Nothing. The first sentence in the response talks about critical thinking, then the comment degrades into canned ignorance. This is a fine example of the bigotry and backwards logic that accompanies a typical 'atheist'.
The best way to prevent your child from being an atheist is to let them mature into an adult, past the stage of wanting to rebel against everything. Most rational people will come to understand that our reality is much greater than what our obviously limited perception is capable of revealing. Of course, along with this comes the good sense to avoid bigots like the author of this best answer.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Hmm, i still have not heard a good reason to believe in a god. I know there are 1000s of gods that have been claimed to exist, so you would think at least a few of the followers would be able to put forth a good reason for one of them. Instead, I hear ppl like you asking for proof from the atheists that no god exists. What use is that? You make an extraordinary claim such as 'my god Zeus is real' and then back that up by asking me to prove your god (which ever it may be) is false? How many gods would you like me to disprove? What does this have to do with why people should believe in any of these gods?
If I were to break the news to you that I am your god, I created you and you should worship me, when you ask me to prove my claim I can simply retort quite truthful that you cannot disprove it. Until you do does that mean our positions are on equal footing? Do you find yourself at all convinced by my stupid argument? I would assume not, yet it is the argument you are employing here.
gods came about to explain things early man could not understand. 'knowing' someone is out there watching over you, helps you sleep at night? 'knowing' that after you die, which is super scary and journey you go on alone, that you reach a magical heaven helps even more to sleep at night.
we as society have evolved passed the 'need' for a god in this sense.
now, answer my question as i asked it first, where is the proof of a god? people only hear about gods from the generation before them.
The idea of a 'god' is a created idea. So it is not for the atheist to explain why god doesn't exist, it is for the theist to explain why he does exist.
If I told you I was visited by three gods: zeus, charlie and alina. Would it be up to you to prove they don't exist?? Go ahead, prove those 3 gods do not exist.
"Please explain why god doesn't exist, without using your blind faith."
The bible says god is omnipotent, and omniscient, yet are "design" is horribly flawed. We have mistakes so bad that if any omniscient being made us, he let his retarded cousin design a few parts.
Faith and Logic are opposites so you can never explain one with the other. Its a mute point we should all just get over it. If you want to have faith, fine, logic also fine. We actually need the balance of both to properly function. I Personally am not an atheist or religious or anything.
I figure ill find out whats there when It's time to die.
The main purpose i think of faith; it gives us is some sort of ethical boundary. Wile I am not religious in any aspect I can respect some of the ethics that as a society it has confined us to. Obviously where the lines get blurred is when people are hypocritical and 'sin' within their brand of religion to protest another (Rarely is it truly over religion though and not money land or some other asset). Logic is needed for progression / Faith is needed for us to sit back think and ask where we would morally like to (as a whole) progress to.
It is my opinion that Religion has rarely killed people, usually you will find a logical man/system using religion as a weapon. Not religion in its true undiluted sense. If you met a truly religious person (hard to come by and could be of any faith) you would probably appreciate the level of love, caring, and acceptance they have, something which is one of the hardest things for people to cultivate and well worth respecting.
I don't think we need faith to be moral creatures. I hate that argument, that with out god, we'd be heathens....That was what the missionaries reasoning was when converting Native North and South Americans.
To me, religion serves the purpose of explaining the fundamental question all humans face, why are we here/where did we come from?
Before science and logic, societies all over the world tried explaining these questions and phenomena such as earth quakes and tornadoes through religion.
After a while, religion became a great and powerful tool to control populations. "Do and act as we say or your god will be mad at you, he personally told me and put me in charge." i.e. the pope.
That is a good point. Religion is used as a control method no doubt. But if control is what you are concerned with more than anything I would say money (and our current systems of exploiting each other through excessive usury (actually classed a sin in religious texts)) is used as a control method today. why else do people spend their entire lives working in jobs they hate doing things they find immoral wreck the environment etc.
Its hard to group the full spectrum as a whole because I know that there are very backwards religious people who stand behind their religion to justify absurd actions (the kind I imagine you think of when debating its absurdity), but there are also people who faith serves as a massive boost to do good in the world, and if it is what they need and they do no harm then what is the problem with that?
If you completely remove our egos from all of it and actually look at what we know scientifically, you don't know what happens when we die. I don't know what happens when we die. none of us do. The Faith vs Science comment I made was along the lines of "there is no point in arguing as they will both always co-exist (they are opposites like hot and cold, darkness and light) and all that ever eventuates from the argument is an ego battle of why I am right and you are wrong topic which can perhaps never be proven (but that's the best part ;))"
The bigotry was started by the OP, not the person who answered. In fact, the question was worded in exactly the same fashion as, "How do I keep my child from growing up fat." This person wants to keep their child from growing up to be something "bad."
So the answer responded in kind. He told the person how to create a child that is exactly like them (we're assuming but I think it's probably an accurate assumption considering their question). This is how you create someone who is closed minded and feels that such a simple view point as believing there is no God can be bad enough to try and teach your children to not be that.
I have nothing against religion. I only have something against haters. My best man is religious. But in his church, his father wasn't allowed to attend his own daughter's wedding because he wasn't of that religion. Needless to say, my friend is no longer a part of that religion, he simply believes there's something out there.
I have no respect for the type of person who would do something like that. And Atheists have the same thing, it's not exclusive to the religious. I can't respect somebody who would not allow the attendance of someone because they were religious. I think the value of a person isn't in how he sees things but how he sees others.
And before you start getting into hypotheticals and semantics on me, let's consider for a moment that this is likely a fake post.
i think what is being done here is correlation confused with causation. most people that i know (lived: oklahoma, 20+ years, texas, 2+) that do believe blindly in god fit this description almost exactly.
it does SEEM to be the formula to cause belief in Yahweh... but it may not prove to be causational.
but, it is VERY highly correlational, if my experiences mean anything (as in, THOUSANDS of experiences)
ALL religious people will force their belief on their children, in one way or another. It's very naive to think religious people won't follow the very doctrine they practice, that tells them to "spread the word" (translation: try to convince others that you're right).
Sorry, not true... Raised by religious parents. Not told what to think or believe. Given Bible, Bhagavad Gita , Quran, Analects of Confucius,... complete works of Niche, even the full version of Marx's Capital. Not told which one or any to read. Just got them available, at hand, at mind's reach. Ended up scientist and engineer... AND a believing person - for my own opinions and reasons. Common occurrence where I came from.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Faith and Logic are opposites so you can never explain one with the other. Its a mute point we should all just get over it. If you want to have faith, fine, logic also fine. We actually need the balance of both to properly function. I Personally am not an atheist or religious or anything.
I figure ill find out whats there when It's time to die.
You wouldn't? Well, if you want to keep your kids illiterate, I suppose that's your business, but you might find it difficult and not terribly rewarding.
All I know is I sure wouldn't want to teach my kids a bunch of lies and superstition from thousands of years ago, unless I make sure that they understand there is no distinction between religious myth and other fairy tales.
I bought an amazing book about all the religions of the world. When my kids ask religious questions, and they do, e open the book and read about the religion and discuss it. I present it as "this is what Christians/Muslims/Jews/Buddhists believe". Sometimes the result is a simple head nod and sometimes it results in further discussion. One thing I never do is demean the religion, just present the facts and listen to responses while always treating the beliefs with neither admiration or criticism.
Having met, known, and was once a religious. I agree to the demean everyone's 'views' of spiritual beliefs.
But I certainly know, starting off a conversation with someone by demeaning their views because I feel like my answers are more 'right' than their beliefs. I cannot do. The best way at cooperation is to seeing the good side of the conversation, and relate.
This very thinking applies to just about everything, especially in 'sales'. You sell something to a customer, the next day they come to bring it back. (You happen to be working when they return the product, unlike many who return the product to a different location to avoid the 'awkwardness'.) Customer tells you, they don't like the product or 'somethings wrong with it'. Normally just to avoid argument you would just take back the product (whatever condition the customer put it in, I've had s**t where the package was destroyed but the package was designed to be open easily) But on many occasions, I ask the customer questions as to why they didn't like the product, and why the return. Doesn't matter the excuse, it matters how you handle the next sentence. Instead of losing a sale, you offer condolences. Accept the excuse, and work towards a solution. Some of my past customers actually only needed some walk-through steps on how to operate their new product. Once that task was done, the sale was saved, and the customer actually trusts me because I offered insight, and provided an acceptable answer for them.
At this point I turned a customer from I'm pissed and won't listen to anything your going to sale me, into a customer that "Oh, thats what I'm supposed to do..." These people usually listen up to anything else you have to say afterwards.
But your right, in Religion, you can't educate the ignorant. No matter how many facts, 'proofs' or evidence you bring to someone unwilling to accept any different answer than what they have already cemented themselves into. You just can't win a argument with those types of people. You can only defend yourself from what they will accuse you or attack you with. "Atheists are filthy whores!"... No matter what you provide as examples of 'non-whores', their opinion will always seem correct because the 'faith' aspect of their decisions made their choice for them.
That's because you're a bigot. It doesn't necessarily mean that you're a bad person, just that you are ignorant about some things. Open your mind and try to let go of your fear and hatred. Then maybe we can all learn to live together in peace.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
What if someone believed the earth was flat and that Pixies are their lord and savior? Would he still be a bigot for demeaning them, or does that just apply to people that demean your religion?
Would you also agree that more people need to open their mind and get rid of their fear and hatred of flat earth and Pixie beliefs?
God beliefs are no different from these. Yes, you should open your mind, open your mind to what we have learned in the 2000 years since this book was written by the above mentioned bronze age sheepherders. Reality is much more interesting and fun than beliefs in imaginary beings.
Clothing is important to adapt to different weathers. Literacy is important to communicate and learn ideas, just like talking. Walking is important for dislocation, just like crawling.
What is religion important for? What is it providing to the child, that nothing else could?
Creation of a larger "tribe" they can belong to, beyond the immediate 150 folks in their monkey-sphere? There's probably an evolutionary advantage to being part of a creed and presumably being able to drawn on a larger social network than those who go their own way.
Probably fairly useful when we were all in huts and subject to the whim of bad seasons. Some people long for that past.
so, therefore: the schizophrenic heroin addict on the streets that says they were "annointed by jesus/god/et al" and lives to be 29 years old is WAY better off than Bill Gates....
All children taste the ragu of his holy meatballs before they ever hear the words of false gods. May the sauce of his ingredients warm your palette with spices and herbs of love and knowledge. (yummy 2:32)
Blessed be all of our children for they all lay there heads at the bossom of the flying spaghetti monster early after birth. Delivered from his holiness authorized sources of goodieness, beech-nut and Gerber baby food deliver his sauce, and thus his love.
actually children are born without any knowledge or concept of God or no-God whatsoever. If the parents never speak of God or tell them there is no God, they will believe it. If the child grows up in Church, they will believe that instead. Atheists say "there is no god". Christians say "there is God". We are all products of our environment.
I shall spread this word of this holy scripture on the authorized holy medium of Facebook. It is originated surely from his meatballsness. Flying spaghetti monster's holy sauce shall wash away thou sin with words of wisdom and ragu. Blessed be the noodley appendages. Amen.
Let he who is without sin toss the first meatball. For the day of reckoning is nigh. Those who do not believe will be forced into submission and banished into oblivion and shallest endure frozen dinners of fish sticks and freezer burned French fries. For these are the words of our lord.
Oh you unbeliever, may your water never come to a boil.
Starve you heathen. Starve! Now let us pray.
Our saucer which art in a colander, draining be Your noodles. Thy noodle come, Thy meatballness be done on earth, as it is meaty in heaven. Give us this day our daily sauce, and forgive us our lack of piracy, as we pirate and smuggle against those who lack piracy with us. And lead us not into vegetarianism, but deliver us from non-red meat sauce. For thine is the colander, the noodle, and the sauce, forever and ever. R'Amen.
And wrong. Critical thinking does not lead the Atheism. It would lead to what I am. Being an Agnostic. I became a Atheist as teen and into my early 20's after being punished by the nuns in Sunday school for daring to question some of the glaring dogmatic contradictions they were asking me to swallow. Only later after I decided to take a closer look at the whole religion/spirituality issue did I see my Atheism as just as false and flawed as Theism. Atheism and Theism are 2 sides of the same faith based coin. The only intellectually honest position on this subject is the Agnostic position.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Small correction - the only intellectually honest position is agnosticism bordering on atheism, since there is ample proof that virtually every testable fact in the bible is wrong. There is just as much reason to believe in magical space fairies as in god.
"the only intellectually honest position is agnosticism bordering on atheism"
Wrong. Atheists focus on the unimportant Dogma and use this as proof to claim the root of the religion is false. The Agnostic concerns himself with the actual root belief of a religion. Take Christianity. They basically believe some omnipotent being which resides outside of our physical reality created the universe and passes judgement on each of us upon our passing. There is no way to test to prove or disprove this belief. It lies well beyond the ability of our science to examine and test. So we say, and correctly, that there is no way to KNOW either way. The Atheists claims knowledge where the is none. Their claim is based 100% on faith.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
No, agnostics do NOT believe that a god exists, they believe that one cannot know whether or not a god exists and choose to lead their lives through an internal common sense moral compass that lets them know the difference between right and wrong without having to worry about eternal damnation.
We also believe that Atheists are every bit as wrong as Theists because Atheists claim to know something which is unknowable. They simply believe that god doesn't, nor can, exist with every bit as much proof as Theists who believe the opposite.
Just to be clear, agnosticism comes from the greek work knosos which means knowledge. the prefix means without. It really can't be any clearer then that.
"We also believe that Atheists are every bit as wrong as Theists because Atheists claim to know something which is unknowable. They simply believe that god doesn't, nor can, exist with every bit as much proof as Theists who believe the opposite."
Exept that what you're describing isn't atheism. It isn't a claim of absolute knowledge, it's an absense of belief. That's it.
