Religion
 

A topic atheists can't stop talking about in this forum.

It's interesting to me how many atheists are so religious about their atheism....




:)



.

Not really, Religions have shot their big fucking mouths off for centuries while intelligent people such as atheists don't normally feel the need to constantly babble about their "faith" to keep the illusion going (very common cult tactic).

As a result there are countless "closet atheists" who have either not said openly that they feel this way because of fear of repercussion by employers or even family members or were simple content to remain silent about it.

However, with the continued shit that religious stupidity has caused and is causing, the time to simple sit back and let the idiots keep running and fucking things up based on superstition has passed.

We are now going to be as vocal and in your face as everyone else so get used to it. :thumbsup

http://latinpiss.com/fuck_god02.png

yet all you are doing is being vocal to people who aren't religious anyway, when you do it on this board. Way to make a stand :1orglaugh

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

isn't atheism an oxymoron?

atheism
ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
1.
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

so what don't they believe in again? how can they not believe in something.. while stating they don't believe in it? the idea exists, regardless of proof :1orglaugh

http://i.imgur.com/ARQRe.png

so if a moron rams his car into you on the sidewalk it's the cars fault?

Law is, neither side must interfere / intervene on what's going on here on earth

If the stupid unreasonable people would stop talking about god, I will stop talking about no-god or the lack thereof.
I will only be an atheist as long as there are theists spouting complete horse shit that enslaves mind and creates delusional zealots.

The uber religious among us have done more to make me an atheist than all my atheist friends have done.

The believers can't prove god does exist.
The unbelievers can't prove god doesn't exist.

Richard Dawkins, a vocal atheist, is the lastest clown to become a youtube celebrity. So of course many of generation loser's fan boys are now saying « me too »

The joke is that this « doctor » has no background in physics, theology or even anthropology. Academic fields which would have at least given him some sort of credibility. Instead all he is an an animal behaviourist and evolutionary biologist.

Therefore listening to this clown talk about why there is « no God » is like letting self-proclaimed « Doctor » Sharon Mitchel give a lecture about temporal expression of angiogenesis-related genes in developing neonatal rodent retina.

Put down the hand lotion and tissues so you you can use BOTH hands and a bit more research next time before you post.

There are more brain-cells in a load of Dawkins cum than in your entire body.

I don't know why someone's academic credentials would make them more or less and expert on whether or not there is a god. There either is or there isn't. None of us know for sure. We can kick around a million theories and pull up all the evidence we want, but until you die you don't know and by then it is too late to tell anyone.

The guy could have three PHD's in physics, theology and anthropology and it still wouldn't make him any more or less qualified to talk about whether there is or is not a god.

So what outcome do you think uber atheism will accomplish?

in general:
Going out of your way to argue there is no such thing as the thing you don't believe in, to people who do believe in that something which you don't, is about as smart as believing the thing in the first place. And getting so worked up about it as well lol, wtf is that all about.

Or is it because those who live and let live are actually practising something far closer to what the core of religion is actually about, that the vocal atheists can't do else they'd be engaging in that thing they don't believe in? :error

Either way, raging atheists are equally as bad as religious zealots, if not worse, because they supposedly have the superior intelligence :2 cents:

I think it's a pretty safe bet there isn't an all-knowing, all-seeing sentient being in the form of a human :thumbsup As to whether there's an ultimate 'force' that is basically an extension of mother nature, well that's a different matter.

But some being that needs worshipping, and looks after those who worship 'him' over other that don't - well I'm as sure as you cn get without actually knowing 100% as fact that there isn't, and that jesus was actually a very clued up bloke with great philosophies which got misinterpreted/misreported by 'primitive' people of those times, much like a child of 5 years old is 'primitive' compared to a grown adult with normal intellect :thumbsup

Then we agree that he is NOT qualified.

My comment was that

• In physics you have someone that is more or less involved in the understanding of the nature of the universe.

• In theology it is the study of "religion" and "God".

• In anthropology it is people studing the past and present of humanity, humanity's relationship with faith based dichotomies being part of that field.

But ethology and evolutionary biology have nothing to do with the study of the universe, religion or humanity's cultural evolution. Therefore who the hell is Dawkins to act as if he is some sort of expert? As I already said, Dawkins is the latest youtube celebrity clown expressing on opinion on something he knows nothing about.

From the real estate con artist Jacques Frescoe and his 1970s Star Trek fantasy to the illuminati bankers to Richard Dawkins. It is the curse of the Internet.

It is as if every 6 months someone forgets to close the door on Reddit and what I call generation loser and their "do not tell me shit because we are smarter than everyone else" attitude pollutes the gene pool of humanity yet again.

