First and foremost it is a disbelief in a spirit-creator being who rules the universe. The idea and belief that there exists an unseen, cognitive, non-corporal, non-corporeal being that either intercedes in human affairs or abstains, is a neural process which does not operate in my mind. Efforts throughout my life to ‘feel the holy spirit’ or obtain this ‘truth’ as the faithful call it, have proven themselves to be frivolous. Though at one time many a concerted effort were made on my part to believe in and rationalize the god-being in which so many seem to have ‘faith’, it became evident I was not capable.
So, while you may see my disbelief as a rejection of your god, or a denial of what I ‘know’ in my heart, neither is true. You may preach or cite scripture, neither could ever give me the proof I desire, my disbelief is the result of a default position. It is reasonable to hold the default null posture until sufficient proof is given to convince for a change in status. There does not exist a hatred of ‘god’ that is assumed by many a believer, it is impossible to hate what one views as non-existent, but I do take issue with the actions carried out in the name of religion and the anthropomorphic attributes placed upon a supposed ‘higher being”.
Efforts to keep government secular and free of proselytization for god, whether specific or ambiguous, are not a display of hatred for your deity, merely they meant to demand an adherence to the constitution and require that the government remain neutral in the matters of faith. A display of a nativity, a menorah or any other religious symbol on, in or around a taxpayer funded government building or land by default endorses one or some faiths over others or none, immediately negating constitutional demanded neutrality.
Do not take offense at atheism as a rejection of your favorite deity, it is a disbelief in all deities and what I hate is the anthropomorphic characters described by world religions and the acts carried out in their names.
Remember: Given enough time all gods and goddesses die, they are then merely replaced with new mythology.
“Your kindness for weakness I never mistook
I worried you often,yet you understood
That life is so fleeting,these troubles won’t last
Forever”
The separation of Church and State is not in the constitution.
Really? Look at the Treaty of Tripoli or Jefferson’s Letter To The Danbury Baptists regarding the intent of the First Amendment. ‘We Are A Christian Nation’ is not in the Constitution either, yet many believers will claim it endorses the christian faith.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
Seems pretty clearly to mean the seperation of church and state.
Our Declaration of Independence asserts for all men the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Most people will agree that the exercise of these rights must be limited to the extent that they deny or infringe on the rights of others. You are free to do as you please as long as it is not at the expense of someone else. At least this is what most of us profess. But is it what we practice?
Some would make a woman and her doctor criminals for aborting a pregnancy. Some think it is right that we have laws making a criminal of a woman for selling sexual favors, or of anyone who (1) plays cards for money, (2) smokes pot, or (3) uses cocaine. Some would have our public schools, school boards, county councils and Congress to conduct public prayer. Some would deny civil rights to gays and lesbians. Do any of these activities infringe on the rights of anyone else? If the motives for the above come from religious faith, then maybe Sam Harris is right. It is time for “the end of faith”.
The imposition of a reference to “God” on our coins, currency and in the Pledge of Allegiance is a further indication of our unwillingness to see that any expression of religion made by government encroaches on the liberty of some, in violation of the Constitution. De we really think that believers have rights that non-believers do not have?
The “Establishment Clause” refers to establishment of a state-supported (or mandated) religion. It has been interpreted to prevent government from favoring particular religions or promoting religion. While I don’t necessarily disagree with the concept of separating church and state, it is not technically correct to say that the First Amendment proclaims that in all things church and state will be separate.
However, I do appreciate the even, dispassionate tone of the posting. Thank you.
Funny, it prevents my free expression thereof.
A manifesto-style statement of far-from-revelatory athiest beliefs? On the Internet?! What’s next, an article about 80s videogames where you tell us an entertaining story about Atari burying ET cartridges in the desert?
Although I agree with your statements, wouldn’t the lack of religious objects on government property be showing support towards those who believe in atheism? There is no way for our country to remain neutral. What I believe needs to happen is for people to come to accept everyone for who they are and show respect for what they believe in. The place where seperation of church and state really matters is in policy making.
I agree with most of your points about religion and how people attach humanistic traits to their deity. I am against organized religion and how they have twisted spirituality into something to make money or to control people.
However, it is absurd to believe that there is no higher power. How do you explain things such as DNA? You can explain what DNA is and how it works but you can not explain the complexity of DNA and how it is its own language. Many previously atheist scientists that are working on uncovering the secrets of DNA have stated that they now believe in a higher power.
I believe the answer you are searching for is agnosticism. The belief that a higher power exists but not attaching a religion or a set of rules with it.
Jesus loves vagina
do you have a phd in philosophy of religion?
Religion kills people, just look at anyplace where there’s a concentration of fundamentalists (doesn’t matter the religion as long as there’s more than one who believe their right).
Religion wouldn’t be necessary, if people decided to just THINK FOR THEMSELVES and believe in THEMSELVES. I for one am sure of my abilities, and there’s no chance in hell I’m going to waste my energy on value draining religions.
“The separation of Church and State is not in the constitution.”
Anyone who says that is an idiot or trying to deceive you.
To Dillon: So we should put shrines depicting the immaculate conception of Horus in front of the Court house every December. Which Fairytale are we supposed to support? They all fall short of legitimacy.
The Swiss are a neutral nation, as they do not favor any nation in any conflict. Atheists do not favor the legitimacy of any deity, rejecting all, and are, therefore, as neutral a position as can be expected in religion.
Thanks for playing.
@dillon
i would tend to disagree: not having religious objects is not an endorsement (or a show of support) of atheism, it is a neutral position. a position which would support atheism would necessarily entail some type of physical or monetary _support_. for example if my state’s capital displayed signs during Christmas informing individuals that theistic beliefs are rather silly, that would be an endorsement (or promotion) of atheism. nothingness definitionally cannot be a form of substantive support.
@ matt : Agnosticism is not the belief that a higher power exists, agnosticism is the belief that you cannot KNOW if a higher power exists or does not exist. there are many types of agnostics, but thats the definition
jesus is going to punch you in the face for this one.
Seeing as my God is also your God, and everyone’s God, yes, your atheism is a rejection of my God.
But that’s not your issue. Your issue is that you don’t want to believe. Right? You find it easier not to? Less work? More acceptable in terms of what you do? A religion would just hold you back, give you restrictions, put boundaries upon you. And you don’t want that. You want life to be convenient for you. Ah, if we only lived in a world without consequence of action, what a wonderfully chaotic place it would be.
Like it or not, there is a god. One God. He exists. He loves you even though you refuse to accept His existence. You’ve felt the Holy Spirit before, but you’ve ignored it or you haven’t understood it. Perhaps you weren’t trying hard enough. Maybe if you really want to believe, you would.
But like I said…you want life to be easy. If there’s no afterlife, there’s no consequence to what you do now. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. Is that it? Perhaps you need to start searching deeper.
Belief in God is in inability to say “I do not know at this time” regarding difficult questions. God is man’s insecurity.
Know beer, know peace. No beer, no peace!
Matt said: “How do you explain things such as DNA?”
Answer: With research. Why would you assume that because something can’t be fully explained, it is an act of God? Isn’t that what believers have always been doing?
@Dillon – You are wrong and here is why. You don’t respect a persons belief that it is ok to have sex with a child nor do you respect a person who believes it is ok to steel. Why is it ok to respect those believe in a supreme being when they have no evidence. All it encourages is more ignorant beliefs.
People are held accountable for the way they act which is based on what they believe, hence they should be accountable for what they believe.
The mistake that most people make is the difference between respecting a person beliefs and respecting the person. One should debate a persons beliefs whenever the situation is appropriate, but one should never belittle, insult or disrespect the person who holds those beliefs.
The reason a person has a belief in something is because their experience tells them it is true. If more people stood out and said, you are wrong here is why then so many poor decisions, deaths and misplaced hatred would be avoided.
And Harold Fouler, above, is apparently an obnoxious troll. Why append your arrogant, insulting statement with an apology? Go back to Sunday School you ignorant fuck.
@ the anonymous poster. God has given us free will. If He stepped in every time we made a wrong decision, He’d be taking away that free will and would cease to be God. We wouldn’t learn from our mistakes. We wouldn’t know how to separate the good from the bad. You can’t have one without the other. Rest assured that God will judge us all accordingly in the next life and give us what we deserve.
Why is it easier to accept a black abyss than it is to accept the loving embrace of a Father in Heaven? You really want nothing after this life? To just end? The thought frightens me.
Matt, just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean that a higher power must be involved. Spend some time researching DNA and evolution:
http://www.russell-stewart.net/evolution_answers.shtml
to griff:
atheists aren’t neutral.
agnostics are neutral.
“Given enough time all gods and goddesses die, they are then merely replaced with new mythology.”
Some of the faiths are giving you a run for your money. By that I mean, they’ve gone on for a long time.
Matt, your views represent the initial reason for the creation of gods in the human mind. It’s so much easier to see the complexity of the universe and default the cause to a higher power.
OK…someone needs a lesson in Latin.
Atheism = atheos in Latin
ἀ in the latin – Meaning Without or No
“Theos” in the latin – meaning God or Deity
atheism = atheos = No God = affirming the negative (no God) in the absolute.
TL;DR = Labeling yourself as an atheist is saying “I have the infinite knowledge to know that there is no being in the universe with infinite knowledge” IE: Logical Contradiction
And atheism is not a neutral view, as explained above, it is the belief that their is NO God. Period. That is why Bertrand Russell (the father of Atheism) switched from “Atheism” to “Agnostic”.
Agnostic in the Greek essentially means “Does not know” or in the Latin root – “ignoramus”.
in Conclusion, using the science that we have on hand now, we have no way to prove or disprove that God does or does not exist from a intellectual point alone. And anyone who believe that science clearly shows or explains God away shows the true bias they hold personally.
PS: I am a Christian, and to those (who have posted above) that complain that Religion Kills people should not be so quick to forget that many of the world’s greatest killers (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc) were avowed Atheists.
at Rioku:
believing in religion doesnt hurt anyone and is a freedom that we as americans have.
raping a child harms the child physically and emotionally. it also hurts relatives of the child and the rapper emotionally.
i am not saying it is wrong to debate beliefs.
i am stating that it is wrong to be condescending and hateful towards someone because of their RELIGIOUS beliefs
at Rioku:
believing in religion doesnt hurt anyone and is a freedom that we as americans have.
raping a child harms the child physically and emotionally. it also hurts relatives of the child and the rapper emotionally.
i am not saying it is wrong to debate beliefs.
i am stating that it is wrong to be condescending and hateful towards someone because of their RELIGIOUS beliefs
@Matt: I bet you cannot explain the workings of a basic wrist-watch. That doesn’t mean it was created by some divine power.
Remember when the earth was flat? When the earth was the center of the universe? Remember when ‘bacteria’ (and everything the naked eye could not detect) essentially didn’t exist? That’s you.
Using ‘god’ as the default explanation for something you don’t understand is the peak of ignorance.
No, Dillon. They are both neutral. Agnosticism is just a weak form of Atheism. Atheism states “I don’t believe in any of your Gods”. Agnosticism states “I don’t believe in any of your Gods, but I am not in a position to prove it.” Nice try though. Read up on your Dawkins. Agnostics need to stop sitting the fence and stand up for what they really believe in.
Everyone is born atheist. Some people just climb aboard the fail train while everyone else keeps chillin. Guess what? you aren’t dragging us down with you, so stfu with your ‘accept’ this and ‘be saved’ that.
Everyone is born atheist. Some people just climb aboard the fail train while everyone else keeps chillin. Guess what? you aren’t dragging us down with you, so stfu with your ‘accept’ this and ‘be saved’ that.
I’m agnostic. Agnostics do NOT adhere to a spiritual belief and deny organized religion. Agnosticism is simply a philosophical stand point stating there’s no way to prove the metaphysical. There’s a lot of gray there, so Agnostics can run the gamut from the faithful to the almost atheist.
Yeah, good luck with this.
To most Christians, your atheism is more than simple rejection. They believe that you are actually infringing upon their rights by not believing in what they believe.
It is the same argument they used for passing Proposition 8 in California. Just the act of gay marriage or, in your case, atheism, infringes upon their freedom of religion.
Don’t try to make sense out of it. They are a nonsensical people.
@ Griff:
Anonymous said…
OK…someone needs a lesson in Latin.
Atheism = atheos in Latin
ἀ in the latin – Meaning Without or No
“Theos” in the latin – meaning God or Deity
atheism = atheos = No God = affirming the negative (no God) in the absolute.
TL;DR = Labeling yourself as an atheist is saying “I have the infinite knowledge to know that there is no being in the universe with infinite knowledge” IE: Logical Contradiction
And atheism is not a neutral view, as explained above, it is the belief that their is NO God. Period. That is why Bertrand Russell (the father of Atheism) switched from “Atheism” to “Agnostic”.
Agnostic in the Greek essentially means “Does not know” or in the Latin root – “ignoramus”.
in Conclusion, using the science that we have on hand now, we have no way to prove or disprove that God does or does not exist from a intellectual point alone. And anyone who believe that science clearly shows or explains God away shows the true bias they hold personally.
PS: I am a Christian, and to those (who have posted above) that complain that Religion Kills people should not be so quick to forget that many of the world’s greatest killers (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc) were avowed Atheists.
Thursday, January 08, 2009 9:55:00 PM
someone doesnt know how to red the posts of people with more information than me supporting my statement…
@ Anon & Hitler's Mein Kampf.
Thats strange, he must not have read the parts of the old and new testament that proclaim the Jews as the Chosen people of God (the God, which is proports to believe in)
Also, if he was a Christian, why did he believe in Nietzsche and even present Mussolini with a copy of Nietzsche's writings? How do you explain that Hitler's work was essencially a personification of Nietzsche work, given a military & unified form?
–Fenix
I understand the basic argument of the atheist. For an atheist, God is intangible. The existence of God cannot be proven by rational thought, by scientific reasoning. Ergo, it is irrational to believe in an unseen Authority. However, despite me being a Christian, I will not try to dissuade the atheistic way of seeing the Universe.
However, for the atheist, I have a few ideas I would like you to consider. Does love exist? There is no tangible way to prove the existence of love. Yet we have all felt love, all seen it. One does not doubt a mother’s love for a child. Yet we cannot prove that love in a rational way. Acts attributed to a mother’s love can just as easily be attributed to the instinctual need to ensure the survival of the species, even when an act of love can have a negative effect on one’s own ability to survive.
Despite this, we still believe that love is a real thing.
The connection to God is similar to the feeling of love. As many religions would say, God is Love. While we may not be able to prove God in a scientific way, those who are moved by religion can feel God in a way that is beyond rational understanding.
People are more than just rational beings. We are capable of the abstract. Art, music, even the creative thought we use to solve scientific problems, these derive from some irrational part of the human mind. If we can accept that there is more to the world than simply what is reasoned and rational, then an abstract God may not be much of a stretch of the imagination.
I will admit there have been shortcomings in organized religions. Terrible things have been carried out in the name of religion, be it the Inquisition, Al Qaeda’s reign of terror, or any number of atrocities that atheists are sure to list. Religious organizations have slowed or stopped the flow of scientific or progressive ideas. men can easily use the name of God behave according to their own will.
I also admit that a rational and enlightened person can be morally upstanding without the threat of retribution from a supernatural authority figure. However, these items are beside the point.
I do not believe in God because someone told me to. I do not believe in God for want of Heaven or fear of Hell. I believe in God because I have felt God, and I have seen His Work in my life. So have billions of others. Now the belief of others is no reason to believe something yourself. All that I ask is that you stop for a moment, quiet your mind, and see what you feel. If you are searching for meaning, for something more than the shortcomings of the world you can see, taste, feel, smell, and hear, then open your heart to something greater than yourself.
@Matt:
The fact that you are not able to explain the complexity of DNA is not evidence for a higher power. Not beeing able to explain something doesn’t proof anything. People couldn’t explain how the sun moves, we can now (and know it’s actually the earth that’s moving). Do you still believe a god is travelling the sky in a golden chariot every day?
Btw. among scientist there are good explanations and theories how DNA came to be how it’s now. You can use the internet, it seems. Maybe you should just look it up instead of taking the ignorant’s way of citing a higher power.
Matt is wrong about DNA –
A couple of scientists (Crick for example) became kind of “mystical” in their later years.
But almost nobody who understands the recent discoveries and new understanding of DNA and genetic molecular biology
thinks there’s anything but pure rational physics, math and chemistry behind it.
