FA+
Shop
Hey atheists. Suck on these!
13 years ago
As somebody that recently made the transformation from one of those "Eh i don't believe. Who cares" type of passive atheists to somebody a bit more active in the community and political and less muzzled about my views, I just wanted to spread the word on a few things that are really valuable and interesting resources for atheists and are largely responsible for me realizing that our silence is really hurting our cause and the overall good of humanity. Atheism is really misunderstood and wrongly vilified so if you're an atheist and want to know more about what the organized community talks about and fights for take a look. Also take a look if you're a theist and you just don't get where we're coming from and why we can't believe.
First is The Atheist Experience TV show. http://www.atheist-experience.com/
Fantastic show put on by The Atheist Community of Austin in Texas. It's a live cable access and internet stream call in show that's put on every week, you can watch years of episodes in the archives section on their website. It's headed up by a lot of very smart and logical minded former christians and they're REALLY good at breaking down atheism vs theism down to it's most logical base and you can really learn a lot about logical counter apologetics, aka, logical debating with theists or proving with logic their claims are irrational. The host in particular is probably the master of logical counter apologetics and as a former christian minister in training has a near encyclopedic knowledge of the bible. It's really opened my eyes to the sheer amount of religious legislation, religious public education and weakening of the establishment clause that's taking place in america. If you ever wondered what atheists have to talk about, watch this show and you'll see there is SO much that needs to be discussed and that as a generally quiet and unorganized group, atheists are only shooting themselves in the foot by not being active and fighting for representation. Or you can watch it if you just want to laugh at batshit crazy christian callers cuz they get plenty of those.
Iron Chariots Wiki www.ironchariots.org
Great resource. It's a counter apologetics wiki created largely by Matt Dillahunty who's the host of The Atheist Experience and the president of The Atheist Community of Austin. Tons and tons of resources if you like to debate or discuss religion or for looking up theist claims or trying to get to the bottom of scriptural spin or false claims.
Talk Origins www.talkorigins.org
Fantastic resource for debunking creationist claims or cutting through bullshit pseudoscience or verifying whether strange religious claims are bullshit or not. The main emphasis is on origins like evolution and abiogenesis as well as some cosmology stuff. The best part about it is their Index of Creationist Claims. Theres a LOT of people on the internet parroting supposed science and masquerading as scientists who make a lot of fantastic claims. Just about every single creationist argument is cataloged and indexed with links to peer reviewed literature that thoroughly debunk every single one.
Thunderf00t's youtube channel www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t
He's a scientist that posts a lot of interesting science videos but he's most famous for his hysterical Why Do People Laugh At Creationists? ongoing video series where he investigates and debunks wacko creationist claims using science to illustrate how absurd they are. Really smart guy and hilarious video series.
Potholer54's youtube channel. www.youtube.com/user/potholer54
Great science video maker and debunker. Makes hilarious videos debunking not just theist stuff by all anti science stuff like global warming denial and creationist "science". He's most famous though for the always hilarious Golden Crockoduck Awards which are held every year and voted on by thousands. It's an award given to the most batshit crazy and dishonest creationist apologist every year with the stipulation that they must use misrepresentation of science facts in order to make their arguments. His channel has split off into a couple channels but i'm pretty sure all the good links are there. Iirc, he's a science teacher.
AronRa's youtube channel. www.youtube.com/user/AronRa
Really smart guy and head of some large atheist group in texas. He makes science oriented videos as well as atheist oriented ones. He's particularly famous for his Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series which does a great job using science to illustrate all the myriad of problems with the biblical creation myth. He's also a great lecturer.
Non Stamp Collector's youtube channel. www.youtube.com/user/NonStampCollector
Crude but fucking hysterical cartoons about the absurdities of the Bible. He's got also near encyclopedic knowledge of it and he really knows his stuff. His one on Noah's Ark is a must see.
Edward Current's youtube channel. www.youtube.com/user/EdwardCurrent
Easily one of my favorites, this guy satarises fundamentalist christians by pretending to be one with his War on Atheism series. The guys is a fantastic writer and actor and his videos are absolutely hysterical and really show how batshit crazy fundamentalism is because up to a point where he finally outright said it was comedy satire, a large chunk of his subscribers were actual fundamentalists who were completely unaware they were being made fun of and having their ass backwards logic exposed for how crazy it is.
Atheist Coffee's youtube channel. www.youtube.com/user/atheistcoffee
Evolutionary biology doctoral student and ex creationist makes a lot of great science videos but his best ones that every creationist or science denier should see is his Why I Am No Longer a Creationist series that breaks down the vast amounts of evidence for evolution into really easy to digest and impossible to deny chunks. Just interesting videos in general.
Eugenie Scott's Intelligent Design lectures. Just search for them on youtube, theres no specific channel.
She's probably the best person we have fighting to keep creationist nonsense and religion out of our public school's science curriculums. She works for the NCSE, National Center for Science Education. She's most famous for her lectures on the political battle against Intelligent Design which is just the latest rebranding of creationism by fundamentalist christians in their attempts to keep teaching of evolution out of our public schools. She was the main person who organized the lawsuit against the Dover PA school board in the landmark decision to get intelligent design out of the science classes there. The lecture is really entertaining and shows what massive frauds these people are and how inept they are at hiding their true motives.
Whether you're an atheist or theist, check these out, they're all very very educational if you're interested in religious subjects.
First is The Atheist Experience TV show. http://www.atheist-experience.com/
Fantastic show put on by The Atheist Community of Austin in Texas. It's a live cable access and internet stream call in show that's put on every week, you can watch years of episodes in the archives section on their website. It's headed up by a lot of very smart and logical minded former christians and they're REALLY good at breaking down atheism vs theism down to it's most logical base and you can really learn a lot about logical counter apologetics, aka, logical debating with theists or proving with logic their claims are irrational. The host in particular is probably the master of logical counter apologetics and as a former christian minister in training has a near encyclopedic knowledge of the bible. It's really opened my eyes to the sheer amount of religious legislation, religious public education and weakening of the establishment clause that's taking place in america. If you ever wondered what atheists have to talk about, watch this show and you'll see there is SO much that needs to be discussed and that as a generally quiet and unorganized group, atheists are only shooting themselves in the foot by not being active and fighting for representation. Or you can watch it if you just want to laugh at batshit crazy christian callers cuz they get plenty of those.
Iron Chariots Wiki www.ironchariots.org
Great resource. It's a counter apologetics wiki created largely by Matt Dillahunty who's the host of The Atheist Experience and the president of The Atheist Community of Austin. Tons and tons of resources if you like to debate or discuss religion or for looking up theist claims or trying to get to the bottom of scriptural spin or false claims.
Talk Origins www.talkorigins.org
Fantastic resource for debunking creationist claims or cutting through bullshit pseudoscience or verifying whether strange religious claims are bullshit or not. The main emphasis is on origins like evolution and abiogenesis as well as some cosmology stuff. The best part about it is their Index of Creationist Claims. Theres a LOT of people on the internet parroting supposed science and masquerading as scientists who make a lot of fantastic claims. Just about every single creationist argument is cataloged and indexed with links to peer reviewed literature that thoroughly debunk every single one.
Thunderf00t's youtube channel www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t
He's a scientist that posts a lot of interesting science videos but he's most famous for his hysterical Why Do People Laugh At Creationists? ongoing video series where he investigates and debunks wacko creationist claims using science to illustrate how absurd they are. Really smart guy and hilarious video series.
Potholer54's youtube channel. www.youtube.com/user/potholer54
Great science video maker and debunker. Makes hilarious videos debunking not just theist stuff by all anti science stuff like global warming denial and creationist "science". He's most famous though for the always hilarious Golden Crockoduck Awards which are held every year and voted on by thousands. It's an award given to the most batshit crazy and dishonest creationist apologist every year with the stipulation that they must use misrepresentation of science facts in order to make their arguments. His channel has split off into a couple channels but i'm pretty sure all the good links are there. Iirc, he's a science teacher.
AronRa's youtube channel. www.youtube.com/user/AronRa
Really smart guy and head of some large atheist group in texas. He makes science oriented videos as well as atheist oriented ones. He's particularly famous for his Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series which does a great job using science to illustrate all the myriad of problems with the biblical creation myth. He's also a great lecturer.
Non Stamp Collector's youtube channel. www.youtube.com/user/NonStampCollector
Crude but fucking hysterical cartoons about the absurdities of the Bible. He's got also near encyclopedic knowledge of it and he really knows his stuff. His one on Noah's Ark is a must see.
Edward Current's youtube channel. www.youtube.com/user/EdwardCurrent
Easily one of my favorites, this guy satarises fundamentalist christians by pretending to be one with his War on Atheism series. The guys is a fantastic writer and actor and his videos are absolutely hysterical and really show how batshit crazy fundamentalism is because up to a point where he finally outright said it was comedy satire, a large chunk of his subscribers were actual fundamentalists who were completely unaware they were being made fun of and having their ass backwards logic exposed for how crazy it is.
