atheism. what does it stand for? Biscuits, it seems!

kylith

Kidchameleon wrote: »

That bus (and a few more) spent about two months doing the rounds in England. Publicity stunt no doubt to sell a few more books but certainly ramming ideals into people. Told ya there would be a circus if I put any evidence up.

The atheist bus? Really? I was sat on the 13 the other day looking at a poster of "Miraculous Healing. Come to Croke Park to the Divine Blah Blah. Held by Fr. Wossisface." last year there were ads on buses for Miraculous Holy Oil of Somewhereorother (guaranteed to cure everything from alcoholism to schizophrenia), not to mention the constant posters about "Jesus died for your sins. Come join us at St. Whosits".

I don't hear you complaining about religious people refusing to leave others to their lack of Christianity. Actually I don't hear many atheists complaining about it either, but I've always figured it's because they, like me, just ignore them on account of, you know, life being too short to get stroppy about a poster.

kiffer

How many Christians does it take to change a light bulb?

one, maybe two if you need someone to hold the ladder, it's not unusual for people to change light bulbs... what did you think I was going to mock them?

Wait... that should have been biscuit related... I'm the worst atheist ever.

Bannasidhe

May I just say the sky is not actually blue. That is an optical illusion.

Been bothering me for pages.

Edit: Oh yeah - biscuits.
Scottish Shortbread for the win!

*Seinfeld voice* 'Americans call a cross between a drop scone/fried dumpling a biscuit....Whats up with that?'

The Black Oil

:pac:

coffee_cake

I thought that was the user Penn and I was getting confused

endacl

bluewolf wrote: »

I thought that was the user Penn and I was getting confused

What's next? The Order of the Azure Lupine Antigod Gang?

coffee_cake

The azure lupine agnostic biscuit-loving gang
:cool:
Not a very good acronym though
Another vowel please, carol

The Black Oil

Put your clothes back on, Carol, I can't concentrate. :pac:

Bannasidhe

bluewolf wrote: »

The azure lupine agnostic biscuit-loving gang
:cool:
Not a very good acronym though
Another vowel please, carol

I too was working out the acronyms .

The Order of the Azure Lupine Antigod Gang = OALAG (sound too much like Gulag...)


The azure lupine agnostic biscuit-loving gang
ALABG?
ALAB-LG?

AL ABG??? ...bit...Muslim sounding...:eek:

Absolutely need more vowels Carol!

achtungbarry

Kidchameleon,

Could you answer the following questions.

Is it wrong to criticize or even mock a person's religious belief system?

Is it wrong to criticize or even mock Christianity specifically?

I am not talking about the people that follow their chosen religion, I am talking about the religion itself?

old hippy

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Ok can I ask you a simple question rob. Do many atheists mock religious people for their beliefs?

Some do, some don't. We're not one big homogenous blob. There's no book or leader advising us what to do or say.

Dades

Kidchameleon wrote: »

But a theist should be able to have a rational discussion here without having to put up with slagging.

I firmly believe that a rational discussion will not be met with any slagging or ridicule here.

The OP is a prime example of the opposite of a rational discussion, and just a series of driveby accusations. Hence, biscuits.

Bannasidhe

old hippy wrote: »

Some do, some don't. We're not one big homogenous blob. There's no book or leader advising us what to do or say.

Apparently there is



Anyone want to read it and post a synopsis - I couldn't be bothered myself.

Brian Shanahan

swampgas wrote: »

The KitKat is the Schroedinger's Cat of confectionery. It is in a superposition of states, both biscuit and bar, until the wrapper is opened.

I think you mean the "Copenhagen Interpretation of confectionary". Schrodinger's Cat was a rebuttal to the wolly ideas of superpositions within Quantum theory at that time (best described in the Copenhagen formulation).:p

Brian Shanahan

swampgas wrote: »

The KitKat is the Schroedinger's Cat of confectionery. It is in a superposition of states, both biscuit and bar, until the wrapper is opened.

I think you mean the "Copenhagen Interpretation of confectionary". Schrodinger's Cat was a rebuttal to the wolly ideas of superpositions within Quantum theory at that time (best described in the Copenhagen formulation).:p

StickyIcky wrote: »

Just read the trolling posts there .your man has funny logic. I don't believe in god myself, at least not in a conventional sense. Perhaps the universe, everything in and beyond it , which we can observe and which we cant, is god in a way? I dunno , all I can say is I can only believe in what can be proven and maybe one we'll find out if theres some godly intelligence maybe we won't.

