Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Digg and YouTube Powering Atheism 2.0
businesslogs.com — A new atheism movement being powered by web 2.0 and specifically digg and youtube.
durden2.0- 2149 diggs
- digg it
- grendelboogie, on 10/12/2007, -126/+28Actually, it's just a preliminary paradigm shift as we await our new squid overlords.
Sheesh!- digguerre, on 10/12/2007, -28/+165it's spaghetti, not squid. FSM FTW!
- HaxityHaxHaxed, on 10/12/2007, -22/+58Blasphemy, how dare you call my holy one a squid.
- damentz, on 10/12/2007, -28/+8It works why are you complaining?
- mrfoos, on 10/12/2007, -89/+21Atheism IS the new religion.
- masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -65/+210An Atheism movement is no better than a religious movement. If you want to get rid of religion, do so on an intellectual front, not with large mobs of obnoxious people.
- RoboPimp3000, on 10/12/2007, -20/+125Sciencedamnit!
"Atheists 2.0" should really be called the "United Atheists Alliance"! This means war. - MadNuke, on 10/12/2007, -35/+12Squid?...
SQUID?!?!
YOU NOODLY APPENDAGE VIRGIN.
GET OUT OF MY SIGHT.
Ramen. - TaterSalad77, on 10/12/2007, -20/+119Its interesting to see that most digg users (at least from what I've seen) are left winged atheists
- AMSRay, on 10/12/2007, -21/+8Cthulu > Squids
- revenge7, on 10/12/2007, -25/+4Xenu > Cthulu
- reed311, on 10/12/2007, -55/+141"Its interesting to see that most digg users (at least from what I've seen) are left winged atheists"
Though, I am not surprised at all because most digg users are well-educated college-graduates. - profOblivion, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2@BearOwned
"Digg" also works. - rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -20/+49@BearOwned:
"Christ! If you want to hit the front page, just put atheism in your title. #-o"
Quite telling Jesus what to do. - reddevil3, on 10/12/2007, -8/+152"Though, I am not surprised at all because most digg users are well-educated college-graduates."
Hard to tell from most of the comments most of the time. - mrfoos, on 10/12/2007, -7/+95College-graduate and well-educated are not synonymous in my experience. Unless Beer is the topic.
- oriondr, on 10/12/2007, -23/+100Actually, atheism is not a religious movement, it is an areligious movement. That's why it's called Atheism (ie Non-Theism), and not the Church of People Who Don't believe in God.
- D1STORT, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5@ AMSRay: Isn't it Cthulhu?
- Sairgem, on 10/12/2007, -9/+65"Though, I am not surprised at all because most digg users are well-educated college-graduates."
That's a bit hard to believe. - barius, on 10/12/2007, -16/+51@oriondr
Atheism does not preclude religion. Atheism is only a word to describe someone who denies the existence of a personal god. Not believing in a god does not mean that you don't believe in a form of organized faith. For example, Scientologists do not believe in a 'god' in the traditional sense* yet they are refered to as a religion (though I think 'cult' is a better term).
I am worried about Atheism getting turned into another religion for sheeple. I think we are in the midst of a 'coming-out' as it were, a time in which Atheists are going to be coming together in strength. Such movements are difficult, and can often lead to misunderstandings and bad choices all around. I am, however, an Atheist myself (Agnostic on a bad day) so I'm very careful about creating false impressions towards my beliefs. I think the reason Digg/Slashdot/Online Communities, are so rife with Atheist posters is simply that we tend to be marginalized in normal life because we all (most) come from families that have been traditionally Theist.
It's easier to be an Atheist when you're anonymous.
* Xenu is a Galactic Emperor, but still an entity within the universe itself and therefore not a 'god' in the Judeo/Christian sense. - Ystig, on 10/12/2007, -11/+35Jesus Schmeezus. As a worshipper of Azathoth, the blind idiot god and amorphous blight of nethermost confusion who writhes, embodied yet disembodied, as the loathsome infinitude of blasphemies at the end of all things, I take offense at these assertions that the elders of the universe are capable of coherent, much less benevolent, cognition.
- treelovinhippie, on 10/12/2007, -15/+44Well the great minds of this era recently predicted that religion will lose it's power in 25 years time. I can't wait! ... finally man-kind will be able to excel and not be held back by childish mind-sets.
- oriondr, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10@barius
the word atheism implies not being religious. That is the definition. I am not making a judgment on atheists themselves. It is possible for an atheist to join a religion, however, one should not come to the conclusion that atheism is a religion because a number of atheists are forming an organization or are beginning to speak out. I wouldn't call Bread for the World a religion, would you? - zeiben, on 10/12/2007, -14/+44"Actually, atheism is not a religious movement, it is an areligious movement. That's why it's called Atheism (ie Non-Theism), and not the Church of People Who Don't believe in God."
Um No.
your statement assumes that theism==religion, which it absolutely does not. There are theists who are not religious, and religions that are not necessarily theist.
Therefore, Atheism is not, a priori, areligious. It is quite possible to have a religion in which the denial of the existence of a god is a central tenet. All it takes is a place for followers to congregate (digg) and commune (post,digg and bury), a few spiritual leaders (Dawkins, Harris) and some sacred texts ("the God Delusion", etc.). Set oven to 350 for a few hours and presto - groupthink and zealotry! - sloof70, on 10/12/2007, -22/+10"Its interesting to see that most digg users (at least from what I've seen) are left winged atheists"
"Though, I am not surprised at all because most digg users are well-educated college-graduates."
Considering that evolution is taught in public schools, I'd say that your statement doesn't make sense. Of course you are an atheist, that's what you've been taught in school for almost the past 20 years. Besides, the existence of God isn't something that you can grasp using science. - appetite, on 10/12/2007, -23/+35Religion = rush to judgment God for reason X
X = {fear of Hell, bad reincarnation, spaghetti, etc.}
Atheism = rush to judgment No God for reason Y
Y = {desire to not appear gullible, bitterness towards religious people}
Agnosticism = acknowledgment that we don't know ***** about anything despite all our science or people who swear God has spoken to them personally - enharmonix, on 10/12/2007, -20/+14http://www.beliefnet.com/story/132/story_13212_1.html
For all you who say "Digg readers are educated so we don't believe in god", please read the above article. This outlines results from a survey of people with *postgraduate* degrees - doctors, lawyers, etc. - who are at least as educated as Dawkins, Dennett, and pals. Check out these numbers: "78% of them believe in the survival of the soul after death, 60% believe in the virgin birth, and 64% believe in the resurrection of Christ." This is post-graduate degrees, not red-neck bible thumping dummies or brown-skinned savages from some far-away country. Now, for those of you still think religion is a load of bunk, what do you suppose the *majority* of highly educated people know that you don't? - RevMark, on 10/12/2007, -21/+6Not Atheism. It's Liberal Democrat Syncophant melting pot. Anti-Christian, Anti-George Bush Bigots.
- barius, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9@oriondr,
I don't understand how you can make a statement that is obviously false. All you have to do to understand that Atheism implies nothing about religion is to look up the definition in a dictionary. Quite simply, Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Period. Nothing more. It implies nothing about religion.
Go read the article at Wikipedia (search for 'Atheism'), especially the part about Buddhism being an Atheist religion. - 21chrisp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17"Not Atheism. It's Liberal Democrat Syncophant melting pot. Anti-Christian, Anti-George Bush Bigots."
Actually according to most recent polls, even a majority of Christians disagree with George Bush:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1217 - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18"Besides, the existence of God isn't something that you can grasp using science."
It can't be grasped or proven by any means. For many people, it's not a matter of theists versus atheists, it's reality versus fantasy and given a choice, I choose reality.
There is no "atheist movement"? Only people who tend to prefer reality over pure blind mindless faith. If anything, digg has provided a platform where like minded people can express themselves. - spidoman, on 10/12/2007, -13/+10Simply because atheists stick together, and nonatheists tend to ignore them (with a select few christians who don't know better). So the atheists think it's a new movement, but the truth is nobody really cares that much. Atleast me, simply because I couldn't care less what random people on the internet believe. Atheists are turning into christians trying to convert people. Don't atheists hate those people?
- ncdoyle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13sloop70: Considering that evolution is taught in public schools, I'd say that your statement doesn't make sense. Of course you are an atheist, that's what you've been taught in school for almost the past 20 years. Besides, the existence of God isn't something that you can grasp using science.
Indeed. Growing up I assumed that everybody generally agreed with evolution (much like we agreed with photosynthesis, the speed of light and whatnot) and that the whole biblical story was... dunno, metaphorical or something. (This was at a non-religious public school in Canada when they still had religion class during class time). When I heard that there was actual serious debate about teaching creationism vs. evolution in school (a few years ago, AFTER completing my undergraduate degree) I almost fell out of my chair.
At the same time, I also started hearing about Jewish day schools and the like too. The world never ceases to surprise. - enharmonix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@barius: Minor clarification, when people talk about Buddhism being an atheist religion, it's because Buddhists don't believe in a *personal* God, though the Brahman has most of the qualities normally associated with Godhead and they do, IIRC, believe in other minor deities (at the very lest, the souls of their ancestors who are able to perform the functions of gods, etc.). The Brahman is the same Brahman from Hinduism, from which Buddhism descends, but IIRC, the Brahman is seen as personal in Hinduism (therefore, it Hinduism is recognized as theistic), but I might be mistaken and know for a fact I'm glossing over a few details. But yeah, Buddhists absolutely believe in the afterlife and in a highest power (the Brahman), it's just intentionally confusing lingo they use to "enlighten" that trips some people (myself included!) up. I hope that helped at least slightly, but like I said, Buddhism is intentionally confusing (and IMO they're on to something). Cheers.