Atheist Coffee's youtube channel. www.youtube.com/user/atheistcoffee
Evolutionary biology doctoral student and ex creationist makes a lot of great science videos but his best ones that every creationist or science denier should see is his Why I Am No Longer a Creationist series that breaks down the vast amounts of evidence for evolution into really easy to digest and impossible to deny chunks. Just interesting videos in general.
Eugenie Scott's Intelligent Design lectures. Just search for them on youtube, theres no specific channel.
She's probably the best person we have fighting to keep creationist nonsense and religion out of our public school's science curriculums. She works for the NCSE, National Center for Science Education. She's most famous for her lectures on the political battle against Intelligent Design which is just the latest rebranding of creationism by fundamentalist christians in their attempts to keep teaching of evolution out of our public schools. She was the main person who organized the lawsuit against the Dover PA school board in the landmark decision to get intelligent design out of the science classes there. The lecture is really entertaining and shows what massive frauds these people are and how inept they are at hiding their true motives.
Whether you're an atheist or theist, check these out, they're all very very educational if you're interested in religious subjects.
I think one of the main reasons people believe is because they've never really thought about WHY they believe and whether it's justified and on the extreme end of the scale, they've heard the creation myths and never heard the actual science that says otherwise.
I don't generally argue or set out to argue but now if people make claims, i won't just let them slide without them having to explain them which DOES cause arguments but whatever. I like people, i care that they believe true things, i care when people are lied to from a young age, i'll speak the truth. A LOT of people watch The Atheist Experience and end up losing their faith but this never happens spur of the moment from a debate, they just often have logical things pointed out to them that they had never thought of before and slowly they find they just can't believe.
I think if any atheist or christian or whoever thinks they're gonna win a debate and suddenly drive away a lifetime of dogma or belief immediately, they're fools.
Give something a reason, something a purpose, and even the most stubborn dolt can give it thought, eventually.
Religion has somehow earned this ivory pedestal status and it is not justified.
That said, I am an agnostic, I dont give two shits about what I can or cant see by some method. You can have your Religions, and Non-Religions. But watching you all be pricks to each other is really annoying. >:X
The observation that some people are dicks really has nothing to do with atheism or theism. If they're dicks, they're going to be dicks about whatever they choose to be dicks about.
Really though, throughout history religion has not only given the religious the belief they have free license to be dicks to people but they believe it's given them free license to ACT on those beliefs to the deaths and slaughter of millions. Atheism does not instill that.
Atheism has not been around long enough to have a two thousand year+ track record to point at. But I have little doubt, that if the conditions existed, that atheists would kill just as much as Christians would.
Christians kill out of the belief they are saving souls from damnation, or for what ever reason their zealots can come up with, but, atheists would kill out of frustration, or for the simple means of eliminating religion from existence. Anything can in extreme flavors. Even my apathy, as such I would have just ignored your journal.
All systems of beliefs can create power, and all power can turn poisonous if enough of it concentrates. I'm not saying atheism is bad, it just has bad elements. And theres no denying that, nothing is perfect.
Also fyi, agnosticism is not a replacement for atheism or theism, it's something entirely different. YOu can be an agnostic atheist or theist.
And, of your particular version and interpretation of atheism it does not have doctrines, yet you say it should be of educating yourself... You can twist that any number of ways, back to how I said before, killing for the sake of eliminating the silly blind faith that is a religion.
I'm not sure how I can convey to you, that all things of this nature, can be twisted into nasty things. But I can tell you, the only person actually able to win this sort of argument, is a Christian... Because they can just claim God as a cop out and walk away feeling victorious, neither of us have this option. They do have some advantages on us. ;x
well, maybe the belief that knowledge and rational discourse are more sensible and superior to archaic dogma.
saying "this is a miracle because it's a miracle" is an absurd statement to make but that's often the reasoning behind a lot of the evidence that mainstream religions tend to take.
that said, i'm somewhat agnostic... i don't know... and i think that's a more honest approach because i don't think that if there were to be an omnipresent, omnipotent, omnipresent higher-being our minds are not capable of comprehending even a fraction of it to fully understand it completely... if some day there is absolute proof there is something/nothing beyond our material lives, i'll just revise my position and go on with my life... but until then i just do my best to live a life that i feel is good.
i think humanity is at a point where it doesn't need an archaic book to tell them what behaviors are good and which are bad... we have consensus, morality, common sense/courtesy/decency to help us know this... and if there were something beyond our mortal bodies, maybe it's not for us to know until we actually get there.
I mean, really... moral and unmoral things dont actually exist in the real world, they can only exist for individuals, in our own minds. Possibly as a group, if you can get a group of people to agree on the given topic.
for example, if a tribe doesn't forbid murder, it's numbers will eventually dwindle thus resulting in it's members being less armed to pass on their genetics to the next generation. theft is often dangerous because it then leaves those that have worked for their survival to be worse off and as a result less likely to survive and pass on it's genetics... nearly every single commandment in the bible (with the exception to the ones pertaining to god itself) is a recipe for a thriving community that can work together in harmony but people don't need that anymore to tell us what's right or what's wrong.
there's a lot of theories (and some hypotheses) floating around discussing our anthropological roots and social structure and how our morality is even in some cases hard-coded as genetic memory (such as an understanding of kindness that's deeper than just "s/he gave me something i like, that was kind.")
we're a lot more complex than a lot of religions give us credit for.
Drugs for instance, particularly the ones which do damage, or are addictive, other random consumed substances, being gay(which, get pissed if you like, but as a species, liking the same sex, and only the same sex, is a luxury), the pursuit of knowledge... Anything which just a tiny bit beyond simple existence, feed, breed, repeat. Is something which is subject to the influence of outside morals. Common sense does not exactly cover it.
as someone that smokes cannabis once in a while i do understand that it's not benefiting my evolutionary imperitive per-se (unless you count that it's one way which i use to relax and unwind which would assist in me reducing the stressors of modern life... but that can be splitting hairs.)
granted, i think that in the end a lot of our most basic morals are based on basic human desires such as the wish to continue living and not being killed randomly (murder) being able to pass on our genes to a partner of our choosing and ensuring our genetics are the ones being passed on (against adultery) and even ensuring that our work is reasonably rewarded and not taken from us (against stealing.)
the minutae, however, is often the biggest thing that a lot of religious folks will argue at though... and though homosexuality is in a sense a luxury, one could assert that it's natural when a population gets too big that nature has hard-coded measures to control the population (since queer folk won't breed naturally with one another, thusly reducing the population and improving humanity's overall survival capacity.)
as for common sense regulating the rest... well, science is a luxury in a sense by your definition but through science we've managed to increase the chances of humanity's survival... things like medical breakthroughs, improvements in agricultural technology, better technology to build stronger buildings... all those things are linked in a way to our basic needs... even the pure sciences of research for the purposes of research. take cosmology as an example... if humanity is to survive we would have a better chance at that if we were able to colonize the stars. keeping all of our population on one planet is keeping all our eggs in one basket and when the sun goes nova or when our galaxy collides with andromeda, if we are still here in earth and only here on earth when it happens, then it's game over for humanity.
And while I wont go into adultery, the idea that homosexuality is a form of natural population control is a big statement, but an interesting one to consider.
Because the interesting thing about instincts, is they are not just... things you do, or dont, they are things you actively want to do. Hard to differ them from luxuries sometimes, cause you want those too!
as for instincts being things you actively want to do, that's not really what instincts are... instincts are things which often bypass our usual thought processes... the instinct to orgasm is a good example because it's something you can't just "do." if we could just orgasm at the mere thought, a conscious decision, that'd interfere with the imperitive to pass on our genes to the next generation (and the world would be a mess what with all the spooge everywhere.) this could be seen as a bit of a red-herring in this context, however, because it's something that's controlled by our autonomic systems but the instinct that (Penis + WarmVagina) * Orgasm = Babies is still there.
a good way of understanding that is talk to people that have become new fathers... 90% of the time they'll say that it changes you and their entire world-view becomes about their new-born child... how they feel they have to protect it, nurture it, ensure it's survival... that's pure instinct... and it's something that they don't actively choose to do either, it's biological (though there are exceptions but there are exceptions to every rule... that doesn't diminish the initial claim though.)
Also, I cant equate natural bodily functions to instinct. My heart beats, thats not instinct. I have to take a piss, thats not instinct.
