Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
stephen embry
892 Followers
dailyatheistn
61 Followers
Amar Nadhir
728 Followers
sampson123
75 Followers
Jereme Guerrero
0 Followers
Nick Brosnahan
38 Followers
crashdvisFeb 5, 2012
I live in Wheaton, IL. Look it up. It's basically god's home town here in America. Being an atheist in this town is interesting. I really just keep my feelings and beliefs to myself and do not discuss them. Most would not know that I'm an atheist because they wouldn't like it. Atheism is for sure taboo and it's one that you can safely be bigoted about.
starmanjonesFeb 5, 2012
i live in kansas... i don't find much issue with individuals. in fact, when we were fighting creationism being taught in our schools we showed up at board meetings thinking we were in for a fight and found out both atheist and religious were dead set against it. there really was no one in support of it.
what we found out was the entire issue was being financed and supported from outside kansas. this is where i think things have gone wrong. religion by nature is a "me too" issue. just for that one instant people were fired up enough to fight. there were more non-believers than show up in the polls.
where i find religion problematic are in the ways it is eroding our society. when religion is right there in your face and as individuals you need to fight it people will step up.
but most of the damage being done by religion is a step removed and people find it easiest to know the nightmare will end in a few years... religion is politics in america and the middle east. its destructive in america and the middle east.
bdbrFeb 5, 2012
It's really bizarre to hear about Kansas from the outside - news media makes it sound like it's full of religious extremists. I went to high school and college there and I don't even recall creationism ever being discussed. It was a small town so everybody went to church, but the night before we were all drinking and screwing (there was not a lot else to do in a small town in the 70s).
starmanjonesFeb 5, 2012
ya. me too. north east. every small town had a catholic church and the church had a picnic... which were simply keg parties that underage kids could find their way to. every week all summer long.
people also miss the fact that kansas has more than its share of conservatives but they are largely fiscal conservatives and social liberals. and kansas also contains some of the most liberal places in country.
i've always been an atheist and never found much reason to hide it. its not an issue to religious people i know. i think for lack of a better description atheists are just a different bunch of people. lutherns, methodist, catholics, atheists, baptists...
netantFeb 6, 2012
I'm calling BS on this statement.
If the "overwhelming" majority of voters don't want Creationism taught in Kansas schools, then it currently isn't being taught, and no chance of it coming back to the Kansas curriculum. Is that what you're saying?
starmanjonesFeb 6, 2012
it has never been taught. when it was mandated every school district decided to ignore it. teaching creationism was defeated in 104 of 105 counties in a referendum.
fundamentalists by in large from missouri recruited people to run in elections for the state board of eduction. they didn't run telling people they were operating as guerrillas with a hidden agenda-- they got elected and then sprung it on us. the next election they were gone.
that is what i am saying.
netantFeb 6, 2012
Good to know, guess I'll have to reread the news articles.
starmanjonesFeb 6, 2012
there is fairly good documentary about all that. i am reluctant to put a link to stream it... things being the way they are. but you should have no trouble finding it.
it goes into how the religious right took control and how it fell apart... until just recently.
WHAT-S-THE-MATTER-WITH-KANSAS?
akronFeb 5, 2012
I was in Wheaton once, but I was supposed to be going to Naperville...
crashdvisFeb 5, 2012
Wheaton and Naperville are essentially the same. There are many cities in the suburbs of Chicago and the only way you know the difference is when you see a different police car or you see the welcome to the city sign.
daimposterFeb 6, 2012
But Naperville and Wheaton aren't similar in terms of this topic. Wheaton is home to a very religious college, Wheaton College. Naperville is just your typical suburb in terms of religion.
cpqarrayFeb 6, 2012
I live in Pearland TX it's the same here, there was a huge fight here a few years ago when a school board member asked why it was necessary to pray before school board meetings. We almost made Faux news as a result. This is Southern Baptist Hell our town is where Rick Scarborough got started so it's not exactly atheist friendly either.
PanjeeFeb 7, 2012
You still sound like a believer, in a world of believers... Does it not require just as much vigor to NOT believe, as it does to believe?
Also: when someone says they believe in GOD... before we reject their ideas (claims), should we not be absolutely sure that we actually understand what is their definition of god?
anglosaxongalApr 3, 2012
Yeah, most of the atheists I've ever known in the real world never talked about such things and real Christians didn't treat them like dirt but the equals they are in a secular society. But here on the internet I suspect they are satanists and are just calling themselves, 'atheists' just to keep everyone divided so they can still tear this country apart by lying, cheating, and stealing. You're not the only group being harassed like this, TRUE Christians are treated like trash too! Let's wake up and whup'em! O-can't do that on the internet....can we?
jeremerg82Feb 5, 2012
Very interesting story...one tends to forget about atheism as taboo, at least in my world. Freedom of religion or lack thereof is so simple, why can't we all just get along. lmao.
kaelyiestaFeb 6, 2012
I take issue with the hyperbole in the article summary. There are plenty of greater taboos. In cities, atheism is expected, particularly along the coasts. The social circles I travel in Seattle tend to openly disapprove of theism or at least support atheism. Isolation and ostracism do not affect the majority of atheists in this country.
One the other hand, consider how many people are statists and how much ostracism and isolation nonstatists endure. An easy test is this: how many anarchists do you know? My money is on far fewer than atheists. The number of people who directly depend on the state and sing its praises are every bit as fanatic about excommunicating heretical nonbelievers as an extreme theist is. Topics concerning voluntarism and logical reasoning from axioms to non contradictory ethical conclusions is far more taboo than religion.
daimposterFeb 6, 2012
I think you answered your question. Those are groups are too small that most people don't think about them but every religious person deals with atheist or atheist topics on many occasions. They see them as the enemy, unfortunately.
tribbledotFeb 6, 2012
It's just not true. I see you as a viewpoint that I do not agree with. It's not the enemy though. We deal with disbelief as believers but to say that means we are inherently discriminating against disbelief is just untrue. Discrimination is something more complex than you understand it and while I believe you can be discriminated against for any belief, the discrimination of atheists is so insignificant in comparison to even the discrimination of women.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
daimposterFeb 6, 2012
You are so full of s**t. I just read your response to my other post and it's filled with the same crap. This sentence says it all:
" Discrimination is something more complex than you understand it and while I believe you can be discriminated against for any belief, the discrimination of atheists is so insignificant in comparison to even the discrimination of women."
So atheist can't comprehend complex things? And because you believe women are more discriminated, any discrimination towards atheist doesn't matter? Gay black people are more discriminated than women....so women shouldn't complain about discrimination?
You also talk about the insignificance of discrimination of atheist, yet you continue with attacks on atheist that are unfounded AND you didn't provide an adequate answer as to why almost no atheist/agnostic has every held office at a national level.
tribbledotFeb 6, 2012
I'm sorry that you misunderstood me once again. I wasn't saying atheists don't understand discrimination as a whole, just you and maybe a few other digg posters here. All discrimination is bad. The problem is that those like you think talking to you and saying "god bless you" are forms of discrimination which they are not.
If you have ever been fired for being an atheist then you have been discriminated against and should contact the ACLU. If your only discrimination is once a person told you were going to hell (a place you do not believe in) then you are probably just crying for no reason. If they set you on fire for being an atheist to send you to "hell" then you also have a case.
My answer was adequate. Would a Jewish person get office if he told his Christian constituents that Jesus was a fraud? The reality is if an Atheist ran then he has a chance until he starts arguing like you and other atheists on the digg forum. Your disbelief does not make you superior and is not any more fact based than religion. It's an opinion you hold and that is all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK7XHEm7BE8 First let me say that I believe in the separation of church and state politically. I agree with the Atheists request to have this display removed. I hate fox news. If you call a persons religion an insult to human nature then you are no longer arguing for a separation though. If you ask to put up a thing proclaiming that religion is all myth then you should expect rebellion from the majority who is religious. A baby born in a manger does not insult someone who thinks it was just a baby born in a manger but yes you would insult many if you stated that it was fact that you're beliefs are wrong just because a small percentage of a population disagrees with them.
Pete Stark though is an elected atheist. More importantly he is a good politician.
daimposterFeb 7, 2012
What is wrong with you? 'those like you"? You don't know me nor have I expressed any opinions in which you are trying to attach to me. I actually say bless you all the time.
Also, it looks like much of your argument is on semantics. How does a person being atheist lead to saying Jesus is a fraud anymore or less than a Jewish person? Atheist don't believe Jesus was a messiah and neither do Jews.
"The reality is if an Atheist ran then he has a chance until he starts arguing like you and other atheists on the digg forum"
WTF?? Who says atheist run like that? You have this twisted way of describing atheist. I think you should see a doctor. And if you think religious people aren't discriminating against Atheist (at least on a political level), think again. Even the most perfect candidate who happens to be Atheist could not win the presidency. According to gallup, 53% of people would not vote for an atheist
http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/some-americans-reluctant-vote-mormon-72yearold-presidential-candidates.aspx
The question: "If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be …, would you vote for that person?"
Atheist were dead last, even faring worse than gays. And your attitude towards Atheist that such discrimination does exist very strongly. Now that I presented a fact with evidence to back it up, are you still going to argue that Atheist aren't discriminated against?
p.s. The reason that discrimination against Atheist isn't as clear to you and others is that you can't see Atheism. You can see black, women, etc. But once a religious person knows a certain person is Atheist, their attitudes about that person change a lot....which is evident in the Gallup poll and the complete lack of Atheist in congress.
jeremerg82Feb 6, 2012
Thanks for the reply and no I do not know any anarchists. It is true that nonstatists are probably much more taboo than religious/non-religious zealots because they harbor an extreme left-wing ideology that is too radical to even be considered. I see your point that nonstatists probably do experience much more ostracism/isolation but much of that has to do with the fact that they want to completely up end the system as it stands. I am much more a believer in changing things internally as much as possible rather than reinventing the wheel.
moonriderFeb 6, 2012
You would be wrong about anarchists harboring "an extreme lift-wing ideology", most of the anarchists I know are libertarian, which is as far from "extreme left-wing ideology" as it is from "extreme right-wing ideology". The real anarchists, who are also usually voluntaryists, are pro-individual freedom, pro-choice in everything, neither the extreme left-wing nor the extreme right-wing support individual freedom in all things, they each have areas where they want government to dictate one's choices, or lack thereof.
jeremerg82Feb 6, 2012
I can see where pro-choice, pro-individual freedom is alluring, but I can't see abolishing the state as an entity entirely...if people are left to their own devices, chaos ensues.
moonriderMar 31, 2012
That is completely untrue, people have lived without a government at many times thru history and chaos was NOT the result. Whereas governments have killed more of their own people throughout history than even religion, and most forms of government eventually become tyrannical, dictatorial and oppressive after about 200 years, which is exactly what is happening with our government (and has been moving toward since about 1913). Ron Paul is our only chance to stave off that inevitable result for at least 4 more years.
rsmongeFeb 6, 2012
i disagree. there's nobody out there talking about how anarchists are going to burn in hell, or how they're going to turn children against their parents, or they are the downfall of western civilization, etc.
yes, i agree that people are much more dismissive of anarchy than atheism, but i don't think the same level of anger and hatred is there. two different things, in my opinion.
jeremerg82Feb 6, 2012
Exactly!
bdbrFeb 5, 2012
It's a matter of hubris. Some Americans just can't keep their opinions to themselves. Politics and religion are volatile subjects, and bringing them up when you don't know the other person well (or worse, know they disagree with you) is arrogant and rude. If anything, it's worse with religion because people feel more strongly about it than, say, a political candidate.
Seems like it's worse in small towns. People feel more comfortable bringing up volatile subjects like religion and politics, because they assume everyone else must be just like them.
elimgarakFeb 5, 2012
It is much, much worse with religion because religion is a matter of faith, and thus can't be argued logically. Or rather one side can debate it logically, while the other just refuses to apply logic to it.
