknowledge the possibility of someone not believing in your god but at the same time not ... oh wait... you already answered that:



Dr Kynes said:


> i know many self identified atheists and nearly every one insists there IS NO SUPERNATURAL,


Clearly you don't know enough of them. Anyone who "insists" there is no supernatural is to me as ignorant as a christian simply because absence of proof is no proof of absence. Anyone who insist there _is_ supernatural without showing proof is a charlatan.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Apr 25, 2013)

mindphuk said:


> I was quoting Thomas Henry Huxley, the person that coined the term agnostic.
> 
> Many self-identified agnostics also happen to be atheists. Their position on knowledge has no bearing on whether or not they believe. That's the mental hurdle you seem to have such trouble getting over.
> Still waiting on links and/or quotes to all of these atheists that claim knowledge about the non-existence of gods. As to supernatural, that's a different subject altogether. There actually may not be a supernatural, it all depends on how one defines it. It seems however, you cannot seem to stop mixing up your arguments. Theism and atheism are the answers to one and only one question, the existential nature of deities. I know plenty of atheists, i.e. don't believe in a god but clearly believe in all sorts of 'supernatural' and magical things. They generally do not identify themselves as atheists but since they are clearly not theists, they are justifiably labeled as such.
> ...


yeah yeah yeah you want "Proof" that many atheists insist there are no supernatural forces, deities etc... 


**









*






*
*







**






*
*






*
*






*
*


**
















*All from the "Philosophical Meme and Quote" thread. All posted by Zahet Strife, who apparently believes that philosophy is the polar opposite of faith. 



nuff said. 

since you have now made it quite clear that the FACTS mean dick, and the little details like "Some atheists are poseurs" doesnt mean "All atheists are posuers" and your insistence on indulging in endless semantic wrangling, with admittedly some points, but still failing to accept that "Not Knowing" does not equate to "It's Unknowable", no matter what aldous huxley says (yes, im sticking with that cuz it struck me funny) makes this argument a tempest in a jock strap. 

you may in fact have good reasons for your insistence that there is not such thing as god or gods, and thats fine, you roll with that, i likewise have good reasons for my certainty that they DO exist, but ill never prove it to you, and youll never disprove it to me. 

meanwhile the bitter whingeing and petulant mewling of some clowns in this thread is why i rarely wander this way. might as well have a pilow fight over who would win a fight between mighty mouse and superman. it's all irrelevant. 

insistent adamant and obnoxious atheists like that dingleberry bill maher still piss me off with their "all religious people are idiots" bullshit, and the can eat a sack of dicks.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Apr 25, 2013)

Sativied said:


> Not exactly but more or less yes. People don't get infected by the major religions without someone or something else infecting them (something that by itself says it all). Whether that happened at childhood, or later, by people, or from reading a book, at some point your brain did get washed. You didn't make up your gods yourself (though that would explain a few things).
> Clearly you don't know enough of them. Anyone who "insists" there is no supernatural is to me as ignorant as a christian simply because absence of proof is no proof of absence. Anyone who insist there _is_ supernatural without showing proof is a charlatan.


i have no interest in sharing with you the proofs that made me a believer. 

you should probably look within yourself and see what makes you so bitter angry and incapable of understanding that *"Some _______ are ___________"* does not mean *"All ____________ are ____________" *

you can fill in that madlib with whatever noun and adjective you like, it still works out the same. 

*"Some Flowers are Yellow"* is NOT equivalent to *"All Flowers are Yellow" *

*"Some French People are Smelly"* is NOT equivalent to *"All French People are Smelly" * 

*"Some People are Idiots"* is NOT equivalent to *"All People are Idiots" *

yep. you sure are mad that not everybody has accepted the dubious joys of your belief system. 

me, i got no problems with anybody believing whatever they like,, you're the one who cant shut up about how everybody needs to embrace atheism or they are just brainwashed or stupid.


----------



## Sativied (Apr 25, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> All from the "Philosophical Meme and Quote" thread. All posted by Zahet Strife


And what an awesome post that is. So much wisdom from such wise people and you still stuff your head a little further up your ass - impressive.



Dr Kynes said:


> *yep. you sure are mad *that not everybody has accepted the dubious joys of your belief system.


 Are you really sure about that? Just as sure as there being a god? Still not getting it... I do not have a belief system just because I don't swallow the nonsense you do. It is not that black and white. Don't pretend to know what goes on in my mind (either... double-edged sword...). You can continue to believe I am "upset" or "mad", but in reality I am not. I can dispute your nonsense and ridicule christians without applying any emotions or increasing my heart beat one bit. I speak from the mind, not the heart. And unlike you I am not afraid.



Dr Kynes said:


> me, i got no problems with anybody believing whatever they like,, you're the one who cant shut up about how everybody needs to embrace atheism or they are just brainwashed or stupid.


A poor and failed attempt... As long as there are people like you spreading fairytales as if they are proven truths and something more than mere believes I won't "shut up" (either).



Dr Kynes said:


> i have no interest in sharing with you the proofs that made me a believer.


And you say _my_ non-existing faith is on shaking grounds? What are you afraid of, that someone might shoot a few holes in your "proofs"? There IS no proof, stop kidding yourself. 



Dr Kynes said:


> you should probably look within yourself and see what makes you so bitter angry and incapable of understanding that


All this talk about me being angry/mad/upset is just you reflecting your own state of mind on me. And again with the pot-cattle thing... you insist on labeling and stereotyping atheists incorrectly but when that is pointed out you only talk about "some" of them and not all? And _you_ accuse _me_ of hypocrisy


----------



## Kite High (Apr 25, 2013)

my problem with religion is RELIGION


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 26, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> yeah yeah yeah you want "Proof" that many atheists insist there are no supernatural forces, deities etc...


Your bombardment of quotes did not show ONE that INSISTED any certainty with regard to gods. Railing against superstition and specific instances of religious bullshit is NOT supportive of your claim that atheists are making positive claims against the reality of a god. I will just have to concede that your inability to recognize the difference between expressing doubt and asserting a claim will continue to be an issue. 


> All from the "Philosophical Meme and Quote" thread. All posted by Zahet Strife, who apparently believes that philosophy is the polar opposite of faith.


Another claim about a person that you cannot possibly demonstrate. Are you likewise claiming that someone that doesn't have faith cannot participate in philosophy or promote philosophical views? 



> nuff said.


 Hardly, but since subtlety is beyond your comprehension, I guess we will have to let it go at that. 


> since you have now made it quite clear that the FACTS mean dick,


and you have made it clear that you like to cherry pick your 'facts'



> and the little details like "Some atheists are poseurs" doesnt mean "All atheists are posuers" and your insistence on indulging in endless semantic wrangling, with admittedly some points, but still failing to accept that "Not Knowing" does not equate to "It's Unknowable", no matter what aldous huxley says (yes, im sticking with that cuz it struck me funny) makes this argument a tempest in a jock strap.


