Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Is the Newly Vocal Atheist Movement Too Angry?
gretachristina.typepad.com — One of the most common criticisms lobbed at the newly-vocal atheist community is, "Why do you have to be so angry?" So let's start with why we're angry. Or rather -- because this is my blog and I don't presume to speak for all atheists -- why I'm angry.
FTLJohnson- 2085 diggs
- digg it
- zybch, on 10/26/2007, -67/+349We're not too angry. Its just the discrimination and subjugation we have all suffered for years finally being given an outlet at last! Enough of us have finally have the courage to stand up and declare that we have had enough! We aren't going to take this ***** sitting/laying down any more!
If you push your outmoded, superstitious belief and acceptance of the completely unacceptable onto me, then I'm going to push back twice as hard!!
As a gay person, I probably have more anger towards religion than a lot of people, the hurt and harm religion has caused gay people is simply beyond reckoning, and it continues today with the apparent approval of governments and their petty short sighted views which have been steered by the church!
So, damn right I'm pissed off and angry! Give me a reason why I shouldn't be!- theblooms, on 10/26/2007, -201/+27"Its just the discrimination and subjugation"
WHAT? Atheists ruled the 20th century, dude! Not in America, but most of the rest of the world! Fact is, atheists killed more people in 100 years that all of the religions combined throughout man's recorded history!
Stalin 20,000,000 dead
Mao 100,000,000 dead
Pol Pot 2,000,000 dead
Ho Chi Minh 1,000,000 dead
And that isn't counting all of the other tin pot dictators throughout Eastern Europe, Africa and Latin America (Tito, Castro, Guevara and Ortega come immediately to mind).
And don't give me that "they aren't real atheists!" *****. They WERE atheists, and they vigorously persecuted all religious people throughout their rule, imprisoning, torturing and killing all those who opposed their (twisted) world view. When a Christian goes wacko and goes off the farm, like the abortion doctor murders, all 10 or so of those guys (the number of wack jobs really is that low) we capture them, try them, and either give them the death penalty or send them to prison for the rest of their lives.- ranthony, on 10/26/2007, -20/+155Stalin and Mao disbanded all religions under their dictatorships, because the only allowed religion was worship of the state. They simply replaced one irrational set of beliefs with another. As such they were not atheists, since they did indeed have a theism.
Atheism is non-belief, skepticism; not another form of religion. No matter how many times the contrary is asserted.- jefferygomer, on 10/19/2007, -41/+14Not that it matters, because it's on the contrary:
Theism accepts the existence of a single, or multiple supreme beings, and that is what they see as fact.
Atheism denies the existence of any supreme being, and that is what they see as fact.
Agnosticism neither accepts or denies the existence of any supreme being, because there is no provable truth to either.
Skepticism is a trait of seeking real truth by questioning the validity of something purporting to be factual, which both Theism and Atheism do.- WhiteRaven, on 10/19/2007, -10/+37You are incorrect. The *only* trait of atheism is the lack of believe in any deity. A lack of belief is a very different thing from claiming that it is a fact that there is no such thing as god.
In other words, a lack of belief is not a belief in (or an assertion of) a lack. - RogerStrong, on 10/20/2007, -10/+32>> Atheism denies the existence of any supreme being, and that is what they see as fact.
Wrong. Athiests would perfectly OK with the existence of any supreme being. Its blind faith that they're against. They want a reasonable amount of evidence.
Whether its following the Pope's order's because of blind faith in God, or following Stalin's orders because of blind faith in communism ,the principle is the same. Both faiths are perpetuated by the same prime commandment: Thou Shalt Not Question. - mythicflux, on 10/18/2007, -6/+7The *only* trait of atheism is the lack of believe in any deity
Agnostics don't profess a belief in any specific deity. Are you claiming that their Atheists? I have a minor issue with that because as an Agnostic I cann't stand how people lump me in with a group of people who claim for a fact that a God or Gods do not exist. - skywake, on 10/18/2007, -2/+12from Wiki:
"Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities."
"Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism."
"Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism." - RogerStrong, on 10/19/2007, -0/+9>> The *only* trait of atheism is the lack of believe in any deity.
Look at the word itself. Atheism by definition means "not theist" - not following theology. Theology is defined as "the reasoned discourse about God or the gods, or more generally about religion or spirituality."
Blind faith - in communism or otherwise - certainly fits in the "religion or spirituality" part.
Then theres the "cult of personality" that Stalin and other build around themselves. Look at the modern equivelent - Kim Jong Il. His propaganda machine attributes all sorts of powers to him, supernatural and otherwise. Stalin's mythology may have been more subtle, but it was still there.
It may be different from YOUR religion, but it's still religion. - Fordi, on 10/19/2007, -1/+5Not exactly, mate. We see a God or Gods as improbable, but rather than assert their non-existence, simply fail to live our lives on the assumption that a God or Gods exist. Unlike agnostics, we don't bother agonizing over whether or not a God or Gods exist; it's improbable, and the anwer is unlikely to be shown - but in the meantime, it's most prudent to behave as if none do.
- sanman, on 10/19/2007, -0/+3I'm an atheist and a rationalist, and I'm angry that some Left-wingers are trying to associate atheism with irrational Left-wing socialism. I'm angry that they will only single out Bush, while remaining glaringly silent when Islamists impose their theocratic primitivism on others too (as if Islamist fundamentalists are some kind of underdog who deserve kid-glove treatment)
I'm an atheist, and I will damn well criticize other so-called "atheists" on the Left, who I don't feel really can be rationalists if they believe in ridiculously irrational economic fantasies that eschew meritocracy and choice-based free market competition for socialist welfare state fantasies.
Just as you can't credibly claim to be a rationalist if you believe the sun revolves around the earth, likewise you can't credibly claim to be a rationalist if you believe that socialist command economies outperform free market economics. Such beliefs just aren't scientific, nor are they rational. - delafere, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1"Follow the Gourd! The Holy Gourd!"
- WhiteRaven, on 10/19/2007, -10/+37You are incorrect. The *only* trait of atheism is the lack of believe in any deity. A lack of belief is a very different thing from claiming that it is a fact that there is no such thing as god.
- Coolkid11, on 10/18/2007, -24/+6Theism = belief in God
Theism does NOT = belief in government- WhiteRaven, on 10/18/2007, -4/+19Communism is a matter of faith. The government (purporting to represent the people) is treated as the supreme being.
- Godlike, on 10/19/2007, -1/+8Yeah well the Theists married the two a long time ago. Welcome to the world of your own doing.
- Fartag, on 10/19/2007, -0/+7A "theist" doesn't equate to believing in one god at all, those that believe in multiple gods, or spirits, or demons, etc. are also theists. And Atheism isn't simply the non-belief of one god or one religion either. There are _thousands_ of other religions with the same amount of supporting evidence (none) which atheists have no reason to believe in either.
- onwardknave, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2WhiteRaven: Trust is not the same as faith. It requires a prior knowledge or understanding of the entity to be trusted, whereas faith does not. For one to be communist does not imply they see communism's effects to be believed for no reason (given faith), any more than one sees the presence of a baby sitter as being capable of simply existing for their kids to be alright while the parents are away. Trust in the baby sitter is not given; it is earned by reputation or understanding of the sitter's capabilities, or in the case of Communism, trust is forced by lack of alternative.
- WhiteRaven, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2@onwardknave,
I am not confusing faith with trust. People raised under communist regimes do not "trust" the government because it has proven itself, they are mindlessly loyal out of fear and conditioning... *exactly* the way most religious faith works.
- bamapachyderm, on 10/26/2007, -4/+15I'm afraid you're confusing atheism with anarchy.
- charlie55, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2at a public school like bama, people are too stupid to be atheist en masse. if you went to a better school, your monkeysphere would be much more atheist. and i do not mean that a criticism of bama, thats just the way it is.
- skywake, on 10/26/2007, -17/+11Atheism != scepticism, you guys have made up your minds on the matter... you're thinking of Agnostic people who haven't made up their minds either way and are willing to listen to any argument for or against the existence of a higher being. Athiests by definition have a belief in the non-existance of a higher being so are therefore not sceptics.
On the "Atheism is non-belief" point I disagree again. An atheist has a belief (and a very strong one most of the time) that there is no "higher being" and the notion of such is a fairy tale. This is why most athiests will attack any notion that they are not pure sceptics or that they have belief in something, they have taken a grudge towards the whole notion of belief in "higher beings" and will not accept any features of the common faiths. I know I am going to be dugg down for saying this (for some reason Athiests don't seem to like the idea that they have a belief) but it is very much true. New-wave atheism smells the same as any other belief group to me.- charlie55, on 10/26/2007, -5/+14you are clueless. let me praphrase a famous quote:
Atheism is a belief in the same sense that bald is a hair color
an atheist has belief the way the broke man has money.
are you atheist with respect to fairies? would you consider that a belief on your part? is that a "belief" of yours? - RogerStrong, on 10/26/2007, -3/+13I respectfully disagree. It's not that I believe that there's NO higher being. I simply don't have any belief that there IS.
There COULD be, but if you want me to follow Odin, the onus is on you to provide reasonable proof that I should. Where I'd get "angry" is when - lacking said proof - my rights are violated because of my lack of blind faith.
My experience is that it's the religious who dishonestly try to spin atheism into an outright denial or "belief" - as you are doing - trying to load as much baggage onto the word as possible.
It simple means, "not religous". - Detritus, on 10/19/2007, -2/+3I think I see where you're going with that Sky, but your verbage choices are misleading your readers and pissing them off.
In watching from the side lines I've noticed that the "Skeptic Movement" with Dawkins & Co. behaves with the same sort of zeal you find in Evangelicals... which is worrying to me. I think this is largely to be blamed on the fact that a fair number of them are Southerners who were raised Baptist (or some other Evangelical sect) and are lashing out against the repressive restraints imposed on them in adolescence. A worthy goal, I can relate, but unfortunately they are a product of their environment.
While Dawkins and Friends seek to free themselves from the confines of their past their past is very much a part of them and they behave in the ways they've been taught. We are radically complex beings and it is too much to expect any prophet to truly divorce himself from all ingrained behaviors.
So back to what you are trying to convey, the Atheist and Skeptical Movements have at the fore very emotionally charged individuals who rely on "rational" thought as the foundation of their world view and emotional fervor to sustain them through the hard fight... one of these "rational" thoughts is the belief that theists are wrong, and therefor god is wrong. So yes it could be argued that atheists *believe* in the disbelief of god, but you're missing the point: God is just collateral to the belief that theists are wrong. - Acolyte357, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2"On the "Atheism is non-belief" point I disagree again." How the ***** can you disagree with a definition? Please explain how you are more correct than a ***** dictionary.
