digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Why are geeks often atheist?

m4th.com — An interesting trend on sites such as Digg, Slashdot and Shuzak suggests that atheism is the "religion" of choice among geeks. Why is atheism more popular among geeks when clearly the average person is religious? Well this article might have an explanation.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • experimentalist, on 10/12/2007, -67/+211Are most actually Atheist or are they just believers in something outside of what is considered
    the "norm" when it comes to belief? I have beliefts, but dont call myself Christian or Catholic
    or Muslim or anything really.. I am, I believe in what I believe. Thats that :)
    • hobote, on 10/12/2007, -114/+102I would say that a lot of atheists are on both sides, some believe in some supernatural forces but don't believe in god exactly, while I think the more honest approach is to be a bright (http://www.the-brights.net/) I have frequently called myself an atheist, but now I call myself a bright.

      What is a bright?

      * A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
      * A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
      * The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview

      I think in general inv1c7u5 is right, intelligence does not beget belief. Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are as real as this fairy tale we call god.
    • Enasni1212, on 10/12/2007, -171/+49And to a hardcore Christian/Muslim/whatever, that means that you're a non believer and will burn in hell. Funny how "atheists," often lead better lives that so-called religious people.
    • meez, on 10/12/2007, -55/+580The church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the geek religion of choice.

      Inaccurate!
    • PleaseJustDie, on 10/12/2007, -31/+375We are just an advanced Sim Life running as god's screensaver. My only fear is that eventually we'll discover he's running on windows and has to reformat.
    • AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -21/+101We'll get the BSOD long before that.
    • PeterBWiggin, on 10/12/2007, -79/+27Well the answer is the same reason the mainstream is so "religious". If you want to be accepted by the mainstream you need to be religious. If have already been ousted by the mainstream and want to be accepted by your fellow geeks then you need to be atheist. Anyone in the geek crowd who is not atheist is stigmatized and seen as unintelligent.
    • elipabst, on 10/12/2007, -105/+37@enasni1212 " Funny how "atheists," often lead better lives that so-called religious people."

      Actually religious people have been shown in study after study to live longer lives and overall be healthier, so I guess it depends on what you mean by "better".
    • charli2na, on 10/12/2007, -15/+257I thought geeks were the ones who write in "jedi" as their religion on census information.
    • bobslaede, on 10/12/2007, -20/+100That would be agnosticism, and not atheism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
    • noots, on 10/12/2007, -23/+49humans have a need for everything to have a start and an end, that is the fatal flaw.
    • SniperXPX, on 10/12/2007, -83/+144Religion is the source of just about every conflict. To me, religion is something for the weak minded as they cannot comprehend that there is no solid evidence that the fate their culture has believed in for many years, just simply cannot be true.
      Therefore, I don't believe in religion or fate. If there was no religion, there would be a hell of a lot less conflict happening in todays society.
    • digitallysick, on 10/12/2007, -38/+40@ hobote

      A "bright" sounds like a Buddhist *is pro Buddhism* For anyone who doesn't believe in the god or devil, but still wants a "religion" with good morals to stick to, buddhism is for you.

      One day when i had enough of life, i came across the reviews for this book

      http://www.amazon.com/Peace-Every-Step-Mindfulness-Everyday/dp/0553351397

      *not trying to sell his books* But it really changed my life, and view on life. Even if your not buddhist, its a good read.
    • Peepsalot, on 10/12/2007, -15/+56Meez: I believe you mean Pastafarianism ;-)
    • Veurruckte, on 10/12/2007, -34/+17I think a lot of people who call themselves atheist are more agnostic than anything. I don't mean any disrespect to atheists, but there's a difference between believing in some form of a higher power, and believing in absolutely nothing.
    • airayn, on 10/12/2007, -21/+39I myself am both a geek and a explorer... but fall into the Taoist category of belief.

      I write about similar topics and would suggest. It's not that more geeks are atheists as much as geeks are willing to think outside established pre-packaged religions. If they find a logic flaw in one of the packaged religions they toss it away and quickly move on to the next package. Many pick Atheism simply as a handy holding spot (of no-religion) or a pointer so to speak... till they find something that does match.

      I think many geeks would list a religion if they found one that fits without logic flaws to their personal belief structure.

      For myself that's Taoism: the practice of being oneself.

      Peace
      A Personal Tao
      http://www.personaltao.com
    • glasgowm, on 10/12/2007, -46/+22Because digg users are used to the internet, and if you say you're religious on the internet you realize how idiotic you are for believing so soon enough

      Any mainstream religion can be totally disproved so easily, so much so that I see people who call themselves Christians as idiots. Its the same as saying you don't believe in evolution
    • FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -45/+40I wonder what the Christians would do if Aliens landed on our Planet.

      What sounds stranger,

      Alien beings from other worlds contacting us

      or

      believing that a mythical anthropomorphic, self paranoid ego-manic "Bible-God" impregnated a virgin in order to give birth to himself in order to be sacrificed to himself in order to sit beside himself in order to save the world from himself as some kind of sadistic experiment in self replicating redemption by fillings the heads of precious innocent impressionable children with disturbing stories of hell and damnation and devils and eternal suffering.

      Are magical invisible green elephants who control the universe from their homes inside doorknobs any less real in the minds of psychopaths in insane asylums?
    • puffinkiss, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10Google cache:
      http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Dqw6ibQGoToJ:m4th.com/Articles/Why-are-geeks-often-atheists.php+%22why+are+geeks+often+atheist%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
    • dorianh49, on 10/12/2007, -26/+81I'm not an atheist, but I'll take a stab at this. Geeks are usually logical thinkers who like to get hands-on, or at least see what it is that they're working with. It certainly doesn't make sense that a loving god would tolerate so much suffering. Also, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that almost every war in the history of mankind has been caused by religion.

      Among other things. I could go into why I'm not an atheist even with all of these factors, but this is hardly the place.
    • coldfusion055, on 10/12/2007, -34/+230The most dangerous people on the planet are those who are convinced that they know the truth.
    • Kerr, on 10/12/2007, -31/+21Because we know better.
    • jkleinfeld, on 10/12/2007, -27/+14i propose we organise the church of 1337 haxx0rs.

      and this comment will be the holy book of 133715m.
    • babar77, on 10/12/2007, -28/+214@sniperxpx

      Religion does not start wars. Money, scarcity of resources, and ambition for more power does. Religion is often used as a control mechanism by those in power who want more money, resources, and power to convince the masses they need to go to war.

      Even if you abolished Religion, there would still be basic cultural differences that could be used against people. And you will never get rid of anger. People get mad, and there's nothing we can do to stop that.


    • FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -57/+123ATHEISTS DON'T CLAIM "THERE IS NO GOD"

      nope. Atheists take the view that if there isn't a god, prove it. If there is a god, prove it. If you can't prove either then it's not reasonable to believe in a god. If you want Atheists to believe there's probably a god then prove it. If you go around claiming that belief in something is just a matter of what assumptions you make, you are wrong. Atheists believe, based on the evidence, that fire will burn a person. you can go around with the assumption it can't. should you experiment you would quickly find that even though you logically satisfied yourself based on the assumptions you made, experimentation and objective data quickly dispelled your error and burn your sorry ass.

      Good Science changes, we learn more, it begins with observation and moves to hypothesis testing and debate, while non science is rigid, it begins with works of fiction and proceeds to asserting, insisting, twisting the facts and sometimes even torturing those who disagree. You can learn something from that. Whether intelligent design makes sense to you or sounds just ***** crazy doesn't matter, it just not science.

      Nuff said.
    • Tacobake, on 10/12/2007, -11/+28"secular humanism" is another big word(s)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

      One view that I resent is when people say, "we stopped believing in God because we're smarter." I think a key distinction to point out: as we have evolved into a global village, it's gotten to the point where we look at all the world's histories and we see that each independant culture grew with their own religious or historical view. Why would you pick one view over another from a logical standpoint? You can't. It's only since following World War I -- and especially since World War II with the change in the education system -- that we as individuals within a culture have become educated.

      To further things, I think it's insulting to our past generations of men -- the ones that didn't sit around digg but rather went to the tavern after a hard day's work -- to say that each and every one of them was a bible beater. Authority in their communities was often divied up along religious lines, and if someone thought the idea of a bunch of angels was a lil iffy they'd be pretty stupid to let people know about it.
    • mc7winkie, on 10/12/2007, -27/+35Thank you. So many people blame religion for problems in the world but if you think about it if there was no religion would things be better? Not really. Would there be no crime? No. Would there be less rape, murder, theft, and wars? No. So why do people feel like attributing these problem to religion? You can take any idea and pervert it enough to make it wrong. Just look at evolution. It pretty much is what sparked racism and and genocide. It was an idea that became so perverted that it was misused. So before you ever try and bash religion for causing problems in the world remember. It's not religion that cause problems it's men. In the words of Josef Stalin "Death solves all problems. No man, no problem."
    • kevisazombie, on 10/12/2007, -14/+20Buddha was a geek
    • vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -27/+35@"Religion does not start wars. Money, scarcity of resources, and ambition for more power does."

      Religion has just changed names.

      People before 1700 did actually declare war on others because and only because of religion. The Crusades during 1099 to 1200 come to mind. King Richard of England, King of France, and the Holy Roman Emperor actually spent more money and effort to actually wage crusades than they ever saw in return. Yes there were plenty of people who earned a bit of money from the crusades, but the majority of those who fought did so for a place in heaven.