With politics at least you can try to pick apart various positions and opinions and try to use various historical pieces of evidence. With religion that unfortunately is impossible. When presented with logic and evidence many religious people just lash out in fear and anger.
pinkfish411Feb 6, 2012
No, it's really no different. Open-minded religious people are fine with logical debate; the main streams of every major world religion have rich traditions of rational inquiry and interreligious dialogue/debate. Close-minded religious people fall back on "faith" and moral condemnation. But the same dynamic happens in political discussions, too. You don't think that close-minded people "lash out in fear and anger" when you challenge their most deeply-held political convictions? You haven't been having enough political discussions, I'm thinking.
elimgarakFeb 6, 2012
No, there definitely are angry and fearful people that talk about politics - I am just saying that there are fewer of them. And that politics is often a less flammable subject.
tribbledotFeb 6, 2012
There is no logic or evidence you can present against religion. You can state your opinion. You can believe your disbelief so fiercely that you think it's a fact but this is no different than an evangelical who believes the world is only 6000 years old.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakFeb 6, 2012
"There is no logic or evidence you can present against religion."
Yes. There is. You can present evidence that specific things in the bible are demonstrably not true.
The only way to wiggle out of that is to redefine religion, and claim that it is all pre-planned and faked by god to f**k with us. As in that god faked the radioactive decay of various minerals in the planet to make it seem like it is several billion years old. That dinosaur bones were placed underground once again to f**k with humans. Etc.
In other words the only thing you can do to go against science is to make up new things out of thin air to explain away any inconsistencies. Ideas that are once again not supported by any evidence or facts.
tribbledotFeb 6, 2012
Well. I study religion and happen to know that A: the bible is not a religion and B: that the bible was written by man which Christianity and Judaism teaches us are fallible and C: that Christianity and Judaism are not the only religions.
I'd like to see the passage in the bible that dates the Earth? I'd like you to know that the majority of Christians believe in dinosaurs. You aren't speaking about religion. You are talking about theories posited by a few people who most would not take seriously. You are using that as evidence against religion. It's the equivalent of me saying that all atheists are Jeffrey Dahmer because he was an atheist.
elimgarakFeb 6, 2012
"Well. I study religion and happen to know that A: the bible is not a religion"
Depends on who you ask. Evangelicals would pretty much disagree, since they believe that the bible is literally, actually what happened.
"I'd like to see the passage in the bible that dates the Earth?"
http://creationwiki.org/Biblical_age_of_the_Earth
"I'd like you to know that the majority of Christians believe in dinosaurs."
Depends on who you ask. The people who don't believe in evolution are probably ambivalent on the subject. Or believe that humans and dinosaurs coexisted at the same time - see the creationist museum.
"You are talking about theories posited by a few people who most would not take seriously."
40% of Americans don't believe in evolution. That was in 2010. That's not a few people.
"You are using that as evidence against religion."
Yes, I am going at it piece by piece - I am not tackling everything at once, because different religions believe in so many different things. The evolution and age of the earth stuff is simply low hanging fruit.
tribbledotFeb 6, 2012
That's a theory outlined in biblical age of Earth and not a statement by the bible that the earth is in fact 6000 years old.
The bible is a book written by man.
Using the evangelicals as representative of all religious people is equivalent to me saying that all atheists are serial killers because Jeffrey Dahmer was an atheist.
40% of Americans were asked the wrong question. Do people believe in verified evolutionary processes as proven by science? Can we prove we came from apes or any specific primate species? Can we prove the evolutionary theory with 100% certainty at this time? No we can not. Do people believe in dinosaurs? You are talking a small percentage of the population. I also think you equate those who don't believe in evolution with the religious when in fact it'd make more sense for those who don't believe what they can not see (like atheists) to take such a hardline stance against a science that depends on a missing link which has to yet appear for our scientists.
The fruit you are attacking isn't low hanging. It's fallen off the tree and now protests outside military funerals chanting God hates America. It's not a part of the tree you are attacking any more. You are not Jeffrey Dahmer and I am not Fred Phelps. Don't get this confused.
elimgarakFeb 7, 2012
"That's a theory outlined in biblical age of Earth and not a statement by the bible that the earth is in fact 6000 years old."
Close enough. Virtually the same, in fact. And that is something that a significant number of people actually believe.
"Using the evangelicals as representative of all religious people is equivalent to me saying that all atheists are serial killers because Jeffrey Dahmer was an atheist."
??? I never said that all religious people are like evangelicals. Where did you get that idea?
"40% of Americans were asked the wrong question."
No, they were asked exactly the right question within their power of understanding.
"Do people believe in verified evolutionary processes as proven by science?"
Exactly - and they do not. Done.
"Can we prove we came from apes or any specific primate species?"
Since we did not evolve from apes, no, we can't. We have a common ancestor - we did not come from apes. Both of our species came from a single ancestor that predates apes.
"Can we prove the evolutionary theory with 100% certainty at this time? No we can not."
That demonstrates a complete failure to understand science. Nothing in science is 100% certain. Because science always leaves a door open for improvement. Which does not mean that science is wrong or does not work, or that this exact thing did not happen. Just as you cannot prove with 100% certainty that everything you see and feel around you is not a computer simulation, science cannot prove anything.
"Do people believe in dinosaurs? You are talking a small percentage of the population."
Believe in dinosaurs what? That they existed? Yes, almost all do believe in that. That dinosaurs predated humans by millions of years? No, there is a significant number of people that do not believe that.
"I also think you equate those who don't believe in evolution with the religious when in fact it'd make more sense for those who don't believe what they can not see (like atheists) to take such a hardline stance against a science that depends on a missing link which has to yet appear for our scientists."
??? I don't know what you just said. The two analogies are completely different and disconnected.
"The fruit you are attacking isn't low hanging. It's fallen off the tree and now protests outside military funerals chanting God hates America."
40% of Americans protest outside of military funerals?
"It's not a part of the tree you are attacking any more. You are not Jeffrey Dahmer and I am not Fred Phelps. Don't get this confused."
Evangelicals are religious (very religious). Attacking them is attacking parts of religion. Maybe not specifically your religion, but a large part of it.
You can't simultaneously debate Buddhism, Shinto religion, Hinduism, and Christianity. Those have to be taken separately. That's what I am doing. I am slicing up religion into parts and working on this specific and really obvious part that a significant number of people still believes in. You may equate evangelicals to Jeffrey Dahmer, but unfortunately there are 70 or 80 million of them in US.
tribbledotFeb 7, 2012
Attacking evangelicals is attacking a fringe group that are not the majority of the religious. 9% of Americans have attended an evangelical service on any given sunday. 9% of Americans don't believe there is a god. You also are attacking a fringe group of the evangelicals who believe Peter might have been a rock.
The problem is you can't attack religion for things religion has never said. God gave the ten commandments. Attack those not a book written by man. Attack the teachings of his son or avatar or prophet Jesus Christ. If you must combat religion based on absolute nonsense then at least direct the nonsense towards real religion. I think you debate badly but I believe you should be allowed to debate your viewpoint. My problem is you are lumping someone who is not evangelical with people who are. You are telling me that because some people don't believe in dinosaurs that a soul can not exist. This is like me saying that there are over 900,000 species of insect in the world and many not yet discovered so therefore there is a soul. The two are unrelated.
40% of Americans don't believe an unproven theory is a fact. You just said you can't believe in it 100%. You are part of the 40%. This doesn't make all those people religious or even stupid. They may just be cautious. It still does not prove religion as false. It's still a bad argument.
elimgarakFeb 7, 2012
"Attacking evangelicals is attacking a fringe group that are not the majority of the religious."
I would not consider 70 million people a fringe group. Maybe compared to all catholics on the planet, but in US evangelicals are very influential.
"9% of Americans have attended an evangelical service on any given sunday."
So? I don't see your point. You think the other 12% of Americans that identify themselves as evangelicals are lying?
"You also are attacking a fringe group of the evangelicals who believe Peter might have been a rock."
I don't know who that is.
"The problem is you can't attack religion for things religion has never said."
It seems that you are arguing that disputing a single faction of religion is not disputing religion. Define "religion". To me that is a very vague concept, but IMHO religion consists of a number of different faiths. As I said, you can't engage all faiths at the same time (notice that I said engage - attack is your word). You have to start somewhere. And this is a low hanging and very obvious fruit in US.
"God gave the ten commandments. Attack those not a book written by man."
Sure. You don't have proof that god gave those commandments, and that they weren't invented by some priest in ancient Mesopotamia.
Several of them are rather vague if not obsolete by now. For example, it doesn't mention coveting virtual in-game items - it talks about "things" and a virtual in-game item is not a thing.
The commandments are very strict without exceptions that are required in everyday world.
Several are just plain ignored every day by virtually everyone on the planet (taking the name in vain).
The commandment about the length of the week is just dumb.
We have proof that god did not create the planet in world or planet or whatever in 6 days, so that's completely out.
"If you must combat religion based on absolute nonsense then at least direct the nonsense towards real religion."
Excuse me, but science is not nonsense. Our whole world is built on science. We are communicating right now using science. If you think it's nonsense, then you must abandon all devices and technology created by this nonsense, starting with electricity and ending with in-door plumbing.
"My problem is you are lumping someone who is not evangelical with people who are. You are telling me that because some people don't believe in dinosaurs that a soul can not exist."
No, I did not say that. You are lumping yourself with evangelicals - not I. Your problem is that you take logical arguments against idiotic positions taken by crazy people personally.
"40% of Americans don't believe an unproven theory is a fact. You just said you can't believe in it 100%. You are part of the 40%."
WOW! Seriously, WOW! You STILL don't know what a theory is? Or how science works? After we've talked about it for this long? And you have not taken the time to research this?
Here, read this: http://www.notjustatheory.com/
In science there is nothing above a theory. It is the highest state of being for a scientific idea. Evolution in science is a theory.
http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/archive/?c=561
"This doesn't make all those people religious or even stupid."
Yes. It does. Well, not necessarily stupid, but certainly extremely (and in many cases proudly) uneducated. But yes, the only two options that we know of right now are evolution or "god did it". If it's not one, it's the other. Unless they have some other explanation, of course, in which case they should present their evidence.
"It still does not prove religion as false."
It disproves one of the key tenets of religion - that god created man whole, in the current form. We have a huge mountain of evidence that shows that there have been proto-humans before humans, and that evolution happened. What else do you want?
tribbledotFeb 7, 2012
Lying is such a complex word but do I believe that all evangelicals believe that Peter was an actual rock, the earth is only 6000 years old, or even that every passage is protected by God? No I do not. I know enough evangelicals to know that their beliefs vary significantly from their founders. The reality of religion is that people do question it. We all do. We might belong to the catholic church and still use contraceptives. It's just not realistic to believe that all those people are saying the world is 6000 years old or that Dinosaurs did not exist. It's not a good argument.
My point is not to disprove evolution or debate what theory means in a scientific context. I am saying directly that to pretend that people who answered the question on evolution all think that we were created from sand or ribs is nonsense. If you want to know the answer to that question then you have to ask it very specifically. It also would not disprove religion if man, who religion marks as a fallible creation, was to believe something that is simply untrue.
You are unaware of what the key tenets of the religion you debate are. What you are saying is that since some belief, a minority one, people hold is most likely untrue then religion can not be true. This is like saying that religion is untrue because the world is not flat and revolves around the sun. You aren't attacking a religious concept but man's notion of the world. Not every person is a physics major or even a biologist.
elimgarakFeb 7, 2012
"It's just not realistic to believe that all those people are saying the world is 6000 years old or that Dinosaurs did not exist. It's not a good argument."
Absent of any evidence your statement is conjecture. Therefore your argument is not good - you are postulating that a significant number of people do not believe that the bible is the literal truth despite that being the key identifying trait of their religion.
"I am saying directly that to pretend that people who answered the question on evolution all think that we were created from sand or ribs is nonsense. If you want to know the answer to that question then you have to ask it very specifically."
CBS poll from 2009: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500160_162-965223.html
God created humans in present form: 51%
Humans evolved, God guided the process: 30%
Humans evolved, God did not guide process: 15%
Thus 51% of people in US according to this poll believe in nonsense.
"It also would not disprove religion if man, who religion marks as a fallible creation, was to believe something that is simply untrue."
One more time. Define religion in your own terms. I gave you my definition. You keep saying that disproving key components of a specific religion does not disprove that religion. What does disprove it then?
"What you are saying is that since some belief, a minority one, people hold is most likely untrue then religion can not be true."
Unless you finally define what religion is, this argument is not going to go anywhere.