Agnostic, on the other hand, is basically a cop-out for those who aren't willing to throw out irrational belief altogether. If I told you there was an invisible (cloaked) space-station left over from the alien race that seeded life on Earth orbiting just behind the Moon . . . . would you be "agnostic" about it given your inability to disprove my statement with absolute certainty? Are you "agnostic" about Leprechans, Fairies, Mermaids, Sea Monsters and Werewolves?
There's no need to hedge your bets with "agnotic," since atheism makes no claim of certainty. I'm equally "atheist" about all those examples I just gave you . . . but that no way implies I wouldn't immediately change my position tomorrow if evidence were presented that made it clear I was wrong.
Yeah, I think I'm pretty much an agnostic. I think that religion only ever got people killed or turned them into killers. Religion is a breeding gound for intolerance and ignorance, not to mention being a great hiding place for Paedos!
As a Deist who is non religious I find your statement to be to extreme. Religion has done many positive things for many people or they wouldn't have turned to a faith in the first place.
That being said religion has also created monsters, or monsters have used religion as an excuse for their own actions.
1. This dogma is something that many people literally believe actually happened. So it isn't that wrong to not believe that and to use it as proof to claim that these religions are actually, explicitly wrong.
2. Yes, there is no actual proof that a super-powerful space guy did not create everything and everyone. There is also no actual proof that a little magical pixies aren't secretly running on treadmills inside the sun in order to power it. Both are equally valid or invalid based on evidence. There is no way to KNOW that magical pixies are not in charge of the sun.
Therefore, we do know that most of what most religions explicitly teach is false. Which is why I said agnosticism bordering on atheism. We don't know 100% that god doesn't exist, but everything we do know points to evidence that he doesn't. Which is why I said "agnosticism" and not actual atheism.
1. Proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that Moses never parted the Red Sea would not go far toward disproving the existence of a god. Water into wine? Who cares. Virgins when you die? Whatever. The argument is over "god or no god."
2. There is also no actual proof that the people we perceive around us are actually real instead of just figments of our imagination -- the whole world being invented by our own subconscious. "Both are equally valid or invalid based on evidence." Whatever that means.
3. Atheism is not "all religions are wrong about something." Atheism is "god does not exist."
"everything we do know points to evidence that [god] doesn't [exist]."
And what evidence would that be? If you have evidence that there is not, and has never been, a power greater than our own, please bring it forward.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING WALL OF TEXT CONTAINS VERY ANALYTICAL THINKING PROCESSES.
IT IS NOT FOR THE POORLY-EDUCATED OR NON-INTELLECTUAL TYPES.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
actually, only pantheism seems impossible to disprove (with my current understanding of the words and concepts at play). all you have to do is prove that a certain belief is wrong. most everything but pantheism talks about an INTERACTION between this "other-worldly area" and the "real world". that claim is easily proven to be false when given context.
person a: "renouncing belief in god will get you smitten by god"
person b: "I renounce belief in god"
nothing happens
person a: "it seems as though my paradigm involving god in the way i stated it is erroneous."
person b: "yep."
really, the bible is just a book. paper, ink, et al. however, when interpreted and turned into rhetoric or when DEFINED (the bible is the DIRECT word of god, then, just disprove one part as it comes, bit-by-bit.
statements can only be made one-at-a-time. they can be EASILY TESTED FOR VALIDITY one-at-a-time as well.
science is composed of experiments, not abstract concepts. you are thinking PHILOSOPHY when you are talking about subjective experiences and rhetorical back-and-forth using the english language to express abstract ideals that seem in opposition to one another.
------when someone says "there is a god":
from the stand-point of a scientist, that is then taken INTO CONTEXT then proven or disproven.
"there is a god" lacks meaning when taken without further information that provides the context needed to create an experiment [science is observation-based, not language-based, even though said observations CAN be described USING language(s).] When given context, "there is a god" then becomes testable. (ie: "there is a god named yahweh he is the ruler of all, and wrote the bible and it's all 100% correct[...]")
when someone says "there is a god" it's just a case of not providing enough information.
when i say "what is purple divided by orange?" it's just plain jibberish, until i explain that i meant the rgb color code for each. until it is defined that way, it's just nonsense. so, if the color-code for purple is 4 and orange is 2... the answer is 2.
it would be like if i made up a language and said something, then said "see, you can't disprove it!"
well of course you can't... it didn't make sense to the recipient to begin with.
saying "you can't prove there isn't a god with science" is like saying "you can't divide purple by orange with math"
of course you can't... until context is provided and the statement is made into a testable experiment.
that's like saying "nobody can ever know my name"
then saying "my name is" and stopping there. well, it's not that we CANT know your name, it's just that you didn't give us enough information to determine the validity of the statement... YET. "you can't know my name"... at least not yet. every passing second the we don't know, makes the statement true. all it takes is one guess to be right and you are false. until that moment in which someone guesses the correct answer/name, the statement "you can't know my name" is seen as true. then, once someone guesses the CORRECT NAME, from that moment onward, the statement made by said individual "you can't know my name" is now PROVEN TO BE FALSE.
science is an evolving process... some things change slowly. some quickly. some might NEVER change. but, that is YET TO BE DETERMINED.
science doesn't want you to have "closure" on a specific "issue"... it's just a process of hypothesis, experiment, results, and then analysis of said results with the previous observations taken into context with the new results.
what you guys are doing is philosophizing... what you AREN'T doing is having a legitimate discussion about yahweh as referenced to the english translation of the holy bible as a composite of books from the old and new testament(s) and how the statements therein maintain their accuracy when tested using the scientific method (PS: THAT'S WHAT SCIENCE IS)
philosophizing usually seems--to me, at least--to just be an excuse to argue and not have any sort of real-world goal that can be seen as "useful". ie: "wasting time" "shooting the breeze" et al.
philosophizing about yahweh on digg = bad idea.
creating tests that attempt to prove and/or disprove the validity of the claims of the proponents of christianity = GREAT IDEA
have fun wasting your time, my digg brethren!
or don't... that's the great thing about freedoms in the affluent west... you are free to do a great number of things! :D enjoy your rights to use time however you please! even if PragPsych thinks it's wasteful! :)
Atheism (literally, without God) is simply a paradigm for understanding the universe that does not incorporate supernatural explanations. Agnostics lack the courage of conviction.
This is a basic lack of fundamental reasoning skills that many atheists suffer from. Agnostics lack the courage of conviction? Agnostics don't have conviction one way or the other on the matter of theism, by definition. A "strong" atheist claims to know that there is no God. This is also known as intellectual cowardice. The "strong" atheist has a lot in common with "strong" believers. Namely, closed-mindedness.
I believe in God because I've had religious experiences, whether or not the experiences are rational or irrational doesn't negate the truth of them having happened.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I'm sorry but you're misleading everyone with your usage of the word agnostic. Agnosticism is separated categorically thusly: Agnostic theist, or agnostic atheist. You have to lean one way or the other if you have ANY doubts to either position, otherwise you're a gnostic atheist, or a gnostic theist, also known as strong atheism or theism.
You're still either an atheist or a theist. If you're an agnostic atheist, one who doesn't believe that a god exists, but leaves open the possibility, that's one thing, but claiming that agnositics are different from atheists just shows you're either wilfully or ignorantly misusing the term "agnostic".
Claiming to be an atheist is nothing more than showing doubt that a god exists or being able to say "I don't know.". Claiming to be a gnostic or strong atheist, is being entirely closed minded as to the existence of any god in any form. Which in my mind is a bad position, as you state.
Please do us all a favor though and use the term correctly.
Why is everyone so concerned with labeling themselves? I have my own complicated view of theology, faith, god, the universe.
The atheist camp says 'no way" it cannot be proven with science so it does not exist. The universe and our understanding of it are always changing and for the most part, we are making very educated guesses at its laws. I think I recently read that we do not know where the voyager(?) probe is because there is a possibility we do not fully understand gravity. The speed of light was just broken, etc.
I find it egotistical to think that one can claim to know everything and/or nothing.
I do not believe in God as defined throughout my childhood. This is the same God atheists do not believe in, but what is God? A particular definition is ingrained in our thoughts and that is what we either deny or accept.
I do not follow any religion or God as I know it but, last week one of the oldest trees in the world burned down less than a mile from my house. I felt, and still feel an odd imbalance in something. Not sure what it is because I have not felt this sensation before. Maybe it is just psychosomatic or maybe some energy force was disrupted - I do not know and do not claim to know.
"You're still either an atheist or a theist"
No, I am a thinking human who can change my mind and definition of myself at anytime. I do not believe in the definition of "God" as I have learned it, but I do not dismiss any possibilities. How is that labeled?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
That's exactly how my proclaimed athiest brother debates his point: You either believe or you don't. He simply cannot comprehend that there are people inbetween camps or that we as humans often change our minds for a myriad of reasons, rational or otherwise.
We all have a form of faith whether it be in god, god's nonexistence, or something a little more immediate like faith in a happy future for one's children or loved ones. We wouldn't be alive without faith in ourselves or humanity as a whole. Faith is will to live whether or not you partake in religion.
Theism = faith, Atheism = faith, any sort of expectation of a future mere seconds from this moment = faith.
I have faith that as soon as I post this comment it will forever exist in binary somewhere out there on some server, accessible or not. Yeah, it's a debatable faith, but a faith nonetheless.
Proclaiming yourself as something also shows a need for acceptance. Proclaimed atheists, just like proclaimed Christians, etc like the acceptance of a group. Be an atheist, just don't proselytize it as it shows your insecurities or need to fit in somewhere.
It's you who are compartmentalizing people. That's why you see yourself as "between camps" which I'll bet your milquetoast personality has chosen as a strategy for minimizing confrontation. There are no camps to be between.
You don't understand what anyone here means by atheist when they say it and you seem incapable of listening as they repeat it around you constantly.
There are no camps. You're not in between anything. There is a phenomenon in the human race that encompasses a majority of the world's population which claims various flavors of divine knowledge and organizes various forms of authoritative controls based on that knowledge.
One either believes these (or one of these) claims are actually divine or they don't. After that you're just a person thinking about philosophy and s**t. It's a billion little camps. And seriously, no one really cares about yours. We do however care when you mischaracterize ours.
You club or camp wants to ridicule and belittle anyone that believes differently from you - look at you comment as proof. I completely understand what "understand what anyone here means by atheist", just not sure if you all do.
Believe what you want privately, keep it out of schools and politics and all is fine. I will fight back when religion tries to make its way into the public sector (Ron Paul and all the republican candidates) and I will fight back when non-religion belittles quite people of private faith.
IMO, the atheist movement should be purely reactionary, but the new atheist movement feels the need to proselytize as much as the evangelicals. There can be degrees of everything - it is not all black and white.
Save, what club? There's no club. All this nitpicking over atheist vs agnostic between people who've rejected organized religion is foolish. That's all I'm saying. Nothing you said counters any of that.
FYI my first post below wasn't to you, but to that other guy who I don't have much respect for.
See I don't get why you think you should be considered something different. I just call you an atheist. That doesn't necessarily rule out spirituality or "god"-like forces or even an intelligent creator. It should rule out considering forms of those things that don't fit with what we know of the nature of the universe. Many atheists will consider these things once you've removed the religion and claims of knowledge. Once we've decided we don't believe that a specific book is divinely written and contains actual knowledge and demands of God, we're just people thinking abstractly.
But the point is, whether or to what extent you consider more supernatural things in your new-found freedom to search for actual philosophical, spiritual and moral truths is not a majorly significant thing. It doesn't require a new label. You don't need to fend off "atheists" from the "agnostic" label and try to carve it out for yourself.
I think you're over-focusing on philosophical and stylistic differences. What you think of as a major difference in basic belief structure between you and me, I don't think is. It is mainly just the fact that I'm kind of an assh**e sometimes, and I'm more interested in challenging the beliefs of others than you are (on like a hobby level). And you're really really really under-focusing on the absolutely profound thing that we can agree on: that these books aren't divine and no one has real knowledge of the divine, even though, horrifyingly, a majority of the 7,000,000,000 people on this planet think they do and many think of little else.
Your assertions that atheists as a group claim knowledge of any kind is simply not true. Individual people may do so here and there, but people do lots of things and many of them are stupid.
I think there's one big difference between the conclusions we've drawn though. I actually think the gnostic, "this book is Truth", kind of religion is dangerous. You seem to think it's benign, and you give it cover, perhaps without even realizing it. My theory is that you have a set of imaginations (which can be very useful - most actually new scientific understanding starts from these) about the nature of things, which you've come to humbly and with the acceptance of uncertainty and it lets you think that real religious people think like that too. They do not.
Thanks for the well thought out and extremely insightful response.
I have always felt the need to "cover" or protect and I tend to play a bit of devil's advocate when I see a group piling on. I do not agree with the religious, but I also do not agree with the forceful proactive assault from the atheist on a personal level.
I do support broader general attacks on religion as a whole, but do not like when an individual is attacked for their beliefs, (unless they start preaching, then it is on). I think certain people really need religion in their lives and most that have it, have had it since birth. From the day they were born, God and religion have been ingrained into their persona and that is hard to break. Abstract thought is not an option with religion (I was there).
Not everyone has the ability or desire to think abstractly about religion and I do not fault them for their physiology or past brainwashing. If I cannot have an intelligent and civil debate, then I move on. The more someone is insulted and backed into a corner, the stronger their convictions become. The education of the religious needs to come in small bits versus viscous assaults that do nothing but reinforce a flawed belief system.
Again, your insight is amazing and I appreciate the intelligent response.
Thanks. Same to you. It's nice to have a real conversation. I actually think you're more right than me in terms of style. I know that it's not really productive to be antagonistic with religious people. It is more fun though. Have a good day!
