If you engage in civil discourse with someone for whom is religous within your workplace they will complain of discrimination thus resulting in unemployment. An Athiest has no rights, abd its wrong.
I have been meeting Atheists everywhere now; it's amazing. It's time for all of us to come out and spead loudly and unapologetically. Fight back against superstitious nonsense! We must not allow these people to send us back into the dark ages.
This isn't exactly a new concept, Carmine. It's a very old one, and there has been much "coffee table" discussion of this concept.
Dawkins himself addresses Intelligent Design as "entirely plausible", but only if you define the life form who is doing the designing as a being who has come about by Darwinian means. In other words, no gods, no magic, only intelligent, evolved life, and the laws of chemistry.
There simply is no evidence for any other type of "creation".
There has been discussion involving the idea of intelligent life from a past universe either creating a universe, or bridging universes and seeding the second with life, or uplifting current life, Dawkins and Tyson both have speculated that this is theoretically possible, but improbable.
We aren't dismissing possibilities, and you need to understand that. We are simply saying there is no evidence, and in the case of the above, the root beings would have had to have evolved.
Atheists may look back in time and see a Darwinist Creation only, but in forward time they take pleasure in evolving intelligent will to the creation of another paradigm or in some lab, making or causing to be the next successive Universe that expands and takes over today's reality, But by logic, if Current Atheists think they can be the God of the Next Universe, by Intelligent Notions , then they must be illogical to deny that the former or present Universe is caused by the God of it.
@CarmineFragione I don't know of any atheists who have creating another universe as their goal in life. Being atheist certainly wouldn't lead to the thought that one could do that. You may be thinking of mad scientists.
I'd describe myself as more an anti-theist than an atheist, believing as I do that religion id both false, ans on balance not a force for good in the world.
I am an occasional commenter on Pharyngula, as well as helping to run a secular discussion board - Secular Cafe if anyone is interested.
Still, I don't go knocking on people's doors or preaching in the street that religion is wrong. That seems just rude. Anyone who evangelises me is fair game, though.
I agree that calling yourself an atheist shouldn't be viewed by religious people as fighting words, a "red flag before a bull," or sticking your middle finger up at the creator and saying "F#%# you, I don't think so." Of course atheists aren't giving God the finger. There'd be no one to flip off. I was raised religious, and we had the misconception that anyone who didn't believe in God made the rebellious *choice* not to do so. That isn't so. Someone honestly doesn't believe. That's fair.
Everyone wonders what America would be like without religion. Well we can see it today. Don't be naive. Just because someone says they are religious doesn't make it true. You can't follow a religion partly and consider yourself as such. America is full of glutonny, greed, pride, jealousy, promiscuity, narcissism etc. If more people where truly following religion it would be a better world. Atheism is dangerous
@Ryder1981 Atheism is lack of belief in gods, and oftentimes superstition as well. It's perfectly possible and in fact quite common to be an atheist who possesses man positive character traits. In fact atheists are severely under represented in prison populations, so we must be doing something right by your own standards.
@Pilaf1984 A lack of atheist representation in prison is a one sided argument that you probably only agree with because it's in your favor. First off, Atheist are still a small percent of the population. Secondly, don't be naive, just because someone says they are religious doesn't mean they are perfect. Thirdly, many people find religion WHILE there are serving time. Jeffery Dahmer admitted he killed because he didn't believe in God but found God in prison and repented his sins.
@Ryder1981 "A lack of atheist representation in prison"
It's a false argument. I'm sick of atheists propagating stuff like this. And yes I'm an atheist. I don't give a damn if atheists want to say I'm really a Christian pretending to be an atheist or I'm a sympathizer for religion who wants religion have their way. That's just their coping mechanisms for why I would possibly disagree. I'm after truth. I'm not first and foremost in this so called atheist community.
@Ryder1981 Hmm. Truly following religion is only good as long as the religion says something like "help your neighbor, give to the poor, mind your own business and live a moral life." But if the religion says "our belief is right and yours is wrong, so you are doomed forever," following that religion wouldn't make it a better world at all. You'd have the Israel vs. Palestine situation, the former N. Ireland vs Ireland situation...etc. Saying "that wasn't real religion" is a cop-out.
@SheSaysSoIndeed Please stop, because any one who has a deeper understanding of those two conflicts would not call them religious. The dumbest argument atheist make is the "no wars without religion" BS. And please don't be naive, just because someone says they are religious, doesn't make them so.There are far more conflicts over greed and control in history than over religion. I know you won't actually read a world history book for yourself. You'll probably cut and paste from another persn.
@Ryder1981 Haha. that's pretty funny. I don't think I've ever cut and pasted from someone in my life, and, although I don't need to respond to your ad hominem attack, I think you have me pegged as some kind of stereotype to which you are justified to condescend. It's rather hilarious that you assume I don't read history books.
Of course conflicts are about resources, greed, control, prejudice, etc. The problem is, that people use religion as ammunition and cover to hide/justify the greed.
@SheSaysSoIndeed your argument is just another copy that every atheist is trained to repeat. The assumption is that without religion, there would be no justification of war. However, if you ACTUALLY knew history, then you'll notice that every empire from the Greek, Roman, Mongol, Japanese and British were all about greed and glory of nation. You're arguments and assumptions are a repeated twist of the truth to favor your argument.
@Ryder1981 How do you even know I'm an atheist? That's kind of funny too. I'm actually not. Of course nations fight wars about greed and resources. The problem is that too many times, the powers that be use religion as a cover for their greedy actions. I'm not saying that religion shouldn't exist. I'm saying that it's used as ammunition to do damage and put a moral, pretty face on wars of conquest and greed. (See the "Requerimiento" that the conquistadores read before invasions).
@Ryder1981 Again, kind of funny. How do you even know I'm an atheist? I'm actually not. I'm not saying that religion shouldn't exist, or that we'd all be peaceful without it. Of course empires are about ruthless expansion and greed, regardless of religion. But too many times, the "powers that be" have used religion as a cover, to put a pretty, moral face on wars of conquest and greed. See the "Requerimiento" that the Spanish Conquistadores read before invading an indigenous nation.
@Ryder1981 "The assumption is that without religion, there would be no justification of war."
Excuse me sir, but are you completely retarded? That's like saying that people advocating vaccination against some specific disease do it with assumption that it will cure all illness. Removing religion will remove one of the major mechanisms humans today use to identify out groups for the purposes of war. That is all people are saying and this in itself makes it well worth eradicating religion.
@Ryder1981 "However, if you ACTUALLY knew history, then you'll notice that every empire [...] were all about greed and glory of nation."
And if you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd realize that religion has been one of the most important forces behind nation building and nationalism. This is not because it is needed, as modern secular nations demonstrate, but because religion provided motivation to slaughter "evil" people around them in the name of God and take their stuff.
@Gnomefro You are another left brain thinker who can't read something and make your own opinion. You FOLLOW the atheist argument without question and are more of a sheep than religious zealots. No one should argue with idiots like yourself that seem to flock to atheism because it's easier follow some other "scholarly opinion" rather than find truth for yourself. You're going to tell me that the Mongol, Roman, Japanese, British, Greek, Hunnic, American empires were driven by religion? LOL
@Gnomefro So what would be next after the eradication of religion? Money and greed where bigger factors in wars so how about eradicating personal belongings? Yes SOCIALISM would be the answer! LOL. The next reason for war was nationalism, people love to be the victorious nation so how can we eradicate that? ONE WORLD GOV'T!! LMFAO. That is the direction of left brain imprisoned atheist like yourself. And eventually it will happen. Thanks retards :)
@SheSaysSoIndeed EXACTLY! Most religions do promote peace but then you have people who twist around words or charismatics who inspire evil. Many religions do believe in we are right and you are wrong but they don't say kill those who are wrong. I know for a fact that the Bible and Qur'an say in in fewer words to spread your faith but if people choose not to follow then let them be. But again it's people with ill intentions that twist around words or use someone's ignorance to drive evil.
Everyone wonders what America would be like without religion. Well we can see it today. Don't be naive. Just because someone says they are religious doesn't make it true. You can't follow a religion partly and consider yourself as such. America is full of glutonny, greed, pride, jealousy, promiscuity, narcissism etc. If more people where truly followed religion it would be a better world. Atheism is dangerous
As an "atheist" who has much respect for PZ, I just have to say that atheism is NOT an intellectual position! I agree with Sam Harris: It is a LACK of an intellectual position, namely a lack of the theistic position!
"Atheism" is a vacuum which either drives people toward reason & science on one hand, or Marxist bullshit and conspiracy theories on the other. I am as much of an "atheist" as I am a non-astrologer or a non-$cientologist.
In the case of morality, if you stopped believing in God right now, would you suddenly just start raping and murdering everyone around you? If you answer yes, then please admit yourself to a mental institution.
Atheism is a nonsensical label when religion stops doing stupid crap, the same way abolitionist became a pointless term when slavery ended, for the most part.
I don't think atheists need to "discuss" their views with Christians any more than they need to discuss them with a bushman who believes in an obscure, ancient tribal religion.
@ejdf870 Dont you feel there's an important distinction between the two groups? One being a powerful percentage of the electorate, which votes for the person(who may or may not believe the earth is 6,000 years old), and will have access to the nuclear launch codes?
@ArgoSG I'm just making a powerful point about how equally silly ALL religions are.
We in America tend not to see the big picture, and that is that most of the world doesn't believe in "Jesus", but in countless other myths. Yet we ignore this fact and expect atheists to "debate" and "discuss" Christianity, as if it should have any more validity than any other religion, and that it's on equal footing to atheism. It's not.
@ejdf870 The energy spent talking about Christianity is not done so because it's tenets are bullshit. That is obvious. The energy spent discussing Christianity, and the need to discuss Christianity as much as possible is done so in order to rid ourselves of it as a species, much like trying to rid itself of any harmful mass product(heart disease, breast cancer, AIDS). You can't just say there is equal reason to be concerned about Christianity than there is to be about indigenous people's myths.
@ejdf870 I dont disagree with what you wrote, I just wanted to make the important distinction that not all religions are equally harmful either, and we should focus our energy discussion some over others. It just so happens that there are some which pose a huge threat to human wellbeing and potential to make progress towards a universally desirable world.
Atheism is actually a religion. Since there is no way to prove the existence or non existence of god(s), you really need a great deal of faith in the absence of god
@elcerdovulnerado If atheism is a religion death is a lifestyle. Idiot. Atheism is a lack of belief in supernatural claims. It's not that we claim to know absolutely that there is no God. We just find no reason to believe the theistic claims that there is one, just as you would dismiss the claims of any man who believes in Zeus, leprechauns and unicorns, especially when they go around preaching from the holy unicorn book and start imposing their viewpoints and law upon people through government.
@elcerdovulnerado Of course you don't, it's still unlikely. You can't absolutely say it's not true, I'll give you that, but it's just like saying the *random string of words...purple upside down unicorn* created the universe. It's no test of faith in this sense.
