Message
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You so called atheists with your Christian practices are so funny. You have 325 (326 this year!) other days in the year to give up something to show sacrifice, yadda, yadda, blah, blah. BUT, you decide to do it during Lent.....but you're not a Christian and not partaking in a Christian custom. Yeah.............sure.
This. A hundred times, this.
A few months ago you people were whining that the atheists were going to destroy Christmas. Now someone mentions that they honor a Christian tradition and you pick on them for that, too. So no matter what they do with Christian traditions, it's wrong.
You are your own worst enemy.
actually, it looks like this poster is just giving back to you guys what some of you, not all of you, give to christians. Shoe is on the other foot now.
But I am a Christian. You don't convert anyone by slapping them for showing the slightest curiosity in our traditions. Here are people who don't have any connection to God, but they have some interest in our exercise of self-examination and discipline. That's a step. Whether it is a step toward God or a step toward tolerance and acceptance, who knows. But it is an opportunity for someone to appreciate our values.
So what do you go and do? Piss on them for doing it. Then, when I point out how you ranters just did the same thing at Christmas, you decide I am the enemy. Nope. When I said "you", I mean you judgmental Christians who are not living your faith. What would your priest or minister say of the things you have written in the name of our religion? You would be ashamed if they knew it was you. Christians are supposed to lead by example. When someone approaches us about our traditions, we should be showing them what they mean to us. And almost every religion has a tradition of atonement. It is something that can bind us together. Don't ruin it by making a mockery of the time of forgiveness and renewal.
I think if all Christians were as decent as you seem to be, there might be fewer atheists.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You so called atheists with your Christian practices are so funny. You have 325 (326 this year!) other days in the year to give up something to show sacrifice, yadda, yadda, blah, blah. BUT, you decide to do it during Lent.....but you're not a Christian and not partaking in a Christian custom. Yeah.............sure.
This. A hundred times, this.
A few months ago you people were whining that the atheists were going to destroy Christmas. Now someone mentions that they honor a Christian tradition and you pick on them for that, too. So no matter what they do with Christian traditions, it's wrong.
You are your own worst enemy.
actually, it looks like this poster is just giving back to you guys what some of you, not all of you, give to christians. Shoe is on the other foot now.
But I am a Christian. You don't convert anyone by slapping them for showing the slightest curiosity in our traditions. Here are people who don't have any connection to God, but they have some interest in our exercise of self-examination and discipline. That's a step. Whether it is a step toward God or a step toward tolerance and acceptance, who knows. But it is an opportunity for someone to appreciate our values.
So what do you go and do? Piss on them for doing it. Then, when I point out how you ranters just did the same thing at Christmas, you decide I am the enemy. Nope. When I said "you", I mean you judgmental Christians who are not living your faith. What would your priest or minister say of the things you have written in the name of our religion? You would be ashamed if they knew it was you. Christians are supposed to lead by example. When someone approaches us about our traditions, we should be showing them what they mean to us. And almost every religion has a tradition of atonement. It is something that can bind us together. Don't ruin it by making a mockery of the time of forgiveness and renewal.
Don't kid yourself. These atheists aren't celebrating Christmas/Easter, observing Lent, etc to search for a connection to God. They make no bones about saying that they don't see God in these things, but instead do them for cultural reasons. It would be fantastic if people were to draw closer to God, but that is just not the case.
Not to judge, but you sound like the least "Christian" poster on thread. Like a Janist who goes around kicking dogs.
Quelle ironie.
Just want to point out that every single borderline nasty comment on this thread has come from theists--not non-theists. And so it goes...
Sorry, that they're was me posting. Forgot to sine in to the cite.
Anonymous wrote:I guess it was not clear in the last post that I am a Christian. I just think the earlier attack on Dawkins and atheism is nonsense.
Just want to say, given your comments, and the contrast between yours and other self-described Christians on DCUM, you may be the only one here. Quick! Register as "TheDCUMChristian" while it's still available!
