NationStates Jolt Archive

Three college students burned down nine Alabama churches "as a joke". Now you would expect Christians to be forgiving and just laugh at the hilarity of their houses of worship going up in flames, but no. The kids are being charged with arson.

I guess spending a shitload of time in a federal prison is the punch line.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11726024/

Three college students burned down nine Alabama churches "as a joke". Now you would expect Christians to be forgiving and just laugh at the hilarity of their houses of worship going up in flames, but no. The kids are being charged with arson.

I guess spending a shitload of time in a federal prison is the punch line.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11726024/
I'm sorry, but are you seriously saying you think people should be let off dangerous criminal acts such as arson because 'they were only joking?'

I'm sorry, but are you seriously saying you think people should be let off dangerous criminal acts such as arson because 'they were only joking?'
This is a very funny post in lite of the thread title. :p

This is a very funny post in lite of the thread title. :p
lol, well I'm lost now. Is the thread a joke that I have just unwittingly walked in on or not? :confused:

I'm sorry, but are you seriously saying you think people should be let off dangerous criminal acts such as arson because 'they were only joking?'
No

Three college students burned down nine Alabama churches "as a joke". Now you would expect Christians to be forgiving and just laugh at the hilarity of their houses of worship going up in flames, but no. The kids are being charged with arson.
Well, as much as I support good humor, I think that around the 4th or 5th church they were just running the thing into the ground. You can only rely on the same gimmick for so long, and sticking to it for 9 consecutive times is just a bit much.
Now, I understand that when you find something that works, you don't want to disrupt the formula, but after awhile you have to throw in a little variation.
I blame Hollywood, it was their lack of originality and love of franchises that taught these kids that the same prank would still draw crowds on the 9th time. Our children need to be learn that mixing it up is a good thing.

No
ok, I'm just going to back out of the thread slowly feeling stupid for not getting the point...

"But.. but.. it was satirical play of the church burnings in Alabama during the civil rights era to protest political change!"

LMFAO. Hilarious.

This just made me feel a fair bit better about myself. As though I needed it. :X

Well, as much as I support good humor, I think that around the 4th or 5th church they were just running the thing into the ground. You can only rely on the same gimmick for so long, and sticking to it for 9 consecutive times is just a bit much.
Now, I understand that when you find something that works, you don't want to disrupt the formula, but after awhile you have to throw in a little variation.
I blame Hollywood, it was their lack of originality and love of franchises that taught these kids that the same prank would still draw crowds on the 9th time. Our children need to be learn that mixing it up is a good thing.
its so fashionable to blame hollywood

i blame the parents!

how does someone get to be 19 or 20 years old and NOT know that doing the same thing over and over again just isnt funny. after the 3rd time its only annoying

they should have learned that at the highchair when they were tossing their oatmeal on the floor over and over again.

how does someone get to be 19 or 20 years old and NOT know that doing the same thing over and over again just isnt funny. after the 3rd time its only annoying

that holds true, but only to a point. research has shown that if you keep on doing it, eventually it breaks through to funny again.

that holds true, but only to a point. research has shown that if you keep on doing it, eventually it breaks through to funny again.
only for the truly gifted comedian. the rest get beaten to death long before the funny sets back in

I have to say I'm surprised the religious lobby has not yet used this to start a moral panic about atheism.

I have to say I'm surprised the religious lobby has not yet used this to start a moral panic about atheism.
Sort of like certain somebodies rioted over a cartoon? Although to be honest, in this case the religious lobby does have cause for being angered.

I have to say I'm surprised the religious lobby has not yet used this to start a moral panic about atheism.
No more than the Athiest religious* lobby throws a fit over reading "In God we trust" on the back of currency.

*And yes athiesm is a religion.

No more than the Athiest religious* lobby throws a fit over reading "In God we trust" on the back of currency.

*And yes athiesm is a religion.

Yes, just like war is peace, and the absence of religion is a religion... oh, wait.

And why is it so hard to spell atheism and atheist?

No more than the Athiest religious* lobby throws a fit over reading "In God we trust" on the back of currency.

*And yes athiesm is a religion.

Ehh, no it's not.

Otherwise, I'll gladly take atheism over christianity.

*And yes athiesm is a religion.
Atheism is not a religion. A religion implies some kind of belief system all followers of that religion must accept. Atheism implies no such belief system; its very central (and only) tenet is the rejection of such a system.

And that reminds me:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

No more than the Athiest religious* lobby throws a fit over reading "In God we trust" on the back of currency.

*And yes athiesm is a religion.
How exactly is atheism a religion?

How exactly is atheism a religion?
its the tithing that we do to support the local atheist church and the atheist missions around the world.

