Why atheists have weak relationships, Christians strong ones

[Jocabia]

Must have missed that part. Which, on that note, I did read it, and, again, while it may work in theory, this really fails in reality. The divorce rates are proof of that. Atheists actually have stronger relationships than Christians do. Which, for the record, it only took me about 45 seconds to pull this link out of my favorites folder, copy & paste the data here, and type up my own personal opinions separate from the statistics which refute his absurd argument- rather flipping it to the advantage and favor of his contrary, the Atheist clique.

So, what would you be willing to do if I were to, say, prove that you haven't actually fully read and comprehended the opening post. I don't mean that I can hint at it. I can prove you did not actually fully read the opening post.

Admit it, you responded to the title. Go ahead. Tell the truth.

[Imsogone]

You said: "Christians don't eat fish on Fridays".
...
This is undisputable

Moving on to making you say more stuff that's wrong...Did I say that Christians don't eat fish on Fridays?

Yes, you did.

You stated "Christians don't eat fish on Fridays".

The error where you're teaching about grammar structures because I said "Christians don't eat fish on Fridays"? That one.

The error where you're teaching about grammar structures because I said "Christians tell you not to eat fish on Fridays"? That one.

Fixed for accuracy.

Oh, RIsottia, come out and plaaaaaay.

Risottia, you're not going to reply? Porque no?

The relationship, never strong to begin with, is over. It's ok, there are support groups...

[Caninope]

You said: "Christians don't eat fish on Fridays".
...
This is undisputable

Moving on to making you say more stuff that's wrong...Did I say that Christians don't eat fish on Fridays?

Yes, you did.

You stated "Christians don't eat fish on Fridays".

The error where you're teaching about grammar structures because I said "Christians don't eat fish on Fridays"? That one.

The error where you're teaching about grammar structures because I said "Christians tell you not to eat fish on Fridays"? That one.

Fixed for accuracy.

Oh, RIsottia, come out and plaaaaaay.

Risottia, you're not going to reply? Porque no?

The relationship, never strong to begin with, is over. It's ok, there are support groups...

It would be so ironic if he chose a 12 step program.

[Meoru]

You said: "Christians don't eat fish on Fridays".
...
This is undisputable

Moving on to making you say more stuff that's wrong...Did I say that Christians don't eat fish on Fridays?

Yes, you did.

You stated "Christians don't eat fish on Fridays".

The error where you're teaching about grammar structures because I said "Christians don't eat fish on Fridays"? That one.

The error where you're teaching about grammar structures because I said "Christians tell you not to eat fish on Fridays"? That one.

Fixed for accuracy.

Oh, RIsottia, come out and plaaaaaay.

Risottia, you're not going to reply? Porque no?

The relationship, never strong to begin with, is over. It's ok, there are support groups...

So is this the part where I tell all my friends how bad she was in bed?

[Galloism]

Must have missed that part. Which, on that note, I did read it, and, again, while it may work in theory, this really fails in reality. The divorce rates are proof of that. Atheists actually have stronger relationships than Christians do. Which, for the record, it only took me about 45 seconds to pull this link out of my favorites folder, copy & paste the data here, and type up my own personal opinions separate from the statistics which refute his absurd argument- rather flipping it to the advantage and favor of his contrary, the Atheist clique.

So, what would you be willing to do if I were to, say, prove that you haven't actually fully read and comprehended the opening post. I don't mean that I can hint at it. I can prove you did not actually fully read the opening post.

Admit it, you responded to the title. Go ahead. Tell the truth.

Proof is a funny thing, you know. It's hard to prove something to someone who refuses to believe it.

[Wolffbaden]

So, what would you be willing to do if I were to, say, prove that you haven't actually fully read and comprehended the opening post. I don't mean that I can hint at it. I can prove you did not actually fully read the opening post.

How? Because I've known since I read through it that it was satire. Do you have a problem with me giving out a little information on what the truth is?

[Jocabia]

So, what would you be willing to do if I were to, say, prove that you haven't actually fully read and comprehended the opening post. I don't mean that I can hint at it. I can prove you did not actually fully read the opening post.

How? Because I've known since I read through it that it was satire. Do you have a problem with me giving out a little information on what the truth is?

So you knew it was satire, but still claimed it was making the argument presented in the title that was contradicted by the fact it was satire?