Fact: Evangelicals believe that the bible is the literal word of god and exactly what happened.
Disproving that fact disproves the evangelical religion. Done.
"This is like saying that religion is untrue because the world is not flat and revolves around the sun."
No, that is like saying that if there is a religion that believes that the world is flat, then proving that it is round disproves that specific religion.
"You aren't attacking a religious concept but man's notion of the world. Not every person is a physics major or even a biologist."
That's just dumb. Certain things are so basic that you don't need to be a specialist to know them - you need to have just gone to middle school. Do you need to have advanced degrees in mathematics to know that 2+2=4? That's the level of understanding required here.
tribbledotFeb 10, 2012
Nothing you have said disproves religion. The problem you are having is you are trying to, at best, disprove the bible as a personal work of God. I could do this without relying on a minority fundamentalists interpretation. Parts of the bible say to kill individuals like the tribe of Amalek or homosexuals wherein another part of the bible supposedly handed down directly from God himself says it is one of the highest sins to kill period. It's contradictory and more proof that the bible is mostly a book of man. This is also proven by things like the King James Version. My argument has never been that the bible is the direct word of God though. My argument is you can't disprove or prove religion with science yet. This does not mean it could not happen. It means when you do disprove or prove something then you can claim that it's as simple as 2+2=4 but until you do so, you can not continue claiming that theories are obvious or even comparable to factual sciences like math. The primary parts of religions around the world are the purpose (why are we here), the soul (Atman, Hun and Po), Gods (not necessary or important for all religions), and occasionally afterlife which could be, in most cases, lumped into purpose.
I'm not your typical Christian and all this has taught me over the years is that most Christians and other religions aren't typical either. Lumping every person who goes to a Pentecostal Church with the few snake handling Pentecostal Churches is what you are doing. You are saying that every person who goes to church is a evangelical, every evangelical is a fundamentalist, and that the fundamentals they believe in restrict their beliefs to the world being 6000 years old and dinosaurs not existing. It just isn't true. It's an idiotic understanding of this world most likely based on your personal belief that everyone else in the world is a hillbilly because they don't believe that their eternal purpose is to be fertilizer.
elimgarakFeb 10, 2012
"Nothing you have said disproves religion."
I repeat, for the fourth time now, I think.
Unless you finally define what religion is, this argument is not going to go anywhere. Please define what you consider religion is.
"The problem you are having is you are trying to, at best, disprove the bible as a personal work of God."
That's a pretty good step. Because without the bible what do you have?
"My argument is you can't disprove or prove religion with science yet."
Since you refuse to define what will, and what religion is, sure. While tactically it's a good idea to keep the target moving, that's not a very honest debate strategy.
"It means when you do disprove or prove something then you can claim that it's as simple as 2+2=4 but until you do so, you can not continue claiming that theories are obvious or even comparable to factual sciences like math."
Once more, with feeling: you still fail to understand what "prove" means in physical sciences. They are not like math. You can't prove or disprove there as you want - there is no 100% proof anywhere in the physical world. Anywhere. This is another dishonest debate strategy that you employ - you demand more and more evidence without acknowledging that in science there is no such thing as a complete proof.
"The primary parts of religions around the world are the purpose (why are we here), the soul (Atman, Hun and Po), Gods (not necessary or important for all religions), and occasionally afterlife which could be, in most cases, lumped into purpose."
Science doesn't ask or answer the question of "why" - that part is philosophy. Thus this question is moot - go talk to a philosophy major.
There is zero evidence that the soul exists. Unicorn.
There is zero evidence that gods exist. Unicorn.
There is zero evidence that the afterlife exists. Unicorn.
"You are saying that every person who goes to church is a evangelical,"
Wrong. I have never said that. Please provide a quote of where exactly I said so.
"every evangelical is a fundamentalist, and that the fundamentals they believe in restrict their beliefs to the world being 6000 years old and dinosaurs not existing."
Except for the dinosaur part, that's the definition of the evangelical religion. Look it up.
"It's an idiotic understanding of this world most likely based on your personal belief that everyone else in the world is a hillbilly because they don't believe that their eternal purpose is to be fertilizer."
Actually there is no eternal purpose. And they are hillbillies because they don't know that 2+2=4, in scientific terms.
Unless you finally define what religion is, this argument is not going to go anywhere.
Fact: Evangelicals believe that the bible is the literal word of god and exactly what happened.
Disproving that fact disproves the evangelical religion.
tribbledotFeb 10, 2012
Without the Bible, You have at least 100 modern practiced religions with no need for the bible, you have history, and you have religion including the Abrahamic religions. The book is where they wrote some stories down but it wasn't originally one story or one book and again it was written by man. Religion is well defined and what you are trying to disprove isn't something you can disprove. You want this to be easy. You want to win. The problem is it isn't easy and right now you can not win. You assert that religion is falsifiable and it is not. You also aren't well-studied on the subject. You are the best of the digg atheists in this regard though and I will reward you with that but if you think religion is a book then you misunderstand religion. The things an atheist is not going to believe in are the gods, the soul, the "heavens", and the eternal purpose. You believe in the bible, It's physical and something you can touch. You can't disprove that. You can only prove that it was written by people which I'm not contesting.
Energy never dies and we even have some research into past life memories and while neither of these prove that a soul exists, they are proof that somehow, possibly through natural biology, we pass along more information then we understand. It's not my intention to prove the soul to you but to disregard science that could possibly prove or even disprove the soul is not scientific at all. This isn't a unicorn or a narwhal. This is you wanting to be right without any effort or trial. You just want to declare yourself a winner and pretend all those stupid religious people are inferior to you. The problem isn't that you don't believe. The problem with you is that you aren't willing to research. The problem with you and most other digg atheists is that you are the people you claim to despise. You're the Jerry Falwells of atheism, the ones who will ignore fact and research and just declare yourselves right and more importantly superior when in fact you have nothing to base any of this on.
elimgarakFeb 10, 2012
"Without the Bible, You have at least 100 modern practiced religions with no need for the bible, you have history, and you have religion including the Abrahamic religions."
If those stories are not true, then what is true?
"Religion is well defined and what you are trying to disprove isn't something you can disprove."
So you refuse to give a clear definition?
"The problem is it isn't easy and right now you can not win."
If you can't even give a clear definition of what religion is, then there is nothing to win.
"The things an atheist is not going to believe in are the gods, the soul, the "heavens", and the eternal purpose."
Not without evidence.
"You believe in the bible, It's physical and something you can touch. You can't disprove that. You can only prove that it was written by people which I'm not contesting."
No, I don't believe in the bible either. It is a book that was written by somebody, and that a HUGE portion of religious people think actually happened. You deny that for some strange reason.
"Energy never dies"
Good thing we are not energy. We are bio-electrical energy patterns. And patterns die and fall apart all the time. And even energy dissipates and is transformed into various forms.
You are trying to quote the first law of thermodynamics: "energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another". E.g. light from a light bulb is converted into heat and dissipates after the light bulb is turned off.
"and we even have some research into past life memories"
Not rigorous or scientific research.
"and while neither of these prove that a soul exists, they are proof that somehow, possibly through natural biology, we pass along more information then we understand."
They are not proof because there is no rigorous study of the subject.
"It's not my intention to prove the soul to you but to disregard science that could possibly prove or even disprove the soul is not scientific at all."
What's not scientific is believing something without good solid evidence that it exists. The belief in a soul is not scientific.
"This isn't a unicorn or a narwhal."
Umm... You do realize that the narwhal (or narwhale) is a real creature, unlike a unicorn, right? Monodon monoceros. Look it up. So your analogy doesn't make any sense - a unicorn is not at all like a narwhal.
"The problem with you is that you aren't willing to research."
LOL. Millions upon millions of people have tried to do research on this for centuries. They found nothing. Why should I expend the effort to re-confirm their lack of evidence?
"You're the Jerry Falwells of atheism, the ones who will ignore fact and research and just declare yourselves right and more importantly superior when in fact you have nothing to base any of this on."
That's just it - there is no fact and no research (research that confirmed something) for us to ignore. That's the whole problem. If there was some evidence, then that would be one thing - but there isn't. At best there are some extremely inconclusive one-off sightings that go nowhere, are not verifiable, repeatable, or testable.
tribbledotFeb 10, 2012
Narwhal "horns" were often sold as unicorn horns for the equivalent of millions of dollars until people actually verified the source of these "horns". They proved that narwhals were the source. It's relative to our conversation because my argument is that you can't prove anything if you refuse to look or just accept the obvious. The reality is we only discovered things like the earth is round, the earth revolves around the sun, and the Americas relatively recently in the context of the many 100s of 1000s of years that Homosapiens have walked the earth. I have books with theories to be proven. Right now the only way I can prove it is to kill you and that would prove nothing for anyone else including myself. Right now the extent of your scientific understanding is limited only by your choice to believe that things you haven't seen are in fact not real. This is not science though. Science leaves everything open and only allows you to hypothesize how or why something works the way it does, not to be an arrogant fool and proclaim yourself right when noone can prove the other side. You don't have the backing of any science that disproves a purpose to life. You have an opinion, as do I.
elimgarakFeb 10, 2012
"Right now the extent of your scientific understanding is limited only by your choice to believe that things you haven't seen are in fact not real."
Wrong. To believe in something that you have not seen, that cannot be measured or detected in any way - even with secondary or tertiary means - is unscientific. Therefore, the extent of my scientific understanding is not limited by belief.
"Science leaves everything open and only allows you to hypothesize how or why something works the way it does, not to be an arrogant fool and proclaim yourself right when noone can prove the other side."
Once again, go look up the definition of "hypothesis" and "theory". There is a distinct difference between the two. You can have a hypothesis that space pixies live in the middle of the sun. But until you provide testable evidence that cannot be explained by an existing hypothesis, it cannot become a theory.
Similarly, you can hypothesize that there is a god until the cows come home. The point however is that you have no testable evidence to back that up. You can't provide a repeatable experiment on the existence of god. Therefore your god hypothesis remains among the hypotheses on unicorns, fairies, and magical space pixies.
"You don't have the backing of any science that disproves a purpose to life. You have an opinion, as do I."
Since I don't even consider or think about the purpose of life, that discussion is completely moot and off-topic. The point of the conversation is presence or absence of god, and a complete lack of evidence that a god exists, and that a god has done anything of note.
tribbledotFeb 11, 2012
I do have proof that these things exists. We exist. What came first the chicken or the egg? What came before that? before that? Both my theory and hypothesis are valid. You just have a different explanation. The basic belief being we were once all a part of a singularity and we sprung forth and then all life, planets, the universe was created. Ironically this is almost exactly the same theory posited by the Indus Valley religions where we all came from a singular soul, sprung forth due desire, and will return in a distant future to that same singularity. I have no evidence you will accept because you are an arrogant person who believes he is right regardless of having no proof of any such theory of creation or how even the current theory debunks any religion. My problem isn't that you don't believe, its that you think that position itself somehow makes you right. It's nonsense. You haven't provided a theory that disproves all religion or even the most popular religions. You've attacked a book based on the interpretation of priests in the late 18th century. You've attacked the modern priesthood and church-goers who go to churches who may or may not believe such nonsense. You have done nothing to disprove religion. You can do nothing to disprove it because no science backs the claim currently. I will concede once science disproves god, purpose, and the soul but until they do, stop pretending you have an answer when in fact all you have is similar nonsense. It's just the nonsense you choose to believe. Life appeared because carbon met this "magical thing" and from it sprung the tadpole and so on and so on. The record is I believe in both science and religion. I think it's ignorant to believe in concepts like infinite or the big bang created everything and not think that there is a reason for the individual. I could be wrong, I have faith that I am not. You could be wrong though, you too just have faith that you are not. I admit my belief is faith-based. You continue to argue that your belief is science based and more importantly right which is the larger issue. My only argument is that you are wrong. Prove it. Prove it with 2+2=4. Prove it in some way that isn't just saying since you can't prove the soul is real then that proves it is not real because this is not science. This is how an atheist might win a digg debate but it is not science or scientific.
elimgarakFeb 11, 2012
OK, look, if you wish to continue this discussion, you need to stop ignoring what I say and actually learn the definition of some terms.
