NationStates Jolt Archive

(Yes for the Australians out there I am a John Safran fan)

If you can't adequetly explain and defend the theory of evolution without resulting to religion baching you're too stupid to be an atheist.

If you believe there is no God because you're parents do you're too stupid to be an atheist.

If your only arguement is that religion makes no sense you are too stupid to be an atheist.

If you believe "there is something out there... but I don't follow religion", guess what? You're not actually an atheist... dumbass!

If you can't accept that the theory of evolution will probally be replaced by a more accurate scientific belief in the future, you're too stupid to be an atheist.

If you're angry that I think you're stupid, you're to stupid to be a liberal.

Legal Disclaimer: Rotovia does not make any claim to correct spelling, accuracy of ideas, basic cohesion or adherence to logic. If this concerns or agrivates you, take some prozac and go operate some heavy machinery.

I about crapped myself laughing when I read this. Mind if I steal it to post on my blog? :D

John Safran. Heh. They're rescreening John Safran Vs God, aren't they? Exxxcellent. That said, he annoys the shit out of me, yet he's funny....

If you're too stupid to spellcheck yourself before hitting the 'reply' button...
:rolleyes:

I about crapped myself laughing when I read this. Mind if I steal it to post on my blog? :D
As long as you list it as a quote, go for gold! Chuck me the link to, I love to spy on a good/decent/meh blog.

Love John Safran. A new series would be very interesting.

(Yes for the Australians out there I am a John Safran fan)

If you can't adequetly explain and defend the theory of evolution without resulting to religion baching you're too stupid to be an atheist.

If you believe there is no God because you're parents do you're too stupid to be an atheist.

If your only arguement is that religion makes no sense you are too stupid to be an atheist.

If you believe "there is something out there... but I don't follow religion", guess what? You're not actually an atheist... dumbass!

If you can't accept that the theory of evolution will probally be replaced by a more accurate scientific belief in the future, you're too stupid to be an atheist.

If you're angry that I think you're stupid, you're to stupid to be a liberal.

Thank God I'm an Athiest. I am also not superstious(knock-wood).

Unfortunately, you have made the following errors in your post:

adequetly
you're parents (should be your)
arguement
probally

Because of these errors, I deem thee too stupid to flamebait Atheists. Amen.

(Yes for the Australians out there I am a John Safran fan)

If you can't adequetly explain and defend the theory of evolution without resulting to religion baching you're too stupid to be an atheist.

If you believe there is no God because you're parents do you're too stupid to be an atheist.

If your only arguement is that religion makes no sense you are too stupid to be an atheist.

If you believe "there is something out there... but I don't follow religion", guess what? You're not actually an atheist... dumbass!

If you can't accept that the theory of evolution will probally be replaced by a more accurate scientific belief in the future, you're too stupid to be an atheist.

If you're angry that I think you're stupid, you're to stupid to be a liberal.

Legal Disclaimer: Rotovia does not make any claim to correct spelling, accuracy of ideas, basic cohesion or adherence to logic. If this concerns or agrivates you, take some prozac and go operate some heavy machinery.


Yeah, I know, that is why I am a Satanist. Stupidity is not accepted.

;)

And for the record.....Prozac is evil....

As long as you list it as a quote, go for gold! Chuck me the link to, I love to spy on a good/decent/meh blog.
I'll drop you a link in a few...although, I warn you, my blog tends to piss just about everyone off...moreso if they tend to lean somewhat to the 'Left'...but I'm not above bashing my own party if they're being idiots, too. ;)

Yeah, I know, that is why I am a Satanist. Stupidity is not accepted.

;)

And for the record.....Prozac is evil....
Since you're a Satanist...you should be all for Prozac. ;)

/me runs

Since you're a Satanist...you should be all for Prozac. ;)

/me runs

Prozac is too over-rated! Let's put everyone on Clozaril instead!

Chuck me the link to, I love to spy on a good/decent/meh blog.
Done: http://armageddonproject.com/?p=224 :)

Thank God I'm an Athiest. I am also not superstious(knock-wood).

Unfortunately, you have made the following errors in your post:

adequetly
you're parents (should be your)
arguement
probally

Because of these errors, I deem thee too stupid to flamebait Atheists. Amen.
Since you're too stupid to read a disclaimer I deem you too stupid to envoke a right-of-reply. Amen.