What about calling those of us who disbelieve in nonsense, "rationalists"? It is more positive, gets the central point across, and is an obvious prod to those who still direct their lives by irrational beliefs.
The best thing about being an atheist is the intrinsic advantage it gives us. Our ability to embrace reality gives us an incredible advantage over delusional people who can't fully grasp the world as it is. Our beliefs influence the decisions that affect our lives. If our beliefs are flawed, so will our decisions be also. The disadvantages of delusional beliefs are many and vary with the spectrum of false beliefs. False beliefs skew one's thinking and ability to accurately analyze problems.
Every non religous person needs to start talking about non belief instead of just brushing aside these people. They think they are still in control because people dont tell them that there are just as many of us as you....These christians are going to destroy this earth folk- look at the Iraq war.
The problem with the label 'Atheist' is that it creates the impression that atheism is a departure from the default position.
It's default to be a non-astronaut; just as it is to be a non-theist. By making word for it, we create the false impression that our position is in some way a special or noteworthy exception to the rule, entails an active assertion, or requires defence and justification.
@AleximusMaximus Agreed, however I think that because we live in a place where beliefs in gods are so widespread, it doesn't hurt us to have a nonbelief label. I'm usually not one for labels but I'd take "atheist" over "freethinker" or "rationalist." Most people do believe in God, and they also claim to live their life by it. If 90% of the world believed in Leprichauns, I would advocate the usage of a label indicating a lack of said belief.
PZ Myers is correct. Atheism does have content, it is not "nothing". Atheism, theism, deism, agnosticism. etc. all have content. None of them are nothing. These are ideas about the existence/non-existence of God.
In 2010, shouldn't this video be the other way around-- that the Christian is the lone curiosity in the audience trying to defend his position, while a room full of rational people (Atheists) condescendingly talk down to him and ask silly questions????
Atheism: The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so-ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs... All of this being caused by nothing.
Creationism: The belief that "our designer" sculpted a guy out of sand
and it came to life. Then "our designer" ripped out one of his ribs and made a
woman out of it. Then "our designer" made a tree that was only for him (for no reason) and said that the sand man and rib women couldn't eat from (knowing that they were gonna eat from it anyway)A snake came out and talked to them telling them to eat from it anyway...
@GuysTheOther No, it means we don't know anything about the universe. Rather than relying on poorly translated books of Iron age fairy tales, we ask questions and seek evidence.
@shaunmalley You atheists claim that science is the only way? If so, why do you white-wash all religions with this "its all iron age fairy tale" bull shit? Stop classifying all religions under the same umbrella with an ignorant mentality. Why don't you apply your scientific process to analyze ALL religions and not base everything on Christianity in the dark ages.
@GuysTheOther : Scientific method soon finds that all religion is based on zero evidence. Claims with zero evidence are not facts or theories. Religion IS iron age fairy tales, its all under the same umbrella because it belongs there.
@GuysTheOther ; I dont have to do research on iron age fairytales to understand that they are fairytales. Since there is not a shread of evidence for gods, we can discard them as fantasy.
@GuysTheOther Seeing as none of what you said applies to me, I'll just take the time to correct your grammar. It's not "Its" when you contract "it is"; in fact, it's "its". You need to have the apostrophe to indicate that it's a contraction rather than an indication of possession. You're welcome :-)
@bary1234 wow, why the hate? you just insulted me for no reason. All I was saying is that you shouldn't whitewash. If you actually studied Islam, not through googling, but actually STUDIED it, read the scriptures and listened to interpretations by scholars you would see that it is FAR from your fairy tale assumptions. But you won't read it or research it, cuz your heart and your mind are both closed to any idea of God; you wont even consider it. Is my assumption about you correct?
@GuysTheOther : Why the hate: Read your first post on this chain starting with the word: Atheism.
Provocative much? :) You deserve to get shaken for writing something so stupid.
You are the one who needs to actually STUDY. And not fairytales and fiction like islam, but science. You need to learn about evolution, human brain, origin of life, universe. You will soon find your small god is ridiculous and childish imaginary friend.
It's not that PZ eats babies, the problem is that he is a douchebag & militantly so. He contends that anyone who has a religious faith has no valid input... actually, to be honest he spends most of his time attacking Christianity, not religion as a whole. Whether it be driving rusty nails through t/ Eucharist or trying to intimidate Christian college students, his douchebaggery is t/ stuff of legends here in Morris MN. Even most Atheist & Agnostic students dislike him- they call him SleaZy Myers
@ProdigalSonofLiberty : Religious students probably would dislike an atheist teacher, but that comes from their brainwashing-backgrounds. Rational people dont hate Myers, whats there to hate?
@bary1234 Actually quite a few of the atheist/agnostic students dislike Myers. I've heard them call him SleaZy Myers on several occasions(I am a University of Minnesota-Morris student). There is a Geology Professor at Morris named Cotter that is about as fervently atheist and constantly rips on religion, but he's well liked because he isn't malicious/nasty about it. Most people are not rational, period, including most atheists, who often replace God w/ Government. We call these people Statheists
@ProdigalSonofLiberty : Ok, I dont know him so you are probably right. I wonder what he has done to earn that reputation. And I would like to think he is not purposefully nasty, or try to hurt peoples feelings .Then again, I'm here every day calling religious people stupid, so maybe there just is no way around it. Cant make an omelet without breaking some eggs, cant kill religions without hurting some feelings.
As PZ says, people come up to him and hug him,.......why do you suppose that is? I would think that PZ gives them reason to believe as atheist. It's the anti-religious religion. Good for PZ for admitting that his views are aiews that atheist embrace. Not science mind you, but I suppose it never really was. (even if you soften the blow, your motives are clear here)
A challenge of sorts: I'd like to hear from anyone (minus natmanprime who has weighed in a view already) who can show to a certainty that the terms "non-astrologer" and "non-alchemist" have *ever* been used by a mainstream society to describe people. I am unable to find this information. If it exists, I'd like to have it.
As an aside, I DO like PZ Myers, however it needs to be noted that his personal experience at UM Morris, enrollment @1700 students, is a far cry from a major or mainstream college 'undertaking'. (To digress; why is it that I often see his name up on the screen, like in THIS vid, and the words 'Univ. of Minnesota' are underneath? Is it difficult to post the word "MORRIS" after that?) Also, he describes his "small" town but MN is an avant-garde state. I should know. I lived near MSP for 9 years.
'Resist astrology' was a poor choice of words on my part. I find astrology to be meaningless and of no personal value. Expecting that religions will be brushed off into the shadows because a resistance of people *label* themselves is irrational given that the chosen label has an extremely negative association connected to it. We're not going to win the religious over when they won't listen to us. IF a label is needed at all, it should be one that is the least offensive to the religious.
Indeed, astrology flourished for thousands of years... Persia, Babylonia, Egyptian, Hindi, Chinese, Hellenistic to name but a few. Thankfully, at least for now;-), astrology has become marginalized. While it may hold little power to shape world events *currently*, I think it is a valid analogy as both astrology and religions have set about to explain and set down rules about the world in which we live. I've found Mr. Harris to often be nonconfrontational with his fellow 'Atheists' thus the split
@wonkothemagicelf yes but you've just explained why non-astrologer is a redundant term NOW. Back in the day when it had political power, it would have been a valid term, because it would signify resistance, and the nature of your resistance.
This is why we have terms, to define one thing against another.
Once the oppostition to atheism fades away, so can the term atheism, but not before, because it's necessary to express resistance and the nature of your resistance.
@natmanprime While It's been marginalized the ideas never go away and therefore I *still* resist astrology; it's irrational. But I don't need to be called a non-astrologer. Forms of religion will only become somewhat superfluous. Even if the world decides upon laws to make the practice of ANY religion (or astrology) ILLEGAL, there will ALWAYS be those who worship within their minds and whisper to each other. Atheism as a label may be desirable by some but not me. I know others feel the same.
@wonkothemagicelf ok I think you understand the force of my argument, it's just pride holding you back from conceding, but I'll deal with your point's anyway:
I never said the ideas go away, I said the political power it holds goes away, so you're attacking a strawman.
No one's talking about laws banning anything...
stating your desire not to be labelled an atheist is not an argument...
Who cares if others feel the same as you...
I think you've displayed your irrational argument style now...
@natmanprime That you believe you and I were in an argument is funny. And where in the world did you get the idea that me stating my desire not to be labeled is part of that? This isn't debate camp. We'd need to agree on defintions and much more. Did I state that you were TALKING about banning anything... hypothetical digression is commentary. You were right about ONE thing... I DID state my desire not to be labeled AND it WASN'T an argument. Feel free to have the last word....
@wonkothemagicelf The rational thing to do when 2 people disagree is argue, or ignore each other. You weren't ignoring me, or arguing, so I don't know what you were doing.
I meant why bring up 'banning' stuff?
The issue you can't grasp is that I'm talking about theism and astrology as POLITICAL POWERS, not existing in some marginal way. Of course they'll always exist somehow. It's necessary to define yourself against them when they're in POWER, for your freedom, because if you don't theyWILL
PZ Myers is an excellent person, but I disagree w/ him. If atheism catches on, we won't be known as atheists, but as rational reasonable people without label.
If we begin with"Atheist", we will not be heard, because the audience wont hear anything but "baby-eating immoral devil-worshipper."
If we must, let's be called scientists, rational thinkers, sceptics, anti-creationists, and decent people.
@drfoxcourt I agree 100%. Indeed, what's interesting, and often denied by many god worshippers, is that countries with the highest percentages of people who get labeled 'atheist', constitute the bulk of the countries with the lowest crime rates. (eg. murder, rape, assault, etc)
I'm with Sam Harris on this 'Atheism" thing. No one wakes up in the morning, looks in the mirror and says, "What a beautiful non-astrologer you are". I find the term atheist to be a really poor, nonsensical label.
@wonkothemagicelf we define ourselves as such because we recognize the existence of theism as a corrupting moral force in the world, so it's important to define ourselves against it.
the analogy with astrology is poor because astrology is not a corrupting force in the world.
And Sam Harris said he 'splits the difference' between PZ and another guy, so he kind of agrees, and even that was only based on the assumption that PZ prosletyses atheism to his neighbour.
@natmanprime You and I simply disagree. I see theism PRIMARILY as a brainwashing meme that infects the masses thereby stalling the thought processes and inhibiting the growth of reason, rationality and scientific thought. Is it ALSO a corrupting moral force in the world? Sure it is. But I think that is, at best, a secondary ingredient in the religious pie. As for astrology, it *WAS* a corrupting force at one time in the world as far back as the 3rd millenium BC. (continued next post)
@wonkothemagicelf There are astrologers, so to say non-astrologer makes perfect sense. It might not be necessary, but it's logical. Same thing with the word atheist. Same way with the term to asexual entities. So much of the population believe in a higher power, not many people believe in astrology (I hope). If there is to be a label, then atheism is not a poor one and it's not nonsensical. It's scientific, and I love it. As for your other point about crime, it's a good one.