1. Read up on the scientific method, the definitions of the words "theory", "hypothesis", "evidence", and "repeatable experiment".
"I do have proof that these things exists. We exist. What came first the chicken or the egg?"
That's not proof of anything specific - that just means that something happened a long time ago.
"Both my theory and hypothesis are valid."
Again, look up the definition of the word "theory". For this to be a theory there must be evidence and repeatable experiments that confirm your hypothesis.
"I have no evidence you will accept because you are an arrogant person who believes he is right regardless of having no proof of any such theory of creation or how even the current theory debunks any religion."
One more time. Look up the definition of the word "theory". Then look up the definition of the word "hypothesis". Then look up the scientific method.
And PLEASE stop using these terms incorrectly. It is not arrogant to demand that you adhere to the terminology and concepts that have been used for century, and that represent THE most successful human thought method. There is no methodology that's more successful.
"My problem isn't that you don't believe, its that you think that position itself somehow makes you right."
No, what makes me right is that I don't believe in things that have no evidence.
"You haven't provided a theory that disproves all religion or even the most popular religions."
... Theory. Look up the definition of. Term. That. You are using it wrong, yet again. And now it is even MORE wrong than before - I didn't think it was possible to misuse the word to such an extent, but you managed it.
... And yet again, I repeat - these are the beliefs of many
"You have done nothing to disprove religion."
Since I've asked you for at least half a DOZEN separate times to define religion as you see it, and you have ignored me every single freaking time, of course I have not disproven anything! DUH! I don't know what to disprove!!! Because you just REFUSE to define the bloody thing!
"Life appeared because carbon met this "magical thing""
It's called "electricity". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
"and from it sprung the tadpole and so on and so on."
Wrong. A tadpole is a multicellular organism. What started were single-celled bacteria and prokaryotes.
"I think it's ignorant to believe in concepts like infinite or the big bang created everything and not think that there is a reason for the individual."
This is the first interesting thing you said all day. Why exactly must there be a reason? What for? What makes you think that there is a purpose?
"You continue to argue that your belief is science based and more importantly right which is the larger issue. My only argument is that you are wrong. Prove it."
Prove WHAT????? You keep refusing to define religion! I keep disproving and showing that huge components of religion are WRONG, and you keep ignoring that and saying that it all doesn't matter!
"Prove it in some way that isn't just saying since you can't prove the soul is real then that proves it is not real because this is not science."
No, it's not real because there is no evidence for it. No evidence, and no repeatable experiments. You keep postulating that just because there is a rock on top of a mountain, somebody must have put it there. But you can't prove that this somebody actually exists - presence of the rock doesn't prove anything. That's circular reasoning - the rock is there because somebody put it there and we know that somebody exists because the rock is there. That's pretty much all your "proof" so far comes down to.
Oh, and that's another thing - look up the definition of the verb "to postulate". And how it applies in the discipline of logic and philosophy.
"This is how an atheist might win a digg debate but it is not science or scientific."
You have no idea what science is, or what scientific is. You just have zero clue. Because you keep grossly misusing the most basic scientific terms that exist. Again, and again, and again, despite my numerous attempts to get you to LEARN something.
tribbledotFeb 11, 2012
Last post. You don't know science. Look up the words yourself. Neither of us can test for "Does God exist?" or "Does the soul exist?". This doesn't make you right. It means you just haven't found a test. Why have you not found a test? because you stopped looking. This is because you have already found an answer that you'll accept with no proof whatsoever. The same claim you'd make against an arrogant religious person. You have an absolute faith that you are right. Difference is I'm not trying to prove religion scientifically but since you want to disprove/prove it scientifically then you can't claim yourself the winner and pretend we should all accept such a bold unproven totally arrogant unscientific claim. I'm fine with you saying "I believe I am right". I'm not ok with you suggesting that science proves you right when it doesn't do so.
I have proof in that the question "how did we get here" has not been answered. You can propose an alternate theory (which btw you can not test yet) but you can't say that any other alternate theory is more likely just because you are arrogant and believe your theory more.
I'm not suggesting disproving religion is easy. i'm proposing that to disprove the concepts of "life" after death, a soul, other realities is not a simple concept. It's not something where we can scour the 7 continents and declare I've never seen a horned horse. It's ridiculous just that absent of such proof for or against you have taken a hardline stance. The same reason that fundamentalists like evangelicals annoy you is why you annoy me. You have no fact just faith but you are adamant in that faith so much so that you declared it science when in fact it does not resemble any science we have ever seen.
elimgarakFeb 11, 2012
"Last post. You don't know science. Look up the words yourself."
Wow, you are not only ignorant, but you are willfully and proudly ignorant! Unfortunately you are confirming some of my worst impressions of religious people.
You constantly misuse the words "theory", "experiment", "hypothesis", and "test", proving your complete and utter ignorance of the scientific method, and yet I am the one who doesn't know science? Really? That's what you are going with?
"Neither of us can test for "Does God exist?" or "Does the soul exist?"."
Yet again you completely fail to understand the most basic concepts! You don't test a question - you ask it. You create a hypothesis - such as "god exists" - and then you test it. That's not a testable hypothesis - thus god is a unicorn.
"Why have you not found a test? because you stopped looking."
No, I never looked in the first place, because tens and hundreds of millions of people spent hundreds if not thousands of years looking for definitive evidence. If they have't found it in that long, I don't see a reason to repeat their experiments, just to re-confirm their well-known result.
"You have an absolute faith that you are right."
No, I am just pretty sure that if hundreds of millions of people have not found definitive proof, then it probably doesn't exist - and I am not going to find it either.
"Difference is I'm not trying to prove religion scientifically but since you want to disprove/prove it scientifically then you can't claim yourself the winner and pretend we should all accept such a bold unproven totally arrogant unscientific claim."
Look, just stop using the word "science" - you obviously have no idea what science is. It's getting embarrassing.
"I'm not ok with you suggesting that science proves you right when it doesn't do so."
Hundreds of millions of people have found zero evidence. Therefore evidence most likely doesn't exist. Which means that it's a unicorn. Done.
"I have proof in that the question "how did we get here" has not been answered."
??? What the hell does that prove? That's like saying "I have proof in the question of "what color were Queen Victoria's shoes on January 15, 1850", which proves that god exits!" A question proves absolutely nothing. Let alone a random philosophical question like that.
"It's not something where we can scour the 7 continents and declare I've never seen a horned horse."
Why not?
"You have no fact just faith but you are adamant in that faith so much so that you declared it science when in fact it does not resemble any science we have ever seen."
Everything is science. Everything can be described/explained in terms of science - we have yet to find something that didn't follow such laws, that could not be explained rationally. Religion has no facts or evidence that cannot be explained using science. Religion has no facts or evidence period - which is at the root of the problem. You wish to claim that something exists without providing any evidence or proof of its existence. I refuse to believe in such a thing without any decent evidence.
Am I 100% certain that your god doesn't exist? No. But I am also not 100% certain that magical space pixies don't live in the middle of the sun.
kaelyiestaFeb 6, 2012
"Some Americans just can't keep their opinions to themselves."
Nearly all, given the number of politically inclined. Keeping ones opinion to oneself is not possible by definition if people of a different opinion are fined, jailed, or killed for disagreeing. Supporting those who do that dirty work rather than doing it directly doesn't absolve one of that blatant imposition. Doesn't matter how quiet one is during dinner conversation if one supports an organization that beats down other opinions.
Anyone who chooses to support any organization designed to impose its will on others and violently suppress those who hold different opinions cannot avoid this definition. But since that includes the overwhelming majority of voters, such obvious truths are avoided. Thus, only those who in their personal interactions discuss these volatile ideas are deemed 'unable to keep their opinions to themselves'.
To see this, just consider asking what one thinks should happen to you for disagreeing with something, like funding the drug war. Fines and jail await those who try it.
luke1h7Feb 5, 2012
WHWAAAAAAT?? Point, Texas!!!?? I use to live there! That place is full of assh**es. I got sent to the office for not calling a subsitute teacher ma'am one day. Another day I got paddled (hit with a board) for throwing staples in class (I do not dispute that I did indeed throw staples, but really? and I got paddled on several occasions for similar stupid stuff). In that school kids can't wear shorts except for the first and last six weeks of school, because girls legs are distracting. For two days one of our science teachers talked to us about big foot and chubacabra. He swore up and down that him and a fishing buddy saw big foot tracks one day.
That place is so backwards. What a horrible experience that was, living there and having to deal with those people.
With that said I didn't read the article past that point because my mind was blown.
breadfredFeb 5, 2012
Congratulations on your escape!
assassyn360Feb 5, 2012
I just had the typical atheist response here in little rock Arkansas at my girlfriends birthday party. I had left for a moment to go shopping, and during my absence the fact I am an atheist came up. One girl stated to another that I am an atheist, and another replied, "so does he believe in the devil." My girlfriend (a Christian) went on the defense for me stating, "what kind of stupid evidence gives you the idea he believes in the devil if he does not believe in god?" She got no response.
I am open about being an atheist. I was growing up, in college, and in the Air Force. I don't influence my kids to be widest and I don't support their beliefs by taking them to church. I allow them to celebrate holidays because I was not denied those experiences. I will let them make their own choices about reality vs. spiritual beliefs.
assassyn360Feb 5, 2012
“We’re not two sides of the same coin, and you don’t get to put your unreason up on the same shelf with my reason. Your stuff has to go over there, on the shelf with Zeus and Thor and the Kraken, with the stuff that is not evidence-based, stuff that religious people never change their mind about, no matter what happens.”-Bill Maher.
I lol'ed last week!
martov2010Feb 5, 2012
There should be no question of any supreme being. What the hell are you all talking about!? Hello!! It's like we're living in tribes worshiping fake gods now. Isn't the 21 centuary? The centuary where we enjoy ipads, cell phones, internet and abundant information? This whole god thing is a rudiment of our dark past where peoples were fooled by false selfish prophets to gain themselves adoration and uniqueness. I can't believe americans are such blind assh**es!
norman619Feb 5, 2012
"There should be no question of any supreme being. "
This is 100% wrong. Common sense tells you there actually are beings out there which are superior to us out there. Beings which are much older and wiser than our young species. That's not the issue. Also you are ignoring the fact that we as a species are genetically predisposed to superstitious thought which is where religion usually comes from.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
martov2010Feb 5, 2012
how much brainwashed are you, man!
breadfredFeb 5, 2012
Norman, I agree that there are most likely alien beings out there somewhere who are smarter than the human race. They might live in the Milky Way (out own little galaxy) or in a different, much older, start system.
There is even something to believe that life on Earth was sprouted from contaminated meteors.
However, there is no physical evidence of beings, superior or not, who have any control over the human race. Good thing too. That would mean the whole Human Race would be in slavery.
norman619Feb 5, 2012
Alien also includes the possibility of life that exists outside our physical reality. Since we can't really test for the kind religions tend to buy into, namely those that exist outside our physical reality, there will always be a question of whether or not such beings really exist. So there will always be religions based on this. The fact that we are genetically predisposed to believe in such things is one people like martov2010 love to ignore. They like to believe they are so much better than the 99% of their fellow humans who do believe in some sort of religion. Notice how Martov simply chose to insult me instead of mount any kind of valid counter to my comment to him? It's typical of what I see from his kind all the time.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anglosaxongalFeb 5, 2012
I have personal physical proof ETs are real. But, debunkers more likely those of the wicked ones possessed or them clearly, makes no difference they don't want to be acknowledged.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
norman619Feb 6, 2012
If you really had physical proof all you would have to do is take it to a reputable lab and have them verify it.
delphium226Feb 6, 2012
@norman619
Agreed. I'd bet that pictures were taken, but the film came up blank due to EM interference :)
elimgarakFeb 5, 2012
"Alien also includes the possibility of life that exists outside our physical reality."
Not exactly. You are now postulating something that's outside of our known laws of physics - we have vague theories on how that stuff might work, but no conclusive evidence that those theories are correct. There are at least half a dozen different competing cosmology theories. Which of them is right is still up for intense debate.
Life on alien planets is one thing - life in other dimensions is something completely different.
"Since we can't really test for the kind religions tend to buy into, namely those that exist outside our physical reality, there will always be a question of whether or not such beings really exist."