- charlie55, on 10/26/2007, -5/+14you are clueless. let me praphrase a famous quote:
- tbydal, on 10/26/2007, -1/+17Almost all atheists will agree that they *technically* are agnostics. The atheist viewpoint is usually that the existence of a God or Gods is as probable as the existence of the tooth-fairy. No conclusive evidence for or against in both cases, but any *sceptic* would agree that something with no evidence for or against should not be believed in at all.
- charlie55, on 10/26/2007, -1/+6exactly. but i would characterize it slightly differently. i think people misunderstand what the word atheist means. it means without belief. it doesnt mean possesing a belief in the non existence of something. the prefix a, it means without. so the atheist is without theism. he isnt claiming something doesnt exist. he is claiming he doesnt believe in it.
this is often called "soft" vs "hard" atheism. "hard" atheism doesnt really exist, it is generally a way theists portray atheist in order to discredit them, as if they have faith in the lack of a god.
i have never heard of anyone who actually claimed they knew god doesnt exist, or actively claimed they were certain. people who would say that are stupid. - RogerStrong, on 10/26/2007, -0/+4Likewise, I find that most Christians for example don't believe in Noah's flood or that J.C. is micromanaging thier lives and validating their parking. It's not that they believe in the Christian God - they believe in belief.
- moskaudancer, on 10/26/2007, -6/+2Not believing in something's existence is the same as believing in that same something's nonexistence. Semantically and logistically speaking, it's a hard position to assail.
- ToadLeg, on 10/26/2007, -0/+7@moskaudancer
I don't believe that there is a a water tower exactly 20 miles north of the center of New York, but I don't have the belief that there is no water tower at that location, because, for all I know, there could be a water tower there, but it's unlikely. Lack of belief in something is NOT the same as belief in the lack of it. - WhiteRaven, on 10/26/2007, -0/+4@moskaudancer.
The basic rules of both grammar and logic would disagree with you.
What words would you use to describe the following position. "I think that X is unlikely. I have no specific evidence that tells me X is not so but the lack of evidence in favor of it prevents me from believing it."
You know, your inability to tell the difference between lack of belief and belief in lack would pretty much make you ineligible for jury duty. This is *very* simple and a lot like "reasonable doubt". If you can't tell the difference between proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the mere likelihood of guilt, you are an unworthy peer.
- charlie55, on 10/26/2007, -1/+6exactly. but i would characterize it slightly differently. i think people misunderstand what the word atheist means. it means without belief. it doesnt mean possesing a belief in the non existence of something. the prefix a, it means without. so the atheist is without theism. he isnt claiming something doesnt exist. he is claiming he doesnt believe in it.
- jefferygomer, on 10/19/2007, -41/+14Not that it matters, because it's on the contrary:
- commernie, on 10/18/2007, -18/+15Mao 100,000,000? You gotta be ***** kidding me! I mean, all your numbers are ridiculous, but this one takes the cake. How could anybody possibly talk some sense into a hopelessly ignorant dumb-ass like you?
- theblooms, on 10/19/2007, -33/+13I guess you have never heard of the Great Leap Forward nor the Cultural Revolution. And the 20,000,000 by Stalin is a /conservative/ estimate. Some historians put the number over 60,000,000.
Low estimates put the totals killed by atheists at 100,000,000 total worldwide, high estimates put the number over half a billion. Either way, the atheists have MASSIVE, UNTOLD blood on their hands the likes of which the world had never seen, and hopefully will never see again. Don't try to minimize it. To do so is disgusting and shows what little value you put on human life.- Fordi, on 10/24/2007, -0/+10~s/Atheist/Statist/
Run that regex over your statement and it'd be true.
Don't ever put common atheists in the same group as Statists (those who demand worship of the State). They are Atheists in the same way that juice-dieters are anorexics. - luvs2spooge, on 10/24/2007, -1/+5Your comment was so completely ignorant.
The thing is, atheists are more like cats in the sense that every one of us has his own independent thoughts and philosophies; sometimes these philosophies intersect with many other atheist's ideals.
To say that all atheists hold the same belief as a dictator who claimed to be atheist but demanded worship of the state would be like saying all Christians are Catholic.
As a whole, we all believe there is no God, but the details and motives vary greatly. - spudnic, on 10/19/2007, -1/+5The difference is they didn't kill people *because* they were atheist.
There have been plenty of atrocities and death that people have taken part in because of their religion. - bitORlogic, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2If you stack up the number of people killed by theist leaders and those killed by atheist leaders, the second pile would be bigger. Why? Because (a) It was only in modern times that atheists actually ran countries, (b) modern technology makes it easy to kill people efficiently, and (c) there are simply more people to kill nowadays. Of course, the fact that an evil person is incidentally an atheist is meaningless. The question is: Did they kill in the name of atheism? And, if so (which I highly doubt), does that have any bearing whatsoever on the truth of atheism? Also, people like Stalin may have been atheists (I honestly don't know) but they forced religious worship of their regimes.
- Fordi, on 10/24/2007, -0/+10~s/Atheist/Statist/
- Coolkid11, on 10/18/2007, -1/+10Actually it might have been up to 100,000,000. The starvation was so humongous during 1956 - 1960.
- WhiteRaven, on 10/19/2007, -0/+21That figure is roughly accurate. Mao intentionally introduced "reforms" that left a staggering number of people unable to feed themselves. This was done intentionally because Mao believed the existing population to be unmanageable in the long run. He used the power he was able to maintain over the short term to drastically reduce China's population and make it more manageable over the long term.
Of course, communism is a matter of faith and if functionally identical to religion. - tbydal, on 10/26/2007, -4/+20The amount killed by atheists and the amount killed by religious are largely irrelevant.
What matters is how many were killed *in the name* of atheism, which is pretty close to zero. As opposed to most religions.
Counting the amount of people killed by atheists is like counting the amount of people killed by people with mustaches. My point being, people with mustaches are clearly evil.
- theblooms, on 10/19/2007, -33/+13I guess you have never heard of the Great Leap Forward nor the Cultural Revolution. And the 20,000,000 by Stalin is a /conservative/ estimate. Some historians put the number over 60,000,000.
- Corrosionx, on 10/18/2007, -2/+8So the thing that'll make you a good consistent person is being atheist or having a religious belief or not, it's being a libertarian vs an authoritarian.
- WhiteRaven, on 10/19/2007, -8/+12You can not be a sensible being and believe in god. The best a theist can hope to do is strictly compartmentalize their religious delusion from their real life.
Or to be so weak and unassertive about their belief that it has no affect on their life.- bamapachyderm, on 10/19/2007, -3/+11You have not a single theist in your Monkeysphere? That's a pretty incredible statement, that you "can not be a sensible being and believe in God." In fact, that statement doesn't indicate sensible thinking at all. I mean, that's pretty much a ridiculous generalization. So much for "reason."
- Godlike, on 10/18/2007, -4/+6Doublethinking your way into believing that the ghost man in the sky and his son will save you from a threat that cannot be quantified to exist is not rational.
- mythicflux, on 10/19/2007, -5/+5"You can not be a sensible being and believe in god."
Wow WhiteRaven what an intolerant point of view. It's a good thing you're fight to end the power of those intolerant theists! How dare they think bad of you because you don't share their viewpoint. - jmknsd, on 10/18/2007, -3/+4I meant to reply to WhiteRaven with my above post.
also Godlike, why is it so hard to believe that the universe is sentient? - tbydal, on 10/18/2007, -3/+1Its about as hard to believe as a rock being sentient.
...Unless it's been talking to you? - jmknsd, on 10/18/2007, -1/+3I'm not talking about just a rock, I'm talking about the universe. infinitely expanding, and more intricate then we can comprehend. some would say the universe beyond our reach is perfect.
if you believe life can just randomly happen as a combination of elements, then why not on a grander scale? - Fartag, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3@jmknsd
Thinking that something is possible is very different from believing something is true. The complaints atheists generally have are with people that believe baseless things so strongly that it affects other people (generally adversely) through their actions. People get killed over even differing interpretations of baseless claims when irrationality (religion) is involved. - jmknsd, on 10/19/2007, -3/+4while I have been writing my statements, I have kept Einstein in the front of my mind, and I now do the same, only using a quote.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity "
Humans do not need religion to oppress or kill others; in fact I cannot recall the last time I imposed my religion or religious beliefs on anyone else, and I do not want to, this leads to my libertarianism.
I also predict retorts involving G.W. and I would just like to add, he as a true master of deceit. Watch him talk when he ran for governor, it is like night and day; I would be very surprised if he was truly religious in any form.
my whole point with this is, religion is good. Christianity has led the western world to where it is today. people are not 'becoming' superstitious and stupid(paraphrasing an above comment), if anything, religion is decreasing in numbers. I find it truly frightening that an entire generation of youth find it 'cool' to bash religion, not because I fear being oppressed, but because the sense of community values, history and perspective that can be taught in a church cannot be replaced by public schools or any other common means available to us. - WhiteRaven, on 10/19/2007, -1/+4@jmknsd,
What part did *belief in god* play in the relative success of the Western world? - WhiteRaven, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3bamapachyderm,
It is nothing but logic. Very simple logic in fact.
There is no evidece of god. There is no logical reason to believe in god. Therefore, it is unsenible to believe in god. By doing an unsensible thing a theist is therefore not a sensible being.
Please note that neither the statement "there is no evidence of god" nor "there is no logical reason to believe in god" signifies an assertion on my part that I know for a fact that there is no god. It is only a statement of fact that no evidence of god exists.
By the way, I am resigned to the fact that human beings are not sensible beings. I don't even claim to be sensible myself. But I am capable of reason... are you? - Fordi, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Go easy on the emotional glitchers, would you?
- jmknsd, on 10/18/2007, -2/+2I was referring to Christianity when I said that, not just theists as I was commenting on the roll of religion in history.
I can't really add anything else unless you care to be more specific.
also, reading your response to bama, I believe a possible disconnect you are having is that there comes a point where logic falls short, and we as individuals are left to fill in the blanks. as science progresses the logic goes further, but until we become 'godlike' and have a complete understanding of the universe(if that is possible due to its seemingly infinite nature) some sort of faith will be required. you have filled in the blanks with one thing, I, another and some nothing at all.
