A theist emailing me at Eternal Earthbound Pets tells me that since I have no belief in the existence of a God, that non-belief is therefore a belief, and thus equates to a religion.
What is it with these people? Why is it they are so desperate to call disbelief a belief, and atheism a religion, when the concepts are diametrically opposed to logic, and the very definitions of these terms?
I’ve discussed this before… how one’s non-belief in alien abductions, or vampires, et al, does not equate to a “belief” in their nonexistence much less a religion. It’s simple disbelief, a rejection of a concept because it is devoid of evidence and cannot be supported by natural law. No belief does not a belief make-- it’s quite simple.
Calling a lack of belief in such things “Belief because you don’t believe” is just plain moronic. It's the same as insisting that I subscribe to “The Religion of There are No Vampires" because I have no belief in the existence of vampires. It's patently crazy.
Mostly I think this is a product of Christian apologists who like to play fast and lose with word definitions and the minds of their even less intellectually gifted followers. Once infected by convoluted word games proffered as fact, these poor uneducated folks have no way of displacing it with logic or authenticated definitions. That’s not how their brains are wired.
I don’t “believe” the Earth is flat. I reject it as fallacy until and unless those who do believer it’s flat can substantiate it with scientific evidence. I do not have “belief” in an alternate concept of the shape of the earth as theists have belief in God. What I do have is a very strong degree of certainty that the Earth is spherical because of scientific evidence and proofs that seem to defy contradiction. That’s as far from blind belief as one could get. A "belief" in flat earth, or anything else, is acceptence of that which is devoid of empirical evidence. Non-Belief is simply the result of a lack of empirical evidence.
What is it with these people? Why is it they are so desperate to call disbelief a belief, and atheism a religion, when the concepts are diametrically opposed to logic, and the very definitions of these terms?
I’ve discussed this before… how one’s non-belief in alien abductions, or vampires, et al, does not equate to a “belief” in their nonexistence much less a religion. It’s simple disbelief, a rejection of a concept because it is devoid of evidence and cannot be supported by natural law. No belief does not a belief make-- it’s quite simple.
Calling a lack of belief in such things “Belief because you don’t believe” is just plain moronic. It's the same as insisting that I subscribe to “The Religion of There are No Vampires" because I have no belief in the existence of vampires. It's patently crazy.
Mostly I think this is a product of Christian apologists who like to play fast and lose with word definitions and the minds of their even less intellectually gifted followers. Once infected by convoluted word games proffered as fact, these poor uneducated folks have no way of displacing it with logic or authenticated definitions. That’s not how their brains are wired.
I don’t “believe” the Earth is flat. I reject it as fallacy until and unless those who do believer it’s flat can substantiate it with scientific evidence. I do not have “belief” in an alternate concept of the shape of the earth as theists have belief in God. What I do have is a very strong degree of certainty that the Earth is spherical because of scientific evidence and proofs that seem to defy contradiction. That’s as far from blind belief as one could get. A "belief" in flat earth, or anything else, is acceptence of that which is devoid of empirical evidence. Non-Belief is simply the result of a lack of empirical evidence.
In the non-thinking of the religiously stupid, if that makes me a congregant of the "Round Earth Religion," well pass me the Round Earth communion wafer and call me Father Hump.
57 comments:
These knuckleheads do this because they have this sinister 'wedge' strategy.
If they get enough people to talk about non-belief being a belief then the next step is to declare atheism as a religion followed by the step of getting that 'religion' declared as unconstitutional to be teaching it in public schools.
One of the things that show them to be so ignorant is that even if they managed to get atheism declared as a religion, it still has nothing to do with teaching evolution in science classes.
It is fun though watching these people running around frantically spewing nonsense. It is an enjoyable spectator sport.
LOL! I don't know how some theists get through the day without their heads exploding from all the silly and/or stupid ideas they hold....It is fun to watch...but also annoying...esp. if they sit on school boards or hold public office. They should confine their stupidity (which is different from "ignorance" cuz ignorance can be replaced with knowledge) to their own homes or religious buildings.
Bob,
I think you're onto something there.
Rachelle,
Yep, Ignorance can be cured ... stupidity is incurable.
Thanks Hump. I am never sure whether 'atheism-as-religion' thing is sinister or merely idiotic.
Tidal,
I always assumed just stupidity, but I think Bob may be right about their agenda.
it aint gonna work.