      Now we of course have the wars in the 1500's over religion all over Europe during the reformation which was purely over religion. Now during the 1700's... Yes... War was fought on the request of kings but after 1800's it changes names to what we call:

      Nationalism

      Rather than fighting for God we are not fighting for motherland/fatherland and for whatever inherent rights we as citizens have because we were born that way. Which from the US Civil War, Franco-Prussia War that led to WWI and then again in WWII.

      Then it went form Nationalism and then to Communism.

      Strangely enough it has now gone back to religion. Remember, Osama was a billionaire. He had nothing to gain by waging his fight against us nor the Taliban. They simply committed to a fight purely out of their interpretation of their religion. Sudan... Somalia... And of course Chechnya

      Sadly... America is trying to fight fire with fire but rather calling it in the name of god, but rather in the name of "Democracy" which turns out to not really be anything close resembling what you would call true Freedom.
    • JorgeGT, on 10/12/2007, -9/+39"But you read a lot of books, I'm thinking. Hard to have faith, ain't it, when you've read too many books?"

      -- (Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum)
    • Jonty, on 10/12/2007, -18/+102I'm a perfectly happy Christian geek. I believe the Universe is however many billions of years old, that evolution happened at that much of the old testament is metaphorical, simplified for the people of that time. I believe the Big Bang happened. I won't exclude a scientifically proven concept, or refuse to consider one that may not be proven, simply because it isn't compatible with some part of the OT.

      I believe all men are equal, I have no prejudice against gay people - such things seem, to me, completely contradictory to most other parts of Christianity.

      And every so often things happen to me which reaffirm my faith, regardless of what would currently seem logical.

      But I still haven't found any geeks who agree with me, but I don't really have long term contact with many and I never really ask most, so I don't really know.

      So yeah, I hope I've helped some of you who are tearing your hair out at the very thought of religion understand why I'm like this.
    • essjay, on 10/12/2007, -11/+35Wow, I stopped reading the article as soon as I saw "Famous Atheists/Agnostics" as if they are the same thing. Unfortunately, a number of comments above this one just reinforce my feeling that most people don't know the difference between the two.
    • Yorn, on 10/12/2007, -21/+10I find it hard to believe a true geek would bother with issues such as faith having a huge impact on their life. It's one thing to be a Christian, deist, or atheist, but it's another to actually make it your life's passion to further those beliefs on others. Religion is a crutch, it's used to help you get through tough times and provide solace on your place in this existence. Geeks are far too concerned with tinkering with physical objects to evangelize, be it Christianity, Judaism, Buddism, Hinduism, Islam, or Atheism.

      I'm a fan of what Dawkins said once, "As a Christian, you've denied all other gods save one. I just go one God further."

      While I like what Dawkins has to say, in the realm of programming it goes like this:
      Astrologist (Or humans in BSG): Define $num_of_gods = 12
      Christianity: Define $num_of_gods = 1
      Atheism (or Dawkins version at least): Define $num_of_gods = 0

      My question would be, why do we have to globally define it? Why can't we just let people believe their own thing as long as they keep it to themselves?

      Yes, I know this is techincally being an Agnostic, but it's possible for someone to believe in a God personally but still be opposed to the idea of defining $num_of_gods on a GLOBAL level in the program that is our legal system or even universe.
    • agentofchange, on 10/12/2007, -21/+23because Jocks are always Evangelical Assholes...
      Theres your answer.
    • MatttK, on 10/12/2007, -5/+42bobslaede (and a few others) got it right. Everybody else needs to hop off the atheist bandwagon and check a dictionary. Atheist DOES mean that you DO NOT BELIEVE in a god. Theist means you believe in a god. Monotheist means you believe in ONE god. Polytheist means you believe in n gods. AGNOSTIC means you don't know either way.

      The problem is that society believes that you're an atheist if you don't believe in one of the major religions. For example, since I am agnostic, my Christian relatives all believe that I am an atheist. If you don't believe in the ONLY god, you must be an atheist, right? Wrong.

      I think many geeks are agnostic, not atheist. Often when "atheists" on digg start going on about what they believe, they actually mean that they're agnostic. Don't use the false label society ignorantly has given you.
    • sir1real, on 10/12/2007, -14/+62@foxifiednutjob
      "ATHEISTS DON'T CLAIM "THERE IS NO GOD" "

      Then what DO you call someone who believes "There is no God?"

      Please find a dictionary and look up two words: atheist and agnostic. You really need to understand the difference in order to have a meaningful discussion of these issues rather than adding confusion.
    • nerditup, on 10/12/2007, -23/+28because we're smarter than the average bear
    • gasconne, on 10/12/2007, -10/+11@vertinox: Religion is an excuse for wars committed in the name of greed, and always has been. The Crusades were a religious veneer placed on a desire to fatten church and royal coffers. The Troubles in Ireland started as a land grab masquerading as a campaign to make the Irish better Roman Catholics (yep, it started that far back). Wars were fought before Christianity came along, too.

      And there's the kicker with the nonsense surrounding atheist arguments about religion. Polytheism is dismissed with the same language as monotheism, when so few atheists have seriously considered polytheistic approaches. Most talk as if the system requires humanity to be spoiled rotten by an act-on-command entity. Your parents didn't give you a pony on demand, and the gods won't, either. Sorry to burst your bubbles.
    • andyrobo60, on 10/12/2007, -11/+9"geeks are not atheists simply because they may know "more" but also because they choose to think differently" I think it would be better to say "geeks are not atheists simply because they may know "more" but also because they choose to think "more"".
    • jmgrogg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22@ Jonty
      I just thought I'd let you know that you are not alone. I hold very similar beliefs (though I don't completely write off the possibility that God didn't do it exactly as Genesis says, he is God after all, and if he is all powerful he could do it that way and make it look otherwise, but that's neither here nor there). You are not alone, and I suspect that as the younger generations begin to mature you will see more Christians like us, Christians who are not afraid of reconciling God and science, who recognize that it's not how things happened that is important, but why they happened.
    • TheMidnight, on 10/12/2007, -18/+19Rice burner: "I put stickers on my car to add 50 HP."

      Geek: "I am an atheist to add 50 points to my IQ."

      Yeah, right.
    • Reap, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15I think there is a fine line here- Personally, I consider myself an athiest and do not believe in god. However, I would be open to concrete proof of a god's existance- This might be what many people mean when they say they don't assert that there is no god; they believe that there is not, but they are open to logical arguments to why there may be one.
    • tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18@Jonty
      I agree with you. I too am a Christian, but a libertarian. I have no problem with gay rights and I especially don't want the government regulating morality!
    • tom2275, on 10/12/2007, -30/+11This is easy. Geeks are smart, and smart people tend to think the way they want, not the way their taught. I think it also goes to a deeper nature of people that require answers to explain their universe. Geeks tend to be OK not knowing everything, because you get used to always having to learn something new. You're aware that there is much more in the realm of the unknown than in the known. People who are religous believe they understand how our universe works, which they don't.

      Truth is, there is no GOD.

      Therefore:
      smart = atheist
      dumb = religous

    • AshTR, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12The 91 percent of Americans believing in God and 3 percent being atheist poll comes to mind.
    • nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -14/+6"I would be open to concrete proof of a god's existance"
      that always cracks me up to hear that.
      For a lot of my friends thats just an excuse not to search themselves. they say they would be open to proof but they have never read the Bible or Koran, not saying theres proof in there (since I havent read all of both either) but dont say you'll beleive if theres proof and then never look for proof, just be honest.
    • whaambulance, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I tend to fall into the same boat as most here. I consider myself agnostic for the most part. I was born and raised a roman catholic but early in my teenage years shrugged off religion. I certainly do not believe in any of the organized religions and the notion there is some almighty being watching our every move and judging us. When you look at the sheer number of religions in the world, each one with millions of people believing without question that theirs is the true religion, how can you take any single religion seriously? I keep the idea that there is something beyond this in the back of my mind, because frankly rotting in the ground with no afterlife scares the bejesus out of me :/
    • radicalathiest, on 10/12/2007, -16/+7I need proof before I start paying my 10% to pedophiles who subjugate women.

      http://flushaholybook.com
    • kmk2006, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1www.rzim.org/radio
    • nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22

      @tom
      that would be a good point except that its not true.
      alot of Christians realize they dont know everything about how the universe works and alot of atheist think they know how its ran, and visa-versa.
      The man that started the human Genome project is religious and I highly recomend you listen to this interview with him on npr so you stop saying things that are just as judgmental as fundamentalist are.

