Comedy | July 18, 2010 | 210 comments

Atheists Use Blow-Dryers to De-Baptize

source: http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=11109379

Atheists Break Out New Ritual Tool: The Blow-Dryer
Nonbelievers Adopt Provocative Ceremony to Make a Point About Baptism
By DAN HARRIS, ERIC JOHNSON and
MARY FLYNN

July 16, 2010 —

Wielding a blow-dryer, a leading atheist conducted a mass "de-baptism" of fellow non-believers and symbolically dried up the offending waters that were sprinkled on their foreheads as young children.

At the annual American Atheists Convention, one of atheism's premier provocateurs, Edwin Kagin, faced the crowd and raised high a hairdryer labeled "Reason and Truth."

Said one woman who travelled from Cincinnati to undergo the de-baptism, "I was baptized Catholic. I don't remember any of it at all." The woman, Cambridge Boxterman, 24, added, "According to my mother I screamed like a banshee, and those are her words, so you can see that even as a young child I didn't want to be baptized. It's not fair. I was born atheist and they were forcing me to become Catholic."

Watch the entire story tonight on Nightline at 11:35 p.m. ET

Kagin, who is American Atheists' national legal director, firmly believes that regardless of one's religious beliefs, each person has the right to say or do what he or she wants, provided it is within the law. In the past, he has reportedly called out parents who subject their children to strict fundamentalist religious education, referring to it as child abuse.

"It is teaching children that the world works in other ways than it does," he said. "This can be extremely dangerous."

"They are practicing child abuse in teaching that the world operates in ways other than it does," he told the convention crowd. "And in my opinion, they are engaged in terrorism by weakening our nation and our understanding of science and things with which we can defend ourselves and progress. If it had not been for these fools we could have been at the stars 2,000 years ago."

Kagin, author of "Baubles of Blasphemy," has a history of behaving in ways that elicit a rise from God-fearing people. He's known to have asked female atheists to dress in burqas and perform a song, "Back in their Burquas Again," he's referred to Mary Magdalene as a deranged hooker and he's called the Holy Eucharist "Swallow the Leader."

Kagin said religion should not be used to determine how people ought to live their lives. "They're doing harm to women who want to control their own bodies and their own reproductive rights," he said. "They're doing harm to a great number of people and they're saying that 'what we're doing is sacred and inviolate. We can do whatever we want to your rights, and you can not react.' That's what they're doing."

Kagin: De-Baptism is 'Spiritually Cleansing'

It is in this same spirit that Kagin performs the de-baptism.

Standing at a podium wearing a long brown monk's robe, Kagin read with the oratorical skill of a preacher from a set of pages in his hand and invited participants to come forward to be de-baptized.

He recited a few mock-Latin syllables, to the audience's amusement. An assistant produced a large hairdryer, labeled "Reason and Truth," and handed it to Kagin. The man who'd elected himself to be de-baptized stood before him. Kagin turned on the hairdryer, blowing the hot air in his face in an attempt to symbolically dry up his baptismal waters.

"Come forward now and receive the spirit of hot air that taketh away the stigma and taketh away the remnants of the stain of baptismal water," Kagin shouts.

Atheists poke fun at baptisms in this ceremony, saying they believe their waving around a hairdryer holds the same level of magical and spiritual powers as does the baptismal ceremony.

Kagin said that many people have undergone de-baptism."Many have taken it as somewhat of a joke, but some have found it truly, if you will, a spiritually cleansing experience," he said.

Kagin has said he doesn't particularly care who he's offending with his actions, and that he is acting completely within his rights. "You can mock anything you want because you have the right to," he said. "Humor is humor and what types of humor are you going to outlaw?" he said.

He conceded that although it may not be good manners to continually take a mocking stance toward religion, "in many cases, it is the only real response."

Kagin said he thought some people might get overly offended by his poking fun at religion. "If someone is so secure in their faith, why are they the least bit concerned about some little atheist mocking them?" he asked. "I think the reason they are worried and concerned is the very deep fear that if everyone doesn't believe it, maybe it isn't so."

For Kagin, this struggle between godless and god-fearing hits very close to home: his son, Steve Kagin, is a fundamentalist minister in Kansas.

He founded Camp Quest, a secular summer camp for young nonbelievers, many of whom, he says, have been harrassed or hounded for their lack of faith.

And then there's this interesting twist. His own son, Steve Kagin, is a fundamentalist minister in Kansas.

Kagin said that his son claims to have a personal revelation in Jesus Christ. "I am totally unable to say that's not true," he said. "There are examples all through history of quite sane people who have had such experiences. I don't think it is but I'm not going to say it isn't."