@wonkothemagicelf Exactly. Apparently I'm also a non-race car driver, a non-astronaut and a non-fireman among other things. I wonder if I can put those on my CV.
@wonkothemagicelf I disagree. When you're in a population that is overwhelmingly theist labelling oneself atheist is entirely appropriate. I'd love to live in a world where the word atheist is as unnecessary as non-astrolager. but as it stands the atheist label is entirely appropriate.
@wonkothemagicelf I disagree. When you're in a population that is majority theistic the label atheist is entirely appropriate. It's probably not necessary in Sweden or Norway, but in Britain or the U.S using atheist as a label is not only logical, I'd call it necessary.
I live in Britain and I have never met a person who gives a shit to even give it a thought, they(Literally everyone I have got to know) don't believe in god and that's all they care to know.
@mahkus1 As logical as saying "I don't live in Canada, but I just don't live in Canada". Not believing in god is the same thing as being an atheist, whether you like the term or not. Perhaps you do live in a community where religion is a non-issue and the term therefore useless, but that doesn't make it false. On a global scale the term is very necessary, that much is clear.
If everybody around you is atheist, good for you. That doesn't mean they're "not atheist, they just don't believe."
I agree that the term "atheist" means very little. I often tell other atheists that atheism isnt enough. But I do think the term is needed in certain context of conversation. When speaking to religious people, it may not be enough to label ourselves as skeptics, or rational, etc... because the label "atheist" carried so much of a negative stigma to it, I feel its needed (here in the US) to counter that stigma & not feel vilifed for saying "I dont believe what you believe".
@wonkothemagicelf I disagree with you on the "Atheist" label. We don't have to call ourselves non-astrologers" because there isn't a huge majority of astrologers in all walks of live and authority threatening global catastrophy. We need to create debate where none exists, we need to let Theists know that their world view is not normal just because there are lots of them repeating the same or similar dogma. To do that we need to identify ourselves to them and each other. I'm a proud atheist.
@wonkothemagicelf We need the label because we are the minority. I know it seems weird, but we are not that common around the world and our ideas are considered "radical".
@wonkothemagicelf Countries with higher percentages of Atheists who self-report as such, are also probably nations with higher levels of tolerance for diversity (which is why the non-theists would be comfortable enough to openly say so). Tolerant nations would probably have fewer hate crimes, violence, etc. Plus...higher levels of education, probably.
I met PZ a few weeks ago and he's a really nice, laid back kind of guy. I sort of expected him to be more harsh, even after watching all these videos on youtube. If you ever get a chance to go see him, you ought to.
Actually I've done some research and found that there are some interesting patterns that can be found in the universe that correlate to patterns seen in and on human beings. I've linked the cosmic web to the neural network of the brain, spiral galaxies to the pattern on the back of the head and the fertilization of an egg to stars. this can all be seen on my page ascensionq.20fr.com and I do take feedback to the diagrams, information and video references.
I have experienced too many miracles in my life to say there is no God. In 1983 I Iived /w my mother. One Sunday morning we got up and my mother said she had a dream that my dad was young again and had left my step mother. Where he now was they didn't need his services. He was a physician. We lived in Houston and my dad lived in Denver. I hadn't heard from him for many years. My mother knew it wasn't just a dream. We spent the whole day together very sullen. My dad passed away that night.
Evolution says absolutely nothing about the existance of God. The Atheists aren't promoting truth. They are promoting their own religion: Atheism. If you want the truth, listen to Kevin Padian about the "false duality" that ultra-religious people (including Atheists) are pushing.
@Tapajara True, evolution says nothing about the existence of God. But how do you go from that, to saying that athiest are pushing a religion? Just because evolution was a hard blow to the faith of many, and may have caused people to give up their beliefs in gods, doesn't mean that athiest worship evolution. We don't pray, we don't have rituals or dogmas. We're not selling a religion of our own; we're just trying to encourage people to stop buying what religions are selling, because its fraud.
@Walabinx Agreed. You are "preaching to the choir" as they say. But we must assure that "unjustiied belief" does not imply that we must now start throwing them into the lion's den just because we don't share their personal "knowledge" as they claim. A lot of people with "personal knowledge" (those that are not just lying) routinely fill in with their own interpretations and claim those interpretations are part of their exprience (and they are not). Good objective obervers are very valuable.
@Tapajara I don't mean to imply that we start throwing them into the lions den; just that we stop allowing them to do that to us because its been going on too long. Good objective observers aren't just valuable, they're necessary, though few seem to realize nor care. It's good to know at least, that there is 'a choir'.
@Tapajara Not sure. I like to do what I can through reasoned arguement, which is part of the reason why I use the athiest label when discussing the god issue. It often makes people take a second to evaluate their own beliefs. They usually have this knee jerk negative reaction to the word athiest, but when I talk to them about it they sometimes realize that their negative preconceptions are unjustified.
@Walabinx Sure. I generalized. Usually, someone got to them before you did and it will be heck getting these notions out of their head. There are neo-Pharisees, as I call them, that will send you off to hell if you deviate one iota from what they think the Bible says. Not much you can do about those people. Even Jesus gave up on them and just cursed them.
@Tapajara True. But arguing with them can still be fun sometimes. And you never know; some people are the fence. It was reasoned arguement that originally made me realize that my theistic beliefs were unjustified, so I figure there's got to be some people out there that are like I used to be. And then, who knows, through arguement I may actually be convinced that my athiesm is unjustified.
@Walabinx A lot of former Christians just dumped their religious beliefs overboard. What I have decided is that I just have to constantly modify my beliefs to accommodate what I have accepted to belief through what science has taught us. My reasoning is that, if God did communicate with some people way back when, probabilities are high that the information got corrupted before it got to us. Still the likelyhood is there. I don't totally discount it.
[Part 2] Up to that point in time, my dad had been in good health. The evening of his death, he went out to dinner with my step mother. They got back home and he said he was having indigestion so he laid down. He had a massive coronary and never got up. So the "warning from God" had given us a few hours notice to get emotionally prepared for what was going to happen. There was absolutely no way that this could be explained by what is know through science.
@Tapajara Interesting story. I agree that such an experience may not be able to be explained by science yet, but what I don’t see is how that is grounds to insert a god. At most this is grounds to speculate that maybe your mother has some sort of extrasensory perception; but how did you get from that to ‘God?’ I do not mean to belittle the experience that you went through, but it may not have been anything supernatural at all.
@Walabinx You said: " I don’t see is how that is grounds to insert a god". You and I have different perspectives concerning "God". You have a pre-conceived idea of what (a) "God" should be and measure evidence as to whether it justifies supporting such a pre-conceived model of (a) God. On the other-hand, I attribute such unexplainable phenomena to God and that defines to me what God is. In a sense, what I call God is more impiricle and adaptable than your "expected" model of God.
@Tapajara I’ll admit that your mother having a dream about your father dying just before your father died is an unlikely coincidence, but that does not mean that a coincidence is the most unlikely explanation. In fact given what we know about the natural world, it is the most likely explanation. Especially when we take into account all of the times that people have dreams about things like that, and nothing happens, or, all of the times when people died but nobody had dreams about it happening.
@Tapajara Did they not deserve the same ‘heads up’ from God that you got? I would much sooner attribute such an experience, even if it had happened to me directly, to coincidence (which do happen), than to a god (for which there is no evidence of). Anyways that's just my view on your experience.
@Walabinx You said: "Did they not deserve the same ‘heads up’ from God that you got?" There is lot's more to the story; too much to write here. But reality is that some people make private vows to God and others do not. Certainly only people who believe there is a god would make such a vow. Some people use their apparent status within religious organizations for personal gain in this life w/o any real faith in God. You really cannot know the state of a person's private commitment to God.
@Walabinx Reality with science is that it is only useful in trying to establish common knowledge of things that are testable and repeatable in controlled physical environments. There is so much of life that it has little application. Scientists claim "This man was the first to understand blah blah or discover blah blah." In truth, someone has probably understood it or discovered it before but scientists ignore what has not been published in their journals. This is a shortcoming of science.
@Walabinx You said: "I would much sooner attribute such an experience, even if it had happened to me directly, to coincidence" You shouldn't try to use a hypothetical event as though it were evidence to strenghen your case. The fact is, it did not happen to you. I could say that "Supposing that I SAW God take my father up to heaven and I was awake". That is also hypothetical so it can't be used to strengthen my case either. Your statement is also out of context.
@Walabinx Let me explain what I meant by "out of context". I have heard lots of people say "Well if I were born a woman" or "If I were gay" blah blah blah. They don't realize that it took untold countless things to make each of us what we are. How can someone know how different their life would be if they were born the opposite sex? They have no idea how complicated the factors would be to change their life. Such hypothetical "what ifs" are enormously over-valued and are of little use.
@Walabinx [Correction] Sorry. The story I just told you happened on January 13, 1985. The last I had heard from my dad had been in 1979 or 1980. I used to drop by to visit him in Alamagordo NM on my way to Flagstaff AZ (graduate school) when he was in the Air Force trying to get retirement. He gave up on that and went back into private practice in Denver. My major was biology and I was studying among well know evolutionary biologies. Stephen J. Gould gave a lecture while I was there(?).
@Tapajara [Continued] Extrapolating further, I even attribute explanable things to God as well including the laws of physics and chemistry. So maybe what you call (a) God is a lot more stereo-typed than what I attribute to God. Perhaps hearing talk about God from fundamentalists has made you gun shy so the word "God" is a "hot button".
@Tapajara Perhaps it is just the same old shortcomings of the human being. In any case, I just suggest that you leave your definition of "God" more open-ended and perhaps abandon much of the pre-conceived notions you have about what a God would be if there was one. Perhaps "God" really is nothing more than the sum total of physical/metaphysical laws that govern our universe. If I want to call that "God", it should be perfectly okay with you as long as you know what I am talking about.
@Walabinx You should realize that it is not evolution in itself that makes creationists go berserk. It is when people feed them the line that "you have to be an atheist to believe in evolution". They swallow it hook-line-and-sinker (after all they are generally simple-minded people) and that is where the mistake is made. You would not have nearly so much trouble with them if you gave the credit for what is not know (e.g. The Big Bang) to God. The exitence of God is reall ALL they care about.
@Tapajara Mind you, I can't speak for all athiest; just myself really. And that fact alone I think is enough to show that athiesm isn't a religion. There is no all encompassing thruth which we all claim to have. We all believe in different things and have different views about different issues. The only one thing that binds athiest is the fact that we don't believe in any gods; that's it.
@Tapajara Athiesm is somewhat of a subset of rationalism and skepticism, so many 'out' athiest like to promote those things. But those are in no real way, religious. They are are ways of thinking. Religion I view more as a way of NOT thinking.