      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9207913

      p.s. "Truth is, there is no GOD.",
      -I thought that people like you realize you dont know the deeper mysteries of the way the universe runs and that makes you better or "smarter"? I'm confused, so you do know the answers or not?
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15I have met many Christians who have very strong immoral desires, whether it be thievery, lying, cheating, violence, etc. In talking with them, their belief in God and, more specifically, their belief in hell is what keeps them in check. I wonder, as it seems that the belief in theism, the supernatural, and/or the equivalent of heaven and hell, appear almost universally across the planet and cultures; whether theism (to easily package the concept) is not a valuable creation of evolution. I really wonder what some of these religious people would be like if they didn't have a mythology that kept them in check.
      I think, often times, many Atheists think that their tendency to be ethical and thoughtful is normal and average. However, in talking with and knowing many, many religious people, a good percentage of them (maybe 5% - 10%) are, in many ways, caged predatory animals. And religion is the cage.
    • nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11@radical, wow way to generalize based on the actions of a very very very small minority , can I say all atheist cut themselves since 5 of them that I knew in high school did?
      or are you just as bigoted as those who you are against?
      p.s. Im a Christian and I have never given any money to any religious organization that subjugates women nor have i given any money to pedophiles.
      And if you think that the bible says you have to give a 10% tithe to your church, well your just plain wrong. sorry =)
    • samnetwork, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Because we believe in the internet.
    • andrewsb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@sir1real
      Terms such as weak and strong atheism may be used to denote absence of belief in a deity and positive belief in no deity, respectively. --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

    • Kratisto, on 10/12/2007, -10/+9Religion just doesn't make any logical sense, and if nothing else, most of the geeks/nerds I've met are capable of logical thought. Simply put, without being raised by religious parents, most people wouldn't cling so zealously to their beliefs, because there are no logical grounds for a belief in God. You can fake all the logical ways to back up your belief, but where is the origin?
    • Stunn, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23Well, I'm going to risk being unpopular... again. This post is generally concerning this "brights" crap. I haven't heard of it up until today. I'm not going to digg anyone down who disagrees with me.

      I don't believe in anything and I hate being classified as an atheist. Why should I live my life with a classification that generates stereotypes? For some odd reason, you have to be classified with some organization.

      "Do you believe in God?"
      "Nope."
      "So... you're an atheist?"
      "Nope."
      "Well, you have to be something"
      "No... I don't."
      Then I have to start getting into your mom jokes so they'll start leaving me alone.

      Now, what the hell is up with this Brights junk? I don't believe in a super being and I don't "define myself negatively in reference to religion." I just don't believe in a God. I don't give a damn if you do or if you don't. I don't want to be classified. I see things the way they are too, but don't drag me in your silly internet religion.

      "The Brights' umbrella is large, very large. For example, Brights can be agnostics, rationalists, skeptics, atheists, objectivists, igtheists, and so on. There are any of a number of self-identity labels they might apply to themselves. No label at all need apply...just plain "nonreligious" or "uninterested in religion" without any real consideration beyond that might be how a person is seeing himself/herself."

      My goodness. What the hell? I get it now. Has these Brights done anything useful for our society yet? Whats the whole goddamn point?
      "Hey look. I'm open minded and I'm naturalistic, I wanna be a Bright." Then what? Huh? Whats the point? Maybe if I was allowed in the forums without joining a 21st century religion, I would know. Its sorta a religious affliction but everyone has different beliefs? It is so stupid I can't even explain myself correctly. Why do you need to be a part of this? I think if you need to part of a silly organization to prove to people that you have realistic views on society, then I don't care what you think about organized religion in general. If you want to be with a bunch of people who have naturalistic views, you probably can find a forum. Why do you have to be classified as something?

      "I'm an atheist, what are you?"
      "I'm not a Catholic, or a Muslim, or a Jew. I'm a Bright"
      "Oh... you're part of a online religion. Good for you buddy."

      I think you should just be yourself. Being a part of some phony religion isn't going to change things. Its silly.

      Also, I strongly dislike people who have ideas but they don't do anything about it. I can imagine that the Brights' forums are full of ideas. The user just types it out, sits on their ass, and waits for what other people have to say.
    • mtomovich, on 10/12/2007, -9/+19that article sucked
    • nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6@krat
      "Religion just doesn't make any logical sense"

      in evolution morals and compassion for and many many human traits dont make sense either. thought is something intangible, not physical, in evolution everything should be able to be drawn since it came from something physical.
      so draw me when human thought, emotions, etc... developed.
      and alot of things in science dont make logical sense instead of studied deeply, hmmmm, just like religion?

      (p.s. before you all digg me down, I do beleive in evolution, im just making a point)
    • zdiggler, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14@charli2na
      I thought geeks were the ones who write in "jedi" as their religion on census information.

      no those are nerds.
    • craig4, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5@foxifiednutjob
      I just wanted to say that is one of the best put comments about the whole atheist beliefs.
    • 1021, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I really don't even care and in generally, this is the way most geeks are. They don't classify themselves as either or theist/atheist.
    • nixr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28I love all the references to the fact that geeks are smart, therefore they aren't religious. There can't possibly be any smart religious people, right? They're all gap-toothed yokels aren't they? I am an agnostic and even I find this stereotype extremely condescending. The fact is there are plenty of engineers, scientists, lawyers, doctors, judges, and professors who are all far more intelligent than your average geek and are also deeply religious. So I fail to see where intelligence and education even play a role in this debate. If anything it's the WAY geeks think and not the fact that they can that play a role in their religiosity or lack thereof.
    • IMustBeEmo, on 10/12/2007, -20/+12Because we have ***** brains
    • nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2@Imustbeemo

      gee wilakers ime shur gladd that mie naybor wuz hear 2 reed me yore poest size me jist a poor uneduka..unejukat... dumb kristin
    • azAZ09, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5cthulu ftagn!
    • marcus553, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Interesting article, but primarily just because if reveals the Digg population (if you ignore who tends to answer polls). I would be more interested if it correlated this with where Digg users live and their age.

      I've been a professional in a geek field for almost 20 years, and considered a geek/nerd before that. I've worked in the US and overseas. If I were to evaluate the "religiosity" of people I've met, I'd say the vast majority of them believed in a God while still believing in the findings of science. I'd go further to say those I've worked with [comprised of high-level geeks and high-level military] mostly identified themselves as Christians. Most had Masters or Doctorate degrees, as well.

      If I were to try to generalize those that were not religious, I would say they were either young (less than 25) or lived on the US east or west coast. Hence why I'd be interested in knowing age and location for the Diggers.
    • circa1015, on 10/12/2007, -7/+37I am an agnostic, and I've heard more crap come out of the atheists on this board than any of the christians.

      Atheism DOES mean that you do not believe in a god. You aren't apathetic about it; your position is that a god does not exist. That is why there is an 'a' in front of that 'theism'.

      The bright movement is so grossly pretentious, I have to laugh at anybody that associates themselves with it. Why not just call it the "we're so much ***** smarter than you" movement.

      The reason that I chose to consider myself agnostic as opposed to atheist is that atheism is doing the exact same thing that any religion is doing: claiming knowledge about the supernatural. Obviously there is no proof that anything supernatural exists, but that is all, a lack of proof. To claim that god doesn't exist means that your frame of knowledge extends beyond the natural universe, and is at that point, ironically, a faith based statement.

      To say that all Christians are dumb/stupid/whatever is not only intolerant, but ignorant. Now, when we start getting into the realm of fundamentalists, who are blatantly disregarding scientific evidence in order to support their own beliefs, that is a different issue. But most Christians would gladly admit that the way that they live their life is predicated on how they interpret the world around them, and that their religion is simply an articulation of their belief system or moral code. I cannot fault anybody for that.
    • oxdeltaxo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2I just follow dark spirituality, fewer moral and ethical dilemmas than religion. No retarded rules to abide by.

      Here's a faq, http://www.darkspirituality.com/faq.php

      Have fun kids.
    • cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3@foxifiednutjob - I guess LOVE doesn't exist either, then. Do you love your mother/father/girlfriend/boyfriend/husband/wife? Prove it. I'm not taking a side here, just presenting you with another unsolvable problem. Also, you can't prove a positive, only a negative.
    • azAZ09, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15I like this quote:
      Stephen Henry Roberts, Historian, (1901-71) wrote: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

    • MagicBobert, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ Jonty

      I feel the same way.
    • mindcrime, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4[quote]Please find a dictionary and look up two words: atheist and agnostic. You really need to understand the difference in order to have a meaningful discussion of these issues rather than adding confusion.[/quote]

      It's actually even deeper than it seems at first. People need to consider the difference between Strong Atheists and Weak Atheists. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism for more.

      And then on the agnostic side, you can have theistic / deistic agnostics - who
      believe there is "some sort of God" but believe man can know nothing about the nature of that God - or atheistic agnostics; who arguably
      overlap with weak Atheists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism


    • Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I thought geeks relied on knowledge of computers and technology
      and in order for logic to work
      you still need to put faith into evidence
      look at a crime scene someone can change the evidence
      and you could theorize with not knowing what really happened



    • Jonty, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@ magicbobert, tech42er, jmgrogg (and everyone else that digged me up)

      Wow. I was actually half-expecting to be dugg down and get a few negative responses but I get 28 diggs and you guys! It's great to know there's people who think like me (or don't bury based on opinion). Thanks - that's really cheered me up.

      NB: Methinks Digg needs pages in comments - this is taking a stupidly long time to load.
    • otomo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I am an atheist. I don't believe in god, christian, hindu, allah or otherwise. That is it. There is no more to it than that.

      As a person with a scientific viewpoint, I know I can neither prove nor disprove his existence. Neither can any of my fellow man. So just like UFOs I choose not to believe in a thing that has no way of being independently proven.

      Notice that I am not agnostic since I do not believe there "might" be a god but we won't be able to understand him. I find this to be the height of self deprecation. To say we cannot understand something that operates within the same universe as us strikes me as admitting you aren't capable of knowing something.

      Kind of like how Newton said the motion of planets was obviously due to a higher power. When really it was just some more calculus. He stopped looking for an answer by saying it was something bigger.