Do you also posts things to prove Colbert's Conservative point of view wrong?

It's a pretty easy thing to admit. Either you didn't read the OP and you posted after barely examining it. That would make sense with what you posted.

Or you read it, realized it was satire and STILL claimed your post contradicted its argument. Not only does that not make sense, but it makes it seem like you don't understand the purpose of satire.

I'll leave it to you to decide which is worse.

You said you flipped his absurd arguments to the contrary (which given it is satire would mean you were making it seem like Christian relationships were stronger). Satire, standing alone, flips the apparent arguments to the contrary. It does it with humor. You did it with humor as well, only this time you were being laughed at, not with.

[Saint Clair Island]

So, what would you be willing to do if I were to, say, prove that you haven't actually fully read and comprehended the opening post. I don't mean that I can hint at it. I can prove you did not actually fully read the opening post.

How? Because I've known since I read through it that it was satire. Do you have a problem with me giving out a little information on what the truth is? :eyebrow:

Totally called it.


Someday I should go into the satire business. I'm really bad at OPs, though.

[Jocabia]

Must have missed that part. Which, on that note, I did read it, and, again, while it may work in theory, this really fails in reality. The divorce rates are proof of that. Atheists actually have stronger relationships than Christians do. Which, for the record, it only took me about 45 seconds to pull this link out of my favorites folder, copy & paste the data here, and type up my own personal opinions separate from the statistics which refute his absurd argument- rather flipping it to the advantage and favor of his contrary, the Atheist clique.

So, what would you be willing to do if I were to, say, prove that you haven't actually fully read and comprehended the opening post. I don't mean that I can hint at it. I can prove you did not actually fully read the opening post.

Admit it, you responded to the title. Go ahead. Tell the truth.

Proof is a funny thing, you know. It's hard to prove something to someone who refuses to believe it.

Or the person who realizes their mistake and just lies and pretends like they knew it all along because they're too insecure to simply admit not having read it in the first place. There is that option.

I'm putting a note down to watch for Wolfbaden. If he can't even admit his mistake when it's this obvious and so easy to laugh off, then it's pretty clear in more passionate debates you can't expect any concessions whatsoever, no matter the level of evidence.

[Wolffbaden]

So, what would you be willing to do if I were to, say, prove that you haven't actually fully read and comprehended the opening post. I don't mean that I can hint at it. I can prove you did not actually fully read the opening post.

How? Because I've known since I read through it that it was satire. Do you have a problem with me giving out a little information on what the truth is?

So you knew it was satire, but still claimed it was making the argument presented in the title that was contradicted by the fact it was satire?

Which is, in itself therefore, satire...

Do you also posts things to prove Colbert's Conservative point of view wrong?

No, I don't. Do I watch him because I enjoy his flavor of humor? Yes, I do.

It's a pretty easy thing to admit. Either you didn't read the OP and you posted after barely examining it. That would make sense with what you posted.

Indeed it is. And I would admit it if it had been that way. Yet I'm not. It should be obvious to you that something more is afoot here...

Or you read it, realized it was satire and STILL claimed your post contradicted its argument. Not only does that not make sense, but it makes it seem like you don't understand the purpose of satire.

To you, maybe, but to those who did get it- they a smile, and a free cookie.

I'll leave it to you to decide which is worse.

Lol. Oh lordy! Lordy! I neva roam free to post again...

[Jocabia]

So, what would you be willing to do if I were to, say, prove that you haven't actually fully read and comprehended the opening post. I don't mean that I can hint at it. I can prove you did not actually fully read the opening post.

How? Because I've known since I read through it that it was satire. Do you have a problem with me giving out a little information on what the truth is?

So you knew it was satire, but still claimed it was making the argument presented in the title that was contradicted by the fact it was satire?

Which is, in itself therefore, satire...

I question your usage of the word "therefore" and the word "satire". What about your post are you claiming is satire? And how does it follow from my statement that your post is satire (which would be the meaning of "therefore")?

Because a moment ago, you claimed your argument was "what the truth is".

You're right though. You did get some smiles out of people. Those people were laughing at you. Still are.

[Wolffbaden]

So, what would you be willing to do if I were to, say, prove that you haven't actually fully read and comprehended the opening post. I don't mean that I can hint at it. I can prove you did not actually fully read the opening post.

