*1012: Go God Go*

Discuss new episodes without ruining them for people in other time zones.

Moderator: Big-Will

hainted

Postby hainted » Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:23 pm

Right on dude!!!

Soylent Green is Marklar. :shock:
Kyle the Skeptic
Posts: 2226
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:06 pm

Postby Kyle the Skeptic » Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:00 pm

tdewey wrote:You're a moron and Kyle the Skeptic is only slightly less retarded (with respect to this argument -- you both may be math whizzes in other areas).

And you are a f*cking idiot who can only back up his point by stomping his feet and howling the same thing over and over again. You have no idea what you're talking about, and have yet to provide a single reputable source that defines atheism as a religion or faith.

Belief is not the only form of thought around. Only people who are so obsessed with their own beliefs that they cannot imagine living without them would make such a stupid assumption. One can be informed of something without "believing" in it. One can accept or agree with an idea without "believing" in it. I can learn about where a candidate stands on issues in an election, but I don't have to "believe" in him. I may even intend to vote against him!

The same goes for religion. Some fundamentalists are so caught up in their own religion that they cannot imagine anyone living without one, therefore they assume that any lack of religion must be a religion in itself. By doing so you are presuming to tell other people what they are thinking, which is the height of arrogant stupidity. By your logic, agnosticism, deism, and pantheism must also be "religions".

Here's wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Here is how the Oxford English Dictionary defines a religion:

1) Belief in the existence of a supernatural holy power.
2) A particular system of faith or worship.
3) Something compared to religious faith as a controlling influence on a person's life, i.e. 'football is his religion.'

1 and 2 clearly do not apply to atheism, and the third is a comparison rather than a definition.

Here is how the OED defines atheism:

Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God.

Do they look the same? Hell no. You lost this argument a long time ago.
Grizim
Posts: 1093
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 3:57 pm

Postby Grizim » Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:35 pm

All of you in this argument know what atheism means. Whether it's a doctrine or not doesn't matter at all compared to the basic definition of the word.---disbelief in a God.

Of course atheism is not a religion, but I don't see what's so harmful about calling it a religion. Tdewey is wrong. Let him be wrong. It's not like he's attacking atheism in any way.

There are just as many fundamentalist Christains who label atheism as a religion as atheists who label their own disbeliefs as a religion. I know several people like this.
Image
As enjoyable as abuse.
hainted

Postby hainted » Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:01 pm

Last time I checked infants were not capable of rational thought and thus not capable of holding a belief as to the existence or non-existence of God.

The flying spaghetti monster has nothing to do with anything and simply makes you look stupid. I'll give you a hint -- no one actually believes in the fsm -- people do actually believe in God.

your "opinion" is a statement of belief. You do not believe in God. Yes or No? I assume the answer is yes. Can you prove your belief? Yes or No? The answer is no.

Your belief informs your actions just as my beliefs inform my actions.

You've got a religion dude -- whether you call it philosophy, opinion, or marklar.


8) f*ck YEAH!
tdewey
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 7:50 am

Postby tdewey » Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:50 pm

Kyle the Skeptic wrote:And you are a f*cking idiot who can only back up his point by stomping his feet and howling the same thing over and over again. You have no idea what you're talking about, and have yet to provide a single reputable source that defines atheism as a religion or faith.


Dude. I have a brain. I don't need to resort to a higher power to make my points :-)

Just because atheist websites declare with sound and fury that atheism isn't a religion doesn't make it so. Go read some Leff -- the only reason why you assert that atheism isn't a religion is that your logic has defined religion in a very particularized way so as to exclude atheism. That's what we call a tautology. It's true because you say it is true.


Look, does your belief in atheism inform your decision-making process (that is does it create a set of norms to which you try to adhere).

I don't know you, but from what you write it appears that the answer is yes (as it is for most atheists).

That's an anthropological definition of a religion. Look it up on the web.
Soylent Green is People
Kyle the Skeptic
Posts: 2226
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:06 pm

Postby Kyle the Skeptic » Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:59 pm

tdewey wrote:Dude. I have a brain. I don't need to resort to a higher power to make my points :-)

No, you're a troll who can only regurgitate the same bullsh*t that fundamentalist idiots spew all the time.
Just because atheist websites declare with sound and fury that atheism isn't a religion doesn't make it so. Go read some Leff -- the only reason why you assert that atheism isn't a religion is that your logic has defined religion in a very particularized way so as to exclude atheism. That's what we call a tautology. It's true because you say it is true.

Speak for yourself. You claim atheism is a religion only because you say so, and you instinctively reject any evidence that proves you wrong. I provided the definitions, and a comparison. You provided nothing but your own ignorant stupidity.
Look, does your belief in atheism inform your decision-making process (that is does it create a set of norms to which you try to adhere).

No, it doesn't, so don't even try to put words in my mouth. I used the label out of choice, and it was only after reexamining my beliefs and finding which opinions were closest to my own. My views actually fall somewhere between Buddhism and Unitarian Universalism, but since I don't worship anything, atheism is technically valid. Just because some people let their religious or political affiliation do the thinking for them, it doesn't mean that everyone does.

So first you lied, then you dug yourself a hole, then you set up a strawman and beat it to death. Nearly everyone else knows you're wrong, including most of the Christian members. What are you trying to prove?
hainted

Postby hainted » Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:32 pm

My views actually fall somewhere between Buddhism and Unitarian Universalism, but since I don't worship anything, atheism is technically valid.


Whoa dude,you're into a whole shitload of religions,huh?
Xtrchessreal
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 6:09 pm

Postby Xtrchessreal » Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:12 am

tdewey wrote:
Just because atheist websites declare with sound and fury that atheism isn't a religion doesn't make it so.