Hey Hump,
I am still scratching my head on the disbelief is a religion thing. I was told that our puppy took a shit on floor. Well, I didn't believe it (at first). Now does that mean I should genuflect to the hot steaming coil or,,,, but but but, so if you tell the devout that you have a 16 KM boner and if they don't believe you then most certainly by default, they worship your boner? Ugh, more questions than answers with this one. I will research.
Best,
Adam
Adam!!!
LOL...you are always on target and never fail to crack me up!
Thanks!
Hump
most rational, thinking people do not begin with conclusions about god's non-existence as their intellectual starting point. since
any claim that a god exists but is beyond human comprehension is not only a silly consignment that smacks of primitive superstition,
but is non essential to one's pursuit of knowledge and intellectual integrity.
the contortions and acrobatics of the terminally religious will always be exposed under the light of reason. good post, hump!
one
One,
thanks for your input.
Hump
It's a way of disarming you. You have no valid points if you're just like them, and using blind faith. Probably a subconscious defensive reaction.
They don't want to accept you've reached this stage through reason and logic, so they say you're also a believer, and release their cognitive dissonance.
It's good to push the Naturalist view...we only believe things with empirical physical evidence...to clearly define why we are not like them.
Josiah,
Sounds like a valid take on this.
thanks.
H
Last week I made the decision to actively "teach" my children that there is no god, and I find myself questioning my right to do this for a couple of days now. This surprises me. I had planned to wait until they developed critical thinking skills before we had the "discussion" when they were ten or twelve years old/young, but lately I have been so frightened (wrong word) of the christian determination to indoctrinate that I feel compelled to vaccinate my precious children now. What I question is my right to "teach" my children my (non)belief.
I made up a poem for my children:
There is no heaven,
There is no hell,
There is no god,
I wish you well.
Good day, folks! I'm happy to have found this most excellent blog!
Parlemort,
Welcome, & Nice poem, LOL!
I don't see you doing anything wrong. As long as they don't go to school and give believer kids a hard time(unless they give your kid one first).
When my first born asked if there was a god I told him "I don't believe in god, but your Mom does. When you get older you can decide for yourself." It wasn't much of an issue after that.
Both my sons are grown men now, and happily athiest.
Thanks for commenting, hope you'll be a regular here.
Hump
Hello Hump,
It has been a while as I have been busy on a project I am working on.
I did want to pass on a new word that I learned today. It is "nihilism." The word means, "A viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless. A doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and expecially of moral truths. Some how I think that this applies to the "Terminally Religious."
Parlemort,
It is not correct to teach your children that there is no god, just like it is not correct to teach them that there is a god.
Depending on their ages, you could teach them that there is no evidence of a god and like Hump did, teach them that you do not believe there is and that some people believe there is.
You CAN begin to teach them critical thinking skills with many examples. You can start simply by showing them an object and then hiding it and then asking them if it still exists.
I just 'googled' the phrase "how to teach critical thinking" and got many selections.
My hubby and I don't have kids, but here is a book at Amazon that might interest you:
http://www.amazon.com/Parenting-Beyond-Belief-Raising-Religion/dp/0814474268/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252079773&sr=1-1
I think telling kids about all sorts of "gods" that have "existed" can be fun and educational, as long as you present it like all of the other fairy tales they enjoy. LOL! Focusing on one "God" might give it more credibility than it deserves.
Amazon is winging that book to me as I type, Rachelle. Thank you.
Thank you also to NewEnglandBob for your kind advice, however, I have decided to follow my parental heart and actively teach my children that there is no god, just like I tell them there are no monsters in the closet.
When children believe in Santa Claus, parents (not me, though) casually tell themselves that it seems to be okay to just let them "believe" it, and it certainly helps with babysitting. : ) I am uncomfortable with letting my children believe in Santa, so I say things like, "Well, sorta..." When children wake up frightened in the night by monsters in the closet, parents immediately reassure them that there are certainly no monsters in the closet and this is how I will deal with the god issue. "There is no god, no one will send you to a hell, I love you."
Thank you also to Dromedary Hump for working so hard on such a great blog.
I hope you all have three days off like I do! Good day, folks!
Parlemort,
Thats so nice., thanks.
Yeah..have a great long weekend everyone. Ofcourse, to me, a retired country squire, every day is a long holiday weekend .
sorry..dont mean to rub it in.