You pointed to me specifically as 'evidence' for claim that atheists are hipster, pseudointellectuals. Now you try to back away from that by implying I accused you of calling 'all' atheists posuers when in fact I merely asked you to prove you assertion about 'some' by explaining how you can tell the difference between a posuer and a true atheist that comes to his conclusions by skeptical inquiry. The only response you could muster seemed to stagnate in a puddle of your personal prejudices. 

I have not once claimed that not knowing equates to unknowable. In fact I made it quite clear there is a distinction, and T.H. Huxley clearly explained that something doesn't need to be unknowable for one to take the agnostic position, which is ultimately merely one of skepticism. So it appears you are the word wrangler, while I'm attempting to educate. 



> you may in fact have good reasons for your insistence that there is not such thing as god or gods, and thats fine, you roll with that, i likewise have good reasons for my *certainty *that they DO exist, but ill never prove it to you, and youll never disprove it to me.


You still have not found a quote by me where I insist and am certain that there is no such thing as god, yet here you are expressing clear certainty, something that is counter to skeptical, reasoned thought. You have no idea if you can ever prove your gods to me, you haven't even attempted, only asserted. If you actually have, good, rational, reasons to believe there are gods, then why shouldn't you be able to convince another rational, reasonable person that they are real? Is it possibly because your reasons are not actually rational and can withstand the scrutiny of skeptical, critical thinking? 



> meanwhile the bitter whingeing and petulant mewling of some clowns in this thread is why i rarely wander this way. might as well have a pilow fight over who would win a fight between mighty mouse and superman. it's all irrelevant.


You are welcome to quit visiting or put me on ignore



> insistent adamant and obnoxious atheists like that dingleberry bill maher still piss me off with their "all religious people are idiots" bullshit, and the can eat a sack of dicks.


You keep implying that many atheists are clueless and fickle and deify Dawkins. At least Maher is able to expose and demonstrate the vacuous position that many religious people have. And let's stop conflating theism with religious. They are related but not synonymous. It is your constant equivocating that is one of your most annoying features.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Apr 26, 2013)

Sativied said:


> And what an awesome post that is. So much wisdom from such wise people and you still stuff your head a little further up your ass - impressive.


and youre so far off the point of why i re-posted those images you need the hubble telescope to spot it. 

every last one of those images quotes, memes, and flowcharts demonstrates the beilief by the quoted (sagan, russel, maher, einstein, etc...) the creator/drawer of the image and the person who posted them each and every one, as "philosophy quotes" (zahet strife) that all faith is foolish superstition, and anyone who was smart or clever or brave enough to be one of the cool kids would throw off the shackles of superstition and faith. 

and then you even go on to intimate that i should reject my beliefs because these other guys are so smart and wise... 

this is EXACTLY THE SAME as *"The Bible Says It, I Believe it, That Settles It" *but this is too hard for you to figure out. Accepting or rejecting any idea based on the perceived wisdom or authority of another, whether that other is Richard Dawkins, or the prophet Mohammed, or L Ron Hubbard is EQUALLY FAITH BASED! to insist that anyone should accept or reject any idea based on a bumper sticker slogan or a motivational poster is just stupid. even a 2000 year old desert fairy tail about burning bushes and dudes with giant beards makes more sense. 



Sativied said:


> Are you really sure about that? Just as sure as there being a god? Still not getting it... I do not have a belief system just because I don't swallow the nonsense you do. It is not that black and white. Don't pretend to know what goes on in my mind (either... double-edged sword...). You can continue to believe I am "upset" or "mad", but in reality I am not. I can dispute your nonsense and ridicule christians without applying any emotions or increasing my heart beat one bit. I speak from the mind, not the heart. And unlike you I am not afraid.


 ORLY? maybe youre afraid of not being invited to the cool athiest table on un-christmas, or youre afraid youll get tarred with the brush of christianity, or maybe youre just afraid of anything not served up to you on a silver platter with quotes and memes from a wirerd blend of drug addicted poets, communist radicals, hollywood celebrities, failed stand up comics, physicists, and science fiction writers? 

bearded desert nomads are really starting to sound authoritative and wise when you stack them up next to bertie russel and bill maher.



Sativied said:


> A poor and failed attempt... As long as there are people like you spreading fairytales as if they are proven truths and something more than mere believes I won't "shut up" (either).


you dont even know what my "fairy tale" is specifically, so how can you claim im spreading it? im talking in generalities about ALL religions, from ancestor worship to psychotherapy, and all points between (except scientology, which is a cult) and their utility in stabilizing society, and their usefulness in the individual none of which is provided by bill maher's smug blanket rejection of all things he doesnt understand, and from his collected statements that covers pretty much EVERYTHING from how economics and governments work to how the moon keeps itself from falling out of the sky. 



Sativied said:


> And you say _my_ non-existing faith is on shaking grounds? What are you afraid of, that someone might shoot a few holes in your "proofs"? There IS no proof, stop kidding yourself.


nope. im rock solid in my beilefs, even if you dont understand the who, what, when, where, why, and how of my dao. but you dont seem to have a handle on WHY you believe these nothing, save that bill maher and carl sagan think the same way. 
the wisdom of the village elder, and his assertion that "This is the way things are" is groovy. but if youre taking his word, youre taking it on FAITH, and you dont seem to have any reason beyond "bill maher said so" for your insistence that im wrong. 

and apparently you are blind to irony. thats what comes from hypocrisy. i suppose thats why you think a pot is calling some "cattle" black. 



Sativied said:


> All this talk about me being angry/mad/upset is just you reflecting your own state of mind on me. And again with the pot-cattle thing... you insist on labeling and stereotyping atheists incorrectly but when that is pointed out you only talk about "some" of them and not all? And _you_ accuse _me_ of hypocrisy


nope, nope and yep. 

nope, you are mad, angry and insistent that im wrong, because you HAVE TO BE RIGHT, or your shaky poorly constructed worldview collapses, since it's built on the shifting sands of bill maher quotes, and your assumption that learned and wise people dont believe in gods, so youll not either. thus you become wise by association. meanwhile, im cool with my beliefs, and if you really do believe that thers no gods and that im wrong, thats cool too, but i suspect you dont even believe that, and you certainly dont KNOW it.

