99 Ways to Annoy an Atheist

originally posted by: BobbyRock

...that one might leave a mark.



and the funniest part is you really cant argue with it. i can just imagine explaining this to someone and every argument they presented, just answering it with "oh...my god."

maximum trolling. just like this thread.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Just remember to keep a straight face when you say it.............

I'm not an Atheist but my boyfriend is. Respect makes our relationship work. I showed this to him and Number 20 just made him laugh! But he admits, this is quite interesting! The delivery of this phrases could make a difference too in fully annoying an Atheist.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Faith
noun
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. belief that is not based on proof.

All of us have to take something on a little bit of faith in our lives.

originally posted by: Konduit
a reply to: Woodcarver

Faith
noun
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. belief that is not based on proof.

All of us have to take something on a little bit of faith in our lives.

Religious faith comes under the second meaning, and not everyone has or wants that in their lives. Those that do seem to compartmentalise this lack of critical thinking as it doesnt exist in any other part of their lives or everyday existence.

Its quite peculiar.

a reply to: Konduit

Yes, as prezbo pointed out, those two distinctions in that definition are very dif in the details. The first could apply to a trust in the laws in physics based on repeated experiments. Like "I have faith that the sun will shine tomorrow. ". A claim like this can be made because i have no reason to doubt it based on everything i have experienced and what i know and can prove to be true.

The second definition of faith excludes evidence and prohibits the use of reason. It is believing in something despite the lack of convincing evidence or even in spite of it. It is funny that you should post the definition even though it shows how wrong it is to take certain things on faith alone.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Konduit

It is funny that you should post the definition even though it shows how wrong it is to take certain things on faith alone.

That was the whole point. Nobody can definitively prove or disprove the existence of God with our current understanding of the universe, so to take a side in the matter requires some sort of belief that is otherwise not supported by definitive evidence. That is why I prefer to be an Agnostic.

originally posted by: Konduit

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Konduit

It is funny that you should post the definition even though it shows how wrong it is to take certain things on faith alone.

That was the whole point. Nobody can definitively prove or disprove the existence of God with our current understanding of the universe, so to take a side in the matter requires some sort of belief that is otherwise not supported by definitive evidence. That is why I prefer to be an Agnostic.

I understand that you are an agnostic. You prob don't think there is enough information to make a valid conclusion. I think agnosticism is just a romantic posture though. One that leaves the mind open for any number of possibilities.

The entire premise of gods was invented at a point when we were developing society at its most fundamental points. Probably 100,000s years ago. They were mesmerized and in awe of nature at that point. There was no way they had the means to understand why anything happened the way it did. No weather theory, no germ theory, no math, no maps, no agriculture. Only the open night sky, the stars, the moon, and the the burning sun. It has only been the last 400-500 years that the proper methodology of science has been applied to the world around us and we can plainly see the benefits of Figuring out and applying the proper methods to get the most accurate information. That is what good science means. We can look at the early days of science because they kept records. We can see how they bumbled around for a long time. We have been forced to rewrite many theories as we have better understood the processes and how to refine our methods for reporting our observations. There was a lot of bad science that has been replaced with much better theories in our modern day.


So if we take any of these ancient texts describing events that we know are impossible by our modern standards for believability, and we really honestly put it through the wringer of scientific scrutiny, how probable is it that those ancient superstitious, goat herding, child sacrificing, stone you to death, abrahamic desert dwelling jews, got anything right when they finally got around to putting these stories down on clay and papyrus. Oh and not to mention they had to throw in that all of the other gods that came before this one weren't real. But this one is the one.

The rediculous claims that all religious texts make are enough for me to put down the concept of an omnipotent being who is super interested in my thoughts and deeds. These stories are no more meaningful than the the Illead, or Aesop's fables. There may be some moral fiber to glean from it, but it's no reason to think that a tortoise and a hare had a discussion, much less a race.


I do not relate to the term agnostic because i think there is plenty of reason to think that the gods that people worship are all made up. Not one of them stands up to the slightest scrutiny. I don't see any evidence that the claims that people make about gods are true, i guess that is the extra step that makes me an atheist, that i can openly say that i don't believe them. So why would there be a creator god?