Instinct is a behavior. And as humans, with high intelligence, we can in most cases, behave as we choose. There are people who dont have intercourse, and there are people who directly choose to stop living. :x
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk
I don't get why any of the things you have listed are necessarily immoral by mere fact of their being a luxury of one's predicament. ESPECIALLY if you're a Christian (assuming you are, correct me if I'm fulfilling the first half of that word >.>), this doesn't make sense. The Abrahamic religions put forward morals that are (supposedly) static; standing on their own, independent of one's predicament. What is good for one's species, for example, does not even factor into one's moral calculus under a Christian/Islamic/Jewish framework.
And, to quote myself "That said, I am an agnostic, I dont give two shits about what I can or cant see by some method."
Just didn't quite understand what you meant. I do now tho!
Thanks :]
http://youtu.be/MHDCAllQgS0
Oh, also Siddhartha Gautama; Jesus borrowed much of his moral teachings from Buddha, so you kinda have to go back a couple hundred years past Christianity and just a bit to the east.
Aaaand the more contemporary moral philosophers; Kant, Mill, Hume, etc) who have framed the great bulk of their moral philosophy in purely secular terms.
Just sayin. :]
we are one of the more adaptable species on this planet. so, when we are faced with a crisis (even if it's an existential one) we try and find ways to ensure our survival (which would explain how a lot of people believe in an afterlife... because their ID needs to find a way to comfort itself that it'll keep going if it can't find the means to do so in the material realm.)
Killed millions in their fight against religion among other things.
Marx said that Religion is the opium of the people and they wanted to get rid of it. Funny that atheists never care to recognice that little fact.
Even tho they say it was the commies who did it, does not change the fact that they WERE atheists.
Btw, agnostic here and I don't give a shit about religious nutballs or the atheist nutballs.
...because three isnt enough.
ALL camps have their idiots... no exceptions (... unless you're the Mongols.)
Not that that matters because hitlers justification for doing what he did had little to nothing to do with his religion, just like stalins acts had nothing to do with his atheism. All those acts were also committed by guys who wore pants but it wasn't done in the name of wearing pants.
When people talk about the evils done in the name of religion, they are referring to evil acts that were done >because< that person's religious beliefs and doctrines told them that the Will Of God was to commit those evil acts. Most of the "crazies" and "zealots" doing unspeakable evil in the name of their religion ARE doing as their religion commands them to do. That doesn't change no matter how many religious people insist that the "true" or "good" followers of religion ignore those parts of their religion's dogma.
If someone commits an evil act simply because they're an evil person, and they also happen to be religious, but their religion was not a factor in their decision to do the act, that doesn't count as evil done because of religion.
People citing evil men in history who did evil despite not being religious are not proving any sort of point because those people were not motivated by any dogma or doctrine or commandment that is a fundamental part of Atheism. Because there is no atheist dogma, doctrines, or commandments. People can be evil whether they are religious or not. The POINT is that Religion gives people excuses and justifications to do evil. Religion gives people something to point to and go "but no, look, I'm SUPPOSED to do this, I am commanded by the god that I believe in to act and think this way, and you have to respect all beliefs!" Atheism does not give any of the excuses and justifications for people to do evil.
That's what Activist Atheists are about. Not "kill all religious people," but just getting people to look at facts and reality in decision making, and to stop acting like "well we have to respect spiritual beliefs" is any kind of excuse to look the other way when people are being idiots basing their principles and ideals on fantasy and woo.
Atheists point out, rightfully, that Religion tells people to do hateful, harmful, bad things where they would not do it had they not been indoctrinated to believe that God wants them to act that way. Atheism does not tell people to do anything other than to just not believe in magical fantasy that has no legitimate evidence to validate belief.
Take slavery for example. The end motivation was at it's core, money. It's cheap and free labor. The justification however was the fact that the bible explicitly advocates slavery.
In the more broad sense that is a reason i feel religion is a cancer on society is the divisive mindset at the CORE of religion. If your religion teaches you that it's more that anybody that's not a part of your little club should be TORTURED FOREVER, by that belief right there they are already lower than you and your club and if you had a very strong reason to do something bad to those people for whatever goal, theres your justification.
Don't get me wrong, i could write a short novel (and might lol) about all the little things that make religion a terrible thing for society and the individual but this was a great post. IT went beyond more the "Well religious people have done this" which is a tired argument and got to the core of how religion ENABLES people to do terrible things.
The Richard Dawkin's Foundation's twitter feed is extremely informative on current events.
rdfrs (that's the US feed)
http://www.richarddawkins.net/
granted, i do (kindasorta) believe in a force that's greater than me... but, that isn't necessarily being religious than it is being accepting that I am a small and tiny clump of living matter flying through space on a semi-organic ball of stuff and my significance in this huge universe is rather tiny... so, even the sun itself is a force greater than I am... and there are bigger things/forces than it in our universe.
for example, i do believe in (some) psychic things... not like "i'm going to read your future" stuff, more like things like senses that haven't yet been explained by science (like the whole "i had a feeling you'd call me" or the "i just had this feeling something terrible was going to happen" kinda stuff... instinctual.) same with ghosts (but are they actual ghosts or a sort of "residue" of traumatic events that have somehow imprinted in the materials of the things that were around them?)
granted, my believe in them is entirely based on anecdotes so i will never, ever expect anyone to believe me... but for me i've had some events in my past which have yet to be fully explained. that isn't (however) saying that science will never, ever explain them... because our understanding of science and such is ever growing and evolving... but they're enough for me and that's where i leave it.
if you're talking actual religion, though, that's a (in my view) completely different and complex beast in itself and i'm inclined to take a view that's more in line with your own (as in, modern religion is no longer necessary for humanity.)
Also, those who do not wish to find the unexplained, will never see it. There's more going on in the psychic world then in the very few spectrums we can see. It's a very small area we can see.
Nothing unexplained is a dichotomy. The only logical position to take on the unexplained is "I don't know." as opposed to assuming something must be the explanation and accepting that as fact such as "We're not sure how the universe was created exactly, therefore god did it."
Plus, considering the sheer amount we DO know about the natural world since the coming of the age of science which is very recent, i think the skies the limit as far as what we can figure out.
because like the commenter above stated, there's only so much we can perceive with our rather limited senses. given our inability to observe absolutely everything involved in being able to prove or disprove it, all anyone has are hypotheses... that's also why i have accepted that all that i have are anecdotes and can not reasonably expect anyone to accept what i have observed/experienced as factual.
maybe as our understanding of the universe evolves we might be able to conclusively prove in one way or another but until then all we have are hypotheses... and really, any discussion about them to either side of the spectrum needs to take that into consideration else it's bad science in both directions.
Just sayin ;]
No matter what the belief, i think it's a negative thing to believe ANYTHING that's not true or anything on faith alone.
I think it is bad to believe ANYTHING, no matter what it is on faith alone, it's a small bad though depending on what comes attached to it and how you let it effect you. It's really hard to answer that question though cuz a lot could be wrong with it or very little could be wrong with it, it just depends what comes attached with that belief.
As for Pascal's wager. It's pretty much a logical failure. For starters, you can't CHOOSE to believe something, you either believe or you don't. If you pretend to believe because of fear of torture, you're still pretending and wouldn't god know?
The main reason Pascal's Wager fails is who are you wagering with? YOu would have to wager with EVERY god that they're the right one which you can't even do because most religions are mutually exclusive so you would probably wind up in the correct religions hell because with thousands of subsets of religions existing, the odds are about 5000:1 that you picked the correct one to do pascal's wager with.
Also, at what point would the ONLY one of 'his' extraterrestrial (not from Earth; sense it wasn't around when he was, right?) species need genitals? If he's the only one, he'd have no use for a package. If he doesn't have one, what makes him "Him"?
Have anyone given you a good answer to these?
I guess the only answer i could give to those questions is, I see no reason to think god exists, so that makes any questions about his origins or appearance completely moot lol.
I was raised Christian, it really didn't take me long to question it to pieces, but for the longest time, I felt like "well, if people aren't using it as a weapon, and it gives them comfort or some happiness, what's the harm in the happy lie they want to tell themselves?" It wasn't until I understood the fact you just stated that I realized why it >does< need to be actively opposed and why people need to fight to make religion a thing of the past.
None of the entire range of any specific beliefs are actually relevant. The problem is teaching people that holding a belief as fact without any evidence to suggest it - or despite clear evidence against it - is inherently obstructive to any and all advancement of knowledge that those people have any participation in.
A good analogy he mentions is a mistaken belief that you won the lottery. Is it wrong to believe you won the lottery? Well no, that's not hurting somebody. Is it going to drastically effect the decisions you make in your life? Definitely. So you're stuck with a belief that will effect your decisions in life and it's founded on something completely unjustified. That's a huge fucking problem.
