Questions for Atheists

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



occultdestroyer
This thread's main purpose is to ask questions to atheists and see what answers they can provide, if it is logical or not.

I want to know more about Atheistic beliefs.


Let me ask the first question.


If there is no Divine Intervention involved in the procreation of life, can man create life out of basic organic matter?

Some athests who adhere to evolution say we came from single-celled organisms. Is it possible to mutate these single-celled organisms into fully bred human beings through artificial means?

I'm not talking about cloning or artificial insemination. I'm asking if it is possible to make a human being from separate cells without a human host.

SnakeEyes
These sound like questions for scientists, not atheists.

Darth Macabre
So you want people to take hundreds of millions of years of evolution, throw it out of the window, and create a human being in the span of a year or so (you gave no time span, I know, but just for argument's sake)? Is that what you're asking?

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
These sound like questions for scientists, not atheists. Yes, they do.

inimalist
Originally posted by occultdestroyer
I'm not talking about cloning or artificial insemination. I'm asking if it is possible to make a human being from separate cells without a human host.

no

I can't imagine the relevance of this, however

EDIT: I mean, 1) evolution has nothing to do with atheism and 2) evolutionary theory does not predict we should be able to build humans from single cullular organisms. Your question is not about either evolution or atheism...

Bicnarok

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by occultdestroyer
If there is no Divine Intervention involved in the procreation of life, can man create life out of basic organic matter?

Yes and there's no reason we can't do it without organic matter either.

Originally posted by occultdestroyer
Some athests who adhere to evolution say we came from single-celled organisms. Is it possible to mutate these single-celled organisms into fully bred human beings through artificial means?

I'm not talking about cloning or artificial insemination. I'm asking if it is possible to make a human being from separate cells without a human host.

You could do it with magic or something from Star Trek. More to the point, why would anyone want to and what could they possibly gain?

Bardock42
Originally posted by occultdestroyer
This thread's main purpose is to ask questions to atheists and see what answers they can provide, if it is logical or not.

I want to know more about Atheistic beliefs.


Let me ask the first question.


If there is no Divine Intervention involved in the procreation of life, can man create life out of basic organic matter?

Potentially, probably yes.

Originally posted by occultdestroyer
Some athests who adhere to evolution say we came from single-celled organisms. Is it possible to mutate these single-celled organisms into fully bred human beings through artificial means?

Again, potentially, yes. But it is a process that takes a billion years and is certainly not easy to replicate.

Originally posted by occultdestroyer
I'm not talking about cloning or artificial insemination. I'm asking if it is possible to make a human being from separate cells without a human host.

Once science has discovered magic, sure no expression

Red Nemesis
"Adhere" to evolution?

What?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
"Adhere" to evolution?

What?

Support.

Alternately "to stick to", though I doubt he expect people to be physically attached to an idea.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by occultdestroyer
I want to know more about Atheistic beliefs.

Strictly speaking there is only one atheist belief. Everything else is personal.

Red Nemesis
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Support.

Alternately "to stick to", though I doubt he expect people to be physically attached to an idea.

I'm aware of the meaning of the word 'adhere' I was questioning its usage in this context; acknowledging the theory of evolution as fact does not mean that one 'adheres' to it. Here the word 'adhere' has subjective, spiritual connotations that do not fit with scientific fact.

inimalist
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I'm aware of the meaning of the word 'adhere' I was questioning its usage in this context; acknowledging the theory of evolution as fact does not mean that one 'adheres' to it. Here the word 'adhere' has subjective, spiritual connotations that do not fit with scientific fact.

I don't know

I'd say it is reasonable to say there might be atheists who "adhere" to evolution. These are likely the same ones who ask you to look things up in Dawkin's work and who have totally given their consciousness over to someone else's thoughts.

There is a nearly "cult" (used in the sociological way, meaning new religious movement) of atheism at the moment, with people following the words of a select few intellectuals. It is absurdly ironic, especially to me, as part of being an atheist for myself was the rejection of such thought control.

Red Nemesis
That's silly though. Is it that they did not look at the evidence and so just put their faith in a different kind of prophet (or leader or guide or what have you)? It seems to defeat the purpose of rejecting a supernatural power if one is simply going to replace it with a mortal version.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
That's silly though. Is it that they did not look at the evidence and so just put their faith in a different kind of prophet (or leader or guide or what have you)? It seems to defeat the purpose of rejecting a supernatural power if one is simply going to replace it with a mortal version.