How? Because I've known since I read through it that it was satire. Do you have a problem with me giving out a little information on what the truth is?

So you knew it was satire, but still claimed it was making the argument presented in the title that was contradicted by the fact it was satire?

Which is, in itself therefore, satire...

I question your usage of the word "therefore" and the word "satire".

Uh... ok.

What about your post are you claiming is satire?

The OP. Hell, the poster's name gave it away the many times I've seen him (he has over 600 posts...).

And how does it follow from my statement that your post is satire (which would be the meaning of "therefore")?

Because I'm continuing satire by picking up from his, whilst posting the true statistics.

Because a moment ago, you claimed your argument was "what the truth is".

Because that's what the true statistics are... I tacked them on because they provide the real information, for anyone who is interested. With my following the OP as if I actually believed it, it makes my posting of the true statistics seem as if I am "The Fanatical Atheist" (or whatever religious fanatics are calling us nowadays) who did not even bother reading it but is babbling on about how it's "LIES! CHRISTIAN BULLSHIT!"

You're not going to let me go on this, are you lol?

[Jocabia]

So, what would you be willing to do if I were to, say, prove that you haven't actually fully read and comprehended the opening post. I don't mean that I can hint at it. I can prove you did not actually fully read the opening post.

How? Because I've known since I read through it that it was satire. Do you have a problem with me giving out a little information on what the truth is?

So you knew it was satire, but still claimed it was making the argument presented in the title that was contradicted by the fact it was satire?

Which is, in itself therefore, satire...

I question your usage of the word "therefore" and the word "satire".

Uh... ok.

What about your post are you claiming is satire?

The OP. Hell, the poster's name gave it away the many times I've seen him (he has over 600 posts...).

And how does it follow from my statement that your post is satire (which would be the meaning of "therefore")?

Because I'm continuing satire by picking up from his, whilst posting the true statistics.

Your claim is that the way that you post satire is by being serious? Hmmmm...

There are actually people who actually continued the satire by extending the joke. There were people in the thread who fell victim to it due to poor reading, choosing to reply by trying to debunk the joke. Pssst... you're not in the former category.

Because a moment ago, you claimed your argument was "what the truth is".

Because that's what the true statistics are... I tacked them on because they provide the real information, for anyone who is interested. With my following the OP as if I actually believed it, it makes my posting of the true statistics seem as if I am "The Fanatical Atheist" (or whatever religious fanatics are calling us nowadays) who did not even bother reading it but is babbling on about how it's "LIES! CHRISTIAN BULLSHIT!"

You're not going to let me go on this, are you lol?

Posting true statistics is fanatical? Woah. I'm apparently a fanatical atheist as well, despite being Christian. Because I've frequently replied to threads like this, when they were serious, with statistics that debunked the OP.

You didn't reply with "LIES! CHRISTIAN BULLSHIT!" You replied with a calm and measured post that listed out the actual divorce statistics and pointed out that they do not support the OP, but rather support the opposite. The only thing unreasonable at all about your initial reply was that you didn't actually read the OP.

So, yes, I'm not going to let you go on this. I'm not a fan of lying. And as I say, people who can't own up when owning up is so easy are frequently the problem in real threads. They can never give ground no matter how reasonable it is to do. No matter how much evidence is against them.

[The Lone Alliance]

Troll.

[Wolffbaden]

So, what would you be willing to do if I were to, say, prove that you haven't actually fully read and comprehended the opening post. I don't mean that I can hint at it. I can prove you did not actually fully read the opening post.

How? Because I've known since I read through it that it was satire. Do you have a problem with me giving out a little information on what the truth is?

So you knew it was satire, but still claimed it was making the argument presented in the title that was contradicted by the fact it was satire?

Which is, in itself therefore, satire...

I question your usage of the word "therefore" and the word "satire".

Uh... ok.

What about your post are you claiming is satire?

The OP. Hell, the poster's name gave it away the many times I've seen him (he has over 600 posts...).

And how does it follow from my statement that your post is satire (which would be the meaning of "therefore")?

Because I'm continuing satire by picking up from his, whilst posting the true statistics.

Your claim is that the way that you post satire is by being serious? Hmmmm...

Because a moment ago, you claimed your argument was "what the truth is".