nope, i insist on declaring that SOME atheists are trendy followers who simply want to LOOK like they know some shit, like the asshole who carries around Plato's Republic, and pretends to read it, but in fact is illiterate, or the chump who wears a red thread tied to his wrist because that means he's "very spiritual, just like madonna" these are both displays, affected to give others a false impression, and to associate the posuer with some philosophy or theology they dont even understand. if you think that no person claiming to be an atheist could possibly be so shallow, ignorant and stupid, then i would suggest you have made a seriously erroneous assumption, which of course will pile up neatly with the other erroneous assumptions you have made. SOME atheists are posuers, that was my original assertion, and it still stands. some of them are idiot followers, some of them are actually learned and wise skep[tics and disbelievers, and some are justpretending so they can stand next to carl sagan and shout *"Yeah! That's exactly what I was gonna say!"
*
and finally, yep. youre a hypocrite. you accuse me of being a brainwashed fool, insist im wrong, and that youre right, when you dont even know what i believe, and i suspect you dont even kn ow what YOU are pretending to believe. now go stand next to bill maher and shout *"Yeah!! That's exactly what I was gonna say!"*


----------



## Sativied (Apr 26, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> and then you even go on to intimate that i should reject my beliefs because these other guys are so smart and wise...
> 
> this is EXACTLY THE SAME as *"The Bible Says It, I Believe it, That Settles It" *but this is too hard for you to figure out. Accepting or rejecting any idea based on the perceived wisdom or authority of another, whether that other is Richard Dawkins, or the prophet Mohammed, or L Ron Hubbard is EQUALLY FAITH BASED! to insist that anyone should accept or reject any idea based on a bumper sticker slogan or a motivational poster is just stupid.


Maher is an odd duck in that list and not necessarily one I would include in "wise men" (not saying he isn't just don't know him well enough - after that awesome quote that will change soon) but it's not _me_ who has a hard time figuring things out. It's clear that it's all just black and white to you. Just because you swallow the same crap that has been parroted over and over doesn't mean those who don't swallow it also do that based on the same info being parroted over and over. 

I agree it would be stupid to accept or reject ideas *solely* based on the words of another. But once you combine it with logic, history, common sense, scientific prove, and everything you can and can't see, hear, smell and feel, it becomes rather obvious that your fairytale is unlikely reality. And why you need to "believe", and can't prove it and start responding like an angry child that isn't getting "her" way. 

The main message in those memes is that religious people should knock that shit off. Wake the fuck up. Open your eyes and enjoy reality (which again doesn't mean I claim to know there is nothing beyond what I consider reality). Stop holding mankind back with your fairy tales (and the inherit limitations fairy tale believers want and way too often do enforce on others).



Dr Kynes said:


> ORLY? maybe youre afraid of not being invited to the cool athiest table on un-christmas, or youre afraid youll get tarred with the brush of christianity, or maybe youre just afraid of anything not served up to you on a silver platter with quotes and memes from a wirerd blend of drug addicted poets, communist radicals, hollywood celebrities, failed stand up comics, physicists, and science fiction writers?


Nope none of the above. Most of what is said in those memes is what I've been saying for DECADES. *That's the great thing about reality, you don't need others to brainwash you to learn about it.* It seems genuinely hard to understand for you, but yes really, I'm not so afraid of living and dying that I need to make up a purple dragon to give me comfort - like you. Reality is so wonderful.



Dr Kynes said:


> you dont even know what my "fairy tale" is specifically


Of course if you can cherry pick facts you can also cherry pick believes. Based on your "love" for Bill Maher I don't need to know specifics about your fairy tale, of which you don't want to share proof. But do you even have a name for your new cult yet? err... fairy tale.

You speak to me of not understanding and not being able to figure things out. Is that what the person who brainwashed you pulled on you? Again the reflective behavior. I am not you. What worked on you won't work on me. It's the typical loser answer in any debate but especially popular amongst religious people. You settle for fairy tales not because reality is too hard to figure out for you, you're just scared and need the comfort of the idea there is a purple dragon watching over you so you refuse to see reality and get a little pissy if someone confronts you with it.



Dr Kynes said:


> nope, you are mad, angry


Again mere reflections of an angry Christian incapable of having a logical debate, added with anger against Bill Maher (who you quoted yourself in a failed attempt ). You insist I am mad and angry while you clearly stated you are (yes read your own posts). Clearly you are seeing things there are not. If imagining comes that easy to you... then I can see how you think you have proof for your believes. I won't get angry because you _believe_ (imagine) it, just like there is no god because you _believe_ (imagine) it. I personally don't have a problem with you, I don't know you. Try to place yourself in my shoes for second and think how unlikely it is for me to get angry towards someone who makes up his own fairytale and claims to have proof for it but doesn't want to share it, and then calls me a hypocrite. That's way too ridiculous to get upset about. 

Does it make it easier for you to believe your fairytale if others would get angry for you believing it? I can see how that would work... they did cover that quite nicely in the bible didn't they. 



Dr Kynes said:


> insistent that im wrong,


Still not getting it...  I'm *not insistent* you are wrong, just that you cannot prove you are right and unlikely are. How can you still call yourself an intelligent human being after missing that point in nearly a dozen posts...?



Dr Kynes said:


> and finally, yep. youre a hypocrite. you accuse me of being a brainwashed fool, insist im wrong, and that youre right, when you dont even know what i believe, *and i suspect you dont even kn ow what YOU are pretending to believe*.


Wow... see question above  And again the pot calling the cattle black (may want to google that one...) 



Dr Kynes said:


> now go stand next to bill maher and shout *"Yeah!! That's exactly what I was gonna say!"*


 And somehow that should prevent me or anyone else from doing exactly that? Another technique borrowed from your brainwasher(s)? Schoolyard level behavior... not going to work on me, and Bill Maher is fucking awesome just for saying that _outloud_ (what many others perceive as reality, more and more fortunately). I wasn't going to say what he said, as I try not to point out the obvious. Funny how you get some (hopefully 'many') people would feel the urge to do that but refuse to see why (cause he's saying what many people are thinking after they figured it all out by themselves based on facts, logic and proof).


Just as me not getting angry over a religious debate, or any other discussion on the web for that matter, I rather not have someone getting upset/angry/mad on the other side of the line sort of speak. Keep in mind Bill is a comedian, bringing it in such a way that it gets that kind of response from similar minded people is the whole point (and why he's a bit rude... still an awesome quote though... especially how he finished it off...)


----------



## skunkd0c (Apr 26, 2013)

drolove said:


> but this also toke and talk where pretty much anything can be posted. Right now im toking and talking so whats the problem??


ocd .


----------



## nameno (Apr 26, 2013)

I had to live it to see what he could do,now I believe,but to each his on,I don't want to change anybody.Bye


----------



## Dr Kynes (Apr 26, 2013)

mindphuk said:


> Your bombardment of quotes did not show ONE that INSISTED any certainty with regard to gods. Railing against superstition and specific instances of religious bullshit is NOT supportive of your claim that atheists are making positive claims against the reality of a god. I will just have to concede that your inability to recognize the difference between expressing doubt and asserting a claim will continue to be an issue.


yeah, that "bombardment" of quotes, none of which apparently had anything to do with a positive denial of the veracity of any faith, and the direct rejection of the possibility of deity, except EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, is just me pissing in the wind. yep with phrases like "...such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls" are totally consistent with an "I Dont Know" position. yep, "I hereby state my opinion that the notion of a god is a basic superstition" is not at all a declaration that he might "condemn and vilify this mythical deity" nope. not a bit. but at least he had the good manners to state it was his *OPINION*, unlike say... 