People are stupid. I've been saying it for years.

Atheism is not any sort of salvation from "thought control." Rationalism is.

inimalist
agreed, but you can see it even in some of the discussions on this board.

Frequently, "atheists" will come here, make the "God is dead" "God is a delusion" etc. quip, then when pressed, will say stuff like, "oh, I don't get it, but look up this by Dawkins or Hitchens".

I think it exposes the fact that many people don't really understand their own faith well enough to defend it against a logical attack, so they either react negatively toward Dawkins, or they accept his words as truth. Sam Harris actually does a talk (I've posted it a bunch of times, I'll pm it if you want) where the woman introducing him is like "I read his book, started marking passages, memorizing them, getting my friends to read it". At the end of the talk (it was about why atheists shouldn't identify themselves as such) there are even people saying things like "but I need to identify myself with something". its so weird imho.

inimalist
whatever, posting them again:

Ok2oJgsGR6c
LsrtOZdJitA

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
Frequently, "atheists" will come here, make the "God is dead" "God is a delusion" etc. quip, then when pressed, will say stuff like, "oh, I don't get it, but look up this by Dawkins or Hitchens".

Then again (from a theistic perspective) they would be atheists. It's interesting actually, just about everyone has a version of "god" (deity, philosophy, economic model, emotion) that they follow. I've always wondered why that would be, there doesn't seem to be much of a benefit from it except perhaps as a way of focusing one's self.

Originally posted by inimalist
I think it exposes the fact that many people don't really understand their own faith well enough to defend it against a logical attack, so they either react negatively toward Dawkins, or they accept his words as truth.

Seems more like intellectual laziness. People can have a very good understanding of their beliefs/morals but not feel the need to defend them in the first place. I assume negative reactions are more of a "it's none of your business" knee-jerk.

Originally posted by inimalist
Sam Harris actually does a talk (I've posted it a bunch of times, I'll pm it if you want) where the woman introducing him is like "I read his book, started marking passages, memorizing them, getting my friends to read it". At the end of the talk (it was about why atheists shouldn't identify themselves as such) there are even people saying things like "but I need to identify myself with something". its so weird imho.

She sounds like a born again Christian laughing out loud

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
whatever, posting them again:

Ok2oJgsGR6c
LsrtOZdJitA

That's scary. Not only is she talking in buzzwords but she could be the posterchild(woman whatever) for how not to pick beliefs. She read four books and changed her mind four times? Oh, yes clearly she's an atheist.

That would seem to be exactly the kind of thinking that Dawkins and Co would want to dissuade people from (and if it's not they've gone completely "wrestle with monsters" on the issue).

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then again (from a theistic perspective) they would be atheists. It's interesting actually, just about everyone has a version of "god" (deity, philosophy, economic model, emotion) that they follow. I've always wondered why that would be, there doesn't seem to be much of a benefit from it except perhaps as a way of focusing one's self.

I could hum a couple of bars about neurological pathways and how narratives of events are built before we think about them, but ya, it is weird.

We are all guilty of it, but how do you stop viewing the world through your own personal experiences?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Seems more like intellectual laziness. People can have a very good understanding of their beliefs/morals but not feel the need to defend them in the first place. I assume negative reactions are more of a "it's none of your business" knee-jerk.

I'm not saying that they need to defend them, but, almost like what that evangelical article Robtard posted, about the tenets of the faith not being as important as the egotistic feeling of being religious.

I'm saying that anyone who is convinced by reading something probably doesn't have a solid ground for their beliefs in the first place.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
She sounds like a born again Christian laughing out loud

I know. good thing I'm not an atheist shifty

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's scary. Not only is she talking in buzzwords but she could be the posterchild(woman whatever) for how not to pick beliefs. She read four books and changed her mind four times? Oh, yes clearly she's an atheist.

I couldn't believe it when I saw it the first time. Its extra ironic considering Harris' talk, but damn, I wanted to slap her

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That would seem to be exactly the kind of thinking that Dawkins and Co would want to dissuade people from (and if it's not they've gone completely "wrestle with monsters" on the issue).

sometimes, from the rhetoric they use, I wonder.

Given some of the things Harris, Dawkins etc have said, especially their stance against moderate religion, which to me is a stance against individual freedom, I have to wonder if they wouldn't prefer a world where everyone was indoctrinated atheist rather than free to choose a religion.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
I could hum a couple of bars about neurological pathways and how narratives of events are built before we think about them, but ya, it is weird.

We are all guilty of it, but how do you stop viewing the world through your own personal experiences?

I guess the short answer to that question is "you don't" with the long answer being "you try to empathize and bring other perspectives into your own."

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not saying that they need to defend them, but, almost like what that evangelical article Robtard posted, about the tenets of the faith not being as important as the egotistic feeling of being religious.

I'm saying that anyone who is convinced by reading something probably doesn't have a solid ground for their beliefs in the first place.

Yes, probably. Beliefs should ideally be something that you develop as you learn new things about the world rather than something that is dictated to you. Although, I don't doubt that still happens, besides cosmetic changes that people make when they convert the principles they stand on tend to remain broadly similar. Hence the old point that atheists don't flip put and go on killings sprees due to their beliefs changing.

Originally posted by inimalist
sometimes, from the rhetoric they use, I wonder.

Given some of the things Harris, Dawkins etc have said, especially their stance against moderate religion, which to me is a stance against individual freedom, I have to wonder if they wouldn't prefer a world where everyone was indoctrinated atheist rather than free to choose a religion.

Hopefully they're assuming that people will think critically and assume that critical thinking inherently leads to atheism (which is a different discussion altogether).


I was listening to Harris' speech and he makes an interesting point about how an "atheist" world would be one where the idea of atheism is non-existent. Which made me thing about a story I'm working on which (among other things) contains physically present deities that have always been around.

Besides setting up parts of the story I also eventually figured out that their existence would result in a totally atheist (from our perspective) society. Not out of incompetence, I'm trying to avoid that particular cliche, but by fundamentally altering the meaning of the word "god" so that atheism does not exist outside of thought experiments.

The presence of something that people can point to and say "that's a god" totally erases religious debate and effectively religion by forcing it entirely into philosophical terms (or, for the kids, "my favorite god could totally beat up yours!"wink.

Heh, now I get why you write so much.

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I guess the short answer to that question is "you don't" with the long answer being "you try to empathize and bring other perspectives into your own."

only that your perspective on what other perspectives are is built by experiences with your current perspective, etc.

smile

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes, probably. Beliefs should ideally be something that you develop as you learn new things about the world rather than something that is dictated to you. Although, I don't doubt that still happens, besides cosmetic changes that people make when they convert the principles they stand on tend to remain broadly similar. Hence the old point that atheists don't flip put and go on killings sprees due to their beliefs changing.

oh, totally. I'm not trying to claim that people undergo huge shifts at conversion, or even why people convert in the first place.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Hopefully they're assuming that people will think critically and assume that critical thinking inherently leads to atheism (which is a different discussion altogether).

totally, and it is an important one imho. Regardless of what I believe, I can't deny that someone else could look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion. I feel a lot of people on both sides of the vocal "god" debate could learn this, though anyone I normally talk to about it, present company included, seem to have way more nuanced and tolerant views, even compared to the dreaded 4 horsemen of atheism.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I was listening to Harris' speech

sick!

I gave it another listen as well. So good. I wish I had been in the audience to ask him stuff...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
and he makes an interesting point about how an "atheist" world would be one where the idea of atheism is non-existent. Which made me thing about a story I'm working on which (among other things) contains physically present deities that have always been around.

Besides setting up parts of the story I also eventually figured out that their existence would result in a totally atheist (from our perspective) society. Not out of incompetence, I'm trying to avoid that particular cliche, but by fundamentally altering the meaning of the word "god" so that atheism does not exist outside of thought experiments.

The presence of something that people can point to and say "that's a god" totally erases religious debate and effectively religion by forcing it entirely into philosophical terms (or, for the kids, "my favorite god could totally beat up yours!"wink.

interesting idea. I was first reminded of like the Greek Pantheon and such, but I get why that isn't the right interpretation.

do people in this world have access to the wills of their god? are these "one god" type gods, or more pantheistic?

lol, I get this stuff can be personal, but I'd love to give it a read if you get anything solid.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Heh, now I get why you write so much.