Prozac is too over-rated! Let's put everyone on Clozaril instead!
I was on Paxil for a year...long enough to totally jade me towards the corporate medical establishment and FDA.

Three words: no... thank... you. :)

Since you're too stupid to read a disclaimer I deem you too stupid to envoke a right-of-reply. Amen.

You posted your disclaimer after they did. Hate to inform you of that.

;)

I was on Paxil for a year...long enough to totally jade me towards the corporate medical establishment and FDA.

Three words: no... thank... you. :)

In all actually, I agree. I watched people go through hell on anti-depressents to know well enough to not screw with them. I was actually told I should go on them; down right refused.

I'm nearly an atheist. Yay!

You posted your disclaimer after they did. Hate to inform you of that.

;)
Covered in the disclaimer, I am not bound to your mortal rules of logic. ;) ... :fluffle:

Thank God I'm an Athiest. I am also not superstious(knock-wood).

Unfortunately, you have made the following errors in your post:

adequetly
you're parents (should be your)
arguement
probally

Because of these errors, I deem thee too stupid to flamebait Atheists. Amen.

Take your own advice, pal. You missed one:

[I]If you can't adequetly explain and defend the theory of evolution without resulting to religion baching you're too stupid to be an atheist.[I]

Bashing.

So there.

Covered in the disclaimer, I am not bound to your mortal rules of logic. ;) ... :fluffle:

Ah, but ye should! MY IRON FIST WILL CRUSH YOU ALL!

*twirls lock of hair*

Take your own advice, pal. You missed one:

[I]If you can't adequetly explain and defend the theory of evolution without resulting to religion baching you're too stupid to be an atheist.[I]

Bashing.

So there.

No, he means without ending up playing the St. Matthew Passion, Mass in B minor. (if you're intensly curious you can google it, but it's really not a joke worth retrieving if you don't already know.)

If you can't adequetly explain and defend the theory of evolution without resulting to religion baching you're too stupid to be an atheist.

Fair enough.

If you believe there is no God because you're parents do you're too stupid to be an atheist.

Proportionally, more theists hold the beliefs they do because their parents did than atheists.

If your only arguement is that religion makes no sense you are too stupid to be an atheist.

Although it's not my only argument, Christianity (as opposed to religion in general) is internally inconsistent.

If you believe "there is something out there... but I don't follow religion", guess what? You're not actually an atheist... dumbass!

Fair enough

If you can't accept that the theory of evolution will probally be replaced by a more accurate scientific belief in the future, you're too stupid to be an atheist.

Such is the nature of science- it becomes more accurate over time. However, it's just as possible that that could mean refinements of evolutionary theory rather than its complete replacement.

If you're angry that I think you're stupid, you're to stupid to be a liberal.

In the event that you think I'm stupid, I really don't care that much, given that you're a random person on the internet who apparently can't spell. :p

Rotovia, I LOVED it!

Phaestos, chill out dude. You took that way too personally. Here's a fluffle. :fluffle:

But...that doesn't make sense...

If you are stupid, aren't you an athiest by definition? ;)

But...that doesn't make sense...

If you are stupid, aren't you an athiest by definition? ;)
*snicker*




*guffaw*




*roflmgdmfao* :D

No, he means without ending up playing the St. Matthew Passion, Mass in B minor. (if you're intensly curious you can google it, but it's really not a joke worth retrieving if you don't already know.)


Okay, but still, he should've capitalized the B.

So there. :p

Ahh, I almost want to kiss Rotovia. But I won't. I DO, however, get to invoke the pure joy of the Agnostic, however, which is to point out that about 80% of the people arguing EITHER side of the issue are pretty much idiots. Maybe 1 out of 5 can intelligently state their position and defend it.

It goes without saying that I LOVE that 1 out of 5. :D


If you can't adequetly explain and defend the theory of evolution without resulting to religion baching you're too stupid to be an atheist.

Just a note to the haters - attacking someone's argument based solely on their spelling, when said argument is being typed up quickly on the Interweb, is both childish and demostrates a lack of strength in your position. It would be like watching a presidental debate wherein one candidate has a logical and interesting position, and all the other says or does is try to correct grammar errors.

