Anti-Spore website was, in fact, a hoax

Nice dude, You get the first post and of course use it to slam Christians, good job. This just proves my point that pretty much everyone alive is constantly and actively looking for something they can do to piss someone off. Some people just aren't happy until they have. I guess this made your day.

Damn..

I was just Rick Rolled by Joystiq.

@ TheNoid:

That door swings both ways...Christians and Non-Christians all share one flaw: They're human, and therefore biased and in some way all think they're right about something. No need to trash MC here...besides, religion isn't much more spotless in its execution than any other aspect of human history.

Joystiq, between this and the bogus Microsoft rumor you served up, you're becoming pretty irrelevant.

Oh, yeah, and agree with the poster above... thanks to your incendiary anti-Christian post, lots of vitriol was spewed about Christians when the blog wasn't even by Christians, but you took the bait and here we are.

Here's a new rumor: Joystiq and X3F are run by 6th graders at Wilson High School in Palo Alto, CA.

They're currently getting a C- for the project from their teacher Mrs. Perkins.

*nods*

You just don't see such a passionate troll everyday, it brings a tear to my old eye this kind of dedication, he for know one has evolve from you average troll you an epic DOUBLE TROLL.

...maybe someone should make him in Spore.

Does it count as trolling if you sucker people into making asses of out themselves on your site?

This guy is the ultimate troll baiter.

Oh, and the comments on the reveal post are pretty priceless.

I thought so too. The first comment is a riot when you realize they have no clue what they just read.

Very nice way to reveal to truth.

Most people just don't RTFP. We'd all get along a lot better if we just suppressed our rage and RTFP.

People are so ready to spew their ignorant position on topics that they pull the trigger too quickly. As if having a position on a topic is more important than thinking about it.

Great Photoshop BTW.

That wasn't good debate. It was just a bunch of people trashing one guy's supposed beliefs.

I skipped that one, but I do have some experience in these matters, so I'm going to go ahead and call shenanigans. I imagine it was less of a spirited debate, and more an intolerant religious flame war between the pious and the atheistic.

Now this is the story all about how
your intolerant ass got pwned upside down
now I'd like to take a minute just sit right there
I'll tell you all about how I became the prince of a town called spore-air

In the middle of nowhere, born and raised, f**king bored is how I spent most of my days. Chillin out maxin relaxin all cool, shooting some Nazi's inside where it was cool, when a couple of nerds, who were up to no good, starting aimbottin in mah neighborhood. I asked for one little permaban and mah mom got scarred, she said yer movin in with your uncle and auntie in spore-air.

(Tune in tomorrow for the epic conclusion of the Fresh Prince of Spore-Air)

Oh no Kool Aid man, OH NO

*burst through wall*


OHHHHHH YEAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!

Can you rephrase your Earth words so they make sense to my face please.

Exactly! Thats the funniest thing about it! All those commenters calling him "ignorant", yet to ignorant themselves to read the whole post and see that its a hoax.

The author brings to light the problem with many people that they don't even bother to read something and assume they know what it's about. Either that or they've never been Rickrolled before and have never read a Biblical passage.

I agree, a bel-air would have been much more appropriate. Bel-air's work with just text, rick rolls don't.

Yeah...I really enjoy blasphemous pictures.

My favorite is the one with the 3 dudes standing next to a painting of Jesus on the cross, and they are doing the MCA arms gestures next to Jesus...

Still makes me giggle, even if I am a devout catholic.

Oh man, that picture is a classic. Blasphemy can be hilarious so long as you have the common sense to understand that it's not there to offend, but to poke fun at some of the most prevalent images in our society.

Side note: I gave up on Catholicism a long time ago, but even before I had, I had my sense of humour intact.

Seriously. This guy just won the internet.

Leave the hypos out of this!

That's what happens when you mention religion on the internet. The fundam-atheists come out to do battle with the fundamentalists.

Antagonist:

There's no such thing as a "fundamentalist" atheist/agnostic. The fact that there's no standard doctrines, deity, or parables to govern them renders the adjective ill-applied. As a result, there's little to no evangelizing or politicizing from these social groups.