- zybch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3bariu, as much as everyone here absolutely know that those ***** scientologists only refer to scientology as a religion to get the tax breaks, everything else you say is pretty much spot on!
- carve, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@enharmonix: What do the survey results say for Europe?
Those numbers are higher than I'd expect, but they're lower than for the general population, indicating that higher education levels increase the liklihood of being an athiest. - barius, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@enharmonics,
It can be debated whether Buddhism is Theist or Atheist, however, under the definition of Atheism as having no *personal* god it still meets the criteria. Further, while Buddha is often attributed supernatural powers, it is still understood that he was originally a man and was not created by some external power. He rose to power through spiritual learning and self-exploration, thus I (personally) consider him to be 'of this world' regardless of perceived 'godhood'. I am pretty sure that most Judeo/Christian/Islamic theists would argue that a god is not a God unless he is separate and greater than his own creation.
Anyways, the purpose of my original post was simply to correct a common error that Theists make. Namely, that Atheists are non-religious or that Atheism somehow precludes religious beliefs and traditions. If Theists are going to debate Atheism they need to get their facts straight first. - detlev409, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@bobthebuilder
"religion is the belief in a supernatural overseer, creator, controlling power, personal God. That is religion. Belief in a type of 'God' in as general a sense as you can imagine is the same as religion."
No, that's only one of many ways of defining a religion. Zelben is right. Think of Buddhism, Scientology, certain types of Paganism, and other such non-theistic beliefs. I think we could all agree these are religions, yet they have no identified god(s). - neoform, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3http://www.irreligion.org/2007/01/03/christians-against-fsm-launches-new-campaign/
Ahh! The Anti-FSM ads are coming! - kmckanna, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"There is no "type" of person who might be an atheist, but if you look at Web 2.0 community sites like Digg and YouTube, you'll see a growing number of users there who display anti-religion or pro-Atheism sentiments. I would go so far as to argue that without large tech-oriented sites like Digg and YouTube, the Atheism 2.0 movement would not have taken off as quickly as it has."
Could not have been said better. I think that topics of Atheism and religion (even though I am religious in my own way) should be kept off of these websites. They always just end up in uncivilized fights that go no where, you have to honestly admit to that. No matter who is "right" or "wrong," in the end of our own lives, we will see the truth or we may even see nothing. I think that we should leave it at that instead of strangling eachother in battles of science and religion.
"Though, I am not surprised at all because most digg users are well-educated college-graduates."
That's a pretty big assumption these days, heh... I agree with the above posts who posted on this. - lukas88, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Hmmm people spreading their beliefs in an attempt to win followers and change minds. Sounds awfully.... religious.
- Azertyqsdf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@enharmonics:
For all you who say "Digg readers are educated so we don't believe in god", please read the above article. This outlines results from a survey of people with *postgraduate* degrees - doctors, lawyers, etc."
There is an article published in Nature in 1998 that indicates that scientists are rather non-believers:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
Among the scientists of the National Academy of Sciences, only 7% believe in a personal god, 72.2% do not believe and 20.8% expressed doubt or agnosticism.
Also, there is a study made by Eurostat in 2005 concerning the beliefs of european citizens:
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf
Check page 10 for a strong correlation between age and belief if god (63% of the 55+ believe in a god, but only 44% of the 15-24), and the age at the end of education (65% if you stopped studying at 15, 45% at 20+)
Note that I am only adressing your point that most postgrads share your beliefs (implying that if these clever people do believe in supernatural things, so should we) , you should determine the truth by yourself, using your own brains instead of following the opinion of others. - sanman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I'm an atheist, and appreciate the support for atheism on Digg, as I feel this makes Digg a hangout for rationality. The only thing I scratch my head at, is how Islam is the one belief system that trumps atheism on Digg, in the sense that many so-called "atheists" will rush to defend Islamic primitivism and irrationality at any opportunity, which they won't do for any other religion.
Political Correctness != Atheism - kdehead, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"Its interesting to see that most digg users (at least from what I've seen) are left winged atheists"
bzzz. wrong. i'm a right wing libertarian,small government/low taxes atheist.
atheism != left wing. - Carnitine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0http://www.itchstudios.com/psg/other/fsm.jpg
- Carnitine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@appetite
Your argument is not even close to making any sense. A person has a 50/50 chance of being male/female. Therefore, it is only obvious that more research is required in order to lead us to a conclusion. Until that research is done, agnosticism is perfectly acceptable.
On the topic of god, there is no evidence for god/gods, and sufficient evidence to prove that a god/gods would not be necessary. Therefore, the odds of there being a personal god, particularly one that we can understand are significantly less than 50/50. The odds of any of the thousands and thousands of religions being correct would then be much less. - Esstee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"On the topic of god, there is no evidence for god/gods, and sufficient evidence to prove that a god/gods would not be necessary. Therefore, the odds of there being a personal god, particularly one that we can understand are significantly less than 50/50. The odds of any of the thousands and thousands of religions being correct would then be much less."
Are you stating that that no God(s) were necessary to create life? and if so what evidence are you using? - kmckanna, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Okay, there is no proof of there being no such thing as gods/God. You can't really prove an idea like that wrong. However, you can necessarily prove miracles, that are induced by these ideas which some believe in, in this case, Catholicism. Search Lourdes France in Google and read about it, it's an amazing story and it is very true.
http://www.sacredsites.com/europe/france/lourdes.html
http://olrl.org/stories/lourdes.shtml
To break it down VERY basically without direct dates and years:
An epiphany of the Virgin Mary showed up at this site, she had a young girl see her and spoke to her. The young girl, Bernadette eventually was told to dig in the spot where she had appeared. As she dug a spring of water suddenly spouted out of the ground. The water to this very day miraculously heals many people of things like paralysis, cancers, etc. You can search a lot of this on Google, I provided a few links above. It's things like this which really have to make someone say, how? By the way, the place where the water comes out of, scientists have concluded that water SHOULD NOT BE coming from that spot, there is no underground source of water that is spouting and filling this pondish water reserve.
I do however also believe in Science in some ways, I think evolution is true, but I think it's still dictated under God. Things like recessive genes etc. are also true, they are very clear explanations of things. I don't think neither religion or science can be fully ruled out in human creation. - Esstee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@kmckanna
Please don't take offense but if such a phenomenon exists don't you think it would have been covered and spread across the glob as quite possibly the most important scientific and paranormal find of our time? I find this very hard to believe and would not put much emphasis on such things as a component of faith. If anything it may actually destroy ones faith in return.
My 2 cents - kmckanna, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Ah yes, no offense taken sir.
In a way you could be right. But you do realize that things like that don't happen because simply people who already do not believe in the faith are not going to just try to spread something that is incriminating to their own beliefs. News stations aren't going to just report on something like this because they know they can keep their same ratings by not putting something so controversial on their station. I mean, they make scientific breakthroughs that may "disprove" this or that religious belief, but those don't spread like wildfire either. They are exposed only to those who actually would take that into consideration for the most part.
What if these miracles are only happening to those with a faith in Christ? What if they don't happen to everyone (which they don't I assure you)... I personally would like to go there someday and see for myself, but as for now, I will believe in such things because of stories I've heard, books and articles I have read.
"Reports of miracles are very thoroughly examined and evidence seems to indicate that there are indeed many cases of verifiable healings at the grotto."
I am not saying this is right, but someone writing an article wouldn't just say this. I know what to believe in about Lourdes, and my own faith. I suggest one does more research on Lourdes before they make their assumptions. I am personally going to look up what some scientists have to say about all of this, though I have heard some remarks already which would lean more towards this is some type of miracle. - Aeiri, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@carve
If you look atheism up in the dictionary it reaffirms my thoughts on the word:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
BUT, if you look it up on Wikipedia, it says we're both right...:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
I think atheism NEEDS to mean belief there is no god. Why? Because if you define it your way then agnostic and atheist become synonyms, and there is no word for belief there is no god...
I think the word's definition has been hijacked :/ - carve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@Aeiri: Why do we need special words for belief in the non-existance of particular things? Most people don't have a belief of non-existence for most things, but rather just lack the belief of their existence. It would make it difficult to discover anything new otherwise!
I think "agnostics" either aren't sure which God is the right one, or at least think God is somewhat likely. Athiests think that God, while not totally impossible, is about as likely as the celestial teapot.
- oskite, on 10/12/2007, -23/+47Let's hope this movement makes it out of the internetosphere and into the public. I hate how anything big on the internet is small until it gets a story in the NY Times or Time or the like. I can't wait until paper and broadcasted media dies.
- Kerr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6This gave me a good laugh: "The second comment alludes to the killer liking God so much, that he should be executed so that he can meet his maker quicker while saving taxpayer dollars, and that comment has +127 diggs."