In 1953 when Watson and Crick announced their confirmation of the molecular configuration of DNA, they subtly referred to
the obvious mechanism of replication. At that time the “language” had not been deciphered. One of the things Crick went on to do was to
try to interpret the language. What he first proposed was a beautiful design, error free without “stops” and “starts”.
It was a beautiful design, but it was completely wrong.
The truth was, the language was error prone, requiring complex error correction, full of errors, full of kludges and fixes.
Hmmmm, very bad “design” – kind of “evolved”.
DNA is one of the worst argument for God and design – Crick designed a DNA better than nature did, why didn’t god.
@Fenix
Are you claiming that anyone that doesn’t accept and adhere to every line of the bible cannot be Christian? I’m sure there are some silly lines in there about treatment of women that most modern Christians don’t practice. Human nature is complex, and you’re demanding that it be purely rational.
@ Anthony
very well stated.
im an agnostic because i have yet to feel God.
ive tried believing in Him/Her/It but it just never worked because i couldnt feel him.
someday, i hope to feel him
p.s. thanks for restoring my faith in religious individuals.
Love is an emotion developed to increase the odds of sexual reproduction in the case of mating partners and to protect shared genetic lineage in the case of non-sexual partners (like relatives). Every single bit of human behavior, no matter how complex, is a product of the workings of the brain.
@ Anthony
A Great Post. A perfect summary of what we are all about. Between Christians and Atheists / Agnostics, Faith is the difference.
Hebrews 11:1 – "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
God cannot be rationalized, reasoned, proved, disproved, or empirically shown to be true or false. The same with why morality exists, along with other such scientific anomalies. I am not saying that what science cannot explain needs to be automatically attributed to God, but that their is a difference between Faith, and unknown parts of physics.
This is the Key Here: "If Man had irrefutable proof that God existed, we would not 'Come' to him by a changed Heart & Mind, but by sight. God created Man with Free Will because he did not want to force Man to love him. True love is not forced, but is a free choice"
@ Anonymous
Neutral by definition is; impersonal: having no personal preference; “impersonal criticism”; “a neutral observer.” If Atheists are truly neutral, why do they care what people who follow a religion think? If Atheists insist upon being neutral, then they should simply leave the debate.
Just so you know were I am coming from, I’m an agnostic christian type thing. In other words, I dont really have a clue, but I grew up in the Christian church.
@ Dillon: And some people understand the difference between connotation and denotation. Go talk to some agnostics and ask them whether or not they believe there actually is a god.
And some people understand the dynamic of rapidly growing threads on the internet and how a web page refreshes itself. You see, while I am sitting here typing this message, there are several dozen Diggers posting as well. When they hit “post comment” the blog updates. Meanwhile, I am blissfully unaware of what is going on until I hit the aforementioned button. Having done so, I get to catch up to speed. On the other hand, the works of Dawkins, having referred to him in my previous post and your need to study his thought as a way to understand modern atheism vs agnostisms, are readily available all over the net. Is there any other basics about the internet that you need to have explained to you.
Again, thanks for playing.
Religion is the security blanket of the vast majority of scared apes on the planet right now, but that doesn’t make it true. We are slowly evolving a more eloquent understanding of the universe and as we do so, we drive the god of the gaps further and further into nothingness and since there are no actual gods or goddess, this mental abstraction is powerless to fight the process.
With that, I hit “post comment” and attempt to catch up on the “debate”.
@ Teg
That is understandable. And too true, their are acts that are called for in the Old Testament that no longer apply with the coming of Jesus as the fulfillment of the Law (the 10 Commandments, and the Laws of the Old Testament), their are key parts of the Bible & Christian Faith (IE: Doctrine of Creation, Salvation, Heaven, Hell, Sin, etc) that a Christian must believe to truly call themselves a Christian, and not a person who picks and chooses what he/she wants to believe, and ignoring the rest.
@Lupin: “People couldn’t explain how the sun moves, we can now (and know it’s actually the earth that’s moving)”
Well, technically earth and sun move around its system’s center of mass, which for all practical purposes is the center of the sun
Cheers,
Michael
“There does not exist a hatred of ‘god’ that is assumed by many a believer, it is impossible to hate what one views as non-existent”
“what I hate is the anthropomorphic characters described by world religions and the acts carried out in their names.”
I’m not religious but I disagree with Atheists who speak condescendingly about persons of faith. Especially, when they blatantly contradict themselves.
You don’t have to put the word God in quotes like it isn’t actually a word. It is a noun, it does have meaning and it’s even in the dictionary.
Atheism has it’s fanatics as well and if you continue to participate in the argument, I personally believe, you should try to not come across as one.
“There does not exist a hatred of ‘god’ that is assumed by many a believer, it is impossible to hate what one views as non-existent”
“what I hate is the anthropomorphic characters described by world religions and the acts carried out in their names.”
I’m not religious but I disagree with Atheists who speak condescendingly about persons of faith. Especially, when they blatantly contradict themselves.
You don’t have to put the word God in quotes like it isn’t actually a word. It is a noun, it does have meaning and it’s even in the dictionary.
Atheism has it’s fanatics as well and if you continue to participate in the argument, I personally believe, you should try to not come across as one.
The concept of a personal God that constantly measures your performance, so that at some future time you win a prize or get a punishment – is obviously infantile and deserves to be shown as such. Atheists do not deny the possibility of some greater mysterious process in the universe, they are, however, confident that the infantile beliefs of the so-called religious cannot be true.
The concept of a personal God that constantly measures your performance, so that at some future time you win a prize or get a punishment – is obviously infantile and deserves to be shown as such. Atheists do not deny the possibility of some greater mysterious process in the universe, they are, however, confident that the infantile beliefs of the so-called religious cannot be true.
Ok, now all all the old arguments appear again, using the same fallacies that have been debunked uncountable times.
@Dillon and/or Anonymous (don’t know how’s supporting this):
When talking like the wise guy you should know that Atheism is not from Latin but Greek. “A” means “without/not”, “theos” means “god”. So Atheism is “without god”. That’s all. Where your “affirming the negative (no God) in the absolute” is coming from … I don’t know. It’s wrong, and most certainly you know it, but it fits your argument, so you’ll use it again. Am I right?
@Anthony
Love is measureable. There is proof for it. It appears in brain activity, it alters the hormones in your blood. It’s a physical and chemical change in your body.
Hitler was a christian, and the soldiers had “Gott mit uns”/”god with us” on their belt buckels.
Stalin did not kill in the name of atheism. He killed everyone he suspected to be against his regime. Mao is the same.
Please to all believers, whichever god or gods you choose (btw. doesn’t that ring a bell, that their were and are so many of them), tell me just one GOOD thing religion did! People don’t do good deeds because of religion. They do it because they are good people. There are many atheists that did and do good.
Ok, now all all the old arguments appear again, using the same fallacies that have been debunked uncountable times.
@Dillon and/or Anonymous (don’t know how’s supporting this):
When talking like the wise guy you should know that Atheism is not from Latin but Greek. “A” means “without/not”, “theos” means “god”. So Atheism is “without god”. That’s all. Where your “affirming the negative (no God) in the absolute” is coming from … I don’t know. It’s wrong, and most certainly you know it, but it fits your argument, so you’ll use it again. Am I right?
@Anthony
Love is measureable. There is proof for it. It appears in brain activity, it alters the hormones in your blood. It’s a physical and chemical change in your body.
Hitler was a christian, and the soldiers had “Gott mit uns”/”god with us” on their belt buckels.
Stalin did not kill in the name of atheism. He killed everyone he suspected to be against his regime. Mao is the same.
Please to all believers, whichever god or gods you choose (btw. doesn’t that ring a bell, that their were and are so many of them), tell me just one GOOD thing religion did! People don’t do good deeds because of religion. They do it because they are good people. There are many atheists that did and do good.
Athiests reject the ideas of a God and theism. What you’re describing is actually more than likely Agnosticism.
Athiests reject the ideas of a God and theism. What you’re describing is actually more than likely Agnosticism.
@Lupin
Religion has given many people the confidence and strength to do good when they otherwise may not have due to a lack of the aforementioned things. I do not believe in theism myself but I know people who have been helped by religion on a personal level. Also, throughout history there have been a great deal of historical figures who have been inspired by religion. It’s hard to look at things like religion with a non-biased attitude. Especially when you are looking for ‘good’ in a very big picture. Try to remember that people remember evil for a lot longer than they remember good and that it’s much harder to make people agree on what is good than it is to make them agree on what is evil. Evil things tend to be selfish in nature, it’s very difficult to please a crowd.
@Lupin
Religion has given many people the confidence and strength to do good when they otherwise may not have due to a lack of the aforementioned things. I do not believe in theism myself but I know people who have been helped by religion on a personal level. Also, throughout history there have been a great deal of historical figures who have been inspired by religion. It’s hard to look at things like religion with a non-biased attitude. Especially when you are looking for ‘good’ in a very big picture. Try to remember that people remember evil for a lot longer than they remember good and that it’s much harder to make people agree on what is good than it is to make them agree on what is evil. Evil things tend to be selfish in nature, it’s very difficult to please a crowd.
Yes, Atheism has its fanatics and I am one of them. I am one of those “crazy people” that believes that all religion should be dissolved by a unanimous, conscientious decision to give up on fairy tales. I believe that law and ethics should be based on encouraging actions that increase the over all happiness of all and discourage actions that result in suffering, not the writings of cattle sacrificing primitives from thousands of years ago. See “A Letter to a Christian Nation” by Sam Harris for a more in depth discussion on ethics and morality in the absence of god.
@Dillon: You are not strictly speaking an agnostic, you seem more likely a Deist, as opposed to a theist. You believe in a god, but don’t know what to call it. This is, of course, only what I have inferred from your statements here. See definitions below from Websters.
Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
“very well stated.
im an agnostic because i have yet to feel God.
ive tried believing in Him/Her/It but it just never worked because i couldnt feel him.
someday, i hope to feel him
p.s. thanks for restoring my faith in religious individuals.”
You seem committed to believing that a god is out there waiting for you to “feel” him. That leaves the following possibilities.
Theist: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically: belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.
Deist: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe.
Again, I think deist is your best bet at giving yourself an accurate label.
Why is it most Atheist and Agnostics don’t really care what other people do or believe (unless threatened) but the fundamentalists HAVE to shove their beliefs down everyone else’s throat?
Hey all you ‘believers’ – get out of my face! YOU are the reason why we have had so many wars in the name of whatever gods the current rulers proclaim! I hope most of you will just go away and the rest of the world can get on with more modern thinking. Sheesh.
Your writing is so pompous, it’s hilarious. It isn’t nearly good enough to justify the narcissism that drips out of it. it feels like it was written by someone of distinctly average intellect trying to sound as if he’s an intellectual. Funny.
As a Christian (Though one that does not fallow organized religion) I can say I agree. I feel atheism is not a rejection, nor a threat to my belief. Now people who I like to call Evangelical Atheist, atheist that go out of their way to call my beliefs foolish and that I am a ignorant fool, those are the people I have a problem with.
@this anonymous dick^^^^
“Your writing is so pompous, it’s hilarious. It isn’t nearly good enough to justify the narcissism that drips out of it. it feels like it was written by someone of distinctly average intellect trying to sound as if he’s an intellectual. Funny.”
The blog is extremely well written and you are utterly worthless. Thanks for showing us what the bottom of the range for human potential is. Now go away.
Even if there is a all powerful god, why do we have to believe in it? People believe in god because there is a reward-punishment aspect in that belief.
If there is a all powerful god, than the future and everybody’s destiny is fixed because this powerful entity knows what lies ahead in time.
If the future and my destiny is fixed than why do I have to believe in god? Because god knows that I am not going to believe in him/her as soon as I am born, or even before god sent me to this world.
So, I don’t have to believe in god if he/she exits. I also don’t have to believe in god if he/she does not exist. Either way, I don’t have to believe in god.
Agnosticism is where one thinks that you cannot know whether or not a Deity would exist.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a Deity.
Think of an object. The object can be either a circle or a square (Theist or Atheist).
The object can also be colored red or green (Agnostic and Non-Agnostic)
So what you have here is saying you are agnostic does not rid you from this argument of theism vs. atheism.
You either believe in a Deity or you don’t, and you can either believe its possible to know of a Deity’s existence or it is impossible.
The object cannot be both a circle and a square, nor can it be both red or green.
@Lupin
There are plenty of good things that religious people have done. Churches used to primarily be used to donate money to the poor. However, an Atheist is just as capable of donating money as a Theist. Some people just need a powerful being to convince them to donate some money.
Are you a better person because God tells you to be nice, or because you are just nice normally?
Griff, I’m not very interested in reading another persons book but if you’d like to describe your own beliefs I’d be happy to listen.
I’m not sure what country you live in but in America law and ethics are not generally based in religion though in certain states it certainly could seem that way. I live in California, USA and that does not seem to be the case here.
Also, I don’t remember calling fanatical Atheists “crazy people” and I would appreciate it if words were not put into my mouth. There is nothing crazy about being an Atheist. It is simply what some people choose, the same way other people choose religion. I believe it would be wrong and immoral for me to feel that way.
I also believe it is wrong to think that religion should be dissolved only because there is a group of people who passionately disagree. In my opinion people should be allowed to believe what they choose to believe and that no group should be belittled or oppressed.
P.S. My last post was to the original poster of the blog, BGH. Is that you?
Griff, I’m not very interested in reading another persons book but if you’d like to describe your own beliefs I’d be happy to listen.
I’m not sure what country you live in but in America law and ethics are not generally based in religion though in certain states it certainly could seem that way. I live in California, USA and that does not seem to be the case here.
Also, I don’t remember calling fanatical Atheists “crazy people” and I would appreciate it if words were not put into my mouth. There is nothing crazy about being an Atheist. It is simply what some people choose, the same way other people choose religion. I believe it would be wrong and immoral for me to feel that way.
I also believe it is wrong to think that religion should be dissolved only because there is a group of people who passionately disagree. In my opinion people should be allowed to believe what they choose to believe and that no group should be belittled or oppressed.
P.S. My last post was to the original poster of the blog, BGH. Is that you?
To Lupin,
In response to the “one good thing” religion did…well historically one can look at various humanitarian figues that were devouted Christians: Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr. and etc.
But regardless, ask any Roman historian, the cultural changes Christianity brought upon the pagan Roman world were immense. Even Nietchze agrees, Christianity has imposed a very moralistic order upon the Western world; a morality unseen in previous pagan times.
Now whether this culture full of morality is good or not is up to you…regardless to say, Nietchze was against it, saying it induced a weak, slave like morality. But that’s another topic.
Funny – the believers here did not actually read the essay. they just attack it. Funny
Funny – the believers here did not actually read the essay. they just attack it. Funny
i’m sad that no one really explained Christianity to you with any sophistication or finesse. it is tragic to pass up the joy of knowing God. Even more so when it’s based on a misunderstanding.
i’m sad that no one really explained Christianity to you with any sophistication or finesse. it is tragic to pass up the joy of knowing God. Even more so when it’s based on a misunderstanding.
> … wouldn't the lack of religious objects on government property be showing support towards those who believe in atheism?
Believe in Atheism? – Atheism is not a religion or on par with it – you don't believe in Athiesm – if that statement were correct – than we would have to come up with a name and believe in it for every thing sane people don't think make sense: flying machines, the pic pen monster, turtles holding up the globe
as a side note a great scientist (Gould?) was finishing his public sceince lecture, an old Chinese woman said during Q&A period "That was all a bunch of bull" .."the earth is supported on the back of a great turtle", fast on his feet, he answered "ah but what is supporting the turtle" – he was very impressed with his quick retort for it showed both the need for scientific thinking to the audience and it was funny too, but he quickly felt otherwise when she one uped with an even faster re-retort – "You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down"
> … wouldn't the lack of religious objects on government property be showing support towards those who believe in atheism?
Believe in Atheism? – Atheism is not a religion or on par with it – you don't believe in Athiesm – if that statement were correct – than we would have to come up with a name and believe in it for every thing sane people don't think make sense: flying machines, the pic pen monster, turtles holding up the globe
as a side note a great scientist (Gould?) was finishing his public sceince lecture, an old Chinese woman said during Q&A period "That was all a bunch of bull" .."the earth is supported on the back of a great turtle", fast on his feet, he answered "ah but what is supporting the turtle" – he was very impressed with his quick retort for it showed both the need for scientific thinking to the audience and it was funny too, but he quickly felt otherwise when she one uped with an even faster re-retort – "You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down"
@Bolinoak
And we “Evangelical Atheist” have a problem with “Evangelical Theist” saying infantile things like “Hey! Heretic! Get with the program. If you don’t start believing in ::insert out-dated, ignorant belief system:: right now, you are going to suffer in eternity in ::insert really bad, made-up place:: forever and ever.”