:)
Hump
"I made the decision to actively "teach" my children that there is no god"
If there are any church goin "christians" reading this blog, that comment will have em coming out of the woodwork.
"When you get older you can decide for yourself"
That is probably the best way for an atheist to handle it.
sorry guys, but a statement like
"Science is a sure path to certain knowledge" is a statement of belief. So is saying "God is the only source of true knowledge." They are fundamentally different, of course, but they are both belief statements. You're absolutely right when you say that it's absurd to aver that non-belief is actually belief (at least if you're bound to modern western epistemology, as you guys seem to be). But I do get a kick out of the fervor with which you toss around your thoughts. You don't realize how much your zeal mimics that of Christian evangelicals, or even that your division of the world into theist/atheist is an exact cognate for the evangelicals' bifurcation of the world into believer/nonbeliever. And both sides seem to want to convert the other. (Wait, I can hear the "I don't give a flying fuck what Chrisitans want.... objection --- but if that's the case, why write blogs and books -- unless it's just to make money, with no real conviction behind your ideas? Wait. Conviction? That would be a term usually associated with theists.) It's all so silly.
No, fliptop, the huge difference is that we use logic, reason and critical thinking.
If there was evidence of a god, I would change my thinking in a new your minute. If an amputated limb was grown back or a 1000 foot god showed himself standing across the Potomac, then I would be convinced.
There is no need to convert theists if they keep their views private and stop using force to tell us what to do with out lives.
It is their need to tell us what to eat, when and with whom to have sex, what hours we must pray to their fake deity, their magic underpants and their xenophobia and other irrational rules that they 'know' are the 'truth' - these are the highly objectionable behaviors that must be stopped.
Christian zeal and evangelicalism and Muslim fundamentalism are examples of theistic dogma based on fear and delusion that have been brainwashed into people from an early age.
No, fliptop, you have it all wrong.
Flip,
Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately it is fractally wrong.
Zeal? I have no interest in converting theists to non-belief. Evangelicals do. My interest, my "zeal" if you will, is directed toward keeping religious assholes from inflicting their disregard for scientifc evidence and reality on children in public schools; for keeping fanatics from breaking down the wall of separation and re-writing history; from stopping relgious whackos from truncating the rights and freedoms of Americans because of their interpretation of the words of an imaginary sky daddy written by prescientific bronze age and 1st century cultists a few thousand years ago.
Youwant to call that a "belief",then you're as confused as they are.
That we respect the scientific method, that knowledge can only come from acceptence of the real and physical world, that objective investigation, data collection, evaluation of data, testing etal, is what has extended your life span, advanced our civilization, and broadened our understanding isn't a matter of belief either. It's fact.
You are the beneficiary of what thinking people, people who deal only in reality, have labored for.
Had religion had it's way you'd still be thinkig that a two headed calf is the work of Satan. Perhaps you still do.
Hump
Bob's right, it's part of the wedge strategy. I'm sure the ground players aren't aware of the reasons for it, but they have it constantly drilled into their heads by folks like Ken Hamm that are trying like hell to get Creationism into schools.
Ummm. If you guys haven't read enough history to understand that Christianity was in large part responsible for the development of modern science, you'll need to go back to philosophy 101. If that is too much, go to this website for some "enlightenment"
http://www.rae.org/jaki.html
Happy reading.
BTW most of the other stuff the writer of that article goes for is, in my opinion, bunk. But being ignorant of the necessity of a linear view of time for the development of modern science is pretty inexcusable.
"If you guys haven't read enough history to understand that Christianity was in large part responsible for the development of modern science..."
It seems there is nothing like completely changing the topic to a strawman argument when there is little else significant to say, right fliptop?
Fliptop said: "And both sides seem to want to convert the other. (Wait, I can hear the "I don't give a flying fuck what Chrisitans want.... objection --- but if that's the case, why write blogs and books -- unless it's just to make money, with no real conviction behind your ideas?"
.
.
.
False dichotomy: Atheists write books and blogs to try to "convert the religious" OR just to make money. I reject that those are the only two reasons.
Most Christians don't even read their own Bibles, or texts from other religions, so I doubt they're running to bookstores or logging on to Amazon to purchase books written by atheists/non-believers/"infidels and heathens"/"Satan himself."