@Walabinx No. Agnosticism is skepticism. Atheism is a conclusion that there is no god. Go read the definitions of Religion in dictionary - dot - com. There is at least two definitions that make Atheism a religion.
@Tapajara I am familiar with the different definitions of Atheism, and agreed, there is one definition (athiesm - the doctrine of belief that there is no god) that might, in the loosest sense, be bent and twisted to fit the category of religion. There is another definition (atheism – disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings) that I think better applies to me and the majority of atheists I know. For arguments sake though, let’s go with the first definition.
@Tapajara When I think of religion, I think - rituals, governing codes, places of worship, prayer, and people who claim to have answers but who obviously don’t. There is only one category of the things that generally apply to religions in which atheism, by that definition, would fall under, and that is that it is a belief concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.
@Tapajara And it barely even falls under that category of religion since it says nothing of the purpose, little or nothing about the nature, and all it says about the cause is that is wasn’t a god. Although I prefer one of these definitions over the other, I think both of them are useful and beliefs (or more accurately put; non beliefs) adhering to both of these definitions would do a better job standing up to scrutiny than any theistic beliefs that I have heard of.
@Tapajara If you want to have a discussion about that, I’d love to, but this response is directed specifically at your claim that atheism is a religion. If atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby and not playing football is a sport.
@Walabinx I will concede that Atheism is not a religion. But then, Theism is not a religion either. Both are categories that designate whether one's religious beliefs include one or more gods or exclude gods altogether respectively. On the other hand, agnosticism is the absense of religious belief. It takes a religious faith to conclude there is no god just as it does to conclude that there is one. So call yourself an agnostic if you have no religious belief.
Agreed, theism in its most basic sense is not a religion. And under the definition that we used before (and only under that definition), Atheism does require a small degree of faith, though I would still contend that since there is no real evidence for a god, the assertion that ‘there are no gods’ is still a more valid assertion than, ‘there are gods.’ However, I do not assert that there are no gods.
@Tapajara I merely assert that the case for a god has not been made, and therefore belief in a god is unjustified, just as a belief in anything for which there is no real evidence, is unjustified. If belief for something is unjustified, then the lack of belief in that same thing is justified, and if someone has a lack of belief in a god then they are an atheist. That is why I prefer the definition of atheism (disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings) because it is more practical.
@Tapajara The notion of absolute certainty, when discussing topics such as these, I think is ridiculous since it is obvious to anyone in their right mind that we do not currently know the answers. I wouldn’t go as far as to say that we can never know, but I am an agnostic in the sense that I realize that right now we don’t have all the answers. But atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, nor are theism and agnosticism.
@Tapajara Gnosticism and agnosticism deal with knowledge about what can and cannot be known. Theism and atheism deal with belief about the existence of gods. It is possible and I think indeed inevitable, that someone can admit to not having absolute knowledge about a subject, but still have beliefs about it. And I think that every honest person is an agnostic in the sense that they reject the notion of absolute certainty and are willing to change their minds if proven wrong.
@Walabinx You said: "sorry about the long ass posts". Not a problem. You are an intelligent individual and you are open for examination and discussion. What more can I ask.
@Walabinx You should recognize, though, that sometimes individuals do have personal knowledge that they know to be true but is not provable or disprovable by science since it is not repeatable under controlled conditions. For example, if there is only one witness to an event, then that witness is the only one who knows certain truths. In such cases, would you say that the witness's belief is unjustifiable?
Good question. I would say that the witness’s belief in this case is justifiable, but only to themselves. For anyone else to believe their claims without evidence would generally be unjustified. This is why courts value physical evidence (DNA) far more than they value hearsay evidence (I saw him do it). Just because somebody feels justified in believing something through personal experience, doesn’t mean that what they believe is true.
@Tapajara Take the supernatural for example. I’m not saying that anyone who believes anything supernatural is a liar; I’m just saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that I would write off their beliefs to some sort of misunderstanding or self delusion before I would believe them myself.
@Tapajara Here’s a scenario that might help explain why I generally value provable facts over what people call ‘personal knowledge.’ Let’s say for example that there’re two people that believe in two completely different gods. Neither of them have any real evidence, but they both claim to have ‘personal experience’ that lets them know their god is true and they both believe just as strongly as the other. Do you see the dilemma? Which of them am I to believe?
@Tapajara It’s impossible to believe both because the beliefs are contradictory. I say that it makes the most sense to believe neither, since neither have evidence. Some minds are so gullible and desperate for answers to the big questions that they’ll accept almost anything as evidence and then call it, ‘personal knowledge,’ and I would much rather trust empirical evidence being examined by skeptical minds. It is evidence that allows society to separate truth from fantasy and fiction.
@Tapajara And it is models based on evidence that brought us the scientific advancements that have brought about an unparalleled increase in understanding about the world around us, as well as technological advancements that have brought up the standards of living for a large portion of the world. That is why I trust people who don't just claim to have 'personal knowledge,' but who can also demonstrate the validity of their knowledge using evidence.
@Tapajara By the way, in no way am I suggesting that you're like any of the people I have described in my explanation. I was just using those examples to make my point.
@Walabinx You said "sorry about the long ass posts". Not a problem. You are an intelligent individual who is open to discussion. As is often the case, we are only disagreeing on the prefered meanings of words as you have spelled out.
The issue isn't that evolution disproves God. The issue is that many people reject evolution, despite the overwhelming evidence in favor of it, and they do so because of their religious beliefs.
There is no false dichotomy between science and religion. Science relies on testing falsifiable claims to determine which explanatory model best fits the evidence. Religion is by definition unfalsifiable because supernatural explanations can apply to contradictory outcomes.
@butchkitties I don't understand what you were trying to say with "Change the subject much?". It is OBVIOUS that most people who are in uproars about evolution are so because of their religious beliefs. But I am religious and I believe that evolution was a primary process for bringing about the diversity of life on earth. So to me, the issue is Evolution and maybe the Big Bang, so Atheism is irrelevant to the topic (unless you have a religious axe to grind and/or not so noble agenda).
@butchkitties You said: "I was responding to your claim that atheism is a religion that believes evolution disproves God..." I never made the claim that Atheists believe that Evolution disproves the existence of God. All I claimed was that the definition of an Atheist is one who concludes that there is no God and that Atheism is a form of religion. Atheism (and religion in general) is really irrelevant to the subject of Evolution for those who really want to know the truth through science.
Atheism is provisional whereas religion is dogmatic. Religion makes faith-based claims that are either unsupported by evidence or are flatly contradicted by evidence. Science makes and refines claims based on accumulation of evidence, not faith. The existence of deities is rejected simply because there is a total void of evidence, so the null hypothesis applies.
Per your definition of religion, not believing in unicorns is a religion.
If you engage in civil discourse with someone for whom is religous within your workplace they will complain of discrimination thus resulting in unemployment. An Athiest has no rights, abd its wrong.
blade004 2 months ago
@blade004 Ya, I've been there...
nerhu59 1 month ago
@ZachRose88
Actually, if I remember the statistics right, something among 25% of Americans 18-30yo are atheist, so that makes sense, yeah. W00t! Lol
macgeek2004 3 months ago
I have been meeting Atheists everywhere now; it's amazing. It's time for all of us to come out and spead loudly and unapologetically. Fight back against superstitious nonsense! We must not allow these people to send us back into the dark ages.
ZachRose88 4 months ago
@CarmineFragione
This isn't exactly a new concept, Carmine. It's a very old one, and there has been much "coffee table" discussion of this concept.
Dawkins himself addresses Intelligent Design as "entirely plausible", but only if you define the life form who is doing the designing as a being who has come about by Darwinian means. In other words, no gods, no magic, only intelligent, evolved life, and the laws of chemistry.
There simply is no evidence for any other type of "creation".
BYONDTer13 6 months ago
@CarmineFragione
There has been discussion involving the idea of intelligent life from a past universe either creating a universe, or bridging universes and seeding the second with life, or uplifting current life, Dawkins and Tyson both have speculated that this is theoretically possible, but improbable.
We aren't dismissing possibilities, and you need to understand that. We are simply saying there is no evidence, and in the case of the above, the root beings would have had to have evolved.
BYONDTer13 6 months ago
Eating babies? Preposterous! Why would I do that? Babies give me gas.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
Atheists may look back in time and see a Darwinist Creation only, but in forward time they take pleasure in evolving intelligent will to the creation of another paradigm or in some lab, making or causing to be the next successive Universe that expands and takes over today's reality, But by logic, if Current Atheists think they can be the God of the Next Universe, by Intelligent Notions , then they must be illogical to deny that the former or present Universe is caused by the God of it.
CarmineFragione 7 months ago
@CarmineFragione I don't know of any atheists who have creating another universe as their goal in life. Being atheist certainly wouldn't lead to the thought that one could do that. You may be thinking of mad scientists.
bicokun 6 months ago
@CarmineFragione Ummm you might consider running your big ideas past someone before posting them. There is everything wrong with your post.
no2religions 6 months ago
I'd describe myself as more an anti-theist than an atheist, believing as I do that religion id both false, ans on balance not a force for good in the world.
I am an occasional commenter on Pharyngula, as well as helping to run a secular discussion board - Secular Cafe if anyone is interested.
Still, I don't go knocking on people's doors or preaching in the street that religion is wrong. That seems just rude. Anyone who evangelises me is fair game, though.
David B
daithesceptic 8 months ago
I agree that calling yourself an atheist shouldn't be viewed by religious people as fighting words, a "red flag before a bull," or sticking your middle finger up at the creator and saying "F#%# you, I don't think so." Of course atheists aren't giving God the finger. There'd be no one to flip off. I was raised religious, and we had the misconception that anyone who didn't believe in God made the rebellious *choice* not to do so. That isn't so. Someone honestly doesn't believe. That's fair.
SheSaysSoIndeed 8 months ago
Everyone wonders what America would be like without religion. Well we can see it today. Don't be naive. Just because someone says they are religious doesn't make it true. You can't follow a religion partly and consider yourself as such. America is full of glutonny, greed, pride, jealousy, promiscuity, narcissism etc. If more people where truly following religion it would be a better world. Atheism is dangerous
Ryder1981 8 months ago
@Ryder1981 Atheism is lack of belief in gods, and oftentimes superstition as well. It's perfectly possible and in fact quite common to be an atheist who possesses man positive character traits. In fact atheists are severely under represented in prison populations, so we must be doing something right by your own standards.
Pilaf1984 8 months ago
@Pilaf1984 A lack of atheist representation in prison is a one sided argument that you probably only agree with because it's in your favor. First off, Atheist are still a small percent of the population. Secondly, don't be naive, just because someone says they are religious doesn't mean they are perfect. Thirdly, many people find religion WHILE there are serving time. Jeffery Dahmer admitted he killed because he didn't believe in God but found God in prison and repented his sins.
