http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Funny_theist_quotes
Poe's law, anyone?
Poe's law, anyone?
Hilarious actual quotes by religious people online and off
I have heard a ton of crazy bullsh*t come from the mouths of zealots, but this page has got to be the best of the best. Poe's Law indeed. I'm sure some of that stuff was from people just making fun of fundies, but who can tell?
It's funny that we here in the US(as well as many other countries) tend to give more legitimacy to policy makers the more they lean in that direction. And then we wonder why the world is so screwed up.
It's funny that we here in the US(as well as many other countries) tend to give more legitimacy to policy makers the more they lean in that direction. And then we wonder why the world is so screwed up.
| Quote: |
| This is what it would be like, if the majority of people were athiests.
ATHIEST KID: Mom, I'm going to go ****** a hooker. ATHIEST MOM: Okay, son. ATHIEST KID: Afterwards, I'm going to go smoke pot with my friends, since it's "not addictive." ATHIEST MOM: Okay, come home soon! The athiest kid leaves the room. The father comes home from work several minutes later. ATHIEST DAD: Hey! ATHIEST MOM: Hi, honey! I'm pregnant again. I guess I'll just get another abortion, since "fetuses don't count as human life." ATHIEST DAD: Okay, get as many abortions as you want! ATHIEST MOM: Oh, and don't go in the bedroom. ATHIEST DAD: Why not? ATHIEST MOM: There are two gay men ****** each other in there. ATHIEST DAD: Why are they here? ATHIEST MOM: I wanted to watch them do it for awhile. They just aren't finished yet. ATHIEST DAD: Okay, that's fine with me! Suddenly, their neighbor runs into the house. ATHIEST NEIGHBOR: Come quick, there's a Christian outside! ATHIEST MOM: We'll be right there! The athiest couple quickly put on a pair of black robes and hoods. They then exit the house, and run into the street, where a Christian is nailed to a large, wooden X. He is being burned alive. A crowd of athiests stand around him, all wearing black robes and hoods. RANDOM ATHIEST: Damn you, Christian! We hate you! We claim to be tolerant of all religions. But we really hate your's! That's because we athiests are hypocritical like that! Die, Christian! THE END Scary, isn't it? |
This was my favorite. I literally laughed out loud.
I laughed at so many of these. The worst thing is that I have heard things similar to this, so I know that they do in fact say these things in real life.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| This was my favorite. I literally laughed out loud. |
That was one of my favorites, simply because the (Christian) author used "Your's" instead of "Yours"
Anyhow, I see this thread devolving into generalizations and flaming. Guys, this might be hard to deal with, but there are some pretty stupid atheists too. You can't simply assume that just because some theists have made stupid examples of their own religions that all theists are stupid, lest you yourself look stupid.
Ugh, I couldn't read past third quote without starting to feel a little nauseous.
Yeah, no doubt these people (from the quotes) are "special cases". I think that's a given.
| Hogwarts wrote: |
| Anyhow, I see this thread devolving into generalizations and flaming. Guys, this might be hard to deal with, but there are some pretty stupid atheists too. You can't simply assume that just because some theists have made stupid examples of their own religions that all theists are stupid, lest you yourself look stupid. |
Yeah, no doubt these people (from the quotes) are "special cases". I think that's a given.
| miacps wrote: |
| Ugh, I couldn't read past third quote without starting to feel a little nauseous. |
Well, thats kinda hilaarious considering the fact that recent occurrencies shows that athiesm and christianity might get to that level soon 
| Quote: |
| 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.
Trinidad and Tobago, CARM [2007-Mar-01] |
I'm glad I live in sin, otherwise I'd be sucked out into space in no time!
| Quote: |
| What is called 'Science' today and 'scientists' consist of the same old gang of witch doctors, sorcerers, tellers of tales, the 'Priest-Entertainers' for the common people. 'Science' consists of a weird, way-out occult concoction of jibberish theory-theology... nothing good has ever come from 'science' ---- In fact, technology is not in any way related to the web of idiotic scientific theory. ALL inventors have been anti-science. The Wright brothers said: "Science theory held us up for years. When we threw out all science, started from experiment and experience, then we invented the airplane." By the way, airplanes all fly level on this Plane earth!