Most of the atheist books I've read are written with atheists in mind (and yes probably to also make money...but why not? People don't have to BUY any books if they don't want to.)...Atheist blogs are generally meant for other atheists so that they have a place to discuss issues and vent with like-minded people...even though atheists don't have a dogma or agree on everything (for example,I like the writings of Christopher Hitchens, but I'm not fond of his personal hawkish political views).
You're missing the most basic of points...and that is that we are all HUMAN and humans have a need to feel acceptance (unless you're a sociopath, LOL!). It's normal to gravitate to what makes us feel comfortable and "not alone." If you're in a room full of women and there is only ONE other male there...chances are you will make eye contact and find your way over to him. For some religious people, a church, temple or mosque is akin to that...For some atheists, it's an atheist blog.
Are you suggesting that atheists should just shut up and ignore all the bullshit around them? To sit by and let fundies take over the educational system without a word of opposition? To let religious nuts pass laws that affect EVERYONE without one word of dissent?? How is expressing ones thoughts akin to wanting to "convert" someone? Converting someone implies an active stance like say, knocking on peoples' doors to spread "The Truth." Or fleecing the flock and then using some of that money to buy air time to preach against homosexuality and working mothers. Atheists aren't trying to "convert" people when they speak out against the religious nuts who want to invade/infect all parts of society. It's called an opposing viewpoint....one that is rarely covered in the news anyway....and when it is, is done with tongue in cheek or animosity.
ERIC V SNOW??? lol.
YEAH.. that's what I want.. a white washed revsionist interpretation of church history from a devout Christian apologist.
I read on Catholic Encyclopedia that the crusade against the Cathars lasted 20 years, and stopped as the cathar movement disappeared. Yep. True.
But what those good catholic apologists failed to mention, conveniently, is the cathar movement disappeared BECAUSE THE CATHARS WERE EXTERMINATED BY THE CHURCH.
Yeah Flip..you get your history from the bible and from christian apologists to whom revisionist history is a sacrament. We'll get ours from impartial historians who don't have an agenda.
The Church has been an enemy of knowledge and reason for ever. Church fathers were very eplicit about wanting to keep anything that contradicted the bible suppressed. Martin Luther said: "Reason is the enemy of the faith." one doesn't support science by suppressing reason. It's oxymoronic.
Hell, even Gregor Mendel's papers were destroyed afterhis death by the abbot..whther thru ignorance or intent, we'll never know.
Flip..think more, investigate beyond religious filtering and mouthing your preferred christian soures. Your credibility is at stake . such as it is.
PS:
you know whats funny. Muslims like to point to the contributions they made to science and math. Unfortunately that stopped about 700 years ago.
One need only llook to how many have received the nobel prize to see their commitment to science is defunct.
Then one need only look at the Royal Society in GB, and the National Academy of Science in the US to see that 93% and 89% of these most esteemed scientists are non- believers.
If Christianity EVER had a claim to scientific advancement, it's as dead as the muslim's claim. But at least the muslims had a real claim.
Flip... are you a Geocentrist? The only people I ever hard of in the 21st century who are happen to be Christians. Go figure.
LOL Don't want to engage the content of the article, do you? OK by me. As for atheists being something like an oppressed minority, gimme a break. Yeah, there is some conspiratorial Christian cabal meeting on a daily basis to persecute you. That's paranoia talking. And I thought you were the ones who were thinking rationally. As for blogs being a place to share views with one another -- it's not much more, then, than mutual masturbation. (On which atheists have no monopoly -- about 98% of blogs are the exact same thing. So don't take it personally. Unless you want to feel persecuted. Then go right on ahead and I'll get out my violin and weep while I play for you.)
How about you just think what you think and not whine about those boogey-man theists?
Meanwhile -- does anyone truly desire to engage the argument that modern science depends on a linear view of history, a view that arises principally from the eschatological/teleological world-view of Christian philosophy? I doubt it, but go ahead and take a crack at it if you'd like.
Flip said:
"As for atheists being something like an oppressed minority, gimme a break. Yeah, there is some conspiratorial Christian cabal meeting on a daily basis to persecute you. That's paranoia talking. And I thought you were the ones who were thinking rationally."
"How about you just think what you think and not whine about those boogey-man theists?"
.
.
.
LOLOL! Well I'm black, female and atheist...so I know a LITTLE something about oppression. LOL! I still don't WHINE about it (condescending...Do you WHINE when it comes to issues YOU care about or do you VOICE AN OPINION?)....I do pay attention and I do respond.