* 



​ 

*
which declares definitively that all religious or supernatural belief is "bollocks" . yeah i guers im to unsubtle to understand the finer points of " grownups with imaginary friends are stupid" and other such bumper sticker slogan atheistic "philosophies" 




mindphuk said:


> Another claim about a person that you cannot possibly demonstrate. Are you likewise claiming that someone that doesn't have faith cannot participate in philosophy or promote philosophical views?


no, a claim based on a thread started by himself (zahet strife) which he declared was a place to post philosophical memes quotes etc..., and his own contributions were nearly exclusively what might best be described as "religion is dumb" posts,, and included very little in the way of philosophical musings of any sort. it was a groovy thread and i enjoyed it, but his opinion seemed to be "philosophy = anti-religion" rather than the actual reality: "most philosophers before the 1800's were theologians first, philosophers second" 

the counter argument, that you now make is entirely specious. atheists can have philosphical musings all they like, and many do. many also hold the opinion (which many also state as a fact, not an opinion) thats there IS NO GOD (or gods). full stop. plain statement, not "i dont believe", no "nobody can prove to me that theres is a god" no "i have doubts as to the veracity of your religion" no "i suspect youre indulging in superstition", just plain bold uncompromising declarations. 

the sort of statements which would be called "Pontification" if it professed the opposite opinion. 

philosophy and theology are not inextricable, though they do share a large number of the same notable quotables. 

just to be clear though, so you dont run off making more wild claims of things i never even implied:

all religious persons are NOT philosophical,, but some are
all non-religious persons are not primitive savages interested only in eating, excreting and reproducing, but some are

all philosophers are not religious but some are
all religions are not based on solid philosophical principles but some are





mindphuk said:


> You pointed to me specifically as 'evidence' for claim that atheists are hipster, pseudointellectuals.


REALLY??? i do not believe i did that at all. 
thaty does not sound like me, nor does it reflect my opinion of you. i think YOU PERSONALLY have sound reasons and a logical basis for your skepticism. 
i also suspect that if you had sufficient evidence of the existence of a deity, you would most likely accept it. 

kindly direct me to the statement you felt targeted you as a hipster posuer psuedointellectual. 



mindphuk said:


> Now you try to back away from that by implying I accused you of calling 'all' atheists posuers when in fact I merely asked you to prove you assertion about 'some' by explaining how you can tell the difference between a posuer and a true atheist that comes to his conclusions by skeptical inquiry. The only response you could muster seemed to stagnate in a puddle of your personal prejudices.


you want me to offer you up evidence of persons i know, like say video of them being dumbass hipsters, embracing atheism one week, and reading "the Secret" and talking about how it 'really opened their eyes" the next week? 

you really should be able to think of some posuers you know personally and agree on principle, that in any group, theres ALWAYS some assholes who are just following the crowd. unless you can offer up some evidence that disproves that principle, it is unarguable. 



mindphuk said:


> I have not once claimed that not knowing equates to unknowable. In fact I made it quite clear there is a distinction, and T.H. Huxley clearly explained that something doesn't need to be unknowable for one to take the agnostic position, which is ultimately merely one of skepticism. So it appears you are the word wrangler, while I'm attempting to educate.


did i not say you made some good points? they were strong points backed up with decent evidence. i just happen to disagree. in greek "agnostic" means not knowing, a lack of certainty or expertise,, etc. atheist likewise means "without theology" 

your assertion creates a situation which when used with a singe faith, such as judaism, would place any person who is "not a believer in jewish the faith" in the same category as a crazy person who doesnt believe that jews exist at all. it just doesnt make sense,, not logically, not etymologically, and not rhetorically. 



mindphuk said:


> You still have not found a quote by me where I insist and am certain that there is no such thing as god, yet here you are expressing clear certainty, something that is counter to skeptical, reasoned thought.


i never asserted that YOU made those claims i said SOME ATHEISTS DO and this is a fact. you did not demand i prove YOU made those claims, you demanded i show you where ANY ahteist made those claims. 

lets look back a little ways and see it ourselves:



mindphuk said:


> Being agnostic does not mean you don't have an opinion on a subject. That's ridiculous. Quit changing the meaning of things to suit your agenda.Until you can produce,as requested, a quote from atheists that any of them have claimed to have knowledge about the lack of gods, this assertion of yours will continue to stink as most shit does.


now this clearly does not indicate that you felt i had selected you as one of the atheists who insist there simply is no god, as a fact, despite the impossibility of any such proof. this asserts that you wish to see *"a quote from atheists"* and i provided several, froim well known atheists,, delivered in pretty pictures, courtesy of a nearby thread, where they had been posted by Zahet Strife (self identified and unabashed atheist) with whom i only disagree as to the nature of philosophy as a subject, and it's relation to religion. 

this new assertion that i somehow targeted you as a pseudo-atheist poseur is perplexing. 

even the portion of the above quote excerpted here: 



mindphuk said:


> * "Being agnostic does not mean you don't have an opinion on a subject."*


is entirely an argument outside of the context to which it pretends to object. the statement which apparently triggered this response was about the BUTTHURT expressed by SOME theists over those who hold a differing opinionon religion to their own, and the equal and opposite BUTTHURT expressed by SOME atheists who likewise hold a differing opinion. the opinions may come from different sides, but the BUTTHURT is identical in both subgroups. 

the closest thing to an accusation leveled against you personally i can think of is my accusation thats you are exopressing BUTTHURT, because well... bro, some of your posts have come off extremely butthurt. 

whether this butthurt is real, or merly implied by your adamant insistence that agnostics have somne particular opinion about how god is totally 100% unknowable (which is a pretty wild claim in itself...) ir if this is merely inadvertently implied butthurt or if it is mistakenly inferred butthurt, the butthurt levels in this thread are reaching *Lollercaust* levels. 

meanwhile can you honestly think of a single person who would fall into the *"i dont know if there is or is not a god"* category, whatever you wish to call it who ever got butthurt over somebody else believing, or disbelieving any claim regarding religion? 

those who say *"i dont know if there is or is not a god"* dont have an opinion on whether there is or is not a god, and thus their butts are immune to religious hurtings, provided of course, nobody squeezes their peaches.

if you wish to once again disagree on semantics, then why dont YOU tell ME what you would call someone who* "does not know if there is or is not any god(s)" *because thats what i would call agnostic. 





mindphuk said:


> You have no idea if you can ever prove your gods to me, you haven't even attempted, only asserted. If you actually have, good, rational, reasons to believe there are gods, then why shouldn't you be able to convince another rational, reasonable person that they are real? Is it possibly because your reasons are not actually rational and can withstand the scrutiny of skeptical, critical thinking?


becuase it is personal, and i doubt it would mean shit to you. you would have to experience it yourself just as i did. it's complicated 

you would never take my word for it, much in the way i dont buy that "auditing" will remove fictional alien ghosts from my body and soul, or that eventually scientiology can give me superpowers. 