Incredible...so with your "logical" thinking Darwin was just a "clown" who sailed around the world and looked at stuff. :thumbsup

Dawkins is more than qualified to express his opinion that a god is not necessary for life to evolve to the present day form (humans included). So using the creation of life and/or humans as evidence of god is not needed.

Dawkins was around long before youtube and has been a best selling author since his first book The Selfish Gene came out in 1976 and he coined the term "meme" long before it was applied to discribe the way ideas propogate on the internet so...he certainly is not as you say, "the latest youtube celebrity clown".

My logical thinking is that you are a fucking clown too.

The theory of evolution being true or otherwise does not prove or refute the existance of God. But your off the wall rant for Dawkins does prove my point about generation loser fan boys basing their opinions and their own existence on some youtube loud mouth. Get off your ass and do something with your life and when you develop your own opinions I will stop considering you a clown.

As for everyone else,
I will say in summation that in my years of life experience it appears to me that everything in the universe evolves except human beings. It might not be an argument for the existence of God but it certainly does appear to point to a malevolent force at work. Or else nature royally messed up when it created us and we are too stupid to survive making this debate is pointless.

Because its soo popular and its soo incredibly irrational .

We evolve, but slowly, like everything else, some people are under the assumption that there soft way to look at life is more evolved

Actually we don't agree. My point is that there is no way to be qualified to discuss whether or not there is a god. A guy with a PHD is theology is just as qualified as a guy who dropped out of school in the 6th grade and works the McDonald's fryer for a living.

The bottom line is that none of know for sure and there is no amount of education or research that can change that. This guy is just as qualified as anyone else to talk about the existence (or lack thereof) of a god.

Im a nihilist i dont believe in anything, but then I cant be a nihilist because I dont believe in nihilism.

That is where you are wrong you flaming pile of pigshit. It most certainly does prove that there is no god in the traditional sense that moron humans could possible conceive of.

God is simply unnecessary and simply invented by ignorant primitives to explain the world around them. Unfortunately the same mistaken information is still regarded as fact but those unable to grasp the complexity of science.

I am sure since you clearly have issues and always need to have the last word that you will respond...I can't wait to read the words of wisdom that flow so eloquently from your fingers flying across the keyboard. :thumbsup

Evolution "just" took out possibly the biggest "gap" from "god". Yes there are some people that think the idea that God merely set up and initiated the "random dominoes" of evolution with a single flick to be a disproving of their particular literal interpretation of a being making them out of a rib woman.. But in reality the vast majority of religious people are perfectly adaptable with their beliefs. On top of wearing clothes made from two fabrics and eating at Red Lobster, there are indeed able to integrate undeniable science with their beliefs. It just takes time for a path of mental retreat to be cut for them. Even the Pope endorsed evolution he just maintained god was there on the conveyor belt popping the souls in. So in a certain way, it might disprove a version of god to a lot of unsophisticated religious thinkers, you can't really extrapolate that out from there. I mean Geology does the same thing to a lesser extent. When people want to believe something they are entirely malleable in how they get there although I agree you'll shed a few percent each stage of the way as some understand the implications of a lack of inerrancy.

Of course an evolutionary biologist is a good background for anti-theistic arguments as it contrasts with the books claims and reduces god's sphere of influence. Basically the god of the gaps will just get smaller and smaller and religious thinkers will just equivocate more and more but not much will actually change. I mean we know thunder isn't caused by god moving the furniture any more and you have to resort to a fair amount of sophistry or a small amount of faith to rationalise it, but in 500 years it'll be the same, just not believing in evolution will seem as stupid as thinking thunder is god bowling and it'll be some much smaller gap being clung too. The reality is evolutionary biology is an understanding of the nature of the universe, theology is a study in something that doesn't exist and anthropology isn't like coming up with fermat's last theorem, by discussing atheism in the context of ancient beliefs you are performing it more contextually than most diploma wielding anthropologists would. When illiterate primitive tribes are capable of the entirety of a discipline it's a stupid argument and an argument from Authority fallacy on top is even more stupid.

Anyhow, that said the poster really is an idiot, most likely on purpose because they're obviously trolling about Dawkins, I don't think it's possible to call him a "Youtube celebrity" and retain a scintilla of respect, certainly any more than calling Carl Sagan a Youtube celebrity too, because: video.

No one is that dumb, it's basically obvious troll.

I am always surprised that religion still exists. It takes very,little imagination to realize that "god" is very unlikely to exist.

I am always surprised that people want to discuss religion on a discussion board dedicated to the porn industry. It takes very,little imagination to realize there are better places to discuss this than a place called "Go Fuck Yourself" :2 cents::1orglaugh