Marinus

That was rather brilliant.....

You avoid what's in fact a rather good question. And the protesters weren't empowered, it was the opposite in fact.

So yelling "Islam is a cancer" and "Yay, tortured muslims

How should they have responded to them? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Xsj1UWol7l8#t=61s This would be an option, but it would be very hard to make the crowd chant this.

I'll admit, I laughed. Atheism is not a religion, other than that we live in a universe in which gods seem to be non-existent. It's also very hard to proof that unicorns don't exist, am I religious because I don't believe in unicorns? Of course not. Atheism is a logical position, unlike belief in nonsensical tales about talking snakes and splitting moons. It depends. I think American atheists are more devangelical than European atheists. In general we're a lot less devangelical than for example Christians. We've no imaginary Master to kiss up to and we don't have to save others from eternal fires. (sounds like a solution to the energy crisis btw, but that's another story) Most just want no religion in their lives. I think it was 4000 atheists? With over a billion non-religious folk on the planet most don't seem to care as long as religious folk keep their "get eternal life in 5 easy steps schemes" to themselves.

Well, you entered the discussion by suggesting there's no real difference between fundies screaming all kinds of hateful stuff, and the atheists, so what do you expect I think? They have that right, (I explicitly said that, btw) I do however doubt it's because they feel threatened. It's just to show off their hatred for the Western society that protect their way of life to such a great extend. That's why they don't fuck off to a country that better suits their specific religious needs, it's because of all the benefits they would loose. They're more or less the Islamic version of the WBC, a loud mouthed bunch of idiots that is offended by everything and respects nothing but their own idiotic way of life. I beg to differ, but anyhow, it was exactly the response those protesters deserved. Completely void of any intend to take the protesters serious. Pot-kettle indeed, and you're free to deny/refute those assumptions, btw. And remember this is SC: Whenever you disagree with me here, I'll be an asshole first and I'll ask questions later. I did too!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate And yet, you're about 14 times more likely to be murdered with a fire-arm in the US. And of course, these types of massacres happen everywhere in the Western World, but typically they happen in the US of A.

I also like that people are like "Hey, a bunch of religion themed carnival freaks, I want to have my photo taken with them." That's exactly the amount of respect the deserve.

People discussing politics aren't a politic entity unless that phrase does mean something radically different on your side of the pond. Besides that, in much of the Western world religion and politics are a lot less intertwined than in the US of A and people are in general much more relaxed about religious differences. In most Western countries the majority (of believers and non-believers alike) subscribes to secularism, in other words, we pretty much agree with each other politically. So an atheist convention in Australia doesn't have to be about politics and can be just as easy about religion and science. You might be projecting the American way on others. That's very American of you, but not necessarily right. Actually it isn't a pissing contest between two groups, it's a contest between the hate-mongering of one group and the wit of the other group. Declaring that atheism is cancer isn't on par with declaring a group of religious head cases is ZZ Top. But you're probably one of those Christians that thinks Richard Dawkins and Osama Bin Laden are both religious extremists. You sound like a typical GOP voting American Christian with some paranoia issues so I assume you are and make the references for you. If you aren't and you don't fancy to be mistaken for one, it might be a good idea to change your rhetoric a bit. Sop no references to agendas, or calling atheism a religion. There's loads of things atheists typically like to discuss, and most of it isn't politics. There's science, ethics, recipes for preparing unbabtized Christian babies. A lot of stuff, but not a whole lot of forcing lack of believe down every one's throat by means of politics.

For our Lord one day is like thousand years, and thousand years is like one day, I'm sure He did his mysterious way voodoo to turn 2.228 days into 2228 years. During both 500 year long nights the Lord used growing lamps to sustain photosynthesis in plants, btw.

No they don't, now go back, read the sentence you quoted again, but this time try to understand it. It can be a bit hard, I know, but if you really concentrate on those 16 words, you might eventually discover what it really says.

As long as there aren't German toddlers shooting other German toddlers, at least those ignorant Krauts can comfort themselves with the thought they do better that the Yankees. Not that that's too hard, of course, one look at the gun violence statistics will tell you that any Western nation does better than the USA in that respect.

I'm sorry, since when is atheism a political entity? Funny how many American Christians see political agendas everywhere. One would think you guys are a bit paranoid. They were minding their own business. period. No need for those hate beards to show up with signs that read that "Atheism is a cancer". Sure they have the right to do just that, but it doesn't mean they aren't obnoxious meddling twats for doing so.