Kagin: 'As Much Merit as the Original Baptism'

When asked if he is pained by their opposing views on this issue, Kagin chuckled. "Oh, one wonders where they went wrong," he said. He and his son, Steven, have an excellent relationship, Kagin said, but they do have their limits.

"We just understand there are certain things we really can't, at this point, talk about," he said.

"I don't lose much sleep over [it] because everyone has the right to do what they want to do within the law," he said. "That's what I believe in."

As Cambridge completed her de-baptism, she expressed no qualms about how it might be perceived. "Sometimes you've got to have shock value," she said. "There's some times where you just have to shock people into getting attention and from there, they ask questions... And maybe they learn a bit."

Kagin said that he saw the conflict between atheists and believers as America's religious civil war. He said bad manners are a reasonable weapon in that war, but he said it was unlikely that atheists would emerge as the victors.

"Atheists have no chance whatsoever of prevailing in a direct confrontation with believers," he said. "There are far too many [believers]."

Copyright © 2010 ABC News Internet Ventures
  1. groups:
    Community,   Comedy,   Humanism,   Not News,   3 more
  2. tags:
    Atheism,  Atheist,  Baptism,  American Atheists,  3 more
  3.     
    |

210 comments // Atheists Use Blow-Dryers to De-Baptize

  • cztheday
    • +1
      cztheday  

    • Utterly ridiculous. If one does not believe in religion then their baptism was meaningless. By "reversing it" they are actually giving the baptism meaning at the same time they argue it doesn't have any. Of course, if they have the time and energy to do this, and it floats their boat -- good for them. I certainly don't see any harm in doing it. What I DO see on this thread is the usual hysterical intolerance for both Christians and atheists. Extremists on both sides do stupid things. But my quiet belief in the teachings of Jesus is not hurting atheists in any way, and their quiet rejection of religion or belief in God is not hurting me...

    • 2 years ago
  • cztheday
    • 0
      cztheday  
    • cztheday:

      By "quiet" I don't mean that either side should not be free to express their views. It just seems to me that if one is going to jump up and down and scream about things, that activity should be directed at extremists who feel they can only make their point by making somebody else miserable, not at people who live peacefully in accordance with their particular spiritual philosophy.

    • 2 years ago
  • tommic
  • 2helenahandbasket
  • JuliusBC
    • +1
      JuliusBC  

    • Many if not most opinions are forged by what we have been told or taught to believe. The ugly little gnome I call “organized religion” is nestled somewhere beneath most discriminations and supplies the nasty little devices used to keep them alive. It is quite possible that religion is the apple being peddled by the serpent...

    • 2 years ago
  • fun_size
    • +3
      fun_size  

    • Im surprised to see this many posts on such a silly article. I guess its true that dumb people really dont get satire huh? No wonder Bush invited Steven Colbert to a dinner...

    • 2 years ago
  • pertinacious
  • Almibry
  • Anthony_Gordon
    • 0
      Anthony_Gordon  

    • The truly religious mind is a very rare thing today. It is a mind that is geniunely happy, joyous, and free in spite of any external circumstances, the ups and downs of life and approaches everything fairly easy in faith and hope. Nevertheless, christian minds in general consider themselves free of the bondage of the societally-conditioned and brain-washed culture in which so much mis-information abounding that it does not really matter because we are at least a million years behind the halfway point of understanding any real solid truth. Look around you in the world and all that you see are in-authentic human ´people who are misarable always trying to mirror other people or at least to find someone out there who thinks and act like they do. But you know what? No body on this planet will die for you and can assist you down into the grave. You Got To Go Alone!!

    • 2 years ago
  • unimatrix0
  • pertinacious
  • randallr01
  • pertinacious
  • randallr01
  • pertinacious
  • Almibry
  • Anthony_Gordon
  • mcmanly
    • +1
      mcmanly  

    • if they dont believe in god then whats with all the resentment and disgust toward a ritual that should mean nothing to them.

    • 2 years ago
  • keithponder
  • randallr01
  • pertinacious
  • randallr01
  • pertinacious
  • Saladin
    • +3
      Saladin  
    • keithponder:

      This is such an awful argument.

      Why do we care? Because the damage done by the religious to educational institutions, government decisions and social behavior is incalculable.

      Abortion, creationism, foreign wars, censorship of the media, forced prayer and the murder of homosexuals are just SOME of the wonderful things this delusional thinking has brought us.

      Why do we care? You force us to care.

    • 2 years ago
  • randallr01
  • Anthony_Gordon
  • JuliusBC
  • TomTucker
  • bailey78
  • Saladin
    • +1
      Saladin  
    • TomTucker:

      No, you got that backwards.

      You DON'T believe in something when you can't have any knowledge of its existence, you don't do whatever you want.