Because that's what the true statistics are... I tacked them on because they provide the real information, for anyone who is interested. With my following the OP as if I actually believed it, it makes my posting of the true statistics seem as if I am "The Fanatical Atheist" (or whatever religious fanatics are calling us nowadays) who did not even bother reading it but is babbling on about how it's "LIES! CHRISTIAN BULLSHIT!"

You're not going to let me go on this, are you lol?

Posting true statistics is fanatical?

No. Posting true statistics in response to a bluntly obvious sarcastic thread on Christianity puts one under the guise of a fanatical Atheist (or some other nonbeliever), hence why it is satire...

Woah. I'm apparently a fanatical atheist as well, despite being Christian.

Lol @ your sarcasm.

Because I've frequently replied to threads like this, when they were serious, with statistics that debunked the OP.

Kind of like right now with you replying to posts like mine, when they are satirical. Not so much on an issue of statistics, just the incorrect assumption that I was being serious. Which, if you really want to continue this nonsense, fine by me. Don't expect me to follow your posts like the light brigade, though.

You didn't reply with "LIES! CHRISTIAN BULLSHIT!" You replied with a calm and measured post that listed out the actual divorce statistics and pointed out that they do not support the OP, but rather support the opposite.

That's exactly the point of sarcasm/satire...

The only thing unreasonable at all about your initial reply was that you didn't actually read the OP.

Do you get a million dollars if I admit that I "Didn't read the OP" or something? I wouldn't waste my time replying to you this much if I hadn't, I'd just admit it. But the point is you're quite a persistent bugger who keeps arguing over... well, nothing really. My post was satirical. I posted statistics because it not only gives the truth for those who are interested, but also because it plays me as the fanatical Atheist. This is the second time I've had to explain this to you. Why you haven't gotten it already and are taking this so seriously is beyond me... I guess this chap doesn't have any sense of humor.

So, yes, I'm not going to let you go on this.

Ok. I'll let you go when I get tired of this. On that note, +1.

I'm not a fan of lying.

What a coincidence. Neither am I.

And as I say, people who can't own up when owning up is so easy are frequently the problem in real threads.

This is ironic. That you won't let my self-admitted satirical post go in a thread that is in itself satire; rather you treat it seriously. Treat the statistics I gave seriously. Start a discussion on them, not on whether or not I did or didn't know the thread was satire. I already told you I did and that I knew it was satire (and, for that matter, that I knew RepentNowOrPayLater's account was satirical from me having met him before here on the forums). Why you insist on dragging it on is still beyond me. Honestly, do you really think I'd waste my time continuing this discussion if I had been serious? No. I would have admitted that I didn't read the thread, and I would have gone over to find some other thread to mess around in.

They can never give ground no matter how reasonable it is to do. No matter how much evidence is against them.

See, what's funny about his post here is that he's being serious... pray tell, why do you think I'm not scrambling around trying to rationalize my actions here? Could it be because, maybe, just maybe, I was telling the truth? You sure as hell won't admit it, but you need not worry. You're not working me up at all.

[Sdaeriji]

You clearly didn't read and/or get the OP, and you're now just trying to save face.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Troll.

Why do you scream "troll"? Did you read the OP or are you just basing your post off the title?

[Intangelon]

OP = win.

[Mexico and its People]

One of the many ways that Atheism is leading to the degradation of Western civilization and the decline of humanity in general is that Atheists have weak personal relationships, as opposed to the abiding and adamantine bonds between loving Christians.

For example, Christ commands us to love our neighbors, so we do. Christian history is replete with affable coexistence, and to this day, there is not a single border between Christian nations that requires armed guard. From Northern Ireland to the Maginot Line, from Germany to Poland, from Mexico to America, the peace of Christ has rained a fiery barrage of tranquility down upon the blacked-out fortified bunkers of our neighborhoods.

But on a far more important scale, Atheists have particularly failed at the second* most important relationship available to human beings: marriage. Marriage is what brings us together, today. And for Christians, it is a sacred bond, wherein a man is commanded to love and care for his wife and she is commanded to obey and make babies for him. If either fails in this most sacrosanct of duties, Jesus stands ready to punish them with eternal burning and flaying in hell, unless they have asked Jesus to forgive their sins, in which case Jesus just puts information on their credit report resulting in denial of financing for the purchase of appliances at Sears. This results in a truly loving bond.