A joke? :rolleyes:

I wonder how these pyros will like prison? Won't be laughing then.

That's a great quote from Fass. :)

That's a great quote from Fass. :)

http://freelink.wildlink.com/quote_history.htm

Cool, there's even a story behind it. Cheers. :)

That's a great quote from Fass. :)
Although that's only because it's true...

That's a great quote from Fass. :)
It's by Stephen Roberts.

http://freelink.wildlink.com/quote_history.htm
You beat me to it. :p

It's by Stephen Roberts.
Haha, you were beaten to it. By Fass himself no less. :P

EDIT: Damn, now I was beaten. Curses! *rains imprecations down on your head*

... Ok, I'll stop now before I get myself in "trouble". Carry on topic, chaps.

Three college students burned down nine Alabama churches "as a joke".

Omfg that's hilarious!

Your move George Carlin.

I'll give em the "joke" for the first one, but the second, third, fourth, etc etc... OLD... so for the repeated OLD jokes... prison baby...

*And yes athiesm is a religion.
Qué mierda.

Atheism is not a religion. A religion implies some kind of belief system all followers of that religion must accept. Atheism implies no such belief system; its very central (and only) tenet is the rejection of such a system.

And that reminds me:
Atheism is the belief that there is no God, Gods , or more widely the supernatural.

Religion is a set of beliefs about God, Gods, or the supernatural.

Thus Atheism is region, though most self-subscribed atheism would object to the term. And try to reject their beliefs by saying that they do not believe in the systems of belief... about God, Gods , or more widely the supernatural. :D

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." *In best Marvin the Martian voice* Your puny Atheist Dogma has no effect on us Agnostics :)
its the tithing that we do to support the local atheist church and the atheist missions around the world.
There are Atheist "churches" such as "The North Texas Church of Freethought," and other areas where Atheists congregate and discuss their belief in that lack of God, Gods, or the supernatural.
And why is it so hard to spell atheism and atheist? Why does English spelling seem follow no set of consistent rules? “'I' before 'E' except after 'C'” my foot :(

Atheism is the belief that there is no God, Gods , or more widely the supernatural.

Nope. Atheism is simply the lack of belief. Just like not believing in pixies != believing that pixies don't exist. You just simply don't believe.

Atheism is the belief that there is no God, Gods , or more widely the supernatural.

Religion is a set of beliefs about God, Gods, or the supernatural.

Thus Atheism is region, though most self-subscribed atheism would object to the term. And try to reject their beliefs by saying that they do not believe in the systems of belief... about God, Gods , or more widely the supernatural. :D

*In best Marvin the Martian voice* Your puny Atheist Dogma has no effect on us Agnostics :)

There are Atheist "churches" such as "The North Texas Church of Freethought," and other areas where Atheists congregate and discuss their belief in that lack of God, Gods, or the supernatural.
Why does English spelling seem follow no set of consistent rules? “'I' before 'E' except after 'C'” my foot :(
Atheism is not a religion.

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.


Atheism fits none of the definitions of religion. Calling atheism a religion is like calling nudism a clothing style.

Nope. Atheism is simply the lack of belief. Just like not believing in pixies != believing that pixies don't exist. You just simply don't believe.
Your argument is semantic, as ultimately atheists have to adopt a belief system (or have emperical proof) in order to deny a belief system.

MODEDIT: Oops, wrong button. Apologies. :rolleyes:

Your argument is semantic, as ultimately atheists have to adopt a belief system (or have emperical proof) in order to deny a belief system.

[That's the key phrase. Atheists have no belief system. Religion has structure, it is ordered. Atheism does not, it is anarchic. The two are not at all alike.] <- what is that doing there?

No.

I don't believe. There you go, no proof or belief system necessary.

Your argument is semantic, as ultimately atheists have to adopt a belief system (or have emperical proof) in order to deny a belief system.
That's the key phrase. Atheists have no belief system. Religion has structure, it is ordered. Atheism does not, it is anarchic. The two are not at all alike.

Your argument is semantic, as ultimately atheists have to adopt a belief system (or have emperical proof) in order to deny a belief system.
Read DC's post.

Then consider this:

A political party in Canada called the 'Natural Law Party' had a belief system that included a national defence scheme that would integrate yogic flying. I don't believe in yogic flying. My non-belief in yogic flying, which I could neither prove nor disprove as impossible, does not constitute a religion.

Tactical Grace, I believe you and Blanco Azul are the same :p

I have proof! look at my lost post!