      Do you believe in Thor, Odin, Krishna, Dragons, Goblins, Zombies, Orcs, Elves? Why not? No evidence for them either way right?

      No one follows this standard consistently, not that it makes any sense.

    • 2 years ago
  • pertinacious
  • Drach
    • +2
      Drach  
    • pertinacious:

      Christ didn't exist. I don't believe he was a human. Perhaps he was just a hero of an old story?

      Think about it, I love Star Wars but I don't worship Luke Skywalker!

      I love how when you mention atheist you use derogatory terms but when you mention christians they can't do anything wrong...Have you ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition? What about the Salem witch trials? I never read a story about an atheist group executing christians because they won't renounce their faith!? Let alone using the laws of the land to carry out torture and execution...

      Get a clue!

    • 2 years ago
  • pertinacious
  • Almibry
    • -2
      Almibry  
    • TomTucker:

      +^'d It's impossible to live through life without faith in something. Religion requires you to put your faith in God, Atheism requires that you put your faith in Science. Are both of them always right? Fuck no, but we can pretend mine's better.

    • 2 years ago
  • Almibry
  • Saladin
    • +1
      Saladin  
    • Almibry:

      Says the vaccinated individual eating food from a microwave and typing on a computer.

      You don't need faith in science because science has RESULTS. What results do you get from religion?

      You don't seem to understand what faith is. Faith is not any just any old thing you believe, Faith is believing in something in SPITE of evidence, not just without evidence.

    • 2 years ago
  • Anthony_Gordon
  • Anthony_Gordon
  • Almibry
    • -1
      Almibry  
    • Saladin:

      Faith does not require that you believe in spite of evidence, but for the sake of argument, I'll pretend that it does. So what has evidence told you about science? Nothing that scientists say about the world is still held to be true 50 years later, but you believe what scientists tell you in spite of the evidence suggesting that they're just going to change their mind in a few years.

      Evidence says that we only see a tiny fraction of what we call light, but you have faith in your eyes, knowing that we don't see 10% of what's there. We have faith in our sense of hearing, knowing our range is as limited as our sight. We have faith in our sense of smell knowing that we don't register everything that's in the air. We have faith in our decisions knowing that we don't know shit. All of this applies to everyone, whatever they call themselves, everyone is so full of faith, so confident that they can't be wrong in SPITE of the fact that they know they know very little.

      Why do you imply that because I'm not agreeing with you, I must be on the religious side? It's just as full of shit as the rest of you.

    • 2 years ago
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • Almibry:

      They change their mind because new evidence proves them wrong, why is that a bad thing? Should they NOT have changed their minds instead?

      Furthermore, anyone who studies science KNOWS this, that's why you always keep a seed of doubt for any current explanation. But until new evidence comes along, there's nothing else that we can verify and thus no way to make new decisions about what we think is true.

      I DON'T have faith in my eyes or any of my other senses precisely because they've been proven to be unreliable. If I were to see something completely ridiculous, I wouldn't trust that just because I saw or heard it that it was true. Maybe you do, I don't.

      I didn't say you were on the religious side, I gave an example as to why you were wrong about faith.

      And you can scream all day about how "wrong" people are, you're still using a device which is based on science. It's a self-defeating argument.

      You don't need have certainty to know things about the world, it's a meaningless concept. The only thing you need is reliability. You don't even need to understand why it's reliable.

      And science isn't just reliable, it's demonstrably the most productive process ever conceived. The modern scientific method has given us more in the past 300 years than the previous thousand gave us.

      Do you really have to have faith in that? It fucking works, no faith required.

    • 2 years ago
  • Almibry
    • 0
      Almibry  
    • Saladin:

      Maybe they shouldn't have made up their minds to begin with. Is it really so important to believe in the solar system? I can see stars from my yard just fine, why fill my head with useless info that's just going to turn out to be wrong?
      The definition of science is so lose, I'm a scientist, and so is every other living creature on this planet, so your computer argument is crap. I bet if I used the argument: you're sitting on a chair so you can't hate on Jesus, you would say it's crap too. You don't know every detail of my life. You can't know what I go without. Yes I have this computer, but there are more man-made things I'll never touch.
      I see what science gave us, and I'd rather go without most of it. Scientists with their God complexes are going to kill us all, with pollution or the atom bomb, faster than God or Politics combined. The best choice is to reject it and go back to living on what you can make, and what your neighbors can make. Be your own damned God/scientist. Rely on yourself and what YOU know. Quit waiting for people to spoon feed you.
      If you really mean what you say about not having faith in your senses, then your whole argument is moot, you just agreed with the basis of all my arguments. Take some time to really think of all the implications.

