What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.811 Comments
- vacuum2440, on 12/16/2007, -15/+232what the hell, is it christianity vs. atheism day on digg?
- omnithought, on 12/16/2007, -76/+228Heh, I dig the joke, but I've encountered several flavors of atheism. However, each of them still make far more sense than religion.
- ryanisnotsuper, on 12/16/2007, -13/+154What else is there besides "I don't believe in god"?
- inactive, on 12/16/2007, -47/+186Atheism is not a religion.
- Bamborzled, on 12/16/2007, -12/+149Atheism: "I don't believe in a god."
Agnosticism: "I may or may not believe in god. There's not enough evidence to support either side."
Apatheism: "I don't care whether or not there is a god."
Ignosticism: "Well, I need to know what the definition of 'god' is first." - cranium, on 12/16/2007, -23/+150God must be one helluva prankster. Of all the people he purportedly talks to, he doesn't seem to give any two of them the same story.
- Scienceisfun, on 12/16/2007, -14/+128But wait, which one do you think is the simpler theory? I think that the idea that the universe began as some ball of energy with an entropy of 0 and has progressively headed toward a higher entropy configuration, with small islands of order is actually quite elegant and simple. While God snapping his fingers and saying "let there be light" seems simple, you forget the part about where God comes from. Turtles all the way down doesn't seem that simple to me.
- Mimorox, on 12/16/2007, -69/+170I hate it when mormons come and try to fill me with mormon propaganda
I hate it when digg is filled with atheist propaganda
both of you need to stop trying to convert everyone, it's annoying as hell. - pintomp3, on 12/16/2007, -17/+109there is also "I don't believe in god and neither should you".
- cranium, on 12/16/2007, -11/+96You left out the part in Theory 2 where God makes everything look like Theory 1 is the case.
- rjc5056, on 12/16/2007, -18/+99Well, all problems with the "black-and-whiteness" of this comparison aside... the point is, Christianity branches out into a ridiculous tumbleweed of fringes and overlaps and reconciliations and mergers, whereas Atheism is more of a thin little twig with a few thorns and buds jutting out.
To really drive the point home, the creator of this time line should have started out with Judaism and plotted that all the way through with Christianity and Islam as major branches. - proseandpromise, on 12/16/2007, -27/+104Really...one branch of atheism? I've encountered at least 3 just on digg.
- KnutTheBear, on 12/16/2007, -9/+74All the Atheists are busy digging this Sunday..
- TrevorBradley, on 12/16/2007, -2/+63Dawkins came up with a 7 point "Kinsey-style" scale to represent a spectrum of belief systems. From 'The God Delusion':
"Let us, then, take the idea of a spectrum of probabilities seriously, and place human judgements about the existence of God along it, between two extremes of opposite certainty. The spectrum is continuous, but it can be represented by the following seven milestones along the way.
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'" - inactive, on 12/16/2007, -25/+83im just going to start calling digg, 'reddit two days ago'
- BinaryFragger, on 12/16/2007, -11/+67I wish Digg had a Bury: Flamebait option.
- bonjourmr, on 04/25/2008, -2/+54I dont see the point of caring if other people believe in a god or not, but I do see the point of following well set morales. So whether you're atheist, Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Flying Spaghetti Monster, we're all against Scientology.
- warrenterr, on 12/16/2007, -10/+55agnostics are not atheists... atheists don't believe in god... if you doubt that then you're not an atheist.
- brasso, on 12/16/2007, -6/+49Gravity is also just a theory, so what’s your point?
- insanebrain, on 12/16/2007, -1/+42yes. . didn't you get the memo ?
- evodevo1, on 12/16/2007, -39/+79Occam's Razor is a logical fallacy! It is ridiculous to assume just because something is simpler, it is the accurate one.
- Kmack928, on 12/16/2007, -4/+43When 50 people dissect a light-hearted, satiracal point made by a mock-poster, it kind of loses something.
I would say 90% of the responses could best have been put
"This went over my head, now watch my run-on sentences fail to make any point whatsoever because this disagrees/agrees with my personal beliefs" - sgglynn, on 12/16/2007, -3/+39...believing in Flying spaghetti monsters don't count as an actual branch of atheism
- gridbread, on 12/16/2007, -0/+35We're getting closer to Christmas.
- HannibalLecter, on 12/16/2007, -8/+43While I am atheist, to declare Atheism as a pure unbranched continuous entity is pretty misleading. There are several different branches of atheism from the weak atheists (which may or may not include agnostics, depending on who you ask) to the strong atheists. There are are atheists in the form of various sects of Buddhists who do not believe in any "gods". There are also branches of atheism such as the ancient Greek atheists who denied Greek Gods. There are pragmatic atheists (also known as the apatheists, who don't consider a god necessary for living life), and lots of other variations. There are also epistemological atheists who argue that it is impossible for humans to know of god. This image is inaccurate, unfortunately, and doesn't embrace the rich diversity of thought in the concept of atheism. It's not evil for different individuals to have differing ideas about atheism, and it's not a virtue for everyone to share the same idea of atheism.
- redcard, on 12/16/2007, -2/+36Not quite.
Remember, Occam's Razor fully is:
ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, the simplest explanation of an event is likely the most correct.
So, if we allow everything equal between cheap hooker and pricey hooker (see above), and the only difference is cost, then the cheaper one is more likely the way to sex.
All other things must be equal, though. - atdigg, on 12/16/2007, -6/+39Big Bang is just a theory, while God is just a baseless claim.
- Godlike, on 12/16/2007, -9/+42"Faith" is for some people a security blanket for that which they cannot otherwise understand.
