The Atheist Delusion

[Cain]

They're actually fairly vocal now.  They forced a couple of issues on Parliament recently....but I don't feel especially under threat from them, because the Commons is made up of people used to getting their own way, and because no-one in the UK besides a few BNP-esque nutters and a few Muslims wants religion to have anything to do with politics.

Sure, in cases there are problems where religious people want to try and force their inanity on everyone else.  And they should be stopped.  But many of the ethnocentric Atheists, such as Sam Harris, seem to feel the existence of religious people is de facto a threat to their personal well-being, regardless of their beliefs.

Of course, I also find their 'skepticism' annoying, since it only seems to extend to dismissing the easiest and most facile philosophical arguments ever.  Hume and Nietzsche were skeptics, many of these guys are clowns who have no interest in the truth, only of proving their own superiority over/persecution at the hands of the 'religious people'.

And those are the sort that annoy me.

[e]

Sure, in cases there are problems where religious people want to try and force their inanity on everyone else.  And they should be stopped.  But many of the ethnocentric Atheists, such as Sam Harris, seem to feel the existence of religious people is de facto a threat to their personal well-being, regardless of their beliefs.

Of course, I also find their 'skepticism' annoying, since it only seems to extend to dismissing the easiest and most facile philosophical arguments ever.  Hume and Nietzsche were skeptics, many of these guys are clowns who have no interest in the truth, only of proving their own superiority over/persecution at the hands of the 'religious people'.

And those are the sort that annoy me.

Definitely.  They don't seem to realise (or perhaps just don't care) that what they're doing is the exact same thing as the extremist religious crazies. 

Then again, they're probably only in it because publishing controversial books that piss people off is a great racket.

[Cain]

Its what I plan on doing.  I'm going to take skepticism to its ultimate conclusion and apply it to everything that is popular.

Cain,
will piss off everyone.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Atheist is Cool?  Not in the States it's not.

I think the other posters addressed this... It's cool to be anti-establishment, at least among the 30 and under crowds that I've been wandering about in.

Of course, I also find their skepticism annoying, since it only seems to extend to dismissing the easiest and most facile philosophical arguments ever.

That's a Skeptical Motorcycle you're riding there, Cain!

[e]

Its what I plan on doing.  I'm going to take skepticism to its ultimate conclusion and apply it to everything that is popular.

Cain,
will piss off everyone.

possible chapters:

"Reality Shows cannot exist in reality, since they are only ever in their final form after many hours of tedious editing and occasional re-shoots."

"Atheism and Religion of any sort are identical."

"Neither free sex, one-partner-only sex, nor a lack of sex at all are good"

[Cain]

"Why Communists, Liberals, Conservatives, Nationalists, Socialists, Anarchists, Fascists, Greens and Centrist parties are ruining YOUR LIFE"

[Triple Zero]

but .. but .. some of my best friends are fascists!

[e]

Some of my best friends are fascists!

Actually sounds like a pretty good book title for this category too.

[atrasicarius]

Man, I checked this thread like 4 or 5 hours ago and there was only 1 page.

You mean as in going against the mainstream, who seem to be caught up in a Christian/Muslim spag-fight/hissy fit of epic proportions?

Atheism is the new emo.  It allows intelligent and well educated people living in first world countries to feel oppressed.

I do think thats a little unfair, though. I mean, do you want your kids (if you had kids) being taught "intelligent design"? Not that it's a lot worse than some of the other shit that gets taught in school, but that doesnt mean we should just ignore it.

They're actually fairly vocal now.  They forced a couple of issues on Parliament recently....but I don't feel especially under threat from them, because the Commons is made up of people used to getting their own way, and because no-one in the UK besides a few BNP-esque nutters and a few Muslims wants religion to have anything to do with politics.

Sure, in cases there are problems where religious people want to try and force their inanity on everyone else.  And they should be stopped.  But many of the ethnocentric Atheists, such as Sam Harris, seem to feel the existence of religious people is de facto a threat to their personal well-being, regardless of their beliefs.

Of course, I also find their 'skepticism' annoying, since it only seems to extend to dismissing the easiest and most facile philosophical arguments ever.  Hume and Nietzsche were skeptics, many of these guys are clowns who have no interest in the truth, only of proving their own superiority over/persecution at the hands of the 'religious people'.

And those are the sort that annoy me.

Agreed. An enforced atheist state is just as retarded as an enforced religious state. What it's about is freedom. The reason I call myself an atheist is because I want to let people know were I stand without having to go through the whole, "I'm an agnostic, but..." thing. In terms of the Christian old man in the sky god, I'm agnostic in the same way I'm technically agnostic about Russel's Teapot, lizard Jew people, and the Matrix. In terms of a deist type god who doesnt interfere with the universe after he creates it, I have to say I'm agnostic, since we dont really have any way to know what happened before existence. I do think M Theory has some pretty interesting ideas, and I lean towards that more than some creator, but we really have no way to know. Of course, at that point it's all philosophical, since the whole point is God doesnt interfere. Which is why I call myself an atheist.