My major qualm is with those who refuse to make the last step or hell even those who do, and see those who chose an alternative understanding as lesser dismissively. Even now, I find it hard to say 'you atheists' because there is so much variance in the thought process (some of? most of?) used to come to your conclusions.
However, I believe that the people who speak the most, and the most aggressively are the ones who have had the least discussion, committed the least thought and study to to what they are saying; This applies to all people, religious or not and is my greatest objection to the rampant hate speech of the 'militant atheists'. The world is where it is today because of religion and getting rid of it will not rid us of our problems first. If we are ever to be able to eliminate religion it will be after we have solved these problems, not the other way around(did that sound a touch blasphemous to anyone else?).
tangent? yes. relevant? maybe.
- jmknsd, on 10/19/2007, -12/+5Many of the great Scientists, not to mention the founders of this country(and most countries) believe in a supreme being.
in my opinion, militant atheism is the conclusion of a weak mind that must confirm it's own superiority.
although I can respect agnostics, to presume you are competent enough to demean others because of something someone told you to believe is incredibly arrogant.
I believe most of the religion bashing atheists are young, arrogant and inexperienced(emphasis on the last 2) and are worse then the people they hate, because at least at the core of their enemies beliefs is something worth hearing, something that guided western civilization to be what it is today.- RobotBuddha, on 10/19/2007, -0/+4In the past many great scientists believed in a God because lack of data about the world allowed for it as the most probable explanation. There are some great scientists today who believe in an interventionist deity, but saying many is just plain wrong. They're few, far between, and almost never in the hard logical sciences.
- nullifidian0, on 10/19/2007, -0/+3Congratulations: appeal to popularity/authority, red herring, ad hominem, strawman, tu quoque. And that's just the first two sentences. Your parents must be so proud.
- jmknsd, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1Ha, the irony, attacking me personally, while accusing me of an argument ad hominem .
Thanks for the laugh, nullifidian0, you might want to read my posts below.
Robotbuddha: thank you for the respectful response; I addressed something similar in a post in response to whiteraven(which this post was supposed to be in response to as well) - OrigamiRonin, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2"...the conclusion of a weak mind that must confirm it's own superiority." and "...to presume you are competent enough to demean others because of something someone told you to believe is incredibly arrogant."
Odd, because those thoughts are exactly what comes to mind when I think of many of the religious people I've known. After all, in the main Western Religions there is a supreme being that has given man primacy in the universe. Many believers feel that this supreme being takes an interest in their daily lives. I cannot fathom a viewpoint more arrogant, or one that carries more of an air of superiority than that one. Nobody told me not to believe in God. TO my knowledge, no modern-day believer gained that belief without cultural influence.
Believe me, to be an atheist can mean having a very humbling perspective on life. I do not believe in a supreme being that holds any interest in my daily life, nor do I feel that I hold some special chosen position in the natural order of the universe. If anything, I have the belief that maybe (just maybe) I'm a half-step ahead of religious people as far as figuring out the world around us.
Does that make me arrogant? Maybe in some circles it does. I'm just a single person who holds an unpopular perspective. I just think it's unfortunate that people by and large don't realize that maybe (just maybe) if they were to break away from the church they may begin to think in ways that might allow all of us to carry civilization much farther forward than we have. Just a thought. - jmknsd, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1I don't follow how believing that an omnipotent being is involved involved in your life is arrogant?
and you don't think you are special, you just believe that a group of people, most of whom you have never met, is inferior to you because of something you believe.
I think you are right; that seems more bigoted then arrogant. - OrigamiRonin, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1I suppose I've just always thought that even if I did believe in a God, to think that God would take a personal interest in my life would be quite vain, and by extension might reflect arrogance on my part.
I never claimed superiority over anyone. I said that I *might* have a more accurate view of the world around us than most religious people. I fully recognize that I may be wrong, and that at best I am only a couple of "what if..." questions ahead of the curve. This does not make me superior to anyone. It is simply what I believe, with full recognition that my answers are not necessarily the best answers for everyone else.
Contrast that with many (not all, or even most) of the religious people that I have met in my life who make no bones about their belief that they are superior to me and that their way is the only true way to living a just life. That's why I stated that your words about arrogance and superiority sounded more like the stuff of Christians than atheists to me.
- charlie55, on 10/19/2007, -3/+4whiteraven is absolutely correct. there is no reason for anything except atheism. anyone who is not atheist is delusional. no person who truly is rational could believe in this faith nonsense. your knowledge of the universe starts as a blank slate. fill it with facts, not fairy tales, and you will end up atheist. anything else is self-deception.
- WhiteRaven, on 10/19/2007, -0/+4mythicflux,
It is not a point of view, it is fact. The fact is, there is no evidence of any god. Therefore, there is zero sense in believing in a god.
This is not a matter of differing opinion, this is a matter of a belief that completely lacks any basis in reason. It is unsupportable. That which lacks sense in insensible.
- WhiteRaven, on 10/19/2007, -8/+12You can not be a sensible being and believe in god. The best a theist can hope to do is strictly compartmentalize their religious delusion from their real life.
- sbader, on 10/18/2007, -4/+13Do we have the numbers of how many people have been killed cause of religion?
- bamapachyderm, on 10/18/2007, -5/+23Sorry about the length, but you asked...
Selected Pre-20th Century
Democide and Totals [1]
Cases Years [2] Democide [3]
China 221 B.C.-19 C. A.D. 33,519,000 [4]
Mongols 14 C-15 C 29,927,000
Slavery of Africans 1451-1870 17,267,000
Amer-Indians 16 C-19 C 13,778,000
Thirty Years War 1618-1648 5,750,000
In India 13 C-1 9 C 4,511,000 [5]
In Iran 5 C-19 C 2,000,000 [4,5]
Ottoman Empire 12 C-19 C 2,000,000 [5]
In Japan 1570-19 C 1,500,000 [5]
In Russia 10 C-19 C 1,007,000 [5]
Christian Crusades 1095-1272 1,000,000
By Aztecs Centuries 1,000,000 [6]
Spanish Inquisition 16 C-18 C 350,000
French Revolution 1793-1794 263,000
Albigensian Crusade 1208-1249 200,000
Witch Hunts 15 C-17 C 100,000
Total For All Cases pre-20 C 133,147,000
Hypothetical Total 30 C B.C.-19 C A.D. 625,716,000 [7]
International war-related dead 30 C B.C.-19 C A.D. 40,457,000 [8]
Plague dead (Black Death) 541 A.D.-1912 102,070,000 [9]
1. From STATISTICS OF DEMOCIDE.
2. Unless otherwise noted, years and centuries are A.D.
3. Unless otherwise noted, these are a best guess estimate in a low to high range.
4. Excludes democide in China by Mongols.
5. An absolute low.
6. A very speculative absolute low.
7. From STATISTICS OF DEMOCIDE.. Calculated from the 20th century democide rate and the population for each century since 30 B.C.
8. From table STATISTICS OF DEMOCIDE. Total undoubtedly inflated by democide.
9. A minimum: includes plague dead in circa 541-542 A.D.; 1346-1771 in Europe; 1771 in Moscow; 1894 in Hong Kong; and 1898-1912 in India. From Duplaix (1988, p. 677-678).
What percentage of these killings were due to religious democide? It is less than 3% of the totals. The surprising thing is that these killings occurred during a period of time when virtually all the peoples of the world were involved in some sort of religion. Here is the data for the 20th century:
TABLE 1.2
20th Century Democide [1]
REGIMES YEARS DEMOCIDE [2]
U.S.S.R. 1917-87 61,911,000
China (PRC) 1949-87 35,236,000
Germany 1933-45 20,946,000
China (KMT) 1928-49 10,075,000
Japan 1936-45 5,964,000
China (Mao Soviets) [3] 1923-49 3,466,000
Cambodia 1975-79 2,035,000
Turkey (Armenian Genocide) 1909-18 1,883,000
Vietnam 1945-87 1,670,000
Poland 1945-48 1,585,000
Pakistan 1958-87 1,503,000
Yugoslavia (Tito) 1944-87 1,072,000
North Korea 1948-87 1,663,000
Mexico 1900-20 1,417,000
Russia 1900-17 1,066,000
China (Warlords) 1917-49 910,000
Turkey (Ataturk) 1919-23 878,000
United Kingdom 1900-87 816,000
Portugal (Dictatorship) 1926-82 741,000
Indonesia 1965-87 729,000
LESSER MURDERERS 1900-87 2,792,000
WORLD TOTAL 1900-87 169,202,000
1. From STATISTICS OF DEMOCIDE.
2. Includes genocide, politicide, and mass murder; excludes war-dead. These are probable mid-estimates in low to high ranges. Figures may not sum due to round off.
3. Guerrilla period.
What percentage of this democide was due to religious conflict? It turns out that religious democide doesn't even make the top 20 (although I am sure there is some in the "lesser murderers" category. Still, the total religious killings is less than 2%. In fact, the top two killers were specifically atheistic states (which had never existed before in human history). Should atheism be blamed for more than 50% of the atrocities committed during the 20th century? The answer of course is No! If one examines the nature of the regimes that committed these atrocities (even the religious ones), the key factor is absolute power (see Figure 1, right). According to Professor R.J. Rummel, in the 1816-2005 period there were 205 wars between non-democracies, 166 wars between non-democracies and democracies, and 0 wars between democracies. Lord Acton's warning that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" seems to be more than just a trite saying.- bamapachyderm, on 10/18/2007, -2/+3(link: http://urltea.com/1svf )
- nigh7dagger, on 10/18/2007, -5/+1Wait, did I see you counting people who died of the plague (as in the Black Death in the Middle Ages)? That doesn't seem like it happened because of religion.
- bamapachyderm, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1@nigh7dagger (sorry, stupid comment system isn't letting me reply directly to you):
It's not my counting, but no, it's not counted in the pre-20th century totals. It's hard to read a copy/pasted table, but that's listed below "Total For All Cases pre-20 C 133,147,000 "
- bamapachyderm, on 10/18/2007, -5/+23Sorry about the length, but you asked...
- onisamsha, on 10/23/2007, -6/+32You confuse their purpose in killing those people.
They killed them because of the communist/fascist ideal that religion was "the opium of the masses." They killed religious peoples because they viewed them as a threat to their power, not simply just for the fact that they worshipped a god. To try and lay that at the feet of the modern "new atheism" movement that slowly propagating in western countries (mostly the US and Britian) which seeks, for the most part, to simply ensure the continuation of the seperation of church and state, is intellectually dishonest.