I could have a long discussion with you about why you believe and it would boil down to “I have this feeling in my chest”. You never saw a faith healer cause a god-fearing amputee grow a leg back. There are no miracles. Everything is explainable through science, given enough time and technological sophistication. Early in the 20th century, physicist posited that it was physically possible for humans to send objects to the moon and they were laughed at by the public and the media. Who’s laughing now, mon frere?
@Bolinoak
And we “Evangelical Atheist” have a problem with “Evangelical Theist” saying infantile things like “Hey! Heretic! Get with the program. If you don’t start believing in ::insert out-dated, ignorant belief system:: right now, you are going to suffer in eternity in ::insert really bad, made-up place:: forever and ever.”
I could have a long discussion with you about why you believe and it would boil down to “I have this feeling in my chest”. You never saw a faith healer cause a god-fearing amputee grow a leg back. There are no miracles. Everything is explainable through science, given enough time and technological sophistication. Early in the 20th century, physicist posited that it was physically possible for humans to send objects to the moon and they were laughed at by the public and the media. Who’s laughing now, mon frere?
It is the SUN. When it rises over the horizon, you rise. It is your God, the Star of your life. Not asking devotion, does not want any offerings. Like a father that just keeps on giving life giving rays so you shall live. Does not abandon you. Every 24 hours it comes back for you.
3rd Rock
It is the SUN. When it rises over the horizon, you rise. It is your God, the Star of your life. Not asking devotion, does not want any offerings. Like a father that just keeps on giving life giving rays so you shall live. Does not abandon you. Every 24 hours it comes back for you.
3rd Rock
“The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion.”
-John Adams, 2nd President of the United States
“The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion.”
-John Adams, 2nd President of the United States
@ Anthony
I do not believe love exists. It’s an anthropological necessity for mothers to feel attached enough to their offspring to stay with them until they mature. this need in humans is based on the fact that our offspring are helpless for a long time (in contrast with many other species, who do not have this attraction, or “love.”
basically, “love” is an alignment of neurons that release endorphins, so we seek those “feelings,” or alignments of neurons, so we can get the endorphin rush over and over. humans can become addicted to emotions because of these chemical releases.
i am an athiest/agnostic (whatever YOU choose to label ME) and i believe that it’s HIGHLY unlikely that gods/spirits/ghosts exist, but what does it even matter what I think? I’m a subjective individual.
It is difficult for me to remain neutral, considering I live in the South and am blatantly ostracized for my lack of faith or belief in their principles.
@ Anthony
I do not believe love exists. It’s an anthropological necessity for mothers to feel attached enough to their offspring to stay with them until they mature. this need in humans is based on the fact that our offspring are helpless for a long time (in contrast with many other species, who do not have this attraction, or “love.”
basically, “love” is an alignment of neurons that release endorphins, so we seek those “feelings,” or alignments of neurons, so we can get the endorphin rush over and over. humans can become addicted to emotions because of these chemical releases.
i am an athiest/agnostic (whatever YOU choose to label ME) and i believe that it’s HIGHLY unlikely that gods/spirits/ghosts exist, but what does it even matter what I think? I’m a subjective individual.
It is difficult for me to remain neutral, considering I live in the South and am blatantly ostracized for my lack of faith or belief in their principles.
@ daedalus.0x1a4I am BGH and I read your earlier comment would like to address it this way.There does not exist a contradiction in the two segments you posted as example. I do not hate the idea of ‘god’ (I use scare quotes for the general idea and not individual religious concepts of god), but i do despise and hate the anthropomorphic descriptions of god given by major world religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam, and I hate the actions carried out in the name of said gods.I am only fanatic about protecting my personal rights to believe or disbelieve as I wish.
@ daedalus.0x1a4I am BGH and I read your earlier comment would like to address it this way.There does not exist a contradiction in the two segments you posted as example. I do not hate the idea of ‘god’ (I use scare quotes for the general idea and not individual religious concepts of god), but i do despise and hate the anthropomorphic descriptions of god given by major world religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam, and I hate the actions carried out in the name of said gods.I am only fanatic about protecting my personal rights to believe or disbelieve as I wish.
God is an emotional reaction to a deep seated fear of the unknown. The unknown has always been explained by ghosts, goblins, and all manner of creepy crawlies. As we (humanity) have grown to understand the universe around us, we have given up idea that everything we don’t understand must be the actions of a “higher power”. For those who have not embraced that expansion of mental awareness, the darkness of religion awaits you. But please, stop trying to tell me that I am wrong. You have no proof but your faith that tells you you are correct. My “faith” tells me I am.
God is an emotional reaction to a deep seated fear of the unknown. The unknown has always been explained by ghosts, goblins, and all manner of creepy crawlies. As we (humanity) have grown to understand the universe around us, we have given up idea that everything we don’t understand must be the actions of a “higher power”. For those who have not embraced that expansion of mental awareness, the darkness of religion awaits you. But please, stop trying to tell me that I am wrong. You have no proof but your faith that tells you you are correct. My “faith” tells me I am.
“Celebrating faith over reason is merely a way of denying what is, in favor of embracing any whim that strikes your fancy.” — Terry Goodkind.
“Celebrating faith over reason is merely a way of denying what is, in favor of embracing any whim that strikes your fancy.” — Terry Goodkind.
Jesus is getting ready to give internet tough guys falcon punches in their vagina…
Jesus is getting ready to give internet tough guys falcon punches in their vagina…
The article seemed condescending to me. Though, I appreciate the clarification. I’m out poking around for fun tonight.
I am curious about why you felt like writing this blog, if I may ask?
The article seemed condescending to me. Though, I appreciate the clarification. I’m out poking around for fun tonight.
I am curious about why you felt like writing this blog, if I may ask?
There are a set of mysteries that traditionally man has been unable to explain that historically have always been explained from a top-down supernatural entity being of some kind which has always been called God or gods. In the last 10,000 years there have been about 10,000 gods. So I presume most of you, like me, are atheists when it comes to Zeus and Thor and Ganesha and Ovda (the god who tickles you to death!) and all the other thousands of gods that people worshiped/feared long ago. You know there’s no evidence for those gods. They were socially constructed. They were part of a culture and place and time lacking today’s science, technology and understanding. Gods were early man’s best guess at how the natural world and forces behaved. People really did believe them then. They don’t believe them now. It’s OK to go one god further.
There are a set of mysteries that traditionally man has been unable to explain that historically have always been explained from a top-down supernatural entity being of some kind which has always been called God or gods. In the last 10,000 years there have been about 10,000 gods. So I presume most of you, like me, are atheists when it comes to Zeus and Thor and Ganesha and Ovda (the god who tickles you to death!) and all the other thousands of gods that people worshiped/feared long ago. You know there’s no evidence for those gods. They were socially constructed. They were part of a culture and place and time lacking today’s science, technology and understanding. Gods were early man’s best guess at how the natural world and forces behaved. People really did believe them then. They don’t believe them now. It’s OK to go one god further.
I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. What’s that? You don’t believe? Well, that’s just because you don’t WANT to! You just need FAITH!
I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. What’s that? You don’t believe? Well, that’s just because you don’t WANT to! You just need FAITH!
I am an atheist and I face this question always – Are you a God-Hater ? !!!
I have to explain them that it’s not that I am against or reject your God- Simply how can I hate / reject something that is not in existence for me – so I can neither Love / Beleive in it !
And none of the people seem to ever understand this too. They are so much into relegion – that they don’t seem to beleive that there exists a 3rd category of people other than God-Haters and God-Lovers !
I am an atheist and I face this question always – Are you a God-Hater ? !!!
I have to explain them that it’s not that I am against or reject your God- Simply how can I hate / reject something that is not in existence for me – so I can neither Love / Beleive in it !
And none of the people seem to ever understand this too. They are so much into relegion – that they don’t seem to beleive that there exists a 3rd category of people other than God-Haters and God-Lovers !
Just my take on the universe and its inner workings.
I consider myself agnostic, when someone can give me enough SCIENTIFIC proof that god, certainly exists. I will not go rushing to him, praising his existance. I will continue my life as is, supporting the pursuit of scientific and artistic endeavour. I actually find that when we prove god exists, we destroy any need for him at the same time.
“i exist, now come unto me and accept me as your god.” says God
“no” i say
“why not?” asks god
“i have no need for you”
“why not?” asks god
“Because i have come interpret my universe of my own will. I make moralistic desicions not in your name, but my own. Solitude in my will is my virtue”
And thus even if god existed, what would it change in our objectives?. We would still continue analysing everything and interpreting its workings into our conciousness. There would still be the beauty of the cosmos to wonder upon.
Just my take on the universe and its inner workings.
I consider myself agnostic, when someone can give me enough SCIENTIFIC proof that god, certainly exists. I will not go rushing to him, praising his existance. I will continue my life as is, supporting the pursuit of scientific and artistic endeavour. I actually find that when we prove god exists, we destroy any need for him at the same time.
“i exist, now come unto me and accept me as your god.” says God
“no” i say
“why not?” asks god
“i have no need for you”
“why not?” asks god
“Because i have come interpret my universe of my own will. I make moralistic desicions not in your name, but my own. Solitude in my will is my virtue”
And thus even if god existed, what would it change in our objectives?. We would still continue analysing everything and interpreting its workings into our conciousness. There would still be the beauty of the cosmos to wonder upon.
I am surprised no one raged at Jake.
These arguments are pointless and childish; it’s action we need. Every time a person talks to you about religion, tell them about alternatives, please. Remember, you are responsible for your friends and family. Religions usually actively seek to sway the minds of the masses; beware. I try to spread enlightenment without religion, just a spiritual reverence for the world and the spirit of humanity, which is not necessarily a religious or atheistic or agnostic point of view.. but too many people act like the Jake character up there, fear mongering; Only one God exists, only ONE WAY TO BE EXISTS. They don’t always mention the hellfire, because more flies with honey than vinegar, but recall that the threat is implied and implicit. Christians believe that you are damned if you do not believe, don’t they? How free is that, as far as free will goes? It’s terrifying to me, how many people believe it.. it fills me with sorrow. But whatever; I believe in myself, in the world, in the sanctity of life. This was a good read; I enjoyed learning about this person’s view of atheism, and I enjoyed the eloquence of several of the posters present. I also noticed the sad trend that those who identify with atheism tended towards being the more articulate and seemed more intelligent to me. Happy days for the rationals, I suppose. =)
I am surprised no one raged at Jake.
These arguments are pointless and childish; it’s action we need. Every time a person talks to you about religion, tell them about alternatives, please. Remember, you are responsible for your friends and family. Religions usually actively seek to sway the minds of the masses; beware. I try to spread enlightenment without religion, just a spiritual reverence for the world and the spirit of humanity, which is not necessarily a religious or atheistic or agnostic point of view.. but too many people act like the Jake character up there, fear mongering; Only one God exists, only ONE WAY TO BE EXISTS. They don’t always mention the hellfire, because more flies with honey than vinegar, but recall that the threat is implied and implicit. Christians believe that you are damned if you do not believe, don’t they? How free is that, as far as free will goes? It’s terrifying to me, how many people believe it.. it fills me with sorrow. But whatever; I believe in myself, in the world, in the sanctity of life. This was a good read; I enjoyed learning about this person’s view of atheism, and I enjoyed the eloquence of several of the posters present. I also noticed the sad trend that those who identify with atheism tended towards being the more articulate and seemed more intelligent to me. Happy days for the rationals, I suppose. =)
Dear writer,
I’m glad that there is an awakening in your mind, and am glad that you have escaped mental indoctrination that so often our parents have put into us.
Having said that, I believe in god/self/whatever because I have seen first hand proof of it. It is verifiable, scientific and repeatable.
All the best to you.
Similarities between Jesus, Horus (Egypt), Krishna (Indian), Mithras (Persia)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081225190145AA5lhOZ
The thing about Christians is their belief that they have this monopoly on “God”. The Christian belief has less to do with GOD and more to do with the idea that you have to believe what the church is telling you and that if you disobey.. the ultimate torture awaits.It was a fabrication by brilliant men long ago who needed to bring some kind of order to the chaos that was the modern world at the time. Things have changed and people are evolving… At least I hope that is the case…. Well, the age of the fish is almost behind us… what will be the god figure of the next age? I nominate my iphone! LOL
If Anirvachan says he has scientific proof I am also very interested.
Yes. Bring on the proof!
We are all born atheists. Children have to be taught/brainwashed into accepting the religion of their parents/local community/region. Otherwise, any reasonable youth with reasonable critical thinking skills and education would come to the conclusion that there’s no evidence to believe in a skydaddy, and that there must be a natural, science-based explanation for everything, even if we haven’t yet discovered it. In science, it’s OK to say “I don’t know” (after all, we’ve only been doing proper science for about 4 centuries). Saying “God did it” is not an explanation for anything. It’s an arrogant, ignorant assertion of your belief and indicative that you’ve chosen not to do much heavy lifting intellectually.
I do. Measurable, quantifiable, scientific. All it needs is an open mind.
Anirvachan said…
I do. Measurable, quantifiable, scientific. All it needs is an open mind.
You mean ‘faith’.
Show it or stow it, Anirvachan.
Have we all agreed upon what god to invent?
I believe I’m going to bed…
“Remember: Given enough time all gods and goddesses die, they are then merely replaced with new mythology.”
It is my understanding that since the advent of monotheism that there has been no such termination of a monotheistic god.
I apologize for the length…
Like in law and philosophy, you should probably define your terms before making an argument.
God:
the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god]
Belief:
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief]
Atheism:
the doctrine or belief that there is no God. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Atheism]
Null Hypothesis:
the proposition that is to be tested; the hypothesis under investigation [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/null+hypothesis]
The epitome of proof is the validation of one’s conjecture by other independent parties. Eventually, the conjecture becomes accepted as a theorem (i.e. evolution). Once accepted, it is considered the current scientific or mathematical explanation until better techniques or insight either invalidate the original proposition or modify the accepted theory further.
Whew… Ok, the assertion that God or gods do not exist is a valid statement, but difficult, if not not impossible, to prove.
The statement that God does exist is provable through the observation of God. Which leads me to Godel’s incompleteness theorem; which to summarize incompletely, says that there lacks adequacy within a system to describe the system itself. Thus, we cannot fully define our system without observation from outside of our system. If we eventually can observe from outside our system, our system has grown to encompass more, in which case the theorem still holds true. If God were to wisk me away, to show me all he/she knows about the universe, it still leaves the question of defining God and his/her system. Given current understanding, this is a rabbit hole leading to asking the same question endlessly (if god exist, who made God?). Thus, the question “Who or what created our system?” is unanswerable beyond theoretical terms (we cannot know). Is anyone here agnostic?
Now for belief; I’ll make it short. One’s beliefs cannot not be purposely unbelieved if they are based on knowledge; and knowledge is predicated on the observation of truth. Our accepted method for observing truth in the natural world is the scientific method. Natural truths exist without the scientific method, but the acceptance of natural truths, in our society, does not.
Turning to the argument for creation, the problem with creation as theory is it is untestable. The arguments made for creation are only logical conjecture. They set the table for further investigation by science, but no evidence supports their claim where evolution cannot also be applied. What they don’t do is invalidate measurable and observable evidence that supports evolution. Thus, currently we are left with set of observations that support evolution and a set of creation arguments that a group of people want us to beleive are actually axioms (a self-evident truth that requires no proof). Saying it is so because I said so is not very convincing to me.
All that being said, I am agnostic, atheist, and waiting to be proven wrong.
@daedalus.0x1a4@gmail.com
“Griff, I’m not very interested in reading another persons book but if you’d like to describe your own beliefs I’d be happy to listen.”
You should be interested, they are fascinating books.
I am a Secular Scientific Humanist. I agree with biologist Edward O. Wilson, who claimed scientific humanism to be ‘the only worldview compatible with science’s growing knowledge of the real world and the laws of nature.’
“I’m not sure what country you live in but in America law and ethics are not generally based in religion though in certain states it certainly could seem that way. I live in California, USA and that does not seem to be the case here.”