- Trublmakr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23FYI: Dawkins made Time magazine's Canadian cover in November. Based on the article, Dawkins is actually agnostic, not entirely atheist. He admits we're ignorant - something which all intellectuals must first admit before venturing down any road to enlightenment. And while he admits an incredibly minute possibility of the existence of an "intelligent designer" or "God", he will not be dictated to by this remote possibility,.. he prefers to pursue logic, reason, science and rational thought to explain the human condition over what Benny Hinn has to peddle on a Sunday morning. I agree with him - and you,. hopefully this perfectly rational train of thought will catch on. After all,.. ifd there really is a god, would he be so vengeful as to condemn to hell a good person for putting aside faith in pursuit of only truth? I think what really worries the organized faiths of the world is that their influence over others lives is waning,.. their ability to indoctrinate children is being questioned in a radically diverse world now more closely connected than ever.
- Daedalus81, on 10/12/2007, -17/+13Why not just be agnostic? Its the best of both worlds. We obviously can't understand everything in the Universe.
- 4NDr01D, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11old media wish's they could move as fast as us
***** what time and new york times have to say
they dont even have hyperlinks to the original story in their content - Locke2053, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22The real reason atheism is taking off right now is because many more people are atheist than we realize, and on the internet, people can be honest about their beliefs by hiding behind pseudonyms. They can't be honest about it face-to-face because so many religious people (especially Christians and Muslims) are intolerant. I know many atheists who would never mention their beliefs to their parents because they would be exiled from the family.
- Foma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22A good response which Dawkins (et al) use in the face of the "why not agnosticism?" question is derived from Russell's teapot ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot ). Here's the gist of it:
There is some non-zero possibility that a china teapot is in elliptical orbit around the sun, somewhere in the asteroid belt, too small and too distant to be seen with telescopes. Must we declare ourselves "agnostic" to this possibility simply because we cannot find any direct evidence against it?
This is why the colloquial understandings of the terms "agnostic" and "atheist" are so poorly defined. I prefer the more useful definitions that an agnostic is someone for whom the existence or nonexistence of a personal God are both very plausible notions, and an atheist is someone who treats the possibility of the existence of a personal God in roughly the same category as that of celestial teapots. - RandomGuySteve, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4"Funny thing, that agnosticism. You can't disprove the supernatural, therefore one is allowed to assume that its existence is equally probable?"
One is allowed to assume whatever one wants. Agnostics don't assume anything. Richard Dawkins has made up his mind that Religion does more harm than good, regardless of whether or not its true. - appetite, on 10/12/2007, -15/+2The teapot argument is just a farce. The whole premise of the argument is that it is made up. So of course I don't have to sit here and give equal belief to a story that you are telling me is complete fictional crap just to make me look bad. Hahaha. How the hell does that weaken agnosticism? Man, atheists are armed with so many specious arguments it's ridiculous.
- carve, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@appetite: Why do you think God is not just "made up", but the teapot is? Is it just because the stories are older?
- Aeiri, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Foma
Do you believe in the existence of extraterrestrial life? Because every scientist I've heard of definitively states "I don't know". They don't claim to believe in it, or NOT believe in it.
I find it funny that all atheists seem to just jump to the conclusion that agnostics think that Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, etc are "possibly" correct. I don't believe that at all, and I call myself agnostic. I'm almost certain that these religions are false, even. The thing I'm not sure of is if DEISTS are correct or incorrect, not people who are religious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism - iPirate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Aeiri
So.. you don't believe that any of those religious are "possibly" correct, yet you say that you are "almost" certain that they are false. If you aren't totally certain that they are false... that means that you have left room for them to be correct (aka "possibly" correct) - YumYumKittyLoaf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Honestly, most religions confuse me. If their god was as incredible as they say, then wouldn't them giving it human characteristcs be like spitting in their god's face? Not to mention that if it's so grand, then why does it tell us to worship it or burn for eternity? Our worship would be insignificant to something like god. Although christians teach that god has "Everlasting love", if you piss him off just a little bit, he turns into some kind of 5 year old. He basically turns into that kid that you played kickball with and made him angry and he responded "Well, i'm just going to take my ball and go home". Again, human characteristics. Humans have faults, so why try to make god more like your buddy?
I was once christian, when i went to a babtist school. They brainwashed me for 6 years. I started thinking for myself after I left the place, and couldn't be any happier. I consider myself Athiest, but I do beleive that there's something out there that infinitely more grand than anything we can think up of, and it's no where near human, or anything for that matter. No need to name it or preach about it or even worship it, because none of that would do it justice XD
Or i could be completely wrong. God could be real, and I have a toasty vacation home for the rest of eternity, or there is absolutely nothing, including the infinitely more grand "being" idea that I currently toss around in my head just to think.
And that was a very long rant/statement XD - carve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@Aeiri & Bobthebuilder: Athiesm means "without thiesm". It is the lack of a belief in God- not the belief that there is no God. It is not necessarily the certainty that says "I have evidence that proves God is impossible". It merely says 'I haven't seen anything that made me think a God exists'. We are all, afterall, athiests by default until we are introduced to a religion.
- appetite, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Maybe if you weren't already atheist, you would see that the teapot argument is not a valid argument against agnosticism. Basically, you're arguing that people should believe firmly in the absence of a God because there's no scientific proof of a God--and there's also no scientific proof of something that you made up on the spot and made it intentionally sound ridiculous.
I am either a male or a female. You currently have no proof of either. Now, I'm going to tell you that it is ignorant to not believe that I am a man because there is no proof that I am a woman AND there is also no proof that I am a seven arm ferret who smokes cigars and talks about religion on Digg. Therefore, believing that I am a woman is as ridiculous as believing that I am a genius rodent.... ????
Basically, the teapot argument means nothing. Science has not even remotely proven that there is no god--nor will it ever. Many people contend that there is a god based on their experiences in the world. No one has ever contended to experience anything related to flying teapots. - Carnitine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@appetite
Your argument is not even close to making any sense. A person has a 50/50 chance of being male/female. Therefore, it is only obvious that more research is required in order to lead us to a conclusion. Until that research is done, agnosticism is perfectly acceptable.
On the topic of god, there is no evidence for god/gods, and sufficient evidence to prove that a god/gods would not be necessary. Therefore, the odds of there being a personal god, particularly one that we can understand are significantly less than 50/50. The odds of any of the thousands and thousands of religions being correct would then be much less. - carve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Athiesm is the lack of belief (in God)- not the belief in Lack! You shouldn't "believe firmly" there is not God- you should merely not accept it as any more likely than the teapot until you see some evidence.
- appetite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Carnitine.. your argument makes no sense.
Probability is a way of predicting distributions in repeated occurrences. It is not relevant in the question of whether or not there is a god.
The teapot argument is just a nifty little trick but it's not real logic. You're welcome to be skeptical or come to a conclusion about whatever you want--then you can use the teapot to say why it's ok to be a skeptic--but you can't use it to claim that atheism is more logical than any answer to a completely unanswerable question.
The dilemma is that the only things that can be proven in science are subject to science--therefore atheists can always say they are right. Pretty self-reinforcing, eh?
- kyssk, on 10/12/2007, -16/+29from the article .
"There is no "type" of person who might be an atheist, but if you look at Web 2.0 community sites like Digg and YouTube, you'll see a growing number of users there who display anti-religion or pro-Atheism sentiments."
"Anti -religion" . If a guy killing another guy is religion then yes I am anti-religion.- nreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -9/+47well then congratulations, that's not religion. People will kill people because that's what people do.
Everyone needs to see that South Park episode, it's right. - TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -14/+13Well, I may be alone in this but I'm anti-religion because its pretty obviously wrong. It has no evidence, it claims none. I believe in what I experience and what follows logically. For everything else I trust most what is obtained by verifiable testable means, that is to say scientific studies.
- LowenSoDium, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23""Anti -religion" . If a guy killing another guy is religion then yes I am anti-religion."
If eating cake is a religion, then yes I am pro-religion - CoolWind, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"Well, I may be alone in this but I'm anti-religion because its pretty obviously wrong. It has no evidence, it claims none. I believe in what I experience and what follows logically. For everything else I trust most what is obtained by verifiable testable means, that is to say scientific studies."
The evidence is mostly what other people say they have experienced. That does qualify as evidence, but not as proof. The only proof is when you have had the religious experience yourself. Then you are beyond belief. Other than that, many religious people would agree with your philosophy.
Strangely enough I am a religious person but I am anti organized-religion because they create too many problems and solve too few. - jasonsbytes, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5If an after-life of eternal paridise and a cup that runeth over is pro-religion, then YES, I am pro-religion...
- AegisGFX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If being an atheist means I am lumped in with you idiots, then I think I might just have to jump ship.
Perhaps I'll go form my own society. I'd live on an island with 3 native girls, and none of them speak English, all they know how to do is crack coconuts and fish, oh and pound the man-sausage.
And we would have nothing to do all day but thank the trees for giving us coconuts to live off, and I guess we could thank the sun for giving us heat. Maybe we'd make a little shrine to the coconut trees, and once a day we'd sit down in front of the shrine for a minute just give a little thanks for all the joy we had in our lives... oh wait... I can see where this is going...
Maybe religion started in a simpler time, when there was more for everyone because there were so many fewer people around, and you were happier because you had everything you needed and no one was cutting you off in traffic with his ***** lexus SUV. And all people wanted to do was simply show a little gratitude for everything that was around them, they didn't need to explain it, they just were greatful and happy to be alive.
Then religion came along, and tried to 'give' us the answer to why we were so happy, little did we know what price we would pay for this so called 'answer'. But the idea was passed down generation to generation, as things got worse and worse and there were more and more people and less food and less happiness, and eventually all people really had was this fake answer there were given to a simple joy we felt instinctively in a much simpler time, a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away.