    • 2 years ago
  • Saladin
    • +1
      Saladin  
    • Almibry:

      You're just being contentious because you don't want to admit how utterly wrong you are.

      No one made up their minds, they observed and formed conclusions. The tests showed that these conclusions were based on something at least partially correct and it had APPLICATIONS. That doesn't mean they were positive it was true, by would they abandon something which obviously works at least some of the time?

      No, you're not a scientist. It isn't even remotely loose. And that has NOTHING to do with my computer argument on which you're trying to assert that I use "faith" in reliance on science. I pointed out why that's self-defeating since you enjoy the fruits of its results inescapably and how obviously dumb it was to assert belief on faith on devices that obviously don't require faith. Even if the theory has problems, even if the facts aren't all straight, the shit simply WORKS, you don't need faith for that.

      But of course, since you've been proven wrong there you have to say SOMETHING other than bowing out gracefully, and it's equally ignorant as the last point.

      lol, you'd go without MOST of it? So, in other words, you're going to cherry-pick all of the things that are beneficial and reject all of the things that kinda suck and then say it's all WRONG? You don't see the problem inherent with that?

      Have fun with your agrarian society then and all the wonderful things like smallpox, bandit raids, horrible food output, lack of emergency infrastructure and efficient sanitation. Or did you plan to steal those things and just leave the rest?

      Then, if you insist to go Amish and never develop beyond that point, you can enjoy one of earth's many mass extinction events and find out how wonderful the "natural" world treats those who don't try to excel above their current means.

      And how does not having faith in my senses make my argument moot? Understanding that your senses are unreliable a certain portion of the time is the ticket to being able to expand your senses with technology when necessary. Am I just supposed to just ball up because human experience isn't a perfect indicator of reality? Imperfect doesn't mean useless or unreliable.

      More likely what you're trying to posit is another self-defeating argument people get into it with science, this obsessive-compulsive desire to point out that we can't be certain about our conclusions, as if somehow that's relevant to making decisions. I'm assuming you mean to make the point that I can't "know" what's going on around me so what's the point? Well, if that's the case, why make any distinction between any reality at all? We might as well just walk of cliffs, we can't know for certain right? Why don't we?

      You sit around taking potshots at the mot successful endeavor in human history because its propositions can't be proven. So? How is that a justification to take something that does work, science, and replace it with your own mindless rambling, which doesn't work, and claim that they're equal?

      Science may not be certain, but you don't have a fucking CLUE by comparison. It's not a binary system of either knowing something or not. You can be partially right, mostly right or just functionally right, you don't need to be omniscient to recognize when a phenomena is occurring consistently.

      And unlike your arrogant presumptions about not caring to see how the world works, this "uncertain" method is demonstrably superior, demonstrably, to any idealized agrarian folk story you dreamed up when you were bored.

      You wanna talk about implications?

      Think about the implications of a philosophy which rejects truth unless it is certain. And since that's an impossible proposition, that means you should accept nothing as being true. And since you claim certainty is the only useful position, that means you can't accept any proposition as being any more likely than another.

      And how useless is it to trudge about life asserting that since you obviously don't believe it. But that doesn't stop you from applying to your detractors when you have nothing left to say.

      Think of a better way to deal with reality or suck it up, you're not nearly as important or as insightful as you think you are and it's pointless to criticize progress because it's imperfect when your alternative is giving up and living the shit life instead.

      It's especially pointless since NOTHING IS STOPPING YOU.

      You wanna give up science and make all your own food and build your own society? By all means, there's plenty of cheap property out there. You could get started tomorrow if you really wanted to. See how well the Fight Club dream really works out.

      Call me an asshole, but I don't think you want that. I'm calling your bluff. You're just frustrated so you jumped to an argument you know is completely fucking dumb. But you support it because you wanna "win."

    • 2 years ago
  • Almibry
    • 0
      Almibry  
    • Saladin:

      What's so wrong about cherry picking? Some things are nice, some things are complete and utter crap, that's pretty straight forward. The world doesn't operate on an "all or nothing" mentality, but certain people do. I never said anywhere, at anytime that ALL science is crap, I said people treat science like God, I said it's nowhere near as reliable as people let you believe, I said in reality, it's not very reliable at all. Discoveries are constantly proven to be wrong and contradicting. In REALITY the people who are "discovering" all this crap are just as human as the people who are "inspired" by God and should be treated the same. They are after all, just people, one is not above the other, and both are wrong as often as not. It is natural to try to survive, to try to live well, to try to figure things out, so both should be listened to, at the very least. People just have their own ways of going about making sense of the world.
      The crazy thing about my life is I CAN decide what I want to do with it, and if I want to buy a piece of land and live off of it, I can do that. I can also use whatever inventions I feel like and you can't stop me. That doesn't mean that science is the one and only way, it doesn't prove that "science" is best. It means that I base my decisions off what I find to be true without letting anyone make up my mind for me. By making decisions off my own experiences, not from what a scientist or priest says is right, though I often listen to the experiences of others for the sake of gathering information, I don't give it much weight until I can find it to be true or false on my own. What bothers me is people thinking that one thing has all the answers with no compromise, that one path is the one true path and everyone who doesn't agree is just wrong.
      I'm not utterly wrong, if I had been using the arguments you made up for me, I might agree with you, but the fact remains, people cannot live without faith. They put faith in whatever they feel like, and pretend their way is best (myself included). I never said science was all wrong, or that religion was all right. I really don't like either one all that much, but I do cherry pick bits and pieces from them both because there are some things that just make sense: like trying to live well while harming none, like paying attention to the world around me and using my brain to make sense of it. You're right, as far as I know, I'm the only thing in this "world" that exists, the only thing I have been able to prove to myself thus far is that I'm here, and because I know I'm here I've decided that it's important for me to take care of myself, because regardless of why I'm here, I'm damn lucky to exist at all. So I pay attention to the "world" around me so I don't end up cutting my life short accidentally (thanks for encouraging me to commit suicide by the way, tells me a lot about who I'm dealing with here, "asshole" would indeed be justified). That doesn't prove anything but my desire to live, and the joy I get from living.
      FYI not having faith in your senses means that observing and recording (science) is an exercise in futility, especially when you're not the one doing the observing and recording because you can't be sure of exactly how the observer is impaired. At that point it's comparable to reading the Bible: accepting what someone else says on faith without finding out if it's true with your own dubious senses.
      I'm going to be honest with you, I read most of what you wrote, but it didn't really register because you just made a lot of stuff up then claimed it came from me, then started arguing with yourself and I see no point in arguing about fiction or interrupting you.
      Except one thing, if you can't be certain about your conclusions, you really shouldn't base any decisions off of them. Why not start off with things you are sure of, and go from there? That's not at all unreasonable.

      I guess what I'm arguing boils down to the difference between knowing and understanding. I can memorize endless "facts" about the world and regurgitate them on demand, but it's all useless. You can't "learn" understanding. Understanding just is. No scientist or priest can make you understand, it's something you HAVE to find on your own.

    • 2 years ago
  • eden49
    • 0
      eden49  
    • Almibry:

      ...sorry to interject like this, but is anyone having probs getting email alerts re posts on current...I've had nothing for about 5 hrs now...obviously I'm in the southern Hemisphere, but normally at this time I've had at least 200 odd...sorry A, to interrupt...

    • 2 years ago
  • Almibry
  • randallr01
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • Almibry:

      After reaching the end of this post, I decided you should probably watch this video. You'll understand why at the end. Now, onto the reply.

      "Some things are nice, some things are complete and utter crap, that's pretty straight forward."

      Because that has nothing to do with the METHOD by which they were achieved.

      If you claim science is useless and can't know anything, you don't get to pick out the parts of it that you like and still claim that the rest of it is bunk.

      Science is malicious and science is wrong are two separate arguments. If you've now switched from the latter to the former, you need to say that.

      And this...

      "In REALITY the people who are "discovering" all this crap are just as human as the people who are "inspired" by God and should be treated the same. "

      cannot mesh with....

      "I never said anywhere, at anytime that ALL science is crap"

      If you think that the people who use the method that brought us the greatest technological advancements in human history, many of which occurred in less than a century, is EQUIVALENT to the folks who have held the same wrong or unprovable conclusions for 2000 years with NOTHING to show for it, you've completely lost it.

      Science is god compared to the rest of the shit humans have tried. Even some of the most poor among us can live greater than medieval kings could have ever dreamed of. Hell, some of their descriptions of heaven aren't even as GOOD as modern society is.

      And I'm supposed to accept that because new evidence invalidates older theories that makes these people and this method just as unsure as everybody else? Are you fucking kidding me?

      First off, that "new data" that comes up with that contradicts the old theories, COMES FROM SCIENTISTS. They correct THEMSELVES. Can you say the same of practically anything you believe in? Most people can't even admit their own faults, let alone when they were wrong about something.

      It's not like some clever street kid came up and pointed out to a scientist when something was wrong, the method itself attributes for and expunges errors, inconsistencies and bad judgment. And it gets better at this all the time. Most layman can't even understand how most of it works, let alone criticize it.

      And you're trying to make the claim that because it has FAULTS, even though you admit ALL people have faults, that it's -equivalent- to the WORST attempt (religion) to explain the world with no demonstrable results.