[Vene]

Man, I checked this thread like 4 or 5 hours ago and there was only 1 page.

You mean as in going against the mainstream, who seem to be caught up in a Christian/Muslim spag-fight/hissy fit of epic proportions?

Atheism is the new emo.  It allows intelligent and well educated people living in first world countries to feel oppressed.

I do think thats a little unfair, though. I mean, do you want your kids (if you had kids) being taught "intelligent design"? Not that it's a lot worse than some of the other shit that gets taught in school, but that doesnt mean we should just ignore it.

Intelligent design was unintelligently designed.  It's had no success so far in becoming part of the public school's curriculum.

If you wanted to point out anti-atheist tripe I think that this is a better example.
For those who don't click the link it's a list of the states that require a belief in a god to hold office.

[e]

My favourite dumb fundy quote was from a mississippi statesman (I think) actually an urban legend, oh well

Coincidentally, Brian Chapman has found what's certainly a very early telling (the earliest found so far, I think) of "If English was good enough for Jesus . . . " in the 4 December 1926 issue of The New Yorker (Talk of the Town, Pg. 27),

    A gentleman connected with the Rockefeller Institute discloses that, among hundreds of letters of denunciation received by the institution during the past year was one from a man in Arkansas who took the view that all this modern education is dangerous and that the new-fangled practice of grounding preachers in Latin and Greek is especially pernicious. They ought to be taught in English, and only English, he said, adding in conclusion, "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me."

[Vene]

My favourite dumb fundy quote was from a mississippi statesman (I think) actually an urban legend, oh well

Coincidentally, Brian Chapman has found what's certainly a very early telling (the earliest found so far, I think) of "If English was good enough for Jesus . . . " in the 4 December 1926 issue of The New Yorker (Talk of the Town, Pg. 27),

    A gentleman connected with the Rockefeller Institute discloses that, among hundreds of letters of denunciation received by the institution during the past year was one from a man in Arkansas who took the view that all this modern education is dangerous and that the new-fangled practice of grounding preachers in Latin and Greek is especially pernicious. They ought to be taught in English, and only English, he said, adding in conclusion, "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me."

That's ok, there are plenty of real ones.
For example:

One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

[/url]
or this:

Gravity: Doesn't exist. If items of mass had any impact of others, then mountains should have people orbiting them. Or the space shuttle in space should have the astronauts orbiting it. Of course, that's just the tip of the gravity myth. Think about it. Scientists want us to believe that the sun has a gravitation pull strong enough to keep a planet like neptune or pluto in orbit, but then it's not strong enough to keep the moon in orbit? Why is that? What I believe is going on here is this: These objects in space have yet to receive mans touch, and thus have no sin to weigh them down. This isn't the case for earth, where we see the impact of transfered sin to material objects. The more sin, the heavier something is.

Evolution: Very obvious, first of all we know that a "change in allele frequency" doesn't exist, and furthermore that humans cannot possible come from "Apelike" anscestors.

Global Warming: 30 years ago, evolutionists were saying "global cooling", they're just flip flopping again. They don't know what's going on with the climate. Reality is that it is quite stable, and has remained the same since the past 6000 years of its existance.

Plate Techonics: Continents do not move. The earth has only been in existance for roughly 6000 years, this is another one of the "package theories" that evolutionists try to have us believe. Its really simple. If you accept Evolution, then you must accept an old earth. If you accept an old earth, then you must accept an old universe. Before you know it, you're waste deep in nonsense without any empirical evidence to support any of it. You end up with this: (1)evolution-->(2)plate techtonics-->(3)big bang

Atomic Theory: We are simple unable to manipulate objects that are so small. Physics in of itself is a very sketchy field of "science", because its so uncertain of itself and always incapable of replicating their hypothesis or experimentation.

[/url]

[e]

That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

Ever heard of THE SUN?

Then again, judging by the "earth was made 6000 years ago" argument, God is younger than our sun!

Wait wait wait, what the flying fuck?

Physics in of itself is a very sketchy field of "science", because its so uncertain of itself and always incapable of replicating their hypothesis or experimentation.

I love the idea that plate tectonics proves the big bang, too.

Can I ask where you're getting those from?  They just seem too... blatant to accept.

[Vene]

Sorry, I tried to post the url in for the quotes.
The first one
The second one
And I found them here. (along with a shitload of similar quotes)

And yes, those people are being completely and totally serious.

[Nast]

FIRST THERE WAS NOTHING

AND THEN THAT NOTHING...

EXPLODED!