The Fact the Earth is Flat is not my opinion, it is a Proved Fact! While all we need to know is that the Bible says the Earth is flat (Is.40:22, Ez.7:2, Dn.2:35; 4:10-11,20, Mt.4:  ... but for a second can you imagine what these so-called 'scientists would have us believe ---- If the earth really was round, that would mean there arre people who are HANGING DOWN, HEAD DOWNWARDS while we are standing head up? But since the theory allows to travel to those parts of the earth where the people are said to hand head downward, and still to fancy ourselves to be heads upwards, and our friends whom we have left behind us to be heads downwards! LOL! What foolishness! TheWHOLE THING IS A MYTH - A DREAM - A DELUSION - and a snare, and, instead of there being any evidence at all in this direction to substantiate this popular theory, it is plain proof that the Earth is Not A Globe!
Also, be sure to know the Sun and Moon are about 3,000 miles away are both 32 miles across. The Planets are 'tiny.' Sun and Moon do Move, earth does NOT move, whirl, spin or gyrate (1 Sam.2:8, 1 Chr.16:30; Job 9:6, 38:4-6; Ps.96:10, 104:5, Is.13:10, Mic.6:2). Australians do NOT hang by their feet under the world... this is a FACT, not a theory! Also a Fact the Spinning, Whirling, Gyrating Ball World Planet, Globe Idea is Entirely 100% now and at all times in the Past, a RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE... a Blind Dogmatic Article of Faith in the Religion for the Blind unreasoning beast of prey. No earthly reason for a Sane, Upright Member of the Elite True Christians to subscribe to it. Also a Fact, today the Elite of Earth ALL live on the Flat World. Only the illogical, unreasoning "herd"... prefers the way-out occult weird theology of the old Greek superstitution earth a spinning ball! Both Copernecious and Newton, the inventors of the "modern" superstitions (400 year OLD modern) have said: "It is not possible for a Sane reasonable person to ever really believe these Theories." Thus sayeth Newton-Copernecious. What sayeth THOU? KettleWhistle, Israel Forum [2007-Mar-02] |
This had me laughing all throughout. It's amazing how this level of stupidity exists today.
come on guys
this is the best quote
......
this is the best quote
| Quote: |
| I believe my son has a girlfriend, because she left a dirty magazine with men in it under his bed. My son is only 16 and I really don't think he's ready to date yet. What's worse is that he's sneaking some girl to his room behind my back. I need help, God! I want my son to stop being so secretive!
Linda, Good news prayer room [2006-Oct-28] |
......
hillarious that is.....lol
Yea it's funny but scary at the same time, I mean "killing al atheist and use their organs for medical research" that's a bit scary. It would be a kind of mass murder, wonder who's left to do the research though.
| Quote: |
| [on the sunject of a Bible printing company] Yes, that is a great company. I bought one of their large print version (old eyes... what can I say?). The only thing I don't like about them is they sell foreign language versions of the KJB. I don't think that's right. We know the only true translation is the 1600's version in English. It's too risky for anybody to translate that into other languages. Mistakes can creep in... and that can lead to heresy. True Christians should only read English.
leyenda , KJB only [2007-Aug-06] |
That was my favorite one... Right... like the Bible is the original and true language of the bible... it was never any language before English!
Woah this is pure gold. The most funny thing is that I have heard words simillar to those myself.
I love it when an egomaniac tries in each and every possible way to show his greatness and rightness but ultimately fails.
Vlad
I love it when an egomaniac tries in each and every possible way to show his greatness and rightness but ultimately fails.
Vlad
| Hogwarts wrote: |
| Anyhow, I see this thread devolving into generalizations and flaming. Guys, this might be hard to deal with, but there are some pretty stupid atheists too. |
"Atheism is a non-prophet organization. " - George Carlin
"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel." - Thomas Paine
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus
"God does not play dice with the universe." - Albert Einstein
(he doesn't?)