If theists just kept their thoughts to themselves as you suggest atheists do, I suspect atheists would do likewise...But that means keeping it in THEIR homes and lives and out of the homes and lives of others who don't want to be bothered. If they can't do that then they should expect opposition. What are THEY afraid of?? LOL!
Word games and history lessons aside, all I care about as an atheist is EVIDENCE. So far there are no good arguments for the existence of gods and no good evidence. Let's start there. I'm pretty open-minded. :)
flip...
people have responded directly to every statement and comment you posted here.
Yet with each new posting you ignore thier replies which discredit your hypotheses, instead choosing to pull from the apologist's bag of games a new subject.
You rsponded directly to no one,not one of their detailed and thoughful retorts.
There is a name for that. We don't tolerate trolls, regardless of their beliefs or lack their of.
Now... you can go back and reply to the many counter arguments to the subjects you initiated or you can leave. We'll not play this game on your terms.
Wow! I fell into a beatific place!
I'm constantly on the hunt for appropriate responses to typical christian statements and I'm sure I've found a goldmine here when I scan the archives.
Flip is a classic example of diversionary christian tactics and I'm familiar with his (male? yes) type and I no longer have patience with them.
I am definitely past debate stage. I am after the fence-sitter and the teenager wondering if it's okay to break away from the indoctrination. Here's an example of what I'm attempting to do (some might find it boring): http://www.click2houston.com/news/20727445/detail.html
I feel very comfortable here in humpville and I've been searching for a long, long time for sanctuary. : ) Thank you, folks!
Parle,
For as long as I have my hump and a warm stable in which to rest it, you'll have a place to call home on the internet.
You handled yourself well in that message exchange. But i fear that in Bible Belt Texas there aren't enough working synapses for your reasoned arguments to be understood, much less responded to intelligently.
Hump
OK. Here's a question that responds directly to Rachelle's concern for EVIDENCE.
Do you, or do you not, accept "testimony" or "narrative" as evidentiary?
I'll leave it to that.
Thanks
flip
fliptop asked:
"Do you, or do you not, accept "testimony" or "narrative" as evidentiary?"
Of course not. That is all just phony made up nonsense or delusional behavior.
That behavior is a form of schizophrenia or is malevolent or drug induced.
But two other issues. "evidentiary" is not a word.
Also you did not respond to Hump's comment:
"you can go back and reply to the many counter arguments to the subjects you initiated or you can leave".
Flip,
Last request:
Stop posing new questions until you have respond to the refuting arguments tendered by respondents in the two threads in which youve been active.
NEBob:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidentiary
"Evidentiary" is a word. That argument direct enough?
(Should I catalog all the misspellings of the other posters?)
You say:
"It is their need to tell us what to eat, when and with whom to have sex, what hours we must pray to their fake deity, their magic underpants and their xenophobia and other irrational rules that they 'know' are the 'truth' - these are the highly objectionable behaviors that must be stopped."
to eat -- Christians do not have a code for eating, and neither halal nor kosher are codified into law in any western nations.
to have sex -- you got theists, at least right wing Xns, on that one.
hours to pray -- you refer to the public nature of the Muslim calls to prayer? I've been plenty of places where they are, I would agree, a nuisance. But I've never seen a Muslim emerge from a mosque to harangue an atheistic passerby to make him/her come in and pray.
magic underpants -- you referring to the freemasons? while they are deists, the "free" in the title intended to refer to freedom from the authority of the pope. I think they're nutty, too, but masons have a specific code that says they don't recruit. (At least they used to -- that may have changed.)
xenophobia -- you'd have to give solid, fair evidence that theists are more xenophobic than atheists to substantiate that charge.
irrational rules -- they are only irrational if one does not believe that belief itself is irrational. Therefore, it would seem to me, this charge is mere begging the question. (I assume you know the proper use of that idiom.)
Have I satisfied the requirement of sticking to at least one of the threads? Not pretending that you will agree with anything I say -- just wondering if this qualifies.
Oh. One other reply to NEBob -- I think we may have to reform the judicial systems of most western nations if testimony and narrative are not accepted as having evidential value (not the greatest value, I'll grant you, but value nonetheless).
Meanwhile, does anyone want to respond to my statement that "Science is a sure path to certain knowledge" is a belief statement? I'd thought that was pretty close to on topic.
fliptop, of course you obfuscate your meanings, just so you can make an idiotic case.