The key point of religion is not that there is a guy who lives outside of our reality - it is that this guy actually created reality, life on Earth, and cares about what goes on here. That's yet another level of belief that is even more unsubstantiated.
anglosaxongalFeb 5, 2012
U don't know that GOD created many mansions? You are in danger from yourself if so. If man is responsible for my proof, then let the lawsuit begin.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
delphium226Feb 6, 2012
@anglosaxongal
Can I have some of your weed?
particleman420Feb 5, 2012
"Alien also includes the possibility of life that exists outside our physical reality."
it absolutely does not, since nothing exists outside of reality.
anglosaxongalFeb 5, 2012
Well apparently I'm outside YOUR reality! Duh.
sbuckley00Feb 5, 2012
really? how do you know? EXACTLY.. you are just taking B.S.
particleman420Feb 6, 2012
because if something exists, it exists in reality. that's sort of the definition of reality.
igorunchainedFeb 6, 2012
If you dont understand the difference between "reality" and "our physical reality" I would be more than happy to explain it to you.
Otherwise, I will just chalk this up to a failed attempt troll/split hairs or a need to find a more remedial subject for your comments.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Feb 6, 2012
feel free and try and explain the difference between the same thing with a different name. what can you show that exists but doesnt exist in reality or in some other form of reality
it should be fun!
norman619Feb 6, 2012
wow... you do get what ALIEN means right? Completely outside your experience. Anything that lives OUTSIDE of our physical reality sure as hell would qualify as alien.
norman619Feb 6, 2012
igorunchained:
The physical universe we live in is our physical reality. We live in a 4 dimensional world. to locate anything in the universe you need 4 bits of information. x, y, z coordinates and a time. Our physical universe may be a subset of a larger universe which may or may not be populated with life of its own which we would be unable to comprehend. So it would be the very definition of alien.
particleman420Feb 6, 2012
being "outside of my experience" does not make it "outside of reality"
particleman420Feb 6, 2012
"Our physical universe may be a subset of a larger universe which may or may not be populated with life of its own which we would be unable to comprehend. So it would be the very definition of alien."
no one is denying "alien". I am denying the possibility of something existing outside of reality.
our universe being part of a multiverse doesnt mean that the other universes exist outside of reality, it means that reality encompasses a larger area and more things than we though.
Reality - Noun: The world or The state of things as they actually exist
Graf_OrlockFeb 6, 2012
Wow... never thought I'd actually agree with Pman, but... if alien "life" is outside of reality, logically that means it isn't real.
igorunchainedFeb 6, 2012
Norman...it is strange to see people try to use science to dispute your scientific take.
Using earth science (physics/chemistry) to predict the possibility of life on other planets is the stupidest thing I have heard since Noah's Arc. Even on the planet Earth we have such diverse life and a lack of knowledge of how it all came to be, it would be foolish to expect that we need a "Goldilocks Zone" to expect life of any kind. We (humans) are made out of the most abundant elements in our corner of the universe. We are 2 chromosomes from a chimp and we fly to the moon while chimps are lucky to learn sign language or use tools. A being/lifeform on another planet (made of other abundant local elements) with 6 more chromosomes than we have (just to use an "earth science concept") would be as unrecognizeable to us as we are to an earwig.
Forgive them...they know not what they do/say in the name of their own ignorance.
rsmongeFeb 6, 2012
it's just crazy hearing a person talk about gods and aliens and beings outside our universe, and then to talk about verifying evidence.
starmanjonesFeb 5, 2012
supreme isn't equal to superior.
charlesdkraussFeb 6, 2012
Scientists around the world would love to see your evidence suggesting that a god exists.
breadfredFeb 5, 2012
Stupidity is not limited to a single country.
norman619Feb 5, 2012
And it does not exclude atheists.
breadfredFeb 5, 2012
Indeed. But at least, atheists do not need someone else to tell them that they go to hell if they do not behave - we behave well because we think it is good for the society as a whole.
Also, Atheists do not believe in fairy tales. Delusions are a dangerous psychological phenomenon; but somehow believing in a Christian God is accepted but believing in Zeus is seen as a disorder. Can you please explain that?
effathaeuFeb 7, 2012
How do you know what is good or bad? What you think that is good is not necessarily good, would you agree?
breadfredFeb 8, 2012
I do not see how believing in a fairy tale can be a good thing.
charlesdkraussFeb 6, 2012
Person A: I am an atheist and would not choose to harm anyone because I have empathy for other people.
Person B: I am religious. If I thought god didn't exist I would be stealing, murdering, and raping.
(Yes, I've actually had this conversation with religious people. You tell me who is the better person.)
tribbledotFeb 6, 2012
Jeffrey Dahmer because his empathy as an atheist failed. It's stupid to base your point of view on this though because it was the person who did bad things not the lack of religion or the religion. You have faith that empathy matters. You are a good person. I agree that the lives of others matter. We differ because you believe that your belief is not faith when it is inherently faith based. I'm glad that you are a good person but if you believe in empathy then you might as well start believing in pink unicorns.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
charlesdkraussFeb 6, 2012
I don't "believe" in empathy. lol You either have it or you don't. If you don't have empathy you are a sociopath and not fit to be part of society.
Don't try to tell me what I believe. You aren't in my head. I'll tell you what I believe or don't believe. I have no faith whatsoever in anything.
Morality isn't derived from religion, it precedes it.
tribbledotFeb 6, 2012
You believe in nothing unless it fits in your argument Charles. We all know this. You aren't good at this debate so I will stop bugging you now. Good luck with your atheist group on facebook though.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
charlesdkraussFeb 7, 2012
True. I only care about what's true, not faith. I do have some issues don't I?
martov2010Feb 5, 2012
true)
tribbledotFeb 5, 2012
What about any of this disproves god, the soul, heaven, karma, nirvana, or other similar religious concepts? Nothing? The problem with you is that you choose to push the idea that you are absolutely right about your belief and everyone else must be wrong which while a normal HUMAN TENDENCY actually makes you worse then the majority of who you are criticizing when you express it vocally.
martov2010Feb 5, 2012
this is sad, but it's true. all those things you've mentioned are just concepts, ideas, belief system, which you believe in, it's just so much easier to believe in something, than just face the bold naked truth. illusions are really sweet and nice to live with.
tribbledotFeb 6, 2012
The problem is the word truth. You have to prove something for it to be truth. You can't prove or disprove religious concepts so there is no truth whether it is bold or naked. There is just belief or if you must disbelief. Neither are any more factually sound than the other. They are just belief or disbelief.
sbuckley00Feb 5, 2012
Believe it!!!!!
PanjeeFeb 5, 2012
What is GOD?
elimgarakFeb 5, 2012
Dog spelled backwards. :-)
PanjeeFeb 5, 2012
Thank you
breadfredFeb 5, 2012
I honor my Dog, but would not bloody pray to him. Than again, I would not pray to any God either. My dog would at least listen to me - although he would not have a f**king clue what I was talking about.
davidnivenFeb 6, 2012
The only Being whose reason for existing is found entirely within himself.
delphium226Feb 6, 2012
When all else fails, balsawood.
StonnaFeb 5, 2012
Religion is like a dick. Its nice to have one but you don't just whoop it out all the time.
norman619Feb 5, 2012
Thanks for making my argument. You are yet another of those Atheists who stupidly embrace their inner douche. Who don't feel they should show the religious the same kind of respect they would like for themselves.
Stay classy!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Feb 5, 2012
how did that make your argument for you in the slightest?
elimgarakFeb 5, 2012
And vaginas are very nice too! Multiple orgasms must be very nice. But yes, I agree - there is no sense in whooping about vaginas either.
breadfredFeb 5, 2012
There isn't?
sbuckley00Feb 5, 2012
Why not? I saw whip them out.. let is breath!!!
elimgarakFeb 6, 2012
Wow, somebody dugg down vaginas? Really?
elimgarakFeb 6, 2012
And now somebody dugg down my comment about somebody digging down vaginas? Is there a religious subset of DPs? People that just go through and digg every post by specific people down?
Or is there some sort of underlying deeper reasoning behind all the vagina hate that I am not aware of?
eyesbrightFeb 5, 2012
I call myself a "militant agnostic" because what it comes down to for me is this, "I don't know and you don't either." You have the right to believe whatever floats your particular boat but don't try to rub it on me.
davidnivenFeb 6, 2012
In America, you do NOT have the right to be free from annoyance by what others say.
barasawaFeb 6, 2012
But you do have a right to be free of religous based laws, discriminations, and slanders/libels.
davidnivenFeb 6, 2012
No. You can be subject to religious-based laws and probably are. Everyone comes to their own ideas of morality different. Some pull their morality from their own imagination, some from religion, et. al. Let's not all of a sudden demand that all laws have a secular basis to be valid.
And some discrimination is good. Would you let a pregnant woman fly into combat? Would you send a black undercover FBI agent into infiltrate the KKK?
And slander and libel only counts if there are actual damages. Otherwise, Dan Rather would be in jail now for making up crap about Bush.
The_SovereignFeb 6, 2012
Why not demand that all laws have a secular basis?
davidnivenFeb 7, 2012
Because there is no reason to think that the ideas of one's imagination, mental construction, and personal secular-based desires would be any superior to those from one's assessment of a Supreme Being...and every reason to look for a higher basis for human law.
The_SovereignFeb 6, 2012
Sure you do. Just put on some headphones or go away or something. If they harass you, boom, police.
EnlightenedDiMeSFeb 7, 2012
Do you from time to time, take a second to appreciate what complete and total tool you are? I marvel every time I read your posts.
braininaboxFeb 5, 2012
Christians: Stop treating Atheists like they are arrogant snobs.
Atheists: Stop treating Christians like they are ignorant children.
jacquelynekFeb 5, 2012
Atheists don't bother with Christians ... who do happen to be ignorant children but thats besides the point.
ericschc1Feb 5, 2012
The thing that's odd about your comment, is that atheists have no reason to talk about Christianity to Christians in a condescending way, unless Christians bring up religion or the "flaws" in not having one. Saying that atheists have an un-provoked or un-influenced negative "opinion" on Christianity is like saying someone in no way acquainted with football has an opinion on who wins today's Super Bowl.
braininaboxFeb 5, 2012
The majority of Christians I know are sensible, friendly, and a joy to be around.
The majority of atheists I know are sensible, friendly, and a joy to be around as well.
However there is a subgroup of atheists who worship Bill Maher and Christopher Hitchens. They believe it is their mission on earth to find every stupid thing a Christian has ever said or done and post it to Facebook unsolicited. Likewise, there is a subgroup of Christians (e.g. Rick Santorum) who are just insensitive trolls.
So Christian's tend to think that all Atheists are as arrogant and abrasive as Bill Maher, and Atheists tend to think that all Christians are as ignorant and offensive as Rick Santorum.
I think Kurt Vonnegut is a great model for atheists.
I think CS Lewis is a great model for Christians.
<3
norman619Feb 5, 2012
Agreed. I'm an Agnostic and find more often than not religious folks I talk to to be far more civil and reasonable when I challenge their views online. In person they both tend to be civil with me due to people restraining their inner douchebags in real life situation. Online you get to see what they are really like since they can hide behind their computers and be anonymous..Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakFeb 5, 2012
Well, not exactly - on-line people often act as if they are talking to a machine, and feel free to vent without any thought of the feelings of the person behind the machine.
It's not that people that are dicks on-line are actually dicks in real life, underneath their skins. It's more that when they discuss things on-line their opponent becomes an abstract idea - and you don't need to be polite to abstract ideas.
rsmongeFeb 6, 2012
newsflash. you're not civil.
ericschc1Feb 5, 2012
"there is a subgroup of atheists who worship Bill Maher and Christopher Hitchens. They believe it is their mission on earth to find every stupid thing a Christian has ever said or done and post it to Facebook unsolicited."