Back to my weed.
- nreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -9/+47well then congratulations, that's not religion. People will kill people because that's what people do.
- radicaldementia, on 11/02/2007, -16/+203I can already see misinformed fundamentalists claiming "See, you're all spreading atheism just like its a religion". So I'd like to point out something that every true atheist should/does take to heart. Never accept anything to be true without skepticism, evidence, and most importantly understanding. This is how being an atheist differs from being a theist. The very nature of religion tells you to accept things to be true purely on faith. You may consider yourself to be both religious and rational, and I'm sure many religious individuals think a lot about what they believe, but in the end there has to be a part of you that is accepting what you believe without any conclusive or scientific evidence. An atheist refuses to do this.
Most of us try to lead fairly logical and rational lives. Many of the decisions we make in day-to-day life are based on reason. When it comes to learning how things in the universe work, we create hypotheses, then test them with experiments and either accept or reject them, but the important thing is we're always asking questions. So why must questions pertaining to the origin of the universe be any different? Why, when it comes to the most interesting questions that can be asked, must we fabricate a completely unproved hypothesis about a magical god and accept it as truth, and then scorn any attempt to question it? These are the questions atheists want people to ask. I would rather have someone question their faith and reach their own conclusions than simply be told what to think, either religious or secular. I think this is what many prominent atheists such as Dawkins also want, although they are a bit more harsh at times.
So, I conclude, this so-called atheist movement is not some evangelical crusade to convert the masses of the deluded into reason, it is more of a declaration that there are those of us out there in the world who would rather look at the universe in all it's unknown mystery than simply believe what we are told with no backing evidence. I think more than anything, atheists are just trying to illustrate their personal views to the great number of people who have no idea what it really means to be an atheist. The unfortunate truth is that there is much prejudice in the world towards atheists, so we must promote our ideas to educate the misinformed.- damentz, on 11/02/2007, -121/+10Sorry to burst your bubble but noone reads those long paragraphs
Essays are written on your pc, not on digg comments. - JamesWilson, on 10/12/2007, -10/+48Best comment ever.
- Nydas, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24Well said.
- SmudgeTheFirst, on 10/12/2007, -5/+35Finally some paragraphs I'd bother to read.
- willis77, on 10/12/2007, -2/+75If I may quote Sagan,
I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides. [Carl Sagan, 1996 in his article In the Valley of the Shadow, Parade Magazine. Also, Billions and Billions p. 215] - MadNuke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I appreciate your way with words.
- deadsenator, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19@daments
I raise a Stark Fist of objection. I read it and I liked it. I am sometimes very weary of the constant religious push going on around us. To have an intellectual non-violent pushback is a good thing. Not everyone accepts that God (or whomever) exists. I, myself, am on a personal quest for Infinite Slack.
X Day is nigh. - greevar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I read the whole essay and I find that I agree with all of it. Well stated.
- simmonsdd, on 10/12/2007, -17/+2Whatyoutalkin bout willis77? I just heard an interview with ann druyan (his widow) in which she claimed he was an agnostic not an atheist.
- NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -13/+31It's unfortunate then, because all I see from this atheist movement are those who passionately (or perhaps even zealously) proclaim how great atheism is, how religion is ruining the world, how atheism is correct and those who believe in a god or the like are foolish, deluded and childishly dependent on imaginary ideas. That's not what I understood atheism to be. I understood atheism to be the direct rejection of theism, that is, a belief in a god or gods. There is no reason for any atheist to hoist his lack of belief on others. In fact, this "new atheism" seems directed at trying to tell the religious masses, "Look, there's no harm in letting someone else refuse to believe in a god, so stop trying to convert us. Oh, and you're wrong, and doing terrible things, and you shouldn't believe what you believe because it's wrong and you have a history of violence."
...What? I'm not doing a terrible thing when I give to a charity that happens to be affiliated with my church. I'm Catholic, and while our past is bloody (as is the past of the protestants) our present is not. Our charitable organizations are not proselytizing their benefactors. We provide help, and believe that the love and care we show will speak for itself. The "new atheism" looks remarkably like fundamentalist extremist Christianity. Both sides take an extremist, literal view of their beliefs. Fundamentalist Christians believe that God is everywhere, all the time, that anyone who does not follow their belief system is damned, and that everyone needs to be converted to their ideals for the world to be a better place. The "new atheists" are certain that God does not exist in any form, that anyone who does not realize this is simply not educated enough or not enlightened enough in the way the world works, and that everyone needs to understand their reasoning for the world to be a better place.
Please people, let's not replace one brand of extremism with another. Moderate atheists are content to live without their belief in God, don't see it as their duty to destroy all references to him (and realize that religion as a whole is a huge part of human culture, whether they agree with it or not), are willing to share their reasoning if asked, and don't seek out arguments. They understand that trying to convince someone one way or another is a futile effort, and that the enlightenment, whichever way it goes, has to come willingly. Don't let these "new atheists" dictate where the atheist movement goes. It will end up just as bad.
One way or the other, the culture HAS to remain as total freedom for all. Extremist Christians controlling the legislature will make moralistic law that no one will end up being happy with. The "new atheists" in control of the legislature will make law that bans religion because of its harmful nature. Both prospects will try to "solve" the problem of extremists by outlawing all degrees and end up punishing the devoted moderates. - nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5"there are those of us out there in the world who would rather look at the universe in all it's unknown mystery than simply believe what we are told with no backing evidence."
The ironic thing is that many of them are theists, but you believe otherwise, with no backing evidence. - scheper, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29I'd like to quote Thomas Jefferson:
"But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.... What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
If an Atheist movement is to have any merit, they should by no means be anti religious, but only pro atheism. Otherwise they would be no different than what they claim their opposition to be. - lyran, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5@radicaldementia:
Yours is an attitude to atheism I respect, but it is not shared by all atheists. Some indeed seem to be on a mission not just to show that belief in God is unscientific, but foolish.
I think you jump to the conclusion that theism forbids a scientific approach to the study of the beginnings of the universe, evolution, etc. That is fundamentalist religiosity, which gets far too much attention, and in some ways not enough, from the atheist community.
As a theist, I think that belief in God will probably never have scientific proof. However, it is pondering the mystery of the universe (as you mentioned) which opened me to a wisdom and a love which have nothing to do with the scientific method. - timbellomo, on 10/12/2007, -14/+2"but in the end there has to be a part of you that is accepting what you believe without any conclusive or scientific evidence. An atheist refuses to do this."
No, an agnostic refuses to do this. Atheism asserts that there is conclusively NO god. A statement with that level of FINALITY requires evidence, or faith.
As atheism provides no CONCLUSIVE evidence that there is NO god, it operates on faith.
Wikipedia: Atheism is the **disbelief** in the existence of any deities. (emphasis added)
Agnosticism FTW! - CoolWind, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5For many people religion is based on experience, not on faith.
- willis77, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6@scheper
If I may invert your logic:
"If a Christian movement is to have any merit, they should by no means be anti Atheist, but only pro Christianity. Otherwise they would be no different than what they claim their opposition to be."
You are opposing the whole concept of ministry, and about half of the Bible's instructions to stone the nonbelievers and convert the world to Jesus' ways. - appetite, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13At one point in my life, I was a devout Catholic. By the time I was a junior in high school, I was staunchly atheist. Today, I am agnostic.
I dislike much of the dogma associated with religions that I have experienced. However, I also find many of the arguments put forth by atheists to be intellectually weak. One of the worst is that "there is a low probability that an intelligent creator exists". When it comes to questions of an all-knowing, all-powerful being that is outside the scope of anything we can physically prove or refute, probability is completely and utterly irrelevant. I also get annoyed when atheists try to claim some intellectual superiority over theists and then hide behind the "i don't believe in 'no god', i have 'no belief in a god'" because it's logically incorrect.
Also, after going from atheist to agnostic, I have found my mind to be open much wider than before. I no longer have to call someone stupid for believing in a god--because I see at as a valid and respectable belief now that I have a deep understanding of all the issues.
Being agnostic allows me to witness miracles on a day to day basis without having to settle for an incomplete understanding of what's happening scientifically, nor a complete rejection of my intuitions when something seems too elegant to occur in a purely random universe. - timbellomo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Here's some more support, as I'm being modded down:
Oxford: the belief that God does not exist
Dictionary.com: the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
Atheism.About.com: denial of God
Merriam Webster: a disbelief in the existence of deity
Belief: a feeling that something exists or is true, especially one without proof
Disbelief: mental rejection of something as untrue
On a completely unrelated note: Have you ever noticed that everyone is a "devout" Catholic.... it seems like practice of being Catholic is always described specifically as "devout"... Anyone else notice that? - radicaldementia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13@nsmike
First, let me attribute that I have never met an atheist who has wished to ban religion. While I'm sure people with that desire exist, understand that this is not what the average atheist wants. Freedom is important beyond anything. When atheists talk negatively about religion, they are usually referring to extremists, and often forget to make note of this. While I do believe that a world without religion would be a better place, I would never attempt to rip people from something they hold to so dearly, be it real or not. As I said, the goal of atheism is to get people to ask questions, not to force feed them answers.