They were mad men drunk on their own desire for megalomaniacal power, not on atheism. But if you can lump me as an atheist in with them, then i guess i can say you are are responsible for the crusades, the pogroms, the murder/forced conversion of hundreds of thousands of native tribal peoples, the inquisition, the Reformation Wars, the Papal Wars, etc, etc.
Every idea has blood on its hands if you are short sighted fool.- onisamsha, on 10/18/2007, -17/+3"Its just the discrimination and subjugation"
Oh, and you took the above quote completely out of context. He was refering to the contemporary movement here in the United States of organized, vocal christian groups seeking to get their beliefs codified in law.
But you get an A+ in jerking the discussion in a direction which supports you're point of view with misguided half-truths. - RansomHoldiay, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3haha...
he got an A+ in jerking.... - BigW, on 10/23/2007, -7/+3Funny, if you parse a lot of the atheist comments about Christians here on digg, it sounds an awful lot like they believe religion is the "opiate of the masses".
There is a reflection of the old soviet intolerance in your modern internet intolerance of religion.- onisamsha, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2Yep, cause i want to send christian's to the gulag.
Get off your "I'm BEING PERSECUTED" High horse. It's not that i (or any but the most extreme of atheists) am intolerant, most feel that theists can believe what they want, as long as they keep it to themselves.
- onisamsha, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2Yep, cause i want to send christian's to the gulag.
- onisamsha, on 10/18/2007, -17/+3"Its just the discrimination and subjugation"
- vanlawrence, on 10/18/2007, -3/+4Che Guevara cannot b categorised as a dictator since he never RULED any land.
- Slydevil01, on 10/23/2007, -1/+7You nonce, even if they were athiest, did they kill those people for that reason? Following their athiest beliefs? No. I didn't think so. They were just evil arseholes.
- ranthony, on 10/26/2007, -20/+155Stalin and Mao disbanded all religions under their dictatorships, because the only allowed religion was worship of the state. They simply replaced one irrational set of beliefs with another. As such they were not atheists, since they did indeed have a theism.
- gropo, on 11/06/2007, -11/+73Good GRAVY! I just realized that all but one of those dictators has an "O" in their name! Undeniable proof that having an "O" in your name makes you a vicious genocidal madman!
- theblooms, on 10/23/2007, -52/+5No, but being a atheistic communist DOES make you devalue human life.
- onisamsha, on 10/19/2007, -1/+16What if you're an atheistic capitalist?
- zeitgueist, on 10/19/2007, -9/+6Yes religious people never cause huge numbers of deaths or do evil things. Hitler, Spanish Inquisition, etc....
- theblooms, on 10/19/2007, -35/+7Hitler (who was an occultist) specifically used Darwin's The Origin of Species as an excuse to kill Jews, Gypsies and others, NOT religion. And again, the amount of religious killings comes NO WHERE NEAR the total that atheists killed. Not only is the total not in the same ballpark, hell it ain't even the same sport! bamapachyderm down below spelled it out perfectly.
- zeitgueist, on 10/19/2007, -2/+28Not surprisingly, you're factually wrong. Hitler in Mein Kampf: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord"(p. 65, Manheim translation).
Nor can you support your belief that atheism causes genocides. You're absolutely correct that atheistic regimes have been responsible as many deaths as religious ones, however the vast majority of those were political deaths, not religious ones. I've never heard(though I could be wrong) of anyone specifically going to war to "bring atheism to the religious", but it's not uncommon to see religious people do so. Considering that neither point of view actively advocates murder, a more intelligent person might realize that people are evil, and do bad things, regardless of what they do say to justify it. - CesiumK, on 10/19/2007, -2/+2I love people that can see beyond the blinding ignorance in an argument and poke fun at both sides. Some may call people like us cowardly, but whether you're super religious or super atheistic the louder you shout the more people are going to be annoyed.
- Viral, on 10/18/2007, -0/+4Hitler did not specifically use Darwin's The Origin of Species, he practiced eugenics. In fact, trying to tie Darwin in with Hitler seems like a very contrived attack on evolution. But beyond any other ludicrous assertions, eugenics is not a new concept. Plato advocated the idea, and the infanticides of ancient Rome were just another form of it. Eugenics have been around for a while. Hitler was just the most recent and infamous supporter of the concept, mixed with a dash of antisemitism, and a pinch of delusion.
- theblooms, on 10/19/2007, -35/+7Hitler (who was an occultist) specifically used Darwin's The Origin of Species as an excuse to kill Jews, Gypsies and others, NOT religion. And again, the amount of religious killings comes NO WHERE NEAR the total that atheists killed. Not only is the total not in the same ballpark, hell it ain't even the same sport! bamapachyderm down below spelled it out perfectly.
- roodammy44, on 10/18/2007, -0/+4Just like religious people and all their religious wars!
What a coincidence.
What makes people devalue human life is corrupt philosophy and desire for power. You can be religious or non-religious to do that
- tech42er, on 10/18/2007, -2/+7You guys can keep fighting over whether atheism kills or religion kills. As you'll invariably prove, religion has always been used as an excuse to kill, and, in its time, non-religion as well. Many 20th century authoritarian Communist countries were non-religious (technically atheist, if, as was argued above, atheism is broadly defined as "rejecting theism") and saw religion as a threat that they tried to extinguish. Throughout history, people have fought wars, using religion as an excuse. It's pretty unsurprising that more people died in the 20th century than preceding centuries, given the lethal technology and the scale of the battles and wars. At any rate, continue arguing if you think it will do you any good.
- moskaudancer, on 10/18/2007, -3/+1Well put.
- HollowMarkeD, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Yeah. All these numbers prove is that religion or no religion, people were killed due to humans being nasty to each other; it made no difference if they believed in God or not.
- moskaudancer, on 10/18/2007, -3/+1Well put.
- LeeSoong, on 10/18/2007, -2/+7I see no reason to be angry at the three little pigs, mother goose, yahweh, peter pan, ra, odin, jesus, big bird, or any other imaginative character.
Now some people get really upset if you do not enjoy the same literature they enjoy. Honestly, they should read more than 1 book. But it is very enjoyable talking to them, and certainly isn't worth wasting anger over. The teachings of Jesus are interesting - certainly helping wounded people found on the side of the road is a good example. So is feeding the hungry, healing the sick, helping the poor, and living at peace with ones neighbors.
All cultures provide insight into human nature, the value of compassion and loving kindness, finding meaning from suffering, and the limitations of erroneous and harmful behavior.
Unfortunately these universal truths are not embraced universally....- Koldkompress, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1I'd kill for Big Bird.
- theblooms, on 10/23/2007, -52/+5No, but being a atheistic communist DOES make you devalue human life.
- radicaldementia, on 10/22/2007, -5/+69I disagree, we (or some of us) are too angry. Atheism is supposed to be an ideology of reason and logic over emotion and superstition. Getting "angry", or worse, celebrating and promoting your anger, undermines the very notion of what it means to be an atheist. Like many of you, I am frequently frustrated by religion and the various effects it has on my life, but getting angry does nothing to solve the problem. Yes, we should be active, assertive, and not afraid to back down, but we should not be hypocrites and lash out in anger. That will just make more people even angrier.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Ghandi- ashmael, on 10/18/2007, -17/+5Gandhi also advocated that the Jews not fight back during the Holocaust, but instead let themselves be killed, to bring about global awareness. Now, how would that have helped if the whole world was pacifist, like Gandhi advocated?
- solis365, on 10/18/2007, -5/+13um, if everyone were pacifists then no one would be killing anyone else in the first place, so whats your point?
that said, i dont think that is quite the best solution. global awareness was raised even though they didnt "let" themselves be killed. hey, ghandi isnt perfect but one (or several) imperfections arent reason to discredit ALL of this thoughts.
- solis365, on 10/18/2007, -5/+13um, if everyone were pacifists then no one would be killing anyone else in the first place, so whats your point?
- WhiteRaven, on 10/23/2007, -14/+47Atheism IS NOT AN IDEOLOGY. We just don't believe in gods.
- DrMonkeyLove, on 10/23/2007, -8/+31Right!!! Atheism is the default position! It's ridiculous that there's even the word "atheism". How many other words in the English language exist to describe the absence of a belief in something? Aunicornism? Ateapotism? Aflyingspaghettimonsterism? NO! It's absurd! Not believing in something there's no proof of isn't an ideology, it's the default condition. Not believing in fairies and unicorns is not an ideology. It's the default condition. There is nothing ideological about atheism.
- adrianmonk, on 10/18/2007, -0/+4I'm an atheist as well and I agree it's not an ideology, but if atheism is the default condition, why have most civilizations settled on a steady state of having a religion?
Of course, it might be that there is a difference between the default condition for an individual and the default condition for a whole civilization. And that's probably true. But I would argue that it might even be the default condition for individuals, because people like to have explanations for things, and people like to anthropomorphize things. Mythology is a big part of the human experience. Having absolutely no mythology is a relatively unusual thing for humans. - CesiumK, on 10/23/2007, -5/+3I would think being agnostic, or not knowing whether there is or isn't a higher being, is the default mode of thought. It seems strange to be born knowing you are the highest form of life and that there is no greater force aside from natural laws. It is only with learning that people develop a sense of self-actualization and form beliefs pertaining to the existence of a higher power.
- nullifidian0, on 10/23/2007, -6/+2Not knowing != not believing.
- adrianmonk, on 10/18/2007, -0/+4I'm an atheist as well and I agree it's not an ideology, but if atheism is the default condition, why have most civilizations settled on a steady state of having a religion?
- nreynolds, on 10/23/2007, -19/+2ok, but the problem is that a TON of atheists treat it like an idiology.
- KnightWhoSaysNi, on 10/23/2007, -2/+20No. A TON of theists treat Atheism as an ideology.
- WhiteRaven, on 10/23/2007, -1/+6Objecting to having others impose *their* ideology on us does not mean we are treating our lack of ideology as an ideology.
- DrMonkeyLove, on 10/23/2007, -8/+31Right!!! Atheism is the default position! It's ridiculous that there's even the word "atheism". How many other words in the English language exist to describe the absence of a belief in something? Aunicornism? Ateapotism? Aflyingspaghettimonsterism? NO! It's absurd! Not believing in something there's no proof of isn't an ideology, it's the default condition. Not believing in fairies and unicorns is not an ideology. It's the default condition. There is nothing ideological about atheism.
