>>
>>16564
Strawman implies I'm giving you argumentative statements you haven't made, which I'm not, and ad hominem implies that I'm attacking you to attack you, which, again, I'm not. I don't really care if you're Buddhist, by the way, as I do indeed despise all religion, including yours. The current Dalai Lama supports nuclear weaponry, regarded the sex lives of many people he doesn't know as deplorable, despite thinking that fucking a prostitute, as long as she's paid for by you, is not misconduct, and proclaimed that Steven Seagal was a "tulku" for an earlier lama. Buddhism advocates giving up your mind, which in itself is stupid because contemplation, retrospection, analyzation, et cetera are the greatest abilities humans have. And I cannot believe that you think Buddhists haven't been as full of shit as other religious people. Lon Nol's Cambodian army was Buddhist, Solomon Bandaranaike, first elected leader of independent Sri Lanka, was assassinated by a Buddhist militant, it was Buddhists who began needlessly attacking Tamils to fire up the communal war that persists in Sri Lanka, and the SLORC, which is a fascist military party that runs Burma, is also Buddhist. So don't give me any of that crap about the Eastern religions.
>chat sites
Allow me to be broad then, since you seem to have missed the point of sarcasm. Any site on which people are known to argue at the drop of a hat will contain limitless religious disputes. And you did't counter the original point.
>your store comparison
Actually, I refuted your point, but you failed to see it. What I'm saying is that food and supplies are human necessities. Religion is not. You do not need religion to live or even to live comfortably; it is utterly useless. So, when you say there is greasy food, you are correct, but it is food, and it is food that can be enjoyed whilst fueling our bodies. Religion cannot do this. You can enjoy it, sure, but it is not necessary and comes with the obligation to continue imbibing its ridiculous claims and regulations. Food stores do not demand further patronage and do not regulate what you consume.
>inter-communal bigotry
Why is this bad? Are you a fucking moron? It's bad because it doesn't need to happen! If we can eliminate sources of violence and war then out of basic human decency, we should! I'm not pro racism either, and if that could be eliminated, I would gladly try to destroy it, and do still combat it even if it's a losing battle.
>bigotry against atheists
How about former president George Bush who said atheists weren't real citizens, or any church of any sect who, on the right day, do in fact condemn atheists and claim that we collude with Satan, or Fox News' constant slights against us, or ANY RURAL COMMUNITY EVER. And again, you are arguing with us, not the other way about. I'm only attacking you because you came into this thread and caused a ruckus. For someone who hates the strawman fallacy, you sure like to use it.
>atheist advertising
You didn't refute my point.
>that bit where you seem to imply that sexuality can't be talked about with reason
I'm not entirely sure if that's what you were getting at, but if so, you're an idiot.
>my hatred for religion
Again, I do not hate religious people, I hate what religion tells people to do. You can reference things like "thou shalt do no murder" all you like, but there's still the slew of rulings where it's considered perfectly fine to murder someone and to do so violently. And I'm not just talking about those moments by the way. Any time when religion makes a rule that would otherwise conflict with human common sense or decency, I get pissed. And once more, RELIGION IS UNNECESSARY. We do not need it. It serves no purpose at all.
>proving religion-to-reality inconsistencies
Sure. The Earth was not made in six days, Adam and Eve did not exist, humans are not popped out of the ground from dust or blood, none of the gods that have explicit personalities that are described as constantly watching Earth can be real, as we would have seen some action being explicitly taken by them, most notably by Yahweh or Zeus (they both have incredibly hot tempers), magic humans do not and have not existed, as that would collide with various laws of nature, and so on. That wasn't s hard, was it?
>what religion teaches
It does teach the occasional good rule, and then proceeds to blot it out with the utter nonsense that follows. Just to use your own example (again), "Thou shalt do no murder... unless that bitch was fucking an animal, then kill her and the animal... or if your kid is being a brat, then take him to the edge of town and stone him to death. Oh, and by the way, uh, Moses, could you just go ahead and slaughter countless villages to show people how loving and gracious I am? Spare the kids? PFFFFFFF, NO! HA HA, WHAT ARE YOU, A LOSER?" And again, even it's more unknown inhibitions are wrong, like telling people to avoid contemplation of evil thoughts. People think bad things, and thinking about them can sometimes be incredible stress relief. Telling them to ignore their evil thoughts just turns into them trying to justify how they feel with some religious dogma, and then people fly planes into buildings.
>discomforting
I am being hateful toward you because you offend me, greatly, as a matter of fact. Your arguments tend to be baseless, you trying to paint all atheists as bad people, and then proceed to whine to me about generalizing, and you started the argument. However, my main point in my original comment, if you would, you know, read it, was that I can get shat on by multitudes of Christians (I'm being specific to the area I live in) just for saying "I'm an atheist" when they ask me what religious sect I'm a part of. "Discomforting" is the word I meant to use.
>you entering the thread
So, you're using the fact that a flame war was likely to start as your scapegoat? You're only supporting my point. I did not, and we did not, start an argument with you. This could have been a civil, albeit very whiny and immature thread about religious bigotry, which would have subsided and drifted away with the allowance that each anti-theist could come in and give his/her two cents. But then you showed up. You debated, you provoked, YOU started it. I was initially going to give my two cents and proceed to mention that I thought this thread was full of poor half arguments and advise people to consider their sides a bit more, but you intruded and I found myself offended and awestruck at some of the things you were saying, and now here we are.
>burden of proof
Gee, ya got me. I guess I have to pick a religious pamphlet and devote myself now. Does that phrase sound funny to you? I think it should. You see, you are again assuming that I'm entirely anti-theistic. I'm not. I am an atheist, but I am an agnostic atheist. I am only anti-theistic to the point that I do not think it is a wise practice to devote yourself to a fictitious god, who can clearly be shown to have been made up by man (and it is usually MAN that creates it), follow all the unnecessary stipulations and guidelines, despite having no adverse effects if you do not (this can easily be tested, and is being tested by yours truly), and needlessly hate other people for their also fictitious gods. If a super-dimensional being exists, fan-flippin'-tastic. The moment it's conclusively proven, I'll believe it. Until then, there is no reason to assume any god exists when it does not pertain a single bit to how my life will transpire. I do not claim a super-entity exists, but I do not believe it is impossible. Agnosticism has been inducted to the realm of adjectives. You can be a gnostic-theist (someone like the pope or a redneck), an agnostic-theist (someone who believes but isn't entirely sure), an agnostic-atheist (any reasonable atheist), or a gnostic-atheist (usually, but not always, an anti-theist). In other words, the burden of proof is on you and ANYONE of ANY group who wants to claim that their god is the right one.
]
[
class /
co /
eh /
fit /
halp /
jew /
lit /
phi /
pr /
rnb /
sci /
tg /
w /
zom
]
[
a /
grim /
hi /
me /
rx /
vg /
wp /
x
]
[
be /
cake /
cd /
d /
di /
elit /
fag /
fur /
gif /
h /
men /
pco /
s /
sm /
ss /
unf /
v
]