Edit: nah, just a mod, stupid me. I deserve to smack my head on a wall: :headbang:

Your argument is semantic, as ultimately atheists have to adopt a belief system (or have emperical proof) in order to deny a belief system.
That's the key phrase. Atheists have no belief system. Religion has structure, it is ordered. Atheism does not, it is anarchic. The two are not at all alike.
So every belief system is a religion? Wouldn't that make free market capitalism a religion then? I mean they have some evidence that it works, but no empirical proof that it's the best system. Your definition of religion is too broad. It encompasses too many things and therefore becomes meaningless.

And DCD just re-quoted the proof.

I claim Puppet :D [I retract my claim - it's a mod]

I claim buttons to quote your post and edit it are next to each other. :mad:

Yeah, accidentally posted inside someone's post. First day back, hehe.

I claim buttons to quote your post and edit it are next to each other. :mad:

Yeah, accidentally posted inside someone's post. First day back, hehe.

It'd be cool to know how to post inside someone's post :p

Oh right, of course! Silly me... why didn't I notice the moderator tag?

That's the key phrase. Atheists have no belief system. Religion has structure, it is ordered. Atheism does not, it is anarchic. The two are not at all alike.
Ah... but it has been said that all Atheist reject a "supernatural" belief system, is this a belief or do you have proof to base the rejection on? The net result is the same, you have a belief about belief which ultimately is about the supernatural.

A lack of central authority is meaningess as well, as witnessed by the large number of people who describe themselves as spiritual without belonging to any religion in particular.

Atheists BELIEVE that there is no God. They take it on faith. Also, some atheists will preach on websites, trying to convert other religions to atheism, calling them stupid for not believing as they do. It sounds like a religion to me. :)

So every belief system is a religion? Wouldn't that make free market capitalism a religion then? I mean they have some evidence that it works, but no empirical proof that it's the best system. Your definition of religion is too broad. It encompasses too many things and therefore becomes meaningless.
There is a large degree of belief in economic and political systems.

But we generally call a belief or beliefs about God, Gods, or the supernatural religion.

Think of it this way, saying that "I doubt everything beyond the self and the decieving God (aka sensory feed)" would trump Athiesm and makes the whole argument void, as you would have no belief about the belief about belief.

Atheists BELIEVE that there is no God. They take it on faith. Also, some atheists will preach on websites, trying to convert other religions to atheism, calling them stupid for not believing as they do. It sounds like a religion to me. :)

Those are individuals not the definition and meaning of atheism. If you go and find a man with no concept of God (whether one exists or not I care not just listen) he is an atheist. He has done nothing to prove this and it is definately not a religion just a state of non-belief like not believing in martians that has a special name. Just because this instance of non-belief bothers people and got a certain name does not make it a religion.

Ah... but it has been said that all Atheist reject a "supernatural" belief system, is this a belief or do you have proof to base the rejection on? The net result is the same, you have a belief about belief which ultimately is about the supernatural.

A lack of central authority is meaningess as well, as witnessed by the large number of people who describe themselves as spiritual without belonging to any religion in particular.

I feel my point has already been proven above but I'll touch on this just in case. I am an atheist by your definition but I hold no belief on the subject. I did not create that word. You may not be able to contemplate that but it is no less possible as a result. I lack belief in God. I do not need to make any arguments for this position because the belief is not there. You don't need to prove absence. Those who place a strong belief in atheism are forming it into some sort of creedo, I simply don't awknowledge God. There is no belief in the non-existance of God in my mind because I simply don't awknowledge the possibility. I do not place any faith in the absence of God it is nothing more than an absence that has no effect on my life.

Your point of lack of central authority has no effect on anything.

I feel my point has already been proven above but I'll touch on this just in case. I am an atheist by your definition but I hold no belief on the subject. I did not create that word. You may not be able to contemplate that but it is no less possible as a result. I lack belief in God. I do not need to make any arguments for this position because the belief is not there. You don't need to prove absence. Those who place a strong belief in atheism are forming it into some sort of creedo, I simply don't awknowledge God. There is no belief in the non-existance of God in my mind because I simply don't awknowledge the possibility. I do not place any faith in the absence of God it is nothing more than an absence that has no effect on my life. The lack of something does not disprove either.

Our beliefs are chained greater to smaller, saying you lack the thoughts about God only ends in the belief further up the chain that begins with cogito ergo sum, at which point you can say you believe in nothing but the self.

Saying that you lack a belief in money means by progression that you lack a belief in pennies. [Edit to add: Or in effect you lack a belief in pennies.]

The lack of something does not disprove either.

Our beliefs are chained greater to smaller, saying you lack the thoughts about God only ends in the belief further up the chain that begins with cogito ergo sum, at which point you can say you believe in nothing but the self.