This is the kind of logic that argues what the meaning of "is" is. If you want to make points like this then you are really discussing a point of philosophy. We named ourselves "man", we call a tree a tree, we also developed this language and called it language. If you have a problem with the definition of Atheism then you have a problem with the definition of Religion. My guess is that you have a problem with admitting you lack the knowledge to argue the point. Thus grabbing at straws to throw to deflect the attention of this possibility, also known as denial. The only other possibility is that you just like to argue for arguments sake but, FYI, that is usually a sign of denial.

If you place trust with any belief and make it your own truth you can believe anything. I personally don't believe anything to the point of staking my faith in it. I have no faith, no religion, no politics, and very nearly no trust for science. I got Comedy Channel, my last resort, without it I got nothin'.
Seeing the LIGHT depends on which end of the Tunnel you are heading...
ugogo_uswimswim
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 8:56 pm

Postby ugogo_uswimswim » Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:38 am

Xtrchessreal wrote:I personally don't believe anything to the point of staking my faith in it. I have no faith...

Well, that's not possible! You have faith in many things, weather you belivie it or not. You get in a car, you have faith that it won't explode. You tell a person a secret, you have faith that they won't blab. You have faith that maybe there is no gods and religion is pointless. No matter what you belive in, you have faith in it. Faith just dosen't apply to the religious. Just a little tidbit of info from ugo!!!!!
Art is what happens when you learn to DREAM!!! -Atlantis Squarepantis

The only good Slash is the one from Guns N' Roses.
angeldeb82
Posts: 3424
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:42 am

Postby angeldeb82 » Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:29 am

I have a picture which has a chart of evolution that Ms. Garrison teaches right here:

Image

I tell ya, this looks great! However, there is a little thing wrong in the chart: Paleozoic Era started in 550,000,000 BC., not 400,000,000 (the middle of the Devonian period); Permian period (which started in 300,000,000 B.C.) got that right; Mesozoic Era started 250,000,000 years ago, which is 50,000,000 years higher than 200,000,000 (a little off); and both the Cenozoic Era (which claims it is 100,000,000 years ago) and the Tertiary period (which claims it is 80,000,000 years ago) are too high and not separate as they claim they are, but they BOTH occur in 65,000,000 B.C., which is after the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Oh, and I can't believe she missed the Trilobites (which did live in the Paleozoic Era). She does, however, go with Eusthenopteron (which had an "r" in it and which she calls fish and "retard fish", 382,000,000 1/2 years ago); the Tiktaalik (which actually lived 370,000,000 years ago and whom she calls "retard baby fish" with "mutant fish hands"); Acanthostega (which actually lived 365,000,000 years ago and still lived in the water, NOT on land, which she calls a "squirrel or something"); the prehistoric mammal (which she calls "retard frog-squirrel"); Australopithecus afarensis (mispelled, which actually lived between 3.9-3 million years ago, and whom she calls "monkey-fish-frog"; discovered as Lucy of "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds); Homo habilis (which actually lived 2.5-1.8 million years ago and whom she calls "that monkey"); Homo erectus (which actually lived 1.8-1 million years ago and whom she calls "mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey"); and finally Homo sapiens (which is us, humans, living 25,000 years ago and still living today). The last 4 of these did NOT live in either the Cenozoic Era OR the Tertiary period, but they did live in the Quaternary Period. I learned that from Wikipedia. :cartmanhappy:
BRMBug
Posts: 18520
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:43 pm

Postby BRMBug » Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:09 pm

("Homo"... giggle)

Isn't learning fun kids?
Aym_Dand
Posts: 2236
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 8:31 pm

Postby Aym_Dand » Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:24 pm

tdewey wrote:That's what we call a tautology. It's true because you say it is true.


Who's we? The other people in your Rod Up the Ass Club?

J/P, anyway, I always thought a tautology was a statement based on circular logic. Boys will be boys. A is A. Tautologies are Tautologies...

It's true because we say it's true is more of a fallacy based on having an incorrect conclusion rather than circular logic.
________________________________________________________
I probably would have just put the f*cking lotion in the basket.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nSD-Tk0Z3zI

http://www.gonefiction.com
Wonko the Sane
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:38 am

Postby Wonko the Sane » Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:23 pm

tdewey wrote: Last time I checked infants were not capable of rational thought and thus not capable of holding a belief as to the existence or non-existence of God.


You are right, babies don't believe in god....hmmmmm...what is the word for that again?


And remember, there is a very subtle but VERY important difference between the belief in the non-existence of god and holding no belief in the existence of god, and it is this distinction that you seem to have a problem comprehending.[/quote]
ugogo_uswimswim
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 8:56 pm

Postby ugogo_uswimswim » Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:53 pm

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! Dude, you gotta check this out from Big Will's site! IT'S F***ING HILARIOUS!!!!!!!
http://www.spscriptorium.com/Season10/E1012secrets.htm I had NO idea! That's HILARIOUS!!! Kinna makes me wish I watched the Shinning when I had it on Netflx! HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
Art is what happens when you learn to DREAM!!! -Atlantis Squarepantis

The only good Slash is the one from Guns N' Roses.
hainted

Postby hainted » Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:30 pm

ugogo_uswimswim wrote:HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! Dude, you gotta check this out from Big Will's site! IT'S F***ING HILARIOUS!!!!!!!
http://www.spscriptorium.com/Season10/E1012secrets.htm I had NO idea! That's HILARIOUS!!! Kinna makes me wish I watched the Shinning when I had it on Netflx! HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!


Erin Gray was on Buck Rogers,not Battlestar Galactica. :roll:

LOL
->http://youtube.com/watch?v=g2I470eM5oc<-

Return to “Spoilers/New Episode Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests