You can be skeptical and friendly at the same time.
Follow Patheos Atheist:
Well, at least Nelson Mandela is giving credit where it’s due:
(via a Legitimate News Source)
Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.
Score one for common sense!
Onions, onions, oo la la.
I so wanted that to be real. It shouldn’t be that far-fetched….
I guess many young minds need lessons from a 95 year old mind. Good enough to even put The Onion on the path of righteousness.
Hemant, you may want to add the Onion Logo to the pic. I can see a lot of distracted readers referring this as truth (and in a sense it is truth, but you know what I mean).
This will hit a twitter feed or a facebook page, and the cries of a million enraged wingnuts will rise through the ether. And within a week or two, someone in my family will relay this story to me as if it were fact. *sigh*
Maybe the enraged wingnuts will also include the Planned Parenthood Abortionplex story. That one’s always good for a few laughs and it seems like it’s about time for it to make another round on the interwebs.
I remember that. I facepalmed so hard I think caused permanent brain damage.
I saw this, and I balled my fists and said “OH YES!!!!”
Anyone doubts that Mandela is not an atheist, you need to think again. He outsmarted a bunch of white racists who had a god on their side, while he was in prison.
Nelson doesn’t seem like an Atheist, here are some of his quotes:
“We bow our heads in worship on this day and give thanks to the Almighty for the bounty He has bestowed upon us over the past year. We raise our voices in holy gladness to celebrate the victory of the risen Christ over the terrible forces of death.”
“Losing Faith in GOD Is Losing Purpose of Life Itself”
…I’m a big fan of the Onion, by the way.
That second quote is overflowing with inanity, but the point stands. Nothing seems to suggest him to be an atheist. Unfortunate follower of a slave religion, but that doesn’t seem to have hampered him at least.
I repeat: The Onion is satire.
The Onion is satire.
It is? Oh crap…
Srsly, add the onion logo in there, a lot of people will get confused and think it ain’t satire
Aw, but that’s half the fun.
Is there a basement dwelling troll left in the multiverse who hasn’t yet dragged themselves out of the primordial oze and logged onto the internet in order to announce our collective atheism towards Thor, that gardens can be beautiful without fairies (a powerful rebuttal to fairy apologetics, by the way, but it leaves a lot unanswered about the Gardener), and that we cling to Bronze Age skymen due to our fear of the dark? The fact that you neck beards engage in such crap,then pat yourselves on the back for how cute it is, confirms what i have long suspected: atheism is incoherent: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/higher-things/2011/nov/19/atheism-why-it-logically-incoherent http://www.catholicthinker.net/the-incoherence-of-atheism/ http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/4-arguments-transcendence.htm http://www.reasonsforgod.org/the-best-reasons/the-argument-from-reason/
Atheism is incoherent? Please explain the immaculate conception of Jesus to me. Or the reserection. Or the water to wine. Or creating the earth in seven days. I could go on. Your fairy tales are incoherent, so take them back to the nursery where they belong.
Gotta watch that Immaculate Conception business.
At some point the Church needed Mary to be sinless. Something to do with getting pregnant by a god so she could give birth to that god.
Given their Original Sin concept, this was a problem. Soon a bandaid was crafted and given the label of Immaculate Conception and applied to her. No evidence, of course, just some convoluted ‘logic’ which could convince anyone who wanted to be convinced.
You’re still absolutely correct about the incoherence of it.
These same people promote the myth that “abstinence only” is 100% effective…
Your post is remarkably devoid of content. Any wisdom you would care to impart or are you one of those basement-dwelling trolls I keep hearing about?
If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
THIS is from the Bible. THIS is incoherent.
I don’t believe in the supernatural, therefore I am an atheist. Nothing incoherent about that. Your rant, on the other hand…
Why, you’re just full of piss and vinegar! Is that the same mouth you kiss a crucifix with? If you can’t hunt with the big dogs, stay on the porch…Seems you won’t say shit since you’ve got a mouthful. Catholic Thinker? You must’ve opened real wide for a mouthful of Savior. Atheism is consistent with a worldview free from superstition. On the other hand, your cult’s “pro-life” stance is completely inconsistent with a pedophile cover up that endangers the physical safety of post-born children. Jeebus states that those who HARM children are better off dead, executed, with a millstone around their neck.. Your creepy cult excommunicates those who desecrate the soggy cookie, cookie-fied Jeebus, but NOT those who fuck kiddies. How’s that for consistency? Pedophilia is NOT “pro-life”! You want inconsistency? Here you go…You won’t know whether to scratch your watch or wind your a$$…The vilest maggots ever to dig through carrion…
1. Mug shots:http://www.bishop-accountability.org/
2. Father Marcial Maciel:http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/03/11/father-marcial-maciel-and-the-popes-he-stained.html
3. Criminal liability for bishops: http://patrickjwall.wordpress.com/
4. It’s the slutty kids who seduce maladjusted virgins (priests):http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/nyregion/in-interview-the-rev-benedict-groeschel-says-abuse-victims-can-be-seducers.html?_r=0
Poor, poor wittle irrational hypocrite. I’d pat your head to comfort you, but that greasy Christlike smugness and rage is kind of offputting, even to forgiving and decent atheists.