"Black holes would seem to suggest that God not only plays dice, but also sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen." - Stephen Hawking
(wait... he does??)
"God plays dice with the universe, but they're loaded dice." - Joseph Ford
(wait... he does?? and he cheats???)
(the next one is not an Atheist, but still a great quote)
"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn." - St. Augustine
(and they made this guy a "Saint", I wonder what Stephen Hawking would think of him)
"As we shall see, the concept of time has no meaning before the beginning of the universe. This was first pointed out by St. Augustine. When asked: What did God do before he created the universe? Augustine didn't reply: He was preparing Hell for people who asked such questions. Instead, he said that time was a property of the universe that God created, and that time did not exist before the beginning of the universe." - Stephen Hawking
(never mind...)
"Cabalistic Christianity, which is Catholic Christianity, and which has prevailed for 1,500 years, has received a mortal wound, of which the monster must finally die. Yet so strong is his constitution, that he may endure for centuries before he expires." - John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, July 16, 1814
(one nation under god... )
"The biblical account of Noah's Ark and the Flood is perhaps the most implausible story for fundamentalists to defend. Where, for example, while loading his ark, did Noah find penguins and polar bears in Palestine?" - Judith Hayes
Well, I won't take up any more space here.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: | ||
|
| deanhills wrote: |
| I still have to marvel at the fact that atheists seem to be attached to religion. |
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: | ||
|
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| If it weren't for religion, we wouldn't be Atheists. We would just be people. |
Technically, we would be atheists. We just wouldn't have a name for it.
| Indi wrote: | ||
Technically, we would be atheists. We just wouldn't have a name for it. |
Of course, for a group of people to exist, there needs to be a contrasting group. If there was never such a group as theists, there wouldn't even be anything to give a name to. Thus, you wouldn't have a name for a concept that doesn't exist. However, you can talk about an atheist group in that example society from our perspective because those groups and concepts do exist in our reality.
| Hogwarts wrote: | ||||
Of course, for a group of people to exist, there needs to be a contrasting group. |
You mean for a name for a group of people to exist, there has to be a contrasting group. The group exists regardless.
Otherwise the group of people with less than ten heads would not exist, because there is no contrasting group. Of course, that group does exist... we just don't have a name for it.
| Indi wrote: |
| Otherwise the group of people with less than ten heads would not exist, because there is no contrasting group. Of course, that group does exist... we just don't have a name for it. |
So you're trying to say that a fraction still exists if it's 100% of the whole? Sure, it can be written as an improper fraction, but it's called improper for a reason. The same applies to groups; you cannot assume that just because there is a criteria you can define 100% of people by that that constitutes a group. Unless the group "atheist" should also be used to refer to monkeys? I don't see any god worship occurring in monkey society, so does that make all monkeys atheist? And, more importantly, would a monkey ever be able to comprehend the concept of atheism and thus define it as a group? Can a group exist if it's not defined? Or is that just a criterion only usable from a third-person perspective?
I personally do not find any of these funny. To me, there's nothing funny about them. It's people who claim to be Christians not knowing what they're attempting to talk about. Either that or ignorant people in general. For instance, the "dirty" magazine under the boy's bed that was "left by his girlfriend" was his most likely. He's gay. It's an obvious fact. Any mother who would not put 1 and 1 together and get 2 would be an idiot.
| tchaunt wrote: |
| Any mother who would not put 1 and 1 together and get 2 would be an idiot. |
Because we all know that there is no such thing in the world.
| Hogwarts wrote: | ||
So you're trying to say that a fraction still exists if it's 100% of the whole? Sure, it can be written as an improper fraction, but it's called improper for a reason. The same applies to groups; you cannot assume that just because there is a criteria you can define 100% of people by that that constitutes a group. Unless the group "atheist" should also be used to refer to monkeys? I don't see any god worship occurring in monkey society, so does that make all monkeys atheist? And, more importantly, would a monkey ever be able to comprehend the concept of atheism and thus define it as a group? Can a group exist if it's not defined? Or is that just a criterion only usable from a third-person perspective? |
If you define a criterion for membership of a group then clearly any element meeting the criterion is a member of the group.