Ryder1981 8 months ago
@Ryder1981 "A lack of atheist representation in prison"
It's a false argument. I'm sick of atheists propagating stuff like this. And yes I'm an atheist. I don't give a damn if atheists want to say I'm really a Christian pretending to be an atheist or I'm a sympathizer for religion who wants religion have their way. That's just their coping mechanisms for why I would possibly disagree. I'm after truth. I'm not first and foremost in this so called atheist community.
RuinSonic 8 months ago
@Ryder1981 Hmm. Truly following religion is only good as long as the religion says something like "help your neighbor, give to the poor, mind your own business and live a moral life." But if the religion says "our belief is right and yours is wrong, so you are doomed forever," following that religion wouldn't make it a better world at all. You'd have the Israel vs. Palestine situation, the former N. Ireland vs Ireland situation...etc. Saying "that wasn't real religion" is a cop-out.
SheSaysSoIndeed 8 months ago
@SheSaysSoIndeed Please stop, because any one who has a deeper understanding of those two conflicts would not call them religious. The dumbest argument atheist make is the "no wars without religion" BS. And please don't be naive, just because someone says they are religious, doesn't make them so.There are far more conflicts over greed and control in history than over religion. I know you won't actually read a world history book for yourself. You'll probably cut and paste from another persn.
Ryder1981 8 months ago
@Ryder1981 Haha. that's pretty funny. I don't think I've ever cut and pasted from someone in my life, and, although I don't need to respond to your ad hominem attack, I think you have me pegged as some kind of stereotype to which you are justified to condescend. It's rather hilarious that you assume I don't read history books.
Of course conflicts are about resources, greed, control, prejudice, etc. The problem is, that people use religion as ammunition and cover to hide/justify the greed.
SheSaysSoIndeed 8 months ago
@SheSaysSoIndeed your argument is just another copy that every atheist is trained to repeat. The assumption is that without religion, there would be no justification of war. However, if you ACTUALLY knew history, then you'll notice that every empire from the Greek, Roman, Mongol, Japanese and British were all about greed and glory of nation. You're arguments and assumptions are a repeated twist of the truth to favor your argument.
Ryder1981 8 months ago
@Ryder1981 How do you even know I'm an atheist? That's kind of funny too. I'm actually not. Of course nations fight wars about greed and resources. The problem is that too many times, the powers that be use religion as a cover for their greedy actions. I'm not saying that religion shouldn't exist. I'm saying that it's used as ammunition to do damage and put a moral, pretty face on wars of conquest and greed. (See the "Requerimiento" that the conquistadores read before invasions).
INeedAManifesto 7 months ago
@Ryder1981 Again, kind of funny. How do you even know I'm an atheist? I'm actually not. I'm not saying that religion shouldn't exist, or that we'd all be peaceful without it. Of course empires are about ruthless expansion and greed, regardless of religion. But too many times, the "powers that be" have used religion as a cover, to put a pretty, moral face on wars of conquest and greed. See the "Requerimiento" that the Spanish Conquistadores read before invading an indigenous nation.
INeedAManifesto 7 months ago
@Ryder1981 "The assumption is that without religion, there would be no justification of war."
Excuse me sir, but are you completely retarded? That's like saying that people advocating vaccination against some specific disease do it with assumption that it will cure all illness. Removing religion will remove one of the major mechanisms humans today use to identify out groups for the purposes of war. That is all people are saying and this in itself makes it well worth eradicating religion.
Gnomefro 7 months ago
@Ryder1981 "However, if you ACTUALLY knew history, then you'll notice that every empire [...] were all about greed and glory of nation."
And if you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd realize that religion has been one of the most important forces behind nation building and nationalism. This is not because it is needed, as modern secular nations demonstrate, but because religion provided motivation to slaughter "evil" people around them in the name of God and take their stuff.
Gnomefro 7 months ago
@Gnomefro You are another left brain thinker who can't read something and make your own opinion. You FOLLOW the atheist argument without question and are more of a sheep than religious zealots. No one should argue with idiots like yourself that seem to flock to atheism because it's easier follow some other "scholarly opinion" rather than find truth for yourself. You're going to tell me that the Mongol, Roman, Japanese, British, Greek, Hunnic, American empires were driven by religion? LOL
Ryder1981 7 months ago
@Gnomefro So what would be next after the eradication of religion? Money and greed where bigger factors in wars so how about eradicating personal belongings? Yes SOCIALISM would be the answer! LOL. The next reason for war was nationalism, people love to be the victorious nation so how can we eradicate that? ONE WORLD GOV'T!! LMFAO. That is the direction of left brain imprisoned atheist like yourself. And eventually it will happen. Thanks retards :)
Ryder1981 7 months ago
@SheSaysSoIndeed EXACTLY! Most religions do promote peace but then you have people who twist around words or charismatics who inspire evil. Many religions do believe in we are right and you are wrong but they don't say kill those who are wrong. I know for a fact that the Bible and Qur'an say in in fewer words to spread your faith but if people choose not to follow then let them be. But again it's people with ill intentions that twist around words or use someone's ignorance to drive evil.
Ryder1981 7 months ago
Everyone wonders what America would be like without religion. Well we can see it today. Don't be naive. Just because someone says they are religious doesn't make it true. You can't follow a religion partly and consider yourself as such. America is full of glutonny, greed, pride, jealousy, promiscuity, narcissism etc. If more people where truly followed religion it would be a better world. Atheism is dangerous
Ryder1981 8 months ago
I don't get up set at atheist. I pray for them and carry on with my life.
Ryder1981 8 months ago
As an "atheist" who has much respect for PZ, I just have to say that atheism is NOT an intellectual position! I agree with Sam Harris: It is a LACK of an intellectual position, namely a lack of the theistic position!
"Atheism" is a vacuum which either drives people toward reason & science on one hand, or Marxist bullshit and conspiracy theories on the other. I am as much of an "atheist" as I am a non-astrologer or a non-$cientologist.
theocean1973 8 months ago
In the case of morality, if you stopped believing in God right now, would you suddenly just start raping and murdering everyone around you? If you answer yes, then please admit yourself to a mental institution.
AQGOAT24 9 months ago
Why are rural dwellers so religious?
Because theres nothing else to do?
harpo103 9 months ago
@harpo103 it's probably because they don't have mass amounts of negative influence large cities have.
Ryder1981 8 months ago
I like my babies for lunch on toast with cream chipped beef.
TheDano1947 9 months ago
Atheism is a nonsensical label when religion stops doing stupid crap, the same way abolitionist became a pointless term when slavery ended, for the most part.
InfernosNinthCircle 10 months ago
@InfernosNinthCircle Your right but I do admire him trying to change the term from a bad one to a good one.
FarmerBrian57 9 months ago
I don't think atheists need to "discuss" their views with Christians any more than they need to discuss them with a bushman who believes in an obscure, ancient tribal religion.
ejdf870 10 months ago
@ejdf870 Dont you feel there's an important distinction between the two groups? One being a powerful percentage of the electorate, which votes for the person(who may or may not believe the earth is 6,000 years old), and will have access to the nuclear launch codes?
ArgoSG 10 months ago
@ArgoSG I'm just making a powerful point about how equally silly ALL religions are.
We in America tend not to see the big picture, and that is that most of the world doesn't believe in "Jesus", but in countless other myths. Yet we ignore this fact and expect atheists to "debate" and "discuss" Christianity, as if it should have any more validity than any other religion, and that it's on equal footing to atheism. It's not.
ejdf870 10 months ago
@ejdf870 The energy spent talking about Christianity is not done so because it's tenets are bullshit. That is obvious. The energy spent discussing Christianity, and the need to discuss Christianity as much as possible is done so in order to rid ourselves of it as a species, much like trying to rid itself of any harmful mass product(heart disease, breast cancer, AIDS). You can't just say there is equal reason to be concerned about Christianity than there is to be about indigenous people's myths.
ArgoSG 10 months ago
@ejdf870 I dont disagree with what you wrote, I just wanted to make the important distinction that not all religions are equally harmful either, and we should focus our energy discussion some over others. It just so happens that there are some which pose a huge threat to human wellbeing and potential to make progress towards a universally desirable world.
ArgoSG 10 months ago
but i like babies with ice cream :/
asseeninYOURDREAMS 10 months ago
why do athiests happy potty mouths? keep your athiests beliefs to yourself. I do not get upset if your an athiest. just don't push it on me.
stormrider777 11 months ago
@stormrider777 Then why are you watching videos that are obviously atheistic? Aren't you kind off pushing it on yourself?
Adhemar05 11 months ago 2
See that's where I have been going wrong. I eat the babies in public.
sweetmonkeylove1 11 months ago 15
Atheism is actually a religion. Since there is no way to prove the existence or non existence of god(s), you really need a great deal of faith in the absence of god
elcerdovulnerado 11 months ago
@elcerdovulnerado If atheism is a religion death is a lifestyle. Idiot. Atheism is a lack of belief in supernatural claims. It's not that we claim to know absolutely that there is no God. We just find no reason to believe the theistic claims that there is one, just as you would dismiss the claims of any man who believes in Zeus, leprechauns and unicorns, especially when they go around preaching from the holy unicorn book and start imposing their viewpoints and law upon people through government.
viridismonasteriense 11 months ago
@viridismonasteriense "If atheism is a religion death is a lifestyle," or my favorite, "Atheism is a religion like 'OFF' is a TV channel."
SubconsciousGatherer 11 months ago
@SubconsciousGatherer How about, "if atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby".
ejdf870 10 months ago
@elcerdovulnerado Of course you don't, it's still unlikely. You can't absolutely say it's not true, I'll give you that, but it's just like saying the *random string of words...purple upside down unicorn* created the universe. It's no test of faith in this sense.
Hellsconsort 11 months ago
@elcerdovulnerado that is just stupid
fermos11111 10 months ago
I know where you're coming from PZ Myers! Don't worry, other atheists are by your side!!
searats20 1 year ago
What about calling those of us who disbelieve in nonsense, "rationalists"? It is more positive, gets the central point across, and is an obvious prod to those who still direct their lives by irrational beliefs.
johnebillings 1 year ago
The best thing about being an atheist is the intrinsic advantage it gives us. Our ability to embrace reality gives us an incredible advantage over delusional people who can't fully grasp the world as it is. Our beliefs influence the decisions that affect our lives. If our beliefs are flawed, so will our decisions be also. The disadvantages of delusional beliefs are many and vary with the spectrum of false beliefs. False beliefs skew one's thinking and ability to accurately analyze problems.
FUCKyourGODmyth 1 year ago
Every non religous person needs to start talking about non belief instead of just brushing aside these people. They think they are still in control because people dont tell them that there are just as many of us as you....These christians are going to destroy this earth folk- look at the Iraq war.
Jeffersonwazright 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Note to PZ: "Fat, Drunk and Stupid is no way to go through life"...
from the movie Animal House, yet applies to the moron.
TAXtheAtheist 1 year ago
The problem with the label 'Atheist' is that it creates the impression that atheism is a departure from the default position.