I live in North Carolina and I am here to tell you that by comparison California, USA is like a whole other country compared with most of the US. My point was to strike a distinction between secular law and religious law. Secular law should be based on happiness and suffering, religious law is most certainly not. Religious laws are arbitrary and designed by man in order to shift power and wealth to a central authority. Now lets look at laws in the US that affect personal decisions made about ones one body. Abortion: Who lobbies to make abortions illegal? The religious right. They don’t even want incest-rape victims to have access to abortion. They want that poor girl to give birth to the child that her father forced on her when he crawled into her bed, stinking of cheap whiskey and lay on top of her while she cried face down on her mattress. How does that increase happiness and decrease suffering. It doesn’t. Quite the opposite. Abortions should be readily available in a safe, healthy environment where follow-up treatment and grief counseling are available.
“Also, I don’t remember calling fanatical Atheists “crazy people” and I would appreciate it if words were not put into my mouth.
I added the crazy part myself, but you were chiding others to attempt to not come across as fanatical. Now I know that I have already discussed connotation and denotation, but the connotation of saying ‘be careful that you not come across as fanatical’ is that people might take you for crazy. Forgive me if I mistook you.
“I also believe it is wrong to think that religion should be dissolved only because there is a group of people who passionately disagree.”
I will respond to you with a quote of my original statement. ‘I am one of those “crazy people” that believes that all religion should be dissolved by a unanimous, conscientious decision to give up on fairy tales.’ Where in this statement did I indicated a ‘group of people who passionately disagree’? I did not. I was speaking toward a state where the human race has gone beyond the need for unicorns and toothfairies and Jebus and Mo-ham-med. A point when humans realize I don’t need the stick, the carrot is enough, thank you very much. The desire to do the equitable thing is enough, you don’t need some benevolent sky-daddy to threaten you with eternal punishment. I don’t want to force people to give up there religion. That would cause even more war than we have now. I just want them to wake up a see how ridiculous their belief in a 2000 year old jewish zombie hearing their psychic submissions to his father and removing the trace of evil that was left in their being as a result of a talking snake tricking a dumb broad… or whatever your color and texture of fairy tale happens to be.
“In my opinion people should be allowed to believe what they choose to believe and that no group should be belittled or oppressed.”
If I believed that somewhere lost in the pacific there is a race of women that asexually reproduce and worship a giant golden effigy of my penis, would you respect my opinion. Maybe its my right to believe that way, but what if I started kidnapping women and forcing them to worship my penis. That is the kind of shit that fairy tales lead to. Irrational belief structures that warp our perception of the real world and drive us to hideous acts.
My sister is, all and all, very kind and well meaning. She is devoutly Christian and supports President Bush, not for his politics, but for the fact that he claimed to pray and that he was put in office by god. She is, to all outward appearances, the model of a ‘good christian’. ….But and there is always a but…. She noticed that when her son was about 12-13, he was kind of effeminate and this bothered her because the bible says that, and I paraphrase, ‘a man that lie down with another man as a man lie down with a woman is an abomination’. So she took it upon herself to sit him down and explain to a 12-13 year old that if he were gay and acted on it, he would burn in hell forever. To my knowledge, he is 32, never been in a relationship and a virgin. Do you think that she did the right thing fucking her son up like that? I don’t. Do I still love her despite her well intentioned, yet misguided ignorance? Yes, but deep down I resent her for planting the seeds in that sweet young boy that would cause him so much distress in life.
So yes, I believe that ALL religion, even the lovey-dovey varieties are infantile at its best and wickedly dangerous at its worst. I trust that I don’t have to parade out the examples of religion at its worst do I?
I would love to give it away, but have seen first hand that it does not always work that way. Perhaps you guys, who live so far away from me will have a chance to experience it.
Also, recent studies on this have yielded results that blew me away.
@Mariana:
Your post was fantastic. As a resident of the south, having tried to blend in with the theists for so long by attempting to believe and inevitably hiding my atheist tendency, I can really relate. I have finally come out of the closet, so to speak
,I would love to be able to talk to you at length, as your scientific way of thinking is much like mine, but I am loathe to give out personal information of any kind in a forum like this. But here we go. If you want to email me this is one of my email accounts: Griff.without.god@gmail.com
If anyone sends any harassing emails to this account I will immediately report you to the cyber-terrorism division of our state police.
Not that I disagree, but damn, check your spelling and syntax before posting such lofty material…
If any of you are in India, or coming here some time, do talk to me. anirvachan@gmail.com
And heck no, I’m not talking about faith. Faith is saying that I believe in something without proof. Open mind is a mind that is receptive and open to possibilities. Screw faith, I believe in science
Personally, I have a deep love and reverence for the scientific method. I can safely say that it is the most valuable (and the only) tool we have to discover the workings of the universe and how we should function in it. This is because it is all based on how we sense our environment (sight, touch, sound, smell, taste) and logic. However those who believe in god would have us deny the only tools we have and make our decisions based solely on faith (which by definition is the belief in something without evidence).
That being said…
Thus far, science has lead me to believe that the existence of a being who consciously plays a part in the lives of individual humans and judges them on their actions is inconceivably unlikely. Now if you’d like to define “god” as some kind of impersonal force that holds the universe together then maybe we can get together with a physicist and talk.
But do not despair! Just because a divine parental figure doesn’t exist does not mean that civilization will shatter into chaos. We are big kids now and have the responsibility to choose the ethically right actions, if not for the sole reason that by helping others you also ultimately help yourself. Good people are still good people whether they have religion or not. Breaking away from religion frees people to make their own decisions based on continually evolving knowledge, not on some dusty old book.
On another less serious note, the existence of the devil would probably be more likely than the existence of god since everything is moving toward entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics). Lol, watch the comments build up on THAT sentence.
@jake
Thats the one thing i cant stand. People trying to enforce their beliefs and faiths on others because they “know” they are right. The basic foundation of Atheism isn’t the disbelief of ‘god’ due to lack of trying. It’s due to having tried to believe in something but being unable for many different reasons. I myself am Athiest for my own reasons, not because i “didn’t try hard enough” to believe in god. But because im incapable of believing that there is a non-corporal entity that created us all and watches us all. We all see things in a different light. If you believe in god and put your faith into a certain religious group then good for you thats your choice. But dont walk around like you have all the answers and try to enforce you faith on those who dont share it. That right there is part of the basis of all wars. “I believe in this” …. “well i believe in this” …. “i have a holy army that can make you believe because god wants us to kill you until you believe” …. “well so do i and god wants us to make you believe” …. “pew pew pew pew stab stab stab” …. “well no one actually won and alot of good men are dead …. oh well”. I wont even go into the commandment about not killing thy neighbour which is somehow twised into fighting gods holy or killing in the name of the lord.
You believe in what you want to believe in but dont you dare try and tell others that they are wrong and have to believe in what you do. You do not have the power nor shall you ever to sway peoples free will because your ignorance of other peoples right to believe in what they believe in is to the point of illogical and considerate thought.
In anycase my long winded point is that you have no right to tell people what to believe in. If you had no doubt about your belief and the truth behind it then you wouldn’t need to enforce it on others because ultimately in the end if you are right we will find that out quick smart when the time comes.
Adios.
love and let live
It is a rejection of my God as long as random athiests run up and but into my conversation and militantly attack me about my beliefs. Athiesm should be disbelief-until-proof not disbeliev-as-its-own-religion
You’re retarded
@Anthony
love is a chemical response in the brain. I’ll see if I can find some articles to back that up, but I read about this before.
Well said, BGH, and thank you to everyone on here who has commented and argued sanely and maturely. To the theists, I hope your faith brings you nothing but happiness and strength in times of need. That said, don’t try to convince me that I just need to believe harder, don’t try to teach my kids ‘intelligent design’, and don’t try to tell me that being an Atheist is the easy way out.
@ BGH
“Really? Look at the Treaty of Tripoli or Jefferson’s Letter To The Danbury Baptists regarding the intent of the First Amendment. ‘We Are A Christian Nation’ is not in the Constitution either, yet many believers will claim it endorses the christian faith.”
I thought the Treaty of Tripoli just said that the US is not a christian nation, and that the letter says that the State is not the Church. This, to me, does not call for a full separation of Church and State, just a lack of unification.
Its cool to do and think what you love.
Its all good just as long as your happy.
thanks from tony
“God” is just a word that western society uses to describe a concept–and it’s definitely misinterpreted and abused. Look in every religion and you’ll almost always find the same underlying concepts–the words we use to rationalize the patterns of the universe and to justify our own existence. The scientific method introduces a new set of vocabulary to logically define the world. Religions, for the most part, fail to be logical because of fanaticism, zealotry, and pure human stupidity.
I think that both you and I can agree that the idea of an “anthropomorphic God that rules the universe” can easily be dismissed without any fear of being wrong.
It’s one thing to dismiss religion, but be careful in dismissing spirituality as a general rule. Consider that so many people find solace in spirituality–obviously some religions fulfill desires in the brain, triggering certain pathways of neurons. There’s *something* to this.
Look long enough and you’ll find that something.
I used to be as staunch an atheist as possible without being close-minded to other concepts and beliefs, but I went to a religious ceremony at the invitation of a friend, and while I found nothing in her particular method of communing with the universe, as it were, I realized that as an atheist I was dismissing spirituality altogether because I hadn’t distinguished it from religion. Those who consider themselves religious and/or pious often don’t get the spiritual side of it–this is where we get religious violence from: the idea that religion is more important than spirituality.
I found the best vocabulary to describe the way I see things in the Tao Te Ching. If you haven’t read it, please consider it–not as a religious text, but as a philosophical text. It’s basically the ideas of religion stripped of all the bullshit.
In the first chapter (there are eighty-one very short chapters) there are two sentences:
“Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.”
I was in a situation like you–I knew (and still know) that any form of theism is bullshit. But my spiritual pathways (spiritual is the only word I have to describe them, ignore the hokeyness of it, please) were empty–I was “caught in desire” and only saw the manifestations of religion. Once I read the Tao Te Ching, I suppose I realized the mystery, however you want to interpret that.
Fear not! This book didn’t change my atheism in that it’s impossible for me to believe in any sort anthropomorphic ruler–it led me to realize that the words “god” and “deity” etc. are simply insufficient and open to misinterpretation.
Not to proselytize, but if you haven’t read the Tao Te Ching and are interested in a quick, easy philosophical venture, I suggest Stephen Mitchell’s translation which is available free online here.
Best regards,
-J. Altair
@Fenix: You said "This is the Key Here: "If Man had irrefutable proof that God existed, we would not 'Come' to him by a changed Heart & Mind, but by sight. God created Man with Free Will because he did not want to force Man to love him. True love is not forced, but is a free choice""
I disagree. Let's assume God exists. What is his greatest gift to mankind? Hint: What separates us from the animals? Our rationality, that's what.
I can't see any reason for a good God to give us the gift of rationality and then to purposefully make himself antogonistic to that rationality. Why does God punish the most ration (most human!) of all of us?? Why does he punish us for using our gifts, and reward us for abandoning those gifts to "faith"??
Moreover, ain't no man ever been "forced" by logic to believe in anything. Humans will believe all sorts of crazy things, regardless of their logical soundness, and many people (especially religious types) seem to take pleasure in believeing the exact opposite of what logic would dictate. God could have designed a rational case for his existence, we rational people woudl rejoice in finding an elegant solution to his existence (just like we enjoy elegant proofs) AND there'd be plenty of room in hell for the unbelievers. What's wrong with that?
Apologies for the terrible spelling in my last post.
I have no problem with someone not identifying as a religious believer, but it’s a shame how many assumptions seem to creep in under the guise of “null position” and such. If religion doesn’t provide you something you value, fine, but that doesn’t make atheism a logical default religious stance.
Context is important. In the context of talking about some empirical, material thing then sure, we’d obviously want empirical, scientific evidence for it and otherwise take the null position of not assuming it exists. In contrast, in the context of religion subjective experience and attempts to share it somehow are important. It’s not a given that you can usefully apply criteria on null positions that have evolved to work in a totally different context.
Your blog looks ugly, please update it
@Kurt
Don’t be so quick to separate us from animals, especially not by rationality. Humans are definitely not the most rational species. For example, I would say a termite colony has a better grasp of civilization than we do.
Atheism is by no means a rejection of religion. It is an acknowledgment of the sheer unknown quantity that is our universe, and that the supreme unlikelihood of the existence of a sort of benevolent deity, or any deity at all, must be taken into account in the mind of each person on Earth.
We have never empirically observed the existence of God under controlled scientific circumstances. The projection of a belief founded on nothing but the words of sources from 2000 years ago that may have been tampered with, or subject to any sort of alteration for purposes of malice in the largely undocumented time between then and now is an action of the most arrogant proportions; it requires an unparalleled audacity and an insanely inflated confidence in that for which only exists a vague and distant clairvoyance, so to speak.
Atheism is the starting position; the lack of any belief at all. If the belief in god is likened to an electrical circuit, the state in which atheism exists is with the switch wide open, precluding all current from flowing through the construction. The spur to a belief in religion is what causes the circuit to close, and for current to start flowing through it, whereas atheism is the lack of any action; the neutral position.
The distinction between A-THEISM and ANTI-THEISM must necessarily be made. The militant Anti-Theists are as dogmatic as their religious counterparts, but Anti-Theists are by no means the same as Atheists. An Anti-Theist, applied to the circuit metaphor, would be a different battery connected to a closed circuit with active current flowing through it — with vigor parallel to or even greater than religion.
This is what most people invested in this debate cannot understand; that atheism is the logical position halfway between active Anti-Theism and Religion, and that true atheists insult nobody in their beliefs, because they ultimately are more concerned with the most-likely end scenario of the whole situation, which is the lack of a god as opposed to the presence of one. The Difference between Atheists, Religious folks, and Anti-Theists is clear: Of the three, only Atheists, given accurate, appropriate, and indisputable evidence, would be willing to accept that the opposition’s argument in this debate has merit.
For clarification, an “atheistic” point of view isn’t actually a statement “there is no god” but rather a statement “claims of a god are unsubstantiated by those who make such claims.” There is a very clear difference in that, without those who claim the existence of an unsubstantiated “deity”, the default position is one that does not include such belief. In other words, because I give you no reason to agree there is 21st planet in our solar system inhabited by creatures made of ice with a higher intelligence than ourselves, you default to your original state which did not include such an assertion. Of course, if I were to give you conclusive evidence that such a planet and such creatures actually exist, your default position would not longer be rational.
Surely you do not believe we must all aqccept completely every assertion that can possibly be made without expecting some reason for such belief, do you?
@Wise Casey: You said "Don't be so quick to separate us from animals, especially not by rationality. Humans are definitely not the most rational species. For example, I would say a termite colony has a better grasp of civilization than we do."
Rationality requires the use of abstract reasoning. http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=define:rationality&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 Termite "civilization" (if it may be called such) is based on instinct, not reason. Indeed, one might define rationality as the very ability to go against instinct.
But, regardless of what you and I think, religious people themsleves typically posit rationality as the prime gift from God. My whole point is to work from their assumptions to show the contradictions.
For the christians… I have an inquiry:
First however, let’s confirm a few “facts” about God.
God created all things, correct? Since it’s what’s held by the bible, we’ll presume you answered yes.
God is omnipresent (present everywhere), omnipotent (all powerful) and omnitiant (all knowing) correct? Again we’re going to presume you answered yes.
Let’s start there… omnitiant, all knowing, not just knowing the now but knowing all things for all time. This means he knows exacly what every single thing will do at every single moment, before he’s even created it. Based upon this, he created satan KNOWING of satans fall from grace, his eventual temptation of eve and the eventual downfall of mankind which would supposedly be the source of all suffering pain and death in the world… including the loss of souls to suffer an eternity in hell. Then, later, he offers to “forgive” man for sins he created into them.
Still he proceeded.
This would be a pretty clear and accurate definintion of an evil being.
In fact, all through the old testament he’s a fairly cruel and vindictive force. Come to think of it, please cite for me by verse where in the bible it states in any way that heaven is a pleasent place? The closest one may come would be:
“No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined what God has prepared for those who love Him.” 1 Corinthians 2:9
Man… thats pretty vauge. In fact I would imagine there could be some pretty horrid things that would fall under the description of “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined”. Could it be that eternal life in heaven would be the most truely horrid expierience to ever last an eternity?