No you don't have to lean one way or the other. It is entirely possible to simply say "I don't know" and be open to either equally. Personally, I am a gnostic theist, however I hold the exact same type of position in relation to many dogmas and areas left open to interpretation where I make no claim of ability to decide either way and couldn't offer a best guess, nor would I, but rather simply pursue all sides I can see looking for something that will make one of them make more sense.
Atheism and agnosticism are the same thing. They are a difference that makes no difference. I used to be agnostic and decided to stop with the silliness and just call myself what I am -- an atheist. Atheists already understand and incorporate what agnostics claim to believe. It's already obvious.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Agnosticism (n) a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God
≠
Atheism (n) The theory or belief that God does not exist.
"Proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that Moses never parted the Red Sea would not go far toward disproving the existence of a god."
True - but it does completely disprove the version of god as defined by the literal religions - like born again evangelicals. That's a pretty good start.
"There is also no actual proof that the people we perceive around us are actually real instead of just figments of our imagination -- the whole world being invented by our own subconscious."
True - a very old idea, goes back to ancient Greece. So what? I don't see what this has to do with the discussion at hand.
"And what evidence would that be? If you have evidence that there is not, and has never been, a power greater than our own, please bring it forward."
It depends on your definition of god. If you take the ultra-vague modern interpretation of "something somewhere out there we don't know where, that has some supreme power over everything or something" then of course there is no such proof. But if we talk about most specific definitions, then there is plenty of proof, not to mention the logical idiocy of the concept of a bearded man in the sky that cares about what you do.
"So what? I don't see what this has to do with the discussion at hand."
It's just another example of things that are unknown. If you hold to one truth, it's called belief. Not all beliefs are equal, however. Believing that fairies power the sun is not the same as believing in the existence or non-existence of a god, just as none of those are the same as believing are world is real.
As you've been told, doubting dogma does not equate to disproving the existence of a god. The official views of the Catholic Church are not held by all Catholics, but creating a new religion because you think your god's hair is blond instead of white doesn't make sense. If you want to visit billions of people and disprove something in each person's individual religion, then good luck. When you get to people whose beliefs consist entirely of a creator of life, let me know what you tell them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
very well said. you can only disprove one thing at a time as stated by well-defined rhetoric when referenced objectively, as far as science goes.
i'm a scientist, so i don't really know much about the rest of the world's beliefs... nor do i know much about the rest of the scientist's beliefs.
i have read things about polls and whatnot... but i know how flawed those can be and brush them off as "worry about it later" sort of things. i have REAL things to worry about first.
business ventures, scientific experiments... things like that.
after i finish with that, THEN i'll worry about some poll that asked a certain number of people at certain times whether they were scientists or not and if they pray to a personal god and do they say they are a christian blah blah blah.... stuff like that is relatively low priority to a self-proclaimed hardcore scientist such as myself.
"Believing that fairies power the sun is not the same as believing in the existence or non-existence of a god, just as none of those are the same as believing are world is real."
You lost me. Those are different beliefs with different implications. So? I still don't see your point, or what it has with this discussion.
"As you've been told, doubting dogma does not equate to disproving the existence of a god."
Not doubting - disproving. And it's disproving a version of god. A very prevalent version that a great many people believe. Billions. Disprove the flood and creation of man without evolution, and you disprove a god of a couple of billion people. Pretty good bang for the buck.
"If you want to visit billions of people and disprove something in each person's individual religion, then good luck."
??? Why would I want to visit them? And as I said, billions of people believe a few standard things that are quite easy to disprove.
"When you get to people whose beliefs consist entirely of a creator of life, let me know what you tell them."
Define "creator of life". Creator of biochemical molecules? Creator of the first cells? Creator of all individual humans?
Perhaps I misunderstood your point #2. You said there's no proof that god doesn't exist, just like there's no proof that pixies aren't in charge of the sun. "Both are equally valid or invalid based on evidence." I'm incredibly unsure of what you meant by that, in particular. I took it as conflating those two ideas, depicting theists as people who will believe in anything at all.
"...disproving. And it's disproving a version of god. ... Disprove the flood and creation of man without evolution, and you disprove a god of a couple of billion people."
In order to disprove man without evolution, you must PROVE EVOLUTION. So, please present irrefutable proof of the progression from a single cell to today's humans. Once that's done, at least half the people whose gods you just disproved will adapt their beliefs to include evolution AND god. Because their religion isn't based on knowledge, it's based on belief. So, attack dogma all you want, but it gets you nothing but scorn.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fitzall77, We see the progression of a single cell to a human every day. Actually, two cells but the growth of not only a human but all organisms start that way. In addition we have DNA evidence beyond the fossils, examples in viruses, experiments and many other supporting evidence of evolution in progress and examples. You really need to learn a bit more.
@inajeep
I'm sorry, but reproduction is not a proof of evolution. Furthermore, examples are not proof, experiments are not proof, and supporting evidence is not proof.
I'm not rejecting the idea of evolution; quite the opposite: I COITBOE evolution. However, insisting that everything we "know" is proven is incredibly disingenuous.
i would say the "creator" of life is a null and void concept because as far as what is believed in the scientific community, the word "creator" actually implies a form of life (life seems to always coincide with being a sentient being, as in with an active conscious, and/or purposeful action-based directives, et al) to exist before it created... itself?
again, it's just another question that by nature is nonsense.
i'll answer your question that is along the lines of "who created life" to YOUR satisfaction after you answer my question of "what is cheese multiplied by iron" to MY satisfaction.
"I took it as conflating those two ideas, depicting theists as people who will believe in anything at all."
Not at all - I am saying that from the perspective of evidence and logic both have the same amount of evidence behind them. And therefore logically speaking they are equivalent, just like a belief that nothing is real.
"So, please present irrefutable proof of the progression from a single cell to today's humans."
It depends on what exactly you mean by proof - there is so much proof for this that it's pretty ridiculous. At some point asking for more proof gets a bit much.
"Once that's done, at least half the people whose gods you just disproved will adapt their beliefs to include evolution AND god."
For now these people are just refusing to believe in evolution. And you are right that even if I could convince them that my view is correct, they would adopt their beliefs. But I would like to think that some of them would start to question things a bit more.
However, I do not plan to start a war on windmills. You can't really convince most people who hold such irrational beliefs - I don't think there is any evidence that exists that could be used to prove evolution to such people. The best you can do is teach their children science, and to be more discerning, and to apply critical thinking and the scientific method to life.
I'm not asking for "more proof". I'm asking for "a proof". I'll give you a hint: Evolution is still a "theory" because there is no start-to-finish proof. Yes, there is incredibly strong evidence, and people are fools to not believe it. But, strictly speaking, there's not proof, which makes it a belief (albeit one based on scientific facts).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
For the record, there are those who are theist, and even Christian, and have absolutely no issue with evolution what-so-ever. There is nothing about either the big bang theory or evolution that is even inconsistent with Biblical creation.
It is however inconsistent with the dogmatic interpretation that many Christians hold to and therefore hits a lot of resistance. It doesn't help any that it is frequently presented as a threat rather than an attempt to educate. I've personally had a lot of success in getting religious people to have a greater appreciation of what we understand about evolution and the origin of the planet from a scientific stance by showing them how it doesn't contradict what is said in the Bible.
The root of the problem is that the majority on neither side has a vested interest in really seeking resolution between the two, but rather see's their side as absolute and unyielding to the other. This isn't healthy or helpful. Science is great at answering what and how, but not why. Religion can answer why and has very broad what's, but very little in terms of how's.
"But, strictly speaking, there's not proof, which makes it a belief (albeit one based on scientific facts)."
Well yes, it depends on how strict you want to be in your definitions of the various terms. I am speaking in general, with rather vague definitions used by most people. Under that definition an overwhelming amount of circumstantial or semi-circumstantial evidence is considered to be proof. Basically beyond any reasonable doubt.
"it depends on how strict you want to be in your definitions ..."
You're the one trying to disrupt entire religions based on contradictions in some minor dogma, so I was thinking we were going with "strict".
Soooo does that mean that the only intellectually honest position on unicorns and fairies is Agnosticism? The only reason anyone would argue such nonsense is because they are still convinced that there is the possibility of such a thing. In reality, there is no more evidence to support the "possibility" for a god than there is for unicorns. Really, there isn't.
Okay, fine. If you want to believe that there exist no planets in the universe (let alone across other dimensions) on which lives (or lived) a horse-shaped animal with a single horn on its head, that's your right.
Your logic is broken. Could there exist a magical horse shaped animal with a horn on it's head on some distant planet, in some distant galaxy? I suppose so. But there is no evidence to suggest that one does. All we have are people with vivid imaginations making s**t up, and no evidence whatsoever.
Could there be a 6 headed purple gorilla with snakes for arms, bat wings and an alligators tail who drinks lava, breathes fire and sleeps upside down in a cave? Sure... Why not. We don't know what's out there. But that doesn't mean we can just make s**t up and pretend like there is a possibility that it actually exists just because someone imagined it.
Sadly, people make s**t up all the time, and gullible people believe every word they say, which is exactly why we have people who believe in magical unicorns, fairies, dragons, ghosts, Peter Pan, the boogie man and gods.
Is there a possibility that any of those things actually exist? Not until you present some fact based, rock solid evidence that they do. Until then, they are nothing more than figments of peoples imaginations, and only a real possibility in the minds of gullible and ignorant people.
"Is there a possibility that any of those things actually exist? Not until you present some fact based, rock solid evidence that they do. "
So until the microscope was invented, microscopic organisms didn't exist. And all the people in history who were killed for their unpopular beliefs that turned out to be true, well, we can just ignore those.
Besides, the existence of a god is not as specific as a 6-headed, lava-drinking, ... gorilla. We know what a gorilla is, so we can speculate on the unlikelihood of its existence in a space-cave (even if we don't have absolute proof it doesn't exist anywhere in the universe (wouldn't Your face be red!)). We don't know what god is, though, and outright denial of its existence is just denial of the limits of human knowledge.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
See, you just proved my point exactly there. The microscopic organisms did exist. The problem was all of the ignorant and gullible people had been told that the body is some sort of magical machine made by a god, and that sickness and disease were magical evil curses. Some people still believe that regardless of the fact that we have irrefutable proof that microbes exist!
The problem was, people were just making s**t up as people do, and the ignorant populace swallowed every drop.
Take into consideration the fact that everything that we know and fully understand today has been proven to have a natural cause. Clouds, rain, snow, earthquakes, volcano's, tsunamis, sun rises, rainbows, stars, etc. etc. All of those things had some sort of magical "explanation" that millions of people believed to be true. Until science came along and put it's boot in their ass.
The point is, why if every "magical" thing in history has been proven to actually have a natural cause so far, do people still cling to the notion that some supernatural being created everything? Why after so many things have been proven to have natural causes, is the default assumption not "There is probably a natural cause"? We have no evidence of anything supernatural existing, and everyone who claims that it exists says that you just have to have "faith". LOL How convenient.
And yes, most gods are described with just as many specifics as the gorilla, and much more. Some describe their gods with physical details such as the Hindu god with an elephants head and 4 arms, etc. Some describe their gods by their rules and mandates, such as Christianity and Islam. There are over 10,000 completely different religions, all with completely different gods, prophecies and stories for creation. And not a single one of them are any more valid than stories of unicorns, fairies and purple, snake armed, six headed space gorillas.
Gods were the first attempt by humans to try to explain the things they didn't understand. But gods were nothing more than made up s**t that gullible people believed. There is no evidence to suggest that any supernatural being exists. None at all. There are only stories and a requirement to have faith, which is in fact evidence in itself that there is no such thing as a god. The very people claiming that gods exist can't even produce a single shred of evidence that their magical, fairy tale , boogieman unicorn actually exists.
So now we have a choice to make. Either we give their insanity credibility by granting them the possibility that the figments of their imagination might actually exist, or we ignore them and write them off as insane people who believe insane things until they can manage to muster up one single shred of proof that their claims are valid without requiring faith.
In the meantime, science has already proven that it is physically and mathematically possible that the universe could have popped into existence without any cause or reason at all. This has been proven through quantum mechanics, not delusional fantasies that require faith.
You seem to have an issue with presenting clarity in your words (something I'm guilty of as well), so I'll try to put it simply.
The question and answer I quoted from you is absolutely wrong. You are requiring proof of something for it to actually exist, which is an historic fallacy. The idea of the existence of bacteria was rejected because there was no proof. Bacteria still existed, but only a handful of people suspected it, while the rest told them they were making stuff up -- inventing their own reasons for the things that were happening.
"...science has already proven that it is physically and mathematically possible that the universe could have popped into existence without any cause or reason at all. "
The key word there is "possible". Without certainty, whether through direct proof or ruling out of all other possibilities, it's also "possible" that that's NOT how it happened. It's incredibly hypocritical of you to have faith in scientific possibilities while rejecting the religious faith of others.
"The point is, why if every "magical" thing in history has been proven to actually have a natural cause so far... Why after so many things have been proven to have natural causes, is the default assumption not "There is probably a natural cause"? "
It makes complete sense that everything humans have proven has been proven to have a natural cause, because those are the only things we can prove. There are, however, many yet unanswered questions, and it's possible that some may never be answered by humans. But once again, we get to the assumptions you're willing to make because of your faith in the idea that our physical reality is the only one.
sorry, but atheism is the best logical conclusion based on a lack of evidence. you may wish to call it 'weak atheism', if you wish, but agnosticism is generally considered not the right word.
if i told you there were scorpions on venus, but gave you little to no evidence of such scorpions, it would naive and foolish to say you are an agnostic regarding such scorpions.
@norman619: While I appreciate your honesty & thoughtfulness in which you express your opinion, I don't think you really understand the distinction that agnostics are essentially a sub-set of atheists. By definition, one dedicated to the notion that "none of us knows for sure what's out there", you're still rejecting a faith-based belief in a deity. It seems a lot like the brand of atheism you consider a "belief" is the brand that is expressed as fact without defense or imposed on an audience unwilling to consider it.