You atheists have to base your marriages on the specious and tenuous connections of mutual respect, regard, attraction, and happiness in your daily lives. Without the supernatural chains of Heaven to keep you together in an unbreakable state of matrimony, you have to maintain your relationships with nothing but simple humane consideration, self-motivated co-operation, and sinfully experimental sex. You have to decide, every day, to really care for one another, in each moment, for yourselves and for each other. We Christians, on the other hand, stay together because God will spiritually ass-ram us if we divorce. THAT'S what you base a successful relationship on.

I urge all of you atheists here to abandon your willful and damning rejection of God, and if you're married, your spouse should do the same. For women, persuade your man that Jesus is the only way by respectfully requesting that he read the Bible to you. For men, just tell her you're both Christians now.

*(Remember, the most important relationship is between a person and Jesus Christ, their Lord and Savior. Scripturally, the relationship between Christ and his Church is like that of a Groom to his Bride, except Christ's love doesn't taper off a few years after the wedding, becoming emotionally distant and resentful as the Church gains weight (both literal and figurative) with the heaviness of unfulfilled expectation, and eventually Christ forgets to close his IM Chat session with an old girlfriend from high school, and the Church finds it and gets really pissed off, and even though Christ wasn't having an affair with her or anything, and hadn't even really touched her, the Church is angry because its still "emotional intimacy", so then Christ gets fed up with the Church's bullshit and really does have an affair with some 24 year old goth chick who works as a paralegal. Its not like that. Probably.)

You are absolutley correct.

[Idaho Conservatives]

I have no friggin' clue whether this is satire or not, but it's yet another religion-based flame war based on stereotypes and misunderstandings regardless. Does anyone here ever bore of this same old shit being posted again and again?

[Caninope]

You clearly didn't read and/or get the OP, and you're now just trying to save face.

Because his posts weren't satire, and if they are, they need serious work. Work that not even Stephen Colbert and Jonathan Swift could fix.

[Jocabia]

You clearly didn't read and/or get the OP, and you're now just trying to save face.

Because his posts weren't satire, and if they are, they need serious work. Work that not even Stephen Colbert and Jonathan Swift could fix.

Yes, clearly. Satire contains sarcasm and irony. That's the point. There is nothing ironic about posting actually true statistics and appropriately analyzing them.

You know the funny thing about saving face is that it's often more embarrassing than just owning up. What's more embarrassing? Tripping over a crack in the sidewalk or tripping over a crack in the sidewalk and then grabbing your buddy and saying, "see, it wasn't my fault because there is this crack. It's not that I'm just clumsy"? I prefer to be the guy who trips and then laughs at himself for being clumsy. I've always thought that was the better (and more secure) reaction.

[Jocabia]

I have no friggin' clue whether this is satire or not, but it's yet another religion-based flame war based on stereotypes and misunderstandings regardless. Does anyone here ever bore of this same old shit being posted again and again?

Do you know what satire means? It can't be both satire and another religion-based flame war based on stereotypes and misunderstandings.

[Caninope]

You clearly didn't read and/or get the OP, and you're now just trying to save face.

Because his posts weren't satire, and if they are, they need serious work. Work that not even Stephen Colbert and Jonathan Swift could fix.

Yes, clearly. Satire contains sarcasm and irony. That's the point. There is nothing ironic about posting actually true statistics and appropriately analyzing them.

You know the funny thing about saving face is that it's often more embarrassing than just owning up. What's more embarrassing? Tripping over a crack in the sidewalk or tripping over a crack in the sidewalk and then grabbing your buddy and saying, "see, it wasn't my fault because there is this crack. It's not that I'm just clumsy"? I prefer to be the guy who trips and then laughs at himself for being clumsy. I've always thought that was the better (and more secure) reaction.

Saving face isn't always worth it. Nor is it worth it the majority of the times.

[Conserative Morality]

Risottia, you're not going to reply? Porque no?

Proof that Christians suck:
1. They're always telling you what to do. Don't eat fish on Friday. Stop with all the delicious sodomy. Get up off the sidewalk and eat this soup.
2. They're always starting unjust wars. The Crusades. Iraq. World War II
3. They think they know what's going to happen when we die. Don't tell me what's gonna happen when we die. I know what happens when we die. Nothing.

I have more if that's not enough proof for you that Christians are even more unstable than Atheists. Hell, Christians are less stable than a board resting on a rock.