An atheist is defined as 'one who lacks belief in God(s)'.
The point of decision, therefore, is whether a monkey can be classed as 'one'. Since the term is normally used to refer to a person, then I don't think we would include a monkey in the group atheist since it fails the basic criterion.
The point about the monkey 'knowing' is irrelevant. Many people can be classified as belonging to many groups whether or not they themselves know it.
I don't find those quotes funny, I find them terrifying. That sort of blind, vicious, ignorance is what lead to atrocities like the holocaust, or the inquisition.
How can people be so willfully ignorant?
How can people claim to follow a loving god, and yet still wish such horrible atrocities on people?
How can people be that stupid and survive beyond childhood?
I mourn for humanity, that even a small fraction of us could sink so low.
How can people be so willfully ignorant?
How can people claim to follow a loving god, and yet still wish such horrible atrocities on people?
How can people be that stupid and survive beyond childhood?
I mourn for humanity, that even a small fraction of us could sink so low.
| Jinx wrote: |
| I don't find those quotes funny, I find them terrifying. |
| tchaunt wrote: |
| I personally do not find any of these funny. To me, there's nothing funny about them. |
I'm glad there are at least some other Frihosters who do not find the quotes funny. For a while there I thought there was something wrong with my sense of humour. There is nothing creative in them. I don't find them terrifying, just puzzled that people should find them funny.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| An atheist is defined as 'one who lacks belief in God(s)'. |
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| If it weren't for religion, we wouldn't be Atheists. We would just be people. |
| deanhills wrote: | ||||
|
We would still be people who do not believe in gods and so we would still be atheists, whether or not there were any theists left in the world.
| Xanatos wrote: | ||||||
We would still be people who do not believe in gods and so we would still be atheists, whether or not there were any theists left in the world. |
| Indi wrote: |
| Technically, we would be atheists. We just wouldn't have a name for it. |
| Hogwarts wrote: |
| Of course, for a group of people to exist, there needs to be a contrasting group. |
| Bikerman wrote: |
| If you define a criterion for membership of a group then clearly any element meeting the criterion is a member of the group. |
| Xanatos wrote: |
| We would still be people who do not believe in gods and so we would still be atheists, whether or not there were any theists left in the world. |
| deanhills wrote: |
| A"theists" come from"theists". Take the "theists" away and there is no longer a reason for the existence of "a". It has no meaning any longer. |
Merriam-Webster: Semantics - the study of meanings: a: the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development
The point was not whether there would or would not be a group of people who have this or that label. The point was that with no religion to believe in, there would be no unbelievers. You can't deny something that you have never heard of.
Are dogs technically Atheists? No, They have no concept of religion. They are just dogs.
Everything else is just arguing semantics.
| deanhills wrote: | ||||||||
|
It doesn't matter if there was no longer such a thing as theists. All people would still be atheists whether or not they chose to refer to themselves as such. As I said previously an atheist is any person who lacks a belief in a god or gods. It is the definition of the term that matters not the label. Every theist disappearing does not make atheism obsolete. I agree that people would likely cease to identify as non-believers, but non-believers they would nonetheless be.
| Xanatos wrote: |
| It doesn't matter if there was no longer such a thing as theists. All people would still be atheists whether or not they chose to refer to themselves as such. As I said previously an atheist is any person who lacks a belief in a god or gods. It is the definition of the term that matters not the label. Every theist disappearing does not make atheism obsolete. I agree that people would likely cease to identify as non-believers, but non-believers they would nonetheless be. |
As in my above post, dogs are not Atheists, they are just dogs. They have no concept of god, and have no way to believe or not believe in a concept which they lack.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: | ||
As in my above post, dogs are not Atheists, they are just dogs. They have no concept of god, and have no way to believe or not believe in a concept which they lack. |
I still disagree with you here. Even if religion never existed all people would still be non-religious. They are without religion regardless of its existence. I know this seems to be a rather pointless argument/debate but I feel that I need to make it.