Second, atheists are not trying to say that everything about religion is bad. No, there is absolutely nothing wrong that you give to charity. Yes, religion has helped an uncountable number of people, both by providing comfort in times of need and by motivating people to help others. Atheists don't deny this. But this does in no way validate the truth of the claims made by religion. God doesn't exist because you give to charity, and I know that people don't need religion to help others.
Lastly, it's unfortunate, but as atheists we simply cannot just live our lives and bother no one. Our freedom is being challenged by religious extremists. All you have to do is look at evolution. Extremists are trying to downplay evolution, a scientifically proven theory, as just an idea and push their own religious ideals as scientific fact. This transcends the boundaries of religion and as rational people we must make sure to keep what is known and what is believed separate. - rabidkumquat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@NSMike:
In fact, this "new atheism" seems directed at trying to tell the religious masses, "Look, there's no harm in letting someone else refuse to believe in a god, so stop trying to convert us. Oh, and you're wrong, and doing terrible things, and you shouldn't believe what you believe because it's wrong and you have a history of violence."
While I agree with the main sentiment of your post, the last line of your 'new atheist' creed troubles me, as I suspect was the intention. I fully support and embrace the freedom to believe (or not) in a religion of choice, but only as a personal decision. When a religion demonizes those who chose to believe otherwise, it infringes on that individual freedom. Atheists are fully justified in wanting to be free from the proselytism of believers, but need to return the same respect to those who disagree.
Edit: @radicaldementia seems to have captured my sentiment much more eloquently. - teamgwho, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5@ scheper
**If an Atheist movement is to have any merit, they should by no means be anti religious, but only pro atheism. Otherwise they would be no different than what they claim their opposition to be.**
I disagree with you and with jefferson. I think there is indelible harm imposed by religion (be it islam, catholocism, jewish or taliban) The Old Testament is ripe with stories of the Israelites being told to go intoa region and literally commit genocide, kill every non-believer. The Crusades are a perfect example of Christian genocide. Then there's the Spanish inquisitoon, and we have plenty of wars in the middle east with on group of religious people threatening to kill another. Or the protestants and catholics in ireland, the list goes on & on & on...
think religion often equals war, brutality, murder and genocide, and I don't want to be on the receiving end of any of that, thankyouverymuch. - nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3@radicaldementia
"You may consider yourself to be both religious and rational, and I'm sure many religious individuals think a lot about what they believe, but in the end there has to be a part of you that is accepting what you believe without any conclusive or scientific evidence. An atheist refuses to do this."
Fact: There is no conclusive or scientific evidence whatsoever that human beings have feelings, i.e. felt experiences. There is no conclusive or scientific evidence that they are anything other than complex automata, with physical systems that produce behaviors such as, for instance, screaming when they are shoved into hot ovens or gas chambers. There is no conclusive or scientific evidence that they have any more actual awareness than a computer does of the data in its memory. - naterose, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0@radicaldementia
Thank you for a well thought post.
However, would you not agree that when considering origins it is as closed-minded, if not more, for the atheist to remove the option of a designer before considering the evidence? If it turns out that the weight of evidence points toward a designer should the reasonable person be willing to reconsider naturalism? - Bytor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Most excellent comment radical.
I believe we are seeing a groundswell from atheists because normally we are persecuted and isolated in society, finally we are given a chance to speak freely with our fellows about the issues that concern us. We are beginning of a realization that most of the western democracies (Europe) are leaving religion behind and have more open tolerant, less violent societies. We are beginning to have hope that we might be entering a new age of reason. - lane.montgomery, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5You can call me weak minded or uneducated or whatever, but I believe in a singular higher power that I call G-d.
Personally I don't think it is any less foolish than the theory that the universe is eternal and has always existed and every observable phenomenon was formed in a split second from what we can only describe as...nothing.
You see, there is a flaw in the arguments of Atheists who like to use religious texts against Theists. There are a lot of Theists who realize that religious texts were written by men, and they probably contain a lot of slant. It's like five-hundred years from now, reading a newspaper's political endorsement from today and believing it to be the way everyone thought, or at least should have thought.
Here is a real shocker for some of you, G-d has nothing to do with religion. It's true! If I believe that there is a higher power that takes pleasure in seeing me do the right thing, what does it hurt? It doesn't hurt anything until humans start defining, through religion, what the right thing to do is.
In my own opinion, I think Atheists should be focusing on fighting religion, not Theism. I say this because there literally is no way you can disprove the existence of G-d, but you can, however, prove human corruption of religion. If you go far enough back, you could even wipe out whole religions based on solid evidence. Pretty much every theistic religion can be traced back to people who either claimed to have been spoken to directly by G-d or actually were G-d. I think most would agree that would be silly if some one claimed such a thing today. In fact we have medications for people like that now.
So what are we left with then? The idea. A belief that there must be something outside of my understanding. And to be perfectly honest, a fear that when I die I no longer exist. I can't find comfort in the idea that my contribution to this existence is enough and my job is to propagate the species, because when I cease to exist it doesn't matter to me anymore. What benefit have I gained? What purpose is there to existence only to cease existing? What purpose is there in creating a future that I have no part in? It is counter-intuitive to intelligent thought to say that we serve no more a purpose than any other of the uncountable organisms on this planet that are just reproducing so the next generation can reproduce again.
I guess it just doesn't make sense to me that a random chemical reaction would produce something that for some unknown reason has a drive to adapt and reproduce to no apparent end. I mean, I don't have a problem with the theory explaining the how, it just doesn't explain the why for me. It seems like the kind of short answer you get from your parent when they don't have enough time, "We exist just because I said so." Are you kidding me?
But let me say, by all means, if anyone would like to discuss Theism and Atheism further with me, go ahead and email me at my user name at gmail dot com. Above all, I am a person seeking the truth. If you really think that Atheism is the truth, then I want to hear it. If G-d really doesn't exist, then I don't want to be a fool. But let me warn you ahead of time that I used to be Christian until I renounced my faith and started the process of becoming Jewish (reform, not orthodox). So I have done a lot of studying and soul searching in the past year before choosing this path. - Trublmakr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3@NSMike -
We could adopt the scientific method, explore our universe and attempt to unlock ever more scientific mystery,.. Or we could redirect that energy and resource into ever more dangerous weapons with which to slaughter each other.
What endeavor would YOUR God prefer humanity undertake?
I think religion is ENTIRELY childishly dependent,.. it MUST feed on children to propagate it's inherent bigotry and myth. It serves primarily to manipulate & divide humanity rather than unite it. - Yakubovich, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3This is a very common belief held by Atheists, and yet I disagree with it (being an Agnostic myself). I know I am going to get dug down, but still:
Atheism is a belief. Whether or not you call it a religion, it is still a belief. Yes, I have heard the Spaghetti monster argument, and I am by no means telling you that Jesus was the son of God and walked upon water. However, Atheism rejects any kind of God whatsoever without providing an alternative explanation for the beginning of the universe. I am not denying the Big Bang, but to say that there was absolutely nothing before the Big Bang would mean that you don't really understand this theory at all.
I am not saying that there is a man with a white beard in the sky. I am not saying that any sort of such being exists. However, given our current scientific knowledge, it is more likely that there was some creator for the universe before the Big Bang than that it happened spontaneously, for no reason, out of nothing at all.
Science is not powerful enough to go back to the beginning of time, and I doubt it ever will be. If we discover what came before the Big Bang, there will be new riddles to be answered, and we will keep digging back and back, very likely without an end. This is why I think that these questions are a matter of philosophy and religion, and not science. It is folly to claim that science somehow "shows" that there is not God. It shows no such thing, and the Spaghetti Monster argument, amusing as it may be, is _not_ a valid response to this claim. - detlev409, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Just go ahead and digg me down already.
"I think religion is ENTIRELY childishly dependent,.. it MUST feed on children to propagate it's inherent bigotry and myth. It serves primarily to manipulate & divide humanity rather than unite it."
Love thy neighbor as thyself.
Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
Yep, real divisive.
Once again, people miss the point. Religion isn't the problem. It's the people in the religion who are flawed, stupid, violent and bigoted. The bible can't walk up and burn a cross on your lawn, but an idiot in a sheet sure can.
The vast majority of atheists I've met in everyday life have been reasoned, intelligent people who could put up valid arguments regarding science, biblical contradiction, or philosophical differences with most faiths. The vast number of atheists I've met online are whiny, bitter people with an axe to grind. Until you guys recognize the difference between the belief and the believer, don't bother joining the discussion, because you just fill the air with ad hominems and strawmen about how Christians caused all sorts of bad things. We already knew they were flawed, stupid, etc., and that has nothing to do with the veracity of the belief in a creator.
I would like to commend the parent for a reasoned and eloquent post, though. - Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"However, Atheism rejects any kind of God whatsoever without providing an alternative explanation for the beginning of the universe."
Atheism does not reject God. In "rejecting," one would be saying that God *cannot* exist. That is not the position that a true atheist takes, because it is foolish on many levels. A true atheist simply states that there is no evidence, therefore there is no reason to believe he exists.
