Zealous preacher bingo card

Discuss

40 Responses to “Zealous preacher bingo card”

  1. Christopher says:

    And every single one was filled in about ten minutes. They must have given away a lot of candy.

  2. anon0mouse says:

    Yay! There are snarky, angry, petty people in the world?  This is news? Stale toast.

    IMO, rabid atheists and bible-thumpers deserve each other.  They are opposite sides of the same intolerant, know-it-all coin.

    • spenze says:

      Thank you for bringing that to our attention without any snark, anger, pettiness or even hypocrisy.

    • theophrastvs says:

      got bit by a rabid atheist once.  but i got better.  i’m a practicing agnostic now (and i practice a full 3.5 hours a day)

    • Gekko_Gecko says:

      Yay! there are ignorant, snarky, angry people in the world who cant take having a bit of fun thrown at them when they resort to nutjobbery?
      Stale toast.

      ps. sorry dude for hurting your feelings, but im afraid that there simply is no such thing as God. ( or magic, or unicorns, or flying reindeer etc )

      If you cant hack the truth and resort to calling the people who speak the truth intolerant and rabid….well, tough shit. 

      Facts are facts whether people believe them or not. Belief/faith in and of itself does not magically create Gods. It only creates willful ignorance.

      If you think this mild reply is rabid or intolerant, again, tough shit.

      Its high time Atheists around the world started standing up and being heard. Its the 21st century, its time we got rid of this archaic religion thing and moved on from the “we cant explain it with out 1st century knowledge so my magical being in the sky did it, and if you say its *your* magical being in the sky, youre going to burn in my gods hell for an eternity” bullshit that is perpetuated today.

    • anon0mouse says:

      I am constantly amazed how often a point can be simultaneously missed and proven.

    • Christopher says:

      I’m not a fan of snarkiness for its own sake, and I may have mistakenly extrapolated from my own experience, but I have known people claiming to be ministers who go onto college campuses solely for the purpose of telling the students they’re going to Hell, that their behavior is immoral, that they’re being taught lies, and so on.

      Since this is, in most cases, trespassing, the obvious thing to do would be to call security, but the bingo card requires that students listen carefully to Pastor Tom, and can even be a little instructive. Most of the targets are easy, but I think it’s helpful to learn what constitutes a logical fallacy or to recognize bad science.

      • Boundegar says:

        Thank you.  Your post forced me to re-read the OP, which stopped me from posting something obtuse and irrelevant.  But don’t worry, it’s only a matter of time.

    • John Smith says:

      I’ve never met one of these rabid atheist, I hear about them from people who seem to have a chip on their shoulder about the subject. But I’ve met a god damn lot of bible thumpers and “spiritual” people.

      • machinestate says:

        Atheism is in itself a belief.  Some atheists claim their belief is better than everyone else’s, some just claim it’s the best belief for themselves. 

        I imagine the commenter meant “rabid” in terms of the uncontrollable compulsion by someone insecure in their own beliefs to lessen that insecurity by making some case to convert others to that belief.

        The only “lack of belief” -ism I know of is Agnosticism.

        • machinestate says:

          And before anyone chimes in that Atheism is actually a disbelief, consider that Theism is also a disbelief that life originated on its own from comet collisions, Brownian motion in the ocean, lightning strikes, etc.

          • wysinwyg says:

            No, theism is actually not a disbelief in those things.  See: the majority of liberal Christians who believe their theism is 100% consistent with a scientific account of human origins.

            Atheism is a disbelief in gods, but in my experience most atheists are also agnostic. They don’t know for sure there’s no God (which is one of the major reasons for the FSM stuff) but think it’s unlikely and, in the absence of evidence one way or another, see no particular reason to take religious dogma seriously. Even the awful, terrible, double plus ungood Dawkins describes himself as a “6 out of 7″ where 7 is absolute non-belief, 1 is absolute belief, and 4 is complete agnosticism.

            Agnosticism doesn’t seem to me to imply either belief or “lack of belief”.

          • Michael Rosefield says:

            I also have a belief that 2+2 =4, and that gravity isn’t the result of cosmic gnomes trying to hug each other.

            If we’re going to say atheism is ‘just a belief’, then that doesn’t necessarily belittle it. 

          • Dave Lloyd says:

            “awful, terrible, double plus ungood Dawkins”
            Do we really have to keep beating up one of the few public professors of atheism just to keep friendly with the religious types?
            It’s not as if he’s ordered the burning of heretics as many historical bishops did or issued fatwas forcing writers to live in hiding as modern imams have. 
            We seem to be asked to hate Dawkins just cos he dared stick his head above the parapet.

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            I think that people mostly hate him because he’s so nasty. Maybe you could start a system of belief that requires us to admire him.