Saying that you lack a belief in money means by progression that you lack a belief in pennies. [Edit to add: Or in effect you lack a belief in pennies.]

Yes, I do believe in the self and I also believe in people. Humanity, but I won't get into that now. I don't see how you have in any way made the point that atheism is a religion? It is not by the definition and it is not by your arguments. If further up the chain I believe in the self or whatever what does that have to do with God. You keep assuming non-belief is something. It is not on any level unless you try to base a belief system off this non-belief which I do not do.

Yes, I do believe in the self and I also believe in people. Humanity, but I won't get into that now. I did not mean to imply that you did not, only the chain that leads to relgion. Poor choice of words on my part.

[More later.]

A neat way of sidestepping belief entirely is as follows...

The existence of god(s) is an unfalsifiable hypothesis (ie no method of proof), thus the issue has no implications for observable reality. The whole question of spirituality thus become meaningless. There is no need to believe anything, because there is no need to take the question further.

A neat way of sidestepping belief entirely is as follows...

The existence of god(s) is an unfalsifiable hypothesis (ie no method of proof), thus the issue has no implications for observable reality. The whole question of spirituality thus become meaningless. There is no need to believe anything, because there is no need to take the question further.(Since we are on a Descarte spree.) Our percieved reality is an unfalsifable hypothesis, by extention discussion on reality is meaningless.

(Since we are on a Descarte spree.) Reality is an unfalsifable hypothesis, by extention discussion on reality is meaningless.

True dat. But I don't totally agree in that reality for me exists just because I know something exists because I at least think I'm typing this. Even if you take the radical "mad scientist who controlls me" view reality does exist to me in some form. I cannot prove it to be any specific thing or even in my control and I certainly can't prove the existence of anyone else but I can prove that something exists because I exist in at least some form.

Thus we reach the point where someone asks "Anyone fancy a pint?" :D

A neat way of sidestepping belief entirely is as follows...

The existence of god(s) is an unfalsifiable hypothesis (ie no method of proof), thus the issue has no implications for observable reality. The whole question of spirituality thus become meaningless. There is no need to believe anything, because there is no need to take the question further.
(Since we are on a Descarte spree.) Our percieved reality is an unfalsifable hypothesis, by extention discussion on reality is meaningless.
Thus we reach the point where someone asks "Anyone fancy a pint?" :D

Far more debates should end this quickly and on that note. The world would be a better place with much less disagreement and strife.

*Goes for a pint*

Atheists BELIEVE that there is no God. They take it on faith.
No, we don't. There is a complete lack of evidence indicating the existence of a God, save some 2000-year-old book of fairy-tales written by escapists seeking an easy explanation for the universe. Therefore, without any proof that such a God exists, we have no reason to believe in one. This is not taking anything on faith—this is evidence, no matter how circumstantial it might appear.

*looks around and sees he is alone*

*goes for a pint*

Oy. How threads e/devolve.

*shimmers back into shadows*

As a reminder, we're supposed to be discussing the comedic value of burning churches.

Churches! HAHAHAHAHA!

Burning! HAHAHAHAHAH!

Nine! HAHAHAHA!

No, wait I don't get it. Not many things can be comidically set on fire. Amusingly*, yes, but not comdically.

Pants may be an excecption, but only in certain circumstances.

*By which I mean sit and watch it for hours.

Churches! HAHAHAHAHA!

Burning! HAHAHAHAHAH!

Nine! HAHAHAHA!

No, wait I don't get it. Not many things can be comidically set on fire. Amusingly*, yes, but not comdically.

Pants may be an excecption, but only in certain circumstances.

*By which I mean sit and watch it for hours.

Don't you hate pants?!?

Don't you hate pants?!?

No. In fact I'm wearing some now.

Nor is my name Nigel.

Incidentally, setting my pants on fire would not be amusing.

No. In fact I'm wearing some now.

Nor is my name Nigel.

Incidentally, setting my pants on fire would not be amusing.

It would be for the rest of us!

It would be for the rest of us!

*Glances around shiftily* Fortunately, I am wearing my Abestos Pants! I'm relatively certain that the health effects are outweighed by my not having my nether reigions roasted.

No. In fact I'm wearing some now.

Nor is my name Nigel.

Incidentally, setting my pants on fire would not be amusing.

Dang. I was hoping you'd catch the Simpsons reference.

Dang. I was hoping you'd catch the Simpsons reference.

Nah. I'm a British Comedy fan myself. Although I'm not really sure where the Nigel reference is from. Some song...

Hello my name is Nigel

And I don't have any pants on

I'm sitting in the garden in the shade

Something, something, and I think daddy's special plants are involved somehow.

Did someone have a pint too many? ;)