      I don't know everything. I don't claim to. I won't know everything. But I also don't believe in things that cannot be proven. Once it can be proven, I will believe in it. I make no claim to the absolute "truth" of if it does exist and I don't believe, etc... If that is the case I am choosing my fate based on logic. It is my fate to choose, if I am wrong I fully accept I will burn in hell as an unbeliever. Such is my choice. Just think though, what if there is no god and this whole discussion is pointless? I would rather invest my life on earth into things I can get enjoyment out of. That is all. :)

      fin
    • Agret, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@cawpin
      Pheromones & chemicals in the brain
    • Arnos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"The most dangerous people on the planet are those who are convinced that they know the truth."
      -- I reckon that was a jab against religious types, but hmmm I wonder if scientists could possibly fall into this category?
    • thatsmyaibo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Religion is the source of just about every conflict."

      I actually believe it is the interpretation of the religion that causes conflict. No religious book preaches war on other religions but the way a group will interpret it can lead to problems. If used correctly, I believe religion can help people better themselves.

      I am not religious.
    • slythfox, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Non-religious vs atheist.

      Atheists have a strong(?) set of beliefs without the involvement of a god... And non-religious people have some other set of beliefs (perhaps weaker than that of Atheists).. The two are subtly different.
    • otomo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Arnos: How do people believe science is to know truth? Science is the method we use to learn about the world around us. Scientists believe in the data that repeated testing and inferences grant.

      Conviction versus faith, evidence versus truth. They aren't the same and people associate extra bits to the latter of the two that shouldn't be there.
    • twangbender, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"It might make sense to think that many such geeks simply find something as simple as a creator an overly simplistic explanation for something so elegant."

      -I think that pretty much sums it up
    • macmcrae, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Let me take a crack at this one .... Is it because they have enough grey matter to see through what is little more than superstitious bronze age horse *****.
    • Tanath, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"Would there be no crime? No. Would there be less rape, murder, theft, and wars? No. So why do people feel like attributing these problem to religion?"

      Studies of societal health show strong correlations between ("organic") atheism & societal health, and vice versa with religion. The only factor that's improved with more religion is suicide rates.
      http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html

      "Just look at evolution. It pretty much is what sparked racism and and genocide."

      What? Hardly. Racism has been around a lot longer than the concept of evolution. But people who hold to a belief will often use whatever they can to justify/support it (a la religion).

      "It's not religion that cause problems it's men."

      Religion does cause problems. Certainly not all problems, but no one worth paying attention to is claiming such. Not even Dawkins (he contested the title "The Root of All Evil?").
    • Xspire, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2let me answer. Geeks reject God and to get back at them he randomly picks a name out of a at at the end of each week and curses that not believer by turning him/her into a social parhias or geeks. I guess some atheists are just good gamblers and haven't been picked yet. tsk tsk they may never get to play WoW with that kind of luck.
    • FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4""Even if you abolished Religion, there would still be basic cultural differences that could be used against people.""
      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Yeah but it would get rid of allot of the BS hypocrisy! Thats a good start.
    • FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7""Then what DO you call someone who believes "There is no God?" Please find a dictionary and look up two words: atheist and agnostic. You really need to understand the difference in order to have a meaningful discussion of these issues rather than adding confusion.""
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Theist = believes in a deity of some sort
      Atheist = does not believe in said deity

      If you don't believe, then you're an atheist. Simple as that, really.

      Oh, and BTW:
      Gnostic: believes that they have "special knowledge" of spiritual matters
      Agnostic: does not believe that; claims no special knowledge.

      Your average Christian is a Gnostic Theist. A "non-religious" person is probably a Agnostic Atheist. The hard core atheists (who claim that there is no god) are Gnostic Atheists
    • FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4""@foxifiednutjob - I guess LOVE doesn't exist either, then. Do you love your mother/father/girlfriend/boyfriend/husband/wife? Prove it. I'm not taking a side here, just presenting you with another unsolvable problem. Also, you can't prove a positive, only a negative.""
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Love DOES exist and It doesn't need a "Bible-God" to justify it.
    • mv10, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Because Nerds are smarter..??
      Because Nerds are unhappy with life and want to blame someone??
      Because Nerds want to be unique and different???

      There are many answers.. Im not gonna generalize
    • acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3nestafett said:
      "p.s. Im a Christian and I have never given any money to any religious organization that subjugates women nor have i given any money to pedophiles. And if you think that the bible says you have to give a 10% tithe to your church, well your just plain wrong. sorry =)"

      You're a pretty "lukewarm" Christian, then. If you're going to claim the religion as your own, and especially be so smug about it, you damned well better know what you're basing your morals &etc upon.




      This is straight out of chapter 14 of Deuteronomy (KJV Bible, btw):

      "22 Every year thou shalt set aside the tithes of all thy fruits that the earth bringeth forth, 23 And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose, that his name may be called upon therein, the tithe of thy corn, and thy wine, and thy oil, and the firstborn of thy herds and thy sheep: that thou mayst learn to fear the Lord thy God at all times. 24 But when the way and the place which the Lord thy God shall choose, are far off, and he hath blessed thee, and thou canst not carry all these things thither, 25 Thou shalt sell them all, and turn them into money, and shalt carry it in thy hand, and shalt go to the place which the Lord shall choose:


      Here's more from chapter 26:

      "22: Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year. 23: And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always. 24: And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee: 25: Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose: 26: And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household, 27: And the Levite that is within thy gates; thou shalt not forsake him; for he hath no part nor inheritance with thee. 28: At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates: 29: And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest"


      And let's not forget the classic bit from Acts chapter 5:

      "1: But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, 2: And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. 3: But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4: Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. 5: And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. 6: And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. 7: And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. 8: And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. 9: Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. 10: Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. 11: And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things."


      Tithing (and apparantly outright Communism) is very much to be found in your ancient text of choice...the fact that you aren't aware of that, and are in fact arguing to the contrary shows that you better get "hot" there, Christian, or else your God will spit you out (Revelation 3:16).
    • Talisian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ digitallysick

      A bright actually sounds more like a Taoist. Taoism fits very nicely with science and is basically a understanding of natural laws as they apply to humans (or anything else,) whether physically or as a part of a social system.
    • logancbeeman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5im sorry to say this to you dude but its nice that you have beliefs and everything but ummmm
      you cant just go around basing your beliefs on what you would like to be true
    • EdwardsNH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Meez

      Screw you paganist, IPU (Invisible Pink Unicorn) was around long before your false god. You new age freaks make me feel all creepy inside.
    • ipodsweatshop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Because most people go to religion for answers, smart people find them in science. You start learning that all of the things "God" did in the Bible can easily be explained with logic. You start realizing that the Bible was written by people 2000 years ago when they thought the earth was flat and needed a religion to tell them not to sacrifice other people.

      I mean, come one. But I tell people I worship Zeus and the other real gods. Honestly it's no crazier than Christianity/Islam/Judaism/Hindusim/Buddism/etc. People who follow religion aren't strong enough to accept that there is no second chance, no afterlife, no nothing because they're afraid that they won't make this one life worth it. So they waste it following someone else's book.
    • drunkenrobot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@foxifiednutjob
      "ATHEISTS DON'T CLAIM "THERE IS NO GOD"

      That's Agnostic, you dumbass.

      I'm an Atheist and I KNOW there is no god.
    • lcohiomatty86, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3the results from this "survey" ARE NOT ACCURATE!! it is done by a voluntary poll, not a scientific one.

      however, the article does make a good point that in general, the "anti-religion" voice tends to be very strong on sites such as digg and slashdot.
    • Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@joshuapechter: "maybe we need a new term like non-theist for those that simply don't believe in organized religion."

      The Greek "a-" prefix better fits the Greek-derived "theist" than the French "non-"; the meaning is identical. So your new term should be "atheist" - but, guess what!, it already is!!
    • liminaldust, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1this is the longest comment spam I've seen
  • shad0walker, on 10/12/2007, -26/+226I'm gonna say geeks prefer to know how things work instead of saying that everything is sorted out by god and we don't need to figure things out.
    • clockworkORANGE, on 10/12/2007, -37/+17Yeah, geeks are smart enough to learn and realize how the world really is.
    • pixelmixer, on 10/12/2007, -7/+41I think you're right there. We see things more logically, i think, seeing as we deal with computers all the time, where logic is 99% of the time correct. The world around us seems to reflect this view (eg. gravity) where things can be made sense of using finite math. To us, believing in something supernatural that we have never experienced is like trying to believe one day gravity will stop working.
    • dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -12/+20I'm going to say that geeks are burdened with a greater amount of knowledge about the world around them.

      An analogy: I used to be fine about flying on airplanes, and never made so much as a grimace when I was boarding an airplane. As I grew older and learned more and more about the world and how things worked, I found that commercial jetliners, while working on fairly steadfast principles (aerodynamics), are also a veritable miracle of human innovation. Millions of parts, all necessary, working together for one coherent whole. Should any brake down catastrophically, the plane is doomed.

      It's that burden of knowledge that forces people to take a harder look at the world, and realize that it's not peachy and magical. It's downright astonishing and scary. Death and the almighty are no exception.
    • ezweave, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13There is a fundamental difference, though, in belief of the supernatural and a belief in a/an God/god.

      Gedanken in nature, as are all such things, but suppose a being exists in another dimension (say one that can manipulate time, of course this is just being crude for the sake of brevity). That is not necessarily supernatural, just unfounded. Yet so much of "geek-logic" is just poor pragmatism. The rejection of a god for these reasons could also be used to reject beauty, good music, a good book, etc. Not everything has yet been comprehended on a process level: vis-a-vis a god or some alien being outside of comprehension is not necessarily supernatural, just not understood.