I've yet to encounter a single atheist who has successfully attacked Christianity without resorting to straw man arguments, distorting and misinterpreting scripture to suit their own biases and agendas, or else not fail in getting the genuine Christian position correct before attacking it. I notice that half of these links are dedicated to the subject of creationism, which many, if not most Christians don't believe in. At least not young earth creationism.
You're statement about the intelligent design movement is sheer slander and deception. Intelligent design is not creationism re-hatched or an attempt to remove evolution from schools. In fact, the most credible ID proponents don't deny the basics of evolution by natural selection. They have actual science degrees from the top universities in the world. There are also a number of scientists who question the supreme orthodoxy of Darwinism in the way it is dogmatically asserted in parts of the scientific world today. I believe that God created the universe and that there is evidence for design in nature. Yet I also believe that there is evidence for evolution via natural selection. The two are not mutually exclusive. As one person once put it, natural selection is just another physical law governing nature. Laws imply order and design as opposed to utter randomness and chaos.
Frankly, I think atheists are just as much science deniers as some Christians tend to be. In fact, atheism, or naturalistic materialism in particular, undermines the very premises empiricism is based on. And there is certainly nothing inherently rational about atheism, other than the fact that we can't readily or immediately detect God with our physical senses. But there are many things that we know exist that are not detectable by our physical senses or at one time were not detectable. So that is nothing to go by.
Oh, and the idea that atheists have been silent about their beliefs is nonsense. Atheists are actually quite loud and love to meddle with the religious freedom of others, especially at Christmas time because they have a completely ignorant, distorted, and perverted understanding and loathing of the First Amendment.
And before you accuse anybody you've hardly talked to of being ignorant of christian theology, statistically we're a lot more knowledgeable about your religion than it's own followers. Guess what, your theology doesn't make the scripture and it's use itself any better than what it is and until every sect agrees with what it says, theres currently over 3000 that disagree on the "theology", then we have just the text itself and it's common use.
I do believe last time you quoted a guy that believed in the existence of fairies as some sort of authority than claimed there was evidence of god yet failed to provide it. I have yet to meet a christian that can provide a single shred of evidence towards it's existence or any supernatural event.
Examples please.
Why am I expecting that most of them will be about atheists having the nerve to insist that towns cease their annual Establishment Clause violation by no longer giving Christian groups exclusive/near-exclusive access to public space.
Least in my perspective ^_^
Then again, that's assuming they're willing to listen to reason and other people's points of view. If they're not, then there's no hope of you changing they're mind anyways. Much like this conversation, heh ^^
It's more religion enjoys this privileged status nothing else does as something never to be discussed critically or examined, something that other issues like politics or taste in movies for some reason aren't immune to.
I'm just saying theres no reason to avoid it as a topic when religious things come up on conversation.
Not sure if ya talked to any Jehovah's Witnesses, but they seem to be more open minded (least in compairison to most other religions) about views of alternate faiths. They most likely wont be shaken either, but least they tend to have more views then just "God chose it that way". Though "The bible states it.." is a common ending denominator, which sucks. :(
From knowing some jehovas witnesses at one point, they're pretty much told to be as polite and respectful as possible when proselytizing. Plus they're known by other denominations as one of the weird crazy small ones so they probably know what it's like to have your beliefs hostilely dismissed. They ones i knew didn't get upset at my views (neither do most christians really), but by their fundamental tenets they still believed i would be tortured forever and that was a moral thing to do. I'm not sure you could be a devout jehovas witness and not believe that and that to me is not being open to anything, that's about as divisive as you can get.
Since the soul is eternal, it has to go somewhere.
And more then this, that's a real difference between "what you believe" and "how do you think world works". Cause, for example, I believe in physics (except relativity theory though), but I prefer to feel myself less like an atheist, but more like a heathen. Still I know that I invented my own gods for me and for my characters only (to exist in out minds mostly), and I feel them like some talented psykers, not divine beings. Well, they allow me to behave with some animal traits, so I love them. And yep, they don't give a f*ck about me drawing and watching some furry characters loving or yiffing each other, cause they appreciate a good yiff too :D
Also. By reading your post I remembered 2 things:
1) comic about argument between atheist and believer (I couldn't manage to find it in english :/ ), where atheist scientifically prove absence of god and the only point believer's got to reply is: "Aren't you ashamed of telling this? You anger the god!!!"
2) this awesome video :)
And yep, happy END OF THE WORLD 21.12.2012!!! See ya at 22 ;)
He's got a much calmer way of dealing with the issue than many atheist speakers I know, he tends to be more interested in discussion than argument or debate. He's also got a pretty damn fantastic voice.
I figured since you were sharing a bunch of links, you might be interested in having one tossed your way as well, forgive me if I'm wrong!
While I have no issue with being able to defend oneself, the negativity that comes with a good portion of it, not by reputation, but because of what I've experienced and seen myself, tends to drive people away, and make them view anyone in it tainted by association.
While I'm not advocating that atheists shut their mouth, by any means, I'd only ask that thought go into what is said; and that behavior be controlled in the face of adversity. Be the calm in the storm, be the rock, which others can respect.
That and Atheist Experience sucks. I've seen about 30 episodes at random, begining, middle, and latest. Seriously, sucks. On both sides. Don't care for Matt. I respect him, but, I do not like him.
The whole loud mouthed smug atheist is such a tired strawman. Might as well talk about how your main issue with furries is that they tend to fuck dogs and be socially inept.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/.....ryId=113889251
http://www.sodahead.com/living/are-.....stion-1417019/
http://treesforlunch.blogspot.com/2.....-spirited.html
http://www.newstatesman.com/religio.....heists-dawkins I would really like to point out that these if you read them at all Mostly written BY Atheists or Agnostics. so it is not from the point of view of some ignorant Believers. it also shows that it is hardly Just My Opinion.
In fact, if i get into a debate with a christian, it's only when specifics of the theology are brought up that i attack the theologies themselves because there are over 3000 sects of christianity in the US alone because none of them can agree wtf the theology is. that's also why i don't get into like hardcore bible scholars and advanced theology. Until they all agree wtf their text means, that leaves us with only the text itself.
I might get into a debate with a christian and attack the doctrine of original sin (this is why i think the new testament is even worse than the old testament despite god slaughtering over a billion people in the OT) and find out they're a member of a denomination that doesn't believe in it.
The main thing that i go for is something ALL theists have in common and that is that they believe in god and why.
I know you're not talking about me, i'm just saying why i don't paint christians with a single broad stroke. Generally the atheists that obnoxiously attack christians as if they were all fundamentalists are not knowledgeable about the subject and not really a representation of the current subculture of atheists.
Also i noted that in this conversation that you only expound on Christians. Why does everyone give them the only ownership of the word religion and Theology. They are not the sole owners and operators.
As for your other statement, i'm sorry but you're characterizing an entire group based on a minority. Don't do that. I might as well say clearly just about all furries fuck dogs and are socially inept.
Also you are using another Logical Fallacy about deciding that someone stating that a lot of a group = all the group. that is slippery slope and taken to absurdity logical fallacies. as it denying the evidence provided. I never said all atheists were X because i am not retarded and have a binary thinking pattern. but it is a problem that many of the newer ones are both driven by very negative emotions and more than willing to dump it on everyone. there is also a culture of looking down on any others that do not share their oft ill informed hate. I see all people as a person. but i also recognize when a group has tendencies. Of course not all people of a group have the same tendencies. there are even people in the fucking KKK that only beileve they are superior or at the very least that the races should not breed. and therefore do not actually hate other minorities but simply celebrate their whiteness. there are always exceptions and there is even in a tight group of people often differences of opinion.
I didn't characterize anybody of anything. I said people of faith are doing things, only people of faith are doing them. The ones that have the majority clout to do them in my country happen to be christians. Since i live in my country, that is my main concern. If muslims were getting shariah legislation passed in the US, i would have the same issue with them but get this, they aren't. I didn't say ALL people of faith are doing this. I did not paint any group with a broad brush, there are over 3000 flavors of christianity in the us alone, i don't characterize "christians" as anything other than people. And fyi, i know quite a bit about the various theologies of various denominations and religion in general.
If you're personally getting crap from atheists for your views, you're clearly interacting with random people, god knows where. Untill all the various atheist groups are attacking you and being loudmouthed jackasses you're dealing with a minority lol. this is just common sense stuff here. Go to a frickin reason rally and tell me it's a bunch of loudmouthed people yelling at theists because plenty of theists go to them, usually to stir up shit and guess what? Nothing ever happens. Even frickin ray comfort who was public enemy number 1 among atheists went to a big one and could only say nice things about how respectful and friendly everybody was. That is the current atheist subculture right now, the AA and the enormous umbrella of subgroups like the ACA etc. YOu don't know a fucking thing about the current atheist subculture i can already tell.