"Testimony" and "evidence" and "narrative" in a religious sense is exactly the opposite of what it means in the judicial system in western countries.
Straw man arguments are juvenile.
"Christians do not have a code for eating, and neither halal nor kosher are codified into law in any western nations."
There was a code for many years about fish on Friday and there are religious restrictions during lent. Your statement is false.
It is irrelevant that kosher and halal are not codified in law.
"I've never seen a Muslim emerge from a mosque to harangue an atheistic passerby to make him/her come in and pray."
I can point to hundreds of news reports that your statement is false.
"magic underpants" is a reference to Mormons.
Xenophobia: I can give you quotes from the old and new testament and the Koran - they are full of xenophobia and they define in-group verses out-group fears.
"irrational views" - tell us how the bible commandment to murder one's own child if he/she disobeys is rational in any sense? Saying that its only irrational if you don't believe is the stupid statement of the week.
Wow.
It seems that the only way for you guys to have a discussion (I'm not speaking of other atheists, just the few I've met in this room) is to call people idiots, irrational, etc., if they don't share the a-theistic point of view. That's charitable.
That some Xns have an eating code does not imply that all Xns do. That some Muslims have harangued non-believers does not imply that all Muslims do.
Mormons are just as silly as freemasons, imho.
Sure there is xenophobia in the texts. As there is theist-o-phobia in many of the posts in here. Glass houses...
Of course it's inhumane and irrational to advocate killing people the way you find such stuff in the Bible. There are some Christians (and others, I suppose) who are crazy enough to advocate this. Does that mean that all theists should be lumped into the same batch of crazies? I wouldn't think that would be exactly fair.
Nor would I think it fair to say that all atheists think that believers' heads would explode, or that all believers are total idiots or nincompoops or, well, blah blah blah with the juvenile prattle and name-calling that seems to pass for rational discussion.
Testimony (I'm not talking about public witnessing) is, quite simply, "This is what I have seen (or experienced)." That's what it is in a court of law, and that is, in essence, what it is in courts of law. It does not, in itself, have evidential value (usually). But if I have 150 eye-witnesses to a crime who all give the same testimony (and it's clear they're not cooking up the same story), but without csi-like evidence to support the testimony, the court will indeed consider their testimony as valid. That's all I'm saying.
Thus, if you bracket out all forms of personal narrative or testimony as BS from the outset, you have simply begged the question regarding the possibility of belief, because belief rests on testimony and narrative. It's like saying "I'll agree that yellow cows exist on the dark side of the moon if 10,000 astronauts with super flashlights can take a picture of them", while at the same time denying the admissibility of pictures taken with super flashlights. You've assumed your conclusion (begged the question), and bracketed out the possibility of a different conclusion by the way youset up the problem. Doesn't seem quite fair.
I'll just sit back now and wait for the "stay on the discussion" objection to arise.
Fliptop, No one said All Christians did this or that. That is your silliness. I see that you actually have no point to make here. You just talk all around an issue. When you actually have a point to make, I might read more from you. Until then, I won't bother since all you seem to need to do is argue for argument's sake.
Flip...
no one here said all theists are extrenmists. No one here said atheists are a victimized minority. You are attributing alot of statements to people here that were never made. I find that really irritating and intellectually dishonest. But I sense that is what your intent is here. I'm not going to tolerate it indefinitly.
What we did say is this: that there exists a significant percentage of theists-- christian, muslim, et al,-- who promulgate some bad shit in our culture and on civilization and which negatively impacts on women, gays, and people who believe religion and gov't should be separate, medical and scientific advancement, etc., etc. Bob and I mentioned just some of them...which you have still opted to ignore.
Whether these represent 30%, 50%, or 75% of religionists is not at all the point since we (or at least I) don't condemn all theists simply for having blind supernaturalist beliefs.
My condemnation is reserved for those who represent a clear and present danger to secular freedoms; the right of women to control their bodies; the rights of minority people be they gays, Jews, non-believers, etc., to not be classified as 2nd class citizens and subject to the religious whims of the majority religion; truncating the advancement of science that can better our existence; and the promulgation of polices in an effort to promulgate "prophecy fulfiklment that discourage peace, and encourage unrest and war.
I know of NO atheist foundations/ organizations in this country that do what I described above. It seems to be the purview of religious fanatics, extremists, fundamentalists. There is no denying their existence, and their influence.