- Kopiok, on 10/18/2007, -12/+4I agree. Atheists being angry come of as arrogant, "holier than thou" (pun intended) people that believe that anyone who believes in religion is a big stupid idiot and they're wrong with everything that they do. That's no way to "win people over", but why do you want to "win people over" in the first place? I healthy debate on religion is one thing, trying to force your ideology, or lack thereof, down someone's throat is rude, frustrating, and breeds this hatred that makes this blogger so angry. I realize that there are a lot of religious people out there that go way overboard and do indeed force religion on others, but Atheists should no be the same or they risk the religious getting angry for the same reason the non-religious get angry.
- Acolyte357, on 10/23/2007, -1/+4#1 Why the ***** do people keep capitalizing atheists, it is not a religion.
#2 Did you read the article? It tells you quite frankly why atheist should be angry
- Acolyte357, on 10/23/2007, -1/+4#1 Why the ***** do people keep capitalizing atheists, it is not a religion.
- nigh7dagger, on 11/09/2007, -10/+7Yeah, I read about half and then closed the tab. Why? I realized that everyone has problems. There's a bunch of things in this world that I don't like. But boo-freakin-hoo. If I made a blog about all of the injustices Christians had suffered at the hands of atheists, people would think I was a whining douchebag.
- thecatisdead, on 11/09/2007, -6/+4newsflash: you are a whining douchebag.
- Viral, on 10/18/2007, -1/+3Now you've piqued my curiosity. Of precisely what "injustices" might you be speaking?
- da_bradler, on 11/09/2007, -2/+4Your supporting your atheist statement by quoting Ghandi?! Ghandi was a pretty big religious fanatic, only he contracted out all his dirty work out and claimed he was completely none violent. Ghandi didn't fight for people around the world, he fought for Indians, namely Hindu Indians. He doesn't deserve the status he has been given
- ashmael, on 10/18/2007, -17/+5Gandhi also advocated that the Jews not fight back during the Holocaust, but instead let themselves be killed, to bring about global awareness. Now, how would that have helped if the whole world was pacifist, like Gandhi advocated?
- ronaldst, on 10/22/2007, -6/+14It's not our fault the history channel's favourite subject is about atheists gone wild.
- rendereduseless, on 10/18/2007, -10/+8i think shes angry...
- catalysis, on 10/20/2007, -4/+18How many people have been converted to a different ideology by ridicule their current one? My guess is not many. Acting angry and lashing out only pushes the religious people farther away and makes them cling to their beliefs out of self defense.
It cultivates an "us vs. them" competitive mentality where each side is rooting for their home team to the point where the ideology that started it all becomes meaningless. Kind of like American politics.- powerhouse, on 10/18/2007, -2/+3How many people have been converted to a different ideology by threat of VIOLENCE? My guess is many.
- Calcularius, on 10/18/2007, -2/+8I don't want to convert them, I just want them to STAY OUT OF MY FACE!
- nullifidian0, on 10/18/2007, -1/+5Do unto others...
- Acolyte357, on 11/07/2007, -1/+5Deal, now get all your religious ***** out of the school system, government, and off public owned property.
- Trublmakr, on 11/07/2007, -0/+3The only faith I have is in the future,.. Keep religion away from children the same way you would poison,. and for the same reason.
- Acolyte357, on 10/23/2007, -2/+3/sigh
#1 atheism does not want to "convert" anyone because it is not an ideology,
#2 "Acting angry and lashing out only pushes the religious people farther away ..." Good, cling to what ever the hell you want to believe in, away from those who don't want to have your crap forced in our faces.
- Calcularius, on 10/18/2007, -10/+1I'm angry for all of the suffering religion has caused because they can't stop fighting with each other.
http://www.dnahelices.com/noreligion/noreligion.jp ...- Whackly, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1and pious too
- Andysan, on 10/18/2007, -15/+3The two major reasons for having a (any) religion in your life are: 1) A reasonable set of rules to live by. People are such assholes without rules. 2) When dealing with things like death of family members and other personal catastrophes, people need a consoling mechanism.
Most other reasons for having religion are hypocritical at best and cynical at worst.- Mageling, on 10/18/2007, -0/+131) There's a common moral code totally separate from religion. Why? because I am atheist and I know I have better morals than a lot of Christians I know..
2) Consoling mechanism... Um, my grandfather died. The best thing you could do to honor their death is to relive their effect on you and let it change you for the better. What else do you really expect? That you'll physically see or 'feel' them when you died? I think not.- Andysan, on 10/18/2007, -4/+1Good points. There still needs to be a reason for most people to follow some moral code, whatever its origin. In grieving, I think most people just wallow in despair rather than relive anything. I don't think having some 'religion' has to mean doing the whole creator thing. Take away rules and grieving, most religions are just fluff and opportunities to exercise power.
- DukeMojo, on 10/18/2007, -1/+3"There still needs to be a reason for most people to follow some moral code, whatever its origin"
How about for the better of mankind, down to every person? - Cheeseness, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1This incentive driven crap absolutely debases the principles of doing good in the first place.
Saying that you'll be eternally rewarded for doing so implies that you wouldn't do it unless you were getting 'paid' and saying that you'll be eternally damned if you don't says that you only do it out of fear of repercussion.
Honestly, your choices are your own. Do good things for the sake of doing good. There doesn't need to be any reason beyond that.
- DukeMojo, on 10/18/2007, -1/+3"There still needs to be a reason for most people to follow some moral code, whatever its origin"
- Andysan, on 10/18/2007, -4/+1Good points. There still needs to be a reason for most people to follow some moral code, whatever its origin. In grieving, I think most people just wallow in despair rather than relive anything. I don't think having some 'religion' has to mean doing the whole creator thing. Take away rules and grieving, most religions are just fluff and opportunities to exercise power.
- eatbeefjerky, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3I'm pretty sure that if a person can suss out morals for him/herself without having to be told by a priest/minister/pastor/rabbi/whatever what some invisible guy in the sky THINKS we should do, that that person is more moral than the religious idiot who is only not killing/not stealing/not coveting thy neighbor's wife just because God says not to.
Also, I was brought up Jewish (now I am an atheist). Now, Jews don't have specific ideas about what happens when we die (or at least none were instilled in me). When my aunt and my uncle and a family friend and my cats died, I grieved, I was sad, and eventually, I stopped grieving, and that was that. You don't need a god to be your consoling mechanism.- adrianmonk, on 10/18/2007, -1/+0I'm pretty sure that while you and I may disagree with their point of view, many religious people are in fact not idiots. Actually, many of them are good people, and many of them conscientiously follow the rules because they think it's the right thing to do, not out of fear.
- Mageling, on 10/18/2007, -0/+131) There's a common moral code totally separate from religion. Why? because I am atheist and I know I have better morals than a lot of Christians I know..
- proliance, on 10/18/2007, -13/+8Right.
Let me know when the Romans are feeding you to the lions in the Coliseum. Then you can complain.
As for now, would you like some cheese with that whine?- deadlikeoscar, on 10/18/2007, -3/+3Well, Gays were one of the groups the Nazis targeted. I'm sure they had their share of suffering as well. But you did bring up a point. Christians are persecuted and murdered in many countries. I'd say that we all have a history of suffering somewhere down the line. Anyway, Atheists being angry with religion isn't going to solve anything. You will only anger the religious people that already accept you and have no problem with atheists/gays/etc. The people that you are actually mad at are too thick-headed to ever listen to you but they will die off eventually. Please don't forget that there is a younger religious crowd that will one day replace the old hate mongers. I will accept you just as you are if you show me the same respect. There is too much division in this country already. I'm on your side and so are many others. Don't turn away those that support you, with hatred.
- nullifidian0, on 10/18/2007, -1/+4When the hell were you ever fed to a lion?
- johnlabmonkey, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2That Christians fed to Lions in the "Coliseum" thing is bunk. Didn't happen. And it's "Colosseum."
- ZenMojo, on 10/23/2007, -2/+2In other news, the Atheist state of China between executing and imprisoning members of the Falun Gong sect has condemned the Congressional Medal of Honor given to Buddhist leader the Dalai Lama, condemning him as a "separatist."
I sympathize with Atheists and, on that note, am still waiting for my goddamned reparations from The Man!- DukeMojo, on 10/18/2007, -1/+3The thing about 'atheist' (not capitalized, btw) governments is that the whole idea is to replace the worship of gods into the worship of the state. Why do you think they are forced to hang pictures of their leader on the wall as opposed to crosses or what have you? Why else would they be killing and arresting these people? It's not because they are trying to destroy religion, it's because they are ridding themselves of competition.
Think of it this way: When the leader of a country because an almost god-like figure, wouldn't it be easier for that leader to get the people to do what he wants instead of what they're religion says? If Muhammad Ali had believed Kennedy was his overall ruler rather than Allah, do you think he would have refused to join the military? - Viral, on 10/18/2007, -1/+3The Dalai Lama is in many ways just as much of a douche as the Chinese government. He just has a better PR campaign.
- DukeMojo, on 10/18/2007, -1/+3The thing about 'atheist' (not capitalized, btw) governments is that the whole idea is to replace the worship of gods into the worship of the state. Why do you think they are forced to hang pictures of their leader on the wall as opposed to crosses or what have you? Why else would they be killing and arresting these people? It's not because they are trying to destroy religion, it's because they are ridding themselves of competition.
- quaunaut, on 10/23/2007, -10/+4Yeah, you ARE too angry.
So many athiests are angry to the point that you're being as ignorant as any other religion. Every religion has its idiots- and whether atheism is a religion or not, it has its share of idiots too.- DavidGX, on 10/18/2007, -0/+6I fail to see how a lack of any belief is a religion.
- sufiboy, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1bollox
- DukeMojo, on 10/18/2007, -2/+9Religion itself is not the problem, I know this because my mother believes in a Christian God and Jesus and is smart enough to keep it to herself. Religion is a tool that can be used by humanity in whichever way they choose, and like most tools of humanity (government is another) it can be used for good (like missions that actually feed/clothes/etc. people) and for bad (all the things the lady listed in the article).
I am an atheist.
I don't want to burn churches or keep people from going to them, people who are sometimes weak and need hope for something higher and look for a purpose in a life in which, in my eyes, there really is no purpose.