Unless they are they type to believe in a god "just in case", agnostics are essentially just atheists with the humility to admit they could be as wrong as those with completely opposing viewpoints.
Wrong. For any unfortunate people that just read eric's bigoted comment, please go look up the meaning of agnosticism for yourself. This guy is way off.
From wikipedia: ..."agnostic theists (who believe a God exists but do not claim to know that)."... That's me. On the other hand, an agnostic atheist does not believe in God but admits the possibility exists. These are the only two rational positions on the matter.
I'm going to teach my children that when people talk to them about god, its never literal. That when people say "god bless you" they only mean it as "get well soon" or somthing similar. That god is never really watching or intervening but it was just stories that people told to keep them in check.
Not to be a dick but it is strikingly similar to how santa watches kids so they better be good so they don't end up on a naughty list
Well that's the purpose of Santa. Santa is is like the kindergarten of religion, or like those math problems that were algebraic in format to expose kids to algebra before officially introducing them to it (e.g. 5 + BOX = 7).
Since kids are actually smart enough to know that religion is complete bulls**t, you have to expose them to the format of believing in s**t that doesn't exist in a different way. How do you do that? Reward them with presents. This conditions kids early on that belief in invisible things = reward.
It makes it easier to swallow the religion pill when they get older.
I was skimming over all the futile debate on people's religious views shaking my head, and then I can upon this. Out of all the retarded points of view, this one puts the others glory.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Why would that be dickish? I think the similarity is very intentional. Santa is the kid-friendly version of Jesus, and believing that either of them exist is childish behavior that should never happen once you reach the ripe age of 6 - unless you're in special needs class.
You can no more prevent your child from becoming an atheist than you can ensure your child becomes a theist, straight, gay, or a fan of john lennon. I mean you can try, you can push and prod and punish, but you'll only serve to drive your kids away. not saying, just saying.
The words the 'best way' to stop your child from becoming an atheist' implies that there is something wrong about being an atheist. There are many reasons to say that atheism offers a superior life over that of religious people.
I'd agree with you to the point that there's no benefit in attacking religion until or unless those with power use religion to control or influence others, regardless of the right to their own beliefs or lack thereof.
i don't give a s**t about religion. i give a s**t about politicians who want to force their religious beliefs into our lives and laws. i care about people being discriminated against because they are women, or gay, or have darker skin color. i care about presidents ignoring experts and instead relying on their prayers for answers.
Funny how if a religious person makes a broad generalization about another belief it's considered stereotyping. However if a broad generalization is made about a major religion it's OK and funny.
Crack a joke about Wicca, witches, black hats, and dark arts and you get, "How dare you!"
Crack a joke about Christians being unreasonable, overbearing, illogical, and ignorant and it's both funny and acceptable.
You generally don't get that reaction from those who are secure about their belief structure. Those who are secure in their belief structure are usually able to laugh at themselves. You'll find that Christians who are secure in their theology are able to laugh at themselves and their co-believers, as are others who are comfortable and self confident.
There are atheists who are unreasonable, overbearing, illogical and ignorant, just as there are theists who fit that description. That's because, in general, there are people out there who are unreasonable, overbearing, illogical, ignorant, obnoxious asshats and they happen to act out through different sets of belief structures. There are bullies everywhere, and many times their hostility towards those who are different is because of their own insecurity.
Most wiccans I know (or members of any other group) could care less about a joke about their beliefs (profession, ethnicity, etc.) as long as its a joke that isn't actually an attack disguised as a joke. It's like the bully who comes along and insults you in a situation where you're unlikely to fight back and then says, "Hey, I was only joking." If it's a joke where you can all laugh together, that's one thing and it's unlikely to provoke a negative response. You'll usually find the most biting humor is told by members of a group about themselves.
David M is clueless obviously.
I don't care if you don't buy Christianity, but it bothers me when you're making entirely inaccurate and baseless attacks.
True Christianity is pretty much the opposite of everything he wrote. Buried.
@Barry sounds like you don't given enough credit to your subconscious mind; which is able through visual symbols like "the hand" (of God) to get your conscious mind to understand that there is no benefit to harboring resentment.
On one side of the spectrum: Atheist ( closed-minded, often extremely bigoted )
Then we have: Agnostic Atheist ( reasonable, disbelieves that there is an unseen entity observing us due to lack of evidence )
Next: Agnostic Theist ( reasonable, believes in God based on personal evidence, open to the idea that they may be mistaken )
On the other side: Theist ( closed-minded, often extremely bigoted ) These people may actually have personal reasons for thinking they know for a fact that God exists. An Atheist, on the other hand has absolutely no basis for even claiming to know factually that no God exists.
Clearly, strong atheism indicates a personality flaw, rather than a rational way of thinking.
That was a good read, and I must say that it is not untrue.
On the other hand...
How much influence does anyone have over instilling faith in others, including his or her own children? I mean real faith.
My mother was Catholic and I used to go to church and catechism classes. I spoke with the clergy and the Parish Elders, prayed, and read the Bible. I participated in local service projects and raised money for famine relief in Indonesia. I honed my moral character as well as any teenage boy could and had invested a lot into this belief system.
In the back of my head though, I wasn't buying it. I was going through the motions and as much as I didn't want to accept it, I knew I didn't believe. I do not consider it time wasted because it was still a very rich experience and a wonderful community.
I could have stayed and took advantage of the goodness that was offered, but I was uncomfortable with that and since then lived as an Agnostic.
I never forced a belief system onto my kids, but my older daughter has been very passionate about exploring her own spirituality and now participates in a faith-based club.
Maybe the ability to have faith is hard-wired into a person's DNA.
Just close enough to the truth to be fairly amusing. Honestly, I getting a little bored making fun of religion. We know it's silly, what else can you say about it?
David M and whoever was the author of that pamphlet, is quite ignorant, self-righteous atheist.
Yes, atheism is a faith too and it is as old as theism.
Although theistic religions more or less, are responsible for many wrongs, atheistic societies were not only as bad, but during last century even worse.
Their trademarks are always as follows:
- destroy what religious people build before them.
- lover the human being to unimportant little part of a bigger socialist society.
- for the lack of integrity are predestined to early collapse.
I don't stand for any religion but one that goes by teachings of Jesus Christ, written in Bible.
David M, none of Christ's teachings support any of your pamphlet's claims.
No body wants to here negitive things from any one.
negitive thoughts on everthink in life will get you no where at all and make you and every one else arouind you miserable.
You can do anythink you want to do . you just have to want it enough ,more then anythink else.
No body wants to here negitive things from any one.
negitive thoughts on everthink in life will get you no where at all and make you and every one else arouind you miserable.
You can do anythink you want to do . you just have to want it enough ,more then anythink else.
No body wants to here negitive things from any one.
negitive thoughts on everthink in life will get you no where at all and make you and every one else arouind you miserable.
You can do anythink you want to do . you just have to want it enough ,more then anythink else.
It's always about the fear of punishment, fear of hell. I suppose it makes sense, since mankind created god(s) out of fear of the unknown (eclipse) and to ease the fear of death.
How to (try and) stop your child becoming religious*: Look for the worst in religion and religious people, even if it's only a minority, exaggerate it, repeat it often.
(*AKA: the lameness, deceitfulness and desperation of atheists!)
devnullJan 23, 2012
I want my kid to be free thinker. Question everything, and be rewarded for it.
I believe there is something out there, Flying Spaghetti Monster? Maybe...Thetans..hehe..maybe... Magic wizard man that can raiset the dead? Maybe.
Anything is possible.
If there's anything that people should take from religion is this:
Don't be a dick (I came to this idea before I saw the Penny-Arcade shirt, I want that shirt)
in other words, Love your neighbors, and appreciate your good fortune.
Atheist are not assh**es, Religious are not assh**es.
People who try to force their belief or non-belief on others are assh**es.
My child will not be raised to be an assh**e.
Dev
MrFrogyJan 23, 2012
Thank you. You are not top Digg because you are far too rational.
southsideirishApr 26, 2012
What! Do you think the world needs free thinkers? No! The world needs more people that will blindly follow the men in power.
satori3000Jan 23, 2012
I agree for the most part... but please explain to me what spelling and grammar have to do with the belief in a higher power.
juliochavezJan 24, 2012
Nothing. The first sentence in the response talks about critical thinking, then the comment degrades into canned ignorance. This is a fine example of the bigotry and backwards logic that accompanies a typical 'atheist'.
The best way to prevent your child from being an atheist is to let them mature into an adult, past the stage of wanting to rebel against everything. Most rational people will come to understand that our reality is much greater than what our obviously limited perception is capable of revealing. Of course, along with this comes the good sense to avoid bigots like the author of this best answer.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sonicgardenJan 24, 2012
It's bigotry because the statements don't correspond with your comfort zone?
Please explain why god exists, with out using your blind faith.
raintrain34Jan 24, 2012
It's bigotry because the statements don't correspond with your comfort zone?
Please explain why god doesn't exist, without using your blind faith.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
slampod7873Jan 24, 2012
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/
jolleyggJan 24, 2012
Prove that YOU exist without using your blind faith.
UltiumJan 24, 2012
raintrain34:
Hmm, i still have not heard a good reason to believe in a god. I know there are 1000s of gods that have been claimed to exist, so you would think at least a few of the followers would be able to put forth a good reason for one of them. Instead, I hear ppl like you asking for proof from the atheists that no god exists. What use is that? You make an extraordinary claim such as 'my god Zeus is real' and then back that up by asking me to prove your god (which ever it may be) is false? How many gods would you like me to disprove? What does this have to do with why people should believe in any of these gods?
If I were to break the news to you that I am your god, I created you and you should worship me, when you ask me to prove my claim I can simply retort quite truthful that you cannot disprove it. Until you do does that mean our positions are on equal footing? Do you find yourself at all convinced by my stupid argument? I would assume not, yet it is the argument you are employing here.
sonicgardenJan 24, 2012
gods came about to explain things early man could not understand. 'knowing' someone is out there watching over you, helps you sleep at night? 'knowing' that after you die, which is super scary and journey you go on alone, that you reach a magical heaven helps even more to sleep at night.
we as society have evolved passed the 'need' for a god in this sense.
now, answer my question as i asked it first, where is the proof of a god? people only hear about gods from the generation before them.
daimposterJan 24, 2012
The idea of a 'god' is a created idea. So it is not for the atheist to explain why god doesn't exist, it is for the theist to explain why he does exist.
If I told you I was visited by three gods: zeus, charlie and alina. Would it be up to you to prove they don't exist?? Go ahead, prove those 3 gods do not exist.
neotechniJan 24, 2012
"Please explain why god doesn't exist, without using your blind faith."
The bible says god is omnipotent, and omniscient, yet are "design" is horribly flawed. We have mistakes so bad that if any omniscient being made us, he let his retarded cousin design a few parts.
neotechniJan 24, 2012
*our, not are.
See! An omniscient God would've made my brain typo-proof.
ShaunOConnellApr 27, 2012
Faith and Logic are opposites so you can never explain one with the other. Its a mute point we should all just get over it. If you want to have faith, fine, logic also fine. We actually need the balance of both to properly function. I Personally am not an atheist or religious or anything.
I figure ill find out whats there when It's time to die.
sonicgarden30 days ago
Where do you get that we need faith in relation with logic to function?
ShaunOConnell30 days ago
The main purpose i think of faith; it gives us is some sort of ethical boundary. Wile I am not religious in any aspect I can respect some of the ethics that as a society it has confined us to. Obviously where the lines get blurred is when people are hypocritical and 'sin' within their brand of religion to protest another (Rarely is it truly over religion though and not money land or some other asset). Logic is needed for progression / Faith is needed for us to sit back think and ask where we would morally like to (as a whole) progress to.
It is my opinion that Religion has rarely killed people, usually you will find a logical man/system using religion as a weapon. Not religion in its true undiluted sense. If you met a truly religious person (hard to come by and could be of any faith) you would probably appreciate the level of love, caring, and acceptance they have, something which is one of the hardest things for people to cultivate and well worth respecting.
ShaunOConnell30 days ago
jolleygg +10
sonicgarden29 days ago
I don't think we need faith to be moral creatures. I hate that argument, that with out god, we'd be heathens....That was what the missionaries reasoning was when converting Native North and South Americans.
To me, religion serves the purpose of explaining the fundamental question all humans face, why are we here/where did we come from?
Before science and logic, societies all over the world tried explaining these questions and phenomena such as earth quakes and tornadoes through religion.
After a while, religion became a great and powerful tool to control populations. "Do and act as we say or your god will be mad at you, he personally told me and put me in charge." i.e. the pope.
ShaunOConnell29 days ago
That is a good point. Religion is used as a control method no doubt. But if control is what you are concerned with more than anything I would say money (and our current systems of exploiting each other through excessive usury (actually classed a sin in religious texts)) is used as a control method today. why else do people spend their entire lives working in jobs they hate doing things they find immoral wreck the environment etc.
Its hard to group the full spectrum as a whole because I know that there are very backwards religious people who stand behind their religion to justify absurd actions (the kind I imagine you think of when debating its absurdity), but there are also people who faith serves as a massive boost to do good in the world, and if it is what they need and they do no harm then what is the problem with that?
If you completely remove our egos from all of it and actually look at what we know scientifically, you don't know what happens when we die. I don't know what happens when we die. none of us do. The Faith vs Science comment I made was along the lines of "there is no point in arguing as they will both always co-exist (they are opposites like hot and cold, darkness and light) and all that ever eventuates from the argument is an ego battle of why I am right and you are wrong topic which can perhaps never be proven (but that's the best part ;))"
extremephobiaJan 24, 2012
The bigotry was started by the OP, not the person who answered. In fact, the question was worded in exactly the same fashion as, "How do I keep my child from growing up fat." This person wants to keep their child from growing up to be something "bad."