As far as dogs being atheists, they are. You can lack a belief in something you have never heard of, or can logically grasp. You have all your life lacked a belief in ghyrtpoi. You have never heard of it before, nor do you have any concept of what it is, but you do and have always lacked a belief in it.
You, sir, are funny.
The atheist community is apparently much bigger and widespread than I initially thought.
The atheist community is apparently much bigger and widespread than I initially thought.
| deanhills wrote: |
| A"theists" come from"theists". Take the "theists" away and there is no longer a reason for the existence of "a". It has no meaning any longer. |
You are confusing labels with reality. If there are no theists, then there is no reason to have the label "atheist". We'd still be atheists though.
Imagine if every single member of every single species in the known universe suddenly became female (and pretend we are somehow able to continue breeding asexually). Now we'd all be females. But the name female no longer has any meaning. There's no point in saying "i'm a human, and i'm a female", it would suffice to say "i'm a human". The "female" label is redundant, and useless.
But we'd still be females, would we not? We don't stop being females just because the term has lost its relevance. Similarly, if religion suddenly vanished, we'd stop calling ourselves atheists, because it would be redundant and useless to do so... but we'd still be atheists.
It goes the other way, too. We're already members of groups that we're not aware of yet. One day we may meet extraterrestrials of many shapes and sizes, and we may find it useful to group them under beings that have their brain internally ("brainy-ins"), versus beings that keep their brains in a jar or a box that they carry around externally ("brainy-outs"). We're already "brainy-ins", even though the label doesn't really exist yet. Calling us "brainy-ins" now is redundant and useless... but one day it might not be... yet through it all, whether we use the label or not, we were, are, and alway will be "brainy-ins".
Just because it doesn't occur to you to name a set, doesn't mean that set doesn't exist.
| Indi wrote: | ||
You are confusing labels with reality. If there are no theists, then there is no reason to have the label "atheist". We'd still be atheists though. Imagine if every single member of every single species in the known universe suddenly became female (and pretend we are somehow able to continue breeding asexually). Now we'd all be females. But the name female no longer has any meaning. |
Wrong. If humanity were to continue breeding asexually, humanity would not be females
| Quote: |
| A female individual cannot reproduce sexually without access to the gametes of a male (an exception is parthenogenesis). |
That applies. Period. If females were to start independently giving birth without external interactions then they would be neither female or male. The existence of asexuality, even, would also be questionable.
| Hogwarts wrote: | ||
Wrong. If humanity were to continue breeding asexually, humanity would not be females
That applies. Period. If females were to start independently giving birth without external interactions then they would be neither female or male. The existence of asexuality, even, would also be questionable. |
You are missing the point here. Indi said that if they were hypothetically still able to reproduce without males.
Even if all humans became asexual- Any organism that can reproduce without sex is asexual, we can all agree on that. IF every human became neither male nor female, but some non-gender, and we all reproduced without sex, would we be asexual? Yep. Look at the definition of the word. If humans beings reproduce without sex they are asexual beings. The use of sex is not a co-requisite for asexuality to exist.
| Hogwarts wrote: | ||||||
Wrong. If humanity were to continue breeding asexually, humanity would not be females
That applies. Period. If females were to start independently giving birth without external interactions then they would be neither female or male. The existence of asexuality, even, would also be questionable. |
As a separate subject it would be interesting to have a planet with only females. Can imagine if that happened that the females would completely rename themselves.
Oh good grief, i should have known some nut would try to nitpick biology when the entire thing is just a thought experiment that makes no physiological sense.
Fine then. Suppose all humans became "white". Then there would be no need for the terms "white", "black" or anything else similar. The questions on census forms or identification sheets would simply vanish, because they're superfluous (just like there are no questions on such forms today about how many heads we have). It would simply never occur to anyone to say "(s)he is human, and white", because the latter part is redundant (just like no one says "(s)he is human, and has one head"). If everyone were "white", then the term "white human" would no longer exist... but we'd still be "white".
Or suppose all humans were "tongue rollers". Then there would be no need for the term "tongue roller" (just like there is no need for the term "finger bender" or "eye blinker", because those are things we all do). The term would not exist... but we'd all still be tongue rollers.