Then i look at all of the dumb stuff people claim and heartily believe. People believe the bible is scientifically accurate even when you show them how it is not.

That goes for anything that cannot be proven to be real.

That includes a lot of things that competent scientists have been trying to prove for decades and centuries. Things like ghosts, telepathy, telekenisis, etc. these things have been thoroughly debunked.

originally posted by: Konduit
That was the whole point. Nobody can definitively prove or disprove the existence of God with our current understanding of the universe, so to take a side in the matter requires some sort of belief that is otherwise not supported by definitive evidence. That is why I prefer to be an Agnostic.

The whole issue surrounds the claim made by theists for the existence of god/s. If you accept their claims you're a theist, if you dont you're an atheist.

Atheism is the rejection of the claim made by theists, and as the rejection of a claim is not itself a claim no baseless faith is required. Such faith belongs only to the religous.

Agnostics simply do not have the balls to say that they reject this claim.

a reply to: Prezbo369

You claim that Agnostics don't have the balls to reject this claim. Perhaps as Neil Degrasse Tyson eloquently puts it, we don't want to be associated with a certain philosophy or movement and all the baggage and assertions that go along with it, considering atheism is a doctrine like any political party, religion, or group.


I wonder, is claiming to be Agnostic on that list?

originally posted by: Konduit
a reply to: Prezbo369

You claim that Agnostics don't have the balls to reject this claim.

No I said they don't have the balls to say they reject this claim....they've already rejected the claim as they're not theists.

Perhaps as Neil Degrasse Tyson eloquently puts it, we don't want to be associated with a certain philosophy or movement and all the baggage and assertions that go along with it, considering atheism is a doctrine like any political party, religion, or group.

The rejection of the claims made by theists is not a doctrine, political party, religion nor a philosophy, and it doesn't have any baggage or assertions.

If a group of people claimed to be from an alien planet and you decided you didn't believe them, is that you holding a doctrine? or belonging to a religion or political party?

Do you see how silly what you're saying is?

a reply to: Prezbo369

It is a doctrine, it is clearly a philosophy, it is clearly a defined movement. It doesn't matter how much you try to spin it to satisfy yourself, theists can just as easily convince themselves of anything as any other group. It's a textbook dictionary definition.

originally posted by: Konduit
a reply to: Prezbo369

It is a doctrine, it is clearly a philosophy, it is clearly a defined movement. It doesn't matter how much you try to spin it to satisfy yourself, theists can just as easily convince themselves of anything as any other group. It's a textbook dictionary definition.

I can tell you put a lot of work into this reply. /sarc

You need to look up the def of doctrine. Here, i'll do it for you.

doc·trine
ˈdäktrən/
noun
a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.
"the doctrine of predestination"
synonyms: creed, credo, dogma, belief, teaching, ideology; More
US
a stated principle of government policy, mainly in foreign or military affairs.
"the Monroe Doctrine"

So, how does this definition apply to atheism. We are not a group, or an organisation. There are no rules, no laws, no teachings, no books. It is not even a belief. It is a single position of disbelief of people's claims that there are deities. You say "god is real", I say "I didn't see him". You say "god is great", i say "i didn't see him". That is not a doctrine anymore than not believing in unicorns and fairies is a doctrine.

What you are doing is simply asserting your beliefs and pushing them onto a group that you clearly hold a lot of animosity towards. Perhaps if you wrote your assertions in CAPS, they would be more convincing.

a reply to: Woodcarver

List of Atheist Organizations
List of Secularist Organizations
Athiest Alliance
American Atheists

What were you saying? I can't believe such an ignorant post got starred. You speak of animosity yet who are the ones that started the personal attacks in this thread? I suppose the truth hurts.

a reply to: Konduit

The only thing those groups have in common is the lack of belief in a god/s.

Much like the only thing we can say for definite that you and I have in common is our rejection of the claims made by theists, us being atheists and all.....