      Gravity, as we understood it for hundreds of years was an inexplainable affect. We could observe it (-9.8, universal gravitation using classical physics, etc), but gravity as a side effect of a "curvature" of space was only proposed formally in General Relativity, which was not validated until the 60s/70s by astronomers observing Mercury (and may still be wrong, Einstein was way off on quantum mechanics).

      Just saying, not all geeks are really as logical as they would think. Objectivism is not as important as "being different" to people. All that said, agnosticism is actually more logical.
    • Bleeblaow, on 10/12/2007, -17/+7@dclowd9901

      You sound pretty cocky for a guy who can't spell "break" correctly.
    • Bleeblaow, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15"All that said, agnosticism is actually more logical."

      If you're saying it is more logical than atheism, then you clearly are avoiding the fact that the two are not mutually exclusive.
    • ezweave, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12@Bleeblaow

      I disagree... if you say "Atheists believe there is no god" and "Agnostics believe there may or may not be a god" they are, because one allows for possibility, one does not. As soon as an agnostics affirms that there is "no god", he is no longer an agnostic (or at least fails the broad definition). Hence, they are exclusive.

      Shorter:
      "Is there a god/God?"
      Atheist says: "no"
      Agnostic says: "I don't know"

      More specific types of Agnosticism are quite different: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic#Qualifying_agnosticism

      There is the "I do/don't believe there is a God, but I can't know so I do/don't" alters which "formal" definition you mean. I more speaking to the broad case.
    • dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33"You sound pretty cocky for a guy who can't spell "break" correctly."

      Oh noes! One word in my 136-word post was misspelled! Please, disregard my point entirely. It would be completely appropriate.

      By the by, I dugg you up, because you are, indeed, correct.
    • trghpy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Nerds have a hard time with faith.
      If nerds had faith we wouldn't need error control/correction.
    • StarManta, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22'"Is there a god/God?"
      Atheist says: "no"
      Agnostic says: "I don't know"
      -----
      There are a couple different types of agnosticism. One says "I don't know", and the other says "I don't believe it is possible to know."
    • mlr263, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6"I'm gonna say geeks prefer to know how things work instead of saying that everything is sorted out by god and we don't need to figure things out."

      What an asinine statement.

    • ScottMitchell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I think this describes things pretty accurately:
      http://xkcd.com/c242.html
    • omnidugg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2I really cannot believe that this has made the front page. It beggars belief. The article is rich with value loaded statements and expressions, and yes, while it may appeal to the sheep who chose to follow the currently popular view, it lacks any intellectual rigour

      I'm sure the vast majority of people of faith and intellect would back me up on this.

      If you want to read something that is a) based in fact, and b) will blow your mind, read this: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=228913&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=18564171 Yes its about 3000 words (2987 to be exact) but it is the sort of intelligent, insightful* comment that actually makes you stand back and think. The posted article does not. It is pure bias, pure propaganda, and (to be honest) pure *****.

      I'm really angry to see this on the front-page of digg. Seriously, there are much more important points to be made than slandering and misrepresenting peoples viewpoints in order to make the front-page.

      (and yes, I am the sad loser who posted this http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=228913&cid=18565839 After an hour or so of reflection, I realised that actually the initial implications of the /. post aren't necesserily true. But it made me think. My view is now a lot different from what it was after I finished reading Dawkins. My personal opinion is now that sure, a 'personal god' is founded on ignorance and superstition, but... make your own mind up. Don't follow the crowd.)

      EDIT; I'm not the most articulate person you will read on digg, but seriously, its worth checking out, especially if you are (as i was) blindly promoting atheism in the same way that people blindly promote religion.

      /rant


      *(don't read this until you've read the article... but yes, it is highly manipulative... it lulls you into a false sense of security and then ***** with your mind)
    • Rodzirra, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Regarding the atheist "believing" there is no god... First, someone has to define "god." As soon as something logically impossible is included in the definition, it's safe for one to say, "There is no god."

      So far, every definition I've heard for "god" has followed that scenario. Hence, I'm an atheist.
    • Ahnteis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I'd say part of it is ego. Who wants to think that there's something they can't understand? Not a geek.
    • fulldecent, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Would someone please classify this belief:

      "there is just as likely to be a god as pasta controlling everything, thus i reject such ridiculous belifs"
    • cthellis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16@ ezweave

      It is more logical, perhaps, but it can be to ridiculous extent. (In this case only mitigated by the scale of importance and number of people who are believers.)

      "Is there a God?"
      Atheist: "No, I do not believe so."
      Agnostic: "There is no way to know for sure."

      Now, let's kick things down a level of abstraction: "Do humans and animals reincarnate after death?"
      Atheist-regarding-reincarnation: "No, I do not believe so."
      Agnostic-regarding-reincarnation: "There is no way to know for sure."

      How about another? "Is there a serpent so big it encircles the globe and can grasp its' own tail, and when the end time comes will come out of the ocean and poison the sky?"
      Atheist-regarding-Norse-religion-no-wait-we-call-it-mythology-now: "No, I do not believe so."
      Agnostic-regarding-Norse-religion-no-wait-we-call-it-mythology-now: "There is no way to know for sure.

      Or another? "Was Huitzilopochtli pleased when priests cut out the heart of a human sacrifice and held it out toward the sky?"
      Atheist-regarding-Aztec-mythology: "No, I do not believe so."
      Agnostic-regarding-Aztec-mythology: "There is no way to know for sure."

      What if we leave high-scale supernaturalism alone a sec and hop down into regular-old-supernaturalism? "Are there unicorns?"
      A-unicorn-ist: "No, I do not believe so."
      Agnosticornic: "There is no way to know for sure."

      ...eventually we get to the patently ridiculous: "Are there invisible lemurs that live in everyone's butts that are the sole cause of indigestion?"
      "Atheist"-regarding-butt-lemurs: "No, I do not believe so."
      "Agnostic"-regarding-butt-lemurs: "There is no way to know for sure."


      Certainly the answers at the top of this make agnosticism seem perfectly reasonable and more logical, but the further down you go, the more people will nod their heads with those who simply do not believe it to be the case. I mean, not only is there no EVIDENCE of butt lemurs, but we also KNOW causes of indigestion; evidence to the contrary! So... at what point does this "turn of logic" become evident? IS it "obvious?" Or is logic being applied in the same manner, but it's the frame of reference and scale of importance that shifts one's view?

      I mean, remain agnostic about EVERYTHING is still "technically" more logical; I mean, one can CONCEIVE of a situation that can explain butt lemurs too (they're invisible AND massless extra-dimensional creatures that happened to think lemurs are cute, so took that form when they crossed over, and we make good hosts. It's THEY who really like spicy food, though, so everything we think is going on is just byproducts and coincidence), but that doesn't make the "I don't know" any less ridiculous.

      But I ask again... what determines when something is "obviously the logical answer" or not?
    • craig4, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I didn't know you needed to know how to spell words to be cocky.
    • Bleeblaow, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@ezweave

      I disagree... if you say "Atheists believe there is no god" and "Agnostics believe there may or may not be a god" they are.

      Indeed, but that's not what atheists "believe." Atheists believe nothing by definition. An atheist is a person without religion. A person admit that they can never know whether or not there is a god and, at the same time, acknowledge that they are without a religion (don't attend church, prescribe to some set of beliefs, or whatever else constitutes for religiosity).

      By pure definition, they are NOT mutually exclusive. Yet I find that the vast majority of people I've spoken think that an atheist is a person who flat-out denies the existence of god, rather than the true definition which is simply a person without any gods. If we take the definition you give, certainly they're mutually exclusive, but your definition is junk.
    • Bleeblaow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1And I meant to throw quotes around that first sentence but did not get to edit it in time.
    • TrevorBradley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4OK, Agnostic vs Atheist folks, go pick up a copy of Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion", read it, and come back here in a couple of weeks. Or just grab the excellent audio book, read by Richard himself and available at the nearest Bittorrent Site Near You (tm).

      Dawkins proposes a 7 point scale. 1 is an absolute theist who *knows* god is real. 7 is an absolute atheist who *knows* god is not real (exceptionally rare). Technically anywhere between 2 and 6 are atheists, but Dawkins suggests that 2s and 6s are de facto theists and atheists. Dawkins himself says he's a 6, which by some definitions above makes him an agnostic.
    • cthellis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6A scale is a good idea; certainly it's better than saying "there are agnostics and atheists and that's that. Oh, and no crossovers."

      I am very much an atheist, as I do not believe there is a god--or at least an intelligent entity of such a supernatural scale as could beget the world, the universe, etc. There really isn't evidence that supports THAT over other explanations, plenty of evidence that contradicts most of what people mean when they say "God," and it's by no means the "simplest answer" that one might come to when employing Occam's Razor.

      But I am also very much an agnostic, as though I may be much more hard-line against certain forms of God (say, the deity described if you believe in the whole of the Bible literally), what CAN be described as "God" (and what many people do)--which is to say that there was an intelligent, creative force behind the universe--there is absolutely no way to to DISprove. (Hard to disprove pretty much anything; certainly not concepts of that scale and abstract, boundry-defying nature.)