          • Jonathan Badger says:

            Yes and no. Yes, there are theists who *say* that that they believe in evolution and other scientific explanations of the natural world, but it is problematical if you really think about it — most theists probably think that their god controls, e.g., evolution, rather than being a unsupervised result of genetic drift and natural selection as the science suggests. Many atheists don’t like to call theists out on this because moderate theists are often on their side in regard to fundamentalists, but with the possible exception of deism (which postulates that god(s) made the world but take no active part in ruling it now), theism is inconsistent with accepting a scientific world view.

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            most theists probably think that their god controls, e.g., evolution, rather than being a unsupervised result of genetic drift and natural selection as the science suggests

            Use of weasel words: -1

        • llamaspit says:

          Again with the “atheism is a belief” fallacy. Only if you  choose to consider all “knowing” as a system of belief.
          I”m pretty confident there are no unicorns, but it is not a belief, it is a conclusion based on lack of evidence.I accept that there is no factual evidence to prove the existence of a god (feel free to provide some), but I’m open to being proved wrong by the appearance of verifiable evidence. That is not a belief.

          • spenze says:

            The reason why many consider atheism a belief (my self included, despite being an atheist) is because you’re coming to a conclusion without concrete evidence.

            Just because there’s no proof of god, doesn’t mean that there is no god, it just means its very, very unlikely that there is.

            Like wysinwyg, most atheists I know, weather they admit it or not, are also agnostics. They’re rational enough to admit that god could exist, but believe that he doesn’t.

          • llamaspit says:

            My answer would be that you need concrete evidence to prove that something does exist, but you don’t need concrete evidence to prove that it does not exist. 

            Simply because you can posit the idea of a god, does not mean that idea has any basis in existence. I can conceive of the unicorn idea, but you don’t equate a non-belief in the unicorn with a form of faith. At least I hope you don’t. 

            We are using “belief” in different ways. In religion, “belief” is a form of faith in the unknowable. In science, “belief” is an acceptance of evidence based fact, which is subject to change with new evidence.

            At least, that is how I see it.

          • C W says:

            “The reason why many consider atheism a belief (my self included, despite being an atheist) is because you’re coming to a conclusion without concrete evidence.”

            Theism and agonisticism is the belief in the supernatural without any evidence. Both require some amount of faith in the possibility.

            Agnostic atheists simply do not concern themselves with any idea that exists without the possibility of evidence.

          • machinestate says:

            There’s also the important fact that life has never been created in a laboratory from organic sludge, not even guided by intelligent beings, much less at random.  The view that life originated this way is indeed a belief until scientific evidence transforms it into knowledge. 

            According to modern science, there are no proven circumstances for the origin of life – yet the vast majority of atheists have faith that it will some day be proven to be originated by random physical events.

            In fact, I would make a guess that there are quite a few things still out there which do exist, despite the fact they have yet to be scientifically observed.

            Despite being a staunch Theist, I certainly hold out the possibility that God doesn’t exist. I just don’t yet see any evidence for a greater likelihood of this being the case.

        • C W says:

          “Atheism is in itself a belief.”

          A lack of belief is not a disbelief, nor is it a belief in itself.

          Blah blah baldness is not a hair color blah, you’re not as clever as you think you are.

          By your logic Agnosticism “believes” as much as any position.

    • C W says:

      I’d soon break bread with Charismatics than the smugly ignorant better-than-thous. I don’t mind convictions, I do mind someone telling me that someone can “never know” therefore a subject isn’t worth looking into.

    • Purplecat says:

      Well, the important thing is, you’ve found a way to feel superior to both. 

    • anon0mouse says:

      What binds these two ideological extremes together is one word: “contempt.”  …contempt for others who do not share their belief…an eagerness to douse any conversation in vitriol and watch it melt.  Disagreement does not require contempt in order to exist. Contempt is what separates belief from all the hurtful “-isms.”

      • John Smith says:

        I might hate the religion, but I love the religioner. 

      • C W says:

        “What binds these two ideological extremes together is one word: “contempt.”  …contempt for others who do not share their belief…an eagerness to douse any conversation in vitriol and watch it melt. ”

        Is this a cry for help, anon0mouse? You missed your third polarity in that froth-mouthed rant.

        Theists/Atheists
        Gnostics/Agnostics

        You also seem blissfully unaware that athests and theists can also be gnostic/agnostic. Or you’re pretending otherwise for some explanation that’s beyond the reach of those of us who know better.

  3. dontsharemynameicouldlosemyjob says:

    Saw this post and thought I’d share: here’s the Parent-Teacher Conferences BINGO me and my fellow department teachers just enjoyed. We’re high school english teachers, FYI.

  4. rocketpj says:

    Well, I’m an atheist (with a shred of agnosticism) and to my knowledge I don’t have ‘contempt’ for anyone.  Though I do take issue with many manifestations of organized religion when they serve as vehicles for repression, intolerance and violence.  If there are ever any atheists who do the same they can kiss my arse too (and yes, I am aware of the Soviets and Mao).

    But those are just humans using a structure (in this case religion and organized religion) to be pricks.  Anyone can do that – see the nearest playground for an example.

Leave a Reply