So the answer responded in kind. He told the person how to create a child that is exactly like them (we're assuming but I think it's probably an accurate assumption considering their question). This is how you create someone who is closed minded and feels that such a simple view point as believing there is no God can be bad enough to try and teach your children to not be that.
I have nothing against religion. I only have something against haters. My best man is religious. But in his church, his father wasn't allowed to attend his own daughter's wedding because he wasn't of that religion. Needless to say, my friend is no longer a part of that religion, he simply believes there's something out there.
I have no respect for the type of person who would do something like that. And Atheists have the same thing, it's not exclusive to the religious. I can't respect somebody who would not allow the attendance of someone because they were religious. I think the value of a person isn't in how he sees things but how he sees others.
And before you start getting into hypotheticals and semantics on me, let's consider for a moment that this is likely a fake post.
pragpsychJan 24, 2012
i think what is being done here is correlation confused with causation. most people that i know (lived: oklahoma, 20+ years, texas, 2+) that do believe blindly in god fit this description almost exactly.
it does SEEM to be the formula to cause belief in Yahweh... but it may not prove to be causational.
but, it is VERY highly correlational, if my experiences mean anything (as in, THOUSANDS of experiences)
TheNoizeJan 24, 2012
ALL religious people will force their belief on their children, in one way or another. It's very naive to think religious people won't follow the very doctrine they practice, that tells them to "spread the word" (translation: try to convince others that you're right).
dusanmalJan 24, 2012
Sorry, not true... Raised by religious parents. Not told what to think or believe. Given Bible, Bhagavad Gita , Quran, Analects of Confucius,... complete works of Niche, even the full version of Marx's Capital. Not told which one or any to read. Just got them available, at hand, at mind's reach. Ended up scientist and engineer... AND a believing person - for my own opinions and reasons. Common occurrence where I came from.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
inajeepJan 24, 2012
Don't consider your experience a common one.
pragpsychJan 24, 2012
interesting experience... however, seems to be rare. likely VERY common... amongst your social sphere.
fakbik2Jan 24, 2012
Dugg up for being a moderate and thoughtful response. Forcing beliefs, by either side, is just plain old annoying.
ShaunOConnellApr 27, 2012
Faith and Logic are opposites so you can never explain one with the other. Its a mute point we should all just get over it. If you want to have faith, fine, logic also fine. We actually need the balance of both to properly function. I Personally am not an atheist or religious or anything.
I figure ill find out whats there when It's time to die.
The_SovereignJan 23, 2012
Children are born atheists.
computerczarJan 23, 2012
Children are born naked too, and illiterate and can't walk or talk or crawl. Wouldn't want them to learn anything would we.
The_SovereignJan 23, 2012
You wouldn't? Well, if you want to keep your kids illiterate, I suppose that's your business, but you might find it difficult and not terribly rewarding.
All I know is I sure wouldn't want to teach my kids a bunch of lies and superstition from thousands of years ago, unless I make sure that they understand there is no distinction between religious myth and other fairy tales.
savetheseaJan 23, 2012
I bought an amazing book about all the religions of the world. When my kids ask religious questions, and they do, e open the book and read about the religion and discuss it. I present it as "this is what Christians/Muslims/Jews/Buddhists believe". Sometimes the result is a simple head nod and sometimes it results in further discussion. One thing I never do is demean the religion, just present the facts and listen to responses while always treating the beliefs with neither admiration or criticism.
The_SovereignJan 23, 2012
To each his own. I always demean every religion.
jftitanJan 23, 2012
Having met, known, and was once a religious. I agree to the demean everyone's 'views' of spiritual beliefs.
But I certainly know, starting off a conversation with someone by demeaning their views because I feel like my answers are more 'right' than their beliefs. I cannot do. The best way at cooperation is to seeing the good side of the conversation, and relate.
This very thinking applies to just about everything, especially in 'sales'. You sell something to a customer, the next day they come to bring it back. (You happen to be working when they return the product, unlike many who return the product to a different location to avoid the 'awkwardness'.) Customer tells you, they don't like the product or 'somethings wrong with it'. Normally just to avoid argument you would just take back the product (whatever condition the customer put it in, I've had s**t where the package was destroyed but the package was designed to be open easily) But on many occasions, I ask the customer questions as to why they didn't like the product, and why the return. Doesn't matter the excuse, it matters how you handle the next sentence. Instead of losing a sale, you offer condolences. Accept the excuse, and work towards a solution. Some of my past customers actually only needed some walk-through steps on how to operate their new product. Once that task was done, the sale was saved, and the customer actually trusts me because I offered insight, and provided an acceptable answer for them.
At this point I turned a customer from I'm pissed and won't listen to anything your going to sale me, into a customer that "Oh, thats what I'm supposed to do..." These people usually listen up to anything else you have to say afterwards.
But your right, in Religion, you can't educate the ignorant. No matter how many facts, 'proofs' or evidence you bring to someone unwilling to accept any different answer than what they have already cemented themselves into. You just can't win a argument with those types of people. You can only defend yourself from what they will accuse you or attack you with. "Atheists are filthy whores!"... No matter what you provide as examples of 'non-whores', their opinion will always seem correct because the 'faith' aspect of their decisions made their choice for them.
juliochavezJan 23, 2012
"I always demean every religion."
That's because you're a bigot. It doesn't necessarily mean that you're a bad person, just that you are ignorant about some things. Open your mind and try to let go of your fear and hatred. Then maybe we can all learn to live together in peace.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
flpflpflpJan 24, 2012
@juliochavez
What if someone believed the earth was flat and that Pixies are their lord and savior? Would he still be a bigot for demeaning them, or does that just apply to people that demean your religion?
Would you also agree that more people need to open their mind and get rid of their fear and hatred of flat earth and Pixie beliefs?
God beliefs are no different from these. Yes, you should open your mind, open your mind to what we have learned in the 2000 years since this book was written by the above mentioned bronze age sheepherders. Reality is much more interesting and fun than beliefs in imaginary beings.
jakenyJan 23, 2012
And what is the name of this said book? I believe I may want to pick this up!
savetheseaJan 23, 2012
DK Eyewitness Books: Religion
starlingmamaJan 23, 2012
This is a very good answer. Kids should definitely be taught to think for themselves so they can freely make up their own minds.
letherialJan 23, 2012
That is how i handle my kid, teach religion as more of a culture then a belief.
TheNoizeJan 24, 2012
Clothing is important to adapt to different weathers. Literacy is important to communicate and learn ideas, just like talking. Walking is important for dislocation, just like crawling.
What is religion important for? What is it providing to the child, that nothing else could?
Graf_OrlockJan 24, 2012
Creation of a larger "tribe" they can belong to, beyond the immediate 150 folks in their monkey-sphere? There's probably an evolutionary advantage to being part of a creed and presumably being able to drawn on a larger social network than those who go their own way.
Probably fairly useful when we were all in huts and subject to the whim of bad seasons. Some people long for that past.
pragpsychJan 24, 2012
that makes more sense than most of the research i have done in MANY, many years in evolution...
thank you so very much.
you have enlightened me.
:D
southsideirishApr 26, 2012
You can't understand American history without it.
And no, I do not believe the practiced 21st century Christianity. That is my point, but they were religious.
A history of religion is definitely needed. Belief in anything is not required.
pragpsychJan 24, 2012
here's my main issue: being illiterate and naked isn't supposed to be punishable by eternal hellfire and damnation.
whereas lacking a belief in christ, is usually said to come with that EXACT punishment.
so, from a christian's stand-point... it's FAR better to be illiterate and naked and believe in god than to be literate, clothed, and lacking "belief"
seems like a fairly silly system to me... but, that's just my opinion.
pragpsychJan 24, 2012
so, therefore: the schizophrenic heroin addict on the streets that says they were "annointed by jesus/god/et al" and lives to be 29 years old is WAY better off than Bill Gates....
that dirty... heathen.... billionaire?
southsideirishApr 26, 2012
Ah...but you must believe in the right Christ. If you believe in a different on that can be just as bad. or worse than just not believing.
assassyn360Jan 23, 2012
All children taste the ragu of his holy meatballs before they ever hear the words of false gods. May the sauce of his ingredients warm your palette with spices and herbs of love and knowledge. (yummy 2:32)
Blessed be all of our children for they all lay there heads at the bossom of the flying spaghetti monster early after birth. Delivered from his holiness authorized sources of goodieness, beech-nut and Gerber baby food deliver his sauce, and thus his love.
adalseyJan 23, 2012
like
balzorJan 24, 2012
actually children are born without any knowledge or concept of God or no-God whatsoever. If the parents never speak of God or tell them there is no God, they will believe it. If the child grows up in Church, they will believe that instead. Atheists say "there is no god". Christians say "there is God". We are all products of our environment.
The_SovereignJan 24, 2012
"3.(loosely) A person who has no belief in any deities, including those with no concept of deities"
Sorry, it's in there. Children are literally born atheists. Many of them become corrupted by their elders, unfortunately.
pragpsychJan 24, 2012
i was DEEPLY indoctrinated with a belief in god growing up in ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE states (Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico)
yet, i was sharp enough to see through the BS.
lizard gets his tail cut off? god wants it to grow back.
man gets his arm cut off? never ever comes back ever. no matter how many people pray, and how many times you try.
prayer can move mountains! god can do anything! yet neither god nor prayers will grant the abilities to a human that he gave a f**kING LIZARD.
c'mon christians... you aren't thinking very clearly.
assassyn360Jan 23, 2012
I shall spread this word of this holy scripture on the authorized holy medium of Facebook. It is originated surely from his meatballsness. Flying spaghetti monster's holy sauce shall wash away thou sin with words of wisdom and ragu. Blessed be the noodley appendages. Amen.
Let he who is without sin toss the first meatball. For the day of reckoning is nigh. Those who do not believe will be forced into submission and banished into oblivion and shallest endure frozen dinners of fish sticks and freezer burned French fries. For these are the words of our lord.
Ingredient 2:45
paulneyJan 23, 2012
Ramen.
paula1849Jan 23, 2012
He, who sent his only son, Cheesus.
sleestakslayerJan 23, 2012
You're so bad!
southsideirishApr 26, 2012
Oh you unbeliever, may your water never come to a boil.
Starve you heathen. Starve! Now let us pray.
Our saucer which art in a colander, draining be Your noodles. Thy noodle come, Thy meatballness be done on earth, as it is meaty in heaven. Give us this day our daily sauce, and forgive us our lack of piracy, as we pirate and smuggle against those who lack piracy with us. And lead us not into vegetarianism, but deliver us from non-red meat sauce. For thine is the colander, the noodle, and the sauce, forever and ever. R'Amen.
southsideirishApr 26, 2012
In the Name of the Pasta, and of the Sauce, and of the Holy Meatballs...
All hail my fellow believer in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Come, Holy Sauce, Creator blest, and, in our pasta, give us thy rest...
vampirehimJan 23, 2012
Beautiful
norman619Jan 23, 2012
And wrong. Critical thinking does not lead the Atheism. It would lead to what I am. Being an Agnostic. I became a Atheist as teen and into my early 20's after being punished by the nuns in Sunday school for daring to question some of the glaring dogmatic contradictions they were asking me to swallow. Only later after I decided to take a closer look at the whole religion/spirituality issue did I see my Atheism as just as false and flawed as Theism. Atheism and Theism are 2 sides of the same faith based coin. The only intellectually honest position on this subject is the Agnostic position.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakJan 23, 2012
Small correction - the only intellectually honest position is agnosticism bordering on atheism, since there is ample proof that virtually every testable fact in the bible is wrong. There is just as much reason to believe in magical space fairies as in god.
http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/archive/?c=561
norman619Jan 23, 2012
"the only intellectually honest position is agnosticism bordering on atheism"
Wrong. Atheists focus on the unimportant Dogma and use this as proof to claim the root of the religion is false. The Agnostic concerns himself with the actual root belief of a religion. Take Christianity. They basically believe some omnipotent being which resides outside of our physical reality created the universe and passes judgement on each of us upon our passing. There is no way to test to prove or disprove this belief. It lies well beyond the ability of our science to examine and test. So we say, and correctly, that there is no way to KNOW either way. The Atheists claims knowledge where the is none. Their claim is based 100% on faith.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stubearJan 23, 2012
No, agnostics do NOT believe that a god exists, they believe that one cannot know whether or not a god exists and choose to lead their lives through an internal common sense moral compass that lets them know the difference between right and wrong without having to worry about eternal damnation.
We also believe that Atheists are every bit as wrong as Theists because Atheists claim to know something which is unknowable. They simply believe that god doesn't, nor can, exist with every bit as much proof as Theists who believe the opposite.
Just to be clear, agnosticism comes from the greek work knosos which means knowledge. the prefix means without. It really can't be any clearer then that.
fitzal77Jan 23, 2012
Isn't that what he said?
bookantJan 23, 2012
"We also believe that Atheists are every bit as wrong as Theists because Atheists claim to know something which is unknowable. They simply believe that god doesn't, nor can, exist with every bit as much proof as Theists who believe the opposite."
Exept that what you're describing isn't atheism. It isn't a claim of absolute knowledge, it's an absense of belief. That's it.
Agnostic, on the other hand, is basically a cop-out for those who aren't willing to throw out irrational belief altogether. If I told you there was an invisible (cloaked) space-station left over from the alien race that seeded life on Earth orbiting just behind the Moon . . . . would you be "agnostic" about it given your inability to disprove my statement with absolute certainty? Are you "agnostic" about Leprechans, Fairies, Mermaids, Sea Monsters and Werewolves?
There's no need to hedge your bets with "agnotic," since atheism makes no claim of certainty. I'm equally "atheist" about all those examples I just gave you . . . but that no way implies I wouldn't immediately change my position tomorrow if evidence were presented that made it clear I was wrong.
GDub71Jan 24, 2012
Yeah, I think I'm pretty much an agnostic. I think that religion only ever got people killed or turned them into killers. Religion is a breeding gound for intolerance and ignorance, not to mention being a great hiding place for Paedos!
jlaughMar 21, 2012
GDub71
As a Deist who is non religious I find your statement to be to extreme. Religion has done many positive things for many people or they wouldn't have turned to a faith in the first place.