Furthermore, an atheist does not lack an alternative explanation. An atheist says, "I don't know how it began, or if it has existed forever. But just because I don't know doesn't mean God did it." - skags, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@timbellomo
The burden of proof is on the theists. Atheists don't need to disprove anything. Agnostics, I believe, provide a non-answer. I think saying we'll never be able to know definitively, is actually worse than saying that from what we know now, there is no god, which is basically the assertion that atheists make. - timbellomo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@skags
you can not/do not *know* that there is no god. you can not say conclusively. if you assert conclusively beyond evidence that there is no god whatsoever, you are simply asserting your belief.
agnosticism is the only non-faith-based route. 99.9% of people who say they're atheist are truly agnostic (given the proper definitions). An atheist believes that god absolutely does not/can not exist. EVER. NO POSSIBILITY. Anything less than that is agnosticism (see my definitions above, or post definitions to the contrary) - skags, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@timbellomo
Thats not how science works, theres no such thing as the burden of disproof. Can you say with certainty that an invisible flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist? Can we then assume that it possibly could? Thats absurdity, and not an argument. - M2Ys4U, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1+friend for you radicaldementia after that post :)
- detlev409, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@bobthebuilder
"The thing that comes to my mind and perhaps others as well is .. 'Why not just have a moral code or standard of ethics, completely separate from religion?'"
Different discussion entirely, but to answer your question, it's because the believers want a cosmology to go along with their beliefs. It's about applying order to the world in their own way. Science doesn't fill this need for everyone, or we'd all be atheists. The point I'd like to make here is that believing in a seemingly bogus cosmology is no big deal; if the underlying philosophy of the belief system is stable and altruistic, there's no problem. If the philosophy is a negative one, then we have a problem, but I challenge you to find a modern religion whose actual broad tenets are negative in the long view (no fair pointing at things like birth control, since those are details only important to the practitioners of the faith, we're looking at relations between the faithful and non-faithful here).
"The reason I think this is the idea that a few good tidbits in religious texts don't make the entire text good. If we can all agree that Leviticus and Deuteronomy are pretty ***** up, why don't we simply extract the good bits from any and all religious texts, scriptures, stone tablets, etc. in an effort to construct a good moral code? Leave all the fluff and just take the good stuff."
Because those "good tidbits" require a context to be relevant. I could tell you not to cross the interstate at noon, but if you don't know what a car is, you won't know why it's dreadfully important that you listen to me. Context matters. - philldiamond, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@yakubovich
"However, given our current scientific knowledge, it is more likely that there was some creator for the universe before the Big Bang than that it happened spontaneously, for no reason, out of nothing at all."
Is that really more likely? Where did that creator come from? Some other creator? The likelihood of an incredibly complex creator that created the universe seems very unlikely to me. - Esstee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"Is that really more likely? Where did that creator come from? Some other creator? The likelihood of an incredibly complex creator that created the universe seems very unlikely to me."
Unless the creator does not share our dimension of time and space(which was written) - Why not? are we to conclude that our universe is the end all to existence? some of the most reputable scientific minds will admit that this is highly probable. I think the problem with many peoples contemplation of God is that they fail to approach the idea that God(should he exist) would in no way be bound by human characteristics. Which is precisely what the ancient text differentiated. Whether we accept God as a variable in life or not, either we we are contemplating eternity without in origin! it would be ironic to apply a unsurmountable time /space element on one side of life's origin and drop it when contemplating the other. Either way life, existence, time, matter began somewheres... but what was beyond that and so on and so forth... and round and round we go.
It is not the concept of God that impressed me in the ancient scriptures, but the level of reasoning uses in describing God as an entity and his relationship to our own existence. Until we find an alternate explanation which can compete and prove testable above the God creation account. This is the best shot we have an an explanation. - loki34, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@oriondr
well if you were to ask an atheist his religion, I'm pretty sure he would say atheist, therefore in my opinion making it a religion.
@radicaldementia
I don't by any means think that atheist are just trying to start some anti-religious crusades. I also do not think that Jesus wanted the crusades. But nevertheless they happened. I'm pretty sure that there are almost no religions out there that preach violence against other religions, with one or two exceptions of course (i wont mention any names because i don't want to deal with any flaming.). my point is that even though the leaders don't want it, it happens, people when it comes to this sort of stuff are stupid. period. even though atheists don't believe in god it will still be seen as a religious movement, in that it is a rebellion against religion, and as previously stated, people get stupid when it comes to religious movements.
- damentz, on 11/02/2007, -121/+10Sorry to burst your bubble but noone reads those long paragraphs
- BadassCheese, on 10/12/2007, -18/+3"Would many of these news articles become popular on their own if it hadn't been for the Digg community's promotion? I don't think they would."
I don't think this guy understands how digg works.- DJSdotcom, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29I'm the author and I do understand how Digg works. Can you honestly say that the article from 2004 about a man being killed because he was an atheist would become popular on its own, now, without it being submitted to Digg? Many articles that are submitted to Digg are very obscure and interesting, but wouldn't get the same exposure on their own, so yes, the Digg community promoting an article like that is a catalyst that helps boost the article's popularity.
- TheGoat7, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Fight.
- collective, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19I thought the article about the Atheist being killed was sensationialised, but I can see why it became popular on here, because it points to a fear a lot of atheists have, being persecuted and discriminated against. This is especially true in the States where the atheist minorities are so disliked and untrusted. That's probably the heart of why we see these large groups of people forming on the internet, where there's a sense of anonymity. There's no reason not to be 'out' as an atheist here, so people are expressing opinions that they would maybe not otherwise. I think there's a lot more average people that have serious doubts about religion than the mainstream perception indicates.
- DannyBoy7783, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3@ DJSdotcom:
That is an idiotic argument. Would any news be popular if it weren't told to us by a news source? Digg is no different than CNN or the NY Times: it collects information and presents it to the masses. Sure, it works different than those sites do because it is user-driven but in the end the result is the same. News is only popular because of the source presenting it. - DannyBoy7783, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@ collective:
I'm an atheist online and I'm an atheist in the real world. I argue about it with people I know and I don't hide it. Though, in all fairness I'm not surrounded by some bible-thumping lunatics either so I can get away with it. - collective, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3@DannyBoy7783: me too, actually. I think atheists should be open about it in real life. My point was that in some parts, the societal pressure is such that people tend to keep it to themselves, but they're free to post on the internet which means bigger numbers.
- BadassCheese, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@DJSdotcom
Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were implying that the "editors" of dig wouldn't have noticed the articles had it not been for the mass attention payed to them.
- dicknawson, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23I liked the article. The one thing I liked was saying that Digg and YouTube are a way of gettign a message out to the public in an effective way. YouTube definitely has this capability, and perhaps Digg does as well.
I'm an atheist myself and very strongly oppose religion, not because of what it stands for or what the people do, so much as I am opposed to misinformation. Regardless if there is a god or not, I just do not agree with the way religion justifies certain actions and I definitely do not agree with the way they feel towards atheists. "Love Thy Neighbor", you crazy hypocrites!- Flashman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Of course, Digg and YouTube are bringing atheism to a very specific audience: wealthy and educated first-world residents, who are among those most likely to become atheists. Perhaps the reason that pro-Atheist, pro-Dawkins articles receive so much attention on Digg is that the authors are preaching to the converted, so to speak.
- oskite, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Well, we can only hope it's helping.
- mrfoos, on 10/12/2007, -20/+14This is what I don't get with you self-proclaimed atheists who "very strongly oppose religion": why would you oppose something you aren't apart of?
Argument #1: "The religious nutts keep shoving it down my throat." News flash! People are shoving ***** down your throat all day long. It's called passion. When someone has passion for something, they promote it. If classical music is your thing, and you practice it regularly, more than likely you've played in front of other people. I would recommend listening for once and see if you can learn anything (even indirectly) for these religion shovers.
Argument #2: "All the worlds woes are do to religion." This goes back to the passion thing. When someone is really passionate about something, they can do crazy things. It's the same for everyone. Religious people have no patent on war. Besides, it's inherent in man to war against his environment. It's what got us to most dominate species on the planet and shut out Cromagma man.
Argument #3: "It doesn't make any sense." Risking your life scaling a mountain in the dead of winter doesn't do it for me but I'm not going to bust up someone else's jollies.
Argument #4, ....
I could keep going but this isn't slashdot so I won't. The point is, every body's crazy. Pick whatever Koo-laid you like... but don't preach like you ain't drinking something.
P.S. I'm not religious either. - annonimality, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11mrfoos - king of the strawmen
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27@mrfoos:
"This is what I don't get with you self-proclaimed atheists who "very strongly oppose religion": why would you oppose something you aren't apart of?"
Because religious people, particularly Christians, particularly in the US, try to make me a part of their religion.
"Argument #1: "The religious nutts keep shoving it down my throat." News flash! People are shoving ***** down your throat all day long. It's called passion. When someone has passion for something, they promote it. If classical music is your thing, and you practice it regularly, more than likely you've played in front of other people. I would recommend listening for once and see if you can learn anything (even indirectly) for these religion shovers."
Hmm. Can't remember the last time classical music lovers tried to tell my daughter what she could or couldn't do with her womb, or that stem cell research was forbidden because What Would Mozart Do, or that condoms don't prevent AIDS, and, even if they do, contraception is a sin and better to die a horrible death than be safe. Nope, not on the agenda of any symphony orchestra I am aware of.
"Argument #2: "All the worlds woes are do to religion." This goes back to the passion thing. When someone is really passionate about something, they can do crazy things. It's the same for everyone. Religious people have no patent on war. Besides, it's inherent in man to war against his environment. It's what got us to most dominate species on the planet and shut out Cromagma man."
I guess then religion doesn't work too good, does it? If people still do the same crazy things. In which case, why pay the price in divisiveness, learning not to question authority and to believe irrational things because they come from above, opposing scientific progress to better humanity's quality of life, etc. - not to mention providing cover and rationalization for all the crazy things people do to each other. I mean, if religion doesn't even work, then it's clearly not worth the misery it causes. Is it?