Would I like to see a world one day in which there is no religion? Yes. Definitely. But humanity is not ready for such a world. Morals will exist, yes, but just like people who use a god today as a reason to commit crimes and horrible actions; people will do the same using the lack of god for a reason. Humans still need to evolve ideas before we can hope for a world where our future and well being is more important than the life an ancient set of rules and ideas tells us to live. - NocturnVitae, on 10/18/2007, -3/+1Ditto! Except I am straight.
- lucas22, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3not that there's anything wrong with that. :p
- ZellD, on 10/18/2007, -3/+8Until you find out that with or without religion people are stupid, hateful, and misguided. Thats when atheism gets boring.
- setzersky, on 10/23/2007, -8/+2If I looked like some hideous colonel duchess I'd be angry and godless too.
- johnlabmonkey, on 10/23/2007, -1/+4What a vile thing to say.
- chijim70, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Yeah you gotta love the anger and downright mean nature of "loving" xtians. That steady flow of hypocrisy just speaks volumes.
- johnlabmonkey, on 10/23/2007, -1/+4What a vile thing to say.
- scott2007, on 10/23/2007, -8/+4It's interesting this post has -134 diggs as of 11:30am in Rome.
The lethal suppression of religion is central to communism, as is atheism. Atheists haven't only recently been vocal, nor angry. The anger of atheists led to hundreds of millions of murders in the name of trying to perfect human society and bring justice. It's true that atheists are on bottom in some very limited ways now, but once they're on top a lot of blood will be spilled.
Anger is too dangerous to indulge in. There is no such thing as constructive anger. Of course, if you understood the teachings of Christ then you'd understand this too.- owlfeathers, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2You're right about anger. It is dangerous, indeed. But, I don't understand anything about Christ, and frankly, I don't want to. We've been doing fine without him for two-thousand years, why change now?
- sufiboy, on 10/23/2007, -1/+5Bollocks. Why should atheists, in general also humanists, spill blood? Check the log in "religions"
eye before telling me about the mite in my eye: religious wars have killed millions.
- setzersky, on 10/18/2007, -5/+1Just a quick question for all of you atheists. If the world is purely physical, and abides completely by the measurable and entirely cause and effect laws of science where does this leave room for free will? In this paradigm we are merely refined chaos. Life is purposeless as is this debate and being angry about it. Free will is merely an illusion.
Note I'm not a member of any organized religion but I DO believe in a higher power and life beyond this. Consciousness being the divine root of all as opposed to this shallow physical universe.- sufiboy, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2Who says atheists believe all the world to be purely physical?Not all the laws of science are cause and effect (quantum theory). Why does a consciousness existing as an emergent property of the universe negate free will?
The physical universe is beautiful and complex. Why is free will an illusion? - natedouglas, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2I disbelieve in free will. Everything that I understand of physics, as a former nuclear engineer -- as well as psychology, sociology, and every other science -- leads me to that conclusion.
And? Yes, we're deterministic creatures. According to most religious philosophy and science of which I'm aware, so are all animals and plants, either because they lack souls or the capacity for rational thought. Saying that determinism is not present in human beings is rather silly, I think -- look at all your habits, customs, and thought patterns, and consider whether you really make fresh decisions every microsecond of every day.
Rationality is the ability to compare two options and (hopefully) choose the better of them. It doesn't imply free will, merely another factor in the determinism of humans. At every step of a decision, you rely on past experiences or biology or other factors, and those factors make the decision.
Determinism is not somehow < free will, anyway. People dislike thinking that they are simply machines preprogrammed to live their lives in a certain way, but why? It doesn't imply any lesser amount of emotion, value of life, or anything else. It does mean a certain degree of attenuated blame for the insane and hopelessly twisted who commit crimes -- but our legal system already takes that into consideration with the insane.
etc. - EvilGeniusTodd, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Life is inherently purposeless. Meaning that we as individuals are free to choose our own purpose for living.
- sufiboy, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2Who says atheists believe all the world to be purely physical?Not all the laws of science are cause and effect (quantum theory). Why does a consciousness existing as an emergent property of the universe negate free will?
- Janv1er, on 10/18/2007, -3/+4But were all those killings in the name of Atheism??
- Waterrat, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1 No,but many killings were and are in the name of some god or other.
- B1gm1tch, on 10/18/2007, -7/+1Get a chick that's awesome in the sack to convert you to straight-ness, you'll stop being angry then. Scout's honor.
- sufiboy, on 10/18/2007, -1/+4...especially if you are a lesbian...
- chijim70, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1LOL, what a tard. Obviously didn't read the article.
And yeah straight men with women NEVER get angry...
- chijim70, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1LOL, what a tard. Obviously didn't read the article.
- sufiboy, on 10/18/2007, -1/+4...especially if you are a lesbian...
- owlfeathers, on 10/20/2007, -0/+4Even as a fairly religious person, I commend you for standing up for yourself and what you believe in. I really do. We need more people like you.
- miketrin, on 10/19/2007, -4/+1I'll pray for your lost soul.
- Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/23/2007, -3/+1Athiesm is just another religion. The religion of no religion. It thinks and acts the same as all the others, however. You are proof.
- EvilGeniusTodd, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Atheism is as much a religion as an empty parking space is a car.
- Egoist, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Discrimination that you've "suffered" for being Athiest?! Could you sound any more whiney? Name one example.
Or were you trying to get a teaching job at a Catholic private school?
- theblooms, on 10/26/2007, -201/+27"Its just the discrimination and subjugation"
- commernie, on 10/20/2007, -34/+103I share your anger! You speak for at least another fellow atheist!
- notque, on 10/22/2007, -7/+38I am an atheist. I have no problem with others believing in religion. I have no problems with others wanting to communicate their desire for you to join them.
It's a personal matter that isn't all that important to me. Who am I to tell parents that their child who died isn't going to heaven?
Religion has done an awful lot of evil in this world, but the answer isn't to stop religion. It's to make a better world where religion isn't required because you don't believe life is a hopeless series of injustices.- SiNN4R, on 10/18/2007, -19/+2More like a gaythiest.
- tech42er, on 10/18/2007, -1/+8Excuse me? Are you ***** insulting him, because he's tolerant?
- SiNN4R, on 10/18/2007, -17/+2Tolerance is a blight upon the earth. The lord shall smite the atheists for their heathen ways. I pray for you to recognize the error of your ways evil person.
- Mageling, on 10/18/2007, -1/+3SiNN4R, what about the people not in your religion? are they going to be smite by the lord the same as the atheists because they don't believe in your god? Wait... All the romans must be in hell because they believed in many other gods.. Zeus and such... Are they all in hell? This kind of thinking is self defeating. I've been told that I'm going to hell by someone who really believed it. Well, sucks for them for talking to someone who is eternally doomed and they didn't save me. Also, god made me atheist, who are you to question him?
- moskaudancer, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1/whoosh sarcasm
- karel747, on 10/18/2007, -0/+6You trolls (e.g., SiNN4R) are getting more and more obvious every day. What a wasted existence...
- tech42er, on 10/18/2007, -1/+8Excuse me? Are you ***** insulting him, because he's tolerant?
- ICSU, on 10/22/2007, -6/+4I'm an atheist, BUT . . .
http://richarddawkins.net/article,318,n,n - IllBeBack, on 10/18/2007, -7/+5Without anger, there will never be a change for the better. Doing nothing will allow the believers to continue to have their way forever, making laws based on their religion that you will have to follow.
- BigW, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2So to get rid of believers are you going to
1) Yell about it on digg
or
2) Kill all the believers who won't repent and renounce their religion.
I know you're practicing 1, but how are you going to change the world otherwise. I don't think spitting in Christians' faces will cause them to convert.- dellis, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1That's a false dichotomy. There are other steps between digg and murder.
- maximumsteve1, on 10/19/2007, -0/+3I'm an athiest. I was shunned by my old religion. My grandmother won't speak with me. My family is disappointed with me. I lost all my childhood friends because I was only allowed to have friends in my religion growing up. I wasn't allowed to ask questions. The religion didn't want me to go to college in fear I might get "ideas". All over something that has no basis, makes no sense, and has caused more pain than it could ever make up for. I feel freed being an atheist, and I would like future generations to not go through so much crap growing up. So, yeah.... why wouldn't I be angry? and why wouldn't I want change?
- BigW, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2So to get rid of believers are you going to
- Daniel591992, on 10/18/2007, -2/+6Well said. I'm Catholic and wonder why we can't just get along. What's all the hate for? I don't mean atheist's specifically, I mean everyone, including Catholics. I'll believe what I want to, you believe what you want to, and everyone lives happily ever after...
- Matri, on 10/18/2007, -3/+2For the most part we are happy with this status quo. What we are NOT happy with are those who not only believe what they want, they want US to also believe what THEY want or be damned & shunned. These people want their way of life turned into laws and FORCED onto everyone else, your opinions be damned.
These are the people we are most angry with. By extension we are also angry at people like you. Your willingness to just sit back and let them continue to speak on your behalf shows your approval of their actions.
You want us to believe that you don't like them either? Speak out against them. Don't wait for US to take the first step so you can add your comments as a footnote. - ICSU, on 10/18/2007, -2/+1Why can't we get along?
RTFA - nullifidian0, on 10/18/2007, -2/+1Tell that to your pope and bishops who are sentencing millions to death by making ***** up (i.e. lying) about a little piece of latex being "evil". When your church stops this sort of ass-hattery, then we can talk about "getting along". Until then, your church is part of the problem, not the solution.
- Matri, on 10/18/2007, -3/+2For the most part we are happy with this status quo. What we are NOT happy with are those who not only believe what they want, they want US to also believe what THEY want or be damned & shunned. These people want their way of life turned into laws and FORCED onto everyone else, your opinions be damned.
- darkcooger, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2To be clear, "religion" is incapable of doing good or bad. Good or bad may be done in its name, but religion itself can do neither. The blog author goes a tirade about the faithful who argue that evil done in the name of their religion is not representative of what the religion really stands for, but it's really unwarranted if the faithful making that argument are right. Christianity, for example, does not call for holy war, but the Crusades were carried out in the name of Christianity. If Christianity as a faith could speak, it would probably have yelled, "No, don't do it for me, you bastards. I don't want it!"
- SiNN4R, on 10/18/2007, -19/+2More like a gaythiest.
- Alegoo92, on 10/19/2007, -20/+12Anger with others' beliefs is ridiculous and ranks up easily with racism and all the other prejudices.