And don't give me shit about logical fallacies, there were none. You said "atheists give you the most crap" and specifically said "Day to day." So you're casting a judgement on a group of people, at least enough to vilify them in a conversation based on some jackasses you have personally met, congrats. I used to live in a predominately mexican neighborhood with a lot of gang activity. My day to day interaction with mexicans usually consisted of them attempting to rob me or entice me into a group beating. That's so obviously not a representation of mexicans, i wouldn't even bring it up like "Well mexicans tend to just want to take my wallet." lol.
Guess what though, when you say "X tends to do this." you're making a statement that a large group of people, almost none of whom you could possibly have interacted with tend to do something. This is fucking bullshit no matter who you're talking about.
Now try reading it again without your "someone is challenging my precious preconception" glasses on
Oh and i live in America too. and i know that Atheist and Vegan and Other groups are passing laws telling me what the fuck i can eat and think so do not give me that shit. i am on the east coast and see this shit all the time. Hell they closed down a fucking help center in New York cause the group was giving out bottles of fucking soda over 16 oz. and they are trying to make eating contests illegal in DC. I also know Atheists that have been trying to ban signs in peoples yard that promote religion of any kind or even say something like god bless you. it is BOTH Sides that are at fault like in most anything.
and just so you know i am a third party that gets shit from both sides and pays attention to all sides. not some uninformed person that has no clue. but honestly if this is going to be like any other argument that was supposed to be an informed discussion and it is seriously going that way then i know that you will not read or research or anything and that this will only end with me finally saying fuck it cause i am dealing with another close minded person that cannot handle being asked to question things. which is kinda the mantra of most Atheists but only to others. so i will just say goodbye and i am sorry for taking your time since i obviously was a failure at trying to show more than one side of anything. i should know better
It's hard to find well mannered, calm, and respectable people from any side of any culture or grouping unfortunately :(
While I no longer believe in mythology and many superstitions, I also do not throw the baby out with the bathwater - there are some good practices that come with all religions that have lived to the modern era.
If you ever see George Carlin's take on the 10 commandments, I think that you might get a kick out of it XD
And as for Atheists being humanists, I'm sure some are, and many more that think they are, and I'm not lumping the good people that simply don't believe in a god here, but having listened to some of what thunderf00t has to say, as well as a number of others, it seems like all the particularly aggressive ones have a want to forbid people from behavior which they don't particularly care for.
Sounds to me like you're the sort of person who believes that your beliefs make you smarter simply for having them.
Whether you believe in god or the absence of a god, you still believe. Regardless of whether you use the words in the bible or the work of many scientists for your views, you still have faith that at least one of them is accurate and true.
So yes, Atheism can be termed a religion. And considering how actively aggressive many atheists are at trying to convert others to their own beliefs or viewpoints, it just makes the parallels all the more humorous.
This is a gross oversimplification, but it basically boils down to this. Religions out there are making a claim- there's this guy (or bunch of folks) who are really awesome, they've made everything and run everything and we should really be thankin' 'em for it.
Atheists are simply saying that we haven't seen a good enough reason to believe that. There is no "system of beliefs" and there is no "faith", faith being by definition belief without evidence. Athiests are making no claims, simply turning down the claims of others.
Now, if you really want to think of not believeing in a religion -as- a religion, I suppose I can't stop you. But I think it's a bit silly, really. x3
You're free to look up the definition yourself, but only only 2 of the 4 Webster definitions actually require a "deity" to be present at all: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion If you look up "faith", you can replace the word with "complete trust" or any one of a dozen others depending on the source. Most atheists would have "complete trust" that the scientists got their facts and theories right, for example. I'd agree as so far it's not a common way of looking at it, but when it comes to emotionally loaded and/or polarizing words people need to realize they can have a wider scope of meaning than the typically common divisive definition.
That gross oversimplification just bugs me. There is a great multitude of religions that are not monotheistic or eschew the idea of a single deity, and even though they comprise a minority of the world religions when compared to Christianity and Islam, these polytheistic religions outnumber the monotheistic beliefs. Remove ones ethnocentrism by taking the big three major Western monotheistic religions off the table (Christianity, Judaism, Islam), and suddenly there are dozens of ancient religions on the table that look nothing like the "single, one encompassing god" model. India was, and still is the richest nation when it comes to diversity of beliefs in this regard.
Let me blow your mind with this concept: Not all religions require a belief in a god or multiple gods at all. These are termed non-theistic religions. Most tend to focus on improving one self and one's own mind, and most people today would think of them as a world view instead of a religion. But our world applies a religion to them, and they have existed as far back as 6th century BC such as the one below.
Probably my favorite example to give here is Janism. Look at the wiki, read up on their five great vows, and what the religion stands for. If you do, you will realize there is no concept of a single diety at all. This religion focuses on one-self, and reads less like a religion than a set of beliefs. You say Atheism isn't considered a religion, but then how could Janism be any more considered a religion either? It makes more sense to call them both a "world view". As best I recall one can be an atheist still follow of Janism as their tenants don't conflict. Janism promotes the improvement of one self through knowledge and especially non-violence, so again try to tell me how Janism is a religion and Atheism is not? Maybe there is an example I've not considering, but most arguments I can come up with (including yours) could be applied to Janism as well.
I'm going to steal this directly from the wiki as it makes a nice summary of my post: "One of the most important and fundamental doctrines of Jainism is Anēkāntavāda. It refers to the principles of pluralism and multiplicity of viewpoints, the notion that truth and reality are perceived differently from diverse points of view, and that no single point of view is the complete truth"
Yes, a degree of faith is necessary to function in reality. I really don't doubt that the sun is going to be there again tomorrow, even though I can't really prove that it will be. This isn't the kind of faith we talk about when we talk about religions though. There's a pretty good body of evidence to at least rather compellingly suggest that the sun will rise again tomorrow. We know the sun is a star, that stars have lifetimes of billions of years, the the earth is rotating which makes the sun appear to rise and set each day, and the laws of physics deem that unless an external force acts upon the earth it'll continue to do so... etc etc. And each of these statements is also independantly verifyable thorugh various means. So it's a pretty reasonable conclusion to make.
Religious faith is an entirely different entity. It's dependant entirely upon making claims which can't be in any way backed up or verified. There is no way to prove or disprove the existance of the soul, or god, or the afterlife, or karma, etc. These things are have to be taken -purely- on faith, and nothing else.
Now, as for religions not all having a deity, I'm well aware of this. They still often have elements based purely on faith, though, and it is required to believe these to be part of the religion. I took a look at your Jainism, and I noticed a few things pop up right away. It speaks of the soul, it speaks of divine consciousness, it speaks heavily of karma. Once again, these are all positive, unverifiable, unfalsifiable claims based purely on faith. Atheists do not make positive claims based purely on faith- they simply reject the claims given to them by those of faith. I don't believe in the soul or in karma, for I've seen no reason to.
Here's another fun quote from the wiki. "All non liberated souls when pass from one life to another it carries with itself the Karmic body which is invisible and subtle. This Karmic body depending on the karma energies it carries, exhibits the occult powers.It first attracts the material particles to form the physical body. The senses, speech and mind are formed according to the ability of the soul bonded by Karmic connections. It may be one sense organism to five sense organism with mind or without mind. Even one can be born as hellish beings or celestial beings. Mind includes desires, emotions, intelligence, thinking etc. According to Jains the soul in pure form has infiniteness in terms of its knowledge and power. These faculties are obstructed for its exhibition due to Karmic bondage.""
This doesn't sound at all religious to you? It certainly does to me. How me how one can come to these conclusions based on anything other than pure faith, show me the tests I can do to verify these things, and I might have a reason to believe them.
If ever a day comes up where a religion makes a claim that can be verified and backed up by evidence, not taken purely on faith, then it won't be a religion- it'll be science. And the athiests will believe it. If they don't, they can test it and find out for themselves.
So again, if you want to classify me saying "I don't believe you" as a religion, then you certainly can, but I still feel it's pretty silly. :P
We never disagreed on that point, I never advocated blind trust as that was beyond the scope of my words. But since you bring it up, trust itself is a measure of faith in someone. Regardless of whether it is blind trust or trust earned, it is still trust that you place in them. The very definition of trust uses both the words “faith” and “belief” in it.
I do like your point about science being verifiable, and religious faith is not. It is a valid point to make. But it is worth noting that from the perspective of many religious followers, they would say they felt or directly experienced their diety’s hidden influence in this world.
One of my Aunts suffered from a disease that the docs never could find a cause for and was supposed to kill her, but she had a miraculous recovery a few months before she was going to die. She believes God healed her for some purpose in life (which the docs could of course never explain). For her family it isn’t a question of blind faith, in their minds it is as genuine as the scientist’s explanations of quantum mechanics. Also, it can’t be proven nor disproven either way, so who is to say if she is right or wrong?