The bottom line: if there were no religion, then there were be no theists, which means we would all be atheists. i would have thought this would be blatantly obvious since you must be one or the other - the two terms are pure complementary - but apparently it's not. Yes, we would not have a term for "atheist"... but we'd still be atheists.
Honestly, you're just getting hung up on a historical quirk: the fact that "theist" was considered the default state of being by the cultures that generated our language - so the word that described people without religion was coined after... using the existing word for people with religion. If people who didn't have a religion were called "defaults" and those who did were called "non-defaults", the argument that "defaults" cannot exist without "non-defaults" is clearly stupid... which is the exact same argument as that "atheists" cannot exist without "theists".
Fine then. Suppose all humans became "white". Then there would be no need for the terms "white", "black" or anything else similar. The questions on census forms or identification sheets would simply vanish, because they're superfluous (just like there are no questions on such forms today about how many heads we have). It would simply never occur to anyone to say "(s)he is human, and white", because the latter part is redundant (just like no one says "(s)he is human, and has one head"). If everyone were "white", then the term "white human" would no longer exist... but we'd still be "white".
Or suppose all humans were "tongue rollers". Then there would be no need for the term "tongue roller" (just like there is no need for the term "finger bender" or "eye blinker", because those are things we all do). The term would not exist... but we'd all still be tongue rollers.
The bottom line: if there were no religion, then there were be no theists, which means we would all be atheists. i would have thought this would be blatantly obvious since you must be one or the other - the two terms are pure complementary - but apparently it's not. Yes, we would not have a term for "atheist"... but we'd still be atheists.
Honestly, you're just getting hung up on a historical quirk: the fact that "theist" was considered the default state of being by the cultures that generated our language - so the word that described people without religion was coined after... using the existing word for people with religion. If people who didn't have a religion were called "defaults" and those who did were called "non-defaults", the argument that "defaults" cannot exist without "non-defaults" is clearly stupid... which is the exact same argument as that "atheists" cannot exist without "theists".
This.
Is.
Ridiculous.
Want to hear another funny quote from a religious person? A Priest, no less...
"I have no doubt in my mind that you'll end up in prison."
This was said to me by a Priest who herded his flock at a church about 2 miles from where I lived as a kid. What makes this statement funny is that he is now rotting in prison, and has been for years. About a year or so after he told me that(I was kind of a bad kid), this "man of the cloth" who was so righteous and preachy, ended up on Americas' Most Wanted.
No, he wasn't a kid-toucher. He was selling illegal automatic weapons, such as AK-47's and UZI's, out of the back door of the church to a drug cartel. Silencers too. I wonder how much death he was responsible for through his sales.
Yeah...
And I never went to prison.
Is.
Ridiculous.
Want to hear another funny quote from a religious person? A Priest, no less...
"I have no doubt in my mind that you'll end up in prison."
This was said to me by a Priest who herded his flock at a church about 2 miles from where I lived as a kid. What makes this statement funny is that he is now rotting in prison, and has been for years. About a year or so after he told me that(I was kind of a bad kid), this "man of the cloth" who was so righteous and preachy, ended up on Americas' Most Wanted.
No, he wasn't a kid-toucher. He was selling illegal automatic weapons, such as AK-47's and UZI's, out of the back door of the church to a drug cartel. Silencers too. I wonder how much death he was responsible for through his sales.
Yeah...
And I never went to prison.
| Indi wrote: |
| The bottom line: if there were no religion, then there were be no theists, which means we would all be atheists. i would have thought this would be blatantly obvious since you must be one or the other - the two terms are pure complementary - but apparently it's not. Yes, we would not have a term for "atheist"... but we'd still be atheists.
|
| deanhills wrote: | ||
|
Indi already pointed this out,
Nobody would call themselves atheists. We can all agree on that. There would be no reason to. However everyone would still be atheists. The definition of an atheist is one who lacks a belief in a god or gods. In a world without religion or theism everyone lacks a belief in a god or gods, therefore everyone is atheist. The root of the word does not matter.