      Here is the reasoning you're using. Mahatma Gandhi had faults, which means he is not perfect. Therefore, he is just as bad as everyone else, including Adolf Hitler, in terms of trying to be good.

      Do you see why this doesn't work? It's the tar pit calling the stained old wedding dress black.

      "it doesn't prove that "science" is best."

      It does if we're talking about life expectancy. It does if we're talking about sanitation. It does if we're talking about food production. It does if we're talking about societal and martial protection. It does if we're talking about surviving extinction events. It does if we're talking about industrial productivity. It does if we're talking about consumer goods or medicine.

      These things are demonstrably superior, it's not a matter of opinion. It's an objective fact.
      Furthermore, you're intent on STEALING these things and STILL claiming that science is inferior? Your position is self-defeating.

      "By making decisions off my own experiences, not from what a scientist or priest says is right,"

      Morality isn't objective, scientists say nothing about it, but that doesn't mesh with...

      "I don't give it much weight until I can find it to be true or false on my own"

      Do you understand what it MEANS for something to be true or false?

      It's not true or false subjectively, to you. True or false means reality does or does not actually behave that way. And if the statement can't be said to be true about reality independent of us and our opinions then it's not something that can BE true or false.

      Pick a position, all these notions about "no right or wrong path" are vague and, by your own admission, wrong.

      "but the fact remains, people cannot live without faith"

      That's not a fact, not even remotely. If it is, prove it. Otherwise it's meaningless conjecture meant to illicit faux-wisdom.

      "I'm the only thing in this "world" that exists"

      You can't even prove that, but it's tangential, so I'll let it slide.

      "thanks for encouraging me to commit suicide by the way"

      Uhhhhh, I NEVER said, implied or wished that on you, anywhere. This is becoming increasingly emotional upchuck and decreasingly coherent rebuttal.

      "FYI not having faith in your senses means that observing and recording (science) is an exercise in futility,"

      Finally, an actual argument, still wrong though for the reasons I listed previously. I literally just addressed this.

      Being aware of a weakness is not to be blind to reality was the jist of what I said above.

      By the way, I hope you understand that you wouldn't even KNOW about that if wasn't for science discovering it. The full range of the electromagnetic spectrum, the frequency limits for hearing and the weakness of human smell and taste are all brought to you by scientific discovery. Prior to it, people assumed that senses were reliable since there was no reason to think otherwise.

      "I read most of what you wrote, but it didn't really register because you just made a lot of stuff up then claimed it came from me"

      I literally replied to your post by reading and responding to each paragraph in order, I kept my comment box right below the next sentence I was reading.

      Even if that weren't true, "not registering" means not understanding.

      If you can't understand me, that bears no relevance to whether or not I made a correct response. Unless you didn't mean what you just said, you've just admitted that you can't even understand the points that I'm making.

      Considering that they're entirely coherent, you either need to ask for clarification or simplification.

      You don't get to dismiss them outright because you don't get it.

      "Why not start off with things you are sure of, and go from there? That's not at all unreasonable."

      Didn't you JUST say that the only thing you can prove is that you "exist" and nothing else?

      Did ten different people write this? If you can't be consistent with something you said in the same POST, what am I supposed to do here? YOU don't even know what you are trying to say now.

      No, it's NOT reasonable because no conclusion besides an identity statement can be certain.

      The concept of certainty is completely meaningless and inapplicable to reality because it requires omniscience. None of us are, so it means we have to go with what we can't prove wrong rather than what we can prove beyond all doubt.

      In science, you take positive evidence, you derive a conclusion and then attempt to falsify it with an experiment. If it ends up not being false, you see if it has applications. If it does, then the claim is assumed to be true until it can be proven false or in some way or explained better by something else.

      That's the best method we have for making conclusions, there is nothing better.

      "No scientist or priest can make you understand, it's something you HAVE to find on your own."

      And clearly, you haven't found it.

      You can't even define it.

      You don't even know what it -means- to understand something and you don't even allow for it according to some of the things you've said in these posts.

      You know what you should do? Go to google and type in the following things, "logic," "fallacies," "critical thinking" and "the scientific method."

      Because I don't even think you understand what it means to be wrong, let alone how it's possible to be right and when those terms can even apply.