>>Atheists do not make positive claims based purely on faith- they simply reject the claims given to them by those of faith. I don't believe in the soul or in karma, for I've seen no reason to.
All of that is true. But that said, a fair number of atheists do believe in karma, or souls, or even other non-provable subjects! Atheism, like Christianity, is not a blanket black and white label and there are many shades of grey within both beliefs. I had forgotten reincarnation was one facet of Janism’s beliefs though, whoops!
Even if I practiced Janism, nothing says I had to believe in the reincarnation aspect though. If I simply followed the doctrines that laid out how to improve oneself, seek knowledge, and practice non-violence, then is it still a religion? Is it a world view? Or is it a way of life? It would still be a personal belief, just as you believe no deity exists whatsoever. There are some religions/agnostics that believe a deity exists that has zero interaction with us and the universe as a whole, therefore there is nothing to even prove or disprove about it.
>>If ever a day comes up where a religion makes a claim that can be verified and backed up by evidence, not taken purely on faith, then it won't be a religion- it'll be science.
You have another good point there. But not all science has been verified either, much of it is conjecture and theory that is equally impossible to prove as we lack the technology or understanding to yet do so. Science is not a universally provable thing as you make it out to be, and much of it ends up wrong and being rewritten.
String theory is still just a theory. Dark matter is still unconfirmed conjecture based on what empirical evidence we believe to be observing, should our measurement scales be accurate. Dark energy is unrelated to dark matter, but is equally unverifiable as we have no idea as to the cause. We live in a 3D world, and scientists agree there are more dimensions out there but we cannot observe of or prove them outside abject math. Which is why they can’t agree on how many there are. Personally the theory about 11 dimensions seemed the most intriguing, but it’s still considered to be outside generally accepted scientific consensus. Emphasis on “consensus”.
Of course, generally accepted science at one time used lots of methods to “prove” the world was flat, then to prove it was a “sphere”, that was also wrong and so it became an oblate spheroid. But today they will readily acknowledge that even labeling the earth as oblate spheroid isn’t completely accurate because of differing densities in the earth’s composition. Through the Wormhole said we were something akin to an oblate spheroid crossed with a pear! My point is, science itself changes and isn’t a universal truth unto itself. Especially in the last 20 years, where generally accepted theories in all fields of study get thrown out the window every year.
>>So again, if you want to classify me saying "I don't believe you" as a religion, then you certainly can, but I still feel it's pretty silly. :P
Let me ask you this, then. At what point does a belief become a religion? When it can’t be quantified or verified by known facts? If so then that classification would wreak havoc with science for the above reasons, because most of leading edge science is just conjecture and beliefs in yet unconfirmable theory based on real world obersvations. And my Aunt’s real world observation is that God saved her life. That’s no more verifiable than that the universe has 11 dimensions.
I don't believe there is a god because i have been given no reason to believe it. I won't however say that god 100% doesn't exist because then a burden of proof that's impossible to meet would be on me so it would be intellectually dishonest to say that.
Also, last time i did look up the definition of religion virtually all of them specifically mention some sort of belief in the supernatural.
>>and mention how belief of itself is not any sort of assertion
Atheism itself is the assertion that all other religious beliefs concerning god are false.
>>I won't however say that god 100% doesn't exist because then a burden of proof that's impossible to meet
That's probably a good thing. Even the most ardent Atheist scientist would tell you science can in no way prove or disprove the existence of a deity, because it's completely outside the scope of what defines science. As Ruaidri pointed out above, science deals with the verifiable and empirical world.
>>Also, last time i did look up the definition of religion virtually all of them specifically mention some sort of belief in the supernatural.
Then you haven't looked closely enough. I took a class on World Religions at my University, and you have to look outside the typical main western religions to find them.
For some examples, Janism: Jain scriptures reject God as the creator of universe. Hinduism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Hinduism Another is Confucianism, which does not involve the belief in a personal god.
Atheism is not an assertion of anything. A belief is not an assertion, it is an opinion. It is generally defined as lack of a belief in a god, not positive assertion that god does not exist. It's like a court, not guilty does not mean innocent. it means not guilty. It's semantics but it's there for a reason.
So your now saying the dictionary doesn't matter after using it to prove a weak argument? The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods. I have to go outside my country to find the correct definition of religion? lol That is ridiculous.
Hindus believe in many gods so that's a moot point. The other common usage of religion is Details of belief as taught or discussed. if i must pull out a dictionary, that would fall over janism and confuscianism. Atheism has no doctrine, no dogma, it is not taught, it is not learned. It is the default position on matters of a supernatural god no different than the default position on ANYTHING who's claims are not justified. Atheism is a religion like not believing in the loch ness monster is a religion.
>>>So your now saying the dictionary doesn't matter after using it to prove a weak argument? I have to go outside my country to find the correct definition of religion? lol That is ridiculous.
I in no way said this, you're putting words in my mouth now. Either you're using a spurious statement or you completely didn't understand what I said. If you'd like to explain your reasoning so I can at least follow it I'm all ears.
>>Hindus believe in many gods so that's a moot point.
Then you didn't read the wiki link at all. If you had bothered to, you'd see the part where a Nobel Peace prize winner specifically was quoted discussing the large amount of atheistic literature in the Hindu religion which specifically counters your point here and proves not all Hindus "believe in many gods", as you put it. Or you'd also would have seen this: Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, father of the Hindu nationalist ideology Hindutva, was a self–proclaimed atheist."
>>>that would fall over janism and confuscianism
No, because you specifically provided the context of "belief in the supernatural." in your previous post and my list was according to that context. If you wish to take those words back then sure, I'd agree Janism and Confucianism are beliefs. They are, after all, labeled as religions. The point was that a religion doesn't mean a belief in a supernatural power or deity, it can be comprised of just a set of belief systems or a way of life. Confucianism is specifically a way of life.
I'm sorry but you're wrong. Theres a reason why dictionaries change their definitions to include common usage when the people start using words in different ways. Look up gay in the dictionary, homosexuality was not a part of it a very short time ago. People started using it commonly in a different way, the dictionary updated what was being said and how. The dictionary didn't decide to start using the word gay to talk about homosexuals and the public followed suit. Dictionaries are NOT an authority on anything, the people who speak the language are. This is all a moot point because the complete and utter cesspool of theological debates is when you start debating over the semantics of the meaning of a specific word. It is completely useless to do this and I'm not going to do this. The bottom line is that atheists do not assert anything, there is a subset of atheists that do and a very small one but they are not representative of the modern atheist movement.
I in no way said this, you're putting words in my mouth now. Either you're using a spurious statement or you completely didn't understand what I said. If you'd like to explain your reasoning so I can at least follow it I'm all ears.
Ok, well you quoted me talking about virtually every definition of religion then responded i hadn't looked hard enough and i have to go outside the country. If you were talking about religions that don't meet that definition, you didn't clarify this.
Then you didn't read the wiki link at all. If you had bothered to, you'd see the part where a Nobel Peace prize winner specifically was quoted discussing the large amount of atheistic literature in the Hindu religion which specifically counters your point here and proves not all Hindus "believe in many gods", as you put it. Or you'd also would have seen this: Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, father of the Hindu nationalist ideology Hindutva, was a self–proclaimed atheist."
Why the hell would i care that theres "large amounts of atheistic literature." when it's not at all representative of the vast vast majority of what hindus actually believe? I did read most of it, it didn't do a thing to bolster your point. India, ground zero for hinduism is a DEEPLY superstititious culture and hindus at large and hinduism DOES believe in many gods. The fact that some are atheists does nothing to change this. There are small sects of christianity that don't believe jesus was divine in any way, that doesn't have any bearing on the fact that believing jesus was divine is still the one and only thing virtually all christians agree upon, hence why they call themselves christians. And these are STILL not points at all because since you're so hung up on definitions, janism and hinduism with no belief in the supernatural (fyi, theres plenty of supernatural beliefs in janism at large, i've met several of them and i'm probably aware of just about every religions theology that you are.) would STILL meet the dictionary definition of religion and they will identify as religions themselves.
All this is pointless though. I don't care about definitions even if they did hurt my argument, which they don't. Not playing football is not a sport. Not believing in a supernatural god as an identifying thing is not a religion.
There is a subset of atheists called "hard atheists" that will assert that god doesn't exist, they're generally looked down upon by the atheist community because the moment you make a positive claim, the burden of proof is on you to prove it and atheists only exist at all because the theists who claim god exists have not met any burden of proof to justify those claims. You can't prove a negative, it's impossible so atheism does not assert god doesn't exist, it says theists belief in god is not justified due to no evidence.
I do want to forbid the government, state or federal from endorsing a specific religion or religion at all because it's expressly forbidden by the constitution and that's now how peoples tax dollars should be spent.