Please. That's not even kind of the same thing as dedicated organizations that actively try to grow their group & spread their belief system. Hitchens, Maher, et al don't care about growing their group or converting the masses.
pinkfish411Feb 6, 2012
They spend a hell of a lot of time trying to argue that they're right and that religion is terrible for people who supposedly have no interest in converting anyone to atheism.
inajeepFeb 6, 2012
Yes they do and I appreciate the need to question everything. There is no 'converting', only education and realization.
starmanjonesFeb 5, 2012
this is where your explanation breaks down. atheists won't bring up religion. it starts with the religious.
here's how to prove it. starting today get all religious people to not bring up religion outside the church or private conversations. i guarantee that atheists will not bring it up again.
ya. i know. thats not possible. its an easy proof.
inajeepFeb 6, 2012
Please don't group Maher with Hitchens. Maher doesn't deserve the grouping, use Harris or Dawkins when grouping atheists who dare to speak out again the faults of religion.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
teldarioFeb 6, 2012
I'm glad I found a comment that expressed exactly what I was thinking :)
norman619Feb 5, 2012
Actually many Atheists love to voice their Anti-religion views in religious discussions in such a tactless way they seem to want to be attacked. I guess you haven't been on digg all that long.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakFeb 5, 2012
Well, it depends on what you consider to be tactless. We often consider atheism and religion to be interesting topics of conversation where we are 100% certain we are right. Therefore, it's just something to talk about. I try not to do it with friends because it is too volatile a subject, but I can certainly understand the impulse.
Closed AccountFeb 5, 2012
Anyone digging this down should consider their motives.
The_SovereignFeb 6, 2012
I bury anyone who doesn't put in the effort to make technically correct posts.
bdbrFeb 5, 2012
There's a lot of arrogance on both sides. Either way, the problem comes when one thinks their beliefs supersede the beliefs of others.
An example of arrogance: similar to the experience mentioned in the article, I've been in volunteer situations where the first thing they did was tell everyone to pray. Most of the volunteers were from my tech company, hardly a religious group. There was a big empty room adjacent; they could have just said those who want to pray could join them there, but instead they had the hubris to foist it on everyone. It went on awhile. As I uncomfortably peered among the group, I could see others doing the same. The tension & discomfort eventually wore off after the "Amen", but it really didn't start things on a good footing and most of us never volunteered there again.
starfishsystemsFeb 5, 2012
"I've been in volunteer situations where the first thing they did was tell everyone to pray."
That is so creepy.
mkinder80122Feb 6, 2012
I expect you been in volunteer situations where the first thing "they" did was to ASK everyone to pray.
norman619Feb 5, 2012
That goes against who we are as a species. When we are convinced we are right those who don't think as we do are obviously fatally ignorant.
apokalyps2547Feb 5, 2012
If you try to tell me that the world is <10,000 years old, or that we should deny civil liberties because your bronze-age myths say so, I will talk to you like the ignorant child you are.
If you want to talk about the philosophy of ethics in the context of theological and secular paradigms, I will talk to you like the adult you are.
barasawaFeb 6, 2012
Do you know any atheists? Are you religious?
Odds are you know a fair number of them, of course, you probably don't know who they are. If you are open or apparent about being religious, it's doubtful that any of the atheists you know will ever tell you.
There is discrimination towards atheists, and they know it. Of course, there is no visible sign that you are an atheist. After all, it's not like your skin is purple, or there's a glowing letter A on your forehead or anything.
So it's much simpler to keep your mouth shut and let the superstitious person prattle on about irrational nonsense while you try to find a polite way out. You know that if you tell them, they will probably react very negatively towards you for the rest of your life. And even if that person doesn't, they will probably tell someone else, and then it's guaranteed there will be many people that are suddenly your enemy, even though you've always been kind and polite towards them. Even it it's only 2% of the community, it's painful. Worse, those that are the most negative tend to have a greater sway in the community than the average person. Maybe it's because they are more vocal, squeaky wheel and all that, or maybe they are a community leader, like the priest/rabbi/padre/etc at the local church. In which case, even people that are neutral will act negatively because they are expected to by someone they see as a leader.
Recently, some of the vocal religious types have been even more pushy than usual in both trying to force other people to follow their religious based desires, or in direct attacks against those not of their religion. Some of the atheists out there have gotten sick of these actions and have spoken out against them. Too bad that has only fanned the flames of the religious extremists that now clamor about the evils of the atheist as they redouble their efforts to attack the atheists.
One group wants to vilify anything not themselves. The other is sick of being attacked and speaks out, so the first group escalates. This is only going to get more ugly, especially since one doesn't care about others rights, and the other is sick of being treated like a pariah.
Many people don't want to be involved in this mess, they just want to live their lives in peace and contentment, or at least as much as they can obtain. The only way they can do so is by remaining anonymous. For this reason, they keep their mouths shut.
You know many atheists, and you have no idea who they are.
karmashockFeb 6, 2012
oh please... throughout most of the country this is no issue. Sure, you can find isolated areas where it is an issue but the reverse is true. There are places where religious people are not accepted.
Intolerance runs both ways.
Just get over it guys. Fact of human existence. This is how people work. You're never going to get a perfectly tolerant society. The very act of being intolerant of intolerance will make you intolerant to all sorts of things that have nothing to do with tolerance.
Just get along.
And right now someone is saying "But we can't get along because they're intolerant"... well again sunshine, that goes both ways. Will you tell every group one after the other to be tolerant or else?
Children, stop touching each other in the back seat or we're turning the car around right now. Get along.
nairebisFeb 6, 2012
It's not a question of "tolerance". I would be happy to tolerate whatever people want to believe.
Where we have a problem is when religious people try and pass laws to force their religion on other people. Then, we have a problem. Forced prayer in schools, creationism, marriage inequality, etc. And look at Santorum, who believes the state should be able to ban contraception.
When religious people stop legislating based on their mythology, then I will be happy to tolerate them. Until then, they must be stopped. You cannot "get along" with someone who wants to strip your liberty.
moonriderFeb 6, 2012
Exactly the reason why Santorum is not presidential material.
EnlightenedDiMeSFeb 8, 2012
And what about Gingrich? Or Romneyy's belief that the cradle of human life is in the US? The faery tales accepted as religion are counterproductive to society as a whole.
moonriderMar 31, 2012
Yes, they are, and the newt and Romney are no better choices than Santorum. The only good choice in this election is Ron Paul.
karmashockFeb 7, 2012
The prayer in school argument has been voluntary. So it's not forced. What you have now is forced NO prayer.
Understand that I am not theistic. I do not make these arguments in the name of some god or faith. I don't care about that. But if you wish to be honest about this then you need to recognize what is really going on here.
As to restraining laws they wish to pass in the name of their gods... Most of that comes to nothing in all but the most devote regions of the country. And in any case, the proper solutions to these problems is school vouchers. We can privatize the schools while ensuring that everyone gets a free education. In this manner, everyone gets the education they desire and there is no violation of the constitution. It should also radically improve school quality as bad schools will die. I would recommend a voucher system be used everywhere possible possible. It makes more sense in more populated areas. In rural areas where there is only enough attendance to support a single school it becomes problematic.
The basic idea is you calculate state spending on schools per student and then offer all students a voucher equal to that value to be spent on any qualifying house of education. If you want to go to the local catholic school... go there... if you want to go to the science magnet then go there. Leave it to the parents. Schools with bad reputations will get zero students. They'll go out of business... empty building... everyone is fired. Good schools will become models for new schools.
This can fix our national education system, end the problem with the teachers unions, end the problem with the creationists, etc. It solves all the problems and creates only minor logistical problems that are easily solved.
nairebisFeb 7, 2012
> The prayer in school argument has been voluntary.
> So it's not forced. What you have now is forced NO prayer.
That's simply not true. Students can pray any time they want, as long as it's to themselves. All the controversies have been involving *school led* prayer, voluntary or not. And, in practice, voluntary means pressure and ostracization for any kid who doesn't follow the line. Public schools have zero business advocating ANY religion, voluntary or not.
If you think students can't pray, show me the reference where a student was stopped from praying on their own.
> ...vouchers...
I actually used to be a heavy advocate of vouchers -- until I had kids myself and actually looked into private schools for my kid. The fundamental problem with private schools is selectivism. In theory, private schools should want all kids, because voucher money is voucher money, right? But in practice, private schools are very, very, very selective. They ONLY want stepford kids who love school and are extroverts. If your kid is a little different and doesn't immediately show love for the school and the interviewing teacher, forget it. They don't want to risk the kid bringing down their rankings.
My kid is in public school and he's doing pretty well there. In a world of vouchers, he would have no place to go, because he can't instantly sing and dance for the interviewer.
You might say that schools will spring up to handle the kids who can't sing and dance, and that might be true. But then I'm forced to put my kid into the "gulag school" even though he's done nothing wrong except be an introvert.
Public schools have their problems, but I'm now convinced that a voucher system would be worse than what we have now. Not everything benefits from privatization.
karmashockFeb 7, 2012
1. As to school led prayer, the point was that it isn't forced and in all but a few exceptional instances it was non-denominational. You do your argument no credit by ignoring that point.
2. As to private schools being selective. Depends on how good they are... Really good schools aren't going to waste their time with bad students. However, if the whole system goes voucher clearly they're going to have room for bad students at "okay" schools. What they get will be better then what get they get now and everyone else will be getting much better access to quality education.
At some point you have to ask yourself what is the point? Is the point attendance? Is school just day care? Or is the point education?
Because if it's attendance and day care then your idea is spot on. It's a fine daycare time wasting activity that doesn't actually accomplish a lot while wasting huge amounts of money while PRETENDING to educate.
IF the point is education then some filtration of students is going to happen.
So what is the point? Day care or education? Current system or vouchers?
The_SovereignFeb 6, 2012
Ok, we're all going to get along now. Excellent speech, your majesty. Thanks for saving the world.
karmashockFeb 7, 2012
You have only yourselves to blame if you refuse to even try.
The_SovereignFeb 7, 2012
Are you sure about that?
karmashockFeb 7, 2012
The logic is inescapable.
Closed AccountFeb 5, 2012
"Godlessness"?
I don't define myself by my opposition to superstition. Atheism may be all the rage, but for those of us who simply came to the conclusion from the beginning that the Old Religions have failed to deliver on their promises centuries ago, I find the whole discussion to be wrong-headed.
People who pray exert a power - to deny this is absurdity. It involves personal power - the power to overcome pain, adversity, and loss. It is the power of community and creed and it can manifest in powerful ways - at times, 'miraculous' ways.
The human specie is more than just individuals, and like ants, we are more than the sum of our parts, and that pertains to our senses, our inner worlds, and the networks we create everyday between others of our [insert identifier here.] True supplication and prayer is meant to lift one's perspective from one's own immediate troubles and adopt a longer outlook - it can be a transcendent experience, because, hey, the human mind is insanely complex and shifting consciousness has intuitive and proven benefits, the first one being insight. Hence - in sight - the name.
That this is true is the reason that prayer continues and ritual, contemplation, spiritual community and yes, communion, are all intrinsic parts of humanity and NEED to be harnessed if this whole evolution thing is going to proceed. I heart science but we are more than our measuring sticks and records and experiments. We are more than the description.
Denying this is madness and tearing us apart.
A-theism is becoming like the AA of smarter evangelicals, feeling empowerment and the urge to, well, proselytize. Push back on the Man (the man being an archetypal Jewish revolutionary Rabbi with a Mexican name.) Or the revolutionary, mystic tribal chief who gave his life conquering the Arab peninsula for an idea.
We have a long way to go, obviously.
What we don't need is this horrible example of a 46 year-old British man moving to the backwoods of America (at 46!) and thinking his atheism is the only reason he's been shunned when his new reunited "family" are a bunch of bible thumpers from Whereversville, s**tcan County, Kentucky. It's a viral trailer for a zanny new comedy, not proof of prejudice against atheists.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
moonriderFeb 6, 2012
The "benefits" of prayer also happen when taking any of the psychedelics, the difference is the effect of taking psychedelics once lasts one's whole life.
Closed AccountFeb 6, 2012
You can't simply take LSD in the middle of a fire fight, to gather your senses together and attain some clarity - although your point is well-taken.
Shamanic plants are part of mankind's spiritual history and removing them from the picture seems to have caused a lot of harm and spiritual confusion. We would do well as a specie to reexamine these sources of enlightenment and healing and incorporate them into our spiritual lives in a guided and responsible manner.