If you recognise this and understand it to be fact, then trying to infer we paint all believers with the same brush when you know damn well we dont is bullshit. So Stop it.
As for "evidence" -- there is no testamony from eyewitness in any scripture. All the authors of the gospel, the synoptic gospels, and John, were second/third hand "hearsay." While hearsay is testamony it is the least valued evidence in any court of law.
Even the few mentions of Jesus's existence by non scriptual sources were 1st,and 2nd century non-eyewitness accts. (No, don't bring up Josephus'... that writing has already been discredited as having been altered post Josephus.)
In fact, hearsay evidence alone would be inadmissable as proof of a positive assertion.
But no one gives a shit what you base your beliefs on, or what justification you use to keep your faith in the face of modernity and the scientifc age. If hearsay is good enough for you, youre welcome to it. You don't owe us any justification. And frankly, I don't want to hear it.
As long as you do not fall into the group of theists whose brand of belief causes them to be activists in ways that are repugnant and in opposition to peace, freedom, intellectual and scientific advancment, I don't give a fuck what you believe.
Flip said:
"It seems that the only way for you guys to have a discussion (I'm not speaking of other atheists, just the few I've met in this room) is to call people idiots, irrational, etc., if they don't share the a-theistic point of view."
"Do you, or do you not, accept "testimony" or "narrative" as evidentiary?"
.
.
Pass me your fiddle, please...cuz now YOU'RE the one who's "whining." LOL!
Kidding aside, Flip..."Testimony and narrative" mean little to nothing if you are interested in facts and truth. There are billions of theists in the world who all have a different version of a "narrative" or a "testimony." If they were ALL on the same page the world over, inc. remote areas, you might have a point about at least one god existing....but I would still want to see peer-tested scientific proof. LOL!
But would you as a Christian (I'm assuming) accept the words of a Muslim, Sikh or Hindu who presented THEIR testimony to you? Why assume that YOUR religion out of 1000's is the "right" one? If you were born in India, you'd probably practice Hinduism...If you were born in Iran, you'd probably be defending the Koran instead of the Bible. That's culture and upbringing...not evidence.
I noticed you apologized for "those other Christians" and THEIR kooky religious rituals (magic undies ARE funny though, LOL!)...or dismissed them all together ("Mormons are silly."). Why?
"Evidence" presented in a court of law, esp. in the west, SHOULD BE the same as evidence for the existence of gods...ANY gods...and that is empirical evidence. "Here's the gun used to kill Mr. Smith...We have the shell casings and the striations match."..."Here are the fossil remains of Jesus...and oh look, fossils of Mithras, Ra and Jupiter were found as well." LOL! Of course there would go "monotheism" out the window.
Like Hump said, science is still young...but it is the best TOOL we have for figuring things out.
Flip said:
"Meanwhile, does anyone want to respond to my statement that "Science is a sure path to certain knowledge" is a belief statement? I'd thought that was pretty close to on topic."
.
.
I suppose someone might "believe" that...but believing it doesn't necessarily make it true...I would say that science offers a BETTER path to knowledge/understanding things than any religious texts...But that's not what I "believe"...that's the truth. Religious texts (Bible and Koran) maintain that the earth is flat...even though we know that NOW to be false. Science, unlike many religions, is progressive. And as I said...science is the best tool we have for figuring things out.
Rachelle,
You can speak on my behalf any day.
Well said.
Hump
In keeping with what I wrote above, about there being no instances of organized atheists promoting the crazy things christians do, watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK_zh-X21f0
Now, I'd like someone to show me an example of an organized atheist offdeing that reaches anything akin to this level of idiocy.
How many Christians would you imagine buy what this video is saying? 10%? 25%? Are we a better country for their gulibility and moronic delusion?
How many atheists/thinkig people buy into this video's idiocy?
This is called undeniable proof of some percentage of christians who are promoting hate,fear, perversion of scripture, and some percentage who buy into it willingly and blindly. They use the "word of God" to do it, as religionists have been doing for eons.
There is NOTHING comparable to it among rational thinking people aka Atheists.
I'll say it again... religion is a blight. The world would be better off without it.
Cheers Hump! :)
LOLOL!
I'm laughing, but part of me is also a bit nervous that some disturbed dumbass will take that video message (and similar messages from other media) seriously and feel it's his "calling" or duty to kill our president.