^^^ see that there? ^^^

thats me saying definitively that scientology is bullshit. thats a declarative statement. and ill say it again. "Scientology is 100% bullshit." 

now, i can say that because i can PROVE scientology is bullshit, cuz i can show you the creator of scientology's own words, written by his own soft pink hand in which he declares he intends to create his own fake religion as a tax dodge and a profit making enterprise. also, it's a "space opera" by his own admission. 





mindphuk said:


> You are welcome to quit visiting or put me on ignore


perish the thought. your insights on many things are fascinating i just disagree on this. 



mindphuk said:


> You keep implying that many atheists are clueless and fickle and deify Dawkins. At least Maher is able to expose and demonstrate the vacuous position that many religious people have. And let's stop conflating theism with religious. They are related but not synonymous. It is your constant equivocating that is one of your most annoying features.


"some atheists are poseurs" 
"some atheists simply accept Richard Dawkins as their messiah" 
"bill maher is one of those fools who hold a position of atheism yet do explain why they hold it beyond *"cuz religion is dumb"* which is hardly a rational and reasoned response." 
"bill maher's athieism IN SPECIFIC and appertaining solely to him, appears to me, in my own personal opinion, to be nothing more than anti-religion, not any sort of rational or epistemological conclusion"

see those are quotes you can argue for or against. 

and i still say agnostic means "dont know"


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 26, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> just look at the wrangling in this very forum over who is or is not an atheist or agnostic. these two words have simple easy to understan meanings yet they have been tortured into bizzare forms which would do a pentecostal televangelist proud.
> 
> *Agnostic: A*: lacking *Gnostic*: Knowledge. those who dont know if there are gods or a god or dieties in general etc. this simple logical principled belief in proof before acceptance is what most logical persons actually are. Agnostic.
> 
> ...


^ This! lol


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 26, 2013)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Anyone who claims with certainty that they know without a doubt that god or gods do or don't exist... *in my opinion, is a liar*. I don't care what experiences you have had, or what dreams you have had, or anything. They could all just be a manifestation of your brain trying to understand and make sense of an existence that doesn't really make any sense at all... not one bit.
> 
> We all must do whatever it takes to fill our lives with meaning, understanding, happiness and joy... *but I think*, it is more courageous to accept reality and what we can really know within it... rather than to persist in what we want it to be...whether that be delusion, or or desired wishful thinking, no matter how satisfying it may be.


*claps* This is the first time I seen you present this idea like its just that, an idea, rather than an absolute truth.


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 26, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> yeah, that "bombardment" of quotes, none of which apparently had anything to do with a positive denial of the veracity of any faith, and the direct rejection of the possibility of deity, except EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, is just me pissing in the wind. yep with phrases like "...such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls" are totally consistent with an "I Dont Know" position. yep, "I hereby state my opinion that the notion of a god is a basic superstition" is not at all a declaration that he might "condemn and vilify this mythical deity" nope. not a bit. but at least he had the good manners to state it was his *OPINION*, unlike say...


Do you have a problem with people stating their opinion? I too am of the opinion that there is no god. I do not, however, insist I know or claim any certainty about my opinions. I also have good reason to believe that the world's religions are all bullshit, but once again, that doesn't make the possibility of some sort of deity, maybe one I haven't been exposed to could be real. Every single one of those quotes were directed either at specific gods (like Einstein's, Russel's, Randi and Maher's), religions or superstitious thinking in general (Sagan and Beecher). I cannot see how you think that every one is making a claim that it is impossible for ANY type of god to exist. Everyone should doubt the existential nature of things that have never been demonstrable shown to be true. I can reject the idea of gods as easily as I reject faeries, unicorns, dragons and crockaducks almost all the same. Not all possibilities in nature have equal probabilities. Things that have no evidence for existence can be dismissed without much thought, but it appears you would argue - except when discussing god because it might insult someone. 

The knowledge we have about how the brain works, how our perceptions, including profound religious experiences, can be manipulated, even replicated in the laboratory, how myth and legend are made and endure, especially during times when lack mankind was more ignorant about much of how nature works, all lead me to conclude, that even my own personal experiences are suspect, and absolutely no one has actual evidence of any god beyond these internal experiences, I can induce a very low probability that there is anything literally beyond nature in the way that a god is usually represented. This allows me to conclude that a god or gods probably do not exist. Every single one of those quotes can come from the same position I take here.

We already discussed the Randi quote, how he asserts his opinion and makes some observations about the lack of evidence... let's look at the other quote you chose, Einstein, " "...such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls" is clearly taken out of context if you are arguing he's referring to ALL gods because what you didn't quote was referring to a certain type of deity, one with specific characteristics. 

So once again, you fail to demonstrate what you assert you did. There is a big difference between taking the position that religion, superstition and the types of uncritical thinking that leads people to believe in stuff like gods, the afterlife, astral projection, and Scientology is bullshit and the position that I KNOW with certainty that no gods can or could have ever existed. Your appear to lack the ability to recognize subtlety. You cannot, with any honesty, continue to conflate religion with theism.. or the supernatural, afterlife or any other claim with the god hypothesis.


----------



## tyler.durden (Apr 26, 2013)

There's been so much talk of Bill Maher in this thread I thought I'd post his movie Religulous, but they took the full movie off YT. Here's a clip of his monologue at the end of the movie, it sums up his position on religion and magical thinking. He sincerely believes that it is ultimately harmful to humanity, and states the reasons why. It's very similar to Sam Harris' position in his book A Letter to a Christian Nation - 

[video=youtube;A2Dzt_Tp5VE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2Dzt_Tp5VE[/video]


----------



## 420neverforget (Apr 27, 2013)

My favorite part in Religulous

[video=youtube;6uL7zjRsO1w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uL7zjRsO1w[/video]

EDIT


Dr Kynes said:


> atheist declares *"There simply is no god, and you're a fool to believe otherwise." *


You can keep telling yourself this all you want but that doesn't make it true. Most atheists are agnostic and are aware that they don't know for certainty that there is no god. Atheism also makes no claim that others are fools for not believing.