EnlightenedDiMeSFeb 8, 2012
The benefits of prayer are the same as meditation. However, when you pray to "GOD", and the more often you do, the neural pathways in your brain are reinforced and strengthened, making it psycologically more real for you. Similar benefits come from meditation, without wiring your brain to accept superstition.
moonriderMar 31, 2012
Psychedelics also do not wire one's brain to accept superstition.
anglosaxongalFeb 6, 2012
Wow....lots of atheists and satanists in this website, aren't there....
apokalyps2547Feb 6, 2012
Lots of atheists... dunno about any Satanists though.
rsmongeFeb 6, 2012
i'm not sure you know the difference.
anglosaxongalMar 31, 2012
You're one of those cold-blooded repubs that bury comments aren't you. I think I saw your name on the list and don't bother to waste ur time typing to me. Stupid people who choose to stay that way is hopeless.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rsmongeApr 2, 2012
wrong on all counts.
are you keeping a list? what is this list of?
"Stupid people who choose to stay that way is hopeless."
i find your grammar ... ironic.
The_SovereignFeb 6, 2012
Hell yeah, Satan rules! Think for yourself! Question authority! Down with the Kingdom of God!!
moonriderMar 31, 2012
There is no such thing as "Satan", those who claim to practice "Satanism" are really practicing anti-Catholicism. They use the same tools as the Church but in the opposite way as the priests use them. I'm not certain but i bet most self labeled "Satanists" are former Catholics. Many who follow the Wiccan way are also former Catholics, but unlike "Satanists" without the hate, they are attracted to Wicca because of the ceremony and ritualism. Those who are practicing Witches but who are not Wiccans are seldom former Catholics. So it seems those who are turning away from Catholicism gravitate to either Wicca or "Satanism" depending on what kind of person they are at the core and how much hatred they have for their former religion.
anglosaxongalMar 31, 2012
You're very ignorant. Are you a republican? Or a wicked ET?
moonriderApr 1, 2012
Not at all ignorant, very well read, not a Republican, ET's on Terra are still unproven, and I have been a practicing Witch in the past, tho never got involved in Wicca (not now, tho, no time for it because other interests and obligations have become primary; it was my scientific curiosity that drew me to magick, I'm sure there is a, currently unknown, natural mechanism to explain the success of spells done properly).
anglosaxongalApr 2, 2012
Stubborn fools stay stupid a preacher said last nite. He's right.
moonriderApr 1, 2012
Should have mentioned I live in a pagan haven and have interacted with many pagans of various stripes during my practicing Witch period, that is why I am knowledgeable about the subject of Satanism and Wicca and their connection to the Catholic Church.
anglosaxongalApr 2, 2012
How will u know about them if you don't get right with GOD? His name is on their lips but their hearts are far from them. Bible...read it?
moonriderApr 2, 2012
I read the bible, bunch of claptrap, full of contradictions, all that time reading it cover to cover was totally wasted time, there is nothing in that book (which was written by men and organized into the bible you see today leaving out many books which might counteract the council's desires to gain control over people) for me or anyone with a thinking brain.
anglosaxongalApr 3, 2012
U choose to stay stupid by not studying stupidity and dishonesty than great. Stay that way and stay away from me. Deliberate ignorance is evil. It's my belief that the wicked should be stayed away from. If that is your belief about me than don't waste ur finger play on me.
daimposterFeb 6, 2012
If you believe the US doesn't discriminate against Atheist, explain the lack of Atheist in national politics. How many have ever served in the house? How about when you expand it to a larger area --- such as a senator voted on by a state? Expand further --- presidents?
The further you expand the voting area, the much lower rate (or zero rate) you see an atheist. With an Atheist/Agnostic population of 15-20%, you would expect a reasonably close % in politics if discrimination didn't exist. Can you imagine if there were not any black congressmen or presidents? And blacks are less than 15% of the population.
tribbledotFeb 6, 2012
It's not discrimination. How many of these atheists on digg could hold political office? None of them. It's a reality that if a person was atheist and just didn't care then he could be elected as most would never care. If he started comparing other peoples beliefs to pink unicorns or spaghetti monsters though would that score him votes? Would it help if Jewish congressman said Jesus was a fraud. The people vote in plenty of Mormons even though most don't believe the Mormon faith is true. Why is this? The fact is it's not the disbelief that is the problem, its the way some atheists choose to defend their disbelief and its the relative psychosis that apparently follows where you believe just because you think this way that it is somehow superior to others who choose to believe that life, death, and taxes serve a purpose that keeps atheists out of office in general.
The problem isn't atheism. It's the way some atheists act. A superiority complex is not a good political campaign especially when you have nothing to back up your superiority. You aren't better than people just because you don't believe in things you can not touch. It's hard to imagine a person like this having a vision for the future even.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
daimposterFeb 6, 2012
You sure are prejudice to Atheist. Your whole post makes little sense (seems like the working of an irrational person) that I won't even respond to every single problem in your argument.
tribbledotFeb 6, 2012
Good luck in your political career.
rsmongeApr 2, 2012
yep, its not black people, it's just the way some black people act.
it isn't women that are the problem, it's just that so many women act that way. baby i wouldn't have hit you if you weren't acting so crazy and i didn't love you so much.
davidnivenFeb 7, 2012
There are a lot of atheists in politics. They just call themselves Christians or spiritual or whatever. But, their hearts are far from God and don't believe in Him when it comes down to it.
If our national politicians really believed in God, then they would not be acting the way they do. Actions, not words, is what exemplifies a person's faith or exposes their atheism. And I don't mean being nice or mean to people. I mean acting like God is real every second of the day versus just invoking His name when it's convenient.
anglosaxongalMar 31, 2012
If you didn't intolerate them and talk like an ass, I don't think u'd have probs. But you like to fight don't you. I had relatives whose only joy was in arguing and they stayed stupid 'cause they liked it. That's why I never have anything to do with them anymore. Deaf, blind, and dumb have no hope.
devinemoneymanFeb 5, 2012
Lol
anglosaxongalApr 2, 2012
Wow....this page is messed up...can't even read the comments....
battmannFeb 7, 2012
Atheists segregate themselves from religion and are a burden to those that believe in religion! Their views and outlook on life is so lost and wasted! I'll just laugh in their face for turning against god because they aren't happy with their life!
anglosaxongalFeb 6, 2012
OMG! I get it now! A bunch of you ARE ETs!! Are you good witches or bad??
forchristaloneFeb 6, 2012
This is a shame. I am a Christian man and this is exactly what should not be happening. Sometimes I just want to slap other Christians or people that call themselves that. I'm sorry for the way they treat you. I would be your friend if you were an atheist but I would pray for you, show you love, disagree with you on things but I would still accept you.
The_SovereignFeb 6, 2012
Good enough for me. I'm of the opinion that you can't help it. You have the "superstition" toggle in the "on" position in your brain, and I don't. If I knew how to help you, I would, because I'm pretty sure my way is a better way to live, being more in-tune with reality, but maybe that's my own undetectable delusion doing the talking.
urdumania1Feb 6, 2012
how much brainwashed are you, man!
anglosaxongalFeb 6, 2012
Are there only atheists and wicked ETs in here??? Are ETs gay????
netantFeb 6, 2012
Just curious, for you bible-belters, which is worse: Atheist or Satanist?
tribbledotFeb 6, 2012
Whichever does the greater harm? The idea of Satanism is a general rejection of him being evil and instead being a new savior of man. The idea of atheism is to not believe in god and most modern atheists also do not believe in other ideas like heaven, karma, nirvana, or souls. Neither is automatically bad but if an atheist kills a man than he is worse than a satanist who just talks about Satans rebellion against heaven for the protection of man (not a Christian belief).
I personally believe following Satanism is stupid based on it's modern teachings but I don't believe that makes it worse or better than other religions or lack thereof which I also do not believe to be the truth.
The problem here is that the modern "digg atheist" thinks man is only fallible when he follows a religion which is not supported by science, fact, or reason.
davidnivenFeb 7, 2012
Atheist.
For one to believe in Satan and not God is plain stupidity. And no one gives a Satan worshiper any credence whatsoever.
But, atheism is, relative to Satanism, more logical and has some basis in reason. It is more popular. Most people, even many Christians, act like an atheist most days of the week. It is quite popular in action if not in name. And atheism is comfortable and easy to slip into.
jarysmFeb 5, 2012
The over dramatic attention seeking in this article are shameful. It is possible for Atheists, of which I am one, to be targeted and abused without being the last marginalized minority in society.
Homosexuals, African Americans, Transexuals, and Muslims all have it worse than atheists. We don't win any good will by blowing our troubled out of proportion.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
user500Feb 5, 2012
'...is not the easiest place for a single lesbian to raise her child"
i still cant wrap my brain how that happened.
barasawaFeb 6, 2012
One of 4 things, consensual sex, rape, terminated sham marriage, or artificial insemination. (It's really only 3, since the terminated sham marriage doesn't result in pregnancy unless it includes one of the other 3.)
The_SovereignFeb 6, 2012
She was f**ked by a man so repulsive that it made her gay at the same time as pregnant.
tribbledotFeb 5, 2012
This article is wrong. I know of no atheists hurt in hate crimes but could believe this would happen but the number would never be as high as half as gays hurt in such. The worse they get is some people trying to "save" them. The problem I have is how many people think this is discrimination. I won't ever try to "save" anyone myself but just because some person understands their duties differently doesn't necessarily make them bad. I think most are annoyed by these "saviors" but to act like it's as bad as a person actually beating a gay man to death is just bs.
I have argued with many an atheist on digg here but I really do believe it is your right to choose whatever belief or so called non-belief you want. My only issue with the atheists here is they argue ineffectively like many of the atheists that are also put on TV. It's not that I hate you. I'd never raise my fist to you over this preference.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
breadfredFeb 5, 2012
You can talk about homo sexuality. People grasp the concept. Unfortunately, many people cannot understand that there are people WITHOUT a belief system at all. They cannot understand the concept. Which means, it cannot be properly discussed - you would be seen as a sad misguided sociopath.
bdbrFeb 5, 2012
Not believing in deities doesn't mean you don't have a belief system. It's just a different belief system. Some believe you should do good because God will punish you if you don't. Others believe that the good in the world is a sum product of our individual good deeds, and that alone is reason enough to be good.
breadfredFeb 5, 2012
Is that the Selfish Gene theory? Also, many people do good as it makes them feel good - no need for further incentives :)
luke1h7Feb 5, 2012
I was treated like s**t in Point, Texas just for being from the North and from the city. If you don't think being an atheist will get you treated differently, you're just wrong buddy. It might not get you killed, like being black will (15 minute drive from Point, TX someone was dragged behind a pick up until they died because they were black), but it certainly effects you.
Not getting a job, people talking s**t, the police might not believe something you say, etc, etc.
Again, not as bad as being black, but certainly not viewed as normal.
My point being that if you are treated differently as a white male just because you are from out of state and from a city, you most certainly would be treated differently if you don't believe in Jesus Christ.
If it were only the few crazies who won't shut up about saving me, that would be cool.
tribbledotFeb 5, 2012
It is unethical and in most cases illegal to discuss your religious views or lack thereof when applying for a job. You would never start a sworn statement for police with "I'm an atheist but I saw this guy shooting..." The reason people are talking s**t is because you are having a debate and I can only assume it passed to name-calling because one or both parties realized the other one wasn't really listening.
This all leads me to believe that the problem isn't that you are being discriminated against but you are instantly making your choice relevant by mentioning it in an interview where they couldn't ask about it, fighting with hicks in a bar about a choice you made, or defining yourself as a member of a group when reporting your views to officers of the law. This makes you the problem here.