    • 2 years ago
  • Almibry
  • Almibry
  • Almibry
    • 0
      Almibry  
    • Saladin:

      ROFL you just like to make things up, don't you?
      "all this crap" =/= "science is crap"
      I'm comparing science to religion in the sense that both require faith.
      Then I go on to compare individuals (which is where faith becomes necessary):
      Scientists are just as human as priests, don't you see the logic in treating people fairly? Giving everyone a fair shot? If not, then I pity you. You'll never even know what you are missing and you'll hurt some perfectly good people in the process.
      I never said science was malicious or wrong, just pointless. Practical inventions are the product of trail and error: things that blacksmiths, carpenters, and mechanics do, people who are not "qualified" as scientists. Even "real" science uses trail and error more than anything, but unless the one recording data has been properly labeled as a scientist, you seem to be fine with dismissing it as complete and utter bullshit.
      You point to longevity, and productivity and talk about it like only good has come from these advancements, while ignoring all the havoc that has been wreaked on our environment as a result. All of this "advancement" and "growth" is turning out to be suicidal. Sure we live like kings now, but in less than 15 years, we will be fighting for water, IN AMERICA. Gee, thanks ALOT for that.
      I'd rather have died of a fever when I was a kid, while I still had the chance of a clean death. I didn't ask for antibiotics (not a result of science, but messiness, in case you missed that), I was unconscious for most of it, FYI.
      In reality we could use less of these creations, go back to the basics: organic, local, renewable, go oldschool. There is a place for a few inventions, like solar panels (though we don't all NEED electricity, I doubt the majority of people would give it up) and I guess we're just too dependent on cars to get rid of those though I wouldn't be sad to see those gone. The fact is, while they're kinda cool, they're mostly luxury items, and we could do with far less, in fact, we'd be more likely to survive with less. America is full of fatasses, whether they're eating themselves to death, or ravenous for technology, it impacts the whole world. All this is making us stupid. We need to go back to healthy diets, with food we grow OURSELVES. No GM/processed/mass produced anything. We don't need it. Growth CAN be bad.
      *grumbling* you have no perspective whatsoever, so let's drag this out. I KNOW I exist, so there are certain things I have decided to do to take care of myself, even if I don't really KNOW that it makes any difference in the long run. I eat, drink, breath, do yoga, etc. I steer clear of cliffs because I have fallen before, and I believe it sucks. I listen to people (some old man's anecdotes, scientists, priests, bums, whoever) because even though I can't prove they exist, they're often amusing. When I hear hear the same thing often enough, I start to believe it's possible. If I hear it more probable, when I gather enough evidence, whether it's data I collected myself or from questioning the world (people included) around me, I make up my mind. Yes, I have used "science" to decide how moral something is or isn't. Just because morality isn't a consideration in science (one reason I think we could use less of it) it doesn't mean the 2 are completely separated.
      To be honest, I'm pretty sure this is all bullshit and I'm going to wake up one day in a place out of space between fantasies as an amorphous cloud of particles, if I'm even that much. But I like this world here, so I give it my faith. I can understand how I could confuse you, words don't mean much to me and their meaning's blend together, having 2 or 5 each and I try to use them all at the same time for some reason, but I make sense to myself, and that's what I've decided is important. It's not too often that I see things from just one point of view. Everything makes sense to somebody... I can dig it.
      I think I have less faith than you, but at least I'm willing to admit I have some.
      You say you have no faith in your eyes, then say you rely on technology invented by one of us faulty humans, and use that for proof? You don't see how stupid that is to claim you don't have faith? You use a faulty system to supplement a faulty system and still claim to make up your mind without any faith involved. That's not possible, but you can convince yourself it is, if you dislike the word faith enough.
      (Just to let you know, I understood what you typed, just sounds like crap [yes that word again] so I didn't let it take up permanent residence)

    • 2 years ago
  • EthicalVegan
  • eden49
  • EthicalVegan
  • musicjohnny
    • 0
      musicjohnny  

    • I don't really care one way or the other, but my question is why bother? Seems like a lot of trouble to go to just to say the didn't like a ceremony that their parents did before they could even remember...
      I mean I didn't like eating brussle sprouts when I was a kid, but I'm not gonna go light some on fire now to show every one.
      Idk, just seems like a lot of silliness to me; better just to be mature, stick to your your ideals, and not do stuff that makes you look weird lol.

    • 2 years ago
  • peacehome
    • +1
      peacehome  

    • Well now. Listen to (some) of yourselves... Just reading these comments makes it easy for me to see why we have such problems thw world over with sectarian strife and ethnic and religous intolerance... "If you're religon is true, then mine must not be and I am wasting my time and my life... And your god will get me if your religion is true and mine isn't etc."

      Let's try to remember we are ALL on the same team. Why should I care what you believe? You may even be right. If for not other reason, I had better respect your beliefs just in case you ARE right... But here's a better reason... Because I want you to respect my beliefs... sooooo... And maybe you are right? Maybe we are all right. Ween I take the time to read past spiritual; leaders I find that they are preaching mostly the same thing: Tolerence of others, lvoe they neighbor, we are part of a great uiverse and we should all remember that none of us has a corner on the truth.