- insanebrain, on 12/16/2007, -6/+33If you talk to god, it's called religion. If god talks to you it's called insanity.
- DrMonkeyLove, on 12/16/2007, -10/+36No. That's still just atheism.
- KnightWhoSaysNi, on 12/16/2007, -8/+32But you completely ignored the main point of the post you replied to.
Where did your supreme being come from? - gringer, on 12/16/2007, -2/+26If it is simpler *and* explains everything the more complex options can explain, the assumption is reasonable
- Chainheart, on 12/16/2007, -4/+27How ironic is it that theists will smugly claim that atheism is a religion, and then vehemently deny that theism or deism or polytheism is a religion? These sophomoric laymen still have their work cut out for them in philosophy.
Take provost's post above for a perfect example of the modern anti-atheist zeitgeist. He claims first that atheism is one thing, and then tells us that we are foolish if we believe otherwise, like we can't trust ourselves. The only claim that he has to back up that "atheism is a religion" is "it has beliefs too". The problem with him is that he (and the other ones who preach similar, if not identical things against athiesm) does not understand the dichotomy between religious IDEOLOGIES and religion itself. A religion is more than just taking some metaphysical position. It's about the books, the prophets, the unique beliefs WITHIN an ideology. Theism itself is not a religion. The doctrines of specific beliefs within the theist beliefs ARE religions.
The (glib) argument that "you can't disprove God" is very poor. It's more of a position on the whole epistemological problem of God. Of COURSE you can't disprove God. In order to do that, you would have to be all-knowing to prove a negative of this nature. Besides, it's up to the theist to prove their claim - they created the position in the first place anyways. Atheism is simply a reaction to theism. And so far, there has been NO independent evidence to support the God hypothesis. Without this evidence, reasoning becomes purely circular (and unworthy of credibility). - Hendrik, on 12/16/2007, -4/+27He answered a question with a question: "where does all the material that exploded into the cosmos come from?"
At any rate, Occam's Razor is being applied incorrectly here. All that we can conclude from the two timelines is that the history of atheism has been much more straightforward.
Oh, and if we're simplifying the theories:
1. In the beginning there was nothing. Which exploded.
2. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. - proseandpromise, on 12/16/2007, -16/+39These kinds of stories are exhaustingly repetitive and stupid. I don't even know where to begin with this one. How do people who consider themselves "open-minded" and "free-thinkers" digg up something with such blatant fallacies?
- BattleScars, on 12/16/2007, -2/+24He is saying that some people use their faith as a simple explanation for complex events. For instance being asked about the origins of our universe and simply saying "God did it" because you don't know what the big bang theory is or can't comprehend how it all happened.
- teh_techie, on 12/16/2007, -11/+33If digg contains the same as reddit.. but late.. then why do you bother to come here? Stay away, we don't want you!
- ngnboone, on 12/16/2007, -4/+25I think it'd be funnier if they included more of the offshoots of christianity
- kronix2, on 12/16/2007, -2/+22Oh look, we have ourselves another Christian who's a repressed homosexual. Do you flame "sodomites" to take your mind off the fact that you've had naughty thoughts about that supple altar boy?
- baduncadonk, on 12/16/2007, -30/+50Religiosity is mental illness. Oh, and quit ***** whining that atheists like to post ***** to Digg--we live with your leaders trying to keep us from holding office and adopting children; the least you can do is let us post a few links on Digg.
- mcool119, on 12/16/2007, -6/+25...and?
This "argument" doesn't hold any water to me, and I'm an atheist. You might as well post a story titled "christians are stupid" in which the only words are "christians are stupid." - dvsbastard, on 12/16/2007, -2/+20That is pretty much every day on day...
- Irfit, on 12/16/2007, -24/+42Imageshack sucks.
http://bayimg.com/iaijAAAbD - raeshao, on 12/16/2007, -2/+20No church to go to.
- Me1000, on 12/16/2007, -3/+20This is digg, it is always "bash every religion" day!
- Ilyakub, on 12/16/2007, -9/+26Isn't this the exact argument that fundamentalist Christians use against science? "We have stuck to more or less the same creation story for 4000 years, whereas Science seems to change every year and has dozens of competing theories about the nature of reality".
It's not right when they do it, and it's not right when you do it. Any atheist who thinks that there is any sort of logic to arguments like these is a fundamentalist religious fanatic, and not a freethinker. - aguitarhero, on 12/16/2007, -0/+17Religions involve much much more then just believing in something?
By your logic I am believer in the "anti-there is a pink unicorn under my bed" religion, because I do not believe there is a unicorn under my bed.
Religions are defined by worship, sacrifice, scriptures, rituals, idols and so on. - proseandpromise, on 12/16/2007, -8/+24Is it really a surprise that the "pro" side of something would be more nuanced than the "con" side? While a "pro" side has to describe what it thinks is reality, the "con" side simply has to say what they believe isn't. Saying "God doesn't exist" is much easier than, "God exists, and this is what He is like...". If we made a chart of the different conclusions that atheistic frameworks have come to about ethics, the universe, ultimate good, etc. it would be equally nuanced. The only fair way to represent this would be "theism" with a straight line and "atheism with a straight line." This thing is fundamentally flawed.
- elmuerte17, on 12/16/2007, -3/+19the moral of the story is respect for other people. something 97% of people on the internet don't seem to have.
- BattleScars, on 12/16/2007, -0/+16Yes there is. Einstein just described it as the curvature of space and time as the result of the mass-energy and momentum content of the matter in spacetime. He 'amended' Newton's theory as opposed to disproving it.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 785 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is