HAD the initial post had a comment about how Atheists can never spell when they post, therefore, they suck, you'd most certainly have a case against it then.

But in general, style-over-substance, while popular in the West, does not an argument win. Unless your audience are idiots as well... (see also, American Elections, 1950-Present)


Proportionally, more theists hold the beliefs they do because their parents did than atheists.

I'd call you on this, if only because most pure Atheists I know got there PRECISELY because of their parents. The problem with this argument is that most people misread it, and assume it's saying Atheist Parent = Atheist Child. The REVERSE is mostly true - any number of devout religious people produce Atheist children, because the kids are rebelling. The fact that Western society has more or less made it "uncool" to be religious doesn't help the issue, though.

Again, those of you who came to your Atheism out of deep introspective soul-searching, and an understanding of multiple religions, this does NOT apply to you.


Although it's not my only argument, Christianity (as opposed to religion in general) is internally inconsistent.

One could easily say the problem isn't in the religion, but in the flawed meatsacks that interpret it. Unfortunately, that argument also applies to Atheism.

Though, as a direct response, I've seen Atheists defend their position with the zeal of your worst Fundamentalist Christian, using specious arguments and references to scientific studies they don't even really understand to defend their point.


Such is the nature of science- it becomes more accurate over time. However, it's just as possible that that could mean refinements of evolutionary theory rather than its complete replacement.

Religion refines itself over time as well, however - the sheer fact of the matter is, a great deal of what a 1st century Catholic believed would be incompatable with what a Catholic today believes (and we won't even mention the Protestants).

The problem is, and what the initial post was responding to (I believe) is the sort of Atheist who acts like Evolution is STONE COLD FACT, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (which it hasn't been), which was true forever (we have no proof of this), and which will hold true forever (which may prove false). These are the sort I like to call the Fundamentalist Atheists - the ones who seem to have quite clearly replaced "religion" with "science", and who seem to understand just about as much science as most Fundies understand religion.

The other point to make is that humans have had about 200 years of studying species with an eye towards evolution, max. Yet we arrogantly assume we know everything about it, and hypothesize that everything evolves, and life had to start from single-cells. This is all conjecture and theory, however - I could just as easily say that God created life and made it capable of evolving in the same way he made humans capable of free-will - and it would be about as valid a hypothesis from evidence we have as much of what is considered scientific "fact" today.

Ockham's Razor would argue against this - but Ockham's Razor is also a logical device created by humans, which isn't 100% accurate anyway.

Something to consider - for decades science assumed there was a brontosaurus, to the point where nearly everyone has heard the name. Guess what? No such dinosaur. It was basically a mistake of science which was eventually corrected - but which the general population doesn't know. So no, it's not impossible that someone arguing from the "scientific" perspective has their actual facts totally wrong (or just partially wrong), but will never accept evidence of the same. THESE are the Fundamentalist Atheists.

And, in essence, I most certainly consider Fundamentalist Atheists to be "too stupid" to be Atheists - they're not open-minded enough.

And no, this is NOT the beginning of an Agnostic Recruitment Program. Though, if you're interested in the idea... ;)

Just a note to the haters - attacking someone's argument based solely on their spelling, when said argument is being typed up quickly on the Interweb, is both childish and demostrates a lack of strength in your position. It would be like watching a presidental debate wherein one candidate has a logical and interesting position, and all the other says or does is try to correct grammar errors.
One word: nukyuler.

*hehe*

A) It goes without saying that I LOVE that 1 out of 5. :D

B) One could easily say the problem isn't in the religion, but in the flawed meatsacks that interpret it. Unfortunately, that argument also applies to Atheism.

Though, as a direct response, I've seen Atheists defend their position with the zeal of your worst Fundamentalist Christian, using specious arguments and references to scientific studies they don't even really understand to defend their point.

The problem is, and what the initial post was responding to (I believe) is the sort of Atheist who acts like Evolution is STONE COLD FACT, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (which it hasn't been), which was true forever (we have no proof of this), and which will hold true forever (which may prove false). These are the sort I like to call the Fundamentalist Atheists - the ones who seem to have quite clearly replaced "religion" with "science", and who seem to understand just about as much science as most Fundies understand religion.