And there was atheism since the beginning of time. atheism has always existed whether or not there was a word for it. There was atheism before religion and theism, and there will be atheism after they are gone. Any person who does not believe in a god or gods is atheist. Period.
| Quote: |
| Seriously, does anybody ever cry at an Atheist's funeral?
I mean, since Atheists have no value whatsoever as human beings (they're not even human, but only inhuman animals), since Atheists are nothing but miserable Liars, Cowards and Murderers, after all, why would anybody in their right mind weep over the dead rotting corpse, or bone chips and ashes (that get mixed together with those of others from the crematory) of a worthless dead Atheist? And what epitaph do you engrave on an Atheist's grave marker? "Here lies the only good Atheist, which is a dead Atheist". What else is there say? Nothing at all. No last words, no last rites, no flowers, no anything. Every time an Atheist dies, the world is better off as a result of that dead Atheist being dead, & its damned God-forsaken soul burning in the fiery pits of Hades.
Which begs another related question, do Atheists cry at funerals? If so, why? Since Atheists hate God, and they hate Family, and they hate Country, who are they crying for? It is true: The only good Atheist is a dead Atheist. Daniel Joseph Min, alt.atheism [2007-Jan-07] |
LOLOL!!! HAHAHAHAHAH
| Denvis wrote: | ||
LOLOL!!! HAHAHAHAHAH :lol: |
I'm sorry, but I simply could not laugh at that one. That quote was so full of bigotry that I had a hard time believing that anyone would actually say that. It was so arrogant, ignorant, hateful, etc. It's amazing that some religious purpose who "supposedly" has morals would say something that terrible. "...Every time an Atheist dies, the world is better off as a result of that dead Atheist being dead..." Mr. Joseph Min must not have realized that atheists have made some of the most groundbreaking studies that have done nothing but make human life better... It's sad to know that morons like that are running around.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | ||||
I'm sorry, but I simply could not laugh at that one. That quote was so full of bigotry that I had a hard time believing that anyone would actually say that. It was so arrogant, ignorant, hateful, etc. It's amazing that some religious purpose who "supposedly" has morals would say something that terrible. "...Every time an Atheist dies, the world is better off as a result of that dead Atheist being dead..." Mr. Joseph Min must not have realized that atheists have made some of the most groundbreaking studies that have done nothing but make human life better... It's sad to know that morons like that are running around. |
It is actually very easy to find it all over the web. It originated at a particularly vicious, republican hate-speak site called ShellyTheRepublican - link below
http://shelleytherepublican.com/category/atheist-conspiracies
http://shelleytherepublican.com/category/atheist-conspiracies
| Denvis wrote: | ||
LOLOL!!! HAHAHAHAHAH |
You see, the difference is I won't try to kill someone or blow their work building up for saying something like this...
The correct response, I believe, is to simply point out the facts. Anything else plays into the hands of the bigot.
In this case the facts are that 'atheist' is a very difficult group to define in a traditional sense. Normally we define groups by their beliefs/creeds/agenda. Trying to apply that definition to atheism simply doesn't work - we don't share a common belief.
Trying to define the 'absence of belief' as a belief is rather ridiculous. Should we define a group who don't believe that Mars and Mercury are Gods?
As the famous quote goes;
"we are all atheists - I just believe in one less God than you do"
In this case the facts are that 'atheist' is a very difficult group to define in a traditional sense. Normally we define groups by their beliefs/creeds/agenda. Trying to apply that definition to atheism simply doesn't work - we don't share a common belief.
Trying to define the 'absence of belief' as a belief is rather ridiculous. Should we define a group who don't believe that Mars and Mercury are Gods?
As the famous quote goes;
"we are all atheists - I just believe in one less God than you do"
| Bikerman wrote: |
| It is actually very easy to find it all over the web. It originated at a particularly vicious, republican hate-speak site called ShellyTheRepublican - link below
http://shelleytherepublican.com/category/atheist-conspiracies |
Ahh, that explains it. http://shelleytherepublican.com/ is actually just crude satire.
| miacps wrote: | ||
Ahh, that explains it. http://shelleytherepublican.com/ is actually just crude satire. |
Related topics
 |