I've even been trying to cut back sad

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
totally, and it is an important one imho. Regardless of what I believe, I can't deny that someone else could look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion. I feel a lot of people on both sides of the vocal "god" debate could learn this, though anyone I normally talk to about it, present company included, seem to have way more nuanced and tolerant views, even compared to the dreaded 4 horsemen of atheism.

In some ways they're justified in taking extreme stances. Making the world "us" and "them" is unifying in the short term and makes their beliefs easier to defend (no one can target them with "well if this aspect of religion is okay then . . ." arguments). It's something of a slippery slope on either side.

Originally posted by inimalist
interesting idea. I was first reminded of like the Greek Pantheon and such, but I get why that isn't the right interpretation.

do people in this world have access to the wills of their god? are these "one god" type gods, or more pantheistic?

lol, I get this stuff can be personal, but I'd love to give it a read if you get anything solid.

The only access to the will of the gods is if they bother to tell people something. Then again they're hardly above lying to get what they want and no one has to pay attention, even if it's probably a good idea.

The individual gods are representations of singular or various concepts and are only differentiated from humans and such by their ability to draw power from that (ie if you light a fire the God of Fire becomes objectively and measurably more powerful). So I suppose they're a very loose pantheon.

Originally posted by inimalist
I've even been trying to cut back sad

I'm trying to cut back on using "of course" and "though" when I write responses. smile

Digi
Originally posted by inimalist
EDIT: I mean, 1) evolution has nothing to do with atheism and 2) evolutionary theory does not predict we should be able to build humans from single cullular organisms. Your question is not about either evolution or atheism...

co-signed. What a stereotyped thread.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Atheism is not any sort of salvation from "thought control." Rationalism is.

Also co-signed. Aside from unfortunate cases like those mentioned by inamilist earlier, the fact that certain people are atheists is usually just a by-product of the fact that they are free thinkers.

...

I want to hear this Greek Pantheon discussion too, but I don't have time atm. Will be back, probably with comments.

Digi
lol, in, who are the 4 horsemen of atheism? Dawkins is clearly one of them. But I'm curious about the rest. Chris Hitchens (sic?) is the only other name that pops to mind.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then again (from a theistic perspective) they would be atheists. It's interesting actually, just about everyone has a version of "god" (deity, philosophy, economic model, emotion) that they follow. I've always wondered why that would be, there doesn't seem to be much of a benefit from it except perhaps as a way of focusing one's self.

Interesting observation. I'm not sure I agree. The desire to marginalize religious beliefs (and, indeed, humans in general) by assigning labels is a functional one. It allows us to gain a certain amount of knowledge without needing to go terribly in-depth. I need a brief label for my religious beliefs, for example, since I rarely get the chance to talk at length with people about the nuances of my opinions.

But I honestly think that the people who "need" to associate themselves with something are in a minority. The attraction to groups (religious or otherwise) is strong, but that's a social thing, not an intrinsic desire to label oneself.

But so long as you include "deity, philosophy, economic model, emotion, etc. etc." in a definition of "god" then I suppose you can't be entirely wrong. But it's rarely one thing. We might only see the "economic model" god of a person, for example, but I guarantee that a closer inspection of that person will reveal several strong interests, or "gods." But once you start diversifying like that, they cease to become gods imo. If a person has several strong interests, one must stretch the definition of "god" so far that it ceases to have meaning...at that point it would simply be deforming the definition to attempt to make a point.

So yeah, some people need a religious label for themselves. They're also the same people who exist on the fringes of mainstream religion, yet receive an inordinate amount of attention simply because they deviate from the norm.

Digi
Though as a slightly apologetic bone thrown Sym's way, he does have a point with some, but only with those who become so fixated on a single aspect of their life that it becomes dominant over all others. A "god" as it were. Nietchze's "state is the new idol" could be a pertinent quote to back such thinking, though I'll just refer to it instead of actually working it into the point. It would also have to be taken as metaphor for any idol, but the point would remain.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Digi
lol, in, who are the 4 horsemen of atheism? Dawkins is clearly one of them. But I'm curious about the rest. Chris Hitchens (sic?) is the only other name that pops to mind.

Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris. Gotta keep track of them. I wonder who the two fire breathing guys in burlap sacks (seriously) of the Apocalypse will be hmm

Originally posted by Digi
Interesting observation. I'm not sure I agree. The desire to marginalize religious beliefs (and, indeed, humans in general) by assigning labels is a functional one. It allows us to gain a certain amount of knowledge without needing to go terribly in-depth. I need a brief label for my religious beliefs, for example, since I rarely get the chance to talk at length with people about the nuances of my opinions.

I think we agree actually. In fact I can't really understand people that feel one should eschew labels in day to day life, it would make communication almost impossible.

Originally posted by Digi
But I honestly think that the people who "need" to associate themselves with something are in a minority. The attraction to groups (religious or otherwise) is strong, but that's a social thing, not an intrinsic desire to label oneself.

Isn't the desire to socialize intrinsic in the first place?

Originally posted by Digi
But so long as you include "deity, philosophy, economic model, emotion, etc. etc." in a definition of "god" then I suppose you can't be entirely wrong. But it's rarely one thing. We might only see the "economic model" god of a person, for example, but I guarantee that a closer inspection of that person will reveal several strong interests, or "gods." But once you start diversifying like that, they cease to become gods imo. If a person has several strong interests, one must stretch the definition of "god" so far that it ceases to have meaning...at that point it would simply be deforming the definition to attempt to make a point.

Yeah it would make for a pretty meaningless definition of god. I was simply trying to extrapolate the parts of people's lives that are roughly equivalent to the place that god (theoretically) holds in the lives of deeply religious people.

Originally posted by Digi
So yeah, some people need a religious label for themselves. They're also the same people who exist on the fringes of mainstream religion, yet receive an inordinate amount of attention simply because they deviate from the norm.

I don't think I understand. Most people have a identifier for their beliefs.

Or do you mean people who automatically would identify themselves as Shintoist rather than as someone who follows Shinto? (SC diversifying examples of religion since 2009)

Red Nemesis
Bill Maher might work better than Dennett (who I have never heard of).

((Of whom I have never heard? Maybe?))

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Bill Maher might work better than Dennett (who I have never heard of).

((Of whom I have never heard? Maybe?))

Me neither, I just put "four horsemen of atheism" into google.

inimalist
Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris did a roundtable discussion called the 4 horsemen. Its pretty good, and available on youtube.

Dennett is actually pretty amazing. I find him particularly interesting.

jaden101
Nice double article in New Scientist this month about the so called "2nd genesis" and "shadow biosphere" which looks at 2 alternative routes of new life. One that it is being created in the lab and the fact that were are on the edge or creating new life based on the construction of current life as well as a completely human designed form of life that will function with an entirely different make up from DNA double helix based life.

The shadow biosphere deals with the idea that we may find an alternate strain of life that evolved seperate from that in the common ancestor pathway. i.e one with an entirely unconnected genetic make up that any species currently known.

Digi
Dennett's Philosophy of Mind work is fascinating. I'm friends with a professor of philosophy who does similar work (though his focus is more on ethics, which overlaps some with philosophy of mind) who turned me onto Dennett. He lurks about the pages of Skeptic magazine as well, which I'm an occasional fan of. I haven't read any of his work that blends philosophy with religion, but I'm sure it's equally interesting.

And it seems we're mostly in agreement Sym. Your point is a valid one. You just took it a bit too far, without qualifying the exact circumstances and meanings behind the desire to label one another.

UKR
Originally posted by SnakeEyes
These sound like questions for scientists, not atheists.


Atheists in all my experience are nothing more than hateful and ignorant liberal pessimists who have no idea what they're talking about. The atheists I've seen on YouTube know as much about science as does a garden gnome lawn ornament. After seeing these people, I severely doubt they have a degree in anything other than being unemployed, living in their single mothers' basements and dressing up as furries.

Keith Talent
Originally posted by UKR
Atheists in all my experience are nothing more than hateful and ignorant liberal pessimists who have no idea what they're talking about. The atheists I've seen on YouTube know as much about science as does a garden gnome lawn ornament. After seeing these people, I severely doubt they have a degree in anything other than being unemployed, living in their single mothers' basements and dressing up as furries.

Sure, judge a whole demographic based on Youtube videos. And saying things like Mohammad single handedly started terrorism shows your idiocy.