      I am very much willing to change my mind, situation depending. It might take MORE proof with me than with other folks (even other self-professed atheists), but if a giant dude shouted "I AM GOD!" to the whole world and crushed the moon in his left hand, well then... consider me a believer! (And heck, there may be a part inside me that wouldn't believe he was "God" per se (of the universe-creating kind, that is. He might just be a petulant super-entity), but he'd certainly be "God-enough-as-makes-no-nevermind.")

      One can be both agnostic and atheist. One can be both agnostic and theist. (Plenty of people believe in God, but don't believe we can remotely quantify or understand "Godliness" with our human frame of reference. That our understanding, and our scripture, may be only have the tiniest glimpse of divinity.) One can certainly be gnostic and theist (think "fundamentalist" and "literalist") and one can be both gnostic and atheist. (Those who TRULY "believe there is NOT a god"--rather than do not believe there IS one--and cannot be persuaded otherwise. Though I think those sort are extremely few and far between, as they'd be a 7 on Dawkins' scale, and even Dawkins has stated plainly that there COULD be evidence presented that would make him change his mind. He doesn't believe there WILL be, and he certainly doesn't make any alterations to his life due to that possibility, but... to admit otherwise would be the height of irrationality.)

      At any rate, getting people to understand such a scale would be harder to present and be fairly time-consuming. ;-) I prefer to think it's easier to explain things by their word roots.

      "Do you believe in the existence of gods/deities, or do you NOT believe in the existence of gods/deities?"
      "Do you think it is possible to have certain KNOWLEDGE about gods/deities, or do you believe it is inherently UNKNOWABLE?"

      Two separate questions with two separate answers.
    • FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5BORN AND RAISED GOD FREE!

      no God has played any role in my birth or life and I am glad of it.

      I love life and I have no fear of death.
    • UCFMark, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Religion explains why the universe exists, not how it works. I'm a geek and a Christian. Moreover, I consider myself a scientist and view everything in terms of logic. God is not an illogical concept. In my opinion, it's much more logical to assume that God created the universe than to assume that the Universe just always has existed or suddenly came into existence. What (or who) caused the big bang?
      Many geeks just don't want to believe in God because belief in God is intrinsic to the established society, and many geeks want to think of themselves as being in the same vein as Richard Stallman and the like. Basically, they want to be rebellious.
      Just my opinion. I know that if anything, I'll probably get dugg down for this. I don't care.
    • cthellis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"What (or who) caused the big bang?"

      That's kinda the point right now. It could be a who OR a what. Why does it need to possess intelligence and have specific direction? That's certainly not the simplest thing to think.

      And if it does NOT... if the "First Cause" is simply making "God" or "the Event" or "an energy source" effectively the same, than one's concept of the divine has been abstracted past the point of any usefulness anyway. At what point, then, would it MATTER if you technically call it "God" or not?

      Most people believe life has a purpose--one given by divine inspiration and even intervention--but if the answer to major specifics (like: is there an afterlife? Does God play an active role in humanity's development and direction on Earth?) is "I don't believe so," then at what point does it MATTER what one thinks? If your sole concern is whether an intelligence was behind the creation of the universe or not and that the entity's involvement doesn't pass beyond that, you're more arguing semantics and posing amusing philosophical questions, rather than believing in something life-altering.

      And that's certainly not what most people mean when they speak about God or their beliefs in the divine.
    • WocEnasni, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"Why does it need to possess intelligence and have specific direction?"

      The whole idea actually lends itself to something that has/had intelligence.

      Following the Principle of Sufficient reason (a common idea in philosophy) everything must have an explanation; it has a causal explanation, it's a logical necessity, or it has a psychological explanation.

      For something to have a causal explanation there needs to be a a physical event that happened previously. If the big bang was the beginning of all matter, then by definition it can't have a causal explanation because it would require a privileged point in time.

      The universe is also not a logical necessity. If there had been even a slightly different amount of matter following the big bang, the universe would have either expanded indefinitely without enough gravitational pull to form any planets or stars, or had too much gravitational pull and collapsed in right away on itself. This just shows that the universe itself is contingent on things and therefor not a necessity.

      So if you're trying to logically explain why the universe was created it leaves one possibility, that it was the intended action of something. I'm not saying its the Biblical God, or any other all knowing deity, just that there was something who wanted it created.

      There are some scientists who will go and point out string theory, or ideas about multiverses to explain the universe in the way that evolution explains life on earth. The only problem, is that unlike evolution we have no proof that either of those theories are even remotely correct, which leaves them with as much explanatory power as the idea that it was created by something. It does however add complexity to the problem, which according to Ockham's razor makes it the less likely solution
    • cthellis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"So if you're trying to logically explain why the universe was created it leaves one possibility, that it was the intended action of something."

      You're begging the question a bit too much here. Using the word "created" is already looking towards a creator--toward a specific direction.

      Why "created" and not "happened?" Why is the event that we recognize as "the beginning of the universe" considered the overarching "beginning" and not a state change from the rules of what previously "was" to what now "is?" Solids and liquids and gasses have their own traits and operate under their own rules (though we, of course, can see the overarching physical laws that govern their reactions), but they can all be different states of the same... well... "thing."

      You can, of course, say "well then, track the universes back to ALL their origin points," but then how we process time comes from our own frame of reference in THIS understood set of rules. (Which, on the whole, we don't know all about yet. ;-) ) Just as many creationists attempt to use a "the odds are inconceivable!" argument (poorly and improperly) against evolution, we don't "know the odds" about the universe, either. How, then, can you make a value judgment on what would "logically" follow? All we know is what we can see and measure from our own viewpoint, and hypothesize about anything else.

      Logic indeed does not dictate that the universe "must be;" but it most CERTAINLY does not dictate that if something "is" it needs a sentient, intelligent, directed force.
    • PAJK, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"God is not an illogical concept. In my opinion, it's much more logical to assume that God created the universe than to assume that the Universe just always has existed or suddenly came into existence. What (or who) caused the big bang?"

      I cannot let that comment ride. It's more logical to assume a magical man (and I do mean man, as in human, or human-like, because you are a christian afterall) was always in existence, but not the universe? That's moronic, and I don't mean to insult you - but that's a truly moronic stance. I just want to blow my brains out how downright DUMB people can be. It's AMAZING.
  • inv1c7u5, on 10/12/2007, -24/+91religion (and by religion, I mean religious organizations, such as catholicism, judaism, etc) are ruled by faith, and faith by nature is deemed as truth without knowledge, truth by belief, which in logical terms is completely irrational, and I dont think "geeks" are the only ones who are often atheists, but instead I just see atheism (or agnosticism) as a belief in nothing but rationality and truth, and instead of keeping a close mind about what is true and what isn't, like many if not all religions, atheism is about having an open mind about the world, and accepting it as we discover it.

    Many of the smartest people I have ever met, from fellow students to professors, are often atheists, and I think through science and the spread of information (especially through the internet) the numbers of atheists in the world is going to rise tremendously. I mean we already see it in Japan: about 65% of the entire population is atheist. Also in high GDP per capita countries such as Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, etc., and I mean, atheists have been persecuted for their beliefs ever since 400 BC with Socrates because since then, governments have NEEDED religion to control the people.

    I am very happy as an atheist to be living in such a great time like now, because personally, I think the world is going to go through a big change. Higher morals, not ruled by religion, but ruled by themselves, no more wars due to beliefs based on irrationality, and my favorite, no more ****ing church.
    • Boshow, on 10/12/2007, -23/+48It may be true that a lot of intelligent people are atheist, but in the same tone the wisest people I know are religious/spiritual. Wisdom and knowledge are different, but often go hand in hand.
    • mortigon, on 10/12/2007, -12/+62If we don't have religion to fight about, we will fight about something else - skin color, social standing, etc...
    • hdtvdust, on 10/12/2007, -21/+9The smartest peple YOU have ever met does not equal smart people.
    • Enasni1212, on 10/12/2007, -6/+39I agree with Mortigon. Religion is a great pretext for supporting hatred and ignorance, but if your stereotypical Southern-white-Christian homophobe/warmonger suddenly lost his religion, he'd still be a homophobe and a warmonger.

      Hatred doesn't need an excuse.
    • Raluph, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I think the trend is in developed countries towards atheism. On the other hand, it is those countries that we also see shrinking birthrates. The countries that have exploding growth tend to be intensely religious countries as well (China is arguable, but the point stands). So.... I would say that while atheism may be growing in developed countries, religion (in general) is here to stay.
    • DixieFighter, on 10/12/2007, -33/+2Oh dear Lord. I'm going to pray for you. You will find our one true Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ one day.
    • SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9"Hatred doesn't need an excuse."

      Organized hatred does, and rationality is the most efficient cure for that particular form of societal cancer.
      Organized denial of reality needs to go away.
    • AzBats, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@mortigon

      At least those wars have some grain of logic behind them i.e. overthrow of a repressive govt. because of the reasons you stated.
    • bonch, on 10/12/2007, -14/+0This article headline is wrong. Geeks aren't atheist; they're often environmentalist wackos. Environmentalism is the religion for the godless. There is a perfect Eden sullied by man and his sins which must be repented 'lest you become a heretic and are wiped away by natural disasters on Judgement Day.