You people can look to Joystiq.com and a video game hoax site as case studies for the dialectical relations regarding secular and religious social groups if you'd like, but the fact is, secular society has the most legitimate claim to intolerance IN THE REAL WORLD.


-SynikaL

Kemosabae,

You're half right. Agnosticism would definitely be hard to form a fundamentalist sect under, however atheism is quite susceptible.

Atheism is a theological stance, just like theism and therefore people can rally under its flag and claim everyone else are ignorant fools. Atheist may not have a "holy book" per se, but they certainly have strict interpretations of scientific evidence as proof of their beliefs and are quite adamant about them, completely ignoring the fact that scientific evidence is open to human interpretation and bias- thus qualifying for the term "fundamentalists".

I'm going to assume in your last paragraph that you meant "secular society has the most legitimate claim to TOLERANCE" rather than intolerance- though either way could be argued.

If I'm interpreting your argument correctly, I'd like to turn your attention to atheistic China where they regularly imprison, torture and kill citizens of certain religious faiths. Pretty tolerant of those benevolent atheists huh? Humanity is intolerant, period. Atheism has just as much blood on its hands historically worldwide.

Oh, my mistake, I got confused and thought he was talking about hippos for a second there.

Spartacus:

You make good points.

"I'm going to assume in your last paragraph that you meant "secular society has the most legitimate claim to TOLERANCE" rather than intolerance- though either way could be argued."

I meant what I typed at the time. Thanks for the correction.

"If I'm interpreting your argument correctly, I'd like to turn your attention to atheistic China where they regularly imprison, torture and kill citizens of certain religious faiths. Pretty tolerant of those benevolent atheists huh? Humanity is intolerant, period. Atheism has just as much blood on its hands historically worldwide."

I wasn't specific. I was implicitly remarking upon Western civilization, where between Canada and USA alone, Christianity claims around 70% of world views and Islam spreads throughout Europe like wildfire. Judaism gets a free pass, since evangelizing is not justified through doctrine.

I am ignorant of the China remark. I know, China and communism, blah blah, but reputable links would be appreciated.


-SynikaL
(Please stop spelling "Kimosabae" with the misplaced "e". Please and thank you.)

Kimosabae,

Sorry for the misspelling. Here's one such link for you from a human rights site:

http://www.hrw.org/summaries/s.china9512.html

I realize that you were arguing from a Western standpoint- that's the problem. American's ignorance of the world around them is no excuse for making ethnocentric statements. North America and Europe account for a small percentage of humanity and a small percentage of Christianity, Islam and Atheism, therefore to ONLY take samples from these populations, societies and political arenas is going to produce incredibly inaccurate and biased results.

@Kimosabae

Agnosticism has precious little to do with atheism, and I did not say anything regarding agnosticism, so I'm not really sure why you brought it up in the first place.

Furthermore, you are incorrect in your assumption that there is no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist. Fundamentalism can be defined as strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles. In the case of atheism, the idea is that there is no God.

Now a fundamatheist, as I like to call them, adheres so strictly to their belief that God does not exist, that they assault the pious with various references to Sky Wizards, Spaghetti Monsters, and refutation of Christian doctrine to the point that, to an objective observer, they appear to be proselytizing every bit as much as the other side.

The idea that there is no politicizing from secular society is also patently false. Who is the first part of society to make a fuss about the Ten Commandments being put on display in a courthouse? That's right, secular society, and rightfully so I might add. To say that an atheist or an agnostic does not politicize is an insult to both schools of thought.

As a Freethinker myself, I find you ill-equipped to speak for secular society. Especially when you presume that they, let alone anyone, should be entitled to intolerance.

Anyone who claims there can be such a thing as a fundamentalist atheist obviously knows neither what fundamentalist or atheist mean.

fred,

Your argument is very compelling...

The author only claims to be female. Of course, the author also went ahead and destroyed the credibility of everything said in that blog by revealing it all to be a hoax. We are now dealing with an unreliable narrator, and I can't bring myself to believe anything he says because of this.