That being said religion has also created monsters, or monsters have used religion as an excuse for their own actions.
elimgarakJan 23, 2012
Nope, not so much.
1. This dogma is something that many people literally believe actually happened. So it isn't that wrong to not believe that and to use it as proof to claim that these religions are actually, explicitly wrong.
2. Yes, there is no actual proof that a super-powerful space guy did not create everything and everyone. There is also no actual proof that a little magical pixies aren't secretly running on treadmills inside the sun in order to power it. Both are equally valid or invalid based on evidence. There is no way to KNOW that magical pixies are not in charge of the sun.
Therefore, we do know that most of what most religions explicitly teach is false. Which is why I said agnosticism bordering on atheism. We don't know 100% that god doesn't exist, but everything we do know points to evidence that he doesn't. Which is why I said "agnosticism" and not actual atheism.
fitzal77Jan 23, 2012
1. Proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that Moses never parted the Red Sea would not go far toward disproving the existence of a god. Water into wine? Who cares. Virgins when you die? Whatever. The argument is over "god or no god."
2. There is also no actual proof that the people we perceive around us are actually real instead of just figments of our imagination -- the whole world being invented by our own subconscious. "Both are equally valid or invalid based on evidence." Whatever that means.
3. Atheism is not "all religions are wrong about something." Atheism is "god does not exist."
"everything we do know points to evidence that [god] doesn't [exist]."
And what evidence would that be? If you have evidence that there is not, and has never been, a power greater than our own, please bring it forward.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pragpsychJan 25, 2012
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING WALL OF TEXT CONTAINS VERY ANALYTICAL THINKING PROCESSES.
IT IS NOT FOR THE POORLY-EDUCATED OR NON-INTELLECTUAL TYPES.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
actually, only pantheism seems impossible to disprove (with my current understanding of the words and concepts at play). all you have to do is prove that a certain belief is wrong. most everything but pantheism talks about an INTERACTION between this "other-worldly area" and the "real world". that claim is easily proven to be false when given context.
person a: "renouncing belief in god will get you smitten by god"
person b: "I renounce belief in god"
nothing happens
person a: "it seems as though my paradigm involving god in the way i stated it is erroneous."
person b: "yep."
really, the bible is just a book. paper, ink, et al. however, when interpreted and turned into rhetoric or when DEFINED (the bible is the DIRECT word of god, then, just disprove one part as it comes, bit-by-bit.
statements can only be made one-at-a-time. they can be EASILY TESTED FOR VALIDITY one-at-a-time as well.
science is composed of experiments, not abstract concepts. you are thinking PHILOSOPHY when you are talking about subjective experiences and rhetorical back-and-forth using the english language to express abstract ideals that seem in opposition to one another.
------when someone says "there is a god":
from the stand-point of a scientist, that is then taken INTO CONTEXT then proven or disproven.
"there is a god" lacks meaning when taken without further information that provides the context needed to create an experiment [science is observation-based, not language-based, even though said observations CAN be described USING language(s).] When given context, "there is a god" then becomes testable. (ie: "there is a god named yahweh he is the ruler of all, and wrote the bible and it's all 100% correct[...]")
when someone says "there is a god" it's just a case of not providing enough information.
when i say "what is purple divided by orange?" it's just plain jibberish, until i explain that i meant the rgb color code for each. until it is defined that way, it's just nonsense. so, if the color-code for purple is 4 and orange is 2... the answer is 2.
it would be like if i made up a language and said something, then said "see, you can't disprove it!"
well of course you can't... it didn't make sense to the recipient to begin with.
saying "you can't prove there isn't a god with science" is like saying "you can't divide purple by orange with math"
of course you can't... until context is provided and the statement is made into a testable experiment.
that's like saying "nobody can ever know my name"
then saying "my name is" and stopping there. well, it's not that we CANT know your name, it's just that you didn't give us enough information to determine the validity of the statement... YET. "you can't know my name"... at least not yet. every passing second the we don't know, makes the statement true. all it takes is one guess to be right and you are false. until that moment in which someone guesses the correct answer/name, the statement "you can't know my name" is seen as true. then, once someone guesses the CORRECT NAME, from that moment onward, the statement made by said individual "you can't know my name" is now PROVEN TO BE FALSE.
science is an evolving process... some things change slowly. some quickly. some might NEVER change. but, that is YET TO BE DETERMINED.
science doesn't want you to have "closure" on a specific "issue"... it's just a process of hypothesis, experiment, results, and then analysis of said results with the previous observations taken into context with the new results.
what you guys are doing is philosophizing... what you AREN'T doing is having a legitimate discussion about yahweh as referenced to the english translation of the holy bible as a composite of books from the old and new testament(s) and how the statements therein maintain their accuracy when tested using the scientific method (PS: THAT'S WHAT SCIENCE IS)
philosophizing usually seems--to me, at least--to just be an excuse to argue and not have any sort of real-world goal that can be seen as "useful". ie: "wasting time" "shooting the breeze" et al.
philosophizing about yahweh on digg = bad idea.
creating tests that attempt to prove and/or disprove the validity of the claims of the proponents of christianity = GREAT IDEA
have fun wasting your time, my digg brethren!
or don't... that's the great thing about freedoms in the affluent west... you are free to do a great number of things! :D enjoy your rights to use time however you please! even if PragPsych thinks it's wasteful! :)
dgtldvrJan 23, 2012
Atheism (literally, without God) is simply a paradigm for understanding the universe that does not incorporate supernatural explanations. Agnostics lack the courage of conviction.
elimgarakJan 23, 2012
Umm... That's not the dictionary definition of those terms. Look them up.
juliochavezJan 23, 2012
This is a basic lack of fundamental reasoning skills that many atheists suffer from. Agnostics lack the courage of conviction? Agnostics don't have conviction one way or the other on the matter of theism, by definition. A "strong" atheist claims to know that there is no God. This is also known as intellectual cowardice. The "strong" atheist has a lot in common with "strong" believers. Namely, closed-mindedness.
jlaughJan 24, 2012
I believe in God because I've had religious experiences, whether or not the experiences are rational or irrational doesn't negate the truth of them having happened.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anub1sJan 23, 2012
I'm sorry but you're misleading everyone with your usage of the word agnostic. Agnosticism is separated categorically thusly: Agnostic theist, or agnostic atheist. You have to lean one way or the other if you have ANY doubts to either position, otherwise you're a gnostic atheist, or a gnostic theist, also known as strong atheism or theism.
You're still either an atheist or a theist. If you're an agnostic atheist, one who doesn't believe that a god exists, but leaves open the possibility, that's one thing, but claiming that agnositics are different from atheists just shows you're either wilfully or ignorantly misusing the term "agnostic".
Claiming to be an atheist is nothing more than showing doubt that a god exists or being able to say "I don't know.". Claiming to be a gnostic or strong atheist, is being entirely closed minded as to the existence of any god in any form. Which in my mind is a bad position, as you state.
Please do us all a favor though and use the term correctly.
savetheseaJan 23, 2012
Why is everyone so concerned with labeling themselves? I have my own complicated view of theology, faith, god, the universe.
The atheist camp says 'no way" it cannot be proven with science so it does not exist. The universe and our understanding of it are always changing and for the most part, we are making very educated guesses at its laws. I think I recently read that we do not know where the voyager(?) probe is because there is a possibility we do not fully understand gravity. The speed of light was just broken, etc.
I find it egotistical to think that one can claim to know everything and/or nothing.
I do not believe in God as defined throughout my childhood. This is the same God atheists do not believe in, but what is God? A particular definition is ingrained in our thoughts and that is what we either deny or accept.
I do not follow any religion or God as I know it but, last week one of the oldest trees in the world burned down less than a mile from my house. I felt, and still feel an odd imbalance in something. Not sure what it is because I have not felt this sensation before. Maybe it is just psychosomatic or maybe some energy force was disrupted - I do not know and do not claim to know.
"You're still either an atheist or a theist"
No, I am a thinking human who can change my mind and definition of myself at anytime. I do not believe in the definition of "God" as I have learned it, but I do not dismiss any possibilities. How is that labeled?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dcasp82Jan 23, 2012
That's exactly how my proclaimed athiest brother debates his point: You either believe or you don't. He simply cannot comprehend that there are people inbetween camps or that we as humans often change our minds for a myriad of reasons, rational or otherwise.
We all have a form of faith whether it be in god, god's nonexistence, or something a little more immediate like faith in a happy future for one's children or loved ones. We wouldn't be alive without faith in ourselves or humanity as a whole. Faith is will to live whether or not you partake in religion.
Theism = faith, Atheism = faith, any sort of expectation of a future mere seconds from this moment = faith.
I have faith that as soon as I post this comment it will forever exist in binary somewhere out there on some server, accessible or not. Yeah, it's a debatable faith, but a faith nonetheless.
That being said... Jesus can suck it. That guy is annoying and totally overrated.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
savetheseaJan 23, 2012
"my proclaimed athiest brother"
Proclaiming yourself as something also shows a need for acceptance. Proclaimed atheists, just like proclaimed Christians, etc like the acceptance of a group. Be an atheist, just don't proselytize it as it shows your insecurities or need to fit in somewhere.
dougchristianJan 23, 2012
It's you who are compartmentalizing people. That's why you see yourself as "between camps" which I'll bet your milquetoast personality has chosen as a strategy for minimizing confrontation. There are no camps to be between.
You don't understand what anyone here means by atheist when they say it and you seem incapable of listening as they repeat it around you constantly.
There are no camps. You're not in between anything. There is a phenomenon in the human race that encompasses a majority of the world's population which claims various flavors of divine knowledge and organizes various forms of authoritative controls based on that knowledge.
One either believes these (or one of these) claims are actually divine or they don't. After that you're just a person thinking about philosophy and s**t. It's a billion little camps. And seriously, no one really cares about yours. We do however care when you mischaracterize ours.
savetheseaJan 23, 2012
sorry doug, didn't mean to minimize your club
You club or camp wants to ridicule and belittle anyone that believes differently from you - look at you comment as proof. I completely understand what "understand what anyone here means by atheist", just not sure if you all do.
Believe what you want privately, keep it out of schools and politics and all is fine. I will fight back when religion tries to make its way into the public sector (Ron Paul and all the republican candidates) and I will fight back when non-religion belittles quite people of private faith.
IMO, the atheist movement should be purely reactionary, but the new atheist movement feels the need to proselytize as much as the evangelicals. There can be degrees of everything - it is not all black and white.
dcasp82Jan 24, 2012
Doug, you are just adorable!
"there are no camps! there are no camps!!"
Skip ahead in the post a bit...
"there are a billion camps!! grrrrr fear my angst-driven keyboard! Fear it!!"
.....adorable.
dougchristianJan 24, 2012
Save, what club? There's no club. All this nitpicking over atheist vs agnostic between people who've rejected organized religion is foolish. That's all I'm saying. Nothing you said counters any of that.
dcasp, read again and try harder.
dougchristianJan 24, 2012
FYI my first post below wasn't to you, but to that other guy who I don't have much respect for.
See I don't get why you think you should be considered something different. I just call you an atheist. That doesn't necessarily rule out spirituality or "god"-like forces or even an intelligent creator. It should rule out considering forms of those things that don't fit with what we know of the nature of the universe. Many atheists will consider these things once you've removed the religion and claims of knowledge. Once we've decided we don't believe that a specific book is divinely written and contains actual knowledge and demands of God, we're just people thinking abstractly.
But the point is, whether or to what extent you consider more supernatural things in your new-found freedom to search for actual philosophical, spiritual and moral truths is not a majorly significant thing. It doesn't require a new label. You don't need to fend off "atheists" from the "agnostic" label and try to carve it out for yourself.
I think you're over-focusing on philosophical and stylistic differences. What you think of as a major difference in basic belief structure between you and me, I don't think is. It is mainly just the fact that I'm kind of an assh**e sometimes, and I'm more interested in challenging the beliefs of others than you are (on like a hobby level). And you're really really really under-focusing on the absolutely profound thing that we can agree on: that these books aren't divine and no one has real knowledge of the divine, even though, horrifyingly, a majority of the 7,000,000,000 people on this planet think they do and many think of little else.
Your assertions that atheists as a group claim knowledge of any kind is simply not true. Individual people may do so here and there, but people do lots of things and many of them are stupid.
I think there's one big difference between the conclusions we've drawn though. I actually think the gnostic, "this book is Truth", kind of religion is dangerous. You seem to think it's benign, and you give it cover, perhaps without even realizing it. My theory is that you have a set of imaginations (which can be very useful - most actually new scientific understanding starts from these) about the nature of things, which you've come to humbly and with the acceptance of uncertainty and it lets you think that real religious people think like that too. They do not.
savetheseaJan 25, 2012
Thanks for the well thought out and extremely insightful response.
I have always felt the need to "cover" or protect and I tend to play a bit of devil's advocate when I see a group piling on. I do not agree with the religious, but I also do not agree with the forceful proactive assault from the atheist on a personal level.
I do support broader general attacks on religion as a whole, but do not like when an individual is attacked for their beliefs, (unless they start preaching, then it is on). I think certain people really need religion in their lives and most that have it, have had it since birth. From the day they were born, God and religion have been ingrained into their persona and that is hard to break. Abstract thought is not an option with religion (I was there).
Not everyone has the ability or desire to think abstractly about religion and I do not fault them for their physiology or past brainwashing. If I cannot have an intelligent and civil debate, then I move on. The more someone is insulted and backed into a corner, the stronger their convictions become. The education of the religious needs to come in small bits versus viscous assaults that do nothing but reinforce a flawed belief system.