      EVERYBODY believes a religion of some form. Especially passionate geeks and their liberal politics.
    • pmccombs, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5A self-styled "rational" person believes in many things without having done the primary research. That is, most rational people must believe in the tenets that are to become a world-view based on second-hand knowledge. Using the primary facts presented by this second-hand knowledge, a rational person may apply reason and thus become very comfortable with the system that is built upon these facts. Such facts are accepted upon two conditions, assumed to be true:

      1) That the fact was discovered using an empirical method, and can therefore be observed and repeated by anyone who so choses.
      2) That the person or people who have published the fact are reputable and have followed the scientific method according to accepted norms.eople who nev

      In other words, many rational atheists must accept the axioms of their belief _in good faith_ because there is no possible way for them to reproduce the evidence that quantifies and classifies reality in a short human lifespan. Primary knowledge, it seems, cannot reside in a single person. Therefore it is a delusion to suppose that the distinction between reason and non-reason is acceptance of ideas based on faith. Reason only comes into play after the axioms of one's belief have been accepted.

      Irrational systems have the following characteristics:

      - They make assertions based on presumption (e.g. religion is irrational)
      - They accept conclusions that do not square with the accepted axioms, or are non-sequiturs (e.g. people believe in God because they are stupid)
      - They do not actively participate in self-confirming those axioms which constitute the core beliefs (they do not seek truth, they rely on "web sites" that already preach their accepted agenda on on other people who share their views. They accept blindly with no pretense of even-minded consideration of other viewpoints.)

      The derisive and condescending atheist is guilty of the greatest of ironies because he fits the mold of the very people that he despises.

      Mass Movements (including that towards atheism) have _never_ been driven by the mere availability of information, nor by the appeal of any particular doctrine. Such movements only spread when individuals find a substitute for their own meaningless lives. Such substitutes are now found in the material consumerism of a mass-production, industrialized nation. Human morality will always be ruled by "religion," whether that religion is atheist or not.
    • dougmwpsu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6For a moment, lets look at this faith vs. rationality argument.

      In my experience, whether you are theistic or atheistic, you put stock in science or religion to explain your world, you are always basing your views on either assumptions or beliefs(the difference being unconsciously or consciously held respectively) Let me explain using the non-obvious example. If I'm an atheist, and I believe that science explains my naturalistic world with no need for a creator, then those views will necessarily be based on several foundational and essentially unsupportable beliefs. First would be the assumption that understanding exists, and that the universe operates in fundamentally comprehendable ways. next would be the assumption that the modes of the universes operation do not change appreciably over time or distance. Third would be an assumption that outside reality itself, or an external force to such does not have the power to affect itself , or chooses not to do so.

      I suppose what I'm trying to get at is that belief, not knowledge or rationality or intelligence, is the essential currency by which we humans live out lives. An individual completely devoid of belief, or it's less self conscious cousin, assumption, would be unable to operate in the world. Existence to the person would be incomprehensible color, line, sensation.
    • mlr263, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9"atheism is about having an open mind about the world, and accepting it as we discover it"

      No, atheists have determined in their minds that there is no god, setting aside the fact that they can't prove that there is or there isn't. That's about as close minded as you can get.
    • SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@mccompmccombs
      "In other words, many rational atheists must accept the axioms of their belief _in good faith_ because there is no possible way for them to reproduce the evidence that quantifies and classifies reality in a short human lifespan."

      It is altogether possible to repeat the great majority of empirical observations and experiments. Not having time to repeat every experiment ever performed certainly does not leave a rational person dependent on faith. A rational educated persons view of the world is faith based out of lack of time the way that Bill Gates is poor because he does not possess all the money in the world.

      "Primary knowledge, it seems, cannot reside in a single person. Therefore it is a delusion to suppose that the distinction between reason and non-reason is acceptance of ideas based on faith."

      Your argument falls flat on it's face here. You forgot the inference part of a properly constructed argument. Your premise and conclusion are unrelated.

      Try reading up on what a logical argument is: http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html

    • mlr263, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"Higher morals, not ruled by religion, but ruled by themselves, no more wars due to beliefs based on irrationality, and my favorite, no more ****ing church"

      What is your standard of "Higher"? What makes a moral higher or lower? What if the "Higher morals" you casually use here turns out to be something you don't like? How do you know there will be no more wars base on irrationality? What if "irrationality" becomes the new "Higher" moral standard? I don't think you have thought through what you are saying.
    • mastercheif, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"No, atheists have determined in their minds that there is no god, setting aside the fact that they can't prove that there is or there isn't. That's about as close minded as you can get."

      *Please excuse the old example, but it works*
      If I told you there was a teapot floating around my head right now, but there was no microscope in the world that could see it, would you believe me? Just because God is a more believable creature, doesn't make God any more likely to be true.
    • kyle88, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3First off, I do agree that there are a lot of ignorant Christians that really don't know why they believe what they do. I agree that the church has screwed up on several occasions and there are many that still do. I also agree with the fact that the Bible is not perfect, there are errors in there. Does this disprove God? It definitely proves that people aren't perfect, far from it in fact. Don't get me wrong when when I say that the Bible isn't perfect. I mean that there are some translation errors, I DONT mean that the whole thing is screwed up.
      I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that Atheism didn't start way back in 400 B.C. One of the first skeptics of the Bible was David Hume, who came along in the 1700's. His thoughts where that we could not trust the outside world because our senses can deceive us. He turns his argument to religion by talking about miracles and design. He does not disprove miracles, he simply has a different definition of a miracle. Hume's definition of a miracle is a sudden and unforeseen violation of the laws of nature. Which in some ways is a good definition, but it leaves out what most Christians would consider a miracle.
      eg. - There's a young deaf child playing on train tracks as the train is coming but he cannot hear it and is facing the other way. His mother sees this but is too far away to do anything at this time. She prays that her son would be safe, moments later the train stops. Now this would probably be considered a miracle by many people. But later it is found that the driver of the train had eaten a sandwich with mayo that was out in the sun too long and went bad. He became very sick and passed out. He just happened to hit the break.
      In Hume's eyes this would no longer be considered a miracle. But if there is a God, could he not work through natural events rather than shooting lightning bolts all the time? He also discusses reason, and how reason cannot convince us of faith, which is true, I don't think it can. But on the other hand, if we are reasonable we can see that everything works out perfectly for us to be alive. If there was a slight difference in the universe we would not have been created, if there was a slight change in the earth's make up it could not support life.
      Karl Marx, another person who started atheism, explains that religion came out of human suffering, and the fact that people don't want to suffer and want to have hope, which is why he thinks religion exists. He also says that we need to get rid of all social elements that create this suffering if we are supposed to get rid of religion. Now religion itself I can see that disappearing if we got rid of those social elements. But Jesus wasn't necessarily a religious or part of a religion. He was persecuted by the church, not praised by it.
      Now we reach the infamous Charles Darwin, and his theory of evolution. He thought that every life form can be explained by natural selection, he used scientific evidence to disprove God. His theories are excellent, but science can't prove everything. Scientific experiments cannot prove how someone will react given a certain situation. If it can't explain something as simple as that (with the presupposition that God exists and is infinitely more complex) then how can it disprove God?
      There may be things that I missed and there are things that I haven't discussed, but I certainly understand why I'm a Christian. Ultimately relying on ourselves we can't get anywhere, and there isn't necessarily cold hard facts proving the existence of God, but there are things that point to that, and the rest comes from faith. Faith, which is the cornerstone of following Jesus.
    • FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5""belief, not knowledge or rationality or intelligence, is the essential currency by which we humans live out lives. An individual completely devoid of belief, or it's less self conscious cousin, assumption, would be unable to operate in the world. Existence to the person would be incomprehensible color, line, sensation.""
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      FAITH IN NOTHING IS UTTERLY IRRELEVANT

      And beliefs based on blind faith are utterly irrelevant. You can believe that cows came from outer space, that aliens created the universe, that people reincarnate into other life forms after death, or that a half-man, half god was sent by his father (and himself) to die for three days and return to a place called "heaven"...

      you can believe ANY of these propositions but your believing them does NOT make them true or real.

      so it is wild conjecture at BEST.

      To say we have to believe in "god" because we "need" "belief" to survive is ludacris. If this were the case, then we would have to believe in every single figment of mankind's collective imagination, such as Santa or the Toothfairy -we cannot disprove their existence either.
    • FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5►B I B L E = F A K E

      Science kicks bible's ass every time. If you've never researched how many mistakes/lies are in the bible you really should.

      I love the internet's powers to kill faith and replace it with real knowledge.

      http://jesusNEVERexisted.com

      http://www.christianitymeme.org/

      http://www.Evilbible.com

    • FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4""It may be true that a lot of intelligent people are atheist, but in the same tone the wisest people I know are religious/spiritual.""

      Yeah, whos that and what is their current IQ level for the record?
    • WocEnasni, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Pascal was a hard-core catholic, Copernicus was religious, Newton was a deist as was Thomas Jefferson. The idea of a singularity was thought of by a roman catholic priest, even Einstein was religious to a point. Some of the greatest minds in history were religious/spiritual. I'll concede though that a list of brilliant non-theists could have also easily been made.

      The point is that generalizations such as "smart people aren't religious" mean nothing.
    • WocEnasni, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2To the person who says the Bible is fake, because its full of mistakes/lies. The Bible was NEVER intended to be read as 100% literal.

      For example, Jesus is constantly referred to as the Lamb of God. I doubt that line was ever intended to be read as literal. If that was true, Christians everywhere would be worshiping a sheep.

      so just because their are mistakes or it isn't a perfect historical record, doesn't mean that its fake. There have just been idiots along the way who can't notice symbolism if it bit them in the ass
    • russellnation, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@inv1c7u5
      hit the nail on the head there, and right into jesus' cross...
      thanks
    • inv1c7u5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Look, I'm a journalist for my university newspaper. Trust me, I am not trying to sound pretentious, because any dumbass could get this job if they actaully wanted... all it means is that I write a lot of articles about atheism around our area because since it's a college campus, we naturally have a much higher percent of atheists/agnostics than your usual city.