- ashmael, on 10/19/2007, -11/+17So I guess the beliefs of the KKK don't bother you at all, right? Anger at their beliefs amounts to racism?
- moskaudancer, on 10/18/2007, -0/+4racism != belief, racism = ideology (at least in the way it is acted upon)
- adrianmonk, on 10/18/2007, -2/+2I don't have a problem with KKK members believing whatever they want to. They might believe in something I think is utterly stupid and ignorant, but as long as they don't DO anything about it, it isn't my business, and furthermore, I'm not going to waste my time worrying about it.
- zeitgueist, on 10/18/2007, -7/+10The writer's anger is against stupidity and prejudice, not against the religious beliefs. If you didn't bother us, we wouldn't be angry(not personally angry).
- tech42er, on 10/19/2007, -7/+5You seem to be personally angry at people who are not bothering you. You lump all religious people together, so why shouldn't they do the same to you and lump together those who are militant and absolutely hate religion and those who just dislike religion's influence on politics and government. You don't see any difference between the religious moderates and extremists, so why should aanyone se a distinction between the moderate (like you) and the more extreme elements in this movement?
- chijim70, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2Justifying one stupid act in response to another doesn't make it not stupid.
- technoredneck, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2Get a grip, troll. I loved this post, related to it, and agreed with it entirely ...and I'm Christian.
- ashmael, on 10/19/2007, -11/+17So I guess the beliefs of the KKK don't bother you at all, right? Anger at their beliefs amounts to racism?
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/18/2007, -11/+17No, today's atheists aren't too angry. Calling people stupid and ignorant is a great way to get people to understand your beliefs. Kinda like how people suddenly become Christian when they learn they will go to hell if they don't. /sarcasm
- nullx42, on 10/19/2007, -8/+18We tried leaving it alone, it grew bigger and more powerful, we tried rationalizing, it grew bigger and more powerful. Now we fight back. ***** Religion, its time has long passed. Medieval times are over.
- moskaudancer, on 10/18/2007, -3/+5That's a positive attitude for you! :)
/sarc- nullx42, on 10/18/2007, -1/+3ENOUGH WITH THE ***** SARCASM TAGS.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/18/2007, -1/+3And you think the way to fight religion is to call everyone who's a part of it stupid and ignorant? That seems to be the main choice of words for the angry atheist movement. I can gaurantee you will never win anyone over like that. You won't even get anyone to listen to you. If you really want to fight religion then exercise your right to assemble and protest. Lead atheist marches and stuff. But if you go around calling people stupid you're going to see your support numbers fall. Hate is not a popular message. Freedom is.
- natedouglas, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Who gives a ***** if they listen? They just need to know to back off :-P
Atheist marches? Seriously? ***** no. Just stand up to assholes.
- natedouglas, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Who gives a ***** if they listen? They just need to know to back off :-P
- moskaudancer, on 10/18/2007, -3/+5That's a positive attitude for you! :)
- nullx42, on 10/19/2007, -8/+18We tried leaving it alone, it grew bigger and more powerful, we tried rationalizing, it grew bigger and more powerful. Now we fight back. ***** Religion, its time has long passed. Medieval times are over.
- ICSU, on 10/18/2007, -0/+8And if you want a very calm atheist, watch Dan Dennett.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jN78A-Wa14
very practical too - tmbrwolf19, on 10/18/2007, -2/+3I am angry as an Agnostic that Christians, Muslims, Atheists (etc) cannot accept that i do not care about religion. I don't believe in a God, and I don't not believe in a God. Seriously World, STFU, no one cares to what imaginary being you do or don't pray to. Religion is a personal belief, trying keeping it to yourselves.
- HigherLogic, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2That would be fine and all if it didn't impact my life. That's where the problem is. Ever wonder why atheists aren't sitting around arguing with Hindus or Buddhists? Because they're not making an impact on my life!
- DMCer, on 10/18/2007, -3/+4Face it, you're babies.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/18/2007, -3/+2WAHHH They put a Christmas tree up at city hall! WAHHHH I feel left out so I should ruin the fun of the majority of the country WAHHHH
- nullifidian0, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3Yeah, like christmas has anything to do with the religion of the masses.
- natedouglas, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1I'm an anarchist and an atheist. I don't believe offensiveness constitutes any sort of crime. I frankly don't care that there's a Christmas tree up at city hall, so long as my taxes didn't go to support it. Sorta like how I'd rather my taxes didn't support whacking people.
If I'm paying for something I don't believe in, you're goddamned right I'm going to bitch about it. People having fun with my money without my consent is rather irritating to me.
- miketrin, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1amen. i feel bad for those hateful angry infidels.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/18/2007, -3/+2WAHHH They put a Christmas tree up at city hall! WAHHHH I feel left out so I should ruin the fun of the majority of the country WAHHHH
- BlacklabelSAR, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Watch this and judge for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9To30Hz7A
- notque, on 10/22/2007, -7/+38I am an atheist. I have no problem with others believing in religion. I have no problems with others wanting to communicate their desire for you to join them.
- FTLJohnson, on 10/18/2007, -4/+8I know it's a typepad... So... just in case...
Mirror: http://gretachristina.typepad.com.nyud.net/greta_c ...- MonarchWastxD, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2What? He says only 45% of Americans would vote for an atheist... but the chart says "55% Yes" WTF?!
- AbsurdParadox, on 10/19/2007, -65/+104I say, absolutely its too angry, and I don't care about your reasons -- they're irrelevant. People of all kinds have legitimate claim to be angry. Anger does nothing to further a viewpoint, of any kind, atheist or not, however.
When it comes to any personal belief, there are two kinds of people. Evangelists and Preachers (abandon your irrational judgements of these terms for a moment). Evangelists are the kind of people who know HOW to put their viewpoint out there for others to consider, without being forceful and angry. Preachers are the kind of people who rile up those already-on-your-side. The problem lies, in ALL beliefs, when Preachers try to Evangelize. They will have the opposite effect.
In other words, if you think those who don't believe the same as you do as "idiots", please STFU. You're damaging your "team's" reputation, and those not on your side cannot hear your words anyway.- ashmael, on 10/20/2007, -23/+17So you didn't make it through the article where your point was addressed and defeated, did you?
- AbsurdParadox, on 10/18/2007, -3/+1I skimmed it again, and I saw nothing of the sort. I'm not advocating a middle-ground position, if thats what you think.
- WhiteRaven, on 10/20/2007, -26/+20AbsurdParadox, does it make a difference if one's viewpoint is actually based on FACT? Belief in god is irrational period. Preaching fact is laudable, preaching delusion ranges from sad to despicable.
- Birdoftruth, on 10/20/2007, -7/+27There is no Fact that God exists. There is no Fact God does not exist. By default science has no opinion. thus making it agnostic or weak atheist (as some like to pull agnostics to their side).
So let me ask you this White Raven, Does it make a difference if one's viewpoint is actually based on LOGIC? Like the philosophers of the millennium, One can arrive to a god via discourse and logic Just like man arrived to math and infinity and many of the other intangible objects in the world. One does not need repeatable, testable, and most importantly observable evidence to arrive at a conclusion.- moskaudancer, on 10/18/2007, -4/+6"One does not need repeatable, testable, and most importantly observable evidence to arrive at a conclusion."
Agreed, Darwinian evolution is a perfect example of this fact.- tech42er, on 10/18/2007, -0/+6What do you mean? This is a lot of evidence for Darwinian evolution, even if not all the mechanisms for it are perfectly understood.
- moskaudancer, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1That's what I meant, it's illogical to throw out a useful (and to my mind, self-evident) theory of how the natural world works simply because it is still an imperfect model, which is what a lot of creationists seem to want to do.
- WhiteRaven, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1No, there has never been any logical line of reason that leads to the conclusion that there is a god. A supreme being will always be a possibility but has never been a likelihood.
It is no possible to speak of intangible things logically. The intangible is incapable of involving fact and without fact, there is no logic. Math describes physical realities that are tangible while "infinity" is in fact an abstraction that man has invented from whole cloth. It is perhaps useful as a kind of placeholder in math equations but it's not exactly real.
- moskaudancer, on 10/18/2007, -4/+6"One does not need repeatable, testable, and most importantly observable evidence to arrive at a conclusion."
- nullx42, on 10/20/2007, -6/+4Why are we digging this man down?
- AbsurdParadox, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3I will answer your question with a question. Is there anything you believe to be true that you haven't PERSONALLY CONFIRMED?
- WhiteRaven, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1I can't think of any. Mind you, there are many times when I must act without certainty. At those times, I would not say I *believe* X to be to, only that it is my best guess.
- mcrumiller, on 10/18/2007, -0/+0Whiteraven, I'm not sure if you're Christian or not, but I'm assuming you are by the voicing and intent of your posts.
To say "One can arrive to a god via discourse and logic" says nothing about proving a Christian God exists. One cannot arrive at any particular god through logic, period. To do so WOULD require evidence, of which there is none. Most atheists are not intent on suppressing the viewpoint of people who claim that some supernatural entity may exist. What we are intent on is suppressing the claim by many religious zealots that THEIR supernatural entity exists, if solely for the reason that this often entails the damaging prescription of morals and beliefs onto others. Among these are anti-gay sentiments, violence in the name of God, opposition of scientific progress (Galileo and evolution come to mind), and myriad other hypocrisies we read about daily. Specific religions, which have no evidence whatsoever for the existence of their deity or moral suppositions, are counterproductive and harmful to society.- mcrumiller, on 10/18/2007, -0/+0Oops, meant to address this to AbsurdParadox!
- Birdoftruth, on 10/20/2007, -7/+27There is no Fact that God exists. There is no Fact God does not exist. By default science has no opinion. thus making it agnostic or weak atheist (as some like to pull agnostics to their side).
- notthemama, on 10/20/2007, -10/+25"Anger does nothing to further a viewpoint, of any kind, atheist or not, however."
Actually, it does. If that black woman hadn't gotten angry over being told to sit in the back of the bus, we'd probably still be making black people ride in the back.- Phyltre, on 10/18/2007, -4/+27It wasn't anger, it was resolution. I'm surprised nobody sees the difference.
- moskaudancer, on 10/18/2007, -1/+6I'm not, and I'm disappointed because of that.
- adrianmonk, on 10/18/2007, -2/+3That's a good analogy. Continuing that analogy, the people I could do without are the atheist equivalents of Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton. There are true leaders (like Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks) who help the cause, and then there are bitter whiny busybodies who drone on endlessly about how everyone is out to get them.