The main point is you won't be killed for this belief though. You won't be dragged behind a truck or beaten to a bloody pulp in a high majority of cases whereas other groups actually have it worse. Will people argue with you? Sure but that's really the most you have to worry about. If the other above situations are hurting you then it's because you are divulging information that just isn't relevant or required in most the cited situations.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
breadfredFeb 5, 2012
Oh, so thats OK than.
sbuckley00Feb 5, 2012
You make assumptions that are obviously not correct. Many hiring managers do online research about a candidate before an interview. This being the case, they may stumble upon said information if it were online. You whole statement proves there is discrimination against atheists. Just the very fact that you mention as such:
"This all leads me to believe that the problem isn't that you are being discriminated against but you are instantly making your choice relevant by mentioning it in an interview where they couldn't ask about it"
You whole statement is basically ACTUALLY saying "yeah you are being discriminated against but it is your fault for bringing it up"
TRUTH: If you are discriminated against for something, it does not matter how that information came into the hands of the discriminator, it is still DISCRIMINATION!
tribbledotFeb 6, 2012
I'll concede your point because I agree if I say I am gay and the hiring manager doesn't hire me for that reason then he is discriminating and the same would be true for an atheist who divulged such. The problem is it's illegal for him to ask so I should not bother divulging such information when he can't legally ask it. I do agree that it's still discrimination. The problem is I'm not asserting you can't be discriminated against, I'm asserting that you aren't as discriminated against as people who are black, homosexual, or women. I think all discrimination is bad though but the discrimination or taboo associated with atheism is so insignificant that it should not be blown out of proportion.
luke1h7Feb 6, 2012
We're talking about small towns here. I wouldn't ever tell anyone in a small town I was an atheist, because they absolutely would discriminate. They have been programmed to do so since birth. If one person in the town knew everyone would know. And if the town did happen to find out you were an atheist, if you told one person, they would probably consider that when deciding to hire you or not.
There are like 5 police in a town that size too. That example you gave was just absurd, btw. Of course you wouldn't tell the police you're an atheist in a statement. But if they knew because someone told them, that's how small towns are, maybe they might not respond as quickly to your house, or give your statements less weight. It's a possibility is what I'm saying.
I'm just speaking from experiences here.
elimgarakFeb 5, 2012
No, there is actually a ton of discrimination against atheists that's more than just trying to "save" them. Obviously it's not nearly as bad as some gays have it, but the discrimination is there. People hate and fear atheists - not enough to beat them to death, but more than enough to force them out of their jobs, ostracize them, insult them, etc.
tribbledotFeb 5, 2012
It's not a reality for most. If you have ever been forced from a job because you were atheist then you are on a significantly small minority and this is especially true when compared with any other group that is discriminated against including just plain vanilla everyday women. It's possible to discriminate against anyone but the problem is this article says it's the last big taboo and this just isn't true. What do people call Atheists derogatorily??Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakFeb 6, 2012
"It's not a reality for most."
Do you have any statistics on that? I would say this is a reality for most atheists in certain areas of US. They either keep their mouth shut, grit their teeth, and hide their beliefs, or they are discriminated against.
"What do people call Atheists derogatorily?"
Godless heathens. Scum. "the damned", "standing against God", "Antichrist". Combinations of those terms. And the term "atheist" is a dirty word among some Christians - literally. It's an actual insult.
sbuckley00Feb 5, 2012
This article is 100 percent right and FACTUAL! How could you state other wise as these are real life stories. I also agree that I have seen similar discrimination in my life. I personally am not to vocal about being agnostic (in person), still to this day, due to the aforementioned discriminations.
The_SovereignFeb 6, 2012
How do you "choose" a belief?
satori3000Feb 5, 2012
see I thought bestiality, paedophilia, necrophilia, Incest and a host of other things were all still be taboos.
rgb86Feb 5, 2012
But they're hardly widespread, even compared with something like Atheism, which is itself a small minority.
The_SovereignFeb 6, 2012
"Atheism" is not a proper noun; there is no need for a capital "A" unless it begins a sentence.
rgb86Feb 6, 2012
I suppose you're right, though you could still argue for its classification as a proper noun. Either way, it's about 23 hours, 29 minutes too late to change the capitalization. :-P
The_SovereignFeb 6, 2012
You could, but I would argue against it :D
tribbledotFeb 6, 2012
You wouldn't argue well though. This is just my personal observation though.
mizuhochanFeb 5, 2012
I was led to believe that wincest is best.
mzopensourceFeb 5, 2012
nice i like them
mzopensourceFeb 5, 2012
hes best
specimen7Feb 5, 2012
You think you know more than my dad? Don't f**kin come then.
norman619Feb 5, 2012
What discrimination?
breadfredFeb 5, 2012
If I would own a shop in the States, and would say to customers after serving them 'God won't bless you if he does not exist' instead of 'God bless' you would see where the discrimination comes in.
I have to listen daily to this 'God bless you' crap without being able to politely say 'well, I am sorry, but you are delusional'. That would just be rude.
largomintFeb 5, 2012
Just remember when they are saying "God bless you", that they don't really mean it. They mean only if you are a backwater far rightly that is
as one of us. If you have a brain, then you do not qualify for that blessing.
tribbledotFeb 5, 2012
and herein lies another problem. Atheists, like all other groups, aren't automatically smarter than the people who believe in religious concepts. There's a modern belief amongst atheists that they are proven correct by science when nothing in science can disprove religious concepts fundamentally. Energy never dies, we all came from one singularity, and other such theories generally support the basic concepts needed for religion. I have no science to convince you though and won't pretend that these things alone prove anything. I just don't think you have any proof either. Pretending that you're better than the other group doesn't make you right. There's no reason to discount science or religion as they can co-exist. I'll be the first to concede when science disproves religion but it hasn't happened yet and while I believe it will never happen, I can make this guarantee nonetheless.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
breadfredFeb 5, 2012
Let us put it this way. Why would you say 'God bless you' if you would not believe in him? I do not go around saying 'May you be blessed by His Noodly Appendage' now, do I. And, also, you seem to have an inferiority complex. I never said you were not as smart as me. I am, by the way, only averagely smart. Enough to earn a reasonable living and own a house - but not much more than that.
And, science does not need to disprove religion. Religion is based on belief, science is based on facts. Check it out. Unfortunately religion keeps on making claims that are either not-falsifiable or are demonstrable untrue. Why people keep on believing is however not a mystery - it is a comfort, like a big mamma being there when you need a shoulder to cry on.
tribbledotFeb 6, 2012
Are you implying my mom is a figment of my imagination now? :P.
I think most say "god bless you" without religious connotations but if I said "good night" and you explained how the evening itself can neither contain the qualities of being good or evil then you just look like an ass. It's just bad manners. The reality is just because you don't believe something doesn't mean you should be offended by those who do believe and those who just repeat the customary phrases associated with a person sneezing. It's not discriminatory unless I force you to say it against your convictions. It's not an attack unless I say it right before punching you in the face.
Science doesn't need to prove or disprove religion and more importantly it currently can not. My point was that you can't pretend science supports your belief (or disbelief) any more then it supports mine. You can't let your ego be confused with science. You believe you are right. You believe the religious are wrong. You have no facts that can disprove the primary concepts of religion but you "feel" that religious concepts do not exist. This is not science. This is not something you can prove or disprove. It'd be called faith but you probably find flaw in that word.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakFeb 6, 2012
"There's a modern belief amongst atheists that they are proven correct by science when nothing in science can disprove religious concepts fundamentally."
That depends on what specific religions concepts you are talking about. A large portion of the bible can be disproven. 5 billion year old Earth, dinosaurs, the flood, etc. The only way religion can still stand up to science is by redefining itself, saying that it is all allegorical, and that god is a space alien that lives outside of the walls of our reality and therefore can never be detected by any means.
"Energy never dies"
But energy patterns die - degrade, dissipate, etc. You are not just energy - you are a very distinct energy pattern. If somebody gives you a lobotomy by scrambling around your brains and therefore changing the energy pattern, you change fundamentally.
"we all came from one singularity"
You mean the big bang? What does that have to do with anything?
"other such theories generally support the basic concepts needed for religion"
No. They really don't. The only way that works is again, if you redefine religion.
"There's no reason to discount science or religion as they can co-exist."
Some forms of religion can coexist with science. Evangelical religions cannot, since they believe that the bible is literally what happened. Most religions (except for the most vague and abstract ones) cannot really coexist either.
tribbledotFeb 5, 2012
You would be rude. They aren't convincing you with this statement and most don't even mean it religiously but you would choose to insult them and possibly their faith just to let them know that you don't believe in the same things they believe in? The problem here would be you not them. It would cause debate and then end at worse in name calling. You aren't being discriminated against though, the problem would be that you are an arrogant person with no sense of common decency.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
breadfredFeb 5, 2012
My point deludes you. Why say it at all? Why not 'have a nice day' which btw also irritates the crap out of me because it is usually said which such a vigorously false smile it makes my teeth hurt, or 'Enjoy the rest of your weekend' or something along those lines? Keep religion in the church.
ultimisFeb 6, 2012
Because it is more sincere as it is a part of their belief system. Have a nice day is generic (which you've already pointed out).
Now you could be funny and say something like "Odin be with you". Though unless you actually believe in Odin you would be just poking fun at someone who was hoping that life would treat you well.
The_SovereignFeb 6, 2012
It's hard not to mock ridiculous ideas when they are taken so seriously by so many morons.
The_SovereignFeb 6, 2012
+1 for "my point deludes you".
sbuckley00Feb 5, 2012
That statement in itself is a religious one. So even if they did not mean it religious, that is exactly what they said. The problem here is your lack of understanding of just how widespread this issue actually is. It is quite annoying to here the word God all the time from people. That statement is one of the worst and by him having to keep silent about it, is one example of how atheists keep in the closet about it. So, one again you proved the article as correct and showed your ignorance for this reality.
tribbledotFeb 6, 2012
If saying things to you is discrimination then good luck with the rest of your life. My issue is that you think this statement harms you in some real way when it is not even derogatory. The problem here is still you. It's not because you are an atheist though. You should examine your real problems with a professional though.
ultimisFeb 6, 2012
It's a sincere statement from the heart (as it's a part of their belief system).
Why do you care if they believe in God, luck, or String Theory? None of that matters, if they refer to it or to some other culture reference there is no need to be offended. Take it as they meant it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The_SovereignFeb 6, 2012
I will take it at face value. It is mindless and noisy and pointless and serves as a reminder of someone's inferiority.
ultimisFeb 6, 2012
I'm agnostic, but I still see how offensive your statement is. How about you say nothing? What you were saying is negative. Do you understand that? Say for instance a friend of yours has a child who is in terminal care for some major health reason. Your friend has the hope the child will survive, your comment would be like "Your kid is likely going to die". It's a disgusting statement, and the sooner you realize this, the sooner you realize why people are offended by your presence.
I have openly told many religious people that I'm agnostic and have never once been discriminated against.
"God bless you"
Or you could interpret it like another language? When they say "God bless you" you could interpret it as "The best of luck". Instead you have a stick up your ass and cause conflict where none is needed. A person saying that is wishing good events on you, it's rather disgusting that you can't even take the support where it is given since you don't share their beliefs.
This is generally why I take the position that atheists are bigots by their very nature. I've yet to meet one who is not. The entire premise of your belief system is that another belief system is invalid. Without the existence of that other belief system you would have nothing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The_SovereignFeb 6, 2012
Wishing good events on me? I was under the impression they were spouting mindless catechisms out of habit, especially when muttered almost silently, as if to say, "I"m only saying this because God is listening, but f**k you."
"Bless you" vocalized is a sign of a weak or deceptive mind.
tribbledotFeb 6, 2012
and here is your typical "digg atheist". The weak and deceptive minds have been fooled into believing in purpose? It's so stupid to think that life is anything but a solution to the wormfood supply shortage? I will tout my disbelief as superior and proof of my stronger mind? I am bitter and have nothing to add to this conversation so I will spout nonsense about how I'm superior to most?
It's not that you're an atheist, You are an ass. You are not smarter because you choose not to believe in things you don't understand and there is a lot I'm sure you don't understand. You can be an atheist without being an egomaniac with a complex.
The_SovereignFeb 6, 2012
You seem to have a lot of angry questions. Why don't you ask god? He's always open.
Holy s**t you are dumb as hell. I'm sorry, I'm not even going to try to beat you at your own game. Your "personal observations" are worthless, FYI.
tribbledotFeb 6, 2012
ok.
ultimisFeb 8, 2012
There is tone and context. But yes "God bless you" could mean "f**k off". Assuming they're not using it in that way, you're just being a douche-bag to attack them for their choice of words/beliefs.
anglosaxongalFeb 5, 2012
Really? Where did she get a 'child'? Buy it? If so, she deserves to go to prison. That IS IMMORAL to buy and sell human beings.
theswashbucklerFeb 5, 2012
wow, need some more straw for that strawman you built?