If i was given the opportunity to ban all religion in the US i wouldn't do it. People need to stop believing bad things for good reasons, not because somebody forbids it.
Seriously, wtf are you talking about? the establishment clause is a "Wall of separation of church and state." as stated by Thomas Jefferson. Nobody is saying that people can't express their religion, they just can't do it on gov't money and the gov't is forbidden from respecting a specific religion. No atheists are trying to get any particular religion banned.
Also the second is fail too. There is no rule in any school in the country that you can't exercise your religion. However, schools are funded on tax payer money therefore the school cannot commit a dollar of it's resources or a moment of it's time to religious expression. If any kids were barred from doing something religious it's because they were a disruption to the class.
"True, but that's easy to disprove simply by looking at things. On the other hand, the creation of all matter, energy, time, and space is not something we can observe, it requires faith to believe any of its origins. "
I'd be curious to hear your method for testing the idea that when an object is not being observed in any way it doesn't become filled with magical lime jello. What kind of test could you run? The moment you look at it either directly or via any instrument it would cease to be filled with lime jello, and all tests and observations would appear normal. It can do this because it's magic.
You also can't disprove there's a teacup floating out in space just behined Pluto, or that there's an invisible, silent pink unicorn behind you at all times, to use the classic examples. You can't disprove any of these things, but I'm sure you don't believe them... does that make you religious?
On the same token, while it's true we can't prove the creation of all matter, we can certainly see the marks it's left behind. We can measure the rate of the expansion of space by looking at the redshift of light from type 1A supernovas. We use them because the way they're created makes them all pretty much exactly the same, so we can measure their position and speed by the differences we see.
After doing this all over the universe, scientists realized that the universe was expanding, and not only that, accelerating. Once that was figured out, it was a simple matter of winding back the clock. Math is pretty decent at determining where things have been based on where they're going and how fast they're getting there. In fact, we can follow the laws of physics as we understand them all the way back to fractions of a second after it all started. So the fact that the big bang happened, at least, isn't really even an issue.
We could also get into the cosmic microwave background at this point, but I fully admit I don't have much understanding of it at this point.
Now, it's true that we can't say how the big bang started. We have no idea, no proof that it wasn't sparked into existance by a deity. We don't know, and we may never know... but the thing about "I don't know" is that it doesn't prove anything. It's useless scientifically. The fact that we don't know how it started doesn't prove it must have been a god- if it did, which god do you choose? It's equal evidence for every single religion out there.
So we can't say exactly how it started, no, but it requires no faith to see that it did indeed start, since we're here, and no faith to understand how things went down after it did start, since we can see the evidence of that all around us. It -does- require faith, however, to believe in a deity, as there are no effects of such a being that can be tested or verfied or falsified in any way. If there are ways to prove the existance of any deity, or said deity's effects, I'd be very curious to hear them!
Red shift does provide evidence that the universe is expanding, but is incapable of answering the questions of why it's expanding or, more to the point, where everything came from. There's still not even a definite answer over whether or not we're in an "open" or "closed" universe, or if it's still expanding, or even if it's begun to contract.
As for saying "I don't know," not only is that true for everyone, but it's why people seek the truth. If we knew everything about everything ever, there would be no reason to try and figure out the truth.
By your logic, you can't even be sure your grandmother was born because nobody alive witnessed it.
Thanks to this journal being borked, I'm not even sure which comment you're talking about at this point.
Either way, a painting would only be evidence of somebodies existence, not evidence of anything supernatural. Despite the fact there isn't a shred of evidence to show that jesus even existed, even if there was it would not be evidence of all the supernatural events he supposedly did. A painting of say, mohammed would be evidence he existed, it wouldn't however be evidence he was a prophet of god and ascended to heaven on a horse.
We have testable and observable evidence that fundamentally proves the big bang was an event that happened. It's not a story, it's not a guess, this evidence is right there and free for anybody to observe or test. The conclusion of the big bang was brought about because that's what the evidence indicates happened.
What you shouldn't do is fill in "I don't know" with fantastical supernatural explanations for which there is no proof.
1. There is nothing that exists that lies outside of our capabilities of perception.
2. There is or are something(s) that exist that lie outside of our capabilities of perception and also have no measurable effect on anything that exists that is within our range of perception.
The trouble is is it's #2, then there's nothing that we could positively say about what it is and what its capabilities are as it does not have any affect on us or on anything that's within out range of perception. As a result, there's no way to actually know what it is, or what any of its qualities actually are. Your argument makes at least the claim that there are or can be things that exist outside of our capable observation. As a result, they can only be represented through faith and/or belief as there is nothing that can be positively known about them in our observable and examinable reality and none of their qualities can be determined to any degree whatsoever. There has never been a single instance in human history where the belief in the supernatural has improved our understanding of anything at all. These beliefs have only served to impede our understanding the world and the universe around us.
I am very interested in things that currently may exist outside our observational capabilities, but until there is measurable, testable, examinable, reproducible, and potentially falsifiable evidence of such things, belief will be insufficient to explain them at all.
Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god, note that this includes passive as well as active disbelief.
To quote the OED:
"disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
To go more specialized, with the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy:
"Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none."
Note how the simple lack of belief is explicitly included.
The falsehood that atheism only includes active disbelief is something pushed by a particular strain of theist who do so to try and escape their burden of proof.
Remember, a passive disbelief is when you do not believe in something for the simple reason that there is insufficient evidence to believe. This is in contrast to an active disbelief, where there is a clear reason to believe the claim is false.
To apply this to a couple of god concepts:
The classic noninterventionist deistic god, who created the universe and has not affected it since. There is no evidence for such a god, (nor could there be), thus there is no reason to believe such a god exists. However, such a god is also logically self-consistent and is not contrary to any observations, (nor could it be), thus you would not have an active disbelief.
A god who is both fully omnipotent and fully omnibenevolent, OTOH, is contradicted by observation, as evil exists[1]. Thus you can readily come to an active disbelief.
Likewise, an omnipotent and omniscient god is logically inconsistent as omniscience precludes the existence of free will, (and thus omnipotence, because there is something one cannot do). Again creating a situation where active disbelief comes into play.
Using a legal analogy: Active disbelief is like having an solid alibi, passive is like the Crown failing to present a prima facie case.
[1] Any line of thought that involves things like "evil is necessary" denies omnipotence, while any that alludes to motivation denies omnibenevolence.
And saying that an individual concept of god is false doesn't provide evidence that there is no such thing as any gods, even if it would be true.
With active disbelief, the response to the claimant is "you are wrong."
With passive disbelief, the response to the claimant is "you haven't backed up your case."
As for why I made mention of particular god concepts, that was both a response to your position that passive disbelief only applies to concepts you are unaware of as well as an attempt to explain to you just what passive disbelief is.
You claimed that those who simply do not believe in a god are not atheists.
A breakdown of my understanding of it is: people who believe that there is not god are atheists, those who believe in a god are deists, those that believe in a specific god are theists, and those that don't know any of that for sure are agnostic.
Your words.
And your understanding is incorrect on all four:
An atheist is someone who does not believe in any god.
A theist is someone who believes one or more gods exist.
A deist, (in the modern sense), is someone who believes in a noninterventionist god. Note how all deists are theists.
An agnostic is someone who believes that it is not possible to know for sure if there is a god or not.
Note how being an agnostic is separate from the other three, you can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic atheist, an agnostic theist or a gnostic theist[1]. The way I generally explain the distinction is that (a)theism is about what you think the answer is and (a)gnosticism is about whether or not you can ever find out for sure that you are right.
[1] Although a gnostic deist would be rather strange.
Now, as far as semantics do go, I still would assert that I am correct in my initial statement using the words as I've defined them.
Correct, but they are both atheism.
As for your defence of your initial statement: "How many legs does a dog have if we call his tail a leg?"
Atheism isn't an absence of belief, it's a belief of absence of a god, where abstinence is the avoidance of sexual activity, but it still is a stance on sexual activity. Atheism lacks worship or dieties, but it's every much a religion as any other belief system.
That you had already made the erroneous claims that atheism is a religion or that atheists are trying to forbid religious behaviour just makes you even more wrong.
Does not guilty mean innocent? No, you're just saying they're not guilty. Saying "I don't believe your claims of gods existence." is completely different from saying "I positively assert god does not exist."
It sucks that Dawkins won't debate creationists anymore. Those were the best.
It was the same thing with my "Obama!" journal. I posted one word, made no statement and no argument, next thing i know, people are arguing with me lol.
Religion though i can sorta understand. I mean just by BEING an atheist you're essentially saying that they're deluded and irrational even if you don't say it. And you're saying this about their deepest core beliefs that they have to a certain extent based their entire lives on. That automatically makes it an emotional issue as opposed to an issue of opinion.