      Oh well... I can't wait to see who I have pissed off now.

      Peace Y'all

    • 2 years ago
  • keithponder
  • Almibry
  • LIBERALCONJOB
  • pertinacious
  • eden49
  • bailey78
  • keithponder
  • Anthony_Gordon
  • pertinacious
  • SuperGayJesus
  • pertinacious
  • SuperGayJesus
  • pertinacious
  • SuperGayJesus
  • pertinacious
  • SuperGayJesus
  • pertinacious
  • SuperGayJesus
  • keithponder
  • randallr01
  • CalPal
  • peacehome
    • 0
      peacehome  
    • SuperGayJesus:

      Yeah I know... buring peopel at the stake and all.... but let's recognize that for what it is... Christianity being used by those in power to justify their ends. Which is about power over others as oppossed to empowerment of self and others... and GREED. But real Christianity preaches somethinn quite different. Don't forget that Christannity was hijacked early on by the state. The Gospal of thomas was censored early on. Mist christians don't know whatit is really all about... Not that it is perfect... every religion that I have studied has it's faults, but all a well meaning, tryinh to make sense of a universe that, at the time, people had limted knoweldge of.

      So use of any religion ny other powers is the real sin... And I know and resist the elements that are in all religion that uphold and enshrie patriarchy, so I get that,. but there is a lot to be said for ,uch of what is in the gospals and the old testament, though I find the gospals a bit morfe advanced spiritually speaking.

      Thanks for your post and sorry for my absence. I have been busy.

    • 2 years ago
  • rodstradamus
    • 0
      rodstradamus  

    • Baptism is a religious ceremony created by man; it has nothing to do with God.

      The ritual has its astro-theological roots with Aquarius, the water-bearer, as well as the planet Saturn. This ritual was used for indoctrination by cult priesthoods thousands of years before Jesus and was blended with the new religion of Christianity. The wedding "ring" is another custom based on the Saturn cults of pre-Egyptian time carried on til today through the Vatican and other modern cult incarnations.

      Most outspoken atheists that I've come across are depressed narcissists, who think they know everything, but actually gave up searching for answers. They can be real pricks.

    • 2 years ago
  • Armageddon_Now
  • ikkibu_emuqa
    • -2
      ikkibu_emuqa  

    • i have a few atheist friends n they became atheist wen someone close to them died. that does not mean that their isn't a god idk how they come to that conclusion

    • 2 years ago
  • fun_size
  • ibrake4rappers13
    • -1
      ibrake4rappers13  

    • Don't atheist know that baptism is an outward expression of an inward experience?

      Its more of a public proclamation of your new relationship with Jesus Christ

    • 2 years ago
  • onemalefla
  • bailey78
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • randallr01
    • +3
      randallr01  
    • ibrake4rappers13:

      We all know what baptism is, silly. And don't YOU know that using a blow-dryer to symbolize a reversal of that ritual is fricken hilarious??

      Replacing one *ritual* with another in order to mock it = awesome.

    • 2 years ago
  • ibrake4rappers13
    • -2
      ibrake4rappers13  
    • randallr01:

      Because they count on that ritual to do the Job,

      The ritual of baptism cannot save you in itself, so i dont know what type of statement they are trying to make.

      They are pretty much just publicly displaying their ignorance of christianity

    • 2 years ago
  • MrMxyzptlk
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • SuperGayJesus
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • MrMxyzptlk
  • Varex_Sythe
    • +3
      Varex_Sythe  
    • ibrake4rappers13:

      Don't Christians/Catholics know that the blow-dryer de-baptize ceremony is an outward expression of an inward experience?

      It's a more public proclamation of your new relationship without a potential fairy tale like figure that no one can either prove or disprove.

    • 2 years ago
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • Varex_Sythe
    • +2
      Varex_Sythe  
    • ibrake4rappers13:

      I'm just making a point that an Atheist de-baptization is just as much of a spiritual, or in an Atheists case intellectual inward experience. Most people who become Atheists after having been raised under some kind of religious doctrine do so because they have become disgusted with their faith and often feel like they are being freed from the shackles of the religion that they once practiced.

    • 2 years ago
  • pertinacious
  • bailey78
  • randallr01
    • +1
      randallr01  
    • ibrake4rappers13:

      I was raised as a 'full immersion baptism' Christian, and I am therefore not ignorant of Christianity, and I find the blow-dryer mocking *HILARIOUS.*

      The prob with people like you is, you think that anyone who disagrees with the Bible or your Religion is either ignorant or dumb. You can't grapple that we have made an educated *choice* not to follow your religion.

    • 2 years ago
  • pertinacious
123
1 - 100 of 210
cclark_productions
more from Comedy:
from the community

top videos