Wow, 7 specious, neck bearded replies in less than 3 hours. So much for atheism not being a religion. Also, so much for the delusion of atheists having lives outside of their parents’ basements. So now that we have established your collective basement dwelling loserness, the question becomes: why haven’t you shot yourself in the face yet? No atheistic position can be taken seriously until two threshold questions can coherently be answered. 1. Why is the atheist even engaging in the debate. On atheism, there is no objective basis for even ascertaining truth; there is no immaterial aspect to consciousness and all mental states are material. Therefore, everyone who ever lived and ever will live could be wrong about a thing. By what standard would that ever be ascertained on atheism? Also if atheism is true, there is no objective meaning to existence and no objective standard by which the ‘rational’ world view of atheism is more desirable, morally or otherwise, to the ‘irrational’ beliefs of religion. Ridding the world of the scourge of religion, so that humanity can ‘progress’ or outgrow it, is not a legitimate response to this because on atheism, there is no reason to expect humanity to progress or grow. We are a historical accident that should fully expect to be destroyed by the next asteriod, pandemic, or fascist atheist with a nuke. In short, if atheism is correct, there is no benefit, either on an individual or societal level, to knowing this or to spreading such ‘knowledge.’ 2. Related to this, why is the atheist debater even alive to participate. If there is no heaven, no hell, no afterlife at all, only an incredibly window of blind pitiless indifference, then the agony of struggling to exist, seeing loved ones die, and then dying yourself can never be outweighed by any benefit to existing. As rude as it way sound the atheist should have a coherent explanation for why they chose to continue existing. Failure to adequately address these threshold questions should result in summary rejection of the neckbeard’s position.
In the end, we all know you can’t answer these questions because yours is a petty, trivial, localized, earth bound philosophy, unworthy of the universe.
Whatever you say. You call us losers, but we aren’t trolling your Christian blogs with aggressive, insulting nonsense. You know nothing about atheism, so don’t pretend like you do.
Oh, lookie, Willy boy posted his inane rant another time on this blog. What a surprise. (That’s sarcasm, Willy boy.)
“As rude as it way sound the atheist should have a coherent explanation for why they chose to continue existing.” Sounds like you’re only one small step away from intentionally stopping atheists from existing – another religious nut-job out to suppress or destroy others who don’t share their delusions.
Life is awesome, and I don’t need childish or insane stories to tell me that, nor guide me through this awesome life.
1: … On atheism, there is no objective basis for even ascertaining truth; there is no immaterial aspect to consciousness and all mental states are material. Therefore, everyone who ever lived and ever will live could be wrong about a thing.
As an aside, “on atheism” is a really weird phrase, that I don’t think I’ve ever heard said by anyone that isn’t going out of their way to misrepresent what atheism means. But since you’re loudly doing just that, let’s get to it:
Yes, you are correct that in a world of incomplete information, with our glitchy brains full of cognitive biases, we can never know anything with absolutely watertight 100% certainty. What we can do, however, is investigate reality as conscientiously as possible, taking steps to correct our cognitive biases as and when we discover them, and come to reasonable conclusions about what’s likely to be true on the basis of present evidence … conclusions that actually allow us to live our lives and improve our situation. You are conflating two very different propositions
a) our information-gathering process is not 100% perfect, therefore we should always be open to the possibility that we were mistaken if good evidence that we were mistaken comes along, and b) our information-gathering process is not 100% perfect, therefore it is completely useless and we cannot have any confidence at all about any factual proposition. Do you understand why claim b is bogus?
[edit - I originally mistakenly said 'claim 1' rather than 'claim b' at the end of that paragraph]
Do you also understand why claim b defeats theism too? If our information-gathering processes are so imperfect as to be useless, and you are claiming to have been given a perfect revelation about reality from an omniscient deity, your information gathering process which you used to determine which of the many competing alleged divine revelations is actually the real deal must be so unreliable that you cannot justify having any confidence in it. You already know this, because you live in a world where Muslims, Mormons, Hindus, Zoroastrians and others are all just as convinced as you are that their holy books are the true and complete divine revelation, and their means of ascertaining that claim are just the same as yours.
2. Related to this, why is the atheist debater even alive to participate. If there is no heaven, no hell, no afterlife at all, only an incredibly window of blind pitiless indifference, then the agony of struggling to exist, seeing loved ones die, and then dying yourself can never be outweighed by any benefit to existing.
Speak for yourself. I happen to enjoy being alive, and the knowledge that it is finite does not make me unable to enjoy it while it lasts. The fact that you personally are unable to enjoy something unless you think you get to enjoy it forever is your problem not ours.
I’m sure he’ll just say this is a ‘neck bearded’ argument, whatever that means, completely ignore your counterpoints,and respond with another insane and off subject rant. Seems to be his forte.
As an aside, “on atheism” is a really weird phrase
I had an anthropology professor in college who had a habit of saying “on that” as a filler phrase, similar to how most people use “um” (my friends and I eventually started entertaining ourselves by keeping a list of every variation of the phrase he used and tallying how many times he used them)…every time I see Steve and his alter egos use the phrase “on atheism” it reminds me of him. Good times.
People being bored enough to respond to your trolling makes atheism a religion? And I have never lived in a basement; I own a condo on the second floor, tyvm. As for the rest of your post, you posted the exact same thing on the death thread; can’t you come up with something original?
Oh look, another basement dwelling troll dragged itself out of the primordial “oze”.
Careful, guys, proving him wrong will only prove him right… somehow!
Follow Patheos on