To a lot of them, you're basically saying "Hey, you're going to not exist someday." and that is terrifying for a lot of people and it's going to bring out a defense mechanism when they hear that because more then anything they do not want to believe it.
Also there are a shitload of religions out there and those people are like, "This is the true faith" or "That is the true faith."
The thing that disturbs me most of all is that people believe that the end is coming, yet there is no scientific proof their is. Their proof is a calendar that is, quite frankly, off the charts due to day lights savings time and leap year. Yet enough people believe that, it sort of disturbs the thought.
the unfortunate thing is not worrying about worshipping a deity is the exact opposite of what most religions advocate. There are many specific things you MUST do or not do, one of them is worshipping said deity because he's oh so insecure and needy lol.
http://youtu.be/CzSMC5rWvos
Fun fact about The Atheist Experience: Martin Wagner may, in fact, be a furry. Before TAE, he was notable for being the creator of Hepcats, a furry comic that was in the Antarctic Press lineup.
I've seen that, it's got sex and graphic everything in it as well iirc.
It's awesome to see a furry atheist with a good mind and an attitude on television. I mean, he doesn't make a thing out of being furry bu it's just cool that he is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6w2M50_Xdk
In regards to not being vocal about this stuff, I'm in a similar boat to you, perhaps. I don't try to actively go out and deconvert people, but when people bring up "Oh thank god for xxx" or ask me about my beliefs I engage them and ask why they think that way. It does not take long for them to bring up a contradiction. They prove themselves wrong, all you have to do is get them to actually think critically about what they are saying.
Taking something "on faith" makes so little sense to me. I'm not going to take someones word that they de-energized a control panel before I work on it, or let someone else inspect my fall protection gear, respirator, or SCBA. I'm going to check that stuff myself and pass or fail it based on a set of criteria. Those concepts are not difficult to understand.
My point is that we only survive because we DON'T take things on faith all the time in our daily lives. We don't jump off cliffs because we have faith we might fly for some reason. We don't eat poisonous food because we have faith we'll be the lucky one to survive it. We don't use faith for really anything other than religion. I'm pretty sure faith based belief systems are an evolutionary mechanism simply piggy backing on the fact that we've evolved to change the world around us to suit our needs instead of just fit into what's already there, that makes us curious by nature and want to find explanations for things. Theres also the fact we're a deepy communal species and belonging to a group is a huge drive and that's another thing faith does is given us something to belong to.
What is pointless is going into a debate and expecting them to renounce god by the end of it just because you've "won". Materialism and logic and reason are a seed, you plant it and if they allow it to it will grow. Most theists i've met are theists because they've never thought about why they believe what they do, they've just always believed it because they've never heard the logic of why that belief isn't justified. They'll never examine that probably unless it's broken down to them.
it more or less is a rational and systematic view of one person's shift from being devout christian through logic and reason.
i love these comments that start with "the problem i have with atheists/atheism..."
And those comments are funny. I threw out some links with to atheism resources, i don't recall asking or caring about people tired strawman view on atheists left over from that one kid in junior high who suddenly realized god doesn't exist and it was his new toy and he couldn't shut up about it meanwhile hadn't yet bothered to research the claims religious people actually make or the scripture those claims are based on. If you don't do your research all you really have is "Well you're and idiot that believes in an invisible sky daddy!!"
"Because IT'S THE FUTURE, son"
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
A common argument for the existence of gods is the logical fallacy of appeal to emotions: "I feel it to be true".
Yes.
The only thing that makes something "supernatural" is ignorance. Two thousand years ago, lightning was considered a product of gods, a supernatural event which could not be explained. Today, it's still awe-inspiring, but it's not something that we can't create or explain. Six hundred years ago, Newton threw up his hands on the 3-body problem and basically said "God must be keeping the planets in their orbits." It's a shame, because it was his equations which were eventually used to solve the 3-body problem (and the general gravitational problem). He surrendered to ignorance, and inserted God into that gap in his understanding.
However, even though both of those things might once have been considered "supernatural," they are nothing of the sort. No matter that things might be currently inexplicable, that does not mean they exist outside the laws of time and space (which THEMSELVES have not been fully understood). The very definition of "god" suggests that it exists outside reality, yet influences reality in utterly ineffable ways. That is nonsensical on its face. I'll readily accept that there are thousands of dimensions which we will never be able to perceive, but that is still "REALITY." I will gladly concede that there may be beings out there which have access to energies and abilities far beyond our comprehension (even farther beyond than a hydrogen bomb would be to Cro Magnon man), but those beings would understand their powers. To them, it would not be supernatural, and therefore THEY are not supernatural. Not gods.
Nature and the universe can encompass quite enough without discarding it for fantasies. Ignorance is no justification for surrender to magical thinking.
Same with gods. Believing a being exists that has conscience or intelligence far beyond the one of human beings, that has perceptive capabilities far beyond the reaches of known lifeforms, that has abilities or power far beyond those of any person or living creature, requires considerable more faith than not believing in such being. Based on reliable information there isn't any being that meets any of those criteria separately, even less probable it would be that one existed that meets all of them.
You are trying to restrict atheism to only active disbelief[1] when it also includes passive disbelief[2].
[1] e.g. "I actively disbelieve that there is no bus in my back yard, because I am looking out the window."
[2] e.g. "I passively disbelieve that there is a bus parked on Westlake Rd., as buses rarely use it."
Note that anything that boils down to "no, but I could be wrong," is still "no."
Agnosticism is a position on your ability to know for sure, it is not some kind of middle ground between atheism and theism.
It's a solid yes/no question, you either believe in the existence of one or more gods or you do not.
And no, it's not possible to neither have a belief nor a lack of belief[1]. If you do not have belief, by definition you have a lack of belief, (it's an A or !A situation). As I said, you seem to be assuming that active disbelief is the only form of disbelief.
[1] I chose that phrasing for a good reason: I am not talking about specifically believing a claim is false, I am talking about not believing that it is true. Atheism isn't believing that no god exists, it is not believing one exists.
Atheism isn't asserting god doesn't exist. It's a lack of a belief in god because claims of god existence are not justified due to no evidence.
Atheism deals with what you do or don't believe, agnosticism is what you do or don't know.
You can be an agnostic atheist or you can be an agnostic theist. Virtually all atheists are agnostics because if you assert something like "God does not exist." the burden of proof is on you to prove that. Atheists generally approach it as a rejection of claims that god exists because the default position on ANYTHING that's not demonstrably true is to not believe it.
I would also add FreeThoughtBlogs as a whole.
To begin with, PZ wasn't the guy who banned him, (if FTB is anyone's it's Ed Brayton's), in fact PZ was one of the people who was arguing for giving Thunderf00t more of a chance.
Second, I read all of those blog posts, (that Thunderf00t has since had deleted), and yes they were something to get upset over. (Although understanding that does involve knowing some of the context.) That they made up pretty much everything he posted at FTB doesn't help him,
Third, TF has since spent quite a bit of time lying about the issue and doing so in posts that solidly place him with the scum known as MRAs.
Regardless, even if he's a the biggest dick in history it won't make the things he says any less true or interesting.
Had TF stopped at just one post on the topic it would have likely blown over. What got him in deep was that, upon finding himself in a hole, he kept digging. Him threatening to release personal information[1] that he obtained illegally only made things worse for him.
As for it hurting the other things he has said, it has come across to me as a full-up case of the retroactive brain eater.
[1] Including the real name of someone who has reason to fear real harm from being outed.
I don't remember anything about TF threatening to release personal information. Even if he did, that wouldn't really make me care any less about the good he does for the community and how enlightening his videos are.
Or is it thinking that responding to such a comment with rape threats is across the line what is overly politically correct?
As for the rape threats, i'm not even sure what you're talking about. This was some time ago but i don't recall any threats of rape.
And yes, time and place matter. Remember that they were _alone_, _somewhere she couldn't easily leave_, _when no one was likely to come across them_.
Furthermore, she didn't get upset: She mentioned it happening in her vlog and said "guys, don't do this."
And yes, Rebecca Watson did get rape threats in her vlog comments.
And whether she got upset over it or not, everybody else did and it's simply NO FUCKING BIG DEAL, not the elevator, not the time, not the rape comments. Who fucking cares. It's a non event and a non issue.
The misogynist freakout over being told that they shouldn't do stupid things.
DJ Grothe blowing off the issue of sexual harassment by lying about it not happening at TAM[1].
As for it being a non-issue in a more general sense, not dealing with the issue when it is just a mix of vocal misogynists and male privilege it ends up generating people like Marc Lépine.
[1] It was a lie because multiple women had reported incidents to him personally.
What a clusterfuck the comments turned into, though! Inevitably, I suppose.
Really the best thing a theist can say is "I believe because i choose to." And i can't really argue with that even if i think it's a bad idea lol.