It's default to be a non-astronaut; just as it is to be a non-theist. By making word for it, we create the false impression that our position is in some way a special or noteworthy exception to the rule, entails an active assertion, or requires defence and justification.
AleximusMaximus 1 year ago 2
@AleximusMaximus Plain Belly Sneetches would just be Sneetches if not for those damb Star Belly Sneetches.
PotSmokingAtheist 1 year ago
@PotSmokingAtheist Exactly! ... I think..
AleximusMaximus 1 year ago
@AleximusMaximus Agreed, however I think that because we live in a place where beliefs in gods are so widespread, it doesn't hurt us to have a nonbelief label. I'm usually not one for labels but I'd take "atheist" over "freethinker" or "rationalist." Most people do believe in God, and they also claim to live their life by it. If 90% of the world believed in Leprichauns, I would advocate the usage of a label indicating a lack of said belief.
marsjacobvolta 1 year ago
PZ has awesome style. There's something very sexy about intelligence and knowledge.
AustratheistX 1 year ago
PZ Myers is correct. Atheism does have content, it is not "nothing". Atheism, theism, deism, agnosticism. etc. all have content. None of them are nothing. These are ideas about the existence/non-existence of God.
Keysteeze 1 year ago
6:05 "...a respectable intellectual position..." Since when is not believing in magic, not intellectually respectable?
GodofCider 1 year ago
In 2010, shouldn't this video be the other way around-- that the Christian is the lone curiosity in the audience trying to defend his position, while a room full of rational people (Atheists) condescendingly talk down to him and ask silly questions????
ejdf870 1 year ago
Atheism: The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so-ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs... All of this being caused by nothing.
Makes perfect sense.
GuysTheOther 1 year ago
Comment removed
pululo98 1 year ago
@GuysTheOther
Creationism: The belief that "our designer" sculpted a guy out of sand
and it came to life. Then "our designer" ripped out one of his ribs and made a
woman out of it. Then "our designer" made a tree that was only for him (for no reason) and said that the sand man and rib women couldn't eat from (knowing that they were gonna eat from it anyway)A snake came out and talked to them telling them to eat from it anyway...
they ate from it and were thrown out.
makes perfect sense.
pululo98 1 year ago
@GuysTheOther No, it means we don't know anything about the universe. Rather than relying on poorly translated books of Iron age fairy tales, we ask questions and seek evidence.
shaunmalley 1 year ago
@shaunmalley You atheists claim that science is the only way? If so, why do you white-wash all religions with this "its all iron age fairy tale" bull shit? Stop classifying all religions under the same umbrella with an ignorant mentality. Why don't you apply your scientific process to analyze ALL religions and not base everything on Christianity in the dark ages.
GuysTheOther 1 year ago
@GuysTheOther : Scientific method soon finds that all religion is based on zero evidence. Claims with zero evidence are not facts or theories. Religion IS iron age fairy tales, its all under the same umbrella because it belongs there.
bary1234 1 year ago 2
@bary1234 You haven't done your research. So stop white washing.
GuysTheOther 1 year ago
@GuysTheOther ; I dont have to do research on iron age fairytales to understand that they are fairytales. Since there is not a shread of evidence for gods, we can discard them as fantasy.
bary1234 1 year ago 2
@GuysTheOther Seeing as none of what you said applies to me, I'll just take the time to correct your grammar. It's not "Its" when you contract "it is"; in fact, it's "its". You need to have the apostrophe to indicate that it's a contraction rather than an indication of possession. You're welcome :-)
shaunmalley 1 year ago
@shaunmalley wow thatz fantaztik 2 knouw. eye reely wisch u wood currekt me mor oftin! THANCS!
GuysTheOther 1 year ago
@GuysTheOther Anytime! I please to aim.
shaunmalley 1 year ago
@GuysTheOther : You have wrong word on beginning of that stupid rant of yours. That does not describe Atheists.
But I take it that you are a creationist, therefore you would by defenition be really really stupid.
bary1234 1 year ago
@bary1234 wow, why the hate? you just insulted me for no reason. All I was saying is that you shouldn't whitewash. If you actually studied Islam, not through googling, but actually STUDIED it, read the scriptures and listened to interpretations by scholars you would see that it is FAR from your fairy tale assumptions. But you won't read it or research it, cuz your heart and your mind are both closed to any idea of God; you wont even consider it. Is my assumption about you correct?
GuysTheOther 1 year ago
@GuysTheOther : Why the hate: Read your first post on this chain starting with the word: Atheism.
Provocative much? :) You deserve to get shaken for writing something so stupid.
You are the one who needs to actually STUDY. And not fairytales and fiction like islam, but science. You need to learn about evolution, human brain, origin of life, universe. You will soon find your small god is ridiculous and childish imaginary friend.
bary1234 1 year ago
@bary1234 Have a nice life.
GuysTheOther 1 year ago
@GuysTheOther : Thanks, you too.
bary1234 1 year ago
It's not that PZ eats babies, the problem is that he is a douchebag & militantly so. He contends that anyone who has a religious faith has no valid input... actually, to be honest he spends most of his time attacking Christianity, not religion as a whole. Whether it be driving rusty nails through t/ Eucharist or trying to intimidate Christian college students, his douchebaggery is t/ stuff of legends here in Morris MN. Even most Atheist & Agnostic students dislike him- they call him SleaZy Myers
ProdigalSonofLiberty 1 year ago
@ProdigalSonofLiberty : Religious students probably would dislike an atheist teacher, but that comes from their brainwashing-backgrounds. Rational people dont hate Myers, whats there to hate?
bary1234 1 year ago
@bary1234 Actually quite a few of the atheist/agnostic students dislike Myers. I've heard them call him SleaZy Myers on several occasions(I am a University of Minnesota-Morris student). There is a Geology Professor at Morris named Cotter that is about as fervently atheist and constantly rips on religion, but he's well liked because he isn't malicious/nasty about it. Most people are not rational, period, including most atheists, who often replace God w/ Government. We call these people Statheists
ProdigalSonofLiberty 1 year ago
@ProdigalSonofLiberty : Ok, I dont know him so you are probably right. I wonder what he has done to earn that reputation. And I would like to think he is not purposefully nasty, or try to hurt peoples feelings .Then again, I'm here every day calling religious people stupid, so maybe there just is no way around it. Cant make an omelet without breaking some eggs, cant kill religions without hurting some feelings.
bary1234 1 year ago
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
wonkothemagicelf 1 year ago
As PZ says, people come up to him and hug him,.......why do you suppose that is? I would think that PZ gives them reason to believe as atheist. It's the anti-religious religion. Good for PZ for admitting that his views are aiews that atheist embrace. Not science mind you, but I suppose it never really was. (even if you soften the blow, your motives are clear here)
gcnengineer 1 year ago
A challenge of sorts: I'd like to hear from anyone (minus natmanprime who has weighed in a view already) who can show to a certainty that the terms "non-astrologer" and "non-alchemist" have *ever* been used by a mainstream society to describe people. I am unable to find this information. If it exists, I'd like to have it.
wonkothemagicelf 1 year ago
As an aside, I DO like PZ Myers, however it needs to be noted that his personal experience at UM Morris, enrollment @1700 students, is a far cry from a major or mainstream college 'undertaking'. (To digress; why is it that I often see his name up on the screen, like in THIS vid, and the words 'Univ. of Minnesota' are underneath? Is it difficult to post the word "MORRIS" after that?) Also, he describes his "small" town but MN is an avant-garde state. I should know. I lived near MSP for 9 years.
wonkothemagicelf 1 year ago
'Resist astrology' was a poor choice of words on my part. I find astrology to be meaningless and of no personal value. Expecting that religions will be brushed off into the shadows because a resistance of people *label* themselves is irrational given that the chosen label has an extremely negative association connected to it. We're not going to win the religious over when they won't listen to us. IF a label is needed at all, it should be one that is the least offensive to the religious.
wonkothemagicelf 1 year ago
Indeed, astrology flourished for thousands of years... Persia, Babylonia, Egyptian, Hindi, Chinese, Hellenistic to name but a few. Thankfully, at least for now;-), astrology has become marginalized. While it may hold little power to shape world events *currently*, I think it is a valid analogy as both astrology and religions have set about to explain and set down rules about the world in which we live. I've found Mr. Harris to often be nonconfrontational with his fellow 'Atheists' thus the split
wonkothemagicelf 1 year ago 2
@wonkothemagicelf yes but you've just explained why non-astrologer is a redundant term NOW. Back in the day when it had political power, it would have been a valid term, because it would signify resistance, and the nature of your resistance.
This is why we have terms, to define one thing against another.
Once the oppostition to atheism fades away, so can the term atheism, but not before, because it's necessary to express resistance and the nature of your resistance.
YinYang, see?
natmanprime 1 year ago
@natmanprime While It's been marginalized the ideas never go away and therefore I *still* resist astrology; it's irrational. But I don't need to be called a non-astrologer. Forms of religion will only become somewhat superfluous. Even if the world decides upon laws to make the practice of ANY religion (or astrology) ILLEGAL, there will ALWAYS be those who worship within their minds and whisper to each other. Atheism as a label may be desirable by some but not me. I know others feel the same.
wonkothemagicelf 1 year ago 2
@wonkothemagicelf ok I think you understand the force of my argument, it's just pride holding you back from conceding, but I'll deal with your point's anyway:
I never said the ideas go away, I said the political power it holds goes away, so you're attacking a strawman.
No one's talking about laws banning anything...
stating your desire not to be labelled an atheist is not an argument...
Who cares if others feel the same as you...
I think you've displayed your irrational argument style now...
natmanprime 1 year ago
@natmanprime That you believe you and I were in an argument is funny. And where in the world did you get the idea that me stating my desire not to be labeled is part of that? This isn't debate camp. We'd need to agree on defintions and much more. Did I state that you were TALKING about banning anything... hypothetical digression is commentary. You were right about ONE thing... I DID state my desire not to be labeled AND it WASN'T an argument. Feel free to have the last word....
wonkothemagicelf 1 year ago
@wonkothemagicelf The rational thing to do when 2 people disagree is argue, or ignore each other. You weren't ignoring me, or arguing, so I don't know what you were doing.
I meant why bring up 'banning' stuff?
The issue you can't grasp is that I'm talking about theism and astrology as POLITICAL POWERS, not existing in some marginal way. Of course they'll always exist somehow. It's necessary to define yourself against them when they're in POWER, for your freedom, because if you don't theyWILL
natmanprime 1 year ago
PZ Myers is an excellent person, but I disagree w/ him. If atheism catches on, we won't be known as atheists, but as rational reasonable people without label.
If we begin with"Atheist", we will not be heard, because the audience wont hear anything but "baby-eating immoral devil-worshipper."