SnakeEyes
Originally posted by UKR
Atheists in all my experience are nothing more than hateful and ignorant liberal pessimists who have no idea what they're talking about. The atheists I've seen on YouTube know as much about science as does a garden gnome lawn ornament. After seeing these people, I severely doubt they have a degree in anything other than being unemployed, living in their single mothers' basements and dressing up as furries.

Wasn't sure if I should dignify this with a response.

Most people who rant on youtube are sad, atheist or not. But the fact that you're pidgeon-holing "atheists" based on what you've seen on youtube is sadder in my opinion. That's like me saying "Hey, all Christians are prude, close-minded bigots who have no idea why they even believe in God. By the way, I'm basing my opinion on some video I saw on the internet."

You don't need a degree, a job or scientific knowledge to believe or disbelieve in God (or any higher power). That was kind of my point in my first post. So yeah, I really just don't see the point of your post, except of course to showcase your apparent disdain for youtubing atheists. roll eyes (sarcastic)

UKR
No, I'm pointing out that atheists think themselves scientific geniuses when I doubt most of them know anything more about science than I do. Yes, I'm aware that there could be those who have a real degree in some scientific field, hence why I used "most".

Keith Talent
Originally posted by UKR
No, I'm pointing out that atheists think themselves scientific geniuses when I doubt most of them know anything more about science than I do. Yes, I'm aware that there could be those who have a real degree in some scientific field, hence why I used "most".

No you weren't. "hateful and ignorant liberal pessimists who have no idea what they're talking about"... how does that translate to "atheists think themselves scientific geniuses when I doubt most of them know anything more about science than I do".

How about not offending a whole lot of people by making generic comments...

inimalist
Originally posted by UKR
Atheists in all my experience are nothing more than hateful and ignorant liberal pessimists who have no idea what they're talking about. The atheists I've seen on YouTube know as much about science as does a garden gnome lawn ornament. After seeing these people, I severely doubt they have a degree in anything other than being unemployed, living in their single mothers' basements and dressing up as furries.

I'd recommend reporting you for trolling, but I'm sure that would only feed your martyr complex

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by UKR
No, I'm pointing out that atheists think themselves scientific geniuses when I doubt most of them know anything more about science than I do. Yes, I'm aware that there could be those who have a real degree in some scientific field, hence why I used "most".

Generalizations like the one about are generally wrong.

Da Pittman
Originally posted by UKR
No, I'm pointing out that atheists think themselves scientific geniuses when I doubt most of them know anything more about science than I do. Yes, I'm aware that there could be those who have a real degree in some scientific field, hence why I used "most". How do you even say "most"??? You are just as bad as the Atheist generalizing religions into people that don't know anything about science. Most Atheist that I know became that way because they got into reading about science, studying the sciences which contradicted the teachings of God, others because of some tragic thing that happened in their life that makes them feel there is no God or just how they were raised.

Their are many people of religion that have degrees in the sciences and some that even believe in evolution, it is the hard core "the Bible is word for word true" believers that from my experience do not know diddly squat about science other than what some religious site has told them.

Digi
Glad you guys saved me the time of dealing with his idiocy. Stereotypes of any kind, in my experience, usually spring from a small minority in any demographic, but that minority just happens to be far more visible than the others. Thus, for example, all of Christianity often getting lumped in with evangelicals, all Muslims being grouped with terrorists, or in this case all atheists being vehement youtube trolls.

I seriously want a youtube account so I can make a video call "Angry Atheist Rant" then just sit there with a smile and a toy horse saying things like "I luv u! tee-hee!"

Da Pittman
Originally posted by Digi
Glad you guys saved me the time of dealing with his idiocy. Stereotypes of any kind, in my experience, usually spring from a small minority in any demographic, but that minority just happens to be far more visible than the others. Thus, for example, all of Christianity often getting lumped in with evangelicals, all Muslims being grouped with terrorists, or in this case all atheists being vehement youtube trolls.

I seriously want a youtube account so I can make a video call "Angry Atheist Rant" then just sit there with a smile and a toy horse saying things like "I luv u! tee-hee!" I luv u! tee-hee!stick out tongue

inimalist
I think you guys might be wasting good brain power on someone whose sig makes it quite clear how much they care about other groups

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
I think you guys might be wasting good brain power on someone whose sig makes it quite clear how much they care about other groups

No brain to waste. wink

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.