"Argument #3: "It doesn't make any sense." Risking your life scaling a mountain in the dead of winter doesn't do it for me but I'm not going to bust up someone else's jollies."
[checking database for mountain climber club that is attempting to overturn Bill of Rights and instill a theocracy based on Old Testament law] sorry, maybe they should be introduced to the classical music radicals...
In short, your arguments don't even hold up as the utter straw men they are. - PhantomBantam, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"... I definitely do not agree with the way they feel towards atheists. "Love Thy Neighbor", you crazy hypocrites!" He who lives in a glass house...
- DannyBoy7783, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5@ mrfoos
all of your arguments are flawed
1. Classical music is not a belief system so your analogy is totally useless here. At the core it's just not the same, it's like saying that pro-lifers like PBJ while pro-choicers like tuna fish sandwiches. it's a useless analogy.
2. True, religion doesn't have a monopoloy on war but how many wras in the history of our species have been motivated by it? Off the top of my head I can think of the crusades and the current iraq war, then of course you have the subjugation of the natives in S. America as well as all the fighting between the catholics and protestants. God has fueled a lot of death.
3. Climbing a mountain doesn't risk anyone's life bu the climber. Religion will infect the minds of that person's children. They will raise them not to question what goes on around them and to go against their very nature to believe only what they can experience with their sense. That's how human beings work.
Oh, and it's Cro Magnon not cromagma. And we are Cro Magnon, so to speak. They were the first ***** sapiens in Europe. What you probably meant to say but failed miserably to do is say that we fought with Neanderthals and beat them (which is still speculated to this day)
The idea that we should let everyone believe whatever they want is far too relative and dangerous. Religion is a disease of the mind (Dawkins said that I believe) and it hurts people. it hurts their ability to see the world clearly and it hurts their ability to reason properly. The only use I can see for it is to give hope to third world people who are sick and dying and have nothing to live for. It is a dilusion and it should certainly not be the foundational belief system of our nation's leader. I don't want the person who "runs the free world" making decisions based on the idea that he'll be rewarded in the afterlife for them. it's no different than the idiot Muslim who thinks he'll have 70-odd versions in Heaven after blowing himself up. It's a blindfold to reality and it needs to stop. It's not an alternative to religion, it's the right ***** choice.
And you have no fourth argument because you haven't even made one yet.
Sorry for the rant/essay. Digg me down! - CoolWind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2One problem with organized religion is that it is used by some religious leaders as a means to gain power, even political power.
- JAVandiver, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2@ Rationalist et al: I used to feel that way back in high school... Then I grew up! Stop being so petulant!
- PhantomBantam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"The idea that we should let everyone believe whatever they want is far too relative and dangerous."
! Dear science I hope you are never involved in government. - scheper, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5"Because religious people, particularly Christians, particularly in the US, try to make me a part of their religion."
You're not trying to convert people to your beliefs? I know you believe you're right, but so does your opposition. Respect is the only way to make progress. - scheper, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2"Of course, Digg and YouTube are bringing atheism to a very specific audience: wealthy and educated first-world residents, who are among those most likely to become atheists. Perhaps the reason that pro-Atheist, pro-Dawkins articles receive so much attention on Digg is that the authors are preaching to the converted, so to speak."
Although I'm open to a lot of arguments, that one is pretty dumb. This will get me modded way down, but I just want to spew my $0.002 (that's dollars, not cents).
Digg is not full of wealthy and educated people. In fact, Digg is full of immature and irrational people. If you want to see a semi intelligent debate on religion vs atheism, go to slashdot. If you want to see people throwing mud and calling names, go to Digg. To say people will be atheists because they're educated and wealthy is unbelievably arrogant and naive. - Flashman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"Digg is not full of wealthy and educated people. In fact, Digg is full of immature and irrational people. "
Guess what? Those two sets of traits aren't mutually exclusive. And I never said that "people will be atheists because they're educated and wealthy" - I said that people who are educated and wealthy are more likely to be educated. All I need for my argument to succeed is correlation, not causation. (By the way, nice try at a straw-man argument.) - Flashman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"I said that people who are educated and wealthy are more likely to be educated."
should read:
"I said that people who are educated and wealthy are more likely to be atheists."
- defectDS, on 10/12/2007, -18/+5And so continues the Atheism/Christianity Digg wars.
- BlackMagic2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10The one YouTube video (that was on diggs front page) about how many great minds were atheist really convinced me.
- RoboPimp3000, on 10/12/2007, -3/+43WTF? Do we have to append "2.0" onto EVERTHING?
- Sturmur, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Hate 2.0
- sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33Do we have to append 3000 to everything?
- JamesWilson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Love 2.0
(first was in the 60s-70s) - MadNuke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4'WTF? Do we have to append 2.0 to EVERYTHING?!'
....WTF....of course we do. - profOblivion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Everything 2.0
- ratpH1nk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9WTF 2.0 (FTW!)
- computerdude33, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6WTF 2.0?
Edit: Damn, beaten by 3 minutes. So, I'll use this:
2.0 2.0 - DannyBoy7783, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1FTW 2.0
- sruffelman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's in the submitter's digg alias as well.
- dancrew32, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19be what you want, just stop hating all together!
- cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -16/+10I'm amazed at how comfortable many athiests have taken the radicalized approach of hatred. Factually most who go to a place of worship once in a while go for the love. Thankfully most athiests are like most christians, normal lovable friends and neighbors who won't push their beliefs down anybody's throat. Ironic how athiesm has started to look more like door-knocker religious nit wits who want you to believe what they believe. All the while complaining how others want to shove their beliefs down their throats.
- Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -12/+29"Ironic how athiesm has started to look more like door-knocker religious nit wits who want you to believe what they believe. All the while complaining how others want to shove their beliefs down their throats."
Atheism is not a belief. It is a rational conclusion. - DannyBoy7783, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7@ cliffzdude
the problem is that people compare atheism to religion like they are even on the same level. they are, fundamentally, different concepts. - appetite, on 10/12/2007, -12/+8"Atheism is not a belief. It is a rational conclusion."
That's cute. You'll grow out of that someday when you learn a few more things about the world. That is, if you keep your mind open.
Bottom line: we don't know *****. Stop pretending as if you do.
I'm not religious, but what gives away the stupidity of most atheists is claims that religion is so bad for society. With my own eyes (not some biased documentary by a militant atheist), I see that religion does a lot of good in people's lives. I personally know about 200x more people who have benefited from faith in Jesus Christ than who have been hurt by it. If anything can be gleaned from this story, it's that atheists, like Diggers in general, are sensationalistic. - scheper, on 10/12/2007, -12/+9"Atheism is not a belief. It is a rational conclusion."
So is believing in God. You just can't understand it, therefore you dismiss it as irrational.
Atheism is a choice, just as much as believing in God is. I've never met an Atheist who compared all evidence for and against on both sides and worked out a conclusion. - Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12"I've never met an Atheist who compared all evidence for and against on both sides and worked out a conclusion."
Evidence for the existence of God? I thought I was supposed to take it on faith. In trying to have both ends of the stick, your argument fails.
"With my own eyes (not some biased documentary by a militant atheist), I see that religion does a lot of good in people's lives. I personally know about 200x more people who have benefited from faith in Jesus Christ than who have been hurt by it."
There is nothing beneficial in religion that cannot be found outside of it. - highwebl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ mcatrage
Ok, but you have to promise to start with yourself. - Bytor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Evidence? That is the whole point. There is no evidence for the existence of god. None.
Religion is a problem when you set public policy by it. Torment people (or worse) trying to get into have an abortion, persecute gay people, start making laws specifically against gay people. Yeah these are all fringe activities, sure...
If most christians are moderate "love thy neighbor" types, why is that they vote in the majority to strike down things like gay marriage. Which essentially is a cruelty that is unnecessary and would go unnoticed by everyone if it were allowed.
All I ever see these days for Christians when they act as a group is oppression and bigotry. How can I not want to see an end to the control of a group that seeks to oppress and control the lives of others that don't share their beliefs.
- cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -16/+10I'm amazed at how comfortable many athiests have taken the radicalized approach of hatred. Factually most who go to a place of worship once in a while go for the love. Thankfully most athiests are like most christians, normal lovable friends and neighbors who won't push their beliefs down anybody's throat. Ironic how athiesm has started to look more like door-knocker religious nit wits who want you to believe what they believe. All the while complaining how others want to shove their beliefs down their throats.
- Nick22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24Morale of story: always try and get the first comment in a digg story, you might get featured on a blog!
- Micfri, on 10/12/2007, -21/+3Hell Yeah!
I did a rant on YouTube about religion...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-F1hbj_P4Q- PhantomBantam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Not something to be proud of.
- Stevethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1They may be idiots, but what makes you believe that you are not more of an idiot? As a secular atheist I can say that calling people names is the worse you can do to get your message across. I don't believe in love, I believe in respect.
- vanzan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2you tried to simplify evolution but you really did a poor job on that, you moved your hands more than you moved your lips, did you happen to work at a pizza store before?