A) As do I.

B) It boils down to this: a zealot, even one you agree with, is still a zealot, and still dangerous.

Just for the record, I am, in fact, Satan. I'd like to make this statement: all 'Satanists' are stupid. You really think that drawing pentagrams with your blood and sacrificing chickens is going to make me pleased with you? It just pisses me off! Mystic chanting and creepy-looking candles in no way increase my power and I wouldn't possess you if my immortal life depended on it. I hate you all!

One word: nukyuler.

*hehe*

I was thinking of that while typing. :)

BUT, I know someone with a PhD who consistantly mispronounces the word "gist". Now, I may be able to correct him when he says it wrong, but does that mean I know more about internal medicine than he does?

Of course, if I'm talking to someone in person and they sound like Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel, I might question the intelligence of their arguments... ("They took our Jorbs!") ...but I generally like to reserve my responses to Internet discussion to actually address the topic at hand, not to correct what could easily have been one finger slip on a keyboard by someone who most certainly knows what they're talking about.

Smartest girl I know? Typoes like a FIEND. Averages something like one out of ten letters is a typo. Because she thinks faster than she can type...

Smartest girl I know? Typoes like a FIEND. Averages something like one out of ten letters is a typo. Because she thinks faster than she can type...
That's why you have a spell checker and Google. I type roughly 80wpm and think far faster than I type... but I also go back and check my spelling/grammar before I hit "submit". Any word I'm not sure how to spell (and I'm the Spelling Nazi), I Google.

With all of the technology at our fingertips, there's absolutely no excuse for putting up posts with tons of spelling errors.

--snipalicious--
Of course, if I'm talking to someone in person and they sound like Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel, I might question the intelligence of their arguments... ("They took our Jorbs!")...
--snipsational--


MASSIVE kudos for using both a Simpsons AND a South Park reference in the same paragraph.

Since you're too stupid to read a disclaimer I deem you too stupid to envoke a right-of-reply. Amen.

You put that disclaimer in AFTER I posted that. But you failed to notice that I actually made a spelling error(superstious) in the sentence previous to my pointing out your spelling errors. I have been hoisted on my own perfectionist twat petard! Since we are both retards, this dispute can now only be settled by a trial of equals in a special-ed cage match. Let us don our drool cups and have at it!

Thun-der-dome! Thun-der-dome!

:d

You put that disclaimer in AFTER I posted that. But you failed to notice that I actually made a spelling error(superstious) in the sentence previous to my pointing out your spelling errors. I have been hoisted on my own perfectionist twat petard! Since we are both retards, this dispute can now only be settled by a trial of equals in a special-ed cage match. Let us don our drool cups and have at it!
Salami sticks or fold out light sabers?

God I love Safran! I saw him try to join the Ku Klux Klan again last night! He's so adorable! Here, have a clicky:
http://father-bob.blogspot.com/

Thun-der-dome! Thun-der-dome!

Two posters enter! One poster leaves!

Got to admit, flame wars would be a lot more interesting if the end result was two people fighting to the death to see which one is right. :)


That's why you have a spell checker and Google. I type roughly 80wpm and think far faster than I type... but I also go back and check my spelling/grammar before I hit "submit".

Yeah, but your tripling the amount of work necissary too post. Its ONE thing if the spell-check function is built directly into the forem, butt alot of forums don't have anything like that... so your typing you're entire post in a word-processing program, spell-checking, than C&Ping it back. Not to mention if your Googling for words, then yore taking even longer...

That much effort is justified if you're writing a paper on the subject, but it's a little excessive for forum posting (and may, in fact, show evidence of minor OCD). Not that I'm one to talk, because I tend to be obsessive about that sort of thing myself. I just don't feel it necessary to hold other people to that high a standard.

Besides, spell-check misses all the there/their/they're sorts of errors anyway. Not to mention the its/it's and your/you're errors...

It'd be like having a casual conversation, and concetrating to make sure you don't use contractions or slang, because you want perfect grammar.


Any word I'm not sure how to spell (and I'm the Spelling Nazi), I Google.

