U.S. Atheists Reportedly Using Hair Dryers to 'De-Baptize'

Crapaud

Best laugh I've had all week! A report on Fox News.

Some of the fundies obviously can't see the joke.

This is the dumbest thing I ever heard. If they're DE-BAPTIZING with a hair dryer it stands to reason they believe they're doing something agianst an divine, spiritual entity. One just has to laugh at those morons.

Sirius631

As they think it is the wetting of the head that represents the baptism, so drying should undo it. However, it is not the wetting that is the baptism, but the cleansing that it symbolises, so to undo a baptism they should do something dirty like throw themselves into a midden full of cow dung. They would then have to clean themselves in a non symbolic manner.

CrackFox

Crapaud wrote:

Some of the fundies obviously can't see the joke.

Religious zealots aren't known for their sense of humour, and that's a great pity because religion has provided the material for some of the best comedy ever. I'm gutted that I missed the chance to see Chris Morris' 'Four Lions' on Sunday. A comedy about suicide bombers. Magic

MattC59

It seems to me, if they have a leading atheist and he has followers, he has turned Atheism into a religion.

Genius !

Bunneh

I'd believe in that! Who's the atheist's god and where can I worship it/him/her?

LJAR

well atheism is a just as much a position of faith as belief....

glauciaregina9

Christians have Christmas
Jews have Hannukah
Islam has Eid


And Atheists?

... well they have April Fools Day

finchy

glauciaregina9 wrote:

Christians have Christmas
Jews have Hannukah
Islam has Eid

And Atheists?

... well they have April Fools Day

And who spends Christmas Eve sitting on a wooden bench in a draughty, unheated church?

Foolish Christians. :P

shmo

Kagin's own son became a fundamentalist Christian minister after having "a personal revelation in Jesus Christ."

Trying to picture that sentence and ending up with a seriously wrong mental image.

Anyway at least this idea is harmless, unlike the concept that blowing yourself up along with as many innocent civilians as possible will somehow benefit your ascension to heaven.

Garry H

LJAR wrote:

well atheism is a just as much a position of faith as belief....

Nah, it's a lack of faith...

balthazar

LJAR wrote:

well atheism is a just as much a position of faith as belief....

The point of atheism is that there are no articles of faith..!

Bunneh

Pople can believe what they like, so long as they don't ram it down my throat.

deptfordmarmoset

balthazar wrote:

LJAR wrote:

well atheism is a just as much a position of faith as belief....

The point of atheism is that there are no articles of faith..!

I think there are people whose atheism becomes a form of truth for them. Personally, I think of myself as a ''spiritual atheist'' - by which I mean that I have no god - I suppose because I grew up with a western scientific kind of perspective - but I understand the very human desire to move beyond pure materialism and to find a place in the big plan of things. And I don't think of ''believers'' as being wrong, just as having a completely different understanding of ''truth'' than I have.

Damn it, I must be one of them thar humanists. I can't stand those people who use religion to manipulate people, and yet I find the kind of Dawkins stance to be very tawdry point-scoring; just a different kind of manipulation.

finchy

Bunneh wrote:

Pople can believe what they like, so long as they don't ram it down my throat.

Especially pagan religions which practised phallic worship.

Crapaud

johnfinch wrote:

Bunneh wrote:

Pople can believe what they like, so long as they don't ram it down my throat.

Especially pagan religions which practised phallic worship.

Do they have a forum? Do they have helmet debates?

rick_chasey

LJAR wrote:

well atheism is a just as much a position of faith as belief....

Saying that is like saying being totally bald is a hair style.

cee

LJAR wrote:

well atheism is a just as much a position of faith as belief....

of course...this statement is right...depending on your definition of atheism....

commonly...it is only used to mean lack of belief, however...as you suggest...another definition is a firm belief of no deities...the opposite....

Most atheists are really just agnostic....if you showed them proof they would believe...

true atheists would still not believe even in the presence of proof...
just as theists (i.e. people who believe in dieties) believe despite the presence of proof..

MattC59

cee wrote:

LJAR wrote:

true atheists would still not believe even in the presence of proof...
just as theists (i.e. people who believe in dieties) believe despite the presence of proof..

Is that correct ?

Surely, in the absence of proof, you can believe in something.
However, if you are presented with proof, belief is no longer relevant, it becomes knowledge.

ie. If I believed in god, and someone presented me with absolute proof that god existed, I would know he/she/it existed, not believe that he/she/it existed.

Plus; you state that theists believe despite the presence of proof. Proof in what ? As far as I can see, there is no proof either way on the existance of god. There's an awful lot of evidence to support Darwinism, but it's not absolute proof.

Personally, I think religion / faith was created as a way to understand / rationalise the world we live in. And there's an awful lot of convenient get out clauses with in religion.

eg. Darwinian theory may be proved 100% correct, but that was gods intention.
or: God moves in mysterious ways.

I mean no offence to anyone, but I just don't understand, in this day and age, how anyone can believe in god. People believe because they are told to. Let's face it, this is all based on several thousand years of fiction, wrapped up into a book.

As I said, no offence intended to anyone :oops:

rick_chasey

cee wrote:

LJAR wrote:

well atheism is a just as much a position of faith as belief....

of course...this statement is right...depending on your definition of atheism....

commonly...it is only used to mean lack of belief, however...as you suggest...another definition is a firm belief of no deities...the opposite....

Most atheists are really just agnostic....if you showed them proof they would believe...

true atheists would still not believe even in the presence of proof...
just as theists (i.e. people who believe in dieties) believe despite the presence of proof..