- DannyBoy7783, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ stevethegreat
I can't respect ignorance. it's inexcusable. - counterstriker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2do you just enjoy hearing yourself talk? I don't understand what the point of your video is, but I watched ten seconds and could hardly stand to watch anymore. Starting out by saying that everyone who is religios is sexist, bigoted, hypocritical, racist, hate breeding, close minded, antiquated, lieing ass idiots is not a good way to start a video even if you are not aiming to persuade people that religion is wrong, which you may or may not be.....I can't tell, but let me tell you that you are not impressing anyone with your anti religious rant !
P.S. has that auto refresher tactic on youtube been getting you anymore fans Micfri? - jasonsbytes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3wow, you just made me become religious... seriously... I'm going to start going to church every sunday from now on... Thank you!
- monergism, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2Like minded people have always connected on the Internet and in the world. Nothing new here.
As for atheism, I don't see the reason to talk about not believing.- deadsenator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3One would think so, but these times, they are a-changin'.
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14"Like minded people have always connected on the Internet and in the world. Nothing new here. "
Yep, durnit, I 'member back in 1853, why, them durn script-kiddies kept hacking the steam engine on my series of tubes and the Inner-net done got all clogged up.
Nothing new 'tall. Same ol' same ol'. - ace11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Thats how things have been for ages, but you cant spread the word without TALKING ABOUT IT!
- deadsenator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3One would think so, but these times, they are a-changin'.
- kettlechips, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5Every civilization throughout human history has had a religion behind it. Of course, that doesn't make anything about religion true, but there is reason to believe that it is a great tool to keep people in line. How can we be sure that _this_ is the generation we can scrap religion safely?
- Olle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Independent critical thinking and a completely new angle (for me) on the subject of religion.
Kudos. - rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Every civilization throughout human history has had a limited shelf-life.
Perhaps one without the shearing forces of religion might endure. - ace11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Because people are starting to understand that there are morals without religion.
- kodak543, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4what about the soviet union and their mass forced atheism? Priests were massacred, churches burned, properties stolen, people disappearing for practicing religion. Atheists, when in power, dont have a good track record when it comes to civilized behavior. Atheism cant make a perfect civilization, because, like religion, they believe only they are right, and everyone else is wrong.
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Atheists, when in power"
you are sorely confused. Atheism is lack of a belief in god, it is not a political stance. There are atheist conservatives, atheist liberals, atheist socialists, communists, libertarians, free-marketeers and welfare statists. There are also atheist authoritarians, atheist democrats, atheist racists, atheist civil libertarians. Just as there are theists who hold various socio-economic and political opinions.
I agree, "Atheism" is not a basis for political organization. That would be "democracy", as an alternative to the state authoritarianism of the Soviet Union that you and I both deplore.
Of course, you could have used Iran as an example of religion as a basis for government, or Saudi Arabia, or any number of authoritarian regimes, but then that would require intellectual honesty and logical consistency.
In short, you are battling a straw man. No one that I know of these days is promoting "Atheism" with a capital A as a political system. On the contrary, contemporary atheists tend to support a separation between beliefs vis a vis supernatural beings and government. So that everyone is free to privately believe and follow whatever religion or philosophy floats their boat, while we can all work together in the secular sphere and maintain civil society.
Does that sound like a bad idea to you?
- Olle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Independent critical thinking and a completely new angle (for me) on the subject of religion.
- drjekelmrhyde, on 10/12/2007, -4/+45"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.?"
--Seneca the Younger, 5 BC - 65 AD- orientis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8http://ratm-gr.tripod.com/class_pyramid.jpg
- Lobster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Well said that ancient dude
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.?"
--Seneca the Younger, 5 BC - 65 AD
Extreme rationalism is just as malleable. Some religion welcomes and embraces and most importantly finds atheism as irrelevant as theism. Buddhism for example. When the flying spaghetti monster comes for you, have your tomato sauce ready. Until then be kind, have fun. Occupy your time with improvement. - Exvin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Another good quote:
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
~ Sir Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71)
- KevinJ, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7United Atheist League unite!
- greymaxcat, on 10/12/2007, -29/+15Is there a God? Probably.
Does he go to your church? Probably not.
Does he follow your "Holly Book"? Probably not.
Is he as you imagine him? No.
Religion is not the problem.... ORGANIZED religion is the problem.- MadNuke, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17Dugg down for saying that a Divine Entity is probable.
- CaseyUCF, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20"Is there a God? Probably."
Probably Not. - TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7My holy books come from O'Reilly and Pragmatic.
- Jedimonkey27, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@MadNuke and CaseyUCF
Do you really think that the most rational way of thinking is to think that there is no higher power. To even begin to think that one can comprehend such matters at this point in human evolution is illogical to me. In reality, we don't know anything about our universe. Atheists are no less arrogant or illogical than religious types. I know I will most likely get dugg down for this, but I can't stand this whole Atheist 2.0 movement. If you don't believe in god, that is fine, you don't need to tell everyone about it.
P.S. I wonder why there seem to be no other agnostics around here? - shad0w, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Lol, where can I find myself some "holly" books?
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"Do you really think that the most rational way of thinking is to think that there is no higher power."
The most rational way of thinking is to apply the scientific method, aka critical thinking: first to approach extraordinary claims with skepticism; next, to examine the evidence - in this case, their ain't none; three, to apply logical consistency as a filter on any new proposed theories. There is no logical reason to conclude, based on no evidence, that a supernatural being which violates known, consistent laws of physics, exists. The only rational and prudent course is to say that there is no reason to believe that there is a god.
"To even begin to think that one can comprehend such matters at this point in human evolution is illogical to me."
Why? what does "this point" mean? Do you have a magic blueprint that has an arrow on it that says, "from this point on, humans will be capable of knowing if there is or isn't a god"? What precise evolutionary development is needed beyond what we are capable of with the basic tools of critical thinking?
" In reality, we don't know anything about our universe."
Speak for yourself. Via science, we have discovered a great deal about the universe - in fact, as our growth in understanding keeps accelerating, we have learned more in the past couple of decades than in all of human history preceding it. Unless you know the precise quantity of "thing" that there is to know about the universe, you have no rational way of knowing if we are 10%, 50%, or 99.95 of the way there.
The only thing we know for sure is that science has given us tools to gain understanding that religion, with thousands of years to work it out, fails to provide, and we also know that the scientific method works - predictions match empirical observation, and our ability to affect the world around us increases as well.
Face it - your claim is utterly faith-based and irrational, unlike the atheist's position, which is wholly reasonable and consistent with what we currently know of the world - and there is no rational reason to suppose that that reading will change in the future. - Wonderkind, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4>Religion is not the problem.... ORGANIZED religion is the problem.
Well said.
Altho I can never prove the existence of a God, I can't help but think that there is more than meets the eye going on in the universe. I have seen things happen that I can never explain. I am not a follower of any religion and do not attend any church. I have no idea what "God" is or isn't. Still, to think that we, who know so very little, yet think we are so very intelligent, can know whether or not a greater intelligence exists, to me is folly.
We think we're so bright, but we kill each other by the thousands for religion AND for atheistic ideology. We're killing our planet as fast as we can, we are greedy while thousands starve. Yeah, we're smart all right. College grads and all that. Yeah sure. In a thousand years, if we haven't killed earth, man will look back and talk about THESE dark ages too. - Mylonite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@JediMonkey - probably because you're using a different definition. On digg, both more militant anti-religion athiests and athiests who just know that no available evidence points to a godly conclusion (you probably call us agnostics) are all free to call themselves athiests without the supposed social stigma.
- Bytor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"If you don't believe in god, that is fine, you don't need to tell everyone about it."
The minute the theists stop shouting from the rooftops, I will gladly never speak of my unbeliefs again, but when the President talks to god, I am going to speak my peace for reason.
Atheists are finding a voice and I couldn't be happier. We are here, we are clear (of thought), get used to it. - M2Ys4U, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1It's not probably by any means but, yes, it IS possible.
Although the probability is very minute, one could say it was even negligible considering the evidence we have. Thus, we have Atheism.
- 0123456789, on 10/12/2007, -16/+3Religious kooks have their holy books 2 spread their nonsense...intellectuals(aka atheist) have digg and youtube ...pwnd!!
- Rice, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Made me laugh, but you'll still get dugg down.
Nice user name, by the way.
- Rice, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Made me laugh, but you'll still get dugg down.
- demortes, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Atheism to me is just simply not believing in what I can't see. The one thing that irks me more than anything is the fact that most Christians consider us evil, or Wiccans as "Devil Worshipers" and don't try and understand where we come from.
I am an Atheist, my wife is a Catholic. She is not less than me, and I am not less than her. I am open minded to other people beliefs as long as they are open minded to mine. Heck, I'll even discuss the various beliefs and learn of the beliefs of others. That does not mean I believe or disbelieve, but it does mean that I'm interested in how someone might actually believe this.
So in short, the purpose of me posting this is to point out that I am not "anti-religion" as any religion is dangerous when taken to the extreme, such as Holy Wars and other killing in the name of God, Allah, or even Satan (for those true Satanists). I read, just today, that the Muslim world was to sacrifice a lamb, instead of their sons, due to some guy willing to sacrifice his own son. Then Allah appeared, and gave him a lamb instead. I'm sorry, I will not believe in any "benevolent" God that asks ANYONE to sacrifice ANY life, human or animal. I can't see it, and I'm to believe that this "thing" wants me to do this or that, such as kill Satanists or Witches... no thanks.- redneckblues, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Just curious, but if you have kids, how will you/do you raise them? Athiest, Cat