I can tell this person really tried to sound as intelligent as possible in this essay; shit, he even uses the word ‘proselytize’. Yet, this is all very bland stuff: go to any coffee shop with a good amount 18-35 year olds, and I guarantee there will be at least one Maher wanna-be who can rehash this same argument at the drop of a hat. How this got so many diggs is beyond me…
P.S. the statement “but I do take issue with the actions carried out in the name of religion and the anthropomorphic attributes placed upon a supposed ‘higher being’” makes the later paragraph —in which the writer says “Do not take offense at atheism as a rejection of your favorite deity, it is a disbelief in all deities and what I hate is the anthropomorphic characters described by world religions and the acts carried out in their names—completely redundant and unnecessary. Perhaps instead of saying the same thing twice, an example or two would be more pertinent.
Tired argument. Lazy conclusion.
People Digg it because its funny, calm down.
@Lupin, 3rd Rock, Shaughan, KeedaGuru, Wise Casey, Dabuel, kurt, and all the unfortunately anonymous poster that had well thought out ration al points:
unfortunately, most of the people who posted here won’t come back in the morning, but here we go. there is a group on Myspace called “herding cats” or the like that is a meet up group for atheists. On Facebook the largest group appears to be “Thank God I’m Athiest/Agnostic”. Go join it. Show your support for logic and reason.
If you want someone to talk to about atheist topic, email me at griff.without.god@gmail.com
You guys have been great.
I’m going to sleep now. Goodnight.
@ just about everyone here that tries to convince others that there is surely a God.
The people that need to prove something is you. We don’t believe it because there is no PROOF, and seeing as your trying to convince non-believers, the necessity to prove is in your hands. Just because you “know” there is a God doesn’t mean there is one. People knew the world was flat at one point too. The ignorance of the masses will never cease to astound.
And as to the whole “Believe anyways just in case” idea, that’s a crock and you know it. By that reasoning, I have to believe and subscribe to every other ludicrous religion out there as well, many of which conflict with each other, negating the entire idea.
The fact of the matter is, we don’t “feel it in our heart”, and according to you “Like it or not there is a God”. Well it’s not that I don’t believe in a God. It’s that it doesn’t even register as a possibility, and trying to convince me of otherwise just makes you look like a fool, like I would if I were attempt to cast aside your holier-than-thou religions.
You are wrong. I am right. Trust me.
You are wrong. I am right. Trust me.
Somehow I was born and my parents failed to indoctrinate me. Now people want to label me as an atheist. I would like to know why it is assumed that the default mode of human existence is to have religious beliefs.
I didn’t take the time to read all of the comments but wanted to share that I agree with the author of the blog completely. There have been times I have tried to “find” God, or what have you. It always seems I come out of those times somehow MORE confused than when I went in.
Atheism has been my proud choice for many years now, and I will most likely continue along this path for many to come.
It isn’t spiritual beliefs that bother me, but as pointed out by countless others in the thread, the killing, hatred and cruelty that CLEARLY come as a result of religion, and have for thousands of years. (duh?)
It is also the fanatics of religions who get in faces, yapping their mindless traps about some silly delusional idea in their heads.
It just makes more sense to me, personally, to drop the the beliefs and concentrate on bettering MYSELF and the WORLD.
And before I get an army of Christians accusing me of living a horrible, evil life because of my lack of belief in their god, I will have you all know I do not partake in the pleasures you accuse many atheists of partaking in. I was raised in a large Catholic family, and although in some ways it was horrible, it also taught me the importance of morals and being a good person.
The most important thing in life is to be the best you can be, to treat people as well as you humanly can, don’t take things personally, love and most importantly LIVE. These things are what we are on Earth to do, otherwise we wouldn’t do them.
And the funniest part is that while I’m preaching about being a good person, all the Christians are on here telling us we’re bad people.
They’re a joke really, that’s why I just laugh.
“Thank God I’m Athiest/Agnostic” on Facebook looks pretty small compared to “Atheist, Agnostic, and Non-Religious” and they spelled Atheist correctly.
God is consciousness, if you look through every holy book there is and supplement the word God for the word consciousness they all tell the same story.
Is there an afterlife…of course there is, when someone we know dies, they live on in our being, their consciousness merges with ours effecting existence for all time.
Somewhere along the way the truth of God was forsaken for a myth about a man living in the clouds.
Without belief, without ritual, what we are left with is the experience which forms our consciousness; that consciousness is what unites us as people and directs the current of our lives.
-Zendigity
- I believe in god. – Well! Good for you. What is god again?
- I believe in Santa – Really you’re 18. Well! Good for you.
- I believe in the sanctity of marriage – Well! Good for you. I do too.
- I believe in the theory of gravity – Well! Good for you. Although it’s kind of obvious that if you sit underneath an apple tree, that apples will eventually fall from it.
- I believe it’s 3 o’clock. – Well! Good for you. But personally I refuse to believe in the concept of time and will therefore assume that I have not arrived late to our meeting.
- I doubt that we will ever understand or even have the physical, psychological and philosophical ability to truly understand the utter complexity of all that is. In the meantime I believe that we will endeavour to explain and rationalize what we experience so that we do not feel so ignorant and powerless. – Well! Good for you. I too hate feeling stupid and small. But you know what, I don’t care how sunsets are made, aren’t they just magnificent.
I agree, Religion should never be a deciding factor in ones life or ones government. It is just not reasonable to all people when you put your religion before your peers.
I agree, Religion should never be a deciding factor in ones life or ones government. It is just not reasonable to all people when you put your religion before your peers.
“It is a rejection of my God as long as random athiests run up and but into my conversation and militantly attack me about my beliefs. Athiesm should be disbelief-until-proof not disbeliev-as-its-own-religion”
Wow. Lying. Really? Instead of an intelligent response, you pretend that Atheists are some sort of nosey bunch that just hear you speaking about your religion and get all ticked off about it.
That would be like me pretending that every Christian is like the guys over at Landover Baptist.
I was a Christian long ago, I grew up as a Christian and I was raised in a Christian household. I have experience in the field. Not once was I approached by an atheist in any manner deserving of anger or disrespect.
Honestly, I don’t care what you believe. I don’t care what anyone in the world believes. If you want to try to convert me, I say “No thanks”, but the moment you force your beliefs upon others, I get upset.
One last, hilarious, and predictable quote:
“PS: I am a Christian, and to those (who have posted above) that complain that Religion Kills people should not be so quick to forget that many of the world’s greatest killers (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc) were avowed Atheists.”
Hey buddy. Way to invoke Godwin’s law for no reason. Secondly, I think it’s absolutely hilarious how you decide that, you know, for some reason, religion or lack thereof is any indication of how evil-to-the-core a person is. Guess what? I know people who have had premarital sex, do drugs, get drunk, hate, be violent, and just about any little sin you can think of that are both Atheist and Christian. Just because you believe in one more god than I do doesn’t mean that suddenly you’re transformed into some ethereal being that will never do wrong.
Evil humans will be evil humans no matter what their original motive. The thing about Atheism that really gets us on that subject (the subject that religion might cause deaths), is that it cannot be used as a weapon. Where religion is, at its basis, an organized way of thought among a group of people, simply not believing in a god is in no way to rally the masses.
To my point, the guys that you mentioned, you know, the bad atheists, did not rally under an atheist flag, but rather a Nazi flag (built on misinformation from both Christian and nonreligious propaganda – just look it up), and bad communist ideas (in the examples of Mao and Stalin). The fact that they were atheists had nothing to do with their power over the people that they were controlling.
Ok. I’ve been up for nearly 20 hours. I should get some sleep. Just figured I’d toss in a few arguments, as futile as they might be in this comment thread.
Does God exist? No and I don’t care if he does, because it certainly does not concern me.
Religion is dangerous. It is continually used to validate behaviour and reject personal responsibility.
Each one of us needs to take responsibility for our own actions. We are responsible for every action that we commit. Every single one.
As a moral human being I feel compelled to notice and act upon the actions that I observe. War, poverty, injustice… just to name a few. As a human I feel compassion for each one of you. Some more and some less, but I know that as a society we can only survive the long term if we stick together.
So, can I ignore that you are a believer? Most certainly not. Do I hate you because of it. Absolutely not. Do I hate your god? No, he does not concern me.
I think that you are a risk factor that needs to be controlled for. As simple as that.
i love this
youtube.com/watch?v=763vmCrRBDg
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=763vmCrRBDg
from the author: “…my disbelief is the result of a default position. It is reasonable to hold the default null posture until sufficient proof is given to convince for a change in status.”
just a quick note on the off chance that you or somebody else might read this. the above statement is called the presumption of atheism.
the second part (it being reasonable to hold the default position unless convinced otherwise) is not controversial.
but the presumption that atheism is in fact the default position is a little more difficult to support.
without trying to create any straw men here, i assume this is perceived as the default position because atheism is ostensibly a negation of the existence of god whereas theism is a positive assertion of gods existence. the rationale being any assertion of the existence must be evidentially proven in order to be reasonably believed.
instinctively this seems right. but i dont think thats really how we (reasonably) believe things. for two reasons.
1. the default position is not necessarily the negative claim (concerning existence). take electrons for example. to my knowledge, they have not yet been directly seen. and though we may someday be able to observe them directly, they were theorized long before because of their explanatory power. while it wasnt always the default position to believe they exist, it is currently so. largely because of their explanatory power. this kind of theorizing is done all the time in physics. thus a default position can shift if there is reason to shift it.
for a long time theism was generally the default position in most cultures. now atheists are asserting that theirs is the new default. one might be able to argue for this on grounds of evidence. but not on grounds of having a negative position about existence. keep in mind it is a lot more difficult to argue god does not exist than to simply be skeptical that he does.
2. and perhaps a more convincing example of this is skepticism. it is nearly impossible to prove the skeptic wrong about the existence of anything, except perhaps his or herself. call it descartes evil demon, a brain in a vat, a dream, the matrix, whatever. but it would be exceedingly difficult for you to prove to me, by your evidential standards, that you or anything else exists. after all, i could just be dreaming your physical evidence. or i could be in the matrix. or i could even be just a brain hooked up to wires that make me think i am in this world. and any material evidence you could provide could equally be part of the illusion.
but few people are worried about this. why? because we intuitively know that we exist.
if, however, i must rely on physical evidence alone to prove the worlds existence, i would be in a difficult position. but i dont take the skeptics position as the default position. and even if anybody once did, i doubt that it is generally regarded as the default position by most people.
so negation of existence cannot be the default position simply by its own virtue. of it is, then one must be consistent and hold rather extreme views of skepticism about the world. or rather, that the view that the world doesnt really exist, since it is impossible to physically prove.
does this prove that god exists? no. though i think there are excellent reasons to believe, thats not my point. this just shifts the default to an agnostic position. if theistic proofs are not convincing, it is still not reasonable to default to an atheistic (i.e., no god) position. the burden of proof would rely on the atheist as well. if neither side were convincing, the only reasonable position would be a true agnosticism. by this i mean an “i dont know” position that doesnt strongly lean one way or another.
unfortunately, most atheists dont seem to have thought about this. instead, many have looked for direct empirical evidence of a non-empirical being. but dismissing theism (which is non-empiricist) by empiricist standards seems, well, not as reasonable as many atheists seem to pretend they are. that last is not intended as a provocation. or if it does provoke anything, hopefully it provokes more thought about the issue.
consider this: dont interact with the easiest or weakest arguments poorly presented by less educated or intelligent theists. its too easy to look down weaker arguments and feel reasonable or intellectually superior. if you really want to be reasonable, interact with the best arguments. famed atheist scholar and philosopher antony flew did. he was the big proponent of the presumption of atheism, and it appears hes recently become a theist.
Everybody here is either supporting you or trying to convince you otherwise. I want to take the same stance as you did and say to you that it all does not matter as long as you are a good person.
I believe in the three eyed demon who rapes any religious man from the behind.
That was a really great way to put it.
We may never agree on some things, but it’s great to hear that we can always see eye to eye.
Down with the fight.
as a pagan, I am really annoyed at atheists attacks upon my faith, to the point they attempt to “prove” me wrong.
This is fucking retarded.
TO all who believes in religion.
FUCK YOU AND FUCK YOUR GOD.
I FUCKIN HATE YOU ALL AND I WISH YOU ALL DIE BECAUSE YOUR ALL FUCKING IDIOTS. YOU GUYS LIVE YOUR LIFE BY ALWAYS RELYING ON GOD. JUST LIVE YOUR OWN FUCKING LIFE OR ELSE KILL YOURSELF BITCH!
I, as an atheist, have the right to whatever opinion I might hold. If I think religious people are stupid, it’s my right to think so. I don’t think religious people are stupid, but rather lazy and/or misguided. Like someone mentioned, it is much more daunting to imagine an endless void after death, or the infinity of the universe unhindered by the will of a god, than it is to convince yourself that someone will take care of you when you die, and that your god always has a plan personally made out for you. To me, this comes natural. Just like a religious person can “feel it in his/her heart” that God is real, I don’t have to constantly remind myself that I don’t believe in a god. I just haven’t ever seen, heard or experienced anything even remotely associated with a miraculous deity of any shape or form, so why would I believe?
Simply put, I just don’t care. The facts, as they have been observed, support the conclusion that there is no god, and until science tells me otherwise, there is no reason for me (or anyone) to believe differently. Moral behavior and compassion exist completely separate from the belief in the “magical sky-daddy”, which is why I am able to be a much better person than the self-proclaimed christians who rape kids and kill people for having differing opinions. Instead of being bad in the name of religion, I am good in the absence of it. If that doesn’t make you want to turn atheist, I don’t know what will.
im atheist, i do whatever the fuck i want and i dont give a fuck about anything. Religious people can suck my balls. I DONT GIVE A FUCK!
FUCK YOU! AND FUCK JESUS
btw u fukin religious people come to my house one more time and try to preach me about shit i will literally fuckin kill you bitch
If you do not reject their god, then what good is your Atheism?
@Anonymous.. “btw u fukin religious people come to my house one more time and try to preach me about shit i will literally fuckin kill you bitch.
Ok, its guys like this who give atheists a bad name. Just like suicide bombers give Muslims a bad name and Westboro Baptists give Christians a bad name.
I believe in Christ, but hate referring to myself as religious. Religion for me brings connotations of a mindless, soul-less ‘thing’ you do on Sundays. Christ didn’t come to force anybody into anything, but give a choice. He never forced his way into anybody’s heart or home, like it seems some of those baptists are trying to do over there. Ref Matthew 10:11-15
My sentiments exactly!
@ jake
Sorry, Jake. God doesn’t exist. The funny thing is that I would argue that you are in for a big surprise when you die, but the truth is… you are not.
By the way, there is a dragon in my garage (Carl Sagan is the best!): http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
“He never forced his way into anybody’s heart or home”
ok so why are all you fukin religious people going to door to door trying to spread your fukin bull shit. This person told me to donate a certain % of my paycheck to the church because if i do i will be closer to god? ok??!???
a) We shouldn’t need a name for those sensible enough not to believe in Gods, we don’t have one for those who don’t believe in Santa Claus… we just call those people adults.
b) The whole ‘The atrocities committed by Religion pale to those by Hitler and Stalin et al’ is a void argument as they never committed their atrocities in the name of Atheism.
c) Anyone who thinks Religion is needed to teach morality or ethics is kidding themselves, it is a redundant system of control of which humanity must shed itself to have any hope of survival as a species.
@Jimmy
We’ve been doing pretty well so far..
“This person told me to donate a certain % of my paycheck to the church because if i do i will be closer to god? ok??!???”
You should have told that person to go read their bible. You may have learned by now that not everybody with a Christian label lives as one should.
I have to say that as an atheist-leaning agnostic, that most of the militant atheist crowd deliberately overlooks many of the good things that religions accomplish.
It was largely the Church that taught the European peasant class to read. The beneficial effects of this are immeasurable. OK, the motivations for doing this (getting people to read the Bible) may not have been completely pure, but the original point stands.
Also, there have been many, many people who were inspired to do incredibly selfless things – build hospital, attend to the poor, attend to the sick – by their religion.
The opposite is definitely true, that religion has inspired many attrocities, commited by people who likely would never have considered such things had it not been for religion.
There are very few things in this world that are all good or all bad, and I argue for a more balanced view of the history of religion.
@Snowdenn
You’re going about this the wrong way. The point is not about being convinced or not. “now atheists are asserting that theirs is the new default”. Of course not believing in god is the default, that’s why there is organized religion. No one is born believing in god, how could they be.
You cannot compare a person who augments their human experience by adding a belief in a deity with someone who doesn’t bother to do so and claim that both made a choice.
One does not need to choose not to believe when believing is a superfluous activity.
One does not need to have a belief system involving a deity of any sort to live.
It’s not like choosing not to breathe.