You are constantly redefining atheism to suit your own preconceived notions in attempts to make a simple lack of belief into so much more than that.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Apr 27, 2013)

mindphuk said:


> Do you have a problem with people stating their opinion?


when stated as OPINION, it's fine, when stated as a simple indeniabel FACT by persons who are noted physicists, celebrities etc, and requoted again and again is stops being opinion and becomes a slogan and slogans dont have the "just my opinion" label

when posted as a quote out of context and left standing alone as a statement, it no longer has the tone of opinion,, but becomes an appeal to authority, and a claim of FACT. 


*




*

this is the quote in question. as presented by zahet strife. it was accompanied by no "context" save it comes from the "atheist meme base". when a quote is used without anny commentary or context the assumption is, the poster agrees with the statement and accepts it's conclusion. 

it looks pretty declarative. it conveys a simple message, einstein didnt believe in fairy tales and neither should you. this quote even goes so far as to include ALL concepts of life after death including the hindu/buddhist/taoist reincarnation ideas, the concept of the "soul" as described in the west, the "Ka" of the ancient egyptians and the "Spirit" as found in many primitive societies. this single quote pulls the rug out from under every religious, spiritual, or supernatural believe in existence, leaving only atheism as a logical choice based solely upon the assertions of one physicist. 



mindphuk said:


> I too am of the opinion that there is no god. I do not, however, insist I know or claim any certainty about my opinions.


uhh huh... thast cool. you can believe that. you can believe that all week long and twice on sunday. i never even hinted that you couldnt, or shouldnt. 



mindphuk said:


> I also have good reason to believe that the world's religions are all bullshit,


right right, still with you. many religions are pretty fucked up, and some stopped being religions centuries ago and have become businesses. and some always were businesses, ever since they were invented in the 60's by a science fiction writer... 



mindphuk said:


> but once again, that doesn't make the possibility of some sort of deity, maybe one I haven't been exposed to could be real.


yeah... i feel that. you been reading my diary? 




mindphuk said:


> Every single one of those quotes were directed either at specific gods (like Einstein's, Russel's, Randi and Maher's), religions or superstitious thinking in general (Sagan and Beecher). I cannot see how you think that every one is making a claim that it is impossible for ANY type of god to exist. Everyone should doubt the existential nature of things that have never been demonstrable shown to be true. I can reject the idea of gods as easily as I reject faeries, unicorns, dragons and crockaducks almost all the same. Not all possibilities in nature have equal probabilities. Things that have no evidence for existence can be dismissed without much thought, but it appears you would argue - except when discussing god because it might insult someone.


Aaaand... ya lost me. lets take an example. a noncontentious example, an example that allows us to examine a faith which is centered around NOT getting butthurt. a faith that has NEVER endorsed violence, and a faith that doiewsnt loose it's damned mind ever couple centuries: Buddhism. not new age Buddhism, but good old fashioned Buddhism, the way mother use to make. 

you can argue that Buddha may or may not have existed. some say he was a real dude, others say he is just a MacGuffin. either way this doesnt bother the adherents at all. his existence as a live historical person is clearly the cornerstone of his elevation to enlightenment as the Buddha. if he in fact never existed, then he could hardly have meditated under that banyan tree right? 

therefore, if he never existed, and thus was incapable of meditating, and thus also incapable of achieving enlightenment then Buddhism must be based upon a lie. thi sis fairly straightforward logical thinking yes? 

if therefore, buddhism is based upon a lie, then it is specious and phony. however, many rational persons (you might prefer "Otherwise Rational" but im sticking with this) do in fact embrace buddhism, and they do it without a profit motive. my favorite uncle was a devout buddhist, and he never made a dime off it. he simply embraced it and it brought him great comfort. he didnt have to buy $5000 in icons, statues, shrines, special robes, strings of beads or any such shit. his temple never passed about a collection plate, and when i went to the temple with him i was never exhorted to join, nor criticized for my heresy. cuz buddhists dont roll like that. 

if you say i doubt the person buddha ever existed, buddhists wont get butthurt, and they wont throw bombs into any schoolyards or stab any filmakers for offending their faith(no matter how much steven segall deserves it),, and no matter how much you insist Buddha never lived, he was never a man, he never meditated under a banyan tree, and never attained enlightenment, it still remains an unproveable statement. you cannot disprove the existence of a man who is reputed to have lived some 2500 years ago, any more than i can prove to you that he did exist. so we both have an assertion, and niether can be proved. if however, you go on TV, declare that buddhism is bullshit, Siddartha was never a real person, and anyone who says otherwise is a lying thieving bastard who sells poison milk to schoolchildren, well then thats entirely different. 

if somebody takes a quote from you and shaves off the "in my opinion" clause leaving only : "any belief in the supernatural, the soul, anything which persists after death, and any assertion of anything not proved by science is only the fears and cowardice of feeble souls" then puts that phrase on a pretty picture of you, and waves it around outside a funeral would be making an unequivocal statement. 

the exact same statement made by the phelps assholes when they wave their *"GOD HATES FAGS!"* signs. 

imagine how hard you would hyper-rage if, those dinguses protested the funeral of some person you know, and when you cornered one of the rats, he smugly insisted *"you just dont know the context!" *and pointed to the microprinting on the bottom of the sign that says *"so you should not smoke! *this message brought to you by the Ad Council and the American Lung Association". thats what youre claiming here.


----------



## Heisenberg (Apr 27, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> when posted as a quote out of context and left standing alone as a statement, it no longer has the tone of opinion,, but becomes an appeal to authority, and a claim of FACT.
> 
> 
> *
> ...


Not to speak on Z's case, but sometimes people post quotes as a way to convey an idea without appearing to steal the idea. If a quote sums up my feelings on a post I am apt to post it without commentary. Doesn't mean I am relying on the authority of the speaker. People like Sagan and Hitchens just happened to have said a lot of things that neatly refute many nonsense ideas.


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 28, 2013)

Dr Kynes said:


> This is the quote in question. as presented by zahet strife. it was accompanied by no "context" save it comes from the "atheist meme base". when a quote is used without anny commentary or context the assumption is, the poster agrees with the statement and accepts it's conclusion.
> 
> it looks pretty declarative. it conveys a simple message, einstein didnt believe in fairy tales and neither should you. this quote even goes so far as to include ALL concepts of life after death including the hindu/buddhist/taoist reincarnation ideas, the concept of the "soul" as described in the west, the "Ka" of the ancient egyptians and the "Spirit" as found in many primitive societies. this single quote pulls the rug out from under every religious, spiritual, or supernatural believe in existence, leaving only atheism as a logical choice based solely upon the assertions of one physicist.