Anonymous wrote:9:08 again. I mean, how would you suggest we respond to RantingAtheist's absolute certainty that s/he's right about everything, including the non-existence of God, and this certainty of hers means she can abuse the rest of us as idiots and sheeple. Obviously, we could ignore her, but she's been around for a few years now so the track record on ignoring her is bad. So given that s/he's still here, and shows up about once a week to proclaim that s/he's 100% right and the rest of us are stupid idiots, how would you respond to him/her?
Wow, you guys really have gone off the deep end. Some other anonymous contributor here may have claimed to have disproved the existence of gods. I haven't. In fact, the handle "RantingAtheist" was essentially a "tweak" at the one or two angry theists who conflate some number of non-theist posters as "the Ranting Atheist" and various sock-puppets. As though not believing in a supernatural being is so far from mainstream thought that it's improbable that more than one individual could suffer from such a delusion.
Anyway, as to the previous point, there's a significant difference between not being able to "prove" a negative, and not being sure. Which is, of course, the whole point of FSM: No one can be 100% sure of the non-existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but we don't have a special category for those folks. We could all of us be living in a reality being dreamed by a unicorn sleeping under a World Tree--by Dawkins' rules, none of us can say with 100% certainty that this is not the case. So we are all unicorn dream agnostics.
Anonymous wrote:By any definition, if you think there's even the slightest possibility God exists, even 1%, then you're agnostic, not atheist. Dawkins says he can't totally rule out God. Go back and re-read. He does NOT, as you claim, say he's "sure" God doesn't exist. Therefore, because he allows for a 1% possibility of God, he's agnostic, not atheist.
As a corollary, he, and both of us, are technically agnostic about the Flying Spaghetti monster. Unless you are willing to state you believe with 100% certainty that the FSM and Poseidon don't exist.
The discussion should end there. I'd respect Dawkins more if it did end there.
Instead, because he's uncomfortable with a wishy-washy label like "agnostic" or something, Dawkins drags us into these semantic games about "de facto" vs. "de jure/strict" atheists and "temporary agnostic practioner" or whatever that was. He says that as a "de facto" atheist he *acts* as if God and the FSM don't exist.
But *acting* as if they don't exist does nothing, NOTHING, to eliminate that 1% possibility of God from his mind. Even though he says he acts in a "de facto atheist" sort of way (and he acts like there's no FSM), he's still thinks there's a 1% probability of God (or the FSM). So he's agnostic about God (or the FSM).
Yes, but conversely, theists are agnostic about FSM, Poseidon, and fairies to the exact same extent that non-theists are agnostic about all these phenomena.
And the probability isn't 1%. There is a probability that the random movement of oxygen molecules in a room will lead them to cluster in a corner, leaving you to die of asphyxiation. It's a very, very, very low probability, but it's possible. That's the probability that any given religion's deity--or the Flying Spaghetti Monster--exists.
Anonymous wrote:Atheism is fine except most of the ones ive met disrespect religions and teach their kids to make fun of or discriminate against those that believe in a religion. Instead of teaching atheism they teach intollerance and that everyone else is stupid.
Here is a good article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/camp-quest-is-atheists-answer-to-bible-school/2011/07/19/gIQAe1hRbI_story.html
One last rant: Anyone who can read this article and come away from it with the idea that the main point of the camp is "discrimination" and "ridicule" of those who believe in religion has a deeply, deeply skewed perspective. Entitlement, persecution complex, and narcissism in full effect.
Sorry, that last one was me ranting.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Santorum, a devout Catholic, was lucky that he access to non-Catholic hospitals, unlike many families that face this horrible choice and are denied options at Catholics facilities.
Some of you are really clueless. The level of misinformation and hysteria in this thread is laughable.
Remember, in Wingnuttia, "misinformation" is defined as "things which are well-documented and true but which cause me pangs of cognitive dissonance".
Anonymous wrote:RantingAtheist wrote:
You make an excellent point. People who return over-and-over to etiolated grouse-fests, and do nothing but add a single dribble to the mountain of existing bile are truly stupid, attention-seeking, and pathetic. They deserve our sympathies, not our scorn.