I will therefore argue that only a believer is choosing to believe, either as a personal choice or through indoctrination.
So just because one does not partake in the flight of fancy of believers it doesn’t mean one had to make an active choice, at least not in a truly free and tolerant society.
AT 9:22 DILLON POSTED. “Although I agree with your statements, wouldn’t the lack of religious objects on government property be showing support towards those who believe in atheism?”
Belief in atheism??? People do not believe in atheism. Think about it!
Atheism is not a religion, it is a concept you either accept or deny. Atheism is the lack of a beleif.
“Anonymous said…
@Jimmy
We’ve been doing pretty well so far..”
Is that thanks to religion or despite it?
Philosophically, it’s as simple as possible. Religion does not equal God. Since all religions follow a God, then no one religion can be right. Ergo, you do not need religion to have a faith in God.
It is organized religion that is bad. It is the “my people know better than your people” sentiment that organized religion tries to impress upon their congregations. Why? Because they don’t want their sheep to leave the flock. There is a reason to “spread the word”. It brings in more people, meaning more money, meaning more power.
And I have to say, Atheism falls into this same problem of the “us” vs “them”. Quite frankly, I am deeply anti-religious. Organized religions can be traced to specific times when they came into existence, even by documented hucksters. (Read “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything” by Christopher Hitchens. Terrible title because it’s more so about following religion than belief in God)
However, while I am fervently anti-religious, I will never say that there is no God. (Unless of course God comes down to tell me he does not exist, in which case he would be lying!) I have had, what I would call, supernatural experiences that I don’t necessarily have to attribute to a higher power. But the point is, I don’t know. So to be so arrogant as to say I am 100% positive would me being in denial.
The same can be said for religious people. One of my best friends goes to church religiously (pun intended) and we have great conversations. She attributes what I would call coincidences to miracles. But that is her faith in a God. And I have to respect that. However, I will always argue with her that her faith in a God and her following a religion are two completely separate things. And that is what I will go to my grave arguing.
Religion segregates. Religion starts wars. Religion kills. Religion, in its piousness, can be unforgiving. Be spiritual. If you find a presence of an Almighty comforting, speak to him/her/it. But stop being told how to feel and what to do and try to “save” others through religion. You are only praying into nefarious hands of people who use a belief in God to make money and gain power.
yawn
no magical beings for me.
triathlon is the true god, enjoy.
1)
There has not been any diktators killing in the name of atheism.
2)
Atheism is an null hypothesis: We only “beleve” in things that can be proven. We are therefor not against “god” or for a “non god” we are neutral.
3) Love can be proven by studeing chemical reactions inrhe body.
4) regarding morality
Is a fear of “god” relly the only reason you people rape, kill and steal? How awfull you must be.
Matt claimed:
“Many previously atheist scientists that are working on uncovering the secrets of DNA have stated that they now believe in a higher power.”
Do you have a source for your claim?
I work in a biochemistry laboratory and each and every scientist I have ever encountered is an atheist.
I’m not a massive fan of organized religion, but lets not forget all the good it has done to the world too. its only the extremist minorities within religions that do the major wrongs onto others. And also don’t forget about all the major wrongs committed by people of no faith. whether you believe in the god figure or not there are many very good examples of how to be a better person within all religions.
The idea that gods can’t be disproved is fairly stupid. Gods are imaginary; that is, they exist only for those who imagine them to exist.
Now the idea that this universe was created by something or some-being is up to debate. However, WHAT created the universe is not, because we simply do not know and those of us who claim to know have no testable evidence to support their claims.
We humans used to think the Earth was the center of the universe, but in modern times, we have testable and observable evidence to prove the contrary. What we must learn from this human error is that we shouldn’t have faith or believe in things which can not be proven, to do so is delusional.
My church teaches:
“We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”
It is important that we practice a freedom in religious worship. If one chooses to be a christian, a muslim, or an atheist… that is a right that should be given to all individuals.
Someone end this thread… or stick a finger in it.
The divide between retarded people and those that feel compelled to speak out against them is just too obvious.
@Meagan and Frederik – Right on the money
@the guy who said religious people are risk factors – yes!
If someone asks you “Why shouldn’t I steal anything I desire, rape any woman I find attractive, and kill all who cross me?” and you’re answer is “Because you will go to hell.” Then you should be beaten with the You-Missed-The-Point-Of-Being-Human stick. The only correct answer is “Because I would not want to hurt another human being like that.”
If you would steal, kill, or rape in ‘His’ name, then you do not deserve the heaven you believe in. If a god does exist: we did not ask for existence, and though many of us enjoy it (myself included) we didn’t come here by free will. So what would give a god the right to place us on a planet surrounded by evidence leading away from a belief in him (IE science systematically proving story after story from the bible as impossible… Noah’s Flood, age of the earth, etc) and then punish us for not believing. What gives him the right to put people into a terrible position (Look up what is happening in Africa right now) and then punish a person if they finally say ‘Well, why would god let this happen to me?’
If this is the type of god you believe in, perhaps you should be standing up to him, rather than worshiping him. Just a thought.
@ Marina
“basically, “love” is an alignment of neurons that release endorphins, so we seek those “feelings,” or alignments of neurons, so we can get the endorphin rush over and over. humans can become addicted to emotions because of these chemical releases.”
Biological vs. Biblical love-
I think what you say is an accurate picture of the emotional, feelings based sense of love. The greeks called it “eros”. But it’s not the type of love Jesus talks about, which is unconditional love. The greeks call this “agape” love. Feelings are conditional, God’s love is not.
Religions *suck* for sure, there is very little, if any “agape” love found in them.
But our relationships are important and it is in our relationships where we can exercise “agape” love. What it comes down to is our ability to act outside our feelings (or lack thereof for someone else) and love people in an “agape” way regardless. Jesus says we can’t do this without a relationship with Him too.
Agape love is a high standard of love (see below). It is a set of actions that proceed from a right heart attitude. If I love out of compulsion or because it’s the right thing to do, is that really unconditional love? No, my love would be based on the condition of feeling the compulsion to do so. Jesus wants to teach us over time to love unconditionally through our relationship with Him.
(The greek word for love used in this passage is agape)
1 Corinthians 13.4-8 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8Love never fails.
Gee, why am I surprised this page scrolls down so far….
Good to see there are others out there who don’t believe in a deity. I grew up around the fundamentalist system and could never “feel” anything in church. Most of the men in my family are also atheist (whereas the women aren’t) so I suspect that it is a genetic thing.
It is true that you can’t prove or disprove a god, and by most believers admission it is irrational to – faith you know. Its the same to say that I can not prove or disprove the existance of gnomes. This doesn’t mean that gnomes exist.
I think that all religons seek to place an order on the chaos of life. The bible seeks to prove itself by saying it is correct because it says so(this is funny). If someone feels that they need to believe they will go on beyond death or life is meaningless is truly sad.
I also know that even if you could completely disprove a god/goddess the believer won’t listen, they are just too frightened of the truth of life.
But you know what, go on believing if it makes you feel good. Moderates will ridicule the fundamentalists, fundamentatlists will ridicule the moderates (lack of faith) and you will both give credit to those who kill in the name of relgion.
Oh, and before I get the comment: I know I am going to your “hell” but here is something that is true – you don’t chose to believe, you either do or you don’t. I only hope that one day people will realize that you don’t need a god to feel the majesty of the universe (look into string theory, parallel universes, etc) – life doesn’t have to be this battle over invisible men in the sky.
Everyone likes to point out how religion is the cause of a great many evils in the world. I think you all need a history lesson. Start with the Nazi and Communist regimes that killed millions of people in the name of a “free government.” Then compare the number of people killed to the number you THINK were killed in the name of religion.
@Anthony
Your argument about love is wrong. It has been proven that love is an addiction that is chemical in nature.
When you see the person you “Love” there is a cocktail of hormones being released in your brain. Your brain get addicted to this just like it would to any other drug.
And you want to know why it hurts when you break up with the one you “Love”? It’s because you are going through withdrawal. Which is your brain begging you for that physical stimuli that releases that hormone cocktail.
The belief in a god is the result of not thinking critically. Look at the world around you. Just think of all of our technology. Now imagine if I took one plane back to the middle ages and flew around.
People would think that I am a creature of God, because they can’t explain it.
Stop saying “Hmm I can’t explain this, it must be god” and start saying “Hmm I can’t explain this, let me figure it out.”
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
I read most of the comments, and the one I would like to laud is the guy who mentioned amputees… Surely you saw the same youtube video I did? “10 questions for believers” lists that same question. Example of another question: Believers, do you really believe “god” will ignore 15 million children per year and let them starve to death, yet he will answer your prayer for a promotion or to win a football game? This is unbelievably egotistical. To those who believe that the world is ultimately a beautiful place, because it was created by “god”, go visit a 3rd world country, or if this is beyond your means, just go see Slumdog Millionaire… of course you will have to ignore the happy hollywood/bollywood ending, but pay attention to the poverty and death, which is sadly very real. The world is a sad and ugly place, for the most part, and only in 1st world countries where we defend human rights is there any beauty or justice. “God” does nothing, ever. Only people do. Now go forth and do good things for people, for if you do not, no one will.
Peace,
Jasper
Come on let me hear some good old-fashion jesus loves you and your going to hell.
I MUST believe you or you look foolish, right?
You really want a theocracy?? The Middle East has plenty and it looks great. Look at all the “god-loving” … LOL.
Oh, I can disprove the Christian god – here’s how:
1. You believe your god is all knowing
2. You believe your god is all good
3. You believe your god is all powerful.
Now, you can’t argue that there is no evil in the world. How do you explain this?
If god gives choice and knows all, then he knows that choice will create destruction/death and that makes him evil for allowing it. If he doesn’t know all, i.e. can not predict the the choice will be destructive, then axiom 1 and/or 3 are violated. If he doesn’t get involved then he is evil in nature to allow his “children” to suffer – violating axiom 2.
I could go on and on but it is pointless. The religous will never see this or if they do they will ignore it (BTW, lying to yourself has to be the ultimate in self-mutilation).
Also, how is doing a good deed only because your god says you should a selfless act? Aren’t you acting out of the idea that in exchange you get eternal life? Isn’t this by nature a selfish act and also more than slightly condecending to your god (you believe he/she/it must conform to a “contract”)?
Well, got to go. Don’t forget to send that Jesus/Mohammed/Thor/Baal/… love my way with some good imprecations. Be sure to keep praying for that world peace thing – got to keep reminding god (he forgets sometimes).
Love is not real, it is anthropological.
I have morality because of reason, not religion.
I have principles that are based upon more than the brainwashing that occurs in the first few years of our lives (see Morris Massey’s Values Programming Stages). Imprinting is so strong that it can stay with us until we die unless we have a strong reason for questioning the things that were dictated to us as children.
But I have a belief in existentialism… freedom to make choices… the fact that we ALWAYS have a choice (even though we may not like any of the choices) and accepting responsibility for those decisions.
Morality and decency need to exist for the benefit of all… to make our society stronger and more efficient. If the culture improves, then it benefits us on the individual level as well. So, for me, religion is not necessary.
It’s not easy to be athiest/hard agnostic. It really isn’t. But I cannot make a choice purely based upon what I’d like to happen. Like has nothing to do with it, and hoping with all of your might will not change what IS.
@Jake
It’s not easier to not believe it’s easier to believe. Not questioning, and blindly following, and believing god (whichever one) will sort it all out, is the LAZIEST way to think: I’m told what is right and wrong, I am told how I should behave, I am assured that my life is worthwhile if I just follow these sets of Rules (and they all have rules). Being atheist means you have to figure things out for yourself (and while you certainly dont do that spontaneously or in a vacume you have to think about why you made that decision. Religion has served it’s purpose, that purpose is now past. People who obey the codefied rules of a religion in order to some mythical reward after death is like the child who does good deeds in order to get the reward of a treat, not because the child believes that its the right thing to do. Wake up people think for youselves
Stalin & Mao banned religion because it was a threat to their power. If they had their way, they would have established a 'religion' with themselves occupying the throne. In fact, Mao's Red Book is treated like a Bible in China. All you need is a little crucifixion voodoo, and voila! Mao is teh new Jesus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality
Stalin, Mao and Hitler were the new Jesus.
Yeah, well, while you guys pray to the Heavens, the rest of us will continue to actually try and fix some problems down here on Earth.
Governments job is to Govern not to get involved in religion, Religion is a personal choice that should be kept in churches and homes.
Like it or not I reject your “God” Or invisible best friend whatever you want to call you imaginary friend.
DNA has been expained, and as usual the religious want to say if we don’t Understand it it must be God! That is called the GOD of the GAPS and God used to be the explanation behind everything including weather, As mankinds knowledge has expanded, thos God Gaps have been getting smaller and smaller. At some point in the future there will be no gaps left to wedge God into…Hopefully
Funny how the religious nuts always say God Gave man Free Will to explain all the bad things but if a Loved one or child dies they say God had a reason, he works in mysterious ways..So god arranged it, then no free will and if there was a Killer he should be let go free cause God Made him do it!
God is the finger pointing at consciousness.
So what gives the religious the right to condescend and insult the non-religious? That logic is pretty naive.
You can not compare love to god, love is a bodily process, chemicals and hormones are released and there is an actual feel to it all. The belief is strictly mind based and has to do with preconceptions and learning done by the person. Be it from any book from a deity based religion on this planet.
Also, how dare you say that because we do not believe in a religion it makes us “lazy” and makes for an easier life. That is completely untrue and an extremely ignorant statement. Morals are not directly related to religion it is related to the good of man. Buddhism is not deity based but believes that the good of man leads to a good heart and a good life. Morals are however repeated and rephrased in all religions or non-religious beliefs. Because I do not believe in a god based off one religion makes me a “bad” person? Because I have not conformed to one idea of a superior being my life will be easier and the choices I make can not be contributed to non-religious morals and reason?
I am not condemning people for being religious I accept everyone and their faiths respectively. So why do SOME religious believers feel the need to bash us for what we don’t believe in? Why are we wrong, and those who fail accept people for who they are become automatically right? Tolerance and acceptance of individual expression seem to be lacking, and has been since the dawn of religions and higher being beliefs?
Some people who have committed terrible crimes against humanity in a whole have been atheist/agnostics… true. What about the crusades? What about the Jewish persecutions in the time of Jesus? What about extremist Muslims? There have been just as many religious wars and death cause by a belief and backed by the “word of god” as there has been by people who don’t feel that way.
The world cannot make progression without questioning, and the world cannot make this peaceful without tolerance and acceptance. Don’t judge or you will be judged by your creator. No one is right, there for no one is wrong, stop pushing it.
Anonymous said:
{Oh, I can disprove the Christian god – here’s how:
1. You believe your god is all knowing
2. You believe your god is all good
3. You believe your god is all powerful.}
blah blah blah
———————
Did this come from a first semester philosophy book? There are more chapters. This argument against a loving God is more than a little simplistic, and, intellectually, is about as effective as, “Can your all-powerful God create a rock that is too heavy for him to move?” and perhaps, “I’m rubber, you’re glue.”
For a lot of people, posting in a forum isn’t as much about the argument as it is about seeking validation for your own beliefs, or seeking to deny validation to someone with beliefs contrary to your own. And if you’re seeking validation, I would suggest bringing something a little more concrete to the table.
See? I was almost as neutral as possible there, and didn’t even post about the actual topic. I’m almost guarenteed validation! ROCK!
The emotional idea of God is a man made idea. Believing and having faith in such an idea is something that takes our fear away and makes us feel safe, it’s an escape from reality invented by man for man.
whatever you say.. There is a God.. you don’t need to go further or farther.. just look into yourself.
All I know is in 2005, 33% of the world’s population claimed to be part of the Christian religion. That means 2/3 of the world is wrong?!?
I have read a few posts above and the author claims they have personally experienced god’s work. Would you call a Muslim or Hindu a liar if they made the same claim?
The fact of the matter is that there is NO proof that a higher power exists. Faith is NOT proof no matter how many people say it is, as is noted in the definition provided by dictionary.com:
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
Faith is not something you can get by reading a book, or by going to church, or by being a Christian. Faith is earned by real life experiences.
Let’s say you have 2 children and they are both under 10 years old. Will you leave them alone at your house knowing that god is watching them… hell no! If you truely trust your god, then you will trust that nothing bad will happen to you or your family on his/her watch. Why do bad things happen to good people if god exists? and dont give me the bullshit that it is all part of the plan, I make my own plan.
