CC Atheists - what do you think of them?

[suggs]

anyone? anyone?

[jiminski]

Matthew Broderrick i reckon

[InkL0sed]

Everybody just calls him Ferris Bueller though

[MeDeFe]

Who the f*ck is Ferris Bueller?

The main character in Ferris Bueller's Day Off...

And what's "Ferris Bueller's Day Off"?

[InkL0sed]

Who the f*ck is Ferris Bueller?

The main character in Ferris Bueller's Day Off...

And what's "Ferris Bueller's Day Off"?

A "movie"

[MeDeFe]

The main character in Ferris Bueller's Day Off...

And what's "Ferris Bueller's Day Off"?

A "movie"

Sounds like some people are not content with calling it a 'movie'. How come?

[InkL0sed]

Some people will never be content with the proper names for things. Hence why languages evolve.

Let's take Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. What a mouthful -- a whole 8 syllables long!

During World War I, when it was first observed and given a name, it was called shell shock. A good, compact term -- two syllables, it alliterated, and it conveyed the meaning of the term quite well.

After World War II, it was called war weariness. Still not so bad -- 4 syllables, and it still has some meaning, and it still alliterated.

After the Korean War, it was called "operational exhaustion." Now it was getting pretty horrifying -- 8 syllables long, and not a single alliteration!

It was after Vietnam that the term now widely used -- PTSD for short -- came into being. It didn't get any longer, but hey -- at least we added a hyphen!

I hope this has been enlightening on the subject of dissatisfaction with the norm when it comes to names.

[MeDeFe]

I only count three syllables in 'weariness'. Wea-ri-ness.

[InkL0sed]

I only count three syllables in 'weariness'. Wea-ri-ness.

Right -- and there's 4 in war weariness.

You're almost there!

[Frigidus]

Some people will never be content with the proper names for things. Hence why languages evolve.

Let's take Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. What a mouthful -- a whole 8 syllables long!

During World War I, when it was first observed and given a name, it was called shell shock. A good, compact term -- two syllables, it alliterated, and it conveyed the meaning of the term quite well.

After World War II, it was called war weariness. Still not so bad -- 4 syllables, and it still has some meaning, and it still alliterated.

After the Korean War, it was called "operational exhaustion." Now it was getting pretty horrifying -- 8 syllables long, and not a single alliteration!

It was after Vietnam that the term now widely used -- PTSD for short -- came into being. It didn't get any longer, but hey -- at least we added a hyphen!

I hope this has been enlightening on the subject of dissatisfaction with the norm when it comes to names.

Seriously, George Carlin is like a prophet...minus the religion bit.

[MeDeFe]

Ah, so the war is part of it, I assumed you had typod a 'was' and made a grammatical mistake, ok, then it's 4. But why didn't you use " " as you did with "operational exhaustion"?

[dustn64]

from what i have seen (no offense) but most of the religous people are closed minded when it comes to anything that threatens their beliefs....

Actually, I tend to see more "Post your opinion and compare" threads from Christians than Atheists. Christians don't post "whats so good about atheism" threads that are focused on ridicule.

[Frigidus]

from what i have seen (no offense) but most of the religous people are closed minded when it comes to anything that threatens their beliefs....

Actually, I tend to see more "Post your opinion and compare" threads from Christians than Atheists. Christians don't post "whats so good about atheism" threads that are focused on ridicule.

OK...guys...SnakeySnakey is a troll. His sole purpose was to find lulz, which he did in that case by pissing you off. Have you guys not noticed that every single one of his posts is strange?

[InkL0sed]

Some people will never be content with the proper names for things. Hence why languages evolve.

Let's take Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. What a mouthful -- a whole 8 syllables long!

During World War I, when it was first observed and given a name, it was called shell shock. A good, compact term -- two syllables, it alliterated, and it conveyed the meaning of the term quite well.

After World War II, it was called war weariness. Still not so bad -- 4 syllables, and it still has some meaning, and it still alliterated.

After the Korean War, it was called "operational exhaustion." Now it was getting pretty horrifying -- 8 syllables long, and not a single alliteration!

It was after Vietnam that the term now widely used -- PTSD for short -- came into being. It didn't get any longer, but hey -- at least we added a hyphen!

I hope this has been enlightening on the subject of dissatisfaction with the norm when it comes to names.

Seriously, George Carlin is like a prophet...minus the religion bit.

Good call. I'm impressed -- I thought I'd get away with blatantly ripping him off.

Oh, and MeDeFe -- I don't make typos. Typos make me.

[PLAYER57832]

The main character in Ferris Bueller's Day Off...

And what's "Ferris Bueller's Day Off"?

A "movie"

Sounds like some people are not content with calling it a 'movie'. How come?

Ferris Buehler was a high school kid (played by Mathew Broderick) who skipped school and lived the supposed decadent dream of every high school boy playing hooky for a day. His nemesis was the somewhat crazed truant officer.

It is the move that made M.B. famous and has become something of a "cult classic". (appeals to a certain crowd)

[btownmeggy]

Ferris Buehler was a high school kid (played by Mathew Broderick) who skipped school and lived the supposed decadent dream of every high school boy playing hooky for a day. His nemesis was the somewhat crazed truant officer.

It is the move that made M.B. famous and has become something of a "cult classic". (appeals to a certain crowd)

It's an AWESOME movie. I've seen it no less than 3,000 times.

[Frigidus]

Ferris Buehler was a high school kid (played by Mathew Broderick) who skipped school and lived the supposed decadent dream of every high school boy playing hooky for a day. His nemesis was the somewhat crazed truant officer.