Again, your insight is amazing and I appreciate the intelligent response.
dougchristianJan 25, 2012
Thanks. Same to you. It's nice to have a real conversation. I actually think you're more right than me in terms of style. I know that it's not really productive to be antagonistic with religious people. It is more fun though. Have a good day!
ajh16Jan 23, 2012
No you don't have to lean one way or the other. It is entirely possible to simply say "I don't know" and be open to either equally. Personally, I am a gnostic theist, however I hold the exact same type of position in relation to many dogmas and areas left open to interpretation where I make no claim of ability to decide either way and couldn't offer a best guess, nor would I, but rather simply pursue all sides I can see looking for something that will make one of them make more sense.
nairebisJan 23, 2012
Atheism and agnosticism are the same thing. They are a difference that makes no difference. I used to be agnostic and decided to stop with the silliness and just call myself what I am -- an atheist. Atheists already understand and incorporate what agnostics claim to believe. It's already obvious.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fitzal77Jan 23, 2012
Google tells me:
Agnosticism (n) a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God
≠
Atheism (n) The theory or belief that God does not exist.
elimgarakJan 23, 2012
"Proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that Moses never parted the Red Sea would not go far toward disproving the existence of a god."
True - but it does completely disprove the version of god as defined by the literal religions - like born again evangelicals. That's a pretty good start.
"There is also no actual proof that the people we perceive around us are actually real instead of just figments of our imagination -- the whole world being invented by our own subconscious."
True - a very old idea, goes back to ancient Greece. So what? I don't see what this has to do with the discussion at hand.
"And what evidence would that be? If you have evidence that there is not, and has never been, a power greater than our own, please bring it forward."
It depends on your definition of god. If you take the ultra-vague modern interpretation of "something somewhere out there we don't know where, that has some supreme power over everything or something" then of course there is no such proof. But if we talk about most specific definitions, then there is plenty of proof, not to mention the logical idiocy of the concept of a bearded man in the sky that cares about what you do.
fitzal77Jan 23, 2012
"So what? I don't see what this has to do with the discussion at hand."
It's just another example of things that are unknown. If you hold to one truth, it's called belief. Not all beliefs are equal, however. Believing that fairies power the sun is not the same as believing in the existence or non-existence of a god, just as none of those are the same as believing are world is real.
As you've been told, doubting dogma does not equate to disproving the existence of a god. The official views of the Catholic Church are not held by all Catholics, but creating a new religion because you think your god's hair is blond instead of white doesn't make sense. If you want to visit billions of people and disprove something in each person's individual religion, then good luck. When you get to people whose beliefs consist entirely of a creator of life, let me know what you tell them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pragpsychJan 25, 2012
very well said. you can only disprove one thing at a time as stated by well-defined rhetoric when referenced objectively, as far as science goes.
i'm a scientist, so i don't really know much about the rest of the world's beliefs... nor do i know much about the rest of the scientist's beliefs.
i have read things about polls and whatnot... but i know how flawed those can be and brush them off as "worry about it later" sort of things. i have REAL things to worry about first.
business ventures, scientific experiments... things like that.
after i finish with that, THEN i'll worry about some poll that asked a certain number of people at certain times whether they were scientists or not and if they pray to a personal god and do they say they are a christian blah blah blah.... stuff like that is relatively low priority to a self-proclaimed hardcore scientist such as myself.
elimgarakJan 23, 2012
"Believing that fairies power the sun is not the same as believing in the existence or non-existence of a god, just as none of those are the same as believing are world is real."
You lost me. Those are different beliefs with different implications. So? I still don't see your point, or what it has with this discussion.
"As you've been told, doubting dogma does not equate to disproving the existence of a god."
Not doubting - disproving. And it's disproving a version of god. A very prevalent version that a great many people believe. Billions. Disprove the flood and creation of man without evolution, and you disprove a god of a couple of billion people. Pretty good bang for the buck.
"If you want to visit billions of people and disprove something in each person's individual religion, then good luck."
??? Why would I want to visit them? And as I said, billions of people believe a few standard things that are quite easy to disprove.
"When you get to people whose beliefs consist entirely of a creator of life, let me know what you tell them."
Define "creator of life". Creator of biochemical molecules? Creator of the first cells? Creator of all individual humans?
fitzal77Jan 23, 2012
Perhaps I misunderstood your point #2. You said there's no proof that god doesn't exist, just like there's no proof that pixies aren't in charge of the sun. "Both are equally valid or invalid based on evidence." I'm incredibly unsure of what you meant by that, in particular. I took it as conflating those two ideas, depicting theists as people who will believe in anything at all.
"...disproving. And it's disproving a version of god. ... Disprove the flood and creation of man without evolution, and you disprove a god of a couple of billion people."
In order to disprove man without evolution, you must PROVE EVOLUTION. So, please present irrefutable proof of the progression from a single cell to today's humans. Once that's done, at least half the people whose gods you just disproved will adapt their beliefs to include evolution AND god. Because their religion isn't based on knowledge, it's based on belief. So, attack dogma all you want, but it gets you nothing but scorn.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
inajeepJan 24, 2012
fitzall77, We see the progression of a single cell to a human every day. Actually, two cells but the growth of not only a human but all organisms start that way. In addition we have DNA evidence beyond the fossils, examples in viruses, experiments and many other supporting evidence of evolution in progress and examples. You really need to learn a bit more.
fitzal77Jan 24, 2012
@inajeep
I'm sorry, but reproduction is not a proof of evolution. Furthermore, examples are not proof, experiments are not proof, and supporting evidence is not proof.
I'm not rejecting the idea of evolution; quite the opposite: I COITBOE evolution. However, insisting that everything we "know" is proven is incredibly disingenuous.
pragpsychJan 25, 2012
i would say the "creator" of life is a null and void concept because as far as what is believed in the scientific community, the word "creator" actually implies a form of life (life seems to always coincide with being a sentient being, as in with an active conscious, and/or purposeful action-based directives, et al) to exist before it created... itself?
again, it's just another question that by nature is nonsense.
i'll answer your question that is along the lines of "who created life" to YOUR satisfaction after you answer my question of "what is cheese multiplied by iron" to MY satisfaction.
deal, or no?
:D
elimgarakJan 23, 2012
"I took it as conflating those two ideas, depicting theists as people who will believe in anything at all."
Not at all - I am saying that from the perspective of evidence and logic both have the same amount of evidence behind them. And therefore logically speaking they are equivalent, just like a belief that nothing is real.
"So, please present irrefutable proof of the progression from a single cell to today's humans."
It depends on what exactly you mean by proof - there is so much proof for this that it's pretty ridiculous. At some point asking for more proof gets a bit much.
"Once that's done, at least half the people whose gods you just disproved will adapt their beliefs to include evolution AND god."
For now these people are just refusing to believe in evolution. And you are right that even if I could convince them that my view is correct, they would adopt their beliefs. But I would like to think that some of them would start to question things a bit more.
However, I do not plan to start a war on windmills. You can't really convince most people who hold such irrational beliefs - I don't think there is any evidence that exists that could be used to prove evolution to such people. The best you can do is teach their children science, and to be more discerning, and to apply critical thinking and the scientific method to life.
fitzal77Jan 23, 2012
I'm not asking for "more proof". I'm asking for "a proof". I'll give you a hint: Evolution is still a "theory" because there is no start-to-finish proof. Yes, there is incredibly strong evidence, and people are fools to not believe it. But, strictly speaking, there's not proof, which makes it a belief (albeit one based on scientific facts).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ajh16Jan 23, 2012
For the record, there are those who are theist, and even Christian, and have absolutely no issue with evolution what-so-ever. There is nothing about either the big bang theory or evolution that is even inconsistent with Biblical creation.
It is however inconsistent with the dogmatic interpretation that many Christians hold to and therefore hits a lot of resistance. It doesn't help any that it is frequently presented as a threat rather than an attempt to educate. I've personally had a lot of success in getting religious people to have a greater appreciation of what we understand about evolution and the origin of the planet from a scientific stance by showing them how it doesn't contradict what is said in the Bible.
The root of the problem is that the majority on neither side has a vested interest in really seeking resolution between the two, but rather see's their side as absolute and unyielding to the other. This isn't healthy or helpful. Science is great at answering what and how, but not why. Religion can answer why and has very broad what's, but very little in terms of how's.
elimgarakJan 23, 2012
"But, strictly speaking, there's not proof, which makes it a belief (albeit one based on scientific facts)."
Well yes, it depends on how strict you want to be in your definitions of the various terms. I am speaking in general, with rather vague definitions used by most people. Under that definition an overwhelming amount of circumstantial or semi-circumstantial evidence is considered to be proof. Basically beyond any reasonable doubt.
Besides, there is this:
http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/archive/?c=561
It goes directly to the topic at hand. I coitboe evolution. :-)
fitzal77Jan 23, 2012
"it depends on how strict you want to be in your definitions ..."
You're the one trying to disrupt entire religions based on contradictions in some minor dogma, so I was thinking we were going with "strict".
But yes, coitboe works. I COITBOE evolution, too.
talphinJan 23, 2012
Soooo does that mean that the only intellectually honest position on unicorns and fairies is Agnosticism? The only reason anyone would argue such nonsense is because they are still convinced that there is the possibility of such a thing. In reality, there is no more evidence to support the "possibility" for a god than there is for unicorns. Really, there isn't.
fitzal77Jan 23, 2012
Okay, fine. If you want to believe that there exist no planets in the universe (let alone across other dimensions) on which lives (or lived) a horse-shaped animal with a single horn on its head, that's your right.
But you're right: Fairies are completely fabricated.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
talphinJan 23, 2012
Your logic is broken. Could there exist a magical horse shaped animal with a horn on it's head on some distant planet, in some distant galaxy? I suppose so. But there is no evidence to suggest that one does. All we have are people with vivid imaginations making s**t up, and no evidence whatsoever.
Could there be a 6 headed purple gorilla with snakes for arms, bat wings and an alligators tail who drinks lava, breathes fire and sleeps upside down in a cave? Sure... Why not. We don't know what's out there. But that doesn't mean we can just make s**t up and pretend like there is a possibility that it actually exists just because someone imagined it.
Sadly, people make s**t up all the time, and gullible people believe every word they say, which is exactly why we have people who believe in magical unicorns, fairies, dragons, ghosts, Peter Pan, the boogie man and gods.
Is there a possibility that any of those things actually exist? Not until you present some fact based, rock solid evidence that they do. Until then, they are nothing more than figments of peoples imaginations, and only a real possibility in the minds of gullible and ignorant people.
fitzal77Jan 23, 2012
Hahahahahaha, okay!
"Is there a possibility that any of those things actually exist? Not until you present some fact based, rock solid evidence that they do. "
So until the microscope was invented, microscopic organisms didn't exist. And all the people in history who were killed for their unpopular beliefs that turned out to be true, well, we can just ignore those.
Besides, the existence of a god is not as specific as a 6-headed, lava-drinking, ... gorilla. We know what a gorilla is, so we can speculate on the unlikelihood of its existence in a space-cave (even if we don't have absolute proof it doesn't exist anywhere in the universe (wouldn't Your face be red!)). We don't know what god is, though, and outright denial of its existence is just denial of the limits of human knowledge.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
talphinJan 23, 2012
@fitzal77
See, you just proved my point exactly there. The microscopic organisms did exist. The problem was all of the ignorant and gullible people had been told that the body is some sort of magical machine made by a god, and that sickness and disease were magical evil curses. Some people still believe that regardless of the fact that we have irrefutable proof that microbes exist!
The problem was, people were just making s**t up as people do, and the ignorant populace swallowed every drop.
Take into consideration the fact that everything that we know and fully understand today has been proven to have a natural cause. Clouds, rain, snow, earthquakes, volcano's, tsunamis, sun rises, rainbows, stars, etc. etc. All of those things had some sort of magical "explanation" that millions of people believed to be true. Until science came along and put it's boot in their ass.
The point is, why if every "magical" thing in history has been proven to actually have a natural cause so far, do people still cling to the notion that some supernatural being created everything? Why after so many things have been proven to have natural causes, is the default assumption not "There is probably a natural cause"? We have no evidence of anything supernatural existing, and everyone who claims that it exists says that you just have to have "faith". LOL How convenient.
And yes, most gods are described with just as many specifics as the gorilla, and much more. Some describe their gods with physical details such as the Hindu god with an elephants head and 4 arms, etc. Some describe their gods by their rules and mandates, such as Christianity and Islam. There are over 10,000 completely different religions, all with completely different gods, prophecies and stories for creation. And not a single one of them are any more valid than stories of unicorns, fairies and purple, snake armed, six headed space gorillas.
Gods were the first attempt by humans to try to explain the things they didn't understand. But gods were nothing more than made up s**t that gullible people believed. There is no evidence to suggest that any supernatural being exists. None at all. There are only stories and a requirement to have faith, which is in fact evidence in itself that there is no such thing as a god. The very people claiming that gods exist can't even produce a single shred of evidence that their magical, fairy tale , boogieman unicorn actually exists.
So now we have a choice to make. Either we give their insanity credibility by granting them the possibility that the figments of their imagination might actually exist, or we ignore them and write them off as insane people who believe insane things until they can manage to muster up one single shred of proof that their claims are valid without requiring faith.
In the meantime, science has already proven that it is physically and mathematically possible that the universe could have popped into existence without any cause or reason at all. This has been proven through quantum mechanics, not delusional fantasies that require faith.
fitzal77Jan 24, 2012
You seem to have an issue with presenting clarity in your words (something I'm guilty of as well), so I'll try to put it simply.
The question and answer I quoted from you is absolutely wrong. You are requiring proof of something for it to actually exist, which is an historic fallacy. The idea of the existence of bacteria was rejected because there was no proof. Bacteria still existed, but only a handful of people suspected it, while the rest told them they were making stuff up -- inventing their own reasons for the things that were happening.