I've never seen this much blatant stupidity in all my life. You'd think Jesus would have made things easier for his frenzied flock and simply wrote (in English of course and not that damn pesky Hebrew, LOL!): "The 44th President of the U.S. will be Barack Obama. He is Satan. Some will think it's Hitler...but I don't pay you to think and I'm telling you it is Barack Obama who is Satan."...People wouldn't understand the message "at the time" ("What's a president...and what is the United States?") but that's how it would be written. LOL! "God works in mysterious ways" but why write in mysterious codes for idiots to decipher when he could just spell it out simply and plainly?
If I were President Obama and really wanted to f--k with the minds of the religious nuts, I'd don a red "devil suit" complete with horns, tail and pitchfork for Halloween. The First Lady could don a witch costume for good measure. Then just sit back and watch the fun begin. I wanna see Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck's heads explode at the shock of finally being "right" about those Obamas. LOL!
You guys aren't gonna believe I'm saying this -- but -- you're so right on. What a total idiot this guy and his ilk are. Of course no thinking atheist would say stuff like this. Neither would a theist with, as hump likes to put it, "a brain stem." As for the disclaimer at the end, it's the height of irresponsibility. "I'm not saying your dad's a bad guy; I'm just saying that he screwed your little sister from the time she was 4 years old. I'm just reporting -- you decide." What a load of BS
Tsk Tsk Tsk,
Everyone KNOWS that Bill Gates is the antichrist - He's the power behind US (and other world leaders):
Proof that Bill Gates is the devil: The real name of Bill Gates is William Henry Gates III. Nowadays, he is known as Bill Gates (III), where III means order of the third (3rd). In converting the letters of his current name to ASCII- VALUES:
B - 66
I - 73
L - 76
L - 76
G - 71
A - 65
T - 84
E - 69
S - 83
I - 1
I - 1
I - 1
-------
666
-------
THE NUMBER OF THE DEVIL....
Seriously,
You put into Google a name of a famous leader or very wealthy person, antichrist and scriptures, and you're going to find someone somewhere claiming that person is the antichrist. Sometimes it's humor, but more often then not it's some religous whackadoo tring to spread FUD (Fear, uncertainty and doubt).
- Fastthumbs
LOLOL! I agree Flip and Anon...It's just ridiculous.
I think the extreme religious nuts would have SOME credibility if they simply said they didn't like President Obama's left-leaning policies...or if they said they didn't like the fact that he was black. At least that would be honest. President Bush got his fair share of comparisons to Hitler from the far left when he was in office, but no one hated him because he was white, since white presidents are the norm. I don't think ANY Democratic president has seen the kind of hatred that President Obama has...and he isn't even a year into his first term yet. Where's all this "Christian love" I've heard about? LOL!
I am atheist in ALABAMA, if you can imagine. May be the only one in the state. Swimming in a pool of Christians who have twenty cats and post email prayer requests at work all day.
Such a beacon in the night to find this blog. Have read tons of material from like-minded persons but never explored this venue.
One coworker's preacher wants to meet me (probably never seen a real atheist) so thought I would collect additional atheist intelligence from the source. Thanks for being there!
Vicki,
My sympathies for being a float in a sea of believers. I can't even imagine how stiffling that must be.
Glad you like my blog. Come back often.
Hump
I am so glad we had our little chat about "belief" on that other post. Otherwise my head would have spun around ten times and exploded in agony if I'd read this one first. Many thanks!
Hump: "My interest, my "zeal" if you will, is directed toward keeping religious assholes from inflicting their disregard for scientific evidence and reality on children in public schools;"
When I found a slightly-larger-than-postcard sized ADVERTISEMENT in my children's school folders for a new local mega-church last month I nearly threw a Baptist church sized tantrum. Then I flipped the card over. Oh of course.... they're giving away food boxes for Thanksgiving...
The ONLY reason why they could get away with sending that crap home with kids is because of the needy families in the community.
I called the school and spoke with the principal. Not surprising, really- he didn't know what I was talking about. He had no idea that teachers were giving the cards out to kids.
Good for you! Vigilance is our best defense against creeping theism in schools.
Welcome to new generation mobile application live play free cricket game online at fantasypower11 and win real
huge amount by creating your team with 11 players.
most dangerous batsman in ipl
new fantasy cricket app
Post a Comment