This is where you seem to go off the rails. Einstein's quote isn't as declarative as you make it out. Not to belabor the point but you also seem to fail to get the point that atheism is a stance on one and only one thing, the existence of gods. If a person's quote implies he doesn't believe in the supernatural, or life after death, or Buddha, or whatever, that has nothing to do with being an atheist. They are only superficially related if they come to those conclusions using the same, skeptical methodology, but there are plenty of supernatural believers that are atheistic. 
Once again though, even with Einstein's quote here, you seem to discount that he is referring to a specific type of god, a personal god, he makes absolutely no declaration about all gods, in fact he was an adherent to the pantheistic god of Spinoza. The only thing he said about life after death is it is beyond comprehension, not that he denies its existence or making a positing claim to its non-existence. He's making a comment about people that latch onto these things when we have no reason to believe them to be true is very likely out of fear or self-importance (something that appears to be common in the mindset of the theists, while simultaneously accusing the atheist of this). So when you say things like, "any belief in the supernatural, the soul, anything which persists after death, and any assertion of anything not proved by science is only the fears and cowardice of feeble souls" what you end up creating is straw man since you changed the literal meaning of the quote to suit your contention that is what is actually being claimed. 

Not exactly sure what you want me to say about the Buddha analogy except that it fails because of the basic concept that not all claims are equally probable. There is much less reason to doubt that a Buddha character existed as we know that men with all sorts of ideas have existed. Just like it is not hard to believe that there may have been an actual person that Jesus is based on. There is pretty good evidence from different sources that support the historicity of Saint George yet I am pretty confident that the story about the dragon slaying is bullshit. So whether Jesus or Buddha existed is not the problem, the problem comes from the additional claims.


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Apr 28, 2013)

Adam&Eve

Adam is derived from the "Adamu" that was created by the Annunaki using red clay in ancient Sumerian mythos.They even made deformed humans several times before they got it right.I personally believe some elements of truth of this mythology that predates Genesis by some 4,000 years (depends were you look).

Eve to me looks like the ancient Greek story of Demeter,and Persephone.

Demeter is the goddess of harvest,sometimes depicted with sheifs of wheat,and serpents in each hand (serpents often depict renewel of the season with the shedding of skin,and sometimes referenced as a trickster taking long life from man).Demeter has a daughter named Persephone that was of exceptional beauty.One day Hades the lord of the underworld came,kidnapped,and raped her (sounds like Nephilum/fallen angels of the Bible to me).Demeter in her grief of her missing daughter would not let the crops grow.Helios (sun God) told her what happened,and she went to get her daughter.Hades tricked Persephone into eating some pomegranate seeds wich bound her to him for part of the season.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Persephone

This Pagan (country dweller) story is about the seasons,and the importance of agriculture.The Bible among other obvious things just rewrites past knowledge,and uses it for mind control.

This threads a mess,and I am about debunking The Bible with vids....Skip,or enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGfqPUwD3pU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxisnJ39U5o


----------



## Sativied (Apr 28, 2013)

Dalek Supreme said:


> Eve to me looks like the ancient Greek story of Demeter,and Persephone.


Eve, "mother of all living", comes from Jaganmata, which was Kali Ma's title. Also known in India as Jiva or Ieva, the Creatress (and fuck spelling control for not approving that word) of all manifested forms. The original Eve had no spouse, merely a serpent, basically her own living dildo she manifested for sexual pleasure. "They" gave birth to a man (according to historical finds that proves the existence of that older "story"). All twisted to fit _man's_ need to repress and control women. 

Src.: The woman's encyclopedia of myths and secrets.

Another obvious one that would fit in your post is the story about Mozes. Quite a few babies were dropped in rivers to return as saviors for their people. 

But really, there's no point in pointing those out to believers. It's the devil that went back in time and made those earlier stories up to push people away from the truth.


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Apr 28, 2013)

Sativied said:


> Eve, "mother of all living", comes from Jaganmata, which was Kali Ma's title. Also known in India as Jiva or Ieva, the Creatress (and fuck spelling control for not approving that word) of all manifested forms. The original Eve had no spouse, merely a serpent, basically her own living dildo she manifested for sexual pleasure. "They" gave birth to a man (according to historical finds that proves the existence of that older "story"). All twisted to fit _man's_ need to repress and control women.
> 
> Src.: The woman's encyclopedia of myths and secrets.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your input.I did not know about the Hindu story,and just goes to show the Bible is a consolidation of a bunch of beliefs.Women get a raw deal in the Bible.

I do not put this info out for the believers.I know they are under thought control with a constant state of adult equivalency of Boogie Man,and Santa Clauss.

I know a reasoned mind is enough to destroy the Bible,but this is not enough.Keep in mind that religion is throw logic away,and breed in numbers so they get more populace than the logical of mind.

I just want to spread awareness of the history than just the "Oh it's bullshit" credo.Religion has no place in an advancing society.

I am not atheist,nor am I religious,and spirituality is fine minus the dogma of fictional bullshit.Being alive here,and now is what matters.Belief or nonbelief does not mean a thing,and only drags our destiny in the mud fighting over it.

Thanks again for your input,and here is my core research into the nonexistence of Jesus for those that are willing to drop the intelluctual banter,and get educated.Jesus binds two psychotic religions,and we cannot expect someone like Bill Maher to come out with this.

Judge for yourself,and what you glean to be true,please pass on to like minds.Thank you.


Jesus clearly states that one is exempt from judgement when one believes in him.When Christians say that no scholar refutes the existence of Jesus they are lying.
The Christogram "Chi Ro" is actually the "Julian Star" that Constantine used.This symbol is actually Caesar's comet.44 B.C.E. comet in the sky during Divus
Iulius Christos's funeral games.Julius Caesar was a Christos to his celestial mother the Goddess Venus (God of love).Christos is a title (annointed with oil).


The Tropaion is a sacred trophy for victory.The cross like symbol was a stick or tree with armor/weaponry placed on it mimicking an upright person.This was
reserved for the spirits of there Gods.Prisoners would allways be bound at the base,and would be sacrilegious to put anything not of divinity on it.The Civic Laural Crown was a symbol of high honor reserved for honorable,or holy citizens.Creation,Adam&Eve,the Flood etc are rewrites of Sumerian mythos. wiki/Alulim 


Crucify replaced the homophonous translation of Latin "cremo" cremate,Greek kremo "to hang".Caesar was cremated (cremo),and a wax effigy was hanged (kremo) on a Tropaion.Pontifex Maximus aka Augustus Caesar formed the imperial cult of Caesar wich lasted for over 200 years.Augustus was Julius's adopted son Octavian who was the son of the God Apollo thru a virgin birth by a night visit by a serpent.Holy Trinity is plagiarism by 175-225 C.E.Theologians of the the Osiris mythos.