Dictionary.com or similar sites also work well for catching spelling errors, but I wouldn't go THAT far for spell-checking purposes unless I was working on a web page that I want to look professional. That's what I do when working on my NSWiki pages.

well, i guess i'm not a stupid atheist then. or too stupid to be an atheist. or even an atheist at all, heheh. i'm a nihilistic theravada bhuddist, woohoo!


If you're angry that I think you're stupid, you're to stupid to be a liberal.

but liberals are stupid. same as libertarians and conservatives. I WIN!

You're all too stupid to be atheists
Seen better flamebaits. Boooring.

If you're religous, you're stupid/indoctrinated/ignorant.
If you're an athiest, you're stupid/biased/blind.

But its a sweet life for us agnostics....Ahhh... :D

If you believe "there is something out there... but I don't follow religion", guess what? You're not actually an atheist... dumbass!


Atheism doesn't nessecarily have to be non-belief in anything. A lot of atheists believe in a deity of some sort, but they are still atheists because atheism can simply be anti-religious organisations.

I'm nearly an atheist. Yay!

Agnostic? lol

(Yes for the Australians out there I am a John Safran fan)

If you can't adequetly explain and defend the theory of evolution without resulting to religion baching you're too stupid to be an atheist.

If you believe there is no God because you're parents do you're too stupid to be an atheist.

If your only arguement is that religion makes no sense you are too stupid to be an atheist.

If you believe "there is something out there... but I don't follow religion", guess what? You're not actually an atheist... dumbass!

If you can't accept that the theory of evolution will probally be replaced by a more accurate scientific belief in the future, you're too stupid to be an atheist.

If you're angry that I think you're stupid, you're to stupid to be a liberal.
Wait wait wait.....what about the "atheists" who don't rightly know the difference between an atheist and an ANTItheist? Because when you get down to the bare technicalities.....oh yes, there's a difference.

I can't really say that any of this applies to me, being of the Cat-lick (say it out loud if you just don't get it) persuasion ;)

Hey. That's not very nice

It's threads like this that make me reconsider agnosticism. Even considering the possibility of something believed in by those who post these threads being true goes against the grain.

Hey. That's not very nice
Wait......what's not very nice?

Because if that was about my comment, I didn't mean to offend.....hard to tell because you didn't quote......

Simonist']Wait......what's not very nice?

Because if that was about my comment, I didn't mean to offend.....hard to tell because you didn't quote......
lol. Sorry. I was referring to the original post

AHHHHHHHHHHH, THIS POST MAKES ME SOOOOOOOOO MADDDDDDDDDD AT YOU. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, MY BLOOD PRESSURE IS RISING I'M SO MAD AT THIS POST. IT MAKES ME SO MAD IT MAKES ME WANT TO DRESS UP LIKE A NINJA AND SET OFF FIRE CRACKERS :mp5:

Just kidding, go smoke a dube and relax.

(Yes for the Australians out there I am a John Safran fan)

If you can't adequetly explain and defend the theory of evolution without resulting to religion baching you're too stupid to be an atheist.

If you believe there is no God because you're parents do you're too stupid to be an atheist.

If your only arguement is that religion makes no sense you are too stupid to be an atheist.

If you believe "there is something out there... but I don't follow religion", guess what? You're not actually an atheist... dumbass!

If you can't accept that the theory of evolution will probally be replaced by a more accurate scientific belief in the future, you're too stupid to be an atheist.

If you're angry that I think you're stupid, you're to stupid to be a liberal.

Legal Disclaimer: Rotovia does not make any claim to correct spelling, accuracy of ideas, basic cohesion or adherence to logic. If this concerns or agrivates you, take some prozac and go operate some heavy machinery.
I don't even know what an atheist is. In my opinion, we're all Christian. Because what's an atheist, except a 'potential' Christian?

AHHHHHHHHHHH, THIS POST MAKES ME SOOOOOOOOO MADDDDDDDDDD AT YOU. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, MY BLOOD PRESSURE IS RISING I'M SO MAD AT THIS POST. IT MAKES ME SO MAD IT MAKES ME WANT TO DRESS UP LIKE A NINJA AND SET OFF FIRE CRACKERS :mp5:

Just kidding, go smoke a dube and relax.
Hate to make this public, but that's half the reason I was confused ;)