I trust and have faith in my friends and family because, as I stated before, they have earned my trust by being good people and people that I can count on. They are real. I can call them on the phone and they will answer me and talk back. I can physically touch them if desired. So I am Agnostic and I have faith.
Why do Christians think they can put the suffix “ism” at the end of any word and all of a sudden it is a science. Creationism is not a science! nor should it be taught in a classroom.
Poopism – the belief that the universe was created from poop, or fecal matter. It’s a science now and I demand that it be taught in the classroom. See how silly that sounds?
Final thought…. Is it so hard to believe that the world was going to shit 2000 years ago, much like it is now, and some one decided to write a book to try and guide people to live moral lives? Would anyone really listen if fear didnt drive the point home? What would be your motivation for being a good person if you didnt have to??? Why cant you just want to make the world a better place? What about Karma?
Also some one mentioned that, “A religion would just hold you back, give you restrictions, put boundaries upon you. And you don’t want that. You want life to be convenient for you. Ah, if we only lived in a world without consequence of action, what a wonderfully chaotic place it would be,” as a vaild reason in NOT to believe.
Of it were only that simple my friend… then we wouldnt need a government full of laws
I really dont care what people believe, just dont come to my door trying to convert me. Stop calling brainwashing trips to other countries “missions”. Stop trying to include religion into government. The pledge of allegiance did not contain the phrase “one nation under god” until the 1950′s as propoganda to combat communism. As the orginal author of this post stated “There does not exist a hatred of ‘god’ that is assumed by many a believer, it is impossible to hate what one views as non-existent, but I do take issue with the actions carried out in the name of religion and the anthropomorphic attributes placed upon a supposed ‘higher being”. If you believe keep it in the church, keep it in Sunday school, and keep it to yourself. I want nothing to do with it.
Atheist, agnostic, christian, buddhist, muslim, jew, satanist… honestly, let people decide for themselves! If someone believes in nothing then that is what they believe. If someone believes in Jesus who cares?? If someone else believes in butterflies, why is it YOUR job to tell them they are wrong? I am lucky to have a group of friends who believe in everything or nothing; buddhists, jews, christians, atheists, and agnostics. They all have reasons for their beliefs and they all make sense to them. So let people be who they want to be. It is not our job to judge others based on their religious choices, some christians are giant douches who steal money in the name of God and they are wrong! While many atheists are great philanthropists. Do not judge people on their religion but on who they are as a person. A religion does not define who someone is. Quit thinking of stereotypes and get to know the person before you judge them. Respect is something everyone should believe in.
Close your eyes for a while, open them again, did you see a difference? Yes?
Now let me tell you that whatever would be the ‘proof’, you won’t be able to see a difference, simply because you’re blind from inside. Sorry for you.
Aitheism isnt going to work, since its an answer, a solution to a problem we dont know enough about. We can only speculate there is no god, since we have not perceived him. Religion is not going to work, because it is written by man. As much as we want to believe otherwise, man created god in his own image and everything you know about god came from a man claiming to have a direct link to "god". If you accept 1 god, you should accept them all as the vast majority of all stories unbelievable. No religion has produced a genuine miracle that cant be explained or debunked. People see what they need to, to justify their existance, or are so spiteful toward the idea of religion they spit on all spirituality. the truth is we dont know.
the internet isnt going to change anyone's mind, you believe what you do out of experience (all of life's influences) or out of desperation (unable to accept a meaningless existence, or scared of death).
The last one is an example of an over-generalization, something that ALL religious people must do in order to retain faith, since faith is built off of a group of set laws. These laws are enforced both internally and by your religious sects. Those religious or atheist people that talk trash about the other group do so because of an inferiority complex. We all seek positive reinforcement of our beliefs, it releases dopamine into our brains.. When confronted with a contradiction its offensive because it forces us outside of our bubble. The Constitution was created to help us forge a bond and respect for each other. I am sad that so many atheists categorize and speak of religious people the way they do because it has caused a neutral being to become a group. Secularists, A word that the religious demonize, since it is a perceived threat to their very existence should not have a label as those that fall into that group do not self identify or classify themselves into this group.
Jake up top says all atheist are choosing the easier way?? I could argue the exact opposite saying that it is more difficult to remain a decent honest, MORAL person when you don't have a answer guide to the universe (= religious text of any belief system). Those that base decisions off logic, reason & perception while accepting they have no real purpose outside of their societal duties, and believing that death is the end for them.(because the only "proof" of its existence, comes from men that have no influence on them).
again a generalization, but ill wrap this up.. There are very good and intelligent believers and non believers, we all have to live with each other. The point the neutral guys were trying to make is. No athiest wants a symbol of their beliefs smacking the faces of all the non believers that walk by it, and they sure as hell don't want tax $ to support any part of it. I can say the same for religious folks,(moral folks) most of them believe that not only do the people that dont follow their religion will and should burn in hell. They believe that they have the right as Americans to intrude into other families lives. If you believe in prayer in school, or mixing YOUR religion with any state (owned by everyone), then you support fascism and you are not an American.
excuse me my last 3rd to last sentence should read.
” I cant say the same for religious folks, …)
cant being the change
Belief and faith are by definition personal statements. Fact and evidence are what supplies us with our beliefs and faith. Whether it is the person who sees a beautiful sunrise and glories in their chosen deity or the physicist who glories in the math of the universe it ends in the same result.
i fully support you in having your beliefs and faiths. I simply cannot support your faith disrupting my life or passing laws to control my actions based on your religious views. do whatever you want and leave me free to follow my beliefs.
If you don’t want to drink don’t. If you want to pray then pray. If you don’t want see an r-rated movie then don’t go. But don’t think your beliefs allow you to tell me i can’t.
Chlankboot, Your lame argument is Russell’s teapot.
“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”
If your position is the “default null position,” then the word you’re looking for is “agnosticism,” not “atheism.” Atheism is a specific rejection of the possibility of gods, while agnosticism is the position that the truth value of theistic propositions is undecidable (or perhaps just as yet undecided).
Today a cashier gave me the incorrect $$ back (too much). I realized this after trudging through the snow back to my car. I didn’t want to go back but thought about God and his influence in my life. I went back into the store, returned the $$ to the “stunned” cashier.
If believing in God makes me a better person then I will continue to do so.
FYI … when I finally GOT IT and connected with God I absolutely knew it. It is a very personal relationship that I hope you all come to have someday. I left my church because I agree that organized religion can be a disaster (not all …) …
Peace to all.
no that just means ur a faggot
I’ll never understand the assumed connection between the bible and morals. Have you people read any of the books brought to you by the Abrahamic religions? It’s pretty sickening what’s done by God and in the name of God, especially old testament.
Isn’t it possible that as a social collective, we know what’s right and wrong without a supreme being and a looming threat of Hell? To quote Einstein, “If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.”
Isn’t it possible that as a society, ethics and morals are constantly evolving? Things that were never thought of as a sin are horrendous by today’s standards. Slavery and womens rights (That one’s still being fought) are excellent examples. I promise you that 100 years from now, we’ll see today’s treatment of gay people in the same light we see the abhorrent treatment of women.
Sure, we can say that the holy scriptures cannot be taken in literal truth. They have to be applied to today’s times. If we are bending these scriptures to reinforce today’s standards, then isn’t that a huge clue that those very scriptures are holding us back? Aren’t there parts of these scriptures immoral, influencing people in the exact opposite that they believe?
It really is your choice to live your life based upon a disgustingly manipulative story or to free yourself from such sillyness and move forward as a human being, capable of leading a productive, moral, happy life for the sake of being a good person.
Either way you choose, please remember when voting on issues to not impose your religious beliefs on the rest of us.
Well done, you’ve managed to write what so many of us believe.
I’m tired of being shamed by religious believers for having my own opinion or be told that what I think is wrong absolutely.
Is it bad to believe in ghosts?
Some people I know have ghosts.
Calling someone a faggot is derogatory. Your a fine example why having the belief in God could prove to be beneficial. You might think twice before saying such cruel BS.
I am Christian because I believe in Jesus Christ. I follow the New Testament because when Jesus came he threw out the Old Testament. He overturned things that Moses told people were okay (ie: divorce in certain situations). Just because the Old Testament tells of things that took place at that time and appear in the Bible does not mean it was OK.
I am leading a productive, moral & happy life, thank you very much. People are very capable of doing that whether they believe in God or not.
Did you celebrate CHRISTmas (as in Jesus Christ) with family & friends this year?
I, for one, would like to VOTE in favor of removing Christmas as a holiday. We all should receive a personal day (as are given for Yom Kippur and Roshashana … pardon spelling). This way only the Christians will actually take the day off and the rest of the world can continue to work through it.
You're lucky you don't celebrate Christmas. The commercialism is out of control. It's not about a fat man in a red suit.
What issues are you talking about as far as voting? The gay marriage thing? I'm sure dems in CA who were so gungho about Obama are shocked to shit about the black community coming out and voting out gay marriage.
I don’t reject your opinion but I will say that the reason you don’t believe is because your are looking for proof. There is no proof only faith.
Seeing isnt believing
Believing is Seeing
@P
wow, a bit surprised that anybodys interacting with what i wrote. thanks. but i think it might be you, P, thats going about this the wrong way. let me address your response, and if you show up again, i would like to hear your answer to the reasons given in both this post and in my previous post.
you say the point isnt about being convinced. you say that not believing in god is the default. the reasons i can find in your response is that no one is born believing in theism, one does not need to believe if it is superfluous, and one does not need to believe to live (i assume you mean survive).
i notice that you dont really answer my reasons, which i think anticipate some of your argument, but i will answer your reasons to make it clearer.
1. one does not hold theistic belief from birth.
agreed. but does this mean skepticism of all things from birth should be the default? i dont think thats the case. for example, i had no opinion about the existence of penguins before i learned about them as a little kid. my default position wasnt to believe that they did not exist. i was simply not aware of their existence until i learned about them. at that point, i am faced with a decision. i can believe, based on the testimony of my teacher or pbs program, if they do in fact exist. or i can be skeptical about their existence. i think most people naturally default to believing that they in fact exist. remember, we are not talking about reasons to believe, simply the default position. it is strange to think that i had any position about penguins before i knew what they were, much less a default position. on the contrary, i didnt have a position on them at all before learning about them.
as i understand it, atheism as it is commonly understood, is a position of disbelief about god. not an absence of awareness, like in children. but even if you want to extend atheism to include children in the definition, the issue changes when children are confronted with the concept of god. they are no longer unaware. as a result, that “position” of unawareness is no longer available to them. hence they can choose to believe or not believe.
2. one does not need to choose to believe when believing is superfluous.
again, i agree. the assertion is that the concept of god has explanatory powers about the universe. i dont think thats the main controversy to most thinking people. the controversy is that this explanation requires belief in supernatural phenomena as part of the explanation. but whether you find the explanatory ability of theism plausible or not, nonetheless the belief does explain things (though maybe in ways you dont find appealing or credible). thus it is not, strictly speaking, superfluous. which shifts the argument to one of credibility or evidence, not one of the default position.
3. you said one does not need to believe in order to live. i assume you mean survive. once again, i agree. i find it interesting that you bring this up since my previous post included electrons, a concept i dont need to live. nor do i need to believe in penguins to live. so i havent claimed that belief in god is a requirement to live.
finally, you stated that organized religion reveals (if not causes) the idea that not believing in god is the default. but this is just like my claim about the penguin, electrons, or science in general.
for example, your statement about organized religion is like saying there is “organized science” reveals that believing in science is not the default. because i was not born with scientific beliefs, but i needed, somehow, to be persuaded to them. this may be true (which is something i have thus far conceded with theism), but this does not mean that i believe phenomena described by science to be false until i have enough evidence to believe. because disbelief of science is not the default. likewise, disbelief of god is not the default. the only objective default could be agnosticism.
its only people who havent encountered the concept of god that could be said to hold no default position about the issue. but those that have encountered the concept cannot have a default position of disbelief any more than they can have a default position of belief. the default would be uncertainty until one were persuaded one way or another.
i think your presumption of atheism has much to do with the inertia of ones current beliefs. you think that because you did not believe in god before encountering the concept, to go on not believing is the default. inertia. but again, that is like saying because you did not believe in penguins before you heard of them, the default is to go on not believing them after discovering them in school or on tv. this is possible, but i think most people are willing to accept the existence of penguins WITHOUT HAVING TO BE PERSUADED OUT OF DEFAULT “ATHEISM,” so to speak, about penguins.
so the presumption of atheism is not really as reasonable as it might initially appear.
but setting that issue aside, you might claim that you can believe in penguins because the evidence for penguins is satisfactory. i agree with that too. and that the evidence for god is not satisfactory. i would disagree here, but even if i concede that statement, my issue with most of the people who hold to this view do so without fully understanding the problem of their criteria of evidence.
if god is definitionally non-empirical, then it makes no sense to believe that he does not exist on grounds of empirical evidence. to do this reasonably, you must show that the physical world of empiricism is all that exists. this is incredibly difficult, if not impossible to do. in fact, it is probably easier to argue the skeptics position that even the external world doesnt exist. at least if we are using logic and rationality.
which is why i argued that it is much more difficult to disprove the existence of god than it is to simply be skeptical of his existence. even atheist intellectuals will admit this, which is why the presumption of atheism is often asserted: “given that i cant disprove god, and that i am not convinced by proofs for his existence, i will fall back on my default position: atheism.” but if atheism is not rationally the default position, then it is more intellectually honest and reasonable to say that one will fall back on the default position of agnosticism; that is, genuine doubt.
its my belief that most people who dont believe in god lack the intellectual integrity to do so, unfortunately. why do i think this? just take a look at all the previous postings by atheists above. in general, they are little better than the theist posts; poor reasoning and logical fallacies abound. this despite their smugness about being intellectually superior.
again, if you have understood what ive said, i am not arguing for the existence of god. i am saying that while his existence may be difficult to prove, his non-existence is also difficult to prove (nearly impossible actually), and that the default position, then, would rationally be one of genuine agnosticism.
wow, there are some crazy people here… and the guy who wrote this blog isn’t one of them.
Religion is alot like drugs and alcohol. Only a select few are able to practice/consume/use it responsibly. And while both contribute to an ongoing death toll, only those practicing religion do it intentionally and whole heartedly.
a⋅the⋅ism
/ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
noticeably different from: “the lack of a belief” or “neutrality”
which is not to say that one can’t be neutral etc.
Simply, find a better word to describe yourself, you’re not atheist.
I have on multiple occasions returned money or items that were not mine and incorrectly landed in my possession. Sometimes it has involved more time, energy, or even personal cost than simply trekking back into the store on a cold day. And I’m an atheist. I don’t need a god to see that it is right to do those things.
Seems to me that if you need some invisible watcher/enforcer to do what is right… it doesn’t reflect well on your own personal morals.
But why would an atheist need morals?
I was always taught that if you’re going to try and stand up for something you better know what it is you’re standing for.
FYI
Atheism, by definition, is the rejection of any belief in deistic beings (including God).
You’re a nihilist, some other form of non-faith based religion… or just plain lacking a belief.
Snowdenn
Very Impressive! Honest!
That’s funny. But to be precise, your Atheism is NOTHING without my religion. You wouldn’t even know how to begin describing it unless you had MY religion to put down, debase, and denigrate. Help yourself if you choose to believe in a non-entity, even when it means that you actually believe in a non-belief. I don’t think I could look myself in the mirror each morning if I led this one life I had regurgitating something I heard someone say at some time that sounded good at the time, namely Atheism. But that is your choice. Good luck and see you on the other side.
Quote, “What issues are you talking about as far as voting? The gay marriage thing? I’m sure dems in CA who were so gungho about Obama are shocked to shit about the black community coming out and voting out gay marriage.” END QUOTE WTF is there to be shocked about? you talk like Black people brought homosexuality over on da’ boat with them. black people in America, because of their Christian backgrounds, have been the biggest proponents against homosexuality in all of America. Black people still saw it as a shame when white American men marched in the streets for the right to stick their heads in another man’s butt. Sadly, it was that same ‘shame’ that prevented a lot of black men, once infected with AIDS that they caught from their white partners, from seeking treatment and spread the disease to black women. Shame and conviction in your soul are the same thing. But they are correctors which allow you to live a more productive life. Anywho who says differently is only looking at pleasing this flesh…because whenever that comes first in your life, you are already doomed.