- darkcooger, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1And let's be fair, all sides of the debate have the whiny busybodies. If it wasn't for them, the rest of us would probably get on just fine...
- Phyltre, on 10/18/2007, -4/+27It wasn't anger, it was resolution. I'm surprised nobody sees the difference.
- Lukesed, on 10/18/2007, -1/+7"Now I'm not going to sing 'We shall not be moved!' because frankly that is a bit too confrontiational. I think a chant of 'We would appreciate it if you did not move us, metphorically speaking!' would come across as much less angry".
- timzen81, on 10/18/2007, -7/+5I pretty much agree and would just like to expand on
"Anger does nothing to further a viewpoint, of any kind, atheist or not, however."
The piece says that anger is what drives social change; but that does not seem correct. I think the examples she sites are much better explained by a sense of justice. Justice seems to drive change for a positive good, while anger seems to get tied up with revenge and hate - which never seems to work out well.- adrianmonk, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1To quote a favorite song of mine:
"What's been done in the name of Jesus?
What's been done in the name of Buddha?
What's been done in the name of Islam?
What's been done in the name of man?
What's been done in the name of liberation?
And in the name of civilization?
And in the name of race?
And in the name of peace?
Everybody
Loves to see
Justice done
On somebody else"
I love this song because it so clearly shows the difference between real justice and fake justice (which is really just revenge masquerading as justice).
- adrianmonk, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1To quote a favorite song of mine:
- celticcrossfire, on 10/18/2007, -8/+10I disagree. There are some beliefs that have neither. The sky is blue. 2+2=4. Both have neither. Yet, when someone tries to pass a different case off (sky is green, 2+2=5) There are still no Preachers or Evangelicals for the original (correct) theory. Further, I contend someone is entitled and perfectly acceptable to call someone who seriously contends the sky is green or 2+2=5 an "idiot" by definition.
Atheism is the same way. Atheism is the lack of a belief. It is the default state. It does not claim something's existence for which there is no evidence. Thus, it cannot have Preachers or Evangelicals.- Genady, on 10/18/2007, -1/+7Dude... didn't you hear? 2+2 *IS* 5 for very large values of 2.
- deuceswilde, on 10/18/2007, -4/+5Atheism is the default state only in the case that it's not something you actively pursue. When you actively further atheism as a superior form of thinking then it becomes a belief, and that's irrelevant of the fact that it's a belief in no supreme being. That's the problem I have with a lot of atheists, they act so much like the religions they condemn while assuming they're immune because they "don't believe anything". It's a fallacious argument and if it were true then there would be no unifying force or reason to go on rants like the one above.
The thing that's ironic in the practical sense is that Digg is a very open and liberal community, and atheists represent the most close-minded group within that community (next to Ron Paul supporters perhaps). By "Standing up against oppression" all you seem to accomplish is attacking the exact group in society that you should be courting. By treating everyone who isn't an atheist as a fundamentalist is an egregious misstep in logic and an utter failing of the atheist movement. Just once I'd like to see an atheist at least acknowledge the fact that the movement as a group is making the same mistakes that so many groups have made before them, and it comes off as nothing less than immensely hypocritical. I have no problem with atheist beliefs, or lack thereof, it's the intolerance I can't stand.- mcrumiller, on 10/18/2007, -2/+0What was that? You can't stand the intolerance of anti-gay rights, of opposition to scientific progress, of violence in the name of God, in racism, and in moral hypocrisy? Perhaps I should rethink my own personal ethics to become more like a Christian.
- mmortal03, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Son of a b. I dugg you up for the first paragraph, and then you had to say that somehow Ron Paul supporters are the most closed-minded group on Digg. Now, why would that be that people who actually investigate the issues are somehow the ones that are closed-minded?
- razor150, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1Atheisism is not the "default" state. Being Agnostic is, if left to their own devices most people would be in that state. Becoming an atheist is an active decision on taking a side on the God debate. Atheists can be just as intolerant, bigoted and insufferable as any holy roller. You see it here on Digg every day. Just because atheists intolerances are different then that of religious people doesn't make them better.
- eatbeefjerky, on 10/18/2007, -5/+9You seriously think Evangelicals have the right idea about how to put their ideas "out there"? There was an Evangelical group sitting outside the building where I have my history class for about a week last month. The guy couldn't go 2 minutes without condemning homosexuals, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, people who smoke weed, just about anyone who wasn't white and Protestant. He actually said, in front of several Muslims, that all Muslims are enemies of America and are going to hell. Yeah, that's a GREAT way to promote your group. I was just glad I didn't have any reason to try and discredit the guy... he was doing a fine job all by himself.
- AbsurdParadox, on 10/18/2007, -2/+2I was using the term in a generic sense, unattached to any belief. Atheists have evangelicals. Global-Warming Alarmists have evangelicals. Sony Fanboys have evangelicals.
- lbmouse, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2"In other words, if you think those who don't believe the same as you do as "idiots", please STFU"
Holy ***** is that ignorant! Is this the same advice you would have given Rosa Parks?
- ashmael, on 10/20/2007, -23/+17So you didn't make it through the article where your point was addressed and defeated, did you?
- NoahVail, on 10/26/2007, -61/+65There ARE two kinds of people: 1) Those that think there are more than one kind of people. 2) Those that know that all people are the same.
Personally, I am sick of the recent attempts to promote ignorance and superstition, religious myths and other types of myths. I do not think this makes me angry, just very concerned about where this country and this planet is headed.
Oh, yes, and if you are very religious and are worried about me burning in hell...
....................../´¯/)
...................../¯../
..................../..../
.............../´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
............/'/.../..../......./¨¯
..........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
............................'...../
...........''............. _.·´
..........................(
...........................- AbsurdParadox, on 10/26/2007, -28/+6"There ARE two kinds of people: 1) Those that think there are more than one kind of people. 2) Those that know that all people are the same."
LMAO what? Talk about an absurd contradiction. Buried.- onisamsha, on 10/26/2007, -7/+2/sarcasm
- moskaudancer, on 10/26/2007, -1/+4Ummm... it is technically a contradiction...
- onisamsha, on 10/26/2007, -7/+2/sarcasm
- Corrosionx, on 10/26/2007, -3/+71There are two kinds of people 1) Those that want to be left alone 2) Those that will not leave them alone.
- tech42er, on 10/26/2007, -7/+7Yup, and the new atheism movement started as #1 and got a lot of respect. As it moves into #2 it's losing some of that.
- Fartag, on 10/26/2007, -2/+4Atheism got a lot of respect? now when exactly did that happen? Respect has hardly ever been given to rationalists by any horde of irrational people. And rationalism is one of those rare few things that is _good_ for you, and it's good for you even in large doses. If everyone took care to ensure that rationality spreads far and wide, then the world would be a much better place. More religion spreading around is most assuredly not what we need.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3You will NEVER get respect from irrational people. NEVER EVER EVER EVER. So why try? Go for the people who are actually rational. The rational people can shun the irrational people into shutting the ***** up. That's basically what happened to racism and homophobia and it can happen to those who speak irrationally against atheism.
Step 1 to getting to rational people on the religious side is to stop calling them idiots.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3You will NEVER get respect from irrational people. NEVER EVER EVER EVER. So why try? Go for the people who are actually rational. The rational people can shun the irrational people into shutting the ***** up. That's basically what happened to racism and homophobia and it can happen to those who speak irrationally against atheism.
- darkcooger, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Fair point, I think. I'm a Christian, and I don't have a problem with atheists. Of course I want them to become Christians, but certainly I can't *MAKE* them become Christians and I certainly don't have any right or authority to try. I mean, my own "Guide to Being a Christian" tells me not to try to force anything on anyone.
So I respect atheists' choice, and I respect them as fellow humans regardless of any religious belief or lack thereof. But just as I don't try to force my beliefs on them, I would be very happy if they would stop trying to force theirs on me. (Yes, I know that there are a lot of Christians out there who do try to force their faith on others, and it's wrong. Just because they do it doesn't mean it's okay for anyone else to do it, though - including atheists.)
- Fartag, on 10/26/2007, -2/+4Atheism got a lot of respect? now when exactly did that happen? Respect has hardly ever been given to rationalists by any horde of irrational people. And rationalism is one of those rare few things that is _good_ for you, and it's good for you even in large doses. If everyone took care to ensure that rationality spreads far and wide, then the world would be a much better place. More religion spreading around is most assuredly not what we need.
- tech42er, on 10/26/2007, -7/+7Yup, and the new atheism movement started as #1 and got a lot of respect. As it moves into #2 it's losing some of that.
- tehpwnrate, on 10/26/2007, -4/+12See, this ticks me off. I don't necessarily follow any religion, but I am always kind and polite to preachers handing stuff out because I know they care in their own way. I'm not going to be a douche just because they have a different belief set from me.
- Intangible360, on 10/18/2007, -1/+4If some preacher walks up to me and tries to convert me or advertise their religion I think it only fair I get to state my case as well.
- mediaspree, on 10/26/2007, -6/+2ASCII art is dead.
- EbilPhish, on 10/19/2007, -2/+9░░░░░░░░██░░░░░░██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░████░░██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░██▓▓████▓▓██░░░░░░██████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██░░██████▓▓▓▓▓▓████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██░░░░░░████░░░░
░░░░██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██████████░░░░
░░██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓████░░░░
░░██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██████
░░██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██████████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓████░░
░░██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██████▒▒▒▒▒▒██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██░░░░
░░██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██░░░░
░░░░██████████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓████░░
░░░░░░░░░░██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██░░
░░░░░░░░░░██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██░░
░░░░░░░░████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██░░
░░░░░░░░████████████▒▒▒▒▒▒████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██░░
░░░░░░████░░░░░░░░▓▓██▒▒▒▒██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██░░░░
░░░░░░████▓▓░░░░░░░░██▒▒▒▒██████████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██░░░░░░
░░░░░░████░░░░░░░░▓▓██▒▒▒▒██▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓██░░░░░░░░
░░░░████████████████▒▒▒▒▒▒██▓▓▒▒▓▓▒▒▓▓██▓▓██░░░░░░░░░░
░░████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓████░░░░░░░░░░░░
██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░██████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓
- EbilPhish, on 10/19/2007, -2/+9░░░░░░░░██░░░░░░██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
- AbsurdParadox, on 10/26/2007, -28/+6"There ARE two kinds of people: 1) Those that think there are more than one kind of people. 2) Those that know that all people are the same."