The Christian symbols the "crown of thorns",and the "cross" prove historically that the crucifixion is pure myth.The "Civic Laural crown",and the "Tropaion",are sacred symbols to the ancient Romans.Any ancient Roman citizen,or soldier using these symbols,or resemblence of said symbols in the manner described in the fictional gospels would not happen.This is just like Muslims having a petting zoo filled with pigs. The Christian,and Muslim delusion is a detriment to the whole planet.


Richard Carrier,David Fitzgerald,Robert M Price,Alvar Ellegard are scholars that refute existence.Romans made burnt offerings for there Gods took up the smoke.
Image search "tropaion" "caesar's comet" "chi ro" "caesar coin" "divus iulius" Youtube search "wax imago" "Deception & Lies Built Christianity" "skepticon"
"the god that wasn't there" "caesar's comet" "gospel of caesar" "crown of destiny" The continued belief that Jesus was real by anybody is perpetuation of lies.

Remember that the epigraphy of the Tropaion clearly shows it's sacred use at the time of the mythological Jesus,and would not be used in such a manner till the middle ages.

Epigraphy wins,and Jesus turns to dust outside the Bible.


http://forum.grasscity.com/pandoras-box/1201905-religion-has-get-f-ck-out-here.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMVAUcFj3Aw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzU4bPkWVyY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1ty6-WtH1Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91O1IqzHJN4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH_xD9cMDzA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYWWtIVQlrc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGfqPUwD3pU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31cOKXxn1NU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwfY069iPVI


----------



## Sativied (Apr 28, 2013)

Dalek Supreme said:


> Thanks for your input.


You are welcome, and likewise.

Speaking of religious propaganda, I guess Sinterklaas has to be my "favorite"



Dalek Supreme said:


> I know they are under thought control with a constant state of adult equivalency of Boogie Man,and _*Santa Clauss*._


Unfortunately that comparison is not just a funny way of pointing out what you call thought control (and what I bluntly call being brainwashed). Santa Claus is from Saint Nicolas, or as we call him in Dutch Sint Nicolaas or shorter "Sinterklaas". A catholic, supposedly from Turkey but they tell kids here he's from Spain, who cut off half his robe with a sword and gave it to a freezing homeless guy out of sympathy (that's where the generosity factor comes from). On 5 December, Sinterklaas-day, kids get presents. About two weeks prior kids start putting their SHOES near a chimney hoping Sinterklaas will fill it with a present.

That tradition was brought to the US and Saint Nicolas became Santa Claus, he moved to the Northpole, his "black Piets" became elves, shoes became socks, and his white horse became flying reindeer. They tell kids if they don't behave they will be put in a bag and taken to Spain. Ironically it's freedom of religion that caused the changes in those appearances. Sinterklaas looks like the pope, but in red. It's used to pre-brainwash kids with a sort of kiddy religion (nowadays it's just about getting money from consumers). 

Obviously wouldn't 'fly' in the US. Neither would the helpers  Looks like blackface and minstrel show right? Fucking racists... they tell kids it's from climbing up and down chimneys and working on the ship that brings Sinterklaas from Spain to Holland. By now Xmas is so commercial that kids here have both Santa and Sinterklaas giving them presents.

So next time you see Santa... he's just a fairytale figure based on the original of this guy and fooling your kids there is a man on the Northpole that gives presents if you behave is just a small step from claiming there's man in the sky controlling everything.





Btw, that's not the bible in his hand but a book with all the bad things kids have done. Sinterklaas is all knowing, sees everything you do...


----------



## Dalek Supreme (Apr 28, 2013)

LOL!!! ^ Thanks for further clarity on the historical distortion for the kids.

To specify my point,and I am sure people here realise is this:Religion has people so wound up that they can be taken away by God at any second.They cannot afford to engage in something that will for the slightest second make them doubt the Holy Spirit,Jesus etc.If they doubt for one second,and die that second they risk eternity in hell fire.

This is why they will never look at images that cast doubts on there faith.If West Baptist church protests near you?
I highly suggest making a sign with using image examples I give below,and stand with them making sure they see it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tropaion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropaion


----------



## Red1966 (Apr 28, 2013)

drolove said:


> but this also toke and talk where pretty much anything can be posted. right now im toking and talking so whats the problem??


 You're Bogarting the joint. That's a problem.


----------



## Beefbisquit (May 11, 2013)

lol....


----------



## Beefbisquit (Jun 2, 2013)

Heh, this is obviously photoshopped, but still pretty funny! LOL


----------



## Omgwtfbbq Indicaman (Jun 3, 2013)

i grew up as a jew boy and got kicked out of sunday school for asking questions, i was a big fan of Bill nye the science guy and carl sagan's cosmos, so i asked too many questions in class and was seen as a troublemaker. fuck religion, it is just human animal training.


----------



## Omgwtfbbq Indicaman (Jun 3, 2013)

The propaganda the jews vomit out and feed their children about the holocaust is fucking ridiculous, reproduce reproduce reproduce, never again, seclude yourself. its baffling they go from teaching about the holocaust then move onto talking about how god ordered the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites, women children and cattle, just like the nazi's had done to them but that was "moral and just", its fucked everything up for the jews these secret kind of politics that go on inside the community, they don't try to be aggressive for the most part because they are afraid of another holocaust.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Jun 5, 2013)




----------



## tyler.durden (Jun 5, 2013)

^^ 

[video=youtube;jk6ILZAaAMI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI[/video]


----------



## tyler.durden (Jun 5, 2013)

Where he's at? He's got two turntables and a microphone...


View attachment 2687101


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 5, 2013)

tyler.durden said:


> Where he's at? He's got two turntables and a microphone...
> 
> 
> View attachment 2687101



He died for your spins. cn 

er...


----------



## tyler.durden (Jun 5, 2013)

My favorite, I quote this all the time...


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 5, 2013)




----------



## cannabineer (Jun 5, 2013)

^^esp. funny if you look at the nearest label. cn


----------



## Beefbisquit (Jun 6, 2013)




----------



## ilikecheetoes (Jun 6, 2013)

to the title of the thread: my answer "islam is a religion of peace" or or or... most muslims are peace-loving good people that love america.


----------



## skunkd0c (Jun 6, 2013)

Q. Why do Muslims have big beards?
A Muslims are evil and full of wickedness.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Jun 23, 2013)

lol..........


----------



## Beefbisquit (Jun 27, 2013)

This sums up every piece of 'evidence' found in the bible.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 28, 2013)

[video=youtube;iVmRui1oFF0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVmRui1oFF0[/video]


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jun 28, 2013)

Get a load of this bullshit


----------



## tyler.durden (Jun 28, 2013)

Heisenberg said:


> [video=youtube;iVmRui1oFF0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVmRui1oFF0[/video]


Well, that went a LOT better than my early atheist moments when I was young. The level of rage that people exhibit when hearing this news is surprising, I'm sure most of us have been here. Poor kid...


----------