If we must, let's be called scientists, rational thinkers, sceptics, anti-creationists, and decent people.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
@drfoxcourt I agree 100%. Indeed, what's interesting, and often denied by many god worshippers, is that countries with the highest percentages of people who get labeled 'atheist', constitute the bulk of the countries with the lowest crime rates. (eg. murder, rape, assault, etc)
I'm with Sam Harris on this 'Atheism" thing. No one wakes up in the morning, looks in the mirror and says, "What a beautiful non-astrologer you are". I find the term atheist to be a really poor, nonsensical label.
wonkothemagicelf 1 year ago 37
@wonkothemagicelf we define ourselves as such because we recognize the existence of theism as a corrupting moral force in the world, so it's important to define ourselves against it.
the analogy with astrology is poor because astrology is not a corrupting force in the world.
And Sam Harris said he 'splits the difference' between PZ and another guy, so he kind of agrees, and even that was only based on the assumption that PZ prosletyses atheism to his neighbour.
Thank you for reading.
natmanprime 1 year ago
@natmanprime You and I simply disagree. I see theism PRIMARILY as a brainwashing meme that infects the masses thereby stalling the thought processes and inhibiting the growth of reason, rationality and scientific thought. Is it ALSO a corrupting moral force in the world? Sure it is. But I think that is, at best, a secondary ingredient in the religious pie. As for astrology, it *WAS* a corrupting force at one time in the world as far back as the 3rd millenium BC. (continued next post)
wonkothemagicelf 1 year ago 18
@wonkothemagicelf
lol do people say "what a beautiful atheist you are"??
chebob2009 1 year ago
@wonkothemagicelf There are astrologers, so to say non-astrologer makes perfect sense. It might not be necessary, but it's logical. Same thing with the word atheist. Same way with the term to asexual entities. So much of the population believe in a higher power, not many people believe in astrology (I hope). If there is to be a label, then atheism is not a poor one and it's not nonsensical. It's scientific, and I love it. As for your other point about crime, it's a good one.
shishimore 1 year ago
@wonkothemagicelf Exactly. Apparently I'm also a non-race car driver, a non-astronaut and a non-fireman among other things. I wonder if I can put those on my CV.
iSOBigD 1 year ago
@wonkothemagicelf I disagree. When you're in a population that is overwhelmingly theist labelling oneself atheist is entirely appropriate. I'd love to live in a world where the word atheist is as unnecessary as non-astrolager. but as it stands the atheist label is entirely appropriate.
dracpcpp 1 year ago
@wonkothemagicelf I disagree. When you're in a population that is majority theistic the label atheist is entirely appropriate. It's probably not necessary in Sweden or Norway, but in Britain or the U.S using atheist as a label is not only logical, I'd call it necessary.
dracpcpp 1 year ago 14
@dracpcpp You think so, In Britain too?
I live in Britain and I have never met a person who gives a shit to even give it a thought, they(Literally everyone I have got to know) don't believe in god and that's all they care to know.
peuterschmidt 5 months ago
@peuterschmidt I agree. I'm not an atheist, I just don't believe in god.
mahkus1 5 months ago
@mahkus1 As logical as saying "I don't live in Canada, but I just don't live in Canada". Not believing in god is the same thing as being an atheist, whether you like the term or not. Perhaps you do live in a community where religion is a non-issue and the term therefore useless, but that doesn't make it false. On a global scale the term is very necessary, that much is clear.
If everybody around you is atheist, good for you. That doesn't mean they're "not atheist, they just don't believe."
PeGe90 5 months ago
@wonkothemagicelf
I agree that the term "atheist" means very little. I often tell other atheists that atheism isnt enough. But I do think the term is needed in certain context of conversation. When speaking to religious people, it may not be enough to label ourselves as skeptics, or rational, etc... because the label "atheist" carried so much of a negative stigma to it, I feel its needed (here in the US) to counter that stigma & not feel vilifed for saying "I dont believe what you believe".
88Keyz101 1 year ago
@wonkothemagicelf I disagree with you on the "Atheist" label. We don't have to call ourselves non-astrologers" because there isn't a huge majority of astrologers in all walks of live and authority threatening global catastrophy. We need to create debate where none exists, we need to let Theists know that their world view is not normal just because there are lots of them repeating the same or similar dogma. To do that we need to identify ourselves to them and each other. I'm a proud atheist.
trapfish 1 year ago
@wonkothemagicelf We need the label because we are the minority. I know it seems weird, but we are not that common around the world and our ideas are considered "radical".
AQGOAT24 9 months ago
@wonkothemagicelf Countries with higher percentages of Atheists who self-report as such, are also probably nations with higher levels of tolerance for diversity (which is why the non-theists would be comfortable enough to openly say so). Tolerant nations would probably have fewer hate crimes, violence, etc. Plus...higher levels of education, probably.
SheSaysSoIndeed 8 months ago
@drfoxcourt You have declared heresy against the atheist pope! Your words are offensive to me! Fatwah! Fatwah!
^_^
UbiquitousChe 1 year ago
I met PZ a few weeks ago and he's a really nice, laid back kind of guy. I sort of expected him to be more harsh, even after watching all these videos on youtube. If you ever get a chance to go see him, you ought to.
Carollnn 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Actually I've done some research and found that there are some interesting patterns that can be found in the universe that correlate to patterns seen in and on human beings. I've linked the cosmic web to the neural network of the brain, spiral galaxies to the pattern on the back of the head and the fertilization of an egg to stars. this can all be seen on my page ascensionq.20fr.com and I do take feedback to the diagrams, information and video references.
turbo2gq 1 year ago
I have experienced too many miracles in my life to say there is no God. In 1983 I Iived /w my mother. One Sunday morning we got up and my mother said she had a dream that my dad was young again and had left my step mother. Where he now was they didn't need his services. He was a physician. We lived in Houston and my dad lived in Denver. I hadn't heard from him for many years. My mother knew it wasn't just a dream. We spent the whole day together very sullen. My dad passed away that night.
Tapajara 1 year ago
Evolution says absolutely nothing about the existance of God. The Atheists aren't promoting truth. They are promoting their own religion: Atheism. If you want the truth, listen to Kevin Padian about the "false duality" that ultra-religious people (including Atheists) are pushing.
Tapajara 1 year ago
@Tapajara True, evolution says nothing about the existence of God. But how do you go from that, to saying that athiest are pushing a religion? Just because evolution was a hard blow to the faith of many, and may have caused people to give up their beliefs in gods, doesn't mean that athiest worship evolution. We don't pray, we don't have rituals or dogmas. We're not selling a religion of our own; we're just trying to encourage people to stop buying what religions are selling, because its fraud.
Walabinx 1 year ago
@Walabinx Agreed. You are "preaching to the choir" as they say. But we must assure that "unjustiied belief" does not imply that we must now start throwing them into the lion's den just because we don't share their personal "knowledge" as they claim. A lot of people with "personal knowledge" (those that are not just lying) routinely fill in with their own interpretations and claim those interpretations are part of their exprience (and they are not). Good objective obervers are very valuable.
Tapajara 1 year ago
@Tapajara I don't mean to imply that we start throwing them into the lions den; just that we stop allowing them to do that to us because its been going on too long. Good objective observers aren't just valuable, they're necessary, though few seem to realize nor care. It's good to know at least, that there is 'a choir'.
Walabinx 1 year ago
@Walabinx You said: "just that we stop allowing them to do that to us"
How do you propose to do that?
Tapajara 1 year ago
@Tapajara Not sure. I like to do what I can through reasoned arguement, which is part of the reason why I use the athiest label when discussing the god issue. It often makes people take a second to evaluate their own beliefs. They usually have this knee jerk negative reaction to the word athiest, but when I talk to them about it they sometimes realize that their negative preconceptions are unjustified.
Walabinx 1 year ago
@Walabinx Sure. I generalized. Usually, someone got to them before you did and it will be heck getting these notions out of their head. There are neo-Pharisees, as I call them, that will send you off to hell if you deviate one iota from what they think the Bible says. Not much you can do about those people. Even Jesus gave up on them and just cursed them.
Tapajara 1 year ago
@Tapajara True. But arguing with them can still be fun sometimes. And you never know; some people are the fence. It was reasoned arguement that originally made me realize that my theistic beliefs were unjustified, so I figure there's got to be some people out there that are like I used to be. And then, who knows, through arguement I may actually be convinced that my athiesm is unjustified.
Walabinx 1 year ago
@Walabinx A lot of former Christians just dumped their religious beliefs overboard. What I have decided is that I just have to constantly modify my beliefs to accommodate what I have accepted to belief through what science has taught us. My reasoning is that, if God did communicate with some people way back when, probabilities are high that the information got corrupted before it got to us. Still the likelyhood is there. I don't totally discount it.
Tapajara 1 year ago
[Part 2] Up to that point in time, my dad had been in good health. The evening of his death, he went out to dinner with my step mother. They got back home and he said he was having indigestion so he laid down. He had a massive coronary and never got up. So the "warning from God" had given us a few hours notice to get emotionally prepared for what was going to happen. There was absolutely no way that this could be explained by what is know through science.
Tapajara 1 year ago
@Tapajara Interesting story. I agree that such an experience may not be able to be explained by science yet, but what I don’t see is how that is grounds to insert a god. At most this is grounds to speculate that maybe your mother has some sort of extrasensory perception; but how did you get from that to ‘God?’ I do not mean to belittle the experience that you went through, but it may not have been anything supernatural at all.
Walabinx 1 year ago
@Walabinx You said: " I don’t see is how that is grounds to insert a god". You and I have different perspectives concerning "God". You have a pre-conceived idea of what (a) "God" should be and measure evidence as to whether it justifies supporting such a pre-conceived model of (a) God. On the other-hand, I attribute such unexplainable phenomena to God and that defines to me what God is. In a sense, what I call God is more impiricle and adaptable than your "expected" model of God.
Tapajara 1 year ago
@Tapajara I’ll admit that your mother having a dream about your father dying just before your father died is an unlikely coincidence, but that does not mean that a coincidence is the most unlikely explanation. In fact given what we know about the natural world, it is the most likely explanation. Especially when we take into account all of the times that people have dreams about things like that, and nothing happens, or, all of the times when people died but nobody had dreams about it happening.
Walabinx 1 year ago
@Tapajara Did they not deserve the same ‘heads up’ from God that you got? I would much sooner attribute such an experience, even if it had happened to me directly, to coincidence (which do happen), than to a god (for which there is no evidence of). Anyways that's just my view on your experience.
Walabinx 1 year ago
@Walabinx You said: "Did they not deserve the same ‘heads up’ from God that you got?" There is lot's more to the story; too much to write here. But reality is that some people make private vows to God and others do not. Certainly only people who believe there is a god would make such a vow. Some people use their apparent status within religious organizations for personal gain in this life w/o any real faith in God. You really cannot know the state of a person's private commitment to God.
Tapajara 1 year ago
@Walabinx Reality with science is that it is only useful in trying to establish common knowledge of things that are testable and repeatable in controlled physical environments. There is so much of life that it has little application. Scientists claim "This man was the first to understand blah blah or discover blah blah." In truth, someone has probably understood it or discovered it before but scientists ignore what has not been published in their journals. This is a shortcoming of science.