      I have interviewed virtually every religious leader in our area, from pastors to youth group leaders, and they all firmly agree that faith is by its own completely irrational - they don't have a problem with this. Many in fact accept and believe most, if not all, of what science has to offer, but with science, they think that a very important thing to remember is that you must temper science with faith. Now this to me basically means that you have to temper science with morals and human and natural rights, as an atheist, but thats not the point. The point is is that ultimately, people of faith aren't people that necessarily believe they know the truth, but they have a certain feeling of faith in themselves about a god living through them. Maybe it's genetic, maybe it's through tradition, I don't know, but its DEFINITELY not truth, and its DEFINITELY not able to be proven by any means.

      When it comes down to it, there are good people, and there are bad people. There are people who are open minded, and people who are close minded, and whether they're religious or not, it doesn't matter.

      Personally, to me, the only evil in this world is ignorance, and the only good is knowledge.
    • FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6""Pascal was a hard-core catholic, Copernicus was religious, Newton was a deist as was Thomas Jefferson. The idea of a singularity was thought of by a roman catholic priest, even Einstein was religious to a point. Some of the greatest minds in history were religious/spiritual. I'll concede though that a list of brilliant non-theists could have also easily been made.""
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      "Diests"? Your stretching it. Einstein religious to a point? You're lying.

      Albert Einstein WAS AN ATHEIST Dude!

      So are most scientists.

      According to Nature 394:313, a recent survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences showed that 72% are outright atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God.

      According to the Skeptic magazine vol.6 #2 1998, in multiple studies, there is a negative correlation between theism and morality. By Franzblau's 1934 study, there's a negative correlation between religiousity and honesty. Ross 1950 shows atheists and agnostics are more likely to express their willingness to help the poor than the deeply religious. 1969 Hirschi and Stark found no correlation in lawbreaking by churchgoing children and non-churchgoing children.

      This same Skeptic published the results of another study that compared professions and likelihood of believing in God. The general public was just over 90% likely to believe in God. Scientists in general were just under 40% likely. Mathematicians were just over 40% likely, biologists just under 30%, and physicists were barely over 20% likely to believe in God.

      http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/iqstats.html

    • NicP, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"No, atheists have determined in their minds that there is no god, setting aside the fact that they can't prove that there is or there isn't. That's about as close minded as you can get."

      No, athiests have determined that using the current evidence we have that the probability of there being a god is unlikely. If new evidence comes to light that says otherwise (i mean real repeatable scientific evidence) i am confident they would evaluate their lack of belief in god.
    • RodeoRobot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I disagree. Faith without any knowledge is impossible. The best reason for putting your faith in something is because you are convinced that something is true, and the knowledge you gain backs up your assumptions. People believe in science and its limitations because they've either done the experiments themselves or are confident in their knowledge that the scientists they read about are telling them the truth.

      When you are faced with a situation that reveals something contradictory to what you believe, you can ignore it and keep your beliefs or you can accept it and change your beliefs. One problem we face in analyzing ourselves and others is that we don't always behave according to what we believe.

      For myself, what I know about the world, human interactions and my own conscience lead me to believe that God is a very active and moral presence in the physical world and in people's lives. I certainly don't always act that way though. That might be what you're mistaking for mindless faith.
    • Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"If I told you there was a teapot floating around my head right now, but there was no microscope in the world that could see it, would you believe me? Just because God is a more believable creature, doesn't make God any more likely to be true."

      In what way is God _more_ believable than a teapot?
    • Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that Atheism didn't start way back in 400 B.C. One of the first skeptics of the Bible was David Hume, who came along in the 1700's."

      Don't be ridiculous - I'm sure there have been people who didn't believe in god(s) for as long as there have been people. (And the first skeptics of the Bible would be virtually the entire population at the time it was written)
  • philbutler, on 10/12/2007, -109/+11Interesting! I guess I had better not render a proof for the existence of God here huh? Oh why not? Okay, for the purpose of any scientific argument all the participants must agree on a set o variables that cannot be controverted and also submit to the validity of all the tenants set down in the discourse. So, I will assume that anyone who reads this will be a geek, and therefore (given the definition in the article) intelligent by default. I surrender this component of the argument to be true: All geeks gave high IQ's. (right and all elephants can be dumbo)
    Now, for the purpose of the argument we have to agree on a definition of God right? So how about the most general one we can come up with? God = The Most Powerful Entity in the Universe.

    Now that we have that settled, we only have to prove the existence and a little of the nature of God right? A little story should be inserted to illustrate a loose argument for the existence of God.

    Back in the day I was something of a football jock, you know the biggest strongest BMOC kind of thing (yeah yeah I know, it does not matter if it is true). Well, geeks back then (and probably now) had a really rough time. Older or bigger kids constantly hammered on anyone less physically or socially capable in one way or another. I felt bad for them, especially since I was kind of geek oriented myself and just never really liked anyone picking on defenseless people.

    So, on one particular occasion this nice kid I knew who was always catching it was assailed by 3 of the more redneck assholes on our football team. The were pushing and punching on him right in front of the other students to the point he was crying. This really pissed me off man. You know the kind of pissed I am talking about, the black rage, don't give a ***** what happens kind.

    I am a gentle person really, some of you know me and can sense my nature, but that day I hurt some people. The moral of the story is, the little geek buddy of mine was so relieved and so thankful that I had rescued his little ass, that he looked out of tearful hurt eyes as if he were staring into the face of a delivering angel. I claim not such supernatural of superhuman characteristic, but the sense of the situation has always stuck with me. I just got an email from that friend after not having seen him in 35 years. He had been looking for me all this time.

    So, once we agree on a most powerful entity, it is only a matter of qualifying which power we determine that is for us personally. To that unfortunate geek friend (one of 2 or 3 dozen I might add) at that moment I helped deliver him from his ultimate humiliation and destruction, I was his god! At least I was sent there by him as far as that person's senses told him. You will note I use the little "g" in my comparison. You see I think many geeks don't want to believe in God because A) They never got rescued and wondered where God was when they needed him or B) They just want to be assholes and if there is no God to be pissed at them for being that way they are free to continue.

    You pick your own poison! A quasar a billion parsecs from Earth, our Sun, the richest man in the world or freaking Google. God exists in your heart, I am just sad for the darkness of those hearts who were not rescued. You see, when I was a little pencil neck, before a giant growth spurt, a big monster assed angel rescued me from some mean evil bastards. Later I recognized what he was, because he died not 6 months later in a freak accident. All American Defensive End one day, gone the next, I can guarandamntee you he knew there was a God. BTW his name was James Oliver, two time High School All America Team and he scored 1300 on the SAT. Not your typical football jock, or person...and angel ;)
    • ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -4/+53What?
    • stan205, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6@philbutler-
      hmmmmmm, interesting. So to summarize, are you saying that GOD allowed you to help, this so called "geek", being you are an angel?

      @archie
      just beat me to it
    • Hosalabad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14So Al Bundy saved you?
      Polk High ftw!
    • Waterispoison, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14"he scored 1300 on the SAT."

      Umm...
    • nazuraki, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6"...he scored 1300 on the SAT."

      Wait. So he was a retard?
    • headhunterMDK, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0HHHWHAT?!
    • Tempest811, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25@philbutler
      That was the most rantily ranted rant I have ever read.
      You went from almost being on topic and actually addressing the article to some long-winded story about helping a kid out and being his god (or angel?) to a series of oddly worded sentences that made no coherent sense as a whole.
      "So we agree on a most powerful entity"
      No, we don't. And your story certainly doesn't convince me to believe that my god is out there to save me from fisticuffs.

      "You pick your own poison! A quasar a billion parsecs from Earth, our Sun, the richest man in the world or freaking Google. God exists in your heart, I am just sad for the darkness of those hearts who were not rescued."
      Your words are english....but......can't...find...a..point or...make sense. This literally made me laugh. I have seen inanimate objects prove the existence of god more convincingly
    • spookyttws, on 10/12/2007, -0/+171300 on the 1600 scale, I would assume. Remember, that new scale was implemented less than 4 years ago.
    • nbcivic, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Yea, i'm not going to read a 4 pg comment with paragraphs, intro, and a conclusion.
    • Genthree, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8That was a pathetic excuse for a presentation of the ontological argument for the existence of god. First of all, it was shown for the ***** it is by Hume in the 1800's, secondly, you butchered it.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
    • luperry, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@philbutler

      sorry for being rude, but I find this laughable. :)

      the "proof" your provided is more or less just ad hoc reasoning.

      and 1300 on the 1600 scale SAT isn't that impressive IMHO, though I've never taken the SAT, since I don't live in the US, but my college entrance score would translate to about 1450 SAT on the 1600 scale, and I thought I'm just average.
    • dioscuri, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"Now, for the purpose of the argument we have to agree on a definition of God right? So how about the most general one we can come up with? God = The Most Powerful Entity in the Universe."

      I'm sorry, but that's where I stopped reading. You've already made several assumptions which exclude large areas of religious philosophy, invalidating whole belief systems which also maintain a claim to legitimacy in defining "God". For example, the phrase "in the Universe" implies an imman