It is the move that made M.B. famous and has become something of a "cult classic". (appeals to a certain crowd)

By certain crowd do you mean everyone who has ever seen it?

[InkL0sed]

Ferris Buehler was a high school kid (played by Mathew Broderick) who skipped school and lived the supposed decadent dream of every high school boy playing hooky for a day. His nemesis was the somewhat crazed truant officer.

It is the move that made M.B. famous and has become something of a "cult classic". (appeals to a certain crowd)

By certain crowd do you mean everyone who has ever seen it?

I think she means everyone who might be called part of the "Millennial Generation"

Ie, everyone under 30.

[Bertros Bertros]

Ferris Buehler was a high school kid (played by Mathew Broderick) who skipped school and lived the supposed decadent dream of every high school boy playing hooky for a day. His nemesis was the somewhat crazed truant officer.

It is the move that made M.B. famous and has become something of a "cult classic". (appeals to a certain crowd)

It's an AWESOME movie. I've seen it no less than 3,000 times.

Seeeeeeeeeerrrrrrwing Batter!

[jiminski]

Ferris Buehler was a high school kid (played by Mathew Broderick) who skipped school and lived the supposed decadent dream of every high school boy playing hooky for a day. His nemesis was the somewhat crazed truant officer.

It is the move that made M.B. famous and has become something of a "cult classic". (appeals to a certain crowd)

By certain crowd do you mean everyone who has ever seen it?

I think she means everyone who might be called part of the "Millennial Generation"

Ie, everyone under 30.

bloody cheek! get your own points of cultural significance kid!


As to Atheists! I have no oppinion on them, as i do not truly beleive that they exist!.. where is the evidence!?
Should we have faith in what they purport to be the truth, based on no empirical evidence!?
Sure, they write it down and garner it with philosophical rhetoric but as existentialists and solipsists surely they do not even beleive in each others validity as complex, cognitive entities!

how can we trust these philosophical thieves; islands in their own reasoning, doubters of all extraneous thought, should we beleive in the sincerity of their own introspection?

Do they really not 'beleive' or is it an intricate network of self-denial with layers of camouflaged superego!
Carefully interwoven thus enabling self-worth and fortified intellect to traverse the vast crevasses of uncertainty!

So i want proof that these so called 'Atheists' do in fact exist outside the forum of public conjecture and internalised subterfuge!

[Bertros Bertros]

Do they really not 'beleive' or is it an intricate network of self-denial with layers of camouflaged superego!
Carefully interwoven thus enabling self-worth and fortified intellect to traverse the vast crevasses of uncertainty!

I have very little idea what you actually meant to say by this excpetionally eloquent but ultimately meaningless pair of disconnected sentences, but bravo nonetheless for some exquisite prose.

[jiminski]

Do they really not 'beleive' or is it an intricate network of self-denial with layers of camouflaged superego!
Carefully interwoven thus enabling self-worth and fortified intellect to traverse the vast crevasses of uncertainty!

I have very little idea what you actually meant to say by this excpetionally eloquent but ultimately meaningless pair of disconnected sentences, but bravo nonetheless for some exquisite prose.

too kind... but it is far from meaningless; it seeks to reach the very nature of belief (spelt correctly) and expose the ephemerality of faith.
At the heart of faith is, by its very definition, a conflict! A conflict between what we want to know and what we in fact know. Belief lies somewhere between the 2 and is ever changing.

[tzor]

The fact is that the comparison is good. The leap from agnosticism to atheism in reference to god is the same as the leap from being undecided on fairies and believing that they don't exist. It's not that we deny the existance of God, it's that we don't actually believe in it.

Except that is different. We are not comparing God to fairies, we're comparing the belief in God to believing in fairies, i.e. agnosticism on it is silly.

Sorry for the late reply but I was away yesterday. The problem is that you are equating a general with a specific. It's easier to disprove a specific but almost impossible to disprove a general.

Just because you don't believe in something is no reason to a-priori insult and ridicule and dismiss those who do. I don't believe in a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that the people who believe in them are ignorant savages of a bygone era not worthy of my intelectual attention.

[tzor]

What the hell is a fairy worshipper?

Ferry worshipers are those who live on Statten Island, commute every day to downtown Manhatten and who make their morning commute praying that the ferry doesn't crash into the dock.

[Bertros Bertros]

Do they really not 'beleive' or is it an intricate network of self-denial with layers of camouflaged superego!
Carefully interwoven thus enabling self-worth and fortified intellect to traverse the vast crevasses of uncertainty!

I have very little idea what you actually meant to say by this excpetionally eloquent but ultimately meaningless pair of disconnected sentences, but bravo nonetheless for some exquisite prose.

too kind... but it is far from meaningless; it seeks to reach the very nature of belief (spelt correctly) and expose the ephemerality of faith.
At the heart of faith is, by its very definition, a conflict! A conflict between what we want to know and what we in fact know. Belief lies somewhere between the 2 and is ever changing.

I'm almost prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt but I still don't see how "layers of camouflaged superego" have anything to do with the ephemerality of faith? Sounds more like a cheap shot to me.

That being said faith is intrinsically ephemeral being as it is a concept rather than a entity. As to its relationship to belief much depends on your definition. In this context faith is the ability to believe something which your logical judgement determines you shouldn't believe. That doesn't mean it contains a conflict between what we want to know and what we in fact know, but rather that it removes the conflict between what we want to be true and what we know is most probably true. Rather than "fortified intellect traversing the vast crevasses of uncertainty" (another cheap shot?) it is really more accurately faith itself which provides the glue for extending belief beyond the believable.