Posters who try to be witty by using words like "etiolate" that they clearly don't understand, and who-use-too-many-hyphens, so that instead of looking witty they look pompous and uneducated. Not to mention, unintentionally creating bizarre images of pale woodland birds and tall mountains (instead of pools/puddles) of liquids like bile.
e·ti·o·lat·ed/??t???l?tid/
Adjective:
(of a plant) Pale and drawn out due to a lack of light.
Having lost vigor or substance; feeble.
grouse2 ? ?[grous] Show IPA verb, groused, grous·ing, noun Informal .
verb (used without object)
1.
to grumble; complain: I've never met anyone who grouses so much about his work.
noun
2.
a complaint.
Origin:
1850–55; origin uncertain; compare grouch
Related forms
grous·er, noun
Synonyms
1. gripe, fret, fuss.
In a healthy gallbladder, the bile is all one consistency. In a gallbladder containing sludge, on an ultrasound the gallbladder can be seen with two consistencies of bile. The upper consistency looks thinner and healthy, while impurities like cholesterol and mucous have sunk to the bottom and create a thicker bile at the bottom. This thicker bile is known as gallbladder sludge.
To learn more about bile, or the meaning of fancy words, go online or check you're local libary!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Seriously, though, why do we keep hearing that atheists are smart? Is it something we're supposed to "believe" despite plenty of hard evidence above?
Of course people who don't believe a load of superstitious nonsense are, on average, going to be smarter than people who do. There is plenty of evidence to support this - e.g.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608001013
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000238
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
But to be honest, no amount of evidence will convince you. Religious people don't put their trust in reason or rationality, they put their trust in faith. Why use reason when you can go with a bunch of random stories you have heard because of where and when you were raised, like children waiting for santa claus.
Whatever. The Ranting Atheist is clearly half-literate.
You make an excellent point.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My somewhat mainstream religion taught me life doesn't begin until the baby takes a breath. Legislating earlier "life" to me is legislating against my religion. Seems to me to be a first amendment issue.
good joke
Note a joke: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/Bioethics/Abortion/Fetus_in_Jewish_Law/Beginning_of_Life.shtml
As I think of all religions, good joke! I Jewish law is a great joke No science at all.
so you can morally abort a baby the day before delivery? nice religion.
Actually you are wrong, a baby is not deemed alive until 30 days so if it dies by lack of medical support within that window the baby is considered an abortion. Hopefully this isn't the mainstream view of Jews or else this has really made me question the entire validity of their religion if other ideals are based on these types of blatant ignorance to science.
You know what I question? I question people who cut down trees and bring them into their homes in order to decorate them. I question people who use their religion to justify hateful behavior towards others. I question people who think that there is a war on Christianity in the US. Who the hell are you to decide whether or not MY religion is valid??? Are you freaking kidding me?
So your religion considers cutting down a Christmas tree a parallel to abortion? You feel that every person who is christian feels like they are at war? You sound very very paranoid. What exactly is hateful about discussing a time period of when a fetus is considered alive or not? Believe it or not the people I know alot of die hard Christians who are very pro Jewish state. I guess you want to beat the hand that feeds you (supports your state?).
Seriously, Jewish person! Don't you know that many die-hard Christians are very pro-Jewish state? Granted, they're hoping to send you all back there so that we can go ahead and hasten Armageddon, so Jesus can come back and send you and all the other non-believers to Hell for eternity, but still, they're rooting for you in the short-term.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My somewhat mainstream religion taught me life doesn't begin until the baby takes a breath. Legislating earlier "life" to me is legislating against my religion. Seems to me to be a first amendment issue.
good joke
Not a joke. What I was taught in my Reform Jewish temple. A law that says life begins at conception is contrary to my religion.
Feh, who cares. When we talk about "freedom of religion" we mean the official state-sponsored religion of America. You know: Christianity.
Anonymous wrote:Posters who totally twist and distort a previous post, just so they can stir the pot. RA provided a timely example of this. Stupid, attention-seeking and pathetic.
You make an excellent point. People who return over-and-over to etiolated grouse-fests, and do nothing but add a single dribble to the mountain of existing bile are truly stupid, attention-seeking, and pathetic. They deserve our sympathies, not our scorn.