Tapajara 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Walabinx You said: "I would much sooner attribute such an experience, even if it had happened to me directly, to coincidence" You shouldn't try to use a hypothetical event as though it were evidence to strenghen your case. The fact is, it did not happen to you. I could say that "Supposing that I SAW God take my father up to heaven and I was awake". That is also hypothetical so it can't be used to strengthen my case either. Your statement is also out of context.
Tapajara 1 year ago
@Walabinx Let me explain what I meant by "out of context". I have heard lots of people say "Well if I were born a woman" or "If I were gay" blah blah blah. They don't realize that it took untold countless things to make each of us what we are. How can someone know how different their life would be if they were born the opposite sex? They have no idea how complicated the factors would be to change their life. Such hypothetical "what ifs" are enormously over-valued and are of little use.
Tapajara 1 year ago
@Walabinx [Correction] Sorry. The story I just told you happened on January 13, 1985. The last I had heard from my dad had been in 1979 or 1980. I used to drop by to visit him in Alamagordo NM on my way to Flagstaff AZ (graduate school) when he was in the Air Force trying to get retirement. He gave up on that and went back into private practice in Denver. My major was biology and I was studying among well know evolutionary biologies. Stephen J. Gould gave a lecture while I was there(?).
Tapajara 1 year ago
@Tapajara [Continued] Extrapolating further, I even attribute explanable things to God as well including the laws of physics and chemistry. So maybe what you call (a) God is a lot more stereo-typed than what I attribute to God. Perhaps hearing talk about God from fundamentalists has made you gun shy so the word "God" is a "hot button".
Tapajara 1 year ago
@Tapajara Perhaps it is just the same old shortcomings of the human being. In any case, I just suggest that you leave your definition of "God" more open-ended and perhaps abandon much of the pre-conceived notions you have about what a God would be if there was one. Perhaps "God" really is nothing more than the sum total of physical/metaphysical laws that govern our universe. If I want to call that "God", it should be perfectly okay with you as long as you know what I am talking about.
Tapajara 1 year ago
@Walabinx You should realize that it is not evolution in itself that makes creationists go berserk. It is when people feed them the line that "you have to be an atheist to believe in evolution". They swallow it hook-line-and-sinker (after all they are generally simple-minded people) and that is where the mistake is made. You would not have nearly so much trouble with them if you gave the credit for what is not know (e.g. The Big Bang) to God. The exitence of God is reall ALL they care about.
Tapajara 1 year ago
@Tapajara Mind you, I can't speak for all athiest; just myself really. And that fact alone I think is enough to show that athiesm isn't a religion. There is no all encompassing thruth which we all claim to have. We all believe in different things and have different views about different issues. The only one thing that binds athiest is the fact that we don't believe in any gods; that's it.
Walabinx 1 year ago
@Tapajara Athiesm is somewhat of a subset of rationalism and skepticism, so many 'out' athiest like to promote those things. But those are in no real way, religious. They are are ways of thinking. Religion I view more as a way of NOT thinking.
Walabinx 1 year ago
@Walabinx No. Agnosticism is skepticism. Atheism is a conclusion that there is no god. Go read the definitions of Religion in dictionary - dot - com. There is at least two definitions that make Atheism a religion.
Tapajara 1 year ago
@Tapajara I am familiar with the different definitions of Atheism, and agreed, there is one definition (athiesm - the doctrine of belief that there is no god) that might, in the loosest sense, be bent and twisted to fit the category of religion. There is another definition (atheism – disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings) that I think better applies to me and the majority of atheists I know. For arguments sake though, let’s go with the first definition.
Walabinx 1 year ago
@Tapajara When I think of religion, I think - rituals, governing codes, places of worship, prayer, and people who claim to have answers but who obviously don’t. There is only one category of the things that generally apply to religions in which atheism, by that definition, would fall under, and that is that it is a belief concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.
Walabinx 1 year ago
@Tapajara And it barely even falls under that category of religion since it says nothing of the purpose, little or nothing about the nature, and all it says about the cause is that is wasn’t a god. Although I prefer one of these definitions over the other, I think both of them are useful and beliefs (or more accurately put; non beliefs) adhering to both of these definitions would do a better job standing up to scrutiny than any theistic beliefs that I have heard of.
Walabinx 1 year ago
@Tapajara If you want to have a discussion about that, I’d love to, but this response is directed specifically at your claim that atheism is a religion. If atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby and not playing football is a sport.
Walabinx 1 year ago
@Walabinx I will concede that Atheism is not a religion. But then, Theism is not a religion either. Both are categories that designate whether one's religious beliefs include one or more gods or exclude gods altogether respectively. On the other hand, agnosticism is the absense of religious belief. It takes a religious faith to conclude there is no god just as it does to conclude that there is one. So call yourself an agnostic if you have no religious belief.
Tapajara 1 year ago
Agreed, theism in its most basic sense is not a religion. And under the definition that we used before (and only under that definition), Atheism does require a small degree of faith, though I would still contend that since there is no real evidence for a god, the assertion that ‘there are no gods’ is still a more valid assertion than, ‘there are gods.’ However, I do not assert that there are no gods.
Walabinx 1 year ago
@Tapajara I merely assert that the case for a god has not been made, and therefore belief in a god is unjustified, just as a belief in anything for which there is no real evidence, is unjustified. If belief for something is unjustified, then the lack of belief in that same thing is justified, and if someone has a lack of belief in a god then they are an atheist. That is why I prefer the definition of atheism (disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings) because it is more practical.
Walabinx 1 year ago
@Tapajara The notion of absolute certainty, when discussing topics such as these, I think is ridiculous since it is obvious to anyone in their right mind that we do not currently know the answers. I wouldn’t go as far as to say that we can never know, but I am an agnostic in the sense that I realize that right now we don’t have all the answers. But atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, nor are theism and agnosticism.
Walabinx 1 year ago
@Tapajara Gnosticism and agnosticism deal with knowledge about what can and cannot be known. Theism and atheism deal with belief about the existence of gods. It is possible and I think indeed inevitable, that someone can admit to not having absolute knowledge about a subject, but still have beliefs about it. And I think that every honest person is an agnostic in the sense that they reject the notion of absolute certainty and are willing to change their minds if proven wrong.
Walabinx 1 year ago
@Tapajara By the way, sorry about the long ass posts. It's a juicy subject though and sometimes I can't help but give long responses.
Walabinx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Walabinx You said: "sorry about the long ass posts". Not a problem. You are an intelligent individual and you are open for examination and discussion. What more can I ask.
Tapajara 1 year ago
@Walabinx You should recognize, though, that sometimes individuals do have personal knowledge that they know to be true but is not provable or disprovable by science since it is not repeatable under controlled conditions. For example, if there is only one witness to an event, then that witness is the only one who knows certain truths. In such cases, would you say that the witness's belief is unjustifiable?
Tapajara 1 year ago
Good question. I would say that the witness’s belief in this case is justifiable, but only to themselves. For anyone else to believe their claims without evidence would generally be unjustified. This is why courts value physical evidence (DNA) far more than they value hearsay evidence (I saw him do it). Just because somebody feels justified in believing something through personal experience, doesn’t mean that what they believe is true.
Walabinx 1 year ago
@Tapajara Take the supernatural for example. I’m not saying that anyone who believes anything supernatural is a liar; I’m just saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that I would write off their beliefs to some sort of misunderstanding or self delusion before I would believe them myself.
Walabinx 1 year ago
@Tapajara Here’s a scenario that might help explain why I generally value provable facts over what people call ‘personal knowledge.’ Let’s say for example that there’re two people that believe in two completely different gods. Neither of them have any real evidence, but they both claim to have ‘personal experience’ that lets them know their god is true and they both believe just as strongly as the other. Do you see the dilemma? Which of them am I to believe?
Walabinx 1 year ago
@Tapajara It’s impossible to believe both because the beliefs are contradictory. I say that it makes the most sense to believe neither, since neither have evidence. Some minds are so gullible and desperate for answers to the big questions that they’ll accept almost anything as evidence and then call it, ‘personal knowledge,’ and I would much rather trust empirical evidence being examined by skeptical minds. It is evidence that allows society to separate truth from fantasy and fiction.
Walabinx 1 year ago
@Tapajara And it is models based on evidence that brought us the scientific advancements that have brought about an unparalleled increase in understanding about the world around us, as well as technological advancements that have brought up the standards of living for a large portion of the world. That is why I trust people who don't just claim to have 'personal knowledge,' but who can also demonstrate the validity of their knowledge using evidence.
Walabinx 1 year ago
@Tapajara By the way, in no way am I suggesting that you're like any of the people I have described in my explanation. I was just using those examples to make my point.
Walabinx 1 year ago
@Walabinx You said "sorry about the long ass posts". Not a problem. You are an intelligent individual who is open to discussion. As is often the case, we are only disagreeing on the prefered meanings of words as you have spelled out.
Tapajara 1 year ago
@Tapajara
The issue isn't that evolution disproves God. The issue is that many people reject evolution, despite the overwhelming evidence in favor of it, and they do so because of their religious beliefs.
There is no false dichotomy between science and religion. Science relies on testing falsifiable claims to determine which explanatory model best fits the evidence. Religion is by definition unfalsifiable because supernatural explanations can apply to contradictory outcomes.
butchkitties 1 year ago
@butchkitties So if "the issue" as you see it is about Evolution, why is the title "We need to call ourselves Atheists"?
Tapajara 1 year ago
@Tapajara
Change the subject much? I was responding to your claim that atheism is a religion that believes evolution disproves God, not the title of the video.
butchkitties 1 year ago
@butchkitties I don't understand what you were trying to say with "Change the subject much?". It is OBVIOUS that most people who are in uproars about evolution are so because of their religious beliefs. But I am religious and I believe that evolution was a primary process for bringing about the diversity of life on earth. So to me, the issue is Evolution and maybe the Big Bang, so Atheism is irrelevant to the topic (unless you have a religious axe to grind and/or not so noble agenda).
Tapajara 1 year ago
@butchkitties You said: "I was responding to your claim that atheism is a religion that believes evolution disproves God..." I never made the claim that Atheists believe that Evolution disproves the existence of God. All I claimed was that the definition of an Atheist is one who concludes that there is no God and that Atheism is a form of religion. Atheism (and religion in general) is really irrelevant to the subject of Evolution for those who really want to know the truth through science.
Tapajara 1 year ago
@Tapajara
Atheism is provisional whereas religion is dogmatic. Religion makes faith-based claims that are either unsupported by evidence or are flatly contradicted by evidence. Science makes and refines claims based on accumulation of evidence, not faith. The existence of deities is rejected simply because there is a total void of evidence, so the null hypothesis applies.
Per your definition of religion, not believing in unicorns is a religion.
butchkitties 1 year ago