Until then does that make me an atheist and if so can I join your guys internet atheist cult the op troll mentioned?

Given your described beliefs, I'm guessing you're a Pantheist. Look up Baruch Spinoza some time.

You can join our cult any time, just remember to toast your figgins well. And no you don't have to give up stamp collecting, unless you've collected them all.

kylith

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Apparently there is



Anyone want to read it and post a synopsis - I couldn't be bothered myself.

I don't think we're obliged to do anything it says though. Are we?

Bannasidhe

kylith wrote: »

I don't think we're obliged to do anything it says though. Are we?

Oh no - we have to interpret it according to the context then do the bits we agree with and ignore the bits we don't as they are just metaphors.


:pac:

Sarky

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Any evidence I give will get torn apart. I'm not gonna waste my time p*ssing against the wind.

If it can be torn apart, that's generally a good indicator that it wasn't really evidence to begin with.

kylith

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Oh no - we have to interpret it according to the context then do the bits we agree with and ignore the bits we don't as they are just metaphors.


:pac:

Oh, well then, that's fine. Once we get to cherry pick the bits we like and claim that the bits we don't like are taken out of context I'm happy.

endacl

Chocolate chip and hazelnut maryland, anyone...?

Sarky

Hazelnut? GTFO. Cookies can only have chocolate chips. Maybe Smarties.

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

Hazelnut? GTFO. Cookies can only have chocolate chips. Maybe Smarties.

Cookies...:mad:

I make biscuits with smarties with the grandkids.
They are really rather good.

endacl

Sarky wrote: »

Hazelnut? GTFO. Cookies can only have chocolate chips. Maybe Smarties.

Jeez.... I can't do anything right around here....

Are you ganging up against me with Jernal?!? I'm just trying to keep things on topic.

Who do I complain to? I usually just go and whinge to the internet.

endacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Cookies...:mad:

I make biscuits with smarties with the grandkids.
They are really rather good.

Thank you. I may have the fecker on a technicality there.

Kidchameleon

robindch wrote: »

Yes, some atheists do and a lot don't. So far as I'm aware, the vast majority of mocking that goes on is done here in A+A and similar places where religious people tend not to go. Most atheists believe that openly mocking, insulting, demeaning or misrepresenting somebody's beliefs about religion in public is tasteless and there's certainly nobody I know who'll do any of those things to religious people if they weren't first provoked into doing so by some religious person first doing it to them.

However, your claim is different. You said that "there are many atheists that don't leave people to their religion".

And it would be good to see some evidence that this is true -- like what led you to this belief? At the moment, you're still just posting unsubstantiated opinion and you appear to be unhappy that you're being called out on it.

Fair enough I retract the "many" part

Kidchameleon

Sarky wrote: »

If it can be torn apart, that's generally a good indicator that it wasn't really evidence to begin with.

Agreed. I should have said "blindly torn apart"

endacl

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Agreed. I should have said "blindly torn apart"

Yet eminently 'tearable' all the same.

Sarky

If you'd said that, you'd have to show how the person tearing it apart was wrong. And maybe provide some evidence of people blindly tearing apart genuine evidence? That's how these things work, kid.

I don't think you can do it, can you?

nozzferrahhtoo

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Fair enough I retract the "many" part

Which renders your claim as saying pretty much nothing at all. Without the "many" all you are doing is saying that there exists somewhere SOME number of atheists who will not leave people to their religion.

I entirely agree with this. ALL of these sentences are also true:

1) Some atheists rape children.
2) Some atheists have no taste in biscuits.
3) Some atheists have cancer.
4) Some atheists murder theists.

If there is something out there that an atheists could be doing then the likelihood is SOME of them actually are. Thing is you can replace "atheists" with "theists" or "blacks" or "men" or "women" or "gays" or just about anything else and still be perfectly correct.

So having retracted your "many" part you have merely changed your unsubstantiated nonsense claim into a meaningless white noise claim that says nothing at all about nothing at all except to state the obvious.

Which basically leaves me, after this thread and the earlier "If you think the Catholics are deluded" thread, wondering which thread you will NEXT wander into to do nothing at all except what boils down to moaning about how you appear to be unable to soap box an opinion without some nasty person asking you to substantiate it.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Agreed. I should have said "blindly torn apart"

Does not matter what you say. Or how you say it. Until you actually get around to actually presenting any evidence... anything you say about how we will react to it when you present it is merely fantasy speculation.

kiffer

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Fair enough I retract the "many" part

So you're changing from:
"many atheists do xyz"
To
"atheists do xyz"
...?