Hello all,First, I must say, there are an awful many misconception abound regarding the meaning of the term "atheist". At the core the meaning is clear, it is an absence of theism, meaning no belief or non-belief in a deity. Refer to the entomology of the term: A(without)+theos(god) = without god. Link:http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=atheist&searchmode=noneThe root shows no positive claim only the absence of faith in god. It is those, who are uncomfortable with others who do not believe as they do and reject a man-made definition as absurd, that have chosen to make the absence of belief a positive denial and therefore alter colloquial use/definition. I am an atheist, I do not have a belief in godly existence. I am a gnostic atheist when referring to certain human manufactured gods such as the Christian god of the bible. Meaning, that this particular deity appears so implausible that I feel I know for certain it is nonexistent. Snowden, The null position is the default, you state as much in your first item "one does not hold theistic belief from birth. agreed. but does this mean skepticism of all things from birth should be the default?". Skepticism was not stated as the null position, an absence of belief was, every example you later give is an extrapolation what occurs after the presentation of evidence (i.e. belief in penguins). The null position is the default prior to evidence, post presentation of data one decides whether the criteria has been met to alter the original position. The material examples you give (penguins) are not an honest comparison to supernatural, otherworldly, intangible and highly contradictory claim such as 'god'.Gnosticism references knowledge and theism references belief. I am a an agnostic(do not know) atheist(do not believe) when it comes to the general idea of a deity, I believe very strongly we can know that the Christian god does not exist because of the inherent contradictions set forth by those of faith who define it, therefore I am a gnostic atheist regarding some gods.
Before I go away….I had to share this quote. It made me laff, hope it gives you a chuckle too…
A fellow who is always declaring he’s no fool usually has his suspicions.
Wilson Mizner
QUOTE:I believe very strongly we can know that the Christian god does not exist because of the inherent contradictions set forth by those of faith who define it,END QUOTE
That’s terrible logic. You are basing your entire human experience on the contradictions of others who define that particular faith.
In fact, that is not logic, by definition…that is prejudice.
Last Anonymous,I do not define the god you believe in, you do. I said nothing of “human experience”, only of the particular definition set forth by those who believe, their definition is implausible, contradictory and self refuting. If you wish to tell me that ice cream is god, and define it as a dairy confection with many flavor varieties, kept frozen and edible by humans, I would believe in your definition of god. I have had ice cream and it is wonderful.But I can only choose to believe/disbelieve YOUR god after YOU have defined it.
And that, my friend, is what is called specious reasoning. If indeed, I defined my God as vanilla icecream and you have only had chocolate icecream in your life, you would NOT believe because you had not experienced it for yourself. Did I hear you correctly on that? Because with that reasoning, I can now tell you that all people who have only eaten chocolate icecream in their lives will die and go to hell. I can further tell you that eating chocolate icecream will give you unholy desires that my God disapproves of…and I can tell you that chocolate icecream will rot your teeth, whereas, with my vanilla icecream, none of those bad things will happen to you.
The only difference is that you have the opportunity to experience my vanilla icecream for yourself. But then, AND ONLY THEN, can you say without a shadow of a doubt, whether my God-icecream really had all the properties I was attributing to it.
Do you see my point? You would probably try my vanilla icecream if I told you all those terrible things about yours…but you will not try my God, no matter what I say.
You are rigid. And you don’t even think to ask yourself why.
GH, I would like to continue our discussion but its bedtime.
Please understand that I could care less whether you believe in my God or not, I just appreciate your conversation.
I imagine I will have to answer for that one day, but I figure that is why God gave you television evangelists. lol Please feel free to email me.
SolarGoddess@gmail.com
A few thoughts…
-Separation of church and state was a concept that originally protected the church from the state and not the reverse.
-Terrible things have been done in the name of religion which is man’s attempt to get to God on his own.
- Religion is one of the most evil things in the world. Its a contractual way to get to God. For example, if I don’t watch R rated movies, God will see that my behavior is good and accept me.
- Here’s what a lot of people ( both Christians and Atheists ) don’t get. That contractual way of relating to God is the very thing that Jesus came to do away with. He was basically saying, “hey, this is good news, people – you don’t have to be on your best behavior to relate to God.”
- As a believer in Jesus, I want to apologize to any non-believer that’s ever been offended by Christians who don’t love, but instead try to impose rules on you through the harshness of cold religion. This is not the heart of God.
Its the kindness of God that changes mindsets. When you encounter authentic goodness – that’s when you’ll start to explore Him.
God is good
Here is something to think about…
It seems to me that as time goes on and people become more educated and wise, less atrocities and unmoral behavior exists.
Long ago when people were very uneducated, great amounts of abhorrent and unmoral behavior existed regardless of religion or lack of one.
It feels to me that education has a strong correlation to moralistic behavior.
Hence, the tendency to stop trying to understand ideas and things like evolution because its only explainable by the existence of a higher power threatens the very core and nature of acceptance and understanding.
As a human race there is nothing more threatening to ending human suffering and injustice than an inability or desire to understand things that you currently do not understand.
I am an Athiest
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
OK, so what do you do when someone’s free exercise of their religion violates the rights of other people? Some religions demand that their followers impose their religion on those who don’t follow it, some demand their followers mutilate the genitals of their children, some demand their followers violate most of the declaration of human rights (stoning people to death, making women subordinate to men, torturing people, etc.)
In that case one absolutely must prohibit the free exercise of religion, or else you don’t have any rights either.
@bgh,
i am pleased that you read one of my comments and have responded. however, it seems to me that you are simply restating the presumption of atheism without further support. if i understand you correctly, you are stating that the null position prior to encountering the concept of god and the null position after encountering the concept of god are identical. this is, i assume, because the null position is a negative rather than positive assertion.
however, my point is that the two are different, as the former is not truly a position. how is it that one can have a position on something one has never heard of? it seems more reasonable to say that prior to encountering the concept of anything, including god, a person has no position, rather than a negative or null position. otherwise, you would have to commit yourself to having an infinite number of positions about fictitious objects which dont exist. clearly this is not the case since the number of thoughts are person can have is very finite.
so while you can maintain that a person who has not heard of god does not believe he exists, this is different from saying that this person believes that god does not exist, which is the atheist position.
i dont see how you can overcome this objection to your presumption of atheism, and so far, ive only encountered simple restatements of the proposition. i would be interested to hear why my criticism of the it is invalid.
notice, i am not claiming that one should be agnostic before encountering the concept. i am only proposing agnosticism as the truly rational position if one does not find convincing evidence for or against the existence of god.
also, i think you may have misunderstood my example with material examples (penguins and electrons). you state that they are not an honest comparison to supernatural phenomena such as god, presumably because they are empirically observable whereas god is not. but this is exactly why i chose these examples. to make my point about the problem with asserting skepticism as the default position.
i have asserted that prior to encountering the concept, one is not truly a skeptic, since one could not have any position about the truth of the concept. thus, skepticism is not the default position. my contention is that atheism is skepticism about god. it may be a defensible position, but it is surely not the default. and i was using material examples to show why skepticism is not generally the default. one is not skeptical about penguins and electrons prior to encountering them. one simply does not know that they exist. after hearing about them, it would seem strange to assume a “default” skepticism about them. indeed, most people decide it is likely they exist given the reasons.
as i said, i am stating that atheism is skepticism about god. however, even if i concede that atheism includes non-skeptical positions, such as those of children or other people who have never heard of god, nonetheless, my argument still holds for people who have heard about god. upon encountering the concept, their new position is now one of skepticism, which is not identical to the position (or absence of a position) prior to hearing about god. however, i personally think it odd to include people who have not heard of god in the definition of atheism (and would argue that it is those like yourself who are changing the definition to fit your argument; though i think it does little to avoid what ive said above). and i am certain you are not implying that atheism excludes skepticism about god. thus you have two “positions” which are not identical since one is not a position at all, but an absence of a position.
moreover, i think you are confusing my examples regarding skepticism with the subject of evidence. i was not stating that the evidence for gods existence is the same as penguins. i was speaking about skepticism and the default position. however, the very dissimilarity between penguins and god indicates that one would be unreasonable to look for the same kinds of evidence for both. you might very well believe that penguins exist because of empirical evidence (although i suspect most or many people do simply on the basis of testimony; i for one have never personally observed a penguin and believed in their existence through testimony before observing them in film and television). however, if god is non-empirical, then it seems bizarre to discuss his existence on empirical grounds. again, the only way this can be successfully done is if you could show that all of existence is limited to the physical or empirical, which is, as far as i know, an impossibility. which would, if my above argument goes through, mean agnosticism rather than atheism would be the reasonable position.
i have mentioned that it is nearly impossible show that existence is only physical (the complete elimination of the possibility of non-physical existence), which i assume is the basis of most atheistic skepticism towards god. however, i find it interesting that this skepticism is so selective. why doubt only gods existence? how is it that you can prove that anything at all exists? empirical data? but surely if you are simply a brain in a vat, all your physical observations are simply impulses being fed to you by wires from a computer. ridiculous? indeed. but can you prove, with only your observable empirical data, that this is not true? you cannot since all of it could be part of the illusion. yet i am sure you believe that the world exists. first by intuition, then by empirical data. for you cannot assume the empirical data that you perceive exists without your intuition that your perception is true and not an illusion for a brain in a vat. whats more, your belief that only empirical data is to be trusted is also an intuition (as this cannot be empirically tested). which is why i find it strange that you believe in the existence of the external world by intuition, but reject intuition as a valid source of belief in other people (namely, theistic intuition). to be consistent as a skeptic then, you should have doubts about the existence of those penguins and electrons.
last, nowhere have i asserted anything about the christian god; im not sure why you bring that up. however, i am indeed a christian theist. moreover, i am fairly certain that i know more about christian evidences than you do. i say that with a bit of hesitance since i am not implying anything about your intelligence, and i am not inclined to get into a discussion about the existence of the judeo-christian god, particularly not in this format. but the reason i bring that up because it seems that you, along with a good deal many other atheists, presume that theism is an intellectually bankrupt position and theists are uneducated and ignorant persons, superstitious and naive for holding to their views. one might liken that to the assertion that atheists are wicked and morally bankrupt. on the contrary, ive met and am friends with good and decent atheists. its a shame if you have not had the same experience with theists. but to assume (and forgive me if im wrong about you here) that theists and theism is idiotic has as much to do with your ignorance about the subject as it does the simplistic theists and theistic arguments you may have encountered. in any case, i think the reasonable and rational arguments for the existence of god are long and many, as are the objections. so my intention was only to critique the presumption of atheism i found on your blog, although i may have sidetracked a little.
My belated 2c, some of which may repeat previous comments:
@BGH: *yawn*
@Dillon: No, the inclusion of atheist objects or slogans on government property would show support for atheism, as Christian ones would for Christianity. Lack of any would support neutrality.
@Matt: To be more technical, agnosticism is the understanding that it is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of any higher power – there is no conscious choice to not apply religion or rules to anything.
@jake: You make the perfect example for those seeking to understand how fundamentalist’s think: not only are your choices the only ones, but you also display an amazing gift to know what everyone else was thinking when making their choices. Truly you are one of the chosen.
@jack: So if your God took a hand against his creations, he’d cease to be God? Doesn’t fit the exact definition of omnipotent, does it?
@Anonmyous (2009.01.08, 21h48): It’s not “easier to accept a black abyss”. And the thought frightens most people willing to contemplate it. But fewer and fewer people are willing to embrace religion merely to avoid that fear.
@Anonymous (2009.01.08, 21h55): True, agnostic’s Greek root means roughly “lack of knowing”. Since society has moved on slightly since the creation of that word (you noticed, right?), now it can generally be interpreted as someone who is intelligent enough not to believe in a higher power because they accept they’re not intelligent enough to prove or disprove the higher power’s existence.
@Griff: Dawkins or any other person is not the single source of all understanding regarding any given set of beliefs. Using the exact definition of the terms, as opposed to the general public’s usage/understanding of them, we are left with atheism being the denial of the existence of a god, and agnosticism being uncertain of all claims to knowledge, or a person claiming true knowledge of the existence of god cannot be had. Not quite the same as not believing “in any of your Gods”.
So – atheism is denying the existence of god/s, theism is embracing the existence of god/s, and agnosticism is truly neutral. The world is not as black and white as you want it to be – agnostics aren’t on a fence, we’re on another level altogether, waiting patiently for you fundamentalists to get a grip.
I find it rather amusing at the sheer number of people that have posted bitching at you for not believing in their god I wonder how many actually read the whole post. wile I don’t agree with you on all points proof for a scientific mind is needed , hell I needed prof and I still hate people who cite scripture to tell me who wrong i am it was assembled by committee anyway so I have always doubt it to be the be all end all on what the christian god has to say. anyway it’s your human right to believe how you will and I agree with you that no god gods or other deity has any place in or government , and if god(s) was remvoed form our cash money and every ware else government the world would be a much better place.
–kateweb
i would just like to add that both religious people and non-religious people do both good and bad, it more depends on their morals way more than their beliefs
i also agree with the others that said that you should not force your beliefs on other, this includes creating laws to promote or ban religion (unless it causes physical or mental harm)
Hi, I have a blog on atheism (I hope it is not spam, but I would be glad to host your thoughts there).
I share your position, even it’s not deeply argumented (damn, it’s an article!).
I’m not American but I want to say something about religion and democracy: modern democracies, as Habermas clearly showed, are based on the rational public argumentation. In fact, people that is able to make an opinion is in right to vote (everyone, in democracy). Religion is against rational argumentation where it brings on “faith”.
Ps: if you want, my blog is atheism20.blogspot.com
Hi!
Anonymous said…
OK…someone needs a lesson in Latin.
Atheism = atheos in Latin
ἀ in the latin – Meaning Without or No
“Theos” in the latin – meaning God or Deity
NO. Someone, a.k.a. you, needs a lesson in Greek. And Latin. The Latin for god is deus (ex. Deus ex machina). The Ancient Greek for god is theos, and the “a” you said to mean without or no is also a Greek term. So please, if you are going to be condescending, at least try to be intelligent.
I am agnostic and really don’t care about all of this. But, I do know one thing I have found true about Christianity…it’s very useful…in weeding out those who believe strongly in the Christian faith. It only takes a quick statement or question to find out how intolerable they can be.
i get this to be interesting bit of discussion and it will go on and on. lets look at history and judge for ourselves if all that is written in the bibble is fake. am a christian to start with so this means that before i start my argument am already inclined in my reasoning. just a simple question why is the calender is divided into BC and AD that is after death of christ Jesus and before christ came into the world as a man. you find it so convenient to BELIEVE that there is not God or any Deity who influences things and things just happen and there is no controller of the universe. how can you xplain the prophesies that were prophesised and are now being fulfilled? in the gospels, jesus gave us the signs to watch for before He comes to to take us home…..there will be wars and rumours of wars, kingdoms shall fight against each other, earthquakes famine , people will be lovers of money rather than lovers of God, children shall turn away from their parents and all sorts of evil shall come to the world. there will be emergence of false prophets those who will use the name of jesus christ and the Father for their own good. and so on and so foth. you tried to believe but you didnt have enough inquisitiveness and the thurst for the truth to make you know the truth. jesus said that the gospel shall be preached to every individual and to every nation and at least you know the GOSPEL but DECIDED not to believe that is your decision. my advice to you all read the bible with an open mind and compare what you believe with what the bible says. look at history and judge for yourself. archaelogists are working round the clock to confirm if what the old testament says is true and they are amazed with their findings. GOD indeed exist dont act in prejudice. my email addresses are jackochieng@yahoo.co.uk or jackochieng@gmail.com. be blessed all of you
@ Snoden and Zayne
Bravo!
Enough said.
Agnostics do not beleive in a higher power. They do not know if such a thing exists.
Today a cashier gave me the incorrect $$ back (too much). I realized this after trudging through the snow back to my car. I didn’t want to go back but thought about God and his influence in my life. I went back into the store, returned the $$ to the “stunned” cashier.
If believing in God makes me a better person then I will continue to do so.
FYI … when I finally GOT IT and connected with God I absolutely knew it. It is a very personal relationship that I hope you all come to have someday. I left my church because I agree that organized religion can be a disaster (not all …) …
Allan, comments such as yours have always confused me. Did your parents do such a poor job instilling morals in you that you honestly feel you should give credit for being a good, decent person to a religious belief?
Do you ever question the fact that you may have simply been brainwashed to associate good behavior with god?
Atheist or no, I would have done the same exact thing as you and returned the money. It isn’t really something I would have thought about – it is just the right thing to do. I am not patting myself on the back because it is hard for me to take credit for something I feel everyone should do. It is simply living up to my own expectation of what I feel should be normal human behavior.