Oh, and belief in a magic sky daddy is about the same level as believing in a magic ground daddy.

Except that isn't really what Satanism is about. People that actually WORSHIP the Judeo-Christian idea of Satan basically don't exist outside of crazy people and edgy teenagers. The Church of Satan as started by Anton Levay and the rest doesn't actually believe in Satan in a literal, biblical way, but rather is sort of a mock religion. Whether you like them or think they're really stupid, actual "card-carrying" Satanists are about creating a religion based on, essentially, mocking the standards of religion. They're more of a philosophical movement with a lot of silly window dressing.

"Seeing as how satanism is just another sect of christianity (they both believe in god and jesus, etc.) I have the same level of respect for both."

OH WELL THAT SOUNDS LIKE AN FAIRLY TOLERANT AND REASONED OPINI-

"In other words, I have absolutely no respect for either."

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH SNAP

"Oh, and belief in a magic sky daddy is about the same level as believing in a magic ground daddy."

THIS EDGE IS CUTTING THROUGH MY MIND AND PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS LIKE A HOT RAZOR

The trouble is people often confuse Atheists with Satanists - and they aren't the same thing. This 'rebellious' fellow was rhyming about spells and incantations and magic - that's hardly a rational opinion.

Science and rational thinking is the best way to fight religion - so if these guys really wanted to bust some heads they would better spend their time hitting the books and going into grad school as a physicist or a biologist.

How in the hell do you ever expect people to take you seriously as someone who is non religious when all you do all day is show up at a christian talent show?

Granted, there are atheistic satanists - but most atheists I know spend their time promoting research or science instead - in other words something that's actually constructive.

Oh and Comrade, you need more sarcasm - it's rather hard to discern from your post.

I'm a satanic athiest.

fucking shut up

No. It's science and reason which will progress our species forward. It's gotten us pretty far, and if you don't like it, get off the computer and the internet since it was built by scientists and not rebellious rappers.

There is no practical difference between pushy, militant Christians and pushy, militant atheists.

They're both annoying as hell, they both don't understand the philosophy they claim to support, they both push the ridiculous idea that all good things on Earth came from their side and all bad things came from the other, and they both accomplish nothing except to drive people away from their cause.

So yeah! Have fun being part of the problem!

It is totally rational and logical to fag up the comments for a YouTube video of some stoner trolling a talent show. You sound like a damned Objectivist.

What exactly is a "militant athiest?" I'm earnestly curious because, see, every day we have to put up with millions of religious people around the word routinely using religion as a vehicle for preaching how certain people should be killed or not allowed to live how they wish or revoking human rights for bizzare spiritual reasons, etc. etc.
So, what is "militant?" Are there millions of people around the world organized into internationally recognized churches that than preach the destruction of religious people so that only non-religious people will survive? Is there a mass organization of atheists who are armed and ready to commit acts of terrorism in the name of atheism? Have there been huge terrorist acts within, say, the last 5 years attributable to atheists?
Or by "militant" did you mean atheists who just happen to be a little annoying, pushy, and pretentious but, in reality, not posing anywhere remotely near the same kind of continuous, fanatical threat to the human race as religious people have proven to be.

Then I would definitely say that Levy's church is non constructive. Sex is good, but violence and gluttony on the whole will not progress our civilization forward.

There's a lot of work out there to be done and a lot of things to explore. We didn't land men on the moon with sarcasm and witty retorts.

yeah, because throwing phrases like "magic sky daddy" out there is incredibly constructive rhetoric.

DESERT RELIGION.

There's something to be said for calling a spade a spade.

Also, atheists invented the internet! I mean Tim Berners-Lee is a staunch Unitarian but it's not like that counts.

And as for science, Einstein was basically a deist and Newton was incredibly religious even for his day and age.

But that just proves they were both dumb.

I don't know about you but I have a very well paying job where I do a lot of work that a lot of people need. I'm contributing to society.

I'm sure a lot of us on Poe are as well - but I do think it's odd that the same lot of people who always tout relativism and things as not being black and white immediately swing into objective black and white Thor-hammer mode whenever someone disagrees with them.

Granted, disagreeing and disagreeing with a supporting argument are two separate things - but I'm of the Carl Sagan atheism more than I'll ever be of the Levy atheism.

Like I said, there is plenty that needs to be done in this world and we're not going to get it done by being counterproductive.

did you really just say "lulz" for real you stupid fucking dork

I disagree with Ayn Rand quite a bit. I think a lot of things are subjective, but in the basic sense of it things that relate to science can be quite objective.

To put it bluntly, if you're not contributing positively to society either shit or get off the pot.

That's not a very helpful answer. Ayn Rand said a lot more than "things are objective", and at any rate never disagreed on whether or not some "things" (whatever they are) are subjective, but rather on whether or not we should be concerned with those things that ARE subjective. But forget about that, because honestly, I couldn't care less about your views on Ayn Rand, and I'm already sorry I asked.

However, I AM curious now as to how you define "contributing positively to society", and what exactly you mean by "shitting or getting off the pot". How does one contribute positively to society, on what or whose authority do we know how to rate said contributions, and what specifically do you propose should happen to those who don't?

By making society a better place. You can do it by having a job that is a service people need, being philanthropic, giving to charity, volunteering, etc.

The world needs more people who are willing to help their neighbors than those that do nothing but destroy them.

Well, hate to be a prick here, but isn't that EXACTLY the sort of thing which many religious people have been, are, and will continue doing? Isn't that the stated goal of everyone from Buddha to Jesus to Ranty McStreek Preacher? Now I'm not going to get into an argument over the roots of morality and altruism and whether such things are likely or even rational in a world with or without God (God did 9/11! Oh yeah, Atheism did Nazi Germany! etc etc), but surely you can't sit here and tell us that religion isn't involved in charitable works, right?

I mean, come on. If charity and loving thy neighbor is what you're after, how can you be this offended by religion?

Because the problem in that case is doing it out of fear rather than trying to help society. Charity and volunteering are great things but I don't feel the ends justify the means. Reasons behind what you do and why you do them are important as well.

What you do when no one is watching can be very important.

So it's never occurred to you that most charitable religious people do so out of, say, love, or compassion, or a general sense of decency which lies at the core of virtually every major religion's system of ethics, rather than from some archaic old testament fear of getting smacked around by a huge bearded guy with relationship problems? Or that many of the handful of non-religious types who decide to throw charity around might simply be doing it for the cameras? It seems to me that you've put the cart before the horse, and you're less concerned with coming up with a coherent world view than you are with maintaining your own bigotry.

If anything, religious altruists are MORE likely to do the right thing when nobody's watching, precisely BECAUSE they assume they're being watched. I can't say the same for unwatched atheists since, well, they aren't being watched and there's no way for us to get data on how they think and behave as an overgeneralized group. And, while I'm not going to say that all atheists are immoral people, or even that a sizable minority are, when the cameras go of, I don't believe, and I'm fairly certain you don't believe, that atheists are all perfectly selflessly altruists merely by virtue of turning to empiricism over faith or wishful reason.

Yes!

I actually am referring to the whole of industrial civilization and how we each can (or won't) do our part to improve it.

There is an end point. The end point is that if you want to show that religion is pointless, the way to go about it isn't by hemming and hawing rhymes into a microphone in front of people who don't want to hear it. The way to do it is to better yourself, become educated, and do good things while not being religious.