Not sure that's the case. You can be an atheist with the current level of proof (or lack of it) if that proof changes, so can your belief. There should be no assumption of dogma when determining someone's belief or lack of it at that present moment.

cee

how many christians would stop being so if presented with proof that there were no god?

thats the thing with faith. proof does nothing to your belief when it is based in faith!

theism is blind faith in the fact that there is some diety.
atheism is blind faith in the fact that there is not.

the example above where the proof changes would be agnostic...i.e dont believe either way but would be willing to change that based on some form of proof (whatever that might be)

of course...common usage usually wins....so atheism is known to mean as you suggest. not the technical definition of the word...

theres some new(er) philosophy on this that talks about this difference being weak and strong atheism (or positive and negative also....)...but hey ho...

same as aggravate is used in place of irritate in regular parlance, even though it means something completely different!

I consider myself agnostic. In that I do not believe that there is a god...but I also dont believe that there is not...if you see what i mean....I do have some spiritulity, however, none of the popular stories fits my feelings on the subject..

there. thats religion...only politics and football shudders to go

rick_chasey

cee wrote:

how many christians would stop being so if presented with proof that there were no god?

thats the thing with faith. proof does nothing to your belief when it is based in faith!

theism is blind faith in the fact that there is some diety.
atheism is blind faith in the fact that there is not.

the example above where the proof changes would be agnostic...i.e dont believe either way but would be willing to change that based on some form of proof (whatever that might be)

of course...common usage usually wins....so atheism is known to mean as you suggest. not the technical definition of the word...

theres some new(er) philosophy on this that talks about this difference being weak and strong atheism (or positive and negative also....)...but hey ho...

same as aggravate is used in place of irritate in regular parlance, even though it means something completely different!

I consider myself agnostic. In that I do not believe that there is a god...but I also dont believe that there is not...if you see what i mean....I do have some spiritulity, however, none of the popular stories fits my feelings on the subject..

there. thats religion...only politics and football shudders to go

I think you're approach to definitions is far too dogmatic.

Anyway, atheism is not faith at all, it is a lack of faith. I am an atheist and I have no faith in anything supernatural or theist - thus I am atheist.

tebbit

All this debate around is there a God or isn't there a God, developing belief systems and having in depth discussions on the subject in this day and age raises the question - don't these buggers have anything better to do?

rick_chasey

tebbit wrote:

All this debate around is there a God or isn't there a God, developing belief systems and having in depth discussions on the subject in this day and age raises the question - don't these buggers have anything better to do?

All these people commenting on debates around whether there is a God or not. Don't these buggers have anything better to do?

tebbit

We're at work

MattC59

cee wrote:

thats the thing with faith. proof does nothing to your belief when it is based in faith!

Surely, if someone is presented with absolute proof of something, and they still believe it isn't so, then that's not faith, that's idiocy !

cee

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think you're approach to definitions is far too dogmatic.

Anyway, atheism is not faith at all, it is a lack of faith. I am an atheist and I have no faith in anything supernatural or theist - thus I am atheist.

gee thanks....but they are not my definitions...they are...well.... defined

not sure what dogmatic as such about me saying there are definitions other than the one you use..however...as i also said...common parlance usually wins...so most people understand atheism as lack of belief...i have no problem with that...was just defending the poor guy earlier who got all argued against for stating definition!

as for proof and belief.....as soon as you prove something...belief is technically no longer an appropriate word to use....you woldn't believe something (in a faith type way)...you would know something!

I ask again....did christians stop believing in god or the bible when real-live proof of evolution (fossils etc) was given and that the earth was in fact not made in 7 days, seeded with adam and eve and then here we go....

call it and yourself what you want...doesn't botther me either way....

but simply saying there are no other definitions used by anyone other than the one you use...is simply incorrect.

in any doctrinal or arrogant way you like!

rick_chasey

cee wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think you're approach to definitions is far too dogmatic.

Anyway, atheism is not faith at all, it is a lack of faith. I am an atheist and I have no faith in anything supernatural or theist - thus I am atheist.

gee thanks....but they are not my definitions...they are...well.... defined

not sure what dogmatic as such about me saying there are definitions other than the one you use..however...as i also said...common parlance usually wins...so most people understand atheism as lack of belief...i have no problem with that...was just defending the poor guy earlier who got all argued against for stating definition!

as for proof and belief.....as soon as you prove something...belief is technically no longer an appropriate word to use....you woldn't believe something (in a faith type way)...you would know something!

I ask again....did christians stop believing in god or the bible when real-live proof of evolution (fossils etc) was given and that the earth was in fact not made in 7 days, seeded with adam and eve and then here we go....

call it and yourself what you want...doesn't botther me either way....

but simply saying there are no other definitions used by anyone other than the one you use...is simply incorrect.

in any doctrinal or arrogant way you like!

You've got the wrong end of the stick. S'not quite what I was driving at. Saying that you can only be a person of faith or atheist if you continue that faith indefinitely is dogmatic, since you're saying they must be dogmatic in order to be defined as a person of faith or an atheist.

The definition is dogmatic, not you.

cee

Ah...apologies for my misunderstanding....

i fear you have also misunderstood me....people all feel differently about faith...some will be as you describe...other will be as I do...

for my money...faith only has any value while you have faith...the minute you stop having faith...you stop being a partaker of that flavour of religion/a-religion....

as you know...proof only exists based on what we currently know...it changes all the time..

You will appreciate that most religious definitions are dogmatic by their very nature. its like saying that cheese is made from milk!

have a make up cake!

guinea

Best pirate cake of the day IMO.

rick_chasey

Yargh!

Bunneh

Just remember Jesus loves you even if he doesn't exist, or does... *explodes*

Mmm cake.