Looks to me the atheists were minding their own business until the hate beards decided to crash their party with "burn in hell"chants that were already lame in 600 CE. And the atheists responded in exactly the right way by chanting back and ridiculing the salafist idiots in the process.

Hrm, it's a combination of things, I think. I think it's also how you handle your own prejudices, etc. I'm sure everyone or almost everyone has those, I know I have 'em, that's just how our minds functions, but the amount of self-criticism decides how big of a bigot you're going to be. btw: may the Lord hate you and all your kind, may you be turned orange in hue, and may your head fall off at an awkward moment.

Ever heard the statement "There are no stupid questions?" Well, that statement is apparently false, because you're asking a stupid question right now.

I think this is partly true, but if you've a fundamentalist world view, an alternative world view will often be seen as threatening. fear often leads to hate. I was raised as a fundamentalist, and hatred/fear for the stupidest things was common. When I started loosing my fundamentalism in my early teens, most of those irrational fears went with it too. But I think people who feel irrational fear/hatred towards a demographic will often try to rationalize it.

Fundamentalism in any form, not just religious fundamentalism, tends to mash up your relativistic capabilities. And this often leads to hatred towards people who dare to disagree with you. Not always, fundamentalist Jainism, for example, means that you can't harm living things to the point you aren't allowed to murder plants. anyway: ZZ!!! TOP!!! ZZ!!! TOP!!! ZZ!!! TOP!!!

Oh, who am I kidding, these idiots had it coming. Humor: killing fundamentalism with laughter since 666 BCE. An atheist feel-good movie of sorts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCfwcd_Ajg4

I basically agree, and I have a healthy hatred for anything that smells like solipsism, but our perception of the world is somewhat flawed. This is actually due to evolution. Our senses are very efficient, but don't necessarily give us a 100% correct experience of the world. Take this illusion for example: If all is well, your brain photoshops a triangle into the picture, that isn't there. A flawed perception caused by the evolution of your brain. does this mean we can't trust our perception? Hardly, but our outer world differs from our inner experience. Still our senses are more than good enough, to, well, make sense of the world.

Fair enough; I've a flaw in my personality that makes me want to bitch slap and/or talk down to people who think the "The Matrix" came up with the idea of solipsism and think it's very deep. (Solipsism is basic philosophy, and I think that "cognito ergo sum" should be part of any-ones basic knowledge. As for our senses: they give us a rather limited interpretation of the world, that can't be 100% trusted. Besides, simple illusions can be used to reveal the "glitches" in our software et al, but still the reality I observe is very consistent. It's not blind faith to assume I observe an interpretation of the universe, because everything points to that. Unless someone or something proofs to me it's an illusion there's no point dwelling on the fact that it's a possibility. It's kind of ironic you doubt reality to make an argument for the existence of God, btw. And what would it say about God if he created beings who are unable to sense God?

Agreed, there's of course the little details. Like the fact that no one will fly a plane into a skyscraper because of dark energy. Dark energy is a hypothesis to explain the unknown, God is a hypothesis to explain the unknown, and ease he fear of dieing, and provide ordinary people with ordinary morality, and to divide the world into the evil and the good etc. etc. It's more than just an "handle for the unexplained"

Same here. As long as no one bothers me with their religion, I'm perfectly fine with it.

No, I think solipsism. One of the few dogmas I have is the conviction that solipsism is stupid. Edit: Well, stupid isn't the right word, in fact it's an interesting idea, just like the idea that the whole universe, inclusive us and all our memories, came into existence 5 minutes ago. Great idea, huh? But it would be stupid to dwell on it.

Believe me, I'm only agnostic due to a couple of technicalities. For example: it's absolutely not clear what we're looking for when we're searching for God. There are loads of descriptions of God, most are too vague/nonsensical to be usable, and the usable definitions are always conflicting with other usable definitions. "God" is a nonsensical term that can refer to almost everything, even non-existent things. The question: "Does God exist" is so nonsensical that it doesn't need to be answered, one could say. When it's about specific Gods, well that's easier. Does Jaweh exist? of course not. Jaweh would extremely easy to proof, because of all the miracles, and smiting of sinners.