"...science has already proven that it is physically and mathematically possible that the universe could have popped into existence without any cause or reason at all. "
The key word there is "possible". Without certainty, whether through direct proof or ruling out of all other possibilities, it's also "possible" that that's NOT how it happened. It's incredibly hypocritical of you to have faith in scientific possibilities while rejecting the religious faith of others.
"The point is, why if every "magical" thing in history has been proven to actually have a natural cause so far... Why after so many things have been proven to have natural causes, is the default assumption not "There is probably a natural cause"? "
It makes complete sense that everything humans have proven has been proven to have a natural cause, because those are the only things we can prove. There are, however, many yet unanswered questions, and it's possible that some may never be answered by humans. But once again, we get to the assumptions you're willing to make because of your faith in the idea that our physical reality is the only one.
rsmongeJan 23, 2012
we have millions of people every day claiming to know what god is, what he wants, and which type of hole to put your wee wee in.
and who are ready to put a hatchet through your head if you think god doesn't care which hole you put your wee wee in.
rsmongeJan 23, 2012
sorry, but atheism is the best logical conclusion based on a lack of evidence. you may wish to call it 'weak atheism', if you wish, but agnosticism is generally considered not the right word.
if i told you there were scorpions on venus, but gave you little to no evidence of such scorpions, it would naive and foolish to say you are an agnostic regarding such scorpions.
ericschc1Jan 23, 2012
@norman619: While I appreciate your honesty & thoughtfulness in which you express your opinion, I don't think you really understand the distinction that agnostics are essentially a sub-set of atheists. By definition, one dedicated to the notion that "none of us knows for sure what's out there", you're still rejecting a faith-based belief in a deity. It seems a lot like the brand of atheism you consider a "belief" is the brand that is expressed as fact without defense or imposed on an audience unwilling to consider it.
Unless they are they type to believe in a god "just in case", agnostics are essentially just atheists with the humility to admit they could be as wrong as those with completely opposing viewpoints.
juliochavezJan 23, 2012
Wrong. For any unfortunate people that just read eric's bigoted comment, please go look up the meaning of agnosticism for yourself. This guy is way off.
From wikipedia: ..."agnostic theists (who believe a God exists but do not claim to know that)."... That's me. On the other hand, an agnostic atheist does not believe in God but admits the possibility exists. These are the only two rational positions on the matter.
pragpsychJan 24, 2012
most people are agnostic atheists.
they don't know for sure, yet, they think it's probably not true.
i believe that is the term, correct me if i'm inaccurate please.
southsideirishApr 26, 2012
Yep, you are right
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was "Arrrgh!"
—PIRATICUS 13:7
StonnaJan 23, 2012
I'm going to teach my children that when people talk to them about god, its never literal. That when people say "god bless you" they only mean it as "get well soon" or somthing similar. That god is never really watching or intervening but it was just stories that people told to keep them in check.
Not to be a dick but it is strikingly similar to how santa watches kids so they better be good so they don't end up on a naughty list
agmlauncherJan 23, 2012
Well that's the purpose of Santa. Santa is is like the kindergarten of religion, or like those math problems that were algebraic in format to expose kids to algebra before officially introducing them to it (e.g. 5 + BOX = 7).
Since kids are actually smart enough to know that religion is complete bulls**t, you have to expose them to the format of believing in s**t that doesn't exist in a different way. How do you do that? Reward them with presents. This conditions kids early on that belief in invisible things = reward.
It makes it easier to swallow the religion pill when they get older.
shootmeagain94Jan 24, 2012
I was skimming over all the futile debate on people's religious views shaking my head, and then I can upon this. Out of all the retarded points of view, this one puts the others glory.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
TheNoizeJan 24, 2012
Why would that be dickish? I think the similarity is very intentional. Santa is the kid-friendly version of Jesus, and believing that either of them exist is childish behavior that should never happen once you reach the ripe age of 6 - unless you're in special needs class.
kalvinbJan 24, 2012
By what objective standard does Santa deem a child "good?"
TheNoizeJan 24, 2012
Santa works in mysterious ways.
ammgyrpJan 23, 2012
You can no more prevent your child from becoming an atheist than you can ensure your child becomes a theist, straight, gay, or a fan of john lennon. I mean you can try, you can push and prod and punish, but you'll only serve to drive your kids away. not saying, just saying.
x00xJan 23, 2012
The words the 'best way' to stop your child from becoming an atheist' implies that there is something wrong about being an atheist. There are many reasons to say that atheism offers a superior life over that of religious people.
windizzlerJan 23, 2012
Did you actually read the article?
publikjohn9Jan 23, 2012
Woo Hoo! Eat a bible and pass the word! Git R Dun!
ieatskunkJan 23, 2012
Real "atheists" dont give a s**t about religion, not even enough to attack it. The unsure ones on the other hand....
Schweppesale2Jan 23, 2012
We become what we hate the most.
The_SovereignJan 24, 2012
I would love to see a KKK member turn black.
ericschc1Jan 23, 2012
I'd agree with you to the point that there's no benefit in attacking religion until or unless those with power use religion to control or influence others, regardless of the right to their own beliefs or lack thereof.
rsmongeJan 24, 2012
i don't give a s**t about religion. i give a s**t about politicians who want to force their religious beliefs into our lives and laws. i care about people being discriminated against because they are women, or gay, or have darker skin color. i care about presidents ignoring experts and instead relying on their prayers for answers.
mclappJan 23, 2012
Funny how if a religious person makes a broad generalization about another belief it's considered stereotyping. However if a broad generalization is made about a major religion it's OK and funny.
Crack a joke about Wicca, witches, black hats, and dark arts and you get, "How dare you!"
Crack a joke about Christians being unreasonable, overbearing, illogical, and ignorant and it's both funny and acceptable.
Seems a little hypocritical to me.
johnnickJan 23, 2012
You generally don't get that reaction from those who are secure about their belief structure. Those who are secure in their belief structure are usually able to laugh at themselves. You'll find that Christians who are secure in their theology are able to laugh at themselves and their co-believers, as are others who are comfortable and self confident.
There are atheists who are unreasonable, overbearing, illogical and ignorant, just as there are theists who fit that description. That's because, in general, there are people out there who are unreasonable, overbearing, illogical, ignorant, obnoxious asshats and they happen to act out through different sets of belief structures. There are bullies everywhere, and many times their hostility towards those who are different is because of their own insecurity.
Most wiccans I know (or members of any other group) could care less about a joke about their beliefs (profession, ethnicity, etc.) as long as its a joke that isn't actually an attack disguised as a joke. It's like the bully who comes along and insults you in a situation where you're unlikely to fight back and then says, "Hey, I was only joking." If it's a joke where you can all laugh together, that's one thing and it's unlikely to provoke a negative response. You'll usually find the most biting humor is told by members of a group about themselves.
bookantJan 23, 2012
" . . . . give them - impotent minorities all - the fictional power to somehow oppress and persecute the vast majority who do think like you."
Looks like you've got that step covered.
karmashockJan 27, 2012
Riiight, atheism is a sign of superiority and all theists are inferior.
You people are the same as the radical theists. Everyone that doesn't share your values is inferior. Tolerance jackassses.
reverantJan 26, 2012
David M is clueless obviously.
I don't care if you don't buy Christianity, but it bothers me when you're making entirely inaccurate and baseless attacks.
True Christianity is pretty much the opposite of everything he wrote. Buried.
bjburchJan 23, 2012
@Barry sounds like you don't given enough credit to your subconscious mind; which is able through visual symbols like "the hand" (of God) to get your conscious mind to understand that there is no benefit to harboring resentment.
Closed AccountJan 23, 2012
Dammit DIGG I DONT WANT TO CONNECT YOU TO FACEBOOK! STOP BOTHERING ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
rocannonJan 23, 2012
If you want your kids to believe in a deity, and assuming that you yourself do, then live your life as an example to them. Practice what you preach.
gkiltzJan 23, 2012
Didn't work with me! I became an agnostic anyway!!!
wolfingJan 23, 2012
agnostic is not the same as atheist
juliochavezJan 24, 2012
Correct. It's more like a spectrum:
On one side of the spectrum: Atheist ( closed-minded, often extremely bigoted )
Then we have: Agnostic Atheist ( reasonable, disbelieves that there is an unseen entity observing us due to lack of evidence )
Next: Agnostic Theist ( reasonable, believes in God based on personal evidence, open to the idea that they may be mistaken )
On the other side: Theist ( closed-minded, often extremely bigoted ) These people may actually have personal reasons for thinking they know for a fact that God exists. An Atheist, on the other hand has absolutely no basis for even claiming to know factually that no God exists.
Clearly, strong atheism indicates a personality flaw, rather than a rational way of thinking.
rsmongeJan 24, 2012
well, let's just split the category in two.
rational people: know that personal experience is the worst kind of evidence.
irrational people: think personal experience is good evidence of something.
rsmongeJan 24, 2012
or using your own categories, let me estimate the actual numbers
atheist: 5000
agnostic atheist: 500 million
agnostic theist: 2.5 billion
theist: 4 billion
sleestakslayerJan 23, 2012
That was a good read, and I must say that it is not untrue.
On the other hand...
How much influence does anyone have over instilling faith in others, including his or her own children? I mean real faith.
My mother was Catholic and I used to go to church and catechism classes. I spoke with the clergy and the Parish Elders, prayed, and read the Bible. I participated in local service projects and raised money for famine relief in Indonesia. I honed my moral character as well as any teenage boy could and had invested a lot into this belief system.
In the back of my head though, I wasn't buying it. I was going through the motions and as much as I didn't want to accept it, I knew I didn't believe. I do not consider it time wasted because it was still a very rich experience and a wonderful community.
I could have stayed and took advantage of the goodness that was offered, but I was uncomfortable with that and since then lived as an Agnostic.
I never forced a belief system onto my kids, but my older daughter has been very passionate about exploring her own spirituality and now participates in a faith-based club.
Maybe the ability to have faith is hard-wired into a person's DNA.
craig1958Jan 23, 2012
Just close enough to the truth to be fairly amusing. Honestly, I getting a little bored making fun of religion. We know it's silly, what else can you say about it?
NeedsEvidenceFeb 12, 2012
You Americans have a persistent spelling problem. It should be "atheist", not "athiest"! I would ensure my kid spells it correctly.
PeterPDJan 26, 2012
David M and whoever was the author of that pamphlet, is quite ignorant, self-righteous atheist.
Yes, atheism is a faith too and it is as old as theism.
Although theistic religions more or less, are responsible for many wrongs, atheistic societies were not only as bad, but during last century even worse.
Their trademarks are always as follows:
- destroy what religious people build before them.
- lover the human being to unimportant little part of a bigger socialist society.
- for the lack of integrity are predestined to early collapse.
I don't stand for any religion but one that goes by teachings of Jesus Christ, written in Bible.
David M, none of Christ's teachings support any of your pamphlet's claims.
beachsideladyJan 25, 2012
No body wants to here negitive things from any one.
negitive thoughts on everthink in life will get you no where at all and make you and every one else arouind you miserable.
You can do anythink you want to do . you just have to want it enough ,more then anythink else.
beachsideladyJan 25, 2012
No body wants to here negitive things from any one.
negitive thoughts on everthink in life will get you no where at all and make you and every one else arouind you miserable.
You can do anythink you want to do . you just have to want it enough ,more then anythink else.
beachsideladyJan 25, 2012
No body wants to here negitive things from any one.
negitive thoughts on everthink in life will get you no where at all and make you and every one else arouind you miserable.
You can do anythink you want to do . you just have to want it enough ,more then anythink else.
beachsideladyJan 25, 2012
and keep on always beliving.positive thinking
beachsideladyJan 25, 2012
and keep on always beliving.positive thinking
beachsideladyJan 25, 2012
and keep on always beliving.positive thinking
pragpsychJan 24, 2012
from what i've seen, this method works every time. what awesome advice. i can't believe yahoo answers actually worked this time...
beachsideladyJan 24, 2012
Teach them that we all need ,to believe full stop.
and keep on believing.
beachsideladyJan 24, 2012
Teach them that we all need ,to believe full stop.
and keep on believing.
beachsideladyJan 24, 2012
Teach them that we all need ,to believe full stop.
and keep on believing.
stevenwhodgeJan 24, 2012
excellent.
analogkid1Jan 24, 2012
It's always about the fear of punishment, fear of hell. I suppose it makes sense, since mankind created god(s) out of fear of the unknown (eclipse) and to ease the fear of death.
balzorJan 24, 2012
All of this conversation is mute anyway, since we are all prisoners trapped in the Matrix. Free your mind!
clitniblr036Jan 24, 2012
Too funny.
jimbomcpantsJan 24, 2012
How to (try and) stop your child becoming religious*: Look for the worst in religion and religious people, even if it's only a minority, exaggerate it, repeat it often.
(*AKA: the lameness, deceitfulness and desperation of atheists!)
adalseyJan 23, 2012
Send them to church...
mrnaturalJan 23, 2012
If this was all part of somebody's plan, its gotta be the most f**ked up plan I ever saw. I want a do-over!
barackalypseJan 23, 2012
Tim Tebow, obviously.
starfishsystemsJan 23, 2012
"Above all - and this cannot be overemphasized - make sure they cannot spell."
Athiest, right.
carlmosconiJan 23, 2012
Amen brother!
rileymaniaJan 23, 2012
Thank you.
spc4Jan 23, 2012
Obvious Troll.
john585Jan 23, 2012
troll bait
gt777Jan 23, 2012
How to be an atheist?
You don't have to do anything
Just be yourselves. We are already atheist when we were born!!!
bumblebizzleJan 23, 2012
... amen.
aussiemumJan 24, 2012
What's wrong with being an athiest? At least they will be free thinkers and won't be like sheep.
aussiemumJan 24, 2012
What's wrong with being an athiest? At least they will be free thinkers and won't be like sheep.
aussiemumJan 24, 2012
What's wrong with being an athiest? At least they will be free thinkers and won't be like sheep.